Case Digest

Arañes vs Occiano, 380 SCRA 402

Facts:

Respondent Judge Salvador M. Occiano was requested to solemnize a

marriage on February 15, 2000. But on the day of the wedding the judge was
informed that Domingo B. Orobia the groom to be, had difficulty walking and
could not stand the rigors of traveling to Balatan which is located 25
kilometers from his residence. The judge was then requested to solemnize the
marriage in Nabua, which request he acceded. He discovered that the
parties did not possess the requisite marriage license and suggested its
resetting to another date. However due to earnest pleas of the parties he
proceeded to solemnize the marriage out of human compassion. After the
solemnization, he reiterates the necessity for marriage license, however the
petitioner Mercidita Mata Arañes and his husband Orobia failed to comply.

Issue:

1. Whether or not the respondents guilty of solemnizing a marriage

without a marriage license and outside his territorial jurisdiction.

Ruling:

In the case at bar the territorial jurisdiction of respondent judge is

limited to the municipality of Balatan, Camarines Sur. His act of solemnizing
the marriage of the petitioner and Orobia in Nabua Camarines Sur, is
contrary to the law and subjects him to administrative liability. And even
though he solemnized the marriage out of human compassion, he cannot
avoid liability for violating the law on marriage. The Judge was guilty violating
article 3 of the family code-To solemnize a marriage without the formal
requisites will render the marriage void.
Case Digest

Seguisabal vs Cabrera 106 SCRA 67

Facts:

On April 14, 1978 Jaime Jayson and Marlyn Jagonoy contracted

marriage without marriage license. Judge Jose R. Cabrera their solemnizing
officer told the parties to comeback in the afternoon that same day together
with the marriage license. However the parties did not comeback. About a
year after Marlyn Jagonoy appeared before judge Jose’s office and
informed him that her husband died in an encounter in Maguindanao. The
army authorities will give her her benefits if and when she can prove that she
us actually married to Jaime Sayson. He then asks her to get their marriage
license however the local civil registrar did not release the license because
the parties did not attend the Family Planning seminar. Out of sympathy,
Judge issued to her their marriage contract.

Issue:

1. Whether or not the Judge Jose Cabrera guilty of solemnizing a

marriage without the requisite marriage license.

Ruling:

Yes, the defense of good faith interposed by respondent is unavailing.

His feeling of sympathy and fairness to the widow cannot serve as a license
for him to deliberately transgress or dispense with legal requisites pursuant to
article 53 of the Civil Code. Whereof, finding the respondent guilty of gross
neglect of duty.
Case Digest

Republic vs CA, 236 SCRA 257

Facts:

June 24 1970, Angelina M. Castro and Edwin Cardenas were married in

a civil ceremony before Judge Pablo M. Malvar of Pasay City. The couple did
not immediately live together, since the marriage was unknown to Castro’s
parents. It was only when Castro got pregnant that they decided to lived
together. However the cohabitation lasted only 4 months. Thereafter the
couple part ways. On October 19,1971 Castro gave birth. Castro’s brother
who lives in the United States adopted the baby. Desiring to follow her
daughter, Castro put in order her marital status before leaving and consulted
a lawyer. Through her lawyer’s effort, they discovered that there was no
marriage license issued prior to the celebration of the marriage. As proof she
brought a certification from the local civil registrar of “Due search and
inability to find”. The trial court denied the petition and held that the
certification was not sufficient to prove that there was no marriage license
issued.

Issue:

1. Whether or not the testimonial evidence presented by private

respondent are sufficient to establish that no marriage license was
issued.

Ruling:

The petition is denied. At the time of the marriage, the law governing
marital relation was the new civil code that provides that no marriage shall
be solemnized without a marriage license under the circumstance the
evidence presented was sufficient to establish the absence of marriage
license which renders the marriage void ab initio.
Case Digest

Moreno vs Moreno (Bernabe) 246 SCRA 120

Facts:

Complaint alleges the she and Marcelo Moreno were married before
respondent Judge Jose Bernabe of MTC Branch 72 Pasig. She avers that
respondent judge assured her that the marriage contract would be released
(10) days after the marriage ceremony. Complaint visited his office only to
find out the she couldn’t get the marriage contract because the local civil
registrar failed to issue a marriage license. She claimed that the respondent
judge connived with the relatives of Marcelo to deceive her. Marilou filed this
complaint against Judge Jose for grave misconduct and gross ignorance of
the law.

Issue:

1. Whether or not Judge Jose Bernabe is guilty for solemnizing a

marriage without the required marriage license.

Ruling:

Upon careful study of the records, it reveals that the respondent judge
displayed his ignorance of the law when he solemnized the marriage without
a marriage license. On the charge regarding illegal marriages the Family
Code pertinently provides that the formal requisites of marriage are inter alia
a valid marriage license except in the cases provided for therein. Absence of
any formal or essential requisites shall render marriage void ab initio, and the
parties responsible for the irregularities shall be civilly criminally and
administratively liable.
Case Digest
Martinez vs Tan12 Phil. 731

Facts:

That on the 25th of September 1907 the plaintiff Rosalia Martinez and
the defendant Angel Tan contracted a marriage before the justice of the
peace. The marriage certificate was signed by the contracting parties and
their witnesses, which was attested by the solemnizing officer. However the
plaintiff testifies that she never appeared before the justice and was never
married to the defendant. She admit she signed the document but she had
signed it in her own house without reading it and at the request of the
defendant who told her that it was a paper authorizing him to ask the
consent of her parents.

Issue:

1. Whether or not the Plaintiff and the defendant were married on the
25th day of September 1907.

Ruling:

The document signed by the plaintiff, the defendant, and the justice of
the peace, stated that they ratified under oath, the contents of the petition
and that witnesses of the marriage were produce. A mortgage took place as
shown in the certificate of the justice of the peace, signed by both
contracting parties, which certificate give rise to the presumption that the
officer authorized the marriage in due form. No particular form from the
ceremony of marriage is required but the parties must declare in the
presence of the person solemnizing the marriage that they take each other
as husband and wife. The court decided in favor of the defendant, holding
that the parties were legally married in the day named in the evidence in
support of the decision.
Case Digest

Madridejo vs De Leon, 55 Phil. 1

Facts:

Eulogio De leon and Flaviana Perez had one child named Domingo De
Leon. When Eulogio died in the year 1915, Flaviana Perez started living with
Pedro Madridejo. A child was born to Pedro and Flaviana, which they named
Melacio Madridejo. On July 8, 1920 Flaviana Perez being at death doors
married Pedro Madridejo. She died on the following day. Flaviana’s son to
Eulogio, Domingo De Leon died on the 22nd of May 1928. With regards to the
facts mentioned, Melecio Madridejo, the plaintiff-appelle demanded to be
acknowledge as a natural child, and his right to the estate of his uterine
brother Domingo De Leon.

Issue:

1. Whether or not the subsequent marriage of Melacio’s parents

legitimates him.

Ruling:

Article 121 of the Civil code provides that the children shall be
considered as legitimate by a subsequent marriage only when they have
been acknowledge by the parents before or after the celebration thereof.

To begin with the father, no document has been adduced to show

that he has voluntarily acknowledged Melecio Madridejo as his son.
Although as Pedro Madridejo testified, he furnished the municipal secretary
with the necessary data for recording the birth of Melecio Madridejo, and
although said official inscribed the data thus given in the civil registry of births,
this is not sufficient to bring it under the legal provision regarding
acknowledgment by a public document.

As to the mother, it does not appear that Flaviana Perez supplied the
data set forth in the civil registry of births or in the baptismal register, which
constitutes final proof only of the baptism, and not of the kinship, or
parentage of the person baptized. Furthermore, church registers of baptism
are no longer considered public document. Melecio Madridejo then, was not
voluntarily acknowledged by Pedro Madridejo or Flaviana Perez, either
before or after their marriage.
Case Digest
Vda. De Jacob vs CA, 312 SCRA 772

Facts:

Plaintiff-appellant claimed to be the surviving spouse of

deceased Dr. Alfredo E. Jacob and was appointed Special
Administratix for the various estates of the deceased by virtue of a
reconstructed Marriage Contract between herself and the deceased.
Defendant-appellee on the other hand, claimed to be the legally
adopted son of Alfredo. In support of his claim, he presented an order
dated 18 July 1961, granting the petition for adoption filed by
deceased Alfredo in favor of Pedro Pilapil.
During the proceeding for the settlement of the estate, in case Tomasa
vda. de Jacob v. Jose Centenera, the defendant-appellee Pedro
sought to intervene therein claiming his share of the deceased estate
as Alfredo's adopted son and as his sole surviving heir. Pedro
questioned the validity of the marriage between appellant Tomasa
and his adoptive father Alfredo. Appellant Tomasa opposed the
Motion for Intervention and filed a complaint for injunction with
damages questioning appellee's claim as the legal heir of Alfredo.

Issue:

1. Whether the marriage between the plaintiff-appellant and

deceased Alfredo Jacob was valid.
2. Whether the defendant-appellee is the legally adopted son of
deceased Jacob.
Ruling:

The appellant could not present the original copy of the marriage
contract because the original document was lost. In lieu of the original,
Tomasa presented a reconstructed marriage contract issued in 1978.
Although a marriage contract is considered primary evidence of a marriage,
the failure to present is not a proof that no marriage took place. Other
evidence may be presented to prove the marriage. Photographs of the
wedding ceremony, letters from the spouse, testimony of the parties and
witnesses may prove the fact of marriage. Without any bad faith on the part
of the offeror, secondary evidence may prove its content.

The signature of Judge Moya in the adoption order of the appellee

was questioned. Judge Moya could not remember whether the signature on
the order was his. The NBI document examiner also declared that the
signature of Jose L. Moya were not written by one and the same person.
There were irregularities in the structural pattern of letters.

It was held that the marriage between Petitioner and deceased

Alfredo is valid and the claimed adoption of Respondent is declared
nonexistence.
Case Digest
Pilapil vs Ibat-Somera, June 30,1989

Facts:

On September 7, 1979, petitioner Imelda Manalaysay Pilapil and

private respondent Erich Ekkehard Geiling a german national were
married in the Federal Republic of Germany. The couple lived together
for some time in Malate, Manila where their only child, Isabella Pilapil
Geiling was born. Thereafter there marital discord set in with mutual
recriminations between the spouses, followed by a separation de facto
between them. In January 1983 the private respondent initiated a
divorce proceeding against the petitioner before the local court in
Schoneberg. Petitioner on the other hand filed an action for legal
separation, support and separation of property before the Regional
Trial Court of Manila. On January 15, 1986 the local court of the federal
republic of Germany promulgated a decree of divorce on the ground
of failure of marriages of the spouses. On Januray 27, 1986, private
respondent file 2 complaints for adultery before the City Fiscal of
Manila alleging that while still married to said respondent, petitioner
had an affair with certain William Chia and Jesus Chua. The
investigator recommended the dismissal of the case on the ground of
insufficiency of evidence however upon review of the fiscal, it was
discovered there were 2 complaints of adultery against the petitioner.
“ People of the Philippines vs Imelda Pilapil and William Chia” and
“ People of the Philippines vs Imelda Pilapil vs James Chua.

Issue:

1. Whether the private respondent, being no longer the husband of

the petitioner, had legal standing to commence the adultery case.
Ruling:

In the nationality principle embodied in Article 15 of the Civil Code,

only Philippine nationals are covered by the policy against absolute divorces
the same being considered contrary to our concept of public policy and
morality. However, aliens may obtain divorces abroad, which may be
recognized in the Philippines, provided they are valid according to their
national law. Thus, pursuant to his national law, private respondent is no
longer the husband of petitioner. He would have no standing to sue in the
case. A divorce subsequently granted can have no legal effect on the
prosecution of the criminal proceedings to a conclusion. When said
respondent initiated the divorce proceeding, he obviously knew that there
would no longer be a family nor marriage vows to protect once a dissolution
of the marriage is decreed.
Case Digest

Van Dorn vs Romillo, 134 SCRA 139 `

Facts:

Petitioner is a citizen of the Philippines while the private respondent is a

citizen of the United States. The parties contracted marriage in Hong Kong in
1972. They established their residence in the Philippines with their 2 children. In
1982 the parties were divorced in Nevada, United States. The petitioner has
re-married also in Nevada, this time to Theodore Van Dorn. In June 8, 1983,
private respondent filed suit against petitioner, stating that petitioner’s
business in Ermita Manila is conjugal property of the parties and asking that
he be declared with right to manage the conjugal property.

Issue:

1. Whether the effect of the foreign divorce of the parties applies to

their conjugal properties in the Philippines.

Ruling:

In Article 15 of the Civil Code, only Philippine nationals are covered by

the policy against absolute divorces. However, aliens may obtain divorces
abroad, which may be recognized in the Philippines, provided they are valid
according to their national law. In this case, the divorce in Nevada released
private respondent from the marriage of the standards of American law,
under which divorce dissolves the marriage. Thus, pursuant to his national
law, private respondent is no longer the husband of petitioner. He would
have no standing to sue in the case below as petitioner's husband entitled to
exercise control over conjugal assets. As he is bound by the Decision of his
own country's Court, which validly exercised jurisdiction over him, and whose
decision he does not repudiate. Petitioner should not be obliged to live
together with, observe respect and fidelity, and render support to private
respondent. The latter should not continue to be one of her heirs with possible
rights to conjugal property. She should not be discriminated against in her
own country if the ends of justice are to be served.
Case Digest

Garcia vs Recio, 366 SCRA 437

Facts:

Rederick A. Recio, a Filipino, was married to Editha Samson, an

Australian citizen, in Malabon, Rizal, on March 1, 1987. They lived together as
husband and wife in Australia. On May 18, 1989, an Australian family court
issued a decree of divorce, purportedly dissolving the marriage. On June 26,
1992, respondent became an Australian citizen, as shown by a "Certificate of
Australian Citizenship" issued by the Australian government. Petitioner, a
Filipina and the respondent were married on January 12, 1994 in
Cabanatuan City. In their application for a marriage license, respondent was
declared as "single" and "Filipino." Starting October 22, 1995, petitioner and
respondent lived separately without prior judicial dissolution of their marriage.
On March 3, 1998, petitioner filed a Complaint for Declaration of Nullity of
Marriage in the court a quo, on the ground of bigamy. Respondent allegedly
had a prior subsisting marriage at the time he married her on January 12,
1994. She claimed that she learned of respondent's marriage to Editha
Samson only in November 1997.

Issue:

1. Whether the divorce between respondent and Editha Samson was

proven
2. Whether respondent was proven to be legally capacitated to marry
petitioner.

Ruling:

The Supreme Court ruled that the mere presentation of the divorce
decree of respondent’s marriage to Samson is insufficient. Before a foreign
divorce decree can be recognized by our courts, the party pleading it must
prove the divorce as a fact and demonstrate its conformity to the foreign law
allowing it. Furthermore, the divorce decree between respondent and Editha
Samson appears to be an authentic one issued by an Australian family court.
However, appearance is not sufficient; compliance with the aforementioned
rules on evidence must be demonstrated.

Australian divorce decree contains a restriction that reads:

“1. A party to a marriage who marries again before this decree becomes
Case Digest
absolute (unless the other party has died) commits the offence of bigamy.”
This quotation bolsters our contention that the divorrecce obtained by
respondent may have been restricted. It did not absolutely establish his legal
capacity to remarry according to his national law. Hence, the Court find no
basis for the ruling of the trial court, which erroneously assumed that the
Australian divorce ipso facto restored respondent’s capacity to remarry
despite the paucity of evidence on this matter.
The Supreme Court remanded the case to the court a quo for the purpose of
receiving evidence. The Court mentioned that they cannot grant petitioner’s
prayer to declare her marriage to respondent null and void because of the
question on latter’s legal capacity to marry.