Rene Ronulo v.

People – GR No 182438, 07/02/2014

Facts: Joey Umadac and Claire Bingayen were scheduled to marry each other on March 29, 2003 at the
Sta. Rosa Catholic Parish Church of San Nicolas, Ilocos Norte. However, on the day of the wedding, the
supposed officiating priest, Fr. Mario Ragaza, refused to solemnize the marriage upon learning that the
couple failed to secure a marriage license.

As a recourse, they went to the Aglipayan Church and successfully celebrated the wedding solemnized by
an Fr. Rene Ronulo. Ronulo was informed of their lack of a marriage license but officiated anyway.

Ronulo was charged with violating Art. 352 of the RPC for the performance of an illegal marriage ceremony
with the MTC of Batac, Ilocos Norte. He pleaded “not guilty,” however, the witnesses of the marriage
testified against him. Florida Umadac, Joey’s mother, testified that the couple went to the local civil
registrar San Nicholas to secure a certificate from Atty. Nalupta that no marriage license was issued. The
MTC ruled Ronulo as guilty and charged him Php.200 as per Sec. 44 of Act No 3613 (Marriage Law). The
RTC affirmed the MTC’s decision. However, the RTC ruled that the basis of the fine should be Sec. 39
instead of Sec. 44 of the Marriage Law.

The CA also affirmed the RTC’s ruling but affirmed the MTC’s ruling in that the basis of penalty is Sec. 44
of the Marriage Law. The CA stated that although there’s no prescribed process for solemnizing a
marriage, the law provides minimum standards in determining whether a ceremony has been conducted.
These requisites are the personal appearance of the parties and officer, and that the declaration should
be made in the presence of at least 2 legal witnesses.

Issue: (1) Whether Art. 352 of RPC defines what constitutes an “illegal marriage ceremony” (2) Was the
ceremony illegal? (3) Was the penalty imposed and its basis proper?

Held: (1) No it doesn’t define illegal ceremonies. However, the elements of his crime were present: his
authority as a solemnizing officer, and the nature of the ceremony was illegal.

(2) Yes. While illegal ceremonies are not defined. Its illegality stems from Arts. 3 and 6 of the FC which
provides its requisites; Ronulo officiated a ceremony knowing there was a lack in the essential and formal
requirements of marriage (lack of marriage license), thus, making it illegal. The marriage certificate
doesn’t negate his criminal liability, but instead, it proves that he did conduct a marriage; which happens
to be illegal.

(3) The penalty imposed is proper. The basis of the penalty, Sec. 44, used by the MTC and affirmed by CA
is also proper.

Sec. 44 states the General Penal Clause of the Marriage Law where: Any violation of any provision of this
Act not specifically penalized, or of the regulations to be promulgated by the proper authorities, shall be
punished by a one of not more than two hundred pesos or by imprisonment for not more than one month,
or both, in the discretion of the court. In this case, Ronulo violated Art. 352 of the RPC but its penalty is
provided for by Sec. 44 of the Marriage Law.

Art 352 RPC states: Priests or ministers of any religious denomination or sect, or civil authorities who shall
perform or authorize any illegal marriage ceremony shall be punished in accordance with the provisions
of the Marriage Law.
Sally Go-Bangayan v. Benjamin Bangayan Jr. – GR N 201061, 07/03/2013

Facts: On Sep. 10, 1973, Benjamin married Azucena Alegre in Caloocan City and had 3 children: Rizalyn,
Emmamylin, and Benjamin III. In 1979, Benjamin developed a romantic relationship Sally and in 1981,
Azucena left for the US. In Feb 1982, Benjamin and Sally lived together as husband and wife. Sally brought
Benjamin to Santolan, Pasig to sign a purported marriage contract despite her knowing of Benjamin’s
marital status. She assured Benjamin that the marriage contract would not be registered.

Benjamin and Sally had 2 children: Bernice and Bentley. During their cohabitation they acquired 7
properties: TCT 61722 (registered under both names); 61720 & 190860 (under Benjamin as married);
Condominium Certificate of Title 8782 & 8783 (under Sally as married); TCT N-193656 & 253681 (under
Sally as an individual).

The relationship ended in 1994 when Sally left with the children for Canada. Sally then filed criminal
actions against Benjamin for bigamy and falsification of public documents (marriage contract). Benjamin
filed a petition for declaration of nullity at the RTC and asked for a partition of properties acquired in
accordance with Art. 148 FC, to become administrator of properties during the case, and to declare the 2
children as illegitimate. RTC repeatedly asked for evidence from Sally but she refused/failed to present
them on multiple occasions. The RTC ruled that the marriage was void ab initio and not bigamous since
the marriage was not officially recorded due to a lack of marriage license and Benjamin’s existing
marriage. Sally acted in bad faith because she knew of Benjamin’s existing marriage. As per Art. 148, Sally’s
claims to all properties were forfeited.

Sally appealed before CA where her appeal was partially granted. The properties acquired solely by
Benjamin were forfeited by Sally; the properties solely under Sally were given to her. Only 61722 were to
be shared. Sally moved for reconsideration in both RTC and CA but was denied.

Issue: (1) Whether the CA erred in affirming the RTC’s ruling that Sally waived her right to present evidence
(2) Whether CA erred in affirming the RTC’s decision of declaring the marriage between Benjamin and
Sally null and void ab initio and non-existent (3) Whether CA erred in affirming with modification the RTC’s
decision regarding property relations.

Held: (1) No, the court agrees with the RTC that Sally waived her right to present evidence through her
continued refusal to present them.

(2) No, as per Sec 3 Art. 35 FC with exceptions provided by Art. 34, the marriage is void ab initio due to
lack of a license. The marriage license presented by Sally was established to not be valid as it was not
issued at all by the Pasig registrar. Regarding non-existence, Art. 1409 (2) CC provides for general rules on
void/inexistent contracts: “those which are absolutely simulated or fictitious” are “inexistent and void
from the beginning”

(3) No, CA ruled correctly with basis of Art 148 FC. The couple cohabited without benefit of marriage.
Thus, properties acquired by them through joint contribution shall be owned proportionally. RTC and CA
were correct in excluding the properties separately owned by the parties.
Art. 148 states: In cases of cohabitation not falling under the preceding Article, only the properties
acquired by both of the parties through their actual joint contribution of money, property, or industry
shall be owned by them in common in proportion to their respective contributions. In the absence of
proof to the contrary, their contributions and corresponding shares are presumed to be equal. The same
rule and presumption shall apply to joint deposits of money and evidences of credit.

If one of the parties is validly married to another, his or her share in the co- ownership shall accrue to the
absolute community of conjugal partnership existing in such valid marriage. If the party who acted in bad
faith is not validly married to another, his or her share shall be forfeited in the manner provided in the
last paragraph of the preceding Article.

The foregoing rules on forfeiture shall likewise apply even if both parties are in bad faith.

Art. 1409: The following contracts are inexistent and void from the beginning:

1. Those whose cause, object or purpose is contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order or
public policy;
2. Those which are absolutely simulated or fictitious;
3. Those whose cause or object did not exist at the time of the transaction;
4. Those whose object is outside the commerce of men;
5. Those which contemplate an impossible service;
6. Those where the intention of the parties relative to the principal object of the contract cannot
be ascertained;
7. Those expressly prohibited or declared void by law
Raquel Kho v. Republic of the Phil. & Veronica Kho – GR No 187462, 06/01/2016

Facts: Raquel Kho field a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage ab initio with the RTC of Oras,
Eastern Samar. He alleged that there was no marriage license at the time of the celebration. He also
presented a certification from the registrar of Arteche, Eastern Samar that there was no record of any
application or actual marriage license issued to the parties despite celebrating the wedding.

Veronica answered by praying the petition be dismissed for lack of cause of action because there was no
evidence proving the marriage was celebrated without a license. She also claimed that they appeared
before local civil registrar and secured a marriage license which they presented before the celebration.
The Borongan RTC Eastern Samar Branch 2 ruled that the marriage in 1972 is null and void ab initio as per
Art. 80 CC and Arts. 4 and 5 FC. The RTC accepted, as a fact, that there was no license when the marriage
was celebrated. The RTC used Arts. 53 (4) 58 and 80 (3) CC as further basis on the fact that there was no
license. Thus, marriage is null and void ab initio.
The CA then reversed and set aside the RTC’s decision. The CA stated that whenever a marriage is
celebrated, it is presumed that a valid marriage license was issued; and Raquel failed to overcome the
presumption. CA ruled that the absence of a marriage certification that a license was issued was a mere
defect in the formal requisites, thus, not invalidating the marriage.
Issue: (1) Whether CA erred in ascribing an “ethical dimension” to Raquel’s cause; where he was implied
to seek nullity of his marriage for the legitimization of an alleged illicit affair with another woman. (2)
Whether CA erred in appreciating the fact that despite after 25 years, Raquel did nothing to attack, even
collaterally, his void marriage. (3) Whether CA erred in disregarding Raquel’s obviously overwhelming
evidence of the lack of license and instead supported presumptions in favor of Veronica. (4) Whether CA
erred in reversing and setting aside the decision of the RTC.

Held: (1) Yes, the bearing of Raquel’s motives in annulling the marriage is besides the point. Veronica
cannot use motives as part of her accusation and her failure to produce evidence that trumps Raquel’s is
a more important faced to examine. (2) Yes, the law doesn’t provide a deadline or any period in which an
action for nullity may be no longer done. (3) Yes, despite the conflict on findings between RTC and CA,
this court is bound to review the findings as per Rule 45 of Rules of Court. (4) Yes, Art. 80 CC provides that
marriages solemnized without license are void ab initio (regardless if a contract/certification was signed)
with exceptions of exceptional character provided by Arts. 72 to 79 CC. Furthermore, Arts. 53(4) and 58
CC and Arts. 4 and 5 FC provides for void marriages ab initio for lack of license.

Wherefore, the petition of Raquel is granted. The CA’s decision is reversed and set aside. The decision of
the RTC is reinstated.

Art 53 (4) CC: No marriage shall be solemnized unless all these requisites are complied with: (4): A
marriage license, except in a marriage of exceptional character

Art 58 CC: Save marriages of an exceptional character authorized in Chap. 2 of this Title, but not those
under article 75, no marriage shall be solemnized without a license first being issued by the local civil
registrar of the municipality where either contracting party habitually resides.
Article 80 CC: The following marriages shall be void from the beginning:

1. Those contracted under the ages of sixteen and fourteen years by the male and female
respectively, even with the consent of the parents;
2. Those solemnized by any person not legally authorized to perform marriages;
3. Those solemnized without a marriage license, save marriages of exceptional character;
4. Bigamous or polygamous marriages not falling under article 83, number 2;
5. Incestuous marriages mentioned in article 81;
6. Those where one or both contracting parties have been found guilty of the killing of the spouse
of either of them;
7. Those between stepbrothers and stepsisters and other marriages specified in article 82
Engrace Ninal et al. v. Norma Bayadog – GR No 133778, 03/14/2000

Facts: Pepito Ninal was married to Teodulfa Bellones in Sep 26, 1974 and had children Engrace Ninal,
minors Babyline, Ingrid, Archie, and Pepito Jr. Teodulfa was shot and killed by Pepito on April 24, 1985. 1
year and 8 months Pepito remarried with Norma Bayadog without a marriage license. On Feb 19, 1997,
Pepito died in a car accident. This led to Engrace et al. filing for declaration of nullity of marriage on
grounds of a lack of license. The case was filed under assumption that the validity/invalidity of the second
marriage would affect Engrace et al.’s successional rights. Norma field a motion to dismiss based on
Engrace having no cause of action since they are not among the persons listed who may file an action to
annul under Art. 47 FC.

Cebu RTC Branch 59 dismissed Engrace’s petition and ruled that Engrace should have filed the action
before Pepito died. The RTC found that the Family Code was “rather silent, obscure, and insufficient” in
resolving the issues. The basis was Art. 47 FC which enumerates who may file and the prescribed time
period for initiating an action for annulment of marriage. Engrace et al then petitions for a review.

It’s notable that the Pepito’s marriage were solemnized before the effectivity of the Family Code (August
3, 1988). Marriage with Bellones was in 1974 and marriage with Bayadog in Dec 11, 1986.

Issue: May the heirs of a deceased person file a petition for the declaration of nullity of his marriage after
his death?

Held: The 2 marriages involved in this case were solemnized before the effectivity of the Family Code. The
applicable law to determine their validity is the Civil Code which was the law in effect at the time. As per
Art. 53 CC, a valid marriage license is a requisite of marriage. Thus, the marriage is void ab initio in
pursuance of Art. 80 CC.

Regarding the validity of the second marriage, Pepito was eligible to remarry after the death of his first
spouse. However, the second marriage with Norma was solemnized without a marriage license; therefore,
the second marriage is void ab initio.

For the issue raised, Art. 47 FC pertains to a voidable marriage. The RTC mistakenly considered voidable
and void marriages as identical. The 2nd marriage was void ab initio; therefore, Art. 47 cannot be applied.
A marriage that is annullable is valid until otherwise declared by court and marriage void ab initio is
considered as having never taken place and cannot be a source of rights.

Void marriages have no legal effects except those declared by law concerning the properties of the alleged
spouses, regarding co-ownership or ownership through actual joint contribution, and its effect on the
children born to such void marriages as provided in Art 50 FC in relation to Arts. 43, 44, 51, 53, and 54 FC.

Marriage void ab initio requires no judicial decree. Therefore, there’s no need for Engrace to file such
action against Norma as Norma never had succession rights to begin with due to marriage void ab initio.

Wherefore, petition is granted. The decision of RTC is reversed and set aside. The said case is reinstated.
Article 50 CC: For the exercise of civil rights and the fulfillment of civil obligations, the domicile of natural
persons is the place of their habitual residence.

Article 53 CC: No marriage shall be solemnized unless all these requisites are complied with:

1. Legal capacity of the contracting parties

2. Their consent freely given
3. Authority of the person performing the marriage
4. A marriage license, except in a marriage of exceptional character

Article 80 CC: The following marriages shall be void from the beginning:

1. Those contracted under the ages of sixteen and fourteen years by the male and female
respectively, even with the consent of the parents;
2. Those solemnized by any person not legally authorized to perform marriages;
3. Those solemnized without a marriage license, save marriages of exceptional character;
4. Bigamous or polygamous marriages not falling under article 83, number 2;
5. Incestuous marriages mentioned in article 81;
6. Those where one or both contracting parties have been found guilty of the killing of the spouse
of either of them;
7. Those between stepbrothers and stepsisters and other marriages specified in article 82