CASES AND ADDITIONAL THINGS TO REMEMBER Article 1 Saclolo vs. CAR nature of marriage Skinner vs.

vs. State of Oklahoma marriage is one of the basic civil rights of man Bove vs. Pinnioti marriage is not at most a civil contract. It is at least a civilc o n t r a c t b e c a u s e t h e c o n t r a c t i n g p a r t i e s m u s t g i v e t h e i r f u l l a n d f r e e consent/agreement to it. But unlike other contracts, it cannot be dissolved orbreached just because the expected outcome did not materialize. PT&T vs. NLRC as a special contract, marriage cannot be restricted by anydiscriminatory rule/regulations/policies. State vs. Tabby m arria ge creates a special status or relation bet wee ncontracting parties Magee vs. Young the state is interested in marriage Zulueta vs. ZA although marriage establishes a permanent union, it does notshed the parties individual integrity and privacy. Ninal vs. Bayadog as a general rule, the law in force during the time of themarriage shall govern the marriage. Bayogbog vs. CA exception to the rule (Provisions of the Spanish code wasnot implemented in the Philippines, thus, the laws in force when the case wasbrought to the court) LAWS GOVERNING MARRIAGE A.Before 192 9 : the Spanish civil code; but there are provisions that nevertook effect in the Philippines like Art. 53 and 54. B.1929 until Aug ust 29, 195 0 Ma rri age L aws of 1929. C.August 30, 195 0 until Aug ust 2, 1988 Ci vil Code of the Philippi nes D.August 3, 1988 u ntil prese nt Fam ily code of the Philippines Note: The Principle that the validity of marriage is determined by the law effective during the celebration of the marriage is further highlighted by the fact that AS A GENERAL RULE, THE NATURE OF THE MARRIAGE ALREADY CELEBRATED CANNOTBE CHANGED BY A SUBSEQUENT AMENDMENT TO THE LAW. Void marriage cannot be cured. Thus while Art 256 of the family code provides that the la w shall h ave retroactive effect in so far as it does not prej udice or im pairvested rights, the retroactivity clause is a general one and does not expressly anddirectly validate a previous void marriage under the Civil Code. There is on e clear case wh e re the Fam ily code allows the filling of a petition todeclare a marriage void even if the ground was not statutorily provided for a voidmarriage under the Civil Code: Article 36 (psychological incapacity -- no longer hasa prescriptive period) A case where this is the ground may be filed regardless of whether the marriage has been celebrated before or after August 3, 2004. Article 2-6 Chi Ming Tsoi vs. CA procreation as one of the essential marital obligationsunder the Family Code is based on the universal principle that

procreation of children through sexual union is one of the basic ends of marriage. M.T vs. J.T after sexual change, the sex is already changed, thus, that personcan already contract marriage. Teter vs. Teter consent requisite to marriage relation need not, however beexpressed in any special manner or particular form. (page 114) Local Government Code was instituted on January 1, 1992. eople vs. Janssen if marriage is issued in a place other than the residence of the contracting party, the marriage performed on the basis of such a marriagelicense is still valid. Payne vs. Payne The commission of perjury or deception on the part of thecontracting parties as to their age in order to avoid the statutory requirement of parental consent is not a cause to invalidate a marriage obtained through suchmarriage license. The marriage certificate is not an essential nor formal requirement of marriage.Failure to sign a marriage certificate itself does not render the marriage void orannullable (Madridejo vs. de leon) Balogbog vs. CA. The absence of witness is merely and irregularity which willnot render a marriage void. Eugenio Sr vs. Velez Philippine law does not recognize common law marriages.Persons representing themselves as husbands and wives and has been livingtogether for such a long peri od of tim e wit hout m arriage are considered married in common law jurisdiction but not in the Philippines. Cosca vs. Palaypayon the practice of judge of requiring the parties to sign thecontract before asking for their declaration is highly improper but will not affectthe validity of the marriage. Hermosisima vs. CA mere breach of promise to marry is not an actionablewrong. W assm er vs. Velez Breach of prom ise to m arry attendant wit h form allysetting a wedding and going through all the preparation can be liable under art21 (CC) Article7

A vice mayor may act on behalf of the mayor and authorize marriages (Peoplevs. Bustamante)

Article 21 Garcia vs. Recio -- If without a certificate of legal capacity and the marriagelicense is nonetheless issues, the m arriage celebrated on the basis of suchmarriage licenses shall not considered void for it is merely an irregularity. Article 22 and 23 Nicdao-Carino vs. Carino -- The certification of the civil registry shall enjoy highprobative value. Article 26

No state is bound y comm ittee to g ive effect in its court to laws which arerepugnant to its own laws and good order of society (Brimson vs. Brimson) W oo W oo Yin vs. Vivo If the la w in the foreign country (ex. China ) is not proven, it would be assumed by the court that it has laws the same as in thePhilippines Divorce initiated by a Filipino is against public policy (Cang vs. CA, Techavex vs.Escano) Garcia vs. Recio - If the Filipino is already naturalized, Art 26 will not apply butthe law where he was naturalized.

Aquino vs. Deli zo four m onths pregnancy is still unconceivabl e, there is concealment. Foss vs. Foss the husband knew before marriage of the unchaste character of the spouse, thus no ground for legal separation.

Article 47 Brown vs. Yambao the court can take notice of prescription even if it is notalleged in the answer in an annulment case. Article 48 Cardenas vs. Cardenas and Rehn, Ocampo vs. Floren c i o J u d g m e n t o n stipulation of facts and confession of judgment is no prohibited so long as it iscorroborated by independent evidences. Article 49 Silva vs. CA visitation rights should be given to the parent not awarded withcustody unless there are compelling reasons to rule otherwise. Article 50 Valdez vs. RTC Art 50 applies on to subsequent void marriages contracted y aspouse of a prior marriage before the latter is judicially declared void. For voidmarriages, the rule on co-ownership shall apply Article 55 Prather vs. Prather sex with a cow; imperil the wifes life. Symthe vs. Symthe A separation where both of the spouses willingly concur isnot a willful desertion of one by the other. Article 56 Ocampo vs. Florencio the failure of a husband to look for his erring spousedoes not constitute condonation Alm acen vs. Baltazar the act of the spouse of giving m oney to not filingcharges does not constitute condonation. People vs. Sensano the consent of a spouse maybe deduced from his actions. Greene vs. Greene volenti non fit injuria Whitherspoon vs Whiterspoon connivance Article 58 Pacete vs. Carriaga -- The non-observance of the 6 months cooling off periodm ay set aside the decision of the lower court. For as long as separation is inserted in any case, the mandatory requirement must be complied with. Arroyo vs. Vasquez If the petition is deni ed, the court cannot com pel thespouses to live together for marital obligations are purely personal in character. Article 74-77 Toda, Jr. vs. CA a separation of property cannot be effected by meree

Article 34 Manzano vs. Sanchez Requirement for article 34 is only that there should beno legal impediment at the time of the celebration of the marriage. Article 35 Domingo vs. CA -- For purposes of remarriage, the only acceptable proof toshow the voi dness of the first m arriage is a judicial declarati on issued b y a court directly stating that the first marriage is null and void (Domingo vs. CA). Article 36 Tuazon vs. CA -- Th e findin g of the trial court as to the e xistence or non -existence of the psychological incapacity shall be binding upon the SC unless itcan be sufficiently shown that the trail court erred. Article 38 Back vs. Back judicial declaration of nullity of marriage shall dissolve Affinity. Article 39 Chi Ming Tsoi vs. CA -- Any of the parties of a void marriage may file for nullitycase even though such party is the wrong doer Article 40

Article 41 Gomez vs. Lipana as a general rule, marriage contracted during the lifetimeof the first spouse is null and void. People vs. Arcilla-- The declaration of presumptive death will still be primafacie, and can be overthrown by evidence RP vs. Nolasco the absence of diligent search on the present spouse negatesthat there is well founded belief to presume that the spouse is dead. Article 46 Bucat vs. Bucat six m onths pregnancy is already conceivab le, thus, noconcealment

xecution of a cont ract or ag reem ent of the parties but by the decree of thecourt approving the same. Article 87 Rodriguez vs. Rodriguez the selling of the property from the spouse to thedaughter to the father cannot be nullified because all are guilty, no one mayrecover what was given by virtue of the contract. COMMENTS ON CASESBY MEL STA. MARIA BALOGBOG CASE W itness testified he didnt see or h ear th e actual exchange of vows. Heonly testified I saw the wedding! SC said that the actual exchange of vows couldbe presumed because there was an actual wedding ceremony, as testified by thewitness. [As long as the witness saw there was a wedding ceremony, the court thenmakes a presumption that the exchange of vows took place.] NAVARRO CASE Authority of solem nizin g offi cer is a form al requirem ent. The GENERALRULE is that for solemnizing officers:1 . I N C U M B E N T j u d g e / mayor2.WITHIN its jurisdiction a b s e n c e o f a u t h o r i t y , t r e a t e d a s n o a u t h o r i t y , s o V o i d marriage. Navarro case stated that if the solemnizing officer celebrated the marriagebeyond its jurisdiction, this is just an irregularity. Especially if both partieswere in good faith, or one of them was in good faith.MTC / RTC JUDGE-within its jurisdiction, eg. Makati onlyCA / SC JUSTICES-entire Philippines SY v. CA Lower court nullified a marriage because of psychological incapacity. SCagreed that it was a void marriage, but the ground was different it was based onlack of marriage license! The general rule is that if you do nt assign an error in judgm ent, theappellate court will not tackle that unassigned error or issue. But in this case, evenif the issue was unassigned, it was so obvious from the records that there was nom arriage license, so the SC could validl y render a judgm ent that indee d themarriage is void because there was no marriage license. Garcia-Recio case A married B(Australian). B got a divorce, went back to the Philippines tomarry again. Can he validly do so?SC said YES he can, if the divorce is ABSOLUTE. If it was just a RELATIVEdivorce, he cant marry. Relative Divorce is just Legal Separation.SC also said, Art. 26 of the Family Code (FC) is irrelevant. What will applyis Art. 15 of the Civil Code (CC), which is the NATIONALITY RULE. MEL STA.MARIA discussion

If a foreigner wants to get marri ed in the Phili ppines, he needs to get a CERTIFICATE OF LEGAL CAPACITY from his EMBASSY or CONSUL. But in one SCcase, it was held that the non-forwarding or non-presentation of the Certificate of Legal Capacity was just an irregularity, especially if the parties were able to acquirea MARRIAGE LICENSE, then that makes the Marriage is valid! [in short, marriagelicense is the ultimate requirement, & not the Certificate of Legal Capacity. Coz thegeneral rule is before you could apply for a marriage license, the foreigner mustpresent his Cert. Of Legal Capacity.] DOCTRINE OF TRIENNIAL COHABITATION If the wife is still virgin 3 years after the celebration of marriage, then it ispresumed that the husband is[alam nyo na dapat eto go see Mels book] DOSENA case If petitioners are both Husband & wife, and it involved CONJUGAL assets,the signature of only 1 spouse is valid. H & W are JOINT ADMINISTRATORS, courtspresume that one knows what the other is doing! UY case H & W, H-comatose, so W assumes SOLE POWER OF ADMINISTRATION.SC said, if wife assumes Sole Power of Administration, you need to get aCOURT ORDER.Court Order: it depends on the ff circumstances.If incapacity is STROKE - go to RULES OF COURT & file GUARDIANSHIP proceedings.If incapacity is ABANDONME NT - it is SUMMARY PROCEE DING under theFAMILY CODE.What is important is you still need a COURT ORDER! ART. 151 EARNEST EFFORTS No suit between family members shall prosper. Art. 151 applies only to CIVIL CASES.CUSTODY cases- this is in SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS, NOT A CIVIL CASE soNO earnest efforts required.GUARDIANSHIP, INTESTATE cases- this is in SPECPRO, NOT A CIVIL CASE,NO earnest efforts required.NULLITY, ANNULMENT, LEGAL SEPARATION cases- NO EARNEST EFFORTS!Why? Coz even if these 3 are CIVIL CASES, the law does not allow these cases to becompromised!RULES- if suit is:1.CIVIL earnest efforts requi red. CRIM/SPECPRO - no earnest efforts. 2 . e v e n i f C I V I L b u t f a l l s u n d e r N U L L I T Y , A N N U L M E N T , L E G A L SEPARATION- no earnest efforts required, coz the law does not allowthese cases to be compromised.3.if STRANGER[S] are INVOVLED- NO earnest efforts requi red. PATERNITY & FILIATION 1.Action to im pugn legitim acy of child - m ust be a direct suit. 2.Main action is for partition of property, but a collateral action was institutedto impugn the legitimacy of a child. Is this valid? SC said YES, if it was proven that the m other was BARREN! (dipuede magka-anak) The whole chapter of PATERNITY & FILIATION H A S 2 ASSUMPTIONSa . M A R R I A G E i s V A L I D b . C H I L D i s U N D I S P U T A B L Y O F T H E W I F E - if these 2 assum ptions were not m et, then it falls under the BAVIERA v. CATOTAL

case, wherein the action was for partition & t h e c h i l d w a s p r o v e n t o b e f a l s e l y c l a i m i n g l e g i t i m a c y o r ille gitimacy, as the MOTHER was PROVEN TO BE BARREN! UNICA HIJA CASE Rich parents died. A person claims that she was a daughter. Brothers & sisters of the deceased parents que stioned the standing of the daug hter. The dau ght er argue d that onl y the Husband can im pugn her status in a direct action. Is the daughter correct?SC: WRONG un daughter! Why? It was proven that the daughter did notcome from the mother, so the Rules on Paternity & Filiation will NOT apply. This is ablatant case of FALSIFICATION of BIRTH CERTIFICATE. So the RULE is: CHECK FIRST if the child cam e out from the Mother, before yo uapply the Rules on Paternity & Filiation!!!KANG CASEW files Legal Separation case against H. W won. H went to the U.S. W now wants toadopt her children, & asks court to designate h er as the one who will e xe rciseParental Authority, based on ART. 213 of Family Code.SC: Termination of Parental Authority is always with Cause, & must be expresslyprovided by the court. In this legal separation case, there is no showing that theParental Authority of H was terminated.ART. 213 of FC merely DESIGNATES the person who will exercise parentalauthority. It does not mean that H being the guilty spouse, will Automatically losehis parental authority.For ABANDONMENT to apply- it means total, absolute, cessation of Family Duties. Inthe Kang Case, there was no abandonment, because the H had contact with thechildren, thru overseas phone calls, albeit it was seldom. SALIENT FEATURES ON ADOPTION 1. B e f o r e a 3 rd party could a d opt, earnest efforts to look for a possible adopter within the extended family. 2. 2.if the bab y sought to be a d opted is still inside the wom b of the m other, anycontract or a greem ent of adoption entered by the bi ological p arents is VOID! 3. 3 . A d o p t e r c a n n o t r e s c i n d A d o p t i o n , o n l y t h e A d o p t e d p e r s o n c a n . B u t t h e Adopter can Disinherit the Adopted person. 4. 4.Unde r Fam ily Cod e - Aliens cannot adopt (this was old rule )Under Domestic Adoption Law- Aliens can now adopt (new rule) 5. 5.Look for the 3 E xce ptions or grounds to exem pt the aliens from procuringCertificate of Legal Capacity or Certificate of Residency. legally free child in intercountry adoption, means that the child is voluntarily orinvoluntarily committed to social welfare agency. Can you file intercountry adoption application in the regular courts? Yes, but the court will just determine if all the papers are complete & willr e f e r i t t o t h e I N T E R C O U N T R Y A D O P T I O N B O A R D f o r t h e p r o p e r determination of Adoption. (in short, pupunta pa rin yun sa IntercountryAdoption Board so you better go there initially, not to the courts)