4. Void and Voidable Marriages

H. Void Marriages; Effects and Remedies (Family Code, arts. 35-44 and 50-54)

> Art. 35. The following marriages shall be void from the beginning:

(1) Those contracted by any party below eighteen years of age even with the consent of parents or guardians;

(2) Those solemnized by any person not legally authorized to perform marriages unless such marriage were contracted with either or both parties believing in good faith that the solemnizing officer had the legal authority to do so;

(3) Those solemnized without license, except those covered by the preceding Chapter;

(4) Those bigamous or polygamous marriages not falling under Article 41;

(5) Those contracted through mistake of one contracting party as to the identity of the other; and

(6) Those subsequent marriages that are void under Article 53.

> Art. 36. A marriage contracted by any party who, at the time of the celebration, was psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential marital obligations of marriage, shall likewise be void even if such incapacity becomes manifest only after its solemnization. (As amended by Executive Order 227)

> Art. 37. Marriages between the following are incestuous and void from the beginning, whether relationship between the parties be legitimate or illegitimate:

(1) Between ascendants and descendants of any degree; and

(2) Between brothers and sisters, whether of the full or half blood. (81a)

Art. 38. The following marriages shall be void from the beginning for reasons of public policy:

(1) Between collateral blood relatives whether legitimate or illegitimate, up to the fourth civil degree;

(2) Between step-parents and step-children;

(3) Between parents-in-law and children-in-law;

(4) Between the adopting parent and the adopted child;

(5) Between the surviving spouse of the adopting parent and the adopted child;

(6) Between the surviving spouse of the adopted child and the adopter;

(7) Between an adopted child and a legitimate child of the adopter;

(8) Between adopted children of the same adopter; and

(9) Between parties where one, with the intention to marry the other, killed that other person's spouse, or his or her own spouse. (82)

> Art. 39. The action or defense for the declaration of absolute nullity shall not prescribe. (as further amended by R.A. 8533)

> Art. 40. The absolute nullity of a previous marriage may be invoked for purposes of remarriage on the basis solely of a final judgment declaring such previous marriage void. (n).

> Art. 41. A marriage contracted by any person during 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 has 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 provisions 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. (83a)

> Art. 42. The subsequent marriage referred to in the preceding Article shall be automatically terminated by the recording of the affidavit of reappearance of the absent spouse, unless there is a judgment annulling the previous marriage or declaring it void ab initio. A sworn statement of the fact and circumstances of reappearance shall be recorded in the civil registry of the residence of the parties to the subsequent marriage at the instance of any interested person, with due notice to the spouses of the subsequent marriage and without prejudice to the fact of reappearance being judicially determined in case such fact is disputed. (n)

> Art. 43. The termination of the subsequent marriage referred to in the preceding Article shall produce the following effects:

(1) The children of the subsequent marriage conceived prior to its termination shall be considered legitimate;

(2) The absolute community of property or the conjugal partnership, as the case may be, shall be dissolved and liquidated, but if either spouse contracted said marriage in bad faith, his or her share of the net profits of the community property or conjugal partnership property shall be forfeited in favor of the common children or, if there are none, the children of the guilty spouse by a previous marriage or in default of children, the innocent spouse;

(3) Donations by reason of marriage shall remain valid, except that if the donee contracted the marriage in bad faith, such donations made to said donee are revoked by operation of law;

(4) The innocent spouse may revoke the designation of the other spouse who acted in bad faith as beneficiary in any insurance policy, even if such designation be stipulated as irrevocable; and

(5) The spouse who contracted the subsequent marriage in bad faith shall be disqualified to inherit from the innocent spouse by testate and intestate succession. (n)

> Art. 44. If both spouses of the subsequent marriage acted in bad faith, said marriage shall be void ab initio and all donations by reason of marriage and testamentary dispositions made by one in favor of the other are revoked by operation of law. (n)

> Art. 50. The effects provided for by paragraphs (2), (3), (4) and (5) of Article 43 and by Article 44 shall also apply in the proper cases to marriages which are declared void ab initio or annulled by final judgment under Articles 40 and 45.

The final judgment in such cases shall provide for the liquidation, partition and distribution of the properties of the spouses, the custody and support of the common children, and the delivery of the children's presumptive legitimes, unless such matters had been adjudicated in previous judicial proceedings.

All creditors of the spouses as well as of the absolute community or the conjugal partnership shall be notified of the proceedings for liquidation.

In the partition, the conjugal dwelling and the lot on which it is situated, shall be adjudicated in accordance with the provisions of Articles 102 and 129.

> Art. 51. In said partition, the value of the presumptive legitimes of all common children, computed as of the date of the final judgment of the trial court, shall be delivered in cash, property or sound securities, unless the parties, by mutual agreement judicially approved, had already provided for such matters.

The children or their guardian or the trustee of their property may ask for the enforcement of the judgment.

The delivery of the presumptive legitimes herein prescribed shall in no way prejudice the ultimate successional rights of the children accruing upon the death of either or both of the parents; but the value of the properties already received under the decree of annulment or absolute nullity shall be considered as advances on their legitime. (n)

> Art. 52. The judgment of annulment or of absolute nullity of the marriage, the partition and distribution of the properties of the spouses and the delivery of the children's presumptive legitimes shall be recorded in the appropriate civil registry and registries of property; otherwise, the same shall not affect third persons. (n)

> Art. 53. Either of the former spouses may marry again after compliance with the requirements of the immediately preceding Article; otherwise, the subsequent marriage shall be null and void.

> Art. 54. Children conceived or born before the judgment of annulment or absolute nullity of the marriage under Article 36 has become final and executory shall be considered legitimate. Children conceived or born of the subsequent marriage under Article 53 shall likewise be legitimate.

4. Void Marriages

a. Different Grounds for Nullity i. See also R.A. No. 11596 and Tan-Andal v. Andal, G.R. No. 196359, May 11, 2021 b. Legal standing to file a petition for declaration of nullity c. Collateral attack to assail validity of a marriage d. Legal Consequences of Declaring a Marriage as Null and Void

Updated: In a bigamy prosecution, absolute nullity of a marriage may be raised as a defense without a prior judicial declaration of nullity, and a pending nullity petition does not suspend the prosecution (Natividad-Florentino v. Florentino, G.R. No. 255335, 27 August 2025).

I. Voidable Marriages; Effects and Remedies (Family Code, arts. 45-54)

Exclude: A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC and R.A. No. 6955

> 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 eighteen years of age or over but below twenty-one, 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 twenty-one, 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)

Art. 46. Any of the following circumstances shall constitute fraud referred to in Number 3 of the preceding Article:

(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. (86a)

Art. 47. The action for annulment of marriage must be filed by the following persons and within the periods indicated herein:

(1) For causes mentioned in number 1 of Article 45 by the party whose parent or guardian did not give his or her consent, within five years after attaining the age of twenty-one, or by the parent or guardian or person having legal charge of the minor, at any time before such party has reached the age of twenty-one;

(2) For causes mentioned in number 2 of Article 45, by the sane spouse, who had no knowledge of the other's insanity; or by any relative or guardian or person having legal charge of the insane, at any time before the death of either party, or by the insane spouse during a lucid interval or after regaining sanity;

(3) For causes mentioned in number 3 of Articles 45, by the injured party, within five years after the discovery of the fraud;

(4) For causes mentioned in number 4 of Article 45, by the injured party, within five years from the time the force, intimidation or undue influence disappeared or ceased;

(5) For causes mentioned in number 5 and 6 of Article 45, by the injured party, within five years after the marriage. (87a)

Art. 48. In all cases of annulment or declaration of absolute nullity of marriage, the Court shall order the prosecuting attorney or fiscal assigned to it to appear on behalf of the State to take steps to prevent collusion between the parties and to take care that evidence is not fabricated or suppressed.

In the cases referred to in the preceding paragraph, no judgment shall be based upon a stipulation of facts or confession of judgment. (88a)

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)

Art. 50. The effects provided for by paragraphs (2), (3), (4) and (5) of Article 43 and by Article 44 shall also apply in the proper cases to marriages which are declared void ab initio or annulled by final judgment under Articles 40 and 45.

The final judgment in such cases shall provide for the liquidation, partition and distribution of the properties of the spouses, the custody and support of the common children, and the delivery of the children's presumptive legitimes, unless such matters had been adjudicated in previous judicial proceedings.

All creditors of the spouses as well as of the absolute community or the conjugal partnership shall be notified of the proceedings for liquidation.

In the partition, the conjugal dwelling and the lot on which it is situated, shall be adjudicated in accordance with the provisions of Articles 102 and 129.

Art. 51. In said partition, the value of the presumptive legitimes of all common children, computed as of the date of the final judgment of the trial court, shall be delivered in cash, property or sound securities, unless the parties, by mutual agreement judicially approved, had already provided for such matters.

The children or their guardian or the trustee of their property may ask for the enforcement of the judgment.

The delivery of the presumptive legitimes herein prescribed shall in no way prejudice the ultimate successional rights of the children accruing upon the death of either or both of the parents; but the value of the properties already received under the decree of annulment or absolute nullity shall be considered as advances on their legitime. (n)

Art. 52. The judgment of annulment or of absolute nullity of the marriage, the partition and distribution of the properties of the spouses and the delivery of the children's presumptive legitimes shall be recorded in the appropriate civil registry and registries of property; otherwise, the same shall not affect third persons. (n)

Art. 53. Either of the former spouses may marry again after compliance with the requirements of the immediately preceding Article; otherwise, the subsequent marriage shall be null and void.

Art. 54. Children conceived or born before the judgment of annulment or absolute nullity of the marriage under Article 36 has become final and executory shall be considered legitimate. Children conceived or born of the subsequent marriage under Article 53 shall likewise be legitimate.

A voidable marriage is considered valid and produces all its civil effects until it is set aside by final judgment of a competent court in an action for annulment. (Rabuya, 2018) Simply, a voidable marriage is valid until it is annulled. (Paras, 2016)

5. Voidable Marriages

a. Grounds b. Defenses c. Legal Consequences of Annulment of Marriage

Voidable Marriages

• Marriage of a party 18 years of age or over but below 21 solemnized without the consent of the parents, guardian, or person having substitute parental authority over the party, in that order;
• Either party was of unsound mind;
• Consent of either party was obtained by fraud;
• Vices of consent such force, intimidation, or undue influence; and
• Impotence (impotencia copulandi) and afflicted with STD found to be serious and appears to be incurable. (Family Code, Art. 45)

EITHER PARTY WAS OF UNSOUND MIND

Marriages that are void ab initio

• Solemnized without License, except those marriages that are exempt from the license requirement;
• Absence of any of the essential or formal requisites of marriage;
• Solemnized by any person not legally Authorized to perform marriages unless such marriages were contracted with either or both parties believing in good faith that the solemnizing officer had the legal authority to do so;
• Contracted through Mistake of one of the contracting parties as to the identity of the other;
• Bigamous or polygamous marriages not falling under Article 41 of the Family Code or those allowed under special laws such as the Muslim Code;
• Marriages contracted by any party below 18 years of age even with the consent of parents or guardians;
• Marriages contracted by any party, who at the time of the celebration of the marriage, was Psychologically incapacitated, even if such incapacity becomes manifest only after its solemnization (FC, Art. 36);
• Incestuous Marriages (FC, Art. 37);
• Marriages declared void because they are contrary to Public policy (FC, Art. 38);
• Subsequent marriages which are void under Art. 53; and

Mere cohabitation or a live-in relationship without a marriage ceremony does not constitute marriage, although the Family Code may govern the parties’ property relations (FC, Arts. 3, 4, 147 and 148).

A marriage is not void merely because the parties married for an ulterior purpose, if they knowingly consented to the marriage (Republic of the Philippines v. Albios, G.R. No. 198780, October 16, 2013).

Evidence of Marriage

The best documentary evidence of a marriage is the marriage contract. However, the failure to present it is not, however, proof that no marriage took place, as other evidence may be presented to prove marriage. (Balogbog v. CA, G.R No. 83598, March 7, 1997)

The following may be presented as proof of marriage:

• testimony of a witness to the matrimony;
• the couple’s public and open cohabitation as husband and wife after the alleged wedlock;
• the birth and baptismal certificate of children born during such wedlock; and
• the mention of such nuptial in subsequent documents. (Sarmiento v. CA, G.R. No. 96740, March 25, 1999)

Marriages may be:

• Valid
• Void
• Voidable

Determination of the unsoundness of mind as a ground for annulment

It is essential that the mental incapacity must relate specifically to the contract of marriage and the test is whether the party at the time of the marriage was capable of understanding the nature and consequences of the marriage. (Rabuya, 2018)

CONSENT WAS OBTAINED BY FRAUD

Marriage where one or both of the parties are below 18 years of age is VOID

Such marriage is void for lack of legal capacity even if the parents consented to such marriage. (Sempio-Dy, 1995)

Fraud as a ground for annulment

Fraud, as distinguished from fraud as a ground for annulment of contracts, refers to the non-disclosure or concealment of some facts deemed material to the marital relations. (Rabuya, 2009)

No other misrepresentation or deceit as to character, health, rank, fortune or chastity shall constitute such fraud as will give ground for action for the annulment of marriage. (FC, Art. 46, last par.)

Circumstances constituting FRAUD under Art. 45(3)

• Non-disclosure of a previous conviction by final judgment of the other party of a crime involving moral turpitude;
• Concealment by the wife of the fact that at the time of marriage, she was pregnant by a man other than her husband;
• Concealment of sexually transmissible disease, regardless of its nature, existing at the time of marriage; or
• Concealment of drug addiction, habitual alcoholism or homosexuality or lesbianism existing at the time of the marriage. (FC, Art. 46)

NOTE: Where there has been no misrepresentation or fraud, that is, when the husband at the time of the marriage knew that the wife was pregnant, the marriage cannot be annulled. (Buccat v. Buccat, G.R. No. 47101, April 25, 1941)

Q: Aurora prayed for the annulment of her marriage with Fernando on the ground of fraud in obtaining her consent after having learned that several months prior to their marriage, Fernando had pre-marital relationship with a close relative of his.

According to her, the "non-divulgement to her of such pre-marital secret" constituted fraud in obtaining her consent within the contemplation of Art. 46 of the FC. Is the concealment by the husband of a pre-marital relationship with another woman a ground for annulment of marriage?

A: NO. The non-disclosure to a wife by her husband of his pre-marital relationship with another woman is not a ground for annulment of marriage. For fraud as a vice of consent in marriage, which may be a cause for its annulment, comes under Art. 46 of the FC, the fraud, as vice of consent, is limited exclusively by law to those kinds or species of fraud enumerated in Art. 46 in relation to Art. 45(3).

Q: Under what conditions, respectively, may drug addiction be a ground, if at all, for the declaration of nullity of marriage, annulment of marriage, and legal separation?

A:

Effect of lack of authority of solemnizing officer

GR: The marriage is void ab initio.

Declaration of Nullity of Marriage

• The drug addiction must amount to psychological incapacity to comply with the essential obligations of marriage;
• It must be antecedent (existing at the time of marriage), grave and legally incurable toward the particular spouse; medical or clinical incurability is not required (Family Code, Art. 36; Tan-Andal v. Andal, G.R. No. 196359, May 11, 2021).

Annulment of Marriage

• Concealment of drug addiction existing at the time of marriage constitutes fraud under Articles 45(3) and 46(4) of the Family Code. An action on this ground must be filed within five (5) years from discovery, subject to the rule on cohabitation with full knowledge of the fraud under Article 47(3).
• Independently, drug addiction existing at the time of marriage is a ground for annulment under Article 45(5) of the Family Code. An action on this ground must be filed within five (5) years from the marriage under Article 47(5).

Mistake to render the marriage void

For marriage to be rendered void, the mistake in identity must be with reference to the actual physical identity of other party, not merely a mistake in the name, personal qualifications, character, social standing, etc. (Rabuya, 2018)

INCESTUOUS MARRIAGES

• Between ascendants and descendants of any degree;
• Between brothers and sisters, whether of the full or half-blood. (FC, Art. 37)

NOTE: Regardless of whether the relationship between the parties is legitimate or illegitimate.

VOID BY REASON OF PUBLIC POLICY

Marriages between:

• Collateral blood relatives (legitimate or Illegitimate) up to the 4th civil degree;
• Step-parents & step-children;
• Parents-in-law & children-in-law;
• Adopting parent & the adopted child;
• Surviving spouse of the adopting parent & the adopted child;
• Surviving spouse of the adopted child & the adopter;
• Adopted child & legitimate child of the adopter;
• Adopted children of the same adopter;
• Parties where one, with the intention to marry the other, killed the latter’s spouse or his/her spouse. (FC, Art. 38)

NOTE: The prohibition under Nos. 2 and 3 applies even after the termination of the marriage, which is the very source of the relationship by affinity, regardless of the cause of such termination.

Affinity is a relationship gained by marriage and a fictive kinship created by law. Also, it is aligned with the spirit of Art. 332 of the RPC. It holds for all intents and purposes favorable to the strengthening of the bond of the family. (Intestate Estate of Carungcong vs. People, G.R. No. 181409, February 11, 2010)

NOTE: The list is EXCLUSIVE. If not falling within this enumeration, the marriage shall be valid. Such as marriages between:

• Adopted and Illegitimate child of the adopter;
• Step-brother and step-sister;
• Brother-in-law and sister-in-law;
• Parties who have been guilty of adultery or concubinage.

Q: Amor gave birth to Thelma when she was 15 years old. Thereafter, Amor met David, and they got married when she was 20 years old. David has a son, Julian, with his ex- girlfriend Sandra. Can Julian and Thelma get married?

A: YES. Marriage between stepbrothers and stepsisters are not among the marriages prohibited under the Family Code.

BIGAMOUS OR POLYGAMOUS MARRIAGE

Q: If a person contracts a subsequent marriage during the subsistence of a prior marriage, what is the status of the subsequent marriage?

A:

GR: Void for being bigamous or polygamous, even if celebrated abroad and valid there as such.

XPN: Valid if it is a terminable bigamous marriage.

Bigamy - When a person contracts a second or subsequent marriage before the former marriage has been legally dissolved, or before the absent spouse has been declared presumptively dead by means of a judgment rendered in the proper proceedings. (RPC, Art. 349)

Updated: A prior or subsequent marriage’s nullity may be raised as a defense to bigamy without a prior judicial declaration, but a pending nullity petition does not suspend the prosecution (Natividad-Florentino v. Florentino, G.R. No. 255335, 27 August 2025).

Vitiated consent as a ground for annulment of marriage

There is vitiation of consent when:

GR: Consent of either party was obtained by force, intimidation or undue influence.

Force or violence – “There is violence when, in order to wrest consent, serious or irresistible force is employed.

Intimidation – “There is intimidation when one of the contracting parties is compelled by a reasonable and well-grounded fear of an imminent and grave evil upon his person or property, or upon the person or property of his spouse, descendants, or ascendants, to give his consent.” (NCC, Art. 1335, par. 2,)

Undue influence – control over one’s will

XPN: However, if the same having disappeared or ceased, such party thereafter freely cohabited with the other as husband and wife.

A threat to enforce one's claim through competent authority however, if the claim is just or legal, does not vitiate consent.

IMPOTENCE

Elements of the crime of bigamy:

• the offender has been legally married;
• the marriage has not been legally dissolved or, in case his or her spouse is absent, the absent spouse could not yet be presumed dead according to the Civil Code;
• that he contracts a second or subsequent marriage; and
• that the second or subsequent marriage has all the essential requisites for validity. (Capili v. People, G.R. No. 183805, 3 July 2013)

NOTE: The same applies to polygamy.

A subsequent void bigamous marriage contemplates a situation where such subsequent marriage was contracted at the time when the first marriage, which is valid in all respects, was still subsisting. A void bigamous marriage therefore involves a situation where the first marriage is not void but completely valid or at least annullable. (Sta. Maria, 2010)

If the first marriage is void and a party to that first marriage subsequently remarries without obtaining a judicial declaration of nullity of the first marriage, the subsequent marriage is likewise void. If the first marriage was void, remarriage without the final judgment required by Article 40 is void. Where applicable, the separate recording requirements of Articles 52 and 53 must also be observed. (Valdes v. RTC, G.R. No. 122749, July 31, 1996) [Date for verification: the case record lists September 15, 1997.]

Q: Arnold, a Filipino, and Britney, an American, both residents of California, decided to get married in their local parish. Two years after their marriage, Britney obtained a divorce in California. While in Boracay, Arnold met Jenny, a Filipina, who was vacationing there. Arnold fell in love with her. After a brief courtship and complying with all the requirements, they got married in Hong Kong to avoid publicity, it being Arnold’s second marriage. Is his marriage with Jenny valid?

A: The marriage may be valid if Britney obtained an absolute divorce capacitating her to remarry under her national law, the divorce and applicable foreign law are duly proved and the divorce is judicially recognized in the Philippines to establish Arnold’s capacity to remarry under Art. 26(2) of the Family Code, and the marriage with Jenny is valid under applicable law. (Republic v. Manalo, G.R. No. 221029, April 24, 2018)

Q. May an accused in a bigamy case establish that the first marriage was void ab initio without a prior judicial declaration of nullity?

A. YES. In the case of Pulido v. People (G.R. No. 220149, 27 July 2021 as penned by J. Hernando), the Court held that by the express terms of Article 40, the prior judicial declaration of nullity of the marriage is a requirement only for purposes of remarriage and that Art. 40 should not have been construed as imposing a requirement for the accused to raise the defense of nullity of the first marriage. For purposes of remarriage, Article 40 still requires a final judgment declaring the first marriage void.

A void marriage is ipso facto void without need of any judicial declaration of nullity; although the first marriage is void ab initio, Article 40 requires a final judgment declaring its nullity before a party may remarry. Clearly, when the first marriage is void ab initio, one of the essential elements of bigamy is absent, i.e., a prior valid marriage. There can be no crime when the very act which was penalized by the law, i.e., contracting another marriage during the subsistence of a prior legal or valid marriage, is not present. Thus, an accused in a bigamy case should be allowed to raise the defense of a prior void ab initio marriage through competent evidence other than the judicial decree of nullity. (Pulido v. People, G.R. No. 220149, 27 July 2021 as penned by J. Hernando)

NOTE: For purposes of remarriage, a party must first obtain a final judgment declaring the previous marriage void. (FC, Art. 40) In a bigamy prosecution, however, the accused may establish that the first marriage was void ab initio without a prior judicial declaration. (Pulido v. People, G.R. No. 220149, 27 July 2021) The contrary bigamy rule in Mercado v. Tan, G.R. No. 137110, August 1, 2000; Te v. CA, G.R. No. 126746, November 29, 2000, was superseded by Pulido.

Q: Pulido and Rowena U. Baleda were charged before the RTC with Bigamy. Petitioner pleaded not guilty to the crime charged. Pulido, then 16- year old petitioner married his teacher, then 22- year old Arcon in a civil ceremony. The couple lived together until 2007 when Pulido stopped going home to their conjugal dwelling. When confronted by Arcon, Pulido admitted to his affair with Baleda. Arcon likewise learned that Pulido and Baleda entered into a marriage. Hurt by the betrayal, Arcon charged Pulido and Baleda with Bigamy. In his defense, Pulido insisted that he could not be held criminally liable for bigamy because both his marriages were null and void. He claimed that his marriage with Arcon is null and void for lack of a valid marriage license while his marriage with Baleda is null and void for lack of a marriage ceremony. Is a judicial declaration of nullity of marriage necessary to establish the invalidity of a void ab initio marriage as a defense in a bigamy prosecution?

A: NO. The parties are not required to obtain a judicial declaration of absolute nullity of a void ab initio first and subsequent marriages in order to raise it as a defense in a bigamy case. The same rule now applies to all marriages celebrated under the NCC and the FC. Art. 40 of the FC did not amend Art. 349 of the RPC, and thus, did not deny the accused the right to collaterally attack the validity of a void ab initio marriage in the criminal prosecution for bigamy.

However, if the first marriage is merely voidable, the accused cannot interpose an annulment decree as a defense in the criminal prosecution for bigamy since the voidable first marriage is considered valid and subsisting when the second marriage was contracted. The crime of bigamy, therefore, is consummated when the second marriage was celebrated during the subsistence of the voidable first marriage. The same rule applies if the second marriage is merely considered as voidable. To our mind, it is time to abandon the earlier precedents and adopt a more liberal view that a void ab initio marriage can be used as a defense in bigamy even without a separate judicial declaration of absolute nullity. The accused may present competent testimonial or documentary evidence establishing that the first or second marriage was void ab initio; a prior judicial declaration of nullity is not required for that defense. The said view is more in accord with the retroactive effects of a void ab initio marriage, the purpose of and legislative intent behind Article 40 of the Family Code, and the rule on statutory construction of penal laws. Therefore, the absence of a "prior valid marriage" and the subsequent judicial declaration of absolute nullity of his first marriage, Pulido is hereby acquitted from the crime of Bigamy charged against him. (Pulido v. People, G.R. No. 220149, 27 July 2021 as penned by J. Hernando)

Updated: An accused may prove that either the prior or subsequent marriage was void ab initio as a defense to bigamy without a prior declaration of nullity, and a pending nullity petition does not suspend the prosecution (Natividad-Florentino v. Florentino, G.R. No. 255335, 27 August 2025).

Requisites for impotence to be a ground for annulment of marriage:

• Exists at the time of the Celebration of marriage;
• Permanent (does not have to be absolute);
• Incurable;
• Either party was physically incapable of consummating the marriage with the other, and such incapacity continues and appears to be incurable (Family Code, Art. 45(5));
• The other spouse must not also be Impotent.

Q: When are non-bigamous subsequent marriages void?<br>

A: The subsequent marriage of a person whose prior marriage has been annulled but contracted said subsequent marriage without compliance with Art. 52 of the FC, shall be void. (Art. 53, FC)

Before he contracts a subsequent marriage, he must first comply with the requirement provided for in Art. 52, viz:

The recording in the civil registries and registries of properties of the following:

• Judgment of annulment;
• Partition;
• Distribution of properties; and
• Delivery of presumptive legitimes.

Q: Ana Rivera had a husband, a Filipino citizen like her, who was among the passengers onboard a commercial jet plane which crashed in the Atlantic Ocean ten (10) years earlier, and has never been heard of ever since. Believing that her husband had died, Ana married Adolf Cruz Staedler, a divorced German national born of a German father and a Filipino mother residing in Stuttgart. To avoid being required to submit the required certificate of capacity to marry from the German Embassy in Manila, Adolf stated in the application for marriage license stating that Adolf was a Filipino. The couple got married in a ceremony officiated by the parish priest of Calamba, Laguna in a beach in Nasugbu, Batangas, as the local parish priest refused to solemnize marriage except in his church. Is the marriage valid? (2008 BAR)

A: If the missing husband was in fact dead at the time the second marriage was celebrated, the second marriage was valid. Actual death of a spouse dissolves the marriage ipso facto whether or not the surviving spouse had knowledge of such fact. A declaration of presumptive death, even if obtained, will not make the marriage voidable because presumptive death will not prevail over the fact of death.

If the missing husband was in fact alive when the second marriage was celebrated, the second marriage was void ab initio because of a prior subsisting marriage. Had Ana obtained the required judicial declaration of presumptive death before remarrying, the subsequent marriage would be valid, subject to termination under Article 42 of the Family Code. In both cases, the fact that the German misrepresented his citizenship to avoid having to present his Certificate of Legal Capacity is an irregularity which does not affect the validity of the marriage. Holding the ceremony outside the venue prescribed by Article 8 of the Family Code may be an irregularity. Separately determine whether the priest had authority to solemnize the marriage at that location; if he lacked authority, the marriage is void unless the good-faith exception under Article 35(2) of the Family Code applies.

Necessity of Judicial Declaration of Nullity of Marriage

The absolute nullity of a previous marriage may be invoked for purposes of remarriage on the basis solely of a final judgment declaring such previous marriage void. (FC, Art. 40)

There has yet to be a judgment declaring it void, for it is solely on the basis of that final judgment that a party can remarry.

Remarriage is not the sole purpose of declaration of nullity of marriage, as it can be declared void for other purposes. In Valdes v. RTC, it was said that the law aims to do away with any continuing uncertainty on the status of the second marriage. (Valdes v. Regional Trial Court, Branch 102, Quezon City, G.R. No. 122749, 31 July 1996; Albano, 2013)

Doctrine Triennial cohabitation

If after 3 years of living together with her husband, the wife remained a virgin, the husband is presumed to be impotent. (Rabuya, 2018) The husband will have to overcome this presumption.

Relative impotency may now be invoked as a ground for annulment. The Committee has decided to include relative impotency of one party because there are cases where a person is impotent with respect to his spouse but not with other men or women. (Sempio Diy, 1995)

Q: The day after John and Marsha got married, John told her that he was impotent. Marsha continued to live with John for two years. Is Marsha now estopped from filing an annulment case against John?

A: NO. Unlike the other grounds for annulment of voidable marriage which are subject to ratification by continued cohabitation, the law does not allow ratification in case of impotency.

AFFLICTED WITH A SEXUALLY TRANSMITTED DISEASE

Prescriptive Period (2002, 2006 BAR)

The time for filing an action or defense for the declaration of absolute nullity of marriage, whether in a direct or collateral manner, does not prescribe. (Art. 39, FC)

Any of the parties in a void marriage can file an action for the declaration of nullity of marriage even though such party is the wrongdoer.

Requisites of Affliction of a Sexually Transmitted Disease (STD) as a Ground for Annulment

• One of the parties is afflicted with STD;
• STD must be:
• Existing at the time the marriage is celebrated;
• Serious; and
• Apparently Incurable.

Fraudulent concealment of a sexually transmissible disease is a separate ground for annulment. (FC, Art. 46, par. 3)

NOTE: Compulsory HIV testing shall be allowed when it is necessary to resolve relevant issues under E.O. No. 209, otherwise known as the Family Code of the Philippines. (R.A. No. 11166, Sec. 30 (b))

Confidential HIV and AIDS information may be released by HIV testing facilities without consent when responding to a subpoena duces tecum and subpoena ad testificandum issued by a court with jurisdiction over a legal proceeding where the main issue is the HIV status of an individual. Provided:

• That the confidential medical record, after having been verified for accuracy shall remain anonymous and unlinked;
• Shall be properly sealed by its lawful custodian, hand-delivered to the court, and personally opened by the judge; and
• That the judicial proceedings shall be held in executive session. (R.A. No. 11166, Sec. 45 (c))

Q: Yvette was found to be positive for HIV virus, considered sexually transmissible, serious and incurable. Her boyfriend Joseph was aware of her condition and yet married her. After two (2) years of cohabiting with Yvette, and in his belief that she would probably never be able to bear him a healthy child, Joseph now wants to have his marriage with Yvette annulled on the ground that Yvette has STD. Yvette opposes the suit contending that Joseph is estopped from seeking annulment of their marriage since he knew even before their marriage that she was afflicted with HIV virus. Can the action of Joseph for annulment of his marriage with Yvette prosper?

A: Joseph cannot rely on fraudulent concealment because he knew of Yvette’s condition before their marriage. His knowledge alone, however, does not bar annulment under Article 45(6); whether his action prospers depends on proof that Yvette had a sexually transmissible disease at the time of marriage that was serious and appeared incurable. (FC, Arts. 45(6), 46(3))

Effect of death of a party in a petition for declaration of nullity of marriages

• Before the entry of judgment - The court shall order the case closed and terminated without prejudice to the settlement of estate in the proper proceedings.
• After the entry of judgment - The decision shall be binding upon the parties and their successors-in-interest in the settlement of the estate.

Role of the prosecutor or OSG in cases of annulment and judicial declaration of nullity

The prosecutor or OSG shall take steps to prevent collusion between the parties and to take care that evidence is not fabricated or suppressed. Even if there is no suppression of evidence, the public prosecutor has to make sure that the evidence to be presented or laid down before the court is not fabricated. Only the active participation of the public prosecutor or the OSG will ensure that the interest of the State is represented and protected in proceedings for declaration of nullity of marriages by preventing the fabrication or suppression of evidence. (Art. 48, FC)

NOTE: The non-intervention of the prosecutor is not fatal to the validity of the proceedings in cases where the respondent in a petition for annulment vehemently opposed the same and where they do not allege that evidence was suppressed or fabricated by any of the parties. (Tuason v. CA, G.R. No. 116607, 10 Apr. 1996)

Collusion

Where for purposes of getting an annulment or nullity decree, the parties come up with an agreement making it appear that the marriage is defective due to the existence of any of the grounds for the annulment of marriage or the declaration of its nullity provided by law and agreeing to represent such false or non-existent cause of action before the proper court. (Sta. Maria, 2010)

Effect if both parties in the subsequent marriage under Article 41 acted in bad faith

• The subsequent marriage is void ab initio.
• All donations propter nuptias made by one in favour of the other are revoked by operation of law.
• All testamentary dispositions made by one in favour of the other are revoked by operation of law.
• Both parties’ bad faith renders the subsequent marriage void under Article 44 of the Family Code. Criminal liability for bigamy must be assessed separately against each party under Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code; it does not follow automatically from bad faith. (Rabuya, 2009)

Actions prohibited in annulment and declaration of absolute nullity of marriage cases

The following actions are prohibited in annulment and nullity of marriage cases:

• Compromise;
• Confession of judgment;
• Obtaining a decree solely from stipulations of facts or admissions;
• Summary judgment; and
• Judgment on the pleadings.

What the law prohibits is a judgment based exclusively or mainly on defendant's confession. (Ocampo v. Florenciano, G.R. No. L-13553, 23 Feb. 1960) Thus, stipulation of facts or confession of judgment if sufficiently supported by other independent substantial evidence to support the main ground relied upon, may warrant an annulment or declaration of absolute nullity.

NOTE: In actions for declaration of nullity, annulment of marriage, or for legal separation, the material facts in the complaint shall always be proved. (Sec. 1, Rule 34, ROC)

PSYCHOLOGICAL INCAPACITY

Psychological incapacity under Article 36 is a legal concept: a grave, enduring inability, existing at the time of marriage, to comply with essential marital obligations. It need not be shown to be a medically diagnosed mental or personality disorder. (Family Code, Art. 36; Tan-Andal v. Andal, G.R. No. 196359, May 11, 2021)

Psychological incapacity does not refer to mental incapacity tantamount to insanity. (Paras, 2016) Clearly, the ground is restricted to psychological incapacity to “comply with the essential marital obligations”. (Sta. Maria, 2010)

In such case, the spouse declared to be psychologically incapacitated cannot be held liable to pay moral damages to the other spouse based on Articles 2217 and 21 of the NCC, which connotes willfulness of the acts complained of, if the same acts constitutive of the psychological incapacity were to be made the basis for the award of moral damages. It is contradictory to characterize acts as a product of psychological incapacity, and hence beyond the control of the party because of an innate inability, while at the same time considering the same set of acts as willful. (Rabuya, 2018)

Determination of psychological incapacity is left solely with the courts on a case- to-case basis

Every court should approach the issue of nullity “not on the basis of a priori assumptions, predilections or generalizations, but according to its own facts” in recognition of the verity that no case would be on “all fours” with the next one in the field of psychological incapacity as a ground for the nullity of marriage; hence, every “trial judge must take pains in examining the factual milieu and the appellate court must, as much as possible, avoid substituting its own judgment for that of the trial court.

By the very nature of Article 36 of the Family Code, courts determine psychological incapacity from the totality of the evidence. Expert opinion may assist, but is neither indispensable nor automatically decisive. (Kalaw v. Fernandez, G.R. No. 166357, January 15, 2015) (Tan-Andal v. Andal, G.R. No. 196359, May 11, 2021)

Requisites of Psychological Incapacity

• Juridical antecedence– Must be rooted in the history of the party antedating the marriage, although overt manifestations may arise only after such marriage.
• Gravity – grave enough to bring about the disability of the party to assume the essential marital obligations.
• Permanence or Incurability – the incapacity must be enduring and persistent with respect to the particular spouse; proof that it is medically incurable is unnecessary.

Instances where allegations of psychological incapacity were not sustained (part 1 of 2)

• Mere showing of irreconcilable differences and conflicting personalities. (Carating- Siayngco v. Siayngco, G.R. No. 158896, October 27, 2004) NOTE: Mere sexual infidelity or perversion, emotional immaturity and irresponsibility and the like, do not by themselves warrant a finding of psychological incapacity as the same may only be due to a person's refusal or unwillingness to assume the essential obligations of marriage. (Castillo v. Republic of the Philippines, G.R. No. 214064, February 6, 2017)It must be a grave, enduring incapacity to comply with essential marital obligations, not merely a refusal or failure to perform them. (Dedel v. CA, G.R. No. 151867, January 29, 2004)
• Disagreements regarding money matters. (Tongol v. Tongol, G.R. No. 157610, October 19, 2007)
• Mere abandonment. To constitute psychological incapacity, it must be shown that the unfaithfulness and abandonment are manifestations of a disordered personality that completely prevented the erring spouse from discharging the essential marital obligations. (Republic of the Philippines v. Cesar Enselan, G.R. No. 170022, January 9, 2013)
• Sexual infidelity (Republic v. Dagdag, G.R No. 109975, February 9, 2001)
• Adultery or promiscuity alone does not establish psychological incapacity, even if the conduct existed at the time of marriage. The evidence must show that an enduring aspect of personality made the spouse truly incapable of complying with essential marital obligations. (Baccay v. Baccay, G.R. No. 173138, December 1, 2010)

Q: A and B were married. They have four (4) children. A, the husband, had an affair with C, who gave birth to a child. After 12 years of marriage, B left the conjugal home and her 4 children with A. Now, A started living with C. Nine years since the de facto separation from B, A filed a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage based on Article 36 of the Family Code. A psychologist and a canon law expert testified that B, was indeed psychologically incapacitated alleging that she may reflect a narcissistic personality disorder with her sexual infidelity, habitual mahjong playing, and her frequent night-out with friends. They based their diagnosis on an interview with the family relative of B and statements made by their own son. Is the marriage of A and B void on the ground of psychological incapacity?

A: NO. The Court in this case merely recognized the unintended consequences of strictly applying the standards set in Molina. The resiliency with which the concept (of psychological incapacity) should be applied and the case-to-case basis by which the provision should be interpreted, as so intended by its framers, had, somehow, been rendered ineffectual by the imposition of a set of strict standards in Molina. In hindsight, it may have been inappropriate for the Court to impose a rigid set of rules, as the one in Molina, in resolving all cases of psychological incapacity. The unintended consequences of Molina have taken its toll on people who have to live with deviant behavior, moral insanity and sociopathic personality anomaly, which, like termites, consume little by little the very foundation of their families, our basic social institutions. Far from what was intended by the Court, Molina has become a straight-jacket, forcing all sizes to fit into and be bound by it.

In the abovementioned case, the Supreme Court did not suggest the abandonment of Molina. It simply declared that there was a need to emphasize other perspectives as well which should govern the disposition of petitions for declaration of nullity under Article 36. This was the Court's view in the earlier case. Under Tan-Andal, psychological incapacity is a legal, not a medical, concept; Molina's requirement of a medically or clinically identified illness has been abandoned. (Tan-Andal v. Andal, G.R. No. 196359, May 11, 2021)

Q: Rodolfo and Natividad were married. On December 28, 1998, Rodolfo filed a verified complaint for declaration of nullity of marriage before the RTC alleging that Natividad was psychologically incapacitated to comply with her essential marital obligations. In support of his complaint, Rodolfo testified, among others, that he first met Natividad when they were students at the Barangay High School of Sindangan, and he was forced to marry her barely three (3) months into their courtship in light of her accidental pregnancy. At the time of their marriage, he was 21 years old, while Natividad was 18 years of age. He had no stable job and merely worked in the gambling cockpits as "kristo" and "bangkero sa hantak." When he decided to join and train with the army, Natividad left their conjugal home and sold their house without his consent. Thereafter, Natividad moved to Dipolog City where she lived with a certain Engineer Terez (Terez), and bore him a child named Julie Ann Terez.

After cohabiting with Terez, Natividad contracted a second marriage on January 11, 1991 with another man named Antonio Mondarez and has lived since then with the latter in Cagayan de Oro City. From the time Natividad abandoned them in 1972, Rodolfo was left to take care of Ma. Reynilda and Ma. Rizza and he exerted earnest efforts to save their marriage which, however, proved futile because of Natividad’s psychological incapacity that appeared to be incurable. For her part, Natividad failed to file her answer, as well as appear during trial, despite service of summons. Nonetheless, she informed the court that she submitted herself for psychiatric examination to Dr. Cheryl T. Zalsos (Dr. Zalsos) in response to Rodolfo’s claims. Rodolfo also underwent the same examination.

In her two-page psychiatric evaluation report, Dr. Zalsos stated that both Rodolfo and Natividad were psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential marital obligations, finding that both parties suffered from "utter emotional immaturity [which] is unusual and unacceptable behavior considered [as] deviant from persons who abide by established norms of conduct." As for Natividad, Dr. Zalsos also observed that she lacked the willful cooperation of being a wife and a mother to her two daughters. On February 10, 1999, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), representing petitioner Republic of the Philippines (Republic), filed an opposition to the complaint, contending that the acts committed by Natividad did not demonstrate psychological incapacity as contemplated by law, but are mere grounds for legal separation under the Family Code. Should the marriage be dissolved?

A: NO. "Psychological incapacity," as a ground to nullify a marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code, is a legal, not a medical, concept: clear and convincing evidence must establish an enduring aspect of personality, existing at the time of marriage, that makes a party truly incapable of complying with essential marital obligations, including those expressed in Article 68 of the Family Code; neither mental illness nor lack of awareness of those obligations need be proved. The RTC, as affirmed by the CA, heavily relied on the psychiatric evaluation report of Dr. Zalsos which does not, however, explain in reasonable detail how Natividad’s condition could be characterized as grave, deeply-rooted, and incurable within the parameters of psychological incapacity jurisprudence. Aside from failing to disclose the types of psychological tests which she administered on Natividad, Dr. Zalsos failed to identify in her report the root cause of Natividad's condition and to show that it existed at the time of the parties' marriage. Neither was the gravity or seriousness of Natividad's behavior in relation to her failure to perform the essential marital obligations sufficiently described in Dr. Zalsos's report.

Under the controlling doctrine, psychological incapacity is a legal concept. The evidence must clearly and convincingly establish a durable aspect of personality, existing at the time of marriage, that makes the spouse truly incapable of complying with essential marital obligations; a clinical diagnosis is not indispensable. In the final analysis, the Court does not perceive an incapacity of this nature to exist in the present case. Thus, for these reasons, coupled too with the recognition that marriage is an inviolable social institution and the foundation of the family, the instant petition is hereby granted. (Republic v. Gracia, G.R. No. 171557, February 12, 2014) (Tan-Andal v. Andal, G.R. No. 196359, May 11, 2021)

Q: Rachel worked as a domestic helper in Hong Kong to provide for the needs of Jose, the love of her life. Eventually, the couple got married and settled in a house they acquired. The married life ran smoothly up until Rachel filed a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage. Her petition anchored on the ground that Jose was psychologically incapacitated to fulfill his essential marital obligations. She alleged that Jose was a violent man who used to physically abuse her. She added that Jose was a drunkard and always had sexual relations with different women aside from Rachel. On his part, Jose simply denied all the allegations in the petition. Is Jose psychologically incapacitated?

A: NO. Under Article 36 of the Family Code, psychological incapacity is a legal, not a medical, concept. Clear and convincing evidence must establish an enduring aspect of personality, existing at the time of marriage, that makes a party truly incapable of complying with essential marital obligations, including those under Article 68 of the Family Code; neither mental illness nor lack of awareness of those obligations need be proved. Here, there is no sufficient evidence to prove that psychological incapacity exists. Absent sufficient evidence, Courts are compelled to uphold the indissolubility of the marital tie. (Del Rosario v. Del Rosario, G.R. No. 222541, February 15, 2017) (Tan-Andal v. Andal, G.R. No. 196359, May 11, 2021)

Q: Reghis and Olivia were married and were blessed with two (2) children. However, the couple experienced a turbulent and tumultuous marriage, often having violent fights and jealous fits. Reghis could not forgive Olivia for dragging him into marriage and resented her condescending attitude towards him. They became even more estranged when Reghis secured a job as a medical representative and became engrossed in his career and focused on supporting his parents and siblings. As a result, he spent little time with his family, causing Olivia to complain that Reghis failed to be a real husband to her. In 1986, the couple parted ways. Reghis then filed a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage citing his psychological incapacity to comply with his essential marital obligations. The clinical psychologist submitted a report and testified that Reghis suffered from Obsessive Compulsive Personality Disorder (OCPD). This gave him a strong obsession for whatever endeavour he chooses, such as his work, to the exclusion of other responsibilities and duties such as those pertaining to his roles as father and husband. Dr. Basilio surmised that Reghis’ OCPD was the root of the couple’s disagreements and that the same is incurable. The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), representing the Republic, opposed the petition. Should the marriage be declared null and void?

A: NO. The requirements for psychological incapacity do not concur. Reghis’ testimony shows that he was able to comply with his marital obligations which, therefore, negates the existence of a grave and serious psychological incapacity on his part. Reghis admitted that he and Olivia lived together as husband and wife under one roof for fourteen (14) years and both of them contributed in purchasing their own house. Reghis also fulfilled his duty to support and take care of his family. Moreover, the OCPD which Reghis allegedly suffered from was not shown to have juridical antecedence. No specific behavior or habits during his adolescent years were shown which would explain his behavior during his marriage with Olivia. Dr. Basilio simply concluded that Reghis’ disorder is incurable but failed to explain how she came to such conclusion. Based on the appreciation of the RTC, Dr. Basilio did not discuss the concept of OCPD, its classification, cause, symptoms, and cure, and failed to show how and to what extent the respondent exhibited this disorder in order to create a necessary inference that Reghis’ condition had no definite treatment or is incurable.

Article 36 of the Family Code must not be confused with a divorce law that cuts the marital bond at the time the grounds for divorce manifest themselves; rather, it must be limited to cases where there is a downright incapacity or inability to assume and fulfill the basic marital obligations, not a mere refusal, neglect or difficulty, much less, ill will, on the part of the errant spouse. (Republic v. Romero II, G.R. No. 209180, February 26, 2016)

Q: Would the state of being of unsound mind or the concealment of drug addiction, habitual alcoholism, homosexuality or lesbianism be considered indicia of psychological incapacity, if existing at the inception of marriage?

A: Habitual alcoholism or conduct associated with any of the listed circumstances may be relevant only if the evidence establishes the incapacity required by Article 36 of the Family Code; homosexuality or lesbianism is not itself a disorder or proof of incapacity. However, the concealment of drug addiction, habitual alcoholism, lesbianism or homosexuality is a ground of annulment of marriage. (Santos v. CA, G.R. No. 112019, January 4, 1995)

Q: Art. 36 of the FC provides that a marriage contracted by any party who, at the time of the celebration, was psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential marital obligations of marriage, shall be void. Choose the spouse listed below who is psychologically incapacitated.

• Nagger
• Gay or Lesbian
• Congenital sexual pervert
• Gambler
• Alcoholic

A: None can be identified as psychologically incapacitated from the labels alone. Article 36 requires clear and convincing proof of incapacity to comply with specific essential marital obligations, existing at the time of marriage. Sexual orientation alone does not establish that incapacity. (Santos v. CA, G.R. No. 112019, January 4, 1995) (Tan-Andal v. Andal, G.R. No. 196359, May 11, 2021) The law provides that the husband and wife are obliged to live together, observe mutual love, respect and fidelity. (FC, Art. 68)

More than just showing the manifestations of incapacity, the petitioner must prove, by clear and convincing evidence, a psychological incapacity existing at the time of marriage that makes the spouse truly unable—not merely unwilling—to comply with essential marital obligations. Proof of a diagnosed illness is unnecessary. (Republic v. Quintero- Hamano, G.R. No. 149498, May 20, 2004) (Tan-Andal v. Andal, G.R. No. 196359, May 11, 2021)

Q: After living together as husband and wife for two (2) years, Gina and Marjune formalized their marital union through civil rites. As months passed, the communication between Gina and Marjune became less frequent until it ceased altogether. Thus, Gina filed a petition to declare her marriage with Marjune null and void on the basis of the latter's psychological incapacity.

During trial, Gina presented the findings of Professor Emma Astudillo-Sanchez (Prof. Sanchez), the psychologist who conducted a psychological examination of the parties. She concluded that Gina and Marjune's personality disorders "affected their behaviors even before they contracted marriage and, in the presence of situational factors, became more evident during the time they were together during the marriage. Is upholding the annulment based on the expert opinion of the psychologist sufficient proof of the presence of psychological incapacity?

A: NO. The evidence did not establish that an enduring aspect of Gina's personality existed at the time of marriage and made her truly incapable of complying with identified essential marital obligations; a clinical diagnosis or proof of medical incurability is unnecessary. To reiterate, the evidence must clearly and convincingly show a grave, enduring aspect of personality, existing at the time of marriage, that makes the spouse truly incapable of complying with identified essential marital obligations; a diagnosed personality disorder is not required. Unfortunately, the Case Analysis Report fails to demonstrate this crucial point. In determining the existence of psychological incapacity, a clear and understandable causation between the party's condition and the party's inability to perform the essential marital covenants must be shown A psychological report that is essentially comprised of mere platitudes, however speckled with technical jargon, would not cut the marriage tie. (Republic v. Tecag, G.R. No. 229272, November 19, 2018)

Q: Petitioner Maria Teresa and respondent Rodolfo De La Fuente, Jr. first met when they were students at UST before they became sweethearts. While they were still sweethearts, petitioner already noticed that respondent was an introvert and was prone to jealousy. She also observed that respondent appeared to have no ambition in life and felt insecure of his siblings, who excelled in their studies and careers. In June 1994, they got married in Mandaluyong City and had two children. Respondent’s attitude worsened and they went on with their marital life. His jealousy was so severe that he once poked a gun at his own 15-year old cousin who was staying at their house because he suspected his cousin of being petitioner’s lover.

Instances where allegations of psychological incapacity were not sustained (part 2 of 2)

In addition, respondent treated petitioner like a sex slave. They would have sex 4 or 5 times a day. At times, he would fetch petitioner from her office during lunch break just so they could have sex. During sexual intercourse, he would either tie petitioner to the bed or poke her with things. He even suggested that they invite a third person with them while having sex. This made petitioner feel molested and maltreated. Should their marriage be nullified on the ground of psychological incapacity?

A: YES. Respondent’s repeated behavior of psychological abuse by intimidating, stalking, and isolating his wife from her family and friends, as well as his increasing acts of physical violence, are proof of his depravity, and utter lack of comprehension of what marriage and partnership entail. It would be of utmost cruelty for this Court to decree that petitioner should remain married to respondent. After she had exerted efforts to save their marriage and their family, respondent simply refused to believe that there was anything wrong in their marriage. This shows that respondent truly could not comprehend and perform his marital obligations. This fact is persuasive enough for this Court to believe that respondent's mental illness is incurable. (Tani-De La Fuente v. De La Fuente, Jr., G.R. No. 188400, March 8, 2017, as penned by J. Leonen) Under Tan-Andal v. Andal, G.R. No. 196359, May 11, 2021, Article 36 does not require proof of a mental illness or medical incurability; the incapacity must instead be enduring and persistent with respect to the particular spouse.

Q: Anacleto and Linda met during college years and became romantically involved after 15 months of courtship. In 1981, they decided to get married. During the first few years of married life, they lived with Anacleto’s parents. Linda would always complain of not having enough money as she wanted to live on their own, away from her parents-in-law. She would always nag Anacleto to look for a higher paying job so that she could get ahead in life. She wanted a luxurious life and only appreciated her husband when he bought her expensive gifts.

In 2005, Linda left Anacleto to live overseas. She informed Anacleto that she would come back only if he could give her a better life financially. In 2006, Anacleto filed a petition to declare their marriage null and void contending that Linda was suffering from psychological incapacity as found by Dr. Lopez, a clinical psychiatrist. Dr. Lopez based his findings on the information fed by Anacleto, his office secretary, and their family driver. Rule on the petition.

A. I would deny the petition. While Dr. Lopez attributes the gravity of Linda’s disorder to her alleged unhealthy childhood, none of the informants whom he interviewed claims to have known Linda since childhood. Moreover, neither Anacleto’s secretary nor their family driver appears to have known Linda prior to the marriage in question. This significantly impairs the weight of Dr. Lopez's findings, insofar as they are based on the informants' narration of Linda's childhood events and circumstances which they appear to have no personal knowledge of. (Meneses v. Lee-Meneses, G.R. No. 200182, 13 Mar. 2019)

PSYCHOLOGICAL INCAPACITY

Null and Void Marriage Under Art. 36

Psychological incapacity under Art. 36 of the Family Code is a legal, not a medical, concept involving an enduring aspect of a spouse's personality that renders the spouse unable to understand or comply with the essential marital obligations. (Tan-Andal v. Andal, G.R. No. 196359, 11 May 2021)

Psychological incapacity does not refer to mental incapacity tantamount to insanity. (Paras, 2016) Clearly, the ground is restricted to psychological incapacity to “comply with the essential marital obligations”. (Sta. Maria, 2010)

In such case, the spouse declared to be psychologically incapacitated cannot be held liable to pay moral damages to the other spouse based on Arts. 2217 and 21 of the NCC, which connotes willfulness of the acts complained of, if the same acts constitutive of the psychological incapacity were to be made the basis for the award of moral damages. It is contradictory to characterize acts as a product of psychological incapacity and, hence, beyond the control of the party because of an innate inability, while at the same time considering the same set of acts as willful. (Rabuya, 2018)

Tan-Andal v. Andal G.R. No. 196359, 11 May 2021

Totality of Evidence Rule

In the recent case of Tan-Andal v. Andal (G.R. No. 196359, 11 May 2021), the Supreme Court held that psychological incapacity is not a medical but a legal concept. It is thus a personal condition that prevents a spouse to perform marital obligations in relation to a specific person that must exist at the time of marriage, although it may become manifest only through behavior after its celebration. Further, it emphasized that it need not be a mental or personality disorder and need not be medically incurable, but must be enduring and persistent with respect to the particular spouse. Deviating away from the guidelines set in the case of Republic v. Molina, the Tan-Andal v. Andal case set the ground that a testimony of a psychologist or a psychiatrist is not mandatory in all cases.

In the case of Tan-Andal v. Andal, the Supreme Court set new guidelines in determining the existence of psychological incapacity:

• Burden of Proof in Nullity Cases The burden of proof in proving psychological incapacity still lies on the plaintiff. The Supreme Court, however, clarified that the quantum of proof required in nullity cases is clear and convincing evidence which is more than preponderant evidence (ordinary civil cases) but less than proof beyond reasonable doubt (criminal cases). This is because marriage is presumed valid and, in this jurisdiction, a presumption can only be rebutted with clear and convincing evidence.
• Root Cause of Psychological Incapacity Psychological incapacity need not be a mental disorder or a personality disorder proved through expert opinion. There must be proof, however, of the durable or enduring aspects of a person's personality, called "personality structure," which manifest itself through clear acts of dysfunctionality that undermines the family. The spouse's personality structure must make it impossible for him or her to understand and, more important, to comply with his or her essential marital obligations. Proof of these aspects of personality need not be given by an expert. Ordinary witnesses who have been present in the life of the spouses before the latter contracted marriage may testify on behaviors that they have consistently observed from the supposedly incapacitated spouse.
• Incurability of Psychological Incapacity With psychological incapacity not being an illness in a medical sense, psychological incapacity is not something to be cured. And even if it were a mental disorder, it cannot be described in terms of being curable or incurable. Psychological incapacity is so enduring and persistent with respect to a specific partner, and contemplates a situation where the couple’s respective personality structures are so incompatible and antagonistic that the only result of the union would be the inevitable and irreparable breakdown of the marriage.
• Juridical Antecedence of Psychological Incapacity The incapacity must be proven to be existing at the time of the celebration of the marriage even if such incapacity becomes manifest only after its solemnization.
• Gravity of Pyschological Incapacity It must be shown that the incapacity is grave enough to render the spouse unable to comply with essential marital obligations, without requiring a medically identified psychic cause. The gravity is not in the sense that the psychological incapacity must be shown to be a serious or dangerous illness, but that "mild characterological peculiarities, mood changes, occasional emotional outbursts" are excluded.
• Essential Marital Obligations This is not limited to those between spouses. Hence, those covered by Arts. 68 to 71 of the FC as regards the husband and wife as well as Arts. 220, 221 and 225 thereof as regards parents and their children.

MARRIAGE IN JEST

Marriage in jest is a pretended one, legal in form but entered as a joke, with no real intentions of entering into the actual marriage status, and with a clear understanding that the parties would not be bound (Republic v. Albios, G.R. No. 198780, 16 Oct. 2013)

COMMON-LAW MARRIAGES

Common-law marriage not recognized in the Philippines

A common-law marriage, otherwise referred to as a “live-in relationship,” is one where a man and a woman just live together as husband and wife without getting married.

EFFECT OF VOID MARRIAGES

Petition for the declaration of nullity of marriage by the heirs of a deceased person after his death

The heirs cannot file for declaration of nullity of marriage. The advent of the Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages marks the beginning of the end of the right of the heirs of the deceased spouse to bring a nullity of marriage case against the surviving spouse. The heirs can still protect their successional right, for compulsory or intestate heirs can still question the validity of the marriage of the spouses, not in a proceeding for declaration of nullity but upon the death of a spouse in a proceeding for the settlement of the estate of the deceased spouse filed in the regular courts.

However, with respect to nullity of marriage cases commenced before the effectivity of A.M. No. 02-11- 10 (04 Mar. 2003) and marriages celebrated during the effectivity of the NCC, the doctrine laid down in Niñal v. Bayadog (G.R. No. 133778, 14 Mar. 2000) still applies; that the children have the personality to file the petition to declare the nullity of marriage of their deceased father to their stepmother as it affects their successional rights. (De Dios Carlos v. Sandoval, G.R. No. 179922, 16 Dec. 2008)

Q: If the court denies a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage based on psychological incapacity, may a party to the said case file another petition for declaration of its nullity based on the absence of a marriage license?

A: NO. A petition to declare the marriage void due to the absence of marriage license, filed after the court denied a petition to declare the marriage void due to psychological incapacity is barred by res judicata. There is only one cause of action, which is the declaration of nullity of the marriage. Hence, when the second case was filed based on another ground, there was a splitting of a cause of action which is prohibited. (Mallion v. Alcantara, G.R. No. 141528, 31 Oct. 2006)

Q: Is the declaration of nullity of marriage applied prospectively?

A: NO, it retroacts to the date of the celebration of the marriage. Although the judicial declaration of nullity of a marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity retroacts to the date of the celebration of the marriage insofar as the vinculum between the parties is concerned, it must be noted that the marriage is not without legal consequences or effects. Under Pulido, a marriage void ab initio may be raised as a defense to bigamy without a prior judicial declaration of nullity; Article 40 of the Family Code separately requires a final judgment declaring the previous marriage void for purposes of remarriage. (Tenebro v. CA, G.R. No. 150758, 18 Feb. 2004) (Pulido v. People, G.R. No. 220149, July 27, 2021; Family Code, Art. 40)

Q: Is a decree of nullity of the first marriage required before a subsequent marriage can be entered into validly?

A: General Rule: Under Art. 40 of the FC, the absolute nullity of a previous marriage may be invoked for purposes of remarriage on the basis solely of a final judgment declaring such previous marriage void.

XPN: If the second marriage, however, took place prior to the effectivity of the FC, there is no need for judicial declaration of nullity of the first marriage pursuant to the prevailing jurisprudence at that time. (Rabuya, 2006)

NOTE: Art. 40 is applicable to remarriages entered into after the effectivity of the FC on 03 Aug. 1988, regardless of the date of the first marriage. Besides, under Art. 256 of the FC, said Article is given “retroactive effect” insofar as it does not prejudice or impair vested or acquired rights in accordance with the Civil Code or other laws”. (Atienza v. Brillantes, A.M. No. MTJ-92-706, 29 Mar. 1995)

Q: While his first marriage is subsisting, Veronico married Leticia, which marriage was later declared void on the ground of psychological incapacity. When Veronico got married for the third time, Leticia filed a case for bigamy against him. For his defense, Veronico claims that effects of the nullity of his marriage with Leticia retroacts to the date when it was contracted, hence, he is not guilty of bigamy for want of an essential element – the existence of a valid previous marriage. Is Veronico correct?

A: Veronico’s argument has no merit as a defense to liability arising from the third marriage: his valid first marriage remained subsisting, and the nullity of his marriage to Leticia did not dissolve it. Contracting the third marriage may therefore independently constitute bigamy under Art. 349 of the RPC. Liability arising from the second marriage to Leticia is a separate question; although Tenebro held that its subsequent declaration of nullity did not defeat liability for bigamy, Pulido permits the voidness of a subsequent marriage to be raised as a defense in a bigamy prosecution. (Tenebro v. CA, G.R. No. 150758, 18 Feb. 2004) (Pulido v. People, G.R. No. 220149, July 27, 2021)

Pulido v. People (G.R. No. 220149, July 27, 2021)

Facts:

• Luisito Pulido was charged with bigamy for contracting a second marriage with Rowena Baleda while still being married to Nora Arcon.
• Pulido's first marriage to Arcon was solemnized on September 5, 1983, when he was only 16 years old, and lacked a valid marriage license.
• Despite the void nature of this first marriage, it was only judicially declared null by the Imus City, Cavite, RTC Branch 22 on May 11, 2016.
• Pulido entered into a second marriage with Rowena Baleda on July 31, 1995, without securing a judicial declaration of nullity for his first marriage at that time.

Procedural History:

• The Las Piñas City Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 275 found Pulido guilty of bigamy and sentenced him to imprisonment.
• The Court of Appeals modified the RTC decision but still found him guilty.
• Pulido appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that his first marriage was void from the beginning due to the lack of a valid marriage license.

Issue:

• Whether the judicial declaration of nullity of the first marriage is necessary to use it as a defense in a bigamy charge.

Ruling:

• The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Pulido, acquitting him of bigamy. The Court emphasized that a judicial declaration of nullity is not required to prove that a prior marriage is void ab initio in a bigamy case.
• The SC held that the effect of a void marriage is retroactive to the date of the celebration of the marriage, meaning it is considered inexistent from the beginning.
• The Court noted that the lack of a valid marriage license rendered Pulido's first marriage void. Thus, the element of a valid, subsisting first marriage was absent.
• Consequently, Pulido's second marriage to Baleda did not constitute bigamy, as there was no valid prior marriage.

Significance:

• This ruling abandons the long-standing doctrine that required a judicial declaration of nullity of the first marriage before it could be used as a defense against bigamy.
• The decision emphasizes the inherent nullity of void marriages and their retroactive effect, impacting how bigamy cases will be handled in the future.

Q: When a marriage was declared null and void, does it carry with it any legal effects?

A: YES. Although a void marriage creates no valid marital bond, it may have legal consequences, including property relations under Articles 147 or 148 of the Family Code and, in the cases specified by Article 54, the legitimacy of children. Separately, Pulido permits its voidness to be raised as a defense to bigamy without a prior nullity decree; Article 40 requires a final judgment for purposes of remarriage. (Tenebro v. CA, G.R. No. 150758, 18 Feb. 2004) (Pulido v. People, G.R. No. 220149, July 27, 2021; Family Code, Arts. 40, 54, 147–148)

Forfeiture of Share

Under Article 147 of the Family Code, forfeiture of the bad-faith party’s share may apply where parties capacitated to marry each other live together without the benefit of marriage or under a void marriage. The one who acted in bad faith shall forfeit his or her share in favor of the following in the order mentioned:

• Common children;
• Surviving descendants in case of default of or waiver by any or all of the common children or their descendants;
• Innocent party, in the absence of descendants.

In all these instances, the forfeiture shall take place only upon termination of the cohabitation. (Pineda, 2011)

NOTE: Article 147’s forfeiture rule applies only when the parties were capacitated to marry each other. If both were below 18, their property relations are governed by Article 148, not Article 147. (Ibid.)

Partition when Marriage is Nullified

If the basis of the nullification of the marriage is its being bigamous or polygamous not falling under Art. 41, the properties of the partners shall be partitioned under Art. 148. (Pineda, 2011, citing Saguid vs. CA, G.R. No. 150611, 10 June 2003)

NOTE: The void marriage contemplated under Art. 147 excludes bigamous or polygamous marriages.