REPUBLIC VS.

COURT OF APPEALS,236 SCRA 257

FACTS:
Respondent Angelina M. Castro and Edwin F. Cardenas were married in a civil ceremony performed by a City
Court Judge of Pasig City and was celebrated without the knowledge of Castro's parents.
Defendant Cardenas personally attended the procuring of the documents required for the celebration of the
marriage, including the procurement of the marriage license.
The couple did not immediately live together as husband and wife since the marriage was unknown to
Castro's parents. They decided to live together when Castro discovered she was pregnant. The cohabitation
lasted only for four months. Thereafter, the couple parted ways. Desiring to follow her daughter in the U.S,
Castro wanted to put in order he marital status before leaving for the U.S. She then discovered that there
was no marriage license issued to Cardenas prior to the celebration of their marriage as certified by the Civil
Registrar of Pasig, Metro Manila.
Respondent then filed a petition with the RTC of Quezon City seeking for the judicial declaration of nullity of
her marriage claiming that no marriage license was ever issued to them prior to the solemnization of their
marriage.
The trial court denied the petition holding that the certification was inadequate to establish the alleged nonissuance of a marriage license prior to the celebration of the marriage between the parties. It ruled that the
"inability of the certifying official to locate the marriage license is not conclusive to show that there was no
marriage license issued. On appeal, the decision of the trial court was reversed.
ISSUE:
Is the marriage valid?
Is there such a thing as a "secret marriage"?
HELD:
[I]At the time of the subject marriage was solemnized on June 24, 1970, the law governing marital relations
was the New Civil Code. The law provides that no marriage license shall be solemnized without a marriage
license first issued by the local civil registrar. Being one of the essential requisites of a valid marriage,
absence of a license would render the marriage void ab initio.
It will be remembered that the subject marriage was a civil ceremony performed by a judge of a city court.
The subject marriage is one of those commonly known as a "secret marriage" - a legally non-existent phrase
but ordinarily used to refer to a civil marriage celebrated without the knowledge of the relatives and/or
friends of either or both of the contracting parties. The records show that the marriage between Castro and
Cardenas as initially unknown to the parents of the former.

NAVARRO VS. DOMAGTOY,259 SCRA 129

FACTS:
Rodolfo Navarro, Municipal Mayor of Dapa, Surigao del Norte, filed an administrative complaint against
respondent Judge Hernando C. Domagtoy, Municipal Circuit Trial Court Judge.
One of the two acts complained of was the fact that respondent Judge performed a marriage ceremony
between Floriano Dador Sumaylo and Gemma del Rosario outside his court's jurisdiction.
The judge holds office and has jurisdiction in the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Sta. Monica-Burgos, Surigao
del Norte.
The wedding was solemnized at the respondent judge's residence in the Municipality of Dapa, which does not
fall within his jurisdictional area.
Respondent judge points out to Article 8 and its exceptions as the justification for his having solemnized the
marriage.
ISSUE:
Is a marriage solemnized outside of a court's jurisdiction valid?
HELD:
Article 8 of the Family Code provides that, a marriage can be held outside of the judge's chamber or
courtroom only in the following instances: 1) at the point of death, 2) in remote places in accordance with
Article 29 or 3) upon request of both parties in writing in a sworn statement to this effect. There is no
pretense that either Sumaylo or del Rosario was at the point of death or in a remote place. Moreover, the
written request presented addressed to the respondent judge was made by only one party, Gemma del
Rosario.
More importantly, the elementary principle underlying this provision is the authority of the solemnizing
officer. Under Article 3, one of the formal requisites of marriage is the "authority of the solemnizing officer".
Under Article 7, marriage may be solemnized by, among others, "any incumbent member of the judiciary
within the court's jurisdiction." Article 8, which is a directory provision, refers only to the venue of the
marriage ceremony and does not alter or qualify the authority of the solemnizing officer as provided in the
preceding provision. Non-compliance herewith will not invalidate the marriage.
A priest who is commissioned and allowed by his local ordinary to marry the faithful, is authorized to do so
only within the area of the diocese or place allowed by his Bishop. An appellate court Justice or a Justice of
the Supreme Court has jurisdiction over the entire Philippines to solemnize marriage, regardless of the
venue, as long as the requisites of the law are complied with. However, judges who are appointed to specific
jurisdictions, may officiate in wedding only within said areas and not beyond.
Where a judge solemnizes a marriage outside his court's jurisdiction, there is a resultant irregularity in the
formal requisite laid down in Article 3, which while it may not affect the validity of the marriage, may subject
the officiating official to administrative liability.
Inasmuch as respondent judge's jurisdiction covers the municipalities of Sta. Monica and Burgos, he was not
clothed with authority to solemnize a marriage in the Municipality of Dapa, Surigao del Norte. By citing
Article 8 and the exceptions therein as grounds for the exercise of his misplaced authority, respondent judge
again demonstrated a lack of understanding of the basic principles of civil law.
RESPONDENT JUDGE HERNANDO C. DOMAGTOY SUSPENDED FOR SIX (6) MONTHS WITH STERN WARNING
AGAINST REPETITION OF SIMILAR ACTS.

N.B. In this cae the marriage is considered VALID, in another case it was held to be VOID.

1.
H filed for the annulment of his marriage on the ground that he never really had any intention at all
to marry W because the main consideration why he entered in such a marriage contract was only to give a
name to the child in Ws womb, which, however, was never born and therefore clearly proving a failure of
consideration warranting the annulment of the same. Will the annulment be granted? Support your answer.
2. A woman employee of X Company was dismissed from her job pursuant to the companys policy, which
disqualified from work any woman worker who contracts marriage. As a lawyer, how will you argue the
womans case on the basis of the provisions of the Constitution and the Family Code?
3. The 1989 Constitution contains several provisions designed to protect and preserve the family and
marriage. Among others are the following:
a) That the state recognizes the sanctity of family life and shall protect and strengthen the family as basic
social institution. (Sect 12, Art II);
b) That the state recognizes the Filipino family as the foundation of the nation. Accordingly, it shall
strengthen the solidarity and actively promote its total development (Sec 1, Art XV);
c) That marriage is an inviolable social institution and the foundation of the family and shall be protected by
the state. (Sec 2, Art XV).
In view of the above constitutional provision highlighting the importance of marriage and family, is Congress
precluded from enacting a law legalizing absolute divorce in this country? Explain/Support your answer.
4. H, 19 years old, and W, 17 years old were married in a civil weeding with their parents consent. Is the
marriage valid, violable, or void? Support your answer.
5. Mess, (not her real name) is a man trapped in a womans body. He had always felt and acted as a She
For the past 5 years, Mess has been living-in with John (not his real name), who is as manly as Adam.
Mess and John desire to document their relationship and marry each other for good (or bad?) Armed with a
valid married license which they were able to obtain the went to a judge of the solemnization of their
marriage. If you were the judge will you marry Mess and John? Reason out your answer.
6. Mess and John learned that recently in the Netherlands, people similarly situated had been legally
married. They decided to go to the Netherlands and got married there validly. Is their marriage, which is
valid in Netherlands, valid here? Support your answer.
7. Mars and Helen , Filipinos , of legal age, decided to get married. They applied for and obtained a valid
marriage license from the office of the Local Civil Registrar. A date for the civil wedding was set. One week,
before the wedding day Mars had to leave for abroad on a very important mission. The prospective spouses
agreed to just go on with the civil wedding as scheduled but instead of Mars, it will be his look-alike friend
John who will stand-in for him during the ceremony. Anyway, they (Mars and Helen) will have a grand church
wedding as soon as Mars comes home. The civil wedding was celebrated as planned with Jim standing-in as
the groom . Is the marriage valid, violable , or void.? Support your answer.
8. Five months later, Mars arrived. As had been agreed upon, he and his wife, Helen, were married again:
in a grand church ceremony attended by VIPs , on the basis of the same license obtained before. Is the
church weeding valid, violable, or void? Support your answer.
9. H and W were married in a garden weeding held at the Bell Amphitheater at Camp John Hay, Baguio City.
The marriage was solemnized by Judge X, of the RTC of Makati City, who is a relative of the groom. Is the
marriage valid, violable, or void? Support your answer.
10. A seduces the 19- year old daughter of X. A promise of marriage either has not been made, or can
not be proved. The girl becomes pregnant. Obviously, a grave moral wrong has been committed and the girl
and her family have suffered incalculable moral damage. Under our present laws, can the girl bring any
action for damages against A? Support your answer.

1.

H filed for the annulment of the same. Will the annulment be granted? Support your answer.

No. Marriage is a special contract of permanent union. it is not subject to stipulation, save that on property
relations.
2. A woman employee of X the basis of the provisions of the Constitution and the Family Code?
Consti - equal protection clause
family code - mmm...
3. The 1989 Constitution contains several provisions designed to protect and preserve the family and
marriage. Among others are the following:In view of the above constitutional provision highlighting the
importance of marriage and family, is Congress precluded from enacting a law legalizing absolute divorce in
this country? Explain/Support your answer.
Congress can pass a divorce law. marriage is governed not by private stipulation but by law. Congress has
plenary power to pass laws.
4. H, 19 years old, and W, 17 years old were married in a civil weeding with their parents consent. Is the
marriage valid, violable, or void? Support your answer.
void. There is an absence of an essential requisite, which is legal capacity of the contracting parties.
5. Mess, (not her real name) is aey were able to obtain the went to a judge of the solemnization of their
marriage. If you were the judge will you marry Mess and John? Reason out your answer.

no. (may partial points ba without reasons?

6. Mess and John learned that recently in the Netherlands, people similarly situated had been legally
married. They decided to go to the Netherlands and got married there validly. Is their marriage, which is
valid in Netherlands, valid here? Support your answer.
No. laws pertaining to family relations and personal status are binding on citizens whether residing here or
abroad.
7. Mars and Helen , Filipinos , of legal age, decided to planned with Jim standing-in as the groom . Is the
marriage valid, violable , or void.? Support your answer.
void. there is absence of a formal requisite, a valid marriage ceremony where contracting spouses take each
other as husband and wife.
8. Five months later, Mars arrived. As had been agreed upon, he and his wife, Helen, were married again:
in a grand church ceremony attendeSupport your answer.
void. no valid marriage license.
9. H and W were married in a garden weeding held at the Bell Amphitheater at Camp John Ha Is the
marriage valid, violable, or void? Support your answer.
void. judges can solemnize only in their jurisdiction.
10. A seduces the 19- year old daughter of X. A promise of marriage either has not been made, or can
not be pd and the girl and her family have suffered incalculable moral damage. Under our present laws, can
the girl bring any action for damages against A? Support your answer.
Under civil laws, none. There was no promise of marriage (and breach of promise to marry is not an
actionable wrong) and no damages, so he can't even be liable under Art. 19-21.

ENGRACE NIAL vs. NORMA BAYADOG

G.R. No. 133778, March 14, 2000
Facts: Pepito Nial and Teodulfa Bellones were married on September 26, 1974, and out of their marriage
was born herein petitioners. Teodulfa died on April 24, 1985, after being shot by Pepito. On December 11,
1986, Pepito and respondent Norma Bayadog were married without any marriage license. In lieu thereof,
they executed an affidavit that they had lived together as husband and wife for at least five years and were
thus exempted from securing a marriage license. On February 19, 1997, Pepito died in a car accident. After
his death, his heirs (herein petitioners) filed a declaration to declare the nullity of his marriage to Norma,
alleging that the said married was void for lack of a marriage license. Norma filed an action to dismiss,
stating that petitioners were not among those who could file an action for annulment of marriage under the
Family Code.
Judge Ferdinand Marcos of the RTC in Toledo dismissed the petition after finding that the Family Code was
rather silent on resolving the issues in the case.
Issue:
Is the marriage of Pepito to Norma null and void?
Held:
The Supreme Court first decided on the issue of whether there was a valid marriage between Pepito and
Norma. The SC reiterated that a valid marriage license is a requisite of marriage, the absence of which
renders the marriage void ab initio. Such requirement stems from the State's involvement and participation
in every marriage, the maintenance of which the public is interested. Such interest proceeds from the
"constitutional mandate that the State recognizes the sanctity of family life and of affording protection to the
family as a basic `autonomous social institution'." However, there are instances recognized in the law where
a marriage license may be dispensed with. One such instance is found in Article 34 of the Family Code,
formerly Art. 76 of the Civil Code, which refers to the marriage of a man and a woman who have lived
together and exclusively with each other as husband and wife for a continuous and unbroken period of at
least 5 years before the marriage.
It is true that Norma and Pepito were married without a license, working on the assumption that they had
been living together for at least five years without benefit of a marriage. However, this 5-year period should
be considered as the years immediately before the day of the marriage and it should be a period of
cohabitation characterized by exclusivity -- meaning that there is no third party involved at any time within
the 5 years -- and continuity -- that is unbroken. Otherwise, if such period were computed regardless of
whether the parties were capacitated to marry each other or not, then the law would be sanctioning
immorality and encouraging parties to have common-law relationships and placing them on the same footing
as those who lived faithfully with their spouse.
In this case, it cannot be said that Pepito and Norma had lived together for five years prior to their wedding
day. Only 20 months had elapsed between the time Pepito's first marriage was dissolved and his marriage to
Norma. Even if Pepito and his first wife had been living separately from each other, they were still married,
and his cohabitation with Norma was not the cohabitation contemplated by law. it should have been in the
nature of a perfect union under the law but rendered imperfect only by the absence of the marriage contract.
The subsistence of the marriage even when there was actual severance of the filial relationship between the
spouses cannot make any cohabitation by either spouse with any third party as being one as "husband and
wife".