Name Facts Issue Ruling

 Republic vs.  Respondent Nilda was married to Dante on  Whether Dante has been  In this case, Nilda testified that
Tampus November 29, 1975 in Cordova, Cebu. correctly declared as after Dante's disappearance,
 The marriage ceremony was solemnized by presumptively dead. she tried to locate him by
Municipal Judge Julian B. Pogoy of Cordova, making inquiries with his
Cebu. parents, relatives, and
 Three days thereafter, or on December 2, 1975, neighbors as to his
Dante, a member of the Armed Forces of the whereabouts, but
Philippines (AFP), left respondent, and went to unfortunately, they also did not
Jolo, Sulu where he was assigned. know where to find him.
 The couple had no children.  Other than making said
 Since then, Nilda heard no news from Dante. inquiries, however, Nilda made
She tried everything to locate· him, but her no further efforts to find her
efforts proved futile. husband.
 Thus, on April 14, 2009, she filed before the  She could have called or
RTC a petition to declare Dante as proceeded to the AFP
presumptively dead for the purpose of headquarters to request
remarriage, alleging that after the lapse of thirty- information about her
three (33) years without any kind of husband, but failed to do so.
communication from him, she firmly believes that  She did not even seek the help
he is already dead. of the authorities or the AFP
 RTC granted Nilda's petition. itself in finding him.
 It found that Dante left the conjugal dwelling  She could have inquired from
sometime in 1975 and from then on, Nilda never the AFP on the status of the
heard from him again despite diligent efforts to said mission, or from the
locate him. members of the AFP who were
 In this light, she believes that he had passed assigned thereto.
away especially since his last assignment was a  To the Court's mind, therefore,
combat mission. Nilda failed to actively look for
 Moreover, the RTC found that the absence of her missing husband, and her
thirty-three (33) years was sufficient purported earnest efforts to
find him by asking Dante's
parents, relatives, and friends
did not satisfy the strict
standard and degree of
diligence required to create a
"well-founded belief' of his
death.
 Furthermore, Nilda did not
present Dante's family,
relatives, or neighbors as
witnesses who could have
corroborated her
asseverations that she
earnestly looked for Dante.
 These resource persons were

 Republic vs.  Sarenogon filed a petition before the RTC to
Sareñogon declare the presumptive death of his wife
Netchie.
 He testified that they got married and lived
together as husband and wife for a month only
because he left to work as a seaman while
Netchie went to Hongkong as a domestic helper.
 For 3 months, he did not receive any
communication from Netchie and had no idea
about her whereabouts.
 While still abroad, he tried to contact Netchie’s
parents, but failed.
 He returned home after his contract expired,
then inquired from Netchie’s relatives and frie
nds about her whereabouts.
 They also did not know where she was.
 Because of these, he had to presume that his
wife Netchie was already dead.
 He filed the Petition before the RTC so he could
contract another marriage pursuant to Article 41
of the Family Code.
 Jose’s testimony was corroborated by his older
brother, and by Netchie’s aunt.
 These two witnesses testified that Jose and
Netchie lived together as husband and wife only
for one month prior to their leaving the
Philippines for separate destinations abroad and
added that they had no information regarding
 Whether or not the “well-
founded belief” requisite under
Article 41 (FC) was complied
with
not even named.
 Finally, other than Nilda's bare
testimony, no other
corroborative evidence had
been offered to support her
allegation that she exerted
efforts to find him but was
unsuccessful.
 What appears from the facts
as established in this case was
that Nilda simply allowed the
passage of time without
actively and diligently
searching for her husband,
which the Court cannot accept
as constituting a "well-founded
belief' that her husband is
dead.
 No. To comply with this
requirement, the present
spouse must prove that his/her
belief was the result of diligent
and reasonable efforts and
inquiries to locate the absent
spouse and that based on
these efforts and inquiries,
he/she believes that under the
circumstances, the absent
spouse is already dead.
 It requires exertion of active
effort.
 In this case, Sarenogon failed
to satisfy required “well-
founded belief” standard.
 Sarenogon’s pathetically
anemic efforts to locate the
missing Netchie are notches
below the required degree of
stringent diligence prescribed
by jurisprudence.
 For aside from his bare claims
that he had inquired from
alleged friends and relatives as
to Netchie’s whereabouts,
Jose did not call to the witness
stand specific individuals or
 Netchie’s location.
 The RTC found that Netchie had disappeared
for more than four years, reason enough for
Jose to conclude that his wife was indeed
already dead.
 Domingo vs. CA  Roberto Domingo married Delia Soledad in 1976
while being married with Emerlina dela Paz.
 He has been unemployed and completely
dependent upon Delia, who has been working in
Saudi Arabia, for support and subsistence.
 Delia only found out about the prior marriage
when Emerlina sued them for bigamy in 1983.
 In 1989, she found out that Roberto was
cohabiting with another woman and he was
disposing of some of her properties without her
knowledge and consent.
 In May 1991, Delia filed a petition for judicial
declaration of nullity of her marriage to Roberto
and separation of property.
 Whether or not a petition for
judicial declaration of a void
marriage is necessary. If in
affirmative, whether the same
should be filed only for purpose
of remarriage.
persons whom he allegedly
saw or met in the course of his
search or quest for the
allegedly missing Netchie.
 Neither did he prove that he
sought the assistance of the
pertinent government agencies
as well as the media. Nor did
he show that he undertook a
thorough, determined and
unflagging search for Netchie,
say for at least two years (and
what those years were), and
naming the particular places,
provinces, cities, barangays or
municipalities that he visited,
or went to, and identifying the
specific persons he
interviewed or talked to in the
course of his search.
 Yes. A declaration of the
absolute nullity of marriage is
now explicitly required either
as a cause of action or a
ground for defense.
 Where the absolute nullity of a
previous marriage is sought to
be invoked for purpose of
contracting a second marriage,
the sole basis acceptable in
law for the said projected
marriage be free from legal
infirmity is a final judgment
declaring the previous
marriage void.
 The requirement for a
declaration of absolute nullity
of a marriage is also for the
protection of the spouse who,
believing that his or her
marriage is illegal and void,
marries again.
 With the judicial declaration of
the nullity of his or her first
marriage, the person who
marries again cannot be

 Castillo vs. De Leon  On 25 May 1972, respondent Lea P. De Leon
Castillo Castillo (Lea) married Benjamin Bautista
(Bautista).
 On 6 January 1979, respondent married herein
petitioner Renato A. Castillo (Renato).
 On 28 May 2001, Renato filed before the RTC a
Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage,
praying that his marriage to Lea be declared
void due to her subsisting marriage to Bautista.
 Respondent opposed the Petition, and
contended that her marriage to Bautista was null
and void as they had not secured any license
therefor, and neither of them was a member of
the denomination to which the solemnizing
officer belonged.
 RTC declared the marriage between petitioner
and respondent null and void ab initio on the
ground that it was a bigamous marriage under
Article 41 of the Family Code.
 The RTC said that the fact that Lea's marriage to
Bautista was subsisting when she married
Renato on 6 January 1979, makes her marriage
to Renato bigamous, thus rendering it void ab
 Whether or not judicial
declaration is necessary in order
to establish the nullity of a
marriage.
charged with bigamy.
 Article 40 as finally formulated
included the significant clause
denotes that final judgment
declaring the previous
marriage void need not be
obtained only for purposes of
remarriage.
 A person can conceive of other
instances other than
remarriage, such as in case of
an action for liquidation,
partition, distribution and
separation of property between
the spouses, as well as an
action for the custody and
support of their common
children and the delivery of the
latters' presumptive legitimes.
 In such cases, however, one is
required by law to show
proof that the previous one
was an absolute nullity.
 No. The Court held that the
subsequent marriage of Lea to
Renato is valid in view of the
invalidity of her first marriage
to Bautista because of the
absence of a marriage license.
 That there was no judicial
declaration that the first
marriage was void ab initio
before the second marriage
was contracted is immaterial
as this is not a requirement
under the Civil Code.
 Nonetheless, the subsequent
Decision of the RTC declaring
the nullity of Lea's first
marriage only serves to
strengthen the conclusion that
her subsequent marriage to
Renato is valid.
 initio.
 The lower court dismissed Lea's argument that
she need not obtain a judicial decree of nullity
and could presume the nullity of a prior
subsisting marriage.
 The RTC stressed that so long as no judicial
declaration exists, the prior marriage is valid and
existing.
 Lastly, RTC also said that even if respondent
eventually had her first marriage judicially
declared void, the fact remains that the first and
second marriage were subsisting before the first
marriage was annulled, since Lea failed to
obtain a judicial decree of nullity for her first
marriage to Bautista before contracting her
second marriage with Renato.
 CA reversed and set aside the RTC's Decision
and Order and upheld the validity of the parties'
marriage.
 In reversing the RTC, the CA said that since
Lea's marriages were solemnized in 1972 and in
1979, or prior to the effectivity of the Family
Code on 3 August 1988, the Civil Code is the
applicable law since it is the law in effect at the
time the marriages were celebrated, and not the
Family Code.
 Furthermore, the CA ruled that the Civil Code
does not state that a judicial decree is necessary
in order to establish the nullity of a marriage.
 Montañez vs.  On April 8, 1976, Lourdes Cipriano (Lourdes)  Whether or not the RTC correct  The elements of the crime of
Cipriano married Socrates Flores (Socrates). On January in quashing the information for bigamy are: (a) the offender
24, 1983, during the subsistence of the said bigamy has been legally married; (b)
marriage, Lourdes married Silverio V. Cipriano the marriage has not been
(Silverio). legally dissolved or, in case his
 In 2001, Lourdes filed with the RTC of or her spouse is absent, the
Muntinlupa a Petition for the Annulment of her absent spouse could not yet
marriage with Socrates on the ground of the be presumed dead according
latter’s psychological incapacity. to the Civil Code; (c) that he
 The RTC rendered its decision declaring the contracts a second or
marriage of Lourdes with Socrates null and void. subsequent marriage; and (d)
 Said decision became final and executory on the second or subsequent
October 13, 2003. marriage has all the essential
 On May 14, 2004, petitioner Merlinda Montañez, requisites for validity. The
Silverio’s daughter from the first marriage, filed a felony is consummated on the
complaint for bigamy against Lourdes alleging celebration of the second
that Lourdes failed to reveal to Silverio that she marriage or subsequent
 was still married to Socrates.
 Lourdes moved to quash the information
alleging that her first marriage to Socrates had
already been declared void ab initio in 2003,
thus, there was no more marriage to speak of
prior to her marriage to Silverio on January 24,
1983.
 She also averred that she had contracted her
second marriage before the effectivity of the
Family Code; hence, the existing law at that time
did not require a judicial declaration of absolute
nullity as a condition precedent to contracting a
subsequent marriage.
 Hence, the RTC granted the motion to quash.
marriage.
 It is essential in the
prosecution for bigamy that the
alleged second marriage,
having all the essential
requirements, would be valid
were it not for the subsistence
of the first marriage.
 In this case, it appears that
when respondent contracted a
second marriage with Silverio
in 1983, her first marriage with
Socrates celebrated in 1976
was still subsisting as the
same had not yet been
annulled or declared void by a
competent authority.
 Clearly, the annulment of
respondent's first marriage on
the ground of psychological
incapacity was declared only in
2003.
 In Mercado v. Tan, we ruled
that the subsequent judicial
declaration of the nullity of the
first marriage was immaterial,
because prior to the
declaration of nullity, the crime
of bigamy had already been
consummated.
 As far back as 1995, in Atienza
v. Brillantes, Jr., the Court
already made the declaration
that Article 40, which is a rule
of procedure, should be
applied retroactively because
Article 256 of the Family Code
itself provides that said "Code
shall have retroactive effect
insofar as it does not prejudice
or impair vested or acquired
rights."
 The Court went on to explain,
thus: “The fact that procedural
statutes may somehow affect
the litigants' rights may not

 Vitangcol vs.  On December 4, 1994, Norberto married Alice
People G. Eduardo (Alice).
 Born into their union were three (3) children.
 After some time, Alice eventually discovered that
Norberto was previously married to a certain
Gina M. Gaerlan (Gina) on July 17, 1987, as
evidenced by a marriage contract registered with
the National Statistics Office.
 Alice subsequently filed a criminal Complaint for
bigamy against Norberto.
 Norberto argues that the first element of bigamy
is absent in this case.
 He presents as evidence a Certification from the
Office of the Civil Registrar of Imus, Cavite,
which states that the Office has no record of the
marriage license allegedly issued in his favor
and his first wife, Gina.
 He argues that with no proof of existence of an
essential requisite of marriage—the marriage
license—the prosecution fails to establish the
legality of his first marriage.
 In addition, Norberto claims that the legal
dissolution of the first marriage is not an element
of the crime of bigamy.
 Cariño vs. Cariño  SPO4 Santiago Cariño married Susan Nicdao in
1969 without marriage license.
 They had two children. He then married Susan
Yee on November 10 1992, with whom he had
no children in their almost 10 year cohabitation
 Whether the Certification from
the Office of the Civil Registrar
that it has no record of the
marriage license issued to
petitioner Norberto A. Vitangcol
and his first wife Gina proves the
nullity of petitioner’s first
marriage and exculpates him
from the bigamy charge.
 Whether or not Yee can claim
half the amount acquired by
Nicdao.
preclude their retroactive
application to pending actions.
The retroactive application of
procedural laws is not violative
of any right of a person who
may feel that he is adversely
affected. The reason is that as
a general rule, no vested right
may attach to, nor arise from,
procedural laws.”
 No. The Certification from the
Office of the Civil Registrar
that it has no record of the
marriage license is suspect.
 Assuming that it is true, it does
not categorically prove that
there was no marriage license.
 Furthermore, marriages are
not dissolved through mere
certifications by the civil
registrar.
 For more than seven (7) years
before his second marriage,
petitioner did nothing to have
his alleged spurious first
marriage declared a nullity.
 Even when this case was
pending, he did not present
any decision from any trial
court nullifying his first
marriage.
 Persons intending to contract a
second marriage must first
secure a judicial declaration of
nullity of their first marriage. If
they proceed with the second
marriage without the judicial
declaration, they are guilty of
bigamy regardless of evidence
of the nullity of the first
marriage.
 No. SC held that the marriage
between Yee and Cariño falls
under the Article 148 of the
Family Code, which refers to
the property regime of
 starting way back in 1982.
 He passed away on November 23 1992.
 The two Susans filed with the RTC of Quezon
City the claims for monetary benefits and
financial assistance pertaining to the deceased
from various government agencies.
 Nicdao collected a total of P146,000 while Yee
received a total of P21,000.
 Yee filed an instant case for collection of half the
money acquired by Nicdao, collectively
denominated as "death benefits."
 Yee admitted that her marriage with the SPO4
took place during the subsistence of, and
without first obtaining a judicial declaration of
nullity, the marriage between Nicdao and the
SPO4.
 She however claimed that she became aware of
the previous marriage at the funeral of the
deceased.
 In 1995, the trial court ruled in favor of Yee.
Nicdao appealed to the CA, which the CA
affirmed the decision of the trial court.
bigamous or polygamous
marriages, adulterous or
concubinage relationships.
 Yee cannot claim the benefits
earned by the SPO4 as a
police officer as her marriage
to the deceased is void due to
bigamy.
 She is only entitled to the
properties acquired with the
deceased through their actual
joint contribution.
 Wages and salaries earned by
each party belong to him or
her exclusively.
 Hence, they are not owned in
common by Yee and the
deceased, but belong to the
deceased alone and Yee has
no right whatsoever to claim
the same.
 By intestate succession, the
said “death benefits” of the
deceased shall pass to his
legal heirs.
 And, Yee, not being the legal
wife, is not one of them.
 As regards to the first
marriage, the marriage
between Nicdao and SPO4 is
null and void due to absence
of a valid marriage license.
 Nicdao can claim the death
benefits by the deceased even
if she did not contribute
thereto.
 Article 147 creates a co-
ownership in respect thereto,
entitling Nicdao to share one-
half of the benefits. As there is
no allegation of bad faith in the
first marriage, she can claim
one-half of the disputed death
benefits and the other half to
the deceased' to his legal
heirs, by intestate succession.

 Republic vs. Molina  The case at bar challenges the decision of CA
affirming the marriage of the respondent Roridel
Molina to Reynaldo Molina void in the ground of
psychological incapacity.
 The couple got married in 1985, after a year,
Reynaldo manifested signs of immaturity and
irresponsibility both as husband and a father
preferring to spend more time with friends whom
he squandered his money, depends on his
parents for aid and assistance and was never
honest with his wife in regard to their finances.
 In 1986, the couple had an intense quarrel and
as a result their relationship was estranged.
 Roridel quit her work and went to live with her
parents in Baguio City in 1987 and a few weeks
later, Reynaldo left her and their child. Since
then he abandoned them.
 Whether or not the marriage is
void on the ground of
psychological incapacity.
 The marriage between Yee
and SPO4 is likewise null and
void for the same has been
solemnized without the judicial
declaration of the nullity of the
marriage between Nicdao and
SPO4.
 Under Article 40, if a party who
is previously married wishes to
contract a second marriage, he
or she has to obtain first a
judicial decree declaring the
first marriage void, before he
or she could contract said
second marriage, otherwise
the second marriage would be
void.
 However, for purposes other
than to remarry, no prior and
separate judicial declaration of
nullity is necessary.
 No. There is no clear showing
that the psychological defect
spoken of is incapacity.
 It appears to be more of a
“difficulty” if not outright
“refusal” or “neglect” in the
performance of some marital
obligations.
 Mere showing of
“irreconcilable differences” and
“conflicting personalities” in no
wise constitute psychological
incapacity.
 It is not enough to prove that
the parties failed to meet their
responsibilities and duties as
married persons; it is essential
that they must be shown to be
incapable of doing so, due to
some psychological (not
physical) illness.
 The following are the
guidelines as to the grounds of
psychological incapacity laid
set forth in this case:
  burden of proof to show
nullity belongs to the
plaintiff
 root causes of the
incapacity must be
medically and clinically
inclined
 such incapacity should be
in existence at the time of
the marriage
 such incapacity must be
grave so as to disable the
person in complying with
the essentials of marital
obligations of marriage
 such incapacity must be
embraced in Art. 68-71 as
well as Art 220, 221 and
225 of the Family Code
 decision of the National
Matrimonial Appellate
Court or the Catholic
Church must be
respected
 court shall order the
prosecuting attorney and
the fiscal assigned to it to
act on behalf of the state.
 Marcos vs. Marcos  It was established during the trial that the parties  Whether personal medical or  We agree with petitioner that
were married twice: (1) on September 6, 1982 psychological examination of the the personal medical or
which was solemnized by Judge Eriberto H. respondent by a physician is a psychological examination of
Espiritu at the Municipal Court of Pasig and (2) requirement for a declaration of respondent is not a
on May 8, 1983 which was solemnized by Rev. psychological incapacity. requirement for a declaration
Eduardo L. Eleazar, Command Chaplain, at the  Whether the totality of evidence of psychological incapacity.
Presidential Security Command Chapel in presented in this case show  Nevertheless, the totality of the
Malacañang Park, Manila psychological incapacity. evidence she presented does
 Out of their marriage, five (5) children were born not show such incapacity.
 Appellant Wilson G. Marcos joined the Armed  Psychological incapacity as a
Forces of the Philippines in 1973. ground for declaring the nullity
 Later on, he was transferred to the Presidential of a marriage, may be
Security Command in Malacañang during the established by the totality of
Marcos Regime. evidence presented.
 Appellee Brenda B. Marcos, on the other hand,  There is no requirement,
joined the Women’s Auxilliary Corps under the however that the respondent
 Philippine Air Force in 1978. be examined by a physician or
 After the Edsa Revolution, both of them sought a a psychologist as a condition
discharge from the military service. sine qua non for such
 They first met sometime in 1980 when both of declaration.
them were assigned at the Malacañang Palace,  Although this Court is
she as an escort of Imee Marcos and he as a sufficiently convinced that
Presidential Guard of President Ferdinand respondent failed to provide
Marcos. material support to the family
 Through telephone conversations, they became and may have resorted to
acquainted and eventually became sweethearts. physical abuse and
 After their marriage on September 6, 1982, they abandonment, the totality of
resided at No. 1702 Daisy Street, Hulo Bliss, his acts does not lead to a
Mandaluyong, a housing unit which she conclusion of psychological
acquired from the Bliss Development incapacity on his part.
Corporation when she was still single.  There is absolutely no showing
 After the downfall of President Marcos, he left that his “defects” were already
the military service in 1987 and then engaged in present at the inception of the
different business ventures that did not however marriage or that they are
prosper. incurable.
 As a wife, she always urged him to look for work  Verily, the behavior of
so that their children would see him, instead of respondent can be attributed
her, as the head of the family and a good to the fact that he had lost his
provider. job and was not gainfully
 Due to his failure to engage in any gainful employed for a period of more
employment, they would often quarrel and as a than six years.
consequence, he would hit and beat her.  It was during this period that
 He would even force her to have sex with him he became intermittently
despite her weariness. drunk, failed to give material
 He would also inflict physical harm on their and moral support, and even
children for a slight mistake and was so severe left the family home.
in the way he chastised them.  Thus, his alleged
 Thus, for several times during their cohabitation, psychological illness was
he would leave their house. traced only to said period and
 In 1992, they were already living separately. not to the inception of the
 All the while, she was engrossed in the business marriage.
of selling “magic uling” and chickens.  Equally important, there is no
 While she was still in the military, she would first evidence showing that his
make deliveries early in the morning before condition is incurable,
going to Malacañang. especially now that he is
gainfully employed as a taxi
 When she was discharged from the military
driver.
service, she concentrated on her business.
Then, she became a supplier in the Armed  In sum, this Court cannot
Forces of the Philippines until she was able to declare the dissolution of the
put up a trading and construction company, NS marriage for failure of the
Ness Trading and Construction Development petitioner to show that the
Corporation. alleged psychological
  The ‘straw that broke the camel’s back’ took incapacity is characterized by
place on October 16, 1994, when they had a gravity, juridical antecedence
bitter quarrel. and incurabilty and for her
 As they were already living separately, she did failure to observe the
not want him to stay in their house anymore. guidelines as outline in
 On that day, when she saw him in their house, Republic v. CA and Molina.
she was so angry that she lambasted him.
 He then turned violent, inflicting physical harm
on her and even on her mother who came to her
aid.
 The following day, October 17, 1994, she and
their children left the house and sought refuge in
her sister’s house.
 On October 19, 1994, she submitted herself [to]
medical examination at the Mandaluyong
Medical Center where her injuries were
diagnosed as contusions
 Sometime in August 1995, she together with her
two sisters and driver, went to him at the Bliss
unit in Mandaluyong to look for their missing
child, Niko.
 Upon seeing them, he got mad.
 After knowing the reason for their unexpected
presence, he ran after them with a samurai and
even [beat] her driver.
 At the time of the filing of this case, she and their
children were renting a house in Camella,
Parañaque, while the appellant was residing at
the Bliss unit in Mandaluyong.
 In the case study conducted by Social Worker
Sonia C. Millan, the children described their
father as cruel and physically abusive to them
 The appellee submitted herself to psychologist
Natividad A. Dayan, Ph.D., for psychological
evaluation, while the appellant on the other
hand, did not.
 The court a quo found the appellant to be
psychologically incapacitated to perform his
marital obligations mainly because of his failure
to find work to support his family and his violent
attitude towards appellee and their children
 Castillo vs.  As their parents were good friends and business  whether or not the totality of  No. Time and again, it was
Republic partners, Mirasol and Felipe started as friends evidence presented warrants, as held that “psychological
then, eventually, became sweethearts. the RTC determined, the incapacity” has been intended
 During their courtship, Mirasol discovered that declaration of nullity of the by law to be confined to the
 Felipe sustained his affair with his former
girlfriend.
 The couple’s relationship turned tumultuous
after the revelation.
 With the intervention of their parents, they
reconciled.
 They got married in Bani, Pangasinan on April
22, 1984 and were blessed with two (2) children
born in 1992 and in 2001.
 On June 6, 2011, Mirasol filed a Complaint for
declaration of nullity of marriage before the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Dasmarinas,
Cavite, Branch 90.
 Mirasol alleged that at the beginning, their union
was harmonious prompting her to believe that
the same was made in heaven.
 However, after thirteen (13) years of marriage,
Felipe resumed philandering.
 Their relatives and friends saw him with different
women.
 One time, she has just arrived from a trip and
returned home to surprise her family.
 But to her consternation, she caught him in a
compromising act with another woman.
 He did not bother to explain or apologize.
 Tired of her husband’s infidelity, she left the
conjugal dwelling and stopped any
communication with him.
 Felipe’s irresponsible acts like cohabiting with
another woman, not communicating with her,
and not supporting their children for a period of
not less than ten years without any reason,
constitute a severe psychological disorder.
 Chi Ming Tsoi vs.  Chi Ming Tsoi and Gina Lao Tsoi was married in
CA 1988.
 After the celebration of their wedding, they
proceed to the house of defendant’s mother.
 There was no sexual intercourse between them
during their first night and same thing happened
until their fourth night.
 In an effort to have their honeymoon in a private
place, they went to Baguio but Gina’s relatives
went with them.
 Again, there was no sexual intercourse since the
defendant avoided by taking a long walk during
marriage of Mirasol and Felipe
on the ground of the latter’s
psychological incapacity under
Article 36 of the Family Code
 Whether Chi Ming Tsoi’s refusal
to have sexual intercourse with
his wife constitutes
psychological incapacity.
most serious cases of
personality disorders clearly
demonstrative of an utter
insensitivity or inability to give
meaning and significance to
the marriage.
 Psychological incapacity must
be characterized by (a) gravity,
i.e., it must be grave and
serious such that the party
would be incapable of carrying
out the ordinary duties
required in a marriage, (b)
juridical antecedence, i.e., it
must be rooted in the history of
the party antedating the
marriage, although the overt
manifestations may emerge
only after the marriage, and (c)
incurability, i.e., it must be
incurable, or even if it were
otherwise, the cure would be
beyond the means of the party
involved.
 The abnormal reluctance or
unwillingness to consummate
his marriage is strongly
indicative of a serious
personality disorder which to
the mind of the Supreme Court
clearly demonstrates an utter
insensitivity or inability to give
meaning and significance tot
the marriage within the
meaning of Article 36 of the
Family Code.
 siesta or sleeping on a rocking chair at the living
room.
 Since May 1988 until March 1989 they slept
together in the same bed but no attempt of
sexual intercourse between them.
 Because of this, they submitted themselves for
medical examination to a urologist in Chinese
General Hospital in 1989.
 The result of the physical examination of Gina
was disclosed, while that of the husband was
kept confidential even the medicine prescribed.
 There were allegations that the reason why Chi
Ming Tsoi married her is to maintain his
residency status here in the country.
 Gina does not want to reconcile with Chi Ming
Tsoi and want their marriage declared void on
the ground of psychological incapacity.
 On the other hand, the latter does not want to
have their marriage annulled because he loves
her very much, he has no defect on his part and
is physically and psychologically capable and
since their relationship is still young, they can
still overcome their differences.
 Chi Ming Tsoi submitted himself to another
physical examination and the result was there is
not evidence of impotency and he is capable of
erection.
 Noel Buenaventura  Noel Buenaventura filed a position for the
vs. CA et al declaration of nullity of marriage on the ground
that both he and his wife were psychologically
incapacitated.
 The RTC in its decision, declared the marriage
entered into between petitioner and respondent
null and violation ordered the liquidation of the
assets of the conjugal partnership property;
ordered petitioner a regular support in favor of
his son in the amount of 15,000 monthly, subject
to modification as the necessity arises, and
awarded the care and custody of the minor to
his mother.
 Petitioner appealed before the CA.
 While the appeal was pending, the CA, upon
respondent’s motion issued a resolution
increasing the support pendants like to P20,
000.
 The CA dismissal petitioner appeal for lack of
 Whether or not co-ownership is
applicable to valid marriage.
 If a spouse, although
physically capable but simply
refuses to perform his or her
essential marital obligations
and the refusal is senseless
and constant, Catholic
marriage tribunals attribute the
causes to psychological
incapacity than to stubborn
refusal.
 Furthermore, one of the
essential marital obligations
under the Family Code is to
procreate children thus
constant non-fulfillment of this
obligation will finally destroy
the integrity and wholeness of
the marriage.
 Since the present case does
not involve the annulment of a
bigamous marriage, the
provisions of article 50 in
relation to articles 41, 42 and
43 of the Family Code,
providing for the dissolution of
the absolute community or
conjugal partnership of gains,
as the case maybe, do not
apply.
 Rather the general rule
applies, which is in case a
marriage is declared void ab
initio, the property regime
applicable to be liquidated,
partitioned and distributed is
that of equal co-ownership.
 Since the properties ordered to
 merit and affirmed in to the RTC decision.
 Petitioner motion for reconsideration was
denied, hence this petition.
 Carating-Siayngo  
vs. Siayngo
 Ngo Te vs. Yu Te  Edward Kenneth Ngo Te met Rowena Ong
Gutierrez Yu at a Filipino-Chinese gathering at a
school campus.
 They did not have interest with each other at first
but they developed a certain degree of
closeness due to the fact that they share the
same angst with their families.
 In 1996, while still in college, Rowena proposed
to Kenneth that they should elope.
 Kenneth initially refused on the ground that he
was still young and jobless.
 But due to Rowena’s persistence Kenneth
complied bringing with him P80K.
 The money soon after disappeared and they
found themselves forced to return to their
respective home.
 Subsequently, Rowena’s uncle brought the two
before a court and had had them be married.
 After marriage, Kenneth and Rowena stayed
with her uncle’s house where Kenneth was
treated like a prisoner.
 Meanwhile, Kenneth was advised by his dad to
come home, otherwise he will be disinherited.
 One month later, Kenneth was able to escape
and he was hidden from Rowena’s family.
 Kenneth later contacted Rowena urging her to
live with his parents instead.
 Rowena however suggested that he should get
his inheritance instead so that they could live
together separately or just stay with her uncle.
 Kenneth however was already disinherited.
 Upon knowing this, Rowena said that it is better
if they live separate lives from then on.
 Whether or not the expert
opinion of the psychologist
should be admitted in lieu of the
guidelines established in the
landmark case of Molina.
be distributed by the court a
quo were found, both by the
RTC and the CA, to have been
acquired during the union of
the parties, the same would be
covered by the co-ownership.
 No fruits of a separate property
of one of the parties appear to
have been included or involved
in said distribution.

 Yes, such is possible.
 The Supreme Court ruled that
admittedly, the SC may have
inappropriately imposed a set
of rigid rules in ascertaining
Psychological Incapacity in
the Molina case.
 So much so that the
subsequent cases after Molina
were ruled accordingly to the
doctrine set therein.
 And that there is not much
regard for the law’s clear
intention that each case is to
be treated differently, as
“courts should interpret the
provision on a case-to-case
basis; guided by experience,
the findings of experts and
researchers in psychological
disciplines, and by decisions of
church tribunals.”
 The SC however is not
abandoning the Molina
guidelines, the SC merely
reemphasized that there is
need to emphasize other
perspectives as well which
should govern the disposition
of petitions for declaration of
nullity under Article 36 such as
in the case at bar.
 The principle that each case
must be judged, not on the
  Four years later, Kenneth filed a petition for
annulment of his marriage with Rowena.
 Rowena did not file an answer. The City
Prosecutor, after investigation, submitted that he
cannot determine if there is collusion between
the two parties.
 Eventually, the case was tried. T
 he opinion of an expert was sought wherein the
psychologist subsequently ruled that both
parties are psychologically incapacitated.
 The said relationship between Kenneth and
Rowena is said to be undoubtedly in the wreck
and weakly-founded.
 The break-up was caused by both parties’
unreadiness to commitment and their young
age.
 Kenneth was still in the state of finding his fate
and fighting boredom, while Rowena was still
egocentrically involved with herself.
 The trial court ruled that the marriage is void
upon the findings of the expert psychologist.
 The Solicitor General (OSG) appealed and the
Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the OSG.
 The OSG claimed that the psychological
incapacity of both parties was not shown to be
medically or clinically permanent or
incurable (Molina case).
 The clinical psychologist did not personally
examine Rowena, and relied only on the
information provided by Kenneth.
 Further, the psychological incapacity was not
shown to be attended by gravity, juridical
antecedence and incurability.
 All these were requirements set forth in
the Molina case to be followed as guidelines.
 Matudan vs.  
Republic
 Mallion vs.  In 1995, petitioner Oscar Mallion filed a petition
Alcantara for declaration of nullity of marriage before the
San Pablo City RTC (Civil Case 4341-95)
alleging that his wife was psychologically
incapacitated to comply with the essential
marital obligations.
 That case was dismissed “upon the finding that
petitioner “failed to adduce preponderant
 Whether or not previous final
judgment denying a petition for
declaration of nullity on the
ground of psychological
incapacity bar a subsequent
petition for declaration of nullity
on the ground of lack of
marriage license
basis of a priori assumptions,
predilections or generalizations
but according to its own facts.
 And, to repeat for emphasis,
courts should interpret the
provision on a case-to-case
basis; guided by experience,
the findings of experts and
researchers in psychological
disciplines, and by decisions of
church tribunals.
 The SC then ruled that the
marriage of Kenneth and
Rowena is null and void due to
both parties’ psychological
disorder as evidenced by the
finding of the expert
psychologist.
 Both parties being afflicted
with grave, severe and
incurable psychological
incapacity.
 Kenneth cannot assume the
essential marital obligations of
living together, observing love,
respect and fidelity and
rendering help and support, for
he is unable to make everyday
decisions without advice from
others.
 He is too dependent on others.
 Rowena cannot perform the
essential marital obligations as
well due to her intolerance and
impulsiveness.

 No. Petitioner insists that
because the action for
declaration of nullity of
marriage on the ground of
psychological incapacity and
the action for declaration of
nullity of marriage on the
ground of absence of marriage
 evidence to warrant the grant of the relief he is
seeking.”
 In 1999, Oscar filed another petition for
declaration of nullity of marriage on the basis
that the marriage was celebrated without a valid
marriage license.
 Republic vs.  Respondent requested from the National
Olaybar Statistics Office (NSO) a Certificate of No
Marriage (CENOMAR) as one of the
requirements for her marriage with her boyfriend
of five years. Upon receipt thereof, she
discovered that she was already married to a
certain Ye Son Sune, a Korean National
 She denied having contracted said marriage and
claimed that she did not know the alleged
husband; she did not appear before the
solemnizing officer; and, that the signature
appearing in the marriage certificate is not hers.
 Garcia-Quiazon vs.  
Belen
 Sarao vs. Guevarra  
 Tuason vs. CA  
 Espiritu vs. CA  Reynaldo Espiritu and Teresita Masanding
began to maintain a common law relationship of
husband while in US.
 Teresita works as a nurse while Reynaldo was
sent by his empolyer, National Steel
Corporation, to Pittsburgh for a temporary post.
 They begot a child in 1986 named Rosalind.
 After a year, they went back to the Philippines
for a brief vacation when they also got married.
 
 Whether or not the custody of
the 2 children should be
awarded to the mother.
license constitute separate
causes of action, the present
case would not fall under the
prohibition against splitting a
single cause of action nor
would it be barred by the
principle of res judicata.
 Res judicata is defined as “a
matter adjudged; a thing
judicially acted upon or
decided; a thing or matter
settled by judgment. It also
refers to the rule that a final
judgment or decree on the
merits by a court of competent
jurisdiction is conclusive of the
rights of the parties or their
privies in all later suits on
points and matters determined
in the former suit.”



 In cases of care, custody,
education and property of
children, the latter’s welfare
shall be the paramount
concern and that even a child
under 7 years of age may be
ordered to be separated from
the mother for compelling
reasons.
 The presumption that the
  Subsequently, they had a second child named
Reginald.
 In 1990, they decided to separate.
 Reynaldo pleaded for second chance but
instead of Teresita granting it, she left Reynaldo
and the children and went back to California.
 Reynaldo brought the children in the Philippines
and left them with his sister.
 When Teresita returned in the Philippines
sometime in 1992, he filed a petition for a writ of
habeas corpus against Reynaldo and his sister
to gain custody of the children.
 Lim-Lua vs. Lua  
 Mangonon vs. CA  
 Domingo vs. CA  Roberto Domingo married Delia Soledad in 1976
while being married with Emerlina dela Paz.
 He has been unemployed and completely
dependent upon Delia, who has been working in
Saudi Arabia, for support and subsistence.
 Delia only found out about the prior marriage
when Emerlina sued them for bigamy in 1983.
 In 1989, she found out that Roberto was
cohabiting with another woman and he was
 Whether or not a petition for
judicial declaration of a void
marriage is necessary.
 If in affirmative, whether the
same should be filed only for
purpose of remarriage.
mother is the best custodian
for a child under seven years
of age is strong but not
conclusive.
 At the time the judgment was
rendered, the 2 children were
both over 7 years of age.
 The choice of the child to
whom she preferred to stay
must be considered.
 It is evident in the records
submitted that Rosalind chose
to stay with his father/aunt.
 She was found of suffering
from emotional shock caused
by her mother’s infidelity.
 Furthermore, there was
nothing in the records to show
that Reynaldo is unfit well in
fact he has been trying his
best to give the children the
kind of attention and care
which their mother is not in the
position to extend.
 On the other hand, the
mother’s conviction for the
crime of bigamy and her illicit
relationship had already
caused emotional disturbances
and personality conflicts at
least with the daughter.
 Hence, petition was granted.
 Custody of the minors was
reinstated to their father.


 Yes. A declaration of the
absolute nullity of marriage is
now explicitly required either
as a cause of action or a
ground for defense.
 Where the absolute nullity of a
previous marriage is sought to
be invoked for purpose of
contracting a second marriage,
 disposing of some of her properties without her the sole basis acceptable in
knowledge and consent. law for the said projected
 In May 1991, Delia filed a petition for judicial marriage be free from legal
declaration of nullity of her marriage to Roberto infirmity is a final judgment
and separation of property. declaring the previous
marriage void.
 The requirement for a
declaration of absolute nullity
of a marriage is also for the
protection of the spouse who,
believing that his or her
marriage is illegal and void,
marries again.
 With the judicial declaration of
the nullity of his or her first
marriage, the person who
marries again cannot be
charged with bigamy.
 Article 40 as finally formulated
included the significant clause
denotes that final judgment
declaring the previous
marriage void need not be
obtained only for purposes of
remarriage.
 A person can conceive of other
instances other than
remarriage, such as in case of
an action for liquidation,
partition, distribution and
separation of property between
the spouses, as well as an
action for the custody and
support of their common
children and the delivery of the
latters' presumptive legitimes.
 In such cases, however, one is
required by law to show
proof that the previous one
was an absolute nullity.