Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 23 views

    Republicv vs. Albios

    Uploaded by

    Kim Cajucom
    The key points are: 1. Consent to marriage must be freely given and made before a solemnizing officer. 2. Consent is valid if it is real and not defective due to fraud, force, etc. and the parties understand the nature and consequences of marriage. 3. The parties' consent to marry was valid as they understood marriage was necessary to acquire citizenship, even if their purpose was limited to that goal. Motives for marriage vary and the state cannot dictate how couples structure their marriages.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Republicv vs. Albios

    Uploaded by

    Kim Cajucom
    23 views1 page
    The key points are: 1. Consent to marriage must be freely given and made before a solemnizing officer. 2. Consent is valid if it is real and not defective due to fraud, force, etc. and the parties understand the nature and consequences of marriage. 3. The parties' consent to marry was valid as they understood marriage was necessary to acquire citizenship, even if their purpose was limited to that goal. Motives for marriage vary and the state cannot dictate how couples structure their marriages.

    Original Description:

    Civil Law; Persons and Family Relations

    Original Title

    02 Republic v Albios

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The key points are: 1. Consent to marriage must be freely given and made before a solemnizing officer. 2. Consent is valid if it is real and not defective due to fraud, force, etc. and the parties understand the nature and consequences of marriage. 3. The parties' consent to marry was valid as they understood marriage was necessary to acquire citizenship, even if their purpose was limited to that goal. Motives for marriage vary and the state cannot dictate how couples structure their marriages.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    23 views1 page

    Republicv vs. Albios

    Uploaded by

    Kim Cajucom
    The key points are: 1. Consent to marriage must be freely given and made before a solemnizing officer. 2. Consent is valid if it is real and not defective due to fraud, force, etc. and the parties understand the nature and consequences of marriage. 3. The parties' consent to marry was valid as they understood marriage was necessary to acquire citizenship, even if their purpose was limited to that goal. Motives for marriage vary and the state cannot dictate how couples structure their marriages.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 1

    Cajucom, Katrina Monica T.

    Consent
    098253 #2

    REPUBLICV VS. ALBIOS


    G.R. 198780. October 16, 2013.

    FACTS:
     On Oct. 22, 2004, Fringer, an American citizen, and respondent Albios were married before
    the Metropolitan Trial Court of Mandaluyong City as evidenced by a Certificate of
    Marriage
     On Dec. 6, 2006, Albios filed with the RTC a petition for declaration of nullity of her
    marriage with Fringer alleging that immediately after their marriage, they separated and
    never lived as husband and wife and describe it as a “marriage in jest”
     RTC declared the marriage void ab initio ruling that they married for convenience only
    where Albios contracted Fringer to enter into marriage to acquire American citizenship
    but that after the marriage, Fringer never processed her petition for citizenship nor did
    she pay him the agreed $2, 000.00
     OSG appealed to the CA which affirmed the RTC ruling such that the essential requisite
    of consent to the marriage was lacking since the parties never intended to live as husband
    and wife nor build a family

    ISSUE: Whether a marriage, contracted for the sole purpose of acquiring American citizenship in
    consideration of $2,000.00, void ab initio on the ground of lack of consent?

    RULING: NO. Under Article 2 of the Family Code, for consent to be valid, it must be (1) freely
    given and (2) made in the presence of a solemnizing officer. Consent must be real in the sense that
    it is not vitiated nor rendered defective by any of the vices of consent under Articles 45 and 46 of
    the Family Code, such as fraud, force, intimidation, and undue influence. Consent must also be
    conscious or intelligent, in that the parties must be capable of intelligently understanding the nature
    of, and both the beneficial or unfavorable consequences of their act.

    Fringer and Albios’ consent to the marriage was not vitiated nor rendered defective by any vice of
    consent. Their consent was conscious and intelligent, understanding the nature and benefit of the
    marriage and freely given for the conscious purpose of acquiring American citizenship. There was
    a full and complete understanding of the legal tie that would be created between them, since it was
    that precise legal tie which was necessary to accomplish their goal. Genuine consent, was therefore
    present.

    Motives for entering into a marriage are varied and complex. The State does not and cannot dictate
    on the kind of life that a couple chooses to lead. The right to marital privacy allows married couples
    to structure their marriages in almost any way they see fit, to live together or live apart, to have
    children or no children, to love one another or not, and so on. Thus, marriages entered into for
    other purposes, limited or otherwise, such as convenience, companionship, money, status, and title,
    provided that they comply with all the legal requisites, are equally valid.

    You might also like