Re: Lack of Formal/Essential Requisites of Marriage (Art.

2)

G.R. No. 103047 September 2, 1994

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner,

vs.
COURT OF APPEALS AND ANGELINA M. CASTRO, respondents.

Facts:

 Angelina M. Castro and Edwin F. Cardenas were married without the knowledge of Angelina’s
parents. Thus, they did not immediately live together as husband and wife. It was only when
Angelina discovered she was pregnant that they decided to live together, but their cohabitation
lasted only for four (4) months.
 When Angelina gave birth, the baby, with Edwin’s consent, was adopted by the latter’s brother.
 Desiring to follow her daughter in the United States, Angelina consulted Atty. Frumencio E.
Pulgar, regarding the possible annulment of her marriage and it was later on found out that
there was no marriage license issued to Edwin prior to the celebration of their marriage.
However, their marriage contract states that marriage license no. 3196182 was issued in their
names but such marriage license does not appear in the records of the Civil Registry of Pasig.
 Angelina testified that she did not go to the civil registrar in order to apply for a license nor sign
any application therefor before the wedding.
 Trial Court: Denied Angelina’s petition, ruling that the inability of the certifying official to locate
the marriage license is not conclusive to show that there was no marriage license issued.
 CA: Reversed the trial court’s decision declaring that the marriage between the contracting
parties is null and void and directed the Civil Registrar of Pasig to cancel the subject marriage
contract.

Issue: Is the subject marriage considered void ab initio?

Ruling:
 Yes, such marriage is considered void ab initio. The documentary and testimonial evidence
presented by Angelina sufficiently established the absence of the subject marriage license.
 No marriage shall be solemnized without a marriage license first issued by a local civil registrar.
Being one of the essential requisites of a valid marriage, absence of a license would render the
marriage void ab initio.
 The subject marriage is one of those commonly known as a "secret marriage" which is used to
refer to a civil marriage celebrated without the knowledge of the relatives and/or friends of
either or both of the contracting parties. The records show that the marriage between Angelina
and Edwin was initially unknown to the parents of the former.
Re: Lack of Formal/Essential Requisites of Marriage (Art. 2)

G.R. NO. 167746 August 28, 2007

RESTITUTO M. ALCANTARA, Petitioner, v. ROSITA A. ALCANTARA and HON. COURT OF APPEALS,

Respondents.

Facts:

 Restituto Alcantara filed a petition for annulment of marriage against Rosita Alcantara.
 Restituto alleged that, without securing the required marriage license, they looked for a person
who could arrange a wedding and when they found one, they got married on the same day
before a certain Rev. Aquilino Navarro, a Minister of the Gospel of the CDCC BR Chapel.
 After a few months, they went through another marriage ceremony and it was likewise
celebrated without the parties securing a marriage license.
 The alleged marriage license (procured in Carmona, Cavite) appearing on the marriage contract,
is a sham, as neither party was a resident of Carmona, and they never went there to apply for a
license with its local civil registrar.
 Rosita alleged that Restituto only filed the annulment of their marriage to evade prosecution for
concubinage.
 RTC & CA: Denied Restituto’s petition

Issue: Was there an absence of marriage license that would render the marriage between petitioner and
respondent void ab initio?

Ruling:

 No. In this case, the marriage contract between the petitioner and respondent reflects a
marriage license number. A certification to this effect was also issued by the local civil registrar
of Carmona, Cavite. The certification moreover is precise in that it specifically identified the
parties to whom the marriage license was issued, namely Restituto Alcantara and Rosita
Almario, further validating the fact that a license was in fact issued to the parties herein.
 To be considered void on the ground of absence of a marriage license, the law requires that the
absence of such marriage license must be apparent on the marriage contract, or at the very
least, supported by a certification from the local civil registrar that no such marriage license was
issued to the parties. This certification enjoys the presumption that official duty has been
regularly performed and the issuance of the marriage license was done in the regular conduct of
official business. Hence, petitioner cannot insist on the absence of a marriage license to impugn
the validity of his marriage.
Re: Bigamous/Polygamous Marriage

G.R. No. 137110 August 1, 2000

VINCENT PAUL G. MERCADO a.k.a. VINCENT G. MERCADO, petitioner,

vs.
CONSUELO TAN, respondent.

Facts:
 Dr. Vincent Mercado and Ma. Consuelo Tan got married by reason of which they had duly
executed and signed a Marriage License upon which the status of Dr. Vincent was ‘single’ when
in fact, at the time of the celebration of their wedding, he was actually a married man, having
been in lawful wedlock with Ma. Thelma Oliva. Thus, Ma. Consuelo filed a letter-complaint for
bigamy against Dr. Vincent.
 More than a month after the bigamy case was lodged in the Prosecutor’s Office, Dr. Vincent filed
an action for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage against Ma. Thelma V. Oliva and in a Decision
rendered by the RTC, the marriage between them was declared null and void.
 CA: Agreed with the lower court, holding that the final judgment declaring null and void
accused’s previous marriage came not before the celebration of the second marriage, but after,
when the case for bigamy against accused was already tried in court. And what constitutes the
crime of bigamy is the act of any person who shall contract a second subsequent marriage
‘before’ the former marriage has been legally dissolved.

Issue: Whether or not the element of previous legal marriage is present in order to convict petitioner.

Ruling:
 Yes, the element of previous legal marriage is present in order to convict petitioner.
 In this case, all the elements of the crime are present. Under Article 349 of the Revised Penal
Code, the elements of bigamy are as follows:

1. That the offender has been legally married;

2. That the marriage has not been legally dissolved or, in case his or her spouse is absent, the
absent spouse could not yet be presumed dead according to the Civil Code;

3. That he contracts a second or subsequent marriage;

4. That the second or subsequent marriage has all the essential requisites for validity.

 The first marriage was declared null and void under Article 36 of the Family Code, but that
declaration came only after the Information had been filed. Hence, by then, the crime had
already been consummated. A judicial declaration of nullity of a void previous marriage must be
obtained before a person can marry for a subsequent time.
 Art. 40 of the Family Code states that: “The absolute nullity of a previous marriage may be
invoked for purposes of remarriage on the basis solely of a final judgment declaring such
marriage void.”
Re: Bigamous/Polygamous Marriage

G.R. No. 145226 February 06, 2004

LUCIO MORIGO y CACHO, petitioner,

vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.

Facts:
 Lucio Morigo and Lucia Barrete were boardmates at the house of Catalina Tortor for a period of
four (4) years. After which, lost contact with each other.
 After an exchange of letters while Lucia was in Singapore, they became sweethearts.
 Lucia returned to the Philippines but left again for Canada to work there. While in Canada, they
maintained constant communication.
 Lucia came back to the Philippines and proposed to petition Lucio to join her in Canada. Both
agreed to get married, thus they were married here in the Philippines. Lucia reported back to
her work in Canada leaving Lucio behind.
 Lucia filed with the Ontario Court a petition for divorce against appellant which was granted by
the court. Consequently, Lucio married Maria Jececha Lumbago.
 Lucio filed a complaint for judicial declaration of nullity of marriage on the ground that no
marriage ceremony actually took place.
 Lucio was charged with Bigamy in an Information and the latter moved for suspension of the
arraignment on the ground that the civil case for judicial nullification of his marriage with Lucia
posed a prejudicial question in the bigamy case.
 RTC: Finds accused Lucio Morigo y Cacho guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Bigamy
citing that the court of a country in which neither of the spouses is domiciled and in which one
or both spouses may resort merely for the purpose of obtaining a divorce, has no jurisdiction to
determine the matrimonial status of the parties. As such, a divorce granted by said court is not
entitled to recognition anywhere. (Ramirez v. Gmur)
 CA: Affirmed RTC’s decision holding that the act of contracting a second marriage before the
dissolution of the first marriage and alleging that the first one is void ab initio is not a valid
defense in a bigamy case.
 Lucio moved for reconsideration contending a doctrine which allows mistake upon a difficult
question of law (such as the effect of a foreign divorce decree) to be a basis for good faith.
(Mendiola v. People)
 CA denied the motion for lack of merit but the denial was by a split vote. The dissent observed
that as the first marriage was validly declared void ab initio, then there was no first marriage to
speak of.

Issue: Is the first marriage valid in order to convict Lucio for the crime of bigamy?

Ruling:
 No. The first element of bigamy as a crime requires that the accused must have been legally
married. But in this case, legally speaking, the petitioner was never married to Lucia Barrete.
Thus, there is no first marriage to speak of.
 In the instant case, however, no marriage ceremony at all was performed by a duly authorized
solemnizing officer. Petitioner and Lucia Barrete merely signed a marriage contract on their
own. The mere private act of signing a marriage contract 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 petitioner might be held liable for
bigamy unless he first secures a judicial declaration of nullity before he contracts a subsequent
marriage.
Re: Psychological Incapacity (Art. 36)

G.R. No. 112019 January 4, 1995

LEOUEL SANTOS, petitioner,

vs.
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS AND JULIA ROSARIO BEDIA-SANTOS, respondents.

Facts:
 It was in Iloilo City where Leouel, who then held the rank of First Lieutenant in the Philippine
Army, first met Julia. The meeting later proved to be an eventful day for them.
 The two exchanged vows before Municipal Trial Court Judge Cornelio G. Lazaro of Iloilo City,
followed, shortly thereafter, by a church wedding.
 The couple lived with Julia’s parents but the ecstasy did not last long because of the frequent
interference by Julia's parents into the young spouses’ family affairs.
 Julia finally left for the United States to work as a nurse despite Leouel's pleas to so dissuade
her. Seven months after her departure, Julia called up Leouel for the first time by long distance
telephone and promised to return home upon the expiration of her contract. She never did.
 When Leouel got a chance to visit the United States where he underwent a training program, he
desperately tried to locate Julia but all his efforts were of no avail.
 Leouel filed a complaint for "Voiding of marriage Under Article 36 of the Family Code"
 Julia, in her answer through counsel, opposed the complaint and denied its allegations, claiming
that it was Leouel who had, in fact, been irresponsible and incompetent.
 RTC & CA: dismissed the complaint for lack of merit
 Leouel argues that the failure of Julia to return home, or at the very least to communicate with
him, for more than five years are circumstances that clearly show her being psychologically
incapacitated to enter into married life.

Issue: Does the failure of Julia to return home, or at the very least to communicate with him, for more
than five years constitute psychological incapacity?

Ruling:
 No, the failure of Julia to return home or to communicate with her husband Leouel for more
than five years does not constitute psychological incapacity.
 Psychological incapacity must be characterized by:
a) gravity
b) juridical antecedence
c) incurability
 Psychological incapacity 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 which include their mutual obligations to
live together, observe love, respect and fidelity and render help and support.
 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. This psychologic condition must exist
at the time the marriage is celebrated.