Can one marry without a valid marriage license?

As a general rule, couples intending to marry must secure a marriage license from the local civil registrar of the city or municipality where either of them habitually resides.

Under Article 3 (2) of the Family Code of the Philippines, a valid marriage license is one of the formal requisites of marriage, without which the marriage will be void. Hence, the parties to an intended marriage must secure the same.

However, the general rule is not without exception. Article 34 of the said Code provides that:

“Art. 34. No license shall be necessary for the marriage of a man and a woman who have lived together as husband and wife for at least five years and without any legal impediment to marry each other. The contracting parties shall state the foregoing facts in an affidavit before any person authorized by law to administer oaths. The solemnizing officer shall also state under oath that he ascertained the qualifications of the contracting parties are found no legal impediment to the marriage.”

The case of Borja-Manzano vs. Sanchez (A.M. MTJ-00-1329, March 8, 2001, Ponente: Chief Justice Hilario Davide Jr.) laid down the requisites in applying the provision on legal ratification of marital cohabitation, to wit:

“For this provision on legal ratification of marital cohabitation to apply, the following requisites must concur:

“1. The man and woman must have been living together as husband and wife for at least five years before the marriage.

“2. The parties must have no legal impediment to marry each other.

“3. The fact of absence of legal impediment between the parties must be present at the time of marriage.

“4. The parties must execute an affidavit stating that they have lived together for at least five years (and are without legal impediment to marry each other).

“5. The solemnizing officer must execute a sworn statement that he had ascertained the qualifications of the parties and that he had found no legal impediment to their marriage.”

The five-year period of cohabitation was further explained in the case of Niñal vs. Bayadog (GR 133778; 14 March 2000; Ponente: Associate Justice Consuelo Ynares-Santiago), where the Supreme Court ruled that:

“Working on the assumption that Pepito and Norma have lived together as husband and wife for five years without the benefit of marriage, that five-year period should be computed on the basis of a cohabitation as ‘husband and wife’ where the only missing factor is the special contract of marriage to validate the union. In other words, the five-year common-law cohabitation period, which is counted back from the date of celebration of marriage, should be a period of legal union had it not been for the absence of the marriage. This 5-year period should be the years immediately before the day of the marriage and it should be a period of cohabitation characterized by exclusivity — meaning no third party was involved at anytime within the 5 years and continuity — that is unbroken. Otherwise, if that continuous 5-year cohabitation is computed without any distinction as to whether the parties were capacitated to marry each other during the entire five years, then the law would be sanctioning immorality and encouraging parties to have common law relationships and placing them on the same footing with those who lived faithfully with their spouse.”

Thus, a man and a woman may enter into a contract of marriage even without a marriage license, provided that they have been living together as husband and wife for the last five years prior to the date of the marriage, and that neither of them has any legal impediment to marry each other during the same period.

This continuous five-year common-law cohabitation must be characterized by exclusivity. Moreover, both of them must execute an affidavit stating this fact, and the solemnizing officer is also required to execute a sworn statement pronouncing that he has ascertained their qualifications and that he has found no legal impediment to said marriage.

Source: Manila Times

Why family bullying over inheritance has become rife

UK Cost of living is making relatives impatient for their money.

Trillions of pounds are expected to be passed down through families over the next 30 years in a “great wealth transfer”.

However, as households are squeezed by rising prices, increasing numbers of older people are being pestered to hand over money by impatient “entitled” relatives. But this pressure to give up their assets can amount to financial abuse, campaigners warn. “This is not just a growing trend but an epidemic,” said Richard Robinson of Hourglass, a charity that campaigns against the abuse of older people.

This type of financial abuse is distinct from fraud or scams because it is not perpetrated by strangers, but a trusted person in the victim’s life. More than half of perpetrators are an adult child of the victim, according to research by Hourglass, and 81 per cent are a family member.

Older people are being manipulated to hand over cash to family members struggling with the cost of living.

“This is a massively underplayed issue in all walks of society, something we’ve been calling for urgent governmental action on for many years,” Robinson said. The charity supports 75,000 victims a year, up from about 4,000 in 2018.

Vicky Reynal, a money psychotherapist, said a common reason for “inheritance impatience” is a sense of entitlement to the victim’s estate. “The economic climate we live in is creating a lot of tension,” she said. “Handouts from parents are seen as increasingly necessary, and inheritance seems too far down the line to make much of a difference.”

Housing and tax pressures

Many families are seeking early access to inheritances to get on the property ladder. The average house price in the UK has more than tripled from £84,000 in 2000 to £293,000 today, according to the Office for National Statistics.

As a result, 57 per cent of renters believe that buying a home is impossible without family help, Barclays found. Rising tax pressures also drive demands for family handouts. The inheritance tax-free threshold will be frozen at £325,000 until at least 2030, and pension savings will be included in estates from April 2027.

This will mean many more estates facing a 40 per cent tax bill. And the seven-year rule, which exempts from inheritance tax gifts of money, provided the donor lives for seven years after making the gift, adds a sense of urgency. Now family members are pushing to receive sums sooner.

The Institute for Fiscal Studies estimates that almost all of the £17 billion gifted or lent by pensioners each year is given to their adult children. While most of this money is given freely and lovingly, some pensioners may be coerced into giving it away earlier than planned, often through emotional manipulation.

“We’re definitely seeing people with more of a sense of entitlement or ownership of their future inheritance, as opposed to anything they might receive as a boon or a gift,” said Stuart Downey from TWM Solicitors, based in the southeast. Reynal described how she has seen clients struggle to refuse their children’s demands for money.

Some children even use threats such as cutting them off from their grandchildren or no longer visiting if the money is withheld. Many victims fear they will be sent into a care home against their will. Downey said he has seen many clients’ families place their elderly relative in a far cheaper care home than they could afford, to save their inheritance.

This is known as “inheritance preservation”, where family members block pensioners from spending their money in the hope of taking it themselves.

Taking advantage

Callers to the Hourglass helpline have suffered financial losses of more than £53 million in the past three years. But in reality this figure is probably much higher, because only 14 per cent of callers disclosed the amount they had given away.

Robinson said that many older people were reluctant to report how much they had lost. They didn’t consider transferring money to family members as abuse and didn’t recognize that they may have been manipulated.

The attitudes of both victim and perpetrator are a big obstacle to the prevention of this type of abuse. In England 25 per cent of people do not believe that taking items from an older relative’s home without asking is a form of abuse, according to a survey of more than 2,000 people conducted by YouGov for Hourglass.

And 26 per cent of respondents did not believe that using power of attorney over an older relative for personal financial gain was abuse, nor that family members trying to change the wills of older relatives was a form of abuse.

At the same time, many victims do not want to see, or perhaps admit, that a family member may be taking advantage of them. “Most people don’t believe they’re being abused,” Robinson said. “They trust and love those people, who are their family and are there to look after them. They believe that if they call them out as abusers, they’ll lose that support.”

How can people protect themselves?

Reynal said families must learn to speak openly about finances and inheritance, and added that for those passing down an estate, “it’s important to be clear about why you’re doing what you’re doing”.

Family members should also try to empathise with their older relatives. “Step into the shoes of the parents to empathise with the impact of those demands being made,” she said. Older people can create a lasting power of attorney while they have mental capacity.

This gives someone the authority to manage their finances if they become unable to do so. It is recommended to seek professional guidance before making any decisions.

While there are some tools that can be used to help protect finances, such as bank account controls, Robinson said: “People are craving inheritance like there’s no tomorrow, and the safeguards are simply not there.” 

Source: The Times

Who Is an Innocent Purchaser for Value?

Imagine this: you are the rightful owner of a piece of land. One day, you discover that a distant relative has forged your signature on a deed of absolute sale and managed to secure a new title in their own name. Before you can react, they sell the property to someone else — a third party.

You rush to city hall for advice, only to be told that you can’t recover the land because the new buyer is an innocent purchaser for value.

At first, this sounds absurd. How could you lose your property because of someone else’s forgery? But the answer lies in how the Philippines’ land registration system — the Torrens system — works.

Forgery Transfers No Ownership

Let’s start with a basic principle: a forged deed of sale is void from the very beginning.

Under Philippine law, a contract signed without a person’s real consent has no legal effect. In other words, the forger acquires nothing — and since they have nothing to sell, any sale they make is also void.

So, in theory, you remain the rightful owner.

The Torrens System and the Innocent Buyer

However, the Philippines uses the Torrens system of land registration, which prioritizes the security and reliability of land titles.

Under this system, people are allowed to rely on what appears on the face of the title. If someone buys a property in good faith — believing the title is genuine and clean — the law gives them protection, even if a previous deed was forged.

This type of buyer is called an innocent purchaser for value.

What Makes a Buyer “Innocent”?

A person qualifies as an innocent purchaser for value if they:

• Paid a fair price for the property;

• Checked the title and found it free from any liens, disputes, or defects; and

• Had no knowledge or suspicion that something was wrong with the transaction.

If these conditions are met, the buyer’s title is protected — even if the seller obtained it through fraud or forgery.

That’s why your city hall contact said you might not be able to recover the property. The Torrens system protects the integrity of the buyer’s title, even at the expense of the original owner.

When the Buyer Is Not Innocent

Not all buyers can hide behind the label of “innocent purchaser.”

If the third person knew or should have known that something was wrong — such as a suspiciously low price, a hurried sale, or rumors of family conflict — then they are not considered innocent.

Courts require buyers to act in good faith and with reasonable diligence. If they ignored warning signs, they lose their legal protection, and the true owner can demand the land back through reconveyance or annulment of title.

The Owner’s Remedies

If you find yourself in this situation:

1. Gather all your documents — your original title, tax declarations, tax receipts, and proof that you never sold the land.

2. File a civil case for Annulment of Title and Reconveyance, and a criminal case for Forgery or Falsification against the forger.

3. If the court rules that the buyer was truly innocent, your remedy shifts to claiming compensation from the Assurance Fund under Section 96 of Presidential Decree No. 1529.

An innocent purchaser for value is someone who buys a property in good faith, for fair consideration, and without notice of any defect in the title.

While forgery never transfers ownership, the Torrens system protects innocent buyers to maintain confidence in land transactions.

That means if your property ends up in the hands of such a buyer, you may lose the land itself — but not your right to seek justice and compensation from the real culprit.

Source: Ziggurat Real Estate