Persons and Family Relations

Item Case Citation Topic Facts Issue Ruling

54 GR No. 189607, April 20, Family Code W/N the marriage of Lea Yes.
2106 Castillo vs Castillo and Renato is valid? The validity of a marriage and all its
antecedents must be determined in
accordance with the law in effect at the
time of its celebration. The law in force
when Lea contracted both marriages
was the old civil code and not the Family
Code under the said law, it is not
necessary for a valid marriage to secure
a judicial degree to establish its
invalidity of her first marriage to
Bautista because of the absence of a
marriage license. That there was no
judicial declaration that the first
marriage was an initio before the second
marriage is immaterial as this is not
requirement under the old civil code.
55 GR No. 150758, February W/N Veronico committed Yes.
18, 2004 Tenebro vs CA bigamy? Veronico contracted a second marriage
with Leticia during the subsistence of his
valid marriage with Hilda. His first
marriage is valid since the presentation
of a valid marriage contract, it being a
public document, in sufficient to
establish the existence of his marriage,
he contracted a second marriage with
Leticia; thus completing the requisites of
bigamy.
56 GR No. 170022, January 9, W/N the marriage of No.
2013 RP vs Encelan Cesar and Lolita shall be Psychological incapacity contemplates
declared valid on the downright incapacity of incapability to
ground of psychological take cognizance of and to assume the
incapacity? basic marital obligation and not merely
the refusal, neglect as difficulty, much
less ill will, on the part of the errant
spouse. Cesar failed to prove Lulitas
alleged psychological incapacity.

Credit to Ms. Shally Mae Villa for sharing her notes 1

Persons and Family Relations
57 GR No. 209741, April 15, Family Code W/N the marriage of No.
2015 SSC vs. Azote Edgardo and Edna is There existed a legal impediment to
valid? their marriage rendering it void; as it
was celebrated during the subsistence of
Edgardos valid marriage with
Rosemarie, who was still alive of that
time. Edna failed to prove that there was
no impediment or that the impediment
was already removed at the time of the
celebration of her marriage to Edgardo.
She was also not able to prove that
edgardos earlier marriage with
Rosemarie was either annulled or
dissolved or whether there was a
declaration of Rosemaries presumptive
death before their marriage.
58 GR No. 159594, W/N the marriage of No.
November 12, 2012 RP vs Eduardo and catalina Psychological incapacity must be
CA and Quintos shall be declared valid characterized by gravity, juridical
by virtue of Art 36 of the antecedence; however, both the lower
EC? courts did not exact a compliance with
the requirement of sufficiently explaining
the gravity, root cause and incurability
of catalinas alleged psychological
incapacity. The reports and testimonies
of the psychiatrist rendered no
explanation on the root cause that could
have brought such behavior on the part
of Catalina.

Credit to Ms. Shally Mae Villa for sharing her notes 2

Persons and Family Relations
59 GR No. 192718, February W/N there is sufficient No.
18, 2015 Mallilin vs evidence from Robert to Psychological incapacity must be
Jamesolamin and RP prove Luz characterized by gravity, juridical an
psychologically incurability. Roberts evidence failed to
incapacitated under Art establish the psychological incapacity of
36 of the EC? Luz. He failed to overcome the burden of
proof to show the nullity of the marriage.
The root cause of the alleged
psychological incapacity of Luz was not
medically or clinically identified. The
alleged failure of Luz to assume her
duties as a wife and as a mother, her
emotional immaturity, irresponsibility
and infidelity, cannot rise to the level of
psychological incapacity that nullifies a
marriage. The decisions of the NAMI are
not controlling and decisive to the court.
60 GR No. 108763, February Family Code W/N the marriage No.
13, 1997 RP vs CA and between Roridel and There was no psychological incapacity
Molina Reynaldo be declared on the part of Reynaldo but more of a
void on the ground of difficulty, if not outright refusal or
Reynaldos alleged neglect in the performance of some
psychological marital act/ duties. The evidence merely
incapacity? shows that Reynaldo and Roridel could
not get along with each other.
61 GR No. 112019, January 4, W/N the marriage No.
2005 Santos vs CA between Leouel and Julia Psychological incapacity refer to no less
be declared null by than a mental incapacity that causes a
virtue of Art 36 of the party to be truly in cognitive of the basic
EC? marital covenants that concomitantly
must be assumed and discharged by the
parties by the parties of the marriage.

Credit to Ms. Shally Mae Villa for sharing her notes 3

Persons and Family Relations
62 GR No. 136490 October W/N the marriage of No.
19,2000 Marcos vs Marcos Brenda and Wilson shall Although the guidelines set by Molina do
be declared void not require both party to undergo
pursuant to Art 36? examination, the totality of evidence
presented by Brenda does not show
such psychological incapacity. The
totality of Wilsons acts does not lead to
a conclusion of such incapacity of his
part. His alleged psychological illness
was traced only to particular period and
not to the inception of the marriage.
There is also no showing that his
condition is incurable.
63 GR No. 150677 June 5, Family Code W/N the marriage of No.
2009 So vs Valera Renato and Lorna shall The totality of evidence presented by
be declared void Renato failed to establish Lornas
pursuant to Art 36? psychological incapacity to perform the
essential marital obligations. There has
been a lengthy period of obligation
before their marriage took place.
Developments also show a fair level of
stability in the relationship and a healthy
degree of intimacy for 11 years. The
psychologists testimony failed to show
that Lornas behavioral disorder was
medically or clinically permanent or
incurable.
64 GR No. 166357, January
14, 2015 Kalaw vs
Fernandez
65 GR No. 208790, January W/N the marriage of No.
21, 2015 Vinas vs Vinas Glenn and Mary Grace The testimonies presented by Glenn do
shall be declared void. not sufficiently prove the root cause,
gravity and incurability of Mary Graces
condition.
66 Anaya vs Palaroan (GR No. W/N the non-disclosure No.
L-27930, November 26, of Fernando of his Non-disclosure of husbands premarital
1970) pre0marital relationship relationship with another woman is not
with another woman is a the kind of fraud that can annul a
ground for annulment of marriage.
marriage?

Credit to Ms. Shally Mae Villa for sharing her notes 4

Persons and Family Relations
67 Almelor vs RTC of Las W/N the marriage of No.
Pinas City (GR No. Manuel and Leonida No sufficient proof was presented to
179620, August 26, 2008) shall be annulled on the substantiate the allegations that Manuel
ground of fraud? is homosexual and that he concealed
this to Leonida at the time of their
marriage. Nowhere in the said decision
was it proven by preponderance of
evidence that Manuel was homosexual
at the onset of his marriage and that he
deliberately hid such fact to his wife.
Homosexuality per se is not among
those cited as constituting fraud, but its
concealment.
68 Villanueva vs CA and W/N the marriage of No.
Villanueva (GR No. Orlando and Lilia may be Despite the alleged coerced consent by
132955, October 27, annulled on the ground Orlando, he only took serious step to
2006) of vitiated consent? have the marriage annulled after a span
of not less than 4 years and 8 months.
Orlandos apprehension of danger to his
person is not so overwhelming as to
deprive him of the will to enter
voluntarily to a contract of marriage; he
worked as a Security Guard at that time.
That he was made to believe that Lilia
was pregnant with his child when they
were married is only an excuse.
69 GR. No. L-12790, August W/N the marriage of Joel No.
31,2960 Jimenez vs and Remedios may be The incidents of the status are governed
Canizares annulled only on the law, not by the will of the parties. The
strength of the lone law specifically enumerate the grounds
testimony of Joel? that must be proved to exist by
indubitable evidence to annul a
marriage. Whether the wife is impotent
cannot be deemed to have been
satisfactorily established since she had
abstained from taking her part. The lone
testimony of Joel cannot tear to as under
the ties that have bound them together
as husband and wife.
70 GR No. 106169, February W/N the wife can enter Yes.
14, 1994 Sabaloes vs CA into a new contract of Art. 61 of the EC provides that after a
& Sabalones lease over the forbes petition for legal separation has been
Credit to Ms. Shally Mae Villa for sharing her notes 5
Persons and Family Relations
Park property without filed, the trial court shall appoint either
the consent of the one of the spouses or a third person to
husband? act as the administrator. Such
designation was implicit on the decision
of the trial court denying the petitioner
any share in the conjugal properties for
almost 14 years now, without compliant
on the part of the husband. The husband
has not alleged that the administration
of the wife has caused prejudice to the
conjugal partnerships.
71 GR No. 201805, March 23, W/N Rosario can be No.
2015 Tambuyat vs included or named in The respective marriage contracts and
Tambuyat said TCT as Adrianos marriage certificates show that Adriano
spouse? was married to Wenifreda, while Rosario
was married to Nolasco; and both
marriages were subsisting during the
acquisition of the property and the
issuance of TCT. The right and privilege
belong to Wenifrefa alone. Philippine law
does not recognized common law
marriages. The spouse in Art 144 of
the EC contemplates a lawfully wedded
spouse.
72 GR No. 169900 & GR No. W/N Alfredo can sell the No.
169977, March 18, 201 property? Art 124 of the EC provides for the joint
Siochi vs Gozon, et. Al administration and enjoyment of the
conjugal partnership by both spouses. In
this case, Alfredo is the sole
administrator of the property. However,
as the sole administrator of the property,
Alfredo still cannot sell the property
without the written consent of the one of
the spouse actively participated in the
negotiating for the sale of the property.
The written consent to the sale of the
other spouse is required by law for its
validity.
73 GR No. 153206, Oct 23, W/N the decree of legal Yes.
2006 Kiam vs Ong separation shall be The frequent quarrels was admitted by
granted? William when he said no day passed that
he did not quarrel his wife. These
Credit to Ms. Shally Mae Villa for sharing her notes 6
Persons and Family Relations
quarrels were always punctuated by acts
of physical violence, threats and
intimidation by William against Lucita
and on the children. His allegation that
such decree must be denied since Lucita
has abandonment without justifiable
cause for more than one year. Such
actions of Lucita do not constitute the
abandonment contemplated by said
provision.
74 GR No. 126010, Dec 8, W/N the marriage of No.
1999 Hernandez vs CA & Lucita and Mario should Lucita failed to establish the fact that at
Hernandez be annulled on the the time they were married, Mario was
ground of psychological suffering from a psychological defect
incapacity? which deprive him to assume the
essential duties of marriage. Marios
alleged habitual alcoholism, sexual
infidelity or perversion, and
abandonment do not by themselves
constitute grounds for finding that he is
suffering from psychological incapacity
within the contemplation of Art 36 of the
FC.
75 GR No. L-38287 Oct 23, W/N Antonio be allowed No.
1981 Macadangdang vs to continue Art 106 of the cc explicitly provides for
CA administering their the dissolution and liquidation of the
conjugal properties? conjugal partnership of gains of the
absolute community of property as
among the effects of the final decree of
legal separation such dissolution and
liquidation are necessary consequences
of the final decree. This legal effect
automatically follows as an inevitable
incident of the judgment decreeing legal
separation.

Credit to Ms. Shally Mae Villa for sharing her notes 7