VOID AND VOIDABLE MARRIAGES;
Void Marriages; Void marriage is one that is not valid from its inception; Void
and Voidable marriage; Bad Faith and Good Faith in Void Marriages; Bad
faith as affecting property disposition; Collateral and direct attack;
GROUNDS (Nullity of Marriage) Below eighteen years of age; Non - authority
of the solemnizer; Good Faith Marriage; No Marriage License; Bigamous of
Polygamous Marriages; Mistake in identity; Void Marriage Under Article 53;
Psychological Incapacity; Constitutional Considerations; Proving
Psychological Incapacity; Expert testimony; Canon law and relevance;
Jurisprudential guidelines; Damages; Reasons for Prohibition of Incestuous
Marriages; Reasons for Prohibition of Void Marriage; Collateral Blood
relatives by consanguinity; Collateral half- blood relatives by consanguinity;
Relationship by Affinity; effect of termination of marriage on affinity
prohibition;
Adoptive relationship;
Intentional killing of spouse; Prescriptive periods;
Parties to the case;
Judicial declaration of Nullity;Historical background on the need of a judicial
declaration of nullity;
Article 40 and Bigamy; Bigamous marriages; exceptions; Termination of
subsequent marriage; Liquidation of the properties of the first marriage;
Judicial declaration of presumptive death; well founded belief of death; sworn
statement of reappearance; criminal liability; status of children; Effect of
termination;
Void under Article 36 of the Family Code: Where one party, who at the time of
the celebration of the marriage, was psychologically incapacitated to comply
with the essential marital obligations; A finding of psychological incapacity on
the part of one spouse negates any award of moral and exemplary damages
against him/her; Award of moral damages should be predicated, not on the
mere act of entering into the marriage, but on specific evidence that is was
done deliberately and with malice by a party who had known of his or her
disability and yet willfully concealed the same;
PSYCHOLOGICAL INCAPACITY has no exact definition but is restricted to
psychological incapacity to comply with the essential marital obligations of
marriage;
It involves a senseless, protracted, and constant refusal to comply with the
essential marital obligations by one or both of the spouses although he, she,
or they are physically capable of performing such obligations (Chi Ming Tsoi v.
CA 266 SCRA 234 [1997])
JURISPRUDENTIAL GUIDELINES (Republic v. CA & Molina 268 SCRA 198
[1997]) (1) Burden of proof to show the nullity of marriage belongs to plaintiff;
(2) The root cause of the psychological incapacity must be: a. Medically or
clinically identified b. Alleged in the complaint c. Sufficiently proven by experts
d. Clearly explained in the decision; (3) The incapacity must be proven to be
existing at the time of the celebration of the marriage; (4) Such incapacity
must be shown to be medically or clinically permanent or incurable (5) Such
illness must be grave enough to bring about the disability of the party to
assume the essential obligations of marriage (6) Essential marital obligations
must be those embraced by Art. 68-71, as well as Art. 220, 221, and 225 of
the Family Code. (7) Interpretations given by the National Appellate
Matrimonial Tribunal of the Catholic Church in the Philippines, while not
controlling or decisive, should be given great respect by our courts (8) The
trial court must order the prosecuting attorney or fiscal and the Solicitor
General to appear as counsel for the state;
Antonio v. Reyes G.R. No. 155800, March 10, 2006, Judicial understanding of
psychological incapacity may be informed by evolving standards, taking into
account the particulars of each case, current trends in psychological and even
canonical thought, and experience. It is under the auspices of the deliberate
ambiguity of the framers that the Court has developed the Republic v. CA &
Molina rules, which have been consistently applied since 1997. Molina has
proven indubitably useful in providing a unitary framework that guides courts
in adjudicating petitions for declaration of nullity under Article 36. At the same
time, the Molina guidelines are not set in stone, the clear legislative intent
mandating a case-to-case perception of each situation. It should be noted that
the lies attributed to respondent were not adopted as false pretenses in order
to induce petitioner into marriage. They indicate a failure on the part of
respondent to distinguish truth from fiction, or at least abide by the truth.
Petitioner’s witnesses and the trial court were emphatic on respondent’s
inveterate proclivity to marriage void because of absence of marriage license.
Supreme Court denied the Petition; applicability of the principle
of res judicata; Santos vs. CA, 240 SCRA 23; Republic v. De Gracia G.R. No.
171577, February 12, 2014; Ching Ming Tsoi vs. CA, 266 SCRA 324; Malilin
v. Republic G.R. No. 192718, February 18, 2015; Marcos vs. Marcos, 343
SCRA 755; Viñas [Link]-Viñas G.R. No. 208790, January 21,
2015; Republic v. Hamano, May 20, 2004; Dedel v. Dedel, January 29,
2004; Siayngco v. Siayngco, October 27, 2004; Villalon v. Villalon, November
18, 2005; Ferraris v. Ferraris, July 17, 2006; Antonio v. Reyes, March 10,
2006; Paz vs. Paz, February 18, 2010; Suazo v. Suazo, March 10,
2010; Domingo vs. CA, 226 SCRA 573Santiago v. People G.R. No. 200233,
July 15, 2015; Atienza vs. Brillantes (Art. 40), 243 SCRA 32, Beltran vs.
People(Art. 40), 334 SCRA 106; Bobis vs. Bobis(Art. 40), 336 SCRA
747; SSC [Link] G.R. No. 209741, April 15, 2015; Mercado vs. Tan, 337
SCRA 122; Morigo v. People, February 6, 2004; Carino vs. Carino, 351 SCRA
131; Calisterio vs. Calisterio(Art. 41), 330 SCRA 201; Republic v. Cantor G.R.
No. 184621, December 10, 2013; Republic v Granada - G.R. No. 187512,
June 13, 2012; Republic vs. Nolasco, 220 SCRA 21; Republic vs. Alegro,
December 9, 2005; Republic vs. Lorino; January 19, 2005; Manuel vs.
People, November 29, 2005; Santos v. Santos G.R. No. 187061, October 8,
2014; Tani-Dela Fuente Vs. Dela Fuente, Jr., GR NO. 188400, March 8,
2017;
Void for Being Incestuous under Art. 37: Whether relationship is legitimate or
illegitimate : (1) Between ascendants and descendants of any degree;
(2) Between brothers and sisters, whether full or half blood; Void for Reason
of Public Policy under Art. 38: (1) Between collateral blood relatives up to the
4th civil degree; (2) Between step-parents and step-children; (3) Between
parents-in-law and children-in-law; (4) Between adopting parent and adoptive
child; (5) Between surviving spouse of the adopter and the adopted (6)
Between surviving spouse of the adopted and the adopter; (7) Between
adopted and legitimate child of adopter; (8) Between adopted children of
same adopter (9) Between parties where one, with the intention to marry the
other, killed that other person’s spouse or his/her own spouse
RA 6995 (Mail Order Bride Act) declares as unlawful the practice of matching
Filipino women for marriage to foreign nationals on a mail- order basis and
other similar practices including the advertisement, publication, printing or
distribution of brochures, fliers, and other propaganda materials in furtherance
thereof. Under the new Family Code, the following can now marry each other:
1. Brother-in-law and sister-in-law 2. Stepbrother and stepsister; (3) Guardian
and ward (4) Adopted and illegitimate child of the adopter (5) Parties who
have been convicted of adultery or concubinage
Subsequent marriages - (1) Without judicial declaration of nullity of previous
void marriage (Art. 40) - For the purposes of remarriage, the only legally
acceptable basis for declaring a previous marriage an absolute nullity is a final
judgment declaring such previous marriage void, whereas, for purposes other
than remarriage, other evidence is acceptable; In a case for concubinage, the
accused need not present a final judgment declaring his marriage void for he
can adduce evidence in the criminal case of nullity of his marriage other than
proof of final judgment declaring his marriage void. Hence, the pendency of
the civil action for nullity of marriage does not pose a prejudicial question in a
criminal case for concubinage.; However, a judicial declaration of nullity is not
needed where no marriage ceremony at all was performed by a duly
authorized solemnizing officer as where the parties merely signed a marriage
contract on their own. (Lucio Morigo v. People, G.R. No. 145226. Feb. 06,
2004). (2) Rule on bigamous marriages (Art. 41) General Rule: Marriage
contracted by any person during the subsistence of a previous marriage is
VOID, Exception: If before the celebration of the subsequent marriage: (a) the
previous spouse had been absent for 4 consecutive years (ordinary absence)
or 2 years (extraordinary absence) and (b) the remaining spouse has a well-
founded belief that the absent spouse was already dead (c) judicial
declaration of presumptive death
TENEBRO v. COURT OF APPEALS 423 SCRA 272 (2004); MORIGO v.
PEOPLE 422 SCRA 376 (2004)
Grounds for Annulment; No parental consent; Unsound mind; Burden of
proof; Fraud; Non- disclosure of previous conviction as fraud; Concealment of
pregnancy as fraud; Concealment of sexually transmissible disease,
regardless of nature as fraud; Concealment of drug addiction and habitual
alcoholism as fraud; Vitiated Consent; Incapacity to Consummate; burden of
proof in cases of incapacity to consummate; Rule on Triennial Cohabitation;
Sterility; Sexually Transmissible Disease; Ratification of Annullable
Marriages;
Nature of Annulment Cases; Grounds, Parties, prescriptive Periods; Rules of
Procedure; Role of Fiscal and Solicitor General; Collusion; Stipulation of Facts
or confession of judgment; Support of spouses and Custody of children;
Visitation rights; Judgment of annulment or nullity of marriage; Entry of
judgment and decree of nullity of annulment; Presumptive legitimes;
Liquidation and partition of properties; Recording in the civil registry and
registry of property; Status of children;
Almelos v RTC GR 179620, 28 August 2008; Wiegel v Sempio-Dy 143 SCRA
499; Odayat v Amante 77 SCRA 338; Leouel Santos v CA and Julia Rosario
Bedia-Santos, G.R .112019 4 January 1995; Chi Ming Tsoi v Court of
Appeals, G.R. No. 119190. January 16, 1997; Republic v Molina, G.R.
108763, February 13, 1997; Antonio v Reyes, G.R. 155800, March 10,
2006; Marcos v Marcos 343 SCRA 755 ; Leonilo Antonio v Marie Yvonne F.
Reyes, G.R .155800, 10 March 2006; Supreme Court Rule on Declaration of
Nullity of Void Marriages and Voidable Marriages, A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC
2003-03-04; Bobis v Bobis 3 July 2000; Landicho v Relova 22 SCRA
731; Rep v Castro 236 SCRA 257; Domingo v CA 226 SCRA 572 ; Rep. v
Nolasco 220 SCRA 20 ; Rep. v Bermudez Lorino 18 January 2005; Valdes v
RTC 260 SCRA 221
Deficiency in Consent; Prohibition on Collusion; Mercado v Mercado 337
SCRA 122
Deficiency in Consent, Article 45-47,FC Common Provisions: Support
Pendente Lite, Presumptive Legitimes, Liquidation, Support, Custody and
Partition, Article 49-51, FC Prohibition on “Collusion,” Article 48, FC Record of
Judgement and Partition, Effect on Subsequent Marriage, Article 52-53,
FC; Quizon v. Belen G.R. No. 189121 Castillo v. Castillo G.R. No. 189607;
