Kho v. Republic, G.R. No.

187462, June 1, 2016 As to the motive of petitioner in seeking to annul his marriage
to respondent, it may well be that his motives are less than
pure - that he seeks a way out of his marriage to legitimize his
FACTS: alleged illicit affair with another woman. Be that as it may,
the same does not make up for the failure of the respondent
Sometime in the afternoon of May 31, 1972, petitioner's to prove that they had a valid marriage license, given the
parents summoned one Eusebio Colongon, now deceased, weight of evidence presented by petitioner. The law must be
then clerk in the office of the municipal treasurer, instructing applied. As the marriage license, an essential requisite under
said clerk to arrange and prepare whatever necessary papers the Civil Code, is clearly absent, the marriage of petitioner
were required for the intended marriage between petitioner and respondent is void ab initio.
and respondent supposedly to take place at around midnight
of June 1, 1972 so as to exclude the public from witnessing
the marriage ceremony; Niñal vs. Bayadog, G.R. No. 133778, March 14, 2000

Petitioner and Respondent thereafter exchanged marital ENGRACE NIÑAL for Herself and as Guardian ad Litem of the
vows in a marriage ceremony which actually took place at minors BABYLINE NIÑAL, INGRID NIÑAL, ARCHIE NIÑAL &
around 3:00 o'clock before dawn of June 1, 1972, on account PEPITO NIÑAL, JR., petitioners, v. NORMA BAYADOG,
that there was a public dance held in the town plaza which is respondent.
just situated adjacent to the church whereas the venue of the G.R. No. 133778. March 14, 2000
wedding, and the dance only finished at around 2:00 o'clock
of same early morning of June 1, 1972; Facts:
Petitioner has never gone to the office of the Local Civil
Pepito Niñal was married to Teodulfa Bellones on September
Registrar to apply for marriage license and had not seen much
26, 1974. She was shot by Pepito resulting in her death on
less signed any papers or documents in connection with the
April 24, 1985. One year and 8 months thereafter, Pepito and
procurement of a marriage license;
respondent Norma Badayog got married without any
marriage license. In lieu thereof, Pepito and Norma executed
Considering the shortness of period from the time the
an affidavit dated December 11, 1986 stating that they had
aforenamed clerk of the treasurer's office was told to obtain
lived together as husband and wife for at least five years and
the pertinent papers in the afternoon of May 31, 1972 so
were thus exempt from securing a marriage license. On
required for the purpose of the forthcoming marriage up to
February 19, 1997, Pepito died in a car accident
the moment the actual marriage was celebrated before dawn
of June 1, 1972, no marriage license therefore could have
been validly issued, thereby rendering the marriage After their father’s death, petitioners filed a petition for
solemnized on even date null and void for want of the most declaration of nullity of the marriage of Pepito to Norma
essential requisite; alleging that the said marriage was void for lack of a marriage
license. The case was filed under the assumption that the
ISSUE: validity or invalidity of the second marriage would affect
WON the marriage has no marriage license. petitioner’s successional rights.
Norma filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that
HELD: petitioners have no cause of action since they are not among
the persons who could file an action for annulment of
From these cases, it can be deduced that to be considered marriage under Article 47 of the Family Code.
void on the ground of absence of a marriage license, the law
requires that the absence of such marriage license must be Issues:
apparent on the marriage contract, or at the very least,
supported by a certification from the local civil registrar that (a) Whether or not Pepito and Norma’ living together as
no such marriage license was issued to the parties. [32] husband and wife for at least five years exempts them from
obtaining a marriage license under Article 34 of the Family
Indeed, all the evidence cited by the CA to show that a Code of the Philippines.
wedding ceremony was conducted and a marriage contract
was signed does not operate to cure the absence of a valid (b) Whether or not plaintiffs have a cause of action
marriage license.[33] As cited above, Article 80(3) of the Civil against defendant in asking for the declaration of the nullity
Code clearly provides that a marriage solemnized without a of marriage of their deceased father, Pepito G. Niñal, with her
license is void from the beginning, except marriages of specially so when at the time of the filing of this instant suit,
exceptional character under Articles 72 to 79 of the same their father Pepito G. Niñal is already dead
Code. As earlier stated, petitioner's and respondent's
marriage cannot be characterized as among the exceptions. Ruling:
(a) On the assumption that Pepito and Norma have lived with her; while Maria Luisa was left under the guardianship
together as husband and wife for five years without the and custody of Severina.[22] It was after the death of Severina
benefit of marriage, that five-year period should that Maria Luisa executed a Deed of Extra-Judicial Settlement
be computed on the basis of cohabitation as “husband and of the Estate of the Deceased Severina de Asis on October 25,
wife” where the only missing factor is the special contract of 2002. The Spouses Maya were also able to obtain a Certificate
marriage to validate the union. In other words, the five- of No Record of Marriage[23] (between Luis and Severina) from
year common law cohabitation period, which is counted back the Office the Civil Registrar General of the National Statistics
from the date of celebration of marriage, should be a period Office.
of legal union had it not been for the absence of the
marriage. The five-year period should be the years
immediately before the day the marriage and it should be a ISSUE:
period of cohabitation characterized by exclusivity—meaning WON there was a marriage between Luis and Severina.
no third party was involved at any time within the five years,
and continuity—that is, unbroken. Otherwise, if that five-
RULING:
year cohabitation period is computed without
any distinction as to whether the parties were capacitated to Since the marriage between Luis and Severina was
marry each other during the entire five years, then the law solemnized prior to the effectivity of the Family Code, the
would be sanctioning immorality and encouraging parties to applicable law to determine its validity is the Civil Code, the
have common law relationships and placing them on the law in effect at the time of its celebration [68] on December 28,
same footing with those who lived faithfully with their 1966.
spouse.
A valid marriage license is a requisite of marriage under
Article 53[69] of the Civil Code, and the absence thereof, save
(b) The Code is silent as to who can file a petition
for marriages of exceptional character, [70]renders the
to declare the nullity of a marriage. Voidable and void
marriage void ab initio pursuant to Article 80(3). It sets forth:
marriages are not identical. Consequently, void marriages can
be questioned even after the death of either party but
voidable marriages can be assailed only during the lifetime of Art. 80. The following marriages shall be void from the
the parties and not after death of either, in which case the beginning: x x x x
parties and their offspring will be left as if the marriage had
been perfectly valid. (3) Those solemnized without a marriage license, save
marriages of exceptional character.
Diaz-Salgado v. Anson, G.R. No. 204494, July 27, 2016
In this case, the categorical statement on Luis and Severina's
marriage contract that no marriage license was exhibited to
FACTS:
the solemnizing officer, coupled with a contrived averment
Luis alleged in his complaint that he is the surviving spouse of therein that the marriage is of an exceptional character under
the late Severina de Asis-Anson (Severina). They were Article 77 of the Civil Code, are circumstances which cannot
married in a civil ceremony on December 28, 1966. Prior to be disregarded. Incidentally, it may be well to note that Luis'
the celebration of their marriage, Severina gave birth to their failure to assert his marriage to Severina during the latter's
daughter, Maria Luisa on December 30, 1965 while Jo-Ann is lifetime is suspect. Luis left for the USA in 1981, and until
Severina's daughter from a previous relationship. [8] Severina's death in 2002, he never saw, much less reconciled
with her.[94] All those years, he never presented himself to be
During his marital union with Severina, they acquired several the husband of Severina. Not even their daughter, Maria
real properties located in San Juan, Metro Manila. Luisa, knew of the marriage. During trial, he never presented
any other witness to the marriage. He contends that his
the Spouses Maya corroborated the Spouses Salgado's stance marriage to Severina was valid and subsisting, yet he
in their Answer,[19] stating that Maria Luisa is also not aware knowingly contracted a subsequent marriage abroad. Verily,
that Luis and Severina were married. She is cognizant of the Luis failed to prove the validity of their marriage based on the
fact that Luis and Severina lived together as common-law evidence he himself had presented.
husband and wife - a relationship which was terminated upon
execution of a Partition Agreement. In the Partition "The solemnization of a marriage without prior license is a
Agreement, Luis and Severina were described as single and clear violation of the law and would lead or could be used, at
they acknowledged that they were living together as least, for the perpetration of fraud against innocent and
common-law spouses. They also mutually agreed to the unwary parties, which was one of the evils that the law
partition of the properties they owned in common. Hence, sought to prevent by making a prior license a prerequisite for
Luis already received his share in the properties [20]and is a valid marriage. The protection of marriage as a sacred
estopped from denying the same. [21] After the termination of institution requires not just the defense of a true and genuine
their cohabitation in 1980, Luis went to United States of union but the exposure of an invalid one as well."
America (USA), married one Teresita Anson and had a son
Republic v. Dayot, G.R. Nos. 175581 & 179474, March 28, least, for the perpetration of fraud against innocent and
2008 unwary parties. 

FACTS:   On November 24, 1986, Jose and Felisa were married The Court of Appeals granted Joses Motion for
in Pasay City through the execution of a sworn affidavit Reconsideration and reversed itself. Accordingly, it rendered
attesting that both of them had attained the age of maturity an Amended Decision that the marriage between Jose A.
and that being unmarried, they had lived together as husband Dayot and Felisa C. Tecson is void ab initio.
and wife for at least five years. Then Jose contracted marriage
with a certain Rufina Pascual on August 31, 1990. On June 3,
1993 Felisa filed an action for bigamy against Jose.  Then Navarro v. Domagtoy, A.M. No. MTJ-96-1088, July 19, 1996
on July 7, 1993, Jose filed a Complaint for Annulment and/or
Declaration of Nullity of Marriage with the Regional Trial
FACTS:
Court (RTC), Biñan, Laguna. He contended that his marriage
with Felisa was a sham, as no marriage ceremony was Rodolfo Navarro was the Municipal Mayor of Dapa, Surigao
celebrated between the parties; that he did not execute the del Norte. He submitted evidence in relation to two specific
sworn affidavit stating that he and Felisa had lived as husband acts committed by Municipal Circuit Trial Court Judge
and wife for at least five years; and that his consent to the Hernando Domagtoy, which, he contends, exhibits gross
marriage was secured through fraud. The RTC rendered a misconduct as well as inefficiency in office and ignorance of
Decision dismissing the complaint for the ground that the the law. First, on September 27, 1994, said judge solemnized
testimonies and evidence presented, the marriage celebrated the wedding between Gaspar Tagadan and Arlyn Borga,
between Jose and Felisa was valid. Jose filed an appeal from despite the knowledge that the groom is merely separated
the foregoing RTC Decision to the Court of Appeals the Court from his first wife. On his part, Domagtoy claimed that he
of Appeals did not accept Jose assertion that his marriage to merely relied on an affidavit acknowledged before him
Felisa was void ab initio  for lack of a marriage license.  Jose attesting that Tagadan’s wife has been absent for seven
filed a Motion for Reconsideration thereof. His central years. The said affidavit was alleged to have been sworn to
opposition was that the requisites for the proper application before another judge. Second, it is alleged that he performed
of the exemption from a marriage license under Article 34 of a marriage ceremony between Floriano Dador Sumaylo and
the New Civil Code were not fully attendant in the case at bar Gemma G. del Rosario outside his court’s jurisdiction on
he cited the legal condition that the man and the woman October 27, 1994. Domagtoy counters that he solemnized the
must have been living together as husband and wife for at marriage outside of his jurisdiction upon the request of the
least five years before the marriage. Essentially, he parties.
maintained that the affidavit of marital cohabitation executed
ISSUE: Whether or not Domagtoy acted without jurisdiction.
by him and Felisa was false.
HELD: Yes. Domagtoy’s defense is not tenable and he did
display gross ignorance of the law.  Tagadan did not institute
ISSUE: Whether or not the marriage between Jose and Felisa a summary proceeding for the declaration of his first wife’s
is void ab initio? presumptive death. Absent this judicial declaration, he
remains married to Ihis former wife. Whether wittingly or
unwittingly, it was manifest error on the part of Domagtoy to
RULING: Yes, it is void ab initio (void from the beginning) for
have accepted the joint affidavit submitted by the groom.
lacking the requirements of valid marriage in which the sworn
Such neglect or ignorance of the law has resulted in a
affidavit that Felisa executed is merely a scrap of paper
bigamous, and therefore void, marriage. On the second issue,
because they started living together five months before the
the request to hold the wedding outside Domagtoy’s
celebration of their marriage. That according to the five-year
jurisdiction was only done by one party, the bride, NOT by
common-law cohabitation period under Article 34 “No license
both parties. More importantly, the elementary principle
shall be necessary for the marriage for a man and a woman
underlying this provision is the authority of the solemnizing
who have lived together as husband and wife for at least five
judge. Under Article 3, one of the formal requisites of
years and without any legal impediments to marry each
marriage is the “authority of the solemnizing officer.” Under
other… “ it means that a five years period computed back
Article 7, marriage may be solemnized by, among others, “any
from the date of celebration of marriage, and refers to a
incumbent member of the judiciary within the court’s
period of legal union had it not been for the absence of a
jurisdiction.” Article 8, which is a directory provision, refers
marriage. It covers the years immediately preceding the day
only to the venue of the marriage ceremony and does not
of the marriage, characterized by exclusivity, meaning no
alter or qualify the authority of the solemnizing officer as
third party was involved at any time within the five years and
provided in the preceding provision. Non-compliance
continuity that is unbroken.
herewith will not invalidate the marriage.

The solemnization of a marriage without prior license is a Garcia v. Receio, G.R. No. 138322, Oct. 2, 2002
clear violation of the law and would lead or could be used, at FACTS:
Rederick Recio, a Filipino, was married to Editha Samson an
Australian citizen, on March 1, 1987. On May 18, 1989 a However, Orbecido is barred from remarrying because he did
decree of divorce dissolving the marriage was issued by the not present competent evidence showing his wife had
Australian Family Court. On June 26, 1992, Recio became an obtained a divorce decree and had remarried.
Australian citizen. Subsequently, Recio entered into marriage
with Grace Garcia, a Filipina, on January 12, 1994. Starting Van Dorn vs. Ronillo, Jr. et al., 139 SCRA 139
October 22, 1995, Recio and Garcia lived separately without
prior judicial dissolution of their marriage. On March 3, 1998, FACTS:
Garcia filed a complaint for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage
on the ground of bigamy. Recio contended that his prior Alice Reyes Van Dorn, a Filipino Citizen and private
marriage had been validly dissolved by a decree of divorce respondent, Richard Upton, a US citizen, was married in Hong
obtained in Australia thus he is legally capacitated to marry Kong in 1979.  They established their residence in the
Garcia. The trial court rendered the decision declaring the Philippines and had 2 children.  They were divorced in
marriage between Garcia and Recio dissolved and both Nevada, USA in 1982 and petitioner remarried, this time with
parties can now remarry. Hence, this petition. Theodore Van Dorn.  A suit against petitioner was filed on
ISSUE: Whether or not the divorce obtained by Recio in June 8, 1983, stating that petitioner’s business in Ermita
Australia ipso factocapacitated him to remarry. Manila, the Galleon Shop, is a conjugal property with Upton
and prayed therein that Alice be ordered to render an
HELD: The SC remanded the case to the court a quo to accounting of the business and he be declared as the
receive evidence. Based on the records, the court cannot administrator of the said property.
conclude that Recio who was then a naturalized Australian
citizen was legally capacitated to marry Garcia. Neither can ISSUE: Whether or not the foreign divorce between the
the court grant Garcia’s prayer to declare her marriage null petitioner and private respondent in Nevada is binding in the
and void on the ground of bigamy. After all it may turn out Philippines where petitioner is a Filipino citizen.
that under Australian law he was really capacitated to marry
Garcia as result of the divorce decree. The SC laid down the HELD:
following basic legal principles; a marriage between two
Filipino cannot be dissolved even by a divorce decree Private respondent is no longer the husband of the
obtained abroad because of Articles 15 and 17 of the Civil petitioner.  He would have no standing to sue petitioner to
Code. exercise control over conjugal assets.  He is estopped by his
Rep. vs. Cipriano Obrecido III, GR No. 154380, Oct. 5, 2005 own representation before the court from asserting his right
FACTS: over the alleged conjugal property.  Furthermore, aliens may
Orbecido and Villanueva were married ad had two children. obtain divorces abroad, which may be recognized in the
Wife went to US to work and later became a US citizen. Philippines, provided they are valid according to their national
Thereafter he learned from his son that his wife obtained law.  Petitioner is not bound to her marital obligations to
divorce and married another man. Orbecido filed a petition respondent by virtue of her nationality laws.  She should not
for authority to remarry under the Article 26 (2) of the Family be discriminated against her own country if the end of justice
Code. RTC Zamboanga del Sur granted his petition. The is to be served.
SolGen's motion for reconsideration was denied. Orbecido
filed a petition for review of certiorari on the Decision of the Republic vs. Iyoy, G.R. No. 152577, 21 September 2005, 470
RTC. SCRA 508
Facts:
ISSUE:
Whether or not Orbecido can remarry under Article 26 (2). 1. On 25 March 1997, Respondent Crasus Iyoy filed a
complaint in the RTC for the nullity of marriage with his
RULING: wife Fely, on the ground that after the celebration of
Yes. Article 26 Par.2 should be interpreted to include cases their marriage, he found his wife “hot-tempered,
involving parties who, at the time of the celebration of the nagger and extravagant”.
marriage were Filipino citizens, but later on, one of them 2. Then in 1984, Fely left the PH for the US leaving all their
becomes naturalized as a foreign citizen and obtains a divorce five children to Crasus. After a year, she sent a letter to
decree.  The Filipino spouse should likewise be allowed to respondent re seeking divorce but the latter
remarry as if the other party were a foreigner at the time of disregarded the request.
the solemnization of the marriage.
3. In 1985, respondent learned that Fely got married to an
The reckoning point is not their citizenship at the time of American.
celebration of marriage, but their citizenship at the time the 4. In 1987, Fely went back to the PH with her new
divorce decree is obtained abroad by alien spouse husband; respondent did not bother to talk to her
capacitating him/her to remarry.
 because he’s afraid that he might not bear the pain and 2. The only evidence presented by Crasus was his
sadness. testimony which is put in question for being self-
serving. The evidence is not enough to convince the
5. At the time the complaint was filed, it has been 13years
Court that Fely had such grave mental illness that
since Fely left and abandoned respondent and there
prevented her from assuming the essential obligations
was no more possibility of reconciliation between them.
of marriage.
6. Respondent alleged that Fely has psychological
3. It is worthy to emphasize that Art 36 contemplates
incapacity to perform marital obligations set forth in
downright incapacity or inability to take cognizance of
the FC.
and to assume basic marital obligations; not a mere
7. In 1997, Fely refuted all the allegation about her, refusal, neglect or difficulty, much less, ill will, on the
instead, argued that her hot temperance was due to part of the errant spouse.
her husband’s drunkenness, womanizing, and lack of
sincere effort to find employment, hence, the reason The evidence may have proven that Fely committed acts that
why she left the country was for financial reasons. hurt and embarrassed respondent and the rest of the family.
8. She further invokes that although she left, she Her hot-temper, nagging, and extravagance; her
continued to give support to her children. She also abandonment of respondent; her marriage to an Am citizen;
explained that after the divorce, she was naturalized as and even her flaunting of her American family may be indeed
an American Citizen, hence, her status re marriage is manifestations of her alleged incapacity, nonetheless, the
governed by her present nationality. root cause for such was not identified. If the root cause f the
incapacity was not identified, then, it cannot be satisfactorily
9. After both parties filed their respective pre-trial briefs,
established as a psychological
the RTC gave them opportunity to present evidence.
10. On 30 October 1998, the RTC promulgated its Judgment
declaring the marriage of respondent and Fely null and Fujiki v. Marinay, G.R. No. 196049, June 26, 2013
void ab initio due to Fely’s psychological incapacity to Facts:
comply with her marital duties such as striving for unity,
observing fidelity, mutual love, respect, help and Petitioner Minoru Fujiki (Fujiki) is a Japanese national who
support. Crasus also adequately established that the married respondent Maria Paz Galela Marinay (Marinay) in
defendant practically abandoned him; and that his wife the Philippines[2] on 23 January 2004. The marriage did not
committed bigamous marriage. sit well with petitioner's parents. Thus, Fujiki could not bring
his wife to
11. Petitioner Republic assailed the RTC’s decision saying
that it was contrary to law and evidence, hence, filed an Japan where he resides. Eventually, they lost contact with
appeal to the CA but the appellate court affirmed the each other.
earlier decision of the RTC – citing article 26 of the FC –
saying that “to condemn plaintiff to remain shackle in a In 2008, Marinay met another Japanese, Shinichi Maekara
marriage that in truth and in fact does not exist and to (Maekara). Without the first marriage being dissolved,
remain married to a spouse who is incapacitated to Marinay and Maekara were married on 15 May 2008 in
discharge essential marital covenants is verily to Quezon City, Philippines. Maekara brought Marinay to Japan.
condemn him to a perpetual disadvantage which this However, Marinay allegedly suffered physical abuse from
Court finds abhorrent”. Maekara. She left Maekara and started to contact Fujiki.[3]
12. With such, Petitioner Republic seek an appeal in the SC
Fujiki and Marinay met in Japan and they were able to
on the ground that abandonment by and sexual
reestablish their relationship. In 2010, Fujiki helped Marinay
infidelity of respondent’s wife do not per se constitute
obtain a judgment from a family court in Japan which
psychological incapacity.
declared the marriage between Marinay and Maekara void on
the ground of bigamy.[4] On
ISSUE:
14 January 2011, Fujiki filed a petition in the RTC entitled:
RULING: "Judicial Recognition of Foreign Judgment (or Decree of
Absolute Nullity of Marriage)." Fujiki prayed that (1) the
1. What constitute a psychological incapacity? Japanese Family Court judgment be recognized; (2) that the
bigamous marriage between Marinay and
1. Citing Santos v CA, the Court stated that
“psychological incapacity refers to no less than a Maekara be declared void ab initio under Articles 35(4) and
mental incapacity that causes a party to be truly 41 of the Family Code of the Philippines;[5] and (3) for the
cognitive of the basic marital covenants that RTC to direct the Local Civil Registrar of Quezon City to
concomitantly must be assumed and discharged annotate the Japanese Family Court judgment on the
by the parties to the marriage”. Certificate of
Marriage between Marinay and Maekara and to endorse such Code. Bigamy is a crime under Article 349 of the Revised
annotation to the Office of the Administrator and Civil Penal Code. Thus, Fujiki can prove the existence of the
Registrar General in the National Statistics Office (NSO). Japanese Family Court judgment... in accordance with Rule
132, Sections 24 and 25, in relation to Rule 39, Section 48(b)
the RTC immediately issued an Order dismissing the petition of the Rules of Court.
The RTC cited the following provisions of the Rule on Vitangcol v. People (GR No. 207406, 13/01/16)
Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Doctrine:
Persons intending to contract a second marriage must first secure a
Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages (A.M. No.
judicial declaration of nullity of their first marriage. If they proceed
02-11-10-SC)
with the second marriage without the judicial declaration, they are
Fujiki moved that the Order be reconsidered. guilty of bigamy regardless of evidence of the nullity of the first
marriage.
The... petitioner contended that the Japanese judgment was
consistent with Article 35(4) of the Family Code of the Facts: On December 4, 1994, Norberto married Alice G. Eduardo
Philippines[11] on bigamy and was therefore entitled to (Alice). Born into their union were three (3) children. After some
recognition by Philippine courts.[12] time, Alice eventually discovered that Norberto was previously
married to a certain Gina M. Gaerlan (Gina) on July 17, 1987, as
Issues: evidenced by a marriage contract registered with the National
Statistics Office. Alice subsequently filed a criminal Complaint for
Whether the Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void bigamy against Norberto.
Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages (A.M. No.
02-11-10-SC) is applicable. Norberto argues that the first element of bigamy is absent in this case.
He presents as evidence a Certification from the Office of the Civil
Ruling:
Registrar of Imus, Cavite, which states that the Office has no record
A foreign judgment relating to the status of a marriage affects of the marriage license allegedly issued in his favor and his first wife,
the civil status, condition and legal capacity of its parties. Gina. He argues that with no proof of existence of an essential
However, the effect of a foreign judgment is not automatic. requisite of marriage—the marriage license—the prosecution fails to
To extend the effect of a foreign judgment in the Philippines, establish the legality of his first marriage. In addition, Norberto
claims that the legal dissolution of the first marriage is not an element
Philippine courts must... determine if the foreign judgment is
of the crime of bigamy.
consistent with domestic public policy and other mandatory
laws.[60] Article 15 of the Civil Code provides that "[l]aws Issue: Whether the Certification from the Office of the Civil
relating to family rights and duties, or to the status, condition Registrar that it has no record of the marriage license issued to
and legal capacity of persons are... binding upon citizens of petitioner Norberto A. Vitangcol and his first wife Gina proves the
the Philippines, even though living abroad." This is the rule of nullity of petitioner’s first marriage and exculpates him from the
lex nationalii in private international law. Thus, the Philippine bigamy charge.
State may require, for effectivity in the Philippines,
recognition by Philippine courts of a foreign judgment... Held: No. Petition for Certiorari is DENIED.
affecting its citizen, over whom it exercises personal
jurisdiction relating to the status, condition and legal capacity The Certification from the Office of the Civil Registrar that it has no
of such citizen. record of the marriage license is suspect. Assuming that it is true, it
does not categorically prove that there was no marriage license.
A petition to recognize a foreign judgment declaring a Furthermore, marriages are not dissolved through mere certifications
marriage void does not require relitigation under a Philippine by the civil registrar. For more than seven (7) years before his second
court of the case as if it were a new petition for declaration of marriage, petitioner did nothing to have his alleged spurious first
nullity of marriage. Philippine courts cannot presume to know marriage declared a nullity. Even when this case was pending, he did
the foreign laws under which the... foreign judgment was not present any decision from any trial court nullifying his first
rendered. They cannot substitute their judgment on the marriage.
status, condition and legal capacity of the foreign citizen who
is under the jurisdiction of another state. Thus, Philippine
courts can only recognize the foreign judgment as a fact
according to... the rules of evidence. Carino v. Carino (GR No. 132529, 02/02/01)
Facts: In 1969 SPO4 Santiago Cariño married Susan Nicdao
There is therefore no reason to disallow Fujiki to simply prove Cariño. He had 2 children with her. In 1992, SPO4 contracted
as a fact the Japanese Family Court judgment nullifying the a second marriage, this time with Susan Yee Cariño. In 1988,
marriage between Marinay and Maekara on the ground of prior to his second marriage, SPO4 is already bedridden and
bigamy. While the Philippines has no divorce law, the he was under the care of Yee. In 1992, he died 13 days after
Japanese Family Court judgment is fully... consistent with his marriage with Yee. Thereafter, the spouses went on to
Philippine public policy, as bigamous marriages are declared claim the benefits of SPO4. Nicdao was able to claim a total of
void from the beginning under Article 35(4) of the Family P140,000.00 while Yee was able to collect a total of
P21,000.00. In 1993, Yee filed an action for collection of sum
of money against Nicdao. She wanted to have half of the child a week later. The couple is separated in fact for more
P140k. Yee admitted that her marriage with SPO4 was  than 3 years.
solemnized during the subsistence of the marriage b/n SPO4
and Nicdao but the said marriage between Nicdao and SPO4 is Roridel filed a petition to have their marriage void under
null and void due to the absence of a valid marriage license as Article 36, citing Reynaldo's psychological incapacity. She
certified by the local civil registrar. Yee also claimed that she presented evidence consisted of her own testimony, of her two
only found out about the previous marriage on SPO4’s funeral. friends, a social worker and a psychiatrist. Reynaldo did not
Issue: Whether or not the absolute nullity of marriage may be present any evidence and appeared only during the pre-trial.
invoked to claim presumptive legitimes. The RTC granted the petition, declaring the marriage void.
Held: The marriage between Nicdao and SPO4 is null and Solicitor General appealed to the CA. CA denied the appeals
void due the absence of a valid marriage license. The marriage and ruled in favor of the trial court.
between Yee and SPO4 is likewise null and void for the same
has been solemnized without the judicial declaration of the Issue: Whether or not opposing or conflicting personalities
nullity of the marriage between Nicdao and SPO4. Under constitute psychological incapacity.
Article 40 of the FC, the absolute nullity of a previous
marriage may be invoked for purposes of remarriage on the Held: NO. There is no clear showing to us that the
basis solely of a final judgment declaring such previous psychological defect spoken of is an incapacity; but appears to
marriage void.  Meaning, where the absolute nullity of a be more of a “difficulty,” if not outright “refusal” or “neglect”
previous marriage is sought to be invoked for purposes of in the performance of some marital obligations. Mere showing
contracting a second marriage, the sole basis acceptable in of “irreconcilable differences” and “conflicting personalities”
law, for said projected marriage to be free from legal infirmity, in no wise constitutes psychological incapacity.
is a final judgment declaring the previous marriage void.
However, for purposes other than remarriage, no judicial The Court, in this case, promulgated guidelines in the
action is necessary to declare a marriage an absolute nullity.  interpretation and application of Article 36 of the Family
For other purposes, such as but not limited to the Code:  1) The burden of proof to show the nullity of marriage
determination of heirship, legitimacy or illegitimacy of a child, belongs to the plaintiff; 2) the root cause of PI must be (a)
settlement of estate, dissolution of property regime, or a medically or clinically identified (b) alleged in the complaint
criminal case for that matter, the court may pass upon the (c) sufficiently proven by experts (d) clearly explained in the
validity of marriage even after the death of the parties thereto, decision; 3) it must be existing at the time of the celebration of
and even in a suit not directly instituted to question the the marriage; 4) it must be medically or clinically permanent
validity of said marriage, so long as it is essential to the or incurable; 5) it must be grave enough to bring about the
determination of the case. In such instances, evidence must be disability of the party to assume the marital obligations of
adduced, testimonial or documentary, to prove the existence of marriage; 6) the marital obligations must be embraced by
grounds rendering such a previous marriage an absolute Articles 68 to 71, and Articles 220, 221 and 225 in regard of
nullity.  These need not be limited solely to an earlier final parents and their children; 7) interpretation by the
judgment of a court declaring such previous marriage void. National Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal of Catholic of
The SC ruled that Yee has no right to the benefits earned by Church of the Philippines, although not binding, should be
SPO4 as a policeman for their marriage is void due to bigamy; given great respect; and 8) the prosecuting attorney or fiscal
she is only entitled to properties, money etc owned by them in and the Solicitor General must appear as counsel for the State.
common in proportion to their respective contributions. Wages
and salaries earned by each party shall belong to him or her Marcos v. Marcos (GR No. 136490, 19/10/00)
exclusively (Art. 148 of FC). Nicdao is entitled to the full FACTS: Brenda B. Marcos married Wilson Marcos in 1982
benefits earned by SPO4 as a cop even if their marriage is and they had five children. Alleging that the husband failed to
likewise void. This is because the two were capacitated to provide material support to the family and have resorted to
marry each other for there were no impediments but their physical abuse and abandonment, Brenda filed a case for the
marriage was void due to the lack of a marriage license; in nullity of the marriage on the ground that Wilson Marcos has
their situation, their property relations is governed by Art 147 psychological incapacity. The RTC declared the marriage null
of the FC which provides that everything they earned during and void under Article 36 which was however reversed by the
their cohabitation is presumed to have been equally Court of Appeals
contributed by each party – this includes salaries and wages ISSUES: 1. Whether personal medical or psychological
earned by each party notwithstanding the fact that the other examination of the respondent by a physician is a requirement
may not have contributed at all. for a declaration of psychological incapacity.
2. Whether or not the totality of evidence presented in this
Republic v. Molina (GR No. 108763, 13/02/97) case show psychological incapacity.
Facts: Roridel and Reynaldo got married in 1985 in Manila. HELD: Psychological incapacity, as a ground for declaring
During the early years of their marriage, Reynaldo showed the nullity of a marriage, may be established by the totality of
signs of immaturity and irresponsibility, observed from his evidence presented. There is no requirement, however that the
tendency to spend time with his friends and squandered money respondent should be examined by a physician or a
with them, his dependency from his parents for financial aid psychologist as a condition since qua non for such declaration.
and dishonesty in matters involving finances. Roridel became Although this Court is sufficiently convinced that respondent
the sole breadwinner of the family. She then resigned her job failed to provide material support to the family and may have
in Manila and went to Baguio. Reynaldo left her and their resorted to physical abuse and abandonment, the totality of his
acts does not lead to a conclusion of psychological incapacity himself. Apart from the psychologist’s opinion and
on his part. There is absolutely no showing that his “defects” petitioner’s allegations, no other reliable evidence was cited to
were already present at the inception of the marriage or that prove that Felipe’s sexual infidelity was a manifestation of his
they are incurable. Verily, the behavior of respondent can be alleged personality disorder, which is grave, deeply rooted,
attributed to the fact that he had lost his job and was not and incurable.
gainfully employed for a period of more than six years. It was The Court is not persuaded that the natal or supervening
during this period that he became intermittently drunk, failed disabling factor which effectively incapacitated him from
to give material and moral support, and even left the complying with his obligation to be faithful to his wife was
family home. Thus, his alleged psychological illness was medically or clinically established.
traced only to said period and not to the inception of the Basic is the rule that bare allegations, unsubstantiated by
marriage. Equally important, there is no evidence showing that evidence, are not equivalent to proof, i.e., mere allegations are
his condition is incurable, especially now that he is gainfully not evidence.
employed as a taxi driver. In sum, this Court cannot declare The petition for review was denied.
the dissolution of the marriage for failure of petitioner to show
that the alleged psychological incapacity is characterized by Chi Ming Tsoi v. CA (GR No. 119190, 16/01/97)
gravity, juridical antecedence and incurability; and for her Facts: Sometime on May 22, 1988, Gina and Chi Ming Tsoi
failure to observe the guidelines outlined in Molina. were married as evidence by their marriage contract. From
May 22, 1988, until their separation on March 15, 1989, there
Castillo v. Republic (GR No. 214064, 06/02/17) was no sexual contact between them. Gina made attempts for
Facts: Mirasol and Felipe started as friends then, eventually, sexual activity to no avails. Medical examinations showed that
became sweethearts. During their courtship, Mirasol both Gina and Chi Ming Tsoi were capable of sexual
discovered that Felipe sustained his affair with his former conduct. Gina was still a virgin at the time of the
girlfriend. The couple’s relationship turned tumultuous after medical examination. Gina filed a motion for declaration of
the revelation. With the intervention of their parents, they nullity and the Trial Court declared their marriage as void. The
reconciled. They got married and were blessed with two Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision. Petitioner
childåren. Chi Ming Tsoi subsequently filed a motion to the Supreme
However, after thirteen years of marriage, Felipe resumed Court citing that it was she and not he that had the problem
philandering. regarding sexual intimacy.
Tired of her husband’s infidelity, she left the conjugal Issue: Whether or not non-desire of sexual consummation be
dwelling and stopped any communication with him. Felipe’s an indicator of psychological incapacity?
irresponsible acts like cohabiting with another woman, not Held: The Supreme Court found the petition to be bereft
communicating with her, and not supporting their children for of merit. Since the action to declare the marriage void may be
a period of not less than ten years without any reason, filed by either party, the question of who refuses to have sex
constitute a severe psychological disorder. with the other becomes immaterial. If a spouse, although
Mirasol filed a Complaint for declaration of nullity of physically capable but simply refuses to perform his or her
marriage which was  granted by the trial court. essential marriage obligations, and the refusal is senseless and
On appeal, the CA reversed and set aside the decision of the constant, Catholic marriage tribunals attribute the causes to
RTC. psychological incapacity than to stubborn refusal. Aligned
Issue: Whether or not the totality of evidence presented with this is the essential marital obligation, “the procreate
warrants, as the RTC determined, the declaration of nullity of children based on the universal principle that procreation of
the marriage of Mirasol and Felipe on the ground of the children through sexual cooperation is the basic end of
latter’s psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the marriage.” Constant non-fulfillment of this obligation will
Family Code. finally destroy the integrity or wholeness of the marriage.
Held: Irreconcilable differences, sexual infidelity or After ten months of marriage, the reluctance to perform the
perversion, emotional immaturity and irresponsibility and the sexual act was indicative of a hopeless situation, and of a
like, do not by themselves warrant a finding of psychological serious personality disorder that constitutes psychological
incapacity under Article 36, as the same may only be due to a incapacity to discharge the basic marital covenants within
person’s refusal or unwillingness to assume the essential the contemplation of the Family Code.
obligations of marriage.
In order for sexual infidelity to constitute as psychological Noel Buenaventura v. CA and Isabel Lucia Singh
incapacity, the respondent’s unfaithfulness must be established Buenaventura (GR No. 127358, 27/10/04)
as a manifestation of a disordered personality, completely Facts: This case was instituted by Petitioner Noel
preventing the respondent from discharging the essential Buenaventura where he stated that he and his wife, Isabel
obligations of the marital state; there must be proof of a natal Lucia Singh Buenaventura, were both psychologically
or supervening disabling factor that effectively incapacitated incapacitated to comply with the essential obligations of
him from complying with the obligation to be faithful to his marriage. The lower court found that petitioner was merely
spouse. under heavy parental pressure to marry, and deceived Private
It is indispensable that the evidence must show a link, medical Respondent Isabel Singh to marry. Buenaventura was unable
or the like, between the acts that manifest psychological to relate to his wife, as a husband, and their son, Javy, as a
incapacity and the psychological disorder itself. father. Moreso, he had no inclination to make the marriage
As discussed, the findings on Felipe’s personality profile did work such that in times of trouble, he’d rather choose to leave
not emanate from a personal interview with the subject his family than reconcile with his wife.
Issues:  reconsideration was filed by the petitioner and was denied.
1. Whether or not, based on the findings of the lower The CA reversed the RTC decision relying mainly on the
court, the marriage between Buenaventura and Singh psychiatric evaluation made finding that Manuel and Juanita
may be declared null and void under Article 36 of the psychologically incapacitated. Hence, this petition for
Family Code, due to the psychological incapacity of review on certiorari.
the petitioner. Issue: Whether or not psychological incapacity is attendant in
the case.
2. Whether or not the award of moral damages to the Held: It was in Santos v. Court of Appeals where the court
aggrieved spouse is proper in such cases. declared that "psychological incapacity" under Article 36 of
the Family Code is not meant to comprehend all possible cases
Held: of psychoses. It should refer, rather, to no less than a mental
1. Yes. The Court of Appeals and the trial court (not physical) incapacity that causes a party to be truly in
considered the acts of the petitioner after the marriage cognitive of the basic marital covenants that concomitantly
as proof of his psychological incapacity, and must be assumed and discharged by the parties to the
therefore a product of his incapacity or inability to marriage. Psychological incapacity must be characterized by
comply with the essential obligations of marriage. (a) gravity, (b) juridical antecedence, and (c) incurability. The
Psychological incapacity has been defined, as no less burden of proof to show the nullity of marriage belongs to the
than a mental (not physical) incapacity that causes a plaintiff. Any doubt should be resolved in favor of the
existence and continuation of the marriage and against its
party to be truly incognitive of the basic marital
dissolution and nullity. Sexual infidelity does not constitute
covenants that concomitantly must be assumed
psychological incapacity, it must be shown that this is a
and discharged by the parties to the marriage which, manifestation of a disordered personality present even at the
as so expressed by Article 68 of the Family Code, time of the celebration of marriage.
include their mutual obligations to live together, The report of expert showed root cause of petitioner Juanita’s
observe love, respect and fidelity and render help and behavior is not from the inception of their marriage as required
support. There is hardly any doubt that the by law but from her experiences during the marriage, e.g., her
intendment of the law has been to confine the in-laws’ disapproval of her as they wanted their son to enter
meaning of "psychological incapacity" to the most the priesthood, her husband’s philandering, admitted no less
serious cases of personality disorders clearly by him, and her inability to conceive. An unsatisfactory
demonstrative of an utter insensitivity or inability marriage is not a null and void marriage. Mere showing of
to give meaning and significance to the marriage. "irreconcilable differences" and "conflicting personalities" in
no wise constitutes psychological incapacity. The petition for
2. Based on the above definition of psychological review was granted decision of CA was reversed and set aside.
incapacity, by declaring the petitioner as
psychologically incapacitated, the possibility of Ngo Te v. Yu-Te (GR No. 161793, 13/02/09)
awarding moral damages on the same set of facts was Facts: Petitioner Edward Te first met respondent Rowena Te
negated. The award of moral damages should be in a gathering organized by the Filipino-Chinese association in
predicated, not on the mere act of entering into the their college.  Initially, he was attracted to Rowena’s close
marriage, but on specific evidence that it was done friend but, as the latter already had a boyfriend, the young man
decided to court Rowena, which happened in January 1996.  It
deliberately and with malice by a party who had
was Rowena who asked that they elope but Edward refused
knowledge of his or her disability and yet willfully
bickering that he was young and jobless.  Her persistence,
concealed the same. however, made him relent.  They left Manila and sailed to
Cebu that month; he, providing their travel money of P80,000
and she, purchasing the boat ticket.
Carating-Siayngo v. Siayngo (GR No. 158896, 27/10/04) They decided to go back to Manila in April 1996. Rowena
Facts: Manuel Siayngco contracted a marriage to Juanita C. proceeded to her uncle’s house and Edward to his parents’
Siayngco on June 27, 1973. Since they could not have their home. Eventually they got married but without a marriage
own child, they adopted a baby boy in 1977 and named him license.  Edward was prohibited from getting out of the house
Jeremy. On September 25, 1997, respondent Manuel filed for unaccompanied and was threatened by Rowena and her uncle. 
the declaration of its nullity on the ground of psychological After a month, Edward escaped from the house, and stayed
incapacity of petitioner Juanita. He alleged that all throughout with his parents.  Edward’s parents wanted them to stay at
their marriage, he was constantly embarrassed by his wife’s their house but Rowena refused and demanded that they have
outbursts and overbearing ways, that his wife’s obsession with a separate abode.  In June 1996, she said that it was better for
cleanliness is irritating and he is wounded by the lack of them to live separate lives and they then parted ways.
support and respect for his person and his position as a Judge After four years in January 2000, Edward filed a petition for
from his wife. That her psychological incapacity arose before the annulment of his marriage to Rowena on the basis of the
marriage, is permanent and incurable. On her answer, Juanita latter’s psychological incapacity.
alleged the contrary. Psychiatric evaluations were presented as Issue: Whether the marriage contracted is void on the ground
well as testimony of witnesses and the evidences presented of psychological incapacity.
failed to support the alleged psychological incapacity of the Held: The parties’ whirlwind relationship lasted more or less
respondent, thus, petition was denied by the RTC.A motion for six months. They met in January 1996, eloped in March,
exchanged marital vows in May, and parted ways in June. The spouse can avail the remedy.
psychologist who provided expert testimony found both
parties psychologically incapacitated. Petitioner’s behavioral ISSUE: Whether or not Article 26 can also be applied to
pattern falls under the classification of dependent personality Corpuz' petition of recognition of the foreign divorce
disorder, and respondent’s, that of the narcissistic and decree
antisocial personality disorder
There is no requirement that the person to be declared HELD: The Court held that alien spouses cannot claim
psychologically incapacitated be personally examined by a the right as it is only in favor of Filipino spouses. The
physician, if the totality of evidence presented is enough to legislative intent of Article 26 is for the benefit of the
sustain a finding of psychological incapacity.  Verily, the clarification of the marital status of the Filipino spouse.
evidence must show a link, medical or the like, between the
acts that manifest psychological incapacity and the However, aliens are not strip to petition to the RTC for
psychological disorder itself. his foreign divorce decree as it is a conclusive
The presentation of expert proof presupposes a thorough and presumption of evidence of the authenticity of foreign
in-depth assessment of the parties by the psychologist or divorce decree with confirmity to the alien's national law.
expert, for a conclusive diagnosis of a grave, severe and
incurable presence of psychological incapacity. The Pasig City Registrar's Office acted out of line when it
 Indeed, petitioner, afflicted with dependent personality registered the foreign divorce decree without judicial
disorder, cannot assume the essential marital obligations of order recognition. Therefore, the registration is still
living together, observing love, respect and fidelity and deemed to be void.
rendering help and support, for he is unable to make everyday SANTIAGO V. PEOPLE
decisions without advice from others, and allows others to FACTS: Four months after the solemnization of their
make most of his important decisions (such as where to live). marriage on 29 July 1997,  Leonila G. Santiago and
As clearly shown in this case, petitioner followed everything Nicanor F. Santos faced an Information for bigamy.
dictated to him by the persons around him. He is insecure, Petitioner pleaded "not guilty," while her putative
weak and gullible, has no sense of his identity as a person, has husband escaped the criminal suit. The prosecution
no cohesive self to speak of, and has no goals and clear adduced evidence that Santos, who had been married to
direction in life. Estela Galang since 2 June 1974, 
As for the respondent, her being afflicted with antisocial The RTC appreciated the undisputed fact that petitioner
personality disorder makes her unable to assume the essential married Santos during the subsistence of his marriage to
marital obligations on account for her disregard in the rights of Galang. Based on the more credible account of Galang
others, her abuse, mistreatment and control of others without that she had already introduced herself as the legal wife
remorse, and her tendency to blame others.  Moreover, as of Santos in March and April 1997, the trial court rejected
shown in this case, respondent is impulsive and domineering; the affirmative defense of petitioner that she had not
she had no qualms in manipulating petitioner with her threats known of the first marriage. It also held that it was
of blackmail and of committing suicide. incredible for a learned person like petitioner to be easily
Both parties being afflicted with grave, severe and incurable duped by a person like Santos.
psychological incapacity, the precipitous marriage that they The RTC declared that as indicated in the Certificate of
contracted on April 23, 1996 is thus, declared null and void. Marriage, "her marriage was celebrated without a need
for a marriage license in accordance with Article 34 of
the Family Code, which is an admission that she
CORPUZ V. STO. TOMAS cohabited with Santos long before the celebration of their
FACTS: Gerbert Corpuz, a former Filipino citizen but marriage." 
now a naturalized Canadian, married Daisylyn Sto. Petitioner moved for reconsideration. She contended
Tomas, a Filipina. He soon left to Canada after their that her marriage to Santos was void ab initio for having
wedding due to work commitments. He returned to been celebrated without complying with Article 34 of the
Philippines on April 2005 only to find out Daisylyn has an Family Code, which provides an exemption from the
affair with another man. Gerbert returned to Canada to requirement of a marriage license if the parties have
file a divorce that took effect on January 2006. actually lived together as husband and wife for at least
five years prior to the celebration of their marriage. In her
Two years later, he found another Filipina and wanted to case, petitioner asserted that she and Santos had not
marry her in the Philippines. He went to Pasig City lived together as husband and wife for five years prior to
Registrar's Office to register his Canadian divorce their marriage. Hence, she argued that the absence of a
decree but was denied considering that his marriage with marriage license effectively rendered their marriage null
Daisylyn still subsists under Philippine law, that the and void, justifying her acquittal from bigamy. The RTC
foregin divorce must be recognized judicially by the refused to reverse her conviction and held thus: 
Philippine court. Accused Santiago submits that it is her marriage to her
co-accused that is null and void as it was celebrated
Gerbert subsequently filed at the Regional Trial Court a without a valid marriage license x x x. In advancing that
judicial recognition of foreign divorce but was theory, accused wants this court to pass judgment on the
subsequently denied since he is not the proper party and validity of her marriage to accused Santos, something
according to Article 26 of the Civil Code, only a Filipino this court cannot do. The best support to her argument
would have been the submission of a judicial decree of satisfied the cohabitation requirement under the law; and
annulment of their marriage. Absent such proof, this (2) falsely making claims in no less than her marriage
court cannot declare their marriage null and void in these contract. 
proceedings.  CAPILI V. PEOPLE
On appeal before the CA, petitioner claimed that her FACTS: In September 1999, James Capili married Karla
conviction was not based on proof beyond reasonable Medina. But then, just three months later in December
doubt. She attacked the credibility of Galang and insisted 1999, he married another woman named Shirley Tismo.
that the former had not known of the previous marriage In 2004, Karla Medina filed an action for declaration of
of Santos. Similar to the RTC, the CA gave more weight nullity of the second marriage between Capili and Tismo.
to the prosecution witnesses' narration. It likewise In June 2004, Tismo filed a bigamy case against Capili.
disbelieved the testimony of Santos. Anent the lack of a Before a decision can be had in the bigamy case, the
marriage license, the appellate court simply stated that action filed by Karla Medina was granted and Capili’s
the claim was a vain attempt to put the validity of her marriage with Tismo was declared void by reason of the
marriage to Santos in question. Consequently, the CA subsisting marriage between Medina and Capili.
affirmed her conviction for bigamy.  Thereafter, Capili filed a motion to dismiss in the bigamy
ISSUES: WON a crime of bigamy has been committed case. He alleged that since the second marriage was
and if the marriage is valid without a license. already declared void ab initio that marriage never took
HELD: In the crime of bigamy, both the first and second place and that therefore, there is no bigamy to speak of.
spouses may be the offended parties depending on the The trial court agreed with Capili and it dismissed the
circumstances, as when the second spouse married the bigamy case. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed
accused without being aware of his previous marriage. the dismissal and remanded the case to the trial court.
Only if the second spouse had knowledge of the ISSUE: Whether or not a declaration of nullity of the
previous undissolved marriage of the accused could she second marriage avoids a prosecution for bigamy.
be included in the information as a co-accused. HELD: No. The elements of bigamy are:
Therefore, the lower courts correctly ascertained 1. That the offender has been legally married;
petitioner's knowledge of Santos's marriage to Galang. 2. That the first marriage has not been legally dissolved
Both courts consistently found that she knew of the first or, in case his or her spouse is absent, the absent
marriage as shown by the totality of the following spouse could not yet be presumed dead according to the
circumstances:  (1) when Santos was courting and Civil Code;
visiting petitioner in the house of her in-laws, they openly 3. That he contracts a second or subsequent marriage;
showed their disapproval of him; (2) it was incredible for 4. That the second or subsequent marriage has all the
a learned person like petitioner to not know of his true essential requisites for validity.
civil status; and (3) Galang, who was the more credible When Capili married Tismo, all the above elements are
witness compared with petitioner who had various present. The crime of bigamy was already
inconsistent testimonies, straightforwardly testified that consummated. It is already immaterial if the second (or
she had already told petitioner on two occasions that the first marriage, see Mercado vs Tan) was subsequently
former was the legal wife of Santos.  declared void. The outcome of the civil case filed by
After a perusal of the records, it is clear that the marriage Karla Medina had no bearing to the determination of
between petitioner and Santos took place without a Capili’s guilt or innocence in the bigamy case because
marriage license. The absence of this requirement is all that is required for the charge of bigamy to prosper is
purportedly explained in their Certificate of Marriage, that the first marriage be subsisting at the time the
which reveals that their union was celebrated under second marriage is contracted. He who contracts a
Article 34 of the Family Code. second marriage before the judicial declaration of the
Here, respondent did not dispute that petitioner knew first marriage assumes the risk of being prosecuted for
Santos in more or less in February 1996 and that after bigamy.
six months of courtship, she married him on 29 July The Supreme Court also notes that even if a party has
1997. Without any objection from the prosecution, reason to believe that his first marriage is void, he
petitioner testified that Santos had frequently visited her cannot simply contract a second marriage without having
in Castellano, Nueva Ecija, prior to their marriage. such first marriage be judicially declared as void. The
However, he never cohabited with her, as she was parties to the marriage should not be permitted to judge
residing in the house of her in-laws, and her children for themselves its nullity, for the same must be submitted
from her previous marriage disliked him. On cross to the judgment of competent courts and only when the
examination, respondent did not question the claim of nullity of the marriage is so declared can it be held as
petitioner that sometime in 1993, she first met Santos as void, and so long as there is no such declaration the
an agent who sold her piglets. presumption is that the marriage exists.
The Certificate of Marriage, signed by Santos and TENEBRO V. COURT OF APPEALS
Santiago, contained the misrepresentation perpetrated FACTS: Veronico Tenebro contracted marriage with
by them that they were eligible to contract marriage Leticia Ancajas in 1990. The two lived together
without a license. We thus face an anomalous situation continuously and without interruption until the later part
wherein petitioner seeks to be acquitted of bigamy based of 1991, when Tenebro informed Ancajas that he had
on her illegal actions of (1) marrying Santos without a been previously married to a certain Hilda Villareyes in
marriage license despite knowing that they had not 1986. Petitioner thereafter left the conjugal dwelling
which he shared with Ancajas, stating that he was going HELD: [see elements of bigamy in Capili v. People] The
to cohabit with Villareyes. In 1993, petitioner contracted felony is consummated on the celebration of the second
yet another marriage with a certain Nilda Villegas. marriage or subsequent marriage. It is essential in the
Ancajas thereafter filed a complaint for bigamy against prosecution for bigamy that the alleged second marriage,
petitioner. Villegas countered that his marriage with having all the essential requirements, would be valid
Villareyes cannot be proven as a fact there being no were it not for the subsistence of the first marriage.
record of such. He further argued that his second In this case, it appears that when respondent contracted
marriage, with Ancajas, has been declared void ab initio a second marriage with Silverio in 1983, her first
due to psychological incapacity. Hence he cannot be marriage with Socrates celebrated in 1976 was still
charged for bigamy. subsisting as the same had not yet been annulled or
ISSUE: Whether or not Tenebro is guilty of bigamy. declared void by a competent authority. Clearly, the
HELD: The prosecution was able to establish the validity annulment of respondent's first marriage on the ground
of the first marriage. As a second or subsequent of psychological incapacity was declared only in 2003.
marriage contracted during the subsistence of
petitioner’s valid marriage to Villareyes, petitioner’s In Mercado v. Tan, we ruled that the subsequent judicial
marriage to Ancajas would be null and void ab initio declaration of the nullity of the first marriage was
completely regardless of petitioner’s psychological immaterial, because prior to the declaration of nullity, the
capacity or incapacity. Since a marriage contracted crime of bigamy had already been consummated.
during the subsistence of a valid marriage is
automatically void, the nullity of this second marriage is As far back as 1995, in Atienza v. Brillantes, Jr., the
not per se an argument for the avoidance of criminal Court already made the declaration that Article 40, which
liability for bigamy. Pertinently, Article 349 of the Revised is a rule of procedure, should be applied retroactively
Penal Code criminalizes “any person who shall contract because Article 256 of the Family Code itself provides
a second or subsequent marriage before the former that said "Code shall have retroactive effect insofar as it
marriage has been legally dissolved, or before the does not prejudice or impair vested or acquired rights."
absent spouse has been declared presumptively dead The Court went on to explain, thus: “The fact that
by means of a judgment rendered in the proper procedural statutes may somehow affect the litigants'
proceedings”. A plain reading of the law, therefore, rights may not preclude their retroactive application to
would indicate that the provision penalizes the mere act pending actions. The retroactive application of
of contracting a second or a subsequent marriage during procedural laws is not violative of any right of a person
the subsistence of a valid marriage. who may feel that he is adversely affected. The reason is
MONTANEZ V. CIPRIANO that as a general rule, no vested right may attach to, nor
FACTS: On April 8, 1976, Lourdes Cipriano (Lourdes) arise from, procedural laws.” GRANTED.
married Socrates Flores (Socrates). On January 24, REPUBLIC V. TAMPUS
1983, during the subsistence of the said marriage, FACTS: Respondent Nilda B. Tampus was married to
Lourdes married Silverio V. Cipriano (Silverio). In 2001, Dante L. Del Mundo on November 29, 1975. Three days
Lourdes filed with the RTC of Muntinlupa a Petition for thereafter, or on December 2, 1975, Dante, a member of
the Annulment of her marriage with Socrates on the the AFP, left respondent, and went to Jolo, Sulu where
ground of the latter’s psychological incapacity. The RTC he was assigned. The couple had no children. Since
rendered its decision declaring the marriage of Lourdes then, Nilda heard no news from Dante. She tried
with Socrates null and void. Said decision became final everything to locate him, but her efforts proved futile. On
and executory on October 13, 2003. April 14, 2009, she filed before the RTC a petition to
declare Dante as presumptively dead for the purpose of
On May 14, 2004, petitioner Merlinda Montañez, remarriage, alleging that after the lapse of thirty-three
Silverio’s daughter from the first marriage, filed a (33) years without any kind of communication from him,
complaint for bigamy against Lourdes alleging that she firmly believes that he is already dead.
Lourdes failed to reveal to Silverio that she was still ISSUE: W/N Dante should be declared presumptively
married to Socrates. dead
HELD: NO. Before a judicial declaration of presumptive
Lourdes moved to quash the information alleging that death can be obtained, it must be shown that the prior
her first marriage to Socrates had already been declared spouse had been absent for four consecutive years and
void ab initio in 2003, thus, there was no more marriage the present spouse had a well-founded belief that the
to speak of prior to her marriage to Silverio on January prior spouse was already dead. Under Article 4119 of the
24, 1983. She also averred that she had contracted her Family Code of the Philippines (Family Code), there are
second marriage before the effectivity of the Family four (4) essential requisites for the declaration of
Code; hence, the existing law at that time did not require presumptive death:
a judicial declaration of absolute nullity as a condition (1) that the absent spouse has been missing for four (4)
precedent to contracting a subsequent marriage. Hence, consecutive years, or two (2) consecutive years if the
the RTC granted the motion to quash. disappearance occurred where there is danger of death
ISSUE: Was the RTC correct in quashing the information under the circumstances laid down in Article 391 of the
for bigamy? Civil Code;
(2) that the present spouse wishes to remarry;
(3) that the present spouse has a well-founded belief that destinations abroad and added that they had no
the absentee is dead; and information regarding Netchie’s location. On January 31,
(4) that the present spouse files a summary proceeding 2011, in the RTC’s decision found that Netchie had
for the declaration of presumptive death of the absentee. disappeared for more than four years, reason enough for
Jose to conclude that his wife was indeed already dead.
The "well-founded belief in the absentee's death requires The OSG questioned the RTC ruling via Rule 65 before
the present spouse to prove that his/her belief was the the CA for the RTC’s error in its misappreciation of
result of diligent and reasonable efforts to locate the evidence. The CA saw no error in the RTC judgment and
absent spouse and that based on these efforts and further held that Rule 65 is the wrong recourse in
inquiries, he/she believes that under the circumstances, elevating a declaration of presumptive death judgment
the absent spouse is already dead. It necessitates from the RTC.
exertion of active effort, not a passive one. As such, the ISSUE: WON the “well-founded belief” requisite under
mere absence of the spouse for such periods prescribed Article 41 (FC) was complied with.
under the law, lack of any news that such absentee HELD: No. This requisite needs the present spouse to
spouse is still alive, failure to communicate, or general prove that his/her belief was the result of diligent and
presumption of absence under the Civil Code would not reasonable efforts and inquiries to locate the absent
suffice. spouse and that based upon these efforts and inquiries,
In this case, Nilda testified that after Dante's he/she believes that under the circumstances, the
disappearance, she tried to locate him by making absent spouse is already dead. It requires exertion of
inquiries with his parents, relatives, and neighbors as to active effort. At the case at bar, the respondent, Jose
his whereabouts, but unfortunately, they also did not Sareñogon, failed to satisfy the required “well-founded
know where to find him. Other than making said belief” standard. The respondent’s pathetically anemic
inquiries, however, Nilda made no further efforts to find efforts to locate the missing Netchie are notches below
her husband. She could have called or proceeded to the the required degree of stringent diligence prescribed by
AFP headquarters to request information about her jurisprudence. For, aside from his bare claims that he
husband, but failed to do so. She did not even seek the had inquired form alleged friends and relatives as to
help of the authorities or the AFP itself in finding him. Netchie’s whereabouts, Jose Sareñogon did not call to
Considering her own pronouncement that Dante was the witness stand specific individuals or persons whom
sent by the AFP on a combat mission to Jolo, Sulu at the he allegedly saw or met in the course of his search or
time of his disappearance, she could have inquired from quest for the allegedly missing Netchie. Neither did he
the AFP on the status of the said mission, or from the prove that he sought the assistance of the pertinent
members of the AFP who were assigned thereto. To the government agencies as well as the media. Nor did he
Court's mind, therefore, Nilda failed to actively look for show that he undertook a thorough, determined, and
her missing husband, and her purported earnest efforts unflagging search for Netchie, say for at least two years,
to find him by asking Dante's parents, relatives, and and naming the particular places, provinces, cities,
friends did not satisfy the strict standard and degree of barangays, or municipalities that he visited, or went to,
diligence required to create a "well-founded belief of his and identifying the specific persons he interviewed or
death. talked to in the course of his search.
REPUBLIC V. SARENOGON CASTILLO V. DE LEON CASTILLO
FACTS: On November 4, 2008, the respondent, Jose
Sareñogon, filed a petition before the RTC of Ozamiz to FACTS: On 25 May 1972, respondent Lea P. De Leon
declare the presumptive death of his wife Netchie Castillo (Lea) married Benjamin Bautista (Bautista). On 6
Sareñogon. The petitioner testified that they got married January 1979, respondent married herein petitioner
and had lived together as husband and wife for a month Renato A. Castillo (Renato). 
only because he left to work as a seaman, while his wife,
Netchie, went to Hongkong as a domestic helper. For 3 On 28 May 2001, Renato filed before the RTC a Petition
months, he did not receive any communication from for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage, praying that his
Netchie and likewise had no idea about her marriage to Lea be declared void due to her subsisting
whereabouts. While still abroad, he tried to contact marriage to Bautista. Respondent opposed the Petition,
Netchie’s parents, but failed. He returned home after his and contended that her marriage to Bautista was null
contract expired, then inquired from Netchie’s relatives and void as they had not secured any license therefor,
and friends about her whereabouts but they also did not and neither of them was a member of the denomination
know where she was. Because of these, he had to to which the solemnizing officer belonged.
presume that his wife, Netchie was already dead. He
filed the Petition before the RTC so he could contract RTC declared the marriage between petitioner and
another marriage pursuant to Article 41 of the Family respondent null and void ab initio on the ground that it
Code. was a bigamous marriage under Article 41 of the Family
Jose’s testimony was corroborated by his older brother Code. The RTC said that the fact that Lea's marriage to
Joel Sareñogon, and by Netchie’s aunt, Consuelo Bautista was subsisting when she married Renato on 6
Sande. These two witnesses testified that Jose and January 1979, makes her marriage to Renato bigamous,
Netchie lived together as husband and wife only for one thus rendering it void ab initio. The lower court dismissed
month prior to their leaving the Philippines for separate Lea's argument that she need not obtain a judicial
decree of nullity and could presume the nullity of a prior of all properties acquired at the time of their void
subsisting marriage. The RTC stressed that so long as marriage and such properties be placed under the
no judicial declaration exists, the prior marriage is valid proper management and administration of the attorney-
and existing. Lastly, RTC also said that even if in-fact—Moises Avera, her brother
respondent eventually had her first marriage judicially ISSUE: Whether or not a petition for judicial declaration
declared void, the fact remains that the first and second should only be filed for purposes of remarriage.
marriage were subsisting before the first marriage was HELD: The declaration of the nullity of marriage is
annulled, since Lea failed to obtain a judicial decree of required for the purpose of remarriage.  It is necessary
nullity for her first marriage to Bautista before contracting for the protection of the subsequent spouse who
her second marriage with Renato. believed in good faith that his partner was not lawfully
married thus free from being charged with bigamy.
CA reversed and set aside the RTC's Decision and The marriage of Soledad and Roberto was celebrated
Order and upheld the validity of the parties' marriage. In while the former’s previous marriage was still subsisting,
reversing the RTC, the CA said that since Lea's thus, bigamous and void ab initio.
marriages were solemnized in 1972 and in 1979, or prior Law states that final judgment shall provide for the
to the effectivity of the Family Code on 3 August 1988, liquidation, partition and distribution of the properties of
the Civil Code is the applicable law since it is the law in the spouses, the custody and support of the common
effect at the time the marriages were celebrated, and not children and the delivery of their presumptive legitimes.
the Family Code. Furthermore, the CA ruled that the Civil There is no need for a separate action of partition of
Code does not state that a judicial decree is necessary property because it will simply be the necessary
in order to establish the nullity of a marriage. consequence of the judicial declaration of absolute nullity
of their marriage.
ISSUE: W/N judicial declaration is necessary in order to
establish the nullity of a marriage.
SECOND DIVISIONG.R. No. 203284 November 14, 2016NICOLAS
RULING: NO, under the Civil Code. Petition is DENIED. S. MATUDAN vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES and
The Court held that the subsequent marriage of Lea to MARILYN B. MATUDANDEL CASTILLO,
Renato is valid in view of the invalidity of her first J.
marriage to Bautista because of the absence of a  
marriage license. That there was no judicial declaration NATURE OF THE ACTION:
that the first marriage was void ab initio before the Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage
second marriage was contracted is immaterial as this is
not a requirement under the Civil Code. Nonetheless, the FACTS:
subsequent Decision of the RTC declaring the nullity of Nicolas Matudan and Marilyn Matudan were married in 1976. They had
Lea's first marriage only serves to strengthen the four children. In 1985, Marilyn left to work abroad. From then on, petitioner
conclusion that her subsequent marriage to Renato is and the children lost contact with her. Shehad not been seen nor heard from
valid.  again. Nicolas inquired from the relatives of the respondent but they did not
DOMINGO vs. CA tell him her whereabouts. In 2008, Nicolas filed for Declaration of Nullity of
FACTS: On May 29, 1991, private respondent Delia Marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity. It was alleged that
Soledad A. Domingo filed a petition before the Regional Marilyn never provided financial support to the family and never
Trial Court of Pasig entitled “Declaration of Nullity of communicated with them. Furthermore, Nicolas stated that he had a happy
Marriage and Separation of Property” against petitioner marital relationship with the respondent and never had a fight with her. The
Roberto Domingo. They were married on November 29, only reason he was filing the case was because of Marilyn’s abandonment.
1976 unknown to her, he had a previous marriage with Both the Trial Court and the Court of Appeals denied that the existence of
one Emerlina dela Paz on April 25, 1969 which marriage Marilyn’s psychological incapacity. Hence, the petition.
is valid and still existing. She came to know of the prior
marriage only sometime in 1983 when Emerlinda sued ISSUE:
for bigamy. Whether or not abandonment warrants a finding of psychological
Since January 23 1979 up to the present, she has been incapacity thereby a ground for declaring the marriage void.
working in Saudi Arabia while he has been unemployed
and dependent. Out of her personal earnings, she RULING:
purchased properties amounting to P350k, which are No. The court denies the petition. The landmark case of Santos v. Court
under the possession and administration of Roberto. In of Appeals taught us that psychological incapacity under Article 36 of
June 1989, she discovered that he was cohabiting with the Family Code must be characterized by (a) gravity,
another woman and he had been disposing of some of (b) juridical antecedence, and(c) incurability. Thus, the incapacity
her properties without her knowledge or consent. "must be grave or serious such that the party would be incapable of carrying
The petition prayed that 1. temporary restraining order or out the ordinary duties required in marriage; it must be rooted in the history
a writ of preliminary injunction be issued enjoining of the party antedating the marriage, although the overt manifestations may
Roberto from exercising any act of administration and emerge only after marriage; and it must be incurable or, even if it were
ownership over said properties;  2. their marriage be otherwise, the cure would be beyond the means of the party involved." In
declared null and void and of no force and effect; and  3. this connection, the burden of proving psychological incapacity is on the
Delia Soledad be declared the sole and exclusive owner petitioner, pursuant to Republic v. Court of Appeals, or the Molina case.
While the petitioner professed psychological incapacity, he could not - Granting the cancellation of all entries in the wife
establish its gravity, juridical antecedence, and incurability. Petitioner's portion of the marriage contract is, in effect,
evidence consists mainly of his judicial affidavit and testimony; the judicial declaring the marriage void ab initio
affidavits and testimonies of his daughter Maricel and Dr. Tayag; and Dr.
Tayag's psychological evaluation report on the psychological condition both Issue
petitioner and Marilyn. The supposed evaluation of Marilyn's psychological
condition was based solely on petitioner's account, since Marilyn did not Whether or not the cancellation of entries in marriage contract
participate in the proceedings. 'Psychological incapacity,' as a ground to which, in effect, nullifies the marriage.
nullify a marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code, should refer to no
less than a mental-- not merely physical - incapacity that causes a party to be Held
truly incognitive of the basic marital covenants that concomitantly must be
assumed and discharged by the parties to the marriage which, as so Yes. Aside for the certificate of marriage, no such evidence
expressed in Article 68 of the Family Code, among others, include their was presented to show the existence of marriage. Rather,
mutual obligations to live together, observe love, respect and fidelity and respondent showed by overwhelming evidence that no
render help and support. marriage was entered into and that she was not even aware of
such existence.

Mallion v. Alcantara SC emphasized that it was not the nullification of the marriage
GR No. 141528October 31, 2006 that respondent sought but it was the correction of the record
Facts: of such marriage to reflect the truth. Otherwise stated,
Oscar Mallion filed a petition with the Regional Trial Court Otherwise stated, in allowing the correction of the subject
seeking a declaration of nullity of his marriage with Editha certificate of marriage by cancelling the wife portion thereof,
Alcantara due to psychological incapacity. The RTC denied the trial court did not, in any way, declare the marriage void as
the petition. As the decision attained finality, Mallion filed there was no marriage to speak of. Otherwise stated, in
another petition for a declaration of nullity of marriage, this allowing the correction of the subject certificate of marriage
time alleging that his marriage was null and void due to the by cancelling the wife portion thereof, the trial court did not,
fact that it was celebrated without a valid marriage license. in any way, declare the marriage void as there was no
Issue: marriage to speak of.
Does a previous final judgment denying a petition for
declaration of nullity on the ground of psychological
incapacity bar a subsequent petition for declaration of nullity GARCIA-QUIAZON vs. BELEN 702 SCRA 707, July 31,
on the ground of lack of marriage license? 2013
Held:
Res judicata applies. Mallion is simply invoking different FACTS:
grounds for the same cause of action which is the nullity of
marriage. When the second case was filed based on another This case started as a Petition for Letters of Administration
ground, there is a splitting of a cause of action which is of the Estate of Eliseo.
prohibited. He is estopped from asserting that the first Eliseo died intestate on 12 December 1992.
marriage had no marriage license because in the first case he Elise, his daughter, filed a Petition for Letters of
impliedly admitted the same when he did not question the Administration.
absence of a marriage license. Elise claims that she is the natural child of Eliseo having
been conceived and born at the time when her parents were
both capacitated to marry each other.
Republic v Olaybar Elise impugned the validity of Eliseo’s marriage to Amelia
Article 50 and 51 by claiming that it was bigamous for having been contracted
during the subsistence of the latter’s marriage with one Filipito
Republic v Olaybar G.R.189538 Sandico (Filipito).
To prove her filiation to the decedent, Elise attached to the
Facts Petition for Letters of Administration her Certificate of Live
Birth signed by Eliseo as her father.
Respondent requested CENOMAR finding that she is married Elise sought her appointment as administratrix of her late
to a certain Ye Son Sune, a Korean national. Thus she filed a father’s estate.
petition for Cancellation of Entries in Marriage Contract. Amelia, together with her children, Jenneth and Jennifer,
opposed the issuance of the letters of administration by filing
The court granted the petition in favor of the respondent an Opposition/Motion to Dismiss.

The petition for the reconsideration of the assailed marriage ISSUE:

contract on the grounds that: Whether or not the decedent’s marriage to Amelia is void for
being bigamous.
- There was no clerical spelling, typographical and Whether or not elise may impugn such marriage even after
innocuous errors in the marriage contract for it fall the death of her father.
within the provision of Rule 108 of the Rules of Court
HELD:
Void. YES. It was emphasized in Niñal that in a void
marriage, no marriage has taken place and it cannot be the
source of rights, such that any interested party may attack the
marriage directly or collaterally without prescription, which
may be filed even beyond the lifetime of the parties to the
marriage.