ART . 37 ART.

38 (Prohibited to marry each other)

1. Between parents-in-law and children-in-law

2. Prohibited until the 1st cousin (to prevent inbreeding because it causes ineffective children)
3. Adoptive parent and adoptive child (Adoption- artificial, created by artificial fiction.
4. Surviving of spouse of the adopting parent and adopted child.

1. Kho v Republic, GR# 187462, June 1, 2016

SC Held: that their marriage license on the ground that there is no marriage license issued
by CCR.
-Certification by CCR that there was no issued marriage license
-“absence must be apparent in the marriage certificate”
-fatal defect-absence of marriage license. Does not cure the defect of the marriage.

2. Republic v Albios, GR# 198780, Oct 16,2013

-Mr. Fringer is an American citizen

-Married to a filipina, in exchange of money. The purpose was only to obtain US Citizenship.

-“marriage of convenience”

- the consent is freely given. It is conscious and intelligent. They understood the consequences
of their actions. (union of man and woman)

-terms and obligations of the marriage relationship are set by law.

-Held: the SC ruled that the marriage is still valid.

Formal Requisite:

1. Marriage License
2. Marriage Ceremony
3. Solemnizing Officer

Essential Requisite:

1. Legal Capacity: Age, Gender and Status

2. Consent:
Components of Consent as far as marriage is concerned:
1. Willingly, intentionally, and deliberate, consciously, intelligently (studied, evaluated
and assessed the situation) Freely given (free from duress),
2. made in the presence of the solemnizing officer. (to assess whether the parties are
allowed to marry.)
3. Adong v Cheong Seng Gee, G.R. No. 18081 March 3, 1922 43 Phil 43

- The bride never had a chance to confirm her consent

- The consent is freely given when the man entered the woman’s mosquito net.

-Remember the Mohammedan Law

-2 essential requisites:

Legal Consent

Basis of the civilized society is marriage.-remember this quote

Semper (always presume marriage in case of doubt.

-SC ruled: the marriage is valid.

4.Navarro v Domagtoy, July 19,1996, A.M.No. MTJ 06-1088, 72 SCAD 328

Held: Solemnizing officer has no duty to check on the validity.

Judge performing outside the performance of the court is a mere irregularity.

5. People v Janssen, G.R. No. L-31763 December 27, 1929 54 Phil 176

Sc held: Church proclamation is not necessary to post. The law gives way.

Alcantara:

My case: Lessons: 3 clear cut rules that the marriage license is not in the marriage contract

Presumption that the Civil Registrar, is presumed to have performed his official function.

That residency requirement is just a mere irregularity.

Garcia v Recio, GR# 138322, Oct 2, 2001

-you have to present the foreign divorce decree

-foreign law must be proven.

-what kind of evidence: (Divorce Decree, under rule 132)official publication, copy, if not available
should be certified by the consular,

-interloquytory decree, not an absolute divorce. (Divorcer decreenism-given timr before the divorce can
be given

-Local Civil Registrar get certificate of legal capacity to contract marriage. (Art. 21) faster and easier way
to get marriage.
Sy v Court of Appeals, GR# 127263, April 12, 2000

The supreme Court is not a trier of facts.

-issues raised for the first time of appeal is not excluded except for the issue of validity of marriage
license.
-no marriage license at all at the time of marriage.
-MC is

Abbas v Abbas, GR# 18396, Jan 30,2013

TAKE AWAY:

-WHAT IS WRONG IN THE CERTIFICATION: No marriage license meaning void marriage.

-they did a diligent search. It was found that the marriage license number is issued to a different
person.
-rule 131 Sec. 3 of the Rules of Court. That official duty was performed.

Vitangcol v People, GR# 207406, Jan 13,2016

TAKE AWAY:

-LCR certification is present that there was no ML. But there is degree of suspicion on the issued
Certification.

-It appears to be a manufactured certification from the LCR. ML was issued late.

-absence of ml is not apparent on this case.

Sevilla v Cardenas, GR# 167684, July 31,2006, 497 SCRA 428

TAKE AWAY:

Intra-Femural Sex: having Sex through the knees

Exact language used in the Certification: No marriage license were ever issued by this office. No ML
license were not also found through search.

-office is loaded with work.

September 20, 1994: restated the language of the first certification.

3rd certificate: no ML was issued.

Supreme Court held: If the family is about to break up

The Court did not the marriage

Salgado v Anson , GR# 204494, Sept 5, 2016

TAKE AWAY:

ART. 26

State is the conservator of its people.