Kris' Ground for Annulment

I saw on the news that Kris is considering as ground for annulment of her marriage with James the fact that neither she nor James is a member of the sect or religious group of the priest or minister who solemnized their marriage. Obviously, she is relying on Articles 3, 4, 7, and 35 of the Family Code of the Philippines.

Article 3 of said Code enumerates the formal requisites for the validity of marriage. First in the list is "1. Authority of the solemnizing officer.". Furthermore, Article 4 provides that absence of any of these essential requisites shall render the marriage void from the beginning. Consequently, the conclusion would seem to be such that the absence of the "authority of the solemnizing officer" shall render the marriage celebrated by that officer void from the beginning.

You may ask "how did the priest or minister who solemnized their marriage become in want of authority?". The answer is in Article 7 of the Family Code which enumerates the persons who are authorized to solemnize marriages, and which, in paragraph 2 thereof reads "2. Any priest, rabbi, imam, or minister of any church or religious sect duly authorized by the church or religious sect and registered with the civil registrar...and PROVIDED that AT LEAST ONE OF THE CONTRACTING PARTIES BELONGS TO THE SOLEMNIZING OFFICER'S CHURCH OR RELIGIOUS SECT". Thus, when not any one of them (Kris and James) being member of the church or religious sect of which the "solemnizer" of their marriage is a minister, their marriage, it would seem, could be declared void from the beginning for lacking one of the formal requisites.

Their contention seems to find additional support in Article 35 of the Family Code which enumerates marriages that are void from the beginning. Number 2 in said list provides "2. Those solemnized by any person not legally authorized to perform marriages...". Now, this first part of said provision, seems to bolster Kris' contention of nullity of her marriage with James since apparently, maybe in their view, the solemnizing officer indeed lacked authority to solemnize their marriage. A reading, however, of the rest of the provision reveals that the marriage cannot be declared void from the beginning if the marriage was contracted "with either or both parties believing in good faith that the solemnizing officer had the authority to do so". This means that even if just one of them (Kris or James) believed (i will no longer add "in good faith" because i believe that believing something or in something presupposes that there is good faith, otherwise, there is really no belief at all) at the time of their marriage that the solemnizing officer had the authority, then their marriage cannot be considered void from the beginning.

If both of them believed at the time of their marriage that the solemnizing officer had the authority, then well and good, both of them are in good faith. Now, if only Kris believed, then James was in bad faith at the time of their marriage. Conversely, if only James believed, then Kris was in bad faith. Worse, if both of them knew at that time of the celebration of their marriage that the solemnizing officer had no authority to perform said marriage, then both of them are in bad faith. If the latter is true, then they got married knowing that said marriage will eventually be annulled - that could be the worst form of mockery of a sacred institution. If James was in bad faith, then as to Kris who was in good faith, the validity of marriage should be upheld, that is should he desire to defend it (but which is not the case since she is the one seeking an annulment). On the other hand, if Kris was in bad faith, then James can very well oppose the annulment citing the ground of belief in good faith in the authority of the solemnizing officer.

James can also rely on the third paragraph of Article 4 of the Family Code which reads "An irregularity in the formal requisites shall not affect the validity of the marriage but the party or the parties responsible for such irregularity shall be civilly, criminally and administratively liable". He can do it because the minister or priest who solemnized their marriage was not really totally devoid of any authority to perform said marriage. Presumably, he was authorized by his religious sect to do so, and was properly registered with the civil registrar general. To my mind, there was a mere irregularity in the authority of said minister, which irregularity may have been caused by the minister himself, who is presumed to have known who are and who are not members of his sect. The party in bad faith may also be one of the causes of such irregularity. Consequently, either party, who was in bad faith, or both of them, could be civilly, criminally and administratively liable. It's either Kris, James, or both. Your pick. :)