Republic vs.

CA and Angelina Castro record or entry of a specified tenor is found to

Facts: exist in the records of his office, accompanied by
This petition was filed by private respondent a certificate as above provided, is admissible as
Angelina M. Castro seeking a judicial declaration evidence that the records of his office contain no
of nullity of her marriage to Edwin F. Cardenas, such record or entry.
claiming that no marriage license was ever issued
to them prior to the solemnization of their The Rule authorized the custodian of documents
marriage. to certify that despite diligent search, a particular
document does not exist in his office or that a
The alleged marriage was solemnized on On June particular entry of a specified tenor was not to be
24, 1970 in a civil ceremony performed by Judge found in a register. As custodians of public
Pablo M. Malvar, City Court Judge of Pasay City. documents, civil registrars are public officers
Cardenas argues that he personally attended to charged with the duty, inter alia, of maintaining a
the processing of the documents required for the register book where they are required to enter all
celebration of the marriage, including the applications for marriage licenses, including the
procurement of the marriage license. In fact, the names of the applicants, the date the marriage
marriage contract itself states that marriage license was issued and such other relevant data.
license no. 3196182 was issued in the name of the
contracting parties on June 24, 1970 in Pasig, The fact that private respondent Castro offered
Metro Manila. only her testimony in support of her petition is not
a ground to deny her petition. The failure to offer
As proof, Angelina Castro offered in evidence a any other witness to corroborate her testimony is
certification from the Civil Register which read mainly due to the peculiar circumstances of the
that marriage license no. 3196182 allegedly case, such that the subject marriage is one of
issued in the municipality on June 20, 1970 those commonly known as a "secret marriage" a
cannot be located as said license no. 3196182 legally non-existent phrase but ordinarily used to
does not appear from their records. Castro refer to a civil marriage celebrated without the
testified that she did not go to the civil registrar knowledge of the relatives and/or friends of either
of Pasig on or before June 24, 1970 in order to or both of the contracting parties.
apply for a license. Neither did she sign any
application therefor. She affixed her signature It is noteworthy to mention that the finding of the
only on the marriage contract on June 24, 1970 in appellate court that the marriage between the
Pasay City. contracting parties is null and void for lack of a
marriage license does not discount the fact that
The trial court denied the petition. It held that the indeed, a spurious marriage license, purporting to
above certification was inadequate to establish be issued by the civil registrar of Pasig, may have
the alleged non-issuance of a marriage license been presented by Cardenas to the solemnizing
prior to the celebration of the marriage between officer. In fine, we hold that, under the
the parties. It ruled that the "inability of the circumstances of the case, the documentary and
certifying official to locate the marriage license is testimonial evidence presented by private
not conclusive to show that there was no marriage respondent Castro sufficiently established the
license issued." While the CA reversed the absence of the subject marriage license.
decision granting Castro’s petition.

Issue:
Whether or not the non-existence of the marriage
license in the Civil Registrar is sufficient ground
to make the marriage between Angelina and
Edwin void.

Ruling:
Yes. It is was sufficient proof that would make
the marriage void. The law provides that no
marriage shall be solemnized without a marriage
license first issued by a local civil registrar.
Being one of the essential requisites of a valid
marriage, absence of a license would render the
marriage void ab initio. According to Section 29,
Rule 132 of the Rules of Court there is only proof
of lack of record when a written statement signed
by an officer having custody of an official record
or by his deputy, that after diligent search, no

Page | 1
 Filipina Sy vs. Court of Appeals Filipina states that though she did not
Facts: categorically state in her petition for annulment
Petitioner Filipina Y. Sy and private respondent of marriage before the trial court that the
Fernando Sy contracted marriage on November incongruity in the dates of the marriage license
15, 1973 at the Church of Our Lady of Lourdes in and the celebration of the marriage itself would
Quezon City. Both were then 22 years old. On lead to the conclusion that her marriage to
September 15, 1983, Fernando left their conjugal Fernando was void from the beginning.
dwelling. Since then, the spouses lived
separately. The date of issue of the marriage license and
marriage certificate was on September 17, 1974.
On February 11, 1987, Filipina filed a petition for The date of celebration of their marriage at Our
legal separation which was later amended to a Lady of Lourdes, Sta. Teresita Parish, was on
petition for separation of property on the grounds November 15, 1973, this date also appears as the
that Fernando abandoned her without just cause; date of marriage of the parents in both their son's
that they have been living separately for more and daughter's birth certificates. In addition, the
than one year; and that they voluntarily entered marriage contract shows that the marriage
into a Memorandum of Agreement dated license, numbered 6237519, was issued in
September 29, 1983, containing the rules that Carmona, Cavite, yet, neither petitioner nor
would govern the dissolution of their conjugal private respondent ever resided in Carmona.
partnership.
Issue:
In May 1988, Filipina filed a criminal action for Whether or not the marriage between Filipina and
attempted parricide against Fernando for Fernado is void ab initio due to the lack of a
punching her in different parts of her body and for marriage license during their marriage.
choking her when she fell on the floor, and
released her only when he thought she was dead. Ruling:
Filipina suffered from hematoma and contusions Yes. It is void ab initio . A marriage license is a
on different parts of her body as a result of the formal requirement; its absence renders the
blows inflicted by her husband, evidenced by a marriage void ab initio. From the documents
Medical Certificate. Filipina presented, the marriage license was
issued on September 17,1974, almost one year
Filipina later filed a new action for legal after the ceremony took place on November 15,
separation against Fernando which the RTC 1973. The ineluctable conclusion is that the
granted. On August 4, 1992, Filipina filed a marriage was indeed contracted without a
petition for the declaration of absolute nullity of marriage license. Nowhere do we find Fernano
her marriage to Fernando on the ground of denying these dates on record. Article 80 of the
psychological incapacity. She points out that the Civil Code on void marriages from the beginning
final judgment rendered by the Regional Trial is clearly applicable in this case.
Court in her favor, in her petitions for separation
of property and legal separation, and Fernando's There being no claim of an exceptional character,
infliction of physical violence on her which led to the purported marriage between Filipina and
the conviction of her husband for slight physical Fernando could not be classified among those
injuries are symptoms of psychological enumerated in Articles 72-79 of the Civil Code.
incapacity. We thus conclude that under Article 80 of the
Civil Code, the marriage between petitioner and
The petition for declaration of nullity of marriage private respondent is void from the beginning.
was dismissed by the Court of Appeals for
finding the testimony of Filipina concerning
Fernando’s purported psychological incapacity
falls short of the quantum of evidence required to
nullify a marriage celebrated with all the formal
and essential requisites of law.

Upon appeal to the Supreme Court, Filipina

alleged for the first time, raises the issue of the
marriage being void for lack of a valid marriage
license at the time of its celebration. It appears
that, according to her, the date of the actual
celebration of their marriage and the date of
issuance of their marriage certificate and
marriage license are different and incongruous.

Page | 2
 Jaime Sevilla vs. Carmelita Cardenas
Facts: Issue:
In a complaint filed by Jaime O. Sevilla before Whether or not the failure to locate the book that
the RTC, he claimed that on 19 May 1969, contains the record of the marriage license
through machinations, duress and intimidation warrants a valid ground for declaration of nullity
employed upon him by Carmelita N. Cardenas of marriage due to lack of a marriage license.
and the her father, retired Colonel Jose Cardenas,
caused him and Carmelita to sign a marriage Ruling:
contract before the Minister of the Gospel. No. It is not a valid ground. The Supreme Court
According to Jaime, he never applied for a reiterated its ruling in Republic vs. Court of
marriage license for his supposed marriage to Appeals & Castro that as custodians of public
Carmelita and never did they obtain any marriage documents, civil registrars are public officers
license from any Civil Registry, consequently, no charged with the duty, inter alia, of maintaining a
marriage license was presented to the register book where they are required to enter all
solemnizing officer. applications for marriage licenses, including the
names of the applicants, the date the marriage
For her part, Carmelita refuted these allegations license was issued and such other relevant data.
of Jaime, and claims that she and Jaime were Thus, the certification to be issued by the Local
married civilly on 19 May 1969, and in a church Civil Registrar must categorically state that the
ceremony thereafter on 31 May 1969 at the Most document does not exist in his office or the
Holy Redeemer Parish in Quezon City. Both particular entry could not be found in the register
marriages were registered with the local civil despite diligent search. Such certification shall be
registry of Manila and the National Statistics sufficient proof of lack or absence of record as
Office. stated in Section 28, Rule 132 of the Rules of
Court.
Upon findings of the RTC, there was a marriage
license. Note that the first two certifications bear the
However, Jamie argues that marriage license no. statement that "hope and understand our loaded
2770792 allegedly issued in San Juan, Rizal on work cannot give you our full force locating the
May 19, 1969 indicated in the marriage contract above problem." It could be easily implied from
was fictitious for he never applied for any the said statement that the Office of the Local
marriage license. Upon verifications made by Civil Registrar could not exert its best efforts to
him through his lawyer, Atty. Jose M. Abola, locate and determine the existence of Marriage
with the Civil Registry of San Juan, a License No. 2770792 due to its "loaded work."
Certification dated March 11, 1994 was issued by Likewise, both certifications failed to state with
Rafael D. Aliscad, Jr., Local Civil Registrar of absolute certainty whether or not such license
San Juan, that "no marriage license no. 2770792 was issued.
was ever issued by said office.
This implication is confirmed in the testimony of
The RTC rendered a decision granting the the representative from the Office of the Local
petition for nullity of marriage due to the lack of Civil Registrar of San Juan, Ms. Perlita Mercader,
a marriage license. The Court of Appeals who stated that they cannot locate the logbook
however, overturned the decision and found that due to the fact that the person in charge of the said
a certain Perlita Mercader of the local civil logbook had already retired. Further, the
registry of San Juan testified that they "failed to testimony of the said person was not presented in
locate the book wherein marriage license no. evidence. It does not appear on record that the
2770792 is registered," for the reason that "the former custodian of the logbook was deceased or
employee handling is already retired." missing, or that his testimony could not be
secured. This belies the claim that all efforts to
With said testimony the Court of Appeals ruled locate the logbook or prove the material contents
that it cannot therefore just presume that the therein, had been exerted.
marriage license specified in the parties' marriage Given the documentary and testimonial evidence
contract was not issued for in the end the failure to the effect that utmost efforts were not exerted
of the office of the local civil registrar of San Juan to locate the logbook where Marriage License
to produce a copy of the marriage license was No. 2770792 may have been entered, the
attributable not to the fact that no such marriage presumption of regularity of performance of
license was issued but rather, because it "failed to official function by the Local Civil Registrar in
locate the book wherein marriage license no. issuing the certifications, is effectively rebutted.
2770792 is registered." Simply put, if the
pertinent book were available for scrutiny, there On Constitutional Protection on the validity of
is a strong possibility that it would have contained marriage:
an entry on marriage license no. 2720792.

Page | 3
The rule is settled that every intendment of the is no such special law in the Philippines
law or fact leans toward the validity of the governing sex reassignment and its effects.
marriage, the indissolubility of the marriage
bonds. The courts look upon this presumption Under the Civil Register Law, a birth certificate
with great favor. It is not to be lightly repelled; on is a historical record of the facts as they existed at
the contrary, the presumption is of great weight. the time of birth. Thus, the sex of a person is
determined at birth, visually done by the birth
The Court is mindful of the policy of the 1987 attendant (the physician or midwife) by
Constitution to protect and strengthen the family examining the genitals of the infant. Considering
as the basic autonomous social institution and that there is no law legally recognizing sex
marriage as the foundation of the family. Thus, reassignment, the determination of a person’s sex
any doubt should be resolved in favor of the made at the time of his or her birth, if not attended
validity of the marriage. Our Constitution is by error, is immutable.
committed to the policy of strengthening the
family as a basic social institution. Our family When words are not defined in a statute they are
law is based on the policy that marriage is not a to be given their common and ordinary meaning
mere contract, but a social institution in which the in the absence of a contrary legislative intent. The
State is vitally interested. The State can find no words “sex,” “male” and “female” as used in the
stronger anchor than on good, solid and happy Civil Register Law and laws concerning the civil
families. The break-up of families weakens our registry (and even all other laws) should therefore
social and moral fabric; hence, their preservation be understood in their common and ordinary
is not the concern of the family members alone. usage, there being no legislative intent to the
contrary. Since the statutory language of the Civil
Rommel Silverio vs. Republic Register Law was enacted in the early 1900s and
Facts: remains unchanged, it cannot be argued that the
On November 26, 2002, petitioner Rommel term “sex” as used then is something alterable
Jacinto Dantes Silverio filed a petition for the through surgery or something that allows a post-
change of his first name and sex in his birth operative male-to-female transsexual to be
certificate in the Regional Trial Court. Rommel is included in the category “female.”
a male transsexual, which means that he is
“anatomically male but feels, thinks and acts as a Marriage, one of the most sacred social
female” and that he had always identified himself institutions, is a special contract of permanent
with girls since childhood. union between a man and a woman. One of its
essential requisites is the legal capacity of the
Feeling trapped in a man’s body, he consulted contracting parties who must be a male and a
several doctors in the United States. He female. To grant the changes sought by petitioner
underwent psychological examination, hormone will substantially reconfigure and greatly alter the
treatment and breast augmentation. His attempts laws on marriage and family relations. It will
to transform himself to a “woman” culminated on allow the union of a man with another man who
January 27, 2001 when he underwent sex has undergone sex reassignment.
reassignment surgery in Bangkok, Thailand.
He was thereafter examined by Dr. Marcelino Juvy Cosca et.al vs. Lucio Palaypayon Jr. and
Reysio-Cruz, Jr., a plastic and reconstruction Nella Esmeralda-Baroy
surgeon in the Philippines, who issued a medical Facts:
certificate attesting that he (petitioner) had in fact Complainants:
undergone the procedure. From then on, Rommel ▪ Juvy N. Cosca (Stenographer 1)
lived as a female and was in fact engaged to be ▪ Edmundo B. Peralta (Interpreter 1)
married to his American fiancé, Richard P. Edel. ▪ Ramon C. Sambo (Clerk 2); and
▪ Apollo Villamora (Process Server)
Issue:
Whether or not Rommel Silverio is capacitated to filed an administrative complaint filed with the
marry Richard Edel. Office of the Court Administrator on October 5,
1992, accusing herein respondents Lucio P.
Ruling: Palaypayon, Jr. and Nelia B. Esmeralda-Baroy
No. Rommel is not capacitated to marry with the following offenses:
Richard. A person’s sex is an essential factor in (1) Illegal solemnization of marriage;
marriage and family relations. It is a part of a (2) Falsification of the monthly reports of
person’s legal capacity and civil status. Article cases;
413 of the Civil Code provides that all other (3) Bribery in consideration of an
matters pertaining to the registration of civil appointment in the court;
status shall be governed by special laws but there (4) Non-issuance of receipt for cash bond
received;

Page | 4
 (5) Infidelity in the custody of detained ▪ That the marriage of Samy Bocaya and
prisoners; and Gina Bismonte was celebrated even
(6) Requiring payment of filing fees from without the requisite license due to the
exempted entities. insistence of the parties in order to avoid
embarrassment to their guests but that, at
Complainants allege that respondent judge any rate, he did not sign their marriage
solemnized the marriages of: contract which remains unsigned up to
▪ Alano P. Abellano and Nelly Edralin the present.
▪ Francisco Selpo and Julieta Carrido
▪ Eddie Terrobias and Maria Gacer Issue:
▪ Renato Gamay and Maricris Belga Whether or not the marriages Judge Palaypayon
▪ Arsenio Sabater and Margarita Nacario solemnized were void ab initio.
and
▪ Sammy Bocaya and Gina Bismonte. Ruling:
Yes. They are void ab initio. In all these
even without the requisite marriage license. Thus, aforementioned marriages, the blank space in the
the following couples were able to get married by marriage contracts to show the number of the
the simple expedient of paying the marriage fees marriage was solemnized as required by Article
to respondent Baroy, despite the absence of a 22 of the Family Code were not filled up. While
marriage license. the contracting parties and their witnesses signed
their marriage contracts, Judge Palaypayon did
As a consequence, their marriage contracts did not affix his signature in the marriage contracts,
not reflect any marriage license number. In except that of Abellano and Edralin when Judge
addition, Judge Palaypayon did not sign their Palaypayon signed their marriage certificate as he
marriage contracts and did not indicate the date claims that he solemnized this marriage under
of solemnization, the reason being that he Article 34 of the Family Code of the Philippines.
allegedly had to wait for the marriage license to
be submitted by the parties which was usually On the marriage of Sammy Bocaya and Gina
several days after the ceremony. Indubitably, the Bismonte:
marriage contracts were not filed with the local The marriage of Bocaya and Besmonte is shown
civil registrar to have been solemnized by Judge Palaypayon
without a marriage license. The testimonies of
Respondent Judge Palaypayon, Jr. contends the Bocay himself and Pompeo Ariola (one of the
following arguments: witnesses of the marriage of Bocaya and
▪ That the marriage between Alano P. Besmonte), and the photographs taken when
Abellano and Nelly Edralin falls under Judge Palaypayon solemnized their marriage
Article 34 of the Civil Code, hence it is sufficiently show that Judge Palaypayon really
exempt from the marriage license solemnized their marriage. Bocaya declared that
requirement; they were advised by Judge Palaypayon to return
after ten (10) days after their marriage was
▪ That he gave strict instructions to solemnized and bring with them their marriage
complainant Sambo to furnish the couple license. In the meantime, they already started
a copy of the marriage contract and to file living together as husband and wife believing that
the same with the civil registrar, but the the formal requisites of marriage were complied
latter failed to do so; that in order to solve with.
the problem, the spouses subsequently
formalized their marriage by securing a On the marriage of Alano P. Abellano and
marriage license and executing their Nelly Edralin:
marriage contract, a copy of which was In their marriage contract which did not bear any
filed with the civil registrar; date either when it was solemnized, it was stated
that Abellano was only eighteen (18) years, two
▪ That the other five marriages alluded to (2) months and seven (7) days old. If he and
in the administrative complaint were not Edralin had been living together as husband and
illegally solemnized because the wife for almost six (6) years already before they
marriage contracts were not signed by got married as they stated in their joint affidavit,
him for failing to show a valid marriage Abellano must have been less than thirteen (13)
license and they did not contain the date years old when he started living with Edralin as
and place of marriage; that copies of his wife and this is hard to believe. Judge
these marriage contracts are in the Palaypayon should have been aware of this when
custody of complainant Sambo; and he solemnized their marriage as it was his duty to
ascertain the qualification of the contracting
parties who might have executed a false joint

Page | 5
affidavit in order to have an instant marriage by
avoiding the marriage license requirement.

On May 23, 1992, however, after this case was

already filed, Judge Palaypayon married again
Abellano and Edralin, this time with a marriage
license This act of Judge Palaypayon of
solemnizing the marriage of Abellano and
Edralin for the second time with a marriage
license already only gave rise to the suspicion that
the first time he solemnized the marriage it was
only made to appear that it was solemnized under
exceptional character as there was not marriage
license and Judge Palaypayon had already signed
the marriage certificate. If it was true that he
solemnized the first marriage under exceptional
character where a marriage license was not
required, why did he already require the parties to
have a marriage license when he solemnized their
marriage for the second time?

On the marriage of Francisco Selpo and

Julieta Carrido and Arsenio Sabater and
Margarita Nacario:
Both Carrido and Nacario testified that Judge
Palaypayon did not solemnize their marriage as
they did not have a marriage license. On cross-
examination, however, both admitted that they
did not know who prepared their affidavits.

On the marriage of Renato Gamay and

Maricris Belga:
On her part, respondent Baroy at first denied that
the marriage was solemnized. When she was
asked, however, why did she sign the marriage
contract as a witness she answered that she
thought the marriage was already solemnized.
Respondent Baroy was, and is, the clerk of court
of Judge Palaypayon. She signed the marriage
contract of Gamay and Belga as one of the two
principal sponsors. Yet, she wanted to give the
impression that she did not even know that the
marriage was solemnized by Judge Palaypayon.
This is found very difficult to believe.

On the marriage of Eddie Terrobias and

Maria Gacer:
The contracting parties and their witnesses also
signed the marriage contract and paid the
solemnization fee, but Judge Palaypayon
allegedly did not solemnize their marriage due to
lack of marriage license. Judge Palaypayon
submitted the affidavit of William Medina, Vice-
Mayor of Tinambac, to corroborate his testimony.
Medina, however, did not testify in this case and
so his affidavit has no probative value.

Page | 6
 Mercedita Arañes vs. Salvador Occiano is guilty for solemnizing the marriage without a
Facts: marriage license.
Mercedita Mata Arañes charges respondent judge
with Gross Ignorance of the Law for solemnizing Ruling:
her marriage to her late groom Dominador B. Yes. Occiano solemnized the marriage outside
Orobia without the requisite marriage license and of his jurisdiction. Under the Judiciary
at Nabua, Camarines Sur which is outside his Reorganization Act of 1980, or B.P.129, the
territorial jurisdiction. authority of the regional trial court judges and
judges of inferior courts to solemnize marriages
Dominador died, however, since the marriage is confined to their territorial jurisdiction as
was a nullity, Mercedita’s right to inherit the defined by the Supreme Court.
“vast properties” left by Orobia was not
recognized. She was likewise deprived of The Court reiterated its decision in Navarro vs.
receiving the pensions of Orobia, a retired Domagtoy which they stated that “A priest who
Commodore of the Philippine Navy. is commissioned and allowed by his local
ordinance to marry the faithful is authorized to do
In his comment, Judge Occiano argued that he so only within the area or diocese or place
was requested by a certain Juan Arroyo on 15 allowed by his Bishop. An appellate court Justice
February 2000 to solemnize the marriage on 17 or a Justice of this Court has jurisdiction over the
February 2000. Having been assured that all the entire Philippines to solemnize marriages,
documents to the marriage were complete, he regardless of the venue, as long as the requisites
agreed to solemnize the marriage in his sala at the of the law are complied with. However, judges
MTC of Balatan, Camarines Sur. However, on 17 who are appointed to specific jurisdictions, may
February 2000, Arroyo informed him that Orobia officiate in weddings only within said areas and
had a difficulty walking and could not stand the not beyond. Where a judge solemnizes a marriage
rigors of travelling to Balatan which is located outside his court’s jurisdiction, there is a resultant
almost 25 kilometers from his residence in irregularity in the formal requisite laid down in
Nabua. Arroyo then requested if Occiano could Article 3, which while it may not affect the
solemnize the marriage in Nabua, to which he validity of the marriage, may subject the
agreed. Occiano further avers that before he officiating official to administrative liability.” In
started the ceremony, he carefully examined the the case at bar, the territorial jurisdiction of
documents submitted to him by Mercedita. When Occiano is limited to the municipality of Balatan,
he discovered that the parties did not possess the Camarines Sur. His act of solemnizing the
requisite marriage license, he refused to marriage of Mercedita and Orobia in Nabua,
solemnize the marriage and suggested its Camarines Sur therefore is contrary to law and
resetting to another date. However, due to the subjects him to administrative liability. His act
earnest pleas of the parties, the influx of visitors, may not amount to gross ignorance of the law for
and the delivery of provisions for the occasion, he he allegedly solemnized the marriage out of
proceeded to solemnize the marriage out of human compassion but nonetheless, he cannot
human compassion. avoid liability for violating the law on marriage.

After the solemnization, he reiterated the Occiano should also be faulted for solemnizing
necessity for the marriage license and reminded a marriage without the requisite marriage
the parties that their failure to give it would render license. The Supreme Court held that a marriage
the marriage void. Mercedita and Orobia assured which preceded the issuance of the marriage
Occiano that they would give the license to him license is void, and that the subsequent issuance
in the afternoon of that same day. When they of such license cannot render valid to the
failed to comply, Occiano followed it up with marriage. Except in cases provided by law, it is
Arroyo but the latter only gave him the same the marriage license that gives the solemnizing
reassurance that the marriage license would be officer the authority to solemnize a marriage.
delivered to his sala at the MTC of Balatan, Occiano did not possess such authority when he
Camarines Sur. Reviewing the records of the solemnized the marriage of Mercedita. In this
case, it appears that Mercedita and Orobia filed respect, Occiano acted in gross ignorance of the
their Application for Marriage License on 5 law.
January 2000. It was stamped in this Application
that the marriage license shall be issued on 17 Lucio Morigo vs. People
January 2000. However, neither Mercedita nor Facts:
Orobia claimed it. Appellant Lucio Morigo and Lucia Barrete were
Issue: boardmates at the house of Catalina Tortor at
Whether or not Judge Occiano solemnized the Tagbilaran City, Province of Bohol, for a period
marriage outside his jurisdiction and whether he of four (4) years (from 1974-1978). After 1978,
Lucia worked abroad and would often exchange

Page | 7
letters with Lucio which resulted to them being But in this case, legally speaking, Lucio was
sweethearts. never married to Lucia Barrete. Thus, there is no
first marriage to speak of. Under the principle of
In 1990, Lucia came back to the Philippines and retroactivity of a marriage being declared void ab
proposed to Lucio to join her in Canada. Both initio, the two were never married “from the
agreed to get married, thus they were married on beginning.” The contract of marriage is null; it
August 30, 1990 at the Iglesia de Filipina bears no legal effect.
Nacional at Catagdaan, Pilar, Bohol.
However, the Supreme Court stated that as a rule
On August 19, 1991, Lucia filed with the Ontario a judicial declaration of nullity of a previous
Court a petition for divorce against Lucio which marriage is necessary before a subsequent one
was granted by the court on January 17, 1992 and can be legally contracted. One who enters into a
to take effect on February 17, 1992. On October subsequent marriage without first obtaining such
4, 1992, Lucio Morigo married Maria Jececha judicial declaration is guilty of bigamy. This
Lumbago at the Virgen sa Barangay Parish, principle applies even if the earlier union is
Tagbilaran City, Bohol. characterized by statutes as “void.”

On September 21, 1993, Lucio filed a complaint In the instant case, however, no marriage
for judicial declaration of nullity of marriage in ceremony at all was performed by a duly
the Regional Trial Court of Bohol. The complaint authorized solemnizing officer. Lucio and Lucia
seeks among others, the declaration of nullity of Barrete merely signed a marriage contract on
accused’s marriage with Lucia, on the ground that their own. The mere private act of signing a
no marriage ceremony actually took place. marriage contract bears no semblance to a valid
marriage and thus, needs no judicial declaration
On October 19, 1993, Lucio was charged with of nullity. Such act alone, without more, cannot
Bigamy in an Information filed by the City be deemed to constitute an ostensibly valid
Prosecutor of Tagbilaran. marriage for which Lucio might be held liable for
Lucio moved for suspension of the arraignment bigamy unless he first secures a judicial
on the ground that the civil case for judicial declaration of nullity before he contracts a
nullification of his marriage with Lucia posed a subsequent marriage.
prejudicial question in the bigamy case. His
motion was granted, but subsequently denied
upon motion for reconsideration by the
prosecution.

Issue:
Whether or not there was a valid marriage
between Lucio Morigo and Lucia Barrete and
whether he is liable for Bigamy

Ruling:
No. There was no marriage between Lucio and
Lucia. The trial court found that there was no
actual marriage ceremony performed between
Lucio and Lucia by a solemnizing officer.
Instead, what transpired was a mere signing of the
marriage contract by the two, without the
presence of a solemnizing officer. The trial court
thus held that the marriage is void ab initio, in
accordance with Articles 3 and 4 of the Family
Code. This simply means that there was no
marriage to begin with; and that such declaration
of nullity retroacts to the date of the first
marriage. In other words, for all intents and
purposes, reckoned from the date of the
declaration of the first marriage as void ab initio
to the date of the celebration of the first marriage,
the accused was, under the eyes of the law, never
married.

The first element of bigamy as a crime requires

that the accused must have been legally married.

Page | 8
 Restituto Alcantara vs. Rosita Alcantara civil registrar that no such marriage license was
Facts: issued to the parties.
A petition for annulment of marriage was filed by
Restituto Alcantara against Rosita Alcantara In this case, the marriage contract between the
alleging that on 8 December 1982 he and Rosita, Restituto and Rosita reflects a marriage license
without securing the required marriage license, number. A certification to this effect was also
went to the Manila City Hall for the purpose of issued by the local civil registrar of Carmona,
looking for a person who could arrange a Cavite. The certification moreover is precise in
marriage for them. They met a person who, for a that it specifically identified the parties to whom
fee, arranged their wedding before a certain Rev. the marriage license was issued, namely Restituto
Aquilino Navarro, a Minister of the Gospel of the Alcantara and Rosita Almario, further validating
CDCC BR Chapel. the fact that a license was in fact issued to the
parties herein.
They got married on the same day. Restituto and
Rosita then went through another marriage This certification enjoys the presumption that
ceremony at the San Jose de Manuguit Church in official duty has been regularly performed and
Tondo, Manila, on 26 March 1983. The marriage the issuance of the marriage license was done in
was likewise celebrated without the parties the regular conduct of official business. The
securing a marriage license. Restituto alleged that presumption of regularity of official acts may be
the marriage license, procured in Carmona, rebutted by affirmative evidence of irregularity or
Cavite, appearing on the marriage contract, is a failure to perform a duty. However, the
sham, as neither party was a resident of Carmona, presumption prevails until it is overcome by no
and they never went to Carmona to apply for a less than clear and convincing evidence to the
license with the local civil registrar of the said contrary. Thus, unless the presumption is
place. In 1988, they parted ways and lived rebutted, it becomes conclusive. Every
separate lives. reasonable intendment will be made in support of
the presumption and, in case of doubt as to an
Rosita in her reply argues that Restituto has a officer's act being lawful or unlawful,
mistress with whom he has three children and the construction should be in favor of its lawfulness.
only reason why he filed the annulment of their
marriage was to evade prosecution for Restituto’s argument that neither he nor
concubinage. respondent is a resident of Carmona, Cavite
cannot be given merit. Even then, we still hold
Issue: that there is no sufficient basis to annul Restituto
Whether or not there was a valid marriage license and Rosita’s marriage. Issuance of a marriage
and whether the absence thereof will render license in a city or municipality, not the residence
Restituto and Rosita’s marriage void. of either of the contracting parties, and issuance
of a marriage license despite the absence of
Ruling: publication or prior to the completion of the 10-
day period for publication are considered mere
Yes. There is a valid marriage license. Restituto
irregularities that do not affect the validity of the
cannot insist on the absence of a marriage license
marriage. An irregularity in any of the formal
to impugn the validity of his marriage. The cases
requisites of marriage does not affect its validity
where the court considered the absence of a
but the party or parties responsible for the
marriage license as a ground for considering the
irregularity are civilly, criminally and
marriage void are clear-cut.
administratively liable.
• Republic of the Philippines v. Court of
Appeals
More so, Restituto’s argument that marriage
• Cariño v. Cariño
license issued to the parties is No. 7054133, while
• Sy v. Court of Appeals
the marriage contract states that the marriage
license number of the parties is number 7054033
In all these cases, there was clearly an absence of is a discrepancy that would warrant the absence
a marriage license which rendered the marriage of a marriage license cannot be given merit. It is
void. not impossible to assume that the same is a mere
a typographical error, as a closer scrutiny of the
marriage contract reveals the overlapping of the
Clearly, from these cases, it can be deduced that numbers 0 and 1, such that the marriage license
to be considered void on the ground of absence of may read either as 7054133 or 7054033. It
a marriage license, the law requires that the therefore does not detract from our conclusion
absence of such marriage license must be regarding the existence and issuance of said
apparent on the marriage contract, or at the very marriage license to the parties.
least, supported by a certification from the local

Page | 9
Likewise, the issue raised by Restituto that they second with Rowena. He, however, claimed that
appeared before a "fixer" who arranged he was a Muslim convert way back on January
everything for them and who facilitated the 10, 1992, even before he contracted the first
ceremony before a certain Rev. Aquilino marriage with the Jeusa. As a Muslim convert, he
Navarro, a Minister of the Gospel of the CDCC is allegedly entitled to marry four (4) wives as
Br Chapel will not strengthen his posture. The allowed under the Muslim or Islam belief. To
authority of the officer or clergyman shown to prove that he is a Muslim convert even prior to
have performed a marriage ceremony will be his marriage to the Jesusa, Atilano presented a
presumed in the absence of any showing to the Certificate of Conversion dated August 2, 2004
contrary. Moreover, the solemnizing officer is not issued by one Hadji Abdul Kajar Madueño and
duty-bound to investigate whether or not a approved by one Khad Ibrahim A. Alyamin
marriage license has been duly and regularly wherein it is stated that Atilano allegedly
issued by the local civil registrar. All the converted as a Muslim since January 19, 1992
solemnizing officer needs to know is that the
license has been issued by the competent official, He claimed that the Jesua that he was a Muslim
and it may be presumed from the issuance of the convert prior to their marriage because he told
license that said official has fulfilled the duty to this fact when he was courting her in Saudi
ascertain whether the contracting parties had Arabia. Atilano further testified that Rowena was
fulfilled the requirements of law. not aware of his first marriage and he did not tell
her this fact because Rowena is a Catholic and he
Atilano Nollora vs. People does not want to lose her if she learns of his first
Facts: marriage. Atilano further explained that in his
On August 24, 2004, Assistant City Prosecutor Marriage Contract with Jesusa Pinat, it is
Raymond Jonathan B. Lledo filed an Information indicated that he was a `Catholic Pentecostal' but
against Atilano O. Nollora, Jr. and Rowena P. that he was not aware why it was placed as such
Geraldino for the crime of Bigamy. Upon his on said contract. In his Marriage Contract with
arraignment on April 18, 2005, Atilano entered Rowena, the religion `Catholic' was also
into a plea of not guilty indicated because he was keeping as a secret his
being a Muslim since the society does not
Jesusa Pinat Nollora testified that she and approve of marrying a Muslim.
accused Atilano O. Nollora, Jr. met in Saudi
Arabia while she was working there as a Staff Issue:
Midwife in King Abdulah Naval Base Hospital. Whether or not Atilano is capacitated to marry
Atilano O. Nollora, Jr. courted her and on April Jesusa and Rowena at the same time on the
6, 1999, they got married at the IE MELIF Chruch ground that he was a muslim convert.
in Sapang Palay, San Jose del Monte, Bulacan.
While working in said hospital, she heard rumors Ruling:
that her husband has another wife and because of No. Atilano is not capacitated and is guilty of
anxiety and emotional stress, she left Saudi Bigamy. The circumstances in the present case
Arabia and returned to the Philippines. Upon satisfy all the elements of bigamy. (1) Nollora is
arrival in the Philippines, Jesusa learned that legally married to Pinat; (2) Nollora and Pinat's
indeed, Atilano contracted a second marriage marriage has not been legally dissolved prior to
with Rowena Geraldino on December 8, 2001 the date of the second marriage; (3) Nollora
admitted the existence of his second marriage to
Upon learning this information, the Jesusa Geraldino; and (4) Nollora and Geraldino's
confronted Rowena at the latter's workplace in marriage has all the essential requisites for
CBW, FTI, Taguig and asked her if she knew of validity except for the lack of capacity of Nollora
the first marriage between her and Atilano, to due to his prior marriage.
which Rowena allegedly affirmed and despite
this knowledge, she allegedly still married Granting arguendo that Nollora is indeed of
Atilano O. Nollora, Jr. because she loves him so Muslim faith at the time of celebration of both
much and because they were neighbors and marriages, Nollora cannot deny that both
childhood friends. Jesusa also knew that Rowena marriage ceremonies were not conducted in
knew of her marriage with Atilano, because when accordance with the Code of Muslim Personal
she was brought by Atilano at the latter's Laws, or Presidential Decree No. 1083.
residence in Taguig, Metro Manila and
introduced her to Atilano parents, Rowena was Nollora's religious affiliation is not an issue here.
there in the house together with a friend and she Neither is the claim that Nollora's marriages were
heard everything that they were talking about. solemnized according to Muslim law. Thus,
regardless of his professed religion, Nollora
In his defense Atilano admitted having contracted cannot claim exemption from liability for the
two (2) marriages, the first with Jesusa and the crime of bigamy. Nollora asserted in his marriage

Page | 10
certificate with Geraldino that his civil status is “freely given” consent requires that the
"single." Moreover, both of Nollora's marriage contracting parties willingly and deliberately
contracts do not state that he is a Muslim. enter into the marriage. Consent must be real in
Although the truth or falsehood of the declaration the sense that it is not vitiated nor rendered
of one's religion in the marriage certificate is not defective by any of the vices of consent under
an essential requirement for marriage, such Articles 45 and 46 of the Family Code, such as
omissions are sufficient proofs of Nollora's fraud, force, intimidation, and undue influence.
liability for bigamy. Nollora's false declaration Consent must also be conscious or intelligent, in
about his civil status is thus further compounded that the parties must be capable of intelligently
by these omissions. understanding the nature of, and both the
beneficial or unfavorable consequences of their
Republic vs. Liberty Albios act. Their understanding should not be affected
Facts: by insanity, intoxication, drugs, or hypnotism.
On October 22, 2004, Fringer, an American
citizen, and Liberty Albios were married before Based on the above, consent was not lacking
Judge Ofelia I. Calo of the Metropolitan Trial between Albios and Fringer. In fact, there was
Court, Branch 59, Mandaluyong City as real consent because it was not vitiated nor
evidenced by a Certificate of Marriage. On rendered defective by any vice of consent. Their
December 6, 2006, Albios filed with the RTC a consent was also conscious and intelligent as they
petition for declaration of nullity of her marriage understood the nature and the beneficial and
with Fringer. She alleged that immediately after inconvenient consequences of their marriage, as
their marriage, they separated and never lived as nothing impaired their ability to do so. That their
husband and wife because they never really had consent was freely given is best evidenced by
any intention of entering into a married state or their conscious purpose of acquiring American
complying with any of their essential marital citizenship through marriage. Such plainly
obligations. She described their marriage as one demonstrates that they willingly and deliberately
made in jest and, therefore, null and void ab contracted the marriage. There was a clear
initio. At the pre-trial, only Albios, her counsel intention to enter into a real and valid marriage so
and the prosecutor appeared. Fringer did not as to fully comply with the requirements of an
attend the hearing despite being duly notified of application for citizenship. There was a full and
the schedule. complete understanding of the legal tie that
would be created between them, since it was that
The RTC ruled in favor of Albios stating that to precise legal tie which was necessary to
Albios only entered into marriage in order to accomplish their goal.
enable her to acquire American citizenship; that A marriage in jest is a pretended marriage, legal
in consideration thereof, she agreed to pay him in form but entered into as a joke, with no real
the sum of $2,000.00; that after the ceremony, the intention of entering into the actual marriage
parties went their separate ways; that Fringer status, and with a clear understanding that the
returned to the United States and never again parties would not be bound. The ceremony is not
communicated with her; and that, in turn, she did followed by any conduct indicating a purpose to
not pay him the $2,000.00 because he never enter into such a relation. It is a pretended
processed her petition for citizenship. The CA marriage not intended to be real and with no
affirmed the RTC ruling which found that the intention to create any legal ties whatsoever,
essential requisite of consent was lacking. The hence, the absence of any genuine consent.
CA stated that the parties clearly did not Marriages in jest are void ab initio, not for
understand the nature and consequence of getting vitiated, defective, or unintelligent consent, but
married and that their case was similar to a for a complete absence of consent. There is no
marriage in jest. It further explained that the genuine consent because the parties have
parties never intended to enter into the marriage absolutely no intention of being bound in any way
contract and never intended to live as husband or for any purpose.
and wife or build a family.
Albios’ marriage is not at all analogous to a
Issue: marriage in jest. Albios and Fringer had an
Whether or not the marriage, contracted for the undeniable intention to be bound in order to
sole purpose of acquiring American citizenship in create the very bond necessary to allow the
consideration of $2,000.00, void ab initio on the respondent to acquire American citizenship. Only
ground of lack of consent? a genuine consent to be married would allow
them to further their objective, considering that
only a valid marriage can properly support an
Ruling:
application for citizenship. There was, thus, an
Under Article 2 of the Family Code, for consent
apparent intention to enter into the actual
to be valid, it must be (1) freely given and (2)
marriage status and to create a legal tie, albeit for
made in the presence of a solemnizing officer. A

Page | 11
a limited purpose. Genuine consent was,
therefore, clearly present. History of limited purpose marriages:
The institution of marriage carries with it
The possibility that the parties in a marriage concomitant benefits. This has led to the
might have no real intention to establish a life development of marriage fraud for the sole
together is, however, insufficient to nullify a purpose of availing of particular benefits. In the
marriage freely entered into in accordance with United States, marriages where a couple marries
law. Article 1 of the Family Code provides that only to achieve a particular purpose or acquire
the nature, consequences, and incidents of specific benefits, have been referred to as
marriage are governed by law and not subject to “limited purpose” marriages. A common limited
stipulation. A marriage may, thus, only be purpose marriage is one entered into solely for the
declared void or voidable under the grounds legitimization of a child. Another, which is the
provided by law. There is no law that declares a subject of the present case, is for immigration
marriage void if it is entered into for purposes purposes.
other than what the Constitution or law declares,
such as the acquisition of foreign citizenship. The case of Bark v. Immigration and
Therefore, so long as all the essential and formal Naturalization Service, established the principal
requisites precribed by law are present, and it is test for determining the presence of marriage
not void or voidable under the grounds provided fraud in immigration cases. It ruled that a
by law, it shall be declared valid. “marriage is a sham if the bride and groom did
not intend to establish a life together at the time
Motives for entering into a marriage are varied they were married.”
and complex. The State does not and cannot
dictate on the kind of life that a couple chooses to This standard was modified with the passage of
lead. Any attempt to regulate their lifestyle would the Immigration Marriage Fraud Amendment of
go into the realm of their right to privacy and 1986 (IMFA), which now requires the couple to
would raise serious constitutional questions. The instead demonstrate that the marriage was not
right to marital privacy allows married couples to “entered into for the purpose of evading the
structure their marriages in almost any way they immigration laws of the United States.” The
see fit, to live together or live apart, to have focus, thus, shifted from determining the
children or no children, to love one another or not, intention to establish a life together, to
and so on. Thus, marriages entered into for other determining the intention of evading immigration
purposes, limited or otherwise, such as laws. It must be noted, however, that this standard
convenience, companionship, money, status, and is used purely for immigration purposes and,
title, provided that they comply with all the legal therefore, does not purport to rule on the legal
requisites, are equally valid. Love, though the validity or existence of a marriage.
ideal consideration in a marriage contract, is not
the only valid cause for marriage. Other Syed Abbas vs. Gloria Abbas
considerations, not precluded by law, may validly Facts:
support a marriage.
The present case stems from a petition filed by
petitioner Syed Azhar Abbas (Syed) for the
Neither can their marriage be considered voidable declaration of nullity of his marriage to Gloria
on the ground of fraud under Article 45 (3) of the Goo- Abbas (Gloria) with the RTC of Pasay City.
Family Code. Only the circumstances listed Syed alleged the absence of a marriage license, as
under Article 46 of the same Code may constitute provided for in Article 4 of the Family Code.
fraud, namely, (1) non-disclosure of a previous
conviction involving moral turpitude; (2)
Syed, a Pakistani citizen, testified that he met
concealment by the wife of a pregnancy by
Gloria, a Filipino citizen, in Taiwan in 1991, and
another man; (3) concealment of a sexually
they were married on August 9, 1992 at the Taipei
transmitted disease; and (4) concealment of drug
Mosque in Taiwan. He arrived in the Philippines
addiction, alcoholism, or homosexuality. No
in December of 1992. On January 9, 1993, at
other misrepresentation or deceit shall constitute
around 5 o’clock in the afternoon, he was at his
fraud as a ground tor an action to annul a
mother-in-law’s residence, located at Muñoz St.,
marriage. Entering into a: marriage tor the sole
Malate, Manila, when his mother-in-law arrived
purpose of evading immigration laws does not
with two men. He testified that he was told that
qualify under any oft he listed circumstances.
he was going to undergo some ceremony, one of
the requirements for his stay in the Philippines,
Furthermore, under Article 47 (3), the ground of but was not told of the nature of said ceremony.
fraud may only be brought by the injured or During the ceremony he and Gloria signed a
innocent party. In the present case, there is no document. He claimed that he did not know that
injured party because Albios and Fringer both the ceremony was a marriage until Gloria told
conspired to enter into the sham marriage. him later. He further testified that he did not go to

Page | 12
Carmona, Cavite to apply for a marriage license,
and that he had never resided in that area. It is telling that Gloria failed to present their
marriage license or a copy thereof to the court.
The RTC granted Syed’s petition arguing that the She failed to explain why the marriage license
marriage is void ab initio as there was no valid was secured in Carmona, Cavite, a location
marriage license was issued by the Municipal where, admittedly, neither party resided. She took
Civil Registrar of Carmona, Cavite in favor of no pains to apply for the license, so she is not the
Gloria and Syed It also took into account the fact best witness to testify to the validity and existence
that neither party was a resident of Carmona, of said license. Neither could the other witnesses
Cavite, the place where Marriage License No. she presented prove the existence of the marriage
9969967 was issued. The CA on the other hand license. Her mother, Felicitas Goo, could not
gave credence to Gloria’s arguments, and granted even testify as to the contents of the license,
her appeal. It held that the certification of the having admitted to not reading all of its contents.
Municipal Civil Registrar failed to categorically Atty. Sanchez, one of the sponsors, whom Gloria
state that a diligent search for the marriage license and Felicitas Goo approached for assistance in
of Gloria and Syed was conducted, and thus held securing the license, admitted not knowing where
that said certification could not be accorded the license came from. The task of applying for
probative value. the license was delegated to a certain Qualin, who
Issue: could have testified as to how the license was
Whether or not a valid marriage license had been secured and thus impeached the certification of
issued for the couple. the Municipal Civil Registrar as well as the
testimony of her representative. As Gloria failed
Ruling: to present this Qualin, the certification of the
Municipal Civil Registrar still enjoys probative
No. There was no marriage license issued.
value.
Gloria failed to present the actual marriage
license, or a copy thereof, and relied on the
marriage contract as well as the testimonies of her Sally Go-Bangayan vs. Benjamin Bangayan
witnesses to prove the existence of said license. Facts:
To prove that no such license was issued, Syed On 15 March 2004, Benjamin Bangayan, Jr.
turned to the office of the Municipal Civil (Benjamin) filed a petition for declaration of a
Registrar of Carmona, Cavite which had non-existent marriage and/or declaration of
allegedly issued said license. It was there that he nullity of marriage before the Regional Trial
requested certification that no such license was Court of Manila. Benjamin alleged that on 10
issued. September 1973, he married Azucena Alegre
(Azucena) in Caloocan City.
In Republic vs. CA and Castro, Nowhere in the
Certification was it categorically stated that the In 1979, Benjamin developed a romantic
officer involved conducted a diligent search. relationship with Sally Go-Bangayan (Sally) who
was a customer in the auto parts and supplies
A categorical declaration is not absolutely business owned by Benjamin’s family. In
necessary for Sec. 28, Rule 132 of the Rules of December 1981, Azucena left for the United
Court to apply. Under Sec. 3(m), Rule 131 of the States of America. In February 1982, Benjamin
Rules of Court, it is a disputable presumption that and Sally lived together as husband and wife.
an official duty has been regularly performed,
absent contradiction or other evidence to the On 7 March 1982, Sally brought Benjamin to an
contrary. We held, “The presumption of office in Santolan, Pasig City where they signed
regularity of official acts may be rebutted by a purported marriage contract. Sally, knowing
affirmative evidence of irregularity or failure to Benjamin’s marital status, assured him that the
perform a duty.” marriage contract would not be registered.

No such affirmative evidence was shown that the The relationship of Benjamin and Sally ended in
Municipal Civil Registrar was lax in performing 1994 when Sally left for Canada. She then filed
her duty of checking the records of their office, criminal actions for bigamy and falsification of
thus the presumption must stand. In fact, proof public documents against Benjamin, using their
does exist of a diligent search having been simulated marriage contract as evidence.
conducted, as Marriage License No. 996967 was Benjamin, in turn, filed a petition for declaration
indeed located and submitted to the court. The of a non-existent marriage and/or declaration of
fact that the names in said license do not nullity of marriage before the trial court on the
correspond to those of Gloria and Syed does not ground that his marriage to Sally was bigamous
overturn the presumption that the registrar and that it lacked the formal requisites to a valid
conducted a diligent search of the records of her marriage.
office.

Page | 13
Issue: validity except for the existence of a prior
Whether or not there was a valid marriage marriage. In this case, there was really no
between Benjamin and Sally and whether subsequent marriage. Benjamin and Sally just
Benjamin is guilty of the crime of Bigamy. signed a purported marriage contract without a
marriage license. The supposed marriage was not
Ruling: recorded with the local civil registrar and the
No. There was no valid marriage. On the National Statistics Office. In short, the marriage
purported marriage of Benjamin and Sally, between Benjamin and Sally did not exist.
Teresita Oliveros (Oliveros), Registration Officer
II of the Local Civil Registrar of Pasig City, Raquel Kho vs. Republic and Veronica Kho
testified that there was no valid marriage license Facts:
issued to Benjamin and Sally. Oliveros further Raquel Kho and Veronica Borata exchanged
testified that the local civil registrar of Pasig City marital vows in a marriage ceremony which
did not issue Marriage License No. N-07568 to actually took place at around 3:00 o'clock before
Benjamin and Sally. The certification from the dawn of June 1, 1972. Raquel has never gone to
local civil registrar is adequate to prove the non- the office of the Local Civil Registrar to apply for
issuance of a marriage license and absent any marriage license and had not seen much less
suspicious circumstance, the certification enjoys signed any papers or documents in connection
probative value, being issued by the officer with the procurement of a marriage license.
charged under the law to keep a record of all data
relative to the issuance of a marriage license. Considering the shortness of period from the time
Clearly, if indeed Benjamin and Sally entered that the clerk of the treasurer's office was told to
into a marriage contract, the marriage was void obtain the pertinent papers in the afternoon of
from the beginning for lack of a marriage license. May 31, no marriage license therefore could have
been validly issued, thereby rendering the
It was also established before the trial court that marriage solemnized on even date null and void
the purported marriage between Benjamin and for want of the most essential requisite
Sally was not recorded with the local civil
registrar and the National Statistics Office. The Issue:
lack of record was certified by Julieta B. Javier, Whether or not there was a valid marriage.
Registration Officer IV of the Office of the Local
Civil Registrar of the Municipality of Pasig. The Ruling:
documentary and testimonial evidence proved
No. There was no valid marriage. Article 58 of
that there was no marriage between Benjamin and
the Civil Code makes explicit that no marriage
Sally. As pointed out by the trial court, the
shall be solemnized without a license first being
marriage between Benjamin and Sally "was made
issued by the local civil registrar of the
only in jest" and "a simulated marriage
municipality where either contracting party
habitually resides. Article 80(3) of the Civil Code
We see no inconsistency in finding the marriage also makes it clear that a marriage performed
between Benjamin and Sally null and void ab without the corresponding marriage license is
initio and, at the same time, non-existent. Under void, this being nothing more than the legitimate
Article 35 of the Family Code, a marriage consequence flowing from the fact that the
solemnized without a license, shall be void from license is the essence of the marriage contract.
the beginning. In this case, the marriage between
Benjamin and Sally was solemnized without a
The rationale for the compulsory character of a
license.
marriage license under the Civil Code is that it is
the authority granted by the State to the
On Bigamy: contracting parties, after the proper government
The marriage is not bigamous. It is required official has inquired into their capacity to contract
that the first or former marriage shall not be null marriage. Stated differently, the requirement and
and void. The marriage of the petitioner to issuance of a marriage license is the State's
Azucena shall be assumed as the one that is valid, demonstration of its involvement and
there being no evidence to the contrary and there participation in every marriage, in the
is no trace of invalidity or irregularity on the face maintenance of which the general public is
of their marriage contract. However, if the second interested.
marriage was void not because of the existence of
the first marriage but for other causes such as lack Raquel was able to present a Certification issued
of license, the crime of bigamy was not by the Municipal Civil Registrar of Arteche,
committed. Eastern Samar attesting that the Office of the
Local Civil Registrar "has no record nor copy of
For bigamy to exist, the second or subsequent any marriage license ever issued in favor of
marriage must have all the essential requisites for Raquel G. Kho and Veronica M. Borata whose

Page | 14
marriage was celebrated on June 1, 1972." Thus, Yes. The RTC has jurisdiction. Our
on the basis of such Certification, the presumed Constitution clearly gives value to the sanctity of
validity of the marriage of petitioner and marriage. Marriage in this jurisdiction is not only
respondent has been overcome and it becomes the a civil contract, but it is a new relation, an
burden of Vernonica to prove that their marriage institution the maintenance of which the public is
is valid as it is she who alleges such validity. As deeply interested. Thus, the State is mandated to
found by the RTC, Veronica was not able to protect marriage, being the foundation of the
discharge that burden. family, which in turn is the foundation of the
nation. The State has surrounded marriage with
Indeed, all the evidence cited by the CA to show safeguards to maintain its purity, continuity and
that a wedding ceremony was conducted and a permanence. The security and stability of the
marriage contract was signed does not operate to State are largely dependent upon it. It is the
cure the absence of a valid marriage license. As interest of each and every member of the
cited above, Article 80(3) of the Civil Code community to prevent the bringing about of a
clearly provides that a marriage solemnized condition that would shake its foundation and
without a license is void from the beginning, ultimately lead to its destruction.
except marriages of exceptional character under
Articles 72 to 79 of the same Code. As earlier As marriage is a special contract, their terms and
stated, Raquel and Veronica’s marriage cannot be conditions are not merely subject to the
characterized as among the exceptions. stipulations of the contracting parties but are
governed by law. The Family Code provides for
Jerrysus Tilar vs. Elizabeth Tilar the essential as well as formal requisites for the
Facts: validity of marriage, one important formal
On November 4, 2010, Jerrysus Tilar filed with requisite is the Marriage License. The rationale
the RTC a petition for declaration of nullity of for the compulsory character of a marriage
marriage on the ground of Elizabeth’s license is that it is the authority granted by the
psychological incapacity based on Article 36 of State to the contracting parties, after the proper
the Family Code. He alleged that he and Elizabeth government official has inquired into their
were married on June 29, 1996 in a Catholic capacity to contract marriage.
Church in Poro, Poro Camotes, Cebu. Their
marriage went well in the first few months but Although, marriage is considered a sacrament in
Elizabeth later became an extremely jealous, the Catholic church, it has civil and legal
violent person which resulted to frequent quarrels consequences which are governed by the Family
and petitioner being threatened and physically Code. As Jerrysus correctly pointed out, the
harmed; that she is a happy-go-lucky and instant petition only seeks to nullify the marriage
extravagant type of person and a gambler, that contract between the parties as postulated in the
they eventually separated in 2002 and, that Family Code of the Philippines; and the
Elizabeth is now living with another man in Cebu declaration of nullity of the parties' marriage in
City. the religious and ecclesiastical aspect is another
matter. Notably, the proceedings for church
The RTC dismissed the petition on the ground annulment which is in accordance with the norms
that they lack of jurisdiction over the subject of Canon Law is not binding upon the State as the
matter. They further argue that marriage is a couple is still considered married to each other in
sacrament according to the teaching of the the eyes of the civil law. Thus, the principle of
Catholic Church. Being a sacrament, the same is separation of the church and state finds no
purely religious. application in this case.
Grace Recio vs. Rederick Recio
Declaration of nullity, which is commonly called Facts:
an annulment in the Catholic Church, is a Rederick A. Recio, a Filipino, married Editha
judgment rendered by an ecclesiastical tribunal Samson, an Australian citizen in Malabon, Rizal,
determining that the sacrament of marriage was on March 1, 1987. Unfortunately, on May 18,
invalidly contracted. The procedure is governed 1989, the Australian Family Court issued a decree
by the Church's Canon Law not by the civil law of divorce, purportedly dissolving the marriage
observed by the State in nullity cases involving between the two. On June 26, 1992, respondent
civil marriages. Ergo, the principle of separation became an Australian citizen
of Church and State finds application in this case.
Grace and Rederick were married on January 12,
Issue: 1994. In their application for a marriage license,
Whether or not the RTC has jurisdiction to decide Rederick was declared as "single" and "Filipino.
the case. On March 3, 1998, Grace filed a Complaint for
Declaration of Nullity of Marriage in the court,
on the ground of bigamy Grace found out that
Ruling:

Page | 15
Redederick still had a prior subsisting marriage at becomes absolute (unless the other party has
the time he married her on January 12, 1994. died) commits the offence of bigamy."
This quotation bolsters our contention that the
Rederick argues that the marriage was validly divorce obtained by Recerick may have been
dissolved by a divorce decree obtained in restricted. It did not absolutely establish his legal
Australia in 1989 capacity to remarry according to his national law.
Hence, we find no basis for the ruling of the trial
Issue: court, which erroneously assumed that the
Whether or not the divorce decree capacitated Australian divorce ipso facto restored
Rederick to remarry. respondent's capacity to remarry despite the
paucity of evidence on this matter.
Ruling: On Certifical of Legal Capacity:
No. The presentation of the divorce decree Grace argues that the certificate of legal capacity
alone does not capacitate Rederick to remarry. required by Article 21 of the Family Code was
Philippine law does not provide for absolute not submitted together with the application for a
divorce; hence, our courts cannot grant it. A marriage license. According to her, its absence is
marriage between two Filipinos cannot be proof that Rederick did not have legal capacity to
dissolved even by a divorce obtained abroad, remarry.
because of Articles 15 and 17 of the Civil Code.
We clarify. To repeat, the legal capacity to
Before a foreign judgment is given presumptive contract marriage is determined by the national
evidentiary value, the document must first be law of the party concerned. The certificate
presented and admitted in evidence. A divorce mentioned in Article 21 of the Family Code
obtained abroad is proven by the divorce decree would have been sufficient to establish the legal
itself. Under Sections 24 and 25 of Rule 132, on capacity of Rederick, had he duly presented it in
the other hand, a writing or document may be court. A duly authenticated and admitted
proven as a public or official record of a foreign certificate is prima facie evidence of legal
country by either capacity to marry on the part of the alien applicant
for a marriage license.
1. an official publication or
Based on the records Rederick presented, there
2. a copy thereof attested by the officer
was no certificate of legal capacity, therefore we
having legal custody of the document.
cannot conclude that Rederick, who was then a
naturalized Australian citizen, was legally
If the record is not kept in the Philippines, such
capacitated to marry Grace on January 12, 1994.
copy must be:
We agree with Grace’s contention that the court a
1. accompanied by a certificate issued by quo erred in finding that the divorce decree ipso
the proper diplomatic or consular officer in the facto clothed Rederick with the legal capacity to
Philippine foreign service stationed in the foreign remarry without requiring him to adduce
country in which the record is kept and sufficient evidence to show the Australian
2. authenticated by the seal of his office. personal law governing his status; or at the very
least, to prove his legal capacity to contract the
The divorce decree between respondent and second marriage.
Editha Samson appears to be an authentic one
issued by an Australian family court. However, Republic vs. Crasus Iyoy
appearance is not sufficient; compliance with the Facts:
aforementioned rules on evidence must be
Crasus married Fely on 16 December 1961 at
demonstrated.
Bradford Memorial Church, Jones Avenue, Cebu
City. After the celebration of their marriage,
On the types of divorce: Crasus discovered that Fely was "hot-tempered, a
Divorces are of different types. The two basic nagger and extravagant." In 1984, Fely left the
ones are (1) absolute divorce and (2) limited Philippines for the United States of America
divorce. The first kind terminates the marriage, (U.S.A.), leaving all of their five children.
while the second suspends it and leaves the bond
in full force.45 There is no showing in the case at Barely a year after Fely left for the U.S.A.,
bar which type of divorce was procured by respondent Crasus received a letter from her
respondent. requesting that he sign the enclosed divorce
papers; he disregarded the said request.
In its face, the herein Australian divorce decree Sometime in 1985, Crasus learned, through the
contains a restriction that reads: “A party to a letters sent by Fely to their children, that Fely got
marriage who marries again before this decree married to an American Stephen Micklus, with
whom she eventually had a child. Fely continued

Page | 16
to live with her American family in New Jersey, overt manifestations may emerge only
U.S.A. She had been openly using the surname of after the marriage; and
her American husband “Micklus” in the 3. Incurability – It must be incurable or,
Philippines and in the U.S.A. even if it were otherwise, the cure would
be beyond the means of the party
After 13 years since Fely left and abandoned involved.
Crasus, and there was no more possibility of
reconciliation between them. Crasus finally The Supreme Court also discussed the guidelines
alleged in his Complaint that Fely’s acts brought set forth by the cases of Republic vs. Court of
danger and dishonor to the family, and clearly Appeals and Molina and Marcos vs. Marcos.
demonstrated her psychological incapacity to
perform the essential obligations of marriage. In the case at bar, the only substantial evidence
Such incapacity, being incurable and continuing, presented by respondent Crasus before the RTC
constitutes a ground for declaration of nullity of was his testimony, which can be easily put into
marriage under Article 36, in relation to Articles question for being self-serving, in the absence of
68, 70, and 72, of the Family Code of the any other corroborating evidence. He submitted
Philippines. only two other pieces of evidence: (1) the
Certification on the recording with the Register of
In her answer Fely explained that she was no Deeds of the Marriage Contract between
more hot-tempered than any normal person, and respondent Crasus and Fely, such marriage being
she may had been indignant at Crasus on certain celebrated on 16 December 1961; and (2) the
occasions but it was because of the latter’s invitation to the wedding of Crasus, Jr., their
drunkenness, womanizing, and lack of sincere eldest son, in which Fely used her American
effort to find employment and to contribute to the husband’s surname. Even considering the
maintenance of their household. She could not admissions made by Fely herself in her Answer
have been extravagant since the family hardly to respondent Crasus’s Complaint filed with the
had enough money for basic needs. Indeed, She RTC, the evidence is not enough to convince this
left for abroad for financial reasons as Crasus had Court that Fely had such a grave mental illness
no job and what she was then earning as the sole that prevented her from assuming the essential
breadwinner in the Philippines was insufficient to obligations of marriage.
support their family. Although she left all of her
children with respondent Crasus, she continued to It is worthy to emphasize that Article 36 of the
provide financial support to them. Family Code of the Philippines contemplates
downright incapacity or inability to take
She further argued that her marriage to her cognizance of and to assume the basic marital
American husband was legal because now being obligations; not a mere refusal, neglect or
an American citizen, her status shall be governed difficulty, much less, ill will, on the part of the
by the law of her present nationality. errant spouse. Irreconcilable differences,
Issue: conflicting personalities, emotional immaturity
Whether or not Crasus has sufficiently proven and irresponsibility, physical abuse, habitual
that Fely is psychologically incapacitated and alcoholism, sexual infidelity or perversion, and
whether or not Fely was capacitated to remarry. abandonment, by themselves, also do not warrant
a finding of psychological incapacity under the
Ruling on Psychological Incapacity: said Article.
No. Crasus failed to show that Fely was
psychologically incapacitated. The Court ruled The evidence may have proven that Fely
that the totality of evidence presented during trial committed acts that hurt and embarrassed Crasus
is insufficient to support the finding of and the rest of the family. Her hot-temper,
psychological incapacity of Fely. nagging, and extravagance; her abandonment of
respondent Crasus; her marriage to an American;
The Supreme Court refers to its decision in and even her flaunting of her American family
Santos vs. Court of Appeals wherein and her American surname, may indeed be
psychological incapacity must be characterized manifestations of her alleged incapacity to
by: comply with her marital obligations; nonetheless,
the root cause for such was not identified. If the
root cause of the incapacity was not identified,
1. Gravity – It must be grave or serious
then it cannot be satisfactorily established as a
such that the party would be incapable of
psychological or mental defect that is serious or
carrying out the ordinary duties required
grave; neither could it be proven to be in
in a marriage;
existence at the time of celebration of the
2. Juridical Antecedence – It must be
marriage; nor that it is incurable. While the
rooted in the history of the party
personal examination of Fely by a psychiatrist or
antedating the marriage, although the

Page | 17
psychologist is no longer mandatory for the
declaration of nullity of their marriage under The OSG contends that Paragraph 2 of Article 26
Article 36 of the Family Code of the Philippines, of the Family Code is not applicable to the instant
by virtue of this Court’s ruling in Marcos v. case because it only applies to a valid mixed
Marcos,29 respondent Crasus must still have marriage; that is, a marriage celebrated between a
complied with the requirement laid down in Filipino citizen and an alien. The proper remedy,
Republic v. Court of Appeals and Molina30 that according to the OSG, is to file a petition for
the root cause of the incapacity be identified as a annulment or for legal separation. Orbecido
psychological illness and that its incapacitating admits that Article 26 is not directly applicable to
nature be fully explained. his case but insists that when his naturalized alien
wife obtained a divorce decree which capacitated
Ruling on capacity of Fely to remarry: her to remarry, he is likewise capacitated by
No. Fely is incapacitated to remarry since she was operation of law pursuant to Section 12, Article II
still a Filipino at the time of the divorce. Article of the Constitution.
26 par. 2 of the Family Code states that where a
marriage between a Filipino citizen and a
foreigner is validly celebrated and a divorce is Issue:
thereafter validly obtained abroad by the alien Whether or not Article 26 par. 2 applies where a
spouse capacitating him or her to remarry, the Filipino who obtains foreign citizenship obtains a
Filipino spouse shall likewise have capacity to divorce decree on his/her Filipino spouse.
remarry under Philippine law.
By its plain and literal interpretation, the said Ruling:
provision cannot be applied to the case of Crasus Yes. Article 26 par. 2 of the Family Code shall
and his wife Fely because at the time Fely apply. Records of the proceedings of the Family
obtained her divorce, she was still a Filipino Code deliberations showed that the intent of
citizen. Although the exact date was not Paragraph 2 of Article 26, according to Judge
established, Fely herself admitted in her Answer Alicia Sempio-Diy, a member of the Civil Code
filed before the RTC that she obtained a divorce Revision Committee, is to avoid the absurd
from Crasus sometime after she left for the situation where the Filipino spouse remains
United States in 1984, after which she married her married to the alien spouse who, after obtaining a
American husband in 1985. In the same Answer, divorce, is no longer married to the Filipino
she alleged that she had been an American citizen spouse.
since 1988. At the time she filed for divorce, Fely
was still a Filipino citizen, and pursuant to the
Paragraph 2 of Article 26 traces its origin to the
nationality principle embodied in Article 15 of
1985 case of Van Dorn v. Romillo, Jr. where the
the Civil Code of the Philippines, she was still
Court held therein that a divorce decree validly
bound by Philippine laws on family rights and
obtained by the alien spouse is valid in the
duties, status, condition, and legal capacity, even
Philippines, and consequently, the Filipino
when she was already living abroad. Philippine
spouse is capacitated to remarry under Philippine
laws, then and even until now, do not allow and
law.
recognize divorce between Filipino spouses.
Thus, Fely could not have validly obtained a
On its face, the foregoing provision does not
divorce from respondent Crasus.
appear to govern the situation presented by the
case at hand. It seems to apply only to cases
Republic vs. Cipriano Orbecido III
where at the time of the celebration of the
Facts: marriage, the parties are a Filipino citizen and a
On May 24, 1981, Cipriano Orbecido III married foreigner. The instant case is one where at the
Lady Myros M. Villanueva at the United Church time the marriage was solemnized, the parties
of Christ in the Philippines in Lam-an, Ozamis were two Filipino citizens, but later on, the wife
City. In 1986, Cipriano’s wife left for the United was naturalized as an American citizen and
States A few years later, Cipriano discovered that subsequently obtained a divorce granting her
his wife had been naturalized as an American capacity to remarry, and indeed she remarried an
citizen. American citizen while residing in the U.S.A.

Sometime in 2000, Cipriano learned from his son However, in the in the 1998 case of Quita v. Court
that his wife had obtained a divorce decree and of Appeals. The wife became a naturalized
then married a certain Innocent Stanley. She, American citizen in 1954 and obtained a divorce
Stanley and her child by him currently live at in the same year. The Court therein hinted, by
5566 A. Walnut Grove Avenue, San Gabriel, way of obiter dictum, that a Filipino divorced by
California. Cipriano thereafter filed with the trial his naturalized foreign spouse is no longer
court a petition for authority to remarry invoking married under Philippine law and can thus
Paragraph 2 of Article 26 of the Family Code. remarry.

Page | 18
 prove the divorce as a fact and demonstrate its
Thus, taking into consideration the legislative conformity to the foreign law allowing it.14 Such
intent and applying the rule of reason, we hold foreign law must also be proved as our courts
that Paragraph 2 of Article 26 should be cannot take judicial notice of foreign laws. Like
interpreted to include cases involving parties any other fact, such laws must be alleged and
who, at the time of the celebration of the marriage proved.15 Furthermore, respondent must also
were Filipino citizens, but later on, one of them show that the divorce decree allows his former
becomes naturalized as a foreign citizen and wife to remarry as specifically required in Article
obtains a divorce decree. The Filipino spouse 26. Otherwise, there would be no evidence
should likewise be allowed to remarry as if the sufficient to declare that he is capacitated to enter
other party were a foreigner at the time of the into another marriage.
solemnization of the marriage. To rule otherwise
would be to sanction absurdity and injustice. Gerbert Corpuz vs. Daisylyn Sto. Tomas
Where the interpretation of a statute according to Facts:
its exact and literal import would lead to Gerbert R. Corpuz was a former Filipino citizen
mischievous results or contravene the clear who acquired Canadian citizenship through
purpose of the legislature, it should be construed naturalization on November 29, 2000. On
according to its spirit and reason, disregarding as January 18, 2005, Gerbert married respondent
far as necessary the letter of the law. A statute Daisylyn T. Sto. Tomas, a Filipina, in Pasig City.
may therefore be extended to cases not within the Due to work and other professional
literal meaning of its terms, so long as they come commitments, Gerbert left for Canada soon after
within its spirit or intent. the wedding. He returned to the Philippines
sometime in April 2005 to surprise Daisylyn, but
In view of the foregoing, we state the twin was shocked to discover that his wife was having
elements for the application of Paragraph 2 of an affair with another man. Hurt and
Article 26 as follows: disappointed, Gerbert returned to Canada and
1. There is a valid marriage that has been filed a petition for divorce. The Superior Court of
celebrated between a Filipino citizen and Justice, Windsor, Ontario, Canada granted
a foreigner; and Gerbert’s petition for divorce on December 8,
2. A valid divorce is obtained abroad by the 2005. The divorce decree took effect a month
alien spouse capacitating him or her to later, on January 8, 2006.
remarry.
Two years after the divorce, Gerbert has found
The reckoning point is not the citizenship of the another Filipina to love. Desirous of marrying his
parties at the time of the celebration of the new Filipina fiancée in the Philippines, Gerbert
marriage, but their citizenship at the time a valid went to the Pasig City Civil Registry Office and
divorce is obtained abroad by the alien spouse registered the Canadian divorce decree on his and
capacitating the latter to remarry. In this case, Daisylyn’s marriage certificate. Despite the
when Cipriano’s wife was naturalized as an registration of the divorce decree, an official of
American citizen, there was still a valid marriage the National Statistics Office (NSO) informed
that has been celebrated between her and Gerbert that the marriage between him and
Cipriano. As fate would have it, the naturalized Daisylyn still subsists under Philippine law; to be
alien wife subsequently obtained a valid divorce enforceable, the foreign divorce decree must first
capacitating her to remarry. Clearly, the twin be judicially recognized by a competent
requisites for the application of Paragraph 2 of Philippine court, pursuant to NSO Circular No. 4,
Article 26 are both present in this case. Thus series of 1982.
Cipriano, the "divorced" Filipino spouse, should
be allowed to remarry. Accordingly, Gerbert filed a petition for judicial
recognition of foreign divorce and/or declaration
On the requirement of evidence: of marriage as dissolved (petition) with the RTC.
However, The Court notes that the records are In its October 30, 2008 decision, the RTC denied
bereft of competent evidence duly submitted by Gerbert’s petition. The RTC concluded that
respondent concerning the divorce decree and the Gerbert was not the proper party to institute the
naturalization of respondent’s wife. It is settled action for judicial recognition of the foreign
rule that one who alleges a fact has the burden of divorce decree as he is a naturalized Canadian
proving it and mere allegation is not evidence.13 citizen. It ruled that only the Filipino spouse can
avail of the remedy, under the second paragraph
Accordingly, for his plea to prosper, Cipriano of Article 26 of the Family Code
herein must prove his allegation that his wife was
naturalized as an American citizen. Likewise, Issue:
before a foreign divorce decree can be recognized Whether or not the second paragraph of Article
by our own courts, the party pleading it must 26 of the Family Code extends to aliens the right

Page | 19
to petition a court of this jurisdiction for the order is presumptive evidence of a right as
recognition of a foreign divorce decree. between the parties and their successors in
Ruling: interest by a subsequent title.
No. Article 26 does not apply. The alien spouse
can claim no right under the second paragraph of To our mind, direct involvement or being the
Article 26 of the Family Code as the substantive subject of the foreign judgment is sufficient to
right it establishes is in favor of the Filipino clothe a party with the requisite interest to
spouse. The Family Code recognizes only two institute an action before our courts for the
types of defective marriages void and voidable recognition of the foreign judgment. In a divorce
marriages. In both cases, the basis for the judicial situation, we have declared, no less, that the
declaration of absolute nullity or annulment of divorce obtained by an alien abroad may be
the marriage exists before or at the time of the recognized in the Philippines, provided the
marriage. Divorce, on the other hand, divorce is valid according to his or her national
contemplates the dissolution of the lawful union law. This means that the foreign judgment and its
for cause arising after the marriage. Our family authenticity must be proven as facts under our
laws do not recognize absolute divorce between rules on evidence, together with the alien’s
Filipino citizens. applicable national law to show the effect of the
judgment on the alien himself or herself. The
As the RTC correctly stated, the provision was recognition may be made in an action instituted
included in the law "to avoid the absurd situation specifically for the purpose or in another action
where the Filipino spouse remains married to the where a party invokes the foreign decree as an
alien spouse who, after obtaining a divorce, is no integral aspect of his claim or defense.
longer married to the Filipino spouse." The
legislative intent is for the benefit of the Filipino In Gerbert’s case, since both the foreign divorce
spouse, by clarifying his or her marital status, decree and the national law of the alien,
settling the doubts created by the divorce decree. recognizing his or her capacity to obtain a
Essentially, the second paragraph of Article 26 of divorce, purport to be official acts of a sovereign
the Family Code provided the Filipino spouse a authority, Section 24, Rule 132 of the Rules of
substantive right to have his or her marriage to the Court comes into play. This Section requires
alien spouse considered as dissolved, capacitating proof, either by (1) official publications or (2)
him or her to remarry. copies attested by the officer having legal custody
of the documents. If the copies of official records
Given the rationale and intent behind the are not kept in the Philippines, these must be (a)
enactment, and the purpose of the second accompanied by a certificate issued by the proper
paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code, the diplomatic or consular officer in the Philippine
RTC was correct in limiting the applicability of foreign service stationed in the foreign country in
the provision for the benefit of the Filipino which the record is kept and (b) authenticated by
spouse. In other words, only the Filipino spouse the seal of his office.
can invoke the second paragraph of Article 26 of
the Family Code; the alien spouse can claim no The records show that Gerbert attached to his
right under this provision. petition a copy of the divorce decree, as well as
the required certificates proving its authenticity,
However, The foreign divorce decree is but failed to include a copy of the Canadian law
presumptive evidence of a right that clothes the on divorce. Under this situation, we can, at this
party with legal interest to petition for its point, simply dismiss the petition for
recognition in this jurisdiction. In other words, insufficiency of supporting evidence, unless we
the unavailability of the second paragraph of deem it more appropriate to remand the case to
Article 26 of the Family Code to aliens does not the RTC to determine whether the divorce decree
necessarily strip Gerbert of legal interest to is consistent with the Canadian divorce law.
petition the RTC for the recognition of his foreign
divorce decree. The foreign divorce decree itself,
after its authenticity and conformity with the
alien’s national law have been duly proven On Registration of the Divorce Decree by the
according to our rules of evidence, serves as a Local Civil Registrar:
presumptive evidence of right in favor of Gerbert, The Court considers the recording to be legally
pursuant to Section 48, Rule 39 of the Rules of improper; hence, the need to draw attention of the
Court which provides for the effect of foreign bench and the bar to what had been done. While
judgments. This Section states that (a) In case of the law requires the entry of the divorce decree in
a judgment or final order upon a specific thing, the civil registry, the law and the submission of
the judgment or final order is conclusive upon the the decree by themselves do not ipso facto
title of the thing; and (b) In case of a judgment or authorize the decree’s registration. The law
final order against a person, the judgment or final should be read in relation with the requirement of

Page | 20
a judicial recognition of the foreign judgment Philippines. However, Marinay allegedly
before it can be given res judicata effect. In the suffered physical abuse from Maekara. She left
context of the present case, no judicial order as Maekara and started to contact Fujiki.
yet exists recognizing the foreign divorce decree.
Thus, the Pasig City Civil Registry Office acted Fujiki and Marinay met in Japan and they were
totally out of turn and without authority of law able to reestablish their relationship. In 2010,
when it annotated the Canadian divorce decree on Fujiki helped Marinay obtain a judgment from a
Gerbert and Daisylyn’s marriage certificate, on family court in Japan which declared the
the strength alone of the foreign decree presented marriage between Marinay and Maekara void on
by Gerbert. the ground of bigamy. On 14 January 2011, Fujiki
filed a petition in the RTC entitled: "Judicial
On Civil Procedure: Recognition of Foreign Judgment (or Decree of
Another point we wish to draw attention to is that Absolute Nullity of Marriage)."
the recognition that the RTC may extend to the Fujiki prayed that:
Canadian divorce decree does not, by itself, 1. The Japanese Family Court judgment be
authorize the cancellation of the entry in the civil recognized;
registry. 2. That the bigamous marriage between
A petition for recognition of a foreign judgment Marinay and Maekara be declared void
is not the proper proceeding, contemplated under ab initio under Articles 35(4) and 41 of
the Rules of Court, for the cancellation of entries the Family Code of the Philippines; and
in the civil registry. 3. For the RTC to direct the Local Civil
Registrar of Quezon City to annotate the
Article 412 of the Civil Code declares that "no Japanese Family Court judgment on the
entry in a civil register shall be changed or Certificate of Marriage between Marinay
corrected, without judicial order." The Rules of and Maekara and to endorse such
Court supplements Article 412 of the Civil Code annotation to the Office of the
by specifically providing for a special remedial Administrator and Civil Registrar
proceeding by which entries in the civil registry General in the National Statistics Office
may be judicially cancelled or corrected. Rule (NSO).
108 of the Rules of Court sets in detail the
jurisdictional and procedural requirements that The RTC immediately issued an Order
must be complied with before a judgment, dismissing the petition and withdrawing the case
authorizing the cancellation or correction, may be from its active civil docket.7 The RTC cited the
annotated in the civil registry. It also requires, following provisions of the Rule on Declaration
among others, that the verified petition must be of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and
filed with the RTC of the province where the Annulment of Voidable Marriages (A.M. No. 02-
corresponding civil registry is located;38 that the 11-10-SC). Apparently, the RTC took the view
civil registrar and all persons who have or claim that only "the husband or the wife," in this case
any interest must be made parties to the either Maekara or Marinay, can file the petition
proceedings;39 and that the time and place for to declare their marriage void, and not Fujiki.
hearing must be published in a newspaper of
general circulation.40 As these basic Fujiki moved that the Order be reconsidered. He
jurisdictional requirements have not been met in argued that A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC contemplated
the present case, we cannot consider the petition ordinary civil actions for declaration of nullity
Gerbert filed with the RTC as one filed under and annulment of marriage. Thus, A.M. No. 02-
Rule 108 of the Rules of Court. 11-10-SC does not apply. A petition for
recognition of foreign judgment is a special
proceeding, which "seeks to establish a status, a
Minoru Fujiki vs. Maria Marinay right or a particular fact," and not a civil action
Facts: which is "for the enforcement or protection of a
Minoru Fujiki (Fujiki) is a Japanese national who right, or the prevention or redress of a wrong.
married Maria Paz Galela Marinay (Marinay) in
the Philippines on 23 January 2004. The marriage Issue:
did not sit well with petitioner’s parents. Thus, Whether the Rule on Declaration of Absolute
Fujiki could not bring his wife to Japan where he Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of
resides. Eventually, they lost contact with each Voidable Marriages (A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC) is
other. applicable.

In 2008, Marinay met another Japanese, Shinichi Ruling:

Maekara (Maekara). Without the first marriage No. It does not apply. The Rule on Declaration
being dissolved, Marinay and Maekara were of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and
married on 15 May 2008 in Quezon City, Annulment of Voidable Marriages (A.M. No. 02-

Page | 21
11-10-SC) does not apply in a petition to ground of bigamy. While the Philippines has no
recognize a foreign judgment relating to the divorce law, the Japanese Family Court judgment
status of a marriage where one of the parties is a is fully consistent with Philippine public policy,
citizen of a foreign country. Moreover, in as bigamous marriages are declared void from the
Juliano-Llave v. Republic, this Court held that the beginning under Article 35(4) of the Family
rule in A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC that only the Code.
husband or wife can file a declaration of nullity
or annulment of marriage "does not apply if the On Whether a husband of the 1st marriage has
reason behind the petition is bigamy. personality to file a petition to recognize a
foreign judgment nullifying the subsequent
For Philippine courts to recognize a foreign marriage between his or her spouse and a
judgment relating to the status of a marriage foreign citizen on the ground of bigamy:
where one of the parties is a citizen of a foreign Rule 108, section 1 provides that any person
country, the petitioner only needs to prove the interested in any act, event, order or decree
foreign judgment as a fact under the Rules of concerning the civil status of persons which has
Court. To be more specific, a copy of the foreign been recorded in the civil register, may file a
judgment may be admitted in evidence and verified petition for the cancellation or correction
proven as a fact under Rule 132, Sections 24 and of any entry relating thereto, with the Regional
25. To hold that A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC applies Trial Court of the province where the
to a petition for recognition of foreign judgment corresponding civil registry is located.
would mean that the trial court and the parties
should follow its provisions, including the form Section 2(a) of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC does not
and contents of the petition, the service of preclude a spouse of a subsisting marriage to
summons, the investigation of the public question the validity of a subsequent marriage on
prosecutor, the setting of pre-trial, the trial and the ground of bigamy. On the contrary, when
the judgment of the trial court. This is absurd Section 2(a) states that "a petition for declaration
because it will litigate the case anew. It will of absolute nullity of void marriage may be filed
defeat the purpose of recognizing foreign solely by the husband or the wife" it refers to the
judgments, which is "to limit repetitive litigation husband or the wife of the subsisting marriage.
on claims and issues. Under Article 35(4) of the Family Code,
bigamous marriages are void from the beginning.
However, A foreign judgment relating to the Thus, the parties in a bigamous marriage are
status of a marriage affects the civil status, neither the husband nor the wife under the law.
condition and legal capacity of its parties. The husband or the wife of the prior subsisting
However, the effect of a foreign judgment is not marriage is the one who has the personality to file
automatic. To extend the effect of a foreign a petition for declaration of absolute nullity of
judgment in the Philippines, Philippine courts void marriage under Section 2(a) of A.M. No. 02-
must determine if the foreign judgment is 11-10-SC.
consistent with domestic public policy and other
mandatory laws. This is the rule of lex nationalii Article 35(4) of the Family Code, which declares
in private international law. Thus, the Philippine bigamous marriages void from the beginning, is
State may require, for effectivity in the the civil aspect of Article 349 of the Revised
Philippines, recognition by Philippine courts of a Penal Code, which penalizes bigamy. Bigamy is
foreign judgment affecting its citizen, over whom a public crime. Thus, anyone can initiate
it exercises personal jurisdiction relating to the prosecution for bigamy because any citizen has
status, condition and legal capacity of such an interest in the prosecution and prevention of
citizen. crimes. If anyone can file a criminal action which
leads to the declaration of nullity of a bigamous
Divorce involves the dissolution of a marriage, marriage, there is more reason to confer
but the recognition of a foreign divorce decree personality to sue on the husband or the wife of a
does not involve the extended procedure under subsisting marriage. The prior spouse does not
A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC or the rules of ordinary only share in the public interest of prosecuting
trial. While the Philippines does not have a and preventing crimes, he is also personally
divorce law, Philippine courts may, however, interested in the purely civil aspect of protecting
recognize a foreign divorce decree under the his marriage.
second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family
Code, to capacitate a Filipino citizen to remarry Doreen Koike vs. Michiyuki Koike
when his or her foreign spouse obtained a divorce Facts:
decree abroad. There is therefore no reason to Doreen Grace Parilla (Doreen), a Filipino citizen,
disallow Fujiki to simply prove as a fact the and Michiyuki Koike (Michiyuki), a Japanese
Japanese Family Court judgment nullifying the national, were married on June 14, 2005 in
marriage between Marinay and Maekara on the Quezon City, Philippines. On June 14, 2012,

Page | 22
Doreen and Michiyuki, pursuant to the laws of considering further that Philippine courts cannot
Japan, filed for divorce before the Mayor of take judicial notice of foreign judgments and law
Ichinomiya City, Aichi Prefecture, Japan. They
were divorced on even date as appearing in the Issue:
Divorce Certificate7 and the same was duly Whether or not the evidence produced by Doreen
recorded in the Official Family Register of was insufficient.
Michiyuki Koike.
Ruling:
Doreen filed on February 7, 2013 a petition for No. It was insufficient. The rule is that for a
judicial recognition of foreign divorce and divorce obtained abroad by the alien spouse to be
declaration of capacity to remarry pursuant to the recognized in our jurisdiction, it must be shown
second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family that the divorce decree is valid according to the
Code before the RTC. national law of the foreigner. Both the divorce
decree and the governing personal law of the
As proof Doreen presented several foreign alien spouse who obtained the divorce must be
documents, namely: proven. Since our courts do not take judicial
1. Certificate of Receiving/ Certificate of notice of foreign laws and judgment, our law on
Acceptance of Divorce evidence requires that both the divorce decree and
2. Family Register of Michiyuki Koike both the national law of the alien must be alleged and
issued by the Mayor of Ichinomiya City proven like any other fact.
and duly authenticated by the Consul of
the Republic of the Philippines for Considering that the validity of the divorce
Osaka, Japan. decree between Doreen and Michiyuki, as well as
3. A certified machine copy of a document the existence of pertinent laws of Japan on the
entitled "Divorce Certificate" issued by matter are essentially factual that calls for a re-
the Consul for the Ambassador of Japan evaluation of the evidence presented before the
in Manila that was authenticated by the RTC the case is therefore referre to the Court of
Department of the Foreign Affairs Appeals for appropriate action including the
4. Certification issued by the City Civil reception of evidence.
Registry Office in Manila that the
original of said divorce certificate was
filed and recorded in the said Office. Republic vs. Marelyn Manalo
5. Photocopies of the Civil Code of Japan Facts:
and their corresponding English Manalo is previously married in the Philippines
translation to a Japanese national named Yoshino Minoro as
6. Two (2) books entitled "The Civil Code shown by their Marriage Contract. That recently,
of Japan 2000" and "The Civil Code of a case for divorce was filed by herein Manalo in
Japan 2009 Japan and after the proceedings, a divorce decree
dated December 6, 2011 was rendered by the
RTC denied Doreen's petition. The RTC ruled Japanese Court. That there is an imperative need
that while the divorce documents presented by to have the entry of marriage in Civil Registry of
Doreen were successfully proven to be public or San Juan, Metro Manila cancelled, where the
official records of Japan, she nonetheless fell Marelyn and Yoshino’s marriage was previously
short of proving the national law of her husband, registered, in order that it would not appear
particularly the existence of the law on divorce. anymore that Marelyn is still married to the said
The RTC observed that the "The Civil Code of Japanese national who is no longer her husband
Japan 2000" and "The Civil Code of Japan 2009," or is no longer married to her, she shall not be
presented were not duly authenticated by the bothered and disturbed by aid entry of marriage.
Philippine Consul in Japan as required by Marelyn then prays the courts that among others,
Sections 24 and 25 of the said Rules, adding too that together with the cancellation of the said
that the testimony of Doreen relative to the entry of her marriage, that she be allowed to
applicable provisions found therein and its effect return and use her maiden surname, Manalo.
on the matrimonial relations was insufficient
since she was not presented as a qualified expert On January 10, 2012, respondent Marelyn
witness nor was shown to have, at the very least, Tanedo Manalo (Manalo) filed a petition for
a working knowledge of the laws of Japan, cancellation of Entry of marriage in the Civil
particularly those on family relations and divorce. Registry of San Juan , Metro Manila, by virtue of
It likewise did not consider the said books as a judgment of divorce by the Japanese court. The
learned treatises pursuant to Section 46, Rule 130 Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) filed a
of the Revised Rules on Evidence, since no expert motion questioning the title and/or caption of the
witness on the subject matter was presented and petition considering that based on the allegations
therein, the proper action should be a petition for

Page | 23
recognition and enforcement of a foreign effective in the country where it was rendered, is
judgment. no longer married to the Filipino spouse. The
provision is a corrective measure is free to marry
On October 15, 2012, the trial court denied the under the laws of his or her country. Whether the
petition for lack of merit. It opined that, based on Filipino spouse initiated the foreign divorce
Article 15 of the New Civil Code, the Philippine proceeding or not, a favorable decree dissolving
law "does not afford Filipinos the right to file for the marriage bond and capacitating his or her
a divorce whether they are in the country or living alien spouse to remarry will have the same result:
abroad, if they are married to Filipinos or to the Filipino spouse will effectively be without a
foreigners, or if they celebrated their marriage in husband or wife. A Filipino who initiated a
the Philippines or in another country" and that foreign divorce proceeding is in the same place
unless Filipinos "are naturalized as citizens of and in like circumstances as a Filipino who is at
another country, Philippine laws shall have the receiving end of an alien initiated proceeding.
control over issues related to Filipinos' family Therefore, the subject provision should not make
rights and duties, together with the determination a distinction. In both instance, it is extended as a
of their condition and legal capacity to enter into means to recognize the residual effect of the
contracts and civil relations, including marriages. foreign divorce decree on a Filipinos whose
The CA overturned the RTC decision. It held that marital ties to their alien spouses are severed by
Article 26 of the Family Code of the Philippines operations of their alien spouses are severed by
(Family Code) is applicable even if it was Manalo operation on the latter's national law.
who filed for divorce against her Japanese
husband because the decree may obtained makes Conveniently invoking the nationality principle is
the latter no longer married to the former, erroneous. Such principle, found under Article 15
capacitating him to remarry. of the Civil Code, is not an absolute and
unbending rule. In fact, the mere existence of
Issue: Paragraph 2 of Article 26 is a testament that the
Whether or not Article 26 par. 2 grants a Filipino State may provide for an exception thereto.
citizen the capacity to remarry under Philippine Moreover, blind adherence to the nationality
law after initiating a divorce proceeding abroad principle must be disallowed if it would cause
and obtaining a favorable judgment against his or unjust discrimination and oppression to certain
her alien spouse who is capacitated to remarry. classes of individuals whose rights are equally
protected by law. The courts have the duty to
Ruling: enforce the laws of divorce as written by the
Yes. It capacitates the Filipino citizen to Legislature only if they are constitutional.
remarry. The Supreme Court ruled that
Paragraph 2 of Artilce 26 speaks of a divorce Discussions in relation to the Constitution:
validly obtained abroad by the alien spouse A Filipino who is married to another Filipino is
capacitating him or her to remarry. Based on a not similarly situated with a Filipino who is
clear and plain reading of the provision, it only married to a foreign citizen. There are real,
requires that there be a divorce validly obtained material and substantial differences between
abroad. The letter of the law does not demand that them. Ergo, they should not be treated alike, both
the alien spouse should be the one who initiated as to rights conferred and liabilities imposed.
the proceeding wherein the divorce decree was Without a doubt, there are political, economic
granted. It does not distinguish whether the cultural, and religious dissimilarities as well as
Filipino spouse is the petitioner or the respondent varying legal systems and procedures, all too
in the foreign divorce proceeding. The Court is unfamiliar, that a Filipino national who is married
bound by the words of the statute; neither can We to an alien spouse has to contend with.
put words in the mouth of lawmakers.
It is argued that the Court's liberal interpretation
Assuming, for the sake of argument, that the word of Paragraph 2 of Artilce 26 encourages Filipinos
"obtained" should be interpreted to mean that the to marry foreigners, opening the floodgate to the
divorce proceeding must be actually initiated by indiscriminate practice of Filipinos marrying
the alien spouse, still, the Court will not follow foreign nationals or initiating divorce
the letter of the statute when to do so would proceedings against their alien spouses.
depart from the true intent of the legislature or
would otherwise yield conclusions inconsistent The supposition is speculative and unfounded.
with the general purpose of the act. First, the dissent falls into a hasty generalization
as no data whatsoever was sworn to support what
To reiterate, the purpose of Paragraph 2 of Article he intends to prove. Second, We adhere to the
26 is to avoid the absurd situation where the presumption of good faith in this jurisdiction.
Filipino spouse remains married to the alien Under the rules on evidence, it is disputable
spouse who, after a foreign divorce decree that is presumed (i.e., satisfactory if uncontradicted and

Page | 24
overcome by other evidence) that a person is Filipino judges are supposed to know by reason
innocent of crime or wrong, that a person takes of their judicial function.
ordinary care of his concerns, that acquiescence
resulted from a belief that the thing acquiesced in Republic vs. Florie Cote
was conformable to the law and fact, that a man Facts:
and woman deporting themselves as husband and On July 31, 1995, Rhomel Gagarin Cote
wife have entered into a lawful contract of (Rhomel) and Florie Grace Manongdo-Cote
marriage, and that the law has been obeyed. It is (Florie) were married in Quezon City. At the time
whimsical to easily attribute any illegal, irregular of their marriage, the spouses were both
or immoral conduct on the part of a Filipino just Filipinos. On August 23, 2002, Rhomel filed a
because he or she opted to marry a foreigner Petition for Divorce before the Family Court of
instead of a fellow Filipino. It is presumed that the First Circuit of Hawaii on the ground that their
interracial unions are entered into out of genuine marriage was irretrievably broken. This was
love and affection, rather than prompted by pure granted on August 23, 2002.
lust or profit. Third, We take judicial notice of the
fact that Filipinos are relatively more forbearing
Seven years later, Florie commenced a petition
and conservative in nature and that they are more
for recognition of foreign judgment granting the
often the victims or losing end of mixed
divorce before the Regional Trial Court (RTC).
marriages. And Fourth, it is not for Us to prejudge
Florie also prayed for the cancellation of her
the motive behind Filipino's decision to marry an
marriage contract, hence, she also impleaded the
alien national.
Civil Registry of Quezon City and the National
Statistics Office (NSO). On April 7, 2011, the
On the non-acceptance of the Church: RTC granted the petition and declared Florie to
The Roman Catholic Church can neither impose be capacitated to remarry after the RTC's decision
its beliefs and convictions on the State and the attained finality and a decree of absolute nullity
rest of the citizenry nor can it demand that the has been issued. The RTC ruled that Rhomel was
nation follow its beliefs, even if it is sincerely already an American citizen when he obtained the
believes that they are good for country. While divorce decree.
marriage is considered a sacrament, it has civil
and legal consequences which are governed by The RTC, believing that the petition was covered
the Family Code. It is in this aspect, bereft of any by A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC or the Rule on
ecclesiastical overtone, that the State has a Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void
legitimate right and interest to regulate. Marriages and Annulment of Voidable
Marriages, applied Section 20 of said Rule and
On the requirement of evidence: denied the appeal because the notice was not
Jurisprudence has set guidelines before the preceded by a motion for reconsideration.
Philippine courts recognize a foreign judgment
relating to the status of a marriage where one of Issue:
the parties is a citizen of foreign country. Whether or not the provisions of A.M. No. 02-11-
Presentation solely of the divorce decree will not 10-SC applies in a case involving recognition of
suffice. The fact of divorce must still first be a foreign decree of divorce.
proven. Before a a foreign divorce decree can be
recognized by our courts, the party pleading it
Ruling
must prove the divorce as a fact and demonstrate
The CA is correct when it ruled that the trial court
its conformity to the foreign law allowing it.
misapplied Section 20 of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC.
A decree of absolute divorce procured abroad is
In this case, Manalo was able to submit before the
different from annulment as defined by our
court a quo the:
family laws. A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC only covers
1) Decision of the Japanese Court allowing the void and voidable marriages that are specifically
divorce; 2) The Authentication/Certificate issued cited and enumerated in the Family Code of the
by the Philippines Consulate General in Osaka, Philippines. Void and voidable marriages
Japan of the Decree of Divorce; and contemplate a situation wherein the basis for the
3) Acceptance of Certificate of Divorce byu the judicial declaration of absolute nullity or
Petitioner and the Japanese national. annulment of the marriage exists before or at the
time of the marriage. It treats the marriage as if it
However the Japanese law on divorce must still never existed. Divorce, on the other hand, ends a
be proved. Since the divorce was raised by legally valid marriage and is usually due to
Manalo, the burden of proving the pertinent circumstances arising after the marriage.
Japanese law validating it, as well as her former It was error for the RTC to use as basis for denial
husband's capacity to remarry, fall squarely upon of petitioner's appeal Section 20 of A.M. No. 02-
her. Japanese laws on persons and family 11-10-SC. Since Florie followed the procedure
relations are not among those matters that for cancellation of entry in the civil registry, a

Page | 25
special proceeding governed by Rule 108 of the mouths of the lawmakers. "The legislature is
Rules of Court. An appeal is a statutory right that presumed to know the meaning of the words, to
must be exercised only in the manner and in have used words advisedly, and to have expressed
accordance with the provisions of law. Having its intent by the use of such words as are found in
satisfactorily shown that they have complied with the statute.
the rules on appeal, petitioners are entitled to the
proper and just disposition of their cause. Assuming, for the sake of argument, that the word
"obtained" should be interpreted to mean that the
Luzviminda Morisono vs. Ryoji Morisono divorce proceeding must be actually initiated by
Facts: the alien spouse, still, the Court will not follow
Luzviminda was married to Ryoji Morisono the letter of the statute when to do so would
(Ryoji) in Quezon City on December 8, 2009. depart from the true intent of the legislature or
During their married life, they would constantly would otherwise yield conclusions inconsistent
quarrel mainly due to Ryoji's philandering ways, with the general purpose of the act. Laws have
in addition to the fact that he was much older than ends to achieve, and statutes should be so
Luzviminda. As such, she and Ryoji submitted a construed as not to defeat but to carry out such
"Divorce by Agreement" before the City Hall of ends and purposes.
Mizuho-Ku, Nagoya City, Japan, which was
eventually approved on January 17, 2012 and Thus, pursuant to Manalo, foreign divorce
duly recorded with the Head of Mizuho-Ku, decrees obtained to nullify marriages between a
Nagoya City, Japan on July 1, 2012. Filipino and an alien citizen may already be
recognized in this jurisdiction, regardless of who
In view of the foregoing, she filed a petition for between the spouses initiated the divorce;
recognition of the foreign divorce decree provided, of course, that the party petitioning for
obtained by her and Ryoji before the RTC so that the recognition of such foreign divorce decree –
she could cancel the surname of her former presumably the Filipino citizen – must prove the
husband in her passport and for her to be able to divorce as a fact and demonstrate its conformity
marry again. to the foreign law allowing it.

The RTC denied Luzviminda's petition. It held In this case, a plain reading of the RTC ruling
that while a divorce obtained abroad by an alien shows that the denial of Luzviminda's petition to
spouse may be recognized in the Philippines have her foreign divorce decree recognized in this
provided that such decree is valid according to the jurisdiction was anchored on the sole ground that
national law of the alien the same does not find she admittedly initiated the divorce proceedings
application when it was the Filipino spouse, i.e., which she, as a Filipino citizen, was not allowed
Luzviminda, who procured the same. Invoking to do. In light of the doctrine laid down in
the nationality principle provided under Article Manalo, such ground relied upon by the RTC had
15 of the Civil Code, in relation to Article 26 (2) been rendered nugatory. However, the Court
of the Family Code, the RTC opined that since cannot just order the grant of Luzviminda's
petitioner is a Filipino citizen whose national petition for recognition of the foreign divorce
laws do not allow divorce, the foreign divorce decree, as Luzviminda has yet to prove the fact of
decree she herself obtained in Japan is not her. "Divorce by Agreement" obtained, in
binding in the Philippines. Nagoya City, Japan and its conformity with
prevailing Japanese laws on divorce. Notably, the
Issue: RTC did not rule on such issues. Since these are
Whether or not the RTC correctly denied questions which require an examination of
Luzviminda's petition for recognition of the various factual matters, a remand to the court a
foreign divorce decree she procured with Ryoji. quo is warranted.
Ruling:
Yes. It erred in its decision. Paragraph 2 of Stephen Juego Sakai vs. Republic
Article 26 speaks of validly obtained abroad by Facts:
the alien spouse capacitating him or her to Stephen I. Juego-Sakai (Filipino Citizen) and
remarry." Based on a clear and plain reading of Toshiharu Sakai got married on August 11, 2000
the provision, it only requires that there be a in Japan pursuant to the wedding rites therein.
divorce validly obtained abroad. The letter of the After two years, the parties, by agreement,
law does not demand that the alien spouse should obtained a divorce decree in said country
be the one who initiated the proceeding wherein dissolving their marriage.
the divorce decree was granted. It does not
distinguish whether the Filipino spouse is the Thereafter, on April 5, 2013, Stephen filed a
petitioner or the respondent in the foreign divorce Petition for Judicial Recognition of Foreign
proceeding. The Court is bound by the words of Judgment before the Regional Trial Court. In its
the statute; neither can We put words in the Decision dated October 9, 2014, the RTC granted

Page | 26
the petition and recognized the divorce between Nevertheless, as similarly held in Manalo, We
the parties as valid and effective under Philippine cannot yet grant Stephen's Petition for Judicial
Laws. On November 25, 2015, the CA affirmed Recognition of Foreign Judgment for she has yet
the decision of the RTC. to comply with certain guidelines before our
courts may recognize the subject divorce decree
However, the CA revisited its findings and and the effects thereof. Time and again, the Court
recalled and set aside its previous decision. has held that the starting point in any recognition
According to the appellate court, the second of of a foreign divorce judgment is the
the following requisites under Article 26 of the acknowledgment that our courts do not take
Family Code is missing: (a) there is a valid judicial notice of foreign judgments and laws.
marriage that has been celebrated between a This means that the foreign judgment and its
Filipino citizen and a foreigner; and (b) a divorce authenticity must be proven as facts under our
is obtained abroad by the alien spouse rules on evidence, together with the alien's
capacitating him or her to remarry. This is applicable national law to show the effect of the
because the divorce herein was consensual in judgment on the alien himself or herself. Since
nature, obtained by agreement of the parties, and both the foreign divorce decree and the national
not by Sakai alone. Thus, since Stephen, a law of the alien, recognizing his or her capacity
Filipino citizen, also obtained the divorce herein, to obtain a divorce, purport to be official acts of a
said divorce cannot be recognized in the sovereign authority, Section 24 of Rule 132 of the
Philippines. In addition, the CA ruled that Rules of Court applies.
Stephen’s failure to present authenticated copies
of the Civil Code of Japan was fatal to her cause. Rhodora Racho vs. Seiki Tanaka
Facts:
Stephen posits that the divorce she obtained with Racho and Seiichi Tanaka (Tanaka) were married
her husband, designated as Divorce by on April 20, 2001 in Las Piñas City, Metro
Agreement in Japan, as opposed to Judicial Manila. Racho alleged that on December 16,
Divorce, is the more practical and common type 2009, Tanaka filed for divorce and the divorce
of divorce in Japan. She insists that it is to her was granted. She secured a Divorce Certificate6
great disadvantage if said divorce is not issued by Consul Kenichiro Takayama (Consul
recognized and instead, Judicial Divorce is Takayama) of the Japanese Consulate in the
required in order for her to avail of the benefit Philippines and had it authenticated by an
under the second paragraph of Article 26 of the authentication officer of the Department of
Family Code, since their divorce had already Foreign Affairs.
been granted abroad. Moreover, Stephen asserts She filed the Divorce Certificate with the
that the mere fact that she consented to the Philippine Consulate General in Tokyo, Japan,
divorce does not prevent the application of where she was informed that by reason of certain
Article 26 for said provision does not state that administrative changes, she was required to
where the consent of the Filipino spouse was return to the Philippines to report the documents
obtained in the divorce, the same no longer finds for registration and to file the appropriate case for
application. judicial recognition of divorce.
Issue:
Whether or not the CA erred in its ruling. She went to the Japanese Embassy, as advised by
her lawyer, and secured a Japanese Law English
Ruling: Version of the Civil Code of Japan, 2000 Edition.
Yes. It erred in its decision. The Supreme Court On May 19, 2010, she filed a Petition for Judicial
ruled that the issue before Us has already been Determination and Declaration of Capacity to
resolved in the landmark ruling of Republic v. Marry with the Regional Trial Court, Las Piñas
Manalo, the facts of which fall squarely on point City.
with the facts herein. Applying the foregoing
pronouncement to the case at hand, the Court On June 2, 2011, Branch 254, Regional Trial
similarly rules that despite the fact that petitioner Court, Las Piñas City rendered a Decision,
participated in the divorce proceedings in Japan, finding that Racho failed to prove that Tanaka
and even if it is assumed that she initiated the legally obtained a divorce. It stated that while she
same, she must still be allowed to benefit from the was able to prove Tanaka's national law, the
exception provided under Paragraph 2 of Article Divorce Certificate was not competent evidence
26. Consequently, since her marriage to since it was not the divorce decree itself.
Toshiharu Sakai had already been dissolved by
virtue of the divorce decree they obtained in Rhodora argues that under the Civil Code of
Japan, thereby capacitating Toshiharu to remarry, Japan, a divorce by agreement becomes effective
petitioner shall likewise have capacity to remarry upon notification, whether oral or written, by
under Philippine law. both parties and by two (2) or more witnesses.
She contends that the Divorce Certificate stating

Page | 27
"Acceptance Certification of Notification of good of their children, Juliet agreed to divorce her
Divorce issued by the Mayor of Fukaya City, husband. Consequently, they jointly applied for
Saitama Pref., Japan on December 16, 2009" is divorce before the Office of the Mayor of
sufficient to prove that she and her husband have Fukuyama City, Japan.
divorced by agreement and have already effected
notification of the divorce. On May 22, 2012, the Office of the Mayor of
Fukuyama City granted their application for
Issue: divorce and issued the corresponding Divorce
Whether or not the Divorce Certificate is valid Report. On October 2, 2012, Juliet filed with the
proof of the Divorce between Rhodora and Seiki. Regional Trial Court of Manila an action for
recognition of the Divorce Report.
Ruling:
Yes. It is valid proof of the divorce. Under Rule The trial court dismissed the petition for failure to
132, Section 24 of the Rules of Court, the present in evidence the Divorce Decree itself. The
admissibility of official records that are kept in a trial court held that the Divorce Report and
foreign country requires that it must be Certificate of All Matters cannot take the place of
accompanied by a certificate from a secretary of the Divorce Decree itself which is the best
an embassy or legation, consul general, consul, evidence here. The Court Appeals affirmed the
vice consul, consular agent or any officer of the decision of the RTC.
foreign service of the Philippines stationed in that
foreign country. Juliet further avers that only the Divorce Report
and Certificate of All Matters were issued to her
The Certificate of Acceptance of the Report of by the Japanese government. These documents
Divorce was accompanied by an Authentication are equivalent to the Divorce Decree itself. In any
issued by Consul Bryan Dexter B. Lao of the case, there is no difference between a "Divorce
Embassy of the Philippines in Tokyo, Japan, Decree" and the "Divorce Report" she presented
certifying that Kazutoyo Oyabe, Consular in court. The Divorce Report itself bears the fact
Service Division, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, that she and her husband obtained a divorce in
Japan was an official in and for Japan. The Japan. More, although the Divorce Report and
Authentication further certified that he was Certificate of All Matters are mere photocopies,
authorized to sign the Certificate of Acceptance the same were duly authenticated by the Japanese
of the Report of Divorce and that his signature in Embassy.
it was genuine. Applying Rule 132, Section 24,
the Certificate of Acceptance of the Report of Issue:
Divorce is admissible as evidence of the fact of Whether or not the Divorce Report and Divorce
divorce between Rhodora and Seiki. Certificate of all matters was insufficient
evidence as proof for the divorce.
The Regional Trial Court established that
according to the national law of Japan, a divorce Ruling:
by agreement "becomes effective by No. It is sufficient. Records show that the
notification." Considering that the Certificate of Divorce Report is what the Government of Japan
Acceptance of the Report of Divorce was duly issued to Juliet and her husband when they
authenticated, the divorce between Rhodora and applied for divorce. There was no "divorce
Seiki was validly obtained according to Seiki’s judgment" to speak of because the divorce
national law. proceeding was not coursed through Japanese
courts but through the Office of the Mayor of
In Re: Petition for Judicial recognition of Fukuyama City in Hiroshima Prefecture, Japan.
divorce between Minuro Takahashi and In any event, since the Divorce Report was issued
Juliet Moraña vs. Republic of the Philippines by the Office of the Mayor of Fukuyama City, the
Facts: same is deemed an act of an official body in
On June 24, 2002, petitioner and Minoru Japan. By whatever name it is called, the Divorce
Takahashi got married in San Juan, Metro Report is clearly the equivalent of the "Divorce
Manila. Ten (10) years later, the couple got Decree" in Japan, hence, the best evidence of the
estranged. Juliet alleged that her husband failed fact of divorce obtained by Juliet and her former
to perform his marital obligations to her. He husband.
refused to give support to their two (2) children,
and worse, started cohabiting with another Notably, the fact of divorce was also supported
woman. Because of her persistent demand for by the Certificate of All Matters issued by the
financial support, her husband suggested they Japanese government to Juliet's husband Minoru
secure a divorce so the Japanese government Takahashi, indicating the date of divorce, Juliet's
would give financial assistance to their children name from whom he got divorced and Juliet's
and send them to school. Believing it was for the nationality as well. The fact alone that the

Page | 28
document was submitted to the trial court without
anyone identifying it on the stand or making a Judge Ferdinand J. Marcos of the Regional Trial
formal offer thereof in evidence does not call for Court of Toledo City, Cebu, dismissed the
dismissal of the petition. petition after finding that the Family Code is
"rather silent, obscure, insufficient" to resolve
For one, the State did not question the existence whether or not petitioners have a cause of action
of the Divorce Report, Divorce Certificate, and against Norma in asking for the declaration of the
more importantly the fact of divorce between nullity of marriage of their deceased father,
Juliet and her husband. As Republic v. Manalo Pepito G. Niñal, with her specially so when at the
pronounced, if the opposing party fails to time of the filing of this instant suit, their father
properly object, as in this case, the existence of Pepito G. Niñal is already dead
the divorce report and divorce certificate decree
is rendered admissible as a written act of the Issue:
foreign official body. Whether or not the petitioners have a cause of
Another, the Divorce Report, Certificate of All action to file the declaration of nullity and
Matters, and Divorce Certificate were all whether the marriage between Pepito and Norma
authenticated by the Japanese Embassy. These is void ab initio for lack of marriage license.
are proofs of official records which are
admissible in evidence under Sections 19 and 24, Ruling:
Rule 132 of the Rules on Evidence. Petitioners have cause of action. The two
marriages involved herein having been
However, in the case at bar, what Juliet offered in solemnized prior to the effectivity of the Family
evidence were mere printouts of pertinent Code (FC), the applicable law to determine their
portions of the Japanese law on divorce and its validity is the Civil Code which was the law in
English translation. There was no proof at all that effect at the time of their celebration. The Code is
these printouts reflected the existing law on silent as to who can file a petition to declare the
divorce in Japan and its correct English nullity of a marriage.
translation. Indeed, our rules require more than a
printout from a website to prove a foreign law. In Voidable and void marriages are not identical. A
Racho, the Japanese law on divorce was duly marriage that is annulable is valid until otherwise
proved through a copy of the English Version of declared by the court; whereas a marriage that is
the Civil Code of Japan translated under the void ab initio is considered as having never to
authorization of the Ministry of Justice and the have taken place and cannot be the source of
Code of Translation Committee. At any rate, rights. The first can be generally ratified or
considering that the fact of divorce was duly confirmed by free cohabitation or prescription
proved in this case, the higher interest of while the other can never be ratified. A voidable
substantial justice compels that Juliet be afforded marriage cannot be assailed collaterally except in
the chance to properly prove the Japanese law on a direct proceeding while a void marriage can be
divorce, with the end view that Juliet may be attacked collaterally. Consequently, void
eventually freed from a marriage in which she is marriages can be questioned even after the death
the only remaining party. of either party but voidable marriages can be
assailed only during the lifetime of the parties and
Engrace Niñal as Guardian for minors not after death of either, in which case the parties
Babyline, Ingrid, Archie and Pepito Niñal Jr. and their offspring will be left as if the marriage
vs. Norma Badayog had been perfectly valid. That is why the action
Facts: or defense for nullity is imprescriptible, unlike
Pepito Niñal was married to Teodulfa Bellones voidable marriages where the action prescribes.
on September 26, 1974. Teodulfa was shot by Only the parties to a voidable marriage can assail
Pepito resulting in her death on April 24, 1985. it but any proper interested party may attack a
One year and 8 months thereafter or on December void marriage.
11, 1986, Pepito and respondent Norma Badayog
got married without any marriage license. In lieu Jurisprudence under the Civil Code states that no
thereof, Pepito and Norma executed an affidavit judicial decree is necessary in order to establish
dated December 11, 1986 stating that they had the nullity of a marriage. "A void marriage does
lived together as husband and wife for at least five not require a judicial decree to restore the parties
years and were thus exempt from securing a to their original rights or to make the marriage
marriage license. On February 19, 1997, Pepito void but though no sentence of avoidance be
died in a car accident. After their father's death, absolutely necessary, yet as well for the sake of
petitioners filed a petition for declaration of good order of society as for the peace of mind of
nullity of the marriage of Pepito to Norma all concerned, it is expedient that the nullity of the
alleging that the said marriage was void for lack marriage should be ascertained and declared by
of a marriage license. the decree of a court of competent jurisdiction."

Page | 29
 absence or where the prior marriage was
"Under ordinary circumstances, the effect of a dissolved or annulled.
void marriage, so far as concerns the conferring
of legal rights upon the parties, is as though no In this case, at the time of Pepito and Norma’s
marriage had ever taken place and therefore, marriage, it cannot be said that they have lived
being good for no legal purpose, its invalidity can with each other as husband and wife for at least
be maintained in any proceeding in which the fact five years prior to their wedding day. From the
of marriage may be material, either direct or time Pepito's first marriage was dissolved to the
collateral, in any civil court between any parties time of his marriage with Norma, only about
at any time, whether before or after the death of twenty months had elapsed. Even assuming that
either or both the husband and the wife, and upon Pepito and his first wife had separated in fact, and
mere proof of the facts rendering such marriage thereafter both Pepito and Norma had started
void, it will be disregarded or treated as non- living with each other that has already lasted for
existent by the courts." It is not like a voidable five years, the fact remains that their five-year
marriage which cannot be collaterally attacked period cohabitation was not the cohabitation
except in direct proceeding instituted during the contemplated by law. It should be in the nature of
lifetime of the parties so that on the death of a perfect union that is valid under the law but
either, the marriage cannot be impeached, and is rendered imperfect only by the absence of the
made good ab initio. marriage contract. Pepito had a subsisting
marriage at the time when he started cohabiting
On the validity of marriage: with Norma. It is immaterial that when they lived
The marriage is void ab initio. There are several with each other, Pepito had already been
instances recognized by the Civil Code wherein a separated in fact from his lawful spouse. The
marriage license is dispensed with, one of which subsistence of the marriage even where there was
is that provided in Article 76, referring to the actual severance of the filial companionship
marriage of a man and a woman who have lived between the spouses cannot make any
together and exclusively with each other as cohabitation by either spouse with any third party
husband and wife for a continuous and unbroken as being one as "husband and wife".
period of at least five years before the marriage.
Herminia Manzano vs. Judge Roque Sanchez
There is no dispute that the marriage of Facts:
petitioners' father to respondent Norma was Herminia avers that she was the lawful wife of the
celebrated without any marriage license. In lieu late David Manzano, having been married to him
thereof, they executed an affidavit stating that on 21 May 1966 in San Gabriel Archangel Parish,
"they have attained the age of majority, and, Araneta Avenue, Caloocan City. On 22 March
being unmarried, have lived together as husband 1993, however, her husband contracted another
and wife for at least five years, and that we now marriage with one Luzviminda Payao before
desire to marry each other." respondent Judge. When respondent Judge
solemnized said marriage, he knew or ought to
The five-year common-law cohabitation period, know that the same was void and bigamous, as
which is counted back from the date of the marriage contract clearly stated that both
celebration of marriage, should be a period of contracting parties were separated.
legal union had it not been for the absence of the
marriage. This 5-year period should be the years Respondent Judge, on the other hand, claims in
immediately before the day of the marriage and it his Comment that when he officiated the
should be a period of cohabitation characterized marriage between Manzano and Payao he did not
by exclusivity, meaning no third party was know that Manzano was legally married. What he
involved at any time within the 5 years and knew was that the two had been living together as
continuity that is unbroken. husband and wife for seven years already without
the benefit of marriage, as manifested in their
Otherwise, if that continuous 5-year cohabitation joint affidavit. 4 According to him, had he known
is computed without any distinction as to whether that the late Manzano was married, he would have
the parties were capacitated to marry each other advised the latter not to marry again; otherwise,
during the entire five years, then the law would he (Manzano) could be charged with bigamy.
be sanctioning immorality and encouraging
parties to have common law relationships and
placing them on the same footing with those who Issue:
lived faithfully with their spouse. Thus, any Whether or not the Judge Sanchez erred in his act
marriage subsequently contracted during the to solemnize the marriage between David and
lifetime of the first spouse shall be illegal and Luzviminda.
void, subject only to the exception in cases of
Ruling:

Page | 30
Yes. Judge Sanches is at fault. Article 34 of the existing marriage. Clearly, respondent Judge
Family Code provides that no license shall be demonstrated gross ignorance of the law when he
necessary for the marriage of a man and a woman solemnized a void and bigamous marriage.
who have lived together as husband and wife for
at least five years and without any legal Reinel De Castro vs. Annabel De Castro
impediment to marry each other. The contracting Facts:
parties shall state the foregoing facts in an Reinel and Annabel planned to get married, thus
affidavit before any person authorized by law to they applied for a marriage license with the
administer oaths. The solemnizing officer shall Office of the Civil Registrar of Pasig City in
also state under oath that he ascertained the September 1994. When the couple went back to
qualifications of the contracting parties and found the Office of the Civil Registrar, the marriage
no legal impediment to the marriage. license had already expired. Thus, in order to
push through with the plan, in lieu of a marriage
For this provision on legal ratification of marital license, they executed an affidavit dated 13
cohabitation to apply, the following requisites March 1995 stating that they had been living
must concur: together as husband and wife for at least five
years. The couple got married on the same date,
1. The man and woman must have been with Judge Jose C. Bernabe, presiding judge of
living together as husband and wife for at the Metropolitan Trial Court of Pasig City,
least five years before the marriage; administering the civil rites. Nevertheless, after
2. The parties must have no legal the ceremony, Reinel and Annabel went back to
impediment to marry each other; their respective homes and did not live together
3. The fact of absence of legal impediment as husband and wife.
between the parties must be present at the
time of marriage; On 4 June 1998, Annabel filed a complaint for
4. The parties must execute an affidavit support against Reinel before the RTC of Pasig.
stating that they have lived together for at In her complaint, Annabel alleged that she is
least five years [and are without legal married to Reinel and that the latter has "reneged
impediment to marry each other]; and on his responsibility/obligation to financially
5. The solemnizing officer must execute a support her "as his wife and their child.
sworn statement that he had ascertained
the qualifications of the parties and that Reinel in his defense claimed that their marriage
he had found no legal impediment to is void ab initio since the marriage was facilitated
their marriage. by a fake affidavit; and that he was merely
prevailed upon by Annabel to sign the marriage
Not all of these requirements are present in the contract to save her from embarrassment and
case at bar. The fact that Manzano and Payao had possible administrative prosecution due to her
been living apart from their respective spouses pregnant state; and that he was not able to get
for a long time already is immaterial. Article parental advice from his parents before he got
63(1) of the Family Code allows spouses who married. He also averred that they never lived
have obtained a decree of legal separation to live together as husband and wife and that he has
separately from each other, but in such a case the never seen nor acknowledged the child.
marriage bonds are not severed. Elsewise
stated,legal separation does not dissolve the
marriage tie, much less authorize the parties to Issue:
remarry. This holds true all the more when the
Whether or not there was a valid marriage
separation is merely de facto, as in the case at bar.
between Reinel and Annabel and whether the
child born of Annabel is Reinel’s child.
Neither can respondent Judge take refuge on the
Joint Affidavit of David Manzano and
Ruling:
Luzviminda Payao stating that they had been
No. There was no valid marriage. The falsity of
cohabiting as husband and wife for seven years.
the affidavit cannot be considered as a mere
Just like separation, free and voluntary
irregularity in the formal requisites of marriage.
cohabitation with another person for at least five
The law dispenses with the marriage license
years does not severe the tie of a subsisting
requirement for a man and a woman who have
previous marriage. Marital cohabitation for a
lived together and exclusively with each other as
long period of time between two individuals who
husband and wife for a continuous and unbroken
are legally capacitated to marry each other is
period of at least five years before the marriage.
merely a ground for exemption from marriage
license. It could not serve as a justification for
respondent Judge to solemnize a subsequent On Support:
marriage vitiated by the impediment of a prior The Court is also likewise inclined to agree that
the child of Annabel is his illegitimate daughter.

Page | 31
That Reinna Tricia is the child of the Reinel with unmarried, they had lived together for at least five
Annabel is supported not only by the testimony (5) years and that they desired to marry each
of the latter, but also by Reinel’s own admission other.
in the course of his testimony wherein he
conceded that Annabel was his former girlfriend. Issue:
While they were sweethearts, he used to visit her Whether the falsity of an affidavit of marital
at the latter’s house or clinic. At times, they cohabitation, where the parties have in truth
would go to a motel to have sex. As a result of fallen short of the minimum five-year
their sexual dalliances, Annabel became pregnant requirement, effectively renders the marriage
which ultimately led to their marriage, though void ab initio for lack of a marriage license.
invalid, as earlier ruled.
Ruling:
Felisa Dayot vs. Jose Dayot Yes. The marriage is void ab initio. Marriages
Facts: of exceptional character are, doubtless, the
According to Jose, he was introduced to Felisa in exceptions to the rule on the indispensability of
1986. Immediately thereafter, he came to live as the formal requisite of a marriage license. Under
a boarder in Felisa’s house, the latter being his the rules of statutory construction, exceptions, as
landlady. Some three weeks later, Felisa a general rule, should be strictly but reasonably
requested him to accompany her to the Pasay City construed. They extend only so far as their
Hall, ostensibly so she could claim a package sent language fairly warrants, and all doubts should be
to her by her brother from Saudi Arabia. resolved in favor of the general provisions rather
than the exception. Where a general rule is
At the Pasay City Hall, upon a pre-arranged established by statute with exceptions, the court
signal from Felisa, a man bearing three folded will not curtail the former or add to the latter by
pieces of paper approached them. They were told implication. For the exception in Article 76 to
that Jose needed to sign the papers so that the apply, it is a sine qua non thereto that the man and
package could be released to Felisa. He initially the woman must have attained the age of
refused to do so. However, Felisa cajoled him, majority, and that, being unmarried, they have
and told him that his refusal could get both of lived together as husband and wife for at least five
them killed by her brother who had learned about years.
their relationship.
A strict but reasonable construction of Article 76
Reluctantly, he signed the pieces of paper, and leaves us with no other expediency but to read the
gave them to the man who immediately left. It law as it is plainly written. The exception of a
was in February 1987 when he discovered that he marriage license under Article 76 applies only to
had contracted marriage with Felisa. He alleged those who have lived together as husband and
that he saw a piece of paper lying on top of the wife for at least five years and desire to marry
table at the sala of Felisa’s house. When he each other. The Civil Code, in no ambiguous
perused the same, he discovered that it was a copy terms, places a minimum period requirement of
of his marriage contract with Felisa. When he five years of cohabitation. No other reading of the
confronted Felisa, the latter feigned ignorance. law can be had, since the language of Article 76
is precise. The minimum requisite of five years of
The RTC ruled that from the testimonies and cohabitation is an indispensability carved in the
evidence presented, the marriage celebrated language of the law.
between Jose and Felisa on 24 November 1986
was valid. It dismissed Jose’s version of the story For a marriage celebrated under Article 76 to be
as implausible and rationalized that any person in valid, this material fact cannot be dispensed with.
his right frame of mind would easily suspect any It is embodied in the law not as a directory
attempt to make him or her sign a blank sheet of requirement, but as one that partakes of a
paper. Jose could have already detected that mandatory character. It is worthy to mention that
something was amiss and unusual. Moreover, it Article 76 also prescribes that the contracting
ruled that Jose’s action had prescribed. It cited parties shall state the requisite facts in an affidavit
Article 87 of the New Civil Code which requires before any person authorized by law to
that the action for annulment of marriage must be administer oaths; and that the official, priest or
commenced by the injured party within four years minister who solemnized the marriage shall also
after the discovery of the fraud. state in an affidavit that he took steps to ascertain
the ages and other qualifications of the
The CA affirmed the RTC’s ruling and cited contracting parties and that he found no legal
Niñal v. Bayadog, where the contracting parties impediment to the marriage.
to a marriage solemnized without a marriage
license on the basis of their affidavit that they had It is indubitably established that Jose and Felisa
attained the age of majority, that being have not lived together for five years at the time

Page | 32
they executed their sworn affidavit and 1. declaration of nullity of marriage;
contracted marriage. The Republic admitted that 2. status of a child;
Jose and Felisa started living together only in 3. recovery of property;
June 1986, or barely five months before the 4. reconveyance; and
celebration of their marriage. 5. sum of money and damages.

Juan asserted that the marriage between his late

The Court cannot accept the insistence of the
brother Teofilo and respondent Felicidad was a
Republic that the falsity of the statements in the
nullity in view of the absence of the required
parties’ affidavit will not affect the validity of marriage license. He likewise maintained that his
marriage, since all the essential and formal deceased brother was neither the natural nor the
requisites were complied with. The argument adoptive father of respondent Teofilo Carlos II.
deserves scant merit. Patently, it cannot be denied The RTC ruled in favor of Juan Carlos while the
that the marriage between Jose and Felisa was CA remanded the case hence this petition for the
celebrated without the formal requisite of a Court.
marriage license. Neither did Jose and Felisa
meet the explicit legal requirement in Article 76, Issue:
that they should have lived together as husband Whether or not Juan Carlos is the proper party to
and wife for at least five years, so as to be commence an action for the declaration of nullity
excepted from the requirement of a marriage of marriage.
license.
Ruling:
Neither can the Republic rely on the argument Yes. Juan Carlos may be a proper party to
that Jose is barred by estoppel to question the commence an action for the declaration of
validity of the marriage. It is a well settled rule nullity of marriage. Under the Rule on
Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void
that an action for nullity of marriage is
Marriages and Annulment of Voidable
imprescriptible. Jose and Felisa’s marriage was Marriages, the petition for declaration of absolute
celebrated absent a marriage license. No other nullity of marriage may not be filed by any party
conclusion can be reached except that it is void outside of the marriage. Only an aggrieved or
ab initio. In this case, the right to impugn a void injured spouse may file a petition for annulment
marriage does not prescribe, and may be raised of voidable marriages or declaration of absolute
any time. nullity of void marriages. Such petition cannot be
Juan De Dios Carlos vs. Felicidad Sandoval filed by compulsory or intestate heirs of the
Facts: spouses or by the State. Compulsory or intestate
Felix B. Carlos and Felipa Elemia (parents of heirs have only inchoate rights prior to the death
Juan and Teofilo I) died intestate. They left six of their predecessor, and, hence, can only
(6) parcels of land to their compulsory heirs, question the validity of the marriage of the
Teofilo Carlos and petitioner Juan De Dios spouses upon the death of a spouse in a
Carlos. The first three (3) parcels of land were proceeding for the settlement of the estate of the
transferred and registered in the name of Teofilo. deceased spouse filed in the regular courts.
Parcel No. 4 was registered in the name of
petitioner Juan De Dios Carlos. Teofilo died The exceptions to this rule is if:
intestate. He was survived by respondents 1. Nullity of marriage cases commenced
Felicidad and their son, Teofilo Carlos II (Teofilo before the effectivity of A.M. No. 02-11-
II). Upon Teofilo's death, Parcel Nos. 5 & 6 were 10 -SC; and
registered in the name of respondent Felicidad 2. Marriages celebrated during the
and co-respondent, Teofilo II. effectivity of the Civil Code.

In 1994, Juan Carlos and Felicidad initiated a However, that the Rule does not apply to cases
compromise agreement. Under the compromise, already commenced before March 15, 2003. This
the parties acknowledged their respective shares is so, as the new Rule which became effective on
in the proceeds from the sale of a portion of the March 15, 2003 is prospective in its application.
first parcel of land. Afterwards, the parties The marriage in controversy was celebrated on
executed a deed of extrajudicial partition, May 14, 1962. The marriage having been
dividing the remaining land of the first parcel solemnized prior to the effectivity of the Family
between them. Petitioner and respondents entered Code, the applicable law is the Civil Code which
into two more contracts. Under the contracts, the was the law in effect at the time of its celebration.
parties equally divided between them the third
and fourth parcels of land. In a separate case the But the Civil Code is silent as to who may bring
second parcel of land were adjudicated in favor an action to declare the marriage void. However,
of plaintiffs Rillo. The remaining 10,000-square this silence cannot be construed as a license for
meter portion was later divided between Juan and any person to institute a nullity of marriage case.
Felicidad. Such person must appear to be the party who
stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment
In August 1995, Juan commenced an action for: in the suit, or the party entitled to the avails of the
suit. Elsewise stated, plaintiff must be the real

Page | 33
party-in-interest. For it is basic in procedural law However, If Teofilo II is proven to be a
that every action must be prosecuted and legitimate, illegitimate, or legally adopted son of
defended in the name of the real party-in-interest. Teofilo, then Juan has no legal personality to ask
Such as in the case of Niñal v. Badayog where the for the nullity of marriage of his deceased brother
Court held that the children have the personality and respondent Felicidad.
to file the petition to declare the nullity of
marriage of their deceased father to their
stepmother as it affects their successional rights.

Hence, the case must be remanded to determine

whether or not Juan Carlos is a real-party-in-
interest to seek the declaration of nullity of the
marriage in controversy. In the case at bench, the
records reveal that when Teofilo died intestate in
1992, his only surviving compulsory heirs are
respondent Felicidad and their son, Teofilo II.
Under the law on succession, successional rights
are transmitted from the moment of death of the
decedent and the compulsory heirs are called to
succeed by operation of law. Upon Teofilo's
death in 1992, all his property, rights and
obligations to the extent of the value of the
inheritance are transmitted to his compulsory
heirs. These heirs were respondents Felicidad and
Teofilo II, as the surviving spouse and child,
respectively.

A brother is not among those considered as

compulsory heirs. But although a collateral
relative, such as a brother, does not fall within the
ambit of a compulsory heir, he still has a right to
succeed to the estate under Articles 1001 and
1003 of the New Civil Code which provides that
should brothers and sisters or their children
survive with the widow or widower, the latter
shall be entitled to one-half of the inheritance and
the brothers and sisters or their children to the
other half and if there are no descendants,
ascendants, illegitimate children, or a surviving
spouse, the collateral relatives shall succeed to
the entire estate of the deceased.

If respondent Teofilo II is declared and finally

proven not to be the legitimate, illegitimate, or
adopted son of Teofilo, Juan would then have a
personality to seek the nullity of marriage of his
deceased brother with respondent Felicidad. This
is so, considering that collateral relatives, like a
brother and sister, acquire successional right over
the estate if the decedent dies without issue and
without ascendants in the direct line. If Teofilo II
is finally found and proven to be not a legitimate,
illegitimate, or adopted son of Teofilo, Juan
succeeds to the other half of the estate of his
brother, the first half being allotted to the widow
pursuant to Article 1001 of the New Civil Code.
This makes Juan a real-party-interest to seek the
declaration of absolute nullity of marriage of his
deceased brother with respondent Felicidad. If
the subject marriage is found to be void ab initio,
Juan succeeds to the entire estate.

Page | 34
Leonila Santiago vs. People of the Philippines straightforwardly testified that she had
Facts: already told Leonila on two occasions
Nicanor Santos, who had been married to Estela that the former was the legal wife of
Galang since 2 June 1974, asked Leonila to marry Santos.
him. Leonila, who 'was a 43-year-old widow
then, married Santos on 29 July 1997 despite the However, After a perusal of the records, it is clear
advice of her brother-in-law and parents-in-law. that the marriage between Leonila and Santos
took place without a marriage license. The
Four months after the solemnization of their absence of this requirement is purportedly
marriage on 29 July 1997, Leonila and Nicanor explained in their Certificate of Marriage, which
faced an Information for bigamy. Leonila pleaded reveals that their union was celebrated under
"not guilty," while Nicanor escaped the criminal Article 34 of the Family Code which states that
suit. Leonila asserted in her affirmative defense no license shall be necessary for the marriage of
that she could not be included as an accused in the a man and a woman who have lived together as
crime of bigamy, because she had been under the husband and wife for at least five years and
belief that Santos was still single when they got without any legal impediment to marry each
married. She also averred that for there to be a other.
conviction for bigamy, his second marriage to her
should be proven valid by the prosecution; but in Without any objection from the prosecution,
this case, she argued that their marriage was void Leonila testified that Santos had frequently
due to the lack of a marriage license. visited her in Castellano, Nueva Ecija, prior to
their marriage. However, he never cohabited with
The RTC found Leonila and Nicanor guilty of her, as she was residing in the house of her in-
bigamy and declared that as indicated in the laws, and her children from her previous
Certificate of Marriage, "her marriage was marriage. All told, the evidence on record shows
celebrated without a need for a marriage license that Leonilo and Santos had only known each
in accordance with Article 34 of the Family Code, other for only less than four years. Thus, it
which is an admission that she cohabited with follows that the two of them could not have
Santos long before the celebration of their cohabited for at least five years prior to their
marriage. marriage.

Issue: Note that in the case at bar, the Court cannot

Whether or not there was a valid marriage countenance Leonila's illegal acts of feigning a
between Nicanor and Leonila and whether they marriage and, in the same breath, adjudge her
are guilty of Bigamy. innocent of the crime, to do so would only make
a mockery of the sanctity of marriage.
Ruling: Furthermore, it is a basic concept of justice that
no court will lend its aid to one who has
No. There is no valid marriage, however,
consciously and voluntarily become a party to an
Leonila is still guilty of the crime of bigamy. In
illegal act upon which the cause of action is
the crime of bigamy, both the first and second
founded. If the cause of action appears to arise
spouses may be the offended parties depending
which involves a transgression of positive law,
on the circumstances, as when the second spouse
parties shall be left unassisted by the courts. As a
married the accused without being aware of his
result, litigants shall be denied relief on the
previous marriage. Only if the second spouse had
ground that their conduct has been inequitable,
knowledge of the previous undissolved marriage
unfair and dishonest or fraudulent, or deceitful as
of the accused could she be included in the
to the controversy in issue. 4
information as a co-accused.

Therefore, the lower courts correctly ascertained

Leonila’s knowledge of Santos's marriage to Here, the cause of action of Leonila, meaning her
Galang. Both courts consistently found that she affirmative defense in this criminal case of
knew of the first marriage as shown by the totality bigamy, is that her marriage with Santos was void
of the following circumstances: for having been secured without a marriage
license. But as elucidated earlier, they themselves
1. When Santos was courting and visiting
perpetrated a false Certificate of Marriage by
Leonila in the house of her in-laws, they
misrepresenting that they were exempted from
openly showed their disapproval of him;
the license requirement based on their fabricated
2. It was incredible for a learned person
claim that they had already cohabited as husband
like Leonila to not know of his true civil
and wife for at least five years prior their
status; and
marriage. In violation of our law against illegal
3. Galang, who was the more credible
marriages, Leonila married Santos while
witness compared with Leonila who had
knowing full well that they had not yet complied
various inconsistent testimonies,

Page | 35
with the five-year cohabitation requirement under
Article 34 of the Family Code. Consequently, it Issue:
will be the height of absurdity for this Court to Whether or not Julia was psychologically
allow Leonila to use her illegal act to escape incapacitated which would render the marriage
criminal conviction. void under Article 36 of the Family Code.

Justice Luis B. Reyes, an eminent authority in Ruling:

criminal law, writes that "a person, whether man No. The marriage is still valid. One who is
or woman, who knowingly consents or agrees to psychological incapacitated must be
be married to another already bound in lawful characterized by
wedlock is guilty as an accomplice in the crime
of bigamy." Therefore, her conviction should ▪ gravity,
only be that for an accomplice to the crime. The ▪ juridical antecedence, and
penalty for a principal in the crime of bigamy is ▪ incurability.
prision mayor, which has a duration of six years
and one day to twelve years. Since the criminal
The incapacity must be grave or serious such that
participation of petitioner is that of an
the party would be incapable of carrying out the
accomplice, the sentence imposable on her is the
ordinary duties required in marriage; it must be
penalty next lower in degree, prision correctional,
rooted in the history of the party antedating the
which has a duration of six months and one day
marriage, although the overt manifestations may
to six years.
emerge only after the marriage; and it must be
incurable or, even if it were otherwise, the cure
Leouel Santos vs. Court of Appeals and Julia would be beyond the means of the party involved.
Santos
Facts:
It should be obvious, looking at all the foregoing
On 20 September 1986, Leouel and Julia disquisitions, including, and most importantly,
exchanged vows before Municipal Trial Court the deliberations of the Family Code Revision
Judge Cornelio G. Lazaro of Iloilo City, Committee itself, that the use of the phrase
followed, shortly thereafter, by a church “psychological incapacity” under Article 36 of
wedding. Leouel and Julia lived with the latter's the Code has not been meant to comprehend all
parents at the J. Bedia Compound, La Paz, Iloilo such possible cases of psychoses as, likewise
City. mentioned by some ecclesiastical authorities,
extremely low intelligence, immaturity, and like
On 18 May 1988, Julia finally left for the United circumstances
Sates of America to work as a nurse despite
Leouel's pleas to dissuade her. Seven months Article 36 of the Family Code cannot be taken
after her departure, or on 01 January 1989, Julia and construed independently of, but must stand in
called up Leouel for the first time by long conjunction with, existing precepts in our law on
distance telephone. She promised to return home marriage. Thus correlated, "psychological
upon the expiration of her contract in July 1989. incapacity" should refer to no less than a mental
She never did. When Leouel got a chance to visit (not physical) incapacity that causes a party to be
the United States, where he underwent a training truly incognitive of the basic marital covenants
program under the auspices of the Armed Forces that concomitantly must be assumed and
of the Philippines from 01 April up to 25 August discharged by the parties to the marriage which,
1990, he desperately tried to locate, or to as so expressed by Article 68 of the Family Code,
somehow get in touch with, Julia but all his include their mutual obligations to live together,
efforts were of no avail. observe love, respect and fidelity and render help
Having failed to get Julia to somehow come and support.
home, Leouel filed with the regional trial Court
of Negros Oriental, Branch 30, a complaint for
There is hardly any doubt that the intendment of
"Voiding of marriage Under Article 36 of the
the law has been to confine the meaning of
Family Code"
"psychological incapacity" to the most serious
cases of personality disorders clearly
Leouel argues that the failure of Julia to return demonstrative of an utter intensitivity or inability
home, or at the very least to communicate with to give meaning and significance to the marriage.
him, for more than five years are circumstances This pschologic condition must exist at the time
that clearly show her being psychologically the marriage is celebrated. The law does not
incapacitated to enter into married life. Julia, in evidently envision, upon the other hand, an
her answer (through counsel), opposed the inability of the spouse to have sexual relations
complaint and denied its allegations, claiming, in with the other. This conclusion is implicit under
main, that it was Leouel who had, in fact, been Article 54 of the Family Code which considers
irresponsible and incompetent. children conceived prior to the judicial

Page | 36
declaration of nullity of the void marriage to be between them. Gina claims, that she did not even
"legitimate." see her husband's private parts nor did he see hers.

The other forms of psychoses, if existing at the The results of their physical examinations were
inception of marriage, like the state of a party that she is healthy, normal and still a virgin, while
being of unsound mind or concealment of drug that of her husband's examination was kept
addiction, habitual alcoholism, homosexuality or confidential up to this time. While no medicine
lesbianism, merely renders the marriage contract was prescribed for her, the doctor prescribed
voidable pursuant to Article 46, Family Code. If medications for her husband which was also kept
drug addiction, habitual alcholism, lesbianism or confidential.
homosexuality should occur only during the
marriage, they become mere grounds for legal Gina claims, that Chi Ming Tsoi is impotent, a
separation under Article 55 of the Family Code. closet homosexual as he did not show his penis.
These provisions of the Code, however, do not She said, that she had observed the defendant
necessarily preclude the possibility of these using an eyebrow pencil and sometimes the
various circumstances being themselves, cleansing cream of his mother and that, according
depending on the degree and severity of the to her, Chi Ming Tsoi only married her, a Filipino
disorder, indicates of psychological incapacity. citizen, to acquire or maintain his residency status
here in the country and to publicly maintain the
The factual settings in the case at bench, in no appearance of a normal man.
measure at all, can come close to the standards
required to decree a nullity of marriage. In his reply, Chi Ming Tsoi admitted that since
Undeniably and understandably, Leouel stands their marriage on May 22, 1988, until their
aggrieved, even desperate, in his present separation on March 15, 1989, there was no
situation. Regrettably, neither law nor society sexual contact between them. But, the reason for
itself can always provide all the specific answers this, according to the him, was that everytime he
to every individual problem. wants to have sexual intercourse with his wife,
she always avoided him and whenever he
caresses her private parts, she always removed his
hands. Chi Ming Tsoi claims, that he forced his
wife to have sex with him only once but he did
not continue because she was shaking and she did
not like it. So he stopped.
Chi Ming Tsoi vs. Court of Appeals and
Gina Lao Tsoi Chi Ming Tsoi submitted himself to a physical
Facts: examination. His penis was examined by Dr.
Sergio Alteza, Jr., for the purpose of finding out
Sometime on May 22, 1988, Chi Ming Tsoi
whether he is impotent . As a result thereof, Dr.
married Gina at the Manila Cathedral. According
Alteza submitted his Doctor's Medical Report. It
to Gina that contrary to her expectations, that as
is stated there, that there is no evidence of
newlyweds they were supposed to enjoy making
impotency and he is capable of erection. Dr.
love, or having sexual intercourse, with each
Alteza Jr. found out that from the original size of
other, Chi Ming Tsoi just went to bed, slept on
two (2) inches, or five (5) centimeters, the penis
one side thereof, then turned his back and went to
of the defendant lengthened by one (1) inch and
sleep . There was no sexual intercourse between
one centimeter. Dr. Alteza said, that Chi Ming
them during the first night. The same thing
Tsoi had only a soft erection which is why his
happened on the second, third and fourth nights.
penis is not in its full length. But, still is capable
of further erection, in that with his soft erection,
In an effort to have their honeymoon in a private
the defendant is capable of having sexual
place where they can enjoy together during their
intercourse with a woman.
first week as husband and wife, they went to
Baguio City. But, they did so together with her
The RTC found Chi Ming Tsoi psychologically
mother, an uncle, Chi Ming Tsoi’s mother and his
incapacitated. The Court of Appeals on the other
nephew. They were all invited by Chi Ming Tsoi
hand declared that refusal of both Chi Ming and
to join them. They stayed in Baguio City for four
Gina to have sex with each other constitutes
(4) days. But, during this period, there was no
psychological incapacity of both.
sexual intercourse between them, since Chi Ming
Tsoi avoided Gina by taking a long walk during
siesta time or by just sleeping on a rocking chair Issue:
located at the living room. They slept together in Whether or not Chi Ming Tsoi is psychologically
the same room and on the same bed since May incapacitated that would warrant the marriage
22, 1988 until March 15, 1989. But during this void ab initio.
period, there was no attempt of sexual intercourse

Page | 37
Ruling: of empathy between Chi Ming and Gina. This
Both parties are psychologically incapacitated. It Court, finding the gravity of the failed
must be stated that neither the trial court nor the relationship in which the parties found
Court of Appeals made a finding on who between themselves trapped in its mire of unfulfilled vows
Chi Ming and Gina refuses to have sexual contact and unconsummated marital obligations, can do
with the other. The fact remains, however, that no less but sustain the decision that both parties
there has never been coitus between them. are psychologically incapacitated.

Assuming it to be so, Chi Ming could have

discussed with Gina or asked her what is ailing
her, and why she balks and avoids him everytime
he wanted to have sexual intercourse with her. He
never did. At least, there is nothing in the record
to show that he had tried to find out or discover
what the problem with his wife could be. What he
presented in evidence is his doctor's Medical
Report that there is no evidence of his impotency
and he is capable of erection. Since it is Chi
Ming’s claim that the reason is not psychological
but perhaps physical disorder on the part of Gina,
it became incumbent upon him to prove such a
claim.

If a spouse, although physically capable but

simply refuses to perform his or her essential
marriage obligations, and the refusal is senseless
and constant, Catholic marriage tribunals
attribute the causes to psychological incapacity
than to stubborn refusal. Senseless and protracted
refusal is equivalent to psychological incapacity.
Thus, the prolonged refusal of a spouse to have
sexual intercourse with his or her spouse is
considered a sign of psychological incapacity.

One of the essential marital obligations under the

Family Code is "To procreate children based on
the universal principle that procreation of
children through sexual cooperation is the basic
end of marriage." Constant non- fulfillment of
this obligation will finally destroy the integrity or
wholeness of the marriage. In the case at bar, the
senseless and protracted refusal of one of the
parties to fulfill the above marital obligation is
equivalent to psychological incapacity.

After almost ten months of cohabitation, the

admission that the husband is reluctant or
unwilling to perform the sexual act with his wife
whom he professes to love very dearly, and who
has not posed any insurmountable resistance to
his alleged approaches, is indicative of a hopeless
situation, and of a serious personality disorder
that constitutes psychological incapacity to
discharge the basic marital covenants within the
contemplation of the Family Code.

It is sexual intimacy which brings spouses

wholeness and oneness. Sexual intimacy is a gift
and a participation in the mystery of creation. It
is a function which enlivens the hope of
procreation and ensures the continuation of
family relations. It appears that there is absence

Page | 38
 Republic vs. Court of Appeals and Roridel and "conflicting personalities" in no wise
Molina constitutes psychological incapacity. It is not
Facts: enough to prove that the parties failed to meet
This case was commenced on August 16, 1990 their responsibilities and duties as married
with the filing by Roridel O. Molina of a verified persons; it is essential that they must be shown to
petition for declaration of nullity of her marriage be incapable of doing so, due to some
to Reynaldo Molina. Roridel and Reynaldo were psychological (not physical) illness.
married on April 14, 1985 at the San Agustin
Church in Manila. The evidence adduced by Roridel merely showed
that she and her husband could nor get along with
After a year of marriage, Reynaldo showed signs each other. There had been no showing of the
of "immaturity and irresponsibility" as a husband gravity of the problem; neither its juridical
and a father since he preferred to spend more time antecedence nor its incurability. In the case of
with his peers and friends on whom he Reynaldo, there is no showing that his alleged
squandered his money; that he depended on his personality traits were constitutive of
parents for aid and assistance, and was never psychological incapacity existing at the time of
honest with his wife in regard to their finances, marriage celebration. While some effort was
resulting in frequent quarrels between them; that made to prove that there was a failure to fulfill
sometime in February 1986, Reynaldo was pre-nuptial impressions of "thoughtfulness and
relieved of his job in Manila, and since then gentleness" on Reynaldo's part of being
Roridel had been the sole breadwinner of the "conservative, homely and intelligent" on the part
family; that in October 1986 the couple had a very of Roridel, such failure of expectation is nor
intense quarrel, as a result of which their indicative of antecedent psychological
relationship was estranged; that in March 1987, incapacity.
Roridel resigned from her job in Manila and went
to live with her parents in Baguio City; that a few On the formulation of new guidelines:
weeks later, Reynaldo left Roridel and their child, During its deliberations, the Court decided to go
and had since then abandoned them; that beyond merely ruling on the facts of this case vis-
Reynaldo had thus shown that he was a-vis existing law and jurisprudence. In view of
psychologically incapable of complying with the novelty of Art. 36 of the Family Code and the
essential marital obligations and was a highly difficulty experienced by many trial courts
immature and habitually quarrel some individual interpreting and applying it, the Court decided to
who thought of himself as a king to be served invite two amici curiae, namely Reverend Oscar
V. Cruz and Justice Ricardo C. Puno, a member
In his defense, Reynaldo admitted that he and of the Family Code Revision Committee.
Roridel could no longer live together as husband
and wife, but contended that their From their submissions and the Court's own
misunderstandings and frequent quarrels were deliberations, the following guidelines in the
due to Roridel's strange behavior of insisting on interpretation and application of Art. 36 of the
maintaining her group of friends even after their Family Code are hereby handed down for the
marriage, Roridel's refusal to perform some of her guidance of the bench and the bar:
marital duties such as cooking meals; and
Roridel's failure to run the household and handle 1. The burden of proof to show the nullity
their finances. of the marriage belongs to the plaintiff.
Any doubt should be resolved in favor of
Issue: the existence and continuation of the
Whether or not Reynaldo was psychologically marriage and against its dissolution and
incapacitated. nullity. This is rooted in the fact that both
our Constitution and our laws cherish the
Ruling: validity of marriage and unity of the
Psychological incapacity should refer to no less family. Thus, our Constitution devotes an
than a mental (not physical) incapacity. entire Article on the Family, recognizing
Furthermore the incapacity must be characterized it "as the foundation of the nation." It
by (a) gravity, (b) juridical antecedence, and (c) decrees marriage as legally "inviolable,"
incurability." thereby protecting it from dissolution at
the whim of the parties. Both the family
In the present case, there is no clear showing to and marriage are to be "protected" by the
us that the psychological defect spoken of is an state.
incapacity. It appears to us to be more of a
"difficulty," if not outright "refusal" or "neglect" The Family Code echoes this
in the performance of some marital obligations. constitutional edict on marriage and the
Mere showing of "irreconciliable differences"

Page | 39
 family and emphasizes the permanence, emotional outbursts" cannot be accepted
inviolability and solidarity as root causes. The illness must be shown
as downright incapacity or inability, nor
2. The root cause of the psychological a refusal, neglect or difficulty, much less
incapacity must be (a) medically or ill will. In other words, there is a natal or
clinically identified, (b) alleged in the supervening disabling factor in the
complaint, (c) sufficiently proven by person, an adverse integral element in the
experts and (d) clearly explained in the personality structure that effectively
decision. Article 36 of the Family Code incapacitates the person from really
requires that the incapacity must be accepting and thereby complying with
psychological — not physical. although the obligations essential to marriage.
its manifestations and/or symptoms may
be physical. The evidence must convince 6. The essential marital obligations must be
the court that the parties, or one of them, those embraced by Articles 68 up to 71
was mentally or physically ill to such an of the Family Code as regards the
extent that the person could not have husband and wife as well as Articles 220,
known the obligations he was assuming, 221 and 225 of the same Code in regard
or knowing them, could not have given to parents and their children. Such non-
valid assumption thereof. Although no complied marital obligations must also
example of such incapacity need be given be stated in the petition, proven by
here so as not to limit the application of evidence and included in the text of the
the provision under the principle of decision.
ejusdem generis, nevertheless such root
cause must be identified as a 7. Interpretations given by the National
psychological illness and its Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal of the
incapacitating nature explained. Expert Catholic Church in the Philippines, while
evidence may be given qualified not controlling or decisive, should be
psychiatrist and clinical psychologists. given great respect by our courts. It is
clear that Article 36 was taken by the
3. The incapacity must be proven to be Family Code Revision Committee from
existing at "the time of the celebration" Canon 1095 of the New Code of Canon
of the marriage. The evidence must show Law, which became effective in 1983
that the illness was existing when the and which provides: The following are
parties exchanged their "I do's." The incapable of contracting marriage: Those
manifestation of the illness need not be who are unable to assume the essential
perceivable at such time, but the illness obligations of marriage due to causes of
itself must have attached at such psychological nature. Since the purpose
moment, or prior thereto. of including such provision in our Family
Code is to harmonize our civil laws with
4. Such incapacity must also be shown to be the religious faith of our people, it stands
medically or clinically permanent or to reason that to achieve such
incurable. Such incurability may be harmonization, great persuasive weight
absolute or even relative only in regard to should be given to decision of such
the other spouse, not necessarily appellate tribunal. Ideally — subject to
absolutely against everyone of the same our law on evidence — what is decreed
sex. Furthermore, such incapacity must as canonically invalid should also be
be relevant to the assumption of marriage decreed civilly void.
obligations, not necessarily to those not
related to marriage, like the exercise of a This is one instance where, in view of the
profession or employment in a job. evident source and purpose of the Family
Hence, a pediatrician may be effective in Code provision, contemporaneous
diagnosing illnesses of children and religious interpretation is to be given
prescribing medicine to cure them but persuasive effect. Here, the State and the
may not be psychologically capacitated Church — while remaining independent,
to procreate, bear and raise his/her own separate and apart from each other —
children as an essential obligation of shall walk together in synodal cadence
marriage. towards the same goal of protecting and
cherishing marriage and the family as the
5. Such illness must be grave enough to inviolable base of the nation.
bring about the disability of the party to
assume the essential obligations of 8. The trial court must order the prosecuting
marriage. Thus, "mild characteriological attorney or fiscal and the Solicitor
peculiarities, mood changes, occasional General to appear as counsel for the state.

Page | 40
 No decision shall he handed down unless The straw that broke the camel's back took place
the Solicitor General issues a on October 16, 1994, when they had a bitter
certification, which will be quoted in the quarrel. As they were already living separately,
decision, briefly staring therein his she did not want him to stay in their house
reasons for his agreement or opposition, anymore. On that day, when she saw him in their
as the case may be, to the petition. The house, she was so angry that she lambasted him.
Solicitor General, along with the He then turned violent, inflicting physical harm
prosecuting attorney, shall submit to the on her and even on her mother who came to her
court such certification within fifteen aid.
(15) days from the date the case is
deemed submitted for resolution of the The appellee submitted herself to psychologist
court. The Solicitor General shall Natividad A. Dayan, Ph.D., for psychological
discharge the equivalent function of the evaluation, Wilsont on the other hand, did not.
defensor vinculi contemplated under The RTC found Wilson to be psychologically
Canon 1095. incapacitated to perform his marital obligations
mainly because of his failure to find work to
Brenda Marcos vs. Wilson Marcos support his family and his violent attitude
Facts: towards appellee and their children. The CA on
Appellant Wilson G. Marcos joined the Armed the other hand reversed the decision of the RTC
Forces of the Philippines in 1973. Later on, he on the ground that Wilson was not subjected to
was transferred to the Presidential Security any psychological or psychiatric evaluation. The
Command in Malacañang during the Marcos psychological findings about the appellant by
Regime. Appellee Brenda B. Marcos, on the other psychiatrist Natividad Dayan were based only on
hand, joined the Women's Auxilliary Corps under the interviews conducted with the appellee.
the Philippine Air Force in 1978. After the Edsa
Revolution, both of them sought a discharge from The CA ruled that as a requirement it is essential
the military service. The parties first met in a petition for annulment is the allegation of the
sometime in 1980 when both of them were root cause of the spouse's psychological
assigned at the Malacañang Palace, Brenda as an incapacity which should also be medically or
escort of Imee Marcos and Wilson as a clinically identified, sufficiently proven by
Presidential Guard of President Ferdinand experts and clearly explained in the decision.
Marcos. Through telephone conversations, they
became acquainted and eventually became Issue:
sweethearts. Whether or not personal medical or psychological
examination is a requirement for determination of
The parties were married twice. The first psychological incapacity.
marriage was on September 6, 1982 which was
solemnized by Judge Eriberto H. Espiritu at the
Municipal Court of and the second marriage was
on May 8, 1983 which was solemnized by Rev. Ruling:
Eduardo L. Eleazar, Command Chaplain, at the
No. Personal medical or psychological
Presidential Security Command Chapel in
examination of Wilson is not a requirement for
Malacañang Park, Manila.
a declaration of psychological incapacity. In
After the downfall of President Marcos, Wilson Republic v. CA and Molina, the guidelines
left the military service in 1987 and then engaged governing the application and the interpretation
in different business ventures that did not of psychological incapacity referred to in Article
however prosper. As a wife, Brenda always urged 36 of the Family Code were laid down. These
him to look for work so that their children would guidelines incorporate the three basic
see him, instead of her, as the head of the family requirements earlier mandated by the Court in
and a good provider. Due to Wilson’s failure to Santos v. Court of Appeals such that
engage in any gainful employment, they would psychological incapacity must be characterized
often quarrel and as a consequence, Wilson by (a) gravity (b) juridical antecedence, and (c)
would hit and beat Brenda. He would even force incurability." The foregoing guidelines do not
her to have sex with him despite her weariness. require that a physician examine the person to be
He would also inflict physical harm on their declared psychologically incapacitated. In fact,
children for a slight mistake and was so severe in the root cause may be "medically or clinically
the way he chastised them. Thus, for several identified." What is important is the presence of
times during their cohabitation, he would leave evidence that can adequately establish the party's
their house. In 1992, they were already living psychological condition. For indeed, if the
separately. totality of evidence presented is enough to sustain
a finding of psychological incapacity, then actual

Page | 41
medical examination of the person concerned accepted her back and even considered the two
need not be resorted to. illegitimate children as his own. Thereafter, on
December 9, 1995, Sharon abandoned him to join
However, Brenda failed to prove with sufficient Ibrahim in Jordan with their two children. Since
evidence that Wilson is psychologically then, Sharon would only return to the country on
incapacitated. Although the Supreme Court is special occasions. On April 1, 1997, David filed
sufficiently convinced that Wilson failed to a petition seeking the declaration of nullity of his
provide material support to the family and may marriage on the ground of psychological
have resorted to physical abuse and incapacity, as defined in Article 36 of the Family
abandonment, the totality of his acts does not lead Code, before the Regional Trial Court of Makati
to a conclusion of psychological incapacity on his City
part. There is absolutely no showing that his
"defects" were already present at the inception of David presented Dr. Natividad A. Dayan, who
the marriage or that they are incurable. testified that she conducted a psychological
evaluation of Sharon and diagnosed her with
Verily, the behavior of Wilson can be attributed Anti-Social Personality Disorder which are
to the fact that he had lost his job and was not exhibited by her blatant display of infidelity. That
gainfully employed for a period of more than six even though Sharon had committed several
years. It was during this period that he became indiscretions, she had no capacity for remorse,
intermittently drunk, failed to give material and even bringing with her the two children of
moral support, and even left the family home. Mustafa Ibrahim to live with David. Such
Thus, his alleged psychological illness was traced immaturity and irresponsibility in handling the
only to said period and not to the inception of the marriage like her repeated acts of infidelity and
marriage. Equally important, there is no evidence abandonment of her family are indications of
showing that his condition is incurable, especially Anti-Social Personality Disorder amounting to
now that he is gainfully employed as a taxi driver. psychological incapacity to perform the essential
obligations of marriage.
In sum, this Court cannot declare the dissolution
of the marriage for failure of Brenda to show that Issue:
the alleged psychological incapacity is Whether or not Sharon is psychologically
characterized by gravity, juridical antecedence incapacitated.
and incurability; and for her failure to observe the
guidelines outlined in Molina. Ruling:
No. Sharon is not psychologically
incapacitated. In Santos vs. CA the Court ruled
David Dedel vs. Court of Appeals and Sharon that psychological incapacity should refer to no
Dedel less than a mental (not physical) incapacity that
Facts: causes a party to be truly incognitive of the basic
David B. Dedel met Sharon L. Corpuz Dedel marital covenants that concomitantly must be
while he was working in the advertising business assumed and discharged by the parties to the
of his father. The acquaintance led to courtship marriage. In this case, Sharon’s sexual infidelity
and romantic relations, culminating in the can hardly qualify as being mentally or
exchange of marital vows before the City Court psychically ill to such an extent that she could not
of Pasay on September 28, 1966. The civil have known the obligations she was assuming, or
marriage was ratified in a church wedding on knowing them, could not have given a valid
May 20, 1967. David avers that during the assumption thereof. It appears that respondent’s
marriage, Sharon turned out to be an irresponsible promiscuity did not exist prior to or at the
and immature wife and mother. She had extra- inception of the marriage. What is, in fact,
marital affairs with several men: a dentist in the disclosed by the records is a blissful marital union
Armed Forces of the Philippines; a Lieutenant in at its celebration, later affirmed in church rites,
the Presidential Security Command and later a and which produced four children.
Jordanian national. Sharon was then confirmed in
the Manila Medical City for treatment by Dr. Sharon’s sexual infidelity or perversion and
Lourdes Lapuz, a clinical psychiatrist. abandonment do not by themselves constitute
psychological incapacity within the
David alleged that despite the treatment, Sharon contemplation of the Family Code. Neither could
did not stop her illicit relationship with the her emotional immaturity and irresponsibility be
Jordanian national named Mustafa Ibrahim, equated with psychological incapacity. It must be
whom she married and with whom she had two shown that these acts are manifestations of a
children. However, when Mustafa Ibrahim left disordered personality which make respondent
the country, Sharon returned to David bringing completely unable to discharge the essential
along her two children by Ibrahim. David obligations of the marital state, not merely due to

Page | 42
her youth, immaturity, or sexual promiscuity. At not yet be presumed dead according to
best, the circumstances relied upon by David are the Civil Code;
grounds for legal separation under Article 55 of 3. that he contracts a second or subsequent
the Family Code. marriage; and
4. that the second or subsequent marriage
With regard to the dissolution of church has all the essential requisites for
marriage: validity.
The Supreme Court agrees with the appellate
court that the trial court has no jurisdiction to On the marriage of Veronico and Hilda:
dissolve the church marriage of petitioner and The marriage contract presented by the
respondent. The authority to do so is exclusively prosecution serves as positive evidence as to the
lodged with the Ecclesiastical Court of the existence of the marriage between Tenebro and
Roman Catholic Church. Villareyes, which should be given greater
credence than documents testifying merely as to
Veronico Tenebro vs. Court of Appeals absence of any record of the marriage, especially
Facts: considering that there is absolutely no
Veronico Tenebro, contracted marriage with requirement in the law that a marriage contract
private complainant Leticia Ancajas on April 10, needs to be submitted to the civil registrar as a
1990. The two were wed by Judge Alfredo B. condition precedent for the validity of a marriage.
Perez, Jr. of the City Trial Court of Lapu-lapu The mere fact that no record of a marriage exists
City. Tenebro and Ancajas lived together does not invalidate the marriage, provided all
continuously and without interruption until the requisites for its validity are present. There is no
latter part of 1991, when Tenebro informed evidence presented by the defense that would
Ancajas that he had been previously married to a indicate that the marriage between Tenebro and
certain Hilda Villareyes on November 10, 1986. Villareyes lacked any requisite for validity, apart
Tenebro showed Ancajas a photocopy of a from the self-serving testimony of the accused
marriage contract between him and Villareyes. himself. Balanced against this testimony are
Invoking this previous marriage, Veronico Villareyes’ letter to Anjacas stating that he
thereafter left the conjugal dwelling which he informed her of the existence of the valid first
shared with Ancajas, stating that he was going to marriage, and Veronico’s own conduct, which
cohabit with Villareyes. On January 25, 1993, would all tend to indicate that the first marriage
Veronico contracted yet another marriage, this had all the requisites for validity.
one with a certain Nilda Villegas, before Judge
German Lee, Jr. of the Regional Trial Court of On the Marriage of Veronico and Leticia:
Cebu City. Ancajas thereafter filed a complaint As a second or subsequent marriage contracted
for bigamy against Veronico. during the subsistence of Veronico’s valid
marriage to Villareyes, his marriage to Ancajas
During the trial, Veronico admitted having would be null and void ab initio completely
cohabited with Villareyes from 1984-1988, with regardless of his psychological capacity or
whom he sired two children. However, he denied incapacity. Since a marriage contracted during
that he and Villareyes were validly married to the subsistence of a valid marriage is
each other, claiming that no marriage ceremony automatically void, the nullity of this second
took place to solemnize their union. He alleged marriage is not per se an argument for the
that he signed a marriage contract merely to avoidance of criminal liability for bigamy.
enable her to get the allotment from his office in Pertinently, Article 349 of the Revised Penal
connection with his work as a seaman. Code criminalizes "any person who shall contract
a second or subsequent marriage before the
Issue: former marriage has been legally dissolved, or
before the absent spouse has been declared
Whether or not Veronico is psychologically
presumptively dead by means of a judgment
incapacitated and whether he is guilty of bigamy.
rendered in the proper proceedings". A plain
reading of the law, therefore, would indicate that
Ruling:
the provision penalizes the mere act of
No. Veronico is not psychologically contracting a second or a subsequent marriage
incapacitated and he is guilty of bigamy. during the subsistence of a valid marriage.

Under Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code, the Thus, as soon as the second marriage to Ancajas
elements of the crime of Bigamy are: was celebrated on April 10, 1990, during the
1. that the offender has been legally subsistence of the valid first marriage, the crime
married; of bigamy had already been consummated. To
2. that the first marriage has not been our mind, there is no cogent reason for
legally dissolved or, in case his or her distinguishing between a subsequent marriage
spouse is absent, the absent spouse could

Page | 43
that is null and void purely because it is a second
or subsequent marriage, and a subsequent In her defense Veronica insisted that (1) her 1974
marriage that is null and void on the ground of and 1975 marriages to Alocillo were null and
psychological incapacity, at least insofar as void because Alocillo was allegedly still married
criminal liability for bigamy is concerned. The to a certain Loretta Tillman at the time of the
State’s penal laws protecting the institution of celebration of their marriage; (2) her marriages to
marriage are in recognition of the sacrosanct both Alocillo and Uy were null and void for lack
character of this special contract between of a valid marriage license; and (3) the action had
spouses, and punish an individual’s deliberate prescribed, since Uy knew about her marriage to
disregard of the permanent character of the Alocillo as far back as 1978.
special bond between spouses, which Veronico
has undoubtedly done. In the meantime, the RTC of Makati City
rendered a Decision dated March 28, 2003,
Although the judicial declaration of the nullity of declaring Victoria’s 1974 and 1975 marriages to
a marriage on the ground of psychological Alocillo null and void ab initio on the ground of
incapacity retroacts to the date of the celebration Alocillo’s psychological incapacity. Said
of the marriage insofar as the vinculum between decision became final and executory on July 9,
the spouses is concerned, it is significant to note 2003. In her motion for reconsideration, Victoria
that said marriage is not without legal effects. invoked said declaration of nullity as a ground for
Among these effects is that children conceived or the reversal of her conviction.
born before the judgment of absolute nullity of
the marriage shall be considered legitimate. However, in its Resolution dated July 8, 2004, the
There is therefore a recognition written into the CA, citing Tenebro v. Court of Appeals, denied
law itself that such a marriage, although void ab reconsideration and ruled that "the subsequent
initio, may still produce legal consequences. declaration of nullity of her first marriage on the
Among these legal consequences is incurring ground of psychological incapacity, while it
criminal liability for bigamy. To hold otherwise retroacts to the date of the celebration of the
would render the State’s penal laws on bigamy marriage insofar as the vinculum between the
completely nugatory, and allow individuals to spouses is concerned, the said marriage is not
deliberately ensure that each marital contract be without legal consequences, among which is
flawed in some manner, and to thus escape the incurring criminal liability for bigamy.
consequences of contracting multiple marriages,
while beguiling throngs of hapless women with Issue:
the promise of futurity and commitment.
Whether or not the declaration of psychological
incapacity renders an acquittal of the bigamy
Victoria Jarillo vs. People charge.
Facts:
On May 24, 1974, Victoria Jarillo and Rafael Ruling:
Alocillo were married in a civil wedding No. The bigamy charge remains. The Court
ceremony. On May 4, 1975, Victoria Jarillo and cites Landicho v. Relova, which they ruled that
Rafael Alocillo again celebrated marriage in a he who contracts a second marriage before the
church wedding ceremony in San Carlos City, judicial declaration of nullity of the first marriage
Pangasinan. assumes the risk of being prosecuted for bigamy,
and in such a case the criminal case may not be
Victoria Jarillo thereafter contracted a subsequent suspended on the ground of the pendency of a
marriage with Emmanuel Ebora Santos Uy, at the civil case for declaration of nullity. The reason is
City Court of Pasay City on November 26, 1979. that, without a judicial declaration of its nullity,
On April 16, 1995, appellant and Emmanuel Uy the first marriage is presumed to be subsisting.
exchanged marital vows anew in a church
wedding in Manila. They further cite the case of Abundo vs. People
where they ruled that the outcome of the civil case
In 1999, Emmanuel Uy filed against Victoria a for annulment had no bearing upon the
civil case for annulment of marriage before the determination of innocence or guilt in the
Regional Trial Court of Manila. Thereafter, On criminal case for bigamy, because all that is
May 31, 2000, Victoria Jarillo was charged with required for the charge of bigamy to prosper is
Bigamy before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of that the first marriage be subsisting at the time the
Pasay City. was charged with bigamy before the second marriage is contracted. Thus, under the
Regional Trial Court of Pasay City. law, a marriage, even one which is void or
Parenthetically, Victoria filed against Alocillo, voidable, shall be deemed valid until declared
on October 5, 2000, before the Regional Trial otherwise in a judicial proceeding.
Court of Makati, a civil case for declaration of
nullity of their marriage.

Page | 44
For the very same reasons elucidated in the
above-quoted cases, petitioner’s conviction of the
crime of bigamy must be affirmed. The Issue:
subsequent judicial declaration of nullity of Whether or not Toshio is psychologically
petitioner’s two marriages to Alocillo cannot be incapacitated and whether the cases of Molina
considered a valid defense in the crime of and Santos fail to apply in this case.
bigamy. The moment Victoria contracted a
second marriage without the previous one having Ruling:
been judicially declared null and void, the crime
No. Toshio is not psychologically
of bigamy was already consummated because at
incapacitated. The Supreme Court ruled that the
the time of the celebration of the second marriage,
totality of evidence presented fell short of
petitioner’s marriage to Alocillo, which had not
proving that Toshio was psychologically
yet been declared null and void by a court of
incapacitated to assume his marital
competent jurisdiction, was deemed valid and
responsibilities. Toshio’s act of abandonment
subsisting. Neither would a judicial declaration of
was doubtlessly irresponsible but it was never
the nullity of Victoria’s marriage to Uy make any
alleged nor proven to be due to some kind of
difference. As held in Tenebro, since a marriage
psychological illness. After respondent testified
contracted during the subsistence of a valid
on how Toshio abandoned his family, no other
marriage is automatically void, the nullity of this
evidence was presented showing that his behavior
second marriage is not per se an argument for the
was caused by a psychological disorder.
avoidance of criminal liability for bigamy
Although, as a rule, there was no need for an
actual medical examination, it would have greatly
Republic vs. Lolita Hamano helped Lolita’s case had she presented evidence
Facts: that medically or clinically identified his illness.
On January 14, 1988, Lolita and Toshio Hamano This could have been done through an expert
were married by Judge Isauro M. Balderia of the witness. This Lolita did not do.
Municipal Trial Court of Bacoor, Cavite.
Unknown to Lolita, Toshio was psychologically We must remember that abandonment is also a
incapacitated to assume his marital ground for legal separation. There was no
responsibilities, which incapacity became showing that the case at bar was not just an
manifest only after the marriage. One month after instance of abandonment in the context of legal
their marriage, Toshio returned to Japan and separation. We cannot presume psychological
promised to return by Christmas to celebrate the defect from the mere fact that Toshio abandoned
holidays with his family. After sending money to his family immediately after the celebration of
Lolita for two months, Toshio stopped giving the marriage. As we ruled in Molina, it is not
financial support. She wrote him several times enough to prove that a spouse failed to meet his
but he never responded. Sometime in 1991, Lolita responsibility and duty as a married person; it is
learned from her friends that Toshio visited the essential that he must be shown to be incapable of
Philippines, but he did not bother to see her and doing so due to some psychological, not physical,
their child. illness. There was no proof of a natal or
supervening disabling factor in the person, an
On June 17, 1996, Lolita filed a complaint for adverse integral element in the personality
declaration of nullity of her marriage to her structure that effectively incapacitates a person
husband Toshio. The RTC ruled in favor of Lolita from accepting and complying with the
declared the marriage void due to Toshio’s obligations essential to marriage.
psychological incapacity and it is clear from the
records of the case that he failed to fulfill his On Applicability of jurisprudence to Toshio:
obligations as husband of Lolita and father to his In proving psychological incapacity, we find no
daughter. Toshio remained irresponsible and distinction between an alien spouse and a Filipino
unconcerned over the needs and welfare of his spouse. We cannot be lenient in the application of
family. Such indifference, to the mind of the the rules merely because the spouse alleged to be
Court, is a clear manifestation of insensitivity and psychologically incapacitated happens to be a
lack of respect for his wife and child which foreign national. The medical and clinical rules to
characterizes a very immature person. Certainly, determine psychological incapacity were
such behavior could be traced to respondent’s formulated on the basis of studies of human
mental incapacity and disability of entering into behavior in general. Hence, the norms used for
marital life. The CA in its decision emphasized determining psychological incapacity should
that this case could not be equated with Republic apply to any person regardless of nationality
vs. Court of Appeals and Molina and Santos vs.
Court of Appeals. In those cases, the spouses
Leonilo Antonio vs. Marie Reyes
were Filipinos while this case involved a "mixed
Facts:
marriage," the husband being a Japanese national.

Page | 45
Leonilo and Marie met in August 1989 when because a good liar can fake the results of such
Leonilo was 26 years old and Marie was 36 years test.
of age. Barely a year after their first meeting, they
got married before a minister of the Gospel at the Issue:
Manila City Hall, and through a subsequent Whether or not Marie is psychologically
church wedding5 at the Sta. Rosa de Lima Parish, incapacitated.
Bagong Ilog, Pasig, Metro Manila on 6 December
1990. Ruling:
Yes. Marie is psychologically incapacitated. The
On 8 March 1993, Leonilo filed a petition to have Supreme Court ruled that the present case
his marriage to Marie declared null and void. He sufficiently satisfies the guidelines in Molina.
anchored his petition for nullity on Article 36 of
the Family Code alleging that Marie was
On the 1st requisite:
psychologically incapacitated to comply with the
Leonilo had sufficiently overcome his burden in
essential obligations of marriage. He asserted that
proving the psychological incapacity of his
Marie’s incapacity existed at the time their
spouse. Apart from his own testimony, he
marriage was celebrated and still subsists up to
presented witnesses who corroborated his
the present.
allegations on his wife’s behavior, and
certifications from Blackgold Records and the
As manifestations of Marie’s alleged Philippine Village Hotel Pavillon which disputed
psychological incapacity, Leonilo claimed that respondent’s claims pertinent to her alleged
Marie persistently lied about herself, the people singing career. He also presented two (2) expert
around her, her occupation, income, educational witnesses from the field of psychology who
attainment and other events or things. In support testified that the aberrant behavior of Marie was
of his petition, Leonilo presented Dr. Abcede, a tantamount to psychological incapacity. In any
psychiatrist, and Dr. Lopez, a clinical event, both courts below considered Leonilo’s
psychologist, who stated, based on the tests they evidence as credible enough. Even the appellate
conducted, Marie’s persistent and constant lying court acknowledged that Marie was not totally
to Leonilo was abnormal or pathological. It honest with Leonilo.
undermined the basic relationship that should be
based on love, trust and respect. They further
On the 2nd requisite:
asserted that her extreme jealousy was also
The root cause of Marie’s psychological
pathological. It reached the point of paranoia
incapacity has been medically or clinically
since there was no actual basis for her to suspect
identified, alleged in the complaint, sufficiently
that Leonilo was having an affair with another
proven by experts, and clearly explained in the
woman. They concluded based on the foregoing
trial court’s decision. The initiatory complaint
that respondent was psychologically
alleged that respondent, from the start, had
incapacitated to perform her essential marital
exhibited unusual and abnormal behavior "of
obligations.
perennially telling lies, fabricating ridiculous
stories, and inventing personalities and
In her defense, Marie presented Dr. Reyes, a
situations," of writing letters to petitioner using
psychiatrist, to refute the allegations anent her
fictitious names, and of lying about her actual
psychological condition. Dr. Reyes testified that
occupation, income, educational attainment, and
the series of tests conducted by his assistant,
family background, among others.
together with the screening procedures and the
Comprehensive Psycho-Pathological Rating
These allegations, initially characterized in
Scale (CPRS) he himself conducted, led him to
generalities, were further linked to medical or
conclude that respondent was not psychologically
clinical causes by expert witnesses from the field
incapacitated to perform the essential marital
of psychology. Leonilo presented two (2) such
obligations. He postulated that regressive
witnesses in particular. Dr. Abcede, a psychiatrist
behavior, gross neuroticism, psychotic
who had headed the department of psychiatry of
tendencies, and poor control of impulses, which
at least two (2) major hospitals
are signs that might point to the presence of
disabling trends, were not elicited from Marie. On the 3rd requisite:
Marie’s psychological incapacity was established
to have clearly existed at the time of and even
In rebuttal, Dr. Lopez asseverated that there were
before the celebration of marriage. She fabricated
flaws in the evaluation conducted by Dr. Reyes as
friends and made up letters from fictitious
(i) he was not the one who administered and
characters well before she married Leonilo.
interpreted respondent’s psychological
Likewise, she kept him in the dark about her
evaluation, and (ii) he made use of only one
natural child’s real parentage as she only
instrument called CPRS which was not reliable
confessed when the latter had found out the truth
after their marriage.

Page | 46
 From this fact, he draws the conclusion that
th
On the 4 requisite: respondent’s condition is incurable.
The gravity of Marie’s psychological incapacity
is sufficient to prove her disability to assume the We approach this present case from utterly
essential obligations of marriage. It is practical considerations. The requirement that
immediately discernible that the parties had psychological incapacity must be shown to be
shared only a little over a year of cohabitation medically or clinically permanent or incurable is
before the exasperated Leonilo left his wife. one that necessarily cannot be divined without
Whatever such circumstance speaks of the degree expert opinion. Clearly in this case, there was no
of tolerance of Leonilo, it likewise supports the categorical averment from the expert witnesses
belief that Marie’s psychological incapacity, as that Marie’s psychological incapacity was
borne by the record, was so grave in extent that curable or incurable simply because there was no
any prolonged marital life was dubitable. legal necessity yet to elicit such a declaration and
the appropriate question was not accordingly
More disturbingly, they indicate a failure on the propounded to him. If we apply Pesca without
part of Marie to distinguish truth from fiction, or deep reflection, there would be undue prejudice
at least abide by the truth. Leonilo’s witnesses to those cases tried before Molina or Santos,
and the trial court were emphatic on Marie’s especially those presently on appellate review,
inveterate proclivity to telling lies and the where presumably the respective petitioners and
pathologic nature of her mistruths, which their expert witnesses would not have seen the
according to them, were revelatory of her need to adduce a diagnosis of incurability. It may
inability to understand and perform the essential hold in those cases, as in this case, that the
obligations of marriage. psychological incapacity of a spouse is actually
incurable, even if not pronounced as such at the
On the 5th requisite: trial court level.
Marie is evidently unable to comply with the
essential marital obligations as embraced by We stated earlier that Molina is not set in stone,
Articles 68 to 71 of the Family Code. Article 68, and that the interpretation of Article 36 relies
in particular, enjoins the spouses to live together, heavily on a case-to-case perception. It would be
observe mutual love, respect and fidelity, and insensate to reason to mandate in this case an
render mutual help and support. As noted by the expert medical or clinical diagnosis of
trial court, it is difficult to see how an inveterate incurability, since the parties would have had no
pathological liar would be able to commit to the impelling cause to present evidence to that effect
basic tenets of relationship between spouses at the time this case was tried by the RTC more
based on love, trust and respect. than ten (10) years ago. From the totality of the
evidence, we are sufficiently convinced that the
On the 6th requisite: incurability of Marie’s psychological incapacity
has been established by Leonilo. Any lingering
The Court of Appeals clearly erred when it failed
doubts are further dispelled by the fact that the
to take into consideration the fact that the
Catholic Church tribunals, which indubitably
marriage of the parties was annulled by the
consider incurability as an integral requisite of
Catholic Church. Such deliberate ignorance is in
psychological incapacity, were sufficiently
contravention of Molina, which held that
convinced that Marie was so incapacitated to
interpretations given by the National Appellate
contract marriage to the degree that annulment
Matrimonial Tribunal of the Catholic Church in
was warranted.
the Philippines, while not controlling or decisive,
should be given great respect by our courts. As
noted earlier, the Metropolitan Tribunal of the All told, we conclude that Leonilo has established
Archdiocese of Manila decreed the invalidity of his cause of action for declaration of nullity under
the marriage in question in a Conclusion dated 30 Article 36 of the Family Code.
March 1995, citing the "lack of due discretion" on
the part of respondent.90 Such decree of nullity On Liberal Application of Molina Guidelines:
was affirmed by both the National Appellate Whether or not psychological incapacity exists in
Matrimonial Tribunal, and the Roman Rota of the a given case calling for annulment of a marriage,
Vatican. depends crucially, more than in any field of the
law, on the facts of the case. Each case must be
On the 7th requisite (Is Marie Incurable) judged, not on the basis of a priori assumptions,
Leonilo points out that one month after he and his predilections or generalizations but according to
wife initially separated, he returned to her, its own facts. In regard to psychological
desiring to make their marriage work. However, incapacity as a ground for annulment of marriage,
respondent’s aberrant behavior remained it is trite to say that no case is on "all fours" with
unchanged, as she continued to lie, fabricate another case. The trial judge must take pains in
stories, and maintained her excessive jealousy. examining the factual milieu and the appellate

Page | 47
court must, as much as possible, avoid
substituting its own judgment for that of the trial
court.

The Court thus acknowledges that the definition

of psychological incapacity, as intended by the
revision committee, was not cast in intractable
specifics. Judicial understanding of
psychological incapacity may be informed by
evolving standards, taking into account the
particulars of each case, current trends in
psychological and even canonical thought, and
experience. It is under the auspices of the
deliberate ambiguity of the framers that the Court
has developed the Molina rules, which have been
consistently applied since 1997. Molina has
proven indubitably useful in providing a unitary
framework that guides courts in adjudicating
petitions for declaration of nullity under Article
36. At the same time, the Molina guidelines are
not set in stone, the clear legislative intent
mandating a case-to-case perception of each
situation, and Molina itself arising from this
evolutionary understanding of Article 36.

Page | 48
 Digna Najera vs. Eduardo Najera to comply with the essential obligations of
Facts: marriage. The root cause of Eduardo’s alleged
Digna alleged that she and Eduardo are residents psychological incapacity was not sufficiently
of Bugallon, Pangasinan, but Eduardo is proven by experts or shown to be medically or
presently living in the United States of America clinically permanent or incurable. As found by
(U.S.A). They were married on January 31, 1988 the Court of Appeals, Psychologist Cristina
by Rev. Father Isidro Palinar, Jr. at the Saint Gates' conclusion that Eduardo was
Andrew the Apostle Church at Bugallon, psychologically incapacitated was based on facts
Pangasinan. relayed to her by Digna and was not based on her
personal knowledge and evaluation of Eduardo;
Digna argues that at the time of their marriage, thus, her finding is unscientific and unreliable.2
she was already employed with the Special Moreover, the trial court correctly found that
Services Division of the Provincial Government Digna failed to prove with certainty that the
of Pangasinan, while Eduardo was jobless. He did alleged personality disorder of Eduardo was
not exert enough effort to find a job and was incurable as may be gleaned from Psychologist
dependent on her for support. Only with the help Cristina Gates' testimony
of her elder brother, who was a seaman, was
Eduardo able to land a job as a seaman in 1988 The Court points out that the evidence presented
through the Intercrew Shipping Agency. by Digna in regard to the physical violence or
However, while employed as a seaman, Eduardo grossly abusive conduct of Eduardo and his
did not give Digna sufficient financial support abandonment of her without justifiable cause for
and she had to rely on her own efforts and the help more than one year are grounds for legal
of her parents in order to live. separation only and not for annulment of
marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code.
In May 1989, when he came home from his ship
voyage, he started to quarrel with Digna and With regard to the decision of the NAMT:
falsely accused her of having an affair with In the case of Santos v. Santos the Court cited the
another man. He took to smoking marijuana and deliberations during the sessions of the Family
tried to force Digna into it. When she refused, he Code Revision Committee, which drafted the
insulted her and uttered "unprintable words" Code, to provide an insight on the import of
against her. He would go out of the house and Article 36 of the Family Code. It stated that a part
when he arrived home, he was always return of the provision is similar to the third paragraph
drunk. When Eduardo arrived home from his ship of Canon 1095 of the Code of Canon Law, which
voyage in April 1994, as had been happening reads:
every year, he quarreled with Digna. He
continued to be jealous, he arrived home drunk Canon 1095. The following are incapable of
and he smoked marijuana. contracting marriage:
1. those who lack sufficient use of reason;
On July 3, 1994, while he was quarreling with 2. those who suffer from a grave lack of
Digna, without provocation, he inflicted physical discretion of judgment concerning the
violence upon her and attempted to kill her with essential matrimonial rights and
a bolo. She was able to parry his attack with her obligations to be mutually given and
left arm, yet she sustained physical injuries on accepted; and
different parts of her body Eduardo then left the 3. those who, because of causes of a
family home, taking along all their personal psychological nature, are unable to
belongings and proceeded to live with his mother assume the essential obligations of
at Banaga, Bugallon, Pangasinan, and abandoned marriage.
Digna. She later learned later that Eduardo
jumped ship while it was anchored in Los It must be pointed out that in this case, the basis
Angeles, California, U.S.A. of the declaration of nullity of marriage by the
National Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal is not
Issue: the third paragraph of Canon 1095 which
Whether or not Eduardo is psychologically mentions causes of a psychological nature, but
incapacitated. the second paragraph of Canon 1095 which refers
to those who suffer from a grave lack of
discretion of judgment concerning essential
matrimonial rights and obligations to be mutually
Ruling: given and accepted.
No. Digna failed to prove that Eduardo is
incapacitated. The totality of the evidence Armida Perez-Ferraris vs. Brix Ferraris
submitted by Digna failed to satisfactorily prove Facts:
that Eduardo was psychologically incapacitated

Page | 49
On February 20, 2001, the Regional Trial Court
of Pasig City rendered a Decision denying the While Armida’s marriage with Brix failed and
petition for declaration of nullity of Armida’s appears to be without hope of reconciliation, the
marriage with Brix Ferraris. The trial court noted remedy however is not always to have it declared
that suffering from epilepsy does not amount to void ab initio on the ground of psychological
psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the incapacity. An unsatisfactory marriage, however,
Civil Code and the evidence on record were is not a null and void marriage. No less than the
insufficient to prove infidelity. Constitution recognizes the sanctity of marriage
and the unity of the family; it decrees marriage as
The Court of Appeals which affirmed in toto the legally "inviolable" and protects it from
judgment of the trial court. It also found that Dr. dissolution at the whim of the parties. Both the
Dayan's testimony failed to establish the family and marriage are to be "protected" by the
substance of Brix’s psychological incapacity; that state.
she failed to explain how she arrived at the
conclusion that he has a mixed personality Article 36 should not to be confused with a
disorder; that she failed to clearly demonstrate divorce law that cuts the marital bond at the time
that there was a natal or supervening disabling the causes therefor manifest themselves. Neither
factor or an adverse integral element in his it is to be equated with legal separation, in which
character that effectively incapacitated him from the grounds need not be rooted in psychological
accepting and complying with the essential incapacity but on physical violence, moral
marital obligations. pressure, moral corruption, civil interdiction,
drug addiction, habitual alcoholism, sexual
Issue: infidelity, abandonment and the like.
Whether or Armida sufficiently proved the
existence of psychological incapacity. Rosa Paras vs. Justo Paras
Facts:
Ruling: On May 21, 1964, Rosa Yap married Justo J.
No. The evidence was insufficient. The term Paras in Bindoy, Negros Oriental. Twenty-nine
"psychological incapacity" to be a ground for the (29) years thereafter, or on May 27, 1993, Rosa
nullity of marriage under Article 36 of the Family filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
Code, refers to a serious psychological illness Dumaguete City, a complaint for annulment of
afflicting a party even before the celebration of her marriage with Justo, under Article 36 of the
the marriage. It is a malady so grave and so Family Code.
permanent as to deprive one of awareness of the
duties and responsibilities of the matrimonial Justo lived the life of a bachelor. His usual routine
bond one is about to assume. As all people may was to spend time with his "barkadas" until the
have certain quirks and idiosyncrasies, or isolated wee hours of the morning. Oftentimes, he would
characteristics associated with certain personality scold her when she sent for him during lunchtime.
disorders, there is hardly any doubt that the He also failed to provide for their children’s well-
intendment of the law has been to confine the being. Sometime in 1975, their daughter Cindy
meaning of "psychological incapacity" to the Rose was afflicted with leukemia. It was her
most serious cases of personality disorders family who paid for her medication. Also, in
clearly demonstrative of an utter insensitivity or 1984, their son Raoul was electrocuted while
inability to give meaning and significance to the Justo was in their rest house with his "barkadas."
marriage. It is for this reason that the Court relies He did not heed her earlier advice to bring Raoul
heavily on psychological experts for its in the rest house as the latter has the habit of
understanding of the human personality. climbing the rooftop.
However, the root cause must be identified as a
psychological illness and its incapacitating nature To cope with the death of the children, the entire
must be fully explained, which Armida failed to family went to the United States. Her sisters
convincingly demonstrate. supported them throughout their two-year stay
there. However, after three months, Justo
The Court finds Brix’s alleged mixed personality abandoned them and left for the Philippines.
disorder, the "leaving-the-house" attitude Upon her return to the Philippines, she was
whenever they quarreled, the violent tendencies shocked to find her "Botica" and other businesses
during epileptic attacks, the sexual infidelity, the heavy in debt. She then realized Justo was a
abandonment and lack of support, and his profligate. At one time, he disposed without her
preference to spend more time with his band consent a conjugal piece of land. At other times,
mates than his family, are not rooted on some he permitted the municipal government to take
debilitating psychological condition but a mere gasoline from their gas station free of charge. She
refusal or unwillingness to assume the essential endured all of Justo’s shortcomings, but his act of
obligations of marriage. maintaining a mistress and siring an illegitimate

Page | 50
child was the last straw that prompted her to file perform the rudiments of marital obligations as
the present case. required under Article 36.

Both the RTC and the CA rendered a decision More so the Court states that jurisprudence
finding that the evidence presented by Rosa falls abounds that administrative cases against lawyers
short of the standards required by law to decree a belong to a class of their own. They are distinct
nullity of marriage. The CA likewise held that from and may proceed independently of civil and
Rosa’s inability to offer the testimony of a criminal cases. In the exercise of its disciplinary
psychologist is fatal to her case, being in violation powers, the Court merely calls upon a member of
of the tenets laid down by this Court in Molina. the Bar to account for his actuations as an officer
Thus, she failed to substantiate her allegation that of the Court with the end in view of preserving
Justo is psychologically incapacitated from the purity of the legal profession and the proper
complying with the essential obligations of and honest administration of justice by purging
marriage. the profession of members who by their
misconduct have prov[n themselves no longer
For relief, Rosa prays that her marriage with Justo worthy to be entrusted with the duties and
be annulled on the bases of the Court’s conclusive responsibilities pertaining to the office of an
factual findings in A.C. No. 5333 (Disbarment attorney.
Case); or in the alternative, remand this case to
the court a quo for reception of expert testimony One’s unfitness as a lawyer does not
in the interest of due process. automatically mean one’s unfitness as a husband
or vice versa. The yardsticks for such roles are
Issue: simply different. This is why the disposition in a
Whether or not A.C. No. 5333 has merit to disbarment case cannot be conclusive on an
declare a marriage void due to psychological action for declaration of nullity of marriage.
incapacity and if lacking in evidence, should the
case be remanded and lastly does the totality of On Remand:
evidence show that Justo is psychologically In the 2000 case of Marcos v. Marcos the Court
incapacitated. clarified that the Molina Guideline does not
require that the respondent should be examined
Ruling: by a physician or psychologist as a condition sine
No. The findings of the Court in the qua non for the declaration of the nullity of
disbarment case is insufficient to declare a marriage. What is important is "the presence of
marriage void. Even if we assume Justo’s evidence that can adequately establish the party’s
alleged infidelity, failure to support his family psychological condition."
and alleged abandonment of their family home
are true, such traits are at best indicators that he In Barcelona v. Court of Appeals, this Court
is unfit to become an ideal husband and father. categorically explained that under the New Rules,
However, by themselves, these grounds are a petition for declaration of nullity under Article
insufficient to declare the marriage void due to an 36 of the Family Code need not allege expert
incurable psychological incapacity. These opinion on the psychological incapacity or on its
grounds, we must emphasize, do not manifest that root cause. What must be alleged are the physical
he was truly incognitive of the basic marital manifestations indicative of said incapacity. The
covenants that he must assume and discharge as a Court further held that the New Rules, being
married person. While they may manifest the procedural in nature, apply to actions pending and
"gravity" of his alleged psychological incapacity, unresolved at the time of their adoption.
they do not necessarily show ‘incurability’, such
that while his acts violated the covenants of In Pesca v. Pesca the wife argued that Santos and
marriage, they do not necessarily show that such Molina should not have retroactive application,
acts show an irreparably hopeless state of the Guidelines being merely advisory and not
psychological incapacity which prevents him mandatory in nature. She submitted that the
from undertaking the basic obligations of proper application of Santos and Molina
marriage in the future. warranted only a remand of her case to the trial
court for further proceedings, not a dismissal. The
The Supreme Court notes that the CA already Court declined to remand Pesca on the premise
went as far as to presume the existence of such that the Santos and Molina Guidelines "constitute
seeming depravities in appellee’s character in our a part of the law as of the date the statute is
earlier judgment. However, as we emphasized in enacted. The ‘doctrine of stare decisis,’ ordained
our Decision, the existence of such eventualities in Article 8 of the Civil Code, expresses that
is not necessarily conclusive of an inherent judicial decisions applying or interpreting the law
incapacity on the part of appellee to discern and shall form part of the legal system of the
Philippines. The rule follows the settled legal

Page | 51
maxim – ‘legis interpretado legis vim obtinet’ obligations, not a mere refusal, neglect or
that the interpretation placed upon the written law difficulty, much less, ill will, on the part of the
by a competent court has the force of law. The errant spouse. As this Court repeatedly declares,
interpretation or construction placed by the courts Article 36 of the Family Code is not to be
establishes the contemporaneous legislative confused with a divorce law that cuts the marital
intent of the law. The latter as so interpreted and bond at the time the causes thereof manifest
construed would thus constitute a part of the law themselves. It refers to a serious psychological
as of the date the statute is enacted. illness afflicting a party even before the
celebration of the marriage. It is a malady so
On the totality of evidence: grave and so permanent as to deprive one of
By following the Molina Guidelines and those awareness of the duties and responsibilities of the
provided in Santos v. Santos, A review of the matrimonial bond one is about to assume
complaint, as well as the testimonial and
documentary evidence, shows that Rosa’s main
grounds in seeking the declaration of nullity of
her marriage with Justo are his infidelity,
profligacy which includes the falsification of her
signature in one of the loan documents, failure to
support the children, and abandonment of the
family. Both the courts below found the charges
unsubstantiated and untrue.

While this Court is convinced that the charges

hurled against Justo by Rosa, such as sexual
infidelity, falsification of her signature,
abandonment and inadequate support of children,
are true, nonetheless, there is nothing in the
records showing that they were caused by a
psychological disorder on his part. In other
words, the totality of the evidence is not sufficient
to show that Justo is psychologically
incapacitated to comply with the essential marital
obligations.

The records indicate that the marriage between

the parties had a good start, resulting in the birth
of their four (4) children. The early days of their
cohabitation were blissful and harmonious. Justo
was deeply in love with Rosa, even persuading
his mother to give her a dowry. They were able to
build a 10-room family home and acquire several
properties, thus, proving themselves to be
responsible couple. Even Rosa admitted that
Justo took care of their children when they were
young. Unfortunately, the passage of time
appeared to have taken its toll on their
relationship. The acts committed by Justo
appeared to have been the result of irreconcilable
differences between them caused by the death of
their two (2) children and financial difficulties
due to his failure to win the mayoralty election
and to sustain his law practice.

What is clear in this case is a husband who has

gone astray from the path of marriage because of
a conflicting relationship with his wife and her
family and repeated life’s setbacks. While these
do not justify his sins, they are not sufficient to
establish that he is psychologically incapacitated.
It is worthy to emphasize that Article 36
contemplates downright incapacity or inability to
take cognizance of and assume the basic marital

Page | 52
 Lester Halili vs. Chona Halili immaturity, as evidenced by the psychological
Facts: report and as testified to by him and Dr. Dayan,
Lester Benjamin S. Halili and Chona M. Santos- the same hardly constituted sufficient cause for
Halili were only 21 and 19 years of age, declaring the marriage null and void on the
respectively, when they got married on July 4, ground of psychological incapacity. It had to be
1995 at the City Hall of Manila. After the characterized by gravity, juridical antecedence
wedding, they continued to live with their and incurability.
respective parents and never lived together but
maintained their relationship nonetheless. In Republic v. CA and Molina, the Supreme
Court ruled that the psychological incapacity
A year after, the couple started bickering must be more than just a “difficulty,” a “refusal”
constantly. Lester stopped seeing Chona and or a “neglect” in the performance of some marital
went on dates with other women. Thereafter, obligations. A mere showing of irreconcilable
Lester filed in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of differences and conflicting personalities does not
Pasig City a petition for the declaration of nullity equate to psychological in- capacity.
of the marriage on the ground that he was
psychologically incapacitated to fulfill his Proof of a natal or supervening disabling factor,
essential marital obligations to Chona. He an adverse integral element in Lester’s
claimed that he thought that the wedding personality structure that effectively
performed at the City Hall of Manila was a “joke” incapacitated him from complying with his
and that the marriage certificate he signed was essential marital obligations, had to be shown. In
“fake.” He also pointed out that he and Chona this, Lester failed. The evidence adduced by him
never lived together as husband and wife and merely showed that he and Chona had difficulty
never consummated the marriage. getting along with each other as they constantly
fought over petty things.However, there was no
As evidence, Lester provided his own testimony showing of the gravity and incurability of the
and a psychological report written by Dr. psychological disorder supposedly inherent in
Natividad A. Dayan, Ph. D., a clinical Lester, except for the mere statement or
psychologist, who also testified on the matters conclusion to that effect in the psychological
contained therein. According to Dr. Dayan, report. The report, and even the testimonies given
Lester was suffering from a personality disorder by Lester and his expert witness at the trial,
characterized as “a mixed personality disorder dismally failed to prove that petitioner’s alleged
from self-defeating personality to dependent disorder was grave enough and incurable to bring
personality disorder brought about by a about his disability to assume the essential
dysfunctional family background. Because of obligations of marriage.
this, Lester grew up without self-confidence and
very immature. He never really understood what On the argument that both parties were not
it meant to have a family, much less to be a living together:
husband. This, however, fails to move us considering that
there may be instances when, for economic and
According to Dr. Dayan, this was very much practical reasons, a married couple might have to
evident in Lester’s impulsive decision to get live separately though the
married despite having gone steady with Chona marital bond between them remains. In fact, both
for only six months. Moreover, she added that parties were college students when they got
both Lester and Chona were psychologically married and were obviously without the financial
incapacitated to perform their essential marital means to live on their own. Thus, their not having
obligations as they never lived together as lived together under one roof did not necessarily
husband and wife. They also never consummated give rise to the conclusion that one of
their marriage. Furthermore, they constantly them was psychologically incapacitated to
fought. Their separation was inevitable as they comply with the essential marital obligations.
were both immature. Dr. Dayan then abruptly
concluded that petitioner’s psychological
incapacity was grave and incurable.

Issue:
Whether or not Lester is psychologically
incapacitated.

Ruling:
No. Lester failed to present sufficient evidence
that would warrant the marriage void. In this
case, although Lester was able to establish his

Page | 53
In the motion for reconsideration: made him relent. Thus, they left Manila and
The Court grants the motion for reconsideration. sailed to Cebu that month; he, providing their
In the recent case of Te v. Yu-Te and the Republic travel money and she, purchasing the boat ticket.
of the Philippines, this Court reiterated that courts However, Edward’s ₱80,000.00 lasted for only a
should interpret the provision on psychological month. Their pension house accommodation and
incapacity (as a ground for the declaration of daily sustenance fast depleted it and they could
nullity of a marriage) on a case-to-case basis not find a job.
guided by experience, findings of experts and
researchers in psychological disciplines and by In April 1996, they decided to go back to Manila.
decisions of church tribunals. Rowena proceeded to her uncle’s house and
Edward to his parents’ home as his family was
In this case, the testimony of Lester’s expert abroad. During this period Rowena kept on
witness revealed that he was suffering from telephoning him, threatening him that she would
dependent personality disorder. In Te, this Court commit suicide. Eventually Edward agreed to
defined dependent personality disorder as a stay with Rowena at her uncle’s place.
pattern of dependent and submissive behavior.
Such individuals usually lack self-esteem and On April 23, 1996, Rowena’s uncle brought the
frequently belittle their capabilities; they fear two to a court to get married. He was then 25
criticism and are easily hurt by others’ comments. years old, and she, 20.6 The two then continued
At times they actually bring about dominance by to stay at her uncle’s place where Edward was
others through a quest for overprotection. treated like a prisoner such that he was not
allowed to go out unaccompanied. Her uncle also
Dependent personality disorder usually begins in showed Edward his guns and warned the latter
early adulthood. Individuals who have this not to leave Rowena. At one point, Edward was
disorder may be unable to make everyday able to call home and talk to his brother who
decisions without advice or reassurance from suggested that they should stay at their parents’
others, may allow others to make most of their home and live with them. Edward relayed this to
important decisions (such as where to live), tend Rowena who, however, suggested that he should
to agree with people even when they believe they get his inheritance so that they could live on their
are wrong, have difficulty starting projects or own. Edward talked to his father about this, but
doing things on their own, volunteer to do things the patriarch got mad, told Edward that he would
that are demeaning in order to get approval from be disinherited, and insisted that Edward must go
other people, feel uncomfortable or helpless home.8
when alone and are often preoccupied with fears
of being abandoned. After a month, Edward escaped from the house of
Rowena’s uncle, and stayed with his parents. His
This Court, in the same Te case, recognized that family then hid him from Rowena and her family
individuals with diagnosable personality whenever they telephoned to ask for him. on
disorders usually have long-term concerns, and January 18, 2000, Edward filed a petition before
thus therapy may be long-term. Particularly, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City,
personality disorders are “long-standing, for the annulment of his marriage to Rowena on
inflexible ways of behaving that are not so much the basis of the latter’s psychological incapacity.
severe mental disorders as dysfunctional styles of
living. These disorders affect all areas of Upon inspection, the clinical psychologist who
functioning and, beginning in childhood or examined Edward found that both parties were
adolescence, create problems for those who actually psychologically incapacitated.
display them and for others.” From the foregoing,
it has been shown that Lester is indeed suffering
from psychological incapacity that effectively
renders him unable to perform the essential Tests Administered:
obligations of marriage. Accordingly, the
▪ Revised Beta Examination
marriage between Lester and Chona is declared
▪ Bender Visual Motor Gestalt Test
null and void.
▪ Draw A Person Test
▪ Rorschach Psychodiagnostic Test
▪ Sach’s Sentence Completion Test
▪ MMPI
Edward Ngo Te vs. Rowena Yu Te
Facts: Issue:
In March 1996, or around three months after their Whether or not the marriage between the parties
first meeting, Rowena asked Edward that they are void due to psychological incapacity.
elope. At first, he refused, bickering that he was
young and jobless. Her persistence, however, Ruling:

Page | 54
Yes. The marriage is void ab initio. In the case finding takes into account her disregard for the
at bench, the psychological assessment, which we rights of others, her abuse, mistreatment and
consider as adequate, produced the findings that control of others without remorse, her tendency
both parties are afflicted with personality to blame others, and her intolerance of the
disorders. Dependent personality disorder for conventional behavioral limitations imposed by
Edward, and narcissistic and antisocial society. Moreover, as shown in this case, Rowena
personality disorder for Rowena. is impulsive and domineering; she had no qualms
in manipulating Edward with her threats of
Dependent personality disorder usually begins in blackmail and of committing suicide.
early adulthood. Individuals who have this
disorder may be unable to make everyday Both parties being afflicted with grave, severe
decisions without advice or reassurance from and incurable psychological incapacity, the
others, may allow others to make most of their precipitous marriage which they contracted on
important decisions (such as where to live), tend April 23, 1996 is thus, declared null and void.
to agree with people even when they believe they
are wrong, have difficulty starting projects or On the liberal application of the guidelines.
doing things on their own, volunteer to do things Predictably, however, in resolving subsequent
that are demeaning in order to get approval from cases, the Court has applied the aforesaid
other people, feel uncomfortable or helpless standards, without too much regard for the law’s
when alone and are often preoccupied with fears clear intention that each case is to be treated
of being abandoned.65 and antisocial personality differently, as "courts should interpret the
disorder described, as follows— provision on a case-to-case basis; guided by
experience, the findings of experts and
Characteristics include a consistent pattern of researchers in psychological disciplines, and by
behavior that is intolerant of the conventional decisions of church tribunals."
behavioral limitations imposed by a society, an
inability to sustain a job over a period of years, In hindsight, it may have been inappropriate for
disregard for the rights of others (either through the Court to impose a rigid set of rules, as the one
exploitiveness or criminal behavior), frequent in Molina, in resolving all cases of psychological
physical fights and, quite commonly, child or incapacity. Understandably, the Court was then
spouse abuse without remorse and a tendency to alarmed by the deluge of petitions for the
blame others. There is often a façade of charm dissolution of marital bonds, and was sensitive to
and even sophistication that masks disregard, the OSG’s exaggeration of Article 36 as the "most
lack of remorse for mistreatment of others and the liberal divorce procedure in the world." The
need to control others. unintended consequences of Molina, however,
has taken its toll on people who have to live with
Indeed, Edward, who is afflicted with dependent deviant behavior, moral insanity and sociopathic
personality disorder, cannot assume the essential personality anomaly, which, like termites,
marital obligations of living together, observing consume little by little the very foundation of
love, respect and fidelity and rendering help and their families, our basic social institutions. Far
support, for he is unable to make everyday from what was intended by the Court, Molina has
decisions without advice from others, allows become a strait-jacket, forcing all sizes to fit into
others to make most of his important decisions and be bound by it. Wittingly or unwittingly, the
(such as where to live), tends to agree with people Court, in conveniently applying Molina, has
even when he believes they are wrong, has allowed diagnosed sociopaths, schizophrenics,
difficulty doing things on his own, volunteers to nymphomaniacs, narcissists and the like, to
do things that are demeaning in order to get continuously debase and pervert the sanctity of
approval from other people, feels uncomfortable marriage. Ironically, the Roman Rota has
or helpless when alone and is often preoccupied annulled marriages on account of the personality
with fears of being abandoned. disorders of the said individuals.

As clearly shown in this case, Edward followed In dissolving marital bonds on account of either
everything dictated to him by the persons around party’s psychological incapacity, the Court is not
him. He is insecure, weak and gullible, has no demolishing the foundation of families, but it is
sense of his identity as a person, has no cohesive actually protecting the sanctity of marriage,
self to speak of, and has no goals and clear because it refuses to allow a person afflicted with
direction in life. a psychological disorder, who cannot comply
with or assume the essential marital obligations,
Although on a different plane, the same may also from remaining in that sacred bond. It may be
be said of Rowena. Her being afflicted with stressed that the infliction of physical violence,
antisocial personality disorder makes her unable constitutional indolence or laziness, drug
to assume the essential marital obligations. This dependence or addiction, and psychosexual

Page | 55
anomaly are manifestations of a sociopathic gambling and physical abuse of Carmen are clear
personality anomaly. Let it be noted that in indications that petitioner suffers from a
Article 36, there is no marriage to speak of in the personality disorder.
first place, as the same is void from the very
beginning. To indulge in imagery, the declaration The CA reversed the ruling of the RTC and the
of nullity under Article 36 will simply provide a evidence presented by Carmen is insufficient in
decent burial to a stillborn marriage. accordance to the rules and guidelines presented
by the Court in the cases of Santos vs. CA and
Benjamin Ting vs. Carmen Velez-Ting Republic vs. CA and Molina.
Facts:
Benjamin Ting (Benjamin) and Carmen Velez- Carmen filed a motion for reconsideration,
Ting (Carmen) first met in 1972 while they were arguing that the Molina guidelines should not be
classmates in medical school.5 They fell in love, applied to this case since the Molina decision was
and they were wed on July 26, 1975 in Cebu City. promulgated only on February 13, 1997, or more
than five years after she had filed her petition with
On October 21, 1993, after being married for the RTC.42 She claimed that the Molina ruling
more than 18 years to Benjamin. Carmen filed a could not be made to apply retroactively, as it
verified petition before the RTC of Cebu City would run counter to the principle of stare decisis.
praying for the declaration of nullity of their
marriage based on Article 36 of the Family Code. Issue:
She claimed that Benjamin suffered from Whether or not the marriage is void due to
psychological incapacity even at the time of the Benjamin’s psychological incapacity.
celebration of their marriage, which, however,
only became manifest thereafter. Ruling:
No. Carmen failed to present with sufficient
evidence that Benjamin is psychologically
incapacitated. The intendment of the law has
been to confine the application of Article 36 to
In sum, Carmen's allegations of Benjamin's the most serious cases of personality disorders
psychological incapacity consisted of the clearly demonstrative of an utter insensitivity or
following manifestations: inability to give meaning and significance to the
marriage. The psychological illness that must
1. Benjamin's alcoholism, which adversely have afflicted a party at the inception of the
affected his family relationship and his marriage should be a malady so grave and
profession; permanent as to deprive one of awareness of the
duties and responsibilities of the matrimonial
2. Benjamin's violent nature brought about bond he or she is about to assume.
by his excessive and regular drinking;
In this case, Carmen failed to prove that
3. His compulsive gambling habit, as a Benjamin’s "defects" were present at the time of
result of which Benjamin found it the celebration of their marriage. She merely
necessary to sell the family car twice and cited that prior to their marriage, she already
the property he inherited from his father knew that Benjamin would occasionally drink
in order to pay off his debts, because he and gamble with his friends; but such statement,
no longer had money to pay the same; by itself, is insufficient to prove any pre-existing
and psychological defect on the part of her husband.
Neither did the evidence adduced prove such
4. Benjamin's irresponsibility and "defects" to be incurable.
immaturity as shown by his failure and
refusal to give regular financial support The evaluation of the two psychiatrists should
to his family. have been the decisive evidence in determining
whether to declare the marriage between the
As evidence, Carmen presented Susana parties null and void. Sadly, however, we are not
Wasawas, who served as nanny to the spouses' convinced that the opinions provided by these
children from 1987 to 1992.29 Wasawas stated experts strengthened Benjamin’s allegation of
that she personally witnessed instances when psychological incapacity.
Benjamin maltreated Carmen even in front of
their children. She also presented Dr. Pureza’s. Lest it be misunderstood, the Court is not
evaluation of Benjamin which was limited to the condoning to Benjamin’s drinking and gambling
transcript of stenographic notes taken during problems, or his violent outbursts against his
Benjamin's deposition. Dr. Pureza concluded that wife. There is no valid excuse to justify such a
Benjamin's compulsive drinking, compulsive behavior. Unfortunately, this court finds

Page | 56
Carmen’s testimony, as well as the totality of Republic vs. Romero II
evidence presented by the respondent, to be too
inadequate to declare him psychologically unfit Matudan vs. Republic
pursuant to Article 36.
Castillo vs. Republic and Impas
On Abandonment of the Molina guidelines:
No. They did not abandon the Molina Ruling. Del Rosario vs. Del Rosario
The Supreme Court ruled that far from
abandoning Molina, we simply suggested the De La Fuente vs. De La Fuente
relaxation of the stringent requirements set forth
therein, cognizant of the explanation given by the
Bakunawa III vs. Bakunawa
Committee on the Revision of the Rules on the
rationale of the Rule on Declaration of Absolute
Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of Singson vs. Singson
Voidable Marriages (A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC)
To require the petitioner to allege in the petition Republic vs. Tionglico
the particular root cause of the psychological
incapacity and to attach thereto the verified Dan vs. Dan
written report of an accredited psychologist or
psychiatrist have proved to be too expensive for Republic vs. Javier
the parties. They adversely affect access to justice
o poor litigants. It is also a fact that there are Republic vs. Liberato Mola Cruz
provinces where these experts are not available.
Thus, the Committee deemed it necessary to relax Roberto Domingo vs. CA and Delia Soledad
this stringent requirement enunciated in the Facts:
Molina Case. The need for the examination of a
On May 29, 1991, private respondent Delia
party or parties by a psychiatrist or clinical
Soledad A. Domingo filed a petition before the
psychologist and the presentation of psychiatric
Regional Trial Court of Pasig entitled
experts shall now be determined by the court
"Declaration of Nullity of Marriage and
during the pre-trial conference.
Separation of Property" against Roberto
Domingo. The parties were married on
But where, as in this case, the parties had the full November 29, 1976 at the YMCA Youth Center
opportunity to present professional and expert Bldg.
opinions of psychiatrists tracing the root cause,
gravity and incurability of a party's alleged
Unknown to Delia, Roberto had a previous
psychological incapacity, then such expert
marriage with one Emerlina dela Paz on April 25,
opinion should be presented and, accordingly, be
1969 which marriage is valid and still existing,
weighed by the court in deciding whether to grant
she only came to know of the prior marriage only
a petition for nullity of marriage.
sometime in 1983 when Emerlina dela Paz sued
them for bigamy.
To be forthright, Carmen’s argument that the
doctrinal guidelines prescribed in Santos and
Out of her personal earnings, Delia purchased
Molina should not be applied retroactively for
real and personal properties with a total amount
being contrary to the principle of stare decisis is
of approximately P350,000.00, which are under
no longer new. The same argument was also
the possession and administration of Roberto.
raised but was struck down in Pesca v. Pesca,and
Sometime in June 1989, while on her one-month
again in Antonio v. Reyes. In these cases, we
vacation, she discovered that Roberto was
explained that the interpretation or construction
cohabiting with another woman; she further
of a law by courts constitutes a part of the law as
discovered that he had been disposing of some of
of the date the statute is enacted. It is only when
her properties without her knowledge or consent.
a prior ruling of this Court is overruled, and a
different view is adopted, that the new doctrine
may have to be applied prospectively in favor of Roberto, filed a Motion to Dismiss on the ground
parties who have relied on the old doctrine and that the petition stated no cause of action. The
have acted in good faith, in accordance therewith marriage being void ab initio, the petition for the
under the familiar rule of "lex prospicit, non declaration of its nullity is, therefore, superfluous
respicit." and unnecessary. It added that Delia has no
property which is in his possession.
Azcueta vs. Republic
The RTC ruled that although the second marriage
can be presumed to be void ab initio as it was
Kalaw vs. Fernandez
celebrated while the first marriage was still

Page | 57
subsisting, still there is need for judicial marriage which remains subsisting desires to
declaration of its nullity. enter into another marriage which is legally
unassailable, he is required by law to prove that
The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition for the previous one was an absolute nullity. But this
reconsideration of Roberto. It explained that the he may do on the basis solely of a final judgment
case of Yap v. CA and that of Consuegra v. GSIS declaring such previous marriage void.
relied upon by the lower court do not have
relevance in the case at bar, there being no Thus, in Robert’s position that Delia’s failure to
identity of facts because these cases dealt with the state in the petition that the same is filed to enable
successional rights of the second wife while the her to remarry will result in the dismissal of
instant case prays for separation of property Declaration of nullity of marriage and Separation
corollary with the declaration of nullity of of property case is untenable. His
marriage. misconstruction of Art. 40 resulting from the
misplaced emphasis on the term "solely" was in
It observed that the separation and subsequent fact anticipated by the members of the
distribution of the properties acquired during the Committee.
union can be had only upon proper determination
of the status of the marital relationship between Based on the foregoing provisions, Delia’s
said parties, whether or not the validity of the first ultimate prayer for separation of property will
marriage is denied by Roberto. Furthermore, in simply be one of the necessary consequences of
order to avoid duplication and multiplicity of the judicial declaration of absolute nullity of their
suits, the declaration of nullity of marriage may marriage. Thus, Robert’s suggestion that in order
be invoked in this proceeding together with the for their properties to be separated, an ordinary
partition and distribution of the properties civil action has to be instituted for that purpose is
involved. Citing Articles 48, 50 and 52 of the baseless. The Family Code has clearly provided
Family Code, it held that Delia’s prayer for the effects of the declaration of nullity of
declaration of absolute nullity of their marriage marriage, one of which is the separation of
may be raised together with other incidents of property according to the regime of property
their marriage such as the separation of their relations governing them. It stands to reason that
properties. Lastly, it noted that since the Court the lower court before whom the issue of nullity
has jurisdiction, the alleged error in refusing to of a first marriage is brought is likewise clothed
grant the motion to dismiss is merely one of law with jurisdiction to decide the incidental
for which the remedy ordinarily would have been questions regarding the couple's properties.
to file an answer, proceed with the trial and in Accordingly, the respondent court committed no
case of an adverse decision, reiterate the issue on reversible error in finding that the lower court
appeal. The motion for reconsideration was committed no grave abuse of discretion in
subsequently denied for lack of merit. denying Robert’s motion to dismiss.

Issue: Lupo Atienza vs. Fransisco Brillantes

Whether or not a declaration of nullity of Facts:
marriage is required for the separation of property This is a complaint by Lupo A. Atienza for Gross
between Roberto and Delia. Immorality and Appearance of Impropriety
against Judge Francisco Brillantes, Jr. The
Ruling: complainant alleges that Lupo has two children
Yes. The declaration of nullity of marriage is with Yolanda De Castro, who are living together
still required. The Supreme Court ruled that at No. 34 Galaxy Street, Bel-Air Subdivision,
undoubtedly, one can conceive of other instances Makati, Metro Manila. He stays in said house,
where a party might well invoke the absolute which he purchased in 1987, whenever he is in
nullity of a previous marriage for purposes other Manila.
than remarriage, such as in case of an action for
liquidation, partition, distribution and separation In December 1991, upon opening the door to his
of property between the erstwhile spouses, as bedroom, Lupo saw Fransisco sleeping on his
well as an action for the custody and support of bed. Upon inquiry, he was told by the houseboy
their common children and the delivery of the that Fransisco had been cohabiting with De
latters’ presumptive legitimes. In such cases, Castro.
evidence needs must be adduced, testimonial or Thereafter, Fransisco prevented Lupo from
documentary, to prove the existence of grounds visiting his children and even alienated the
rendering such a previous marriage an absolute affection of his children for him. Hence this
nullity. These need not be limited solely to an complaint.
earlier final judgment of a court declaring such
previous marriage void. Hence, in the instance Lupo claims that Fransisco is married to one
where a party who has previously contracted a Zenaida Ongkiko with whom he has five

Page | 58
children, as appearing in his 1986 and 1991 sworn ceremonies with Ongkiko, he was already a
statements of assets and liabilities. Fransisco in lawyer. Yet, he never secured any marriage
his defense, denies having been married to license. Any law student would know that a
Ongkiko, although he admits having five children marriage license is necessary before one can get
with her. He alleges that while he and Ongkiko married. He was given an opportunity to correct
went through a marriage ceremony before a the flaw in his first marriage when he and
Nueva Ecija town mayor on April 25, 1965, the Ongkiko were married for the second time. His
same was not a valid marriage for lack of a failure to secure a marriage license on these two
marriage license. Upon the request of the parents occasions betrays his sinister motives and bad
of Ongkiko, he went through another marriage faith.
ceremony with her in Manila on June 5, 1965.
Again, neither party applied for a marriage Renato Castillo vs. Lea Castillo
license. Ongkiko abandoned respondent 19 years Facts:
ago, leaving their children to his care and custody On 25 May 1972, respondent Lea Castillo (Lea)
as a single parent. married Benjamin Bautista (Bautista). On 6
January 1979, Lea married Renato Castillo
Fransisco claims that when he married De Castro (Renato). On 28 May 2001, Renato filed before
in civil rites in Los Angeles, California on the RTC a Petition for Declaration of Nullity of
December 4, 1991, he believed, in all good faith Marriage, praying that his marriage to Lea be
and for all legal intents and purposes, that he was declared void due to her subsisting marriage to
single because his first marriage was solemnized Bautista and her psychological incapacity under
without a license. Fransisco further argues argues Article 36 of the Family Code.
that the provision of Article 40 of the Family
Code does not apply to him considering that his Lea opposed the Petition, and contended among
first marriage took place in 1965 and was others that her marriage to Bautista was null and
governed by the Civil Code of the Philippines; void as they had not secured any license therefor,
while the second marriage took place in 1991 and and neither of them was a member of the
governed by the Family Code. denomination to which the solemnizing officer
belonged. On 3 January 2002, Lea filed an action
Issue: to declare her first marriage to Baustista void. On
Whether or not the requirement of judicial 22 January 2003, the Regional Trial Court of
declaration of nullity of marriage applies to Parañaque City, rendered its Decision declaring
Fransisco and Ongkiko’s marriage? that Lea's first marriage to Bautista was indeed
null and void ab initio. Thereafter, the same court
Ruling: issued a Certificate of Finality saying that the
Yes. The requirement under Article 40 still Decision dated 22 January 2003 had become final
applies. The Supreme Court ruled that Article 40 and executory.
is applicable to remarriages entered into after the
effectivity of the Family Code on August 3, 1988 On 12 August 2004, Lea filed a Demurrer to
regardless of the date of the first marriage. Evidence claiming that the proof adduced by
Specifically because under Article 256 of the Renato was insufficient to warrant a declaration
Family Code, said Article is given "retroactive of nullity of their marriage on the ground that it
effect insofar as it does not prejudice or impair was bigamous. In his Opposition, Renato
vested or acquired rights in accordance with the countered that whether or not the first marriage of
Civil Code or other laws." This is particularly true respondent was valid, and regardless of the fact
with Article 40, which is a rule of procedure. that she had belatedly managed to obtain a
Fransisco has not shown any vested right that was judicial declaration of nullity, she still could not
impaired by the application of Article 40 to his deny that at the time she entered into marriage
case. with him, her previous marriage was valid and
subsisting.
The fact that procedural statutes may somehow
affect the litigants' rights may not preclude their The RTC had granted the Petition for Declaration
retroactive application to pending actions. The of Nullity of Marriage between the parties on the
retroactive application of procedural laws is not ground that Lea had a previous valid marriage
violative of any right of a person who may feel before she married Renato. The CA believes on
that he is adversely affected. The reason is that as the other hand, that Lea was not prevented from
a general rule no vested right may attach to, nor contracting a second marriage if the first one was
arise from, procedural laws. an absolutely nullity, and for this purpose she did
not have to await a final decree of nullity of the
Fransisco passed the Bar examinations in 1962 first marriage.
and was admitted to the practice of law in 1963.
At the time he went through the two marriage Issue:

Page | 59
Whether or not Renato and Lea’s marriage is void This doctrine was reiterated in Aragon (1957),
due to the lack of a declaration of nullity of which involved substantially the same factual
marriage on Lea and Bautista’s marriage. antecedents. In Odayat (1977), citing Mendoza
and Aragon, the Court likewise ruled that no
Ruling: judicial decree was necessary to establish the
No. The marriage between Renato and Lea is invalidity of void marriages under Article 80 of
valid. The Supreme Court ruled that the validity the Civil Code.
of a marriage and all its incidents must be
determined in accordance with the law in effect It must be emphasized that the enactment of the
at the time of its celebration. In this case, the law Family Code rendered the rulings in Odayat,
in force at the time Lea contracted both marriages Mendoza, and Aragon inapplicable to marriages
was the Civil Code. celebrated after 3 August 1988. A judicial
declaration of absolute nullity of marriage is now
Under the Civil Code, a void marriage differs expressly required where the nullity of a previous
from a voidable marriage in the following ways: marriage is invoked for purposes of contracting a
1. a void marriage is nonexistent - i.e., there second marriage.
was no marriage from the beginning -
while in a voidable marriage, the As earlier explained, the rule in Odayat,
marriage is valid until annulled by a Mendoza, and Aragon is applicable to this case.
competent court; The Court thus concludes that the subsequent
marriage of Lea to Renato is valid in view of the
2. a void marriage cannot be ratified, while invalidity of her first marriage to Bautista
a voidable marriage can be ratified by because of the absence of a marriage license. That
cohabitation; there was no judicial declaration that the first
marriage was void ab initio before the second
3. being nonexistent, a void marriage can marriage was contracted is immaterial as this is
be collaterally attacked, while a voidable not a requirement under the Civil Code.
marriage cannot be collaterally attacked;

4. in a void marriage, there is no conjugal

partnership and the offspring are natural
children by legal fiction, while in Republic vs. Gregorio Nolasco
voidable marriage there is conjugal Facts:
partnership and the children conceived Nolasco was a seaman and that he had first met
before the decree of annulment are Janet Monica Parker, a British subject, in a bar in
considered legitimate; and England during one of his ship's port calls. From
that chance meeting onwards, Janet Monica
5. "in a void marriage no judicial decree to Parker lived with Nolasco on his ship for six (6)
establish the invalidity is necessary," months until they returned to Nolasco’s
while in a voidable marriage there must hometown of San Jose, Antique on 19 November
be a judicial decree. 1980 after his seaman's contract expired. On 15
January 1982, Nolasco married Janet Monica
Emphasizing the fifth difference, this Court has Parker in San Jose, Antique, in Catholic rites
held in the cases of People v. Mendoza, People v. officiated by Fr. Henry van Tilborg in the
Aragon, and Odayat v. Amante, that the Civil Cathedral of San Jose.
Code contains no express provision on the
necessity of a judicial declaration of nullity of a Nolasco further testified that after the marriage
void marriage. celebration, he obtained another employment
contract as a seaman and left his wife with his
In Mendoza (1954), appellant contracted three parents in San Jose, Antique. Sometime in
marriages in 1936, 1941, and 1949. The second January 1983, while working overseas, he
marriage was contracted in the belief that the first received a letter from his mother informing him
wife was already dead, while the third marriage that Janet Monica had given birth to his son. The
was contracted after the death of the second wife. same letter informed him that Janet Monica had
The Court ruled that the first marriage was left Antique. Nolasco claimed he then
deemed valid until annulled, which made the immediately asked permission to leave his ship to
second marriage null and void for being return home. He arrived in Antique in November
bigamous. Thus, the third marriage was valid, as 1983. Nolasco further testified that his efforts to
the second marriage was void from its look for her himself whenever his ship docked in
performance, hence, nonexistent without the need England proved fruitless. He also stated that all
of a judicial decree declaring it to be so. the letters he had sent to his missing spouse at No.
38 Ravena Road, Allerton, Liverpool, England,

Page | 60
the address of the bar where he and Janet Monica authorities or of the British Embassy, he secured
first met, were all returned to him. He also another seaman's contract and went to London, a
claimed that he inquired from among friends but vast city of many millions of inhabitants, to look
they too had no news of Janet Monica. for her there.

On 5 August 1988, Nolasco filed before the Nolasco also showed that he confused London for
Regional Trial Court of Antique, a petition for the Liverpool and this casts doubt on his supposed
declaration of presumptive death of his wife Janet efforts to locate his wife in England. The Court
Monica Parker, invoking Article 41 of the Family cannot consider that walking into a major city like
Code. The petition prayed that Parker be declared Liverpool or London with a simple hope of
presumptively dead or, in the alternative, that the somehow bumping into one particular person
marriage be declared null and void. there which is in effect what Nolasco says he did
can be regarded as a reasonably diligent search.
The Republic of the Philippines opposed the
petition through the Provincial Prosecutor of The Court also views Nolasco’s claim that Janet
Antique who had been deputized to assist the Monica declined to give any information as to her
Solicitor-General in the instant case. The personal background even after she had married
Republic argued, first, that Nolasco did not him too convenient an excuse to justify his failure
possess a "well-founded belief that the absent to locate her. The same can be said of the loss of
spouse was already dead;" and second, Nolasco's the alleged letters Nolasco had sent to his wife
attempt to have his marriage annulled in the same which he claims were all returned to him. Nolasco
proceeding was a "cunning attempt" to said he had lost these returned letters, under
circumvent the law on marriage. unspecified circumstances. Neither can this Court
give much credence to respondent's bare assertion
that he had inquired from their friends of her
Issue: whereabouts, considering that respondent did not
Whether or not Nolasco had well founded belief identify those friends in his testimony.
that Parker is dead.
Antonia Calisterio vs. Marietta Calisterio
Ruling: Facts:
No. Nolasco did not have well founded belief On 24 April 1992, Teodorico Calisterio died
that Parker is dead. As pointed out by the intestate, leaving several parcels of land with an
Solicitor-General, there are four (4) requisites for estimated value of P604,750.00. Teodorico was
the declaration of presumptive death under survived by his wife, Marietta Calisterio.
Article 41 of the Family Code: Teodorico was the second husband of Marietta
who had previously been married to James
1. That the absent spouse has been missing William Bounds on 13 January 1946 at Caloocan
for four consecutive years, or two City. James Bounds disappeared without a trace
consecutive years if the disappearance on 11 February 1947. Teodorico and Marietta
occurred where there is danger of death were married eleven years later, or on 08 May
under the circumstances laid down in 1958, without Marietta having priorly secured a
Article 391, Civil Code; court declaration that James was presumptively
dead.
2. That the present spouse wishes to
remarry; On 09 October 1992, Antonia Armas y Calisterio,
a surviving sister of Teodorico, filed with the
3. That the present spouse has a well- Regional Trial Court ("RTC") of Quezon City, a
founded belief that the absentee is dead; petition claiming to be inter alia, the sole
and surviving heir of Teodorico Calisterio, arguing
that the marriage between the latter and Marietta
4. That the present spouse files a summary Espinosa Calisterio is bigamous and thereby null
proceeding for the declaration of and void.
presumptive death of the absentee.
Marietta opposed the petition. Marietta stated that
In the case at bar, the Court considers that the her first marriage with James Bounds had been
investigation allegedly conducted by Nolasco in dissolved due to the latter's absence, his
his attempt to ascertain Janet Monica Parker's whereabouts being unknown, for more than
whereabouts is too sketchy to form the basis of a eleven years before she contracted her second
reasonable or well-founded belief that she was marriage with Teodorico. Contending to be the
already dead. When he arrived in San Jose, surviving spouse of Teodorico, she sought
Antique after learning of Janet Monica's priority in the administration of the estate of the
departure, instead of seeking the help of local decedent.

Page | 61
 competent court." It follows that the burden of
On 05 February 1993, the trial court issued an proof would be, in these cases, on the party
order appointing jointly Sinfroniano C. Armas, assailing the second marriage.
Jr., and respondent Marietta administrator and
administratrix, respectively, of the intestate estate In the case at bar, it remained undisputed that
of Teodorico. respondent Marietta's first husband, James
William Bounds, had been absent or had
Issue: disappeared for more than eleven years before she
Whether or not the marriage between Teodorico entered into a second marriage in 1958 with the
and Marietta is valid. deceased Teodorico Calisterio. This second
marriage, having been contracted during the
regime of the Civil Code, should thus be deemed
valid notwithstanding the absence of a judicial
declaration of presumptive death of James
Ruling:
Bounds.
Yes. The marriage is valid. The marriage
between the deceased Teodorico and Marietta
was solemnized on 08 May 1958. Verily, the On dissolution of property:
applicable specific provision in the instant The conjugal property of Teodorico and Marietta,
controversy is Article 83 of the New Civil Code no evidence having been adduced to indicate
which provides: another property regime between the spouses,
pertains to them in common. Upon its dissolution
with the death of Teodorico, the property should
Art. 83. Any marriage subsequently contracted by
rightly be divided in two equal portions -- one
any person during the lifetime of the first spouse
portion going to the surviving spouse and the
of such person with any person other than such
other portion to the estate of the deceased spouse.
first spouse shall be illegal and void from its
The successional right in intestacy of a surviving
performance, unless:
spouse over the net estate of the deceased,
concurring with legitimate brothers and sisters or
1. The first marriage was annulled or
nephews and nieces (the latter by right of
dissolved; or
representation), is one-half of the inheritance, the
2. The first spouse had been absent for
brothers and sisters or nephews and nieces, being
seven consecutive years at the time of the
entitled to the other half. Nephews and nieces,
second marriage without the spouse
however, can only succeed by right of
present having news of the absentee
representation in the presence of uncles and
being alive, or if the absentee, though he
aunts; alone, upon the other hand, nephews and
has been absent for less than seven years,
nieces can succeed in their own right which is to
is generally considered as dead and
say that brothers or sisters exclude nephews and
believed to be so by the spouse present at
nieces except only in representation by the latter
the time of contracting such subsequent
of their parents who predecease or are
marriage, or if the absentee is presumed
incapacitated to succeed. The appellate court has
dead according to articles 390 and 391.
thus erred in granting, in paragraph (c) of the
The marriage so contracted shall be valid
dispositive portion of its judgment, successional
in any of the three cases until declared
rights, to petitioner's children, along with their
null and void by a competent court."
own mother Antonia who herself is invoking
successional rights over the estate of her deceased
Paragraph (2) of the law gives exceptions from brother.
the above rule. For the subsequent marriage
referred to in the three exceptional cases therein
Eduardo Manuel vs. People
provided, to be held valid, the spouse present so
Facts:
contracting the later marriage must have done so
On July 28, 1975, Eduardo was married to
in good faith.Bad faith imports a dishonest
Rubylus Gaña before Msgr. Feliciano Santos in
purpose or some moral obliquity and conscious
Makati. He then met the private complainant Tina
doing of wrong - it partakes of the nature of fraud,
B. Gandalera in Dagupan City sometime in
a breach of a known duty through some motive of
January 1996. Eventually, as one thing led to
interest or ill will. The Court does not find these
another, they went to a motel where, despite
circumstances to be here extant.
Tina's resistance, Eduardo succeeded in having
his way with her. Eduardo proposed marriage on
A judicial declaration of absence of the absentee
several occasions, assuring her that he was single.
spouse is not necessary as long as the prescribed
Eduardo even brought his parents to Baguio City
period of absence is met. It is equally noteworthy
to meet Tina's parents, and was assured by them
that the marriage in these exceptional cases are,
that their son was still single.
by the explicit mandate of Article 83, to be
deemed valid "until declared null and void by a

Page | 62
Tina finally agreed to marry Eduardo sometime Article 390 of the Civil Code, one who has been
in the first week of March 1996. They were absent for seven years, whether or not he/she is
married on April 22, 1996 before Judge Antonio still alive, shall be presumed dead for all purposes
C. Reyes. Through their joint efforts, they were except for succession, while the second
able to build their home in Cypress Point, Irisan, paragraph refers to the rule on legal presumption
Baguio City. However, starting 1999, Manuel of death with respect to succession.
started making himself scarce and went to their
house only twice or thrice a year. Tina was Issue:
jobless, and whenever she asked money from Whether or not Eduardo is guilty of the crime of
Eduardo, he would slap her. Sometime in January bigamy.
2001, Eduardo took all his clothes, left, and did
not return. Worse, he stopped giving financial Ruling:
support.
Yes. Eduardo is guilty of the crime of bigamy.
For one to be criminally liable for a felony by
In his defense, Eduardo claimed that their marital dolo, there must be a confluence of both an evil
relationship was in order until this one time when act and an evil intent. In the present case, the
he noticed that she had a "love-bite" on her neck. prosecution proved that the Eduardo was married
He then abandoned her. Eduardo further testified to Gaña in 1975, and such marriage was not
that he declared he was "single" in his marriage judicially declared a nullity; hence, the marriage
contract with Tina because he believed in good is presumed to subsist. The prosecution also
faith that his first marriage was invalid. He did proved that Eduardo married the private
not know that he had to go to court to seek for the complainant in 1996, long after the effectivity of
nullification of his first marriage before marrying the Family Code.
Tina. Eduardo further claimed that he was only
forced to marry his first wife because she
Eduardo is presumed to have acted with malice or
threatened to commit suicide unless he did so.
evil intent when he married the private
Rubylus was charged with estafa in 1975 and
complainant. As a general rule, mistake of fact or
thereafter imprisoned. He visited her in jail after
good faith of the accused is a valid defense in a
three months and never saw her again. He
prosecution for a felony by dolo; such defense
insisted that he married Tina believing that his
negates malice or criminal intent. However,
first marriage was no longer valid because he had
ignorance of the law is not an excuse because
not heard from Rubylus for more than 20 years.
everyone is presumed to know the law.
Ignorantia legis neminem excusat.
After trial, the court rendered judgment on July 2,
2002 finding Eduardo guilty beyond reasonable
It was the burden of Eduardo to prove his defense
doubt of bigamy. Eduardo appealed the decision
that when he married the private complainant in
to the CA. He alleged that he was not criminally
1996, he was of the well-grounded belief that his
liable for bigamy because when he married the
first wife was already dead, as he had not heard
private complainant, he did so in good faith and
from her for more than 20 years since 1975. He
without any malicious intent. He maintained that
should have adduced in evidence a decision of a
at the time that he married the private
competent court declaring the presumptive death
complainant, he was of the honest belief that his
of his first wife as required by Article 349 of the
first marriage no longer subsisted. He insisted
Revised Penal Code, in relation to Article 41 of
that conformably to Article 3 of the Revised
the Family Code. Such judicial declaration also
Penal Code, there must be malice for one to be
constitutes proof that the Eduardo acted in good
criminally liable for a felony. He was not
faith, and would negate criminal intent on his part
motivated by malice in marrying the private
when he married the private complainant and, as
complainant because he did so only out of his
a consequence, he could not be held guilty of
overwhelming desire to have a fruitful marriage.
bigamy in such case. Eduardo, however, failed to
He posited that the trial court should have taken
discharge his burden.
into account Article 390 of the New Civil Code.
The phrase "or before the absent spouse has been
Eduardo maintains that the prosecution failed to
declared presumptively dead by means of a
prove the second element of the felony, i.e., that
judgment rendered on the proceedings" in Article
the marriage has not been legally dissolved or, in
349 of the Revised Penal Code was not an
case his/her spouse is absent, the absent spouse
aggroupment of empty or useless words. The
could not yet be presumed dead under the Civil
requirement for a judgment of the presumptive
Code. He avers that when he married Gandalera
death of the absent spouse is for the benefit of the
in 1996, Gaña had been "absent" for 21 years
spouse present, as protection from the pains and
since 1975; under Article 390 of the Civil Code,
the consequences of a second marriage, precisely
she was presumed dead as a matter of law. He
because he/she could be charged and convicted of
points out that, under the first paragraph of

Page | 63
bigamy if the defense of good faith based on mere Whether or not Alan had well founded belief to
testimony is found incredible. warrant a declaration of presumptive death on
Rosalia.
Republic vs. CA and Alegro
Facts: Ruling:
On March 29, 2001, Alan B. Alegro filed a No. Alan was unable to prove well founded
petition in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of belief. The Supreme Court ruled that the belief of
Catbalogan, Samar, for the declaration of the present spouse must be the result of proper
presumptive death of his wife, Rosalia (Lea) A. and honest to goodness inquiries and efforts to
Julaton. ascertain the whereabouts of the absent spouse
and whether the absent spouse is still alive or is
At the hearing, Alan adduced evidence that he already dead. Whether or not the spouse present
and Lea were married on January 20, 1995 in acted on a well-founded belief of death of the
Catbalogan, Samar. He testified that, on February absent spouse depends upon the inquiries to be
6, 1995, Lea arrived home late in the evening and drawn from a great many circumstances
he berated her for being always out of their house. occurring before and after the disappearance of
He told her that if she enjoyed the life of a single the absent spouse and the nature and extent of the
person, it would be better for her to go back to her inquiries made by present spouse.
parents. Lea did not reply. Alan narrated that,
when he reported for work the following day, Lea In this case, Alan failed to present a witness other
was still in the house, but when he arrived home than Barangay Captain Juan Magat. Alan even
later in the day, Lea was nowhere to be found. failed to present Janeth Bautista or Nelson
Alan thought that Lea merely went to her parents' Abaenza or any other person from whom he
house in Bliss, Sto. Niño, Catbalogan, Samar. allegedly made inquiries about Lea to corroborate
However, Lea did not return to their house his testimony. What is so worrisome is that, Alan
anymore. failed to make inquiries from his parents-in-law
regarding Lea's whereabouts before filing his
Alan further testified that, on February 14, 1995, petition in the RTC. It could have enhanced the
after his work, he went to the house of Lea's credibility of Alan had he made inquiries from his
parents to see if she was there, but he was told parents-in-law about Lea's whereabouts
that she was not there. He also went to the house considering that Lea's father was the owner of
of Lea's friend, Janeth Bautista, at Barangay Radio DYMS.
Canlapwas, but he was informed by Janette's
brother-in-law, Nelson Abaenza, that Janeth had Alan did report and seek the help of the local
left for Manila. police authorities and the NBI to locate Lea, but
it was only an afterthought. He did so only after
Alan sought the help of Barangay Captain Juan the OSG filed its notice to dismiss his petition in
Magat, who promised to help him locate his wife. the RTC. In sum, the Court finds and so holds that
He also inquired from his friends of Lea's Alan failed to prove that he had a well-founded
whereabouts but to no avail. Alan then left for belief, before he filed his petition in the RTC, that
Manila on August 27, 1995. He went to a house his spouse Rosalia (Lea) Julaton was already
in Navotas where Janeth, Lea's friend, was dead.
staying. When asked where Lea was, Janeth told
him that she had not seen her.[13] He failed to
find out Lea's whereabouts despite his repeated
talks with Janeth. Alan decided to work as a part-
time taxi driver. On his free time, he would look SSS vs. Teresita Vda. De Bailon
for Lea in the malls but still to no avail. He Facts:
returned to Catbalogan in 1997 and again looked On April 25, 1955, Clemente G. Bailon (Bailon)
for his wife but failed. and Alice P. Diaz (Alice) contracted marriage in
On June 20, 2001, Alan reported Lea's Barcelona, Sorsogon. More than 15 years later or
disappearance to the local police station. The on October 9, 1970, Bailon filed before the then
police authorities issued an Alarm Notice on July Court of First Instance (CFI) of Sorsogon a
4, 2001. Alan also reported Lea's disappearance petition to declare Alice presumptively dead,
to the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) on which the CFI granted.
July 9, 2001.
Close to 13 years after his wife Alice was
The RTC granted the petition and was affirmed declared presumptively dead or on August 8,
by the Court of Appeals. 1983, Bailon contracted marriage with Teresita
Jarque in Casiguran, Sorsogon. On January 30,
Issue: 1998, Bailon, who was a member of the Social

Page | 64
Security System (SSS) since 1960 and a retiree Article 83 of the Civil Code provides that any
pensioner thereof effective July 1994, died. marriage subsequently contracted by any person
during the lifetime of the first spouse of such
Teresita thereupon filed a claim for funeral person with any person other than such first
benefits, and was granted P12,000 by the SSS. On spouse shall be illegal and void from its
March 11, 1998 Teresita filed an additional claim performance, unless:
for death benefits which was also granted by the
SSS on April 6, 1998. 1. The first marriage was annulled or
dissolved; or
Cecilia Bailon-Yap (Cecilia), who claimed to be
a daughter of Bailon and one Elisa Jayona (Elisa) 2. The first spouse had been absent for
contested before the SSS the release to seven consecutive years at the time of the
respondent of the death and funeral benefits. She second marriage without the spouse
claimed that Bailon contracted three marriages in present having news of the absentee
his lifetime, the first with Alice, the second with being alive, or if the absentee, though he
her mother Elisa, and the third with Teresita, all has been absent for less than seven years,
of whom are still alive; she, together with her is generally considered as dead and
siblings, paid for Bailon's medical and funeral believed to be so by the spouse present at
expenses; and all the documents submitted by the time of contracting such subsequent
Teresita to the SSS in support of her claims are marriage, or if the absentee is presumed
spurious. dead according to Articles 390 and 391.
The marriage so contracted shall be valid
Elisa and seven of her children subsequently filed in any of the three cases until declared
claims for death benefits as Bailon's beneficiaries null and void by a competent court
before the SSS. Atty. Marites C. de la Torre of the
Legal Unit of the SSS Bicol Cluster, Naga City Under the foregoing provision of the Civil Code,
recommended the cancellation of payment of a subsequent marriage contracted during the
death pension benefits to Teresita and the lifetime of the first spouse is illegal and void ab
issuance of an order for the refund of the amount initio unless the prior marriage is first annulled or
paid to her from February 1998 to May 1999 dissolved or contracted under any of the three
representing such benefits; the denial of the exceptional circumstances. It bears noting that
claim of Alice on the ground that she was not the marriage under any of these exceptional cases
dependent upon Bailon for support during his is deemed valid "until declared null and void by a
lifetime. competent court." It follows that the onus
probandi in these cases rests on the party assailing
Teresita protested the cancellation of her monthly the second marriage.
pension for death benefits and argued that her
marriage with Bailon was not declared before any In the case at bar, as found by the CFI, Alice had
court of justice as bigamous or unlawful, hence, been absent for 15 consecutive years when Bailon
it remained valid and subsisting for all legal sought the declaration of her presumptive death,
intents and purposes as in fact Bailon designated which judicial declaration was not even a
her as his beneficiary. requirement then for purposes of remarriage.
By Resolution of April 2, 2003, the SSC found Under the Civil Code, a subsequent marriage
that the marriage of Teresita to Bailon was void being voidable, it is terminated by final judgment
and, therefore, she was "just a common-law- of annulment in a case instituted by the absent
wife." Teresita was then ordered by the SSC to spouse who reappears or by either of the spouses
refund the 24,000php. in the subsequent marriage.

Issue: If the absentee reappears, but no step is taken to

Whether or not the marriage between Teresita and terminate the subsequent marriage, either by
Clemente is valid. affidavit or by court action, such absentee's mere
reappearance, even if made known to the spouses
in the subsequent marriage, will not terminate
Ruling:
such marriage. Since the second marriage has
Yes. The marriage between Teresita and
been contracted because of a presumption that the
Clemente is valid. The two marriages involved
former spouse is dead, such presumption
herein having been solemnized prior to the
continues inspite of the spouse's physical
effectivity on August 3, 1988 of the Family Code,
reappearance, and by fiction of law, he or she
the applicable law to determine their validity is
must still be regarded as legally an absentee until
the Civil Code which was the law in effect at the
the subsequent marriage is terminated as
time of their celebration.
provided by law.

Page | 65
It bears reiterating that a voidable marriage Issue:
cannot be assailed collaterally except in a direct Whether or not the marriage between Angelita
proceeding. Consequently, such marriages can and Virgilio was valid.
be assailed only during the lifetime of the parties
and not after the death of either, in which case the Ruling:
parties and their offspring will be left as if the Yes. The marriage is still valid. Under the Civil
marriage had been perfectly valid. Upon the Code, the presumption of death is established by
death of either, the marriage cannot be law and no court declaration is needed for the
impeached, and is made good ab initio. presumption to arise. Since death is presumed to
have taken place by the seventh year of absence,
In the case at bar, as no step was taken to nullify, Sofio is to be presumed dead starting October
in accordance with law, Bailon's and Teresita’s 1982.
marriage prior to the former's death in 1998,
respondent is rightfully the dependent spouse- Consequently, at the time of Angelita’s marriage
beneficiary of Bailon. to Virgilio, there existed no impediment to
petitioner's capacity to marry, and the marriage is
Angelita Valdez vs. Republic valid under paragraph 2 of Article 83 of the Civil
Facts: Code. Further, considering that it is the Civil
Angelita married Sofio on January 11, 1971 in Code that applies, proof of "well-founded belief"
Pateros, Rizal. On December 13, 1971. is not required. Angelito could not have been
According to Angelita, she and Sofio argued expected to comply with this requirement since
constantly because the latter was unemployed and the Family Code was not yet in effect at the time
did not bring home any money. In March 1972, of her marriage to Virgilio. The enactment of the
Sofio left their conjugal dwelling. Angelita and Family Code in 1988 does not change this
their child waited for him to return but, finally, in conclusion.
May 1972, Angelita decided to go back to her
parents' home in Bancay 1st, Camiling, Tarlac. To retroactively apply the provisions of the
Three years passed without any word from Sofio. Family Code requiring petitioner to exhibit "well-
In October 1975, Sofio showed up at Bancay 1st. founded belief" will, ultimately, result in the
He and Angelita talked for several hours and they invalidation of her second marriage, which was
agreed to separate. They executed a document to valid at the time it was celebrated. Such a
that effect. That was the last time Angelita saw situation would be untenable and would go
him. against the objectives that the Family Code
After that, Angelita didn't hear any news of Sofio, wishes to achieve.
his whereabouts or even if he was alive or not.
Republic vs. Edna Villanueva
Believing that Sofio was already dead, Angelita Facts:
married Virgilio Reyes on June 20, 1985. Edna and Romeo were married on December 21,
Subsequently, however, Virgilio's application for 1978, in Iligan City.
naturalization filed with the United States
Department of Homeland Security was denied In 1992, Edna worked as domestic helper in
because Angelita’s marriage to Sofio was Singapore while her husband worked as a
subsisting. Hence, on March 29, 2007, Angelita mechanic in Valencia City, Bukidnon. In 1993,
filed a Petition before the RTC of Camiling, Edna heard the news from her children that
Tarlac seeking the declaration of presumptive Romeo had left their conjugal home without
death of Sofio. The RTC held that Angelita "was reason or information as to his whereabouts.
not able to prove the well-grounded belief that her
husband Sofio Polborosa was already dead.
Thereafter, Edna took a leave from work and
returned to the country to look for Romeo. She
The RTC found that, by Angelita’s own inquired from her parents-in-law and common
admission, she did not try to find her husband friends in Iligan City. Still, she found no leads as
anymore in light of their mutual agreement to live to his whereabouts or existence. She also went to
separately. Likewise, her own daughter testified his birthplace in Escalante, Negros Oriental, and
that her mother prevented her from looking for inquired from his relatives.
her father.
On August 6, 2009, Edna filed before the RTC a
Angelita filed a motion for reconsideration. She petition to declare Romeo presumptively dead
argued that it is the Civil Code that applies in this under Article 41 of the Family Code.
case and not the Family Code since her marriage
to Sofio was celebrated on January 11, 1971, long
Issue:
before the Family Code took effect.

Page | 66
Whether or not Edna was able to establish well Moreover, no document was submitted to
founded belief. corroborate the allegation that her husband had
been missing for at least fifteen (15) years
Ruling: already. As the OSG observed, there was not even
No. Edna was not able to establish well any attempt to seek the aid of the authorities at the
founded belief. The Supreme Court ruled that time her husband disappeared. Hence, The
Article 41 of the Family Code provides that petition of Edna Orcelino-Villanueva to have her
before a judicial declaration of presumptive death husband declared presumptively dead is denied.
may be granted, the present spouse must prove
that he/she has a well-founded belief that the
absentee is dead. In this case, Edna failed. The
RTC and the CA overlooked Edna's patent non-
compliance with the said requirement. The well-
founded belief in the absentee's death requires the
present spouse to prove that his/her belief was the
result of diligent and reasonable efforts to locate
the absent spouse and that based on these efforts
and inquiries, he/she believes that under the
circumstances, the absent spouse is already dead.
It necessitates exertion of active effort (not a mere
passive one). Mere absence of the spouse (even
beyond the period required by law), lack of any
news that the absentee spouse is still alive, mere
failure to communicate, or general presumption
of absence under the Civil Code would not
suffice. The premise is that Article 41 of the
Family Code places upon the present spouse the
burden of complying with the stringent
requirement of well-founded belief which can
only be discharged upon a showing of proper and
honest-to-goodness inquiries and efforts to
ascertain not only the absent spouse's
whereabouts but, more importantly, whether the
absent spouse is still alive or is already dead.

This strict standard approach ensures that a

petition for declaration of presumptive death
under Article 41 of the Family Code is not used
as a tool to conveniently circumvent the laws in
light of the State's policy to protect and strengthen
the institution of marriage. Courts should never
allow procedural shortcuts but instead should see
to it that the stricter standard required by the
Family Code is met.

Edna's efforts failed to satisfy the required well-

founded belief of her absent husband's death. Her
claim of making diligent search and inquiries
remained unfounded as it merely consisted of
bare assertions without any corroborative
evidence on record. She also failed to present any
person from whom she inquired about the
whereabouts of her husband. She did not even
present her children from whom she learned the
disappearance of her husband. In fact, she was the
lone witness. Following the basic rule that mere
allegation is not evidence and is not equivalent to
proof, the Court cannot give credence to her
claims that she indeed exerted diligent efforts to
locate her husband.

Page | 67
 Republic vs. Jose Sareñogon Jr. notches below the required degree of stringent
Facts: diligence prescribed by jurisprudence. For, aside
On November 4, 2008, Jose B. Sareñogon, Jr. from his bare claims that he had inquired from
(Jose) filed a Petition before the Regional Trial alleged friends and relatives as to Netchie's
Court (RTC) of Ozamiz[ Citythe declaration of whereabouts, Jose did not call to the witness stand
presumptive death of his wife, Netchie S. specific individuals or persons whom he
Sareñogon (Netchie). allegedly saw or met in the course of his search
or quest for the allegedly missing Netchie.
Jose testified that he first met Netchie in Clarin,
Misamis Occidental in 1991, They later became Neither did he prove that he sought the assistance
sweethearts and on August 10, 1996, they got of the pertinent government agencies as well as
married in civil rites at the Manila City Hall. the media, Nor did he show that he undertook a
However, they lived together as husband and wife thorough, determined and unflagging search for
for a month only because he left to work as a Netchie, say for at least two years (and what those
seaman while Netchie went to Hongkong as a years were), and naming the particular places,
domestic helper. For three months, he did not provinces, cities, barangays or municipalities that
receive any communication from Netchie. He he visited, or went to, and identifying the specific
likewise had no idea about her whereabouts. persons he interviewed or talked to in the course
While still abroad, he tried to contact Netchie's of his search.
parents, but failed, as the latter had allegedly left
Clarin, Misamis Occidental. He returned home Republic vs. Nilda Tampus
after his contract expired. He then inquired from Facts:
Netchie's relatives and friends about her Respondent Nilda B. Tampus (Nilda) was
whereabouts, but they also did not know where married to Dante L. Del Mundo (Dante) on
she was. Because of these, he had to presume that November 29, 1975 in Cordova, Cebu. Three
his wife Netchie was already dead. He filed the days thereafter, or on December 2, 1975, Dante,
Petition before the RTC so he could contract a member of the Armed Forces of the Philippines
another marriage pursuant to Article 41 of the (AFP), left Nilda, and went to Jolo, Sulu where
Family Code. he was assigned. The couple had no children.

The Republic claims that based on jurisprudence, Since then, Nilda heard no news from Dante,. She
Jose's alleged efforts in locating Netchie did not tried everything to locate him, but her efforts
engender or generate a well-founded belief that proved futile. Thus, on April 14, 2009, she filed
the latter is probably dead. It maintains that even before the RTC a petition to declare Dante as
as Jose avowedly averred that he exerted efforts presumptively dead for the purpose of
to locate Netchie, Jose inexplicably failed to remarriage, alleging that after the lapse of thirty-
enlist the assistance of the relevant government three (33) years without any kind of
agencies like the Philippine National Police, the communication from him, she firmly believes
National Bureau of Investigation, the Department that he is already dead.
of Foreign Affairs, the Bureau of Immigration,
the Philippine Overseas Employment The RTC and the CA ruled in favor of the petition
Administration, or the Overseas Workers Welfare arguing that the lapse of thirty-three (33) years,
Administration. It likewise points out that Jose coupled with the fact that Dante had been sent on
did not present any disinterested person to a combat mission to Jolo, Sulu, gave rise to
corroborate his allegations that the latter was Nilda's well-founded belief that her husband is
indeed missing and could not be found. already dead.

Issue: Moreover, the CA opined that if Dante were still

Whether or not Jose was able to establish well alive after many years, it would have been easy
founded belief. for him to communicate with Nilda, taking into
consideration the fact that Dante was only 25
Ruling: years old when he left and, therefore, would have
No. Jose was unable to establish well founded been still physically able to get in touch with his
belief. Given the Court's imposition of "strict wife. However, because neither Nilda nor his
standard" in a petition for a declaration of own family has heard from him for several years,
presumptive death under Article 41 of the Family it can be reasonably concluded that Dante is
Code, it must follow that there was no basis at all already dead.
for the RTC's finding that Jose's Petition
complied with the requisites of Article 41 of the Issue:
Family Code, in reference to the well-founded Whether or not Nilda had established well
belief standard. If anything, Jose's pathetically founded belief to warrant a declaration of
anemic efforts to locate the missing Netchie are presumptive death.

Page | 68
 however, Nilda made no further efforts to find her
Ruling: husband. She could have called or proceeded to
No. Nilda was unable to establish well founded the AFP headquarters to request information
belief. Before a judicial declaration of about her husband, but failed to do so. She did not
presumptive death can be obtained, it must be even seek the help of the authorities or the AFP
shown that the prior spouse had been absent for itself in finding him. Considering her own
four consecutive years and the present spouse had pronouncement that Dante was sent by the AFP
a well-founded belief that the prior spouse was on a combat mission to Jolo, Sulu at the time of
already dead. Under Article 4 of the Family Code his disappearance, she could have inquired from
of the Philippines (Family Code), there are four the AFP on the status of the said mission, or from
(4) essential requisites for the declaration of the members of the AFP who were assigned
presumptive death: (1) that the absent spouse has thereto. To the Court's mind, therefore, Nilda
been missing for four (4) consecutive years, or failed to actively look for her missing husband,
two (2) consecutive years if the disappearance and her purported earnest efforts to find him by
occurred where there is danger of death under the asking Dante's parents, relatives, and friends did
circumstances laid down in Article 391 of the not satisfy the strict standard and degree of
Civil Code; (2) that the present spouse wishes to diligence required to create a "well-founded
remarry; (3) that the present spouse has a well- belief of his death.
founded belief that the absentee is dead; and (4)
that the present spouse files a summary Furthermore, Nilda did not present Dante's
proceeding for the declaration of presumptive family, relatives, or neighbors as witnesses who
death of the absentee. could have corroborated her asseverations that
she earnestly looked for Dante. These resource
The burden of proof rests on the present spouse persons were not even named. In Republic v.
to show that all the foregoing requisites under Nolasco, it was held that the present spouse's bare
Article 41 of the Family Code exist. Since it is the assertion that he inquired from his friends about
present spouse who, for purposes of declaration his absent spouse's whereabouts was found
of presumptive death, substantially asserts the insufficient as the names of said friends were not
affirmative of the issue, it stands to reason that the identified in the testimony nor presented as
burden of proof lies with him/her. He who alleges witnesses. Finally, other than Nilda's bare
a fact has the burden of proving it and mere testimony, no other corroborative evidence had
allegation is not evidence. been offered to support her allegation that she
exerted efforts to find him but was unsuccessful.
The "well-founded belief in the absentee's death What appears from the facts as established in this
requires the present spouse to prove that his/her case was that Nilda simply allowed the passage
belief was the result of diligent and reasonable of time without actively and diligently searching
efforts to locate the absent spouse and that based for her husband, which the Court cannot accept as
on these efforts and inquiries, he/she believes that constituting a "well-founded belief that her
under the circumstances, the absent spouse is husband is dead.
already dead. It necessitates exertion of active
effort, not a passive one. As such, the mere
absence of the spouse for such periods prescribed
under the law, lack of any news that such
absentee spouse is still alive, failure to
communicate, or general presumption of absence
under the Civil Code would not suffice. The
premise is that Article 41 of the Family Code
places upon the present spouse the burden of
complying with the stringent requirement of
"well-founded belief which can only be
discharged upon a showing of proper and honest-
to-goodness inquiries and efforts to ascertain not
only the absent spouse's whereabouts, but more
importantly, whether the latter is still alive or is
already dead.

In this case, Nilda testified that after Dante's

disappearance, she tried to locate him by making
inquiries with his parents, relatives, and
neighbors as to his whereabouts, but
unfortunately, they also did not know where to
find him. Other than making said inquiries,

Page | 69
 Republic vs. Ludyson Catubag
Facts: The Court held that it was erroneous for the lower
On June 26, 2003, Ludyson and Shanaviv tied the courts to grant the petition for declaration of
knot in Rizal, Cagayan. In order to meet the needs presumptive death. The Court explained why the
of his family, Ludyson took work overseas. present spouse's allegations should not have been
Meanwhile, Shanaviv stayed behind in the given credence
Philippines to tend to the needs of their children.
First, Ludyson claims to have inquired about his
On July 12, 2006, while working abroad, missing wife's whereabouts from both friends and
Ludyson was informed by his relatives that relatives. Further, he claims to have carried out
Shanaviv left their house and never returned. In such inquiries in the place where they lived and
the meantime, Ludyson’s relatives took care of in the place where his wife was born and raised.
the children. However, Ludyson failed to present any of these
alleged friends or relatives to corroborate these
Worried about his wife's sudden disappearance "inquiries." Moreover, no explanation for such
and the welfare of his children, Ludyson took an omission was given. As held in the previous
emergency vacation and flew back home. He cases, failure to present any of the persons from
looked for his wife in Enrile Cagayan, but to no whom inquiries were allegedly made tends to
avail. He then proceeded to inquire about belie a claim of a diligent search.
Shanaviv's whereabouts from their close friends
and relatives, but they too could offer no help. Second, Ludyson did not seek the help of other
Private respondent travelled as far as Bicol, concerned government agencies, namely, the
where Shanaviv was born and raised, but he still local police authorities and the National Bureau
could not locate her. of Investigation (NBI). In Cantor, the Court
reasoned that while a finding of well-founded
Ludyson subsequently sought the help of Bombo belief varies with the nature of the situation, it
Radyo Philippines, one of the more well-known would still be prudent for the present spouse to
radio networks in the Philippines, to broadcast the seek the aid of the authorities in searching for the
fact of his wife's disappearance. Moreover, He missing spouse. Absent such efforts to employ
searched various hospitals and funeral parlors in the help of local authorities, the present spouse
Tuguegarao and in Bicol, with no avail. On May cannot be said to have actively and diligently
4, 2012, after almost seven (7) years of waiting, searched for the absentee spouse.
Ludyson filed with the RTC a petition to have his
wife declared presumptively dead. Finally, aside from the certification of Bombo
Radyo's manager, Ludyson’s bases his "well-
Issue: founded belief” on bare assertions that he
Whether or not Ludyson was able to establish exercised earnest efforts in looking for his wife.
well founded belief. Again, the present spouse's bare assertions,
uncorroborated by any kind of evidence, falls
short of the diligence required to engender a well-
Ruling:
founded belief that the absentee spouse is dead.
No. Ludyson was unable to establish well
founded belief. Notably, the records reveal that
Ludyson has complied with the first, second, and Taken together, the Court is of the view that
fourth requisites. Ludyson’s efforts in searching for his missing
wife, Shanaviv, are merely passive. He could
have easily convinced the Court otherwise by
The Court in Cantor, pointed out that the term,
providing evidence which corroborated his
"well-founded belief" has no exact definition
"earnest-efforts." Yet, no explanation or
under the law. In fact, the Court notes that such
justification was given for these glaring
belief depends on the circumstances of each
omissions. Again, he who alleges a fact has the
particular case. As such, each petition must be
burden of proving it by some other means than
judged on a case-to-case basis. This is not to say,
mere allegations.
however, that there is no guide in establishing the
existence of a well-founded belief that an absent
spouse is already dead. Stripped of Ludyson’s mere allegations, only the
act of broadcasting his wife's alleged
In Republic vs. Orcelino-Villanueva, the Court,
disappearance through a known radio station was
through Justice Mendoza, provided that such
corroborated.This act comes nowhere close to
belief must result from diligent efforts to locate
establishing a well-founded belief that Shanaviv
the absent spouse. Such diligence entails an
has already passed away. At most, it just
active effort on the part of the present spouse to
reaffirms the unfortunate theory that she
locate the missing one. The mere absence of a
abandoned the family.
spouse, devoid of any attempt by the present
spouse to locate the former, will not suffice.

Page | 70
 Estrellita Matias vs. Republic
Facts: Ruling:
On April 10, 2012, Estrellita Tadeo-Matias filed Yes. The RTC erred in its decision. The petition
before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Tarlac for the declaration of presumptive death filed by
City a petition for the declaration of presumptive Estrellita is not an action that would have
death of her husband, Wilfredo N. Matias warranted the application of Article 41 of the FC
(Wilfredo). because she was not seeking to remarry. A
reading of Article 41 of the FC shows that the
Estrellita and Wilfredo entered into a lawful presumption of death established therein is only
marriage on January 7, 1968 in Imbo, Anda, applicable for the purpose of contracting a valid
Pangasinan. After the marriage, Wilfredo subsequent marriage under the said law
continued to serve the Philippines and on
September 15, 1979, he set out from their Here, Estrellita was forthright that she was not
conjugal home to again serve as a member of the seeking the declaration of the presumptive death
Philippine Constabulary. Wilfredo never came of Wilfredo as a prerequisite for remarriage. In
back from his tour of duty in Arayat, Pampanga her petition for the declaration of presumptive
since 1979 and he never made contact or death, Estrellita categorically stated that the same
communicated with the Estrellita nor to his was filed "not for any other purpose but solely to
relatives. claim for the benefit under P.D. No. 1638 as
amended."
According to the service record of Wilfredo
issued by the National Police Commission, Given that her petition for the declaration of
Wilfredo was already declared missing since presumptive death was not filed for the purpose
1979. Estrellita constantly pestered the then of remarriage, petitioner was clearly relying on
Philippine Constabulary for any news regarding the presumption of death under either Article 390
her beloved husband Wilfredo, but the Philippine or Article 391 of the Civil Code as the basis of
Constabulary had no answer to his whereabouts, her petition. Articles 390 and 391 of the Civil
neither did they have any news of him going Code express the general rule regarding
AWOL, all they know was he was assigned to a presumptions of death for any civil purpose.
place frequented by the New People's Army.
On Article 390 and 391 as a rule of evidence:
After more than three (3) decades of waiting, The rule invoked is merely one of evidence which
Estrelita is still hopeful, but the times had been permits the court to presume that a person is dead
tough on her, specially with a meager source of after the fact that such person had been unheard
income coupled with her age, it is now necessary from in seven years had been established. This
for her to request for the benefits that rightfully presumption may arise and be invoked and made
belong to her in order to survive; one of the in a case, either in an action or in a special
requirements to attain the claim of benefits is for proceeding, which is tried or heard by, and
a proof of death or at least a declaration of submitted for decision to, a competent court.
presumptive death by the Honorable Court; Independently of such an action or special
Hence this petition is being filed not for any other proceeding, the presumption of death cannot be
purpose but solely to claim for the benefit under invoked, nor can it be made the subject of an
P.D. No. 1638 as amended. action or special proceeding. In this case, there is
no right to be enforced nor is there a remedy
The RTC granted the petition but the CA reversed prayed for by the petitioner against her absent
the decision stating that Article 41 of the FC does husband.
not apply to the instant petition as it was clear that
Estrellita does not seek to remarry. If anything, The petition is for a declaration that the
the petition was invoking the presumption of petitioner's husband is presumptively dead. But
death established under Articles 390 and 391 of this declaration, even if judicially made, would
the Civil Code, and not that provided for under not improve the petitioner's situation, because
Article 41 of the FC. It further stated that Articles such a presumption is already established by law.
390 and 391 of the Civil Code merely express A judicial pronouncement to that effect, even if
rules of evidence that allow a court or a tribunal final and executory, would still be a prima facie
to presume that a person is dead—which presumption only. It is still disputable. It is for
presumption may be invoked in any action or that reason that it cannot be the subject of a
proceeding, but itself cannot be the subject of an judicial pronouncement or declaration, if it is the
independent action or proceeding. only question or matter involved in a case, or
upon which a competent court has to pass.
Issue:
Whether or not the RTC erred in granting the On the Proper Procedure to be followed:
declaration of presumptive death to Estrellita.

Page | 71
In view of the foregoing circumstance, the Court Office of the President (OP) pursuant to
deems it necessary to issue the following the principle of exhaustion of
guidelines, culled from relevant law and administrative remedies.
jurisprudential pronouncements to aid the public,
PVAO and the AFP in making or dealing with
claims of death benefits which are similar to that If the OP denies the appeal, the claimant may next
of the Estrellita: seek recourse via a petition for review with the
CA under Rule 43 of the Rules of the Court. And
1. The PVAO and the AFP can decide finally, should such recourse still fail, the
claims of death benefits of a missing claimant may file an appeal by certiorari with the
soldier without requiring the claimant to Supreme Court.
first produce a court declaration of the
presumptive death of such soldier. In
such claims, the PVAO and the AFP can
make their own determination, on the
basis of evidence presented by the
claimant, whether the presumption of
death under Articles 390 and 391 of the
Civil Code may be applied or not. It must
be stressed that the presumption of death
under Articles 390 and 391 of the Civil
Code arises by operation of law, without
need of a court declaration, once the
factual conditions mentioned in the said
articles are established. Hence, requiring
the claimant to further secure a court
declaration in order to establish the
presumptive death of a missing soldier is
not proper and contravenes established
jurisprudence on the matter.

2. In order to avail of the presumption,

therefore, the claimant need only present
before the PVAO or the appropriate
office of the AFP, as the case may be, any
"evidence" which shows that the
concerned soldier had been missing for
such number of years and/or under the
circumstances prescribed under Articles
390 and 391 of the Civil Code.
Obviously, the "evidence" referred to
here excludes a court declaration of
presumptive death.

3. The PVAO or the AFP, as the case may

be, may then weigh the evidence
submitted by the claimant and determine
their sufficiency to establish the requisite
factual conditions specified under Article
390 or 391 of the Civil Code in order for
the presumption of death to arise. If the
PVAO or the AFP determines that the
evidence submitted by the claimant is
sufficient, they should not hesitate to
apply the presumption of death and pay
the latter's claim. 4. If the PVAO or the
AFP determines that the evidence
submitted by the claimant is not
sufficient to invoke the presumption of
death under the Civil Code and denies the
latter's claim by reason thereof, the
claimant may file an appeal with the

Page | 72
 Republic vs. Remar Quiñonez Municipality of Lingig in the province of
Facts: Surigao del Sur, Metro Manila, Batangas
Remar A. Quinonez and his wife Lovelyn was and Cavite; and
married on August 16, 1997 at the Saint Vincent
de Paul Parish in Mangagoy, Bislig City. To 2. Remar constantly communicated with
support his family, Remar started working as a Lovelyn's relatives for a period of ten
security guard at the National Food Authority (10) years in order to ascertain Lovelyn's
Warehouse in October 1997, although later on, he whereabouts.
transferred to Cebu City for an opportunity to
earn a bigger salary. Sometime in 2001, when Unfortunately, Remar failed to allege, much less
Lovelyn 's father received his retirement pay, prove, the extent of the search he had conducted
Lovelyn asked her husband's permission to go on in the places where he claims to have gone. This
a three-month vacation in Manila to visit some leaves the Court with no way to ascertain the
relatives. Despite Remar's reluctance, he agreed extent of Remar's search.
to his wife's request.
Remar also failed to identify which of Lovelyn's
At first, Remar thought that his wife just lost her relatives he had communicated with, and disclose
cellphone, so he inquired about her from their what he learned from these communications.
relatives in Bislig City. Someone informed him Again, this leaves the Court with no basis to
that his wife was then already cohabiting with determine whether the information Remar
another man and would no longer be coming back learned is sufficient to engender a well-founded
out of shame. On November 2003, Remar's uncle belief that Lovelyn is dead.
informed him that Lovelyn was in Bislig City to
visit their children. Remar filed for an emergency Moreover, much like the respondent in Cantor,
leave of absence from his work and left for Bislig Remar never sought the help of the authorities to
City only to be told that his wife had already left locate Lovelyn in the course of her ten year
for Lingig, Surigao del Sur. He went after her in disappearance. Remar was given ample
Lingig, yet upon arrival, he was told that Lovelyn opportunity to explain his failure to report
stayed only for a clay and returned to Bislig. He Lovelyn's disappearance, considering that the
was then constrained to go back to Surigao City, Republic first noted such failure when it filed its
without seeing his wife. Petition for Certiorari with the CA. Curiously,
however, Remar chose not to address the matter.
On February 27, 2013, after almost ten (10) years Finally, the allegations in Remar's Petition for
of trying to know about the whereabouts of his Declaration of Presumptive Death suggest that he
wife from their relatives proved futile, Remar is aware of the true cause of Lovelyn 's
filed a Petition for Declaration of Presumptive disappearance
Death before the RTC, which it granted.
Nevertheless, the Court cannot uphold the
Subsequently, the Republic of the Philippines issuance of a declaration of presumptive death
filed a Petition for Certiorari before the CA for the purpose of remarriage where there appears
seeking to annul the RTC Judgment for having to be no well-founded belief of the absentee
been issued with grave abuse of discretion spouse's death, but only the likelihood that the
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. absentee spouse does not want to be found.
Therein, the Republic argued that Remar failed to
establish that he "exerted proper and honest to
goodness inquiries and efforts to ascertain
Lovelyn's whereabouts and whether or not she is
still alive.

Issue:
Whether or not Remar had fully established well
founded belief.

Ruling:
No. Remar failed to establish well founded
belief. To recall, Remar's efforts to locate
Lovelyn are marked by the following acts:
1. Remar travelled to several places where
his wife had been reportedly seen
particularly, Bislig City and the

Page | 73
Doctrine: On July 27, 2007, the Regional Trial Court of
The essential requisites for a declaration of Tarlac City declared Celerina J. Santos
presumptive death for the purpose of remarriage presumptively dead after her husband, Ricardo T.
are: Santos, had filed a petition for declaration of
1. That the absent spouse has been missing absence or presumptive death for the purpose of
for four consecutive years, or two remarriage on June 15, 2007. Ricardo remarried
consecutive years if the disappearance on September 17, 2008.
occurred where there is danger of death
under the circumstances laid down in Ricardo claimed that their business did not
Article 391, Civil Code; prosper. As a result, Celerina convinced him to
allow her to work as a domestic helper in Hong
2. That the present spouse wishes to Kong. Ricardo initially refused but because of
remarry; Celerina's insistence, he allowed her to work
abroad. She allegedly applied in an employment
3. That the present spouse has a well- agency in Ermita, Manila, in February 1995. She
founded belief that the absentee is dead; left Tarlac two months after and was never heard
and from again.

4. That the present spouse files a summary Ricardo further alleged that he exerted efforts to
proceeding for the declaration of locate Celerina. He went to Celerina's parents in
presumptive death of the absentee. Cubao, Quezon City, but they, too, did not know
their daughter's whereabouts. He also inquired
Mere absence of the spouse (even for such period about her from other relatives and friends, but no
required by the law), lack of any news that such one gave him any information. Ricardo claimed
absentee is still alive, failure to communicate or that it was almost 12 years from the date of his
general presumption of absence under the Civil Regional Trial Court petition since Celerina left.
Code would not suffice. This conclusion He believed that she had passed away.
proceeds from the premise that Article 41 of the
Family Code places upon the present spouse the Celerina claimed that she learned about Ricardo's
burden of proving the additional and more petition only sometime in October 2008 when she
stringent requirement of "well-founded belief'' could no longer avail the remedies of new trial,
which can only be discharged upon a showing of appeal, petition for relief, or other appropriate
proper and honest-to-goodness inquiries and remedies. On November 17, 2008, Celerina filed
efforts to ascertain not only the absent spouse's a petition for annulment of judgment before the
whereabouts but, more importantly, that the Court of Appeals on the grounds of extrinsic
absent spouse is still alive or is already dead. fraud and lack of jurisdiction. She argued that she
was deprived her day in court when Ricardo,
The law did not define what is meant by '·well- despite his knowledge of her true residence,
founded belief." It depends upon the misrepresented to the court that she was a resident
circumstances of each particular case. Its of Tarlac City. According to Celerina, her true
determination, so to speak, remains on a case-to- residence was in Neptune Extension,
case basis. To be able to comply with this Congressional Avenue, Quezon City. This
requirement, the present spouse must prove that residence had been her and Ricardo's conjugal
his/her belief was the result of diligent and dwelling since 1989 until Ricardo left in May
reasonable efforts and inquiries to locate the 2008. As a result of Ricardo's misrepresentation,
absent spouse and that based on these efforts and she was deprived of any notice of and opportunity
inquiries, he/she believes that under the to oppose the petition declaring her
circumstances, the absent spouse is already dead. presumptively dead.
It requires exertion of active effort (not a mere
passive one). The Court of Appeals issued the resolution dated
November 28, 2008, dismissing Celerina's
petition for annulment of judgment for being a
wrong mode of remedy. According to the Court
of Appeals, the proper remedy was to file a sworn
statement before the civil registry, declaring her
reappearance in accordance with Article 42 of the
Family Code.
Issue:
Whether or not the CA erred in its decision
Celerina Santos vs. Ricardo Santos
requiring Celerina an affidavit of reappearance.
Facts:
Ruling:

Page | 74
Yes. The CA erred in its decision. The Supreme Celerina's choice to file an action for annulment
Court Ruled that the proper remedy for a judicial of judgment will, therefore, lie.
declaration of presumptive death obtained by
extrinsic fraud is an action to annul the judgment. On the procedure for the reappearance:
An affidavit of reappearance is not the proper The filing of an affidavit of reappearance is an
remedy when the person declared presumptively admission on the part of the first spouse that his
dead has never been absent. or her marriage to the present spouse was
terminated when he or she was declared absent or
For fraud to become a basis for annulment of presumptively dead.
judgment, it has to be extrinsic or actual. It is
intrinsic when the fraudulent acts pertain to an Moreover, a close reading of the entire Article 42
issue involved in the original action or where the reveals that the termination of the subsequent
acts constituting the fraud were or could have marriage by reappearance is subject to several
been litigated, It is extrinsic or collateral when a conditions:
litigant commits acts outside of the trial which 1. the non-existence of a judgment
prevents a parly from having a real contest, or annulling the previous marriage or
from presenting all of his case, such that there is declaring it void ab initio;
no fair submission of the controversy.
2. recording in the civil registry of the
Celerina does not admit to have been absent. She residence of the parties to the subsequent
also seeks not merely the termination of the marriage of the sworn statement of fact
subsequent marriage but also the nullification of and circumstances of reappearance;
its effects. She contends that reappearance is not
a sufficient remedy because it will only terminate 3. due notice to the spouses of the
the subsequent marriage but not nullify the subsequent marriage of the fact of
effects of the declaration of her presumptive reappearance; and
death and the subsequent marriage.
4. the fact of reappearance must either be
Celerina is correct. Since an undisturbed undisputed or judicially determined.
subsequent marriage under Article 42 of the
Family Code is valid until terminated, the The existence of these conditions means that
"children of such marriage shall be considered reappearance does not always immediately cause
legitimate, and the property relations of the the subsequent marriage's termination.
spouses in such marriage will be the same as in Reappearance of the absent or presumptively
valid marriages." If it is terminated by mere dead spouse will cause the termination of the
reappearance, the children of the subsequent subsequent marriage only when all the conditions
marriage conceived before the termination shall enumerated in the Family Code are present.
still be considered legitimate. Moreover, a
judgment declaring presumptive death is a Hence, the subsequent marriage may still subsist
defense against prosecution for bigamy. despite the absent or presumptively dead spouse's
reappearance
It is true that in most cases, an action to declare
the nullity of the subsequent marriage may nullify 1. if the first marriage has already been
the effects of the subsequent marriage, annulled or has been declared a nullity;
specifically, in relation to the status of children
and the prospect of prosecuting a respondent for 2. if the sworn statement of the
bigamy. reappearance is not recorded in the civil
registry of the subsequent spouses'
residence;
However, "a Petition for Declaration of Absolute
Nullity of Void Marriages may be filed solely by 3. if there is no notice to the subsequent
the husband or wife." This means that even if spouses; or
Celerina is a real party in interest who stands to
be benefited or injured by the outcome of an 4. if the fact of reappearance is disputed in
action to nullify the second marriage, this remedy the proper courts of law, and no
is not available to her. judgment is yet rendered confirming,
such fact of reappearance.
Therefore, for the purpose of not only terminating
the subsequent marriage but also of nullifying the When subsequent marriages are contracted after
effects of the declaration of presumptive death a judicial declaration of presumptive death, a
and the subsequent marriage, mere filing of an presumption arises that the first spouse is already
affidavit of reappearance would not suffice. dead and that the second marriage is legal. This

Page | 75
presumption should prevail over the continuance
of the marital relations with the first spouse. The
second marriage, as with all marriages, is
presumed valid. The burden of proof to show that
the first marriage was not properly dissolved rests
on the person assailing the validity of the second
marriage.

Page | 76