PEOPLEv.

SANTIAGO
PLAINTIFFAPPELLEE:ThePeopleofthePhilippineIslands
DEFENDANTAPPELLANT:FelipeSantiago
DOCTRINE:
In relation with the course syllabus topic from which the case is filed under, the marriage between
SantiagoandMasilangcannotbeconsideredasvalidbecauseitlackedtheessential(marriage)requisite
ofconsentfreelygiven
NATURE:
ThisisanappealbroughttotheSupremeCourttoreversethejudgmentoftheCourtofFirstInstanceof
the Province of Nueva Ecija finding the appellant guilty of rape and sentencing him to undergo
imprisonment,reclusiontemporal;requiringhimtoendowtheoffendedparty;requiringhimtorecognize
andmaintaintheoffspring,ifthereshouldbeany,asconsequenceoftherape;andrequiringhimtopay
furthercosts.
FACTS:
FelicitaMasilang(victim),aged18,wasFelipeSantiagos(appellant)niecebymarriage.OnNovember
23,1926,theappellantaskedthevictimtoaccompanyhimtocrosstheriverandfromthereheledherto
aplacefarfromthehighwaywithtallgrasshidingthemfrompublicview.Theappellantmanifesteda
desiretohavesexualintercoursewiththegirlbutsherefused;however,theappellantsucceededby
forcinghimselfonher.Theappellantthenbroughtthevictimtothenearbyhouseofhisuncle,Agaton
Santiago.Intheafternoon,aprotestantministerwasbroughtintoconductaceremonythatmarriedthe
appellantandthevictim.
ISSUE:
WONthemarriageoftheappellantandthevictimisconsideredvalidtoexempthimfromcriminal
liability.NO.
RATIO:
Thecourtfoundthattheoffenseofrapehasindeedbeencommitted,butthemarriageceremonywasonly
amereruseoftheappellanttoescapefromcriminalliability.TheactionsofSantiagobeforeandafter
the marriage would prove that he really had no intention to marry Masilang other than for the
aforementionedreason.Furthermore,becausethevictimwasunderduress,themarriageisvoidforlack
ofconsent.Consequently,theappellantisnotexemptfromcriminalliability.Thejudgmentappealed
fromisinaccordancewithlaw,andwillbeaffirmed.Costsagainsttheappellant.

WASSMERv.VELEZ

Facts:

VelezandWassmer,afteramutualpromiseoflove,decidetogetmarriedandsetSeptember4,

1954asweddingdate.
September2,1954Velezleftanotesayingthattheweddinghastobepostponedbecausehis
parentsopposesofit,onlytosaythatnothingchangedthenextday.Butheneverreturned.
WassmersuedVelezfordamages.Velezfilednoanswerandwasdeclaredadefault.Velezwas
orderedtopayPhP2,000.00actualdamages,PhP25,000.00moralandexemplary,PhP2,500.00
attorneysfees.
June21,1955Velezfiledforapetitionforrelieffromorders,judgmentandproceedingsand
motion for a new trial and reconsideration. Court ordered attorneys to appear to explore a
possibilityofanamicablesettlement.Velezdeferredagainbeforeinformingthe courtthat
amicablesettlementhadnilchances.Courtdeniedpetition.
VelezappealstoSCsayingexcusablenegligenceisgroundtosetasidejudgment;thatthe
judgmentiscontrarytolaw,sayingthatmerebreachofapromisetomarryisnotanactionable
wrong.

Issue: Whether or not judgment can set aside because of a breach of marriages nature as not an
actionablewrong.

Doctrine: Damagescanbeclaimedfromabreachofmarriagewhenthereisproofofanactionable
wrong.

Held:Apparently,therewerealreadyalotofexpensesandeventsinpreparationofthewedding,before
Velezwalkedoutwhenthematrimonyisalreadyoughttobesolemnized.Thisispalpablyand
unjustifiablycontrarytogoodcustoms.Damagesmaybeclaimedforsuchacts.Lowercourtsdecision
wasappealed,moralandexemplarydamageswerereducedbutstillawarded.

TANJANCOv.CA
PETITIONER:ApolonioTanjanco
RESPONDENTS:CourtofAppealsandAraceliSantos
FACTS:
FromDecember,1957,petitionerAPOLONIOTANJANCOcourtedtherespondent,ARACELI
SANTOS,bothbeingoflegalage.Tanjancoexpressedandprofessedhisundyingloveandaffectionfor
Santoseventuallyreciprocatedsuchfeelings.Tanjancospromiseofmarriageinmind,Santosaccededto
hispleasforcarnalknowledgesometimeinJuly,1958.Foroneyear,Tanjancohadcarnalaccessto
SantoswhicheventuallyledtoSantosgettingpregnant.Asaresultofherpregnancy,Santoshadtoresign
fromherjobassecretaryinIBMPhilippines,Inc.InherstateofunemploymentSantosbecameunableto
supportherselfandherbaby,andbecauseTanjancodidnotfulfillhispromiseofmarriageshesuffered
mentalanguish,abesmirchedreputation,woundedfeelings,moralshock,andsocialhumiliation.Santos
prayedtothecourtthatTanjancobecompelledtorecognizetheunbornchildshewasbearing,andpay
herforsupportanddamages.Tanjancofiledamotiontodismisswhichthecourtgrantedforfailureto
statecauseofaction.SantosappealedthecasetotheCourtofAppealsandthelatterdecidedthecase,
statingthatnocauseofactionwasshowntocompelrecognitionoftheunbornchildnorforitssupport,

butacauseofactionwaspresentfordamages,underArticle21oftheCivilCode.Tanjancoappealed
suchdecisionpleadingthatactionsforbreachofapromisetomarryarenotpermissibleinthis
jurisdiction.
ISSUES:
WONTanjancoiscompelledtopayfordamagestoSantosforbreachofhispromisetomarryher
HELD:
Initsdecision,CourtofAppealsrelieduponthememorandumsubmittedbytheCodeCommissiontothe
Legislaturein1949tosupporttheoriginaldraftoftheCivilCode.Intheexamplesetforthbythe
memorandum,CourtofAppealsfailedtorecognizethatitreferstoatortuponaminorwhohasbeen
seduced.Seductionconnotestheideaofdeceit,enticement,superiorpowerorabuseofconfidenceonthe
partoftheseducertowhichthewomanhasyielded.Thatdefinitionofseductionisnotconsistentwith
thepositionofSantos,whowasoflegalage,andgrantedcarnalaccesstoTanjancoandhadsexual
relationswithhimforonewholeyear.Ratherthanbeingdeceived,Santosexhibitedmutualpassionto
Tanjancowhichisincompatiblewiththepremisebehindtheideaofseduction.
DecisionofCourtofAppealsisreversed,andthatoftheCourtofFirstInstanceisaffirmed.Complaintof
Santosisdismissedforfailuretostatecauseofaction

DEJESUSv.SYQUIA
PLAINTIFFAPPELLANT:ANTONIAL.DEJESUS,ETAL.
DEFENDANTAPPELLANT:CESARSYQUIA
FACTS:
PlaintiffAntoniaLoancoDeJesusworkedasacashierforabarbershopofwhichdefendantCesarSyquia,
anunmarriedmanfromaprominentfamily,wasaccustomedtogethishaircut.Thetwobecame
acquaintedanddevelopedanamorousrelationship,whichresultedtoAntoniagettingpregnantandgiving
birthtoababyboyonJune17,1931.DuringtheearlymonthsofAntoniaspregnancy,defendantwasa
constantvisitoratherhome,andinFebruary1931,hehandedAntoniaaletter,whichwasaddressedto
thepriestwhowastochristenthebabyacknowledgingthatthebabyishisandthatitbechristenedinhis
name.Defendantshowedpaternalinterestinthesituationthatevenwhenhewasabroad,hecontinuedto
writetoAntoniacautioninghertotakecareofherselfsothatjuniorwouldbestrong.Aftergivingbirth,
SyquiatookAntoniaandthechildinhishousewheretheylivedtogetherinregularfamilystylewithall
householdexpensespaidforbySyquia.WhenAntoniashowedsignsofasecondpregnancy,Syquialeft
herandthereaftermarriedanotherwoman.Duringthechristeningofthechild,thedefendantcausedthe
childtobegiventhenameIsmaelLoancoinsteadoftheoriginallyplannedCesarSyquia,Jr.
ISSUES:
1. WONthebreachofpromisetomarryisactionable.
2. WONthelettersmadebydefendantprovesufficiencyofacknowledgmentofpaternity.
HELD:

1. TheSupremeCourtaffirmedthedecisionofthetrialcourtinrefusingtogivedamagestoAntonia
forbreachofpromisetomarry.Theactionhasnostandingincivillaw,apartfromtherightto
recovermoneyorpropertyadvancedbytheplaintiffuponthefaithofsuchpromise.Thiscase
exhibitsnoneofthefeaturesnecessarytomaintainsuchanaction.Furthermore,thereisnoproof
uponwhichajudgmentcouldbebasedrequiringthedefendanttorecognizethesecondchild,
PacitaLoanco.
2. Thesufficiencyofacknowledgementofpaternityissatisfiedbytheproductionofoneormore
documents,ofindubitableauthenticity,writtenbytherecognizingfather,ascontemplatedin
subsection1ofarticle135oftheCivilCode.Theadmissionofpaternityiscontainedinthenote
tothepriestandtheotherlettersaddressedtoAntoniaduringherpregnancy.

PICCININNIv.HAJUS
FACTS:
Thepetitioner,Piccininni,claimsthatthedefendant,Hajus,madehimbelievethattheywouldget
marriedandliveatherhouse.Becauseofthis,Piccininnispent$40,000torenovateandimprove
herhouse.
Hajusclaimedthatshecantbechargedwithfraudandthatwhatshecommittedwasabreachof
promisetomarry.Therefore,noactioncanbebroughtuponherbecauseoftheHeartBalmAct.
TheHeartBalmActstatesnoactionshallbebroughtuponanycausefromalienationof
affectionsorfrombreachofpromisetomarry.
TrialcourtruledthattheHeartBalmActbarsPiccininnifromchargingHajus.Casebroughtto
SC.
ISSUE:
WONPiccinninicanrecoverhispropertyinlightoftheHeartBalmAct
HELD:
Yes.Piccininniisnotaskingfordamagesbecauseofabrokenheartoramortifiedspirit.Heisaskingfor
thereturnofthingswhichhegavetoHajusbecauseofherfraudulentrepresentations.Picininnidoesnot
assertthatHajuswrongedhiminfailingtomarryhim.Hejustassertedthatshewrongedhimin
fraudulentlyinducinghimtotransferpropertytoher.Hiscomplaintisbasedonwhatshedid,andnoton
whatsherefusedtodo.
Hence,trialcourtsjudgmentwasreverse.

NAVARROv.DOMAGTOY
COMPLAINANT:RodolfoNavarro
RESPONDENT:JudgeHernandoDomagtoy
FACTS:

PetitionerRodolfoG.Navarrosubmittedevidenceinrelationtotwospecificactscommittedby
respondentMunicipalCircuitTrialCourtJudgeHernandoDomagtoy,which,hecontends,exhibitsgross
misconductaswellasinefficiencyinofficeandignoranceofthelaw:
1.) RespondentjudgesolemnizedtheweddingbetweenGasparA.TagadanandArlynF.Borga,
despitetheknowledgethatthegroomismerelyseparatedfromhisfirstwife.(Inviolationof
Art.41oftheFC)
2.) RespondentjudgeperformedamarriageceremonybetweenFlorianoDadorSumayloand
GemmaG.delRosarioattherespondentjudgesresidenceintheMunicipalofDapa,which
doesnotfallwithinhisjurisdictionalareaofthemunicipalitiesofSta.MonicaandBurgos.(In
violationofArt.7Par.1oftheFC)
Inresponse,JudgeDomagtoyclaimedthathisactofsolemnizingthemarriagebetweenGasparTagadan,
amarriedmanseparatedfromhiswife,andArlynF.Borgawaspredicatedonanaffidavitsupposedly
issuedbytheMunicipalTrialJudgeofBasey,Samar,confirmingthefactthatMr.Tagadanandhisfirst
wifehavenotseeneachotherforalmostsevenyears.Withrespecttothesecondcharge,hemaintainsthat
insolemnizingthemarriagebetweenSumayloanddelRosario,hedidnotviolateArticle7Par.1ofthe
FamilyCode,andthathemerelyworkedwithintheambitofArt.8ofthesamecode,whichprovidesfor
otherpossiblevenuestosolemnizeamarriage.
ISSUES:
WONrespondentexhibitedgrossmisconductandignoranceofthelaw.
RULING:
RespondentJudgeHernandoC.DomagtoyisSUSPENDEDforaperiodofsix(6)monthsandgivena
STERNWARNINGthatarepetitionofthesameorsimilaractswillbedealtwithmoreseverely.
RATIODECIDENDI:
YES.JudgeDomagtoysgrossignoranceofverybasiclegalprinciplesenshrinedintheFamily
Coderesultedtoabigamousandthereforevoidmarriageforthefirstmarriagehesolemnized,and
tothesecond,alackofthenecessaryauthorityofthesolemnizingofficer,sincehesolemnized
themarriageoutsideofhisjurisdiction.
JudgeDomagtoysrelianceonthesaidaffidavitofTagadans7yearseparationwithhisformer
wife,whichsaidaffidavitwasproventohavenotbeenissuedbytheMTCJudgeofBasey,Samar
butonlyswornbeforehim,isinsufficientjustificationforhishavingsolemnizedTagadans
secondmarriageonthebasisofhiswifespresumptivedeath.RegardlessofwhetherTagadanhad
awellfoundedbeliefthathiswife,whohadnotbeenheardofforalmost7years,wasdead,it
wasstillnecessaryforhimtohaveundergoneasummaryproceedingofficiallydeclaringhis
formerwifespresumptivedeath.Absentsuchmandatoryproceeding,thesubsequentmarriageis
consideredbigamoustherefore,void.
Art.7Par.1oftheFamilyCodeprovidesthatmarriagemaybesolemnizedby"anyincumbent
memberofthejudiciarywithinthecourt'sjurisdiction.FormembersoftheAppellateand
Supremecourts,thisjurisdictionextendsthroughoutthePhilippines(ie.CAandSC
judges/justicescansolemnizemarriagesregardlessofvenue,solongastherequisitesaremet).

Thesamecannotbesaid,however,forjudgeswhoareappointedtospecificjurisdictions(eg.
MTCjudges);theymayonlyofficiateweddingswithintheirareas;theylacktheauthorityto
solemnizeweddingsinareasbeyondtheirjurisdiction.Whilethismaynotaffectthevalidityof
themarriage,itnonethelessresultstoanirregularityintheformalrequisitelaiddowninArticle3,
namely,theauthorityofthesolemnizingofficer,which,asaresult,maysubjecttheofficiating
officialtoadministrativeliability.Meanwhile,therespondentsdefenseontheapplicabilityof
Art.8inthesamecodecannotstandsince
a. Therequisitesforholdingthemarriageoutsideoftheofficialvenueslistedthereinarenot
satisfiedinthiscasesinceonlyoneandnotbothofthepartiesrequestedanothervenue,
andthepartiesareneitheratthepointofdeathnorinaremoteplace
b. Art.8.isonlyadirectoryprovisionanddoesnotalterorqualifytheauthorityofa
solemnizingofficer.

ARANESv.OCCIANO
PETITIONER:MerceditasMataAranes
RESPONDENT:JudgeSalvadorM.Occiano,
FACTS:
AraneschargedrespondentOcciano,PresidingJudgeoftheMTCofBatalan,CamarinesSurwith
grossignoranceofthelawforsolemnizinghermarriagewithlateDominadorOrobiawithoutthe
requisitemarriagelicenseandatNabua,CamarinesSurwhichisoutsidehisterritorial
jurisdiction.AranesandOrobialivedashusbandandwifeuntilthedeathofOrobia.ThenAranes
discoveredthatshecannotinheritthepropertiesofOrobia,norgethispensionasaretiredNavy
Commodorebecausetheirmarriagewasanullity.
Inhiscomment,OccianoaverredthathewasrequestedtosolemnizetheweddinginNabua,due
toOrobiasdifficultyinwalking.Heexaminedthedocumentsbeforetheceremonyandupon
discoveringtheabsenceofamarriagelicenseherefusedtosolemnizethemarriage.However,the
coupleassuredhimthattheywilldeliverthelicensetohimimmediatelyafter.
ThepetitionerfiledanAffidavitofDesistanceattestingthatthejudgedidrefusetosolemnizeher
marriageatfirstand,uponreadingthecommentofthejudge,realizedherownshortcomings.
ISSUE:
WONrespondentjudgecommittedgrossignoranceofthelaw.
HELD:
YES.Respondentjudgewasguiltyofsolemnizingamarriagewithoutadulyissuedlicenseandfordoing
sooutsidehisterritorialjurisdiction.TheAffidavitofDesistancecannotexculpateOccianobecause
withdrawalofcomplaintdoesnotnecessarilyhavealegaleffectofexoneratingrespondentfrom
disciplinaryaction.
Respondentjudgeisfined5,000pesoswithasternwarningthatarepetitioninthefuturewillbedealt
withmoreseverely

IMBONGv.OCHOA
DateofPromulgation:April8,2014
Ponente:Mendoza,J
Petition:certiorariandprohibition
Petitioner/s:JamesM.Imbongetal.
Respondent/s:Hon.PaquitoN.Ochoa,ExecutiveSecretary

KEYTAKEAWAY: TheReproductiveHealthLawisaconsolidationandenhancementofexisting
reproductivelaws.Itseekstoenhancethepopulationcontrolprogramofthegovernmentinorderto
promotepublicwelfare.However,whencoercivemeasuresarefoundwithinthelaw,provisionsmustbe
removedoralteredinordertoensurethatitdoesnotdefytheConstitutionbyinfringingontherightsof
thepeople.
CONSOLIDATIONOF14CASESNAMELY:
DATE/GR
NO/SCRA
April8,2014,
G.R.No.
204819

PETITIONER

RESPONDENT

JamesM.ImbongLovelyAnnC.
Imbong,forthemselvesandinbehalfof
theirminorchildren,LuCiaCarlos
ImbongandBernadetteCarlosImbong
andMagnificatChildDevelopment
Center,Inc.,adomestic,privatelyowned
educationalinstitution

GR.No.
204934

ALLIANCEFORTHEFAMILY
FOUNDATIONPHILIPPINES,INC.
[ALFI],representedbyitsPresident,
MariaConcepcionS.Noche,Spouses
ReynaldoS.Luistro&RosieB.Luistro,
JoseS.Sandejas&ElenitaS.A.
Sandejas,ArturoM.Gorrez&Marietta
C.Gorrez,SalvadorS.Mante,Jr.&
HazeleenL.Mante,RolandoM.Bautista
&MariaFelisaS.Bautista,Desiderio
Racho&TraquilinaRacho,Femand
AntonioA.Tansingco&CarolAnneC.
Tansingcoforthemselvesandonbehalf
oftheirminorchildren,Therese
AntonetteC.Tansingco,LorenzoJoseC.

Hon.PaquitoN.Ochoa,Jr.,Executive
Secretary;Hon.FlorencioB.Abad,
Secretary,DepartmentOfBudgetAnd
Management;Hon.EnriqueT.Ona,
Secretary,DepartmentOfHealth;Hon.
ArminA.Luistro,Secretary,DepartmentOf
Education,CultureAndSports;andHon.
Manuela.RoxasII,Secretary,DepartmentOf
InteriorandLocalGovernment
HON.PAQUITON.OCHOA,JR.,
ExecutiveSecretary,HON.ENRIQUET.
ONA,
Secretary,DepartmentofHealth,HON.
ARMINA.LUISTRO,Secretary,
DepartmentofEducation,Cultureand
Sports,HON.CORAZONSOLIMAN,
Secretary,DepartmentofSocialWelfareand
Development,HON.MANUELA.ROXAS
II,Secretary,DepartmentofInteriorand
LocalGovernment,HON.FLORENCIOB.
ABAD,Secretary,DepartmentofBudgetand
Management,HON.ARSENIOM.
BALISACAN,SocioEconomicPlanning
SecretaryandNEDADirectorGeneral,THE

GRNo.
204957

GRNo.
204988

Tansingco,MiguelFemandoC.
Tangsingco,CarloJosemariaC.
Tansingco&JuanPaoloC.Tansingco,
SpousesMarianoV.Araneta&EileenZ.
Aranetaforthemselvesandonbehalfof
theirminorchildren,RamonCarlosZ.
Araneta&MayaAngelicaZ.Araneta,
SpousesRenatoC.Castor&MildredC.
Castorforthemselvesandonbehalfof
theirminorchildren,RenzJeffreyC.
Castor,JosephRamilC.Castor,John
PaulC.Castor&RaphaelC.Castor,
SpousesAlexanderR.Racho&ZaraZ.
Rachoforthemselvesandonbehalfof
theirminorchildrenMargaritaRacho,
MikaelaRacho,MartinRacho,Mari
Racho&ManoloRacho,SpousesAlfred
R.Racho&FrancineV.Rachofor
themselvesandonbehalfoftheirminor
childrenMichaelRacho,MarianaRacho,
RafaelRacho,MaxiRacho,Chessie
Racho&LauraRacho,SpousesDavid
R.Racho&ArmilynA.Rachofor
themselvesandonbehalfoftheirminor
childGabrielRacho,MindyM.Juatas
andonbehalfofherminorchildren
ElijahGeraldJuatasandElianGabriel
Juatas,SalvacionM.Monteiro,EmilyR.
Laws,JosephR.Laws&KatrinaR.
Laws
TASKFORCEFORFAMILYAND
LIFEVISAYAS,INC.and
VALERIANOS.AVILA,

SERVELIFECAGAYANDEORO
CITY,INC.,representedbyDr.Nestor
B.Lumicao,M.D.,asPresidentandin
hispersonalcapacity,ROSEVALE

PHILIPPINECOMMISSIONONWOMEN,
representedbyitsChairperson,Remedios
lgnacioRikken,THEPHILIPPINEHEALTH
INSURANCECORPORATION,represented
byitsPresidentEduardoBanzon,THE
LEAGUEOFPROVINCESOFTHE
PHILIPPINES,representedbyitsPresident
AlfonsoUmali,THELEAGUEOFCITIES
OFTHEPHILIPPINES,representedbyits
PresidentOscarRodriguez,andTHE
LEAGUEOFMUNICIPALITIESOFTHE
PHILIPPINES,representedbyitsPresident
DonatoMarcos,

HON.PAQUITON.OCHOA,JR.,
ExecutiveSecretary;HON.FLORENCIOB.
ABAD,Secretary,DepartmentofBudgetand
Management;HON.ENRIQUET.ONA,
Secretary,DepartmentofEducation;and
HON.MANUELA.ROXASII,Secretary,
DepartmentofInteriorandLocal
Government
OFFICEOFTHEPRESIDENT,SENATE
OFTHEPHILIPPINES,HOUSEOF
REPRESENTATIVES,HON.PAQUITON.
OCHOA,JR.,ExecutiveSecretary,HON.

GRNo.
205003

FOUNDATIONINC.,representedby
Dr.RodrigoM.Alenton,M.D.,as
memberoftheschoolboardandinhis
personalcapacity,ROSEMARIER.
ALENTON,IMELDAG.IBARRA,
CPA,LOVENIAP.NACES,Phd.,
ANTHONYG.NAGAC,EARL
ANTHONYC.GAMBEandMARLON
I.YAP,
EXPEDITOA.BUGARIN,JR.,

GRNo.
205043

EDUARDOB.OLAGUERandTHE
CATHOLICXYBRSPACE
APOSTOLATEOFTHEPHILIPPINES,

GRNo.
205138

PHILIPPINEALLIANCEOF
XSEMINARIANS,INC.(PAX),herein
representedbyitsNationalPresident,
Atty.RicardoM.Ribo,andinhisown
behalf,Atty.Lino
E.A.Dumas,RomeoB.Almonte,
OsmundoC.Orlanes,ArsenioZ.Menor,
SamuelJ.Yap,JaimeF.Mateo,Rolly
Siguan,DanteE.Magdangal,Michael
Eugenio0.Plana,BienvenidoC.Miguel,
Jr.,LandritoM.DioknoandBaldomero
Falcone,

GRNo.
205478

REYNALDOJ.ECHAVEZ,M.D.,
JACQUELINEH.KING,M.D.,

FLORENCIOB.ABAD,Secretary,
DepartmentofBudgetandManagement;
HON.ENRIQUET.ONA,Secretary,
DepartmentofHealth;HON.ARMINA.
LUISTRO,Secretary,Departmentof
EducationandHON.MANUELA.ROXAS
II,Secretary,DepartmentofInteriorand
LocalGovernment,Respondents
OFFICEOFTHEPRESIDENTOFTHE
REPUBLICOFTHEPHILIPPINES,HON.
SENATEPRESIDENT,HON.SPEAKER
OFTHEHOUSEOFREPRESENTATIVES
andHON.SOLICITORGENERAL
DOHSECRETARYENRIQUET.ONA,
FDADIRECTORSUZETTEH.LAZO,
DBMSECRETARYFLORENCIOB.
ABAD,DILGSECRETARYMANUELA.
ROXASII,DECSSECRETARYARMINA.
LUISTRO
HON.PAQUITON.OCHOA,JR.,
ExecutiveSecretary,HON.FLORENCIOB.
ABAD,Secretary,DepartmentofBudgetand
Management,HON.ENRIQUET.ONA,
Secretary,DepartmentofHealth,HON.
ARMINA.LUISTRO,Secretary,
DepartmentofEducation,HON.
MANUELA.ROXASII,Secretary,
DepartmentofInteriorandLocal
Government,HON.CORAZONJ.
SOLIMAN,Secretary,DepartmentofSocial
WelfareandDevelopment,HON.ARSENIO
BALISACAN,DirectorGeneral,National
EconomicandDevelopmentAuthority,
HON.SUZETTEH.LAZO,
DirectorGeneral,FoodandDrugs
Administration,THEBOARDOF
DIRECTORS,PhilippineHealthInsurance
Corporation,andTHEBOARDOF
COMMISSIONERS,PhilippineCommission
onWomen,
HON.PAQUITON.OCHOA,JR.,
ExecutiveSecretary;HON.FLORENCIOB.

GRNo.
205491

GRNo.
205720

GRNo.
206355

GRNo.
207111

CYNTHIAT.DOMINGO,M.D.,AND
JOSEPHINEMILLADOLUMITAO,
M.D.,
collectivelyknownasDoctorsForLife,
andANTHONYPEREZ,MICHAEL
ANTHONYG.MAPA,CARLOS
ANTONIOPALAD,WILFREDOJOSE,
CLAIRENAVARRO,ANNACOSIO,
andGABRIELDYLIACCO
collectivelyknownasFilipinosForLife,
SPOUSESFRANCISCOS.TATAD
ANDMARIAFENNYC.TATAD&
ALAF.PAGUIA,forthemselves,their
Posterity,andtherestofFilipino
posterity
PROLIFEPHILIPPINES
FOUNDATION,Inc.,representedby
LomaMelegrito,asExecutiveDirector,
andinherpersonalcapacity,JOSELYN
B.BASILIO,ROBERTZ.CORTES,
ARIELA.CRISOSTOMO,JEREMYI.
GATDULA,CRISTINAA.MONTES,
RAULANTONIOA.NIDOY,
WINSTONCONRADB.PADOJINOG,
RUFINOL.POLICARPIOIII,

MILLENNIUMSAINT
FOUNDATION,INC.,ATTY.RAMON
PEDROSA,ATTY.CITA
BORROMEOGARCIA,
STELLAACEDERA,ATTY.BERTENI
CATALUNACAUSING
JOHNWALTERB.JUAT,MARYM.
IMBONG,ANTHONYVICTORIOB.
LUMICAO,JOSEPHMARTINQ.
VERDEJO,ANTONIAEMMAR.
ROXASandLOTALATGUERRERO,

ABAD,SecretaryoftheDepartmentof
BudgetandManagement;HON.ENRIQUE
T.ONA,SecretaryoftheDepartmentof
Health;HON.ARMINA.LUISTRO,
SecretaryoftheDepartmentofEducation;
andHON.MANUELA.ROXASII,
SecretaryoftheDepartmentofInteriorand
LocalGovernment,

OFFICEOFTHEPRESIDENT
oftheRepublicofthePhilippines,

OFFICEOFTHEPRESIDENT,SENATE
OFTHEPHILIPPINES,HOUSEOF
REPRESENTATIVES,HON.PAQUITON.
OCHOA,JR.,ExecutiveSecretary,HON.
FLORENCIOB.ABAD,Secretary,
DepartmentofBudgetandManagement,
HON.ENRIQUET.ONA,Secretary,
DepartmentofHealth,HON.ARMINA.
LUISTRO,Secretary,Departmentof
EducationandHON.MANUELA.ROXAS
II,Secretary,DepartmentofInteriorand
LocalGovernment
OFFICEOFTHEPRESIDENT,OFFICEOF
THEEXECUTIVESECRETARY,
DEPARTMENTOFHEALTH,
DEPARTMENTOFEDUCATION,

HON.PAQUITON.OCHOA,JR.,
ExecutiveSecretary,HON.FLORENCIO
ABAD,Secretary,DepartmentofBudgetand
Management,HON.ENRIQUET.ONA,
Secretary,DepartmentofHealth,HON.
ARMINA.LUISTRO,Secretary,
DepartmentofEducation,CultureandSports
andHON.MANUELA.ROXASII,
Secretary,DepartmentofInteriorandLocal
Government

GRNo.
207172

COUPLESFORCHRIST
FOUNDATION,INC.,SPOUSES
JUANCARLOSARTADI
SARMIENTOANDFRANCESCA
ISABELLEBESINGASARMIENTO,
ANDSPOUSESLUISFRANCISA.
RODRIGO,JR.andDEBORAH
MARIEVERONICAN.RODRIGO.

GRNo.
207563

ALMARIMCENTITILLAHand
ABDULHUSSEINM.KASHIM,

HON.PAQUITON.OCHOA,JR.,
ExecutiveSecretary,HON.FLORENCIOB.
ABAD,Secretary,DepartmentofBudgetand
Management,HON.ENRIQUET.ONA,
Secretary,DepartmentofHealth,HON.
ARMINA.LUISTRO,Secretary,
DepartmentofEducation,CultureandSports
andHON.MANUELA.ROXASII,
Secretary,DepartmentofInteriorandLocal
Government,Respondents
HON.PAQUITON.OCHOA,JR.,
ExecutiveSecretary,HON.ENRIQUET.
ONA,SecretaryoftheDepartmentofHealth,
andHON.ARMINA.LUISTRO,Secretary
oftheDepartmentofBudgetand
Management

FACTS

Petition:todeclareprovisionsofRepublicActNo.10354asunconstitutional
FactualAntecedents
December 21, 2012: Congress enacted RA No. 10354 also known as the Responsible
ParenthoodandReproductiveHealthActof2012(RHLAW)
Thepresidentsimprimaturandsupportforthesaidlawleadtoarangeofpetitionsagainst
thelawleadingto iuriscontroversy incourt.Petitionsforcertiorariandprohibitionwere
placedbynumerousparties.Allinall,14petitionsand2petitionsininterventionwerefiled.
March15,2013:theRHImplementingRulesandRegulations(RHIRR)orenforcementof
thelawtookplace
March19,2013:Afterdeliberatingtheissuesandargumentsraised,thecourtissuedStatus
Quo Ante Order (SQAO) which lead to a 120 day halt on the implementation of the
legislation
Duetofurtherargumentsanddebatesfromopposingparties,theSQAOwasextendeduntil
furtherordersofthecourtlastJuly16,2013

StatuteInvolved:

RepublicAct10354,TheResponsibleParenthoodandReproductiveHealthActof2012

PositionofPetitioner:
o

PositionofRespondent

PetitionersclaimthattheprovisionsofRA10354areunconstitutionalastheyviolatethe
rightstolife,tohealth,tofreedomofexpressionandspeech,totheprivacyoffamilies,to
academicfreedom,todueprocessoflaw,toequalprotection,andagainstinvoluntary
servitude.TheyalsointrudeontheautonomyoflocalgovernmentsandtheARMM,and
violatenaturallaw.Furthermore,theyclaimthatCongressdelegationofauthoritytothe
FDAindeterminingwhichshouldbeincludedintheEDLisinvalid.

There is noactual caseor controversyand, therefore, the issues are not yet ripe for
judicialdetermination
SomepetitionerslackstandingtoquestiontheRHLaw
ThepetitionsareessentiallypetitionsfordeclaratoryreliefoverwhichtheCourthasno
originaljurisdiction.

ISSUES

Procedural
o

WhetherornottheCourtmayexerciseitspowerofjudicialreview

o Whetherornotthereisanactualcaseorcontroversy
o WhethertheCourtmayapplyfacialchallenge
o Whetherornotthepetitionsareprayingfordeclaratoryrelief
o WhetherthepetitionsviolatetheOneSubject/OneTitleRule
Substantive
o WhetherornottheRHLawisunconstitutionalonthegroundsthatitviolates
RighttoLife
RighttoHealth
FreedomofReligionandtheRighttoFreeSpeech
TheFamily
FreedomofExpressionandAcademicFreedom
DueProcess
EqualProtection
InvoluntaryServitude
AutonomyofLocalGovernments/ARMM
NaturalLaw
o Whether or not Congress delegation of authority to the FDA in determining which
shouldbeincludedintheEDLisvalid

HELD

Procedural
o

WhetherornotthecourtmayexerciseitspowerofjudicialreviewYES
WhiletheCourtmaynotpassuponquestionsofwisdom,justiceorexpediencyofthe
RH Law, it may do so where an attendant unconstitutionality or grave abuse of
discretionresults.Thefollowingrequisitesforjudicialreviewweremet:(a)there
mustbeanactualcaseorcontroversy;(b)thepetitionersmustpossesslocusstandi;
(c)thequestionofconstitutionalitymustberaisedattheearliestopportunity;and(d)
theissueofconstitutionalitymustbethelismotaofthecase
WhetherornotthereisanactualcaseorcontroversyYES
ConsideringthattheRHLawanditsimplementingruleshavealreadytakeneffect
andthatbudgetarymeasurestocarryoutthelawhavealreadybeenpassed,itis
evidentthatthesubjectpetitionspresentajusticiablecontroversy.Asstatedearlier,
whenanactionofthelegislativebranchisseriouslyallegedtohaveinfringedthe
Constitution,itnotonlybecomesaright,butalsoadutyoftheJudiciarytosettlethe
dispute.
Moreover, the petitioners have shown that the case is so because medical
practitionersormedicalprovidersareindangerofbeingcriminallyprosecutedunder
theRHLawforvagueviolationsthereof,particularlypublichealthofficerswhoare
threatenedtobedismissedfromtheservicewithforfeitureofretirementand
otherbenefits.
WhethertheCourtmayapplyfacialchallengeYES
Thescopeofapplicationoffacialchallengesextendstotheregulationoffreespeech,
butalsothoseinvolvingreligiousfreedom,andotherfundamentalrights.
Consequently,consideringthattheforegoingpetitionshaveseriouslyallegedthatthe
constitutionalhumanrightstolife,speechandreligionandotherfundamentalrights
mentioned above have been violated by the assailed legislation, the Court has
authoritytotakecognizanceofthesekindredpetitionsandtodetermineiftheRH
Lawcanindeedpassconstitutionalscrutiny.
WhetherornotLocusStandiappliesYES
RegardlessofwhetherthepetitionersaredirectlyinjuredofaffectedbytheRHLaw
or not, the Court leans on the doctrine that "the rule on standing is a matter of
procedure,hence,canberelaxedfornontraditionalplaintiffslikeordinarycitizens,
taxpayers, and legislators when the public interest so requires, such as when the
matterisoftranscendentalimportance,ofoverreachingsignificancetosociety,orof
paramountpublicinterest."TheRHLawfallsundertranscendentalimportanceasit
drasticallyaffectstheconstitutionalprovisionsontherighttolifeandhealth,the
freedomofreligionandexpressionandotherconstitutionalrights.
WhetherornotthepetitionsareprayingfordeclaratoryreliefYES

Mostofthepetitionsareprayingforinjunctivereliefs,notdeclaratoryreliefs,andso
theCourtwouldjustconsiderthemaspetitionsforprohibitionunderRule65,over
whichithasoriginaljurisdiction.Wherethecasehasfarreachingimplicationsand
praysforinjunctivereliefs,theCourtmayconsiderthemaspetitionsforprohibition
underRule65.
o WhetherthepetitionsviolatetheOneSubject/OneTitleRuleNO
Inatextualanalysisofthevariousprovisionsofthelaw,both"reproductivehealth"
and"responsibleparenthood"areinterrelatedandgermanetotheoverridingobjective
tocontrolthepopulationgrowth.Thus,theCourtfindsnoreasontobelievethat
Congresshadtheintentiontodeceivethepublicregardingthecontentsofthesaid
law.
Substantive
o WhetherornottheRHLawisunconstitutionalonthegroundsthatitviolates
RighttoLifeNO
Constitutionintendedthat1.)Conceptiontorefertothetimeoffertilizationand
2.)Theprotectionoftheunbornuponsaidfertilization
AreadingoftheRHLawwouldshowthatitisinlinewiththisintent.TheRH
Lawproscribesabortionandabortifacients
Sec4(a)oftheRHLaw:Abortifacientreferstoanydrugordevicethatinduces
abortionorthedestructionofafetusinsidethemotherswombortheprevention
ofthefertilizedovumtoreachandbeimplantedinthemotherswombupon
determinationoftheFDA.
Sec 3.01 (a) of RHIRR: Abortifacient refers to any drug or device that
primarilyinducesabortion
Sec3.01(g)ofRHIRR:contraceptivedoesnotprimarilydestroyafertilized
egg
The addition of the word primarily is invalid and constitutes a grave
abuseoftheauthorsofRHIRR
The RHIRR appears to insinuate that a contraceptive will only be
consideredasanabortifacientifitssoleknowneffectisabortion.Thus
drugs with a secondary action of destroying the fertilized egg which
doesntalignwiththeintentoftheframers.
RighttoHealthNO
Provisionsonhealthareselfexecuting.
RA 4729 (An act to regulate the sale, dispensation, and/or distribution of
contraceptivedrugs)andRA5921(regulatingpharmacyandsettingstandards
ofpharmaceuticaleducationinthePhilippinesandforotherpurposes)arenot
repealedbytheRHlawandtheprovisionsofthesaidactsarenotinconsistent
withtheRHlaw

 Withthesestillinplace,thestatusquoonthesaleofcontraceptivesismaintained
and the Court believes that there are adequate measures that ensure that the
public has access tocontraceptives that have been determinedsafe following
testing,evaluation,andapprovalbytheFDA
FreedomofReligionandtheRighttoFreeSpeechNOandYES
RHlawdoesnotviolateguaranteeofreligiousfreedomviathestatesponsored
procurement of contraceptives, which contravene the religious beliefs of the
peopleincludingthepetitioners.Thisisbecauseindoingso,thestatewouldbe
adheringtoonereligion,makingadefactostatereligion,whichiscontraryto
religiousfreedom.
TheseparationofChurchandStateshallbeinviolable
Therelimitstotheexerciseofreligiousfreedom(compellingstateinteresttest)
Benevolentneutrality
RHlawdoesnotviolatetheguaranteeofreligiousfreedombyrequiringwould
bespouses,asaconditionfortheissuanceofamarriagelicense,toattenda
seminar on parenthood, family planning, breastfeeding and infant nutrition
(sec.7,23,24)
However, sec7,23,and24oftheRHLawviolatestheguaranteeofreligious
freedombycompellingmedicalhealthpractitioners,hospitals,andhealthcare
providers,underpainofpenalty,toreferpatientstootherinstitutionsdespite
theirconscientiousobjections
Guarantee of religious freedom is intertwined with the right to free
speech (liberty to utter what is and what is not in his mind) which
includestherighttobesilent
Conscientious objectors should be exempt from compliance with the
mandatesoftheRHBill
TheFamilyYES
Section23(a)(2)(i)oftheRHLaw,whichneedsonlytheconsentofthespouse
undergoingtheprovisioninordertoundergoreproductiveprocedures intrudes
into martial privacy and autonomy and goes against the constitutional
safeguardsforthefamilyasthebasicsocialinstitution.
Not only that, but the exclusion of parental consent in cases where a minor
undergoingaprocedureisalreadyaparentorhashadamiscarriage(Section7of
the RH Law)is also antifamily and violates Article II, Section 12 of the
Constitution,whichdeclaresthattherearingofchildrenbyparentsisanatural
right.
FreedomofExpressionandAcademicFreedomUNDECIDED
ThecourtdecidedthatmakingarulingonSection14oftheRHLaw,which
mandatestheStatetoprovideAgeandDevelopmentAppropriateReproductive
HealthEducation,ispremature.TheDepartmentofEducationhasnotyetcreated

a curriculum on ageappropriate reproductive health education, thus the

constitutionalityofthespecificsinsuchacurriculumstillcannotbedetermined.
The exclusion of private educational institutions from the mandatory RH
educationprogramunderSection14isvalid.Thereisaneedtorecognizethe
academicfreedomofprivateeducationalinstitutionsespeciallywithrespectto
religious instruction and to consider their sensitivity towards the teaching of
reproductivehealtheducation.
DueProcessNO
ThedefinitionsofseveraltermspinpointedbythepetitionersintheRHLaware
notvague.
Privatehealthcareinstitution=privatehealthcareserviceprovider.
service and methods are also broad enough to include giving
informationandperformingmedicalprocedures,sohospitalsrunbyreligious
groupscanbeexempted.
incorrectinformationconnotesasenseofmaliceandillmotivetomislead
thepublic.
EqualProtectionNO
ItispursuanttoSection11,ArticleXIIIoftheConstitution,whichstatesthatthe
Stateshallprioritizetheneedsoftheunderprivileged,sickelderly,disabled,
women,andchildrenandthatitshallendeavortoprovidemedicalcareto
paupers.
InvoluntaryServitudeNO
TheStatehasthepowertoregulatethepracticeofmedicineinordertoensure
thewelfareofthepublic.Notonlythat,butSection17onlyencouragesprivate
andnongovernmentRHserviceproviderstogiveprobonoservice;theydonot
incur penalties if they refuse. Conscientious objectors are exempt if their
religiousbeliefsdonotallowthemtoprovidethesaidservices.
AutonomyofLocalGovernments/ARMMNO
TheRHLawdoesnotinfringeupontheautonomyoflocalgovernments.Under
paragraph(c)ofSection17,unlessalocalgovernmentunit(LGU)isparticularly
designated as the implementing agency, it has no power over a program for
whichfundinghasbeenprovidedbythenationalgovernmentundertheannual
GeneralAppropriationsAct,eveniftheprograminvolvesthedeliveryofbasic
serviceswithinthejurisdictionoftheLGUs.Notonlythat,butLGUsaremerely
encouraged and not compelled to provide RH services. Provision of these
servicesarenotmandatory.Lastly,ArticleIII,Sections6,10,and11ofRA9054
deortheOrganicActoftheARMMmerelyoutlinesthepowersthatmaybe
exercisedbytheregionalgovernmentanddoesnotindicatetheStatesabdication
tocreatelawsinthenameofpublicwelfare.

 NaturalLawdisregarded

Naturallaw,accordingtotheCourt,isnotrecognizedasproperlegalbasisfor
makingdecisions
WhetherornotCongressdelegationofauthoritytotheFDAindeterminingwhich
shouldbeincludedintheEDLisvalidYES
UnderRA3720,theFDA,beingtheprimaryandsolepremiereandonlyagencythat
ensuresthesafetyoffoodandmedicinesavailabletothepublic,hasthepowerand
competencytoevaluate,registerandcoverhealthservicesandmethods

FinalRuling
o

Petitionspartiallygranted.TheRA10354isdeclaredconstitutional,andStatusQuo
AnteOrderliftedwithrespecttoprovisionsofRA10354thathavebeendeclaredas
constitutional. However, the following provisions and their corresponding
provisionsintheRHIRRhavebeendeclaredunconstitutional:
Section 7 andthe correspondingprovision inthe RHIRR insofar as they: a)
requireprivatehealthfacilitiesandnonmaternityspecialtyhospitalsandhospitals
ownedandoperatedbyareligiousgrouptoreferpatients,notinanemergencyor
lifethreatening case, as defined under Republic Act No. 8344, to another health
facilitywhichisconvenientlyaccessible;andb)allowminorparentsorminorswho
havesufferedamiscarriageaccesstomodemmethodsoffamilyplanningwithout
writtenconsentfromtheirparentsorguardian/s;
Section 23(a)(l) and the corresponding provision in the RHIRR, particularly
Section5.24thereof,insofarastheypunishanyhealthcareserviceproviderwhofails
and or refuses to disseminate information regarding programs and services on
reproductivehealthregardlessofhisorherreligiousbeliefs.
Section23(a)(2)(i)andthecorrespondingprovisioninthe RHIRR insofar as
they allowa marriedindividual, not in an emergencyor lifethreateningcase, as
definedunderRepublicActNo.8344,toundergoreproductivehealthprocedures
withouttheconsentofthespouse;
Section23(a)(2)(ii)andthecorrespondingprovisionintheRHIRR insofaras
theylimittherequirementofparentalconsentonlytoelectivesurgicalprocedures.
Section 23(a)(3) and the corresponding provision in the RHIRR, particularly
Section5.24thereof,insofarastheypunishanyhealthcareserviceproviderwhofails
and/or refuses to refer a patient not in an emergency or lifethreatening case, as
definedunderRepublicActNo.8344,toanotherhealthcareserviceproviderwithin
thesamefacilityoronewhichisconvenientlyaccessibleregardlessofhisorher
religiousbeliefs;

 Section 23(b) and the corresponding provision in the RHIRR, particularly

Section5.24thereof,insofarastheypunishanypublicofficerwhorefusestosupport
reproductivehealthprogramsorshalldoanyactthathindersthefullimplementation
ofareproductivehealthprogram,regardlessofhisorherreligiousbeliefs;
Section 17 and the corresponding provision in the RHIRR regarding the
rendering of pro bona reproductive health service in so far as they affect the
conscientiousobjectorinsecuringPhilHealthaccreditation;
Section 3.0l(a) and Section 3.01 G) of the RHIRR, which added the qualifier
"primarily"indefiningabortifacientsandcontraceptives,astheyareultraviresand,
therefore,nullandvoidforcontraveningSection4(a)oftheRHLawandviolating
Section12,ArticleIIoftheConstitution.

ZABLOCKIv.REDHAIL
FACTS:
Wisconsinstatute:membersofacertainclassofWisconsinresidentsmaynotmarry,withinthe
Stateorelsewhere,withoutfirstobtainingacourtordergrantingpermissiontomarry.Theclassis
definedtoincludeanyWisconsinresidenthavingminorISSUEnotinhiscustodyandwhichhe
is under obligation to support by anycourt order or judgment. Court permissioncannot be
grantedunlessthemarriageapplicantsubmitsproofofcompliancewiththesupportobligation
and,inaddition,demonstratesthatthechildrencoveredbythesupportorderarenotthenandare
notlikelythereaftertobecomepubliccharges.
Redhailwasdeniedamarriagelicensebecauseofhisfailuretocomplywiththestatute.Itwas
foundthatRedhailhadapaternityactioninstitutedagainsthim,allegingthathewasthefatherof
ababygirlbornoutofwedlock.Hewasadjudgedtopay$109/moassupportforthechilduntil
shereached18yearsofage.
WhenRedhailappliedforamarriagelicense,Zablockididnotissuethelicenseforviolatingthe
statuteonthegroundsthat:(1)hehadnotsatisfiedhissupportobligationstohisillegitimatechild
and;(2)thechildhadbeenapublicchargesinceherbirth,receivingbenefitsundertheAidto
FamilieswithDependentChildrenProgram.
ISSUE:
WONtheWisconsinstatuteisconstitutional
[NO]
RULING:
Onprivacy:Righttomarryisoffundamentalimportance,andsincetheclassificationatISSUE
heresignificantlyinterfereswiththeexerciseofthatright,acriticalexaminationofthestate
interestsadvancedinsupportoftheclassificationisrequired.
Thedecisiontomarryhasbeenplacedonthesamelevelofimportanceasdecisionsrelatingto
procreation, childbirth, child rearing, and family relationships. It would make little sense to
recognizearightofprivacywithrespecttoothermattersoffamilylifeandnotwithrespecttothe
decisiontoentertherelationshipthatisthefoundationofthefamilyin[US]society

Two interests are asserted: the permission tomarry proceeding furnishes an opportunity to
counseltheapplicantastothenecessityoffulfillinghispriorsupportobligations;andthewelfare
oftheoutofcustodychildrenisprotected.
However, theStatehas already numerous other means for exacting compliance withsupport
obligations,meansthatareaseffectiveasthestatuteyetdonotimpingeupontherighttomarry:
viawageassignments,civilcontemptproceedings,andcriminalpenalties.
Thestatutoryclassificationinterferesdirectlyandsubstantiallywiththerighttomarry:
o No Wisconsin resident in the affected class may marry in Wisconsin or elsewhere
withoutacourtorder.
o Someofthoseintheaffectedclasswillneverbeabletoobtainthenecessarycourtorder,
becausetheyeitherlackthefinancialmeanstomeettheirsupportobligationsorcannot
provethattheirchildrenwillnotbecomepubliccharges.
o Somewillbecoercedinforegoingtheirrighttomarry.
Statuteisgrosslyunderinclusivesincetheydonotlimitinanywaynewfinancialcommitments
bytheapplicantotherthanthosearisingoutofthecontemplatedmarriage.Statutoryclassification
issubstantiallyoverinclusiveaswell:Giventhepossibilitythatthenewspousewillactually
bettertheapplicantsfinancialsituation,bycontributingincomefromajoborotherwise,the
statuteinmanycasesmaypreventaffectedindividualsfromimprovingtheirabilitytosatisfy
theirpriorsupportobligations.

REPUBLICv.CAandCASTRO
PETITIONER:REPUBLICOFTHEPHILIPPINES
RESPONDENTS:COURTOFAPPEALSANDANGELINAM.CASTRO
FACTS:
AngelinaM.CastroandEdwinF.CardenasweremarriedinacivilceremonyperformedbyJudgePablo
M.Malvar,withouttheknowledgeofCastro'sparents(thus,asecretmarriage).DefendantCardenas
personallyattendedtotheprocessingof the documents requiredfor the celebrationof the marriage,
includingtheprocurementofthemarriagelicense(licenseno.3196182).Thecoupledidnotimmediately
livetogetherashusbandandwife,butonlydidsowhenCastrowaspregnant.However,theyonlylived
togetherfor4monthsandeventuallypartedways.TheirbabywaslateradoptedbyCastro'sbrother,with
theconsentofCardenas,andbroughttotheUS.Desiringtofollowherdaughter,Castroconsulteda
lawyerregardingthepossibleannulmentofhermarriage.Theydiscoveredthattherewasnomarriage
licenseissuedtoCardenaspriortothecelebrationoftheirmarriage.ShewasissuedbytheCivilRegistry
ofPasigacertificationofduesearchandinabilitytofindtobackthisclaim.
ThetrialcourtdeniedCastrospetitionfornullityofmarriage,rulingthatthecertificationwasinadequate
toestablishtheallegednonissuanceofamarriagelicense.Castrothenappealedtotheappellatecourt,
whichreversedthetrialcourtsdecisionanddeclaredthemarriagebetweenthecontractingpartiesnull
andvoid.Petitioner,RepublicofthePhilippines,thenfiledforpetitionforreviewoncertiorari.
ISSUE:

WONthecertificationofduesearchandinabilitytofindmarriagelicensepresentedasevidenceis
sufficienttorenderthemarriagevoid.
HELD:
Yes.UnaccompaniedbyanycircumstanceofsuspicionandpursuanttoSection29,Rule132oftheRules
ofCourt3,acertificateof"duesearchandinabilitytofind"sufficientlyprovedthatthelocalcivilregistry
officedidnotissuemarriagelicenseno.3196182tothecontractingparties.Sincenomarriagelicensewas
issued,marriageisrenderedvoidabinitio(undertheFamilyCode,Art.4).
*AlsoworthnotingthatCastrofailedtoofferanyotherwitnessregardingthecelebrationofhermarriage.
Thisisbecauseofitspeculiarcircumstancebeingasecretmarriage.Cardenasdidnotappearduringthe
annulmenttrial,soheisconsideredindefault.
NOTES:
ProofoflackofrecordAwrittenstatementsignedbyanofficerhavingcustodyofanofficialrecordor
byhisdeputy,thatafterdiligentsearch,norecordorentryofaspecifiedtenorisfoundtoexistinthe
recordsofhisoffice,accompaniedbyacertificateasaboveprovided,isadmissibleasevidencethatthe
recordsofhisofficecontainnosuchrecordorentry

SEVILLAv.CARDENAS
FACTS:
ThepetitionerwishestoappealthedecisionoftheCA.Sevillawishesforthedeclarationofnullityofhis
marriagetoCardenas,suchthathisconsentwasgivenbecauseofintimidationoftheretiredColonel
father of Cardenas. Cardenas claims that they were both married civilly and also had a religious
ceremony.Thecouplehasbeenlivingashusbandandwifefor25yearsalready,beforeSevillafiledthe
case.Sevillaclaimsthatthemarriagelicenseusedintheircontractisnonexistentbecausehenever
appliedforalicense.TheLocalCivilRegistraraffirmedthisthattheycannotlocatethesaidlogbook
containingtherecordforthemarriagelicense,butitcanbeinferredthatitisduetoanoverloadof
problemsintheiroffice,andthattheybelatedlyadmittedthattheycouldntfindthebookbecausethe
officerinchargeofithadalreadyretired.
ISSUE:
WONthemarriagecanbedeclarednullandvoidbecauseoftheinabilitytoprovideproofofthelicense.
HELD:
No.ItisevidentinthecertificationsprovidedbyandthewitnessesfromtheLocalCivilRegistrarthat
theydidnotexertalltheireffortsintofindingthesaidlogbookcontainingtherecordofthemarriage
license.Presumptionofregularityofofficialdutymayberebuttedbyaffirmativeevidenceofirregularity
orfailuretoperformduty.Hence,theycannotISSUEacertificateforduesearchandinabilitytofind,
asseeninSec.29,Rule131oftheRulesofCourt.Itdoesnotmeanthatthereisreallynomarriage
license,andwiththis,onemustalwaysrememberthateveryintendmentofthelaworfactleanstoward

the validity of the marriage, the indissolubility of the marriage bonds. Since there is a doubt with
Sevillasclaimthatthemarriagelicenseisfictitious,itisresolvedinfavorofthevalidityofthemarriage.

ALCANTARAv.ALCANTARA
HUSBAND:RestitutoAlcantara
WIFE:RositaAlcantara
FACTS:
RestitutofiledapetitionforannulmentagainstRositaonthefollowinggrounds:
(1) Theweddingwasperformedwithoutfirstsecuringamarriagelicense
Eventhoughthecouplewasmarriedtwice(firstatthestairsinManilaCityHall
beforeacertainMinisterAquilinoNavarrothroughafixerandsecondatSanJose
deManuguitChurchinTondo),theceremonieswerecelebratedwithouttheparties
securingamarriagelicense.
(2) TheallegedML,procuredinCarmona,Cavite,appearingonthemarriagecontract,isasham,as
neitherpartywasaresidentofCarmona,andtheyneverwenttoCarmonatoapplyforalicense
withthelocalcivilregistrarofthesaidplace.
(3) ThecertificationoftheMunicipalCivilRegistrarofCarmonastatestheMLnumberof7054133
butthemarriageparties.Inthiscase,themarriagecontractbetweenthepetitionerandrespondent
reflectsaML contractbearstheMLnumber7054033.
Thecouplehas2children,butontheside,Restitutohasamistresswithwhomhehas3children.It
appearedthathewasfilingforanannulmentwiththeintenttoevadeprosecutionforconcubinage.
ISSUE:
WONtheirregularitiesrelatingtotheMLaresufficienttorenderthemarriagevoid.
HELD:
No.Thepetitionwasdismissedforlackofmerit.
RATIO:
TobeconsideredvoidonthegroundofabsenceofaML,thelawrequiresthattheabsenceof
such ML must be apparent on the marriage contract, or at the very least, supported by a
certificationfromthelocalcivilregistrarthatnosuchMLwasissuedtotheparties.Inthiscase,
themarriagecontractbetweenthepetitionerandrespondentreflectsaMLnumber.Acertification
tothiseffectwasalsoissuedbythelocalcivilregistrarofCarmona.Thecertification*moreover
isprecisethatitspecificallyidentifiedtheparties.
IssuanceofaMLinacityormunicipality,nottheresidenceofeitherofthecontractingparties,
andissuanceofaMLdespitetheabsenceofpublicationorpriortothecompletionofthe10day
periodforpublicationareconsideredmereirregularitiesthatdonotaffectthevalidityofthe
marriage**

OnthediscrepancyinMLnumbers,itisnotimpossibletoassumethatitisameretypographical
error. It therefore does not distract the Court in its conclusion regarding the existence and
issuanceofsaidMLtotheparties.
Undertheprinciplethathewhocomestocourtmustcomewithcleanhands,hecannotpretend
thathewasnotresponsibleorapartytothemarriagecelebrationwhichhenowinsiststobe
renderedinvalid.Heisaneducatedperson(mechanicalengr)andheknowinglyandvoluntarily
enteredintomarriage.TheCourtruled,hecannotbenefitfromhisactionandbeallowedto
extricatehimselffromthemarriage bondathismere saysowhenthe situationisnolonger
palatable to his taste or suited to his lifestyle. We cannot countenance such effrontery. His
attempttomakeamockeryoftheinstitutionofmarriagebetrayshisbadfaith.
Semperpraesumiturpromatrimonio.Thepresumptionisalwaysinfavorofthevalidityofthe
marriage.Everyintendmentofthelaworfactleanstowardsthevalidityofthemarriagebonds.
Thispresumptionisofgreatweight.
Note:Themarriageinvolvedhereinhavingbeensolemnizedon1982thus,priortotheeffectivity
oftheFamilyCode,willbeassessedonitsvaliditybasedontheCivilCodewhichwasthelawin
effectatthetimeofitscelebration.

NOTES:
*This certification enjoys the presumption that official duty has been regularly performed and the
issuanceofthemarriagelicensewasdoneintheregularconductofofficialbusiness.
**Anirregularityinanyoftheformalrequisitesofmarriagedoesnotaffectitsvaliditybutthepartyor
partiesresponsiblefortheirregularityarecivilly,criminallyandadministrativelyliable.
Art.53.NomarriageshallbesolemnizedunlessALLtheserequisitesarecompliedwith:
(a) Legalcapacityofthecontractingparties;
(b) Theirconsent,freelygiven;
(c) Authorityofthepersonperformingthemarriage;and
(d) Amarriagelicense,exceptinamarriageofexceptionalcharacter.
TherequirementandissuanceofamarriagelicenseistheStatesdemonstrationofitsinvolvementand
participationineverymarriage,inthemaintenanceofwhichthegeneralpublicisinterested.

SEGUISABALv.CABRERA
FACTS:
JudgeCabrerachargedwithgrossignoranceofthelawforhavingsolemnizedthemarriageof
JaimeSaysonandMarlynJagonoywithoutamarriagelicense.
Judge'sstory:Contractingpartiesandtheirfamiliescametohimbearingamarriagecontract.
Theirrequesttohavethemarriageofficiatedwasofsuchurgencythatthejudgeconcededafter
makingthempromisetodeliverthemarriagelicensethatsameafternoon.
Unfortunately,nomarriagelicensewasdelivered.Aboutayearlater,MarlynJagonoywentto
seethejudge,tellinghimsheneededproofofhermarriagetoJaimeSaysoninordertosecurethe

benefitsaccordedtoJaime'sfamilyafterhisdeathasasoldier.
ThejudgegaveacopyofthemarriagecontracttoJagonoyandtoldhertopresentthesametothe
localcivilregistrarandtohavethemissueheramarriagelicense.
Localcivilregistrarnaturallyrefusedtoissuesaidlicense("forthereasonthatthepartieshave
notattendedtheFamilyPlanningseminar")

HELD:
Absenttheformalrequisiteofamarriagelicense,themarriagewasvoid.Judgeshouldnothave
solemnizedthemarriagewithoutfirstsecuringsaidlicense.Despitetheassertionsofgoodfaith,thejudge
wasfinedanequivalentofhisthreemonthssalary.

MORENOv.BERNABE
FACTS:
MarilouMorenofiledthisadministrativecomplaintagainstJudgeJoseBernabeforgrave
misconductandignoranceofthelaw.
SheandMarceloMorenoweremarriedbeforeJudgeBernabe.SheaverredtheBernabeassured
herthatthemarriagecontractwillbereleased10daysafterOctober4,1993.Shefoundoutthat
shecouldnotgethermarriagecontractbecausetheOfficeoftheLocalCivilRegistrarfailedto
issueamarriagelicense.
SheclaimedthatrespondentjudgeconnivedwithrelativesofprivaterespondentMarceloMoreno
todeceiveher.
ISSUE:
WONthemarriageisvalidandjudgeliable
HELD:
Themarriagewasvoidduetotheabsenceofamarriagelicense.TheCourtaffirmedtherecommendation
oftheOfficeoftheCourtAdministratorwhichinvestigatedonthecasethatrespondentjudgewasliable
formisconductforsolemnizingamarriagewithoutamarriagelicense.Italsosaidthattherespondent
judgesclaimofgoodintentionscouldneverjustifyviolationofthelaw.

DECASTROv.ASSIDAODECASTRO
PETITIONER:REINELANTHONYB.DECASTRO
RESPONDENT:ANNABELLEASSIDAODECASTRO
FACTS:
ReinelAnthonyDeCastroandAnnabelleAssidaoplannedtogetmarriedandsotheyobtaineda
marriagelicensefromtheOfficeoftheCivilRegistrarofPasigCity.Whenthecouplewentback
totheOfficeoftheCivilRegistrar,themarriagelicensehadalreadyexpired.Inordertopush

throughwiththeplan,inlieuofamarriagelicense,theyexecutedafakeaffidavitstatingthatthey
hadbeenlivingtogetherashusbandandwifeforatleastfiveyears,wheninfact,therewasno
cohabitation.Theywerethenmarriedundercivilrites,butdidnotlivetogetherafterthe
ceremony.AnnabellelatergavebirthtotheirdaughterReinnaTriciaDeCastro,whosheraised
andfinanciallysupportedalone.ShethenfiledacomplaintforsupportundertheRegionalTrial
CourtofPasig,statingthatsheismarriedtoReinelandthathefailedtodohisresponsibilityto
financiallysupportherashiswifeandReinnaashislegitimatechildwithher.
Thetrialcourtruledthatthemarriageisnotvalidbecauseitwassolemnizedwithoutamarriage
license.However,itdeclaredReinelasthenaturalfatherofthechild,andwasobligedtogiveher
support.
ReinelbroughtcasetoCA.CAdeniedtheappeal,butmodifiedthepreviousrulingsuchthat
Reinnaisdeclaredasalegitimatechildandthatthemarriageisvaliduntilproperlyannulledbya
competentcourt.Italsoruledthatsincethecaseisanactionforsupport,itwasimproperforthe
trialcourttodeclarethemarriageofthepartiesasnullandvoidintheverysamecaseandordered
thataseparatecasebefiledforit.CasethenbroughttoSC.

*Worthnoting:ReinelrefusedtoundergoaDNAtestforpaternityandfiliationandtostatewithcertainty
thelasttimehehadsexwithAnnabelle.
ISSUE:
(1)WONthetrialcourthadthejurisdictiontodeterminethevalidityofthemarriagebetweenpetitioner
andrespondentinanactionforsupport
(2)WONthechildisthedaughterofReinel
RULING:
Petitiongrantedinpart.CAdecisionsetaside,RTCdecisionreinstated.
RATIO:
1. Yes.Thevalidityofavoidmarriagemaybecollaterallyattacked.AsitruledinNinalv.Bayado,
forpurposesotherthanremarriage,suchasbutnotlimitedtodeterminationofheirship,
legitimacyorillegitimacyofachild,settlementofestate,dissolutionofpropertyregime,ora
criminalcaseforthatmatter,thecourtmaypassuponthevalidityofmarriageeveninasuitnot
directlyinstitutedtoquestionthesamesolongasitisessentialtothedeterminationofthecase.
Inthiscase,thefactisimportanttoestablishthechildsstatusandherentitlementforfinancial
supportfromthefather.Asforthecouplesmarriage,itwasdecidedtobevoidabinitiosince
theyfailedtoobtainandpresentamarriagelicense.Thefalsityoftheaffidavitcannotbe
consideredasamereirregularityintheformalrequisitesofmarriage.
2. Reinnaishisillegitimatechildandthereforeentitledtohissupport.ThechildsCertificateof
LiveBirthlistsReinelasthefather.Inaddition,Reinel,inanaffidavitwaivinghisadditionaltax
exemption,admittedthatheisthefatherofthechild.DuringhistestimonyintheRTCtrial,he
alsoconcededthatAnnabellewashisformergirlfriend,thatheusedtovisitherinherhouseor

clinicandthattheywouldgotoamoteltohavesex,whicheventuallyledtoAnnabelles
pregnancy.

BORJAMANZANOV.SANCHEZ
PETITIONER:HerminiaBorjaManzano
RESPONDENTS:JudgeRoqueR.Sanchez
FACTS:
ComplainantHerminiaBorjaManzanofiledchargesagainstrespondentJudgeforgross
ignoranceofthelawforthelattersactionofsolemnizingthemarriagebetweenDavidManzano
andLuzvimindaPayao,whowerebothinexistingmarriageswhentheymarriedeachother,with
theformerbeingcomplainantslatehusband.ComplainantcontendsthatwhenrespondentJudge
solemnizedsaidmarriage,hekneworoughttoknowthatthesamewasvoidandbigamous,asthe
marriagecontractclearlystatedthatbothcontractingpartieswere"separated."
RespondentJudge,ontheotherhand,initiallyclaimsthatwhenheofficiatedthemarriage
betweenManzanoandPayao,hedidnotknowthatManzanowaslegallymarried.Whatheknew
wasthatthetwohadbeenlivingtogetherashusbandandwifeforsevenyearsalreadywithoutthe
benefitofmarriage,asmanifestedintheirjointaffidavit.However,duringhislaterManifestation,
hepresentedtwoseparateaffidavitsofthelateManzanoandofPayao,whichexpresslystated
thattheyweremarriedtoHerminiaBorjaandDomingoRelos,respectively.RespondentJudge
allegesthatonthebasisofthoseaffidavits,heagreedtosolemnizethemarriageinquestionin
accordancewithArticle34oftheFamilyCode.
ISSUES:
WONrespondentJudgecanbeheldliableforsolemnizingthevoidmarriagebetweenManzanoand
Payao
RULING:
TheCourtadoptedtherecommendationoftheCourtAdministratorwithanincreasedfineof20,000
imposedupontherespondentJudge.
RATIODECIDENDI:
Yes.RespondentJudgekneworoughttoknowthatasubsistingpreviousmarriageisadiriment
impediment,whichwouldmakethesubsequentmarriagenullandvoid.Infact,inhiscomment,hestated
thathadheknownthatthelateManzanowasmarriedhewouldhavediscouragedhimfromcontracting
anothermarriage.Likewise,respondentJudgecannotdenyknowledgeofManzanosandPayaos
subsistingpreviousmarriage,asthesamewasclearlystatedintheirseparateaffidavitswhichwere
subscribedandsworntobeforehim.ThefactthatManzanoandPayaohadbeenlivingapartfromtheir
respectivespousesforalongtimealreadyisimmaterial,assuchdoesnotdissolvethemarriagetie,much
lessauthorizethepartiestoremarry.Thisholdstrueallthemorewhentheseparationismerelydefacto,
asinthecaseatbar.Further,respondentJudgecannottakerefugeontheJointAffidavitofDavid
ManzanoandLuzvimindaPayaostatingthattheyhadbeencohabitingashusbandandwifeforseven

years.Justlikeseparation,freeandvoluntarycohabitationwithanotherpersonforatleastfiveyearsdoes
notseverethetieofasubsistingpreviousmarriage;itismerelyagroundforexemptionfrommarriage
license.ItcouldnotserveasajustificationforrespondentJudgetosolemnizeasubsequentmarriage
vitiatedbytheimpedimentofapriorexistingmarriage.Clearly,respondentJudgedemonstratedgross
ignoranceofthelawwhenhesolemnizedavoidandbigamousmarriage.

NAVARROv.DOMAGTOY
COMPLAINANT:RodolfoNavarro
RESPONDENT:JudgeHernandoDomagtoy
FACTS:
PetitionerRodolfoG.Navarrosubmittedevidenceinrelationtotwospecificactscommittedby
respondentMunicipalCircuitTrialCourtJudgeHernandoDomagtoy,which,hecontends,exhibitsgross
misconductaswellasinefficiencyinofficeandignoranceofthelaw:
3.) RespondentjudgesolemnizedtheweddingbetweenGasparA.TagadanandArlynF.Borga,
despitetheknowledgethatthegroomismerelyseparatedfromhisfirstwife.(Inviolationof
Art.41oftheFC)
4.) RespondentjudgeperformedamarriageceremonybetweenFlorianoDadorSumayloand
GemmaG.delRosarioattherespondentjudgesresidenceintheMunicipalofDapa,which
doesnotfallwithinhisjurisdictionalareaofthemunicipalitiesofSta.MonicaandBurgos.(In
violationofArt.7Par.1oftheFC)
Inresponse,JudgeDomagtoyclaimedthathisactofsolemnizingthemarriagebetweenGasparTagadan,
amarriedmanseparatedfromhiswife,andArlynF.Borgawaspredicatedonanaffidavitsupposedly
issuedbytheMunicipalTrialJudgeofBasey,Samar,confirmingthefactthatMr.Tagadanandhisfirst
wifehavenotseeneachotherforalmostsevenyears.Withrespecttothesecondcharge,hemaintainsthat
insolemnizingthemarriagebetweenSumayloanddelRosario,hedidnotviolateArticle7Par.1ofthe
FamilyCode,andthathemerelyworkedwithintheambitofArt.8ofthesamecode,whichprovidesfor
otherpossiblevenuestosolemnizeamarriage.
ISSUES:
WONrespondentexhibitedgrossmisconductandignoranceofthelaw.
RULING:
RespondentJudgeHernandoC.DomagtoyisSUSPENDEDforaperiodofsix(6)monthsandgivena
STERNWARNINGthatarepetitionofthesameorsimilaractswillbedealtwithmoreseverely.
RATIODECIDENDI:
YES.JudgeDomagtoysgrossignoranceofverybasiclegalprinciplesenshrinedintheFamily
Coderesultedtoabigamousandthereforevoidmarriageforthefirstmarriagehesolemnized,and
tothesecond,alackofthenecessaryauthorityofthesolemnizingofficer,sincehesolemnized
themarriageoutsideofhisjurisdiction.

JudgeDomagtoysrelianceonthesaidaffidavitofTagadans7yearseparationwithhisformer
wife,whichsaidaffidavitwasproventohavenotbeenissuedbytheMTCJudgeofBasey,Samar
butonlyswornbeforehim,isinsufficientjustificationforhishavingsolemnizedTagadans
secondmarriageonthebasisofhiswifespresumptivedeath.RegardlessofwhetherTagadanhad
awellfoundedbeliefthathiswife,whohadnotbeenheardofforalmost7years,wasdead,it
wasstillnecessaryforhimtohaveundergoneasummaryproceedingofficiallydeclaringhis
formerwifespresumptivedeath.Absentsuchmandatoryproceeding,thesubsequentmarriageis
consideredbigamoustherefore,void.
Art.7Par.1oftheFamilyCodeprovidesthatmarriagemaybesolemnizedby"anyincumbent
memberofthejudiciarywithinthecourt'sjurisdiction.FormembersoftheAppellateand
Supremecourts,thisjurisdictionextendsthroughoutthePhilippines(i.e.CAandSC
judges/justicescansolemnizemarriagesregardlessofvenue,solongastherequisitesaremet).
Thesamecannotbesaid,however,forjudgeswhoareappointedtospecificjurisdictions(e.g.
MTCjudges);theymayonlyofficiateweddingswithintheirareas;theylacktheauthorityto
solemnizeweddingsinareasbeyondtheirjurisdiction.Whilethismaynotaffectthevalidityof
themarriage,itnonethelessresultstoanirregularityintheformalrequisitelaiddowninArticle3,
namely,theauthorityofthesolemnizingofficer,which,asaresult,maysubjecttheofficiating
officialtoadministrativeliability.Meanwhile,therespondentsdefenseontheapplicabilityof
Art.8inthesamecodecannotstandsince
c. Therequisitesforholdingthemarriageoutsideoftheofficialvenueslistedthereinarenot
satisfiedinthiscasesinceonlyoneandnotbothofthepartiesrequestedanothervenue,
andthepartiesareneitheratthepointofdeathnorinaremoteplace
d. Art.8.isonlyadirectoryprovisionanddoesnotalterorqualifytheauthorityofa
solemnizingofficer.

MADRIDEJOv.DELEON
Ponente:JusticeVillaReal

Facts:
AppealbydefendantsfromCFIjudgmentfindingpetitionerasDomingodeLeonsnextofkin,ordering
defendantstorestoreanddeliverownershipandpossessionofpropertyinthecomplaint.Defendantssay
marriagebetweenPedroMadridejoandFlavianaPerezisinvalid,thatthecourterredindeclaringthat
solely because of the subsequent marriage of his parents, Melecio Madridejo, a natural child, was
legitimated.EulogiodeLeonandFlavianaPerez,manandwife,hadbutonechild,DomingodeLeon.
WifeandsonsurvivedEulogio,whodiedin1915.FlavianalivedwithPedroMadridejo,abachelor.On
June1,1917,achildwasborntoPedroandFlaviana,namedMelecio.OnJune17,1917,a24dayold
childofSiniloan,Laguna,asasonofFlaviana.OnJuly8,1920,FlavianaPerez,neardeath,married
Pedro,30yearsold,bytheparishpriestofSiniloan.Shediedthefollowingday.DomingodeLeondied
onthe2ndofMay,1928.

Issue:
Whetherornotcourterred.


Held:
No.ThemerefactthattheparishpriestofSiniloan,Laguna,whomarriedPedroMadridejoandFlaviana
Perez,failedtosendacopyofthemarriagecertificatetothemunicipalsecretarydoesnotinvalidatethe
marriageinarticulomortis,itnotappearingthattheessentialrequisitesrequiredbylawforitsvalidity
werelackingintheceremony,andtheforwardingofacopyofthemarriagecertificateisnotoneofsaid
essentialrequisites.

MARTINEZv.TAN
RosaliaMartinez,plaintiffandappellant,vs.AngelTan,defendantandappellee
Facts
Anexpedientedematrimoniocivil,writteninSpanish,indicatesthatMartinezandTanappeared
beforethejusticeofthepeaceonSeptember25,1907,askingthathesolemnizethemarriagethat
theyhavemutuallyagreedtoenter.
Acertificateofmarriagewasalsopresentedasevidence,signedbythejusticeofthepeaceand
thetwowitnessesprocuredbythebrideandgroom,whichstatedthatthedefendantandplaintiff
werelegallymarriedbythejusticeofthepeaceinthepresenceofthewitnessesthatday.
Martinez(theplaintiff)claimedthatsheneverappearedbeforethejusticeofthepeaceandwas
nevermarriedtoTan.Sheadmitsthatshesignedthedocument,butthatshesigneditinherown
home,withoutreadingit,andattherequestofTanwhotoldheritwasapaperauthorizinghimto
asktheconsentofherparentstothemarriage.
ISSUE:
WhetherornotMartinezandTanweremarriedonSept.25,1907,beforethejusticeofthepeace,Jose
Ballori,intheprovinceofLeyte
HELD:
Judgmentaffirmed(inthatMartinezandTanwereinfact,legallymarried),withthecostsofinstance
againsttheappellant.
RATIO:
Therewassufficientcompliancewithsection6ofGeneralOrderNo.68toconstituteavalid
marriage.
Noparticularformfortheceremonyofmarriageisrequired,butthepartiesmustdeclare,inthe
presenceofthepersonsolemnizingthemarriage,thattheytakeeachotherashusbandandwife.
Evidenceinsupportofthedecisionare:
o Martinezadmittedshesignedthedocument
o TantestifiedthatheandMartinezappearedbeforethejusticeofthepeaceonthedate
namedtogetherwiththewitnesses,andthattheyallsignedthedocuments
o Theaccountsofthetwowitnessthattestifiedthesame.
o Theaccountofthebailiffatthecourtofthejusticeofthepeace,testifyingthesame

EightletterswrittenbyMartinez,whichreferencetheplanforacivilmarriage,andlater,
cautioningforTannottotellhermothertheyhavebeencivillymarried.
TheindirectevidenceinsupportofMartinezsclaimwasdeemednotentitledtomuchweightby
thecourt.
ItwasalsoproventhatbothMartinezandTanwereabletoreadandwriteintheSpanish
language,andthattheyknewthecontentsofthedocumentswhichtheysigned.
o