PFR

Mixed Marriages and Foreign Divorce

REPUBLIC V. KIKUCHI (2022)- DOCTRINE Before a foreign divorce decree can be recognized by the
court, the party pleading it must first prove the fact of divorce and its conformity to the foreign law
allowing it. As both purports to be official acts of a sovereign authority, the required proof are their
official publica�ons or copies atested by the officers having legal custody thereof, pursuant to Sec�on
24, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court.

Void Marriages
SANTOS-MACABATA V. MACABATA-DOCTRINE This Court commiserates with the par�es who find
themselves in an unsa�sfactory marriage, but the Court emphasises that a pe��on for declara�on of
nullity of marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity under Ar�cle 36 of the Family Code is
limited to cases where there is a downright incapacity or inability to assume and fulfil the basic marital
obliga�ons, not a mere refusal, neglect or difficulty, much less, ill will, on the part of the errant spouse.
Expert opinion may be persuasive but, ul�mately, the totality of evidence must show that an adverse
integral element in the personality structure of the respondent effec�vely incapacitates him from
accep�ng, and thereby complying with his essen�al marital obliga�ons, and such incapacity must be
proven to exist prior to, or at the �me of celebra�on, of the marriage of the par�es. Absent any such
clear and convincing evidence, the pe��on must be denied.

For such to show that he is incapable of fulfilling his essen�al marital obliga�ons due to a genuinely
serious and incurable psychic cause which exists prior to or at the �me of celebra�on of the marriage
of the par�es, the Court is compelled to deny the pe��on.

PUGOY-SOLIDUM V. REPUBLIC-DOCTRINE The expert tes�mony is not always mandatory as long as

the totality of evidence is sufficient to sustain a finding of psychological incapacity. The totality of
evidence must s�ll be sufficient to prove that the incapacity was grave, incurable and exis�ng prior to the
�me of the marriage.

CARULLO V. PADUA -DOCTRINE As categorically declared by the Court, expert tes�mony or the
tes�mony of a psychologist/psychiatrist is no longer required to prove psychological incapacity. Ordinary
witnesses who have been present in the spouse’s lives before they contracted marriage may tes�fy on
their observa�ons as to the incapacitated spouse's behaviour. What is important is that the totality of
evidence is sufficient to support a finding of psychological incapacity.
At any rate, the gravity of psychological incapacity must be shown to have been caused by a genuinely
serious psychic cause. Thus, "mild characterological peculiari�es, mood changes, occasional emo�onal
outbursts" are s�ll not accepted grounds that would warrant a finding of psychological incapacity under
Ar�cle 36 of the Family Code.
In concluding that the husband was psychologically incapacitated, we used the following parameters
(Tan-Andal guidelines) in determining what cons�tutes psychological incapacity: 1. The psychological
incapacity must be shown to have been exis�ng at the �me of the celebra�on of marriage; 2. Caused by
a durable aspect of one's personality structure, one that was formed prior to their marriage; 3. Caused
by a genuinely serious psychic cause; and 4. Proven by clear and convincing evidence. Moreover,
psychological incapacity is now neither a mental incapacity nor a personality disorder that must be
proven by expert opinion.
Psychological incapacity is neither a mental incapacity nor at personality disorder that must be proven
through expert opinion. There must be proof, however, of the durable or enduring aspects of a person's
personality, called "personality structure," which manifests itself through clear acts of dysfunc�onality
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 essen�al marital obliga�ons.

EFFECT OF DEFECTIVE MARRIAGES

REPUBLIC V. PONCE-PILAPIL-DOCTRINE One of the requisites for the grant of a pe��on for
declara�on of presump�ve death under Art. 41 of the Family Code is that the present spouse has a well-
founded belief that the absentee spouse is dead. This requisite is met upon showing of proper and
honest-to-goodness inquiries and efforts to ascertain not only the absent spouse’s whereabouts, but also
whether they are s�ll alive or already dead. The mere fact of the spouse’s absence is not enough to yield
a presump�on of his or her death.

Jurisprudence sets out four requisites for the grant of a pe��on for declara�on of presump�ve death,
which are the following:

1. The absent spouse has been missing for four consecu�ve years, or two consecu�ve years if the
disappearance occurred where there is danger of death under the circumstances laid down in Art. 391 of
the Civil Code;

2. The present spouse wishes to remarry;

3. The present spouse has a well-founded belief that the absentee is dead;
4. The present spouse files for a summary proceeding for the declara�on of presump�ve death of the
absentee.

PULIDO V. PEOPLE-DOCTRINE Other than for purposes of remarriage, no judicial ac�on is necessary to
declare a marriage an absolute nullity. For other purposes, such as but not limited to determina�on of
heirship, legi�macy or illegi�macy of a child, setlement of estate, dissolu�on of property regime, or a
criminal case for that mater, the court may pass upon the validity of marriage even in a suit not directly
ins�tuted to ques�on the same so long as it is essen�al to the determina�on of the case.

We hold that a judicial declara�on of absolute nullity is not necessary to prove a void ab ini�o prior and
subsequent marriages in a bigamy case. Consequently, a judicial declara�on of absolute nullity of the
first and/or second marriages presented by the accused in the prosecu�on for bigamy is a valid defense,
irrespec�ve of the �me within which they are secured.
INTER-COUNTRY ADOPTION
SPOUSES PARK V. LIWANAG-DOCTRINE Any alien possessing the same qualifica�ons as above-stated
for Filipino na�onals: provided, that he has been living in the Philippines for at least three (3) con�nuous
years prior to the filing of the pe��on for adop�on and maintains such residence un�l the adop�on
decree is entered, that he has been cer�fied by his diploma�c or consular office or any appropriate
government agency to have the legal capacity to adopt in his country, and that his government allows
the adoptee to enter his country as his adopted child.

Setled is the rule that in adop�on proceedings, the welfare of the child is of paramount interest.

PROPERTY

Bundle of Rights
A. OWNERSHIP
GEMINA V. HEIRS OF ESPEJO, JR.- Doctrine: It provides that "in an ac�on to recover, the property
must be iden�fied, and the plain�ff" must rely on the strength of his �tle and not on the weakness of the
defendant's claim." It is hornbook doctrine that the en�tlement to the possession of real property
belongs to its registered owner. However, the registered owner must seek proper judicial remedy and
comply with the requisites of the chosen ac�on in order to recover possession of a real property from
the occupant who has actual and physical possession thereof.

b. Ac�ons to Recover Ownership and Possession of Property

4. QUIETING OF TITLE
HEIRS OF EÑANO V. SAN PEDRO CINEPLEX PROPERTIES INC. In an ac�on for quie�ng of �tle, the
objec�ve is for the competent court to remove the cloud by determining the rights of the par�es so that
the ones en�tled to the subject property may exercise said rights without fear, disturbance, or
interference from those who have no right over the same.

Two requisites must be established in order that a complaint for quie�ng of �tle may prosper. First, the
plain�ff must have a legal or equitable �tle or interest in the property subject of the complaint. Second,
the deed, claim, encumbrance, or proceeding allegedly cas�ng doubt over one's �tle must be proven to
be in truth invalid, void or inopera�ve despite the prima facie appearance of validity.

On one hand, legal �tle means registered ownership, where the subject property is registered under the
name of the complainant in an ac�on to quiet �tle, which may be evidenced by presen�ng the cer�ficate
of �tle in the later's name. On the other hand, equitable �tle denotes beneficial ownership, which is
"ownership recognized by law and capable of being enforced in the courts at the suit of the beneficial
owner."
HEIRS OF MARQUEZ V. HEIRS OF HERNANDEZ
DOCTRINE The two indispensable requisites must concur for an ac�on to quiet �tle would proper: (1)
the plain�ff or complainant has a legal or an equitable �tle to or interest in the real property subject of
the ac�on; and (2) the deed, claim, encumbrance, or proceeding claimed to be cas�ng cloud. His or her
�tle must be shown to be in fact invalid or inopera�ve despite its prima facie appearance of validity or
legal efficacy.