FAMILY CODE nullity of his previous marriage with Anna.

Ofelia
presented evidence proving the existence of a valid
TY v. CA GR# 127406, NOV. 27, 2000, 346 SCRA 86 marriage license including the specific license number
designated. The lower court however ruled that
Article 40 Exception to the Rule Ofelias marriage with Reyes is null and void. The
same was affirmed by the CA applying the provisions
FACTS: In 1977, Reyes married Anna Maria Villanueva of the Art 40 of the FC.
in a civil ceremony. They had a church wedding in the
same year as well. In 1980, the Juvenile and Domestic ISSUE/S: Whether or not the absolute nullity of the
Relations Court of QC declared their marriage as null previous of marriage of Reyes can be invoked in the
and void; the civil one for lack of marriage license and case at bar.
the subsequent church wedding due to the lack of
consent of the parties. In 1979, prior to the JDRC HELD: Art. 40 of the FC provides that, The absolute
decision, Reyes married Ofelia. Then in 1991, Reyes nullity of a previous marriage may be invoked for
filed for an action for declaration of nullity of his purposes of remarriage on the basis solely of a final
marriage with Ofelia. He averred that they lack a judgment declaring such previous marriage void. This
marriage license at the time of the celebration and means that before one can enter into a second
that there was no judicial declaration yet as to the marriage he must first require a judicial declaration of
PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATIONS LLB-1B 2017
the nullity of the previous marriage and such
declaration may be invoked on the basis solely of a
final judgment declaring the previous marriage as
void. For purposes other than remarriage, other
evidences may be presented and the declaration can
be passed upon by the courts. In the case at bar, the
lower court and the CA cannot apply the provision of
the FC. Both marriages entered by Reyes were
solemnized prior to the FC. The old CC did not have
any provision that states that there must be such a
declaration before remarriage can be done hence
Ofelias marriage with Reyes is valid. The provisions of
the FC (took effect in 87) cannot be applied
retroactively especially because they would impair
the vested rights of Ofelia under the CC which was
operational during her marriage with Reyes.
CONCEPT OF MARRIAGE
PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATIONS
Article 1- Definition of Marriage
Marriage is a special contract of a permanent union
between a man and woman entered into in
accordance with law for the establishment of conjugal
and family life. Marriage is the foundation of the
family and an inviolable institution whose nature,
consequences and incidents are governed by law and
not subject to stipulation except that marriage
settlements may fix property relations within the
limits provided by the Family Code of the Philippines.
TWO ASPECTS OF MARRIAGE:
1. It is a special contract.
2. It is a status or relation or an institution.
LLB-1B 2017
 Edwin A. Acebedo vs. Eddie P. Arquero
FACTS: On June 1, 1994, Edwin A. Acebedo charged
Eddie P. Arquero, Process Server of the Municipal
Trial Court (MTC) of Brookes Point, Palawan for
immorality.
Complainant alleged that his wife, Dedje Irader
Acebedo, a former stenographer of the MTC Brookes
Point, and respondent unlawfully and scandalously
cohabited as husband and wife at Bancudo Pulot,
Brookes Point, Palawan as a result of which a girl,
Desiree May Irader Arquero, was born to the two on
May 21, 1989. Attached to the letter-complaint was
the girls Baptismal Certificate reflecting the names of
respondent and Dedje Irader as her parents
Respondent claimed that the immorality charge by
the petitioner was just a mere harassment and a
PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATIONS
product of complainnats hatred and jealousy. By
respondents own admission however, he had an illicit
relationship with the petitioners wife for 8-9 months.
The reason for having this illicit relationship was
explained by the respondent that the petitioner and
his wife had a kasunduan in writing and duly
notarized. The Kasunduan indicated that they would
sever their marriage ties and allow themselves to live
with other possible partner and that no one would go
to court to institute any action against the other.
ISSUE/S: Whether or not the Kasunduan is enough
ground to sever the marriage tie.
HELD: SC ruled that respondents justification fails,
being an employee of the judiciary, respondent ought
to have known that the Kasunduan had absolutely no
force and effect on the validity of the marriage
between complainant and his wife. Art 1 of the family
LLB-1B 2017
code provides that marriage is an inviolable social
institution whose nature and consequences, and
incidents are governed by law and not subject to
stipulation. It is an institution of public order and
policy, governed by rules established by law which
cannot be made inoperative by stipulation of the
parties.
ELEMENTS OF MARRIAGE
A. ESSENTIAL REQUISITES
Art. 2. No marriage shall be valid, unless these
essential requisites are present:
Legal capacity of the contracting parties who must be
a male and a female; and
PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATIONS LLB-1B 2017
(2) Consent freely given in the presence of the
solemnizing officer.
LEGAL CAPACITY
A. This means that the parties must have the
necessary age or the necessary consent of parents in
certain cases.
B. There must be no impediment caused by a PRIOR
EXISTING MARRIAGE or by certain relationships by
affinity or consanguinity.
Garcia-Recio vs. Recio GR NO. 138322, Oct. 2, 2002
366 SCRA 437
FACTS: Rederick A. Recio, a Filipino, was married to
Editha Samson, an Australian Citizen, in Malabon,
Rizal on March 1, 1987. They lived as husband and
wife in Australia. However, an Australian family court ISSUE/S: Whether the decree of divorce submitted by
issued purportedly a decree of divorce, dissolving the Rederick Recio is admissible as evidence to prove his
marriage of Rederick and Editha on May 18, 1989. legal capacity to marry petitioner and absolved him of
bigamy.
On January 12, 1994, Rederick married Grace J. Garcia
where it was solemnized at Our lady of Perpetual HELD: The nullity of Redericks marriage with Editha
Help Church, Cabanatuan City. Since October 22, as shown by the divorce decree issued was valid and
1995, the couple lived separately without prior recognized in the Philippines since the respondent is a
judicial dissolution of their marriage. As a matter of naturalized Australian. However, there is absolutely
FACTS, while they were still in Australia, their conjugal no evidence that proves respondents legal capacity
assets were divided on May 16, 1996, in accordance to marry petitioner though the former presented a
with their Statutory Declarations secured in Australia. divorce decree. The said decree, being a foreign
document was inadmissible to court as evidence
Grace filed a Complaint for Declaration of Nullity of primarily because it was not authenticated by the
Marriage on the ground of bigamy on March 3, 1998, consul/ embassy of the country where it will be used.
claiming that she learned only in November 1997,
Redericks marriage with Editha Samson. Under Sections 24 and 25 of Rule 132, a writing or
PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATIONS LLB-1B 2017
document may be proven as a public or official record
of a foreign country by either:
(1) an official publication or
(2) a copy thereof attested by the officer having legal
custody of the document. If the record is not kept in
the Philippines, such copy must be:
(a) accompanied by a certificate issued by the proper
diplomatic or consular officer in the Philippine foreign
service stationed in the foreign country in which the
record is kept and
(b) authenticated by the seal of his office.
Thus, the Supreme Court remands the case to the
Regional Trial Court of Cabanatuan City to receive or
trial evidence that will conclusively prove
respondents legal capacity to marry petitioner and
thus free him on the ground of bigamy.
Silverio v. Republic October 22, 2007
PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATIONS LLB-1B 2017
(GR. No. 174689)
FACTS: On November 26, 2002, Silverio field a petition
for the change of his first name Rommel Jacinto to
Mely and his sex from male to female in his birth
certificate in the RTC of Manila, Branch 8, for reason
of his sex reassignment. He alleged that he is a male
transsexual, he is anatomically male but thinks and
acts like a female. The Regional Trial Court ruled in
favor of him, explaining that it is consonance with the
principle of justice and equality.
The Republic, through the OSG, filed a petition for
certiorari in the Court of Appeals alleging that there is
no law allowing change of name by reason of sex
alteration. Petitioner filed a reconsideration but was
denied. Hence, this petition.
ISSUE/S:WON change in name and sex in birth parties. Not parental consent. Parental consent is in
certificate are allowed by reason of sex reassignment. connection with requisite No. 1 referring to legal
capacity.
HELD:No. A change of name is a privilege and not a
right. It may be allowed in cases where the name is b. Consent is required becaused marriage is a
ridiculous, tainted with dishonor, or difficult to contract, a volountary act.
pronounce or write; a nickname is habitually used; or c. If there is consent, but it is vitiated by error,
if the change will avoid confusion. The petitioners fraud, intimidation, force etc., the marriage is not
basis of the change of his name is that he intends his void, it is merely voidable., valid until null.
first name compatible with the sex he thought he d. If there is absolutely no consent, or when the
transformed himself into thru surgery. The Court says parties did not intent to be bound as in the case of a
that his true name does not prejudice him at all, and joke or in the case of a stage or movie play, the
no law allows the change of entry in the birth marriage is void.
certificate as to sex on the ground of sex B. FORMAL REQUISITES
reassignment. The Court denied the petition.
Art. 3. The formal requisites of marriage are:
2. CONSENT FREELY GIVEN (1) Authority of the solemnizing officer;
a. CONSENT refers to the consent of the contracting (2) A valid marriage license except in the cases
PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATIONS LLB-1B 2017
provided for in Chapter 2 of this Title; and Arlyn F. Borga, despite the knowledge that the
(3) A marriage ceremony which takes place with the groom is merely separated from his first wife. Second,
appearance of the contracting parties before the he performed a marriage ceremony (October 27,
solemnizing officer and their personal declaration that 1994) outside his jurisdiction. The Judge contends
they take each other as husband and wife in the that, he merely relied on the Affidavit issued by the
presence of not less than two witnesses of legal age. Municipal Trial Judge of Basey, Samar, confirming the
facts that Mr. Tagadan and his first wife have not seen
1. AUTHORITY OF THE SOLEMNIZING OFFICER each other for almost seven years. With respect to
the second charge, he maintains that in solemnizing
Navarro v. Domagtoy A.M. No. MTJ-96-1088 the marriage between Sumaylo and del Rosario, he
JULY 19, 1996 259 SCRA 129 did not violate Article 7, paragraph 1 of the Family
Code which states that: "Marriage may be solemnized
This is a complaint filed against Municipal Circuit Trial by: (1) Any incumbent member of the judiciary within
Court Judge Hernando Domagtoy, which, he the court's jurisdiction;" and that article 8 thereof
contends, exhibits gross misconduct as well as applies to the case in question.
inefficiency in office and ignorance of the
law. First, respondent judge solemnized the wedding ISSUE/S: Whether or not the acts of Respondent
(September 27, 1994) between Gaspar A. Tagadan Judge is considered grave mistake which amounts to
PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATIONS LLB-1B 2017
his being sanctioned. the law are complied with. However, judges who are
appointed to specific jurisdictions, may officiate in
HELD: Even if the spouse present has a well-founded weddings only within said areas and not beyond.
belief that the absent spouse was already dead, a Where a judge solemnizes a marriage outside his
summary proceeding for the declaration of court's jurisdiction, there is a resultant irregularity in
presumptive death is necessary in order to contract a the formal requisite laid down in Article 3, which
subsequent marriage, a mandatory requirement while it may not affect the validity of the marriage,
which has been precisely incorporated into the Family may subject the officiating official to administrative
Code to discourage subsequent marriages where it is liability.
not proven that the previous marriage has been 2. MARRIAGE LICENSE
dissolved or a missing spouse is FACTSually or
presumptively dead, in accordance with pertinent
provisions of law.
Alcantara vs Alcantara G.R. No. 167746,
Article 7 and 8 do not apply. An appellate court August 28, 2007
Justice or a Justice of this Court has jurisdiction over
the entire Philippines to solemnize marriages, FACTS: Petitioner Restituto M. Alcantara filed a
regardless of the venue, as long as the requisites of petition for annulment of marriage against
PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATIONS LLB-1B 2017
respondent Rosita A. Alcantara alleging that on 8 the trial court dismissed the petition for lack of merit.
December 1982 he and Rosita, without securing the The CA affirmed the decision.
required marriage license, went to the Manila City
Hall for the purpose of looking for a person who could Restituto appealed. He submitted that at the precise
arrange a marriage for them. They met a person who, time that his marriage with the Rosita was celebrated,
for a fee, arranged their wedding before a certain there was no marriage license because he and
priest. They got married on the same day. They went respondent just went to the Manila City Hall and dealt
through another marriage ceremony in a church in with a fixer who arranged everything for them. He
Tondo, Manila, on 26 March 1983. The marriage was and Rosita did not go to Carmona, Cavite, to apply for
likewise celebrated without the parties securing a a marriage license. Assuming a marriage license from
marriage license. In 1988, they parted ways and lived Carmona, Cavite, was issued to them, neither he nor
separate lives. In her Answer, Rosita asserted the the Rosita was a resident of the place. The
validity of their marriage and maintained that there certification of the Municipal Civil Registrar of
was a marriage license issued as evidenced by a Carmona, Cavite, cannot be given weight because the
certification from the Office of the Civil Registry of certification states that Marriage License number
Carmona, Cavite. She alleged that Restituto has a 7054133 was issued in favor of Mr. Restituto Alcantara
mistress with whom he has three children and that and Miss Rosita Almario but their marriage contract
Restituto only filed the annulment of their marriage bears the number 7054033 for their marriage license
to evade prosecution for concubinage. After hearing,LLB-1B 2017
PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATIONS
number.
ISSUE/S: WON the marriage between petitioner and
respondent is void ab initio
HELD: No. A valid marriage license is a requisite of
marriage, the absence of which renders the marriage
void ab initio. To be considered void on the ground of
absence of a marriage license, 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. In this case, the marriage contract
between the petitioner and respondent reflects a
marriage license number. A certification to this effect
was also issued by the local civil registrar of Carmona,
Cavite. The certification moreover is precise in that it
PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATIONS LLB-1B 2017
specifically identified the parties to whom the
marriage license was issued, namely Restituto
Alcantara and Rosita Almario, further validating the
facts that a license was in fact issued to the parties
herein. This certification enjoys the presumption that
official duty has been regularly performed and the
issuance of the marriage license was done in the
regular conduct of official business. Hence, petitioner
cannot insist on the absence of a marriage license to
impugn the validity of his marriage.
Issuance of a marriage license despite the fact that
neither of the parties are residents of the city or
municipality which issued the same is a mere
irregularity that does not affect the validity of the
marriage. An irregularity in any of the formal
requisites of marriage does not affect its validity but
the party or parties responsible for the irregularity are
civilly, criminally and administratively liable. longer palatable to his taste or suited to his lifestyle
(Alcantara vs Alcantara, G.R. No. 167746, August 28,
As to the discrepancy in the marriage license number, 2007).
the court held that it is not impossible to assume that
the same is a mere a typographical error. It does not
detract from the conclusion regarding the existence COSCA vs. PALAYPAYON 237 SCRA 249
and issuance of said marriage license to the parties.
FACTS: Complainants work in MTC-Tinambak,
Under the principle that he who comes to court must Camarines Sur. They alleged that Judge Palaypayon
come with clean hands, petitioner cannot pretend solemnized marriages even without the requisite of a
that he was not responsible or a party to the marriage marriage license. Hence, couples were able to get
celebration which he now insists took place without married just by paying the marriage fees to
the requisite marriage license. Petitioner knowingly respondent. As a consequence, the marriage
and voluntarily went to the Manila City Hall and contracts of the couples did not reflect any marriage
likewise, knowingly and voluntarily, went through a license number. In addition, Palaypayon did not sign
marriage ceremony. He cannot benefit from his action the marriage contracts and did not indicate the date
and be allowed to extricate himself from the marriage of solemnization reasoning out that he had to wait for
bond at his mere say-so when the situation is no the marriage license to be submitted by the parties
PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATIONS LLB-1B 2017
which happens usually several days after the marriage contracts and the date and place of marriage are not
ceremony. included. The marriage of Bocaya & Bismonte was
celebrated even without the requisite license due to
An illegal solemnization of marriage was charged the insistence of the parties to avoid embarrassment
against the respondent. Palaypayon contends that with the guests which he again did not sign the
marriage between Abellano & Edralin falls under marriage contract.
Article 34 of the Civil Code thus exempted from the
marriage license requirement. According to him, he ISSUE/S: WON the marriage solemnized by Judge
gave strict instructions to complainant Sambo to Palaypayon is valid
furnish the couple copy of the marriage contract and
to file the same with the civil registrar but the latter HELD: Article 4 of the Family Code pertinently
failed to do so. The spouses subsequently formalized provides that in the absence of any of the essential
the marriage by securing a marriage license and or formal requisites shall render the marriage void ab
executing their marriage contract, a copy of which initio whereas an irregularity in the formal requisite
was then filed with the civil registrar. shall not affect the validity of the marriage but the
party or parties responsible for the irregularity shall
The other five marriages were not illegally solemnized be civilly, criminally, and administratively liable. He
because Palaypayon did not sign their marriage was found guilty of solemnizing marriages without a
PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATIONS LLB-1B 2017
marriage license. His claim that Abellano and Edralin Art. 27. In case either or both of the contracting
executed a joint affidavit that they have been living parties are at the point of death, the marriage may be
together as husband and wife for almost 6 years solemnized without necessity of a marriage license
already would show that Abellano is less than 13 and shall remain valid even if the ailing party
years old when they started living together which. He subsequently survives.
is found to be negligent in his duty to ascertain the
qualification of the contracting parties who might 2. In a remote place;
have executed a false joint affidavit in order to avoid
the marriage license requirement. Art. 28. If the residence of either party is so located
that there is no means of transportation to enable
EXCEPTIONS: MARRIAGE OF EXCEPTIONAL IN such party to appear personally before the local civil
CHARACTER registrar, the marriage may be solemnized without
necessity of a marriage license.
MARRIAGE OF EXCEPTIONAL CHARACTER (NO
MARRIAGE LICENSE IS REQUIRED) 3. Marriage of people who have previously
cohabitated for atleast 5 years;
1. In articulo mortis;
Art. 34. No license shall be necessary for the marriage
PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATIONS LLB-1B 2017
of a man and a woman who have lived together as
husband and wife for at least five years and without
any legal impediment to marry each other. The
contracting parties shall state the foregoing FACTS in
an affidavit before any person authorized by law to
administer oaths. The solemnizing officer shall also
state under oath that he ascertained the
qualifications of the contracting parties are found no
legal impediment to the marriage.
Marriages between pagans or mohammedans, who
live in non-christian provinces, and who are married
in accordance with their customs.
Art. 33. Marriages among Muslims or among
members of the ethnic cultural communities may be
performed validly without the necessity of marriage
license, provided they are solemnized in accordance
PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATIONS LLB-1B 2017
with their customs, rites or practices.
Ninal vs. Bayadog 328 SCRA 122
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 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 the 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. other that has already lasted for five years, the FACTS
ISSUE/S: remains that their five-year period cohabitation was
not the cohabitation contemplated by law. Hence, his
1. Whether or not the second marriage of Pepito marriage to Norma is still void.
was void
2. Whether or not the heirs of the deceased may Void marriages are deemed to have not taken place
file for the declaration of the nullity of Pepitos and cannot be the source of rights. It can be
marriage after his death questioned even after the death of one of the parties
and any proper interested party may attack a void
HELD: The marriage of Pepito and Norma is void for marriage.
absence of the marriage license. They cannot be
exempted even though they instituted an affidavit EUGENIO vs. VELEZ 185 SCRA 45
and claimed that they cohabit for at least 5 years
because from the time of Pepitos first marriage was FACTS: Vitaliana Vargas a 25 y.o single was forcibly
dissolved to the time of his marriage with Norma, taken from her residence sometime in 1987 and was
only about 20 months had elapsed. Albeit, Pepito and confined by the petitioner, Tomas Eugenio in his
his first wife had separated in FACTS, and thereafter palacial residence in Jasaan, Misamis Oriental. She
both Pepito and Norma had started living with each cohabited with the petitioner against her will and
PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATIONS LLB-1B 2017
always had the intention of escaping. She died of HELD: The court held that the custody of the dead
heart failure due to toxemia of pregnancy in Eugenios body of Vitaliana was correctly awarded to the
residence on Aug. 28, 1988. surviving brothers and sisters pursuant to Section
1103 of the Revised Administrative Code which
Unaware of her death her brothers and sisters provides:
(Vargases) filed a petition for Habeas Corpus on
September 27, 1988 before the RTC of Misamis Persons charged with duty of burial if the deceased
Oriental alleging. The court then issued a writ of was an unmarried man or woman or a child and left
habeas corpus but petitioner refused to surrender the any kin; the duty of the burial shall devolve upon the
Vitalianas body to the sheriff on the ground that a nearest kin of the deceased.
corpse cannot be subjected to habeas corpus
proceedings. The court ordered that the body should Petitioners claim that he is the spouse cannot be
be delivered to a funeral parlor for autopsy but valid as contemplated under Art. 294 of the Civil
Eugenio assailed the lack of jurisdiction of the court. Code, Philippine law does not recognize common law
marriages where a man and a woman not legally
ISSUE/S: Who has the right to claim custody of the married who cohabit for many years as husband and
deceased? wife, who represent themselves to the public as
husband and wife, and who are reputed to be
PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATIONS LLB-1B 2017
husband and wife in the community where they live Life of a Marriage License
may be considered legally married in common law Marriage license subsist for 120 days from the date of
jurisdictions. issue and with the expiry date stamped in bold
character on the face of every license.
In addition, it requires that the man and woman living
together must not in any way be incapacitated to MARRIAGE BY PROXY
contract marriage. Whereas, the petitioner has a One where the other party is merely represented by a
subsisting marriage with another woman, legal delegate of friend.
impediment that disqualified him from even legally
marrying Vitaliana. ABSENCE OF TWO WITNESS = MARRIAGE VALID
Ireregularity in Formal Requisites will not affect the
3. MARRIAGE CEREMONY validity of marriage, in general.
Ceremony is required, although no particular form is COMMON-LAW MARRIAGE = LIVE IN RELATIONSHIP
needed and it must be before a duly authorized
person.
Common-Law marriage is one where the man and
MARRIAGE CONTRACT MARRIAGE LICENSE the woman just live together as husband and wife
without getting married. Live-in relationship.
PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATIONS LLB-1B 2017
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 not

affect the validity of the marriage but the party or
parties responsible for the irregularity shall be civilly,
criminally and administratively liable.

PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATIONS LLB-1B 2017