#validityofmarriage

Student # 7

by: Hilda D. Garcia

Article 4. The absence of any of the essential or formal requisites shall render the marriage void ab initio, except as stated in Article 35 (2).

A defect in any of the essential requisites shall render the marriage voidable as provided in Article 45.

An irregularity in the formal requisites shall not affect the validity of the marriage but the party or parties responsible for the irregularity shall be civilly, criminally and administratively liable. (n)

*Article 35. A military commander of a unit, who is a commissioned officer, shall likewise have authority to solemnize marriages in articulo mortis between persons within the zone of military operation, whether members of the armed forces or civilians.

*Article 45. A marriage may be annulled for any of the following causes, existing at the time of the marriage:

(1) That the party in whose behalf it is sought to have the marriage annulled was eighteen years of age or over but below twenty-one, and the marriage was solemnized without the consent of the parents, guardian or person having substitute parental authority over the party, in that order, unless after attaining the age of twenty-one, such party freely cohabited with the other and both lived together as husband and wife;

(2) That either party was of unsound mind, unless such party after coming to reason, freely cohabited with the other as husband and wife;

(3) That the consent of either party was obtained by fraud, unless such party afterwards, with full knowledge of the facts constituting the fraud, freely cohabited with the other as husband and wife;

(4) That the consent of either party was obtained by force, intimidation or undue influence, unless the same having disappeared or ceased, such party thereafter freely cohabited with the other as husband and wife;

(5) That either party was physically incapable of consummating the marriage with the other, and such incapacity continues and appears to be incurable; or

(6) That either party was afflicted with a sexually-transmissible disease found to be serious and appears to be incurable. (85a)

Legal Capacity

Legal capacity means that the parties must have attained the age requirement and that the parties must have attained the age requirement and that there should be no legal impediment to marry each other. The marriageable age is 18.

· If a man and a woman at the age of seventeenth (17) marry each other with the consent of their parents, the marriage is void because they must be eighteen (18) years of age as required by Article 5 of the Family Code. They have no legal capacity.

· The concept of legal capacity here refers to the age of the parties to the marriage as well as a situation where there should be no pre-existing marriage of either or both parties to the marriage r what is known as legal impediment.

Void marriage as a legal impediment to remarry

· One question has been asked: If there is a prior existing marriage of A and B, but it is void, can anyone of them just get married?

Answer: The answer is NO. this is because of the present rule that there is a need to have a void marriage to be declared void. In fact, Article 39 of the Family Code provides that the action or defense for the declaration of absolute nullity of a marriage shall not prescribe.

Since there is a need for a prior declaration of nullity of a void marriage , that void marriage can be considered a legal impediment to contract a subsequent marriage because of the presumption of its validity prior to its declaration on nullity.

Legal Impediment

The rule that if there is an existing marriage, there can be no subsequent valid marriage is not an absolute rule. For under Article 41 of the Family Code, if one of the spouses has been absent from the conjugal dwelling for two (2) or four (4) years, depending upon the circumstances of the absence, the present spouse may marry again, but he has to file a summary action for the declaration of presumptive death of the absent spouse.

Authority of Solemnizing Officer

The law ( Article 7, Family Code) enumerates the authorities who can solemnize marriages, Justice of the Supreme Court,The Court of Appeals, the Sandiganbayan (whole country), Regional Trial Court and Municipal or Metropolitan Trial Court judges (within its jurisdiction).

Case Digest

A.M. No. MTJ-02-1390. April 11, 2002

MERCEDITA MATA ARANES, petitioner, vs. JUDGE SALVADOR M. OCCIANO, respondent..

Puno, J,:

Facts

The MTC Judge of Balatan, Camarines Sur solemnized a marriage in Naua, Camarines Sur. It is likewise solemnized without a marriage license. After the death of the husband, Domingo Orobia, her right to inherent vast properties left by he r husband was not recognized. She asked that the judge be sanctioned. The judge explained that when the he discovered that there was no license, he wanted to stop the ceremonies but he was prevailed upon to pursue it as there was already an influx of visitors. So, he continued out of human compassion and if he reset it, it might aggravate the condition of the man.

Issue

Whether or not the actuation of the judge proper?

Ruling

The answer is NO. The authority of the regional trial court judges and judges of inferior courts to solemnize the marriages is confined in their territorial jurisdiction as defined by the Supreme Court.

In the case at bar, the territorial jurisdiction of respondent judge is limited to the municipality of Balatan, Camarines Sur. His act of solemnizing the marriage of petitioner and Orobia in Nabua, Camarines Sur therefore is contrary to law and subjects him to administrative liability. His act may not amount to gross ignorance of the law for he allegedly solemnized the marriage out of human compassion but nonetheless, he cannot avoid liability for violating the law on marriage.

Respondent judge should also be faulted for solemnizing a marriage without the requisite marriage license. In Navarro vs Domagtoy,259 SCRA 129, we held that a marriage which preceded the issuance of the marriage license is void, and that the subsequent issuance of such license cannot render valid or even add an iota of validity to the marriage. Except in cases provided by law, it is the marriage license that gives the solemnizing officer the authority to solemnize a marriage. Respondent judge did not possess such authority when he solemnized the marriage of petitioner. In this respect, respondent judge acted in gross ignorance of the law.

While the requirement of authority is prescribed by the law for a marriage to be valid, yet, its defect or infirmity does not got to into the validity of the marriage, but it merely affects the liability of the solemnizing officer. The reason is obvious, as authority is only a formal requisite of marriage.

Summary of Article 4, Family Code

1. Legal capacity is clearly stated to be followed.

a. Age requirements

b. Parties must be opposite sex

c. Absence of Impediments mentioned in Article 37 and 38

2. Consent of Marriage were vital in licensing it.

3. Authority of solemnizing officer must clearly followed as mentioned in the article.