OF THE

Arts. 2-3
THE FAMILY CODE PHILIPPiNes THE FAMILY CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES Art. 4

- Their Consent Freely Given Bartolome v. Bartolome

(2) Essential Requisite No. 2
L-23661, Dec. 20, 1967
to the consent of the contracting parties
(a) "Consent" refers
parental consent. Parental consent
is in
connection FACTS: A man and a woman lived together as husband
not
with requisite No. 1 referring to legal capacity. and wife for many years, but in the office of Manila Civil
Registry, there was no record that a marriage between them
required because marriage is a contract, a
(b) Consent is had ever been celebrated.
voluntary act.
ISSUE: Are we to presume that they are married?
(c) If there is consent, but it is VITIATED by error, fraud,
intimidation, force, etc., the marriage is ngt voi_d; it is v4 HELD: Yes, because of their cohabitation for many years.
merely VOIDABLE, i.e., Moreover, the lack of a marriage record in Manila does not
rebut the presumption of marriage, for the marriage could have
(d) If there is absolutely no consent, or when the parties did
been celebrated elsewhere.
not intend to be bound, as in the case of a JOKE or in
the case'of a STAGE or MOVIE PLAY, the marriage is (NOTE: The minority of the private complainant,
VOID. concurring with the fact tfiat the accused is the common-
law husband of the victim's mother, is a special qualifying
(NOTE: Without the essential requisites, the

* (3) Formal Requisite No. 1

\ except as stated in Art. 35121.)

— Authority of the Person

Solemnizing the Marriage
Under the old Marriage Law (Act 3613, Sec. 27), the
marriage was considered completely valid if, at the time of
solemnization, both the spouses or one of them believed in good
faith that the solemnizer was actually empowered to do so and
that the marriage was perfectly legal. Under the Civil Code
however, the good or bad faith of the parties was immaterial.
If the person performing the marriage had nq. authority to do
so, the marriage was void, regardless of the good or bad faith
of the parties. Under the Family Code, even if the solemnizing
officer is not authorized, the marriage would be valid if either or
both parties believe in good faith in his authority to solemnize
circumstance warranting the imposition of the death penalty if
alleged in the information and duly proved. [People v. Lizada,
396 SCRA 62 (2003)] Both the circumstances of minority and
relationship must be alleged in the information and proven
during the trial to warrant the imposition of the death penalty.
[People v. Marahay, 396 SCRA 129 (2003) and People v. Cafiete,
(5) Formal Requisite No. 3 — A Marriage Ceremony
This must be made in the presence of not less .than two
witnesses of legal_age.
(NOTA BENE: Absence of any of the formal requisites
— the marriage is VOID AB INITIO, unlgss ong or both of the
• • l /»_ ?ii_
ÿ

the marriage.

(4) Formal Requisite No. 2

— A Marriage License, Except Art. 4. The absence of any of the essential or formal
in a Marriage of Exceptional Character requisites shall render the marriage void ab initio, except
(a) as stated in Article 35(2).
What is required is the marriage license, not the marriage
certificate. The latter is not an essential or formal A defect in any of the essential requisites shall render
A requisite; thus, an praUolemiiization
is valid. In fact, a the marriage voidable as provided in Article 45.
marriage may be proved by oral
evidence.

332