PERSONS & FAMILY RELATIONS REVIEWER

ARTICLE 38

CASE TITLESUMMARY

AUDLEY VS AUDLEY

- W/N prohibitive marriages between uncles and nieces or aunts and nephews include half-blood relationships. - SC: Yes; it was considered that the public policy of making no distinction between relatives of the whole and half-blood in legislating on questions of marriage and incest was sufficiently shown, and that it was not necessary to repeat that specification of relationship.- Justice MgLaughlin: It would be technically inaccurate to use half blood in relation to uncle & niece

CAMPBELL VS CAMPBELLMarriages between an aunt and a nephew or an uncle and a niece, while there is no reference to whether they were of the whole or half-blood, held that the prohibition extended to relatives of the half & whole blood.

IN RE SIMMS ESTATEMarriage between uncle and niece by the half blood is not incestuous and void, because such marriage is not specifically included by law as a void marriage. - If the legislature intended to prohibit marriages between uncles, nieces, aunts and nephews whose parents were related to the contracting party only by half blood, it would have used similar language. - its failure to do so suggests that it did not intend to put this limited class within the interdiction.

BACK VS BACKMarriage between step-father and former wifes daughter from a previous husband SC: Allowed if there are no more issues/children between step-father and mother.

ARTICLE 39

NIAL VS BAYADOGChildren filed a case for the declaration of nullity of a marriage of the deceased contracting party only after the latters death. SC: Such petition can proceed & is imprescriptible.

PEREZ VS CASecond wife filed a petition for intervention in the declaration of nullity of marriage case filed by her husband in relation to the latters first marriage. SC: Denied petition; Second wife has no legal interest to justify her intervention. Since divorce obtained by her husband in the Dominican Republic from the first wife to be able to marry the second wife was not recognized in the Philippines, Philippine law does not recognize the second marriage of her husband to her.

ARTICLE 40

DOMINGO VS CAThe reason for the need to obtain a judicial declaration of nullity for purposes of remarriage:1. cause of action2. ground for defense

TERRE VS TERRESC: Turned down the defense of respondent Terre who was charged with grossly immoral conduct consisting of contracting a second marriage and living with another woman other than petitioner while his prior marriage with the latter remained subsisting. Art. 40 applies

DE CASTRO VS ASSIDAO- DE CASTROSC: In a case for support, a lower court can declare a marriage void even without prior judicial declaration of nullity of a void marriage filed in a separate action considering that the determination of the issue on the validity of marriage was important in the resolution of the right of child to be supported.

NICDAO CARIO VS CARIOSC: While acknowledging that the previous marriage was void for having been solemnized without a marriage license, the subsequent marriage of one of the parties was bigamous because the 1st marriage, though void, was still presumed to be valid considering that there was no judicial declaration of nullity. confuses Art. 40 & 41 SC: Difference between Art. 40 & 41 must be maintained.

MERCADO VS MERCADOCriminal offense of bigamy is committed for as long as a subsequent marriage was contracted by a person without him or her obtaining a judicial declaration of nullity of his or her 1st marriage. for as long as Art. 40 was not complied with, the subsequent marriage shall be criminally bigamous.

PEOPLE VS COBARSC: A party to a void marriage who remarries without prior judicial declaration of nullity of such marriage is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of bigamy.

- 1964: Marriage license was issued in Marawi City for Vicente Cobra & Rosalita Decena - after 1 year, they married - 1991: appellant contracted 2nd marriage with Genera Herodias at Misamis Occidental, while marriage with Rosalita Decena had not been judicially declared void ab initio.- LOWER COURT: Vicente is liable for bigamy, despite marriage with Rosalita was void for using expired marriage license. - SC: Vicente is not liable for bigamy, since it was established that 1st marriage with Rosalita was void.