o The fact that Respondent in the instant case
Republic v. Cagandahan
G.R. 166676 | September 12, 2008 | Case 1 | Persons 3 rd
batch|
Facts
 Respondent filed a Petition for ‘Correction of Entries
in Birth Certificate’ in the RTC of Laguna.
 Respondent alleges in her petition that she registered
as a female in her Certificate of Live Birth, but while
growing up she developed secondary male
characteristics and was diagnosed with a condition
that gives persons both male and female
characteristics.
 While Respondent had a clitoris and then underwent
an ultrasound where it was discovered that she has
small ovaries. Years later, she was tested again
which revealed that her ovarian structures had
minimized.
 After knowing this, Respondent alleges that for all
interests and appearances and as well as in mind
and emotion, she has become a male person.
Hence, she prayed her birth certificate to be
corrected and her gender be changed from female
to male and name from Jennifer to Jeff.
 To prove her claim, respondent presented a testimony
of Dr. Michael Sionzon who is a psychiatrist.
Furthermore, he issued medical certificate stating
respondent’s condition and stated that respondent’s
condition is permanent and recommended that the
change of gender would be advantageous to
Respondent
RTC Decision.
 The RTC granted respondent’s petition.
OSG Appeal
 After the favorable decision of Respondent in the
RTC. The OSG sought for a reversal of the decision
by stating that the correction of entry under rule 108
does not allow change of sex or gender in the birth of
certificate and that Respondent’s condition does not
make her a male.
Issue
 Whether or not the trial Court erred in granting
Respondent’s Petition.
Ruling
 The Court ruled that the determination of a person’s
sex appearing is a legal issue and the court must look
to the statutes relating to this which are Article 376
and Article 412 which were amended by R.A 9048
with regards to clerical errors.
 The Court that CAH is one of the conditions that
involve intersex anatomy wherein they cited Wikipedia
regarding its definition about the state of a living thing
where he or she is not exclusively male nor female.
 In the context of the Philippines, there is no ‘middle
ground’ for a person’s sex as a person should be
classified as either male or female.
 The Court ruled that Respondent where a person is
biologically or naturally intersex, the determining
factor in his gender classification would be what the
individual, having reached the age of majority with
good reason thinks of his or her sex.
has let nature take its course and did not
take any unnatural steps to arrest or
interfere with what he was born with.
 With the absence of the law in the matter of
intersex. The Court ruled with two matters in mind
o Diversity of Nature
o How an individual deals with what nature
handed out.
 With the fact that under Rule 103, states that a
change of name is not a matter of right but of judicial
discretion. The Court found merit in the Trial Court’s
ruling to conform with the gender of Respondent.
Republic’s Petition is Denied and the RTC Ruling is
AFFIRMED.
Silverio v. Republic
G.R. 174689 | October 19, 2007 | Case 2 | Persons 3rd batch
Facts
 Petitioner Rommel Jacinto Dantes Silverio filed a
petition to change his first name and sex in his birth
certificate in the RTC of Manila.
 Petitioner states that he is a male ‘transsexual’
wherein he is anatomically male but feels, thinks and
acts as a female, and adds that he had always
identified himself with girls since childhood.
 Petitioner then under went through treatments and
was transformed into a ‘woman’ on January 27, 2001
where he underwent sex reassignment surgery in
Bangkok.
 After his surgery, Petitioner was examined by a
surgeon and was issued a medical certificate stating
that he had sex reassignment surgery.
 After the said event, petitioner lived as a female and
is engaged to be married. Hence, Petitioner filed this
petition to change his name into Mely and sex into
male.
Trial Court’s Decision
 The Trial Court rendered a favorable decision to
Petitioner on June 4, 2003.
OSG’s Complaint
 The Republic, through the OSG filed a petition for
certiorari where they allege that there is no law
allowing the change of entries in the birth certificate
by reason of sex alteration.
C.A Decision
 The CA ruled in favor of the Republic. Stating that the
decision of the Trial Court lacked legal basis and that
there is no law allowing the change of either name or
sex in the birth certificate on the ground of sex
reassignment through surgery.
 For Petitioner’s petition, he essentially claims that the
change of his name and sex in his birth certificate is
allowed under Articles 407 to 413 of the Civil Code,
The Rules of Court and R.A 9048
Issue
 Whether or not Petitioner’s first name and sex can be
changed on the grounds of sex reassignment surgery.
Ruling
 The Court ruled that the state has an interest in the
names borne by individuals and entities for purposes
of identification. A change of name is a privilege,
not a right. Hence, Petitions for changes of name are
 controlled by statutes, a pertinent provision is Article
376 of the Civil Code.
 The Court also ruled that there is no law in the
Philippines that allows the change of entry in the Birth
Certificate as to sex on the ground of sex
reassignment.
o Accordingly, the Court stated Article 412 of
the Civil Code, in consonance with Article
376 and R.A 9048 where changes are
allowed only if there is a clerical or
typographical error in a petitioner’s birth
certificate.
 Most importantly, the court ruled that “Entries in the
Birth Certificate as to first name or sex be
changed on the ground of equity”
 While the Trial Court ruled that to grant the petition
was in consonance with the principles of justice and
equity, the Court ruled otherwise due to the following
reasons:
o First – the changes sought by the Petitioner
will have serious and wide-ranging legal and
public policy consequences.
 The Court opined that to grant the
petitioner’s changes will
reconfigure the laws on marriage
and family relations. As it will
allow the union of a man with
another woman who has
undergone sex reassignment.
 Secondly – it would also affect laws
which apply to women such as
labor laws, felonies under the
Revised Penal Code, and the
Presumption of Survivorship
under Rule 131.
 Lastly, the Court ruled that it is the prerogative of the
legislature to determine what should govern the
recognition of the effects of sex reassignment,
because the questions sought to be remedied by the
Petitioner involves questions of public policy.
Petition is denied.
Republic v. Albios
G.R. 198780 | October 16, 2013 | Case 3 | Persons 3rd batch
Facts
 On October 2004, Fringer an American, and Albios
were married in the Metropolitan Trial Court of
Mandaluyong City.
 After 2 years, in December 2006. Albios filed with the
RTC filed a petition for a declaration of nullity with her
Husband. She alleges that after their marriage, they
separated and never lived as husband and wife as
they never had any intention of entering into a
married state or complying with any of their
essential marital obligations which made their
marriage null and void ab initio.
 At the pre-trial only Albios, her counsel and
prosecutor appeared. The Trial Court then heard the
merits of the case and passed its decision.
Ruling of the RTC
 The Trial Court ruled in favor of Respondent as
according to its ruling, the Marriage was void ab initio.
The RTC was of the view that the marriage of the
party was for convenience only as Albios stated that
her marriage was only to acquire American
Citizenship.
 With that fact, the RTC ruled that when marriage is
entered for a purpose other than the
establishment of a conjugal and family life should
not be recognized from its inception.
OSG Appeal to RTC
 Petitioner, represented by the OSG filed a motion for
reconsideration regarding the RTC’s decision. The
RTC denied the motion for lack of merit and explained
that the parties had failed to freely give their
consent as they had no intention to be legally
bound by it and that the marriage was done in
consideration of $2,000.
C.A Appeal
 On its appeal with the Court of Appeals, the C.A
affirmed the ruling of the RTC. The C.A agreed with
the RTC ruling regarding the lack of consent which
is an essential requisite of marriage.
 Moreover, the parties did not understand the nature
and consequence of getting married and that their
case was similar to a marriage in jest. The C.A added
that the marriage was primarily for personal gain that
is for Albios to gain foreign citizenship.
Issue
 Did the C.A Err on a question of law when it ruled that
a marriage contracted for the purpose of foreign
citizenship was done in jest, hence lacking in the
essential element of consent.
Ruling
 The Court rules in the negative as what happened
is a marriage fraud in immigration or limited
purpose marriages. The phenomenon, which is
defined as a marriage only to achieve a particular
purpose or acquire specific benefits. The instant case
is an example of a limited purpose marriage.
 The Court applied Bark v. INS which established a
test regarding the presence of marriage fraud with
regards to immigration cases.
 For this case, the Court ruled that the marriage is
NOT VOID
  The Court ruled that under Article 2 of the Family
Code, consent must be freely given and made in the
presence of a solemnizing officer.
o Freely Given – requires that contracting
parties willingly and deliberately enter into
the marriage
o The consent must be ‘real’ – that it is not
vitiated nor rendered defective by any vices
of consent stated under Articles 45 and 46
of the Family Code like fraud, force,
intimidation and undue intelligence
o Consent must also be ‘conscious or
intelligent’ – wherein parties must be
capable of intelligently understand the nature
of the beneficial and unfavorable
consequences of their act.
 The Court ruled that basing on the facts stated by the
Albios. Consent was not lacking instead, there was
real consent because it was not vitiated nor
rendered defective by any vice of consent.
o Furthermore, it was also conscious and
intelligent - as the parties knew the nature
and consequences of their marriage and
they were not impaired in giving their
consent.
 The Court also ruled that the marriage between the
Albios and her husband is not in jest. As the two
parties had the intention to be bound in order to allow
the respondent to acquire American citizenship which
requires genuine consent.
 While Article 1 of the Family Code states the
purpose of marriage. There is a possibility that a
marriage might have no real intention to establish
a life together, but this is insufficient to nullify a
marriage freely entered.
o Motives for entering a marriage are varied
and complex. Hence, the State does not
dictate the life a couple choose to live as
regulating their lifestyle would infringe on
their right to privacy and other constitutional
questions.
 While the Court ruled that Albios made a mockery of
marriage. The Court cannot declare the marriage void
in the event the parties qualify for immigration
benefits.
Petition is Granted, the decision of the C.A is Annulled for
lack of merit.
Arañes v. Occiano
A.M No. – MTJ-02-1390 | April 11, 2002 | Case 4 | Persons
3rd batch
Facts
 Petitioner charged Respondent Judge with gross
ignorance of the law. As Petitioner alleges that the
respondent judge of the Municipal Trial Court of
Balatan, Camarines Sur solemnized her marriage to
her late groom without the requisite marriage license
and at the place outside of his jurisdiction.
 The Office of the Court Administrator, in its report and
recommendation found the respondent judge guilty of
the charges made. A fine was recommended by the
said office.
Issue
 Whether or not Respondent Judge is guilty of
solemnizing marriage without the requisite of
marriage license and at the place outside of his
jurisdiction.
Ruling
 The Court agrees with the contention of the
Respondent wherein they cited B.P 129 or the
Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980 which states
that the authority of the RTC judges and inferior
courts is confined to their territorial jurisdiction
defined by the Supreme Court.
 The Court cited Navarro v. Domagtoy wherein the
judge held office and had jurisdiction in the MCTC of
Sta. Monica Burgos. However, he solemnized a
wedding at his residence which did not fall within his
jurisdiction.
 In the instant case, the act of solemnizing a marriage
outside of Respondent Judge’s jurisdiction is contrary
to law and subjects him to administrative liability.
However, his act is not gross ignorance of the law as
he solemnized the marriage out of compassion.
 While the Petitioner has filed an affidavit of
desistance, the withdrawal of the complaint does not
mean he is exonerated from disciplinary action.
Respondent Judge is fined 5,000 pesos and is given a
stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar
offense in the future will be dealt with more severely.
 Niñal v. Bayadog
G.R. 133778 | March 14, 2000 | Case 5 | Persons 3rd batcTh
Facts
 Pepito Ninal was married to Teodulfa Bellones on
September 26, 21974. Out of their marriage were
born the Petitioners of the case. Tedoulfa was then
killed by Pepito in her death on April 1985.
 After a year and eight months. Pepito and
Respondent got married without any license, there
was no marriage license as they executed an
affidavit stating that they had lived together as
husband and wife for at least five years and were
thus exempt from securing a marriage license.
 However, on February 1997, Pepito died in a car
accident. After the said accident, petitioners herein
filed a petition for declaration of nullity of the marriage
between Pepito and Norma.
o Petitioners allege that the marriage was void
for lack of a marriage license of the second
marriage. The case was filed under the
assumption that the validity or invalidity of
the second marriage would affect petitioner’s
successional rights.
o Respondent on the other hand, filed a
motion to dismiss as petitioners have no
cause as they are not the persons who could
file an action for annulment as enumerated
in Article 47 of the Family Code.
RTC Ruling
 Ferdinand J. Marcos (J ha dili e) of the RTC of Toledo
dismissed the petition due to the reason that The
Family Code is silent, obscure, and insufficient to
resolve the following issues
o WON Plaintiffs have a cause of action
against the defendant in asking for the
declaration of the nullity of marriage of their
deceased father.
o Won the second marriage of plaintiffs
deceased father is null and void ab initio.
o WON plaintiffs are estopped from assailing
the validity of the second marriage after it
was dissolved due to their father’s death.
Issue
 Whether or not the marriage between Petitioner’s
Father and Respondent Norma is valid under
cohabitation under Article 76 of the Civil Code.
Ruling
 The court ruled that the two marriages involved in the
instant case were solemnized prior to the effectivity of
the Family Code, hence the applicable law to
determine their validity is The Civil Code which
was the law in effect at the time of their
celebration.
o General Rule: According to Article 53 of the
Civil Code, for a marriage to be valid, a valid
marriage license is required under Article 53
of the Civil Code.
o However, there are exceptions with Article
53, one which is provided in Article 76 of
the Civil Code which refers to the
marriage of a man and a woman who
have cohabited for a continuous and
unbroken period of at least five years.
 The Court laid down the requirements for
‘Cohabitation’ to be valid.
o First – the cohabitation period should be the
years immediately before the day of the
marriage.
o Second – it should be a period of
cohabitation characterized by exclusivity (no
third party was involved at any time within
the 5 years)
o Third – the said cohabitation is unbroken.
 For the instant case, the court ruled that Pepito’s
marriage did not fulfill the requirements for
cohabitation due to the following reasons:
o First – when the first marriage was
dissolved, only twenty months had elapsed.
o Second – Pepito had a subsisting marriage
when he started cohabiting with respondent.
 With those facts, the Court ruled that the marriage
is void ab initio.
 For the issue pertaining to Article 47, the court ruled
that Petitioners have the personality to file a petition
to declare their father’s marriage void.
o However, a voidable cannot be assailed
collaterally except in a direct proceeding.
 Finally, the Court ruled that other than for the
purposes of remarriage, no judicial action is
necessary to declare a marriage an absolute
nullity.
Petition is granted. The assailed order is reversed and set
aside, the case is ordered reinstated by the court.
Borja - Manzano v. Sanchez
A.M MTJ-00-1329 | March 8, 2001 | Case 6 | Persons 3rd
batch |
Facts
 The case is a complaint regarding the solemnization
between two contracting parties who were both bound
by a prior existing marriage.
 Complainant avers that she was the lawful wife of the
late David Manzano whom she married on May 1966.
However, on May 1993, her husband contracted
another marriage with another woman before
respondent Judge.
 For his defense, respondent judge claims that when
he officiated the marriage between the two parties, he
did not know that Manzano was legally married. The
only thing he knew was that the two had been living
together as husband and wife for seven years without
the benefit of marriage.
o Respondent adds that had he known
Manzano was married, he would have
advised Manzano not to marry again,
otherwise he would be charged with bigamy.
Court Administrator’s Ruling
 The Office of the Court Administrator recommended
that the Judge be found guilty of gross ignorance of
the law and ordered to pay a fine of 2,000 and a stern
warning.
 After the recommendation of the Court Administrator.
The Court required the parties to manifest whether
they were willing to submit the case for resolution on
the basis of the pleadings.
Issue
 Whether or not the cohabitation of the two parties is
valid
Ruling
 The Court in this case cited the requirements for
marital cohabitation to apply which are the following:
o Man and woman must have been living
together as husband and wife for at least 5
years before the marriage
o Parties must have no legal impediment to
marry each other
o The fact of absence of legal impediment
between the parties must be present at the
time of marriage
o Parties must execute an affidavit stating that
they have lived together for at least five
years.
o Solemnizing officer must execute a sworn
statement that he had ascertained the
qualifications of the parties and that he had
found no legal impediment to their marriage.
 The Court found out that the requirements are not
present in the case at bar. As the separate affidavits
executed on March 1993 and sworn to before the
Respondent Judge stated that prior to the existing
marriage their legal status was ‘separated’.
 The Court ruled that respondent Judge demonstrated
gross ignorance of the law when he solemnized a
void and bigamous marriage.
Recommendation of the Court Administrator is hereby
Adopted with the modification of the fine to 20,000.
Republic v. Dayot
G.R 175581 | March 28. 2008 | Case 7 | Persons 3rd batch
Facts
 The instant case consists of two consolidated
petitions where both petitioners challenge the
amended decision of the Court of Appeals.
 ON June 24, 1986 Jose and Felisa were married, the
marriage was solemnized by a Reverend. IN lieu of a
marriage license, Jose and Felisa executed a sword
affidavit wherein they both attested the following.
o Both of them had attained the age of
maturity
o They are unmarried and had cohabited as
husband and wife for at least five years.
 Then on July 7 1993, Jose filed a complaint for
Annulment or with the RTC of Laguna. Jose
contends that his marriage with Felisa was a
sham as no marriage ceremony was celebrated
between the parties. Jose further adds that he did
not execute a sword affidavit.
Jose’s Version of the Complaint
 According to Jose, he was introduced to Felilsa in
1986 where he lived as a boarder in Felisa’s
house the latter being his landlady.
 After three weeks, Felisa requested Jose to
accompany her to the Pasay City Hall so she
could claim a package sent to her by her brother.
 After arriving in the city hall, a man bearing three
folded pieces of paper approached and told them
that Jose needed to sight the papers so that the
package could be released to Felisa.
 Jose refused but was cajoled by Felisa that his
refusal could get both of them killed by her
brother who had learned about their relationship.
Jose reluctantly signed the pieces of paper.
 Then a year after, he discovered that he had
contracted marriage with Felisa.
Felisa’s Argument
 Felisa denied Jose’s allegations and defended the
validity of their marriage. She declared that both of
them had maintained their relationship as man and
wife ab sent the legality of marriage in the early part
of 1980., moreover, she deferred contracting marriage
with him due to age difference.
 According to Felisa, Jose contracted marriage with a
certain Pascual on August 1990. Then on June 1993,
she filed an action for bigamy against Jose.
Subsequently, she filed an administrative complaint
against Jose with the Office of the Ombudsman as
both of them are employees of the NSCB.
o The Ombudsman then found Jose to be
administratively liable for disgraceful and
immoral conduct and suspended him from
service for one year without emolument.
RTC Ruling
 On July 2000 the RTC dismissed the Complaint. The
RTC also ruled that the marriage between Jose and
Felisa on November 1986 was valid as according to
the RTC the version of Jose was implausible.
C.A Ruling
 Undeterred, Jose filed an appeal to the C.A
 The C.A ruled that the appeal has no merit. The
Court of Appeals ruled that the marriage between
Jose and Felisa as it was solemnized prior to the
Family Code, wherein the circumstances constituting
fraud as a ground did not exist as a ground for
annulment under Article 86 of the Civil Code.
 Moreover, the court ruled that the marriage between
the two parties were of an exceptional character. This
is because of the fact that the marriage were
executed as they have lived as man and woman for at
least five years.
o The Court added that the falsity of the
affidavit did not affect the validity of the
marriage as the solemnizing officer was
misled by the statements contained therein.
 The C.A further noted that the while Jose is not part of
Felisa’s sect. Article 56 of the Civil Code does not
require that either one of the contracting parties to the
marriage must belong to the solemnizing officer’s
church or sect. As the prescription was established
only in Article 7 of the Family Code.
 Jose then filed for a motion reconsideration and
reversed itself wherein the C.A amended the decision
that the marriage was void ab initio.
o The CA cited the ruling of NInal v.
Bayadog
 Felisa then sought for a reconsideration but was
denied by the C.A
 Meanwhile, the Republic, through the OSG filed a
petition for review praying that the Amended Decision
of the appellate court be reversed for lack of merit and
declare the marriage between Jose and Felisa to be
valid.
Issue
 Whether or not the marriage between Jose and Felisa
is valid
Ruling
 The Court ruled that it is undisputed that the marriage
of Jose and Felisa was celebrated prior to the Family
Code wherein Article 53 of the Civil Code states the
requirements of marriage:
o Legal Capacity of the Parties
o Freely given consent of the parties
o Authority of the person performing the
marriage
o *A marriage license, except in a marriage
of exceptional character.
 Furthermore, the Court ruled that the parties have
fallen short of the minimum five-year requirement
which renders their marriage void ab initio.
 Lastly, the court ruled that the presumption of
marriage will not be applicable in this case as the
presumption of marriage is in reference to the prima
facie presumption that a man and a woman
deporting themselves as husband and wife have
entered into a lawful contract of marriage.
 The Court denied the petition and affirmed the
Amended Decision of the Court of Appeals
Office of the Court Administrator v. Necessario
A.M NO. MTJ-07-1681 | April 2, 2013 | Case 8 | Persons 3rd
batch
Facts
 On July 2007, an audit team created by the OCA in
investigating Branches 2, 3, 4 and 8 of the MTCC in
Cebu City wherein a female and male lawyer of the
team went undercover as a couple looking to get
married.
o They then went to the Palace of Justice and
then directed by the guard to go to Branch 4
and look for a Meloy.
o After inquiring regarding the marriage
application process. A woman named Helen
assisted the female lawyer where the female
lawyer asked if the marriage process could
be rushed.
o Helen then assured the lawyer that the
marriage could be solemnized next day,
but the certificate would be dated the day
the marriage license becomes available.
There was also the guarantee of the
regularity of the process for a fee of 3000.
 With the undercover operation, the Court treated the
Memorandum of the judicial audit team as a formal
administrative complaint and directed Respondent
Judges to submit their comments.
 Then on August 24, 2007, the OCA through the Court
Administrator submitted its memorandum wherein
they examined marriage certificates by the audit
team.
o The Report found out that 280 of the
marriages were solemnized under Article
34 of the Family Code.
o Moreover, the logbooks of the branches
indicate a higher number of solemnized
marriages than the number of marriage
certificates in the courts’ custody.
o The report also found out that there is an
unsuaul number of marriage licenses
obtained from the local civil registrars of the
towns of Barili and Liloan
 After more affidavits of private persons added to the
records. The Court issued a resolution which required
Respondent Judges and court personnel to show
cause within 15 days from notice on why no
disciplinary action should be taken against them for
their grave misconduct and dishonesty.
Recommendation of the OCA
 The OCA recommended the dismissal of the
respondent judges and some court employees and
the suspension or admonition of others for gross
misconduct, inefficiency, neglect of duty/
 However, the OCA recommended the dismissal of the
complaints against Judge Econg and other
employees for lack of merit.
Issue
 Whether or not the judge and personnel of the MTCC
and RTC in Cebu City are guilty of gross ignorance of
the law, gross neglect of duty, inefficiency,
misconduct, should be dismissed from service
Ruling
 The Court ruled that some of the Judges are guilty of
gross ignorance of the law under Article 34 of the
Family Code. AS the marriage they solemnized had
legal impediments existing during the cohabitation
such as the minority status of one party.
 The Court stated the huge gravity of the acts and
omissions of the respondents, as according to Article
3 of the Family Code. The absence of a marriage
license will render the marriage void ab initio.
 Accordingly, the Court ruled that a marriage
solemnized without a marriage license is void and the
subsequent issuance of the license cannot render
valid or add an iota of validity to the marriage. This is
because the marriage license gives the solemnizing
officer the authority to solemnize a marriage.
o Furthermore, the Court added that the
marriage without a license constitutes gross
ignorance of the law.
 For its ruling, the Court dismissed 4 judges and
one is referred to the office of the bar confidant
for the purpose of initiating disbarment
proceedings against the judge.
 Republic v. Orbecido
G.R. 154380 | October 5, 2005 | Case 9 | Persons 3rd batch
Facts
 On May 1981, Cirpiano Orbecido married Lady Myros
Villanueva in Ozamis City, they were blessed with a
son and a daughter.
 However, on 1986, Cipriano’s wife left for the United
States bringing along their son Kristoffer. After a few
years, Cipriano discovered that his wife had been
naturalized as an American citizen.
 Then on 2000, Cipriano learned from his son that his
wife obtained a divorce decree and married an
Innocent Stanley.
 Cipirano then filed with the RTC a petition for
authority to remarry invoking Article 26 (2) of the
Family Code. No opposition was filed. Finding
merit in the petition, the court granted the same.
 Republic, through the OSG sought reconsideration
but was denied. Moreover, the OSG contends that
Article 26 (2) of the Family Code is not applicable as
the said provision only applies to a valid mixed
marriage which is
o A marriage between a Filipino citizen and
an alien.
Issue
 Whether or not respondent can remarry under Article
26 of the Family Code.
Ruling
 The Court examined the records of the proceedings of
the Family Code deliberations, specifically Article 26,
par 2 of the Family Code.
 The Court ruled that Paragraph 2 of Article 26, traces
its origin to the case of Van Dorn v. Romillo Jr.
wherein it involved a case between a Filipino and an
alien.
o In that case the court ruled that the decree
obtained by the alien spouse is valid,
consequently the Filipino spouse can marry
again.
 The Court ruled that in applying the intent of the law
and right reason, the said provision should be
interpreted to include cases involving parties at the
celebration of the marriage were Filipino citizens,
but later one of them becomes naturalized as a
foreign citizen and obtains a divorce decree, the
Filipino should be allowed to marry
 The Court stated the twin elements of Par 2 of Article
26
o Valid marriage celebrated between a Filipino
and an alien
o A valid divorce decree obtained abroad by
the alien spouse capacitating him or her to
remarry.
 The court added that the reckoning point is not
the citizenship of the parties at the time of the
celebration of the marriage, but their citizenship
at the time a valid divorce was obtained by the
alien spouse.
 In the instant case, the twin elements were present
due to the naturalized alien wife obtaining a valid
divorce.
 The Court ruled that Par 2. Of Article 26 should be
interpreted to allow a Filipino citizen who is
divorced by a spouse who had acquired foreign
citizenship and remarried to also remarry.
 As Article 26 par 2 is enacted to avoid the absurd
situation where the Filipino spouse remains married to
the alien spouse who is no longer married to the
Filipino spouse
 Petition is granted and the RTC decision is set
aside.
Bayot v. C.A
G.R. 155635 | November 7, 2008 | Case 10 | Persons 3 rd
batch
Facts
 Vicente and Rebecca were married in Mandaluyong
City. In their marriage certificate, Rebecca was
identified to be 26 years old and an American citizen
born in the USA to American parents.
 ON December 1982, the couple had a child and then
their marriage soured, then in 1996 Rebecca started
divorce proceedings in the Dominican Republic.
 The Dominican Republic issued its first decision
which ordered the marriage of the couple and
allowing them to remarry after completing the legal
requirements.
 After the first decision, the same court issued another
decree settling the property relations of the couple in
pursuance to an Agreement.
o The said agreement states that the conjugal
property of the couple is contained in
Muntinlupa.
 After the issuance of the Civil Decree, Rebecca filed a
petition with the Makati RTC for a declaration of nullity
of marriage. However, Rebecca moved to withdraw
her petition.
 After withdrawing her petition, Rebecca executed an
Affidavit of Acknowledgement where she states that
she is an American citizen and that she and Petitioner
have been living separately.
 After the execution of the affidavit, Rebecca filed
another petition before the RTC for declaration of
absolute nullity of marriage on the grounds of
Vicente’s psychological incapacity.
o In the said petition, Rebecca requested the
dissolution of their conjugal partnership and
application for support pendente lite (during
litigation) for their daughter the amount of
220,000
 Vicente then filed a motion to dismiss due to the lack
of cause of action.
RTC Ruling
 The RTC denied Vicente’s motion to dismiss and
granted Rebecca’s application for support during
litigation.
 Moreover, the RTC declared that the divorce
judgment invoked by Vicente as bar to the petition for
declaration of absolute nullity is a matter of defense
taken up during actual trial.
 Vicente then went to the CA on a petition with a
prayer for a TRO
C.A Ruling
 The C.A ruled in the dismissal of the Civil Case and
set aside the orders issued by the RTC as the CA
 ruled that Rebecca no longer had a legal right in this
jurisdiction as her marriage with Vicente is void.
 Moreover, Rebecca’s citizenship is doubtful as at the
time of her birth she was still a Filipino citizen.
 Rebecca then filed for a motion for reconsideration
but was denied hence this petition.
Issue
 Whether or not the marriage of the two parties were
dissolved during the proceedings in the Dominican
Republic.
Ruling
 The Court ruled that Rebecca is an American citizen
for the purposes of this case as she was born in
Guam and is a holder of an American passport.
Moreover, she represented herself as an American
citizen.
 The Court found the divorce decrees valid. The Court
ruled that at the time of the divorce, Rebecca was an
American Citizen and that she chose her American
Citizenship to govern her marital relationship.
 Moreover, the decrees clearly state that Rebecca’s
citizenship is American. The Court also ruled that with
her being an American Citizen, she is bound by the
national laws of the USA.
 Lastly, their property relations were properly
adjudicated through the decree issued a year after
their divorce. Moreover, the court recognized their
divorce as the foreign divorce decree was duly
authenticated by the foreign court who issued the said
decree.
 Due to the fact that they are divorced, the Court gave
the same effects from the foreign divorce decree
which leaves both of them free to remarry after
completing the legal requirements.
 The Court dismissed the petition for certiorari on the
ground of mootness and the petition for review is
denied for lack of merit. The C.A resolution is
affirmed.
Corpuz v. Sto. Tomas
G.R. 186571 | August 11, 2010 | Case 11 | Persons 3 rd batch
Facts
 Petitioner became a Canadian citizenship through
naturalization
 Petitioner then married Respondent who is a Filipina
in Pasig City.
 Due to work and other commitments, Petitioner left for
Canada after the wedding. However, he returned in
2005 to surprise Respondent but to his surprise he
discovered that his wife was having an affair.
 Petitioner then returned to Canada and filed a petition
for divorce which was granted and took effect on
January 2006.
 Two years after the divorce, Petitioner found another
Filipina to love and wanted to marry her in the
Philippines. Petitioner then went to the Local Civil
Registry and registered his divorce decree on his
former marriage certificate.
 However, the NSO informed Petitioner that his
marriage with Respondent still exists under favorable
law as according to the NSO a foreign divorce
decree must be judicially recognized by a
competent Philippine Court.
 Petitioner filed a petition for the recognition of his
foreign divorce with the RTC.
RTC decision.
 The RTC denied Gerbert’s petition as the RTC ruled
that Petitioner is not the proper party to institute
the action for judicial recognition of the foreign
divorce decree as he is a naturalized Canadian
citizen.
o As according to the RTC, only a Filipino
spouse can avail of the remedy under the
second paragraph of Article 26 of the F.C
 Lastly, the RTC cited the ruling of Republic v.
Orbecido regarding its ruling.
 Due to the unfavorable ruling, petitioner filed this
petition where he asks that the provision in question
applies to the benefit to the benefit of the alien
spouse.
Issue
o Whether or not the second paragraph of Article 26 of
the family Code extends to aliens the right to petition
a court of this jurisdiction for the recognition of a
foreign divorce decree.
Ruling
o The Court ruled that the RTC was correct in stating
that Article 26 par 2’s purpose is to avoid the absurd
situation where the Filipino spouse remains married to
the alien spouse who is no longer married to the
Filipino spouse.
o The Court ruled that no court in the Philippines can
make a declaration for the alien spouse with
regards to his capacity to be remarried, as his
status is governed by his national law.
o Finally, the Court ruled that only a Filipino Spouse
can invoke the second paragraph of Article 26 of
the Family Code, an alien spouse cannot claim
any right under the said provision.
o While the court said that the Petitioner cannot invoke
Article 26. The Court ruled that it is not enough to
dismiss his petition in the RTC as the said provision
does not strip Petitioner of legal interest for the
recognition of his foreign divorce decree.
o This is because to foreign divorce decree,
after it is proven with the national law of the
alien serves as presumptive evidence of
right in favor of petitioner.
o Moreover, the court cited Article 407 of the civil code
which states that the law requires the entry in the civil
registry of judicial decrees that produce legal
consequences upon a person’s legal capacity,
including divorce.
o While the law requires entry of the divorce
decree. The law and the submission of the
decree by themselves do not authorize the
decree’s registration as there is the
requirement of a judicial recognition of
the foreign judgment.
o Finally, the Court ruled that the recognition of the
divorce decree may be made in a Rule 108
proceeding as its purpose is to establish the status or
right of a party or a particular fact and to measure the
foreign judgment’s applicability.
 o Petition is granted, and the case is remanded to
the RTC in accordance to the ruling above.
Fujiki v. Marinay
G.R. 196049 | June 26, 2013 | Case 12 | Persons 3 rd batch
Facts
 Petitioner is a Japanese national who married
respondent who is a Filipina, they got married on the
Philippines on 2004
 Sadly, the marriage did not sit well with petitioner’s
parents which resulted into petitioner not being able to
bring his wife to Japan.
 Then in 2008, Respondent met another Japanese
without the first marriage being dissolved,
Respondent and her new Japanese were married
in 2008 in the Philippines.
o Respondent was brought by her new
husband to Japan. However, she left him
because she suffered physical abuse.
Hence, she started contact again with her
first husband.
 After meeting in Japan, they were able to reestablish
their relationship. Petitioner helped Respondent to
obtain a judgment from a family court in Japan which
declared the marriage between respondent and her
second husband void on the ground of Bigamy.
 Petitioner, in turn then filed a petition in the RTC to
recognize the foreign judgment of the nullity of
marriage.
o Petitioner argued that the bigamous
marriage be declared void ab initio under
Articles 35 par. 4 and 41 of the Family
Code.
RTC Ruling
 The RTC immediately dismissed the petition due to
the petition violating the ‘Rule on Declaration of
Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of
Voidable Marriages’
 Furthermore, the RTC ruled that a petition for
recognition of foreign judgment is a special
proceeding which seeks to establish a status, a right,
or a particular fact.
 Moreover, the RTC ruled that the petition is a
collateral attack on the validity of marriage between
respondent and her second husband.
OSG Argument
 The OSG asserted that Rule 108 should be used to
recognize the Japanese Family Court decision. As
stated in the Corpuz case.
Issue
 Whether the rule on declaration of absolute nullity and
annulment of voidable marriages is applicable
 Whether a husband or wife of a prior marriage can file
a petition to recognize a foreign judgment nullifying
the subsequent marriage between his or her spouse
and a foreign citizen on the ground of bigamy.
 Whether the RTC can recognize the foreign judgment
under Rule 108.
Ruling
 The Court ruled that the Rule on Declaration is not
applicable to a petition that seeks to recognize a
foreign judgment to the status of a marriage.
 Moreover, under Rule 108, any person, event, order
or decree concerning the civil status of persons
which has been recorded in the civil register may
file a verified petition.
o Thus, Fujiki has personality to file a petition.
 Other than the Rule on Declaration of Nullity, the
Filipino spouse has the option to let Philippine courts
have jurisdiction to recognize a foreign judgment.
 Furthermore, the Rule on Declaration of Nullity is
inapplicable.
 Petition is granted and the order of the RTC is
Reversed and set aside.
Chi Ming Tsoi v. Court of Appeals
G.R. 119190 | January 16, 1997 | Case 14 | Persons 3 rd
batch
Facts
o The case was started by a distraught wife against her
husband in the RTC which decreed the annulment of
the marriage on the ground of psychological
incapacity.
o Petitioner appealed the decision to the C.A which
affirmed the RTC’s decision and subsequently denied
the motion for reconsideration.
Facts about the marriage
o The C.A then reiterated the facts of the marriage.
o Plaintiff and defendant were married in a cathedral in
Manila during May 1988. After their marriage, they
went to their reception and then went to the house of
the defendant’s mother.
o They then slept on the same bed, but contrary to the
expectations of the defendant instead of having
sexual intercourse, defendant just went to bed and
slept. This happened on the first night and other
nights.
o The Couple then went on a honeymoon for four days,
but instead of having sexual intercourse the
defendant avoided his wife by taking long walks or
just sleeping on a rocking chair.
o They then slept together but there was no attempt of
sexual intercourse.
o Because of those events, they submitted themselves
for medical examinations the results show that the
wife’s examination was healthy, normal and still a
virgin. However, the husband’s examination was kept
confidential.
o The wife also claims that her husband is a closet
homosexual and said that she observed defendant
using an eyebrow pencil and cleansing cream of his
mother. The wife added that the marriage was only
done to maintain his residency status in the country.
o The defendant however stated that he loves his wife
and that any defect can still be cured or reconciled.
Then defendant submitted himself to a physical
examination to find out if he was impotent.
o The doctor then asked defendant to
masturbate to find out if he can get an
erection and then found out that the
original size of 2 inches of his penis, it
only lengthened by one inch and one
centimeter.
 o The doctor stated that the defendant only
had a soft erection which is why is not in full
length but is still capable of furthering an
erection which means he is capable of
sexual intercourse.
o Petitioner then filed an appeal from the C.A as he
alleges that the C.A erred in ruling that
o refusal to have sexual communion with
respondent as a psychological incapacity is
absent.
o Refusal of the two parties constitutes
psychological incapacity with both
o In affirming the annulment of the marriage
between the two parties.
Issue
o Whether Chi Ming Tsoi’s refusal to have sexual
intercourse with his wife constitutes psychological
incapacity.
Ruling
o The Court ruled that one of the essential marital
obligations under the family code is ‘To procreate
children based on the universal principle that
procreation of children through sexual cooperation is
the basic end of marriage”
o Non-fulfillment of this obligation will destroy
the wholeness of the marriage. In the case
at bar, the protracted refusal is equivalent
to psychological incapacity.
o The Court agrees with the respondent court that the
serious personality disorder constitutes psychological
incapacity to discharge the basic marital covenants in
the family code.
o Moreover, the Court finding that the gravity of the
failed relationship that the parties found itself in its
mire of unfulfilled vows and unconsummated marital
obligations can do no less but affirm the judgment of
the C.A
o The decision of the C.A is affirmed, and petition is
denied for lack of merit.
Halili v. Santos – Halili
G.R. 165424 | June 9, 2009 | Case 15 | Persons 3rd batch.
Facts
o Petitioner filed a petition to declare his marriage to
respondent null and avoid on the basis of his
psychological incapacity to perform the essential
obligations of marriage in the RTC.
o Petitioner alleges that he thought the wedding as a
joke as they never lived together as husband and wife
but maintained relationship.
o After a year after, they started fighting which made
petitioner to stop seeing respondent and date other
women. He then received prank calls to stop dating
other women which told him to stop dating other
women as he was a married man.
o He then made an inquiry that his marriage
was not fake.
RTC Ruling
o The RTC ruled according to the expert witness
presented by petitioner that he had a mixed
personality disorder which was serious and incurable
that affected his capacity to comply with the marital
obligations to respondent. Thus, declaring the
marriage null and void.
C.A Ruling
o The C.A then set aside the decision of the RTC as it
failed to establish the psychological incapacity of the
petitioner. Petitioner moved for reconsideration but
was denied.
Issue
o Whether or not petitioner is psychologically
incapacitated through the evidence that he presented.
Ruling
o The Court grant the motion as the nature of Article 36
states that while Courts have the primary task and
burden of decision making. Courts must consider as
essential the expert opinion on the psychological and
mental disposition of the parties.
o In the case at bar, the expert presented by the
Petitioner had sufficiently established the petitioner’s
incurable and deeply rooted psychological condition.
o The Court cited the Te case, wherein persons with
diagnosable personality disorders have long term
concerns and therapy. Personality disorders are long-
standing inflexible ways of behaving that are not so
much severe mental disorders as dysfunctional styles
of living. However, these disorders affect all areas of
functioning and create problems for those who display
them and for others.
o The court granted the motion for reconsideration
and set aside reinstated the decision of the RTC.
 Antonio v. Reyes
G.R. 155800 | March 10, 2006 | Case 16 | Persons 3rd batch
Facts
 Petitioner and respondent were married before a
minister of the Gospel at the Manila City Hall and then
a church wedding in Metro Manila.
 ON March 1993, petitioner filed a petition to have his
marriage declared null and void anchoring his
petition on Article 36 that the respondent was
psychologically incapacitated to comply with the
obligations of marriage.
o To support his contention, petitioner then
presented concealments and
misrepresentations done by the respondent.
o Petitioner also presented a psychiatrist and a
psychologist as his expert witness wherein
they state that while petitioner is a normal,
shy conservative person. They observed that
respondent is a pathological liar which
undermined the basis of the relationship.
Moreover, they add that the respondent’s
extreme jealousy was pathological which
reached to the point paranoia as there was
no basis for her to suspect petitioner.
 To oppose petitioner’s contention. Respondent
claimed that she fulfilled all her obligations by
attending to the needs of her husband and that she
did not tell lies and invented personalities.
o Respondent then presented her version
of the facts and that other than the non-
disclosure of the child of another man
prior to another marriage. The
accusations laid upon her were mostly
hearsay.
o Respondent also presented a psychiatrist to
refute the allegations regarding her
psychological condition. The psychiatrist
testified that respondent was tested by his
assistant through a screening procedure and
concluded that she was not psychologically
incapacitated.
o However, expert witness of Petitioner
rebutted stating that the expert witness of
Respondent was not the one who
administered and interpreted the evaluation
of respondent and that there was only one
instrument used which was also not reliable
as the results can be faked by a good liar.
 Before the trial court ruled on the case. The tribunal of
the Archdiocese of Manila annulled the Catholic
marriage of the parties.
RTC Ruling
 The RTC ruled in favor of petitioner as it was proven
that respondent had the propensity to lie about almost
anything and it was duly established by the expert
witnesses.
 Moreover, the respondent’s fantastic ability to invent
stories enabled her to live in a world of make-believe
thus making her psychologically incapacitated.
Tribunal Appeal
 Before the Appeal to the C.A the Metropolitan
Tribunal’s ruling was affirmed by the National
Matrimonial Tribunal which was also upheld by the
Roman Rota of the Vatican.
C.A Ruling
 Petitioner then alerted the Catholic tribunal’s decision.
However, the C.A reversed the RTC’s judgment as
the evidence presented was insufficient to establish
respondent’s psychological incapacity.
Issue
 Whether or not the state of facts presented by the
petitioner meets the standards set under Article 36 of
the Family Code which were laid down in the Molina
Case.
Ruling
 The Court cited the concerns of psychological
incapacity were answered beginning with the Santos
v. C.A where the court acknowledged that
psychological incapacity should refer to no less than a
mental incapacity that causes a party to be truly
incognitive of the basic marital covenants that must
be assumed and discharged by the parties in
marriage.
o To establish psychological incapacity. One
must convince the court that the parties was
mentally or psychically ill which results in the
person not knowing the obligations he was
assuming or knowing them could have given
valid assumption thereto.
 Accordingly, the preference of the revision committee
was to let the judge interpret Article 36 on a case to
case basis guided by the findings of experts,
experience and researchers in psychological
disciplines and decisions of church tribunals
which can be given persuasive effect.
 While the court recognizes that the definition of
psychological incapacity is not cast in intractable
specific. However, judicial understanding of
psychological incapacity may be informed through
evolving standards taking into account the trends in
psychological and canonical thought and experience.
o Moreover, while the Molina guidelines are
not set in stone. The Molina rules have been
consistently applied since 1997.
 The court then applied the Molina guidelines in thie
case which are the following
o Burden of proof to show the nullity must
belong to the plaintiff and that any doubt
should be resolved in favor of the existence
and continuation of the marriage which is
rooted in the Constitution.
o The root cause of the incapacity must be:
 Medically or clinically identified
 Alleged in the complaint
 Proven by experts
 Explained in the decision
o The incapacity must be proven to be
existing at the time of the celebration of
the marriage.
o The incapacity must be shown to be clinically
permanent or incurable.
o Illness must be grave enough to bring about
the disability of the party to assume the
essential obligations of marriage.
 The essential marital obligations
are embraced by Articles 68 to 71
and 220, 221 and 225
 o Interpretations by the National Appellate
Matrimonial Tribunal of the Catholic Church
should be given great respect by the Courts
as Article 36 was taken from Canon Law.
o There is also the additional requirement that
the Solicitor general should issue a
certification stating his reasons for his
agreement or opposition to the position but
was dispensed with a rule that prevents
collusion between the parties in the case.
 The trial court that the case fulfills the guidelines set
forth in Molina.
 The Court grants the petition and affirms the
declaration of the RTC regarding the voiding of
their marriage under Article 36
Kalaw v. Fernandez
G.R. 166357 | January 14, 2015 | Case 17 | Persons 3 rd
batch
Facts
 In the case at bar, Kalaw presented the testimonies of
two supposed expert witnesses who concluded that
respondent is psychologically incapacitated.
Petitioner’s experts heavily relied on petitioner’s
allegations of respondent’s constant mahjong
sessions, visits to the beauty parlor, going out with
friends, adultery, and neglect of their children.
Petitioner’s experts opined that respondent’s alleged
habits, when performed constantly to the detriment of
quality and quantity of time devoted to her duties as
mother and wife, constitute a psychological incapacity
in the form of Narcissistic Personality Disorder
 However, the Supreme Court in its September 19,
2011 decision dismissed the complaint for declaration
of nullity of the marriage on the ground that there was
no factual basis for the conclusion of psychological
incapacity.
Issue
 Whether or not the marriage was void on the ground
of psychological incapacity.
Ruling
 YES. The Court in granting the Motion for
Reconsideration held that Fernandez was indeed
psychologically incapacitated as they relaxed the
previously set forth guidelines with regard to this
case.
o Molina guidelines were not abandoned,
expert opinions were just given much
respect in this case.
 The Court also ruled that expert testimony on the
psychological and mental state in declaration of nullity
of marriages must instead consider the testimony as
DECISIVE EVIDENCE on the opinion on the
psychological and mental temperaments of the parties
 The Court ruled that the frequency of Respondent’s
mahjong playing is ruled as determinant to her failure
to appreciate the duties and responsibilities of
parenthood.
 Moreover, she exposed her children to a culture of
gambling and other vices at a tender age.
The Court grants the motion for reconsideration and
reinstates the decision of the RTC which declares the
marriage null and void.
Azcueta v. Republic
G.R. 180668 | May 26, 2009 | Case 18 | Persons 3rd batch
Facts
 Petitioner and her husband met in 1993 and got
married 2 months after their first meeting.
 After their marriage of 4 years, they then separated.
 On 2002, petitioner filed with the RTC of Antipolo a
petition to declare absolute nullity of marriage under
Article 36 of the Family Code.
 Petitioner claims that her husband was
psychologically incapacitated as her husband was
emotionally immature, irresponsible and failed to
adapt himself to married life.
o As Petitioner’s husband does not want to get
a job and is dependent to his mother for
financial assistance.
 Moreover, her husband became a habitual intoxicator
and violent. More importantly, their sexual relationship
was unsatisfactory.
 Petitioner then presented witnesses and experts who
concluded that her husband had Dependent
Personality Disorder which was incurable as it is
deeply ingrained into his personality
RTC Ruling
 The RTC ruled that through the evidence presented
by the Petitioner, the marriage is null and void ab
initio.
 OSG then filed for an appeal stating that the
psychological defects were not shown properly and
that they were not present at the inception of the
marriage.
C.A Ruling
 The C.A reversed the RTC ruling and ruled that
petitioner failed to prove psychological incapacity of
her husband or that the disorder existed prior to the
marriage and was incurable.
Issue
 Whether or not the evidence presented is adequate to
sustain a finding that Rodolfo is psychologically
incapacitated.
Ruling
 The Court then cited the guidelines in the Molina
Case and the Santos Case wherein incapacity must
be characterized by.
o Gravity
o Juridical antecedence
o Incurability
 The Court found out that there is sufficient compliance
with the Molina guidelines to warrant the annulment
under Article 36.
Petition is granted and the decision of the RTC is
reinstated.
 Valdes v. RTC
G.R. 122749 | July 31, 1996 | Case 20 | Persons 3 rd batch
Facts
 Antonio Valdes and Consuelo Gomez were married,
they had five children as the result in this marriage.
 Then, Valdes sought the declaration of nullity of the
marriage pursuant to Article 36 of the Family Code.
 The marriage was then declared null and void under
36 and more importantly, the court ordered that the
common properties should be liquidated in
accordance with Article 147 and Articles 50, 51 and
52 of the same code.
 Consuelo Gomez then sought a clarification regarding
the portion of the decision directing compliance with
Article 50, 51 and 52 as the family code contained no
provisions regarding liquidation of common property.
 The RTC then ruled that the property regime should
be governed by the rules on co-ownership.
Issue
 Whether the Article 50, 51 and 52 govern the
disposition of the family dwelling in cases where a
marriage is declared void ab initio.
Ruling
 The Court ruled that the RTC was correct in applying
the law as in a void marriage, the property relations of
the parties during the cohabitation is governed by co-
ownership.
 As under the said property regime, the properties
acquired by the two spouses is prima facie presumed
to have been obtained by their join efforts.
Vitangcol v. People of the Philippines
G.R. 207406 | January 13, 2016 | Case 30 | Persons 3rd
batch
Facts
 The case is a petition for review regarding the C.A
Decision and resolution where the CA affirmed the
Decision of the RTC of Manila which convicted
petitioner of bigamy.
 According to the facts of the case, Petitioner was first
married to Alice at the Manila Cathedral in Manila.
 After some time, Alice heard rumors that her husband
was married to another woman. Then she discovered
that Petitioner was previously married to a certain
Gina which is evidenced by a marriage contract with
the NSO.
 Alice then filed a complaint for Bigamy against
Norberto.
 Moreover, Norberto states that the said first marriage
with his first wife was fake as according to Norberto
there was no marriage license for that marriage.
RTC Ruling
 The Court ruled that Norberto is guilty for the crime of
bigamy.
 Norberto then appealed to the C.A
C.A Ruling
 The C.A sustained the verdict of the RTC but modified
it in accordance with the Indeterminate Sentence
Law.
Issue
 Whether or not Norberto is Guilty of Bigamy
Ruling
 The Court then perused Article 53 of the Civil Code
which enumerates the requisites for marriage.
 While the Office of the Civil Registrar of Imus could
not find the marriage license it would not conclude
that the License does not exist.
 Moreover, petitioner admitted that he signed the
marriage contract between him and his first wife. The
said contract should be given more credence than the
documents which testify the absence of any record of
the marriage.
 In the instant case, it would show that the contract
would show that there was a marriage license given
freely and attested to by the parties as well as the
solemnizing officer.
The Court ruled that the petition is denied, and the ruling
of the CA is affirmed with modification.
Atienza v. Brillantes
A.M MTJ-92-706 | March 29, 1995 | Case 31 | Persons 3rd
batch
Facts
 The case is a complaint regarding the Gross
Immorality against Respondent who is a Judge of the
MTC in Manila.
 Complainant alleges that he has two children with
Yolanda De Castro who are living together in Manila
and stays in the same house.
 However, on December 1991, he saw respondent
sleeping on his bed and was told by the houseboy
that the respondent was cohabiting with De Castro.
Complainant did not wake up the respondent and left
the house.
 After the incident, respondent prevented complainant
from vising his children and alienated the affection of
his children for him.
o Complainant also claims that Respondent
Judge is married to a Zenaida Ongkiko
whom he has five children which appeared in
his statements of assets and liabilities
o Complainant also contends that the
respondent caused his arrest after an
argument with De Castro inside her office.
 For Respondent’s defense, he alleges that
complainant was not married to De Castro at the filing
of the administrative action.
 Moreover, respondent denies that he is married to
Ongkiko while he admits he has five children with her.
Moreover, he alleges that while he and ongkiko went
through a ceremony. It was not valid as there was no
marriage license.
 Respondent then claims that he was married with De
Castro in civil rites in L.A California on 1991 and that
he believed in good faith that he was single because
the first marriage was done without a license.
 However, under the family Code there is a
requirement of a judicial declaration of a nullity of
marriage before he can enter into a second marriage.
o Respondent argues that the provision does
not apply to him as the first marriage took
place before the Family Code was enacted.
 o He states that the Family Code as according
to Article 256 is given retroactive effect as
long as it does not prejudice or impair vested
or acquired rights in accordance with the
Civil Code and other laws.
Issue
 Whether Article 40 can be applied retroactively.
Ruling
 While it is true that Article 40 is a rule of procedure,
Respondent has not shown any vested right impaired
with the application of Article 40 in this case.
 Moreover, the Court ruled that at the time he was
already a lawyer he went through the two marriage
ceremonies. Where the Court ruled that Any law
student would know that a marriage license is
necessary before one can get married.
o The acts of Respondent in the two marriages
would betray his sinister motives and bad
faith.
 From the facts of the case, the Court ruled that
respondent failed to meet the standard moral fitness
for membership to the legal profession.
Hence, he is dismissed from the service with forfeiture
of all leave and retirement benefits.
Republic v. Olaybar
G.R. 189538 | February 10, 2014 | Case 32 | Persons 3rd
batch
Facts
 Respondent from the NSO requested a Certificate of
Marriage for her marriage with her boyfriend of five years.
However, upon receipt she discovered that she was
already married to a Korean National.
 Respondent denies that she was married as she did not
know the alleged husband and did not appear the
solemnizing officer, furthermore, the signature in the
certificate is not hers.
 Respondent then filed for cancellation of entries in the
marriage contract especially in the entries in the wife
portion.
 During trial, respondent testified that she could not
appeared before the solemnizing officer as the marriage
was allegedly celebrated because she was in Makati
working as a distributor for a company.
 While she states that she does not know her supposed
husband, she states that she knew the witnesses as she
met them when she was a receptionist in a Pension
House. Moreover, she states that her name was used by a
person who owned a travel agency who used her
information.
 Furthermore, Respondent presented an employee of the
MTCC who confirmed that respondent was not the alleged
wife who appeared in the solemnizing of the marriage.
Moreover, a document examiner stated that the signature
in the contract was forged.
RTC Ruling
 The RTC granted the petition of Respondent ordering
the civil registrar to cancel all entries in the wife
portion.
Petitioner’s arguments
 Petitioner argues that the court erred as there was
no clerical spelling in the contract that would fall
within Rule 108 of the Rules of Court
 Granting the cancellation of the wife portion is
declaring the marriage void ab initio.
 The RTC denied petitioner’s motion.
Issue
 Rule 108 only applies when there are errors in the
entries sought to be cancelled.
 The cancellation of all entries in the wife portion in
declares the marriage void ab initio.
Ruling
 The Court denies the petition as first, respondent was
correct in filing the petition for correction for the
entries, Respondent made The Local Civil Registrar
and the alleged husband as parties-respondent which
means that Rule 108 was complied with.
 For the second issue, the Court ruled that there was
no evidence that the marriage existed other than the
certificate. Respondent also showed that no marriage
was entered, and she was not aware of its existence
which was established by testimonial and
documentary evidences.
 Furthermore, respondent did not seek the nullification
of marriage as there was no marriage to speak of but
just the correction of the record of such marriage to
reflect the Truth.
Petition is denied for lack of merit and the decision of the
RTC is affirmed.
Montañez v. Cipriano
G.R 181089 | October 22, 2012 | Case 33 | persons 3rd
batch
Facts
 Respondent married Socrate
 s Flores in Aklan. During the said marriage,
respondent married Silverio Cipriano in Laguna.
 In 2001, respondent filed with the RTC a Petition for
annulment of her marriage with Socrates on the
grounds of psychological incapacity
 After the filing, the RTC rendered a decision which
declared the marriage of respondent null and void
which became final executory on October 2003.
 The next year, petitioner who is Silverio’s daughter
from the first marriage filed with the MTC of Laguna a
complaint of Bigamy against respondent.
o The complaint alleges that respondent failed
to reveal to Silverio that she was still married
to Socrates.
 Then an Information for Bigamy was filed against
respondent with the RTC of Laguna.
 Afterwards, before her arraignment, Respondent filed
a Motion to Quash alleging that her marriage with
Socrates had already been declared void ab initio in
2003. Thus, there was no bigamy.
RTC Ruling
 The Court ruled that there was no more first marriage
as the element of two valid marriages in bigamy was
absent wherein the ruling in Mercado v. Tan was
cited.
  Respondent then filed a motion for reconsideration
claiming that the Mercado ruling was not applicable
since respondent contracted her first marriage in 1976
which was before the Family Code.
o Respondent states that the Family Code
cannot be given retroactive effect because
this will impair her right to remarry without
need of securing a declaration of nullity of a
completely void prior marriage.
 The RTC then reconsidered its order and dismissed
the instant case.
 The prosecution then filed a motion for
reconsideration but was denied by the Court stating
that the declaration of nullity of respondent’s marriage
would tantamount to a declaration that said marriage
never existed at all.
Issue
 Petitioner then filed the petition with the following
issues
o Whether the judicial nullity of a first marriage
to the enactment of the family code and the
pronouncement in Wiegel on the ground of
psychological incapacity is a valid defense
for a charge of bigamy.
o Whether or not the trial court erred in stating
that the jurisprudence prior to the enactment
of the Family Code and the pronouncement
of Wiegel regarding the necessity of securing
a declaration of the first marriage before
entering a second marriage ambivalent. And
that a person was allowed to enter a
subsequent marriage without the annulment
of the first without incurring criminal liability.
Ruling
 The Court ruled that in this case, the respondent
contracted a second marriage with Silverio in 1983
while her first marriage was still subsisting as it has
not been annulled or declared void by a competent
authority.
o This means that all elements of bigamy were
present.
 The Court ruled that the declaration of the first
marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity
does not justify the dismissal of Bigamy filed against
her.
o The Court cited Mercado v. Tan wherein the
subsequent nullity of the marriage was
immaterial as the crime of bigamy was
already consummated which means that the
act is punishable.
 Parties to the marriage should not be permitted to
judge for themselves its nullity for the same must be
submitted to the judgment of competent courts and
only when the nullity of the marriage is so declared so
that it can be held void.
o When there is no declaration the
presumption is that the marriage exists.
 The Court granted the petitions and ordered the
criminal case to be remanded for further proceedings.
Republic v. Manalo
G.R. 221029 | April 24, 2018 | Case 34 | Persons 3rd batch
Facts
 On January 10, 2012 respondent filed a petition for
cancellation of entry of marriage in the Civil Registry
of San Juan by virtue of a judgment rendered by a
Japanese Court
 The RTC then set the case for initial hearing on April
2012 and required that the notice of hearing to be
published in a newspaper of general circulation.
 The OSG then entered its appearance for petitioner
Republic which authorizes the Prosecutor of Dagupan
to appear on tis behalf. Manalo then moved to admit
an Amended Petition which the court granted.
o The amended petition adds that it is a
petition for recognition and enforcement of
foreign judgment.
o Respondent was also allowed to testify in
advance as she was schedule to leave for
Japan for her employment and submitted her
documents including the divorce decree from
Japan.
 The OSG did not present anything to rebut the
allegations of Manalo, hence, the trial court issued its
decision.
RTC Decision
 The RTC denied the petition for lack of merit as the
divorce decree obtained in Japan should not be
recognized as Article 15 of the Civil Code states that
Philippine law does not afford Filipinos the right to file for a
divorce whether they are in the country or living abroad.
C.A Decision
 The C.A then overturned the RTC decision which stated
that Article 26 is applicable even if it was Manalo who filed
for divorce against her Japanese husband because the
decree they obtained makes the latter no longer married to
the former.
 The OSG then filed for a motion for reconsideration but
was denied, hence this petition.
Issue
 Whether or not the marriage between a foreigner and
a Filipino was dissolved through a divorce filed
abroad by the latter?
Ruling
 The Court denies the petition and partially affirms
the CA decision.
 With regards to divorce the court enumerated the
rules in the Philippines:
o Philippine law does not provide for absolute
divorce
o Marital bond between two Filipinos cannot
be dissolved even by an absolute divorce
obtained abroad which is in Article 15 and 17
of the Civil Code
o An Absolute divorce obtained by a couple
who are both aliens may be recognized in
the Philippines provided it is consistent with
their national laws.
o In mixed marriages involving a Filipino
and a Foreigner, the former is allowed to
contract a subsequent marriage in case
the absolute divorce is validly obtained
abroad by the alien spouse.
 With the family Code, Paragraph 2 Article 26 confers
jurisdiction on Philippine courts who extend the effect
of a foreign divorce decree to a Filipino spouse
without undergoing trial to determine the validity of the
dissolution of the marriage.
  It also authorizes our courts to adopt the effects of a
foreign divorce decree because the Philippines does
not allow divorce.
 The Court agrees that a Filipino citizen has the
capacity to remarry under Philippine law after initiating
a divorce proceeding abroad and obtaining a
favorable judgment against his or her alien spouse
who is capacitated to remarry.
o This is because Article 26 Paragraph 2 of the
Family code states a divorce validly obtained
abroad by the alien spouse capacitating him
or her to remarry.
o The court ruled that the letter of the law does
not demand that the alien spouse should be
the one who initiated the proceeding wherein
the divorce decree was granted. Moreover, it
also does not distinguish whether the Filipino
spouse is the petitioner or the respondent in
the foreign divorce proceeding.
 Furthermore, blind adherence to the nationality
principle must be disallowed if it would cause unjust
discrimination and oppression to certain classes of
individuals whose rights are equally protected by law.
 The Court then finally ruled that a prohibitive view of
Article 26 par 2 would do more harm than good as
any subsequent relationship that the Filipino would
enter would be considered illicit and would be
disadvantageous to the child of that relationship.
 Furthermore, since the divorce was raised by Manalo
she has the burden of proof in proving the Japanese
law regarding her and her former husband’s capacity
to remarry.

Petition for review is denied and the C.A decision is

affirmed. Case is remanded for further proceedings on the
court of origin for the reception of the Japanese law on
divorce.