Wiegel v. v. Sempio-Diy G.R. No. L-53703 L -53703 August 19, 198 !i"#s o$ voi# m%&&i%ges ' (ig%mous %"# polyg%mous m%&&i%ges
Facts: Respondent Karl Wiegel married petitioner Lilia Oliva Wiegel in July 1978 at the oly !atholic "postolic !hristian !hurch #ranch in $a%ati& Respondent 'led a case (e)ore the Juvenile and *omestic Relations !ourt o) !aloocan as%ing )or the declaration o) nullity o) his marriage +ith Lilia on the ground o) Lilia,s previous e-isting marriage to one .duardo "& $a-ion/ the ceremony having (een per)ormed on June 0/ 1970 at our Lady o) Lourdes !hurch in 2ue3on !ity& Lilia admitted the e-istence o) said prior su(sinsting marriage +ith .duardo& 4he/ ho+ever/ claimed that said marriage +as null and void (ecause she and .duardo had (een allegedly )orced to enter said marital union & Lilia as%ed the trial court )or an opportunity to present evidence to prove that the 'rst marriage +as vitiated (y )orce e-ercised upon (oth her and the 'rst hus(and/ and that the 'rst hus(and +as at the time o) the marriage marriage in 1970 already married to someone else& Respondent 5udge ruled against the presentation o) evidence (ecause the e-istence o) )orce e-erted on (oth parties o) the 'rst marriage had already (een agreed upon& ence/ the present petition& 6ssue: Whether or not petitioners 'rst marriage remained valid and su(sisting eld: es& here is no need )or petitioner to prove that her 'rst marriage +as vitiated (y )orce committed against (oth parties (ecause assuming this to (e so/ the marriage marriage +ill not (e void (ut merely voida(le/ and there)ore valid until annulled& 4ince no annulment has yet (een made/ it is clear that +hen she married respondent she +as still validly married to her 'rst hus(and& !onseuently/ her marriage to respondent is void & here is li%e+ise no need o) introducing evidence a(out the e-isting prior marriage o) her 'rst hus(and at the time they married each other/ )or then such a marriage though void still needs a 5udicial declaration declaration o) such )act and and )or all legal legal intents and purposes she +ould still still (e regarded regarded as as a married +oman at the time she contracted her marriage +ith respondent; accordingly/ the marriage o) petitioner and respondent +ould (e regarded void under the la+& 644<.: Whether or not Karl,s marriage +ith Lilia is void& R: es& es& 6t +as not not necessary necessary )or Lilia to prove that that her 'rst marriage marriage +as vitiated vitiated +ith )orce )orce (ecause it +ill not (e void (ut merely merely voida(le?"rt& voida(le?"rt& 8/ !ivil !ode@& !ode@& 4uch marriage marriage is valid until until annulled& 4ince no annulment has yet (een made/ it is clear that +hen she married Karl/ she is still validly married to her 'rst hus(and& !onseuently/ !onseuent ly/ her marriage to Karl is void& Li%e+ise/ there is no need o) introducing evidence on Lilia,s prior marriage )or then such marriage though void still needs a 5udicial declaration (e)ore she can remarry& remarry& "ccordingly/ Karl and Lilias marriage are regarded void under the la+& )y vs *A GR No. 1+70, Noveme& +7, +000
F"!4: Arivate respondent/ .dgardo Reyes/ +as married +ith "nna Billanueva in a civil ceremony in $arch 1977 in $anila and su(seuently had a church +edding in "ugust 1977& #oth +eddings +ere declared null and void a( initio )or lac% o) marriage license and consent o) the parties& .ven (e)ore the decree decree nulli)ying the marriage +as issued/ Reyes +ed O)elia y herein petitioner on "pril 1979 and had their church +edding in $a%ati on "pril 1980& he decree +as only issued in "ugust 198C& 6n January 1991/ Reyes Reyes 'led +ith R! R! a complaint to have his marriage +ith petitioner (e declared null and void& "! ruled that a 5udicial declaration declaration o) nullity o) the prior marriage +ith "nna must 'rst (e secured (e)ore (e)ore a su(seuent marriage marriage could (e validly contracted& contracted& o+ever/ 4! )ound that the provisions provisions o) the Family Family !ode cannot (e retroactively retroactively applied to the present case )or doing so +ould pre5udice pre5udice the vested rights o) the petitioner and o) her children& 644<.: Whether or not damages should (e a+arded to O)elia y&
.L*: 4! is in the opinion o) the lo+er courts that no damages should (e a+arded to the +i)e +ho sought damages against the hus(and )or 'ling a (aseless complaint causing her mental anguish/ an-iety/ (esmirched reputation/ social humiliation and alienation )rom her parents& "side )rom the )act/ that petitioner +ants her marriage to private respondent held valid and su(sisting& 4he is li%e+ise suing to maintain her status as legitimate +i)e& o grant her petition )or damages +ould result to a situation +here the hus(and pays the +i)e damages )rom con5ugal or common )unds& o do so/ +ould ma%e the application o) the la+ a(surd& $oreover/ Ahilippine la+s do not comprehend an action )or damages (et+een hus(and and +i)e merely (ecause o) (reach o) a marital o(ligation& ence/ the petition +as granted& $arriage (et+een y and Reyes is declared valid and su(sisting and the a+ard o) the amount o) A1/CCC is rati'ed and maintained as monthly support to their 0 children )or as long as they are o) minor age or other+ise legally entitled thereto& 644<.: Whether the decree o) nullity o) the 1st marriage is reuired (e)ore a su(seuent marriage can (e entered into validly .L*: #oth marriages governed (y the !ivil !ode hence/ no 5udicial declaration is necessary& Guev%&&% vs. %l% A.*. No. 713. August 1, +007
F"!4: Joselano >uevarra 'led a !omplaint )or *is(arment (e)ore the 6ntegrated #ar o) the Ahilippines ?6#A@ !ommitte on #ar *iscipline ?!#*@ against "tty& Jose .mmanuel $& .ala a&%&a =oli .ala )or Dgrossly immoral conduct and unmitigated violation o) the la+yer,s oath&D 6n his complaint/ $r& >uevarra alleged that his +i)e 6rene $o5e have (een maintaining an illicit aEair +ith "tty& .ala during their marriage/ and presented certain )acts proving such allegation& hese includes a social card/ the preparation o) +hich +as admitted (y the respondent and their ?"tty& .ala and $s& $o5e@ living together in a house +hich +as a )e+ (loc%s a+ays )rom the church +here $s& $o5e had e-change marital vo+s +ith the complainant& "lso alleged and proven +as the )act that the respondent +as the )ather o) the complainant,s daughter& he complainant )urther +ent on saying that "tty& .ala and his +i)e have (een openly aunting their adulterous relationship& For $r& >uevarra/ respondent,s grossly immoral conduct runs a)oul o) the !onstitution and the la+s he/ as a la+yer/ has (een s+orn to uphold& 6n pursuing o(sessively his illicit love )or the complainant,s +i)e/ "tty& .ala +as charged to have moc%ed the institution o) marriage/ (etrayed his o+n )amily/ (ro%e up the complainant,s marriage/ commits adultery +ith his +i)e/ and degrades the legal pro)ession& he 6ntegrated #ar o) the Ahilippines G !ommittee on #ar *iscipline )ound the charge against suHciently proven and recommended that "tty& .ala (e dis(arred )or violating Rule 1&C1 o) !anon 1 o) the !ode o) Aro)essional Responsi(ility& he 6#A #oard o) >overnors/ ho+ever/ annulled and set aside the Recommendation o) the 6nvestigating !ommissioner and accordingly dismissed the case )or lac% o) merit& he complainant then +ent to the 4upreme !ourt& 644<.: Where or not "tty& Jose .mmanuel $& .ala (e dis(arred )or Dgrossly immoral conduct and unmitigated violation o) the la+yer,s oathDI R:
hat the marriage (et+een complainant and 6rene +as su(seuently declared void a( initio is immaterial& he acts complained o) too% place (e)ore the marriage +as declared null and void& "s a la+yer/ respondent should (e a+are that a man and a +oman deporting themselves as hus(and and +i)e are presumed/ unless proven other+ise/ to have entered into a la+)ul contract o) marriage& 6n carrying on an e-traGmarital aEair +ith 6rene prior to the 5udicial declaration that her marriage +ith complainant +as null and void/ and despite respondent himsel) (eing married/ he sho+ed disrespect )or an institution held sacred (y the la+& "nd he (etrayed his un'tness to (e a la+yer& Respondent/ "tty& Jose .mmanuel $& .ala/ is *64#"RR.* )or grossly immoral conduct/ violation o) his oath o) oHce/ and violation o) !anon 1/ Rule 1&C1 and !anon 7/ Rule 7&C o) the !ode o) Aro)essional Responsi(ility& 6ssue: Whether !oncu(inage or "dulterous relationship/ (e the reason )or the dis(arment o) "tty& Jose .mmanuel .ala& eld: La+yers oath stated that a la+yer should support the !onstitution and o(ey the la+s/ $eaning he shall not ma%e use o) deceit/ malpractice/ or other gross misconduct/ grossly immoral conduct/ or (e convicted in any crime involving moral turpitude& 6n the case at (ar "tty& .ala +as accused o) !oncu(inage/ under "R& o) the Revised Aenal !ode/ "ny hus(and +ho shall %eep a mistress in a con5ugal d+elling/ or/ shall have se-ual intercourse/ under scandalous circumstances/ +ith a +oman +ho is not his +i)e/ or shall coha(it +ith her in any other place/ shall (e punished (y prision correccional in its minimum and medium period& 4ection 0 o) "R& MB states that $arriage/ as an inviola(le social institution/ is the )oundation o) the )amily and shall (e protected (y the state& Respondents grossly immoral conduct runs a)oul o) the constitution and the la+s/ that he as a la+yer has s+orn to uphold& ence the court declared "tty& Jose .mmanul $& .ala *64#"RR.* )or grossly immoral conduct/ violation o) his oath o) oHce/ and violation o) canon 1/ Rule 1&C1 and !anon 7/ Rule 7&C o) the !ode o) Aro)essional Responsi(ility& 6ssue: Would an illicit aEair (et+een a married la+yer and a married +oman constitute gross immoral conductI Ruling: Whether a la+yer,s se-ual congress +ith a +oman not his +i)e or +ithout the (ene't o) marriage should (e characteri3ed as ,grossly immoral conduct, depends on the surrounding circumstances&D he case at (ar involves a relationship (et+een a married la+yer and a married +oman +ho is not his +i)e& 6t is immaterial +hether the aEair +as carried out discreetly& 4e-ual relations outside marriage is considered disgrace)ul and immoral as it mani)ests deli(erate disregard o) the sanctity o) marriage and the marital vo+s protected (y the !onstitution and aHrmed (y our la+s& ?Bitug v& Rongcal@ Respondent has (een carrying on an illicit aEair +ith a married +oman/ a grossly immoral conduct and indicative o) an e-tremely lo+ regard )or the )undamental ethics o) his pro)ession& his detesta(le (ehavior renders him regretta(ly un't and undeserving o) the treasured honor and privileges +hich his license con)ers upon him& ?ucay v& "tty& ucay@ Respondent in )act also violated the la+yer,s oath he too% (e)ore admission to practice la+& Respondent admittedly is a+are o) 4ection 0 o) "rticle MB ?he Family@ o) the !onstitution reading: 4ection 0& $arriage/ as an inviola(le social institution/ is the )oundation o) the )amily and shall (e protected (y the 4tate& 6n this connection/ the Family !ode ?.-ecutive Order =o& 0C9@/ +hich echoes this constitutional provision/ o(ligates the hus(and and the +i)e Dto live together/ o(serve mutual love/ respect and 'delity/ and render mutual help and support&D Furthermore/ respondent violated Rule 1&C1 o) !anon 1 o) the !ode o) Aro)essional Responsi(ility +hich proscri(es a la+yer )rom engaging in Dunla+)ul/ dishonest/ immoral or deceit)ul conduct/D and Rule 7&C o) !anon 7 o) the same !ode +hich proscri(es a la+yer )rom engaging in any Dconduct that adversely reects on his 'tness to practice la+&D
W.R.FOR./ Aetition is >R"=.*& Respondent/ "tty& Jose .mmanuel $& .ala/ is *64#"RR.* )or grossly immoral conduct/ violation o) his oath o) oHce/ and violation o) !anon 1/ Rule 1&C1 and !anon 7/ Rule 7&C o) the !ode o) Aro)essional Responsi(ility& (S/ S. DAG2AN A.2. No. 2)-99-1+11, %"u%&y +8, +000 *ompl%i"%"t4 e"%i#% S. (eso Respo"#e"t4 u#ge u%" D%gum%", 2*)*, St%. 2%&g%&it%-)%&%"g%", 6%gs%"%", S%m%& 6o"e"te4 . "%&es-S%"ti%go
Facts: Judge stands charged +ith =eglect o) *uty and "(use o) "uthority (y #eso& 6n the !omplaintG"Hdavit dated *ecem(er 10/ 1997/ the complainant charged 5udge +ith solemni3ing marriage outside o) his 5urisdiction and o) negligence in not retaining a copy and not registering the marriage contract +ith the oHce o) the Local !ivil Registrar +ith the )ollo+ing )acts: ?a@ On "ugust 08/ 1997/ the complainant and complainants 'ancNe/ #ernardito "& man/ got married under the solemni3ation o) the respondent in the respondents residence in !al(ayog !ity/ 4amar; ?(@ hat a)ter the +edding/ man a(andoned the complainant; ?c@ hat +hen man le)t/ the complainant inuired to the !ity !ivil Registrar to inuire regarding her $arriage !ontract& he complainant )ound out that her marriage +as not registered; ?d@ he complainant +rote to the respondent to inuire and the )ormer )ound out that all the copies +ere ta%en (y man and no copy +as retained (y the respondent& he respondent averred +ith the )ollo+ing rationale: ?a@ Respondent solemni3ed the marriage (ecause o) the urgent reuest o) the complainant and man& e also (elieved that (eing a Filipino overseas +or%er/ the complainant deserved more than ordinary oHcial attention under present >overnment policy; ?(@ Respondent +as also leaning on the side o) li(erality o) the la+ so that it may (e not too e-pensive and complicated )or citi3ens to get married; ?c@ Respondents )ailure to 'le the marriage contract +as (eyond his control (ecause man a(sconded +ith the missing copies o) the marriage certi'cate& ?d@ Respondent/ ho+ever/ tried to recover custody o) the missing documents& he OHce o) the !ourt "dministrator ?O!"@ in an evaluation report dated/ "ugust 11/ 1998 )ound the respondent Judge committed nonG)easance in oHceP and recommended that he (e 'ned Five housand Aesos ?A/CCC@& 6ssues: he issues raised in this complaint are: ?1@ Whether or not the respondent solemni3ed a marriage outside o) his 5urisdiction; and ?0@ Whether or not the respondent committed negligence (y not retaining a copy and not registering the complainants marriage (e)ore the oHce o) the Local !ivil Registrar& eld: ?1@ es& he 5udge solemni3ed a marriage outside o) his 5urisdiction& "rti cle 7 o) the Family !ode provides that marriage may (e solemni3ed (y/ "ny incum(ent mem(er o) the 5udiciary +ith the courts 5urisdictionP& 6n relation thereto/ according to "rticle 8 o) the Family !ode/ there are only three instances +ith +hich a 5udge may solemni3e a marriage outside o) his 5urisdiction: ?1&1@ +hen either or (oth the contracting parties is at the point o) death; ?1&0@ +hen the residence o) either party is located in a remote place; ?1&@ +here (oth o) the parties reuest the solemni3ing oHcer in +riting in +hich case the marriage may (e solemni3ed at a house or place designated (y them in a s+orn statement to that eEect& 6n this case/ non o) the three instances is present& ?0@ es& he 5udge committed negligence& Aursuant to "rticle 0 o) the Family code/ such duty to register the marriage is the respondents duty& he same article provides/ 6t shall (e the duty o) the person solemni3ing the marriage to send the duplicate and triplicate copies o) the certi'cate not later than ')teen ?1@ days a)ter the marriage/ to the local civil registrar o) the place +here the marriage +as solemni3ed& Aroper receipts shall (e issued (y the local civil registrar to the solemni3ing oHcer transmitting copies o) the marriage certi'cate& he solemni3ing oHcer shall retain in his 'le the uadruplicate copy o) the marriage certi'cate/ the original o) the marriage license/ and in proper cases/ the aHdavit o) the contracting party regarding the solemni3ation o) the marriage in a place other than those mentioned in "rticle 8&P&
he recommendation o) the O!" stands& *AS DGS)4 ARANS . /**AN/ 6ulis:e# y p%ul o" August 1+, +013 ; Le%ve % &espo"se 2R*D)A 2A)A ARANS, petitio"e&, vs. DG SALAD/R 2. /**AN/, &espo"#e"t. A.2. No. 2)-0+-1390. Ap&il 11, +00+.
Facts: On Fe( 17/ 0CCC/ Judge 4alvador Occiano/ Aresiding Judge o) the $unicipal rial !ourt o) #alatan/ !amarines 4ur/ solemni3ed the marriage o) $ercedita $ata "raQes and *ominador #& Oro(ia +ithout the reuisite marriage license at =a(ua/ !amarines 4ur +hich is outside his territorial 5urisdiction& When Oro(ia died/ the petitioners right to inherit the vast propertiesP o) Oro(ia +as not recogni3ed/ (ecause the marriage +as a null& 4he also cannot claim the pension o) her hus(and +ho is a retired !ommodore o) the Ahilippine =avy& Aetitioner prays that sanctions (e imposed against respondent 5udge )or his illegal acts and unethical misrepresentations +hich allegedly caused her so much hardships/ em(arrassment and suEerings& 6n his !omment/ respondent 5udge averred that he +as reuested (y a certain Juan "rroyo on 1 Fe(ruary 0CCC to solemni3e the marriage o) the parties on 17 Fe(ruary 0CCC& e +as assured that all the documents +ere complete/ thus he agreed to solemni3e the marriage in his sala& o+ever/ on 17 Fe(ruary 0CCC/ he acceded to the reuest o) "rroyo that he solemni3e the marriage in =a(ua (ecause Oro(ia had a diHculty +al%ing and could not stand the rigors o) travelling to #alatan& #e)ore starting the ceremony he discovered that the parties did not possess the reuisite marriage license/ thus he re)used to solemni3e the marriage and suggested its resetting to another date& o+ever/ due to the earnest pleas o) the parties/ the inu- o) visitors/ and the delivery o) provisions )or the occasion/ he proceeded to solemni3e the marriage out o) human compassion& e also )eared that i) he reset the +edding/ it might aggravate the physical condition o) Oro(ia +ho 5ust suEered )rom a stro%e& ")ter the solemni3ation/ he reiterated the necessity )or the marriage license and admonished the parties that their )ailure to give it +ould render the marriage void& Aetitioner and Oro(ia assured respondent 5udge that they +ould give the license to him in the a)ternoon o) that same day& When they )ailed to comply/ respondent 5udge )ollo+ed it up +ith "rroyo (ut the latter only gave him the same reassurance that the marriage license +ould (e delivered to his sala at the $unicipal rial !ourt o) #alatan/ !amarines 4ur& Respondent 5udge vigorously denies that he told the contracting parties that their marriage is valid despite the a(sence o) a marriage license& e attri(utes the hardships and em(arrassment suEered (y the petitioner as due to her o+n )ault and negligence& On 10 4eptem(er 0CC1/ petitioner 'led her "Hdavit o) *esistance dated 08 "ugust 0CC1 con)essing that she 'led the complaint out o) rage/ and she reali3es her o+n shortcomings& 4he attested that respondent 5udge initially re)used to solemni3e her marriage and that it +as (ecause o) her prodding and reassurances that he eventually solemni3ed the same& From the records/ petitioner and Oro(ia 'led their "pplication )or $arriage License on January 0CCC to (e issued on 17 January 0CCC& o+ever/ neither petitioner nor Oro(ia claimed it& "lso/ the !ivil Registrar >eneral and the Local Registrar o) =a(ua/ !amarines 4ur has no records o) the marriage& On 8 $ay 0CC1/ petitioner sought the assistance o) respondent 5udge so the latter could communicate +ith the OHce o) the Local !ivil Registrar o) =a(ua/ !amarines 4ur )or the issuance o) her marriage license& he L!R in)ormed the 5udge that they cannot issue the same due to the )ailure o) Oro(ia to su(mit the *eath !erti'cate o) his previous spouse& 6ssue: Whether or not the Judge erred in solemni3ing the marriage outside his 5urisdiction and +ithout the reuisite marriage license& Ruling:
that a repetition o) the same or similar oEense in the )uture +ill (e dealt +ith more severely&
N%v%&&o vs. Dom%gtoy 00010 A.2. No. 2)-9-1088 ll ul. 19, 199
!O$AL"6="=: Rodol)o =avarro R.4AO=*.=: Judge ernando *omagtoy F"!4 Aetitioner Rodol)o >& =avarro su(mitted evidence in relation to t+o speci'c acts committed (y respondent $unicipal !ircuit rial !ourt Judge ernando *omagtoy/ +hich/ he contends/ e-hi(its gross misconduct as +ell as ineHciency in oHce and ignorance o) the la+: 1&@ Respondent 5udge solemni3ed the +edding (et+een >aspar "& agadan and "rlyn F& #orga/ despite the %no+ledge that the groom is merely separated )rom his 'rst +i)e& ?6n violation o) "rt& 1 o) the F!@ 0&@ Respondent 5udge per)ormed a marriage ceremony (et+een Floriano *ador 4umaylo and >emma >& del Rosario at the respondent 5udges residence in the $unicipal o) *apa/ +hich does not )all +ithin his 5urisdictional area o) the municipalities o) 4ta& $onica and #urgos& ?6n violation o) "rt& 7 Aar& 1 o) the F!@0 6n response/ Judge *omagtoy claimed that his act o) solemni3ing the marriage (et+een >aspar agadan/ a married man separated )rom his +i)e/ and "rlyn F& #orga +as predicated on an aHdavit supposedly 644<.d (y the $unicipal rial Judge o) #asey/ 4amar/ con'rming the )act that $r& agadan and his 'rst +i)e have not seen each other )or almost seven years& With respect to the second charge/ he maintains that in solemni3ing the marriage (et+een 4umaylo and del Rosario/ he did not violate "rticle 7 Aar& 1 o) the Family !ode/ and that he merely +or%ed +ithin the am(it o) "rt& 8 o) the same code/ +hich provides )or other possi(le venues to solemni3e a marriage& 6 (elieve its this issue and its corresponding ruling that +ould (e important )or purposes o) our discussion in class& 644<.4
WO= respondent e-hi(ited gross misconduct and ignorance o) the la+& R: Respondent Judge ernando !& *omagtoy is 4<4A.=*.* )or a period o) si- ?@ months and given a 4.R= W"R=6=> that a repetition o) the same or similar acts +ill (e dealt +ith more severely& R"6O *.!6*.=*6 .4& Judge *omagtoys gross ignorance o) very (asic legal principles enshrined in the Family !ode resulted to a (igamous and there)ore void marriage )or the 'rst marriage he solemni3ed/ and to the second/ a lac% o) the necessary authority o) the solemni3ing oHcer/ since he solemni3ed the marriage outside o) his 5urisdiction& Judge *omagtoys reliance on the said aHdavit o) agadans 7Gyear separation +ith his )ormer +i)e/ +hich said aHdavit +as proven to have not (een 644<.d (y the $! Judge o) #asey/ 4amar (ut only s+orn (e)ore him/ is insuHcient 5usti'cation )or his having solemni3ed agadans second marriage on the (asis o) his +i)es presumptive death& Regardless o) +hether agadan had a +ell)ounded (elie) that his +i)e/ +ho had not (een heard o) )or almost 7 years/ +as dead/ it +as still necessary )or him to have undergone a summary proceeding oHcially declaring his )ormer +i)es presumptive death& "(sent such mandatory proceeding/ the su(seuent marriage is considered (igamous/ and there)ore/ void& "rt& 7 Aar& 1 o) the Family !ode provides that marriage may (e solemni3ed (y/ among others/ any incum(ent mem(er o) the 5udiciary +ithin the courts 5urisdiction&P For mem(ers o) the "ppellate and 4upreme courts/ this 5urisdiction e-tends throughout the Ahilippines ?ie& !" and 4! 5udgesS5ustices can solemni3e marriages regardless o) venue/ so long as the reuisites are met@& he same cannot (e said/ ho+ever/ )or 5udges +ho are appointed to speci'c 5urisdictions ?eg& $! 5udges@; they may only oHciate +eddings +ithin their areas; they lac% the authority to solemni3e +eddings in areas (eyond their 5urisdiction& While this may not aEect the validity o) the marriage/ it nonetheless results to an irregularity in the )ormal reuisite laid do+n in "rticle / namely/ the authority o) the solemni3ing oHcer/ +hich/ as a result/ may su(5ect the oHciating oHcial to administrative lia(ility& $ean+hile/ the respondents de)ense on the applica(ility o) "rt& 8 in the same code cannot stand since a&@ the reuisites )or holding the marriage outside o) the oHcial venues listed therein are not satis'ed in this case since only one and not (oth o) the parties reuested another venue/ and the parties are neither at the point o) death nor in a remote place; and (&@ "rt& 8 is only a directory provision and does not alter or uali)y the authority o) a solemni3ing oHcer& 44<.: Whether or not the marriages solemni3ed +ere void& .L*: he court held that the marriage (et+een agadan and #or5a +as void and (igamous there (eing a su(sisting marriage (et+een agadan and Aenaranda& "l(eit/ the latter +as gone )or seven years and the spouse had a +ellG)ounded (elie) that the a(sent spouse +as dead/ agadan did not institute a summary proceeding as provided in the !ivil !ode )or the declaration o) presumptive death o) the a(sentee/ +ithout pre5udice to the eEect o) reappearance o) the a(sent spouse& With regard to the marriage o) 4umaylo and *el Rosario/ the latter only made the +ritten reuest +here it should have (een (oth parties as stated in "rticle 8 o) the Family !ode& heir nonGcompliance did not invalidate their marriage ho+ever/ *omagtoy may (e held administratively lia(le& *AS DGS)4 GR No. 1+7+3 Sy vs. *ou&t o$ Appe%ls Ap&il 1+, +000
he case: For revie+ is the decision o) the !ourt o) "ppeals +hich aHrmed the decision o) the regionalrial !ourt o) 4an Fernando/ Aampanga/ denying the petition )or declaration o) a(solute nullity o) marriage o) the spouses Filipina 4y and Fernando 4y&he )acts:Aetitioner Filipina 4y and private respondent Fernando 4y contracted marriage on =ovem(er 1/ 197 at the !hurch o) our Lady o) Lourdes in 2ue3on !ity& #oth +ere then 00 years old& heir union +as (lessed +ith t+o children& On 4eptem(er 1/ 198/ Fernando le)t their con5ugal d+elling& 4ince then/ the spouses lived separately and their t+o children +ere in the custody o) their mother& On Fe(ruary 11/ 1987/ Filipina 'led a petition )or legal separation (e)ore the R! o) 4an Fernando/ Aampanga and +as later amended to a petition )or separation o) property& Judgment +as rendered dissolving their con5ugal partnership o) gains and approving a regime o) separation o) properties (ased on the $emorandum o) "greement e-ecuted (y the spouses& 6n $ay 1988/ Filipina 'led a criminal action )or attempted parricide against her hus(and& R! $anila convicted Fernando only o) the lesser
crime o) slight physical in5uries and sentenced him to 0C days imprisonment& Aetitioner 'led a petition )or the declaration o) a(solute nullity o) her marriage to Fernando on the ground o) psychologicalincapacity on "ugust / 1990& R! and !ourt o) "ppeals denied the petition and motion )or reconsideration& ence/ this appeal (y certiorari/ petitioner )or the 'rst time/ raises the issue o) the marriage (eing void )or lac% o) a valid marriage license at the time o) its cele(ration& he date o) issue o) marriage license and marriage certi'cate is contained in their marriage contract +hich +as attached in her petition )or a(solute declaration o) a(solute nullity o) marriage (e)ore the trial court& he date o) the actual cele(ration o) their marriage and the date o) issuance o) their marriage certi'cate and marriage license are diEerent and incongruous& he 6ssues: Whether or not the marriage (et+een petitioner and private respondent is void )rom the (eginning )or lac% o) marriage license at the time o) the ceremonyI Whether or not private respondent is psychologically incapacitated at the time o) said marriage cele(ration to +arrant a declaration o) its a(solute nullityI eld: " marriage license is a )ormal reuirement; its a(sence renders the marriage void a( initio& he pieces o) evidence presented (y petitioner at the (eginning o) the case/ plainly and indu(ita(ly sho+ that on the day o) the marriage ceremony/ there +as no marriage license& he marriage contract also sho+s that the marriage license num(er 0719 +as issued in !armona/ !avite yet neither petitioner nor respondent ever resided in !armona& From the documents she presented/ the marriage license +as issued almost one year a)ter the ceremonytoo% place& "rticle 8C o) the !ivil !ode is clearly applica(le in this case/ there (eing no claimo) e-ceptional character enumerated in articles 70G79 o) the !ivil !ode& he marriage (et+een petitioner and private respondent is void )rom the (eginning& he remaining issue on 6ssue: WS= the marriage is valid eld: =o& .vidence sho+s that there +as no marriage license& " marriage license is a )ormal reuirement; its a(sence renders the marriage void a( initio& 6n addition/ the marriage contract sho+s that the marriage license/ +as issued in !armona/ !avite/ yet/ neither petitioner nor private respondent ever resided in !armona& $arriage is void a( initio )or lac% o) marriage license& 6ssue on psychological incapacity is here(y mooted&
Al<%"t%&% vs Al<%"t%&% G.R. No. 177, August +8, +007
F"!4: Aetitioner Restituto $& "lcantara 'led a petition )or annulment o) marriage against respondent Rosita "& "lcantara alleging that on 8 *ecem(er 1980 he and Rosita/ +ithout securing the reuired marriage license/ +ent to the $anila !ity all )or the purpose o) loo%ing )or a person +ho could arrange a marriage )or them& hey met a person +ho/ )or a )ee/ arranged their +edding (e)ore a certain priest& hey got married on the same day& hey +ent through another marriage ceremony in a church in ondo/ $anila/ on 0 $arch 198& he marriage +as li%e+ise cele(rated +ithout the parties securing a marriage license& 6n 1988/ they parted +ays and lived separate lives& 6n her "ns+er/ Rosita asserted the validity o) their marriage and maintained that there +as a marriage license issued as evidenced (y a certi'cation )rom the OHce o) the !ivil Registry o) !armona/ !avite& 4he alleged that Restituto has a mistress +ith +hom he has three children and that
Restituto only 'led the annulment o) their marriage to evade prosecution )or concu(inage& ")ter hearing/ the trial court dismissed the petition )or lac% o) merit& he !" aHrmed the decision& Restituto appealed& e su(mitted that at the precise time that his marriage +ith the Rosita +as cele(rated/ there +as no marriage license (ecause he and respondent 5ust +ent to the $anila !ity all and dealt +ith a '-erP +ho arranged everything )or them& e and Rosita did not go to !armona/ !avite/ to apply )or a marriage license& "ssuming a marriage license )rom !armona/ !avite/ +as issued to them/ neither he nor the Rosita +as a resident o) the place& he certi'cation o) the $unicipal !ivil Registrar o) !armona/ !avite/ cannot (e given +eight (ecause the certi'cation states that $arriage License num(er 7C1 +as issued in )avor o) $r& Restituto "lcantara and $iss Rosita "lmarioP (ut their marriage contract (ears the num(er 7CC )or their marriage license num(er& 644<.: Was the marriage (et+een petitioner and respondent void a( initioI .L*: =o& " valid marriage license is a reuisite o) marriage/ the a(sence o) +hich renders the marriage void a( initio& o (e considered void on the ground o) a(sence o) a marriage license/ the la+ reuires that the a(sence o) such marriage license must (e apparent on the marriage contract/ or at the very least/ supported (y a certi'cation )rom the local civil registrar that no such marriage license +as issued to the parties& 6n this case/ the marriage contract (et+een the petitioner and respondent reects a marriage license num(er& " certi'cation to this eEect +as also issued (y the local civil registrar o) !armona/ !avite& he certi'cation moreover is precise in that it speci'cally identi'ed the parties to +hom the marriage license +as issued/ namely Restituto "lcantara and Rosita "lmario/ )urther validating the )act that a license +as in )act issued to the parties herein& his certi'cation en5oys the presumption that oHcial duty has (een regularly per)ormed and the issuance o) the marriage license +as done in the regular conduct o) oHcial (usiness& ence/ petitioner cannot insist on the a(sence o) a marriage license to impugn the validity o) his marriage& 6ssuance o) a marriage license despite the )act that the )act that neither o) the parties are residents o) the city or municipality +hich issued the same is a mere irregularity that does not aEect the validity o) the marriage& "n irregularity in any o) the )ormal reuisites o) marriage does not aEect its validity (ut the party or parties responsi(le )or the irregularity are civilly/ criminally and administratively lia(le& "s to the discrepancy in the marriage license num(er/ the court held that it is not impossi(le to assume that the same is a mere a typographical error& 6t does not detract )rom the conclusion regarding the e-istence and issuance o) said marriage license to the parties&
4yed/ a Aa%istani citi3en/ and >loria/ a Filipino citi3en/ met in ai+an in 1991& e arrived in the Ahilippines and on January 9/ 199/ at around ocloc% in the a)ternoon/ he +as at his motherGinGla+s residence/ in $alate/ $anila/ +hen his motherGinGla+ arrived +ith t+o men& e +as told that he +as going to undergo some ceremony/ one o) the reuirements )or his stay in the Ahilippines/ (ut +as not told o) the nature o) said ceremony +here he and >loria signed a document& e claimed that he only )ound out that it +as a marriage contract +hen >loria told him& e )urther testi'ed that he did not go to !armona/ !avite to apply )or a marriage license/ and that he had never resided in that area& 6n July o) 0CC/ he +ent to the OHce o) the !ivil Registrar o) !armona/ !avite/ to chec% on their marriage license& he $unicipal !ivil Registrar/ issued a certi'cation stating that the marriage license num(er appearing in the marriage contract he su(mitted +as the num(er o) another marriage license issued to another couple& e also alleged that >loria had 'led (igamy cases against him in 0CC1 and 0CC0& On the other hand/ >loria presented her o+n side& Rev& $ario *au3/ a minister o) the >ospel and a (rgy captain stated that he is authori3ed to solemni3e marriage and that he +as doing it since 1980 and he is )amiliar +ith the reuirements& here +ere t+o +itnesses/ one o) them +as "tty 4anche3 +ho handed him the marriage license on the day o) the +edding& >loria testi'ed that a certain 2ualin +ent to their house and said that he +ill get the marriage license )or them/ and a)ter several days returned +ith an application )or marriage license )or them to sign/ +hich she and 4yed did& ")ter 2ualin returned +ith the marriage license/ they gave the license to "tty& 4anche3 +ho gave it to Rev& *au3/ the solemni3ing oHcer& >loria also alleged that she has a daughter +ith 4yed& 4he 'led a (igamy case (ecause 4yed married a certain $aria !ora3on #uenaventura& R!s ruling: no marriage license/ neither o) the parties +as a resident o) !armona/ !avite& Boid a( initio& !"s ruling: granted >lorias appeal& $arriage is valid and su(sisting& 6ssue: Whether or not the marriage o) 4yed and >loria is valid& Ruling: =o& "s the marriage o) 4yed and >loria +as solemni3ed on January 9/ 199/ the Family !ode is the applica(le la+/ particularly "rticles / and ?@& "rticle provides the )ormal reuisites o) marriage& "rticle provides the eEects o) the a(sence o) the essential and )ormal reuisites& "nd "rticle / Aaragraph provides that those marriages +hich are solemni3ed +ithout a license are void )rom the (eginning in e-ception to those covered (y the preceding chapter& >loria )ailed to present actual marriage license or copy relied on the marriage contract and testimonies to prove the e-istence o) the said license& hus/ the marriage o) 4yed and >loria is void a( initio&
Ni"%l vs. (%y%#og 3+8 S*RA 1++
F"!4: Aepito =inal +as married +ith eodul)a #ellones on 4eptem(er 0/ 197& hey had children namely #a(yline/ 6ngrid and "rchie/ petitioners& *ue to the shot inicted (y Aepito to eodul)a/ the latter died on "pril 0/ 198 leaving the children under the guardianship o) .ngrace =inal& 1 year and 8 months later/ Aepito and =orma #adayog got married +ithout any marriage license& hey instituted an aHdavit stating that they had lived together )or at least years e-empting )rom securing the marriage license& Aepito died in a car accident on Fe(ruary 19/ 1977& ")ter his death/ petitioners 'led a petition )or declaration o) nullity o) the marriage o) Aepito and =orma alleging that said marriage +as void )or lac% o) marriage license& 644<.4: 1& Whether or not the second marriage o) Aepito +as voidI 0& Whether or not the heirs o) the deceased may 'le )or the declaration o) the nullity o) Aepitos marriage a)ter his deathI .L*:
he marriage o) Aepito and =orma is void )or a(sence o) the marriage license& hey cannot (e e-empted even though they instituted an aHdavit and claimed that they coha(it )or at least years (ecause )rom the time o) Aepitos 'rst marriage +as dissolved to the time o) his marriage +ith =orma/ only a(out 0C months had elapsed& "l(eit/ Aepito and his 'rst +i)e had separated in )act/ and therea)ter (oth Aepito and =orma had started living +ith each other that has already lasted )or 've years/ the )act remains that their 'veGyear period coha(itation +as not the coha(itation contemplat ed (y la+& ence/ his marriage to =orma is still void& Boid marriages are deemed to have not ta%en place and cannot (e the source o) rights& 6t can (e uestioned even a)ter the death o) one o) the parties and any proper interested party may attac% a void marriage& 2%"=%"o vs. S%"<:e= A2 No. 2)-0013+9, 2%&<: 8, +001
F"!4: erminia #or5aG$an3ano +as the la+)ul +i)e o) the late *avid $an3ano having (een married on $ay 01/ 19 in 4an >a(riel "rchangel Aarish in !aloocan& hey had )our children& On $arch 00/ 199/ her hus(and contracted another marriage +ith Lu3viminda Aayao (e)ore respondent Judge& he marriage contract clearly stated that (oth contracting parties +ere separatedP thus/ respondent Judge ought to %no+ that the marriage +as void and (igamous& e claims that +hen he oHciated the marriage o) *avid and Aayao/ he %ne+ that the t+o had (een living together as hus(and and +i)e )or seven years as mani)ested in their 5oint aHdavit that they (oth le)t their )amilies and had never coha(it or communicated +ith their spouses due to constant uarrels& 644<.: Whether the solemni3ation o) a marriage (et+een t+o contracting parties +ho (oth have an e-isting marriage can contract marriage i) they have (een coha(itating )or years under "rticle o) Family !ode& .L*: "mong the reuisites o) "rticle is that parties must have no legal impediment to marry each other& !onsidering that (oth parties has a su(sisting marriage/ as indicated in their marriage contract that they are (oth separatedP is an impediment that +ould ma%e their su(seuent marriage null and void& Just li%e separation/ )ree and voluntary coha(itation +ith another person )or at least years does not severe the tie o) a su(sisting previous marriage& !learly/ respondent Judge 4anche3 demonstrated gross ignorance o) the la+ +hen he solemni3ed a void and (igamous marriage& 644<. WO= *avid $an3anos marriage +ith Aayao is validI .L*: =O& 4anche3 'ned A0C/CCC&CC R"6O: 1& F! "rt& : legal rati'cation o) marital coha(itation e-empts a couple )rom o(taining a marriage license (ut the E reuisites must (e present: lived together as hus(and T +i)e )or at least 've years/ no legal impediment to marry each other/ )act o) a(sence o) legal impediment must (e present at time o) marriage / aHdavit stating that theyve (een living together )or at least years T +ithout legal impediments / solemni3ing oHcer should e-ecute s+orn statement that he ascertained uali'cations o) contracting parties& 0& =one o) reuisites +ere present& hey declared that they +ere separated (ut 5udge still solemni3ed marriage& $ere separation and )ree T voluntary coha(itation +ith another person do not dissolve the marriage tie& !oha(itation )or at least 've years e-empts them )rom the marriage license (ut it does not )ree them o) their legal impediment to contract a su(seuent marriage& & $arriage +as void T (igamous& Judge displayed gross ignorance o) the la+&
Repuli< vs. D%yot GR No. 175581, 2%&<: +8, +008
F"!4: Jose +as introduced to Felisa in 198& e later came to live as a (oarder in Felisas house/ the latter (eing his landlady& Later/ Felisa reuested him to accompany her to the Aasay !ity all/ so she could claim a pac%age sent to her (y her (rother )rom 4audi& here/ a man (earing three )olded pieces o) paper approached them& hey +ere told that Jose needed to sign the papers so that the pac%age could (e released to Felisa& e initially re)used to do so& o+ever/ Felisa ca5oled him/ and told him that his re)usal could get (oth o) them %illed (y her (rother +ho had learned a(out their relationship& e signed the papers and gave them to the man& 6t +as in Fe(ruary 1987 +hen he discovered that he had contracted marriage +ith Felisa& When he con)ronted Felisa/ she said she does not %no+ o) such& Jose claimed that their marriage +as contracted +ith )raud& Felisa denied Joses allegations and de)ended the validity o) their marriage& Felisa e-pounded that +hile her marriage to Jose +as su(sisting/ the latter contracted marriage +ith a certain Ru'na Aascual on "ugust 1/ 199C& On June 199/ Felisa 'led an action )or (igamy against Jose& 4u(seuently/ she 'led an administrative complaint against Jose +ith the OHce o) the Om(udsman/ since Jose and Ru'na +ere (oth employees o) the =ational 4tatistics and !oordinating #oard& he Om(udsman )ound Jose administratively lia(le )or disgrace)ul and immoral conduct ans suspended him )or one year +ithout emolument& he R! ruled against Jose claiming that his story is impossi(le& R! cited "rticle 87 o) the =e+ !ivil !ode +hich reuires that the action )or annulment o) marriage must (e commenced (y the in5ured party +ithin )our years a)ter the discovery o) the )raud& 644<.: WS= the issue o) validity o) marriage due to )raud is prescripti(le .L*: 4! held that an action )or nulli)ying a marriage is imprescripti(le& 6t may (e raised anytime& Jose and Felisas marriage +as cele(rated +ithout a marriage license& =o other conclusion can (e reached e-cept that it is void a( initio&644<.: Whether or not Joses marriage +ith Felisa is valid considering that they e-ecuted a s+orn aHdavit in lieu o) the marriage license reuirement& .L*: !" indu(ita(ly esta(lished that Jose and Felisa have not lived together )or 've years at the time they e-ecuted their s+orn aHdavit and contracted marriage& Jose and Felisa started living together only in June 198/ or (arely 've months (e)ore the cele(ration o) their marriage on =ovem(er 198& Findings o) )acts o) the !ourt o) "ppeals are (inding in the 4upreme !ourt& he solemni3ation o) a marriage +ithout prior license is a clear violation o) the la+ and invalidates a marriage& Furthermore/ the )alsity o) the allegation in the s+orn aHdavit relating to the period o) Jose and Felisas coha(itation/ +hich +ould have uali'ed their marriage as an e-ception to the reuirement )or a marriage license/ cannot (e a mere irregularity/ )or it re)ers to a uintessential )act that the la+ precisely reuired to (e deposed and attested to (y the parties under oathP& ence/ Jose and Felisas marriage is void a( initio& he court also ruled that an action )or nullity o) marriage is imprescripti(le& he right to impugn marriage does not prescri(e and may (e raised any time&
