August 15, 2016

Mr. Jonathan S. Digger

Unit 42, Tower I, 14th Floor,
Bellagio Residences, Bonifacio Global City
Taguig, Philippines
RE

Status of marriage as per Executive Order

209
Dear Mr. Digger,
We write in reply to your queries during our meeting held last
Wednesday, August 10, 2016 regarding the status of your marriage to
Ms. Christine Guinto - Digger, taking into account the possible
implications of the facts of the case even before your marriage was
contracted under Philippine laws.
BACKGROUND
We understand that you are a British National working here in the
Philippines as a Corporate Consultant for various companies engaged
in the Business Process Outsourcing (BPO) industry for the past Ten
(10) years.
By reason of your occupation you were sent to various parts of the
Philippines to conduct training seminars and other functions for your
corporate clientele. As such, it was during one of these trips that you
met your wife, Ms. Christine Guinto (now Guinto Digger), at the
WeGotKrabz Seafood Bistro & KTV in Angeles, Pampanga.
Based on your testimony during our earlier meeting, your initial tryst
blossomed into a full relationship when she showed her dedication
and faithfulness for you in visiting you during your business trip to
Palawan in 2001, and in maintaining a relationship with you during the
months that you were in England.
We understand further that on the first week of March of that same
year you returned to the Philippines and began living in Makati City.
Upon learning of your residence, Ms. Christine came to live with you
and in the next month became pregnant. Due to this pregnancy, you
obtained a marriage license sometime in April 1, 2001 from the City of
Mandaluyong wherein it was Ms. Christine who processed everything
and only presenting the papers to you for signing.
Despite securing the Marriage License in 2001 however, your marriage
was only celebrated in 2003 by a lady minister of the Philippine Church
of the Philippines, after which you started living together as husband
and wife up to present.
We understand finally that the marriage has long since soured and that
you can no longer bear to support the alleged laziness and apathy of

LegalOpinion _2016

Ms. Christine Guinto Digger, and are continuously inconvenienced by

the presence of at least Thirty (30) other people in your small home.
In view of the foregoing, you wish to be advised on the possible
courses of action that you may take regarding your marriage and the
annulment thereof.
We shall provide our discussion under the appropriate headings/subheadings as follows:
DISCUSSION
I.

VALIDITY OF A MARRIAGE LICENSE IN THE PHILIPPINES

As previously discussed in our meeting, you were informed that

Executive Order 209 or the Family Code of the Philippines, as
amended, governs Marriages in the Philippines. Under the said Code,
particularly Article 3 thereof, the marriage license is a formal requisite
of a valid marriage as follows:
Art. 3 The formal requisites of a valid 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 (2) witnesses of legal
age. (emphasis supplied)
It may be seen in the above-mentioned provision that a valid marriage
license is a Formal Requisite of a valid marriage in the Philippines, the
absence of which shall render the marriage void ab initio or from the
very beginning as provided for under Article 4 of the Family Code as
follows:
Art. 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 requisites shall render
the marriage voidable as provided in Article 45.
An irregularity in the formal requisites shall not affect
the validity of the marriage but the party or parties
responsible for the irregularity shall be civilly, criminally
and administratively liable. (emphasis supplied)
Taking the above provision in relation to Article 20 of the Family code
pertaining to the validity of a marriage license and the expiry of the
same:

LegalOpinion _2016

Art. 20 The license shall be valid in any part of the

Philippines for a period of one hundred twenty 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 on the
face of every license issued.(emphasis supplied)
It will be seen that since the Marriage License was issued in April 2001,
and the marriage was celebrated only in 2003, the issued license has
already expired and the formal requisite not complied with. Therefore,
under the above-mentioned provisions, your marriage to Ms. Christine
Guinto Digger is actually void from the very beginning or void ab
initio for absence of the formal requisite or a valid marriage license.
II.

STATUS OF YOUR MARRIAGE FOR LACK OF PARENTAL

CONSENT/ADVICE.

The second query that you posed to us during our meeting was
whether or not you could assail the validity of your marriage for lack of
parental consent or advice.
It is true that parental consent and/or parental advice is a requirement
for some couples to contract marriage, and the lack thereof would
render the marriage voidable as provided under Article 45 (1) of the
Family Code:
Art. 45 A marriage may be annulled for any of the
following causes, existing at the time of the marriage:
1. That the party in whose behalf it is sought to have
the marriage annulled was eighteen years of age or
over but below twenty one, and the marriage was
solemnized without the consent of the parents,
guardians, or persons having substitute parental
authority over the party, in that order, unless after
attaining the age of twenty-one, such party freely
cohabited with the other and both lived together as
husband and wife (emphasis supplied)
Under the above provision, we would opine that this is not the
advisable ground to annul your marriage to Ms. Christine.
The requirement of Parental Consent is only applicable to persons who
contract marriage or wish to contract marriage between the ages of
Eighteen (18) years to Twenty-One (21) years of age. In the case at
bar, you and Ms. Christine married when she was already Twenty-Two
(22) years of age. Assuming arguendo that Ms. Christine was indeed
within the range of ages specified by law as needing parental consent,
this circumstance would be ratified or cured as the law succinctly
provides that upon attaining the age of Twenty-One (21) such party
freely cohabited with the other and both lived together as husband and
wife.

LegalOpinion _2016

With the facts given, the provision of the Family Code as mentioned
does not apply to your case in assailing the marriage and should we
pursue this course of action, the courts would still hold your marriage
as valid and subsisting under this ground.

LegalOpinion _2016

III.

STATUS OF YOUR MARRIAGE ON THE GROUND OF LACK OF

AUTHORITY ON THE PART OF THE SOLEMNIZING OFFICER
WITH GOOD FAITH.

As established in the facts you presented to us, you are a member of

the Church of England and Ms. Christine is a Roman Catholic since
birth, however, your union was celebrated in your home and
solemnized by a Minister of the Philippine Church of the Philippines by
the name of Minister Rudy Kabayo who appeared to be female.
The Family Code also provides for religious ministers who may
solemnize a marriage as well as the qualifications therefor under
Article 7, paragraph (2) which states to wit:
Art. 7 Marriage may be solemnized by:

2. 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 limits of the written authority granted
him by his church or religious sect and provided that at
least one of the contracting parties belongs to the
solemnizing officers church or religious sect;
(emphasis supplied)
In relation to the above provision of law, we opine that the Minister
who officiated and celebrated your marriage to Ms. Christine, although
he may have been in possession of the authority granted upon him by
the Philippine Church of the Philippines, and may have been acting
upon the written authority thereof, the fact remains that neither you
nor Ms. Christine are members of the same church. As such, there was
no apparent authority on the part of Minister Kabayo to celebrate your
marriage and your marriage with Ms. Christine may therefore be held
as void from the beginning or void ab initio due to the absence of
authority on the part of the solemnizing officer.
Lastly, you posed your query on good faith as in your research you
came upon the provision of law stating that good faith on the part of at
least one (1) of the parties in the authority of the solemnizing officer
would serve to validate the marriage. In this contention you are correct
as Article 35 of the Family Code, particularly paragraph (2) thereof,
states:
Art. 35 The following marriages shall be void from
the beginning:

2. Those solemnized by any person not legally

authorized to perform marriages unless such marriages
were contracted with either or both parties believing in
good faith that the solemnizing officer had the legal
authority to do so;
(emphasis supplied)
LegalOpinion _2016

You are correct in your contention that good faith in the authority of the
solemnizing officer would serve to validate the marriage in the eyes of
the court, however, the question in issue is not whether or not Minister
Kabayo had the legal authority to officiate your marriage, it is whether
or not he should have. To expound further, we would need to relate
both Article 7 paragraph (2) and Article 35 paragraph (2) as mentioned
above.
Under Article 7 (2), the wedding ceremony may be solemnized by any
priest, rabbi, imam or minister who possesses the necessary requisites
to do so (i.e. written authority and registration with the civil registrar
general), we find this to be true considering that Minister Kabayo is
indeed an authorized and registered minister under the Philippine
Church of the Philippines and as such he may officiate and celebrate
marriages between members of their clergy or sect.
Article 35 (2) on the other hand operates on the presumption that one
or both of the parties to the marriage believed in good faith that the
solemnizing officer possesses the qualifications and requisites set by
the earlier provision. It does not have any bearing nor provide for any
good faith scenario as to the last portion of Article 7 (2) that imposes a
requirement on the parties to the marriage in that one or both of them
must be members of the solemnizing officers church or religious sect.
The reason behind the selective assumption is that while one or both of
the parties may assume as to the qualifications of the solemnizing
officer, it would be illogical to assume that neither party knew of the
religious affiliations or membership of the other.
In this regard, your marriage to Ms. Christine Guinto Digger may still
be regarded as void ab initio by reason of the absence of the formal
requisite of Authority on the part of the Solemnizing Officer to
celebrate your marriage. This defect or absence cannot be ratified as
at the time of the marriage Minister Kabayo had no authority to
celebrate your union due to neither of the parties being members of
the Philippine Church of the Philippines, his church.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
In conclusion, your marriage to Ms. Christine Guinto Digger may be
declared as void from the beginning or void ab initio on two of the
above mentioned grounds namely: (1) Lack of a Valid Marriage License
at the time of the marriage, and (2) Absence of Authority on the part of
the Solemnizing Officer celebrating the marriage.
We opine that it would be more practical and less costly for you to
assail your marriage to Ms. Christine on the absence of a Valid
Marriage License as the courts would only have to look at the dates
involved such as the date of expiration stamped on the face of the
marriage license and the date indicated in your marriage certificate.
These two would become presumptive evidence and lend credence to
the fact that your marriage was celebrated without a valid marriage
license and therefore is a void marriage under the Family Code.

LegalOpinion _2016

On the other hand, assailing the validity of the marriage on the second
ground mentioned would entail the investigation of the authority of
Minister Kabayo from the Philippine Church of the Philippines as well as
testimonies from any witnesses as to the same. This would lengthen
the time it would take to process and try your annulment case and
subsequently increase the costs thereof.
However, the course of action to be taken on the above discussed
issues and provisions in relation to the annulment of your marriage to
Ms. Christine Guinto Digger would be up to your discretion.
We trust that we have answered your queries to your satisfaction
based upon the facts that were available and as they were presented
to us. Should you require any further clarification or consultation,
please do not hesitate to contact us at our offices.
Sincerely,

Atty. Rucheska Paola N. Jacinto

ABESAMIS, BRIONES, JACINTO, VILLARAZA & ASSOCIATES
Senior Partner

LegalOpinion _2016