Marriage License - a formal requisite for a validity of marriage in pursuant to the provision of

the Family Code

Moreno VS Bernabe

Facts:
The Respondent Judge is facing a serious and stern consequence for solemnizing
the marriage of Marcelo Moreno and Marilou Moreno without a valid marriage license. The
petitioner alleged that the respondent Judge promised her that the Marriage contract will be
available after 10 days however the petitioner wasn’t able to procure one because the Local
Civil Registrar failed to issue a marriage license.
On the respondent’s defense, he asserts that he solemnize the marriage because of
good intention and the sympathy that he felt upon the request of the parties to be saved from
the possible embarrassment out of pregnancy.
Despite the withdrawal of the complainant against the fallacies of the respondent
judge, Judge Villarama, however, also recommended that the respondent be issued a stern
warning "in view of the fact on record that he indeed solemnized a marriage without the
requisites marriage license constituting an ignorance of the law.

Issue:
Whether or not the respondent judge displays gross ignorance of the law when he
solemnizes the marriage without a marriage licence.

Ruling:
Yes, as a judge, he is presumed to be aware of the existence of Article 3(2) of the
Family Code of the Philippines (E.O. 209, as amended by E.O. 227), which provides of a
marriage is a valid marriage license. Absence of said requisite will make the marriage void
from the beginning (Article 35 [3], the Family Code of the Philippines).

People vs Borromeo

Facts:
Ellias Borromeo the respondent of this criminal case trying to mitigate punishment of
the incurred from the conviction of parricide.
On July 03, 1981 the family of Susana Borromeo were alarmed by the report of
Susana’s niece conveying that Susana is under the danger of death upon the doing of her
husband. The convict was right there and then apprehended by the police officers who
rescued on the occurrence of the crime.
During the Trial, the RTC convicted the accused guilty of parricide to which the
accused contend that he shall not be guilty of parricide because the marriage he shared with
the victim is not valid and non-existent on the grounds that there was no record of marriage
existing in the registry.
Issue:
Whether or not the marriage between Elias and Susana is non-existent on the
grounds that there was no record of marriage existed in the registry.

Ruling:
No, the High Court ruled otherwise. Marriage is a State interest being the basis of
human society throughout the civilized world. The presumption of marriage in the face of the
law is strong that it cannot be destroyed by the absence of record in the registry for as long
as before the celebration of it all the requirements for validity is present.
Persons living together in apparent matrimony are presumed, in the absence of any
counter presumption or evidence special to the case, to be in fact married. The reason is
that such is the common order of society, and if the parties were not what they thus hold
themselves out as being, they would be living in constant violation of decency and law.

Seguisabal vs Cabrera

Facts:
Abdon Saguisabak is facing an administrative case for solemnizing the marriage of
Jaime Sayson and Marlyn Jagonoy on April 14, 1978 without a marriage license and failure
to transmit the marriage contract to the Civil Registry 15 days after solemnizing the
marriage. In his defense, he solemnized the marriage out of compassion for the dire request
of the contracting parties and the failure to transmit the copy of marriage contract because it
was lost along with other paper documents in his office.

Issue:
Whether or not the respondent judge commits a gross ignorance of the law for
solemnizing a marriage without a marriage license.

Ruling:
Yes, the respondent judge indeed committed a gross misconduct and ignorance of
the law when he solemnized the marriage without a valid marriage license for the failure to
transmit the copy of the marriage contract in the Civil Registry in pursuant to Article 68. It
shall be the duty of the person solemnizing the marriage to furnish to either of the
contracting parties one of the three
copies of the marriage contract referred to in article 55, and to send another copy of the
document not later than fifteen days after
the marriage took place to the local civil registrar concerned, whose duty it shall be to issue
the proper receipt to any person
sending a marriage contract solemnized by him, including marriages of an exceptional
character. The official, priest, or minister
solemnizing the marriage shall retain the third copy of the marriage contract, the marriage
license and the affidavit of the interested

party regarding the solemnization of the marriage in a place other than those mentioned in
article 57 if there be any such affidavit, in
the files that he must keep.
Te vs Choa

Facts:
Arthur Te was charged with a case of Bigamy for contracting another marriage while
the marriage prior is subsisting. Petitioner and Liliana Choa contracted a valid marriage on
September 14, 1988. After the marriage, they did not live together but they regularly met.
Not long after the respondent gave birth to a girl.On May 20, 1990 the petitioner contracted
another marriage with Julieta Santella. The respondent then filed a criminal case in RTC and
as well as administrative case in the PRC for the revocation of their Engineering’s License
while the case is ongoing, the petitioner filed a declaration for nullity of his marriage with
respondent alleging that he was just forced to marry her. Further alleging that the respondent
concealed her pregnancy with another man. At the same time filed a petition for demurer of
evidence but it was denied.Believing that there was a miscarriage of justice when the RTC
judge denied his petition for demurer of evidence as well as the pRC’s denial of his petition.
He sought refuge of the Court of Appeals alleging that the RTC judge committed an
erroneous judgment. The cases filed that involved the same parties and the same root cause
of bigamy and the declaration of nullity of marriage is prejudicial and the pendency of the
declaration for the nullify of mis marriage will abrogate the criminal liabilities of Bigamy.

Issue:
Whether or not the pendency of the Civil case for the annulment of his marriage
gives rise to a prejudicial question will suspend the criminal proceedings of Bigamy.

Ruling:
No, the petitioner cannot invoke the prejudicial question of the case to suspend the
proceedings of Bigamy since at the time of the alleged commission of the crime, their
marriage was under the law valid and subsisting

Trinidad vs CA

Facts:
Arturio Trinidad is a petitioner in this civil case claiming to be a legitimate child of one
of the heiress of Patricio Trinidad alongside Felix Trinidad and Lourdes Trinidad. He
appeared before the Court of First Instance for an action of partition and damage of the
inheritance to be divided equally into three and he shall get the ⅓ of the share on behalf of
his father.
He presented family pictures where the defendants were present alongside with the
family of the petitioner. Furthermore he presented a Certificate of Baptism, a Certificate of
Loss issued by the Civil Registrar of Kalibo, Aklan attesting that the records of births, deaths
and marriages were either lost, burned or destroyed during the Japanese occupation of the
said municipality, family pictures of the petitioner at childbirth with private respondents and
other family members, a witness who was personally present during the nuptial of
petitioner's parents, and another witness who testified that petitioners parents deported
themselves as husband and wife after the marriage.
The Trial Court ruled in favor of the petitioner but the judgment was reversed by the
Court of Appeals for failure to adduce sufficient evidence to prove that his parents were
validly married, and that he was recognized as the legitimate son of the late Inocentes
Trinidad. Therefore he is entitled to the estate of Patricio Trinidad.
Issue: Whether or not the claim of Arturio Trinidad over the estate of Patricio Trinidad is
tenable as far as the Presumptive validity of his parents is concerned.

Ruling:
Yes, Contrary to the decision of the Court of Appeals, high Court recognized the
evidence adduced by Arturio to corroborate his claims on the validity of the marriage of his
parents therefore his right as the co-owner and his filiation is guaranteed. There is a strong
presumption of the validity of marriage that can be intensified by the testimony of a witness
to the matrimony, the couple's public and open cohabitation as husband and wife after the
alleged wedlock, the birth and the baptismal certificates of children born during such union,
and the mention of such nuptial in subsequent documents. In the case at bar, petitioner
secured a certification from the Office of the Civil Registrar of Aklan that all records of births,
deaths and marriages were either lost, burned or destroyed during the Japanese occupation
of said municipality. This fact, however, is not fatal to petitioner's case. Although the
marriage contract is considered the primary evidence of the marital union, petitioner's failure
to present it is not proof that no marriage took place, as other forms of relevant evidence
may take its place.

Vda. de Jacob vs CA

Facts:
This is a case

Santos vs Bedian-Santos

Facts:
Leouel Santos is seeking a declaration for nullity of his marriage with Julia
Bedian-Santos on the ground of Psychological incapacity. He further asserts that Julia is
incapable of discharging her marital obligation towards him.
The petitioner and the respondent herein have their cross-road met and with their
intertwined emotions, both have exchanged their wedding vows in the Municipal Trial Court
solemnized by the presiding judge and later on the marriage was celebrated in church. Not
long after, their shared love flourished and yielded an offspring, a baby boy.
However, the euphoria gradually withered and the stronghold of love suddenly was
weakened when Julia was employed in USA as a nurse. The petitioner narrates that
throughout her employment she only communicated with the petitioner once and the
recurrence of communication never takes place right after. He even tried to search for the
respondent in the USA when he was given the chance to set foot in the USA for his training.
This seemingly unrequited affection induced him to file a declaration for the nullity of his
marriage but the two attempts elevated in RTC and Court of Appeals procured the same
unfortunate judgment but he was persistent in his pursuit thus brought the petition in the
Supreme Court.

Issue:
 Whether or not the failure to communicate with a long distance spouse constitutes
Psychological Incapacity that will render the marriage void ab initio.

Ruing:
The Supreme Court ruled in a negative standpoint and the scale of justice falls in
favor of the validity of marriage. The presumption of the validity of marriage is too strong to
be eroded by conjectures. For the Psychological Incapacity to be appreciated the inability
must be tantamount to a psychological abnormality. The mere difficulty of assuming these
obligations, which could be overcome by normal effort, obviously does not constitute
incapacity. This inability to commit oneself must refer to the essential obligations of marriage:
the conjugal act, the community of life and love, the rendering of mutual help, the procreation
and education of offspring.

Republic of the Philippines VS CA and Molina

Facts:
This is a petition initiated by the Office of Solicitor General on behalf of the Republic
of the Philippines contending the judgment of the Regional Trial Court and the Court of
Appeals declaring the marriage of Renato and Roridel Molina null and void on the grounds of
Psychological Incapacity.
Reynaldo and Roridel contracted a valid marriage and from that marriage emerged a
son. As they propelled in their family life, Reynaldo displayed some peculiar characteristics
that are abhorrent in the face of a good husband and responsible father. This includes
spending most of his time with his friends, denying support to the family, being quarrelsome
and among other things.
After three years, spouses split their path and Roridel left Reynaldo. Throughout the
years, Reynaldo never supported his wife and child in the monetary aspect.
One day, Roridel implores with the court to perorate her marriage with Reynaldo by
securing a declaration of nullity of it. The trial court was persuaded by the unpleasant
testimonial experience of a wife with an immature husband and thus promulgated judgment
in her favor. Reynaldo contravened the declaration and sought legal remedy in the CA but
the latter affirmed the judgment of RTC.
Because marriage is a state interest,thus OSG representing the Republic of the
Philippines intervened and implored in High Tribunal to review the erroneous judgment of the
lower court.

Issue:
Whether or not the irreconcilable difference and conflicting personalities constitute
Psychological Incapacity and shall render the marriage null and void.

Ruling:
The Supreme Court finds the petition meritorious. The law has a seemingly invincible
presumption of the validity of marriage unless evidence is too strong to defeat it and any
doubt, the law will favor its validity. In the instant case, the Supreme Court was not
persuaded that the actions manifested by the Reynaldo constitute Psychological Incapacity
but “refusal” or “neglect” in the performance of some marital obligations. Mere showing of
“irreconciliable differences” and “conflicting personalities” in no wise constitutes
psychological incapacity. It is not enough to prove that the parties failed to meet their
responsibilities and duties as married persons; it is essential that they must be shown to be
incapable of doing so, due to some psychological (not physical) illness.
The law will only honor Psychological Incapacity if Such illness must be grave
enough to bring about the disability of the party to assume the essential obligations of
marriage. Thus, “mild characterological peculiarities, mood changes, occasional emotional
outbursts' ' cannot be accepted as root causes. The illness must be shown as downright
incapacity or inability, not a refusal, neglect or difficulty, much less ill will. In other words,
there is a natal or supervening disabling factor in the person, an adverse integral element in
the personality structure that effectively incapacitates the person from really accepting and
thereby complying with the obligations essential to marriage.

Choa vs Choa

Facts:
Narciso Choa as the respondent of this civil case contracted a valid marriage with
Cynthia Choa. He was a Medical Student while Cynthis a Pharmacy Student when they
contracted their marriage. Because of their incapabilities to sustain their family on their own,
they live with Narciso Choa’s parents. However while on their journey of marriage, the sail
suddenly turns to a different direction as they began having arguments.
Narcisos Choa alleged about their frequent quarrels. Further asserts that his wife refused to
have sexual intercourse with him, denied him with moral support to intensify his motivation of
becoming a doctor and the wife is incapable to discharge the essential marital obligation. He
then appeared before the Regional Trial Court seeking for the declaration of nullity of his
marriage to which the RTC granted. The wife then sought a legal remedy in the Court of
Appeals alleging that the RTC made an erroneous judgment on declaring their marriage null
and void. The Appellate Court found the contention meritorious as the petitioner for the
declaration of nullity of marriage failed to show that the psychological incapacity of the
parties existed at the time of the celebration of their marriage and thus reversed the decision
promulgated at the RTC. Fueled by the unwavering pursuit of getting the declaration null and
void, the husband escalated the issue to the Supreme Court alleging that the Appellate
Court erred in reversing the RTC’s decision.

Issue:
Whether or not the frequent quarrels, refusal to have a sexual intercourse with the
husband constitutes psychological incapacity that will render the marriage void ab initio.

Ruling:
No, the frequent squabbles and the respondent’s refusal to sleep with the petitioner
and the denial to provide moral support to the petitioner did not constitute psychological
incapacity. Based on the provided facts, the spouses were living in a harmonious marriage in
the early stage of it which yielded 4 offspring. Psychological incapacity is more than just
refusal or neglect in the performance of some marital obligations. It is paramount to prove
the incapabilities due to some psychological illness existing at the time of the celebration of
marriage.
Chi Ming Tsoi VS Court of Appeals

Facts:
The legal argument commences when the wife appears before the court seeking for
the declaration of the nullity of their marriage.
On May 22, 1988 the couple celebrated their marriage at the Manila Cathedral after
the celebration of marriage the married couple proceeded to the defendant’s parents. There,
they slept together in one bed in one room. Contrary to what the wife expects, as a married
couple, they are supposed to enjoy making love or have sexual intercourse but night turns
otherwise, cold as a winter dawn. In an attempt to ignite the fire of their marriage, the wife
invited her husband to have a vacation in Baguio to maximize their private married couple
life but the attempt ended in seemingly the same dose of disappointment because the
husband invited their respective family. In other words, the 4-day stay in Baguio never
yielded any romance and intimacy supposed to be shared by a married couple in their first
week.
Persistent with her pursuit of saving her marriage, she sought for a medical
intervention. Until appeared before the court seeking for the declaration of the nullity of
marriage on the grounds that her husband is impotent concealing his homosexuality. Her
claims were corroborated by testimonies that her husband never showed his penis, using the
eyebrow pencil and the cleansing cream of his mother and the marriage contracted merely
for convenience; to acquire his residency status and publicly maintain the reputation of a
normal man.
For the purpose of proving the potency, the defendant underwent a clinical test and it
was clinically found out that he has a soft erection that will only reach to 3 inches. But
nevertheless capable of further erection and can still consummate sex with a woman.
Hearing the agony of the distraught and disappointed wife, the RTC declared their
marriage void. The petitioner countered the judgment with CA but the latter affirmed the
judgment of the RTC hence the case was escalated to the Supreme Court.

Issue:
Whether or not refusal of the husband to have sexual communion of the wife
constitutes Psychological Incapacity that will render the marriage void ab initio.

Ruling:
Yes, Such abnormal reluctance or unwillingness to consummate his marriage is
strongly indicative of a serious personality disorder which to the mind of this Court clearly
demonstrates an 'utter insensitivity or inability to give meaning and significance to the
marriage' within the meaning of Article 36 of the Family Code

Marcos VS Marcos

Facts:
This is a case filed by a wife who has endured domestic violence inflicted from an
unemployed and abusive husband sheltered in a dysfunctional household.
Involved in this petition are military spouses whose cross-road met while they were
doing their official job in Malacanang whose romance was intertwined by phone
communication that ended up in marriage. Their marriage started with bliss and produced 5
children.
 Their marriage didn’t sail on a smooth trajectory. After the administration of President
Marcos was ousted, both left from their jobs that resulted in the unemployment of her
husband.Eventually her husband turned physically abusive to her and towards their children.
Allegedly he even forced his wife to have sexual intercourse with him. Unable to endure the
agony, the spouses live separately. When the issue was escalated to the Trial Court, the
judicial tribunal found the appellant to be psychologically incapacitated to perform his marital
obligation evident by failure to find work to support his family. However appelle resorted a
legal remedy in the Court of Appeals to which the latter turned the table and reversed the
judgment of the RTC. With the unwavering determination of the wife to be free from the
chain of marriage he had with an abusive and unemployed husband, she resorted to the
Supreme Court to counter the judgment of CA asserting that her husband is psychologically
incapacitated evident by the fact that in a period of 6 years, he never find ways to support his
family.

Issue:
Whether or not the petition to declare the nullity of marriage on the ground of
psychological incapacity due to failure to find ways to support the needs of the family is
tenable.

Ruling:
We rule in the negative. Although this Court is sufficiently convinced that respondent
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 the respondent 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.

Ngo Te vs Yu-Te

Facts:
Edward Kenneth Ngoo Te is filing for the declaration of nullity of his marriage with
Rowena Ngo-Te. The two met during their college days when their school organized a
gathering for the Filipino-Chinese Association. The herein petitioner was attracted at first by
Rowena’s friend but the latter is already committed to a relationship hence the courtship was
diverted to Rowena.
Out of impulsive and premature instinct, the respondent propounded the petitioner to
elope. Notwithstanding the reluctance of the herein petitioner their plan to elope transpired
and successfully reached Cebu. Not long after, the money they brought with them was
depleted over the expenses for their daily survival and compelled them to go back to their
parents.
The parents of the petitioner were not available at the time of their arrival hence he
proceeded to the respondent’s home. The uncle of Rowena then brought them to a court to
solemnize their marriage; however not long after, their frequent quarrels and personal
indifference led Edward to go back home. He used the chance and filed a petition to declare
his marriage with Rowena void on the grounds that it was contracted with a Psychologically
incapacitated person.
Parties then undergo clinical examinations that yielded the following results;
petitioner, introvert, less likely sociable, unsure and unready to commit himself to marriage.
Meanwhile, respondent was diagnosed with an incurable narcissistic and Antisocial
Personality Disorder. Upon the diagnosis the RTC declared their marriage null and void.The
acquired freedom of Edward was contravene by the Republic of the Philippines represented
by OSG bringing the issue to the Appellate Court where the latter ruled otherwise as the
petitioner failed to prove the psychological incapacity of the respondent. However the
petitioner maximize all the legal remedy to regain the freedom granted by the RTC thus
escalated the issue to the SC on the grounds that the Clinical and Behavioral Diagnosis of
Rowena is an indication of Psychological Incapacity that will hamper her from performing her
marital obligations.

Issue: Whether or not severe Narcissistic Disorder is an indication of Psychological

Incapacity as grounds for the dissolution of marital bond.

Ruling:
Yes, the Supreme Court ruled in an affirmative standpoint reinstating the judgement
of RTC.There is incapacity when either or both of the contractants are not capable of
initiating or maintaining this consortium. One immediately thinks of those cases where one of
the parties is so self-centered [e.g., a narcissistic personality] that he does not even know
how to begin a union with the other, let alone how to maintain and sustain such a
relationship. A second incapacity could be due to the fact that the spouses are incapable of
beginning or maintaining a heterosexual consortium, which goes to the very substance of
matrimony. Another incapacity could arise when a spouse is unable to concretize the good of
himself or of the other party. The canon speaks, not of the bonum partium, but of the bonum
conjugum. A spouse who is capable only of realizing or contributing to the good of the other
party qua persona rather than qua conjunx would be deemed incapable of contracting
marriage. Such would be the case of a person who may be quite capable of procuring the
economic good and the financial security of the other, but not capable of realizing the bonum
conjugale of the other. These are general strokes and this is not the place for detained and
individual description.

Aurelio vs Aurelio
Aurelio v. Aurelio (G.R. No. 175367; June 06, 2011) (projectjurisprudence.com)

Marriages contracted without procuring judicial declaration of nullity of previous marriage –

Art 40 FC
Art. 40. 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.

Marriages contracted without procuring judicial declaration of nullity of previous marriage –

Art 40 FC

Choa vs Hon. Beldia & Choa

Facts:
Leni Choa is filing a criminal case of concubinage against husband Alfonso Choa.
However, before the promulgation of judgment, the accused file a petition for nullity of
marriage on the grounds of Psychological Incapacity. During the pendency of his petition, he
filed for injunction for the prosecution of the the crime and it was granted and issued a
restraining order against Leni Choa. Hence the legal controversy was escalated to the High
Court.

Issue:
Whether or not the instituted civil case for declaration for nullity of marriage bars the
prosecution of criminal offense as a prejudicial question.

Ruling:
Yes, when a civil action is instituted alongside a criminal action, the civil action has to
be preemptively resolved before the criminal prosecution may proceed as the finding in the
Civil case is the determinative factor in establishing the guilt of the offender in the criminal
case.

Actions to be brought

Mallion VS Alcantara

Facts:
Oscar Mallion appeared before the Regional Trial Court seeking for the declaration of
the nullity of his marriage with Editha Alcantara on the grounds of Psychological Incapacity
but it was denied due to insufficiency of evidence. Persistent in his pursuit to nullify his
marriage with Editha, he filed an appeal with the Appellate Court but likewise received the
same denial.
While the first petition is pending for finality, he initiated another petition for nullity of
his marriage invoking that such is void from the beginning as it was celebrated with
insufficient essential requisites.On the other hand, the respondent wife counter the claim by
filling a petition that it should be dismissed on the grounds of Res Judicata and Forum
Shopping to which it yielded a positive result thus the issue was escalated to the Supreme
Court.

Issue: Whether or not the decisions promulgated on the first petition for nullity of marriage
bars the succeeding petition.
Ruling:
Yes, Contrary to what the petitioner asserts, the two petitions and cause of actions
filed constitute Res Judicata. In this case he invokes the same cause of action for different
grounds. By the application of the doctrine and to promote tranquility and happiness in the
State parties involved shall not be vexed twice for the same cause and as a state interest
there should be an end in a litigation for legal disputes that involved the same parties and
the same subject matter.

Ablaza vs Republic of the Philippines

Facts:
Isidro Albaza, brother of the late Cresencio Albaza appeared before the Regional
Trial court filing for the petition of nullity of marriage between Cresencio and Leonila. He
asserts that their marriage is void from the beginning as it was celebrated without a marriage
license. The Regional Trial Court dismissed the petition as the petitioner is not a party in
interest of the proceeding. With the denial of the petition in the RTC, he implored the legal
remedy in the Court of Appeals but likewise received the same denial as the surviving
brother of a deceased spouse has no legal standing to file a petition for nullity of marriage on
his behalf. He then raised the issue in the Supreme Court with the following arguments; He
is the late Cresenciano's brother and surviving heir and he has a material interest in the
estate of Cresenciano that will be adversely affected by any judgment in the suit.

Issue: Whether or not the petition of a surviving brother of a deceased spouse is meritorious
in seeking for the declaration of nullity of his marriage.

Ruling:
Yes, the surviving spouse has a meritorious petition in seeking the nullification of
marriage of a deceased spouse in so far as the estate and heredity is concerned. The
Supreme Court finds the petition of Isidro tenable. Even Though he is not a compulsory heir
of the estate of the deceased under the laws of succession, has the right to succeed to the
estate of a deceased brother under the conditions stated in Article 1001 and Article 1003

Article 1001. Should brothers and sisters or their children survive with the widow or widower,
the latter shall be entitled to one half of the inheritance and the brothers and sisters or their
children to the other half.

Article 1003. If there are no descendants, ascendants, illegitimate children, or a surviving

spouse, the collateral relatives shall succeed to the entire estate of the deceased in
accordance with the following articles.

With the meritorious findings of the Supreme Court in the petition of Isidro, they
remanded it back to RTC for further investigation of facts.

Marriage where one spouse is absent

Art. 41. A marriage contracted by any person during subsistence of a previous

marriage shall be null and void, unless before the celebration of the
subsequent marriage, the prior spouse had been absent for four consecutive
years and the spouse present has a well-founded belief that the absent spouse
was already dead. In case of disappearance where there is danger of death
under the circumstances set forth in the provisions of Article 391 of the Civil
Code, an absence of only two years shall be sufficient.
For the purpose of contracting the subsequent marriage under the preceding
paragraph the spouse present must institute a summary proceeding as
provided in this Code for the declaration of presumptive death of the absentee,
without prejudice to the effect of reappearance of the absent spouse.

Art. 42. The subsequent marriage referred to in the preceding Article shall be
automatically terminated by the recording of the affidavit of reappearance of
the absent spouse, unless there is a judgment annulling the previous marriage
or declaring it void ab initio.
A sworn statement of the fact and circumstances of reappearance shall be
recorded in the civil registry of the residence of the parties to the subsequent
marriage at the instance of any interested person, with due notice to the
spouses of the subsequent marriage and without prejudice to the fact of
reappearance being judicially determined in case such fact is disputed.

Jones vs Hortiguela

Facts:
Angelina Jones is filing a petition to annul the second marriage of her mother
Marciana Escano to Felix Hortiguela. The second marriage of Marciana was celebrated 9
years after her first husband presumed to be dead as they don’t have any news from him
after he left. Marciana eventually died leaving a property to be adjudicated between Felix
Hortiguela and Angela Jones. The latter contends that the declaration of absence must be
understood to have been made April 23, 1921 thus the contracted marriage on My 26, 1971
with only 6 years gap after the declaration of absentee nullified the second marriage from the
start.

Issue:
Whether or not the marriage of felix and Marciana is null and void ab initio

Ruling:
No, for the purposes of the civil marriage law, it is not necessary to have the former
spouse judicially declared an absentee. The declaration of absence made in accordance
with the provisions of the Civil Code has for its sole purpose to enable the taking of the
necessary precautions for the administration of the estate of the absentee. For the
celebration of civil marriage, however, the law only requires that the former spouse has been
absent for seven consecutive years at the time of the second marriage, that the spouse
present does not know his or her former spouse to be living, that such former spouse is
generally reputed to be dead and the spouse present so believes at the time of the
celebration of the marriage.
Republic vs Nolasco
Facts: Nolasco is a seaman,met a British in the name of Janet Monica. The latter
lived with the respondent in his ship for 6 months and returned to Antique and contracted a
marriage. The ceremony was solemnized through Catholic rites. Their union bore a son but
15 days after Janet gave birth she returned to England and that’s when the communication
of the spouses ends.
Consequently, the petitioner filed a Presumption of Death of his wife. Swayed by his
testimonies on how his path intertwined and departed with his wife and the effort of search
he made, the lower court granted the petition. But the matter at hand is a state interest,
Republic of the Philippines through the OSG contended the judgment of RTC hence brought
the issue in Court of Appeals that yielded the same merits.
Republic of the Philippines then filed a petition in the Supreme Court assailing the
judgment of the lower and appellate court.

Issue:
Whether or not Nolasco had a well-founded belief that his wife is already presumed
dead in pursuant to Article 41 of the Family Code.

Ruling:
No, the court was not persuaded by the testimonies of Nolasco. Further The Court
viewed the respondent's claim that Janet Monica declined to give any information as to her
personal background even after she had married respondent is a convenient excuse to
justify his failure to locate her. The same can be said of the loss of the alleged letters
respondent had sent to his wife which respondent claims were all returned to him.
Respondent said he had lost these returned letters, under unspecified circumstances.

Neither can this Court give much credence to respondent's bare assertion that he had
inquired from their friends of her whereabouts, considering that respondent did not identify
those friends in his testimony. The Court of Appeals ruled that since the prosecutor failed to
rebut this evidence during trial, it is good evidence. But this kind of evidence cannot, by its
nature, be rebutted. In any case, admissibility is not synonymous with credibility.