Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 27 views

    Vs. Molina, G.R. No. 108763, February 13, 1997 Through Justice Panganiban and Santos vs. CA

    Uploaded by

    rHea sindoL
    1. Raymart and Claudine's contention that they no longer need parental consent or a marriage license after five years of cohabitation is not valid. Under Philippine law, a valid marriage requires parental consent if the parties are below 18, or a marriage license if above 18. 2. Councilor Luy's act of presiding over a marriage ceremony three days after being appointed OIC-Mayor was valid. However, if Mayor Sexy solemnized the marriage in another town, the marriage would be void. Solemnizing officers must act within their territorial jurisdiction. 3. Those authorized by law to solemnize marriages are: (1) local civil registrars, (2) priests, ministers,

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Vs. Molina, G.R. No. 108763, February 13, 1997 Through Justice Panganiban and Santos vs. CA

    Uploaded by

    rHea sindoL
    27 views2 pages
    1. Raymart and Claudine's contention that they no longer need parental consent or a marriage license after five years of cohabitation is not valid. Under Philippine law, a valid marriage requires parental consent if the parties are below 18, or a marriage license if above 18. 2. Councilor Luy's act of presiding over a marriage ceremony three days after being appointed OIC-Mayor was valid. However, if Mayor Sexy solemnized the marriage in another town, the marriage would be void. Solemnizing officers must act within their territorial jurisdiction. 3. Those authorized by law to solemnize marriages are: (1) local civil registrars, (2) priests, ministers,

    Original Title

    Quiz 2

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1. Raymart and Claudine's contention that they no longer need parental consent or a marriage license after five years of cohabitation is not valid. Under Philippine law, a valid marriage requires parental consent if the parties are below 18, or a marriage license if above 18. 2. Councilor Luy's act of presiding over a marriage ceremony three days after being appointed OIC-Mayor was valid. However, if Mayor Sexy solemnized the marriage in another town, the marriage would be void. Solemnizing officers must act within their territorial jurisdiction. 3. Those authorized by law to solemnize marriages are: (1) local civil registrars, (2) priests, ministers,

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    27 views2 pages

    Vs. Molina, G.R. No. 108763, February 13, 1997 Through Justice Panganiban and Santos vs. CA

    Uploaded by

    rHea sindoL
    1. Raymart and Claudine's contention that they no longer need parental consent or a marriage license after five years of cohabitation is not valid. Under Philippine law, a valid marriage requires parental consent if the parties are below 18, or a marriage license if above 18. 2. Councilor Luy's act of presiding over a marriage ceremony three days after being appointed OIC-Mayor was valid. However, if Mayor Sexy solemnized the marriage in another town, the marriage would be void. Solemnizing officers must act within their territorial jurisdiction. 3. Those authorized by law to solemnize marriages are: (1) local civil registrars, (2) priests, ministers,

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    1.

    Raymart and Claudine decided to live as husband and wife without the benefit of marriage at the
    age of 17. Five years later, they decided to get married. Being 22 years of age already, they
    contended that they no longer need parental consent or marriage license since they already
    cohabited for a period of five years. Is the contention valid? Why?

    2. Mayor Sexy and Vice-Mayor Pogi were indicted for graft and corruption. The two were
    suspended pending investigation. During the pendency of the suspension, Councilor Luy was
    appointed OIC-Mayor. Three days after, Luy then presided over a marriage ceremony. Councilor
    Tanda, a party mate of the suspended Mayor and Vice-Mayor questioned the act of Councilor
    Luy.
    a) Is the contention of Councilor Tanda valid? Why?
    b) Assuming Mayor Sexy was the solemnizing officer, however, the marriage was celebrated in
    another town. What is the status of the marriage? Why?

    3. Who can validly solemnize marriage? Enumerate and explain briefly?

    4. Sgt. P-noy, an orderly in the Army Headquarters in Camp Aguinaldo, Quezon City, was madly in
    love with Grace Li. He asked his friend Col. Butch Labad to act as a solemnizing officer to
    solemnize their marriage in a combat zone in Basilan. Before Labad could tell the P-noy to kiss
    the bride, he was hit by a bullet.
    a) What is the status of marriage? Why?
    b) Suppose Grace and P-noy live cohabited as husband and wife for five years, could Grace
    assail the marriage? Why?
    c) Suppose Grace remained a virgin after three years. What would be her ground for assailing
    her marriage since the doctrine of triennial is yet to be recognized by the Philippine court?
    Why?

    5. What are the effects in case of termination of void marriage? Enumerate and explain briefly.

    6. Kris, a foreign national, and Herbert, a stateless person, desires to be married here in the
    Philippines under Philippine law because they idolize its President. If you are the counsel of Kris
    and Herbert, what will you advice in order that your clients will be validly married under
    Philippine law? Why?

    7. What are the groupings or types of void marriages under the Family Code? Enumerate and
    explain briefly?

    8. It is said that Supreme Court somehow deviated from the doctrine laid out in the case of Republic
    vs. Molina, G.R. No. 108763, February 13, 1997 through Justice Panganiban and Santos vs. CA,
    310 SCRA 21 (1995) through Justice Vitug when it decided the case of Tan-Andal vs. Andal,
    G.R. No. 196359. May 11, 2021 through Justice Leonen.
    a) What is the doctrine laid out in Santos vs. CA? Enumerate and explain briefly.
    b) What is the doctrine laid out in Republic vs. Molina? Enumerate and explain briefly.
    c) What are the “deviations” set forth in Tan-Andal vs. Andal? Discuss each.
    9. What are grounds for legal separation? Briefly discuss each.

    You might also like