1.

Ramon, a Filipino, and John, an Australian were married in the UK, in a British civil ceremony and is
valid there as such. Is the marriage likewise valid in the Philippines?
Answer: Yes, the marriage is likewise valid in the Philippines. This is clearly stated under “Art. 26. All
marriages solemnized outside the Philippines, in accordance with the laws in force in the country where
they were solemnized, and valid there as such, shall also be valid in this country, except those prohibited
under Articles 35 (1), (4), (5) and (6), 3637 and 38. (17a)”. If valid, where celebrated, it is also valid here
in the Philippines pursuant to the doctrine of “lex loci celebrationis” the law of the place of the
celebration. But, if Ramon and John are both male, then the marriage is not valid here because we should
follow the Nationality Principle, where in this case, the PH law states that marriage shall eb between man
and a woman.

2. SHEILA, 30 years old, single, a Filipina, willingly and voluntarily married JOHN
PHILIPS, also of legal age, single, an American, for purposes of immigration. They
never really had any intention of entering into a married state or complying
with any of their essential marital obligations. However, SHEILA’s immigration
application was denied. Is the marriage valid.
Answer: Yes, the marriage is valid because it follows all requisite of the marriage but this is in contrary of
the spirit and sanctity of marriage in Article 1 of the Family Code that provides that “Marriage is a special
contract of permanent union between a man and a woman entered into in accordance with law for the
establishment of conjugal and family life. It is the foundation of the family and an inviolable social
institution whose nature, consequences, and incidents are governed by law and not subject to stipulation,
except that marriage settlements may fix the property relations during the marriage within the limits
provided by this Code. (52a)”. Therefore, the reason for the parties must not be monetary or proprietary
gain. The parties, in accordance with the law shall live together, observe mutual love, respect and fidelity.
The union purpose is to establish a conjugal and family life, not for personal interest.

3. In 2015, Daniel developed a romantic relationship with Kathryne and shortly

thereafter, Daniel and Kathryne lived together as husband and wife. They begot a child named James.
Daniel however has been previously married to Nadine, who is in Canada and who divorced him in 2017.
Nadine never returned to the Philippines. Kathryne’s
father was against the relationship that in order to appease her father, Kathryne and Daniel got married in
a civil ceremony before the Mayor of Pasig City in February 2021. They did not secure a marriage license
and instead availed of the exemption by executing an Affidavit of Cohabitation alleging that they have
been living together as husband and wife for more than five years. Is the marriage valid?
Answer: No, the marriage is not valid. Although, Article 34 states 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 are found no
legal impediment to the marriage. (76a)” but Article 35 also provide under paragraph 4 “Art. 35. The
following marriages shall be void from the beginning: 4) Those bigamous or polygamous marriages not
failing under Article 41. Daniel and Kathyne is living together in a period which the marriage of Daniel
and Nadine is still in effect, thus, the counting of 5 years will start on the year Daniel and Nadine was
divorced, making it only 4 years between Daniel and Kathryne.
4. A judge of Municipal Trial Court Sto. Tomas, Batangas out of compassion solemnized the marriage
of Luzviminada and Santiago in his house at Lucena. They
urgently requested the Judge to solemnize their marriage because Luzviminda
said she must leave that same day to be able to fly from Manila for abroad as
scheduled. Is the marriage valid?
Answer: No, the marriage is invalid. Article 4 states that “The absence of any of the essential or formal
requisites shall render the marriage void ab initio, except as stated in Article 35 (2).” Based on the fact,
the absence of the paragraph (2) and (3) of Article 3 is manifested. “Art. 3. The formal requisites of
marriage are: (2) A valid marriage license except in the cases provided for in Chapter 2 of this Title; and
(3) A marriage ceremony which takes place with the appearance of the contracting parties before the
solemnizing officer and their personal declaration that they take each other as husband and wife in the
presence of not less than two witnesses of legal age. (53a, 55a.

5. Jerry Cruz was a former Filipino citizen who acquired Canadian citizenship through
naturalization on November 29, 2000. On January 18, 2005, Jerry married
respondent Flora Sto. Domingo, a Filipina, in Naga City. Upon discovering that
Flora was having an affair with another man, Jerry returned to Canada and filed a petition for divorce
which was granted by the Canadian Supreme Court on December 8, 2005 and took effect a month later.
Two years after the divorce, Jerry has found another Filipina to
marry. Accordingly, Jerry filed a petition for judicial recognition of foreign divorce and/or declaration of
marriage as dissolved with the Regional Trial Court of Naga City. Can Jerry invoke Article 26, Paragraph
2 of the Family Code for purposes of remarriage?
Yes. Jerry can invoke Article 26, paragraph 2 that states “Where a marriage between a Filipino citizen
and a foreigner is validly celebrated and a divorce is thereafter validly obtained abroad by the alien
spouse capacitating him or her to remarry, the Filipino spouse shall have capacity to remarry under
Philippine law. (As amended by Executive Order 227). The fact that the marriage is celebrated here and
Jerry can invoke Article 26, paragraph 2.