Republic of the Philippines v. Liberty D. Albios
G.R. No. 198780, 16 October 2013
The case of Republic v. Albios involves a marriage alleged to be entered into by Albios for the purpose of obtaining US citizenship, which failed to materialize. Hence, finding no use for her marriage and arguing that both she and her husband did not really intend to enter into a married life, Albios filed a Petition for Declaration of Nullity before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) for the purpose of declaring her marriage void.
The RTC found the marriage as one made in jest, or for convenience only, and voided the marriage of Albios and her husband. This was later upheld by the Court of Appeals (CA) which reasoned that since there was no intention to enter into a married life, there was no consent to begin with, making the marriage void.
The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) appealed the decision of the CA to the Supreme Court (SC) via a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
Marriage Fraud for Purposes of Immigration
The SC reversed the CA and declared the marriage valid. Before explaining its reason, the SC first delved into the issue of fraud marriages for purposes of immigration in the US, thus -
"The institution of
marriage carries with it concomitant benefits. This has led to the development
of marriage fraud for the sole purpose of availing of particular benefits. In
the United States, marriages where a couple marries only to achieve a particular
purpose or acquire specific benefits, have been referred to as "limited
purpose" marriages. A common
limited purpose marriage is one entered into solely for the legitimization of a
child. Another, which is the subject of the
present case, is for immigration purposes. Immigration law is usually concerned
with the intention of the couple at the time of their marriage, and
it attempts to filter out those who use marriage solely to achieve immigration
status.
In 1975, the seminal
case of Bark v. Immigration and
Naturalization Service, established
the principal test for determining the presence of marriage fraud in immigration
cases. It ruled that a "marriage is a sham if the bride and groom did not
intend to establish a life together at the time they were married." This
standard was modified with the passage of the Immigration Marriage Fraud
Amendment of 1986 (IMFA), which now requires the
couple to instead demonstrate that the marriage was not
"entered into for the purpose of evading the immigration laws of
the United States." The focus, thus, shifted from determining the
intention to establish a life together, to determining the intention of evading
immigration laws. It must be noted, however, that this
standard is used purely for immigration purposes and, therefore, does not
purport to rule on the legal validity or existence of a marriage.
The question that
then arises is whether a marriage declared as a sham or fraudulent for the
limited purpose of immigration is also legally void and inexistent. The early
cases on limited purpose marriages in the United States made no definitive
ruling. In 1946, the notable case of United
States v. Rubenstein was
promulgated, wherein in order to allow an alien to stay in the country, the
parties had agreed to marry but not to live together and to obtain a divorce
within six months. The Court, through Judge Learned Hand, ruled that a marriage
to convert temporary into permanent permission to stay in the country was not a
marriage, there being no consent, to wit:
. . . But, that
aside, Spitz and Sandler were
never married at all. Mutual
consent is necessary to every contract; and no matter what forms or ceremonies
the parties may go through indicating the contrary, they do not contract if
they do not in fact assent, which may always be proved. . . . Marriage is no
exception to this rule: a
marriage in jest is not a marriage at all. .
. . It is quite true that a marriage without subsequent consummation will be
valid; but if the spouses agree to a
marriage only for the sake of representing it as such to the outside world and
with the understanding that they will put an end to it as soon as it has served
its purpose to deceive, they have never really agreed to be married at all.
They must assent to enter into the relation as it is ordinarily understood, and
it is not ordinarily understood as merely a pretence, or cover, to deceive
others.
(Italics
supplied)
On the other end of
the spectrum is the 1969 case of Mpiliris
v. Hellenic Lines, which declared as valid a marriage entered into solely for the
husband to gain entry to the United States, stating that a valid marriage could
not be avoided "merely because the marriage was entered into for a limited
purpose." The 1980 immigration case of Matter
of McKee, further recognized that a fraudulent or
sham marriage was intrinsically different from a nonsubsisting one.
Nullifying these
limited purpose marriages for lack of consent has, therefore, been recognized
as problematic. The problem being that in order to obtain an immigration
benefit, a legal marriage is first necessary. At present,
United States courts have generally denied annulments involving "limited
purpose" marriages where a couple married only to achieve a particular
purpose, and have upheld such marriages as valid."
Why Albios' marriage, though entered to obtain US citizenship, is valid
After discussing how US courts have treated fraud marriages for immigration purposes or limited purpose marriages, the SC then proceeded to explain why Albios' marriage cannot be declared void. It held that Albios' marriage is not one made in jest, which is void ab initio, but one where all the elements are present, though the purposes for which it was entered into may be different. As opposed to marriages made in jest, Albios marriage was one where both parties intended to give legal effect to the marriage though Albios' intended US citizenship was not achieved. Both parties' consent were also conscious and intelligent, thus belying the CA's ruling that there was no consent to begin with.
“The CA's assailed decision was, therefore, grounded on the parties' supposed lack of consent. Under Article 2 of the Family Code, consent is an essential requisite of marriage. Article 4 of the same Code provides that the absence of any essential requisite shall render a marriage void ab initio.
Under
said Article 2, for consent to be valid, it must be (1) freely given and (2)
made in the presence of a solemnizing officer. A "freely given"
consent requires that the contracting parties willingly and deliberately enter
into the marriage. 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. Their understanding
should not be affected by insanity, intoxication, drugs, or hypnotism.
Based on the above,
consent was not lacking between Albios and Fringer. In fact, there was real consent
because it was not vitiated nor rendered defective by any vice of consent.
Their consent was also conscious and intelligent as they understood
the nature and the beneficial and inconvenient consequences of their marriage,
as nothing impaired their ability to do so. That their consent was freely given
is best evidenced by their conscious purpose of acquiring American citizenship
through marriage. Such plainly demonstrates that they willingly and
deliberately contracted the marriage. There was a clear intention 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 which was necessary to accomplish their goal.
In
ruling that Albios' marriage was void for lack of consent, the CA characterized
such as akin to a marriage by way of jest. A marriage in jest is a pretended
marriage, legal in form but entered into as a joke, with no real intention of
entering into the actual marriage status, and with a clear understanding that
the parties would not be bound. The ceremony is not followed by any conduct
indicating a purpose to enter into such a relation. It is a pretended marriage
not intended to be real and with no intention to create any legal ties
whatsoever, hence, the absence of any genuine consent. Marriages in jest are
void ab initio, not for vitiated, defective, or unintelligent consent, but
for a complete absence of consent. There is no genuine consent because the
parties have absolutely no intention of being bound in any way or for any
purpose.
The
respondent's marriage is not at all analogous to a marriage in jest. Albios and
Fringer had an undeniable intention to be bound in order to create the very
bond necessary to allow the respondent to acquire American citizenship. Only a
genuine consent to be married would allow them to further their objective,
considering that only a valid marriage can properly support an application for
citizenship. There was, thus, an apparent intention to enter into the actual
marriage status and to create a legal tie, albeit for a limited purpose.
Genuine consent was, therefore, clearly present.
The
avowed purpose of marriage under Article 1 of the Family Code is for the couple
to establish a conjugal and family life. The possibility that the parties in a
marriage might have no real intention to establish a life together is, however,
insufficient to nullify a marriage freely entered into in accordance with law.
The same Article 1 provides that the nature, consequences, and incidents of
marriage are governed by law and not subject to stipulation. A marriage may,
thus, only be declared void or voidable under the grounds provided by law.
There is no law that declares a marriage void if it is entered into for
purposes other than what the Constitution or law declares, such as the
acquisition of foreign citizenship. Therefore, so long as all the essential and
formal requisites prescribed by law are present, and it is not void or voidable
under the grounds provided by law, it shall be declared valid.
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. Any attempt
to regulate their lifestyle would go into the realm of their right to privacy
and would raise serious constitutional questions. 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. Love, though the ideal consideration in a marriage contract,
is not the only valid cause for marriage. Other considerations, not precluded
by law, may validly support a marriage.
Although
the Court views with disdain the respondent's attempt to utilize marriage for
dishonest purposes, It cannot declare the marriage void. Hence, though the
respondent's 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.
Neither
can their marriage be considered voidable on the ground of fraud under Article
45 (3) of the Family Code. Only the circumstances listed under Article 46 of
the same Code may constitute fraud, namely, (1) non-disclosure of a previous
conviction involving moral turpitude; (2) concealment by the wife of a
pregnancy by another man; (3) concealment of a sexually transmitted disease;
and (4) concealment of drug addiction, alcoholism, or homosexuality. No other
misrepresentation or deceit shall constitute fraud as a ground for an action to
annul a marriage. Entering into a marriage for the sole purpose of evading
immigration laws does not qualify under any of the listed circumstances. Furthermore,
under Article 47 (3), the ground of fraud may only be brought by the injured or
innocent party. In the present case, there is no injured party because Albios
and Fringer both conspired to enter into the sham marriage.
Albios
has indeed made a mockery of the sacred institution of marriage. Allowing her
marriage with Fringer to be declared void would only further trivialize this
inviolable institution. The Court cannot declare such a marriage void in the
event the parties fail to qualify for immigration benefits, after they have
availed of its benefits, or simply have no further use for it. These
unscrupulous individuals cannot be allowed to use the courts as instruments in
their fraudulent schemes. Albios already misused a judicial institution to enter
into a marriage of convenience; she should not be allowed to again abuse it to
get herself out of an inconvenient situation.
No less than our
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 the 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.”
As can be seen from above, the SC found both parties' consent to be valid because in order to effect the intended change in citizenship, the marriage between Albios and her husband should first be completely legal. Thus, even if it is conceded that Albios' husband's consent was obtained by paying him $2,000.00, this is not enough to declare his consent absent. This is likewise not enough to deem the consent vitiated, which is not, and most especially considering the fact that Albios is not an innocent party who can claim vitiation of consent due to fraud.
