Professional Documents
Culture Documents
G.R. No. 198780 October 16, 2013 Republic of The PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, LIBERTY D. ALBIOS, Respondent
G.R. No. 198780 October 16, 2013 Republic of The PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, LIBERTY D. ALBIOS, Respondent
x x x But, that aside, Spitz and Sandler On the other end of the spectrum is the
were never married at all. Mutual consent 1969 case of Mpiliris v. Hellenic
is necessary to every contract; and no Lines,19 which declared as valid a marriage
matter what forms or ceremonies the entered into solely for the husband to gain
parties may go through indicating the entry to the United States, stating that a
contrary, they do not contract if they do not valid marriage could not be avoided
in fact assent, which may always be "merely because the marriage was entered
proved. x x x Marriage is no exception to into for a limited purpose."20 The 1980
this rule: a marriage in jest is not a immigration case of Matter of
marriage at all. x x x It is quite true that a McKee,21 further recognized that a
marriage without subsequent fraudulent or sham marriage was
consummation will be valid; but if the intrinsically different from a non subsisting
spouses agree to a marriage only for the one.
sake of representing it as such to the
Nullifying these limited purpose marriages
outside world and with the understanding
for lack of consent has, therefore, been
that they will put an end to it as soon as it
recognized as problematic. The problem
has served its purpose to deceive, they
being that in order to obtain an immigration
have never really agreed to be married at
benefit, a legal marriage is first
necessary.22 At present, United States ruled that the essential requisite of consent
courts have generally denied annulments was lacking. It held that the parties clearly
involving" limited purpose" marriages did not understand the nature and
where a couple married only to achieve a consequence of getting married. As in the
particular purpose, and have upheld such Rubenstein case, the CA found the
marriages as valid.23 marriage to be similar to a marriage in jest
considering that the parties only entered
The Court now turns to the case at hand. into the marriage for the acquisition of
American citizenship in exchange of
Respondent’s marriage not void
$2,000.00. They never intended to enter
In declaring the respondent’s marriage into a marriage contract and never
void, the RTC ruled that when a marriage intended to live as husband and wife or
was entered into for a purpose other than build a family.
the establishment of a conjugal and family
The CA’s assailed decision was, therefore,
life, such was a farce and should not be
grounded on the parties’ supposed lack of
recognized from its inception. In its
consent. Under Article 2 of the Family
resolution denying the OSG’s motion for
Code, consent is an essential requisite of
reconsideration, the RTC went on to
marriage. Article 4 of the same Code
explain that the marriage was declared
provides that the absence of any essential
void because the parties failed to freely
requisite shall render a marriage void ab
give their consent to the marriage as they
initio.
had no intention to be legally bound by it
and used it only as a means for the Under said Article 2, for consent to be
respondent to acquire American valid, it must be (1) freely given and (2)
citizenship. Agreeing with the RTC, the CA
made in the presence of a solemnizing and inconvenient consequences of their
officer. A "freely given" consent requires marriage, as nothing impaired their ability
that the contracting parties willingly and to do so. That their consent was freely
deliberately enter into the marriage. given is best evidenced by their conscious
Consent must be real in the sense that it is purpose of acquiring American citizenship
not vitiated nor rendered defective by any through marriage. Such plainly
of the vices of consent under Articles45 demonstrates that they willingly and
and 46 of the Family Code, such as fraud, deliberately contracted the marriage. There
force, intimidation, and undue was a clear intention to enter into a real
influence.24Consent must also be and valid marriage so as to fully comply
conscious or intelligent, in that the parties with the requirements of an application for
must be capable of intelligently citizenship. There was a full and complete
understanding the nature of, and both the understanding of the legal tie that would be
beneficial or unfavorable consequences of created between them, since it was that
their act.25 Their understanding should not precise legal tie which was necessary to
be affected by insanity, intoxication, drugs, accomplish their goal.
or hypnotism.26
In ruling that Albios’ marriage was void for
Based on the above, consent was not lack of consent, the CA characterized such
lacking between Albios and Fringer. In fact, as akin to a marriage by way of jest. A
there was real consent because it was not marriage in jest is a pretended marriage,
vitiated nor rendered defective by any vice legal in form but entered into as a joke,
of consent. Their consent was also with no real intention of entering into the
conscious and intelligent as they actual marriage status, and with a clear
understood the nature and the beneficial understanding that the parties would not
be bound. The ceremony is not followed by an apparent intention to enter into the
any conduct indicating a purpose to enter actual marriage status and to create a
into such a relation.27 It is a pretended legal tie, albeit for a limited purpose.
marriage not intended to be real and with Genuine consent was, therefore, clearly
no intention to create any legal ties present.
whatsoever, hence, the absence of any
genuine consent. Marriages in jest are void The avowed purpose of marriage under
ab initio, not for vitiated, defective, or Article 1 of the Family Code is for the
unintelligent consent, but for a complete couple to establish a conjugal and family
absence of consent. There is no genuine life. The possibility that the parties in a
consent because the parties have marriage might have no real intention to
absolutely no intention of being bound in establish a life together is, however,
any way or for any purpose. insufficient to nullify a marriage freely
entered into in accordance with law. The
The respondent’s marriage is not at all same Article 1 provides that the nature,
analogous to a marriage in consequences, and incidents of marriage
jest.1âwphi1 Albios and Fringer had an are governed by law and not subject to
undeniable intention to be bound in order stipulation. A marriage may, thus, only be
to create the very bond necessary to allow declared void or voidable under the
the respondent to acquire American grounds provided by law. There is no law
citizenship. Only a genuine consent to be that declares a marriage void if it is entered
married would allow them to further their into for purposes other than what the
objective, considering that only a valid Constitution or law declares, such as the
marriage can properly support an acquisition of foreign citizenship.
application for citizenship. There was, thus, Therefore, so long as all the essential and
formal requisites prescribed by law are marriage. Other considerations, not
present, and it is not void or voidable under precluded by law, may validly support a
the grounds provided by law, it shall be marriage.
declared valid.28
Although the Court views with disdain the
Motives for entering into a marriage are respondent’s attempt to utilize marriage for
varied and complex. The State does not dishonest purposes, It cannot declare the
and cannot dictate on the kind of life that a marriage void. Hence, though the
couple chooses to lead. Any attempt to respondent’s marriage may be considered
regulate their lifestyle would go into the a sham or fraudulent for the purposes of
realm of their right to privacy and would immigration, it is not void ab initio and
raise serious constitutional continues to be valid and subsisting.
questions.29 The right to marital privacy
allows married couples to structure their Neither can their marriage be considered
marriages in almost any way they see fit, voidable on the ground of fraud under
to live together or live apart, to have Article 45 (3) of the Family Code. Only the
children or no children, to love one another circumstances listed under Article 46 of the
or not, and so on.30 Thus, marriages same Code may constitute fraud, namely,
entered into for other purposes, limited or (1) non- disclosure of a previous
otherwise, such as convenience, conv1ctwn involving moral turpitude; (2)
companionship, money, status, and title, concealment by the wife of a pregnancy by
provided that they comply with all the legal another man; (3) concealment of a
requisites,31are equally valid. Love, though sexually transmitted disease; and (4)
the ideal consideration in a marriage concealment of drug addiction, alcoholism,
contract, is not the only valid cause for or homosexuality. No other
misrepresentation or deceit shall constitute marriage of convenience; she should not
fraud as a ground for an action to annul a be allowed to again abuse it to get herself
marriage. Entering into a marriage for the out of an inconvenient situation.
sole purpose of evading immigration laws
does not qualify under any of the listed No less than our Constitution declares that
circumstances. Furthermore, under Article marriage, as an in violable social
47 (3), the ground of fraud may only be institution, is the foundation of the family
brought by the injured or innocent party. In and shall be protected by the State.32 It
the present case, there is no injured party must, therefore, be safeguarded from the
because Albios and Fringer both conspired whims and caprices of the contracting
to enter into the sham marriage. parties. This Court cannot leave the
impression that marriage may easily be
Albios has indeed made a mockery of the entered into when it suits the needs of the
sacred institution of marriage. Allowing her parties, and just as easily nullified when no
marriage with Fringer to be declared void longer needed.
would only further trivialize this inviolable
institution. The Court cannot declare such WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED.
a marriage void in the event the parties fail The September 29, 2011 Decision of the
to qualify for immigration benefits, after Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 95414
they have availed of its benefits, or simply is ANNULLED, and Civil Case No. 1134-06
have no further use for it. These is DISMISSED for utter lack of merit.
unscrupulous individuals cannot be
SO ORDERED.
allowed to use the courts as instruments in
their fraudulent schemes. Albios already JOSE CATRAL MENDOZA
misused a judicial institution to enter into a Associate Justice
WE CONCUR: Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the
Constitution and the Division Chairperson's
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR. Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in
Associate Justice the above Decision had been reached in
Chairperson consultation before the case was assigned
to the writer of the opinion of the Court's
TERESITA J.
ARTURO D. Division.
LEONARDO-DE
BRION**
CASTRO* MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO
Associate Justice
Associate Justice Chief Justice
DIOSDADO M. PERALTA
Associate Justice
ATTESTATION Footnotes
I attest that the conclusions in the above * Designated Acting Member in lieu of
Decision had been reached in consultation Associate Justice Marvic Mario Victor
before the case was assigned to the writer F. Leonen per Special Order No.
of the opinion of the Court's Division. 1570 dated October 14. 2013.