SECOND DIVISIONG.R. No. 203284 November 14, 2016NICOLAS S. MATUDAN vs.

REPUBLIC OF THE
PHILIPPINES and MARILYN B. MATUDANDEL CASTILLO,
J.

NATURE OF THE ACTION:

Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage

FACTS:
Nicolas Matudan and Marilyn Matudan were married in 1976. They had four children. In 1985, Marilyn left to
work abroad. From then on, petitioner and the children lost contact with her. Shehad not been seen nor heard
from again. Nicolas inquired from the relatives of the respondent but they did not tell him her whereabouts. In
2008, Nicolas filed for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity. It was alleged
that Marilyn never provided financial support to the family and never communicated with them. Furthermore,
Nicolas stated that he had a happy marital relationship with the respondent and never had a fight with her. The
only reason he was filing the case was because of Marilyn’s abandonment. Both the Trial Court and the Court of
Appeals denied that the existence of Marilyn’s psychological incapacity. Hence, the petition.

ISSUE:
Whether or not abandonment warrants a finding of psychological incapacity thereby a ground for declaring
the marriage void.

RULING:
No. The court denies the petition. The landmark case of Santos v. Court of Appeals taught us that psychological
incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code must be characterized by (a) gravity, (b) juridical
antecedence, and(c) incurability. Thus, the incapacity "must be grave or serious such that the party would be
incapable of carrying out the ordinary duties required in marriage; it must be rooted in the history of the party
antedating the marriage, although the overt manifestations may emerge only after marriage; and it must be
incurable or, even if it were otherwise, the cure would be beyond the means of the party involved." In this
connection, the burden of proving psychological incapacity is on the petitioner, pursuant to Republic v. Court of
Appeals, or the Molina case. While the petitioner professed psychological incapacity, he could not establish its
gravity, juridical antecedence, and incurability. Petitioner's evidence consists mainly of his judicial affidavit and
testimony; the judicial affidavits and testimonies of his daughter Maricel and Dr. Tayag; and Dr. Tayag's
psychological evaluation report on the psychological condition both petitioner and Marilyn. The supposed
evaluation of Marilyn's psychological condition was based solely on petitioner's account, since Marilyn did not
participate in the proceedings. 'Psychological incapacity,' as a ground to nullify a marriage under Article 36 of the
Family Code, should refer to no less than a mental-- not merely physical - incapacity that causes a party to be
truly incognitive of the basic marital covenants that concomitantly must be assumed and discharged by the
parties to the marriage which, as so expressed in Article 68 of the Family Code, among others, include their
mutual obligations to live together, observe love, respect and fidelity and render help and support.
Mallion v. Alcantara
GR No. 141528October 31, 2006
Facts:
Oscar Mallion filed a petition with the Regional Trial Court seeking a declaration of nullity of his
marriage with Editha Alcantara due to psychological incapacity. The RTC denied the petition. As
the decision attained finality, Mallion filed another petition for a declaration of nullity of
marriage, this time alleging that his marriage was null and void due to the fact that it was
celebrated without a valid marriage license.
Issue:
Does a 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:
Res judicata applies. Mallion is simply invoking different grounds for the same cause of action
which is the nullity of marriage. When the second case was filed based on another ground,
there is a splitting of a cause of action which is prohibited. He is estopped from asserting that
the first marriage had no marriage license because in the first case he impliedly admitted the
same when he did not question the absence of a marriage license.

Republic v Olaybar
Article 50 and 51

Republic v Olaybar G.R.189538

Facts

Respondent requested CENOMAR finding that she is married to a certain Ye Son Sune, a Korean
national. Thus she filed a petition for Cancellation of Entries in Marriage Contract.

The court granted the petition in favor of the respondent

The petition for the reconsideration of the assailed marriage contract on the grounds that:

- There was no clerical spelling, typographical and innocuous errors in the marriage
contract for it fall within the provision of Rule 108 of the Rules of Court
- Granting the cancellation of all entries in the wife portion of the marriage contract is, in
effect, declaring the marriage void ab initio

Issue

Whether or not the cancellation of entries in marriage contract which, in effect, nullifies the
marriage.
Held

Yes. Aside for the certificate of marriage, no such evidence was presented to show the
existence of marriage. Rather, respondent showed by overwhelming evidence that no marriage
was entered into and that she was not even aware of such existence.

SC emphasized that it was not the nullification of the marriage that respondent sought but it
was the correction of the record of such marriage to reflect the truth. Otherwise stated,
Otherwise stated, in allowing the correction of the subject certificate of marriage by cancelling
the wife portion thereof, the trial court did not, in any way, declare the marriage void as there
was no marriage to speak of. Otherwise stated, in allowing the correction of the subject
certificate of marriage by cancelling the wife portion thereof, the trial court did not, in any way,
declare the marriage void as there was no marriage to speak of.

GARCIA-QUIAZON vs. BELEN 702 SCRA 707, July 31, 2013

FACTS:

This case started as a Petition for Letters of Administration of the Estate of Eliseo.
Eliseo died intestate on 12 December 1992.
Elise, his daughter, filed a Petition for Letters of Administration.
Elise claims that she is the natural child of Eliseo having been conceived and born at the time
when her parents were both capacitated to marry each other.
Elise impugned the validity of Eliseo’s marriage to Amelia by claiming that it was bigamous for
having been contracted during the subsistence of the latter’s marriage with one Filipito Sandico
(Filipito).
To prove her filiation to the decedent, Elise attached to the Petition for Letters of
Administration her Certificate of Live Birth signed by Eliseo as her father.
Elise sought her appointment as administratrix of her late father’s estate.
Amelia, together with her children, Jenneth and Jennifer, opposed the issuance of the letters
of administration by filing an Opposition/Motion to Dismiss.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the decedent’s marriage to Amelia is void for being bigamous.
Whether or not elise may impugn such marriage even after the death of her father.

HELD:
Void. YES. It was emphasized in Niñal that in a void marriage, no marriage has taken place and
it cannot be the source of rights, such that any interested party may attack the marriage
directly or collaterally without prescription, which may be filed even beyond the lifetime of the
parties to the marriage.