585

VOL. 707, OCTOBER 16, 2013 585

Republic vs. Albios

G.R. No. 198780. October 16, 2013.* immigration purposes and, therefore, does not purport to rule on
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. the legal validity or existence of a marriage.
LIBERTY D. ALBIOS, respondent. Same; Same; Same; Under Article 2 of the Family Code, for
consent to be valid, it must be (1) freely given and (2) made in the
Civil Law; Marriages; “Limited Purpose” Marriages; Words presence of a solemnizing officer.―Under Article 2 of the Family
and Phrases; In the United States, marriages where a couple Code, consent is an essential requisite of marriage. Article 4 of the
marries only to achieve a particular purpose or acquire specific same Code provides that the absence of any essential requisite
benefits, have been referred to as “limited purpose” marriages. A shall render a marriage void ab initio. Under said Article 2, for
common limited purpose marriage is one entered into solely for the consent to be valid, it must be (1) freely given and (2) made in the
legitimization of a child. Another is for immigration presence of a solemnizing officer. A “freely given” consent requires
purposes.―The institution of marriage carries with it concomitant that the contracting parties willingly and deliberately enter into
benefits. This has led to the development of marriage fraud for the marriage. Consent must be real in the sense that it is not
the sole purpose of availing of particular benefits. In the United vitiated nor rendered defective by any of the vices of consent
States, marriages where a couple marries only to achieve a under Articles 45 and 46 of the Family Code, such as fraud, force,
particular purpose or acquire specific benefits, have been referred intimidation, and undue influence. Consent must also be
to as “limited purpose” marriages. A common limited purpose conscious or intelligent, in that the parties must be capable of
marriage is one entered into solely for the legitimization of a intelligently understanding the nature of, and both the beneficial
child. Another, which is the subject of the present case, is for or unfavorable consequences of their act. Their understanding
immigration purposes. Immigration law is usually concerned with should not be affected by insanity, intoxication, drugs, or
the intention of the couple at the time of their marriage, and it hypnotism.
attempts to filter out those who use marriage solely to achieve
Same; Same; Marriages in Jest; A marriage in jest is a
immigration status.
pretended marriage, legal in form but entered into as a joke, with
Same; Same; Same; A “marriage is a sham if the bride and no real intention of entering into the actual marriage status, and
groom did not intend to establish a life together at the time they with a clear understanding that the parties would not be bound;
were married.”―In 1975, the seminal case of Bark v. Immigration Marriages in jest are void ab initio, not for vitiated, defective, or
and Naturalization Service, established the principal test for unintelligent consent, but for a complete absence of consent.―In
determining the presence of marriage fraud in immigration cases. ruling that Albios’ marriage was void for lack of consent, the CA
It ruled that a “marriage is a sham if the bride and groom did not characterized such as akin to a marriage by way of jest. A
intend to establish a life together at the time they were married.” marriage in jest is a pretended marriage, legal in form but
This standard was modified with the passage of the Immigration entered into as a joke, with no real intention of entering into the
Marriage Fraud Amendment of 1986 (IMFA), which now requires actual marriage status, and with a clear understanding that the
the couple to instead demonstrate that the marriage was not parties would not be bound. The ceremony is not followed by any
“entered into for the purpose of evading the immigration laws of conduct indicating a purpose to enter into such a relation. It is a
the United States.” The focus, thus, shifted from determining the pretended marriage not intended to be real and with no intention
intention to establish a life together, to determining the intention to create any legal ties whatsoever, hence, the absence of any
of evading immigration laws. It must be noted, however, that this genuine consent. Marriages in jest are void ab initio, not for
standard is used purely for vitiated, defective, or unintelligent consent, but for a complete
absence of consent. There is no genuine consent because the
_______________ parties have absolutely no intention of being bound in any way or
for any purpose.
* THIRD DIVISION.
 586

VOL. 707, OCTOBER 16, 2013 587

586 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Republic vs. Albios
Republic vs. Albios

Same; Same; No other misrepresentation or deceit shall

Same; Same; A marriage may, thus, only be declared void or constitute fraud as a ground for an action to annul a marriage.
voidable under the grounds provided by law; There is no law that Entering into a marriage for the sole purpose of evading
declares a marriage void if it is entered into for purposes other immigration laws does not qualify under any of the listed
than what the Constitution or law declares, such as the acquisition circumstances.―Neither can their marriage be considered voidable
of foreign citizenship; Therefore, so long as all the essential and on the ground of fraud under Article 45 (3) of the Family Code.
formal requisites prescribed by law are present, and it is not void Only the circumstances listed under Article 46 of the same Code
or voidable under the grounds provided by law, it shall be declared may constitute fraud, namely, (1) nondisclosure of a previous
valid.―The avowed purpose of marriage under Article 1 of the conviction involving moral turpitude; (2) concealment by the wife
Family Code is for the couple to establish a conjugal and family of a pregnancy by another man; (3) concealment of a sexually
life. The possibility that the parties in a marriage might have no transmitted disease; and (4) concealment of drug addiction,
real intention to establish a life together is, however, insufficient alcoholism, or homosexuality. No other misrepresentation or
to nullify a marriage freely entered into in accordance with law. deceit shall constitute fraud as a ground for an action to annul a
The same Article 1 provides that the nature, consequences, and marriage. Entering into a marriage for the sole purpose of
incidents of marriage are governed by law and not subject to evading immigration laws does not qualify under any of the listed
stipulation. A marriage may, thus, only be declared void or circumstances. Furthermore, under Article 47 (3), the ground of
voidable under the grounds provided by law. There is no law that fraud may only be brought by the injured or innocent party. In the
declares a marriage void if it is entered into for purposes other present case, there is no injured party because Albios and Fringer
than what the Constitution or law declares, such as the both conspired to enter into the sham marriage.
acquisition of foreign citizenship. Therefore, so long as all the Same; Same; No less than our Constitution declares that
essential and formal requisites prescribed by law are present, and marriage, as an inviolable social institution, is the foundation of
it is not void or voidable under the grounds provided by law, it the family and shall be protected by the State; The Supreme Court
shall be declared valid. cannot leave the impression that marriage may easily be entered
Same; Same; Marriages entered into for other purposes, into when it suits the needs of the parties, and just as easily
limited or otherwise, such as convenience, companionship, money, nullified when no longer needed.―No less than our Constitution
status, and title, provided that they comply with all the legal declares that marriage, as an inviolable social institution, is the
requisites, are equally valid.―Motives for entering into a marriage foundation of the family and shall be protected by the State. It
are varied and complex. The State does not and cannot dictate on must, therefore, be safeguarded from the whims and caprices of
the kind of life that a couple chooses to lead. Any attempt to the contracting parties. This Court cannot leave the impression
regulate their lifestyle would go into the realm of their right to that marriage may easily be entered into when it suits the needs
privacy and would raise serious constitutional questions. The of the parties, and just as easily nullified when no longer needed.
right to marital privacy allows married couples to structure their
marriages in almost any way they see fit, to live together or live PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the
apart, to have children or no children, to love one another or not, Court of Appeals.
and so on. Thus, marriages entered into for other purposes,    The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
limited or otherwise, such as convenience, companionship, money,   Office of the Solicitor General for petitioner.
status, and title, provided that they comply with all the legal   Albert T. Villaseca for respondent.
requisites, are equally valid. Love, though the ideal consideration
588
in a marriage contract, is not the only valid cause for marriage.
Other considerations, not precluded by law, may validly support a
marriage. 588 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
587 Republic vs. Albios
 At the pre-trial, only Albios, her counsel and the
MENDOZA, J.: prosecutor appeared. Fringer did not attend the hearing
This is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 despite being duly notified of the schedule. After the pre-
of the Rules of Court assailing the September 29, 2011 trial, hearing on the merits ensued.
Decision1 of the Court of Appeals (CA), in CA-G.R. CV No. Ruling of the RTC
95414, which affirmed the April 25, 2008 Decision2 of the In its April 25, 2008 Decision,5 the RTC declared the
Regional Trial Court, Imus, Cavite (RTC), declaring the marriage void ab initio, the dispositive portion of which
marriage of Daniel Lee Fringer (Fringer) and respondent reads:
Liberty Albios (Albios) as void from the beginning.
The Facts WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby
On October 22, 2004, Fringer, an American citizen, and rendered declaring the marriage of Liberty Albios and
Albios were married before Judge Ofelia I. Calo of the Daniel Lee Fringer as void from the very beginning. As a
Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 59, Mandaluyong City necessary consequence of this pronouncement, petitioner
(MeTC), as evidenced by a Certificate of Marriage with shall cease using the surname of respondent as she never
Register No. 2004-1588.3 acquired any right over it and so as to avoid a
On December 6, 2006, Albios filed with the RTC a misimpression that she remains the wife of respondent.
petition for declaration of nullity4 of her marriage with x x x x
Fringer. She alleged that immediately after their marriage, SO ORDERED.6
they separated and never lived as husband and wife
The RTC was of the view that the parties married each
because they never really had any intention of entering
other for convenience only. Giving credence to the
into a married state or complying with any of their
testimony of Albios, it stated that she contracted Fringer to
essential marital obligations. She described their marriage
enter into a marriage to enable her to acquire American
as one made in jest and, therefore, null and void ab initio.
citizenship; that in consideration thereof, she agreed to pay
Summons was served on Fringer but he did not file his
him the sum of $2,000.00; that after the ceremony, the
answer. On September 13, 2007, Albios filed a motion to set
parties went their separate ways; that Fringer returned to
case for pre-trial and to admit her pre-trial brief. The RTC
the United States and never again communicated with her;
ordered the Assistant Provincial Prosecutor to conduct an
and that, in turn, she did not pay him the $2,000.00
investiga-
because he never processed her petition for citizenship. The
RTC, thus, ruled that when
_______________
1 Rollo, pp. 26-32; penned by Associate Justice Juan Q. Enriquez, Jr.
_______________
and concurred in by Associate Justice Ramon M. Bato, Jr. and Associate
5 Id., at pp. 38-39.
Justice Florito S. Macalino of the Fifth Division, Manila.
6 Id., at p. 39.
2 Id., at pp. 38-39.
3 Id., at p. 37. 590
4 Id., at pp. 33-35.

589 590 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Republic vs. Albios
VOL. 707, OCTOBER 16, 2013 589
Republic vs. Albios marriage was entered into for a purpose other than the
establishment of a conjugal and family life, such was a
farce and should not be recognized from its inception.
tion and determine the existence of a collusion. On October
Petitioner Republic of the Philippines, represented by
2, 2007, the Assistant Prosecutor complied and reported
the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), filed a motion for
that she could not make a determination for failure of both
reconsideration. The RTC issued the Order,7 dated
parties to appear at the scheduled investigation.
February 5, 2009, denying the motion for want of merit. It
explained that the marriage was declared void because the
parties failed to freely give their consent to the marriage as marriage, for if it were otherwise, the purpose of Albios to
they had no intention to be legally bound by it and used it acquire American citizenship would be rendered futile.
only as a means to acquire American citizenship in On October 29, 2012, Albios filed her Comment9 to the
consideration of $2,000.00. petition, reiterating her stand that her marriage was
Not in conformity, the OSG filed an appeal before the similar to a marriage by way of jest and, therefore, void
CA. from the beginning.
Ruling of the CA On March 22, 2013, the OSG filed its Reply10 reiterating
In its assailed decision, dated September 29, 2011, the its arguments in its petition for review on certiorari.
CA affirmed the RTC ruling which found that the essential Ruling of the Court
requisite of consent was lacking. The CA stated that the The resolution of this case hinges on this sole question of
parties clearly did not understand the nature and law: Is a marriage, contracted for the sole purpose of
consequence of getting married and that their case was acquiring American citizenship in consideration of
similar to a marriage in jest. It further explained that the $2,000.00, void ab initio on the ground of lack of consent?
parties never intended to enter into the marriage contract The Court resolves in the negative.
and never intended to live as husband and wife or build a
family. It concluded that their purpose was primarily for _______________
personal gain, that is, for Albios to obtain foreign 8  Id., at p. 13.
citizenship, and for Fringer, the consideration of $2,000.00. 9  Id., at pp. 61-71.
Hence, this petition. 10 Id., at pp. 89-95.

Assignment of Error 592

THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED ON A QUESTION
OF LAW WHEN IT HELD THAT A MARRIAGE
CONTRACTED FOR THE PURPOSE OF OBTAINING 592 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
FOREIGN CITIZENSHIP WAS DONE Republic vs. Albios

_______________
Before the Court delves into its ruling, it shall first
7 Id., at pp. 48-49.
examine the phenomenon of marriage fraud for the
591 purposes of immigration.
Marriage Fraud in Immigration
The institution of marriage carries with it concomitant
VOL. 707, OCTOBER 16, 2013 591
benefits. This has led to the development of marriage fraud
Republic vs. Albios for the sole purpose of availing of particular benefits. In the
United States, marriages where a couple marries only to
IN JEST, HENCE, LACKING IN THE ESSENTIAL achieve a particular purpose or acquire specific benefits,
ELEMENT OF CONSENT.8 have been referred to as “limited purpose” marriages.11 A
common limited purpose marriage is one entered into solely
The OSG argues that albeit the intention was for Albios
for the legitimization of a child.12 Another, which is the
to acquire American citizenship and for Fringer to be paid
subject of the present case, is for immigration purposes.
$2,000.00, both parties freely gave their consent to the
Immigration law is usually concerned with the intention of
marriage, as they knowingly and willingly entered into
the couple at the time
that marriage and knew the benefits and consequences of
being bound by it. According to the OSG, consent should be
_______________
distinguished from motive, the latter being inconsequential
11  Abrams, Kerry. Marriage Fraud. 100 Cal. L. Rev. 1 (2012);
to the validity of marriage.
The OSG also argues that the present case does not fall http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2000956. Lutwak v.

within the concept of a marriage in jest. The parties here United States, 344 U.S. 604, 612-613 (U.S. 1953).
intentionally consented to enter into a real and valid 12  Abrams, Kerry. Marriage Fraud. 100 Cal. L. Rev. 1 (2012);
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2000956; citing Schibi
v. Schibi, 69 A.2d 831 (Conn. 1949) (denying annulment where parties org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Abrams_Final.pdf; citing Immigration
married only to give a name to a prospective child); Bishop v. Bishop, 308 and Nationality Act (INA), § 237(a)(1)(G), 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1)(G) (2000).
N.Y.S.2d 998 (Sup. Ct. 1970); Erickson v. Erickson, 48 N.Y.S.2d 588 (Sup. 14  Abrams, Kerry. Immigration Law and the Regulation of Marriage;
Ct. 1944) (holding similarly to Schibi); Delfino v. Delfino, 35 N.Y.S.2d 693 91 Minn. L. Rev. 1625 (2007); http://www.minnesotalawreview.
(Sup. Ct. 1942) (denying annulment where purpose of marriage was to org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Abrams_Final.pdf; citing 132 CONG.
protect the girl’s name and there was an understanding that the parties REC. 27,012, 27,015 (1986) (statement of Rep McCollum) (promoting the
would not live together as man and wife); Bove v. Pinciotti, 46 Pa. D. & C. Immigration Marriage Fraud Amendments of 1986).
159 (1942); Campbell v. Moore, 189 S.E.2d 497 (S.C.1939) (refusing an 15 511 F.2d 1200, 1201 (9th Cir. 1975).
annulment where parties entered marriage for the purpose of legitimizing 16  Abrams, Kerry. Immigration Law and the Regulation of Marriage;
a child); Chander v. Chander, No. 2937-98-4, 1999 WL 1129721 (Va. Ct. 91 Minn. L. Rev. 1625 (2007); http://www.minnesotalawreview.
App. June 22, 1999) (denying annulment where wife married husband to org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Abrams_Final.pdf.
get his pension with no intention to consummate marriage because
594
husband knew that was the purpose of the marriage).

593 594 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Republic vs. Albios
VOL. 707, OCTOBER 16, 2013 593
Republic vs. Albios no definitive ruling. In 1946, the notable case of United
States v. Rubenstein17 was promulgated, wherein in order
of their marriage,13 and it attempts to filter out those who to allow an alien to stay in the country, the parties had
use marriage solely to achieve immigration status.14 agreed to marry but not to live together and to obtain a
In 1975, the seminal case of Bark v. Immigration and divorce within six months. The Court, through Judge
Naturalization Service,15 established the principal test for Learned Hand, ruled that a marriage to convert temporary
determining the presence of marriage fraud in immigration into permanent permission to stay in the country was not a
cases. It ruled that a “marriage is a sham if the bride and marriage, there being no consent, to wit:
groom did not intend to establish a life together at the time
x x x But, that aside, Spitz and Sandler were never married
they were married.” This standard was modified with the
at all. Mutual consent is necessary to every contract; and no
passage of the Immigration Marriage Fraud Amendment of
matter what forms or ceremonies the parties may go
1986 (IMFA), which now requires the couple to instead
through indicating the contrary, they do not contract if they
demonstrate that the marriage was not “entered into for the
do not in fact assent, which may always be proved. x  x  x
purpose of evading the immigration laws of the United
Marriage is no exception to this rule: a marriage in jest is
States.” The focus, thus, shifted from determining the
not a marriage at all. x x x It is quite true that a marriage
intention to establish a life together, to determining the
without subsequent consummation will be valid; but if the
intention of evading immigration laws.16 It must be noted,
spouses agree to a marriage only for the sake of representing
however, that this standard is used purely for immigration
it as such to the outside world and with the understanding
purposes and, therefore, does not purport to rule on the
that they will put an end to it as soon as it has served its
legal validity or existence of a marriage.
purpose to deceive, they have never really agreed to be
The question that then arises is whether a marriage
married at all. They must assent to enter into the relation as
declared as a sham or fraudulent for the limited purpose of
it is ordinarily understood, and it is not ordinarily
immigration is also legally void and inexistent. The early
understood as merely a pretence, or cover, to deceive others.18
cases on limited purpose marriages in the United States
(Italics supplied)
made
On the other end of the spectrum is the 1969 case of
_______________ Mpiliris v. Hellenic Lines,19 which declared as valid a
13  Abrams, Kerry. Immigration Law and the Regulation of Marriage; marriage entered into solely for the husband to gain entry
91 Minn. L. Rev. 1625 (2007); http://www.minnesotalawreview. to the United States, stating that a valid marriage could
not be avoided “merely because the marriage was entered 22  Lynn D. Wardle and Laurence C. Nolan, Family Law in the USA,
into for a (The Netherlands: Kluwer Law International, 2011) p. 86.
23  Abrams, Kerry. Marriage Fraud. 100 Cal. L. Rev. 1 (2012);

_______________ http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2000956.
17 151 F.2d 915 (2d Cir. 1945).
596
18 United States v. Rubenstein, 151 F.2d 915 (2d Cir. 1945).
19 Mpiliris v. Hellenic Lines, Ltd., 323 F. Supp. 865 (S.D. Tex. 1969),
aff’d, 440 F.2d 1163 (5th Cir. 1971). 596 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Republic vs. Albios
595

clearly did not understand the nature and consequence of

VOL. 707, OCTOBER 16, 2013 595 getting married. As in the Rubenstein case, the CA found
Republic vs. Albios the marriage to be similar to a marriage in jest considering
that the parties only entered into the marriage for the
limited purpose.”20 The 1980 immigration case of Matter of acquisition of American citizenship in exchange of
McKee,21 further recognized that a fraudulent or sham $2,000.00. They never intended to enter into a marriage
marriage was intrinsically different from a nonsubsisting contract and never intended to live as husband and wife or
one. build a family.
Nullifying these limited purpose marriages for lack of The CA’s assailed decision was, therefore, grounded on
consent has, therefore, been recognized as problematic. The the parties’ supposed lack of consent. Under Article 2 of the
problem being that in order to obtain an immigration Family Code, consent is an essential requisite of marriage.
benefit, a legal marriage is first necessary.22 At present, Article 4 of the same Code provides that the absence of any
United States courts have generally denied annulments essential requisite shall render a marriage void ab initio.
involving “limited purpose” marriages where a couple Under said Article 2, for consent to be valid, it must be
married only to achieve a particular purpose, and have (1) freely given and (2) made in the presence of a
upheld such marriages as valid.23 solemnizing officer. A “freely given” consent requires that
The Court now turns to the case at hand. the contracting parties willingly and deliberately enter into
Respondent’s marriage not void the marriage. Consent must be real in the sense that it is
In declaring the respondent’s marriage void, the RTC not vitiated nor rendered defective by any of the vices of
ruled that when a marriage was entered into for a purpose consent under Articles 45 and 46 of the Family Code, such
other than the establishment of a conjugal and family life, as fraud, force, intimidation, and undue influence.24
such was a farce and should not be recognized from its Consent must also be conscious or intelligent, in that the
inception. In its resolution denying the OSG’s motion for parties must be capable of intelligently understanding the
reconsideration, the RTC went on to explain that the nature of, and both the beneficial or unfavorable
marriage was declared void because the parties failed to consequences of their act.25 Their understanding should not
freely give their consent to the marriage as they had no be affected by insanity, intoxication, drugs, or hypnotism.26
intention to be legally bound by it and used it only as a Based on the above, consent was not lacking between
means for the respondent to acquire American citizenship. Albios and Fringer. In fact, there was real consent because
Agreeing with the RTC, the CA ruled that the essential it
requisite of consent was lacking. It held that the parties
_______________
24  Alicia V. Sempio-Diy, Handbook on the Family Code of the
_______________
Philippines, (Quezon City, Philippines: Joer Printing Services, 2005), p. 4.
20  Abrams, Kerry. Marriage Fraud. 100 Cal. L. Rev. 1 (2012);
25  Melencio S. Sta. Maria, Jr., Persons and Family Relations Law,
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2000956; citing
(Quezon City, Philippines: Rex Printing Company, Inc., 2010), Fifth
Mpiliris v. Hellenic Lines, Ltd., 323 F. Supp. 865 (S.D. Tex. 1969), aff’d,
Edition, p. 121.
440 F.2d 1163 (5th Cir. 1971).
21 Matter of McKee, 17 I. & N. Dec. 332, 333 (B.I.A. 1980).
 26 Arturo M. Tolentino, Commentaries and Jurisprudence on the Civil 2004), Volume I, p. 231; citing McClurg v. Terry, 21 N.J. 225.
Code of the Philippines, (Manila, Philippines: Central Book Supply, Inc.,
2004), Volume I, p. 231. 598

597
598 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Republic vs. Albios
VOL. 707, OCTOBER 16, 2013 597
Republic vs. Albios allow the respondent to acquire American citizenship. Only
a genuine consent to be married would allow them to
was not vitiated nor rendered defective by any vice of further their objective, considering that only a valid
consent. Their consent was also conscious and intelligent as marriage can properly support an application for
they understood the nature and the beneficial and citizenship. There was, thus, an apparent intention to enter
inconvenient consequences of their marriage, as nothing into the actual marriage status and to create a legal tie,
impaired their ability to do so. That their consent was albeit for a limited purpose. Genuine consent was,
freely given is best evidenced by their conscious purpose of therefore, clearly present.
acquiring American citizenship through marriage. Such The avowed purpose of marriage under Article 1 of the
plainly demonstrates that they willingly and deliberately Family Code is for the couple to establish a conjugal and
contracted the marriage. There was a clear intention to family life. The possibility that the parties in a marriage
enter into a real and valid marriage so as to fully comply might have no real intention to establish a life together is,
with the requirements of an application for citizenship. however, insufficient to nullify a marriage freely entered
There was a full and complete understanding of the legal into in accordance with law. The same Article 1 provides
tie that would be created between them, since it was that that the nature, consequences, and incidents of marriage
precise legal tie which was necessary to accomplish their are governed by law and not subject to stipulation. A
goal. marriage may, thus, only be declared void or voidable
In ruling that Albios’ marriage was void for lack of under the grounds provided by law. There is no law that
consent, the CA characterized such as akin to a marriage declares a marriage void if it is entered into for purposes
by way of jest. A marriage in jest is a pretended marriage, other than what the Constitution or law declares, such as
legal in form but entered into as a joke, with no real the acquisition of foreign citizenship. Therefore, so long as
intention of entering into the actual marriage status, and all the essential and formal requisites prescribed by law
with a clear understanding that the parties would not be are present, and it is not void or voidable under the
bound. The ceremony is not followed by any conduct grounds provided by law, it shall be declared valid.28
indicating a purpose to enter into such a relation.27 It is a Motives for entering into a marriage are varied and
pretended marriage not intended to be real and with no complex. The State does not and cannot dictate on the kind
intention to create any legal ties whatsoever, hence, the of life that a couple chooses to lead. Any attempt to
absence of any genuine consent. Marriages in jest are void regulate their lifestyle would go into the realm of their
ab initio, not for vitiated, defective, or unintelligent right to privacy and would raise serious constitutional
consent, but for a complete absence of consent. There is no questions.29 The right to marital privacy allows married
genuine consent because the parties have absolutely no couples to structure their marriages in almost any way
intention of being bound in any way or for any purpose. they see fit, to live together or live apart, to have children
The respondent’s marriage is not at all analogous to a or no children, to love one another or not, and so on.30
marriage in jest. Albios and Fringer had an undeniable Thus, marriages entered into for other
intention to be bound in order to create the very bond
necessary to _______________
28 Article 4, Family Code.
_______________ 29 Bark v. Immigration & Naturalization Service, 511 F.2d 1200, 1201
27 Arturo M. Tolentino, Commentaries and Jurisprudence on the Civil (9th Cir. 1975).
Code of the Philippines, (Manila, Philippines: Central Book Supply, Inc.,
 30  Abrams, Kerry. Immigration Law and the Regulation of Marriage; 31 Article 4, Family Code.
91 Minn. L. Rev. 1625 (2007); http://www.minnesotalawreview.
600
599

600 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

VOL. 707, OCTOBER 16, 2013 599 Republic vs. Albios
Republic vs. Albios
tution. The Court cannot declare such a marriage void in
purposes, limited or otherwise, such as convenience, the event the parties fail to qualify for immigration
companionship, money, status, and title, provided that they benefits, after they have availed of its benefits, or simply
comply with all the legal requisites,31 are equally valid. have no further use for it. These unscrupulous individuals
Love, though the ideal consideration in a marriage cannot be allowed to use the courts as instruments in their
contract, is not the only valid cause for marriage. Other fraudulent schemes. Albios already misused a judicial
considerations, not precluded by law, may validly support a institution to enter into a marriage of convenience; she
marriage. should not be allowed to again abuse it to get herself out of
Although the Court views with disdain the respondent’s an inconvenient situation.
attempt to utilize marriage for dishonest purposes, it No less than our Constitution declares that marriage, as
cannot declare the marriage void. Hence, though the an inviolable social institution, is the foundation of the
respondent’s marriage may be considered a sham or family and shall be protected by the State.32 It must,
fraudulent for the purposes of immigration, it is not void ab therefore, be safeguarded from the whims and caprices of
initio and continues to be valid and subsisting. the contracting parties. This Court cannot leave the
Neither can their marriage be considered voidable on impression that marriage may easily be entered into when
the ground of fraud under Article 45 (3) of the Family Code. it suits the needs of the parties, and just as easily nullified
Only the circumstances listed under Article 46 of the same when no longer needed.
Code may constitute fraud, namely, (1) nondisclosure of a WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The
previous conviction involving moral turpitude; (2) September 29, 2011 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-
concealment by the wife of a pregnancy by another man; (3) G.R. CV No. 95414 is ANNULLED, and Civil Case No.
concealment of a sexually transmitted disease; and (4) 1134-06 is DISMISSED for utter lack of merit.
concealment of drug addiction, alcoholism, or SO ORDERED.
homosexuality. No other misrepresentation or deceit shall
constitute fraud as a ground for an action to annul a Velasco, Jr. (Chairperson), Leonardo-De Castro,** 
marriage. Entering into a marriage for the sole purpose of Brion *** and Peralta, JJ., concur.
evading immigration laws does not qualify under any of the
Petition granted, judgment annulled.
listed circumstances. Furthermore, under Article 47 (3), the
ground of fraud may only be brought by the injured or Notes.―Annulment of marriage is not a prejudicial
innocent party. In the present case, there is no injured question in criminal case for parricide. (Pimentel vs.
party because Albios and Fringer both conspired to enter Pimentel, 630 SCRA 436 [2010])
into the sham marriage.
Albios has indeed made a mockery of the sacred
_______________
institution of marriage. Allowing her marriage with
32 Const. (1987), Article XV, Section 2.
Fringer to be declared void would only further trivialize
**  Designated Acting Member in lieu of Associate Justice Marvic
this inviolable insti-
Mario Victor F. Leonen, per Special Order No. 1570 dated October 14,
2013.
_______________
***  Designated Acting Member in lieu of Associate Justice Roberto A.
org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Abrams_Final.pdf; citing McGuire v.
Abad, per Special Order No. 1554 dated September 19, 2013.
McGuire, 59 N.W.2d 336, 337 (Neb. 1953). Griswold v. Connecticut, 381
U.S. 479, 485-86 (1965). 601
 VOL. 707, OCTOBER 16, 2013 601
Republic vs. Albios

Under the principles of comity, our jurisdiction

recognizes a valid divorce obtained by a spouse of foreign
nationality provided it is valid according to his/her national
law. (Vda. de Catalan vs. Catalan-Lee, 665 SCRA 487
[2012])

――o0o――

© Copyright 2019 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.