Você está na página 1de 2

Republic vs Albios (Marriage fraud)

On October 22, 2004. Fringer, an American Citizen, and Albios were married.

On December, 6, 206, Albios Filed with the RTC a petition for declaration of nullity of her marriage with Fringer

 Quickly after their marriage, they separated, stating that they never really had any intention of entering into a
married state in the first place. Or complying with any of their essential marital obbligations.
 Hence, the marriage should be void ab initio

The RTC declared the marriage void ab initio

 The RTC held the view that the parties only married for convenience only
 Albios admitted that she only married Fringer for American citizenship, and paying him in the process ($2,000)
 There was no intent for the establishment of a conjugal or family life

The OSG contended that the marriage was only voidable and not void ab initio

 Filed a petition to the CA

The Ruling of the CA

 The CA affirmed the ruling of the RTC which found that the essential requisite of consent was lacking.
 The Parties did not clearly understand the nature and consequence of getting married; it was analogous to a
marriage out of jest.

The OSG filed a review for certiorari hence this case

The OSG contends that:

 Both parties freely gave their consent to the marriage, as they knowingly and willingly entered into the marriage
 They argue that consent should be differed from motive, since motive is inconsequential to the validity of a
marriage.
 It cannot be considered a marriage out of jest since the parties had consent and intention to get married.

Issue: WON a “limited purpose” marriage or a marriage fraud is void ab initio or voidable?

In United States vs Rubenstein, the court ruled that:

“IF the spouses agree to a marriage only for the sake of representing it as such to the outside world and with the
understanding that they will put an end to it as soon as it has served its purpose to deceive, they have never really
agreed to be married at all. They must assent to enter into the relation as it is ordinarily understood, and it is not
ordinarily understood as merely a pretense, or cover, to deceive others.

HOWEVER, in Mpiliris v Hellenic Lines, the court declared a marriage valid of a man to an American even if the marriage
was merely a tool to gain entry to the US.

In Article 2, for consent to be valid, it must be given freely and made in the presence of a solemnizing officer.

 A Freely given consent requires that the parties willingly and deliberately enter into the marriage.
 Consent must be conscious or intelligent

Hence, consent was not lacking between Albios and Fringer. Infact there was real consent

 Their consent was freely given in virtue of getting married for acquisition of American Citizenship.

A Jest marriage is just pretend marriage not intended to create any legal ties whatsoever, hence the absence of genuine
consent.
 The contracting parties in a jest marriage had no purpose for being married unlike that of a “limited purpose”
marriage such as the case herein.

Only a genuine marriage could allow them to further their objective

ARTICLE 1 provides that the nature, consequences, and incidents of marriage are governed by law and not subject to
stipulation

 Such kinds of marriage can only be considered void under the grounds provided by law
 However, there is no law that declares a marriage as such to be void

The state cannot dictate on the kind of life that a couple chooses to lead. Any attempt to regulate their lifestyle would
go into the realm of their right to privacy and would raise serious constitutional questions.

 The right to marital privacy allows married couples to structure their marriages in almost any way they see it fit.
To live to gether or live apart, to have children or not, to love one or not etc.

WHEREFORE, the marriage subsists, and not declared void or voidable. But they are annulled

Você também pode gostar