Ty v. CA GR# 127406, NOV.

27, 2000, 346 SCRA 86 Article 40 – Exception to the Rule FACTS: In 1977,
Reyes married Anna Maria Villanueva in a civil ceremony. They had a church wedding in the same year as
well. In 1980, the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court of QC declared their marriage as null and void;
the civil one for lack of marriage license and the subsequent church wedding due to the lack of consent
of the parties. In 1979, prior to the JDRC decision, Reyes married Ofelia. Then in 1991, Reyes filed for an
action for declaration of nullity of his marriage with Ofelia. He averred that they lack a marriage license
at the time of the celebration and that there was no judicial declaration yet as to the nullity of his
previous marriage with Anna. Ofelia presented evidence proving the existence of a valid marriage license
including the specific license number designated. The lower court however ruled that Ofelia‘s marriage
with Reyes is null and void. The same was affirmed by the CA applying the provisions of the Art 40 of the
FC. ISSUE: Whether or not the absolute nullity of the previous of marriage of Reyes can be invoked in the
case at bar. HELD: Art. 40 of the FC provides that, ―The absolute nullity of a previous marriage may be
invoked for purposes of remarriage on the basis solely of a final judgment declaring such previous
marriage void.‖ This means that before one can enter into a second marriage he must first require a
judicial declaration of the nullity of the previous marriage and such declaration may be invoked on the
basis solely of a final judgment declaring the previous marriage as void. For purposes other than
remarriage, other evidences may be presented and the declaration can be passed upon by the courts. In
the case at bar, the lower court and the CA cannot apply the provision of the FC. Both marriages entered
by Reyes were solemnized prior to the FC. The old CC did not have any provision that states that there
must be such a declaration before remarriage can be done hence Ofelia‘s marriage with Reyes is valid.
The provisions of the FC (took effect in ‘87) cannot be applied retroactively especially because they
would impair the vested rights of Ofelia under the CC which was operational during her marriage with
Reyes. Alcantara v. Alcantara GR# 167746, AUG. 28, 2007 531 SCRA 446 FACTS: Restituto filed a petition
for annulment of marriage against Rosita alleging that on 8 Dec 1982 he and Rosita, without securing the
required marriage license, went to the Manila City Hall for the purpose of looking for a ―fixer‖ who
could arrange a marriage for them before a certain Rev. Navarro. They got married on the same day.
Restituto and Rosita went through another marriage ceremony in Tondo, Manila, on 26 March 1983. The
marriage was again celebrated without the parties securing a marriage license. The alleged marriage
license, procured in Carmona, Cavite, appearing on the marriage contract, is a sham, as neither party
was a resident of Carmona, and they never went to Carmona to apply for a license with the local civil
registrar of the said place. In 1988, they parted ways and lived separate lives. Petitioner prayed that after
due hearing, judgment be issued declaring their marriage void and ordering the Civil Registrar to cancel
the corresponding marriage contract and its entry on file. Rosita however asserts the validity of their
marriage and maintains that there was a marriage license issued as evidenced by a certification from the
Office of the Civil Registry of Carmona, Cavite. Restituto has a mistress with whom he has three children.
Restituto only filed the annulment of their marriage to evade prosecution for concubinage. Rosita, in
fact, has filed a case for concubinage against Restituto. ISSUE: Whether or not their marriage is valid.
HELD: The requirement and issuance of a marriage license is the State‘s demonstration of its
involvement and participation in every marriage, in the maintenance of which the general public is
interested. Petitioner cannot insist on the absence of a marriage license to impugn the validity of his
marriage. The cases where the court considered the absence of a marriage license as a ground for
considering the marriage void are clear-cut. In this case, the 2 marriage contract between the petitioner
and respondent reflects a marriage license number. A certification to this effect was also issued by the
local civil registrar of Carmona, Cavite. The certification moreover is precise in that it specifically
identified the parties to whom the marriage license was issued, namely Restituto Alcantara and Rosita
Almario, further validating the fact that a license was in fact issued to the parties herein. Petitioner, in a
faint attempt to demolish the probative value of the marriage license, claims that neither he nor
respondent is a resident of Carmona, Cavite. Even then, we still hold that there is no sufficient basis to
annul petitioner and respondent‘s marriage. Issuance of a marriage license in a city or municipality, not
the residence of either of the contracting parties, and issuance of a marriage license despite the absence
of publication or prior to the completion of the 10-day period for publication are considered mere
irregularities that do not affect the validity of the marriage. An irregularity in any of the formal requisites
of marriage does not affect its validity but the party or parties responsible for the irregularity are civilly,
criminally and administratively liable. Semper praesumitur pro matrimonio. The presumption is always in
favor of the validity of the marriage. Every intendment of the law or fact leans toward the validity of the
marriage bonds. The Courts look upon this presumption with great favor. It is not to be lightly repelled;
on the contrary, the presumption is of great weight.