SEPTEMBER 18

AU: June 13 1988, A and B who are both residents of Marikina went to
the city hall of Manila to apply for ML without the knowledge of parents. A
was 17. Dec 5, 1988 the marriage license was issued by San Mateo, Rizal.
A and B were married in Taguig by the city mayor of Makati. Aside from ab
and b, the only people present during celebration were c and d (both 16
years old). No MC was signed. What is the status of the marriage?

If A was already 18 at the time of the solemnization of the marriage, is the

marriage valid?

Art. 2. No marriage shall be valid, unless these essential requisites are preset:
1. Legal capacity of the contracting parties who must be a male and a female
2. Consent freely given in the presence of the solemnizing officer
Art. 3. The formal requisites of marriage are:
1. Authority of the solemnizing officer
2. A valid marriage license except in the cases provided for in Chapter 2 of
this Title; and
3. A marriage ceremony which takes place with the appearance of the
contracting parties before the solemnizing officer and their personal
declaration that they take each other as husband and wife in the presence
of not less than 2 witnesses of legal age
Art. 4. The absence of any of the essential or formal requisites shall render the
marriage void ab initio, except as stated in Article 35(2). A defect in any of the
essential requisites shall render the marriage voidable as provided in Article 45.
An irregularity in the formal requisites shall not affect the validity of the marriage
but the party or parties responsible for the irregularity shall be civilly, criminally
and administratively liable.

Do not say that they are of legal age. In the timeframe given, the age of majority
was 21. They were not of age. Age of majority was only lowered on December 13,
1989 (RA 6809). On the premise that both parties were already 18, or B can be
21, no need for parental consent. But for the sake of argument, if both are 18,
what is the status of the marriage? Marriage is void because no parental consent
was acquired.

But in this case, the marriage may be valid. At the time of the marriage, the
solemnizing officer had no authority. Mayors had authority to solemnize
marriage under the Civil Code. When EO 209 was enacted on August 3, 1988,
the authority of the mayors to solemnize the marriage was revoked. It was until
January 1 1992 when the Local Government Code returned the authority of the
mayors to solemnize marriages. Hence when A & B married, the mayor of Makati
City had no authority to solemnize the marriage. However, the marriage may still
be valid if either parties acted in good faith. Any other argument?
They are a resident of Marikina but applied for ML in Manila and it was issued
in Rizal. There is a defect in the marriage. It is voidable. The law does not require
that both spouses are a resident of that city. Ang requirement either of the
contracting parties must be a habitual resident of the city where the ML was
issued. The fact that they went to Manila and it was registered in Rizal, it does
not make a difference. Nabigyan ng marriage license and that’s it. But we haven’t
answered the issue on the duration of the license.

If the civil registrar only followed the requirements of the law, is the marriage
valid? I did not mention whether the parties also applied in San Mateo. It is
possible. However, the marriage is still void. Even if assuming that A & B are
residents of Manila and Manila issued the license. The marriage is still void
because the ML was issued on the 11th day, the ML was already expired on the
date of the marriage. But if the ML was issued on a latter date, baka pwede pa
valid.

What if there were no witnesses? Marriage is still valid because this is only an
irregularity. Who will be liable then? If A was 22 years old at the time of the
solemnization of marriage, w/o parental advice, what is the status of the
marriage? Without parental advice, the marriage is still valid but the issuance of
the ML will only be suspended. The answer will also depend if the civil registrar
complied with the law. The CR may be liable and not the contracting parties.

If neither of the parties where the ML was issued, is there an irregularity? Valid
yan! Irregularity does not affect validity. But there is an irregularity. If not
complied with, there is an irregularity. But who is liable? The party responsible
for the irregularity. Can be the parties if they misrepresented their residence. If
the parties did not misrepresent, then the civil registrar is wrong not to comply
with the requirements of law.

AU: Is it possible that a marriage may not be voidable despite the fact that
one of the contracting parties is 20 and no parental consent was obtained?

Yes. An example is when there is a previous marriage.

AU: If a judge of QC will solemnize the marriage, a marriage in Makati.

What is the effect?

Void because authority is jurisdictional. But in the case of Aranes v. Occiano,

the SC ruled otherwise.

Where a judge solemnizes a marriage outside his courts jurisdiction,

there is a resultant irregularity in the formal requisite laid down in Article
3, which while it may not affect the validity of the marriage, may subject
the officiating official to administrative liability.
AU: I also mentioned in the problem that A & B did not sign in the
marriage certificate. Is the marriage void?

The marriage certificate is not a requisite. It cannot be concluded that the

presence of a MC, there is marriage ceremony. There can be a MC even without
a marriage ceremony. This is the case of Morigo v. People.

In the instant case, however, no marriage ceremony at all was performed

by a duly authorized solemnizing officer. Petitioner and Lucia Barrete
merely signed a marriage contract on their own. The mere private act of
signing a marriage contract bears no semblance to a valid marriage and
thus, needs no judicial declaration of nullity. Such act alone, without
more, cannot be deemed to constitute an ostensibly valid marriage for
which petitioner might be held liable for bigamy unless he first secures
a judicial declaration of nullity before he contracts a subsequent
marriage.

Marriage certificate is a prima facie evidence of existence of marriage. But it is

not a necessary element of a valid marriage.

AU: If one of the contracting parties is a stateless person and no

certificate of legal capacity, what is the effect?

If a person is stateless, a certificate of legal capacity is not a requirement. Where

will he get it? He only needs to execute an affidavit that he has legal capacity. So
even without a certificate, it shall not affect the validity of the marriage. What if
foreigner siya at walang certificate, what is the status of the marriage? It is not
a formal requisite. Lack of cert. of legal capacity is a mere irregularity. This is a
case.

AU: Without a ML, the marriage would be void. Correct?

No. there are exceptions to the to ML. An example is articulo mortis. In marriages
articulo mortis, the one who was at the point of death must die. Is that correct?
No! The law does not provide that. As long as at the time of marriage, one party
is at the point of death, pwede.

AU: A & B spouses, during the existence of marriage, B cohabited with C

as H& W. They cohabited for 3 years. Thereafter, A died and 4 years after
death of A, B married C without a valid marriage license. What is the status
of the marriage?

Marriage is void, there is no valid marriage license. Their situation does not fall
under the exceptions of ML. In this case, did I mention where everything took
place? No dates. So which law applies, civil code or family code. If these events
took place before the family code, is the marriage valid? This the case of Ninal v.
Bayadog. The marriage was declared void.

In this case, at the time of Pepito and respondents marriage, it cannot be

said that they have lived with each other as husband and wife for at
least five years prior to their wedding day. From the time Pepitos first
marriage was dissolved to the time of his marriage with respondent, only
about twenty months had elapsed. Even assuming that Pepito and his
first wife had separated in fact, and thereafter both Pepito and
respondent had started living with each other that has already lasted
for five years, the fact remains that their five-year period cohabitation
was not the cohabitation contemplated by law. It should be in the nature
of a perfect union that is valid under the law but rendered imperfect only
by the absence of the marriage contract.

It was declared void because the the H married the SW after 20 months from
death of W. They applied Article 76 of the Civil Code which provides that the 5
year cohabitation must be free from any legal impediment. “Not being married”.
Void because during cohabitation, they were still married.

But if the marriage (original question) happened during the family code, what is
the status? Valid provided second marriage is solemnized during the effectivity
of the family code. It may be a valid marriage under the family code. Despite the
fact that the 5 year cohabitation is not free from legal impediment. This is the
case of Borja-Manzano v. Sanchez. Ang kaylangan lang ay at the solemnization
of the marriage, walang legal impediment to marry.

Marriage Licenses; Husband and Wife; Legal Ratification of Marital

Cohabitation; Requisites.— For this provision on legal ratification of
marital cohabitation to apply, the following requisites must concur: 1.
The man and woman must have been living together as husband and
wife for at least five years before the marriage; 2. The parties must have
no legal impediment to marry each other, 3. The fact of absence of legal
impediment between the parties must be present at the time of marriage;
4. The parties must execute an affidavit stating that they have lived
together for at least five years [and are without legal impediment to
marry each other]; and 5. The solemnizing officer must execute a sworn
statement that he had ascertained the qualifications of the parties and
that he had found no legal impediment to their marriage.

This is consistent with the revision committee (Justice Sempio-Dy). Reason is

that they will not be discouraged. Ung kahihiyan na pangalawang kasal na ito.
In other words, itong dalawang ito, o sige na, nagkasalan na sila. Pero gusto nila
mag bagong buhay at gawing legal ang union. Why provide obstacles to legalize
the union. No need to publicize to avoid humiliation.

Although if these contracting parties actually cohabited for 3 years but executed
an affidavit that they cohabited for 5 years. Is the marriage valid? They
committed a crime. They should not be rewarded for that. The fact of an affidavit
is not compliance with the law. They just committed perjury. It doesn’t make the
marriage valid.

AU: In the case of abbas v. abbas, the marriage was declared?

The reliance of Gloria on the marriage to prove that a marriage license

existed is not sufficient in light of the fact that Syed was able to present
evidence to show that the marriage license number stated in their
marriage certificate was registered to another couple. Without the actual
marriage license to prove its existence, the Court held that the marriage
was void for absence of a formal requisite.

Void. Marriage certificate has number of marriage license. But it was registered
under the name of a different couple.

AU: In the case of Republic v. Albios, the marriage was declared?

Valid. The only purpose of the parties is for the bride to acquire the citizenship
of the husband. There was consent on both parties.

FACTS

Respondent Libert Albios married Daniel Lee Fringer, an American

citizen. She later on filed a petition to nullify their marriage. She alleged
that immediately after their marriage, they separated and never lived as
husband and wife because they never really had any intention of
entering into a married state or complying with any of their essential
marital obligations. She said that she contracted Fringer to enter into a
marriage to enable her to acquire American citizenship; that in
consideration thereof, she agreed to pay him the sum of $2,000.00; that
after the ceremony, the parties went their separate ways; that Fringer
returned to the United States and never again communicated with her;
and that, in turn, she did not pay him the $2,000.00 because he never
processed her petition for citizenship. She described their marriage as
one made in jest and, therefore, null and void ab initio.

The RTC ruled in her favor.

In declaring the respondent’s marriage void, the RTC ruled that when a
marriage was entered into for a purpose other than the establishment of
a conjugal and family life, such was a farce and should not be
recognized from its inception. In its resolution denying the OSG’s motion
for reconsideration, the RTC went on to explain that the marriage was
declared void because the parties failed to freely give their consent to
the marriage as they had no intention to be legally bound by it and used
it only as a means for the respondent to acquire American citizenship.
Not in conformity, the OSG filed an appeal before the CA. The CA,
however, upheld the RTC decision.

Agreeing with the RTC, the CA ruled that the essential requisite of
consent was lacking. It held that the parties clearly did not understand
the nature and consequence of getting married. As in the Rubenstein
case, the CA found the marriage to be similar to a marriage in jest
considering that the parties only entered into the marriage for the
acquisition of American citizenship in exchange of $2,000.00. They never
intended to enter into a marriage contract and never intended to live as
husband and wife or build a family.
The OSG then elevate the case to the Supreme Court

ISSUE: Whether or not the marriage of Albios and Fringer be declared

null and void.

RULING:
No, respondent’s marriage is not void.

The court said:

“Based on the above, consent was not lacking between Albios and
Fringer. In fact, there was real consent because it was not vitiated nor
rendered defective by any vice of consent. Their consent was also
conscious and intelligent as they understood the nature and the
beneficial and inconvenient consequences of their marriage, as nothing
impaired their ability to do so. That their consent was freely given is best
evidenced by their conscious purpose of acquiring American citizenship
through marriage. Such plainly demonstrates that they willingly and
deliberately contracted the marriage. There was a clear intention to enter
into a real and valid marriage so as to fully comply with the requirements
of an application for citizenship. There was a full and complete
understanding of the legal tie that would be created between them, since
it was that precise legal tie which was necessary to accomplish their
goal.”

The court also explained that “There is no law that declares a marriage
void if it is entered into for purposes other than what the Constitution or
law declares, such as the acquisition of foreign citizenship. Therefore, so
long as all the essential and formal requisites prescribed by law are
present, and it is not void or voidable under the grounds provided by
law, it shall be declared valid.”

“No less than our Constitution declares that marriage, as an in violable

social institution, is the foundation of the family and shall be protected
 by the State. It must, therefore, be safeguarded from the whims and
caprices of the contracting parties. This Court cannot leave the
impression that marriage may easily be entered into when it suits the
needs of the parties, and just as easily nullified when no longer needed.”

AU: A & B were married in Japan. A was only 18 years old. Without
parental consent, this marriage is?

In order to be a valid marriage, it must comply with Philippine laws. The question
is asking if the solemnization complied with the laws of the Philippines. It will
depend on law of Japan. If this is a valid marriage in Japan, then it is valid in
the Philippines. Otherwise, if A was 17 years old and with parental consent even
if the marriage is valid in Japan, what is the status of the marriage? The
applicable is Article 26(1). It is not nationality principle.

AU: A & B both Filipinos about to be married in California. A was busy had
to attend a matter in NY. He sent his brother to attend the ceremony. What
is the status of the marriage?

This may be valid in California. Is this void by law under FC? Hindi naman ata.
Very specific. Itong situation hindi naman exception.

AU: A & B were married in Madrid, Spain. Under the law of Spain, valid. A
& B discovered later that they discovered they are 1st cousins. B left A and
went back to Ph and married C. What is status of marriage of A & B? how
about B and C?

Codal provision. This is definitely covered by Article 26 citing article 38. Void
marriage. The marriage between B & C is valid if there was a judicial decree of
nullity of marriage of marriage between A & B.

AU: A & B were married in Tondo Manila. Thereafter, a few months after
marriage, B went to HK to work. 3 years after B left the country. During
this period, A was in constant communication with B. Nonetheless, A was
able to obtain a decree of declaration of presumptive death. After a few days
of judgment, A married C. C is a highschool classmate of A & B. After having
being informed of this marriage (A C), B went back to Ph (Jan 1, 2016). Now
Sept 15 a child was born. It was C who gave birth to the child. What is the
status of marriage of A & C? What is the status of the child?

As long as there is a decree of declaration of death and it becomes final, there is

a valid marriage. Even if there is a judgment final and executory (presumptive
death), the subsequent marriage may be void if both parties acted in bad faith.
Si A acted in bad faith. May constant communication. Kay C naman, is there a
basis na bad faith siya? YES! Classmates sila eh, baka connected sila sa
facebook. Status of the marriage depends on the good faith/bad faith of C.