1. A.

DECLARATION OF NULLITY OF MARRIAGE VS LEGAL SEPARATION

2.
DIFFERENCE NULLITY OF MARRIAGE LEGAL SEPARATION
Definition No valid marriage exists between a Court case that ends marital
man and a woman obligations and divides property
relations between the Spouses, but
the marriage bond is not dissolved.
Marital bond Do not exist – no formal union ever Martial bonds still exist
existed
Rule on Remarrying Parties may remarry Parties may not remarry
Effect as to validity of Void ab initio Valid
marriage
Grounds 1. Absence of essential (Art. 55)
requisites (Art. 35) 1. Repeated physical violence or
2. Psychological incapacity for abusive behavior towards the
marriage (Art. 36) petitioner or their children
3. Incestuous marriage (Art. 37) 2. Physical violence or moral
4. Marriage is against public pressure to make the
policy (Art. 38) petitioner change the
5. Bigamous marriage (Art. 41) religious or political
6. When one of the spouses separation
remarry without complying 3. If the spouse attempts to
with the precordial induce their children to
requirement of the judgment engage in prostitution
of annulment or absolute 4. If the spouse will be
nullity of the previous incarcerated for more than six
marriage (Art. 52 & 53) years, even if pardoned
5. Drug addiction or alcoholism
of the spouse
6. Lesbianism or homosexuality
of the spouse
7. Contracting by the
respondent of a subsequent
bigamous marriage, whether
in or outside the Philippines;
8. Sexual infidelity or perversion
of the respondent;
9. Attempt on the life of
petitioner by the respondent;
or
10. Abandonment of petitioner
by respondent without
justifiable cause for more than
one year.
Prescription period No prescription period 5 years from the time of occurrence
in the marriage of the ground cited
Effects
Separation The spouses shall be entitled to live
separately from each other.
Property Relations The absolute community of property (“ACP”) or the conjugal partnership
(“CP”), as the case may be, shall be dissolved and liquidated.
The court, in the absence of a written
agreement between the spouses,
shall designate either of them or a
third person to administer the
absolute community or conjugal
partnership property. The
administrator appointed by the court
shall have the same powers and
 duties as those of a guardian.
Succession The offending spouse shall be
disqualified from inheriting from the
innocent spouse by intestate
succession. Moreover, provisions in
favor of the offending spouse made
in the will of the innocent spouse
shall be revoked by operation of law.
Custody of Children During the pendency of the petition The custody of the minor children
(pendente lite), the custody of shall be awarded to the innocent
children will be governed either by spouse, but no child under 7 years
written agreement, or by court order, shall be separated from the mother
based on the best interest of the unless there are compelling reasons.
child. The court will apply the
following order of preference, both
parents jointly: (a) either parent (may
consider the choice of child over 7
years, (b) unless such parent is
considered unfit), (c) surviving
grandparent (if several, then choice
of child over 7 years, unless
grandparent chosen is
unfit/disqualified), (d) eldest
brother/sister over 21 unless
unfit/disqualified, or (e) any other
person deemed suitable by the court.
Child Support 1. Pendent lite, child support 1. Governed by written
governed by written agreement.
agreement. 2. In absence of #1, from the
2. In absence of #1, from the Absolute Community of
Absolute Community of Property of the Conjugal
Property of the Conjugal Partnership of Gains
Partnership of Gains
After decree, either parent or both may be ordered by the court to give an
amount necessary for support in proportion to resources/means of giver and
necessities of the recipient.
Spousal Support Pendente lite, spousal support will be Spousal support is considered as an
governed by either written advance to be deducted from the
agreement, or in the absence thereof, share of the spouse supported during
from properties of the ACP or CP, liquidation. There may be restitution
considered as an advance to be of spousal support if after decree, the
deducted from the share of the court finds that the person providing
spouse supported during liquidation. support pendente lite is not liable
There may be restitution of spousal therefor. Please note that a judgment
support if after decree, the court granting support never becomes
finds that the person providing final. It may be adjusted or modified
support pendente lite is not liable according to circumstances and the
therefor. spouse’s financial capability.
1. B. ADMINISTRATIVE RULES - A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC
RE: PROPOSED RULE ON DECLARATION OF ABSOLUTE NULLITY OF VOID MARRIAGES AND ANNULMENT OF
VOIDABLE MARRIAGES
DIFFERENCE ABSOLUTE NULLITY OF VOID
MARRIAGES
Prescription No prescription
Decision - Petition 1. Issuance of Decree absolute
Granted nullity or decree of annulment
2. Serving of Copies of the
decision to the involved
parties including the Solicitor-
General and the Public
Prosecutor.
3. Finality of the decision upon
the expiration of fifteen days
from notice to the parties.
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.
Decision – Petition
Denied
Issuance of Decree The court shall issue the Decree after:
1. Registration of the entry of
judgment in the Civil Registry
where the marriage was
celebrated and in the Civil
Registry where the Family
Court is located; and
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.
3. The delivery of the children's
presumptive legitime in cash,
property, or sound securities.
LEGAL SEPARATION
Five (5) years from the time of the
occurrence of any of the following
grounds stated.
1. Issuance of Decree of Legal
Separation
2. Serving of Copies of the
decision to the involved
parties including the Solicitor-
General and the Public
Prosecutor.
The decision shall likewise declare
that:
3. The spouses are entitled to live
separately from each other but
the marriage bond is not
severed;
4. The obligation of mutual
support between the spouses
ceases; and
5. The offending spouse is
disqualified from inheriting
from the innocent spouse by
intestate succession, and
provisions in favor of the
offending spouse made in the
will of the innocent spouse are
revoked by operation of law.
The court shall deny the petition on
any of the following grounds:
1. Condonation of the offense by
the aggrieved party
2. Connivance in the commission
of the offense or act
3. Both parties have given
ground for legal separation;
4. Collusion between the parties
5. The action is barred by
prescription.
The court shall issue the Decree after:
1. Registration of the entry of
judgment in the Civil Registry
where the marriage was
celebrated and in the Civil
Registry where the Family
Court is located; and
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.
DIFFERENCE ABSOLUTE NULLITY OF VOID LEGAL SEPARATION
MARRIAGES
Revocation of (a) Revocation of donations may
Donations be filed by the innocent
spouse within five (5) years
from the date the decision
granting the petition for legal
separation has become final
(b) The revocation of the
donations shall be recorded in
the Register of Deeds in the
places where the properties
are located.
(c) Alienations, liens, and
encumbrances registered in
good faith before the
recording of the petition for
revocation in the registries of
property shall be respected.
Revocation of the designation of the
offending spouse as a beneficiary in
any insurance policy even if such
designation be stipulated as
irrevocable. The revocation or change
shall take effect upon written
notification thereof to the insurer.
Decree of In case of reconciliation between the
Reconciliation spouses during the proceeding, they
must;

a. File a joint manifestation under

oath duly signed by them in
the same proceeding of legal
separation
b. The court shall immediately
issue an order terminating the
proceeding.
In case the reconciliation occurred
after the rendition of judgment but
before the issuance of the decree;

c. They shall express in their

manifestation whether or not
they agree to revive the former
regime of their property
relations or choose a new
regime.
d. The court shall immediately
issue a Decree of
Reconciliation declaring that
the legal separation
proceeding is set aside and
specifying the regime of
property relations under which
the spouses shall be covered.
If the spouses reconciled after the
issuance of the Decree, the court,
upon proper motion;

e. Issue a decree declaring that

the decree is set aside but the
DIFFERENCE ABSOLUTE NULLITY OF VOID LEGAL SEPARATION
MARRIAGES
separation of property and any
forfeiture of the share of the
guilty spouse already effected
subsists, unless the spouses
have agreed to revive their
former regime of property
relations or adopt a new
regime.
f. In cases mentioned above, and
the spouses opt for another
regime different from the one
during the filing of petition of
separation, they shall comply
with Section 24 hereof.
The decree of reconciliation shall be
recorded in the Civil Registries where
the marriage and the Decree had
been registered.
Revival of Property In case of reconciliation under Section
Regime or Adoption of 23, paragraph (c) above;
Another
1. Filing of verified motion for
revival of regime of property
relations or adoption of
another regime for the
approval of the court.
The agreement shall specify the
following;

1. Properties to be contributed to
the restored or new regime;
2. Those to be retained as
separate properties of each
spouse; and
3. The names of all their known
creditors, their addresses, and
the amounts owing to each.
4. The creditors shall be
furnished with copies of the
motion and the agreement.
5. Publication of verified motion
for two consecutive weeks in a
newspaper of general
circulation.
6. After due hearing, and the
court decides to grant the
motion, it shall issue an order
directing the parties to record
the order in the proper
registries of property within
thirty days from receipt of a
copy of the order and submit
proof of compliance within the
same period.
2. MOLINA VS ANDAL CASES
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES VS.
MOLINA
[268 SCRA 198, FEBRUARY 13,
1997]
Facts Roridel and Reynaldo Molina were
married on April 14, 1985. In 1986,
their union resulted in the birth of
their son, Andre Molina.
However, Roridel claimed that one
year after their wedding, Reynaldo
exhibited signs of immaturity and
carelessness as a husband and father.
Reynaldo was allegedly deceiving his
wife about their financial situation,
spending more time with his friends,
and relying on his parents for
assistance and support. Even worse,
he abandoned his family and became
unemployed. Therefore, as a result of
his immaturity and behaviors that
caused them to frequently argue, their
relationship deteriorated, leading to
the filing of this case to annul the
marriage on the grounds of
psychological incapacity.
Ground/s Psychological Incapacity
Decision of the Court Negative. The request for declaration
of marriage nullity was denied.
ROSANNA TAN-ANDAL VS MARIO
VICTOR ANDAL
[G.R. NO. 196359, MAY 11, 2021
In 1995, Rosanna Tan and Mario
Victor Andal were married. They were
bestowed with one offspring.
However, prior to their marriage,
Rosanna had observed Mario's
excessive irritability and moodiness.
Earlier in their marriage, Rosanna
perceived Mario to be emotionally
immature, reckless, angry, and
psychologically unbalanced. Rosanna
later learned that Mario was a drug
user. Due to his unpredictability,
Rosanna placed Mario in a drug
rehabilitation center twice. Even their
family business was forced to close
due to Mario's negligence. Mario
disclosed to their daughter his drug
use. In December 2000, Rosanna
decided to live apart from Mario
because she had grown tired of him.
In August 2003, Rosanna filed for the
annulment of her marriage to Mario
on the grounds that he was
psychologically incapable of fulfilling
his marital responsibilities.
She brought in a psychologist (Dr.
Fonso Garcia) to support her claim;
after speaking with Rosanna,
Rosanna's child, and Rosanna's sister,
he concluded that Mario was
psychologically incapable of
performing fundamental marital
duties. Mario declined the invitation
for an interview, so Dr. Garcia did not
speak with him. Based on her
evaluation, Dr. Garcia concluded that
Mario had narcissistic antisocial
personality disorder.
In May 2007, the trial court annulled
Rosanna and Mario's marriage after
determining that Rosanna could prove
her case. The Court of Appeals,
however, reversed the trial court's
decision on the grounds that Dr.
Garcia's conclusions were unreliable
and unscientific because she made her
diagnosis without speaking with
Mario.
Psychological Incapacity
Affirmative. The marriage is null and
void from the beginning due to the
husband's psychological incapacity.
 REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES VS.
MOLINA
[268 SCRA 198, FEBRUARY 13,
1997]
Analysis by the There is no conclusive evidence that
Supreme Court the mentioned psychological flaw is
an incapacity. It suggests that certain
marital responsibilities are being
performed with "difficulty," if not
outright "refusal" or "neglect."
There is no such thing as
psychological incapacity if all that is
displayed are "irreconcilable
differences" and "conflicting
personalities." It is necessary to show
that the parties were unable to fulfill
their obligations as married
individuals due to a psychological (not
physical) illness; it is insufficient to
show that the parties failed to fulfill
their obligations.
The only conclusion that could be
drawn from the evidence was that
Roridel and her husband were at
odds. There was no proof of the
issue's gravity, legal precedent, or
insurmountability.
Elements of the 1. Gravity
Declaration of nullity of 2. Juridical antecedence
marriage 3. Incurability/Permanence
Guidelines in the interpretation and application of Art. 36
Burden of Proof The plaintiff bears the burden of proof
in establishing the invalidity of the
marriage. Any uncertainty should be
resolved in favor of the union and
against its dissolution and invalidity.
ROSANNA TAN-ANDAL VS MARIO
VICTOR ANDAL
[G.R. NO. 196359, MAY 11, 2021
The court determined that Mario was
psychologically incapable of
performing basic marital
responsibilities. Rosanna satisfied the
burden of proof required to declare
her marriage to Mario null and void.
Abundant and convincing evidence of
Mario's incapacity was provided by
testimonies regarding his personality
and how it was shaped primarily by
his childhood and adult experiences
before he married Rosanna. Dr. Garcia
also described Mario's chronic
irresponsibility, impulsivity, lack of
remorse, lack of empathy, and
entitlement, which reveal his innate
psychological incapacity to fulfill his
fundamental marital responsibilities.
Even though drug addiction is a
ground for legal separation, a court
can still annul a marriage if it can be
shown that the drug use was a sign of
a pre-marriage psychological
disability. In this instance, Rosanna's
entire body of evidence demonstrated
unequivocally and conclusively that
Mario's drug use predated his
marriage. His continued incapacity to
recover, including bringing his child
into the room where he used drugs,
demonstrates a level of dysfunction
that demonstrates a complete
disregard for his responsibilities
toward his wife and child.
His persistent inability to find gainful
employment and his bankrupting
Rosanna's construction company by
using its funds for his drug use were
glaring examples of his inability to
provide mutual aid and support.
1. Gravity
2. Juridical antecedence
3. Incurability/Permanence
The plaintiff must continue to carry
the burden of proof for psychological
incapacity. However, the Supreme
Court clarified that the level of proof
required in nullity cases is clear and
convincing evidence, which is greater
than preponderant evidence (normal
civil cases) but less than proof beyond
a reasonable doubt. This is due to the
fact that in this jurisdiction, a
presumption can only be rebutted by
 REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. ROSANNA TAN-ANDAL VS MARIO
MOLINA VICTOR ANDAL
[268 SCRA 198, FEBRUARY 13, [G.R. NO. 196359, MAY 11, 2021
1997]
clear and convincing evidence.
Root cause of The root cause of the psychological Psychological incapacity is neither a
Psychological incapacity must be: mental incapacity nor a personality
Incapacity a. Medically or clinically identified; disorder that must be proven through
b. Alleged in the complaint; expert testimony. There must be
c. Sufficiently proven by experts; and proof, however, of the durable or
d. Clearly explained in the decision. enduring aspects of a person’s
personality, called “personality
structure,” which manifests itself
through clear acts of dysfunctionality
that undermines the family. The
spouse’s personality structure must
make it impossible for him or her to
understand and, more important, to
comply with his or her essential
marital obligations. Proof of these
aspects of personality need not be
given by an expert. Ordinary witnesses
who have been present in the life of
the spouses before the latter
contracted marriage may testify on
behaviors that they have consistently
observed from the supposedly
incapacitated spouse.
As to juridical The incapacity must be proven to be The incapacity must be proven to be
antecedence existing at the "time of the existing at the time of the celebration
celebration" of the marriage. of the marriage even if such incapacity
becomes manifest only after its
solemnization.
As to gravity Such illness must be grave enough to As to gravity, it must be shown that
bring about the disability of the party the incapacity is caused by a
to assume the essential obligations of genuinely serious psychic cause. It is
marriage. not necessary that it must be shown
that the psychological incapacity is a
serious or dangerous illness BUT that
“mild characterological peculiarities,
mood changes, occasional emotional
outbursts” are excluded. The
psychological incapacity cannot be
mere “refusal, neglect, or difficulty,
much less ill will.”

As to incurability The incapacity must also be shown to
be medically or clinically incurable.
Essential marital The essential marital obligations must
Obligations be those embraced by Articles 68 to
71 of the Family Code as well as
Incurable, not in the medical, but in
the legal sense; incurable as to the
partner. Psychological incapacity is so
enduring and persistent with respect
to a specific partner, and
contemplates a situation where the
couple’s respective personality
structures are so incompatible and
antagonistic that the only result of the
union would be the inevitable and
irreparable breakdown of the
marriage.
Essential marital obligations are not
limited to those between spouses.
Hence, those covered by Articles 68
 REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES VS.
MOLINA
[268 SCRA 198, FEBRUARY 13,
1997]
Articles 220, 221 and 225 of the same
Code.
Interpretation by the Interpretations given by the National
National Appellate Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal of the
Matrimonial Tribunal of Catholic Church in the Philippines,
the Catholic Church in while not controlling or decisive,
the Philippines should be given great respect by our
Courts.
Participation of the The trial court must order the
Solicitor General prosecuting attorney or fiscal and the
Solicitor General to appear as counsel
for the State.
ROSANNA TAN-ANDAL VS MARIO
VICTOR ANDAL
[G.R. NO. 196359, MAY 11, 2021
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.
The decisions of the National
Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal of the
Catholic Church of the Philippines has
persuasive effect on nullity cases
pending before secular courts.
Canonical decisions are, to reiterate,
merely persuasive and not binding on
secular courts. Canonical decisions are
to only serve as evidence of the nullity
of the secular marriage, but ultimately,
the elements of declaration of nullity
under Article 36 must still be weighed
by the judge.