Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 6

SYNTHESIS Essential and Formal Requisites of a valid marriage Substantive Cases CASE # 1 G.R. No.

174689, Rommel Jacinto Dante Silverio vs. Republic of Philippines FACTS: On November 22, 2003, Rommel Jacinto Dantes Silverio filed a petition for the changed of his first name from Rommel Jacinto to Melly and sex of birth from male to female in his birth certificate in the Regional Trial Court of Manila. On June 4, 2003, the trail court rendered in favor of the petitioner as it would be more in consonance with the principle of justice and equity. That granting the petitioner would bring much awaited happiness of the part of the petitioner and her fianc and the realization of their dreams, On August 18, 2003, the Republic of the Philippines, thru the Office of the Solicitor General, filed a petition for certiorari in the Court of Appeals. It alleged that there is no law allowing the change of entries in the birth certificate by reason of sex alteration. ISSUE: Whether or not a person born male would be entitled to change of gender on the civil registrar and afterwards be legally capacitated to enter into marriage with another man. HELD: No. Sex reassignment is not a ground for change of gender. There is no law present that allows such in our country. Neither may entries in the birth certificate as to first name or sex be changed on the ground of equity. The remedies petitioner seeks involve question of public policy to be addressed solely by the legislature, not by the courts. As to contracting marriage, our law allows only male and female with the main reason of procreation. Sex reassignment scientifically has not yet made one completely into female, with the complete function for reproduction.

CASE # 2 G.R. No. 166676, Republic of the Philippines vs. Jennifer B. Cagandahan FACTS: Jennifer Cagandahan filed before the Regional Trial Court Branch 33 of Siniloan, Laguna a Petition for Correction of Entries in Birth Certificate of her name from Jennifer B. Cagandahan to Jeff Cagandahan and her gender from female to male. It appears that Jennifer Cagandahan is suffering from Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia which is a rare medical condition where afflicted person possess both male and female characteristics. Jennifer Cagandahan grew up with secondary male characteristics. To further her petition, Cagandahan presented in court the medical certificate evidencing that she is suffering from Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia which certificate is issued by Dr. Michael Sionzon of the Department of Psychiatry,

University of the Philippines-Philippine General Hospital, who, in addition, explained that Cagandahan is genetically female but because her body secretes male hormones, her female organs did not develop normally, thus has organs of both male and female. The lower court decide in her favor but the Office of the Solicitor General appealed before the Supreme Court invoking that the same was a violation of Rules 103 and 108 of the Rules of Court because the said petition did not implead the local civil registrar. ISSUE: Whether Cagandahan is a male or female. HELD: The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the lower court. It held that, in deciding the case, the Supreme Court considered the compassionate calls for recognition of the various degrees of intersex as variations which should not be subject to outright denial. The Supreme Court made use of the available evidence presented in court including the fact that private respondent think of himself as a male and as to the statement made by the doctor that Cagandahans body produces high levels of hormones (androgen), which is preponderant biological support for considering him as being male. The Supreme Court further held that they give respect to (1) the diversity of nature; and (2) how an individual deals what nature has handed out. That is the Supreme Court respects the respondents congenital decision to be a male. Life is already difficult for the ordinary person. The court added that the charge of name is not a matter of right but of judicial discretion, to be exercised in the light of the reasons and the consequence that will follow.

CASE# 3 G.R. No. 133778, Engrace Ninal vs. Norma Badayog FACTS: Pepito NInal was married with Teodulfa Bellones on September 26, 1974. They had 3 children namely Babyline, Ingrid and Archie, petitioners. Due to the shot that inflicted by Pepito to Teodulfa, the latter died on April 24, 1985 leaving the children under the guardianship of Engrace Ninal. 1 year and 8 months later, Pepito and Norma Badayog got married without any marriage license. They instituted an affidavit stating that they had lived together for at least 5 years exempting from securing a marriage license. Pepito died in a car accident on February 19, 1977. After his death, petitioners filed a petition for declaration of nullity of the marriage of Pepito and Norma alleging that said marriage was void for lack of marriage license. ISSUES: Whether or not the second marriage of Pepito was void. Whether or not the heirs of the deceased may file for the declaration of the nullity of Pepitos marriage after his death. HELD:

The marriage of Pepito and Norma is void for absence of marriage license. They cannot be exempted even though they instituted an affidavit and claimed that they cohabit for at least 5 years because from the time of Pepitos fisrt marriage was dissolved to the time of his marriage with Norma, only about 20 months had elapsed. Albeit, Pepito and his first wife separated in fact, and thereafter both Pepito and Norma had started living with each other that has already lasted for five years, the fact remains that their five year period cohabitation was not the cohabitation contemplated by law. Hence, his marriage to Norma is still void. Void marriages are deemed to have not taken place and cannot be source of rights. It can be questioned even after the death of one parties and any proper interested party may attack void marriage.

CASE # 4 GR No. 145226, Morigo vs. People FACTS: Lucio Morigo and Lucia Barrete were boardmates in Bohol. They lost contacts for a while but after receiving a card from Barrete and various exchanges of letters, they became sweethearts. They got married in 1990. Barrete went back to Canada for work and in 1991 she filed petition for divorce in Ontario Canada, which was granted. In 1992, Morigo married Lumbago. He subsequently filed a complaint for judicial declaration of nullity on the ground that there was no marriage ceremony. Morigo was then charged with bigamy and moved for a suspension of arraignment since the civil case pending posed a prejudicial question in the bigamy case. Morigo pleaded not guilty claiming that his marriage with Barrete was void ab initio. Petitioner contented he contracted second marriage in good faith. ISSUE: Whether Morigo must have filed declaration for the nullity of his marriage with Barrete before his second marriage in order to be free from the bigamy case. HELD: Morigos marriage with Barrete is void ab initio considering that there was no actual marriage ceremony performed between them by a solemnizing officer instead they just merely signed a marriage contract. The petitioner does not need to file declaration of the nullity of his marriage when he contracted his second marriage with Lumbago. Hence, he did not commit bigamy and is acquitted in the case filed. CASE # 5 GR No. 154380, Republic vs. Obrecido FACTS: Cipriano Orbecido III was married with Lady Myros Villanueva on May 24, 1981 at the United Church of Christ in the Philippines in Ozamis City. They had a son and a daughter named Kristoffer and Kimberly, respectively. In 1986, the wife left for US bringing along their son Kristoffer. A few years later,

Orbecido discovered that his wife had been naturalized as an American citizen and learned from his son that his wife sometime in 2000 had obtained a divorce decree and married a certain Stanley. He thereafter filed with the trial court a petition for authority to remarry invoking Paragraph 2 of Article 26 of the Family Code. ISSUE: Whether or not Orbecido can remarry under Article 26 of the Family Code. HELD: The court ruled that taking into consideration the legislative intent and applying the rule of reason, Article 26 Par.2 should be interpreted to include cases involving parties who, at the time of the celebration of the marriage were Filipino citizens, but later on, one of them becomes naturalized as a foreign citizen and obtains a divorce decree. The Filipino spouse should likewise be allowed to remarry as if the other party were a foreigner at the time of the solemnization of the marriage. Hence, the courts unanimous decision in holding Article 26 Par 2 be interpreted as allowing a Filipino citizen who has been divorced by a spouse who had acquired a citizenship and remarried, also to remarry under Philippine law.

Procedural Requirements: CASE # 1 Silverio vs. Republic The determination of a persons gender at the time of birth by examining his genital is immutable. Our law does not recognize as sex transplant as a mode of changing ones gender. Therefore, Silverio is regarded to be male all throughout regardless of any physical changes that may arise thereafter. CASE # 2 RP vs. Cagandahan As regards to persons having both genitals, the determining factor is the PERSONAL CHOICE of the person involved and that is usually determined when the person reach the age of majority and makes a decision as to which gender he is inclined to be. The choice of the person involved was respected by the Supreme Court. CASE # 3 Engrace Ninal vs. Norma Badayog This case involved a marriage which was solemnized before the effectivity of the Family Code. Before the effectivity of the Family Code, Article 76 of the Civil Code governed the ratification of marital cohabitation which is, in language, essentially different with Article 34 of the Family Code.

The Specific requirement of Article 76 of the Civil Code is that the period of the cohabitation of the parties must be characterized with exclusivity where no third parties are involved and the parties cohabiting must be of legal age and unmarried in order for them to be exempted in securing a marriage license. CASE # 4 Morigo vs. People There was an ostensible marriage. There was a marriage ceremony but the parties merely signed the marriage contract without the presence of the solemnizing officer. There was absence of formal requisites of a marriage, and therefore, marriage is VOID. CASE # 5. RP vs. Orbecido The effect of a divorce decree obtained by the foreign spouse abroad insofar as the Filipino spouse is concerned to remarry is not automatic. The Filipino spouse cannot automatically enter into a subsequent marriage. The remedy for the Filipino spouse who wishes to remarry after the foreign spouse obtained the divorce decree abroad is to file an action for declaratory relief with the Regional Trial Court to declare his/her capacity to remarry and in that said declaratory relief, the Filipino should prove as a fact the following: (1) the existence of a divorce decree obtained abroad, (2) the law of the place where the divorce decree was obtained, and (3) such law capacitates the foreign spouse to remarry.

SYNTHESIS Therefore, the general rule is that for a marriage to be valid it should meet the essential formal requisites provided in Article 2 and 3 in the Family Code. As a general rule no marriage shall be valid, unless the essential requisites are present: (1) Legal Capacity of the contracting parties who must be male and a female and without any legal impediments. These legal impediments are provided in articles 35 (4), 37, 38 40 and 53 of the Family Code. Marriages should not be polygamous or bigamous, incestuous, against public policy and 2 or more subsisting marriages. However, when the person has an intersex characteristic the determining factor of his gender is his/ her personal choice upon reaching majority. And (2) consent freely given in the presence of the solemnizing officer. The absence of any formal requisites will render the marriage void. The formal requisites of a valid marriage are: (1) Authority of the solemnizing officer, (2) a valid marriage license except in marriages of exceptional in character; 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 2 witnesses of legal age.

Prepared By: BELTESHAZZAR CABACANG ALBERT JOEY ALOJIPAN RODULFO OUANO Jr.

Room: EH409MC

LEGAL RESEARCH