THIRD DIVISION On October 22, 2004, Fringer, an

American citizen, and Albios were married

G.R. No. 198780               October 16, before Judge Ofelia I. Calo of the
2013 Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch59,
Mandaluyong City (MeTC), as evidenced
REPUBLIC OF THE
by a Certificate of Marriage with Register
PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, 
No. 2004-1588.3
vs.
LIBERTY D. ALBIOS, Respondent. On December 6, 2006, Albios filed with the
RTC a petition for declaration of nullity 4 of
DECISION
her marriage with Fringer. She alleged that
MENDOZA, J.: immediately after their marriage, they
separated and never lived as husband and
This is a petition for review on certiorari wife because they never really had any
under Rule 45 of the Rules t of Court intention of entering into a married state or
assailing the September 29, 2011 complying with any of their essential
Decision1 of the Court of Appeals (CA), in marital obligations. She described their
CA-G.R. CV No. 95414, which affirmed the marriage as one made in jest and,
April 25, 2008Decision2 of the Regional therefore, null and void ab initio .
Trial Court, Imus, Cavite (RTC). declaring
the marriage of Daniel Lee Fringer Summons was served on Fringer but he
(Fringer) and respondent Liberty Albios did not file his answer. On September 13,
(A/bios) as void from the beginning. 2007, Albios filed a motion to set case for
pre-trial and to admit her pre-trial brief. The
The facts RTC ordered the Assistant Provincial
Prosecutor to conduct an investigation and using the surname of respondent as she
determine the existence of a collusion. On never acquired any right over it and so as
October 2, 2007, the Assistant Prosecutor to avoid a misimpression that she remains
complied and reported that she could not the wife of respondent.
make a determination for failure of both
parties to appear at the scheduled xxxx
investigation.
SO ORDERED.6
At the pre-trial, only Albios, her counsel
The RTC was of the view that the parties
and the prosecutor appeared. Fringer did
married each other for convenience only.
not attend the hearing despite being duly
Giving credence to the testimony of Albios,
notified of the schedule. After the pre-trial,
it stated that she contracted Fringer to
hearing on the merits ensued.
enter into a marriage to enable her to
Ruling of the RTC acquire American citizenship; that in
consideration thereof, she agreed to pay
In its April 25, 2008 Decision,5 the RTC him the sum of $2,000.00; that after the
declared the marriage void ab initio, the ceremony, the parties went their separate
dispositive portion of which reads: ways; that Fringer returned to the United
States and never again communicated with
WHEREFORE, premises considered, her; and that, in turn, she did not pay him
judgment is hereby rendered declaring the the $2,000.00 because he never
marriage of Liberty Albios and Daniel Lee processed her petition for citizenship. The
Fringer as void from the very beginning. As RTC, thus, ruled that when marriage was
a necessary consequence of this entered into for a purpose other than the
pronouncement, petitioner shall cease establishment of a conjugal and family life,
such was a farce and should not be the parties clearly did not understand the
recognized from its inception. nature and consequence of getting married
and that their case was similar to a
Petitioner Republic of the Philippines, marriage in jest. It further explained that
represented by the Office of the Solicitor the parties never intended to enter into the
General (OSG), filed a motion for marriage contract and never intended to
reconsideration. The RTC issued the live as husband and wife or build a family.
Order, 7 dated February 5, 2009, denying It concluded that their purpose was
the motion for want of merit. It explained primarily for personal gain, that is, for
that the marriage was declared void Albios to obtain foreign citizenship, and for
because the parties failed to freely give Fringer, the consideration of $2,000.00.
their consent to the marriage as they had
no intention to be legally bound by it and Hence, this petition.
used it only as a means to acquire
American citizenship in consideration of Assignment of Error
$2,000.00.
THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED ON A
Not in conformity, the OSG filed an appeal QUESTION OF LAWWHEN IT HELD
before the CA. THAT A MARRIAGE CONTRACTED FOR
THEPURPOSE OF OBTAINING
Ruling of the CA FOREIGN CITIZENSHIP WAS DONEIN
JEST, HENCE, LACKING IN THE
In its assailed decision, dated September ESSENTIAL ELEMENT OFCONSENT.8
29, 2011, the CA affirmed the RTC ruling
which found that the essential requisite of The OSG argues that albeit the intention
consent was lacking. The CA stated that was for Albios to acquire American
citizenship and for Fringer to be paid On March 22, 2013, the OSG filed its
$2,000.00, both parties freely gave their Reply10 reiterating its arguments in its
consent to the marriage, as they knowingly petition for review on certiorari.
and willingly entered into that marriage and
knew the benefits and consequences of Ruling of the Court
being bound by it. According to the OSG,
The resolution of this case hinges on this
consent should be distinguished from
sole question of law: Is a marriage,
motive, the latter being inconsequential to
contracted for the sole purpose of
the validity of marriage.
acquiring American citizenship in
The OSG also argues that the present consideration of $2,000.00, void ab initio
case does not fall within the concept of a on the ground of lack of consent?
marriage in jest. The parties here
The Court resolves in the negative.
intentionally consented to enter into a real
and valid marriage, for if it were otherwise, Before the Court delves into its ruling, It
the purpose of Albios to acquire American shall first examine the phenomenon of
citizenship would be rendered futile. marriage fraud for the purposes of
immigration.
On October 29, 2012, Albios filed her
Comment9 to the petition, reiterating her Marriage Fraud in Immigration
stand that her marriage was similar to a
marriage by way of jest and, therefore, The institution of marriage carries with it
void from the beginning. concomitant benefits. This has led to the
development of marriage fraud for the sole
purpose of availing of particular benefits. In
the United States, marriages where a 1986 (IMFA), which now requires the
couple marries only to achieve a particular couple to instead demonstrate that the
purpose or acquire specific benefits, have marriage was not "entered into for the
been referred to as "limited purpose" purpose of evading the immigration laws of
marriages.11 A common limited purpose the United States." The focus, thus, shifted
marriage is one entered into solely for the from determining the intention to establish
legitimization of a child.12 Another, which is a life together, to determining the intention
the subject of the present case, is for of evading immigration laws.16 It must be
immigration purposes. Immigration law is noted, however, that this standard is used
usually concerned with the intention of the purely for immigration purposes and,
couple at the time of their marriage,13 and it therefore, does not purport to rule on the
attempts to filter out those who use legal validity or existence of a marriage.
marriage solely to achieve immigration
status.14 The question that then arises is whether a
marriage declared as a sham or fraudulent
In 1975, the seminal case of Bark v. for the limited purpose of immigration is
Immigration and Naturalization also legally void and in existent. The early
Service,15 established the principal test for cases on limited purpose marriages in the
determining the presence of marriage United States made no definitive ruling. In
fraud in immigration cases. It ruled that a 1946, the notable case of
"marriage is a sham if the bride and groom
did not intend to establish a life together at United States v. Rubenstein17 was
the time they were married. "This standard promulgated, wherein in order to allow an
was modified with the passage of the alien to stay in the country, the parties had
Immigration Marriage Fraud Amendment of agreed to marry but not to live together
and to obtain a divorce within six months. all. They must assent to enter into the
The Court, through Judge Learned Hand, relation as it is ordinarily understood, and it
ruled that a marriage to convert temporary is not ordinarily understood as merely a
into permanent permission to stay in the pretence, or cover, to deceive others.18
country was not a marriage, there being no
consent, to wit: (Italics supplied)

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.

PRESBITER J. VELASCO, JR. ** Designated Acting Member in lieu

Associate Justice of Associate Justice Roberto A. Abad.
Chairperson, Third Division Per Special Order No. 1554dated
September 19, 2013.
CERTIFICATION
1
 Rollo. pp. 26-32; penned by (2012);http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/pa
Associate Justice Juan Q. Enriquez. pers.cfm?abstract_id=2000956.
Jr. and concurred in by Associate Lutwak v. United States , 344 U.S.
Justice Ramon M. Bato. Jr. and 604, 612-613 (U.S. 1953).
Associate Justice Fiorito S. Macalino 12
of the Fifth Division. Manila.  Abrams, Kerry. Marriage Fraud .
100 Cal. L. Rev. 1
2
 Id. at 38-39. (2012);http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/pa
3
pers.cfm?abstract_id=2000956; citing
 Id. at 37. Schibi v. Schibi , 69 A.2d 831 (Conn.
4 1949) (denying annulment where
 Id. at 33-35.
parties married only to give a name to
5
 Id. at 38-39. a prospective child); Bishop v. Bishop
, 308 N.Y.S.2d 998 (Sup. Ct. 1970);
6
 Id. at 39. Erickson v. Erickson , 48 N.Y.S.2d
588 (Sup. Ct. 1944) (holding similarly
7
 Id. at 48-49. to Schibi ); Delfino v.Delfino , 35
8 N.Y.S.2d 693 (Sup. Ct. 1942)
 Id. at 13.
(denying annulment where purpose of
9
 Id. at 61-71. marriage was to protect the girl’s
name and there was an
10
 Id. at 89-95. understanding that the parties would
not live together as man and wife);
11
 Abrams, Kerry. Marriage Fraud . Bove v. Pinciotti , 46 Pa. D. & C. 159
100 Cal. L. Rev. 1 (1942); Campbell v. Moore , 189
S.E.2d 497 (S.C.1939) (refusing an (2007);http://www.minnesotalawrevie
annulment where parties entered w.org/wp-
marriage for the purpose of content/uploads/2012/01/Abrams_Fin
legitimizing a child); Chander v. al.pdf; citing 132 CONG.REC. 27,012,
Chander , No.2937-98-4, 1999 WL 27,015 (1986) (statement of Rep Mc
1129721 (Va. Ct. App. June 22, 1999) Collum) (promoting the Immigration
(denying annulment where wife Marriage Fraud Amendments of
married husband to get his pension 1986).
with no intention to consummate 15
marriage because husband knew that  511 F.2d 1200, 1201 (9th Cir.
was the purpose of the marriage). 1975).
16
13
 Abrams, Kerry. Immigration Law  Abrams, Kerry. Immigration Law
and the Regulation of Marriage; 91 and the Regulation of Marriage; 91
Minn. L. Rev. 1625 Minn. L. Rev. 1625
(2007);http://www.minnesotalawrevie (2007);http://www.minnesotalawrevie
w.org/wp- w.org/wp-
content/uploads/2012/01/Abrams_Fin content/uploads/2012/01/Abrams_Fin
al.pdf; citing Immigration and al.pdf.
Nationality Act (INA), § 237(a)(1)(G), 17
 151 F.2d 915 (2d Cir. 1945).
8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1)(G) (2000).
18
14  United States v. Rubenstein , 151
 Abrams, Kerry. Immigration Law
F.2d 915 (2d Cir. 1945).
and the Regulation of Marriage ; 91
Minn. L. Rev. 1625
19 24
 Mpiliris v. Hellenic Lines, Ltd. , 323  Alicia V. Sempio-Diy, Handbook on
F. Supp. 865 (S.D. Tex. 1969), aff’d , the Family Code of the Philippines,
440 F.2d 1163 (5th Cir. 1971). (Quezon City, Philippines: Joer
20
Printing Services, 2005), p. 4.
 Abrams, Kerry. Marriage Fraud .
100 Cal. L. Rev. 1
(2012);http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/pa
pers.cfm?abstract_id=2000956; citing
Mpiliris v. Hellenic Lines, Ltd. , 323 F.
Supp. 865 (S.D. Tex. 1969), aff’d,
440F.2d 1163 (5th Cir. 1971).
21
 Matter of McKee, 17 I. & N. Dec.
332, 333 (B.I.A. 1980).
22
 Lynn D. Wardle and Laurence C.
Nolan, Family Law in the USA, (The
Netherlands: Kluwer Law
International, 2011) p. 86.
23
 Abrams, Kerry. Marriage Fraud.
100 Cal. L. Rev. 1
(2012);http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/pa
pers.cfm?abstract_id=2000956.