#Decree of Nullity

[tokuteasings]

every day, love me more

Everyone shut up it's Yuzuki's fukcing birthday so i HAD to write something for Rita bc I fucking DESERVED THIS

Sure this is written with Syne in mind but like...fuck it. brain worm wont leave me. This started off as a SyneRita fic but I got too embarassed to post my shit so fuck it

Warnings: S...S...S....suggestive and uh....uh....dont look at me-

When the years dull, the colors becoming grey snow and forever losing their beauty to eons of time… All of it becomes null. Perhaps that is what their birthday is. A cold nullity that froze their heart and causes it to rot their senses. 

But it’s so warm here, warm with every kiss that takes their breath away; heated little cheeks against dulcet sheets and toes curling at the way she touches them.

Was it possible for their love’s body to dance like this? Waltz upon their form with grace that rivals poetry upon the finest of lips?

“Happy birthday, my lord.” they whisper against their skin, the pulse pounding within their own skin. The lord of ice whispers their beloved’s name into godly air, bucking up against the form above them. “Let me take care of you…my lord." it's gospel to your tongue, a royal decree that does not even need to be ushered from anyone's psyche.

Not as Rita is merely melting at every single touch their love gives them. "D-Don't...." the lord whispers, pale hands gripping the shoulders of their dearest. "D-Don't...stop-!" a tongue lapping at the newest little mark that will be covered once more (it is sadly fate itself) but it is knowing that those marks will remain upon their skin that makes the thrill... All the more worth it.

Rita will soak up this love for all of time, every day if they must. Lower and lower does the paramour skitter, sashaying until they feel Rita keel and whine and beg...

Every day, they will prostrate themselves for their lord.

Head between legs, until the king screams.

Justice and death upon Rita's lips becomes screams of utter pleasure... And that is love in itself.

[poniatowskaja]

At the king’s request, Clement V issued on January 7, 1307 a dispensation addressed to Jeanne and the young Philip to remove the bars of kinship and common decency. Curiously, of the latter impediment Clement remarked, “whatever such grounds there may be, such as, for example, as some are said falsely to assert, the existence of a betrothal between Louis and Jeanne.” The pope, perhaps impressed by the urgency of the king’s suit, was clearly disregarding—or overlooking—his bull of August 18, 1305 for Louis and Marguerite. In an accompanying letter sent to the king on the same day, January 7, 1307, Clement rehearsed the contents of the bull and stated that the king himself had declared false the belief some people had spread abroad that Louis and Jeanne had been betrothed. This is exceedingly curious. Pope Boniface’s prohibition in 1297 against the marriage of Jeanne to the king’s eldest son may, however, have convinced King Philip of the nullity of Louis’s contract with Jeanne, even though Boniface’s pronouncement on natural decency implied that their union, despite his disapproval, was valid. Far more puzzling, in light of Boniface’s decree on natural decency and King Philip’s earlier admissions, is Clement V’s willingness to accept the king’s declaration at face value. Clearly Clement had been pressed repeatedly to grant the dispensation. Philip himself had asked for it when he had visited the pope, and his envoys had frequently repeated his request. Clement said that he had become convinced by their arguments that the marriage would “exalt your name and honor and advance the peaceful and tranquil state of your kingdom and all Christianity.” But he was concerned by the steps he had taken. After treating other questions, he returned to the subject of dispensations, to caution Philip the Fair to cultivate discretion in arranging his children’s marriages. Clement reminded the king of the general dispensation for consanguinity that he had issued for the king’s children when Philip was with him in Lyon; he asked the king to return to him either that privilege or the dispensation granted to Philip and Jeanne. The pope asserted that it was not “fitting” (conveniens) for the king to have two such privileges from one pope under different dates and forms. He declared it his duty to lead the king to “restrain his appetite for dispensations” and to seek them only when they would bring great and evident benefit to the kingdom and advance the cause of peace and Christendom. He waxed eloquent in declaring to Philip that otherwise he risked offending “the king of kings” — Rex regum. Clement admitted his fear that God’s wrath would fall on the person who granted such requests— evidently Clement himself—as well as on the person—Philip the Fair—who used them. This was not the only time Clement upbraided Philip and expressed his indignation at the acts the king pressed him to perform—yet despite his protests, on this occasion as on others, he yielded.

Elizabeth A. R. Brown, 'Philip the Fair and His Family: His Sons, Their Marriages, and Their Wives', Medieval Prosopography, Vol. 32 (2017), 162-164

[wherewhereare]

The thing about an annulment is that the Catholic Church doesn’t grant most annulments even after they’re asked for. You have to meet very strict requirements. Honestly, I could see Gwen’s being approved or not approved. Maybe that’s why they weren’t married in the Catholic Church because the annulment was not granted. 

First I am not Catholic. My wife is. She got her annulment in 12 months because she had the goods. It was even done under the old process.

The only thing that I will say is that the annulment process is not as hard as it used to be. One of the first things that Pope Francis did in regard to annulment in 2015, was to make it easier to get one, reduced some of the bureaucratic requirements and in most cases eliminated the cost. I believe that a lot of Catholics don't know about this, or chose to ignore it. Even during the "SAME" discussions held a few years ago, the input from professed Catholic anons did not even reference this. Most of the discussion that has been present by supposed Catholics have referred to the older formal process. In Gwen's case, if she had the uncontested proof, the local Bishop could have granted her the annulment. This outline a faster procedure if the case presented by the petitioner is very well documented and not contested. Here is an article from Catholic.com laying out the changes.

Pope Francis Reforms Annulment Process: 9 things to know and share | Catholic Answers

On September 8, the Holy See released a pair of documents by Pope Francis that reform the way the Church handles annulments.

Here are nine things to know and share . . .

1) What is an annulment? Is it the same thing as a divorce?

An annulment (formally known as a “declaration of nullity”) is a ruling that a particular marriage was null from the beginning—that is, something was gravely wrong at the time the time the wedding vows were made and it prevented a valid marriage from coming into existence.

This is different than a divorce, which proposes to dissolve a marriage that is in existence.

 2) Why are annulments an important issue in the Catholic Church?

Jesus Christ expressly taught that if two people divorce and then remarry, they are committing the grave sin of adultery. He taught:

“Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery” (Mark 10:11-12).

Because of this teaching, the Church cannot simply give divorced people permission to remarry. To do so would be to give them permission to commit adultery.

Consequently, if a divorced person wishes to remarry, the Church needs to examine the first marriage to see if it was valid or not.

If it was valid, then the person is still bound to his or her previous spouse and cannot marry another person.

If it was not valid, then the parties to the first marriage are not bound and so, unless something else affects the situation, they are free to marry other people.

The number of people in our society who are divorced makes this a pressing pastoral problem.

3) How does the annulment process work?

This is a complicated subject, but in simplest terms, the rules governing annulments are expressed principally in two documents: the Code of Canon Law, which governs the western Catholic Church, and the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, which governs the eastern Catholic churches.

When a man and a woman have divorced, they can contact the appropriate diocese and have their marriage investigated to see if it was valid.

This process could be simple or lengthy, depending on the nature of the case and the forms of evidence available.

If their marriage was not valid, they would be given a decree of nullity or “annulment.”

4) What has Pope Francis done?

He has issued two documents, each of which is a motu proprio. A motu proprio is a document issued on the pope’s initiative. Such documents are frequently used to establish or clarify legal matters (as opposed to matters of doctrine, which are dealt with in other documents, such as encyclicals).

A famous example is the 2007 motu proprio issued by Benedict XVI, Summorum Pontificum, in which he gave greater permission for the celebration of the traditional Latin liturgy.

The two documents issued by Pope Francis are:

Mitis Iudex Dominus Iesus (“The Lord Jesus, the Gentle Judge”), which reforms the annulment process for the Western Church (Latin, Italian), and

Mitis et Misericors Iesus (“Gentle and Merciful Jesus”), which reforms the annulment process for the Eastern Catholic churches (Latin, Italian).

At the time of this writing, these documents are available only in Latin and Italian, though you can use Google to produce a machine translation of the Italian version using the links above. (Also, here’s a partial, unofficial translation provided by Vatican Radio.)

These documents were prepared, at Pope Francis’s direction, by a group of legal experts at the Vatican, whom he appointed to the task in October 2014.

Both documents contain an introduction explaining the pope’s actions followed by a set of canons that replace the sections on annulments in the Code of Canon Law and the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches.

Appended to each document is a set of procedural rules explaining to bishops (and others) how the new processes are to work.

5) Why has Pope Francis done this?

He did so out of a desire to make the annulment process more efficient. In many parts of the world, the process has been notoriously slow and difficult. In some countries, it could be practically impossible to get a Church court to even hear one’s case, and if a court did take it, it could take many years to get a ruling.

Thus, as Pope Francis notes, the 2014 Synod of Bishops requested changes to the annulment process. The Synod wrote:

A great number of synod fathers emphasized the need to make the procedure in cases of nullity more accessible and less time-consuming, and, if possible, at no expense.

They proposed, among others, the dispensation of the requirement of second instance for confirming sentences; the possibility of establishing an administrative means under the jurisdiction of the diocesan bishop; and a simple process to be used in cases where nullity is clearly evident.

Some synod fathers, however, were opposed to these proposals, because they felt that they would not guarantee a reliable judgment.

In all these cases, the synod fathers emphasized the primary character of ascertaining the truth about the validity of the marriage bond.

Among other proposals, the role which faith plays in persons who marry could possibly be examined in ascertaining the validity of the Sacrament of Marriage, all the while maintaining that the marriage of two baptized Christians is always a sacrament [Relatio Synodi 48].

The new documents seek to make the annulment process more accessible and less time-consuming.

They do not require the process to be free of charge (dioceses need to pay the people who work on these cases, and in some cases that means paying a fee to partially cover the costs), but the procedural norms attached to the documents do call for the costs to be minimized (see Art. 7 §2).

6) What changes did Pope Francis make to the process?

This is a complicated subject, because he replaced the sections in the two codes of canon law that deal with annulments. In the case of the Western code, that means he had twenty-one canons rewritten (canons 1671-1691).

Some of the changes were slight, but there are too many to go into here.

Among the major changes, as listed in the introduction to Mitis Iudex Dominus Iesus, are:

Only a single judgment of nullity is required. Until now, in most cases, if one tribunal determined that a marriage was null, the decision was automatically appealed to a court of second instance, and only if the second tribunal agreed was an annulment granted. Now the morally certain decision of the first court will be sufficient in uncontested cases.

The bishop himself is a judge. Although the bishop has always been the principal judge in his diocese, previously, the section on annulments did not establish that the bishop himself was a judge in marriage cases. Now, in keeping with his role as shepherd of the faithful, it does. In fact, he is the principal judge in his diocese, to be assisted by others whom he chooses. The new law thus puts the responsibility squarely on the bishop as a pastor.

A new, briefer process involving the bishop has been created. Up to now, there have been two processes for handling annulments: the formal process (which is the lengthier one involving gathering and weighing testimony) and the documentary process (which deals with situations where a marriage can be proved invalid simply by presenting certain documents, such as showing that a Catholic got married outside the Church without the required permission). Now there is a middle process involving the bishop. If the evidences for nullity are especially clear, they can be presented to the bishop in a process intended to take less time than a formal process case. However, if the evidences require more examination, the case is to be referred to the formal process.

Appeals can be made against the judgment of the bishop to the metropolitan. As a check on the judgment of the bishop, parties can appeal his decision to the metropolitan bishop (i.e., the bishop who heads the local ecclesiastical province, composed of several neighboring dioceses). Or, if it was the metropolitan himself who heard the original case, appeal can be made to the senior suffragan bishop (i.e., the bishop in the province with the most seniority, apart from the metropolitan).

7) In what kind of situations can the new, shorter process be used?

According to the procedural norms attached to Mitis Iudex Dominus Iesus (see Art. 14 § 1), these cases include the following:

lack of faith (does this apply to GR?) resulting in the simulation of consent to be married or an error that determines the will regarding one of the requirements of marriage

the brevity of married life (i.e., the couple divorced very quickly after being married)

procured abortion to prevent procreation (presumably during the marriage itself, prior to bearing other children and thus showing an unwillingness to procreate)

the stubborn persistence in a extramarital affair at the time of the wedding or at a time immediately following

the malicious concealment of:

infertility

a serious contagious disease

children born from a previous relationship

an incarceration

a reason for getting married that is completely foreign to married life (presumably something like entering a legal fiction of a marriage to be able to immigrate or gain an inheritance) or consisting of the unplanned pregnancy of the woman

the physical violence inflicted to extort the consent to marry

the lack of use of reason proved by medical documents

8) When does all this take effect?

Not immediately. According to Vatican Information Service, the effective date is December 8, 2015.

9) Is there more to say about all this?

Lots. However, this will do for an initial look at the subject.

[abrlann]

Case Digest

Wolf Gang O. Roehr V. Maria Carmen D. Rodriguez, et al.

G.R. No: 142820 June 20, 2003

Ponente: Quisumbing, J.

Facts:

Petitioner Wolfgang O. Roehr (A German Citizen) married Maria Carmen D. Rodriguez (A Filipina) on December 11, 1980, and their marriage was later ratified in the Philippines.

They had two children during their marriage.

In August 1996, Rodriguez filed a petition for the declaration of nullity of their marriage.

On December 16, 1997, Roehr obtained a divorce decree from a German Court.

Based on the divorce decree, Roehr filed a motion to dismiss the case in the Philippine RTC.

The RTC initially granted the motion to dismiss but later partially set aside its order to resolve issues related to property settlement and child custody, despite the divorce decree.

Issues:

Whether the trial Judge gravely abused discretion by partially modifying the earlier order.

Whether the trial Judge has Jurisdiction to retain the case, considering the foreign divorce decree.

Held:

The trial Judge did not gravely abuse her discretion by partially modifying the earlier order. The rules of Civil Code procedure allow for partial reconsideration, especially when the original judgment has not yet attained finality.

The trial judge had jurisdiction to retain the case to determine issues regarding child custody, care, support and education. However, she lacked jurisdiction to resolved property relations since both parties admitted in their pleadings that there was no property to account for.

[lioncitblogger]

Void vs Voidable Marriage Philippines: Key Insights

"Marriage is not merely a union; it’s a legal contract with profound implications." In the Philippines, where annulments and declarations of nullity are essential legal remedies for dissolving marriages, understanding the distinction between void and voidable marriages is crucial. This guide explores the differences between these two classifications, their grounds, and their legal consequences.

What is a Void Marriage?

A void marriage is invalid from the very beginning. Legally speaking, it is as if the marriage never existed. Grounds for void marriages are explicitly outlined in the Family Code of the Philippines and include:

Age below 18: Marriages involving individuals under 18 years old are automatically void, even with parental consent.

Bigamy or polygamy: A person marrying while still legally married to another.

Lack of a marriage license: Except in cases exempted by law, such as customary or religious ceremonies.

Incestuous marriages: Relationships between ascendants and descendants or siblings (whether legitimate or illegitimate).

Psychological incapacity: If one party is psychologically incapable of fulfilling marital obligations.

Void marriages do not require judicial decrees to establish their invalidity, but obtaining one may be necessary for legal clarity, especially for remarriage purposes. For further details, visit this resource on void vs voidable marriage Philippines.

What is a Voidable Marriage?

In contrast, a voidable marriage is valid until annulled by a competent court. This means that until a court declares it invalid, the marriage has legal effects. Grounds for voidable marriages include:

Impotence: When one party is physically incapable of consummating the marriage.

Incurable sexually transmitted disease: If discovered after the marriage ceremony.

Fraud or misrepresentation: For example, if one party deceived the other about their identity or condition.

Unlike void marriages, voidable marriages can sometimes be cured through cohabitation after discovering the grounds for annulment—except in cases involving impotence or incurable diseases. Learn more about this distinction at void vs voidable marriage Philippines.

Key Differences Between Void and Voidable Marriages

Here’s a clear comparison to help you understand their distinctions:

Aspect

Void Marriage

Voidable Marriage

Validity

Invalid from inception; deemed never to have existed.

Valid until annulled by a court ruling.

Judicial Decree

Not required to declare invalidity (except for remarriage).

Requires judicial decree to annul.

Cohabitation Effect

Cannot cure invalidity.

Can cure invalidity (except impotence or incurable diseases).

Children's Legitimacy

Children are generally illegitimate (except psychological incapacity).

Children born before annulment are considered legitimate.

Collateral Attack

Can be impugned collaterally without direct proceedings.

Cannot be attacked collaterally; requires direct annulment process.

Legal Implications and Action Steps

Understanding whether your situation involves a void or voidable marriage is essential for determining your legal options. Here are actionable steps:

Consult a Lawyer: Seek professional advice to assess your situation and determine whether your marriage falls under void or voidable categories.

Gather Evidence: Grounds like psychological incapacity or fraud require substantial proof. Compile relevant documents and testimonies.

File the Appropriate Petition: For void marriages, file for a declaration of nullity; for voidable ones, file an annulment petition through proper legal channels.

Understand Consequences: Be aware of implications on property division, child legitimacy, and remarriage eligibility.

Conclusion

Navigating marital issues in the Philippines requires clarity on distinctions between void vs voidable marriage Philippines. While both types lead to dissolution, their grounds and consequences differ significantly. Understanding these differences empowers individuals to make informed decisions about their legal rights and responsibilities.

[thelitigationlounge]

MARRIAGE, LAW, AND ACCOUNTABILITY: LESSONS FROM MERCADO V. TAN

Ensuring Marriage is a Binding Commitment, Protected by Legal Process

IN AN ERA OF RAPID CHANGE, THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK SURROUNDING MARRIAGE CONTINUES TO SHAPE NOT ONLY INDIVIDUAL LIVES BUT ALSO SOCIETAL VALUES. THE SUPREME COURT OF THE PHILIPPINES’ RULING IN MERCADO V. TAN (G.R. NO. 137110, AUGUST 1, 2000) HIGHLIGHTS THE CRITICAL IMPORTANCE OF LEGAL FORMALITIES IN MARRIAGE AND RELATED MATTERS. This case touches on the intersection of civil and criminal law, the sanctity of marriage, and the essential role of judicial declarations in safeguarding marital integrity. Through a careful analysis of Mercado v. Tan, we gain valuable insight into how the law preserves the sanctity of marriage and prevents individuals from circumventing due process.

The Heart of the Case: What Happened?

The case revolves around Dr. Vincent Paul Mercado, who married Consuelo Tan on June 27, 1991, despite already being legally married to Ma. Thelma Oliva since April 10, 1976. Though his first marriage was later declared void due to psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code, Mercado had not obtained a judicial declaration of nullity before remarrying. This omission led to his conviction for bigamy under Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code.

Mercado argued that his first marriage was void from the beginning, which, in his view, meant he was free to remarry without the need for a judicial declaration. However, the Supreme Court rejected this reasoning, ruling that even a void marriage is presumed valid until a court declares otherwise. Without a prior judicial declaration of nullity, Mercado’s second marriage was deemed bigamous, leading to his conviction. The ruling in Mercado v. Tan is firmly supported by prior jurisprudence that establishes the necessity of a judicial declaration before remarrying. In People v. Mendoza (G.R. No. 136371, February 17, 2000), the Supreme Court reaffirmed that the crime of bigamy is consummated once a second marriage is contracted without obtaining a prior judicial declaration of nullity for the first marriage. Similarly, in Landicho v. Relova (G.R. No. L-57186, October 30, 1986), the Court ruled that a judicial decree is indispensable in establishing the nullity of a marriage, reinforcing the principle that a void marriage is still presumed valid until declared otherwise by a competent court.

Further reinforcing this doctrine is Domingo v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 104818, September 17, 1993), where the Supreme Court clarified that Article 40 of the Family Code was enacted to prevent confusion in determining marital status and to protect individuals from unintended legal consequences. This principle was later upheld in Morigo v. People (G.R. No. 145226, February 6, 2004), where the Court again emphasized that individuals must secure a judicial declaration of nullity before contracting another marriage. The ruling in Mercado v. Tan follows this well-established jurisprudential trajectory, ensuring that no party can arbitrarily declare a marriage void to evade legal obligations.

The Legal Framework: Why Judicial Declaration Matters

At the core of this case is Article 40 of the Family Code, which mandates that the absolute nullity of a previous marriage can only be invoked for remarriage once a final judicial decree is issued. This provision was introduced to prevent self-serving claims of nullity and to ensure legal clarity regarding marital status. The ruling in Mercado v. Tan highlights two crucial points:

Even if a marriage is void, it is presumed valid until a court issues a final judgment declaring it null.

Anyone who remarries without securing a judicial declaration of nullity for a prior marriage commits bigamy, as stipulated under Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code.

This legal safeguard prevents individuals from unilaterally declaring their marriages void to escape legal responsibilities. By requiring judicial intervention, the ruling upholds the integrity of marriage as a social institution and ensures fairness in marital disputes.

Contemporary Relevance: Why the Case Still Holds Weight

The ruling in Mercado v. Tan remains highly relevant today as relationships and family structures continue to evolve. Here are key reasons why this case still matters:

1. Protection Against Bigamy

Bigamy laws serve as a cornerstone for the sanctity of marriage, ensuring that the legal obligations between spouses are upheld. By mandating a judicial declaration of nullity, the law treats marriage as a serious, binding commitment, rather than a contract that can be disregarded at will. This protection also extends to children and former spouses, protecting them from the emotional and financial consequences of bigamy.

2. Clarity in Legal Status

One of the most significant lessons from Mercado v. Tan is the importance of legal clarity regarding personal status. Without a judicial declaration of nullity, subsequent marriages may be deemed invalid, leading to complications in inheritance, custody, and property rights. In today’s interconnected world, where people often marry across borders, ensuring legal clarity about one’s marital status is more crucial than ever.

3. Deterrence of Fraud and Abuse

Allowing individuals to unilaterally declare their marriages void could lead to fraudulent claims and abuses of the legal system. Such actions could deprive spouses and children of their rights, leading to unjust consequences. The judicial process ensures that claims of nullity are properly examined and substantiated, protecting all parties involved.

4. Implications for Psychological Incapacity Cases

The case also has significant implications for marriages voided due to psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code. While such marriages are considered void, Mercado v. Tan makes it clear that nullity cannot be assumed. Even in cases of psychological incapacity, a formal court ruling is necessary to establish a marriage’s invalidity, ensuring that due process is followed.

5. Gender Equality and Legal Accountability

An important takeaway from Mercado v. Tan is its affirmation of gender equality in legal accountability. The ruling underscores that both men and women must follow the same legal processes when seeking to dissolve a void marriage. No one, regardless of gender or social status, is exempt from compliance with marriage laws. This reinforces the principle that the law applies equally to all.

Balancing Legal Formalities with Practical Realities

While Mercado v. Tan is a landmark case, it has faced criticism for placing an undue burden on individuals in void marriages, especially those in abusive or abandoned relationships. The judicial process can be costly and time-consuming, creating barriers for those seeking to move on with their lives.

However, these concerns must be balanced against the broader need to uphold legal certainty and protect the rights of all parties involved. Streamlining the judicial process and providing accessible legal assistance could mitigate these challenges while maintaining the legal safeguards established in Mercado v. Tan.

Upholding the Integrity of Marriage

The Mercado v. Tan decision serves as a powerful reminder of the importance of due process in family law, particularly regarding marriage and personal status. By requiring a judicial declaration of nullity, the ruling preserves the integrity of marriage, ensures legal clarity, and protects individuals from potential abuse.

This case underscores the idea that the law must be followed rigorously in marriage-related matters. It teaches that individuals cannot unilaterally declare their marriages void without a proper legal proceeding. Furthermore, it emphasizes that legal clarity in one’s marital status is crucial in today’s globalized world, preventing complications in inheritance, custody, and property rights.

Moreover, Mercado v. Tan highlights the need to prevent fraudulent claims and legal loopholes, ensuring that marriage remains a well-regulated institution. It also reinforces gender equality by holding both men and women accountable for ensuring their previous marriages are legally dissolved before remarrying.

While the decision has faced criticism, it illustrates the delicate balance between upholding legal formalities and addressing the real-life struggles of individuals in void marriages. By ensuring that due process is followed, Mercado v. Tan protects the sanctity of marriage while upholding fairness and justice in family law. The case remains an essential precedent for legal professionals and citizens alike, offering valuable insights into the enduring importance of marriage as both a legal and social institution.

[jd2a-fb]

Article 13. In case either of the contracting parties has been previously married, the applicant shall be required to furnish, instead of the birth or baptismal certificate required in the last preceding article, the death certificate of the deceased spouse or the judicial decree of the absolute divorce, or the judicial decree of annulment or declaration of nullity of his or her previous marriage. In case the death certificate cannot be secured, the party shall make an affidavit setting forth this circumstances and his or her actual civil status and the name and date of death of the deceased spouse. (61a) The law merely enumerates the contents of an application for a marriage license. More specifically, the law requires the age and civil status of the applicants so that if the applicant is not of age as required by law, or if there is legal impediment as shown by the application, the Local Civil Registrar would still issue the license, but with a notation of the same. It is also required that if there was a previous marriage and it has been annulled or nullified, the applicant concerned must attach it to the application in order to prove his capacity to contract marriage. The law further requires the presentation of the original of their birth certificates, or if not available, copies attested by the custodian of the same. Such presentation is not necessary if the parents appear before the local civil registrar and swear the correctness of the lawful age of the parties as stated in the application. If either of the parties was previously married but the spouse is already dead, he/she is merely required to produce the certificate of death of the spouse. If he cannot produce it, he/she may execute an affidavit setting forth his/her actual civil status and the name and date of death of the deceased spouse.

[daphenominchief]

D. Shari'a Justice System Relevant Provisions: Presidential Decree No. 1083, Code of Muslim Personal Laws of the Philippines (February 4, 1977) - Articles 1-7: Establish the application of Muslim personal laws in the Philippines, defining its scope and jurisdiction over Muslim citizens, including areas such as marriage, divorce, custody, and inheritance. - Articles 13, 137-159: Discuss the organization, jurisdiction, and procedure of Shari'a courts in the Philippines, including the establishment of Shari'a District Courts and Shari'a Circuit Courts, and their respective jurisdictions over Muslim personal law cases. Republic Act No. 11054, Organic Law for the Bangsamoro Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (July 27, 2018) - Articles 2, 20: Provide the legal framework for the Bangsamoro Autonomous Region, including the establishment of the Bangsamoro government and the application of Shari'a law within the region. These provisions also define the relationship between the Bangsamoro government and the national government, particularly in the administration of justice and the application of Shari'a.

Tamano vs. Ortiz, G.R. No. 126603, 29 Jun 1998

The Supreme Court rules that the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City has jurisdiction over a complaint for the declaration of nullity of a marriage between Muslims who were married in Muslim rites, affirming that the marriage was also celebrated under civil law.

Facts:

The case "Tamano v. Ortiz" involves a petition for review on certiorari by Estrellita J. Tamano against Hon. Rodolfo A. Ortiz, Presiding Judge of RTC-Br. 89, Quezon City, Haja Putri Zorayda A. Tamano, Adib A. Tamano, and the Court of Appeals.

Zorayda and her son Adib filed a complaint for the declaration of nullity of marriage, alleging that the marriage between Estrellita and Senator Mamintal Abdul Jabar Tamano was bigamous.

Tamano married Zorayda in civil rites on May 31, 1958, and their marriage was valid until his death on May 18, 1994.

On June 2, 1993, Tamano also married Estrellita in civil rites in Malabang, Lanao del Sur.

Zorayda and Adib claimed that Tamano and Estrellita misrepresented themselves as divorced and single, respectively, making the entries in their marriage contract false and fraudulent.

Estrellita filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City lacked jurisdiction and that only a party to the marriage could file for annulment.

She also contended that since Tamano and Zorayda were Muslims married under Muslim rites, the jurisdiction belonged to the shari'a courts.

The lower court denied the motion to dismiss, ruling the case was properly cognizable by the Regional Trial Court as Estrellita and Tamano were married under the Civil Code.

The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision, leading Estrellita to file the present petition.

Issue:

Does the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City have jurisdiction over the complaint for the declaration of nullity of marriage between Estrellita and Tamano?

Should the case have been filed in the shari'a courts given that Tamano and Zorayda were Muslims married under Muslim rites?

Ruling:

Yes, the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City has jurisdiction over the complaint for the declaration of nullity of marriage.

No, the case should not have been filed in the shari'a courts.

Ratio:

The Supreme Court ruled that the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City has jurisdiction over the complaint for the declaration of nullity of marriage between Estrellita and Tamano.

Jurisdiction is determined by the allegations in the complaint, which stated that Estrellita and Tamano were married under the Civil Code.

The shari'a courts have exclusive jurisdiction only in places where they exist and only over cases involving marriages solemnized exclusively under Muslim law.

Since the complaint did not allege that the marriage was under Muslim law, the Regional Trial Court retained jurisdiction.

Even if the marriage had been solemnized under both civil and Muslim rites, the Regional Trial Courts would still have jurisdiction as the shari'a courts are not vested with exclusive jurisdiction in such cases.

The Court cited Article 13 of PD No. 1083 and Section 19, paragraph (6) of BP Blg. 129 to support its decision.

Consequently, the petition was denied, and the decision of the Court of Appeals was affirmed.

[amlawfrimseo]

Ruling by the High Court of Karnataka on Matrimonial Cases

Ruling by the High Court of Karnataka on Matrimonial Cases

Case Overview

In a recent ruling dated 26th July 2023, the Hon'ble Mr. Justice Krishna S. Dixit of the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru addressed the long pendency of matrimonial cases, emphasizing the importance of their swift resolution. The case in focus, Writ Petition No. 14769 of 2023, was filed by Sri. N Rajeev against Smt. C. Deepa under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking the expeditious disposal of his matrimonial case (M.C. No. 2514/2016) pending before the Vth Additional Judge Family Court, Bangalore. This case highlights the need for swift Karnataka matrimonial case resolution.

Petitioner's Grievance

The petitioner, represented by Advocate Sri. Basavaraj R Bannur, sought a decree for the dissolution or nullity of marriage under Section 13(1)(IA) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The primary grievance was the prolonged delay in the trial and disposal of his case, which had been pending since 2016.

[juztize]

FAMILY CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES

ARTICLE 137.      Once the separation of property has been decreed, the absolute community or the conjugal partnership of gains shall be liquidated in conformity with this Code.

                           During the pendency of the proceedings for separation of property, the absolute community or the conjugal partnership shall pay for the support of the spouses and their children.

LIQUIDATION

Must be made in conformity with the Family Code.

PROPERTY REGIME                         LIQUIDATION PROCESS

Absolute Community                           Article 102

Conjugal Partnership                           Article 129

Must be equal, unless:

a different proportion or division has been agreed upon in the marriage settlement

there has been a valid waiver of such share as provided in the family code

G. R. NO. 155409, June 8, 2007

VIRGILIO MAQUILAN, Petitioner, v. DITA MAQUILAN, Respondent.

Ponente: AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

FACTS:

         Before the Court was a Petition for Review on Certiorari assailing the Decision of the Court of Appeals which affirmed the Judgment on Compromise Agreement and Orders of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 3, Nabunturan, Compostela Valley.

         Herein petitioner and herein private respondent were spouses who once had a blissful married life and out of which were blessed to have a son. However, their once sugar-coated romance turned bitter when Virgilio discovered that Dita was having illicit sexual affair with her paramour, which prompted Virgilio to file a case of adultery against Dita and her paramour.

         Consequently, both Dita and her paramour were convicted of the crime charged and were sentenced to suffer an imprisonment of prision correccional. Thereafter, Dita through counsel, filed a Petition for Declaration of Nulllity of Marriage, Dissolution and Liquidation of Conjugal Partnership of Gains and Damages with the RTC, psychological incapacity on the part of Virgilio. 

         During the pre-trial of the said case, petitioner and private respondent entered into a COMPROMISE AGREEMENT. However, Virgilio claimed that the said agreement was invalid on the grounds that his previous lawyer did not intelligently and judiciously apprise him of the consequential effects of the Compromise Agreement and that it was made prior to the judicial declaration of the nullity of their marriage.

ISSUE:        Whether or not the partial voluntary separation of property made by the spouses pending the petition for declaration of nullity of marriage is valid.

HELD:

         Yes, the partial voluntary separation of property made by the spouses is valid.

         The Supreme Court ruled that a partial voluntary separation of property agreed upon by the parties via compromise agreement duly approved by the court prior to the judicial declaration of nullity of marriage is valid. 

Here, the compromise agreement pertains merely to an agreement between the petitioner and the private respondent to separate their conjugal properties partially without prejudice to the outcome of the pending case of declaration of nullity of marriage.

         The conviction of adultery does not carry the accessory of civil interdiction. 

The mistake or negligence of the petitioner’s counsel may result in the rendition of an unfavorable judgment against them.

         Hence, the Petition was DENIED, the decision of the CA was affirmed with modification that the subject Compromise Agreement was VALID without prejudice to the rights of all creditors and other persons pecuniary interest in the properties of the conjugal partnership of gains.

[solomon104]

CIVIL CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES

Garcia v. Recio

G.R. No. 13822 October 2, 2001

Facts: Rederick Recio, a Filipino, was married to Editha Samson, an Australian citizen, on March 1, 1987. On May 18, 1989, a decree of divorce, purportedly dissolving the marriage, was issued by an Australian family court. On June 26, 1992, Rederick became an Australian citizen. He then married Grace Garcia, a Filipina, on January 12, 1994. In their application for a marriage license, Rederick was declared single and Filipino. On October 22, 1995, Grace and Rederick lived separately even without prior judicial dissolution of their marriage.

Grace filed a complaint for declaration of nullity of marriage on March 2, 1998, on the grounds of bigamy. She contended that Rederick’s previous marriage was still subsisting at the time she contracted a marriage with him. She claimed that she learned of Rederick’s marriage to Editha Samson only in November 1997. However, Rederick said that he had told Grace about his previous marriage and the dissolution thereof. On July 7, 1998, Rederick was able to secure a divorce decree from a family court in Australia. In this case, the Australian divorce decree contains a restriction that reads

A party to a marriage who marries again before this decree becomes absolute (unless the other party has died) bigamy commits the offence of bigamy.

Issue: Did Rederick Garcia commit bigamy?

Ruling: The Court is not sure. The case has been remanded to the Court a quo for the following reasons. Article 26, paragraph 2 of the Family Code of the Philippines says that the Filipino spouse can be allowed to remarry only when the alien spouse who initiated the divorce would be capacitated to remarry because of the divorce. Like any other facts, foreign laws must be alleged and proved.

There are two basic types of divorce: (1) absolute divorce or a vinculo matrimonii and (2) limited divorce or a mensa et thoro. The Court could not determine which type of divorce Rederick had acquired in Australia because of insufficient evidence.

Issue: Did Rederick Garcia commit bigamy?

Ruling: The Court is not sure. The case has been remanded to the Court a quo for the following reasons. Article 26, paragraph 2 of the Family Code of the Philippines says that the Filipino spouse can be allowed to remarry only when the alien spouse who initiated the divorce would be capacitated to remarry because of the divorce. Like any other facts, foreign laws must be alleged and proved.

There are two basic types of divorce: (1) absolute divorce or a vinculo matrimonii and (2) limited divorce or a mensa et thoro. The Court could not determine which type of divorce Rederick had acquired in Australia because of insufficient evidence.

The Australian law provision stated in the facts led the Court to believe that Rederick’s divorce might have been restricted. Hence, his capacity to remarry has not been proven. Thus, the Court had to remand the case to find conclusive evidence. However, the Court also ordered that if there is no proof shown that Rederick had the capacity to remarry, then the court a quo may declare the nullity of the marriage on the ground of bigamy since there are already two marriages contracted.

Blaze

0 notes

[hermosa-oblicon24]

Article 149

Article 149. The family, being the foundation of the nation, is a basic social institution which public policy cherishes and protects. Consequently, family relations are governed by law and no custom, practice, or agreement destructive of the family shall be recognized or given effect. (216a, 218a)

The law has consolidated the provisions of Articles 216 and 218 of the Civil Code. It provides for solidarity of the family, that no less than the Constitution recognizes the importance of the family by providing that:

“The State recognizes the sanctity of family life and shall protect and strengthen the family as a basic autonomous social institution. It shall equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from conception. The natural and primary right and duty of parents in the rearing of the youth for civic efficiency and the development of moral character shall receive the support of the Government. (Sec. 12, Art. II, 1987 Const.).’’

Implementing the Family Code, expressly provides that the family is the foundation of the nation and a basic social institution that public policy cherishes and protects. As such, no custom, practice, or agreement destructive of the family shall be recognized or given effect. In fact, if there is an action for annulment of marriage or declaration of nullity of the same, the court will always tend to uphold the validity of the marriage. In fact, the law mandates the courts to take all measures to protect it not only from the collusion of the parties, but also from the presentation of fabricated evidence. (Arts. 48 and 60, Family Code). In fact, when legal separation is granted, the parties are at liberty to manifest in the same proceedings that they have already reconciled and that would effect the setting aside of the decree of legal separation.

[digestsbymarianpurpleink]

Bayot v. Court of Appeals and Vicente Bayot, G.R. Nos. 155635/163979, November 07, 2008

Topic:  Foreign Divorce Obtained by a Foreigner Married to a Filipino

Doctrine

In determining whether or not a divorce is secured abroad would come within the pale of the country's policy against absolute divorce, the reckoning point is the citizenship of the parties at the time a valid divorce is obtained.

Doctrinal concept mentioned in the Decision:

In Republic v. Orbecido III, we spelled out the twin elements for the applicability of the second paragraph of Art. 26, thus:

x x x [W]e state the twin elements for the application of Paragraph 2 of Article 26 as follows:

There is a valid marriage that has been celebrated between a Filipino citizen and a foreigner; and

A valid divorce is obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating him or her to remarry.

The reckoning point is not the citizenship of the parties at the time of the celebration of the marriage, but their citizenship at the time a valid divorce is obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating the latter to remarry. 

SUPER SUMMARY

Vicente Bayot and Rebecca, an American citizen, got married in the Philippines in 1979. After the birth of their child in 1982, their relationship turned sour. Sometime in 1996, Rebecca obtained a divorce decree from the Dominican Republic. Five years thereafter, Rebecca filed a case for nullity of marriage against Vicente before Muntinlupa RTC and sought support pendente lite against the latter. According to Rebecca, the divorce decree obtained in Dominican Republic is not binding, her being a Filino citizen by virtue of the order of recognition issued in 1995. Is the divorce decree obtained in the Dominican valid in the Philippines and binding against the petitioner?

HELD: AFFIRMATIVE. In determining whether or not a divorce is secured abroad would come within the pale of the country's policy against absolute divorce, the reckoning point is the citizenship of the parties at the time a valid divorce is obtained. Rebecca at that time she applied and obtained her divorce was an American citizen and remains to be one. Being an American citizen, Rebecca was bound by the national laws of the United States of America, a country which allows divorce. Moreover, the fact that Rebecca may have been duly recognized as a Filipino citizen by force of the June 8, 2000, affirmation by the DOJ Secretary of the October 6, 1995 Bureau Order of Recognition, it will not stand alone and work to nullify or invalidate the foreign divorce secured by Rebecca as an American citizen in 1996. Furthermore, pursuant to paragraph 2 of Art. 26 of the Family Code, Vicente Bayot shall likewise have capacity to remarry under PH laws. 

FACTS

[Some of the details in this case are confusing. It was not stated in the decision as to why she filed the petition for Divorce in Dominican Republic. Based on the website of the US Embassy in the Dominican Republic, US citizens may validly obtain divorce decrees there either through mutual consent or divorce for cause. See Divorce in the Dominican Republic - U.S. Embassy in the Dominican Republic (usembassy.gov) for more info.

Vicente and Rebecca were married on April 20, 1979 in Sanctuario de San Jose, Greenhills, Mandaluyong City. On its face, the Marriage Certificate identified Rebecca, then 26 years old, to be an American citizen. Not long after, Rebecca gave birth to Marie Josephine Alexandra or Alix, in California. From then on, Vicente and Rebecca's marital relationship seemed to have soured as the latter, sometime in 1996, initiated divorce proceedings in the Dominican Republic. On February 22, 1996, the Dominican court issued Civil Decree No. 362/96,  ordering the dissolution of the couple's marriage and "leaving them to remarry after completing the legal requirements," but giving them joint custody and guardianship over Alix.

Over a year later, the same court would issue Civil Decree No. 406/97, settling the couple's property relations pursuant to an Agreement they executed on December 14, 1996. Said agreement specifically stated that the “conjugal property which they acquired during their marriage consist[s] only of the real property and all the improvements and personal properties therein contained at 502 Acacia Avenue, Alabang, Muntinlupa.”

Meanwhile, on March 14, 1996, or less than a month from the issuance of Civil Decree No. 362/96, Rebecca filed with the Makati City RTC a petition dated January 26, 1996, with attachments, for declaration of nullity of marriage, docketed as Civil Case No. 96-378. Rebecca, however, later moved and secured approval of the motion to withdraw the petition.

On May 29, 1996, Rebecca executed an Affidavit of Acknowledgment stating under oath that she is an American citizen; that, since 1993, she and Vicente have been living separately; and that she is carrying a child not of Vicente.

On March 21, 2001, Rebecca filed another petition, this time before the Muntinlupa City RTC, for declaration of absolute nullity of marriage on the ground of Vicente's alleged psychological incapacity. Docketed as Civil Case No. 01-094 and entitled as Maria Rebecca Makapugay Bayot v. Vicente Madrigal Bayot. In it, Rebecca also sought the dissolution of the conjugal partnership of gains with application for support pendente lite for her and Alix. Rebecca also prayed that Vicente be ordered to pay a permanent monthly support for their daughter Alix in the amount of PhP 220,000.

On June 8, 2001, Vicente filed a Motion to Dismiss on, inter alia, the grounds of lack of cause of action and that the petition is barred by the prior judgment of divorce. Earlier, on June 5, 2001, Rebecca filed and moved for the allowance of her application for support pendente lite.

To the motion to dismiss, Rebecca interposed an opposition, insisting on her Filipino citizenship, as affirmed by the Department of Justice (DOJ), and that, therefore, there is no valid divorce to speak of.

ISSUE/S

Whether or not the divorce decree obtained in Dominican Republic is valid and can be recognized under Philippine laws.

Whether or not Vicente is still subject to the obligation under the Civil Code as Rebecca’s husband.

RULING

The Court ruled in the AFFIRMATIVE.

Rebecca at that time she applied and obtained her divorce was an American citizen and remains to be one, being born to American parents in Guam, an American territory which follows the principle of jus soli granting American citizenship to those who are born there. She was, and still may be, a holder of American passport.

She had consistently professed, asserted and represented herself as an American citizen, as shown in her marriage certificate, in Alix's birth certificate, when she secured divorce in Dominican Republic. Being an American citizen, Rebecca was bound by the national laws of the United States of America, a country which allows divorce.

In order that a foreign divorce can be recognized here, the divorce decree must be proven as a fact and as valid under the national law of the alien spouse. The fact that Rebecca was clearly an American citizen when she secured the divorce and that divorce is recognized and allowed in any of the States of the Union, the presentation of a copy of foreign divorce decree duly authenticated by the foreign court issuing said decree is, as here, sufficient. Thus the foreign decrees rendered and issued by the Dominican Republic court are valid, and consequently, bind both Rebecca and Vicente.

Furthermore, the fact that Rebecca may have been duly recognized as a Filipino citizen by force of the June 8, 2000, affirmation by the DOJ Secretary of the October 6, 1995 Bureau Order of Recognition will not, stand alone, work to nullify or invalidate the foreign divorce secured by Rebecca as an American citizen in 1996. In determining whether or not a divorce is secured abroad would come within the pale of the country's policy against absolute divorce, the reckoning point is the citizenship of the parties at the time a valid divorce is obtained.

Lastly, on the issue of their conjugal property, the Court held that the Civil Decree No. 406/97 issued by the Dominican Republic court properly adjudicated the ex-couple's property relations.

The Court ruled in the NEGATIVE.

Given the validity and efficacy of divorce secured by Rebecca, the same shall be given a res judicata effect in this jurisdiction. As an obvious result of the divorce decree obtained, the marital vinculum between Rebecca and Vicente is considered severed; they are both freed from the bond of matrimony. In plain language, Vicente and Rebecca are no longer husband and wife to each other.

As the divorce court formally pronounced: "[T]hat the marriage between MARIA REBECCA M. BAYOT and VICENTE MADRIGAL BAYOT is hereby dissolved x x x leaving them free to remarry after completing the legal requirements."

Consequent to the dissolution of the marriage, Vicente could no longer be subject to a husband's obligation under the Civil Code. He cannot, for instance, be obliged to live with, observe respect and fidelity, and render support to Rebecca.[Side Note: You may wonder “What about Alix?”. Is she not entitled to support from Vicente? The Court to be sure does not lose sight of the legal obligation of Vicente and Rebecca to support the needs of their daughter, Alix. The records do not clearly show how he had discharged his duty, albeit Rebecca alleged that the support given had been insufficient. At any rate, we do note that Alix, having been born on November 27, 1982, reached the majority age on November 27, 2000, or four months before her mother initiated her petition for declaration of nullity. She would now be 26 years old. Hence, the issue of back support, which allegedly had been partly shouldered by Rebecca, is best litigated in a separate civil action for reimbursement. In this way, the actual figure for the support of Alix can be proved as well as the earning capacity of both Vicente and Rebecca. The trial court can thus determine what Vicente owes, if any, considering that support includes provisions until the child concerned shall have finished her education.]

[abrlann]

FAMILY CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES

TITLE 4. PROPERTY RELATIONS BETWEEN HUSBAND AND WIFE

Article 99. The absolute community terminates: (1) Upon the death of either spouse; (2) When there is a decree of legal separation; (3) When the marriage is annulled or declared void; or (4) In case of judicial separation of property during the marriage under Article 134 to 138. (175a)

One of the effect of legal consequences of legal separation is the termination of the community property. However, if the parties reconcile, they are free to revive the same or to agree on a different property regime.

*case found on page 623

Adolfo Aenlle v. Maria Rheims and Phil. Guaranty Co.

Facts:

Adolfo Aenlle and Clementina Maria Bertrand were married in 1886 in London, England.

They separated, and Clementina obtained a divorce decree in Nevada, USA, in 1917.

Clementina remarried in 1919.

During their marriage, Aenlle and Clementina acquired two lots in Manila.

In 1922, Aenlle mortgaged the entire property to the Philippine Guaranty Co., Inc. to secure a loan.

Clementina argued that the mortgage was invalid as it was created after the Nevada divorce, which she claimed dissolved the conjugal partnership.

Issue: 

Whether or not, Nevada divorce decree dissolve the conjugal partnership and invalidate the mortgage executed by Aenlle on the entire property?

Ruling: 

The Supreme Court ruled that the Nevada divorce decree did not automatically dissolve the conjugal partnership and that the mortgage was valid.

The Court stated that the conjugal partnership was not ipso facto dissolved upon the granting of the divorce. The husband's authority to bind the property as manager continued until the divorce was properly registered in the Philippines. This aligns with Article 99 of the Family Code, which states that the dissolution of the conjugal partnership only occurs upon the death of either spouse, by judicial decree of separation of property, or by a final judgment of annulment or absolute nullity of the marriage.

[lioncitblogger]

Bigamous Marriage: Legal Insights and Annulment in the Philippines

"Bigamy isn’t just a breach of trust—it’s a serious legal offense with far-reaching consequences."

A bigamous marriage, where one party enters into a second union while still legally married to another, is considered void under Philippine law. Whether intentional or accidental, such marriages can lead to criminal charges, civil liabilities, and personal complications. Understanding the legal framework surrounding bigamy and annulment is essential for anyone navigating marital issues in the Philippines.

What Is a Bigamous Marriage?

A bigamous marriage occurs when an individual contracts a second marriage without legally dissolving their first. Under Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code, this act is punishable by imprisonment ranging from six years and one day to twelve years.

Key Legal Points:

Void from inception: A bigamous marriage is automatically null and void under Philippine law.

Criminal liability: Parties who knowingly enter into such a union may face prosecution.

Civil consequences: Property rights, spousal support, and inheritance claims are invalidated.

Legal Consequences of Bigamy

Criminal Charges

Bigamy is a criminal offense in the Philippines. Both Filipino citizens and foreign nationals who knowingly enter into a bigamous marriage can be prosecuted. Conviction may result in imprisonment for up to twelve years.

Civil Nullity

A second marriage entered into while the first remains valid is considered void ab initio (from the beginning). This nullity impacts property division, custody arrangements, and other marital rights.

Impact on Children

Children born from a bigamous marriage are considered legitimate if both parents believed in good faith that their union was valid (Article 54, Family Code). They retain rights to inheritance and support despite the marriage being void.

Can I Remarry After Annulment in the Philippines?

Yes! You can remarry after securing a court-approved annulment of your previous marriage. Without this legal process, any subsequent union will be deemed bigamous and void.

Steps to Remarry Legally:

File for annulment: Present grounds such as psychological incapacity or fraud to dissolve your first marriage.

Secure court approval: Obtain an official declaration of nullity or annulment from the court.

Update records: Ensure your marital status is updated with the Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA).

Apply for a new marriage license: Confirm eligibility for remarriage under Philippine law.

Navigating Complex Scenarios

Good Faith Belief of Death

If one spouse genuinely believes their partner is deceased due to reasonable circumstances like war or natural disasters, criminal liability may be waived upon judicial validation.

Foreign Nationals and Citizenship Issues

Children born from bigamous marriages may qualify for foreign citizenship if paternity is proven and recognized by the foreign government (e.g., British citizenship). Proper documentation such as birth certificates and proof of citizenship is crucial for immigration processes.

Actionable Tips to Avoid Bigamy

Verify marital status: Before remarrying, confirm that your previous marriage has been legally dissolved through annulment or divorce (for foreign nationals).

Consult legal counsel: Seek advice from experienced lawyers to navigate complex family laws effectively.

Document everything: Keep records of annulment decrees, birth certificates, and other essential documents for future reference.

Final Thought: Bigamous marriage isn’t just a personal matter—it’s a legal issue with serious repercussions. Always prioritize legal clarity before entering into any marital commitment to safeguard your freedom and future.

For expert guidance on bigamy and annulment laws, visit Lawyer Philippines.

[michm-law]

Family Code

Art. 51. In said partition, the value of the presumptive legitimes of all common children, computed as of the date of the final judgment of the trial court, shall be delivered in cash, property or sound securities, unless the parties, by mutual agreement judicially approved, had already provided for such matters.

The children or their guardian or the trustee of their property may ask for the enforcement of the judgment.

The delivery of the presumptive legitimes herein prescribed shall in no way prejudice the ultimate successional rights of the children accruing upon the death of either of both of the parents; but the value of the properties already received under the decree of annulment or absolute nullity shall be considered as advances on their legitime.

In cross reference to Art 43 and 44, it provides for the effect of void marriage and marriage terminated due to the recording of the reappearance of an interested person in a marriage where one spouse got married after the absent spouse was declared presumptively dead .

It also says that the effects of declaration of nullity or annulment of the marriage by final judgement under Art 40 and 45 have the same effect provided for Art .43 paragraphs 2,3,4,5 of the family code .

In the judgement declaring a marriage void or annulling the marriage ,the court shall provide for the following ;

1 .liquidation,partition,and distribution of the property of the spouses

2.custody of the children

3.support of the children

4. The delivery of presumptive legitimes of the children

In liquidation ,the creditors shall be notified to establish their claim so the court may order their payments .

In partition of the properties , as a rule conjugal dwelling shall be given to the spouse where the majority of the children will stay but the rule is not absolute if the spouses had an agreement it must be respected.

In the delivery of the presumptive legitimes to be delivered to the children at the partition of the properties of the spouses may be property or sound securities , the value of such presumptive legitime shall be computed as the date of the final judgement of the court . This delivery may be enforced by the children ,or their guardian or trustee . The value of the property received shall be considered as advances or shall be deducted from the final legitime .