TIMOSA, BELLE FRANCES S.

MODULE 6: VOID & VOIDABLE MARRIAGE

1. Republic vs. CA & Molina, GR No. 108763, February 13, 1997; 268 SCRA 198
FACTS:

 On April 1985, the Molina couple married and borne a child out of the marriage named
Albert Andre.
 After a year of marriage, the husband displayed signs of immaturity and irresponsibility.
He was careless with money and depended on his parents. This were the circumstances
that often lead them to quarrels and then became estranged. Reynaldo abandoned Roridel
and left the child with her. The husband admitted that he and his wife could no longer
live together because his wife’s strange behavior. She insisted on the husband to leave his
friend group. She refused to perform her marital duties and failed to run their household.
The RTC declared their marriage void
 RTC declared their marriage void. CA affirmed the decision

ISSUE:

 Whether or not “opposing and conflicting” personalities is equivalent to psychological

incapacity.
RULING:

 No. This case was a landmark case wherein the court established guidelines to what
consist as grounds for psychological incapacity. It must be judged according to gravity,
juridical antecedence, incurability, which was not evident in this case. In addition, article
36 requires that incapacity be psychological not physical.
o The burden of proof to show nullity of the marriage lies in the plaintiff;
o The root cause of the psychological incapacity must be:
 Medically or clinically identified,
 Alleged in the complaint,
 Sufficiently proven by experts, and
 Clearly explained in the decision.
 Such incapacity must also be shown to be medically or clinically permanent or incurable.
 The incapacity must be proven to be existing at “the time of the celebration” of the
marriage.
 Such illness must be grave enough to bring about the disability of the party to assume the
essential obligations of marriage.
 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.
  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.
 The trial court must order the prosecuting attorney or fiscal and the Solicitor General to
appear as counsel for the state.

2. Leonilo Antonio vs. Marie Ivonne F. Reyes, G.R. No. 155880, March 10, 2006

FACTS:

 Antonio and Reyes got married, wherein they had a child which they lost 5 months later.
Antonio claimed he could not take her constant lying, insecurities and jealousy so he
separated from her. He attempted reconciliation but her behavior didn’t change. Only
after their marriage that he learned about her child with another man. In 1993, he filed a
petition to have his marriage declared null and void under article 36.
 The evidence presented by the petitioner were the following:
o persistent and constant lying to petitioner was abnormal or pathological
o asserted that respondent’s extreme jealousy was also pathological
o They concluded based on the foregoing that respondent was psychologically
incapacitated to perform her essential marital obligations.
 The RTC declared the marriage null and void but the CA reversed the decision claiming
that it doesn’t meet the requirements stated in the Molina case.
ISSUE:

 Whether or not Antonio has established grounds for declaration of nullity under Article
36 and under Molina guidelines.
RULING:

 The RTC’s decision was binding according to the SC. It is to be considered that the
respondent consistently lied about aspects with regards to her character and personality.
She invented stories and personality enabled her to live in a world of make-believe. This
makes her psychologically incapacitated to meet her marriage duties.
 The case satisfies the Molina guidelines:
o Antonio sufficiently overcame his burden in proving the psychological incapacity
of his wife.
o Root cause of incapacity was medically or clinically identified by experts.
o She fabricated friends and made up letters even before their marriage.
o Gravity is grave.
o She is a pathological liar, unable to commit the basic tenets of a relationship.
 o CA failed to take into consideration that the marriage was annulled by the
Catholic Church.
o Incurable considering that Antonio made attempts to reconcile but behavior
remains unchanged.

3. Te vs. Yu-Te & the Republic of the Philippines, GR No. 161793, February 13, 2009
FACTS:

 Edward Te and Rowena Yu-Te were a young couple ready to elope with the persistence
of Rowena to Cebu. Within a month, their sustenance depleted, with them not being able
to find jobs. When they went back to Manila, respondent proceeded to her uncle’s house
and the petitioner back to his parents. However, due to constant suicide threats Edward
agreed to live with her.
 The respondent’s uncle brought them to court to get married. The petitioner was under
the constant threats by uncle not to leave the respondent. Respondent, when the petitioner
was able to call home, suggested that petitioner get in his inheritance so they could live
together on their own, to which petitioner’s father got mad and threatened to disinherit
him.
 When petitioner was able to escape from uncle’s house, petitioner and respondent said it
was better for them to lead separate lives, to wit they separated.
 Four years later, petitioner filed a petition before the RTC to annul his marriage on the
basis of psychological incapacity. Clinical psychologist claimed that both parties to be
psychologically incapacitated. RTC declared marriage null which CA reversed. Thus
petition.
ISSUE:

 Whether or not the marriage is null and void, based on Art 36 of the Fam Code.

RULING:

 Yes, the marriage is declared null and void, because it complies the grounds for
psychological incapacity which exists before marriage and manifested after marriage.
The psychological assessment produced findings that both parties are afflicted with
personality disorders. Dependent personality disorder for the petitioner and Narcissistic
and Antisocial Personality disorder for respondent.
 The seriousness and gravity considered the court rules that the marriage is null and void
on ground of psychological incapacity.
 4. Valerio Kalaw vs. Ma. Elena Fernandez, G.R. No. 166357, January 14, 2015
FACTS:

 Kalaw presented testimonies of two expert witnesses who concluded that respondent is
psychologically incapacitated. Petitioner’s experts relied heavily on petitioner’s
allegations which are the constant mahjong sessions, visits to beauty parlor, adultery and
the neglect of their children.
ISSUE:

 Whether or not the marriage was void on the ground of psychological incapacity.

RULING:

 The court granted the motion for reconsideration which held that Fernandez was indeed
psychologically incapacitated as they relaxed the set forth guidelines with regards to this
case.
 The court held that the guidelines they set in the case of Republic vs CA turned out to be
rigid that such application to every instance condemned rejection.
 Instead, every court should approach the issue of nullity “not on the basis of a priori
assumptions, predilections or generalizations, but according to its own facts” in
recognition of the verity that no case would be on “all fours” with the next one in the
field of psychological incapacity as a ground for the nullity of marriage; hence, every
“trial judge must take pains in examining the factual milieu and the appellate court must,
as much as possible, avoid substituting its own judgment for that of the trial court.
 In the task of ascertaining the presence of psychological incapacity as a ground for the
nullity of marriage, the courts, which are concededly not endowed with expertise in the
field of psychology, must of necessity rely on the opinions of experts in order to inform
themselves on the matter, and thus enable themselves to arrive at an intelligent and
judicious judgment. 
 The Court also held that the courts must accord weight to expert testimony on the
psychological and mental state of the parties in cases for the declaration of the nullity of
marriages, for by the very nature of Article 36 of the Family Code the courts, “despite
having the primary task and burden of decision-making, must not discount but, instead,
must consider as decisive evidence the expert opinion on the psychological and mental
temperaments of the parties.”
 In addition, willfully exposing children to gambling constitutes neglect of parental duties.
 5. Antone vs. Beronilla, G.R. No. 183824, December 8, 2010
FACTS:

 Myrna Antone alleged that she and Leo were married in 1978. However, Leo contracted a
second marriage with Cecille Maguillo in 1991. This is a ground for a criminal case of
bigamy.
 Leo moved to say that the facts charged do not constitute an offense because his marriage
to Myrna was null and void and was declared as so on May of 2007. He also argues that
there was no marriage to begin with. Thus, with the absent first marriage, it doesn’t
constitute a crime of bigamy. The prosecution argued that the marriage of Myrna and Leo
on 1978 was not severed prior to his second marriage on 1991, for which bigamy has
already been committed before the court declared the first marriage null and void on
2007.
ISSUE:

 Whether a subsequent declaration of nullity of the first marriage only after contracting
the subsequent marriage is immaterial to the crime of bigamy.
RULING:

 Yes. Article 40 of the Family Code has reversed the previous ruling of People v.
Mendoza (under the Civil Code) declaring that: (a) a case for bigamy based on a
void ab initio marriage will not prosper because there is no need fora judicial decree to
establish that a void ab initio marriage is invalid; and (b) a marriage declared void ab
initio has retroactive legal effect such that there would be no first valid marriage to speak
of after all, which renders the elements of bigamy complete.

6. Mercado vs. Tan, G.R. No. 137110, August 1, 2000

FACTS:

 The accused, Vincent Mercado was in lawful wedlock with Ma. Thelma Oliva in a
marriage ceremony solemnized on April 10, 1976.
 Despite the prior marriage he got married to complainant Ma. Consuelo Tan on June 27,
1991. On October 5, 1992, a letter-complaint for bigamy was filed by complainant which
eventually resulted [in] the institution of the present case before this Court against said
accused.
 Dr. Vincent G. Mercado, on March 1, 1993 in an Information dated January 22, 1993. On
November 13, 1992, or more than a month after the bigamy case, accused filed an action
for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage against Ma. Thelma V. Oliva
 Decision dated May 6, 1993 the marriage between Vincent G. Mercado and Ma. Thelma
V. Oliva was declared null and void. Despite this, the Trial Court charged Vincent with
 bigamy since his prior marriage was still subsisting at the time he had contracted his
second marriage. The Court of Appeals affirmed the ruling of the trial court. The
petitioner then filed a case to the Supreme Court.
ISSUE:

 Whether or not the judicial declaration of nullity of a prior marriage necessary for
remarriage?
RULING:

 Under Article 40 of the Family Code, ‘the absolute nullity of a previous marriage may be
invoked for purposes of remarriage on the basis solely of a final judgment declaring such
previous marriage void.’

 In this case, the final judgment declaring null and void accused’s previous marriage came
not before the celebration of the second marriage, but after, when the case for bigamy
against accused was already tried in court.

 And as defined, bigamy is the act of any person who shall contract a second subsequent
marriage ‘before’ the former marriage has been legally dissolved.

 For a voidable marriage, there must be a judicial declaration of the nullity of a marriage
before contracting the second marriage.

7. Republic vs. Nolasco, GR No. 94053, March 17, 1993, 220 SCRA 20

FACTS:

 Nolasco filed before the Regional Trial Court a petition for the declaration of
presumptive death of his wife Janet Monica Parker or in alternative the marriage be
declared null and void.

 The Republic of the Philippines opposed through solicitor-general who argued that
Nolasco did not possess a well-founded belief that his spouse was already dead, and the
alternative prayer that marriage be declared null and void in the same proceeding is a
cunning attempt to circumvent law on marriage.

ISSUE:

 Whether or not Nolasco has a well-founded belief that his wife is already dead.

RULING:
  The court that respondent Nolasco failed to conduct a search with diligence which should
give justification to his “well-founded belief”.

 Article 41: a marriage contracted by any person during the 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 had a
well-founded belief that the absent spouse was already dead. 

8. Calisterio vs. Calisterio, GR No. 136467, April 6, 2000

FACTS:

 Teodorico died intestate on April 1992, leaving parcel of land. He was survived by his
wife Marietta Calisterio.

 Teodorico was second husband of Marietta who had previously been married to James
William Bounds on 13 January 1946 at Caloocan City. 

 Teodorico and Marietta married 11 years later without court declaration that James was
presumptively dead.

 Petitioner for this case, a surviving sister of Teodorico, filed a petition claiming to be the
sole surviving heir of Teodorico Calisterio on the grounds that the marriage between the
Teodorico and Marietta being bigamous and thereby null and void. 

ISSUE:

 Whether the marriage between Marietta and Teodorico was valid which would determine
her right as a surviving spouse.

RULING:

 The marriage of Marietta happened during the Civil Code thus deemed valid even
without the judicial declaration of marriage of presumptive death of James Bounds.

9. Office of the Court Administratory vs. Hon. Liberty O. Castaneda et. al., A.M. No.
RTJ-12-2316, October 9, 2012

FACTS:

 Branch 67 is fast becoming a haven for couples who want their marriages to be judicially
declared null and void or annulled, or those who merely want to be legally separated, the
 audit team gave special attention to cases for declaration of nullity of marriage,
annulment of marriage and legal separation, and found that of the 717 civil
cases, 522 or 72.80% involved nullity of marriage, annulment and legal separation.

 Further investigation of these cases revealed various irregularities in the proceedings,

consisting of blatant violations the Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void
Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages, as well as, or the Rule on Legal
Separation.

 Judge Castañeda allowed the petitions for nullity of marriage or annulment to prosper
despite the impropriety of venue. The audit showed that most of the parties in these
petitions are not actual residents of the places under the territorial jurisdiction of Branch
67, i.e., Paniqui, Anao, Moncada and San Miguel, all in Tarlac. Many of the respondents
raised the issue of improper venue, which Judge Castañeda ignored.

 At the time of the audit, Judge Castañeda had granted 175 cases involving nullity or
annulment of marriage and legal separation. More particularly, the audit team observed
the extraordinary speed and overzealousness with which Judge Castañeda acted in
granting some 11 cases, which were decided between a period of a mere 16 days to four
(4) months from the date of their filing.

ISSUE:

 Whether or not the judge committed a grave abuse of discretion.

RULING:

 The reprehensible haste with which she granted petitions for nullity and annulment of
marriage and legal separation, despite non-compliance with the appropriate rules and
evident irregularities in the proceedings, displayed her utter lack of competence and
probity, and can only be considered as grave abuse of authority.

10. Republic vs. Florie Grace M. Cote, G.R. No. 212860, March 14, 2018

FACTS:

 On July 31, 1995, Rhomel Gagarin Cote and respondent Florie Grace Manongdo-Cote
were married in Quezon City. At the time of their marriage, the spouses were both
Filipinos.
  On August 23, 2002, Rhomel filed a Petition for Divorce before the Family Court of the
First Circuit of Hawaii. This was granted on August 23, 2002 by the issuance of a decree.
 Seven years later, Florie commenced a petition for recognition of foreign judgment
granting the divorce before RTC. Florie also prayed for the cancellation of her marriage
contract. The Office of the Solicitor General, representing Republic of the Philippines
(petitioner), deputized the Office of the City Prosecutor to appear on behalf of the State
during the trial.
 On April 7, 2011, the RTC granted the petition and declared Florie to be capacitated to
remarry after the RTC's decision attained finality and a decree of absolute nullity has
been issued.
 On April 7, 2011, the RTC granted the petition and declared Florie to be capacitated to
remarry. The RTC ruled that Rhomel was already an American citizen when he obtained
the divorce decree.
 Petitioner filed a Notice of Appeal. However, the RTC, believing that the petition was
covered by the Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and
Annulment of Voidable Marriages, applied Section 20 of said Rule and denied the appeal
because the notice was not preceded by a motion for reconsideration.
 Petitioner then filed a petition for certiorari with the CA claiming that the RTC
committed grave abuse of discretion. The CA denied the petition.
ISSUE:

 Whether the provisions of Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages

and Annulment of Voidable Marriages applies in a case involving recognition of a
foreign decree of divorce.
RULING:

 No. 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 capacity to remarry
under Philippine law.
 Although the Court has already laid down the rule regarding foreign divorce
involving Filipino citizens, the Filipino spouse who likewise benefits from the effects
of the divorce cannot automatically remarry. Before the divorced Filipino spouse can
remarry, he or she must file a petition for judicial recognition of the foreign divorce.