Annulment of first marriage

By Persida Acosta
December 3, 2021

Dear PAO,
My cousin wants to marry his girlfriend. They have been dating only
for a few months, but he said that he is really into her. The thing is, he
is already married since 2003, though he and his wife have been living
their separate lives for five years now. His plan is to marry his
girlfriend early next year and thereafter seek for the nullity of their
marriage. According to him, his wife was 16 years old when they got
married; it was only made to appear that she was 18 at the time so they
can get married since she was already pregnant. Do you think he can
validly marry his girlfriend?|
Basti

Dear Basti,
One of the essential requisites to a valid marriage under our laws is the
legal capacity of the contracting parties who must be a male and a
female. They must be 18 years old or upwards and not under any of
the legal impediments. (Article 2 (1) and Article 5, Family Code of
the Philippines). Absent any of the essential or formal requisites set
under our laws shall render the marriage void ab initio, except
marriages stated in Article 35 (2) of the Family Code of the
Philippines. (Article 4, Id.)
In the situation of your cousin and his wife, there is a lacking essential
requisite, that is, the legal capacity of the latter considering that she
was only 16 years old at the time of the celebration of their marriage.
The fact that one of the parties is a minor can be used as a basis for the
nullification of such marriage. Pursuant to Article 35 of the said law:
"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; x x x"
Nevertheless, it bears stressing that your cousin cannot just marry yet
his girlfriend given that, in the eyes of our laws, he is still married.
There may be a basis for the nullification of their marriage, but he
must first obtain a final judgment declaring said marriage void. It is
expressly provided for under Article 40 of the Family Code of the
Philippines that:
"Art. 40. 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." (Emphasis supplied)
The law is clear that the existing marriage must be nullified first by
the court before one or both of the parties to said marriage may enter
into another marriage. It cannot be the other way around, that is, a
party who is still married contracting a subsequent marriage then
obtaining a decree nullifying his/her marriage. To do the latter would
make said party liable for the crime of bigamy.
Furthermore, filing a Petition for Declaration of Absolute Nullity of
Marriage after contracting a subsequent marriage knowing fully well
that he is still married will not justify anything. It will only
demonstrate that such petition is just a mere afterthought, either as an
attempt to appease his girlfriend by making everything seems legal
when it is really not or so as to avoid his prosecution for bigamy later
on.
Accordingly, what your cousin should do is to first obtain a decree
from court nullifying his existing marriage, and thereafter marry his
girlfriend.

Psychological incapacity
By Persida Acosta
October 15, 2021

Dear PAO,
Gina's marriage was declared void by the court. She is encouraging
me to file a case for the dissolution of my marriage with my estranged
husband. According to her, she presented a psychologist who
interviewed her and her children to support her case and the same was
successful. She claims that if I follow what she had done in her case,
then there is a guarantee that I will obtain a favorable decision. Please
guide me on this matter.
Ahmina

Dear Ahmina,
Psychological incapacity is indeed one of the grounds for the
declaration of nullity of marriage. This is supported by the provision
of Article 36 of the Family Code of the Philippines, which states that:
"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."
However, please be advised that the testimony of an expert witness
(psychologist) alone is not the sole basis of the court in declaring any
of the parties to the marriage psychologically incapacitated. In fact,
the Supreme Court said in one case entitled Republic of the
Philippines vs Tobora-Tionglico (G.R. 218630, Jan. 11, 2018,
Ponente: former associate justice Noel G. Tijam) that:
"To make conclusions and generalizations on a spouse's psychological
condition based on the information fed by only one side, as in the case
at bar, is, to the Court's mind, not different from admitting hearsay
evidence as proof of the truthfulness of the content of such evidence."
Thus, the report of the psychologist that is based on the information of
one side alone is just like admitting hearsay evidence.
Further, there is no guarantee that the court will grant your petition
even if you follow Gina's advice. Every case is different and this finds
support in the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Castro vs
Castro (G.R. 210548, March 2, 2020), where the Supreme Court
speaking through former Associate Justice Jose C. Reyes Jr., stated
that:
"Petitioner's invocation of the case of Camacho-Reyes v Reyes,
wherein this Court gave credence to the Report of the expert witnesses
despite the lack of personal examination as regards the respondent
fails. In fact, in said case, this Court warned that each case must be
decided depending on the set of facts, to wit:
Each case must be judged, not on the basis of a priori assumptions,
predilections or generalizations but according to its own facts. In the
field of psychological incapacity as a ground for annulment of
marriage, it is trite to say that no case is on "all fours" with another
case. The 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."
Applying the above-cited decision in your situation, each case must be
judged according to its own facts and it should not be based on priori
presumptions, predilections or generalizations. No case is on "all
fours" with another case. Thus, the facts of each case must be
examined to determine the existence of psychological incapacity as a
ground for declaration of nullity of marriage.

Psychological incapacity as ground for

annulment
By Persida Acosta
February 9, 2021

Dear PAO,
I met my Swiss husband through a dating website. He was well-educated,
sweet, thoughtful and, of course, very handsome. I was easily drawn to him
and his charms. Just months after constant chatting and video calls, he agreed
to fly to the Philippines for us to personally meet and get married. However,
as we got to spend more time together, his personality drastically changed.
He became hot-tempered, wasted money on gambling, drank with friends and
neglected me. I want to have our marriage declared null and void because of
these, but I am not sure if it will prosper based on my reasons.
Elaine

Dear Elaine,
It would appear that you may be thinking of annulment of marriage based on
psychological incapacity. If that would be the case, we have to state that for
psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code of the
Philippines to be a valid ground for nullity of marriage, it “must be
characterized by (a) gravity, (b) juridical antecedence, and (c) incurability,”
as stated in Espina-Dan vs Dan (GR 209031, April 16,
2018, Ponente: Associate Justice Mariano del Castillo). Further, the said case
continued with the following explanation:
“The incapacity must be grave or serious such that the party would be
incapable of carrying out the ordinary duties required in marriage; it must be
rooted in the history of the party antedating the marriage, although the overt
manifestations may emerge only after marriage; and it must be incurable or,
even if it were otherwise, the cure would be beyond the means of the party
involved. Finally, the burden of proving psychological incapacity is on the
petitioner. x x x ‘Indeed, the incapacity should be established by the totality
of evidence presented during trial, making it incumbent upon the petitioner to
sufficiently prove the existence of the psychological incapacity.’
“‘Psychological incapacity,’ xxx should refer to no less than a mental — not
merely physical — incapacity that causes a party to be truly incognitive of
the basic marital covenants xxx as so expressed in Article 68 of the Family
Code, xxx include their mutual obligations to live together, observe love,
respect and fidelity and render help and support. xxx 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.”
(Ibid.)
In the above-mentioned case, which involves facts similar to your situation,
the court agreed with the trial and appellate courts in dismissing the case:
“They held that while petitioner alleged such condition, she was unable to
establish its existence, gravity, juridical antecedence, and incurability based
solely on her testimony, which is insufficient, self-serving, unreliable, and
uncorroborated, as she did not know respondent very well enough - having
been with him only for a short period of time; Dr. Tayag’s psychological
report - which is practically one-sided for the latter’s failure to include
respondent in the study; xxx” (Ibid.)
Given the foregoing and applying them to your situation, you may not have
enough reason to have your marriage declared null and void on the ground of
psychological incapacity.

Annulment of marriage
By Persida Acosta
May 5, 2020

Dear PAO,
My wife and I lived together for 15 years before marrying each other. Just
recently, we decided to live separately because of our constant bickering and
misunderstandings. This led to our decision to file for annulment.
Accordingly, we agreed upon the custody of our child and made
arrangements as to the family expenses. Meanwhile, I have been in constant
communication with my former girlfriend and been thinking of marrying her
in the future. Recently, when I was preparing all the files needed for
annulment, I noticed that we were not able to obtain a valid marriage license.
Thus, I’m wondering if I still need to file for annulment.
Manny

Dear Manny,
To answer your question, we shall refer to the Family Code of the
Philippines, specifically Article 34 of the said law, which provides that:
“Art. 34. No license shall be necessary for the marriage of a man and a
woman who have lived together as husband and wife for at least five years
and without any legal impediment to marry each other. The contracting
parties shall state the foregoing facts in an affidavit before any person
authorized by law to administer oaths. The solemnizing officer shall also
state under oath that he ascertained the qualifications of the contracting
parties are found no legal impediment to the marriage.” (Emphases supplied)
Applying the said law in your situation, since you lived together as husband
and wife for 15 years, then your marriage is valid despite the absence of a
marriage license. An exception to the rule that a marriage shall be void if
solemnized without a marriage license under Article 35 (3) is that provided
for under Article 34 of the Family Code. Moreover, it is also worthy to
mention that constant bickering, misunderstandings and living separately
from each other are not included in the enumeration of the grounds for
annulment. Article 45 of the said law provides:
“Art. 45. A marriage may be annulled for any of the following causes,
existing at the time of the marriage:
“(1) That the party in whose behalf it is sought to have the marriage annulled
was eighteen years of age or over but below twenty-one, and the marriage
was solemnized without the consent of the parents, guardian or person having
substitute parental authority over the party, in that order, unless after attaining
the age of twenty-one, such party freely cohabited with the other and both
lived together as husband and wife;
“(2) That either party was of unsound mind, unless such party after coming to
reason, freely cohabited with the other as husband and wife;
“(3) That the consent of either party was obtained by fraud, unless such party
afterwards, with full knowledge of the facts constituting the fraud, freely
cohabited with the other as husband and wife;
“(4) That the consent of either party was obtained by force, intimidation or
undue
influence, unless the same having disappeared or ceased, such party
thereafter freely cohabited with the other as husband and wife;
“(5) That either party was physically incapable of consummating the
marriage with the other, and such incapacity continues and appears to be
incurable; or
“(6) That either party was afflicted with a sexually-transmissible disease
found to be serious and appears to be incurable.”

Judgment of annulment
By Persida Acosta
February 7, 2020
Dear PAO,
My marriage was annulled by a court upon the instance of my husband. This
decision was rendered over a decade ago or sometime in 2003. When I
discovered the decision, I failed to interpose an appeal then since I worked
overseas. Nonetheless, I want to know whether I can still question such order
declaring my marriage void, either through an appeal or through an
annulment of such decision on the ground of the court’s failure to acquire
jurisdiction over my person since I did not personally receive any summons
whatsoever from the court that rendered the decision.
Sula

Dear Sula,
The answer to your question is no. To elaborate this point, we shall refer to a
Supreme Court decision elucidating on the nature of an annulment of
marriage cases. Succinctly, in the case of Alba vs Court of Appeals (GR
164041, July 29, 2005) penned by Associate Justice Consuelo Ynares-
Santiago, the high court said an annulment case is deemed as an action in rem
in which jurisdiction over the person of a defendant is not required for a court
to acquire jurisdiction and validly hear the petition, viz:
“Whether or not the trial court acquired jurisdiction over the person of
petitioner and her minor child depends on the nature of private respondent’s
action, that is, in personam, in rem or quasi in rem. An action in personam is
lodged against a person based on personal liability; an action in rem is
directed against the thing itself instead of the person. xxx Hence, petitions
directed against the ‘thing’ itself or the res, which concerns the status of a
person, like a ‘xxx xxx xxx,’ annulment of marriage, as in the instant case,
are actions in rem. xxx.
“In a proceeding in rem or quasi in rem, jurisdiction over the person of the
defendant is not a prerequisite to confer jurisdiction on the court, provided
that the latter has jurisdiction over the res. The service of summons or notice
to the defendant is not for the purpose of vesting the court with jurisdiction
but merely for satisfying the due process requirements.”
You mentioned that you failed to receive any summons which to your mind
renders the decision void. We would like to lead your attention to the
provisions of AM 02-11-10-SC, otherwise known as the “Rule on
Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of
Voidable Marriages,” which allows the service of summons through
publication, precisely, to emphasize its in rem proceeding nature.
Given that the service by publication is allowed, it also follows that the lack
of receipt in person of summons does not necessarily nullify the court’s
decision herein. After all, what only matters is that the court should acquire
jurisdiction in this case through the filing of the petition.
Given that the decision was rendered over a decade ago, definitely, the
decision is final.
The remedy of appeal would no longer be availing since Rule 41, Section 3
of the Rules of Court provides that the appeal shall be taken within 15 days
from notice of the judgment or final order appealed from. Similarly, the
remedy of annulment of judgment under Rule 47 would also be unavailing
since the imprescriptible nature of an annulment of judgment case only
applies to a void judgment. Here, to recapitulate, the court validly acquired
jurisdiction and thus, rendered a valid judgment.

Void marriage
By Persida Acosta
January 27, 2020

Dear PAO,
I married my husband because I thought he was legally capacitated to
contract another marriage. I knew from the beginning that he was married to
Elisa; however, he presented to me a document showing that his marriage
was annulled by the religious sect where he belongs. May I know if my
marriage with my husband is valid?
Clinessy

Dear Clinessy,
For your guidance, please take note of the following definition of marriage
under Article 1 of the Family Code of the Philippines (Executive Order 209):
“Marriage is a special contract of permanent union between a man and a
woman entered into in accordance with law for the establishment of conjugal
and family life. It is the foundation of the family and an inviolable social
institution whose nature, consequences and incidents are governed by law
and not subject to stipulation, except that marriage settlements may fix the
property relations during the marriage within the limits provided by this
Code.”
Relative thereto, the following provisions of the same code may find
application in your situation:
“Article 2. No marriage shall be valid, unless these essential requisites are
present:
“1) Legal capacity of the contracting parties who must be a male or female;
and
“2) Consent freely given in the presence of the solemnizing officer (Article 2,
Family Code of the Philippines).
“Article 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.” (Id.)
“Article 40. 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.” (Id.)
Based on the facts that you presented, it appears that there was a legal
impediment for your husband to contract another marriage since he remains
to be married to Elisa. Please be guided by the decision of the court in the
case of Tilar vs Tilar and the Republic of the Philippines (GR 214529, July
12, 2017), where the Supreme Court, through Chief Justice Diosdado Peralta,
stated that:
“Thus, the contract of marriage is entered into by complying with the
requirements and formalities prescribed by law. The marriage of petitioner
and respondent, which was solemnized by a Catholic priest and was held in a
church was in accordance with the above-quoted provisions. Although
marriage is considered a sacrament in the Catholic church, it has civil and
legal consequences which are governed by the Family Code. As petitioner
correctly pointed out, the instant petition only seeks to nullify the marriage
contract between the parties as postulated in the Family Code of the
Philippines; and the declaration of nullity of the parties’ marriage in the
religious and ecclesiastical aspect is another matter. Notably, the proceedings
for church annulment which is in accordance with the norms of Canon Law is
not binding upon the State as the couple is still considered married to each
other in the eyes of the civil law. Thus, the principle of separation of the
church and state finds no application in this case.”
Applying the above-cited decision in your situation, the annulment of the
marriage of your husband and Elisa, which is in accordance with the
proceedings provided by the religious sect where he belongs, is not binding
upon the state. Your husband remains to be validly married to Elisa and he
has no legal capacity to contract another marriage with you. Thus, your
marriage with your husband was bigamous. A bigamous marriage is void
from the beginning, and this is in consonance with Article 35 (4) of the
Family Code of the Philippines.

Void marriage
By Persida Acosta
January 27, 2020

Dear PAO,
I married my husband because I thought he was legally capacitated to
contract another marriage. I knew from the beginning that he was married to
Elisa; however, he presented to me a document showing that his marriage
was annulled by the religious sect where he belongs. May I know if my
marriage with my husband is valid?
Clinessy

Dear Clinessy,
For your guidance, please take note of the following definition of marriage
under Article 1 of the Family Code of the Philippines (Executive Order 209):
“Marriage is a special contract of permanent union between a man and a
woman entered into in accordance with law for the establishment of conjugal
and family life. It is the foundation of the family and an inviolable social
institution whose nature, consequences and incidents are governed by law
and not subject to stipulation, except that marriage settlements may fix the
property relations during the marriage within the limits provided by this
Code.”
Relative thereto, the following provisions of the same code may find
application in your situation:
“Article 2. No marriage shall be valid, unless these essential requisites are
present:
“1) Legal capacity of the contracting parties who must be a male or female;
and
“2) Consent freely given in the presence of the solemnizing officer (Article 2,
Family Code of the Philippines).
“Article 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.” (Id.)
“Article 40. 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.” (Id.)
Based on the facts that you presented, it appears that there was a legal
impediment for your husband to contract another marriage since he remains
to be married to Elisa. Please be guided by the decision of the court in the
case of Tilar vs Tilar and the Republic of the Philippines (GR 214529, July
12, 2017), where the Supreme Court, through Chief Justice Diosdado Peralta,
stated that:
“Thus, the contract of marriage is entered into by complying with the
requirements and formalities prescribed by law. The marriage of petitioner
and respondent, which was solemnized by a Catholic priest and was held in a
church was in accordance with the above-quoted provisions. Although
marriage is considered a sacrament in the Catholic church, it has civil and
legal consequences which are governed by the Family Code. As petitioner
correctly pointed out, the instant petition only seeks to nullify the marriage
contract between the parties as postulated in the Family Code of the
Philippines; and the declaration of nullity of the parties’ marriage in the
religious and ecclesiastical aspect is another matter. Notably, the proceedings
for church annulment which is in accordance with the norms of Canon Law is
not binding upon the State as the couple is still considered married to each
other in the eyes of the civil law. Thus, the principle of separation of the
church and state finds no application in this case.”
Applying the above-cited decision in your situation, the annulment of the
marriage of your husband and Elisa, which is in accordance with the
proceedings provided by the religious sect where he belongs, is not binding
upon the state. Your husband remains to be validly married to Elisa and he
has no legal capacity to contract another marriage with you. Thus, your
marriage with your husband was bigamous. A bigamous marriage is void
from the beginning, and this is in consonance with Article 35 (4) of the
Family Code of the Philippines.

Dissolution of marriage by a religious

sect does not bind the state
By Persida Acosta
August 6, 2019
Dear PAO,
I married Juan in 1999 and we separated after two years. I never heard from
him since then, until I met Jake. I filed a petition for the dissolution of my
marriage with Juan before the religious sect, in which we both belong, and
the same was granted in 2004. In 2006, I married Jake in a simple ceremony
held by the same religious sect. Jake died in 2018 and I tried to claim his
death benefits with one of the social insurance offices of the government, but
the same was denied. According to the agency concerned, my marriage with
Jake was bigamous; hence, I am disqualified as his beneficiary. I presented to
them the certification from my religious sect that my marriage with Juan was
already dissolved in 2004, so I was single when I married Jake in 2006, but
the said document is allegedly immaterial because what they need is a court
order. Is my marriage with Jake bigamous?
Tina

Dear Tina,
Your marriage with Jake is bigamous, considering that you contracted a
second marriage without filing a petition in court for the declaration of nullity
of your marriage with Juan. This is in consonance with Article 40 of the
Family Code of the Philippines, which states that “the absolute nullity of a
previous marriage may be invoked for purposes of remarriage on the basis
solely of final judgment declaring such previous marriage void.” A second
marriage contracted prior to the issuance of this declaration of nullity is thus
considered bigamous and void (Castillo vs Castillo, GR. 189607, April 18,
2016, ponente: Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno).
Regarding your social insurance benefits, you are not qualified as Jake’s
beneficiary because your marriage with him is void. This is in accordance
with Article 35 (4) of the Family Code of the Philippines, which states that
those bigamous or polygamous marriages not falling under Article 41 of the
said law are void marriages.
It is important to emphasize that your marriage with Juan was dissolved in
accordance with the process adopted by the religious sect, where you and
Juan belong. That is not, however, the annulment that is required by law. You
still need to file a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage, which should
have been filed before the appropriate civil court. Please be guided by the
decision in the case of Tilar vs Tilar (GR 214529, July 12, 2017), where the
Supreme Court, through Associate Justice Diosdado Peralta, stated that:
“x x x. Notably, the proceedings for church annulment which is in
accordance with the norms of Canon Law is not binding upon the State as the
couple is still considered married to each other in the eyes of the civil law.
xxx”
Applying the above-cited decision in your situation, the dissolution of your
marriage with Juan through the religious sect is not binding upon the state.
Thus, you remained to be married with Juan, and your marriage with Jake in
2006 is void ab initio for the simple reason that it is bigamous. You are not
qualified as Jake’s legal beneficiary, so the denial of your claim with the
social insurance is correct. Finally, “xxx a marriage that is void ab initio is
considered as having never to have taken place and cannot be the source of
rights” (Niñal vs Bayadog, GR 133778, March 14, 2000, ponente: Associate
Justice Consuelo Ynares Santiago).
Dissolution of marriage by a religious
sect does not bind the state
Read Next
By Persida Acosta
August 6, 2019

Dear PAO,
I married Juan in 1999 and we separated after two years. I never heard from
him since then, until I met Jake. I filed a petition for the dissolution of my
marriage with Juan before the religious sect, in which we both belong, and
the same was granted in 2004. In 2006, I married Jake in a simple ceremony
held by the same religious sect. Jake died in 2018 and I tried to claim his
death benefits with one of the social insurance offices of the government, but
the same was denied. According to the agency concerned, my marriage with
Jake was bigamous; hence, I am disqualified as his beneficiary. I presented to
them the certification from my religious sect that my marriage with Juan was
already dissolved in 2004, so I was single when I married Jake in 2006, but
the said document is allegedly immaterial because what they need is a court
order. Is my marriage with Jake bigamous?
Tina

Dear Tina,
Your marriage with Jake is bigamous, considering that you contracted a
second marriage without filing a petition in court for the declaration of nullity
of your marriage with Juan. This is in consonance with Article 40 of the
Family Code of the Philippines, which states that “the absolute nullity of a
previous marriage may be invoked for purposes of remarriage on the basis
solely of final judgment declaring such previous marriage void.” A second
marriage contracted prior to the issuance of this declaration of nullity is thus
considered bigamous and void (Castillo vs Castillo, GR. 189607, April 18,
2016, ponente: Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno).
Regarding your social insurance benefits, you are not qualified as Jake’s
beneficiary because your marriage with him is void. This is in accordance
with Article 35 (4) of the Family Code of the Philippines, which states that
those bigamous or polygamous marriages not falling under Article 41 of the
said law are void marriages.
It is important to emphasize that your marriage with Juan was dissolved in
accordance with the process adopted by the religious sect, where you and
Juan belong. That is not, however, the annulment that is required by law. You
still need to file a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage, which should
have been filed before the appropriate civil court. Please be guided by the
decision in the case of Tilar vs Tilar (GR 214529, July 12, 2017), where the
Supreme Court, through Associate Justice Diosdado Peralta, stated that:
“x x x. Notably, the proceedings for church annulment which is in
accordance with the norms of Canon Law is not binding upon the State as the
couple is still considered married to each other in the eyes of the civil law.
xxx”
Applying the above-cited decision in your situation, the dissolution of your
marriage with Juan through the religious sect is not binding upon the state.
Thus, you remained to be married with Juan, and your marriage with Jake in
2006 is void ab initio for the simple reason that it is bigamous. You are not
qualified as Jake’s legal beneficiary, so the denial of your claim with the
social insurance is correct. Finally, “xxx a marriage that is void ab initio is
considered as having never to have taken place and cannot be the source of
rights” (Niñal vs Bayadog, GR 133778, March 14, 2000, ponente: Associate
Justice Consuelo Ynares Santiago).

Dissolution of marriage by a religious

sect does not bind the state
By Persida Acosta
August 6, 2019

Dear PAO,
I married Juan in 1999 and we separated after two years. I never heard from
him since then, until I met Jake. I filed a petition for the dissolution of my
marriage with Juan before the religious sect, in which we both belong, and
the same was granted in 2004. In 2006, I married Jake in a simple ceremony
held by the same religious sect. Jake died in 2018 and I tried to claim his
death benefits with one of the social insurance offices of the government, but
the same was denied. According to the agency concerned, my marriage with
Jake was bigamous; hence, I am disqualified as his beneficiary. I presented to
them the certification from my religious sect that my marriage with Juan was
already dissolved in 2004, so I was single when I married Jake in 2006, but
the said document is allegedly immaterial because what they need is a court
order. Is my marriage with Jake bigamous?
Tina

Dear Tina,
Your marriage with Jake is bigamous, considering that you contracted a
second marriage without filing a petition in court for the declaration of nullity
of your marriage with Juan. This is in consonance with Article 40 of the
Family Code of the Philippines, which states that “the absolute nullity of a
previous marriage may be invoked for purposes of remarriage on the basis
solely of final judgment declaring such previous marriage void.” A second
marriage contracted prior to the issuance of this declaration of nullity is thus
considered bigamous and void (Castillo vs Castillo, GR. 189607, April 18,
2016, ponente: Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno).
Regarding your social insurance benefits, you are not qualified as Jake’s
beneficiary because your marriage with him is void. This is in accordance
with Article 35 (4) of the Family Code of the Philippines, which states that
those bigamous or polygamous marriages not falling under Article 41 of the
said law are void marriages.
It is important to emphasize that your marriage with Juan was dissolved in
accordance with the process adopted by the religious sect, where you and
Juan belong. That is not, however, the annulment that is required by law. You
still need to file a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage, which should
have been filed before the appropriate civil court. Please be guided by the
decision in the case of Tilar vs Tilar (GR 214529, July 12, 2017), where the
Supreme Court, through Associate Justice Diosdado Peralta, stated that:
“x x x. Notably, the proceedings for church annulment which is in
accordance with the norms of Canon Law is not binding upon the State as the
couple is still considered married to each other in the eyes of the civil law.
xxx”
Applying the above-cited decision in your situation, the dissolution of your
marriage with Juan through the religious sect is not binding upon the state.
Thus, you remained to be married with Juan, and your marriage with Jake in
2006 is void ab initio for the simple reason that it is bigamous. You are not
qualified as Jake’s legal beneficiary, so the denial of your claim with the
social insurance is correct. Finally, “xxx a marriage that is void ab initio is
considered as having never to have taken place and cannot be the source of
rights” (Niñal vs Bayadog, GR 133778, March 14, 2000, ponente: Associate
Justice Consuelo Ynares Santiago).

Dissolution of marriage by a religious

sect does not bind the state
By Persida Acosta
August 6, 2019

Dear PAO,
I married Juan in 1999 and we separated after two years. I never heard from
him since then, until I met Jake. I filed a petition for the dissolution of my
marriage with Juan before the religious sect, in which we both belong, and
the same was granted in 2004. In 2006, I married Jake in a simple ceremony
held by the same religious sect. Jake died in 2018 and I tried to claim his
death benefits with one of the social insurance offices of the government, but
the same was denied. According to the agency concerned, my marriage with
Jake was bigamous; hence, I am disqualified as his beneficiary. I presented to
them the certification from my religious sect that my marriage with Juan was
already dissolved in 2004, so I was single when I married Jake in 2006, but
the said document is allegedly immaterial because what they need is a court
order. Is my marriage with Jake bigamous?
Tina

Dear Tina,
Your marriage with Jake is bigamous, considering that you contracted a
second marriage without filing a petition in court for the declaration of nullity
of your marriage with Juan. This is in consonance with Article 40 of the
Family Code of the Philippines, which states that “the absolute nullity of a
previous marriage may be invoked for purposes of remarriage on the basis
solely of final judgment declaring such previous marriage void.” A second
marriage contracted prior to the issuance of this declaration of nullity is thus
considered bigamous and void (Castillo vs Castillo, GR. 189607, April 18,
2016, ponente: Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno).
Regarding your social insurance benefits, you are not qualified as Jake’s
beneficiary because your marriage with him is void. This is in accordance
with Article 35 (4) of the Family Code of the Philippines, which states that
those bigamous or polygamous marriages not falling under Article 41 of the
said law are void marriages.
It is important to emphasize that your marriage with Juan was dissolved in
accordance with the process adopted by the religious sect, where you and
Juan belong. That is not, however, the annulment that is required by law. You
still need to file a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage, which should
have been filed before the appropriate civil court. Please be guided by the
decision in the case of Tilar vs Tilar (GR 214529, July 12, 2017), where the
Supreme Court, through Associate Justice Diosdado Peralta, stated that:
“x x x. Notably, the proceedings for church annulment which is in
accordance with the norms of Canon Law is not binding upon the State as the
couple is still considered married to each other in the eyes of the civil law.
xxx”
Applying the above-cited decision in your situation, the dissolution of your
marriage with Juan through the religious sect is not binding upon the state.
Thus, you remained to be married with Juan, and your marriage with Jake in
2006 is void ab initio for the simple reason that it is bigamous. You are not
qualified as Jake’s legal beneficiary, so the denial of your claim with the
social insurance is correct. Finally, “xxx a marriage that is void ab initio is
considered as having never to have taken place and cannot be the source of
rights” (Niñal vs Bayadog, GR 133778, March 14, 2000, ponente: Associate
Justice Consuelo Ynares Santiago).
Dissolution of marriage by a religious
sect does not bind the state
By Persida Acosta
August 6, 2019

Dear PAO,
I married Juan in 1999 and we separated after two years. I never heard from
him since then, until I met Jake. I filed a petition for the dissolution of my
marriage with Juan before the religious sect, in which we both belong, and
the same was granted in 2004. In 2006, I married Jake in a simple ceremony
held by the same religious sect. Jake died in 2018 and I tried to claim his
death benefits with one of the social insurance offices of the government, but
the same was denied. According to the agency concerned, my marriage with
Jake was bigamous; hence, I am disqualified as his beneficiary. I presented to
them the certification from my religious sect that my marriage with Juan was
already dissolved in 2004, so I was single when I married Jake in 2006, but
the said document is allegedly immaterial because what they need is a court
order. Is my marriage with Jake bigamous?
Tina
Dear Tina,
Your marriage with Jake is bigamous, considering that you contracted a
second marriage without filing a petition in court for the declaration of nullity
of your marriage with Juan. This is in consonance with Article 40 of the
Family Code of the Philippines, which states that “the absolute nullity of a
previous marriage may be invoked for purposes of remarriage on the basis
solely of final judgment declaring such previous marriage void.” A second
marriage contracted prior to the issuance of this declaration of nullity is thus
considered bigamous and void (Castillo vs Castillo, GR. 189607, April 18,
2016, ponente: Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno).
Regarding your social insurance benefits, you are not qualified as Jake’s
beneficiary because your marriage with him is void. This is in accordance
with Article 35 (4) of the Family Code of the Philippines, which states that
those bigamous or polygamous marriages not falling under Article 41 of the
said law are void marriages.
It is important to emphasize that your marriage with Juan was dissolved in
accordance with the process adopted by the religious sect, where you and
Juan belong. That is not, however, the annulment that is required by law. You
still need to file a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage, which should
have been filed before the appropriate civil court. Please be guided by the
decision in the case of Tilar vs Tilar (GR 214529, July 12, 2017), where the
Supreme Court, through Associate Justice Diosdado Peralta, stated that:
“x x x. Notably, the proceedings for church annulment which is in
accordance with the norms of Canon Law is not binding upon the State as the
couple is still considered married to each other in the eyes of the civil law.
xxx”
Applying the above-cited decision in your situation, the dissolution of your
marriage with Juan through the religious sect is not binding upon the state.
Thus, you remained to be married with Juan, and your marriage with Jake in
2006 is void ab initio for the simple reason that it is bigamous. You are not
qualified as Jake’s legal beneficiary, so the denial of your claim with the
social insurance is correct. Finally, “xxx a marriage that is void ab initio is
considered as having never to have taken place and cannot be the source of
rights” (Niñal vs Bayadog, GR 133778, March 14, 2000, ponente: Associate
Justice Consuelo Ynares Santiago).

Dissolution of marriage by a religious

sect does not bind the state
Read Next

Covid-19 vaccination updates

By Persida Acosta
August 6, 2019

Dear PAO,
I married Juan in 1999 and we separated after two years. I never heard from
him since then, until I met Jake. I filed a petition for the dissolution of my
marriage with Juan before the religious sect, in which we both belong, and
the same was granted in 2004. In 2006, I married Jake in a simple ceremony
held by the same religious sect. Jake died in 2018 and I tried to claim his
death benefits with one of the social insurance offices of the government, but
the same was denied. According to the agency concerned, my marriage with
Jake was bigamous; hence, I am disqualified as his beneficiary. I presented to
them the certification from my religious sect that my marriage with Juan was
already dissolved in 2004, so I was single when I married Jake in 2006, but
the said document is allegedly immaterial because what they need is a court
order. Is my marriage with Jake bigamous?
Tina

Dear Tina,
Your marriage with Jake is bigamous, considering that you contracted a
second marriage without filing a petition in court for the declaration of nullity
of your marriage with Juan. This is in consonance with Article 40 of the
Family Code of the Philippines, which states that “the absolute nullity of a
previous marriage may be invoked for purposes of remarriage on the basis
solely of final judgment declaring such previous marriage void.” A second
marriage contracted prior to the issuance of this declaration of nullity is thus
considered bigamous and void (Castillo vs Castillo, GR. 189607, April 18,
2016, ponente: Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno).
Regarding your social insurance benefits, you are not qualified as Jake’s
beneficiary because your marriage with him is void. This is in accordance
with Article 35 (4) of the Family Code of the Philippines, which states that
those bigamous or polygamous marriages not falling under Article 41 of the
said law are void marriages.
It is important to emphasize that your marriage with Juan was dissolved in
accordance with the process adopted by the religious sect, where you and
Juan belong. That is not, however, the annulment that is required by law. You
still need to file a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage, which should
have been filed before the appropriate civil court. Please be guided by the
decision in the case of Tilar vs Tilar (GR 214529, July 12, 2017), where the
Supreme Court, through Associate Justice Diosdado Peralta, stated that:
“x x x. Notably, the proceedings for church annulment which is in
accordance with the norms of Canon Law is not binding upon the State as the
couple is still considered married to each other in the eyes of the civil law.
xxx”
Applying the above-cited decision in your situation, the dissolution of your
marriage with Juan through the religious sect is not binding upon the state.
Thus, you remained to be married with Juan, and your marriage with Jake in
2006 is void ab initio for the simple reason that it is bigamous. You are not
qualified as Jake’s legal beneficiary, so the denial of your claim with the
social insurance is correct. Finally, “xxx a marriage that is void ab initio is
considered as having never to have taken place and cannot be the source of
rights” (Niñal vs Bayadog, GR 133778, March 14, 2000, ponente: Associate
Justice Consuelo Ynares Santiago).

Divorce does not automatically apply on

Filipinos
Read Next

Covid-19 vaccination updates

By Persida Acosta
July 22, 2018

Dear PAO,
My brother and his longtime girlfriend married in 2005. They are both
registered nurses but my sister-in-law decided to migrate abroad, leaving my
brother here in the Philippines. Eventually, their relationship weakened and
they mutually agreed on separating. A few years after their separation, my
sister-in-law got a divorce abroad to which my brother simply acceded since
he knows that there is no possibility of reconciliation. Aside from the fact that
my sister-in-law already became a naturalized foreigner, she was in a new
relationship. Now, my brother is also thinking of working abroad and getting
married again. He wants to be declared as “single” again but he was told
that he needs to file a petition in court first before this can be possible;
otherwise, he is still considered “married” despite the divorce that his ex-
wife obtained abroad. Is this true? Please advise me on this matter.
Mikaela

Dear Mikaela,
At present, we do not have a law granting divorce in our country. Our civil
laws, particularly the Family Code of the Philippines (Executive Order 209),
only provides two ways to sever the marital vinculum, that is, by means of
declaration of absolute nullity of marriage and annulment of marriage. The
bases for these remedies are specifically enumerated under Articles 35, 36,
37, 38 and 45 of the Family Code.
Be that as it may, a divorce validly obtained abroad by a foreign citizen may
be given a binding effect in our jurisdiction, and thus, it will benefit the
Filipino spouse. As stated under Article 26 (2) of the said law:
“x x x 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 have
capacity to remarry under Philippine law.”
However, it bears stressing that the decree of divorce by itself does not sever
the marital vinculum insofar as the Filipino spouse is concerned and that it is
still necessary for the Filipino spouse to file before the court a petition for the
recognition of the foreign decree of divorce for it to have a binding effect on
said spouse.
Applying the foregoing to the situation of your brother, we submit that it is
necessary for him to file a petition for recognition of the decree of divorce
which was obtained by your sister-in-law abroad in order for our courts to
determine if there was indeed a divorce decree secured abroad and if such a
decree was obtained in consonance with the applicable foreign law. This is in
line with the ruling of our Supreme Court in the case of Garcia vs. Recio
(G.R. No. 138322, October 2, 2001, Ponente: Honorable former Chief Justice
Artemio V. Panganiban):
“A comparison between marriage and divorce, as far as pleading and proof
are concerned, can be made. Van Dorn v. Romillo Jr. decrees that aliens may
obtain divorces abroad, which may be recognized in the Philippines, provided
they are valid according to their national law. Therefore, before a foreign
divorce decree can be recognized by our courts, the party pleading it must
prove the divorce as a fact and demonstrate its conformity to the foreign law
allowing it. Presentation solely of the divorce decree is insufficient.”
Ultimately, the said remedy will confer upon your brother not only the right
to revert to his status as “single” but also such other pertinent civil rights.
Divorce does not automatically apply on
Filipinos
Read Next

Covid-19 vaccination updates

By Persida Acosta
July 22, 2018

Dear PAO,
My brother and his longtime girlfriend married in 2005. They are both
registered nurses but my sister-in-law decided to migrate abroad, leaving my
brother here in the Philippines. Eventually, their relationship weakened and
they mutually agreed on separating. A few years after their separation, my
sister-in-law got a divorce abroad to which my brother simply acceded since
he knows that there is no possibility of reconciliation. Aside from the fact that
my sister-in-law already became a naturalized foreigner, she was in a new
relationship. Now, my brother is also thinking of working abroad and getting
married again. He wants to be declared as “single” again but he was told
that he needs to file a petition in court first before this can be possible;
otherwise, he is still considered “married” despite the divorce that his ex-
wife obtained abroad. Is this true? Please advise me on this matter.
Mikaela

Dear Mikaela,
At present, we do not have a law granting divorce in our country. Our civil
laws, particularly the Family Code of the Philippines (Executive Order 209),
only provides two ways to sever the marital vinculum, that is, by means of
declaration of absolute nullity of marriage and annulment of marriage. The
bases for these remedies are specifically enumerated under Articles 35, 36,
37, 38 and 45 of the Family Code.
Be that as it may, a divorce validly obtained abroad by a foreign citizen may
be given a binding effect in our jurisdiction, and thus, it will benefit the
Filipino spouse. As stated under Article 26 (2) of the said law:
“x x x 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 have
capacity to remarry under Philippine law.”
However, it bears stressing that the decree of divorce by itself does not sever
the marital vinculum insofar as the Filipino spouse is concerned and that it is
still necessary for the Filipino spouse to file before the court a petition for the
recognition of the foreign decree of divorce for it to have a binding effect on
said spouse.
Applying the foregoing to the situation of your brother, we submit that it is
necessary for him to file a petition for recognition of the decree of divorce
which was obtained by your sister-in-law abroad in order for our courts to
determine if there was indeed a divorce decree secured abroad and if such a
decree was obtained in consonance with the applicable foreign law. This is in
line with the ruling of our Supreme Court in the case of Garcia vs. Recio
(G.R. No. 138322, October 2, 2001, Ponente: Honorable former Chief Justice
Artemio V. Panganiban):
“A comparison between marriage and divorce, as far as pleading and proof
are concerned, can be made. Van Dorn v. Romillo Jr. decrees that aliens may
obtain divorces abroad, which may be recognized in the Philippines, provided
they are valid according to their national law. Therefore, before a foreign
divorce decree can be recognized by our courts, the party pleading it must
prove the divorce as a fact and demonstrate its conformity to the foreign law
allowing it. Presentation solely of the divorce decree is insufficient.”
Ultimately, the said remedy will confer upon your brother not only the right
to revert to his status as “single” but also such other pertinent civil rights.

Divorce does not automatically apply on

Filipinos
Read Next

Covid-19 vaccination updates

By Persida Acosta
July 22, 2018

Dear PAO,
My brother and his longtime girlfriend married in 2005. They are both
registered nurses but my sister-in-law decided to migrate abroad, leaving my
brother here in the Philippines. Eventually, their relationship weakened and
they mutually agreed on separating. A few years after their separation, my
sister-in-law got a divorce abroad to which my brother simply acceded since
he knows that there is no possibility of reconciliation. Aside from the fact that
my sister-in-law already became a naturalized foreigner, she was in a new
relationship. Now, my brother is also thinking of working abroad and getting
married again. He wants to be declared as “single” again but he was told
that he needs to file a petition in court first before this can be possible;
otherwise, he is still considered “married” despite the divorce that his ex-
wife obtained abroad. Is this true? Please advise me on this matter.
Mikaela

Dear Mikaela,
At present, we do not have a law granting divorce in our country. Our civil
laws, particularly the Family Code of the Philippines (Executive Order 209),
only provides two ways to sever the marital vinculum, that is, by means of
declaration of absolute nullity of marriage and annulment of marriage. The
bases for these remedies are specifically enumerated under Articles 35, 36,
37, 38 and 45 of the Family Code.
Be that as it may, a divorce validly obtained abroad by a foreign citizen may
be given a binding effect in our jurisdiction, and thus, it will benefit the
Filipino spouse. As stated under Article 26 (2) of the said law:
“x x x 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 have
capacity to remarry under Philippine law.”
However, it bears stressing that the decree of divorce by itself does not sever
the marital vinculum insofar as the Filipino spouse is concerned and that it is
still necessary for the Filipino spouse to file before the court a petition for the
recognition of the foreign decree of divorce for it to have a binding effect on
said spouse.
Applying the foregoing to the situation of your brother, we submit that it is
necessary for him to file a petition for recognition of the decree of divorce
which was obtained by your sister-in-law abroad in order for our courts to
determine if there was indeed a divorce decree secured abroad and if such a
decree was obtained in consonance with the applicable foreign law. This is in
line with the ruling of our Supreme Court in the case of Garcia vs. Recio
(G.R. No. 138322, October 2, 2001, Ponente: Honorable former Chief Justice
Artemio V. Panganiban):
“A comparison between marriage and divorce, as far as pleading and proof
are concerned, can be made. Van Dorn v. Romillo Jr. decrees that aliens may
obtain divorces abroad, which may be recognized in the Philippines, provided
they are valid according to their national law. Therefore, before a foreign
divorce decree can be recognized by our courts, the party pleading it must
prove the divorce as a fact and demonstrate its conformity to the foreign law
allowing it. Presentation solely of the divorce decree is insufficient.”
Ultimately, the said remedy will confer upon your brother not only the right
to revert to his status as “single” but also such other pertinent civil rights.

Divorce does not automatically apply on

Filipinos
Read Next

Covid-19 vaccination updates

By Persida Acosta
July 22, 2018

Dear PAO,
My brother and his longtime girlfriend married in 2005. They are both
registered nurses but my sister-in-law decided to migrate abroad, leaving my
brother here in the Philippines. Eventually, their relationship weakened and
they mutually agreed on separating. A few years after their separation, my
sister-in-law got a divorce abroad to which my brother simply acceded since
he knows that there is no possibility of reconciliation. Aside from the fact that
my sister-in-law already became a naturalized foreigner, she was in a new
relationship. Now, my brother is also thinking of working abroad and getting
married again. He wants to be declared as “single” again but he was told
that he needs to file a petition in court first before this can be possible;
otherwise, he is still considered “married” despite the divorce that his ex-
wife obtained abroad. Is this true? Please advise me on this matter.
Mikaela

Dear Mikaela,
At present, we do not have a law granting divorce in our country. Our civil
laws, particularly the Family Code of the Philippines (Executive Order 209),
only provides two ways to sever the marital vinculum, that is, by means of
declaration of absolute nullity of marriage and annulment of marriage. The
bases for these remedies are specifically enumerated under Articles 35, 36,
37, 38 and 45 of the Family Code.
Be that as it may, a divorce validly obtained abroad by a foreign citizen may
be given a binding effect in our jurisdiction, and thus, it will benefit the
Filipino spouse. As stated under Article 26 (2) of the said law:
“x x x 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 have
capacity to remarry under Philippine law.”
However, it bears stressing that the decree of divorce by itself does not sever
the marital vinculum insofar as the Filipino spouse is concerned and that it is
still necessary for the Filipino spouse to file before the court a petition for the
recognition of the foreign decree of divorce for it to have a binding effect on
said spouse.
Applying the foregoing to the situation of your brother, we submit that it is
necessary for him to file a petition for recognition of the decree of divorce
which was obtained by your sister-in-law abroad in order for our courts to
determine if there was indeed a divorce decree secured abroad and if such a
decree was obtained in consonance with the applicable foreign law. This is in
line with the ruling of our Supreme Court in the case of Garcia vs. Recio
(G.R. No. 138322, October 2, 2001, Ponente: Honorable former Chief Justice
Artemio V. Panganiban):
“A comparison between marriage and divorce, as far as pleading and proof
are concerned, can be made. Van Dorn v. Romillo Jr. decrees that aliens may
obtain divorces abroad, which may be recognized in the Philippines, provided
they are valid according to their national law. Therefore, before a foreign
divorce decree can be recognized by our courts, the party pleading it must
prove the divorce as a fact and demonstrate its conformity to the foreign law
allowing it. Presentation solely of the divorce decree is insufficient.”
Ultimately, the said remedy will confer upon your brother not only the right
to revert to his status as “single” but also such other pertinent civil rights.

Divorce does not automatically apply on

Filipinos
Read Next

Covid-19 vaccination updates

By Persida Acosta
July 22, 2018

Dear PAO,
My brother and his longtime girlfriend married in 2005. They are both
registered nurses but my sister-in-law decided to migrate abroad, leaving my
brother here in the Philippines. Eventually, their relationship weakened and
they mutually agreed on separating. A few years after their separation, my
sister-in-law got a divorce abroad to which my brother simply acceded since
he knows that there is no possibility of reconciliation. Aside from the fact that
my sister-in-law already became a naturalized foreigner, she was in a new
relationship. Now, my brother is also thinking of working abroad and getting
married again. He wants to be declared as “single” again but he was told
that he needs to file a petition in court first before this can be possible;
otherwise, he is still considered “married” despite the divorce that his ex-
wife obtained abroad. Is this true? Please advise me on this matter.
Mikaela

Dear Mikaela,
At present, we do not have a law granting divorce in our country. Our civil
laws, particularly the Family Code of the Philippines (Executive Order 209),
only provides two ways to sever the marital vinculum, that is, by means of
declaration of absolute nullity of marriage and annulment of marriage. The
bases for these remedies are specifically enumerated under Articles 35, 36,
37, 38 and 45 of the Family Code.
Be that as it may, a divorce validly obtained abroad by a foreign citizen may
be given a binding effect in our jurisdiction, and thus, it will benefit the
Filipino spouse. As stated under Article 26 (2) of the said law:
“x x x 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 have
capacity to remarry under Philippine law.”
However, it bears stressing that the decree of divorce by itself does not sever
the marital vinculum insofar as the Filipino spouse is concerned and that it is
still necessary for the Filipino spouse to file before the court a petition for the
recognition of the foreign decree of divorce for it to have a binding effect on
said spouse.
Applying the foregoing to the situation of your brother, we submit that it is
necessary for him to file a petition for recognition of the decree of divorce
which was obtained by your sister-in-law abroad in order for our courts to
determine if there was indeed a divorce decree secured abroad and if such a
decree was obtained in consonance with the applicable foreign law. This is in
line with the ruling of our Supreme Court in the case of Garcia vs. Recio
(G.R. No. 138322, October 2, 2001, Ponente: Honorable former Chief Justice
Artemio V. Panganiban):
“A comparison between marriage and divorce, as far as pleading and proof
are concerned, can be made. Van Dorn v. Romillo Jr. decrees that aliens may
obtain divorces abroad, which may be recognized in the Philippines, provided
they are valid according to their national law. Therefore, before a foreign
divorce decree can be recognized by our courts, the party pleading it must
prove the divorce as a fact and demonstrate its conformity to the foreign law
allowing it. Presentation solely of the divorce decree is insufficient.”
Ultimately, the said remedy will confer upon your brother not only the right
to revert to his status as “single” but also such other pertinent civil rights.

Divorce does not automatically apply on

Filipinos
Read Next

Covid-19 vaccination updates

By Persida Acosta
July 22, 2018

Dear PAO,
My brother and his longtime girlfriend married in 2005. They are both
registered nurses but my sister-in-law decided to migrate abroad, leaving my
brother here in the Philippines. Eventually, their relationship weakened and
they mutually agreed on separating. A few years after their separation, my
sister-in-law got a divorce abroad to which my brother simply acceded since
he knows that there is no possibility of reconciliation. Aside from the fact that
my sister-in-law already became a naturalized foreigner, she was in a new
relationship. Now, my brother is also thinking of working abroad and getting
married again. He wants to be declared as “single” again but he was told
that he needs to file a petition in court first before this can be possible;
otherwise, he is still considered “married” despite the divorce that his ex-
wife obtained abroad. Is this true? Please advise me on this matter.
Mikaela

Dear Mikaela,
At present, we do not have a law granting divorce in our country. Our civil
laws, particularly the Family Code of the Philippines (Executive Order 209),
only provides two ways to sever the marital vinculum, that is, by means of
declaration of absolute nullity of marriage and annulment of marriage. The
bases for these remedies are specifically enumerated under Articles 35, 36,
37, 38 and 45 of the Family Code.
Be that as it may, a divorce validly obtained abroad by a foreign citizen may
be given a binding effect in our jurisdiction, and thus, it will benefit the
Filipino spouse. As stated under Article 26 (2) of the said law:
“x x x 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 have
capacity to remarry under Philippine law.”
However, it bears stressing that the decree of divorce by itself does not sever
the marital vinculum insofar as the Filipino spouse is concerned and that it is
still necessary for the Filipino spouse to file before the court a petition for the
recognition of the foreign decree of divorce for it to have a binding effect on
said spouse.
Applying the foregoing to the situation of your brother, we submit that it is
necessary for him to file a petition for recognition of the decree of divorce
which was obtained by your sister-in-law abroad in order for our courts to
determine if there was indeed a divorce decree secured abroad and if such a
decree was obtained in consonance with the applicable foreign law. This is in
line with the ruling of our Supreme Court in the case of Garcia vs. Recio
(G.R. No. 138322, October 2, 2001, Ponente: Honorable former Chief Justice
Artemio V. Panganiban):
“A comparison between marriage and divorce, as far as pleading and proof
are concerned, can be made. Van Dorn v. Romillo Jr. decrees that aliens may
obtain divorces abroad, which may be recognized in the Philippines, provided
they are valid according to their national law. Therefore, before a foreign
divorce decree can be recognized by our courts, the party pleading it must
prove the divorce as a fact and demonstrate its conformity to the foreign law
allowing it. Presentation solely of the divorce decree is insufficient.”
Ultimately, the said remedy will confer upon your brother not only the right
to revert to his status as “single” but also such other pertinent civil rights.

Annulment of marriage based on

psychological incapacity
Read Next

Covid-19 vaccination updates

By Persida Acosta
December 7, 2017

Dear PAO,
My husband often plays computer games, such as League of Legends,
Defense of the Ancients, which is popularly known as DOTA. If he’s not
playing, he’s either sleeping or drinking alcohol with friends at home. Since
our marriage in 2014, I’ve been complaining that he should find a decent job
and that we should not be dependent on his parents. He always ignores me
whenever I bring up my issue with him. I even bought him newspaper almost
everyday but he told me that the competition in big companies is tight and he
has no chance of getting the job. Moreover, he argued that he has no clothes
to wear during interviews. To inspire him, I bought him new clothes needed
for his interviews. Sometime later, he told me he already found a job. Of
course, I was overjoyed with the news he gave me. Weeks after, however, I
was informed that my husband had been going to his mother when he was
supposed to be at work. Thereafter, I confronted him about the issue. He
answered me honestly that the rumors are true. He told me that he pretended
to have work, so that I would stop nagging him about applying for a job.
Further, he argued that his parents could support our needs for the family,
especially the education of our children.
I consulted a law student if there’s a way to annul our marriage. He simply
answered that I may file for the annulment of our marriage based on
psychological incapacity. Can you please enlighten me what psychological
incapacity is all about? Thank you.
Evelyn
Dear Evelyn,
Psychological incapacity as a ground for the annulment of marriage may be
found in Article 36 of Executive Order 209 or the Family Code of the
Philippines, to wit:
“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.”
It may be emphasized, however, that this law did not define the term
“psychological incapacity.” The Supreme Court, on the other hand,
enunciates in a long line of cases that psychological incapacity, as a ground
to nullify a marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code, should refer to no
less than a mental--not merely 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 which, as so expressed
in Article 68 of the Family Code, among others, include their mutual
obligations to live together; observe love, respect and fidelity; and render
help and support. There is hardly a doubt that the intent 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. Article 68 of the
law provides:
“Art. 68. The husband and wife are obliged to live together; observe mutual
love, respect and fidelity; and render mutual help and support.”
Moreover, the Supreme Court in the case of Silvino A. Ligarde vs. May
Ascension A. Patalinghug, et al. (G.R. No. 168796, April 15, 2010; ponente,
Associate Justice Jose Mendoza) stressed that “[p]sychological incapacity
required by Art. 36 [of the Family Code] must be characterized by [a]
gravity, [b] juridical antecedence and [c] incurability. The incapacity must be
grave or serious such that the party would be incapable of carrying out the
ordinary duties required in marriage. It must be rooted in the history of the
party antedating the marriage, although the overt manifestations may emerge
only after the marriage. It must be incurable or, even if it were otherwise, the
cure would be beyond the means of the party involved.”
Thus, the intendment of the law is 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. The Supreme Court further explained in the case
of Edward Kenneth Ngo Te vs. Rowena Ong Gutierrez Yu-Te (G.R No.
161793, February 13, 2009; ponente, former Associate Justice Antonio
Eduardo Nachura) that “in dissolving marital bonds on account of either
party’s psychological incapacity, the court is not demolishing the foundation
of families but it is actually protecting the sanctity of marriage, because it
refuses to allow a person afflicted with a psychological disorder, who cannot
comply with or assume the essential marital obligations, from remaining in
that sacred bond. It may be stressed that the infliction of physical violence,
constitutional indolence or laziness, drug dependence or addiction and
psychosexual anomaly are manifestations of a sociopathic personality
anomaly.”
Annulment of marriage based on
psychological incapacity
Read Next

Covid-19 vaccination updates

By Persida Acosta
December 7, 2017

Dear PAO,
My husband often plays computer games, such as League of Legends,
Defense of the Ancients, which is popularly known as DOTA. If he’s not
playing, he’s either sleeping or drinking alcohol with friends at home. Since
our marriage in 2014, I’ve been complaining that he should find a decent job
and that we should not be dependent on his parents. He always ignores me
whenever I bring up my issue with him. I even bought him newspaper almost
everyday but he told me that the competition in big companies is tight and he
has no chance of getting the job. Moreover, he argued that he has no clothes
to wear during interviews. To inspire him, I bought him new clothes needed
for his interviews. Sometime later, he told me he already found a job. Of
course, I was overjoyed with the news he gave me. Weeks after, however, I
was informed that my husband had been going to his mother when he was
supposed to be at work. Thereafter, I confronted him about the issue. He
answered me honestly that the rumors are true. He told me that he pretended
to have work, so that I would stop nagging him about applying for a job.
Further, he argued that his parents could support our needs for the family,
especially the education of our children.
I consulted a law student if there’s a way to annul our marriage. He simply
answered that I may file for the annulment of our marriage based on
psychological incapacity. Can you please enlighten me what psychological
incapacity is all about? Thank you.
Evelyn
Dear Evelyn,
Psychological incapacity as a ground for the annulment of marriage may be
found in Article 36 of Executive Order 209 or the Family Code of the
Philippines, to wit:
“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.”
It may be emphasized, however, that this law did not define the term
“psychological incapacity.” The Supreme Court, on the other hand,
enunciates in a long line of cases that psychological incapacity, as a ground
to nullify a marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code, should refer to no
less than a mental--not merely 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 which, as so expressed
in Article 68 of the Family Code, among others, include their mutual
obligations to live together; observe love, respect and fidelity; and render
help and support. There is hardly a doubt that the intent 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. Article 68 of the
law provides:
“Art. 68. The husband and wife are obliged to live together; observe mutual
love, respect and fidelity; and render mutual help and support.”
Moreover, the Supreme Court in the case of Silvino A. Ligarde vs. May
Ascension A. Patalinghug, et al. (G.R. No. 168796, April 15, 2010; ponente,
Associate Justice Jose Mendoza) stressed that “[p]sychological incapacity
required by Art. 36 [of the Family Code] must be characterized by [a]
gravity, [b] juridical antecedence and [c] incurability. The incapacity must be
grave or serious such that the party would be incapable of carrying out the
ordinary duties required in marriage. It must be rooted in the history of the
party antedating the marriage, although the overt manifestations may emerge
only after the marriage. It must be incurable or, even if it were otherwise, the
cure would be beyond the means of the party involved.”
Thus, the intendment of the law is 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. The Supreme Court further explained in the case
of Edward Kenneth Ngo Te vs. Rowena Ong Gutierrez Yu-Te (G.R No.
161793, February 13, 2009; ponente, former Associate Justice Antonio
Eduardo Nachura) that “in dissolving marital bonds on account of either
party’s psychological incapacity, the court is not demolishing the foundation
of families but it is actually protecting the sanctity of marriage, because it
refuses to allow a person afflicted with a psychological disorder, who cannot
comply with or assume the essential marital obligations, from remaining in
that sacred bond. It may be stressed that the infliction of physical violence,
constitutional indolence or laziness, drug dependence or addiction and
psychosexual anomaly are manifestations of a sociopathic personality
anomaly.”

Annulment of marriage based on

psychological incapacity
Read Next

Covid-19 vaccination updates

By Persida Acosta
December 7, 2017

Dear PAO,
My husband often plays computer games, such as League of Legends,
Defense of the Ancients, which is popularly known as DOTA. If he’s not
playing, he’s either sleeping or drinking alcohol with friends at home. Since
our marriage in 2014, I’ve been complaining that he should find a decent job
and that we should not be dependent on his parents. He always ignores me
whenever I bring up my issue with him. I even bought him newspaper almost
everyday but he told me that the competition in big companies is tight and he
has no chance of getting the job. Moreover, he argued that he has no clothes
to wear during interviews. To inspire him, I bought him new clothes needed
for his interviews. Sometime later, he told me he already found a job. Of
course, I was overjoyed with the news he gave me. Weeks after, however, I
was informed that my husband had been going to his mother when he was
supposed to be at work. Thereafter, I confronted him about the issue. He
answered me honestly that the rumors are true. He told me that he pretended
to have work, so that I would stop nagging him about applying for a job.
Further, he argued that his parents could support our needs for the family,
especially the education of our children.
I consulted a law student if there’s a way to annul our marriage. He simply
answered that I may file for the annulment of our marriage based on
psychological incapacity. Can you please enlighten me what psychological
incapacity is all about? Thank you.
Evelyn
Dear Evelyn,
Psychological incapacity as a ground for the annulment of marriage may be
found in Article 36 of Executive Order 209 or the Family Code of the
Philippines, to wit:
“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.”
It may be emphasized, however, that this law did not define the term
“psychological incapacity.” The Supreme Court, on the other hand,
enunciates in a long line of cases that psychological incapacity, as a ground
to nullify a marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code, should refer to no
less than a mental--not merely 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 which, as so expressed
in Article 68 of the Family Code, among others, include their mutual
obligations to live together; observe love, respect and fidelity; and render
help and support. There is hardly a doubt that the intent 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. Article 68 of the
law provides:
“Art. 68. The husband and wife are obliged to live together; observe mutual
love, respect and fidelity; and render mutual help and support.”
Moreover, the Supreme Court in the case of Silvino A. Ligarde vs. May
Ascension A. Patalinghug, et al. (G.R. No. 168796, April 15, 2010; ponente,
Associate Justice Jose Mendoza) stressed that “[p]sychological incapacity
required by Art. 36 [of the Family Code] must be characterized by [a]
gravity, [b] juridical antecedence and [c] incurability. The incapacity must be
grave or serious such that the party would be incapable of carrying out the
ordinary duties required in marriage. It must be rooted in the history of the
party antedating the marriage, although the overt manifestations may emerge
only after the marriage. It must be incurable or, even if it were otherwise, the
cure would be beyond the means of the party involved.”
Thus, the intendment of the law is 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. The Supreme Court further explained in the case
of Edward Kenneth Ngo Te vs. Rowena Ong Gutierrez Yu-Te (G.R No.
161793, February 13, 2009; ponente, former Associate Justice Antonio
Eduardo Nachura) that “in dissolving marital bonds on account of either
party’s psychological incapacity, the court is not demolishing the foundation
of families but it is actually protecting the sanctity of marriage, because it
refuses to allow a person afflicted with a psychological disorder, who cannot
comply with or assume the essential marital obligations, from remaining in
that sacred bond. It may be stressed that the infliction of physical violence,
constitutional indolence or laziness, drug dependence or addiction and
psychosexual anomaly are manifestations of a sociopathic personality
anomaly.”

Annulment of marriage based on

psychological incapacity
Read Next

Covid-19 vaccination updates

By Persida Acosta
December 7, 2017

Dear PAO,
My husband often plays computer games, such as League of Legends,
Defense of the Ancients, which is popularly known as DOTA. If he’s not
playing, he’s either sleeping or drinking alcohol with friends at home. Since
our marriage in 2014, I’ve been complaining that he should find a decent job
and that we should not be dependent on his parents. He always ignores me
whenever I bring up my issue with him. I even bought him newspaper almost
everyday but he told me that the competition in big companies is tight and he
has no chance of getting the job. Moreover, he argued that he has no clothes
to wear during interviews. To inspire him, I bought him new clothes needed
for his interviews. Sometime later, he told me he already found a job. Of
course, I was overjoyed with the news he gave me. Weeks after, however, I
was informed that my husband had been going to his mother when he was
supposed to be at work. Thereafter, I confronted him about the issue. He
answered me honestly that the rumors are true. He told me that he pretended
to have work, so that I would stop nagging him about applying for a job.
Further, he argued that his parents could support our needs for the family,
especially the education of our children.
I consulted a law student if there’s a way to annul our marriage. He simply
answered that I may file for the annulment of our marriage based on
psychological incapacity. Can you please enlighten me what psychological
incapacity is all about? Thank you.
Evelyn
Dear Evelyn,
Psychological incapacity as a ground for the annulment of marriage may be
found in Article 36 of Executive Order 209 or the Family Code of the
Philippines, to wit:
“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.”
It may be emphasized, however, that this law did not define the term
“psychological incapacity.” The Supreme Court, on the other hand,
enunciates in a long line of cases that psychological incapacity, as a ground
to nullify a marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code, should refer to no
less than a mental--not merely 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 which, as so expressed
in Article 68 of the Family Code, among others, include their mutual
obligations to live together; observe love, respect and fidelity; and render
help and support. There is hardly a doubt that the intent 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. Article 68 of the
law provides:
“Art. 68. The husband and wife are obliged to live together; observe mutual
love, respect and fidelity; and render mutual help and support.”
Moreover, the Supreme Court in the case of Silvino A. Ligarde vs. May
Ascension A. Patalinghug, et al. (G.R. No. 168796, April 15, 2010; ponente,
Associate Justice Jose Mendoza) stressed that “[p]sychological incapacity
required by Art. 36 [of the Family Code] must be characterized by [a]
gravity, [b] juridical antecedence and [c] incurability. The incapacity must be
grave or serious such that the party would be incapable of carrying out the
ordinary duties required in marriage. It must be rooted in the history of the
party antedating the marriage, although the overt manifestations may emerge
only after the marriage. It must be incurable or, even if it were otherwise, the
cure would be beyond the means of the party involved.”
Thus, the intendment of the law is 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. The Supreme Court further explained in the case
of Edward Kenneth Ngo Te vs. Rowena Ong Gutierrez Yu-Te (G.R No.
161793, February 13, 2009; ponente, former Associate Justice Antonio
Eduardo Nachura) that “in dissolving marital bonds on account of either
party’s psychological incapacity, the court is not demolishing the foundation
of families but it is actually protecting the sanctity of marriage, because it
refuses to allow a person afflicted with a psychological disorder, who cannot
comply with or assume the essential marital obligations, from remaining in
that sacred bond. It may be stressed that the infliction of physical violence,
constitutional indolence or laziness, drug dependence or addiction and
psychosexual anomaly are manifestations of a sociopathic personality
anomaly.”

Legally annuling a marriage beyond the

‘barangay’
Read Next
Covid-19 vaccination updates
By Persida Acosta
August 11, 2017

Dear PAO,
My husband and I agreed to live our lives separately. We didn’t have any
children during our short time together as a married couple. We had an
agreement in the barangay (village) that we mutually agree to formally annul
our marriage on that day, and to let each other go already. I am in a new
relationship now, and my current boyfriend and I are planning to get married.
We applied for a marriage license in our town, but we were refused since I
was still married according to them despite the fact that I provided them with
the copy of my agreement with my ex-husband from our barangay about our
annulment years ago. Why don’t they allow us to marry again despite the
consent of my ex-husband on our annulment? I need your advice.
Romancita
Dear Romancita,
The law characterizes marriage as an inviolable social institution whose
nature, consequences and incidents are governed by law, not subject to
stipulations (Article 1, Title 1, Family Code of the Philippines). As such,
procedure in both allowing and dissolving a marriage is based on provisions
of the law, not on mere agreement of the parties.
Thus, it takes more than just an agreement in the barangay to legally annul a
marriage. The annulment of a marriage requires filing of an appropriate
petition before the court and the conduct of a formal hearing therein to prove
that the specific legal grounds to annul a marriage is present in a case. The
court will then ascertain and decide if the requirements of law have been
satisfied, and only then can there be a legal annulment of marriage.
On your intention to remarry and your attempt to apply for a marriage
license, it is only right for the civil registrar of your locality to disapprove
your application since applicants who were previously married are required
by law to furnish their office the judicial decree of annulment or declaration
of nullity of a previous marriage. (Article 13, Id.) Since there is no judicial
declaration of annulment or nullity of your previous marriage, the local civil
registrar cannot allow your application for a marriage license.
Should you insist on marrying your current partner despite having a legally
existing marriage, the law provides that any subsequent marriage despite an
existing prior marriage will make the subsequent marriage void from the
beginning. (Article 35(4), Id.) Thus, should you really desire to marry your
current partner, we advise you to file the necessary legal action to judicially
annul or nullify your current and existing marriage. Should you obtain a
judicial decree annulling or nullifying your existing marriage, then you may
legally remarry.

Legally annuling a marriage beyond the

‘barangay’
Read Next
Covid-19 vaccination updates
By Persida Acosta
August 11, 2017

Dear PAO,
My husband and I agreed to live our lives separately. We didn’t have any
children during our short time together as a married couple. We had an
agreement in the barangay (village) that we mutually agree to formally annul
our marriage on that day, and to let each other go already. I am in a new
relationship now, and my current boyfriend and I are planning to get married.
We applied for a marriage license in our town, but we were refused since I
was still married according to them despite the fact that I provided them with
the copy of my agreement with my ex-husband from our barangay about our
annulment years ago. Why don’t they allow us to marry again despite the
consent of my ex-husband on our annulment? I need your advice.
Romancita
Dear Romancita,
The law characterizes marriage as an inviolable social institution whose
nature, consequences and incidents are governed by law, not subject to
stipulations (Article 1, Title 1, Family Code of the Philippines). As such,
procedure in both allowing and dissolving a marriage is based on provisions
of the law, not on mere agreement of the parties.
Thus, it takes more than just an agreement in the barangay to legally annul a
marriage. The annulment of a marriage requires filing of an appropriate
petition before the court and the conduct of a formal hearing therein to prove
that the specific legal grounds to annul a marriage is present in a case. The
court will then ascertain and decide if the requirements of law have been
satisfied, and only then can there be a legal annulment of marriage.
On your intention to remarry and your attempt to apply for a marriage
license, it is only right for the civil registrar of your locality to disapprove
your application since applicants who were previously married are required
by law to furnish their office the judicial decree of annulment or declaration
of nullity of a previous marriage. (Article 13, Id.) Since there is no judicial
declaration of annulment or nullity of your previous marriage, the local civil
registrar cannot allow your application for a marriage license.
Should you insist on marrying your current partner despite having a legally
existing marriage, the law provides that any subsequent marriage despite an
existing prior marriage will make the subsequent marriage void from the
beginning. (Article 35(4), Id.) Thus, should you really desire to marry your
current partner, we advise you to file the necessary legal action to judicially
annul or nullify your current and existing marriage. Should you obtain a
judicial decree annulling or nullifying your existing marriage, then you may
legally remarry.