RONULO V.

PEOPLE

FACTS:

On 29 March 2003, Rene Ronulo, an Aglipayan Priest, conducted a ceremony, which he

insisted as an act of “blessing” not tantamount to marriage contemplated by law, to the
couple Joey Umadac and Claire Bingayen who had no marriage license at the time.

An information for violation of Article 352 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), as
amended, was then filed against Ronulo before the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) for
allegedly performing an illegal marriage ceremony.

ISSUE:

Whether the alleged "blessing" by the petitioner is tantamount to the performance of an

"illegal marriage ceremony" which is punishable by law.

RULING:

Yes. The law sets the minimum requirements constituting a marriage ceremony: first,
there should be the personal appearance of the contracting parties before a solemnizing
officer; and second, their declaration in the presence of not less than two witnesses that
they take each other as husband and wife.

As to the first requirement, Ronulo admitted that the parties appeared before him and
this fact was testified to by witnesses. On the second requirement, the prosecution has
proven, through the testimony of Florida Umadac, Joey’s mother, that the contracting
parties personally declared that they take each other as husband and wife.

From these perspectives, it is clear that what the petitioner conducted was a marriage
ceremony, as the minimum requirements set by law were complied with.

Undoubtedly, the petitioner conducted the marriage ceremony despite knowledge that
the essential and formal requirements of marriage set by law were lacking. The marriage
ceremony, therefore, was illegal.
REPUBLIC V. MARELYN MANALO

FACTS:

SAN LUIS V. SAN LUIS

FACTS:

Felicisimo San Luis contracted three marriages during his lifetime. His first marriage
was with Virginia Sulit which was dissolved because of Virginia’s death in 1963. In 1968,
Felicisimo married Merry Lee Corwin, an American citizen, to which a Decree Granting
Absolute Divorce was issued by an American Family Court in 1973 upon the petition of
Mary Lee. In 1974, Felicisimo married Felicidad Sagalongos in Los Angeles, California,
U.S.A. He lived with her for 18 years from the time of their marriage up to his death in
1992.

In 1993, Felicidad filed a petition for letters of administration to settle Felicisimo’s

estate. She alleged that Felicisimo’s surviving heirs are his six children by his first
marriage, son by his second marriage, and her as his legal spouse.

Felicisimo’s children by first marriage then filed motions asserting, among others, that
Felicidad has no legal personality to file the petition because Felicisimo, at the time of
his death, was still legally married to Merry Lee. They cited Articles 15 and 17 of the Civil
Code in stating that the divorce obtained by Mary Lee is void under Philippine law
insofar as Filipinos are concerned. Further, they asserted that paragraph 2, Article 26 of
the Family Code cannot be given retroactive effect to validate Felicidad’s alleged
bigamous marriage with Felicisimo because this would impair vested rights.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Felicidad has the legal personality to file the petition for letters of
administration as Felicisimo’s spouse.

RULING:

The court ruled that the provisions of the Family Code, particularly Art. 26, par. (2),
neet not be retroactively replied considering that there is sufficient jurisprudential basis
allowing them to rule in the affirmative.

In a long line of cases decided by the Supreme Court, it was held that the Filipino spouse
should not be discriminated against in his own country if the ends of justice are to be
served. In the 1985 case of Van Dorn v. Romillo, Jr., the Court held therein
that a divorce decree validly obtained by the alien spouse is valid in the
Philippines, and consequently, the Filipino spouse is capacitated to remarry
under Philippine law.

The divorce decree allegedly obtained by Merry Lee which absolutely allowed Felicisimo
to remarry, would have vested Felicidad with the legal personality to file the present
petition as Felicisimo’s surviving spouse. However, the records show that there is
insufficient evidence to prove the validity of the divorce obtained by Merry Lee as well as
the marriage of Felicidad and Felicisimo under the laws of the U.S.A. Futher, the Court
cannot take judicial notice of foreign laws as they must be alleged and proved. 73

Therefore, the case was remanded to the trial court for further reception of evidence on
the divorce decree obtained by Merry Lee and the marriage of Felicidad and Felicisimo.

NIÑAL V. BAYADOG

FACTS:

Pepito Nial was married to Teodulfa Bellones on September 26, 1974. Teodulfa was shot
by Pepito resulting to her death in 1985. In 1986, Pepito and respondent Norma
Badayog got married without any marriage license. In lieu thereof, Pepito and Norma
executed an affidavit dated stating that they had lived together as husband and wife for
at least five years and were thus exempt from securing a marriage license. In 1997,
Pepito died in a car accident. After his death, his children with Teodulfa filed a petition
for declaration of nullity of the marriage of Pepito to Norma alleging that the said
marriage was void for lack of a marriage license.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the marriage of Pepito and Norma is void ab initio.

RULING:

The applicable law to determine the validity of Pepito and Norma’s marriage is the Civil
Code which was the law in effect at the time of its celebration.

Under the Civil Code, the absence of a valid marriage license will render the marriage
void ab initio. However, there are several instances recognized thereby wherein a
marriage license is dispensed with, one of which is the marriage of a man and a woman
who have lived together and exclusively with each other as husband and wife for a
continuous and unbroken period of at least five years before the marriage.
The rationale why no license is required in such case is to avoid exposing the parties to
humiliation, shame and embarrassment concomitant with the scandalous cohabitation
of persons outside a valid marriage due to the publication of every applicants name for a
marriage license.

The five-year period should be computed on the basis of a cohabitation as "husband and
wife" where the only missing factor is the special contract of marriage to validate the
union. In other words, the five-year common-law cohabitation period, which is counted
back from the date of celebration of marriage, should be a period of legal union had it
not been for the absence of the marriage.

In this case, Pepito had a subsisting marriage at the time when he started cohabiting
with Norma. This fact manifests that their five-year period cohabitation was not the
cohabitation contemplated by law.

Having determined that the marriage of Pepito and Norma is not covered by the
exception to the requirement of a marriage license, it is void ab initio because of the
absence of such element.

BORJA-MANZANO V. SANCHEZ

FACTS:

Herminia Borja – Manzano filed a complaint against Judge Roque Sanchez for gross
ignorance of the law. She averred that she was the lawful wife of the late David
Manzano, having been married to him in 1966. However, in 1993, David contracted
another marriage with one Luzviminda Payao before Judge Sanchez. She further
averred that Judge Sanchez ought to know that the same was void and bigamous, as the
marriage contract clearly stated that both David and Luzviminda were separated from
their respective spouses.

On the other hand, Judge Sanchez claims that when he officiated the marriage between
David and Luzviminda, he did not know that David was legally married. What he knew
was that the two had been living together as husband and wife for seven years already
without the benefit of marriage, as manifested in their joint affidavit. According to him,
had he known, he would have discouraged David from contracting another marriage.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Judge Sanchez demonstrated gross ignorance of the law.

RULING:

Yes. Judge Sanchez Demonstrated gross ignorance of the law.

For Article 34 of the Family Code to apply, the following requisites must concur:

1. The man and woman must have been living together as husband and wife for at
least five years before the marriage;
2. The parties must have no legal impediment to marry each other;
3. The fact of absence of legal impediment between the parties must be present at
the time of marriage;
4. The parties must execute an affidavit stating that they have lived together for at
least five years [and are without legal impediment to marry each other]; and
5. The solemnizing officer must execute a sworn statement that he had ascertained
the qualifications of the parties and that he had found no legal impediment to
their marriage.

Not all of the foregoing requirements are present in the case at bar. It is significant to
note that David and Luzviminda expressly stated the fact of their prior existing marriage
in their separate affidavits executed and sworn to before Judge Sanchez. Also, in their
marriage contract, it was indicated that they were both separated. Judge Sanchez cannot
deny knowledge of David’s and Luzviminda’s subsisting previous marriage, as the same
was clearly stated in their separate affidavits which were subscribed and sworn to before
him.

The fact that Manzano and Payao had been living apart from their respective spouses is
immaterial. Legal separation does not dissolve the marriage tie, much less authorize the
parties to remarry. This holds true all the more when the separation is merely de facto,
as in the case at bar.

Also, free and voluntary cohabitation with another person for at least five years does not
severe the tie of a subsisting previous marriage. Clearly, respondent Judge
demonstrated gross ignorance of the law when he solemnized a void and bigamous
marriage.

SANTIAGO V. PEOPLE

FACTS: