It is not correct to state that the absence of a marriage ceremony makes the contract

valid.
Legal basis is Article 3 and Article 4 of the Family Code.
Article 3 includes marriage ceremony as one of the formal requisites, to wit:

Art. 3. The formal requisites of marriage are:

(1) Authority of the solemnizing officer;

(2) A valid marriage license except in the cases provided for in Chapter 2 of this Title;
and

(3) 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.
(53a, 55a)

This is bolstered by Article 4 of the family code, which provides that the absence of any
of the formal or essential requisites shall make the marriage void ab initio, to wit:

Art. 4. The absence of any of the essential or formal requisites shall render the marriage
void ab initio, except as stated in Article 35 (2).

Time of the video: 4:11

Discussion about void marriages:

Void due to absence of essential and formal requisite (Article 35 [1-3])

Bigamous or polygamous marriages (Art.35 [4])

Void due to mistake ( Art.35 [5])

Void for being incestuous (Art 37)

Void for being contrary to public policy (Art.38)

Void second marriage ( Art.53)

Actions to declare a marriage void do not prescribe. (Article 39). But the right of action is
lost when either or both spouses die.

For purposes of remarriage, there must be a declaration of nullity of marriage.

Note: 4:59 time in the video

VOID MARRIAGE DUE TO PSYCHOLOGICAL INCAPACITY

Concept

It is the inability to comply with the essential marital obligations of marriage of one or
both of the parties

It must be more than just a difficulty, refusal or neglect in the performance of the marital
obligations

It is characterized by:

Gravity

Juridical Antecedence

Incurability

GUIDELINES IN DECLARING A MARRIAGE VOID DUE TO PSYCHOLOGICAL

INCAPACITY

The burden of proof rests with the plaintiff

The Root cause of the psychological incapacity must be:

-Medically or clinically identified

-Alleged in the complaint

-sufficiently proven by experts

-explained in the decision

The incapacity must be existing at the time of the celebration of the marriage

The incapacity must be permanent or incurable

The illness is grave enough to prevent the party from assuming the essential marital
obligations

The marital obligations are the obligations to live together, to observe mutual love,
respect and fidelity, to render mutual help and support.

The interpretations of the national appellate matrimonial tribunal of the catholic church
shall be given great respect

The trial court must order the prosecutor and the solicitor general to appear for the state

9:59 EXPERT WITNESS citing Ngo-te vs Yu-te, GR 161793, Feb 13, 2009

Opinions of experts like psychologists are important evidence and carries weight and
may in some cases be decisive in a case.

Please take note that the case of Ngo-te vs Yu-te has been superseded by new
jurisprudence:

Not true that expert opinion is required !

The applicable ruling is now THE CASE OF ROSANNA L. TAN-ANDAL VS. MARIO
VICTOR M. ANDAL, G.R. NO. 196359 PROMULGATED BY THE SUPREME COURT
ON MAY 11, 2021

Couples seeking to legally end their marriage due to psychological incapacity will no
longer have to present mental health experts to testify in court according to the
Supreme Court.
In Andal, the Supreme Court categorically abandoned the Molina guideline which
required the medical or clinical identification of the psychological incapacity or root
cause, and that the same must be sufficiently proven by experts. The Supreme Court
emphasized that the psychological incapacity is “neither a mental incapacity nor a
personality disorder that must be proved through expert opinion."

In a landmark ruling, the 15-member tribunal unanimously agreed that psychological

incapacity, one of the most common grounds cited in annulment cases, was “not a
medical, but a legal concept.”

Time 13:02
Castillo vs Republic of the Philippines
GR 214064
February 6, 2017
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. 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.

comment: rules outside the court, in real life, opinion of experts are used in declaring a
spouse is psychologically incapacitated , because of its persuasive effect on the court.
Though not required by the law.
13:21
No Strict application of Art 36, Supreme Court applies a liberal construction.
Case to case basis
Kalaw vs Fernandez
GR 166357, January 14, 2015

14:57 DECLARATION OF PRESUMPTIVE DEATH

Prevailing jurisprudence has time and again pointed out four (4) requisites under Article
41 of the Family Code that must be complied with for the declaration of presumptive
death to prosper:
First, the absent spouse has been missing for four consecutive years, or two
consecutive years if the disappearance occurred where there is danger of death under
the circumstances laid down in Article 391 of the Civil Code. 
Second, the present spouse wishes to remarry.
Third, the present spouse has a well-founded belief that the absentee is dead.
Fourth, the present spouse files for a summary proceeding for the declaration of
presumptive death of the absentee.

16:58
Republic vs Cantor, December 10, 2013.

The Requirement of Well-Founded Belief

The law did not define what is meant by "well-founded belief." It depends upon the
circumstances of each particular case. Its determination, so to speak, remains on a
case-to-case basis. To be able to comply with this requirement, the present spouse
must prove that his/her belief was the result of diligent and reasonable efforts and
inquiries to locate the absent spouse and that based on these efforts and inquiries,
he/she believes that under the circumstances, the absent spouse is already dead. It
requires exertion of active effort (not a mere passive one).

In this case, the husband left the conjugal dwelling after a fight and had never been
seen for at least four years.
In this case SC ruled well-founded belief was not established.
Voidable Marriages
The party in whose behalf it is sought to have the marriage annulled was 18 years of
age or over but below 21, and the marriage was solemnized without parental consent
Either party is of unsound mind
Fraud in obtaining consent of either party
Vitiated consent-obtained through force, intimidation or undue influence
Physical incapability of either party to consummate the marriage
Either party was afflicted with STD found to be serious or incurable
21:49

Defenses:
Prescription (5 years)
Ratification

Circumstances that constitute fraud:

-non-disclosure or a previous conviction by final judgment of a crime involving moral
turpitude
-concealment by the wife that she was pregnant at the time of marriage by another man
-concealment of a STD at the time of the marriage
-concealment of drug addiction, habitual alcoholism, homosexuality or lesbianism at the
time of marriage.

G.R. No. 179620             August 26, 2008

MANUEL G. ALMELOR, petitioner,
vs.
THE HON. REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF LAS PIÑAS CITY, BRANCH 254, and LEONIDA T.
ALMELOR, respondents.
Evidently, no sufficient proof was presented to substantiate the allegations that Manuel is a homosexual
and that he concealed this to Leonida at the time of their marriage. The lower court considered the public
perception of Manuel's sexual preference without the corroboration of witnesses. Also, it took cognizance
of Manuel's peculiarities and interpreted it against his sexuality.

Even assuming, ex gratia argumenti, that Manuel is a homosexual, the lower court cannot appreciate it as
a ground to annul his marriage with Leonida. The law is clear - a marriage may be annulled when the
consent of either party was obtained by fraud,58 such as concealment of homosexuality.59 Nowhere in the
said decision was it proven by preponderance of evidence that Manuel was a homosexual at the onset of
his marriage and that he deliberately hid such fact to his wife. 60 It is the concealment of homosexuality,
and not homosexuality per se, that vitiates the consent of the innocent party. Such concealment
presupposes bad faith and intent to defraud the other party in giving consent to the marriage.

Consent is an essential requisite of a valid marriage. To be valid, it must be freely given by both parties.
An allegation of vitiated consent must be proven by preponderance of evidence. The Family Code has
enumerated an exclusive list of circumstances61 constituting fraud. Homosexuality per se is not among
those cited, but its concealment.

What is legal separation?

It is the suspension of the common marital life, both as to person and property, by
judicial decree, on any of the grounds recognized by law.

Distinguished from separation de facto or separation in fact:

Legal separation is decreed by the court, separation de facto is actual separation

without any court decree
Legal separation dissolves the property relations of the party and removes the guilty
party’s capacity to inherit from the innocent spouse, separation de facto has no effect on
the property relations and capacity to succeed.

28:16
Distinguished from annulment of marriage:
In legal separation, the marriage is not defective as the grounds arise only after the
marriage, in annulment, the marriage is defective from inception, as the grounds existed
prior to or at the time of marriage.
In Legal separation, the parties may not remarry, annulment, the parties can remarry.
Grounds for legal separation:
Grounds for Legal Separation under the Family Code of the Philippines
(1) Repeated physical violence or grossly abusive conduct directed against the
petitioner, a common child, or a child of the petitioner;
(2) Physical violence or moral pressure to compel the petitioner to change religious or
political affiliation;
(3) Attempt of respondent to corrupt or induce the petitioner, a common child, or a child
of the petitioner, to engage in prostitution, or connivance in such corruption or
inducement;
(4) Final judgment sentencing the respondent to imprisonment of more than six years,
even if pardoned;
(5) Drug addiction or habitual alcoholism of the respondent;
(6) Lesbianism or homosexuality of the respondent;
(7) Contracting by the respondent of a subsequent bigamous marriage, whether in the
Philippines or abroad;
(8) Sexual infidelity or perversion;
(9) Attempt by the respondent against the life of the petitioner; or
(10) Abandonment of petitioner by respondent without justifiable cause for more than
one year.

Here is a link discussing more about legal separation:

https://lawyerphilippines.org/legal-separation-in-the-philippines/

33:06
Najera vs Najera, GR. NO. 164817, July 3, 2009
Petitioner filed a petition for nullity of marriage with alternative prayer for legal
separation, alleging that her husband, respondent, was a drunkard and a marijuana
addict who abandoned her and lived in the United States.
The trial court and court of appeals found that the grounds only established legal
separation and ordered the dissolution of the conjugal partnership.
Petitioner just the same appealed.
The SC ruled that the respondent’s abandonment without justifiable cause for more than
one year was only a ground for legal separation and not for nullity of marriage under
article 36 of the family code.

Take note: If these grounds mentioned in legal separation are coupled with mental
disorder then it can be a ground under Article 36 for nullity of marriage.

36:50
DEFENSES IN LEGAL SEPARATION

Condonation where the aggrieved party has condoned the offense or act complained of.
Condonation of one act does not necessarily mean condonation of others.
Consent where the aggrieved party has consented to the commission of the offense or
act complained of.
Consent is conformity in advance by a spouse to the offense of the other spouse.
Consent is made before the offense, condonation is made after the offense.

38:55
Connivance, Where there is connivance between the parties in the commission of the
offense of act constituting the ground for legal separation
Recrimination. Where both parties have given ground for legal separation.
Collusion Where there is collusion between the parties to obtain decree of legal
separation

Prescription
Bugayong vs Ginez L-10033, December 28,1956
The SC affirmed the dismissal applying us jurisprudence, it held that single voluntary act
of marital intercourse between the parties ordinarily is sufficient to constitute
condonation.
Procedural matters
Prescriptive period – 5 years
Cooling off period – 6 months after the filing of the petition
Efforts toward reconciliation- to be taken by the court and may even continue after the 6
month cooling off the period
No confession of judgment allowed
Provisional remedies allowed:
Prescriptive period =5 years
Cooling off period-6 months after filing the petition
eff