1
ARTICLES 11 – 13, Family Code
The law merely enumerates the contents of an application for a
marriage license. More specifically, the law requires the age and
civil status of the applicants so that if the applicant is not of age as
required by law, or if there is legal impediment as shown by the
application, the Local Civil Registrar would still issue the license, but
with a notation of the same. It is also required that if there was a
previous marriage and it has been annulled or nullified, the
applicant concerned must attach it to the application in order to
prove his capacity to contract marriage.
The law further requires the presentation of the original of their
birth certificates, or if not available, copies attested by the
custodian of the same. Such presentation is not necessary if the
parents appear before the local civil registrar and swear the
correctness of the lawful age of the parties as stated in the
application.
If either of the parties was previously married but the spouse is
already dead, he/she is merely required to produce the certificate of
death of the spouse. If he cannot produce it, he/she may execute an
affidavit setting forth his/her actual civil status and the name and
date of death of the deceased spouse.
ARTICLE 14, Family Code
If the parties to the marriage are between the ages of 18 and 21,
they must secure the consent of their parents, otherwise it is
voidable. (Art. 45[1], Family Code). Such consent in the form of a
written instrument by the person concerned who personally
appears before the local civil registrar or in the form of an affidavit
made in the presence of two witnesses and attested before any
official authorized to administer oaths. It is required that such
manifestation of consent be attached to the application for
marriage license.
The minimum marriageable age now is 18. Both parties must be
eighteen at the time of the celebration of the marriage. The law also
requires the consent of their parents to be valid. So that, even if the
parents consented, if one of the parties or both of them were below
the age of eighteen (18) still the marriage is void ab initio.
If A and B got married before a person who is not authorized to
solemnize marriages but either or both believed in good faith that
he could solemnize marriages, the marriage is valid. The law seeks
to preserve the marriage bond.
If one of the parties was aware of the lack of authority of the
solemnizing officer, he or she could not file an action for declaration
of nullity of the marriage. He could not benefit out of his own
wrongdoing.
ARTICLE 15, Family Code
Under Article 15 of the Family Code, if the parties are between the
ages of 21 and 25, they need parental advice. It provides too that if
not secured or if unfavorable, the marriage license shall not be
issued until after three (3) months following the publication of the
application for marriage license. They are also required to state
those facts in an affidavit.
If the marriage license is issued without waiting for the lapse of the
three-month period, still the marriage is valid, but the party and the
public officer effecting such issuance may be subjected to criminal
and administrative responsibility.
The parties are also required to attach to their application for a
marriage license a certification that they have undergone marriage

counseling before a duly accredited agency. Failure to attach it shall
cause the suspension of the issuance of the marriage license for a
period of three (3) months.
ARTICLE 16, Family Code
The mere fact that the advice was not given and the marriage was
solemnized does not make the marriage void. The formalities
required by law must however be complied with.
The issuance of the marriage license even before the lapse of the
90-day period if no advice was granted does not make the marriage
void. It is still valid, but criminal, civil or administrative sanctions
may be imposed on the officer issuing the license.
ARTICLE 17, Family Code
After the receipt of the application for marriage license, the local
civil registrar shall prepare a notice which shall be posted for at least
ten (10) days at the bulletin board outside of his office in
conspicuous places or even in places accessible to the public. It calls
upon anyone
who has any knowledge of any legal impediment of either or both of
the contracting parties to report to the local civil registrar.
This notice is one of the modes by which the State interferes in the
marriage to prevent violations of the marriage law. It is noted,
however, that if the local civil registrar does not publish the
application and still, he issues the license, the marriage is still valid,
because after all, publicity is not an essential requisite of marriage.
The said public officer may, however, be held criminally or
administratively liable.
ARTICLES 18 – 19, Family Code
2
Note that if the local civil registrar has knowledge of any legal
impediment of the parties or if one is brought to his knowledge by
anyone, he would just note down the same in the application.
However, if there is a court order preventing him from issuing it,
then, he would not issue it.
ARTICLE 20, Family Code
The rule prescribes a period within which the parties must use the
marriage license. This is mandatory because the law declares the
automatic cancellation of the license upon the expiration of the
period of one hundred and twenty days from the date of issue.
If the marriage is solemnized after one hundred twenty (120) days
from the date of the issuance of such license, the marriage is void
for lack of a marriage license. (See Arts. 20 and 3, Family Code).
The law allows the use of the marriage license anywhere in the
Philippines. So, if a marriage license was obtained in Manila, it can
be used in Ilocos Norte provided that the 120-day period has not yet
lapsed.
ARTICLE 21, Family Code
The reason for the rule is that the capacity of foreigners to marry is
determined by their personal law or national law. The certificate will
ensure that the foreigner is capacitated to marry.
The rule is that if they are allowed to marry under their national
law, the marriage is valid, except —
1) immoral, bigamous or polygamous marriages;
2) immorally considered incestuous marriages;
a) between ascendants and descendants of any degree, legitimate
or illegitimate;

b) collateral line, between brothers and sisters of the full or half-
blood, whether the relationship be legitimate or illegitimate.
The marriage is still valid even without the said certificate of legal
capacity. This is not one of the requirements of a valid marriage. It is
a mere added requirement before a marriage license is issued. But if
it turns out that the foreigner is not really capacitated, then, the
marriage is not valid because of lack of capacity. A subsequent
issuance of such certificate may be an evidence to declare such
marriage void.
If a foreigner is a refugee or a stateless person, then a mere affidavit
stating the circumstance of his legal capacity would be sufficient.
The reason for the latter is obvious, as no diplomatic or consular
official would issue such certificate.
ARTICLE 22, Family Code
The law merely states the contents of the marriage certificate.
ARTICLE 23 – 25, Family Code
The solemnizing officer has to give the parties a copy of the
marriage certificate. He is required to send a copy of the certificate
to the local civil registrar. This is equivalent to registration or
recording. But mere non-recording of the marriage does not make it
void. It is not one of its essential requisites. A copy of the document
can be shown to prove it.
ARTICLE 26, Family Code
Rules on foreign marriages of Filipinos.
If a marriage is celebrated between Filipino citizens in a foreign
country and valid there as such, generally, it is valid in the
3
Philippines. There are however, exceptions to the rule as cited in
Articles 35(1, 4, 5, and 6), 36, 37 and 38 of the Family Code.
The second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code has cured the
injustice under the old principles in the Civil Code for, while before,
if a Filipina married a foreigner and the latter obtained a decree of
divorce in his own country, the Filipina was still considered married
because Article 15 of the Civil Code mandated that she was still
married since the law that governed her legal capacity and status
was Philippine law. But such an injustice has been cured where the
law now allows her to remarry.
Strict application of Rule 26.
The rule as contemplated by the framers of the Family Code is that,
the marriage must be a mixed marriage, between a foreigner and a
Filipino in order that Article 26, paragraph 2 may apply and that it
must have been mixed from the very beginning. If it was mixed after
its celebration, the law does not apply. It must be noted that
despite such intention of the framers of the Family Code, the
Supreme Court ruled otherwise in Republic vs. Orbecido III, October
5, 2005 which will be discussed elsewhere. It is also a requirement
that it must have been the foreigner who obtained a divorce decree.
If it were the Filipino who obtained the divorce decree, the law does
not apply.
The rule laid down in paragraph 2 of Article 26 of the Family Code
impliedly recognizes the effect of divorce obtained in a foreign
country but only in a limited sense. Such a recognition is merely
intended to cure an injustice to a Filipino where after having been
divorced by the foreigner spouse, he or she would still be
considered
married.

The rule in paragraph 2, Article 26 could have been precipitated by
the doctrine in Van Dorn vs. Romillo, G.R. No. 68470, October 8,
1985. In such case, a Filipina got married to a foreigner and
obtained a divorce decree from the courts of the country of her
husband. The wife came back to the Philippines, engaged in
business and became successful. Later on, the foreigner came to the
Philippines and tried to enforce his rights as a husband, as
administrator of the conjugal partnership and his rights as an heir.
The Supreme Court ruled out his contentions. It said that while
public policy and our concept of morality abhor absolute divorce,
because of the nationality principle adhered to under Article 15 of
the Civil Code, nonetheless, the absolute divorce obtained abroad
may be recognized in the Philippines provided it is valid according to
his national law. (Van Dorn vs. Romillo). In view of this, the Supreme
Court said that an American national who had divorced his Filipina
wife cannot justifiably maintain that, under our laws, the Filipina,
despite the divorce, has to be considered still married to him and
still subject to a wife’s obligation.
A Filipina should not be discriminated against in her own country if
the ends of justice are to be served. She should not be obliged to
live with him, to support him, or to observe respect and fidelity to
the ex-husband. The latter should not continue to be one of her
heirs with possible rights to the conjugal properties.
Note, however, that this case is an exception to the rule especially
so that it was the Filipino who commenced the divorce proceedings.
Unfair situation in the Civil Code remedied.
There was an unfair situation in our law under the Civil Code which
the Family Code sought to remedy and which was remedied in Van
Dorn vs. Romillo and Pilapil vs. Ibay-Somera.
Illustration:
4
X, a Filipina married Y, a foreigner. The foreigner left her and
divorced her in his country, capacitating him to marry again under
his national law. Under the old law, whether it was a mixed
marriage or not, the Filipino was not capacitated to remarry in case
he/she was divorced by the foreigner spouse. This is due to the
strict rule in Article 15 of the Civil Code and the principle that a
divorce obtained abroad was contrary to morals. This has left the
Filipino in an unfair situation, for while the former spouse could
remarry, yet, he/she could not. So, the Supreme Court in Van Dorn
and Pilapil gave recognition to the effects of foreign divorces. The
Family Code followed with the conditions that: (1) the marriage
must be originally a mixed marriage; (2) the divorce must be
obtained by the foreigner capacitating him/her to remarry under
his/her national law. So that if the foreigner obtains that divorce,
the Filipino is likewise capacitated to remarry.
But let us say that the parties were originally Filipinos, but after a
few years one of them became an American citizen and thereafter,
he would obtain a divorce decree capacitating him to remarry, the
Filipina cannot remarry under Philipine laws because the marriage
was not originally a mixed marriage. This is a flaw in Article 26 that
the framers of the Family Code failed to foresee or resolve. If it
happens, then, we would return to the former unusual and unfair
situation where one of the parties is again left hanging. The better
situation is that even if the marriage is not originally a mixed
marriage, both must be capacitated to remarry in case a divorce is
obtained by the foreigner. But the remedy is for Congress to do.
It would seem therefore, that she cannot because Article 26(2) of
the Family Code refers only to mixed marriages.
Effect is Filipino obtains divorce against a foreigner spouse.
 5
As can be clearly gleaned from the law, the effects of a foreign
divorce are now recognized in the Philippines but subject to certain
conditions. One such situation where the effects of a foreign divorce
were recognized is in Pilapil vs. Ibay-Somera, et al., G.R. No. 80116,
June 30, 1989, where it was said that when the foreigner divorced
the Filipina, the marital relationship was severed. She can no longer
be prosecuted for adultery if she cohabits with another man. A
Filipina should not be discriminated against in her own country.

Doctrine of lex loci celebrationis.

X and Y, both Filipino citizens went to Hongkong. They got married

there before a lawyer. Under Hongkong laws the marriage is valid. Is
it also valid in the Philippines?

Yes, by way of implication from the provision of Articles 26 and 35(2

and 3), Family Code. If the marriage is valid where it was celebrated,
it shall also be valid in the Philippines. This is not one of the
marriages declared void in the Philippines by law. Authority to
solemnize is only a formal requirement that if valid where it was
celebrated, it is valid in the Philippines in view of the doctrine of lex
loci celebrationis.