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

Exclusions from the absolute community of property and conjugal partnership of gains

Getting married, Congratulations! We explain the exclusions under the Absolute Community of Property and the Conjugal Partnership of Gains. Knowing these differences will help you make a decision in choosing the right property regime for you.

Under the Family Code of the Philippines, there are property regimes such as:

(1) Absolute Community of Property;

(2) Conjugal Partnership of Gains; and

(3) Complete Separation of Property.

Absolute Community Property (ACP) is the default property regime for couples married without marriage settlement (or a prenuptial agreement) on or after August 3, 1988, which is the date of effectivity of the Family Code. It includes all the properties owned by either spouse before the marriage and all the properties acquired during the marriage which are not otherwise excluded. (Article 91, Family Code) Properties falling under the ACP are owned by the spouses in common regardless of whose name appears on the title or who paid for it.

On the other hand, in the Conjugal Partnership of Gains (CPG) regime, each spouse retains ownership of the property they brought into the marriage, but the income or fruits from these properties and all assets acquired during the marriage are jointly owned. (Article 106, Ibid.) Essentially, the spouses share the gains or profits acquired during the marriage under the CPG regime. The CPG can only apply if the spouses agree to it in a marriage settlement or pre-nuptial agreement before marriage. (Article 105, Family Code)

Regarding the exclusions from the ACP and the CPG, these are stated in the Family Code of the Philippines, specifically under Articles 92 and 109 of the said law, respectively.

Under Article 92 of the Family Code of the Philippines, the following shall be excluded from the ACP:

(1) Property acquired during the marriage by gratuitous title by either spouse, and the fruits as well as the income thereof, if any, unless it is expressly provided by the donor, testator or grantor that they shall form part of the community property;

(2) Property for personal and exclusive use of either spouse. However, jewelry shall form part of the community property;

(3) Property acquired before the marriage by either spouse who has legitimate descendants by a former marriage, and the fruits as well as the income, if any, of such property.

On the other hand, the following shall be excluded from the CPG under Article 109 of the said law:

(1) That which is brought to the marriage as his or her own;

(2) That which each acquires during the marriage by gratuitous title;

(3) That which is acquired by right of redemption, by barter or by exchange with property belonging to only one of the spouses; and

(4) That which is purchased with exclusive money of the wife or of the husband.” We hope that we were able to answer your queries.

Source: Ziggurat Real Estate

Can a foreigner inherit private land in the Philippines?

Please be informed that Sections 3, 7 and 8 of Article XII of the 1987 Philippine Constitution provide:

"Section 3. Lands of the public domain are classified into agricultural, forest or timber, mineral lands and national parks. Agricultural lands of the public domain may be further classified by law according to the uses to which they may be devoted. Alienable lands of the public domain shall be limited to agricultural lands. Private corporations or associations may not hold such alienable lands of the public domain except by lease, for a period not exceeding twenty-five years, renewable for not more than twenty-five years, and not to exceed one thousand hectares in area. Citizens of the Philippines may lease not more than five hundred hectares, or acquire not more than twelve hectares thereof, by purchase, homestead, or grant.

Taking into account the requirements of conservation, ecology, and development, and subject to the requirements of agrarian reform, the Congress shall determine, by law, the size of lands of the public domain which may be acquired, developed, held, or leased and the conditions therefor.

"Section 7. Save in cases of hereditary succession, no private lands shall be transferred or conveyed except to individuals, corporations, or associations qualified to acquire or hold lands of the public domain.

"Section 8. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 7 of this Article, a natural-born citizen of the Philippines who has lost his Philippine citizenship may be a transferee of private lands, subject to limitations provided by law. (Emphasis supplied)

In the case of Testate Estate of Jose Eugenio Ramirez et al. v. Marcelle D. Vda. De Ramirez et al., GR L-27952, Feb. 15, 1982, through Associate Justice Vicente Abad Santos, the Supreme Court ruled:

"We are of the opinion that the Constitutional provision which enables aliens to acquire private lands does not extend to testamentary succession for otherwise the prohibition will be for naught and meaningless.  Any alien would be able to circumvent the prohibition by paying money to a Philippine landowner in exchange for a devise of a piece of land." (Emphasis supplied)

While the afore-quoted decision was promulgated prior to the effectivity of the 1987 Constitution, it must be noted that the provision in the 1987 Constitution limiting an alien's right to own private land in the Philippines through hereditary succession was likewise found in Article XIII, Section 5 of the 1935 Constitution, to wit:

"SEC. 5. Save in cases of hereditary succession, no private agricultural land shall be transferred or assigned except to individuals, corporations, or associations qualified to acquire or hold lands of the public domain in the Philippines."

Pursuant to the aforementioned provisions of the 1987 Philippine Constitution, a foreign national is prohibited from owning private land in the Philippines, except in cases of hereditary succession. This mode of ownership, as clarified by the Supreme Court, is limited to intestate succession.

So if you are not a legal heir of a Filipino but were only constituted as an heir in their will, and the disposition involves private land, it cannot be legally enforced because it is a violation of the Philippine Constitution.

Source: Manila Times