Department of Justice Manila Avty. Jor - Legal Adv Department of Forei Manila sn Affaire six This refers to the inquiry as’ to whether 4 before a certificate of legal marriage contracted issued is valid or capacity to contract marriage wi not sed in connecti with the 90 of Mr. Bradley J. Latte. an to Josefina Vallar, a Filipino The qi marriage in Januar’ Australian nationa citizen It appears. that Mr. Latta was issued te of legal capacity to contract marriage ctor the sald marriage which is not in accordance with Art. 21 of the Family Code which requires that “(when either or both of the contracting parties @ citizens of a foreign country, it shall be necsted for them before a marriage license can be obtained, (or submit a certificate of legal capacity to contract marriage,, issued by their diplomatic or consular ae eseia.” The Australian Embassy claims that such gre narriage is void from the beginning pursuant to 8 ige8 ruling of the Secretary of Justice certifi the isaue to be resolved is whether a marriage contracted in the Philippines without a certificate coeieeel capacity bul with a marriage license is vold ab_initio. Interpreting the provision of the New Civil Code, thie Department in 1987 (not 1988) had occasion to pass upon this jecue and stated that “when one | oF Leth of the contracting parties are citizens of a foreign country, Article G6 of the Civil Code enjoins the parties to provide themselves with a certificate cf legal capacity to contract marriage as a pre requisite to the issuance of a marriage license f : ‘hie requirement was considered — mandator: in Chasacter oo that failure to comply therewith will ceeter the marriage void ab initio (Sec. of Justice Op. No. 136, 8. 1987).tnt, i Parenthetically, in Opinions dated October 5 1946 and No. 28, 5 » this Department, also held 1 in case the fulfillment of the requirement is rendered impossible of performance, an affidavit executed the alien contracting party or parties certifying as to such party’s or parties” legal capacity to contract marriage before the local civi registrar concerned or before any public official suthorized to solemnize marriage may be deemed a satisfactory substitute for the certificate of legal eapacity required in Article 66 and would accomplish the purpose of the law, which is “to protect the sanctity of the institution of marriage in thi country by providing the necessary safeguards againet marriages of persons without the legal capacity to do however, of the Family Code of 4 » modified Article 1 Code. with respect to the requisites of marri Thue, under Articles 2 and 3 of the Family Cc the Philippines, a marriage hao sential and formal requisites. ‘The aforesaid articles provide The effectivity © Philippines on A >3 of the New ( marriage shall be ential requisites are Art valid unless present: (1) ° Legal capacity of the contracting parties who must be a male and a female; and (2) Consent freely given in the Presence of the solemnizing officer. Art The formal requisites of marriage are: (1) Authority of the solemizing officer; (2) & valid marriage license except in the © provided for in Chapter 2 of thie Title; ca and (3) A marriage ceremony which takes plac with the appearance of the contracting parties a vidcbaecas baniedbefore the solemizing 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 The absence of eny of the requieites shall render the art essential or formal lage void ab initio. except as stated in le 35(a) Arti A defect in any of the essential requisites shall render the marriage voidable as provided in Article 45 An irregularity in the formal 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. The above-quoted provisions in clear and unmistakable terms state that any irregularity in the formal requisites ef a marriage, one of which is & marriage license, will not affect the validity of the marriage. ‘Thus, it has been held that the marriage under a license is not invalidated by the fact that the license waa wrongfully or fraudulently obtained without prejudice to the prosecution of the parties (People vs. Belen, 45 0.G. Sup]. No. 5, p. 88; Helcher v. Melcher, 102 Neb. 790, 169 N.W. 720, cited im Tolentino, Civil Code of the Philippines, v. I, p na officer does not have not the license has been It 213); and that the solemni: to investigate whether or properly lesued (People v. Janson, 54 Phil. 176) | ie the absence of an essential or formal requisite } that will render the marriage void abinitio (Art. 4, {iret paragraph, E.0. No. 209, as amended). It is worth observing that the law specifies what marriages jee void from the beginning and the absence of a tertificate of legal capacity to marry is not one of those enumetated. It 1s therefore our view that the marriage of Mr. Bradley Latta and Josefina Vallar is not void ab Anitio. Please be guided accordingly. atte Very truly yours, | FRANA\IN M. DRILON | poretary | |