G.R. No.

198780               October 16, 2013

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner,

vs.
LIBERTY D. ALBIOS, Respondent.

Syllabus:

(a) Under said Article 2, 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 the contracting parties willingly and
deliberately entered into marriage. Consent must be real, in the sense that it is not vitiated nor rendered
defective by any of the vices listed under Article 45 & 46 of the Family Code. Consent must also be
conscious or intelligent, that is, the parties’ understanding of their act is not affected by insanity,
intoxication, drugs, or hypnotism.

(b) The possibility that the parties in a marriage might have no real intention to establish a life together is,
however, insufficient to nullify a marriage freely entered into in accordance with law. 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.

(c) The State does not and cannot dictate on the kind of life that a couple chooses to lead. Any attempt to
regulate their lifestyle would go into the realm of their right to privacy and would raise serious
constitutional questions.29 The right to marital privacy allows married couples to structure their marriages
in almost any way they see fit.

Facts:

Herein respondent filed before the RTC a petition for declaration of nullity of her marriage with an
American citizen named Fringer, who both contracted marriage on 2004 to enable her to acquire an
American citizenship, in consideration that she will pay Fringer the sum of 2000$. She contend that her
marriage with Fringer was a marriage made in jest, and therefore null and void ab initio. The RTC thus
declared the marriage void ab initio, on the ground that their purpose was other than the establishment of a
conjugal and family life, thus it should not be recognized from its inception. Upon its denial of the OSG’s
motion for recon, the RTC further hold that the parties failed to freely give their consent. It was thus
reiterated by the CA, ruling that the essential requisite of consent was lacking, thus the marriage was made
in jest. Petitioner (Republic) contends that since both parties have knowingly entered into marriage in view
of its benefits and consequences, their consent have been freely given, and thus the present case do not fall
within the concept of a marriage in jest.

Issue: Is a marriage, contracted for the sole purpose of acquiring American citizenship in consideration of
$2,000.00, void ab initio on the ground of lack of consent?

Ruling:

No, the marriage of respondent is not void ab initio. Consent was not lacking in respondent’s marriage
since their consent, that was freely given, was best evidenced by their conscious purpose of acquiring
American citizenship thru marriage. There was complete and full understanding of the leagl effects that
would be created between them. Respondent’s marriage is not one made in jest, since only a genuine
consent to be married would allow them to further their objective.

The possibility that the parties in a marriage might have no real intention to establish a life together is,
however, insufficient to nullify a marriage freely entered into in accordance with law. 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. Petition is granted and the Decision of the CA and the
RTc is annulled and dismissed.