MARRIAGE
the immigration laws of the United States.
Rep. of the PH v. Albios (Oct 16 2013 Mendoza, J.)
FACTS:
Daniel Lee Fringer, an American citizen, and respondent Liberty
Albios were married at by Judge Ofelia Calo of the MeTC.
Albios filed a petition for declaration of nullity of her marriage with
Fringer, alleging that immediately after their marriage they separated
and never lived at husband and wife because they never had any
intention of complying with the essential marital obligations.
o Albios claimed that their marriage was made in jest and is null
and void ab initio.
The RTC declared the marriage void ab initio since it was of the view
that the parties married each other for convenience.
o Albios testified that she contracted Fringer to enter into a
marriage so she could get an American citizenship and
agrred to pay him 2,000 dollars.
o Fringer returned to the US and Albios never paid him
because he never processed her petition for citizenship.
The CA ruled that the essential requisite of consent was lacking and
that the parties did not clearly understand the consequences of the
marriage and that the situation was similar to a marriage in jest
because it was for personal gain.
The OSG argues that even if the intention was for Albios to get
American citizenship and for Fringer to be paid, both parties gave
their consent as they knowingly and willingly entered into that
marriage and knew the benefits and consequences of being bound by
it. The motive is inconsequential to the validity of the marriage.
o It also argues that the case is not a marriage in jest since the
parties intentionally consented to enter into a real and valid
marriage.
ISSUE: W/N a marriage contracted for personal gain is void ab initio.
HELD: NO.
Marriage Fraud in Immigration
o In the United States, marriages where a couple marries only
to achieve a particular purpose or acquire specific benefits,
have been referred to as limited purpose marriages.
o The case Bark v. Immigration and Naturalization Service ruled
that a marriage is a sham if the bride and groom did not
intend to establish a life together at the time they were
married. This standard was modified with the passage of the
Immigration Marriage Fraud Amendment of 1986 (IMFA),
which now requires the couple to instead demonstrate that
the marriage was not entered into for the purpose of evading
o At present, United States courts have generally denied
annulments involving limited purpose marriages where a
couple married only to achieve a particular purpose, and have
upheld such marriages as valid.
Under Article 2 of the Family Code, consent is an essential
requisite of marriage. Article 4 of the same Code provides that the
absence of any essential requisite shall render a marriage void ab
initio.
o For consent to be valid, it must be (1) freely given and (2)
made in the presence of a solemnizing officer.
o A freely given consent requires that the contracting parties
willingly and deliberately enter into the marriage. Consent
must be real in the sense that it is not vitiated nor rendered
defective by any of the vices of consent under Articles 45 and
46 of the Family Code.
o Consent must also be conscious or intelligent, in that the
parties must be capable of intelligently understanding the
nature of, and both the beneficial or unfavorable
consequences of their act.
Consent was not lacking between Fringer and Albios.
o There was real consent because it was not vitiated. It was
also conscious and intelligent because they understood the
nature and the beneficial and inconvenient consequences of
their marriage.
o That their consent was freely given is best evidenced by their
conscious purpose of acquiring American citizenship through
marriage. There was a clear intention to enter into a real and
valid marriage so as to fully comply with the requirements of
an application for citizenship.
A marriage in jest is a pretended marriage, legal in form but entered
into as a joke, with no real intention of entering into the actual
marriage status, and with a clear understanding that the parties would
not be bound.
o Fringer and Albios marriage was not in jest since they had
the intention to be bound in order to create the bond
necessary to allow Albios to have American citizenship.
The State does not and cannot dictate on the kind of life that a couple
chooses to lead. Any attempt to regulate their lifestyle would go into
the realm of their right to privacy and would raise serious
constitutional questions.
o Marriages entered into for various purposes, provided that
they comply with all the legal requisites, are valid.
 Their marriage cannot be considered voidable on the ground of fraud
under Article 45 (3) of the Family Code.
o (1) nondisclosure of a previous conviction involving moral
turpitude; (2) concealment by the wife of a pregnancy by
another man; (3) concealment of a sexually transmitted
disease; and (4) concealment of drug addiction, alcoholism,
or homosexuality.
Lasanas v. People (Jun 23 2014 Bersamin, J.)
FACTS:
Petitioner Noel Lasanas was married to Socorro Patingo without a
marriage license. They did not execute an affidavit of cohabitation to
excuse the lack of a marriage license.
Lasanas and Patingo reaffirmed their marriage vows in a religious
ceremony, and was able to submit a marriage license.
However, Lasanas and Patingo separated de facto (not legally
recognized) because of irreconcilable differences.
Lasanas subsequently married Josefa Eslaban in a religious
ceremony, and their marriage certificate reflected Lasanas civil
status as single.
Afterwards, Lasanas filed a complaint for annulment of marriage and
damages against Patingo, alleging that Patingo employed deceit,
misrepresentations, and fraud in securing his consent to their
marriage, and that psychological incompatibilities and her infidelity
had caused him to suffer mental anguish, sleepless nights and social
humiliation warranting the award of damages.
Patingo charged Lasanas with bigamy and the latter was charged for
bigamy by RTC. In the meanwhile, Lasanas complaint for annulment
of marriage was dismissed.
The RTC found Lasanas guilty of bigamy. Lasanas appealed to the
CA, contending that he was not legally married to Patingo and was
not guilty of bigamy. However, the appeal was dismissed by the CA
for lack of merit.
ISSUE: W/N Lasanas ig guilty of bigamy.
HELD: YES.
The elements of bigamy are (1) that the offender has been legally
married; (2) that the marriage has not been legally dissolved or, in
case his or her spouse is absent, the absent spouse could not yet be
presumed dead according to the Civil Code; (3) that he or she
contracts a second or subsequent marriage; and (4) that the second
or subsequent marriage has all the essential requisites for validity.
o The first and second elements were present in view of the
absence of a judicial declaration of nullity of marriage
between Lasanas and Patingo.
o The crime of bigamy was consummated from the moment he
contracted the second marriage without his marriage to
Patingo being first judicially declared null and void, because
at the time of the celebration of the second marriage, his
marriage to Patingo was still deemed valid and subsisting due
to such marriage not being yet declared null and void by a
court of competent jurisdiction.
Abbas v. Abbas (Jan 30 2013 Velasco, Jr. J.)
FACTS:
Petitioner Syed Abbas filed a petition for the declaration of nullity of
his marriage to respondent Gloria Abbas, alleging the absence of a
marriage license as a ground for the annulment.
In Syed and Glorias Marriage Contract, is is stated that a marriage
license was presented to the solemnizing officer.
Syed, a Pakistani citizen, testified that he met Gloria, a Filipino
citizen, in Taiwan and they were married at the Taipei Mosque.
o After arriving in the Philippines, Syed was told by his mother-
in-law that he was going to undergo some ceremony to be
able to stay in the PH, but was not told of its nature.
o During the ceremony Syed and Gloria signed a document.
Syed did not know that it was a marriage until Gloria told him
later.
Syed also testified that he did not apply for a marriage license.
o He went to the Office of the Civil Registrar to check on their
marriage license. He was asked for a copy of their marriage
contract where the marriage license number could be found.
The Municipal Civil Registrar found that the marriage license
number in the marriage contract was issued to another
couple, Arlindo Getalado and Myra Mabilangan.
o The Civil Registrar issued Syed a certification which states
that no marriage license was issued to him and Gloria.
o Syed went to get the certification because Gloria filed a
bigamy case against him.
o Norberto Bagsic, an employee of the Municipal Civil
Registrar, brought documents to the trial which showed the
marriage license that was issued to the other couple. He
testified the serial number of the marriage license was not
issued to any other person.
Gloria had her own witnesses.
o Reverend Mario Dauz testified that he solemnized Syed and
Glorias marriage and that the witnesses were Atty. Lorenzo
Sanchez and Mary Ann Ceriola.
 o He testified that Atty. Sanchez gave him the marriage license
the day before the wedding.
o Atty. Sanchez testified that he was asked to be a sponsor by
Glorias mother, Felicitas. He requested a certain Qualin to
secure the marriage license, and that he didnt know where
the license was obtained.
o Gloria corroborated the testimonies of the other witnesses,
and said that she filed a bigamy case against Syed because
he had married Maria Buenaventura during the existence of
their marriage. She also stated that she and Syed were
married in Taiwan but did not know if the marriage had been
celebrated under Muslim rites since the one who celebrated
their marriage was Chinese.
The RTC ruled that no valid marriage license was issued for Gloria
and Syed. Their marriage lacked a formal requisite, and that it was
void ab initio.
Gloria appealed the case to the CA. The CA granted her appeal.
Syed elevated the matter to the SC.
ISSUE: W/N Syed and Glorias marriage is void ab initio.
HELD: YES.
Under Art. 3 of the FC, 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.
Under 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.
Under Art 35, marriages solemnized without a license shall be void
from the beginning.
The Court agrees with the RTC in ruling that no valid marriage
license was issued to Gloria and Syed.
o Gloria failed to present and actual marriage license and only
relied on the marriage contract and the testimonies of the
witnesses.
o Syed, on the other hand, obtained a certification from the
Municipal Civil Registrar which states that no license was
issued. In Republic v. CA, it was held that such certification
had probative value, as the duty of the Civil Registrar is to
maintain records of data relative to the issuance of a marriage
license.
o Gloria also failed to explain why the marriage license was
issued in Carmona, Cavite where neither of them resided.
She failed to present Qualin, the one who actually obtained
the license.
In Carino v. Carino, it was held that the certification of the Local Civil
Registrar that their office had no record of a marriage license was
adequate to prove the non-issuance of said license.
o It further held that it was the burden of the party alleging a
valid marriage to prove its validity. Gloria failed to discharge
that burden.
o It cannot be said that there was a simple irregularity in the
marriage license that would not affect the validity of the
marriage, as no license was presented.
Kho v. Kho (Jun 1 2016 Peralta, J.)
FACTS:
Petitioner Raquel Khos parents summoned one Eusebio Colongon
(deceased), then Clerk in the Office of the Municipal Treasurer, to
arrange and prepare the papers for the intended marriage between
Raquel and respondent Veronica Kho. The marriage was to take
place around midnight of June 1 1972 to exclude the public from
witnessing it.
Raquel never applied for a marriage license and did not sign any
papers in connection with the procurement of the license.
The RTC ruled that the marriage was void ab initio due to the lack of
marriage license.
o Raquel presented a Certification from the Municipal Civil
Registrar, which states that no marriage license was issued to
Raquel and Veronica.
o Veronica contends that she and Raquel personally appeared
before the Local Civil Registrar to secure a marriage license.
The CA held that Raquel failed to prove the absence of the marriage
license and that the absence of any indication in the marriage
certificate that a marriage license was issued is a mere defect in the
formal requisites and does not invalidate the marriage.
ISSUE: W/N Raquel and Veronica obtained a valid marriage license.
HELD: NO.
The marriage was celebrated on June 1, 1972, prior to the effectivity
of the Family Code. The Civil Code governs their union.
o According to Art. 53 of the CC, the essential requisites of
marriage are: (1) Legal capacity of the contracting parties; (2)
 Their consent, freely given; (3) Authority of the person
performing the marriage; and (4) A marriage license, except
in a marriage of exceptional character.
o Article 80(3) of the CC also makes it clear that a marriage
performed without the corresponding marriage license is void,
this being nothing more than the legitimate consequence
flowing from the fact that the license is the essence of the
marriage contract. The requirement and issuance of a
marriage license is the State's demonstration of its
involvement and participation in every marriage, in the
maintenance of which the general public is interested.
Raquel was able to present a Certification issued by the Municipal
Civil Registrar which states that there was no record nor copy of any
marriage license ever issued to him and Veronica.
o This Certification overcomes the presumed validity of the
marriage. It is now the burden of Veronica to prove that the
marriage is still valid as she is the one who alleges such
validity. She was not able to do so.
In addition, their marriage certificate does not contain any entry
regarding the marriage license. It could have been obtained from the
National Archives and Records Section, but Veronica failed to do so.
The law requires that the absence of such marriage license must be
apparent on the marriage contract, or at the very least, supported by
a certification from the local civil registrar that no such marriage
license was issued to the parties.
Tenebro v. CA (Feb 18 2004 Ynares-Santiago, J.)
FACTS:
Petitioner Veronico Tenebro contracted marriage with complainant
Leticia Ancajas. They lived together continuously without interruption
until Tenebro informed Ancajas that he was previously married to
Hilda Villareyes. Invoking this said marriage, Tenebro left Ancajas to
live with Villareyes.
Tenebro contracted yet another marriage to Nilda Villegas. When
Ancajas learned of Tenebros third marriage, she verified from
Villareyes if she was married to Tenebro and Villareyes confirmed.
Ancajas filed a complaint for bigamy against Tenebro.
During the trial, Tenebro admitted to living with Villareyes but denied
that they were validly married due to the absence of a marriage
ceremony. He alleged that he merely signed a marriage contract to
enable her to get allotment from his office in connection to his work
as a seaman.
The RTC convicted Tenebro of bigamy.
ISSUE: W/N Tenebro is guilty of bigamy.
HELD: YES.
Under Art. 349 of the RPC, the elements of bigamy are: (1) that the
offender has been legally married; (2) that the first marriage has not
been legally dissolved or, in case his or her spouse is absent, the
absent spouse could not yet be presumed dead according to the Civil
Code; (3) that he contracts a second or subsequent marriage; and (4)
that the second or subsequent marriage has all the essential
requisites for validity.
The prosecution presented sufficient evidence to prove the existence
of the first marriage between Tenebro and Villareyes.
o (1) There was a copy of a marriage contract and a
handwritted letter from Vilalreyes to Ancajas which informed
the latter of the marriage.
o Tenebro contends that there is no record of the marriage in
the NSO and the City Civil Registry of Manila. However, the
documents presented by the defense cannot adequately
assail the marriage contract because such contract was
already sufficient to establish the marriage. It should be given
greater credence than documents testifying merely as to
absence of any record of the marriage since the law does not
require that a marriage contract needs to be submitted to the
civil registrar.
o (2) Although Tenebro claims that he took steps to verify the
non-existence of his marriage to Villareyes by asking his
brother to validate its non-existence, the certifications issued
by the NSO and the Civil Regristry were dated after the
marriage of Tenebro to his second wife.
Tenebro argues that the judicial declaration of nullity of his second
marriage to Ancajas on the ground of psychological incapacity
retracts to the date of the celebration of the marriage. He claims that
since the marriage is void ab initio, he is not guilty of bigamy.
o This declaration of nullity does not affect the States penal
laws.
o As a second or subsequent marriage contracted during the
subsistence of petitioners valid marriage to Villareyes, his
marriage to Ancajas would be null and void ab initio
completely regardless of petitioners psychological capacity or
incapacity. It is not an argument for the avoidance of bigamy.
o A plain reading of Art. 39 of the RPC indicates that it
penalizes the mere act of contracting a second or a
subsequent marriage during the subsistence of a valid
marriage.
o The declaration of the nullity of the second marriage on the
ground of psychological incapacity is not an indicator that
 petitioners marriage to Ancajas lacks the essential requisites
for validity. Said marriage still has legal effects. There is
therefore a recognition written into the law itself that such a
marriage, although void ab initio, may still produce legal
consequences. Among these legal consequences is incurring
criminal liability for bigamy.
Sevilla v. Cardenas (Jul 31 2006 Chico-Nazario, J.)
FACTS:
Petitioner Jaime Sevilla filed a complaint before the RTC, claiming
that thru machinations, duress, and intimidation employed upon him
by respondent Carmelita Cardenas and her father Col. Jose
Cardenas, caused him and Carmelita to sign a marriage contract
before a minister of the gospel. They also never obtained a marriage
license.
Carmelita refuted these claims, stating that she and Jaime were
married civilly in a church ceremony and Jaime is estopped from
invoking the lack of marriage license because they had already been
married for 25 years.
Jaime testified before the RTC that the marriage license number in
their marriage contract was fictitious.
o Jaimes counsel, Atty. Jose Abola, testified that he made
inquiries with the Office of the Civil Registry where the
supposed marriage license was obtained. The Office issued
certifications that the marriage license number used was
never issued by that office. The church also issued him a
certificate of marriage wherein it was noted that it was a
purely religious ceremony, having there been a civil marriage
under the alleged marriage license number.
Carmelita testified that she and Jaime had a steady romantic
relationship after they met.
o She claims that she and Jaime eloped to Baguio. Upon return
to Manila, Jaimes mother assured them that she would
support them. Jaime and Carmelita had a civil wedding
without the knowledge of her family. They also had a church
wedding wherein her family had no participation.
o She claims that there was no sex during their honeymoon
and it was only after 2 months that they had sex. She learned
from Jaimes physician that he had been undergoing
psychiatric therapy since he was 12 due to trauma
compounded by a drug habit.
o She also found that Jaime had an unusual sexual behavior.
He was obsessed with her knees and preferred to have
intrafemural sex with her.
o She claims that Jaime is a compulsive liar and had a bad
temper. He also took drugs. They had no fixed home since
they partly lived in Spain. Carmelita worked as an English
teacher while Jaime, who was supposed to be studying
medicine, did nothing.
o Jaime allegedly physically and verbally abused her, and they
broke up. Later, Jaime married one Angela Garcia in the US.
The RTC declared their marriage void ab initio for lack of a marriage
license.
ISSUE: W/N the marriage is valid.
HELD: YES.
The Certifications from the Local Civil Registrar stating that no
marriage license was issued are insufficient to declare the marriage
null and void ab initio.
o The Civil Code was the law in force at the time of the
marriage.
o The first two certifications bear the statement "hope and
understand our loaded work cannot give you our full force
locating the above problem." It could be easily implied from
the said statement that the Office of the Local Civil Registrar
could not exert its best efforts to locate and determine the
existence of the Marriage License.
o This implication is confirmed in the testimony of Perlita
Mercader who stated that they cannot locate the logbook
because the person in charge of it had already retired. This
belies the claim that all efforts to locate the logbook or prove
the material contents therein, had been exerted
o The presumption of regularity of performance of official
function by the Local Civil Registrar in issuing the
certifications is effectively rebutted since it did not exert
utmost efforts to locate the logbook.
It is a settled rule that every intendment of the law or fact leans
toward the validity of the marriage, the indissolubility of the marriage
bonds.
Semper praesumitur pro matrimonio Always presume marriage.
People v. Dayot (Mar 28 2008 Chico-Nazario, J.)
FACTS:
In 1986, Respondent Jose Dayot and private petitioner Felisa Tecson
were married at the Pasay City Hall. In lieu of a marriage license,
they executed a sworn affidavit attesting that both of them had
reached the age of maturity and being unmarried, lived together for 5
years.
 In 1993, Jose filed a complaint from annulment before the RTC of
Binan Laguna, contending that his marriage to Felisa was a sham for
lack of a marriage ceremony, that he did not execute the
aforementioned affidavit, and that his consent to the marriage was
vitiated by fraud.
o According to Jose, he was introduced to Felisa in 1986. He
came to live as a boarder in Felisas house. 3 weeks later,
Felisa requested him to go with her to the Pasay City Hall
under the pretense that she was claiming a package sent to
her by her borther in Saudi Arabia.
o Upon arrival, Felisa signaled to a man bearing 3 folded pieces
of paper to approach them. The man told Jose to sign the
papers so that the package can be released to Felisa. Jose
refused, but Felisa told him that her brother could get them
both killed because he had learned about their relationship.
o Jose signed the papers. It was in Feb. 1987 when he learned
that he had contracted marriage with Felisa. He saw the
paper on a table in Felisas house and when he asked her
about it, she feigned ignorance.
Felisa denied Joses allegations and defended the validity of the
marriage.
o She claimed that they had a relationship in the early part of
1980 but did not marry him due to their age difference.
o She also claimed that during their subsisting marriage, Jose
married a Rufina Pascual. Felisa filed for bigamy against
Jose.
The RTC dismissed Joses complaint, ruling that his testimony was
implausible. It also ruled that an action for annulment must be
commenced within 4 years after the discovery of the fraud.
The CA applied the CC to the marriage. It observed that the
circumstances constituting fraud as a ground for annulment of
marriage under Article 86 of the CC did not exist in the marriage
between the parties. Further, it ruled that the action for annulment of
marriage on the ground of fraud was filed beyond the prescriptive
period provided by law.
o It also did not accept that the marriage was void ab initio for
lack of marriage license, ruling that it was solemnized under
Art. 76 of the CC as one of exceptional character, with the
parties executing an affidavit of marriage between man
and woman who have lived together as husband and wife
for at least five years.
o However, even if the couple misled the solemnizing officer
into thinking that they lived for 5 years, the CA gave credence
to the good-faith reliance of the solemnizing officer over the
falsity of the affidavit.
Jose filed a motion for reconsideration, stating that the requisites for
proper application of the exemption from a marriage license were not
fulfilled. He maintained that the affidavit of marital cohabitation
executed by him and Felisa was false.
o The CA granted the motion and reversed its decision.
The OSG filed a petition for review, praying that the CAs decision be
reversed and set aside.
ISSUE: W/N the marriage is valid.
HELD: NO. It is void ab initio.
Art 58 of the CC states that a marriage license is a requisite of
marriage.
The marriage lacks the requirements of a valid marriage in which the
sworn affidavit that Felisa executed is merely a scrap of paper
because they started living together 5 months before the celebration
of their marriage.
The 5 years shall be computed back from the date of the celebration
of the marriage, and refers to a period of legal union had it not been
for the absence of a marriage. It covers the years immediately
preceding the day of the marriage, characterized by exclusivity,
meaning no third party was involved at any time within the five years
and continuity that is unbroken.
Santiago v. People (Jul 15 2015 Sereno, C.J.)
FACTS:
Four months after the solemnization of the marriage of petitioner
Leonila Santiago and Nicanor Santos, they faced an information for
bigamy. The former pleaded not guilty while the latter escaped the
suit.
Santos was allegedly married to Estela Galang.
Petitioner asserted that she cannot be included as an accused in the
crime of bigamy because she believed that Santos was still single
when she married him. She also argues that Santos first marriage
was void due to the lack of a marriage license.
The RTC rejected Santiagos account that she did not know that
Santos was married, as Galang already introduced herself as Santos
legal wife prior.
Santiago moved for reconsideration, contending that her marriage to
Santos was void ab initio for being celebrated without complying to
Art. 34 of the FC, which provides an exemption from the requirement
of a marriage license if the parties have actually lived together as
husband and wife for at least five years prior to the celebration of
their marriage.
 o She asserted that she and Santos had not lived together as
husband and wife for five years prior to their marriage. Hence,
she argued that the absence of a marriage license effectively
rendered their marriage null and void, justifying her acquittal
from bigamy.
o The RTC refused to reverse her conviction.
The CA affirmed the RTC decision.
ISSUE: W/N Santiago is guilty of bigamy.
HELD: YES.
Santos and Santiago made a misrepresentation in their marriage
certificate by stating that they were eligible to contract marriage
without a license.
Santiago relies on the fact that her marriage to Santos is void ab initio
for lack of a marriage license. However, they themselves perpetrated
a false marriage certificate by misrepresenting their exemption from
such license.
Santiago cites the case of People v. De Lara involving an acquittal for
bigamy on the ground that the second marriage lacked the requisite
marriage license.
o The accused in the case did not cause the falsification of
public documents himself.
o In contrast Santos fraudulently secured a marriage certificate.
Beso v. Judge Daguman (Jan 28 2000 Ynares-Santiago, J.)
FACTS:
Petitioner Zenaida Beso charged respondent Judge Juan Daguman,
Jr. of solemnizing a marriage outside of his jurisdiction and of
negligence in not retaining a copy and not registering the marriage
contract with the office of the Local Civil Registrar.
Beso and her fianc Bernardito Yman got married before Judge
Daguman in his residence in Calbayog City, Samar.
o The ceremony was attended by Pacifico Maghacot (sponsor)
and spouses Ramon and Teresita Dean.
o After the wedding, Yman abandoned Beso for no reason.
o Yman went to Calbayog City and inquired to the Civil
Registrar about her marriage contract.
o She was informed that her marriage was not registered.
o She wrote to Judge Daguman to inquire but he informed her
that all the copies of the marriage contract were taken by
Yman.
Judge Daguman contends that the marriage had to be solemnized
outside of his territory because:
o He was physical indisposed and unable to report to his
station. Beso and Yman came unexpectedly to his residence,
urgently requesting the celebration of their marriage right then
and there, first, because complainants said she must leave
that same day to be able to fly from Manila for abroad as
scheduled; second, that for the parties to go to another town
for the marriage would be expensive and would entail serious
problems of finding a solemnizing officer and another pair of
witnesses or sponsors; if they failed to get married on August
28, 1997, complainant would be out of the country for a long
period and their marriage license would lapse and necessitate
another publication of notice; fourth, if the parties go beyond
their plans for the scheduled marriage, complainant feared it
would complicate her employment abroad; and, last, all other
alternatives as to date and venue of marriage were
considered impracticable by the parties
o Beso and Yman already had the documents for a valid
marriage
o Beso was an OFW, and he realized that she deserved more
than ordinary attention under the present govt policy
The Judge also contended that he solemnized the marriage in good
faith.
The Judge explained that his failure of registering the duplicate and
triplicate copies of the marriage certificate
o A few days after the wedding, he gathered the papers relating
to the marriage but after searching diligently for them, the last
3 copies of the certificate were missing.
o Yman said that he saw Beso put the copies in her bad during
the wedding.
o The Judge cannot contact Beso since she was already out of
the country.
The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) found the respondent
Judge committed non-feasance in office.
o It found that there are only three instances under Art. 8 of FC
wherein a marriage may be solemnized by a judge outside his
chamber or at a place other than his sala. The circumstances
are not present.
o The Judge also violated Art. 23 of FC, wherein it states that
"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 certificates not later than
fifteen days after the marriage, to the local civil registrar of the
place where the marriage was solemnized.
ISSUE: W/N the respondent Judge could solemnize a wedding outside of
his jurisdiction.
HELD: NO.
Under Art 7 of FC, marriage may be solemnized by any incumbent
member of the judiciary within the courts jurisdiction.
The reasons proffered by respondent Judge to justify his hurried
solemnization of the marriage in this case only tends to degrade the
revered position enjoyed by marriage in the hierarchy of social
institutions in the country.
An elementary regard for the sacredness of laws let alone that
enacted in order to preserve so sacrosanct an inviolable social
institution as marriage and the stability of judicial doctrines laid down
by superior authority should have given respondent judge pause and
made him more vigilant in the exercise of his authority and the
performance of his duties as a solemnizing officer.
Considering that respondent Judges jurisdiction covers the
municipality of Sta. Margarita-Tarangan-Pagsanjan, Samar only, he
was not clothed with authority to solemnize a marriage in the City of
Calbayog.
Fujiki v. Marinay (Jun 26 2013 Carpio, J.)
FACTS:
Petitioner Minoru Fujiki is a Japanese who married respondent Maria
Paz Marinay in the PH. Since the marriage did not sit well with Fujikis
parents, he could not take her to Japan and they eventually lost
contact.
Marinay met another Japanese, Shinichi Maekara. They married
without the first marriage being dissolved. Maekara brought Marinay
to Japan. However, Maekara abused Marinay and the latter left to
contact Fujiki.
Fujiki and Marinay were able to reestablish their relationship. Fujiki
helped Marinay obtain a judgment from a family court in Japan which
declared the marriage between Marinay and Maekara void on the
ground of bigamy.
Fujiki filed a petition before the RTC, praying that (1) the Japanese
Family Court judgment be recognized; (2) that the bigamous marriage
between Marinay and Maekara be declared void ab initio under
Articles 35(4) and 41 of the Family Code of the Philippines; and (3) for
the RTC to direct the Local Civil Registrar of Quezon City to annotate
the Japanese Family Court judgment on the Certificate of Marriage
between Marinay and Maekara and to endorse such annotation to the
Office of the Administrator and Civil Registrar General in the National
Statistics Office (NSO).
The RTC dismissed the petition
o It contended that under Sec. 2 of the Rule on Declaration of
Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable
Marriages, A petition for declaration of absolute nullity of void
marriage may be filed solely by the husband or the wife.
Fujiki contends that the Rule the RTC used was only for ordinary civil
actions, and that the petition for recognition of foreign judgment is a
special proceeding, which "seeks to establish a status, a right or a
particular fact," and not a civil action which is "for the enforcement or
protection of a right, or the prevention or redress of a wrong."
o He also contended that the Japanese judgment was
consistent with Article 35(4) of the Family Code of the
Philippines on bigamy and was therefore entitled to
recognition by Philippine courts.
Marinay and Maekara individually sent letters to the Court to comply
with the directive for them to comment on the petition.
o Maekara wrote that Marinay concealed from him the fact that
she was previously married to Fujiki. Maekara also denied
that he inflicted any form of violence on Marinay.
o On the other hand, Marinay wrote that she had no reason to
oppose the petition. She would like to maintain her silence for
fear that anything she say might cause misunderstanding
between her and Fujiki.
ISSUE: W/N the court can adopt the foreign judgment.
HELD: YES.
Art. 26 of the FC confers jurisdiction on Philippine courts to extend
the effect of a foreign divorce decree to a Filipino spouse without
undergoing trial to determine the validity of the dissolution of the
marriage.
o Par. 2 provides that "where a marriage between a Filipino
citizen and a foreigner is validly celebrated and a divorce is
thereafter validly obtained abroad by the alien spouse
capacitating him or her to remarry, the Filipino spouse shall
have capacity to remarry under Philippine law."
o This is only a corrective measure to address the anomaly that
results from a marriage between a Filipino, whose laws do not
allow divorce, and a foreign citizen, whose laws allow divorce.
The principle in the second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family
Code applies because the foreign spouse, after the foreign judgment
nullifying the marriage, is capacitated to remarry under the laws of his
or her country. If the foreign judgment is not recognized in the
Philippines, the Filipino spouse will be discriminated the foreign
spouse can remarry while the Filipino spouse cannot remarry.
Philippine courts already have jurisdiction to extend the effect of a
foreign judgment in the Philippines to the extent that the foreign
judgment does not contravene domestic public policy.