Legal Research

POSITION PAPER

Topic: Is Habitual Alcoholism a Ground for Absolute Nullity of Marriage?

I. INTRODUCTION
Marriage in the Philippines is bound under the Executive Order No. 209, also known as
‘The Family Code of the Philippines”. Article 1 of the Family Code defines Marriage as a
“special contract of permanent union between a man and a woman entered into in accordance
with the law for the establishment of conjugal and family life. It is a foundation of a family and
an inviolable social institution whose nature, consequences, and incidents are governed by the
law and not subject to stipulation with an exception that marriage settlement may fix the property
relation during the marriage within the limits provided by this code.”
The most important object of marriage is the procreation or to have a family but it may
not necessarily be for procreation or for parties to have children, but it may also be for
companionship, as when the parties past the age of procreation they are still married.
The contract of marriage differs from other contracts as follows:
 That only a man and a woman can enter into the contract of marriage.
 That the marriage is a permanent contract. It can only be dissolved by the death of
the other party, unless it is annulled or declared null and void for the legal cause
by the court.
 That in ordinary contract, the agreement of the parties has a force of law between
them, while in marriage, the rights and duties of the parties are fixed by law and
not subject to stipulation, except in the marriage settlement where the parties may
fix their property relation to a certain extent.
 That the breach of ordinary contracts give rise to an action for damages, while the
breach of the obligation of husband and wife does not give rise to such action, but
the law prescribed penal and civil sanctions, like legal separation, action for
support, etc.
 The marriage is no longer just a contract but an inviolable social institution, which is the
foundation of the family, so the Constitution provides that it shall be protected by the State. (
Sec. 2, Art. XV, 1987 Constitution)
Family Code established grounds for annulment of marriage: Under Art. 45: (1) Lack of
parental consent; (2) .Insanity of one of the parties; (3) Fraud, Art 46; (4) Force, Intimidation,
Undue Influence; (5) Impotency; (6) Affliction of sexually transmitted disease found to be
serious and which appears incurable.
Habitual Alcoholism can be a ground for absolute nullity of marriage if one of the parties
concealed its existence at the time of marriage which considered as fraud under Art. 46 [4] of
Family Code. There are issues where habitual alcoholism sometimes used as ground for
psychological incapacity of one of the parties just to have a ground to declare the marriage null
and void.

II. POSITION TO THE ISSUE.

Habitual alcoholism for me cannot be a Ground for Absolute Nullity of Marriage. Our
laws, The Family Code of the Philippines, clearly states his protected in a contract called
marriage, Art.1 of Family Code and Sec. 2, Art. XV, 1987 Constitution. The Family Code
numerates the ground for nullifying the marriage and if Habitual Alcoholism will be a reason to
have a ground of psychological incapacity of one party, the burden of proof is on the other party
to show to the court that the habitual alcoholism would be a ground against the other, to protect
one’s self. Habitual alcoholism is only a ground for legal separation of marriage and not an
absolute nullity of marriage.
As law states that habitual alcoholism can only be a ground for nullity of marriage when
it was concealed at the time of the marriage. But in cases passed in the Supreme Court for
review, the court decided that habitual alcoholism was not a ground for absolute nullity of
marriage but only a ground for legal separation.
III. Supporting Laws and Jurisprudence
Philippine Laws especially The Family Code of the Philippines creates laws that protects
not just the marriage but also the family home of the partners. And also, the Supreme Court
Decisions or what we called “Jurisprudence” where the Presiding Judges decide such cases to the
best and reasonable ruling that protect the family and marriage.
The following are Laws and Jurisprudence to support my positions.
Under The Family Code of the Philippines:
Article 1. Marriage is 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, except that marriage settlement may fix the property relation within the
limits provided by this Code.
Article 36. A marriage contracted by any party, at the time of the
celebration, was psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential marital
obligation of marriage, shall likewise be void even if such incapacity becomes
manifest only after its solemnization.
Article 45. A marriage may be annulled for any of the following causes,
existing at the time of the marriage:
 That the party in whose behalf is sought to have the marriage annulled
was eighteen years of age or over but below twenty-one, and the
marriage was solemnized without the consent of the parents, guardian or
person having substitute parental authority over the party, in that order,
unless after attaining the age of twenty-one, such party freely cohabited
with the other and both lived together as husband and wife;
 That either party was of sound mind, unless such party, after coming to
reason, freely cohabited with the other as husband and wife;
 That the consent for either party was obtained by fraud, unless such party
afterwards, with full knowledge of the facts constituting the fraud, freely
cohabited with the other as husband and wife;
  That the consent of either party was obtained by force, intimidation,
undue influence, unless the same having disappeared or ceased, such
party thereafter freely cohabited with the other as husband and wife;
 That either party was physically incapable of consummating the marriage
with the other, and such incapacity continues and appears to be incurable;
or
 That either party was afflicted with a sexually transmissible disease
found to be serious and appears to be incurable.
Article 46. Any of the following circumstances shall constitute fraud
referred to in the Article 45.
 Non-disclosure of previous conviction by final judgment of the other
party of a crime involving moral turpitude;
 Concealment of the wife of the fact that at the time of the marriage, she
was pregnant by a man other than her husband;
 Concealment of a sexually-transmissible disease, regardless of its nature,
existing at the time marriage; or
 Concealment of drug addiction, habitual alcoholism, homosexually or
lesbianism existing at the time of marriage.

Under the 1987 Constitution

Sec. 2, Art. XV, 1987 Constitution. Marriage, as an inviolable social institution, is the
foundation of the family and shall be protected by the State.”
Jurisprudence.
CASES
1. Lucita Hernandez v. Court of Appeals and Mario C. Hernandez, G. R. No.
126010, December 8, 1999.
A petitioner seeks for the annulment of her marriage to private respondent on
the ground of psychological incapacity of the latter. She alleged that from the time of
their marriage up to the time of the filing of the suit, private respondent failed to
perform his obligation to support the family and contribute to the management of the
household, devoting most of his time engaging in drinking alcohol with his friends.
Both the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals dismissed the petition of the
petitioner for annulment of marriage. When lifted to the Supreme Court for Review,
the Court Ruled affirming the decisions of the lower court. The Court states that
private respondent’s alleged habitual alcoholism, sexual infidelity or perversion, and
abandonment do not by themselves constitute grounds for finding that he is suffering
from psychological incapacity within the contemplation of the Family Code. It must
be shown that these acts are manifestations of a disordered personally which make
private respondent completely unable to discharge the essential obligations of the
marital state, and not merely due to private respondent’s youth and self-conscious
feeling of being handsome, as the appellate court held.

2. Republic v. Norma Cuison-Melgar, G. R. No. 139676, March 31, 2006

Norma and Eulogio were married with five children. Norma filed a case in
the RTC for declaration of nullity of her marriage against Eulogio on the ground of
psychological incapacity to comply with his marital obligations. Norma testified in
the RTC Clerk of Court that since the birth of their firstborn, Eulogio has been a
habitual alcoholic. That when he is drunk (a) sometimes sleeps on the street, (b)
Every so often, he goes in her office, utter unwholesome remarks against her and
drag her home, (c) he usually lays a hand on her, (d) he often scolds their children
without justifiable reason; that his liquor drinking habit had brought shame and
embarrassment on their family; that when she refuse to give him money for his
compulsive drinking habit, he would beat her up and threatened her; he had not been
employed since he was dismissed from work and refuse to look for a job. The RTC
grants the petition for annulment of marriage but the Office of the Solicitor General
appealed to the Courts of Appeals and rendered its decision affirming the RTC
ruling. And the OSG filed a petition for review to the Supreme Court. The Court
ruled and grants the petition for review and reversed and set aside the decision of CA
in affirming the decision of the RTC. The Court states that: “At best, the
circumstances relied upon by Norma are grounds for legal separation under Article
55 of the Family Code. As the Court ruled in Republic v. Molina, it is not enough to
prove that a spouse failed to meet his responsibility and duty as married person, it is
essential that he must shown to be incapable of doing so due to some psychological,
not physical illness. There was no prove of a natal or supervening disabling factor in
the person, an adverse integral element in the personality structure that effectively
incapacitates a person from accepting and complying with the obligations essential
to marriage.

3. Republic v. Laila Tansag-San Jose and Manolito San Jose, G. R. No.

168328, February 28, 2007.
Laila and Manolito were married for nine years. They stayed with Manolito’s
parents. Manolito was jobless and was hooked ito gambling and drugs. Laila filed
petition for declaration of Nullity of Marriage before the RTC on the ground for
psychological incapacity. Laila claimed that his husband refused to get himself a job.
Instead, he spent most of his available time with his friends drinking intoxicating
substances and gambling activities. They reconciled when she gave birth to their son
but his show of good nature was superficial. After the birth of their second child, her
husband resumed in his old ways and made them even worse. RTC denied Laila
petition. She thus appealed to the Court of Appeals and the CA reversed the decision
of the RTC and declared the marriage of Laila and Manolito void ab initio. Republic
of the Philippines filed a motion before the Supreme Court regarding the appellant
court’s decision which was denied. The Court ruled that the petition is granted,
reversed and side aside the decision of Court of Appeals. The Court states that
Manolito’s alleged psychological incapacity is thus premised on his being jobless
and a drug user, as well as his ability to support his family and his refusal or
willingness to assume the essential obligation of marriage. Manolito’s state or
condition or attitude has not been shown, however to be a malady or disorder rooted
on some incapacitating or debilitating psychological condition.

4. Renne Enrique Bier v. Ma. Lourdes A. Bier and Republic of the

Philippines, G. R. No. 173294, February 27, 2008.
The parties started experiencing marital problem after three years of marriage.
According to Renne, respondent started became aloof towards him and began to
spend more time with her friends than him, refusing even to have sexual relations
with him for no apparent reason. She became alcoholic and a chain-smoker. Renne
filed before the RTC for the declaration of nullity of marriage on the ground of
psychological incapacity to fulfil her essential marital obligations to petitioner. RTC
declared the marriage void. The office of Solicitor General appealed the RTC
decision to the CA. CA grant the appeal. Petitioner moved for consideration of CA
decision to the Supreme Court. The Court denied the petition. The Court agreed with
the CA that the change in respondent’s feelings towards petitioner could hardly be
described as a psychological illness. It was not enough that the respondent, the party
adverted to as psychological incapacitated to comply with her marital obligations,
had difficulty or was unwilling to perform the same x x x x

5. Lorna Guillen Pesca v. Zosimo A. Pesca, G. R. No. 136921, April 17, 2001.
The parties were thirteen years married when the petitioner noticed that the
respondent surprisingly showed signs of psychological incapacity to perform his
marital covenant. His being emotionally immature and irresponsible husband became
apparent. He became cruel and violent. He was a habitual drinker and stayed with
friend from afternoon until morning. At one time, respondent chased petitioner with
loader shotgun and threatened to kill her in the presence of their children. Petitioner
sued respondent before the RTC for the declaration of nullity of their marriage
invoking psychological incapacity. RTC rendered decision declaring the marriage
null and void. Respondent appealed the decision of RTC to the Court of Appeals. CA
 reversed the RTC decision. Petitioner plea to the Supreme Court the decision of CA.
The Supreme Court denied the petition. The Court reiterates its reminder that
marriage is an inviolable social institution and the foundation of the family that the
State cherished and protects. While the Court commiserates with petitioner in her
unhappy marital relationship with respondent, totally terminating that relationship,
however, may not necessarily be the fitting denouement to it. In these case, the laws
not quite given up, neither should we.

IV. CONCLUSION
To summarized it all, the issue whether habitual alcoholism a ground for absolute nullity
of marriage, my side is that I strongly disagree. Laws and even Jurisprudence shows that habitual
alcoholism can only be a ground for legal separation, but not absolute nullity of marriage.
Supreme Court, in their decisions regarding the nullity of marriage, always considered the value
and important of being married and having into a family. We may be experiencing challenges in
the married life, but the Court always have a room of reconciliation and forgive as the parties
vows to each other that at the time of their marriage they promise to love and help each other in
sickness and in health, for richer and for poorer until death do they part.
V. SOURCES
1. Hernandez v. COA, G.R. No. 126010, December 8, 1999, available at
https://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1999/gr_126101_1999.html (last visited
August 25, 2018)
2. Republic v. Cuison-Melgar, G.R. No. 139676, March 31, 2006, available at
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_139676_2006.html (last
visited August 25, 2018)
3. Republic v. Spouses San Jose, G.R. No. 168328, February 28, 2007, available at
http://www/lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_168328_2007.htlm (last
visited August 25, 2018
4. Bier v. Bier, G.R. No. 173294, February 27, 2008, available at
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/feb2008/gr_173294_2008.html (last
visited August 25, 2018
5. Pesca v. Pesca, G.R. No. 136921, April 17, 2001, available at
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/apr2001/gr_136921_2001.html (last
visited August 25, 2018

VI. BIBLIOGRAPHY
Civil Code of the Philippines, Rex Book Store (2011) 725p
De Leon, Hector. Textbook on the Philippine Constitution. 1997 ed. Rex Book Store
(1997) 495p
Sempio-Diy, Alicia. Handbook on The Family Code of the Philippines. Joer Printing
Service (2000) 408p

Legal Research
Position Paper
Submitted by: Mary Kristin Joy C. Devera
JD-1