Art. 37. Marriages between the following are incestuous and void from the beginning, whether the relationship
between the parties be legitimate or illegitimate:
(1) Between ascendants and descendants of any degree; and
(2) Between brothers and sisters, whether of the full or half blood.
Art. 38. The following marriages shall be void from the beginning for reasons of public policy:
(1) Between collateral blood relatives, whether legitimate or illegitimate, up to the fourth civil degree;
(2) Between step-parents and step-children;
(3) Between parents-in-law and children-in-law;
(4) Between the adopting parent and the adopted child;
(5) Between the surviving spouse of the adopting parent and the adopted child;
(6) Between the surviving spouse of the adopted child and the adopter;
(7) Between an adopted child and a legitimate child of the adopter;
(8) Between the adopted children of the same adopter; and
(9) Between parties where one, with the intention to marry the other, killed that other person's spouse or his or her
own spouse. (82)
Art. 41. A marriage contracted by any person during the subsistence of a previous marriage shall be null and void,
unless before the celebration of the subsequent marriage, the prior spouse had been absent for four consecutive
years and the spouse present has a well-founded belief that the absent spouse was already dead. In case of
disappearance where there is danger of death under the circumstances set forth in the provisions of Article 391 of the
Civil Code, an absence of only two years shall be sufficient.
For the purpose of contracting the subsequent marriage under the preceding paragraph, the spouse present must
institute a summary proceeding as provided in this Code for the declaration of presumptive death of the absentee,
without prejudice to the effect of reappearance of the absent spouse. (83a)
Art. 52. The judgment of annulment or of absolute nullity of the marriage, the partition and distribution of the
properties of the spouses, and the delivery of the children's presumptive legitimes shall be recorded in the
appropriate civil registry and registries of property; otherwise, the same shall not affect third persons, (n)
Art. 53. Either of the former spouses may marry again after complying with the requirements of the immediately
preceding Article; otherwise, the subsequent marriage shall be null and void.
[57]
RULE 131, Section 3(a).
Id., Section 3(c).
[59] Id., Section 3(d).
[60] Id., Section 3(x).
[61] Id., Section 3(aa).
[62] Id., Section 3(ff).
[63] Rep. of the Phils. v. Albios, 719 Phil. 622, 636 (2013).
[64] 1987 CONSTITUTION, Article XV, Section 2. This echoed the Family Code provision, which provides:
Art. 1. Marriage is 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 this Code.
[58]
[65]
Bernas, Joaquin G, S.J., THE INTENT OF THE 1986 CONSTITUTION WRITERS, 1995 Edition, pp. 1132, citing V
RECORD 41.
[66] Record of the Constitutional Commission: Proceedings and Debates, Volume V, September 24, 1986, p. 41.
[67] See Garcia Valdez v. Soteraña Tuason, 40 Phil. 943, 944 (1920); Francisco v. Tayao, 50 Phil. 42 (1927); People
v. Bitdu, 58 Phil. 817 (1933); Sikat v. Canson, 61 Phil. 207 (1939); and Arca, et al. v. Javier, 95 Phil. 579 (1954).
[68] See Baptista v. Castañeda, 16 Phil. 461 (1946); Luz v. Court of First Instance of Tacloban, 77 Phil. 679 (1946);
and Antonio v. Reyes, 519 Phil. 337 (2006).
[69] Baptista v. Castañeda, supra, at 463.
[70] Tenchavezv. Escano, et al.,supra note 13, at 759-760, as cited in Cang v. Court of Appeals, supra note
13; Llorente v. Court of Appeals, supra note 13; and Perez v. Court of Appeals, supra note 13. See also Garcia v.
Recio, supra note 9, at 730; Republic v. Iyoy, supra note 13; and Lavadia v. Heirs of Juan Luces Luna, 739 Phil. 331,
341-342 (2014).