EFFECTIVITY OF LAWS (Article 2) - Courts cannot take JN of the existence of a foreign

law
Three scenarios: - Must be alleged and proven otherwise processual ACCION IN REM VERSO (Article 22)

1) if the law provides for its own effectivity date presumption applies It is an action for the recovery of what has been delivered
- This is subject only to the requirement of (The court presumes the law to be the same as our without any justifiable cause on the part of the recipient.
publication internal laws)
- The one who delivered has no obligation to make the
Case: Tanada v. Tuvera PROSPECTIVE APPLICATION OF LAWS (Article 4) delivery and the recipient is not entitled to the delivery.
- Congress may not dispense with the EXC EXC to the EXC - Compared to solutio indebiti
requirement of publication because that is to - kinds of quasi-contract:
1. Where the law provides 1.1 when it amounts to an
satisfy the requirement of due process. a) Solutio indebiti
for its own retroactivity ex post facto law
- The clause “unless otherwise provided” in b) Negotiorum gestio
1.2 when the law impairs
Article 2 of NCC refers to the 15 day period
an existing AIRV SI
that Congress may either shorten or lengthen.
contractual obligation There is delivery by reason
EXC: when it is a of mistake
2) When the law is silent
valid exercise of
- Apply the period provided in Article 2 NCC. For it to prosper: Plaintiff It is a quasi-contract
police power
- 16th day must have no other legal
2. when the law is penal When the accused is a remedy under contract,
After 15 days following the completion of in nature and habitual deliquent
their publication quasi-contract, delict or
favorable to the quasi-delict
accused
3) where the law provides that it takes effect immediately
3. when the law is
upon its approval
procedural in nature UNFAIR COMPETITION (Article 28)
- it shall take effect after publication
4. when the law is
curative in nature (case: Willamer v. Jesicris Manufacturing)
case: La Bugal case
- (in other previous cases, effectivity clause - The concept of unfair competition under NCC is much
providing for immediate effectivity upon broader than that in IPL
REPEAL OF LAWS
approval is declared to be invalid but the law - In order for the competition to be classified as unfair,
remains valid) in this much later case, the Express repeal – expressly and clearly provide for the law the following requisites must be present:
Court ruled that the clause should be that is to be repealed 1) Injury to the business of the competitor or business
interpreted to mean that the law takes effect rival; and
immediately after its publication. Implied repeal - when: 2) Act must have been characterized as contrary to
1. when both laws cover the same good conscience, shocking to judicial sensibilities
IGNORANCE OF THE LAW EXCUSES NO ONE subject matter; and or otherwise unlawful (includes force, deceit,
FROM COMPLIANCE THEREWITH (Article 3) 2. are repugnant to each other intimidation, machinations, or other similar
- in the absence of these 2 conditions, implied methods)
There is a conclusive presumption of knowledge of laws.
repeal is not favored
- Presumption is applicable only to domestic laws. PREJUDICIAL QUESTION
Effect of repeal of a repealed law:
With respect to foreign laws In order for a prejudicial question to exist it is necessary that
(See reviewer) there is a civil case and a criminal case.
- Must be proven as a matter of fact

JAC 2016 1
The prejudicial question is the issue raised in the civil case
but that issue is material in the criminal case which
determines the guilt or innocence of the accused.
The civil case must be filed ahead of the criminal case and
the resolution of the issue in the civil case must be
determinative of the guilt or innocence of the accused in the
criminal case.
In relation to Article 40 and the crime of Bigamy
2)
In bigamy, there are 2 marriages and one of these will be
used as a defense in the said crime
Defenses: (there is a pending petition for declaration of
nullity of marriage which was filed ahead of the criminal
case for bigamy)
1) Where the validity of the first marriage is assailed
- (case: Mercado v. Tan)
Even if the first marriage is void ab initio, the
parties to that void marriage are required to secure
first a judicial declaration for the nullity of the
prior marriage before they can contract a
subsequent marriage pursuant to the requirement
of Article 40 FC.
EXC: (case: Morigo v. People)
Parties in the prior marriage simply signed a
marriage contract done without the presence of the
solemnizing officer. One party contracted
subsequent marriage without securing a judicial
declaration of nullity. Morigo was acquitted of
bigamy.
- Reconciling Mercado case and Morigo case:
If there is an appearance or
semblance of a marriage because there was a
marriage ceremony, even if the marriage turned
out to be void ab initio, it is necessary that the
parties must first comply with the
requirements of Article 40 before they can
contract subsequent marriage otherwise he will be
liable for bigamy. (Mercado)
If there is no appearance or
semblance of marriage, albeit ostensibly,
because there was no marriage ceremony, there
is no need to comply with the requirements of
Artilce 40. The subsequent marriage is not
bigamous and is valid. (Morigo)
Where the subject of the petition is the second marriage
- In bigamy, it is necessary that the second marriage
should have been valid had it not been for the
existence of the first marriage.
If the second marriage is void for reasons other
than the existence of the first marriage, it is a
valid defense for the crime of bigamy.
EXC: the civil case for petition of judicial
declaration of nullity is not a prejudicial question
in the criminal case of bigamy (hence, not a
defense in the latter):
a) (case: Santiago v. People)
The second marriage was contracted without
a marriage license because the parties to the
second marriage made it appear that they
have been cohabiting as husband and wife for
5 years. They executed a falsified affidavit of
cohabitation.
SC held them liable even if the second
marriage was void. (According to SC letting
them get away with it would be a mockery of
the sacrament of marriage.
b) If the ground is Article 36 psychological
incapacity
- (case: Tenebro v. CA)
Even if the second marriage is void, so
long as the ground is Article 36, the
crime of bigamy is still committed as in
Article 36 not all the effects of
marriage are totally wiped out
(case: Capili v. People) funny case
Capili contends that he is not liable for the crime of bigamy
because the subsequent marriage was void. (Reason:
existence of the first marriage)
(I cannot, why Capili?) Utililizing the very commision of the
crime as the defense in the crime itself. You cannot have
your cake and eat it too.
CIVIL PERSONALITY
It is birth that determines personality.
A person is deemed born if he is alive at the time of complete
delivery
complete delivery
- if upon the cutting of the umbilical cord the child
is still alive
with respect to fetus inside the mother’s womb
- is accorded civil personality by our law but it
is limited personality and a provisional one.
- Limited because it exists only for purposes
that are beneficial to the unborn child
- Provisional because the permanency of that
personality is subject later on to the
compliance of the conditions in Article 41 of
the NCC:
Intra-uterine life of at least 7 months
see book reviewer
PRESUMPTION OF SURVIVORSHIP (Article 43)
Requisites:
JAC 2016 2
 1. The issue of survivorship must be between 2
persons who are called upon to succeed from each
other
2. Issue must be of succession
Rules:
1. He who alleges that one died before the other has
the burden of proving the same.
2. In case of doubt, if it is not clear who died first,
both is presumed to have died at the same time and
there can be no transmission of rights from one to
the other.
If the issue is not of succession, apply presumption of
survivorship under the Rules of Court.
Rules of Court:
a. If both are below 15, the older is presumed to have
survived
b. If both be over 60, the younger survived.
c. If one is below 15 and the other is above 60, the
former survives.
d. If the parties are between 15 and 60 and of
different genders, the male is presumed to have
survived. If of the same gender, the older survived.
e. If one is under 15 or above 60 and the other is
between 15-60, latter survived.
(example: issue is entitlement to insurance proceeds. F
procured an insurance and made S as one of the
beneficiaries. S’s wife wants to get the proceeds and it was
necessary that F must have died first before S will be entitled
to the insurance proceeds. Rules of Court applied here.)
MARRIAGE
 Same sex marriage is not a marriage.
- Same sex marriage not considered a marriage in
our law even if done and valid abroad. Although it
is not among those included in Article 26 as
among the exceptions to the principle of lex loci
celebrationis.
As a rule, if valid in the place of celebration it is
also valid in the Philippines except those
enumerated in Article 26, same sex marriage is not
one of the excepptions simply because it is not a
marriage at all.
(legal provision – Article 1 providing for the
definition of marriage)
- Our law is clear that marriage can only exist if the
parties are coming from opposite sexes.
- GR: One cannot change his/her sex. We
do not have any law recognizing the
effects of sex reassignment surgery.
Case: Silverio v. Republic
- Sex of a Filipino ciitizen is
determined at the time of birth
simply by examination of the
genitals made by the medical
attendants. Such determination is
immutable except when there was
palpable error.
EXC: if the person is suffering from an
abnormality known as congenital
andrenal hyperplasia where the body has
2 instruments.
Case: Republic v. Cagandahan
- If the sex of a person is neither
predominantly nor consistently
male nor female because of
congenital andrenal hyperplasia,
the court is called upon to respect
the choice of the individual in
relation to his/her sex.
- Court allowed the change of first
name here.
 Requisites of marriage
Essential requisites:
1. Legal capacity
2. Consent
Formal requisites:
1. Authority of solemnizing officer
2. Marriage license
3. Marriage ceremony
Absence of any of these 5 requisites renders the
marriage void ab initio.
Defect in any of the essential requisites (only giving
of consent can be defective as can be gleaned from the
grounds of annullment) renders the marriage voidable.
Irregularity of any of the formal requisites shall not
affect the validity of the marriage. Marriage remains to
be valid.
 Legal Capacity
- Governend by national law of the person
concerned
- Requirements:
i. At least 18 years old (otherwise void ab
initio)
ii. Parties must be from opposite sexes
iii. Absence of legal impediments under Artilce
37 (incestous and void) and 38 (void for
reasons of public policy)
If the requisites are not met, the marriage will not
be recognized as valid even if celebrated abroad.
Lex locis celebrationisdoes not apply as the parties
being Filipino citizens are governed by their
national law.
 Consent
- Must be freely given
Case: Republic v. Albios

JAC 2016 3
 - Filipina married to a American for the
purpose of acquring an American
citizenship. Filipina filed a petition in
Phil. Courts to nullify the marriage as
there was no real consent given as the
intention was merely for the acquiring of
citizenship.
- SC: It is not a valid ground. In the
argument that there was no real consent
given, the only consideration is did she
appear personally before a solemnizing
officer and did they make a personal
declaration taking each other as H and W
and were they suffering from insanity or
vices of consent during such time.
- Consent was not lacking between the
parties. There was real consent because it
was not vitiated nor rendered defective by
Who are authorized to conduct marriage:
any vice of consent. Article 1 provides
that the nature, consequences, and
a.
incidents of marriage are governed by
law and not subject to stipulation. There
is no law that declares a marriage void
if it is entered into for purposes other
than what the Constitution or law
declares, such as the acquiring of foreign
citizenship.
 Authority of the solemnizing officer
- GR: if solemnizing officer has no
authority then marriage is void ab
initio
EXC: (Artilce 35 par. 2) when at least one
of the contracting parties believes in
good faith that the solemnizer has
the authority to do so, marriage
becomes perfectly valid
It is only mistake of fact which can serve as basis
of good faith and never mistake of law.
Examples:
a) Parties were told that the solemnizer was a
judge. Parties went to the sala of the judge
and a janitor was there cleaning the room
wearing the robes of a judge. Parties believed
that the janitor was the judge which the
janitor did not bother refuting and proceeded
with his act. The janitor /judge wedded the
parties.
= wedding is valid. There is mistake of
fact.
b) Parties went to a notary public to get married.
They went to a notary public in the sidewalks
and got married.
= marriage is not valid. There is mistake of
law, a notary public is not among those who
has the authority to solemnize marriage.
Members of the judiciary
- Limitations: (Article 7 par. 1)
i. Marriage must be solemnized within
the court’s jurisdiction
Case: Navarro v. Lumagtoy
Beso v. Daguman
- SC made a statement that even if
the judge of the MTC
solemnized the marriage outside
of the court’s jurisdiction it is a
mere irregularity in the formal
requirement that will not affect
the validity of the marriage.
(however this was only an obiter
dictum in the administrative
cases of the judges involved)
However, if the law is to be examined, the
place of the celebration of marriage is part
and parcel of the judiciary’s authority to
solemnize marriage. Under the FC, they
only have the authority to solemnize
marriage within their court’s jurisdiction,
outside of it they don’t have the authority.
This is not a mere irregularity in the formal
requirement as this is total absence of
authority.
Prior to the FC, under the NCC the
authority ofjudges to solemnize marriages
is not confined to their territorial
jurisdictions, the only says that they are
authorized to solemnized marriage and the
place is only administrative, they will only
be administratively liable if conducted
outside. But under the FC, it says that
judges are authorized to solemnize
marriages only within their court’s
jurisdiction.
b. Religious solemnizers
- Requirements before they can have authority:
1. Must be issued a written authority by his
religion
2. Writte authority must be registered with
the civil registrar general
3. He must act within the limits of the
written authority
4. At least 1 of the contracting parties
belong to the same religion
- Absence of any of this requirements makes
him not authorized, however:
If 1, 2, 3 = the parties can invoke good
faith because this is a
mistake of fact.
If 4 = parties cannot invoke good
faith because this is a
mistake of law. The parties
are very much aware that
they do not belong to the
same religion.
c. Airplane chief pilot and ship captain
- Has authority but only under articulo mortis
- the conttracting parties must be passengers or
members of the crew
JAC 2016 4
 - Allowed during flights and even during celebrated on the strength of an expired license is officer and thus there was no
stopovers. a marriage without a license and thus void ab marriage)
initio. Case: Morigo v. People
d. Military commanders - Requirements: - Mere signing of
- Has authority but only under articulo mortis  Under the Responsible Parenthood Act, marriage contract done
- Must be a commissioned officer and contracting parties should obtain a certificate not in the presence of a
marriage is celebrated within the zone of of compliance that they have attended solemnizing officer,
military operations (parties may be armed seminars on responsible parenthood and there is no marriage
forces or civilians) family planning. ceremony at all.

e. Consuls Non-compliance of the requirements is a Personal declaration may be made

- Only in the place where they are stationed
- Contracting parties must both be citizens of
the Phils.
f. Mayors
- LGC 1991 (before 1991 marriage is void and
good faith cannor be invoked as this is
mistake of law)
- Solemnizing marriage outside their
jurisdiction is a mere irregularity and
marriage is still valid
 Marriage License
- Must be valid
If issued by the civil registry
(as long as the license is existing in the
records of the registry, regardless of the
manner of acquisition of such license
marriage is valid)
(if it is not appearing in the records or if it is
issued to another person, marriage is void ab
initio as it is without a valid marriage license.
A certification from the local civil registry
stating this fact is sufficient to declare a
marriage void ab initio.)
- It is valid even outside the place where it was
obtained as it can be used anywhere in the
Philippines.
- Good only for a period of 120 days, after the lapse
it is automatically cancelled. Any marriage
mere irregularity aas after all the license is
valid.
 Parental written consent if one of the parties
is below 21.
Absence of this, however:
a. Where parents consented to the
marriage is still valid
b. Where parents did not give consent at all
marriage is voidable
 Marriage Ceremony
- There are no formalities required
Case: Ronulo v. People
- Minimum requirements:
a. Contracting parties must personally
appear before the solemnizing officer
b. Contracting parties must make a
personal declaration that they are
taking each other as H and W before at
least 2 witnesses
Personal declaration must be made
in the presence of the
solemnizing officer.
(example: SO gave the marriage
contract to the parties for them to
sign while he is out for the
bathroom = there is no marriage
ceremony as signing was not done
in the presence of the solemnizing
in any form: verbal, writing,
signing a marriage a contract.
- Mere signing of a contract in
the presence of a solemnizing
officer is in itself a personal
declaration.
- Verbal declaration then failed
to sign a marriage contract;
still a valid marriage,
marriage contract is merely
evidentiary.
- Deaf and mute, simply by
nodding; marirage is valid,
signs are allowed.
In the requirement of 2 witness
- Merely evidentiary, existence
of marriage can still be proven
even in the absence of the
witnesses.
- Absence is a mere irregularity
that does not affect the
validity of the marriage.
 Marriages exempt from the requirement of
marriage license:
a. Marriage in articulo mortis

JAC 2016 5
b. Marriages involving parties in a very remote place
where there is no means of transportation going to
the office of the local civil registrar
c. Marriages among Muslims or other cultural
communities provided the marriage is celebrated
in acordance with their customs, rites and practices
d. Article 34 or legal ratification of marital
cohabitation
- For the marriage to be exempt:
1. Contracting parties must have
cohabited as H and W for a
minimum period of 5 years counted
backwards from the date of
celebration of marriage
2. Period must be uninterrupted
3. There must be no legal impediment
existing between the parties within
the period
- If the legal impediment is
- In lieu of the marriage license, parties are
required to execute an affidavit of
cohabitation that they had been cohabiting as
H and W for at least 5 years.
Case: Tupal v. Rojo
- the person who notarizes the
contracting parties’ affidavit of
cohabitation cannot be the judge who
will solemnize the parties’ marriage.
As a solemnizing officer, the judge’s
only duty involving the affidavits of
cohabitation is to examine whether the
parties have indeed lived together for
at least 5 years without legal
impediment to marry. Notarizing
affidavits of cohabitation is inconsistent
with this duty. If the solemnizing officer
notarized the affidavit, he cannot
objectively examine and review the
affidavit’s statements before performing
the marriage ceremony.
- Where contarcting parties falsifies their
affidavit of cohabitation:
o They can later on question the
validity of the marriage on the
ground that tehre was no marriage
license.
Case: Republic v. Dayot
De Castro v. Assidao-de
Castro
- When parties falsified the
affidavit and has not satisfied
the requirements in Article 34,
it is not a mere irregularity in
the formal requisites, this is a
total absence of marriage
license which will render the
marriage void ab initio.
Case: Santiago v. People
- (see Prejudicial Question)
- The were was a falsification.
As compared with:
Case: People v. de Lara
Go Bangayan v. Bangayan
- Here, the absence of a capacitates the foreign spouse to
marriage license was a remarry, as this was provided in this
defense in the crime of
bigamy because there was no
falsification.
ARTICLE 26
 2nd paragraph
- Decree of absolute divorce is recognized when:
a. It is the foreigner spouse who obtained the
decree
- Otherwise void
- Reckoning point is the citizenship at the
time that the valid divorce decree was
obtained
(Case: Republic v. Obrecido)
b. For the Filipino spouse to be able to remarry,
the decree must have also capacitated the
foreign spouse to remarry
- This is to be proven in the petition for
recognition of the decree
- If the petitioner is a foreigner, the
judgment of the court must be limited
only to the recognition of the foreign
decree of absolute divorce, the court
cannot authorize the foreigner to
remarry. The capacity of the foreigner to
remarry is governed by his national law
and not by this paragraph as this law is
intended only foor the benefit of the
Filipino spouse. The decree, however, is
a prima facie evidence of his capacity to
remarry.
(Case: Corpuz v. Santo Tomas)
- If the petitioner is the Filipino, the
judgment of the court is not limietd to
recognition, it can also authorize the
Filipino remarry of the decree
paragraph.
Case: Fujiki v. Marinay (see digest)
- (Filipina obtained the judgment
declaring the second marriage as
void in Japan. The first husband, a
Japanese, went to the Phils. and
filed a petition for the recognition
of the foreign judgment, RTC
dismissed the petition saying that
only the H and W can do that)
- SC held that the law where the
RTC decision was based does not
JAC 2016 6
 apply because it will required a
relitigation of the case.
In a petition for recognition of a
foreign judgment, the issue is
limited to the matter of proving the
existence of the foreign judgment
as a matter of fact, there should be
no relitigation of the issues.
VALIDITY OF MARRIAGES
(see marriages)
Question: it was the first marriage that was celebrated
without a valid license then the second marriage
was contracted with an afffidavit of cohabitation.
Is the party to the second marriage liable of
bigamy withour securing the nullity of the first
marriage first?
- YES. Although the first marriage is void,
there was however a marriage ceremony, so
there was an appearance of a marriage. Even
if the marriage is void ab initio, the
requirement of Article 40 is that before the
party can contract another mrriage, he must
first secure a judicial declaration of the
nullity of the first marriage otherwise he will
be liable for bigamy. (party can however use
the defense under Prejudicial Question, if
was siya nag gamit ani, meaning no civil case
was pending before the criminal case, then
liable for bigamy dayon)
GR: Marriages celebrated abroad are valid in the
Phils. if they are valid in the place of celebration
pursuant to lex loci celebrationis.
EXC: void when under:
1. Article 35:
- Par. (1) – absence of legal capacity
- Par. (4) – bigamous or polygamous
marriages
- Par. (5) – mistake in identity
2. Article 36 – Psychological Incapacity
3. Article 37
4. Article 38
VOID MARRIAGES
GR: marriage is void if one of the 5 requisites is absent
EXC:
1. Article 35 par. (2) concerning the absence of the
authority of the solemnizing officer where one of
the parties believe in good faith that he is
authorized
2. Marriages in articulo mortis
Void marriages:
1. Absence of 5 requisites
2. Article 35
- Par. 4 – bigamous or polygamous marriage
referred to here contemplates of a situation
where the first marriage is either valid or
voidable (as compared with Article 40)
- Par. 5 – mistake in the physical identity of
one of the contracting parties (ex: kalokalike,
identical twins) which cannot be ratified as it
is void
- Par. 6 – because of failure to comply with the
procedural requirement of Article 53
Article 52 contemplates of a situation where
there is a first marriage which was already
terminated by final judgment. Article 52
requires that:
a. the judgment must be registered in the
appropriate civil registry
b. there must be liquidation, partition and
distribution of the properties
c. which must be registered in the
appropriate registry of property
Article 53 requires the compliance of the
requirements under Article 52 before parties
can contarct a subsequent marriage,
otherwise the subsequent marriage will be
void. But the parties will not be liable for
bigamy here as there is already a final
judgment terminating the prior marriage.
The requirement under Article 52 and 53
does not apply to other kinds of void
marriages because other void marriages are
governed either by Article 147 or 148 on con-
ownership.
In the case of Dino v. Dino the SC held that
void marriages where there is co-ownership,
there is no need for the partition, liquidation
and distribution of properties before the
issuance of a decree. Thus, Article 52 and 53
only applies to void marriages governed by
ACP or CPP (thus only those under Article
40 and marriages annuled by final
judgment under Article 45).
GR: if marriage is void, property regime
is co-ownership under Article 147-
148.
EXC: Article 40 and 45 governed by
their marriage settlement ACP, CPP or
complete separation. (The property
regime here is the same as that of a valid
marriage)
3. Article 36
- Psychological incapacity
JAC 2016 7
 - It is different from mental insanity. It is a
psychological disorder that must be grave
and serious rendering the person incapable
of fulfilling the essential marital obligations.
It is necessary that there must be juridical
antecedence and it must be incurable.
Case: Marcos v. Marcos
- Parties need not be personally examined
by a psychologist for him to be declared
psychologocally incapacitated.
- May the parties be entitled to moral damages
based oin the same factual background as that
of the pyschological incapacity = NO.
For one to be liable of moral damages it is
necessary that the acts be done voluntarily,
maliciously which is not present in the
actions of a person suffering pyschological
incapacity. (Buenaventura v. CA)
- (Tenebro v. CA) Even if the second marriage
is declared void on the ground of
psychological incapacity, it is not a defense
in bigamy because the law itself says that in
psychological incpacity not all effects of the
marriage are wiped out (such as the liability
for the commission of bigamy).
4. Article 37
- Incestous marriages:
a. Marriages between ascendant and
descendant of whatever degree
b. Marriages between brothers and
sisters..collateral relatives within the
second degree
5. Article 38
- Marriages which are void by reason of public
policy:
a. Marriages between in parent-in-law and
children-in-law
b. Marriages between step-parent and step-
child
c. Adopting parent and his surviving
spouse – adopted chiild
d. Surviving spouse of the adopted child –
adopter
e. Adopted child – legitimate child of
adopter
f. Between adopted children of the same
adopter
g. Between parties where one, with the
intent to marry the other, killed the other
person’s spouse or his own spouse.
Marriages between stepbrothers and stepsisters:
- If during NCC == void
- If during FC = valid
6. Article 40
- The bigamous marriage referred to
contemplates of a situation where the first
marriage is void ab initio and the second
marriage becomes void because one party did
no secure a judicial declaration for the nullity
of the first marriage
- Only needs to be complied with is there is
a marriage ceremony in the first marriage
ARTICLE 40
Even if the marriage is void, parties are required to comply
with Article 40 before they can contract a subsequent
marriage. They must first secure a judicial declaration of the
nullity of the first marriage otherwise the second marriage is
void and they will be liable for the commission of bigamy.
Effect of non-compliance:
- Second marriage is bigamous and void
- Commission of the crime of bigamy
Petition for declaration of nullity of marriage
- AM 02-11-10 states that only the H or the W shall have
the personality to file.
Applicability: during FC
Case: Enrico v. Heirs of Sps. Medina
Carlos v. Sandoval
Maglasa v. Republic
- AM 02-11-10 is applicable only to
marriages contracted during the
effectivity of the FC (August 3, 1988) and
after March 15, 2003 as it is applied
prospectively.
Case: Llave v. Republic
Fujiki v. Marinay
- If the ground of the petition is that the
marriage is bigamous, AM 02-11-10 does
not apply. If there are two marriages and the
second is bigamous, the parties who have
the personality to file the petition are the
parties in the first marriage as they are the
injured H and W.
Case: Braza v. Himamaylan City
- Validity of void marriage cannot be
questioned in any other proceeding except in
a proceeding directly for that purpose
(cannot be collaterally attacked) filed
before the family court.
EXC: Case: Republic v. Olaybar
- (there was theft of identity, Olaybar was
registered as married when in fact she is not
as someone used her name. She filed a
petition for cancellation and/or corection of
entries in the registrar. It was opposed by the
Republic as it was a collateral attack)
- SC allowed the petition as there was no
marriage to speak of. The petition, in reality,
was not for the nullity of a marriage as she
JAC 2016 8
 was not the person who got married. The
petition as proper.

- Where marriage is not covered by AM 02-11-10 as it

was celebrated prior to the effectivty of the FC and AM
02-11-10, the parties who has the personality to file the
petition are those who are the real parties in interest.
If the H and W are still alive, they are the only ones who
can file.
If H and/or W are dead, then the real party in interest.
(so if one is dead, children are already allowed)

Case: Carlos v. Sandoval

- Party who can file must be a real party in
interest. He must be party whose interest will
be directly affected by the issue on the
validity of the marriage.
- Upon the death of parents, the children
acquires the personality to question the
validity of the marriage as their interest is
related to their successional rights. (while
their parents are still alive, their interests are
merely inchoate)

Case: Ninal v. Bayadog

- if marriage is governed by NCC and before

March 15, 2003 and one of the spouses is
dead, children can file the petition

JAC 2016 9