CHAPTER 3: VOID AND VOIDABLE MARRIAGES

But only one cause of action!! Nullity of the

marriage
Void
Voidable
o

Article 35: The following marriages shall be void from the

beginning:
1. Those contracted by any party below 18 years of
age even with the consent of parents or guardians
2. Those solemnized by any person not legally
authorized to perform marriages unless such
marriages were contracted with either or both parties
believing in good faith that the solemnizing officers
had the legal authority to do so
3. Those solemnized without a license, except those
covered by the preceding Chapter
4. Those bigamous and polygamous marriages falling
under Art 41
5. Those contracted through mistake of one
contracting party as to the identity of the other
6. Those subsequent marriages that are void under Art
53
-

Void and voidable marriages

A void marriage is that which is not valid from its inception.
(void ab initio)
Article 4 declares that absence of any essential/formal
requisites for a valid marriage (Articles 2 and 3) makes
a marriage void exceptions in the marriage license
requirement are provided for in Articles 27, 28, 31, 32, 33,
34, (and for the authority of the solemnizing officer) 35(2)
Articles 35, 36, 37, 38, 40, 41, 44, and 53 in relation to
Article 52 enumerate marriages which are void.
Only marriages declared void by the legislature should
be treated as such
o There can be no other void marriages outside
those specifically provided by law
o In the absence of any other grounds to
consider a marriage void, a court appointed
guardian and his or her ward can marry each
other and likewise stepbrothers or stepsisters can
validly marry each other.
The grounds for a void marriage may co-exist in one case
o Person may claim that his or her marriage is void
because it was contracted when s/he was 17
o But also it was contracted without a valid
marriage license
o With a person who has a subsisting marriage
o Who is his or her collateral blood relative within
the 4th civil degree of consanguinity
A petition for declaration of nullity (without any other
incidental prayers like support) deals with only one cause
of action which is the invalidity of the marriage from the
beginning
o May contain the following grounds for nullity:
Absence of consent
No marriage license
Psychological incapacity of the parties
Bigamy

Considered not to have taken in

the first place and cannot be a
source of rights
Can be generally ratified or
confirmed by free cohabitation or
prescription
Can be attacked collaterally
Can be questioned even after the
death of either party
Any proper interested party may
attack
Have no legal effects except those
declared by law concerning
properties and children

Valid until otherwise declared by

court
Can never be ratified or cured by
any act of any of the contracting
parties
Cannot be assailed collaterally
except in a direct proceeding
Can be assailed only during the
lifetime of the parties and not after
death
Only parties to it (or those
designated by law such as parents
and guardians) can assail it
Property regime governing is
generally conjugal partnership,
and the children conceived are
legitimate

If one of the parties stated under oath in the marriage

application that s/he is 21 when s/he was only 16 and a
marriage was solemnized when s/he was still a minor, the
marriage is still void and can still be judicially
declared as void.
If they filed an affidavit that they co-habited for 5 years but
in reality for only 2 years, the marriage is still void and
parties can nullify the marriage because of the absence of
a marriage license
Mallion v Alcantara petitioner after being denied the nullity based on
psychological incapacity, filed another petition based on the absence of a
marriage license
o
SC ruled on the dismissal of case for the violation of the rule on
splitting-a-cause of action
o The rule on res judicata applied and the petitioner waived the defect

In the case for nullity of marriage, only one cause of

action which was to declare the marriage void
(different grounds for nullity did not mean different cause
of action)
o

In not invoking the ground of absence of a marriage license in the

first case, and filing a subsequent case invoking that ground,
petitioner violated the rule on splitting the cause of action

Petitioner was considered to have impliedly admitted

the validity of the celebration of marriage and had
waived the defects

Mallian case have given more weight to procedure rather

than substantial law
Bad faith or good faith in void marriages
As a general rule, good faith and bad faith are
immaterial in determining whether or not a marriage is
null and void.
o Good faith will not cure the infirmity
A woman marries a man (believing in
good faith that they are not related) but
who was her long-lost brother
Marriage can still be nullified because it
is incestuous
o A person marries a first cousin but was
concealed from the cousin, marriage is still void

and can be nullified is void for being against

public policy
Chi Ming Tsoi v Court of Appeals finding as to who refused to
have sex is immaterial because the action to declare a marriage void may be
filed by either party (even the psychologically incapacitated one)

The equitable doctrine of unclean hands where the court

should not grant relief to the wrong-doer is not a rule
applied in nullity actions. (No statutory basis, merely
judge-made)
o There may be an injured party in an annullable or
voidable marriage
o There is no injured party statutory declaration in
null and void marriages
2 exceptions to the general rule:
1. Article 35(2) good faith in the authority of the
solemnizing officer even though s/he actually has
none
2. Article 41 referring to a person who has a spouse
disappears for 4 or 2 years, in the proper cases,
present spouse can marry again if s/he:
a. Has a well-founded belief that the spouse is
dead
b. Procures judicial declaration of presumptive
death
c. At the time of the subsequent marriage
ceremony, is in good faith with the subsequent
spouse

for support against her husband to compel the latter to support their
child. The husband interposed an affirmative defense claiming that they
were not married. SC ruled that while the case was one of support, the
lower court can make a declaration that the marriage was void to
determine the rights of the child to be supported. SC rejected the
contention that a separate case for the declaration of nullity must be
filed first, in a case for support, it can rule that the marriage was void.

3 cases where a direct attack, not a collateral attack, must

first be undertaken
1. Provided in Article 40 the absolute nullity of a
previous marriage may be invoked for the purposes
of remarriage on the basis solely of a final judgment
declaring such marriage void
o
o

Collateral and direct attack

A void marriage can be collaterally attacked
o Nullity of marriage can be asserted even if it is
not the main or principal issue of a case
o That no previous judicial declaration of nullity is
required by law with respect to any other matter
where the issue of the voidness is pertinent or
material, either directly or indirectly
If in an inheritance case important to
show that certain children should get
less inheritance because they are
illegitimate due to the void marriage of
the decedent with their mother

If a person has a void marriage, and wants to remarry, s/he

must file a civil case precisely to obtain a judicial declaration
before remarrying
For purposes of remarriage, the only acceptable proof is a
judicial declaration of voidness of first marriage

2. Nial v Bayadog (check table on article 34 )

o For purposes such as (but not limited to)
determination of heirship, legitimacy or
illegitimacy of the child, settlement of estate,
dissolution of property regime, or a criminal case,
the court may pass upon the validity of a
marriage even in a suit not directly instituted to
question the same so long as it essential to the
determination of the case. (Without prejudice to
any issue arising in the case)
3. Article 50 in relation to Article 43(3) if a donor
desires to revoke a donation propter nuptias (in
consideration of marriage) given to one or both of the
married couple on the ground that the marriage is
void, it is important that a judicial decree must first be
obtained
o It is not enough that a marriage is void pursuant
to law. There must be a civil suit filed by either of
the parties in the void marriage to have the
marriage judicially declared null and void

In property disposition
- Good faith and bad faith are material
- Void marriage property regime is one of co-ownership
o When only one of the parties is in good faith, the
share of the party in bad faith shall be forfeited
in favor of their common children
In case of default, each vacant share
shall belong to the respective surviving
descendants
In the absence of descendants,
share shall belong to the
innocent party
-

Evidence other than a judicial decision

can be presented to show the nullity of
the marriage
De Castro v Assidao-De Castro petitioner filed a complaint

Below eighteen years of age

An individual below 18 years of age is declared by law as
not possessing the legal capacity to contract marriage
Consent of parents is immaterial
Non-authority of solemnizer
Marriage involves the intervention of an ecclesiastical or
civil functionary empowered by the state to declare a
couple as husband and wife
o If a person is not among those enumerated in Art
7, or is among the ones enumerated but does not
comply with the specific requirements, s/he has
no authority to solemnize a marriage

Good faith marriage

Good faith is clearly addressed to the contracting parties
and not to the solemnizing officer
Founded on the reasonable belief by one or both parties
that they were honestly married and the solemnizing
officer had the authority, when in fact had none
o Question of good faith is a question of fact which
must be determined by the trial court
Good faith is always presumed until the
contrary is shown

Ignorance of the law v Mistake of fact Dr Arturo

Tolentino
- Good faith or bad faith is immaterial because they cannot
be excused from being ignorant of the persons authorized
by law to solemnize marriage
-

Bigamous or polygamous marriage

A subsequent marriage contracted by a wife during the life
of a former husband, with any person other than the
husband, is illegal and void from the beginning. (US v
Ibaez)
A marriage contracted in Hong Kong, by a husband who
got a divorce in Nevada, is bigamous and void. (Manila
Surety & Fidelity Co., Inc v Teodoro)
In a bigamous marriage, the first marriage must have been
valid.
o If the first marriage is void, and a subsequent
marriage is contracted, with no judicial
declaration of nullity, the subsequent marriage
shall also be void (in violation of Art 40).
Judicial declaration of nullity must be
recorded with the LCR (Art 52)

Nicdao Cario v Cario - violation of Art 40 makes the

subsequent marriage void because it is bigamous.
-

Mistake in identity
An instance of fraud which makes the marriage annullable
One of the contracting parties marries the twin of the other
party, believing that such twin is his/her lover.
o Goes against the essential requisite because of a
complete absence of consent
o Contracting party absolutely didnt intend to
marry the other, as the same is not the person
he/she actually knew before the marriage.
There has been a mistake on the part of the party
seeking the nullification of marriage as the the actual
physical identity of the other party
o Does not include mistake in name, character of
the person, attributes, age, religion, social
standing,
pedigree,
pecuniary
means,
temperaments, acquirements, condition in life, or
previous habits
A mistaken belief by one spouse as to
the real name of the spouse do not

give a cause of action to nullify the

marriage
Mistake in identity is not applicable in a situation where the
husband has been led to believe that he was marrying a
virtuous woman, when in fact she had previously led
an immoral life (Delpit v Young)

Article 36: A marriage contracted by any party who, at the time

of the celebration of the marriage, was psychologically
incapacitated to comply with the essential marital
obligations of marriage, shall likewise be void even if such
incapacity becomes manifest only after its solemnization. (As
amended by EO No. 227, July 17, 1987)
-

The law does not define what psychological incapacity is.

o The determination is left solely with the courts on
a case-to-case basis.
Depends on the facts of the case
Each case must be judge according to
its own facts!
Absence of a definition was intentional
o Because of situations contemplated may vary
from one case to another
Justice Caguioa: a definition straight-jackets the
concept
Ground is restricted to psychological incapacity to comply
with the essential marital obligations
o Should seriously and effectively prevent them
from having a functional and normal marital life
o Psychological illness afflicting a party even
before the celebration of the marriage
Involves a senseless, protracted, and constant refusal
to comply with the essential martial obligations by
one or both of the spouses although he, or she, or they
are physically capable of performing such obligations (Chi
Ming Tsoi v CA)
Justice Caguioa: psychological incapacity solely refers to
the LACK OF APPRECIATION OF ONES MARITAL
OBLIGATION
o Do not refer to mental faculties and has nothing
to do with consent; refers to obligations attendant
to marriage
While insanity can be a good indicator of psychological
incapacity, it is not a pre-requisite for the existence of
the ground for nullity under article 36.
Psychological incapacity must be present at the time of
the marriage ceremony, but can be manifested later on
during the marriage.
o Such marriage cannot be cured by cohabitation.
Justice Puno: even the bearing of children and
cohabitation should not be a sign that the psychological
incapacity has been cured.
SANTOS v COURT OF APPEALS AND JULIA ROSARIO
BEDIA-SANTOS

The husband filed a complaint for Voiding of marriage

under article 36 of the Family Code after his wife, who
went to the US 2 years after their marriage, and never
returned even after the expiration of her contract to work
there as a nurse.
The wife opposed the complaint and denied the
allegations, arguing that it was the petitioner who had
been irresponsible and incompetent.
The petition was dismissed by the RTC for lack of merit.
Petitioner appealed but the CA affirmed the trial courts
decision.
The SC denied the petition because the factual settings in
the case at bench, in no measure at all, can come close to
the standards required to decree a nullity of marriage.
Constitution itself doesnt establish the parameters of state
protection to marriage as a social institution and the
foundation of the family. (ANTONIO v REYES)
Article 36 of the Family Code should be deemed as an
implement of this constitutional protection of
marriage.
o Corresponding interest for the State to defend
against marriages ill-equipped to promote family
life
PROVING PSYCHOLOGICAL INCAPACITY
Psychosomatic and deals with a state of mind, can only be
proven by indicators or external manifestations of the
person claimed to be psychologically incapacitated.
Indicators of psychological incapacity
1. Observes duty toward spouse, children, and
family (pursuant to Article 68)
o Procreation is an essential obligation
2. Rights, duties, and liabilities of parents relative to
their parental authority over their children
(enumerated in Articles 220, 221, and 225)
3. Unreasonable attachment by the spouse to
his/her family or barkada such that the
importance and devotion which should be given
to family are subordinated
o Actual breakdown of family life characterized by
separation of husband and wife is a good
indicator
o Separation/abandonment is not conclusive proof
4. Manifestations of psychological incapacity must
be attributed to a psychological illness and not
physical
o Isolated idiosyncrasies are not manifestations
5. Downright incapacity to perform obligations
o Cannot be a mere refusal or neglect to comply
6. Totality of marriage life is affected by gross
irresponsibility and utter disregard
o Mere incompatibility and irreconcilable
differences are not enough!

TE v TE
Nullity of marriage was granted as it was shown that the
petitioner was suffering from dependent personality
disorder and the respondent was suffering from
narcissistic and anti-social personality disorder
o Dependent Personality - cannot assume the
essential marital obligation of living together for
he is unable to make everyday decisions without
advice from others. He is insecure, weak and
gullible, has no sense of his identity as a person,
has no cohesive self to speak of, and has no
goals and clear direction in life.
o Antisocial Personality disregard for the rights of
others, her abuse, mistreatment, and control of
others without remorse, tendency to blame
others, and intolerance for the conventional
behavioral limitations imposed by society.
Impulsive and domineering,
Both parties are afflicted with grave, severe, and incurable
psychological incapacity.
HALILI v HALILI
Court granted nullity of marriage based on the finding that
petitioner suffered mixed personality disorder from
self-defeating personality to dependent personality
disorder
Expert testimony are extremely helpful, but is not a
requirement for the declaration of psychological incapacity.
Courts may accept the testimony of a psychologist as an
expert witness, if credible and consistent with totality of
evidence presented.
o Azcueta v Azcueta

Antonio v Reyes: medical and clinical findings of

psychiatrist and psychologist were made from pertinent
court records said the respondent was a pathological
liar,
o The mere fact that the person was personally
examined is not an assurance that findings
with be sustained.
TING v TING
SC did not grant the nullity.
Psychiatrist was presented by the respondent and the
petitioner. Adhered that respondent was not psychological
incapacitated.
o Psychiatrist of respondent evaluated the
respondent through analysis of his disposition
So v Valera findings of a psychiatrist was unreliable
o Conclusions were exaggerated extrapolations
from isolated incidents rather than continuing
patters
RUMBAUA v RUMBAUA
SC denied petition for nullity of marriage on ground that
psychological report was very general and did not state
specific linkages between the personality disorder and
behavioral pattern of spouse during the marriage.
NAJERA v NAJERA
Testimony of the psychologist was inadequate and did not
conform to one of the persuasive evidence, which is the
decision of church matrimonial tribunal that nullified
marriage not on psych incapacity but on a different church
ground. SC ruled against nullity.