Introduction

In the Philippines, marriage is regarded as a special contract of permanent union between a man and a woman, entered into in accordance with law for the establishment of conjugal and family life. It is governed primarily by the Family Code of the Philippines (Executive Order No. 209, as amended), which emphasizes the sanctity and inviolability of marriage as a social institution. However, when a party to a marriage uses a false identity—such as a fabricated name, age, civil status, or other personal details—the legal implications can be profound, affecting the validity of the union, civil rights, property relations, and even exposing individuals to criminal liability. This article explores the multifaceted legal effects of such deception in the context of Philippine jurisprudence, statutory provisions, and doctrinal principles, providing a comprehensive analysis of its consequences on the marriage contract, the parties involved, their offspring, and broader societal interests.

Relevant Legal Framework

The Family Code serves as the cornerstone for marriage-related matters, supplemented by the Civil Code of the Philippines (Republic Act No. 386), the Revised Penal Code (Act No. 3815), and various administrative regulations from the Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA) and the Local Civil Registrar (LCR). Key provisions include:

Article 1 of the Family Code: Defines marriage and underscores its foundation on mutual consent and legal capacity.
Articles 2 and 3: Outline the essential (legal capacity and free consent) and formal requisites (authority of solemnizing officer, valid marriage license, and ceremony) for a valid marriage.
Article 4: Declares that the absence of any essential or formal requisite renders the marriage void ab initio, while defects in essential requisites may make it voidable.
Article 45: Enumerates grounds for annulment, including fraud that vitiates consent.
Article 35: Lists void marriages, such as those contracted through mistake of identity or under duress.
Revised Penal Code Articles 171-172: Criminalize falsification of public documents, which includes marriage contracts.
Civil Code Articles 1330-1334: Address vitiation of consent in contracts due to mistake, fraud, or intimidation, applicable by analogy to marriage as a special contract.

Additionally, Republic Act No. 9048 (as amended by RA 10172) governs corrections to civil registry documents, but it does not retroactively validate fraudulent entries. The Supreme Court's rulings, such as in Republic v. Olaybal (G.R. No. 189538, 2011), emphasize strict compliance with identity verification in civil registrations.

Impact on the Validity of the Marriage Contract

Using a false identity in a marriage contract directly challenges the integrity of the union's formation. The marriage contract, a public document executed before a solemnizing officer and registered with the LCR, requires accurate personal information for proper identification and legal effect.

Void vs. Voidable Marriages

Void Ab Initio: If the false identity constitutes a "mistake in the identity of the other party" (Family Code, Art. 35(2)), the marriage may be deemed void from the beginning. This occurs when the deception is so fundamental that the consenting party marries someone entirely different from whom they intended. For instance, assuming a completely fabricated persona (e.g., using a stolen identity) prevents the formation of true consent, as the contract is based on a non-existent or misrepresented party. Such marriages produce no legal effects, except for the legitimacy of children conceived in good faith (Art. 54).
Voidable Due to Fraud: Under Article 45(3), annulment is possible if consent was obtained by fraud, but only for specific concealments, such as a previous criminal conviction for a crime involving moral turpitude, impotency, sexually transmissible disease, drug addiction, alcoholism, homosexuality, or lesbianism. General fraud, like falsifying one's name or age, may not qualify unless it directly relates to these enumerated grounds. However, jurisprudence in cases like Anaya v. Palaroan (G.R. No. L-27930, 1970) interprets fraud broadly if it goes to the "essential obligations of marriage," potentially encompassing identity deception if it affects cohabitation or fidelity. The action for annulment must be filed within five years from discovery of the fraud (Art. 47).
Simulated or Fictitious Marriages: If both parties collude in using false identities (e.g., for immigration benefits), the marriage is absolutely simulated and void under Article 35(3), as there is no genuine intent to establish a marital union.

In all cases, a judicial declaration of nullity is required before remarriage (Art. 40), as affirmed in Domingo v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 104818, 1993). Without it, subsequent marriages are bigamous and void.

Criminal Liabilities

The use of a false identity in a marriage contract often constitutes criminal offenses, as the document is a public record with evidentiary value.

Falsification of Public Documents: Per Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code, counterfeiting or altering a public document, or inserting false statements therein, is punishable by prision mayor (6-12 years imprisonment) and fines. A marriage contract qualifies as a public document, and falsifying details like name, age, or residence falls under this. If committed by a private individual, it is punished under Article 172 with prision correccional (6 months to 6 years).
Perjury: If the false identity involves sworn affidavits (e.g., in the application for a marriage license under Art. 11), it amounts to perjury under Article 183, punishable by arresto mayor (1-6 months) to prision correccional.
Bigamy or Other Related Crimes: If the false identity conceals a prior undissolved marriage, it leads to bigamy charges (Art. 349, punishable by prision mayor). In immigration contexts, it may invoke violations of the Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act (RA 9208) or the Philippine Passport Act (RA 8239) if passports are falsified.

Prosecution requires a complaint from the aggrieved party or the state, with penalties aggravated if the deception causes damage (e.g., property loss).

Civil Consequences

Beyond validity, false identity usage triggers civil repercussions affecting personal status, property, and familial rights.

Property Relations

In void marriages, no absolute community or conjugal partnership exists; property acquired during the union is treated as co-ownership under Civil Code Article 147 (if in good faith) or Article 148 (if in bad faith). The deceiving party may forfeit their share if bad faith is proven (Art. 43(2)).
In annulled marriages, the property regime is liquidated as in legal separation, with the innocent spouse potentially entitled to damages (Art. 43).

Effects on Children

Children conceived or born before the declaration of nullity or annulment are legitimate (Art. 54), entitled to support, inheritance, and other rights. However, if both parents were in bad faith, children are considered illegitimate but still protected under the Child and Youth Welfare Code (PD 603).
Paternity suits may arise if the false identity questions biological ties, resolvable via DNA testing under AM No. 06-11-5-SC.

Damages and Restitution

The defrauded spouse can claim moral, exemplary, and actual damages under Civil Code Articles 19-21 for abuse of rights, plus attorney's fees. In Bukal v. Bukal (G.R. No. 191448, 2013), the Court awarded damages for psychological harm from marital deception.

Procedural Remedies

Annulment or Nullity Petition: Filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) with jurisdiction over the residence of either party. Requires evidence like birth certificates, affidavits, or witness testimonies proving the falsehood.
Correction of Entries: Under RA 9048/10172, clerical errors can be corrected administratively, but substantial changes (e.g., name due to fraud) require court approval via a petition for cancellation or correction.
Criminal Complaint: Filed with the prosecutor's office, potentially leading to preliminary investigation and trial.

Prescription periods apply: annulment for fraud within five years of discovery; nullity actions have no prescription if based on void grounds.

Jurisprudential Insights

Philippine case law underscores the gravity of identity fraud in marriages:

In People v. Borromeo (G.R. No. L-61873, 1984), the Court convicted for falsification where a false name was used in a marriage certificate, emphasizing public document integrity.
Suntay v. Cojuangco-Suntay (G.R. No. 132524, 1999) discussed consent vitiation, analogizing to identity mistakes.
More recently, Republic v. Dayot (G.R. No. 175581, 2008) clarified that simulated contracts, including those with false identities, are void, protecting the institution from abuse.

These decisions highlight the judiciary's role in upholding truthfulness in marital declarations.

Conclusion

The use of a false identity in a marriage contract under Philippine law undermines the foundational principles of consent and capacity, potentially rendering the marriage void or voidable while exposing perpetrators to criminal sanctions and civil liabilities. It disrupts property regimes, affects filial legitimacy, and necessitates judicial intervention for resolution. This deception not only harms the immediate parties but also erodes public trust in civil registries, prompting stringent enforcement to preserve marriage's sanctity. Stakeholders, including prospective spouses and solemnizing officers, must exercise due diligence in verifying identities to mitigate these risks.