Special Notes on Marriage:

Remember situations where there is more than one marriage involved

Note if they fall under:
1. Art. 40
2. Art. 41
3. Art. 35 (4)
4. Art. 42
Case: SSS v. Jarque Vda. De Bailon
If the absentee reappears, but no step is taken to terminate the subsequent marriage,
either by affidavit or by court action, such absentees mere reappearance, even if made
known to the spouses in the subsequent marriage, will not terminate such marriage.
See page 71 Rabuya
Take note of the effects
Property relations
Second or third marriage, for instance, would give rise to compulsory separation of property
regime to circumstances like in:
1. Art. 103 should the surviving spouse contract a subsequent marriage without
compliance with the requirements on liquidation within 1 year from termination of
marriage by death, a mandatory regime of complete separation of property shall
govern the property relations of the subsequent marriage.
It can also give rise to void dispositions
Art. 40 vs. Art. 147 and 148
Multiple marriages and Art. 53 in relation to Art. 52 the requirement of registration in the local
civil registrar
Multiple marriages and issue of bigamy
Good faith and bad faith in marriage
Example, good faith pursuant to the validity or nullity of marriages:
Good faith here, most of the time is irrelevant.
Going back to the essential and formal requisites of marriage, one cannot erase the
absence of good faith. For example:
1. There is no legal capacity, even if the parties entered into marriage in good faith,
if the husband entered into marriage with someone who was very pretty but also
very gay, (good faith does not affect absence of legal capacity here) good faith
will not make this marriage valid.
2. When it comes to absence of consent (esp. in completely simulated marriage)
where one is playing a joke there and the other person believed on good faith
that it was not simulated, that is still a void marriage.
3. Marriage license. If one had not time to get a marriage license and you just ask
your runner to get and he is very creative, without you having to attend
seminars, you were able to secure a marriage license from a certain municipality,
the local civil registrar seemed to have signed it, and you believed in good faith

that the license was valid, and even the judge upon perusal of such license, said it
was valid and he can get to the reception. But if it was really a void marriage
license, or made in recto/carbon, good faith will not cure the absence of that
marriage license.
4. Absence of marriage ceremony.
Xpn: Art. 35(2) authority of the solemnizing officer
- Even if the solemnizing officer didnt actually have the authority to solemnize a
marriage, if you believed in good faith that he has authority, it is possible for
your marriage to be valid.
- Why I say possible? Because your good faith must be premised upon a mistake
of fact and not a mistake of law.
- Mistake of law if you try to expand who are authorized to solemnize marriage
by your mistake.
i.e. you just made a deduction that if the mayor is authorized to solemnize
marriage, then the governor also have the authority since he seems to have a
bigger territory
- Mistake of fact you thought somebody is a priest when in fact, he is not . Or
you thought he is a judge because he seems to be really strict when in fact he is
not. Or a judge but he was in truth suspended or he wasnt incumbent anymore.
- Mistake of fact must be an HONEST mistake of fact.
- Because if you thought that Mayor Osmena is still the Mayor because he
defeated rama in the last elections, that is a mistake of fact but not an honest
mistake of fact because you can verify easily who is the mayor of cebu.
But it doesnt mean that your good faith doesnt affect the consequences of your
getting married at all because good faith and bad faith can affect the manner of
distributing your properties.
When you knowingly enter into a void marriage even when it is VERY CLEAR IN
YOUR MIND that it is void but you entered into it because you wanted a fallback,
then you can be considered as a spouse who entered into the marriage in bad faith.
Consequences:
- If marriage is voidable under Art.45 like you are the one who pointed the shotgun in a
shotgun wedding, you lose your rights to the NET PROFITS.
- When you are the person who knew that the other spouse declared presumptively
dead is actually alive and the second spouse did not know, when the other spouse
reappears, and there is a termination of your ACP/CPG, you could lose your NET
PROFITS.
VALDES vs. RTC
-

If the void marriage involved is the subsequent void marriage that may occur for nonobservance of Art.40, the spouse in bad faith shall forfeit only his or her share of the
NET PROFITS of the ACP/CPG in favor of the: (Art. 43 (2))

a. Common children
b. Or if there is none,, the children of the guilty spouse by a previous marriage
c. Or in default of children, the innocent spouse.
If the marriage is void other than because of non-observance of Art. 40, then the
forfeiture shall be in accordance of Art. 147/148.
Art. 147 the spouse in bad faith shall forfeit not only his/her share in the net profits
but ALL his or her shares in the co-ownership in favor of:
a. Their common children
b. In default or waiver, each vacant share shall belong to the respective surviving
descendants.
c. Or in default, to the innocent party.
Art. 148
if one of the parties is validly married to another, his or her share in the co-ownership
shall accrue to the ACP/CPG existing in such marriage

and if the party who acted in bad faith is not validly married to another, his/her share shall be forfeited
in the manner provided in Art. 147

DAMAGES
Buenaventura vs. CA the wife try to ask relief for damages from the court, but the court
said that it is INHERENT in psychological incapacity cases that they cannot be held liable for
their psychological incapacity, something like that.
In marriage, dont talk about pecuniary damages like in ordinary cases (oblicon)
But you can talk about imprisonment for adultery or bigamy, concubinage, forfeiture of
shares or right to net profits or loss of parental authority, loss of custody, abuse of women
and children
Under new rules of SC (sometime 2003), very clear that only the husband and the wife can
sue for nullity or annulment of their marriage. In contrast to your code of civil procedure, in
the concept of legal standing or the interested party or legal interest. There, legal interest to
sue pertains to your status or situation where you stand to benefit or to get injured by the
suit. But the SC clearly said that in case the marriage is still there, because the spouses are
still alive, only the husband or the wife can sue for the nullity of marriage.
It can happen also that other person have interest to declare your marriage void but he
would not have the right to sue for nullity. For example, the husband wants to attack the
validity of a sale given to a buyer, then the wife didnt sign. So the buyer could say that the
marriage is void and the wife doesnt need to sign because he cannot get anything there(?).
Because the SC ruled that ONLY THE WIFE AND THE HUSBAND CAN SUE FOR NULLITY AND
ANNULMENT OF MARRIAGE.
And the only time other interested parties could sue is during testate or intestate
proceedings you can bring up that topic because your children of a prior marriage, they
dont want your second marriage to your concubine to be valid and so they attack it. But if
you are still alive, their case would be dismissed by the court because they do not have the

legal standing to sue because only the husband and the wife can attack the second
marriage.
So, not even the first wife can attack. (only the husband and wife of the second marriage
may attack the second marriage)
But during succession proceedings, that person can attack the validity of second marriage
LIQUIDATION OF ACP/CPG depends on:
whether the marriage was declared void by virtue of Art. 40 or other grounds of void marriages
But if voidable marriage, there is a need to dissolve the ACP/CPG
TAKE NOTE: in various provisions of the FC, the FC commission seemed to have deliberately allowed
one instance where even if a marriage is void from the very start, there would be an ACP/CPG to be
dissolved. art. 40 FC specifically talks about Art. 40, marriages in Art. 50, and it pertains to the
dissolution of ACP or its termination under Art. 99 and also the SC referred to in this cases:
Valdes vs. RTC
In the case of void marriage by non-observance of art. 40, thought the subsequent
marriage is void, the property shall be liquidated as if there is an ACP/CPG.
In all other cases of void marriage other than non-observance of Art. 40, the property
regime shall be governed by the rule on co-ownership provided in Art. 147/148. Hence,
here, it shall be liquidated pursuant to the ordinary rules on co-ownership pursuant to
the civil code provided not contrary to the FC.
Dio vs Dio (not my digest)

Facts:

On 14 January 1998, Alain M. Dio (petitioner) and Ma. Caridad L. Dio (respondent) got married.
On 30 May 2001, petitioner filed an action for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage against respondent,
citing psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code.
Petitioner alleged that respondent failed in her marital obligation to give love and support to him,
and had abandoned her responsibility to the family, choosing instead to go on shopping sprees and
gallivanting with her friends that depleted the family assets.
Petitioner further alleged that respondent was not faithful, and would at times become violent and
hurt him.
The trial court ruled that petitioner was able to establish respondents psychological incapacity.
In short, their marriage was declared void ab initio under Article 36 of the Family Code.

Issue:

Whether or not the property relations of the parties should fall under 147 of the Family Code.

Held:

Yes. The property relations of the parties during the period of cohabitation is governed either by
Article 147 or Article 148 of the Family Code. Article 147 of the Family Code applies to union of
parties who are legally capacitated and not barred by any impediment to contract marriage, but
whose marriage is nonetheless void, such as petitioner and respondent in the case before the Court.

Article 147. When a man and a woman who are capacitated to marry each other, live exclusively
with each other as husband and wife without the benefit of marriage or under a void marriage,
their wages and salaries shall be owned by them in equal shares and the property acquired by
both of them through their work or industry shall be governed by the rules on co-ownership.
In the absence of proof to the contrary, properties acquired while they lived together shall be
presumed to have been obtained by their joint efforts, work or industry, and shall be owned by
them in equal shares. For purposes of this Article, a party who did not participate in the
acquisition by the other party of any property shall be deemed to have contributed jointly in the
acquisition thereof if the formers efforts consisted in the care and maintenance of the family
and of the household.
Neither party can encumber or dispose by acts inter vivos of his or her share in the property
acquired during cohabitation and owned in common, without the consent of the other, until
after the termination of their cohabitation.

In this case, petitioners marriage to respondent was declared void under Article 36 of the Family
Code and not under Article 40 or 45. Thus, what governs the liquidation of properties owned in
common by petitioner and respondent are the rules on co-ownership. In Valdes, the Court ruled
that the property relations of parties in a void marriage during the period of cohabitation is
governed either by Article 147 or Article 148 of the Family Code. The rules on co-ownership apply
and the properties of the spouses should be liquidated in accordance with the Civil Code provisions
on co-ownership.

-ALWAYS MAKE IT CLEAR IN YOUR MIND BY REPEATING IT OVER AND OVER AGAIN T.