Title 1: Marriage (Articles 1-54)

1.

EDWIN A. ACEBEDO vs. EDDIE P. ARQUERO

A.M. No. P-94-1054

March 11, 2003

Facts:

Edwin A. Acebedo charged Eddie P. Arquero for immorality, alleging that

his wife, Dedje Irader Acebedo and Arquero unlawfully and scandalously
cohabited as husband and wife. Respondent justified his pursuing a
relationship with complainant's wife with the spouses having priorly entered
into a settlement with respect to their marriage which was embodied in a
"Kasunduan", consenting to and giving freedom to either of them to seek any
partner and to live with him or her.

Issue:

Whether or not the settlement between the spouses are valid.

Ruling:

Arquero’s justification fails. Being an employee of the judiciary, Arquero

ought to have known that the Kasunduan had absolutely no force and effect on
the validity of the marriage between Acebedo and Irader. Article 1 of the Family
Code provides that marriage is ―an inviolable social institution whose nature,
consequences, and incidents are governed by law and not subject to
stipulation.‖ It is an institution of public order or policy, governed by rules
established by law which cannot be made inoperative by the stipulation of the
parties.

2.

ESPINOSA ET AL., vs. ATTY. JULIETA A. OMAÑA

A.C. No. 9081

October 12, 2011

Facts:

Complainants Espinosa and Glindo charged Omaña with violation of her

oath as a lawyer, malpractice, and gross misconduct in office.

Complainants alleged that on 17 November 1997, Espinosa and his wife Elena
Marantal (Marantal) sought Omaña’s legal advice on whether they could legally
live separately and dissolve their marriage solemnized on 23 July 1983. Omaña
then prepared a document entitled "Kasunduan Ng Paghihiwalay"

Issue:

Whether or not the notary public should facilitate the separation of

spouses.

Ruling:

The Court has ruled that the extrajudicial dissolution of the conjugal
partnership without judicial approval is void. The Court has also ruled that a
notary public should not facilitate the disintegration of a marriage and the
family by encouraging the separation of the spouses and extrajudicially
dissolving the conjugal partnership, which is exactly what Omaña did in this
case.

4.

Republic vs. Albios

G.R. 198780
October 16, 2013

FACTS:

Fringer and Liberty Albios got married on October 22, 2004, before the
Regional Trial of Mandaluyong City. 2 years after their marriage, Albios filed
with the RTC a petition for declaration of nullity of her marriage with Fringer.
According to her, the marriage was a marriage in jest because she only wed the
American to acquire US citizenship and even arranged to pay him $2,000 in
exchange for his consent.
Both the RTC and CA ruled in favor of Albios declaring that the marriage
was void ab initio for lack of consent because the parties failed to freely give
their consent to the marriage as they had no intention to be legally bound by it
and used it only as a means to acquire American citizenship in consideration of
$2,000.00. However, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) elevated the case
to the SC. According to the OSG, the case do not fall within the concept of a
marriage in jest as the parties intentionally consented to enter into a real and
valid marriage. Hence, this petition.

ISSUE:

Is a marriage, contracted for the sole purpose of acquiring American

citizenship in consideration of $2,000.00, void ab initio on the ground of lack of
consent?

RULING:

NO. The marriage is still valid. Both Fringer and Albios consented to the
marriage. In fact, there was real consent because it was not vitiated nor
rendered defective by any vice of consent. Their consent was also conscious
and intelligent as they understood the nature and the beneficial and
inconvenient consequences of their marriage, as nothing impaired their ability
to do so.

Under Article 2 of the Family Code, for consent to be valid, it must be (1) freely
given and (2) made in the presence of a solemnizing officer.

8.
Ninal et. Al vs. Bayadog
G.R. 133778
March 14, 2000

FACTS:
Pepito Ninal was married with Teodulfa Bellones on September 26,
1974. They had 3 children namely Babyline, Ingrid and Archie, petitioners.
Due to the shot inflicted by Pepito to Teodulfa, the latter died on April 24, 1985
leaving the children under the guardianship of Engrace Ninal. 1 year and 8
months later, Pepito and Norma Badayog got married without any marriage
license. They instituted an affidavit stating that they had lived together for at
least 5 years exempting from securing the marriage license. Pepito died in a
car accident on February 19, 1977. After his death, petitioners filed a petition
for declaration of nullity of the marriage of Pepito and Norma alleging that said
marriage was void for lack of marriage license.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the second marriage of Pepito was void?

RULING:
The marriage of Pepito and Norma is void for absence of the marriage
license. They cannot be exempted even though they instituted an affidavit and
claimed that they cohabit for at least 5 years because from the time of Pepito’s
first marriage was dissolved to the time of his marriage with Norma, only about
20 months had elapsed. Albeit, Pepito and his first wife had separated in fact,
and thereafter both Pepito and Norma had started living with each other that
has already lasted for five years, the fact remains that their five-year period
cohabitation was not the cohabitation contemplated by law. Hence, his
marriage to Norma is still void. Void marriages are deemed to have not taken
place and cannot be the source of rights. It can be questioned even after the
death of one of the parties and any proper interested party may attack a void
marriage.

18.
Capili vs. People et. al.
G.R. No. 183850
July 03, 2013

Facts:
Petitioner James Capili married Karla Medina. But then, just three
months later in December 1999, he married another woman named Shirley
Tismo. Karla Medina filed an action for declaration of nullity of the second
marriage between Capili and Tismo. In June 2004, Private Respondent Tismo
filed a bigamy case against Capili. During the course of trial for the Bigamy
case, RTC of Antipolo City rendered a decision declaring the voidness or
incipient invalidity of the second marriage between petitioner and private
respondent on the ground that a subsequent marriage contracted by the
husband during the lifetime of the legal wife is void from the beginning.
 Then, the petitioner-accused filed his Manifestation and Motion (to
Dismiss) praying for the dismissal of the criminal case for bigamy filed against
him on the ground that the second marriage between him and private
respondent had already been declared void by the RTC because of the recent
judgment made by the RTC Antipolo.
The trial court agreed with Capili and it dismissed the bigamy case. On
appeal by the Private Respondent Tismo, the Court of Appeals reversed the
dismissal and remanded the case to the trial court.
Aggrieved, the petitioner filed this petition to the Supreme Court.

Issue:
Whether or not the subsequent declaration of nullity of the second
marriage is a ground for dismissal of the criminal case for bigamy.

Ruling:
The Supreme Court ruled in the negative. In this case, When Capili
married Tismo, all the above elements for bigamy are present. It is already
immaterial if the second was subsequently declared void. The outcome of the
civil case filed by Karla Medina had no legal standing to the determination of
petitioner’s guilt or innocence in the bigamy case because all that is required
for the charge of bigamy to prosper is that the first marriage be subsisting at
the time the second marriage is contracted. Under the law, he who contracts a
second marriage before the judicial declaration of the first marriage assumes
the risk of being prosecuted for bigamy.
The Supreme Court cited the case of Jarillo vs. People, stating that “the Court
affirmed the accused’s conviction for bigamy ruling that the crime of bigamy is
consummated on the celebration of the subsequent marriage without the
previous one having been judicially declared null and void.”

21.
Suazo vs. Suazo
G.R. No. 164493
March 12, 2010

Facts:
Angelito allegedly refused to work and became an alcoholic and heavy
gambler. Jocelyn alleged that Angelito beat her, thus prompting Jocelyn to
leave Angelito. Ten years after their separation, Jocelyn filed a petition to
declare their marriage null and void under Article 36 of the Family
Code. The psychologist diagnosed Angelito with Anti-Social Personality
Disorder. The trial court granted the petition and declared the marriage null
and void. However, the CA reversed.

Issue:
Whether or not the marriage between Jocelyn and Angelito
s h o u l d b e declared null and void under Article 36 of the Family Code.

Ruling:
No. Both the psychologist’s testimony and the psychological report
did not conclusively show the root cause, gravity and incurability of
Angelito’s alleged psychological condition. Jocelyn merely testified on
Angelito’s habitual drunkenness, gambling, refusal to seek employment and
the physical beatings she received from him all of which occurred after
the marriage. The following, while indicative of psychological incapacity,
do not, by themselves, show psychological incapacity.

22.
KALAW v. FERNANDEZ
G.R. No. 166357
19 September 2011

FACTS:
Petitioner Kalaw (Tyrone) and respondent Fernandez (Malyn) were
married in 1976 and bore four children together. Shortly after the birth of their
youngest son, Tyrone had an extramarital affair with a woman named Jocelyn.
Malyn left the conjugal home and her four children with Tyrone in 1985. On
1994, nine years since their de facto separation, Tyrone filed a Petition for
Declaration of Nullity of Marriage on the grounds that Malyn was
psychologically incapacitated at the time of their marriage.

Petitioner Tyrone further alleged that respondent Malyn’s immaturity and

irresponsibility is shown among other things, when she left the children
without proper care and attention as she played mahjong all day and all night
which respondent vehemently denied. Respondent Malyn claimed that
Petitioner Tyrone abused her physically and was the one, in fact, who was
psychologically incapacitated and not her. (does it really matter tho? lol)

ISSUE:
 Whether or not petitioner has sufficiently proved that respondent suffers
from psychological incapacity.

RULING:
No. Psychological incapacity is the downright incapacity or inability to
take cognizance of and to assume the basic marital obligations. The burden of
proving psychological incapacity is on the plaintiff. The plaintiff must prove
that the incapacitated party, based on his or her actions or behavior, suffers a
serious psychological disorder that completely disables his or her from
understanding and discharging the essential obligations of the marital state.
The psychological problem must be grave, must be existing at the time of
marriage and must be incurable
23.
MATUDAN v. REPUBLIC & MATUDAN
G.R. No. 203284
14 November 2016

FACTS:
Petitioner Nicolas Matudan (Nicolas) and respondent Marilyn B. Matudan
(Marilyn) were married in 1976 and bore four children. In 1985, Marilyn left to
work abroad. Since then, petitioner Nicolas and their children never heard from
her ever again. In 2008, petitioner Nicolas filed a Petition for Declaration of
Nullity of Marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity of Marilyn.
Petitioner alleged that Marilyn was irresponsible, immature and failed to
perform her duties as wife to him. On cross-examination, petitioner testified
that he and Marilyn had a happy married life and they never had a fight. The
only reason why he filed the petition was because Marilyn abandoned him and
the children.

It was noted by the Court that respondent Marilyn never showed up to any of
the proceedings.

ISSUE:
Whether or not petitioner Nicolas was able to sufficiently prove the
psychological incapacity of respondent Marilyn.

RULING:
No. What is important is the presence of evidence that can adequately
establish the party’s psychological condition. The complete facts should allege
the physical manifestations, if any, as are indicative of psychological incapacity
at the time of the celebration of the marriage. Petitioner’s judicial affidavit and
testimony during trial, however, fail to show gravity and juridical antecedence.
He also failed to sufficiently and particularly elaborate on his allegations,
particularly the degree of respondent Marilyn’s claimed irresponsibility,
immaturity, or selfishness.
24.
MALLILIN v. JAMESOLAMIN
G.R. No. 192718
18 February 2015

FACTS:

Petitioner Mallilin (Robert) and respondent Jamesolamin (Luz) were

married in 1972 and since then, begot three (3) children. On 1994, Robert filed
a complaint for declaration of nullity of marriage alleging thereto, that his wife,
Luz was psychologically incapacitated at the time of their marriage. Petitioner
further claims that Luz was suffering from unprepredness to enter into such
marital life and to comply with its essential obligations and responsibilities. It
was also manifested in court that respondent Luz was already living in
California and has married an American.

The Regional Trial Court declared the marriage null and void on the ground of
psychological incapacity. On appeal, the Office of the Solicitor General argued
that Petitioner Robert failed to make a case for declaration of nullity and that
the real cause of the marital discord was the sexual infidelity of Luz which,
under the law, should not result in the nullification of the marriage but merely
a ground for legal separation. The CA reversed the RTC Decision. Thus, the
case at hand.

ISSUE:
Whether or not petitioner Robert was able to sufficiently prove that respondent
was psychologically incapacitated at the time of their marriage.

RULING:
No. Psychological incapacity as required by Article 36 must be characterized by
(a) gravity, (b) juridical antecedence and (c) incurability. 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 only
emerge after the marriage. It must be incurable or, even if it were otherwise,
the cure would be beyond the means of the party involved.

The testimony of Robert failed to overcome the burden of proof to show the
nullity of the marriage. The root cause of the alleged psychological incapacity of
Luz was not medically or clinically identified, and sufficiently proven during the
trial. Sexual infidelity or perversion and abandonment do not, by themselves,
constitute grounds for declaring a marriage void based on psychological
incapacity. The petition was denied and the Decision of the CA was affirmed
without prejudice.