ARTICLES 22-26

Family Code of the Philippines

 ARTICLE 22
2
The MARRIAGE CERTIFICATE, in which the parties shall
declare that they take each other as HUSBAND and WIFE, shall
also state:
(1) Full name, sex and age of EACH contracting party;
(2) Their citizenship, religion and habitual residence;
(3) The DATE and PRECISE TIME of the celebration of the
marriage;
(4) That the PROPER MARRIAGE LICENSE has been issued
according to law, EXCEPT in marriages provided for Chapter 2
of this Title;
 ARTICLE 22
3
(5) That either or both the contracting parties have SECURED
the PARENTAL CONSENT in appropriate cases;
(6) That either or both of the contracting parties have complied
with the LEGAL REQUIREMENT regarding PARENTAL
ADVICE in appropriate cases; and
(7) That the parties have entered into a MARRIAGE
SETTLEMENTS, if any, attaching a copy thereof.
 MARRIAGE CERTIFICATE
4
◈ Marriage certificate must not be confused with the marriage
license, the latter being an essential requisite of marriage.
◈ In general, the marriage certificate or marriage contract is the
BEST DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE OF A MARRIAGE.
◈ However, the absence of the marriage certificate is NOT
PROOF THAT NO MARRIAGE TOOK PLACE since other
evidence may be presented to prove the existence of the
marriage.
 BALOGBOG v. CA, G.R No. 83598, Mar. 7, 1997
5 Facts: Ramonito and Generoso filed an action for partition and
accounting against their Aunt Leoncia and Uncle Gaudioso. They
alleged that their grandparents Basilio and Genoveva have 3
children: Leoncia, Gaudioso and Gavino (who died in 1935,
predeceasing his parents) and that they are the legitimate children of
Gavino by Catalina. As such, they are entitled to the one-third share in
the estate of their grandparents.
Ramonito and Generoso presented 3 witnesses: (1) Trazo,
former mayor of Asturias, Cebu who testified that he attended the
wedding of Gavino and Catalina (2) Pogoy who also testified that he
attended the wedding; and, (3) Catalina who testified concerning her
marriage to Gavino.
 BALOGBOG v. CA, G.R No. 83598, Mar. 7, 1997
6
Facts: Leoncia and Gaudioso denied knowing private respondents
and claimed that Gavino died single. They produced a certificate from
the Office of the Local Civil Registrar that the Register of Marriages
did not have a record of the marriage of Gavino and Catalina, another
certificate from the Office of the Treasurer that there was no record of
the birth of Ramonito in that office and, for this reason, the record
must be presumed to have been lost or destroyed during the war, and a
certificate by the Parish Priest of Asturias that there was likewise no
record of birth of Ramonito in the church, the records of which were
either lost or destroyed during the war.
 BALOGBOG v. CA, G.R No. 83598, Mar. 7, 1997
7
Issue: Whether or not the marriage between
Gavino and Catalina is valid even the absence of
marriage certificate.
 BALOGBOG v. CA, GR No. 83598, Mar. 7, 1997
8
Held:Under the Rules of Court, the presumption is that a man and a
woman conducting themselves as husband and wife are legally
married. This presumption may be rebutted only by cogent proof to the
contrary. Although a marriage contract is considered primary evidence
of marriage, the failure to present it is not proof that no marriage took
place. Other evidences may be shown to prove the marriage. Here,
private respondents proved, through testimonial evidence, that Gavino
and Catalina were married in 1929; that they had three children, one of
whom died in infancy; that their marriage subsisted until 1935 when
Gavino died; and that their children, private respondents herein, were
recognized by Gavino's family and by the public as the legitimate
children of Gavino.
 PRESUMPTION of MARRIAGE
Rule 131, Section 3[aa], New Rules of Court of the Philippines, provides
“That a man and a woman deporting themselves as
husband and wife have ENTERED into a LAWFUL
CONTRACT OF MARRIAGE”

9
 PRESUMPTION of MARRIAGE
10
• Every intendment of the law leans toward LEGALIZING
MATRIMONY as it is the basis of human society
throughout the civilized world.
• The presumption of legality is said to be ONE OF THE
STRONGEST known to the law.
• The presumption gains through the lapse of time.
SEMPER PRAESUMITUR
PRO MATRIMONIO
(Always presume marriage)

11
 PROOF of the EXISTENCE of a MARRIAGE
Although a marriage contract is considered as a primary
evidence of marriage, its absence is not always proof that
no marriage in fact took place. Once the presumption of
marriage arises, other evidence may be presented in
support thereof. The evidence need not necessarily or
directly establish the marriage but must AT LEAST BE
ENOUGH to strengthen the presumption of marriage.
12
 PROOF of the EXISTENCE of a MARRIAGE
13 ◈ Testimony by one of the parties or witnesses to the marriage, or by
the person who solemnized the same, is admissible and competent
to prove the marriage.
◈ With respect to marriage ceremony, the testimony of eye-witness to
be sufficient should disclose not only the performance of the
ceremony by someone, but all the circumstances attending it were
such as to constitute it a legal marriage.
◈ Public and open cohabitation as husband and wife after the alleged
marriage, birth certificate, and baptismal certificates of children
borne by the alleged spouses, and a statement of such marriage in
subsequent documents are competent evidence to prove the fact of
marriage.
In Delgado Vda. De La Rosa v. Heirs of Mariciana Rustia
Vda. De Damian, GR No. 155733, 2006, where the
absence of a record of the contested marriage was asserted
to assail the existence of the marriage, the Supreme Court
after reviewing the evidence rejected such assertion by the
following reasons:
1. Certificate of identity issued to Josefa Delgado
2. Petitioner’s own witness testimony
3. Baptismal certificate of their child
14
 ARTICLE 23
15
It shall be the duty of the person solemnizing to furnish
either of the contracting parties the ORIGINAL OF THE
MARRIAGE CERTIFICATE referred to in Article 6 and
send the DUPLICATE and TRIPLICATE copies of the
certificate NOT LATER THAN FIFTEEN DAYS AFTER
THE MARRIAGE, to the local civil registrar of the place
where the marriage was solemnized. Proper receipts shall
be issued by the local civil registrar to the solemnizing
officer transmitting copies of the marriage certificate.
 ARTICLE 23
16
The solemnizing officer shall RETAIN in his file the
QUADRUPLICATE copy of the marriage certificate, the
ORIGINAL of the marriage license and, in proper cases,
the AFFIDAVIT of the contracting party regarding the
solemnization of the marriage in place other than those
mentioned in Article 8.
 Effect of Non-recording
17
The mere fact that no record of the marriage
exists in the registry of marriage does not
invalidate said marriage, as long as in the
celebration thereof, all requisites for its validity
are present. The forwarding of a copy of the
marriage certificate to the registry is not one of
the essential requisites.
DUTY of the CIVIL REGISTRAR
ARTICLES 24-25
 ARTICLE 24
19
It shall be the duty of the local civil registrar to
PREPARE THE DOCUMENTS required by this
Title, and to administer oaths to all interested
parties WITHOUT ANY CHARGE in both cases.
The documents and affidavits filed in connection
with applications for marriage licenses shall be
EXEMPT from documentary stamp tax.
 ARTICLE 25
20
The local civil registrar concerned shall enter
ALL applications for marriage licenses filed with
him in a registry book STRICTLY in the order in
which they are received. He shall record in said
book the NAMES of the applicants, the DATE on
which the marriage license was issued, and such
other data as may be necessary.
 EFFECT of the DUTY of LOCAL CIVIL
REGISTRAR
21

Any certification issued by

the local civil registrar in
connection with any matter
involving the marriage of any
particular individual within
his jurisdiction is given HIGH
PROBATIVE VALUE.
 Alcantara v. Alcantara, G.R. No. 167746, 2007
22 Facts:Petitioner Restituto M. Alcantara filed a petition for annulment
of marriage against respondent Rosita A. Alcantara alleging that on 8
December 1982 he and Rosita, without securing the required marriage
license, went to the Manila City Hall for the purpose of looking for a
person who could arrange a marriage for them. They met a person
who, for a fee, arranged their wedding. They got married on the same
day. Another marriage was held in a church in Tondo. The marriage
was likewise celebrated without the parties securing a marriage
license. The alleged marriage license, procured in Carmona, Cavite,
appearing on the marriage contract, is a sham, as neither party was a
resident of Carmona, and they never went to Carmona to apply for a
license with the local civil registrar of the said place.
 Alcantara v. Alcantara, G.R. No. 167746, 2007
23
Facts: A petition for annulment of marriage was filed by petitioner
against respondent. Rosita however asserts the validity of their
marriage and maintains that there was a marriage license issued as
evidenced by a certification from the Office of the Civil Registry of
Carmona, Cavite. Restituto has a mistress with whom he has three
children and only filed the annulment of their marriage to evade
prosecution for concubinage. Rosita, in fact, has filed a case for
concubinage against Restituto.
Issue: Whether or not their marriage is void ab initio.
 Alcantara v. Alcantara, G.R. No. 167746, 2007
Held: No. A valid marriage license is a requisite of marriage, the
24 absence of which renders the marriage void ab initio. To be considered
void on the ground of absence of a marriage license, the law requires
that the absence of such marriage license must be apparent on the
marriage contract, or at the very least, supported by a certification
from the local civil registrar that no such marriage license was issued
to the parties. In this case, the marriage contract between the petitioner
and respondent reflects a marriage license number. A certification to
this effect was also issued by the local civil registrar of Carmona,
Cavite. The certification moreover is precise in that it specifically
identified the parties to whom the marriage license was issued, namely
Restituto Alcantara and Rosita Almario, further validating the fact that
a license was in fact issued to the parties herein.
 ARTICLE 26
25
ALL marriages solemnized OUTSIDE the
Philippines in ACCORDANCE WITH THE
LAWS IN FORCE IN THE COUNTRY where
they were solemnized, and VALID there as such,
shall also be VALID IN THIS COUNTRY,
EXCEPT those prohibited under Articles 35(1),
(4), (5) and (6), 36, 37 and 38.
 ARTICLE 26
26
Where a MARRIAGE BETWEEN A FILIPINO
CITIZEN AND A FOREIGNER is validly
celebrated and a DIVORCE is thereafter
VALIDLY OBTAINED ABROAD BY THE
ALIEN SPOUSE capacitating him or her to
remarry, the Filipino spouse shall likewise have
capacity to remarry under Philippine law.
(Amended by E.O No. 227, dated July 17, 1987)
 Lex Loci Celebrationis
Principle that guides “all marriages solemnized outside the
Philippines, in accordance with the laws in force in the country
where they were solemnized, and valid as such, shall also be
valid in this country.”

27
 Marriages that are prohibited under Art 26, par.1
28
Article 35 Article 36 Article 38
(1)Any party is below 18; If one of the parties to a If the marriage is void by reason
(4) Bigamous and Polygamous marriage, at the time of the of public policy.
marriages celebration, was psychologically
incapacitated to comply with the
(5) Mistake in Identity essential marital obligations of
(6) Non-compliance with marriage
procedure in Article 52
Article 37
If the marriage is incestuous
Historical Background of Divorce

Japanese Occupation
Spanish Occupation

American Occupation Gen. Douglas McArthur

Relative Divorce E.O No. 141

under Las Sieste Partidas • Repealed Act No. 2710 and the same
permitted ABSOLUTE DIVORCE on
Act No. 2710, Divorce Law eleven liberal grounds
• Repealed the provisions of Las Sieste
Partidas by providing ABSOLUTE
DIVORCE

Issued a proclamation were in

E.O No. 141 ceased to take effect and
Act No. 2710 was revived

29
Historical Background of Divorce

New draft of the

Under existing laws
Civil Code
July 7, 1987

DIVORCE is not recognized as

• Absolute divorce
was eventually valid in the Philippines,
Article 26 of the Family Code was
eliminated EXCEPT for the situation
amended
• “Relative divorce” • Inserting therein in 2nd paragraph contemplated in Article 26 of
was changed to the Family Code
which recognizes PARTIAL
“legal separation”
DIVORCE

30
 Van Dorn v. Romillio, Jr. G.R. No. L-68470, 1985
31 Facts: Petitioner Alice Reyes Van Dorn is a citizen of the
Philippines while private respondent Richard Upton is a citizen of
the United States. They were married in Hongkong in 1972 and
established their residence in the Philippines. They begot two
children born on April 4, 1973 and December 18, 1975,
respectively. But the parties were divorced in Nevada, United
States, in 1982 and the petitioner had remarried also in Nevada,
this time to Theodore Van Dorn.
On July 8, 1983, Richard Upton filed a suit against
petitioner, asking that Alice Van Dorn be ordered to render an
accounting of her business in Ermita, Manila and be declared with
right to manage the conjugal property.
 Van Dorn v. Romillio, Jr. G.R. No. L-68470, 1985
32
Issue: Whether or not the foreign divorce
between the petitioner and private respondent in
Nevada is binding in the Philippines where
petitioner is a Filipino citizen.
 Van Dorn v. Romillio, Jr. G.R. No. L-68470, 1985
33 Held: There can be no question as to the validity of that Nevada
divorce in any of the States of the United States. The decree is
binding on private respondent as an American citizen. It is true that
owing to the nationality principle embodied in Article 15 of the Civil
Code, only Philippine nationals are covered by the policy against
absolute divorces the same being considered contrary to our concept
of public policy and morality. However, aliens may obtain divorces
abroad, which may be recognized in the Philippines, provided they
are valid according to their national law.
 Van Dorn v. Romillio, Jr. G.R. No. L-68470, 1985
34
Held: As such, pursuant to his national law, private respondent
Richard Upton is no longer the husband of petitioner. He would
have no standing to sue Alice Van Dorn to exercise control over
conjugal assets. He was bound by the Decision of his own
country’s Court, which validly exercised jurisdiction over him,
and whose decision he did not repudiate, he is estopped by his
own representation before said Court from asserting his right
over the alleged conjugal property.
35
E.O No. 227,
1987
Place your screenshot here Amendment for
articles 26, 36,
and 39.
 Paragraph 2, article 26
36
Where a MARRIAGE BETWEEN A FILIPINO
CITIZEN AND A FOREIGNER is validly
celebrated and a DIVORCE is thereafter
VALIDLY OBTAINED ABROAD BY THE
ALIEN SPOUSE capacitating him or her to
remarry, the Filipino spouse shall likewise have
capacity to remarry under Philippine law.
(Amended by E.O No. 227, dated July 17, 1987)
 Strict applicability of Article 26, par (2)
37

MIXED MARRIAGE
Marriage between a Filipino citizen
and a foreigner

ALIEN SPOUSE validly

obtain the decree of
divorce
Given a marriage between two Filipino
citizens, where one party is later naturalized as
a foreign citizen and obtains a valid divorce
decree capacitating him or her to remarry, can
the Filipino spouse likewise remarry under
Philippine law?

38
 Republic vs. Orbecido III, GR No. 154380, 2005
39
Facts: Cipriano Orbecido III married Lady Myros M.
Villanueva at the United Church of Christ in the Philippines in
Lam-an, Ozamis City, on May 24, 1981. They were blessed with
a son and a daughter, Kristoffer Simbortriz V. Orcebido and
Lady Kimberly V. Orcebido.
Lady Myros left for the United States bringing along
their son Kristoffer in 1986. After few years, Cipriano
discovered that his wife had been naturalized as an American
citizen.
 Republic vs. Orbecido III, GR No. 154380, 2005
40
Facts: Cipriano learned from his son that his wife had
obtained a divorce decree sometime in 2000 and then married a
certain Innocent Stanley and lived in California.
He then filed with the trial court a petition for authority
to remarry invoking Paragraph 2 of Article 26 of the Family
Code. No opposition was filed. Finding merit in the petition, the
court granted the same. The Republic, herein petitioner, through
the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), sought
reconsideration but it was denied. Orbecido filed a petition for
review of certiorari on the Decision of the RTC.
 Republic vs. Orbecido III, GR No. 154380, 2005
41
Issue: Whether or not respondent Orbecido can
remarry under Article 26 of the Family Code.
 Republic vs. Orbecido III, GR No. 154380, 2005
42
Held: Yes. Taking into consideration legislative intent and
applying the rule of reason, Par. 2 Art 26 should be interpreted to
include cases involving parties, who at the time of the
celebration of the marriage were Filipino citizens, but later on,
one of them becomes naturalized as a foreign citizen and obtains
a divorce deree. The Filipino spouse should likewise be allowed
to remarry as if the other party were a foreigner at the time of the
solemnization of the marriage. To rule otherwise would be to
sanction absurdity and injustice.
 Republic vs. Orbecido III, GR No. 154380, 2005
43
Held: The reckoning point in the provision 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.
Given that a Filipino citizen initiated a foreign
divorce proceeding abroad and obtaining a
favorable judgment against his/her alien
spouse who is capacitated to remarry, can the
Filipino spouse likewise remarry under
Philippine law?

44
 Republic v. Marelyn Tanedo Manalo, G.R No 221023, 2018
45
Facts: Tanedo Manalo was married in the Philippines to Yoshino
Minoro, a Japanese national. She divorced Minoro in Japan and a
Japanese court issued the divorce decree dated December 6, 2011.
On January 10, 2012, she filed in the RTC of Dagupan City a petition
for cancellation of entry of marriage in the Civil Registry of San Juan,
Manila, pursuant to Rule 108 of the Rules of Court. She also prayed
that she be allowed to use her maiden surname: Manalo. She claims
there is an imperative need to have the entry of marriage cancelled so
that it would not appear that she is still married to a Japanese national
who is no longer married to her, and so that she shall not bothered and
disturbed by said entry should she decide to remarry.
 Republic v. Marelyn Tanedo Manalo, G.R No 221023, 2018
46
Facts: The RTC denied her petition on the grounds
that the divorce obtained by Manalo in Japan should
not be recognized on Article 15 of the NCC.
However, RTC ruling was overturned by the Court
of Appeals.
 Republic v. Marelyn Tanedo Manalo, G.R No 221023, 2018
47
Issue: Whether or not a Filipino citizen has the
capacity to remarry under Philippine law after
initiating a divorce proceeding abroad and
obtaining a favorable judgment against his/ her
alien spouse who is capacitated to remarry.
 Republic v. Marelyn Tanedo Manalo, G.R No 221023, 2018
48
Held: Yes, pursuant to Par. 2 of Art 26 of the Family Code.
However, this case was remanded to the RTC to allow Manalo to
prove the Japanese law on divorce.
Based on a clear and plain reading of the provision, it only
requires that there be a divorce validly obtained abroad. The letter of
the law does not demand that the alien spouse should be the one who
initiated the proceeding. The purpose of par 2 of Art 26 is to avoid the
absurd situation where the Filipino spouse remains married to the alien
spouse who, after a foreign divorce decree that is effective in the
country where it was rendered, is no longer married to the Filipino
spouse.
 Republic v. Marelyn Tanedo Manalo, G.R No 221023, 2018
49
Held: A Filipino who initiated a foreign divorce
proceeding is in the same place and in like
circumstance as a Filipino who is at the receiving end
of an alien initiated proceeding. Therefore, the
subject provision should not make a distinction.
 Let’s have a recap!
50
Article 22 Article 23
◈Marriage Certificate ◈Distribution of Copies

Articles 24 & 25 Article 26

◈Duty of the Civil ◈Marriages solemnized
Registrar outside the Philippines
◈Validity of divorce decree