Baguis-Tambuyat vs. Balcom-Tambuyat – G.R. No.

202805, NO COMMON LAW MARRIAGE

Ablaza vs. Republic G.R. No. 158298 – Law at the time of Marriage, the law at the time it was contracted.

Republic vs. Cagandahan, G.R. No. 1666676 The parties must be a man and a woman.

Intersex, the determining factor would be what the individual having reached the age of majority,
with good reason decide or chooses as his/her sex

Silverio vs. Republic, G.R. 174689, Sex of a person is determined at the time of one’s birth

Republic vs. Albios, 707 SCRA 584 - Consent which must be freely given and made in the presence of a
solemnizing officer. Marriage for limited purpose is valid provided that they comply with all the legal
requirements.

Infante vs Arenas, Consent may be manifested by signing the marriage certificate before the solemnizing
officer even if the solemnizing officer did not ask the parties if they take each other as husband and
wife.

Ronulo vs Pp GR 182438 – Marriage ceremony is one that takes place when (1) the contracting parties
appear before the solemnizing officer, and (2) before the solemnizing officer they make a personal
declaration that they take each other as husband and wife in the presence of not less than two witnesses
of legal age.

Morigo vs. Pp, There is no valid marriage if the parties merely signed the marriage certificate on their own
without the presence of the solemnizing officer.

Alcantara vs. Alcantara GR 167746 – Mere irregularity in any of the formal requisites will not invalidate
the marriage. However the party may be made liable where no party resides in the place of issuance of
the marriage license.

Navarro vs Domagtoy , Marriage outside the Territorial Jurisdiction of the Judge, can invalidate the
marriage

Carrino vs Carrino, The absence of a marriage license makes the marriage void. A certification of the Local
Civil Registrar that no marriage license was issued is sufficient to prove such absence of license.

Madridejo vs. De Leon, Mere failure to submit the Marriage Certificate after marriage will not invalidate
the marriage.

Ninal vs. Badayog, Marriage of a man and a woman who have lived together as husband and wife for at
least five years and without legal impediment to marry each other.- exempt from marriage license.

De Castro vs. Assidao-De Castro, Five Year Cohabitation For absence of a marriage license to be excused

(1) It is necessary that there is an affidavit of cohabitation and a false affidavit of cohabitation and a
false affidavit, if there is no affidavit of cohabitation or if the affidavit is false, the marriage is void

Borja-Manzano vs. Sanchez, (2) the parties must suffer no impediment AT THE TIME of cohabitation and
marriage: The requisites are as follows
1.) The man must have been living together as husband and wife continuously for at least five years
before the marriage
2.) The parties must have no legal impediment to marry each other during their cohabitation
3.) The fact of absence of legal impediment between the parties must be present (up to) the time of
marriage;
4.) The parties must execute an affidavit stating that they have lived together for at least five years
and are without legal impediment to marry each other; and
5.) The solemnizing officer must execute a sworn statement that he had ascertained the
qualifications of the parties and that he had found no legal impediment to their marriage.

EFFECT OF DIVORCE ( Art. 26 of Family Code)

The Filipino citizen and a foreigner is validly obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating him or
her to remarry, the Filipino Spouse shall likewise have the capacity to remarry under Philippine law.

a.) It should be the alien spouse who should secure the divorce and the divorce is valid under the
national law if the foreigner. There must be proof of (1) the divorce decree and (2) the national
law of the alien spouse. However a petition for the judicial recognition of the foreign divorce
from the spouse is required, the presentation solely of the decree is insufficient. (Ando vs. DFA)

b.) The rule will not apply if the Filipino spouse initiated the divorce , therefore the Filipino spouse
who obtained the divorce cannot remarry because Philippine laws applies with regards to a Filipino’s
status and capacity to marry. (Art 15, NCC)

Former Filipino , This rule is applicable if one spouse was a Filipino at the time of marriage but later
on became a citizen of a foreign country. If the former Filipino obtained a divorce after he or she
became a foreign national, then the other spouse who is a Filipino can already remarry. (Republic vs.
Orbecido III)

A Petition for declaration of absolute nullity of a void marriage may be filed solely by the husband or
wife in such void marriage.

Exception: In bigamy, the husband or wife of the prior subsisting marriage is the one who can file
the petition. (Fujiki vs. Marinau)