Nathan Gilbert Quimpo,: Philippines Southeast Asian Studies Memoir
Nathan Gilbert Quimpo,: Philippines Southeast Asian Studies Memoir
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE:
MANOLO ADEL SANTOS overall chairperson, KRISTINE ANNABELLEE HIPOS chairperson for academics, MINISTER MOISES DU chairperson
for hotel operations, EZEKIEL JOSHUA VILLENA vice-chairperson for operations, RYAN DARYL PINEDA vice-chairperson for secretariat,
DJOANIVIE JOMARE JUNASA vice-chairperson for finance, MARIE MICAELA STA. ANA vice-chairperson for edp, DIOXENOS SULIT vice-
chairperson for logistics
SUBJECT COMMITTEE:
CATHERINE FLORES subject chair, CAMHELLA SANDOVAL assistant subject chair, JEZREEL CARIDAD TAGUBA edp, NOEL BURTON persons
and family relations, AYLA HERAZADE SALENDAB property, KRISTINE PAULA CHU and RIO ROSE SANTOS wills and succession, CHERRYLYN
NAVARRA and RAMIILA QUINTO obligations and contracts, THOMAS ANGELO SANTOS sales and lease, SOHAIRA DIMNATANG partnership,
agency and trust, LEANA MAE BLASCO credit transactions, CELESTINO VIERNES, JR. torts and damages, GENEVIEVE SEVIDAL land titles and
deeds, JOHN SAGABAEN conflict of laws
MEMBERS:
Alfredo Francisco Brettana, Alysse Adao, Angela Paminter, Angela Punzalan, Anthony Villamor, Arjay Manauis, Arjel De Guzman, Avril
Gamboa, Benjamin Estolas, Beverly Quintos, Cadilyn Bedol, Carissa Eñano, Cecille Benitez, Cerizar Torio, Charlotte Lyza Sayson, Chino
Ramos, Christian Joy Ocampo, Cindy Villareal, Crystal Faith De Torres, David Evelio Valencia, Denise Concepcion, Don Calugay, Donna
Frances Ylade, Dorothy Kate Punzalan, Emmanuel Jefferson Santiago, Erwin Legazpi, Eva Banzon, Farrah Mala, Felwin Rau Eltanal, Fernando
Tullao, Flocerfina Lloren, Garizaldy Anteola, Gideon Peña, Grace Del Rosario, Harold Talledo, Hera Aiza Barona, Irene Lipat, Irir Fatima Cero,
Irwin Peña, Isabel Suzara Zulueta, Jamella Anne Marie Joya, Jay Nieva, Jenno Antonio Villanueva, Jerico Galvez, Jerzy Torres, Jhony Martin
Alba, Joanna Marie Paguio, John Carlo Gil Sadian, Karen Kaye Go, Karlo Dialogo, Katrina Daniela Chavez, Kelvin Brian Pe, Laurie Pe, Lendell
Lota, Lorene Pe, Ma. Buenafe Carandang, Ma. Elena Saludes, Ma. Louise Aviso, Mabelle Palay, Mae Lane Ong, Marife Andal, Mary Eileen
Ang, Mary Jane Perez, Naomi Abrejera, Narseen Love Joy Balajadia, Neo Valerio, Nino Martin Cruz, Norly Villanueva, Paola Rodriguez,
Patrick Maglinao, Peter Glen Vinluan, Peter Labuguen, Peter Vinluan, Pia Callueng, Ralph Paguia, Ramona Diñozo, Raymond Romano,
Reinalee Susan Calvez, Roju Santino Ilagan, Ronald Ryan Suarez, Simon Simon, Stacy Cunanan, Trixy Comia, Uelah Cangco, Vanessa Guinto,
Vanessa Jacob, Victoria Panganiban, Walter Fernandez, Wendy Lynne Hernandez- Magallanes, Zenaida Razon
San Beda College of Law
2010 Centralized Bar Operations
Subversive Lives
A Family Memoir of the Marcos Years
By Susan F. Quimpo and Nathan Gilbert Quimpo
Foreword by Vicente L. Rafael
of testamentary provisions, and capacity to succeed governed by the national law of decedent.
(Article 16 (2))
Exceptions:
a. Marriage between Filipinos solemnized abroad shall be void though valid abroad when void
under Philippine laws. (Article 26(1) FC)
b. Intrinsic Validity of Contracts: Validity is determined by the following rules:
i. The law stipulated by the parties shall be applied;
ii. In default thereof, and the parties are of the same nationality, their national law shall be
applied;
iii. If the parties are not of the same nationalities, the law of the place of the perfection of the
obligation shall govern its fulfillment;
iv. If the above places are not specified and they cannot be deduced from the nature and
circumstances of the obligation, then the law of the passive subject shall apply.
Citizenship is the basis for Law of the place where the Law of the place where the contract was
determining the personal law property is situated is the basis for executed is the basis for determining law
applicable determining law applicable applicable
Covers family rights and Covers both real and personal Covers only the forms and solemnities
duties, status, condition and property (extrinsic validity)
legal capacity of persons.
Art. 26, par. 2 of Family (CIAO) 1. Art. 26, par. 1 of Family Code
Code 2. Intrinsic validity of contracts
Capacity to succeed
Intrinsic validity of the will
Amount of successional
3
rights
Order of succession
2. Renvoi Doctrine: Occurs when a citizen of another country dies as a domiciliary of another
country. Where the conflict rules of the forum refer to a foreign law, and the latter refers it back to
the internal law, the law of the forum shall apply.
Transmission Theory: If the foreign law refers it to a third country, the said country’s law shall
govern.
General Rule: Prohibitive laws concerning persons, their acts or property, and laws which have for
their object public order, public policy or good customs are NOT rendered ineffective by laws, or
judgments promulgated or by determinations or conventions agreed upon in foreign country. ( Art.
17(3))
HUMAN RELATIONS
Elements: (LEP)
Doctine of Violenti Non Fit Injuria (to which a person assents is not esteemed in law as injury) –
refers to self-inflicted injuries or to the consent to injury which precludes the recovery of damages by
one who has knowingly and voluntarily exposed himself to danger, even if he is not negligent in doing
so (Nikko Hotel Manila Garden, et all vs. Roberto Reyes (Amay Bisaya) G.R. No. 154259, Feb. 28,
2005).
Damnum Absque Injuria (damage without injury) – A person who exercises his legal right does no
injury. HOWEVER, it cannot be said that a person exercises a right when he unnecessarily prejudices
another or offends morals or good customs.
When damages result from a person’s exercise of rights, it is damnum absque injuria (ABS-CBN
v. Republic Broadcasting Corp. G.R. No. 128690, January 21, 1999).
Elements: (L-C-I)
Articles 19, 20 and 21 are related to one another and under these articles, an act which causes injury
to another may be made the basis for an award of damages (Albenson Enterprises Corp. v. CA, G.R.
No. 88694, January 11, 1993).
Articles 19 and 21 refer to INTENTIONAL acts while Article 20 pertains either to WILLFUL or
NEGLIGENT acts, which must be contrary to law. (Ibid.)
Accion In Rem Verso – action for recovery of what has been paid without just cause.
Application:
1. When someone acquires or comes into possession of something, which means delivery or
acquisition of things; AND
2. Acquisition is undue and at the expense of another, which means without just or legal ground.
Requisites: (JELA)
1. Defendant has been enriched;
2. Enrichment is without just or legal ground;
3. Plaintiff has suffered a loss; and
4. He has no other action based on contract, quasi–contract, crime or quasi–delict.
Note: For a more comprehensive discussion of Articles 19-35, please see discussion thereof under
Torts.
General Rule: If both criminal and cvil cases are filed in court, the criminal case takes precedence.
Exceptions:
1. In case of prejudicial questions, the criminal case is suspended because the issues in the civil
case are determinative of the outcome of the criminal case.
5
A prejudicial question is that which arises in a case, the resolution of which is a logical
antecedent of the issue involved therein, and the cognizance of which pertains to another
tribunal (Yap v. Paras, G.R. No. 101236, January 30, 1992).
Note: The Civil Code has SUPPLETORY application in matters governed by special laws.
CIVIL PERSONALITY
Passive Active
Lost only through death Lost through death and other causes
Can exist without capacity to act Cannot exist without juridical capacity
Restrictions on Capacity to Act do not exempt the incapacitated person from certain obligations as
when the latter arise from his acts or from property relations such as easements (Art. 38): (MID-PC)
1. Minority
2. Insanity or imbecility
3. State of being deaf mute
4. Prodigality
5. Civil interdiction
1. Family Relations;
2. Insanity;
San Beda College of Law
2010 Centralized Bar Operations
3. Imbecility;
4. Insolvency;
5. Trusteeship;
6. Penalty;
7. Prodigality;
8. Age;
9. Alienage;
10. Absence; and
11. State of being deaf-mute.
Note: The consequences of the restrictions and modifications in a person’s capacity to act are
provided by the Civil Code, other codes, special laws, and the Rules of Court.
NATURAL PERSONS
Beginning of Personality
Exception: The law considers the conceived child as born for all purposes favorable to it if born alive.
Therefore, the child has a presumed personality, which has two characteristics:
1. Limited; and
2. Provisional/conditional (Quimiguing vs. Icao, G.R. No. L-26795, July 31, 1970)
Note: The concept of provisional personality CANNOT be invoked to obtain damages for and in
behalf of an aborted child (Geluz vs. CA, G.R. No. L-16439, July 20, 1961).
General Rule: For civil purposes, the fetus is considered born if it is alive at the time it is completely
delivered from the mother’s womb.
Exception: If the fetus had an intrauterine life of less than 7 months, it is NOT deemed born if it dies
within 24 hours after its complete delivery from the maternal womb (Article 41).
Presumption of Survivorship:
In case of doubt as to which of two or more persons called to succeed each other died first:
1. Whoever alleges the death of one prior to the other, shall prove the same
2. In the absence of proof, the presumption is that the parties died at the same time and there
shall be no transmission of rights from one another (Art. 43)
Note: Art. 43 apply when the parties are called to succeed each other or are heirs to one another. But
if the parties are not called to succeed each other, Rule 131, Sec. 3 (jj) of the Rules of Court applies.
Both are to be applied only in the absence of facts.
The legitimacy or illegitimacy of a child attaches upon his/ her conception (Continental Steel
Manufacturing Corp. v. Hon. Accredited Voluntary Arbitrator, et al., G.R. No. 182836, October 13,
2009).
JURIDICAL PERSONS
7
The following are juridical persons:
Creation:
1. For (1) and (2), by the laws creating or recognizing them; government corporations are created by
their special charters passed by the legislature
2. Private corporations are governed by BP 68; and
3. Partnerships and associations for private interest or purpose are governed by the provisions of
this Code concerning partnerships.
Note: The estate of a deceased should be considered an artificial or juridical person for the purposes
of the settlement and distribution of his estate which include the exercise during the judicial
administration thereof of his rights and the fulfillment of obligations which survived after his death
(Limjoco vs. Intestate Estate of Pedro Fragrante, No. L–770 April 27, 1948).
FAMILY CODE
MARRIAGE
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 (Art. 1).
Although a marriage contract is considered a primary evidence of marriage, its absence is not
always proof that no marriage took place. Testimony of one of the parties to the marriage,
witnesses or solemnizing officer is admissible to prove the fact of marriage. (Balogbog v. CA,
G.R. No. 83598, March 7, 1997).
Once the presumption of marriage arises, other evidence may be presented in support thereof.
The evidence need not necessarily or directly establish the marriage but must at least be enough
to strengthen the presumption of marriage. Every intendment of law leans toward legitimizing
marriage (Delgado vda de De la Rosa v. Heirs of Marciana vda de Damian, GR No 155733,
January 27, 2006)
9
Breach of Promise to Marry
General Rule: It is not by itself an actionable wrong (Hermosisima vs. CA L-14628, September 30,
1960). One cannot seek specific performance to compel marriage.
Exceptions: To be actionable, there must be another act independent of the breach of promise to
marry which gives rise to liability as where there was financial damage, social humiliation, and moral
seduction.
1. Mere breach of promise to marry is not an actionable wrong; but to formally set a wedding and go
through all the preparations and publicity, only to walk out of it when the matrimony is about to be
solemnized, is quite different. This is palpably and unjustifiably contrary to good customs for which
defendant must be held answerable in damages pursuant to Art. 21 NCC. (Wassmer vs. Velez,
No. L-20089, December 26, 1964)
2. Where a man’s promise to marry was the proximate cause of giving herself unto him in sexual
congress and there is proof he had no intention of marrying her, the promise being a deceptive
device, damages may be awarded pursuant to Art. 21 NCC because of the fraud and deceit
behind it and the willful injury to her honor and reputation (Baksh vs. CA, G.R. No. 97336,
February 19, 1993).
1. Legal capacity of the contracting parties, who must be a male and a female
a. Eighteen years old or above
b. Not under any impediment mentioned in Arts. 37 and 38 (Art. 5)
2. Consent freely given in the presence of a solemnizing officer (Art. 2)
No particular form required
Capable of intelligently understanding the nature and consequences of the act
1. ABSENCE of essential or formal requisites: The marriage is VOID AB INITIO (ex: expired
marriage license, marriage by way of jest)
Exception: Marriage is valid where either or both parties believed in good faith that the
solemnizing officer had legal authority to do so when he had none at the time of the solemnization
of the marriage (Art. 35(2))
2. DEFECT in any of the essential requisites: The marriage is VOIDABLE (ex: consent obtained
through force and intimidation)
3. IRREGULARITY in any of the formal requisites: Does NOT affect the validity of the marriage
BUT will hold the party responsible for such irregularity civilly, criminally and administratively liable
Exception: Marriage is VOIDABLE where contracting party 18 years old or over but below 21
without the consent of the parents
General Rule: The Solemnizing officer is not duty bound to investigate whether the marriage license
was regularly issued.
Exception: In cases of marriage in articulo mortis, in remote places, and between a man and a
woman living together as husband and wife for at least 5 years without legal impediment to marry
each other
Solemnizing officer must take steps to ascertain the ages, relationship, and qualifications of
contracting parties (Art. 29)
6. Consul generals, consuls or vice–consuls of the Republic of the Philippines abroad (Art. 10)
Only in cases of marriage between Filipino citizens abroad
The marriage ceremony is in accordance with the laws of the Philippines (Art. 17, NCC)
Also performs the duties of the local civil registrar
Consuls on home assignment in the Philippines cannot solemnize marriage
The license is valid in any part of the Philippines for 120 days from date of issue, which is the date
when the local civil registrar signed the license.
Automatically canceled at the expiration of the period if contracting parties have not made use
of it (Art. 20)
11
The requirement that the parties or one of them must reside in the place of the issuance of
the license is a mere formal requirement. If there is no compliance with the same, the defect is a
mere infirmity that does not affect the validity of the marriage (Ty vs. Court of Appeals, 2003).
When either or both parties are foreign citizens, they must first submit a CERTIFICATE OF
LEGAL CAPACITY TO MARRY issued by their diplomatic/consular officials before marriage
license can be obtained (Art. 21)
Exception: Marriage of both foreign citizens will be solemnized by their country’s consul-general
assigned in the Philippines, if their country’s law allows the same
Stateless persons/refugees from other countries shall submit an affidavit stating circumstances to
show capacity to contract marriage before a marriage license can be obtained (Art. 21)
Requisites:
a. The man and woman must have been living together as husband and wife for at least five
years before the marriage;
b. The parties must have no legal impediment to marry each other;
c. The fact of absence of legal impediment between the parties must be present at the time
of marriage;
d. The parties must execute an affidavit stating that they have lived together for at least five
years (and are without legal impediment to marry each other); and
e. The solemnizing officer must execute a sworn statement that he had ascertained the
qualifications of the parties and that he had found no legal impediment to their marriage
(Manzano v. Sanchez G.R. No. MTJ–00–1329, March 08, 2001)
The 5–year period should be computed on the basis of cohabitation as husband and wife
where the only missing factor is the marriage contract to validate the union (ex: if both
cohabited at the age of 17, counting starts when parties reach 18 years)
This 5–year period should be the years immediately before the day of the marriage and it
should be a period of cohabitation characterized by EXCLUSIVITY – meaning no legal
impediment was present at any time within the 5 years and CONTINUITY – that is unbroken
(Republic v. Dayot, G.R. No. 175581,March 8, 2008)
4. In articulo mortis
Remains valid even if ailing party subsequently survives (Art. 27)
5. In remote places
Residence of either party is so located that there is no means of transportation to enable them
to personally appear before the local civil registrar (Art. 28)
Marriage Ceremony
The absence of two witnesses of legal age is merely an irregularity but the party responsible for the
irregularity shall be civilly, criminally, and administratively liable.
San Beda College of Law
2010 Centralized Bar Operations
Marriages by proxy
1. If it was solemnized in the Philippines, the marriage is VOID because physical appearance is
required under Art. 6.
2. If performed abroad, whether between Filipinos or foreigners or mixed, the controlling article is
Art. 26 of the Family Code.
Exceptions:
Note: This provision is only directory and the requirement that the marriage be solemnized in a
particular or a public place is not an essential requisite.
FOREIGN MARRIAGE
Validity of Marriage
General Rule: Where one or both parties to the marriage are citizens of the Philippines, the foreign
marriage is valid in this country if solemnized in accordance with the laws of the country of
celebration. (Art. 26)
In case a Filipino contracts a foreign marriage which is null and void in the place where it was
solemnized, the same shall also be null and void in the Philippines even if such was valid if
celebrated under Philippine laws
If both are foreigners, lex loci celebrationis applies
Exceptions: Foreign marriages shall not be recognized in the Philippines if: (B2MA-PIP)
Divorce
Exceptions:
1. Between 2 aliens – if valid in their national laws even if marriage was celebrated in the Philippines
13
2. Between a Filipino and an Alien – if (a) there is a valid marriage celebrated between a Filipino
citizen and a foreigner; and (b) a valid divorce according to the national law of the foreigner is
obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating him or her to remarry. Art. 26(2))
The Filipino spouse should likewise be allowed to re–marry as if he or she was a foreigner at
the time of the solemnization of the marriage. To rule otherwise would sanction absurdity and
injustice
Party pleading it must prove divorce as a fact and demonstrate its conformity to the foreign
law allowing it, which must be proved as courts cannot take judicial notice of foreign laws. If a
valid divorce decree has been obtained abroad, there is no more need to file an action to
nullify the marriage. The plaintiff has no more personality to sue since the marriage bond has
already been severed (Felicitas Amor-Catalan vs. CA, G.R. No. 167109, February 6, 2007).
Article 26 (2) applies where parties were Filipino citizens at the time of celebration of the
marriage, but later on, one of them becomes naturalized as a foreign citizen and obtains a
divorce decree because the reckoning point is their citizenship at the time a valid divorce is
obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating the latter to re–marry. (Rep. vs. Cipriano
Obrecido III, G.R. No. 154380, Oct. 5, 2005)
In Edgar San Luis v. Felicidad Sagalongos (G.R. No. 134029, February 6, 2007), whether a
Filipino who had been divorced by his alien spouse abroad may validly remarry in the
Philippines considering that the marriage was solemnized before the Family Code, it was held
that it need not retroactively apply the provisions of the Family Code, particularly Article 26,
par. (2), considering that there is sufficient jurisprudential basis allowing the retroactivity of the
Family Code.
There must be a showing that the divorce decree gave the foreigner spouse legal capacity to
remarry because in some jurisdictions, remarriage may be limited or prohibited (Bayot vs.
Bayot, G.R. No. 155635 & 163979, November 7, 2008).
1. Contracted by any party below 18 years of age even with parental consent;
2. Solemnized by any person NOT LEGALLY authorized to perform marriages UNLESS one or both
of the parties believed in good faith that the solemnizing officer had the legal authority to do so;
5. Marriages contracted through mistake of one of the parties as to the physical identity of the other
6. Subsequent marriages that are void under Article 53 of the Family Code
7. Contracted by a party who at the time of the marriage was psychologically incapacitated.
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.
Its meaning is confined to the most serious cases of personality disorders clearly demonstrative of an
utter insensitivity or inability to give meaning and significance to the marriage. This psychological
condition must exist at the time the marriage is celebrated. (Santos vs. CA, G.R. No. 112019, January
4, 1995)
San Beda College of Law
2010 Centralized Bar Operations
Requisites of Psychological Incapacity: (JIG)
1. Gravity – must be grave/serious such that the party would be incapable of carrying out the
ordinary duties required in a marriage;
2. Juridical Antecedence – Must be rooted in the history of the party antedating the marriage,
although the overt manifestations may emerge only after the marriage; and
3. Incurability – Must be incurable or, even if it were otherwise, the cure would be beyond the
means of the party involved. (Santos vs. CA, G.R. No. 112019, January 4, 1995)
May involve 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 v. CA, G.R. No. 119190, Jan. 16, 1997)
A person who is unable to distinguish between fantasy and reality would be unable to comprehend the
legal nature of the marital bond much less its psychic meaning and the obligations attached to the
marriage, including parenting. One unable to adhere to reality cannot be expected to adhere as well to
any legal or emotional commitments (Antonio v. Reyes, G.R. No. 155800, March 10, 2006)
While disagreements on money matters would, no doubt, affect the other aspects of one’s marriage
as to make the wedlock unsatisfactory, this is not a sufficient ground to declare a marriage null and
void. In fact, the Court takes judicial notice of the fact that disagreements’ regarding money matters is
a common, and even normal, occurrence between husbands and wives. (Tongol vs. Tongol, G.R. No.
157610, October 19, 2007)
Petitioner is not entitled to moral damages based on declaration of psychological incapacity because
the award of moral damages should be predicated, not on the mere act of entering into the marriage,
but on specific evidence that it was done deliberately and with malice by a party who had known of his
or her disability and yet willfully concealed the same. (Noel Buenaventura v. CA, et al., G.R. No.
127358, March 31, 2005)
1. Mental condition
2. Applies to a person who is maritally contracted to another
3. Marriage entered into with volition
4. Failure to perform or comply with the essential obligations in marriage
5. Failure to perform is chronic
6. Cause is psychological in nature
7. Cause is serious, with juridical antecedence, and must be incurable
8. Incapacity results in the failure of the marriage.
Jurisprudential Guidelines (Molina Doctrine) (Republic v. Molina G.R. No. 108763, February 13,
1997): (PROBE PIG)
15
Note: The SC held in Te vs. Te (G.R. No. 161793, February 13, 200) as decisive the psychological
evaluation made by the expert witness and thus ruled that the marriage of the parties is null and void
on the ground of both parties’ psychological incapacity. The clinical psychologist did not personally
examine the respondent, and relied only on the information provided by petitioner. Further, the
psychological incapacity was not shown to be attended by gravity, juridical antecedence, and
incurability, deviating from Republic vs. CA and Molina (1997) ruling, upon the Court’s reasoning that
the impositions of the Molina case were inappropriate, as cases of psychological incapacity should be
decided not on the basis of a priori assumptions, predictions or generalizations but according to its
own facts. Courts should interpret the provision on a case-to-case basis; guided by experience, the
findings of experts and researchers in psychological disciplines, and by decisions of church tribunals.
The Molina doctrine has become a strait-jacket, forcing all sizes to fit into and be bound by it. The
Court in conveniently applying Molina, has allowed diagnosed sociopaths, schizophrenics,
nymphomaniacs, narcissists and the like, to continuously debase and pervert the sanctity of marriage.
The wife’s promiscuity and the psychiatrist’s report that she was suffering from social personality
disorder exhibited by blatant display of infidelity, emotional immaturity, and irresponsibility cannot be
equated with psychological incapacity (Dedel vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 151867, January 29,
2004).
Similarly, the husband’s alleged alcoholism, drunkenness, his habitual verbal and physical abuse of
the wife, failure to support the latter and her children, and unbearable jealousy, do not constitute
psychological incapacity (Republic vs. Melgar, G.R. No. 139676,March 31, 2006).
In Marcos v. Marcos (GR. NO. 136490, October 19, 2000), the SC held that psychological incapacity
may be established by the totality of the evidence presented. The facts alleged in the petition and the
evidence presented, considered in totality, should be sufficient to convince the court of the
psychological incapacity of the party concerned. (Bernardino S. Zamora vs. CA, G.R. No. 141917,
February 7, 2007)
The complete facts should allege the physical manifestations, if any, as are indicative of
psychological incapacity at the time of the celebration (Sec. 2(d) A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC, March
15, 2003)
There is NO REQUIREMENT that the person sought to be declared psychologically
incapacitated should be personally examined by a physician/ psychologist as a condition sine qua
non to arrive at such declaration. It can be proven by independent means that one is
psychologically incapacitated, There is no reason why the same should not be credited. (Republic
of the Philippines vs. Laila Tanyag-San Jose and Manolito San Jose, G.R. No. 168328, February
28, 2007)
Psychological incapacity is not meant to comprehend all possible cases of psychoses. The fourth
guideline in Molina requires that the psychological incapacity as understood under Art. 36 (FC) 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 (Tongol vs. Tongol, G.R. No.
157610, October 19, 2007).
The new Rule promulgated by the SC on 4 March 2003 on Annulment and Declaration of Nullity of
Marriage dispensed with the certification from the Solicitor General, stating therein his reasons for his
agreement or opposition to the petition. Attachment of expert opinions to the petition is also dispensed
with (Tongol vs. Tongol, G.R. No. 157610, October 19, 2007).
Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages (A.M.
No. 02- 11- 10 SC, March 15, 2003), provides option to the trial judge to refer the case to a court-
appointed psychologist/ expert for an independent assessment and evaluation of the psychological
state of the parties, in order to assist the court to arrive at an intelligent and judicious determination of
the case.
San Beda College of Law
2010 Centralized Bar Operations
Note: Final judgment denying a petition for nullity on the ground of psychological incapacity bars a
subsequent petition for declaration of nullity on the ground of lack of marriage license. There is res
judicata (Mallion vs. Alcantara, G.R. No. 141528, October 31, 2006).
Incestuous marriages, whether the relationship is legitimate or illegitimate, between (Art. 37):
Note: Failure to record in the civil registry and registry of property the judgment of annulment or of
absolute nullity of the marriage, partition and distribution of the property of the spouses and the
delivery of the children’s presumptive legitimes shall not affect third persons (Arts. 52–53).
Void Voidable
Decree of nullity Decree of annulment
17
Co–ownership of properties through joint actual Generally Conjugal Partnership or Absolute Community
contributions
Only the spouses can have their marriage declared Those provided under Art. 47
void starting March 15, 2003; but before such date,
any interested party can do so
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 (Art. 40).
Remarriage is not the sole purpose of declaration of nullity of a marriage as it can be declared
void for other purposes
For purposes of remarriage, the only legally acceptable basis for declaring a previous marriage an
absolute nullity is a final judgment declaring such previous marriage void
Parties to a marriage should not be permitted to judge for themselves its nullity, only competent
courts having such authority. Prior to such declaration of nullity, the validity of the first marriage is
beyond question (Landicho vs. Rolova L-22579, February 23, 1968).
One who enters into a subsequent marriage without first obtaining such judicial declaration is
guilty of bigamy. This principle applies even if the earlier union is characterized by statute as
“void.” (Manuel vs. People, G.R. No. 165842,November 29, 2005)
Interestingly, in Lucio Morigo vs. People, GR No. 145226, Feb. 6, 2004, the SC ruled that a
judicial declaration of nullity is NOT NEEDED where NO MARRIAGE CEREMONY at all was
performed by a duly authorized solemnizing officer, as where the parties merely signed a
marriage contract on their own without the presence of the solemnizing officer
For purposes other than remarriage, such as but not limited to determination of heirship, legitimacy or
illegitimacy of a child, settlement of estate, dissolution of property regime or criminal case, other
evidence is acceptable to show the nullity of the marriage and the court may pass upon the validity of
marriage so long as it is essential to the determination of the case (Niñal vs. Bayadog, G.R. No.
133778, March 14, 2000).
Collateral attack of marriage is allowed
In a case for concubinage, the accused need not present a final judgment declaring his marriage
void, for he can adduce evidence in the criminal case of the nullity of his marriage other than
proof of a final judgment declaring his marriage void (Beltran vs. People, G.R. No. 137567, June
20, 2000).
March 15, 2003 and onwards – A petition for declaration of absolute nullity of void marriage may be
filed solely by the husband or wife. A.M. 02-11-10-SC which provides for the same is prospective in its
application. (Juan de Dios Carlos vs. Falicidad Sandoval, G.R. No. 179922, December 16, 2008)
General Rule: A marriage contracted by any person during the subsistence of a previous valid
marriage shall be null and void (Gomez v. Lipana, GR. No. L–23214, June 30, 1970)
Exception: Before the celebration of the subsequent marriage, a declaration of presumptive death is
obtained after complying with the following requirements: (JAB)
1. Absence of the other spouse must have been for 4 consecutive years, or 2 years where there
was danger of death under circumstances laid down in Art. 391 of the NCC
2. Well-founded belief of the present spouse who wishes to marry that absent spouse is already
dead
3. Judicial declaration of presumptive death; present spouse must file a summary proceeding for the
declaration of the presumptive death of the absentee without prejudice to the latter’s
reappearance
Note: This is intended to protect the present spouse from criminal prosecution for bigamy under Art
349 of the Rev Penal Code. However, if the bigamous marriage was committed abroad, the guilty
party cannot be criminally prosecuted for bigamy in the Philippines as our penal statutes are territorial
in nature.
Exception to the exception: If both spouses of the subsequent marriage acted in bad faith, said
marriage shall be void ab initio and all donations made by one in favor of the other are revoked by
operation of law. (Art. 44)
General Rule: The subsequent bigamous marriage under Article 41 remains valid despite
reappearance of the absentee spouse.
Exception to the exception: If there was a previous judgment annulling or declaring the first
marriage a nullity, the subsequent bigamous marriage remains valid.
Notes:
If the absentee reappears, but no step is taken to terminate the subsequent marriage either by
affidavit or by court action, such absentee’s mere reappearance, even if made known to the
spouses in the subsequent marriage will not terminate such marriage (SSS v. Bailon, G.R. No
165545, March 24, 2006).
Judgment declaring a spouse presumptively dead is unappealable because the proceedings
thereon are summary in nature as per Art. 153 FC. The remedy is special civil action for certiorari
(Heirs of Maura So vs. Obliosca, G.R. No. 147082, January 28, 2008).
See Comparative Chart on Effects of Declaration of Nullity, Annulment and Termination of Marriage in
Art. 41 and Legal Separation.
19
VOIDABLE MARRIAGES (Art. 45)
1. Age of the party in whose behalf the marriage is sought to be annulled was 18 years of age or
over but below 21, and the marriage was solemnized without the consent of the parents, guardian
or person exercising substitute parental authority over the party, in that order;
3. Consent of either party obtained by fraudulent means as enumerated in Art. 46: (NPSD)
a. Non–disclosure of a previous conviction by final judgment of the other party of a crime
involving moral turpitude;
b. Concealment by the wife of the fact that at the time of the marriage, she was pregnant by a
man other than her husband;
Must have been done in bad faith. 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 thereof. (Buccat vs. Buccat, G.R. No. 47101, April 25, 1941)
c. Concealment of a sexually transmissible disease, regardless of its nature, existing at the time
of the marriage; and
Nature or gravity of disease is irrelevant; it is enough that there was concealment at the
time of the ceremony
d. Concealment of drug addiction, habitual alcoholism, homosexuality or lesbianism existing at
the time of the marriage
5. Physical incapability of either party to consummate the marriage with the other, and such
incapacity continues and appears to be incurable (impotency)
Permanent inability on the part of one of the spouses to perform the complete act of sexual
intercourse, arising from physical and other causes, including psychological causes
Need not be universal; condition may exist only as to the present spouse and not as to others
Doctrine of Triennial Cohabitation – Presumption that the husband is impotent should the wife still
remain a virgin for at least 3 years from time spouses started cohabiting.
Elements: (ESSA)
The enumeration in Article 46 is EXCLUSIVE (Anaya vs. Palaroan, GR. No. L–27930, November 26,
1970).
San Beda College of Law
2010 Centralized Bar Operations
Note: Misrepresentation as to character, health, rank, fortune or chastity is NOT a ground for
annulment.
Fraud Injured party W/in 5 years from the Free cohabita-tion even
discovery of fraud with full know-ledge of
facts constitu-ting the
fraud
Incapabi-lity to consum- Injured party W/in 5 years after the No ratification since
mate celebration of the defect is permanent
marriage
Insanity Sane spouse who has Anytime before the Free cohabita-tion after
no know-ledge of the death of either party insane regains sanity
insanity
Note: Whichever comes first may convalidate the marriage: Cohabitation OR Prescription.
Collusion
Public Prosecutor shall be ordered by the court to investigate and to submit a report on whether
parties are in collusion when:
21
2. Respondent filed his answer but failed to appear at the pre-trial (Secs. 8(3) and 13(b), A.M. No.
02-11-12-SC, March 15, 2003)
Note: The same also applies to Legal Separation pursuant to Secs. 5(c) and 10(2) of A.M. No. 02-11-
11-SC, March 15, 2003.
There will be collusion only if the parties had arranged to make it appear that a ground existed or had
been committed although it was not, or if the parties had connived to bring about a matrimonial case
even in the absence of grounds therefor (Ocampo vs. Florenciano, GR. No. L–13553, February 23,
1960).
However, petitioner’s vehement opposition to the annulment proceedings negates the conclusion that
collusion existed between the parties. Under these circumstances, the non–intervention of a
prosecuting attorney to assure lack of collusion between the contending parties is not fatal to the
validity of the proceedings in the trial court (Tuason vs. CA, G.R. No. 116607, April 10, 1996).
Decision
If the defendant spouse fails to answer the complaint, the court CANNOT declare him or her in
default. But instead, should order the public prosecutor to determine if collusion exists between the
parties.
After court grants petition, it shall issue the decree of absolute nullity or annulment only after
compliance with the following:
1. Must proceed with the liquidation, partition, and distribution of the properties of the spouses
including custody and support of the common children unless such matters had been adjudicated
in previous judicial proceedings
2. Delivery of the children’s presumptive legitimes
3. Registration of the entry of judgment granting petition for declaration of absolute nullity or
annulment in the Civil Registry where the marriage was celebrated and in the Civil Registry of the
place where the FC was located
4. Registration of approved partition and distribution of properties of the spouses in the proper
Registry of Deeds where the real properties are located
In case of annulment or declaration of absolute nullity of marriage, Art.49 of the Family Code grants
visitation rights to a parent who is deprived of the custody of the children. Such visitation rights flow
from the natural right of both parents to each other’s company. There being no such parent– child
relationship between them, Gerardo has no demandable right to visit the child of Mario with Theresa
(Concepcion vs. CA GR. No. 12345, August 31, 2005).
For a more comprehensive discussion on the procedural aspects of the Rule, please refer to the
Remedial Law Memory Aid.
San Beda College of Law
2010 Centralized Bar Operations
LEGAL SEPARATION
1. Repeated physical violence or grossly abusive conduct directed against the petitioner, a common
child, or a child of the petitioner
2. Attempt of the respondent to corrupt or induce the petitioner, a common child, or a child of the
petitioner, to engage in prostitution, or connivance in such corruption or inducement
Refers to prostitution only and irrespective of the age of the child
4. Final judgment sentencing the respondent to imprisonment of more than 6 years even if
pardoned
7. Abandonment of the petitioner by the respondent without justifiable cause for more than 1 year
There must be absolute cessation of marital relations, duties, and rights, with the intention of
perpetual separation (Partosa-Jo vs. CA, G.R. No. 82606, December 18, 1992).
Abandonment implies total renunciation of duties.
8. Physical violence or moral pressure to compel petitioner to change religious or political affiliation
Cooling–Off Period – 6-month period from the filing of the petition designed to give the parties
enough time to further contemplate their positions with the end in view of attaining reconciliation
between them. No action for Legal Separation shall be tried during such period (Art. 58). It is a
mandatory requirement and its non-compliance makes the decision infirm. (Pacete vs. Carrianga,
G.R. No. 53880, March 17, 1994)
1. Condonation of the offense or act complained of. But failure of the husband to look for his
adulterous wife is NOT condonation to wife's adultery (Ocampo vs. Florenciano, G.R. No. L–
13553, February 23, 1960).
The act of the husband in having sexual intercourse with his wife in spite of his knowledge of
the latter’s infidelity is an act of implied condonation. (Ginez v. Bugayong, G.R. No. L-10033,
December 28, 1956)
23
5. Mutual Guilt or where both parties have given ground for legal separation
6. Prescription
An action for legal separation shall be filed within 5 years from time of occurrence of the
cause (Art. 57)
7. Death of either party during the pendency of the case (Lapuz–Sy vs. Eufemio, G.R. No. 113842,
August 3, 1994)
Decision
No legal separation may be decreed unless the Court has taken steps toward the reconciliation of the
spouses and is fully satisfied, despite such efforts, that reconciliation is highly improbable. (Art. 59)
Note: The wife who has been granted legal separation cannot petition to be allowed to revert to her
maiden name.
Even if the parents are separated de facto, still in the absence of judicial grant of custody to one
parent, both parents are entitled to the custody of their child. The remedy of habeas corpus may be
resorted to by the parent who has been deprived of the rightful custody of the child (Salientes v.
Abanilla, G.R. No. 162734, August 29, 2006).
Note: A decree of legal separation, on the ground of concubinage, may issue upon proof of
preponderance of evidence in the action for legal separation. No criminal proceedings or conviction is
necessary.
1. The legal separation proceedings, if still pending, shall thereby be terminated at whatever
stage.
2. The final decree of legal separation shall be set aside, but the separation of property and any
forfeiture of share of the guilty spouse already effected shall subsist, unless the spouses agree to
revive their former property regime.
Agreement of revival and motion for its approval shall be filed in court in the same proceeding for legal
separation and shall be executed under oath and shall specify:
After due hearing, court shall take measures to protect interest of creditors and such order shall be
recorded in the proper registries of properties but the same shall not prejudice creditors not listed or
San Beda College of Law
2010 Centralized Bar Operations
notified, unless debtor-spouse has sufficient separate properties to satisfy creditor’s claim.
Please refer to the Remedial Law Memory Aid for the procedural provisions of the Rule.
Marital Status
Custody of Children
To the innocent spouse but no child under 7 shall be separated from the mother
unless there are compelling reasons
Child Support
25
Either parent/ both may be ordered by court to give an amount necessary for
support in proportion to resources/means of giver and necessities of recipient
Spousal Support
During pendency:
1. Written agreement
2. In the absence thereof, from properties of the ACP or CP, considered as
advance to be deducted from share during liquidation
3. Restitution if after final judgment court finds that persons providing support
pendent lite is not liable therefor (Sec. 7, Rule 61, ROC)
Property Relations
1. Shall remain valid, 1. Shall remain valid, 1. Shall remain valid, 1. Donor is given
unless donee unless donee unless donee option to revoke or
contracted marriage contracted marriage in contracted marriage not, if donor decides
in bad faith, in which bad faith, in which case, in bad faith, in to revoke, must do
case, donation to donation to said donee which case, so within 5 years
said donee shall be shall be revoked by donation to said from finality of
revoked by operation operation of law. donee shall be decree
of law. 2. If both spouses of revoked by 2. But if ground for
2. If both spouses of subsequent marriage operation of law. legal separation is
subsequent marriage acted in bad faith, (Art. 43(3)) sexual infidelity
acted in bad faith, (adultery or
donations propter
donations propter 2. No conflict with Art.
concubinage),
nuptias made by one in 86(2) as such does
nuptias made by one favor of the other are donation between
in favor of the other not require that persons guilty
revoked by operation of marriage be
are revoked by law (Art. 44) thereof at time of
operation of law annulled first before donation is void
3. If both spouses in good donor may revoke (Art. 739(1)NCC)
faith, donor after finality donation – donor
of decree may revoke has 5 years from
pursuant to Art. 86(1) time he had
4. If marriage not knowledge of lack
celebrated: of consent; cannot
a. Those stipulated in revoke if had
marriage settlement knowledge thereof
are void (Art. 81) before the marriage
San Beda College of Law
2010 Centralized Bar Operations
Innocent spouse may revoke designation of spouse in bad faith as beneficiary even if Innocent spouse may
stipulated as irrevocable (Art. 43(4)) revoke donations made
by him or her in favor of
offending spouse as well
as designation of latter
as beneficiary even if
stipulated as irrevocable
(Art. 64). Action to
revoke donation must be
brought within 5 years
from finality of decree
Succession
1. Spouse in bad faith disqualified to inherit from innocent spouse by testate or 1. Offending spouse
intestate succession disqualified from
2. If both spouses of subsequent marriage acted in bad faith, testamentary inheriting from
dispositions made by one in favor of the other are revoked by operation of law innocent spouse by
(Art. 44) intestate succession
2. Provisions in favor
of offending spouse
made in the will of
innocent spouse are
revoked by
operation of law
(Art. 63(4))
27