Morimoto V Morimoto

FACTS
Rosario recalls that sometime before December 2007, a friend introduced her to Yoshio as
one with whom she can simulate marriage as a way to facilitate her acquisition of a
Japanese visa.7 She acceded. Thus, on December 5, 2007, she and Yoshio met at the
Manila City Hall. There, they signed a blank marriage certificate, but were assured by the
solemnizing officer that the certificate will never be registered or recorded in the Civil
Registry. It was the last time she saw Yoshio.'
Sometime later, Rosario went to the Philippine Statistics Authority to secure a Certificate of
No Marriage. To her surprise, she found out that a Certificate of Marriage, registered in the
City of San Juan, indicates that she married Yoshio on December 5, 2007, in a ceremony
officiated by a certain Reverend Roberto Espiritu. It also appears that the marriage was
predicated on Marriage License No. 6120159, issued by the Office of the Civil Registry of
San Juan.’
On October 5, 2009, Rosario filed a Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage before the
Quezon City Regional Trial Court. She maintained that the marriage attested to by the
marriage certificate she discovered never actually happened and was never backed by a
marriage license.'0
On September 21, 2011, prior to trial, the Assistant City Prosecutor issued a Report stating
that there is no collusion between Rosario and Yoshio to obtain a favorable ruling from the
Regional Trial Court.11
Hence, Rosario filed the present Petition. 20 She maintains that the marriage attested to by
the marriage certificate she discovered never actually happened, and that it was never
backed by a marriage license.
Issue
of whether or not the registered marriage between petitioner Rosario D. Ado-an-Morimoto
and respondent Yoshio Morimoto should be declared null and void.
Ruling
This Court finds the supposed marriage between petitioner and respondent Yoshio to have
been simulated and utterly lacking in essential and formal requisites. It is void ab initio. Thus,
it was error for the Court of Appeals and the Regional Trial Court to rule against the Petition
for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage.
The Family Code provides for the essential and formal requisites of marriage. It further
stipulates that marriages lacking any essential or formal requisite are void ab initio (with the
exception of marriages “solemnized by any person not legally authorized to perform
marriages [wherej either or both parties believ[ed] in good faith that the solemnizing officer
had the legal authority to do so”21), that marriages attended by a defective essential
requisite are voidable, and that marriages attended by an irregularity as to formal requisites
are valid, subject to the potential criminal, civil, or administrative liability of those responsible
for the irregularity:
ARTICLE 2. No marriage shall be valid, unless these essential requisites are present.’
(1) Legal capacity of the contracting parties who must be a male and a female; and
(2) Consent freely given in the presence of the solemnizing officer.
ARTICLE 3. The formal requisites of marriage are:
(1) Authority of the solemnizing officer;

(2) A valid marriage license except in the cases provided for in Chapter 2 of this Title;
and
(3) A marriage ceremony which takes place with the appearance of the contracting
parties before the solemnizing officer and their personal declaration that they take each
other as husband and wife in the presence of not less than two witnesses of legal age.
ARTICLE 4. The absence of any of the essential or formal requisites shall render the
marriage void at initio, except as stated in Article 35 (2).
A defect in any of the essential requisites shall render the marriage voidable as provided in
Article 45.
An irregularity in the formal requisites shall not affect the validity of the marriage but the
party or parties responsible for the irregularity shall be civilly, criminally and administratively
liable.*2
This case is worse than Santiago, as there is not even a marriage ceremony to speak of.
Petitioner categorically declared that her marriage with respondent Yoshio was totally
simulated, made for the sole purpose of their ostensible marital relations being used as an
artifice to bolster her chances of obtaining a Japanese visa. One might be tempted to
dismiss this as a self-serving allegation, made only to obtain a declaration of nullity of
marriage. However, to the contrary, this Court finds petitioner’s declarations of having
participated in a duplicitous design to be worthy of even greater credence, as an admission
against interest.
Petitioner’s declarations run counter to her interest. Her admission of simulating marriage by
signing a blank marriage certificate when no marriage ceremony actually took place, and
when she and respondent Yoshio had absolutely no intent to marry, endangered her with the
possibility of being held liable for falsification.

Morimoto V Morimoto

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Morimoto V Morimoto

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Morimoto V Morimoto

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

FACTS

ARTICLE 3. The formal requisites of marriage are:

(1) Authority of the solemnizing officer;

You might also like