01 - RONULO VS.

PEOPLE (2014) - Form of Marriage Ceremony

Doctrine:

- Art 6 and Art 3, Par 3 of the Family Code say that there is no prescribed form for
the marriage ceremony, only that (1) the parties appear before an authorized
solemnizing officer; (2) personal declaration that they take each other as
husband and wife; (3) in the presence of two witnesses of legal age.

Action: Petition for Declaration of Nullity

Facts:

- Joey and Claire failed to secure a marriage license

- They were about to get married but the priest supposed to officiate their wedding
refused to solemnize it because of the lacking requisite

- The couple and their friends and family went to the Aglipayan Church and
pushed through with the wedding

- Their wedding was solemnized by Rene Ronulo, the Aglipayan priest.

- An information was filed against him for violation of Art 352 of the RPC

- Ronulo contends that he simply blessed the marriage and did not solemnize it,
that the ceremony was not tantamount to a solemnization.

Issue: W/N there was a violation and W/N Ronulo did perform a marriage ceremony

MTC: Convicted

RTC, CA: Affirmed

SC: Ronulo violated Art. 352 of RPC. He did solemnize the marriage and not merely
blessed it.

Ratio:

- Article 352 of the RPC, as amended, penalizes an authorized solemnizing officer

who shall perform or authorize any illegal marriage ceremony.

- The elements of this crime are as follows:

- (1) authority of the solemnizing officer; and

- (2) his performance of an illegal marriage ceremony.

 - In the present case, the petitioner admitted that he has authority to solemnize a
marriage.

- Art 6 of the FC provides that:

- there is no prescribed form or religious rite for the solemnization of the

marriage

- what is necessary is for the contracting parties to appear personally before

the solemnizing officer

- and declare in the presence of not less than two witnesses of legal age
that they take each other as husband and wife.

- Art 3 Par (3) of the FC also provides that a marriage ceremony “which takes
place with the appearance of the contracting parties before the solemnizing
officer and their personal declaration that they take each other as husband and
wife in the presence of not less than two witnesses of legal age.”

------------------------------

05 KHO VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PH (1995) - Marriage License

Doctrine:

1. Lack of a marriage license as an essential requisite of a marriage renders the

marriage void.

2. The certification of the Local Civil Registrar, that their office had no record of a
marriage license, was adequate to prove the non-issuance of said license.

3. The holding of a wedding ceremony does not cure the lack of a marriage license

4. The compulsory character of a marriage license under the Civil Code is the State
inquiring into the parties’ capacity to contract marriage.

5. The requirement and issuance of a marriage license is the State’s demonstration

of its involvement and participation in every marriage, in the maintenance of
which the general public is interested.

Action: Petition for Declaration of Nullity

Facts:

- Raquel and Veronica were set to get married on June 1 19872

 - Raquel’s parents summoned a Eusebio Colongon on May 31 1972 to their house
and instructed him to prepare the necessary papers for the wedding

- Raquel and Veronica got married at 3 am on June 1 1972 (to exclude the public)

- Raquel and Veronica never went to the Local Civil Registrar to apply for a
marriage license

- There was no record of their marriage license in the LCR as evidenced by a

certification from the LCR.

- Veronica claims that they did secure a marriage license and that Raquel was
merely seeking a way out of their marriage to continue his affair with another
woman.

Issue: W/N their marriage is valid

RTC: Granted nullity

CA: Reversed because Raquel failed to overcome the presumption of validity of their
marriage. Because the marriage was solemnized, there was a presumption that they did
have a marriage license. The OSG attacked the petition on the basis of a technicality.

SC: The marriage is null and void. The presumption of validity was overcome.

Ratio:

- The certification of the Local Civil Registrar, that their office had no record of a
marriage license, was adequate to prove the non-issuance of said license.

- The Civil Code governs their marriage because it was celebrated prior to the
effectivity of the Family Code

- Article 53 of the Civil Code says that the essential requisites of marriage are:

- (1) Legal capacity of the contracting parties;

- (2) Their consent, freely given;

- (3) Authority of the person performing the marriage; and

- (4) A marriage license, except in a marriage of exceptional character.

- Article 58 of the Civil Code expressly says that no marriage shall be solemnized
without a license first being issued by the local civil registrar of the municipality
where either contracting party habitually resides, save marriages of an
exceptional character
- Exemption to the requirement of a marriage license are:

- (1) marriages in articulo mortis or at the point of death during peace or

war;

- (2) marriages in remote places;

- (3) consular marriages;

- (4) ratification of marital cohabitation;

- (5) religious ratification of a civil marriage;

- (6) Mohammedan or pagan marriages;

- (7) mixed marriages.

- Raquel and Veronica’s marriage does not fall under the exemptions to the
requisite of a marriage license.

- Article 80(3) of the Civil Code also makes it clear that a marriage performed
without the corresponding marriage license is void

- The rationale for the compulsory character of a marriage license under the Civil
Code is that it is the authority granted by the State to the contracting parties, after
the proper government official has inquired into their capacity to contract
marriage.

- The requirement and issuance of a marriage license is the State’s demonstration

of its involvement and participation in every marriage, in the maintenance of
which the general public is interested.

- Sevilla vs. Cardenas ruling says that there must be the phrase “document does
not exist despite due search” but RP vs. CA overturned this ruling saying that no
need for the phrase to make a Certification from LCR valid.

- Carino vs. Carino also held that the certification issued by the local civil registrar
is adequate to prove the non-issuance of the marriage license.

- Respondent failed to obtain a copy of their marriage contract from the National
Archives and Records Section, where information regarding the marriage license,
i.e., date of issuance and license number, would be indicated.

- All the evidence cited by the CA to show that a wedding ceremony was
conducted and a marriage contract was signed does not operate to cure the
absence of a valid marriage license.
 - Regardless of the motive of Raquel in seeking a declaration for nullity, the fact
remains that they did not secure a marriage license and the laws must be
applied.

- As the marriage license, an essential requisite under the Civil Code, is clearly
absent, the marriage of petitioner and respondent is void ab initio.

------------------------------------

11 - REPUBLIC OF THE PH VS. TAMPUS (2016) - Presumptive Death

Doctrine:

- "Well-founded belief” in the absentee’s death requires the present spouse to

prove that his/her belief was the result of diligent and reasonable efforts to locate
the absent spouse. It necessitates exertion of active effort, not a passive one.

Action: Petition for Declaration of the Presumptive Death of a Spouse

Facts:

- Nilda married Dante in 1975 in Cebu.

- Dante was a member of the AFP.

- Three days after the marriage, Dante left for Jolo, Sulu where he was assigned
for a combat mission.

- Nilda never heard from Dante again.

- They had no children.

- She tried to locate him through Dante’s parents, neighbors, friends, and relatives,
but they all did not know where Dante was.

- She filed a petition to the RTC to declare Dante presumptively dead in 2009, 33
years later, because after no communication from him she believes he is dead.

- There was no oppositor so Nilda was allowed to present her evidence ex-parte.

- She averred that she intends to remarry and move on with her life.

Issue: W/N Dante should be declared presumptively dead.

RTC, CA: Declared Dante presumptively dead.

SC: The decision of the CA and RTC must be reversed. Nilda fell short of the stringent
standard and degree of due diligence required by jurisprudence to support her claim of
a "well-founded belief that her husband Dante is already dead

Ratio:

- The burden of proof rests on the present spouse to show that all the foregoing
requisites under Article 41 of the Family Code exist.

- Nilda’s efforts in locating Dante were passive and did not go further than asking
his family, relatives, and friends about his whereabouts.

- She could have called or proceeded to the AFP headquarters to request

information about her husband, but failed to do so. She did not even seek the
help of the authorities or the AFP itself in finding him.

- "Well-founded belief” in the absentee’s death requires the present spouse to

prove that his/her belief was the result of diligent and reasonable efforts to locate
the absent spouse. It necessitates exertion of active effort, not a passive one.
This is where the “well-founded belief” will be based on.

- Article 41 of the Family Code of the Philippines the requisites for the declaration
of presumptive death are:

- (1) that the absent spouse has been missing for four (4) consecutive
years, or two (2) consecutive years if the disappearance occurred where
there is danger of death under the circumstances laid down in Article 391
of the Civil Code;

- (2) that the present spouse wishes to remarry;

- (3) that the present spouse has a well-founded belief that the absentee is
dead;

- (4) that the present spouse files a summary proceeding for the declaration
of presumptive death of the absentee.

- 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
unsuccessful.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

15 - REPUBLIC OF THE PH VS. DAGDAG (2016)

Doctrine:
 - The burden of proof to show the nullity of the marriage rests upon petitioner.
- Doubts should be resolved in favor of validity of marriage
- 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.
- The evidence must convince the court that the parties, or one of them, was
mentally or psychically ill to such an extent that the person could not have known
the obligations he was assuming, or knowing them, could not have given valid
assumption thereof.
- The incapacity must be proven to be existing at the time of the celebration of the
marriage.
- Incapacity must also be shown to be medically or clinically permanent or
incurable.
- illness must be grave enough to bring about the disability of the party to assume
the essential obligations of marriage.
- Wala lang ang boring ng marriage.
Action: Petition for Declaration of Nullity under Art. 36 of the Family Code

Facts:

- Erlinda Matias, 16 years old, married Avelino Parangan Dagdag, 20 years old in
1975
- Marriage certificate was issued on October 20, 1988.
- They had two children.
- A week after the wedding, Avelino started leaving his family without explanation,
disappear for months, reappear for a few months, then disappear again.
- He indulged in drinking sprees with friends and would return home drunk. He
would force her to have sex and if she refused, he would beat her.
- Erlinda was forced to look for a job as a manicurist to support their children.
- She found out that he was convicted of some crime in 1985.
- The jail warden issued a certification of his conviction in 1990.
- She last saw him in 1993 and he remains at-large.
- Erlinda filed a Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage under Art. 36 on the
ground of Psychological incapacity in 1990.
- The summons were published in a newspaper of general circulation since
Avelino could not be located.
- Erlinda presented her sister in law, Virginia, who was married to the brother of
Avelino as witness.
- Virginia testified that Erlinda and Avelino always quarrelled, and that Avelino
never stayed for long at the couples house. She knew that Avelino had been
gone for a long time now, and that she pitied Erlinda and the children.
 - RTC issued an order for the Fiscal to conduct an investigation on whether there
was collusion between the parties.
- Fiscal found no collusion.
- RTC however rendered a decision on Dec 27 1990 without waiting for the
Fiscal’s manifestation and declared the marriage null and void.
- investigating prosecutor filed a Motion to Set Aside Judgment on the ground that
the decision was prematurely rendered
- OSGl filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the decision on the ground that the
same is not in accordance with the evidence and the law.
- RTC denied motions stating that Avelino’s abandonment showed psychological
incapacity.
- OSG appealed contending that the alleged psychological incapacity of Avelino
Dagdag is not of the nature contemplated by Article 36 of the Family Code.
Issue: W/N the marriage is void under Art 36 of the Family Code

RTC, CA: Granted nullity

SC:

Ratio:

- Erlinda failed to comply with the above-mentioned evidentiary requirements.

- Guideline No. 2 requires that the root cause of psychological incapacity must be
medically or clinically identified and sufficiently proven by experts
- Erlinda presented no psychiatrist or medical doctor testified as to the alleged
psychological incapacity of her husband.
- Article 36 of the Family Code provides “A marriage contracted by any party who,
at the time of the celebration, 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.”
- Finding of Psychological Incapacity depends on the facts of the case.
- Each case for declaration of nullity under Art 36 must be judged on a case-to-
case basis, each to its own facts.
- Republic v. Court of Appeals and Molina laid down the following GUIDELINES in
the interpretation and application of Article 36 of the Family Code:
- (1) The burden of proof to show the nullity of the marriage belongs to the
plaintiff. Any doubt should be resolved in favor of the existence and
continuation of the marriage and against its dissolution and nullity. This is
rooted in the fact that both our Constitution and our laws cherish the
validity of marriage and unity of the family. x x x
- (2) The root cause of the psychological incapacity must be:
- (a) medically or clinically identified,
 - (b) alleged in the complaint,
- (c) sufficiently proven by experts
- (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.
- The evidence must convince the court that the parties, or one of
them, was mentally or psychically ill to such an extent that the
person could not have known the obligations he was assuming, or
knowing them, could not have given valid assumption thereof.
- The root cause must be identified as a psychological illness and its
incapacitating nature fully explained. Expert evidence may be given
by qualified psychiatrists and clinical psychologists.
- (3) The incapacity must be proven to be existing at the time of the
celebration of the marriage.
- The evidence must show that the illness was existing when the
parties exchanged their I dos. The manifestation of the illness need
not be perceivable at such time, but the illness itself must have
attached at such moment, or prior thereto.
- (4) Such incapacity must also be shown to be medically or clinically
permanent or incurable.
- Such incurability may be absolute or even relative only in regard to
the other spouse, not necessarily absolutely against everyone of
the same sex.
- Such incapacity must be relevant to the assumption of marriage
obligations, not necessarily to those not related to marriage, like the
exercise of a profession or employment in a job. (Hence, a
pediatrician may be effective in diagnosing illnesses of children and
prescribing medicine to cure them but may not be psychologically
capacitated to procreate, bear and raise his/her own children as an
essential obligation of marriage.)
- (5) Such illness must be grave enough to bring about the disability of the
party to assume the essential obligations of marriage.
- Mild characteriological peculiarities, mood changes, occasional
emotional outbursts cannot be accepted as root causes.
- The illness must be shown as downright incapacity or inability, not
a refusal, neglect or difficulty, much less ill will.
- There should be a natal or supervening disabling factor in the
person, an adverse integral element in the personality structure that
 effectively incapacitates the person from really accepting and
thereby complying with the obligations essential to marriage.
- (6) The essential marital obligations must be those embraced by Articles
68 up to 71 of the Family Code as regards the husband and wife as well
as Articles 220, 221 and 225 of the same Code in regard to parents and
their children. Such non-complied marital obligation(s) must also be stated
in the petition, proven by evidence and included in the text of the decision.
- (7) Interpretations given by the National Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal of
the Catholic Church in the Philippines, while not controlling or decisive,
should be given great respect by our courts. x x x
- (8) The trial court must order the prosecuting attorney or fiscal and the
Solicitor General to appear as counsel for the state.
- No decision shall be handed down unless the Solicitor General
issues a certification, which will be quoted in the decision, briefly
stating therein his reasons for his agreement or opposition, as the
case may be, to the petition.
- The Solicitor-General, along with the prosecuting attorney, shall
submit to the court such certification within fifteen (15) days from
the date the case is deemed submitted for resolution of the court.
The Solicitor-General shall discharge the equivalent function of the
defensor vinculi contemplated under Canon 1095.
- The allegation that the husband is a fugitive from justice was not sufficiently
proven. In fact, the crime for which he was arrested was not even alleged.
- Expert testimony should have been presented to establish the precise cause of
private respondents psychological incapacity, if any, in order to show that it
existed at the inception of the marriage.
-----------------------------------------------------------

19 TE VS. YU-TE (2009) - Psychological Incapacity

Doctrine:

Action: Petition for Declaration of Nullity under Art 36 of the Family Code

Facts:

Issue: W/N the parties are psychologically incapacitated, W/N psychological Incapacity
was proven

RTC:
- Edward and Rowena met in school and developed a bond because of shared
angst towards their families
- 3 months after their first meeting, Rowena asked Kenneth to elope with her in
March 1996
- Edward eventually agreed and brought with him Php 80K.
- They sailed to Cebu where their money lasted them a month. They also both
could not find jobs.
- They went back to Manila in April 1996, Edward going back to his parents and
Rowena to her uncle because her parents were abroad.
- Rowena called Edward frequently and told him that she would kill herself.
- Edward then agreed to live with her at her uncle’s house.
- On April 23, 1996, Rowena’s uncle brought them before a judge to get married.
She was 20 and he was 25.
- The two then continued to stay at her uncle’s place where Edward was treated
like a prisoner and constantly threatened by her uncle with his guns.
- Edward suggested to Rowena that they live with his parents instead.
- Rowena did not like this and suggested that he get his inheritance from them
instead.
- Edward discussed this with his father but his father got mad and threatened to
disinherit him.
- Edward eventually escaped from the house and went back home. His family hid
him from Rowena whenever she called.
- Edward talked to Rowena to convince her to live with him and his parents
instead.
- Rowena suggested that it was better if they lived separate lives instead and they
did. This was in June 1996.
- On January 18, 2000, (4 years after) Edward filed a petition before the Regional
Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City for the annulment of his marriage to Rowena on
the basis of the latter’s psychological incapacity
- Rowena did not file an answer
- The Fiscal made an investigation into whether or not there was collusion
between the parties and reported to the court that it could not determine whether
there was collusion or not.
- The clinical psychologist who examined Edward found both parties
psychologically incapacitated
- “The said relationship between Edward and Rowena is said to be
undoubtedly in the wreck and weakly-founded. The break-up was caused
by both parties[’] unreadiness to commitment and their young age. He was
still in the state of finding his fate and fighting boredom, while she was still
egocentrically involved with herself.”
 “Both petitioner and respondent are dubbed to be emotionally immature
-
and recklessly impulsive”
- “He is extremely introvert to the point of weakening their relationship by
his weak behavioral disposition. She, on the other hand[,] is extremely
exploitative and aggressive so as to be unlawful, insincere and
undoubtedly uncaring in her strides toward convenience. It is apparent
that she is suffering the grave, severe, and incurable presence of
Narcissistic and Antisocial Personality Disorder that started since
childhood and only manifested during marriage. Both parties display
psychological incapacities that made marriage a big mistake for them to
take”
RTC: Annulled

CA: Reversed. CA ruled that petitioner failed to prove the psychological incapacity of
respondent. 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 Republic v. Court of Appeals
and Molina.

SC: Annulled.

Ratio:

- All cases must be treated differently and judged on a case to case basis.
- SC is not abandoning the Molina guidelines, the SC merely acknowledged.
- Article 36. A marriage contracted by any party who, at the time of the celebration,
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.
- During the Family Code deliberations, the two Committees in their joint
meetings did not pursue the idea of absolute divorce and, instead, opted for
an action for judicial declaration of invalidity of marriage based on grounds
available in the Canon Law.
- The Committee desired that the courts should interpret the provision on a
case-to-case basis; guided by experience, the findings of experts and
researchers in psychological disciplines, and by decisions of church tribunals
which, although not binding on the civil courts, may be given persuasive
effect since the provision itself was taken from the Canon Law.
- As held in Santos, “psychological incapacity” is not meant to comprehend all
possible cases of psychoses.
- It refers to no less than a mental (not physical) incapacity that causes a party
to be truly noncognitive of the basic marital covenants that concomitantly
 must be assumed and discharged by the parties to the marriage (mutual
obligations to live together, observe love, respect and fidelity; and render help
and support.)
- The law’s intention that it is the courts, on a case-to-case basis, that should
determine whether a party to a marriage is psychologically incapacitated
- (1) The burden of proof to show the nullity of the marriage belongs to the plaintiff.
Any doubt should be resolved in favor of the existence and continuation of the
marriage and against its dissolution and nullity. This is rooted in the fact that both our
Constitution and our laws cherish the validity of marriage and unity of the family.
Thus, our Constitution devotes an entire Article on the Family, recognizing it “as the
foundation of the nation.” It decrees marriage as legally “inviolable,” thereby
protecting it from dissolution at the whim of the parties. Both the family and marriage
are to be “protected” by the state.
- The Family Code echoes this constitutional edict on marriage and the family and
emphasizes their permanence, inviolability and solidarity.
- (2) 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. The evidence must convince the court that the parties,
or one of them, was mentally or psychically ill to such an extent that the person could
not have known the obligations he was assuming, or knowing them, could not have
given valid assumption thereof. Although no example of such incapacity need be
given here so as not to limit the application of the provision under the principle of
ejusdem generis, nevertheless such root cause must be identified as a psychological
illness and its incapacitating nature fully explained. Expert evidence may be given by
qualified psychiatrists and clinical psychologists.
- (3) The incapacity must be proven to be existing at “the time of the celebration” of
the marriage. The evidence must show that the illness was existing when the parties
exchanged their “I do’s.” The manifestation of the illness need not be perceivable at
such time, but the illness itself must have attached at such moment, or prior thereto.
- (4) Such incapacity must also be shown to be medically or clinically permanent or
incurable. Such incurability may be absolute or even relative only in regard to the
other spouse, not necessarily absolutely against everyone of the same sex.
Furthermore, such incapacity must be relevant to the assumption of marriage
obligations, not necessarily to those not related to marriage, like the exercise of a
profession or employment in a job. Hence, a pediatrician may be effective in
diagnosing illnesses of children and prescribing medicine to cure them but may not
be psychologically capacitated to procreate, bear and raise his/her own children as
an essential obligation of marriage.
- (5) Such illness must be grave enough to bring about the disability of the party to
assume the essential obligations of marriage. Thus, “mild characterological
 peculiarities, mood changes, occasional emotional outbursts” cannot be accepted as
root causes. The illness must be shown as downright incapacity or inability, not a
refusal, neglect or difficulty, much less ill will. In other words, there is a natal or
supervening disabling factor in the person, an adverse integral element in the
personality structure that effectively incapacitates the person from really accepting
and thereby complying with the obligations essential to marriage.
- (6) The essential marital obligations must be those embraced by Articles 68 up to 71
of the Family Code as regards the husband and wife as well as Articles 220, 221 and
225 of the same Code in regard to parents and their children. Such non-complied
marital obligation(s) must also be stated in the petition, proven by evidence and
included in the text of the decision.
- (7) Interpretations given by the National Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal of the
Catholic Church in the Philippines, while not controlling or decisive, should be given
great respect by our courts. It is clear that Article 36 was taken by the Family Code
Revision Committee from Canon 1095 of the New Code of Canon Law, which
became effective in 1983 and which provides:
- In dissolving marital bonds on account of either party’s 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 in that sacred bond.
- Courts should interpret the provision on a case-to-case basis; guided by experience,
the findings of experts and researchers in psychological disciplines, and by decisions
of church tribunals.
- Kenneth and Rowena is null and void of the expert psychologist. Both parties being
afflicted with grave, severe and incurable psychological incapacity.
- Kenneth cannot assume the essential marital obligations of living together, observing
love, respect and fidelity and rendering help and support, for he is unable to make
everyday decisions without advice from others.
- He is too dependent on others.
- Rowena cannot perform the essential marital obligations as well due to her
intolerance and impulsiveness.