This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2008-03-28 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| In the same vein, the declaration of the Civil Code[51] that every intendment of law or fact leans towards the validity of marriage will not salvage the parties' marriage, and extricate them from the effect of a violation of the law. The marriage of Jose and Felisa was entered into without the requisite marriage license or compliance with the stringent requirements of a marriage under exceptional circumstance. The solemnization of a marriage without prior license is a clear violation of the law and would lead or could be used, at least, for the perpetration of fraud against innocent and unwary parties, which was one of the evils that the law sought to prevent by making a prior license a prerequisite for a valid marriage.[52] The protection of marriage as a sacred institution requires not just the defense of a true and genuine union but the exposure of an invalid one as well.[53] To permit a false affidavit to take the place of a marriage license is to allow an abject circumvention of the law. If this Court is to protect the fabric of the institution of marriage, we must be wary of deceptive schemes that violate the legal measures set forth in our laws. | |||||
|
2006-03-31 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| In this case, the State did not actively participate in the prosecution of the case at the trial level. Other than the Public Prosecutor's Manifestation[26] that no collusion existed between the contending parties and the brief cross-examination[27] which had barely scratched the surface, no pleading, motion, or position paper was filed by the Public Prosecutor or the OSG. The State should have been given the opportunity to present controverting evidence before the judgment was rendered.[28] Truly, only the active participation of the Public Prosecutor or the OSG will ensure that the interest of the State is represented and protected in proceedings for annulment and declaration of nullity of marriages by preventing collusion between the parties, or the fabrication or suppression of evidence.[29] | |||||