MORIGO vs PEOPLE

G.R. No. 145226, 6 February 2004

FACTS:

Appellant Lucio Morigo and Lucia Barrete were boardmates for 4 years, after which they lost
contact with each other. They reconnected again in 1984 and became sweethearts when Lucia was
in Singapore until she went to Canada in 1986.

They got married in Aug.1990, the following month Lucia went back to Canada leaving Lucio
behind. Lucia filed for divorce in Canada which was granted by the court to take effect on Feb 17,
1992. On Oct. 4, 1992, Lucio Morigo married Maria Jececha Lumbago.
September 21, 1993, Lucio filed a complaint for judicial declaration of nullity of marriage with
Lucia, on the ground that no marriage ceremony actually took place. Lucio was charged with
Bigamy in information filed by the City Prosecutor of Tagbilaran City, with the Regional Trial
Court of Bohol.

Lucio filed a petition for certiorari seeking a reversal of his conviction. He should not be faulted
for relying in good faith upon the divorce decree of the Ontario court. The OSG counters that
petitioner’s contention that he was in good faith in relying on the divorce decree is negated by his
act of filing a petition for a judicial declaration of nullity of his marriage to Lucia.

ISSUE:

Whether or not petitioner committed bigamy and if so, whether his defense of good faith is valid.

HELD:

The elements of bigamy are: (1) the offender has been legally married; (2) the first marriage has
not been legally dissolved, or in case his or her spouse is absent, the absent spouse has not been
judicially declared presumptively dead; (3) he contracts a subsequent marriage; and (4) the
subsequent marriage would have been valid had it not been for the existence of the first.

The trial court held that the marriage of Lucio and Lucia is void ab initio, in accordance with the
Family Code. What transpired was a mere signing of the marriage contract by the two, without the
presence of a solemnizing officer.
The first element of bigamy as a crime requires that the accused must have been legally married.
But in this case, legally speaking, the petitioner was never married to Lucia Barrete.

Petitioner has not committed bigamy. His defense of good faith or lack of criminal intent is now
moot and academic.

Case digest/pfr/natz
 RENE RONULO vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
G.R. No. 182438, 2 July 2014
FACTS:

Joey Umadac and Claire Bingayen were scheduled to marry on 29 March 2003 at the Sta. Rosa
Catholic Parish Church in Ilocos Norte. But on the day of the wedding, the church's officiating
priest refused to solemnize the marriage because of lack of a marriage license.

With the couple and the guests already dressed for the wedding, they headed to an Aglipayan
Church. The Aglipayan priest, herein petitioner Ronulo, conducted a ceremony on the same day
where the couple took each other as husband and wife in front of the guests. This was despite
Petitioner's knowledge of the couple's lack of marriage license.

Petitioner was eventually charged of violating Article 352 of the RPC for performing an illegal
marriage ceremony.

The MTC did not believe Petitioner's defense that what he did was an act of blessing and was not
tantamount to solemnization of marriage and was found guilty.

The decision was affirmed by both the RTC and the CA.

ISSUE:

W/N Petitioner committed an illegal marriage.

RULING:

Yes.

Article 352 of the RPC penalizes an authorized solemnizing officer who shall perform or authorize
any illegal marriage ceremony. The elements of this crime are: authority of the solemnizing
officer; and his performance of an illegal marriage ceremony.

The first element is present since Petitioner himself admitted that he has authority to solemnize a
marriage.The second element is present since the alleged "blessing" by Petitioner is tantamount to
the performance of an illegal marriage ceremony.

There is no prescribed form or rite for the solemnization of a marriage. However, Article 6 of the
Family Code provides that it shall be necessary: for the contracting parties to appear personally
before the solemnizing officer; and declare in the presence of not less than two witnesses of legal
age that they take each other as husband and wife.

The first requirement is present since petitioner admitted to it. The second requirement is likewise
present since the prosecution, through the testimony of its witnesses, proved that the contracting
parties personally declared that they take each other as husband and wife.

The penalty for violating Article 352 of the RPC is in accordance with the provision of the
Marriage Law, specifically Article 44, which states that:

Section 44. General Penal Clause – Any violation of any provision of this Act not specifically
penalized, or of the regulations to be promulgated by the proper authorities, shall be punished by
a fine of not more than two hundred pesos or by imprisonment for not more than one month, or
both, in the discretion of the court.

As such, Petitioner was held guilty of violating Article 352 and was fined P200 as penalty.

Case digest/pfr/natz
 REPUBLIC OF THE PHILS. VS. ALBIOS
G.R. No. 198780 October 16, 2013

FACTS:

Fringer and Liberty Albios got married on October 22, 2004, before the sala of Judge Calo in
Mandaluyong City. 2 years after their marriage (December 6, 2006), Albios filed with the RTC a
petition for declaration of nullity of her marriage with Fringer. According to her, the marriage was
a marriage in jest because she only wed the American to acquire US citizenship and even arranged
to pay him $2,000 in exchange for his consent. Adding that immediately after their marriage, they
separated and never lived as husband and wife because they never really had any intention of
entering into a married state and complying with their marital obligations. The court even sent
summons to the husband but he failed to file an answer.

Both the RTC and CA ruled in favor of Albios declaring that the marriage was void ab initio for
lack of consent because the parties failed to freely give their consent to the marriage as they had
no intention to be legally bound by it and used it only as a means to acquire American citizenship
in consideration of $2,000.00.. However, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) elevated the
case to the SC. According to the OSG, the case do not fall within the concept of a marriage in jest
as the parties intentionally consented to enter into a real and valid marriage. That the parties here
intentionally consented to enter into a real and valid marriage, for if it were otherwise, the purpose
of Albios to acquire American citizenship would be rendered futile.

ISSUE:

Is a marriage, contracted for the sole purpose of acquiring American citizenship in consideration
of $2,000.00, void ab initio on the ground of lack of consent?

RULING:

NO. Both Fringer and Albios consented to the marriage. In fact, there was real consent because it
was not vitiated nor rendered defective by any vice of consent.Their consent was also conscious
and intelligent as they understood the nature and the beneficial and inconvenient consequences of
their marriage, as nothing impaired their ability to do so.

That their consent was freely given is best evidenced by their conscious purpose of acquiring
American citizenship through marriage. Such plainly demonstrates that they willingly and
deliberately contracted the marriage. There was a clear intention to enter into a real and valid
marriage so as to fully comply with the requirements of an application for citizenship. There was
a full and complete understanding of the legal tie that would be created between them, since it was
that precise legal tie which was necessary to accomplish their goal.

Under Article 2 of the Family Code, for consent to be valid, it must be (1) freely given and (2)
made in the presence of a solemnizing officer.

A "freely given" consent requires that the contracting parties willingly and deliberately enter into
the marriage.Consent must be real in the sense that it is not vitiated nor rendered defective by any
of the vices of consent under Articles 45 and 46 of the Family Code, such as fraud, force,
intimidation, and undue influence. None of these are present in the case.

Therefore, their marriage remains valid.

Case digest/pfr/natz
 SEVILLA v. CARDENAS
497 SCRA 429

FACTS:

Jaime O. Sevilla and Carmelita N. Cardenas were married at Manila City Hall where they
executed a marriage contract. A marriage license number was indicated in the contract,
which Jaime never applied for. A church ceremony was conducted on May 31, 1969 using
the same license. They lived as husband and wife and later on went to Spain for Jaime‘s
medical education supported by Jaime‘s parents. When in Spain their marriage turned bad
since Jaime was having a hard time balancing marriage and medical studies; obsession of
Jaime with Carmelita‘s knees which he would take countless pictures of, intrafemural sex
between her knees which are attributed to Jaime‘s drug addiction. Their marriage became
unbearable, as plaintiff physically and verbally abused her, and this led to a break up in
their marriage. Jaime went to the US to get a divorce in 1981 and a judicial separation in
1983. Later, she learned that plaintiff married one Angela Garcia in 1991 in the United
States. Sevilla presented 3 certifications from the Local Civil Registrar of San Juan which
states that the marriage license with that number cannot be found. The parish where they
were wed presented a Certified copy of a Marriage certificate dated April 11, 1994. RTC
ruled that marriage is null due to lack of marriage license. CA reversed RTC‘s decision.
Marriage license was probably issued but cannot be located

ISSUE:

W/N the marriage is valid

HELD:

Valid. Decision of the CA affirmed. The local civil registry of San Juan testified that they
"failed to locate the book wherein marriage license no. 2770792 is registered," for the
reason that "the employee handling is already retired." Failure to locate does not mean non-
existence of the marriage license. Every intendment of the law or fact leans toward the
indissolubility of marriage bonds. Always presume marriage.

Case digest/pfr/natz