Domingo vs CA same.

With this, the said person is freed from being charged

Domingo vs. CA with bigamy.
226 SCRA 572
When a marriage is declared void ab initio, law states that final
FACTS: judgment shall provide for the liquidation, partition and
distribution of the properties of the spouses, the custody and
Soledad Domingo, married with Roberto Domingo in 1976, support of the common children and the delivery of their
filed a petition for the declaration of nullity of marriage and presumptive legitimes, unless such matters had been
separation of property. She did not know that Domingo had adjudicated in previous judicial proceedings. Soledad’s prayer
been previously married to Emerlinda dela Paz in 1969. She for separation of property will simply be the necessary
came to know the previous marriage when the latter filed a suit consequence of the judicial declaration of absolute nullity of
of bigamy against her. Furthermore, when she came home their marriage. Hence, the petitioner’s suggestion that for their
from Saudi during her one-month leave from work, she properties be separated, an ordinary civil action has to be
discovered that Roberto cohabited with another woman and instituted for that purpose is baseless. The Family Code has
had been disposing some of her properties which is clearly provided the effects of the declaration of nullity of
administered by Roberto. The latter claims that because their marriage, one of which is the separation of property according
marriage was void ab initio, the declaration of such voidance is to the regime of property relations governing them.
unnecessary and superfluous. On the other hand, Soledad
insists the declaration of the nullity of marriage not for the Republic v. CA and Molina Case Digest
purpose of remarriage, but in order to provide a basis for the
separation and distribution of properties acquired during the Republic v. CA and Molina
marriage. GR 108763, 13 February 1997

ISSUE: Whether or not a petition for judicial declaration Facts:

should only be filed for purposes of remarriage.
Roridel Olaviano was married to Reynaldo Molina on 14 April
HELD: 1985 in Manila, and gave birth to a son a year after. Reynaldo
showed signs of “immaturity and irresponsibility” on the early
The declaration of the nullity of marriage is indeed required for stages of the marriage, observed from his tendency to spend
purposed of remarriage. However, it is also necessary for the time with his friends and squandering his money with them,
protection of the subsequent spouse who believed in good faith from his dependency from his parents, and his dishonesty on
that his or her partner was not lawfully married marries the matters involving his finances. Reynaldo was relieved of his
job in 1986, Roridel became the sole breadwinner thereafter. In
March 1987, Roridel resigned from her job in Manila and
proceeded to Baguio City. Reynaldo left her and their child a defeats the very objectives of marriage, warrants the
week later. The couple is separated-in-fact for more than three dissolution of the marriage.
years.
The Court reiterated its ruling in Santos v. Court of Appeals,
On 16 August 1990, Roridel filed a verified petition for where psychological incapacity should refer to no less than a
declaration of nullity of her marriage to Reynaldo Molina. mental (not physical) incapacity, existing at the time the
Evidence for Roridel consisted of her own testimony, that of marriage is celebrated, and that there is hardly any doubt that
two of her friends, a social worker, and a psychiatrist of the the intendment of the law has been to confine the meaning of
Baguio General Hospital and Medical Center. Reynaldo did not ‘psychological incapacity’ to the most serious cases of
present any evidence as he appeared only during the pre-trial personality disorders clearly demonstrative of an utter
conference. On 14 May 1991, the trial court rendered judgment insensitivity or inability to give meaning and significance to
declaring the marriage void. The Solicitor General appealed to the marriage. Psychological incapacity must be characterized
the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals denied the appeals by gravity, juridical antecedence, and incurability. In the
and affirmed in toto the RTC’s decision. Hence, the present present case, there is no clear showing to us that the
recourse. psychological defect spoken of is an incapacity; but appears to
be more of a “difficulty,” if not outright “refusal” or “neglect”
Issue: in the performance of some marital obligations. Mere showing
of “irreconcilable differences” and “conflicting personalities”
Whether opposing or conflicting personalities should be in no wise constitutes psychological incapacity.
construed as psychological incapacity
The Court, in this case, promulgated the guidelines in the
Held: interpretation and application of Article 36 of the Family Code,
removing any visages of it being the most liberal divorce
The Court of Appeals erred in its opinion the Civil Code procedure in the world: (1) The burden of proof belongs to the
Revision Committee intended to liberalize the application of plaintiff; (2) the root cause of psychological incapacity must be
Philippine civil laws on personal and family rights, and holding medically or clinically identified, alleged in the complaint,
psychological incapacity as a broad range of mental and sufficiently proven by expert, and clearly explained in the
behavioral conduct on the part of one spouse indicative of how decision; (3) The incapacity must be proven existing at the time
he or she regards the marital union, his or her personal of the celebration of marriage; (4) the incapacity must be
relationship with the other spouse, as well as his or her conduct clinically or medically permanent or incurable; (5) such illness
in the long haul for the attainment of the principal objectives of must be grave enough; (6) the essential marital obligation must
marriage; where said conduct, observed and considered as a be embraced by Articles 68 to 71 of the Family Code as
whole, tends to cause the union to self-destruct because it regards husband and wife, and Articles 220 to 225 of the same
code as regards parents and their children; (7) interpretation
made by the National Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal of the Leouel filed a complaint to have their marriage declared void
Catholic Church, and (8) the trial must order the fiscal and the under Article 36 of the Family Code. He argued that failure of
Solicitor-General to appeal as counsels for the State. Julia to return home or to communicate with him for more than
5 years are circumstances that show her being psychologically
The Supreme Court granted the petition, and reversed and set incapacitated to enter into married life.
aside the assailed decision; concluding that the marriage of
Roridel Olaviano to Reynaldo Molina subsists and remains ISSUE: Whether their marriage can be considered void under
valid. Article 36 of the Family Code.
___________________________________________________
HELD:
Leouel Santos vs CA
Leouel Santos vs. CA The intendment of the law has been to confine the meaning of
GR No. 112019, January 4, 1995 psychological incapacity to the most serious cases of personal
disorders clearly demonstrative of an utter insensitivity or
FACTS: inability to give meaning and significance to the
marriage. This condition must exist at the time the marriage is
Leouel, a First Lieutenant in the Philippine Army, met Julia in celebrated.
Iloilo. The two got married in 1986 before a municipal trial
court followed shortly thereafter, by a church wedding. The Undeniably and understandably, Leouel stands aggrieved, even
couple lived with Julia’s parents at the J. Bedia desperate, in his present situation. Regrettably, neither law nor
Compound. Julia gave birth to a baby boy in 1987 and was society itself can always provide all the specific answers to
named as Leouel Santos Jr. Occasionally, the couple will every individual problem. Wherefore, his petition was denied.
quarrel over a number of things aside from the interference of __________________________________________________
Julia’s parents into their family affairs.
Republic vs. Quintero-Hamano Case Digest
Julia left in 1988 to work in US as a nurse despite Leouel’s Republic vs. Quintero-Hamano
pleas to dissuade her. Seven months after her departure, she G.R. No. 149498 May 20, 2004
called her husband and promised to return home upon the
expiration of her contract in July 1989 but she never Facts: Respondent Lolita Quintero-Hamano filed a complaint
did. Leouel got a chance to visit US where he underwent a for declaration of nullity of her marriage to her husband Toshio
training program under AFP, he desperately tried to locate or Hamano, a Japanese national, on the ground of psychological
somehow get in touch with Julia but all his efforts were of no incapacity. Respondent alleged that she and Toshio started a
avail. common-law relationship in Japan. They later lived in the
Philippines for a month. Thereafter, Toshio went back to Japan presume psychological defect from the mere fact that Toshio
and stayed there for half of 1987. On November 16, 1987, she abandoned his family immediately after the celebration of the
gave birth to their child. marriage. It is not enough to prove that a spouse failed to meet
his responsibility and duty as a married person; it is essential
On January 14, 1988, she and Toshio were married by Judge that he must be shown to be incapable of doing so due to some
Isauro M. Balderia of the Municipal Trial Court of Bacoor, psychological, not physical, illness. There was no proof of a
Cavite. Unknown to respondent, Toshio was psychologically natal or supervening disabling factor in the person, an adverse
incapacitated to assume his marital responsibilities, which integral element in the personality structure that effectively
incapacity became manifest only after the marriage. One month incapacitates a person from accepting and complying with the
after their marriage, Toshio returned to Japan and promised to obligations essential to marriage.
return by Christmas to celebrate the holidays with his family.
After sending money to respondent for two months, Toshio In proving psychological incapacity, the court finds no
stopped giving financial support. She wrote him several times distinction between an alien spouse and a Filipino spouse. It
but he never responded. Sometime in 1991, respondent learned cannot be lenient in the application of the rules merely because
from her friends that Toshio visited the Philippines but he did the spouse alleged to be psychologically incapacitated happens
not bother to see her and their child. to be a foreign national. The medical and clinical rules to
determine psychological incapacity were formulated on the
Issue: Whether or not abandonment by one spouse tantamount basis of studies of human behavior in general. Hence, the
to psychological incapacity. norms used for determining psychological incapacity should
apply to any person regardless of nationality.
Ruling: The court find that the totality of evidence presented
fell short of proving that Toshio was psychologically ___________________________________________________
incapacitated to assume his marital responsibilities. Toshio’s
act of abandonment was doubtlessly irresponsible but it was Choa vs. Choa Case Digest
never alleged nor proven to be due to some kind of Choa vs. Choa
psychological illness. After respondent testified on how Toshio G.R. No. 143376 November 26, 2002
abandoned his family, no other evidence was presented
showing that his behavior was caused by a psychological Facts: Leni Choa, petitioner, and Alfonso Choa, respondent,
disorder. were married on March 15, 1981. Out of this union, two
children were born. On October 27, 1993, respondent filed a
Abandonment is also a ground for legal separation. There was complaint for the annulment of his marriage to petitioner. Also
no showing that the case at bar was not just an instance of filed an amended complaint for the declaration of nullity of his
abandonment in the context of legal separation. It cannot marriage based on her alleged psychological incapacity. The
case went on trial with the respondent presenting his evidence. erroneous, but also grave abuse of discretion bordering on
However, petitioner filed a motion to dismiss the evidence. absurdity.
RTC denied petitioner’s demurrer to evidence on the ground
that petitioner must controvert the established quantum Court clearly explained that "psychological incapacity must be
evidence of respondent. Petitioner elevated the case to CA after characterized by (a) gravity, (b) juridical antecedence and (c)
the motion of reconsideration was denied. CA held that denial incurability. The evidence adduced by respondent merely
of the demurrer was merely interlocutory and petitioner in her shows that he and his wife could not get along with each other.
defense must present evidence. There was absolutely no showing of the gravity or juridical
antecedence or incurability of the problems besetting their
Issue: Whether or not petitioner’s obligated to present her marital union.
evidence despite the inadequate evidence of respondent in the ___________________________________________________
annulment of marriage case grounded on psychological
incapacity. Antonio vs Reyes Case Digest
Antonio vs. Reyes
Ruling: The petition is meritorious. However, the evidence G.R. No. 155800 March 10, 2006
against petitioner is grossly insufficient to support any finding
of psychological incapacity that would warrant a declaration of Facts: Leonilo Antonio, petitioner, filed a petition to have his
nullity of the parties’ marriage. marriage to Marie Reyes, respondent, declared null and void.
He anchored his petition for nullity on Article 36 of the Family
Respondent claims that the filing by petitioner of a series of Code alleging that respondent was psychologically
charges against him are proof of the latter’s psychological incapacitated to comply with the essential marital obligations
incapacity to comply with the essential obligations of marriage. of marriage. He asserted that respondent’s incapacity existed at
These charges included Complaints for perjury, false the time their marriage was celebrated and still subsists up to
testimony, concubinage and deportation. the present.

The documents presented by respondent during the trial do not As manifestations of respondent’s alleged psychological
in any way show the alleged psychological incapacity of his incapacity, petitioner claimed that respondent persistently lied
wife. It is the height of absurdity and inequity to condemn her about herself, the people around her, her occupation, income,
as psychologically incapacitated to fulfill her marital educational attainment and other events or things.
obligations, simply because she filed cases against him. The
evidence presented merely establishes the prosecution of the In support of his petition, petitioner presented Dr. Abcede, a
cases against him. To rule that the filings are sufficient to psychiatrist, and Dr. Lopez, a clinical psychologist, who stated,
establish her psychological incapacity is not only totally based on the tests they conducted, that petitioner was
essentially a normal, introspective, shy and conservative type
of person. On the other hand, they observed that respondent’s lies and the pathologic nature of her mistruths, which according
persistent and constant lying to petitioner was abnormal or to them, were revelatory of respondent’s inability to understand
pathological. It undermined the basic relationship that should and perform the essential obligations of marriage. Indeed, a
be based on love, trust and respect. They further asserted that person unable to distinguish between fantasy and reality would
respondent’s extreme jealousy was also pathological. It reached similarly be unable to comprehend the legal nature of the
the point of paranoia since there was no actual basis for her to marital bond, much less its psychic meaning, and the
suspect that petitioner was having an affair with another corresponding obligations attached to marriage, including
woman. They concluded based on the foregoing that parenting. One unable to adhere to reality cannot be expected
respondent was psychologically incapacitated to perform her to adhere as well to any legal or emotional commitments.
essential marital obligations.
Clearly in this case, there was no categorical averment from the
After trial, the lower court gave credence to petitioner’s expert witnesses that respondent’s psychological incapacity
evidence and held that respondent’s propensity to lying about was curable or incurable. From the totality of the evidence,
almost anything−her occupation, state of health, singing however, the court is sufficiently convinced that the
abilities and her income, among others−had been duly incurability of respondent’s psychological incapacity has been
established. According to the trial court, respondent’s fantastic established by the petitioner.
ability to invent and fabricate stories and personalities enabled
her to live in a world of make-believe. This made her ___________________________________________________
psychologically incapacitated as it rendered her incapable of
giving meaning and significance to her marriage. The trial Chi Ming Tsoi vs CA
court thus declared the marriage between petitioner and Chi Ming Tsoi vs. CA
respondent null and void. GR No. 119190, January 16, 1997
FACTS:
Issue: Whether or not there is sufficient basis/showing of
psychological incapacity as to render the marriage null and Chi Ming Tsoi and Gina Lao Tsoi was married in 1988. After
void. the celebration of their wedding, they proceed to the house of
defendant’s mother. There was no sexual intercourse between
Ruling: It should be noted that the lies attributed to respondent them during their first night and same thing happened until
were not adopted as false pretenses in order to induce petitioner their fourth night. In an effort to have their honeymoon in a
into marriage. More disturbingly, they indicate a failure on the private place, they went to Baguio but Gina’s relatives went
part of respondent to distinguish truth from fiction, or at least with them. Again, there was no sexual intercourse since the
abide by the truth. Petitioner’s witnesses and the trial court defendant avoided by taking a long walk during siesta or
were emphatic on respondent’s inveterate proclivity to telling sleeping on a rocking chair at the living room. Since May
1988 until March 1989 they slept together in the same bed but
no attempt of sexual intercourse between them. Because of
this, they submitted themselves for medical examination to a If a spouse, although physically capable but simply refuses to
urologist in Chinese General Hospital in 1989. The result of perform his or her essential marital obligations and the refusal
the physical examination of Gina was disclosed, while that of is senseless and constant, Catholic marriage tribunals attribute
the husband was kept confidential even the medicine the causes to psychological incapacity than to stubborn
prescribed. There were allegations that the reason why Chi refusal. Furthermore, one of the essential marital obligations
Ming Tsoi married her is to maintain his residency status here under the Family Code is to procreate children thus constant
in the country. Gina does not want to reconcile with Chi Ming non-fulfillment of this obligation will finally destroy the
Tsoi and want their marriage declared void on the ground of integrity and wholeness of the marriage.
psychological incapacity. On the other hand, the latter does not
want to have their marriage annulled because he loves her very
much, he has no defect on his part and is physically and ___________________________________________________
psychologically capable and since their relationship is still
young, they can still overcome their differences. Chi Ming Te vs Te
Tsoi submitted himself to another physical examination and the Te vs. Te
result was there is not evidence of impotency and he is capable GR No. 161793, February 13, 2009
of erection.
FACTS:

Petitioner Edward Te first met respondent Rowena Te in a

ISSUE: Whether Chi Ming Tsoi’s refusal to have sexual gathering organized by the Filipino-Chinese association in their
intercourse with his wife constitutes psychological incapacity. college. Initially, he was attracted to Rowena’s close friend
but, as the latter already had a boyfriend, the young man
decided to court Rowena, which happened in January 1996. It
was Rowena who asked that they elope but Edward refused
HELD: bickering that he was young and jobless. Her persistence,
however, made him relent. They left Manila and sailed to
The abnormal reluctance or unwillingness to consummate his Cebu that month; he, providing their travel money of P80,000
marriage is strongly indicative of a serious personality disorder and she, purchasing the boat ticket.
which to the mind of the Supreme Court clearly demonstrates
an utter insensitivity or inability to give meaning and They decided to go back to Manila in April 1996. Rowena
significance tot the marriage within the meaning of Article 36 proceeded to her uncle’s house and Edward to his parents’
of the Family Code. home. Eventually they got married but without a marriage
license. Edward was prohibited from getting out of the house
unaccompanied and was threatened by Rowena and her The presentation of expert proof presupposes a thorough and
uncle. After a month, Edward escaped from the house, and in-depth assessment of the parties by the psychologist or
stayed with his parents. Edward’s parents wanted them to stay expert, for a conclusive diagnosis of a grave, severe and
at their house but Rowena refused and demanded that they incurable presence of psychological incapacity.
have a separate abode. In June 1996, she said that it was better
for them to live separate lives and they then parted ways. Indeed, petitioner, afflicted with dependent personality
disorder, cannot assume the essential marital obligations of
After four years in January 2000, Edward filed a petition for living together, observing love, respect and fidelity and
the annulment of his marriage to Rowena on the basis of the rendering help and support, for he is unable to make everyday
latter’s psychological incapacity. decisions without advice from others, and allows others to
make most of his important decisions (such as where to
ISSUE: Whether the marriage contracted is void on the ground live). As clearly shown in this case, petitioner followed
of psychological incapacity. everything dictated to him by the persons around him. He is
insecure, weak and gullible, has no sense of his identity as a
HELD: person, has no cohesive self to speak of, and has no goals and
clear direction in life.
The parties’ whirlwind relationship lasted more or less six
months. They met in January 1996, eloped in March, As for the respondent, her being afflicted with antisocial
exchanged marital vows in May, and parted ways in June. The personality disorder makes her unable to assume the essential
psychologist who provided expert testimony found both parties marital obligations on account for her disregard in the rights of
psychologically incapacitated. Petitioner’s behavioral pattern others, her abuse, mistreatment and control of others without
falls under the classification of dependent personality disorder, remorse, and her tendency to blame others. Moreover, as
and respondent’s, that of the narcissistic and antisocial shown in this case, respondent is impulsive and domineering;
personality disorder she had no qualms in manipulating petitioner with her threats
of blackmail and of committing suicide.
There is no requirement that the person to be declared
psychologically incapacitated be personally examined by a Both parties being afflicted with grave, severe and incurable
physician, if the totality of evidence presented is enough to psychological incapacity, the precipitous marriage that they
sustain a finding of psychological incapacity. Verily, the contracted on April 23, 1996 is thus, declared null and void.
evidence must show a link, medical or the like, between the
acts that manifest psychological incapacity and the __________________________________________________
psychological disorder itself.
 Morigo vs People of the Philippines Case Digest case. His motion was granted, but subsequently denied upon
Morigo vs. People of the Philippines motion for reconsideration by the prosecution. When arraigned
G. R. No. 145226 February 6, 2004 in the bigamy case, Lucio pleaded not guilty to the charge.

Facts: Appellant Lucio Morigo and Lucia Barrete were Issue: Whether or not Lucio Morigo committed bigamy even
boardmates at the house of Catalina Tortor at Tagbilaran City, with his defense of good faith.
for a period of four years. After school year, Lucio Morigo and
Lucia Barrete lost contact with each other. In 1984, Lucio Ruling: A judicial declaration of nullity of a previous marriage
Morigo was surprised to receive a card from Lucia Barrete is necessary before a subsequent one can be legally contracted.
from Singapore. The former replied and after an exchange of One who enters into a subsequent marriage without first
letters, they became sweethearts. In 1986, Lucia returned to the obtaining such judicial declaration is guilty of bigamy. This
Philippines but left again for Canada to work there. While in principle applies even if the earlier union is characterized by
Canada, they maintained constant communication. In 1990, statutes as "void."
Lucia came back to the Philippines and proposed to petition
appellant to join her in Canada. Both agreed to get married. In the instant case, however, no marriage ceremony at all was
Lucia reported back to her work in Canada leaving appellant performed by a duly authorized solemnizing officer. Lucio
Lucio behind. Morigo and Lucia Barrete merely signed a marriage contract
on their own. The mere private act of signing a marriage
On August 19, 1991, Lucia filed with the Ontario Court a contract bears no semblance to a valid marriage and thus, needs
petition for divorce against appellant which was granted by the no judicial declaration of nullity. Such act alone, without more,
court. Appellant Lucio Morigo married Maria Jececha cannot be deemed to constitute an ostensibly valid marriage for
Lumbago at Tagbilaran City. Lucio filed a complaint for which Lucio might be held liable for bigamy unless he first
judicial declaration of nullity of marriage in the Regional Trial secures a judicial declaration of nullity before he contracts a
Court of Bohol. The complaint seeks among others, the subsequent marriage. The law abhors an injustice and the Court
declaration of nullity of Lucio’s marriage with Lucia, on the is mandated to liberally construe a penal statute in favor of an
ground that no marriage ceremony actually took place. accused and weigh every circumstance in favor of the
Appellant was charged with Bigamy in information filed by the presumption of innocence to ensure that justice is done. Under
City Prosecutor of Tagbilaran City, with the Regional Trial the circumstances of the present case, Supreme Court held that
Court of Bohol. petitioner has not committed bigamy and that it need not tarry
on the issue of the validity of his defense of good faith or lack
Lucio Morigo moved for suspension of the arraignment on the of criminal intent, which is now moot and academic.
ground that the civil case for judicial nullification of his ___________________________________________________
marriage with Lucia posed a prejudicial question in the bigamy
 Wiegel vs Sempio-Dy Terre vs Terre
Wiegel vs. Sempio-Dy Terre vs. Terre
143 SCRA 449 211 SCRA 6

FACTS: FACTS:

Karl Wiegel was married to Lilia Wiegel on July 1978. Lilia Dorothy Terre was then married to a certain Merlito Bercenillo,
was married with a certain Eduardo Maxion in 1972. Karl then her first cousin. Atty. Jordan Terre successfully convinced
filed a petition in the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court Dorothy that her marriage was void ab initio for the reason of
for the declaration of nullity of his marriage with Lilia on the public policy and that they are free to contract marriage. They
ground of latter’s former marriage. Having been allegedly got married in 1977 where he wrote single under Dorothy’s
force to enter into a marital union, she contents that the first status. After getting Dorothy pregnant, Atty. Terre abandoned
marriage is null and void. Lilia likewise alleged that Karl was them and subsequently contracted another marriage to Helina
married to another woman before their marriage. Malicdem in 1986. Atty. Terre was charged with abandonment
of minor and bigamy.
ISSUE: Whether Karl’s marriage with Lilia is void.
ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Terre’s marriage with Dorothy is
HELD: null and void.

It was not necessary for Lilia to prove that her first marriage HELD:
was vitiated with force because it will not be void but merely
voidable. Such marriage is valid until annulled. Since no Dorothy’s first marriage is indeed void ab initio considering
annulment has yet been made, it is clear that when she married that Merlito is her first cousin thereby against public
Karl, she is still validly married to her first policy. However, she did not file any declaration for the
husband. Consequently, her marriage to Karl is nullity of their marriage before she contracted her marriage
void. Likewise, there is no need of introducing evidence on the with Atty. Terre thus, her second marriage is void. Article 40
prior marriage of Karl for then such marriage though void still states that the absolute nullity of a former marriage may be
needs a judicial declaration before he can invoked for the purposes of remarriage on the basis solely of a
remarry. Accordingly, Karl and Lilia’s marriage are regarded final judgment declaring such previous marriage void.
void under the law.
___________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________
 Valdes vs RTC contributed thereto jointly if said party’s efforts consisted in
Valdes vs. RTC the care and maintenance of the family.
260 SCRA 221
People vs Aragon
FACTS: People vs. Aragon
100 Phil 1033
Antonio Valdez and Consuelo Gomez were married in 1971
and begotten 5 children. Valdez filed a petition in 1992 for a FACTS:
declaration of nullity of their marriage pursuant to Article 36 of
the Family Code, which was granted hence, marriage is null Proceso Rosima contracted marriage with Gorrea. While his
and void on the ground of their mutual psychological marriage with the latter subsist, he contracted a canonical
incapacity. Stella and Joaquin are placed under the custody of marriage with Faicol. Gorrea is staying in Cebu while Faicol is
their mother while the other 3 siblings are free to choose which in Iloilo. He was a traveling salesman thus, he commuted
they prefer. between Iloilo and Cebu. When Gorrea died, he brought Faicol
to Cebu where the latter worked as teacher-nurse. She later on
Gomez sought a clarification of that portion in the decision suffered injuries in her eyes caused by physical maltreatment
regarding the procedure for the liquidation of common property of Rosima and was sent to Iloilo to undergo treatment. While
in “unions without marriage”. During the hearing on the she was in Iloilo, Rosima contracted a third marriage with
motion, the children filed a joint affidavit expressing desire to Maglasang. CFI-Cebu found him guilty of bigamy.
stay with their father.
ISSUE: Whether or not the third marriage is null and void.
ISSUE: Whether or not the property regime should be based
on co-ownership. HELD:

HELD: The action was instituted upon the complaint of the second
wife whose marriage with Rosima was not renewed after the
The Supreme Court ruled that in a void marriage, regardless of death of the first wife and before the third marriage was
the cause thereof, the property relations of the parties are entered into. Hence, the last marriage was a valid one and
governed by the rules on co-ownership. Any property acquired prosecution against Rosima for contracting marriage cannot
during the union is prima facie presumed to have been obtained prosper.
through their joint efforts. A party who did not participate in
the acquisition of the property shall be considered as having
 Mercado vs Tan
Mercado vs. Tan
337 SCRA 122 Republic vs Nolasco
Republic vs. Nolasco
FACTS: 220 SCRA 20

Dr. Vicent Mercado was previously married with Thelma Oliva FACTS:
in 1976 before he contracted marriage with Consuelo Tan in
1991 which the latter claims she did not know. Tan filed Gregorio Nolasco is a seaman. He met Janet Parker, a British,
bigamy against Mercado and after a month the latter filed an in bar in England. After that, Janet started living with Nolasco
action for declaration of nullity of marriage against Oliva. The in his ship for six months. It lasted until the contract of
decision in 1993 declared marriage between Mercado and Nolasco expired then he brought her to his hometown in
Oliva null and void. Antique. They got married in January 1982. Due to another
contract, Nolasco left the province. In 1983, Nolasco received
ISSUE: Whether Mercado committed bigamy in spite of filing a letter from his mother informing him that his son had been
the declaration of nullity of the former marriage. born but 15 days after, Janet left. Nolasco went home and cut
short his contract to find Janet’s whereabouts. He did so by
HELD: securing another seaman’s contract going to London. He wrote
several letters to the bar where they first met but it was all
A judicial declaration of nullity of a previous marriage is returned. Gregorio petitioned in 1988 for a declaration of
necessary before a subsequent one can be legally presumptive death of Janet.
contracted. One who enters into a subsequent marriage without
first obtaining such judicial declaration is guilty of ISSUE: Whether or not Nolasco had a well-founded belief that
bigamy. This principle applies even if the earlier union is his wife, Janet, is already dead?
characterized by statute as “void.”
HELD:
In the case at bar, Mercado only filed the declaration of nullity
of his marriage with Oliva right after Tan filed bigamy The Supreme Court ruled that Nolasco’s efforts to locate Janet
case. Hence, by then, the crime had already been were not persistent to show that he has a well-founded belief
consummated. He contracted second marriage without the that his wife was already dead because instead of seeking
judicial declaration of the nullity. The fact that the first assistance of local authorities and the British Embassy, he even
marriage is void from the beginning is not a defense in a secured another contract. More so, while he was in London, he
bigamy charge.
did not even try to solicit help of the authorities to find his of the absentee. For the celebration of civil marriage, however,
wife. the law only requires that the former spouse has been absent
for seven consecutive years at the time of the second marriage,
that the spouse present does not know his or her former spouse
to be living, that each former spouse is generally reputed to be
Lukban vs Republic dead and the spouse present so believes at the time of the
Lukban vs Republic celebration of the marriage.
L-8492, February 29, 1956

FACTS: Armas vs Calisterio

Armas vs. Calisterio
Lourdes Lukban and Francisco Chuidian got married in 1933 GR No. 136467, April 6, 2000
and after a violent quarrel he left Lukban and has not been
heard of since then. She diligently looked for him asking the FACTS:
parents and friends but no one knew his whereabouts. She
believes that husband is already dead since he was absent for Teodorico Calisterio, husband of Marietta Calisterio, the
more than 20 years and because she intends to marry again, she respondent, died intestate in April 1992 leaving several parcel
desires to have her civil status put in order to be relieved on of land estimated value of P604,750.00. He was the second
any liability under the law. husband of Marietta who was previously married with William
Bounds in January 1946. The latter disappeared without a
ISSUE: Whether Lukban needs to secure declaration of trace in February 1947. 11 years later from the disappearance
presumptive death before she can remarry. of Bounds, Marietta and Teodorico were married in May 1958
without Marietta securing a court declaration of Bounds’
HELD: presumptive death.

The court ruled that Lukban does not need to secure declaration Antonia Armas y Calisterio, surviving sister of Teodorico filed
of presumptive death of her husband because Civil Code a petition claiming to be the sole surviving heir of the latter and
prevails during their marriage in 1933. It provides that “for the that marriage between Marietta and his brother being allegedly
purposes of the civil marriage law, it is not necessary to have bigamous is thereby null and void. She prayed that her son
the former spouse judicially declared an absentee. The Sinfroniano be appointed as administrator, without bond, of the
declaration of absence made in accordance with the provisions estate of the deceased and inheritance be adjudicated to her
of the Civil Code has for its sole purpose to enable the taking after all the obligations of the estate would have been settled.
of the necessary precautions for the administration of the estate
ISSUE: Whether Marrieta and Teodorico’s marriage was void left without notice. He then sought help from the Barangay
due to the absence of the declaration of presumptive death. Captain. For sometime, Alan decided to work as part-time taxi
driver and during his free time he would look for Lea in the
HELD: malls. In June 2001, Alan reported Lea’s disappearance to the
local police station and an alarm notice was issued. He also
The marriage between the respondent and the deceased was reported the disappearance in NBI on July 2001. Alan filed a
solemnized in May 1958 where the law in force at that time petition in March 2001 for the declaration of presumptive death
was the Civil Code and not the Family Code which only took of his wife.
effect in August 1988. Article 256 of the Family Code itself
limit its retroactive governance only to cases where it thereby
would not prejudice or impair vested or acquired rights in ISSUE: Whether Alan has a well-founded belief that his wife
accordance with the Civil Code or other laws. Since Civil is already dead.
Code provides that declaration of presumptive death is not
essential before contracting marriage where at least 7
consecutive years of absence of the spouse is enough to HELD:
remarry then Marrieta’s marriage with Teodorico is valid and
therefore she has a right can claim portion of the estate.
The court ruled that Alan failed to prove that he has a well-
founded belief, before he filed his petition with RTC, that his
Republic vs CA spouse was dead. He failed to present a witness other than the
Republic vs. CA Barangay Captain. He even failed to present those friends of
GR No. 159614, December 9, 2005 Lea which he inquired to corroborate his testimony. He also
failed to make inquiries from his parents-in-law regarding
Lea’s whereabouts before filing his petition in the RTC. It
FACTS: could have enhanced his credibility had he made inquiries from
his parents-in-law about Lea's whereabouts considering that
Alan Alegro, the petitioner, was married with Lea in January Lea's father was the owner of Radio DYMS. He did report and
1995. Lea arrived home late in February 1995 and Alan told seek help of the local police authorities and NBI to locate Lea
her that if she enjoys life of a single person, it will be better for but he did so only after the OSG filed its notice to dismiss his
her to go back to her parents. Lea left after that fight. Allan petition in RTC.
checked if she went to her parents’ house but was not there and
even inquired to her friends. He went back to the parents-in-
law’s house and learned that Lea had been to their house but
 Valdez vs Republic
Anaya vs Palaroan
Valdez vs. Republic Anaya vs. Palaroan
GR No. 180863, September 8, 2009 36 SCRA 97

FACTS: FACTS:

Angelita Valdez was married with Sofio in January 1971. She Aurora Anaya and Fernando Palaroan were married in
gave birth to a baby girl named Nancy. They argued constantly 1953. Palaroan filed an action for annulment of the marriage in
because Sofio was unemployed and did not bring home any 1954 on the ground that his consent was obtained through force
money. In March 1972, the latter left their house. Angelita and intimidation. The complaint was dismissed and upheld the
and her child waited until in May 1972, they decided to go validity of the marriage and granting Aurora’s
back to her parent’s home. 3 years have passed without any counterclaim. While the amount of counterclaim was being
word from Sofio until in October 1975 when he showed up and negotiated, Fernando divulged to her that several months prior
they agreed to separate and executed a document to that to their marriage, he had pre-marital relationship with a close
effect. It was the last time they saw each other and had never relative of his. According to her, the non-divulgement to her of
heard of ever since. Believing that Sofio was already dead, such pre-marital secret constituted fraud in obtaining her
petitioner married Virgilio Reyes in June 1985. Virgilio’s consent. She prayed for the annulment of her marriage with
application for naturalization in US was denied because Fernando on such ground.
petitioner’s marriage with Sofio was subsisting. Hence, in
March 2007, petitioner filed a petition seeking declaration of ISSUE: Whether or not the concealment to a wife by her
presumptive death of Sofio. husband of his pre-marital relationship with another woman is
a ground for annulment of marriage.
ISSUE: Whether or not petitioner’s marriage with Virgilio is
valid despite lack of declaration of presumptive death of Sofio. HELD:
The concealment of a husband’s pre-marital relationship with
HELD: another woman was not one of those enumerated that would
constitute fraud as ground for annulment and it is further
The court ruled that no decree on the presumption of Sofio’s excluded by the last paragraph providing that “no other
death is necessary because Civil Code governs during 1971 and misrepresentation or deceit as to.. chastity” shall give ground
not Family Code where at least 7 consecutive years of absence for an action to annul a marriage. Hence, the case at bar does
is only needed. Thus, petitioner was capacitated to marry not constitute fraud and therefore would not warrant an
Virgilio and their marriage is legal and valid. annulment of marriage.
 hard to say that her pregnancy was readily apparent especially
Aquino vs Delizo since she was “naturally plump” or fat. It is only on the
Aquino vs. Delizo 6thmonth of pregnancy that the enlargement of the woman’s
109 Phil 21 abdomen reaches a height above the umbilicus, making the
roundness of the abdomen more general and apparent.
FACTS:
In the following circumstances, the court remanded the case for
Fernando Aquino filed a complaint in September 1955 on the new trial and decision complained is set aside.
ground of fraud against Conchita Delizo that at the date of her
marriage with the former on December 1954, concealed the
fact that she was pregnant by another man and sometime in
April 1955 or about 4 months after their marriage, gave birth to
a child. During the trial, Provincial Fiscal Jose Goco represent
the state in the proceedings to prevent collusion. Only Aquino
testified and the only documentary evidence presented was the
marriage contract between the parties. Delizo did not appear
nor presented any evidence.

CFI-Rizal dismissed petitioner’s complaint for annulment of

marriage, which was affirmed by CA thus a petition for
certiorari to review the decisions.

ISSUE: Whether or not concealment of pregnancy as alleged

by Aquino does not constitute such fraud as would annul a Jimenez vs Canizares
marriage. Jimenez vs. Canizares
L-12790, August 31, 1960
HELD:
FACTS:
The concealment by the wife of the fact that at the time of the
marriage, she was pregnant by a man other than her husband Joel Jimenez, the petitioner, filed a petition for the annulment
constitutes fraud and is a ground for annulment of of his marriage with Remedios Canizares on the ground that
marriage. Delizo was allegedly to be only more than four the orifice of her genitals or vagina was too small to allow the
months pregnant at the time of her marriage. At this stage, it is penetration of a male organ for copulation. It has existed at the
time of the marriage and continues to exist that led him to leave
the conjugal home two nights and one day after the
marriage. The court summoned and gave a copy to the wife
but the latter did not file any answer. The wife was ordered to
submit herself to physical examination and to file a medical
certificate within 10 days. She was given another 5 days to
comply or else it will be deemed lack of interest on her part
and therefore rendering judgment in favor of the petitioner.

ISSUE: Whether or not the marriage can be annulled with only

the testimony of the husband.

HELD:

The wife who was claimed to be impotent by her husband did

not avail of the opportunity to defend herself and as such, claim
cannot be convincingly be concluded. It is a well-known fact
that women in this country are shy and bashful and would not
readily and unhesitatingly submit to a physical examination
unless compelled by competent authority. Such physical
examination in this case is not self-incriminating. She is not
charged with any offense and likewise is not compelled to be a
witness against herself. Impotence being an abnormal
condition should not be presumed. The case was remanded to
trial court.