I.

INTRODUCTION

II. EFFECT AND APPLICATION OF LAWS

A. When Law Takes Effect

Laws having general applicability should be published first in order to take
Pesigan vs. Angeles
effect.
Laws such as PD, LOI, RA, etc., having general applicability should be
Taada vs. Tuvera
published in an OG in order to take effect.
Farinas vs. the Executive Legislators cannot make rules effective immediately upon approval or on any
Secretary other date without its previous publication.
MRCA vs. Court of Publication in an Official Gazette is not a prerequisite for the effectivity of Court
Appeals decisions
National Electrification
Proof of publication in OG/newspaper of general circulation is essential. UP
Administration vs.
Law center publication is not recognized.
Gonzaga (2007)
Garcilliano vs. House of Every senate is distinct from the one before it or after it. As such, publication in
Representatives (2008) the Official Gazette of its (changing) rules is a requirement.
Although Tarciano and Rosario got married in 1950, Tarciano sold the conjugal
property to the Fuentes spouses in 1989, a few months after the Family Code
Fuentes vs. Roca (2010)
took in 1988. Thus the Family Code applies. At the same time, no vested rights
were prejudiced under the FC.

B. Ignorance of the Law

Kasilag is not a lawyer, not conversant with the law. He proceeded on the well-
Kasilag vs. Rodriguez grounded belief that he was not violating the prohibition. His ignorance was
excusable and can be the basis of his good faith.
Elegado vs. Court of Ignorance of the law, in the case of foreigners, does not excuse them.
Appeals
The maxim ignorance of the law excuses no one has special application to
Manzano vs. Sanchez judges who should be the embodiment of competence, integrity, and
(2001) independence.

C. Retroactivity of laws
Frivaldo vs. Comelec, PD 75, which repatriates those who have lost their citizenship was given
(1996) retroactivity effect since it cures the the existing naturalization law.

Gregorio vs. CA (1968) Retroactive application of procedural law was granted as it did not impair any
vested rights.
Aruego vs CA If one has a certain issue filed under NCC and has vested rights under it, FC
cannot be given retroactive effect.
NCC articles even though repealed by the FC can be retroactively applied as
Francisco vs. CA long no vested rights are impaired and that the case in question happened
before the FC took place.
 D. Mandatory or Prohibitory Laws

E. Waiver of rights
PEFTOK Integrated Since there was no voluntariness in the execution of the waivers, they cannot be
Services vs. NLRC (1998) valid. Quitclaims are also commonly frowned upon as contrary to public policy.
A valid waiver must have (a) existence of right, (b) knowledge thereof, and (c)
Valderama vs. Macalde
intention to relinquish.
DM Consunji vs. CA Since a waiver is the intentional relinquishment of known rights, lack of
(2001) knowledge nullifies the election of a remedy
No contract may be entered into a future inheritance except in cases expressly
Ferrer vs. Diaz (2010) authorized by law. Further, if one's parents are still alive, one has not actual
possession of the right to inheritance.

F. Repeal of Laws
Implied repeals can only take effect if there is irreconcilable inconsistency
between the two statutes that covers the same subject matter or if the later act
Mecano vs. COA (1992)
covers the whole subject of the earlier one and is clearly intended as a
substitute.
Since there was no manifest intent to revoke the jurisdiction of the CA in RA
Thornton vs. Thornton 8369, the CA still has jurisdiction even though the basis for this has already been
(2004) repealed. Also, if the case is to be dismissed by the CA, there will be no legal
remedy for the case.
If there is no specific repealing clause, there is no intent to repeal. There needs
Lledo vs. Lledo (2010) to be either an express repeal or, in cases of implied repeals, an irreconcilable
inconsistency between the two in order for the repeal to be recognized.

G. Judicial Decisions

De Roy vs. CA There is no law requiring the publication of SC decision in the Official Gazette to
be binding. It is the duty of counsel to keep abreast of SC decisions.
Doctrine of Stare Decisis expresses that juridical decisions applying or
interpreting the law shall form part of the legal system of the Philippines.
Pesca vs. Pesca (2001)
(However, Maam Legarda said this was a bad example of the inflexibility of
stare decisis in applying Molina and Santos case.)
Stare decisis means the principle underlying the decision in one case is deemed
of imperative authority, controlling the decisions of like cases in the same court &
De Castro vs. JBC (2010) lower courts within the same jurisdiction, UNLESS AND UNTIL the decision in
question is reversed by a court of competent authority. The SC may be guided
but is not controlled by precedent (in light of reversing its Valenzuela ruling).

H. Duty to render judgment

 I. Presumption and Applicability of Custom

Martinez vs. Van Buskirk The cocheros actions were held to be the universal practice and the custom in
the area. Customs cannot be held to be unreasonable or imprudent.
The co-heirs were undeniably informed of the sale even though there was no
Alonzo vs. Padua notice in writing given to them especially that they are already making a claim
after 14 years has passed.

J. Legal Periods

Armigos va. CA There must be justifiable circumstance (fraud, accident, mistake or excusable
negligence) to allow an appeal filed after the period.
Namarco vs. Tecson The term year does not refer to a solar or calendar year. A year is comprised of
three hundred sixty-five days (NCC 13)
The period of redemption (as stated in Sec. 30 of Rule 39) is 12 months. This
Go vs. Dizon actually means 360 days. The period of redemption should therefore be from
Mar. 18, 1981 to Mar. 13, 1982.
The 30-day period has already expired (July 17- Aug. 16). Even though the
motion was dated Aug. 16, the actual submission was on Aug.17.The previous
Quiqui vs. Boncaros case of De las Alas vs. CA of giving consideration to a one-day late submission
cannot apply because in that case, the last day was a Sunday. Further, in
computing, the first day is excluded and the last day included.

K. Applicability of Penal Laws

Philippine courts can have jurisdiction in nullifying a marriage contracted abroad
Rayray vs. Chae Kyung between a Filipino and a foreigner. In qualifying foreign laws, the presumption is
Lee (1966) that it is identical to Philippine Law unless proven otherwise (Doctrine of
processual presumption).

L. Binding Effect

Nationality is the basis in determining applicable personal law. At the same time,
Barreto vs. Barreto-
divorce acquired by a Filipino citizen abroad is not recognized by Philippine
Gonzales
courts.
Divorce acquired by a Filipino citizen abroad is not recognized by Philippine
Tenchavez vs. Escao courts. In addition, damages can be filed against an abandoning Filipino spouse
who obtained a divorce abroad.
ATCI Overseas Corp. vs.
Party invoking the application of a foreign law has the burden of proving that law.
Echin (2010)
Contracts formal validity is tested by the laws of the country where it was
German vs. Donaldson
executed. There was a valid delegation of power from the instrument executed in
(2010)
Germany to the Philippines through the general power of attorneys.
Special laws prevail over general laws such as that of the Family Code. In this
Tomawis vs. Balindong case, the creation of Sharia District courts (PD 1083) prevails over the Judiciary
(2010 Reorganization Act (RA 296) which gives RTC/MTC exclusive jurisdiction over
cases involving titles, possessions, and property.
 III. PERSONS & PERSONALITY

A. The concept of a person and personality

B. Commencement and termination of personality

1. Natural Persons >>> (a) Birth

Abortive creature does not reach category of natural persons. However, a fetus
Geluz vs. CA may have civil personality since there is the expectancy of birth. However, that
civil personality is extinguished if it dies.
Conceived child is given provisional personality, thus giving it right to support &
damages. Mother can already receive donations even when the baby is just in the
Quimiging vs. Icao
womb (NCC 742). For all purposes favorable to the child, he is already
considered born. (NCC 40 cf. NCC 41)
The law fixes no period during which a child must be in the continuous possession
De Jesus vs. Syquia of the status of a natural child. The period in this case was long enough to
evince/show the father's resolution to concede the status.
The Civil Code does not explicitly state that only those who have acquired juridical
Continental Steel vs. personality could die. Life is not synonymous with civil personality. One need not
Montano (2009) acquire civil personality first before he/she could die. Even a child inside the womb
already has life.
1. Natural Persons >>> (b) Death
Limjoco vs Intestate
Rights are not lost through death they can be passed to an estate.
Estate of Pio Fragante
Dumlao vs. Quality Persons who are ded could not validly serve summons since they do not have civil
Plastics personality and juridical capacity

Since Vitaliana did not have any surviving spouse (common-law not recognized),
Eugenio vs. Velez
ascendants, and descendants, her brothers and sisters have rightful custody.

It is absurd to place rights on a dead person since its civil personality is

Marcos vs. Manglapus extinguished by death. However, the dissent mentions that dead people still have
(1989) rights. For instance, Revised Penal Code prohibits the commission of libel against
a deceased individual.

In cases where a family dies at the same time, if there is no evidence presented
Joaquin vs. Navarro otherwise, it is presumed that all of them died at the same time. In succession, this
(1953) means that no transmission of rights from one to the other shall take place. In this
case, however, it was proven that Joaquin Navarro, Jr. died before his mother.

2. Juridical Persons
Barlin vs. Ramirez Church has juridical personality.
Camid vs. Office of the
Municipalities have juridical personality.
President (2005)
Juasing vs. Hardware Sole proprietorship not a juridical person. (NCC 44: Only corporations,
(1982) associations, and partnerships have juridical personality).
 C. Restrictions on Civil Capacity

1. Presumption of Capacity
Catalan vs. Basa (2007) Capacity to act is presumed until proven otherwise.
2. Restrictions on Capacity to Act >>> (a) Minority
(i) On Age of Majority
(ii) On Rules on Guardianship
(iii) On Suffrage
(iv) On Marriage
( v) On Contracts
The courts laid down the rule that the sale of real estate, made by minors who
pretend to be of legal age, when in fact they are not, is valid. They will not be
Mercado vs. Espiritu
permitted to excuse themselves from the fulfillment of the obligations contracted
by them. (Minor was in bad faith.)
The doctrine in Mercado vs. Espiritu doesnt apply. In this case, the plaintiff did not
pretend to be of age; his minority was well known to the purchaser, the defendant,
Bambalan vs. Maramba who was the one who purchased the plaintiff's first cedula used in the
acknowledgment of the document. Thus, the sale is invalid. (Minor was
intimidated.)
Sia Suan & Gaw Chiao Misrepresentation of a minor estops him/her from disavowing a contract. (Minor
vs. Alcantara was in bad faith.)
In order to hold a minor liable, the fraud must be actual and not constructive. The
Braganza vs. Villa- mere silence of a minor (passive or constructive misrepresentation) when making
Abrille a contract as to his/her age does not constitute a fraud which can be made the
basis of an action of deceit.
( vi) On Criminal Liability
Atizado vs. People When an offender is over 15 and under 18 years of age, the penalty next lower
(2010) than that prescribed by law is imposed. (RPC 68 (2)
2. Restrictions on capacity to act >>> (b) Insanity
(i). On Marriage
(ii). On Contracts
(iii) On Criminal liability
Sufficient proof must be shown to overcome the presumption of sanity. Care must
US vs. Vaguilar be taken to distinguish between mere moral insanity or mental depravity and
irresistible impulse resulting from disease of the mind.
Testimony of Rafanans physicians as to his mental incapacity and Schizophrenia
was insufficient, it did not specifically relate to the mental state at the time of the
People vs. Rafanan
crime. The fact that Rafanan warned the victim not to tell anyone is evidence that
he was aware of the moral reprehensibility of his assault.
A person claiming to be insane while signing a contract must prove that he was
Standard Oil vs. Arenas
such at the time of the signing.
Sec. 2 of Rule 92 ROC: state that persons, though of sound mind, but of weak
mind and are incapable of taking care of themselves and their properties, are
considered incompetent. In such cases, even of majority a age, a person may
Hernandez vs. Santos
avail of a guardian to represent him/herself. In proving such cases, expert opinion
is not needed. The observations of ordinary people that are well-acquainted with
her and the trial court judge's observation are sufficient.
2. Restrictions on capacity to act >>> (c) Deaf-Mutism
2. Restrictions on capacity to act >>> (d) Prodigality
2. Restrictions on capacity to act >>> (e) Civil Interdiction
 2. Restrictions on capacity to act >>> (f) Family Relations
2. Restrictions on capacity to act >>> (g) Alienage
There is no such thing as dual allegiance. When Cordora filed for a COC, he
Cordora vs. COMELEC
already pledged his allegiance to the Philippines, thus making him eligible to run
(2009)
for office.
2. Restrictions on capacity to act >>> (h) Absence
2. Restrictions on capacity to act >>> (i) Insolvency and Trusteeship
Villanueva vs. CA A bank's insolvency restricts its capacity to act. In this case, it was Philippine
(1995) Veterans Bank.
2. Restrictions on capacity to act >>> (j) Gender

D. Domicile and residence of persons

1. Juridical persons
2. Natural persons
Residence and domicile are different. A person can have a multitude of residences
Romualdez-Marcos vs but can only have one domicile. The basis for one's domicile is not based on how
COMELEC long that person has stayed in that place but of where he/she considers where
his/her "heart" is.

IV. INTRODUCTION TO THE FAMILY CODE

A. Effect and Retroactivity

Lupo Atienza vs. Judge
Marriages after the effectivity of the Family Code are (obviously) under it.
Brilliantes

Bernabe vs. Alejo The Family Code cannot be applied retroactively if it would impair vested rights.

Although Tarciano and Rosario got married in 1950, Tarciano sold the conjugal
property to the Fuentes spouses in 1989, a few months after the Family Code took
Fuentes vs. Roca (2010)
in 1988. Thus the Family Code applies. At the same time, no vested rights were
prejudiced under the FC.

B. Repeal / Amendment

V. MARRIAGE & PERSONAL RELATIONS BETWEEN SPOUSES

A. The concept of marriage

If there is a conflict between religious freedom and administrative liability, the

Estrada vs. Escritor Court can only tackle public morality and not religious morality. In doing so, the
(2003) state has to prove that it has a compelling interest to intervene, which should not
be too restrictive or unconstitutional
 B. Nature of marriage in Philippine law

Goitia vs Campos-
A wife can claim support if forced to leave the domicile.
Rueda
Sermonia vs. CA Marriage is different from other civil law contracts.
Persons dwelling together in apparent matrimony are presumed, in the absence of
any counter-presumption or evidence special to the case, to be in fact married.
Perido vs. Perido
(semper praesumitur matrimonio--always presume marriage). Children of this
marriage are also presumed to be legitimate.
The testimony of the accused that he was married to the deceased is an
People vs. Malabago admission against his penal interest. It is a confirmation of the semper
(1996) praesumitur matrimonio and the presumption that a man and a woman deporting
themselves as husbands and wife have entered into a lawful contract of marriage
Silverio vs Republic A persons sex is an essential factor in marriage and family relations. It is a part of a
(2007) persons legal capacity and civil status. Only a man and a woman can marry under
Philippine Laws.
The key element in Parricide other than the fact of killing is the relationship of
the offender to the victim. In the case of Parricide of a spouse, the best proof of the
People vs. de la Cruz relationship between the accused and the deceased would be the marriage certificate.
(2010) In this case, the testimony of the accused that he was married to the victim, in itself, is
ample proof of such relationship as the testimony can be taken as an admission
against penal interest.

C. Agreements prior to marriage

1. Stipulations prior to marriage

Panganiban vs. Contract against public morals not allowed (ex. entering into ante-marital contract
Borromeo allowing wife to be adulterous)
Documents that tend to supersede the procedures provided by law, such as that of
In re Santiago the signing of an instant separation between married couples is unlawful and
void.

2. Breach of Promise to Marry

One cannot sue for breach of promise to marry but can claim for damages for
Wassmer vs. Velez
actual expenses already incurred in preparation for the marriage
Tanjanco cannot be held as a seducer because the girl continued to be intimate
Tanjanco vs. CA
with him for a year before leaving him.
Although breach of promise to marry per se is not an actionable wrong but if it was
done in deceit and as adevice to lure a woman into sexual congress with a
Baksh vs. CA man who had no intention whatsoever to fulfill such promise,then the award for
damages is justified not because of the promise but because of the fraud and
deceit and the willful injury to her honor and reputation.

D. Requisites for a valid marriage

Always presume marriage. The mere fact that no record of the marriage exists
Mariategui vs. CA
does not invalidate the marriage, provided all requisites for its validity are present.
 1. Kinds of requisites & effects of non-compliance
Res judicata: marriage license issue was not raised in court so it will not be dealt
Mallion vs. Alcantara with the second time around to avoid forum shopping. In both petitions, petitioner
(2006) has the same cause - the declaration of nullity of his marriage to respondent. What
differs is the ground upon which the cause of action is predicated.

2. Essential Requisites
(a) Legal Capacity >>> (i) Gender

Silverio vs Republic A persons sex is an essential factor in marriage and family relations. It is a part of
(2007) a persons legal capacity and civil status. Only a man and a woman can marry
under Philippine Laws.

(a) Legal Capacity >>> (ii) Age

(a) Legal Capacity >>> (iii) Absence of impediment
A divorce obtained abroad by an alien may be recognized in our jurisdiction,
Garcia vs. Recio provided such decree is valid according to the national law of the foreigner, and
ultimately, proven with sufficient evidence.
Te vs. Choa Marriage is deemed valid unless proven otherwise.

3. Parental Consent
4. Consent freely given by both spouses
(a) Mistake as to identity
(b) Effect of insanity
(c) Effect of fraud
Anaya vs Palaroan
Non-disclosure of a pre-marital relationship not fraudulent.
(1970)
(d) Effect of force, intimidation and undue influence
In this case, vitiated consent was not proven to make the marriage
Villanueva vs. CA (2006) voidable/annulable. A vitiated consent gives rise to a voidable agreement but does
not make a contract void and unenforceable.
(e) Effect of physical incapacity / impotence

Jimenez vs. Canizares Impotency being an abnormal condition should not be presumed. The presumption
is in favor of potency
Psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code is not meant to
Alcazar vs. Alcazar comprehend all possible cases of psychoses. It should refer, rather, to no less
(2009) than a mental (not physical) incapacity that causes a party to be truly incognitive of
the basic marital covenants that concomitantly must be assumed and discharged
by the parties to the marriage
(f) Effect of affliction with STD

5. Formal Requisites
(a) Marriage License
The Court held that the certification of due search and inability to find a record or
entry as to the purported marriage license, issued by the Civil Registrar of Pasig,
enjoys probative value, he being the officer charged under the law to keep a
Republic vs. CA
record of all data relative to the issuance of a marriage license. Based on said
certification, the Court held that there is absence of a marriage license that would
render the marriage void ab initio.
It must be proven that civil registrar exercised due diligence in searching for
Sevilla vs. Cardenas license number. Marriage was NOT void since it was NOT proven that marriage
license did not exist.
 The marriage license was issued 1974, almost one year after the ceremony took
Sy vs. CA (2000) place in 1973. The Court held that the ineluctable conclusion is that the marriage
was indeed contracted without a marriage license, and thus, void.
Alcantara vs. Alcantara Absence of marriage license must be apparent on the marriage contract, or
(2007) supported by a certification from the local civil registration. If not, marriage will not
be void.
De Castro vs. De Castro A marriage license is only good for 120 days from the day of issue. After which, a
(2008) marriage contracted is void except as stated in Art. 34.

(a) Marriage License >>> 1. Where to apply

(a) Marriage License >>> 2. Requirements for issuance
a. Application
b. Proof of capacity
c. Parental advice
d. Marriage counseling
e. Publication
f. Investigation of impediments
g. Payment of fees
h. Family planning certificate
(a) Marriage License >>> 3. Place where valid
(a) Marriage License >>> 4. Period of Validity
(a) Marriage License >>> 5. Duties of the Civil Registrar
The law requires that the absence of such marriage license must be apparent on
Alcantara vs Alcantara
the marriage contract, or at the very least, supported by a certification from the
(2007)
local civil registrar that no such marriage license was issued to the parties.

(a) Marriage License >>> 6. Marriages exempt from license requirement

The five-year period should be computed on the basis of a cohabitation as

Nial vs. Bayadog "husband and wife" where the only missing factor is the special contract of
(2000) marriage to validate the union. It should also be a period of cohabitation
characterized by exclusivitymeaning no third party was involved at any time
within the 5 years and continuitythat is unbroken.
The marriage, having been celebrated in 1986, is covered by the NCC. NCC 53
states that a license is a requisite for a marriage to be solemnized, except in a
Republic vs. Dayot marriage of exceptional character. However, for the exception to apply, it is an
(2008) essential element that the man and woman, being unmarried, have lived together
as husband and wife for at least five years exclusively and continuously
immediately preceding the day of the marriage.

(b) Authority of the solemnizing officer >>> 1. Who are authorized

Under the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980 (BP 129), the authority of the RTC
judge and judges of inferior courts to solemnize marriages is confined to their
territorial jurisdiction. In Navarro vs. Domagtoy, the court ruled that judges who
are appointed to specific jurisdictions may officiate in weddings only within said
Aranes vs Occiano
areas and not beyond. Where a judge solemnizes a marriage outside of his
courts jurisdiction, there is a resultant irregularity in the formal requisite laid down
in Art. 3, which while it may not affect the validity of the marriage, may subject the
officiating official to administrative liability.
A marriage conducted outside a solemnizing officer's jurisdiction is valid if done in
Navarro vs. Domagtoy
good faith, does not invalidate the marriage, but makes the solemnizing officer,
(1996)
civilly, criminally, and administratively liable.
 (b) Authority of the solemnizing officer >>> 2. How authorized

Minister running for election should inform the public through the Bureau of Public
Villar vs. Paraiso (1955) Libraries (old) that he is no longer a minister for the public's protection--that is in
order for them not to have their marriage solemnized by him.

(b) Authority of the solemnizing officer >>> 3. Effect of absence of authority

Civil law does not take notice of ecclesiastic law. Even if ecclesiastic laws prohibit
cf. Tenchavez vs.
a solemnizing officer from conducting a marriage, if the couples married under the
Escao, 15 SCRA 355 at
chaplain were in good faith that the solemnizing officer was legally authorized, the
page 360
marriage is merely irregular, and thus still valid.

(b) Authority of the solemnizing officer >>> 4. Duties of the solemnizing officer
(b) Authority of the solemnizing officer >>> 5. Effect of irregularity
(c) Marriage Ceremony >>> 1. Form of ceremony
Simple civil rites are alright as long as requisites are present. At the same time, It
was proven that both the plaintiff and the defendant were able to read and write
the Spanish language, and that they knew the contents of the document which
Martinez vs. Tan
they signed; and under the circumstances in this particular case were satisfied,
and so hold, that what took place before the justice of the peace on this occasion
amounted to a legal marriage.

(c) Marriage Ceremony >>> 2. Place for ceremony

(c) Marriage Ceremony >>> 3. Issuance of marriage certificate

Even though a priest is unable to forward copy of marriage certificate, the
Madridejo vs. De Leon
marriage is still valid since all requisites are still present.
Even in the absence of a marriage contract, if a spouse was proven saying
People vs. Borromeo
"he/shes my spouse, the presumption is that they are married.

E. Law governing validity of marriages abroad

1. General rule in contracts

(a) As to form
(b) As to substantive requirements

2. Special rule in marriage

(a) Lex loci celebrationis
Yao Kee vs. Sy- The presumption is that Philippine laws and Chinese laws unless proven
Gonzales otherwise
Taking into consideration the legislative intent and applying the rule of reason, we
hold that Paragraph 2 of Article 26 should be interpreted to include cases involving
Republic vs. Orbecido parties who, at the time of the celebration of the marriage were Filipino citizens,
III (2005) but later on, one of them becomes naturalized as a foreign citizen and obtains a
divorce decree. The Filipino spouse should likewise be allowed to remarry as if
the other party were a foreigner at the time of the solemnization of the marriage.

(b) Exceptions
 F. Common-law marriages / live-in relationships
In the case of Marata vs. Dionio (G.R. No. 24449, unreported), the Court held that
though there is no technical marital partnership between persons living maritally
without being lawfully married, there exists an informal civil partnership which
Lesaca vs. Lesaca
would entitle the parties to an equal interest in property acquired by their joint
(1952)
efforts. However, it must be proven that there was joint effort to earn. In the
absence of such proof. the sum must be deemed to have been the property of the
deceased to whom the land for which it was given in payment was sold by Garcia.
Cohabitation for a number of years with a married man does not qualify one to be
Yaptinchay vs. Torres
administratrix of an estate.

G. Void Marriages

1. Kinds of void marriages

(a) Absence of requisites
Though there is the absence of a marriage license in the marriage, since the
Mallion vs. Alcantara absence was not raised at the earliest possible time to the court and the court has
(2006) already decided the case, the absence of the marriage license is no longer
recognized by the court, thus making the marriage in question valid.
In invoking a nullity of a marriage, even if there was the absence of the formal and
So vs. Valera (2009) essential requisites, if a marriage contract is presented before the Court, it will
serve as a prima facie evidence of the marriage.

(b) Bigamous and polygamous marriages

Apiag vs. Cantero (NOT BIGAMIST) In contracting a second marriage during the Civil Code, a
(1997) Declaration of Nullity of Marriage is not required.
(BIGAMIST) Under the Family Code Art. 40, one must obtain a declaration of
nullity before entering a subsequent marriage. Otherwise it is bigamous. The
Mercado vs. Tan principle applies even if the earlier union is characterized as void. The fact that
he obtained a judicial declaration of nullity is immaterial since bigamy was already
consummated.
(BIGAMIST) FC 40 requires a prior judicial declaration of nullity before remarriage.
Any decision in a civil action for nullity would not erase the fact that the he already
Bobis vs. Bobis (2000)
entered into a 2nd marriage during the subsistence of the first marriage. The
prejudicial question issue was only held as an excuse to escape bigamy.
(NOT BIGAMIST) SC held that Reyes was not liable for bigamy. Since both
Ty vs. CA (2000) marriages were celebrated before the FC, FC 40 cant apply. During the NCC,
there was no need for a judicial declaration of nullity of a void marriage.
(NOT BIGAMIST) As the first marriage was validly declared void ab initio, then
there was no first marriage to speak of. Since the date of the nullity retroacts to
Morigo vs People the date of the first marriage and since herein petitioner was, in the eyes of the
law, never married, he cannot be convicted beyond reasonable doubt of bigamy.
Thus, Morigo was acquitted of bigamy. In conflict with Bobis ruling.
(BIGAMIST) The subsequent judicial declaration of nullity of marriage on the
ground of psychological incapacity does not retroact to the date of the celebration
of the marriage insofar as the Philippines penal laws are concerned. As such, an
individual who contracts a second or subsequent marriage during the subsistence
Tenebro vs. CA (2004) of a valid marriage is criminally liable for bigamy, notwithstanding the subsequent
(read concurring of declaration that the second marriage is void ab initio on the ground of
Justice Vitug) psychological incapacity.
J. Vitug (VERY IMPORTANT): With exception to a void marriage due to
psychological incapacity, the absolute nullity of a previous marriage may constitute
a valid defense against bigamy. Void marriages are inexistent from the very
beginning, and no judicial decree is required to establish their nullity. The effects
 of a marriage attended by psychological incapacity of a party or the parties thereto
may be said to have the earmarks of a voidable, more than a void, marriage,
remaining to be valid until it is judicially decreed to be a nullity. Psychological
incapacity, a newly-added ground for the nullity of a marriage under the Family
Code, breaches neither the essential nor the formal requisites of a valid marriage.
And unlike the other grounds for nullity of marriage (i.e., relationship, minority of
the parties, lack of license, and mistake in the identity of the parties) which are
capable of relatively easy demonstration, psychological incapacity, however, being
a mental state may not so readily be as evident. It would have been logical for the
Family Code to consider such a marriage explicitly voidable rather than void if it
were not for apparent attempt to make it closely coincide with the Canon Law rules
and nomenclature.
(Remanded decision): Under the Family Code a subsequent judicial declaration of
the nullity of the first marriage is immaterial in a bigamy case because, by then,
Antone vs. Beronilla
the crime had already been consummated. Otherwise stated, this Court declared
(2010)
that a person, who contracts a subsequent marriage absent a prior judicial
declaration of nullity of a previous one, is guilty of bigamy.

(c) Subsequent marriage, upon reappearance of absent spouse

The law in 1937 only requires that a spouse be absent for seven consecutive
Jones vs. Hortiguela years at the time of the second marriage (presumption of death), in order to
(1937) remarry. It was not necessary to have a spouse judicially declared an absentee in
case of presumption of death.
It is necessary to establish well-founded belief that absent spouse is dead to
Republic vs. Nolasco
sustain the issuance of court order declaring absentees presumptive death. One
(1993)
should ask proper authorities in doing so!
The wo marriages and the live-in partnership that followed were contracted during
Bienvenido vs. Court of the NCC. In such cases, a subsequent marriage is not considered void when
Appeals (1994) absent spouse has not been heard from for 7 consecutive years and when present
spouse has no news that absentee is alive.
If absentee reappears, but no step is taken to terminate subsequent marriage
SSS vs. Jarques vda.
(either through affidavit of reappearance or court action), mere reappearance will
de Bailon (2006)
not terminate subsequent marriage.
Procedure
All judgments rendered in summary judicial proceedings in family law are
Republic vs. Bermudez
immediately final and executory, so the right to appeal will not granted to any
- Lorino (2005)
party.
No appeal can be made of the trial court's judgment in a summary proceeding for
Republic vs. Tango the declaration of presumptive death. What should be done is to file a petition for
(2009) certiorari (to question abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction) instead
of a notice of appeal.

(d) Bad faith of both spouses

(e) Psychological incapacity
(ON EVIDENCE): The physician-patient privilege is not violated by permitting
physician to give expert opinion testimony to a strictly hypothetical question.
Lim vs. CA
Presence of third party during consultation with physician removes info from the
mantle of privilege.
(ON EVIDENCE): A Bill of Particulars, specifying for example, that a wife did not
understand the demands of her husbands job as a doctor and caused him to lose
Salita vs. Magtolis
his job by being needy and demanding, is sufficient evidence to declare wife as
psychologically incapacitated.
Krohn vs. CA (ON EVIDENCE): A husband (or a wife) cannot testify against each other as both
 dont have the force and effect of a physicians testimony. What they will say will
be merely hearsay.
(ON QUALIFICATIONS): [JIG]
Santos vs. CA Psychological incapacity should refer to a mental (not physical) incapacity. it must
be characterized by (a.) juridical antecedence, (b.) incurability, and (c.) gravity.
Chi Ming Tsoi vs. CA
(ON QUALIFICATIONS): Refusal to fulfill obligation of procreation is equivalent to
(1997)
psychological incapacity.
GRANTED
(ON QUALIFICATIONS): [BRIPPIGS]
1. Burden of proof to show nullity on plaintiff
2. Root cause of psychological incapacity must be [(a.) medically / clinically
identified, (b.) alleged in the complaint, (c.) sufficiently proven by experts, (d.)
clearly explained in the decision] [masc]
Republic vs. Olaviano 3. Incurable/Permanent
Molina (1997) 4. Proven to exist at marriage celebration
5. Prosecuting attorney / fiscal and Solicitor General as counsel for the state
6. Interpretation by National Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal of the Catholic Church
should be given respect by the courts
7. Grave to disable performance of obligation
8. State non-complied marital obligation/s
(ON QUALIFICATIONS): Alcoholism, sexual infidelity, perversion, and
Hernandez vs. Court of
abandonment per se do not constitute grounds for finding that one is suffering
Appeals (1999)
from psychological incapacity
(ON QUALIFICATIONS): Personal medical or psychological exam not required for
Marcos vs. Marcos
a declaration of psychological incapacity. FC 36 not to be confused with divorce
(2000)
law or legal separation
Republic vs. Dagdag (CITED MOLINA): Root cause must be medically / clinically identified, proven by
(2001) experts. Each case must be judged according to its own facts
Republic. vs. Quintero - (ON FOREIGNERS): Norms used for determining psychological incapacity should
Hamano (2004) apply to anyone regardless of nationality.
Antonio vs.Reyes (2005) (ON USING MOLINA): Molina not set in stone; FC 36 interpretation relies on a
GRANTED case-to-case perception.
(PRESUMPTION OF MARRIAGE): Totality of evidence failed to show alleged
Republic vs. Iyoy (2005) psychological incapacity. Court resolves any doubt in favor of the validity of the
marriage.
(ON EXPERTS TESTIMONY): Doctors conclusion is hearsay since the
Republic vs. Tanyag-
assessment was based merely on the information communicated by respondent-
San Jose (2007)
spouse, not through her personal interview.
Zamora vs. Court of (ON EXPERTS TESTIMONY): Facts and evidence should be sufficient to
Appeals (2007) convince court of partys psychological incapacity. Expert opinion not needed.
Almelor vs. RTC-Las
(ON MEDICAL DISORDERS): Concealment of homosexuality [FC 46 (4)] is the
Pinas, GR No. 179620,
proper ground to annul marriage, and not homosexuality per se.
Aug. 26, 2008
(ON MEDICAL DISORDERS): Court must consider as decisive evidence the
Te vs. Te, GR No.
expert opinion on the psychological and mental temperaments of the parties.
161793, Feb. 13, 2009
Molina has become a strait-jacket, forcing all sizes to fit into and be bound by it.
GRANTED
Azcueta vs. RP, GR No. (ON MEDICAL DISORDERS): Medical / clinical disorder should be linked with
180668, May 26, 2009 manifestations of incapacity to comply with marital obligations. It is the duty of the
GRANTED court to scrutinize disorder type and gravity before declaring nullity of marriage.
Halili vs. Halili, GR No.
165424, June 9, 2009 (ON MEDICAL DISORDERS): Marriage conducted was assumed to have been a
(Motion for joke or in jest. Individuals with diagnosable personality disorders usually have
Reconsideration) long-term concerns, and therapy may be long-term as well.
GRANTED
Aspillaga vs. Aspillaga, (ON MEDICAL DISORDERS): The fact that psychological conditions hamper
GR No. 170925, October performance of obligations does not mean that they suffer from psychological
26, 2009 incapacity.
(ON EXPERTS TESTIMONY): Dr. Villegas conclusion not supported by
Lim vs. Lim, GR NO.
psychological tests properly administered by clinical psychologists trained in the
174464, Feb. 4, 2010
tests use and interpretation.
(ON EXPERTS TESTIMONY): Complete personality profile of the spouse could
not be determined from information coming from a biased source. Evidence can
Toring vs. Toring (2009)
come from persons intimately related to them. Son not a reliable witness since he
could not have been there at the time of or before his parents marriage.
(ON EXPERTS TESTIMONY): Lack of personal examination of respondent does
Camacho-Reyes vs. not per se invalidate doctors testimonies. Other informants testimonies were used
Reyes (2010) as basis of the doctors assessments. Person afflicted with personality disorder will
GRANTED not necessarily have personal knowledge thereof. Recommendation for therapy
does not automatically imply curability.
(ON EXPERTS TESTIMONY): There is inadequate credible evidence that her
defects were already present at the inception of, or prior to, the marriage. In
other words, her alleged psychological incapacity did not satisfy the jurisprudential
Ochosa vs. Alano requisite of juridical antecedence. The psychiatrists findings on bonas
(2011) personality profile did not emanate from a personal interview with the subject
herself as admitted by dr. Rondain. as a consequence thereof, Dr. Rondain merely
relied on her interview with Jose and another witness, as well as the court record
of the testimonies of other witnesses.

(f) Incestuous marriages

(g) Marriages against public policy
(h) Non-compliance

2. Who can invoke nullity

Ninal vs. Bayadog Before A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC came about, parties of interest may invoke to
(2000) declare the nullity of a marriage.
The 2nd marriage is under the new civil code. In the NCC, or even in the FC, there
is no specific provision as to who can file a petition to declare the nullity of
Catalan vs. CA (2007) marriage. However, only a party who can demonstrate proper interest can file the
same. A petition to declare the nullity of marriage must be prosecuted or defended
in the name of the real party in interest and must be based on a cause of action.
Unlike Ninal v. Badayog, the marriage of Eulogio and Lolita was celebrated during
the effectivity of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC, which only allows the spouse alone to file
Enrico vs. Heirs of Sps.
a petition for declaration of nullity. The children can no longer file a petition.
Medinaceli (2007)
However, they can question the validity of the marriage in a proceeding for the
settlement of the estate of the deceased.
The marriage of Teofilo and Felicidad was celebrated during the effectivity of the
Carlos vs. Sandoval
Civil Code and before A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC so Juan needs to first prove that he
(2008)
is a real party in interest before he can invoke the nullity of his brothers marriage.
Ablaza vs. Republic Since the marriage is celebrated before the effectivity of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC,
(2010) the brother of Cresenciano who is a real party in interest can file the petition.

3. When to file action for declaration of nullity

 4. Procedure in actions for declaration of nullity
a. Requisite for valid remarriage
b. Safeguards against collusion
The task of protecting marriage, as an inviolable social institution, requires vigilant
and zealous participation and not mere pro-forma compliance. The State did not
Malcampo Sin vs. Sin participate in the proceedings for the fiscal did not actively participate in the
proceedings. No pleading, motion or position paper was filed by the State at any
stage of the proceedings.
In all cases for annulment, declaration of nullity, and legal separation, the
prosecuting attorney or fiscal is ordered to Appear in behalf of the state for the
Ancheta vs. Ancheta
purpose of preventing any collusion between the parties and tot take care that
their evidence is not fabricated or suppressed.
The complaint of Ignacio cannot be considered for he is not a real party in interest
Salmingo vs. Rubica to the case. By law, only the prosecuting attorney or fiscal or the solicitor general
(2007) who can represent the State in proceedings for annulment or declaration of nullity
of marriage.

c. No confession of judgment
d. A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC. March 4, 2003
There is an express prohibition in the NCC on the rendition of a decree of
Jocson vs. Robles annulment of marriage upon stipulation of facts or confession of judgment.

Actions for the annulment of marriage or divorce shall not be decided unless the
Tolentino vs. Villanueva material facts alleged in the complaint are proved.

The Court allowed the petition of Certiorari as a remedy for the remedy of an
appeal would not afford an adequate and expeditious relief. In addition, the use
Salcedo-Ortanez vs. CA
tape recordings or wiretapping as evidence is prohibited under RA 4200

A petition for declaration of nullity under Article 36 of the FC should specifically

Pesca vs. Pesca alleged the complete facts showing either or both parties were psychologically
incapacitated from complying with the essential marital obligation of marriage.
The grounds for declaration of absolute nullity or annulment of marriage must be
Carlos vs. Sandoval
proved. No judgment on the pleadings, summary judgment, or confession of
(2008)
judgment shall be allowed.

5. Effects of pendency of action for declaration of nullity

6. Effects of Res Judicata
The matter of the invalidity of marriage due to the absence of an essential
Mallion vs. Alcantara
requisite should not be raised in the same proceeding where the marriage is being
(2006)
impugned on the ground of a party's psychological incapacity.

7. Effects of final judgment declaring nullity

(a) In general
(b) On remarriage
Wiegel vs. Sempio-Diy Even if the 1st marriage is void, a judicial declaration of nullity must still be
(1986) acquired before a party can validly contract a 2nd marriage.
Final judgment declaring the previous marriage void can be obtained for purposes
other than remarriage, such as for the purposes of the liquidation, partition and
Domingo vs. CA
distribution of the properties of the spouse, and the custody of children and the
delivery of their presumptive legitimes.
The declaration of nullity of the first marriage does not validate the second
Carino vs Carino
marriage of the deceased. The fact remains that the second marriage was
 solemnized without first obtaining a judicial decree declaring the first marriage
void. Susan Yees marriage to Santiago is also void ab initio/
Any decision in the civil action for nullity would not erase the fact that Isagani
entered into a second marriage during the subsistence of a first marriage. Article
Bobis vs. Bobis (2000) 40 of the Family Code, which was effective at the time of celebration of the second
marriage, requires a prior judicial declaration of nullity of a previous marriage
before a party may remarry
Under the Family Code, a declaration of the absolute nullity of a marriage is
explicitly required either as a cause of action or a ground for defense. And as
such, one who enters a subsequent marriage without first obtaining such
Mercado vs.Tan (2000) declaration is guilty of bigamy. This principle applies even of the earlier union is
characterized by statutes as void. The fact that petitioner obtained a judicial
declaration of the nullity of first marriage was immaterial for the crime of bigamy
has already been consummated by then.
Under the NCC, if the 1st marriage is VOID, there is no need for judicial
Ty vs CA declaration of nullity before a party could contract a 2nd marriage. The 2nd
marriage is valid.
The declaration of nullity retroacts to the date of the first marriage so Lucio should
Morigo vs Morigo not be held liable for bigamy. According to Maam Legarda: For bigamy to occur,
the 1st marriage must be valid.
Abunado vs. People A marriage, even one which is void or voidable, shall be deemed valid until
(2004) declared otherwise in a judicial proceeding.
Subsequent declaration of nullity of the 1st marriage is not a valid defense for the
Jarillo vs. People (2009)
crime of bigamy because the crime has already been consummated.
Antone vs. Beronilla A person who contracts a subsequent marriage absent a prior judicial declaration
(2010) of nullity of the previous marriage is guilty of bigamy.
(c) On rights & obligations between the former spouses
(d) On the property regime of the marriage
In a void marriage, regardless of the cause thereof, the property relations of the
parties during the period of cohabitation are governed by the provisions of Article
147 or Article 148. If the parties had no legal impediments to marry each other, the
property acquired by both spouses should be governed by Article 147. On the
other hand, if the common-law spouse suffers from a legal impediment to marry or
Valdes vs. QC-RTC when they do not live exclusively with each other, only the property acquired by
(1996) both of them through their actual joint contribution of money, property or industry
shall be owned in common and in proportion to their respective contribution
pursuant to Article 148. Finally, the first paragraph of Article 50 of FC, applying
paragraphs 2-5 of Art, 43, relates only by explicit terms, to VOIDABLE marriages
and exceptionally, to void marriages under Article 40 of the Code, as well
terminated marriages under Art. 42.
No partition of properties can be made without the proper accounting &
Sales vs. Sales (2009) determination of the extent of their properties. Factual issues raised must be
determined first before the determination of the properties.
Buenaventura vs. CA In a marriage declared void ab initio, the property regime applicable is that of
(2005) equal co-ownership.

(e) On legitimes of the common children

Buenaventura vs. CA In a marriage declared void ab initio, the property regime applicable is that of
(2005) equal co-ownership.
The essential elements of legal capacity, exclusive cohabitation and union without
the benefit of marriage under Article 147 are present in the case so Article 147
Dio vs. Dio (2011)
applies. FC 50 does not apply to marriages that are declared void ab initio under
FC 36.
 (f) On the status and custody of children
The agreement is void ab initio for being contrary to law. Children below seven (7)
years old cannot be separated from the mother when parents are separated or
Dacasin vs. Dacasin
divorced unless there is cause to believe that the mother is unfit. Justice Abads
(2010) (note ABAD, J.
dissent mentions that the state should not interfere if the parents already have an
separate opinion)
agreement as to who will have the custody of the child.

(g) On use of surnames

Under the Civil Code, the use of a husbands surname is permissive and not
obligatory except in cases of legal separation. When the marriage bond No longer
Yasin vs. The exist, the widow or divorcee does not need to seek judicial confirmation of the
Honorable Judge change in her civil status in order to revert to her maiden name In fact, the law
Sharia District Court requires a woman to use her maiden name when her former husband is already
(1995) married to another woman after obtaining a divorce from her in accordance with
Muslim laws

A married woman may use only her maiden name and surname. She has an
BAR MATTER NO. 1625 option, but not a duty, to use the surname of the husband

(h) On hereditary rights

(i) Effect of death
Lambertos death made the judgment binding on both parties under SEC 24 (b) of
A.M. No 02-11-10-SC which provides that If the party dies after the entry of
judgment of nullity or annulment, the judgment shall be binding upon the parties
Castro vs. Castro (2007)
and their successors in interest in the settlement of the estate in the regular
courts.