Executive Order No. 209 - Family Code
Article 1 - Marriage
Marriage is a special contract regulated and controlled by the state, not by the will of the
parties
Stipulations undermining marriage are contrary to law, morals and good customs
Marriage demands respect and dignity.
A married person still enjoys the right to privacy of communication and correspondence
Persons living together as husband and wife are presumed to be married.
A man and a woman living as husband and wife are presumed to be married.
Marriage is not an adventure but a lifetime commitment.
Doubts in the validity of a marriage should be resolved in its favor
Our family law is based on the policy that marriage is not a mere contract
Marriage is immutable.
Marriage is a special contract regulated and controlled by the state, not by the will
of the parties
a) It is something more than a mere contract. It is a new relation, the rights,
duties, and obligations of which rest not upon the agreement of the parties but upon
the general law which defines and prescribes those rights, duties, and obligations.
Marriage is an institution, in the maintenance of which in its purity the public is
deeply interested. It is a relation for life and the parties cannot terminate it at any
shorter period by virtue of any contract they may make. The reciprocal rights arising
from this relation, so long as it continues, are such as the law determines from time to
time, and none other. When the legal existence of the parties is merged into one by
marriage, the new relation is regulated and controlled by the state or government upon
principles of public policy for the benefit of society as well as the parties.
Eloisa Goitia vs. Jose Campos Rueda, G.R. No. 11263, November 2, 1916
b) Marriage in this country is an institution in which the community is
deeply interested. The state has surrounded it with safeguards to maintain its purity,
continuity and permanence. The security and stability of the state are largely
dependent upon it. It is the interest and duty of each and every member of the
Copyright 2017 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia (2017.1) 1
community to prevent the bringing about of a condition that would shake its
foundation and ultimately lead to its destruction. The incidents of the status are
governed by law, not by will of the parties. The law specifically enumerates the legal
grounds, that must be proved to exist by indubitable evidence, to annul a marriage.
Joel Jimenez vs. Remedios Cañizares, G.R. No. L-12790, Aug. 31, 1960
Office of the Court Administrator v. Tormis, A.C. No. 9920, August 30, 2016, citing Beso
v. Daguman, 380 Phil. 544 (2000)
c) The special prescriptions on actions that can put the integrity of marriage
to possible jeopardy are impelled by no less than the State's interest in the marriage
relation and its avowed intention not to leave the matter within the exclusive domain
and the vagaries of the parties to alone dictate.
Enrico L. Pacete vs. Glicerio V. Carriaga, Jr., G.R. No. L-53880, March 17, 1994
Stipulations undermining marriage are contrary to law, morals and good customs
a) Between spouses
There is no question that the covenants contained in the said separation
agreement are contrary to law, morals and good customs. Those stipulations
undermine the institutions of marriage and the family.
Leonardo S. Biton vs. Andres Momongan, G.R. No. L-2555, September 3, 1935
The spouses should not be allowed, by the simple expedient of agreeing that
one of them leave the conjugal abode and never to return again, to circumvent the
policy of the laws on marriage.
William H. Brown vs. Juanita Yambao, G.R. No. L-10699, October 18, 1957
Rep. of the Phils. vs. Gregorio Nolasco, G.R. No. 94053, March 17, 1993
The Kasunduan had absolutely no force and effect on the validity of the
marriage between complainant and his wife. Article 1 of the Family Code provides
that marriage is "an inviolable social institution whose nature, consequences, and
incidents are governed by law and not subject to stipulation." It is an institution of
public order or policy, governed by rules established by law which cannot be made
inoperative by the stipulation of the parties.
Edwin A. Acebedo vs. Eddie P. Arquero, A.M. No. P-94-1054, March 11, 2003
Copyright 2017 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia (2017.1) 2
Conjugal arrangement between members of Jehovah’s Witnesses sect in light
of "compelling state interest" doctrine
In applying the "compelling state interest" test, the first inquiry is whether
respondent's right to religious freedom has been burdened. The second step is to
ascertain respondent's sincerity in her religious belief. plpecdtai
Alejandro Estrada vs. Soledad S. Escritor, A.M. No. P-02-1651, August 4, 2003
b) Between employer and employee
The danger of just such a policy against marriage followed by petitioner PT&T
is that it strikes at the very essence, ideals and purpose of marriage as an inviolable
social institution and, ultimately, of the family as the foundation of the nation. Hence,
while it is true that the parties to a contract may establish any agreements, terms, and
conditions that they may deem convenient, the same should not be contrary to law,
morals, good customs, public order, or public policy. Carried to its logical
consequences, it may even be said that petitioner's policy against legitimate marital
bonds would encourage illicit or common-law relations and subvert the sacrament of
marriage.
PT&T vs. NLRC and Grace de Guzman, G.R. No. 118978, May 23, 1997
Marriage demands respect and dignity.
Marriage is a sacred institution demanding respect and dignity.
Josefina Mortel vs. Anacleto F. Aspiras, Adm. Case No. 145, December 28, 1956
Lilian F. Villasanta vs. Hilarion M. Peralta, G.R. AC-UNAV, April 30, 1957
Santa Pangan vs. Dionisio Ramos, A.C. No. 1053, August 31, 1981
We cannot overemphasize that having an extra-marital affair is an afront to the
sanctity of marriage, which is a basic institution of society. Even our Family Code
provides that husband and wife must live together, observe mutual love, respect and
fidelity. This is rooted in the fact that both our Constitution and our laws cherish the
validity of marriage and unity of the family. Our laws, in implementing this
constitutional edict on marriage and the family underscore their permanence,
inviolability and solidarity.
Leus v. St. Scholastica's College Westgrove, G.R. No. 187226, January 28, 2015, citing
Copyright 2017 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia (2017.1) 3
Santos v. NLRC, 350 Phil. 560 (1998)
A married person still enjoys the right to privacy of communication and
correspondence
A person, by contracting marriage, does not shed his/her integrity or his right to
privacy as an individual and the constitutional protection [the privacy of
communication and correspondence] is ever available to him or to her.
Cecilia Zulueta vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 107383, February 20, 1996
Persons living together as husband and wife are presumed to be married.
Persons living together in apparent matrimony are presumed, in the absence of
any counter presumption or evidence special to the case, to be in fact married. The
reason is that such is the common order of society, and if the parties were not what
they thus hold themselves out as being, they would be living in constant violation of
decency and law. The presumption in favor of matrimony is one of the strongest
known in law. The law presumes morality, and not immorality: marriage, and not
concubinage, legitimacy, and not bastardy. There is the presumption that persons
living together as husband and wife are married to each other.
People of the Phils. vs. Elias Borromeo, G.R. No. 61873, October 31, 1984
A man and a woman living as husband and wife are presumed to be married.
Courts look upon the presumption of marriage with great favor as it is founded
on the following rationale: "The basis of human society throughout the civilized world
is that of marriage. Marriage in this jurisdiction is not only a civil contract, but it is a
new relation, an institution in the maintenance of which the public is deeply
interested. Consequently, every intendment of the law leans toward legalizing
matrimony. Persons dwelling together in apparent matrimony are presumed, in the
absence of any counter-presumption or evidence special to that case, to be in fact
married. The reason is that such is the common order of society and if the parties were
not what they thus hold themselves out as being, they would be living in the constant
violation of decency and of law . . . ."
Mora Adong vs. Cheong Seng Gee, G.R. No. L-18081, March 3, 1922
Matilde Alavado vs. City Government of Tacloban, G.R. No. L-49084, October 10, 1985
Copyright 2017 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia (2017.1) 4
Maria del Rosario Mariategui vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 57062, January 24, 1992
Marriage is not an adventure but a lifetime commitment.
This interest proceeds from the constitutional mandate that the State recognizes
the sanctity of family life and of affording protection to the family as a basic
"autonomous social institution" Specifically, the Constitution considers marriage as an
"inviolable social institution," and is the foundation of family life which shall be
protected by the State. This is why the Family Code considers marriage as "a special
contract of permanent union" and case law considers it not just an adventure but a
lifetime commitment."
Engrace Niñal vs. Norma Bayadog, G.R. No. 133778, March 14, 2000
Leouel Santos vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 112019, January 4, 1995
Doubts in the validity of a marriage should be resolved in its favor
The Court is mindful of the policy of the 1987 Constitution to protect and
strengthen the family as the basic autonomous social institution and marriage as the
foundation of the family. Thus, any doubt should be resolved in favor of the validity
of the marriage.
Rep. of the Phils. vs. Lolita Quintero-Hamano, G.R. No. 149498, May 20, 2004
It remains settled that the State has a high stake in the preservation of marriage
rooted in its recognition of the sanctity of married life and its mission to protect and
strengthen the family as a basic autonomous social institution. Hence, any doubt
should be resolved in favor of the existence and continuation of the marriage and
against its dissolution and nullity. Presumption is always in favor of the validity of
marriage. Semper praesumitur pro matrimonio.
Veronica Cabacungan Alcazar vs. Rey C. Alcazar, G.R. No. 174451, October 13, 2009
Our family law is based on the policy that marriage is not a mere contract
Our constitution is committed to the policy of strengthening the family as a
basic social institution. Our family law is based on the policy that marriage is not a
mere contract, but a social institution in which the State is vitally interested. The State
can find no stronger anchor than on good, solid and happy families. The break-up of
Copyright 2017 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia (2017.1) 5
families weakens our social and moral fabric; hence, their preservation is not the
concern of the family members alone. Whether or not a marriage should continue to
exist or a family should stay together must not depend on the whims and caprices of
only one party, who claims that the other suffers psychological imbalance,
incapacitating such party to fulfill his or her marital duties and obligations.
Marietta B. Ancheta vs. Rodolfo S. Ancheta, G.R. No. 145370, March 4, 2004
Marriage is immutable.
The Family Code emphasizes the permanent nature of marriage, hailing it as
the foundation of the family. It is this inviolability which is central to our traditional
and religious concepts of morality and provides the very bedrock on which our society
finds stability. Marriage is immutable and when both spouses give their consent to
enter it, their consent becomes irrevocable, unchanged even by their independent
wills.
Florence Malcampo-Sin vs. Philipp T. Sin, G.R. No. 137590, March 26, 2001
Art. 3 (2) - Marriage license
A marriage license is indispensable to the validity of marriage.
Requirement of a marriage license is the State’s demonstration of its involvement in every
marriage.
Lack of marriage license number in marriage contract does not prove non-issuance of
license.
A marriage license wrongfully obtained does not invalidate marriage.
Absence of marriage certificate is merely an irregularity in complying with the formal
requirement for procuring a marriage license.
Civil registrar’s certification of "due search and inability to find" a record showing that a
marriage license number has been issued, is adequate to prove its non-issuance.
Marriages exceptional in character do not require a marriage license.
Rationale for not requiring a marriage license in marriages exceptional in character.
Use of same marriage license in church wedding ratified and fortified the earlier civil
Copyright 2017 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia (2017.1) 6
ceremony.
It is the marriage license that gives the solemnizing officer the authority to solemnize a
marriage.
A marriage license is indispensable to the validity of marriage.
Since there is no question that the marriage of petitioner and the deceased does
not fall within the marriages exempt from the license requirement, a marriage license,
therefore, was indispensable to the validity of their marriage. The records reveal that
the marriage contract bears no marriage license number and as certified by the Local
Civil Registrar, their office has no record of such marriage license. This certification
issued by the local civil registrar enjoys probative value, he being the officer charged
under the law to keep a record of all data relative to the issuance of a marriage. The
marriage between petitioner and the deceased, having been solemnized without the
necessary marriage license, and not being one of the marriages exempt from the
marriage license requirement, is undoubtedly void ab initio.
Susan Nicdao Cariño vs. Susan Yee Cariño, G.R. No. 132529, February 2, 2001
Requirement of a marriage license is the State’s demonstration of its involvement
in every marriage.
A valid marriage license is a requisite of marriage under Article 53 of the Civil
Code, the absence of which renders the marriage void ab initio pursuant to Article
80(3) in relation to Article 58. The requirement and issuance of marriage license is the
State's demonstration of its involvement and participation in every marriage, in the
maintenance of which the general public is interested. This interest proceeds from the
constitutional mandate that the State recognizes the sanctity of family life and of
affording protection to the family as a basic "autonomous social institution"
Specifically, the Constitution considers marriage as an "inviolable social institution,"
and is the foundation of family life which shall be protected by the State. This is why
the Family Code considers marriage as "a special contract of permanent union" and
case law considers it not just an adventure but a lifetime commitment.
Engrace Niñal vs. Norma Bayadog, G.R. No. 133778, March 14, 2000
Lack of marriage license number in marriage contract does not prove non-issuance
of license.
Copyright 2017 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia (2017.1) 7
The contention that there was no marriage license obtained by the spouses
because the copies of the marriage contract presented did not state the marriage
license number, is flawed. At most, the evidence adduced could only serve to prove
the non-recording of the marriage license number but certainly not the non-issuance of
the license itself.
Ireneo G. Geronimo vs. CA and Antonio Esman, G.R. No. 105540, July 5, 1993
A marriage license wrongfully obtained does not invalidate marriage
A marriage under a license is not invalidated by the fact that the license was
wrongfully obtained. This must be so, for the local civil registrar who issues the
marriage license is not required to inquire into the authority of the officer
administering the oath, and neither is the person solemnizing the marriage required to
investigate as to whether or not a marriage license, which appears to have been issued
by a competent official, was legally obtained. What the law declares as null and void
are marriages solemnized without a marriage license.
Eduardo Eigenman vs. Marydeen Guerra and Froilan Guerra, 61 O.G. (31) 4722
Absence of marriage certificate is merely an irregularity in complying with the
formal requirement for procuring a marriage license.
A duly authenticated and admitted certificate is prima facie evidence of legal
capacity to marry on the part of the alien applicant for a marriage license. The absence
of the said certificate is merely an irregularity in complying with the formal
requirement for procuring a marriage license. Under Article 4 of the Family Code, an
irregularity will not affect the validity of a marriage celebrated on the basis of a
marriage license issued without that certificate.
Grace J. Garcia vs. Rederick A. Recio, G.R. No. 138322, October 2, 2001
Civil registrar’s certification of "due search and inability to find" a record showing
that a marriage license number has been issued, is adequate to prove its
non-issuance.
The certification of the local civil registrar of due search and inability to find a
record or entry to the effect that a marriage license number was issued to the parties is
adequate to prove its non-issuance. The certification of "due search and inability to
Copyright 2017 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia (2017.1) 8
find" issued by the civil registrar enjoys probative value, he being the officer charged
under the law to keep a record of all data relative to the issuance of a marriage license.
Unaccompanied by any circumstance of suspicion and pursuant to Section 29, Rule
132 of the Rules of Court, a certificate of "due search and inability to find"
sufficiently proved that his office did not issue marriage license no. 3196182 to the
contracting parties.
Republic of the Phil. vs. Court of Appeals and Angelina M. Castro, G.R. No. 103047,
September 2, 1994
Marriages exceptional in character do not require a marriage license.
The argument that the marriage was void because the parties had no marriage
license, is misplaced because it has been established that Dr. Jacob and petitioner
lived together as husband and wife for at least five years. An affidavit to this effect
was executed by Dr. Jacob and petitioner. Clearly then, the marriage was exceptional
in character and did not require a marriage license under Article 76 of the Civil Code.
The Civil Code governs this case, because the questioned marriage and the assailed
adoption took place prior the effectivity of the Family Code.
Tomasa vda. de Jacob vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 135216, August 19, 1999
Rationale for not requiring a marriage license in marriages exceptional in
character.
However there are several instances recognized by the Civil Code wherein a
marriage license is dispensed with, one of which is that provided in Article 76,
referring to the marriage of a man and a woman who have lived together and
exclusively with each other as husband and wife for a continuous and unbroken period
of at least five years before the marriage. The rationale why no license is required in
such case is to avoid exposing the parties to humiliation, shame and embarrassment
concomitant with the scandalous cohabitation of persons outside a valid marriage due
to the publication of every applicant's name for a marriage license. The publicity
attending the marriage license may discourage such persons from legitimizing their
status. To preserve peace in the family, avoid the peeping and suspicious eye of public
exposure and contain the source of gossip arising from the publication of their names,
the law deemed it wise to preserve their privacy and exempt them from that
requirement.
Copyright 2017 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia (2017.1) 9
Engrace Niñal vs. Norma Bayadog, G.R. No. 133778, March 14, 2000
Use of same marriage license in church wedding ratified and fortified the earlier
civil ceremony.
The couple had complied with all the essential and formal requisites for a valid
marriage, including the requirement of a valid license in the first of the two
ceremonies. That this license was used legally in the celebration of the civil ceremony
does not detract from the ceremonial use thereof in the church wedding of the same
parties to the marriage, for the latter rites served not only to ratify but also to fortify
the first.
Ofelia P. Ty vs. Court of Appeals and Edgardo M. Reyes, G.R. No. 127406, November
27, 2000
It is the marriage license that gives the solemnizing officer the authority to
solemnize a marriage.
It has been held that 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. Except in cases provided by law, it is the
marriage license that gives the solemnizing officer the authority to solemnize a
marriage. Respondent judge did not possess such authority when he solemnized the
marriage of petitioner.
Mercedita Mata Arañes vs. Judge Salvador M. Occiano, A.M. No. MTJ-02-1390, April
11, 2002
Office of the Court Administrator v. Tormis, A.C. No. 9920, August 30, 2016
The Court does not accept the arguments of the respondent judges that the
ascertainment of the validity of the marriage license is beyond the scope of the duty of
a solemnizing officer especially when there are glaring pieces of evidence that point
to the contrary. As correctly observed by the OCA, the presumption of regularity
accorded to a marriage license disappears the moment the marriage documents do not
appear regular on its face.
OCA vs. Anatalio S. Necessario, et al., A.M. No. MTJ-07-1691, April 2, 2013
Copyright 2017 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia (2017.1) 10
Art. 3 (3) - Marriage ceremony
Exchange of vows is presumed to have been made based on testimonies that a
wedding took place.
An exchange of vows can be presumed to have been made from the testimonies
of the witnesses who state that a wedding took place, since the very purpose for
having a wedding is to exchange vows of marital commitment. It would indeed be
unusual to have a wedding without an exchange of vows and quite unnatural for
people not to notice its absence. The law favors the validity of marriage, because the
State is interested in the preservation of the family and the sanctity of the family is a
matter of constitutional concern.
Leoncia Balogbog and Gaudioso Balogbog vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 83598,
March 7, 1997
While the petitioner may view this merely as a "blessing," the presence of the
requirements of the law constitutive of a marriage ceremony qualified this "blessing"
into a "marriage ceremony" as contemplated by Article 3 (3) of the Family Code and
Article 352 of the RPC, as amended.
Ronulo v. People, G.R. No. 182438, July 2, 2014
Under Article 3 (3) of the Family Code, one of the essential requisites of marriage
is the presence of a valid marriage certificate. In the present case, the petitioner
admitted that he knew that the couple had no marriage license, yet he conducted the
"blessing" of their relationship.
Undoubtedly, the petitioner conducted the marriage ceremony despite knowledge
that the essential and formal requirements of marriage set by law were lacking.
The marriage ceremony, therefore, was illegal. The petitioner's knowledge of the
absence of these requirements negates his defense of good faith.
Ronulo v. People, G.R. No. 182438, July 2, 2014
[T]he lack of a marriage certificate negates his criminal liability in the present case.
For purposes of determining if a marriage ceremony has been conducted, a marriage
certificate is not included in the requirements provided by Article 3 (3) of the Family
Code, as discussed above.
Copyright 2017 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia (2017.1) 11
Ronulo v. People, G.R. No. 182438, July 2, 2014
Art. 6 - Form of solemnization of marriage
While Article 352 of the RPC, as amended, does not specifically define a "marriage
ceremony" and what constitutes its "illegal" performance, Articles 3 (3) and 6 of the
Family Code are clear on these matters. These provisions were taken from Article 55
of the New Civil Code which, in turn, was copied from Section 3 of the Marriage Law
with no substantial amendments.
Article 6 of the Family Code provides that "[n]o prescribed form or religious rite
for the solemnization of the marriage is required. It shall be necessary, however, for
the contracting parties to appear personally before the solemnizing officer and
declare in the presence of not less than two witnesses of legal age that they take
each other as husband and wife."
Ronulo v. People, G.R. No. 182438, July 2, 2014
Pertinently, Article 3 (3) mirrors Article 6 of the Family Code and particularly
defines a marriage ceremony as that which takes place with the appearance of the
contracting parties before the solemnizing officer and their personal declaration that
they take each other as husband and wife in the presence of not less than two
witnesses of legal age.
Ronulo v. People, G.R. No. 182438, July 2, 2014
Even prior to the date of the enactment of Article 352 of the RPC, as amended, the
rule was clear that no prescribed form of religious rite for the solemnization of the
marriage is required. However, as correctly found by the CA, the law sets the
minimum requirements constituting a marriage ceremony: first, there should be the
personal appearance of the contracting parties before a solemnizing officer; and
second, their declaration in the presence of not less than two witnesses that they take
each other as husband and wife.
Ronulo v. People, G.R. No. 182438, July 2, 2014
Copyright 2017 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia (2017.1) 12
Art. 7 - Who may solemnize a marriage
Good faith and Christian motives cannot be made as an excuse to solemnize marriage
without license.
Solemnizing marriage out of human compassion may not amount to gross ignorance of the
law.
Jurisdiction of priests, justices and judges.
A judge is not authorized to solemnize marriages outside of his jurisdiction.
Judge who solemnized marriage without marriage license acted in gross ignorance of the
law.
Illegal solemnization of marriage by a judge constitutes misconduct
Good faith and Christian motives cannot be made as an excuse to solemnize
marriage without license.
For solemnizing marriage without the required marriage license, respondent
has dismally failed to live up to his commitment to be the “embodiment of
competence, integrity and independence” and to his promise to be “faithful to the
law.” He cannot hide behind his claim of good faith and Christian motives which, at
most, would serve only to mitigate his liability and could never justify violation of the
law.
Marilou Nama Moreno vs. Jose C. Bernabe, Adm. Matter No. MTJ-94-963, July 14,
1995
Solemnizing marriage out of human compassion may not amount to gross
ignorance of the law.
The judge’s act of solemnizing a marriage without the requisite marriage
license is contrary to law and subjects him to administrative liability. His act may not
amount to gross ignorance of the law for he allegedly solemnized the marriage out of
human compassion but nonetheless, he cannot avoid liability for violating the law on
marriage.
Mercedita Mata Arañes vs. Judge Salvador M. Occiano, A.M. No. MTJ-02-1390, April
11, 2002
Copyright 2017 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia (2017.1) 13
Jurisdiction of priests, justices and judges.
A priest who is commissioned and allowed by his local ordinary to marry the
faithful is authorized to do so only within the area of the diocese or place allowed by
his Bishop. An appellate court Justice or a Justice of the Supreme Court has
jurisdiction over the entire Philippines to solemnize marriages, regardless of the
venue, as long as the requisites of the law are complied with. However, judges who
are appointed to specific jurisdictions, may officiate in weddings only within said
areas and not beyond. Where a judge solemnizes a marriage outside his court's
jurisdiction, there is a resultant irregularity in the formal requisite laid down in Article
3 of the Family Code, which while it may not affect the validity of the marriage, may
subject the officiating person to administrative liability.
Rodolfo G. Navarro vs. Hernando C. Domagtoy, Adm. Matter No. MTJ-96-1088, July
19, 1996
A judge is not authorized to solemnize marriages outside of his jurisdiction.
Considering that respondent Judge's jurisdiction covers the municipality of Sta.
Margarita-Tarangan-Pagsanjan, Samar only, he was not clothed with authority to
solemnize a marriage in the City of Calbayog.
Zenaida S. Beso vs. Juan Daguman, A.M. No. MTJ-99-1211, January 28, 2000
Judge who solemnized marriage without marriage license acted in gross ignorance
of the law.
Respondent judge should also be faulted for solemnizing a marriage without
the requisite marriage license. In People vs. Lara, we held that 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.
Except in cases provided by law, it is the marriage license that gives the solemnizing
officer the authority to solemnize a marriage. Respondent judge did not possess such
authority when he solemnized the marriage of petitioner. In this respect, respondent
judge acted in gross ignorance of the law.
Mercedita Mata Arañes vs. Judge Salvador M. Occiano, A.M. No. MTJ-02-1390, April
11, 2002
Copyright 2017 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia (2017.1) 14
Illegal solemnization of marriage by a judge constitutes misconduct
The judge’s acts of solemnizing marriage without a license, failure to affix his
signature in the marriage contract and violation of requirements under Art. 23 of the
Family Code, indicate that he had not taken to heart, but actually trifled with, the law's
concern for the institution of marriage and the legal effects flowing from civil status.
Juvy N. Cosca vs. Hon. Lucio P. Palaypayon, Jr., Adm. Matter No. MTJ-92-721,
September 30, 1994
Art. 8 - Venue of marriage ceremony
Non-compliance with Article 8 of the Family Code will not invalidate marriage.
Instances when marriage can be held outside the judge's chambers or courtroom.
Non-compliance with Article 8 of the Family Code will not invalidate marriage.
Article 8 of the Family Code, which is a directory provision, refers only to the
venue of the marriage ceremony and does not alter or qualify the authority of the
solemnizing officer. Non-compliance will not invalidate the marriage.
Rodolfo G. Navarro vs. Hernando C. Domagtoy, Adm. Matter No. MTJ-96-1088, July
19, 1996
Instances when marriage can be held outside the judge's chambers or courtroom.
A marriage can be held outside the judge's chambers or courtroom only in the
following instances:
1. at the point of death;
2. in remote places in accordance with Article 29, or
3. upon the request of both parties in writing in a sworn statement to this
effect.
Zenaida S. Beso vs. Juan Daguman, A.M. No. MTJ-99-1211, January 28, 2000
Copyright 2017 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia (2017.1) 15
Art. 13 - Death certificate or judicial decree of absolute divorce
[A] divorce obtained abroad by an alien may be recognized in our jurisdiction,
provided the decree is valid according to the national law of the foreigner. The
presentation solely of the divorce decree is insufficient; both the divorce decree and
the governing personal law of the alien spouse who obtained the divorce must be
proven. Because our courts do not take judicial notice of foreign laws and judgment,
our law on evidence requires that both the divorce decree and the national law of the
alien must be alleged and proven and like any other fact.
Ando v. DFA, G.R. No. 195432, August 27, 2014, citing Garcia v. Recio, G.R. No.
138322, October 02, 2001
Even if we apply the doctrine of processual presumption [Processual presumption
means that where a foreign law is not pleaded or, even if pleaded, is not proved, the
presumption is that foreign law is the same as ours.] . . . the recognition of divorce is
entirely a different matter because, to begin with, divorce is not recognized between
Filipino citizens in the Philippines. Absent a valid recognition of the divorce decree, it
follows that the parties are still legally married in the Philippines.
Noveras v. Noveras, G.R. No. 188289, August 20, 2014
Art. 16 - Additional requirements where parental consent or parental advice
is needed
[T]he Philippine courts did not acquire jurisdiction over the California
properties of David and Leticia. Indeed, Article 16 of the Civil Code clearly states that
real property as well as personal property is subject to the law of the country where it
is situated. Thus, liquidation shall only be limited to the Philippine properties.
Noveras v. Noveras, G.R. No. 188289, August 20, 2014
Copyright 2017 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia (2017.1) 16
Art. 21 - Certificate of legal capacity
Certificate of legal capacity is prima facie evidence of alien's legal capacity to
marry.
A duly authenticated and admitted certificate is prima facie evidence of the legal
capacity of an alien applicant for a marriage license.
Grace J. Garcia vs. Rederick A. Recio, G.R. No. 138322, October 2, 2001
Art. 22 - Marriage certificate/contract
Marriage certificate is prima facie evidence that all legal formalities have been complied
with.
Marriage certificate is best evidence of marriage.
Certified copy of marriage contract is the best evidence of its contents.
Marriage certificate proves only the administration of the sacrament, not the veracity of
statements therein on kinsfolk and/or citizenship.
Marriage certificate constitutes prima facie proof of its contents.
Marriage certificate is not indispensable to establish the fact of marriage.
Absence of marriage certificate is merely an irregularity in complying with the formal
requirement for procuring a marriage license.
Failure to sign marriage contract does not render the marriage a nullity.
Mere private act of signing a marriage contract does not constitute a valid marriage.
Failure to present marriage contract is not proof that no marriage took place.
Failure of solemnizing officer to send copy of marriage certificate to municipal secretary
does not invalidate marriage.
Truth or falsehood of the declaration of one's religion in the marriage certificate is not an
essential requirement for marriage.
Validity of marriage cannot be collaterally attacked.
Copyright 2017 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia (2017.1) 17
Marriage certificate is prima facie evidence that all legal formalities have been
complied with.
The marriage certificate attesting that a marriage ceremony was performed by a
minister gives rise to the presumption that all legal formalities required by law had
been complied with and fulfilled. If the minister was not authorized to perform such
marriage ceremony it was incumbent upon the defendants to show such lack of
authority on the part of the minister.
Eulogia Bigornia de Cardenas vs. Leoncio Cardenas, G.R. No. L-8218, December 15,
1955
Marriage certificate is best evidence of marriage.
The best evidence is the marriage certificate itself absent any showing that it
was lost or destroyed.
People of the Phils. vs. Antonio Evangelista, G.R. No. 132044, October 5, 2001
Certified copy of marriage contract is the best evidence of its contents.
The certified copy of the marriage contract, issued by a public officer in
custody thereof, was admissible as the best evidence of its contents. The marriage
contract plainly indicating that a marriage was celebrated should be accorded the full
faith and credence given to public documents. This should be given greater credence
than documents testifying merely as to absence of any record of the marriage,
especially considering that there is absolutely no requirement in the law that a
marriage contract needs to be submitted to the civil registrar as a condition precedent
for the validity of a marriage. The mere fact that no record of a marriage exists does
not invalidate the marriage, provided all requisites for its validity are present.
Veronico Tenebro vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 150758, February 18, 2004
Marriage certificate proves only the administration of the sacrament, not the
veracity of statements therein on kinsfolk and/or citizenship.
While baptismal and marriage certificates may be considered documents, they
are evidence only to prove the administration of the sacraments on the dates therein
specified which in this case were the baptism and marriage, respectively, of Leoncio
Copyright 2017 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia (2017.1) 18
Chan — but not the veracity of the statements or declarations made therein with
respect to his kinsfolk and/or citizenship."
Norberto Paa vs. Quintin Chan, G.R. No. L-25945, Oct. 31, 1967
Marriage certificate constitutes prima facie proof of its contents.
Being a public document, the marriage certificate constitutes prima facie proof
of its contents. The trustworthiness of public documents and the value given to the
entries made therein could be grounded on 1) the sense of official duty in the
preparation of the statement made, 2) the penalty which is usually affixed to a breach
of that duty, 3) the routine and disinterested origin of most such statements, and 4) the
publicity of record which makes more likely the prior exposure of such errors as might
have occurred.
Maria Jeanette C. Tecson vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 161434, March 3, 2004
Marriage certificate is not indispensable to establish the fact of marriage.
A marriage certificate is not indispensable to establish the fact of marriage in
order to charge a wife of parricide because the presumption that two persons are
married subsists by reason of the fact that they had been living together for about
thirteen years as evidenced by the birth of their eldest child and that they had other
children thereafter.
People of the Philippines vs. Nemesio Talingdan, G.R. No. L-32126, July 6, 1978
Absence of marriage certificate is merely an irregularity in complying with the
formal requirement for procuring a marriage license.
A duly authenticated and admitted certificate is prima facie evidence of legal
capacity to marry on the part of the alien applicant for a marriage license. The absence
of the said certificate is merely an irregularity in complying with the formal
requirement for procuring a marriage license. Under Article 4 of the Family Code, an
irregularity will not affect the validity of a marriage celebrated on the basis of a
marriage license issued without that certificate.
Grace J. Garcia vs. Rederick A. Recio, G.R. No. 138322, October 2, 2001
Copyright 2017 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia (2017.1) 19
Failure to sign marriage contract does not render the marriage a nullity.
Bearing in mind that the "essential requisites for marriage are the legal capacity
of the contracting parties and their consent", the latter being manifested by the
declaration of "the parties" "in the presence of the person solemnizing the marriage
and of two witnesses of legal age that they take each other as husband and wife" —
which in this case actually occurred, We think the signing of the marriage contract or
certificate was required by the statute simply for the purpose of evidencing the act. No
statutory provision or court ruling has been cited making it an essential requisite —
not the formal requirement of evidentiary value, which we believe it is. The fact of
marriage is one thing; the proof by which it may be established is quite another.
Signing of the marriage contract is a formal requirement of evidentiary value, the
omission of which does not render the marriage a nullity.
Arsenio and Ricarda de Loria vs. Felipe Apelan Felix, G.R. No. L-9005, June 20, 1958
Mere private act of signing a marriage contract does not constitute a valid
marriage.
The mere private act of signing a marriage contract (no marriage ceremony at
all was performed by a duly authorized solemnizing officer), bears no semblance to a
valid marriage and thus, needs no judicial declaration of nullity. Such act alone,
without more, cannot be deemed to constitute an ostensibly valid marriage for which
the husband might be held liable for bigamy unless he first secures a judicial
declaration of nullity before he contracts a subsequent marriage.
Lucio Morigo vs. People of the Phils., G.R. No. 145226, February 6, 2004
Failure to present marriage contract is not proof that no marriage took place.
Although a marriage contract is considered primary evidence of marriage, the
failure to present it is not a proof that no marriage took place. Other evidence may be
presented to prove marriage.
Leoncia Balogbog and Gaudioso Balogbog vs. CA, G.R. No. 83598, March 7, 1997
Failure of solemnizing officer to send copy of marriage certificate to municipal
secretary does not invalidate marriage.
Copyright 2017 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia (2017.1) 20
The mere fact that the parish priest who married the plaintiff's natural father
and mother, while the latter was in articulo mortis, failed to send a copy of the
marriage certificate to the municipal secretary, does not invalidate said marriage, since
it does not appear that in the celebration thereof all requisites for its validity were not
present, the forwarding of a copy of the marriage certificate not being one of the
requisites."
Angelita Jones vs. Felix Hortiguela, G.R. No. 43701, March 6, 1937
Truth or falsehood of the declaration of one's religion in the marriage certificate is
not an essential requirement for marriage.
Although the truth or falsehood of the declaration of one's religion in the marriage
certificate is not an essential requirement for marriage, such omissions are sufficient
proofs of [one's] liability for bigamy.
Atilano O. Nollora, Jr. vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 191425, September 7, 2011
While a marriage certificate is considered the primary evidence of a marital union,
it is not regarded as the sole and exclusive evidence of marriage. Jurisprudence
teaches that the fact of marriage may be proven by relevant evidence other than the
marriage certificate. Hence, even a person's birth certificate may be recognized as
competent evidence of the marriage between his parents.
Vda. de Avenido v. Avenido, G.R. No. 173540, January 22, 2014, citing Añonuevo v.
Intestate Estate of Rodolfo G. Jalandoni, G.R. No. 178221, December 1, 2010
It should be stressed that the due execution and the loss of the marriage contract,
both constituting the conditio sine qua non for the introduction of secondary evidence
of its contents, were shown by the very evidence they have disregarded. They have
thus confused the evidence to show due execution and loss as "secondary" evidence of
the marriage. In Hernaez v. Mcgrath, the Court clarified this misconception thus:
. . . [T]he court below was entirely mistaken in holding that parol
evidence of the execution of the instrument was barred. The court confounded
the execution and the contents of the document. It is the contents, . . . which
may not be prove[n] by secondary evidence when the instrument itself is
accessible. Proofs of the execution are not dependent on the existence or
non-existence of the document, and, as a matter of fact, such proofs of the
contents: due execution, besides the loss, has to be shown as foundation for
the introduction of secondary evidence of the contents.
Copyright 2017 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia (2017.1) 21
xxx xxx xxx
Evidence of the execution of a document is, in the last analysis,
necessarily collateral or primary. It generally consists of parol testimony or
extrinsic papers. Even when the document is actually produced, its authencity
is not necessarily, if at all, determined from its face or recital of its contents
but by parol evidence. At the most, failure to produce the document, when
available, to establish its execution may effect the weight of the evidence
presented but not the admissibility of such evidence.
Vda. de Avenido v. Avenido, G.R. No. 173540, January 22, 2014, citing Vda. de Jacob
v. Court of Appeals, 371 Phil. 693 (1999)
Validity of marriage cannot be collaterally attacked.
Considering that the subject public instrument in this case refers to the marriage
certificate, we find it apropos to point out that the validity of marriage cannot be
collaterally attacked since under existing laws and jurisprudence, the same may be
questioned only in a direct action. A direct action is necessary to prevent
circumvention of the substantive and procedural safeguards of marriage under the
Family Code, A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC and other related laws. In declaring that the one
who solemnized the subject marriages had no authority to do so would indirectly
result in the declaration that said marriages are void. This is what our jurisdiction
intends to prevent.
Corpuz, Jr. v. People, G.R. Nos. 212656-57, November 23, 2016
Art. 23 - Duties of solemnizing officer
A judge must ensure that the marriage is properly documented.
Failure of solemnizing officer to send copy of marriage certificate to municipal secretary
does not invalidate marriage.
It is the marriage license that gives the solemnizing officer the authority to solemnize a
marriage.
A judge must ensure that the marriage is properly documented.
Copyright 2017 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia (2017.1) 22
From the nature of marriage, aside from the mandate that a judge should
exercise extra care in the exercise of his authority and the performance of his duties in
its solemnization, he is likewise commanded to observe extra precautions to ensure
that the event is properly documented in accordance with Article 23 of the Family
Code. A judge is charged with exercising extra care in ensuring that the records of the
cases and official documents in his custody are intact. There is no justification for
missing records save fortuitous events.
Zenaida S. Beso vs. Juan Daguman, A.M. No. MTJ-99-1211, January 28, 2000
Although it is true that marriages under Article 34 of the Family Code merit
exemption from a marriage license, respondent judge should have complied with the
mandate of personally ascertaining the circumstances of cohabitation of the parties.
Records reveal that the declarations embodied in the required joint affidavit of
cohabitation of the parties do not actually represent the accurate circumstances of their
alleged cohabitation.
Office of the Court Administrator v. Tormis, A.C. No. 9920, August 30, 2016
In cases where one or both of the contracting parties are foreigners, Article 21
of the Family Code provides that a certificate of legal capacity to marry is necessary
before the acquisition of a marriage license. As the solemnizing officer, respondent
judge should have ensured that pertinent requirements were secured before the
issuance of the marriage license. Thus, the absence of a certificate of legal capacity to
marry should have prompted her to question the propriety of the issuance.
Office of the Court Administrator v. Tormis, A.C. No. 9920, August 30, 2016
Failure of solemnizing officer to send copy of marriage certificate to municipal
secretary does not invalidate marriage.
a) The mere fact that the parish priest who married the plaintiff's natural
father and mother, while the latter was in articulo mortis, failed to send a copy of the
marriage certificate to the municipal secretary, does not invalidate said marriage, since
it does not appear that in the celebration thereof all requisites for its validity were not
present, the forwarding of a copy of the marriage certificate not being one of the
requisites."
Angelita Jones vs. Felix Hortiguela, G.R. No. 43701, March 6, 1937
b) The law, imposing on the priest the duty to furnish to the parties copies of
Copyright 2017 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia (2017.1) 23
such marriage certificate and punishing him for its omission implies his obligation to
see that such "certificate" is executed accordingly. Hence, it would not be fair to visit
upon the wedded couple in the form of annulment, the priest’s omission, if any, which
apparently had been caused by the prevailing disorder during the liberation of Manila
and its environs.
Arsenio de Loria and Ricarda de Loria vs. Felipe Apelan Felix, G.R. No. L-9005, June
20, 1958
It is the marriage license that gives the solemnizing officer the authority to
solemnize a marriage.
It has been held that 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. Except in cases provided by law, it is the
marriage license that gives the solemnizing officer the authority to solemnize a
marriage. Respondent judge did not possess such authority when he solemnized the
marriage of petitioner.
Mercedita Mata Arañes vs. Judge Salvador M. Occiano, A.M. No. MTJ-02-1390, April
11, 2002
Art. 26 - Divorce
Basic legal principles on divorce.
Severance of the marital bond dissociates the former spouses from each other.
The marriage tie, when severed as to one party, ceases to bind the other.
The legal effects of a divorce obtained abroad must still be determined by Philippine
courts.
Divorces obtained by aliens abroad are recognized in the Philippines if valid according to
their national law.
Divorce is valid if obtained by husband at the time he ceased to be a Filipino citizen.
The divorce decree and the national law of the alien must be alleged and proven according
to Philippine law on evidence.
The power of judicial notice with respect to foreign marital laws must be exercised with
Copyright 2017 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia (2017.1) 24
caution
Requisites before a foreign divorce decree can be recognized by our courts.
Article 26, par. 2, allows a Filipino citizen divorced by a spouse to also remarry.
Basic legal principles on divorce.
The following basic legal principles are laid at the outset: Philippine law does not
provide for absolute divorce; hence, our courts cannot grant it. A marriage between
two Filipinos cannot be dissolved even by a divorce obtained abroad, because of
Articles 15 and 17 of the Civil Code. In mixed marriages involving a Filipino and a
foreigner, Article 26 of the Family Code allows the former to contract a subsequent
marriage in case the divorce is "validly obtained abroad by the alien spouse
capacitating him or her to remarry." A divorce obtained abroad by a couple, who are
both aliens, may be recognized in the Philippines, provided it is consistent with their
respective national laws.
Grace J. Garcia vs. Rederick A. Recio, G.R. No. 138322, October 2, 2001
The non-recognition of absolute divorce between Filipinos has remained even
under the Family Code, even if either or both of the spouses are residing abroad.
Indeed, the only two types of defective marital unions under our laws have been the
void and the voidable marriages. As such, the remedies against such defective
marriages have been limited to the declaration of nullity of the marriage and the
annulment of the marriage.
Lavadia v. Heirs of Luna, G.R. No. 171914, July 23, 2014
Divorce between Filipinos is void and ineffectual under the nationality rule adopted
by Philippine law. Hence, any settlement of property between the parties of the first
marriage involving Filipinos submitted as an incident of a divorce obtained in a
foreign country lacks competent judicial approval, and cannot be enforceable against
the assets of the husband who contracts a subsequent marriage.
Lavadia v. Heirs of Luna, G.R. No. 171914, July 23, 2014
The non-recognition of absolute divorce in the Philippines is a manifestation of the
respect for the sanctity of the marital union especially among Filipino citizens. It
affirms that the extinguishment of a valid marriage must be grounded only upon the
death of either spouse, or upon a ground expressly provided by law. For as long as this
public policy on marriage between Filipinos exists, no divorce decree dissolving the
Copyright 2017 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia (2017.1) 25
marriage between them can ever be given legal or judicial recognition and
enforcement in this jurisdiction.
Lavadia v. Heirs of Luna, G.R. No. 171914, July 23, 2014
Severance of the marital bond dissociates the former spouses from each other.
The divorce obtained by an alien husband in his country and its legal effects may
be recognized in the Philippines insofar as he is concerned in view of the nationality
principle in our civil law on the matter of status of persons. Thus, he had no legal
standing to commence the adultery case under the imposture that he was the offended
spouse at the time he filed suit because at that time, there would no longer be a family
nor marriage vows to protect once a dissolution of the marriage is decreed. Neither
would there be a danger of introducing spurious heirs into the family, which is said to
be one of the reasons for the particular formulation of our law on adultery, since there
would thenceforth be no spousal relationship to speak of. The severance of the marital
bond had the effect of dissociating the former spouses from each other, hence the
actuations of one would not affect or cast obloquy on the other.
Imelda Manalaysay Pilapil vs. Hon. Corona Ibay-Somera, G.R. No. 80116, June 30,
1989
The marriage tie, when severed as to one party, ceases to bind the other.
The purpose and effect of a decree of divorce from the bond of matrimony by a
court of competent jurisdiction are to change the existing status or domestic relation
of husband and wife, and to free them both from the bond. The marriage tie, when
thus severed as to one party, ceases to bind either. A husband without a wife, or a wife
without a husband, is unknown to the law. When the law provides, in the nature of a
penalty, that the guilty party shall not marry again, that party, as well as the other, is
still absolutely freed from the bond of the former marriage.
Alice Reyes Van Dorn vs. Hon. Manuel V. Romillo, Jr., G.R. No. L-68470, October 8,
1985
The legal effects of a divorce obtained abroad must still be determined by
Philippine courts.
A divorce obtained abroad by an alien may be recognized in our jurisdiction,
provided such decree is valid according to the national law of the foreigner. However,
Copyright 2017 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia (2017.1) 26
the legal effects thereof, e.g. on custody, care and support of the children, must still be
determined by our courts. Before our courts can give the effect of res judicata to a
foreign judgment, such as the award of custody to petitioner by the German court, it
must be shown that the parties opposed to the judgment had been given ample
opportunity to do so on grounds allowed under the Rules.
Wolfgang O. Roehr vs. Maria Carmen D. Rodriguez, G.R. No. 142820, June 20, 2003
Divorces obtained by aliens abroad are recognized in the Philippines if valid
according to their national law.
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.
Alice Reyes Van Dorn vs. Hon. Manuel V. Romillo, Jr., G.R. No. L-68470, October 8,
1985
Paula T. Llorente vs. Court of Appeals and Alicia F. Llorente, G.R. No. 124371,
November 23, 2000
Divorce is valid if obtained by husband at the time he ceased to be a Filipino
citizen.
The ruling in the case of Tenchavez v. Escano (122 Phil. 752 [1965] ) that provides
that “a foreign divorce between Filipino citizens sought and decreed after the
effectivity of the present civil code is not entitled to recognition as valid in this
jurisdiction” is NOT applicable when the husband was no longer a Filipino citizen
when he obtained the divorce.
Paula T. Llorente vs. Court of Appeals and Alicia F. Llorente, G.R. No. 124371,
November 23, 2000
The divorce decree and the national law of the alien must be alleged and proven
according to Philippine law on evidence.
A divorce obtained abroad by an alien may be recognized in our jurisdiction,
provided such decree is valid according to the national law of the foreigner. However,
the divorce decree and the governing personal law of the alien spouse who obtained
Copyright 2017 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia (2017.1) 27
the divorce must be proven. Our courts do not take judicial notice of foreign laws and
judgments; hence, like any other facts, both the divorce decree and the national law of
the alien must be alleged and proven according to our law on evidence.
Grace J. Garcia vs. Rederick A. Recio, G.R. No. 138322, October 2, 2001
The power of judicial notice with respect to foreign marital laws must be exercised
with caution
It is well-settled in our jurisdiction that our courts cannot take judicial notice of
foreign laws. Like any other facts, they must be alleged and proved. Australian marital
laws are not among those matters that judges are supposed to know by reason of their
judicial function. The power of judicial notice must be exercised with caution, and
every reasonable doubt upon the subject should be resolved in the negative.
Grace J. Garcia vs. Rederick A. Recio, G.R. No. 138322, October 2, 2001
Requisites before a foreign divorce decree can be recognized by our courts.
Before a foreign divorce decree can be recognized by our own courts, the party
pleading it must prove the divorce as a fact and demonstrate its conformity to the
foreign law allowing it. Such foreign law must also be proved as our courts cannot
take judicial notice of foreign laws. Like any other fact, such laws must be alleged and
proved. Furthermore, respondent must also show that the divorce decree allows his
former wife to remarry as specifically required in Article 26. Otherwise, there would
be no evidence sufficient to declare that he is capacitated to enter into another
marriage.
Republic of the Phil. vs. Cipriano Orbecido III, G.R. No. 154380, October 5, 2005
Article 26, par. 2, allows a Filipino citizen divorced by a spouse to also remarry.
Paragraph 2 of Article 26 of the Family Code (E.O. No. 209, as amended by E.O.
No. 227), should be interpreted to allow a Filipino citizen, who has been divorced by a
spouse who had acquired foreign citizenship and remarried, also to remarry.
Republic of the Phil. vs. Cipriano Orbecido III, G.R. No. 154380, October 5, 2005
Copyright 2017 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia (2017.1) 28
Art. 26 (2) - Divorce
At the outset, it bears stressing that Philippine law does not provide for absolute
divorce; hence, our courts cannot grant it. However, Article 26 of the Family Code —
which addresses foreign marriages or mixed marriages involving a Filipino and a
foreigner — allows a Filipino spouse to contract a subsequent marriage in case the
divorce is validly obtained abroad by an alien spouse capacitating him or her to
remarry.
Medina v. Koike, G.R. No. 215723, July 27, 2016
In Republic v. Orbecido III, we spelled out the twin elements for the applicability
of the second paragraph of Art. 26, thus:
1. There is a valid marriage that has been celebrated between a Filipino citizen and
a foreigner; and
2. A valid divorce is obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating him or her to
remarry.
The reckoning point is not the citizenship of the parties at the time of the
celebration of the marriage, but their citizenship at the time a valid divorce is obtained
abroad by the alien spouse capacitating the latter to remarry.
Maria Rebecca Makapugay Bayot vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. Nos. 155635 &
163979, November 7, 2008
Republic of the Phil. vs. Cipriano Orbecido III, G.R. No. 154380, October 5, 2005
The starting point in any recognition of a foreign divorce judgment is the
acknowledgment that our courts do not take judicial notice of foreign judgments and
laws. Justice Herrera explained that, as a rule, "no sovereign is bound to give effect
within its dominion to a judgment rendered by a tribunal of another country." This
means that the foreign judgment and its authenticity must be proven as facts
under our rules on evidence, together with the alien's applicable national law to
show the effect of the judgment on the alien himself or herself. The recognition
may be made in an action instituted specifically for the purpose or in another action
where a party invokes the foreign decree as an integral aspect of his claim or defense.
Medina v. Koike, G.R. No. 215723, July 27, 2016, citing Corpuz v. Sto. Tomas, 642 Phil.
Copyright 2017 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia (2017.1) 29
420 (2010)
The intent of Paragraph 2 of Article 26 is to avoid the absurd situation where the
Filipino spouse remains married to the alien spouse who, after obtaining a divorce, is
no longer married to the Filipino spouse.
Edgar San Luis vs. Felicidad San Luis, G.R. Nos. 133743 & 134029, February 6, 2007
Republic of the Phil. vs. Cipriano Orbecido III, G.R. No. 154380, October 5, 2005
Alice Reyes Van Dorn vs. Manuel V. Romillo, Jr., et al., G.R. No. L-68470, October 8,
1985
Through the second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code, EO 227
effectively incorporated into the law this Court's holding in Van Dorn v. Romillo, Jr.
and Pilapil v. Ibay-Somera. In both cases, the Court refused to acknowledge the alien
spouse's assertion of marital rights after a foreign court's divorce decree between the
alien and the Filipino. The Court, thus, recognized that the foreign divorce had already
severed the marital bond between the spouses. The legislative intent is for the benefit
of the Filipino spouse, by clarifying his or her marital status, settling the doubts
created by the divorce decree. Essentially, the second paragraph of Article 26 of
the Family Code provided the Filipino spouse a substantive right to have his or
her marriage to the alien spouse considered as dissolved, capacitating him or her
to remarry.
Gerbert R. Corpuz vs. Daisylyn Tirol Sto. Tomas, et al., G.R. No. 186571, August 11,
2010
Without the second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code, the judicial
recognition of the foreign decree of divorce, whether in a proceeding instituted
precisely for that purpose or as a related issue in another proceeding, would be of no
significance to the Filipino spouse since our laws do not recognize divorce as a mode
of severing the marital bond; Article 17 of the Civil Code provides that the policy
against absolute divorces cannot be subverted by judgments promulgated in a foreign
country. The inclusion of the second paragraph in Article 26 of the Family Code
provides the direct exception to this rule and serves as basis for recognizing the
dissolution of the marriage between the Filipino spouse and his or her alien spouse.
Gerbert R. Corpuz vs. Daisylyn Tirol Sto. Tomas, et al., G.R. No. 186571, August 11,
2010
Under the [second] paragraph, the law confers jurisdiction on Philippine courts to
extend the effect of a foreign divorce decree to a Filipino spouse without undergoing
Copyright 2017 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia (2017.1) 30
trial to determine the validity of the dissolution of the marriage.
Medina v. Koike, G.R. No. 215723, July 27, 2016
Thus, in Garcia v. Recio, it was pointed out that in order for a divorce obtained
abroad by the alien spouse to be recognized in our jurisdiction, it must be shown that
the divorce decree is valid according to the national law of the foreigner. Both the
divorce decree and the governing personal law of the alien spouse who obtained the
divorce must be proven. Since our courts do not take judicial notice of foreign laws
and judgment, our law on evidence requires that both the divorce decree and the
national law of the alien must be alleged and proven like any other fact.
Medina v. Koike, G.R. No. 215723, July 27, 2016, citing Garcia v. Recio, 418 Phil. 723
(2001)
An action based on the second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code is not
limited to the recognition of the foreign divorce decree. If the court finds that the
decree capacitated the alien spouse to remarry, the courts can declare that the Filipino
spouse is likewise capacitated to contract another marriage. No court in this
jurisdiction, however, can make a similar declaration for the alien spouse (other than
that already established by the decree), whose status and legal capacity are generally
governed by his national law.
Gerbert R. Corpuz vs. Daisylyn Tirol Sto. Tomas, et al., G.R. No. 186571, August 11,
2010
Given the rationale and intent behind the enactment, and the purpose of the second
paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code, the RTC was correct in limiting the
applicability of the provision for the benefit of the Filipino spouse. In other words,
only the Filipino spouse can invoke the second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family
Code; the alien spouse can claim no right under this provision.
Gerbert R. Corpuz vs. Daisylyn Tirol Sto. Tomas, et al., G.R. No. 186571, August 11,
2010
Art. 33 - Muslim and ethnic marriages
Provision governing marriages between non-Christians does not apply to marriage
between a Protestant and a Catholic.
Copyright 2017 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia (2017.1) 31
Shari’a courts do not have original and exclusive jurisdiction over marriages celebrated
under both civil and Muslim laws.
Wives in marriages celebrated subsequent to a valid marriage are not precluded from
proving that property acquired during their cohabitation with their Muslim husband, is
their exclusive property
Family Code determines fitness of a mother, who is no longer a Muslim, to take custody
of her children.
Provision governing marriages between non-Christians does not apply to marriage
between a Protestant and a Catholic.
Article 78 of the Civil Code, the governing law at that time, provided that
marriages between Mohammedans or pagans who live in the non-Christian provinces
may be performed in accordance with their customs, rites or practices. Therefore, the
marriage between complainant and respondent cannot be validated because the
records show that the former is a Protestant while the latter is a Catholic.
Estrellita J. Tamano vs. Rodolfo A. Ortiz, G.R. No. 126603, June 29, 1998
Shari’a courts do not have original and exclusive jurisdiction over marriages
celebrated under both civil and Muslim laws.
The shari'a courts are not vested with original and exclusive jurisdiction when
it comes to marriages celebrated under both civil and Muslim laws. Consequently, the
Regional Trial Courts are not divested of their general original jurisdiction under Sec.
19, par. (6) of BP Blg. 129.
Estrellita J. Tamano vs. Rodolfo A. Ortiz, G.R. No. 126603, June 29, 1998
Wives in marriages celebrated subsequent to a valid marriage are not precluded
from proving that property acquired during their cohabitation with their Muslim
husband, is their exclusive property.
Co-ownership provided in Article 144 of the Civil Code requires that the man
and woman living together as husband and wife without the benefit of marriage or
under a void marriage must not in any way be incapacitated to marry. Therefore, the
co-ownership contemplated in this provision cannot apply to Hadji Abdula's marriages
celebrated subsequent to a valid and legally existing marriage, since from the point of
view of the Civil Code Hadji Abdula is not capacitated to marry. However, the wives
Copyright 2017 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia (2017.1) 32
in such marriages are not precluded from proving that property acquired during their
cohabitation with Hadji Abdula is their exclusive property, respectively. Absent such
proof, however, the presumption is that property acquired during the subsistence of a
valid marriage — and in the Civil Code, there can only be one validly-existing
marriage at any given time — is conjugal property of such subsisting marriage.
Neng "Kagui Kadiguia" Malang vs. Corocoy Moson, G.R. No. 119064, August 22, 2000
Family Code determines fitness of a mother, who is no longer a Muslim, to take
custody of her children.
The standard in the determination of sufficiency of proof is not restricted to
Muslim laws. The Family Code shall be taken into consideration in deciding whether
a non-Muslim woman is worthy to have custody of her children. What determines her
capacity is the standard laid down by the Family Code now that she is not a Muslim.
Indeed, what determines the fitness of any parent is the ability to see to the physical,
educational, social and moral welfare of the children, and the ability to give them a
healthy environment as well as physical and financial support taking into
consideration the respective resources and social and moral situations of the parents.
Sabrina Artadi Bondagjy vs. Fouzi Ali Bondagjy, G.R. No. 140817, December 7, 2001
If both parties are Muslims, there is a presumption that the Muslim Code or Muslim
law is complied with. If together with it or in addition to it, the marriage is likewise
solemnized in accordance with the Civil Code of the Philippines, in a so-called
combined Muslim-Civil marriage rites whichever comes first is the validating rite and
the second rite is merely ceremonial one. But, in this case, as long as both parties are
Muslims, this Muslim Code will apply. In effect, two situations will arise, in the
application of this Muslim Code or Muslim law, that is, when both parties are
Muslims and when the male party is a Muslim and the marriage is solemnized in
accordance with Muslim Code or Muslim law. A third situation occur[s] when the
Civil Code of the Philippines will govern the marriage and divorce of the parties, if
the male party is a Muslim and the marriage is solemnized in accordance with the
Civil Code.
Marietta D. Zamoranos vs. People of the Phil., et al., G.R. Nos. 193902, 193908 &
194075, June 1, 2011, citing Justice Rasul and Dr. Ghazali's Commentaries and
Jurisprudence on the Muslim Code of the Philippines
One of the effects of irrevocable talaq, as well as other kinds of divorce, refers to
Copyright 2017 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia (2017.1) 33
severance of matrimonial bond, entitling one to remarry.
Marietta D. Zamoranos vs. People of the Phil., et al., G.R. Nos. 193902, 193908 &
194075, June 1, 2011
Art. 34 - Marriage license not necessary when parties have cohabited for 5
years
Rationale for dispensing with marriage license.
Requisites for application of legal ratification of marital cohabitation.
The 5-year cohabitation period must be exclusive and continuous.
Parties cannot invoke failure to comply with requisites of marriage as ground to nullify the
same.
Cohabitation with another person for at least five years does not sever the tie of a
subsisting previous marriage
Rationale for dispensing with marriage license.
There are several instances recognized by the Civil Code wherein a marriage
license is dispensed with, one of which is that provided in Article 76, referring to the
marriage of a man and a woman who have lived together and exclusively with each
other as husband and wife for a continuous and unbroken period of at least five years
before the marriage. The rationale why no license is required in such case is to avoid
exposing the parties to humiliation, shame and embarrassment concomitant with the
scandalous cohabitation of persons outside a valid marriage due to the publication of
every applicant's name for a marriage license. The publicity attending the marriage
license may discourage such persons from legitimizing their status. To preserve peace
in the family, avoid the peeping and suspicious eye of public exposure and contain the
source of gossip arising from the publication of their names, the law deemed it wise to
preserve their privacy and exempt them from that requirement.
Engrace Niñal vs. Norma Bayadog, G.R. No. 133778, March 14, 2000
Requisites for application of legal ratification of marital cohabitation.
For this provision on legal ratification of marital cohabitation to apply, the
Copyright 2017 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia (2017.1) 34
following requisites must concur:
1. The man and woman must have been living together as husband and wife
for at least five years before the marriage;
2. The parties must have no legal impediment to marry each other;
3. The fact of absence of legal impediment between the parties must be
present at the time of marriage;
4. The parties must execute an affidavit stating that they have lived together
for at least five years [and are without legal impediment to marry each other]; and
5. The solemnizing officer must execute a sworn statement that he had
ascertained the qualifications of the parties and that he had found no legal impediment
to their marriage.
Herminia Borja-Manzano vs. Judge Roque R Sanchez, A.M. No. MTJ-00-1329, March
8, 2001
Marriages of exceptional character such as those made under Article 34 are,
doubtless, the exceptions to the rule on the indispensability of the formal requisite of a
marriage license. Under the rules of statutory construction, exceptions as a general
rule should be strictly but reasonably construed. The affidavits of cohabitation should
not be issued and accepted pro forma particularly in view of the settled rulings of the
Court on this matter. The five-year period of cohabitation should be one of a perfect
union valid under the law but rendered imperfect only by the absence of the marriage
contract. The parties should have been capacitated to marry each other during the
entire period and not only at the time of the marriage.
OCA vs. Anatalio S. Necessario, et al., A.M. No. MTJ-07-1691, April 2, 2013
The 5-year cohabitation period must be exclusive and continuous.
The five-year common-law cohabitation period should be computed on the
basis of a cohabitation as "husband and wife" where the only missing factor is the
special contract of marriage to validate the union. It should be a period of legal union
had it not been for the absence of the marriage. This 5-year period, counted back from
the date of celebration of marriage, should be the years immediately before the day of
the marriage and it should be a period of cohabitation characterized by exclusivity —
meaning no third party was involved at any time within the 5 years and continuity —
Copyright 2017 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia (2017.1) 35
that is, unbroken. Otherwise, if that continuous 5-year cohabitation is computed
without any distinction as to whether the parties were capacitated to marry each other
during the entire five years, then the law would be sanctioning immorality and
encouraging parties to have common-law relationships and placing them on the same
footing with those who lived faithfully with their spouse.
Engrace Niñal vs. Norma Bayadog, G.R. No. 133778, March 14, 2000
If the contracting parties have cohabited as husband and wife for at least five years
and have no legal impediment to marry, they are exempt from the marriage license
requirement. Instead, the parties must present an affidavit of cohabitation sworn to
before any person authorized by law to administer oaths. The judge, as solemnizing
officer, must personally examine the affidavit of cohabitation as to the parties having
lived together as husband and wife for at least five years and the absence of any legal
impediment to marry each other. The judge must also execute a sworn statement that
he personally ascertained the parties' qualifications to marry and found no legal
impediment to the marriage.
Tupal v. Rojo, A.M. No. MTJ-14-1842, February 24, 2014
Based on law and the Guidelines on the Solemnization of Marriage by the
Members of the Judiciary, the person who notarizes the contracting parties' affidavit
of cohabitation cannot be the judge who will solemnize the parties' marriage. As a
solemnizing officer, the judge's only duty involving the affidavit of cohabitation is to
examine whether the parties have indeed lived together for at least five years without
legal impediment to marry. The Guidelines does not state that the judge can notarize
the parties' affidavit of cohabitation.
Tupal v. Rojo, A.M. No. MTJ-14-1842, February 24, 2014
Thus, affidavits of cohabitation are documents not connected with the judge's
official function and duty to solemnize marriages. Notarizing affidavits of
cohabitation is inconsistent with the duty to examine the parties' requirements for
marriage. If the solemnizing officer notarized the affidavit of cohabitation, he cannot
objectively examine and review the affidavit's statements before performing the
marriage ceremony. Should there be any irregularity or false statements in the
affidavit of cohabitation he notarized, he cannot be expected to admit that he
solemnized the marriage despite the irregularity or false allegation.
Tupal v. Rojo, A.M. No. MTJ-14-1842, February 24, 2014
Copyright 2017 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia (2017.1) 36
Thus, judges cannot notarize the affidavits of cohabitation of the parties whose
marriage they will solemnize. Affidavits of cohabitation are documents not connected
with their official function and duty to solemnize marriages.
Tupal v. Rojo, A.M. No. MTJ-14-1842, February 24, 2014
Parties cannot invoke failure to comply with requisites of marriage as ground to
nullify the same.
Marriage being a special relationship must be respected as such and its
requirements must be strictly observed. The presumption that a man and a woman
deporting themselves as husband and wife is based on the approximation of the
requirements of the law. The parties should not be afforded any excuse to not comply
with every single requirement and later use the same missing element as a
pre-conceived escape ground to nullify their marriage. There should be no exemption
from securing a marriage license unless the circumstances clearly fall within the ambit
of the exception. It should be noted that a license is required in order to notify the
public that two persons are about to be united in matrimony and that anyone who is
aware or has knowledge of any impediment to the union of the two shall make it
known to the local civil registrar.
Engrace Niñal vs. Norma Bayadog, G.R. No. 133778, March 14, 2000
The Certificate of Marriage, signed by Santos and Santiago, contained the
misrepresentation perpetrated by them that they were eligible to contract marriage
without a license. We thus face an anomalous situation wherein petitioner seeks to be
acquitted of bigamy based on her illegal actions of (1) marrying Santos without a
marriage license despite knowing that they had not satisfied the cohabitation
requirement under the law; and (2) falsely making claims in no less than her marriage
contract. We chastise this deceptive scheme that hides what is basically a bigamous
and illicit marriage in an effort to escape criminal prosecution. Our penal laws on
marriage, such as bigamy, punish an individual's deliberate disregard of the permanent
and sacrosanct character of this special bond between spouses. In Tenebro v. Court of
Appeals, we had the occasion to emphasize that the State's penal laws on bigamy
should not be rendered nugatory by allowing individuals "to deliberately ensure that
each marital contract be flawed in some manner, and to thus escape the consequences
of contracting multiple marriages, while beguiling throngs of hapless women with the
promise of futurity and commitment."
Santiago v. People, G.R. No. 200233, July 15, 2015, citing Tenebro v. Court of Appeals,
Copyright 2017 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia (2017.1) 37
G.R. No. 150758, February 18, 2004
Cohabitation with another person for at least five years does not sever the tie of a
subsisting previous marriage
Just like separation, free and voluntary cohabitation with another person for at
least five years does not severe the tie of a subsisting previous marriage. Marital
cohabitation for a long period of time between two individuals who are legally
capacitated to marry each other is merely a ground for exemption from marriage
license. It could not serve as a justification for a judge to solemnize a subsequent
marriage vitiated by the impediment of a prior existing marriage.
Herminia Borja-Manzano vs. Judge Roque R Sanchez, A.M. No. MTJ-00-1329, March
8, 2001
Purpose of Provision
The law dispenses with the marriage license requirement for a man and a woman
who have lived together and exclusively with each other as husband and wife for a
continuous and unbroken period of at least five years before the marriage. The aim of
this provision is to avoid exposing the parties to humiliation, shame and
embarrassment concomitant with the scandalous cohabitation of persons outside a
valid marriage due to the publication of every applicant's name for a marriage license.
Reinel Anthony B. De Castro vs. Annabelle Assidao-De Castro, G.R. No. 160172,
February 13, 2008
Engrace Niñal vs. Norma Bayadog, G.R. No. 133778, March 14, 2000
Art. 35 (3) - Marriages solemnized without a marriage license
A marriage solemnized without a marriage license is void and the subsequent
issuance of the license cannot render valid or add even an iota of validity to the
marriage. It is the marriage license that gives the solemnizing officer the authority to
solemnize a marriage and the act of solemnizing the marriage without a license
constitutes gross ignorance of the law.
Copyright 2017 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia (2017.1) 38
OCA vs. Anatalio S. Necessario, et al., A.M. No. MTJ-07-1691, April 2, 2013
[T]hat a wedding ceremony was conducted and a marriage contract was signed
does not operate to cure the absence of a valid marriage license. Article 4 of the
Family Code is clear when it says, "The absence of any of the essential or formal
requisites shall render the marriage void ab initio, except as stated in Article 35 (2)."
Article 35 (3) of the Family Code also provides that a marriage solemnized without a
license is void from the beginning, except those exempt from the license requirement
under Articles 27 to 34, Chapter 2, Title I of the same Code. Again, this marriage
cannot be characterized as among the exemptions, and thus, having been solemnized
without a marriage license, is void ab initio.
As to the motive of [petitioner] in seeking to annul his marriage to [respondent], it
may well be that his motives are less than pure, that he seeks to evade a bigamy suit.
Be that as it may, the same does not make up for the failure of the respondent to prove
that they had a valid marriage license, given the weight of evidence presented by
petitioner. The lack of a valid marriage license cannot be attributed to him, as it was
[respondent] who took steps to procure the same. The law must be applied. As the
marriage license, a formal requisite, is clearly absent, the marriage of [petitioner] and
[respondent] is void ab initio.
Syed Azhar Abbas vs. Gloria Goo Abbas, G.R. No. 183896, January 30, 2013
Art. 36 - Psychological incapacity
Characteristics of psychological incapacity
Article 36 must be read with Articles 35, 37, 38, 41, 45 or 55 to determine the import of
"psychological incapacity."
Misrepresentations point to one's own inadequacy to cope with marital obligations,
kindred to psychological incapacity.
Psychological incapacity refers to a serious psychological illness afflicting a party even
before the marriage.
The provision on psychological incapacity should be interpreted on a case-to-case basis.
Guidelines in interpretation and application of Art. 36 of the Family Code.
Guideline No. 2 requires testimony of psychiatrist or medical doctor to prove
Copyright 2017 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia (2017.1) 39
psychological incapacity.
Examination by physician or psychologist is not a prerequisite for declaration of
psychological incapacity.
Guidelines in evaluating the testimonies of psychologists and psychiatrists
An expert witness would have strengthened the claim of psychological incapacity.
Petition need not allege root cause of psychological incapacity.
Petition alleging physical manifestations indicative of psychological incapacity complies
with the requirement of the new Rules.
Psychological incapacity refers to a mental, not physical, incapacity.
Senseless and protracted refusal of a spouse to fulfill marital obligation of procreation is
equivalent to psychological incapacity.
Habitual alcoholism, sexual infidelity or perversion, and abandonment do not by
themselves constitute psychological incapacity.
"Irreconcilable differences" and "conflicting personalities" do not constitute psychological
incapacity.
Sexual infidelity, per se, does not constitute psychological incapacity.
Sexual infidelity is not sufficient proof of psychological incapacity.
Emotional immaturity and irresponsibility cannot be equated with psychological
incapacity.
To be tired and give up on one's situation and on one's spouse are not signs of
psychological illness.
Wife's lack of attention to children, immaturity and lack of “intention of procreative
sexuality” do not constitute psychological incapacity.
Immaturity, sexual promiscuity and abandonment do not by themselves constitute
psychological incapacity.
Psychological defect cannot be presumed from the mere fact of abandonment.
Article 36 is not to be equated with legal separation.
Norms for determining psychological incapacity should apply to any person regardless of
nationality.
Psychological incapacity justifies judicial declaration freeing the parties from
consequences stemming from the marriage.
An inveterate pathological liar is unable to commit to the basic tenets of relationship
between spouses.
Copyright 2017 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia (2017.1) 40
Psychological conditions that hamper performance of marital obligations do not mean that
the husband and wife suffer from psychological incapacity.
Psychological incapacity is confined to the most serious cases of personality disorders.
Disagreements on money matters is not a ground to declare a marriage null and void.
Article 36 is not to be confused with a divorce law.
"Psychological incapacity" is not meant to comprehend all possible cases of psychoses.
Art. 36 does not contemplate mere refusal, neglect, difficulty or ill will on the part of the
errant spouse.
An unsatisfactory marriage is not a null and void marriage.
Manifestations of psychological incapacity.
Mismanagement of family finances does not constitute psychological incapacity.
Annulments of the Catholic church are not controlling or decisive
Findings of the RTC on existence or non-existence of psychological incapacity is final and
binding; A marriage that is null and void ab initio is not accorded protection
Definition of "psychological incapacity
Interpretations of the National Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal of the Catholic Church
Marriages entered into for considerations other than love, are equally valid
Article 36 of the Family Code must not be confused with a divorce law
Jocelyn M. Suazo vs. Angelito Suazo, et al., G.R. No. 164493, March 12, 2010
Susie Chan-Tan vs. Jesse C. Tan, G.R. No. 167139, February 25, 2010
Jordan Chan Paz vs. Jeanice Pavon Paz, G.R. No. 166579, February 18, 2010
Edward N. Lim vs. Ma. Cheryl Sta. Cruz-Lim, G.R. No. 176464, February 4, 2010
Characteristics of psychological incapacity
Psychological incapacity as required by Article 36 must be characterized by (a)
gravity, (b) juridical antecedence and (c) incurability. The incapacity must be grave or
serious such that the party would be incapable of carrying out the ordinary duties
required in marriage. It must be rooted in the history of the party antedating the
marriage, although the overt manifestations may only emerge after the marriage. It
must be incurable or, even if it were otherwise, the cure would be beyond the means
of the party involved.
Copyright 2017 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia (2017.1) 41
Mallilin v. Jamesolamin, G.R. No. 192718, February 18, 2015
Article 36 must be read with Articles 35, 37, 38, 41, 45 or 55 to determine the
import of "psychological incapacity."
[I]n determining the import of "psychological incapacity" under Article 36, it must
be read in conjunction with, although to be taken as distinct from Articles 35, 37, 38,
and 41 that would likewise, but for different reasons, render the marriage void ab
initio, or Article 45 that would make the marriage merely voidable, or Article 55 that
could justify a petition for legal separation. Care must be observed so that these
various circumstances are not applied so indiscriminately as if the law were
indifferent on the matter. Article 36 should not to be confused with a divorce law that
cuts the marital bond at the time the causes therefor manifest themselves. Neither it is
to be equated with legal separation, in which the grounds need not be rooted in
psychological incapacity but on physical violence, moral pressure, moral corruption,
civil interdiction, drug addiction, habitual alcoholism, sexual infidelity, abandonment
and the like.
Ma. Armida Perez-Ferraris vs. Brix Ferraris, G.R. No. 162368, July 17, 2006
Republic of the Phil. vs. Lynnette Cabantug-Baguio, G.R. No. 171042, June 30, 2008
Misrepresentations point to one's own inadequacy to cope with marital obligations,
kindred to psychological incapacity.
Article 45(3) of the Family Code which states that a marriage may be annulled if
the consent of either party was obtained by fraud, and Article 46 which enumerates
the circumstances constituting fraud under the previous article, clarifies that "no other
misrepresentation or deceit as to character, health, rank, fortune or chastity shall
constitute such fraud as will give grounds for action for the annulment of marriage." It
would be improper to draw linkages between misrepresentations made by respondent
and the misrepresentations under Articles 45 (3) and 46. The fraud under Article 45(3)
vitiates the consent of the spouse who is lied to, and does not allude to vitiated
consent of the lying spouse. In this case, the misrepresentations of respondent point to
her own inadequacy to cope with her marital obligations, kindred to psychological
incapacity under Article 36.
Leonilo Antonio vs. Marie Ivonne F. Reyes, G.R. No. 155800, March 10, 2006
Copyright 2017 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia (2017.1) 42
Psychological incapacity refers to a serious psychological illness afflicting a party
even before the marriage.
The psychological incapacity must exist at the time of the celebration of the
marriage. The burden of proving the nullity of marriage is on the petitioner.
Renne Enrique Bier vs. Ma. Lourdes A. Bier, G.R. No. 173294, February 27, 2008
The policy of the Constitution is to protect and strengthen the family as the basic
autonomous social institution, and marriage as the foundation of the family. As such,
the Constitution decrees marriage as legally inviolable and protects it from dissolution
at the whim of the parties. Thus, it has consistently been held that psychological
incapacity, as a ground to nullify a marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code,
should refer to the most serious cases of personality disorders clearly demonstrative of
an utter insensitivity or inability to give meaning and significance to the marriage. It
must be a malady that is so grave and permanent as to deprive one of awareness of the
duties and responsibilities of the matrimonial bond one is about to assume.
Republic v. Romero II, G.R. Nos. 209180 & 209253, February 24, 2016
Verily, all people may have certain quirks and idiosyncrasies, or isolated traits
associated with certain personality disorders and there is hardly any doubt that the
intention of the law has been to confine the meaning of psychological incapacity to
the most serious cases. Thus, to warrant the declaration of nullity of marriage, the
psychological incapacity must: (a) be grave or serious such that the party would be
incapable of carrying out the ordinary duties required in a marriage; (b) have juridical
antecedence, i.e., it must be rooted in the history of the party antedating the marriage,
although the overt manifestations may emerge only after the marriage; and (c) be
incurable, or even if it were otherwise, the cure would be beyond the means of the
party involved.
Republic v. Romero II, G.R. Nos. 209180 & 209253, February 24, 2016
Article 36 of the Family Code is not to be confused with a divorce law that cuts
the marital bond at the time the causes therefor manifest themselves. It refers to a
serious psychological illness afflicting a party even before the celebration of the
marriage. It is a malady so grave and so permanent as to deprive one of awareness of
the duties and responsibilities of the matrimonial bond one is about to assume.
Brenda B. Marcos vs. Wilson G. Marcos, G.R. No. 136490, October 19, 2000
Copyright 2017 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia (2017.1) 43
The term "psychological incapacity" to be a ground for the nullity of marriage
under Article 36 of the Family Code, refers to a serious psychological illness afflicting
a party even before the celebration of the marriage. It is a malady so grave and so
permanent as to deprive one of the awareness of the duties and responsibilities of the
matrimonial bond one is about to assume. As all people may have certain quirks and
idiosyncrasies, or isolated characteristics associated with certain personality disorders,
there is hardly any doubt that the intendment of the law has been to confine the
meaning of "psychological incapacity" to the most serious cases of personality
disorders clearly demonstrative of an utter insensitivity or inability to give meaning
and significance to the marriage. It is for this reason that the Court relies heavily on
psychological experts for its understanding of the human personality. However, the
root cause must be identified as a psychological illness and its incapacitating nature
must be fully explained[.]
Ma. Armida Perez-Ferraris v. Brix Ferraris, G.R. No. 162368, July 17, 2006
Republic of the Phil. vs. Laila Tanyag-San Jose, et al., G.R. No. 168328, February 28,
2007
Article 36 contemplates downright incapacity or inability to take cognizance of and
assume the basic marital obligations, not a mere refusal, neglect or difficulty, much
less, ill will, on the part of the errant spouse. As this Court repeatedly declares, Article
36 of the Family Code is not to be confused with a divorce law that cuts the marital
bond at the time the causes thereof manifest themselves. It refers to a serious
psychological illness afflicting a party even before the celebration of the marriage. It
is a malady so grave and so permanent as to deprive one of awareness of the duties
and responsibilities of the matrimonial bond one is about to assume. These marital
obligations are those provided under Articles 68 to 71, 220, 221 and 225 of the Family
Code. Neither should Article 36 be equated with legal separation, in which the
grounds need not be rooted in psychological incapacity but on physical violence,
moral pressure, moral corruption, civil interdiction, drug addiction, sexual infidelity,
and abandonment, and the like. At best the evidence presented by petitioner refers
only to grounds for legal separation, not for declaring a marriage void.
Rosa Yap Paras vs. Justo J. Paras, G.R. No. 147824, August 2, 2007
Psychological incapacity, in order to be a ground for the nullity of marriage under
Article 36 of the Family Code, refers to a serious psychological illness afflicting a
party even before the celebration of marriage. It is a malady that is so grave and
permanent as to deprive one of awareness of the duties and responsibilities of the
Copyright 2017 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia (2017.1) 44
matrimonial bond one is about to assume. As all people may have certain quirks and
idiosyncrasies, or isolated traits associated with certain personality disorders, there is
hardly any doubt that the intention of the law has been to confine the meaning of
psychological incapacity to the most serious cases of personality disorders clearly
demonstrative of an utter insensitivity or inability to give meaning and significance to
the marriage.
Nilda V. Navales vs. Reynaldo Navales, G.R. No. 167523, June 27, 2008
The Court has repeatedly stressed that psychological incapacity contemplates
"downright incapacity or inability to take cognizance of and to assume the basic
marital obligations," not merely the refusal, neglect or difficulty, much less ill will, on
the part of the errant spouse. Indeed, to be declared clinically or medically incurable is
one thing; to refuse or be reluctant to perform one's duties is another. Psychological
incapacity refers only to the most serious cases of personality disorders clearly
demonstrative of an utter insensitivity or inability to give meaning and significance to
the marriage.
Mallilin v. Jamesolamin, G.R. No. 192718, February 18, 2015
Indeed, to be declared clinically or medically incurable is one thing; to refuse or be
reluctant to perform one's duties is another. To hark back to what has been earlier
discussed, psychological incapacity refers only to the most serious cases of personality
disorders clearly demonstrative of an utter insensitivity or inability to give meaning
and significance to the marriage.
Republic v. De Gracia, G.R. No. 171557, February 12, 2014
Although the Family Code has not defined the term psychological incapacity, the
Court has usually looked up its meaning by reviewing the deliberations of the sessions
of the Family Code Revision Committee that had drafted the Family Code in order to
gain an insight on the provision. It appeared that the members of the Family Code
Revision Committee were not unanimous on the meaning, and in the end they decided
to adopt the provision "with less specificity than expected" in order to have the law
"allow some resiliency in its application." Illustrative of the "less specificity than
expected" has been the omission by the Family Code Revision Committee to give any
examples of psychological incapacity that would have limited the applicability of the
provision conformably with the principle of ejusdem generis, because the Committee
desired that the courts should interpret the provision on a case-to-case basis, guided by
experience, the findings of experts and researchers in psychological disciplines, and
the decisions of church tribunals that had persuasive effect by virtue of the provision
Copyright 2017 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia (2017.1) 45
itself having been taken from the Canon Law.
Kalaw v. Fernandez, G.R. No. 166357, January 14, 2015
Psychological incapacity must be more than just a "difficulty", "refusal" or
"neglect" in the performance of some marital obligations. Rather, it is essential that
the concerned party was incapable of doing so, due to some psychological illness
existing at the time of the celebration of the marriage. The intendment of the law has
been to confine the meaning of "psychological incapacity" to the most serious cases of
personality disorders clearly demonstrative of an utter insensitivity or inability to give
meaning and significance to the marriage.
Republic v. Pangasinan, G.R. No. 214077, August 10, 2016, citing Marable v. Marable,
G.R. No. 178741, January 17, 2011
In sum, a person's psychological incapacity to comply with his or her essential
obligations, as the case may be, in marriage must be rooted on a medically or
clinically identifiable grave illness that is incurable and shown to have existed at the
time of marriage, although the manifestations thereof may only be evident after
marriage.
Republic v. Pangasinan, G.R. No. 214077, August 10, 2016
Time and again, it was held that "psychological incapacity" has been intended by
law to be confined to the most serious cases of personality disorders clearly
demonstrative of an utter insensitivity or inability to give meaning and significance to
the marriage. Psychological incapacity must be characterized by (a) gravity, i.e., it
must be grave and serious such that the party would be incapable of carrying out the
ordinary duties required in a marriage, (b) juridical antecedence, i.e., it must be rooted
in the history of the party antedating the marriage, although the overt manifestations
may emerge only after the marriage, and (c) incurability, i.e., it must be incurable, or
even if it were otherwise, the cure would be beyond the means of the party involved.
Castillo v. Republic, G.R. No. 214064, February 6, 2017
The provision on psychological incapacity should be interpreted on a case-to-case
basis.
The Civil Code Revision Committee did not give any examples of
psychological incapacity for fear that the giving of examples would limit the
applicability of the provision under the principle of ejusdem generis. Rather, the
Copyright 2017 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia (2017.1) 46
Committee would like the judge to interpret the provision on a case-to-case basis,
guided by experience, the findings of experts and researchers in psychological
disciplines, and by decisions of church tribunals which, although not binding on the
civil courts, may be given persuasive effect since the provision was taken from Canon
Law.
Joselita Salita vs. Hon. Delilah Magtolis, G.R. No. 106429, June 13, 1994
But Article 36 of the Family Code must not be so strictly and too literally read and
applied given the clear intendment of the drafters to adopt its enacted version of "less
specificity" obviously to enable "some resiliency in its application." Instead, every
court should approach the issue of nullity "not on the basis of a priori assumptions,
predilections or generalizations, but according to its own facts" in recognition of the
verity that no case would be on "all fours" with the next one in the field of
psychological incapacity as a ground for the nullity of marriage; hence, every "trial
judge must take pains in examining the factual milieu and the appellate court must, as
much as possible, avoid substituting its own judgment for that of the trial court."
Kalaw v. Fernandez, G.R. No. 166357, January 14, 2015
Guidelines in interpretation and application of Art. 36 of the Family Code.
The following guidelines in the interpretation and application of Art. 36 of the
Family Code are handed down for the guidance of the bench and the bar:
(1) The burden of proof to show the nullity of the marriage belongs to the
plaintiff. Any doubt should be resolved in favor of the existence and continuation of
the marriage and against its dissolution and nullity. This is rooted in the fact that both
our Constitution and our laws cherish the validity of marriage and unity of the family.
Thus, our Constitution devotes an entire Article on the Family, recognizing it "as the
foundation of the nation." It decrees marriage as legally "inviolable," thereby
protecting it from dissolution at the whim of the parties. Both the family and marriage
are to be "protected" by the state.
The Family Code echoes this constitutional edict on marriage and the family
and emphasizes their permanence, inviolability and solidarity.
(2) The root cause of the psychological incapacity must be (a) medically or
clinically identified, (b) alleged in the complaint, (c) sufficiently proven by experts
and (d) clearly explained in the decision. Article 36 of the Family Code requires that
Copyright 2017 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia (2017.1) 47
the incapacity must be psychological — not physical, although its manifestations
and/or symptoms may be physical. The evidence must convince the court that the
parties, or one of them, was mentally or psychically ill to such an extent that the
person could not have known the obligations he was assuming, or knowing them,
could not have given valid assumption thereof. Although no example of such
incapacity need be given here so as not to limit the application of the provision under
the principle of ejusdem generis, nevertheless such root cause must be identified as a
psychological illness and its incapacitating nature fully explained. Expert evidence
may be given by qualified psychiatrists and clinical psychologists.
(3) The incapacity must be proven to be existing at "the time of the
celebration" of the marriage. The evidence must show that the illness was existing
when the parties exchanged their "I do's." The manifestation of the illness need not be
perceivable at such time, but the illness itself must have attached at such moment, or
prior thereto.
(4) Such incapacity must also be shown to be medically or clinically
permanent or incurable. Such incurability may be absolute or even relative only in
regard to the other spouse, not necessarily absolutely against everyone of the same
sex. Furthermore, such incapacity must be relevant to the assumption of marriage
obligations, not necessarily to those not related to marriage, like the exercise of a
profession or employment in a job. Hence, a pediatrician may be effective in
diagnosing illnesses of children and prescribing medicine to cure them but may not be
psychologically capacitated to procreate, bear and raise his/her own children as an
essential obligation of marriage.
(5) Such illness must be grave enough to bring about the disability of the
party to assume the essential obligations of marriage. Thus, "mild characterological
peculiarities, mood changes, occasional emotional outbursts" cannot be accepted as
root causes. The illness must be shown as downright incapacity or inability, not a
refusal, neglect or difficulty, much less ill will. In other words, there is a natal or
supervening disabling factor in the person, an adverse integral element in the
personality structure that effectively incapacitates the person from really accepting
and thereby complying with the obligations essential to marriage.
(6) The essential marital obligations must be those embraced by Articles 68
up to 71 of the Family Code as regards the husband and wife as well as Articles 220,
221 and 225 of the same Code in regard to parents and their children. Such
non-complied marital obligation(s) must also be stated in the petition, proven by
Copyright 2017 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia (2017.1) 48
evidence and included in the text of the decision.
(7) Interpretations given by the National Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal of
the Catholic Church in the Philippines, while not controlling or decisive, should be
given great respect by our courts. It is clear that Article 36 was taken by the Family
Code Revision Committee from Canon 1095 of the New Code of Canon Law, which
became effective in 1983 and which provides:
"The following are incapable of contracting marriage: Those who are unable to
assume the essential obligations of marriage due to causes of psychological nature."
Since the purpose of including such provision in our Family Code is to
harmonize our civil laws with the religious faith of our people, it stands to reason that
to achieve such harmonization, great persuasive weight should be given to decisions
of such appellate tribunal. Ideally — subject to our law on evidence — what is
decreed as canonically invalid should also be decreed civilly void.
This is one instance where, in view of the evident source and purpose of the
Family Code provision, contemporaneous religious interpretation is to be given
persuasive effect. Here, the State and the Church — while remaining independent,
separate and apart from each other — shall walk together in synodal cadence towards
the same goal of protecting and cherishing marriage and the family as the inviolable
base of the nation.
(8) The trial court must order the prosecuting attorney or fiscal and the
Solicitor General to appear as counsel for the state. No decision shall be handed down
unless the Solicitor General issues a certification, which will be quoted in the
decision, briefly stating therein his reasons for his agreement or opposition, as the
case may be, to the petition. The Solicitor General, along with the prosecuting
attorney, shall submit to the court such certification within fifteen (15) days from the
date the case is deemed submitted for resolution of the court. The Solicitor General
shall discharge the equivalent function of the defensor vinculi contemplated under
Canon 1095.
Republic of the Phil. vs. Court of Appeals and Roridel Olaviano Molina, G.R. No.
108763, February 13, 1997
Republic of the Phil. vs. Crasus L. Iyoy, G.R. No. 152577, September 21, 2005
Veronica Cabacungan Alcazar vs. Rey C. Alcazar, G.R. No. 174451, October 13, 2009
The foregoing guidelines have turned out to be rigid, such that their application to
Copyright 2017 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia (2017.1) 49
every instance practically condemned the petitions for declaration of nullity to the fate
of certain rejection. But Article 36 of the Family Code must not be so strictly and too
literally read and applied given the clear intendment of the drafters to adopt its
enacted version of "less specificity" obviously to enable "some resiliency in its
application." Instead, every court should approach the issue of nullity "not on the basis
of a priori assumptions, predilections or generalizations, but according to its own
facts" in recognition of the verity that no case would be on "all fours" with the next
one in the field of psychological incapacity as a ground for the nullity of marriage;
hence, every "trial judge must take pains in examining the factual milieu and the
appellate court must, as much as possible, avoid substituting its own judgment for that
of the trial court."
Kalaw v. Fernandez, G.R. No. 166357, January 14, 2015
In the task of ascertaining the presence of psychological incapacity as a ground for
the nullity of marriage, the courts, which are concededly not endowed with expertise
in the field of psychology, must of necessity rely on the opinions of experts in order to
inform themselves on the matter, and thus enable themselves to arrive at an intelligent
and judicious judgment. Indeed, the conditions for the malady of being grave,
antecedent and incurable demand the in-depth diagnosis by experts.
Kalaw v. Fernandez, G.R. No. 166357, January 14, 2015
Psychological incapacity must be characterized by (a) gravity; (b) judicial
antecedence; and (c) incurability. It should refer to "no less than a mental (not
physical) incapacity that causes a party to be truly incognitive of the basic marital
covenants that concomitantly must be assumed and discharged by the parties to the
marriage." It must be confined to "the most serious cases of personality disorders
clearly demonstrative of an utter insensitivity or inability to give meaning and
significance to the marriage." Finally, the "psychologic condition must exist at the
time the marriage is celebrated." The Court explained:
(a) Gravity — It must be grave and serious such that the party would be
incapable of carrying out the ordinary duties required in a marriage;
(b) Judicial Antecedence — It must be rooted in the history of the party
antedating the marriage, although the overt manifestations may emerge only after the
marriage; and
(c) Incurability — It must be incurable, or even if it were otherwise, the cure
Copyright 2017 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia (2017.1) 50
The words you are searching are inside this book. To get more targeted content, please make full-text search by clicking here.
Family-Code-Case-Doctrines
Discover the best professional documents and content resources in AnyFlip Document Base.
Search