REPUBLIC VS. CA AND CASTRO (GR NO.

103047) SEPTEMBER 2, 1994

FACTS:

 On June 24, 1970, Angelina M. Castro and Edwin F. Cardenas were married in a civil ceremony
performed by Judge Pablo M. Malvar, City Court Judge of Pasay City. The marriage was
celebrated without the knowledge of Castro’s parents.
 Defendant Cardenas personally attended to the processing of the documents required for the
celebration of the marriage, including the procurement of the marriage license. In fact, the
marriage contract itself states that marriage license no. 3196182 was issued in the name of the
contracting parties on June 24, 1970 in Pasig, Metro Manila.
 The couple did not immediately live together as husband and wife since the marriage was
unknown to Castro’s parents. Thus, it was only in March 1971, when Castro discovered she was
pregnant, that the couple decided to live together. However, their cohabitation lasted only for
four (4) months. Thereafter, the couple parted ways.
 On October 19, 1971, Castro gave birth. The baby was adopted by Castro’s brother, with the
consent of Cardenas. The baby is now in the United States. Desiring to follow her daughter,
Castro wanted to put in order her marital status before leaving for the States. She thus
consulted a lawyer, Atty. Frumencio E. Pulgar, regarding the possible annulment of her
marriage.
 Through her lawyer’s efforts, they discovered that there was no marriage license issued to
Cardenas prior to the celebration of their marriage. Castro testified that she did not go to the
civil registrar of Pasig on or before June 24, 1970 in order to apply for a license. Neither did
she sign any application therefor. She affixed her signature only on the marriage contract on
June 24, 1970 in Pasay City.
 Petitioner, on the other hand, insisted that the certification and the uncorroborated testimony
of private respondent are insufficient to overthrow the legal presumption regarding the
validity of a marriage.
 The trial court denied the petition. It ruled that the inability of the certifying official to locate
the marriage license is not conclusive to show that there was no marriage license issued.
 On appeal, the CA declared the marriage between the contracting parties null and void and
directed the Civil Registrar of Pasig to cancel the subject marriage contract; hence, this
petition for review on certiorari by Republic of the Philippines.

ISSUE:

 Whether or not the marriage between Castro and Cardenas was valid.

RULING

 No. At the time the subject marriage was solemnized on June 24, 1970, the law governing
marital relations was the New Civil Code. The law provides that no marriage shall be
solemnized without a marriage license first issued by a local civil registrar. Being one of the
essential requisites of a valid marriage, absence of a license would render the marriage void
ab initio.
 SEVILLA VS. CARDENAS (GR NO. 167684) JULY 31, 2006

FACTS:

 Jaime O. Sevilla, herein petitioner, filed a petition for the declaration of nullity of his marriage
to Carmelita N. Cardenas, herein respondent, for their marriage was vitiated by machination,
duress, and intimidation employed by the respondents Carmelita and her father. He was
forced to sign a marriage contract with Carmelita Cardenas before a minister of the Gospel,
Rev. Cirilo D Gonzales. Moreover, he alleged that there was no marriage license presented
before the solemnizing officer as certified by the Office of the Local Civil Registrar of San Juan,
Manila. Actually, it was certified 3 times on the following dates: March 11, September 20, 1994
and July 25, 2000 that marriage license no. 2770792 was nowhere to be found.

 On the other hand, the respondent, Carmelita N. Cardenas refuted these allegations of Jaime
and claims that they were first civilly married on May 19, 1969 and thereafter married at a
church on May 31, 1969 at Most Holy Redeemer Parish in Quezon City. Both were alleged to be
recorded in Local Civil Registrar and NSO. He is estopped from invoking the lack of marriage
license after having been married to her for 25 years.

 The Regional Trial Court of Makati City declared the nullity of marriage of the parties based on
the petitioner’s allegations that no marriage license was presented before a solemnizing
officer. And that without the said marriage license, being one of the formal requisites of
marriage, the marriage is void from the beginning. This was based on the 3 certifications issued
by the Local Civil Registrar Manila that marriage license number 220792 was fictitious.

 Respondent appealed to the Court of Appeals which reversed and set aside the decision of the
trail court in favor of the marriage, because the Local Civil Registrar failed to locate the said
license with due effort as testified by certain Perlita Mercader because the former Local Civil
registrar had already retired. The petitioner then filed a motion for reconsideration but it was
denied by the Court of Appeals. thus, this case was elevated to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE:

 Whether or not the marriage certificate issued by Local Civil Registrar is valid.

RULING:

 The presumption of regularity of official acts may be rebutted by affirmative evidence of

 YES. The SC ruled that, the parties have comported themselves as husband and wife and lived
together for several years producing two offsprings, now adult themselves. Thus, the instant
petition was denied

 This is based on Article 3 of the Civil Code,

FACTS:

 November 26, 2002: Rommel Jacinto Dantes Silverio filed a petition for the change of his first
name and sex in his birth certificate – from “Rommel Jacinto” to “Mely,” and from “male” to
“female.”
 The petitioner alleged that he is a male transsexual: “anatomically male but feels, thinks and
acts as a female.”
 He underwent psychological examination, hormone treatment, and breast augmentation.
 January 27, 2001: culmination of his transformation to become a “woman,” as he underwent
sex reassignment surgery in Bangkok, Thailand.
 American fiancé: Richard P. Ede
 June 4, 2003: the RTC granted Silverio’s petition.
 The RTC ruled that it should be granted based on equity; that the petitioner’s misfortune to be
trapped in a man’s body is not his own doing and should not be any way taken against him;
that no harm, injury or prejudice will be caused to anybody or the community in granting the
petition; that there was no opposition to his petition (even the OSG did not make any basis for
opposition at this point).
 August 18, 2003: the Republic of the Philippines, thru the OSG, filed a petition for certiorari in
the Court of Appeals. It alleged that there is no law allowing the change of entries in the birth
certificate by reason of sex alteration.
 February 23, 2006: the Court of Appeals rendered a decision in favor of the Republic; it ruled
the trial court’s decision lacked legal basis.

ISSUE/S:

 Whether or not changing the name and sex on the birth certificate is allowed on the ground of
sex reassignment.

HOLDING:

 No. The Supreme Court ruled that the change of such entries finds no support in existing
legislation.oIssue on change of first name and change of sex: RA 9048 only authorizes the city or
municipal civil registrar or the Consul General to correct clerical or typographical error in an
entry and/or change of first name or nickname in the Civil Register without need of judicial
order. Section 2(c) of RA 9048 defines “clerical or typographical error” as: a mistake committed
in the performance of clerical work in writing, copying, transcribing or typing an entry in the civil
register... Provided, however, that no correction must involve the change of nationality, age
status, or sexof the petitioner.
NOLLORA, JR. VS. PEOPLE (GR NO. 191425) SEPTEMBER 7, 2011

FACTS:

 Jerrysus L. Tilar filed with the RTC a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage on the
ground of his wife’s (Elizabeth) psychological incapacity based on Article 36 of the Family Code.
 Elizabeth failed to file her Answer despite being served with summons.
 The RTC then required the Public Prosecutor to conduct an investigation whether collusion
existed. In his Manifestation and Compliance, the Public Prosecutor certified as to the absence
of collusion between the parties. Trial, thereafter, ensued with Jerrysus and his witness
testifying.
 The RTC issued its assailed Decision dismissing the case for lack of jurisdiction. Jerrysus filed a
petition for review directly to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE:

 Whether the courts have jurisdiction to rule on the validity of marriage pursuant to the
provision of the Family Code.

RULING:

 YES. Marriage in this jurisdiction is not only a civil contract, but it is a new relation, an
institution the maintenance of which the public is deeply interested. The State is mandated to
protect marriage, being the foundation of the family, which in turn is the foundation of the
nation. As marriage is a lifetime commitment which the parties cannot just dissolve at whim, the
Family Code has provided for the grounds for the termination of marriage. These grounds may
be invoked and proved in a petition for annulment of voidable marriage or in a petition for
declaration of nullity of marriage, which can be decided upon only by the court exercising
jurisdiction over the matter.
B. EFFECT OF ABSENCE, DEFECT, OR IRREGULARITY (ART. 4 FAMILY CODE)

MORIGO VS. PEOPLE (GR NO. 145226) FEBRUARY 6, 2004

FACTS:

 Lucio Morigo and Lucia Barrete were boardmates in Bohol. They lost contacts for a while but
after receiving a card from Barrete and various exchanges of letters, they became
sweethearts.
 They got married in 1990. Barrete went back to Canada for work
 In 1991 she filed petition for divorce in Ontario Canada, which was granted.
 In 1992, Morigo married Lumbago. He subsequently filed a complaint for judicial declaration
of nullity on the ground that there was no marriage ceremony.
 Morigo was then charged with bigamy and moved for a suspension of arraignment since the
civil case pending posed a prejudicial question in the bigamy case.
 Morigo pleaded not guilty claiming that his marriage with Barrete was void ab initio.
Petitioner contented he contracted second marriage in good faith.

ISSUE:

 Whether the marriage of Morigo with Barrete is considered ab initio.

RULING:

 YES. Morigo’s marriage with Barrete is void ab initio considering that there was no actual
marriage ceremony performed between them by a solemnizing officer instead they just
merely signed a marriage contract. The petitioner does not need to file declaration of the
nullity of his marriage when he contracted his second marriage with Lumbago. Hence, he did
not commit bigamy and is acquitted in the case filed.
 GO-BANGAYANVS. BANGAYAN (GR NO. 201061) JULY 3,2013

FACTS:

 Benjamin was married to Azucena Alegre (Azucena). They had three children, namely, Rizalyn,
Emmamylin, and Benjamin III.
 In 1979, Benjamin developed a romantic relationship with Sally Go Bangayan (Sally)
 Azucena left for the United States of America. In February 1982, Benjamin and Sally lived
together as husband and wife.
 On 7 March 1982, in order to appease her father, Sally brought Benjamin to an office in
Santolan, Pasig City where they signed a purported marriage contract.
 Benjamin and Sally’s cohabitation produced two children and later on acquired properties.
 The relationship of Benjamin and Sally ended in 1994 when Sally left for Canada, bringing the
two children. She then filed criminal actions for bigamy and falsification of public documents
against Benjamin, using their simulated marriage contract as evidence.
 Benjamin, in turn, filed a petition for declaration of a non-existent marriage and/or
declaration of nullity of marriage before the trial court on the ground that his marriage to
Sally was bigamous and that it lacked the formal requisites to a valid marriage.
 Benjamin also asked the trial court for the partition of the properties he acquired with Sally in
accordance with Article 148 of the Family Code, for his appointment as administrator of the
properties during the pendency of the case, and for the declaration of Bernice and Bentley as
illegitimate children. A total of 44 registered properties became the subject of the partition
before the trial court.
 Aside from the seven properties enumerated by Benjamin in his petition, Sally named 37
properties in her answer. However, the property was governed under Article 148 which the CA
found, belongs to Benjamin and his siblings.
 Despite repeated warnings from the trial court, Sally still refused to present her evidence on the
several opportunities given by the court. She insisted on presenting Benjamin who was not
around and was not subpoenaed despite the presence of her other witnesses.
 In a Decision dated 26 March 2009, the trial court ruled in favor of Benjamin. The marriage
between the Benjamin and Sally was never recorded with the local civil registrar and the
National Statistics Office because it could not be registered due to Benjamin’s subsisting
marriage with Azucena.
 The trial court ruled that the marriage between Benjamin and Sally was not bigamous. The
trial court ruled that the second marriage was void not because of the existence of the first
marriage but because of other causes, particularly, the lack of a marriage license.

ISSUE:

 (W/N) the marriage between Sally and Benjamin was valid

RULING:

 No, because the marriage was never celebrated due to lack of a valid marriage license.
 The marriage license was never issued to Benjamin and Sally and their marriage is void ab initio.
It was also established before the trial court that the purported marriage between Benjamin and
Sally was not recorded with the local civil registrar and the National Statistics Office. The lack of
record was certified by the proper authorities
 Pursuant of the Article 4 of the Family Code which states that
REPUBLIC VS. ALBIOS (GR NO. 198780) OCTOBER 16, 2012

FACTS:

 Fringer and Liberty Albios got married on October 22, 2004, before the sala of Judge Calo in
Mandaluyong City.
 2 years after their marriage (December 6, 2006), Albios filed with the RTC a petition for
declaration of nullity of her marriage with Fringer. According to her, the marriage was a
marriage in jest because she only wed the American to acquire US citizenship and even
arranged to pay him $2,000 in exchange for his consent. Adding that immediately after their
marriage, they separated and never lived as husband and wife because they never really had
any intention of entering into a married state and complying with their marital obligations.
The court even sent summons to the husband but he failed to file an answer.

 Both the RTC and CA ruled in favor of Albios declaring that the marriage was void ab initio for
lack of consent because the parties failed to freely give their consent to the marriage as they
had no intention to be legally bound by it and used it only as a means to acquire American
citizenship in consideration of $2,000.00..

 However, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) elevated the case to the SC. According to the
OSG, the case do not fall within the concept of a marriage in jest as the parties intentionally
consented to enter into a real and valid marriage. That the parties here intentionally consented
to enter into a real and valid marriage, for if it were otherwise, the purpose of Albios to
acquire American citizenship would be rendered futile.

ISSUE:

 Whether or not the marriage contracted for the sole purpose of acquiring American citizenship
in consideration of $2,000.00, void ab initio on the ground of lack of consent?

RULING:

 NO. Both Fringer and Albios consented to the marriage. In fact, there was real consent because
it was not vitiated nor rendered defective by any vice of consent.
 Their consent was also conscious and intelligent as they understood the nature and the
beneficial and inconvenient consequences of their marriage, as nothing impaired their ability to
do so.
 That their consent was freely given is best evidenced by their conscious purpose of acquiring
American citizenship through marriage. Such plainly demonstrates that they willingly and
deliberately contracted the marriage. There was a clear intention to enter into a real and valid
marriage so as to fully comply with the requirements of an application for citizenship. There was
a full and complete understanding of the legal tie that would be created between them, since it
was that precise legal tie which was necessary to accomplish their goal.
ALCANTARA VS. ALCANTARA ( GR. 167746) AUGUST 28, 2007

FACTS:

 Restituto Alcantara (petitioner) filed a petition for annulment of his marriage with Rosita
Alcantara (respondent) before the RTC of Manila alleging that on December 8, 1982,
without securing the required marriage license, he and respondent went to the City Hall of
Manila to look for a person who could arrange a marriage for them.
 They met a “fixer” who arranged their wedding before Rev. Aquilino Navarro, a Minister of
the Gospel. They got married on that same day, December 8, 1982.
 The wedding took place at the stairs in the Manila City Hall and not in the CDCC BR Chapel
where Rev. Navarro belongs.
 They also got married at the San Jose de Manuguit Church in Tondo, Manila on March 26,
1983.The alleged marriage license, appearing on the marriage contract, was procured in
Carmona, Cavite, neither party was a resident of Carmona.
 On the request of the respondent, the Office of the Civil Registry of Carmona, Cavite issued a
certification that Marriage License No. 7054133 was issued in favor of the parties on December
8, 1982.
 However, the marriage contract states that the Marriage License No. is 7054033. 
 The petition for annulment was dismissed by the RTC of Manila and was affirmed by the CA

ISSUE:

 Whether the marriage is void ab initio on the ground that no valid marriage license existed
during the solemnization of the marriage.

RULING:

 No. A valid marriage license is a requisite of marriage under Article 4 of the Family Code, the
absence of which renders the marriage void ab initio.

ARENA VS. OCCIANO (AM. NO. MTJ-02-1390) APRIL 11, 2002

FACTS:

 Mercedita and Dominador applied for a marriage license in the local Civil Registrar of their
town in Nabua, Camarines Sur but they did not claimed it. They just asked their mutual friend,
Juan to arrange the wedding and look for a judge who could solemnize their marriage. On
February 15, 2000, Juan requested Judge Occiano, MTC Judge of Balatan, Camarines Sur, to
solemnize the marriage of the two on February 17, 2000. Juan assured the judge that all the
marriage documents were complete. So Judge Occiano agreed to solemnize the marriage in
his sala.

 However, on 17 February 2000, Juan informed Judge Occiano that Dominador had a difficulty
walking and could not stand the rigors of travelling to Balatan which is located almost 25
kilometers from his residence in Nabua. Juan then requested if Judge Occiano could solemnize
the marriage in Nabua, to which request he acceded.
 Before he started the ceremony, Judge Occiano carefully examined the documents submitted
to him. When he discovered that the parties did not possess the requisite marriage license, he
refused to solemnize the marriage and suggested its resetting to another date. However, due
 to the earnest pleas of the parties, the influx of visitors, and the delivery of provisions for the
occasion, he proceeded to solemnize the marriage out of human compassion. He also feared
that if he reset the wedding, it might aggravate the physical condition of Dominador who just
suffered from a stroke. After the solemnization, he reiterated the necessity for the marriage
license and admonished the parties that their failure to give it would render the marriage void.
Mercedita and Dominador assured Judge Occiano that they would give the license to him in the
afternoon of that same day. When they failed to comply, the judge followed it up with Juan who
promised to deliver it to his sala.
 Mercedita and Dominador started living together as husband and wife until the latter passed
away. Mercedita tried to claim her right to inherit the vast properties of Dominador as the
surviving spouse. But no record of their marriage could be found in the NSO nor in the local
civil registrar of Nabua. So Mercedita did not inherit anything. She was even deprived of
receiving the pension of Dominador as a retired Navy Official. Out of rage, Mercedita filed an
administrative complaint against Judge Occiano, although she subsequently withdrew it after
realizing that everything was due to her fault and shortcomings. The Office of the Court
Administrator, however, found Judge Occiano guilty of solemnizing a marriage without a duly
issued marriage license.

ISSUE:

 W/N Judge Occiano guilty of solemnizing a marriage without a duly issued marriage license and
conducting it outside his territorial jurisdiction.

RULING:

 Yes. The territorial jurisdiction of the judge is limited to the municipality where his sala is
located. Judge Occiano's act of solemnizing the marriage of Mercedita and Dominador in Nabua,
Camarines Sur therefore is contrary to law and subjects him to administrative liability. His act
may not amount to gross ignorance of the law for he allegedly solemnized the marriage out of
human compassion but nonetheless, he cannot avoid liability for violating the law on marriage.