Jump to content


Photo

Annulment 101


  • Please log in to reply
590 replies to this topic

#21 swami

swami

    Looker

  • (04) Casual
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 134 posts

Posted 08 August 2009 - 11:50 AM

sir so pano po procedure to get it void? thanks.


You have to file a Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage with the RTC. You will the services of counsel for this.

#22 swami

swami

    Looker

  • (04) Casual
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 134 posts

Posted 08 August 2009 - 11:52 AM

sir, tanong ko lang, yung naging anak sa bagong kinakasama pero kasal sa iba at nai-acknowlege naman sa birth certificate, ano po magiging status nya, legitimate or illegitimate?


Dude, the status of the children will be illegitimate.

#23 moed

moed

    Looker

  • (04) Casual
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 140 posts

Posted 08 August 2009 - 11:54 AM

Illegitimate yan dahil hinde kayo kasal sa isa't isa. Kung yung babae pa ang kasal sa iba delikado pa yung dalawa sa adultery.

#24 paolonaz

paolonaz

    Looker

  • (04) Casual
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 148 posts

Posted 09 August 2009 - 02:05 PM

You have to file a Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage with the RTC. You will the services of counsel for this.



sir can you give me referrals? it says on my marriage certificate we where married under article 34.
whats that? thanks...

Edited by paolonaz, 09 August 2009 - 02:08 PM.


#25 swami

swami

    Looker

  • (04) Casual
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 134 posts

Posted 09 August 2009 - 08:00 PM

sir can you give me referrals? it says on my marriage certificate we where married under article 34.
whats that? thanks...


Oh, now I get it. The reason why there was no marriage license was because you executed an affidavit stating that you two (2) had been living together as husband and wife (live in) for at least five years prior to the date of marriage. That's one of the exceptions provided by law. I think that's what ARt. 34 states. If parties have been living together as husband and wife for at least 5 years, they're exempt from securing a marriage license. They ccould get married right away. The solemnizing officer usually requires the parties to simply execute an affidavit to that effect.

I'm afraid you'll have to secure your annulment the hard way. PM me if you wish to discuss this privately.

#26 lomex32

lomex32

    The Eye from the Sky

  • Ambassador
  • 10551 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Manila
  • Interests:Automobiles, travel, cooking, computer gaming,

Posted 11 August 2009 - 09:06 AM

Atty swami

Some twists on Article 34
My wife and I executed this affidavit her age 22 mine 24

Can the undertaking of the exemption be challenged stating that she was a minor (22 yrs -5 = 17) then ?


Oh, now I get it. The reason why there was no marriage license was because you executed an affidavit stating that you two (2) had been living together as husband and wife (live in) for at least five years prior to the date of marriage. That's one of the exceptions provided by law. I think that's what ARt. 34 states. If parties have been living together as husband and wife for at least 5 years, they're exempt from securing a marriage license. They ccould get married right away. The solemnizing officer usually requires the parties to simply execute an affidavit to that effect.

I'm afraid you'll have to secure your annulment the hard way. PM me if you wish to discuss this privately.



#27 swami

swami

    Looker

  • (04) Casual
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 134 posts

Posted 11 August 2009 - 10:13 AM

Atty swami

Some twists on Article 34
My wife and I executed this affidavit her age 22 mine 24

Can the undertaking of the exemption be challenged stating that she was a minor (22 yrs -5 = 17) then ?


Hmm. If I remember it correctly, there are 2 schools of thought here.

1. The first view states that during the said five-year cohabitation period, both parties must not be suffering from any impediment to marry each other (e.g., prior marriage, minority, etc)

2. The second view, however, maintains that it is not necessary that during the said five-year period, both parties must not be suffering from any impediment to marry each other. It is sufficient that they had been living with each other as husband and wife for five years and that on the day of the intended marriage, they are no longer suffering from said impediment.

I think majority of the legal scholars adhere to the first view.

#28 lomex32

lomex32

    The Eye from the Sky

  • Ambassador
  • 10551 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Manila
  • Interests:Automobiles, travel, cooking, computer gaming,

Posted 11 August 2009 - 01:43 PM

If such undertaking becomes void will the marriage be likewise?

What is your view on this then?

What can be the Sol Gen's defense on this argument?


I think majority of the legal scholars adhere to the first view.



#29 The_Blade

The_Blade

    Skyscraperist

  • (11) Wyld
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2780 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:laurel mansion

Posted 11 August 2009 - 01:59 PM

how about if peke yung marriage lisence. for example kinuha sa cavite... eh sa qc city hall naman kinasal. pwede bang i pa void toh?

#30 swami

swami

    Looker

  • (04) Casual
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 134 posts

Posted 11 August 2009 - 04:30 PM

If such undertaking becomes void will the marriage be likewise?

What is your view on this then?

What can be the Sol Gen's defense on this argument?


If we were to follow the first view, then the marriage is void. If the second, the marriage is valid.
I personally adhere to the first view. It will be nice to bring this matter for resolution by the courts.

In cases like this where the legal issues are not clear cut, the SolGen will almost always take the contrary view, if only to give the Supreme Court the opportunity to finally rule on the matter.

#31 swami

swami

    Looker

  • (04) Casual
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 134 posts

Posted 11 August 2009 - 04:34 PM

how about if peke yung marriage lisence. for example kinuha sa cavite... eh sa qc city hall naman kinasal. pwede bang i pa void toh?


How do you know it's fake? A marriage license issued by any local civil registrar may be used anywhere in the Philippines. Thus, a marriage license issued by the local civil registrar of Cavite may be used by a priest in Quezon City as basis in officiating the marriage ceremony.

#32 SoundWave

SoundWave

    Agent 69

  • (05) Regular
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 576 posts
  • Location:bikini bottom

Posted 11 August 2009 - 09:40 PM

magkano po kaya ang kailangan ihanda para sa gastusin ng annulment?

#33 The_Blade

The_Blade

    Skyscraperist

  • (11) Wyld
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2780 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:laurel mansion

Posted 13 August 2009 - 05:16 PM

How do you know it's fake? A marriage license issued by any local civil registrar may be used anywhere in the Philippines. Thus, a marriage license issued by the local civil registrar of Cavite may be used by a priest in Quezon City as basis in officiating the marriage ceremony.



it's done via a fixer. none of the "marrying" party resides in cavite. it's ante dated. Besides the officiating party is not a priest or Judge in one RTC in QC. Maybe just one of the employee in the judge's office. Is the marriage legal?

#34 swami

swami

    Looker

  • (04) Casual
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 134 posts

Posted 13 August 2009 - 07:28 PM

it's done via a fixer. none of the "marrying" party resides in cavite. it's ante dated. Besides the officiating party is not a priest or Judge in one RTC in QC. Maybe just one of the employee in the judge's office. Is the marriage legal?


1. The fact that it's done via fixer does not mean the license was indeed fake. It's possible that the fixer was there only to facilitate the immediate release of the license.

2. Again, it is not necessary that either of the marrying parties reside in the city or municipality where the license was issued.

3. The fact that the officiating officer is not a priest or judge does not necessarily mean the marriage is void, provided that at least one of the parties honestly believed that the officiating officer had the authority to do so.

Dude, it's easier to secure an annulment if both parties are colluding.

#35 countrystyle

countrystyle

    2011 Champ

  • (05) Regular
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 839 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:mandaluyong
  • Interests:music, food/cooking, beer, travel

Posted 14 August 2009 - 01:31 PM

1. The fact that it's done via fixer does not mean the license was indeed fake. It's possible that the fixer was there only to facilitate the immediate release of the license.

2. Again, it is not necessary that either of the marrying parties reside in the city or municipality where the license was issued.

3. The fact that the officiating officer is not a priest or judge does not necessarily mean the marriage is void, provided that at least one of the parties honestly believed that the officiating officer had the authority to do so.

Dude, it's easier to secure an annulment if both parties are colluding.


i heard that the court will subpoena both parties to make sure that there is no collulsion. what should they do? should the petitionee just ignore subpoena's and other letters from the court to ensure that the proceedings will be smooth and that the annulment will be granted?

Edited by countrystyle, 14 August 2009 - 01:32 PM.


#36 swami

swami

    Looker

  • (04) Casual
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 134 posts

Posted 14 August 2009 - 03:08 PM

i heard that the court will subpoena both parties to make sure that there is no collulsion. what should they do? should the petitionee just ignore subpoena's and other letters from the court to ensure that the proceedings will be smooth and that the annulment will be granted?


Well, actually, it's the prosecutor who subpoenas the parties. Here's how it goes:

1. The parties collude, agreeing that the other spouse will not contest the petition;
2. The petitioner files the petition, and the other spouses does not file any answer;
3. The court will remand the case to the prosecutor to conduct a hearing to determine if there's collusion;
4. The prosecutor issues a subpoena. The other spouse may opt to appear and state that he's not amenable to the petition, but nonetheless will not file any answer because he cannot secure the services of counsel, etc.
5. The prosecutor files a report to the court, expressing his finding that there's no collusion.
6. The Court proceeds with the case, with the prosecutor representing the OSG and the State. The court will continue to notify the other spouse of the notices of the proceedings.
7. The court issues a Decision annulling the case.
8. Hopefully, the OSG will not appeal.

#37 countrystyle

countrystyle

    2011 Champ

  • (05) Regular
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 839 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:mandaluyong
  • Interests:music, food/cooking, beer, travel

Posted 15 August 2009 - 05:55 PM

Well, actually, it's the prosecutor who subpoenas the parties. Here's how it goes:

1. The parties collude, agreeing that the other spouse will not contest the petition;
2. The petitioner files the petition, and the other spouses does not file any answer;
3. The court will remand the case to the prosecutor to conduct a hearing to determine if there's collusion;
4. The prosecutor issues a subpoena. The other spouse may opt to appear and state that he's not amenable to the petition, but nonetheless will not file any answer because he cannot secure the services of counsel, etc.
5. The prosecutor files a report to the court, expressing his finding that there's no collusion.
6. The Court proceeds with the case, with the prosecutor representing the OSG and the State. The court will continue to notify the other spouse of the notices of the proceedings.
7. The court issues a Decision annulling the case.
8. Hopefully, the OSG will not appeal.


thanks, swami. what's the OSG?

if there's collusion then the allegations in the petition will probably be bogus, allegations of psychological incapacity, for instance, even though the other spouse is perfectly sane. now, the other spouse knows that these allegations are not true but will not contest so that the annulment will be granted. other than the annulment being granted, what will be the impact of this decision to the other spouse? can the case be made public, or can someone request for the details of the case to discredit the other spouse, say, to take away his rights to see their children?

#38 ReDBaByBuRn

ReDBaByBuRn

    inlove with pokerstar DJ Poy

  • (11) Wyld
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5836 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:sa puso mo...
  • Interests:inked... mom... stoked... inlove...

Posted 15 August 2009 - 09:08 PM

what would be the first thing to do if i wanted my previous marriage to be annuled?...

#39 bonito99

bonito99

    The Bo.

  • Moderator
  • 9472 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The Philippine Islands
  • Interests:Just you.

Posted 16 August 2009 - 11:02 AM

Backread. :)

OSG: Office of the Solicitor General

#40 The_Blade

The_Blade

    Skyscraperist

  • (11) Wyld
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2780 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:laurel mansion

Posted 16 August 2009 - 02:16 PM

thanks swami!

the marriage was in 1990. male is 20 YO. hindi ba kailangan ng parents consent yun? if kailangan, at wala yun di ba null and void yun?




2 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users