PERSONS

AND FAMILY RELATIONS

Professor: Atty. Joseph Randi C. Torregosa
 WHERE THE WEDDING
LASTED LONGER THAN THE
MARRIAGE

KINDS OF DEFECTIVE MARRIAGES

AND THEIR CORRESPONDING SPECIFIC GROUNDS
 KINDS OF VOID MARRIAGES
a. Void marriage because of absence of essential requisites (Article 35)

“Art. 35. The following marriages shall be void from the beginning:
(1) Those contracted by any party below eighteen years of age even with
the consent of parents or guardians;
NOTE:
This ground applies only to the Filipino spouse, because the legal
capacity of the alien spouse is governed by his/her national law (Article
21)
(2) Those 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) Those solemnized without marriage license, except:

(a) marriage in articulo mortis

(b) marriage where the residence of either party is located in a remote
place where transportation is not available;
(c) marriage among Muslims or other ethnic cultural communities.
(d) ratification of marital cohabitation (Article 34)
o Requirement in lieu of a license in marriage in articulo mortis and
marriage where residence of either party is located in a far-flung area
where transportation is unavailable:

The solemnizing officer must execute an affidavit before the Local Civil
Registrar or any person authorized to administer oath, stating that (a) the
marriage was performed in articulo mortis or that the residence of either
party is so located that there is no means of transportation to enable such
party to appear personally before the local civil registrar; and that (b) the
solemnizing officer took the necessary steps to ascertain the ages and
relationship of the contracting parties and the absence of a legal
impediment to the marriage (Article 29).
o Requirements in lieu of marriage license in ratification of marital
cohabitation:

(a) Affidavit of the contracting parties, stating that they have been
living together as husband and wife for at least five (5) years and
without any legal impediment to marry each other;
(b) Affidavit of the solemnizing officer, stating that he/she ascertained
the qualifications of the contracting parties and found no legal
impediment to the marriage.
(4) Those bigamous or polygamous marriages not failing under Article
41;

 Distinguish from Article 40

(5) Those contracted through mistake of one contracting party as to

the identity of the other; and

(6) Those subsequent marriages that are void under Article 53.
Under Article 53, the subsequent marriage of a party, whose previous
marriage has been dissolved by annulment under Article 45 or nullity
under Article 40, shall be void if the (a) judgment of annulment or
absolute nullity of the marriage, (b) partition and distribution of the
properties of the spouses, (c) the delivery of the children’s presumptive
legitimes shall not be recorded in the appropriate civil registry and
registries of property as prescribed under Article 52.
(7) Where the parties to the marriage are of the same sex (Article 5, in
relation to Article 4)
QUERY:
 Is the second or subsequent marriage solemnized without prior judicial
declaration of nullity of the first or previous void marriage void under
Article 40 due to absence of legal capacity, particularly absence of legal
impediment?
b. Marriage by reason of psychological incapacity of either party (Article
26)

“Art. 36. A marriage contracted by any party who, at the time of the
celebration, was psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential
marital obligations of marriage, shall likewise be void even if such
incapacity becomes manifest only after its solemnization.”
CONCEPT OF PSYCHOLOGICAL INCAPACITY

The law does not define what a psychological incapacity is. The
determination of the existence or non-existence of psychological
incapacity is left solely to the court’s discretion on a case-to-case basis,
according to its facts.
JURISPRUDENTIAL MEANING OF PSYCHOLOGICAL INCAPACITY:
The meaning of “psychological incapacity” under Article 36 was first
explained by the Supreme Court in Leouel Santos vs. Court of Appeals
(G.R. No.112019, 4 January 1995), where it was clarified that the
intendment of the law has been to confine the meaning of ”psychological
incapacity” to the most serious cases of personality disorders clearly
demonstrative of an utter insensitivity or inability to give meaning and
significance to the marriage. Thus, it should refer to no less than a mental
(not physical) incapacity that causes a party to be truly incognitive of the
basic marital covenants that concomitantly must be assumed and
discharged by the parties to the marriage.
Psychological incapacity deals with a state of mind. Thus, it can only be
proven by observable indicators or external manifestations, consisting of
a person’s pattern of conduct and behavior in his day-to-day dealings or
interactions with others.
JURISPRUDENTIAL GUIDELINES IN THE DETERMINATION OF
THE EXISTENCE OR NON-EXISTENCE OF PSYCHOLOGIVAL
INCAPACITY (Republic vs. Roridel Olaviano Molina, G.R. No.108763,
13 February 1997):
(a) The burden of proof to show psychological incapacity lies with the
plaintiff, and any doubt should be resolved in favor of validity and
continuity of marriage.
This is consistent with the policy of the State to protect marriage and
promote the family as a basic unit of society, as ingrained in the
Constitution and our laws on marriage and family relations.
(b) The root cause of the psychological incapacity must be:
(1) medically or clinically identified;
(2) alleged in the complaint;
(3) sufficiently proven by experts; and
(4) clearly explained in the decision.

The root cause must be identified as a psychological illness, although

its symptoms may be physical, as may be established by expert evidence
given by qualified psychiatrist and clinical psychologists
While not indispensable, expert testimonies of psychologist or
psychiatrist evaluating the behavioral pattern of the person alleged to be
psychologically incapacitated are extremely helpful (Republic vs.
Erlinda Dagdag, G.R. No.109975, 9 February 2001).

The personal medical or psychological examination of respondent is not

a requirement for a declaration of psychological incapacity (Brenda
Marcos vs. Wilson Marcos, G.R. No.136490, 19 October 2000) and it
is not a condition sine qua non for such declaration (Republic vs. Laila
Tayag San Jose, G.R. No.168328, 28 February 2007)
The evidence must convince the court that the parties or one of them is
mentally or psychically ill to such an extent that the person could not have
known the obligations he was assuming, or knowing them, could not have
given valid assumption thereof.
Since the very nature of psychological incapacity is precisely the non-
cognizance of one’s essential marital obligation, the person found guilty of
psychological incapacity is not liable for moral damages, exemplary
damages, and attorney’s fees. The incapacity to understand the
significance and give meaning to marriage and its consequent obligations
effectively negates bad faith which is an essential element in awarding
damages and attorney’s fees (Buenaventura vs. Court of Appeals, G.R.
Nos. 127358/127449, 31 March 2005)
(c) The incapacity must be proven to be existing at the time of the
celebration of the marriage. The manifestation of the illness need not
be perceivable at the time of the celebration of the marriage, but the
illness itself must been attached at such moment, or prior thereto.

Otherwise referred to as “juridical antecedence”, which is one of the

requisites of psychological incapacity.
Requires evidence to establish that the personality disorder was due to
some causes antedating marriage, like the person’s own dysfunctional
family and personal history.
(d) The psychological incapacity must be shown to be medically or
clinically permanent or incurable, which incurability may be
absolute or even relative in regard to the other spouse, not necessarily
absolutely against everyone.

Refers to “permanence” or “incurability” as a requisite for

psychological incapacity.

The incapacity is deemed “incurable” when there is no known cure, or

even if a cure is known, such cure is beyond the means of the person
concerned.
NOTE:

Since ”psychological incapacity” can be either absolute or relative, a

person adjudged by the court guilty of psychological incapacity is
legally capacitated to remarry another. Under Articles 2 and 5, legal
capacity to contract marriage relates to the age and sex requirements,
and the absence of any legal impediment under Article 37 and 38. The
law does not consider Article 36 (psychological incapacity) a legal
impediment to contract marriage.
The incapacity must be relevant to the assumption of marital
obligations, not necessarily to those un-related to marriage. Thus, being
a successful, competent, and able professional is not incompatible with
being psychologically incapacitated
(e) The psychological illness must be grave enough to bring about the
disability of the party to assume the essential obligations of marriage.
There must be a natal or supervening factor in the person, an adverse
integral element in the personality structure that effectively
incapacitates the person from assuming and performing marital
obligations.

Refers to “gravity”, another requisite for psychological incapacity.

Thus, mild character peculiarities, mood swings, occasional emotional
outbursts, cannot be accepted as root causes of psychological incapacity.

The illness must amount to downright incapacity or inability, not just a

mere refusal, neglect or difficulty, or ill will in not complying with the
marriage obligations.
(f) The essential marital obligations must be those embraced by Articles
68, 69, 70, and 71 of the Family Code as regards the husband and wife
as well as Articles 220, 221 and 225 in regard to parents and their
children.
Rights and obligations between husband and wife:

“Art. 68. The husband and wife are obliged to live together, observe
mutual love, respect and fidelity, and render mutual help and
support.

Art. 69. The husband and wife shall fix the family domicile. In case of
disagreement, the court shall decide.
The court may exempt one spouse from living with the other if the latter
should live abroad or there are other valid and compelling reasons for the
exemption. However, such exemption shall not apply if the same is not
compatible with the solidarity of the family.”
“Art. 70. The spouses are jointly responsible for the support of the
family. The expenses for such support and other conjugal obligations shall
be paid from the community property and, in the absence thereof, from the
income or fruits of their separate properties. In case of insufficiency or
absence of said income or fruits, such obligations shall be satisfied from
the separate properties.

Art. 71. The management of the household shall be the right and the
duty of both spouses. The expenses for such management shall be paid in
accordance with the provisions of Article 70.”
Obligations of parents to their children:

“Art. 220. The parents and those exercising parental authority shall have with the
respect to their unemancipated children on wards the following rights and duties:

(1) To keep them in their company, to support, educate and instruct them by right precept
and good example, and to provide for their upbringing in keeping with their means;
(2) To give them love and affection, advice and counsel, companionship and
understanding;
(3) To provide them with moral and spiritual guidance, inculcate in them honesty,
integrity, self-discipline, self-reliance, industry and thrift, stimulate their interest in civic
affairs, and inspire in them compliance with the duties of citizenship;
(4) To furnish them with good and wholesome educational materials, supervise
their activities, recreation and association with others, protect them from bad
company, and prevent them from acquiring habits detrimental to their health,
studies and morals;
(5) To represent them in all matters affecting their interests;
(6) To demand from them respect and obedience;
(7) To impose discipline on them as may be required under the circumstances;
and
(8) To perform such other duties as are imposed by law upon parents and
guardians.”
“Art. 221. Parents and other persons exercising parental authority shall be
civilly liable for the injuries and damages caused by the acts or
omissions of their unemancipated children living in their company and
under their parental authority subject to the appropriate defenses provided
by law.”
“Art. 225. The father and the mother shall jointly exercise legal guardianship
over the property of the unemancipated common child without the necessity of
a court appointment. In case of disagreement, the father’s decision shall prevail,
unless there is a judicial order to the contrary.
x x x”
(g) 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.

Article 36 is lifted from the canon laws of the Catholic Church

(h) The trial court must order the prosecuting attorney or fiscal and the
Solicitor General to appear as counsel for the State.

The presence of the public prosecutor is mandatory in all stages of the

proceedings, to determine the existence or non-existence of collusion
between the parties and to see to it that the evidence presented during the
trial is not suppressed or fabricated.
 COMMON TYPES OF PERSONALITY DISORDERS:
The American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of
Mental Disorders categorized personality disorders into the following:
(a) Cluster A: Paranoid, schizoid and schizotypal personality disorders.
Individuals who have these disorders often appear to have odd or
eccentric habits and traits.
(b) Cluster B: Antisocial, borderline, histrionic and narcissistic personality
disorders. Individuals who have these disorders often appear overly
emotional, erratic and dramatic.
(c) Cluster C: Avoidant, dependent, obsessive-compulsive and passive-
aggressive personality disorders. Individuals who have these disorders
often appear anxious or fearful.
(d) Dependent personality disorder. Such individuals usually lack self-
esteem and frequently belittle their capabilities; they fear criticism
and are easily hurt by others’ comments. At times they actually bring
about dominance by others through a quest for overprotection.
Unable to make everyday decisions without advice or reassurance from
others, may allow others to make most of their important decisions (such
as where to live), tend to agree with people even when they believe they
are wrong, have difficulty starting projects or doing things on their own,
volunteer to do things that are demeaning in order to get approval from
other people, feel uncomfortable or helpless when alone and are often
preoccupied with fears of being abandoned.
(e) Antisocial personality disorder. Characteristics include a consistent pattern of
behavior that is intolerant of the conventional behavioral limitations imposed by a
society, an inability to sustain a job over a period of years, disregard for the rights
of others (either through exploitativeness or criminal behavior), frequent physical
fights and, quite commonly, child or spouse abuse without remorse and a tendency
to blame others. There is often a façade of charm and even sophistication that
masks disregard, lack of remorse for mistreatment of others and the need to
control others.
SPECIFIC INSTANCES OF BEHAVIOR OR CONDUCT
DEMONSTRATIVE OF PSYCHOLOGICAL INCAPACITY:

(a) The prolonged refusal of a spouse to have sexual intercourse with his
or her spouse (Chi Ming Tsoi vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.119190,
16 January 1997).

(b) Dependent personality disorder on the part of the husband and

narcissistic and anti-social personality disorder of the part of the wife
(Edward Kenneth Ngo Te vs. Rowena Ong Yu-Te, G.R. No.161793,
13 February 2009)
(c) Pathological lying (Leonilo Antonio vs. Marie Ivonne F.Reyes, G.R.
No.155800, 10 March 2006)

(d) Mixed personality disorder from self-defeating personality disorder to

dependent personality disorder, as manifested by his act in entering
marriage thinking it was a “joke”, non-consummation of marriage as
they never lived together, and their relationship was characterized by
constant quarrels and in-fighting (Lester Benjamin Halili vs. Chona
Santos-Halili, G.R. No.165424, 9 June 2009).
(e) Frequent playing mahjong, even bringing along with her minor
children during mahjong sessions, constant visits to beauty parlor,
going out with friends, and neglect of children (Valerio Kalaw vs.
Ma. Elena Fernandez, G.R. No.166357, 14 January 2015)

(f) Paranoid personality disorder which made the husband extremely

jealous, intimidating, and dominating in the relationship negated a
marital life (Maria Theresa Dela Fuente vs. Rodolfo Dela Fuente,
G.R. No.188400, 8 March 2018).
BEHAVIORS OR SITUATIONS NOT AMOUNTING TO
PSYCHOLOGICAL INCAPACITY:

(a) Mere incompatibility and irreconcilable differences are not enough

(Rodolfo Aspillaga vs. Aurora Aspillaga, G.R. No.170925, 26 October
2009)
(b) Separation or abandonment alone is not conclusive proof of
psychological incapacity (Republic vs. Lolita Quintero- Hermano,
G.R. No.149498, 20 May 2004)
(c) Sexual infidelity alone or living an adulterous life does not automatically
prove psychological incapacity (Silvino Ligeralde vs. May Ascencion
Patalinghug, G.R. No.168796, 15 April 2010)
NOTE:
In the recent case of Rosanna Tan-Andal vs. Mario Victor Andal, G.R.
No.196359, 11 May 2021, the Supreme Court revisited the existing
jurisprudential interpretations on the concept of psychological incapacity
beginning from Leouel Santos vs. Court of Appeals (G.R. No.112019, 4
January 1995) and Republic vs. Roridel Olaviano Molina (G.R.
No.108763, 13 February 1997) which it found to be “restrictive, rigid,
and intrusive on our rights to liberty, autonomy, and human dignity.”
MEANING OF “PSYCHOLOGICAL INCAPACITY” FROM THE LENS
OF ANDAL RULING:
Psychological incapacity “consists of clear acts of dysfunctionality that
show a lack of understanding and concomitant compliance with one’s
essential marital obligations due to psychic causes.”
 It is not a medical illness that has to be medically and clinically
identified. Hence, expert opinion is not required.
NOTABLE ASPECTS OF THE ANDAL RULING:
(a) The quantum of evidence required to prove psychological capacity is
“clear and convincing evidence,” which requires proof more than
preponderant evidence but less than proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Reason:
In our jurisdiction, we follow the presumption of validity of marriage.
As in any presumption- such as the presumption of regularity in the
issuance of public documents, regularity in the performance of official
functions, good faith or sufficient consideration, it can only be rebutted
by clear and convincing evidence.
(2) As autonomous social institution, the family is protected by the State,
regardless of its structure, which means that the family can be
founded, whether or not the parents choose to marry or subsequently
choose to dissociate. The right to choose one’s intimate partner is part
of one’s right to autonomy and liberty, an inherent part of human
dignity. The state should only interfere with these intimate choices
when public interest is imperiled. When the law speaks of the nature,
consequences, and incidents of marriage governed by law, this refers
to responsibility to children, property relations, disqualifications,
privileges, and other matters limited to ensuring stability of society.
The State’s interest should not amount to unwarranted intrusions into
individual liberties.
(3) The Molina guidelines require the party to present evidence of the root
cause of the psychological disorder, which must be medically and
clinically identified and proven by experts. By equating psychological
incapacity to a “mental incapacity” and to “personality disorder,” the
Supreme Court went against the intent behind Article 36. Thus, the second
Molina guideline (need for medical and clinical identification of a mental
incapacity or personality disorder) is now categorically abandoned.
Psychological incapacity is neither a mental incapacity nor a personality
disorder that must be proven by expert. However, there must be proof of
the durable or 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 makes it impossible for him/her to understand and, more
important, to comply with essential marital obligations.
Proof of these aspects of personality need not be given by experts.
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.
From there, the judge will decide if these behaviors are indicative of a
true and serious incapacity to assume the essential marital obligations.
There is no need to label a person as having a mental disorder just to
obtain a decree of nullity for what could have been a simple mistake in
one’s choice of intimate partner.
(4) A party to nullify a marriage is still required to prove “juridical
antecedence” because it is an explicit requirement of the law as
psychological incapacity must be existing “at the time of marriage.”
Our past, if not properly healed, heavily affects our present. A person’s
behavior is determined by his/her interaction with some genetic
predispositions and by his/her environment. Thus, juridical antecedence
may be proved by testimonies of witnesses describing the environment
where the subject person lived or experiences that may have led to
his/her behavior, like history of domestic violence and abuse before
marriage.
(5) The third Molina guideline (incurability) is now amended. Psychological
incapacity under Article 36 is incurable, not in the medical, but in the
legal sense. This means that the incapacity is “so enduring and
persistent with respect to a specific partner, and contemplates of a
situation where the couples’ 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.
An undeniable pattern of such persisting failure to be a present loving,
faithful, respectful, and supportive spouse must be established so as to
demonstrate that there is indeed a psychological anomaly or incongruity in
the spouse relative to the other.
(6) With respect to “gravity,” the requirement is retained, not in the sense
that the psychological incapacity must be shown to be 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.” In other words, it must be shown that the
incapacity is caused by a genuinely serious psychic cause.
(7) The essential marital obligations are those embraced by Article 68 up
to Article 71 of the Family Code as regards the husband and the wife
as well as Articles 220, 221, and 225 in regard to parents and children.
But not all kinds of failure to meet their obligations to their children will
nullify the marriage. It must be clearly shown that it is of such grievous
nature that it reflects on the capacity of the spouse for marriage, such as
sexual abuse, domestic violence, or when a spouse due to refusal to go
through counseling or rehabilitation puts a child through a situation of
neglect or outright danger.
(8) The persuasive effect of the decisions of the National Appellate
Matrimonial Tribunal of the Catholic Church of the Philippines on
cases pending before secular courts is retained.
After all, Article 36 of the Family Code was lifted from Canon law,
specifically Canon 1095 of the New Code of Canon Law.
(9) Brenda Marcos vs. Wilson Marcos(G.R. No.136490, 19 October
2000) retains its jurisprudential authority, where it was held that
“personal examination of the allegedly psychologically incapacitated
spouse is not required for a declaration of nullity of marriage due to
psychological incapacity,” so long as the totality of evidence
sufficiently proves the psychological incapacity of one or both.
c) Void marriages by reason of being incestuous (Article 37)

“37. Marriages between the following are incestuous and void from the
very beginning, whether the relationship between the parties be legitimate
or illegitimate:
(1) Between ascendants and descendants of any degree; and
(2) Between brothers and sisters, whether of the full or half blood.”
the enumeration of the so-called “incestuous marriages” is exclusive to
those prescribed in Article 37 of the Family Code.
REASONS FOR THE PROHIBITION OF INCESTUOUS MARRIAGE:
(a) Incestuous marriage is universally recognized as grossly indecent,
immoral, and inimical to the purity and happiness of the family, and
abhorrent to nature (by reason of morality);
(b) To avoid confusion of rights and duties incident to family relations
(practical reasons);
(c) Science and experience have established that inter-marriages very often
result in deficient and degenerate offsprings (scientific or genetic
reasons);
(d) To promote family solidarity and prevent domestic disharmony arising
from competing relations of social intimacy and jealousy (social and
psychological reasons)
d) Void marriages by reason of public policy (Article 38)

“Art. 38. The following marriages shall be void from the beginning for
reasons of public policy:
(1) Between collateral blood relatives whether legitimate or
illegitimate, up to the fourth civil degree;
 To determine whether two persons are relatives of each other up to
the fourth civil degree, they have to consider their nearest and
immediate common ascendant and then count the number of
relatives from one of them to the common ascendant and from the
common ascendant to the other one.
SPECIFIC MARRIAGES BETWEEN COLLATERAL BLOOD
RELATIVES WITHIN FOURTH CIVIL DEGREE:

(a) Between uncles and nieces;

(b) Between aunts and nephews;
(c) Between first cousins;
(d) Between grandchildren and brother/sister of the grandparents
The prohibition does not extend to marriages between collateral blood
relatives by the half-blood. All doubts must be construed in favor of
marriage. Only those expressly prohibited by law as void shall be treated
as such. The provision under Article 38 must be strictly construed in
favor of the contracting parties and against its illegality.
(2) Between step-parents and step-children;
(3) Between parents-in-law and children-in-law.

 Contemplates of a situation where the marriage, which is the

common bond between the parents-in-law and the children-in-law,
is already terminated, because if the marriage is still existing, the
parents-in-law and the children-in-law cannot legally marry each
other as the marriage would be bigamous.
REASON FOR THE PROHIBITION AGAINST MARRIAGE
BETWEEN RELATIVES BY AFFINITY:
 If allowed, it can most likely destroy the peacefulness of family
relations and cause disturbance within the family circle.
 It would be scandalous for step-parents to marry their step-children
or parents-in-law to marry their children-in-law because it is more
in keeping with Philippine customs and traditions to treat step-
children or children-in-law as their own and vice-versa
QUERY:
Does the dissolution of the marriage-which serves as the common bond
that gave rise to the relationship by affinity- terminate the relationship
by affinity?
DEAN MEL STA. MARIA’S VIEW:

Dissolution of marriage does not terminate relationship by affinity,

applying by analogy the ruling in Intestate estate of Manolita Vda. De
Carungcong vs. People and William Sato, G.R. No.181409, 11
February 2010).
(4) Between the adopting parent and the adopted child;
(5) Between the surviving spouse of the adopting parent and the adopted
child;
(6) Between the surviving spouse of the adopted child and the adopter;
Thus, if the marriage between the adopter and his/her spouse or between
the adopted and his/her spouse was dissolved by judicial declaration of
nullity or annulment in accordance with law, the prohibition does not
apply.
(7) Between an adopted child and a legitimate child of the adopter;

(8) Between adopted children of the same adopter; and

(9) Between parties where one, with the intention to marry the other,
killed that other person’s spouse, or his or her own spouse.”
REASON FOR THE PROHIBITION AGAINST MARRIAGES UNDER
ARTICLE 38:

It is the policy of the State to foster a normal, peaceful, and wholesome
integral nuclear family unit. The marriages mentioned in Article 38 will
not serve – but are destructive of - the purpose of nurturing a stable
family unit.
 IMPRESCRIPTIBILITY OF ACTION OR
DEFENSE OF NULLITY OF MARRIAGE
Article 39, Family Code

“Art. 39. The action or defense for the declaration of absolute nullity of a
marriage shall not prescribe.”
(As amended by Executive Order 227 and Republic Act No. 8533; The
phrase “However, in case of marriage celebrated before the effectivity of this Code
and falling under Article 36, such action or defense shall prescribe in ten years after
this Code shall taken effect” has been deleted by Republic Act No. 8533 [Approved
February 23, 1998]).
 HOW TO ATTACK THE STATUS OF A
VOID MARRIAGE
MODES OF ATTACKING THE STATUS OF A VOID MARRIAGE:
(a) Direct attack
By filing a petition for declaration of nullity of a void marriage,
following the procedure set out under A.M. No.02-11-10-SC, effective
15 March 2003
(a) Collateral attack
By assailing the validity of the marriage as an integral part of a party’s
claim or defenses in a proceeding other than a petition for nullity of
marriage
EXAMPLES OF COLLATERAL ATTACK:

(a) In an action for support (Reinel Anthony De Castro vs. Annabelle

Assidao-De Castro, G.R. No. 160172, 13 February 2008)
(b) In an action for recovery of insurance benefits (Susan Nicdao-Carino
vs. Susan Yee-Carino, G.R. No.132529, 2 February 2001; Social
Security Commission vs. Edna Azote, G.R. No.209741, 15 April
2015)
(c) In an action for settlement of estate of a deceased person whose
marriage is alleged to be void(Lolita Enrico vs. Heirs of Eulogio
Medinaceli, G.R. No.173614, 28 September 2007)
(d) In an action for determination of heirship
QUERY:

May the status of a void marriage be collaterally attacked in a criminal

prosecution for bigamy?
NOTE:
In a special proceedings for correction of entries under rule 108 of the
Rules of Court, the trial court has no jurisdiction to nullify marriage and
rule on legitimacy and filiation(Ma. Cristina Braza, et. al. vs. The City
Civil Registrar, G.R. No. 181174, 04 December 2009)

But Rule 108 is an appropriate remedy to correct an erroneous entry in

the civil registry where the status of a party is reflected therein as
“married” when no such marriage took place (Republic vs. Merlinda
Olaybar, G.R. No. 189538, 10 February 2014)
 RULES/PRINCIPLES GOVERNING
NULLITY OF VOID MARRIAGE
WHO MAY FILE PETITION TO DECLARE NULLITY OF A VOID
MARRIAGE

• Under Administrative Matter No. 02-11-10 of the Supreme Court, only the
husband or the wife can file a direct action for declaration of nullity of a void
marriage (Lolita Enrico vs. Heirs of Eulogio Medinaceli, G.R. No.173614,
28 September 2007), except:
a) For marriages solemnized before the effectivity of the Family Code on 03
August 1988 (Juan De Dios Carlos vs. Felicidad Sandoval, G.R.
No.179922, 16 December 2008; Engrace Ninal vs. Norma Bayadog,
G.R. No.133778, 14 March 2000.)
b) For marriages solemnized during effectivity of Family Code but the
petition for nullity of marriage was filed before March 15, 2003, the date
A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC took effect (Estrellita Llave vs. Republic and
Zorayda Tamano, G.R. No.169766, 30 March 2011; Juan De Dios
Carlos vs. Felicidad Sandoval, G.R. No. 179922, 16 December 2008)
• Where the marriage was solemnized before effectivity of Family Code
or where the petition was filed before 15 March 2003, any interested
party can file, like the brother of the deceased husband in Juan De
Dios Carlos vs Felicidad Sandoval, or the first wife or child by the
previous marriage in Llave vs. Republic of the Philippines and
Zorayda Tamano, et al., or children by the first marriage in Engrace
Ninal vs. Norma Bayadog, G.R. No.133778, 14 March 2000).
c) If the ground for nullity of a void marriage is bigamy, the spouse to the
existing first marriage may file an action to declare the marriage void
(Estrellita Llave vs. Republic and Zorayda, G.R. No.169766, 30
March 2011; Minoru Fujiki vs. Maria Paz Marinay, G.R. No.196049,
26 June 2013)
Opinion: But either of the spouse in the subsequent bigamous
marriage may also file, although normally neither of them is expected to
do so, since they benefit from the bigamous marriage. But if one of them
came to know of the bigamous nature of marriage, then he/she is likely to file
the petition to declare the marriage void (Estrellita Llave vs. Zorayda
Tamano, G.R. No.169766, 20 March 2011)
May the guilty spouse file the petition to declare a marriage null and
void?
Unlike petitions for annulment of marriage under Article 45 which can
be filed only by the injured spouse, even the guilty spouse can initiate
the petition, as the rule does not make any qualification. (Chi Ming Tsoi
vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.119190, 16 January 1997; Republic vs.
Jose Dayot, G.R. No.175581, 28 March 2008)
Does the principle “He who comes to court must come with clean hands”
apply to petitions for nullity of marriage?

ANSWER: No, since this principle is based on equity and equitable principles
apply only in the absence of a law. Thus, in Republic vs. Jose Dayot, G.R. No.
175581, 28 March 2008, the court declared a marriage void on the ground that
the affidavit of cohabitation was falsified although the husband was found
guilty of the falsification. Under the laws, either the husband or the wife may
file a petition for nullity of a void marriage. This is consistent with the principle
that a void marriage cannot be ratified by the action or conduct of the parties.