Free Legal Advice

[csmary]

Without any legal docs nor any records of marriage, what are ALL the requisites to make a marriage valid in the eyes of the law?

Articles 2 and 3 of the Family Code of the Philippines mention the formal and essential requisites of a valid marriage, i.e.,

Art. 2. No marriage shall be valid, unless these essential requisites are 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. (meaning there is no force or intimidation on either of the contracting parties)

Art. 3. The formal requisites of marriage are:

(1) Authority of the solemnizing officer; (Note: Not all priest can solemnize a marriage).

(2) A valid marriage license except in the cases provided by law; and

(3) 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.




And how can an oral marriage be proven in the court of law ?

The witnesses may prove that during such date a marriage was celebrated between the parties (husband or wife).


angel_cry

Sorry if I didnt make myself clear. Let me try again.

Sa 1st question.
Halimbawa si Lisa at Joey talagang kasal. For whatever reason, Lisa is denying in court she was or is married to Joey. Paano mapapatunayan ni Joey sa court na kasal talaga sila ni Lisa kung wala naman siyang maipakitang marriage cert (got lost), at walang record of marriage sa registrar and church (major error at the registrar & church) ?
Sabihin na natin simpleh lang ang naging kasal nila noon ie; walang video, pictures, reception receipts, honeymoon receipts. And all witnesses and the priest were long gone (dead).

Sa 2nd question.
What if all witnesses and the priest were long gone (dead).

Hope you understand where Im coming from. You could say this is an extreme and difficult case. Maybe not for some lawyers. Thx

[angel_cry]

what happens if a 25 year old male meets a 16 year old female in a bar and agree to have consensual sex. i'm assuming she is just tipsy but not drunk. he didn't use any deceit.

how about if a 25 year old male meets a 16 year old gro and gives her money to have sex. giving money might be considered 'deceit' but would she be considered to be 'of good reputation'?

Hi rickym,

In both situations, should the girl files a criminal case against the guy, there is very slim chances of prosecuting him under simple seduction. While it is essential in this crime that the woman seduced be a virgin, it is necessary that she be of good reputation. Note that it is an essential element of this crime that the offender use deceit in order to have sexual intercourse with the offended party. However, the guy who took advantage of the victim does not have to use deceit in order to have sexual intercourse with her since the victim here either consents or a child prostitutes.

The deceit spoken of in this crime generally takes the form of an unfulfilled promise of marriage. Money cannot be considered to be part of the term deceit.

But please note however, as per my discussions on my earlier post, that we have this RA 9262 or AN ACT DEFINING VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND THEIR CHILDREN. This can be used against the offender.


angel_cry

[rickym]

While it is essential in this crime that the woman seduced be a virgin, it is necessary that she be of good reputation.

did i read correctly? the woman must be a virgin? for the case to push through?

[angel_cry]

Sorry if I didnt make myself clear. Let me try again.

Sa 1st question.
Halimbawa si Lisa at Joey talagang kasal. For whatever reason, Lisa is denying in court she was or is married to Joey. Paano mapapatunayan ni Joey sa court na kasal talaga sila ni Lisa kung wala naman siyang maipakitang marriage cert (got lost), at walang record of marriage sa registrar and church (major error at the registrar & church) ?
Sabihin na natin simpleh lang ang naging kasal nila noon ie; walang video, pictures, reception receipts, honeymoon receipts. And all witnesses and the priest were long gone (dead).

Sa 2nd question.
What if all witnesses and the priest were long gone (dead).

Hope you understand where Im coming from. You could say this is an extreme and difficult case. Maybe not for some lawyers. Thx

Hi csmary,

This is not really extremely difficult case since there are Supreme Court decisions involving the same issue.

As previously mentioned, an oral marriage is valid and existing assuming that all the requisites for its validity are present.

The situation you narrated above involved three (3) issues. First, lost marriage certificate. If Joey cannot present a marriage certificate before the court because you said it got lost, then he can ask for a copy before the local civil registrar or with the NSO. The NSO mandatorily requires the civil registrar to furnish the latter a record of all marriages solemnized at the end of each month. If marriage was celebrated in a church, even if the church failed to record the same before the registrar, Joey may check their book of records. The church is likewise required to record all marriages solemnized before them.

Second, No record before the registrar and church (major error at the registrar & church) and third, all witnesses and priest were dead. Should the situation be impossible for Joey to present relevant documents to prove the existence of their marriage, he may personally testify before the court and narrate how the marriage was celebrated. When we say narrate, he must indicate in his oral testimony all relevant information including the dates involved, how the marriage took place, the venue and even the participation of his witnesses during the time of the celebration of marriage.

Note that the court does not only consider object evidence but it can also give weight to testimonial evidence.


angel_cry

[angel_cry]

did i read correctly? the woman must be a virgin? for the case to push through?

Yes. You read it correctly as expressly stated under the law.

angel_cry

[angel_cry]

Whenever married persons seek legal advice from us for the purpose of terminating their existing marriages also manifested their intention to remarry should the Court grant them the annulment decree. It is either that they are already into an existing relationship or that their fiancé (foreigner) will soon petition them for the issuance of a fiancee visa.

The ground for nullity of marriage from these people is always the same – psychological incapacity. For those who may not know, psychological incapacity is one of the grounds to nullify a marriage pursuant to Article 36 of the Family Code.

One very common psychological incapacity disorders for male respondents is Narcissistic Personality Disorder. A person with this personality disorder usually manifests the following symptoms:

1. Grandiose sense of self-importance: a) Hangs out with his friends more often than with his wife and family;

2. Preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty or ideal love;

3. Requires excessive admiration;

4. Sense of entitlement: a) Spends most of his time hanging out with his‘barkada’; b) Let others solve his problems as if it is their obligation; c) Hooked on illicit drugs; and d) Sold anything of value to finance his vices;

4. Interpersonally exploitative: a) Shows kindness on the outside but has an ulterior motive; b) Blackmails his wife with empty promises to amend his old ways to get what he wants;

5. Lacks empathy;

6. Often envious of others or believes that others are envious of him;

7. Arrogance, haughty behavior: a) Can be nice to people especially when he needs something; b) Irritable, argumentative and short-tempered when what he wants are not met; c) Shuns away from problems and let others solve them for him; and d) Forced his wife to have sexual intercourse with him despite her refusal;

8. Belief that he is “special” and unique: a) Usually a black sheep in the family; b) Admitted to his wife that he cannot anymore change his ways;

angel_cry

[csmary]

Thank you angel_cry. I appreciate your patience and diligence.

[angel_cry]

Thank you angel_cry. I appreciate your patience and diligence.

No worries. Just let me know if you still have other legal concerns.

for those who emailed me, again, thank you.

I will keep on posting legal topics to give you ideas and awareness on your rights as an individual.


angel_cry

[angel_cry]

Art. 358. Slander (Oral Defamation)

I. Concept: It is understood as the speaking of base and defamatory words which tend to prejudice another in his reputation, office, trade, business or means of livelihood

II. Oral or verbal Defamation is of two kinds: (1) Grave when it is of a serious and insulting kind or (2) Simple

A. Factors to consider:
1. The expression used including their sense, grammatical significance and accepted ordinary meaning
2. The personal relations of the accused and the offended party, as when both are bitter enemies
3. The special circumstances of the case and its antecedents, such as the time, place and occasion of the utterances, persons present
4. The social standing and position of the offended party

B. Words uttered in the heat of anger or in a quarrel, with some provocation on the part of the victim, is simple slander.

III. The victim may not have heard the words, it is enough that a third person heard them.

IV. Words uttered in one occasion and place and directed at several persons not mentioned individually constitute only one offense.

V. Words used as expletives (i.e. to express anger, displeasure, are not defamatory)

1. Example: the words “P*ta, P*tang Ina Mo” are common enough expressions in the dialect that are often employed, not really to slander but rather to express anger or displeasure. It is seldom, if ever, taken in its literal sense by the hearer, that is, as a reflection on the virtues of the mother “(PP. vs. Reyes quoted in Villanueva vs. PP)

Art. 359. Slander By Deed.
I. The performance of any act which shall cast dishonor, discredit or contempt upon another person. Depending upon the seriousness of the act, the time, place, occasion, the character of the victim, it is either Grave or Light.

II. If it is not proven that the purpose of the act is to humiliate or embarrass the act may either be maltreatment or unjust vexation.

III. Poking a dirty finger ordinarily connotes the phrase “F*ck you” which is similar to the expression “P*ta” or “P*tang Ina Mo” and, when there is provocation from the victim, is simple slander by deed ( Viilanueva vs. Pp)

angel_cry

[rickym]

exactly how drunk must a girl be for her to be able to charge for rape if she is not taken by force?

[rickym]

if a man get's a promiscuous woman pregnant. he would have to pay for the child's support. what if the woman has no visible means of income and makes it a career to have rich boyfriends and occasionally prostitutes herself. can the father claim that the mother of the child is not a good role model and get the child and bring the child up himself?

[rickym]

if one writes a story like 'da vinci code' or 'noli me tangere', how do they manage to get off the charge of 'slander' or 'libel'. does one just have to say that the whole thing is a work of fiction?

[angel_cry]

exactly how drunk must a girl be for her to be able to charge for rape if she is not taken by force?

Hi rickym,

Intoxication (or being drunk) is not an element of the crime of rape. The elements that constitute the crime of rape are carnal knowledge, force or intimidation and the commission of the act without the consent, or against the will, of the woman, or where the latter is under 12 years of age, or when she is deprived of reason, or otherwise unconscious (Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code).

The generally recognized rule of criminal jurisprudence is that voluntary intoxication is no defense to a criminal act. Thus, it constitutes no defense to the charge of rape, or an assault with intent to commit rape. However, if the condition of the accused at the time of the alleged act is one of insanity caused by drink, he may offer such fact as a defense.

Intoxication may be a defense to the crime of rape when it produces a mental condition of insanity.

In a prosecution for attempted rape, it was held that "if the defendant's mental faculties were so far overcome by intoxication that he was not conscious of what he was doing, the jury might find that he did not have the sufficient capacity to entertain the intent to ravish (Reagan v. State, 28 Tax App 227, SW 601).

Voluntary intoxication is no excuse for the crime of rape (regardless of level or degree of intoxication), even though it is carried to the extent of producing an incapacity to control the mind and will.

angel_cry

[rickym]

Hi rickym,

Intoxication (or being drunk) is not an element of the crime of rape. The elements that constitute the crime of rape are carnal knowledge, force or intimidation and the commission of the act without the consent, or against the will, of the woman, or where the latter is under 12 years of age, or when she is deprived of reason, or otherwise unconscious (Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code).

The generally recognized rule of criminal jurisprudence is that voluntary intoxication is no defense to a criminal act. Thus, it constitutes no defense to the charge of rape, or an assault with intent to commit rape. However, if the condition of the accused at the time of the alleged act is one of insanity caused by drink, he may offer such fact as a defense.

Intoxication may be a defense to the crime of rape when it produces a mental condition of insanity.

In a prosecution for attempted rape, it was held that "if the defendant's mental faculties were so far overcome by intoxication that he was not conscious of what he was doing, the jury might find that he did not have the sufficient capacity to entertain the intent to ravish (Reagan v. State, 28 Tax App 227, SW 601).

Voluntary intoxication is no excuse for the crime of rape (regardless of level or degree of intoxication), even though it is carried to the extent of producing an incapacity to control the mind and will.

angel_cry

wait lang, i think you are talking about the offender being drunk. i was talking about the victim being drunk. you mean if she voluntarily drinks and passes out and the man has sexual knowledge, she can't sue for rape?

[angel_cry]

if a man get's a promiscuous woman pregnant. he would have to pay for the child's support. what if the woman has no visible means of income and makes it a career to have rich boyfriends and occasionally prostitutes herself. can the father claim that the mother of the child is not a good role model and get the child and bring the child up himself?

Hi rickym,

Yes. The father may file a petition for custody of his child before the RTC. The General rule actually is that the custody of a child below 7 years old belongs to the mother. However, Article 213 of the Family Code likewise states the exception as to a mother's custody of a child below 7 years of age: In case of separation of the parents, parental authority shall be exercised by the parent designated by the Court. The Court shall take into account all relevant considerations, especially the choice of the child over 7 years of age, unless the parent chosen is unfit.

No child under 7 years of age shall be separated from the mother, unless the court finds compelling reasons to order otherwise.

The general rule is that custody of a child below 7 years of age belongs to the mother. The exception however is that if there are compelling reasons, such custody may be denied and granted to another party. The compelling reasons which can be used by the father against the mother of the child are: "neglect, abandonment, unemployment and immorality, habitual drunkenness, drug addiction, maltreatment of the child, insanity, and affliction with a communicable illness."

Any of these reasons may be used by the father against the mother to gain custody of his child.

angel_cry

[angel_cry]

wait lang, i think you are talking about the offender being drunk. i was talking about the victim being drunk. you mean if she voluntarily drinks and passes out and the man has sexual knowledge, she can't sue for rape?

She can. Take note of the elements of rape: carnal knowledge, force or intimidation and the commission of the act without the consent, or against the will, of the woman, or where the latter is under 12 years of age, or when she is deprived of reason, or otherwise unconscious (Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code).

Carnal knowledge means sexual intercourse. It is the actual contact of the sexual organs of a man and a woman. It denotes penetration. Penetration means that the sex organ of the male entered the sexual organ of the female. The slightest penetration is enough for conviction in the crime of rape. For a consummated rape to exist, it is not necessary that there be a complete penetration or destruction of the hymen. Perfect penetration is not essential. Mere entry into the labia or lips of the female private parts without rupture of the hymen, or laceration of the vagina is sufficient to warrant conviction.

angel_cry

[angel_cry]

Hi,

To those whom I have not answered their queries yet...my apology. Kindly wait within this week until early next week. I will soon attend to all your legal problems. 'just need to finish some urgent matters.

angel_cry

[angel_cry]

Please be reminded that our advice is based solely on the facts you have narrated and our appreciation of the same. Our opinion may vary when other facts are changed or elaborated.

Also, in case our names and e-mail addresses will unfortunately be hacked and you will receive an odd or spam e-mail soliciting money as token from previous advice that you received or as fee for "additional legal advice" please DISREGARD it as it is most likely coming from unauthorized person.

We would like to reiterate it again that we DO NOT ask for any consideration in the form of money or anything for the advice we have given.

angel_cry

[angel_cry]

Hi everyone,

Additional knowledge...

Don't be confused between LIFE IMPRISONMENT and RECLUSION PERPETUA.

In People vs. Baguio, April 30, 1991 [196 SCRA 459], the Court emphasized that RECLUSION PERPETUA is not the same as LIFE IMPRISONMENT, as "the Code [Revised Penal Code] does not prescribe the penalty of life imprisonment for any of the felonies therein defined, the penalty being invariably imposed for serious offenses penalized NOT by the Revised Penal Code but by SPECIAL LAWS.

Reclusion perpetua entails imprisonment for at least thirty [30] years after which the convict becomes eligible for PARDON. It also carries with it accessory penalties, namely: perpetual special disqualification, etc. It is not the same as "life imprisonment" which, for one thing, does not carry with it any accessory penalty, and for another, does not appear to have any definite extent or duration.

angel_cry

[angel_cry]

What is a WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS?

“Habeas corpus” is a Latin phrase which literally means “you have the body”. Basically, it is a writ directed to the person detaining another, commanding him to produce the body of the prisoner at a designated time and place, with the day and cause of his capture and detention, to do, submit to, and receive whatsoever the court or judge awarding the writ shall consider in that behalf.

What is the scope of the writ of habeas corpus?

The writ of habeas corpus generally extends to all cases of illegal confinement or detention by which a person is deprived of liberty, or the rightful custody of a person is withheld from the person entitled thereto.

Who may issue the writ of habeas corpus?

The writ may be issued by the Supreme Court or by the Court of Appeals or any member thereof, enforceable anywhere in the Philippines.

It may also be issued by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) or any judge thereof, enforceable only within the judicial district.

To whom is the writ directed?

If the detention is by an officer, the writ shall be directed to him, commanding him to bring the body of the person restrained of liberty before the court at the time and place specified.

If the detention is by a person other than an officer, then the writ shall be directed to an officer commanding him to the same effect and to summon the person restraining. The respondent will be asked to explain the cause of the detention.

When shall the subject person be released?

When the prisoner is unlawfully restrained, the court or judge shall order his discharge which shall not be effective until a copy of the order is served on the officer or person detaining the prisoner. If such officer or person does not desire to appeal, the prisoner shall be forthwith released.

angel_cry