Dear Atty. Joji,

My husband and I just learned that the person who officiated our wedding is a fraud and not really authorized by law to solemnize a wedding? Even though the minister denied this allegation, we still feel uneasy that our marriage was in fact not valid. If this turns out to be true, is our marriage automatically void?

Sheila

❏ ❏ ❏

Dear Sheila,

A marriage is not automatically void just because the officiating officer allegedly lacked authority. In Eloisa Maliwat-Melad v. Amancio Reyes Melad and Republic of the Philippines (G.R. No. 267998), the Supreme Court ruled that even if the officiant is later alleged to have lacked authority, the marriage remains valid so long as one or both spouses believed in good faith that the person officiating was authorized.

The Court explained that while the authority of the solemnizing officer is a formal requirement under Articles 3 and 7 of the Family Code, and although Article 35 (2) generally voids marriages performed by someone without such authority, the law makes an important exception: good-faith belief on the part of the spouses preserves the validity of the marriage.

In that case, the Supreme Court refused to nullify the marriage because the petitioner could not present clear evidence that the officiant was actually unauthorized at the time of the wedding. In short, even if the officiant may not have been authorized, the marriage will still be considered valid if the parties entered into it believing in good faith that the person had the legal authority to solemnize it.

Article 35 (2) of the Family Code provides that marriages officiated by a person with no legal authority are considered void, except if one or both parties to the marriage believed in good faith that the officer had legal authority to solemnize the marriage, to wit:

ARTICLE 35. The following marriages shall be void from the beginning:

(1) Those contracted by any party below eighteen years of age even with the consent of parents or guardians;

(2) Those solemnized by any person not legally authorized to perform marriages unless such marriages were contracted with either or both parties believing in good faith that the solemnizing officer had the legal authority to do so; (Emphasis supplied)

Thus, the foregoing case falls under the exception of void marriages as provided in Article 35 (2) of the Family Code. Their marriage was is valid owing to her genuine belief, in good faith, that the solemnizing officer had the legal authority to officiate their marriage.

Hope this helps.

Atty. Joji Alonso