JAIME O. SEVILLA VS.

CARDENAS
G.R. NO. 167684, JULY 31, 2006
DIGESTED BY: CHARDANE P. LABISTE
TOPIC: FORMAL REQUISITES OF MARRIAGE

FACTS:
Jaime Sevilla claims that their marriage was a result of duress (threat) and machination
(scheme) when Carmelita Cardenas and her father Col. Jose Cardenas forced him to
the City Hall of Manila to sign a marriage contract before a said minister of Gospel.
Stating that there was no marriage license presented.

Cardenas replies that they were married civilly on May 19, 1969, and in church on May
31, 1969. The trial courts issued a ruling that marriage was void ab initio due to the
certificate of the civil registrar stating that there was no marriage license ever issued to
the parties. There was also the testimony of the Civil Registrar that the location of the
document failed due to the one handling it already retired.

The certificates however, cited that due to the loaded work they cannot give their full
force in locating such document being asked. Thus, CA reversed the ruling of the RTC.
Having been denied the motion for reconsideration, Jaime filed a petition to the court.

ISSUE:
Whether the certifications from the Local Civil Registrar of San Juan stating that no
Marriage License issued, was sufficient enough to declare their marriage void ab initio?

RULING:
MARRIAGE STATUS is valid due to the failure to establish sufficient evidence that the
marriage license is not issued or absent and the jurisprudential attitude towards
marriage is based on the prima facie presumption that a man and a woman deporting
themselves as husband and wife have entered into a lawful contract of marriage.

Semper Praesumitur Pro Matrimonio

Always presume marriage – Persons dwelling together in apparent matrimony are
presumed, in the absence of any counter-presumption or evidence special to the case,
to be in fact married.

In the case at hand, the certifications issued by the Civil Registrar state the “loaded
work cannot give you our full force in locating the above problem” in addition to the
testimony of Pelita Mercader stating that “the employee handling is already retired” do
not persuade the court to believe the absence of such marriage license as what is being
raised.

ARTICLE 3 - The formal requisites of marriage are:

(1) Authority of the solemnizing officer
(2) A valid marriage license except in the cases provided for in Chapter 2 of this Title;
and
(3) A marriage ceremony that takes place with the appearance of the contracting parties
before the solemnizing officer and their personal declaration that they take each other
as husband and wife in the presence of not less than two witnesses of legal age.
MERCADO VS. TAN
G.R. No. 137110, August 1, 2000
DIGESTED BY: CHARDANE P. LABISTE
TOPIC: KINDS OF VOID MARRIAGES

FACTS:
Dr. Vincent Mercado and complainant Ma. Consuelo Tan got married on June 27, 1991
before MTCC-Bacolod City Br. 7 Judge Gorgonio J. Ibañez [by reason of] which a
Marriage Contract was duly executed and signed by the parties. As entered in said
document, the status of accused was ‘single’.

There is no dispute either that at the time of the celebration of the wedding with
complainant, accused was actually a married man, having been in lawful wedlock with
Ma. Thelma Oliva in a marriage ceremony solemnized on April 10, 1976 by Judge
Leonardo B. Cañares, CFI-Br. 

On October 5, 1992, a complaint for bigamy was filed by complainant. On November

13, 1992, or more than a month after the bigamy case was lodged in the Prosecutor’s
Office, accused filed an action for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage against Ma. Thelma
V. Oliva and in a Decision dated May 6, 1993 the marriage between Vincent G.
Mercado and Ma. Thelma V. Oliva was declared null and void.

ISSUE:
1.) WON the accused is guilty of bigamy
2.) WON the marriage between Mercado and Tan is void and voidable

RULING:
Yes, all 4 elements of bigamy are present in the case, first
(1.) That the offender has been legally married; in this case, the accused was legally
married to Oliva, (2.) That the marriage has not been legally dissolved or, in case his or
her spouse is absent, the absent spouse could not yet be presumed dead according to
the Civil Code; in this case, the marriage between Mercado and Oliva was declared null
and void only after the celebration of the second wedding. (3.) That he contracts a
second or subsequent marriage; yes, the accused contracts a second marriage with
Tan (4.) That the second or subsequent marriage has all the essential requisites for
validity."

ARTICLE 2 - No marriage shall be valid, unless these essential requisites are present:
(1) Legal capacity of the contracting parties who must be a male and a female; and
(2) Consent freely give in the presence of the solemnizing officer.

Yes, the marriage between Mercado and Tan is void and voidable, under Article 35,
paragraph (4) of Family Codes states that a marriage is void and voidable to those
bigamous and polygamous marriages not falling under Article 41;

All the requisites in Article 41 are not present in the case, what are they??

Requisites of Marriage Under Article 41

1. Absent spouse must have been absent for at least four consecutive years or at least
two years if the disappearance is due to any of the circumstances under Article 391 of
the Civil Code (It is not determined in the fact that Oliva was absent that long).
2. Present spouse had a well-founded belief, not suspicion, that the absent spouse is
already dead. (Tan is aware that the first wife is alive and she is already living with
another man.
3. Institution of an action (summary proceedings) for the declaration of the presumptive
death.
4. Favorable Judgment in favor of the present spouse.

A judicial declaration of nullity of a previous marriage is necessary before a subsequent

one can be legally contracted. One who enters into a subsequent marriage without first
obtaining such judicial declaration is guilty of bigamy. This principle applies even if the
earlier union is characterized by statute as "void." there must be a judicial declaration of
the nullity of a marriage.  Relying on the fact that the first wife would no longer return to
Dr. Mercado in not enough.

"Indeed, the claim of Consuelo Tan that she was not aware of his previous marriage
does not inspire belief, especially as she had seen that Dr. Mercado had two (2)
children with him. We are convinced that she took the plunge anyway, relying on the
fact that the first wife would no longer return to Dr. Mercado, she being by then already
living with another man.

Art. 349. Bigamy – a penalty shall be imposed upon any person who shall contract a
second or subsequent marriage before the former marriage has been legally dissolved.
Article 40 of the Family Code states that x x x. The Code Commission believes that the
parties to a marriage should not be allowed to assume that their marriage is void, even
if such is the fact, but must first secure a judicial declaration of nullity of their marriage
before they should be allowed to marry again.

ARTICLE 3 - The formal requisites of marriage are:

(1) Authority of the solemnizing officer
(2) A valid marriage license except in the cases provided for in Chapter 2 of this Title;
and
(3) A marriage ceremony which takes place with the appearance of the contracting
parties before the solemnizing officer and their personal declaration that they take each
other as husband and wife in the presence of not less than two witnesses of legal age.

Bigamy is a Crime not an Irregularity.

MARCOS vs. MARCOS
G.R. No. 136490, October 19, 2000
DIGESTED BY: CHARDANE P. LABISTE
TOPIC: PSYCHOLOGICAL INCAPACITY

FACTS:
Brenda B. Marcos married Wilson Marcos in 1982 and they had five children. Alleging
that the husband failed to provide material support to the family and have resorted to
physical abuse and abandonment, Brenda filed a case for the nullity of the marriage for
psychological incapacity. The RTC declared the marriage null and void under Art. 36
which was however reversed by CA.

ISSUES:
Whether personal medical or psychological examination of Wilson by a physician is a
requirement for a declaration of psychological incapacity and whether the totality of the
evidence presented in this case shows how psychological incapacity.

RULING:
Psychological incapacity as a ground for declaring the nullity of a marriage, may be
established by the totality of evidence presented. There is no requirement, however that
Wilson be examined by a physician or a psychologist as a condition sine qua non for
such declaration. Although this Court is sufficiently convinced that Wilson failed to
provide material support to the family and may have resorted to physical abuse and
abandonment, the totality of his acts does not lead to a conclusion of psychological
incapacity on his part. There is absolutely no showing that his “defects” were already
present at the inception of the marriage or that they are incurable. Verily, the behavior of
Wilson can be attributed to the fact that he had lost his job and was not gainfully
employed for a period of more than six years. It was during this period that he became
intermittently drunk, failed to give material and moral support, and even left the family
home. Thus, his alleged psychological illness was traced only to said period and not to
the inception of the marriage.

Equally important, there is no evidence showing that his condition is incurable,

especially now that he is gainfully employed as a taxi driver. In sum, this Court cannot
declare the dissolution of the marriage for failure of the Brenda to show that the alleged
psychological incapacity is characterized by gravity, juridical antecedence and
incurabilty and for her failure to observe the guidelines as outline in Republic v. CA and
Molina.
BOBIS V. BOBIS
G.R. NO. 138509, JULY 31, 2000
DIGESTED BY: CHARDANE P. LABISTE
TOPIC: EFFECTS OF FINAL JUDGMENT DECLARING NULLITY

FACTS: 
On October 21, 1985, respondent Isagani contracted a first marriage with one Maria
Dulce. Without said marriage having been annulled, Isagani contracted a second
marriage with petitioner Imelda on January 25, 1996 and allegedly a third marriage with
a certain Julia. An information for bigamy was filed against Isagani based on Imelda's
complaint. Sometime thereafter, Isagani initiated a civil action for the judicial declaration
of absolute nullity of his first marriage on the ground that it was celebrated without a
marriage license. Isagani then filed a motion to suspend the proceedings in the criminal
case for bigamy invoking the pending civil case for nullity of the first marriage as a
prejudicial question to the criminal case. The trial judge granted the motion to suspend
the criminal case.

ISSUE: 
Does the subsequent filing of a civil action for declaration of nullity of a previous
marriage affect the criminal case for bigamy?

RULING:
NO, Article 40 of the Family Code, which was effective at the time of celebration of the
second marriage, requires a prior judicial declaration of nullity of a previous marriage
before a party may remarry. The clear implication of this is that it is not for the parties,
particularly the accused, to determine the validity or invalidity of the marriage. 

Isagani, without first having obtained the judicial declaration of nullity of the first
marriage, cannot be said to have validly entered into the second marriage. He was for
all legal intents and purposes regarded as a married man at the time he contracted his
second marriage with the Imelda. Any decision in the civil action for nullity would not
erase the fact that Isagani entered into a second marriage during the subsistence of a
first marriage. Thus, a decision in the civil case is not essential to the determination of
the criminal charge. It is, therefore, not a prejudicial question. 

Isagani's clear intent is to obtain a judicial declaration of nullity of his first marriage and
thereafter to invoke that very same judgment to prevent his prosecution for bigamy. He
cannot have his cake and eat it too. Otherwise, all that an adventurous bigamist has to
do is to disregard Article 40 of the Family Code, contract a subsequent marriage and
escape a bigamy charge by simply claiming that the first marriage is void and that the
subsequent marriage is equally void for lack of a prior judicial declaration of nullity of the
first. 
REPUBLIC V. MOLINA
G.R. NO. 108763, FEBRUARY 13, 1997
DIGESTED BY: CHARDANE P. LABISTE
TOPIC: PSYCHOLOGICAL INCAPACITY

FACTS:
Roridel Molina and Reynaldo Molina were married on April 14, 1985. A son, Andre
Molina was born out of their marriage in 1986. However, a year after their marriage,
Roridel alleged that her husband Reynaldo showed signs of immaturity and
irresponsibility as a husband and a father. Reynaldo, as claimed was spending more
time with his friends, depending on his parents for aid and assistance, and was
dishonest with his wife regarding their finances. He even lost his job and abandon his
family. Thus, due to his immaturity and actions that lead to their frequent quarrels, their
relationship was estranged and resulted to the filing of this case to declare the marriage
null and void on ground of psychological incapacity.

ISSUE:
Whether the marriage of Reynaldo and Roridel shall be declared null and void on
ground of psychological incapacity.

RULING:
No. The court ruled that psychological incapacity should refer to no less than a mental
nor physical incapacity. The law intended to confine the meaning of psychological
incapacity to the most serious cases of personality disorders clearly demonstrative of an
utter insensitivity or inability to give meaning and significance to the marriage. The
condition must exist at the time of the celebration of the marriage and must be
characterized by (a) gravity, (b) juridical antecedence, and (c) incurability.

In this case, there is no clear showing that the defect spoken of is an incapacity, but
instead is likely to appear as 'difficulty', if not outright 'refusal' or 'neglect' in the
performance of some marital obligations. Mere showing of "irreconcilable differences"
and "conflicting personalities" in no wise constitutes psychological incapacity. Their
problem shows no gravity, neither juridical antecedence nor its incurability.

This case introduced the following guidelines in the interpretation and application of Art.
36 of the Family Code: (Molina Doctrine)

1. The burden of proof to show the nullity of the marriage belongs to the plaintiff. Any
doubt should be resolved in favor of the marriage and against its dissolution and nullity.

2. The root cause of the psychological incapacity must be:

a. Medically or clinically identified;
b. Alleged in the complaint;
c. Sufficiently proven by experts; and
d. Clearly explained in the decision.
3. The incapacity must be proven to be existing at the "time of the celebration" of the
marriage.

4. The incapacity must also be shown to be medically or clinically incurable.

5. Such illness must be grave enough to bring about the disability of the party to
assume the essential obligations of marriage.

6. The essential marital obligations must be those embraced by Articles 68 to 71 of the

Family Code as well as Articles 220, 221 and 225 of the same Code.

7. Interpretations given by the National Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal of the Catholic

Church in the Philippines, while not controlling or decisive, should be given great
respect by our Courts.

8. The trial court must order the prosecuting attorney or fiscal and the Solicitor General
to appear as counsel for the State.