CIVIL LAW REVIEW 1

• MARRIAGE

• Definition:

• Is a special contract of permanent union between a man and a

woman entered into in accordance with the 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 stipulations, except that marriage settlements may fix the
property relations during the marriage within the limits provided by
this Code.
• Essential Requisites of Marriage:
• (1) Legal Capacity of the contracting parties who must be male
and a female; and
• (2) Consent freely given in the presence of the solemnizing
officer.

• Formal Requisites of Marriage:

• (1) Authority of the solemnizing Officer;

• (2) A valid marriage license except for the following;

– a. In case either or both of the contracting parties are at the
point of death, marriage is till valid if the ailing party subsequently
survives (articulo mortis);
– b. residence of either party is so located that there is no
means of transportation to enable such party to appear personally
before the local civil registrar;
– c. A marriage in articulo mortis between passengers or crew
members of a ship or a plane while at sea or in flight and during
stopovers at ports of call.
– d. Marriage in articulo mortis between persons within the
zone of military operation, whether members of the armed forces
or civilians, to be solemnized by a military commander of a
unit who is a commissioned officer;
– e. Marriages among Muslims or among members of the
ethnic cultural communities provided they are solemnized in
accordance with their customs, rites and practices;
– f. Marriage between 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.

(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.
 Lex Loci Celebrationis Rule;
 All marriages solemnized outside the Philippines, in accordance
with the laws in force in the country where they are solemnized,
and valid there as such, shall also be valid in the Philippines
except for the following;
 1. If either or both contracting parties are Filipinos and they
are below 18 years old;
 2. Bigamous and polygamous marriage;
 3. Marriage thru mistake as to the identity of the other;
 4. Non-compliance with the recording in the civil registry and
the registry of property of the judgment of annulment or of
absolute nullity of marriage and the partition and distribution, as
well as delivery of presumptive legitimes of common
children in the prior marriage, hence, subsequent marriage is
null and void;
 5. Marriage contracted by a party who is psychologically
incapacitated;
 6. Incestuous marriage;
 7. Marriages which are void by reason of public policy.
 • VOID MARRIAGES
• 1. Contracted by any party who is below 18 years old;
• 2. Solemnizing officer is without authority unless either or both
parties believed in good faith that the solemnizing officer has authority;
• 3. Marriages without marriage license;
• 4. Bigamous or polygamous marriages;
• 5. Marriage thru mistake of identity;
• 6. Subsequent marriage which failed to comply with the recording in the
civil registry and the registry of property of the judgment of
annulment or of absolute nullity of marriage and the partition and
distribution, as well as delivery of presumptive legitimes of common
children in the prior marriage;
• 7. Where either or both party is psychologically incapacitated;
• 8. Incestuous marriage;
• 9. Marriages which are void by reason of public policy.
• 10. Subsequent marriage without a judicial declaration of nullity of the
previous marriage;
• 11. Subsequent marriage without a judicial declaration of presumptive
death of either party in the previous marriage.
• QUESTION:
• Is good faith or bad faith material in the
determination as to whether or not a marriage
is null and void?
• ANSWER:
• As a general rule, good faith and bad faith are immaterial in
determining whether or not a marriage is null and void. Hence,
even if a woman believed in good faith that she married a man not
related to her but who in truth and in fact was her long-lost
brother, her good faith will not cure the infirmity even if she
willingly and freely cohabited with him for a reasonable length of
time after discovering the relationship.

• EXCEPTIONS:
• (1) If either of the contracting parties is in good faith in
believing that a solemnizing officer has authority to
solemnize a marriage though he or she actually has none, the
marriage will be considered valid;
• (2) In case of a person whose spouse disappeared for 4 or 2
years and he / she was able to secure a judicial declaration of
presumptive death.
• 1. Contracted by any party who is below 18 years old.

• An individual below 18 years old is declared by law as not

possessing the legal capacity to contract marriage. The consent
of the parents is immaterial in the sense that, even if present, it
will not make the marriage valid. Neither can subsequent
parental consent ratify such a void marriage.
• 2. Solemnizing officer is without authority unless
either or both parties believed in good faith that the
solemnizing officer has authority;

• If the marriage were contracted with either parties believing in

good faith that the solemnizing officer had the legal authority to
do so when in fact he or she has none, then the marriage shall
be considered valid.. The good faith is clearly addressed to the
contracting parties and not to the solemnizing officer.
 • 3. Marriage without marriage license;

• A marriage license is a formal requisite of marriage, the absent

of which makes the marriage void, however, there are
exceptions.
 • 4. Bigamous or polygamous marriages;
• The law prohibits a married man or woman from contracting
another bond of union as long as the consort is alive(US vs.
Ibanez, 13 Phil. 686) Thus, a subsequent marriage contracted by a
wife during the lifetime of a former husband , with any person
other than such former husband, is illegal and void from the
beginning.

• QUESTION:
• Is it necessary that for a subsequent marriage to be
considered bigamous, the first marriage must be
valid?
• ANSWER:
• If the first marriage is in itself void and a subsequent
marriage is contracted without a prior judicial
declaration of nullity of the first marriage, the
subsequent marriage is also void because it violates
Article 40 in relation to Articles 52 and 53 of the
Family Code. Essentially, Article 40 states that a
judicial declaration of nullity must first be obtained
before any of the contracting parties is to remarry
and, in accordance with Article 52, such judicial
declaration of nullity must be recorded with the local
civil registrar also before any subsequent marriage.
Non-observance of Article 40 in relation to Article 52
shall make the subsequent marriage void pursuant to
the express provision of Article 53.
 • 5. Mistake in Identity;

• This ground goes into the very essentials of a valid marriage as

there is complete absence of consent, thereby rendering the
marriage void ab initio. The important thing to be remembered
here is that the contracting party absolutely did not intend to
marry the other, as the same is not the person he or she intend
to marry the other, as the same is not the person he or she
actually knew before the marriage. Mistake in identity as a
ground for nullity covers only those situations in which there
has been a mistake on the part of the party seeking the nullity of
marriage as to actual physical identity of the other party. It does
not include mistake in the name, the character of the person, or
in his or her attributes, his age, religion, social standing,
pedigree, pecuniary means, temperaments, acquirements,
condition in life or previous habits.
• 6. Subsequent marriage which failed to comply with the
recording in the civil registry and the registry of property of the
judgment of annulment or of absolute nullity of marriage and
the partition and distribution, as well as delivery of presumptive
legitimes of common children in the prior marriage;
• Non-compliance with these requirements will render any
subsequent marriage void.
 • 7. Psychological Incapacity;
• The ground is restricted to psychological incapacity to comply
with the essential marital obligations. The malady must be such
as to seriously and effectively prevent them from having a
functional and normal marital life clearly conducive to bringing
up a healthy personal inter-marital relationship within the family
which is necessary for its growth. It involves a senseless,
protracted and constant refusal to comply with the essential
marital obligations by one or both of the spouses although he,
she or they are physically capable of performing such
obligations (Chi Ming Tsoi vs. Court of Appeals 266 SCRA 325)
• Unlike other grounds for declaration of nullity and the grounds
for annulment and legal separation which generally constitute
clearly definable physical acts or situations such as impotency,
below 18 years of age, physical violence, infidelity, etc.
psychological incapacity is psychosomatic and deals with a
state of mind and thus, can only be proven by indicators or
external manifestations of the person claimed to be
psychologically incapacitated.
• Case: Santos vs. Court of Appeals and Julia Rosario Bedia –
Santos (G.R. No. 112019, January 4, 1995)
• Facts:
• It was in Iloilo City where Leouel Santos, who then held the rank of
First Lieutenant in the Philippine Army, first met Julia. On 20
September 1986, the two exchanged vows before Municipal Trial
Court Judge Cornelio G. Lazaro of Iloilo City, followed, shortly
thereafter, by a church wedding. Leouel and Julia lived with the
latter's parents at the J. Bedia Compound, La Paz, Iloilo City.
However, because of the frequent interference by Julia's parents
into the young spouses family affairs occasionally, the couple
would also start a "quarrel" over a number of other things, like
when and where the couple should start living independently from
Julia's parents or whenever Julia would express resentment on
Leouel's spending a few days with his own parents.
• On 18 May 1988, Julia finally left for the United Sates of America to
work as a nurse despite Leouel's pleas to so dissuade her. Seven
months after her departure, or on 01 January 1989, Julia called up
Leouel for the first time by long distance telephone. She promised
to return home upon the expiration of her contract in July 1989.
• She never did. When Leouel got a chance to visit the United States,
where he underwent a training program under the auspices of the
Armed Forces of the Philippines from 01 April up to 25 August
1990, he desperately tried to locate, or to somehow get in touch
with, Julia but all his efforts were of no avail.
• Having failed to get Julia to somehow come home, Leouel filed
with the Regional Trial Court of Negros Oriental, Branch 30, a
complaint for "Voiding of marriage Under Article 36 of the Family
Code" (docketed, Civil Case No. 9814). Summons was served by
publication in a newspaper of general circulation in Negros
Oriental.
• On 31 May 1991, respondent Julia, in her answer (through
counsel), opposed the complaint and denied its allegations,
claiming, in main, that it was the petitioner who had, in fact, been
irresponsible and incompetent.
• A possible collusion between the parties to obtain a decree of
nullity of their marriage was ruled out by the Office of the
Provincial Prosecutor (in its report to the court).
• On 25 October 1991, after pre-trial conferences had repeatedly
been set, albeit unsuccessfully, by the court, Julia ultimately
filed a manifestation, stating that she would neither appear nor
submit evidence.
• On 06 November 1991, the court a quo finally dismissed the
complaint for lack of merit. Leouel appealed to the Court of
Appeal. The latter affirmed the decision of the trial court.
• DECISION:

• The use of the phrase "psychological incapacity" under Article 36

of the Code has not been meant to comprehend all such possible
cases of psychoses as, likewise mentioned by some ecclesiastical
authorities, extremely low intelligence, immaturity, and like
circumstances (cited in Fr. Artemio Baluma's "Void and Voidable
Marriages in the Family Code and their Parallels in Canon Law,"
quoting from the Diagnostic Statistical Manual of Mental Disorder
by the American Psychiatric Association; Edward Hudson's
"Handbook II for Marriage Nullity Cases"). Article 36 of the Family
Code cannot be taken and construed independently of, but must
stand in conjunction with, existing precepts in our law on
marriage. Thus correlated, "psychological incapacity" should refer
to no less than a mental (not physical) incapacity that causes a
party to be truly incognitive of the basic marital covenants that
concomitantly must be assumed and discharged by the parties to
the marriage which, as so expressed by Article 68 of the Family
Code, include their mutual obligations to live together, observe
love, respect and fidelity and render help and support.
• There is hardly any doubt that the intendment of the law has been
to confine the meaning of "psychological incapacity" to the most
serious cases of personality disorders clearly demonstrative of an
utter intensitivity or inability to give meaning and significance to
the marriage. This pschologic condition must exist at the time the
marriage is celebrated. The law does not evidently envision, upon
the other hand, an inability of the spouse to have sexual relations
with the other. This conclusion is implicit under Article 54 of the
Family Code which considers children conceived prior to the
judicial declaration of nullity of the void marriage to be
"legitimate."
• The other forms of psychoses, if existing at the inception of
marriage, like the state of a party being of unsound mind or
concealment of drug addiction, habitual alcoholism,
homosexuality or lesbianism, merely renders the marriage
contract voidable pursuant to Article 46, Family Code. If drug
addiction, habitual alcholism, lesbianism or homosexuality should
occur only during the marriage, they become mere grounds for
legal separation under Article 55 of the Family Code.
• These provisions of the Code, however, do not necessarily
preclude the possibility of these various circumstances being
themselves, depending on the degree and severity of the disorder,
indicia of psychological incapacity.
• Until further statutory and jurisprudential parameters are
established, every circumstance that may have some bearing on
the degree, extent, and other conditions of that incapacity must, in
every case, be carefully examined and evaluated so that no
precipitate and indiscriminate nullity is peremptorily decreed. The
well-considered opinions of psychiatrists, psychologists, and
persons with expertise in psychological disciplines might be
helpful or even desirable.
• Case: Republic of the Philippines vs. Court of Appeals and
Molina (G.R. No. 108763, February 13, 1997)
• Facts:
• Roridel and Reynaldo were married on April 14, 1985 at the San
Agustin Church in Manila; that a son, Andre O. Molina was born;
that after a year of marriage, Reynaldo showed signs of
"immaturity and irresponsibility" as a husband and a father since
he preferred to spend more time with his peers and friends on
whom he squandered his money; that he depended on his
parents for aid and assistance, and was never honest with his
wife in regard to their finances, resulting in frequent quarrels
between them; that sometime in February 1986, Reynaldo was
relieved of his job in Manila, and since then Roridel had been the
sole breadwinner of the family; that in October 1986 the couple
had a very intense quarrel, as a result of which their relationship
was estranged; that in March 1987, Roridel resigned from her job
in Manila and went to live with her parents in Baguio City; that a
few weeks later, Reynaldo left Roridel and their child, and had
since then abandoned them; el's failure to run the household and
handle their finances.
• Roridel thereafter filed a verified petition for decalaration of nullity
of marriage against Reynaldo had thus shown that he was
psychologically incapable of complying with essential marital
obligations and was a highly immature and habitually quarrel
some individual who thought of himself as a king to be served;
and that it would be to the couple's best interest to have their
marriage declared null and void in order to free them from what
appeared to be an incompatible marriage from the start. In his
Answer filed on August 28, 1989, Reynaldo admitted that he and
Roridel could no longer live together as husband and wife, but
contended that their misunderstandings and frequent quarrels
were due to (1) Roridel's strange behavior of insisting on
maintaining her group of friends even after their marriage; (2)
Roridel's refusal to perform some of her marital duties such as
cooking meals; and (3) Roridel’s refusal to perform some of her
marital duties such as cooking meals; and (3) Roridel's failure to
run the household and handle their finances.
• On May 14, 1991, the trial court rendered judgment declaring the
marriage void. The appeal of petitioner was denied by the Court of
Appeals which affirmed in toto the RTC's decision.
DECISION:
• From their submissions and the Court's own deliberations, the
following guidelines in the interpretation and application of Art. 36
of the Family Code are hereby handed down for the guidance of
the bench and the bar:
• (1) The burden of proof to show the nullity of the marriage
belongs to the plaintiff. Any doubt should be resolved in favor
of the existence and continuation of the marriage and against
its dissolution and nullity. This is rooted in the fact that both
our Constitution and our laws cherish the validity of marriage
and unity of the family. Thus, our Constitution devotes an
entire Article on the Family, recognizing it "as the foundation
of the nation." It decrees marriage as legally "inviolable," thereby
protecting it from dissolution at the whim of the parties. Both the
family and marriage are to be "protected" by the state. The
Family Code echoes this constitutional edict on marriage and
the family and emphasizes the permanence, inviolability and
solidarity
• (2) The root cause of the psychological incapacity must be (a)
medically or clinically identified, (b) alleged in the complaint,
(c) sufficiently proven by experts and (d) clearly explained in
the decision. Article 36 of the Family Code requires that the
incapacity must be psychological — not physical. although its
manifestations and/or symptoms may be physical. The evidence
must convince the court that the parties, or one of them,
was mentally or physically ill to such an extent that the person
could not have known the obligations he was assuming, or
knowing them, could not have given valid assumption thereof.
Although no example of such incapacity need be given here so
as not to limit the application of the provision under the
principle of ejusdem generis, nevertheless such root cause
must be identified as a psychological illness and its
incapacitating nature explained. Expert evidence may be given
qualified psychiatrist and clinical psychologists.
• (3) The incapacity must be proven to be existing at "the time of
the celebration" of the marriage. The evidence must show that
the illness was existing when the parties exchanged their "I
do's." The manifestation of the illness need not be
perceivable at such time, but the illness itself must have attached
at such moment, or prior thereto.

• (4) Such incapacity must also be shown to be medically or

clinically permanent or incurable. Such incurability may be
absolute or even relative only in regard to the other spouse,
not necessarily absolutely against everyone of the same sex.
Furthermore, such incapacity must be relevant to the
assumption of marriage obligations, not necessarily to those
not related to marriage, like the exercise of a profession or
employment in a job. Hence, a pediatrician may be effective in
diagnosing illnesses of children and prescribing medicine to
cure them but may not be psychologically capacitated to
procreate, bear and raise his/her own children as an essential
obligation of marriage.
• (5) Such illness must be grave enough to bring about the
disability of the party to assume the essential obligations of
marriage. Thus, "mild characteriological peculiarities, mood
changes, occasional emotional outbursts" cannot be
accepted as root causes. The illness must be shown as
downright incapacity or inability, nor a refusal, neglect or
difficulty, much less ill will. In other words, there is a natal or
supervening disabling factor in the person, an adverse integral
element in the personality structure that effectively
incapacitates the person from really accepting and thereby
complying with the obligations essential to marriage.
• (6) 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. Such non-
complied marital obligation(s) must also be stated in the petition,
proven by evidence and included in the text of the
decision.
• (7) 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. It is clear that Article 36 was taken by the Family Code
Revision Committee from Canon 1095 of the New Code of
Canon Law, which became effective in 1983 and which
provides:

• The following are incapable of contracting marriage: Those who

are unable to assume the essential obligations of marriage due to
causes of psychological nature. Since the purpose of including
such provision in our Family Code is to harmonize our civil laws
with the religious faith of our people, it stands to reason that to
achieve such harmonization, great persuasive weight should be
given to decision of such appellate tribunal. Ideally — subject to
our law on evidence — what is decreed as canonically invalid
should also be decreed civilly void.
• This is one instance where, in view of the evident source and
purpose of the Family Code provision, contemporaneous
religious interpretation is to be given persuasive effect. Here, the
State and the Church — while remaining independent, separate
and apart from each other — shall walk together in synodal
cadence towards the same goal of protecting and cherishing
marriage and the family as the inviolable base of the nation.

• (8) The trial court must order the prosecuting attorney or fiscal
and the Solicitor General to appear as counsel for the state.
No decision shall he handed down unless the Solicitor General
issues a certification, which will be quoted in the decision, briefly
staring therein his reasons for his agreement or opposition, as
the case may be, to the petition. The Solicitor General, along
with the prosecuting attorney, shall submit to the court such
certification within fifteen (15) days from the date the case is
deemed submitted for resolution of the court. The Solicitor
General shall discharge the equivalent function of the
defensor vinculi contemplated under Canon 1095.
• In the instant case and applying Leouel Santos, we have
already ruled to grant the petition. Such ruling becomes even
more cogent with the use of the foregoing guidelines.
 • 8. Incestuous Marriage;
• Incestuous marriage have been universally condemned as
grossly indecent, immoral and inimical to the purity and
happiness of the family and the welfare of future generations.
• This covers relationship between parties whether legitimate of
illegitimate:
• (a) Between ascendants and descendants of any degree; and
• (b) Between brothers and sisters, whether of the full or half-
blood.
 • 9. Void Marriages by reason of public policy;

• 1. Between collateral blood relatives, whether legitimate or

illegitimate, up to the fourth civil degree;
• 2. Between step-parents and step-children;
• 3. Between parents-in-law and children-in-law;
• 4. Between adopting parent and the adopted child;
• 5. Between surviving spouse of the adopting parents and the
adopted child;
• 6. Between the surviving spouse of the adopted child and the
adopter;
• 7. Between an adopted child and a legitimate child of the
adopter;
• 8. Between the adopted children of the same adopter;
• 9. Between parties where one, with the intention to marry the
other, killed that other person’s spouse or his or her own
spouse.
• 10. Subsequent marriage without a judicial
declaration of nullity of the previous marriage;
• If a marriage between two contracting parties is void ab initio,
any one of them cannot contract a subsequent marriage valid
marriage without a previous judicial declaration of nullity of the
previous void marriage.
• 11.Subsequent marriage without a judicial declaration
of presumptive death of either party in the previous
marriage;
• Judicial Declaration of Presumptive Death
• A judicial declaration of presumptive death is mandatorily
required by law to be obtained by the present spouse only for the
purpose of capacitating the present spouse to remarry. For
purposes of remarriage, the period of absence to be able to
presume an absentee dead is 4 consecutive years and 2
consecutive years, if the disappearance occurred under the
following circumstances;
– a. A person on board a vessel lost during a sea voyage, or an
aeroplane which is missing, who has not been heard for four years
since the loss of the vessel or aeroplane;

– b. A person in the armed forces who has taken part in war,

and has been missing for four years;

– c. A person who has been in danger of death under other

circumstances and his existence has not been known for 4 years.
• AFFIDAVIT OF REAPPEARANCE:

• If the absent spouse reappears, such spouse can easily

terminate the subsequent marriage by executing a sworn
statement or affidavit of the fact and circumstance of such
reappearance and recording the same with due notice to the
spouses of the subsequent marriage. The subsequent marriage
is automatically terminated by the recording of the affidavit of
reappearance in the civil registry of the residence of the parties
to the subsequent marriage. Also any interested party may file
this affidavit of reappearance. This includes their parents, their
children, the present spouse and even the subsequent spouse.
• If the reappearing spouse or any interested party does not file
any affidavit of reappearance, the subsequent marriage remains
validly subsisting, while the first marriage is likewise considered
subsisting not having judicially nullified or annulled.
 EFFECTS IN THE TERMINATION OF SUBSEQUENT MARRIAGE
BY VIRTUE OF REAPPEARANCE OF THE ABSENT SPOUSE;
 1. Children conceived prior to the termination will be
considered as legitimate;

 2. The absolute community of property or the conjugal

partnership or the conjugal partnership, as the case may be,
shall be dissolved and liquidated, but if either spouse
contracted said marriage in bad faith, his or her share of the
net profits of the community property or the conjugal
partnership property shall be forfeited in favor of the
common children or; if there are none, the children of the
guilty spouse by a previous marriage or in default of
children, the innocent spouse;

 3. Donations by reason of marriage shall remain valid, except

that if the donee contracted the marriage in bad faith, such
donations made to said donee are revoked by operation of
law;
• 4. The innocent spouse may revoke the designation of the
other spouse who acted in bad faith as a beneficiary in any
insurance policy, even if such designation be stipulated as
irrevocable; and

• 5. The spouse who contracted the subsequent marriage in bad

faith shall be disqualified to inherit from the innocent spouse
by testate or intestate succession.
 • STATUS OF THE CHILDREN
• Children conceived during the subsequent marriage in cases of
presumptive death of one of the spouses and before termination
of the same shall be considered legitimate.
• The status of the children will be maintained even if one of the
contracting parties is in bad faith. It must be noted that such
subsequent marriage in cases of presumptive death can only be
considered void if, both spouses were in bad faith in contracting
the subsequent marriage (Art. 44). If only one is in bad faith, the
marriage would still be valid and hence, the children born inside
such marriage are legitimate.
 • TERMINATION OF THE PROPERTY REGIME

• The property regime shall be dissolved and liquidated. After

payment of all debts and obligations of the absolute
community or conjugal partnership, the spouses shall divide
the property equally or in accordance with the sharing
stipulated in a valid marriage settlement, unless there has been
a voluntary waiver of share by either of the spouses upon
judicial separation of the property.
• For purposes of computing the net profits subject to forfeiture,
the said profits shall be increase in value between the market
value of the community property at the time of the celebration
of the marriage and the market value at the time of its
dissolution.
 • DONATIONS BY REASON OF MARRIAGE

• Donations are essentially gratuitous, hence, if both parties are in

good faith, the donation by reason of marriage shall be valid even
in the event that the subsequent marriage has been terminated. It
shall also be valid even if the donor acted in bad faith in
contracting the marriage.
 • VOIDABLE / ANNULLABLE MARRIAGES
• 1. Marriages without parental consent;

• 2. Either party is of unsound mind;

• 3. Consent of one party is obtained through fraud;

• 4. Consent of either party was obtained by force, intimidation

or undue influence;

• 5. Either party was physically incapable of consummating the

marriage with the other and such incapacity continues and
appears to be incurable;

• 6. Either party was afflicted with a sexually transmissible

disease and appears to be incurable.
 • 1. NO PARENTAL CONSENT;

• The law considers persons of the age of at least 18 years and

below 21 years as not possessing that degree of maturity to be
able to comprehend thoroughly the consequences and serious
responsibilities of marital relations. Any marriages contracted by
persons of these ages are considered annullable at the instance
of the party whose parent, guardian or person having substitute
parental authority did not give his or her consent and of the
parents, guardian or person having substitute parental authority
over the party in that order.
 2. UNSOUND MIND

• To successfully invoke unsoundness of mind as a ground for

annulment, there must be such a derangement of the mind to
prevent the party from comprehending the nature of the
contract and from giving to it free and intelligent consent.

• Ordinarily, the mental incapacity must relate specifically to the

contract of marriage in order to affect it, and therefore any form
of mental disease that does not render the afflicted party
incapable of understanding or assenting to the marriage
contract cannot be used as a basis for attacking the validity of
the marriage.

• It is generally held that the burden of proof of insanity rests

upon him who alleges insanity, or seeks to avoid an act on
account of it, and it devolves upon him to establish the fact of
insanity by a preponderance of evidence.
• If however, a previous state of insanity is proved, the burden of
proof is then usually considered to shift to him who asserts that
the act was done while the person was sane, though it has been
frequently held that insanity which is not shown to be settled or
general as contradistinguished from a mere temporary aberration
or hallucination will not be presumed to continue until the
contrary is shown. A lucid interval is in its nature temporary and
uncertain in its duration, and there is no legal presumption of its
continuance.
 • 3. FRAUD;

• Refers to non-disclosure or concealment of certain

circumstances which materially affects the essence of marriage.
Hence, there is no fraud when there is no concealment or there is
disclosure.
• THE FOLLOWING SHALL CONSTITUTE FRAUD:
• 1) Non-disclosure of a previous conviction by a final judgment
of the other party of a crime involving moral turpitude;

• 2) Concealment by the wife of the fact that at the time of the

marriage, she was pregnant by a man other than her
husband;

• 3) Concealment of sexually transmissible disease, regardless

of its nature, existing at the time of the marriage;

• 4) Concealment of drug addiction, habitual alcoholism, or

homosexuality or lesbianism existing at the time of the
marriage.

• No other misrepresentation or deceit as to character, health,

rank, fortune or chastity shall constitute such fraud as will give
grounds for action for the annulment of marriage.
• Non-disclosure of a previous conviction by a final judgment of
the other party of a crime involving moral turpitude:
– Moral turpitude includes everything which is contrary to justice,
honesty, or good morals. Generally, the crimes punishable under
the Revised Penal Code are crimes involving moral turpitude.

Concealment by the wife of the fact that at the time of

marriage, she was pregnant by a man other than her
husband;
The concealment must have been done in bad faith. Mere pregnancy
alone at the time of the marriage is not sufficient to successfully
annul a marriage on this ground. There must be concealment of
such pregnancy by the wife. However, if the woman did not
expressly inform the man of her pregnancy but such physical
condition was readily apparent to the man, he cannot claim lack of
knowledge of such pregnancy. (Buccat vs. Buccat, 72 Phil. 19)
 Concealment of sexually transmissible disease, regardless of its
nature, existing at the time of the marriage;
 The nature of the gravity is irrelevant in order to invoke this ground. It
is enough that there was concealment of the sexually transmissible
disease at the time of the marriage ceremony to warrant annulment of
such marriage on the ground of fraud.

 Concealment of drug addiction, habitual alcoholism, or

homosexuality or lesbianism existing at the time of the marriage;
 Habitual alcoholism have been defined as the persistent habit of
becoming intoxicated, and that the nature and extent of drunkenness
must be such that the person by frequent indulgence may be said to
have a fixed and irresistible habit of drunkenness, whereby he has
lost the power or will to control his appetite for intoxicating liquor, as
where he indulges in the practice of intoxicated whenever the
temptation is presented and the opportunity offered.
 Habitual drunkenness is a ground to sever the marriage relations not
merely because it disqualifies the party from attending to business,
but in part, if not mainly, because it renders him unfit for the duties of
the marital relation and disqualifies him from properly rearing and
caring for the children born of the marriage.
– Concealment of drug addiction is another situation constituting
fraud. The deleterious and evil effects resulting from the continued
and excessive use of drugs, such as opium or morphine, are well
known, and that they interfere as much, to say the least, with the
happiness of married life, and produce other effects upon the
marriage relation as deplorable, as those resulting from use of
intoxicating liqours.

– Concealment of homosexuality and lesbianism. Homosexuality and

lesbianism indicate that questions of sexual identity strike so deeply
at one of the most basic elements of marriage which is the exlcusive
sexual bond between spouses.
 • 4. VITIATED CONSENT;

• It is not necessary that the coercion or force be such as a person

of ordinary physical and mental stability would be unable to
resist, and that if either party is mentally incapable of resisting
the improper pressure applied, there is no consent such as the
law requires. Violence constituting duress may be physical or
moral – that is, it may consist of the coercion of the person
continuing down to the moment of the celebration of marriage, or
of the coercion of the will by antecedent threats of bodily harm. In
the latter case, the person is forced to elect between consenting
to marry and exposure to the threatened evils.

• There is intimidation when one of the contracting parties is

compelled by a reasonable and well-grounded fear of imminent
and grave evil upon his person or property, or upon the person or
property of his spouse, descendants or ascendants, to give his
consent. To determine the degree of intimidation, the age, sex
and condition of the person shall be borne in mind.
 • 5. INCAPACITY TO CONSUMMATE;
• Incapacity to consummate denotes the permanent inability on the
part of one of the spouses to perform the complete act of sexual
intercourse.

• Non-consummation of a marriage may be on the part of the

husband or of the wife and may be caused by a physical or
structural defect in the anatomy of one of the parties or it may be
due to chronic illness and inhibitions or fears arising in whole or
in part from psychophysical conditions. It may also be caused by
psychogenic causes, where such mental block or disturbance
has the result of making the spouse physically incapable of
performing the marriage act. Al so, it has been held that
excessive sensibility, if medically and sufficiently proven on the
part of the wife, rendering sexual intercourse practically
impossible on account of the pain it must inflict, may be
sufficient to show incapacity.
 • RULE OF TRIENNIAL COHABITATION
•
• This rule postulates that if the wife remains a virgin for at least 3
years from the time that spouses started cohabiting, the
husband must show that he was not impotent during the said
period and the burden will upon him to overcome the
presumption of impotence.
 STERILITY

• Sterility is not impotency. A sterile person can successfully

engage in sexual cotion. Sterility does not imply want of power
for copulation. Hence, sterility is not a ground for annulment.
 • 6. SEXUALLY TRANSMISSIBLE DISEASE;

• If the sexually transmissible disease were concealed at the time

of the marriage ceremony, it constitutes fraud. Sexually
transmissible disease in cases of fraud need not be incurable. If
the sexually transmissible disease is not concealed, it can still be
a ground for annulment of marriage but, to successfully invoke
this ground, the sexually transmissible disease, unlike in the
case of fraud must be found to be serious and incurable.
• If the venereal disease or sexually transmissible disease were
obtained after the marriage ceremony, it cannot be a ground for
annulment. However, it can be a ground for legal separation
considering that generally, such disease is communicated
through sexual contact.