1

Civil Code of the Philippines : Presumptive Death

a. Ordinary Presumptive Death (Article 390) Art. 390.

After an absence of seven years, it being unknown whether or not the absentee still lives, he
shall be presumed dead for all purposes, except for those of succession.
The absentee shall not be presumed dead for the purpose of opening his succession till after an
absence of ten years. If he disappeared after the age of seventy-five years, an absence of five
years shall be sufficient in order that his succession may be opened.

1. If absentee is 75 or below

7 years – for all purposes except succession

10 years – for succession

2. If absentee is over 75 years old

5 years for all purposes

b. Qualified Presumptive Death (Article 391)

Art. 391. The following shall be presumed dead for all purposes, including the division of the estate
among the heirs:
(1) A person on board a vessel lost during a sea voyage, or an aeroplane which is missing, who has
not been heard of for four years since the loss of the vessel or aeroplane;
(2) A person in the armed forces who has taken part in war, and has been missing for four years;
(3) A person who has been in danger of death under other circumstances and his existence has not
been known for four years.

Person on board a vessel lost during a sea voyage, missing airplane , person in the armed forces
who has taken part in war, a person who has been in danger of death under other circumstances and
his existence is not known.

General Rule: 4 years for all purposes

Exception: 2 years for purposes of remarriage (Article 41, Family Code)
Art. 41. A marriage contracted by any person during
subsistence of a previous marriage shall be null and void, unless
before the celebration of the subsequent marriage, the prior
spouse had been absent for four consecutive years and the spouse
present has a well-founded belief that the absent spouse was
already dead. In case of disappearance where there is danger of
death under the circumstances set forth in the provisions of Article
391 of the Civil Code, an absence of only two years shall be
sufficient.
For the purpose of contracting the subsequent marriage
under the preceding paragraph the spouse present must institute
a summary proceeding as provided in this Code for the declaration
 2
of presumptive death of the absentee, without prejudice to the
effect of reappearance of the absent spouse.

When can you ask for a decree of presumptive death for purposes of
remarriage?
1. 4 years after disappearance
2. 2 years if the circumstances fall under Article 391

Under these rules on presumptive death, there is no need for a court

decree. The mere running of the period raises the presumption of death.

However, for purposes of remarriage, a summary proceeding is required

under Article 41 of the Family Code. Otherwise, the subsequent marriage
is void.

In the case of Eastern Shipping vs. Lucas, the Supreme Court did not apply
Article 391. The Supreme Court said that Article 391 is a rebuttable
presumption. Being a presumption, Article 391 is applied only if there is
no evidence. In this case, the Supreme Court had enough evidence to rule
that the seaman was really dead.

G.R. No. 230751

ESTRELLITA TADEO-MATIAS, Petitioner vs
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent D E C I S I O N - VELASCO, JR., J.:

This is an appeal  assailing the Decision  dated November 28, 2016 and Resolution  dated March 20, 2017 of the
1 2 3

Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 129467.

The facts are as follows:

On April 10, 2012, petitioner Estrellita Tadco-Matias filed before the Regional Trail Court (RTC) of Tarlac City a
petition for the declaration of presumptive death of her husband, Wifredo N. Matias (Wilfredo).  The allegations of
4

the petition read:

1. [Petitioner] is of legal age, married to [Wilfredo], Filipino and curr[e]ntly a residnet of 106 Molave street, Zone B.
San Miguel Tarlac City;
 3
2. [Wifredo] is of legal age, a member of the Philippine Constabulary and was assigned in Araya, Pampanga since
August 24, 1967[;]

3. The[p]etitioner and [Wilfredo] entered into a lawful marriage on January 7, 1968 in Imbo, Anda, Pangasinan x x x;

4. After the solemnization of their marriage vows, the couple put up their conjugal home at 106 Molave street, Zone
B. San Miguel, Tarlac City;

5. [Wilfredo] continued to serve the Philippines and on September 15, 1979, he set out from their conjugal home to
again serve as a member of the Philippine Constabulary;

6. [Wilfredo] never came back from his tour of duty in Arayat, Pampanga since 1979 and he never made contact or
communicated with the [p]etitioner nor to his relatives;

7. That according to the service record of [Wilfredo] issued by the National Police Commission, [Wilfredo] was
already declared missing since 1979 x x x;

8. Petitioner constantly pestered the then Philippine Constabulary for any news regarding [her] beloved husband
[Wilfredo], but the Philippine Constabulary had no answer to his whereabouts, [neither] did they have any news of
him going AWOL, all they know was he was assigned to a place frequented by the New People's Army;

9. [W]eeks became years and years became decades, but the [p]etitioner never gave up hope, and after more than
three (3) decades of awaiting, the [p]etitioner is still hopeful, but the times had been tough on her, specially with a
meager source of income coupled with her age, it is now necessary for her to request for the benefits that rightfully
belong to her in order to survive;

10. [T]hat one of the requirements to attain the claim of benefits is for a proof of death or at least declaration of
presumptive death by the Honorable Court;

11. That this petition is being filed not for any other purpose but solely to claim for the benefit under P.D. No. 1638
as amended.

The petition was docketed as Spec. Proc. No. 4850 and was raffled to Branch 65 of the Tarlac City RTC. A copy of
the petition was then furnished to the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG)_.

Subsequently, the OSG filed its notice of appearance on behalf of herein respondent Republic of the Philippines
(Republic).5

On January 15, 2012, the RTC issued a Decision  in Spec. Proc. No. 4850 granting the petition. The dispositive
6

portion of the Decision reads: 7

WHEREFORE in view of the foregoing the Court hereby declared (sic) WILFREDO N. MATIAS absent or
presumptively dead under Article 41 of the Family Code of the Philippines for purpose of claiming financial
benefits due to him as former military officer.

xxxx

SO ORDERED. (Emphasis supplied)

The Republic questioned the decision of the RTC via a petition for certiotrari. 8

On November 28, 2012, the CA rendered a decision granting the certiorari petition of the Republic and setting aside
the decision of the RTC. It accordingly disposed:
 4
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition for certiorari is GRANTED. The Decision dated January 15, 2012
of the Regional Trial Court, branch 65, Tarlac City, in Special Proceeding no. 4850 is ANNULED and SET ASIDE,
and the petition is DISMISSED.

The CA premised its decision on the following ratiocinations:

1. The RTC erred when it declared Wilfredo presumptively dead on the basis of Article 41 of the Family Code (FC).
Article 41 of the FC does not seek to remarry. If anything, the petition was invoking the presumption of death
established under Articles 390 and 391 of the Civil Code, and not that provided for under Article 41 of the FC.

2. Be that it may, the petition to declare Wilfredo presumptively dead should have been dismissed by the RTC. The
RTC is without authority to take cognizance of a petition whose sole purpose is to have a person declared
presumptively dead under either Article 390 or Article 391 of the Civil Code. As been held by jurisprudence, Articles
390 and 391 of the Civil Code merely express rules of evidence that allow a court or a tribunal to presume that a
person is dead-which presumption may be invoked in any action or proceeding, but itself cannot be the subject of an
independent action or proceeding.

Petitioner moved for reconsideration, but the CA remained steadfast. Hence,this appeal.

Our Ruling

We deny the appeal

The CA was correct. The petition for the declaration of presumptive death filed by the petitioner is not an authorized
suit and should have been dismissed by the RTC. The RTC's decision must, therefore, be set aside.

RTC Erred I Declaring the Presumptive Death of Wilfredo under Article 41 of the FC; Petitioner's Petition for
the Declaration of Presumptive Death is Not Based on Article 41 of the FC, but on the Civil Code

A conspicuous error in the decision of the RTC must first be addressed.

It can be recalled that the RTC, in fallo of its January 15, 2012 Decision, granted the petitioner's petition by declaring
Wilfredo presumptively dead "under Article 41 of the FC." By doing so, RTC gave the impression that the petition for
the declaration of presumptive death filed by petitioner was likewise filed pursuant to Article 41 of the FC.  This is
9

wrong.

The petition for the declaration of presumptive death filed by petitioner is not an action that would have warranted
the application of Article 41 of the FC shows that the presumption of death established therein is only applicable for
the purpose of contracting a valid subsequent marriage under the said law. Thus:

Art. 41. A marriage contracted by any person during subsistence of a previous marriage shall be null and void,
unless before the celebration of the subsequent marriage, the prior spouse had been absent for four consecutive
years and the spouse present has a well-founded belief that the absent spouse was already dead. In case of
disappearance where there is danger of death under the circumstances set forth in the provisions of Article 391 of
the Civil Code, an absence of only two years shall be sufficient.

For the purpose of contracting the subsequent marriage under the preceding paragraph the spouse present must
institute a summary proceeding as provided in this Code for the declaration of presumptive death of the absentee,
without prejudice to the effect of reappearance of the absent spouse.

Here, petitioner was forthright that she was not seeking the declaration of the presumptive death Wilfredo as a
prerequisite for remarriage. In her petition for the declaration of presumptive death, petitioner categorically stated
that the same was filed "not for any other purpose but solely to claim for the benefit under P.D. No. 1638 a
amended. 10
 5
Given that her petition for the declaration of presumptive death was not filed for the purpose of
remarriage, petitioner was clearly relying on the presumption of death under either Article 390 or Article 391
of the Civil Code  as the basis of her petition. Articles 390 and 391 of the Civil Code express the general rule
11

regarding presumption s of death for any civil purpose, to wit:

Art. 390. After an absence of seven years, it being unknown whether or not the absence still lives, he shall be
presumed dead for all purposes except for those of succession.

The absentee shall not be presumed dead for the purpose of opening his succession till after an absence of five
years shall be sufficient in order that his succession may be opened.

Art. 391. The following shall be presumed dead for all purposes, including the division of the estate among the
heirs:

(1) A person on board a vessel lost during a sea voyage, or an aeroplane which is missing, who has not been heard
of for four years since the loss of the vessel or aeroplane;

(2) A person in the armed forces who has taken part in war, and has been missing for four years;

(3) a person who has been in danger of death under other circumstances and his existence has not been known for
four years.

Verily, the RTC's use of Article 41 of the FC as its basis in declaring the presumptive death of Wilfredo was
misleading and grossly improper.The petition for the declaration of presumptive death filed by the petitioner
was based on the Civil Code, and not on Article 41 of the FC.

Petitioner's Petition for Declaration of Presumptive Death Ought to Have Been Dismissed; A Petition Whose
Sole Objective is To Declare a Person Presumptively Dead Under the CivilCode, Like that Filed by the
Petitioner Before the RTC, Is Not a Viable Suit in Our Jurisdiction

The true fault in the RTC's decision, however, goes beyond its misleading fallo. The decision itself is objectionable.

Since the petition filed by the petitioner merely seeks the declaration of presumptive death of Wilfredo under the
Civil Code, the RTC should have dismissed such petition outright. This is because, in our jurisdiction, a petition
whose sole objective is to have a person declared presumptively dead under the Civil Code is not regarded as a
valid suit and no court has any authority to take cognizance of the same.

The above norm had its conceptual roots in the 1948 case of In re: Petition for the Presumption of Death of Nicolai
Szatraw.  In the said case, we held that a rule creating a presumption of death  is merely one of the evidence that-
12 13

while may be invoked in any action or proceeding-cannot be the lone subject of an independent action or
proceeding. Szatraw explained:

The rule invoked by the latter is merely one of the evidence which permits the court to presume that a person had
been unheard from in seven years had been established. This presumption may arise and be invoked and made in
a case, either in an action or in a special proceeding, which is tried or heard by, and submitted for decision to, a
competent court. Independently of such an action or special proceeding, the presumption of death cannot be
invoked, nor can it be made the subject of an action or special proceeding. In this case, there is no right ti be
enforced nor is there a remedy prayed for by the petitioner against her absent husband. Neither is there a
prayer for the final determination of his right or status or for the ascertainment of particular fact, for the petition does
not pray for the declaration that the petitioner 's husband us dead, but merely asks for a declaration that he be
presumed dead because he had been unheard from in seven years. If there is any pretense at securing a
declaration that the petitioner's husband os dead, such a pretension cannot be granted because it is
unauthorized. The petition is for a declaration, even if judicially made, would not improve the petitioner's
situation, because such a presumption is already established by law. A judicial pronouncement to that
effect, even if final and executory, would be a prima facie presumption only. It is still disputable. It is for that
reason that it cannot be the subject of judicial pronouncement or declaration, if it is tha only question or
matter involved in a case, or upon which a competent court has to pass. The latter must decide finally the
 6
controversy between the parties, or determine finally the right or status of a party or establish finally a particular fact,
out of which certain rights and obligations arise or may arise; and once such controversy is decided by a final
decree, then the judgement on the subject of the controversy, or the decree upon the right or status of a party or
upon the existence of a particular fact, becomes res judicata, subject to no collateral attack, except in a few rare
instances especially provided by law. It is, therefore, clear that judicial declaration that a person is presumptively
dead, because he had been unheard from in seven years, being a presumption juris tantum only, subject to contrary
proof, cannot reach the stage of finality or become final. (Citations omitted and emphasis supplied)

The above ruling in Szatraw has since been ussed by the subsequent cases of Lukban v. Republic  and Gue v.
14

Republic  in disallowing petitions for declaration of presumptive death based on Article 390 of the Civil Code (and,
15

implicity, also those based on the Civil based on Article 391 of the Civil Code).

Dissecting the rulings of Szatraw, Gue and Lukban collectively, we are able to ascertain the considerations why a
petition for declaration of presumptive death based on the Civil Code was disallowed in our jurisdiction, viz: 16

1. Articles 390 and 391 of the Civil Code merely express rules of evidence that only allow a court or a tribunal
to presume that a person is dead upon the establishment of certain facts.

2. Since Articles 390 an d 391 of the Civil Code merely express rules of evidence, an action brought exclusively
to declare a person presumptively dead under either of the said articles actually presents

no actual controversy that a court could decide. In such action, there would be no actual rights to be enforces,
no wrong to be remedied nor any status to be established.

3. A judicial pronouncement declaring a person presumptively dead under Article 390 or Article 391 of the Civil
Code, in an action exclusively based thereon, would never really become "final" as the same only confirms tha
existence of a prima facie or disputable presumption. The function of a court to render decisions that is supposed to
be final and binding between litigants is thereby compromised.

4. Moreove, a court action to declare a person presumptively dead under Articles 390 and 391 of the Civil Code
would be unnecessary. The presumption in the said articles is already established by law.

Verily, under prevailing case law, courts are without any authority to take cognizance of a petition that-like the one
filed by the petitioner in the case at bench-only seeks to have a person declared presumptively dead under the Civil
Code. Such a petition is not authorized by law.  Hence, by acting upon and eventually granting the petitioner's
17

petition for the declaration of presumptive death, the RTC violated prevailing jurisprudence and thereby committed
grave abuse of discretion. The CA, therefore, was only correct in setting aside the RTC's decision.

II

Before bringing this case to its logical conclusion, however, there are a few points the Court is minded to make.

It is not lost on this Court that much of the present controversy stemmed from the misconception that a court
declaration is required in order to establish a person is presumptively dead for purposes of claiming his death
benefits as a military serviceman under pertinent laws.  This misconception is what moved petitioner to file her
18

misguided petition for the declaration of presumptive death of Wilfredo and what ultimately exposed her to
unnecessary difficulties in prosecuting an otherwise simple claim for death benefits either before the Philippine
Veterans' Affair Office (PVAO) of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP).

What the Court finds deeply disconnecting, however, is the possibility that such misconception may have been
peddles by no less than the PVAO and the AFP themselves; that such agencies, as a matter of practice, had been
requiring claimants, such as the petitioner, to first secure a court declaration of presumptive death before processing
the death before processing the death benefits of missing serviceman.

In view of the foregoing circumstances, the Court deems it necessary to issue the following guidelines-culled from
relevant law and jurisprudential pronouncements-to aid the public, PVAO and the AFP in making or dealing with
claims of death benefits which are similar to that of the petitioner:
 7
1. The PVAO and the AFP can decide claims of death benefits of a missing soldier without requiring the
claimant to first produce a court declaration of the presumptive death of such soldier. In such claims, the
PVAO and the AFP can make their own determination, on the basis of the evidence presented by the claimant,
whether the presumption of death under Articles 390 and 391 of the Civil Code may be applied or not.

It must be stressed that the presumption of death under Articles 390 and 391 of the Civil Code arises by operation
of law, without need of a court declaration, once the factual conditions mentioned in the said articles are
established.  Hence, requiring the claimant to further secure a court declaration in order to establish the
19

presumptive death of a missing soldier is not proper and contravenes established jurisprudence on the matter. 20

2. In order to avail of the presumption, therefore, the claimant need only present before the PVAO or the appropriate
office of the AFP, as the case may be, any "evidence"  which shows that the concerned soldier had been missing
21

for such number of years and or under the circumstances prescribed under Articles 390 and 391 of the Civil Code.
Obviously, the "evidence" referred to here excludes a court declaration of presumptive death.

3. The PVAO or the AFP, as the case may be, may then weigh the evidence submitted by the claimant and
determine their sufficiency to establish the requisite factual conditions specified under Article 390 or 391 of the Civil
Code in order for the presumption of death to arise. If the PVAO or the AFP determines that the evidence
submitted by the claimant is sufficient, they should not hesitate to apply the presumption of death and pay
the latter's claim.

4. If the PVAO or the AFP determines that the evidence submitted by the claimant is not sufficient to invoke the
presumption of death under the Civil Code and denies the latter's claim by reason thereof, the claimant may file an
appeal with the Office of the President (OP) pursuant to the principle of exhaustion of administrative remedies.

If the OP denies the appeal, the claimant may next seek recourse via a petition for review with the CA under Rule 43
of the Rules of the Court.  And finally, shold such recourse still fail, the claimant may file an appeal by certiorari with
1avvphi1

the Supreme Court.

While we are constrained by case law to deny the instant petition, the Court is hopeful that, by the foregoing
guidelines, the unfortunate experience of the petitioner would no longer be replicated in the future.

WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is DENIED. The Decision dated November 28, 2016 and Resolution dated March
20, 2017 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 129467 are AFFIRMED. The Court declares that a judicial
decision of a court of law that a person is presumptively dead is not requirement before the Philippine Veterans'
Affairs Office and the Armed Forces of the Philippines for their consideration.

SO ORDERED.

Philippine Judicial Recognition of Foreign Divorce in 2019

Let us talk about judicial recognition of foreign divorce in the Philippines. Marriages celebrated in the
Philippines are recorded in the Philippine civil registry, and cannot be changed or corrected without a
judicial order. Thus, Filipinos must file and undergo a costly annulment in order to dissolve their marriages
 8
(Read: Annulment Process in the Philippines 2019). To avoid this complication, some Filipinos or
foreigners married to Filipinos file for divorce abroad, because the Philippines is the last country in the
world where divorce is still illegal, apart from the Vatican City. However, foreign divorce decrees cannot
simply be submitted to the Philippine civil registry –– either party must file for a “Judicial Recognition of
Foreign Divorce”.

The goal of judicial recognition of foreign divorce is to change the civil status of the parties in the
Philippine civil registry without undergoing the process of annulment.

Let us address the common questions on this matter.

What must be the citizenship of the (ex) spouses during or after the divorce?

 One spouse must be an alien or a non-Filipino at the time the the divorce decree is obtained
(See: Republic vs. Manalo, G.R. No. 221027, April 24, 2018, citing Republic vs. Orbecido III, G.R.
No. 154380 October 5, 2005). Hence, one can file for judicial recognition of foreign divorce, as long
as one spouse is an alien at the time of the divorce decree. This means that (ex) spouses who
married each other while they were both Filipinos – but one spouse was naturalized as a foreigner
– can file for judicial recognition of foreign divorce.

Who must initiate the divorce proceedings abroad?

 Either party, BUT it is crucial that one spouse must already be an alien at the time of the divorce
decree.
 This is an extremely helpful development for Filipinos. In fact, this was widely documented by
major news outlets. ABS-CBN News even reported this matter:

“Voting 10-3, magistrates of the high court ruled that a divorce obtained by a Filipino citizen against a
foreign spouse overseas is valid in the Philippines.
In the case of Marelyn Tanedo Manalo, the court noted Article 26 (2) of the Family Code which provides
that “where a marriage between a Filipino citizen and a foreigner is validly celebrated and a divorce is
thereafter validly obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating him or her to remarry, the Filipino
spouse shall likewise have the capacity to remarry under Philippine law.”

Supreme Court spokesperson Theodore Te said prior to Tuesday’s ruling, a divorce abroad is only
considered valid here in the Philippines when it is initiated by the foreign spouse.” (Read:Supreme Court
says foreign divorce valid in PH)

 Prior to the landmark decision of Republic vs. Manalo decided last April 24, 2018, Filipinos had to
wait for their alien spouse to initiate divorce proceedings. Now, they are empowered to initiate
divorce abroad (just make sure that your spouse is already an alien at the time of the divorce
decree!).

Who must file for judicial recognition of foreign divorce in the Philippines?

 Either spouse. The other spouse would be made as a Respondent in the Petition, in addition to the
Republic of the Philippines. It is submitted that both spouses can become co-petitioners, because
the end goal is to change the civil registry records. However, co-Petitioner spouses are
unprecedented as far as judicial recognition of foreign divorce is concerned. It is advisable to be
conservative and follow the trend of one spouse filing the petition.
 9
Where must the petition be filed?

 The petition for recognition of foreign divorce is filed under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court
(See: Corpuz vs. Sto. Tomas, G.R. No. 186571, August 11, 2010). Thus, it must be filed at the
Regional Trial Court of the province where the civil registry is located.

What are the essential documentary evidence?

 Philippine marriage certificate/record if the marriage was in the country.

 Official marriage certificate/record from the foreign country, if the marriage was celebrated abroad.
 Report of Marriage of a Filipino married abroad (if one was filed with the DFA).
 Authenticated Divorce Decree. The divorce decree, as a matter of evidence, must be translated to
English and certified by a competent authority of the State issuing the decree.
 Authenticated proof of foreign divorce law.
o The divorce law must be a copy that is certified by a law librarian in the State where the
divorce was issued as a copy of the divorce law of the said State.

Side note: What does “Authenticated” mean?

Authentication is a process to ensure that a foreign document is genuinely issued by a competent
authority of another State. Put simply, authentication warrants the signatures and the seal of the office
that issued it, so it can be used in the Philippines without entertaining any doubt that it is forged.

 Proofs of citizenship.

How do you authenticate a foreign document? There are two methods.

 The first option is to apply for an “Apostille” in the state where you got divorced. You do this if the
State is a party to the Apostille Convention. Check out the Hague Apostille Country List to see if it
is applicable to your situation.
 The second option is to undergo the traditional authentication procedure, if the issuing country is
not a party to the Apostille Convention. The foreign document must be authenticated by the
Philippine Embassy/Consulate. It is advisable to contact the relevant embassy/consulate to ask
about this process, as it may vary per jurisdiction.

If you need help in getting your foreign divorce recognized in the Philippines, you may email the attorney
at cgpsanchez@sanchezlawph.com.

Sanchez Law is headed by a Pampanga lawyer in Angeles City, Philippines. You may contact the attorney
at +63 927 423 1703 (Globe) | +63 949 717 9229 (Smart) for any queries. If you wish for a personal
consult, send a text or email to set a meeting at Workspace45, 2nd Floor, HTPT Building, MacArthur
Highway, Angeles City, Pampanga, Philippines 2009.

You may also browse other legal articles, as written by a Pampanga lawyer in Angeles City.

Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages
A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC
Supreme Court of the Philippines
4 March 2003
 10
Republic of the Philippines
Supreme Court
Manila
En Banc
Resolution
Acting on the letter of the Chairman of the Committee on Revision of the Rules of Court submitting for
this Court’s consideration and approval the Proposed Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void
Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages, the Court Resolved to APPROVE the same.

The Rule shall take effect on March 15, 2003 following its publication in a newspaper of general
circulation not later than March 7, 2003.

March 4, 2003.

Davide, Jr., C.J., Bellosillo, Puno, Mendoza, Quisumbing, Sandoval-Gutierrez, Carpio, Austria-Martinez, Carpio Morales,
Callejo, Sr., and Azcuna, JJ., concur.
Vitug, J., it is my understanding that neither Santos nor Molina has been made irrelevant, let alone necessarily
overturned by the new rules.
Panganiban, J., please see Dissenting Opinion on Rule relating to psychological incapacity.
Ynares-Santiago, J., on leave.
Corona, J., on official leave.
Re: Proposed Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of
Voidable Marriages

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.

SECTION 2. Petition for declaration of absolute nullity of void marriages.—

(a) Who may file.— A petition for declaration of absolute nullity of void marriage may be filed solely by
the husband or the wife. (n)

(b) Where to file.— The petition shall be filed in the Family Court.

(c) Imprescriptibility of action or defense.— An action or defense for the declaration of absolute nullity
of void marriage shall not prescribe.

(d) What to allege.— A petition under Article 36 of the Family Code shall specifically allege the
complete facts showing that either or both parties were psychologically incapacitated from complying
with the essential marital obligations of marriage at the time of the celebration of marriage even if such
incapacity becomes manifest only after its celebration.
 11
The complete facts should allege the physical manifestations, if any, as are indicative of psychological
incapacity at the time of the celebration of the marriage but expert opinion need not be alleged.

SECTION 3. Petition for annulment of voidable marriages.—

(a) Who may file.— The following persons may file a petition for annulment of voidable marriage based
on any of the grounds under Article 45 of the Family Code and within the period herein indicated:

(1) The contracting party whose parent, or guardian, or person exercising substitute parental
authority did not give his or her consent, within five years after attaining the age of twenty-one unless,
after attaining the age of twenty-one, such party freely cohabitated with the other as husband or wife; or
the parent, guardian or person having legal charge of the contracting party, at any time before such
party has reached the age of twenty-one;

(2) The sane spouse who had no knowledge of the other’s insanity; or by any relative, guardian, or
person having legal charge of the insane, at any time before the death of either party; or by the insane
spouse during a lucid interval or after regaining sanity, provided that the petitioner, after coming to
reason, has not freely cohabited with the other as husband or wife;

(3) The injured party whose consent was obtained by fraud, within five years after the discovery of
the fraud, provided that said party, with full knowledge of the facts constituting the fraud, has not freely
cohabited with the other as husband or wife;

(4) The injured party whose consent was obtained by force, intimidation, or undue influence, within
five years from the time the force, intimidation, or undue influence disappeared or ceased, provided
that the force, intimidation, or undue influence having disappeared or ceased, said party has not
thereafter freely cohabited with the other as husband or wife;

(5) The injured party where the other spouse is physically incapable of consummating the marriage
with the other and such incapacity continues and appears to be incurable, within five years after the
celebration of marriage; and

(6) The injured party where the other party was afflicted with a sexually-transmissible disease found
to be serious and appears to be incurable, within five years after the celebration of marriage.

(b) Where to file.— The petition shall be filed in the Family Court.

SECTION 4. Venue.— The petition shall be filed in the Family Court of the province or city where the
petitioner or the respondent has been residing for at least six months prior to the date of filing, or in the
case of a non-resident respondent, where he may be found in the Philippines, at the election of the
petitioner.
 12
SECTION 5. Contents and form of petition.—

(1) The petition shall allege the complete facts constituting the cause of action.

(2) It shall state the names and ages of the common children of the parties and specify the regime
governing their property relations, as well as the properties involved.

If there is no adequate provision in a written agreement between the parties, the petitioner may apply
for a provisional order for spousal support, custody and support of common children, visitation rights,
administration of community or conjugal property, and other matters similarly requiring urgent action.

(3) It must be verified and accompanied by a certification against forum shopping. The verification and
certification must be signed personally by the petitioner. No petition may be filed solely by counsel or
through an attorney-in-fact.

If the petitioner is in a foreign country, the verification and certification against forum shopping shall be
authenticated by the duly authorized officer of the Philippine embassy or legation, consul general, consul
or vice-consul or consular agent in said country.

(4) It shall be filed in six copies. The petitioner shall serve a copy of the petition on the Office of the
Solicitor General and the Office of the City or Provincial Prosecutor, within five days from the date of its
filing and submit to the court proof of such service within the same period.

Failure to comply with any of the preceding requirements may be a ground for immediate dismissal of
the petition.

SECTION 6. Summons.— The service of summons shall be governed by Rule 14 of the Rules of Court
and by the following rules:

(1) Where the respondent cannot be located at his given address or his whereabouts are unknown and
cannot be ascertained by diligent inquiry, service of summons may, by leave of court, be effected upon
him by publication once a week for two consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation in the
Philippines and in such places as the court may order. In addition, a copy of the summons shall be
served on the respondent at his last known address by registered mail or any other means the court may
deem sufficient.

(2) The summons to be published shall be contained in an order of the court with the following data:
(a) title of the case; (b) docket number; (c) nature of the petition; (d) principal grounds of the petition and
the reliefs prayed for; and (e) a directive for the respondent to answer within thirty days from the last
issue of publication.
 13
SECTION 7. Motion to dismiss.— No motion to dismiss the petition shall be allowed except on the
ground of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter or over the parties; provided, however, that any other
ground that might warrant a dismissal of the case may be raised as an affirmative defense in an answer.

SECTION 8. Answer.—

(1) The respondent shall file his answer within fifteen days from service of summons, or within thirty
days from the last issue of publication in case of service of summons by publication. The answer must
be verified by the respondent himself and not by counsel or attorney-in-fact.

(2) If the respondent fails to file an answer, the court shall not declare him or her in default.

(3) Where no answer is filed or if the answer does not tender an issue, the court shall order the public
prosecutor to investigate whether collusion exists between the parties.

SECTION 9. Investigation report of public prosecutor.—

(1) Within one month after receipt of the court order mentioned in paragraph (3) of Section 8 above,
the public prosecutor shall submit a report to the court stating whether the parties are in collusion and
serve copies thereof on the parties and their respective counsels, if any.

(2) If the public prosecutor finds that collusion exists, he shall state the basis thereof in his report. The
parties shall file their respective comments on the finding of collusion within ten days from receipt of a
copy of the report. The court shall set the report for hearing and if convinced that the parties are in
collusion, it shall dismiss the petition.

(3) If the public prosecutor reports that no collusion exists, the court shall set the case for pre-trial. It
shall be the duty of the public prosecutor to appear for the State at the pre-trial.

SECTION 10. Social worker.— The court may require a social worker to conduct a case study and
submit the corresponding report at least three days before the pre-trial. The court may also require a case
study at any stage of the case whenever necessary.

SECTION 11. Pre-trial.—

(1) Pre-trial mandatory.— A pre-trial is mandatory. On motion or motu proprio, the court shall set the
pre-trial after the last pleading has been served and filed, or upon receipt of the report of the public
prosecutor that no collusion exists between the parties.

(2) Notice of pre-trial.—

(a) The notice of pre-trial shall contain:

 14
(1) the date of pre-trial conference; and

(2) an order directing the parties to file and serve their respective pre-trial briefs in such manner as
shall ensure the receipt thereof by the adverse party at least three days before the date of pre-trial.

(b) The notice shall be served separately on the parties and their respective counsels as well as on
the public prosecutor. It shall be their duty to appear personally at the pre-trial.

(c) Notice of pre-trial shall be sent to the respondent even if he fails to file an answer. In case of
summons by publication and the respondent failed to file his answer, notice of pre-trial shall be sent to
respondent at his last known address.

SECTION 12. Contents of pre-trial brief.— The pre-trial brief shall contain the following:

(a) A statement of the willingness of the parties to enter into agreements as may be allowed by law,
indicating the desired terms thereof;

(b) A concise statement of their respective claims together with the applicable laws and authorities;

(c) Admitted facts and proposed stipulations of facts, as well as the disputed factual and legal issues;

(d) All the evidence to be presented, including expert opinion, if any, briefly stating or describing the
nature and purpose thereof;

(e) The number and names of the witnesses and their respective affidavits; and

(f) Such other matters as the court may require.

Failure to file the pre-trial brief or to comply with its required contents shall have the same effect as
failure to appear at the pre-trial under the succeeding paragraphs.

SECTION 13. Effect of failure to appear at the pre-trial.—

(a) If the petitioner fails to appear personally, the case shall be dismissed unless his counsel or a duly
authorized representative appears in court and proves a valid excuse for the non-appearance of the
petitioner.

(b) If the respondent has filed his answer but fails to appear, the court shall proceed with the pre-trial
and require the public prosecutor to investigate the non-appearance of the respondent and submit within
fifteen days thereafter a report to the court stating whether his non-appearance is due to any collusion
between the parties. If there is no collusion, the court shall require the public prosecutor to intervene for
the State during the trial on the merits to prevent suppression or fabrication of evidence.
 15
SECTION 14. Pre-trial conference.— At the pre-trial conference, the court:

(a) May refer the issues to a mediator who shall assist the parties in reaching an agreement on
matters not prohibited by law.

The mediator shall render a report within one month from referral which, for good reasons, the court
may extend for a period not exceeding one month.

(b) In case mediation is not availed of or where it fails, the court shall proceed with the pre-trial
conference, on which occasion it shall consider the advisability of receiving expert testimony and such
other matters as may aid in the prompt disposition of the petition.

SECTION 15. Pre-trial order.—

(a) The proceedings in the pre-trial shall be recorded. Upon termination of the pre-trial, the court shall
issue a pre-trial order which shall recite in detail the matters taken up in the conference, the action taken
thereon, the amendments allowed on the pleadings, and, except as to the ground of declaration of nullity
or annulment, the agreements or admissions made by the parties on any of the matters considered,
including any provisional order that may be necessary or agreed upon by the parties.

(b) Should the action proceed to trial, the order shall contain a recital of the following:

(1) Facts undisputed, admitted, and those which need not be proved subject to Section 16 of this
Rule;

(2) Factual and legal issues to be litigated;

(3) Evidence, including objects and documents, that have been marked and will be presented;

(4) Names of witnesses who will be presented and their testimonies in the form of affidavits; and

(5) Schedule of the presentation of evidence.

(c) The pre-trial order shall also contain a directive to the public prosecutor to appear for the State and
take steps to prevent collusion between the parties at any stage of the proceedings and fabrication or
suppression of evidence during the trial on the merits.

(d) The parties shall not be allowed to raise issues or present witnesses and evidence other than those
stated in the pre-trial order. The order shall control the trial of the case, unless modified by the court to
prevent manifest injustice.
 16
(e) The parties shall have five days from receipt of the pre-trial order to propose corrections or
modifications.

SECTION 16. Prohibited compromise.— The court shall not allow compromise on prohibited matters,
such as the following:

(a) The civil status of persons;

(b) The validity of a marriage or of a legal separation;

(c) Any ground for legal separation;

(d) Future support;

(e) The jurisdiction of courts; and

(f) Future legitime.

SECTION 17. Trial.—

(1) The presiding judge shall personally conduct the trial of the case. No delegation of the reception of
evidence to a commissioner shall be allowed except as to matters involving property relations of the
spouses.

(2) The grounds for declaration of absolute nullity or annulment of marriage must be proved. No
judgment on the pleadings, summary judgment, or confession of judgment shall be allowed.

(3) The court may order the exclusion from the courtroom of all persons, including members of the
press, who do not have a direct interest in the case. Such an order may be made if the court determines
on the record that requiring a party to testify in open court would not enhance the ascertainment of truth;
would cause to the party psychological harm or inability to effectively communicate due to
embarrassment, fear, or timidity; would violate the right of a party to privacy; or would be offensive to
decency or public morals.

(4) No copy shall be taken nor any examination or perusal of the records of the case or parts thereof
be made by any person other than a party or counsel of a party, except by order of the court.

SECTION 18. Memoranda.— The court may require the parties and the public prosecutor, in
consultation with the Office of the Solicitor General, to file their respective memoranda in support of their
claims within fifteen days from the date the trial is terminated. It may require the Office of the Solicitor
General to file its own memorandum if the case is of significant interest to the State. No other pleadings or
 17
papers may be submitted without leave of court. After the lapse of the period herein provided, the case will
be considered submitted for decision, with or without the memoranda.

SECTION 19. Decision.—

(1) If the court renders a decision granting the petition, it shall declare therein that the decree of
absolute nullity or decree of annulment shall be issued by the court only after compliance with Articles 50
and 51 of the Family Code as implemented under the Rule on Liquidation, Partition and Distribution of
Properties.

(2) The parties, including the Solicitor General and the public prosecutor, shall be served with copies
of the decision personally or by registered mail. If the respondent summoned by publication failed to
appear in the action, the dispositive part of the decision shall be published once in a newspaper of
general circulation.

(3) The decision becomes final upon the expiration of fifteen days from notice to the parties. Entry of
judgment shall be made if no motion for reconsideration or new trial, or appeal is filed by any of the
parties, the public prosecutor, or the Solicitor General.

(4) Upon the finality of the decision, the court shall forthwith issue the corresponding decree if the
parties have no properties.

If the parties have properties, the court shall observe the procedure prescribed in Section 21 of this
Rule.

The entry of judgment shall be registered in the Civil Registry where the marriage was recorded and in
the Civil Registry where the Family Court granting the petition for declaration of absolute nullity or
annulment of marriage is located.

SECTION 20. Appeal.—

(1) Pre-condition.— No appeal from the decision shall be allowed unless the appellant has filed a
motion for reconsideration or new trial within fifteen days from notice of judgment.

(2) Notice of appeal.— An aggrieved party or the Solicitor General may appeal from the decision by
filing a Notice of Appeal within fifteen days from notice of denial of the motion for reconsideration or new
trial. The appellant shall serve a copy of the notice of appeal on the adverse parties.

SECTION 21. Liquidation, partition and distribution, custody, support of common children and
delivery of their presumptive legitimes.— Upon entry of the judgment granting the petition, or, in case of
appeal, upon receipt of the entry of judgment of the appellate court granting the petition, the Family Court,
 18
on motion of either party, shall proceed with the liquidation, partition and distribution of the properties of
the spouses, including custody, support of common children and delivery of their presumptive legitimes
pursuant to Articles 50 and 51 of the Family Code unless such matters had been adjudicated in previous
judicial proceedings.

SECTION 22. Issuance of Decree of Declaration of Absolute Nullity or Annulment of Marriage.—

(a) The court shall issue the Decree after:

(1) Registration of the entry of judgment granting the petition for declaration of nullity or annulment of
marriage in the Civil Registry where the marriage was celebrated and in the Civil Registry of the place
where the Family Court is located;

(2) Registration of the approved partition and distribution of the properties of the spouses, in the
proper Register of Deeds where the real properties are located; and

(3) The delivery of the children’s presumptive legitimes in cash, property, or sound securities.

(b) The court shall quote in the Decree the dispositive portion of the judgment entered and attach to
the Decree the approved deed of partition.

Except in the case of children under Articles 36 and 53 of the Family Code, the court shall order the
Local Civil Registrar to issue an amended birth certificate indicating the new civil status of the children
affected.

SECTION 23. Registration and publication of the decree; decree as best evidence.—

(a) The prevailing party shall cause the registration of the Decree in the Civil Registry where the
marriage was registered, the Civil Registry of the place where the Family Court is situated, and in the
National Census and Statistics Office. He shall report to the court compliance with this requirement
within thirty days from receipt of the copy of the Decree.

(b) In case service of summons was made by publication, the parties shall cause the publication of the
Decree once in a newspaper of general circulation.

(c) The registered Decree shall be the best evidence to prove the declaration of absolute nullity or
annulment of marriage and shall serve as notice to third persons concerning the properties of petitioner
and respondent as well as the properties or presumptive legitimes delivered to their common children.

SECTION 24. Effect of death of a party; duty of the Family Court or Appellate Court.—
 19
(a) In case a party dies at any stage of the proceedings before the entry of judgment, the court shall
order the case closed and terminated, without prejudice to the settlement of the estate in proper
proceedings in the regular courts.

(b) If the party dies after the entry of judgment of nullity or annulment, the judgment shall be binding
upon the parties and their successors in interest in the settlement of the estate in the regular courts.

SECTION 25. Effectivity.— This Rule shall take effect on March 15, 2003 following its publication in a
newspaper of general circulation not later than March 7, 2003.

Promulgated: March 4, 2003.

G.R. No. 214064, February 06, 2017

MIRASOL CASTILLO, Petitioner, v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES AND FELIPE IMPAS, Respondent.
D E C I S I O N - PERALTA, J.:

We resolve the petition for review on certiorari filed by petitioner Mirasol Castillo

(Mirasol) challenging the Decision1 and Resolution,2 dated March 10, 2014 and August
 20
28, 2014, respectively, of the Court of Appeals (CA), which ruled against the dissolution
and nullity of her marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code.

The facts of the case follow:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

As their parents were good friends and business partners, Mirasol and Felipe started as
friends then, eventually, became sweethearts. During their courtship, Mirasol discovered
that Felipe sustained his affair with his former girlfriend. The couple's relationship turned
tumultuous after the revelation. With the intervention of their parents, they reconciled.
They got married in Bani, Pangasinan on April 22, 1984 and were blessed with two (2)
children born in 1992 and in 2001. 3

On June 6, 2011, Mirasol filed a Complaint4 for declaration of nullity of marriage before

the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Dasmarinas, Cavite, Branch 90.

Mirasol alleged that at the beginning, their union was harmonious prompting her to
believe that the same was made in heaven. However, after thirteen (13) years of
marriage, Felipe resumed philandering. Their relatives and friends saw him with different
women. One time, she has just arrived from a trip and returned home to surprise her
family. 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. 5 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 (10) years without any
reason, constitute a severe psychological disorder. 6

In support of her case, Mirasol presented clinical psychologist Sheila Marie Montefalcon
(Montefalcon) who, in her Psychological Evaluation Report, 7 concluded that Felipe is
psychologically incapacitated to fulfill the essential marital obligations. A portion of the
report reads:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

xxxx

The personality disorder speaks of antecedence as it has an early onset, with an

enduring pattern and behavior that deviates markedly from the expectations of the
individual's culture. His poor parental and family molding (particularly lack of parental
parenting) caused him to have a defective superego and he proved to be selfish,
immature and negligent person and followed a pattern of gross irresponsibility and gross
disregard of the feelings of his partner/wife disregarding the marriage contract and the
commitment he agreed on during the wedding. In other words, the root cause of
respondent's flawed personality pattern can be in childhood milieu. Respondent's familial
constellation, unreliable parenting style from significant figures around him, and
unfavorable childhood experiences have greatly affected his perceptions of himself and
his environment in general. The respondent did not grow up mature enough to cope with
his obligations and responsibilities as married man and father.

It also speaks of gravity as he was not able to carry out the normative and ordinary
duties of marriage and family, shouldered by any married man, existing in ordinary
circumstances. He just cannot perform his duties and obligations as a husband, as he
 21
entered into marriage for his own self-satisfaction and gratification, manipulate and
denigrate the petitioner for his own pleasures and satisfaction. In the process,
respondent was unable to assume his marital duties and responsibilities to his wife. He
failed to render mutual help and support (Article 68, FC).

Additionally, it also speaks of incurability, as respondent has no psychological insight

that he has a character problem. He would not acknowledge the pain he caused to
people around him. People suffering from this personality disorder are unmotivated to
treatment and impervious to recovery. There are no medications and laboratory
examinations to be taken for maladaptive behavior such as the NPD (Narcissistic
Personality Disorder).

Otherwise stated, his personality disorder is chronic and pervasive affecting many

aspects of his life, such as social functioning and close relationships. Apparently, he has
failed to develop appropriate adjustment methods. He lacks the intrapersonal and
interpersonal integration that caused him the failure to understand the very nature of
that sharing of life that is directed toward the solidarity and formation of family.

x x x x8chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
In a Decision9 dated January 20, 2012, the RTC in Civil Case No. 4853-11 declared the
marriage between Mirasol and Felipe null and void. The dispositive portion of the
decision states:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
WHEREFORE, premises considered, Court hereby declares the marriage contract by the
petitioner MIRASOL CASTILLO to the respondent FELIPE IMPAS on April 22, 1984 in
Bani, Pangasinan to be NULL AND VOID AB INITIO.

ACCORDINGLY, pursuant to the provisions of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC, the Clerk of Court
is directed to enter this judgment upon its finality in the Book of Entry of Judgment and
to issue the corresponding Entry of Judgment. Thereupon, the Office of the Civil
Registrars in Bani, Pangasinan and Imus, Cavite, are also mandated to cause the
registration of the said ENTRY OF JUDGMENT in their respective Book of Marriages.

Likewise, furnish the petitioner and the counsel of the petitioner, the respondent, the
Solicitor General, 3rd Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Oscar R. Jarlos and the Civil
Registrar General with copies hereof.

Upon compliance, the Court shall forthwith issue the DECREE OF NULLITY OF
MARRIAGE.

SO ORDERED.10chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
On February 22, 2012, the Republic of the Philippines, through the Office of the Solicitor
General (OSG), filed a motion for reconsideration, which the RTC denied in an
Order11 dated April 3, 2012.

On appeal, the CA in CA-G.R. CV No. 99686 reversed and set aside the decision of the
RTC, ruling that Mirasol failed to present sufficient evidence to prove that Felipe was
 22
suffering from psychological incapacity, thus, incapable of performing marital obligations
due to some psychological illness existing at the time of the celebration of the
marriage.12 A pertinent portion of the decision reads:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
xxxx

Based on the records, it appears more likely that Felipe became unfaithful as a result of
unknown factors that happened during the marriage and not because of his family
background. His tendency to womanize was not shown to be due to causes of a
psychological nature that are grave, permanent and incurable. In fact, it was only after
thirteen (13) years of marriage that he started to engage in extra-marital affairs. In the
complaint filed by Mirasol, she said that after they got married, their relationship as
husband and wife went smoothly and that she was of the belief that she had a marriage
made in heaven.

In short, Felipe's marital infidelity does not appear to be symptomatic of a grave

psychological disorder which rendered him incapable of performing his spousal
obligations. Sexual infidelity, by itself, is not sufficient proof that petitioner is suffering
from psychological incapacity. It must be shown that the acts of unfaithfulness are
manifestations of a disordered personality which make him completely unable to
discharge the essential obligations of marriage. Since that situation does not obtain in
the case, Mirasol's claim of psychological incapacity must fail. Psychological incapacity
must be more than just a "difficulty," "refusal" or "neglect" in the performance of some
marital obligations. Rather, it is essential that the concerned party was incapable of
doing so, due to some psychological illness existing at the time of the celebration of the
marriage.

In fine, given the insufficiency of the evidence proving the psychological incapacity of
Felipe, We cannot but rule in favor of the existence and continuation of the marriage and
against its dissolution and nullity.

WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The Decision dated January 20, 2012 is
REVERSED and SET ASIDE.

SO ORDERED.13chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Upon the denial of her motion for reconsideration, Mirasol elevated the case before this
Court raising the issue, thus:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
[Petitioner] was able to establish that respondent is suffering from grave psychological
condition that rendered him incognitive of his marital covenants under Article 36 of the
Family Code.
Basically, the issue to be resolved by this Court is whether or not the totality of evidence
presented warrants, as the RTC determined, the declaration of nullity of the marriage of
Mirasol and Felipe on the ground of the latter's psychological incapacity under Article 36
of the Family Code.

This Court rules in the negative.

Mirasol alleges that she has sufficiently established that Felipe is psychologically
incapacitated to comply with the essential obligations of marriage. The conclusions of
 23
the trial court regarding the credibility of the witnesses are entitled to great respect
because of its opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witnesses. Since the court a
quo accepted the veracity of the petitioner's premises, there is no cause to dispute the
conclusion of Felipe's psychological incapacity drawn from the expert witness. She claims
that Montefalcon was correct in interviewing her for it was submitted that it was only her
who knew best whether her husband was complying with his marital obligations.
Moreover, the OSG admits that personal examination of the respondent by the clinical
psychologist is not an indispensable requisite for a finding of psychological incapacity.

On the other hand, the OSG argues that Mirasol failed to establish from the totality of
evidence the gravity, juridical antecedence and incurability of Felipe's alleged Narcissistic
Personality Disorder. The conclusions of the clinical psychologist that he was
psychologically incapacitated and that such incapacity was present at the inception of
the marriage were not supported by evidence. At most, the psychologist merely proved
his refusal to perform his marital obligations.14 Moreover, she has no personal knowledge
of the facts from which she based her findings and was working on pure assumptions
and secondhand information related to her by one side. 15

Time and again, it was held that "psychological incapacity" has been intended by law to
be confined to the most serious cases of personality disorders clearly demonstrative of
an utter insensitivity or inability to give meaning and significance to the
marriage.16 Psychological incapacity must be characterized by (a) gravity, i.e., it must
be grave and serious such that the party would be incapable of carrying out the ordinary
duties required in a marriage, (b) juridical antecedence, i.e., it must be rooted in the
history of the party antedating the marriage, although the overt manifestations may
emerge only after the marriage, and (c) incurability, i.e., it must be incurable, or even
if it were otherwise, the cure would be beyond the means of the party involved. 17

In the case of Republic v. Court of Appeals and Molina,18 this Court laid down the more
definitive guidelines in the disposition of psychological incapacity
cases, viz.:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
xxxx

(1) The burden of proof to:show the nullity of the marriage belongs to the plaintiff. Any
doubt should be resolved an favor of the existence and continuation of the marriage and
against its dissolution and nullity. 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 and (d) clearly
explained in the decision. x x x

(3) The incapacity must be proven to be existing at "the time of the celebration" of the
marriage. x x x

(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. x x x

(5) Such illness must be grave enough to bring about the disability of the party to
 24
assume the essential obligations of marriage. x x x 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. x x x

(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. x x x

x x x19chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
The existence or absence of the psychological incapacity shall be based strictly on the
facts of each case and not on a priori assumptions, predilections or generalizations.20

As held in Ting v. Velez-Ting:21

By the very nature of cases involving the application of Article 36, it is logical and
understandable to give weight to the expert opinions furnished by psychologists
regarding the psychological temperament of parties in order to determine the
root cause, juridical antecedence, gravity and incurability of the psychological
incapacity. However, such opinions, while highly advisable, are not conditions sine qua
non in granting petitions for declaration of nullity of marriage. At best, courts must
treat such opinions as decisive but not indispensable evidence in determining
the merits of a given case. In fact, if the totality of evidence presented is enough to
sustain a finding of psychological incapacity, then actual medical or psychological
examination of the person concerned need not be resorted to. The trial court, as in
any other given case presented before it, must always base its decision not
solely on the expert opinions furnished by the parties but also on the totality of
evidence adduced in the course of the proceedings. 22chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
The presentation of any form of medical or psychological evidence to show the
psychological incapacity, however, did not mean that the same would have automatically
ensured the granting of the petition for declaration of nullity of marriage. It bears
repeating that the trial courts, as in all the other cases they try, must always base their
judgments not solely on the expert opinions presented by the parties but on the totality
of evidence adduced in the course of their proceedings. 23

Guided by the foregoing principles and after a careful perusal of the records, this Court
rules that the totality of the evidence presented failed to establish Felipe's psychological
incapacity.

Clinical psychologist Montefalcon opined that respondent is encumbered with a

personality disorder classified as Narcissistic Personality Disorder deeply ingrained in his
 25
personality structure that rendered him incapacitated to perform his marital duties and
obligations. In her direct testimony, she stated:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
ATTY. BAYAUA:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

Question: Were you able to interview and conduct examination on the respondent?
Answer: No, sir.

Question: [W]here did you base your conclusion that supported your findings that the
husband of Mirasol is psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential
obligations of marriage?
Answer: From the interviews I had with the petitioner and also from my interview of the
couple's common friend who validated all information given to me by the petitioner.

Question: You mean to say you were not able to interview the respondent?
Answer: No sir. But I sent him an invitation to undergo the same psychological
evaluation I administered with the petitioner but he did not respond to my invitation.

Question: [W]hat relevant information were you able to gather from your interview of
the friend of the couple?
Answer: She validated every piece of information relayed to me by the petitioner during
the interview.

xxxx

Question: Madam witness, were you able to determine at what point in time in the life of
the respondent did he acquire this disorder that you mentioned?
Answer: The disorder of the respondent already existed even at the time of celebration
of their marriage, although the incapacity became manifest only after their
marriage. His disorder seemed to have started during the early years of his life.

Question: In your expert opinion, what would be the likely source of the disorder of the
respondent?
Answer: The disorder of the respondent seemed to have developed during the
early years of his life due to his poor parental and family [molding] particularly
lack of parental guidance. [His] parents separated when he was still young and when
[his] mother had another affair and lived with her common-law husband. Respondent's
familial constellation and [unfavorable] childhood experiences have greatly affected his
perceptions of himself and his environment. Respondent did not grow up mature enough
to cope with his obligations and responsibilities as a married man and father.

x x x24chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
The RTC noticeably relied heavily on the result of the psychological evaluation by
Montefalcon. A perusal of the RTC's decision would reveal that there was no assessment
of the veracity of such allegations, the credibility of the witnesses, and the weight of the
pieces of evidence presented. Also, there were no factual findings which can serve as
bases for its conclusion of Felipe's psychological incapacity.

The presentation of expert proof in cases for declaration of nullity of marriage based on
 26
psychological incapacity presupposes a thorough and an in-depth assessment of the
parties by the psychologist or expert, for a conclusive diagnosis of a grave, severe and
incurable presence of psychological incapacity. 25 The probative force of the testimony
of an expert does not lie in a mere statement of her theory or opinion, but rather in
the assistance that she can render to the courts in showing the facts that serve
as a basis for her criterion and the reasons upon which the logic of her
conclusion is founded.26

Although the evaluation report of Montefalcon expounds on the juridical antecedence,

gravity and incurability of Felipe's personality disorder, it was, however, admitted that
she evaluated respondent's psychological condition indirectly from the information
gathered from Mirasol and her witness. Felipe's dysfunctional family portrait which
brought about his personality disorder as painted in the evaluation was based solely on
the assumed truthful knowledge of petitioner. There was no independent witness
knowledgeable of respondent's upbringing interviewed by the psychologist or presented
before the trial court. Angelica Mabayad, the couple's common friend, agreed with
petitioner's claims in the interview with the psychologist, confirmed the information
given by petitioner, and alleged that she knew Felipe as "chick boy" or "playboy"27 She
did not testify before the court a quo.

As such, there are no other convincing evidence asserted to establish Felipe's

psychological condition and its associations in his early life. Montefalcon's testimony and
psychological evaluation report do not provide evidentiary support to cure the doubtful
veracity of Mirasol's one-sided assertion. The said report falls short of the required proof
for the Court to rely on the same as basis to declare petitioner's marriage to respondent
as void.

While the examination by a physician of a person in order to declare him psychologically

incapacitated is not required, the root cause thereof must still be "medically or clinically
identified," and adequately established by evidence. 28 We cannot take the conclusion
that Felipe harbors a personality disorder existing prior to his marriage which
purportedly incapacitated him with the essential marital obligations as credible proof of
juridical antecedence. The manner by which such conclusion was reached leaves much
to be desired in terms of meeting the standard of evidence required in determining
psychological incapacity. The lack of corroborative witness and evidence regarding
Felipe's upbringing and family history renders Montefalcon's opinion on the root cause of
his psychological incapacity conjectural or speculative.

Even if the testimonies of Mirasol and Montefalcon at issue are considered since the
judge had found them to be credible enough, this Court cannot lower the evidentiary
benchmark with regard to information on Felipe's pre-marital history which is crucial to
the issue of antecedence in this case because we only have petitioner's words to rely on.
To make conclusions and generalizations on a spouse's psychological condition based on
the information fed by only one side, as in the case at bar, is, to the Court's mind, not
different from admitting hearsay evidence as proof of the truthfulness of the content of
such evidence.29

Anent Felipe's sexual infidelity, Mirasol alleged in her judicial affidavit, to

wit:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
 27
xxxx
Question: You said Madam Witness that after several months you and respondent became sweethearts, what
happened next Madam Witness?
Answer: Sir, while we were already sweethearts, I got dismayed when respondent was also maintaining
another woman who was his former girlfriend.
Question: What was the reaction of the respondent when you told him about his relation with his former
girlfriend?
Answer: Respondent was shocked and became moody Sir. This turned our relationship sour and it led to
being stormy.
Question: You said Madam Witness that you and respondent's relationship became sour and stormy, what
happened next, if any?
Answer: Sir, my relationship with respondent should have been ended had it not been with the timely
intervention of our parents. Respondent and I reconciled.
xxxx
Question: Madam Witness as you said you finally got married with the respondent as evidenced in fact by a
Marriage Certificate. What happened next after the marriage?
Answer: After our wedding, our relationship as husband and wife went on smoothly. I was of the belief that
my marriage was made in heaven and that respondent had already reformed his ways and had
completely deviated from his relationship with his ex-girlfriend;
x x x30
Question: After giving birth to your first child did respondent change or become responsible considering that
he is already a father?
Answer: No, Sir. I thought that having our first child would already change the ways of respondent. The
birth of our first child did not actually help improve respondent's ways because respondent is really
a man who is not contented with one woman even before we got married;
x x x31
Question: After you gave birth to you[r] second child what happened next Madam Witness?
Answer: Sir, after thirteen (13) years of marriage, respondent is back to his old habit where he has been
seen having relationship with a different woman. This was also seen by our relatives and friends of
respondent.
x x x32
Irreconcilable differences, sexual infidelity or perversion, emotional immaturity and
irresponsibility and the like, do not by themselves warrant a finding of psychological
incapacity under Article 36, as the same may only be due to a person's refusal or
unwillingness to assume the essential obligations of marriage. 33 In order for sexual
infidelity to constitute as psychological incapacity, the respondent's unfaithfulness
must be established as a manifestation of a disordered personality, completely
preventing the respondent from discharging the essential obligations of the
marital state; there must be proof of a natal or supervening disabling factor that
effectively incapacitated him from complying with the obligation to be faithful to his
spouse.34 It is indispensable that the evidence must show a link, medical or the like,
between the acts that manifest psychological incapacity and the psychological disorder
itself.35
 28

As discussed, the findings on Felipe's personality profile did not emanate from a personal
interview with the subject himself. Apart from the psychologist's opinion and petitioner's
allegations, no other reliable evidence was cited to prove that Felipe's sexual infidelity
was a manifestation of his alleged personality disorder, which is grave, deeply rooted,
and incurable. We are not persuaded that the natal or supervening disabling factor
which effectively incapacitated him from complying with his obligation to be faithful to
his wife was medically or clinically established.

Basic is the rule that bare allegations, unsubstantiated by evidence, are not equivalent
to proof, i.e., mere allegations are not evidence.36 Based on the records, this Court finds
that there exists insufficient factual or legal basis to conclude that Felipe's sexual
infidelity and irresponsibility can be equated with psychological incapacity as
contemplated by law. We reiterate that there was no other evidence adduced. Aside
from the psychologist, petitioner did not present other witnesses to substantiate her
allegations on Felipe's infidelity notwithstanding the fact that she claimed that their
relatives saw him with other women. Her testimony, therefore, is considered self-serving
and had no serious evidentiary value.

In sum, this Court finds no cogent reason to reverse the ruling of the CA against the
dissolution and nullity of the parties' marriage due to insufficiency of the evidence
presented. The policy of the State is to protect and strengthen the family as the basic
social institution and marriage is the foundation of the family. Thus, any doubt should be
resolved in favor of validity of the marriage. 37

WHEREFORE, we DENY the petition for review on certiorari filed by herein petitioner

Mirasol Castillo. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the assailed Decision and Resolution, dated
March 10, 2014 and August 28, 2014, respectively, of the Court of Appeals.

SO ORDERED.c

Annulment Process in the Philippines 2019

Read up on the annulment process in the Philippines in 2019. Getting your marriage annulled in the Philippines is a
complicated process that requires the engagement of the services of an attorney to file a case before the Philippine
courts. Unfortunately, the Philippines is the last country in the world that has no divorce law, and spouses with
failed marriages must obtain an annulment or a declaration of nullity of their marriage to formally separate and
change their civil status. The Family Code of the Philippines provides the specific and limited grounds to annul or
declare marriages to be nullities.

This is a general guide on the annulment process in the Philippines:

Grounds for Annulment of Marriage / Declaration of Nullity of Marriage

Let us use precise legal terminology before we begin discussing the annulment process. Non-lawyers
usually use the term “annulment” to broadly refer to the process of dissolving a marriage under Philippine
 29
laws. However, this term is not accurate, because there are different grounds to dissolve a marriage. The
first method is by filing for “Annulment of Marriage,” while the second method is filing for a “Declaration of
Nullity of Marriage.” What is the difference between the two? An “Annulment of Marriage” presupposes
that the marriage is valid from the beginning, until it is annulled by the court. A “Declaration of Nullity of
Marriage” means that the marriage was practically inexistent and void at the time of its supposed
celebration. Broadly speaking, either method results to the dissolution of the marital bond between
spouses.

Annulment of Marriage:
1. Absence of parental consent. When the party seeking to file annulment was eighteen years of age
or over but below twenty-one, and the marriage was solemnized without the consent of the
parents, guardian or person having substitute parental authority over the party, in that order,
unless after attaining the age of twenty-one, such party freely cohabited with the other and both
lived together as husband and wife.
2. Unsound mind. That either party was of unsound mind, unless such party after coming to
reason, freely cohabited with the other as husband and wife.
3. Marital consent was obtained through fraud. That the consent of either party was obtained by
fraud, unless such party afterwards, with full knowledge of the facts constituting the fraud, freely
cohabited with the other as husband and wife.
4. Marital consent was obtained through force. That the consent of either party was obtained by
force, intimidation or undue influence, unless the same having disappeared or ceased, such
party thereafter freely cohabited with the other as husband and wife.
5. Impotence. That either party was physically incapable of consummating the marriage with
the other, and such incapacity continues and appears to be incurable.
6. Sexually-Transmitted Disease. That either party was afflicted with a sexually-transmissible
disease found to be serious and appears to be incurable.

Declaration of Nullity of Marriage

1. Below 18. Marriages contracted by any party below eighteen years of age even with the consent of
parents or guardians.
2. Solemnizing officer lacks authority. Marriages solemnized by any person not legally authorized to
perform marriages unless such marriages were contracted with either or both parties believing in
good faith that the solemnizing officer had the legal authority to do so.
3. No marriage license. Marriages solemnized without a license, except those which are exempted by
law.
4. Bigamous marriages. Bigamous or polygamous marriages not failing under the exception provided
by the Family Code.
5. Mistake of identity. Marriages contracted through mistake of one contracting party as to the identity
of the other.
6. Failure to record previous marriage in civil registry. Subsequent marriages which failed to comply
with the requirement to record the previous marriage’s partition and distribution of the properties of
the spouses and the delivery of the children’s presumptive legitimes in the civil registry and
registries of property.
7. Psychological Incapacity. Marriages wherein one of the parties is declared to be psychologically
incapacitated to comply with the essential marital obligations of the marriage at the time of the
celebration of the marriage. *This is a common ground to use in filing for a declaration of
nullity of a marriage.*
8. Incest. Incestuous marriages.
9. Violates public policy. Marriages against public policy.
 30
Steps / Frequently Asked Questions on Annulment process in the Philippines

STEP 1: Consult and choose a lawyer who will handle your case.
This is the first and arguably the most important step in seeking to dissolve your marriage. Tell your story
and the background facts of your situation (bearing in mind the different grounds enumerated above) to a
lawyer. A competent lawyer would advise you on the feasibility and the chances of your petition being
granted by the court. In addition, he/she would not guarantee you success, given the realities of litigation
and the differing opinions of judges on dissolutions of marriages. It is important to choose a lawyer who
communicates well, and tells you all the steps, costs, and risks if you would choose to file a case.

STEP 2: Preparation of the Petition.

Once you have chosen your lawyer, he/she will advise you on the applicable ground in dissolving your
marriage. Every situation varies, given the multiple potential grounds for your case. Likewise, there may
be different witness testimonies and documentary evidence, depending on the ground used.

A common ground used by many individuals is Psychological Incapacity, under Article 36 of the Family
Code. It is strongly recommended to undergo through a psychological examination performed by a clinical
psychologist, to identify and characterize the psychological incapacity with: (a) gravity, i.e., it must be
grave and serious such that the party would be incapable of carrying out the ordinary duties required in a
marriage, (b) juridical antecedence, i.e., it must be rooted in the history of the party antedating the
marriage, although the overt manifestations may emerge only after the marriage, and (c) incurability, i.e., it
must be incurable, or even if it were otherwise, the cure would be beyond the means of the party involved
[See Republic vs. Tobora-Tionglico, G.R. No. 218630, January 11, 2018].

The attorney may also ask you to name other witnesses to give their testimonies to support the ground for
psychological incapacity.

The lawyer presents the draft of the Petition to you, to review its accuracy. Once finalized, you will sign the
Petition alongside your lawyer for filing in court.

STEP 3: Filing the Petition.

The Petition shall be filed in the Family Court where you or your spouse has been residing for at least six
(6) months prior to the date of filing. In case your spouse is a non-resident, the Petition shall be filed
where he may be found in the Philippines, at your election. You will be required to pay the docket fees
upon filing.

STEP 4: Court Process

This is the longest stage in the whole process.

Summons. Your case will be raffled to Family Court judge, who will issue a Summons to your spouse. If
your spouse cannot be located at his given address, or his whereabouts are unknown and cannot be
ascertained by diligent inquiry, Summons would be done by publication in a newspaper once a week for
two consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation in the Philippines and in such places as the
court may order. In addition, a copy of the Summons shall be served on your spouse at his/her last known
address by registered mail or any other means the court may deem sufficient.

A Summons is a directive to your spouse to file his/her Answer within fifteen (15) days, or thirty (30) days
from the last date of publication, if the Summons was done through such means.
 31
Answer / Collusion Investigation. If your spouse does not file an Answer within the 15 or 30-day period,
the judge would direct the public prosecutor to investigate if you and your spouse are colluding, and report
his/her findings to the court. If the court finds that you and your spouse are colluding to facilitate the
Petition, the case would be dismissed.

Pre-Trial. Afterwards, the case would set for Pre-Trial. Pre-Trial is done after the last pleading has been
served and filed, or upon receipt of the report of the public prosecutor that no collusion exists between the
parties. The court would send a notice of Pre-Trial, containing the: (a) the date of pre-trial conference; and
(b) an order directing the parties to file and serve their respective pre-trial briefs in such manner as shall
ensure the receipt thereof by the adverse party at least three days before the date of pre-trial.

Your failure to personally appear at Pre-Trial causes your Petition to be dismissed, unless your lawyer or
a duly authorized representative appears in court and proves a valid excuse for the your non-appearance.
If your spouse files an Answer but fails to appear during Pre-Trial, the court shall proceed with the pre-trial
and require the public prosecutor to investigate the non-appearance of your spouse and submit within 15
days thereafter a report to the court stating whether the non-appearance is due to any collusion between
the parties. If there is no collusion, the court shall require the public prosecutor to intervene for the State
during the trial on the merits to prevent suppression or fabrication of evidence.

After the pre-trial conference, the court would issue a Pre-Trial Order that contains the admitted facts,
issues, documentary evidence, witnesses, and trial dates, among others.

Trial. Trial now proceeds. Your witnesses would be presented first – usually, it would be you, your
psychologist, and another witness (relative, family friend, children, etc.) to support your petition. Your
lawyer would also file a Formal Offer of Documentary Evidence after the testimonies of your witnesses.
Afterwards, your spouse would present his/her witnesses, and his lawyer would file a Formal Offer of
Evidence.

The court may require the filing of memoranda within 15 days from the end of trial. Then, the case would
now be submitted for decision.

Decision. The court will either grant or deny the Petition. If you have property with your spouse, it would
be liquidated, partitioned, and distributed. Custody of your children would also be adjudicated by the court.

Depending on the outcome, you or your spouse can file a Motion for Reconsideration, Motion for New
Trial, or an Appeal on the decision by the court. However, this must be done within fifteen (15) days from
notice of the decision. The decision becomes final If no such pleading was filed within fifteen (15) days.

STEP 5: Registration of the Decree

You are required to report and register the Decree of Annulment/Declaration of Nullity within thirty (30)
days from from receipt. You must go to the civil registry where the marriage was registered, the civil
registry where the Family Court is situated, and the Philippine Statistics Authority.

This is, in essence, the annulment process in the Philippines as of 2019. If you are interested in getting
your marriage annulled, you have to consult a lawyer. Avoid “fixers,” or anyone who represents
themselves to be able to dissolve your marriage without going through the courts. Not only is this illegal,
but you will only waste money which could have been utilized for the proper annulment process.

If you need help in getting your marriage annulled or declared as a nullity, you may email the attorney at
cgpsanchez@sanchezlawph.com.
 32
Sanchez Law is headed by a Pampanga lawyer in Angeles City, Philippines. You may contact the attorney
at +63 927 423 1703 (Globe) | +63 949 717 9229 (Smart) for any queries. If you wish for a personal
consult, send a text or email to set a meeting at Workspace45, 2nd Floor, HTPT Building, MacArthur
Highway, Angeles City, Pampanga, Philippines 2009.

You may also browse other legal articles, as written by a Pampanga lawyer in Angeles City.