EVANGELISTA, Robert Kevin B.

2008003472
UST – CLR1 Petition Class

CASE DOCTRINES OF WEEK 2 CASES

Topic Case Title Doctrine

The concept of and nature of Goitia vs Campos-Rueda, 35 In the Philippine

marriage, FC 1 cf. NCC 52, Phils 252 jurisdiction, marriage is a
FC 149 special contract of
permanent union entered
into in accordance with the
solemnities prescribed by
law. The rights and
obligations of the parties
do not depend upon the
agreement but upon the
law which defines and
prescribes such rights and
obligations.

The concept of and nature of Silverio vs Republic, October Marriage is a special

marriage, FC 1 cf. NCC 52, 22, 2007 contract of permanent
FC 149 union between a man and
a woman. One of its
essential requisites is
the legal capacity of the
contracting parties who
must be a male and a
female.

The concept of and nature of People v De La Cruz, G.R. In a criminal case for
marriage, FC 1 cf. NCC 52, No.187683, February 11, paricide, the best proof of
FC 149 2010 relationship between the
accused and deceased is
the marriage certificate.
The testimony of an
accused that he is married
to the deceased is
sufficient proof of such
relationship.
The concept of and nature of Espinosa v Omana, AC No. Extrajudicial dissolution of
marriage, FC 1 cf. NCC 52, 9081, October 12, 2011 conjugal partnership,
FC 149 without the court’s approval,
is void. Thus, a final
judgment of the court is
necessary.

The concept of and nature of Avenido v Avenido, G.R. No. A marriage certificate is not
marriage, FC 1 cf. NCC 52, 173540, Jan 22 2014 the only evidence that may
FC 149 be used to prove the
existence of marriage.
Testimonial evidence and a
person’s birth certificate may
be used to prove the same. 

The concept of and nature of Tambuyat v.  Tambuyat, G.R. In order that a co-ownership
marriage, FC 1 cf. NCC 52, No. 202805, March 23, 2015 may be formed, the man and
FC 149 the woman must be
capacitated to marry each
other.

The concept of and nature of Calimag v Heirs of Macapaz, Canonical certificates are
marriage, FC 1 cf. NCC 52, GR No. 191936, June 1, 2016 private documents and its
FC 149 authenticity shall be proven
pursuant to the rules on
evidence.

The concept of and nature of Falcis v Civil Registrar, GR Provisions under current
marriage, FC 1 cf. NCC 52, 217910, Sept. 3, 2019 [en marriage arrangements
FC 149 banc] pertain to benefits to or
burdens on a specific sex and
are therefore dependent on
what is assigned at birth
based on the appearance of
external genitalia.

Requisites Silverio vs Republic, G.R. One of its essential requisites

FC 2-3; FC 5; FC 45 cf. No. 174689, October 22, is the legal capacity of the
NCC 53 2007 contracting parties who must
. be a male and a female. A
1. Essential requisites man who has undergone sex
2. Formal Requisites reassignment remains to be a
 man in the eyes of the law.
A. Difference in Sex – FC 2 To allow him to marry a man
(1), 4 (1), 39. after said sex reassignment
would greatly reconfigure
B. Some Form of Ceremony the laws on marriage and
– FC 3 (3), 4 (1), 6, 8 family relations.

C. Legal Capacity – Art. 2(1)

1. Age (Articles 5, 35(1), 39,

45(1), 37(1))

2. Relationship (Articles 37,

38 (1-8), 39)

Requisites Martinez v. Tan 12 Phil 731 The petition signed by the

FC 2-3; FC 5; FC 45 cf. COMPARE TO: plaintiff and defendant
NCC 53 contained a positive
. statement that they had
1. Essential requisites mutually agreed to be
2. Formal Requisites married and they asked the
justice of the peace to
A. Difference in Sex – FC 2 solemnize the marriage. The
document signed by the
(1), 4 (1), 39.
plaintiff, the defendant, and
the justice of the peace, stated
B. Some Form of Ceremony
that they ratified under oath,
– FC 3 (3), 4 (1), 6, 8
before the justice, the
contents of the petition and
C. Legal Capacity – Art. 2(1) that witnesses of the
marriage were produced.
1. Age (Articles 5, 35(1), 39, Thus, the law provides that
45(1), 37(1)) no particular form of
marriage ceremony is
2. Relationship (Articles 37, required, the parties must
38 (1-8), 39) declare in the presence of the
authorized person
solemnizing the marriage,
that they take each other as
husband and wife.

Requisites Morigo v People, 422 SCRA A marriage certificate signed

FC 2-3; FC 5; FC 45 cf. by the parties, issued by the
NCC 53 justice of peace enjoys the
. presumption that the officer
1. Essential requisites authorized the marriage in
2. Formal Requisites due form.

A. Difference in Sex – FC 2
(1), 4 (1), 39.

B. Some Form of Ceremony

– FC 3 (3), 4 (1), 6, 8

C. Legal Capacity – Art. 2(1)

1. Age (Articles 5, 35(1), 39,

45(1), 37(1))

2. Relationship (Articles 37,

38 (1-8), 39)

3. Prior Marriage Articles 35 Republic v Nolasco, 220 The investigation allegedly

(4), 35 (6), 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, SCRA 20 conducted by respondent in
52, 53 & 39, NCC 390- his attempt to ascertain his
391, FC 55 (9), FC 101 wife’s whereabouts is too
sketchy to form the basis of a
reasonable or well-founded
belief that she was already
dead. He failed to meet the
degree of diligence required
in searching for a missing
spouses.

Garcia vs. Recio, 365 SCRA Before a foreign judgment is

437 given presumptive
evidentiary value, the
document must first be
presented and admitted in
evidence. A divorce obtained
abroad is proven by the
divorce decree itself.

Te vs. Choa, G.R. No. The outcome of the civil case

126746, Nov. 29, 2000 for annulment of petitioner’s
marriage to private
respondent had no bearing
upon the determination of
petitioner’s innocence or
guilt in the criminal case for
 bigamy, because all that is
required for the charge of
bigamy to prosper is that the
first marriage be subsisting at
the time the second marriage
is contracted.

Nollora v People, GR A void marriage may still

191425, September 7, 2011 produce legal consequences.
Among these legal
consequences is incurring
criminal liability for bigamy.

SSS vs Jarque vda. De Under the old Civil Code, a

Bailon, G.R. No. 165545, subsequent marriage being
March 24, 2006 voidable, it is terminated by
final judgment of annulment
in a case instituted by the
absent spouse who reappears
or by either of the spouses in
the subsequent marriage.
Under the Family Code, no
judicial proceeding to annul a
subsequent marriage is
necessary.

A petition for declaration of

Republic vs. Sareñogon, G.R. presumptive death under
No. 199194, Feb. 10, 2016 Article 41 requires that there
must be a well-founded
belief by the spouse present.
It entails compliance with the
degree of strict diligence
prescribed by jurisprudence.

Republic v Tampus, GR Mere inquiries as to the

214243, March 16, 2016 whereabouts of the absent
spouse is not sufficient to
show that there has been
compliance with the well-
founded belief standard. A
 well-founded belief is based
on diligent efforts to locate
the absent spouse.

A judgment for the

Santos vs. Santos, G.R. No. declaration of presumptive
187061, October 08, 2014 death obtained by extrinsic
fraud can be remedied by an
action to annul judgment.
The filing of an affidavit of
reappearance is not the
proper remedy when the
person declared
presumptively dead was
never absent.

Republic v Catubag, GR Petition for declaration of

210580, April 18, 2018 presumptive death under
Article 41 requires that there
must be a well-founded
belief by the spouse present.
It entails compliance with the
degree of strict diligence
prescribed by jurisprudence.
Bare assertions that a spouse
exercised diligent efforts to
locate his/her spouse is not
sufficient basis to support
compliance with the strict
diligence required by law.
There must be corroborating
evidence.

Matias v Republic, GR Presumption of death in

230751, April 25, 2018 Article 41 applies only for the
purpose of remarriage.

Wiegel v. Sempio-Diy, 143 A party need not prove that

SCRA 499 (1986) his first marriage was
attended entered into by
force committed against both
parties because assuming
that the same is true, the
marriage is merely voidable.
Terre v. Terre, 211 SCRA 6 A lawyer knows or should
have known that the
prevailing case law of the
Court is that for purposes of
determining whether a
person is legally free to
contract a second marriage, a
judicial declaration that the
first marriage was null and
void ab initio is essential.

Bobis v Bobis, GR 139509, The respondent in this case

July 31, 2000 cannot be said to have
validly entered into the
second marriage since he
failed to obtain the judicial
declaration of nullity of the
first marriage. Further, it is
apparent that his intent is to
obtain a judicial declaration
of nullity of his first marriage
and thereafter to invoke that
very same judgment to
prevent his prosecution for
bigamy

Mercado vs Tan, 337 SCRA A judicial declaration of

122 nullity of the first marriage
must first be obtained before
a party may contract a
second marriage. Failure to
observe this rule will warrant
an action for bigamy under
the Revised Penal Code.

Morigo vs Morigo, 422 The mere private act of

SCRA signing a marriage contract
bears no semblance to a valid
marriage and thus, needs no
judicial declaration of nullity.

Tenebro vs. CA, G.R. No. A second or subsequent

150758. February 18, 2004 marriage contracted during
the subsistence of a valid
marriage, the subsequent
marriage would be null and
void regardless of a party’s
 psychological capacity or
incapacity. Since a marriage
contracted during the
subsistence of a valid
marriage is automatically
void, the nullity of this
second marriage is not per se
an argument for the
avoidance of criminal
liability for bigamy.

Montanez vs Cipriano, GR Article 40 of the Family

181089, October 22, 2012 Code, which is a rule of
procedure, should be applied
retroactively because Article
256 of the Family Code itself
provides that said "Code
shall have retroactive effect
insofar as it does not
prejudice or impair vested or
acquired rights." Procedural
laws are not violative of any
right of a person since no
vested right may attach to
procedural laws.

Capili v People, GR 183805, A subsequent declaration of

July 3, 2013 nullity of the second
marriage cannot be used as a
ground for the dismissal of
the case for bigamy.

A wedding ceremony and

Abbas vs Abbas, G.R. No. the fact that marriage
183896, January 30, 2013 contract was signed by the
parties do not negate the
requirement of a valid
marriage license before the
solemnization of marriage.

People v Odtuhan, GR A declaration of the absolute

191566, July 17, 2013 nullity of a marriage is now
explicitly required either as a
cause of action or a ground
for defense. It has been held
in a number of cases that a
judicial declaration of nullity
 is required before a valid
subsequent marriage can be
contracted; or else, what
transpires is a bigamous
marriage, reprehensible and
immoral.

Iwasawa vs Gangan, , G.R. A judicial declaration of

No. 204169, Sept. 11 2013 nullity of the first marriage
must first be obtained before
a party may contract a
second marriage. Failure to
observe this rule will warrant
an action for bigamy under
the Revised Penal Code.

Republic v Cantor, G.R. No. The burden of proof rests on

184621, December 10, the present spouse to show
2013[en banc] that all the requisites under
Article 41 of the Family Code
are present. Further, a well
settled principle states that
he who alleges a fact has the
burden of proving it and
mere allegation is not
evidence.

A judicial declaration of
Lasanas v People, G.R. No. nullity of the first marriage
15903, June 23, 2014 must first be obtained before
a party may contract a
second marriage. Failure to
observe this rule will warrant
an action for bigamy under
the Revised Penal Code.

SSS v. Azote, G.R. No.

209741, April 15, 2015 Under the Family Code, for
the purpose of contracting a
subsequent marriage under
the preceding paragraph, the
spouse present must institute
a summary proceeding as
provided in this Code for the
declaration of presumptive
 death of the absentee, without
prejudice to the effect of
reappearance of the absent
spouse.

Republic v Hon. Estrada, It is the petitioner in a

G.R. No. 214792, March 18, petition for declaration of
2015 presumptive of death, and
not the trial court, who must
possess a well-grounded
belief of the death of his or
absent spouse.

Republic v.  Villanueva, G.R. Article 41 of the Family

No. 210929, July 29, 2015 Code imposes upon the
present spouse the burden
of complying with the
stringent requirement of
"well-founded belief"
which can only be
discharged upon a
showing of proper
inquiries and efforts to
ascertain not only the
absent spouse’s
whereabouts but, more
importantly, whether the
absent spouse is still alive
or is already dead.

Santiago vs. Phils, G.R. No. In order that the accused in a

200233, July 15, 2015 criminal case for bigamy be
convicted, the subsequent
marriage must have all the
essential requisites for its
validity.
 To contract a second or
Vitangcol v. People, G.R. No. subsequent marriage, it is
207406, January 13, 2016 imperative to secure judicial
declaration of nullity of the
first or prior marriage.
Contracting a second
marriage without said
declaration will give rise to
criminal liability for bigamy.

Castillo vs. Castillo, G.R. No. Before the effectivity of the

189607, Apr. 18, 2016 Family Code in 1988 August
3, there is no necessity for a
judicial declaration of nullity
of a prior marriage for
purposes of remarrying.
After the Family Code took
effect, a judicial declaration
of nullity of a prior marriage
became imperative for the
purpose of remarriage.

Pangasagan v Panagsagan, Abandonment of family

AC 7733, October 1, 2019 constitutes a ground for the
disbarment from the practice
of law. The Court is
intolerant towards lawyers
who openly engage in illicit
affairs during the subsistence
of their marriages.

4. Article 53, 52 Impotency is not presumed.

Jimenez v. Cañizares 109 Phil The presumption is in favor
5. Crime – FC 38 (9) 27 of potency. Thus, the lone
testimony of a husband that
his spouse is physically
6. Physical Incapacity – FC incapable of sexual
45 (5), 47 (5) intercourse is insufficient to
sever the marital bond.

4. Article 53, 52 Article 45 paragraph 5 refers

Alcazar v Alcazar, G.R. No. to lack of power to copulate.
5. Crime – FC 38 (9) 174451, Oct. 13, 2009 Incapacity to consummate
signifies the permanent
6. Physical Incapacity – FC inability of the spouse to
45 (5), 47 (5) perform the act of sexual
intercourse. Non-
consummation of marriage of
 the husband or wife may be
caused by psychophysical
conditions.

7. Psychological Incapacity - Santos v. CA 240 SCRA 20 Failure to return home or at

FC 36, 68-73 least to communicate with
his/her spouse, for more
than 5 years are
circumstances insufficient to
prove psychological
incapacity. The following
must be proved: a) gravity; b)
incurability; and c) juridical
antecedence.

Chi Ming Tsoi v. CA G.R. Prolonged refusal of a spouse

No. 119190, Jan. 16, 1997 to have sexual intercourse
with his/her spouse is a
badge of psychological
incapacity.

Republic v. Olaviano Molina Mere showing of

(1997) irreconcilable differences and
conflicting personalities
would not constitute
psychological incapacity.
Mere failure to perform
marital obligations would not
suffice, it must be shown that
they are incapable due to
some psychological illness

Antonio v. Reyes, G.R. No. Actions for the declaration of

155800, Mar. 10,2005 nullity under Article 36 must
be decided on a case to case
basis with strict compliance
with the Molina Doctrine.
Here, the wife was declared
psychologically incapacitated
to perform the essential
marital obligations as she
was a pathological liar.

Te vs Te, GR No. 161793, The interpretation of Article

Feb. 13, 2009 36 depends on the facts of
each case. Here, the
petitioner was found
psychologically incapacitated
 for having been afflicted with
dependent personality
disorder, while the
respondent was afflicted with
antisocial personality
disorder. Both parties cannot
assume the essential marital
obligations.

Azcueta vs RP, G.R. No. The totality of evidence must

180668, May 26, 2009 be taken into account before
the court may render
judgment. Here, the
petitioner was able to
overcome the presumption of
validity of marriage by the
totality of evidence including
the expert findings and
testimony of the psychiatrist.

Halili v Halili, GR 165424, Petitioner is afflicted with

June 9, 2009 (Motion for mixed personality disorder,
Recon) particularly dependent and
self-defeating personality
disorders. The court found
the expert testimony, the
findings of the psychiatrist
and all other evidence
presented sufficient to
establish psychological
incapacity to perform
essential marital obligation
on the part of the petitioner.

Najera v Najera, July 3, 2009 The conclusion that

respondent was
psychologically incapacitated
was based on facts relayed to
her by petitioner and was not
based on her personal
knowledge and evaluation of
respondent. Thus, the finding
is unscientific and unreliable.

Camacho v Reyes, G.R. No. The lack of personal

185286, August 18, 2010 examination and interview of
 the respondent, or any other
person diagnosed with
personality disorder, does
not per se invalidate the
testimonies of the doctors.
Neither do their findings
automatically constitute
hearsay that would result in
their exclusion as evidence

Kalaw v. Fernandez, G.R. The courts are justified in

NO. 166357, 14 Jan. 2015 declaring a marriage null and
void under Article 36 of the
Family Code regardless of
whether it is the petitioner or
the respondent who imputes
the psychological incapacity
to the other as long as the
imputation is fully
substantiated with proof.
Indeed, psychological
incapacity may exist in one
party alone or in both of
them, and if psychological
incapacity of either or both is
established, the marriage has
to be deemed null and void.

Vinas v Vinas, G. R. No. The expert evaluation

208790, January 21, 2015 must be able to support the
conclusion of psychological
incapacity by his/her
findings specifically
explaining the gravity, the
fact that it is incurable and
that such incapacity is deeply
rooted in the history of a
party. Mere general
statements describing the
disorder of one party will not
suffice.

Mallilin v Jamesolamin, G.R. Evidence must be presented

No. 192718, 18 Feb. 2015 to establish psychological
incapacity of a party. Here,
the petitioner merely made
self-serving statements.
 Likewise, the root cause of
the alleged psychological
incapacity was not medically
or clinically identified and
proven in trial.

Castillo v Republic, G.R. No. The presentation of expert

214064. Feb. 6, 2017 proof in cases for declaration
of nullity of marriage based
on psychological incapacity
presupposes a thorough and
an in-depth assessment of the
parties by the psychologist or
expert, for a conclusive
diagnosis of a grave, severe
and incurable presence of
psychological incapacity.
The probative force of the
testimony of an expert does
not lie in a mere statement of
her theory or opinion, but
rather in the assistance that
she can render to the courts
in showing the facts that
serve as a basis for her
criterion and the reasons
upon which the logic of her
conclusion is founded.

Del Rosario vs. Del Rosario, Established parameters do

GR 222541, Feb 15, 2017 not require that the expert
witness personally examine
the party alleged to be
suffering from psychological
incapacity provided
corroborating evidence are
presented sufficiently
establishing the required
legal parameters.

De la Fuente v De la Fuente, Courts must give due regard

G.R. No. 188400, March 8, to expert opinion on the
2017 psychological and mental
disposition of the parties.
Here, the comprehensive
examination conducted by
 the doctor as well as his
expert testimony were not
relied upon by the court in
rendering its judgment.
While in fact, said testimony
contains each requirement in
the Molina Doctrine.

The law does not require that

Bakunawa v Bakunawa, G.R. a person allegedly inflicted
No. 217993, August 9, 2017 with psychological disorder
be personally examined by a
physician. This applies when
the entirety/totality of
evidence is sufficient to
warrant a finding of
psychological incapacity.

Garlet v Garlet, G.R. No. The petitioner in this case

193544, August 2, 2017 merely alleged acts or traits
indicating psychological
incapacity on the part of the
respondent but failed to
show evidence supporting
her claim. Likewise, the
psychiatrist failed to discuss
in detail her findings. While
the court gives due regard to
expert testimony, the same
must contain comprehensive
examination of the person
allegedly psychologically
incapacitated. The
information must not come
from only one side.

Republic v Tionglico, GR A psychological evaluation

218630, Jan. 11, 2018 based on one-sided
description cannot be
considered as credible.

Singson v Singson, GR It has been held that the

210766, Jan. 8, 2018 parties' child is not a very
reliable witness in an Article
36 case as he/she could not
have been there when the
 spouses were married and
could not have been expected
to know what was happening
between his parents until
long after his birth.

Republic v Dimarucut, GR It is the policy of the state to

202069, March 7, 2018 uphold the sanctity of
marriage. Thus, it should
takes precedence over strict
application of Rule 15 on
motions, for the finality of
the RTC Decision necessarily
entails the permanent
severance of the marital tie
between the parties.

In a case for nullification of

Dan v Dan, GR 209031, April marriage under Article 36,
16, 2018 there must be evidence that
can adequately establish the
party's psychological
condition. The complete facts
should allege the physical
manifestations, if any, as are
indicative of psychological
incapacity at the time of the
celebration of the marriage
such that if the totality of
evidence presented is enough
to sustain a finding of
psychological incapacity,
then actual medical
examination of the person
concerned need not be
resorted to.

The court admitted the

Republic v Javier, GR testimony of the petitioner as
210518, April 18, 2018 to his own psychological
incapacity. The totality of
evidence presented was
sufficient to prove that the
petitioner is indeed
psychologically incapacitated
to perform the essential
marital obligations.
Republic v Mola Cruz, GR To entitle a petitioner spouse
236629, July 23, 2018 [note to a declaration of the nullity
concurring J. Leonen] of his or her marriage, the
totality of the evidence must
sufficiently prove that the
respondent spouse's
psychological incapacity was
grave, incurable and existing
prior to the time of the
marriage. Here, aside from
the in-depth and
comprehensive examinations
conducted by the
psychiatrist, the court found
that the totality of evidence
warrants the conclusion that
the spouse is psychologically
incapacitated to perform the
essential marital obligations.

Tortal v Taniguchi, GR The petitioner cannot assail

212683, Nov. 12, 2018 final and executory judgment
nullifying his marriage with
the respondent in his appeal
from the CA decision
granting the respondent’s
petition for annulment of
levy and sale in execution. If
summons in the action for
nullification of marriage was
not properly served, the
remedy is petition for
annulment of judgment
under Rule 47.

Go-Yu vs. Yu, G.R. No. An unsatisfactory marriage is

230443, April 03, 2019 not a null and void marriage.
Under the Constitution, it is
the State’s mandate to protect
and strengthen the family as
the basic social institution,
and the marriage as the
foundation of the family.

Eliscupidez v Eliscupidez, The totality of the evidence

GR 226907, July 22, 2019 must sufficiently prove that
[note dissent J. Leonen respondent spouse's
 psychological incapacity was
grave, incurable and existing
prior to the time of the
marriage. The root cause of
party’s alleged psychological
incapacity must be
sufficiently proven by
experts or shown to be
medically or clinically
permanent or incurable.

Consent Buccat v. Buccat 72 Phil 49 Fraud was not considered in

FC 45, 35 (5), 39 this case. Not revealing the
fact the a party is not a virgin
a. Insanity (Articles 45(2), cannot be considered as
47(2)) fraud to support the claim for
annulment of marriage.
b. Fraud (Articles 45 (3), 46)
Anaya vs Palaroan, Nov. 26, Non-disclosure of a
1970 husband's pre-marital
c. Duress – force, relationship with another
intimidation or undue woman is not one of the
influence (Articles 45 (4), 47 enumerated circumstances
(4)) that would constitute a
ground for annulment
d. Mistake as to Identity
(Articles 35 (5), 39)
e. Disease – FC 45 (6), 47 (5) Villanueva vs CA, 505 SCRA Lack of cohabitation is, per
564 se, not a ground to annul a
f. No Consent marriage. The failure to
cohabit becomes relevant
only if it arises as a result of
the perpetration of any of the
grounds for annulling the
marriage, such as lack of
parental consent, insanity,
fraud, intimidation, or undue
influence

Almelor v RTC, Aug. 26, It is the concealment of

2008 homosexuality, and not
homosexuality per se, that
vitiates the consent of the
innocent party.
 Republic v Albios, G.R. No. Entering into a marriage for
198780, October 16, 2013 the sole purpose of evading
immigration laws does not
qualify under any of the
circumstances that may
constitute fraude. Further,
under Article 47 (3), the
ground of fraud may only be
brought by the injured or
innocent party. In the present
case, there is no injured party
because Albios and Fringer
both conspired to enter into
the sham marriage.

Authority of the Solemnizing Aranes vs Occiano, 380

Officer (Articles 3 (1), 4 (1), SCRA 402 Where a judge solemnizes a
7, 10, 31, 32, 35 (2), R.A. marriage outside his court's
7160 (1991 Local jurisdiction, there is a
Government Code), Secs. resultant irregularity in the
444(b)(1)(xviii), 445 (b)(1) formal requisite laid down in
Article 3, which while it may
(xviii)
not affect the validity of the
marriage, may subject the
officiating official to
administrative liability.

Navarro v. Domagtoy S.C. Judges who are appointed to

A.M. MTJ-96-1088, July 19, specific jurisdictions, may
1996 officiate in weddings only
within said areas and not
beyond.

Beso v Daguman, 323 SCRA A marriage can be held

566 (2000) outside the judge's chambers
or courtroom only in the
following instances: (1) at the
point of death; (2) in remote
places in accordance with
Article 29; or (3) upon the
request of both parties in
writing in a sworn statement
to this effect.
 Ronulo vs. People of the The minister conducted the
Philippines, G.R. No. marriage ceremony despite
182438, July 2, 2014 knowledge that the essential
and formal requirements of
marriage set by law were
lacking. The marriage
ceremony therefore is illegal.
His knowledge of the
absence of these
requirements negates defense
of good faith.

Office of the Court The act of solemnizing

Administrator vs. Former marriages without the
Judge Tormis, A.C. No. 9920, required marriage license
August 30, 2016 constitutes misconduct.

Marriage License (Articles 3 Niñal vs. Bayadog, G.R. There are instances allowed
(2), 4 (1), 4 (3), 35 (3), 9 – 133778, Mar. 14, 2000 by the Civil Code wherein a
21[refers to the administrative marriage license is dispensed
requirements], 27 – 34) with, one of which is that
referring to the marriage of a
man and a woman who have
lived together and
exclusively with each other
as husband and wife for a
continuous and unbroken
period of at least five years
before the marriage.

De Castro v De Castro, G.R. The absence of any of the

No. 160172, February 13, essential or formal requisites
2008 shall render the marriage
void ab initio, whereas a
defect in any of the essential
requisites shall render the
marriage voidable. Here, the
parties failed to present their
marriage license, instead,
they presented an affidavit
stating that they are living
together as husband and wife
for more than five years. But
said affidavit was proven
false during trial.
Republic v Dayot, G.R. No. There are several instances
175581, March 28, 2008  allowed by the Civil Code
wherein a marriage license is
dispensed with, one of which
is that referring to the
marriage of a man and a
woman who have lived
together and exclusively with
each other as husband and
wife for a continuous and
unbroken period of at least
five years before the
marriage.

Abbas v. Abbas, G.R. No.

183896, January 30, 2013 Article 3 of the Family Code
expressly requires the
issuance of a valid marriage
license as a formal requisite
for a valid marriage. In the
absence thereof, the marriage
is considered as void ab initio.

Sy vs. CA, G.R. No. 127263, A marriage license is a formal

April 12, 2000 requirement; its absence
renders the marriage void ab
initio.

Alcantara vs. Alcantara, G.R. To be considered void on the

No. 167746, Aug. 28, 2007 ground of absence of a
marriage license, the law
requires that the absence of
such marriage license must
be apparent on the marriage
contract or at the very least,
supported by a certification
from the local civil registrar
that no such marriage license
was issued to the parties.

Kho v Republic, GR No. The rationale for the

187462, June 1, 2016 compulsory character of a
marriage license under the
 Civil Code is that it is the
authority granted by the
State to the contracting
parties, after the proper
government official has
inquired into their capacity to
contract marriage.

ADDITIONAL Enrico vs. Medinaceli, G.R. Only an aggrieved or injured

REQUIREMENTS FOR No. 173614, September 28, spouse may file a petition for
ANNULMENT OR 2007 annulment of voidable
DECLARATION OF marriages or declaration of
NULLITY absolute nullity of void
FC48, 53 marriages. Such petition
cannot be filed by
compulsory or intestate heirs
of the spouses or by the State.

Carlos v Sandoval, GR
179922, December 16, 2008 It is the husband’s and the
wife’s sole right to file a
petition for declaration of
absolute nullity of void
marriage. The compulsory or
intestate heirs can still
question the validity of the
marriage of the spouses, not in
a proceeding for declaration of
nullity but upon the death of a
spouse in a proceeding for the
settlement of the estate of the
deceased spouse filed in the
regular courts.

Ablaza v Republic, G.R. No. The right of a sibling to bring

158298, August 11, 2010 an action to declare the
nullity of a marriage
contracted under the old
Civil Code hinges upon a
prior determination of
whether the decedent had
any descendants, ascendants,
or children whether
 legitimate or illegitimate, and
of whether such sibling was
the decedent’s surviving heir.
Further, the surviving spouse
must be impleaded in an
action for declaration of
nullity of marriage since
he/she is an indispensable
party.

Aurelio v Aurelio, GR It is imperative under the

175367, June 6, 2011 Family Code that the
appearance of the
prosecuting attorney or fiscal
assigned be on behalf of the
State to take steps to prevent
collusion between the parties
and to take care that evidence
is not fabricated or
suppressed

Republic v CA, G.R. No. It is incumbent upon the

159594, November 12, 2012 courts to ascertain
compliance with the
requirement of sufficiently
explaining the gravity, root
cause and incurability of
person’s alleged
psychological incapacity.

Mendoza v Republic, GR In a case for nullification of

157854, November 12, 2012 marriage under Article 36,
there must be evidence that
can adequately establish the
party's psychological
condition. The complete facts
should allege the physical
manifestations, if any, as are
indicative of psychological
incapacity at the time of the
celebration of the marriage
such that if the totality of
evidence presented is enough
to sustain a finding of
psychological incapacity,
 then actual medical
examination of the person
concerned need not be
resorted to.

EFFECTS OF DEFECTIVE Ocampo v.  Ocampo, G.R. While the marriage was
MARRIAGE ON No. 198908, August 03, 2015 celebrated before the
PROPERTY RELATIONS effectivity of the Family
Code, it is still the Family
FC 43, 52, 53, 50, 147, 148, Code provisions on conjugal
63 partnerships which will
govern the property relations
RULES ON FORFEITURE between the parties. Under
OF THE SHARE OF THE Article 105 of the Family
Code explicitly mandates
GUILTY SPOUSE
that the Family Code shall
apply to conjugal
FC 43 (2), 50 (1), 63 (2), 147,
partnerships established
148 before the Family Code
without prejudice to vested
WHEN THERE IS rights already acquired
DELIVERY OF under the Civil Code or other
PRESUMTPIVE laws.
LEGITIMES

FC 102 (5), 43 (2), 50 (2), 51,

102 (5), 63 (2), 102, 129, 135

Quiao v Quiao, G. R. No. Prior to the liquidation of the

183622, July 4, 2012 conjugal partnership, the
interest of each spouse in the
conjugal assets is inchoate, a
mere expectancy, which
constitutes neither a legal nor
an equitable estate, and does
not ripen into title until it
appears that there are assets
in the community as a result
of the liquidation and
settlement

Dino v Dino, GR 178044, The rules on co-ownership

January 19, 2011 apply and the properties of
the spouses should be
liquidated in accordance with
 the Civil Code provisions on
co-ownership.

Yu v Reyes-Carpio, GR The law allows the deferment

189207, June 15, 2011 of the reception of evidence
on custody, support, and
property relations.
Conversely, the trial court
may receive evidence on the
subject incidents after a
judgment granting the
petition but before the decree
of nullity or annulment of
marriage is issued.