Republic v. Albios (2013): Marriage for Immigration Is Valid

In October 2004, Liberty Albios married an American citizen before a judge of the Metropolitan Trial Court of Mandaluyong City. In December 2006, she asked the Regional Trial Court of Imus, Cavite, to declare the marriage void. She said that right after the wedding they separated and never lived as husband and wife, because neither of them really intended to be married. She called it a marriage made in jest.

Her husband was served with summons but did not answer or appear. The trial court believed Albios's testimony: she had arranged the marriage so she could acquire American citizenship and had agreed to pay her husband 2,000 US dollars. After the wedding they went their separate ways. He returned to the United States, and she never paid him because he never processed her citizenship petition.

The trial court declared the marriage void from the beginning. It said the parties did not freely consent, because they did not intend to be bound and used the marriage only to get citizenship. The Court of Appeals affirmed and compared the case to a marriage in jest. The Republic, through the Office of the Solicitor General, appealed. It argued that consent must be distinguished from motive, and that motive does not affect the validity of a marriage.

Is a marriage entered into only to acquire American citizenship, in exchange for money, void from the beginning for lack of consent?

No. The Supreme Court granted the Republic's petition, annulled the Court of Appeals decision and dismissed Albios's petition "for utter lack of merit." The marriage remains valid.

There was real consent. Under Article 2 of the Family Code, consent "freely given in the presence of the solemnizing officer" is an essential requisite of marriage. The Court said consent was present. It was not affected by fraud, force, intimidation or undue influence. It was also conscious and intelligent, because the parties understood the nature and consequences of marriage. In fact, their plan shows they wanted to be married: only a valid marriage could support the citizenship application. They intended to create "the very bond necessary" to reach their goal.

This was not a marriage in jest. A marriage in jest is a pretended marriage, entered into as a joke, with no intention to be bound at all. It is void because consent is completely absent. Albios and her husband, the Court said, "had an undeniable intention to be bound."

No law makes a marriage void because of its purpose. A marriage may be declared void or voidable only on the grounds the law provides. The Court said marriages entered into for convenience, companionship, money, status or title are "equally valid" if they meet the legal requisites. The State, the Court said, does not and cannot dictate the kind of life a couple chooses to lead.

Not voidable for fraud either. Fraud is a ground for annulment under Article 45, but only the kinds listed in Article 46 count. Marrying to get around immigration laws is not one of them. Also, an annulment for fraud may be brought only by the injured party, and here there was none, because both parties took part in the scheme.

The Court added that it would not let parties use the courts to get out of a marriage of convenience once they no longer need it. Although the marriage "may be considered a sham or fraudulent for the purposes of immigration, it is not void ab initio and continues to be valid and subsisting."

A marriage entered into solely to acquire foreign citizenship is not void for lack of consent, because the parties intend to create a real legal bond; motive is not a ground for nullity, and such a marriage is not voidable for fraud, since that fraud is not among those listed in Article 46 of the Family Code.

Albios matters for anyone who thinks a "paper marriage" can be undone easily later. Under this ruling, a marriage for a visa, citizenship or other benefit is still a valid marriage if the legal requisites were met. It creates all the effects of marriage, and a later marriage while it subsists can raise the problems of bigamy. To end it, a party needs a ground the law actually recognizes, such as those for a void marriage or a voidable marriage. See grounds for annulment and marrying a foreigner.

Made-up illustration: Joy marries Ken, a foreign national, only so that she can get a visa, and they never live together. Years later Joy asks a court to declare the marriage void because it was "just for papers." Under Albios, the reason for marrying is not a ground for nullity, and the marriage stays valid unless a ground set by law is proved.

Read the full decision on the Supreme Court E-Library (link in the sources below). For a question about a real marriage, see where to find legal help.