THIRD DIVISION On December 6, 2006, Albios filed with the RTC a petition for

declaration of nullity 4 of her marriage with Fringer. She alleged that

G.R. No. 198780               October 16, 2013 immediately after their marriage, they separated and never lived as
husband and wife because they never really had any intention of
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, 
entering into a married state or complying with any of their essential
vs.
marital obligations. She described their marriage as one made in jest
LIBERTY D. ALBIOS, Respondent.
and, therefore, null and void ab initio .
DECISION
Summons was served on Fringer but he did not file his answer. On
MENDOZA, J.: September 13, 2007, Albios filed a motion to set case for pre-trial and
to admit her pre-trial brief. The RTC ordered the Assistant Provincial
This is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules t of Prosecutor to conduct an investigation and determine the existence of a
Court assailing the September 29, 2011 Decision 1 of the Court of collusion. On October 2, 2007, the Assistant Prosecutor complied and
Appeals (CA), in CA-G.R. CV No. 95414, which affirmed the April 25, reported that she could not make a determination for failure of both
2008Decision2 of the Regional Trial Court, Imus, Cavite (RTC). parties to appear at the scheduled investigation.
declaring the marriage of Daniel Lee Fringer (Fringer) and respondent
Liberty Albios (A/bios) as void from the beginning. At the pre-trial, only Albios, her counsel and the prosecutor appeared.
Fringer did not attend the hearing despite being duly notified of the
The facts schedule. After the pre-trial, hearing on the merits ensued.

On October 22, 2004, Fringer, an American citizen, and Albios were Ruling of the RTC
married before Judge Ofelia I. Calo of the Metropolitan Trial Court,
Branch59, Mandaluyong City (MeTC), as evidenced by a Certificate of In its April 25, 2008 Decision,5 the RTC declared the marriage void ab
Marriage with Register No. 2004-1588.3 initio, the dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered want of merit. It explained that the marriage was declared void because
declaring the marriage of Liberty Albios and Daniel Lee Fringer as void the parties failed to freely give their consent to the marriage as they had
from the very beginning. As a necessary consequence of this no intention to be legally bound by it and used it only as a means to
pronouncement, petitioner shall cease using the surname of respondent acquire American citizenship in consideration of $2,000.00.
as she never acquired any right over it and so as to avoid a
misimpression that she remains the wife of respondent. Not in conformity, the OSG filed an appeal before the CA.

xxxx Ruling of the CA

SO ORDERED.6 In its assailed decision, dated September 29, 2011, the CA affirmed the
RTC ruling which found that the essential requisite of consent was
The RTC was of the view that the parties married each other for lacking. The CA stated that the parties clearly did not understand the
convenience only. Giving credence to the testimony of Albios, it stated nature and consequence of getting married and that their case was
that she contracted Fringer to enter into a marriage to enable her to similar to a marriage in jest. It further explained that the parties never
acquire American citizenship; that in consideration thereof, she agreed intended to enter into the marriage contract and never intended to live
to pay him the sum of $2,000.00; that after the ceremony, the parties as husband and wife or build a family. It concluded that their purpose
went their separate ways; that Fringer returned to the United States and was primarily for personal gain, that is, for Albios to obtain foreign
never again communicated with her; and that, in turn, she did not pay citizenship, and for Fringer, the consideration of $2,000.00.
him the $2,000.00 because he never processed her petition for
citizenship. The RTC, thus, ruled that when marriage was entered into Hence, this petition.
for a purpose other than the establishment of a conjugal and family life,
Assignment of Error
such was a farce and should not be recognized from its inception.
THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED ON A QUESTION OF
Petitioner Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Office of the
LAWWHEN IT HELD THAT A MARRIAGE CONTRACTED FOR
Solicitor General (OSG), filed a motion for reconsideration. The RTC
THEPURPOSE OF OBTAINING FOREIGN CITIZENSHIP WAS
issued the Order, 7 dated February 5, 2009, denying the motion for
DONEIN JEST, HENCE, LACKING IN THE ESSENTIAL The resolution of this case hinges on this sole question of law: Is a
ELEMENT OFCONSENT.8 marriage, contracted for the sole purpose of acquiring American
citizenship in consideration of $2,000.00, void ab initio on the ground
The OSG argues that albeit the intention was for Albios to acquire of lack of consent?
American citizenship and for Fringer to be paid $2,000.00, both parties
freely gave their consent to the marriage, as they knowingly and The Court resolves in the negative.
willingly entered into that marriage and knew the benefits and
consequences of being bound by it. According to the OSG, consent Before the Court delves into its ruling, It shall first examine the
should be distinguished from motive, the latter being inconsequential to phenomenon of marriage fraud for the purposes of immigration.
the validity of marriage.
Marriage Fraud in Immigration
The OSG also argues that the present case does not fall within the
The institution of marriage carries with it concomitant benefits. This has
concept of a marriage in jest. The parties here intentionally consented to
led to the development of marriage fraud for the sole purpose of
enter into a real and valid marriage, for if it were otherwise, the purpose
availing of particular benefits. In the United States, marriages where a
of Albios to acquire American citizenship would be rendered futile.
couple marries only to achieve a particular purpose or acquire specific
On October 29, 2012, Albios filed her Comment9 to the petition, benefits, have been referred to as "limited purpose" marriages. 11 A
reiterating her stand that her marriage was similar to a marriage by way common limited purpose marriage is one entered into solely for the
of jest and, therefore, void from the beginning. legitimization of a child.12 Another, which is the subject of the present
case, is for immigration purposes. Immigration law is usually concerned
On March 22, 2013, the OSG filed its Reply10 reiterating its arguments with the intention of the couple at the time of their marriage, 13 and it
in its petition for review on certiorari. attempts to filter out those who use marriage solely to achieve
immigration status.14
Ruling of the Court
In 1975, the seminal case of Bark v. Immigration and Naturalization
Service,15 established the principal test for determining the presence of
marriage fraud in immigration cases. It ruled that a "marriage is a sham x x x But, that aside, Spitz and Sandler were never married at all.
if the bride and groom did not intend to establish a life together at the Mutual consent is necessary to every contract; and no matter what
time they were married. "This standard was modified with the passage forms or ceremonies the parties may go through indicating the contrary,
of the Immigration Marriage Fraud Amendment of 1986 (IMFA), which they do not contract if they do not in fact assent, which may always be
now requires the couple to instead demonstrate that the marriage was proved. x x x Marriage is no exception to this rule: a marriage in jest is
not "entered into for the purpose of evading the immigration laws of the not a marriage at all. x x x It is quite true that a marriage without
United States." The focus, thus, shifted from determining the intention subsequent consummation will be valid; but if the spouses agree to a
to establish a life together, to determining the intention of evading marriage only for the sake of representing it as such to the outside world
immigration laws.16 It must be noted, however, that this standard is used and with the understanding that they will put an end to it as soon as it
purely for immigration purposes and, therefore, does not purport to rule has served its purpose to deceive, they have never really agreed to be
on the legal validity or existence of a marriage. 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
The question that then arises is whether a marriage declared as a sham pretence, or cover, to deceive others.18
or fraudulent for the limited purpose of immigration is also legally void
and in existent. The early cases on limited purpose marriages in the (Italics supplied)
United States made no definitive ruling. In 1946, the notable case of
On the other end of the spectrum is the 1969 case of Mpiliris v.
17
United States v. Rubenstein  was promulgated, wherein in order to Hellenic Lines,19 which declared as valid a marriage entered into solely
allow an alien to stay in the country, the parties had agreed to marry but for the husband to gain entry to the United States, stating that a valid
not to live together and to obtain a divorce within six months. The marriage could not be avoided "merely because the marriage was
Court, through Judge Learned Hand, ruled that a marriage to convert entered into for a limited purpose."20 The 1980 immigration case of
temporary into permanent permission to stay in the country was not a Matter of McKee,21 further recognized that a fraudulent or sham
marriage, there being no consent, to wit: marriage was intrinsically different from a non subsisting one.
Nullifying these limited purpose marriages for lack of consent has, marriage for the acquisition of American citizenship in exchange of
therefore, been recognized as problematic. The problem being that in $2,000.00. They never intended to enter into a marriage contract and
order to obtain an immigration benefit, a legal marriage is first never intended to live as husband and wife or build a family.
necessary.22 At present, United States courts have generally denied
annulments involving" limited purpose" marriages where a couple The CA’s assailed decision was, therefore, grounded on the parties’
married only to achieve a particular purpose, and have upheld such supposed lack of consent. Under Article 2 of the Family Code, consent
marriages as valid.23 is an essential requisite of marriage. Article 4 of the same Code
provides that the absence of any essential requisite shall render a
The Court now turns to the case at hand. marriage void ab initio.

Respondent’s marriage not void 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"
In declaring the respondent’s marriage void, the RTC ruled that when a consent requires that the contracting parties willingly and deliberately
marriage was entered into for a purpose other than the establishment of enter into the marriage. Consent must be real in the sense that it is not
a conjugal and family life, such was a farce and should not be vitiated nor rendered defective by any of the vices of consent under
recognized from its inception. In its resolution denying the OSG’s Articles45 and 46 of the Family Code, such as fraud, force,
motion for reconsideration, the RTC went on to explain that the intimidation, and undue influence.24Consent must also be conscious or
marriage was declared void because the parties failed to freely give intelligent, in that the parties must be capable of intelligently
their consent to the marriage as they had no intention to be legally understanding the nature of, and both the beneficial or unfavorable
bound by it and used it only as a means for the respondent to acquire consequences of their act.25 Their understanding should not be affected
American citizenship. Agreeing with the RTC, the CA ruled that the by insanity, intoxication, drugs, or hypnotism. 26
essential requisite of consent was lacking. It held that the parties clearly
did not understand the nature and consequence of getting married. As in Based on the above, consent was not lacking between Albios and
the Rubenstein case, the CA found the marriage to be similar to a Fringer. In fact, there was real consent because it was not vitiated nor
marriage in jest considering that the parties only entered into the rendered defective by any vice of consent. Their consent was also
conscious and intelligent as they understood the nature and the The respondent’s marriage is not at all analogous to a marriage in
beneficial and inconvenient consequences of their marriage, as nothing jest.1âwphi1 Albios and Fringer had an undeniable intention to be
impaired their ability to do so. That their consent was freely given is bound in order to create the very bond necessary to allow the
best evidenced by their conscious purpose of acquiring American respondent to acquire American citizenship. Only a genuine consent to
citizenship through marriage. Such plainly demonstrates that they be married would allow them to further their objective, considering that
willingly and deliberately contracted the marriage. There was a clear only a valid marriage can properly support an application for
intention to enter into a real and valid marriage so as to fully comply citizenship. There was, thus, an apparent intention to enter into the
with the requirements of an application for citizenship. There was a full actual marriage status and to create a legal tie, albeit for a limited
and complete understanding of the legal tie that would be created purpose. Genuine consent was, therefore, clearly present.
between them, since it was that precise legal tie which was necessary to
accomplish their goal. 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
In ruling that Albios’ marriage was void for lack of consent, the CA that the parties in a marriage might have no real intention to establish a
characterized such as akin to a marriage by way of jest. A marriage in life together is, however, insufficient to nullify a marriage freely
jest is a pretended marriage, legal in form but entered into as a joke, entered into in accordance with law. The same Article 1 provides that
with no real intention of entering into the actual marriage status, and the nature, consequences, and incidents of marriage are governed by
with a clear understanding that the parties would not be bound. The law and not subject to stipulation. A marriage may, thus, only be
ceremony is not followed by any conduct indicating a purpose to enter declared void or voidable under the grounds provided by law. There is
into such a relation.27 It is a pretended marriage not intended to be real no law that declares a marriage void if it is entered into for purposes
and with no intention to create any legal ties whatsoever, hence, the other than what the Constitution or law declares, such as the acquisition
absence of any genuine consent. Marriages in jest are void ab initio, not of foreign citizenship. Therefore, so long as all the essential and formal
for vitiated, defective, or unintelligent consent, but for a complete requisites prescribed by law are present, and it is not void or voidable
absence of consent. There is no genuine consent because the parties under the grounds provided by law, it shall be declared valid. 28
have absolutely no intention of being bound in any way or for any
purpose.
Motives for entering into a marriage are varied and complex. The State concealment of a sexually transmitted disease; and (4) concealment of
does not and cannot dictate on the kind of life that a couple chooses to drug addiction, alcoholism, or homosexuality. No other
lead. Any attempt to regulate their lifestyle would go into the realm of misrepresentation or deceit shall constitute fraud as a ground for an
their right to privacy and would raise serious constitutional action to annul a marriage. Entering into a marriage for the sole purpose
questions.29 The right to marital privacy allows married couples to of evading immigration laws does not qualify under any of the listed
structure their marriages in almost any way they see fit, to live together circumstances. Furthermore, under Article 47 (3), the ground of fraud
or live apart, to have children or no children, to love one another or not, may only be brought by the injured or innocent party. In the present
and so on.30 Thus, marriages entered into for other purposes, limited or case, there is no injured party because Albios and Fringer both
otherwise, such as convenience, companionship, money, status, and conspired to enter into the sham marriage.
title, provided that they comply with all the legal requisites, 31are equally
valid. Love, though the ideal consideration in a marriage contract, is not Albios has indeed made a mockery of the sacred institution of marriage.
the only valid cause for marriage. Other considerations, not precluded Allowing her marriage with Fringer to be declared void would only
by law, may validly support a marriage. further trivialize this inviolable institution. The Court cannot declare
such a marriage void in the event the parties fail to qualify for
Although the Court views with disdain the respondent’s attempt to immigration benefits, after they have availed of its benefits, or simply
utilize marriage for dishonest purposes, It cannot declare the marriage have no further use for it. These unscrupulous individuals cannot be
void. Hence, though the respondent’s marriage may be considered a allowed to use the courts as instruments in their fraudulent schemes.
sham or fraudulent for the purposes of immigration, it is not void ab Albios already misused a judicial institution to enter into a marriage of
initio and continues to be valid and subsisting. convenience; she should not be allowed to again abuse it to get herself
out of an inconvenient situation.
Neither can their marriage be considered voidable on the ground of
fraud under Article 45 (3) of the Family Code. Only the circumstances No less than our Constitution declares that marriage, as an in violable
listed under Article 46 of the same Code may constitute fraud, namely, social institution, is the foundation of the family and shall be protected
(1) non- disclosure of a previous conv1ctwn involving moral turpitude; by the State.32 It must, therefore, be safeguarded from the whims and
(2) concealment by the wife of a pregnancy by another man; (3) caprices of the contracting parties. This Court cannot leave the
impression that marriage may easily be entered into when it suits the I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in
needs of the parties, and just as easily nullified when no longer needed. consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of
the Court's Division.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The September 29, 2011
Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 95414 is PRESBITER J. VELASCO, JR.
ANNULLED, and Civil Case No. 1134-06 is DISMISSED for utter Associate Justice
lack of merit. Chairperson, Third Division

SO ORDERED. CERTIFICATION

JOSE CATRAL MENDOZA Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and the Division
Associate Justice Chairperson's Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the above
Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned
WE CONCUR: to the writer of the opinion of the Court's Division.
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR. MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO
Associate Justice Chief Justice
Chairperson

TERESITA J. LEONARDO-
ARTURO D. BRION**
DE CASTRO*
Associate Justice Footnotes
Associate Justice

DIOSDADO M. PERALTA * Designated Acting Member in lieu of Associate Justice

Associate Justice Marvic Mario Victor F. Leonen per Special Order No. 1570
dated October 14. 2013.
ATTESTATION
 11
** Designated Acting Member in lieu of Associate Justice  Abrams, Kerry. Marriage Fraud . 100 Cal. L. Rev. 1
Roberto A. Abad. Per Special Order No. 1554dated September (2012);http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?
19, 2013. abstract_id=2000956. Lutwak v. United States , 344 U.S. 604,
1
612-613 (U.S. 1953).
 Rollo. pp. 26-32; penned by Associate Justice Juan Q.
12
Enriquez. Jr. and concurred in by Associate Justice Ramon M.  Abrams, Kerry. Marriage Fraud . 100 Cal. L. Rev. 1
Bato. Jr. and Associate Justice Fiorito S. Macalino of the Fifth (2012);http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?
Division. Manila. abstract_id=2000956; citing Schibi v. Schibi , 69 A.2d 831
2
(Conn. 1949) (denying annulment where parties married only
 Id. at 38-39. to give a name to a prospective child); Bishop v. Bishop , 308
3 N.Y.S.2d 998 (Sup. Ct. 1970); Erickson v. Erickson , 48
 Id. at 37.
N.Y.S.2d 588 (Sup. Ct. 1944) (holding similarly to Schibi );
4
 Id. at 33-35. Delfino v.Delfino , 35 N.Y.S.2d 693 (Sup. Ct. 1942) (denying
annulment where purpose of marriage was to protect the girl’s
5
 Id. at 38-39. name and there was an understanding that the parties would not
live together as man and wife); Bove v. Pinciotti , 46 Pa. D. &
6
 Id. at 39. C. 159 (1942); Campbell v. Moore , 189 S.E.2d 497 (S.C.1939)
7 (refusing an annulment where parties entered marriage for the
 Id. at 48-49.
purpose of legitimizing a child); Chander v. Chander ,
8
 Id. at 13. No.2937-98-4, 1999 WL 1129721 (Va. Ct. App. June 22, 1999)
(denying annulment where wife married husband to get his
9
 Id. at 61-71. pension with no intention to consummate marriage because
husband knew that was the purpose of the marriage).
10
 Id. at 89-95.
13 19
 Abrams, Kerry. Immigration Law and the Regulation of  Mpiliris v. Hellenic Lines, Ltd. , 323 F. Supp. 865 (S.D. Tex.
Marriage; 91 Minn. L. Rev. 1625 1969), aff’d , 440 F.2d 1163 (5th Cir. 1971).
(2007);http://www.minnesotalawreview.org/wp- 20
content/uploads/2012/01/Abrams_Final.pdf; citing Immigration  Abrams, Kerry. Marriage Fraud . 100 Cal. L. Rev. 1
and Nationality Act (INA), § 237(a)(1)(G), 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a) (2012);http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?
(1)(G) (2000). abstract_id=2000956; citing Mpiliris v. Hellenic Lines, Ltd. ,
323 F. Supp. 865 (S.D. Tex. 1969), aff’d, 440F.2d 1163 (5th
14
 Abrams, Kerry. Immigration Law and the Regulation of Cir. 1971).
Marriage ; 91 Minn. L. Rev. 1625 21
(2007);http://www.minnesotalawreview.org/wp-  Matter of McKee, 17 I. & N. Dec. 332, 333 (B.I.A. 1980).
content/uploads/2012/01/Abrams_Final.pdf; citing 132 22
 Lynn D. Wardle and Laurence C. Nolan, Family Law in the
CONG.REC. 27,012, 27,015 (1986) (statement of Rep Mc
USA, (The Netherlands: Kluwer Law International, 2011) p.
Collum) (promoting the Immigration Marriage Fraud
86.
Amendments of 1986).
23
15  Abrams, Kerry. Marriage Fraud. 100 Cal. L. Rev. 1
 511 F.2d 1200, 1201 (9th Cir. 1975).
(2012);http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?
16
 Abrams, Kerry. Immigration Law and the Regulation of abstract_id=2000956.
Marriage; 91 Minn. L. Rev. 1625 24
 Alicia V. Sempio-Diy, Handbook on the Family Code of the
(2007);http://www.minnesotalawreview.org/wp-
Philippines, (Quezon City, Philippines: Joer Printing Services,
content/uploads/2012/01/Abrams_Final.pdf.
2005), p. 4.
17
 151 F.2d 915 (2d Cir. 1945).
18
 United States v. Rubenstein , 151 F.2d 915 (2d Cir. 1945).