Republic vs CA and Castro

Angelina Castro, with her parents unaware, contracted a civil marriage with Edwin Cardenas. They did not
immediately live together and it was only upon Castro found out that she was pregnant that they decided to live
together wherein the said cohabitation lasted for only 4 months. Thereafter, they parted ways and Castro gave birth
that was adopted by her brother with the consent of Cardenas.

The baby was brought in the US and in Castros earnest desire to follow her daughter wanted to put in order her
marital status before leaving for US. She filed a petition seeking a declaration for the nullity of her marriage. Her
lawyer then found out that there was no marriage license issued prior to the celebration of their marriage proven by
the certification issued by the Civil Registrar of Pasig.

ISSUE: Whether or not the documentary and testimonial evidence resorted to by Castro is sufficient to establish that
no marriage license was issued to the parties prior to the solemnization of their marriage.

HELD: The court affirmed the decision of CA that the certification issued by the Civil Registrar unaccompanied by any
circumstances of suspicion sufficiently prove that the office did not issue a marriage license to the contracting parties.
Albeit the fact that the testimony of Castro is not supported by any other witnesses is not a ground to deny her
petition because of the peculiar circumstances of her case. Furthermore, Cardenas was duly served with notice of
the proceedings, which he chose to ignore.

Under the circumstances of the case, the documentary and testimonial evidence presented by private respondent
Castro sufficiently established the absence of the subject marriage license.

Navarro vs. Domagtoy

Municipal Mayor of Dapa, Surigao del Norte, Rodolfo G. Navarro filed a complaint on two specific acts committed by
respondent Municipal Circuit Trial Court Judge Hernando Domagtoy on the grounds of gross misconduct, ineffiency
in offce and ignorance of the law.

It was alleged that Domagtoy solemnized marriage of Gaspar Tagadan and Arlyn Borja on September 27, 1994
despite the knowledge that the groom has a subsisting marriage with Ida Penaranda and that they are merely
separated. It was told that Ida left their conjugal home in Bukidnon and has not returned and been heard for almost
seven years. The said judge likewise solemnize marriage of Floriano Dadoy Sumaylo and Gemma G. del Rosario
outside his courts jurisdiction on October 27, 1994. The judge holds his office and has jurisdiction in the Municipal
Circuit Trial Court of Sta Monica-Burgos, Surigao del Norte but he solemnized the said wedding at his residence in
the municipality of Dapa located 40 to 50 km away.

ISSUE: Whether or not the marriages solemnized were void.

HELD: The court held that the marriage between Tagadan and Borja was void and bigamous there being a subsisting
marriage between Tagadan and Penaranda. Albeit, the latter was gone for seven years and the spouse had a well-
founded belief that the absent spouse was dead, Tagadan did not institute a summary proceeding as provided in the
Civil Code for the declaration of presumptive death of the absentee, without prejudice to the effect of reappearance of
the absent spouse.

With regard to the marriage of Sumaylo and Del Rosario, the latter only made the written request where it should
have been both parties as stated in Article 8 of the Family Code. Their non-compliance did not invalidate their
marriage however, Domagtoy may be held administratively liable.

Van Dorn vs. Romillo

Alice Reyes Van Dorn, a Filipino Citizen and private respondent, Richard Upton, a US citizen, was married in Hong
Kong in 1979. They established their residence in the Philippines and had 2 children. They were divorced in
Nevada, USA in 1982 and petitioner remarried, this time with Theodore Van Dorn. A suit against petitioner was filed
on June 8, 1983, stating that petitioners business in Ermita Manila, the Galleon Shop, is a conjugal property with
Upton and prayed therein that Alice be ordered to render an accounting of the business and he be declared as the
administrator of the said property.

ISSUE: Whether or not the foreign divorce between the petitioner and private respondent in Nevada is binding in the
Philippines where petitioner is a Filipino citizen.

HELD: Private respondent is no longer the husband of the petitioner. He would have no standing to sue petitioner to
exercise control over conjugal assets. He is estopped by his own representation before the court from asserting his
right over the alleged conjugal property. Furthermore, aliens may obtain divorces abroad, which may be recognized
in the Philippines, provided they are valid according to their national law. Petitioner is not bound to her marital
obligations to respondent by virtue of her nationality laws. She should not be discriminated against her own country if
the end of justice is to be served.

Ninal vs. Bayadog

Pepito Ninal was married with Teodulfa Bellones on September 26, 1974. They had 3 children namely Babyline,
Ingrid and Archie, petitioners. Due to the shot inflicted by Pepito to Teodulfa, the latter died on April 24, 1985 leaving
the children under the guardianship of Engrace Ninal. 1 year and 8 months later, Pepito and Norma Badayog got
married without any marriage license. They instituted an affidavit stating that they had lived together for at least 5
years exempting from securing the marriage license. Pepito died in a car accident on February 19, 1977. After his
death, petitioners filed a petition for declaration of nullity of the marriage of Pepito and Norma alleging that said
marriage was void for lack of marriage license.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not the second marriage of Pepito was void?

2. Whether or not the heirs of the deceased may file for the declaration of the nullity of Pepitos marriage after his
death?

HELD: The marriage of Pepito and Norma is void for absence of the marriage license. They cannot be exempted
even though they instituted an affidavit and claimed that they cohabit for at least 5 years because from the time of
Pepitos first marriage was dissolved to the time of his marriage with Norma, only about 20 months had elapsed.
Albeit, Pepito and his first wife had separated in fact, and thereafter both Pepito and Norma had started living with
each other that has already lasted for five years, the fact remains that their five-year period cohabitation was not the
cohabitation contemplated by law. Hence, his marriage to Norma is still void.

Void marriages are deemed to have not taken place and cannot be the source of rights. It can be questioned even
after the death of one of the parties and any proper interested party may attack a void marriage.

Domingo vs. CA
Soledad Domingo, married with Roberto Domingo in 1976, filed a petition for the declaration of nullity of marriage and
separation of property. She did not know that Domingo had been previously married to Emerlinda dela Paz in 1969.
She came to know the previous marriage when the latter filed a suit of bigamy against her. Furthermore, when she
came home from Saudi during her one-month leave from work, she discovered that Roberto cohabited with another
woman and had been disposing some of her properties which is administered by Roberto. The latter claims that
because their marriage was void ab initio, the declaration of such voidance is unnecessary and superfluous. On the
other hand, Soledad insists the declaration of the nullity of marriage not for the purpose of remarriage, but in order to
provide a basis for the separation and distribution of properties acquired during the marriage.

ISSUE: Whether or not a petition for judicial declaration should only be filed for purposes of remarriage.

HELD: The declaration of the nullity of marriage is indeed required for purposed of remarriage. However, it is also
necessary for the protection of the subsequent spouse who believed in good faith that his or her partner was not
lawfully married marries the same. With this, the said person is freed from being charged with bigamy.
When a marriage is declared void ab initio, law states that final judgment shall provide for the liquidation, partition and
distribution of the properties of the spouses, the custody and support of the common children and the delivery of their
presumptive legitimes, unless such matters had been adjudicated in previous judicial proceedings. Soledads prayer
for separation of property will simply be the necessary consequence of the judicial declaration of absolute nullity of
their marriage. Hence, the petitioners suggestion that for their properties be separated, an ordinary civil action has to
be instituted for that purpose is baseless. The Family Code has clearly provided the effects of the declaration of
nullity of marriage, one of which is the separation of property according to the regime of property relations governing
them.

Republic vs. Nolasco

Gregorio Nolasco is a seaman. He met Janet Parker, a British, in bar in England. After that, Janet started living with
Nolasco in his ship for six months. It lasted until the contract of Nolasco expired then he brought her to his hometown
in Antique. They got married in January 1982. Due to another contract, Nolasco left the province. In 1983, Nolasco
received a letter from his mother informing him that his son had been born but 15 days after, Janet left. Nolasco went
home and cut short his contract to find Janets whereabouts. He did so by securing another seamans contract going
to London. He wrote several letters to the bar where they first met but it was all returned. Gregorio petitioned in 1988
for a declaration of presumptive death of Janet.

ISSUE: Whether or not Nolasco had a well-founded belief that his wife, Janet, is already dead?

HELD: The Supreme Court ruled that Nolascos efforts to locate Janet were not persistent to show that he has a well-
founded belief that his wife was already dead because instead of seeking assistance of local authorities and the
British Embassy, he even secured another contract. More so, while he was in London, he did not even try to solicit
help of the authorities to find his wife.

Marisa Navarro ("Wife") appeals from the judgment dissolving her marriage to Daniel Navarro ("Husband") and
finding her to be in contempt of certain provisions in the judgment. Because the circuit court failed to address and
distribute one of the parties' assets, its judgment was neither final nor appealable. Therefore, we dismiss this appeal
for lack of jurisdiction and remand the case to the circuit court for further proceedings.Although Wife raises five points
on appeal, we dismiss her appeal without addressing the merits of her claims. The appeal is dismissed for lack of a
final judgment on the marital dissolution, and the cause is remanded to the circuit court, which retains jurisdiction to
enter a new judgment covering the entire case. Within the exercise of that jurisdiction, the circuit court is hereby
directed to classify and divide any undivided property, as required by Section 452.330.1, or make a specific finding
that no such property exists.

Wife's request for attorney's fees on appeal is denied.

All Concur.

Ma. Armida Amy Perez-Ferraris vs Brix Ferraris

Article 36: Psychological Incapacity

Armida and Brix are a showbiz couple. The couples relationship before the marriage and even during their brief
union (for well about a year or so) was not all bad. During that relatively short period of time, Armida was happy and
contented with her life in the company of Brix. Armida even admits that Brix was a responsible and loving husband.
Their problems began when Armida started doubting Brix fidelity. It was only when they started fighting about the
calls from women that Brix began to withdraw into his shell and corner, and failed to perform his so-called marital
obligations. Brix could not understand Armidas lack of trust in him and her constant naggings. He thought her
suspicions irrational. Brix could not relate to her anger, temper and jealousy. Armida presented a psychological
expert (Dr. Dayan) who finds Brix to be a schizoid and a dependent and avoidant type. This is evidenced by Brixs
leaving-the-house attitude whenever they quarreled, the violent tendencies during epileptic attacks, the sexual
infidelity, the abandonment and lack of support, and his preference to spend more time with his band mates than his
family.

ISSUE: Whether or not PI is attendant in the case at bar.

HELD: The SC upheld the decision of the lower courts. The alleged mixed personality disorder, the leaving-the-
house attitude whenever they quarreled, the violent tendencies during epileptic attacks, the sexual infidelity, the
abandonment and lack of support, and his preference to spend more time with his band mates than his family, are not
rooted on some debilitating psychological condition but a mere refusal or unwillingness to assume the essential
obligations of marriage and these do not constitute PI. Further, the expert was not able to prove her findings. Notably,
when asked as to the root cause of respondents alleged psychological incapacity, Dr. Dayans answer was vague,
evasive and inconclusive. She replied that such disorder can be part of his family upbringing She stated that there
was a history of Brixs parents having difficulties in their relationship- this is of course inconclusive for such has no
direct bearing to the case at bar.

What is psychological incapacity?

The term psychological incapacity to be a ground for the nullity of marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code,
refers to a serious psychological illness afflicting a party even before the celebration of the marriage. It is a malady
so grave and so permanent as to deprive one of awareness of the duties and responsibilities of the matrimonial bond
one is about to assume. As all people may have certain quirks and idiosyncrasies, or isolated characteristics
associated with certain personality disorders, there is hardly any doubt that the intendment of the law has been 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. It is for this
reason that the Courts rely heavily on psychological experts for its understanding of the human personality.
However, the root cause must be identified as a psychological illness and its incapacitating nature must be fully
explained in court.