A marriage in jest is a pretended marriage, legal in form but entered as a joke, with no real intention of entering into the actual marriage. The ceremony, if not followed by any conduct indicating a purpose to enter into such a relation, is void ab initio, not for vitiated, defective, or unintelligent consent, but for a complete absence of consent.
A marriage for immigration is different. This led to the development of marriage fraud in immigration. In the USA, marriages where a couple marries only to acquire specific benefits, have been referred to as “limited purpose” marriages like legitimization of a child or immigration.
To filter out those who use marriage solely for immigration status, the US established a test in the 1975 seminal case of Bark v. Immigration & Naturalization Service, 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 by the 1986 Immigration Marriage Fraud Amendment, which requires couple to prove that the marriage was not entered to evade US immigration laws. The focus, thus, shifted from determining the intention to establish a life together to evading immigration laws. This standard is used only for immigration purposes and not to rule on the legal validity of marriage. In the 2021 Ado-an-Morimoto v. Morimoto case, it was ruled that marriage not for love, but to get Japanese visa, is void especially if the parties signed only the marriage contract. How about marriage for citizenship?
Is a marriage, contracted for the sole purpose of acquiring American citizenship in consideration of $2,000, void ab initio on the ground of lack of consent? This was answered in Republic v. Albios, G.R. No. 198780, 16 October 2013. In this case, American Daniel Fringer and Filipina Liberty Albios got married in 2004 before Mandaluyong City 59 MeTC Judge. In 2006, Liberty filed a petition to declare their marriage void since they separated and never lived as husband and wife since they had no intention to marry. She described their marriage as one made in jest. No answer was filed. She testified at the trial that she got married to get American citizenship for US$2,000. They separated right after the marriage. In 2008, the Regional Trial Court declared their marriage void ab initio since it was a marriage for convenience. The Office of the Solicitor General appealed. In 2011, the Court of Appeals denied it since it is considered a marriage in jest. The OSG appealed again arguing the parties freely gave their consent to the marriage, otherwise, the purpose to get American citizenship would be futile.
Our Honorable Supreme Court ruled that CA’s decision was based on supposed lack of consent. Under the Family Code, consent is essential requisite of marriage [Article 2], the absence of which shall render the marriage void [Article 4]. To be valid, consent must be freely given in the presence of the solemnizer. Consent must be real in the sense that it is not vitiated nor rendered defective by any vices of consent – fraud, force, intimidation, and undue influence [Articles 45, 46]. The consent should not be affected by insanity, intoxication, drugs, or hypnotism. Clearly, the consent was not lacking between Albios and Fringer. In fact, there was real consent because it was not vitiated nor rendered defective. The consent was freely given as proven by their purpose of acquiring American citizenship through marriage. Their marriage is not at all analogous to a marriage in jest. A marriage may only be voided under the grounds provided by law. There is no law that declares a marriage void if entered for purposes other than what the law allows like acquisition of foreign citizenship. Consent is different from motive of marriage. The State does not and cannot dictate on the kind of life that a couple chooses to lead. Right to marital privacy allows married couples to structure their marriages in almost any way they see fit: to live together or separately, to have kids or not and so on. Marriages for convenience, companionship, money, status and title, provided that they comply with all the legal requisites are equally valid. Love is the ideal consideration, but not the only valid cause for marriage. The marriage maybe fraudulent for immigration purposes, but it is not void. It continues to be valid. Failing to qualify for immigration benefits after they availed the benefits of marriage should not be the basis to get her out of an inconvenient situation. 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, cannot be allowed. As the marriage is valid, the CA and RTC decisions are annulled.
