Republic v.

Albios
GRN 198780, October 16, 2013
Petitioner: Republic of the Philippines
Respondent: Liberty D. Albios
Ponente: Mendoza, J.
Case digest by: Julius Guzman

Doctrine:

Validity of Marriage on the purpose of acquiring foreign Citizenship

There is no law that declares a marriage void if it is entered into for purpose other than
what the Constitution or law declares, such as the acquisitions of foreign citizenship. So
long as all the essential and formal requisites prescribed by law are present and it is not
void or voidable under the grounds provided by law, it shall be declared valid.

Meaning of a freely given Consent

Under Article 2, for consent to be valid; one, must be freely given; second, made in the
presence of a solemnizing officer. A freely given consent requires that the contracting
parties are willingly and deliberately enter into the marriage. Consent must be real and
its neither vitiated nor defective pursuant to Articles 45 & 46 of the Family Code.
Furthermore, consent must be conscious or intelligent, the contracting parties must be
capable of intelligently understanding the nature of and both the beneficial and
consequences of their acts.

Facts:
On October 22, 2004, Fringer, an American Citizen married Albios, a Filipino
Citizen in a Philippine court.
On December 6, 2006, Albios filed with the RTC a petition for declaration of
nullity of her marriage with Fringer, alleging that they were separated prior after
their marriage, and never lived as husband and wife. Hence, she described her
marriage as marriage in jest.
The RTC granted the petition that the marriage is void on the ground that there
was lack or no consent, as they had no intention to be legally bound, and use as
a means to acquire American Citizenship, in consideration of $2,000. Thereafter,
the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of RTC.

Issue: Whether or not the marriage is void ab initio on the ground of lack or no consent.

Held:
The Supreme Court held that the marriage is valid on the ground that Article 2 of the
Family Code is present. Under said Article 2 of the FC, consent is an essential requisite
wherein there must; first, freely given consent; and second, made in the presence of a
solemnizing officer. Hence, a freely given consent requires the contracting parties
willingly and deliberately enter into the marriage. Consent must be real and not vitiated
or defective under Articles 45 & 46 of the Family Code. Also, Consent must be conscious
or intelligent; the contracting parties must be capable of understanding the nature and
both beneficial and consequences of their acts.

In the case at bar, the consent was not lacking between Albios and Fringer. It was a real
consent because it wasnt vitiated nor rendered defective consent. Also, the consent was
conscious and intelligent, as they understand the nature and beneficial and unfavorable
consequences of their marriage. That their consent was freely given is best evidenced
by their conscious purpose of acquiring citizenship through their marriage. Therefore,
there was a full and complete understanding of the legal tie.

Furthermore, the SC said that there is no law that declares a marriage if it is entered for
purposes other than what Constitution or law declared, such as acquisition of American
Citizenship. Therefore, so long as all the essential and formal requisites prescribed by
law are present, and it is not void or voidable under the grounds provided by law, it shall
declared void.

Provisions:

Family Code

Article 2. No marriage shall be valid, unless these essential requisites are present:
(1) Legal capacity of the contracting parties who must be a male and a female; and
(2) Consent freely given in the presence of the solemnizing officer. (53a)

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).

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, guardian or person 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;
(2) That either party was of unsound mind, unless such party after coming to
reason, freely cohabited with the other as husband and wife;
(3) That the consent of either party was obtained by fraud, unless such party
afterwards, with full knowledge of the facts constituting the fraud, freely cohabited with
the other as husband and wife;
(4) That the consent of either party was obtained by force, intimidation or undue
influence, unless the same having disappeared or ceased, such party thereafter freely
cohabited with the other as husband and wife;
(5) That either party was physically incapable of consummating the marriage with
the other, and such incapacity continues and appears to be incurable; or
(6) That either party was afflicted with a sexually-transmissible disease found to
be serious and appears to be incurable. (85a)

Art. 46. Any of the following circumstances shall constitute fraud referred to in Number 3
of the preceding Article:

(1) Non-disclosure of a previous conviction by final judgment of the other party of

a crime involving moral turpitude;
(2) Concealment by the wife of the fact that at the time of the marriage, she was
pregnant by a man other than her husband;
(3) Concealment of sexually transmissible disease, regardless of its nature,
existing at the time of the marriage; or
 (4) Concealment of drug addiction, habitual alcoholism or homosexuality or
lesbianism existing at the time of the marriage.
No other misrepresentation or deceit as to character, health, rank, fortune or chastity
shall constitute such fraud as will give grounds for action for the annulment of marriage.
(86a)

Disposition: Wherefore the petition is granted. The decision of the CA is annulled and
civil case is dismissed for lack of merit