Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
(Marriage license) Petitioner, for the first time, raises the issue of the
marriage being void for lack of a valid marriage license
FACTS at the time of its celebration. According to her, the date
of the actual celebration of their marriage and the date
of issuance of their marriage certificate and marriage
On August 4, 1992, Filipina filed a petition[14] for the license are different and incongruous.
declaration of absolute nullity of her marriage to
Fernando on the ground of psychological incapacity.
Although we have repeatedly ruled that litigants cannot
raise an issue for the first time on appeal, as this would
She points out that the final judgment rendered by the contravene the basic rules of fair play and justice,[23] in
Regional Trial Court in her favor, in her petitions for a number of instances, we have relaxed observance of
separation of property and legal separation, and procedural rules, noting that technicalities are not ends
Fernando's infliction of physical violence on her which in themselves but exist to protect and promote
led to the conviction of her husband for slight physical substantive rights of litigants. We said that certain
injuries are symptoms of psychological incapacity. rules ought not to be applied with severity and rigidity if
by so doing, the very reason for their existence would be
She also cites as manifestations of her husband's defeated
psychological incapacity the following: (1) habitual
alcoholism; (2) refusal to live with her without fault on THE CASE AT BAR REQUIRES THAT WE ADDRESS
her part, choosing to live with his mistress instead; and THE ISSUE OF THE VALIDITY OF THE MARRIAGE
(3) refusal to have sex with her, performing the marital BETWEEN FILLIPINA AND FERNANDO WHICH
act only to satisfy himself. PETITIONER CLAIMS IS VOID FROM THE BEGINNING
FOR LACK OF A MARRIAGE LICENSE, in order to
arrive at a just resolution of a deeply seated and violent
Moreover, Filipina alleges that such psychological
conflict between the parties.
incapacity of her husband existed from the time of the
celebration of their marriage and became manifest
thereafter.[15] The ineluctable conclusion is that the marriage was
indeed contracted without a marriage license. Nowhere
do we find private respondent denying these dates on
RTC RULING: denied the petition of Filipina Sy for the
record.
declaration of absolute nullity of her marriage to
Fernando. It stated that the alleged acts of the
respondent, as cited by petitioner, do not constitute Article 80 of the Civil Code [31] is clearly applicable in this
psychological incapacity which may warrant the case. We thus conclude that under Article 80 of the
declaration of absolute nullity of their marriage. Civil Code, the marriage between petitioner and private
respondent is void from the beginning.
CA RULING: testimony of petitioner concerning
respondent's purported psychological incapacity falls The remaining issue on the psychological incapacity of
short of the quantum of evidence required to nullify a private respondent need no longer detain us. It is
marriage mooted by our conclusion that the marriage of
petitioner to respondent is void ab initio for lack of a
o petitioner failed to show that the alleged marriage license at the time their marriage was
psychological incapacity of respondent had solemnized
existed at the time of the celebration of their
marriage in 1973. It reiterated the finding of WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED
the trial court that the couple's marital
problems surface almost ten years from the
date of the celebration of their marriage.
ISSUE:
ISSUE:
(Infos)
2
3) DE LA ROSA, et al vs. HEIRS of vda. De administration filed by Luisa Delgado vda. de Danao in
DAMIAN, January 27, 2006 1975 referred to them as spouses.
First, although a marriage contract is considered a
(Disputed existence of marriage) primary evidence of marriage, its absence is not always
proof that no marriage in fact took place. [40] Once the
FACTS: presumption of marriage arises, other evidence may be
presented in support thereof.
This case concerns the settlement of the intestate The evidence need not necessarily or directly establish
estates of Guillermo Rustia and Josefa Delgado.[6] The the marriage but must at least be enough to strengthen
main issue in this case is relatively simple: who, the presumption of marriage.
between petitioners and respondents, are the lawful There are public documents (cert of identity, passport,
heirs of the decedents. titles of properties) which are prima facie evidence of the
The claimants to the estates of facts stated therein.[44] No clear and convincing evidence
Guillermo Rustia and Josefa Delgado may be divided sufficient to overcome the presumption of the truth of
into two groups: (1) the alleged heirs of Josefa Delgado, the recitals therein was presented by petitioners.
[consisting of her half- and full-blood siblings, nephews Second, Elisa vda. de Anson, petitioners own witness
and nieces, and grandnephews and grandnieces,]and (2) whose testimony they primarily relied upon to support
the alleged heirs of Guillermo Rustia, [particularly, his their position, confirmed that Guillermo Rustia had
sisters,[7] his nephews and nieces,[8] his illegitimate proposed marriage to JosefaDelgado and that
child,[9] and the de facto adopted child[10] (ampun- eventually, the two had lived together as husband and
ampunan) of the decedents.] wife. This again could not but strengthen the
Dela Rosa – substitute of her sister Luisa Delgado presumption of marriage.
(daughter of Luis Delgado) who died Third, the baptismal certificate[45] was conclusive proof
RTC RULING: Luisa dlegado is the only legal heir of only of the baptism administered by the priest who
Josefa Delgado and intervenor Guillerma Rustia baptized the child. It was no proof of the veracity of the
(ampon-amponan of Guillermo) as the only surviving declarations and statements contained therein, [46] such
heir of Guillermo Rustia. as the alleged single or unmarried (Seorita) civil status
of Josefa Delgado who had no hand in its preparation.
ISSUE:
1. whether there was a valid marriage between WHEREFORE, the petition (which seeks to reinstate the
Guillermo Rustia and Josefa Delgado May 11, 1990 decision of the RTC Manila, Branch 55) is
hereby DENIED
RULING:
3
4) NINAL vs BAYADOG, GR No. 133778, March 14, The only issue that needs to be resolved pertains to
2000 what NATURE OF COHABITATION is contemplated
under Article 76 of the Civil Code to warrant the
(Marriage license (nature of cohabitation): father remarried counting of the five year period in order to exempt the
then died, children sought annulment of the second wife) future spouses from securing a marriage license.
RULING:
ACCORDINGLY, the recommendation of the Court
We find merit in the complaint. Administrator is hereby ADOPTED, with
the MODIFICATION that the amount of fine to be imposed
Article 34 of the Family Code provides: upon respondent Judge Roque Sanchez is increased to
P20,000.
No license shall be necessary for the marriage of a man and
SO ORDERED.
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 and found no legal impediment to the
marriage.
6
6) CARLOS vs SANDOVAL, GR. No. 179922, 2. Whether or not Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of
December 16, 2008 Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages is
applicable in this case
FACTS Exceptions:
Spouses Felix B. Carlos and Felipa Elemia died (1) Nullity of marriage cases commenced before the
intestate. They left six parcels of land to their effectivity of Rule onDeclaration of Absolute Nullity of Void
compulsory heirs, Teofilo Carlos and petitioner Juan De Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages,” (March
Dios Carlos. 15, 2003)
During the lifetime of Felix Carlos, he agreed to transfer (2) Marriages celebrated during the effectivity of the Civil
his estate to Teofilo. The agreement was made in order Code.
to avoid the payment of inheritance taxes.Teofilo, in
turn, undertook to deliver and turn over the share of Section 2(a) of the Rule makes it the sole right of the
the other legal heir, petitioner Juan De Dios Carlos. husband or the wife to file a petition for declaration of
absolute nullity of void marriage.
Eventually, the first three (3) parcels of land were
transferred and registered in the name of Teofilo. Parcel Reason:
No. 4 was registered in the name of petitioner.
● they do not have a legal right to file the petition.
On May 13, 1992, Teofilo died intestate. He was
survived by respondents Felicidad and their son, Teofilo ● Compulsory or intestate heirs have only inchoate rights
Carlos II (Teofilo II). Upon Teofilos death, Parcel Nos. 5 prior to the death of their predecessor, and, hence, can only
& 6 were registered in the name of respondent Felicidad question the validity ofthe marriage of the spouses upon the
and co-respondent, Teofilo II. death of a spouse in a proceeding for the settlement of the
estate of the deceased spouse filed in the regular courts.
petitioner asserted that the marriage between his late
brother Teofilo and respondent Felicidad was a nullity ● State’s concern is to preserve marriage and not to seek its
in view of the absence of the required marriage license. dissolution.
He likewise maintained that his deceased brother was
neither the natural nor the adoptive father of husband and the wife are the sole architects of a
respondent Teofilo Carlos II. healthy, loving, peaceful marriage. They are the only
ones who can decide when and how to build the
Petitioner likewise sought the avoidance of the contracts foundations of marriage. The spouses alone are the
he entered into with respondent Felicidad with respect engineers of their marital life. They are simultaneously
to the subject real properties. He also prayed forthe the directors and actors of their matrimonial true-to-life
cancellation ofthe certificates oftitle issued in the name play. Hence, they alone can and should decide when to
of respondents. He argued that the properties covered take a cut, but only in accordance with the grounds
by such certificates of title, including the sums received allowed by law.
by respondents as proceeds, should be reconveyed to
him. The advent of the Rule on Declaration of Absolute
Nullity of Void Marriages marks the beginning of the
Evidence used by respondents for existence marriage: o end of the right of the heirs of the deceased spouse to
affidavit of the justice of the peace who solemnized the bring a nullity of marriage case against the surviving
marriage. o Certificate of Live Birth of respondent spouse. BUT THE RULE NEVER INTENDED TO
Teofilo II. → late Teofilo Carlos and respondent DEPRIVE THE COMPULSORY OR INTESTATE HEIRS
Felicidad were designated as parents. OF THEIR SUCCESSIONAL RIGHTS
Petitioner presented a certification from the Local Civil They can still protect their successional right, for,
Registrar of Calumpit, Bulacan, certifying that there is asstated in the Rationale of the Rules on Annulment of
no record of birth of respondent Teofilo II. Voidable Marriages and Declaration of Absolute Nullity
of Void Marriages, compulsory or intestate heirs can
ISSUES still question the validity of the marriage of the spouses,
not in a proceeding for declaration of nullity but upon
1. Whether or not a party outside of marriage can file for the death of a spouse in a proceeding for the settlement
nullity of marriage of the estate of the deceased spouse filed in the regular
courts.
7
[The absence of a provision in the Civil Code cannot be
construed as a license for any person to institute a
nullity of marriage case. Such person must appear to
be the party who stands to be benefited or injured by
the judgment in the suit, or the party entitled to the
avails of the suit. Elsewise stated, plaintiff must be the
real party-in-interest. For it is basic in procedural law
that every action must be prosecuted and defended in
the name of the real party-in-interest.
(2) No.
True, under the New Civil Code which is the law in force
at the time the respondents were married, or even in
the Family Code, there is no specific provision as to who
can file a petition to declare the nullity of marriage;
however, only a party who can demonstrate“proper
interest”can file the same. A petition to declare the
nullity of marriage, like any other actions, must be
prosecuted or defended in the name of the real party-in-
interest and must be based on acause of action. Thus,
in Niñal v. Badayog, the Court held that the children
have the personality to file the petition to declare the
nullity of marriage of their deceased father to their
stepmother as it affects their successional rights
8
7) REPUBLIC vs IYOY, GR No. 152577, September ART. 36. A marriage contracted by
21, 2005 any party who, at the time of the
celebration, was psychologically
FACTS: incapacitated to comply with the essential
marital obligations of marriage, shall
Respondent Crasus finally alleged in his Complaint that likewise be void even if such incapacity
Felys acts brought danger and dishonor to the family, becomes manifest only after its
and clearly demonstrated her psychological incapacity solemnization.
to perform the essential obligations of marriage. Such The psychological incapacity must be characterized
incapacity, being incurable and continuing, constitutes by
a ground for declaration of nullity of marriage under
Article 36, in relation to Articles 68, 70, and 72, of the (a) Gravity It must be grave or serious such
Family Code of the Philippines. that the party would be incapable of carrying out the
Fely filed her Answer and Counterclaim[4] with the RTC ordinary duties required in a marriage;
on 05 June 1997. She asserted therein that she was
already an American citizen since 1988 and was now (b) Juridical Antecedence It must be rooted
married to Stephen Micklus. in the history of the party antedating the marriage, although
the overt manifestations may emerge only after the
While she admitted being previously married to
marriage; and
respondent Crasus and having five children with him,
Fely refuted the other allegations made by respondent
(c) Incurability It must be incurable or,
Crasus in his Complaint. She explained that she was no
even if it were otherwise, the cure would be beyond the
more hot-tempered than any normal person, and she
means of the party involved.[22]
may had been indignant at respondent Crasus on
certain occasions but it was because of the latters
The Family Code echoes this
drunkenness, womanizing, and lack of sincere effort to
constitutional edict on marriage and the
find employment and to contribute to the maintenance
family and emphasizes their permanence,
of their household.
inviolability and solidarity.
While she did file for divorce from respondent Crasus,
she denied having herself sent a letter to respondent
(2) The root cause of the psychological incapacity must be
Crasus requesting him to sign the enclosed divorce
(a) medically or clinically identified, (b) alleged in the
papers. After securing a divorce from respondent
complaint, (c) sufficiently proven by experts and (d) clearly
Crasus, Fely married her American husband and
explained in the decision. Article 36 of the Family Code
acquired American citizenship.
requires that the incapacity must be psychological - not
physical, although its manifestations and/or symptoms may
RTC RULING
be physical. The evidence must convince the court that the
parties, or one of them, was mentally or psychically ill to
RTC promulgated its Judgment declaring the marriage of
such an extent that the person could not have known the
respondent Crasus and Fely null and void ab initio, on the
obligations he was assuming, or knowing them, could not
basis of the following findings
have given valid assumption thereof
The ground bearing defendants psychological incapacity
(3) The incapacity must be proven to be existing at the time
deserves a reasonable consideration. As observed, plaintiffs
of the celebration of the marriage. The evidence must show
testimony is decidedly credible. The Court finds that
that the illness was existing when the parties exchanged
defendant had indeed exhibited unmistakable signs of
their I do's.
psychological incapacity to comply with her marital duties
such as striving for family unity, observing fidelity, mutual
(4) Such incapacity must also be shown to be medically or
love, respect, help and support. From the evidence
clinically permanent or incurable.
presented, plaintiff adequately established that the
defendant practically abandoned him
(5) Such illness must be grave enough to bring about the
disability of the party to assume the essential obligations of
Hence this petition:
marriage.
petitioner Republic filed the instant Petition before
this Court, based on the following arguments/grounds
this Court finds that the totality of evidence presented by
I. Abandonment by and sexual
respondent Crasus failed miserably to establish the alleged
infidelity of respondents wife do not per
psychological incapacity of his wife Fely; therefore, there is
se constitute psychological incapacity.
no basis for declaring their marriage null and void under
Article 36 of the Family Code of the Philippines
ISSUE: WON Abandonment and infidelity per se
constitute psychological incapacity
RULING:
Article 36, concededly one of the more controversial
provisions of the Family Code of the Philippines, reads
9
8) REPUBLIC vs ORBECIDEO (OR MANALO) III, GR Laws should be construedas not to defeat
No. 221029, April 24, 2018
but to carry out its intent and purposes
FACTS:
Art. 26. All marriages solemnized outside the Philippines, in
respondent Marelyn Tanedo Manalo (Manalo) filed a accordance with the laws in force in the country where they
petition for cancellation of entry of marriage in the Civil were solemnized, and valid there as such, shall also be valid
Registry of San Juan, Metro Manila, by virtue of a in this country, except those prohibited under Articles 35(1),
judgment of divorce rendered by a Japanese court. (4), (5) and (6), 36, 37 and 38.
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Where a marriage between a Filipino citizen and a foreigner
Marelyn Tanedo Manalo was previously married in the is validly celebrated and a divorce is thereafter validly
Philippines to a Japanese national named Yoshino obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating him or her
Minoro. A case for divorce was filed by the petitioner to remarry, the Filipino spouse shall likewise have capacity
Manalo in Japan and after due proceedings, a divorce to remarry under Philippine law.
decree dated December 6, 2011 was rendered by the
Japanese Court. Paragraph 2 of Article 26 confers jurisdiction on
Manalo filed a petition for cancellation of entry of Philippine courts to extend the effect of a foreign divorce
marriage in the civil registry of San Juan, Metro Manila, decree to a Filipino spouse without undergoing trial to
by virtue of a judgment of divorce rendered by a determine the validity of the dissolution of the marriage. 20 It
japanese court and that she be allowed to return and authorizes our courts to adopt the effects of a foreign
use her maiden surname, Manalo. divorce decree precisely because the Philippines does not
allow divorce.21 Philippine courts cannot try the case on the
Ruling of the RTC merits because it is tantamount to trying a divorce case.
RTC denied the petition for lack of merit. It ruled The Purpose of Article 26 (2) of the Family code of
that the divorce obtained by Manalo in Japan should not be the Philippines is to avoid the absurd situation where the
recognized based on Article 15 of the New Civil Code which Filipino spouse remains married to the alien spouse who,
does not afford Filipinos the right to file for a divorce, after a foreign divorce decree that is effective in the country
whether they are in the country or living abroad, whether where it was rendered is no longer married to the Filipino
married to a filipino or to foreigners or if they celebrated spouse.
they marriage in the Philippines or in another country and
that unless Filipinos are naturalized citizens of another Even if the word obtained should be
country, Philippine laws shall have conrol over issues interpreted to mean that the divorce proceeding must be
related to Filipinos’ family rights and duties, together with actually initiated by the alien spouse, still the court will not
the determination of the condition and legal capacity to follow the letter of the statute when to do so would depart
enter into contracts and civil relations including marriages. from the true intent of the legislature or would otherwise
yield conclusions inconsistent with the general purpose of
Ruling of the CA the act.
The Court of Appeals overturned the RTC decision the reckoning point is not the citizenship of the
and held that Article 26 of the Family code of the Philippines parties at the time of the celebration of the marriage, but
is applicable even if it was Manalo who filed for Divorce their citizenship at the time a valid divorce is obtained
against her Japanese husband because the Decree they abroad by the alien spouse capacitating the latter to
obtained makes the latter no longer maried to the former, remarry
capacitating him to remarry; that the fact that it was
Manalo who filed the divorce case is inconsequetial. CA Whether the filipino spouse initiated the foreign
ruled that the meaning of the law should be based on the divorce proceeding or not, a favorable decree dissolving the
intent of the lawmakers and in view of the legislative intent marriage bond and capacitating his or her alien spouse to
behind Article 26, it would be the height of injustice to remarry will have the same result. Therefore, the subject
consider Manalo as still married to the Japanese National, provision shall not make a distinction.
who in turn is no longer married to her
The Nationality Principle is not
ISSUE:
absolute and unbending rule
WON UNDER ARTICLE 26 OF THE FAMILY CODE OF THE
PHILIPPINES A FILIPINO CITIZEN HAS THE CAPACITY TO The existence of Article 26 (2) of the Family Code of the
REMARRY AFTER INITIATING A DIVORCE PROCEEDING Philippines is a testament that the state may provide for an
ABROAD AND OBTAINING A FAVORABLE JUDGMENT exception thereto. Moreover, blind adherence to the
AGAINST HIS OR HER ALIEN SPOUSE. nationality principle must be disallowed if it would cause
unjust discrimination and oppression to certain classes of
RULING: individuals whose rights are equally protected by law. The
courts have the duty to
Yes, the filipina spouse who initiated the divorce and has
succesfully obtained a divorce decree against an alien
The OSG filed a motion for reconsideration, but it was
spouse may remarry under Art. 26 of the Family Code of the
denied; hence, this petition.
Philippines.
10
We deny the petition and partially affirm the CA decision.
FACTS:
ISSUE:
RULING:
11