CHAPTER 17: MARRIAGE & INCIDENTS OF MARRIAGE
PRINCIPLES AND CASES IN PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW:
A PROCEDURAL APPROACH
-oOo-
MARK ANGELO S. DELA PEÑA
To cite this online book, please use the following:
Dela Peña. 2023. "Principles and Cases in Private International Law: A Procedural Approach." Published by Project Jurisprudence - Philippines. Published: September 17, 2023. Link: [Insert link] Last accessed: [Insert date of access].
x---------------------------------------------x
CHAPTER 17:
MARRIAGE & INCIDENTS OF MARRIAGE
Marriage is a special contract of permanent union between a man and a woman entered into in accordance with law for the establishment of conjugal and family life. It is the foundation of the family and an inviolable social institution whose nature, consequences, and incidents are governed by law and not subject to stipulation, except that marriage settlements may fix the property relations during the marriage within the limits provided by [the Family] Code.[1]
By the contract of marriage, the civil status of the contracting parties is converted from “single” or “unmarried” to “married.” This status[2] attaches to their persons and follows them whenever they are.[3]
Marriage is a special contract, as stated in the Family Code of the Philippines, so special, in fact, that the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines describes it as an inviolable social institution.[4] Despite the prevailing norm in the Philippines, from its plain text, the Constitution does not define or restrict marriage on the basis of sex, gender, sexual orientation, or gender identity or expression.[5]
Being thus constitutionally protected and being classified as a special contract whose nature, consequences, and incidents are governed by law and not subject to stipulation, the Philippine State is obviously interested in its preservation. Hence, acts that make a mockery of the sacred institution of marriage are met with the formidable opposition of the Philippine State.
As worded by the Supreme Court, “No less than our Constitution declares that marriage, as an in violable social institution, is the foundation of the family and shall be protected by the State. It must, therefore, be safeguarded from the whims and caprices of the contracting parties. This Court cannot leave the impression that marriage may easily be entered into when it suits the needs of the parties, and just as easily nullified when no longer needed.”[6]
The following pages do not aim to rehash all the discussions relating to marriage. Such a feat deserves a place in a separate book. The aim is to dive into conflict of laws rules in relation to the status of marriage.
No marriage shall be valid, unless these essential requisites are present: (a) legal capacity of the contracting parties who must be a male and a female; and (b) consent freely given in the presence of the solemnizing officer.[7]
The formal requisites of marriage are: (a) authority of the solemnizing officer; (b) a valid marriage license; and (c) 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.[8]
Unlike obligations arising from contracts which are obligatory in whatever form they may be,[9] marriage under Philippine laws appears to require a form, i.e., it must be ceremonial. In the case of Morigo v. People,[10] no marriage ceremony at all was performed by a duly authorized solemnizing officer. The man and the woman merely signed a marriage contract on their own. The Supreme Court ruled that the mere private act of signing a marriage contract bears no semblance to a valid marriage and thus, needs no judicial declaration of nullity. Such act alone, without more, cannot be deemed to constitute an ostensibly valid marriage.[11]
Note that the absence of any of the essential or formal requisites shall render the marriage void ab initio, except as stated in Article 35 (2).[12] 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.[13]
Considering that marriage is a contract, albeit special,[14] its forms and solemnities must be governed by the law of the place of execution under the principle of lex loci celebrationis.[15]
Lex loci celebrationis is a latin term, literally translated as the law of the place of the ceremony.[16] It means that the validity of a contract is governed by the place where it is made, executed, or to be performed.[17] It is adhered to by Philippine marriage law, as enunciated under the first paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code, viz.:
“Art. 26. 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), 3637 and 38.”
Otherwise stated, for a marriage to be formally valid if celebrated in the Philippines, the solemnities required under the laws of the Philippines must be observed.[18]
Lex loci celebrationis is a conflict of laws principle that comes into play when there are substantive issues relating to a contract that is celebrated elsewhere than the place of citizenship of its parties.[19] Philippine courts apply the same, not only with respect to marriage but to other contracts, in order to determine the law that is to be applied in resolving disputes that arise as a result thereof.
BOARD V. DELA ROSA
In the case of Board of Commissioners v. Dela Rosa,[20] seeking to deport respondent William Gatchalian, petitioners claimed that he was an alien. Petitioners point out that the marriage of Francisco Gatchalian – father of William Gatchalian – to Ong Chiu Kiok in China was not supported by any evidence other than their own self-serving testimony and there was also proof of Chinese laws on marriage. Petitioners theorized that the validity of the marriage under Chinese law will determine its validity in the Philippines. They argued that respondent should have shown proof of the validity of the marriage. There being none, petitioners concluded that the marriage cannot be considered valid in this jurisdiction. Hence, petitioners postulate that the validity of the Francisco Gatchalian’s marriage not having been demonstrated, William Gatchalian followed the citizenship of his mother, a Chinese national.
The Supreme Court held that Philippine law, following the lex loci celebrationis, adheres to the rule that a marriage formally valid[21] where celebrated is valid everywhere. Referring to marriages contracted abroad, Article 26 of the Family Code of the Philippines provides that all marriages performed outside of the Philippines in accordance with the laws in force in the country where they were performed, and valid there as such, shall also be valid in the Philippines. Also, any doubt as to the validity of the matrimonial unity and the extent as to how far the validity of such marriage may be extended to the consequences of the coverture is answered by Article 220 of the New Civil Code by saying that, in case of doubt, all presumptions favor the solidarity of the family. Thus, every intendment of legal or factual nature should lean toward or favor the validity of marriage, the indissolubility of the marriage bonds, the legitimacy of children, the community of property during marriage, the authority of parents over their children, and the validity of defense for any member of the family in case of unlawful aggression. Finally, bearing in mind the “processual presumption” enunciated in the case of Miciano v. Brimo,[22] he who asserts that the marriage is not valid under Philippine law bears the burden of proof to present the foreign law.
FOREIGNERS MARRYING
IN THE PHILIPPINES
When either or both of the contracting parties are citizens of a foreign country, it shall be necessary for them before a marriage license can be obtained, to submit a certificate of legal capacity to contract marriage, issued by their respective diplomatic or consular officials. Stateless persons or refugees from other countries shall, in lieu of the certificate of legal capacity herein required, submit an affidavit stating the circumstances showing such capacity to contract marriage.[23]
Article 21 as quoted above implies that foreigners are allowed to be celebrate their marriage in the Philippines. By “celebrate a marriage” is meant the execution of a marriage contract in accordance with law.
Although the Philippines has no jurisdiction over the status of non-marriage of two foreigners, the law allows them to contract marriage under Philippine laws. It would seem, then, that the law expects that the marriage celebrated in the Philippines would be recognized by the law of the nationality of the foreigners under the principle of reciprocity. This is a reasonable expectation on the part of the Philippine State, considering that the same law declares that 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.[24]
It is important to recall that laws relating to family rights and duties, or to the status, condition and legal capacity of persons, govern Spaniards although they reside in a foreign country; that, in consequence, 'all questions of a civil nature, such as those dealing with the validity or nullity of the matrimonial bond, the domicile of the husband and wife, their support, as between them, the separation of their properties, the rules governing property, marital authority, division of conjugal property, the classification of their property, legal causes for divorce, the extent of the latter, the authority to decree it, and, in general, the civil effects of marriage and divorce upon the persons and properties of the spouses, are questions that are governed exclusively by the national law of the husband and wife.[25] The relevance of “citizenship” or “nationality” to civil law is best exemplified in Article 15 of the New Civil Code of the Philippines, stating that “laws relating to family rights and duties, or to the status, condition and legal capacity of persons are binding upon citizens of the Philippines, even though living abroad.”
Article 15 of the New Civil Code relates to the provisions on citizenship found under the fundamental law. Similarly, citizenship is significant in civil relationships found in different parts of the Civil Code,[26] such as on successional rights and family relations. In adoption cases, for example, an adopted child would be clearly considered the child of his/her adoptive parents and accorded the same rights as a legitimate child but such legal fiction clearly extends only to define his/her rights under civil law[27] and, as to the child’s political status, questions may arise.
Nonetheless, despite the obvious conflicts implications of the marriage between two foreigners under Philippine law, it must be recalled that the ceremony – even if solemnized by a judge in the chambers of his/her court or in the courtroom itself – is not a judicial process; it is actually a contractual process. Hence, it would be premature to analyze and apply conflicts rules and principles, especially because there is still no dispute to be settled. It is only when a dispute containing a foreign element is presented to the court when such rules and principles are properly invocable.
If two foreigners, both females, under whose national law same-sex marriage is allowed, they may encounter problems if they wish to have their marriage solemnized in the Philippines. First, although there is no express prohibition against such marriage under Philippine laws and although the Constitution does not restrict the definition of marriage to parties who are male and female only,[28] the Family Code of the Philippines mandates the presence of legal capacity between the contracting parties who are male and female, thereby making as an essential requisite that the parties are from opposite sexes. Second, Act No. 3815, more popularly known as the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines, punishes under its Article 350 what is called “Marriages Contracted against Provisions of Laws.”[29]
A closer look at Article 350[30] of the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines yields a conclusion that same-sex marriage, if contracted in the Philippines, may have penal consequences, thus criminalizing the same even though indirectly. The operative term is “[to] contract a marriage,” which is the act punishable by the said provision. Hence, if two New Yorkers contracted a same-sex marriage in New York and they arrive in the Philippines, they are considered married under their national law and they would not incur any criminal liability.
Complications may arise in another example problem. In Japan, for example, same-sex marriage is not recognized or is even expressly declared void. Two Japanese nationals went to New York to avail of its marriage equality laws. They got married and decided to reside in the Philippines under a permanent residence visa. If a dispute arises from their status of marriage, the Philippine forum will be compelled to look into their national law, i.e., Japanese law. Even if marriage celebrated abroad and valid there as such are valid in the Philippines,[31] this principle will clash with Article 15 of the New Civil Code, i.e., their status, condition and legal capacity, insofar as Philippine courts are concerned, are governed by their national law. If their national law, however, allows the validity of marriage for extrinsic and intrinsic purposes in accordance with the place of its celebration, the Philippine forum, of course, cannot rule otherwise because the lex nationality and the lex loci celebrationis principles, insofar as Japanese laws are concerned, are pointing to the validity of their marriage.
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 and 38. 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 have capacity to remarry under Philippine law.[32]
Even if the marriage celebrated abroad is valid in the place of execution, the Family Code of the Philippines puts a restriction on this rule. Hence, marriages between minors or parties wherein one of them is a minor, bigamous or polygamous marriages, marriages through mistake of identity, subsequent marriages contracted without a judicial declaration on the first marriage, marriages wherein a party is inflicted with psychological incapacity, incestuous and quasi-incestuous marriages are void in the eyes of Philippine laws.
The law student, however, should be mindful that, considering the applicability of the nationality principle, Article 26 as cited above attains full relevance only when one of the contracting parties in marriage is a Filipino citizen. If two California citizens are married and under their national law, marriage between a widowed mother to her biological son is valid, the same being their factual situation, their national law will govern. Even if a dispute regarding their marriage reaches Philippine courts, the forum’s hands are tied by Article 15 of the New Civil Code of the Philippines.
In the absence of a contrary stipulation in a marriage settlement, the property relations of the spouses shall be governed by Philippine laws, regardless of the place of the celebration of the marriage and their residence. This rule shall not apply: (a) where both spouses are aliens; (b) with respect to the extrinsic validity of contracts affecting property not situated in the Philippines and executed in the country where the property is located; and (c) with respect to the extrinsic validity of contracts entered into in the Philippines but affecting property situated in a foreign country whose laws require different formalities for its extrinsic validity.[33]
Article 80 as cited above makes conflict of laws rules more complex. In studying this, the student’s starting point should be Article 16 of the New Civil Code of the Philippines, i.e., “real property as well as personal property is subject to the law of the country where it is situated.” The cited provision adds a new layer to this, i.e., the “property relations,” not the pieces of real or personal property themselves, are governed by Philippine laws.
The father and the mother shall jointly exercise legal guardianship over the property of the unemancipated common child without the necessity of a court appointment. In case of disagreement, the father's decision shall prevail, unless there is a judicial order to the contrary. Where the market value of the property or the annual income of the child exceeds P50,000, the parent concerned shall be required to furnish a bond in such amount as the court may determine, but not less than ten per centum (10%) of the value of the property or annual income, to guarantee the performance of the obligations prescribed for general guardians. A verified petition for approval of the bond shall be filed in the proper court of the place where the child resides, or, if the child resides in a foreign country, in the proper court of the place where the property or any part thereof is situated. The petition shall be docketed as a summary special proceeding in which all incidents and issues regarding the performance of the obligations referred to in the second paragraph of this Article shall be heard and resolved. The ordinary rules on guardianship shall be merely suppletory except when the child is under substitute parental authority, or the guardian is a stranger, or a parent has remarried, in which case the ordinary rules on guardianship shall apply.[34]
The unemancipated children of husband and wife may have property under their name. For instance, a child star in the movie industry, as such, may have acquired money or property by reason of his/her profession. This, the father and the mother shall jointly exercise legal guardianship over.
Again, private international law rules may apply if the child, for example, is an actor in Hollywood, Los Angeles and has acquired real property in said state. XXXXXXXXXXXX
CORPUZ V. STO. TOMAS
The case of Corpuz v. Sto. Tomas[35] is about Gerbert R. Corpuz, a former Filipino citizen who acquired Canadian citizenship through naturalization in the year 2000. In 2005, Gerbert married respondent Daisylyn T. Sto. Tomas, a Filipina, in Pasig City. Due to work and other professional commitments, Gerbert left for Canada soon after the wedding. He returned to the Philippines sometime in April 2005 to surprise Daisylyn, but was shocked to discover that his wife was having an affair with another man. Hurt and disappointed, Gerbert returned to Canada and filed a petition for divorce. The Superior Court of Justice, Windsor, Ontario, Canada granted Gerbert's petition for divorce on December 8, 2005. The divorce decree took effect a month later, on January 8, 2006. Desiring to remarry, Gerbert filed a petition for judicial recognition of foreign divorce and/or declaration of marriage as dissolved with the Regional Trial Court. Although summoned, Daisylyn did not file any responsive pleading but submitted instead a notarized letter/manifestation to the trial court. She offered no opposition to Gerbert's petition and, in fact, alleged her desire to file a similar case herself but was prevented by financial and personal circumstances. She, thus, requested that she be considered as a party-in-interest with a similar prayer for dissolution of the marriage.
The trial court denied the petition and concluded that Gerbert was not the proper party to institute the action for judicial recognition of the foreign divorce decree as he was a naturalized Canadian citizen. It ruled that only the Filipino spouse can avail of the remedy, under the second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code of the Philippines in order for him/her to be able to remarry under Philippine law.
As a general rule, an alien spouse can claim no right under the second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code as the substantive right it establishes is in favor of the Filipino spouse. The legislative intent is for the benefit of the Filipino spouse. This is because the alien spouse’s status and legal capacity are generally governed by his/her national law.[36] Given the rationale and intent behind the law, and the purpose of the second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code, the Supreme Court held that the trial court was correct in limiting the applicability of the provision for the benefit of the Filipino spouse. In other words, only the Filipino spouse can invoke the second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code; the alien spouse can claim no right under this provision.[37]
Regarding the Canadian court’s grant of divorce, the Supreme Court said that the foreign divorce decree is presumptive evidence of a right that clothes the party with legal interest to petition for its recognition in this jurisdiction. Therefore, even if in this case the alien spouse was declared as the improper party to invoke Article 26 of the Family Code, the foreign divorce decree itself, after its authenticity and conformity with the alien's national law have been duly proven according to our rules of evidence, serves as a presumptive evidence of right in favor of Gerbert, pursuant to Section 48 of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court which provides for the effect of foreign judgments.
Direct involvement or being the subject of a foreign judgment is sufficient to clothe a party with the requisite interest to institute an action before Philippine courts for the recognition of said foreign judgment. In a divorce situation, the Court ruled that the divorce obtained by an alien abroad may be recognized in the Philippines, provided the divorce is valid according to his/her national law.[38]
The starting point in any petition for recognition of a foreign divorce judgment is the acknowledgment that Philpipine courts do not take judicial notice of foreign judgments and laws. This is because “no sovereign is bound to give effect within its dominion to a judgment rendered by a tribunal of another country.”[39] This means that a foreign judgment and its authenticity must be proven as facts under the Rules of Court, together with the alien’s applicable national law to show the effect of the judgment on the alien himself/herself.[40]
The recognition may be made in an action instituted specifically for the purpose or in another action where a party invokes the foreign decree as an integral aspect of his claim or defense. In Gerbert’s case, since both the foreign divorce decree and the national law of the alien, recognizing his or her capacity to obtain a divorce, purport to be official acts of a sovereign authority, Section 24 of Rule 132 of the Rules of Court comes into play. Said rule requires proof, either by (a) official publications or (b) copies attested by the officer having legal custody of the documents. If the copies of official records are not kept in the Philippines, these must be (a) accompanied by a certificate issued by the proper diplomatic or consular officer in the Philippine foreign service stationed in the foreign country in which the record is kept and (b) authenticated by the seal of his office.
Despite Gerbert’s failure to comply with these proofs, the Supreme Court opted to remand the case to the lower court for further determination of the merits. In so doing, instead of dismissing the case outright, the Court considered that the Filipino wife’s interests under Article 26 of the Family Code of the Philippines would be best served.
Interestingly, in this case, the Pasig City Civil Registry Office already recorded the divorce decree on Gerbert and Daisylyn’s marriage certificate based on the mere presentation of the decree. This is illegal and improper because Article 407 of the New Civil Code states that acts, events and judicial decrees concerning the civil status of persons shall be recorded in the civil register. The law requires the entry in the civil registry of judicial decrees that produce legal consequences touching upon a person’s legal capacity and status, i.e., those affecting “all his personal qualities and relations, more or less permanent in nature, not ordinarily terminable at his own will, such as his being legitimate or illegitimate, or his being married or not.”[41] A judgment of divorce is a judicial decree, although a foreign one, affecting a person's legal capacity and status that must be recorded but submission of the decree by itself do not ipso facto authorize the decree’s registration. The law should be read in relation with the requirement of a judicial recognition of the foreign judgment before it can be given res judicata effect.
IN RE MAY’S ESTATE
In Re May’s Estate[42] is a case decided by the New York Court of Appeals.
Sam May traveled with his half-blood niece, Fannie May, from New York to Rhode Island, where they married in a traditional Jewish ceremony. Later, they had six children. After Fannie’s death, one of the children filed a petition for the letters of administration of Fannie’s estate in New York. Sam objected, arguing that as the surviving husband, pursuant to state law, he should administer the estate. Petitioner, along with two of her sisters, argued that Sam was not the surviving spouse of Fannie, because the marriage, although valid in Rhode Island, was contrary to the laws of New York. The trial court agreed and held in favor of petitioner. On appeal, the trial court’s ruling was reversed, the appellate court saying that the marriage between Sam and Fannie was valid in New York, because the degree of consanguinity of uncle and niece was not repugnant to New York’s laws.
The question was whether to recognize a Rhode Island marriage between an uncle and a niece that would otherwise be void if performed in New York.
The New York Court of Appeals found that New York law only penalizes a void marriage celebrated elsewhere. Although the New York statute declared to be incestuous and void a marriage between an uncle and a niece, it imposed only penal measures upon the parties thereto, without regulating the validity of a marriage solemnized in another state. Since the law did not expressly declare void a marriage of its domiciliaries solemnized in a foreign state where such marriage is valid, the statute’s scope should not be extended by judicial construction.
LLORENTE V. COURT OF APPEALS[43]
The fact that the late Lorenzo N. Llorente became an American citizen long before and at the time of: (a) his divorce from Paula, a Filipina; (b) marriage to Alicia; (c) execution of his will; and (4d) death, was duly established, admitted and undisputed.
The marriage-related question in this case was whether the foreign divorce decree obtained by Lorenzo from the Superior Court of the State of California should be given legal effect in the Philippines. The answer was yes.
In Van Dorn v. Romillo, Jr.,[44] it was held that owing to the nationality principle embodied in Article 15 of the New 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. In the same case, however, the Court ruled that aliens may obtain divorces abroad, provided they are valid according to their national law. Citing this landmark case, the Court held in Quita v. Court of Appeals,[45] that once proven that respondent was no longer a Filipino citizen when he obtained the divorce from petitioner, the ruling in Van Dorn would become applicable and petitioner could “very well lose her right to inherit” from him. In Pilapil v. Ibay-Somera,[46] the Court recognized the divorce obtained by the respondent in his country, the Federal Republic of Germany. That case stated that divorce and its legal effects may be recognized in the Philippines insofar as respondent is concerned in view of the nationality principle in Philippine civil law on the status of persons.
Following these earlier rulings, the Supreme Court held that the divorce obtained by Lorenzo from his first wife Paula was valid and should be recognized in this jurisdiction as a matter of comity. However, as to the effects of this divorce – such as but not limited to the succession to the estate of the decedent, such matters would be best left to the determination of a trial court.
x---------------------------------------------x
[1] Article 1 of the Family Code of the Philippines.
[2] See US v. Antipolo, G.R. No. L-13109, March 6, 1918 where the Supreme Court used the term “status of marriage.” See also Falcis III v. Civil Registrar General, G.R. No. 217910, September 03, 2019.
[3] Article 15 of the New Civil Code of the Philippines.
[4] Section 2 of Article XV of the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines.
[5] Falcis III v. Civil Registrar General, G.R. No. 217910, September 03, 2019.
[6] Republic v. Albios, G.R. No. 198780, October 16, 2013.
[7] Article 2 of the Family Code of the Philippines.
[8] Article 3 of the Family Code of the Philippines.
[9] Article 1356 of the New Civil Code of the Philippines which provides: “Art. 1356. Contracts shall be obligatory in whatever form they may have been entered into, provided all the essential requisites for their validity are present.”
[10] G.R. No. 145226, February 06, 2004.
[11] See also Ado-an-Morimoto v. Mirimoto, G.R. No. 247576, March 15, 2021, wherein the Supreme Court said: “This case is worse than Santiago, as there is not even a marriage ceremony to speak of,” thereby recognizing the fatal nature of lack of ceremony.
[12] Family Code of the Philippines.
[13] Article 4 of the Family Code of the Philippines.
[14] Article 1 of the Family Code of the Philippines.
[15] The New Civil Code says: “Article 17. The forms and solemnities of contracts, wills, and other public instruments shall be governed by the laws of the country in which they are executed.”
[16] Ambrose v. Ambrose, G.R. No. 206761, June 23, 2021.
[17] Hasegawa v. Kitamura, 563 Phil. 572, 587-588 (2007).
[18] Ambrose v. Ambrose, G.R. No. 206761, June 23, 2021.
[19] Hasegawa v. Kitamura, 563 Phil. 572, 587-588 (2007).
[20] G.R. Nos. 95122, May 31, 1991, 274 Phil. 1156.
[21] This words “formally valid” is underlined here for emphasis because it appears from the Supreme Court’s ruling that the validity of marriage celebrated in a foreign country spoken of under Article 26 of the Family Code of the Philippines refers only to “formal validity” or “extrinsic validity.” However, please note that, under the same article, incestuous and quasi-incestuous marriages, among others, are still not considered valid in the Philippines even if validly celebrated abroad.
[22] 50 Phil. 867 [ G.R. No. 22595, November 01, 1924 ].
[23] Article 21 of the Family Code of the Philippines.
[24] Article 26 of the Family Code of the Philippines.
[25] Yañez de Barnuevo v. Fuster, G.R. No. L-7487, December 29, 1913.
[26] Article 16. Real property as well as personal property is subject to the law of the country where it is situated.
However, intestate and testamentary successions, both with respect to the order of succession and to the amount of successional rights and to the intrinsic validity of testamentary provisions, shall be regulated by the national law of the person whose succession is under consideration, whatever may be the nature of the property and regardless of the country wherein said property may be found.
Article 17. The forms and solemnities of contracts, wills, and other public instruments shall be governed by the laws of the country in which they are executed.
When the acts referred to are executed before the diplomatic or consular officials of the Republic of the Philippines in a foreign country, the solemnities established by Philippine laws shall be observed in their execution.
Prohibitive laws concerning persons, their acts or property, and those which have for their object public order, public policy and good customs, shall not be rendered ineffective by laws or judgments promulgated, or by determinations or conventions agreed upon in a foreign country.
Article 815. When a Filipino is in a foreign country, he is authorized to make a will in any of the forms established by the law of the country in which he may be. Such will may be probated in the Philippines.
Article 816. The will of an alien who is abroad produces effect in the Philippines if made with the formalities prescribed by the law of the place in which he resides, or according to the formalities observed in his country, or in conformity with those which this Code prescribes.
Article 817. A will made in the Philippines by a citizen or subject of another country, which is executed in accordance with the law of the country of which he is a citizen or subject, and which might be proved and allowed by the law of his own country, shall have the same effect as if executed according to the laws of the Philippines.
Article 819. Wills, prohibited by the preceding article, executed by Filipinos in a foreign country shall not be valid in the Philippines, even though authorized by the laws of the country where they may have been executed.
Article 1039. Capacity to succeed is governed by the law of the nation of the decedent.
[27] See Ching Leng v. Galang, L-11931, October 1958.
[28] Falcis III v. Civil Registrar General, G.R. No. 217910, September 03, 2019.
[29] Article 350. Marriage contracted against provisions of laws. - The penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods shall be imposed upon any person who, without being included in the provisions of the next preceding article, shall contract marriage knowing that the requirements of the law have not been complied with or that the marriage is in disregard of a legal impediment. If either of the contracting parties shall obtain the consent of the other by means of violence, intimidation or fraud, he shall be punished by the maximum period of the penalty provided in the next preceding paragraph. (Revised Penal Code of the Philippines)
[30] Marriage contracted against provisions of laws.
[31] Article 26 of the Family Code of the Philippines.
[32] Article 26 of Family Code of the Philippines, as amended by Executive Order 227.
[33] Article 80 of the Family Code of the Philippines.
[34] Article 225 of Family Code of the Philippines.
[35] 642 Phil. 420 [ G.R. No. 186571. August 11, 2010 ].
[36] Article 15 of the New Civil Code of the Philippines.
[37] Note, however, the latest rulings of the Supreme Court on this matter such as the case of Republic v. Manalo, 831 Phil. 33 [ G.R. No. 221029. April 24, 2018 ].
[38] Garcia v. Recio, 418 Phil. 723 [ G.R. No. 138322. October 02, 2001 ].
[39] Herera, Remedial Law, Volume II, Rules 23-56 (2007 ed.), p. 529.
[40] Republic v. Orbecido III, 509 Phil. 108 FIRST DIVISION [ G.R. NO. 154380. October 05, 2005 ]
[41] Silverio v. Republic, G.R. No. 174689, October 22, 2007.
[42] 305 N.Y. 486, 114 N.E.2d 4 (1953).
[43] 399 Phil. 342 [ G.R. No. 124371. November 23, 2000 ].
[44] 139 SCRA 139 (1985).
[45] 300 SCRA 406 (1998).
[46] 174 SCRA 653 (1989).
