G.R. No.

188775 August 24, 2011

CENON R. TEVES, Petitioner,
vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and DANILO R. BONGALON, Respondents.

Facts:
Cenon Teves had a solemnized marriage with Thelma Jaime-Teves on November 26, 1992 at the
Metropolitan Trial Court of Muntinlupa City, Metro Manila. After marriage, Thelma began to work
abroad and would only visit the Philippines during vacations. When on vacation in 2002, she found
out that Cenon had contracted a marriage with Edita Calderon. The respondent Danilo Bongalon,
the uncle of Thelma, filed a complaint to the office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Malolos City,
accusing Cenon of bigamy. During the pendency for Cenon’s case of bigamy, the RTC of Caloocan
declared null and void the marriage between Cenon and Thelma on June 27, 2006.

Issue: WON a declaration of nullity is required before a person remarries.

Ruling: YES. In the case at bar, the finality of the decision declaring the nullity of his first marriage
with Thelma was only on June 27, 2006 or about five (5) years after his second marriage to Edita.
The Family Code has settled once and for all the conflicting jurisprudence on the matter. Article 13
clearly states that “In case either of the contracting parties has been previously married, the
applicant shall be required to furnish, instead of the birth or baptismal certificate required in the last
preceding article, the death certificate of the deceased spouse or the judicial decree of the absolute
divorce, or the judicial decree of annulment or declaration of nullity of his or her previous marriage”.
A declaration of the absolute nullity of a marriage is now explicitly required either as a cause of
action or a ground for defense. Where the absolute nullity of a previous marriage is sought to be
invoked for purposes of contracting a second marriage, the sole basis acceptable in law for said
projected marriage to be free from legal infirmity is a final judgment declaring the previous marriage
void.

The Family Law Revision Committee and the Civil Code Revision Committee which drafted what is
now the Family Code of the Philippines took the position that parties to a marriage should not be
allowed to assume that their marriage is void even if such be the fact but must first secure a judicial
declaration of the nullity of their marriage before they can be allowed to marry again. Thus, because
he declared his marriage with Thelma void only after his with Edita, Cenon Teves is guilty of bigamy.

G.R. No. 179620 August 26, 2008

MANUEL G. ALMELOR, petitioner,
vs.
THE HON. REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF LAS PIÑAS CITY, BRANCH 254, and LEONIDA T.
ALMELOR, respondents.

Facts: Petitioner Manuel G. Almelor and respondent Leonida Trinidad were married on January
29, 1989 and had three children. After eleven years of marriage, Leonida filed a petition with the
RTC in Las Piñas City to annul their marriage on the ground that Manuel was psychologically
incapacitated to perform his marital obligations. Leonida described Manuel as a harsh
disciplinarian, unreasonably meticulous, easily angered. She also alleged that her husband has
concealed from her his homosexuality. She caught him in an indiscreet telephone conversation
manifesting his affection for a male caller. She also found several pornographic homosexual
materials in his possession. And she saw Manuel kiss another man on the lips. The man was a
certain Dr. Nogales. When she confronted Manuel, he denied everything. At this point, Leonida
took her children and left their conjugal abode. Since then, Manuel stopped giving support to
their children. Dr. Valentina del Fonso Garcia, a clinical psychologist, was presented to prove
Leonida’s claim. She also had a one-time interview with Manuel and face-to-face. She
concluded that Manuel is psychologically incapacitated and such incapacity is marked by
antecedence; it existed even before the marriage and appeared to be incurable. The trial court
(RTC) nullified the marriage, not on the ground of Article 36, but Article 45 (fraud- concealment
of homosexuality) of the Family Code.

Issue: Whether or not the marriage of Manuel and Leonida is annulled due to Manuel’s
homosexual tendency

Ruling: No. Concealment of homosexuality is the proper ground to annul a marriage, not
homosexuality per se. What Leonida attempted to demonstrate were Manuel's homosexual
tendencies by citing overt acts generally predominant among homosexual individuals. She
wanted to prove that the perceived homosexuality rendered Manuel incapable of fulfilling the
essential marital obligations. Evidently, no sufficient proof was presented to substantiate the
allegations that Manuel is a homosexual and that he concealed this to Leonida at the time of
their marriage. The RTC considered the public perception of Manuel's sexual preference without
the corroboration of witnesses. Also, it took cognizance of Manuel's peculiarities and interpreted
it against his sexuality. The law is clear - a marriage may be annulled when the consent of either
party was obtained by fraud, such as concealment of homosexuality. Article 45 (3) expresses it
clearly. Nowhere in the said decision was it proven by preponderance of evidence that Manuel
was a homosexual at the onset of his marriage and that he deliberately hid such fact to his wife.
It is the concealment of homosexuality, and not homosexuality per se, that vitiates the consent
of the innocent party. Such concealment presupposes bad faith and intent to defraud the other
party in giving consent to the marriage.

G.R. No. 185286 August 18, 2010

MA. SOCORRO CAMACHO-REYES, Petitioner,
vs.
RAMON REYES, Respondent.

Facts: In 1976, the petitioner and respondent got married. At that time, petitioner was already 5
months pregnant. Initially, respondent used to give petitioner a monthly allowance of Php 1500.
Financial difficulties started when their first child was born, and eventually the Php1500
allowance from respondent stopped when he lost his job. The respondent took on several
unsuccessful business ventures which cost him his time and attention for his new family. Amid
their financial difficulties, petitioner found out about the respondent's extra-marital affair with his
former secretary. Petitioner tried to save their marriage but the respondent's actions did not
improve. Hence, the petition for declaration of nullity of her marriage with the respondent
alleging psychological incapacity to fulfill essential marital obligations under Article 36 of the
Family Code.

Medical evidences were presented by the petitioner to support such allegation; the same was
denied by the respondent. In his defense, he claimed that the experts' conclusions were not
reliable as they never personally examined and interviewed the respondent.

ISSUE:

WON the respondent was suffering from psychological incapacity

RULING: YES.

"Psychological incapacity" pertains to the inability of the parties to effectively function

emotionally, intellectually and socially towards each other in relation to their essential duties to
mutually observe love, fidelity and respect as well as to mutually render help and support, (Art.
68 Family Code). The respondent’s pattern of behavior manifests an inability - a psychological
incapacity to perform the essential marital obligations as shown by his: (1) sporadic financial
support; (2) extra-marital affairs; (3) substance abuse; (4) failed business attempts; (5) unpaid
money obligations; (6) inability to keep a job that is not connected with the family businesses.
Within their acknowledged field of expertise, doctors can diagnose the psychological make up of
a person based on a number of factors culled from various sources. In this case, even without
the experts’ conclusions, the narrative of events alleged in the petition and established
during trial, all point to the inevitable conclusion that respondent is psychologically incapacitated
to perform the essential marital obligations.

ISSUE:

WON the marriage should be declared null and void under art 36
RULING: YES.

The process of an ideal atmosphere demands a give and take relationship and not a one sided
one. It also requires surrender to the fulfillment of the essential duties to the marriage which
must naturally be observed by the parties as a consequence of their marriage. The personality
disorder of the respondent renders him psychologically incapacitated to fulfill his basic duties to
his marriage. Under Art. 36 of the Family Code, "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 solemnization." And Art. 68 of the same Code further provides: "The husband and wife are
obliged to live together, observe mutual love, respect and fidelity, and render mutual help and
support." Therefore, there is evidence that the marriage of petitioner and respondent is null and
void.

G.R. No. 187061, October 08, 2014

CELERINA J. SANTOS, Petitioner, v. RICARDO T. SANTOS, Respondent.
FACTS: On 2007, the RTC declared petitioner celerina presumptively dead after her husband respondent
Ricardo had filed a petition for declaration of absence of presumptive death for the purpose of marriage.
Ricardo remarried on 2008.
On november 2008, celerina filed a petition for annulment of judgement before the CA on the grounds of
extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction.
November 2008, CA dismissed celerina petition for annulment of judgement for being wrong mode of
remedy.

ISSUE: Won the declaration of appearance of a presumptive dead spouse in accordance with article 42
of the family code is the proper remedy for a fraudulently obtained judgement declaring presumptive
death

RULING: The petition is meritorious. Annulment of judgement is the remedy when the RTC's judgement
has become final, and "remedies of new trial, appeal, petition for relief are no longer available through no
fault of the petitioner."
The family code privides that the second marriage is in danger of being terminated by the presumptively
dead spouse when he or she reappears. Thus, article 42, the subsequent marriage referred to in the
preceding article shall be automatically terminated by the recording of the affidavit of reapperance of the
subsequent spouse. Unless there is a judgement annulling the previous marriage or declaring it void ab
initio.
Therefore, for the purpose of not only terminating the subsequent marriage but also of nullifying the
effects of the declaration of presumptive death and the subsequent marriage, it is not the mere filing of an
affidavit but an action for annulment of judgement is the proper remedy.

G.R. No. 94053 March 17, 1993

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner,
vs.
GREGORIO NOLASCO, respondent.
The Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee.
Warloo G. Cardenal for respondent.
FACTS: Before the Regional Trial Court of Antique, Branch 10, respondent Gregorio Nolasco, filed a
petition for declaration of the presumptive death of his wife, Janet Monica Parker. The petition prayed that
the respondent’s wife be declared presumptively dead and that the marriage me null and void.
The respondent was a seaman, and the respondent’s wife was a British national where they met at bar in
England during one of his ship’s port call. They lived together for 6 months on the ship until they returned
to the Philippines and went home to respondent’s hometown of San Jose, Antique on November 18, 1980
after the respondent’s seaman contract expired. Later on, they both got married to each other in a
Catholic Church in San Jose, Antique on January 15, 1982. After obtaining another employee contract as
a seaman, respondent left his wife in San Jose, Antique with his mother. Sometime on January 1983,
respondents’ mother wrote a letter to him stating that his wife gave birth to his son and on the same letter
that his wife had left Antique. Respondent claimed that he took effort to look for his wife whenever his
ship docked in England. However, he never knew where Janet Monica Parker lived and never knew her
family background as well because Janet would refuse to give such information. He wrote letters to the
bar they met and claimed that the letters he wrote were sent back to him and inquired some friends of
Janet but no news from her either.

ISSUE: Whether or not the respondent has a well-founded belief that his wife is already dead.

RULING: No. Nolasco failed to prove that he had complied with the third requirement under the Article 41
of the Family Code, the existence of a "well-founded belief" that Janet is already dead.
Art. 41. A marriage contracted by any person during the subsistence of a previous marriage shall be null
and void, unless before the celebration of the subsequent marriage, the prior spouse had been absent for
four consecutive years and the spouse present had a well-founded belief that the absent spouse was
already dead. In case of disappearance where there is danger of death under the circumstances set forth
in the provision of Article 391 of the Civil Code, an absence of only two years shall be sufficient.
While the defendant testified that he had made inquiries concerning the whereabouts of his wife, he fails
to state of whom he made such inquiries. He did not even write to the parents of his first wife, who lived in
the Province of Pampanga, for the purpose of securing information concerning her whereabouts. He
admits that he had a suspicion only that his first wife was dead. He admits that the only basis of his
suspicion was the fact that she had been absent. While the defendant testified that he had made inquiries
concerning the whereabouts of his wife, he fails to state of whom he made such inquiries. He did not even
write to the parents of his first wife, who lived in the Province of Pampanga, for the purpose of securing
information concerning her whereabouts. He admits that he had a suspicion only that his first wife was
dead. He admits that the only basis of his suspicion was the fact that she had been absent.