Zablocki v.

Redhail
434 US 374, 54 L Ed 2d 618, 98 S Ct 673
No. 76-879
January 18, 1978

Appellant: Thomas E. Zablocki, Milwaukee County Clerk, Etc.

Appellee: Roger C. Redhail

Marshall, J.:

FACTS:
Statute: Court permission can’t be granted unless the marriage applicant submits proof of
compliance with the support obligation and, in addition, demonstrates that the children
covered by the support order “are not then and are not likely thereafter to become public
charges.” No marriage license may lawfully be issued in Wisconsin to a person covered by the
statute except upon court order; any marriage entered into without compliance with is
declared void; and person acquiring marriage licenses in violation of the section are subject to
criminal penalties.

ISSUE:
W/N Wisconsin statute which provides that members of a certain class of Wisconsin residents
may not marry, within the State or elsewhere, without first granting permission to marry is
constitutional.

HELD:

NO.

I.
 When appellee was a minor, he fathered a baby girl out of wedlock
 A few years later, petitioner wanted to get married but was denied a marriage license
by Zablocki, the County Clerk saying that appellee had not obtained a Court order
allowing him to marry
 Statute in Wisconsin states
o Satisfy obligations of illegitimate children (arrearage of $3,700)
o Proof that not a public charge
 Redhail filed a complaint before the District Court in behalf of all those who weren’t
issued a marriage license
o Petitioner said it violated their right to Due Process and Equal Protection under
the 1st, 5th, 9th, and 14th Amendments
 Zablocki was the defendant, representing also all County Clerks
 District court struck down
o Violated fundamental right to marry
II.
 Cites cases
 Decision to marry same level as procreation, child birth, child rearing, family
relationships
 Statute interferes with right to marry
 Those who can’t afford to support obligations or prove non dependency on public
charges will not be allowed to marry, foregoing their right

III.
 If it infringes on a right, it must be scrutinized whether it justifies state interests
 Appellant argues that the statute
o Opportunity to counsel with regards to obligations
 The Court still does not grant a license despite counselling
o Welfare of out-of-custody children is protected
 No clear connection between state’s interests and statute’s requirements
 Since the appellee can’t pay obligations or assure children not public
charges, he can’t get married
 As a result, the next child born out-of-wedlock, will also be illegitimate
Republic vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 103047
September 2, 1994

Petitioner: Republic of the Philippines

Respondents: CA, Angelina M. Castro

Puno, J.:

FACTS:
 Angelina M. Castro married Edwin F. Cardenas in a “secret wedding.”
 4 months into conceiving, the relationship turned sour
 The baby is now in the US and Castro wants to follow her there
 Cardenas filed a petition to have their marriage annulled saying that there was no
marriage license issued
 The marriage certificate indicated a license number
 The Civil Registrar of Pasay City could not find any record that it issued a marriage
license
 Testified that she did not go to the Civil Registrar

ISSUE:
W/N the documentary and testimonial evidence presented by private respondent are sufficient
to establish that no marriage was issued by the Civil Registrar of Pasig to the celebration of the
marriage of private respondent to Edwin F. Cardenas

HELD:
YES.
 Sec 29, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court counts this as valid evidence
 No proof of collusion

Petition GRANTED. Marriage void ab initio.

Sevilla vs. Cardenas
G.R. No. 167684
July 31, 2006

Petitioner: Jaime O Sevilla

Respondent: Carmelita N. Cardenas

Alcantara vs. Alcantara

G.R. No. 167746
August 28, 2007

Petitioner: Restituto M. Alcantara

Respondents: Rosita A. Alcantara, CA