Pilapil

vs Ibay-Somera Pilapil vs Ibay-Somera

TITLE: Imelda Manalaysay Pilapil v Hon. Corona Ibay- TITLE: Imelda Manalaysay Pilapil v Hon. Corona Ibay-
Somera Somera
CITATION: GR No. 80116, June 30, 1989| 174 SCRA 653 CITATION: GR No. 80116, June 30, 1989| 174 SCRA 653


FACTS: FACTS:

Imelda M. Pilapil, a Filipino citizen, was married with Imelda M. Pilapil, a Filipino citizen, was married with
private respondent, Erich Ekkehard Geiling, a German private respondent, Erich Ekkehard Geiling, a German
national before the Registrar of Births, Marriages and national before the Registrar of Births, Marriages and
Deaths at Friedensweiler, Federal Republic of Deaths at Friedensweiler, Federal Republic of
Germany. They have a child who was born on April 20, Germany. They have a child who was born on April 20,
1980 and named Isabella Pilapil Geiling. Conjugal 1980 and named Isabella Pilapil Geiling. Conjugal
disharmony eventuated in private respondent and he disharmony eventuated in private respondent and he
initiated a divorce proceeding against petitioner in initiated a divorce proceeding against petitioner in
Germany before the Schoneberg Local Court in January Germany before the Schoneberg Local Court in January
1983. The petitioner then filed an action for legal 1983. The petitioner then filed an action for legal
separation, support and separation of property before separation, support and separation of property before
the RTC Manila on January 23, 1983. the RTC Manila on January 23, 1983.
The decree of divorce was promulgated on January 15, The decree of divorce was promulgated on January 15,
1986 on the ground of failure of marriage of the 1986 on the ground of failure of marriage of the
spouses. The custody of the child was granted to the spouses. The custody of the child was granted to the
petitioner. petitioner.
On June 27, 1986, private respondent filed 2 complaints On June 27, 1986, private respondent filed 2 complaints
for adultery before the City Fiscal of Manila alleging that for adultery before the City Fiscal of Manila alleging that
while still married to Imelda, latter “had an affair with while still married to Imelda, latter “had an affair with
William Chia as early as 1982 and another man named William Chia as early as 1982 and another man named
Jesus Chua sometime in 1983”. Jesus Chua sometime in 1983”.

ISSUE: Whether private respondent can prosecute ISSUE: Whether private respondent can prosecute
petitioner on the ground of adultery even though they petitioner on the ground of adultery even though they
are no longer husband and wife as decree of divorce are no longer husband and wife as decree of divorce
was already issued. was already issued.

HELD: HELD:
The law specifically provided that in prosecution for The law specifically provided that in prosecution for
adultery and concubinage, the person who can legally adultery and concubinage, the person who can legally
file the complaint should be the offended spouse and file the complaint should be the offended spouse and
nobody else. Though in this case, it appeared that nobody else. Though in this case, it appeared that
private respondent is the offended spouse, the latter private respondent is the offended spouse, the latter
obtained a valid divorce in his country, the Federal obtained a valid divorce in his country, the Federal
Republic of Germany, and said divorce and its legal Republic of Germany, and said divorce and its legal
effects may be recognized in the Philippines in so far as effects may be recognized in the Philippines in so far as
he is concerned. Thus, under the same consideration he is concerned. Thus, under the same consideration
and rationale, private respondent is no longer the and rationale, private respondent is no longer the
husband of petitioner and has no legal standing to husband of petitioner and has no legal standing to
commence the adultery case under the imposture that commence the adultery case under the imposture that
he was the offended spouse at the time he filed suit. he was the offended spouse at the time he filed suit.




Van Dorn vs Romillo Republic vs Orbecido
Van Dorn vs. Romillo Republic vs. Orbecido
139 SCRA 139 GR NO. 154380, October 5, 2005

FACTS:

FACTS: Cipriano Orbecido III was married with Lady Myros
Villanueva on May 24, 1981 at the United Church of
Alice Reyes Van Dorn, a Filipino Citizen and private Christ in the Philippines in Ozamis City. They had a son
respondent, Richard Upton, a US citizen, was married in and a daughter named Kristoffer and Kimberly,
Hong Kong in 1979. They established their residence in respectively. In 1986, the wife left for US bringing along
the Philippines and had 2 children. They were divorced their son Kristoffer. A few years later, Orbecido
in Nevada, USA in 1982 and petitioner remarried, this discovered that his wife had been naturalized as an
time with Theodore Van Dorn. A suit against petitioner American citizen and learned from his son that his wife
was filed on June 8, 1983, stating that petitioner’s sometime in 2000 had obtained a divorce decree and
business in Ermita Manila, the Galleon Shop, is a married a certain Stanley. He thereafter filed with the
conjugal property with Upton and prayed therein that trial court a petition for authority to remarry invoking
Alice be ordered to render an accounting of the Paragraph 2 of Article 26 of the Family Code.
business and he be declared as the administrator of the
said property. ISSUE: Whether or not Orbecido can remarry under
Article 26 of the Family Code.
ISSUE: Whether or not the foreign divorce between the
petitioner and private respondent in Nevada is binding HELD:
in the Philippines where petitioner is a Filipino citizen.
The court ruled that taking into consideration the
HELD: legislative intent and applying the rule of reason, Article
26 Par.2 should be interpreted to include cases
Private respondent is no longer the husband of the involving parties who, at the time of the celebration of
petitioner. He would have no standing to sue petitioner the marriage were Filipino citizens, but later on, one of
to exercise control over conjugal assets. He is estopped them becomes naturalized as a foreign citizen and
by his own representation before the court from obtains a divorce decree. The Filipino spouse should
asserting his right over the alleged conjugal likewise be allowed to remarry as if the other party
property. Furthermore, aliens may obtain divorces were a foreigner at the time of the solemnization of the
abroad, which may be recognized in the Philippines, marriage.
provided they are valid according to their national
law. Petitioner is not bound to her marital obligations Hence, the court’s unanimous decision in holding Article
to respondent by virtue of her nationality laws. She 26 Par 2 be interpreted as allowing a Filipino citizen who
should not be discriminated against her own country if has been divorced by a spouse who had acquired a
the end of justice is to be served. citizenship and remarried, also to remarry under
Philippine law.













 Paula Llorente vs Court of Appeals
CASE DIGEST: QUITA V. CA
In 1927, Lorenzo Llorente, then a Filipino, was enlisted in the
Facts: U.S. Navy. In 1937, he and Paula Llorente got married in
Fe D. Quita and Arturo T. Padlan, both Filipinos, were Camarines Sur. In 1943, Lorenzo became an American citizen.
married in the Philippines on May 18, 1941. In 1945, Lorenzo returned to the Philippines for a vacation.
He discovered that Paula was already living illicitly with
No children were born out of their marriage. On July 23,
Ceferino Llorente (brother of Lorenzo). Ceferino and Paula
1954, petitioner obtained a final judgment of divorce in even had a son.
San Francisco, California, U.S.A. On April 16, Lorenzo then refused to live with Paula. He also refused to
1972, Arturodied leaving no will. On August 31, 1972, give her monetary support. Eventually, Lorenzo and Paula
Lino Javier Inciong filed a petition with the RTC for agreed in writing Lorenzo shall not criminally charge Paula if
issuance of letters of administration concerning the latter agrees to waive all monetary support from Lorenzo.
the estate of Arturo in favor of the Philippine Trust Later, Lorenzo returned to the United States.
Company. Respondent Blandina Dandan, claiming to be In 1951, Lorenzo filed a divorce proceeding against Paula in
the surviving spouse of Arturo Dandan and the California. Paula was represented by an American counsel.
surviving children, all surnamed Padlan, opposed the The divorce was granted and in 1952, the divorce became
final.
petition. The RTC expressed that the marriage between
Lorenzo returned to the Philippines. In 1958, Lorenzo married
Antonio and petitioner subsisted until the death Alicia Fortuno. They had three children.
of Arturo in 1972, that the marriage existed between In 1981, Lorenzo executed his last will and testament where
private respondent and Arturo was clearly void since it he left all his estate to Alicia and their children (nothing for
was celebrated during the existence of his previous Paula). In 1983, he went to court for the will’s probate and to
marriage to petitioner. The Court of Appeals remanded have Alicia as the administratrix of his property. In 1985,
the case to the trial court for further proceedings. before the probate proceeding can be terminated, Lorenzo
Issues: died. Later, Paula filed a petition for letters of administration
1. Should the case be remanded to the lower court? over Lorenzo’s estate.
2. Who between the petitioner and private respondent The trial court ruled that Lorenzo’s marriage with Alicia is void
because the divorce he obtained abroad is void. The trial
is the proper heir of the decedent?
court ratiocinated that Lorenzo is a Filipino hence divorce is
Held: not applicable to him. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial
If there is a controversy before the court as to who are court.
the lawful heirs of the deceased person or as to ISSUES: Whether or not Lorenzo’s divorce abroad should be
the distributive shares to which each person is entitled recognized.
under the law, the controversy shall be heard and HELD: Yes. It is undisputed by Paula Llorente that Lorenzo
decided as in ordinary cases. became an American citizen in 1943. Hence, when he
No dispute exists as to the right of the six obtained the divorce decree in 1952, he is already an
Padlan children to inherit from the decedent because American citizen. Article 15 of the Civil Code provides:
there are proofs that they have been duly Laws relating to family rights and duties, or to the status,
condition and legal capacity of persons are binding upon
acknowledged by him and petitioner herself even
citizens of the Philippines, even though living abroad.
recognizes them as heirs of Arturo Padlan, nor as to Since Lorenzo was no longer a Filipino, Philipine laws relating
their respective hereditary shares. to family rights, duties, or status are no longer applicable to
Private respondent is not a surviving spouse that can him. Therefore, the divorce decree he obtained abroad must
inherit from him as this status presupposes a legitimate be respected. The rule is: aliens may obtain divorces abroad,
relationship. Her marriage to Arturobeing a bigamous provided they are valid according to their national law.
marriage considered void ab inito under Articles 80 and However, this case was still remanded to the lower court so
83 of the Civil Code renders her not a surviving spouse. as for the latter to determine the effects of the divorce as to
The decision of the Court of Appeals ordering the the successional rights of Lorenzo and his heirs.
remand of the case is affirmed. Anent the issue on Lorenzo’s last will and testament, it must
be respected. He is an alien and is not covered by our laws on

succession. However, since the will was submitted to our
courts for probate, then the case was remanded to the lower
court where the foreign law must be alleged in order to prove
the validity of the will.



BAYOT VS CA She had consistently professed, asserted and represented
herself as an American citizen, as shown in her marriage
certificate, in Alix's birth certificate, when she secured divorce
FACTS: in Dominican Republic.
On April 20, 1979, Vicente, a Filipino, and Rebecca, an
American, were married in Muntinlupa. They had a child
name Alix, born in November 27, 1982 in California. Being an American citizen, Rebecca was bound by the
national laws of the United States of America, a country
which allows divorce.
In February 22, 1996, Rebecca initiated divorce proceedings
in Dominican Republic, which was docketed as Civil Decree
No. 362/96 ordering the dissolution of the marriage. The The Civil Decree No. 406/97 issued by the Dominican Republic
same court also issued Civil Decree No. 406/97 settling the court properly adjudicated the ex-couple's property relations.
couple's conjugal property in Muntinlupa in March 4, 1997.

The Court said, in order that a foreign divorce can be
She then filed a declaration of absolute nullity of marriage on recognized here, the divorce decree must be proven as a fact
the ground of Vicente's alleged psychological incapacity, and as valid under the national law of the alien spouse.
docketed as Civil Case No. 01-094. She sought dissolution of
the conjugal partnerships of gains with application for
support pendente lite for her and Alix. She also prayed The fact that Rebecca was clearly an American citizen when
that Vicente be ordered to pay a permanent monthly support she secured the divorce and that divorce is recognized and
for their daughter Alix in the amount of P 220,000.00. allowed in any of the States of the Union, the presentation of
a copy of foreign divorce decree duly authenticated by
the foreign court issuing said decree is, as here, sufficient.
On June 8, 2001, Vicente filed a Motion to Dismiss on the
grounds of lack of cause of action and that the petition is
barred by the prior judgment of divorce. Thus the foreign decrees rendered and issued by the
Dominican Republic court are valid, and consequently, bind
both Rebecca and Vicente.
RTC denied Vicente's motion to dismiss. CA dismissed Civil
Case No. 01-094 and set aside RTC's incidental orders. The fact that Rebecca may have been duly recognised as a
According the the CA, RTC ought to have granted Vicente's Filipino citizen by force of the June 8, 2000 affirmation by the
motion to dismiss, since the marriage between the spouses is DOJ Secretary of the October 6, 1995 Bureau Order of
already dissolved when the divorce decree was granted since Recognition will not, stand alone, work to nullify or invalidate
Rebecca was an American citizen when she applied for the the foreign divorce secured by Rebecca as an American
decree. citizen in 1996. In determining whether or not a divorce is
secured abroad would come within the pale of the country's
policy against absolute divorce, the reckoning point is the
Issue: citizenship of the parties at the time a valid divorce is
Whether or not the divorce decree obtained by Rebecca in obtained.
Dominican Republic is valid.


Ruling:


Yes. Civil Decrees No. 362/96 and 406/97 are valid.


Rebecca at that time she applied and obtained her divorce
was an American citizen and remains to be one, being born to
American parents in Guam, an American territory which
follows the principle of jus soli granting American citizenship
to those who are born there. She was, and still may be, a
holder of American passport.


Corpuz vs. Sto. Tomas Ninal vs Bayadog

FACTS:

FACTS: Pepito Ninal was married with Teodulfa Bellones on
September 26, 1974. They had 3 children namely Babyline,
Gerbert Corpuz, a former Filipino citizen but now a Ingrid and Archie, petitioners. Due to the shot inflicted by
naturalized Canadian, married Daisylyn Sto. Tomas, a Filipina. Pepito to Teodulfa, the latter died on April 24, 1985 leaving
He soon left to Canada after their wedding due to work the children under the guardianship of Engrace Ninal. 1 year
commitments. He returned to Philippines on April 2005 only and 8 months later, Pepito and Norma Badayog got married
to find out Daisylyn has an affair with another man. Gerbert without any marriage license. They instituted an affidavit
returned to Canada to file a divorce that took effect on stating that they had lived together for at least 5 years
January 2006. exempting from securing the marriage license. Pepito died in
a car accident on February 19, 1977. After his death,
Two years later, he found another Filipina and wanted to petitioners filed a petition for declaration of nullity of the
marry her in the Philippines. He went to Pasig City Registrar's marriage of Pepito and Norma alleging that said marriage was
Office to register his Canadian divorce decree but was denied void for lack of marriage license.
considering that his marriage with Daisylyn still subsists under
Philippine law, that the foregin divorce must be recognized ISSUES:
judicially by the Philippine court.
1. Whether or not the second marriage of Pepito was void?
Gerbert subsequently filed at the Regional Trial Court a 2. Whether or not the heirs of the deceased may file for the
judicial recognition of foreign divorce but was subsequently declaration of the nullity of Pepito’s marriage after his death?
denied since he is not the proper party and according to
Article 26 of the Civil Code, only a Filipino spouse can avail HELD:
the remedy.
The marriage of Pepito and Norma is void for absence of the
marriage license. They cannot be exempted even though
they instituted an affidavit and claimed that they cohabit for
ISSUE: at least 5 years because from the time of Pepito’s first
marriage was dissolved to the time of his marriage with
Whether or not Article 26 can also be applied to Corpuz' Norma, only about 20 months had elapsed. Albeit, Pepito and
petition of recognition of the foreign divorce decree his first wife had separated in fact, and thereafter both Pepito
and Norma had started living with each other that has already
lasted for five years, the fact remains that their five-year
HELD: period cohabitation was not the cohabitation contemplated
by law. Hence, his marriage to Norma is still void.
The Court held that alien spouses cannot claim the right as it
is only in favor of Filipino spouses. The legislative intent of Void marriages are deemed to have not taken place and
Article 26 is for the benefit of the clarification of the marital cannot be the source of rights. It can be questioned even
status of the Filipino spouse. after the death of one of the parties and any proper
interested party may attack a void marriage.
However, aliens are not strip to petition to the RTC for his
foreign divorce decree as it is a conclusive presumption of
evidence of the authenticity of foreign divorce decree with
confirmity to the alien's national law.

The Pasig City Registrar's Office acted out of line when it
registered the foreign divorce decree without judicial order
recognition. Therefore, the registration is still deemed to be
void.







Manzano vs Sanchez Cosca vs Palaypayon
Cosca vs. Palaypayon
237 SCRA 249

FACTS: FACTS:

Herminia Borja-Manzano was the lawful wife of the late David The following are the complainants: Juvy N. Cosca
Manzano having been married on May 21, 1966 in San (Stenographer 1), Edmundo B. Peralta (Interpreter 1), Ramon
Gabriel Archangel Parish in Caloocan. They had four C. Sambo (Clerk II) and Apollo Villamora (Process
children. On March 22, 1993, her husband contracted Server). Respondents are Judge Lucio Palaypayon Jr., the
another marriage with Luzviminda Payao before respondent presiding judge, and Nelia B. Esmeralda-Baroy, clerk of court
Judge. The marriage contract clearly stated that both II. All work in MTC-Tinambac, Camarines Sur.
contracting parties were “separated” thus, respondent Judge
ought to know that the marriage was void and bigamous. He Complainants alleged that Palaypayon solemnized marriages
claims that when he officiated the marriage of David and even without the requisite of a marriage license. Hence, the
Payao, he knew that the two had been living together as following couples were able to get married just by paying the
husband and wife for seven years as manifested in their joint marriage fees to respondent Baroy: Alano P. Abellano & Nelly
affidavit that they both left their families and had never Edralin; Francisco Selpo & Julieta Carrido; Eddie Terrobias &
cohabit or communicated with their spouses due to constant Maria Gacer; Renato Gamay & Maricris Belga; Arsenio
quarrels. Sabater & Margarita Nacario; Sammy Bocaya & Gina
Bismonte. As a consequence, the marriage contracts of the
ISSUE: Whether the solemnization of a marriage between following couples did not reflect any marriage license
two contracting parties who both have an existing marriage number. In addition, Palaypayon did not sign the marriage
can contract marriage if they have been cohabitating for 5 contracts and did not indicate the date of solemnization
years under Article 34 of Family Code. reasoning out that he allegedly had to wait for the marriage
license to be submitted by the parties which happens usually
HELD: several days after the marriage ceremony.

Among the requisites of Article 34 is that parties must have Palaypayon contends that marriage between Abellano &
no legal impediment to marry each other. Considering that Edralin falls under Article 34 of the Civil Code thus exempted
both parties has a subsisting marriage, as indicated in their from the marriage license requirement. According to him, he
marriage contract that they are both “separated” is an gave strict instructions to complainant Sambo to furnish the
impediment that would make their subsequent marriage null couple copy of the marriage contract and to file the same
and void. Just like separation, free and voluntary with the civil registrar but the latter failed to do so. In order
cohabitation with another person for at least 5 years does not to solve the problem, the spouses subsequently formalized
severe the tie of a subsisting previous marriage. Clearly, the marriage by securing a marriage license and executing
respondent Judge Sanchez demonstrated gross ignorance of their marriage contract, a copy of which was then filed with
the law when he solemnized a void and bigamous marriage. the civil registrar. The other five marriages were not illegally
solemnized because Palaypayon did not sign their marriage
contracts and the date and place of marriage are not
included. It was alleged that copies of these marriage
contracts are in the custody of complainant Sambo. The
alleged marriage of Selpo & Carrido, Terrobias & Gacer,
Gamay & Belga, Sabater & Nacario were not celebrated by
him since he refused to solemnize them in the absence of a
marriage license and that the marriage of Bocaya & Bismonte
was celebrated even without the requisite license due to the
insistence of the parties to avoid embarrassment with the
guests which he again did not sign the marriage contract.

An illegal solemnization of marriage was charged against the
respondents.

ISSUE: Whether the marriage solemnized by Judge
Palaypayon were valid.

HELD:

Bocaya & Besmonte’s marriage was solemnized without a Mariategui vs CA
marriage license along with the other couples. The
testimonies of Bocay and Pompeo Ariola including the
photographs taken showed that it was really Judge FACTS:
Palaypayon who solemnized their marriage. Bocaya declared
that they were advised by judge to return after 10 days after Lupo Mariategui died without a will on June 26, 1953 and
the solemnization and bring with them their marriage contracted 3 marriages during his lifetime. He acquired the
license. They already started living together as husband and Muntinlupa Estate while he was still a bachelor. He had 4
wife even without the formal requisite. With respect to the children with his first wife Eusebia Montellano, who died in
photographs, judge explained that it was a simulated 1904 namely Baldomera, Maria del Rosario, Urbano and
solemnization of marriage and not a real one. However, Ireneo. Baldomera had 7 children namely Antero, Rufina,
considering that there were pictures from the start of the Catalino, Maria, Gerardo, Virginia and Federico, all surnamed
wedding ceremony up to the signing of the marriage Espina. Ireneo on the other hand had a son named
certificates in front of him. The court held that it is hard to Ruperto. On the other hand, Lupo’s second wife is Flaviana
believe that it was simulated. Montellano where they had a daughter named
Cresenciana. Lupo got married for the third time in 1930 with
On the other hand, Judge Palaypayon admitted that he Felipa Velasco and had 3 children namely Jacinto, Julian and
solemnized marriage between Abellano & Edralin and Paulina. Jacinto testified that his parents got married before
claimed it was under Article 34 of the Civil Code so the a Justice of the Peace of Taguig Rizal. The spouses deported
marriage license was dispensed with considering that the themselves as husband and wife, and were known in the
contracting parties executed a joint affidavit that they have community to be such.
been living together as husband and wife for almost 6 years
already. However, it was shown in the marriage contract that Lupo’s descendants by his first and second marriages
Abellano was only 18 yrs 2months and 7 days old. If he and executed a deed of extrajudicial partition whereby they
Edralin had been living together for 6 years already before adjudicated themselves Lot NO. 163 of the Muntinlupa Estate
they got married as what is stated in the joint affidavit, and was subjected to a voluntary registration proceedings
Abellano must have been less than 13 years old when they and a decree ordering the registration of the lot was
started living together which is hard to believe. Palaypayon issued. The siblings in the third marriage prayed for inclusion
should have been aware, as it is his duty to ascertain the in the partition of the estate of their deceased father and
qualification of the contracting parties who might have annulment of the deed of extrajudicial partition dated Dec.
executed a false joint affidavit in order to avoid the marriage 1967.
license requirement.
ISSUE: Whether the marriage of Lupo with Felipa is valid in
Article 4 of the Family Code pertinently provides that “in the the absence of a marriage license.
absence of any of the essential or formal requisites shall
render the marriage void ab initio whereas an irregularity in HELD:
the formal requisite shall not affect the validity of the
marriage but the party or parties responsible for the Although no marriage certificate was introduced to prove
irregularity shall be civilly, criminally, and administratively Lupo and Felipa’s marriage, no evidence was likewise offered
liable. to controvert these facts. Moreover, the mere fact that no
record of the marriage exists does not invalidate the
marriage, provided all requisites for its validity are present.

Under these circumstances, a marriage may be presumed to
have taken place between Lupo and Felipa. The laws presume
that a man and a woman, deporting themselves as husband
and wife, have entered into a lawful contract of marriage;
that a child born in lawful wedlock, there being no divorce,
absolute or from bed and board is legitimate; and that things
have happened according to the ordinary course of nature
and the ordinary habits of life.

Hence, Felipa’s children are legitimate and therefore have
successional rights.




 Chi Ming Tsoi vs CA
Republic vs Dayot
FACTS:

FACTS: Chi Ming Tsoi and Gina Lao Tsoi was married in 1988. After
the celebration of their wedding, they proceed to the house
Jose and Felisa Dayot were married at the Pasay City Hall on of defendant’s mother. There was no sexual intercourse
November 24, 1986. In lieu of a marriage license, they between them during their first night and same thing
executed a sworn affidavit that they had lived together for at happened until their fourth night. In an effort to have their
least 5years. On August 1990, Jose contracted marriage with honeymoon in a private place, they went to Baguio but Gina’s
a certain Rufina Pascual. They were both employees of the relatives went with them. Again, there was no sexual
National Statistics and Coordinating Board. Felisa then filed intercourse since the defendant avoided by taking a long walk
on June 1993 an action for bigamy against Jose and an during siesta or sleeping on a rocking chair at the living
administrative complaint with the Office of the room. Since May 1988 until March 1989 they slept together
Ombudsman. On the other hand, Jose filed a complaint on in the same bed but no attempt of sexual intercourse
July 1993 for annulment and/or declaration of nullity of between them. Because of this, they submitted themselves
marriage where he contended that his marriage with Felisa for medical examination to a urologist in Chinese General
was a sham and his consent was secured through fraud. Hospital in 1989. The result of the physical examination of
Gina was disclosed, while that of the husband was kept
ISSUE: Whether or not Jose’s marriage with Felisa is valid confidential even the medicine prescribed. There were
considering that they executed a sworn affidavit in lieu of the allegations that the reason why Chi Ming Tsoi married her is
marriage license requirement. to maintain his residency status here in the country. Gina
does not want to reconcile with Chi Ming Tsoi and want their
HELD: marriage declared void on the ground of psychological
incapacity. On the other hand, the latter does not want to
CA indubitably established that Jose and Felisa have not lived have their marriage annulled because he loves her very much,
together for five years at the time they executed their sworn he has no defect on his part and is physically and
affidavit and contracted marriage. Jose and Felisa started psychologically capable and since their relationship is still
living together only in June 1986, or barely five months young, they can still overcome their differences. Chi Ming
before the celebration of their marriage on November Tsoi submitted himself to another physical examination and
1986. Findings of facts of the Court of Appeals are binding in the result was there is not evidence of impotency and he is
the Supreme Court. capable of erection.

The solemnization of a marriage without prior license is a ISSUE: Whether Chi Ming Tsoi’s refusal to have sexual
clear violation of the law and invalidates a marriage. intercourse with his wife constitutes psychological incapacity.
Furthermore, “the falsity of the allegation in the sworn
affidavit relating to the period of Jose and Felisa’s
cohabitation, which would have qualified their marriage as an HELD:
exception to the requirement for a marriage license, cannot
be a mere irregularity, for it refers to a quintessential fact The abnormal reluctance or unwillingness to consummate his
that the law precisely required to be deposed and attested to marriage is strongly indicative of a serious personality
by the parties under oath”. Hence, Jose and Felisa’s marriage disorder which to the mind of the Supreme Court clearly
is void ab initio. The court also ruled that an action for nullity demonstrates an utter insensitivity or inability to give
of marriage is imprescriptible. The right to impugn marriage meaning and significance tot the marriage within the
does not prescribe and may be raised any time. meaning of Article 36 of the Family Code.

If a spouse, although physically capable but simply refuses to
perform his or her essential marital obligations and the
refusal is senseless and constant, Catholic marriage tribunals
attribute the causes to psychological incapacity than to
stubborn refusal. Furthermore, one of the essential marital
obligations under the Family Code is to procreate children
thus constant non-fulfillment of this obligation will finally
destroy the integrity and wholeness of the marriage.




Domingo vs CA Republic vs CA and Molina

FACTS: FACTS:

Soledad Domingo, married with Roberto Domingo in 1976, The case at bar challenges the decision of CA affirming the
filed a petition for the declaration of nullity of marriage and marriage of the respondent Roridel Molina to Reynaldo
separation of property. She did not know that Domingo had Molina void in the ground of psychological incapacity. The
been previously married to Emerlinda dela Paz in 1969. She couple got married in 1985, after a year, Reynaldo manifested
came to know the previous marriage when the latter filed a signs of immaturity and irresponsibility both as husband and
suit of bigamy against her. Furthermore, when she came a father preferring to spend more time with friends whom he
home from Saudi during her one-month leave from work, she squandered his money, depends on his parents for aid and
discovered that Roberto cohabited with another woman and assistance and was never honest with his wife in regard to
had been disposing some of her properties which is their finances. In 1986, the couple had an intense quarrel and
administered by Roberto. The latter claims that because their as a result their relationship was estranged. Roridel quit her
marriage was void ab initio, the declaration of such voidance work and went to live with her parents in Baguio City in 1987
is unnecessary and superfluous. On the other hand, Soledad and a few weeks later, Reynaldo left her and their
insists the declaration of the nullity of marriage not for the child. Since then he abandoned them.
purpose of remarriage, but in order to provide a basis for the
separation and distribution of properties acquired during the ISSUE: Whether or not the marriage is void on the ground of
marriage. psychological incapacity.

ISSUE: Whether or not a petition for judicial declaration HELD:
should only be filed for purposes of remarriage.
The marriage between Roridel and Reynaldo subsists and
HELD: remains valid. What constitutes psychological incapacity is
not mere showing of irreconcilable differences and confliction
The declaration of the nullity of marriage is indeed required personalities. It is indispensable that the parties must exhibit
for purposed of remarriage. However, it is also necessary for inclinations which would not meet the essential marital
the protection of the subsequent spouse who believed in responsibilites and duties due to some psychological
good faith that his or her partner was not lawfully married illness. Reynaldo’s action at the time of the marriage did not
marries the same. With this, the said person is freed from manifest such characteristics that would comprise grounds
being charged with bigamy. for psychological incapacity. The evidence shown by Roridel
merely showed that she and her husband cannot get along
When a marriage is declared void ab initio, law states that with each other and had not shown gravity of the problem
final judgment shall provide for the liquidation, partition and neither its juridical antecedence nor its incurability. In
distribution of the properties of the spouses, the custody and addition, the expert testimony by Dr Sison showed no
support of the common children and the delivery of their incurable psychiatric disorder but only incompatibility which
presumptive legitimes, unless such matters had been is not considered as psychological incapacity.
adjudicated in previous judicial proceedings. Soledad’s
prayer for separation of property will simply be the necessary The following are the guidelines as to the grounds of
consequence of the judicial declaration of absolute nullity of psychological incapacity laid set forth in this case:
their marriage. Hence, the petitioner’s suggestion that for • burden of proof to show nullity belongs to the
their properties be separated, an ordinary civil action has to plaintiff
be instituted for that purpose is baseless. The Family Code • root causes of the incapacity must be medically and
has clearly provided the effects of the declaration of nullity of clinically inclined
marriage, one of which is the separation of property • such incapacity should be in existence at the time of
according to the regime of property relations governing the marriage
them. • such incapacity must be grave so as to disable the
person in complying with the essentials of marital
obligations of marriage
• such incapacity must be embraced in Art. 68-71 as
well as Art 220, 221 and 225 of the Family Code
• decision of the National Matrimonial Appellate Court
or the Catholic Church must be respected
• court shall order the prosecuting attorney and the
fiscal assigned to it to act on behalf of the state.