The Basics of Marriage Laws in the Philippines

In the West, when one is asked, “What is the future tense of Marriage?”  The person answers, “Divorce.”  When asked, “What is the past tense of Divorce?  The person answers, “Marriage.”

In the Philippines however, Marriage is viewed from a different perspective.  

But what is Marriage in the Philippine setting?

from theweddingvendors.com

 

 

The primary law governing Marital and Family Relations in the Philippines is Executive Order No. 209 or the Family Code as amended, which took effect on August 3, 1988.  And under Art. 1 of said Code Marriage is defined as a special contract of permanent union between a man and a woman entered into in accordance with law for the establishment of conjugal and family life. It is the foundation of the family and an inviolable social institution whose nature, consequences, and incidents are governed by law and not subject to stipulation, except that marriage settlements may fix the property relations during the marriage within the limits provided by the Code.

*         Marriage is one of the Basic Civil Rights of Man.  It is something more than a mere contract.  Other contracts may be modified, restricted or enlarged, or entirely released upon the consent of the parties.  BUT not so with marriage.  The relation, once formed, the law steps in and hold the parties to various obligations and liabilities.  It is an institution in the maintenance of which in its purity the public is deeply interested, for its is the foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress.  The Marital Relation, unlike ordinary contractual relations, is regarded by the laws as the basis of the social organization.  The preservation of that relation is deemed essential to public welfare.  

            In the case of Bove vs Pincotti, 46 Pa D&C, where the husband sought for the annulment of his marriage on the ground that he never had any intention of marrying his wife AND the ONLY consideration why he did so was only to give a name to the child she was then carrying, which however was never born, IT WAS HELD that the annulment cannot be granted on such ground BECAUSE the policy of the law clearly was against such an annulment considering that a marriage is not at most a civil contract but it is at least a civil contract.  To say that the failure of the child to be born is a failure of consideration and therefore, avoids the point just made, is merely to emphasize the artificiality of comparing the marriage to the ordinary civil contract.  IT IS NOT possible to have a marriage for one purpose and no marriage at all for the other purpose, for marriage is not only a contract but a status and a kind of fealty to the State as well.

          Marriage also means a "double status," that is, it involves and affects 2 persons.  One is married always to somebody else.  Ergo, a judicial decree on the marriage status of a person necessarily reflects upon the status  of another and the relation between them.