SC rules Filipina’s marriage of convenience to American valid
MANILA, Philippines—For love or convenience? Either way, the marriage would be “equally valid.”
The Supreme Court has refused to nullify the marriage of a Filipino woman to an American, even if she claimed that she only wed him to acquire US citizenship.
The high court’s Third Division, in a decision dated Oct. 16, denied the woman’s petition, saying that as far as the state was concerned, the couple, regardless of their motive, freely consented to the marriage and were therefore bound by it.
“Although the court views with disdain the (her) attempt to utilize marriage for dishonest purposes, it cannot declare the marriage void. Hence, though [her] marriage may be considered a sham or fraudulent for the purposes of immigration, it is not void ab initio and continues to be valid and subsisting,” the Court said in an 11-page decision written by Justice Jose Mendoza.
The division chair, Justice Presbitero Velasco Jr., and members Teresita Leonardo-de Castro, Arturo Brion and Diosdado Peralta, concurred in the ruling.
The justices ruled that “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.”
Article continues after this advertisementAccording to case records, the petitioner and her husband were married in civil rites at a Mandaluyong City court in October 2004.
Article continues after this advertisementIn December 2006, however, the wife petitioned the Imus City Regional Trial Court for a declaration of nullity, admitting that she had only wed the American to acquire US citizenship and even arranged to pay him $2,000 in exchange for his consent.
She described their marriage as “one made in jest,” adding that immediately after their marriage, they separated and never lived as husband and wife because they never really had any intention of entering into a married state and complying with their marital obligations.
Moreover, she said, she never heard from her husband again and she was unable to pay him the $2,000 that she promised because he never processed her petition for US citizenship. The husband, served a summons in the United States, did not take part in the case.
Favorable ruling
Despite opposition from the Office of the Solicitor General, the petitioner was able to secure a favorable ruling from the Imus RTC in 2008 and from the Court of Appeals in 2011, both of which agreed that the marriage was a farce and should not have been recognized from its inception.
The OSG elevated the case to the Supreme Court, saying that the case did not fall within the concept of a marriage in jest as the parties intentionally consented to enter into a real and valid marriage. The OSG argued that consent should be distinguished from motive, the latter being inconsequential to the validity of a marriage.
The high court agreed, saying that the petition for nullity had no merit because there was a clear intention by the couple to enter into a real and valid marriage so as to fully comply with the requirements of an application for 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 that was necessary to accomplish their goal,” the justices said.
The justices also scolded the petitioner for making “a mockery of the sacred institution of marriage,” saying: “She already misused a judicial institution to enter into a marriage of convenience; she should not be allowed again to abuse it to get herself out of an inconvenient situation.”
They reminded the petitioner that the Constitution declares that marriage, as an inviolable social institution, is the foundation of the family and shall be protected by the state.
“It must, therefore, be safeguarded from the whims and caprices of contracting parties. This court cannot leave the impression that marriage may easily be entered into when it suits the needs of the parties and just as easily nullified when no longer needed,” they said.
RELATED STORY:
