Scribd
Upload
89 views4 pages

Republic v4

This case discusses the validity of a marriage entered into for the sole purpose of acquiring American citizenship. The Supreme Court ruled that while such a marriage may be considered fraudulent for immigration purposes, it is not void under Philippine law. For a marriage to be valid, it only needs to meet the essential requirements of consent, authority of the solemnizing officer, and a valid marriage ceremony. As long as these elements are present, the marriage will be considered valid, even if the parties had no real intention to live together as husband and wife. Therefore, the Court upheld the marriage at issue, as all legal requirements for a valid marriage under Philippine law had been met.

Uploaded by

Bangsa Qu Rash
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
89 views4 pages

Republic v4

This case discusses the validity of a marriage entered into for the sole purpose of acquiring American citizenship. The Supreme Court ruled that while such a marriage may be considered fraudulent for immigration purposes, it is not void under Philippine law. For a marriage to be valid, it only needs to meet the essential requirements of consent, authority of the solemnizing officer, and a valid marriage ceremony. As long as these elements are present, the marriage will be considered valid, even if the parties had no real intention to live together as husband and wife. Therefore, the Court upheld the marriage at issue, as all legal requirements for a valid marriage under Philippine law had been met.

Uploaded by

Bangsa Qu Rash
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 4

a. Republic vs. Liberty D. Albios, GR. No.

198780; October 16, 2013

a. Doctrine

Essential requisites of a valid marriage.

b. Case Title

Republic vs. Liberty D. Albios, GR. No. 198780; October 16, 2013

c. Facts

Daniel Lee Fringer, an American citizen, and Liberty Albios were


married, as evidenced by a Certificate of Marriage. Albios filed with the
RTC a petition for declaration of nullity of her marriage with Fringer,
alleging that immediately after their marriage, they separated and never
lived as husband and wife because they never really had any intention
of entering into a married state or complying with any of their essential
marital obligations.

The RTC declared the marriage void ab initio. The RTC opined that
the parties married each other for convenience only. Albios stated that
she contracted Fringer to enter into a marriage to enable her to acquire
American citizenship and that in consideration thereof, she agreed to
pay him the sum of $2,000.00. However, she did not pay Fringer
$2,000.00 because the latter never processed her petition for
citizenship.
The OSG filed an appeal before the CA. The CA affirmed the RTC
ruling which found that the essential requisite of consent was lacking.

d. Issue/s

Is a marriage, contracted for the sole purpose of acquiring American


citizenship in consideration of $2,000.00, void ab initio on the ground of
lack of consent?

e. Held

NO. The Supreme Court views with disdain the respondent's attempt
to utilize marriage for dishonest purposes, It cannot declare the marriage
void. Hence, though the respondent's marriage may be considered a
sham or fraudulent for the purposes of immigration, it is not void ab initio
and continues to be valid and subsisting.

The avowed purpose of marriage under Article 1 of the Family Code


is for the couple to establish a conjugal and family life. The possibility
that the parties in a marriage might have no real intention to establish a
life together is, however, insufficient to nullify a marriage freely entered
into in accordance with law. The same Article 1 provides that the nature,
consequences, and incidents of marriage are governed by law and not
subject to stipulation. A marriage may, thus, only be declared void or
voidable under the grounds provided by law. There is no law that
declares a marriage void if it is entered into for purposes other than what
the Constitution or law declares, such as the acquisition of foreign
citizenship. Therefore, so long as all the essential and formal requisites
prescribed by law are present, and it is not void or voidable under the
grounds provided by law, it shall be declared valid.

Under Article 2 of the Family Code, consent is an essential requisite


of marriage. Article 4 of the same Code provides that the absence of any
essential requisite shall render a marriage void ab initio. For consent to
be valid, it must be (1) freely given and (2) made in the presence of a
solemnizing officer.

A freely given consent requires that the contracting parties willingly


and deliberately enter into the marriage. Consent must be real in the
sense that it is not vitiated nor rendered defective by any of the vices of
consent under Articles 45 and 46 of the Family Code, such as fraud,
force, intimidation, and undue influence. Consent must also be
conscious or intelligent, in that the parties must be capable of
intelligently understanding the nature of, and both the beneficial or
unfavorable consequences of their act.

Based on the above, consent was not lacking between Albios and
Fringer. In fact, there was real consent because it was not vitiated nor
rendered defective by any vice of consent. Their consent was also
conscious and intelligent as they understood the nature and the
beneficial and inconvenient consequences of their marriage, as nothing
impaired their ability to do so. That their consent was freely given is best
evidenced by their conscious purpose of acquiring American citizenship
through marriage. Such plainly demonstrates that they willingly and
deliberately contracted the marriage. There was a clear intention to
enter into a real and valid marriage so as to fully comply with the
requirements of an application for citizenship. There was a full and
complete understanding of the legal tie that would be created between
them, since it was that precise legal tie which was necessary to
accomplish their goal.

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The September 29, 2011


Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 95414 is
ANNULLED, and Civil Case No. 1134-06 is DISMISSED for utter lack of
merit.

SO ORDERED.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy