VOIDABLE MARRIAGES

Grounds for annulment of voidable

marriages Art. 45
Art. 45. A marriage may be annulled for any of
the following causes, existing at the time of the
marriage:
(1) That the party in whose behalf it is sought
to have the marriage annulled was 18 years of
age or over but below 21, and the marriage
was solemnized without the consent of the
parents, guardian or person having substitute
parental authority over the party, in that order,
unless after attaining the age of 21, such party
freely cohabited with the other and both lived
together as husband and wife;
(2) That either party was of unsound mind,
unless such party after coming to reason,
freely cohabited with the other as husband
and wife;
(3) That the consent of either party was
obtained by fraud, unless such party
afterwards, with full knowledge of the facts
constituting the fraud, freely cohabited with
the other as husband and wife;
 (4) That the consent of either party was obtained
by force, intimidation or undue influence, unless
the same having disappeared or ceased, such
party thereafter freely cohabited with the other
as husband and wife;
(5) That either party was physically incapable of
consummating the marriage with the other, and
such incapacity continues and appears to be
incurable; or
(6) That either party was afflicted with a sexually-
transmissible disease found to be serious and
appears to be incurable. (85a)
WHO CAN SEEK
ANNULMENT ART. 47
Ground Who can file When can it be
filed
18 to below The party whose within five years after
21 y.o. without parents did not give attaining the age of
parental consent 21
consent
By the parent or any time before such
guardian party has reached 21

Insanity By sane spouse who Any time before

had no knowledge of death of either party
the insanity

By a relative or guardian
of insane
By insane spouse During lucid interval
or after regaining
sanity
Grounds Who can file When it can be
filed
Fraud The injured party Within 5 years
after discovery of
the fraud
Force, The injured party Within 5 years
intimidation or from the time F, I or
undue influence UI disappeared of
ceased
Physically The injured party Within 5 years
incapable of after the marriage.
consummating the
marriage;
incurable
Serious and The injured party Within 5 years
incurable STD after the marriage.
Absence of parental consent
Moe v. Dinkins (1981) - Maria Moe (13
years old) became pregnant by Raou Roel
(16 years old). They wanted to get
married but Marias mother refused to
give her written consent. Maria and Raoul
filed a case questioning the
constitutionality of the New York
marriage statute, burdened their right to
marry and deprived Maria of benefits she
might enjoy as Raouls wife.
 The State has a legitimate interest in protecting
minors from immature decision making.
The constitutional rights of children cannot be
equated with adults for three reasons: a) the
peculiar vulnerability of children; (b) the inability
to make critical decisions in an informed and
mature matter; (c) the importance of the
parental role in child-rearing.
The parent consent requirement ensures that at
least one mature person will participate in the
marriage decision.
Insanity
KATIPUNAN v. TENORIO (1937) wife
became insane after the marriage. Husband
sought an annulment. According to the
court, there is a presumption of validity of
marriage. Absent proof of insanity which
occurred after the celebration of marriage
cannot constitute a cause of nullity.
Fraud Art. 46
(1) Non-disclosure of a previous conviction by final
judgment of the other party of a crime involving moral
turpitude;
(2) Concealment by the wife of the fact that at the time of
the marriage, she was pregnant by a man other than her
husband;
(3) Concealment of sexually transmissible disease,
regardless of its nature, existing at the time of the
marriage; or
(4) Concealment of drug addiction, habitual alcoholism or
homosexuality or lesbianism existing at the time of the
marriage.
No other misrepresentation or deceit as to character,
health, rank, fortune or chastity shall constitute such fraud
as will give grounds for action for the annulment of
marriage.
Fraud
HERNANDEZ v. CA (1999) Lucita and
Mario were married in 1981. A petition for
annulment was filed on the ground of
psychological incapacity of Mario and for
fraud (extramarital affair, STD).
Petition was DENIED. Allegations are for
legal separation. Annulment was also denied
because the STD occurred five years after
the marriage.
Buccat v. Buccat, 72 Phil 49 (1941) An
annulment was filed because wife concealed
her pregnancy. She gave birth 89 days after
the wedding. SC said no proof of
concealment. Unlikely that the husband
who was a 1st year law student did not
suspect anything about the condition of the
wife considering she was in advanced stage
of pregnancy (7th month) when they got
married.
Aquino v. Delizo, 108 Phil 21(1960)
Annulment of marriage on the ground of
concealment of pregnancy by another man.
Wife was 4 months pregnant at time of
marriage, it was not yet apparent cause she
was naturally plump, even doctors can only
claim positive diagnosis of pregnancy at 5
months.
Anaya v. Palaroan, 36 SCRA 97 premarital
sex with another woman prior to marriage
is not a ground for annulment of marriage.

Almelor v. RTC, G.R. No. 179620 (2008)

concealment of homosexuality is the
ground for annulment of marriage; in the
RTC it was not proven that he was a
homosexual.
Force, intimidation and undue
influence
Ruiz v.Atienza, 40 O.G. 1903 (1941) - An
uncle of the wife threatened to file a case
to prevent his admission to the bar for
immorality. Not a ground for annulment of
marriage. There was no violence nor duress
that attended the marriage celebration.
Threat cannot come from lawful actions. He
was not kidnapped, he had occassion to
escape.
Physical incapacity/impotence
Jimenez v. Caizares problem with the
genitalia of the wife, presumed to be potent.

Sarao v. Guevara (1940) Uterus and ovaries

of wife had to be removed. Husband filed for
annulment of marriage but this was denied
because the incapacity for copulation was only
temporary. Defect must be lasting to be a
ground for annulment because the test of
impotence is not the capacity to reproduce
but capacity to copulate.
Alcazar v. Alcazar (2009) The husband
went to Saudi for a year. When he came
home he refused to have sex with the wife.
He is not physically incapable because they
had sex after the wedding and before he
left for abroad.
Affliction with STD
FC 45(6) - That either party was afflicted
with a sexually-transmissible disease found
to be serious and appears to be incurable.
FC 46(3) - Concealment of sexually
transmissible disease, regardless of its nature,
existing at the time of the marriage
FC, 47(5) - For causes mentioned in number
5 and 6 of Article 45, by the injured party,
within five years after the marriage.
Procedure in actions for annulment
Barcelona v. CA (2003) husband filed for
annulment of marriage twice. The first
petition was dismissed without prejudice,
he withdrew case before an Answer was
filed because he wanted to keep the peace
between him and his children. Such
dismissal did not amount to res judicata.
Effects of pendency of action for
annulment
Art. 49. During the pendency of the action and
in the absence of adequate provisions in a
written agreement between the spouses, the
Court shall provide for the support of the
spouses and the custody and support of their
common children. The Court shall give
paramount consideration to the moral and
material welfare of said children and their
choice of the parent with whom they wish to
remain as provided to in Title IX. It shall also
provide for appropriate visitation rights of the
other parent. (n)
Effects of annulment
FC 50-54 liquidation, partition and
distribution of the properties; custody and
support of the children and delivery of
presumptive legitimes; children conceived
or born before judgment of annulment are
considered legitimate.
Use of surnames
NCC Art. 371 - In case of annulment of marriage, and
the wife is the guilty party, she shall resume her maiden
name and surname. If she is the innocent spouse, she
may resume her maiden name and surname. However,
she may choose to continue employing her former
husband's surname, unless:
(1) The court decrees otherwise, or
(2) She or the former husband is married again to
another person.

Yasin v. Shari'a, G.R. No. 94986, February 23, 1995

Bar Matter No. 1625 Josephine P. Uy-Timosa
Remo v. DFA, G.R. No. 169202, March 05, 2010
MARRIAGES
DISSOLVED BY
FOREIGN JUDGMENT
 NCC 15, 17 (3)
FC 26 (2)
ARCA v. JAVIER (1954) Divorced secured
in the US not valid. Must be domiciled in
good faith in the State which granted it. The
wifes answer in divorce case did not place
her in courts jurisdiction.
Philippine courts grant divorce only on
ground of adultery or concubinage.
Desertion is not a ground.
TENCHAVEZ v. ESCANO (1965)
Divorce from the US after the effectivity of
the Civil Code is not entitled to
recognition as valid in the Philippines
neither is the marriage contracted with
another party by the divorced consort
subsequently to the foreign decree of
divorce, entitled to validity.
The innocent spouse has ground for legal
separation.
VAN DORN v. ROMILLO (1985) American
husband file case for accounting of the
business and he wants to manage the same.
They already divorced in US and stated that
there was no community property.
The divorce secured in the US is binding upon
the American husband. He has no standing to
sue here in the Philippines. Alice, the Filipina
wife, should not be discriminated against in
her own country if the ends of justice are to
be served.
PILAPIL v. JUDGE IBAY-SOMERA (1989)
After the divorce in Germany, the German
husband filed an adultery case against
Filipina wife here in the Philippines.
Adultery cannot be prosecuted except
upon sworn written complaint filed by the
offended spouse.
Under the national law of German husband,
he has no standing to sue for adultery.
QUITA v. CA (1998) Arturo died without
will. Second wife not an heir because their
marriage is bigamous. Fe, the 1st wife is also
not an heir because she divorced Arturo
when she became a US citizen.

LLORENTE v. CA (2000) The divorce

obtained by Lorenzo was valid, he was
already a US citizen then.
GARCIA v. RECIO (2001) bigamy case
was remanded to RTC for reception of
evidence that at time of 2nd marriage,
Rederick was capacitated by Australian Law
to marry (valid divorce in Australia).
DIEGO v. CASTILLO (2004) Judge was
fined and warned for acquitting accused in
bigamy case who secured divorce in the US
while he was a Filipino citizen.
RP v. ORBECIDO (2005) Art. 26, par. 2
applies to Filipinos who later become alien
and secures a divorce.

SAN LUIS v. SAN LUIS (2007) Felicisimos

wife, a US citizen, divorced him in 1973. He
married a Filipina in 1974. Art. 26 was
applied retroactively to Felicisimo.
AMOR-CATALAN v. CA (2007) Amor &
Orlando became US citizens. Filed for
divorce and was granted. Orlando
remarried in the Philippines. Amor filed for
nullity of said 2nd marriage. The case was
remanded for reception of evidence of
naturalization and divorce, to determine if
Amor has standing to file the case.
CORPUS v. STO. TOMAS (2010) Alien
spouse filed divorce decree with NSO. He also
filed a case for recognition of the divorce. The
alien spouse can claim no right under Art.
26(2) as the substantive right it establishes is
in favor of the Filipino spouse. But Art. 26 does
not necessarily strip alien spouse of legal
interest to petition the RTC for the
recognition of the foreign divorce decree. The
foreign divorce decree itself serves as a
presumptive evidence of right in favor of the
alien spouse.
CATALAN v. CATALAN-LEE (2012) - Case
is remanded to the trial court to first
determine the validity of the divorce under
US Laws between petitioner and deceased
husband to ascertain the rightful party to
be issued the letters of administration over
the estate of Orlando B. Catalan.
 FUJIKI v. MARINAY (2013) - Fujiki has the
personality to file a petition to recognize the
Japanese Family Court judgment nullifying
the marriage between Marinay and Maekara
on the ground of bigamy because the
judgment concerns his civil status as married
to Marinay. For the same reason he has the
personality to file a petition under Rule 108
to cancel the entry of marriage between
Marinay and Maekara in the civil registry on
the basis of the decree of the Japanese
Family Court.
 Section 2(a) of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC does not preclude
a spouse of a subsisting marriage to question the validity
of a subsequent marriage on the ground of bigamy. On
the contrary, when Section 2(a) states that "[a] petition
for declaration of absolute nullity of void marriage may
be filed solely by the husband or the wife"75it refers
to the husband or the wife of the subsisting marriage.
Under Article 35(4) of the Family Code, bigamous
marriages are void from the beginning. Thus, the parties
in a bigamous marriage are neither the husband nor the
wife under the law. The husband or the wife of the prior
subsisting marriage is the one who has the personality
to file a petition for declaration of absolute nullity of
void marriage under Section 2(a) of A.M. No. 02-11-10-
SC.
 ROEHR v. RODRIGUEZ (2003) - the trial
court has jurisdiction over the issue
between the parties as to who has parental
custody, including the care, support and
education of the children, namely Carolynne
and Alexandra Kristine Roehr despite
divorce decree granted in German courts
and declaring custody be given to the father.
The mother was not given opportunity to be
heard in the divorce proceedings.
 LAVADIA v. HEIRS OF LUNA (2014) - It is
true that on January 12, 1976, the Court of
First Instance (CFI) of Sto. Domingo in the
Dominican Republic issued the Divorce
Decree dissolving the first marriage of Atty.
Luna and Eugenia. Conformably with the
nationality rule, however, the divorce, even if
voluntarily obtained abroad, did not dissolve
the marriage between Atty. Luna and Eugenia,
which subsisted up to the time of his death
on July 12, 1997.
NOVERAS v. NOVERAS (2014) - divorce is
not recognized between Filipino citizens in
the Philippines. Absent a valid recognition
of the divorce decree, it follows that the
parties are still legally married in the
Philippines. The trial court thus erred in
proceeding directly to liquidation of their
property relations.
ANDO v. DFA (2014) - petitioner incorrectly
filed a petition for declaratory relief before the
RTC. She should have first appealed before the
Secretary of Foreign Affairs, since her ultimate
entreaty was to question the DFAs refusal to
issue a passport to her under her second
husbands name.
With respect to her prayer for the recognition
of her second marriage as valid, petitioner
should have filed, instead, a petition for the
judicial recognition of her foreign divorce from
her first husband.
MARRIAGES GIVING
RISE TO CRIMINAL
LIABILITY
RPC Article 351. Premature marriages. - Any widow who shall
marry within 301 days from the date of the death of her
husband, or before having delivered if she shall have been
pregnant at the time of his death, shall be punished by arresto
mayor and a fine not exceeding 500 pesos.
The same penalties shall be imposed upon any woman whose
marriage shall have been annulled or dissolved, if she shall
marry before her delivery or before the expiration of the
period of 301day after the legal separation.

RPC Article 352. Performance of illegal marriage ceremony. -

Priests or ministers of any religious denomination or sect, or
civil authorities who shall perform or authorize any illegal
marriage ceremony shall be punished in accordance with the
provisions of the Marriage Law.
 Republic Act No. 10655 repealed Art. 351
of the RPC

Signed into law: March 13, 2015

People v. De Guzman ( 2010) the
marriage of the accused with the offended
party in a rape case absolved him from
liability for two counts of rape.
 R.A. No. 6955, An Act to Declare
Unlawful the Practice of Matching Filipino
Women for Marriage to Foreign
Nationals

R.A. No. 9208, Anti-Trafficking in Persons

Act of 2003 as amended by R.A. No.
10364