Notes on Marriage

“Until death do us part…”

Fine’s notes: If a provision is about the Civil Code, it’s probably going to only relate to marriages pre-1988

Concept of Family

According to the Constitution

 The state protects and strengthens the family as the basic autonomous social institution of
society. (Art 2, Sec 12, Const)
 Life of the unborn and the mother are protected. (Art 2, Sec 12, Const)
 The natural and primary right and duty of parents to raise children to be good citizens shall
receive support from the State (Art 2, Sec 12, Const)
 Marriage is an inviolable social institution, a foundation for family, and is protected by the state
(Art 15, sec 2, Const)

According to the Civil Code and Family Code

 Marriage is (Art 1, FC)
o A special contract
o Between a man and a woman
o Is a foundation for family and an inviolable social institution
o Governed by law
o Not subject to stipulation
o Accept when relating to property relations
 In case of doubt, presumptions favour the validity of a marriage and familial relations (Art 220,
CC)
 It is presumed that (Rule 131, Sec 3, ROC)
o Two people presenting themselves as husband and wife are husband and wife
o Two people who are capacitated to marry one another, who live together and acquire
property will be considered to have been acquired by joint industry
o In case they are not capacitated to marry one another, their share is assumed equal.
 o Children born 180 days after a marriage is solemnized are considered the fruit of the
marriage.

Mecaral v. Velasquez

“Your name forever stricken from the practice of law!”

Facts

Ms. Macaral was the secretary of Former Atty Velasquez. In 2002, after hiring her, he took Ms. Macaral
as a lover and common law wife. In October 2007, he took Ms. Macaral to San Augustin, Calibiran in and
left her to his cult, the Faith Healers Association of the Phil.

He began visiting her less so she left home to Naval, Biliran. Velasquez was enraged at this, and brought
her back to the San Agustin where it was reported that her cult bound her, drugged her, and tortured
her.

After her mom found out about this, she made efforts to retrieve her back to safety. She was finally
released after the cult was confronted by the police.

After the incident, Ms. Macaral lodged a complained with the IBP against Velasquez for the immoral acts
done to her by the respondent. She also filed a bigamy case against him after finding out that he
already had a standing marriage.

HELD

The acts done to the petitioner, and his bigamous relation with her, transgresses the first canon of the
Code of Professional Responsibility, which says as follows

CANON 1 – A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect for
law and legal processes

He also broke his Attorney’s Oath, which says:

I _________, having been permitted to continue in the practice of law in the Philippines, do solemnly
swear that I recognize the supreme authority of the Republic of the Philippines; I will support its
Constitution and obey the laws as well as the legal orders of the duly constituted authorities therein; I
will do no falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court; I will not wittingly or willingly promote
or sue any groundless, false or unlawful suit, nor give aid nor consent to the same; I will delay no
man for money or malice, and will conduct myself as a lawyer according to the best of my knowledge
and discretion with all good fidelity as well as to the courts as to my clients; and I impose upon
myself this voluntary obligation without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion. So help me
God

His breaking the law by committing bigamy and his immoral act brings light to his lacking moral
substance.

WHEREFORE

He is to be DISBARRED and his name STRICKEN from the Roll of Attorneys.

Essential pre-requisites for marriage

 A marriage is must have (Article 2, FC)

o Two individuals, a man and a woman, with legal capacity.
o Consent freely given between the man and the woman.
 A marriage without its essential elements is void ad initio (Art 4, FC)
 Any male or female ages 18 and up can get a marriage license (Art 5, FC)
o As long as they don’t marry ascendants or descendents or their half-blood full blood
siblings (Art 37, FC)
o Or marry someone that is against public policy (Art 38, FC)
 Parents cannot force or unduly influence their children to marry someone (Art 57, P.D 603)

Harayo vs. Coliflores

“Seems suspicious…”

Facts

Pedrita Harayo a clerk of court, has charged Judge Coliflores with the following

1. Allegedly solemnizing illegal marriages

2. Dismissing 2 criminal cases for monetary consideration
3. Assigning a court aide to be his house helper and driver of his jeepney
4. Falsifying dates when he signed a verification portion of a complaint and joint affidavit of three
criminal cases, two of them are in relation to no. 2 and for monetary consideration
An exhaustive investigation was held and several back and forth between the RTC and the OCA, it was
finally brought before the Supreme Court

In a related letter-complaint dated 7 September 1992 complainant Pedrita Harayo charged respondents
Josefina R. Hermosa and Jose M. Agosto, Clerk of Court and Court Aide respectively, of MTC, Minglanilla,
Cebu, with falsification of entries in their daily time record and daily attendance book.

The respondent judge denied them in his comments and added that Pedrita Harayo might have been
doing this in malice because she wasn’t given the position of Clerk of Court

The most important aspect of the investigation was the report of Judge Juaban, the reportings of the
NBI, and the decision of the Supreme Court which held:

 That the falsifying of signature might be there, but no one can produce evidence on who did it
 There is no proof of tampering of the documents in the criminal cases and joint affidavits
 The solemnizing of the three marriage contracts without a license is present, which is evidence
of either suspicious activity, or inexcusable negligence.

The court cannot excuse the last bit. Conspiracy or not

WHEREFORE

The respondent judge is SUSPENDED for a month and to pay a fine worth 2 MONTHS SALARY paid
through his retirement.

Rommel Jacinto Silverio v. Republic of the Philippine

“What is a man 2.0?”

Rommel Jacinto Silverio, a man who had undergone sexual reassignment surgery, wanted to change to
change his birth certificate and name to reflect his current sex, female.

RTC ruled in his favour citing it to be in the basis of equity

The OSG brought the case up to the Court of Appeals, which denied the RTC ruling.

HELD

Petition is without merit

First, Names. Name changes is governed by two laws, Article 412, and R.A 9048: CLERICAL ERROR LAW.
Article 412 is clear in that no person can change his name without judicial authority.

A remedy for clerical or a typographical error and a change in first name in a document can be used to
change a name without judicial authority

Although changing of first names can be used without judicial authority, according to 9048, names can
only be changed upon the following parameters:

(1) The petitioner finds the first name or nickname to be ridiculous, tainted with dishonor or
extremely difficult to write or pronounce;

(2) The new first name or nickname has been habitually and continuously used by the petitioner
and he has been publicly known by that first name or nickname in the community; or

(3) The change will avoid confusion.

Second, Sex.

There is NO LAW regarding the changing of sex in the Philippines

Although articles 407 and 408 has things that occur after birth, none of the things listed in Article 408
alludes to allowing one to change their sex.

Article 413, which states that other factors that change civil status is affected by special law. In the case
at bar, there is no special law.

Under the Section 5 of Act 3753 of the Civil Registrar Code, the Information in Birth certificates is about
the facts at birth as ascertained by the attendant of the birth. With this in mind, there is no error as to
the petitioner’s birth certificate as it is a true reflection of the facts at birth.

Lastly, Equity. The RTC could not have decided on this case. Although article 9 disallows a court to not
render judgement based on the absence of law, they cannot create their own conclusions either.

The name and sex of a person are important in various legal events. Marriages for instance, would be
adversely affected if the ruling of the lower court comes to pass. So too will various labour and
succession laws.

The lower court should have applied what laws were applicable in the instant case.
WHEREFORE petition is denied.

Formal Requisites of a Valid Marriage

 The formal requisites of marriage are (Art 2, FC)

o Authority of a solemnizing officer
o A valid marriage license
o A ceremony before a solemnizing officer with two legal age witnesses.
 There’s no prescribed form of religious rite or ceremony in marriage. But they have to be
present before a solemnizing officer and two witnesses of legal age. The marriage certificate
will be signed by the witnesses and the solemnizing officer. (Art 6, FC)
 A mayor can solemnize a legal marriage (Sec 455, b 1 xviii, R.A 7160 Local Government Code)

Escleo vs Dorado

“For the right price of course…”

Phoebe Carbon, sister to the petitioner, approached Maritess Dorado to secure a marriage licence for
the petitioner. She paid her 2000 pesos as a deposit and the respondent told her to prepare for her
ceremony on January 12, 1998.

The petitioner, after hearing about this, confronted Dorado and demanded the money and the
documents given to her returned. The responded did not do anything and a fight ensued. Long story
short, she was sued and an investigation took place

HELD

During the course of the investigation, she practically confirmed of her practices of allotting individuals
quick marriage licenses for a fee. Her qualms about self incrimination do not really apply to
administrative cases or cases relating to procedure.

Her circumnavigation of processes of the law was wrong. As a public officer, she should have practiced
not only due care and consideration, but also cared to not abuse her role in society as a government
official.

WHEREFORE
1 MONTH SUSPENSION AND A WARNING.

Ñinal vs. Bayodag

“You thought ah…”

Pepito Ninal married Teodulfa in 1973, out of their marriage the petitioner was born. In 1985, the
scumbag Pepito shot his wife. One year and 8 months later, Pepito married the respondent, Norma
Bayodag, without a marriage license. They executed an affidavit on December 11, 1986 that they were
husband and wife for living together for 5 years uninterrupted.

After the scumbag died in a car accident, his children now want to annul their scumbag father’s
marriage with the respondent.

HELD

Petition has merit but before that, their marriage was before the Family Code so the Civil Code prevails.

Article 76 of the Civil Code provides an exception to the Marriage license rule.

First off, the five year rule cannot apply because both parties were not capacitated to marry one
another for at least 4 years before they married. Teodulfa had only died for 1 year and 8 months before
they had gotten married. Their marriage was void ad initio because it was a bigamous marriage. If the
court allows this marriage to prosper then it would be allowing immorality.

For the second issue of whether or not the descendants have the personality to declare their father’s
marriage as void.

To make a long story short, yes. Yes they can.

Voidable and void marriages are different. While annulment can be acquired by the sane spouse, void
marriages can be attacked by anyone.

This is in the nature of prescription, a voidable marriage can be prescribed as voided while a void
marriage never existed to begin with, and thus unprescribable.

WHEREFORE

Petition granted.
Republic v. CA et al

“It’s gone. it just vanished. Have no idea where it is!”

Marriages without a marriage license is void. The presentation of a certification of a lack of

documentation is allowed by the court via Section 29, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court which states:

Sec. 29. Proof of lack of record. — A written statement signed by an officer having custody of an official
record or by his deputy, that after diligent search, no record or entry of a specified tenor is found to exist
in the records of his office, accompanied by a certificate as above provided, is admissible as evidence that
the records of his office contain no such record or entry.

The certification issued by the Civil Registrar of Pasig has probative value because he is the official
charged with keeping all records within his jurisdiction.

WHEREFORE

Petition is DENIED and CA decision AFFIRMED wooh atleast there’s good in the world!

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, vs. JOSE A. DAYOT

Same issue, 5 years is ABSOLUTLEY NEEDED before you can claim a marriage of exceptional character
and thus exempt from a marriage license.

The respondent claims a convoluted story where he was tricked into signing marriage papers by his
Ferlisa claiming that his brother would threaten their lives. He had discovered, to his horror, that he was
married to Ferlisa after reading papers in her sala.

The court finds this implausible because:

Jose has claimed on numerous occasions that Ferlisa was his wife; an example would be his I.D and a
notarized statement of assets and liabilities, and the fact that he took THREE MONTHS to discover the
papers he signed were marriage contracts.

But even after this, the court still voided their marriage
The parties in this case had only lived together for 5 months. Marriage of exceptional character does not
apply and thus their affidavit in 1986 claiming they are married is invalid. Logic applies; their marriage is
void ab initio

Cosca vs Palaypayon

The irregularity in the formal requisites of a marriage does not usually prejudice the couple, but the
parties responsible are liable criminally, civilly, and administratively.

According to the Revised Penal Code, those who solemnize illegal marriages are to be punished
according to marriage law.

Persons Authorized to Solemnized Marriages

 The following can solemnize weddings (Art 7, FC)

o Judges within the court’s jurisdiction
o Religious leaders registered as solemnizing officers
o Any ship or captain of an aircraft as stated in Article 31 of the FC
o A military commander if the chaplain is not there as provided in art 32
o Any consul general, consul, or vice consul as provided in article 10
 Marriage shall be soleminzed in (Art 8, FC)
o An open court or the chambers of a judge
o in a church
o in the office of the consuls
 Exceptions to the rule
o Anywere if one of the parties is at the point of death
o If they are in a remote place as accordance to section 29
o Wherever the expressed wish of the couples in writing

Navarro vs. Domagtoy

“It was legal! I was so sure it was!”

The judge, Domagtoy, was not only guilty of officiating a bigamous wedding, but also chose the most
improper of venues for it, which was his house.

First, the bigamous issue.

The husband was still legally married to one Ida Pinaranda, yet the judge married them. In the case at
bar, Gaspar Tagadan, was still married to Ida Penaranda, because he had not given the summary
proceeding requirement as given in Article 41 of the FC. Following this logic, his present marriage is void
due to it being bigamous.

As for the jurisdiction problem, the judge uses article 8 as an excuse.

This is without merit because

 None of the couples are near death

 None of the couples reside in a remote destination
 Only one of the parties, Gemma Del Rosario, the wife, gave the written request.

Moreover, article 7 also has the phrase “within the court’s jurisdiction.” A judge’s jurisdiction is reliant
on where his court is

The judge's jurisdiction only covers the municipalities of Sta. Monica and Burgos, he was not authorized
to solemnize a marriage in the municipality of Dapa, Surigao del Norte

WHEREFORE

Judge is given the sternest of warnings, and an 8 month suspension.

Foreign Marriages

 Marriages that are valid in another country are also valid here with exceptions to marriages
which are void according Article 35, 36, 37, 38 (Art 26, FC)
 If one of the parties in a marriage is a foreigner, he has to get a certificate of legal capacity to
marry from his or her consulate (Art 66, CC) (Art 21, FC)
 Stateless individuals or refugees have to submit an affidavit that prove capacity to marry (Art 21,
FC)
  Marriages valid outside the Philippines outside the Philippines are valid unless they are
bigamous, polygamous, or incestuous. (Art 71, FC)
 Marriages between Filipinos abroad are to be officiated by the consul or vice consul. They also
fulfil the role of judge and registrar (Art 75, CC)
 If there is a marriage between a Filipino and a Foreigner (Art 124, CC)
o If the Wife is Filipino, the law of the foreigner governs their relationship, without
prejudice to the rules on the Civil Code relating to immovable property
o If the husband is Filipino, the Civil Code governs their relationship
 Filipinos can regain their citizenship if lost through marriages to aliens by taking the necessary
oath of allegiance to the Philippine Republic, registration in the proper civil registry and in the
Bureau of Immigrations. (R.A no. 8171)

Foreigners and Divorce

 Filipino spouses that are divorced by their foreign partners can remarry if the divorce is
approved by the court. (Art 26, FC)
 Filipinos married to foreigners are still citizens unless they have renounced it under law (Sec 6,
E.O No. 292, The Administrative Code)
 Filing for a recognition of a foreign divorce is not a filing for nullity of marriage, but a correction
in the civil registry (Fujiki v. Marinay)
 The if a Filipino naturalizes into a foreign citizenship, they can file a valid foreign divorce against
their Filipino spouse ( Republic v. Obrecido)
 A foreign decree clothes the foreigner in a presumptive right, even if art 26 does not provide
leeway to foreigners (Corpuz v. Sto. Tomas)

Garcia v. Recio

“I have the papers roight ‘ere!”

Rederick Recio, a Filipino, married Editha Samson, an Australian, married one another on 1986. On 1989,
They divorced.

In June 26, 1992, respondent became an Australian citizen. There after, he married the petitioner in
1994. In his application for a marriage license, respondent claimed to be single and a Filipino.
In 1996, the two divided their conjugal property with their statutory declarations in Australia.

In 1998, petitioner now files for the dissolution of their marriage on the grounds that the Respondent
had no capacity to marry and, as a consequence, their marriage is bigamous.

RTC rulling

There was no marriage to begin with because the petitioner had already divorced his first wife, thus
capacitating him to marry.

Issues thus:

Is the divorce with Editha Samson proven?

Is respondent person capacitated to marry?

HELD

In order for the court to take cognizance of the divorce, two things have to be proven first

1. That a divorce law exists

2. That the divorce decree exists

A foreigner can get a divorce that is valid here as per allowance of article 26, but this has to be proven
with evidence before a court.

As per the ROA section 24 and 25 rule 132, foreign documents such as divorces can be ascertained as
true if presented as

1. An official publication
2. A certified true copy that must have
a. Acquired the necessary certification by their diplomatic embassy
b. The seal of his office

In the case at bar, the petitioner also needs to prove not only the decree, but also the law that grants
the decree.
The respondent argues that his divorce decree is proof enough of his capacity to marriage. This
contention has no merit simply because there are 2 kinds of divorce: absolute divorce and limited
divorce.

Respondent presented a decree nisi, a conditional or provisional divorce. Another thing, the Australian
law provided on divorce says as follows:

1. A party to a marriage who marries again before this decree becomes absolute (unless the other
party has died) commits the offence of bigamy

Evidence seem to point to it being a limited marriage.

Having failed to provide his capacity to marry, the court finds the RTC erred in giving out its judgement.
As for the petitioner’s concern, there is still no definite proof that he was still married. This is to be
proven in the lower court

WHEREFORE

Case is REMANDED and punted back to the RTC.

Van Dorn v. Romilio

“You can’t have your cake and eat it too”

The petitioner and the respondent married in Hong Kong in 1973. In 1982, the parties were divorced in
Nevada. The petitioner later remarried a certain Van Dorn. He was a dry, stern man. He liked building
walls

Anyway, responded filed a suit against the petitioner claiming that her Philippine business, The Galleon
shop, was purchased is conjugal property of the parties. The petitioner filled a motion to dismiss citing
that a prior judgement has rendered the case moot. The lower court denied the motion, which the
petitioner has now brought under certiorari.

HELD

Contention here is simple, since the divorce in the United States was valid, they had dissolved their
obligations to one another. There no longer exists and conjugality with each other. It is even stated in
the respondent’s affidavit
Respondent contends that the divorce laws do not apply here due to our lacking of a divorce law. This
argument cannot prosper. The national law of the individual applies to the case at hand, not the law of
his venue. Since under United States law he can no longer sue the petitioner as his husband, so to will
this be binding here.

WHEREFORE

Petition is GRANTED and the RTC is hereby ordered to DISMISSED the case.

Republic v. Obrecido

“Novel questions create novel answers”

Ideas

The petitioner and the respondent were both Filipinos when they married. The wife moved abroad and
was naturalized into a US citizen. After naturalizing, he divorced his Filipino husband

RTC RULING

Granted divorce but OSG sought reconsideration.

Contention and Held

Is article 26 section 2 applicable in this marriage?

Well for starters, we have to understand the root of the legislature. The court dived into the intent of
the law through the legislature, discovering that the law was created to prevent the absurd situations
where the Filipino is still married while the foreigner can remarry after obtaining a divorce

Following this logic, the court arrived at two elements for article 2 to work

1. There is a valid marriage between a Filipino and a foreigner

2. A valid divorce is obtained by the foreign spouse allowing them to remarry

The contention here is not the citizenship of the parties at the time of the creation, but rather at the
time of the divorce.

Fulfilling the two elements, article 26, section 2 applies.

IMPORTANT TO KNOW

In the case however, the respondent has failed to provide the court evidence that:

1. His wife’s naturalization

2. His wife’s divorce decree

WHEREFORE

Petition is GRANTED and decision is SET ASIDE.

Gerbert vs. Sto. Tomas

“My name sounds like that baby food brand”

Gerbert, a naturalized Canadian Filipino, marries a citizen Filipino in the Philippines. After being
unsatisfied with his first wife, he sought a divorce in Canada, which the court granted. This was in 2005.

In 2007, he tries to marry another Filipino, and now registered his divorce with the Pasay RTC. RTC
denies it claiming that only Filipinos can apply for Artilce 26 par 2.

Thus this petition

HELD

No. Article 26 sec 2 of the family code was created to avoid the absurd situations where a Filipino
spouse is still married to a foreigner who has divorced them. This protection does not apply to
foreigners trying to marry in the Philippines

But even then, the fact that he was a party to a foreign decree clothes him legal interests and does not
strip him with rights, as according to Sec. 48 Rule 39 of the ROC:
SEC. 48. Effect of foreign judgments or final orders.—the effect of a judgment or final order of a tribunal
of a foreign country, having jurisdiction to render the judgment or final order is as follows:

(a) In case of a judgment or final order upon a specific thing, the judgment or final order is conclusive
upon the title of the thing; and

(b) In case of a judgment or final order against a person, the judgment or final order is presumptive
evidence of a right as between the parties and their successors in interest by a subsequent title.

In normal words, foreign decrees , such as his divorce, gives him a presumptive right in his favor.
However, he needs to prove this before the court

Fujiki v. Marinay

“アイシテル”

On January 23, 2004, Marinay, a Filipino, married Minoru Fujiki, a Japanese citizen. Due to the latter’s
parent’s the petitioner was unable to bring the respondent to Japan.

On 2008, Marinay found another Japanese man, Shinichi Maekara. The two married and left for Japan.

Marinay eventually left Shinichi accusing him of being abusive. After re-establishing contact with Fujiki,
the two decided to void Marinay’s marriage to Shinichi for the latter’s marriage to the petitioner was
allegedly bigamous.

The Japanese Family Court ruled Marinay’s second marriage as bigamous, on January 14, 2011, Fujiki
filled a petition to recognize the foreign rulling in the RTC

RTC RULING

Dismissed according to A.M 02-11-10 SC because:

 Only the husband or wife can file an annulment

 Wrong venue, the petition should be filled in a family court.
ISSUES

Whether or not AM 02-11-10 SC is applicable

Can the husband of a previous marriage file for bigamy

Whether the RTC can recognize foreign judgment in a proceeding for cancellation of marriage under rule
108 of the ROC?

HELD

AM 02-11-10 SC is not applicable because the court only has to take cognizance of the foreign judgment
and place it upon the petitioner the burden to prove it as fact. The foreign judgment is assumed to have
given the petitioner a right already.

The court no longer needs to try it on its merits, but rather prove it as fact under the rules of evidence

If they had followed AM 02-11-10 SC, they would have to retry the trial already given by the Japanese
court, besides, AM 02-11-10 SC does not apply when one of the party is a foreigner filing a petition for
recognition of a foreign judgment.

For the bigamy case, two things are to be understood:

1. The only husband and wife in a bigamy case is the one created in the first marriage. Fujiki, being
the first husband, would have been a proper party to file the case.
2. Bigamy is a public crime. Anyone who wishes to file and report a crime can file a bigamy case

Recognition of a foreign judgment only requires the proving it with evidence, it can be filled as a special
proceeding to correct entrees in the civil registrar. According to rule 108, section 1, any person
interested in any act, event, etc can file for a cancellation or correction in the civil registrar.

It is also worth noting that this is not a suit to invalidate a marriage. Rather, it is recognition of a foreign
decree to correct entries in the civil registrar.

The RTC has no jurisdiction to nullify marriages, and it cannot weigh the merits of the foreign decree
because that is already tantamount to it trying a divorce. Rather, it merely needs to accept the evidence
of the existence of a foreign decree and make the corrections necessary to reflect an individual’s civil
status.
WHEREFORE

The court GRANTS its petition, RTC’s ruling REVERSE and SET ASIDE. Its is ORDERED to REINSTATE the
petition for further proceedings.

Ando v. DFA

“Mistakes were made”

In 2001, Petitioner married Yuichiro Kobayashi, a Japanese man. Three years later, the Japanese man
returned to his home country and filed for a divorce.

Knowing in good faith she was no longer married to Kobayashi, the petitioner married Masatomi Y.
Ando in 2005.

Wanting to apply for a passport with the name of her husband, the FDA denied her request, telling her
to validate her marriage with his second husband before a competent court.

The petitioner now seeks relief under rule 63 of the ROC

RTC RULLING

Denied for lack of jurisdiction and want for cause of action

She has also failed to obtain judicial recognition of her foreign decree pursuant of art 13 of the FC

The petitioner’s prayer for relief cannot be granted under rule 63, but other remedies are available.

Family Court Rulling

Petitioner filled an Ex Parte motion for reconsideration and was granted. This case was raffled to Branch
45 of the RTC.

Family court dismissed it for lack of cause of actions because:

The divorce was never recognized before a Philippine court. Her marriage with Ando is therefore
bigamous.

Supreme court rulling

The petitioner failed to avail for the right remedy.

She could have appealed to the secretary of foreign affairs as accordance with IRR R.a 8239
Secondly, she should have filed the petition for judicial recognition of the foreign divorce. As allowed in
article 26 par 2. She should have presented evidence of a law of the absolute divorce and her divorce
decree to her first wife.

WHEREFORE

The petition is DENIED without prejudice to other remedies available.