Sie sind auf Seite 1von 6


119190 January 16, 1997 FACTS: Ching married Gina on May 22, 1988 at the Manila Cathedral, Intramuros, Manila as evidenced by their marriage contract. After the celebration they had a reception and then proceeded to the house of the Ching Ming Tsois mother. There they slept together on the same bed in the same room for the first night of their married life. Ginas version: that contrary to her expectations that as newlyweds they were supposed to enjoy making love that night of their marriage, or having sexual intercourse, with each other, Ching however just went to bed, slept on one side and then turned his back and went to sleep. There was no sexual intercourse between them that night. The same thing happened on the second, third and fourth nights. In an effort to have their honey moon in a private place where they can enjoy together during their first week as husband and wife they went to Baguio City. But they did so together with Chings mother, uncle and nephew as they were all invited by her husband. There was no sexual intercourse between them for four days in Baguio since Ching avoided her by taking a long walk during siesta time or by just sleeping on a rocking chair located at the living room. They slept together in the same room and on the same bed since May 22, 1988 (day of their marriage) until March 15, 1989 (ten months). But during this period there was no attempt of sexual intercourse between them. Gina claims that she did not even see her husbands private parts nor did he see hers. Because of this, they submitted themselves for medical examinations to Dr. Eufemio Macalalag. Results were that Gina is healthy, normal and still a virgin while Chings examination was kept confidential up to this time. Then Gina claims that her husband is impotent, a closet homosexual as he did not show his penis. She said she had observed him using an eyebrow pencil and sometimes the cleansing cream of his mother. She also said her husband only married her to acquire or maintain his residency status here in the country and to publicly maintain the appearance of a normal man Chings version: he claims that if their marriage shall be annulled by reason of psychological incapacity, the fault lies with Gina. He does not want their marriage annulled for reasons of (1) that he loves her very much (2) that he has no defect on his part and he is physically and psychologically capable (3) since the relationship is still very young and if there is any differences between the two of them, it can still be reconciled and that according to him, if either one of them has some incapabilities, there is no certainty that this will not be cured. Ching admitted that since his marriage to Gina there was no sexual contact between them. But, the reason for this, according to the defendant, was that everytime he wants to have sexual intercourse with his wife, she always avoided him and whenever he caresses her private parts, she always removed his hands. ISSUE: Whether or not Ching is psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential marital obligations of marriage RULING: The Supreme Court affirmed the decisions of the trial court and Court of Appeals in rendering as VOID the marriage entered into by Ching and Gina on May 22, 1988. No costs.

RATIO: The Supreme Court held that the prolonged refusal of a spouse to have sexual intercourse with his or her spouse is considered a sign of psychological incapacity. If a spouse, although physically capable but simply refuses to perform his or her essential marriage obligations, and the refusal is senseless and constant, Catholic marriage tribunals attribute the causes to psychological incapacity than to stubborn refusal. Senseless and protracted refusal is equivalent to psychological incapacity. One of the essential marital obligations under the Family Code is to procreate children basedon the universal principle that procreation of children through sexual cooperation is the basic end of marriage. Constant non-fulfillment of this obligation will finally destroy the integrity or wholeness of the marriage. In the case at bar, the senseless and protracted refusal of one of the parties to fulfill this marital obligation is equivalent to psychological incapacity. While the law provides that the husband and the wife are obliged to live together, observer mutual love, respect and fidelity, the sanction therefore is actually the spontaneous, mutual affection between husband and wife and not any legal mandate or court order (Cuaderno vs. Cuaderno, 120 Phil. 1298). Love is useless unless it is shared with another. Indeed, no man is an island, the cruelest act of a partner in marriage is to say I could not have cared less. This is so because an ungiven self is an unfulfilled self. The egoist has nothing but himself. In the natural order, it is sexual intimacy that brings spouses wholeness and oneness. Sexual intimacy is a gift and a participation in the mystery of creation. It is a function which enlivens the hope of procreation and ensures the continuation of family relations.

Balogbog vs. CA G.R. NO. 83598 March 7, 1997

I. CASE TITLE: LEONCIA and GAUDIOSO BALOGBOG (Younger siblings of the deceased Gavino Balogbog. The two questioned the validity of Gavinos marriage and thus contesting the inheritance claims posed by Gavinos sons on a third of their parents Basilio and Genoveva Balogbogs estate) vs. COURT OF APPEALS, RAMONITO BALOGBOG AND GENERESO BALOGBOG (legitimate children of Gavino by Catalina Ubas and are defending the validity of their parents marriage and thus be entitled to inherit a third of the estate of their grandparents Basilio and Genoveva Balogbog) G.R. NO. 83598 March 7, 1997 II. FAMILY CODE: ARTICLE 1. Marriage is a special contract of permanent union between a man and woman entered into in accordance with the law for the establishment of conjugal and family life. It is the foundation of the family and an inviolable social institution whose nature, consequence and incidents are governed by law and not subject to stipulation, except that marriage settlements may fix the property relations during

the marriage within the limits provided by this Code. III. QUOTED: However, in the case of Balogbog vs. Court of Appeals where it was contended that a particular marriage should have been proven in accordance with Articles 53 and 54 of the Spanish Civil Code of 1889 because this was the law in force at the time of the alleged marriage, the Supreme Court ruled that Articles 53 and 54 of the Spanish Civil Code never took effect in the Philippines because they were suspended by the Spanish Governor General of the Philippines shortly after the extension of the Spanish Civil Code to this country. In such a case the Supreme Court said that: since this case was brought to the lower court in 1968, the existence of the marriage must be determined in accordance with the present Civil Code, except as they related to vested rights and the rules of evidence. (page 108) IV. FACTS Nature of the case: Ramonito and Generoso filed action for partition and accounting against their aunt Leoncia and uncle Gaudioso for partition and accounting of their grandparents estate at the Court of First Instance of Cebu City. This was granted. Leoncia and Gaudioso appealed to the Court of Appeals but the latter affirmed the lower courts decision. Thus, they are now at the Supreme Court for certiorari hopefully over turn the CA and lower courts decision in favoring their nephews. The facts: Leoncia and Gaudioso Balogbog contends are the children of Basilio Balogbog and Geneveva Arnibal who died in 1951 and 1961 respectively. They had an older brother Gavino but he died in 1935 pre-deceasing their parents. In 1968 however, Ramonito and Generoso Balogbog filed an action for partition and accounting against Leoncia and Gaudioso claiming that they were the legitimate children of Gavino by Catalina Ubas and that, as such they were entitled to the one-third share in the estate of their grandparents. But Leoncia and Gaudioso said they dont know Ramonito and Generoso and proceeded to question the validity of the marriage between their brother Gavino and Catalina. This despite how Gaudioso himself admitted during a police investigation proceeding that indeed Ramonito is his nephew as the latter is the son of his elder brother Gavino. To prove the validity of their parents marriage, Ramonito and Generoso presented Priscilo Trazo, 81 years old then mayor of Asturias from 1928 to 1934 and Matias Pogoy who both testified that he knew Gavino and Catalina to be husband and wife and that they have three children. Catalina herself testified that she was handed a receipt presumambly the marriage certificate by Fr. Jomao-as but it was burned during the war. Leoncia for part claimed that her brother Gavino died single at the family residence in Asturias. She obtained a certificate from the local Civil Registrar of Asturias to the effect that the office did not have a record of the names of Gavino and Catalina. The certificate was prepared by Assistant Municipal Treasurer Juan Maranga who testified that there was no record of marriage of Gavino and Catalina in the Book of Marriages between 1925 to 1935/ She and Gaudioso contended that the marriage of Gavino and Catalina should have been proven in accordance with Arts. 53 and 54 of the Civil Code of 1889 because this was the law in force at the time of the alleged marriage was celebrated. Art. 53 provides that marriages celebrated under the Civil Code of 1889 should be proven only by a certified copy of the memorandum in the Civil Registry, unless the

books thereof have not been kept or have been lost, or unless they are questioned in the courts, in which case any other proof, such as that of the continuous possession by parents of the status of husband and wife, may be considered, provided that the registration of the birth of their children as their legitimate children is also submitted in evidence. V. ISSUE: Whether or not Gavino and Catalinas marriage is valid. VI. RULING: The Supreme Court affirmed the decisions of the trial court and Court of Appeals in rendering Gavino and Catalinas marriage as valid and thus entitle Ramonito and Generoso a third of their grandparents estate. VII. APPLICATION: The Supreme Court held that Arts. 42 to 107 of the Civil Code of 889 of Spain did not take effect, having been suspended by the Governor General of the Philippines shortly after the extension of that code of this country. Consequently, Arts. 53 and 54 never came into force. Since this case was brought in the lower court in 1968, the existence of the marriage must be determined in accordance with the present Civil Code, which repealed the provisions of the former Civil Code, except as they related to vested rights, and the rules of evidence. Under the Rules of Court, the presumption is that a man and a woman conducting themselves as husband and wife are legally married. This presumption may be rebutted only by cogent proof to the contrary. Although a marriage contract is considered primary evidence of marriage, the failure to present it is not proof that no marriage took place other evidence may be presented to prove marriage. In this case, Leoncia and Gaudioso claim that the certification presented by Ramonito and Generoso (to the effect that the record of the marriage had been lost or destroyed during the war) was belied by the production of the Book of Marriages by the assistant municipal treasurer of Asturias. Leoncia and Gaudioso argue that this book does not contain any entry pertaining to the alleged marriage of Gavino and Catalina. This contention has no merit. In Pugeda vs. Trias, the defendants, who questioned the marriage of the plaintiffs produced a photostatic copy of the record of marriages of the Municipality of Rosario, Cavite for the month of Jaunary 1916, to show that there was no record of the alleged marriage. Nonetheless, evidence consisting of the testimonies of witnesses was held competent to prove the marriage. Indeed, although a marriage contract is considered primary evidence of marriage, failure to present it is not proof that no marriage took place. Other evidence may be presented it to proof marriage. Here, Ramonito and Generoso proved through testimonial evidence, that Gavino and Catalina were married in 1929, that they have three children, one of whom died in infancy, that their marriage subsisted until 1935 when Gavino died, and that they are recognized by Gavinos family and by the public as the legitimate children of Gavino.


FACTS: Complainants (Juvy Cosca et al.,) are employees of the Municipal Trial Court of Tinambac, Camarines Sur. Respondent Judge Lucio P. Palaypayon Jr., is the Presiding Judge of the same Court while Nelia Esmeralda-Baroy is the Clerk of Court. An administrative complaint was field with the Office of the Court Administrator charging respondents , among others, illegal solemnization of marriage. Complainants alleged that respondent Judge solemnized 6 marriages even without the requisite marriage license. As a consequence, their marriage contracts did not reflect any marriage license number. The respondent Judge did not sign their marriage contracts and did not indicate the date of solemnization, the reason being that he allegedly had to wait for the marriage license to be submitted by the parties which was usually several days after the ceremony. Indubitably, the marriage contracts were not filed with the local civil registrar. ISSUE: Whether or not the action of respondent Judge proper. HELD: [i]The Family Code pertinently proves that the formal requisites of marriage are, inter alia, a valid marriage license except in the cases provided for therein. Complementarily, it declares that the absence of any of the essential or formal requisites shall generally render the marriage void ab initio and that , while an irregularity in the formal requisites shall not affect the validity of the marriage, the party or parties responsible for the irregularity shall be civilly , criminally and administratively liable. * The civil aspect is addressed to the contracting parties and those affected by the illegal marriage, and what we are providing for herein pertains to the administrative liability of respondents, all without prejudice to their criminal responsible. The Revised Penal Code provides that priests or ministers of any religious denomination or sect, or civil authorities who shall perform or authorize any illegal marriage ceremony shall be punished in accordance with the provisions of the Marriage Law. This is of course, within the province of the prosecutorial agencies of the Government.


Note: compare with DUMAGTOY case

1. Navarro v. Domagtoy: Erroneous Categorization of Infirmity - In holding the validity of a marriage, the Court erroneously categorized the non-jurisdiction of a judge as a mere irregularity in the formal requisites of marriage.

2. Nicdao-Cario v. Cario: Muddling of Void Marriages - The Court blurred the distinction between the subsequent void marriage under Article 40 and bigamy under Article 41 of the Family Code. It ruled that, for as long as there is a violation of Article 40, the subsequent marriage will also be bigamous. 8. Sy v. Court of Appeals and Mallion v. Alcantara: Form over Substance - The Supreme Court denied these petitions for nullity of marriage based on procedural matters (raising an issue for the first time on appeal and splitting of causes of action, respectively). Marriage creates status and confers rights. The Supreme Court should have disregarded technicalities and should have allowed the suits.