FAMILY CODE

Article 1. Definition of Marriage

Not an ordinary contract.
Union between a man State policy Lifetime Commitment
and woman
A marriage cannot be annulled
for failure of consideration simply
because the reason for the marriage
did not materialize

The marriage contract binds man and Silverio v. Republic Tuazon v. CA Santos v. CA
woman into a joint life such that they
are acting, living and working as one. WON transsexuals can WON the refusal of Julia to come home can be grounds for
change their birth records WON the state through its nullity of marriage.
to make it compatible with prosecuting attorney or fiscal
their present sex, in order appear on behalf of the state for
to meet the requisites for the purpose of preventing any Facts & ruling: Leouel Santos and Julia were
marriage required in collusion between the parties husband and wife. Two years after they were
Article 1 of the Family
married, Julia left for the US and never came back.
Code. Facts and ruling: Maria
Leuoul filed for a petition the nullification of their
Victoria Lopez Tuason filed
Facts & ruling: Rommel marriage. The Supreme Court held that the factual
with the RTC a petition for case at bar does not come close to the standard
Silverio was a annulment or declaration of required to decree a nullity of marriage. Marriage is
transsexual. He was nullity of her marriage to not just an adventure but a lifetime commitment
engaged to be married petitioner Emilio R. Tuason, and innate in our society.
so he sought to have his husband. The court ruled that
name changed from all cases for annulment,
"Rommel Jacinto" to declaration of nullity of
"Mely," and his sex marriage and legal separation,
from "male" to the prosecuting attorney or
"female”. The Supreme fiscal is ordered to appear on
court held that changes behalf of the state for the
in the birth certificate purpose of preventing any
as to name and sex collusion between the parties
cannot be changed on and to take care that their
the grounds of social evidence is not fabricated or
justice and equity. suppressed.

Republic v. Duncan v. Glaxo

Cagandahan

WON gender WON Court of Appeals erred

classification from birth is in ruling that Glaxo’s policy
conclusive
against its employees marrying
employees from competitor
Facts & ruling: Jennifer
companies is valid, and in not
Cagandahan, an
holding that said policy
intersex, filed a petition
violates the equal protection
petition for correction
clause of the Constitution.
of entries in birth
certificate. The court
ruled in favor of the
respondent. Sexual Facts & ruling: An employment
development in cases of contract requiring the
intersex persons makes employees to disclose to the
the gender management any existing or
classification at birth future relationships by
inconclusive – it is at consanguinity or affinity with
maturity that the co-employees or employees of
gender of such persons, competing drug companies and
like respondent, is requiring such employee to
fixed. resign. The Court ruled that the
said stipulation is reasonable
since the company has a
legitimate business interest
that it’s trying to protect.

Star Paper Corporation v.

Simbol

WON the policy of the employer

banning spouses from working in
the same company violates the
rights of the employee under the
Constitution and the Labor Code
or is a valid exercise of
management prerogative.

Facts: A company policy that

provides for that should an
employee marry their co-
employee, one of them should
resign from the company. The
Supreme Court held that such
policy is illegal as it failed to
prove a legitimate business
concern.
 ARTICLE 2-26. Requisites
Effect of Sex Consent Formal Marriage License Marriage Marriage certificate Distinctions
Change Ceremony is not an essential between absent
or a formal and defective
requisite requisites
Silverio v. Republic Republic of the Authority of Geronimo v. CA Ronulo v. People De Loria v. Felix WON there was a
Philippines v. Solemnizing of the Philippines valid marriage
WON the gender of Albios Officer: between Guillermo
the contracting party WON the deceased WON the marriage and Josefa and
should be determined WON a marriage Beso v. Daguman (Graciana Geronimo) WON a marriage of Matea and Felipe between Felisa and
at the time of birth or contracted to obtain and Antonio ceremony took place is valid based on the Ramon.
at the time they citizenship is void ab WON the judge was Esman’s marriage is grounds raised by
choose to enter into initio for lacking the fulfilled his duty as a valid. petitioners.
marriage? Facts & ruling:
essential requisite of solemnizing officer Facts & ruling: The
Facts & ruling:
Facts & ruling: consent as stated in case concerns the
Facts & ruling: Matea de la Cruz
Rommel Silverio Article 2 of the Facts & ruling: Joey Umadac and died later on. On settlement of the
Family Code Petitioner charged Claire Bingayen May 12, 1952, the intestate estates of
was a transsexual
Judge Juan J. Petition was filed were scheduled to grandchildren Guillermo Rustia
who had always of
identified himself Facts & ruling: Daguman, Jr. with by petitioner (sister marry each other Adriana dela Cruz, and Josefa
as a female. Fringer, an solemnizing of the deceased) on March 29, 2003 sister of Matea, Delgado.
American citizen, marriage outside of naming as one of at the Sta. Rosa asked Felix to Josefa was the
married Albios, a his jurisdiction and the heirs oppositor Catholic Parish deliver the daughter of Felisa
The Supreme Court Filipina. Two years of negligence in not Antonio A. Esman Church of San properties of Matea
hekd that there is after, they sought retaining a copy and describing the Delgado by one
Nicolas, Ilocos who is already
no legal basis for to have their and not registering Lucio Campo with
latter as "husband Norte. However, dead. Felix resisted
his petition for the the marriage five other children
correction or marriage declared contract with the of the deceased". on the day of the saying he is the without benefit of
change of the as void ab initio office of the Local Petitioner contends wedding, the widower. marriage. Felisa
entries in his birth (void from the very Civil Registrar. The that the marriage supposed had another son by
certificate. beginning). She Supreme Court between her (sic) officiating priest, There is no way of Ramon
Considering that described their held that deceased sister and Fr. Mario Ragaza, question about the Osorio who Luis
there is no law marriage as one the respondent oppositor Antonio refused to officiating priest's Delgado, one of
legally recognizing made in jest and, judge’s reasons to A. Esman was null solemnize the authority to the claimants in
sex reassignment, therefore, null and justify his hurried and void since marriage upon solemnize Josefa’s estate. But,
the determination void ab initio. She solemnization of there was no learning that the marriage. There is unlike her
of a person’s sex paid Fringer the the marriage in this marriage license couple failed to also no question relationship with
made at the time of sum of $2,000 in case only tends to issued to the secure a marriage that the parties had Lucio Campo
his or her birth, if order to marry her, degrade the parties at the time license. legal capacity to which was
not attended by helping her acquire revered position the marriage was contract marriage, admittedly one
error, is immutable. American enjoyed by celebrated. The · The couple and and that both without benefit of
citizenship. The marriage in the Supreme Court held their guests instead declared before Fr. marriage, the legal
Supreme Court held hierarchy of social that it appears that proceeded to Bautista and status of Ramons
that based on the institutions in the while marriage Independent Carmen Ordiales Osorio’s and Felisa
above, consent was country. License No. Church of Filipino and Judith Vizcarra Delgado’s union is
not lacking 5038770 was Christians, also that "they took in dispute. The
between Albios and requisitioned and known as the each other as Supreme Court
Fringer. In fact, received by the Aglipayan Church, husband and wife." held that
there was real Municipality of requesting According to the
consent because it Pateros on October petitioner priest petitioners, here 1. although a
was not vitiated 09, 1953 thru the Ronulo to marry was no "marriage marriage
nor rendered Office of the them. He obliged contract" signed by contract is
defective by any Provincial despite them the wedded couple considered a
vice of consent. Treasurer of Rizal telling him they the witnesses and primary
Their consent is and later used by did not have a the priest, as evidence of
evinced by their Antonio A. Esman certificate. The required by section marriage, its
conscious purpose and Graciana Supreme Court 3 of the Marriage absence is not
of acquiring Geronimo in their held that the Law; and always proof
American marriage on minimum the priest filed no that no
citizenship through January 07, 1955, requirements to affidavit, nor marriage in
marriage. another, marriage consider that a recorded the fact took
license bearing the ceremony took marriage with the place.
same number (No. place were met. local civil registry. 2. Elisa vda. de
5038770) was also Nonetheless, it The Supreme Court Anson,
issued. The was illegal. The held that failure to petitioners’
evidence adduced marriage ceremony sign the marriage own witness
by the petitioner was illegal contract is not a whose
could only serve to because it violated cause of testimony
prove the non- Art 3(3) of the annulment. The they
recording of the Family Code - one law, imposing on primarily
marriage license of the essential the priest the duty relied upon
number but requisites of to furnish to the to support
certainly not the marriage is the parties copies of their position,
non-issuance of the presence of a valid such marriage confirmed
license itself. marriage certificate (section that
certificate. 16) and punishing Guillermo
him for its Rustia had
Cosca v. Hon. Morigo v. People
omission (section proposed
Lucio Palaypayon of the Philippines
41) implies his marriage to
obligation to see
WON private Josefa
that such
respondents are WON a marriage Delgado and
"certificate" is
guilty of violating ceremony not that
executed
the provision of performed in the eventually,
accordingly.
Article 4 of the presence of a the two had
Furthermore, the
Family Code. solemnizing "lived
law permits in
officer is valid. together as
articulo mortis
Facts & ruling: In an husband and
administrative marriages, without wife." This
complaint filed Facts & ruling: marriage license; again could
with the Office of but it requires the not but
the Court priest to make the strengthen
Administrator on Lucia Barrete and affidavit and file the
October 5, 1992, Lucio Morigo were it. presumption
herein re-acquainted of marriage.
respondents were friends who soon 3. baptismal
charged with became Tenebro v. CA certificate
illegal sweethearts. Since was
solemnization of Lucia was working WON the effect of conclusive
marriage, among abroad, she offered the judicial proof only of
others. The to bring Lucio with declaration of the the baptism
Supreme Court her and they both nullity of a second administered
held that the got married in or subsequent by the priest
Family Code, Bohol. When she marriage, on the who baptized
provides that the left back for work ground of
the child. It
formal requisites in Canada, she psychological was no proof
of marriage are, filed a petition for incapacity, on an of the
inter alia, a valid divorce a year later individual's veracity of
marriage license which was granted criminal liability
the
except in the by the Ontario for bigamy. declarations
cases provided. court. A year after and
With respect to their divorce, Lucio Facts & ruling: statements
the charge of married Maria and contained
illegal filed a declaration Petitioner in this therein, such
solemnization of of nullity of his case, Veronico as the alleged
marriage, the first marriage to Tenebro, single or
respondent was Lucia on the contracted unmarried
warned not to do grounds that no marriage with ("Señorita")
 it again. And marriage ceremony private civil status of
secondly, the actually took place. complainant Josefa
court stipulated He was then Leticia Ancajas Delgado who
that mere charged with on April 10, had no hand
irregularities in bigamy by the City 1990 by Judge in its
the formal Prosecutor of Perez, Jr. of the preparation.
requisites does Tagbilaran, Bohol. City Trial Court All these factors
not affect the The Supreme Court of Lapu-lapu sufficiently
validity of the held that such a City. In 1991, overcame the
marriage marriage is invalid. when Tenebro rebuttable
informed presumption of
A duly authorized
Ancajas that he marriage. Felisa
solemnizing officer
had been Delgado and
did not perform the
Sy V. CA previously Ramon Osorio
marriage ceremony.
married to a were never
Petitioner and
WON the marriage certain Hilda married.
Lucia Barrete
between petitioner Villareyes on
merely signed a
Filipina and private November 10,
marriage contract
respondent Fernando 1986, which they
on their own. The
is void from the have 2 children,
mere private act of
beginning for lack of showing a
signing a marriage
marriage license at photocopy of a
contract bears no The essential
the time of the marriage
semblance to a requisites include:
ceremony. contract
valid marriage and
thus, needs no between him 1. Legal capacity
Facts & ruling: judicial and Villareyes of the
declaration of stating that he contracting
Petitioner Filipina nullity. Such act was going to parties, who
alone, without cohabit with must be male
Y. Sy and private
more, cannot be Villareyes his and female;
respondent deemed to conjugal and
Fernando Sy constitute an dwellings. uring 2. Consent freely
contracted ostensibly valid the trial, given in the
marriage on marriage for which petitioner presence of the
November 15, 1973. petitioner might be admitted having solemnizing
Filipina filed a held liable for cohabited with officer.
petition for legal bigamy unless he Villareyes from
first secures a On the other hand,
separation before 1984-1988, with the formal requisites
the RTC of San judicial whom he sired are:
Fernando, declaration of two children.
Pampanga and was nullity before he However, he 1. Authority of
later amended to a contracts a denied that he the
petition for subsequent and Villareyes solemnizing
marriage. officer;
separation of were validly
property. The Trial married to each 2. A valid
Court dissolved other, claiming marriage
their conjugal that no marriage license except
partnership of ceremony took in the certain
gains and granted place to circumstances;
3. A marriage
custody of their solemnize their
ceremony
children to her. union. The
which takes
Later on, Filipina Supreme Court
place with the
was punched at the held that the
appearance of
different parts of mere fact that
the contracting
her body and was no record of a
parties before
even choked by marriage exists
the
him when she does not
solemnizing
started spanking invalidate the
officer and
their son when the marriage,
their personal
latter ignored her provided all
while she was requisites for its declaration
talking to him. validity are that they take
Filipina then filed present. There is each other as
for the declaration no evidence husband and
of absolute nullity presented by the wife in the
of their marriage defense that presence of not
citing would indicate less than two
psychological that the witnesses of
incapacity. The marriage legal age.
Trial Court and between Tenebro
Appellate Court and Villareyes Martinez v. Tan
denied her petition. lacked any
On her petition to requisite for
validity, apart WON the
this Court, she requisites of legal
from the self-
assailed for the first marriage were met
serving
time that there was
testimony of the
no marriage license
accused himself.
during their Facts & ruling: Martinez
marriage. The and Tan allegedly were
Supreme Court held married before the justice of
peace. Martinez denies such
that a marriage
claim, saying she never
license is a formal appeared before the justice
requirement; its of the peace and never was
absence renders the married to the defendant.
marriage void ab Testimony of defendant
initio. In addition, that he and the plaintiff
the marriage appeared before the justice
contract shows of the peace at the time
named, together with the
that the marriage
witnesses Zacarias Esmero
license, numbered and Pacita Ballori, and that
6237519, was they all signed the
issued in Carmona, document above
Cavite, yet, neither mentioned. The Supreme
Court held that based on
petitioner nor preponderance of evidence,
private respondent a legal marriage took place.
ever resided in
Carmona. Requirements:
The marriage 1. Document signed
by parties, and the
license was issued justice of peace
on September 2. Existence of the
17,1974, almost one document gives rise to
year after the the presumption that
ceremony took the officer authorized
place on November the marriage in due
form
15, 1973. The
ineluctable
conclusion is that
the marriage was
indeed contracted
without a marriage
license.

Aranes v. Occiano

WON a marriage
solemnized by the
solemnizing officer
without a marriage
license is void.

Facts & ruling:

Arañes married
Orobia in a
ceremony
solemnized by
Judge Occiano.
When Orobia died,
Arañes was unable
to inherit her
husband’s
properties and his
pension from the
Philippine Navy
because they were
married outside the
judge’s territorial
jurisdiction and
without the
requisite marriage
license. She
charged the Judge
with Gross
Ignorance of the
Law for causing
her embarrassment
and sufferings. The
Supreme Court held
that the marriage
is void. A marriage
which preceded the
issuance of the
marriage license is
void, and that the
subsequent
issuance of such
license cannot
render valid or
even add an iota of
validity to the
marriage.

Kho v. Kho

WON said marriage

is null and void and
of no legal effect.

Facts & ruling:

Raquel Kho filed a
petition for
annulment of his
marriage to
Veronica on the
ground that there is
no valid marriage
license at the time
of the celebration
of the marriage.
Veronica on the
other hand alleged
she and Raquel
personally
appeared before
the local civil
registrar and
secured a marriage
license before their
marriage was
solemnized. The
court decided that
that to be
considered void on
the ground of
absence of a
marriage license,
the law requires
that the absence of
such marriage
license must be
apparent on the
marriage contract,
or at the very least,
supported by a
certification from
the local civil
registrar that no
such marriage
license was issued
to the parties.
In this Veronica
claimed that she
and Raquel
obtained a
marriage license
yet she failed to
present evidence to
prove it. She did
not present the
alleged marriage
license or a copy of
it in court. In
addition the
certificate of
marriage issued by
the officiating
priest does not
contain any entry
regarding the said
marriage license.
The court said that
she could have
obtained a copy of
their marriage
contract from the
National Archives
and Records
Section where the
information
regarding the
marriage license
can be obtained.
The SC also
mentioned that it
is settled in the
rule that one who
alleges a fact has
the burden of
proving it and a
mere allegation is
not evidence.
Criminal Liability Legal Age for Religious Rites, No Who can solemnize Specific Venue for Marriage before a Proof of Marriage
for those Marriage Form Required marriage Marriages judge outside his
responsible for the court
irregularities in the
formal requisites
US v. Dulay Legal age to marry Eugenio v. Velez Marriage can be The marriage shall Navarro v. Balogbog v. CA
is 18 years old . But solemnized by: be solemnized Domagtoy
WON Dulay is in marriages where WON the petitioner publicly in the WON Ramonito and
guilty of the crime either of the parties can be considered as (1) Any incumbent chambers of the WON the judge Generoso as
of estupro are 18 years old a spouse of Vitaliana member of the judge or in open committed grosslegitimate children
(seduction) and below 21 judiciary within court, in the misconduct byand heirs of Gavino
years, the consent Facts & ruling: the court's church, chapel or wedding Tagadan for and Catalina
Facts & ruling: of the father, On Sept. 27, 1988, jurisdiction; temple, or in the the second time
Pascual Dulay, of mother or guardian respondent- office the consul- despite him just Facts & ruling:
about 23 years of is required. brothers Vargas(es) (2) Any priest, general, consul or being separated to his Petitioners Leoncia
age, began courting filed a petition for rabbi, imam, or vice-consul, as the first wife. and Gaudioso
Gregoria Pimentel habeas corpus minister of any case may be, and Balogbog are the
a girl of 16, against Eugenio for church or religious not elsewhere, Facts & ruling: children of Basilio
residing in the forcibly taking sect duly except in cases of Balogbog
pueblo of Aringay, Vitaliana authorized by his marriages Respondent judge and Genoveva
San Fernando, La (respondents’ church or religious contracted on the solemnized the Arnibal who died
Union. Their sister) from her sect and registered point of death or in wedding between intestate in 1951
relations became residence in 1987 with the civil remote places in Gaspar A. Tagadan and 1961,
every day more and confined by registrar general, accordance with and Arlyn F. Borga, respectively. Also
intimate, on the former in his acting within the Article 29 of this despite the Ramonito and
account of the residence in limits of the Code, or where knowledge that the Generoso, the
promises of Misamis Oriental. written authority both of the parties groom is merely children of their
marriage made by granted by his request the separated from his older brother,
the accused Dulay, The respondent- church or religious solemnizing officer first wife, Ida Gavino, but he died
and the girl was brothers, however, sect and provided in writing in which Peñaranda. in 1935,
seduced. The did not know of that at least one of case the marriage predeceasing their
It is alleged that he
defendant Vitaliana’s death the contracting may be solemnized parents.
performed a
accomplished his on August 28, 1988 parties belongs to at a house or place
marriage ceremony
desire for the first due to heart the solemnizing designated by Petitioners said that
between Floriano
time on a certain failure, prior to officer's church or them in a sworn Gavino died single
Dador Sumaylo
night in the latter their filing of religious sect; statement to that and bore no child
and Gemma G. del
part of December, the writ of habeas (3) Any ship effect. (57a) from a woman.
Rosario outside his
1905. The act was corpus. Hence, captain or airplane Catalina Ubas
court's jurisdiction
repeated on Eugenio did not chief only in the testi􀀺ed concerning
on October 27,
various occasions release the body of case mentioned in her marriage to
1994. The court
from that time until Vitaliana claiming Article 31; Gavino. She was
held that there is
the 28th of April that the writ of handed a "receipt,"
no pretense that
the following year. habeas corpus is (4) Any military either Sumaylo or presumably the
On the 29th of the invalid because it commander of a del Rosario was at marriage certificate,
latter month, the was filed after the unit to which a the point of death by Fr. Jomao-as, but
accused, besides death of Vitaliana. chaplain is or in a remote it was burned
the promise The respondent- assigned, in the place. Moreover, during the war. She
previously given to brothers claimed absence of the the written request said that she and
the injured girl, that there was no latter, during a presented Gavino lived
informed her existing marital military operation, addressed to the together in Obogon
parents of his relationship likewise only in the respondent judge and begot three
intention to marry between Eugenio cases mentioned in was made by only children, namely,
her, and following and Vitaliana and Article 32; one party, Gemma Ramonito,
the advice of the therefore they have Petronilo, and
parents the custody over the (5) Any consul- del Rosario. Generoso. The court
marriage was body of the latter. general, consul or Judges who are held that the
postponed until the The RTC said that vice-consul in the appointed to treasurer of
time when the since there was no case provided in specific Asturias, Cebu
accused was to surviving spouse Article 10 jurisdictions, may certified that the
complete his or children of officiate in records of birth of
studies. However, Vitaliana and that weddings only that municipality
when Gregoria got petitioner within said areas for the year 1930
pregnant, the was merely a and not beyond. could not be found;
defendant common-law Where a judge presumably
disregarded his spouse, her solemnizes a because they were
promise of brothers and sisters marriage outside lost or destroyed
marriage, and have the custody. It his court's during the war
denied being the was also held that jurisdiction, there (Exh. L). But Matias
author of the girl's the petitioner has a is a resultant Pogoy testi􀀺ed that
pregnancy. The subsisting marriage irregularity in the Gavino and
Supreme Court with another formal requisite Catalina begot three
held that Dulay woman, a legal laid down in children, one of
guilty of the crupe impediment that Article 3, which whom, Petronilo,
of estupo. disqualified him while it may not died at the age of
SEDUCTION from even legally affect the validity six. Catalina
UNDER PROMISE marrying of the marriage, testified that private
OF MARRIAGE. Vitaliana. The may subject the respondents
— A promise to court held officiating official Ramonito and
marry a woman that Eugenio was to administrative Generoso are her
over 12 and under legally married to liability. The children by Gavino
23 years of age, another woman, respondent judge Balogbog. That
abandoned which bars him was suspended for private respondents
voluntarily and from being legally 6 months. are the children of
without just cause, capacitated to Gavino and
 and given with the contract marriages. Catalina Balogbog
evil intention of The Civil Code of cannot therefore be
Aranes v. Judge
committing an the Philippines doubted.
Salvador Occiano
unlawful act, such defines “spouse”
as to lie with the as a lawfully
young woman of wedded spouse
said age, not including Trinidad v. CA
constitutes the common-law Facts & ruling: Arturio Trinidad
crime of seduction spouses. Hence, claims to be the son
Respondent is the
with fraud under the custody of of Inocentes
Presiding Judge of
article 443 of the Vitaliana’s body is Trinidad, who
the Municipal Trial
Penal Code. given to her together with Felix
Court of Balatan,
brothers and and Lourdes, his
Camarines Sur.
sisters. siblings, are heirs to
Petitioner alleges
People v. Rosal that on 17 February four parcels of land
Martinez v. Tan
2000, respondent of their deceased
WON article 476 of judge solemnized father. Lourdes, the
the Penal Code is in WON a prescribe her marriage to her aunt of Inocentes,
force form or religious rite late groom without presented the
is required for the the requisite following evidence
Facts & ruling: solemnization of the marriage license to refute Arturio’s
Said accused marriage. and at Nabua, claims: testimony of
Anunciacion Camarines Sur Briones that
Rosal (alias which is outside Inocentes was never
Maria A. Rosal), Facts & ruling: his territorial married, her own
having become jurisdiction. The testimony that
A couple were
the widow of court held that in Inocentes died
married by way of
Guillermo Rabe the case at bar, the childlessly and she
expediente
on June 29, 1925, territorial claimed that
matrimonio civil
did willfully, jurisdiction of Arturio was simply
maliciously, wherein the respondent judge is a neighbor. The
illegally and petition for limited to the court held that In
criminally marriage was municipality of the case at bar, the
contract a submitted to the Balatan, petitioner was able
second marriage justice of the peace, Camarines Sur. His to secure a
with Justino signed by the act of solemnizing certification from
Velasco on or contracting parties the marriage of the Office of the
about August where they state petitioner and Civil Registrar of
19, 1925, before that they have Orobia in Nabua, Aklan that all
the lapse of 301 mutually agreed to Camarines Sur records of births,
days from the enter into a therefore is deaths, and
death of her first contract of contrary to law marriages were
husband marriage, asking and subjects him to either lost, burned
administrative or destroyed
Guillermo Rabe, him to solemnize it.
liability. His act during the
i. e., from June On the same day,
may not amount to Japanese
29, 1925 to the justice of the
gross ignorance of occupation. Failure
August 19, 1925 peace, contracting
the law for he to present a
on which latter parties, and their
allegedly marriage contract is
date, as witnesses signed
solemnized the not proof that no
aforesaid, she the document, marriage out of marriage took
contracted a proving their human compassion place.
second marriage presence on the but nonetheless, he
with Justino day of the cannot avoid Sarmiento v. CA
Velasco. solemnization of liability for
Contrary to marriage. violating the law
law." The Following this is a on marriage. WON a man and a
demurrer is on certificate of Respondent judge woman who lived
the ground that marriage signed by should also be together are presumed
the charge does the justice of the faulted for to be married.
not constitute a peace. One witness solemnizing a
crime. The court for the husband marriage without
held that ode of and another the requisite
Civil Procedure witness for the wife marriage license. Facts & ruling:
establishes the attested that the Respondent judge
conclusive plaintiff and the did not possess Two sisters,
presumption defendant were such authority Virginia and
that the issue of legally married by when he Apolonia, filed a
a wife the justice of the solemnized the complaint against
cohabiting with peace in their marriage of their uncle, Simon,
her husband, presence on that petitioner. In this for a share of the
who is not day. respect, respondent rights to a lot left by
impotent, is judge acted in their grandfather.
indisputably However, the wife gross ignorance of Their mother was
presumed to be (plaintiff) is the law. the half-sister of
legitimate, if contesting the Simon—they
not born within validity of the shared a common
the one hundred marriage, claiming father. Simon
eighty days that she never argues that both
immediately appeared before sisters cannot claim
succeeding the the justice of the rights to the
marriage, or peace and never property because
after the was married to the their mother was an
expiration of defendant illegitimate child,
three hundred (husband). The even if her parents
days following court decided the were living
its dissolution. case in favor of the together. Since their
Without the defendant, holding grandfather died in
penal sanction that the parties 1949, the provisions
of article 476 of were legally of the old Civil
the Penal Code married on the day Code will take
such
presumption named. The effect over the New
might produce evidence in support Civil Code, and the
inconsistent of that decision is: said code states that
effects. Thus, a an illegitimate child
widow can First. The did not have
contract a document itself, successional rights.
second marriage which the plaintiff The court held that
on the tenth day admits that she the proof of
after becoming a signed. marriage may be
widow and give presented by way of
birth to a child Second. The the a) testimony of
two hundred evidence of the a witness to the
seventy-nine defendant, who matrimony; b) the
days after the testifies that he couple's public and
second and said plaintiff open cohabitation
marriage. This appeared before the as husband and
child, having justice of the peace wife after the
been born at the time named, alleged wedlock; c)
within three together with the the birth and
hundred days witness Zacarias baptismal
after the death Esmero and Pacita certificate of
of the first Ballori, and that children born
husband, might they all signed the during such union;
conclusively be document above and d) the mention
presumed to be mentioned. of such nuptial in
the legitimate subsequent
child of the first Third. The evidence documents.
husband; and, of Zacarias
yet, for the very Esmero, one of the
reason that it above-named
was born one witnesses, who
hundred eighty testifies that the
days after the plaintiff, the Iwasawa v, Gangan
second defendant, and WON the testimony
marriage, the Pacita Ballori of the NSO records
same child appeared before the
custodian certifying
would justice at the time the authenticity and
unquestionably named and did sign due execution of the
be presumed to the document
public documents
be the legitimate referred to. issued by said office
child of the was necessary before
second husband.
they could be
In order to accorded evidentiary
Enriquez v.
avoid the weight
Enriquez
possibility of
such situation, WON
it is necessary
Facts & ruling: Facts & ruling:
to apply article
Petitioner, a
476 of the Penal
Plaintiffs are heirs Japanese national,
Code.
of Doña Ciriaca met private
Villanueva, respondent
claiming that a sometime in 2002 in
property acquired one of his visits to
by Antonio the Philippines.
Enriquez in 1861, Private respondent
was part conjugal introduced herself
partnership. Upon as “single” and
her death an “has never married
undivided half of before.” They got
the property married
passed are passed
to them. In July 2009,
petitioner
They claim that confronted his wife
Villanueva and about the seeming
Enriquez were depression. Wife
legally married confessed that she
prior to the year received news that
1860. her previous
Prior to 1861 they husband passed
had lived together away.
as husband and Husband sought to
wife, had been confirm the truth of
recognized as such, his wife’s
and had children confession and
who were baptized discovered that
as the legitimate indeed, she was
children of their married to one
lawful marriage Raymond
was sufficient Maglonzo
evidence to raise Arambulo.
the presumption Petitioner filed a
that they were at petition for the
the time legally declaration of his
married. The marriage to private
Supreme Court respondent as null
held that the only and void on the
sufficient evidence ground that their
of marriage is marriage is a
record under the bigamous one. The
parish registry, Court grants the
because this petition.
certifies that it There is no question
was celebrated that the
before some priest documentary
or other officer of evidence submitted
the Roman by petitioner are all
Catholic Church public documents
as provided in the
The fact that Civil Code:
prior to 1865 they ART. 410. The
lived together as books making
husband and wife up the civil
and had children is register and
not evidence in this all documents
case to show that relating
they were married thereto shall
prior to that time. be considered
Nor is the fact that public
in the certificates documents
of baptism of these and shall be
children it is stated prima facie
that they were the evidence of
legitimate children the facts
of the lawful therein
marriage of their contained.
parents. As public
documents, they are
admissible in
evidence even
without further
proof of their due

Lex Loci Celebrationis
Van Dorn v. Romillo
WON foreign divorce is valid and binding in the Philippine jurisdiction
Facts & ruling:
Petitioner, a citizen of the Philippines was married to Private
respondent who was a US citizen. They were married in Hongkong in
1972 and later on established residence in the Philippines. They begot
two children and eventually got divorce in Nevada, US. Petitioner has
remarried in Nevada, this time to Theodore Van Dorn.
Private respondent then filed suit against petitioner stating that
petitioner’s business in Ermita, Manila is conjugal property of the
execution and
genuineness.
Exceptions and Recognition of Foreign Divorce
Pilapil v. Ibay-Somera
WON an ill-starred marriage of a Filipina and a foreigner which ended in a
foreign absolute divorce, only to be followed by a criminal infidelity suit of the
latter against the former, provides us the opportunity to lay down a decisional
rule on what hitherto appears to be an unresolved jurisdictional question.
Facts & ruling:
The petition is anchored on the main ground that the court is without
jurisdiction "to try and decide the charge of adultery, which is a private
offense that cannot be prosecuted de officio (sic), since the purported
parties and asking that petitioner be ordered to render an accounting of
that business and hat private respondent be declared with right to
manage the conjugal property. Petitioner then moved to dismiss the
case since the divorce proceedings before the Nevada Court was
acknowledged by both parties to have “no community property”. The
Court held that it is true that owing to the nationality principle
embodied in Article 15 of the Civil Code, only Philippine nationals are
covered by the policy against absolute divorces the same being
considered contrary to our concept of public policy and morality.
However, aliens may obtain divorces abroad, which may be recognized
in the Philippines, provided they are valid according to their national
law. In this case, the divorce in Nevada released private respondent
from the marriage from the standards of American law, under which
divorce dissolves the marriage.
Thus, pursuant to his national law, private respondent is no longer
the husband of petitioner.
complainant, a foreigner, does not qualify as an offended spouse having
obtained a final divorce decree under his national law prior to his filing
the criminal complaint." The court ruled that American jurisprudence, on
cases involving statutes in that jurisdiction which are in pari materia
with ours, yields the rule that after a divorce has been decreed, the
innocent spouse no longer has the right to institute proceedings against
the offenders where the statute provides that the innocent spouse shall
have the exclusive right to institute a prosecution for adultery. Where,
however, proceedings have been properly commenced, a divorce
subsequently granted can have no legal effect on the prosecution of the
criminal proceedings to a conclusion. In the present case, the fact that
private respondent obtained a valid divorce in his country, the Federal
Republic of Germany, is admitted. Said divorce and its legal effects may
be recognized in the Philippines insofar as private respondent is
concerned in view of the nationality principle in our civil law on the
matter of status of persons.
Llorente v. CA
WON a divorce decree obtained abroad by a former Filipino citizen, who was
naturalized in another country, will be considered valid in the Philippines.
Facts & ruling:
Lorenzo Llorente, married to Paula, was serving in the US Navy. While
he went to serve the US in the war, Paula stayed home in the Philippines.
Lorenzo was later naturalized as a US citizen. When he was given leave
to visit his family, he discovered that Paula had given birth and had a
relationship with his brother. Paula registered the child as illegitimate,
with the father’s name left blank. They both drew an agreement severing
all ties, right, and obligations in exchange for not being sued for adultery.
Paula agreed and thee agreement was notarized and witnessed. The
court held that the divorce will be valid here in the Philippines.

In Van Dorn v. Romillo, Jr., we held that owing to the nationality

principle embodied in Article 15 of the Civil Code, only Philippine
nationals are covered by the policy against absolute divorces, the same
being considered contrary to our concept of public policy and morality.
In the same case, the Court ruled that aliens may obtain divorces abroad,
provided they are valid according to their national law. the divorce
obtained by Lorenzo from his first wife Paula was valid and recognized
in this jurisdiction as a matter of comity. Now, since Lorenzo is
considered an alien and governed by the laws of his country, the effects
of this divorce (as to the succession to the estate of the decedent) are
matters best left to the determination of the trial court.

Republic v. Orbecido

WON respondent can remarry under Article 26 of the Family Code

Facts & ruling:

Orbecido and Villanueva were married and had 2 children. Wife went to
us and was naturalized as an American citizen. He later found that his
wife obtained a divorce decree and married a foreigner. He filed a
petition for authority to remarry invoking Article 26 of the FC, which the
court granted. The court held that petition for “authority to marry” was
treated as Petition for declaratory relief.
The determination of when the spouse
who obtained a divorce was a foreigner is at the time of the divorce not at the
time of the celebration of the marriage. The proper remedy for the Filipino spouse
need not be annulment for this would be long, tedious and not feasible
(considering that the marriage appears to have the badges of validity); it is not
also legal separation as this will not sever the marriage tie.

Bayot v. Court

WON the judgment of divorce is valid

Facts & ruling: Vicente and Rebecca were married on April 20, 1979, in
Sanctuario de San Jose, Greenhills, Mandaluyong City. On its face, the
Marriage Certificate identified Rebecca, then 26 years old, to be an
American citizen born in Agaña, Guam, USA. On November 27, 1982, in
San Francisco, California, Rebecca gave birth to Marie Josephine
Alexandra or Alix. From then on, Vicente and Rebecca's marital
relationship seemed to have soured as the latter, sometime in 1996,
initiated divorce proceedings in the Dominican Republic. Before the
Court of the First Instance of the Judicial District of Santo Domingo,
Rebecca personally appeared, while Vicente was duly represented by
counsel. The court has taken stock of the holding in Garcia v. Recio that
a foreign divorce can be recognized here, provided the divorce decree is
proven as a fact and as valid under the national law of the alien
spouse. Be this as it may, the fact that Rebecca was clearly an American
citizen when she secured the divorce and that divorce is recognized and
allowed in any of the States of the Union, the presentation of a copy of
foreign divorce decree duly authenticated by the foreign court issuing
said decree is, as here, sufficient.
In determining whether or not a divorce secured abroad would come
within the pale of the country's policy against absolute divorce, the
reckoning point is the citizenship of the parties at the time a valid
divorce is obtained.

The petitioner lacks a cause of action for declaration of nullity of

marriage, a suit which presupposes the existence of a marriage.

Fujiki v. Marinay
WON recognizing a foreign judgement on nullity of marriage requires
relitigation

Facts & ruling:

Petitioner Minoru Fujiki (Fujiki) is a Japanese national who married

respondent Maria Paz Galela Marinay (Marinay) in the Philippines on 23
January 2004. The marriage did not sit well with petitioner’s parents.
Thus, Fujiki could not bring his wife to Japan where he resides.
Eventually, they lost contact with each other.

In 2008, Marinay met another Japanese, Shinichi Maekara (Maekara).

Without the first marriage being dissolved, Marinay and Maekara were
married on 15 May 2008 in Quezon City, Philippines. Maekara brought
Marinay to Japan. However, Marinay allegedly suffered physical abuse
from Maekara. She left Maekara and started to contact Fujiki. The court
ruled that A petition to recognize a foreign judgment declaring a
marriage void does not require relitigation under a Philippine court of
the case as if it were a new petition for declaration of nullity of
marriage. It will defeat the purpose of recognizing foreign judgments,
which is "to limit repetitive litigation on claims and issues.