PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATIONS WEEK 3 marriage with his first wife was still subsisting.

The annulment of it was not yet final and

Vda. De Mijares v Villaluz. –mike executory.

Facts: Issue: WON he guilty of deceit and Grossly immoral

 Priscilla obtained a decree declaring the said Conduct
primitive Mijares presumptively dead,after an
absence of 16 years Held: Yes
 She then got married to Onofer (respondent) in a Rationale:
civil wedding before judge Myrna Lim Verano.  He himself asserts that at the time of his marriage
Their marriage was the culmination of a long to herein complainant, the decision of the court
engagement . They met sometime in 1977 when annulling his marriage to his first wife, Librada
the respondent was the presiding the jugdge in Peña, had not yet attained finality. Worse, four
murder case involving the death of a son of months after his marriage to petitioner,
jugde Mijares since then they became finaly respondent married another woman, Lydia

CALUAG
friends. Geraldez, in Cavite, after making a false
 On the same day after their wedding reception statement in his application for marriage
at 6 pm , respondent fetched the petitioner and license that his previous marriage had been
went to their condominium unit. annulled.

CELLES
 Upon reaching there, petitioner answered a  Respondent's subterfuge that his marriage to
phone call and it was woman on the other line petitioner was just a "sham" marriage will not
and was offending her with insulting remarks justify his actuations. Even if the said marriage

CHIONGSON
 Consternated with it, she confronted the was just a caper of levity in bad taste, a defense
respondent about it but the petitioner remarked which amazes and befuddles but does not
"it would have been just a call at the wrong convince, it does not speak well of respondent's
number".  sense of social propriety and moral values. 
 What followed was a heated exchange of harsh  This was aggravated by the fact that he is not a

CIPRESS
words, one word led to another, to a point when layman nor even just an ordinary lawyer, but a
respondent called complainant a "nagger", former judge of the Circuit Crimina Court and a
saying "Ayaw ko nang ganyan! Ang gusto ko sa Justice of the Court of Appeals who cannot but

MILLETTE
babae, yong sumusunod sa bawa't gusto ko". Get have been fully aware of the consequence of
that marriage contract and have it burned." marriage celebrated with all necessary legal
 The respondent then leave in haste the place of requisites.
 The marriage between the respondent and the

PILAPIL
their would be- honeymoon.. Since then, they
have been living separately. Contrary to her petitioner was a valid marriage. It is borne out
expectation the respondent never got in touch by law and the evidence. All essential and
and did not even bother to apologize for what formal requisite of a valid marriage under art 2

QUERUBIN
happened. and 3 of the family code is met. ( from the
 Several months after in a Bible study, she findings of Justice Purisma)
learned from Juge Ramon Makasair that the  According to respondent, he entered into
respondent is now married Lydia Geraldez. subject marriage in an effort to save the
 Disheartened, she then gathered evidence and complainant from the charge of immorality RICO
file a Disbarment against him against her. But, to repeat: regardless of the
SY

 One of the evidence presented by the petitioner intention of respondent in saying "I do" with
complainant before a competent authority, all
UY

was the marriage contract between the

respondent and Lydia where the respondent ingredients of a valid marriage were present.
that he was single His consent thereto was freely given. Judge
 In defense, the respondent said that the Myrna Lim Verano was authorized by law to
marriage between him and the petitioner was a solemnize the civil marriage, and both
mere sham marriage and that he only did it to contracting parties had the legal capacity to
help the petitioner in the administrative case for contract such marriage. ( from the findings of
immoraility filed against her. Also he said that his justice purism)
1
  this only Christian country of the Far East, society ISSUE: Can another petition for nullity of marriage be
cherishes and protects the sanctity of marriage considered as res judicata despite of the fact it has a
and the family as a social institution. different basis from the first case?
Consequently, no one can make a mockery
thereof and perform a sham marriage with
HELD: Yes.
impunity. To make fun of and take lightly the
sacredness of marriage is to court the wrath of Res Judicata refers to a matter which has
the Creator and mankind. Therefore, the defense already been settled by judgment. It has dual
of respondent that what was entered into by him aspects under sec.47 (b&c) of Rule 31 of the Rules
and complainant on January 7, 1994 was nothing of Court, namely:
but a "sham" marriage is unavailing to shield or (b) It creates bar by prior judgment. It
absolve him from liability for his gross
prevents the filing of a case upon
misconduct, nay sacrilege.
the same claim, demand, or cause
 Guilty under Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. He was suspended only for 2 years of action.

CALUAG
because of advanced age and undeniable fact that (c) There is “conclusiveness of
he has rendered some yearts of commendable judgment” or rule of auter action
service in the judiciary. Lastly, the court feels it pendant. The issues actually and
will be to harsh to disbar the petitioner.

CELLES
directly resolved in a former suit
cannot be raised again in a future suit
PERSON RELATION:
Article 2-3 of the Family Code. between the same parties involving

CHIONGSON
Art. 2. No marriage shall be valid, unless these essential difference cause of action.
requisites are present:
(1) Legal capacity of the contracting parties who must It has the following requirements: (1) finality
be a male and a female; and of former judgment, (2) The court that decided has

CIPRESS
(2) Consent freely given in the presence of the jurisdiction, (3) It’s a judgment on merits, (4) the 2
solemnizing officer. (53a) cases involve the same parties, subject matter and
Art. 3. The formal requisites of marriage are: cause of action. Cause of Action is an act or omission
(1) Authority of the solemnizing officer; by which a party violates the right of the other.

MILLETTE
(2) A valid marriage license except in the cases
provided for in Chapter 2 of this Title; and Application to the case:
(3) A marriage ceremony which takes place with the -It is evident that the petitioner is only invoking a
appearance of the contracting parties before the

PILAPIL
different ground for declaring their marriage null. The
solemnizing officer and their personal declaration that petitioner should have provided all the grounds and
they take each other as husband and wife in the relevant issues for nullity in his first case. This is
presence of not less than two witnesses of legal

QUERUBIN
because the courts prohibit the piecemeal
age. (53a, 55a) presentation of grounds, where they might use the
other ones for the succeeding cases as part of their
Mallion v Alcantara by Diana back-up plan.
Date Events RICO
Relation to Topic:
Oct 1995 Mallion filed petition for Declaration of Nullity of
Marriage with RTC-San Pablo for alleged Kinds of requisites and Effects of Non-compliance. This
SY

psychological incapacity case presents us that a person may invoke

UY

Nov 1997 RTC denied it for failure to produce preponderant psychological incapacity and lack of valid marriage
evidence
license for declaration of nullity of marriage.
June 1998 CA dismissed his appeal for failure to pay docket
fees within reglementary period However, if they are both present, they should be
Decision became final brought up in the same case.
July 1999 Mallion filed another petition for Declaration of
Nullity on the basis of having no valid marriage
license
Aug 1999 Alcantara filed motion to dismiss on the ground
res judicata and forum shopping
Oct 1999 Motion to dismiss granted. 2
And so he filed this petition for certiorari
EGAP MADSALI, SAJIRON LAJIM and MARON LAJIM vs. 1. Does the Court of Appeals correctly ruled in ignoring
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES the implication of the 5-month inaction by the
February 4, 2010 -NILO complainant’s mother in reporting the alleged
abduction and illegal detention of her daughter? YES
FACTS:
1. On July 1, 1994, around 3:30 o'clock in the Ruling: Delay in reporting an incident of rape due to
afternoon, fifteen-year-old AAA (victim) was death threats does not affect the credibility of the
abducted and sexually abused three times by complainant, nor can it be taken against her. The charge
Sajiron while Maron (Sajiron’s father) stood of rape is rendered doubtful only if the delay was
guard and watched the abuse. They left the unreasonable and unexplained.
forest and brought AAA to the house of Egap, Application: BBB explained that she did not immediately
where she was detained in a room. report the abduction, rape and detention of her
2. On July 2, 1994, Egap asked AAA if she wanted daughter to the authorities, because Egap threatened to
to marry Sajiron, but she refused. AAA was then kill AAA,10 who was then in his custody. Indeed, Egap
forced to sign an unknown document, which made good his threat when he learned that she did

CALUAG
she was not able to read. report to the police, he and shot her at the back.
3. On July 11, 1994, upon instruction of Egap, AAA
and Sajiron were married by Imam Musli 2. Does the Court of Appeals correctly ruled in
Muhammad. The marriage was solemnized ignoring the rebutted testimony of the

CELLES
against AAA's will and without the presence of complainant’s own father? YES.
her parents. After the marriage, AAA and
Sajiron lived in the house of Egap, together with Petitioners argue that CCC (AAA’s daughter) testified

CHIONGSON
the latter's wife, children and mother-in-law. that Sajiron courted his daughter and proposed
AAA got pregnant. marriage after their three-year courtship. CCC, in his
4. BBB (AAA’s mother) tried to recover her Malayang Sinumpaang Salaysay dated December 28,
daughter but was threatened by Egap to kill her 1995, alleged that in 1991, his wife wrote and
daughter if she’ll try to report it to the informed him that Sajiron asked for their daughter's

CIPRESS
authorities. hand in marriage. CCC replied that he was giving his
5. On November 24, 1994, upon the report of BBB permission for their daughter to marry. He and his
to the authorities, AAA was detained at the wife were even present in her daughter’s marriage.

MILLETTE
house of Egap from July 2, 1994 until December
15, 1994. On December 16, 1994, Sajiron and a. AAA testified that she had never seen her
Egap were arrested by the police. father since she was a child, as her father had
6. Sajiron’s defense: abandoned them.12 BBB testified that she and

PILAPIL
- He and AAA were engaged for three years her husband had been separated for a long
prior to their elopement. time, and she did not know his whereabouts.
- Sajiron lived with AAA in her mother's Imam Musli Mohammad (minister), while

QUERUBIN
house. AAA married Sajiron voluntarily and testifying as prosecution witness, attested
out of her own free will. that the parents of AAA and Sajiron were not
- That AAA merely filed criminal charges present during the marriage. The allegation
against Sajiron because he did not pay the that CCC gave his consent was unsupported
dowry (dower) in the amount of P10,000.00 by evidence, is self-serving and cannot be RICO
to AAA's parents. given any probative value.
SY

7. RTC rendered a Decision finding Sajiron and b. The assertion of the accused that the reason
Maron guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the why a criminal case was filed against him was
UY

crime of abduction with rape. Egap and Sajiron his failure to pay the dowry is too lame to be
were also found guilty beyond reasonable accepted as true. No young Filipina of decent
doubt of the crime of serious illegal detention. repute would publicly admit she has been
The Court of Appeals also affirmed the decision. raped unless that is the truth.
c. The “sweetheart theory” as a defense by the
ISSUES/RULING: accused cannot be given value because if
there were indeed romantic relationship
3
 between AAA and Sajiron, her normal reaction wife in Australia. After 2 years a decree of
would have been to cover up for the man she divorce was issued by an Austrian Family court.
supposedly loved which she didn’t. Also the 2. 1992 Recio became an Australian citizen and
accused does not present any evidence, such as after 2 years married Garcia, the petitioner in
love letters, gifts, pictures, and the like to show Cabanatuan. Recio declared himself as Single &
that, indeed, he and the victim were a Filipino.
sweethearts. 3. After a year, Garcia & Recio lived separately
without any judicial dissolution of their
PERSON’S RELATION: as to the legitimacy of AAA’s marriage. Then in 1996 they conjugal assets
marriage and Sajiron: according to their statutory declarations
a. The marriage between AAA and Sajiron is secured in Australia.
considered irregular under the Code of Muslim 4. 1998 Garcia filed a complaint for an annulment
Personal Laws (Presidential Decree No. 1083). for bigamy, he was said to have had prior
Art. 15 (b) of said the law provides that no subsisting marriage with Samson at the time he
marriage contract shall be perfected unless the married her. She claimed that she only knew

CALUAG
essential requisite of mutual consent of the about the marriage around 1998.
parties be freely given. And under Art. 32 of the 5. Recio said far back in 1993, he did reveal his
same law, if the consent of either party is marriage to Garcia and it’s dissolution, by
vitiated by violence, intimidation, fraud, deceit divorce decree obtained on Australia back in

CELLES
or misrepresentation, the marriage is 1989 therefore he was legally capacitated to
considered irregular (fasid) from the time of its marry Garcia.
celebration. 6. In 1998—5 years after the wedding & while

CHIONGSON
b. AAA did not give her consent to the wedding. annulment is pending, Recio was able to
The marriage was solemnized only upon the secure a divorce decree, respective
instruction of Egap. She was also forced to sign memoranda & case submitted for resolution.
the marriage contract without the presence of He prayed that the case be dismissed on the
her parents or any of her relatives. She did not ground that it does not have a cause of

CIPRESS
want to marry Sajiron because she did not love action.
him.
c. The Imam who solemnized their marriage did ISSUE:

MILLETTE
not even ask for the consent of the parties. He WON the divorce between Recio and Samson
was merely compelled to solemnize the was proven?
marriage because he was afraid of Egap, and WON Recio was proven to be legally
the latter threatened him. Clearly, the marriage capacitated to marry Garcia?

PILAPIL
ceremony was a sham, and was only arrangeD
by the accused in an attempt to exculpate SC DECISION:
themselves from criminal responsibility. PETION IS PARTLY MERITORIOUS.

QUERUBIN
1. Divorce Proven? NO
Held: Sajiron and Maron are guilty beyond reasonable Although the Philippine law doesn’t allow
doubt of the special complex crime of kidnapping and absolute divorce, if like in this case, marriages that
serious illegal detention with rape and Sajiron guilty involve a Filipino & a Foreigner, ART 26 of the Family
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of serious illegal code allows the former to contract another marriage RICO
detention. provided that and in case a valid divorce is obtained
SY

abroad by the alien spouse capacitating him or her to

remarry.
UY

GARCIA vs RECIO by JAYE

October 2, 2001 Basically aliens may obtain divorces abroad,
which may be recognized in the Philippines, provided
FACTS: they are valid according to their national Law. So,
1. Recio married an Australian citizen in Malabon before a foreign divorce can be recognized by our
in 1987, then they lived together as husband & courts the party pleading must prove the divorce as

4
and as a fact & demonstrate its conformity solely of
the divorce decree is insufficient.
Te v Choa (On absence of impediment) BY CHIP
Before a foreign judgement is given a
presumptive evidentiary value, THE DOCUMENT MUST Facts: Arthur and Liliana got married on September 14,
BE FIRST PRESENTED & ADMITTED IN EVIDENCE. 1988 (so it’s a Family Code marriage). They did not live
Although the divorce between Recio & Samson appears together but they met regularly until Liliana gave birth
to be an authentic one issued by the Australian court, to a baby girl sometime in 1989. Arthur stopped visiting
and it was admitted by the court as evidence, since the her as soon as the girl was born.
divorce was a defense raised by Recio, the burden of Arthur then married Julieta in 1990, while his
proving it, lies in him. We know that our courts cannot marriage with Liliana was still subsisting, Liliana filed
just take foreign laws, it all must be alleged & proven bigamy case against him the same year. Liliana also filed
and unfortunately he wasn’t able to prove such. an administrative case against both Arthur and Julieta in
the PRC.
2. Legally Capacitated? NO Meanwhile, Arthur filed an annulment case
against his marriage with Liliana on various grounds.

CALUAG
There is no absolute evidence to prove recios’s
legal capacity to re-marry. The divorce must be proven, The trial for the bigamy case pushed through.
and since Recio failed to prove such, means there’s Arthur filed a petition for certiorari with the CA,
nothing that says what kind of divorce took place and alleging that the trial court judge was biased against

CELLES
without that, the capacity for marrying again cannot be him and made some serious errors; including the
obtained. A divorce also does not guarantee being ruling that prima facie evidence is enough to convict
allowed to re-marry, so court do not allow another him. He also moved to suspend both the criminal and

CHIONGSON
marriage, it must be proven with good behaviour first. administrative cases in light of the pendency of his
annulment case, claiming that the courts are at risk of
Recio did not absolutely establish his legal bringing about a prejudicial question at his expense.
capacity to marry, according to his national law. Hence Both these petitions were denied by the respective
the trial court erred in saying that the Australian divorce courts. Arthur appealed with the C.A., but the

CIPRESS
ipso facto restored his capacity to re-marry. On the appellate court affirmed all the decisions.
other hand, the court CANNOT NULLIFY Garcia & Arthur appealed with the SC after that and
Recio’s marriage on the ground of Bigamy, YET. Since the SC decided to focus on the three issues in his

MILLETTE
we said that the fact that the validity of the divorce is case.
yet to be proven by evidence, we cannot say right now
if Recio committed Bigamy. Issues:
1) Should the two cases be suspended because

PILAPIL
SO THE CASE IS REMANDED FOR THE PURPOSE OF of the possibility of raising a prejudicial
RECEIVING EVIDENCE. question?
2) Should the demurrer to evidence be given

QUERUBIN
PERSONS & FAMILY RELATIONS / CIVIL CODE due course?
CONNECTION: 3) Should the judge inhibit himself?
Ruling: DENIED
ART 26 OF FAMILY CODE:
All marriages solemnized outside the country 1) There was no possibility of raising a RICO
where they were solemnized, and a vaid there as such, prejudicial question. Their marriage was
SY

shall also be valid on this country except as prohibited celebrated when the Family Code took effect.
under Arts 35 (1), (4), (5) & (6), 36, 37, & 38. (71a) Because of this it was already covered by
UY

“Where are marriage between a Filipino citizen & a Article 40 which states that absolute nullity
foreigner is validly celebrated and a divorce is thereafter cannot be taken for granted (because it might
validly obtained abroad by the alien spouse be voidable only instead of void ab initio). The
capacitating him or her to re-marry, the Filipino spouse validity of the marriage stays until the court
shall have capacity to re-marry under Philippine Law. declares otherwise, so this means that the
bigamy case can still push through. The court

5
 also declared that there is no prejudicial o Orlando cohabited with her in Palawan
question in administrative cases. for one month
o Orlando wrote letters for her when he
2) The demurrer should not be given due course returned to Manila
because the evidence presented by the o Orlando knew of the progress of her
prosecution is enough to constitute the bigamy pregnancy, which led to the premature
offense, and his mere refusal to acknowledge birth and subsequent death of the child
this fact is not enough to refute it unless he  The trial court dismissed Orlando’s petition, and
presents equally convincing evidence in his ordered him to pay moral and exemplary
favor. damages to Lilia
 Orlando appealed his petition to the Court of
3) The judge should not inhibit himself; Arthur did Appeals, which affirmed the trial court’s
not present enough evidence to support this decision but reduced the fees for moral and
claim. exemplary damages
 Orlando elevated his petition to the Supreme

CALUAG
Relevance: This case was provided in the discussion of Court
Article 5, which says that unless the impediments
enumerated by Articles 37 and 38 are present, parties ISSUE/S:
18 years or older are qualified to enter into marriage.

CELLES
The case showed that since their marriage was not 1. Whether or not Orlando’s marriage with Lilia
considered void from the beginning, there had to be a may be annulled due to vitiated consent and
decision declaring its nullity before the court can say lack of cohabitation

CHIONGSON
that the bigamy case would not push through. 2. Whether or not Orlando should be held liable
for moral and exemplary damages and
attorney’s fees and costs
VILLANUEVA VS. COURT OF APPEALS by Martin

CIPRESS
YNARES-SANTIAGO; OCTOBER 27, 2006 HELD/RULING:

FACTS:  RELATED PROVISIONS:

MILLETTE
 Orlando Villanueva (petitioner herein) married o Art. 45, FC: A marriage may be
Lilia Canalita (private respondent herein) on annulled for any of the following
April 13, 1988 causes, existing at the time of the


PILAPIL
On November 17, 1992, Orlando files petition marriage: (4) That the consent of
for the annulment of his marriage with Lilia on either party was obtained by force,
the following grounds: intimidation or undue influence,
o Threats of violence forced him to marry

QUERUBIN
unless the same having disappeared
Lilia or ceased, such party thereafter
o He did not get Lilia pregnant before freely cohabited with the other as
they married husband and wife;
o He never cohabited with her after their o Art. 1335, NCC: There is violence
RICO
marriage when in order to wrest consent,
o He later learned that Lilia’s child died serious or irresistible force is
SY

due to premature birth on August 29, employed.

UY

1988 o Art. 1336, NCC: Violence or

 Lilia filed her answer to the petition with intimidation shall annul the
compulsory counterclaim, which prayed for the obligation, although it may have been
dismissal of the petition, and stated that: employed by a third person who did
 Orlando voluntary married her, contrary to his not take part in the contract.
claim that the marriage was forcibly forged due o Art. 1337, NCC: There is undue
to surrounding threats influence when a person takes
improper advantage of his power
6
 over the will of another, depriving the o The fact that Orlando had sexual
latter of a reasonable freedom of intercourse with Lilia, as well as his
choice. The following circumstances failure to establish that her pregnancy
shall be considered: the confidential, was caused by another man, further
family, spiritual and other relations negated the contention that he was
between the parties, or the fact that deceived and forced into entering the
the person alleged to have been unduly marriage
influenced was suffering from mental o Of the 13 letters written by Orlando to
weakness, or was ignorant or in Lilia, the former only claimed to have
financial distress. authored seven of those; he denied the
authorship of the seven letters soon
1. Orlando’s marriage with Lilia may not be thereafter, claiming that he was just
annulled because vitiation of consent, which is forced to admit then because of the
characterized by the threats alleged by Orlando threats he consistently alleged
that compelled him to contract marriage, is not o The Court of Appeals said that his

CALUAG
sufficiently established by him; in effect this probable reason for denying
aspect of the Court of Appeals’ decision is authorship of the letters was due to
affirmed by the Supreme Court Orlando’s realization that those are
of great weight as evidence against

CELLES
o Orlando claimed that he received his case;
harassing phone calls from Lilia and
some unknown people, and received an 2. The Supreme Court does not approve of the

CHIONGSON
unwanted visit by three men during his awarding of moral and exemplary damages to
class in the University of the East Lilia for lack of factual and legal basis
o The presence of a certain “Ka Celso”,
allegedly from the New People’s Army o The Court of Appeals’ justification of

CIPRESS
and a person allegedly hired by Lilia, has the awarding of moral damages is
threatened Orlando as well; he alleged inadequate; such does not refer to
that Ka Celso accompanied him to any testimony of Lilia detailing any
Palawan so that he would be married to physical suffering, mental anguish,

MILLETTE
Lilia and the like, that she may have
o However, the Court of Appeals is not suffered on her part
convinced by Orlando’s allegations o She is not entitled to exemplary
concerning the threats

PILAPIL
damages because it is not shown that
 As a former security guard, she has suffered any moral damage
Orlando is presumed to have
been aware of any form of self- Petition PARTLY GRANTED. Court of Appeals

QUERUBIN
defense Decision, affirming the Decision of the Trial Court on
 He never sought the help of the dismissing Petition for Annulment AFFIRMED. Award
school authorities regarding the for moral and exemplary damages DELETED.
unwanted visit of the three
RICO
Jimenez v Canizares beL
men
 He never informed the FACTS:
SY

solemnizing judge about his

problem  Petitioner Joel Jimenez is married to
UY

o Orlando took a long time before he Respondent Remedios Cañizares

instituted his action at the trial court,  Petitioner left his wife and prays for a decree
which spells doubt on the urgency of his annulling his marriage
case; it is alleged that Orlando  The reason for his petition is that his wife’s
instituted the said action as a defense genital organ was too small to allow
for the bigamy case filed against him penetration and therefore copulation is
impossible.
7
  The respondent was summoned to serve a copy with the other, and such incapacity continues and
of the complaint but she didn’t file an answer appears to be incurable
 The Court order the respondent t to submit to
a physical examination by a competent lady  The physical incapacity referred to by law is
physician to determine her physical capacity for “incompetence”; which means the lack of
copulation and to submit, within ten days from power to copulate.
receipt of the order, a medical certificate on the
result thereof In order for physical incapacity to be a ground for
 Respondent failed to follow the order of the annulment the following must concur:
court and was not present at the hearing that’s
why the court rendered a decision annulling 1) Incapacity exists at the time of the celebration
their marriage of marriage; 2) that such incapacity continues to
 The atty. for the respondent contends that that the time when the case for annulment is being
she had not been physically examined due to tried 3)that it is incurable 4)it must be unknown
refusal and instead of annulling the marriage, to the other contracting party.

CALUAG
the court should have punished her for contemt
of court instead and compel her to undergo Alcazar v. Alcazar BY SHAR
physical examination.
 Motion for consideration denied - Petition to reverse decision to dismiss the

CELLES
annulment complaint by Veronica Alcazar
ISSUE: Can a marriage be annulled on the lone
FACTS

CHIONGSON
testimony of a husband contending that his wife is
impotent? - Oct - Got married in Occidental
11, Mindoro
2000
RULING: NO! - Oct - Lived with Rey’s parents
11 - (Mindoro)

CIPRESS
 Our state has put safeguards to protect the 16
sanctity of marriage and considers it as an - Oct - Lived in Manila but Rey
institution in which the community is 16 – wanted and lived
23 separately
interested.

MILLETTE
- Oct - Rey left the Philippines to
 It is the interest of each and every member of 23 be an OFW in Saudi
the community to prevent the bringing about of - After this he never
a condition that would shake its foundation and contacted Veronica ever
again despite he calls and

PILAPIL
ultimately lead to its destruction
letters
 Although respondent’s non-compliance would - Marc - Rey returned to the
seem as indifference, however, it is in the h, Philippines and lived with

QUERUBIN
nature of a Filipina to be meek and by nature 2002 his parents.
shy to submit to a physical examination unless - Rey did not inform
Veronica about him
compelled by a competent authority.
returning.
 Impotency being an abnormal condition should
not be presumed. The presumption is in favor of
RICO
potency. - Veronica filed a complaint for the
 There’s still a need to prove that the annulment of the marriage on the ground
SY

respondent is really impotent that’s why the that Rey is incapable of consummating
UY

case was remanded to the lower court. their marriage.

- She brought Nedy T. Tayag (Psychologist)
to testify on his examination on Rey.
PERSONS: Effects of physical incapacity/impotence - He is incapacitated to properly assume
and comply with the essential roles and
Family Code Article 45: (5) That either party was obligations of a married man.
physically incapable of consummation the marriage - He is diagnosed to have a Narcissistic
Personality Disorder, the rooted from
8
 childhood and is a long lasting disorder and - For arguments sake the court still discussed
is incurable by any treatment that even if the attorney correctly filed
- And that this disorder existed even prior to under the correct article the case would still
the marriage of Veronica and Rey be dismissed.
- RTC  denied Veronica’s petitions saying - The complainant was still lacking in
that not coming to live with her is not evidence to prove the incapacity.
incapacity, and that the disorder alleged - Veronica only proved that Rey did not want
was not proven to have existed even prior to live with her when he came back it is not
to marriage. incapacity.
- CA  Affirmed - The burden falls upon petitioner, not just to
prove that respondent suffers from a
ISSUES: psychological disorder, but also that such
psychological disorder renders him "truly
- W/N Rey is psychologically incapacitated
incognitive of the basic marital covenants
from performing the essential marital
that concomitantly must be assumed and
obligations

CALUAG
discharged by the parties to the
HELD: NO. marriage. Psychological incapacity must
be more than just a "difficulty," a
ART. 45. A marriage may be "refusal," or a "neglect" in the

CELLES
annulled for any of the performance of some marital obligations.
following causes, existing at - An unsatisfactory marriage is not a null
and void marriage

CHIONGSON
the time of the marriage:

(5) That either party was Arañes vs Occoano MICKEY

physically incapable of
Facts:
consummating the marriage

CIPRESS
with the other, and such 1. Mercidita Arañes and Dominador Orobia
incapacity continues and through the help of a certain Juan Arroyo
appears to be incurable; x x requested the presiding judge,Salvador

MILLETTE
Occiano, of the MTC of Balatan, Camarines
- The incapacity that Art. 45 was saying is the Sur to solemnize their marriage on Feb 17,
incapacity to copulate, it’s the incapacity of 2000, having assured that all the marriage
the other party to perform and complete documents are complete.

PILAPIL
the act of sexual intercourse. Non- 2. However on the day of the marriage, Arroyo
consummation of a marriage may be on the requested that they be married in Nabua
part of the husband or of the wife and may because Orobia who just had stroke couldn’t

QUERUBIN
be caused by a physical or structural defect stand the rigors of travelling to Balatan which
in the anatomy of one of the parties or it he granted.
may be due to chronic illness and 3. Before the marriage he refused to marry
inhibitions or fears arising in whole or in them because they do not have the required
part from psychophysical conditions. It may marriage license. Consenting only upon the RICO
be caused by psychogenic causes, where constant pleadings and out of human
such mental block or disturbance has the
SY

compassion.
result of making the spouse physically 4. Then the husband died, Mercidita Arañes
UY

incapable of performing the marriage act. couldn’t inherit the vast properties and
- There was no evidence of Rey being pension because of the nullity if their
incapable to sexual intercourse. marriage. Thus he filed an administrative
- Her attorney cited the wrong article and the complaint against the judge for his illegal acts
mistake of the attorney as a principle binds and unethical misrepresentation which
the client. caused her so much suffering.
- What she was alleging was the things
mentioned in art.36 (Mental Incapacity)
9
 5. The respondent judge vigorously denied that he custody of their mother. However, their son
assured the petitioner that their married was Frederick transferred to his father's residence at
valid without the marriage license. Masangkay, Tondo, Manila on May 15, 1988,
6. Because of guilt, petitioner filed an Affidavit of and from then on, lived with his father
Desistance upon realizing her fault that she was  On February 11, 1987, Filipina filed a petition
not able to get the require marriage license. for legal separation,  Later, upon motion of
7. The Office of Court Administrator found the petitioner, the action was later amended to a
Judge guilty of solemnizing a marriage without a petition for separation of property on the
marriage license. grounds that her husband abandoned her
Issue: Could the judge be held liable for solemnizing the without just cause; that they have been living
marriage outside of his jurisdiction separately for more than one year; and that
they voluntarily entered into a Memorandum of
Held: Yes. The judge was ignorant of the elementary Agreement dated September 29, 1983,
provisions of the law. containing the rules that would govern the
dissolution of their conjugal partnership.


CALUAG
Persons Issue: Does the judge have the authority to The court granted it based on the
solemnize the marriage outside of his jurisdiction? Memorandum of Agreement executed by the
spouses. The trial court also the granted the
-No, it violates Art. 7 (1) which states that only custody of the children to her.

CELLES
incumbent member of the judiciary have authority  In May 1988, Filipina filed a criminal action
within their jurisdiction for attempted parricide against her husband.
She allege that when he came to the dental

CHIONGSON
Ruling: clinic of the respondent, operated by her
mistress, she saw her son playing family
1. The authority of RTC judges and judges of computer. When she talk to the boy ,the boy
inferior courts to solemnize marriage is only ignored and so she got mad and started to

CIPRESS
within their territorial jurisdiction. spank the boy. At the instance, Fernando
2. In a precedent, Navarro vs Domagtoy, a pulled Filipina away and from their son and
Municipal Circuit trial court of Sta. Monica- punch her. He even choke her and that he
Burgos, Surigao del Norte, solemnized a only released her because he thought she

MILLETTE
wedding in his residence in Dapa, Surigao del was dead
Norte and was suspended for 6 months for  The court however only convicted Fernando
gross ignorance of the law. of slight physical injury .
 Petitioner then filed a new action for legal

PILAPIL
3. In this case although he could not be held for
gross ignorance because he did it out of human separation against the respondent on the
compassion he is still administratively liable for following grounds: (1) repeated physical
violating the law on marriage. violence; (2) sexual infidelity; (3) attempt by

QUERUBIN
4. Also he is still liable despite the withdrawal of respondent against her life; and (4)
complaint of Mercidita Arañes because it does abandonment of her by her husband without
not have the legal effect of exonerating him justifiable cause for more than one year. The
from disciplinary action. lower court, granted the petition on the
grounds of repeated physical violence and RICO

Sy v Court of Appeals.- Mike sexual infidelity, and issued a decree of legal

SY

separation. It awarded custody of their

daughter Farrah to petitioner, and their son
UY

Facts:
 Filipina ( petitioner) and Fernando ( respondent) Frederick to respondent.
contracted marriage. Both of them are 22 yrs  On aug 4 1992, Filipina filed for nullity of their
old at that time. Their union was blessed with marriage on the ground of the respondent’s
two children, Frederick and Farrah psychological incapacity. She points out the
 On September 15, 1983, Fernando left their physical injury she incurred before was a
conjugal dwelling. Since then, the spouses lived result are symptoms of his psychological
separately, and their two children were in the incapacity. Other manifestation of her
10
 husband ‘s psychological incapacity are the ff: photocopies. So are the birth
(1) habitual alcoholism; (2) refusal to live with certificates of their son Frederick and
her without fault on her part, choosing to live daughter Farrah Sheryll. Nevertheless,
with his mistress instead; and (3) refusal to have these documents were marked as
sex with her, performing the marital act only to Exhibits during the course of the trial
satisfy himself. Moreover, Filipina alleges that below, which shows that these have
such psychological incapacity of her husband been examined and admitted by the
existed from the time of the celebration of their trial court, with no objections having
marriage and became manifest thereafter. been made as to their authenticity and
 It was denied by the lower court and in the due execution.
Court of Appeal, thus they appeal to the  The remaining issue on the
Supreme Court. psychological incapacity of private
 However , when they appeal in the Supreme respondent need no longer detain us. It
Court, she raise a new issue that their marriage is mooted by our conclusion that the
was void from the beginning because of the marriage of petitioner to respondent

CALUAG
incongruity and differences of the date of actual is void ab initio for lack of a marriage
marriage and the date of issuance of their license at the time their marriage was
marriage certificate and marriage license solemnized

CELLES
Issue: WON the court can accept the new issue raise? PERSON RELATION
WON the marriage was void from the beginning? Article 80 of the Civil Code
Art. 80. The following marriages shall be void from

CHIONGSON
Held: both YES the beginning:
(1) Those contracted under the ages of sixteen and
Rationale: fourteen years by the male and female respectively,
 Although we have repeatedly ruled that even with the consent of the parents;

CIPRESS
litigants cannot raise an issue for the (2) Those solemnized by any person not legally
first time on appeal, as this would authorized to perform marriages;
contravene the basic rules of fair play (3) Those solemnized without a marriage license, save
and justice, in a number of instances, marriages of exceptional character;

MILLETTE
we have relaxed observance of (4) Bigamous or polygamous marriages not falling
procedural rules, under Article 83, Number 2;
 Technicalities are not ends in (5) Incestuous marriages mentioned in Article 81;
themselves but exist to protect and (6) Those where one or both contracting parties have

PILAPIL
promote substantive rights of litigants. been found guilty of the killing of the spouse of either
We said that certain rules ought not to of them;
be applied with severity and rigidity if (7) Those between stepbrothers and stepsisters and

QUERUBIN
by so doing, the very reason for their other marriages specified in Article 82. (n)
existence would be defeated
 The date of actual marriage- Nov. 15
1973 Alcantara v Alcantara by Diana
The date of issue of the marriage August 28, 2007; P: Chico-Nazario RICO
license and marriage contract- Sept. 17
SY

1974 FACTS:
 November 15, 1973, also appears as the
UY

date of marriage of the parents in both

their son's and daughter's birth
certificates,
 Article 80 of the Civil Code applies in
this case.
 We note that their marriage certificate
and marriage license are only
11
 Date Events
Dec 1982 Restituto and Rosita Alcantara went to Manila City Hall
ISSUE: Is the marriage valid even though the marriage and found a “fixer” for them to be able to marry
license is a “sham”? without a license

HELD: YES. Invalid marriage license does not render Mar 1983 They got married ( 2nd time); now with a marriage
license. But the license
marriage as void. was a “sham” because they were acquired from
Carmona, Cavite
1. Jurisprudence dictate that it’s the ABSENCE of
the marriage license which renders a marriage * (They’re not residents of Carmona and they did
not go there to apply)
void
1988 They separated (according to Restituto)
~ He filed petition for declaration of nullity of marriage for
2. The marriage license provides a presumption lack of valid marriage license
that the official duty has been regularly (He currently has a mistress and has 3 children with her)
performed in issuing it. It’s conclusive unless Feb 2000 RTC-Makati dismissed petition

CALUAG
rebutted. April CA denied appeal
2005
3. Marriage license issued in the absence of oaths to all interested parties without any
publication or prior to the completion of the change in both cases. The documents and

CELLES
10-day period for publication are considered affidavits filed in connection with the
mere irregularities that do not affect the applications for the marriage licenses
validity of the marriage. shall be exempt from documentary stamp

CHIONGSON
 Parties responsible for irregularity are tax.
civilly, criminally and administratively
liable Art. 25, FC: The local civil registrar
concerned shall enter all applications for
DECISION: Petition dismissed. marriage licenses filed with him in a

CIPRESS
registrar book strictly in the order in
Relation to Topic: which the same are received. He shall
I. Formal Requisites: Marriage License record in said book the names of the

MILLETTE
o Art 53 of the New Civil Code (since it’s applicants, the date on which the
celebrated on 1982) requires the marriage license was issued, and such
presence of a valid marriage license to other data as may be necessary.
render a marriage valid.

PILAPIL
~ The local civil registrars issue marriage licenses. It is
o The requirement and issuance of a their responsibility to make sure that certain
marriage license is the State’s requirements are fulfilled before they issue them.

QUERUBIN
demonstration of its involvement and Despite of this, there is always a presumption that
participation in every marriage, in the they act in a lawful manner, unless proven otherwise.
maintenance of which the general REINEL ANTHONY B. DE CASTRO vs. ANNABELLE
public is interested. ASSIDAO-DE CASTRO
February 13, 2008 -NILO RICO
~ Marriage licenses are important to validate a FACTS:
SY

marriage. However, it is not so restrictive as to render a

marriage void just because of irregularities in acquiring 1. Petitioner and respondent became
UY

them. sweethearts in 1991. They applied for a

marriage license with the Office of the Civil
II. Duties of the Civil Registrar: (FC 24-25) Registrar in September 1994 and had sexual
relations.
Art 24, FC: It shall be the duty of the local 2. When the couple went back to the Office of
civil registrar to prepare the documents the Civil Registrar, the marriage license had
required by this Title, and to administer already expired, and in replacement of it they
12
 executed an affidavit dated 13 March 1995 the case such as: determination of heirship,
stating that they had been living together as legitimacy or illegitimacy of a child, settlement
husband and wife for at least five years. of estate, dissolution of property regime, or a
3. They got married and after the ceremony, criminal case.
petitioner and respondent went back to their
respective homes and did not live together as PERSON RELATED: On the validity of marriage
husband and wife. Respondent gave birth to a The law dispenses with the marriage license
child and supported her child on her own. requirement for a man and a woman who have lived
4. Respondent filed a complaint for support together as husband and wife for at least five years
against petitioner before RTC alleged that she is before the marriage. The aim is to avoid exposing the
married to petitioner and prayed for support of parties to humiliation connected with the scandalous
his child. cohabitation of persons outside a valid marriage due to
5. The trial court ruled that the marriage between the publication of every applicant’s name for a marriage
petitioner and respondent is not valid because license.
it was solemnized without a marriage license.

CALUAG
However, it declared petitioner as the natural b. In the instant case, there was no "scandalous
father of the child, and thus obliged to give her cohabitation" to protect; in fact, there was no
support. cohabitation at all since they never lived as
6. Elevated to Court of Appeals and ruled that the husband and wife. The false affidavit

CELLES
child was legitimate child of petitioner since the executed is a mere scrap of paper. They were
marriage is valid until be declared by the court. not exempt from the marriage license
The RTC has no judicial authority to declare the requirement. Their failure to obtain and

CHIONGSON
nullity of marriage since this case is an action present a marriage license renders their
for support and there was no participation by marriage void ab initio.
the State through a fiscal.
7. Hence, this petition. 2. Whether the child is the daughter of petitioner:
YES.

CIPRESS
Petitioner contends that:
a. The trial court properly annulled his marriage a. We find that the child is petitioner’s
with respondent because as shown by the illegitimate daughter, and therefore entitled

MILLETTE
evidence and admissions of the parties, the to support.
marriage was celebrated without a marriage
license. b. The Certificate of Live Birth of the child lists
b. The affidavit they executed, in lieu of a marriage petitioner as the father and the affidavit

PILAPIL
license, contained a false narration of facts waiving additional tax exemption in favor of
since they never lived as husband and wife. respondent, admitted that he is the father of
c. There was no need for the appearance of a the child are grounds for the illegitimate

QUERUBIN
prosecuting attorney in this case because it is filiation.
only an ordinary action for support and not an
action for annulment or declaration of absolute Republic vs Dayot by JAYE
nullity of marriage. March 28, 2008
RICO
ISSUES/RULING: FACTS:
SY

1. Whether the trial court had the jurisdiction to

determine the validity of the marriage between 1. These are 2 consolidated cases by the
UY

petitioner and respondent in an action for support: Republic of the Philippines and Felisa Tecson-
YES. Dayot challenging the declaration of her
marriage with Jose Dayot as void.
a. The Court holds that the trial court had 2. On November 24, 1986 Jose and Felisa Dayot
jurisdiction to determine the validity of the were married at the Pasay City Hall. In lieu of
marriage between petitioner and respondent as a marriage license, they executed a sworn
long as it is essential to the determination of affidavit attesting that both of them are
13
 legally capacitated and that they cohabited for under irregularity of the marriage license, what
at least five years when in fact they only barely happens here is an absence of marriage license
known each other since February 1986. which makes their marriage void for lack of one of
3. On 1993, Jose filed a complaint for Annulment the essential requirement of a valid marriage.
and/or Declaration of Nullity of Marriage
contending that their marriage was sham, as to 2. NO. An action for nullity is without merit. Jose and
no ceremony was celebrated between them; Felisa’s marriage was celebrated without a valid
that he did not execute the sworn statement marriage license, which is an essential requirement.
that he and Felisa had cohabited for atleast five The right to impugn a void marriage does not
years; and that his consent was secured prescribe.
through fraud.
4. His sister, however, testified as witness that PERSONS & FAMILY RELATIONS / CIVIL CODE
Jose voluntarily gave his consent during their CONNECTION:
marriage. The complaint was dismissed on
Regional Trial Court stating that Jose is deemed FORMAL REQUISITES—

CALUAG
estopped from assailing the legality of his MARRIAGE LICENSE—A MANDATORY
marriage for lack of marriage license. REQUIREMENT
5. It is claimed that Jose and Felisa had lived
together from 1986 to 1990, and that it took Basically, the exception under Art 76 of not

CELLES
Jose seven years before he sought the having a marriage license and that it be allowed must
declaration of nullity; be construed strictly in such a way that it only applies
6. The RTC ruled that Jose’s action had prescribe. to those who have lived together as husband and wife

CHIONGSON
It cited Art 87 of the New Civil Code which for at least 5 years, and since the affidavit that was
requires that the action for annulment must be fraudulently executed is not valid, hence if a party
commenced by the injured party within four fails to meet the essential requirement of marriage,
years after the discovery of fraud. then nothing’s to be concluded but make the
7. Jose appealed to the Court of Appeals which marriage void outright.

CIPRESS
rendered a decision declaring their marriage
void ab initio for absence of marriage license.
8. Felisa sought a petition for review praying that Sevilla v Cardenas (On requirements for issuance)

MILLETTE
the Court of Appeal’s Amended decision be CHIP
reversed and set aside.
ISSUE: Facts: Jaime and Carmelita were married in San Juan
1. Whether the falsity of an affidavit of marital

PILAPIL
on May 19, 1969 without a valid marriage license.
cohabitation, where the parties have in truth fallen They were wed a second time in Quezon City on May
short of the minimum five-year requirement., 31, 1969, using the same alleged invalid license. They
effectively renders the marriage voib an initio for tried to live a normal married life first in Spain but

QUERUBIN
lack of marriage. failed miserably (despite the fact that they came up
2. Whether or not the action for nullity prescribes as with two kids).
the case here where Jose filed a complaint after They fell out of love and Jaime secured a
seven years from contracting marriage. divorce in the US. When he tried to annul their
marriage here in the Philippines, his lawyer inquired RICO
with the Office of the Civil Registry of San Juan
SY

SC DECISION: regarding their marriage license and found that there

UY

was none. A number of certificates were issued by a

1. YES. The intendment of law or fact leans towards certain Perlita Mercader claiming that the records
the validity of marriage, will not salvage the parties’ were not found despite their efforts.
marriage, and extricate them from the effect of a They both wanted to annul their marriage
violation of the law. The Court protects the fabric and filed their petition with the trial court. The
of the institution of marriage and at the same time petition was denied and they filed the certiorari
wary of deceptive schemes that violate the legal petition with the SC.
measures set forth in the law. The case cannot fall
14
Issue: Were the certificates claiming that no marriage unworthiness to take the lawyer’s Oath for lack
license was present enough to declare their marriage of good moral character
void ab initio?  In effect, the Supreme Court deferred
Trebonian’s oath-taking and required him to file
Ruling: Denied an answer to the complaint
The SC agreed with the trial court that the  In Trebonian’s answer via his “Explanation”, he
presumption of regularity of official acts was not admitted that he was “legally married” to
properly overruled. It is only a disputable presumption Evangeline, but that the marriage was not yet
but strong evidence is necessary to refute it. made public due to their agreement to keep
Unfortunately the parties were not able to counter the their marriage a secret until he finishes law
presumption. school and passes the Bar; he further claimed
The certificates issued by the civil registry did not that he and Evangeline have reconciled already
establish the fact that there was no marriage license,  A Motion to Dismiss was subsequently filed by
only that the office could not locate it because they Trebonian, stating that the whole matter arose
were too swamped with work. The presumption of from a misunderstanding and that

CALUAG
regularity of official acts was not overruled. complainant does not want to pursue with
Bar Matter No. 78 anymore; the Supreme
Relevance: Article 12 of the Family Code states how the Court grants this Motion and dismissed
certificate can save the parties in a proceeding from Evangeline’s complaint

CELLES
having to present their license, but there are strict rules  Soon thereafter, Trebonian was allowed to
regarding the validity of the certificate. The ones issued take his Oath in a Resolution dated August 20,
by Perlita Mercader did not pass the test. 1982

CHIONGSON
 However, on February 14, 1983, Evangeline
filed a Petition for Disbarment against
Trebonian which prays for his disbarment, on
the following grounds:

CIPRESS
LEDA VS. TABANG by Martin o For contracting an invalid marriage
PER CURIAM; FEBRUARY 21, 1992 with her, using his legal knowledge
o For misrepresenting himself as
FACTS: “single” in his application to take the

MILLETTE
Bar exam
 Evangeline Leda (complainant herein) married o For being not of good moral
Trebonian Tabang (respondent herein) on character

PILAPIL
October 3, 1976; the marriage was performed o For being guilty of deception, since he
under Article 76 of the New Civil Code, reconciled and recognized his
exempting them from being required of a marriage with her just for the sake of
marriage certificate

QUERUBIN
having her complaint withdrawn, so
 Both parties agreed to keep the marriage a that he may not be prevented from
secret until after Trebonian finishes his law taking his Oath anymore
studies and takes the Bar examinations,  As proof of Trebonian’s misgivings,
presumably for the purpose of securing a stable Evangeline attached an undated and unsigned
future for the both of them RICO
letter, allegedly that of Trebonian’s, to her
 When Trebonian finished his law studies in Petition for Disbarment
SY

1981, he applied to take the Bar examinations; o The letter states that their marriage
UY

he declared in his application that he was under Article 76 of the New Civil Code
“single” is actually void, since both the
 Trebonian passed the examinations, but was minimum cohabitation requirement
prevented by Evangeline from taking his Oath of five years and the minimum age
when she instituted her complaint in the form requirement of 21 years were not
of Bar Matter No. 78 in 1982, citing Trebonian’s met
fraudulent act in his application as basis for his

15
 o He advised Evangeline not to push o Trebonian’s declaration in his
through, so that her family’s name may application that he was “single” is a
not be put into shame gross misrepresentation of a material
o The letter was unsigned, although fact made under bad faith; he should be
Trebonian’s initials are written on the made answerable to such act, subject to
upper-left corner of the envelope Rule 7.01, Canon 7, Chapter II of the
 Trebonian denied writing such a letter, saying Code of Professional Responsibility; his
that it is fabricated false declaration would have
 In Trebonian’s Comment to the Petition for disqualified him from taking the Bar
Disbarment, he expressed that he and examinations if it had been known from
Evangeline agreed not to disclose their the very beginning
marriage, not because he wanted to finish his o Trebonian took conflicting positions in
studies and take the Bar first, but because he is the various pleadings he submitted in
aware that the marriage was void from the very Bar Matter No. 78 and in the present
start, since he knew very well that the requisites case

CALUAG
of Article 76 of the New Civil Code was not met;  In the former case, he said
that in his declaration in his application to the that his reason for not
Bar, he was steadfast in his belief that in the disclosing his marriage with
eyes of the law, he is single, granting that his Evangeline is due to his desire

CELLES
marriage to Evangeline is void to keep it secret until he
finishes his law studies and
ISSUE/S: Bar examinations; in the

CHIONGSON
present case, however, he
3. Whether or not Trebonian’s lack of good moral disregards such reason and
character is sufficiently established instead, expressed that he
HELD/RULING: knew from the very beginning

CIPRESS
that their marriage under
 RELATED PROVISIONS: Article 76 of the New Civil
Code is void, hence his
o Art. 76, NCC: No marriage license shall declaration that he is “single”

MILLETTE
be necessary when a man and a woman is rightful under the eyes of
who have attained the age of majority the law
and who, being unmarried, have lived  In the former case, he said
that he is “legally married” to

PILAPIL
together as husband and wife for at
least five years, desire to marry each Evangeline; in the present
other. The contracting parties shall case, he said that his
state the foregoing facts in an affidavit marriage with her is void

QUERUBIN
before any person authorized by law to from the very start
administer oaths. The official, priest or o Despite being denied by Trebonian as
minister who solemnized the marriage his own doing, the contents of the
shall also state in an affidavit that he letter attached alongside with the
took steps to ascertain the ages and Petition for Disbarment coincides RICO
other qualifications of the contracting with the reasons he filed in his
SY

parties and that he found no legal Comment on the present case as to

impediment to the marriage. why the marriage is void from the
UY

very start
3. The Supreme Court ruled that Trebonian’s lack o The Supreme Court recognizes the
of good moral character is sufficiently fact that Trebonian reconciled with
established, despite lack of testimonial evidence Evangeline just for the sake of being
from Evangeline able to take his Oath as a lawyer, and
that right afterwards he refused to
recognize his marriage with her again
16
 o In this case, Trebonian violated Canon A valid marriage license is a requisite of marriage
10 of the Code of Professional under Article 53 of the Civil Code
Responsibility, which provides that “a
lawyer owes candor, fairness and good A marriage license is dispensed with under Article 76:
faith to the court” the marriage of a man and a woman who have lived
together and exclusively with each other as husband
Atty. Trebonian Tabang is hereby SUSPENDED from the and wife for a continuous and unbroken period of at
practice of law until further Orders. least five years before the marriage.
Ninal vs Bayadog BY beL
This is to avoid embarrassment concomitant with the
FACTS: scandalous cohabitation of persons outside a valid
marriage due to the publication of every applicants
 Pepito Ninal was married to Teodulfa Bellones name for a marriage license.
on Sept. 26, 1974
 Ninal shot Bellones on April 24, 1985 killing the NO the second marriage was not valid

CALUAG
latter.
 Ninal married Respondent Norma Bayadog 1  Only 20 months have elapsed from the time
year and 8 months after the death of Bellones Pepito’s first marriage was dissolved to the
without any marriage license time of his marriage with respondent.

CELLES
 Ninal died in a car accident.  A period of cohabitation is characterized by
 Petitioners are the children of Ninal and exclusivity and continuity. There should be no
Bellones and they filed a petition to annul the

CHIONGSON
legal impediment on either party to marry.
marriage of their father and herein respondent  Pepito’s previous marriage to Teodulfa is a
for it lacks a marriage license for it to be valid. legal impediment disqualifying him to the
This is because such marriage will affect their exception of a marriage license. He had a
successional rights. subsisting marriage at the time when he


CIPRESS
Respondent contends that petitioners didn’t started cohabiting with Bayadog
have a cause of action since they are not among  Therefore the marriage was invalid
the persons who could file an action for YES petitioners have cause of action despite the fact
annulment under article 47 of the Family Code. that their father is already dead because the 2 nd

MILLETTE
 She also contends that Ninal and her lived
marriage was “VOID”
together as husband and wife for at least 5
years and were thus exempted from securing a  A voidable and void marriage is different

PILAPIL
marriage certificate. o A voidable marriage is valid until
 The trial court ruled in favor the respondent otherwise declared by court.
and said that the Family Code is silent as to the o A marriage that is void is considered
situation presented and petitioners should have

QUERUBIN
as never to have taken place at all.
filed the said petition before the death of their
 Void marriages can be questioned even after
father
the death of either party.
ISSUE:
 The trial court erred in concluding that the
 Is the second marriage of Pepito valid?
death of Pepito extinguished the alleged RICO
marital bond between him and respondent.
 Whether petitioners have cause of action to file
SY

In the first place, their marriage was void. It’s

the present petitions as if it never existed at all and therefore the
UY

death of Pepito extinguished nothing.

HELD:
PERSONS: Void and Voidable Marriages
The civil code is the law to determine the validity of
 Void marriages confer no legal rights, and,
the marriage because it was the law in effect at the
when it is determined that a marriage is void,
time when the marriage was celebrated.
it is as if no marriage had ever been
performed.
17
  However out laws has taken a more humane Art 34 of the FC required that: The parties must have
and reasonable view of such marriages by no legal impediment to marry each other;
expressly providing special effects both with
respect to property relations and the status and Obviously the two did have a legal impediment to their
rights of the children of such marriages. marriage and that cannot be denied by the judge
Borja – Monzano v. Sanchez shar because of the affidavits that was submitted to him. It
was stated there that they were not separated with a
Facts: declaration but only themselves without such
declaration that marriages is deemed to still exist.
This is an administrative case against Judge Sanchez on
the ground that he solemnized the marriage of
Manzano and Payao even when he knew that Manzano Republic of the Philippines vs Castro MICKEY
was already married. Facts:
1966 - Borja got married with Manzano and had for
children. 1. On June 24, 1970, Angelina Castro and Edwin

CALUAG
1993 - Manzano married Payao before a judge. Cardenas married in a civil ceremony without
Judge Sanchez allegations: the consent of Castro’s parents (a secret
marriage). Cardenas personally took care of
- I did not know that he was already married. the necessary documents including the

CELLES
- I only knew that they have been living together marriage license issued on the same day.
as husband and wife for the past seven years. 2. They did not immediately live together since
- If I knew that they were married I would not Castro’s parents are unaware of their

CHIONGSON
have solemnized their marriage. marriage and only did when Castro became
- As far as he knows the two parties (Manzano pregnant. This lasted for only four months
and Payao) had a previous marriage but due to until they parted ways. The baby was adopted
the constant quarrelling with their partners by Castro’s brother with Cardena’s consent
they have separated and did not cohabit nor

CIPRESS
which was brought to the US.
had any communications ever again. 3. Desiring to follow her baby her baby she had
- When he solemnized the marriage he relied on to fix her mar marital status and upon asking
Art 34 of the FC. advice from a lawyer found out that they

MILLETTE
- No license shall be necessary for the marriage were married without a marriage license
of a man and a woman who have lived together evidenced by a certification from the civil
as husband and wife for at least five years and register of Pasig.
without any legal impediment to marry each 4. She petitioned to the trial court to have her

PILAPIL
other. The contracting parties shall state the marriage void testifying that she did go to
foregoing facts in an affidavit before any person any civil registrar to sign any marriage
authorized by law to administer oaths. The license and only signed on the marriage

QUERUBIN
solemnizing officer shall also state under oath contract. But the court ruled that the inability
that he ascertained the qualifications of the of the local civil register is not conclusive as
contracting parties and found no legal to the absence of their marriage license, thus
impediment to the marriage. denying their petition.
Borja: before a marriage can be solemnized the couple 5. She appealed to the appellate court which RICO
must first show affidevits of the history of their statuses ruled in her favor declaring the marriage null
SY

and swear it to the judge which Manzano and Payao and void and directing the civil register to
cancel their marriage contract. Thus the
UY

did.
petition for certiorari.
ISSUE: W/N Judge Sanchez acted with ignorance of the Issue: Does the documentary and testimonial
law. evidence presented by private respondent enough to
prove the absence of marriage license and render it
Held: Yes null and void?

18
Held: Yes it is enough evidence. Art. 3 (2), requires
marriage license as a formal requisite for marriage.

Ruling:

1. The New Civil Code governs their marriage and

it provides that no marriage shall be solemnized
in the absence of a marriage license otherwise
it will be held void ab initio.
2. Pursuant to Section 29, Rule 132 of the Rules of
Court, a certificate of "due search and inability
to find" of the civil register sufficiently proved
that his office did not issue marriage license.
3. The failure to present any other witness to
corroborate her testimony is because they had

CALUAG
a secret marriage. Also, the lack of interest of
Cardenas in the proceedings couldn’t be held
against her fault.
4. The Court considers noteworthy the finding of

CELLES
the appellate court that a fake marriage license
have been presented to the solemnizing officer.
5. The petition is therefore denied and the

CHIONGSON
decision of the appellate court affirmed.

Rule 132, Sec. 29. Proof of lack of record. — A written

statement signed by an officer having custody of an
official record or by his deputy, that after diligent

CIPRESS
search, no record or entry of a specified tenor is found
to exist in the records of his office, accompanied by a
certificate as above provided, is admissible as evidence

MILLETTE
that the records of his office contain no such record or
entry.

PILAPIL
QUERUBIN
RICO
SY
UY

19