Interim Decision #2552 

MATTER OF RICE 

In Visa Petition Proceedings 

A-21266592 

A-21266593 

Decided by Board January 27, 1977 

(1) Article 66 of the Philippine Civil Code provides that when one or both of the contracting parties to a marriage are citizens or subjects of a foreign country, it shall be 

necessary, before a marriage license can be obtained, to provide themselves with a 

certificate of legal capacity to contract marriage, to be issued by their respective 

diplomatic or consular officials. However, despite the lack of such a certificate a marriage license was issued and the marriage was contracted. 

(2) The officer Ix charge concluded that the waxiiage was void wider Philippine law and 

invalid for imtriigration purposes, and denied the immediate relative visa petitions filed 

by petitioner for his wife and daughter under section 201(b) of the Immigration and 

Nationality Act. 

(3) Where the petitioner and beneficiary had the intent and capacity to marry when the 

license was presented to the municipal judge who performed the ceremony, the marriage was valid, notwithstanding failure to obtain the certificate of legal capacity from 

the consul under Article 66, and the visa petitions will be granted. 

ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: Pro se 

BY: Milhollan, Chairman; Wilson, Torrington, Maniatis, and Appleman, Board Members 

The United States citizen petitioner applied for immediate relative 

status for the beneficiaries as his wife and child under section 201(b) of 

the Immigration and Nationality Act. In a decision dated October 15, 

1976, the Officer in Charge denied the petitions. He has certified his 

decision to the Board for review pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 3.1(c). His 

decision will be reversed and the visa petitions will be approved. 

The adult beneficiary is a native and citizen of the Philippines. She 

and the petitioner married on June 15, 1972, while the petitioner was 

serving in the United States Armed Forces. Both parties were 18 years 

old. A daughter was born of this union in the Philippines. The child did 

not acquire United States citizenship because her birth occurred a 

month before her fatherreached the age of 19. See section 301(a)(7) of 

the Immigration and Nationality Act_ The couple's son, born three 

years later, did derive United States citizenship from the petitioner. 

96 
Interim Decision #2552 

The petitioner now seeks immediate relative status for his wife and 

daughter in order to bring the family back to his home state of Tennessee. 

The Officer in Charge concluded that the petitioner's marriage is 

invalid under the law of the Philippines, and hence, must be considered 

invalid for immigration purposes. This conclusion is based on the petitioner's admission that he failed to comply 'with Article 66 of the Philippine Civil Code. 

The Officer in Charge is correct in applying the general rule that the 

validity of a marriage is determined by the law of the place of 

celebration—in this case—the Philippines. Matter ofGarnero,'14 L & N. 

Dec. 674 (BIA 1974); Matter of P—, 4 I. & N. Dec. 610 (BIA 1952; A.G. 

1952); Matter of Levine, 13 I. & N. Dec. 244 (BIA 1969). 

In order to determine whether noncompliance with Article 66 invalidated the petitioner's marriage, we must refer to Title III of the Civil 

Code of the Philippines. Title III sets out numerous procedures to 

govern the licensing and solemnization of marriages. It also indicates 

which irregularities in the licensing and solemnizing process will render 

a marriage void, ab initio and which may subject the validity of a 

marriage to attack in a suit to annul. 

Article 66 is one of several licensing provisions which are aimed at 

assisting in the enforcement of other marriage laws, by requiring persons who are not qualified to marry, to reveal such fact before the 

marriage is contracted. All applicants for marriage licenses must supply 

information, under oath, concerning age, relationship between them, if 

any, prior marriages, and whether such marriages have been dissolved 

by death or annulment (Article 59). In the case of foreigners, such as 

the petitioner, a certificate from diplomatic officials is required under 

Article 66 to help insure that the party has the required capacity to 

contract the marriage. Article 66 provides— 

When either or both of the contracting parties are citizens or subjects of a foreign 

country, it shall be necessary, before a marriage license can be obtained, to provide 

themselves with a certificate of legal capacity to contract marriage, to be issued by their 

respective diplomatic or consular officials. 

As the text of Article 66 indicates, a license should not be issued to a 

foreigner unless the certificate of capacity is furnished. However, in the 

petitioner's case, despite the absence of such a certificate, a license was 

issued. Hence, the question becomes—is the marriage which is subsequently entered into void or voidable because of this procedural irregularity? 

Under the applicable provisions of the Civil Code of the Philippines 

(Articles 53, 80, 81, 82, and 83), the following requirements are essential 

to the validity of a marriage; (1) the contracting parties must have the 

legal capacity to marry each other; (2) their consent to the marriage 

97 
Interim Decision #2552 

must be freely given; (3) the parties must have a marriage license, 

except in marriages of "exceptional character"; and (4) the person solemnizing the marriage must be duly authorized. Due to the mandatory 

nature of these requirements, failure to comply with any of them will 

render the contract void, ab initio. There is no suggestion in the record 

that either the petitioner or the beneficiary lacked the intent or the 

capacity to marry when they presented their marriage license to the 

municipal judge who performed the ceremony. Thus, we conclude that 

despite the petitioner's failure to provide a certificate of capacity, his 

marriage is not void under Philippine law. 

On the issue of voidability, Article 85 allows parties or their parents 

to challenge the validity of a marriage in certain situations, by bringing 

a suit to annul. These provisions have no application here, however, 

since the parties are attempting to establish the validity rather than the 

voidability of their marital contract. Moreover, we note, parenthetically, that none of the grounds of which an existing marriage may be 

annulled have to do with an improperly issued marriage license. (See 

Articles 80, 81, 82, 83.) 

We conclude that in this case, where the petitioner possessed the 

I egal capacity to marry, his failure to obtain a certificate of legal capacity 

did not invalidate his marriage under the law of the Philippines.' Accordingly, we will consider his marriage valid for immigration purposes. 

The visa petitions predicaLed on Llie marriage will be approved. 

ORDER: The decision of the Officer in Charge is reversed; the visa 

petitions are approved. 

'In Matter of Dagamac, 111. & N. Dec. 109 (BIA 1365), passing reference is made to 

Article 66 of the Philippine Civil Code. The case, however, does not address the issue 

raised here. In Dagamac, the petitioner did not Possess the legal capacity to lauLty the 

beneficiary; hence, the mere lack of a certificate of capacity was not the critical issue. 

98