Unscrupulous individuals cannot be allowed to use the courts as instruments in their fraudulent schemes.

"Love, though the ideal consideration in a marriage contract, is not the only valid cause for marriage. Other considerations, not precluded by law, may validly support a marriage."

[...] "The Court cannot declare such a marriage void in the event the parties fail to qualify for immigration benefits, after they have availed of its benefits, or simply have no further use for it. These unscrupulous individuals cannot be allowed to use the courts as instruments in their fraudulent schemes."

[G.R. No. 198780 October 16, 2013]

✍️👨‍⚖️ MENDOZA, J.

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.

Consent must also be conscious or intelligent, in that the parties must be capable of intelligently understanding the nature of, and both the beneficial or unfavorable consequences of their act. Their understanding should not be affected by insanity, intoxication, drugs, or hypnotism.

Based on the above, consent was [not lacking between Albios and Fringer]. 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.

The avowed purpose of marriage under Article 1 of the Family Code is for the couple to establish a conjugal and family life. The possibility that the parties in a marriage might have no real intention to establish a life together is, however, insufficient to nullify a marriage freely entered into in accordance with law. The same Article 1 provides that the nature, consequences, and incidents of marriage are governed by law and not subject to stipulation. A marriage may, thus, only be declared void or voidable under the grounds provided by law. There is no law that declares a marriage void if it is entered into for purposes other than what the Constitution or law declares, such as the acquisition of foreign citizenship. Therefore, so long as all the essential and formal requisites prescribed by law are present, and it is not void or voidable under the grounds provided by law, it shall be declared valid.

Motives for entering into a marriage are varied and complex. The State does not and cannot dictate on the kind of life that a couple chooses to lead. Any attempt to regulate their lifestyle would go into the realm of their right to privacy and would raise serious constitutional questions. The right to marital privacy allows married couples to structure their marriages in almost any way they see fit, to live together or live apart, to have children or no children, to love one another or not, and so on. Thus, marriages entered into for other purposes, limited or otherwise, such as convenience, companionship, money, status, and title, provided that they comply with all the legal requisites, are equally valid. Love, though the ideal consideration in a marriage contract, is not the only valid cause for marriage. Other considerations, not precluded by law, may validly support a marriage.

Ads:

For a thorough understanding of Civil Law, we recommend the following books:

Persons and Family Relation

https://go.shopple.co/spgbxf

Paras Book III

https://c.lazada.com.ph/t/c.YpmrcQ

Civil Law Review by Jurado

https://c.lazada.com.ph/t/c.YpmsmJ

Bar Questions and Answers; UP Law Complex; Civil Law

https://c.lazada.com.ph/t/c.YpmsNF

Codal; Civil Law

Civil Code of the Philippines (Codal) 2022 [Hardcover] https://go.shopple.co/spgww0

Civil Law Bar Q-and-A; Central Bookstore

https://c.lazada.com.ph/t/c.YpsRr4

Case Digest in Civil Law; Q-and-A format

https://c.lazada.com.ph/t/c.YpsRrU

You may also like to read: How I did it; how I aced the Bar Exams. https://go.shopple.co/spgese

Neither can their marriage be considered voidable on the ground of fraud under Article 45 (3) of the Family Code. Only the circumstances listed under Article 46 of the same Code may constitute fraud, namely:

(1) non- disclosure of a previous conv1ctwn involving moral turpitude;

(2) concealment by the wife of a pregnancy by another man;

(3) concealment of a sexually transmitted disease; and

(4) concealment of drug addiction, alcoholism, or homosexuality. No other misrepresentation or deceit shall constitute fraud as a ground for an action to annul a marriage. Entering into a marriage for the sole purpose of evading immigration laws does not qualify under any of the listed circumstances.

Furthermore, under Article 47 (3), the ground of fraud may only be brought by the injured or innocent party.

In the present case, there is no injured party because Albios and Fringer both conspired to enter into the sham marriage.

Albios has indeed made a mockery of the sacred institution of marriage. Allowing her marriage with Fringer to be declared void would only further trivialize this inviolable institution.

The Court cannot declare such a marriage void in the event the parties fail to qualify for immigration benefits, after they have availed of its benefits, or simply have no further use for it. These unscrupulous individuals cannot be allowed to use the courts as instruments in their fraudulent schemes. Albios already misused a judicial institution to enter into a marriage of convenience; she should not be allowed to again abuse it to get herself out of an inconvenient situation.

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.

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The September 29, 2011 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 95414 is ANNULLED, and Civil Case No. 1134-06 is DISMISSED for utter lack of merit.

[G.R. No. 198780 October 16, 2013]

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner,

vs.

LIBERTY D. ALBIOS, Respondent.

✍️👨‍⚖️ MENDOZA, J.

Read full text:

https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/oct2013/gr_198780_2013.html