FAMILY CODE

CHAPTER 1- REQUISITES OF MARRIAGE

Article 1. Marriage is a special
As a CONTRACT:
contract of permanent union between
Marriage
a man and a woman entered into in
Special Contract
accordance with the law for the
Governed by law on marriage
establishment of conjugal and family
(Fam Code)
life. It is the foundation of the family
Inviolable social institution
and an inviolable social institution
Not subject to stipulation exp.
whose nature, consequences, and
Marriage settlements on property
incidents are governed by law and
relations
not subject to stipulation, except that
Legal Capacity is Required
marriage settlements may fix the
Minor- void
property relations during the
marriage within the limits provided by
Only 2 parties
this Code.
Terminated only by death or
declaration of nullity or annulment

2 aspects: As a CONTRACT;
due to legal cause.
as a STATUS

2 requisites: ESSENTIAL
&FORMAL
Article 2. No marriage shall be valid,
unless these essential requisites are
present:
1) Legal capacity of the contracting
parties who must be a male and a
female; and
2) Consent freely given in the
presence of the solemnizing officer.

Also known as INTRINSIC

requisites.
Absence will render the
marriage VIOD exp. Art 35 (2)

Article 3. The formal requisites of

marriage are:
1) Authority of the solemnizing
officer;
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.

Ordinary Contract
Mere contract
Governed by laws on contracts.
NOT
Subject to stipulation
Minors below 18 may contract
thru their parents of guardiansvoidable
2 or more
Terminated upon expiration of
terms of contract.

Legal Capacity:
Age: man and woman at least 18 yrs old
Not barred by any legal impediments to marry each other
Consent Freely given:
Consent refers to the consent of the contracting parties, not their parents
in connection with their legal capacity.
If vitiated by any vices, the marriage is merely VIODABLE.
Absence or when there is no intention to marry, VIOD.
Silverio v Republic
Held: A persons sex is an essential factor in marriage, it is part of a
persons legal capacity and c ivil status. To grant the change in name and
sex sought by the petitioner, will substantially reconfigure and greatly alter
the laws on marriage and family relations.

Extrinsic requisites, refers to the form of the marriage. Absence renders the
marriage VOID AB INITIO, unless, both of them acted in good faith.
1.
2.
3.

Authority of solemnizing officer: even if not authorized, would be valid if

either or both of the parties believe in good faith of the authority of the
officer.
Member of the Judiciary- conterminous of his tenure. Once his
membership ends, so does his authority.
Ecclesiastical solemnizers- depends on the limit imposed in their written
faculty granted them by their respective churches or sects.
Marriage License, except in marriages of exceptional character: what is
required is license, not certificate. If issued after a day, will not validate
the marriage.
Ceremony: must be in the presence of at least 2 witnesses of legal age.


Filipina Sy v CA
Date of actual celebration of marriage and the date of issuance of their
marriage license are different and incongruous.
Date of issuance of marriage license was Sept 17, 1974. Date or celebration
of marriage as reflected on their childrens birth certificate was on November
15, 1973, which was admitted by the both of them.
HELD: These pieces of evidence on record plainly shows that on the day of
the marriage ceremony, there was no mirage license. A marriage license is
a formal requirement; its absence renders the marriage void ab initio. In
addition, the marriage contract shows that the marriage license, numbered
6237519, was issued in Carmona Cavite, yet neither petitioner nor private
respondent ever resided in Carmona.

REPUBLIC V CA and CASTRO

Facts: On June 24, 1970, Angelina M. Castro and Edwin F. Cardenas were married in a
civil ceremony, the marriage contract itself was issued in the name of the contracting
parties on June 24, 1970. Castro consulted her lawyer for the possible annulment of
her marriage and through her lawyers efforts, they discovered that there was no
marriage license issued prior to the celebration of their marriage.
As proof, Castro obtained a certification from the Civil Registrar of Pasig that their
marriage license cannot be located as it does not appear from their records.
RTC held that the certification was inadequate to establish the non-issuance of
marriage license.
ISSUE: WON documentary and testimonial evidence presented by private respondent
is sufficient to establish that no marriage license was issued.
HELD: At the time of the celebration of marriage, the governing law is the New Civil
Code, which provides that being an essential requisite for a valid marriage, the absence
of a marriage license would render the marriage viod ab initio. Petitioner posits that the
certification of the local civil registrar is not adequate to prove the non-issuance.
The SC holds otherwise. The presentation of such certification is sanctioned by Sec 29,
Rule 132 of the Rules of Court. The certification of due search and inability to find,
issued by the civil registrar of Pasig enjoys probative value. This certification sufficiently
proved that his office did not issue marriage license to the contracting parties.

SEVILLA V CARDENAS
Jamie Cardena filed a petition of declaration of nullity of his marriage with
Carmelita Cardena on the ground that he never applied for a marriage license
from any Civil Registry and no marriage license was presented to the solemnizing
officer. As proof, he presented certification issued by the Local Civil Registrar of
San Juan Rizal that states that they could not find the marriage license at the end
of each issuance the phrase Hope and understand our loaded work cannot give
you our full force of locating such problem.
ISSUE: WON the certification are sufficient to declare their marriage null and void
ab initio.
HELD: No. It could be easily implied from the said statement that the Office of the
Civil Registrar could not exert its best efforts to locate and determine the
existence of the marriage license. The absence of the logbook is also not
conclusive proof. In the absence of showing of diligent efforts to search for the
said logbook, we cannot easily accept that the absence of the same also means
the non-existence or falsity of the entries therein. Furthermore, it is settled that
every intendment of the law or fact leans toward the validity of the marriage, the
indissolubility of the marriage bonds.


Article 4. The absence of any of the
essential or formal requisites shall render
the marriage void ab initio, except as
stated in Article 35(2)
A defect in any of the essential
requirements shall not affect the validity
of the marriage but the party of parties
responsible for the irregularity shall be
civilly, criminally and administratively
liable.

NOLLORA V PEOPLE

st

Nollora contracted a second marriage without having the 1 marriage legally dissolved and
the same is still subsisting. Nolloras sole defense is that he is a Muslim convert and that
nd
he was allowed to have 4 wifes. His 2 wife knowingly agreed to be married to him. He
presented a certificate of conversion.
HELD: Both marriage was not contracted in accordance to the Muslim Personal Laws.
Article 13(2) of the Code of Muslim Personal Laws stated that in case of a marriage
between a Muslim and a Non- Muslim, solemnized not in accordance with the Muslim law
or this code, the Family Code of the Philippines in lieu of the CC of the Philippines shall
nd
apply. Thus, under the FC, the 2 marriage was a bigamous marriage, therefore Nollora
cannot claim exemption from liability for the crime of bigamy.

Void due to ABSENCE of essential

requisites:

REPUBLIC v ALBIOS
a.

b.

Absence of legal capacity

1.
A marriage between
couples below 18, even is it
is with parental consent.
2.
Same-sex marriage
3.
Marriage bet parties with
legal impediments under
Art 37 & 38.
Absence of consent
1.
Parties have no intention to
be bound together.

Void marriages due to absence of FORMAL

requisites
a.

Absence of authority of
solemnizing officer
1.
by a judge who is already
retired
2.
by a judge outside of his
territorial jurisdiction
3.
by a person who only
pretended to be a judge or
a priest.
4.
By a priest not authorized
by his church, or is nor
registered with the Office of
the Civil Registrar General
under Art 7 (2) subject to
exceptions under Art 35
(2).

b. Absence of a valid marriage license

1. no license, unless it falls under Arts 27-34
2. expired license.
c. Absence of marriage ceremony
1. Common-law marriages
2. Marriage by proxy

EFFECT IN DEFECT IN ANY ESSENTIAL

REQUISITES:
-does not render the marriage void, but

Fringer, an American citizen and Albios were married. Albios filed with the RTC a petition
for declaration of nullity of her marriage with Fringer. She described that their marriage as
one made in jest and therefore, null and void ab initio. RTC delared their marriage viod ab
initio in the view that the parties married each other for convenience only, since Albios and
Fringer only entered into marriage in order for the former to acquire and American
citizenship and that the parties failed to freely give their consent to the marriage as they
had no intention to be legally bound by it.
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?
HELD: Respondents marriage is not void. Consent was not lacking between parties, in
fact there was real consent because it was not vitiated nor rendered defective by any vice
of consent. Their consent was also conscious and intelligent as they understood the
nature and the beneficial and inconvenient consequences of their marriage, as nothing
impaired their ability to do so. Their marriage is not at all analogous to a marriage in jest.
Neither can their marriage be considered voidable on the ground of fraud under Article 45
(3) of the FC. Only the circumstances listed under Art 46 of the same code may constitute
fraud.

ABBAS v ABBAS
Syed filed for the declaration of nullity of his marriage with Gloria for the absence of
marriage license. In the marriage contract, it is stated that a marriage license was
presented to the solemnizing officer. It was found out that the marriage license number
appearing in their marriage contract was the number of another marriage license.
Gloria had filed a bigamy case against Syed, who had married Maria during the existence
of their marriage.
ISSUE: Is the marriage of Gloria and Syed valid and subsisting?
HELD: No. Respondent Gloria failed to present the actual marriage license or a copy
thereof. She failed to explain why the marriage license was secured in a location where
neither party resided. As the marriage license, a formal requisite, is clearly absent, the
marriage of Gloria and Syed is void ab initio.

GO-BANGAYAN V BANGAYAN JR.

Benjamin was married to Azucena when he contracted another marriage with Sally GoBangayan who assured him that their marriage contract will not be registered since she
knew of his status. When their relationship soured, Sally left for Canada and filed criminal
actions for bigamy and falsification of public document against Benjamin.
Benjamin, in turn, filed a petition for declaration of a non-existent marriage and/ or
declaration of nullity of marriage on the ground that his marriage to Sally was bigamous
and that it lacked the requisites of a valid marriage. The RTC rules that the second
marriage was void, not because of the existence of a first marriage, but because of lack of
marriage license. Hence bigamy was not committed.
Held: Sally & Bens marriage was not registered with the local civil registry office and NSO.
In this case, their marriage was celebrated without marriage license, therefore null and
void ab initio, and at the same time, non-existent.

Article 5. Any male or female of the

age of 18 yrs or upwards not under
any of the impediments mentioned
in Art 37 and 38,may contract
marriage.
37- incestuous marriage
38- void for reasons of public policy
In addition, parties are still obligated to
comply with the other essential and
formal requisites.


Article 6. No prescribe form or
religious rite for the solemnization
of marriage is required. It shall be
necessary however, for the
contracting parties to appear
personally before the solemnizing
officer and declare in the presence
of not less than 2 witnesses of legal
age that they take each other as
husband and wife. This declaration
shall be contained in the marriage
certificate which shall be signed by
the contracting parties and their
witnesses and attested by the
solemnizing officer.
In case of a marriage in articulo
mortis where one of the party at the
point of death is unable to sign the
marriage certificate, it shall be
sufficient for one of the witnesses to
the marriage to write the name of
said party, which shall be attested
by the solemnizing officer.

It is only the appearance of the contracting parties before the solemnizing officer
required by this article that is a formal requisite of marriage under Art3 (3), so that in
the ABSENCE OF APPEARANCE, the marriage is VOID.
The other requirements in this article will not render the marriage void even if they
are totally lacking.
a. That there was no witnesses
b. That the parties did not orally declare before the solemnizing officer that
they take each other as husband and wife.
c. There was no certificate or contract

Article 7. Marriage may be

solemnized by:
1.
2.

3.

4.

5.

Any incumbent member of

the judiciary within the
courts jurisdiction.
Any priest, rabbi, Imam, or
minister of any church or
religious sect duly
authorized by his church
or religious sect and
registered with the civil
registrar general, acting
within the authority
granted by his church or
religious sect and provided
that one of the parties
belongs to the solemnizing
officers church or
religious sect;
Any ship captain or
airplane chief only in the
case mentioned in Article
31 (Articulo Mortis);
Any military commander of
a unit to which a chaplain
is assigned, in the absence
of the latter, during a
military op, likewise in the
cases mentioned in Art 32;
Any consul-general,
consul or vice consul in
the case provided in Art
10.

List is EXCLUSIVE.
Members of the Judiciary:
Those not listed, no matter how high their positions in the government are
(ambassadors, senators, congressmen, etc) CANNOT solemnize marriage.
The FC removed the authority of Mayors to solemnize marriage, but under ther the
Local Government Code, mayors are now authorized to perform marriages within
their jusridiction.
SC, CA, the Sandiganbayan, Court of Tax Appeals- may solemnize marriage
wherever in the country, which is their territorial jurisdiction
RTC Judges & Judges of Inferior Courts- territorial jurisdiction are defined by the SC
If marriage is celebrated outside member of judiciarys jurisdiction, the validity of the
marriage is not affected; however, the Judge will be adminitratively liable.

Priests, rabbi, imam, and ministers:

The priest of minister has the duty to present his authortity to the parties if so
requested by them.
It is require that atleast 1 of the parties belong to the religious sect of the
solemnizing officer, and the religion of the parties must be stated in their marriage
contract.
Ship captains or airplane chief
-must be the captain of the ship or chief pilot of the airplane.
-can olny solemnize marriage only in articulo mortis between passengers or crew
members under Art 31.
-maybe solemnized even during stop-overs. Authority is given during voyage and
during stop-overs, the voyage has not yet ended.
Military commanders of a unit
-Must be a Commissioned Officer (Art 32), not a mere corporal or sergeant. At least
nd
a rank of 2 lieutenant.
-only in articulo mortis, between persons within the zone of military operations,
wheter civilians or members of the armed forces.
-only in the absenceof an assigned chaplain.
-the unit must be a batallion.
Consul General, Consul, Vice Consuls
-Art 10 only marriages between Filipinos abroad in the foreign assignments of these
officials.
-consuls on home assignment in the Philippines cannot solemnize marriages
Mayors- only from Jan 1, 1992 they are allowed to solemnize marriages by virtue of
the Local Government code.


Article 8. The marriage shall be
solemnized publicly in the chambers
of the judge or in open court, in the
church, chapel or temple, or in the
office of the consul-general, consul
or vice-consul, as the case may be,
and not elsewhere, except in the
cases of marriages contracted at the
point of death or in remote places in
accordance with Article 29 of this
Code, or where both of the parties
request the solemnizing officer in
writing in which case the marriage
may be solemnized at a house or
place designated by them in a sworn
statement to that effect.

Not a mandatory provision.

Article 9. A marriage license shall be

issued by the local civil registrar of
the city or municipality where either
contracting party habitually resides,
except in marriages where no
license is required in accordance
with Chapter 2 of this Title.

A license issued in a palce different from the habitual residence of contracting

parties does not invalidate the marriage, marriage is still valid for it is merely an
irregularity.
However, if application is made in bad faith in the improper civil registry the parties
can be liable for Violation of Art 350 of the RPC (Marriage contracted agai the
provisions of laws).
If the cevil registrar is also at fault, he can be chared criminally and administratively.

A marriage CANNOT be solemnized by a judge during Sundays, which is not an

doffice day. But if done, it is merely an irregularity and will not affect the validity of
the marriage
Instances where PUBLIC solemnization is not needed:
1. Marriage in the chambers of the Justice of Judge
2. Marriage In Articulo mortis.
3. Marriages in remote places
4. When bothe parties request in writing that solemnization take place in
another place, which must be designated in a sworn statement.

*MARRIAGE LICENSE IS STILL

REQUIRED

Marriages that DO NOT require marriage license:

1. Marraiges in articulo mortis (Art 27)
2. Marriages in remote places (Art 28)
3. Marriages of people who have previously cohabitaed for 5 years (Art 34)
4. Religious ratification of marriage ( Art 77, NCC)
5. Marriages among Muslims or among members of the ethnic cultural
communities solemnized in accordance with their customs, rites and
practices (Art 33)

Article 10. Marriages between

Filipino citizens abroad may be
solemnized by a consul-general,
consul or vice-consul of the
Republic of the Philippines. The
issuance of the marriage license
and the duties of the local civil
registrar and of the solemnizing
officer with regard to the celebration
of marriage shall be performed by
said consular official.

Art 17 NCC; solemnities established by Philippine laws must be observed in their

execution.
Only if contracting parties are Filipino citizens who maybe domiciled or sojourning
abroad.
The officers power to officiate marriage must be recognized by the receiving state
through treaties, otherwise, marriage is invalid.
If Filipinos abroad get married before foreign officials, authorized to solemnize
marriages, article 26 applies, not Art 10.


Article 11. Where a marriage license is required, each of the contracting parties
shall file separately a sworn application
for such license with the proper local civil
registrar which shall specify the
following:
1) Full name of the contracting parties;
2) Place of birth;
3) Age and date of birth;
4) Civil status;
5) If previously married, how, when and
where the previous marriage was
dissolved or annulled;
6) Present residence and citizenship;
7) Degree of relationship of the
contracting parties;
8) Full name, residence and citizenship of
the father;
9) Full name, residence and citizenship of
the mother; and
10) Full name, residence and citizenship
of the guardian or person having charge,
in case the contracting parties has
neither father nor mother and is under the
age of twenty-one years.
The applicants, their parents or guardians
shall not be required to exhibit their
residence certificate in any formality in
connection with the securing of the
marriage license.
Purpose: It is the concern of the state to
make marriages the secure and stable
institution they should be

Sworn applications for marrige license is under oath. Any falsification therein will subject the
applicant to perjury.
Even if information are falsified, the marriage license wil stil be valid if issues by the local civil
registrar of the place where the application is filed.

Article 12. The local civil registrar, upon

re- ceiving such application, shall require
the presen- tation of the original birth
certificates or, in default thereof, the
baptismal certificates of the contract- ing
parties or copies of such document duly
attest- ed by the persons having custody
of the original. These certificates or
certified copies of the docu- ments
required by this article need not be sworn
to and shall be exempt from the
documentary stamp tax. The signature
and official title of the person is- suing
the certificate shall be sufficient proof of
its authenticity.
If either of the contracting parties is
unable to produce his birth or baptismal
certificate or a cer- tified copy of either
because of the destruction or loss of the
original, or if it is shown by an affidavit of
such party or of any other person that
such birth or baptismal certificate has not
yet been received though the same has
been required of the person having
custody thereof at least fifteen days prior
to the date of the application, such party
may furnish in lieu thereof his current
residence certificate or an instrument
drawn up and sworn to before the local
civil registrar concerned or any public
offi- cial authorized to administer oaths.
Such instru- ment shall contain the sworn
declaration of two witnesses of lawful
age, setting forth the full name, residence
and citizenship of such contracting party and of his or her parents, if known, and
the place and date of birth of such party.
The nearest of kin of the contracting
parties shall be preferred as wit- nesses,
or, in their default, persons of good
reputa- tion in the province or the locality.
The presentation of the birth or baptismal
certificate shall not be required if the
parents of the contracting parties appear
personally before the local civil registrar
concerned and swear to the correctness
of the lawful age of said parties, as stated
in the application, or when the local civil
registrar shall, by merely looking at the
applicants
upon
their
personally
appearing before him, be convinced that
either or both of them have the required
age.

The best proof of ones age is his birth certificate, if the same is not available, his baptismal
cetificate.
If the documents cannot be presented, the applicant may present his current residence
certificate or the affidavit of two witnesses.
The LCR may be satisfied as to the ages of the applicants in proper cases by just looking at
them.


Article 13. In case either of the
contracting parties has been previously
married, the applicant shall be required to
furnish, instead of the birth or baptismal
certificate required in the last preceding
article, the death certificate of the
deceased spouse or the judicial decree of
the absolute divorce, or the judicial
decree of annulment or declaration of
nullity of his or her previous marriage.
In case the death certificate cannot be
secured, the party shall make an affidavit
setting forth this circumstance and his or
her actual status and the name and date
of death of the deceased spouse.
Article 14. In case either or both of the
contracting parties, not having been
emancipated by a previous marriage, are
between the ages of eigh- teen and
twenty-one, they shall, in addition to the
requirements of the preceding articles,
exhibit to the local civil registrar, the
consent to their marriage of their father,
mother, surviving parent or guardian, or
persons having legal charge of them, in
the order mentioned. Such consent shall
be manifested in writing by the interested
party who personally appears before the
proper local civil registrar, or in the form
of an affidavit made in the presence of
two witnesses and attested before any
official authorized by law to administer
oaths. The personal manifestation shall
be recorded in both applications for
marriage license, and the affidavit, if one
is executed instead, shall be attached to
said application.

If the marriage is solemnized WITHOUT the parental consent, required in this article,
the marriage is VIODABLE.

Article 15. Any contracting party between

the ages of twenty-one and twenty-five
shall be obliged to ask their parents or
guardian for advice upon the intended
marriage. If they do not obtain such
advice, or if it be unfavorable, the
marriage license shall not be issued till
after three months following the
completion of the publication of the
application therefor. A sworn statement
by the contracting parties to the effect
that such advice has been sought,
together with the written advice given, if
any, shall be attached to the application
for marriage license. Should the parents
or guardian refuse to give any advice,
this fact shall be stated in the sworn
statement.

Advice is required for contracting parties with ages between 21 and 25

Lack or parental advice will not bar the marriage from taking place. It merely
suspends the issuance of marriage license.

Parental consent is requiredonly if the contracting party is a girl or boy 18 and above
but below 21.
If previously emancipated by a previous marriage, although stil under 21, parental
consent is not needed.

The 3 month period is computed from the completion of the 10-day publication of
application for marriage license.
If they were able to get the marriage license without the required parental advise, the
marriage would still be valid, but they will be criminally and civilly liable for falsifying
their application for marriage license.

Article 16. In the cases where parental

consent or parental advice is needed, the
party or parties concerned shall, in
addition to the requirements of the
preceding articles, attach a certificate
issued by a priest, imam or minister
authorized to solemnize marriage under
Article 7 of this Code or a marriage
counselor duly accredited by the proper
government agency to the effect that the
contracting parties have undergone
marriage counselling. Failure to attach
said certificate of marriage counselling
shall suspend the issuance of the
marriage license for a period of three
months from the completion of the
publication of the application. Issuance of
the marriage license within the prohibited
period shall subject the issuing officer to
administrative sanctions but shall not
affect the validity of the marriage.

The marriage counselling is implicitly done by the imam of the priest, minister or a
duly accredited marriage counselor.

Should only one of the contracting

parties need parental consent or parental
advice, the other party must be present at
the counselling referred to in the
preceding paragraph.
Article 17. The local civil registrar shall
pre- pare a notice which shall contain the
full names and residences of the
applicants for a marriage license and
other data given in the applications. The
notice shall be posted for ten consecutive
days on a bulletin board outside the
office of the local civil registrar located in
a conspicuous place within the building
and accessible to the general public.

Posting of application under this article is INDISPENSABLE requirement to the

issuance of license.

This notice shall request all persons

having knowledge of any impediment to
the marriage to advise the local civil
registrar thereof. The marriage license
shall be issued after the completion of the
period of publication.

REASON: to inform the public of the intended marriage so that if they know of any
legal impediment of the parties, they may inform the LCR about it.

Article 18. In case of any impediment

known to the local civil registrar or
brought to his attention, he shall note
down the particulars thereof and his
findings thereon in the application for a
marriage license, but shall nonetheless
issue said license after the completion of
the period of publication, unless ordered
otherwise by a competent court at his
own instance or that of any interested
party. No filing fee shall be charged for
the petition nor a corresponding bond
required for the issuance of the order.

Only court intervention directing the non-issuance of the marriage license can
empower the local civil registrar to validly refuse to issue said license.

Publication is done by way of notice in the bulletin board outside the office oof the
LCR, oepn to the public.
If a license is issued without complying with this provision and the marriage is
solemnized on the basis of such license, the marriage is stil valid. However, the LCR
who did not comply with this condition will be c,c,a liable.

Included in the phrase interested party are the contracting parties parents,
brothers, sisters, existing spouse, if any, or those which may be prejudiced by the
marriage


Article 19. The local civil registrar shall
require the payment of the fees
prescribed by law or regulations before
the issuance of the marriage license. No
other sum shall be collected in the nature
of a fee or a tax of any kind for the
issuance of said license. It shall,
however, be issued free of charge to
indigent parties, that is, those who have
no visible means of income or whose
income is insufficient for their
subsistence, a fact established by their
affidavit, or by their oath before the local
civil registrar.

The amount is minimal

Article 20. The license shall be valid in

any part of the Philippines for a period of
one hundred twenty (120) days from the
date of issue, and shall be deemed
automatically cancelled at the expiration
of said period if the contracting parties
have not made use of it. The expiry date
shall be stamped in bold characters at the
face of every license issued.

The marriage license is valid only within the Philippines and not abroad.

Article 21. When either or both of the

contracting parties are citizens of a
foreign country, it shall be necessary for
them before a marriage license can be
obtained, to submit a certificate of legal
capacity to contract marriage, issued by
their respective diplomatic or consular
officials.

Citizens of any foreign country may contract marriage in the Philippines.

Stateless persons or refugees from other

coun- tries shall, in lieu of the certificate
of legal capac- ity herein required, submit
an affidavit stating the circumstances
showing such capacity to contract
marriage.

Many people will be discouraged and would rather take a common law cohabitation
if high fees will be imposed for issuance of marriage license.

been issued according to law, except in

marriages provided for in Chapter 2 of
this Title;
5) That either or both of the contracting
par- ties have secured the parental
consent in appropri- ate cases;
6) That either or both of the contracting
par- ties have complied with the legal
requirement re- garding parental advice in
appropriate cases; and

The date of the signing of the local civil registrar of the marriage license is the date
of the issue.
If it is not claimed and therefore not used within 120 days, it shall automatically
become ineffective

A certificate of legal capacity is necessary because the Philippines, in so far as marriage is

concerned, adheres to the national law of the contracting parties with respect to their legal
capacity to contract marriage. Hence, if a sixteen-year-old United States citizen is legally
capacitated to marry in the United States and wants to marry a Filipino here or another foreigner
for that matter, he can do so by obtaining a certificate of legal capacity stating that in the United
States, persons sixteen years of age can be validly married.
However, if the contracting parties who are citizens of a foreign country desire to have their
marriage solemnized by their countrys consul-general officially assigned here in the Philippines,
they can get married before such consul-general without procuring a marriage license here in the
Philippines if their countrys laws allow the same. Such marriage shall be recognized here in the
Philippines.

7) That the parties have entered into a

mar- riage settlement, if any, attaching a
copy thereof.
Article 23. It shall be the duty of the
person solemnizing the marriage to
furnish either of the contracting parties
the original of the marriage certificate
referred to in Article 6 and to send the
duplicate and triplicate copies of the
certificate not later than fifteen days after
the marriage, to the local civil registrar of
the place where the marriage was
solemnized. Proper receipt shall be
issued by the local civil registrar to the
solemnizing officer transmitting copies of
the marriage certificate. The solemnizing
officer shall retain in his file the
quadruplicate copy of the marriage
certificate, the original of the marriage
license and, in proper cases, the affidavit
of the contracting party regarding the
solemnization of the marriage in a place
other than those mentioned in Article 8.

1) The full name, sex and age of each

contracting party;
2) Their citizenship, religion and habitual
residence;
3) The date and precise time of the
celebration of the marriage;
4) That the proper marriage license has

The marriage certificate is NOT an essential or formal requisite of marriage. Failure to sign the
marriage certificate DOES NOT INVALIDATE the marriage.

2.

While not an essential requisite, it is the best evidence of the existence of marriage.
Marriage may be however proved by other evidences such as the testimonies of the witnesses.

Dela Rosa v VDA De Damian

The absence of a record of the contested marriage was asserted to assail
the existence of the marriage, the Supreme Court, after reviewing the
evidence rejected such assertion by stating the following reasons:
1. Passport, title of properties stating Guillermo Rustia married to Josefa
Delgado, more than adequately support the presumption of marriage. These
public documents are prima facie evidence. No clear and convincing
evidence sufficient to overcome the presumption of the truth of the recitals
therein was presented by petitioners
2. The petitioners own witnesses confirmed that Guillermo had proposed to
Josefa and the two had lived together as husband and wife.
3. Baptismal certificate is proof of baptismal, not civil status.

4 copies of the marriage contract/ certificate

must be made as follows:
1.

Article 22. The marriage certificate, in

which the parties shall declare that they
take each other as husband and wife,
shall also state:

Failure to present a marriage certificate is not fatal in a case where a marriage is in

dispute, as the parties can still rely on the presumption of marriage.

3.

The original shall be given to

either of the contracting parties.
The duplicate and triplicate shall
be sent not later than 15 days
after the marriage to the local
civil registrar of the place where
the marriage is solemnized.
The quadruplicate shall be
retained by the solemnizing
officer, together with the
marriage license.

It is the duty of the solemnizing officer to

furnish the copies of the marriage contract.

Petitioners failed to rebut the presumption of marriage of Guillermo Rustia

and Josefa Delgado. In this jurisdiction, every intendment of the law leans
toward legitimizing matrimony.

PROOF TO ATTACK VALIDITY OF MARRIAGE. Anyone assailing the validity of a marriage is

required to make plain, against the constant pressure of the presumption of legality, the truth of
law and fact that the marriage was not legal.


Article 24. It shall be the duty of the
local civil registrar to prepare the
documents required by this Title,
and to administer oaths to all
interested parties without any
charge in both cases. The
documents and affidavits filed in
connection with applications for
marriage licenses shall be exempt
from documentary stamp tax.
Article 25. The local civil registrar
concerned shall enter all applications for
marriage licenses filed with him in a
registry book strictly in the order in which
the same are received. He shall record in
said book the names of the applicants,
the date on which the marriage license
was issued, and such other data as may
be necessary.

Article 26. All marriages solemnized

outside the Philippines, in accordance
with the laws in force in the country
where they are solemnized, and valid
there as such, shall also be valid in this
country, except those prohibited under
Articles 35(1), (4), (5) and (6), 36, 37 and
38.
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
likewise have capacity to remarry under
Philippine law. (n) (As amended by
Executive Order Number 227, July 17,
1987.)

As a general rule, therefore, the Philippines follows the lex loci celebrationis rule
Marriages without a license solemnized abroad, and proxy marriages abroad shall be valid in the
Philippines if such marriages are valid in accordance with the laws in force in the country where
they are solemnized.
EXCEPTIONS. Under the Family Code, if either or both contracting parties are Filipinos and they
are below 18 years of age, their marriage solemnized abroad will not be recognized in the
Philippines as valid even if the marriage is valid in the place where it has been solemnized. Our
law clearly adheres to the rule that the marrying capacity of the contracting parties is governed
by the national law of that party, which is the Philippine law.
Article 15 of the Civil Code provides that laws relating to family rights and duties, or to the status,
conditions and legal capacity of persons are binding upon citizens of the Philippines, even
though living abroad. In the Philippines, persons below 18 years of age are not legally
capacitated to marry.
Bigamous and polygamous marriages, though valid abroad, shall likewise not be recognized in
the Philippines.
Marriage abroad where there is mistake of identity of the other contracting party is also not
recognized in the Philippines.
Republic v Iyoy
After celebration of their marriage, Crasus discovered that Fely was hot-tempered, a
nagger and extravagant. In 1984 Fely left for US, barely after a year, Fely obtained a
divorce decree. Crasus through the letters sent by Fely through their children that she got
married to an American. Fely openly used the surname of her American Husband in th Ph
and the USA.
ISSUE: Is the divorce decree obtained by Fely recognizable?
Held: Art 26 par 2 is not applicable to the case at bar. This provision refers to a special
situation wherein one of the couple getting married is a Filipino citizen and the other a
foreigner at the time of the celebration of marriage. The same cannot be applied to the
case at bar because when Fely obtained her divorce, she was still a Filipino citizen. Art 15
NCC, she was still bound by Phil laws on family rights, duties, status, condition and legal
capacity of persons, even though living abroad.

Republic v Obrecido III

Cipriano and Lady were married in 1981. In 1986, Lady left for the US, obtained American
citizenship and in 2000 obtained a divorce decree and married Stanley. Cipriano filed a
petition for authority to remarry invoking Par 2 of Art 26 of the Fc. The OSG contends that
such provision in not applicable because it applies only to valid marriages bet Filipino and
alien.
Issue: Is Art 26 par 2 applicable to the case at bar?
HELD: Article 26 par 2 should be interpreted to include cases involving parties who, at the
time of celebration of marriage were Filipino citizens, but later on one of them becomes
naturalized as a foreign citizen and obtains a divorce decree. The Filipino should likewise
be allowed to remarry.
Reckoning point: Citizenship at the time a valid divorce decree is obtained by the alien
spouse.


Corpuz v Sto. Tomas
Pet. Gerbert Corpuz was a former Filipino citizen who acquired Canadian citizenship
through naturalization on Nov 29, 2000. Gerbert married Res. Daisylyn, a Filipina. He
returned to the Phil in April 2005, but found out that his wife was having an affair. Gerbert
returned to Canada and filed a petition for divorce. Two years after the divorce, Gerbert
wanted to contract another marriage with a Filipina, he went to the Pasig City Civil
Registry Office and registered the Canadian divorce decree on his and Daisylyns
marriage cert.
Despite the registration, an official of the NSO informed Gerbert that the marriage bet him
and Daisylyn still subsists under Ph laws; to be enforceable, the foreign divorce decree
must first be judicially recognized by a competent Ph court.
Gerbert filed a petition for judicial declaration of foreign divorce decree and declaration of
marriage as dissolved with the RTC. RTC concluded that Gerbert was not the proper party
to institute action for judicial recognition as he is a naturalized Canadian citizen.
nd
ISSUE: Whether the 2 par of Art 26 extends to aliens the right to petition a court of this
jurisdiction for the recognition of the foreign divorce decree.
nd

Held: The alien spouse can claim no right under the 2 par of Art 26, as the substantive
right it establishes is in favor of the Filipino spouse. Only the Filipino spouse can invoke
this provision; the alien spouse can claim no right.

Fujiki v Marinay
Pet. Minoru Fujiki is a Jap national who marries Res. Maria Marinay in the Ph. Marinay
met another Japanes, Maekara and they were married without having the marriage with
Fujiki dissolved. Fujiki and Marinay met in Japan and re-established their relationship. In
2010, Fujiki helped Marinay obtain a judgment from a family court in Japan which declared
the marriage of Marinay and Maekara void on the ground of bigamy.
RTC took view that only the husband or the wife Marinay or Maekara, can file the
petition to declare their marriage void and not Fujiki.
ISSUE: WON Fujiki has the personality to file the petition to recognize the Judgment of the
Jap family Court.
HELD: Yes, because the judgment concerns his civil status as married to Marinay. There
is no doubt that the prior spouse has a personal and material interest in maintaining the
integrity of the marriage he contracted and the family relations arising from it. When the
right of the spouse to protect his marriage is violated, the spouse is clearly an injured party
and is therefor interested in the judgment of the suit. For this purpose, he can petition a
court to recognize a foreign judgment nullifying the bigamous marriage and judicially
declare as a fact that such judgment is effective in the Philippines.

Chapter 2
Marriages Exempt from
License Requirement

Marriages exempt from license requirement:

1.
Marriage in Articulo mortis (Art 27)
2.
Residence of either party is in a remote place (Art 28)
3.
Marriage among Muslims or among members of ethnic cultural communities,
provided they are solemnized in accordance with their customs, rites or practices (Art
33)
4.
Cohabited for 5 years, not barred by legal impediments at the time of marriage (Art
34)

Article 27. In case either or both of the

contracting parties are at the point of
death, the marriage may be solemnized
without necessity of a marriage license
and shall remain valid even if the ailing
party subsequently survives.

The marriage will remain valid even if the ailing party subsequently survives.

Article 28. If the residence of either

party is so located that there is no
means of transportation to enable
such party to appear personally
before the local civil registrar, the
marriage may be solemnized without
necessity of a marriage license

If the residence of either party is so located that there is no means of transportation to enable
such party to appear personally before the local civil registrar

Article 29. In the cases provided for

in the two preceding articles, the
solemnizing officer shall state in an
affidavit executed before the local
civil registrar or any other person
legally authorized to administer
oaths that the marriage was
performed in articulo mortis or that
the residence of either party,
specifying the barrio or barangay, is
so located that there is no means of
transportation to enable such party
to appear personally before the local
civil registrar and that the officer
took the necessary steps to
ascertain the ages and relation- ship
of the contracting parties and the
absence of a legal impediment to the
marriage.

Purpose of Affidavit is for basis of proving the exemption from the marriage license.
Even if such there is failure on the part of the solemnizing officer to execute the
necessary affidavit, such irregularity will not invalidate the marriage for the affidavit is
not being required of the parties.


Article 30. The original of the
affidavit required in the last
preceding article, together with a
legible copy of the marriage
contract, shall be sent by the person
solemnizing the marriage to the
local civil registrar of the
municipality where it was performed
within the period of thirty days after
the performance of the marriage.

Failure to comply with said requirement will not invalidate the marriage.

Article 31. A marriage in articulo

mortis between passengers or crew
members may also be solemnized
by a ship captain or by an airplane
pi- lot not only while the ship is at
sea or the plane is in flight, but also
during stopovers at ports of call.

Article 32. A military commander of

a unit, who is a commissioned
officer, shall likewise have authority
to solemnize marriages in articulo
mortis between persons within the
zone of military operation, whether
members of the armed forces or
civilians.

Article 34. 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.

he or she can only solemnize a marriage if it is in articulo mortis and in the absence
of a chaplain. The marriage must be solemnized within the zone of military operation
and during such military operation. The contracting parties may either be members
of the armed forces or civilians.
The military commander must be a commissioned officer.

Chapter 3
Void and Voidable Marriages
Article 33. Marriages among
Muslims or among members of the
ethnic cultural communities may be
performed validly without the
necessity of a marriage license,
provided they are solemnized in
accordance with their customs, rites
or practices.

Muslims and ethnic groups are exempted only from procuring a marriage license for
as long as the marriage will be solemnized in accordance with their customs, rites
and practices.

Article 35. The following marriages

shall be void from the beginning:
1) Those contracted by any party
below eighteen years of age even
with the consent of parents or
guardians;
2) Those solemnized by any person
not legally authorized to perform
marriages unless such marriages
were contracted with either or both
par- ties believing in good faith that
the solemnizing officer had the legal

It must be observed that their living together as husband and wife must meet two
distinct conditions namely:
1)
2)

they must live as such for at least five years characterized by exclusivity
and continuity that is unbroken. (Republic v Dayot)
They must be without any legal impediment to marry each other.

The second condition as to the absence of any legal impediment must be construed
to refer only to the time of the actual marriage celebration. Hence, the parties must
be without legal impediment only at the time of the marriage ceremony and not
during all those previous five (5) years.

Nial v Badayog


authority to do so;
3) Those solemnized without a
license, except those covered by the
preceding Chapter;
4) Those bigamous or polygamous
marriages not falling under Article
41;
5) Those contracted through
mistake of one contracting party as
to the identity of the other; and
6) Those subsequent marriages that
are void under Article 53.