Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
127263, April 12, 2000 contravene the basic rules of fair play and justice,[23] in
a number of instances, we have relaxed observance of
(Marriage license) procedural rules, noting that technicalities are not ends
in themselves but exist to protect and promote
substantive rights of litigants. We said that certain
FACTS rules ought not to be applied with severity and rigidity if
by so doing, the very reason for their existence would be
On August 4, 1992, Filipina filed a petition[14] for the defeated
declaration of absolute nullity of her marriage to THE CASE AT BAR REQUIRES THAT WE ADDRESS
Fernando on the ground of psychological incapacity. THE ISSUE OF THE VALIDITY OF THE MARRIAGE
She points out that the final judgment rendered by the BETWEEN FILLIPINA AND FERNANDO WHICH
Regional Trial Court in her favor, in her petitions for PETITIONER CLAIMS IS VOID FROM THE BEGINNING
separation of property and legal separation, and FOR LACK OF A MARRIAGE LICENSE, in order to
Fernando's infliction of physical violence on her which arrive at a just resolution of a deeply seated and violent
led to the conviction of her husband for slight physical conflict between the parties.
injuries are symptoms of psychological incapacity. The ineluctable conclusion is that the marriage was
She also cites as manifestations of her husband's indeed contracted without a marriage license. Nowhere
psychological incapacity the following: (1) habitual do we find private respondent denying these dates on
alcoholism; (2) refusal to live with her without fault on record.
her part, choosing to live with his mistress instead; and Article 80 of the Civil Code[31] is clearly applicable in
(3) refusal to have sex with her, performing the marital this case. We thus conclude that under Article 80 of the
act only to satisfy himself. Civil Code, the marriage between petitioner and private
Moreover, Filipina alleges that such psychological respondent is void from the beginning.
incapacity of her husband existed from the time of the The remaining issue on the psychological incapacity of
celebration of their marriage and became manifest private respondent need no longer detain us. It is
thereafter.[15] mooted by our conclusion that the marriage of
RTC RULING: denied the petition of Filipina Sy for the petitioner to respondent is void ab initio for lack of a
declaration of absolute nullity of her marriage to marriage license at the time their marriage was
Fernando. It stated that the alleged acts of the solemnized
respondent, as cited by petitioner, do not constitute
psychological incapacity which may warrant the WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED
declaration of absolute nullity of their marriage.
CA RULING: testimony of petitioner concerning
respondent's purported psychological incapacity falls
short of the quantum of evidence required to nullify a
marriage
o petitioner failed to show that the alleged
psychological incapacity of respondent had
existed at the time of the celebration of their
marriage in 1973. It reiterated the finding of
the trial court that the couple's marital
problems surface almost ten years from the
date of the celebration of their marriage.
ISSUE:
RULING:
(judge’s territorial jurisdiction) - A priest who is commissioned and allowed by his local
ordinance to marry the faithful is authorized to do so only
FACTS within the area or diocese or place allowed by his Bishop.
Petitioner Mercedita Mata Araes charges respondent - An appellate court Justice or a Justice of this Court has
judge with Gross Ignorance of the Law jurisdiction over the entire Philippines to solemnize
marriages, regardless of the venue, as long as the requisites
Petitioner alleges that on 17 February 2000, respondent of the law are complied with.
judge solemnized her marriage to her late groom
Dominador B. Orobia without the requisite marriage However, judges who are appointed to specific
license and at Nabua, Camarines Sur which is outside jurisdictions, may officiate in weddings only within
his territorial jurisdiction. said areas and not beyond.
Where a judge solemnizes a marriage outside his
since the marriage was a nullity, petitioners right to courts jurisdiction, there is a resultant irregularity
inherit the vast properties left by Orobia was not in the formal requisite laid down in Article 3, which
recognized. She was likewise deprived of receiving the while it may not affect the validity of the marriage,
pensions of Orobia, a retired Commodore of the may subject the officiating official to administrative
Philippine Navy. liability.
In said case, we suspended respondent judge for six (6)
Comment of the judge:
months on the ground that his act of solemnizing a
“Respondent judge further avers that before he started the marriage outside his jurisdiction constitutes gross
ceremony, he carefully examined the documents submitted ignorance of the law. We further held that:
to him by petitioner. When he discovered that the parties In the case at bar, the territorial jurisdiction of
did not possess the requisite marriage license, he refused to respondent judge is limited to the municipality of
solemnize the marriage and suggested its resetting to Balatan, Camarines Sur. His act of solemnizing the
another date. However, due to the earnest pleas of the marriage of petitioner and Orobia in Nabua, Camarines
parties, the influx of visitors, and the delivery of provisions Sur therefore is contrary to law and subjects him to
for the occasion, he proceeded to solemnize the marriage out administrative liability. His act may not amount to
of human compassion. He also feared that if he reset the gross ignorance of the law for he allegedly solemnized
wedding, it might aggravate the physical condition of Orobia the marriage out of human compassion but
who just suffered from a stroke” nonetheless, he cannot avoid liability for violating the
law on marriage.
Reviewing the records of the case, it appears that
petitioner and Orobia filed their Application for Respondent judge should also be faulted for solemnizing a
Marriage License on 5 January 2000. It was stamped in marriage without the requisite marriage license.
this Application that the marriage license shall be
issued on 17 January 2000. However, neither petitioner WHEREFORE, respondent Judge Salvador M. Occiano,
nor Orobia claimed it. Presiding Judge of the Municipal Trial Court of Balatan,
petitioner sought the assistance of respondent judge so Camarines Sur, is fined P5,000.00 pesos with a STERN
the latter could communicate with the Office of the WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar offense in
Local Civil Registrar of Nabua, Camarines Sur for the the future will be dealt with more severely.
issuance of her marriage license.
Respondent judge wrote the Local Civil Registrar of
Nabua, Camarines Sur. In a letter dated 9 May 2001, a
Clerk of said office, Grace T. Escobal, informed
respondent judge that their office cannot issue the
marriage license due to the failure of Orobia to submit
the Death Certificate of his previous spouse
ISSUE:
(Infos)
ISSUE:
1. whether there was a valid marriage between
Guillermo Rustia and Josefa Delgado
RULING:
The solemnization of a marriage between two Respondent Judge knew or ought to know that a
contracting parties who were both bound by a prior SUBSISTING PREVIOUS MARRIAGE IS A DIRIMENT
existing marriage is the bone of contention of the IMPEDIMENT, which would make the subsequent
instant complaint against respondent Judge Roque R. marriage null and void
Sanchez
The fact that Manzano and Payao had been living apart
For this act, complainant Herminia Borja-Manzano
from their respective spouses for a long time already is
charges respondent Judge with gross ignorance of the
immaterial. Article 63(1) of the Family Code allows
law
spouses who have obtained a decree of legal separation
Complainant avers that she was the lawful wife of the
to live separately from each other, but in such a
late David Manzano
case the marriage bonds are not severed
Respondent Judge, on the other hand, claims in his
Comment that when he officiated the marriage between Just like separation, free and VOLUNTARY
Manzano and Payao he did not know that Manzano was COHABITATION WITH ANOTHER PERSON FOR AT
legally married. LEAST FIVE YEARS DOES NOT SEVERE THE TIE OF A
SUBSISTING PREVIOUS MARRIAGE. Marital
After an evaluation of the Complaint and the Comment, the cohabitation for a long period of time between two
Court Administrator recommended that respondent Judge individuals who are legally capacitated to marry each
be found guilty of gross ignorance of the law and be ordered other is merely a ground for exemption from marriage
to pay a fine of P2,000 license. It could not serve as a justification for
respondent Judge to solemnize a subsequent marriage
ISSUE: vitiated by the impediment of a prior existing marriage.
On May 13, 1992, Teofilo died intestate. He was ● State’s concern is to preserve marriage and not to seek its
survived by respondents Felicidad and their son, Teofilo dissolution.
Carlos II (Teofilo II). Upon Teofilos death, Parcel Nos. 5
& 6 were registered in the name of respondent Felicidad husband and the wife are the sole architects of a
and co-respondent, Teofilo II. healthy, loving, peaceful marriage. They are the only
ones who can decide when and how to build the
petitioner asserted that the marriage between his late foundations of marriage. The spouses alone are the
brother Teofilo and respondent Felicidad was a nullity engineers of their marital life. They are simultaneously
in view of the absence of the required marriage license. the directors and actors of their matrimonial true-to-life
He likewise maintained that his deceased brother was play. Hence, they alone can and should decide when to
neither the natural nor the adoptive father of take a cut, but only in accordance with the grounds
respondent Teofilo Carlos II. allowed by law.
Petitioner likewise sought the avoidance of the contracts The advent of the Rule on Declaration of Absolute
he entered into with respondent Felicidad with respect Nullity of Void Marriages marks the beginning of the
to the subject real properties. He also prayed forthe end of the right of the heirs of the deceased spouse to
cancellation ofthe certificates oftitle issued in the name bring a nullity of marriage case against the surviving
of respondents. He argued that the properties covered spouse. BUT THE RULE NEVER INTENDED TO
by such certificates of title, including the sums received DEPRIVE THE COMPULSORY OR INTESTATE HEIRS
by respondents as proceeds, should be reconveyed to OF THEIR SUCCESSIONAL RIGHTS
him.
They can still protect their successional right, for,
Evidence used by respondents for existence marriage: o asstated in the Rationale of the Rules on Annulment of
affidavit of the justice of the peace who solemnized the Voidable Marriages and Declaration of Absolute Nullity
marriage. o Certificate of Live Birth of respondent of Void Marriages, compulsory or intestate heirs can
Teofilo II. → late Teofilo Carlos and respondent still question the validity of the marriage of the spouses,
Felicidad were designated as parents. not in a proceeding for declaration of nullity but upon
the death of a spouse in a proceeding for the settlement
Petitioner presented a certification from the Local Civil of the estate of the deceased spouse filed in the regular
Registrar of Calumpit, Bulacan, certifying that there is courts.
no record of birth of respondent Teofilo II.
[The absence of a provision in the Civil Code cannot be
ISSUES construed as a license for any person to institute a
nullity of marriage case. Such person must appear to
1. Whether or not a party outside of marriage can file for be the party who stands to be benefited or injured by
nullity of marriage the judgment in the suit, or the party entitled to the
avails of the suit. Elsewise stated, plaintiff must be the
2. Whether or not Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of real party-in-interest. For it is basic in procedural law
Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages is that every action must be prosecuted and defended in
applicable in this case the name of the real party-in-interest.
True, under the New Civil Code which is the law in force
at the time the respondents were married, or even in
the Family Code, there is no specific provision as to who
can file a petition to declare the nullity of marriage;
however, only a party who can demonstrate“proper
interest”can file the same. A petition to declare the
nullity of marriage, like any other actions, must be
prosecuted or defended in the name of the real party-in-
interest and must be based on acause of action. Thus,
in Niñal v. Badayog, the Court held that the children
have the personality to file the petition to declare the
nullity of marriage of their deceased father to their
stepmother as it affects their successional rights
WHERE A MARRIAGE BETWEEN A FILIPINO CITIZEN AND
A FOREIGNER IS VALIDLY CELEBRATED AND A DIVORCE
7) REPUBLIC vs IYOY, GR No. 152577, September IS THEREAFTER VALIDLY OBTAINED ABROAD BY THE
21, 2005 ALIEN SPOUSE CAPACITATING HIM OR HER TO
REMARRY, THE FILIPINO SPOUSE SHALL LIKEWISE HAVE
Respondent Crasus finally alleged in his Complaint that CAPACITY TO REMARRY UNDER PHILIPPINE LAW
Felys acts brought danger and dishonor to the family, and
clearly demonstrated her psychological incapacity to Hence this petition
perform the essential obligations of marriage. Such
incapacity, being incurable and continuing, constitutes a petitioner Republic filed the instant Petition before
ground for declaration of nullity of marriage under Article this Court, based on the following arguments/grounds
36, in relation to Articles 68, 70, and 72, of the Family Code
of the Philippines. I. Abandonment by and sexual
infidelity of respondents wife do not per
se constitute psychological incapacity.
Fely filed her Answer and Counterclaim[4] with the RTC on II. The Court of Appeals has
05 June 1997. She asserted therein that she was already an decided questions of substance not in
American citizen since 1988 and was now married to accord with law and jurisprudence
Stephen Micklus. While she admitted being previously considering that the Court of Appeals
married to respondent Crasus and having five children with committed serious errors of law in ruling
him, Fely refuted the other allegations made by respondent that Article 26, paragraph 2 of the Family
Crasus in his Complaint. She explained that she was no Code is inapplicable to the case at bar.[18]
more hot-tempered than any normal person, and she may
had been indignant at respondent Crasus on certain I
occasions but it was because of the latters drunkenness, The totality of evidence presented during
womanizing, and lack of sincere effort to find employment trial is insufficient to support the finding of
and to contribute to the maintenance of their household. psychological incapacity of Fely.
The ground bearing defendants psychological incapacity (a) Gravity It must be grave or serious such
deserves a reasonable consideration. As observed, plaintiffs that the party would be incapable of carrying out the
testimony is decidedly credible. The Court finds that ordinary duties required in a marriage;
defendant had indeed exhibited unmistakable signs of
psychological incapacity to comply with her marital duties (b) Juridical Antecedence It must be rooted
such as striving for family unity, observing fidelity, mutual in the history of the party antedating the marriage, although
love, respect, help and support. From the evidence the overt manifestations may emerge only after the
presented, plaintiff adequately established that the marriage; and
defendant practically abandoned him.
(c) Incurability It must be incurable or,
even if it were otherwise, the cure would be beyond the
means of the party involved.[22]
Article 26 of the Family Code provides:
II
Article 26, paragraph 2 of the Family Code
of the Philippines is not applicable to the
case at bar.
III
Ruling of the RTC The Purpose of Article 26 (2) of the Family code of
the Philippines is to avoid the absurd situation where the
RTC denied the petition for lack of merit. It ruled Filipino spouse remains married to the alien spouse who,
that the divorce obtained by Manalo in Japan should not be after a foreign divorce decree that is effective in the country
recognized based on Article 15 of the New Civil Code which where it was rendered is no longer married to the Filipino
does not afford Filipinos the right to file for a divorce, spouse.
whether they are in the country or living abroad, whether
married to a filipino or to foreigners or if they celebrated Even if the word obtained should be
they marriage in the Philippines or in another country and interpreted to mean that the divorce proceeding must be
that unless Filipinos are naturalized citizens of another actually initiated by the alien spouse, still the court will not
country, Philippine laws shall have conrol over issues follow the letter of the statute when to do so would depart
related to Filipinos’ family rights and duties, together with from the true intent of the legislature or would otherwise
the determination of the condition and legal capacity to yield conclusions inconsistent with the general purpose of
enter into contracts and civil relations including marriages. the act.
Yes, the filipina spouse who initiated the divorce and has The OSG filed a motion for reconsideration, but it was
succesfully obtained a divorce decree against an alien denied; hence, this petition.
spouse may remarry under Art. 26 of the Family Code of the
Philippines.
We deny the petition and partially affirm the CA decision.
Laws should be construedas not to defeat
petition for review on certiorari is DENIED.
but to carry out its intent and purposes
9) REPUBLIC vs COTE, GR. No. 212860, March 14,
2018