August 14, 2016

Mr. James C. Remijan

15 Calatagan Street,
Ayala Alabang Village
Muntinlupa, Philippines
RE

Status of Marriage pursuant to Executive Order 209

Dear Mr. Remijan:

We write in reply to your queries regarding the status of your marriage to Ms. Evelyn
Cos- Remijan, considering the probable repercussions of the facts you have narrated to
us even before your marriage was contracted under Philippine laws.
THE FACTS
Per our discussion, the following are the pertinent facts:
We are aware that you are a British National working in the Philippines, employed as a
Business Developer Manager at Sitel Corporation, a company which is affianced with
the industry of Business Process Outsourcing for a period of 10 years up to the present.
We grasp that by the nature of your job, you were required to go to different places in
order to meet the requests and demands of your clients. And that it was during one of
these business trips that you met your wife, Ms. Evelyn Cos, at The London Pub
located in Angeles, Pampanga. That from that moment on, as you narrated, you got
strongly captivated by her. All the more when she showed how much she really liked
you when she followed you in Palawan during one of your business trips in 2001 and
when she consistently maintained all communications with you during your stay in
England.
Furthermore, we are conscious of the fact that during the first week of March of the
same year, you went back to the Philippines and resided in the City of Makati. That
upon the knowledge of where you are residing as of that moment, Ms. Evelyn Cos went
there and cohabited with you. That after a month, she got pregnant.
That due to the knowledge of her pregnancy, you obtained a marriage license on the 1 st
day of April 2001 from Mandaluyong City wherein it was only Ms. Evelyn who processed
all the necessary requirements for the marriage and only presented the papers to you
for the purpose of your signature.
Notwithstanding the fact that you secured your marriage license in 2001, your marriage
with Ms. Evelyn was only celebrated in the year 2003. Solemnized by the Lady Minister
of the Philippine Church of the Philippines, and then subsequently lived together as
husband and wife until now.
We understand completely that your marriage with Ms. Evelyn has grown unhealthy and
sour up to the point that you could no longer tolerate her alleged laziness and
indifference. Moreover, that you are still constantly disrupted by the company of her 30
family members in your small town house.
Consequently, you want to be advised regarding the probable courses of action you can
resort to with regards to your marriage with Ms. Evelyn and the annulment thereof.
We will stipulate our discussions hereunder as follows:
APPLICABLE LAWS
I.

THE VALIDITY OF THE MARRIAGE LICENSE

During our discussion, we have made you aware that Executive Order 209 also known
as The Family Code of the Philippines, as amended, is the law that governs Marriages

in the Philippines. As provided explicitly by Article 3 (1) of the said Code, marriage
license is a formal requisite of valid marriage.
Art 3 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."
It is perceived in the aforementioned provision that a valid marriage license is one of the
formal requisites in order to have a valid marriage here in the Philippines and that upon
the absence of which, shall render the marriage void ab initio (void from the beginning)
as explicitly provided for by Article 4 of the Family Code which reads 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.
Connecting the above provision to Article 20 of the Family Code, which explicitly
provides for the validity of the marriage license and the expiration of such:
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 the 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.
It is perceived that the marriage license was issued in April 2001 and the marriage only
was celebrated in the year 2003. It is obvious that the issued marriage license has
already expired, therefore, there is non-compliance with the formal requisites laid down
by Article 3 of the Family Code. As a result, regarding the aforementioned provisions
above, your marriage to Ms. Evelyn Cos- Remijan is truly void from the beginning
because of the absence of a formal requisite - a valid marriage license.
II.

STATUS OF YOUR MARRIAGE FOR LACK OF PARENTAL CONSENT

It is correct that a parental consent or parental advice is considered as a prerequirement, which is only applicable to some couples in order to contract a marriage.
The lack of such will render the marriage voidable as explicitly provided for by 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 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...

In the above-mentioned provision, we do not recommend for you to use this particular
provision as your ground in annulling your marriage to Ms. Evelyn for reasons that the
requirement of parental consent provided for under the law is only applicable to persons
who contract marriage or wish to contract marriage ranging from the ages of Eigtheen
years to Twenty-One years of age. In your case, you married Ms. Evelyn when she was
already at the age of Twenty-two.
Having said those, invoking this specific provision of the Family Code will not be of any
merit in your case because it is not applicable and upon your decision of pursuing this
recourse, the courts will still uphold your marriage as valid and subsisting upon this
ground because assuming that Ms. Evelyn was indeed within the range of ages
provided for under this provision regarding parental consent, it will be cured or ratified,
as provided by law, by the occasion that upon the reaching of Twenty-one, such party
freely cohabited with the other and both lived together as husband and wife.
III.

STATUS OF YOUR MARRIAGE ON THE GROUND OF LACK OF AUTHORITY

ON THE PART OF THE SOLEMNIZING OFFICICER WITH GOOD FAITH.

It was well known to us, upon your narration of facts, that you are a member of the
Church of England and on the other hand, Ms. Evelyn was a Roman Catholic. Your
marriage was solemnized however in your home and was solemnized by a certain
Minister Rudy Kabayo, a Minister of the Philippine Church of the Philippines.
It is explicitly provided for by the Family Code that the following persons are the only
ones authorized to solemnize a marriage:
Art. 7 Marriages 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 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;
With regards to the applicability of the above-mentioned provision of law, in the case at
bar, the Minister who solemnized your marriage with Ms. Evelyn, assuming that he
possessed the authority granted upon him by his church and was acting upon the
written authority granted to him by the Philippine Church of the Philippines, we cannot
disregard the fact that neither you nor Ms. Evelyn are members of the mentioned church
and with having said that, there was no authority on the part of Minister Rudy Kabayo to
solemnize your marriage. Hence, with the absence of the authority of the solemnizing
officer, your marriage with Ms. Evelyn is deemed void from the beginning.
Finally, you mentioned that upon your research, you came across the provision of law
providing that good faith on the part of at least one of the contracting parties who
believed that the solemnizing officer had the authority to solemnize marriages when in
reality they have none, would still validate the marriage. Article 35 (2) specifically
provides this:
Art. 35 - The following marriages shall be void from the
beginning:

1. 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;

It is true that good faith in the authority of the solemnizing officer would validate a
marriage as provided for by law. Nevertheless the issue here is whether or not Minister

Kabayo had the legal authority to solemnize your marriage. Article 7 (2) provides a
requirement on the parties to the marriage that at least one or both of them are
members of the solemnizing officers church or religious sect. Having said that, it would
be unreasonable to presume that neither party knew of the religion of the other.
With this, it can again be regarded that your marriage to Ms. Evelyn is void ab initio or
void from the beginning on the ground of the absence of the formal requisite which is
the authority of the solemnizing officer as laid down in Article 3 (2) of the Family Code.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
We conclude that your marriage to Ms. Evelyn Cos Remijan may be rendered void ab
initio or void from the beginning based on the following grounds: 1) Lack of a Valid
Marriage License 2) Absence of Authority on the part of the Solemnizing Officer.
We highly suggest that it would be more beneficial on your part to annul your marriage
with Ms. Evelyn on the ground of absence of a Valid Marriage License. For the reason
that the courts will investigate only upon the date specified on your marriage certificate,
date of issuance of the license and its expiration stamped boldly on the face of the
license. All of these presumptive evidence will be given high probative value by the
courts with the fact that your marriage indeed was celebrated without a marriage license
and hence, void, under the eyes of the law. On the other hand, invoking the ground of
absence of authority of the solemnizing officer would lengthen the case because of the
long process of investigation because of the interviewing of the minister involved and
also the witnesses as well, this will be more costly on your part.
We hope that we have answered your queries with your great contentment. Should
some of the matters remain vague or unclear to you and if you have further clarifications
or questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Sincerely,
Atty. Ma. Lizette-anne C. Villaraza
EFRON, ENCARNACION, VILLARAZA & ASSOCIATES
Senior Partner