Void and Voidable Marriages

1) Mallion vs Alcantara- res juridicata, 2 suits (psych incapacity and null)

Issue: 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

Held/Basis: Yes. Res juridicata

Facts/Ratio:

-24, 1995, petitioner Oscar P. Mallion filed a petition1 with the Regional Trial Court (RTC),
Branch 29, of San Pablo City seeking a declaration of nullity of his marriage to respondent
Editha Alcantara under Article 36 of Executive Order No. 209-DENIED

-July 12, 1999 another petition5for declaration of nullity of marriage with the RTC of San Pablo
City, this time alleging that his marriage with respondent was null and void due to the fact that it
was celebrated without a valid marriage license

Petitioner:

- Because there is no identity as to the cause of action, petitioner claims that res judicata does
not lie to bar the second petition. In this connection, petitioner maintains that there was no
violation of the rule on forum shopping or of the rule which proscribes the splitting of a cause
of action.

Respondent:

-respondent, in her comment dated May 26, 2000, counters that while the present suit is
anchored on a different ground, it still involves the same issue raised in Civil Case No. SP
4341-95, that is, the validity of petitioner and respondent’s marriage, and prays for the same
remedy, that is, the declaration of nullity of their marriage. Moreover, respondent asserts that
petitioner violated the rule on multiplicity of suits as the ground he cites in this petition could
have been raised during the trial in Civil Case No. SP 4341-95.

SC held:

-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."11

-doctrine is a rule which pervades every well-regulated system of jurisprudence and is founded
upon the following precepts of common law, namely: (1) public policy and necessity, which
makes it to the interest of the State that there should be an end to litigation, and (2) the
hardship on the individual that he should be vexed twice for the same cause.

-Res judicata in this sense requires the concurrence of the following requisites: (1) the
former judgment is final; (2) it is rendered by a court having jurisdiction over the subject matter
and the parties; (3) it is a judgment or an orderon the merits; and (4) there is -- between the first
and the second actions -- identity of parties, of subject matter, and of causes of action.15

-issue is the presence of the fourth requisite. In this regard, the test to determine whether the
causes of action are identical is to ascertain whether the same evidence will sustain both
actions, or whether there is an identity in the facts essential to the maintenance of the two
actions. If the same facts or evidence would sustain both, the two actions are considered the
same, and a judgment in the first case is a bar to the subsequent action

-In both petitions, petitioner has the same cause - the declaration of nullity of his marriage to
respondent. What differs is the ground upon which the cause of action is predicated.

-. In Civil Case No. SP 4341-95, however, petitioner impliedly conceded that the marriage had
been solemnized and celebrated in accordance with law. Petitioner is now bound by this
admission. The alleged absence of a marriage license which petitioner raises now could have
been presented and heard in the earlier case -ESTOPPED

-. A plaintiff is mandated to place in issue in his pleading, all the issues existing when the suit
began. A lawsuit cannot be tried piecemeal. The plaintiff is bound to set forth in his first action
every ground for relief which he claims to exist and upon which he relied, and cannot be
permitted to rely upon them by piecemeal in successive action to recover for the same wrong or
injury.

-Once an option has been taken and a case is filed in court, the parties must ventilate all
matters and relevant issues therein. The losing party who files another action regarding the
same controversy will be needlessly squandering time, effort and financial resources because
he is barred by law from litigating the same controversy all over again.21

2. Ninal vs Badayog- void common-law marriage, killed his wife

ISSUE: WON The common law marriage of Pepito Ninal and Norma Badayog is valid.

HELD: No. Pepito had legal impediments to marry when he cohabited with Badayog. It was
bigamous.

Facts/Ratio:

-Pepito Niñal was married to Teodulfa Bellones on September 26, 1974. Out of their marriage
were born herein petitioners (Engrace, Babyline, Ingrid, Archie and Pepito Jr). Teodulfa was
shot by Pepito resulting in her death on April 24, 1985.

-on December 11, 1986, Pepito and respondent Norma Badayog got married without any
marriage license. In lieu thereof, Pepito and Norma executed an affidavit dated December 11,
1986 stating that they had lived together as husband and wife for at least five years and were
thus exempt from securing a marriage license.

-February 19, 1997, Pepito died in a car accident. After their father’s death, petitioners filed a
petition for declaration of nullity of the marriage of Pepito to Norma alleging that the said
marriage was void for lack of a marriage license.

-Judge Ferdinand J. Marcos of the Regional Trial Court Cebu dismissed the petition after finding
that the Family Code is "rather silent, obscure, insufficient"

SC Held:

-two marriages involved herein having been solemnized prior to the effectivity of the Family
Code (FC), the applicable law to determine their validity is the Civil Code which was the law
in effect at the time of their celebration.[5] A valid marriage license is a requisite of marriage
under Article 53 of the Civil Code,[6] the absence of which renders the marriage void ab initio
pursuant to Article 80(3)[7] in relation to Article 58.[8]

-the Civil Code wherein a marriage license is dispensed with, one of which is that provided in
Article 76,[14] referring to the marriage of a man and a woman who have lived together and
exclusively with each other as husband and wife for a continuous and unbroken period of at
least five years before the marriage. The rationale why no license is required in such case is to
avoid exposing the parties to humiliation, shame and embarrassment concomitant with the
scandalous cohabitation of persons outside a valid marriage due to the publication of every
applicant’s name for a marriage license.

-no dispute that the marriage of petitioners’ father to respondent Norma was celebrated without
any marriage license. In lieu thereof, they executed an affidavit stating that "they have attained
the age of majority, and, being unmarried, have lived together as husband and wife for at least
five years, and that we now desire to marry each other."[16]

-. This 5-year period should be the years immediately before the day of the marriage and it
should be a period of cohabitation characterized by exclusivity – meaning no third party was
involved at any time within the 5 years and continuity – that is unbroken. Otherwise, if that
continuous 5-year cohabitation is computed without any distinction as to whether the parties
were capacitated to marry each other during the entire five years, then the law would be
sanctioning immorality and encouraging parties to have common law relationships and placing
them on the same footing with those who lived faithfully with their spouse.

-The Revised Penal Code complements the civil law in that the contracting of two or more
marriages and the having of extramarital affairs are considered felonies, i.e., bigamy and
concubinage and adultery.[19] The law sanctions monogamy.

- The Code is silent as to who can file a petition to declare the nullity of a marriage.
Voidable and void marriages are not identical. A marriage that is annulable is valid until
otherwise declared by the court; whereas a marriage that is void ab initio is considered as
having never to have taken place[21] and cannot be the source of rights. The first can be
generally ratified or confirmed by free cohabitation or prescription while the other can never be
ratified.

-. A voidable marriage cannot be assailed collaterally except in a direct proceeding while a void
marriage can be attacked collaterally.

3. Chi Ming Tsoi vs CA and Gina Lao-Tsoi - psychological incapacity and failure to have
sex

ISSUE: WON The refusal of Chi Ming Tsoi to have sex with Gina constitutes as
psychological incapacity.

HELD: Yes.

Facts/Ratio:

-May 22, 1988, the plaintiff married the defendant at the Manila Cathedral, . . . Intramuros
Manila, as evidenced by their Marriage Contract. (Exh. "A")

After the celebration of their marriage and wedding reception at the South Villa, Makati, they
went and proceeded to the house of defendant's mother.

-There was no sexual intercourse between them during the first night. The same thing
happened on the second, third and fourth nights.

-[T]hey stayed in Baguio City for four (4) days. But, during this period, there was no sexual
intercourse between them, since the defendant avoided her by taking a long walk during siesta
time or by just sleeping on a rocking chair located at the living room.

-there was no attempt of sexual intercourse between them. [S]he claims, that she did not: even
see her husband's private parts nor did he see hers.

-PLAINTIFF claims, that the defendant is impotent, a closet homosexual as he did not show
his penis. She said, that she had observed the defendant using an eyebrow pencil and
sometimes the cleansing cream of his mother. And that, according to her, the defendant married
her, a Filipino citizen, to acquire or maintain his residency status here in the country and to
publicly maintain the appearance of a normal man.

-he said that he does not want his marriage with his wife annulled for several reasons, viz:
(1) that he loves her very much; (2) that he has no defect on his part and he is physically and
psychologically capable; and, (3) since the relationship is still very young and if there is any
differences between the two of them, it can still be reconciled

-defendant claims, that he forced his wife to have sex with him only once but he did not
continue because she was shaking and she did not like it. So he stopped.

-plaintiff filed this case against him, and these are: (1) that she is afraid that she will be forced to
return the pieces of jewelry of his mother, and, (2) that her husband, the defendant, will
consummate their marriage.

-Dr. Alteza submitted his Doctor's Medical Report. (Exh. "2"). It is stated there, that there is no
evidence of impotency (Exh. "2-B"), and he is capable of erection. (Exh. "2-C")
SC Held:

-Evidently, one of the essential marital obligations under the Family Code is "To procreate
children based on the universal principle that procreation of children through sexual
cooperation is the basic end of marriage." Constant non- fulfillment of this obligation will
finally destroy the integrity or wholeness of the marriage.

-We are not impressed by defendant's claim that what the evidence proved is the unwillingness
or lack of intention to perform the sexual act, which is not phychological incapacity, and which
can be achieved "through proper motivation." After almost ten months of cohabitation, the
admission that the husband is reluctant or unwilling to perform the sexual act with his wife whom
he professes to love very dearly, and who has not posed any insurmountable resistance to his
alleged approaches, is indicative of a hopeless situation, and of a serious personality disorder
that constitutes psychological incapacity to discharge the basic marital covenants within the
contemplation of the Family Code.

-law provides that the husband and the wife are obliged to live together, observe mutual love,
respect and fidelity (Art. 68, Family Code), the sanction therefor is actually the "spontaneous,
mutual affection between husband and wife and not any legal mandate or court order"
(Cuaderno vs. Cuaderno 120 Phil. 1298). Love is useless unless it is shared with another. .. .
Sexual intimacy is a gift and a participation in the mystery of creation. It is a function which
enlivens the hope of procreation and ensures the continuation of family relations.

-Marriage is definitely not for children but for two consenting adults who view the relationship
with love amor gignit amorem, respect, sacrifice and a continuing commitment to compromise,
conscious of its value as a sublime social institution.

-This Court, finding the gravity of the failed relationship in which the parties found themselves
trapped in its mire of unfulfilled vows and unconsummated marital obligations, can do no less
but sustain the studied judgment of respondent appellate court.

4. Roberto Domingo vs CA and Delia Domingo- OFW wife being cheated by husband

ISSUE: WON The declaration of nullity of marriage is necessary to separate the

properties???

HELD: No. Only for purposes of remarriage.

Facts/Ratio:

-29, 1991, private respondent Delia Soledad A. Domingo filed a petition before the Regional
Trial Court of Pasig entitled "Declaration of Nullity of Marriage and Separation of Property"
against petitioner Roberto Domingo.

-they were married on November 29, 1976 at the YMCA Youth Center Bldg., as evidenced by a
Marriage Contract Registry No. 1277K-76 with Marriage License No. 4999036 issued at
Carmona, Cavite; unknown to her, he had a previous marriage with one Emerlina dela Paz
on April 25, 1969 which marriage is valid and still existing; she came to know of the prior
marriage only sometime in 1983 when Emerlina dela Paz sued them for bigamy;

-she has been working in Saudi Arabia and she used to come to the Philippines only when she
would avail of the one-month annual vacation leave

-June 1989, while on her one-month vacation, she discovered that he was cohabiting with
another woman; she further discovered that he had been disposing of some of her properties
without her knowledge or consent;

-confronted him about this and thereafter appointed her brother Moises R. Avera as her
attorney-in-fact to take care of her properties; he failed and refused to turn over the possession
and administration of said properties to her brother/attorney-in-fact

-August 20, 1991, Judge Maria Alicia M. Austria issued an Order

-Movant argues that a second marriage contracted after a first marriage by a man with another
woman is illegal and void (citing the case of Yap v. Court of Appeals, 145 SCRA 229) and no
judicial decree is necessary to establish the invalidity of a void marriage (citing the cases of
People v. Aragon, 100 Phil. 1033; People v. Mendoza, 95 Phil. 845).

- February 7, 1992, the Court of Appeals 3 dismissed the petition. It explained that the case of
Yap v. CA 4 cited by petitioner and that of Consuegra v. GSIS relied upon by the lower court do
not have relevance in the case at bar, there being no identity of facts because these cases dealt
with the successional rights of the second wife while the instant case prays for separation of
property corollary with the declaration of nullity of marriage.

SC held: --> Discussion of doctrine

-The two basic issues confronting the Court in the instant case are the following.

First, whether or not a petition for judicial declaration of a void marriage is necessary. If in the
affirmative, whether the same should be filed only for purposes of remarriage.

Second, whether or not SP No. 1989-J is the proper remedy of private respondent to recover
certain real and personal properties allegedly belonging to her exclusively

-no question that the marriage of petitioner and private respondent celebrated while the former's
previous marriage with one Emerlina de la Paz was still subsisting, is bigamous. As such, it is
from the beginning. 8Petitioner himself does not dispute the absolute nullity of their marriage

-This dissenting opinion was adopted as the majority position in subsequent cases involving the
same issue. Thus, in Gomez v. Lipana, 11 the Court abandoned its earlier ruling in the Aragon
and Mendoza cases. In reversing the lower court's order forfeiting the husband's share of the
disputed property acquired during the second marriage, the Court stated that "if the nullity, or
annulment of the marriage is the basis for the application of Article 1417, there is need for a
judicial declaration thereof, which of course contemplates an action for that purpose."

-of Wiegel v. Sempio-Diy 13 the Court reverted to the Consuegra case and held that there was
"no need of introducing evidence about the existing prior marriage of her first husband at the
time they married each other, for then such a marriage though void still needs according to this
Court a judicial declaration of such fact and for all legal intents and purposes she would still be
regarded as a married woman at the time she contracted her marriage with respondent Karl
Heinz Wiegel."

-Came the Family Code: A declaration of the absolute nullity of a marriage is now explicitly
required either as a cause of action or a ground for defense.

-. Justice Caguioa saw the point of Prof. Bautista and suggested that they limit the provision to
remarriage. He then proposed that Article 39 be reworded as follows:

-The absolute nullity of a marriage for purposes of remarriage may be invoked only on the basis
of final judgment

-In fact, 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.

-This leads us to the question: Why the distinction? In other words, for purposes of remarriage,
why should the only legally acceptable basis for declaring a previous marriage an absolute
nullity be a final judgment declaring such previous marriage void? Whereas, for purposes other
than remarriage, other evidence is acceptable?

-nullification of a marriage for the purpose of contracting another cannot be accomplished

merely on the basis of the perception of both parties or of one that their union is so defective
with respect to the essential requisites of a contract of marriage-POLICY

Held:

-Based on the foregoing provisions, private respondent's ultimate prayer for separation of
property will simply be one of the necessary consequences of the judicial declaration of
absolute nullity of their marriage. Thus, petitioner's suggestion that in order for their properties to
be separated, an ordinary civil action has to be instituted for that purpose is baseless.

5. Carino vs Carino- policeman, death benefits, two Susan, 1st marriage no marriag
license, BOTH VOID

ISSUES: 1) WON A judicial declartion of nullity for purposes other than marriage is
needed to be instituted.

2) WON Lack of marriage license between the first marriage rendered the it
invalids

HELD: 1) No.

2) Yes. The case does not fall with the exception.

Facts/Ratio:

-During the lifetime of the late SPO4 Santiago S. Cariño, he contracted two marriages, the first
was on June 20, 1969, with petitioner Susan Nicdao Cariño (hereafter referred to as Susan
Nicdao), with whom he had two offsprings, namely, Sahlee and Sandee Cariño; and the second
was on November 10, 1992, with respondent Susan Yee Cariño (hereafter referred to as
Susan Yee), with whom he had no children in their almost ten year cohabitation starting way
back in 1982.

-1988, SPO4 Santiago S. Cariño became ill and bedridden due to diabetes complicated by
pulmonary tuberculosis....passed away on November 23, 1992

-Petitioner Susan Nicdao was able to collect a total of P146,000.00 from “MBAI, PCCUI,
Commutation, NAPOLCOM, [and] Pag-ibig,”[3] while respondent Susan Yee received a total
of P21,000.00 from “GSIS Life, Burial (GSIS) and burial (SSS).”

--December 14, 1993, respondent Susan Yee filed the instant case for collection of sum of
money against petitioner Susan Nicdao praying, inter alia, that petitioner be ordered to return to
her at least one-half of the one hundred forty-six thousand pesos (P146,000.00)

-Susan Yee admitted that her marriage to the deceased took place during the subsistence of,
and without first obtaining a judicial declaration of nullity of, the marriage between petitioner and
the deceased. She, however, claimed that she had no knowledge of the previous marriage
and that she became aware of it only at the funeral of the deceased

-respondent contended that the marriage of petitioner and the deceased is void ab initio
because the same was solemnized without the required marriage license. In support
thereof, respondent presented: 1) the marriage certificate of the deceased and the petitioner
which bears no marriage license number;[5] and 2) a certification dated March 9, 1994, from
the Local Civil Registrar of San Juan, Metro Manila, which reads –

This is to certify that this Office has no record of marriage license of the spouses SANTIAGO
CARINO (sic) and SUSAN NICDAO, who are married in this municipality on June 20, 1969.

-However, for purposes other than remarriage, no judicial action is necessary to declare a
marriage an absolute nullity. For other purposes, such as but not limited to the determination of
heirship, legitimacy or illegitimacy of a child, settlement of estate, dissolution of property regime,
or a criminal case for that matter, the court may pass upon the validity of marriage even after the
death of the parties thereto, and even in a suit not directly instituted to question the validity of
said marriage, so long as it is essential to the determination of the case

-Under the Civil Code, which was the law in force when the marriage of petitioner Susan Nicdao
and the deceased was solemnized in 1969, a valid marriage license is a requisite of marriage,
[12] and the absence thereof, subject to certain exceptions,[13] renders the marriage void ab
initio.[14]

In the case at bar, there is no question that the marriage of petitioner and the deceased
does not fall within the marriages exempt from the license requirement. A marriage
license, therefore, was indispensable to the validity of their marriage.

-Republic v. Court of Appeals,[15] the Court held that such a certification is adequate to prove
the non-issuance of a marriage license. Absent any circumstance of suspicion, as in the
present case, the certification issued by the local civil registrar enjoys probative value,

-To reiterate, under Article 40 of the Family Code, for purposes of remarriage, there must first be
a prior judicial declaration of the nullity of a previous marriage, though void, before a party can
enter into a second marriage, otherwise, the second marriage would also be void.

-So BOTH MARRIAGES ARE VOID

- Considering that the two marriages are void ab initio, the applicable property regime would not
be absolute community or conjugal partnership of property, but rather, be governed by the
provisions of Articles 147 and 148 of the Family Code on “Property Regime of Unions Without
Marriage.”

-properties acquired by the parties through their actual joint contribution shall belong to the co-
ownership

-Domingo v. Court of Appeals,[22] however, the Court, construing Article 40 of the Family Code,
clarified that a prior and separate declaration of nullity of a marriage is an all important condition
precedent only for purposes of remarriage

6.Tongol vs Tongol- Interference of parents, TOTALITY OF EVIDENCE

ISSUE: the totality of the evidence presented in the present case is enough to sustain a finding
that herein respondent is psychologically incapacitated to comply with her essential marital
obligations.

HELD: No.

Facts/Ratio: -Orlando G. Tongol (Orlando) and Filipinas M. Tongol (Filipinas) were married on
August 27, 1967. Out of their union, they begot four children, namely

-1994, Orlando and Filipinas filed a petition for dissolution of their conjugal partnership of gains,
which was granted..April 24, 1995

-August 19, 1996, Orlando filed before the RTC of Makati City a verified petition for the
declaration of nullity of his marriage with Filipinas on the ground that the latter is
psychologically incapacitated to comply with her essential marital obligations.

-Orlando:their marriage was not a happy one because of her parents' continued interference
and attempt to break up their union; greatly influenced by her parents, Filipinas, even at the
early stages of their marriage, already treated Orlando with contempt and without the love and
respect due him as her husband;

-; he put up a pharmaceutical company which also became profitable; Filipinas then became
interested and began to interfere in the operation of the business

-in 1990, Orlando decided to live separately from Filipinas

-Filipinas admitted that efforts at reconciliation have been fruitless and that their marriage is a
failure. ..she claims that their marriage failed because it is Orlando who is psychologically
incapacitated.

-RTC dismissed petition

-SC Held:

basic issue to be resolved in the instant case is whether or not the totality of the evidence
presented in the present case is enough to sustain a finding that herein respondent is
psychologically incapacitated to comply with her essential marital obligations.

- Psychological incapacity must be characterized by:

(a) Gravity – It must be grave or serious such that the party would be incapable of carrying out
the ordinary duties required in a marriage;

(b) Juridical Antecedence – 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 – It must be incurable or, even if it were otherwise, the cure would be beyond the
means of the party involved.

-Republic of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals and Molina,[6] wherein the guidelines in the
interpretation and application of Article 36[7] of the Family Code

MOLINA Guidelines

-(1) The burden of proof to show the nullity of the marriage belongs to the plaintiff.

2) The root cause of the psychological incapacity must be (a) medically or clinically identified,
(b) alleged in the complaint, (c) sufficiently proven by experts and (d) clearly explained in the
decision

(3) The incapacity must be proven to be existing at “the time of the celebration” of the marriage.

(4) Such incapacity must also be shown to be medically or clinically permanent or incurable

5) Such illness must be grave enough to bring about the disability of the party to assume the
essential obligations of marriage.

6) The essential marital obligations must be those embraced by Articles 68 up to 71 of the

Family Code as regards the husband and wife as well as Articles 220, 221 and 225 of the same
Code in regard to parents and their children.
(7) Interpretations given by the National Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal of the Catholic Church in
the Philippines, while not controlling or decisive, should be given great respect by our courts.

(8) The trial court must order the prosecuting attorney or fiscal and the Solicitor General to
appear as counsel for the state. No decision shall be handed down unless the Solicitor General
issues a certification

-Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable

Marriages,[9] which took effect on March 15, 2003

-petitioner relies heavily on the findings of Dr. Villegas who made the following written
evaluation regarding respondent's psychological makeup:

xxxx

On the other hand, Mrs. Filipinas Mendoza-Tongol belonged to a matriarchal family

where the mother assumed a more active and dominant role.

-Inadequate personality disorder means, there are not times that in all aspects of her
life, she could not function in the way that she feels or she is confident.

-However, Dr. Villegas failed to link respondent's personality disorder to her conclusion that
respondent is psychologically incapacitated to perform her obligations as wife and mother.

-Held: However, the totality of the evidence presented in the present case does not show that
her personality disorder is of the kind contemplated by Article 36 of the Family Code as well as
jurisprudence as to render her psychologically incapacitated or incapable of complying with the
essential obligations of marriage.

7. Antonio vs Reyes- pathological liar, frustrated singer

ISSUE: WON Pathological lying constitutes as psychological incapacity.

HELD: Yes. Totality of evidence.

Facts/Ratio:

-Statistics never lie, but lovers often do, quipped a sage.

Petitioner Leonilo Santos and respondent Marie Yvonne met in August 1989 when petitioner
was 26 years old and respondent was 36 years of age. Barely a year after their first meeting,
they got married before a minister of the Gospel4 at the Manila City Hall, and through a
subsequent church wedding5 at the Sta. Rosa de Lima Parish, Bagong Ilog, Pasig, Metro
Manila on 6 December 1990.

--He anchored his petition for nullity on Article 36 of the Family Code alleging that respondent
was psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential obligations of marriage.

1)petitioner claimed that respondent persistently lied about herself, the people around her, her
occupation, income, educational attainment and other events or things, 9 to wit:

2)fabricated a story that her brother-in-law, Edwin David, attempted to rape and kill her

3)misrepresented herself as a psychiatrist to her obstetrician, Dr. Consuelo Gardiner

4)She claimed to be a singer or a free-lance voice talent affiliated with Blackgold Recording
Company

5) insecurities and jealousies over him to the extent of calling up his officemates to monitor his
whereabouts.

-He tried to attempt a reconciliation but since her behavior did not change, he finally left her for
good in November 1991

--Lopez (Dr. Lopez), a clinical psychologist, who stated, based on the tests they conducted, that
petitioner was essentially a normal, introspective, shy and conservative type of person. On the
other hand, they observed that respondent’s persistent and constant lying to petitioner was
abnormal or pathological. It undermined the basic relationship that should be based on love,
trust and respect.

-After trial, the lower court gave credence to petitioner’s evidence and held that respondent’s
propensity to lying about almost anything−her occupation, state of health, singing abilities and
her income, among others−had been duly established.

-the decision of the National Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal was upheld by the Roman Rota of
the Vatican.39 (the Church nullified the marriage)

-The notion that psychological incapacity pertains to the inability to understand the obligations of
marriage, as opposed to a mere inability to comply with them, was further affirmed in the
Molina66

-the intent of the Family Code committee was to design the law as to allow some resiliency in its
application, by avoiding specific examples that would limit the applicability of the provision under
the principle ofejusdem generis. Rather, the preference of the revision committee was for "the
judge to interpret the provision on a case-to-case basis, guided by experience, in the findings of
experts and researchers in psychological disciplines, and by decisions of church tribunals
which, although not binding on

-Since the purpose of including such provision in our Family Code is to harmonize our civil laws
with the religious faith of our people, it stands to reason that to achieve such harmonization,
great persuasive weight should be given to decisions of such appellate tribunal (Church).
Ideally—subject to our law on evidence—what is decreed as canonically invalid should also be
decreed civilly void.77

-be noted that the lies attributed to respondent were not adopted as false pretenses in order to
induce petitioner into marriage. More disturbingly, they indicate a failure on the part of
respondent to distinguish truth from fiction, or at least abide by the truth. Petitioner’s
witnesses and the trial court were emphatic on respondent’s inveterate proclivity to telling lies
and the pathologic nature of her mistruths, which according to them, were revelatory of
respondent’s inability to understand and perform the essential obligations of marriage

-Respondent is evidently unable to comply with the essential marital obligations as embraced by
Articles 68 to 71 of the Family Code. Article 68, in particular, enjoins the spouses to live
together, observe mutual love, respect and fidelity, and render mutual help and support. As
noted by the trial court, it is difficult to see how an inveterate pathological liar would be able to
commit to the basic tenets of relationship between spouses based on love, trust and respect.

-deliberate ignorance is in contravention of Molina, which held that interpretations given by the
National Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal of the Catholic Church in the Philippines, while not
controlling or decisive, should be given great respect by our courts. --> Court should be
given respect

-We stated earlier that Molina is not set in stone, and that the interpretation of Article 36 relies
heavily on a case-to-case perception.

8. Republic vs Quintero-Hamano- Japanese, abandonment

ISSUE: WON Abandonment of one spouse of his family constitutes psychological

incapacity.

HELD: No

Facts/Ratio: -June 17, 1996, respondent Lolita Quintero-Hamano filed a complaint for
declaration of nullity of her marriage to her husband Toshio Hamano, a Japanese national, on
the ground of psychological incapacity

- alleged that in October 1986, she and Toshio started a common-law relationship in Japan.
They later lived in the Philippines for a month. Thereafter, Toshio went back to Japan and
stayed there for half of 1987. On November 16, 1987, she gave birth to their child.

-Sometime in 1991, respondent learned from her friends that Toshiwo visited the Philippines but
he did not bother to see her and their child.

-August 28, 1997, the trial court granted the petition

-According to petitioner, mere abandonment by Toshio of his family and his insensitivity to
them did not automatically constitute psychological incapacity.

-(2) The root cause of the psychological incapacity must be: (a) medically or clinically identified,
(b) alleged in the complaint, (c) sufficiently proven by experts and (d) clearly explained in the
decision

-We find that the totality of evidence presented fell short of proving that Toshio was
psychologically incapacitated to assume his marital responsibilities. Toshio’s act of
abandonment was doubtlessly irresponsible but it was never alleged nor proven to be due to
some kind of psychological illness. After respondent testified on how Toshio abandoned his
family, no other evidence was presented showing that his behavior was caused by a
psychological disorder.

9. Te vs Te- kidnap, history of psych incapacity

ISSUE:

HELD:

Facts/Ratio:

-In March 1996, or around three months after their first meeting, Rowena asked Edward that
they elope. At first, he refused, bickering that he was young and jobless.

-they left Manila and sailed toCebu that month; he, providing their travel money and she,
purchasing the boat ticket

-Edward’s P80,000.00 lasted for only a month. Their pension house accommodation and daily
sustenance fast depleted it. And they could not find a job. In April 1996, they decided to go
back to Manila.

-threatening him that she would commit suicide, Edward agreed to stay with Rowena at her
uncle’s place.[5]

-April 23, 1996, Rowena’s uncle brought the two to a court to get married. He was then 25
years old, and she, 20.[6] The two then continued to stay at her uncle’s place where Edward
was treated like a prisoner

-Rowena...get his inheritance so that they could live on their own. Edward talked to his father
about this, but the patriarch got mad

-After a month, Edward escaped from the house of Rowena’s uncle, and stayed with his
parents. His family then hid him

- After almost four years, or on January 18, 2000, Edward filed a petition before the Regional
Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City

-clinical psychologist who examined petitioner found both parties psychologically

incapacitated

-ROWENA GUTIERREZ YU-TE, the respondent, is said to be of the aggressive-rebellious

type of woman. She is seen to be somewhat exploitative in her [plight] for a life of wealth and
glamour.

-both parties have impulsively taken marriage for granted as they are still unaware of their own
selves. He is extremely introvert to the point of weakening their relationship by his weak
behavioral disposition. She, on the other hand[,] is extremely exploitative and aggressive so as
to be unlawful, insincere and undoubtedly uncaring in her strides toward convenience. It is
apparent that she is suffering the grave, severe, and incurable presence of Narcissistic and
Antisocial Personality Disorder that started since childhood and only manifested during
marriage. Both parties display psychological incapacities that made marriage a big mistake for
them to take.[15]

-the OSG contends in its memorandum,[28] that the annulment petition filed before the RTC
contains no statement of the essential marital obligations that the parties failed to comply with.
The root cause of the psychological incapacity was likewise not alleged in the petition; neither
was it medically or clinically identified.

-In fact, some members of the Committee were in favor of a no-fault divorce between the
spouses after a number of years of separation, legal or de facto.

-the two Committees in their joint meetings did not pursue the idea of absolute divorce and,
instead, opted for an action for judicial declaration of invalidity of marriage based on grounds
available in the Canon Law. It was thought that such an action would not only be an acceptable
alternative to divorce

-Committee classified the bases for determining void marriages, viz.:

1. lack of one or more of the essential requisites of marriage as contract;

2. reasons of public policy;

3. special cases and special situations.

The ground of psychological incapacity was subsumed under “special cases and special
situations,” hence, its special treatment in Art. 36 in the Family Code as finally enacted.

-unlike in Civil Law, Canon Law recognizes only two types of marriages with respect to their
validity: valid and void. Civil Law, however, recognizes an intermediate state, the voidable or
annullable marriages. When the Ecclesiastical Tribunal “annuls” a marriage, it actually declares
the marriage null and void, i.e., it never really existed in the first place, for a valid sacramental
marriage can never be dissolved.

-the very foundation of their families, our basic social institutions. Far from what was intended
by the Court, Molina has become a strait-jacket, forcing all sizes to fit into and be bound
by it. Wittingly or unwittingly, the Court, in conveniently applying Molina, has allowed diagnosed
sociopaths, schizophrenics, nymphomaniacs, narcissists and the like, to continuously debase
and pervert the sanctity of marriage. Ironically, the Roman Rota has annulled marriages on
account of the personality disorders of the said individuals.[51]

-Court should rather be alarmed by the rising number of cases involving marital abuse, child
abuse, domestic violence and incestuous rape.
-the Court is not demolishing the foundation of families, but it is actually protecting the sanctity
of marriage, because it refuses to allow a person afflicted with a psychological disorder, who
cannot comply with or assume the essential marital obligations, from remaining in that sacred
bond

SC HELD:

-, must not discount but, instead, must consider as decisive evidence the expert opinion on the
psychological and mental temperaments of the parties.[57]

-Marcos v. Marcos[60]asserts, there is no requirement that the person to be declared

psychologically incapacitated be personally examined by a physician, if the totality of
evidence presented is enough to sustain a finding of psychological incapacity.[61]

-, petitioner, who is afflicted with dependent personality disorder, cannot assume the essential
marital obligations of living together, observing love, respect and fidelity and rendering help and
support

-The investigating officer found that respondent was indeed remiss in the performance of his
professional duties as counsel...The investigating officer found that respondent was indeed
remiss in the performance of his professional duties as counsel.

10. Republic vs Tanyag-San Jose-basketball player, drug dependent guy

ISSUE: WON Drug addiction and habitual failure of husband constitutes psychological
incapacity.

Held: No

Facts:

- Respondents Laila Tanyag-San Jose (Laila) and Manolito San Jose (Manolito) were
married on June 12, 1988. Laila was 19 years and 4 months old, while Manolito was 20 years
and 10 months old.[1]

- For nine years, the couple stayed with Manolito’s parents. Manolito was jobless and was
hooked to gambling and drugs. As for Laila, she sold fish at the wet market of Taguig.[4]

- On March 9, 1999, Laila filed a Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage,[6] under
Article 36[7] of the Family Code on the ground of psychological incapacity, before the Regional
Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig

-Dr. Nedy Tayag, a clinical psychologist at the National Center for Mental Health, declared
that from the psychological test and clinical interview she conducted on Laila, she found
Manolito, whom she did not personally examine

- She was then beginning to cast her interests on basketball games and eventually became one
of the avid spectators when a minor league
Years had passed but no improvement was seen on respondent’s behavior. He turned out to be
worse instead and it was only later thatpetitioner discovered that he was into drugs

- On August 20, 1998, respondent went out of their dwelling for his usual late night stints but he
never came back the following morning. They never lived together since

-Ma. Armida Perez-Ferraris v. Brix Ferraris (Ferraris),[20] thus:

The term “psychological incapacity” to be a ground for the nullity of marriage under Article 36 of
the Family Code, refers to a serious psychological illness afflicting a party even before the
celebration of the marriage

- an utter insensitivity or inability to give meaning and significance to the marriage

- the doctor’s conclusion is hearsay. It is “unscientific and unreliable,” so this Court declared
in Choa v. Choa[22] where the assessment of the therein party sought to be declared
psychologically incapacitated was based merely on the information communicated to the doctor
by the therein respondent-spouse:

- no requirement that the person sought to be declared psychologically incapacitated should be

personally examined by a physician or psychologist as a condition sine qua non to arrive at
such declaration.[24] If it can be proven by independent means that one is psychologically
incapacitated, there is no reason why the same should not be credited.

- Manolito’s alleged psychological incapacity is thus premised on his being jobless and a drug
user, as well as his inability to support his family and his refusal or unwillingness to assume the
essential obligations of marriage. Manolito’s state or condition or attitude has not been shown,
however, to be a malady or disorder rooted on some incapacitating or debilitating psychological
condition.

Ferraris case
- the “leaving-the- house” attitude whenever they quarreled, the violent tendencies during
epileptic attacks, the sexual infidelity, the abandonment and lack of support, and his preference
to spend more time with his band mates than his family, are not rooted on some debilitating
psychological condition but a mere refusal or unwillingness to assume the essential obligations
of marriage.

ISSUE: WON the acts of Atty San Jose constitutes negligence

HELD: Yes

Facts/Ratio: -administrative complaint[1] for disbarment filed by Fidela Vda. De Enriquez

against respondent Atty. Manuel G. San Jose for gross negligence.

-August 28, 1989, she hired the services of respondent Atty. San Jose for the purpose of
filing an unlawful detainer case against one Rugerio Alipante, who defaulted in the payment of
monthly rentals on complainant’s property in Taban, Libmanan, Camarines Sur

-Code of Professional Responsibility in Rule 18.03 enjoins a lawyer not to neglect a legal
matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.[6] A
lawyer engaged to represent a client in a case bears the responsibility of protecting the latter’s
interest with utmost diligence. It is the duty of a lawyer to serve his client with competence and
diligence and he should exert his best efforts to protect, within the bounds of the law, the
interest of his client. It is not enough that a practitioner is qualified to handle a legal matter; he
is also required to prepare adequately and give the appropriate attention to his legal work.[7]

. In Reyes v. Vitan,[12] for failure to take the appropriate actions in connection with his client’s
case, the lawyer was suspended from the practice of law for a period of six months and was
required to render accounting of all the sums he received from his client. Considering
precedents, in the light of circumstances in this case, we find no reason to deviate now from the
penalty meted previously for similar infractions.

11. Republic vs Molina- Molina doctrine, problematic husband

ISSUE: WON The alleged psychological defect of Reynaldo constitutes psychological

incapacity.

HELD: No. It is not shown that it hampers him from doing the essential obligations of
marriage.

Facts/Ratio: -the Solicitor General has labelled -- exaggerated to be sure but nonetheless
expressive of his frustration -- Article 36 as the “most liberal divorce procedure in the world.”

-August 16, 1990 with the filing by respondent Roridel O. Molina of a verified petition for
declaration of nullity of her marriage to Reynaldo Molina.

-petition alleged that Roridel and Reynaldo were married on April 14, 1985 at the San Agustin
Church[4] in Manila; that a son, Andre O. Molina was born; that after a year of marriage,
Reynaldo showed signs of “immaturity and irresponsibility” as a husband and a father since he
preferred to spend more time with his peers and friends on whom he squandered his money

-that he depended on his parents for aid and assistance, and was never honest with his wife
in regard to their finances, resulting in frequent quarrels between them; that sometime in
February 1986, Reynaldo was relieved of his job in Manila, and since then Roridel had been the
sole breadwinner of the family

-the pre-trial on October 17, 1990, the following were stipulated:

“1. That the parties herein were legally married on April 14, 1985 at the Church of St. Augustine,
Manila;

2. That out of their marriage, a child named Albert Andre Olaviano Molina was born on July 29,
1986;
3.That the parties are separated-in-fact for more than three years;

4. That petitioner is not asking support for her and her child;

5. That the respondent is not asking for damages;

6. That the common child of the parties is in the custody of the petitioner wife.”

-there is no clear showing to us that the psychological defect spoken of is an incapacity. It

appears to us to be more of a “difficulty,” if not outright “refusal” or “neglect” in the performance
of some marital obligations. Mere showing of “irreconciliable differences” and “conflicting
personalities” in no wise constitutes psychological incapacity

-In the case of Reynaldo, there is no showing that his alleged personality traits were
constitutive of psychological incapacity existing at the time of marriage celebration.
While some effort was made to prove that there was a failure to fulfill pre-nuptial impressions of
“thoughtfulness and gentleness” on Reynaldo’s part and of being “conservative, homely and
intelligent” on the part of Roridel, such failure of expectation is not indicative of antecedent
psychological incapacity. If at all, it merely shows love’s temporary blindness to the faults and
blemishes of the beloved

MOLINA GUIDELINES:

, the following guidelines in the interpretation and application of Art. 36 of the Family Code are
hereby handed down for the guidance of the bench and the bar:

(1) The burden of proof to show the nullity of the marriage belongs to the plaintiff. Any doubt
should be resolved in favor of the existence and continuation of the marriage and against its
dissolution and nullity. This is rooted in the fact that both our Constitution and our laws cherish
the validity of marriage and unity of the family. Thus, our Constitution devotes an entire Article
on the Family,[11] recognizing it “as the foundation of the nation.” It decrees marriage as legally
“inviolable,” thereby protecting it from dissolution at the whim of the parties. Both the family and
marriage are to be “protected” by the state.

The Family Code [12] echoes this constitutional edict on marriage and the family and
emphasizes their permanence, inviolability and solidarity.

(2) The root cause of the psychological incapacity must be (a) medically or clinically identified,
(b) alleged in the complaint, (c) sufficiently proven by experts and (d) clearly explained in the
decision. Article 36 of the Family Code requires that the incapacity must be psychological -- not
physical, although its manifestations and/or symptoms may be physical. The evidence must
convince the court that the parties, or one of them, was mentally or psychically ill to such an
extent that the person could not have known the obligations he was assuming, or knowing them,
could not have given valid assumption thereof. Although no example of such incapacity need
be given here so as not to limit the application of the provision under the principle of ejusdem
generis,[13] nevertheless such root cause must be identified as a psychological illness and its
incapacitating nature fully explained. Expert evidence may be given by qualified psychiatrists
and clinical psychologists.

(3) The incapacity must be proven to be existing at “the time of the celebration” of the marriage.
The evidence must show that the illness was existing when the parties exchanged their “I do’s.”
The manifestation of the illness need not be perceivable at such time, but the illness itself must
have attached at such moment, or prior thereto.

(4) Such incapacity must also be shown to be medically or clinically permanent or incurable.
Such incurability may be absolute or even relative only in regard to the other spouse, not
necessarily absolutely against everyone of the same sex. Furthermore, such incapacity must
be relevant to the assumption of marriage obligations, not necessarily to those not related to
marriage, like the exercise of a profession or employment in a job. Hence, a pediatrician may
be effective in diagnosing illnesses of children and prescribing medicine to cure them but may
not be psychologically capacitated to procreate, bear and raise his/her own children as an
essential obligation of marriage.

(5) Such illness must be grave enough to bring about the disability of the party to assume the
essential obligations of marriage. Thus, “mild characteriological peculiarities, mood changes,
occasional emotional outbursts” cannot be accepted as root causes. The illness must be shown
as downright incapacity or inability, not a refusal, neglect or difficulty, much less ill will. In other
words, there is a natal or supervening disabling factor in the person, an adverse integral
element in the personality structure that effectively incapacitates the person from really
accepting and thereby complying with the obligations essential to marriage.

(6) The essential marital obligations must be those embraced by Articles 68 up to 71 of the
Family Code as regards the husband and wife as well as Articles 220, 221 and 225 of the same
Code in regard to parents and their children. Such non-complied marital obligation(s) must also
be stated in the petition, proven by evidence and included in the text of the decision.

(7) Interpretations given by the National Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal of the Catholic Church
in the Philippines, while not controlling or decisive, should be given great respect by our courts.
It is clear that Article 36 was taken by the Family Code Revision Committee from Canon 1095 of
the New Code of Canon Law, which became effective in 1983 and which provides:

“The following are incapable of contracting marriage: Those who are unable to assume the
essential obligations of marriage due to causes of psychological nature.”[14]

Since the purpose of including such provision in our Family Code is to harmonize our civil laws
with the religious faith of our people, it stands to reason that to achieve such harmonization,
great persuasive weight should be given to decisions of such appellate tribunal. Ideally --
subject to our law on evidence -- what is decreed as canonically invalid should also be decreed
civilly void.

This is one instance where, in view of the evident source and purpose of the Family Code
provision, contemporaneous religious interpretation is to be given persuasive effect. Here, the
State and the Church -- while remaining independent, separate and apart from each other --
shall walk together in synodal cadence towards the same goal of protecting and cherishing
marriage and the family as the inviolable base of the nation.

(8) The trial court must order the prosecuting attorney or fiscal and the Solicitor General to
appear as counsel for the state. No decision shall be handed down unless the Solicitor General
issues a certification, which will be quoted in the decision, briefly stating therein his reasons for
his agreement or opposition, as the case may be, to the petition. The Solicitor General, along
with the prosecuting attorney, shall submit to the court such certification within fifteen (15) days
from the date the case is deemed submitted for resolution of the court. The Solicitor General
shall discharge the equivalent function of the defensor vinculi contemplated under Canon 1095.

12. Enrico vs Heirs of Medinacelli- marrying concubine after wifes death

ISSUE: WON Heirs (children) of spouses Eulogio and Trinidad Medinacelli could file a
declaration of nullity of marriage between their father and Lolita Enrico

HELD: No. Ordinary Rule of Civil Proceedings will be followed

Facts/Ratio: -heirs of Spouses Eulogio B. Medinaceli (Eulogio) and Trinidad Catli-Medinaceli

(Trinidad) filed with the RTC, an action for declaration of nullity of marriage of Eulogio and
petitioner Lolita D. Enrico.

-that Eulogio and Trinidad were married on 14 June 1962, in Lal-lo, Cagayan.[3] They begot
seven children, herein respondents, namely: Eduardo, Evelyn, Vilma, Mary Jane, Haizel,
Michelle and Joseph Lloyd

-1 May 2004,Trinidad died.[5] On 26 August 2004, Eulogio married petitioner before the
Municipal Mayor of Lal-lo, Cagayan.[6] Six months later, or on 10 February 2005, Eulogio
passed away.[7]

-, respondents averred that the same was entered into without the requisite marriage license.
They argued that Article 34[8] of the Family Code, which exempts a man and a woman who
have been living together for at least five years without any legal impediment from securing a
marriage license, was not applicable

-. Respondents posited that the marriage of Eulogio to Trinidad was dissolved only upon the
latter’s death, or on 1 May 2004, which was barely three months from the date of marriage
of Eulogio to petitioner

-of lack of marriage ceremony due to Eulogio’s serious illness which made its performance
impossible.

-petitioner maintained that she and Eulogio lived together as husband and wife under one roof
for 21 years openly and publicly; hence, they were exempted from the requirement of a
marriage license. From their union were born Elvin Enrico and Marco Enrico, all surnamed
Medinaceli

-The language of this rule is plain and simple which states that such a petition may be filed
solely by the husband or the wife. The rule is clear and unequivocal that only the husband or
the wife may file the petition for Declaration of Absolute Nullity of a Void Marriage. The reading
of this Court is that the right to bring such petition is exclusive and this right solely belongs to
them.

-, we note that petitioner took an abbreviated route to this Court, countenancing the hierarchy of
courts.

- this Court believes that Sec. 2(a) of the Rules on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Marriage is
applicable only when both parties to a (sic) void marriage are still living. Upon the death of
anyone of the guilty party to the void marriage, his heirs may file a petition to declare the the
(sic) marriage void, but the Rule is not applicable as it was not filed b the husband or the wife. It
shall be the ordinary rule of civil procedure which shall be applicable.[17]

-A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC covers marriages under the Family Code of the Philippines, and is
prospective in its application. The marriage of petitioner to Eulogio was celebrated on 26 August
2004, and it squarely falls within the ambit of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC.

-A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC, which provides:

Section 2. Petition for declaration of absolute nullity of void marriages. –

(a) Who may file. – A petition for declaration of absolute nullity of void marriage may be
filed solely by the husband or the wife.(n) (Emphasis supplied.)

There is no ambiguity in the Rule. Absolute sententil expositore non indiget. When the
language of the law is clear, no explanation of it is required. Section 2(a) of A.M. No. 02-11-10-
SC, makes it the sole right of the husband or the wife to file a petition for declaration of
absolute nullity of void marriage.

13. Republic vs Nolasco- Liverpool maiden

ISSUE: WON Gregorio Nolasco possessed "well founded belief that the absent spouse
was already dead"

HELD: No. No dilligent search. Confused Liverpool vs London

Facts/Ratio: -Gregorio Nolasco filed before the Regional Trial Court of Antique, Branch 10, a
petition for the declaration of presumptive death of his wife Janet Monica Parker, invoking Article
41 of the Family Code

-Republic argued, first, that Nolasco did not possess a "well-founded belief that the absent
spouse was already dead," 2 and second, Nolasco's attempt to have his marriage annulled in
the same proceeding was a "cunning attempt" to circumvent the law on marriage.

-Nolasco testified that he was a seaman and that he had first met Janet Monica Parker, a
British subject, in a bar in England during one of his ship's port calls. From that chance
meeting onwards, Janet Monica Parker lived with respondent Nolasco on his ship for six (6)
months until they returned to respondent's hometown of San Jose, Antique on 19 November
1980

-15 January 1982, respondent married Janet Monica Parker in San Jose, Antique,

-He also stated that all the letters he had sent to his missing spouse at No. 38 Ravena Road,
Allerton, Liverpool, England

-presented his mother, Alicia Nolasco, as his witness. She testified that her daughter-in-law
Janet Monica had expressed a desire to return to England even before she had given birth to
Gerry Nolasco on 7 December 1982. When asked why her daughter-in-law might have wished
to leave Antique, respondent's mother replied that Janet Monica never got used to the rural
way of life in San Jose, Antique --> Anfield

-to Article 41 of the Family Code which provides that:

Art. 41. A marriage contracted by any person during the subsistence of a previous marriage
shall be null and void, unless before the celebration of the subsequent marriage, the prior
spouse had been absent for four consecutive years and the spouse present had a well-founded
belief that the absent spouse was already dead. In case of disappearance where there is
danger of death under the circumstances set forth in the provision of Article 391 of the Civil
Code, an absence of only two years shall be sufficient.

For the purpose of contracting the subsequent marriage under the preceding paragraph, the
spouse present must institute a summary proceeding as provided in this Code for the
declaration of presumptive death of the absentee, without prejudice to the effect of
reappearance of the absent spouse. (Emphasis supplied).

SC Held:

-Under Article 41, the time required for the presumption to arise has been shortened to four (4)
years; however, there is need for a judicial declaration of presumptive death to enable the
spouse present to remarry. 8 Also, Article 41 of the Family Code imposes a stricter standard
than the Civil Code: Article 83 of the Civil Code merely requires either that there be no news that
such absentee is still alive; or the absentee is generally considered to be dead and believed to
be so by the spouse present, or is presumed dead under Article 390 and 391 of the Civil Code.
9 The Family Code, upon the other hand, prescribes as "well founded belief" that the
absentee is already dead before a petition for declaration of presumptive death can be granted.

are four (4) requisites for the declaration of presumptive death under Article 41 of the Family
Code:

1. That the absent spouse has been missing for four consecutive years, or two consecutive
years if the disappearance occurred where there is danger of death under the circumstances
laid down in Article 391, Civil Code;

2. That the present spouse wishes to remarry;

3. That the present spouse has a well-founded belief that the absentee is dead; and -->
Missing

4. That the present spouse files a summary proceeding for the declaration of presumptive death
of the absentee.

-United States v. Biasbas, 12 is instructive as to degree of diligence required in searching for a

missing spouse. In that case, defendant Macario Biasbas was charged with the crime of bigamy.
He set-up the defense of a good faith belief that his first wife had already died. The Court held
that defendant had not exercised due diligence to ascertain the whereabouts of his first wife

-he confused London for Liverpool and this casts doubt on his supposed efforts to locate his
wife in England.

-There is no analogy between Manila and its neighboring cities, on one hand, and London and
Liverpool, on the other, which, as pointed out by the Solicitor-General, are around three hundred
fifty (350) kilometers apart. We do not consider that walking into a major city like Liverpool or
London with a simple hope of somehow bumping into one particular person there — which is in
effect what Nolasco says he did — can be regarded as a reasonably diligent search.

14. Republic vs CA and Alan Alegro- husband berating wife, dillegent search

ISSUE: WON Alan Alegro exercised due dilligence in finding his wife Rosalia Julaton.

HELD: No. He only contacted PNP and NBI as an afterthought

Facts/Ratio: -Alan B. Alegro filed a petition in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Catbalogan,
Samar for the declaration of presumptive death of his wife, Rosalia (Lea) A. Julaton.

-directed that a copy of the said order be published once a week for three (3) consecutive
weeks in the Samar Reporter, a newspaper of general circulation in the Province of
Samar, and that a copy be posted in the court’s bulletin board for at least three weeks before
the next scheduled hearing. The court also directed that copies of the order be served on the
Solicitor General, ...Alan complied with all the foregoing jurisdictional requirements.[2]

-Alan adduced evidence that he and Lea were married on January 20, 1995 in Catbalogan,
Samar.[5] He testified that, on February 6, 1995, Lea arrived home late in the evening and he
berated her for being always out of their house. He told her that if she enjoyed the life of a
single person, it would be better for her to go back to her parents

-.[7] Alan thought that Lea merely went to her parents’ house..Samar., Lea did not return to
their house anymore

-Alan sought the help of Barangay Captain Juan Magat, who promised to help him locate his
wife. He also inquired from his friends of Lea’s whereabouts but to no avail.[11]

-He failed to find out Lea’s whereabouts despite his repeated talks with Janeth. Alan decided to
work as a part-time taxi driver. On his free time, he would look for Lea in the malls but still to
no avail. He returned to Catbalogan in 1997 and again looked for his wife but failed.[14]
-June 20, 2001, Alan reported Lea’s disappearance to the local police stationand the
National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) on July 9, 2001.[17]

--neither the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor nor the Solicitor General adduced evidence in
opposition to the petition

-January 8, 2002, the lower court rendered judgment declaring Rosalia Julaton
PRESUMPTIVELY DEAD

-SC Held:

-The spouse present is, thus, burdened to prove that his spouse has been absent and that he
has a well-founded belief that the absent spouse is already dead before the present spouse
may contract a subsequent marriage. The law does not define what is meant by a well-
grounded belief.

-The belief of the present spouse must be the result of proper and honest to goodness inquiries
and efforts to ascertain the whereabouts of the absent spouse and whether the absent spouse
is still alive or is already dead --> DUE DILLIGENCE

- The respondent did report and seek the help of the local police authorities and the NBI to
locate Lea, but it was only an afterthought. He did so only after the OSG filed its notice to
dismiss his petition in the RTC.

In sum, the Court finds and so holds that the respondent failed to prove that he had a well-
founded belief, before he filed his petition in the RTC, that his spouse Rosalia (Lea) Julaton was
already dead.

15.Villanueva vs CA- Voidable (force and duress), fabricated

ISSUE: WON subject marriage may be annulled on the ground of vitiated consent

HELD: No.

Facts/Ratio: -Petitioner Orlando Villanueva and private respondent Lilia Canalita-Villanueva

married on April 13, 1988 in Puerto Princesa, Palawan.

-annulment of his marriage alleging that threats of violence and duress forced him into marrying
Lilia, who was already pregnant; that he did not get her pregnant prior to the marriage; that he
never cohabited with her after the marriage; and that he later learned that private respondent's
child died during delivery on August 29, 1988.[4]

-[5] Lilia for the argued that petitioner freely and voluntarily married her; that petitioner stayed
with her in Palawan for almost a month after their marriage; ..that petitioner knew about the
progress of her pregnancy,

Examples:

He cited several incidents that created on his mind a reasonable and well-grounded fear of an
imminent and grave danger to his life and safety, to wit: the harassing phone calls from the
appellee and strangers as well as the unwanted visits by three men at the premises of the
University of the East after his classes thereat, and the threatening presence of a certain Ka
Celso, a supposed member of the NPA

also invoked fraud to annul his marriage, as he was made to believe by appellee that the latter
was pregnant with his child when they were married. Appellant’s excuse that he could not have
impregnated the appellee because he did not have an erection during their tryst is flimsy at best

-ISSUE; (a) whether the subject marriage may be annulled on the ground of vitiated consent

-SC Held:affirm the findings of the Court of Appeals that petitioner freely and voluntarily married
private respondent and that no threats or intimidation, duress or violence compelled him to
do so

despite the alleged coerced consent which supposedly characterized his marriage with
Lilia on April 13, 1988, it was only on November 17, 1992 or after a span of not less than four
(4) years and eight (8) months when Orlando took serious step to have the same
marriage annulled.

-appellant cannot claim that his marriage should be annulled due to the absence of
cohabitation between him and his wife. Lack of cohabitation is, per se, not a ground to annul
a marriage.

16. Almelon vs RTC- alleged homosexuality of anesthesiologist

Quote: MARRIAGE, in its totality, involves the spouses’ right to the community of their whole
lives. It likewise involves a true intertwining of personalities.[1]

ISSUE: WON Homosexuality a ground for annullment.

HELD: No. Only concealment.

Facts/Ratio: -Petitioner Manuel G. Almelor (Manuel) and respondent Leonida Trinidad

(Leonida) were married on January 29, 1989 at the Manila Cathedral.[3] Their union bore three
children. Manuel and Leonida are both medical practitioners, an anesthesiologist and a
pediatrician, respectively

-After eleven (11) years of marriage, Leonida filed a petition with the RTC in Las Piñas City to
annul their marriage on the ground that Manuel was psychologically incapacitated to perform his
marital obligations

-Leonida testified that she first met Manuel in 1981 at the San Lazaro Hospital where they
worked as medical student clerks..They soon became sweethearts. Three years after, they got
married.

-. In the public eye, Manuel was the picture of a perfect husband and father. This was not the
case in his private life. At home, Leonida described Manuel as a harsh
disciplinarian,unreasonably meticulous, easily angered. Manuel’s unreasonable way of
imposing discipline on their children was the cause of their frequent fights as a couple.

-his concealment to her of his homosexuality. Her suspicions were first aroused when she
noticed Manuel’s peculiar closeness to his male companions.. Manuel kissed another man on
the lips. The man was a certain Dr. Nogales

-Leonida took her children and left their conjugal abode. Since then, Manuel stopped giving
support to their children.[12]

-. He, however, maintained thattheir marital relationship was generally harmonious...petition for
annulment filed by Leonida came as a surprise to him.

-Leonida instead conjured up stories about his sexual preference. She also fabricated tales
about pornographic materials found in his possession to cast doubt on his masculinity.[20]

-RTC grants petition..Nullified the marriage, not on the ground of Article 36, but Article 45 of the
Family Code.. re HOMOSEXUALITY.. CA Affirms

- SC HELD:

-Concealment of homosexuality is the proper ground to annul a marriage, not

homosexuality per se.

-Manuel is a desperate man determined to salvage what remains of his marriage..he fought
back all the heavy accusations of incapacity, cruelty, and doubted masculinity thrown at him

-Leonida attempted to demonstrate were Manuel’s homosexual tendencies by citing overt acts
generally predominant among homosexual individuals.[56] She wanted to prove that the
perceived homosexuality rendered Manuel incapable of fulfilling the essential marital
obligations.trial court nullified the marriage between Manuel and Leonida on the ground of
vitiated consent by virtue of fraud.

-no sufficient proof was presented to substantiate the allegations that Manuel is a homosexual
and that he concealed this to Leonida at the time of their marriage...Even assuming, ex gratia
argumenti, that Manuel is a homosexual, the lower court cannot appreciate it as a ground to
annul his marriage with Leonida. The law is clear – a marriage may be annulled when the
consent of either party was obtained by fraud,[58]such as concealment of homosexuality.
[59]

-. In a valid marriage, the husband and wife jointly administer and enjoy their community or
conjugal property.

17. Virgilo Maquilan and Dita Maquilan- compromise agreement, bigamy

ISSUE: MAIN WON : whether the partial voluntary separation of property made by the spouses
pending the petition for declaration of nullity of marriage is valid.

1) WHETHER OF NOT A SPOUSE CONVICTED OF EITHER CONCUBINAGE OR ADULTERY,

CAN STILL SHARE IN THE CONJUGAL PARTNERSHIP;

2) WON A COMPROMISE AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO BY SPOUSES, ONE OF WHOM

WAS CONVICTED OF ADULTERY, GIVING THE CONVICTED SPOUSE A SHARE IN THE
CONJUGAL PROPERTY, VALID AND LEGAL

3) WON JUDGMENT FOR ANNULMENT AND LEGAL SEPARATION IS A PRE-REQUISITE

BEFORE A SPOUSE CONVICTED OF EITHER CONCUBINAGE OR ADULTERY, BE
DISQUALIFIED AND PROHIBITED FROM SHARING IN THE CONJUGAL PROPERTY;

HELD: Main: Yes.

Facts/Ratio:

1) The present case involves a proceeding where the nullity of the marriage is sought to be
declared under the ground of psychological capacity. ..Art 43 does not apply

2) However, the Court must stress that this voluntary separation of property is subject to the
rights of all creditors of the conjugal partnership of gains and other persons with pecuniary
interest pursuant to Article 136 of the Family Code.

-petitioner and herein private respondent are spouses who once had a blissful married life and
out of which were blessed to have a son. ..petitioner discovered that private respondent was
having illicit sexual affair with her paramour, which thus, prompted the petitioner to file a
case of adultery against private respondent and the latter’s paramour. Consequently, both the
private respondent and her paramour were convicted of the crime

-private respondent, through counsel, filed a Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage,
Dissolution and Liquidation of Conjugal Partnership of Gains and Damages on June 15,
2001 in RTC Compostela Valley

- petitioner and private respondent entered into a COMPROMISE AGREEMENT :

1. In partial settlement of the conjugal partnership of gains, the parties agree to the
following:

a. P500,000.00 of the money deposited in the bank jointly in the name of the spouses shall
be withdrawn and deposited in favor and in trust of their common child, Neil Maquilan, with the
deposit in the joint account of the parties.

The balance of such deposit, which presently stands at P1,318,043.36, shall be withdrawn and
divided equally by the parties;

b. The store that is now being occupied by the plaintiff shall be allotted to her while the
bodega shall be for the defendant. The defendant shall be paid the sum of P50,000.00 as his
share in the stocks of the store in full settlement thereof.

The plaintiff shall be allowed to occupy the bodega until the time the owner of the lot on which it
stands shall construct a building thereon;
c. The motorcycles shall be divided between them such that the Kawasaki shall be owned by
the plaintiff while the Honda Dream shall be for the defendant;

d. The passenger jeep shall be for the plaintiff who shall pay the defendant the sum of
P75,000.00 as his share thereon and in full settlement thereof;

e. The house and lot shall be to the common child.

2. This settlement is only partial, i.e., without prejudice to the litigation of other conjugal
properties that have not been mentioned;

-petitioner filed an Omnibus Motion dated January 15, 2002, praying for the repudiation of
the Compromise Agreement and the reconsideration of the Judgment on Compromise
Agreement by the respondent judge on the grounds that his previous lawyer did not intelligently
and judiciously apprise him of the consequential effects of the Compromise Agreement

-Compromise Agreement is not contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order, and public
policy; that this agreement may not be later disowned simply because of a change of mind; that
the presence of the Solicitor General or his deputy is not indispensable to the execution and
validity of the Compromise Agreement, since the purpose of his presence is to curtail any
collusion between the parties and to see to it that evidence is not fabricated

-.[10] While the appearances of the Solicitor General and/or the Public Prosecutor are
mandatory, the failure of the RTC to require their appearance does not per se nullify the
Compromise Agreement

nothing in the subject compromise agreement touched into the very merits of the case of
declaration of nullity of marriage for the court to be wary of any possible collusion between the
parties. At the risk of being repetiti[ve], the compromise agreement pertains merely to an
agreement between the petitioner and the private respondent to separate their conjugal
properties partially without prejudice to the outcome of the pending case of declaration of nullity
of marriage.[11]

-conviction of adultery does not carry the accessory of civil interdiction. Article 34 of the
Revised Penal Code provides for the consequences of civil interdiction:

Art. 34. Civil Interdiction. – Civil interdiction shall deprive the offender during the time of
his sentence of the rights of parental authority, or guardianship, either as to the person or
property of any ward, of marital authority, of the right to manage his property and of the right to
dispose of such property by any act or any conveyance inter vivos.

18. Valdes vs RTC-

ISSUE:

HELD:

Facts/Ratio: ---Antonio Valdes and Consuelo Gomez were married on 05 January 1971.
Begotten during the marriage were five children

-dated 22 June 1992, Valdes sought the declaration of nullity of the marriage pursuant to
Article 36 of the Family Code

-RTC: marriage was null and void

-"(3) The petitioner and respondent are directed to start proceedings on the liquidation of their
common properties as defined by Article 147 of the Family Code, and to comply with the
provisions of Articles 50, 51 and 52 of the same code, within thirty (30) days from notice of this
decision.

-plaintiff and defendant will own their 'family home' and all their other properties for that matter in
equal shares.

"In the liquidation and partition of the properties owned in common by the plaintiff and
defendant, the provisions on co-ownership found in the Civil Code shall apply."[3] (Italics
supplied)

-. In a void marriage, regardless of the cause thereof, the property relations of the parties during
the period of cohabitation is governed by the provisions of Article 147 or Article 148, such as the
case may be, of the Family Code. Article 147 is a remake of Article 144 of the Civil Code as
interpreted and so applied in previous cases;[6] it provides:

"ART. 147. When a man and a woman who are capacitated to marry each other, live exclusively
with each other as husband and wife without the benefit of marriage or under a void marriage,
their wages and salaries shall be owned by them in equal shares and the property acquired
by both of them through their work or industry shall be governed by the rules on co-ownership.

-Article 147 of the Family Code, in substance and to the above extent, has clarified Article 144
of the Civil Code; in addition, the law now expressly provides that —

(a) Neither party can dispose or encumber by act inter vivos his or her share in co-
ownership property, without the consent of the other, during the period of cohabitation; and

(b) In the case of a void marriage, any party in bad faith shall forfeit his or her share in
the co-ownership in favor of their common children; in default thereof or waiver by any or all of
the common children, each vacant share shall belong to the respective surviving descendants,
or still in default thereof, to the innocent party. The forfeiture shall take place upon the
termination of the cohabitation[9] or declaration of nullity of the marriage.[10]

When the common-law spouses suffer from a legal impediment to marry or when they do not
live exclusively with each other (as husband and wife ),only the property acquired by both of
them through their actual joint contribution of money, property or industry shall be owned in
common and in proportion to their respective contributions.