March 25, 1997, Crasus filed a complaint for declaration of nullity alleging that Felys acts brought danger

and
dishonor to the family and were manifestations of her psychological incapacity. Crasus submitted his testimony,
the certification of the recording of their marriage contract, and the invitation where Fely used her newhusbands
last name as evidences.
Fely denied the claims and asserted that Crasus was a drunkard, womanizer, had no job, and thatsince 1988 she
was already an American citizen and not covered by our laws. The RTC found the evidences sufficient and
granted thedecree; it was affirmed in the CA.
Issue:
Does abandonment and sexual infidelity per se constitute psychological incapacity?
Held:
The evidences presented by the respondent fail to establish psychological incapacity.
Furthermore, Article 36 contemplates downright incapacity or inability to take cognizance of and to assume the
basic marital obligations; not a mere refusal, neglect or difficulty, much less, ill will, on the part of the errant
spouse. Irreconcilable differences, conflicting personalities, emotional immaturity and irresponsibility, physical
abuse, habitual alcoholism, sexual infidelity or perversion, and abandonment, by themselves, also do not warrant
a finding of psychological incapacity under the said Article.
Finally, Article 36 is not to be confused with a divorce law thatcuts the marital bond at the time the causes
therefore manifest themselves. It refers to a serious psychological illness afflicting aparty even before the
celebration of marriage. It is a malady so grave and so permanent as to deprive one of awareness of the duties
and responsibilities of the matrimonial bond one is about to assume.

Carlos vs Sandoval
November 19, 2010
Teofilo Carlos and petitioner Juan De Dios Carlos were brothers who each have three parcels of land by virtue of
inheritance. Later Teofilo died intestate. He was survived by respondents Felicidad Sandoval and their son, Teofilo
Carlos II. Upon Teofilos death, two parcels of land were registered in the name of Felicidad and Teofilo II. In August
1995, Carlos commenced an action against respondents before the court a quo. In his complaint, Carlos asserted that
the marriage between his late brother and Felicidad was a nullity in view of the absence of the required marriage
license. He likewise maintained that his deceased brother was neither the natural nor the adoptive father of Teofilo
Carlos II. He argued that the properties covered by such certificates of title, including the sums received by
respondents as proceeds, should be reconveyed to him.
HELD: The grounds for declaration of absolute nullity of marriage must be proved. Neither judgment on the pleadings
nor summary judgment is allowed. So is confession of judgment disallowed. Carlos argues that the CA should have

applied Rule 35 of the Rules of Court governing summary judgment, instead of the rule on judgment on the
pleadings. Petitioner is misguided. Whether it is based on judgment on the pleadings or summary judgment, the CA
was correct in reversing the summary judgment rendered by the trial court. Both the rules on judgment on the
pleadings and summary judgments have no place in cases of declaration of absolute nullity of marriage and even in
annulment of marriage.
A petition for declaration of absolute nullity of void marriage may be filed solely by the husband or wife. Exceptions: (1)
Nullity of marriage cases commenced before the effectivity of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC; and (2) Marriages celebrated during
the effectivity of the Civil Code. Under the Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of

Voidable Marriages, the petition for declaration of absolute nullity of marriage may not be filed by any party outside of
the marriage. A petition for declaration of absolute nullity of void marriage may be filed solely by the husband or the
wife. Only an aggrieved or injured spouse may file a petition forannulment of voidable marriages or declaration of
absolute nullity of void marriages. Such petition cannot be filed by compulsory or intestate heirs of the spouses or by
the State. The Committee is of the belief that they do not have a legal right to file the petition. Compulsory or intestate
heirs have only inchoate rights prior to the death of their predecessor, and, hence, can only question the validity of
the marriage of the spouses upon the death of a spouse in a proceeding for the settlement of the estate of the
deceased spouse filed in the regular courts. On the other hand, the concern of the State is to preserve marriage and
not to seek its dissolution. The Rule extends only to marriages entered into during the effectivity of the Family Code
which took effect on August 3, 1988.
The advent of the Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages marks the beginning of the end of the right
of the heirs of the deceased spouse to bring a nullity of marriage case against the surviving spouse. But the Rule
never intended to deprive the compulsory or intestate heirs of their successional rights.
While A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC declares that a petition for declaration of absolute nullity of marriage may be filed solely
by the husband or the wife, it does not mean that the compulsory or intestate heirs are without any recourse under
the law. They can still protect their successional right, for, as stated in the Rationale of the Rules on Annulment of
Voidable Marriages and Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages, compulsory or intestate heirs can still
question the validity of the marriage of the spouses, not in a proceeding for declaration of nullity but upon the death of
a spouse in a proceeding for the settlement of the estate of the deceased spouse filed in the regular courts.
It is emphasized, however, that the Rule does not apply to cases already commenced before March 15, 2003
although the marriage involved is within the coverage of the Family Code. This is so, as the new Rule which became
effective on March 15, 2003 is prospective in its application.
Petitioner commenced the nullity of marriage case against respondent Felicidad in 1995. The marriage in controversy
was celebrated on May 14, 1962. Which law would govern depends upon when the marriage took place.
The marriage having been solemnized prior to the effectivity of the Family Code, the applicable law is the Civil Code
which was the law in effect at the time of its celebration. But the Civil Code is silent as to who may bring an action to
declare the marriage void. Does this mean that any person can bring an action for the declaration of nullity of
marriage?
True, under the New Civil Code which is the law in force at the time the respondents were married, or even in the
Family Code, there is no specific provision as to who can file a petition to declare the nullity of marriage; however,
only a party who can demonstrate proper interest can file the same. A petition to declare the nullity of marriage, like

any other actions, must be prosecuted or defended in the name of the real party-in-interest and must be based on a cause of
action. Thus, in Nial v. Badayog, the Court held that the children have the personality to file the petition to declare the
nullity of marriage of their deceased father to their stepmother as it affects their successional rights.
CASE DIGEST: Cynthia S. Bolos vs Danilo T. Bolos
Published by Paul Nikko Degollado on January 3, 2014 | Leave a response
Mendoza, J.
Facts : Petitioner filed a petition for declaration of nullity of her marriage invoking Article 36 of the Family Code on July 10,
2003. The RTC granted her petition on August 2, 2006. Respondent thereafter filed a motion for reconsideration after
respondent received the decision of the lower court. The decision as declared final after a motion to reconsider denial of appeal
was denied.
Respondent filed a petition for review before the Court of Appeals and hereby granted. The appellate court ruled that AM no 0211-10-SC did not apply to the case at bar as their marriage was solemnized Feb 14 1980 before the family code took effect. The
said court procedure required a motion for reconsideration as a prerequisite to appeal cases on declaration of absolute nullity on
void marriages and annulment of voidable marriages. Petitioner filed her manifestation and a motion for partial reconsideration
but was denied by the appellate court as the 15-day reglementary period to file is not extendable.
Petitioner filed this said petition to the Supreme Court contending that the appellate court erred in ruling that their case is not
covered by the Family Code; that AM no 02-11-10-SC covers/pertains to the word petitions instead of marriages; if the Family
code covers the case then a motion of reconsideration is a precondition for an appeal; and, since the respondent refused to
comply with the precondition of filing a motion for reconsideration, a relaxation on the rules of appeal is not proper.
Issue: Whether or not AM no 02-11-10 SC Rules on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of void marriages and Annulment of Voidable
Marriages is applicable to the case.
Held: No. the court ruled that AM 02-11-10-SC is strict in its scope wherein section 1 of the rule reads:
Section 1. Scope This rule shall govern petitions for declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and annulment of
voidable marriages under the Family Code of the Philippines. Applying the rule verba legis, the said section leaves no room for
interpretation and is very clear that it would only cover marriages under the Family Code. Also it would only be applied to
marriages not to petitions.

ALAIN M. DIO v. MA. CARIDAD L. DIO

October 25, 2012 Leave a comment

FACTS:
January 1998 petitioner and respondent got married. On May 2001, petitioner filed an action for Declaration of Niullity of
Marriagw against respondent citing psychological incapacity under article 36. Petitioner alleged that respondent failed in her
marital obligation to give love and support to him, and had abandoned her responsibility to the family, choosing instead to go
on shopping sprees and gallivanting with her friends that depleted the family assets. Petitioner further alleged that
respondent was not faithful, and would at times become violent and hurt him. The trial court declared their marriage void ab
initio.
The court ruled that A DECREE OF ABSOLUTE NULLITY OF MARRIAGE shall only be issued upon compliance with Article[s] 50
and 51 of the Family Code. It later altered it to A DECREE OF ABSOLUTE NULLITY OF MARRIAGE shall be issued after
liquidation, partition and distribution of the parties properties under Article 147 of the Family Code
ISSUE: WON the trial court erred when it ordered that a decree of absolute nullity of marriage shall only be issued after
liquidation, partition, and distribution of the parties properties under Article 147 of the Family Code
HELD:
The court erred. The Court has ruled in Valdes v. RTC, Branch 102, Quezon City that in a void marriage, regardless of its
cause, the property relations of the parties during the period of cohabitation is governed either by Article 147 or Article 148 of
the Family Code.7 Article 147 of the Family Code applies to union of parties who are legally capacitated and not barred by any
impediment to contract marriage, but whose marriage is nonetheless void, such as petitioner and respondent in the case
before the Court.
For Article 147 of the Family Code to apply, the following elements must be present:
1. The man and the woman must be capacitated to marry each other;
2. They live exclusively with each other as husband and wife; and
3. Their union is without the benefit of marriage, or their marriage is void
All these elements are present in this case and there is no question that Article 147 of the Family Code applies to the property
relations between petitioner and respondent.
It is clear from Article 50 of the Family Code that Section 19(1) of the Rule applies only to marriages which are declared void
ab initio or annulled by final judgment under Articles 40 and 45 of the Family Code. In short, Article 50 of the Family Code
does not apply to marriages which are declared void ab initio under Article 36 of the Family Code, which should be declared
void without waiting for the liquidation of the properties of the parties.
Since the property relations of the parties in art 40 and 45 are governed by absolute community of property or conjugal
partnership of gains, there is a need to liquidate, partition and distribute the properties before a decree of annulment could
be issued. That is not the case for annulment of marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code because the marriage is
governed by the ordinary rules on co-ownership.
In this case, petitioners marriage to respondent was declared void under Article 3615 of the Family Code and not under
Article 40 or 45. Thus, what governs the liquidation of properties owned in common by petitioner and respondent are the
rules on co-ownership. In Valdes, the Court ruled that the property relations of parties in a void marriage during the period of
cohabitation is governed either by Article 147 or Article 148 of the Family Code. The rules on co-ownership apply and the
properties of the spouses should be liquidated in accordance with the Civil Code provisions on co-ownership. Under Article
496 of the Civil Code, [p]artition may be made by agreement between the parties or by judicial proceedings. x x x. It is not
necessary to liquidate the properties of the spouses in the same proceeding for declaration of nullity of marriage.