PERSONS 2nd Exam

*Articles 2 and 3 FC: ESSENTIAL AND FORMAL

"Rommel Jacinto" to "Mely," and his sex from "male" to

REQUISITES OF MARRIAGE

"female."

Silverio vs. Republic

On June 4, 2003, the trial court rendered a

decision in favor of petitioner.

Facts:

On August 18, 2003, the OSG countered alleging

On November 26, 2002, Rommel Jacinto Dantes

that there is no law allowing the change of entries in

Silverio filed a petition for the change of his first name

the birth certificate by reason of sex alteration.

and sex in his birth certificate in the Regional Trial

Court of Manila.

On February 23, 2006, the Court of Appeals

rendered a decision in favor of the Republic.

He alleged in his petition that his name was

registered as "Rommel Jacinto Dantes Silverio" in his

Hence, this petition.

birth certificate. His sex was registered as "male." He

Issue:

further alleged that he is a male transsexual, that is,

"anatomically male but feels, thinks and acts as a

May a person successfully petition for a change

female" and that he had always identified himself with

of name and sex appearing in the birth certificate to

girls since childhood.

reflect the result of a sex reassignment surgery?

His attempts to transform himself to a "woman"

Ruling: NO

culminated on January 27, 2001 when he underwent

A Persons First Name Cannot Be changed on the

sex reassignment surgery in Bangkok, Thailand.

Ground of Sex Reassignment

From then on, petitioner lived as a female and

A change of name does not alter ones legal

was in fact engaged to be married. He then sought to

capacity or civil status.

have his name in his birth certificate changed from

1

PERSONS 2nd Exam

RA 9048 does not sanction a change of first

persons sex made at the time of his or her birth, if not

name on the ground of sex reassignment.

attended by error, is immutable.

Before a person can legally change his given

Neither May Entries in the Birth Certificate as to

name, he must show that he will be prejudiced by the

First Name or Sex Be Changed on the Ground of

use of his true and official name. In this case, he failed

Equity

to show, or even allege, any prejudice that he might

The changes sought by petitioner will have

suffer as a result of using his true and official name.

serious and wide-ranging legal and public policy

No Law Allows the Change of Entry in the Birth

consequences.

Certificate as To Sex on the Ground of Sex

First, the petition was but petitioners first step

Reassignment

towards his eventual marriage to his male fianc.

"Status" refers to the circumstances affecting

However, marriage, one of the most sacred social

the legal situation (that is, the sum total of capacities

institutions, is a special contract of permanent union

and incapacities) of a person in view of his age,

between a man and a woman. One of its essential

nationality and his family membership.

requisites is the legal capacity of the contracting

parties who must be a male and a female. To grant the

A persons sex is an essential factor in marriage

changes

and family relations. It is a part of a persons legal

there

is no

by

petitioner

will

substantially

reconfigure and greatly alter the laws on marriage and

capacity and civil status.

But

sought

family relations.
such

special

law

in

the

Second, there are various laws which apply

Philippines governing sex reassignment and its effects.

particularly to women such as the provisions of the

legally

Labor Code on employment of women, certain felonies

recognizing sex reassignment, the determination of a

under the Revised Penal Code and the presumption of

Considering

that

there

is

no

law

PERSONS 2nd Exam

survivorship in case of calamities under Rule 131 of

Manila, however, convicted Fernando only of the lesser

the Rules of Court, among others.

crime of slight physical injuries.

Filipina

later

filed

new

action

for

legal

separation which was granted.

Sy vs. CA
On August 4, 1992, Filipina finally filed a petition
Facts:

for the declaration of absolute nullity of her marriage

to Fernando on the ground of psychological incapacity.

Filipina Y. Sy and Fernando Sy contracted

marriage on November 15, 1973. Their union was

The Regional Trial Court denied the petition.

blessed with two children, Frederick and Farrah Sheryll.

Filipina appealed to the Court of Appeals which

affirmed the decision of the trial court.

On September 15, 1983, Fernando left their

conjugal dwelling.

Hence this appeal where for the first time,

Filipina bases her nullity case on the ground of the

On February 11, 1987, Filipina filed a petition for

non-issuance of a marriage license.

legal separation which later, upon her motion, was

amended to a petition for separation of property.
Judgment was rendered dissolving

It appears that, according to Filipina, the date of

their conjugal

the actual celebration of their marriage and the date of

partnership of gains and approving a regime of

issuance of their marriage certificate and marriage

separation of properties.
After

heated

license are different and incongruous.

altercation,

Filipina

filed

Issue:

criminal action for attempted parricide against her

Can the marriage between Filipina and Fernando

husband on May 1988. The Regional Trial Court of

be declared null and void by virtue of non-issuance of

PERSONS 2nd Exam

marriage license even though such ground was only

respondent. This fact was also affirmed by petitioner,

raised for the first time on appeal?

in open court during her direct examination.

Ruling: YES

From

the

documents

she

presented,

the

marriage license was issued on September 17, 1974,

Although we have repeatedly ruled that litigants

almost one year after the ceremony took place on

cannot raise an issue for the first time on appeal, in a

November 15, 1973. The ineluctable conclusion is that

number of instances, we have relaxed observance of

the

procedural rules, noting that technicalities are not

marriage

was

indeed

contracted

without

marriage license.

ends in themselves but exist to protect and promote

substantive rights of litigants.

A marriage license is a formal requirement; its

absence renders the marriage void ab initio.

In our view, the case at bar requires that we

address the issue of the validity of the marriage
between Fillipina and Fernando which petitioner claims
is void from the beginning for lack of a marriage
license, in order to arrive at a just resolution of a
deeply seated and violent conflict between the parties.

Republic vs. Court of Appeals and Castro

Although Filipina did not categorically state the

Facts:

non-issuance of marriage license as a ground in her

petition for annulment of marriage before the trial
court,

the

critical

dates

were

contained

in

On June 24, 1970, Angelina M. Castro and Edwin

the

F.

documents she submitted before the court. Such dates

Cardenas

were

married

in

civil

ceremony

performed by Judge Pablo M. Malvar. The marriage was

were even admitted both by petitioner and private

celebrated without the knowledge of Castro's parents.

Cardenas personally attended to the processing of the
4

PERSONS 2nd Exam

documents

required

for

the

celebration

of

the

Hence, she sought a judicial declaration of

marriage, including the procurement of the marriage

nullity of her marriage to Edwin F. Cardenas, claiming

license. In fact, the marriage contract itself states that

that no marriage license was ever issued to them prior

marriage license no. 3196182 was issued in the name

to the solemnization of their marriage.

of the contracting parties on June 24, 1970 in Pasig,

As proof, Angelina Castro offered in evidence a

Metro Manila.

certification from the Civil Register of Pasig, Metro

The couple did not immediately live together as

Manila which stated that xxx License no. 3196182

husband and wife since the marriage was unknown to

does not appear from our records.

Castro's parents. Thus, it was only in March 1971,

The trial court denied the petition alleging that

when Castro discovered she was pregnant, that the

couple

decided

cohabitation

to

lasted

live
only

together.
for

However,

four

(4)

the certification was inadequate to establish the

their

alleged non-issuance of a marriage license prior to the

months.

celebration of the marriage between the parties.

Thereafter, the couple parted ways.

Castro appealed to respondent appellate court

Desiring to follow her daughter in the U.S.,

which reversed the Decision of the trial court and

Castro wanted to put in order her marital status before

declared the marriage between the contracting parties

leaving for the States.

null and void.

She thus consulted a lawyer, Atty. Frumencio E.

Hence, this petition.

Pulgar, regarding the possible annulment of her

marriage.

Through

her

lawyer's

efforts,

they

discovered that there was no marriage license issued

to Cardenas prior to the celebration of their marriage.
Issue:

PERSONS 2nd Exam

Is the certification of the local civil registrar of
Due Search and Inability to Find adequate to prove

Sevilla vs. Cardenas

the non-issuance of the marriage license?

Facts:

Ruling: YES
At

the

time

the

subject

marriage

In a complaint, Jaime O. Sevilla claimed that on

was

19 May 1969, through machinations, duress and

solemnized on June 24, 1970, the law governing

intimidation employed upon him by Carmelita N.

marital relations was the New Civil Code. The law

Cardenas and the latter's father, he was forced to sign

provides that no marriage shall be solemnized without

a marriage contract before the Minister of the Gospel.

a marriage license first issued by a local civil registrar.

According to Jaime, he never applied for a marriage

Being one of the essential requisites of a valid

license for his supposed marriage to Carmelita and

marriage, absence of a license would render the

never did they obtain any marriage license from any

marriage void ab initio.

Civil Registry, consequently, no marriage license was

The certification of "due search and inability to

presented to the solemnizing officer.

find" issued by the civil registrar of Pasig enjoys

For her part, Carmelita refuted these allegations

probative value, he being the officer charged under

of Jaime testifying that it was even Jaime who asked

the law to keep a record of all data relative to the

her to run away with him to Baguio. Because she loved

issuance of a marriage license. Unaccompanied by any

him, she turned back on her family and decided to

circumstance of suspicion and pursuant to Section 29,

follow plaintiff in Baguio. On May 19, 1969, before a

Rule 132 of the Rules of Court, a certificate of "Due

minister, she was made to sign documents which she

Search and Inability to Find" sufficiently proved that his

understood as their civil wedding. On May 31, 1969,

office did not issue marriage license no. 3196182 to

they had the church wedding, which the Sevilla family

the contracting parties.

alone prepared and arranged.

6

PERSONS 2nd Exam

Atty. Jose M. Abola, then counsel for Jaime said

statement that the Office of the Local Civil Registrar

that he made inquiries with the Office of Civil Registry

could not exert its best efforts to locate and determine

of San Juan where the supposed marriage license was

the existence of Marriage License No. 2770792 due to

obtained. Perlita Mercader, Registration Officer III of

its "loaded work."

the Local Registry of San Juan, identified the three (3)

This implication is confirmed in the testimony of

Certifications.

Ms. Perlita Mercader, who stated that they cannot

The trial court declared the marriage null and

locate the logbook due to the fact that the person in

void.

charge of the said logbook had already retired.

Carmelita filed an appeal with the Court of

Given

Appeals where the RTCs decision was reversed.

the

documentary

and

testimonial

evidence to the effect that utmost efforts were not

exerted to locate the logbook where Marriage License

Issue:

No. 2770792 may have been entered, the presumption

Civil

of regularity of performance of official function by the

Registrar of San Juan sufficient to declare the marriage

Local Civil Registrar in issuing the certifications, is

as null and void ab initio?

effectively rebutted.

Are

the

certifications

from

the

Local

Ruling: NO
Note that the first two certifications issued by
the Local Civil Registrar of San Juan, Metro Manila,
dated 11 March 1994 and 20 September 1994, bear

*Article 4 FC: EFFECT OF ABSENCE, DEFECT OR

the statement that "Hope and understand our loaded

IRREGULARITY OF THE REQUISITES

work cannot give you our full force locating the above

Cosca vs. Palaypayon

problem." It could be easily implied from the said

7

PERSONS 2nd Exam

Facts:

Issue:

In an administrative complaint filed with the

What are the consequences to be faced by

Office of the Court Administrator on October 5, 1992,

Judge Palaypayon and Nelia Baroy due to their act of

Hon. Lucio P. Palaypayon, Jr., Presiding Judge, and Nelia

illegally solemnizing marriages?

B. Esmeralda-Baroy, Clerk of Court II, both of the

Ruling:

Municipal Trial Court of Tinambac, Camarines Sur, were

charged with several offenses relating to the discharge

By solemnizing a marriage without a marriage

of their office.

license, Judge Palaypayon as the solemnizing officer is

the

As to the first charge on illegal solemnization of

one

responsible

for

the

irregularity

in

not

complying with the formal requisites of marriage and

marriage, complainants allege that respondent judge

under Article 4(3) of the Family Code of the Philippines.

solemnized marriages even without the requisite

He shall be civilly, criminally and administratively

marriage license. Thus, several couples were able to

liable.

get married by the simple expedient of paying the

marriage fees to Baroy despite the absence of a

We here emphasize once again our adjuration

marriage license. As a consequence, their marriage

that the conduct and behavior of everyone connected

contracts did not reflect any marriage license number.

with an office charged with the dispensation of justice,

In addition, respondent judge did not sign their

from the presiding judge to the lowliest clerk, should

marriage contracts and did not indicate the date of

be

solemnization, the reason being that he allegedly had

responsibility. His conduct, at all times, must not only

to wait for the marriage license to be submitted by the

be characterized by propriety and decorum but, above

parties which was usually several days after the

all else, must be beyond suspicion.

ceremony. Indubitably, the marriage contracts were

circumscribed

with

the

heavy

burden

of

The Family Code pertinently provides that the

not filed with the local civil registrar.

formal requisites of marriage are, inter alia, a valid

8

PERSONS 2nd Exam

marriage license except in the cases provided for

marriage to her late groom Dominador B. Orobia

therein. Complementarily, it declares that the absence

without the requisite marriage license and at Nabua,

of any of the essential or formal requisites shall

Camarines

generally render the marriage void ab initio and that,

jurisdiction.

while an irregularity in the formal requisites shall not

for

the

irregularity

shall

be

Judge Occiano, on the other hand, averred that

he was requested to solemnize the marriage of the

definitely be severely dealt with. Nelia Esmeralda-

parties on 17 February 2000. Having been assured that

Baroy, on the other hand, is dismissed from the

all the documents to the marriage were complete, he

service, with forfeiture of all retirement benefits and

agreed to solemnize the marriage in his sala. However,

with prejudice to employment in any branch, agency

Government,

territorial

Philippine Navy.

of the same or similar offenses in the future will

the

his

pensions of Orobia, a retired Commodore of the

of P20,000.00 with a stern warning that any repetition

of

outside

recognized. She was likewise deprived of receiving the

Hence, Judge Palaypayon is imposed with a fine

instrumentality

is

to inherit the vast properties left by Orobia was not

civilly,

criminally and administratively liable.

or

which

Since the marriage was a nullity, Araes right

affect the validity of the marriage, the party or parties

responsible

Sur

on 17 February 2000, he was informed that Orobia had

including

a difficulty walking and could not stand the rigors of

government-owned or controlled corporations.

travelling to Balatan. He was asked if he could

solemnize the marriage in Nabua, to which request he

Araes vs Occiano

acceded.
Facts:
Judge Occiano further avers that before he
Mercedita Mata Araes charges Judge Salvador

started the ceremony, he carefully examined the

Occiano with Gross Ignorance of the Law alleging that

documents submitted to him by Araes. When he

on 17 February 2000, Judge Occiano solemnized her

discovered that the parties did not possess the

9

PERSONS 2nd Exam

requisite marriage license, he refused to solemnize the

Under the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980,

marriage and suggested its resetting. However, due to

or B.P.129, the authority of the regional trial court

the earnest pleas of the parties and the influx of

judges and judges of inferior courts to solemnize

visitors, he proceeded to solemnize the marriage out

marriages is confined to their territorial jurisdiction as

of human compassion. He also feared that the

defined by the Supreme Court.

resetting of the wedding might aggravate the Orobias

The case at bar is not without precedent. In

condition. After the solemnization, he reiterated the

Navarro vs. Domagtoy, we held that, An appellate

necessity for the marriage license and admonished the

court Justice or a Justice of this Court has jurisdiction

parties that their failure to give it would render the

over the entire Philippines to solemnize marriages,

marriage void.
On

12

regardless of the venue, as long as the requisites of

September

2001,

Araes

filed

her

the law are complied with. However, judges who are

Affidavit of Desistance. She confessed that she filed

appointed to specific jurisdictions may officiate in

this administrative case out of rage. However, after

weddings only within said areas and not beyond.

reading the Comment filed by Judge Occiano, she

Where a judge solemnizes a marriage outside his

realized her own shortcomings and is now bothered by

courts jurisdiction, there is a resultant irregularity in

her conscience.

the formal requisite laid down in Article 3, which while

it may not affect the validity of the marriage, may

Issue:

subject

the

officiating

official

to

administrative

liability.

What are the consequences to be faced by

Judge Occiano by virtue of his solemnization of

In the case at bar, the territorial jurisdiction of

marriage without the requisite marriage license and

Judge Occiano is limited to the municipality of Balatan,

outside his territorial jurisdiction?

Camarines Sur. His act of solemnizing the marriage of

petitioner

Ruling:
10

and

Orobia

in

Nabua,

Camarines

Sur

PERSONS 2nd Exam

therefore is contrary to law and subjects him to
administrative liability.
Judge

Occiano

Morigo vs. People

should

also

be

faulted

for

Facts:

solemnizing a marriage without the requisite marriage

license. In People vs. Lara, we held that a marriage

Lucio

which preceded the issuance of the marriage license is

boardmates

void, and that the subsequent issuance of such license

Tagbilaran City, Province of Bohol, for 4 years.

cannot render valid or even add an iota of validity to

Morigo
at

the

and
house

Lucia
of

Barrete

Catalina

were

Tortor

at

In 1984, Lucio Morigo was surprised to receive a

the marriage. Except in cases provided by law, it is the

card from Lucia Barrete. The former replied and after

marriage license that gives the solemnizing officer the

an exchange of letters, they became sweethearts.

authority to solemnize a marriage. Judge Occiano did

not possess such authority when he solemnized the

In 1990, Lucia came back to the Philippines.

marriage of petitioner.

Both agreed to get married, thus they were married on

August 30, 1990 at the Iglesia de Filipina Nacional at

Judge Occiano cannot be exculpated despite the

Catagdaan, Pilar, Bohol.

Affidavit of Desistance filed by petitioner. This Court

has consistently held in a catena of cases that the

On September 8, 1990, Lucia reported back to

withdrawal of the complaint does not necessarily have

her work in Canada leaving appellant Lucio behind.

the legal effect of exonerating respondent from

On August 19, 1991, Lucia filed with the Ontario

disciplinary action.

Court a petition for divorce against Lucio which was

granted.

11

PERSONS 2nd Exam

On October 4, 1992, Lucio Morigo married Maria
Jececha Lumbago at the Virgen sa Barangay Parish,

Issue:

Tagbilaran City, Bohol.

Is Lucio guilty of the crime of bigamy?

On September 21, 1993, Lucio filed a complaint

for judicial declaration of nullity of marriage in seeking
the declaration of nullity of his marriage with Lucia, on
the ground that no marriage ceremony actually took
place.

Ruling:
On October 19, 1993, appellant was charged

In Marbella-Bobis v. Bobis, we laid down the

with Bigamy. And on August 5, 1996, the RTC of Bohol

elements of bigamy thus:

convicted Lucio of the crime of Bigamy. He then filed

(1) The offender has been legally married;

an appeal with the Court of Appeals.

(2) The first marriage has not been legally dissolved,

Meanwhile, on October 23, 1997, or while the

or in case his or her spouse is absent, the absent

criminal case was pending before the appellate court,

spouse has not been judicially declared presumptively

the trial court rendered a decision in the civil case

dead;

declaring the marriage between Lucio and Lucia void

ab initio since no marriage ceremony actually took

(3) He contracts a subsequent marriage; and

place. No appeal was taken from this decision, which

(4) The subsequent marriage would have been valid

then became final and executory.

had it not been for the existence of the first.

On October 21, 1999, the appellate court

The trial court found that there was no actual

affirmed RTCs ruling as to the bigamy case.

marriage ceremony performed between Lucio and

Hence, this petition.

12

PERSONS 2nd Exam

Lucia by a solemnizing officer. Instead, what transpired

Alcantara vs Alcantara

was a mere signing of the marriage contract by the

Facts:

two, without the presence of a solemnizing officer. The

trial court thus held that the marriage is void ab initio,

A petition for annulment of marriage was filed

in accordance with Articles 3[22] and 4[23] of the

by Restituto M. Alcantara against Rosita A. Alcantara

Family Code.

alleging that on 8 December 1982 he and Rosita,

without securing the required marriage license, went

The first element of bigamy as a crime requires

to the Manila City Hall for the purpose of looking for a

that the accused must have been legally married. But

person who could arrange a marriage for them. They

in this case, legally speaking, the petitioner was never

met a person who, for a fee, arranged their wedding

married to Lucia Barrete. Thus, there is no first

before a certain Rev. Aquilino Navarro. They got

marriage to speak of.

married on the same day, 8 December 1982. Restituto

The mere private act of signing a marriage

and Rosita went through another marriage ceremony

contract bears no semblance to a valid marriage and

at the San Jose de Manuguit Church in Tondo, Manila,

thus, needs no judicial declaration of nullity. Such act

on

alone, without more, cannot be deemed to constitute

celebrated without the parties securing a marriage

an ostensibly valid marriage for which petitioner might

license. The alleged marriage license, procured in

be held liable for bigamy unless he first secures a

Carmona, Cavite, appearing on the marriage contract,

judicial declaration of nullity before he contracts a

is a sham, as neither party was a resident of Carmona,

subsequent

and they never went to Carmona to apply for a license

marriage.

Hence,

Lucio

cannot

be

convicted of the crime of bigamy.

26

March

1983.

The

marriage

was

likewise

with the local civil registrar of the place.

Rosita, however, asserts the validity of their
marriage and maintains that there was a marriage
license issued as evidenced by a certification from the
13

PERSONS 2nd Exam

Office of the Civil Registry of Carmona, Cavite. She

issued by the local civil registrar of Carmona, Cavite.

alleges that Restituto only filed the annulment of their

The

marriage to evade prosecution for concubinage.

specifically identified the parties to whom the marriage

certification

moreover

is

precise

in

that

it

license was issued, namely Restituto Alcantara and

On 14 February 2000, the RTC of Makati City

Rosita Almario, further validating the fact that a

dismissed the petition. The Court of Appeals affirmed

license was in fact issued to the parties herein.

the RTCs ruling.

Restituto attempted to demolish the probative

value of the marriage license by claiming that neither
he nor Rosita is a resident of Carmona, Cavite.

Issue:

However, issuance of a marriage license in a city or

Is the marriage between Restituto and Rosita

municipality, not the residence of either of the

null and void?

contracting parties is considered a mere irregularity

that does not affect the validity of the marriage. It only

Ruling: NO

holds

In cases previously decided by the Supreme

the

irregularity

Court, it can be deduced that to be considered void on

party
civilly,

or

parties

criminally

responsible
and

for

the

administratively

liable.

the ground of absence of a marriage license, the law

requires that the absence of such marriage license

Restituto also harps on the discrepancy between

must be apparent on the marriage contract, or at the

the marriage license number in the certification of the

very least, supported by a certification from the local

Municipal

civil registrar that no such marriage license was issued

marriage license issued to the parties is No. 7054133,

to the parties. In this case, the marriage contract

while the marriage contract states that the marriage

between the Restituto and Rosita reflects a marriage

license number of the parties is number 7054033.

license number. A certification to this effect was also

14

Civil

Registrar,

which

states

that

the

PERSONS 2nd Exam

However, it is not impossible to assume that the same

Nollora, Jr. vs. People

is a mere typographical error.

Facts:

Likewise, the issue raised by Restituto that they

Atilano O. Nollora, Jr. and Rowena P. Geraldino

appeared before a fixer who arranged everything for

were charged with the crime of Bigamy.

them will not strengthen his posture. The authority of

the officer or clergyman shown to have performed a

Atilano was already married to Jesusa Pinat on

marriage ceremony will be presumed in the absence of

April 6, 1999. Despite such, Atilano contracted a

any showing to the contrary. Moreover, all that the

second marriage with Rowena on December 8, 2001.

solemnizing officer needs to know is that the license

Jesusa, as witnesss, testified that she and

has been issued by the competent official which may

Atilano met in Saudi Arabia. Atilano courted her and on

be presumed from the issuance of the license.

April 6, 1999, they got married. While working in

Hence, the marriage between Restituto and

Saudi, she heard rumors that her husband has another

Rosita cannot be declared null and void.

wife. Because of this, she left Saudi Arabia and

returned to the Philippines. Upon arrival in the
Philippines,

Jesusa

learned

that

indeed,

Atilano

contracted a second marriage with Rowena when she

secured a certification as to his civil status from the
National Statistics Office (NSO).
Upon

learning

this

information,

Jesusa

confronted Rowena at the latters workplace in Taguig

and asked her if she knew of the first marriage to
which

15

Rowena

allegedly

affirmed.

Despite

this

PERSONS 2nd Exam

knowledge, she allegedly still married Atilano because

validity except for the lack of capacity of Nollora due

she loves him so much.

to his prior marriage.

Atilano admitted having contracted two (2)

Nollora put up his Muslim religion as his sole

marriages. He, however, claimed that he was a Muslim

defense alleging that his religion allows him to marry

convert way back on January 10, 1992, even before he

more than once. Granting arguendo that Nollora is

contracted the first marriage with Jesusa. As a Muslim

indeed of Muslim faith at the time of celebration of

convert, he is allegedly entitled to marry four (4) wives

both

as allowed under the Muslim or Islam belief.

marriage

marriages,

Nollora

ceremonies

cannot

were

not

deny

that

both

conducted

in

accordance with the Code of Muslim Personal Laws (P.

The trial court convicted Nollora and acquitted

D. No. 1083).

Geraldino. CA affirmed RTCs decision.

Indeed, Article 13(2) of the Code of Muslim

Issue:

Personal Laws states that In case of a marriage

between a Muslim and a non-Muslim, solemnized not

Is Nollora guilty of the crime of bigamy despite

in accordance with Muslim law or this Code, the Family

the fact that he is a Muslim convert?

Code of the Philippines, or Executive Order No. 209, in

Ruling: YES

lieu of the Civil Code of the Philippines, shall apply.

The circumstances in the present case satisfy all

Thus,

the elements of bigamy. (1) Nollora is legally married

regardless

of

his

professed

religion,

Nollora cannot claim exemption from liability for the

to Pinat; (2) Nollora and Pinats marriage has not been

crime of bigamy.

legally dissolved prior to the date of the second

marriage; (3) Nollora admitted the existence of his
second marriage to Geraldino; and (4) Nollora and

Republic vs. Albios

Geraldinos marriage has all the essential requisites for

16

PERSONS 2nd Exam

Facts

Ruling: NO
On October 22, 2004, Fringer, an American

Under Article 2 FC, for consent to be valid, it

citizen, and Albios were married before Judge Ofelia I.

must be (1) freely given and (2) made in the presence

Calo.

of a solemnizing officer.
On December 6, 2006, Albios filed with the RTC

Consent was not lacking between Albios and

a petition for declaration of nullity of her marriage with

Fringer. In fact, there was real consent because it was

Fringer. She alleged that immediately after their

not vitiated nor rendered defective by any vice of

marriage, they separated and never lived as husband

consent.

and wife because they never really had any intention

intelligent as they understood the nature and the

of entering into a married state or complying with any

beneficial and inconvenient consequences of their

of their essential marital obligations. She described

marriage, as nothing impaired their ability to do so.

their marriage as one made in jest and, therefore, null

That their consent was freely given is best evidenced

and void ab initio .

by their conscious purpose of acquiring American

Their

citizenship

On April 25, 2008, the RTC declared the

consent

through

was

also

conscious

marriage.

Such

and

plainly

demonstrates that they willingly and deliberately

marriage void ab initio. The OSG filed an appeal before

contracted the marriage. There was a clear intention to

the CA. The CA affirmed the RTC ruling which found

enter into a real and valid marriage so as to fully

that the essential requisite of consent was lacking.

comply with the requirements of an application for

citizenship.

Issue:

There

was

full

and

complete

understanding of the legal tie that would be created

Is a marriage, contracted for the sole purpose of

between them, since it was that precise legal tie which

acquiring American citizenship in consideration of

was necessary to accomplish their goal.

$2,000.00, void ab initio on the ground of lack of

consent?
17

PERSONS 2nd Exam

Albios marriage is not at all analogous to a

The present case stems from a petition filed by

marriage in jest. Albios and Fringer had an undeniable

petitioner Syed Azhar Abbas (Syed) for the declaration

intention to be bound in order to create the very bond

of nullity of his marriage to Gloria Goo-Abbas (Gloria).

necessary to allow the respondent to acquire American

Syed, a Pakistani, testified that he met Gloria, a

citizenship. Only a genuine consent to be married

would

allow

them

to

further

their

Filipino, in Taiwan in 1991, and they were married on

objective,

August 9, 1992 at the Taipei Mosque in Taiwan. On

considering that only a valid marriage can properly

January 9, 1993, while he was in the Philippines, his

support an application for citizenship. There was, thus,

mother-in-law arrived with two men and told him that

an apparent intention to enter into the actual marriage

he was going to undergo some ceremony as one of the

status and to create a legal tie, albeit for a limited

requirements for his stay in the Philippines. During the

purpose. Genuine consent was, therefore, clearly

ceremony he and Gloria signed a document. He

present.

claimed that he did not know that the ceremony was a

Albios has indeed made a mockery of the sacred

marriage until Gloria told him later. He further testified

institution of marriage. Allowing her marriage with

that he did not go to Carmona, Cavite to apply for a

Fringer to be declared void would only further trivialize

marriage license, and that he had never resided in that

this inviolable institution.

area.
In July 2003, he went to the Office of the Civil
Registrar of Carmona, Cavite wherein the Municipal
Civil Registrar, Leodivinia C. Encarnacion, issued him a
certification on July 11, 2003 to the effect that the

Abbas vs. Abbas

marriage license number appearing in the marriage

Facts:

contract he submitted, Marriage License No. 9969967,

18

PERSONS 2nd Exam

was the number of another marriage license issued to

record of a marriage license was adequate to prove

a certain Arlindo Getalado and Myra Mabilangan.

the non-issuance of said license.

Gloria testified that she filed a bigamy case

The Municipal Civil Registrar of Carmona, Cavite,

against Syed, who had married a certain Maria

where the marriage license of Gloria and Syed was

Corazon Buenaventura during the existence of their

allegedly issued, issued a certification to the effect

marriage.

that no such marriage license for Gloria and Syed was

issued, and that the serial number of the marriage

RTC held that the marriage of Gloria and Syed

license pertained to another couple, Arlindo Getalado

was void ab initio. The CA reversed the RTCs decision.

and Myra Mabilangan.

Hence, this petition.

It is telling that Gloria failed to present their

marriage license or a copy thereof to the court. She

Issue:

failed to explain why the marriage license was secured

Is the marriage between Syed and Gloria null

in Carmona, Cavite, a location where, admittedly,

and void?

neither party resided. She took no pains to apply for

the license, so she is not the best witness to testify to

Ruling: YES

the validity and existence of said license. Neither could

In Republic vs. CA, The Court held that the

the other witnesses she presented prove the existence

certification issued by the civil registrar enjoyed

of the marriage license, as none of them applied for

probative value, as his duty was to maintain records of

the license in Carmona, Cavite.

data relative to the issuance of a marriage license.

Article 4 of the Family Code is clear when it

Also, in the case of Cario v. Cario, following

says, "The absence of any of the essential or formal

the case of Republic, it was held that the certification

requisites shall render the marriage void ab initio,

of the Local Civil Registrar that their office had no

except as stated in Article 35(2)."

19

PERSONS 2nd Exam

As to the motive of Syed in seeking to annul his

relationship. On 7 March 1982, in order to appease her

marriage to Gloria, it may well be that his motives are

father, Sally brought Benjamin to an office in Santolan,

less than pure, that he seeks to evade a bigamy suit.

Pasig City where they signed a purported marriage

Be that as it may, the same does not make up for the

contract. Sally, knowing Benjamins marital status,

failure of the Gloria to prove that they had a valid

assured him that the marriage contract would not be

marriage

registered.

license,

given

the

weight

of

evidence

presented by Syed.

The relationship of Benjamin and Sally ended in

1994 when Sally left for Canada. She then filed
criminal actions for bigamy and falsification of public
documents against Benjamin, using their simulated
marriage contract as evidence.

Go-Bangayan vs. Bangayan

Benjamin, in turn, filed a petition for declaration

Facts

of a non-existent marriage and/or declaration of nullity

Benjamin

married

of marriage before the trial court on the ground that

Azucena Alegre (Azucena) on 10 September 1973 in

his marriage to Sally was bigamous and that it lacked

Caloocan City.

the formal requisites to a valid marriage.

In

1979,

Bangayan,

Benjamin

Jr.

(Benjamin)

developed

romantic

The trial court ruled in favor of Benjamin. The

relationship with Sally GoBangayan (Sally) who was a

CA affirmed RTCs decision as to the nullity of their

customer in the auto parts and supplies business

marriage.

owned by Benjamins family. In December 1981,

Hence, this petition.

Azucena left for the United States of America. In

February 1982, Benjamin and Sally lived together as

Issue:

husband and wife. Sallys father was against the

20

PERSONS 2nd Exam

Is the marriage between Benjamin and Sally

society especially from her parents seen as Chinese

void ab initio?

conservatives." In short, it was a fictitious marriage.

Ruling: YES

Consequently, their marriage does not fall within

the ambit of a bigamous marriage. For bigamy to exist,

On the purported marriage of Benjamin and

the second or subsequent marriage must have all the

Sally, Teresita Oliveros (Oliveros), Registration Officer II

essential requisites for validity except for the existence

of the Local Civil Registrar of Pasig City, testified that

of a prior marriage. In this case, there was really no

there was no valid marriage license issued to Benjamin

subsequent marriage. Benjamin and Sally just signed a

and Sally. The certification from the local civil registrar

purported

is adequate to prove the non-issuance of a marriage

marriage

contract

without

marriage

license. The supposed marriage was not even recorded

license and absent any suspicious circumstance, the

with the local civil registrar and the National Statistics

certification enjoys probative value, being issued by

Office. Hence, no crime of bigamy was committed.

the officer charged under the law to keep a record of

all data relative to the issuance of a marriage license.
Clearly, if indeed Benjamin and Sally entered into a
marriage contract, the marriage was void from the
beginning for lack of a marriage license.
The

documentary

and

testimonial

*Article 22 FC: PROOF OF MARRIAGE

evidence

De la Rosa vs. Vda. De Damian

proved that there was no marriage between Benjamin

Facts:

and Sally. As pointed out by the trial court, the

marriage between Benjamin and Sally "was made only

This case

in jest" and "a simulated marriage, at the instance of

concerns the

settlement of

the

intestate estates of Guillermo Rustia and Josefa

Sally, intended to cover her up from expected social

Delgado.

humiliation coming from relatives, friends and the

21

PERSONS 2nd Exam

Sometime in 1917, Guillermo Rustia proposed

by Carlos P. Romulo, then Resident Commissioner to

marriage to Josefa Delgado but whether a marriage in

the United States of the Commonwealth of the

fact took place is disputed. According to petitioners,

Philippines;

the two eventually lived together as husband and wife

2. Philippine Passport No. 4767 issued to Josefa

but were never married. To prove their assertion,

D. Rustia on June 25, 1947;

petitioners pointed out that no record of the contested

marriage existed in the civil registry. Moreover, a

3.

Veterans

Application

for

Pension

or

baptismal certificate naming Josefa Delgado as one of

Compensation for Disability Resulting from Service in

the sponsors referred to her as "Seorita" or unmarried

the Active Military or Naval Forces of the United

woman.

States- Claim No. C-4, 004, 503 (VA Form 526) filed
with the Veterans Administration of the United States

The oppositors (respondents here), on the other

of America by Dr. Guillermo J. Rustia wherein Dr.

hand, insist that the absence of a marriage certificate

Guillermo J. Rustia himself [swore] to his marriage to

did not of necessity mean that no marriage transpired.

They

maintain

that

Guillermo

Rustia

and

Josefa Delgado in Manila on 3 June 1919; and

Josefa

Delgado were married on June 3, 1919 and from then

4. Titles to real properties in the name of

on lived together as husband and wife until the death

Guillermo Rustia indicated that he was married to

of Josefa on September 8, 1972. During this period

Josefa Delgado.

spanning more than half a century, they were known

Issue:

among their relatives and friends to have in fact been

married.

To

support

their

proposition,

oppositors

Was there a valid marriage between Guillermo

presented the following pieces of evidence:

1.

Certificate

of

Identity

No.

9592

Rustia and Josefa Delgado?

dated

Ruling: YES

[December 1, 1944] issued to Mrs. Guillermo J. Rustia

22

PERSONS 2nd Exam

First, although a marriage contract is considered

eventually, the two had "lived together as husband

a primary evidence of marriage, its absence is not

and wife." This again could not but strengthen the

always proof that no marriage in fact took place. Once

presumption of marriage.

the presumption of marriage arises, other evidence

Third, the baptismal certificate was conclusive

may be presented in support thereof. The evidence

proof only of the baptism administered by the priest

need not necessarily or directly establish the marriage

who baptized the child. It was no proof of the veracity

but must at least be enough to strengthen the

of the declarations and statements contained therein,

presumption of marriage. Here, the certificate of

such as the alleged single or unmarried ("Seorita")

identity issued to Josefa Delgado as Mrs. Guillermo

civil status of Josefa Delgado who had no hand in its

Rustia, the passport issued to her as Josefa D. Rustia,

preparation.

the declaration under oath of no less than Guillermo

Rustia that he was married to Josefa Delgado and the

In this jurisdiction, every intendment of the law

titles to the properties in the name of "Guillermo

leans toward legitimizing matrimony. Persons dwelling

Rustia

than

together apparently in marriage are presumed to be in

adequately support the presumption of marriage.

fact married. Semper praesumitur pro matrimonio.

These are public documents which are prima facie

Always presume marriage.

married

to

Josefa

Delgado,"

more

evidence of the facts stated therein. No clear and

convincing

evidence

sufficient

to

overcome

the

presumption of the truth of the recitals therein was

presented by petitioners.
*Article

Second, Elisa Vda. de Anson, petitioners own

26:

CELEBRATED

witness whose testimony they primarily relied upon to

VALIDITY
ABROAD,

EXCEPTIONS

support their position, confirmed that Guillermo Rustia

Republic vs. Iyoy

had proposed marriage to Josefa Delgado and that

23

OF

MARRIAGES

REQUISITES

AND

PERSONS 2nd Exam

Facts:

After securing a divorce from respondent Crasus, Fely

married her American husband and acquired American

Crasus married Fely on 16 December 1961 at

citizenship.

Bradford Memorial Church, Jones Avenue, Cebu City.

The recognition of the divorce decree obtained

Crasus alleged that after the celebration of their

by Fely is now sought for.

marriage, he discovered that Fely was hot-tempered,

a nagger and extravagant. In 1984, Fely left the

Issue:

Philippines for the United States of America (U.S.A.),

Is Article 26 of the FC applicable in the case at

leaving all of their five children, the youngest then

bar?

being only six years old, to the care of respondent

Crasus. Barely a year after Fely left for the U.S.A.,
respondent

Crasus

received

letter

from

Ruling: NO

her

As it is worded, Article 26 of the FC, paragraph

requesting that he sign the enclosed divorce papers.

Sometime

in

1985,

respondent

Crasus

2, refers to a special situation wherein one of the

learned,

couple getting married is a Filipino citizen and the

through the letters sent by Fely to their children, that

other a foreigner at the time the marriage was

Fely got married to an American, with whom she

celebrated. By its plain and literal interpretation, the

eventually had a child.

Fely,

on

the

said provision cannot be applied to the case of

other

hand,

refuted

Crasus

respondent Crasus and his wife Fely because at the

allegation and said that she may had been indignant

time Fely obtained her divorce, she was still a Filipino

at Crasus on certain occasions but it was because of

citizen. Although the exact date was not established,

the latters drunkenness, womanizing, and lack of

Fely herself admitted in her Answer filed before the

sincere effort to find employment and to contribute to

RTC that she obtained a divorce from respondent

the maintenance of their household. Indeed, she left

Crasus sometime after she left for the United States in

for abroad for financial reasons as Crasus had no job.

1984, after which she married her American husband

24

PERSONS 2nd Exam

in 1985. In the same Answer, she alleged that she had

On May 24, 1981, Cipriano Orbecido III married

been an American citizen since 1988. At the time she

Lady Myros M. Villanueva at the United Church of

filed for divorce, Fely was still a Filipino citizen, and

Christ in the Philippines in Lam-an, Ozamis City.

pursuant to the nationality principle embodied in

In 1986, Ciprianos wife left for the United States

Article 15 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, she was

bringing along their son Kristoffer. A few years later,

still bound by Philippine laws on family rights and

Cipriano discovered that his wife had been naturalized

duties, status, condition, and legal capacity, even

as an American citizen.

when she was already living abroad. Philippine laws,

then and even until now, do not allow and recognize

Sometime in 2000, Cipriano learned from his

divorce between Filipino spouses. Thus, Fely could not

son that his wife had obtained a divorce decree and

have validly obtained a divorce from respondent

then married a certain Innocent Stanley.

Crasus.

Cipriano thereafter filed with the trial court a

Hence, the marriage of respondent Crasus L.

petition for authority to remarry invoking Paragraph 2

Iyoy and Fely Ada Rosal-Iyoy remains valid and

of Article 26 of the Family Code.

subsisting.

Finding merit in the petition, the court granted

the same. Hence, the OSG raises this petition.
Issue:
Given a valid marriage between two Filipino

Republic vs. Orbecido III

citizens, where one party is later naturalized as a

Facts:

foreign citizen and obtains a valid divorce decree

capacitating him or her to remarry, can the Filipino
spouse likewise remarry under Philippine law?
25

PERSONS 2nd Exam

Ruling: YES

In

this

case,

when

Ciprianos

wife

was

naturalized as an American citizen, there was still a

If we are to give meaning to the legislative

valid marriage that has been celebrated between her

intent of Paragraph 2 of Article 26 which is to avoid

and Cipriano.

the absurd situation where the Filipino spouse remains

As fate would have it, the naturalized

alien wife subsequently obtained a valid divorce

married to the alien spouse who, after obtaining a

capacitating her to remarry. Clearly, the twin requisites

divorce is no longer married to the Filipino spouse,

for the application of Paragraph 2 of Article 26 are both

then the instant case must be deemed as coming

present in this case. Thus Cipriano, the divorced

within its contemplation.

Filipino spouse, should be allowed to remarry.

In view of the foregoing, we state the twin

However, we note that the records are bereft of

elements for the application of Paragraph 2 of Article

competent

26 as follows:

evidence

duly

submitted

by

Cipriano

concerning the divorce decree and the naturalization

been

of his wife. Accordingly, Cipriano must prove his

celebrated between a Filipino citizen and a

allegation that his wife was naturalized as an American

foreigner; and
2. 2. A valid divorce is obtained abroad by the

citizen. Likewise, the party pleading the recognition of

1. There

is a

valid

marriage

that

has

a divorce decree must prove the divorce as a fact and

alien spouse capacitating him or her to remarry.

demonstrate its conformity to the foreign law allowing

The reckoning point is not the citizenship of the

it. Furthermore, respondent must also show that the

parties at the time of the celebration of the marriage,

divorce decree allows his former wife to remarry as

but their citizenship at the time a valid divorce is

specifically required in Article 26. Otherwise, there

obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating the

would be no evidence sufficient to declare that he is

latter to remarry.

capacitated to enter into another marriage.

26

PERSONS 2nd Exam

registered the Canadian divorce decree on his and
Daisylyns

Corpuz vs. Sto. Tomas

certificate.

Despite

the

registration of the divorce decree, an official of the

National Statistics Office (NSO) informed Gerbert that

Facts:

the foreign divorce decree, to be enforceable, must

Gerbert R. Corpuz was a former Filipino citizen

who

marriage

acquired

Canadian

citizenship

first be judicially recognized by a competent Philippine

through

court.

naturalization on November 29, 2000.

Accordingly, Gerbert filed a petition for judicial

On January 18, 2005, Gerbert married Daisylyn

recognition of foreign divorce and/or declaration of

T. Sto. Tomas, a Filipina, in Pasig City. Due to work and

other professional

commitments,

marriage as dissolved with the RTC.

Gerbert left for

The RTC denied Gerberts petition saying that

Canada soon after the wedding. He returned to the

surprise

only the Filipino spouse can avail of the remedy under

Daisylyn, but was shocked to discover that his wife

the second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code.

was having an affair with another man. Hurt and

Hence, this petition.

Philippines

sometime

in

April

2005

to

disappointed, Gerbert returned to Canada and filed a

Issue:

petition for divorce. The Superior Court of Justice,

Windsor, Ontario, Canada granted Gerberts petition

Does the second paragraph of Article 26 of the

for divorce on December 8, 2005. The divorce decree

Family Code extend to aliens the right to petition a

took effect a month later, on January 8, 2006.

court of this jurisdiction for the recognition of a foreign

divorce decree?

Two years after the divorce, Gerbert has moved

on and has found another Filipina to love. Desirous of

Ruling: NO (Gerbert, however, is not left without

marrying his new Filipina fiance in the Philippines,

any recourse)

Gerbert went to the Pasig City Civil Registry Office and

27

PERSONS 2nd Exam

The alien spouse can claim no right under the

Rules of Court which provides for the effect of foreign

second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code as

judgments.

the substantive right it establishes is in favor of the

The records show that Gerbert attached to his

Filipino spouse. In other words, only the Filipino spouse

petition a copy of the divorce decree, as well as the

can invoke the second paragraph of Article 26 of the

required certificates proving its authenticity, but failed

Family Code. No court in this jurisdiction can make a

to include a copy of the Canadian law on divorce.

similar declaration for the alien spouse, whose status

Hence, the case is remanded to the RTC.

and legal capacity are generally governed by his

national law.
However, we qualify our above conclusion i.e.,

Fujiki vs. Marinay

that the second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family

Facts:

Code bestows no rights in favor of aliens with the

complementary statement that this conclusion is not

Minoru Fujiki (Fujiki) is a Japanese national who

sufficient basis to dismiss Gerberts petition before the

married Maria Paz Galela Marinay (Marinay) in the

RTC. In other words, the unavailability of the second

Philippines on 23 January 2004. The marriage did not

paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code to aliens

sit well with petitioners parents. Thus, Fujiki could not

does not necessarily strip Gerbert of legal interest to

bring his wife to Japan where he resides. Eventually,

petition the RTC for the recognition of his foreign

they lost contact with each other.

divorce decree. The foreign divorce decree itself, after

its authenticity and conformity with the aliens national

In 2008, Marinay met another Japanese, Shinichi

law have been duly proven according to our rules of

Maekara (Maekara). Without the first marriage being

evidence, serves as a presumptive evidence of right in

dissolved, Marinay and Maekara were married on 15

favor of Gerbert, pursuant to Section 48, Rule 39 of the

May 2008 in Quezon City, Philippines. Maekara brought

Marinay to Japan. However, Marinay allegedly suffered
28

PERSONS 2nd Exam

physical abuse from Maekara. She left Maekara and

subsequent marriage between his or her spouse and a

started to contact Fujiki.

foreign citizen on the ground of bigamy?

Fujiki and Marinay met in Japan and they were

Ruling: YES

able to reestablish their relationship. In 2010, Fujiki

For Philippine courts to recognize a foreign

helped Marinay obtain a judgment from a family court

judgment relating to the status of a marriage where

in Japan which declared the marriage between Marinay

one of the parties is a citizen of a foreign country, the

and Maekara void on the ground of bigamy. After, Fujiki

petitioner only needs to prove the foreign judgment as

filed a petition in the RTC entitled: "Judicial Recognition

a fact under the Rules of Court. To be more specific, a

of Foreign Judgment" praying that (1) the Japanese

copy of the foreign judgment may be admitted in

Family Court judgment be recognized; (2) that the

evidence and proven as a fact under Rule 132,

bigamous marriage between Marinay and Maekara be

Sections 24 and 25, in relation to Rule 39, Section

declared void ab initio; and (3) for the RTC to direct the

48(b) of the Rules of Court. Fujiki may prove the

Local Civil Registrar to annotate the judgment on the

Japanese Family Court judgment through:

Certificate of Marriage between Marinay and Maekara.

(1) an official publication; or

The RTC dismissed the petition saying that only

"the husband or the wife," in this case either Maekara

(2) a certification or copy attested by the officer

or Marinay, can file the petition to declare their

who has custody of the judgment. If the office which

marriage void, and not Fujiki.

has custody is in a foreign country such as Japan, the

certification may be made by the proper diplomatic or

Issue:

consular officer of the Philippine Foreign Service in

Can a husband or wife of a prior marriage file a

Japan and authenticated by the seal of office.

petition to recognize a foreign judgment nullifying the

There is no doubt that the prior spouse has a

personal and material interest in maintaining the
29

PERSONS 2nd Exam

integrity of the marriage he contracted and the

Nial vs. Bayadog

property relations arising from it. There is also no

Facts:

doubt that he is interested in the cancellation of an

entry of a bigamous marriage in the civil registry,

Pepito Nial was married to Teodulfa Bellones on

which compromises the public record of his marriage.

September 26, 1974. Out of their marriage were born

The interest derives from the substantive right of the

herein petitioners.

spouse not only to preserve his most intimate human

Teodulfa was shot by Pepito resulting in her

relation, but also to protect his property interests that

death on April 24, 1985.

arise by operation of law the moment he contracts

marriage.

One year and 8 months thereafter or on

December 11, 1986, Pepito and Norma Bayadog got

Article 26 of the Family Code confers jurisdiction

married without any marriage license. In lieu thereof,

on Philippine courts to extend the effect of a foreign

Pepito

divorce decree to a Filipino spouse without undergoing

and

Norma

executed

an

affidavit

dated

December 11, 1986 stating that they had lived

trial to determine the validity of the dissolution of the

together as husband and wife for at least five years

marriage. Under the second paragraph of such article,

and were thus exempt from securing a marriage

Philippine courts are empowered to correct a situation

license.

where the Filipino spouse is still tied to the marriage

while the foreign spouse is free to marry. Hence,

On February 19, 1997, Pepito died in a car

Philippine courts have jurisdiction to recognize a

accident.

foreign judgment nullifying a bigamous marriage,

After their fathers death, petitioners filed a

without prejudice to a criminal prosecution for bigamy.

petition for declaration of nullity of the marriage of

*Articles 27 to 34: MARRIAGES EXEMPT FROM

Pepito to Norma alleging that the said marriage was

THE MARRIAGE LICENSE REQUIREMENT

void for lack of a marriage license.

30

PERSONS 2nd Exam

Norma filed a motion to dismiss on the ground

husband and wife for a continuous and unbroken

that petitioners have no cause of action since they are

period of at least five years before the marriage.

not among the persons who could file an action for

That five-year period should be a period of legal

"annulment of marriage" under Article 47 of the Family

union had it not been for the absence of the marriage.

Code.

This 5-year period should be the years immediately

The RTC dismissed the petition.

before the day of the marriage and it should be a

period of cohabitation characterized by exclusivity

Issues:

(meaning no third party was involved at any time

1. Does the marriage between Pepito and

within the 5 years) and continuity (that is, unbroken).

Norma fall within the exception to the

Otherwise, if that continuous 5-year cohabitation is

marriage license requirement?

2. May the heirs of a deceased person file a

computed without any distinction as to whether the

parties were capacitated to marry each other during

petition for the declaration of nullity of his

the

marriage after his death?

entire

five

years,

then

the

law

would

be

sanctioning immorality.

Rulings:

In

this

case,

from

the

time

Pepitos

first

marriage was dissolved to the time of his marriage

1. NO

with Norma, only about twenty months had elapsed.

There are several instances recognized by the

Their

five-year

period

cohabitation

was

not

the

Civil Code wherein a marriage license is dispensed

cohabitation contemplated by law since Pepito had a

with, one of which is that provided in Article 76,

subsisting marriage at the time when he started

referring to the marriage of a man and a woman who

cohabiting with respondent.

have lived together and exclusively with each other as

Having determined that the second marriage
involved in this case is not covered by the exception to
31

PERSONS 2nd Exam

the requirement of a marriage license, it is void ab

in a suit not directly instituted to question the same so

initio because of the absence of such element.

long as it is essential to the determination of the case.

2. YES
Article 40 of the Family Code expressly provides
that there must be a judicial declaration of the nullity
De Castro vs. De Castro

of a previous marriage, though void, before a party can

enter into a second marriage and such absolute nullity

Facts:

can be based only on a final judgment to that effect.

Reinel

For the same reason, the law makes either the action

Anthony

De

Castro

and

Annabelle

or defense for the declaration of absolute nullity of

Assidao-De Castro met and became sweethearts in

marriage imprescriptible. Corollarily, if the death of

1991. They planned to get married, thus they applied

either party would extinguish the cause of action or

for a marriage license with the Office of the Civil

the ground for defense, then the same cannot be

Registrar of Pasig City in September 1994.

considered imprescriptible.

When the couple went back to the Office of the

However, other than for purposes of remarriage,

Civil Registrar, the marriage license had already

no judicial action is necessary to declare a marriage an

expired. Thus, in order to push through with the plan,

absolute nullity. For other purposes, such as but not

in lieu of a marriage license, they executed an affidavit

limited to determination of heirship, legitimacy or

dated 13 March 1995 stating that they had been living

illegitimacy of a child, settlement of estate, dissolution

together as husband and wife for at least five years.

of property regime, or a criminal case for that matter,

The couple got married on the same date, with Judge

the court may pass upon the validity of marriage even

Jose C. Bernabe. Nevertheless, after the ceremony,

Reinel and Annabelle went back to their respective
homes and did not live together as husband and wife.
32

PERSONS 2nd Exam

On 13 November 1995, respondent gave birth to

Did the trial court have the jurisdiction to

a child named Reinna Tricia A. De Castro.

determine the validity of the marriage between Reinel

and Annabelle in an action for support?

On 4 June 1998, Annabelle filed a complaint for

support against petitioner before the Regional Trial

Ruling: YES

Court of Pasig City. In her complaint, respondent

The

alleged that she is married to Reinel.

Court

holds

that

the

trial

court

had

jurisdiction to determine the validity of the marriage

Reinel denied that he is married to respondent,

between Reinel and Annabelle.

claiming that their marriage is void ab initio since the

The

marriage was facilitated by a fake affidavit; and that

validity

of

void

marriage

may

be

collaterally attacked. Thus, in Nial v. Bayadog, we

he was merely prevailed upon by Annabelle to sign the

held:

marriage contract to save her from embarrassment

due to her pregnant state. He also averred that they

However, other than for purposes of

never lived together as husband and wife and that he

remarriage, no judicial action is necessary to

has never seen nor acknowledged the child.

declare a marriage an absolute nullity. For other

purposes,

The trial court ruled that the marriage between

such

determination

Reinel and Annabelle is not valid. However, it declared

of

as

but

heirship,

not

limited

to

legitimacy

or

illegitimacy of a child, settlement of estate,

petitioner as the natural father of the child, and thus

dissolution of property regime, or a criminal

obliged to give her support.

case for that matter, the court may pass upon

The CA denied the appeal made by Reinel.

the validity of marriage even in a suit not

directly instituted to question the same so long

Issue:

as it is essential to the determination of the

case.
33

PERSONS 2nd Exam

Under the Family Code, the absence of any of

On 24 November 1986, Jose and Felisa were

the essential or formal requisites shall render the

married. In lieu of a marriage license, Jose and Felisa

marriage void ab initio, whereas a defect in any of the

executed a sworn affidavit attesting that both of them

essential requisites shall render the marriage voidable.

had attained the age of maturity, and that being

unmarried, they had lived together as husband and

In the instant case, it is clear from the evidence

wife for at least five years.

presented that Reinel and Annabelle did not have a

marriage license when they contracted their marriage.

On 7 July 1993, Jose filed a Complaint for

Instead, they presented an affidavit stating that they

Annulment and/or Declaration of Nullity of Marriage

had been living together for more than five years.

with the RTC. According to Jose, sometime in 1986,

However, Annabelle herself in effect admitted the

Felisa requested him to accompany her to the Pasay

falsity of the affidavit. The falsity of the affidavit

City Hall so she could claim a package sent to her by

cannot be considered as a mere irregularity in the

her brother from Saudi Arabia. There, a man bearing

formal requisites of marriage.

three folded pieces of paper approached them. They

Hence,

the

marriage

between

Reinel

were told that Jose needed to sign the papers so that

and

the package could be released to Felisa. He initially

Annabelle is void ab initio.

refused but Felisa cajoled him, and told him that his
refusal could get both of them killed by her brother
who had learned about their relationship. Reluctantly,
he signed.

It was in February 1987 when he

discovered that he had contracted marriage with

Dayot vs. Dayot

Felisa.

Facts:

Felisa denied Joses allegations.

She declared

that they had maintained their relationship as man and

34

PERSONS 2nd Exam

wife absent the legality of marriage in the early part of

For the exception to apply, it is a sine qua non

1980. She had deferred contracting marriage with him

thereto that the man and the woman must have

on account of their age difference.

attained

that,

being

not as a directory requirement, but as one that

partakes of a mandatory character.

against Jose. Subsequently, she filed an administrative

the

and

in the language of the law. It is embodied in the law

On 3 June 1993, Felisa filed an action for bigamy

with

majority,

five years of cohabitation is an indispensability carved

certain Rufina Pascual on 31 August 1990.

Jose

of

wife for at least five years. The minimum requisite of

was subsisting, the latter contracted marriage with a

against

age

unmarried, they have lived together as husband and

Felisa expounded that while her marriage to Jose

complaint

the

Office

of

the

It is indubitably established that Jose and Felisa

Ombudsman which found him administratively liable

have not lived together for five years at the time they

for disgraceful and immoral conduct.

executed

their

sworn

affidavit

and

contracted

marriage. The Republic admitted that Jose and Felisa

On 26 July 2000, the RTC dismissed the. The CA

started living together only in June 1986, or barely five

affirmed the RTCs ruling.

months before the celebration of their marriage. The

Issue:

Court of Appeals also noted Felisas testimony that

Would the falsity of an affidavit of marital

Jose was introduced to her by her neighbor, Teresita

cohabitation, where the parties have in truth fallen

Perwel, sometime in February or March 1986. The

short

requirement,

appellate court also cited Felisas own testimony that it

effectively render the marriage void ab initio for lack of

was only in June 1986 when Jose commenced to live in

a marriage license?

her house. Therefore, the falsity of the affidavit dated

of

the

minimum

five-year

24 November 1986, executed by Jose and Felisa, is

Ruling: YES

beyond question.

35

PERSONS 2nd Exam

If the essential matter in the sworn affidavit is a

over the share of the other legal heir, petitioner Juan

lie, then it is but a mere scrap of paper, without force

De Dios Carlos.

and effect. Hence, it is as if there was no affidavit at

In August 1995, Juan de Dios Carlos commenced

all.

an action, docketed as Civil Case No. 95-135, against

Patently, it cannot be denied that the marriage

Felicidad Sandoval before the court a quo with the

between Jose and Felisa was celebrated without the

following causes of action: (a) declaration of nullity of

formal requisite of a marriage license.

marriage; (b) status of a child; (c) recovery of property;

(d)

reconveyance;

and

(e)

sum

of

money

and

damages.
In

his

complaint,

Juan

asserted

that

the

marriage between his late brother Teofilo and Felicidad

was a nullity in view of the absence of the required
Carlos vs. Sandoval

marriage license.

Facts:

deceased brother was neither the natural nor the

He likewise maintained that his

adoptive father of respondent Teofilo Carlos II.

Spouses Felix B. Carlos and Felipa Elemia died
their

Felicidad and Teofilo II denied the material

compulsory heirs, Teofilo Carlos and petitioner Juan De

averments of Juans complaint. They contended that

Dios Carlos.

the dearth of details regarding the requisite marriage

intestate.

They left six parcels of land

to

license did not invalidate Felicidads marriage to

During the lifetime of Felix Carlos, he agreed to
transfer his estate to Teofilo.

Teofilo.

The agreement was

illegitimate child of the deceased Teofilo Carlos with

made in order to avoid the payment of inheritance

taxes.

They also declared that Teofilo II was the

another woman.

Teofilo, in turn, undertook to deliver and turn

36

PERSONS 2nd Exam

RTC rendered judgment in favor of petitioner

(2)

The grounds for declaration of absolute

declaring the marriage between defendant Felicidad

nullity or annulment of marriage must be

Sandoval and Teofilo Carlos null and void ab initio for

proved.

lack of the requisite marriage license. The CA reversed

summary judgment, or confession of judgment

and set aside the RTC ruling.

shall be allowed.

Issue:

No

judgment

on

the

pleadings,

2. Only the spouse

1. Can a marriage be declared void ab initio

Under the Rule on Declaration of Absolute

through a judgment on the pleadings or a

Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable

summary judgment and without the benefit

Marriages, the petition for declaration of absolute

of a trial?
2. Who can file the same?

nullity of marriage may not be filed by any party

outside of the marriage. The Rule made it exclusively
a right of the spouses by stating:

Ruling:

SEC. 2. Petition for declaration of absolute

1. NO

nullity of void marriages.

The grounds for declaration of absolute nullity of
marriage must be proved. A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC,

(a) Who may file. A petition for declaration of

known as Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of

absolute nullity of void marriage may be filed

Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages,

solely by the husband or the wife.

provides:

The innovation incorporated in A.M. No. 02-1110-SC sets forth a demarcation line between marriages

SEC. 17. Trial.

covered by the Family Code and those solemnized

xxx

under the Civil Code. The Rule extends only to

37

PERSONS 2nd Exam

marriages entered into during the effectivity of the

15, 2003 although the marriage involved is within the

Family Code which took effect on August 3, 1988.

coverage of the Family Code. This is so, as the new

Rule which became effective on March 15, 2003 is

The advent of the Rule on Declaration of

prospective in its application.

Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages marks the beginning

of the end of the right of the heirs of the deceased

As for marriages celebrated under the Civil

spouse to bring a nullity of marriage case against the

Code, the absence of a provision in such Code cannot

surviving spouse.

be construed as a license for any person to institute a

nullity of marriage case. Such person must appear to

While A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC declares that a

be the party who stands to be benefited or injured by

petition for declaration of absolute nullity of marriage

the judgment in the suit, or the party entitled to the

may be filed solely by the husband or the wife, it does

avails of the suit.

not mean that the compulsory or intestate heirs are

without any recourse under the law.

party-in-interest.

They can still

protect their successional right, for, as stated in the

Rationale

of

the

Hence, plaintiff must be the real

Hence,

the

case

must

be

remanded

to

Rules on Annulment of Voidable

determine whether or not Juan de Dios Carlos is a real-

Marriages and Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void

party-in-interest to seek the declaration of nullity of

Marriages, compulsory or intestate heirs can still

the marriage in controversy.

question the validity of the marriage of the spouses,

*Articles 35-38: VOID MARRIAGES

not in a proceeding for declaration of nullity but upon

the death of a spouse in a proceeding for the

Santos vs. CA

settlement of the estate of the deceased spouse filed

Facts:

in the regular courts.

It is emphasized, however, that the Rule does

It was in Iloilo City where Leouel, who then held

not apply to cases already commenced before March

the rank of First Lieutenant in the Philippine Army, first

38

PERSONS 2nd Exam

met Julia. On 20 September 1986, the two exchanged

On 06 November 1991, the court a quo finally

vows before MTC Judge Cornelio G. Lazaro of Iloilo City,

dismissed the complaint for lack of merit. The CA

followed, shortly thereafter, by a church wedding.

affirmed the decision of the trial court.

The ecstasy, however, did not last long. It was

Leouel argues that the failure of Julia to return

bound to happen, Leouel averred, because of the

home, or at the very least to communicate with him,

frequent interference by Julia's parents into the young

for more than five years are circumstances that clearly

spouses family affairs.

show her being psychologically incapacitated to enter

into married life.

On 18 May 1988, Julia finally left for the United

States of America to work as a nurse despite Leouel's

Issue:

pleas to so dissuade her.

Is Leouel and Julias marriage void ab initio on

Seven months after her departure, or on 01

the ground of Julias psychological incapacity?

January 1989, Julia called up Leouel for the first time

Ruling:

by long distance telephone. She promised to return

home upon the expiration of her contract in July 1989.

"Psychological incapacity" should refer to no

She never did. When Leouel got a chance to visit the

less than a mental (not physical) incapacity that

United States where he underwent a training program,

causes a party to be truly incognitive of the basic

he desperately tried to locate Julia but all his efforts

marital

were of no avail.

assumed and discharged by the parties to the

covenants

that

concomitantly

must

be

marriage as so expressed by Article 68 of the Family

Thus, Leouel filed with the RTC a complaint for

Code. There is hardly any doubt that the intendment of

"Voiding of marriage Under Article 36 of the Family

the

Code".

law

has

been

to

confine

the

meaning

of

"psychological incapacity" to the most serious cases of

personality disorders clearly demonstrative of an utter
39

PERSONS 2nd Exam

intensitivity

or

inability

significance

to

the

to

marriage.

give
This

meaning

and

was no sexual intercourse between them during the

psychological

first night. The same thing happened on the second,

condition must exist at the time the marriage is

third and fourth nights.

celebrated.

In an effort to have their honeymoon in a private

The factual settings in the case at bench, in no

place where they can enjoy together during their first

measure at all, can come close to the standards

week as husband and wife, they went to Baguio City.

required to decree a nullity of marriage. Undeniably

But, they did so together with her mother, an uncle,

and understandably, Leouel stands aggrieved, even

his mother and his nephew who were all invited by the

desperate, in his present situation. Regrettably, neither

Chi Ming Tsoi. But still, during this period, there was no

law nor society itself can always provide all the specific

sexual intercourse between them, since Chi Ming Tsoi

answers to every individual problem.

avoided her by taking a long walk during siesta time or

by just sleeping on a rocking chair located at the living

Chi Ming Tsoi vs. CA

room.

Facts:

Ching Ming Tsoi even admitted that since their

marriage on May 22, 1988, until their separation on

On May 22, 1988, Chi Ming Tsoi married the Gina

March 15, 1989, there was no sexual contact between

Lao-Tsoi.

them.
After the celebration of their marriage and
wedding reception, they slept together on the same

The RTC rendered the marriage between Chi

bed in the same room for the first night of their

Ming Tsoi and Gina void ab initio. The Court of Appeals

married life. It is the version of the Gina, that contrary

affirmed the trial court's decision.

to her expectations, that as newlyweds they were

Hence, the instant petition.

supposed to enjoy making love with each other, there

Issue:
40

PERSONS 2nd Exam

Is Chi Ming Tsoi and Ginas marriage void ab

which enlivens the hope of procreation and ensures

initio on the ground of Chi Ming Tsois psychological

the continuation of family relations.

incapacity?

This Court, finding the gravity of the failed

Ruling: YES

relationship in which the parties found themselves

trapped

Prolonged refusal of a spouse to have sexual

of

the

essential

mire

of

unfulfilled

vows

and

for declaration of nullity of marriage.

of psychological incapacity.
one

its

unconsummated marital obligations grants the petition

intercourse with his or her spouse is considered a sign

Evidently,

in

marital

obligations under the Family Code is "To procreate

children

based

on

the

universal

principle

that
Republic vs. CA and Molina

procreation of children through sexual cooperation is

the basic end of marriage." Constant non-fulfillment of

Facts:

this obligation will finally destroy the integrity or

Roridel and Reynaldo were married on April 14,

wholeness of the marriage.

1985.

In the case at bar, the senseless and protracted

After a year of marriage, Reynaldo showed signs

refusal of one of the parties to fulfill the above marital

of "immaturity and irresponsibility" as a husband and a

obligation is equivalent to psychological incapacity.

father since he preferred to spend more time with his

Love is useless unless it is shared with another.

peers and friends on whom he squandered his money;

An ungiven self is an unfulfilled self. In the natural

that

order, it is sexual intimacy which brings spouses

he

depended

on

his

parents

for

aid

and

assistance, and was never honest with his wife in

wholeness and oneness. Sexual intimacy is a gift and a

participation in the mystery of creation. It is a function
41

PERSONS 2nd Exam

regard to their finances, resulting in frequent quarrels

(1) The burden of proof to show the nullity of the

between them.

marriage belongs to the plaintiff. xxx;

In 1987, Reynaldo left Roridel and their child,

(2)

and had since then abandoned them.

cause

of

the

psychological

(b) alleged in the complaint, (c) sufficiently proven by

experts and (d) clearly explained in the decision. xxx;

nullity of their marriage. The RTC declared the

marriage void. The CA affirmed in toto the RTC's

(3) The incapacity must be proven to be existing

decision.

at "the time of the celebration" of the marriage. xxx;

Hence, the present recourse.

(4) Such incapacity must also be shown to be

medically or clinically permanent or incurable. xxx;

Issue:

(5) Such illness must be grave enough to bring

Is Roridel and Reynaldos marriage void ab initio

about the disability of the party to assume the

on the ground of Reynaldos psychological incapacity?

essential obligations of marriage.xxx ;

Ruling: NO

(6) The essential marital obligations must be

those embraced by Articles 68-71 of the Family Code

Mere showing of "irreconciliable differences" and

personalities"

in

no

wise

as regards the husband and wife as well as Articles

constitutes

220, 221 and 225 of the same Code in regard to

psychological incapacity.
The

root

incapacity must be (a) medically or clinically identified,

Roridel filed a petition for declaration of the

"conflicting

The

following

are

the

guidelines

in

parents and their children.xxx ;

the

(7)

interpretation and application of Art. 36 of the Family

Interpretations

given

by

the

National

Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal of the Catholic Church

Code for the guidance of the bench and the bar:

42

PERSONS 2nd Exam

in the Philippines, while not controlling or decisive,

Rev. Eduardo L. Eleazar, Command Chaplain, at the

should be given great respect by our courts. xxx;

Presidential Security Command Chapel in Malacaang.

(8) The trial court must order the prosecuting

After the downfall of President Marcos, Wilson

attorney or fiscal and the Solicitor General to appear

left the military service and engaged in different

as counsel for the state. xxx;

business ventures that did not however prosper. As a

wife, Brenda always urged him to look for work so that

Hence, the marriage of Roridel Olaviano to

their children would see him as a good provider. Due to

Reynaldo Molina subsists and remains valid.

his failure to engage in any gainful employment, they

would often quarrel and as a consequence, he would
hit and beat her. He would also inflict physical harm on
their children and was so severe in the way he
chastised them. In 1992, they were already living

Marcos vs. Marcos

separately.

Facts:

On October 16, 1994, when Brenda saw Wilson

Brenda and Wilson first met sometime in 1980

in their house, she was so angry that she lambasted

when both of them were assigned at the Malacaang

him. He then turned violent, inflicting physical harm on

Palace, she as an escort of Imee Marcos and he as a

her and even on her mother who came to her aid.

Presidential Guard of President Ferdinand Marcos.

Through

telephone

conversations,

they

RTC

became

found

incapacitated

acquainted and eventually became sweethearts.

and

Wilson
declared

to

be

Brenda

psychologically
and

Wilsons

marriage void ab initio. CA reversed RTCs decision.

Thereafter, Wilson and Brenda were married

Issues:

twice on September 6, 1982, solemnized by Judge

Eriberto H. Espiritu and on May 8, 1983, solemnized by
43

PERSONS 2nd Exam

1. Is Wilson required to submit himself to

examination of the person concerned need not be

psychological examination?
2. Is Wilson and Brendas marriage void ab

resorted to.
2. NO

initio on the ground of Wilsons psychological

incapacity?

The totality of the evidence presented in the

present case was not enough to sustain a finding that

Ruling:

Wilson was psychologically incapacitated. Although

1. NO

this Court is sufficiently convinced that Wilson failed to

for

provide material support to the family and may have

declaring the nullity of a marriage, may be established

resorted to physical abuse and abandonment, the

by the totality of evidence presented. There is no

totality of his acts does not lead to a conclusion of

requirement that Wilson should be examined by a

psychological

physician or a psychologist as a conditio sine qua non

absolutely no showing that his "defects" were already

for such declaration.

present at the inception of the marriage or that they

Psychological

incapacity,

as

ground

incapacity

on

his

part.

There

is

are incurable.
The guidelines laid down in Republic vs CA and
Molina do not require that a physician examine the

Verily, the behavior of respondent can be

person to be declared psychologically incapacitated. In

attributed to the fact that he had lost his job and was

fact, the root cause may be "medically or clinically

not gainfully employed for a period of more than six

identified." What is important is the presence of

years. It was during this period that he became

evidence that can adequately establish the party's

intermittently drunk, failed to give material and moral

psychological condition. For indeed, if the totality of

support, and even left the family home.

evidence presented is enough to sustain a finding of

psychological

incapacity,

then

actual

medical

44

PERSONS 2nd Exam

Equally important, there is no evidence showing

psychiatrist. David alleged that despite the treatment,

that his condition is incurable, especially now that he

Sharon did not stop her illicit relationship with the

is gainfully employed as a taxi driver.

Jordanian national named Mustafa Ibrahim, whom she

married

and

with

whom

she

had

two

children.

However, when Mustafa Ibrahim left the country,

Sharon returned to Davud bringing along her two
children by Ibrahim. David accepted her back and even
considered the two illegitimate children as his own.
However, on December 9, 1995, Sharon abandoned

Dedel vs. CA

David to join Ibrahim in Jordan with their two children.

Facts:

David filed on April 1, 1997 a petition seeking

David B. Dedel met respondent Sharon L.

the declaration of nullity of his marriage on the ground

Corpuz Dedel while he was working in the advertising

of psychological incapacity.

business of his father. The acquaintance led to

Issue:

courtship and romantic relations, culminating in a civil

wedding on September 28, 1966. This was followed by

Is Sharon and Davids marriage void ab initio on

a church wedding on May 20, 1967.

the ground of Sharons psychological incapacity?

David avers that during the marriage, Sharon

Ruling: NO

turned out to be an irresponsible and immature wife

Sharons sexual infidelity or perversion and

and mother. She had extra-marital affairs with several

abandonment

men.

do

not

by

themselves

constitute

psychological incapacity within the contemplation of

Sharon was even confined in the Manila Medical

the

City for treatment by Dr. Lourdes Lapuz, a clinical

Family

immaturity
45

Code.
and

Neither

could

irresponsibility

be

her

emotional

equated

with

PERSONS 2nd Exam

psychological incapacity. It must be shown that these

previous marriage, he left the conjugal dwelling which

acts are manifestations of a disordered personality

he shared with Ancajas, stating that he was going to

which

cohabit with Villareyes.

make

respondent

completely

unable

to

discharge the essential obligations of the marital state,

On January 25, 1993, Tenebro contracted yet

not merely due to her youth, immaturity or sexual

another marriage, this one with a certain Nilda

promiscuity.

Villegas. When Ancajas learned of this third marriage,

At best, the circumstances relied upon by

she verified from Villareyes whether the latter was

petitioner are grounds for legal separation under

indeed married to Tenebro. In a handwritten letter,

Article 55 of the Family Code.

Villareyes confirmed that Tenebro was indeed her

husband.
Ancajas thereafter filed a complaint for bigamy
against petitioner.

Tenebro vs. CA

Tenebro, however, opposed saying that (a) his

marriage with Villareyes was void on the ground of the

Facts:

lack of a marriage ceremony while (2) that with

Veronico Tenebro, contracted marriage with

Ancajas

Leticia Ancajas on April 10, 1990. Tenebro and Ancajas

on

November

10,

on

the

ground

of

doubt of the crime of bigamy. The Court of Appeals

Ancajas that he had been previously married to a

Villareyes

void

The RTC found Tenebro guilty beyond reasonable

until the latter part of 1991, when Tenebro informed

Hilda

declared

psychological incapacity.

lived together continuously and without interruption

certain

was

affirmed RTCs decision.

1986.

Tenebro showed Ancajas a photocopy of a marriage

Issue:

contract between him and Villareyes. Invoking this

46

PERSONS 2nd Exam

Can Tenebro invoke the nullity of his previous

concerned, it is significant to note that said marriage is

marriages as a defense for the crime of bigamy?

not without legal effects.

Ruling: NO

Among these effects is that children conceived

or born before the judgment of absolute nullity of the

As to his marriage with Villareyes, sufficient

marriage shall be considered legitimate. There is

evidence was presented to show its validity and

therefore a recognition written into the law itself that

existence.

such a marriage, although void ab initio, may still

produce

As to his marriage with Ancajas, the subsequent

legal

consequences.

Among

these

legal

consequences is incurring criminal liability for bigamy.

judicial declaration of nullity of marriage on the ground

of psychological incapacity does not retroact to the

Jarillo vs. People

date of the celebration of the marriage insofar as the

Philippines penal laws are concerned.

Facts:

As such, an individual who contracts a second or

On May 24, 1974, Victoria Jarillo and Rafael

subsequent marriage during the subsistence of a valid

Alocillo were civilly married. On May 4, 1975, they

marriage

again celebrated marriage in a church wedding.

is

criminally

liable

for

bigamy,

notwithstanding the subsequent declaration that the

Victoria thereafter contracted a subsequent

second marriage is void ab initio on the ground of

marriage with Emmanuel Ebora Santos Uy. On April 16,

psychological incapacity.

1995, they again celebrated a church wedding.

Although the judicial declaration of the nullity of
In 1999, Emmanuel Uy filed against Victoria for

a marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity

annulment of marriage before RTC.

retroacts to the date of the celebration of the marriage

insofar as the vinculum between the spouses is

Thereafter, Victoria was charged with bigamy.

47

PERSONS 2nd Exam

RTC found Victoria guilty of the crime of bigamy.

the declaration of nullity, the crime of bigamy had

already been consummated.

For her defense, Victoria insisted that her 1974

and 1975 marriages to Rafael were null and void

All that is required for the charge of bigamy to

because Rafael was allegedly still married to a certain

prosper is that the first marriage be subsisting at the

Loretta Tillman at the time of the celebration of their

time the second marriage is contracted.

marriage and that her marriages to both Rafael and

Thus, under the law, a marriage, even one

Emmanuel were null and void for lack of a valid

which is void or voidable, shall be deemed valid until

marriage license.
However,

declared otherwise in a judicial proceeding.

on

appeal

to

the

CA,

Victorias

case,

conviction was affirmed in toto.

even

if

petitioner

eventually

In this

obtained

declaration that his first marriage was void ab initio,

the point is, both the first and the second marriage

In the meantime, the RTC of Makati rendered a

were subsisting before the first marriage was annulled.

decision declaring Victorias 1974 and 1975 marriages

to Rafael null and void ab initio. However, the ground

In

was Rafaels psychological incapacity.

the

case

at

bar,

the

moment Victoria

contracted a second marriage without the previous

one having been judicially declared null and void, the

Issue:

crime of bigamy was already consummated. This is

Is the declaration of nullity of Victorias marriage

because at the time of the celebration of the second

with Rafael on the ground of the latters psychological

marriage, Victorias marriage to Rafael, which had not

incapacity a valid defense to the crime of bigamy?

yet been declared null and void by a court of

competent

Ruling: NO

jurisdiction,

was

deemed

valid

and

subsisting. Neither would a judicial declaration of the

The subsequent judicial declaration of the nullity

of the first marriage was immaterial because prior to
48

PERSONS 2nd Exam

nullity of petitioners marriage to Emmanuel make any

On June 17, 1996, Lolita Quintero-Hamano filed

difference.

a complaint for declaration of nullity of her marriage to

her husband Toshio Hamano, a Japanese national, on
the ground of psychological incapacity.
RTC rendered the marriage between Toshio and
Lolita null and void. The CA affirmed the RTCs

Republic vs. Hamano

decision.

Facts:

Issues:

In October 1986, Lolita and Toshio started a

1. Does abandonment and insensitivity to ones

common-law relationship in Japan.

marital responsibilities constitute psychological

On January 14, 1988, while in the Philippines,

she and Toshio were married by Judge Isauro M.

incapacity?
2. Does it make a difference that the spouse

Balderia. One month after their marriage, Toshio

alleged to be psychologically incapacitated is a

returned to Japan and promised to return by Christmas

foreigner?

to celebrate the holidays with his family. After sending

Ruling:

money to respondent for two months, Toshio stopped

1. NO

giving financial support. She wrote him several times

but he never responded. Sometime in 1991, Lolita

We find that the totality of evidence presented

learned from her friends that Toshio visited the

fell short of proving that Toshio was psychologically

Philippines but he did not bother to see her and their

incapacitated to assume his marital responsibilities.

child.

Toshios

act

of

abandonment

was

doubtlessly

irresponsible but it was never alleged nor proven to be

49

PERSONS 2nd Exam

due to some kind of psychological illness. After

psychological incapacity were formulated on the basis

respondent testified on how Toshio abandoned his

of studies of human behavior in general. Hence, the

family, no other evidence was presented showing that

norms used for determining psychological incapacity

his behavior was caused by a psychological disorder.

should apply to any person regardless of nationality.

Although, as a rule, there was no need for an actual

Antonio vs. Reyes

medical examination, it would have greatly helped

respondents case had she presented evidence that

Facts:

medically or clinically identified his illness. This could

Statistics never lie, but lovers often do, quipped

have been done through an expert witness. This

a sage.

respondent did not do.

As we ruled in Molina, it is not enough to prove

Leonilo Antonio and Marie Ivonne Reyes met in

that a spouse failed to meet his responsibility and duty

August 1989. Barely a year after their first meeting,

as a married person; it is essential that he must be

they got married before a minister of the Gospel at the

shown to be incapable of doing so due to some

Manila City Hall, and through a subsequent church

psychological, not physical, illness.

wedding at the Sta. Rosa de Lima Parish on 6

December 1990. Out of their union, a child was born

2. NO

on 19 April 1991, who sadly died five (5) months later.

In proving psychological incapacity, we find no

On 8 March 1993, Leonilo filed a petition to have

distinction between an alien spouse and a Filipino

his marriage to Marie Ivonne declared null and void on

spouse. We cannot be lenient in the application of the

the ground of psychological incapacity.

rules merely because the spouse alleged to be

Leonilo claimed that Marie Ivonne persistently

psychologically incapacitated happens to be a foreign

lied

national. The medical and clinical rules to determine

50

about

herself,

the

people

around

her,

her

PERSONS 2nd Exam

occupation, income, educational attainment and other

(6) She altered her payslip to make it appear

events or things, to wit:

that she earned a higher income; and

(1) She concealed the fact that she previously

gave

birth

to

an

illegitimate

son,

and

(7) She exhibited jealousies over him to the

instead

extent of calling up his officemates to monitor his

introduced the boy as the adopted child of her family;

whereabouts.

(2) She fabricated a story that her brother-in-law

The RTC rendered the marriage between Leonilo

attempted to rape and kill her;

and Marie Ivonne as null and void ab initio. The CA,

however, reversed the RTCs judgment.

(3) She misrepresented herself as a psychiatrist

to her obstetrician and told some of her friends that

Issue:

she graduated with a degree in psychology;

Is Marie Ivonnes propensity to lie about almost

(4) She claimed to be a singer or a free-lance

voice

talent

affiliated

with

Blackgold

everything tantamount to psychological incapacity?

Recording

Ruling: YES

Company (Blackgold);

We find that the present case sufficiently

(5) She invented friends named Babes Santos

satisfies the guidelines in Molina.

and Via Marquez, and under those names, sent lengthy

letters to petitioner claiming to be from Blackgold and

Marie Ivonne practically lived in a world of make

touting her as the "number one moneymaker" in the

believe making her therefore not in a position to give

commercial industry worth P2 million. Leonilo later

meaning and significance to her marriage with Leonilo.

found out that Marie Ivonne herself wrote those

As

letters;

correctly

concluded

by

the

psychiatrist

presented by Leonilo, such repeated lying is abnormal

51

PERSONS 2nd Exam

and

pathological

and

amounts

to

psychological

(c) In May 1989, when he came home from his

incapacity.

ship voyage, he started to quarrel with Digna and

falsely accused her of having an affair with another
man. He took to smoking marijuana and tried to force
Digna into it. Also, he would always go home drunk;

Najera vs. Najera

(d)On July 3, 1994, while he was quarrelling with

Facts:

Digna, he inflicted physical violence upon her and

Digna and Eduardo were married on January 31,

attempted to kill her with a bolo;

1988.

(e)Eduardo left the family home, taking along all

On January 27, 1997, Digna filed with the RTC a

their personal belongings;

Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage. Digna

claimed

that

Eduardo

was

Digna learned later that Eduardo jumped ship

psychologically

while it was anchored in Los Angeles, California, U.S.A.

incapacitated as shown by the following facts:

On March 31, 2000, the RTC rendered a Decision

(a) Eduardo did not exert enough effort to find a

that decreed only

job. Only with the help of Dignas elder brother was

the legal separation, but not the

annulment of their marriage. The Court of Appeals

Eduardo able to land a job as a seaman;

affirmed the Decision of the RTC.

(b)While employed as a seaman, Eduardo did

Issue:

not give Digna sufficient financial support;

Is the totality of evidence sufficient to prove that

Eduardo is psychologically incapacitated?
Ruling: NO

52

PERSONS 2nd Exam

The evidence presented with regard to the
physical

violence

or

grossly

abusive

conduct

of

Eduardo and his abandonment without justifiable

cause for more than one year are grounds for legal

Ferraris vs. Ferraris

separation only.
Facts:
Digna argued that the Court of Appeals failed to
consider

the

Decision

of

the

National

Ma. Armida Perez-Ferraris (Amy) was married to

Appellate

Brix Ferraris (Brix).

Matrimonial Tribunal which her counsel sought to be

admitted.

During their relatively short marriage, Amy was

True, in the case of Republic v. Court of Appeals,

happy and contented with her life in the company of

et al., the Supreme Court held that the interpretations

Brix. In fact, by Amy's own reckoning, Brix was a

given by the National Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal of

responsible and loving husband.

the Catholic Church in the Philippines, while not

Their problems, however, began when Amy

controlling or decisive, should be given great respect

started doubting Brix's fidelity. They started fighting

by our courts. However, it must be pointed out that in

about the calls from women that Brix allegedly

this case, the basis of the declaration of nullity of

received. Brix, since then, allegedly failed to perform

marriage

his so-called marital obligations.

by

the

National

Appellate

Matrimonial

Tribunal is not the third paragraph of Canon 1095

Amy

which mentions causes of a psychological nature, but

thereafter

filed

petition

for

the

the second paragraph of Canon 1095 which refers to

declaration of nullity of her marriage with Brix on the

those who suffer from a grave lack of discretion of

ground of psychological incapacity. She alleged that

judgment concerning essential matrimonial rights and

Brix was violent whenever he experiences epileptic

obligations to be mutually given and accepted.

attacks and that he was not faithful to her.

53

PERSONS 2nd Exam

On February 20, 2001, the RTC rendered a

Amy's evidence showed that Brix's alleged

decision denying the petition. The CA affirmed RTCs

failure to perform his so-called marital obligations was

decision.

not at all a manifestation of some deep-seated, grave,

permanent and incurable psychological malady. To be

Issue:

sure, the couple's relationship before the marriage and

even during their brief union (for well about a year or

Does infidelity and violent tendencies during

epileptic

attacks

tantamount

to

so) was not all bad.

psychological

incapacity?

We

find

Brix's

alleged

mixed

personality

disorder, the "leaving-the-house" attitude whenever

Ruling: NO

they quarreled, the violent tendencies during epileptic

The term "psychological incapacity" to be a

attacks, the sexual infidelity, the abandonment and

ground for the nullity of marriage under Article 36 of

lack of support, and his preference to spend more time

the Family Code, refers to a serious psychological

with his band mates than his family, are not rooted on

illness afflicting a party even before the celebration of

some debilitating psychological condition but a mere

the marriage. It is a malady so grave and so

refusal or unwillingness to assume the essential

permanent as to deprive one of awareness of the

obligations of marriage.

duties and responsibilities of the matrimonial bond one

is about to assume. There is no doubt that the

While petitioner's marriage with the respondent

intendment of the law has been to confine the

failed and appears to be without hope of reconciliation,

meaning of "psychological incapacity" to the most

the remedy however is not always to have it declared

serious

void

cases

of

personality

disorders

clearly

ab

initio

on

the

ground

of

psychological

demonstrative of an utter insensitivity or inability to

incapacity. An unsatisfactory marriage, however, is not

give meaning and significance to the marriage.

a null and void marriage.

54

PERSONS 2nd Exam

The RTC rendered a decision upholding the
validity of the marriage. Justo interposed an appeal to
Paras vs. Paras

the CA.

Facts:

In the interim, Rosa filed with this Court a

petition for disbarment against Justo, docketed as A.C.

On May 21, 1964, Rosa Yap married respondent

No. 5333, premised on the same charges alleged in

Justo J. Paras.

her complaint for declaration of nullity of marriage. On

Twenty-nine (29) years thereafter, or on May 27,

October 18, 2000, this Court rendered its Decision

1993, Rosa filed with the RTC a complaint for the

finding him guilty of falsifying Rosas signature in bank

declaration of nullity of her marriage with Justo.

documents, immorality, and abandonment of his

She

alleged

that

Justo

is

family. He was suspended from the practice of law.

psychologically

incapacitated to exercise the essential obligations of

The CA affirmed the RTCs decision as to the

marriage as shown by the following circumstances:

nullity case.

(a) he dissipated her business assets and forged

Issue:

her signature in one mortgage transaction;

Are the factual findings of this Court in A.C. No.
(b) he lived with a concubine and sired a child

5333 (disbarment case) conclusive on the present case

with her;

(nullity case)?

(c) he did not give financial support to his

Ruling: NO

children; and
Ones
(d) he has been remiss in his duties both as a

unfitness

as

lawyer

does

not

automatically mean ones unfitness as a husband or

husband and as a father.

vice versa. The yardsticks for such roles are simply

55

PERSONS 2nd Exam

different. This is why the disposition in a disbarment

Facts:

case cannot be conclusive on an action for declaration

Lester Benjamin S. Halili filed a petition to

of nullity of marriage.

declare his marriage to Chona M. Santos-Halili null and

While Rosas charges sufficiently proved Justos

void on the basis of his psychological incapacity.

unfitness as a lawyer, however, they may not establish

He alleged that he wed Chona in civil rites

that he is psychologically incapacitated to perform his

thinking that it was a joke. After the ceremonies,

duties as a husband.

they never lived together as husband and wife, but

In the disbarment case, "the real question for

maintained the relationship. However, they started

determination is whether or not the attorney is still a

fighting constantly a year later, at which point Lester

fit person to be allowed the privileges as such." Its

decided to stop seeing respondent and started dating

purpose is "to protect the court and the public from

other women. Immediately thereafter, he received

the misconduct of officers of the court." On the other

prank calls telling him to stop dating other women as

hand, in an action for declaration of nullity of marriage

he was already a married man. It was only upon

based on the ground of psychological incapacity, the

making an inquiry that he found out that the marriage

question for determination is whether the guilty party

was not fake.

suffers a grave, incurable, and pre-existing mental

The RTC declared Chona and Lesters marriage

incapacity that renders him truly incognitive of the

void ab initio. The CA reversed and set aside RTCs

basic marital covenants. Its purpose is to free the

decision. Hence, this petition.

innocent party from a meaningless marriage.

Issue:
Is the marriage between Lester and Chona void
Halili vs. Santos-Halili

ab initio on the ground of psychological incapacity?

56

PERSONS 2nd Exam

Ruling: YES

Lester displayed a self-defeating attitude. This

submissive attitude encouraged other people to take

In this case, the testimony of Lesters expert

advantage of him. This could be seen in the way Lester

witness revealed that Lester was suffering from

allowed himself to be dominated, first, by his father

dependent personality disorder.

and later, by Chona who was just as domineering.

When

Dependent personality disorder usually begins

Lester

could

no

longer

take

Chonas

in early adulthood. Individuals who have this disorder

domineering ways, he preferred to hide from her

may be unable to make everyday decisions without

rather than confront her and tell her outright that he

advice or reassurance from others, may allow others to

wanted to end their marriage.

make most of their important decisions, tend to agree

It has been sufficiently established that Lester

with people even when they believe they are wrong,

had a psychological condition that was grave and

have difficulty starting projects or doing things on their

incurable and had a deeply rooted cause. This renders

own, volunteer to do things that are demeaning in

order

to

get

approval

from

other

people,

him unable to perform the essential obligations of

feel

marriage. Accordingly, the marriage between Lester

uncomfortable or helpless when alone and are often

and respondent is Chona null and void.

preoccupied with fears of being abandoned.

In her psychological report, Dr. Dayan stated
that Lesters dependent personality disorder was

Ngo-Te vs. Yu-Te

evident in the fact that Lester was very much attached

Facts:

to his parents and depended on them for decisions.

Lesters mother even had to be the one to tell him to

Edward Kenneth Ngo Te first got a glimpse of

seek legal help when he felt confused on what action

respondent Rowena Ong Gutierrez Yu-Te in a gathering

to take upon learning that his marriage to Chona was

organized by the Filipino-Chinese association in their

for real.
57

PERSONS 2nd Exam

college. Sharing similar angst towards their families,

uncle also showed Edward his guns and warned the

the two understood one another and developed a

latter not to leave Rowena. Rowena suggested that

certain degree of closeness towards each other.

Edward should get his inheritance so that they could

live on their own. Edward talked to his father about

In March 1996, or around three months after

this, but the patriarch got mad, told Edward that he

their first meeting, Rowena asked Edward that they

elope.

would be disinherited, and insisted that Edward must

At first, he refused, bickering that he was

young and jobless.

go home.

Her persistence, however, made

him relent. Thus, they left Manila and sailed to Cebu

After a month, Edward escaped from the house

that month; he, providing their travel money and she,

of Rowenas uncle, and stayed with his parents.

purchasing the boat ticket.

family then hid him from Rowena.

His

However, Edwards P80,000.00 lasted for only a

In June 1996, Edward was able to talk to

month. And they could not find a job. In April 1996,

Rowena. Unmoved by his persistence that they should

they decided to go back to Manila. Rowena proceeded

live with his parents, she said that it was better for

to her uncles house and Edward to his parents home.

them to live separate lives. They then parted ways.

As his family was abroad, and Rowena kept on

After almost four years, Edward filed a petition

telephoning him, threatening him that she would

for the declaration of the nullity of their marriage.

commit suicide, Edward agreed to stay with Rowena at

her uncles place.

The RTC declared the marriage between Edward

and Rowena null and void. The CA reversed the RTCs

On April 23, 1996, Rowenas uncle brought the

decision.

two to a court to get married. He was then 25 years

old, and she, 20. The two then continued to stay at her

Issue:

uncles place where Edward was treated like a prisoner

he was not allowed to go out unaccompanied. Her
58

PERSONS 2nd Exam

Is the marriage between Rowena and Edward

feels uncomfortable or helpless when alone and is

void ab initio on the ground of their psychological

often preoccupied with fears of being abandoned. As

incapacity?

clearly

shown

in

this

case,

petitioner

followed

everything dictated to him by the persons around him.

Ruling: YES

He is insecure, weak and gullible, has no sense of his

identity as a person, has no cohesive self to speak of,

The parties whirlwind relationship lasted more

and has no goals and clear direction in life.

or less six (6) months. They met in January 1996,

eloped in March, exchanged marital vows in May, and

Although on a different plane, the same may

parted ways in June. The psychologist who provided

also be said of Rowena. Her being afflicted with

expert testimony found both parties psychologically

antisocial personality disorder makes her unable to

incapacitated. Edwards behavioral pattern falls under

assume the essential marital obligations. This finding

the classification of dependent personality disorder,

takes into account her disregard for the rights of

and Rowenas, that of the narcissistic and antisocial

others, her abuse, mistreatment and control of others

personality disorder.

without remorse, her tendency to blame others, and

her

Indeed, Edward, who is afflicted with dependent

intolerance

of

the

conventional

behavioral

personality disorder, cannot assume the essential

limitations imposed by society. Moreover, as shown in

marital obligations of living together, observing love,

this case, Rowena is impulsive and domineering; she

respect and fidelity and rendering help and support,

had no qualms in manipulating petitioner with her

for he is unable to make everyday decisions without

threats of blackmail and of committing suicide.

advice from others, allows others to make most of his

Both parties being afflicted with grave, severe

important decisions, tends to agree with people even

and incurable psychological incapacity, the precipitous

when he believes they are wrong, has difficulty doing

marriage which they contracted on April 23, 1996 is

things on his own, volunteers to do things that are

thus, declared null and void.

demeaning in order to get approval from other people,

59

PERSONS 2nd Exam

3. His compulsive gambling habit, as a result of
which Benjamin found it necessary to sell the family
Ting vs. Velez-Ting

car twice and the property he inherited from his father

in order to pay off his debts, because he no longer had

Facts:

money to pay the same; and

Benjamin Ting (Benjamin) and Carmen Velez4. Benjamins irresponsibility and immaturity as

Ting (Carmen) first met in 1972 while they were

classmates in medical school.

shown by his failure and refusal to give regular

They fell in love, and

financial support to his family.

they were wed on July 26, 1975.

Benjamin

On October 21, 1993, after being married for

denied

being

psychologically

incapacitated.

more than 18 years to Benjamin, Carmen filed a

petition before the RTC praying for the declaration of

RTC declared the marriage between Carmen and

nullity of their marriage based on Article 36 of the

Benjamin null and void. CA affirmed RTCs ruling.

Family Code.
Hence, this petition.
In sum, Carmens allegations of Benjamins
Issue:

psychological incapacity consisted of the following

manifestations:
1.

Benjamins

Is the marriage between Benjamin and Carmen

alcoholism,

which

void

adversely

ab

initio

on

the

ground

of

Benjamins

psychological incapacity?

affected his family relationship and his profession;

Ruling: NO

2. Benjamins violent nature brought about by

his excessive and regular drinking;

In this case, Carmen failed to prove that

petitioners defects were present at the time of the
60

PERSONS 2nd Exam

celebration of their marriage. She merely cited that
prior

to

their

marriage,

she

already

knew

that
Azcueta vs. Republic

Benjamin would occasionally drink and gamble with his

friends; but such statement, by itself, is insufficient to

Facts:

prove any pre-existing psychological defect on the part

Marietta C. Azcueta and Rodolfo Azcueta met in

of her husband. Neither did the evidence adduced

1993. Less than two months after their first meeting,

prove such defects to be incurable.

they got married on July 24, 1993. At the time of their

The evaluation of the two psychiatrists should

marriage, Marieta was 23 years old while Rodolfo was

have been the decisive evidence in determining

28. They separated in 1997 after four years of

whether to declare the marriage between the parties

marriage.

null and

void. Sadly,

the

two experts provided

diametrically contradicting psychological evaluations:

On March 2, 2002, petitioner filed with the RTC a

Dr. Oate testified that petitioners behavior is a

petition for declaration of absolute nullity of marriage

positive indication of a personality disorder, while Dr.

under Article 36 of the Family Code.

Obra maintained that there is nothing wrong with

According to Marieta, Rodolfo was emotionally

petitioners personality. Moreover, there appears to be

immature, irresponsible and continually failed to adapt

greater weight in Dr. Obras opinion because, aside

himself to married life and perform the essential

from analyzing the transcript of Benjamins deposition

responsibilities and duties of a husband.

similar to what Dr. Oate did, Dr. Obra also took into
report

Marieta complained that Rodolfo never bothered

furnished by another psychiatrist in South Africa who

to look for a job and instead always asked his mother

personally examined Benjamin, as well as his (Dr.

for financial assistance. When they were married it was

Obras) personal interview with Benjamins brothers.

Rodolfos mother who found them a room near the

consideration

the

psychological

evaluation

Azcueta home and it was also his mother who paid the
61

PERSONS 2nd Exam

monthly rental. To inspire him to look for a job, Marieta

Is Marieta and Rodolfos marriage null and void

bought him new clothes and a pair of shoes and even

ab initio on the ground of Rodolfos psychological

gave him money.

incapacity?

Sometime later, her husband told her that he

Ruling: YES

already found a job and Marieta was overjoyed.

The expert witness testified that Rodolfo is

However, some weeks after, Marieta was informed that

suffering from dependent personality disorder.

her husband had been seen at the house of his parents

when he was supposed to be at work. Marieta

In Ngo-Te vs. Yu-Te, the Court has had the

discovered that her husband didnt actually get a job

occasion to expound on the nature of a dependent

and the money he gave her (which was supposedly his

personality disorder and how one afflicted with such a

salary) came from his mother.

disorder would be incapacitated from complying with

marital obligations, to wit:

When she confronted him about the matter,

Rodolfo allegedly cried like a child and told her that he

Indeed, petitioner, who is afflicted with dependent

pretended to have a job so that Marieta would stop

personality disorder, cannot assume the essential

nagging him about applying for a job.

marital obligations of living together, observing

love, respect and fidelity and rendering help and

Marieta claimed that Rodolfo was so dependent

support, for he is unable to make everyday

on his mother and that all his decisions and attitudes

decisions without advice from others, allows others

in life should be in conformity with those of his mother.

to make most of his important decisions (such as

The RTC declared the marriage between Marieta

where to live), tends to agree with people even

and Rodolfo as null and void ab initio. The CA reversed

when he believes they are wrong, has difficulty

the RTCs decision.

doing things on his own, volunteers to do things

that are demeaning in order to get approval from

Issue:
62

PERSONS 2nd Exam

other people, feels uncomfortable or helpless when

Arabelle

and

Dominic

had

been

next-door

alone and is often preoccupied with fears of being

neighbors in the appartelle they were renting while

abandoned.

they were still in college.

Of course, this is not to say that anyone

After

month

of

courtship,

they

became

diagnosed with dependent personality disorder is

intimate and their intimacy ultimately led to her

automatically deemed psychologically incapacitated to

pregnancy. They got married on her eighth month of

comply with the obligations of marriage.

pregnancy.

We realize that psychology is by no means an

Dominic remained jobless and dependent upon

exact science and the medical cases of patients, even

his father for support until he finished his college

though suffering from the same disorder, may be

course.

different in their symptoms or manifestations and in

Arabelle took on various jobs to meet the

the degree of severity.

familys needs. She shouldered all of the familys

It is the duty of the court in its evaluation of the

expenses.

facts, as guided by expert opinion, to carefully

In September 1994, she discovered his illicit

scrutinize the type of disorder and the gravity of the

relationship

same before declaring the nullity of a marriage under

his

co-employee.

Eventually,

communication between them became rare until they

Article 36.

started to sleep in separate rooms.

In November 1995, Dominic gave her a Daihatsu
Charade car as a birthday present. He asked her to

Mendoza vs. Republic

issue two blank checks that he claimed would be for

Facts:

the cars insurance coverage. She soon found out,

however, that the checks were paid for his personal
63

PERSONS 2nd Exam

needs. Worse, she also found out that he did not pay

Issue:

for the car itself, forcing her to rely on her father-in-law

Is the marriage between Arabelle and Dominic

to pay part of the cost of the car, leaving her to bear

void

the balance of P120,000.00.

ab

initio

on

the

ground

of

psychological

incapacity?

To make matters worse, Dominic was fired from

Ruling: NO

his employment after he ran away with P164,000.00

belonging to his employer. He was convicted with

The ill-feelings that Arabelle harbored towards

violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 and estafa.

Dominic, which she admitted during her consultation

Arabelle also discovered that he had also swindled

with Dr. Samson, furnished the basis to doubt the

many clients.

findings of her expert witness. Dr. Samson, herself,

conceded that there was the need for her to resort to

On October 15, 1997, Arabelle asked Dominic

other people in order to verify the facts derived from

for "time and space to think things over." A month

Arabelle

later, she refused his attempt at reconciliation, causing

about

Dominics

psychological

profile

considering the ill-feelings she harbored towards him.

him to threaten to commit suicide. At that, she and her

It turned out, however, that the only people she

family immediately went to live in another place

interviewed about Dominic were those whom Arabelle

concealed from him.

herself referred.

Arabelle then filed in the RTC her petition for the

In fine, the failure to examine and interview

declaration of the nullity of her marriage with Dominic

Dominic himself naturally cast serious doubt on Dr.

based on his psychological incapacity.

Samsons findings.

RTC ruled that the marriage between Arabelle

In light of the foregoing, even if the expert

and Dominic is void ab initio. The CA reversed RTCs

opinions of psychologists are not conditions sine qua

decision.
64

PERSONS 2nd Exam

non in the granting of petitions for declaration of

give in to his sexual needs; that she spent most of her

nullity of marriage, the actual medical examination of

time gossiping with neighbors instead of doing the

the allegedly

household

psychologically incapacitated spouse

chores

and

caring

for

their

adopted

can be dispensed with only if the totality of evidence

daughter; that she squandered by gambling all his

presented was enough to support a finding of his

remittances as an overseas worker in Qatar since

psychological incapacity.

1993; and that she abandoned the conjugal home in

1997 to live with Bobbie Castro, her paramour.
Eduardo presented the results of the neuro-

Republic vs. CA and De Quintos

psychiatric evaluation conducted by Dr. Annabelle L.

Reyes, a psychiatrist.

Facts:

Based

Eduardo and Catalina were married on March

on

the

tests

she

administered

on

Catalina, Dr. Reyes opined that Catalina exhibited

16, 1977.

traits of Borderline Personality Disorder.

On April 6, 1998, Eduardo filed a petition for the

The RTC granted Eduardos petition. The CA

declaration of nullity of their marriage citing Catalinas

affirmed the RTCs decision.

psychological incapacity.

Issue:

Catalina did not interpose any objection to the

petition, but prayed to be given her share in the

Is the marriage between Eduardo and Catalina

conjugal house and lot.

null and void on the ground of Catalinas psychological

incapacity?

Eduardo testified that Catalina always left their

house without his consent; that she engaged in petty

Ruling: NO

arguments with him; that she constantly refused to

65

PERSONS 2nd Exam

Psychological

incapacity

contemplates

an

conjugal

home

to

live

with

another

man.

Yet,

incapacity or inability to take cognizance of and to

abandonment and sexual infidelity are not valid

assume basic marital obligations; not merely the

grounds for the declaration of nullity of marriage.

difficulty, refusal, or neglect in the performance of

Republic vs. Encelan

marital obligations or ill will.

Facts:

Firstly, Catalinas supposed behavior were not

even

established.

Eduardo

presented

no

other

On August 25, 1979, Cesar married Lolita.

witnesses to corroborate his allegations.

To support his family, Cesar went to work in
Secondly, the results of the neuro-psychological

Saudi Arabia.

evaluation by Dr. Reyes were ostensibly vague about

While still in Saudi Arabia, Cesar learned that

the root cause and gravity of Catalinas alleged

Lolita had been having an illicit affair with Alvin Perez.

psychological incapacity.

Lolita allegedly left the conjugal home with her

Thirdly, we have said that the expert evidence

children and lived with Alvin.

presented in cases of declaration of nullity of marriage

Since

based on psychological incapacity presupposes a

the psychologist or expert. However, Dr. Reyes had
one

interview

with

Catalina,

and

did

Cesar

and

Lolita

had

been

separated.

thorough and in-depth assessment of the parties by

only

then,

On June 16, 1995, Cesar filed with the RTC a

not

petition against Lolita for the declaration of the nullity

personally seek out and meet with other persons,

of

aside from Eduardo.

incapacity.

his

marriage

based

on

Lolitas

psychological

Fourthly, the only fact established here, which

Lolita denied that she had an affair with Alvin;

Catalina admitted, was her abandonment of the

she contended that Alvin used to be an associate in

66

PERSONS 2nd Exam

her promotions business. She insisted that she is not

contemplates "downright incapacity or inability to take

psychologically incapacitated and that she left their

cognizance of and to assume the basic marital

home because of irreconcilable differences with her

obligations";

mother-in-law.

difficulty, much less ill will, on the part of the errant

not

merely

the

refusal,

neglect

or

spouse.

Cesar presented the psychological evaluation

report prepared by Dr. Fareda Fatima Flores who found

Sexual

infidelity

and

abandonment

of

the

that Lolita was "not suffering from any form of major

conjugal dwelling, even if true, do not necessarily

psychiatric illness," but had been "unable to provide

constitute psychological incapacity; these are simply

the expectations expected of her for a good and

grounds

lasting marital relationship"; also, her "transferring

psychological incapacity, it must be shown that the

from one job to the other depicts some interpersonal

unfaithfulness and abandonment are manifestations of

problems with co-workers".

a disordered personality that completely prevented the

for

legal

separation.

To

constitute

erring spouse from discharging the essential marital

RTC declared Cesars marriage to Lolita void.

obligations.

The CA originally set aside the RTCs verdict but later

on affirmed the RTCs decision.

Dr. Flores psychological evaluation report on

Lolita, in fact, established that Lolita did not suffer

Issue:

from

any

major

psychiatric

illness.

Dr.

Flores

observation on Lolitas interpersonal problems with co-

Is Cesar and Lolitas marriage void ab initio on

workers cannot simply be equated with a wifes

the ground of Lolitas psychological incapacity?

psychological

Ruling: NO

fitness

as

spouse.

Workplace

obligations and responsibilities are poles apart from

their marital counterparts.

In interpreting Article 36 of the Family Code, we

have repeatedly stressed that psychological incapacity
67

PERSONS 2nd Exam

On May 29, 1991, Delia filed a petition for
"Declaration of Nullity of Marriage and Separation of
*Articles 40: NEED FOR JUDICIAL DECLARATION

Property" against Roberto.

OF A VOID MARRIAGE
Issues:
Domingo vs. CA
1. Is a petition for judicial declaration of a void
Facts:

marriage necessary?
2. Should the same be filed only for purposes of

Delia Soledad A. Domingo and Roberto Domingo

remarriage?

were married on November 29, 1976.

Ruling:

Unknown to her, he had a previous marriage

1. YES

with one Emerlina dela Paz on April 25, 1969 which

marriage is valid and still existing. She came to know

In Terre vs. Terre, the Court already made the

of the prior marriage only sometime in 1983 when

pronouncement

Emerlina dela Paz sued them for bigamy.

that

there

is

necessity

for

declaration of absolute nullity of a prior subsisting

Since Roberto has always been unemployed, he

marriage before contracting another. It held that "for

was completely dependent upon her for support and

purposes of determining whether a person is legally

subsistence.

free

to

contract

second

marriage,

judicial

declaration that the first marriage was null and void ab

Sometime in June 1989, she discovered that he

initio is essential."

was cohabiting with another woman. She further

2. NO

discovered that he had been disposing of some of her

properties without her knowledge or consent.

Article 40 of the Family Code provides: The

absolute nullity of a previous marriage may be
68

PERSONS 2nd Exam

invoked for purposes of remarriage on the basis solely

This leads us to the question: For purposes of

of a final judgment declaring such previous marriage

remarriage, why should the only legally acceptable

void.

basis for declaring a previous marriage an absolute

nullity be a final judgment declaring such previous

Crucial to the proper interpretation of Article 40

marriage void? Whereas, for purposes other than

is the position in the provision of the word "solely." As

remarriage, other evidence is acceptable?

it is placed, the same shows that it is meant to qualify

"final judgment declaring such previous marriage void

Marriage is an "inviolable social institution and

and not for purposes of remarriage. Hence, a final

is the foundation of the family". For such a social

judgment declaring the previous marriage void need

significant institution, an official state pronouncement

not be obtained only for purposes of remarriage.

through the courts, and nothing less, will satisfy the

Undoubtedly,

one

can

conceive

of

exacting norms of society. Not only would such an

other

open and public declaration by the courts definitively

instances where a party might well invoke the absolute

confirm the nullity of the contract of marriage, but the

nullity of a previous marriage for purposes other than

same would be easily verifiable through records

remarriage, such as in case of an action for liquidation,

partition,

distribution

and

separation

of

accessible to everyone.

property

between the erstwhile spouses, as well as an action for

Atienza vs. Brillantes

the custody and support of their common children and

A.M. No. MTJ-92-706, March 29, 1995

the delivery of the latters' presumptive legitimes.

Facts:
This is a complaint by Lupo A. Atienza for Gross
Immorality and Appearance of Impropriety against
Judge Francisco Brillantes, Jr.

69

PERSONS 2nd Exam

Lupo alleges that he has two children with

single because his first marriage was solemnized

Yolanda De Castro, who are living together at Bel-Air

without a license.

Subdivision, Makati. Atienza stays in said house

Issue:

whenever he is in Manila.

Is it necessary to get a judicial declaration of

In December 1991, upon opening the door to his

nullity of the marriage between Judge Francisco and

bedroom, Lupo saw Judge Francisco sleeping on his

Zenaida before he can validly marry Yolanda?

bed. Upon inquiry, he was told by the houseboy that

Judge Francisco had been cohabiting with Yolanda.

Ruling: YES

Lupo claims that Judge Francisco is married to

Under the Article 40 of the Family Code, there

one Zenaida Ongkiko.

must be a judicial declaration of the nullity of a

previous marriage before a party thereto can enter

Judge Francisco, however, denies having been

into a second marriage.

married to Ongkiko, although he admits having five

children with her.

Article 40 is applicable to remarriages entered

into after the effectivity of the Family Code on August

He alleges that while he and Zenaida went

3, 1988 regardless of the date of the first marriage.

through a marriage ceremony on April 25, 1965, the

Besides, under Article 256 of the Family Code, said

same was not a valid marriage for lack of a marriage

Article is given "retroactive effect insofar as it does not

license. Upon the request of the parents of Zenaida,

Judge

Francisco

went

through

another

prejudice or impair vested or acquired rights in

marriage

accordance with the Civil Code or other laws." This is

ceremony with her in Manila on June 5, 1965 still

particularly true with Article 40, which is a rule of

without a marriage license.

procedure. Respondent has not shown any vested right

Judge Francisco claims that when he married De

Castro on December 4, 1991, he believed that he was
70

PERSONS 2nd Exam

that was impaired by the application of Article 40 to

Meynardo, in order to forestall the issuance of a

his case.

warrant for his arrest,

filed a Motion

to Defer

Proceedings Including the Issuance of the Warrant of

Arrest in the criminal case arguing that the pendency
of the civil case for declaration of nullity of his
marriage

posed

prejudicial

question

to

the

petition

for

determination of the criminal case.

Beltran vs. People

Issue:

Facts:

Does

the

pendency

of

the

declaration of nullity of his marriage based on

Meynardo Beltran and Charmaine E. Felix were

psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family

married on June 16, 1973.

Code pose a prejudicial question that should merit the

On February 7, 1997, after twenty-four years of

suspension of the criminal case for concubinage?

marriage and four children, Meynardo filed a petition

Ruling: NO

for nullity of marriage on the ground of psychological

incapacity.

The rationale behind the principle of prejudicial

Charmaine Felix alleged that it was Meynardo

question is to avoid two conflicting decisions. It has

who abandoned the conjugal home and lived with a

two essential elements: (a) the civil action involves an

certain woman named Milagros Salting. Charmaine

issue similar or intimately related to the issue raised in

subsequently

for

the criminal action; and (b) the resolution of such issue

concubinage under Article 334 of the Revised Penal

determines whether or not the criminal action may

Code.

proceed.

filed

criminal

complaint

71

PERSONS 2nd Exam

The pendency of the case for declaration of

Therefore, he who cohabits with a woman not

nullity of petitioner's marriage is not a prejudicial

his wife before the judicial declaration of nullity of the

question to the concubinage case.

marriage assumes the risk of being prosecuted for

concubinage.

For a civil case to be considered prejudicial to a

criminal action as to cause the suspension of the latter

*Articles 41: DECLARATION OF PRESUMPTIVE

pending the final determination of the civil case, it

DEATH

must appear not only that the said civil case involves
Republic vs. CA and Alegro

the same facts upon which the criminal prosecution

would be based, but also that in the resolution of the

Facts:

issue or issues raised in the aforesaid civil action, the

On March 29, 2001, Alan B. Alegro filed a

guilt or innocence of the accused would necessarily be

petition in the RTC for the declaration of presumptive

determined.

death of his wife, Rosalia (Lea) A. Julaton.

In the case at bar, however, even a subsequent
At the hearing, Alan adduced evidence that he

pronouncement that his marriage is void from the

beginning

is

not

defense

in

the

crime

and Lea were married on January 20, 1995. He testified

of

that, on February 6, 1995, Lea arrived home late and

concubinage.

he berated her for being always out of their house. He

It must be held that parties to the marriage

told her that if she enjoyed the life of a single person,

should not be permitted to judge for themselves its

it would be better for her to go back to her parents.

nullity. Only when the nullity of the marriage is so

Lea did not reply. Alan narrated that, when he reported

declared can it be held as void, and so long as there is

for work the following day, Lea was still in the house,

no such declaration the presumption is that the

but when he arrived home later in the day, Lea was

marriage exists for all intents and purposes.

nowhere to be found.

72

PERSONS 2nd Exam

When Alan went to the house of his parents-in-

Ruling: NO

law, he learned from his father-in-law that Lea had

In consonance with Article 41 of the Family

been to their house but that she left without notice.

Code, the spouse present is burdened to prove that his

Alan sought the help of Barangay Captain Juan Magat,

spouse has been absent and that he has a well-

who promised to help him locate his wife. He also

founded belief that the absent spouse is already dead

inquired from his friends and Leas friend of his wifes

before the present spouse may contract a subsequent

whereabouts but to no avail.

marriage.

Alan decided to go to Manila to look for Lea.

The belief of the present spouse must be the

While there, he decided to work as a part-time taxi

result of proper and honest to goodness inquiries and

driver. On his free time, he would look for Lea in the

efforts to ascertain the whereabouts of the absent

malls but still to no avail. He returned to Catbalogan in

spouse and whether the absent spouse is still alive or

1997 and again looked for his wife but failed.

On

June

20,

2001,

Alan

reported

is already dead.
Leas

In this case, the Alan failed to present a witness

disappearance to the local police station. Alan also

other than Barangay Captain Juan Magat. Also, Alan

reported Leas disappearance to the National Bureau

failed

of Investigation (NBI) on July 9, 2001.

to

make

inquiries

from

his

parents-in-law

regarding Leas whereabouts before filing his petition

On January 8, 2002, the RTC granted the

in the RTC. His father-in-law was the owner of Radio

petition. The CA affirmed RTCs decision.

DYMS and could have significantly assisted him in

looking for Lea. Finally, Alan reported and sought the

Issue:

help of the police and the NBI only after the OSG filed
its notice to dismiss his petition in the RTC.

Should the petition for the declaration of Leas

presumptive death be granted?

73

PERSONS 2nd Exam

Hence, Alan failed to prove that he had a well-

the first with Alice, the second with her mother Elisa,

founded belief that his spouse Lea was already dead.

and the third with Teresita, all of whom are still alive.
In the meantime, a certain Hermes P. Diaz,

SSS vs. Vda de Baylon

claiming to be the brother and guardian of Alice P.

Facts:

Diaz, also filed before the SSS a claim for death

benefits accruing from Bailons death.

On April 25, 1955, Clemente G. Bailon (Bailon)

married Alice P. Diaz (Alice).

The SSS advised Teresita of the cancellation of

More than 15 years later, Bailon filed before the

her monthly pension for death benefits and held that

then Court of First Instance (CFI) a petition to declare

the December 10, 1970 CFI Order declaring Alice

Alice presumptively dead. The CFI granted the petition.

presumptively

dead

did

not

become

final,

her

"presence" being "contrary proof" against the validity

Close to 13 years after his wife Alice was
declared

presumptively

dead,

Bailon

of the order.

contracted
The CA reversed and set aside the decision of

marriage with Teresita Jarque.

SSS.
On January 30, 1998, Bailon, who was a member

Issue:

of the SSS, died.

Will the appearance of the spouse who was

Teresita thereupon filed a claim for funeral and

previously declared presumptively dead by the Court

death benefits which were granted.

automatically terminate the second marriage?

Cecilia, who claimed to be a daughter of Bailon
Ruling: NO

and one Elisa contested before the SSS the release to

Teresita of the death and funeral benefits. She claimed
that Bailon contracted three marriages in his lifetime,
74

PERSONS 2nd Exam

Under the Civil Code, a subsequent marriage

until

being voidable, it is terminated by final judgment of

the

subsequent

marriage

is

terminated

as

provided by law.

annulment.
Valdez vs. Republic
Under the Family Code, no judicial proceeding to
Facts:

annul a subsequent marriage is necessary. A sworn

statement

of

the

fact

and

circumstances

of

Angelita Valdez married Sofio on January 11.

reappearance which shall be recorded in the civil

According to Angelita, she and Sofio argued

registry of the residence of the parties to the

constantly because the latter was unemployed.

subsequent marriage shall suffice. This, however, does

not preclude the filing of an action in court to prove

In March 1972, Sofio left their conjugal dwelling.

the reappearance of the absentee.

Angelita and their child waited for him to return but,

If the absentee reappears, but no step is taken

finally, in May 1972, she decided to go back to her

to terminate the subsequent marriage, either by

parents home. Three years passed without any word

affidavit or by court action, such absentees mere

from Sofio.

reappearance, even if made known to the spouses in

In October 1975, Sofio showed up. He and

the subsequent marriage, will not terminate such

Angelita talked for several hours and they agreed to

marriage.

separate. They executed a document to that effect.

That was the last time petitioner saw him.

Since the second marriage has been contracted

because of a presumption that the former spouse is

Believing that Sofio was already dead, Angelita

dead, such presumption continues inspite of the

married Virgilio Reyes on June 20, 1985. Subsequently,

spouses physical reappearance. By fiction of law, he

however, Virgilios application for naturalization filed

or she must still be regarded as legally an absentee

with the United States Department of Homeland

75

PERSONS 2nd Exam

Security was denied because Angelitas marriage to

Consequently, at the time Angelitas marriage to

Sofio was subsisting.

Virgilio, there existed no impediment to

Angelitas

capacity to marry, and the marriage is valid under

Hence, on March 29, 2007, Angelita filed a

paragraph 2 of Article 83 of the Civil Code.

Petition seeking the declaration of presumptive death

of Sofio.

Further, considering that it is the Civil Code that

applies, proof of well-founded belief is not required.

The RTC dismissed the petition. Angelita filed a

Angelita could not have been expected to comply with

Motion for Reconsideration which was also denied.

this requirement since the Family Code was not yet in

effect at the time of her marriage to Virgilio.

Issue:

In sum, we hold that the Petition must be

Under the Civil Code, is a judicial decree

dismissed since no decree on the presumption of

necessary to declare a spouse presumptively dead?

Sofios death can be granted under the Civil Code, the

Ruling: NO

same presumption having arisen by operation of law.

It is readily apparent that the marriages of

However,

Angelita to Sofio and Virgilio were both celebrated

we

declare

that

Angelita

was

capacitated to marry Virgilio at the time their marriage

under the auspices of the Civil Code.

was celebrated in 1985 and, therefore, the said

marriage is legal and valid.

Under the Civil Code, the presumption of death

is established by law and no court declaration is
needed for the presumption to arise. Since death is
presumed to have taken place by the seventh year of

*Articles 45-47 FC: VOIDABLE MARRIAGES

absence, Sofio is to be presumed dead starting

Facts:

October 1982.

76

PERSONS 2nd Exam

Orlando Villanueva and Lilia Canalita-Villanueva

To

got married on April 13, 1988.

begin

with,

we

are

disturbed

by

the

circumstance that despite the alleged coerced consent

which supposedly characterized his marriage with Lilia,

On November 17, 1992, Orlando filed with the

it took Orlando 4 years and 8 mos. to take a serious

trial court a petition for annulment of his marriage

step to have the same marriage annulled. The

alleging that threats of violence and duress forced him

prolonged inaction evidently finds basis in Lilias

into marrying Lilia, who was already pregnant; that he

allegation that this annulment suit was filed by

did not get her pregnant prior to the marriage; and

Orlando solely in the hope that a favorable judgment

that he never cohabited with her after the marriage.

thereon would bolster his defense in the criminal case

for bigamy already pending against him.

Lilia prayed for the dismissal of the petition,

arguing that Orlando freely and voluntarily married

Orlando cited several incidents that created on

her; that Orlando stayed with her in Palawan for

his mind a reasonable and well-grounded fear of an

almost a month after their marriage; and that Orlando

imminent and grave danger to his life and safety, to

knew about the progress of her pregnancy, which

wit: the harassing phone calls from the Lilia and

ended in their son being born prematurely.

strangers as well as the unwanted visits by three men

at the premises of the U.E. after his classes thereat,

The RTC dismissed Orlandos petition. The CA

and the threatening presence of a certain Ka Celso, a

affirmed the RTCs ruling.

supposed member of the New Peoples Army, who

Issue:

accompanied him in going to her home province of

Palawan to marry her.

Should the marriage between Orlando and Lilia

be annulled on the ground that Orlando was forced

At the time he was allegedly being harassed,

into it by means of duress?

Orlando worked as a security guard in a bank. Given

his employment at that time, it is reasonable to

Ruling: NO
77

PERSONS 2nd Exam

assume that appellant knew the rudiments of self-

Manuel

defense. It is even doubtful if threats were indeed

and

Leonida

filed a petition with the RTC in Las Pias City to annul

regarding the alleged threats.

that

(Manuel)

After eleven (11) years of marriage, Leonida

the security personnel of his school nor the police

excuse

Almelor

Trinidad (Leonida) were married on January 29, 1989.

made to him since he never sought the assistance of

Orlandos

G.

their marriage.
he

could

not

have

During the trial, Leonida testified that she first

impregnated Lilila because he did not have an erection

met Manuel in 1981 at the San Lazaro Hospital where

during their tryst is flimsy at best, and an outright lie

they worked as medical student clerks. They soon

at worst. His counsel also conceded that his client had

became sweethearts. Three years after, they got

a sexual relationship with Lilia.

married.

Also, Orlando cannot claim that his marriage

Leonida averred that Manuel's kind and gentle

should be annulled due to the absence of cohabitation

demeanor

between him and his wife. Lack of cohabitation is, per

did

described

se, not a ground to annul a marriage. Otherwise, the

not

Manuel

last
as

unreasonably meticulous,

validity of a marriage will depend upon the will of the

long.
a

At

harsh

home,

Leonida

disciplinarian,

easily angered. Leonida

complained that this was in stark contrast to the

spouses who can terminate the marital union by

alleged lavish affection Manuel has for his mother.

refusing to cohabitate.

Manuel's deep attachment to his mother and his

dependence

on

her

decision-making

were

incomprehensible to Leonida.
Further adding to her woes was his concealment
Almelor vs. RTC of Las Pias

to her of his homosexuality. Her suspicions were first

aroused when she noticed Manuel's peculiar closeness

Facts:
78

PERSONS 2nd Exam

to his male companions. For instance, she caught him

homosexual and that he concealed this to Leonida at

in an indiscreet telephone conversation manifesting

the time of their marriage. The lower court erred when

his affection for a male caller. She also found several

it considered the public perception of Manuel's sexual

pornographic homosexual materials in his possession.

preference without the corroboration of witnesses.

Her worse fears were confirmed when she saw Manuel

Also, it erred when it took cognizance of Manuel's

kissed another man on the lips. When she confronted

peculiarities and interpreted it against his sexuality.

Manuel, he denied everything. At this point, Leonida

Even

took her children and left their conjugal abode.

Manuel

that

Manuel is a homosexual, it is not a ground to annul his

may be annulled when the consent of either party was

rivalry.

obtained
Leonida

true

argumenti,

Leonida's hostility against him was their professional

annulled

the

gratia

marriage with Leonida. The law is clear - a marriage

RTC

that

ex

of

The

countered

assuming,

cause

and

by

fraud,

such

as

concealment

of

homosexuality. Such concealment presupposes bad

Manuels

faith and intent to defraud.

marriage. The CA affirmed the RTCs decision.

Homosexuality per se is only a ground for legal

Issue:

separation. It is its concealment that serves as a valid

ground to annul a marriage.

Should Leonidas petition for annulment be

granted?
Ruling: NO

*Articles
Concealment of homosexuality is the proper

61-74

SEPARATION

ground to annul a marriage, not homosexuality per se.

Siochi vs. Gozon
Evidently, no sufficient proof was presented to
substantiate

the

allegations

that

Manuel

is

Facts:

a
79

FC:

EFFECTS

OF

LEGAL

PERSONS 2nd Exam

This case involves a 30,000 sq.m. parcel of land

On 22 August 1994, Alfredo executed a Deed of

(property) covered by TCT No. 5357. The property is

Donation over the property in favor of their daughter,

situated in Malabon, Metro Manila and is registered in

Winifred Gozon (Winifred).

the name of "Alfredo Gozon (Alfredo), married to Elvira

On 26 October 1994, Alfredo, by virtue of a

Gozon (Elvira)."

Special Power of Attorney executed in his favor by

On 23 December 1991, Elvira filed with the

Winifred, sold the property to Inter-Dimensional Realty,

Cavite RTC a petition for legal separation against her

Inc. (IDRI).

husband Alfredo. On 2 January 1992, Elvira filed a

Mario then filed with the Malabon RTC a

notice of lis pendens, which was then annotated on

complaint for Specific Performance and Damages,

TCT No. 5357.

Annulment of Donation and Sale, with Preliminary

On 31 August 1993, while the legal separation

Mandatory and Prohibitory Injunction and/or Temporary

case was still pending, Alfredo and Mario Siochi (Mario)

entered

into

an

Agreement

to

Buy

and

Restraining Order which was granted.

Sell

Issue:

(Agreement) involving the property. Despite repeated

demands from Mario, Alfredo failed to comply with

Was Alfredos share in the property forfeited in

their stipulations such as obtaining an affidavit from

favour of Winifred by virtue of the decree of legal

Elvira

separation?

that

such

property

is

Alfredos

exclusive

property. Mario took possession of the property in

Ruling: NO

September 1993.

We disagree with the finding of the Court of

Meanwhile, on 29 June 1994, the Cavite RTC

Appeals that the one-half undivided share of Alfredo in

granted the petition for legal separation. As regards

the property was already forfeited in favor of his

the property, the Cavite RTC held that it is deemed

conjugal property.
80

PERSONS 2nd Exam

daughter Winifred, based on the ruling of the Cavite

On October 26, 2000, Rita C. Quiao (Rita) filed a

RTC in the legal separation case.

complaint for legal separation against Brigido B. Quiao

(Brigido).

The Court of Appeals misconstrued the ruling of

the Cavite RTC that Alfredo, being the offending

The RTC granted such petition.

spouse, is deprived of his share in the net profits and

On July 7, 2006, or after more than nine months

the same is awarded to Winifred.

from the promulgation of the decision, Brigido filed

Among the effects of the decree of legal

before the RTC a Motion for Clarification, asking the

separation is that the conjugal partnership is dissolved

RTC to define the term Net Profits Earned.

and liquidated and the offending spouse would have

To

no right to any share of the net profits earned by the

share

petitioner's

Motion

for

2006, which held that the phrase NET PROFIT

Clearly, what is forfeited in favor of Winifred is

Alfredos

the

Clarification, the RTC issued an Order dated August 31,

conjugal partnership.

not

resolve

in

the

conjugal

EARNED denotes the remainder of the properties of

partnership

the parties after deducting the separate properties of

property but merely in the net profits of the conjugal

each [of the] spouse and the debts. The Order further

partnership property.

held that after determining the remainder of the

properties, it shall be forfeited in favor of the common
children because the offending spouse does not have
any right to any share of the net profits earned,

Quiao vs. Quiao

pursuant to Articles 63, No. (2) and 43, No. (2) of the

Facts:

Family Code.
Issues:

81

PERSONS 2nd Exam

1. What is their property relation? And what

liquidation of the conjugal partnership assets and

governs their property relations upon legal

liabilities is concerned is Article 129 of the Family Code

separation?
2. What does net profit earned mean?

in relation to Article 63(2) of the Family Code.

The

latter provision is applicable because according to

Article 256 of the Family Code [t]his Code shall have

Ruling:

retroactive effect insofar as it does not prejudice or

1. Conjugal Partnership of Gains; Family

impair vested or acquired rights in accordance with the

Code

Civil Code or other law.

First, let us determine what governs the couple's

property relation.

From the record, we can deduce

vested

right

is

one

whose

existence,

effectivity and extent do not depend upon events

that the Rita and Brigido tied the marital knot on

foreign to the will of the holder, or to the exercise of

January 6, 1977.

which no obstacle exists, and which is immediate and

perfect

Since at the time of the exchange of marital

in

itself

and

not

dependent

upon

contingency.

vows, the operative law was the Civil Code of the

Philippines (R.A. No. 386) and since they did not agree

While one may not be deprived of his vested

on a marriage settlement, the property relations

right, he may lose the same if there is due process

between the petitioner and the respondent is the

and

system of relative community or conjugal partnership

such

deprivation

is

founded

in

law

and

jurisprudence.

of gains.
In the present case, the petitioner was accorded
Second, since at the time of the dissolution of

his right to due process. He was well-aware that the

the Rita and Brigidos marriage the operative law is

Rita prayed in her complaint that all of the conjugal

already the Family Code, the same applies in the

properties

instant case and the applicable law in so far as the

be

awarded

to

her.

Furthermore,

the

petitioner's claim of a vested right has no basis

82

PERSONS 2nd Exam

considering that even under Article 176 of the Civil

Without any iota of doubt, Article 102(4) applies

Code, his share of the conjugal partnership profits may

to both the dissolution of the absolute community

be forfeited if he is the guilty party in a legal

regime under Article 102 of the Family Code, and to

separation case.

the dissolution of the conjugal partnership regime

2. The

net

profits

of

the

under Article 129 of the Family Code.

conjugal

partnership of gains are all the fruits of

The difference merely lies in the processes used

the separate properties of the spouses

under the dissolution of the absolute community

and the products of their labor and

regime under Article 102 of the Family Code, and in

industry.

the processes used under the dissolution of the

conjugal partnership regime under Article 129 of the

Net profits shall be the increase in value

Family Code.

between the market value of the community property

at the time of the celebration of the marriage and the
market value at the time of its dissolution.

83