I

During the lifetime Sam, an AFP soldier, contracted two marriages, the first with Mary
Grace, and the second Mary Jane. Both of these “marital relations” were blessed with two
children each, the first: two son A & B and the second, two daughter X & Y. In 2018 Sam
passed away his hospitalization shouldered by Mary Jane. Both “wives” filed claims for
monetary benefits and financial assistance pertaining to the deceased from the Armed Forces of
Philippines (AFP).
Upon request of the AFP Finance Office, the Judge Advocate Office of the AFP
conducted an inquiry who between the two was the legal wife. Mary Grace contends that her
marriage with Sam being the first marriage is the valid & binding marriage. On the other hand,
Mary Jane contends that the marriage of Sam and Mary Grace was void since it was solemnized
without a marriage license. To support this contention Mary Jane offered in evidence a copy of
the marriage contract of Sam and Mary Grace which do not indicated the marriage license. In
addition, she presented a certification from the Local Civil Registrar of Quezon City to the effect
that the marriage was without a Marriage License. It was also shown that the marriage did not
fall within any of those exceptions allowed by the Family Code.
QUESTIONS:
1] Rule on the opposing contentions of Mary Grace & Mary Jane. Explain.

Mary Grace’s contention is without merit. A valid marriage license is one of the formal requisites to a
valid marriage (Article 3 [2], Family Code of the Philippines). The absence thereof will render such marriage
as null and void, except if it is one of those marriages mentioned under Articles 27, 31, 32 (Marriages in
articulo mortis), 28 (Marriages in far areas), 33 (Marriages among Muslims or members of ethnic cultural
communities) and 34 (Cohabition of five years) of the code. (Article 4 in relation to Article 35 (3), Id.)

There is no good reason for Mary Grace and Sam to dispense with the requirement of a valid marriage
license at the time they contracted their marriage as they do not seem to fall squarely within any of the
exceptions mentioned under our law. Their marriage may be categorized as void ab initio or null and void.

As for the contention of Mary Jane, it is also invalid. Sam cannot contract another marriage with Mary
Jane as he is still married with Mary Grace. It is, thus, essential for him to file a petition first in court so as to
lawfully declare his marriage with Mary Grace null and void and for the court to grant the same. The existence
of a basis to seek the nullity of their marriage does not ipso facto make their marriage null and void.
 Sam needs to first secure a final judgment declaring his marriage with Mary Grace void before he can
contract a subsequent marriage with Mary Jane. This is clear from the provisions of Article 40 of the Family
Code of the Philippines. It is stated therein, “The absolute nullity of a previous marriage may be invoked for
purposes of remarriage on the basis solely of a final judgment declaring such previous marriage void.

2] What are the civil status of the children of Mary Grace and the children of Mary Jane.
Explain.

Mary Grace children shall be considered legitimate. Art.54 of the Family Code
provides that “Children conceived or born before the judgment of annulment or absolute nullity of
marriage under Article 36 has become final and executory shall be considered legitimate.

The general law governing your query is found under Article 165 of the Family Code of the Philippines

which states that “children conceived and born outside a valid marriage are illegitimate, unless otherwise provided

in this code.” Correlative thereto, Article 54 of the code also states:

Children conceived or born of the subsequent marriage under Article 53 shall likewise be legitimate.”

As one consequence of the declaration of nullity of marriage, the child or children shall be considered illegitimate if

the legal basis for the dissolution of the marriage are those grounds enumerated under Article 35, Article 37

(incestuous marriages and Article 38 (void marriages by reason of public policy). This legal effect is not, however,

applicable if the dissolution of marriage is grounded on psychological incapacity under Article 36 and Article 53 of

the Family Code of the Philippines. In fact, it is a requirement after the dissolution of the marriage that the civil

registrar will amend the birth certificate of the child. This is in consonance with Section 22 of A.M. No. 02-11-10-

SC (March 4, 2003), Re: Proposed Rule On Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of

Voidable Marriages, which also states that:

“(a) The court shall issue the Decree after;

(1) Registration of the entry of judgment granting the petition for declaration of nullity or annulment of marriage in

the Civil Registry where the marriage was celebrated and in the Civil Registry of the place where the Family Court

is located;
(2) Registration of the approved partition and distribution of the properties of the spouses, in the proper Register of

Deeds where the real properties are located; and

(3) The delivery of the children’s presumptive legitimes in cash, property, or sound securities.

(b) The court shall quote in the Decree the dispositive portion of the judgment entered and attach to the Decree the

approved deed of partition.

Except in the case of children under Articles 36 and 53 of the Family Code, the court shall order the Local Civil

Registrar to issue an amended birth certificate indicating the new civil status of the children affected” (Emphasis

supplied).

In the case of Tenebro vs. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 150758, February 18, 2004), the Supreme Court through

Honorable former Associate Justice Consuelo M. Ynares-Santiago stated that:

“Although the judicial declaration of the nullity of a marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity retroacts to

the date of the celebration of the marriage insofar as the vinculum between the spouses is concerned, it is significant

to note that said marriage is not without legal effects. Among these effects is that children conceived or born before

the judgment of absolute nullity of the marriage shall be considered legitimate. There is therefore a recognition

written into the law itself that such a marriage, although void ab initio, may still produce legal consequences.

xxx xxx xxx”.

Applying the above cited decision in your situation, your son will remain legitimate if the legal basis for the
declaration or dissolution of your marriage is psychological incapacity.

We do find it necessary to mention that this opinion is solely based on the facts you have narrated and our

appreciation of the same. Thus, the opinion may vary when the facts are changed or further elaborated. We hope that

we were able to enlighten you on the matter.

3] Assume that Sam’s pension and other monetary benefits from the Arm Forces is
2 million, who between the two women is entitled to the same. How much will each be
entitled? Explain.
4] Will the children of Mary G be entitled to a share of the 2 M? How about the
children of Mary Jean? Explain.
 II
Celso, a Sales Executive of a Software Company based in Makati, and Annie, a bank
teller in a LBP Branch in Taguig Global City, were married in 2010. After five years their
relationship “turned sour” and so Annie left their conjugal home in Makati and cohabited with
her boss- Miguel, a married man since 2005. When Annie cohabited with Miguel the latter
prevailed her to resign from her job and be a full-time housewife. From his salary and the
revenues of his business Miguel acquired the following properties, during their cohabitation, to
wit:
a) A house and lot in Quezon City;
b) A mansion and residential land in Laguna;
c) Two (2) Toyota cars: a Fortuner and Toyota Rush;
d) A 5 hectare farm in Bulacan;
Meanwhile from 2015 until the separation of Annie and Miguel, the former delivered two
children- X & Y, although no father was indicated in their birth certificates.
In 2019 Miguel and Annie separated and so Annie demanded from Miguel that she given
one half share of all the above properties, alleging that she is entitled to one half share the same
having been acquired during their cohabitation. Miguel refused to give her the share that she was
demanding, stating that all of these properties were acquired through his efforts only.
QIUESTIONS:
A] Whose contention is legally tenable? Explain
B] Since the father of X & Y are not indicated in their birth certificates what are the
legal status of these children. Explain your answer
C] Assume that Annie executed a notarized sworn statement to the effect that X & Y
are not the children of Celso, but her children with Miguel, will these children be entitled to
support from Miguel? Explain.

III
In 2005 Jeremy and Lucy, both single, got married without executing a marriage
settlement. Four years prior to their marriage Rene acquired the following properties:
A) A brand new Toyota Fortuner by purchase;
B) A residential house and lot paid for by installment fully paid in 2001;
C) A 5 hectare coconut land acquired before the marriage from his father, by testamentary
succession ;
D) A ten hectares rice land donated by his parents four years before his marriage to Lucy;
E) A 1,000 square meters prime residential land. In Makati by purchase in the year 2000
In 2015 Jeremy died, survived by his wife Lucy and Liza, Jeremy’s mother.

QUESTIONS: (Briefly but concisely discuss your answers)

A] State or discuss whether Liza can rightfully claim that the above enumerated
properties are exclusive properties of her son, not conjugal properties.
B] Will your answer in Question letter A be the same if under the same facts and
circumstance except that before their marriage Jeremyy & Marrie executed a marriage
settlement specifying that they are adapting the regime of Conjugal Partnership of Gains?
C] Assume that under the same facts and circumstances above except that Jeremy
and Lucy decided not to push through with the marriage but instead decided to cohabit as
common law spouses and that Lucy was not gainfully employed but a full time housewife
who focused his attention caring for Jeremy and their home. Can Liza rightfully claim that
the above enumerated properties are exclusive properties of her son Jeremy, hence she is
entitled to these properties? Explain.
IV
A] Vic & Helen was issued a marriage license on January 5, 2018. Upon their request Vic’s
uncle, Judge Soter Calamansi, of MCTC of Calubian, Leyte solemnized the marriage on July 13, 2018 at
the Leyte Park Hotel in Tacloban City. Is the marriage valid? Explain y our answer.
B] Under the same facts & circumstances in Question IV A except that Soter Calamansi is a
Municipal Mayor of Calubian Leyte and he solemnized the marriage on March 5, 2018 at Leyte Park
Hotel, will the marriage be valid? Explain your answer.

v
A] In the year 2000 Adrian and Christine, both single and 32 years old, were legally
married before Mayor JB with four witnesses. They had no marriage license since they had no
time to secure the same and its corresponding attachments so, upon the advice of a friend, they
simply executed an affidavit of cohabitation stating the they have been living together for 6 years
as husband and wife when in fact they were working in two different countries for the last seven
(7) years. One month after the marriage ceremony, Adrian went back to his work abroad while
Christine was hired as a nurse in a government hospital in the Philippines.
When Adrian returned to the Philippines after his five year contract abroad he found out
that Christine left their conjugal home and was living with Arthur. He likewise discovered that
his wife and Arthur was married before Mayor Asko. So Adrian charged his wife with bigamy
for contracting a second marriage. In her defense, Christine alleged that she cannot be charged
for bigamy because her marriage with Adrian was VOID for lack of marriage license since the
affidavit of cohabitation was falsified.
QUESTION:
Is the defense raised by Christine legally tenable? Explain.
 No, Christine’s defense is not legally tenable. Under Article 34 of the Family Code of
the Philippines, it is stated that:

“No license shall be necessary for the marriage of a man and a woman who have lived together as
husband and wife for at least five years and without any legal impediment to marry each other. The
contracting parties shall state the foregoing facts in an affidavit before any person authorized by
law to administer oaths. The solemnizing officer shall also state under oath that he ascertained the
qualifications of the contracting parties and found no legal impediment to the marriage.”

Therefore, their marriage is valid.

B] Under the same facts and circumstances in Case # V (A) except that there was a valid
marriage license but when Adrian and Christine went to the office of mayor Asko for hristinethe
marriage ceremony the mayor was attending a LIGA NG BARANGAY meeting at a nearby
govt. building. So, the secretary simply required the parties and their witnesses to sign the
marriage contract, telling them to wait for a while because she will just let the mayor to sign the
marriage contract. When the secretary came back the marriage contract was already signed by
the mayor and so she told the “partners” that “they are already legally married”.
QUESTION
Assume that you are the public prosecutor conducting the preliminary investigation for
BIGAMY against Christine, will you recommend the filling of the bigamy case against her?
Explain.
No, I will not recommend the filling of bigamy case. Adrians and Christines
marriage is void ab initio.