Republic Vs Albios

Republic vs Albios
GR No. 198780, October 16, 2013

FACTS:
1. Fringer, an American Citizen and Liberty Albios got married before a Judge in
Mandaluyong City.
2. Two years after their marriage (December 6, 2006), Albios filed with the RTC a
petition for declaration of nullity of her marriage with Fringer.
3. According to her, the marriage was a marriage in jest because she only married the
American to acquire US citizenship and even arranged to pay him $2,000 in exchange for his
consent.
4 Immediately after their marriage, they separated and never lived as husband and wife
because they never really had any intention of entering into a married state or complying with
their marital obligations. The court even sent summons to the husband, but he failed to file an
answer.
5. Both the RTC and CA ruled in favor of Albios declaring that the marriage was void ab
initio for lack of consent because the parties failed to freely give their consent to the marriage
as they had no intention to be legally bound by it and used it only as a means to acquire
American citizenship in consideration of $2,000.00.
RTC RULING: The RTC, thus, ruled that when marriage was entered into for a purpose
other than the establishment of a conjugal and family life, such should not be recognized from
its inception. [ART 1]
CA RULING: Found that the essential requisite of consent was lacking. Concluded that it
was for personal gain and that the parties involved did not understand the nature and
consequence of getting married.
6. However, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) elevated the case to the SC.
According to the OSG, the case do not fall within the concept of a marriage in jest as the parties
intentionally consented to enter into a real and valid marriage.
7. That the parties here intentionally consented to enter into a real and valid marriage,
for if it were otherwise, the purpose of Albios to acquire American citizenship would be
rendered futile. [Consent should be distinguished from motive]
ISSUE
Is a marriage, contracted for the sole purpose of acquiring American citizenship in
consideration of $2,000.00, void ab initio on the ground of lack of consent?
RULING
NO. The CA erred on its ruling to annul the marriage on the grounds that there was lack
of consent. Both Fringer and Albios consented to the marriage. In fact, there was real consent
because it was not vitiated nor rendered defective by any vice of consent.
Their consent was also conscious and intelligent as they understood the nature and the
beneficial and inconvenient consequences of their marriage, as nothing impaired their ability to
do so.
That their consent was freely given is best evidenced by their conscious purpose of
acquiring American citizenship through marriage. Such plainly demonstrates that they willingly
and deliberately contracted the marriage. There was a clear intention to enter into a real and
valid marriage so as to fully comply with the requirements of an application for citizenship.
There was a full and complete understanding of the legal tie that would be created between
them, since it was that precise legal tie which was necessary to accomplish their goal.
Under Article 2 of the Family Code, for consent to be valid, it must be (1) freely given
and (2) made in the presence of a solemnizing officer.
A "freely given" consent requires that the contracting parties willingly and deliberately enter
into the marriage.
Consent must be real in the sense that it is not vitiated nor rendered defective by any of
the vices of consent under Articles 45 and 46 of the Family Code, such as fraud, force,
intimidation, and undue influence. None of these are present in the case.
Therefore, their marriage remains valid.
Article 64
After the finality of the decree of legal separation, the innocent spouse may
revoke the donations made by him or by her in favor of the offending spouse, as
well as the designation of the latter as beneficiary in any insurance policy, even if
such designation be stipulated as irrevocable. The revocation of the donations
shall be recorded in the registries of property in the places where the properties
are located. Alienations, liens and encumbrances registered in good faith before
the recording of the complaint for revocation in the registries of property shall
be respected. The revocation of or change in the designation of the insurance
beneficiary shall take effect upon written notification thereof to the insured.
The action to revoke the donation under this article must be brought within five
years from the time the decree of legal separation has become final.(107a)
DONATIONS AND BENEFICIARY IN INSURANCE. Donations and the act of

the innocent party in designating the guilty spouse as a beneficiary in an insurance are
essentially acts of liberality and the law gives the option to the innocent party whether
he or she will revoke the donation or the designation as beneficiary of the guilty party
in an insurance. Insofar as the designation as beneficiary of the guilty spouse in an
insurance is concerned, such designation, even if irrevocable will be considered
revoked upon written notification thereof to the insured.
Two things that May Be Revoked by the Innocent Spouse.
1. Donations made in favor of the offending spouse.
2. Designation of the offending spouse as beneficiary in the insurance contracts of the

innocent spouse.
The revocation of the donation must be recorded in the proper registry of property
where the property is located. This is to protect the parties against the rights of
innocent third persons.
In order that Donations By Reason Of Marriage may be valid, the following

requisites must be present:
They must be made before the celebration of the marriage;
They must be made in consideration of the marriage;

They must be made in favor of one or both of the future spouses
In case of donations, if the innocent spouse decides to revoke a donation, he or she
must file an action for revocation within five years from the time the decree of legal
separation has become final.
However, if the donation is void, such as in the case of a donation in violation of

Article 87, the right to bring an action to declare the nullity of the donation does not
prescribe.
Article 87 provides that “every donation or grant of gratuitous advantage, direct or

indirect, between the spouses during the marriage shall be void, except moderate gifts
which the spouses may give each other on the occasion of any family rejoicing”.
Illustration: A, prior to his marriage to B, donated real property to B. It was

registered later under her name, but 10 years after their marriage, B gave rise to a
cause for legal separation. A sued for legal separation and it was granted, pronouncing
B as the guilty spouse. A revoked the donation but the revocation was not recorded in
the registry of property. In the meantime, or after the revocation, B sold property to C,
a buyer in good faith and for value, and obtained a title. The revocation is not
effective as against C, the buyer in good faith and for value because of the protection
given by the Torrens System to a buyer in good faith and for value. For C need not
even look beyond the title B to determine if there is a defect therein. In fact, Article 64
of the Code says that alienations, liens and encumbrances registered in good faith
before the recording of the complaint for revocation is registered in the registries of
property shall be respected.
The law further says that the revocation is not by operation of law. There must be an
action filed in court to that effect and the law prescribes a period of five years from
the time the decree of legal separation has come final. That means that the inaction of
the innocent spouse for five years is equivalent to a waiver of his rights to revoke the
donation as this is a right that can be waived whether impliedly or expressly and the
waiver is valid.
On the matter of the revocation of the designation in an insurance policy, the law
requires for its effectivity that a written notice be given to the insured.
Unlocking of Difficulties:
* LEGAL SEPARATION – judicially authorized separation from bed and board
— a mensa et thoro — but the spouses remain married. There are at least 10 grounds
under the Family Code by which legal separation can be effected (Article 55, Family
Code)
* DONATION – an act of liberality whereby a person disposes gratuitously of a thing
or right in favor of another, who accepts it (Article 725, Civil Code)
*BENEFICIARY – any person or entity (like a charity) who is
to receive assets or profits from an estate, a trust, an insurance policy or any instrumen
t in which there is distribution
* ALIENATION – the capacity for a piece of property or a property right to be sold
or otherwise transferred from one party to another
* LIEN – an encumbrance that attaches to a certain transaction or specific property
for the satisfaction of a debt or performance of an obligation or other duty that is
created by operation of law, e.g., by agreement of the parties in a contract, as in a
mortgage lien
* ENCUMBRANCE – a lien or claim on the title or possession of property which
thus burdens its use or sale, or transfer
Art. 65. If the spouses should reconcile, the corresponding joint manifestation under oath duly
signed by them shall be filed with the court in the same proceeding for legal separation.
COMMENT:
This Article requires a joint manifestation under oath in case of reconciliation.

Republic Vs Albios

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Republic Vs Albios

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Republic Vs Albios

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Republic vs Albios

GR No. 198780, October 16, 2013

DONATIONS AND BENEFICIARY IN INSURANCE. Donations and the act of

Two things that May Be Revoked by the Innocent Spouse.

1. Donations made in favor of the offending spouse.

2. Designation of the offending spouse as beneficiary in the insurance contracts of the

In order that Donations By Reason Of Marriage may be valid, the following

They must be made before the celebration of the marriage;

They must be made in consideration of the marriage;

However, if the donation is void, such as in the case of a donation in violation of

Article 87 provides that “every donation or grant of gratuitous advantage, direct or

Illustration: A, prior to his marriage to B, donated real property to B. It was

You might also like