_________________________________

University of San Carlos

School of Law and Governance

College of Law
_______________________________

In Fulfillment

Of the Requirements for the course

LEGAL RESEARCH

(Saturday 4:30 6:30 PM)

____________________________

Submitted by:

Dave Anthony Urot

(names)

Submitted to:

Atty. Aylward M. Consulta

August 16, 2017

 REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner vs LIBERTY D. ALBIOS, respondent
G.R. No. 198780 October 16, 2013
Facts
Liberty Albios was married to Daniel Lee Fringer, an American citizen, which
they contracted marriage before the Metropolitan Trial Court of Mandaluyong City.
Thereafter, Albios filed with the Regional Trial Court a petition for Declaration of
Nullity of her marriage with Fringer alleging that they never lived as husband and wife
because they never really have the intention of entering into marriage. She further
described that their marriage was in jest that she contracted marriage for the reason to
enable her to acquire American citizenship and in consideration thereof, she agreed to
pay Fringer the sum of $2,000.00. The RTC, therefore, declared their marriage void ab
initio on the grounds of lack of consent to contract marriage. Petitioner Republic of the
Philippines, represented by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) filed a motion for
reconsideration on the ground that both parties have consented to contract marriage but
the said motion was denied by the RTC. Upon appeal before the Court of Appeals by
the OSG, the CA affirmed the RTC decision that the essential requisite of consent was
lacking.
Issue
Whether or not Liberty Albios contracted marriage is fraud for the purpose of
acquiring American Citizenship, a ground for annulment under Article 45(3) of the
Family Code.
Ruling
The marriage contracted by Liberty Albios and Daniel Lee Fringer was not
fraudulent nor in jest for purposes of immigration because the said fraudulent act is not
a ground for annulment of marriage under Article 45 of the Family Code for it is not
one of the circumstances listed under Article 46 of the same code that constitutes fraud.
Thus, their marriage is not void ab initio and continues to be valid and subsisting.
VERONICA CABACUNGAN ALCAZAR, petitioner vs REY C. ALCAZAR, respondent
G.R. No. 174451 October 13, 2009
Facts
Petitioner Veronica Cabacungan Alcazar contracted marriage with respondent
Rey C. Alcazar on October 11, 2000. After their wedding, they lived together for five
days with respondents parents. Thereafter, they went back to Manila but respondent
did not live with petitioner after which he left for Riyadh, Saudi Arabia for work. While
in Riyadh, respondent did not communicate with petitioner, even though the latter
tried to call him, he did not respond. About a year and a half, respondent left Riyadh to
come home to the Philippines and petitioner was surprised that he did not advised her
of his arrival. However, on his arrival, he immediately proceeded to his parents house
and not on his wifes house. Thus, petitioner filed a complaint for the annulment of her
marriage to respondent on the ground that he was physically incapable of
consummating his marriage with her as provided under paragraph 5, Article 45 of the
Family Code before the Regional Trial Court.
Before the trial, the respondent did file an answer on the complaint in which the
RTC ordered the public prosecutor to investigate on the matter whether there is
collusion between the parties. The public prosecutor conducted an investigation and
recommended to proceed with the trial after finding that there is no collusion that exist
nor suppression or fabricated of evidence.
During the trial, when the petitioner was cross-examined, she admitted that she
and respondent had sexual intercourse after their wedding and before respondent left
for abroad. The RTC denied her petition that the acts of the respondent do not lead to a
conclusion of psychological incapacity in which it failed to note that the complaint filed
was originally for annulment of marriage based on Article 45, paragraph 5 of the Family
Code. Petitioner then filed an appeal before the Court of Appeals that affirmed the
decision of the RTC.
Issue
Whether or not Rey C. Alcazar is physically incapable of consummating his
marriage, which is a ground for annulment of marriage Article 45(5) of the Family
Code.
Ruling
Article 45 (5) of the Family Code refers to lack of power to copulate in which it is
the incapacity to consummate, that is the permanent inability on the part of the spouses
to perform the complete act of sexual intercourse. The marriage between Veronica
Alcazar and Rey Alcazar cannot be annulled on the said ground because there is no
physical incapacity after she admitted that they engaged in sexual intercourse after their
wedding and before the respondent left for abroad. Thus, there is not incapacity to
consummate marriage on the part of the husband.
 MANUEL G. ALMELOR, petitioner vs THE HON. REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF
LAS PIAS CITY, BRANCH 254 and LEONIDA T. ALMELOR, respondent
G.R. No. 179620 August 26, 2008
Facts
Petitioner Manuel G. Almelor and respondent Leonida Trinidad were married in
which their union bore three children. Respondent argued that the kind and gentle
demeanor of Manuel did not last long that he was a harsh disciplinarian, unreasonably
meticulous, and easily angered. She further added that petitioner concealed his
homosexuality when she noticed his peculiar closeness to male companions, found
several pornographic homosexual materials in his possession, and even witnessed his
husband kissing another man on the lips. Petitioner denied the said accusation.
Respondent then took her children and left their conjugal homes. Thus, she filed a
petition to annul their marriage on the ground that her husband was psychologically
incapacitated to perform his marital obligation before the Regional Trial Court in Las
Pias City.
Petitioner admitted that he and his wife had some petty arguments and their
marital relationship was generally harmonious. He further argued that with the overly
jealous behavior of his wife, she conjured up stories about his sexual preference.
The RTC granted the petition for annulment, not on the ground of Article 36 but
Article 45 of the Family Code in which it ruled that homosexuality has trespassed their
marriage that will jeopardize the welfare of the family. When petitioner appealed before
the Court of Appeals, the appellate court denied the said petition and affirmed the
decision of the RTC.
Issue
Whether or not homosexuality per se is a ground for annulment of marriage, is
according to Article 45 and not Article 36 of the Family Code.
Ruling
Article 46 (4) of the Family Code is the concealment of homosexuality or
lesbianism at the time of the marriage constitutes fraud that is a ground for annulment
pursuant to Article 45 (3) of the same code. Homosexuality per se is not a ground for
annulment because it is its concealment that is a valid ground for annulment which
constitutes fraud. Thus, even assuming that petitioner is homosexual, the law is clear
that their marriage can only be annulled by its concealment.
 ELMER H. BERMUNDO, petitioner vs HON. COURT OF APPEALS, REPUBLIC OF
THE PHILIPPINES and JUVY LUCAS BERMUNDO, respondents
G.R. No. 188519 June 3, 2013
Facts
According to petitioner Elmer H. Bermundo, respondent Juvy L. Bermundo was
introduced to him by a friend. When they both left for work abroad, they ceased seeing
each other. Upon returning to the Philippines, both of them went to Tagaytay to have
some drink in which respondent allegedly took advantage of the situation and both had
sex. After the said incident, he avoided respondent but the latters friends constantly
visited his house to demand money and threatened to kill him if he does not marry
respondent. However, he consented to avoid conflict. Thereafter, respondents friends
forced him to accomplish and sign some documents at the Manila City Hall and
someone solemnized their marriage. After the said wedding, the two part ways and
never lived together nor did they have any children. Thus, petitioner file with the RTC a
petition for the declaration of the nullity of his marriage in accordance with paragraph 4
of Article 45 of the Family Code that his consent was obtained through force,
intimidation, and undue influence. The RTC granted his petition and declared their
marriage annulled. Upon appeal by the Office of Solicitor General, the Court of Appeals
reversed and set aside the decision of the RTC that petitioner failed to prove force,
intimidation, and undue influence to support his contention of vitiated consent to his
marriage with respondent.
Issue
Whether or not Elmer H. Bermundo consent was vitiated since the marriage was
acquired through force, intimidation, and undue influence, a ground for annulment of
marriage Article 45(4) of the Family Code.
Ruling
There was no evidence presented that will justify that his consent was acquired
through force, intimidation, and undue influence since the petitioner has sufficient
intellectual capacity, for being an educated person, to resist any intimidation against
him. Hence, their marriage was not annulled since petitioner failed to prove his
contention of vitiated consent in their marriage as a ground for annulment enumerated
in Article 45 of the Family Code.
 ORLANDO VILLANUEVA, petitioner vs HON. COURT OF APPEALS and LILIA
CANALITA-VILLANUEVA, respondents
G.R. No. 132955 October 27, 2006
Facts
Petitioner Orlando Villanueva and private respondent Lilia Canalita-Villanueva
contracted marriage on April 13, 1988. However, on November 17, 1992, after 4 years of
marriage, petitioner filed a petition for annulment of his marriage alleging that his
consent was obtained through threats of violence and duress a ground for annulment of
marriage according to article 45 of the family code. According to petitioner, he was
forced to marry private respondent, who was already pregnant in which he was not the
father of the child that he learned that the said child died during delivery. He also
argued that they never cohabited after their marriage.
Private respondent counterclaims that petitioner freely and voluntarily married
her and even stayed with her after their marriage. Furthermore, petitioner wrote letters
to her after he returned to Manila in which respondent would often visit him, and also
he knew about the progress of her pregnancy. Thus, private respondent prayed for the
dismissal of the petition.
The RTC rendered judgment in dismissing the petition and was affirmed by the
Court of Appeals when petitioner filed an appeal before the appellate court.
Issue
Whether or not Orlando Villanueva consent was vitiated since the marriage was
acquired through force, intimidation, and undue influence, a ground for annulment of
marriage Article 45(4) of the Family Code.
Ruling
Petitioner failed to prove that his consent to marry respondent was obtained
through threats, intimidation, duress, or violence a ground according to Article 45 of the
Family Code. Furthermore, petitioner only took serious steps to have his marriage
annulled in the span of more than 4 years from the celebration of their marriage in the
hope that a favorable judgment would bolster his defense after having a criminal
complaint pending against him.