PRIL Lecture Jan12

Formal requisite : lex loci celebrationis
Intrinsic requisite: personal law
-law of the domicile/law of nationality: presumed to have closest relation to the person
*one of the criticisms of nationality: ties may be attenuated
e.g. still a child when brought to US by Filipino parents (so he's a Filipino) but grew in US, blah blah blah…so he would be more connected with US law… But if it involves those in Art15 of NCC, then being a Filipino, RP law would be applied

GR: follow traditional approach (which is above)
X: modern approach (when it is not certain what the applicable law is)

As to consent of parent: IN RP, mere part of validity of a marriage license - so any defect in it merely makes the marriage license questionable but would not render the marriage void

PFR Review
*if there's defect in
>formal requisite: administrative remedy
>essential requisite: voidable
*if there's lack of essential or formal requisite: void

APT v. APT
-German nationals, one located in England and the other in Argentina. Marriage was by proxy marriage, celebrated in Argentina. Wife in England contests the validity of the marriage. Court held that the marriage was valid in the place where it is celebrated, thus it should be deemed valid wherever it is (here, the question was only as regard the celebration of the marriage - a formal requisite)
-physical presence of the parties during celebration of marriage: formal requisite
If this case was brought in the Philippines, Apt and Apt both Filipinos, how would the court decide the case?

Art. 2. No marriage shall be valid, unless these essential requisites are present:
(1) Legal capacity of the contracting parties who must be a male and a female; and
(2) Consent freely given in the presence of the solemnizing officer.(53a)
Art. 3. The formal requisites of marriage are:
(1) Authority of the solemnizing officer;
(2) A valid marriage license except in the cases provided for in Chapter 2 of this Title; and
(3) A marriage ceremony which takes place with the appearance of the contracting parties before the solemnizing officer and their personal declaration that they take each other as husband and wife in the presence of not less than two witnesses of legal age.(53a, 55a)
Art. 4. The absence of any of the essential or formal requisites shall render the marriage voidab initio, except as stated in Article 35 (2).
A defect in any of the essential requisites shall not affect the validity of the marriage but the party or parties responsible for the irregularity shall be civilly, criminally and administratively liable.(n)

*so Some argue that both the formal and essential requisite require physical presence of the spouses. So is it merely a defect or absence?
Under Art 2(2): It requires presence just to show that consent is freely given - and not essential but merely a formality. You only have to be present for a marriage to be done
…but there's not RP case on this and there's ambiguity as to how our laws were written so we could argue that proxy marriages are allowed in RP
-BUT WHY HAVE A PROXY WEDDING if persons want to spend much just to have a wedding?
"You should know how to invent…"
e.g. If you're Catholic, you would want to give birth to a legitimate child so marriage first before getting birth…


IN RE MAY'S ESTATE
Uncle and niece got married under Jewish customs in Rhode Island, but were residents and domicilaries of NY. Upon death of the wife, husband petitioned for letters of administration but their daughter contested the validity of their marriage, it being prohibited in NY (but allowed under law of Rhode Island). Court used the case of Van Voorhis v. Brintall, where GR is that a marriage valid in accordance with the law of the place where it is celebrated, it is valid everywhere. The two exceptions mentioned there not being present (i.e. no positive law governing marriages outside NY + not deemed incestuous under natural law), the marriage was considered valid
Dissent: NY law made law to govern people w/n their jurisdictions _ only went to Rhode island to get married (applied modern approach - more contacts w/ NY than Rhode Island)
-so allow people who can afford to go outside RP to contravene our law…pro-rich: EPC denied
If in RP: void for being against public policy
-where family relationships are protected

PROPERTY RELATIONS OF THE SPOUSES
In RP: RP law applies to property relations of Filipino spouses
X: where aliens or where property located outside RP
-change of nationality of spouses does not affect the law that governs their property relations
e.g. If in RP, husband and wife should support each other
If husband became naturalized in a country where support is the sole obligation of supporting, there would have been a change but under the ….

DIVORCE and SEPARATION
Divorce decrees obtained by Filipinos
GR: Not valid in RP
X: Art26.2
a. If one of the spouses is an alien who obtains a valid divorce in accordance with its personal law
b. If one of the spouses was a former Filipino who became naturalized, deemed an alien who is allowed to divorce (Republic vs. Obrecino III)

TENCHAVEZ V. ESCANO
-Tenchavez and Escano married discretely, Escano's family objected it so Escano still lived with her parents until she left for the US, obtained divorce there, married a US Citizen, and later became a US Citizen. Tenchavez filed for legal separation and damages. Court held that he has grounds for legal separation and damages, the 2nd marriage contracted by Escano being bigamous (adulterous). A divorce decree between Filipinos deemed not valid in RP.

VAN DORN V. ROMILLO
-Alien spouse obtained divorce decree, then later wanted to manage the alleged conjugal property of the two. Court used US case (+ A15, nationality principle) to rule that when there's a divorce decree, no marital ties so unfair if one spouse is still bound to the marriage when the other does not consider the other his or her spouse.

"On Housewife: not to be mean but they are not wives and they don't have a house"

REPUBLIC V. OBRECIDO
A former Filipina who allegedly was naturalized allegedly obtained divorce so Filipino husband filed a petition for authority to remarry. Court did not grant such petition, failing to prove that the wife was indeed naturalized and obtained a valid divorce decree. However, using A26.2, FC, naturalized Filipinos are considered aliens so can validly obtain divorce.
-ma'am: wrong. Should have used A15, NCC to validate the divorce since now, the naturalized citizen's national law is the law of the state where he or she was naturalized, thus, if that state allow divorce, he or she could acquire divorce decree.
-J. Coquia: anti-rich ruling. Those who can go abroad, then be naturalized there, can validly obtain divorce decree.

SAN LUIS V. SAN LUIS
-Governor married 3x, 1st wife died before him, 2nd wife is an alien who divorced him before Hawaiian courts, and the 3rd a Filipina who lived w/ him until he died. ("With whom he died" - Edel :)) Children of the 1st marriage contests the claim of the 3rd wife, claiming that the said marriage was bigamous, there being a subsisting 2nd marriage. Court held that, even w/o FC, Van Dorn etc. already ruled that divorce decree obtained by aliens vs. their Filipino spouses are considered valid in RP, thus 3rd marriage is considered valid, if proven (REMAND - merely produced photocopies of the Marriage Certificate and annotated text of Family Law Act of California - where they were married). On question of venue, residence here is considered in the popular sense, the Romualdez cases being not applicable as the said cases are election cases where residence and domicile are the same.

VALIDITY OF FOREIGN DIVORCE BETWEEN FOREIGNERS
-follow personal law
-they can sue in RP for divorce, but as to recognition, should prove foreign law allowing it + divorce decree validly obtained

…next meeting: Finish Chapter then property, letter B (End of Letter D)