BOLOS V.

BOLOS
634 SCRA 429, October 20, 2010

DOCTRINE: Declaration of Nullity of Marriage; The Rule on Declaration of Absolute

Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages as contained in A.M.
No. 02-11-10-SC, which the Court promulgated on 15 March 2003, extends only to
those marriages entered into during the effectivity of the Family Code which took
effect on 3 August 1988.

FACTS: Petitioner Cynthia Bolos(Cynthia)filed a petition for the declaration of nullity

of her marriage to Respondent Danilo Bolos (Danilo) under Article 36 of the Family
Code. After trial on the merits, the RTC granted the petition for annulment. A copy of
said decision was received by respondent Danilo and he thereafter timely filed the
Notice of Appeal.

The RTC denied due course to the appeal for Danilos failure to file the required
motion for reconsideration or new trial, in violation of Section 20 of the Rule on
Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable
Marriages. Thereafter, the RTC issued the order declaring its decision declaring the
marriage null and void as final and executory and granting the Motion for Entry
of Judgment filed by Cynthia. Not in conformity, Danilo filed with the CA a petition
for certiorari under Rule 65 seeking to annul the orders of the RTC as they were
rendered with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
in excess of jurisdiction. Danilo also prayed that he be declared psychologically
capacitated to render the essential marital obligations to Cynthia, who should be
declared guilty of abandoning him, the family home and their children.

The CA granted the petition and reversed and set aside the assailed orders of the
RTC declaring the nullity of marriage as final and executory. The appellate court
stated that the requirement of a motion for reconsideration as a prerequisite to
appeal under A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC did not apply in this case as the marriage
between Cynthia and Danilo was solemnized on February 14, 1980 before the
Family Code took effect.

Petitioner argues that A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC is also applicable to marriages

solemnized before the effectivity of the Family Code. According to petitioner, the
phrase under the Family Code in A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC refers to the word
petitions rather than to the word marriages. Such that petitions filed after the
effectivity of the Family Code are governed by the A.M. No. even if the marriage was
solemnized before the same. Danilo, in his Comment, counters that A.M. No. 02-11-
10-SC is not applicable because his marriage with Cynthia was solemnized on
February 14, 1980, years before its effectivity.

ISSUE: Whether or not A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC entitled Rule on Declaration of

Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages, is
applicable to the case at bench.

HELD: No, it does not. The Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages
and Annulment of Voidable Marriages as contained in A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC which
the Court promulgated on March 15, 2003, is explicit in its scope. Section 1 of the
Rule, in fact, reads:

Section 1. Scope.This Rule shall govern petitions for declaration of absolute

nullity of void marriages and annulment of voidable marriages under the Family
Code of the Philippines.
The Rules of Court shall apply suppletorily.
The categorical language of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC leaves no room for doubt. The
coverage extends only to those marriages entered into during the effectivity of the
Family Code which took effect on August 3, 1988. 7 The rule sets a demarcation line
between marriages covered by the Family Code and those solemnized under the
Civil Code.8 The Court finds Itself unable to subscribe to petitioners interpretation
that the phrase under the Family Code in A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC refers to the word
petitions rather than to the word marriages.
In fine, the CA committed no reversible error in setting aside the RTC decision which
denied due course to respondents appeal and denying petitioners motion for
extension of time to file a motion for reconsideration.

JULIANO-LLAVE V. REPUBLIC
G.R. No. 169766, March 30, 2011

PROCEDURAL HISTORY: This petition for review on certiorari assails the Decision
dated August 17, 2004 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 61762 and its
subsequent Resolution dated September 13, 2005, which affirmed the Decision of
the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, Branch 89 declaring
petitioner Estrellita Juliano-Llave s (Estrellita) marriage to Sen. Mamintal A.J. Tamano
(Sen. Tamano) as void ab initio.

FACTS: Around 11 months before his death, Sen. Tamano married Estrellita twice
initially under the Islamic laws and tradition on May 27, 1993 in Cotabato City and,
subsequently, under a civil ceremony officiated by an RTC Judge at Malabang, Lanao
del Sur on June 2, 1993. In their marriage contracts, Sen. Tamano s civil status
was indicated as divorced. Since then, Estrellita has been representing herself to
the whole world as Sen. Tamano s wife, and upon his death, his widow.
On November 23, 1994, private respondents Haja Putri Zorayda A. Tamano
(Zorayda) and her son Adib Ahmad A. Tamano (Adib), in their own behalf and in
behalf of the rest of Sen. Tamano s legitimate children with Zorayda, filed a
complaint with the RTC of Quezon City for the declaration of nullity of marriage
between Estrellita and Sen. Tamano for being bigamous. The complaint alleged that
Sen. Tamano married Zorayda on May 31, 1958 under civil rites, and that this
marriage remained subsisting when he married Estrellita in 1993.

ISSUE: Whether the marriage between Estrellita and the late Sen. Tamano was
bigamous.

HELD: Yes. The civil code governs the marriage of Zorayda and late Sen. Tamano;
their marriage was never invalidated by PD 1083. Sen. Tamano s subsequent
marriage to Estrellita is void ab initio.The marriage between the late Sen. Tamano
and Zorayda was celebrated in 1958, solemnized under civil and Muslim rites. The
only law in force governing marriage relationships between Muslims and non-
Muslims alike was the Civil Code of 1950, under the provisions of which only one
marriage can exist at any given time. Under the marriage provisions of the
Civil Code, divorce is not recognized except during the effectivity of Republic Act No.
394 which was not availed of during its effectivity.

As far as Estrellita is concerned, Sen. Tamano s prior marriage to Zorayda has been
severed by way of divorce under PD 1083, the law that codified Muslim personal
laws. However, PD 1083 cannot benefit Estrellita. Firstly, Article 13(1) thereof
provides that the law applies to marriage and divorce wherein both parties are
Muslims, or wherein only the male party is a Muslim and the marriage is solemnized
in accordance with Muslim law or this Code in any part of the Philippines. But
Article 13 of PD 1083 does not provide for a situation where the parties were
married both in civil and Muslim rites.

ABBAS VS ABBAS
689 SCRA 646

Bigamy Void Ab Initio Marriage Lack of a Marriage License

FACTS: In January 1993, Syed Azhar Abbas was invited to the house of Felicitas
Goo, mother of Gloria Goo. He said he was asked to participate in a ceremony which
was meant to welcome him to the Philippines (Abbas is a Pakistani). He said he did
not know that the ceremony was actually his marriage with Gloria Goo. Later, Gloria
filed a bigamy case against Abbas. Abbas allegedly married a certain Maria Corazon
Buenaventura.

To avoid the bigamy case, Abbas filed a petition for the declaration of nullity of his
marriage to Gloria Goo.
To prove the validity of their marriage, Gloria presented a marriage contract signed
by Abbas as well as the solemnizing officer who celebrated their marriage. The
marriage contract contained the alleged marriage license issued to Abbas.

Abbas presented a certification issued by the Local Civil Registrar which states that
the marriage license, based on its number, indicated in the marriage contract was
never issued to Abbas but to someone else.
The RTC ruled in favor of Abbas. However, the Court of Appeals reversed the RTC on
the ground that there was no diligence to search for the real source of the marriage
license issued to Abbas (for it could be that the marriage license was issued in
another municipality).

ISSUE: Whether or not the marriage between Abbas and Goo is void ab initio.

HELD: Yes. Their marriage lacked one of the essential requisites of marriage which
is the issuance of a valid marriage license. The Court of Appeals is wrong in
reversing the RTC. The Local Civil registrars certification enjoyed probative value as
her duty was to maintain records of data relative to the issuance of a marriage
license. There is a presumption of regularity of official acts in favor of the local civil
registrar. Gloria was not able to overcome this presumption hence it stands to favor
Abbas.

The fact that Abbas did sign the marriage contract does not make it conclusive that
there was in fact a valid marriage license issued to him nor does it cure the fact that
no marriage license was issued to Abbas. Article 4 of the Family Code is clear when
it says, The absence of any of the essential or formal requisites shall render the
marriage void ab initio. Article 35(3) of the Family Code also provides that a
marriage solemnized without a license is void from the beginning.

SUAZO VS SUAZO
615 SCRA 154

Psychological Incapacity Drunkenness, Indolence, Physical Violence Not

Necessarily Psychological Incapacity

FACTS: In 1985, Jocelyn and Angelito Suazo met each other. They were just 16
years old at that time. In 1986, they got married before the Mayor of Bian, Laguna.
But their marriage did not turn out to be ideal. It was Jocelyn who had to work while
Angelito was lazy. When confronted by Jocelyn, Angelito would beat her. Angelito
was also constantly drunk. And in 1987, Angelito left Jocelyn for another woman.

In 1997, Jocelyn filed a petition to have their marriage be declared void on the
ground that Angelito was psychologically incapacitated. In court, Jocelyn presented
Dr. Nedy Tayag who testified that based on her interview with Jocelyn and the
description fed to her by Jocelyn, she concluded that Angelito is psychologically
incapacitated to perform the essential marital obligations. The RTC voided the
marriage but the Court of Appeals reversed the decision.

ISSUE: Whether or not the marriage should be annulled on the ground

of psychological incapacity.

HELD: No. The psychologist, using meager information coming from a directly
interested party (Jocelyn), could not have secured a complete personality profile
and could not have conclusively formed an objective opinion or diagnosis of
Angelitos psychological condition.

Further, habitual drunkenness, gambling and refusal to find a job, while indicative of
psychological incapacity, do not, by themselves, show psychological incapacity. All
these simply indicate difficulty, neglect or mere refusal to perform marital
obligations that cannot be considered to be constitutive of psychological incapacity
in the absence of proof that these are manifestations of an incapacity rooted in
some debilitating psychological condition or illness.

Anent Angelitos violent tendencies, physical violence on women indicates abnormal

behavioral or personality patterns, however, such violence, standing alone, does not
constitute psychological incapacity. Jurisprudence holds that there must be evidence
showing a link, medical or the like, between the acts that manifest psychological
incapacity and the psychological disorder itself. In this case, the psychologist failed
to link the violence to psychological incapacity. Even assuming, therefore, that
Jocelyns account of the physical beatings she received from Angelito were true, this
evidence does not satisfy the requirement of Article 36 and its related
jurisprudence, specifically the requisites provided for in the case of Santos vs CA.

AGRAVIADOR VS AGRAVIADOR

FACTS: Enrique first met Erlinda in 1971 at a beerhouse where Erlinda worked.
Their meeting led to a courtship, became sweethearts and soon entered into a
common-law relationship, and finally got married in 1973.

In 2001, Enrique filed a petition to have his marriage with Erlinda null and void
under Article 36 of the Family Code. He alleged that Erlinda was psychologically
incapacitated to exercise the essential obligations of marriage. He claimed that she
was carefree and irresponsible, refused to do household chores, had extramarital
affairs, did not take care of their sick child, consulted a witch doctor, and refused to
use the family name in her activities.

Enrique, aside from his testimony, also presented a certified true copy of their
marriage contract and the psychiatric evaluation report of Dr. Patac. In his
psychiatric evaluation report, Dr. Patac found Erlinda unable to fulfill the essential
obligations of marriage as she manifested inflexible maladaptive behavior even at
the time before their marriage. In his conclusion stated that Erlinda is suffering from
a Mixed Personality Disorder where there is no definite treatment for such illness.
Erlinda moved to dismiss the petition. The RTC denied her motion and took side on
Enrique.

ISSUE: Whether or not Enrique can invoke Article 36 of the Family Code as the basis
to nullify his marriage to Erlinda.

RULING: No. Psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code do not
involve a species of vice of consent. The spouse may have given free and voluntary
consent to a marriage but was, nonetheless, incapable of fulfilling such rights and
obligations. Psychological incapacity to comply with the essential marital obligation
does not affect the consent to the marriage.

The totality of Enriques' evidence is insufficient to prove Erlinda's psychological

incapacity. Her refusal or unwillingness to perform certain marital obligations, and a
number of unpleasant personality traits such as immaturity, irresponsibility, and
unfaithfulness do not rise to the level of psychological incapacity that the law
requires.

Dr. Patac's psychiatric evaluation report do not hold sufficient amount in proving
that Erlinda was psychological incapacitated to perform the essential marital duties.
Dr. Patac did not personally evaluate and examine Erlinda, as he relied only on the
information fed by Enrique, the party's second child and household helper.
 NGO TE VS YU TE

FACTS: The parties whirlwind relationship lasted more or less six (6) months. They
met in January 1996, eloped in March, exchanged marital vows in May, and parted
ways in June. After almost four years, or on January 18, 2000, Edward filed a petition
before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) Quezon City for the annulment of his marriage
to Rowena on the basis of the latters psychological incapacity. The psychologist
who provided expert testimony found both parties psychologically incapacitated.
Petitioners behavioral pattern falls under the classification of dependent personality
disorder, and the respondents, that of the narcissistic and antisocial personality
disorder.

The trial court, on July 30, 2001, rendered its decision declaring the marriage of the
parties null and void on the ground that both parties were psychologically
incapacitated to comply with the essential marital obligations. On review, the
appellate court reversed and set aside the trials court ruling. It ruled that petitioner
failed to prove the psychological incapacity of respondent, for the clinical
psychologist did not personally examine respondent, and relied only on the
information provided by petitioner. Further, the psychological incapacity was not
shown to be attended by gravity, juridical antecedence and incurability. In sum, the
evidence adduced fell short of the requirements stated in the Molina case needed
for the declaration of nullity of the marriage under Art. 36 of the Family Code.
Dissatisfied, petitioner filed before the SC the instant petition for review on
certiorari. He posited that the trial court declared the marriage void, not only
because of respondents psychological incapacity, but rather due to both parties
psychological incapacity. He also pointed out that there is no requirement for the
psychologist to personally examine respondent.

ISSUE: Whether, based on Article 36 of the Family Code, the marriage between the
parties is null and void?

HELD: Yes, the marriage between the parties is null and void. While petition for
review for certiorari was granted. The decision of the CA was reversed and set
aside, and the decision of the trial court was reinstated. Both parties afflicted with
grave, severe and incurable psychological incapacity, the precipitous marriage is,
thus, declared null and void. For the fulfillment of the obligations of marriage
depends on the strength of this interpersonal relationship. A serious incapacity for
interpersonal sharing and support is held to impair the relationship and
consequently, the ability to fulfill the essential marital obligations. The root cause of
the psychological incapacity must be (a) medically or clinically identified, (b) alleged
in the complaint, (c) sufficiently proven by experts and (d) clearly explained in the
decision. Article 36 of the Family Code requires that the incapacity must be
psychological not physical, although its manifestations and/or symptoms may be
physical.

In dissolving the marital bonds on account of either partys psychological incapacity,

the Court is not demolishing the foundation of families, but it is actually protecting
the sanctity of marriage, because it refuses to allow a person afflicted with a
psychological disorder, who cannot comply with or assume the essential marital
obligations, from remaining that sacred bond. Let it be noted that in Art. 36, there is
no marriage to speak of in the first place, as the same is void from the very
beginning.