PERSONS: Marriage and Family R.S.

MOJICA
1. G.R. No. 175581 March 28, 2008 expounded that while her marriage to Jose was
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, subsisting, the latter contracted marriage with a certain
vs. Rufina Pascual on August 31, 1990. On June 3, 1993,
JOSE A. DAYOT, Respondent. Felisa filed an action for bigamy against Jose.
Subsequently, she filed an administrative complaint
FACTS: against Jose with the Office of the Ombudsman, since
On November 24, 1986, Jose and Felisa were married in Jose and Rufina were both employees of the National
Pasay City Hall. The marriage was solemnized by Rev. Statistics and Coordinating Board. The Ombudsman
Tomas V. Atienza. In lieu of the marriage license, Jose found Jose administratively liable for disgraceful and
and Felisa executed a sworn affidavit attesting that both immoral conduct, and meted out to him the penalty of
of them had attained the age of maturity, and that being suspension from service for one year without
unmarried, they had lived together as husband and wife emolument.
for at least five years.
On July 26, 2000, the RTC rendered a Decision
On July 7, 1993, Jose filed a Complaint for Annulment dismissing the Complaint for the ground that the
and/or Declaration of Nullity of Marriage with the testimonies and evidence presented, the marriage
Regional Trial Court (RTC), Biñan, Laguna, Branch 25. celebrated between Jose and Felisa on November 24,
He contended that his marriage with Felisa was a sham, 1986 was valid. Jose’s claim that he did not consent to
as no marriage ceremony was celebrated between the the marriage was belied by the fact that he
parties; that he did not execute the sworn affidavit acknowledged Felisa Tecson as his wife when he wrote
stating that he and Felisa had lived as husband and wife [Felisa’s] name in the duly notarized statement of assets
for at least five years; and that his consent to the and liabilities he filled up on May 12, 1988, one year
marriage was secured through fraud. after he discovered the marriage contract he is now
claiming to be sham and false. [Jose], again, in his
In his Complaint, Jose gave his version of the events company I.D., wrote the name of [Felisa] as the person
which led to his filing of the same. According to Jose, he to be contacted in case of emergency. This Court does
was introduced to Felisa in 1986. Immediately thereafter, not believe that the only reason why her name was
he came to live as a boarder in Felisa’s house, the latter written in his company I.D. was because he was residing
being his landlady. Some three weeks later, Felisa there then. This is just but a lame excuse because if he
requested him to accompany her to the Pasay City Hall, really considers her not his lawfully wedded wife, he
ostensibly so she could claim a package sent to her by would have written instead the name of his sister.
her brother from Saudi Arabia. At the Pasay City Hall,
upon a pre-arranged signal from Felisa, a man bearing When [Jose’s] sister was put into the witness stand,
three folded pieces of paper approached them. They under oath, she testified that she signed her name
were told that Jose needed to sign the papers so that the voluntarily as a witness to the marriage in the marriage
package could be released to Felisa. He initially refused certificate and she further testified that the signature
to do so. However, Felisa cajoled him, and told him that appearing over the name of Jose Dayot was the signature
his refusal could get both of them killed by her brother of his brother that he voluntarily affixed in the marriage
who had learned about their relationship. Reluctantly, he contract, and she affirmed when asked by the Court if
signed the pieces of paper, and gave them to the man indeed she believed that Felisa Tecson was really chosen
who immediately left. It was in February 1987 when he by her brother. The testimony of his sister all the more
discovered that he had contracted marriage with Felisa. belied his claim that his consent was procured through
He alleged that he saw a piece of paper lying on top of fraud.
the table at the sala of Felisa’s house. When he perused
the same, he discovered that it was a copy of his Moreover, on the matter of fraud, the RTC ruled that
marriage contract with Felisa. When he confronted Jose’s action had prescribed. It cited Article 87 of the
Felisa, the latter feigned ignorance. New Civil Code which requires that the action for
annulment of marriage must be commenced by the
In opposing the Complaint, Felisa denied Jose’s injured party within four years after the discovery of the
allegations and denied Jose’s allegations and defended fraud. Thus, he could have filed an annulment or
the validity of their marriage. She declared that they had declaration of nullity of marriage at the earliest possible
maintained their relationship as man and wife absent the opportunity, the time when he discovered the alleged
legality of marriage in the early part of 1980, but that she sham and false marriage contract. [Jose] did not take any
had deferred contracting marriage with him on account action to void the marriage at the earliest instance.
of their age difference. In her pre-trial brief, Felisa
1|Mojica
PERSONS: Marriage and Family R.S.MOJICA
Undeterred, Jose filed an appeal from the foregoing RTC It covers the years immediately preceding the day of the
Decision to the Court of Appeals. In a Decision dated marriage, characterized by exclusivity, meaning no third
August 11, 2005, the Court of Appeals found the appeal party was involved at any time within the five years and
to be without merit. Likewise, the Court of Appeals did continuity that is unbroken.
not accept Jose’s assertion that his marriage to Felisa
was void ab initio for lack of a marriage license. It ruled The solemnization of a marriage without prior license is
that the marriage was solemnized under Article 16 of the a clear violation of the law and would lead or could be
Civil Code as one of exceptional character, with the used, at least, for the perpetration of fraud against
parties executing an affidavit of marriage between man innocent and unwary parties.
and woman who have lived together as husband and wife
for at least five years. The Court of Appeals concluded The Court of Appeals granted Joses Motion for
that the falsity in the affidavit to the effect that Jose and Reconsideration and reversed itself. Accordingly, it
Felisa had lived together as husband and wife for the rendered an Amended Decision that the marriage
period required by Article 76 (now Article 34 of the between Jose A. Dayot and Felisa C. Tecson is void ab
Family Code) did not affect the validity of the marriage, initio.
seeing that the solemnizing officer was misled by the
statements contained therein. In this manner, the Court 2. G.R. No. 173614 September 28, 2007
of Appeals gave credence to the good-faith reliance of LOLITA D. ENRICO, Petitioner,
the solemnizing officer over the falsity of the affidavit. vs.
HEIRS OF SPS. EULOGIO B. MEDINACELI AND
Differing with the ruling of the Court of Appeals, Jose TRINIDAD CATLI-MEDINACELI,
filed a Motion for Reconsideration thereof. His central REPRESENTED BY VILMA M.
opposition was that the requisites for the proper ARTICULO, Respondents.
application of the exemption from a marriage license
under Article 76 of the Civil Code (now Article 34 of the FACTS:
Family Code) were not fully attendant in the case at bar. On March 17, 2005, respondents filed with the RTC, an
In particular, Jose cited the legal condition that the man action for declaration of nullity of marriage of Eulogio
and the woman must have been living together as and petitioner Lolita D. Enrico. Substantially, the
husband and wife for at least five years before the complaint alleged that Eulogio and Trinidad were
marriage. Essentially, he maintained that the affidavit of married on June 14, 1962 in Lal-lo, Cagayan. They
marital cohabitation executed by him and Felisa was begot seven children, herein respondents, namely:
false. Eduardo, Evelyn, Vilma, Mary Jane, Haizel, Michelle,
and Joseph Lloyd. On May 1, 2004, Trinidad died. On
ISSUE: August 26, 2004, Eulogio married petitioner before the
Whether the falsity of an affidavit of marital Municipal Mayor of Lal-lo, Cagayan. Six months later,
cohabitation, where the parties have in truth fallen short or on February 10, 2005, Eulogio passed away.
of the minimum five-year requirement, effectively
renders the marriage void ab initio for lack of a marriage In impugning petitioner’s marriage to Eulogio,
license. respondents averred that the same was entered into
without the requisite marriage license. They argued that
RULING: Article 34 of the Family Code, which exempts a man
YES, it is void ab initio (void from the beginning) for and a woman who have been living together for at
lacking the requirements of valid marriage in which the least five years without any legal impediment from
sworn affidavit that Felisa executed is merely a scrap of securing a marriage license, was not applicable to
paper because they started living together five months petitioner and Eulogio because they could not have lived
before the celebration of their marriage. That according together under the circumstances required by said
to the five-year common-law cohabitation period under provision. Respondents posited that the marriage of
Article 34, “No license shall be necessary for the Eulogio to Trinidad was dissolved only upon the latter’s
marriage for a man and a woman who have lived death, or on May 1, 2004, which was barely three
together as husband and wife for at least five years and months from the date of marriage of Eulogio to
without any legal impediments to marry each other…” petitioner. Therefore, petitioner and Eulogio could not
have lived together as husband and wife for at least five
It means that a five years period computed back from the years. To further their cause, respondents raised the
date of celebration of marriage, and refers to a period of additional ground of lack of marriage ceremony due to
legal union had it not been for the absence of a marriage.
2|Mojica
PERSONS: Marriage and Family R.S.MOJICA
Eulogio’s serious illness which made its performance RULING:
impossible. NO; the respondents have no legal standing to assail the
validity of the second marriage after the death of their
In her Answer, petitioner maintained that she and father, pursuant to rule on A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC which
Eulogio lived together as husband and wife under one shall govern the said petition. Stated therein is that a
roof for 21 years openly and publicly; hence, they were petition for declaration of absolute nullity of void
exempted from the requirement of a marriage license. marriage may be filed solely by the husband or the
From their union were born Elvin Enrico and Marco wife.
Enrico, all surnamed Medinaceli, on October 28, 1988 Stated on Section 2(a) of the aforesaid Rules on
and October 30, 1991, respectively. She further Annulment of Voidable Marriages and Declaration of
contended that the marriage ceremony was performed in Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages, Legal Separation
the Municipal Hall of Lal-lo, Cagayan, and solemnized and Provisional Orders that:
by the Municipal Mayor. As an affirmative defense, she
sought the dismissal of the action on the ground that it is 1. Only an aggrieved or injured spouse may file
only the contracting parties while living who can file an petitions for annulment of voidable marriages and
action for declaration of nullity of marriage. declaration of absolute nullity of void
marriages. Such petitions cannot be filed by the
On October 11, 2005, the RTC issued an Order granting compulsory or intestate heirs of the spouses or by
the dismissal of the Complaint for lack of cause of the State. [Section 2; Section 3, paragraph a]
action. It cited A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC, dated March 7,
2003, promulgated by the Supreme Court En Banc as 2. Only an aggrieved or injured spouse may file a
basis. petition for annulment of voidable marriages or
declaration of absolute nullity of void marriages.
The Administrative Matter provides that a petition for Such petition cannot be filed by compulsory or
Declaration of Absolute Nullity of a Void Marriage intestate heirs of the spouses or by the State. The
may be filed solely by the husband or the wife. Committee is of the belief that they do not have a
Consequently, the heirs of the deceased spouse cannot legal right to file the petition. Compulsory or
substitute their late father in bringing the action to intestate heirs have only inchoate rights prior to the
declare the marriage null and void. death of their predecessor, and hence can only
question the validity of the marriage of the spouses
The Motion to Dismiss raised as an affirmative defense upon the death of a spouse in a proceeding for the
in the answer is hereby GRANTED. Accordingly, the settlement of the estate of the deceased spouse filed
Complaint filed by the respondents is hereby in the regular courts. On the other hand, the concern
DISMISSED with costs de officio. of the State is to preserve marriage and not to seek
its dissolution.
Respondents filed a Motion for Reconsideration thereof,
invoking the ruling in Niñal v. Bayadog case, which was 3. G.R. No. 133778 March 14, 2000
on the authority for holding that the heirs of a deceased ENGRACE NIÑAL for Herself and as Guardian ad
spouse have the standing to assail a void marriage even Litem of the minors BABYLINE NIÑAL, INGRID
after the death of the latter. NIÑAL, ARCHIE NIÑAL & PEPITO NIÑAL,
JR., petitioners,
RTC granted the motion for reconsideration dated vs.
October 31, 2005 and issued an order for the NORMA BAYADOG, respondent.
reinstatement of the case.
FACTS:
Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of the Pepito Niñal was married to Teodulfa Bellones on
foregoing Order; however, on June 1, 2006, the RTC September 26, 1974. Out of their marriage were born
denied the said motion on the ground that no new matter herein petitioners. Teodulfa was shot by Pepito resulting
was raised therein. in her death on April 24, 1985.

ISSUE: One year and 8 months thereafter or on December 11,

Whether or not respondent heirs can assail the validity of 1986, Pepito and respondent Norma Badayog got
the marriage of Eulogio and Lolita after the death of the married without any marriage license. In lieu thereof,
former? Pepito and Norma executed an affidavit dated December
11, 1986 stating that they had lived together as husband
3|Mojica
PERSONS: Marriage and Family R.S.MOJICA
and wife for at least five years and were thus exempt The two marriages involved herein having been
from securing a marriage license. solemnized prior to the effectivity of the Family Code
(FC), the applicable law to determine their validity is the
On February 19, 1997, Pepito died in a car accident. Civil Code which was the law in effect at the time of
After their father's death, petitioners filed a petition for their celebration. A valid marriage license is a requisite
declaration of nullity of the marriage of Pepito to Norma of marriage under Article 53 of the Civil Code, the
alleging that the said marriage was void for lack of a absence of which renders the marriage void ab
marriage license. The case was filed under the initio pursuant to Article 80(3) in relation to Article 58.
assumption that the validity or invalidity of the second The requirement and issuance of marriage license is the
marriage would affect petitioner's successional State’s demonstration of its involvement and
rights. Norma filed a motion to dismiss on the ground participation in every marriage, in the maintenance of
that petitioners have no cause of action since they are not which the general public is interested. This interest
among the persons who could file an action for proceeds from the constitutional mandate that the State
“annulment of marriage” under Article 47 of the recognizes the sanctity of family life and of affording
Family Code. protection to the family as a basic “autonomous social
institution.” Specifically, the Constitution considers
Judge Ferdinand J. Marcos of the Regional Trial Court marriage as an “inviolable social institution,” and is the
of Toledo City, Cebu, Branch 59, dismissed the petition foundation of family life which shall be protected by the
after finding that the Family Code is “rather silent, State. This is why the Family Code considers marriage
obscure, and insufficient” to resolve the following as “a special contract of permanent union” and case law
issues: considers it "not just an adventure but a lifetime
commitment.
1. Whether or not plaintiffs have a cause of action
against defendant in asking for the declaration of the ISSUES:
nullity of marriage of their deceased father, Pepito 1. Whether or not Pepito and Norma living together as
G. Niñal, with her specially so when at the time of husband and wife for at least five years exempts
the filing of this instant suit, their father Pepito G. them from obtaining a marriage license under
Niñal is already dead; Article 34 of the Family Code of the Philippines.
2. Whether or not the second marriage of plaintiffs'
deceased father with defendant is null and void ab 2. Whether or not plaintiffs have a cause
initio; of action against defendant in asking for the
3. Whether or not plaintiffs are estopped from assailing declaration of the nullity of marriage of their
the validity of the second marriage after it was deceased father, Pepito G. Niñal, with her specially
dissolved due to their father's death. so when at the time of the filing of this instant suit,
their father Pepito G. Niñal is already dead.
Thus, the lower court ruled that petitioners should have
filed the action to declare null and void their father's RULING:
marriage to respondent before his death, applying by 1. On the assumption that Pepito and Norma have lived
analogy Article 47 of the Family Code which together as husband and wife for five years without
enumerates the time and the persons who could initiate the benefit of marriage, that five-year period should
an action for annulment of marriage. Hence, this petition be computed on the basis of cohabitation as
for review with this Court grounded on a pure question “husband and wife” where the only missing factor is
of law. the special contract of marriage to validate the
union. In other words, the five-year common
This petition was originally dismissed for non- law cohabitation period, which is counted back from
compliance with Section 11, Rule 13 of the 1997 Rules the date of celebration of marriage, should be a
of Civil Procedure, and because “the verification failed period of legal union had it not been for the absence
to state the basis of petitioner's averment that the of the marriage. The five-year period should be the
allegations in the petition are “true and correct”.” It was years immediately before the day the marriage and it
thus treated as an unsigned pleading which produces no should be a period of cohabitation characterized by
legal effect under Section 3, Rule 7, of the 1997 exclusivity—meaning no third party was involved at
Rules. However, upon motion of petitioners, this Court any time within the five years, and continuity—that
reconsidered the dismissal and reinstated the petition for is, unbroken. Otherwise, if that five-
review. year cohabitation period is computed without any
distinction as to whether the parties were capacitated
4|Mojica
PERSONS: Marriage and Family R.S.MOJICA
to marry each other during the entire five years, then such foreign judgment is issued by competent Philippine
the law would be sanctioning immorality and court.”
encouraging parties to have common law
relationships and placing them on the same footing Accordingly, Gerbert filed a petition for judicial
with those who lived faithfully with their spouse. recognition of foreign divorce and/or declaration of
marriage as dissolved (petition) with the RTC. Although
2. The Code is silent as to who can file a petition to summoned, Daisylyn did not file any responsive
declare the nullity of a marriage. Voidable and void pleading but submitted instead a notarized
marriages are not identical. Consequently, void letter/manifestation to the trial court. She offered no
marriages can be questioned even after the death of opposition to Gerbert’s petition and, in fact, alleged her
either party but voidable marriages can be assailed desire to file a similar case herself but was prevented by
only during the lifetime of the parties and not after financial and personal circumstances. She, thus,
death of either, in which case the parties and their requested that she be considered as a party-in-interest
offspring will be left as if the marriage had been with a similar prayer to Gerbert’s.
perfectly valid.
In its October 30, 2008 decision, the RTC denied
4. G.R. No. 186571 August 11, 2010 Gerbert’s petition. The RTC concluded that Gerbert was
GERBERT R. CORPUZ, Petitioner, not the proper party to institute the action for
vs. judicial recognition of the foreign divorce decree as
DAISYLYN TIROL STO. TOMAS and The he is a naturalized Canadian citizen. It ruled that only
SOLICITOR GENERAL, Respondents. the Filipino spouse can avail of the remedy, under
Article 26, par. 2 of the Family Code, in order for him or
FACTS: her to be able to remarry under Philippine law.
Petitioner Gerbert R. Corpuz was a former Filipino
citizen who acquired Canadian citizenship through Article 26 of the Family Code reads:
naturalization on November 29, 2000. On January 18,
2005, Gerbert married respondent Daisylyn T. Sto. “All marriages solemnized outside the Philippines, in
Tomas, a Filipina, in Pasig City. Due to work and other accordance with the laws in force in the country where
professional commitments, Gerbert left for Canada soon they were solemnized, and valid there as such, shall also
after the wedding. He returned to the Philippines be valid in this country, except those prohibited under
sometime in April 2005 to surprise Daisylyn, but was Articles 35(1), (4), (5) and (6), 36, 37 and 38.”
shocked to discover that his wife was having an affair
with another man. Hurt and disappointed, Gerbert “Where a marriage between a Filipino citizen and a
returned to Canada and filed a divorce. The Superior foreigner is validly celebrated and a divorce is
Court of Justice, Windsor, Ontario, Canada granted thereafter validly obtained abroad by the alien spouse
Gerbert’s petition for divorce on December 8, 2005. The capacitating him or her to remarry, the Filipino spouse
divorce decree took effect a month later, on January 8, shall likewise have capacity to remarry under Philippine
2006. law.”

Two years after the divorce, Gerbert has moved on and This conclusion, the RTC stated, is consistent with the
has found another Filipina to love. Desirous of marrying legislative intent behind the enactment of the second
his new Filipina fiancée in the Philippines, Gerbert went paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code, as
to Pasig City Civil Registry Office and registered the determined by the Court in Republic v. Orbecido III; the
Canadian divorce decree on his and Daisylyn’s marriage provision was enacted to “avoid the absurd situation
certificate. Despite the registration of the divorce decree, where the Filipino spouse remains married to the alien
an official of the National Statistics Office (NSO) spouse who, after obtaining a divorce, is no longer
informed Gerbert that the marriage between him and married to the Filipino spouse.”
Daisylyn still subsists under Philippine law. To be
enforceable, the foreign divorce decree must first be ISSUE:
judicially recognized by a competent Philippine The petition raises the issue of whether the second
court, pursuant to NSO Circular No. 4, series of 1982: paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code extends to
aliens the right to petition a court of this jurisdiction for
“It would therefore be premature to register the decree the recognition of a foreign divorce decree.
of annulment in the Register of Annulment of Marriages
in Manila, unless and until final order of execution of RULING:
5|Mojica
PERSONS: Marriage and Family R.S.MOJICA
NO; the alien spouse can claim no right under the RTC. However, unlike in Zamoranos’ first marriage to
second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code as De Guzman, the union between her and Pacasum was
the substantive right it establishes is in favor of the blessed with progeny, namely: Samson, Sr., Sam Jean,
Filipino spouse. and Sam Joon.

The resolution of the issue requires a review of the Despite their three children, the relationship between
legislative history and intent behind the second Zamoranos and Pacasum turned sour and, in 1998, the
paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code. two were de facto separated. The volatile relationship of
Zamoranos and Pacasum escalated into a bitter battle for
The Family Code recognizes only two types of defective custody of their minor children. Eventually, on October
marriages – void and voidable marriages. In both cases, 18, 1999, Zamoranos and Pacasum arrived at a
the basis for the judicial declaration of absolute nullity or compromise agreement which vested primary custody of
annulment of the marriage exists before or at the time of the children in the former, with the latter retaining
the marriage. Divorce, on the other hand, contemplates visitorial rights thereto.
the dissolution of the lawful union for cause arising after
the marriage. Our family laws do not recognize absolute As it turned out, the agreement rankled on Pacasum. He
divorce between Filipino citizens. filed a flurry of cases against Zamoranos including a
petition for annulment, a criminal complaint for bigamy
Recognizing the reality that divorce is a possibility in and dismissal and disbarment from the civil service.
marriages between a Filipino and an alien, President
Corazon C. Aquino, in the exercise of her legislative Meanwhile, on the criminal litigation front, the Office of
powers under the Freedom Constitution, enacted the City Prosecutor, through Prosecutor Leonor Quiones,
Executive Order No. (EO) 227, amending Article 26 of issued a resolution, finding prima facie evidence to hold
the Family Code to its present wording. Zamoranos liable for Bigamy. Consequently, an
Information for Bigamy was filed against Zamoranos
5. G.R. No. 193902 June 1, 2011 before the RTC.
ATTY. MARIETTA D. ZAMORANOS, Petitioner,
vs. On the other civil litigation front on the Declaration of a
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and SAMSON R. Void Marriage, the RTC, rendered a decision in favor of
PACASUM, SR., Respondents. Zamoranos, dismissing the petition of Pacasum for lack
of jurisdiction. The RTC, Branch 2, Iligan City, found
FACTS: that Zamoranos and De Guzman are Muslims, and were
On May 3, 1982, Zamoranos wed Jesus de Guzman, a such at the time of their marriage, whose marital
Muslim convert, in Islamic rites. Prior thereto, relationship was governed by Presidential Decree (P.D.)
Zamoranos was a Roman Catholic who had converted to No. 1083, otherwise known as the Code of Muslim
Islam on April 28, 1982. Subsequently, on July 30, 1982, Personal Laws of the Philippines.
the two wed again, this time, in civil rites before Judge
Perfecto Laguio of Quezon City RTC. ISSUE:
Whether or not the marriage of Zamoranos to Pacasum
A little after a year, on December 18, 1983, Zamoranos bigamous?
and De Guzman obtained a divorce by talaq. The
dissolution of their marriage was confirmed by the RULING:
Shari’a Circuit District Court, 1st Circuit, 3rd District, First, we dispose of the peripheral issue raised by
Isabela, Basilan, which issued a Decree of Divorce on Zamoranos on the conclusiveness of judgment made by
June 18, 1992. the RTC, Branch 2, Iligan City, which heard the petition
for declaration of nullity of marriage filed by Pacasum
Now it came to pass that Zamoranos married anew on on the ground that his marriage to Zamoranos was a
December 20, 1989. As she had previously done in her bigamous marriage. In that case, the decision of which is
first nuptial to De Guzman, Zamoranos wed Samson already final and executory, the RTC, Branch 2, Iligan
Pacasum, Sr., her subordinate at the Bureau of Customs City, dismissed the petition for declaration of nullity of
where she worked, under Islamic rites in Balo-I, Lanao marriage for lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter
del Norte. Thereafter, on December 28, 1992, in order to by the regular civil courts. The RTC, Branch 2, Iligan
strengthen the ties of their marriage, Zamoranos and City, declared that it was the Shari'a Circuit Court which
Pacasum renewed their marriage vows in an civil had jurisdiction over the subject matter thereof.
ceremony before Judge Valerio Salazar of the Iligan City
6|Mojica
PERSONS: Marriage and Family R.S.MOJICA
Nonetheless, the RTC, Branch 6, Iligan City, which
heard the case for Bigamy, should have taken It stands to reason therefore that Zamoranos' divorce
cognizance of the categorical declaration of the RTC, from De Guzman, as confirmed by an Ustadz and Judge
Branch 2, Iligan City, that Zamoranos is a Muslim, Jainul of the Shari'a Circuit Court, and attested to by
whose first marriage to another Muslim, De Guzman, Judge Usman, was valid, and, thus, entitled her to
was valid and recognized under Islamic law. In fact, the remarry Pacasum in 1989. Consequently, the RTC,
same court further declared that Zamoranos' divorce Branch 6, Iligan City, is without jurisdiction to try
from De Guzman validly severed their marriage ties. Zamoranos for the crime of Bigamy. GRANTED.

From the foregoing declarations of all three persons in 6. G.R. No. 198780 October 16, 2013
authority, two of whom are officers of the court, it is REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner,
evident that Zamoranos is a Muslim who married vs.
another Muslim, De Guzman, under Islamic rites. LIBERTY D. ALBIOS, Respondent.
Accordingly, the nature, consequences, and incidents of
such marriage are governed by P.D. No. 1083. FACTS:
Fringer and Liberty Albios got married on October 22,
Nonetheless, it must be pointed out that even in criminal 2004, before the sala of Judge Calo in Mandaluyong
cases, the trial court must have jurisdiction over the City. 2 years after their marriage (December 6, 2006),
subject matter of the offense. In this case, the charge of Albios filed with the RTC a petition for declaration of
Bigamy hinges on Pacasum's claim that Zamoranos is nullity of her marriage with Fringer. According to her,
not a Muslim, and her marriage to De Guzman was the marriage was a marriage in jest because she only wed
governed by civil law. This is obviously far from the the American to acquire US citizenship and even
truth, and the fact of Zamoranos' Muslim status should arranged to pay him $2,000 in exchange for his consent.
have been apparent to both lower courts, the RTC, Adding that immediately after their marriage, they
Branch 6, Iligan City, and the CA. separated and never lived as husband and wife because
they never really had any intention of entering into a
The subject matter of the offense of Bigamy dwells on married state and complying with their marital
the accused contracting a second marriage while a obligations. The court even sent summons to the
prior valid one still subsists and has yet to be husband but he failed to file an answer.
dissolved. At the very least, the RTC, Branch 6, Iligan
City, should have suspended the proceedings until Both the RTC and CA ruled in favor of Albios declaring
Pacasum had litigated the validity of Zamoranos and De that the marriage was void ab initio for lack of consent
Guzman's marriage before the Shari'a Circuit Court and because the parties failed to freely give their consent to
had successfully shown that it had not been dissolved the marriage as they had no intention to be legally bound
despite the divorce by talaq entered into by Zamoranos by it and used it only as a means to acquire American
and De Guzman. citizenship in consideration of $2,000.00.. However, the
Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) elevated the case
In a pluralist society such as that which exists in the to the SC. According to the OSG, the case do not fall
Philippines, P.D. No. 1083, or the Code of Muslim within the concept of a marriage in jest as the parties
Personal Laws, was enacted to “promote the intentionally consented to enter into a real and valid
advancement and effective participation of the National marriage. That the parties here intentionally consented to
Cultural Communities x x x, [and] the State shall enter into a real and valid marriage, for if it were
consider their customs, traditions, beliefs and interests in otherwise, the purpose of Albios to acquire American
the formulation and implementation of its policies.” citizenship would be rendered futile.

Trying Zamoranos for Bigamy simply because the ISSUE:

regular criminal courts have jurisdiction over the offense Is a marriage, contracted for the sole purpose of
defeats the purpose for the enactment of the Code of acquiring American citizenship in consideration of
Muslim Personal Laws and the equal recognition $2,000.00, void ab initio on the ground of lack of
bestowed by the State on Muslim Filipinos. consent?

Moreover, the two experts, in the same book, RULING:

unequivocally state that one of the effects of irrevocable NO. Both Fringer and Albios consented to the marriage.
talaq, as well as other kinds of divorce, refers to In fact, there was real consent because it was not vitiated
severance of matrimonial bond, entitling one to remarry. nor rendered defective by any vice of consent.
7|Mojica
PERSONS: Marriage and Family R.S.MOJICA
Their consent was also conscious and intelligent as they RULING:
understood the nature and the beneficial and The first element of Bigamy as laid down in Bobis v.
inconvenient consequences of their marriage, as nothing Bobis was not present. No marriage ceremony. What
impaired their ability to do so. transpired was a mere signing of the marriage contract
by the two, without the presence of a solemnizing
7. G.R. No. 145226 February 06, 2004 officer. The mere signing of the same bears no
LUCIO MORIGO y CACHO, petitioner, semblance to a valid marriage and thus, needs no judicial
vs. declaration of nullity.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
The Supreme Court need not tarry on the issue of the
FACTS: validity of his defense of good faith or lack of criminal
Lucio Morigo and Lucia Barrete were boardmates at the intent, which is moot and academic.
house of one Catalina Tortor at Tagbilaran
City, Bohol for four years. Their communication was 8. G.R. No. 141528 October 31, 2006
broken after school year 1977-1978. In 1984, Lucio OSCAR P. MALLION, petitioner,
received a letter from Lucia from Singapore. After an vs.
exchange of letters, the two became sweethearts. Lucia EDITHA ALCANTARA, respondent.
later returned to the Philippines but left again for Canada
to work there. Nonetheless, the sweethearts maintained FACTS:
a constant communication. Lucia, later came back to the On October 24, 1995, petitioner Oscar Mallion filed with
Philippines. The two agreed to get married, thus, they the regional trial court seeking a declaration of nullity of
were married at Iglesia de Filipina Nacional at his marriage to respondent Editha Alcantara on the
Catagdaan, Pilar, Bohol. Lucia reported back to her work ground of psychological incapacity.
in Canada leaving Lucio behind. Barely a year, August
19, 1991, Lucia filed with Ontario Court a petition for The trial court denied the petition. Likewise, it was
divorce which was granted and took effect in February dismissed in the Court of Appeals.
of 1992. On October that year Lucia married Maria
Lumbago also in Tagbilaran City. September 21, 1993, After such decision, petitioner filed another petition for
Lucio filed a complaint for nullity of marriage in declaration of nullity of marriage with the regional trial
Regional Trial Court of Bohol on the ground that there court alleging that his marriage with respondent was null
was no marriage ceremony actually took place. He was and void due to the fact that it was celebrated without a
later charge with Bigamy filed by City Prosecutor of the valid marriage license.
Regional Trial Court of Bohol.
Respondent filed an answer with motion to dismiss on
The petitioner moved for the suspension of the criminal the ground of res judicata and forum shopping.
case invoking prejudicial question. The civil case is a The trial court grated her petition.
prejudicial question to bigamy. The Court granted
unfortunately denied by the motion for reconsideration ISSUE:
of the prosecution. Is the action of the husband tenable?

The Regional Trial Court of Bohol held Lucio guilty RULING:

beyond reasonable doubt of bigamy. NO. Section 47(b) of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court
pertains as “bar by prior judgment” or “estoppels by
He filed an appeal to the Court of Appeals. While the verdict,” which is the effect of a judgment as a bar to the
case was pending in Court of Appeals, the trial court prosecution of the second action upon the same claim,
granted the petition for nullity of marriage since no demand or cause of action. In Section 47(c) of the same
marriage ceremony took place. No appeal was taken rule, it pertains to res judicata in its concept as
from this decision, thus, became final and executory. But “conclusiveness of judgment” or the rule of auter action
the Court of Appeals denied the petition for lack of pendant which ordains that issues actually and directly
merit. Hence, the petition was elevated to the Supreme resolved in a former suit cannot again be raised in any
Court. future case between the same parties involving a
different cause of action. Therefore, having expressly
ISSUE: and impliedly concealed the validity of their marriage
Whether or not petitioner committed bigamy and if so, celebration, petitioner is now deemed to have waived
whether his defense of good faith is valid?
8|Mojica
PERSONS: Marriage and Family R.S.MOJICA
any defects therein. The Court finds then that the present a. gravity (i.e., it must be grave and serious such that
action for declaration of nullity of marriage on the the party would be incapable of carrying out the
ground of lack of marriage license is barred. The petition ordinary duties required in a marriage);
is denied for lack of merit. b. juridical antecedence (i.e., it must be rooted in the
history of the party antedating the marriage,
9. G.R. No. 201988 October 11, 2017 although the overt manifestations may emerge only
MARIA VICTORIA SOCORRO LONTOC- after the marriage); and
CRUZ, Petitioner c. incurability (i.e., it must be incurable, or even if it
vs. were otherwise, the cure would be beyond the means
NILO SANTOS CRUZ, Respondent of the party involved).”

FACTS: Also, in Republic v. Court of Appeals, we reiterated the

Marivi met Nilo and they became sweethearts in 1986. well-settled guidelines in resolving petitions for
The couple married in a civil ceremony followed by a declaration of nullity of marriage, as embodied
church wedding. The marriage produced two sons. in Republic v. Court of Appeals, viz.:

Sometime in 2005, Marivi filed with the RTC a petition 1. The burden of proof to show the nullity of the
for declaration of nullity of marriage based on marriage belongs to the plaintiff. Any doubt should
psychological incapacity. In support of her claim that she be resolved in favor of the existence and
and Nilo were suffering from psychological incapacity, continuation of the marriage and against its
Marivi presented Dr. Villegas, a psychiatrist, and Dr. dissolution and nullity.
Encarnacion, a clinical psychologist. 2. The root cause of the psychological incapacity must
be (a) medically or clinically identified, (b) alleged
According to Dr. Villegas, both parties could not tolerate in the complaint, (c) sufficiently proven by experts
each other’s’ weaknesses and that the incapacities of the and (d) clearly explained in the decision. Article 36
parties are grave because they preferred to satisfy their of the Family Code requires that the incapacity must
own needs rather than to give in to the other’s needs be psychological – not physical, although its
. manifestations and/or symptoms may be physical.
Dr. Encarnacion supported Dr. Villegas’ diagnosis. 3. The incapacity must be proven to be existing at ‘the
The RTC denied the Petition. time of the celebration’ of the marriage.
4. Such incapacity must also be shown to be medically
From the RTC’s verdict, petitioner appealed to the CA. or clinically permanent or incurable.
The CA united with the RTC in rejecting the alleged 5. Such illness must be grave enough to bring about the
existence of psychological incapacity. disability of the party to assume the essential
obligations of marriage. Thus, ‘mild
ISSUE: characterological peculiarities, mood changes,
Whether the psychological conditions of the parties fall occasional emotional outbursts’ cannot be accepted
under Article 36 of the Family Code to warrant the as root causes.
declaration of nullity of marriage? 6. The essential marital obligations must be those
embraced by Articles 68 up to 71 of the Family
RULING: Code as regards the husband and wife as well as
We sustain the findings of both the RTC and the CA. Articles 220, 221 and 225 of the same Code in
Article 36 of the Family Code states: regard to parents and their children. Such non-
complied marital obligation(s) must also be stated in
“A marriage contracted by any party who, at the time of the petition, proven by evidence and included in the
the celebration, was psychologically incapacitated to text of the decision.
comply with the essential marital obligations of 7. Interpretations given by the National Appellate
marriage, shall likewise be void even if such incapacity Matrimonial Tribunal of the Catholic Church in the
becomes manifest only after its solemnization.” Philippines, while not controlling or decisive, should
We have laid down guidelines in interpreting and be given great respect by our courts.
applying this provision. In Republic v. De Gracia, we 8. The trial court must order the prosecuting attorney
reiterated the doctrine in Santos v. Court of or fiscal and the Solicitor General to appear as
Appeals, “that psychological incapacity must be counsel for the state.
characterized by:

9|Mojica
PERSONS: Marriage and Family R.S.MOJICA
Notably, “mere showing of ‘irreconcilable differences’ Petitioner asserted that she could not be included as an
and ‘conflicting personalities’ [as in the present case,] in accused in the crime of bigamy, because she had been
no wise constitutes psychological incapacity.” “Nor does under the belief that Santos was still single when they
failure of the parties to meet their responsibilities and got married. She also averred that for there to be a
duties as married persons” amount to psychological conviction for bigamy, his second marriage to her should
incapacity. We further elucidated in Yambao v. be proven valid by the prosecution; but in this case, she
Republic that the psychological condition should render argued that their marriage was void due to the lack of a
the subject totally unaware or incognitive of the basic marriage license.
marital obligations:
Eleven years after the inception of this criminal case, the
Article 36 contemplates incapacity or inability to take first wife, Estela Galang, testified for the prosecution.
cognizance of and to assume basic marital obligations She alleged that she had met petitioner on which
and not merely difficulty, refusal, or neglect in the occasions the former introduced herself as the legal wife
performance of marital obligations or ill will. This of Santos. Petitioner denied this allegation and averred
incapacity consists of the following: that she met Galang only or after she had already
married Santos.
a. a true inability to commit oneself to the essentials of
marriage; The RTC appreciated the undisputed fact that petitioner
b. this inability to commit oneself must refer to the married Santos during the subsistence of his marriage to
essential obligations of marriage: the conjugal act, Galang. Petitioner moved for reconsideration which was
the community of life and love, the rendering of denied. On appeal, the CA gave more weight to the
mutual help, the procreation and education of prosecution witnesses' narration.
offspring; and
c. the inability must be tantamount to a psychological ISSUE:
abnormality. Is the second marriage of Santiago valid, for there to be a
conviction for bigamy?
It is not enough to prove that a spouse failed to meet his
responsibility and duty as a married person; it is essential RULING:
that he must be shown to be incapable of doing so due to YES. It is clear that the marriage between petitioner and
some psychological illness. Santos took place without a marriage license. The
absence of this requirement is purportedly explained in
Upon the view we take of this case, thus, this Court their Certificate of Marriage, which reveals that their
believes that the protagonists in this case are in reality union was celebrated under Article 34 of the Family
simply unwilling to work out a solution for each other’s Code, which provides an exemption from the
personality differences, and have thus become requirement of a marriage license if the parties have
overwhelmed by feelings of disappointment or actually lived together as husband and wife for at
disillusionment toward one another. Sadly, a marriage, least five years prior to the celebration of their
even if unsatisfactory, is not a null and void marriage. marriage.

10. G.R. No. 200233 JULY 15, 2015 Santiago and Santos, however, reflected the exact
LEONILA G. SANTIAGO, Petitioner, opposite of this fact. Although the records do not show
vs. that they submitted an affidavit of cohabitation as
PEOPLEOF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent. required by Article 34 of the Family Code, it appears
that the two of them lied before the solemnizing officer
FACTS: and misrepresented that they had actually cohabited for
The prosecution adduced evidence that Santos, who had at least five years before they married each other.
been married to Estela Galang, asked petitioner to marry
him. Petitioner, who was a 43-year-old widow then, The Certificate of Marriage, signed by Santos and
married Santos. Four months after the solemnization of Santiago, contained the misrepresentation perpetrated by
their marriage, Leonila G. Santiago and Nicanor F. them that they were eligible to contract marriage without
Santos faced Information for bigamy. Petitioner pleaded a license. Petitioner now seeks to be acquitted of bigamy
“not guilty,” while her putative husband escaped the based on her illegal actions of (1) marrying Santos
criminal suit. without a marriage license despite knowing that they had
not satisfied the cohabitation requirement under the law;

10 | M o j i c a
PERSONS: Marriage and Family R.S.MOJICA
and (2) falsely making claims in no less than her evidence failed to adequately prove respondent's alleged
marriage contract. psychological incapacity. It held, thus:

In violation of our law against illegal marriages, Testifying thru her Judicial Affidavit x x x petitioner
petitioner married Santos while knowing full well that stated that sometime in May 2005, she chanced upon the
they had not yet complied with the five-year respondent, an Italian, in the internet xxx and they
cohabitation requirement under Article 34 of the Family became regular chatmates. In their exchanges of chat
Code. It will be the height of absurdity for this Court to messages and letters, she found respondent to be sweet,
allow petitioner to use her illegal act to escape criminal kind and jolly. He made her feel that he really cared for
conviction. her. He was romantic. [A]lthough at times, respondent
was impatient and easily got irritated.
No less than the present Constitution provides that
“marriage, as an inviolable social institution, is the On 9 January 2006, respondent flew in to the Philippines
foundation of the family and shall be protected by the and they got married on 23 January 2006. During their
State.” It must be safeguarded from the whims and honeymoon, petitioner noticed that the respondent was
caprices of the contracting parties. In keeping therefore not circumcised, x x x [R]espondent (also) asked her
with this fundamental policy, this Court affirms the where to find marijuana since he had to sniff some. This
conviction of petitioner for bigamy. made petitioner angry and she quarreled with him.
Respondent apologized later.
11. G.R. No. 209031 APRIL 16, 2018
ABIGAEL AN EPINA-DAN, Petitioner On 29 January 2006, respondent flew back to Italy and
vs on 26 February 2006, petitioner left to join respondent in
MARCO DAN, Respondent Italy. After a few days, respondent started displaying
traits, character and attitude different from that of Marco
FACTS: whom she had known thru the internet. He was
Petitioner Abigael An Espina-Dan and respondent immature, childish, irresponsible and dependent. He
Marco Dan - an Italian national - met “in a chatroom depended on his mother to do or to decide things for
[o]n the internet” sometime in May, 2005. They soon him. It was even his mother who decided where they
became “chatmates” and “began exchanging letters lived and how the house should be arranged. When they
which further drew them emotionally closer to each transferred to a separate house. it was respondent's
other” even though petitioner was in the Philippines mother who managed the household.
while respondent lived in Italy.
Respondent was also addicted to video games. During
In November, 2005, respondent proposed marriage. The work days, playing video games was always the first
following year, he flew in from Italy and tied the knot thing he does when he wakes up and the last thing he
with petitioner on January 23, 2006. does before retiring. During rest days, he would play
video games the whole day. There was never a quality
Soon after the wedding, respondent returned to Italy. time he spent with her, the kind of time that a
Petitioner followed thereafter, or on February 23, 2006. responsible husband would spend with his wife.
The couple lived together in Italy.
Respondent was also addicted to video games. During
On April 18, 2007, petitioner left respondent and flew work days, playing video games was always the first
back into the country. thing he does when he wakes up and the last thing he
does before retiring. During rest days, he would play
Ruling of the Regional Trial Court: video games the whole day. There was never a quality
On September 14, 2007, petitioner filed a Petition8 for time he spent with her, the kind of time that a
declaration of nullity of her marriage, docketed as Civil responsible husband would spend with his wife.
Case No. LP-07-0155with the RTC of Las Piñas City,
Branch 254. The Office of the Solicitor General Respondent was extremely lazy that he never helped her
representing the Republic of the Philippines opposed the in doing all the household chores. He also has extremely
petition. poor hygiene. He seldom takes a bath and brushes his
teeth. For him to be able to take a bath, petitioner would
On January 4, 2010, the RTC issued its Decision literally push him to the bathroom or hand him his
dismissing the petition on the ground that petitioner’s toothbrush with toothpaste to brush his teeth. She had to

11 | M o j i c a
PERSONS: Marriage and Family R.S.MOJICA
put deodorant on his underarms for he would not do it unhygienic person and the reason why he opted to lure
himself. He refused circumcision. herein petitioner to be his wife was because he wanted
her to be an extension of his maternal needs to sustain
Sometime in May 2006, she caught him in their house his own desire.
while using marijuana. When confronted, he get mad
and pushed her [hard] and hit her in the arm, [and told] On clarificatory questions of the Court Ms. Tayag
her to go back to the Philippines. testified that she was able to describe the respondent xxx
because of the description made by the petitioner and her
In October 2006, they transferred to another house. mother. She however, admitted that as disclosed to her
Living in a separate house from his mother did not by the petitioner, she (petitioner) was not able to have a
improve their marital relationship. His addiction to video bonding or to know well the respondent because more
games worsened. They seldom talk to each other as he often than not the respondent was always in the company
did not want to be disturbed while playing games. His of the mother that a pathological symbiotic relationship
addiction to drugs likewise worsened. He would often developed between the mother and son.
invite his friends to their house for pot sessions, to her
extreme fright and discomfort. Last witness presented was MS. VIOLETA G. ESPINA,
the mother of herein petitioner. Her Judicial Affidavit x
On 18 April 2007. she flew back to the Philippines. x x was adopted as her direct-testimony, which was
XXX Since then, there was no communication between entirely in corroboration of the testimony of petitioner
them. XX x Petitioner took this as lack of interest on his Abigael An Espina-Dan.
part to save their marriage, reason why she decided to
file this petition On cross-examiration, she testified that respondent had
not assumed his responsibilities as a married man, his
She further stated that respondent x x x only gave her dependency on drugs, his dependency on his mother
moncy for food. He spent most of his income for video with regard to their finances were just toid by her
games. If they ran out of food, it was her mother-in-law daughter, petitioner herein, during their conversations in
who supported them. the internet and therefore she has no personal knowledge
to what happened to her daughter, petitioner herein.
Next presented was NEDY TAYAG, a clinical
psychologist, who testified in her direct-examination that Article 36 of the Family Code provides:
petitioner was subjected to a series of psychological “A marriage contracted by any party who, at the time of
tests, written and oral form. She likewise subjected the the celebration of marriage, was psychologically
mother of the petitioner to clarificatory analysis. incapacitated to comply with the essential marital
obligations of marriage, shall likewise be void even if
In her evaluation, she found no sign or symptom of such incapacity becomes manifest only after its
major psychological incapacity of the petitioner, while solemnization.”
respondent is suffering from A Dependent Personality
Disorder with Underlying Anti-Social Trait, by his WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition for
parasitic attitude, allowing other people to be the handler declaration of nullity of marriage is hereby DENIED,
of his own personal sustenance, even hygienic wise, for lack of merit and accordingly, the same petition is
which somehow distorted the notion on how to handle hereby DISMISSED.
marital obligations in terms of mutual understanding,
communication and emotional intent. She was able to Ruling of the Court of Appeals:
arrive at these findings on respondent although he did Petitioner filed an appeal before the CA. In its assailed
not submit himself for the same psychological tests, December 14, 2012 Decision, however, the CA denied
through the clinical assessments and information the appeal and affirmed the RTC Decision, declaring
supplied by the petitioner, and the description of the thus:
petitioner's mother regarding how she perceived the
respondent. “There is no ground to declare the marriage xxx null
and void on the ground of psychological incapacity
On cross-examination, she described respondent as under Article 36 of the Family Code. Thus, the court a
“Mama's Boy”, which attitude can be narcissistic quo correctly denied the petition for annulment of
because of his attachment to the mother. He can do marriage.”
whatever he wants because the mother will always be at
his back. She likewise stated that the respondent is an
12 | M o j i c a