a) The fact that the parents of Isidro and of Irma did not give their consent to the marriage did not make the marriage void ab initio. The marriage is merely voidable under Art 45 of the Family Code.
b) Absence of marriage license did not make the marriage void ab initio. Since the marriage was solemnized in articulo mortis, it was exempt from the license requirement under Art. 31 of the Family Code.
c) On the assumption that the assistant pilot was acting for and in behalf of the airplane chief who was under disability, and by reason of the extraordinary and exceptional circumstances of the case, the marriage was solemnized by an authorized officer under Art. 7 (3) and Art. 31 of the Family Code.
d) Failure of the solemnizing officer to file the affidavit of marriage did not affect the validity of the marriage. It is merely an irregularity which may subject the solemnizing officer to sanctions.
a) The marriage is voidable. The consent of the parties to the marriage was defective. Being below 21 years old, the consent of the parties is not full without the consent of their parents. The consent of the parents of the parties to the marriage is indispensable for its validity.
b) Between 21-year olds, the marriage is valid despite the absence of parental advice, because such absence is merely an irregularity affecting a formal requisite i.e., the marriage license and does not affect the validity of the marriage itself. This is without prejudice to the civil, criminal, or administrative liability of the party responsible therefor.
c) By reason of public policy, the marriage between Filipino first cousins is void (Art. 38, par. 1, FC), and the fact that it is considered a valid marriage in a foreign country in this case, Spain— does not validate it, being an exception to the general rule in Art. 26 of said Code which accords validity to all marriage solemnized outside the Philippine x x x and valid there as such.
d) It depends. If the marriage before the notary public is valid under Hongkong Law, the marriage is valid in the Philippines. Otherwise, the marriage that is invalid in Hongkong will be invalid in the Philippines.
e) VALID. It is jurisprudential that a marriage solemnized by a town mayor outside of his jurisdiction is a mere irregularity and will not invalidate the marriage. Hence, the marriage solemnized by a town mayor three towns away from his jurisdiction is a valid marriage.
No. The marriage of Roderick and Faye is not valid. Art. 4 of the FC provide that the absence of any of the essential or formal requisites renders the marriage void ab initio. However, no license shall be necessary for the marriage of a man and a woman who have lived together as husband and wife for at least 5 years and without any legal impediment to marry each other. In Republic v. Dayot (G.R. No. 175581, March 28, 2008), reiterating the doctrine in Niñal v. Bayadog (G.R. No. 133778, March 14, 2000), this five-year period is characterized by exclusivity and continuity. In the present case, the marriage of Roderick and Faye cannot be considered as a marriage of exceptional character, because there were two legal impediments during their cohabitation: minority on the part of Faye, during the first two years of cohabitation; and, lack of legal capacity, since Faye married Brad at the age of 18. The absence of a marriage license made the marriage of Faye and Roderick void ab initio.
1) Yes, the marriage is valid. The Family Code took effect on August 3, 1988. At the time of the marriage on September 4, 1987, municipal mayors were empowered to solemnize marriage under the Civil Code of 1950.
2)
a) The marriage is not valid. Consuls and vice- consuls are empowered to solemnize marriage between Philippine citizens abroad in the consular office of the foreign country to which they were assigned and have no power to solemnize marriage on Philippine soil.
b) A Philippine consul is authorized by law to solemnize marriage abroad between Filipino citizens. He has no authority to solemnize a marriage in the Philippines. Consequently, the marriage in question is void, unless either or both of the contracting parties believed in good faith that the consul general had authority to solemnize their marriage in which case the marriage is valid.
If the time of Juliet’s acquisition of U.S. citizenship preceded the time when she obtained the divorce decree, then the divorce decree can be given effect in the Philippines, and consequently, Romeo will be capacitated to remarry under Philippine law. On the other hand, if Juliet obtained the divorce decree before she acquired U.S. citizenship, then the foreign divorce decree cannot be recognized by Philippine courts.
Art. 26, par. 2 of the Family Code provides that where a marriage between a Filipino citizen and a foreigner is validly celebrated and a divorce is thereafter validly obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating him or her to remarry, the Filipino spouse shall have capacity to remarry under Philippine law. In Republic v. Orbecido (472 SCRA 114 [2005]), the Supreme Court ruled that Art. 26, par. 2 should be interpreted to include cases involving parties who, at the time of the celebration of the marriage were Filipino citizens, but later on, one of them becomes naturalized as a foreign citizen and obtains a divorce decree. The reckoning point is not their citizenship at the time of celebration of marriage, but their citizenship at the time the divorce decree is obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating him/her to remarry.
NOTE: In the case of Republic v. Manalo (G.R. No. 221029, April 24, 2018), the Court held that Paragraph 2 of Article 26 of the Family Code speaks of "a divorce x x x validly obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating him or her to remarry." Based on a clear and plain reading of the provision, it only requires that there be a divorce validly obtained abroad. The letter of the law does not demand that the alien spouse should be the one who initiated the proceeding wherein the divorce decree was granted. It does not distinguish whether the Filipino spouse is the petitioner or the respondent in the foreign divorce proceeding.
The purpose of Paragraph 2 of Article 26 is to avoid the absurd situation where the Filipino spouse remains married to the alien spouse who, after a foreign divorce decree that is effective in the country where it was rendered, is no longer married to the Filipino spouse.
Yes, he is capacitated to remarry. While the second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code is applicable only to a Filipino who married a foreigner at the time of the marriage, the Supreme Court ruled in the case of Republic v. Orbecido (GR. No. 154380, October 5, 2005) that the said provision equally applies to a Filipino who married another Filipino, at the time of the marriage, but who was already a foreigner when the divorce was obtained.
a. The marriage of Maris and Johnson was valid when celebrated because all marriages solmenized outside the Philippines (Tokyo) in accordance with the laws in force in the country where they are solemnized (Japan), and valid there as such, are also valid in the Philippines.
Their marriage no longer validly subsists, because it has been dissolved by the absolute divorce validly obtained by Johnson which capacitated Maris to remarry. (Art. 26, Family Code)
b. The marriage of Maris and Pedro was valid when celebrated because the divorce validly obtained by Johnson in Manila capacitated Maris to marry Pedro.
The marriage of Maris and Pedro is still validly existing because the marriage has not been validly dissolved by the Maryland divorce.
c. The marriage of Maris and Vincent is void ab initio because it is a bigamous marriage contracted by Maris during the subsistence of her marriage with Pedro. (Art. 25 and 41, FC)
The marriage of Maris and Vincent does not validly exist because Article 26 does not apply. Pedro was not a foreigner at the time of his marriage with Maris and the divorce abroad (in Maryland) was initiated and obtained not by the alien spouse, but by the Filipino spouse.Hence, the Maryland divorce did not capacitate Maris to marry Vincent.
d. At this point in time, Pedro is still the lawful husband of Maris because their valid marriage has not been dissolved by any valid cause. (Art. 26,FC)
Yes. In Republicv.Orbecido(472SCRA114[2005]), the Supreme Court ruled that Art. 26, par. 2 should be interpreted to include cases involving parties who, at the time of the celebration of the marriage were Filipino citizens, but later on, one of them becomes naturalized as a foreign citizen and obtains a divorce decree.
The instant case is one where at the time the marriage was solemnized, the parties were two Filipino citizens, but later on, the wife, Flor, was naturalized as a Canadian citizen and subsequently obtained a divorce granting her capacity to remarry and indeed remarried a Canadian. Virgilio, the Filipino spouse, should likewise be allowed to remarry as if the other party were a foreigner at the time of the solemnization of the marriage.
She may remarry. While a strict interpretation of Art. 26 of the FC would capacitate a Filipino spouse to remarry only when the other spouse was a foreigner at the time of the marriage, the DOJ has issued an opinion (Opinion 134 s. of 1993) that the same injustice sought to be cured by Article 26 is present in the case of spouses who were both Filipino at the time of the marriage but one became an alien subsequently. Said injustice is the anomaly of Eva remaining married to her husband who is no longer married to her. Hence, said Opinion makes Art. 26 applicable to her case and the divorce obtained abroad by her former Filipino husband would capacitate her to remarry. To contract a subsequent marriage, all she needs to do is present to the civil registrar the decree of divorce when she applies for a marriage license under Art. 13 of the FC.
Yes, the marriage of Marvin and Manel is valid. While Marvin was previously married to Shelley, the divorce from Marvin obtained by Shelley in California capacitated Marvin to contract the subsequent marriage to Manel under the 2nd paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code which provides that where a marriage between a Filipino citizen and a foreigner is validly celebrated and a divorce is thereafter validly obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating him or her to remarry, the Filipino spouse shall likewise have capacity to remarry under Philippine law.
