Republic of the Philippines vs Liberty D.

Albios
G. R. No. 198780
October 16, 2013

Facts

On October 22, 2004, Daniel Lee Fringer (Fringer), an American Citizen, and respondent Liberty
Albios (Albios) were married, as evidenced by a Certificate of Marriage. The parties entered the said
marriage for the sole purpose of Albios obtaining an American citizenship in consideration of $2,000.00.
On December 6, 2006, Albios filed a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage to the
Regional Trial Court, Imus, Cavite. She described her marriage as one in jest and, therefore, null and void
ab initio. Fringer had been duly notified but failed to be present in any stage of the case. Hence, the RTC
rendered a decision declaring the marriage void ab initio. The RTC ruled that when marriage was entered
into for a purpose other than the establishment of conjugal and family life, such was as farce and should
not be recognized from its inception.
Petitioner Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG),
filed a motion for reconsideration but was denied. Not in conformity, the OSG filed an appeal before the
CA. The CA affirmed the RTC ruling which found that the essential requisite of consent was lacking, The
CA stated that the parties clearly did not understand the nature and consequence of getting married and
that their case was similar to a marriage in jest.
The OSG argues that, albeit the intention, both parties freely gave their consent to the marriage,
as they knowingly and willingly entered into the marriage and knew the benefits and consequences of
being bound by it. The OSG also argues that the present case does not fall within the concept of marriage
in jest, as the parties intentionally consented to enter into a real and valid marriage, for if it otherwise, the
purpose of Albios to acquire American citizenship would be rendered futile.
Hence, a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court was filed before
the SC.

Issue

Whether or not the marriage, contracted for the sole purpose of acquiring American citizenship in
consideration of $2,000.00, is void ab initio on the ground of lack of consent?

Held

No. Under Article 2 of the Family Code, for consent to be valid, it must be (1) freely given and
(2) made in the presence of a solemnizing officer. A “freely given” consent requires that it must be real
(not vitiated nor rendered defective by any vices of consent) and conscious (capable of intelligently
understanding the consequences of their act). Based on these, consent was not lacking. The parties
G.R No. 198780 | Page 1
willingly and deliberately contracted the marriage of their conscious purpose of acquiring American
citizenship.
Marriage in jest, legal in form but entered but entered as a joke, are void ab initio, not for vitiated,
defective or unintelligent consent, but for a complete absence of consent. Here, the respondent’s marriage
is not at all analogous to a marriage in jest because their undeniable intention requires a genuine consent
and a valid marriage to be binding.
The possibility that the parties in a marriage might have no real intention to establish a life
together is insufficient to nullify a marriage freely entered into in accordance with law. So long as all the
essential and formal requisites prescribed by law are present, and it is not void or voidable under the g
rounds provided by law, it shall be declared valid.

G.R No. 198780 | Page 2