AUGUST 14, 2018 PERSONS REVIEW

Okay let’s go to ARTICLE 1.

Marriage is a special contract of permanent union between a man and a woman entered into in accordance with law for
the establishment of conjugal and family life. It is the foundation of the family and an inviolable social institution whose
nature, incidents and consequences are governed by law and not subject to stipulations except in marriage settlement
but still it must be within the limits provided for by the Family Code.

For a valid marriage to exist, there are 2 requisites, essential and formal. There are 2 essential requisites: the legal capacity
of the contracting parties, who must be a male and a female, and the appearance of legal capacity of the contracting
parties and their personal appearance before the solemnizing officer (isn’t it the consent freely given of the contracting
parties in the presence of the solemnizing officer?). And there are 3 formal requisites: the marriage license, the authority
of the solemnizing officer, and a marriage ceremony with their personal appearance because they have to personally
declare that they take each other as husband and wife in the presence of at least two witnesses of legal age.

The absence of any of the essential or formal requisites shall render the marriage void. A defect in the essential requisite
shall render the marriage voidable and the irregularity however will not affect the validity of marriage but may impose
sanctions on the party or parties responsible for the irregularity either criminal, civil or administrative sanctions.

In REPUBLIC VS CA, the SC said that that certification issued by the local civil registrar investing to the fact that there was
no valid marriage license that was issued is already sufficient proof that indeed the marriage is void due to the absence of
a marriage license but not in the case of SEVILLA VS CARDENAS because the certification merely says that there is this...
anong nakalagay? by reason of? A heavy workload, he cannot locate although he presented 3 certifications but the SC said
there might be a marriage license issued but because of their heavy workload they cannot locate that particular marriage
license that was issued to the parties.

SILVERIO VS REPUBLIC is in violation of the essential requisite that a marriage should be between a man and a woman.
Not a man and a man who later on became a woman by virtue of sexual reassignment. It must be a woman who is a
woman at the time of birth visible to the naked eye as to the gender of the child.

In the case of COSCA VS PALAYPAYON, ARANES VS OCCIANO these involve administrative cases against judges. In COSCA,
there were several administrative cases that were filed against him because one, he would not submit the copy or copies
of the marriage contract in the appropriate civil registrar. He would also sometimes not require the parties to present the
marriage license. ARANEZ VS OCCIANO the issue more is … is a marriage celebrated outside of the court’s jurisdiction,
valid or void? Aside from the fact that he also did not require the parties to submit at the time of the solemnization of the
marriage a marriage license. But the other issue here involves the celebration of the marriage outside of the court’s
jurisdiction. In fact, this is the 3rd case that was decided by the court by way of obiter. If we say by way of obiter, it’s not
the principal issue because this one is an administrative case relating to the acts of the judge while performing his duties
and functions as a judge but because this is the 3rd case involving that particular issue, the SC had affirmed that indeed
solemnization of the marriage outside of the court’s jurisdiction does not affect the validity of the marriage, it is merely
an irregularity. So, for as long as that is the decision of the court, even if it is by a way of obiter that is still a good
interpretation and shall stand.

MORIGO VS PEOPLE, Morigo cannot be held liable for bigamy because the mere act of signing a marriage contract is not
even an essential or formal requisite. It’s not the marriage that is contended within the meaning of the Family Code, it
should be one that has all the essential and formal requisites of marriage. In the case of MORIGO VS PEOPLE, Lucio and
Lucia merely signed the marriage contract, nothing all. Thus, according to the court you cannot be held for bigamy because
in the first place there was no valid marriage.

NOLLORA, JR VS PEOPLE. It is not …. We’ll continue tomorrow. 😊