Defective Marriages PDF

DEFECTIVE MARRIAGES The status of a marriage, i.e., valid, void, or voidable, is determined by the law in force at the time of solemnization. As a general rule, the nature or status of a marriage already celebrated cannot be changed by a subsequent of the governing law. Thus, a marriage between a s...

DEFECTIVE MARRIAGES The status of a marriage, i.e., valid, void, or voidable, is determined by the law in force at the time of solemnization. As a general rule, the nature or status of a marriage already celebrated cannot be changed by a subsequent of the governing law. Thus, a marriage between a step brother and a step sister was void under the Civil Code, but is not anymore prohibited under the Family Code. The subsequent and intervening eGectivity of the Family Code does not aGect the void nature of the marriage between a step brother and a step sister solemnized under the regime of the Civil Code. The Civil Code marriage remains void, considering that the validity of a marriage is governed by the law in force at the time of the marriage ceremony (Isidro Ablaza vs. Republic, G.R. No.158289, 11 August 2010). KINDS OF VOID MARRIAGES a. Void marriage because of absence of essential requisites (Article 35) “Art. 35. The following marriages shall be void from the beginning: (1) Those contracted by any party below eighteen years of age even with the consent of parents or guardians; NOTE: This ground applies only to the Filipino spouse, because the legal capacity of the alien spouse is governed by his/her national law (Article 21) (2) Those solemnized by any person not legally authorized to perform marriages unless such marriages were contracted with either or both parties believing in good faith that the solemnizing oGicer had the legal authority to do so. (3) Those solemnized without marriage license, except: (a) marriage in articulo mortis (b) marriage where the residence of either party is located in a remote place where transportation is not available; (c) marriage among Muslims or other ethnic cultural communities. (d) ratification of marital cohabitation (Article 34) Requirement in lieu of a license in marriage in articulo mortis and marriage where residence of either party is located in a far-flung area where transportation is unavailable: The solemnizing oGicer must execute an aGidavit before the Local Civil Registrar or any person authorized to administer oath, stating that (a) the marriage was performed in articulo mortis or that the residence of either party is so located that there is no means of transportation to enable such party to appear personally before the local civil registrar; and that (b) the solemnizing oGicer took the necessary steps to ascertain the ages and relationship of the contracting parties and the absence of a legal impediment to the marriage (Article 29). Requirements in lieu of marriage license in ratification of marital cohabitation: (a) AGidavit of the contracting parties, stating that they have been living together as husband and wife for at least five (5) years and without any legal impediment to marry each other; (b) AGidavit of the solemnizing oGicer, stating that he/she ascertained the qualifications of the contracting parties and found no legal impediment to the marriage. (4) Those bigamous or polygamous marriages not failing under Article 41; Distinguish from Article 40 (5) Those contracted through mistake of one contracting party as to the identity of the other; and (6) Those subsequent marriages that are void under Article 53. Under Article 53, the subsequent marriage of a party, whose previous marriage has been dissolved by annulment under Article 45 or nullity under Article 40, shall be void if the (a) judgment of annulment or absolute nullity of the marriage, (b) partition and distribution of the properties of the spouses, (c) the delivery of the children’s presumptive legitimes shall not be recorded in the appropriate civil registry and registries of property as prescribed under Article 52. (7) Where the parties to the marriage are of the same sex (Article 5, in relation to Article 4) QUERY: Is the second or subsequent marriage solemnized without prior judicial declaration of nullity of the first or previous void marriage void under Article 40 due to absence of legal capacity, particularly absence of legal impediment? Marriage by reason of psychological incapacity of either party (Article 36) “Art. 36. A marriage contracted by any party who, at the time of the celebration, was psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential marital obligations of marriage, shall likewise be void even if such incapacity becomes manifest only after its solemnization.” CONCEPT OF PSYCHOLOGICAL INCAPACITY The law does not define what a psychological incapacity is. The determination of the existence or non- existence of psychological incapacity is left solely to the court’s discretion on a case-to-case basis, according to its facts. JURISPRUDENTIAL MEANING OF PSYCHOLOGICAL INCAPACITY: The meaning of “psychological incapacity” under Article 36 was first explained by the Supreme Court in Leouel Santos vs. Court of Appeals (G.R. No.112019, 4 January 1995), where it was clarified that the intendment of the law has been to confine the meaning of ”psychological incapacity” to the most serious cases of personality disorders clearly demonstrative of an utter insensitivity or inability to give meaning and significance to the marriage. Thus, it should refer to no less than a mental (not physical) incapacity that causes a party to be truly incognitive of the basic marital covenants that concomitantly must be assumed and discharged by the parties to the marriage. Psychological incapacity deals with a state of mind. Thus, it can only be proven by observable indicators or external manifestations, consisting of a person’s pattern of conduct and behavior in his day-to-day dealings or interactions with others. JURISPRUDENTIAL GUIDELINES IN THE DETERMINATION OF THE EXISTENCE OR NON-EXISTENCE OF PSYCHOLOGIVAL INCAPACITY (Republic vs. Roridel Olaviano Molina, G.R. No.108763, 13 February 1997): The burden of proof to show psychological incapacity lies with the plaintiG, and any doubt should be resolved in favor of validity and continuity of marriage. This is consistent with the policy of the State to protect marriage and promote the family as a basic unit of society, as ingrained in the Constitution and our laws on marriage and family relations. (b) The root cause of the psychological incapacity must be: (1) medically or clinically identified; (2) alleged in the complaint; (3) suGiciently proven by experts; and (4) clearly explained in the decision. The root cause must be identified as a psychological illness, although its symptoms may be physical, as may be established by expert evidence given by qualified psychiatrist and clinical psychologists While not indispensable, expert testimonies of psychologist or psychiatrist evaluating the behavioral pattern of the person alleged to be psychologically incapacitated are extremely helpful (Republic vs. Erlinda Dagdag, G.R. No.109975, 9 February 2001). The personal medical or psychological examination of respondent is not a requirement for a declaration of psychological incapacity (Brenda Marcos vs. Wilson Marcos, G.R. No.136490, 19 October 2000) and it is not a condition sine qua non for such declaration (Republic vs. Laila Tayag San Jose, G.R. No.168328, 28 February 2007) The evidence must convince the court that the parties or one of them is mentally or psychically ill to such an extent that the person could not have known the obligations he was assuming, or knowing them, could not have given valid assumption thereof. Since the very nature of psychological incapacity is precisely the non-cognizance of one’s essential marital obligation, the person found guilty of psychological incapacity is not liable for moral damages, exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees. The incapacity to understand the significance and give meaning to marriage and its consequent obligations eGectively negates bad faith which is an essential element in awarding damages and attorney’s fees (Buenaventura vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. Nos. 127358/127449, 31 March 2005) (c) The incapacity must be proven to be existing at the time of the celebration of the marriage. The manifestation of the illness need not be perceivable at the time of the celebration of the marriage, but the illness itself must been attached at such moment, or prior thereto. Otherwise referred to as “juridical antecedence”, which is one of the requisites of psychological incapacity. Requires evidence to establish that the personality disorder was due to some causes antedating marriage, like the person’s own dysfunctional family and personal history. (d) The psychological incapacity must be shown to be medically or clinically permanent or incurable, which incurability may be absolute or even relative in regard to the other spouse, not necessarily absolutely against everyone. Refers to “permanence” or “incurability” as a requisite for psychological incapacity. The incapacity is deemed “incurable” when there is no known cure, or even if a cure is known, such cure is beyond the means of the person concerned. NOTE: Since ”psychological incapacity” can be either absolute or relative, a person adjudged by the court guilty of psychological incapacity is legally capacitated to remarry another. Under Articles 2 and 5, legal capacity to contract marriage relates to the age and sex requirements, and the absence of any legal impediment under Article 37 and 38. The law does not consider Article 36 (psychological incapacity) a legal impediment to contract marriage. The incapacity must be relevant to the assumption of marital obligations, not necessarily to those un- related to marriage. Thus, being a successful, competent, and able professional is not incompatible with being psychologically incapacitated (e) The psychological illness must be grave enough to bring about the disability of the party to assume the essential obligations of marriage. There must be a natal or supervening factor in the person, an adverse integral element in the personality structure that eGectively incapacitates the person from assuming and performing marital obligations. Refers to “gravity”, another requisite for psychological incapacity. Thus, mild character peculiarities, mood swings, occasional emotional outbursts, cannot be accepted as root causes of psychological incapacity. The illness must amount to downright incapacity or inability, not just a mere refusal, neglect or diGiculty, or ill will in not complying with the marriage obligations. (f) The essential marital obligations must be those embraced by Articles 68, 69, 70, and 71 of the Family Code as regards the husband and wife as well as Articles 220, 221 and 225 in regard to parents and their children. Rights and obligations between husband and wife: “Art. 68. The husband and wife are obliged to live together, observe mutual love, respect and fidelity, and render mutual help and support. Art. 69. The husband and wife shall fix the family domicile. In case of disagreement, the court shall decide. The court may exempt one spouse from living with the other if the latter should live abroad or there are other valid and compelling reasons for the exemption. However, such exemption shall not apply if the same is not compatible with the solidarity of the family.” “Art. 70. The spouses are jointly responsible for the support of the family. The expenses for such support and other conjugal obligations shall be paid from the community property and, in the absence thereof, from the income or fruits of their separate properties. In case of insuGiciency or absence of said income or fruits, such obligations shall be satisfied from the separate properties. Art. 71. The management of the household shall be the right and the duty of both spouses. The expenses for such management shall be paid in accordance with the provisions of Article 70.” Obligations of parents to their children: “Art. 220. The parents and those exercising parental authority shall have with the respect to their unemancipated children on wards the following rights and duties: (1) To keep them in their company, to support, educate and instruct them by right precept and good example, and to provide for their upbringing in keeping with their means; (2) To give them love and aGection, advice and counsel, companionship and understanding; (3) To provide them with moral and spiritual guidance, inculcate in them honesty, integrity, self-discipline, self-reliance, industry and thrift, stimulate their interest in civic aGairs, and inspire in them compliance with the duties of citizenship; (4) To furnish them with good and wholesome educational materials, supervise their activities, recreation and association with others, protect them from bad company, and prevent them from acquiring habits detrimental to their health, studies and morals; (5) To represent them in all matters aGecting their interests; (6) To demand from them respect and obedience; (7) To impose discipline on them as may be required under the circumstances; and (8) To perform such other duties as are imposed by law upon parents and guardians.” “Art. 221. Parents and other persons exercising parental authority shall be civilly liable for the injuries and damages caused by the acts or omissions of their unemancipated children living in their company and under their parental authority subject to the appropriate defenses provided by law.” “Art. 225. The father and the mother shall jointly exercise legal guardianship over the property of the unemancipated common child without the necessity of a court appointment. In case of disagreement, the father’s decision shall prevail, unless there is a judicial order to the contrary. x x x”  (g) Interpretations given by the National Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal of the Catholic Church in the Philippines, while not controlling or decisive, should be given great respect by our courts. Article 36 is lifted from the canon laws of the Catholic Church (h) The trial court must order the prosecuting attorney or fiscal and the Solicitor General to appear as counsel for the State. The presence of the public prosecutor is mandatory in all stages of the proceedings, to determine the existence or non-existence of collusion between the parties and to see to it that the evidence presented during the trial is not suppressed or fabricated. COMMON TYPES OF PERSONALITY DISORDERS: The American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders categorized personality disorders into the following: Cluster A: Paranoid, schizoid and schizotypal personality disorders. Individuals who have these disorders often appear to have odd or eccentric habits and traits. Cluster B: Antisocial, borderline, histrionic and narcissistic personality disorders. Individuals who have these disorders often appear overly emotional, erratic and dramatic. Cluster C: Avoidant, dependent, obsessive-compulsive and passive-aggressive personality disorders. Individuals who have these disorders often appear anxious or fearful. (d) Dependent personality disorder. Such individuals usually lack self-esteem and frequently belittle their capabilities; they fear criticism and are easily hurt by others’ comments. At times they actually bring about dominance by others through a quest for overprotection. Unable to make everyday decisions without advice or reassurance from others, may allow others to make most of their important decisions (such as where to live), tend to agree with people even when they believe they are wrong, have diGiculty starting projects or doing things on their own, volunteer to do things that are demeaning in order to get approval from other people, feel uncomfortable or helpless when alone and are often preoccupied with fears of being abandoned. (e) Antisocial personality disorder. Characteristics include a consistent pattern of behavior that is intolerant of the conventional behavioral limitations imposed by a society, an inability to sustain a job over a period of years, disregard for the rights of others (either through exploitativeness or criminal behavior), frequent physical fights and, quite commonly, child or spouse abuse without remorse and a tendency to blame others. There is often a façade of charm and even sophistication that masks disregard, lack of remorse for mistreatment of others and the need to control others.  SPECIFIC INSTANCES OF BEHAVIOR OR CONDUCT DEMONSTRATIVE OF PSYCHOLOGICAL INCAPACITY: The prolonged refusal of a spouse to have sexual intercourse with his or her spouse (Chi Ming Tsoi vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.119190, 16 January 1997). Dependent personality disorder on the part of the husband and narcissistic and anti-social personality disorder of the part of the wife (Edward Kenneth Ngo Te vs. Rowena Ong Yu-Te, G.R. No.161793, 13 February 2009) (c) Pathological lying (Leonilo Antonio vs. Marie Ivonne F.Reyes, G.R. No.155800, 10 March 2006) (d) Mixed personality disorder from self-defeating personality disorder to dependent personality disorder, as manifested by his act in entering marriage thinking it was a “joke”, non-consummation of marriage as they never lived together, and their relationship was characterized by constant quarrels and in-fighting (Lester Benjamin Halili vs. Chona Santos-Halili, G.R. No.165424, 9 June 2009). (e) Frequent playing mahjong, even bringing along with her minor children during mahjong sessions, constant visits to beauty parlor, going out with friends, and neglect of children (Valerio Kalaw vs. Ma. Elena Fernandez, G.R. No.166357, 14 January 2015) (f) Paranoid personality disorder which made the husband extremely jealous, intimidating, and dominating in the relationship negated a marital life (Maria Theresa Dela Fuente vs. Rodolfo Dela Fuente, G.R. No.188400, 8 March 2018). (g) Schizophrenia(Irene Datu vs. Alfredo Datu, G.R. No. 209278, 15 September 2021) (h) Failure to secure gainful employment, taking money from wife through violence or intimidation, smoking marijuana in the same room with daughter (Raphy De Silva vs. Donald De Silva, G.R. No. 247985, 13 October 2021) Unfounded jealousy, non-consummation of marriage(Janice Cuan vs Marcelino Cuan, G.R. No. 248518, 07 December 2021) (j) Living a carefree life, drinking, forcing wife to have sex with husband, aggressive behavior (Claudine Baldovino-Torres vs. Jasper Torres, G.R. No. 248675, 20 July 2022) (k) In Leonora De la Cruz vs. Alfredo Lanuza (G.R. No. 242362, 17 April 2024), the unjustified absence from the marital home for decades may be considered as part of the totality of evidence that a person is phychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential marital obligations. BEHAVIORS OR SITUATIONS NOT AMOUNTING TO PSYCHOLOGICAL INCAPACITY: Mere incompatibility and irreconcilable diGerences are not enough (Rodolfo Aspillaga vs. Aurora Aspillaga, G.R. No.170925, 26 October 2009) Separation or abandonment alone is not conclusive proof of psychological incapacity (Republic vs. Lolita Quintero- Hermano, G.R. No.149498, 20 May 2004) (c) Sexual infidelity alone or living an adulterous life does not automatically prove psychological incapacity (Silvino Ligeralde vs. May Ascencion Patalinghug, G.R. No.168796, 15 April 2010) Excessive sexual desire/infidelity (Maria Padua vs Joselito Padua, G.R. No. 208258, 27 April 2022) Sexual infidelity/abandonment(Mary Cris Guinalon vs. Nelson Guinalon, G.R. No.UDK-17203, 14 March 2022) NOTE: In the recent case of Rosanna Tan-Andal vs. Mario Victor Andal, G.R. No.196359, 11 May 2021, the Supreme Court revisited the existing jurisprudential interpretations on the concept of psychological incapacity beginning from Leouel Santos vs. Court of Appeals (G.R. No.112019, 4 January 1995) and Republic vs. Roridel Olaviano Molina (G.R. No.108763, 13 February 1997) which it found to be “restrictive, rigid, and intrusive on our rights to liberty, autonomy, and human dignity.” MEANING OF “PSYCHOLOGICAL INCAPACITY” FROM THE LENS OF ANDAL RULING: Psychological incapacity “consists of clear acts of dysfunctionality that show a lack of understanding and concomitant compliance with one’s essential marital obligations due to psychic causes.” It is not a medical illness that has to be medically and clinically identified. Hence, expert opinion is not required. NOTABLE ASPECTS OF THE ANDAL RULING: The quantum of evidence required to prove psychological capacity is “clear and convincing evidence,” which requires proof more than preponderant evidence but less than proof beyond reasonable doubt. Reason: In our jurisdiction, we follow the presumption of validity of marriage. As in any presumption- such as the presumption of regularity in the issuance of public documents, regularity in the performance of oGicial functions, good faith or suGicient consideration, it can only be rebutted by clear and convincing evidence. (2) As autonomous social institution, the family is protected by the State, regardless of its structure, which means that the family can be founded, whether or not the parents choose to marry or subsequently choose to dissociate. The right to choose one’s intimate partner is part of one’s right to autonomy and liberty, an inherent part of human dignity. The state should only interfere with these intimate choices when public interest is imperiled. When the law speaks of the nature, consequences, and incidents of marriage governed by law, this refers to responsibility to children, property relations, disqualifications, privileges, and other matters limited to ensuring stability of society. The State’s interest should not amount to unwarranted intrusions into individual liberties. (3) The Molina guidelines require the party to present evidence of the root cause of the psychological disorder, which must be medically and clinically identified and proven by experts. By equating psychological incapacity to a “mental incapacity” and to “personality disorder,” the Supreme Court went against the intent behind Article 36. Thus, the second Molina guideline (need for medical and clinical identification of a mental incapacity or personality disorder) is now categorically abandoned. Psychological incapacity is neither a mental incapacity nor a personality disorder that must be proven by expert. However, there must be proof of the durable or enduring aspects of a person’s personality, called “personality structure,” which manifests itself through clear acts of dysfunctionality that undermines the family. The spouse’s personality structure makes it impossible for him/her to understand and, more important, to comply with essential marital obligations. Proof of these aspects of personality need not be given by experts. Ordinary witnesses who have been present in the life of the spouses before the latter contracted marriage may testify on behaviors that they have consistently observed from the supposedly incapacitated spouse. From there, the judge will decide if these behaviors are indicative of a true and serious incapacity to assume the essential marital obligations. There is no need to label a person as having a mental disorder just to obtain a decree of nullity for what could have been a simple mistake in one’s choice of intimate partner. (4) A party to nullify a marriage is still required to prove “juridical antecedence” because it is an explicit requirement of the law as psychological incapacity must be existing “at the time of marriage.” Our past, if not properly healed, heavily aGects our present. A person’s behavior is determined by his/her interaction with some genetic predispositions and by his/her environment. Thus, juridical antecedence may be proved by testimonies of witnesses describing the environment where the subject person lived or experiences that may have led to his/her behavior, like history of domestic violence and abuse before marriage. (5) The third Molina guideline (incurability) is now amended. Psychological incapacity under Article 36 is incurable, not in the medical, but in the legal sense. This means that the incapacity is “so enduring and persistent with respect to a specific partner, and contemplates of a situation where the couples’ respective personality structures are so incompatible and antagonistic that the only result of the union would be the inevitable and irreparable breakdown of the marriage. An undeniable pattern of such persisting failure to be a present loving, faithful, respectful, and supportive spouse must be established so as to demonstrate that there is indeed a psychological anomaly or incongruity in the spouse relative to the other. (6) With respect to “gravity,” the requirement is retained, not in the sense that the psychological incapacity must be shown to be serious or dangerous illness, but that “mild characterological peculiarities, mood changes, occasional emotional outbursts are excluded.” The psychological incapacity cannot be mere “refusal, neglect, or diGiculty, much less ill-will.” In other words, it must be shown that the incapacity is caused by a genuinely serious psychic cause. (7) The essential marital obligations are those embraced by Article 68 up to Article 71 of the Family Code as regards the husband and the wife as well as Articles 220, 221, and 225 in regard to parents and children. But not all kinds of failure to meet their obligations to their children will nullify the marriage. It must be clearly shown that it is of such grievous nature that it reflects on the capacity of the spouse for marriage, such as sexual abuse, domestic violence, or when a spouse due to refusal to go through counseling or rehabilitation puts a child through a situation of neglect or outright danger. (8) The persuasive eGect of the decisions of the National Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal of the Catholic Church of the Philippines on cases pending before secular courts is retained. After all, Article 36 of the Family Code was lifted from Canon law, specifically Canon 1095 of the New Code of Canon Law. (9) Brenda Marcos vs. Wilson Marcos(G.R. No.136490, 19 October 2000) retains its jurisprudential authority, where it was held that “personal examination of the allegedly psychologically incapacitated spouse is not required for a declaration of nullity of marriage due to psychological incapacity,” so long as the totality of evidence suGiciently proves the psychological incapacity of one or both. (c) Void marriages by reason of being incestuous (Article 37) “37. Marriages between the following are incestuous and void from the very beginning, whether the relationship between the parties be legitimate or illegitimate: Between ascendants and descendants of any degree; and Between brothers and sisters, whether of the full or half blood.” the enumeration of the so-called “incestuous marriages” is exclusive to those prescribed in Article 37 of the Family Code. REASONS FOR THE PROHIBITION OF INCESTUOUS MARRIAGE: Incestuous marriage is universally recognized as grossly indecent, immoral, and inimical to the purity and happiness of the family, and abhorrent to nature (by reason of morality); To avoid confusion of rights and duties incident to family relations (practical reasons); Science and experience have established that inter-marriages very often result in deficient and degenerate oGsprings (scientific or genetic reasons); To promote family solidarity and prevent domestic disharmony arising from competing relations of social intimacy and jealousy (social and psychological reasons) (d) Void marriages by reason of public policy (Article 38) “Art. 38. The following marriages shall be void from the beginning for reasons of public policy: (1) Between collateral blood relatives whether legitimate or illegitimate, up to the fourth civil degree; To determine whether two persons are relatives of each other up to the fourth civil degree, they have to consider their nearest and immediate common ascendant and then count the number of relatives from one of them to the common ascendant and from the common ascendant to the other one. SPECIFIC MARRIAGES BETWEEN COLLATERAL BLOOD RELATIVES WITHIN FOURTH CIVIL DEGREE: Between uncles and nieces; Between aunts and nephews; Between first cousins; Between grandchildren and brother/sister of the grandparents The prohibition does not extend to marriages between collateral blood relatives by the half-blood. All doubts must be construed in favor of marriage. Only those expressly prohibited by law as void shall be treated as such. The provision under Article 38 must be strictly construed in favor of the contracting parties and against its illegality. (2) Between step-parents and step-children; (3) Between parents-in-law and children-in-law. Contemplates of a situation where the marriage, which is the common bond between the parents-in-law and the children-in-law, is already terminated, because if the marriage is still existing, the parents-in-law and the children-in-law cannot legally marry each other as the marriage would be bigamous. REASON FOR THE PROHIBITION AGAINST MARRIAGE BETWEEN RELATIVES BY AFFINITY: If allowed, it can most likely destroy the peacefulness of family relations and cause disturbance within the family circle. It would be scandalous for step-parents to marry their step-children or parents-in-law to marry their children-in-law because it is more in keeping with Philippine customs and traditions to treat step-children or children-in-law as their own and vice-versa QUERY: Does the dissolution of the marriage-which serves as the common bond that gave rise to the relationship by aGinity- terminate the relationship by aGinity? DEAN MEL STA. MARIA’S VIEW: Dissolution of marriage does not terminate relationship by aGinity, applying by analogy the ruling in Intestate estate of Manolita Vda. De Carungcong vs. People and William Sato, G.R. No.181409, 11 February 2010). (4) Between the adopting parent and the adopted child; (5) Between the surviving spouse of the adopting parent and the adopted child; (6) Between the surviving spouse of the adopted child and the adopter; Thus, if the marriage between the adopter and his/her spouse or between the adopted and his/her spouse was dissolved by judicial declaration of nullity or annulment in accordance with law, the prohibition does not apply.  (7) Between an adopted child and a legitimate child of the adopter; (8) Between adopted children of the same adopter; NOTE: While the Family Code does not prohibit the marriage between the adopted and the parent of the adopter, the marriage between the adopted and the legitimate sibling of the adopter, and the marriage of the adopted with the legitimate grandchild of the adopter, these marriages are no longer allowed in view of the innovation introduced by Republic Act 11642, otherwise known as the “Domestic Administrative Adoption and Alternative Child Care Act.” Pursuant to Section 41 thereof, the legitimate filiation created by adoption between the adopter and the adoptee is now extended to the adopter’s parents, adopter’s legitimate siblings, and the adopter’s legitimate grandchildren. (9) Between parties where one, with the intention to marry the other, killed that other person’s spouse, or his or her own spouse.” REASON FOR THE PROHIBITION AGAINST MARRIAGES UNDER ARTICLE 38: It is the policy of the State to foster a normal, peaceful, and wholesome integral nuclear family unit. The marriages mentioned in Article 38 will not serve – but are destructive of - the purpose of nurturing a stable family unit. Imprescriptibility of action or defense OF NULLITY OF MARRIAGEArticle 39, Family Code “Art. 39. The action or defense for the declaration of absolute nullity of a marriage shall not prescribe.” (As amended by Executive Order 227 and Republic Act No. 8533; The phrase “However, in case of marriage celebrated before the eGectivity of this Code and falling under Article 36, such action or defense shall prescribe in ten years after this Code shall taken eGect” has been deleted by Republic Act No. 8533 [Approved February 23, 1998]). HOW TO ATTACK THE STATUS OF A VOID MARRIAGEMODES OF ATTACKING THE STATUS OF A VOID MARRIAGE: Direct attack By filing a petition for declaration of nullity of a void marriage, following the procedure set out under A.M. No.02-11-10-SC, eGective 15 March 2003 Collateral attack By assailing the validity of the marriage as an integral part of a party’s claim or defenses in a proceeding other than a petition for nullity of marriage EXAMPLES OF COLLATERAL ATTACK: In an action for support filed by wife but husband invoked nullity of the marriage by way of defense (Reinel Anthony De Castro vs. Annabelle Assidao-De Castro, G.R. No. 160172, 13 February 2008), In an action for recovery of insurance benefits (Susan Nicdao- Carino vs. Susan Yee-Carino, G.R. No.132529, 2 February 2001; Social Security Commission vs. Edna Azote, G.R. No.209741, 15 April 2015) In an action for settlement of estate of a deceased person whose marriage is alleged to be void filed by the heirs of the deceased’s husband’s first family(Lolita Enrico vs. Heirs of Eulogio Medinaceli, G.R. No.173614, 28 September 2007) In an action for determination of heirship QUERY: May the status of a void marriage be collaterally attacked in a criminal prosecution for bigamy? NOTE: In a special proceedings for correction of entries under rule 108 of the Rules of Court, the trial court has no jurisdiction to nullify marriage and rule on legitimacy and filiation(Ma. Cristina Braza, et. al. vs. The City Civil Registrar, G.R. No. 181174, 04 December 2009) But Rule 108 is an appropriate remedy to correct an erroneous entry in the civil registry where the status of a party is reflected therein as “married” when no such marriage took place (Republic vs. Merlinda Olaybar, G.R. No. 189538, 10 February 2014) RULES/PRINCIPLES GOVERNING NULLITY OF VOID MARRIAGEWHO MAY FILE PETITION TO DECLARE NULLITY OF A VOID MARRIAGE Under Administrative Matter No. 02-11-10 of the Supreme Court, only the husband or the wife can file a direct action for declaration of nullity of a void marriage solemnized after the eGectivity of the Family Code and the petition for declaration of nullity of marriage is filed on or after March 15, 2003 (Lolita Enrico vs. Heirs of Eulogio Medinaceli, G.R. No.173614, 28 September 2007 involving a petition for declaration of nullity of a subsequent marriage entered into by the husband solemnized in 2004 filed by the children of the first marriage dissolved by death of the first wife); Lucila David, et. al vs. Cherry Calilung, GR. No. 241036, 26 January 2021, where the former wife and her children filed a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage of the former husband’s second marriage solemnized on October 7, 2006.) NOTE: Although only the husband or the wife may directly attack the nullity of their marriage via a petition for declaration of nullity, the compulsory or intestate heirs may collaterally attack the nullity of a void marriage – not in a direct proceeding for declaration of nullity of marriage – but upon death of the spouse in a proceeding for the settlement of the estate of the deceased spouse filed in the regular courts. The reason being that, prior to the death of the spouse, the interest of the children or other relatives in the estate of the spouse is merely inchoate, which could ripen only upon death. Before death, the children or other relatives cannot be deemed as “interested party.” LLUSTRATIVE CASE: LUCILA DAVID AND HEIRS OF RENE AGUAS VS. CHERRY CALILUNG (G.R. No.241036, 26 January 2021) Facts: Lucila married Rene on 24 November 1981. Upon petition filed by Rene, their marriage was declared void by reason of Lucila’s psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code. Subsequently, Rene married Cherry on 7 October 2006. On 17 November 2015, Rene died. After the death of Rene, Lucila (former wife) and their children filed a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage between Rene and Cherry, on the ground of failure to comply with Articles 50 and 52 which renders their marriage void under Article 53. RULING: Since the marriage between Rene and Cherry was solemnized on October 7, 2006 and the petition for nullity was filed on November 3, 2017, A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC is absolutely applicable. Thus, while Rene’s children by the former marriage declared void by reason of Lucila’s pshychological incapacity cannot directly attack the validity of the marriage of Rene and Cherry, they, however, can collaterally attack such marriage in a proceeding for the settlement of the estate of Rene. EXCEPTIONS TO A.M. NO. 02-11-10-SC: a) For marriages solemnized before the eGectivity of the Family Code on 03 August 1988 (Juan De Dios Carlos vs. Felicidad Sandoval, G.R. No.179922, 16 December 2008 where the brother of the deceased husband assailed the validity of the marriage in a settlement of estate proceedings; Engrace Ninal vs. Norma Bayadog, G.R. No.133778, 14 March 2000 where the children of the deceased husband’s first marriage directly attacked the second marriage of their father). For marriages solemnized during eGectivity of Family Code but the petition for nullity of marriage was filed before March 15, 2003, the date A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC took eGect (Estrellita Llave vs. Republic and Zorayda Tamano, G.R. No.169766, 30 March 2011; Juan De Dios Carlos vs. Felicidad Sandoval, G.R. No. 179922, 16 December 2008) Thus, where the marriage was solemnized before eGectivity of Family Code or where the petition was filed before 15 March 2003, any interested party can assail, directly or collaterally, the nullity of marriage, like the brother of the deceased husband in Juan De Dios Carlos vs Felicidad Sandoval, or the first wife or child by the previous marriage in Llave vs. Republic of the Philippines and Zorayda Tamano, et al., or children by the first marriage in Engrace Ninal vs. Norma Bayadog, G.R. No.133778, 14 March 2000; or by the brother of the deceased husband who filed a petition for declaration of nullity of his brother’s marriage solemnized on December 26, 1949). If the ground for nullity of a void marriage is bigamy, the spouse to the existing first marriage may file an action to declare the marriage void (Estrellita Llave vs. Republic and Zorayda, G.R. No.169766, 30 March 2011; Minoru Fujiki vs. Maria Paz Marinay, G.R. No.196049, 26 June 2013)  NOTE: But either of the spouse in the subsequent bigamous marriage may also file, although normally neither of them is expected to do so, since they benefit from the bigamous marriage. But if one of them belatedly came to know of the bigamous nature of marriage, then he/she is likely to file the petition to declare the marriage void (Estrellita Llave vs. Zorayda Tamano, G.R. No.169766, 20 March 2011) May the guilty spouse file the petition to declare a marriage null and void? Unlike petitions for annulment of marriage under Article 45 which can be filed only by the injured spouse, even the guilty spouse can initiate the petition, as the rule does not make any qualification. (Chi Ming Tsoi vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.119190, 16 January 1997; Republic vs. Jose Dayot, G.R. No.175581, 28 March 2008) Does the principle “He who comes to court must come with clean hands” apply to petitions for nullity of marriage? ANSWER: No, since this principle is based on equity and equitable principles apply only in the absence of a law. Thus, in Republic vs. Jose Dayot, G.R. No. 175581, 28 March 2008, the court declared a marriage void on the ground that the aGidavit of cohabitation was falsified although the husband was found guilty of the falsification. Under the laws, either the husband or the wife may file a petition for nullity of a void marriage. This is consistent with the principle that a void marriage cannot be ratified by the action or conduct of the parties.