G.R. No. 1850. September 06, 1905

This action was brought to secure a declaration of the nullity of a marriage.

Judgment was rendered in the court below against the plaintiff, and he has brought the case here by a bill of exceptions.

The appellant accepts as the facts in the case those stated in the
decision of the court below, which so far as the said facts are
concerned, is as follows:

“Yo encuentro que en la fecha del matrimonio la
demandante tenia diez y nueve anos y tres meses de edad. Ella era hija
natural de Julian Aguilar y habia residido a lado de su familia en Molo
hasta poco antes de uno o dos dias de su casamiento debiendo haber sido
maltratada, abandono ella su casa un dia o dos antes de su matrimonio y
se fue a la de una tia en la misma villa de Molo. El demandado era un
residente de Molo y habia sido conocido por la demandante desde la
ninez y hacia dos o tres anos antes del matrimonio habia estado
correspondiendo su especial atencion. Mientras ella estaba en la casa
de su tia el se fue alli y sabiendo que ella habia abandonado la casa
de su padre y el motivo de ello, informo a ella que el unico camino
para evitar volver era ir con el al Cura Parroco y casarse los dos.
Ella consintio a esta proposicion y se fueron a la Iglesia y se casaron
en forma legal. Volvieron entonces a la casa de la tia de ella donde el
la dejo prometiendo volver por la tarde pero no volvio jamas ni
siquiera le visito a ella desde el tiempo del casamiento ni vivio con
ella como su esposo. Ella no obtuvo el consentimiento de su padre
natural ni de su madre para contraer matrimonio.”

General Orders, No. 68, is dated December 18, 1899, and it is
expressly declared that it shall be in force from and after its date.
This marriage was celebrated on the 31st of December, 1899, and is
accordingly governed by the provisions of this General Order. Section 1
of the Order provides that males of the age of 14 years and females of
the age of 12 years are capable of consenting to and consummating
marriage. Section 7 provides that the marriage shall not be performed
when either of the parties is under the age of 21 years, unless the
consent of the parent or guardian of such minor is obtained. Section 10
enumerates the cases in which a marriage may be declared void.
Paragraph 1 of that section is as follows:

“That the party in whose behalf it is sought to have the marriage
annulled was under the age of legal consent, and such marriage was
contracted without the consent of his or her parents or guardian, or
person having charge of him or her; unless, after attaining the age of
consent, such party for any time freely cohabited with the other as
husband or wife.”

The question in the case is whether this marriage can be annulled
under section 10, the consent of the parents of the woman not having
been obtained. The phrase under the age of iegal consent,” used in
paragraph 1 of said section 10, has a well-defined meaning in the
English and American law. Concerning the meaning of that phrase there
can exist no doubt. It means the age at which the parties can give
their own consent to the marriage, and it does not mean the age under
which they must seek the consent of their parents or guardians. In
section 10 the phrase refers to the ages of 12 and 14 years mentioned
in section 1. It follows that a case in which the parties were above
those ages, but in which one of them was under the age of 21 years, and
did not obtain the consent of his or her parents, is not covered by
said paragraph 1. Neither is it covered by any other paragraph of that
section. Section 2 enumerates the marriages which are void from the
beginning. The case at bar is not mentioned in that section.

The result is that although section 7 declares that a marriage shall
not be celebrated in such a case as the present without the consent of
the parents or guardian, yet there is nothing in the law which says
that such a marriage, if celebrated without such consent, shall be void
or voidable. It must therefore be valid. This was the law stated in the
Civil Code in those articles which were suspended by the decree of
December 29, 1889, and finally repealed by this General Orders, No. 68.
Article 45 prohibited a marriage in a case like the present, but
article 50 provided that if, notwithstanding that prohibition, the
parties should be married, the marriage was nevertheless valid.

The English text of paragraph 1 of section 10 furnishes no room for
doubt, but some doubt, perhaps, may have arisen through the official
translation of that paragraph. Such translation is as follows:

“Que el conyuge en cuyo favor se pida la nulidad del
matrimonio sea menor de la edad marcada por la ley, habiendose
contraido el matrimonio sin el consentimiento de los padres, tutor o
persona a cuyo cargo este dicho conyuge.”

It will be noticed that the English phrase “age of legal consent” is
translated by the phrase “la edad marcada por la ley.” There are two
ages referred to in the law; one, in section 7, the age of 21 years,
and the other, in section 1, the ages of 12 and 14 years, respectively,
and there might be some doubt as to which one reference was made. This
doubt, perhaps, would be increased by the statement in said paragraph
referring to the consent of the parents. Just what the effect of that
provision is we leave to some future case for resolution. It is
sufficient to say here that the English text is clear, and under it the
marriage in question can not be annulled.

We call attention to the fact that in the translation of this
General Order, as it appears in the Spanish edition of volume 1 of the
Public Laws, there have been omitted the last two lines of paragraph 1
of section 10.

The judgment of the court below is affirmed, with the costs of this
instance against the appellant, and after the expiration of twenty days
judgment should be entered in accordance herewith, and the case
remanded to the court below for the execution of the judgment. So
ordered.

Arellano, C. J., Torres, Mapa, Johnson, and Carson, JJ., concur.