Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 19

Name Facts Issue Ruling

 Republic vs.  Respondent Nilda was married to Dante on  Whether Dante has been  In this case, Nilda testified that
Tampus November 29, 1975 in Cordova, Cebu. correctly declared as after Dante's disappearance,
 The marriage ceremony was solemnized by presumptively dead. she tried to locate him by
Municipal Judge Julian B. Pogoy of Cordova, making inquiries with his
Cebu. parents, relatives, and
 Three days thereafter, or on December 2, 1975, neighbors as to his
Dante, a member of the Armed Forces of the whereabouts, but
Philippines (AFP), left respondent, and went to unfortunately, they also did not
Jolo, Sulu where he was assigned. know where to find him.
 The couple had no children.  Other than making said
 Since then, Nilda heard no news from Dante. inquiries, however, Nilda made
She tried everything to locate· him, but her no further efforts to find her
efforts proved futile. husband.
 Thus, on April 14, 2009, she filed before the  She could have called or
RTC a petition to declare Dante as proceeded to the AFP
presumptively dead for the purpose of headquarters to request
remarriage, alleging that after the lapse of thirty- information about her
three (33) years without any kind of husband, but failed to do so.
communication from him, she firmly believes that  She did not even seek the help
he is already dead. of the authorities or the AFP
 RTC granted Nilda's petition. itself in finding him.
 It found that Dante left the conjugal dwelling  She could have inquired from
sometime in 1975 and from then on, Nilda never the AFP on the status of the
heard from him again despite diligent efforts to said mission, or from the
locate him. members of the AFP who were
 In this light, she believes that he had passed assigned thereto.
away especially since his last assignment was a  To the Court's mind, therefore,
combat mission. Nilda failed to actively look for
 Moreover, the RTC found that the absence of her missing husband, and her
thirty-three (33) years was sufficient purported earnest efforts to
find him by asking Dante's
parents, relatives, and friends
did not satisfy the strict
standard and degree of
diligence required to create a
"well-founded belief' of his
 Furthermore, Nilda did not
present Dante's family,
relatives, or neighbors as
witnesses who could have
corroborated her
asseverations that she
earnestly looked for Dante.
 These resource persons were
not even named.
 Finally, other than Nilda's bare
testimony, no other
corroborative evidence had
been offered to support her
allegation that she exerted
efforts to find him but was
 What appears from the facts
as established in this case was
that Nilda simply allowed the
passage of time without
actively and diligently
searching for her husband,
which the Court cannot accept
as constituting a "well-founded
belief' that her husband is
 Republic vs.  Sarenogon filed a petition before the RTC to  Whether or not the “well-  No. To comply with this
Sareñogon declare the presumptive death of his wife founded belief” requisite under requirement, the present
Netchie. Article 41 (FC) was complied spouse must prove that his/her
 He testified that they got married and lived with belief was the result of diligent
together as husband and wife for a month only and reasonable efforts and
because he left to work as a seaman while inquiries to locate the absent
Netchie went to Hongkong as a domestic helper. spouse and that based on
 For 3 months, he did not receive any these efforts and inquiries,
communication from Netchie and had no idea he/she believes that under the
about her whereabouts. circumstances, the absent
 While still abroad, he tried to contact Netchie’s spouse is already dead.
parents, but failed.  It requires exertion of active
 He returned home after his contract expired, effort.
then inquired from Netchie’s relatives and frie  In this case, Sarenogon failed
nds about her whereabouts. to satisfy required “well-
 They also did not know where she was. founded belief” standard.
 Because of these, he had to presume that his  Sarenogon’s pathetically
wife Netchie was already dead. anemic efforts to locate the
 He filed the Petition before the RTC so he could missing Netchie are notches
contract another marriage pursuant to Article 41 below the required degree of
of the Family Code. stringent diligence prescribed
 Jose’s testimony was corroborated by his older by jurisprudence.
brother, and by Netchie’s aunt.  For aside from his bare claims
 These two witnesses testified that Jose and that he had inquired from
Netchie lived together as husband and wife only alleged friends and relatives as
for one month prior to their leaving the to Netchie’s whereabouts,
Philippines for separate destinations abroad and Jose did not call to the witness
added that they had no information regarding stand specific individuals or
Netchie’s location. persons whom he allegedly
 The RTC found that Netchie had disappeared saw or met in the course of his
for more than four years, reason enough for search or quest for the
Jose to conclude that his wife was indeed allegedly missing Netchie.
already dead.  Neither did he prove that he
sought the assistance of the
pertinent government agencies
as well as the media. Nor did
he show that he undertook a
thorough, determined and
unflagging search for Netchie,
say for at least two years (and
what those years were), and
naming the particular places,
provinces, cities, barangays or
municipalities that he visited,
or went to, and identifying the
specific persons he
interviewed or talked to in the
course of his search.
 Domingo vs. CA  Roberto Domingo married Delia Soledad in 1976  Whether or not a petition for  Yes. A declaration of the
while being married with Emerlina dela Paz. judicial declaration of a void absolute nullity of marriage is
 He has been unemployed and completely marriage is necessary. If in now explicitly required either
dependent upon Delia, who has been working in affirmative, whether the same as a cause of action or a
Saudi Arabia, for support and subsistence. should be filed only for purpose ground for defense.
 Delia only found out about the prior marriage of remarriage.  Where the absolute nullity of a
when Emerlina sued them for bigamy in 1983. previous marriage is sought to
 In 1989, she found out that Roberto was be invoked for purpose of
cohabiting with another woman and he was contracting a second marriage,
disposing of some of her properties without her the sole basis acceptable in
knowledge and consent. law for the said projected
 In May 1991, Delia filed a petition for judicial marriage be free from legal
declaration of nullity of her marriage to Roberto infirmity is a final judgment
and separation of property. declaring the previous
marriage void.
 The requirement for a
declaration of absolute nullity
of a marriage is also for the
protection of the spouse who,
believing that his or her
marriage is illegal and void,
marries again.
 With the judicial declaration of
the nullity of his or her first
marriage, the person who
marries again cannot be
charged with bigamy.
 Article 40 as finally formulated
included the significant clause
denotes that final judgment
declaring the previous
marriage void need not be
obtained only for purposes of
 A person can conceive of other
instances other than
remarriage, such as in case of
an action for liquidation,
partition, distribution and
separation of property between
the spouses, as well as an
action for the custody and
support of their common
children and the delivery of the
latters' presumptive legitimes.
 In such cases, however, one is
required by law to show
proof that the previous one
was an absolute nullity.
 Castillo vs. De Leon  On 25 May 1972, respondent Lea P. De Leon  Whether or not judicial  No. The Court held that the
Castillo Castillo (Lea) married Benjamin Bautista declaration is necessary in order subsequent marriage of Lea to
(Bautista). to establish the nullity of a Renato is valid in view of the
 On 6 January 1979, respondent married herein marriage. invalidity of her first marriage
petitioner Renato A. Castillo (Renato). to Bautista because of the
 On 28 May 2001, Renato filed before the RTC a absence of a marriage license.
Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage,  That there was no judicial
praying that his marriage to Lea be declared declaration that the first
void due to her subsisting marriage to Bautista. marriage was void ab initio
 Respondent opposed the Petition, and before the second marriage
contended that her marriage to Bautista was null was contracted is immaterial
and void as they had not secured any license as this is not a requirement
therefor, and neither of them was a member of under the Civil Code.
the denomination to which the solemnizing  Nonetheless, the subsequent
officer belonged. Decision of the RTC declaring
 RTC declared the marriage between petitioner the nullity of Lea's first
and respondent null and void ab initio on the marriage only serves to
ground that it was a bigamous marriage under strengthen the conclusion that
Article 41 of the Family Code. her subsequent marriage to
 The RTC said that the fact that Lea's marriage to Renato is valid.
Bautista was subsisting when she married
Renato on 6 January 1979, makes her marriage
to Renato bigamous, thus rendering it void ab
 The lower court dismissed Lea's argument that
she need not obtain a judicial decree of nullity
and could presume the nullity of a prior
subsisting marriage.
 The RTC stressed that so long as no judicial
declaration exists, the prior marriage is valid and
 Lastly, RTC also said that even if respondent
eventually had her first marriage judicially
declared void, the fact remains that the first and
second marriage were subsisting before the first
marriage was annulled, since Lea failed to
obtain a judicial decree of nullity for her first
marriage to Bautista before contracting her
second marriage with Renato.
 CA reversed and set aside the RTC's Decision
and Order and upheld the validity of the parties'
 In reversing the RTC, the CA said that since
Lea's marriages were solemnized in 1972 and in
1979, or prior to the effectivity of the Family
Code on 3 August 1988, the Civil Code is the
applicable law since it is the law in effect at the
time the marriages were celebrated, and not the
Family Code.
 Furthermore, the CA ruled that the Civil Code
does not state that a judicial decree is necessary
in order to establish the nullity of a marriage.
 Montañez vs.  On April 8, 1976, Lourdes Cipriano (Lourdes)  Whether or not the RTC correct  The elements of the crime of
Cipriano married Socrates Flores (Socrates). On January in quashing the information for bigamy are: (a) the offender
24, 1983, during the subsistence of the said bigamy has been legally married; (b)
marriage, Lourdes married Silverio V. Cipriano the marriage has not been
(Silverio). legally dissolved or, in case his
 In 2001, Lourdes filed with the RTC of or her spouse is absent, the
Muntinlupa a Petition for the Annulment of her absent spouse could not yet
marriage with Socrates on the ground of the be presumed dead according
latter’s psychological incapacity. to the Civil Code; (c) that he
 The RTC rendered its decision declaring the contracts a second or
marriage of Lourdes with Socrates null and void. subsequent marriage; and (d)
 Said decision became final and executory on the second or subsequent
October 13, 2003. marriage has all the essential
 On May 14, 2004, petitioner Merlinda Montañez, requisites for validity. The
Silverio’s daughter from the first marriage, filed a felony is consummated on the
complaint for bigamy against Lourdes alleging celebration of the second
that Lourdes failed to reveal to Silverio that she marriage or subsequent
was still married to Socrates. marriage.
 Lourdes moved to quash the information  It is essential in the
alleging that her first marriage to Socrates had prosecution for bigamy that the
already been declared void ab initio in 2003, alleged second marriage,
thus, there was no more marriage to speak of having all the essential
prior to her marriage to Silverio on January 24, requirements, would be valid
1983. were it not for the subsistence
 She also averred that she had contracted her of the first marriage.
second marriage before the effectivity of the  In this case, it appears that
Family Code; hence, the existing law at that time when respondent contracted a
did not require a judicial declaration of absolute second marriage with Silverio
nullity as a condition precedent to contracting a in 1983, her first marriage with
subsequent marriage. Socrates celebrated in 1976
 Hence, the RTC granted the motion to quash. was still subsisting as the
same had not yet been
annulled or declared void by a
competent authority.
 Clearly, the annulment of
respondent's first marriage on
the ground of psychological
incapacity was declared only in
 In Mercado v. Tan, we ruled
that the subsequent judicial
declaration of the nullity of the
first marriage was immaterial,
because prior to the
declaration of nullity, the crime
of bigamy had already been
 As far back as 1995, in Atienza
v. Brillantes, Jr., the Court
already made the declaration
that Article 40, which is a rule
of procedure, should be
applied retroactively because
Article 256 of the Family Code
itself provides that said "Code
shall have retroactive effect
insofar as it does not prejudice
or impair vested or acquired
 The Court went on to explain,
thus: “The fact that procedural
statutes may somehow affect
the litigants' rights may not
preclude their retroactive
application to pending actions.
The retroactive application of
procedural laws is not violative
of any right of a person who
may feel that he is adversely
affected. The reason is that as
a general rule, no vested right
may attach to, nor arise from,
procedural laws.”
 Vitangcol vs.  On December 4, 1994, Norberto married Alice  Whether the Certification from  No. The Certification from the
People G. Eduardo (Alice). the Office of the Civil Registrar Office of the Civil Registrar
 Born into their union were three (3) children. that it has no record of the that it has no record of the
 After some time, Alice eventually discovered that marriage license issued to marriage license is suspect.
Norberto was previously married to a certain petitioner Norberto A. Vitangcol  Assuming that it is true, it does
Gina M. Gaerlan (Gina) on July 17, 1987, as and his first wife Gina proves the not categorically prove that
evidenced by a marriage contract registered with nullity of petitioner’s first there was no marriage license.
the National Statistics Office. marriage and exculpates him  Furthermore, marriages are
 Alice subsequently filed a criminal Complaint for from the bigamy charge. not dissolved through mere
bigamy against Norberto. certifications by the civil
 Norberto argues that the first element of bigamy registrar.
is absent in this case.  For more than seven (7) years
 He presents as evidence a Certification from the before his second marriage,
Office of the Civil Registrar of Imus, Cavite, petitioner did nothing to have
which states that the Office has no record of the his alleged spurious first
marriage license allegedly issued in his favor marriage declared a nullity.
and his first wife, Gina.  Even when this case was
 He argues that with no proof of existence of an pending, he did not present
essential requisite of marriage—the marriage any decision from any trial
license—the prosecution fails to establish the court nullifying his first
legality of his first marriage. marriage.
 In addition, Norberto claims that the legal  Persons intending to contract a
dissolution of the first marriage is not an element second marriage must first
of the crime of bigamy. secure a judicial declaration of
nullity of their first marriage. If
they proceed with the second
marriage without the judicial
declaration, they are guilty of
bigamy regardless of evidence
of the nullity of the first
 Cariño vs. Cariño  SPO4 Santiago Cariño married Susan Nicdao in  Whether or not Yee can claim  No. SC held that the marriage
1969 without marriage license. half the amount acquired by between Yee and Cariño falls
 They had two children. He then married Susan Nicdao. under the Article 148 of the
Yee on November 10 1992, with whom he had Family Code, which refers to
no children in their almost 10 year cohabitation the property regime of
starting way back in 1982. bigamous or polygamous
 He passed away on November 23 1992. marriages, adulterous or
 The two Susans filed with the RTC of Quezon concubinage relationships.
City the claims for monetary benefits and  Yee cannot claim the benefits
financial assistance pertaining to the deceased earned by the SPO4 as a
from various government agencies. police officer as her marriage
 Nicdao collected a total of P146,000 while Yee to the deceased is void due to
received a total of P21,000. bigamy.
 Yee filed an instant case for collection of half the  She is only entitled to the
money acquired by Nicdao, collectively properties acquired with the
denominated as "death benefits." deceased through their actual
 Yee admitted that her marriage with the SPO4 joint contribution.
took place during the subsistence of, and  Wages and salaries earned by
without first obtaining a judicial declaration of each party belong to him or
nullity, the marriage between Nicdao and the her exclusively.
SPO4.  Hence, they are not owned in
 She however claimed that she became aware of common by Yee and the
the previous marriage at the funeral of the deceased, but belong to the
deceased. deceased alone and Yee has
 In 1995, the trial court ruled in favor of Yee. no right whatsoever to claim
Nicdao appealed to the CA, which the CA the same.
affirmed the decision of the trial court.  By intestate succession, the
said “death benefits” of the
deceased shall pass to his
legal heirs.
 And, Yee, not being the legal
wife, is not one of them.
 As regards to the first
marriage, the marriage
between Nicdao and SPO4 is
null and void due to absence
of a valid marriage license.
 Nicdao can claim the death
benefits by the deceased even
if she did not contribute
 Article 147 creates a co-
ownership in respect thereto,
entitling Nicdao to share one-
half of the benefits. As there is
no allegation of bad faith in the
first marriage, she can claim
one-half of the disputed death
benefits and the other half to
the deceased' to his legal
heirs, by intestate succession.
 The marriage between Yee
and SPO4 is likewise null and
void for the same has been
solemnized without the judicial
declaration of the nullity of the
marriage between Nicdao and
 Under Article 40, if a party who
is previously married wishes to
contract a second marriage, he
or she has to obtain first a
judicial decree declaring the
first marriage void, before he
or she could contract said
second marriage, otherwise
the second marriage would be
 However, for purposes other
than to remarry, no prior and
separate judicial declaration of
nullity is necessary.
 Republic vs. Molina  The case at bar challenges the decision of CA  Whether or not the marriage is  No. There is no clear showing
affirming the marriage of the respondent Roridel void on the ground of that the psychological defect
Molina to Reynaldo Molina void in the ground of psychological incapacity. spoken of is incapacity.
psychological incapacity.  It appears to be more of a
 The couple got married in 1985, after a year, “difficulty” if not outright
Reynaldo manifested signs of immaturity and “refusal” or “neglect” in the
irresponsibility both as husband and a father performance of some marital
preferring to spend more time with friends whom obligations.
he squandered his money, depends on his  Mere showing of
parents for aid and assistance and was never “irreconcilable differences” and
honest with his wife in regard to their finances. “conflicting personalities” in no
 In 1986, the couple had an intense quarrel and wise constitute psychological
as a result their relationship was estranged. incapacity.
 Roridel quit her work and went to live with her  It is not enough to prove that
parents in Baguio City in 1987 and a few weeks the parties failed to meet their
later, Reynaldo left her and their child. Since responsibilities and duties as
then he abandoned them. married persons; it is essential
that they must be shown to be
incapable of doing so, due to
some psychological (not
physical) illness.
 The following are the
guidelines as to the grounds of
psychological incapacity laid
set forth in this case:
 burden of proof to show
nullity belongs to the
 root causes of the
incapacity must be
medically and clinically
 such incapacity should be
in existence at the time of
the marriage
 such incapacity must be
grave so as to disable the
person in complying with
the essentials of marital
obligations of marriage
 such incapacity must be
embraced in Art. 68-71 as
well as Art 220, 221 and
225 of the Family Code
 decision of the National
Matrimonial Appellate
Court or the Catholic
Church must be
 court shall order the
prosecuting attorney and
the fiscal assigned to it to
act on behalf of the state.
 Marcos vs. Marcos  It was established during the trial that the parties  Whether personal medical or  We agree with petitioner that
were married twice: (1) on September 6, 1982 psychological examination of the the personal medical or
which was solemnized by Judge Eriberto H. respondent by a physician is a psychological examination of
Espiritu at the Municipal Court of Pasig and (2) requirement for a declaration of respondent is not a
on May 8, 1983 which was solemnized by Rev. psychological incapacity. requirement for a declaration
Eduardo L. Eleazar, Command Chaplain, at the  Whether the totality of evidence of psychological incapacity.
Presidential Security Command Chapel in presented in this case show  Nevertheless, the totality of the
Malacañang Park, Manila psychological incapacity. evidence she presented does
 Out of their marriage, five (5) children were born not show such incapacity.
 Appellant Wilson G. Marcos joined the Armed  Psychological incapacity as a
Forces of the Philippines in 1973. ground for declaring the nullity
 Later on, he was transferred to the Presidential of a marriage, may be
Security Command in Malacañang during the established by the totality of
Marcos Regime. evidence presented.
 Appellee Brenda B. Marcos, on the other hand,  There is no requirement,
joined the Women’s Auxilliary Corps under the however that the respondent
Philippine Air Force in 1978. be examined by a physician or
 After the Edsa Revolution, both of them sought a a psychologist as a condition
discharge from the military service. sine qua non for such
 They first met sometime in 1980 when both of declaration.
them were assigned at the Malacañang Palace,  Although this Court is
she as an escort of Imee Marcos and he as a sufficiently convinced that
Presidential Guard of President Ferdinand respondent failed to provide
Marcos. material support to the family
 Through telephone conversations, they became and may have resorted to
acquainted and eventually became sweethearts. physical abuse and
 After their marriage on September 6, 1982, they abandonment, the totality of
resided at No. 1702 Daisy Street, Hulo Bliss, his acts does not lead to a
Mandaluyong, a housing unit which she conclusion of psychological
acquired from the Bliss Development incapacity on his part.
Corporation when she was still single.  There is absolutely no showing
 After the downfall of President Marcos, he left that his “defects” were already
the military service in 1987 and then engaged in present at the inception of the
different business ventures that did not however marriage or that they are
prosper. incurable.
 As a wife, she always urged him to look for work  Verily, the behavior of
so that their children would see him, instead of respondent can be attributed
her, as the head of the family and a good to the fact that he had lost his
provider. job and was not gainfully
 Due to his failure to engage in any gainful employed for a period of more
employment, they would often quarrel and as a than six years.
consequence, he would hit and beat her.  It was during this period that
 He would even force her to have sex with him he became intermittently
despite her weariness. drunk, failed to give material
 He would also inflict physical harm on their and moral support, and even
children for a slight mistake and was so severe left the family home.
in the way he chastised them.  Thus, his alleged
 Thus, for several times during their cohabitation, psychological illness was
he would leave their house. traced only to said period and
 In 1992, they were already living separately. not to the inception of the
 All the while, she was engrossed in the business marriage.
of selling “magic uling” and chickens.  Equally important, there is no
 While she was still in the military, she would first evidence showing that his
make deliveries early in the morning before condition is incurable,
going to Malacañang. especially now that he is
gainfully employed as a taxi
 When she was discharged from the military
service, she concentrated on her business.
Then, she became a supplier in the Armed  In sum, this Court cannot
Forces of the Philippines until she was able to declare the dissolution of the
put up a trading and construction company, NS marriage for failure of the
Ness Trading and Construction Development petitioner to show that the
Corporation. alleged psychological
 The ‘straw that broke the camel’s back’ took incapacity is characterized by
place on October 16, 1994, when they had a gravity, juridical antecedence
bitter quarrel. and incurabilty and for her
 As they were already living separately, she did failure to observe the
not want him to stay in their house anymore. guidelines as outline in
 On that day, when she saw him in their house, Republic v. CA and Molina.
she was so angry that she lambasted him.
 He then turned violent, inflicting physical harm
on her and even on her mother who came to her
 The following day, October 17, 1994, she and
their children left the house and sought refuge in
her sister’s house.
 On October 19, 1994, she submitted herself [to]
medical examination at the Mandaluyong
Medical Center where her injuries were
diagnosed as contusions
 Sometime in August 1995, she together with her
two sisters and driver, went to him at the Bliss
unit in Mandaluyong to look for their missing
child, Niko.
 Upon seeing them, he got mad.
 After knowing the reason for their unexpected
presence, he ran after them with a samurai and
even [beat] her driver.
 At the time of the filing of this case, she and their
children were renting a house in Camella,
Parañaque, while the appellant was residing at
the Bliss unit in Mandaluyong.
 In the case study conducted by Social Worker
Sonia C. Millan, the children described their
father as cruel and physically abusive to them
 The appellee submitted herself to psychologist
Natividad A. Dayan, Ph.D., for psychological
evaluation, while the appellant on the other
hand, did not.
 The court a quo found the appellant to be
psychologically incapacitated to perform his
marital obligations mainly because of his failure
to find work to support his family and his violent
attitude towards appellee and their children
 Castillo vs.  As their parents were good friends and business  whether or not the totality of  No. Time and again, it was
Republic partners, Mirasol and Felipe started as friends evidence presented warrants, as held that “psychological
then, eventually, became sweethearts. the RTC determined, the incapacity” has been intended
 During their courtship, Mirasol discovered that declaration of nullity of the by law to be confined to the
Felipe sustained his affair with his former marriage of Mirasol and Felipe most serious cases of
girlfriend. on the ground of the latter’s personality disorders clearly
 The couple’s relationship turned tumultuous psychological incapacity under demonstrative of an utter
after the revelation. Article 36 of the Family Code insensitivity or inability to give
 With the intervention of their parents, they meaning and significance to
reconciled. the marriage.
 They got married in Bani, Pangasinan on April  Psychological incapacity must
22, 1984 and were blessed with two (2) children be characterized by (a) gravity,
born in 1992 and in 2001. i.e., it must be grave and
 On June 6, 2011, Mirasol filed a Complaint for serious such that the party
declaration of nullity of marriage before the would be incapable of carrying
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Dasmarinas, out the ordinary duties
Cavite, Branch 90. required in a marriage, (b)
 Mirasol alleged that at the beginning, their union juridical antecedence, i.e., it
was harmonious prompting her to believe that must be rooted in the history of
the same was made in heaven. the party antedating the
 However, after thirteen (13) years of marriage, marriage, although the overt
Felipe resumed philandering. manifestations may emerge
 Their relatives and friends saw him with different only after the marriage, and (c)
women. incurability, i.e., it must be
 One time, she has just arrived from a trip and incurable, or even if it were
returned home to surprise her family. otherwise, the cure would be
beyond the means of the party
 But to her consternation, she caught him in a
compromising act with another woman.
 He did not bother to explain or apologize.
 Tired of her husband’s infidelity, she left the
conjugal dwelling and stopped any
communication with him.
 Felipe’s irresponsible acts like cohabiting with
another woman, not communicating with her,
and not supporting their children for a period of
not less than ten years without any reason,
constitute a severe psychological disorder.
 Chi Ming Tsoi vs.  Chi Ming Tsoi and Gina Lao Tsoi was married in  Whether Chi Ming Tsoi’s refusal  The abnormal reluctance or
CA 1988. to have sexual intercourse with unwillingness to consummate
 After the celebration of their wedding, they his wife constitutes his marriage is strongly
proceed to the house of defendant’s mother. psychological incapacity. indicative of a serious
 There was no sexual intercourse between them personality disorder which to
during their first night and same thing happened the mind of the Supreme Court
until their fourth night. clearly demonstrates an utter
 In an effort to have their honeymoon in a private insensitivity or inability to give
place, they went to Baguio but Gina’s relatives meaning and significance tot
went with them. the marriage within the
 Again, there was no sexual intercourse since the meaning of Article 36 of the
defendant avoided by taking a long walk during Family Code.
siesta or sleeping on a rocking chair at the living  If a spouse, although
room. physically capable but simply
 Since May 1988 until March 1989 they slept refuses to perform his or her
together in the same bed but no attempt of essential marital obligations
sexual intercourse between them. and the refusal is senseless
 Because of this, they submitted themselves for and constant, Catholic
medical examination to a urologist in Chinese marriage tribunals attribute the
General Hospital in 1989. causes to psychological
 The result of the physical examination of Gina incapacity than to stubborn
was disclosed, while that of the husband was refusal.
kept confidential even the medicine prescribed.  Furthermore, one of the
 There were allegations that the reason why Chi essential marital obligations
Ming Tsoi married her is to maintain his under the Family Code is to
residency status here in the country. procreate children thus
 Gina does not want to reconcile with Chi Ming constant non-fulfillment of this
Tsoi and want their marriage declared void on obligation will finally destroy
the ground of psychological incapacity. the integrity and wholeness of
 On the other hand, the latter does not want to the marriage.
have their marriage annulled because he loves
her very much, he has no defect on his part and
is physically and psychologically capable and
since their relationship is still young, they can
still overcome their differences.
 Chi Ming Tsoi submitted himself to another
physical examination and the result was there is
not evidence of impotency and he is capable of
 Noel Buenaventura  Noel Buenaventura filed a position for the  Whether or not co-ownership is  Since the present case does
vs. CA et al declaration of nullity of marriage on the ground applicable to valid marriage. not involve the annulment of a
that both he and his wife were psychologically bigamous marriage, the
incapacitated. provisions of article 50 in
 The RTC in its decision, declared the marriage relation to articles 41, 42 and
entered into between petitioner and respondent 43 of the Family Code,
null and violation ordered the liquidation of the providing for the dissolution of
assets of the conjugal partnership property; the absolute community or
ordered petitioner a regular support in favor of conjugal partnership of gains,
his son in the amount of 15,000 monthly, subject as the case maybe, do not
to modification as the necessity arises, and apply.
awarded the care and custody of the minor to  Rather the general rule
his mother. applies, which is in case a
 Petitioner appealed before the CA. marriage is declared void ab
 While the appeal was pending, the CA, upon initio, the property regime
respondent’s motion issued a resolution applicable to be liquidated,
increasing the support pendants like to P20, partitioned and distributed is
000. that of equal co-ownership.
 The CA dismissal petitioner appeal for lack of  Since the properties ordered to
merit and affirmed in to the RTC decision. be distributed by the court a
 Petitioner motion for reconsideration was quo were found, both by the
denied, hence this petition. RTC and the CA, to have been
acquired during the union of
the parties, the same would be
covered by the co-ownership.
 No fruits of a separate property
of one of the parties appear to
have been included or involved
in said distribution.
 Carating-Siayngo   
vs. Siayngo
 Ngo Te vs. Yu Te  Edward Kenneth Ngo Te met Rowena Ong  Whether or not the expert  Yes, such is possible.
Gutierrez Yu at a Filipino-Chinese gathering at a opinion of the psychologist  The Supreme Court ruled that
school campus. should be admitted in lieu of the admittedly, the SC may have
 They did not have interest with each other at first guidelines established in the inappropriately imposed a set
but they developed a certain degree of landmark case of Molina. of rigid rules in ascertaining
closeness due to the fact that they share the Psychological Incapacity in
same angst with their families. the Molina case.
 In 1996, while still in college, Rowena proposed  So much so that the
to Kenneth that they should elope. subsequent cases after Molina
 Kenneth initially refused on the ground that he were ruled accordingly to the
was still young and jobless. doctrine set therein.
 But due to Rowena’s persistence Kenneth  And that there is not much
complied bringing with him P80K. regard for the law’s clear
 The money soon after disappeared and they intention that each case is to
found themselves forced to return to their be treated differently, as
respective home. “courts should interpret the
 Subsequently, Rowena’s uncle brought the two provision on a case-to-case
before a court and had had them be married. basis; guided by experience,
 After marriage, Kenneth and Rowena stayed the findings of experts and
with her uncle’s house where Kenneth was researchers in psychological
treated like a prisoner. disciplines, and by decisions of
 Meanwhile, Kenneth was advised by his dad to church tribunals.”
come home, otherwise he will be disinherited.  The SC however is not
 One month later, Kenneth was able to escape abandoning the Molina
and he was hidden from Rowena’s family. guidelines, the SC merely
 Kenneth later contacted Rowena urging her to reemphasized that there is
live with his parents instead. need to emphasize other
 Rowena however suggested that he should get perspectives as well which
his inheritance instead so that they could live should govern the disposition
together separately or just stay with her uncle. of petitions for declaration of
nullity under Article 36 such as
 Kenneth however was already disinherited.
in the case at bar.
 Upon knowing this, Rowena said that it is better
 The principle that each case
if they live separate lives from then on.
must be judged, not on the
 Four years later, Kenneth filed a petition for basis of a priori assumptions,
annulment of his marriage with Rowena. predilections or generalizations
 Rowena did not file an answer. The City but according to its own facts.
Prosecutor, after investigation, submitted that he  And, to repeat for emphasis,
cannot determine if there is collusion between courts should interpret the
the two parties. provision on a case-to-case
 Eventually, the case was tried. T basis; guided by experience,
 he opinion of an expert was sought wherein the the findings of experts and
psychologist subsequently ruled that both researchers in psychological
parties are psychologically incapacitated. disciplines, and by decisions of
 The said relationship between Kenneth and church tribunals.
Rowena is said to be undoubtedly in the wreck  The SC then ruled that the
and weakly-founded. marriage of Kenneth and
 The break-up was caused by both parties’ Rowena is null and void due to
unreadiness to commitment and their young both parties’ psychological
age. disorder as evidenced by the
 Kenneth was still in the state of finding his fate finding of the expert
and fighting boredom, while Rowena was still psychologist.
egocentrically involved with herself.  Both parties being afflicted
 The trial court ruled that the marriage is void with grave, severe and
upon the findings of the expert psychologist. incurable psychological
 The Solicitor General (OSG) appealed and the incapacity.
Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the OSG.  Kenneth cannot assume the
 The OSG claimed that the psychological essential marital obligations of
incapacity of both parties was not shown to be living together, observing love,
medically or clinically permanent or respect and fidelity and
incurable (Molina case). rendering help and support, for
 The clinical psychologist did not personally he is unable to make everyday
examine Rowena, and relied only on the decisions without advice from
information provided by Kenneth. others.
 Further, the psychological incapacity was not  He is too dependent on others.
shown to be attended by gravity, juridical  Rowena cannot perform the
antecedence and incurability. essential marital obligations as
 All these were requirements set forth in well due to her intolerance and
the Molina case to be followed as guidelines. impulsiveness.
 Matudan vs.   
 Mallion vs.  In 1995, petitioner Oscar Mallion filed a petition  Whether or not previous final  No. Petitioner insists that
Alcantara for declaration of nullity of marriage before the judgment denying a petition for because the action for
San Pablo City RTC (Civil Case 4341-95) declaration of nullity on the declaration of nullity of
alleging that his wife was psychologically ground of psychological marriage on the ground of
incapacitated to comply with the essential incapacity bar a subsequent psychological incapacity and
marital obligations. petition for declaration of nullity the action for declaration of
 That case was dismissed “upon the finding that on the ground of lack of nullity of marriage on the
petitioner “failed to adduce preponderant marriage license ground of absence of marriage
evidence to warrant the grant of the relief he is license constitute separate
seeking.” causes of action, the present
 In 1999, Oscar filed another petition for case would not fall under the
declaration of nullity of marriage on the basis prohibition against splitting a
that the marriage was celebrated without a valid single cause of action nor
marriage license. would it be barred by the
principle of res judicata.
 Res judicata is defined as “a
matter adjudged; a thing
judicially acted upon or
decided; a thing or matter
settled by judgment. It also
refers to the rule that a final
judgment or decree on the
merits by a court of competent
jurisdiction is conclusive of the
rights of the parties or their
privies in all later suits on
points and matters determined
in the former suit.”
 Republic vs.  Respondent requested from the National  
Olaybar Statistics Office (NSO) a Certificate of No
Marriage (CENOMAR) as one of the
requirements for her marriage with her boyfriend
of five years. Upon receipt thereof, she
discovered that she was already married to a
certain Ye Son Sune, a Korean National
 She denied having contracted said marriage and
claimed that she did not know the alleged
husband; she did not appear before the
solemnizing officer; and, that the signature
appearing in the marriage certificate is not hers.
 Garcia-Quiazon vs.   
 Sarao vs. Guevarra   
 Tuason vs. CA   
 Espiritu vs. CA  Reynaldo Espiritu and Teresita Masanding  Whether or not the custody of  In cases of care, custody,
began to maintain a common law relationship of the 2 children should be education and property of
husband while in US. awarded to the mother. children, the latter’s welfare
 Teresita works as a nurse while Reynaldo was shall be the paramount
sent by his empolyer, National Steel concern and that even a child
Corporation, to Pittsburgh for a temporary post. under 7 years of age may be
 They begot a child in 1986 named Rosalind. ordered to be separated from
 After a year, they went back to the Philippines the mother for compelling
for a brief vacation when they also got married. reasons.
 The presumption that the
 Subsequently, they had a second child named mother is the best custodian
Reginald. for a child under seven years
 In 1990, they decided to separate. of age is strong but not
 Reynaldo pleaded for second chance but conclusive.
instead of Teresita granting it, she left Reynaldo  At the time the judgment was
and the children and went back to California. rendered, the 2 children were
 Reynaldo brought the children in the Philippines both over 7 years of age.
and left them with his sister.  The choice of the child to
 When Teresita returned in the Philippines whom she preferred to stay
sometime in 1992, he filed a petition for a writ of must be considered.
habeas corpus against Reynaldo and his sister  It is evident in the records
to gain custody of the children. submitted that Rosalind chose
to stay with his father/aunt.
 She was found of suffering
from emotional shock caused
by her mother’s infidelity.
 Furthermore, there was
nothing in the records to show
that Reynaldo is unfit well in
fact he has been trying his
best to give the children the
kind of attention and care
which their mother is not in the
position to extend.
 On the other hand, the
mother’s conviction for the
crime of bigamy and her illicit
relationship had already
caused emotional disturbances
and personality conflicts at
least with the daughter.
 Hence, petition was granted.
 Custody of the minors was
reinstated to their father.
 Lim-Lua vs. Lua   
 Mangonon vs. CA   
 Domingo vs. CA  Roberto Domingo married Delia Soledad in 1976  Whether or not a petition for  Yes. A declaration of the
while being married with Emerlina dela Paz. judicial declaration of a void absolute nullity of marriage is
 He has been unemployed and completely marriage is necessary. now explicitly required either
dependent upon Delia, who has been working in  If in affirmative, whether the as a cause of action or a
Saudi Arabia, for support and subsistence. same should be filed only for ground for defense.
 Delia only found out about the prior marriage purpose of remarriage.  Where the absolute nullity of a
when Emerlina sued them for bigamy in 1983. previous marriage is sought to
 In 1989, she found out that Roberto was be invoked for purpose of
cohabiting with another woman and he was contracting a second marriage,
disposing of some of her properties without her the sole basis acceptable in
knowledge and consent. law for the said projected
 In May 1991, Delia filed a petition for judicial marriage be free from legal
declaration of nullity of her marriage to Roberto infirmity is a final judgment
and separation of property. declaring the previous
marriage void.
 The requirement for a
declaration of absolute nullity
of a marriage is also for the
protection of the spouse who,
believing that his or her
marriage is illegal and void,
marries again.
 With the judicial declaration of
the nullity of his or her first
marriage, the person who
marries again cannot be
charged with bigamy.
 Article 40 as finally formulated
included the significant clause
denotes that final judgment
declaring the previous
marriage void need not be
obtained only for purposes of
 A person can conceive of other
instances other than
remarriage, such as in case of
an action for liquidation,
partition, distribution and
separation of property between
the spouses, as well as an
action for the custody and
support of their common
children and the delivery of the
latters' presumptive legitimes.
 In such cases, however, one is
required by law to show
proof that the previous one
was an absolute nullity.