Case Facts
Pepito Niñal was married to (a) Whether or
Teodulfa Bellones on September
26, 1974. She was shot by
Pepito resulting in her death on
April 24, 1985. One year and 8
months thereafter, Pepito and
respondent Norma Badayog got
married without any marriage
license. In lieu thereof, Pepito
and Norma executed an affidavit
dated December 11, 1986
stating that they had lived
together as husband and wife for
at least five years and were thus
exempt from securing a
marriage license. On February
19, 1997, Pepito died in a car
NIÑAL v. accident
BAYADOG
After their father’s death,
petitioners filed a petition for
declaration of nullity of the
marriage of Pepito to Norma
alleging that the said marriage
was void for lack of a marriage
license. The case
was filed under the assumption
that the validity or invalidity of
the second marriage would
affect petitioner’s successional
rights.
Norma filed a motion to
dismiss on the ground that
petitioners have no cause of
action since they are not among
the persons who could file an
action for annulment of marriage
Issue Ruling
(1) The applicable law, for the determination of marriage, is
not Pepito and the Civil Code and not the Family Code. (In determining the
Norma’ living validity of marriage, it is to be tested by the law in force at the
together time the marriage was contracted.)
as husband and
wife for at least (2) There is no second marriage. The absence of a marriage
five years license renders marriage void ab initio. The exemption for a
exempts them marriage license, the cohabitation, was not the one described
from obtaining a by the Civil Code. It is not the one described by the Civil Code
marriage because the cohabitation, after the first marriage, was only
license under twenty months whereas the law requires five years. If the
Article 34 of the respondent took into consideration the other years and
Family Code of months before the second marriage, then the cohabitation
the Philippines. would include the period of the first marriage. This is in
violation of the law.
(3) Separation in fact (not the legal separation) by the first
marriage does not count cohabitation.
“This 5-year period should be the years immediately before
the day of the marriage and it should be a period of
cohabitation characterized by exclusivity – meaning no third
party was involved at any time within the 5 years and
continuity – that is unbroken.”
(4) The judge’s ruling (lower court), where void and voidable
marriages are made identical is erroneous. Void and voidable
marriages are not identical.
“A marriage that is annulable is valid until otherwise declared
by the court; whereas a marriage that is void ab initio is
considered as having never to have taken place.”
“A voidable can be generally ratified or confirmed by free
cohabitation or prescription while a void marriage can never
be ratified.”
under Article 47 of the Family
Code.
The lower court dismissed the
petition because:
(1) The Family Code is silent
whether the petition has a
’cause of action’. Can there be
such a petition when the heirs’
parent is deceased?
(2) Are the heirs a ‘proper
party’?
(3) Determination whether the
second marriage is void ab
initio (from the beginning) is a
must but is a different matter.
Void marriages cannot be
attacked collaterally.
(4) Whether the petition for
declaration for nullity of
marriage has prescribed.
The lower court ruled:
(1) Petitioners should have filed
an action to declare null and
void their father’s marriage
before the latter’s death.
(2) The prescription period and
the proper party in an annulment
proceeding were used as a
basis to dismiss petitioner’s
“A voidable marriage cannot be assailed collaterally except in
a direct proceeding while a void marriage can be attacked
collaterally.”
“Void marriages can be questioned even after the death of
either party but voidable marriages can be assailed only
during the lifetime of the parties and not after death of either,
in which case the parties and their offspring will be left as if
the marriage had been perfectly valid.”
“The action or defense for nullity is imprescriptible, unlike
voidable marriages where the action prescribes.”
“Only the parties to a voidable marriage can assail it but any
proper interested party may attack a void marriage.“
“Void marriages have no legal effects except those declared
by law concerning the properties of the alleged spouses,
regarding co-ownership or ownership through actual joint
contribution, and its effect on the children born to such void
marriages as provided in Article 50 in relation to Article 43 and
44 as well as Article 51, 53 and 54 of the Family Code. On the
contrary, the property regime governing voidable marriages is
generally conjugal partnership and the children conceived
before its annulment are legitimate.”
(5) The Supreme Court requires a judicial decree of nullity of
second marriage before determining succession rights.
“Jurisprudence under the Civil Code states that no judicial
decree is necessary in order to establish the nullity of a
marriage. But Article 40 of the Family Code expressly
provides that there must be a judicial declaration of the nullity
of a previous marriage, though void, before a party can enter
into a second marriage.”
“However, other than for purposes of remarriage, no judicial
action is necessary to declare a marriage an absolute nullity.
 case.
Petitioners disagree with the
decision and petitions for a
review.
Complainant avers that she was
the lawful wife of the late David
Manzano, having been married
to him in San Gabriel Archangel
Parish, Araneta Avenue,
Caloocan City. Four children
were born out of that marriage.
However, her husband
contracted another marriage
with one Luzviminda Payao
before respondent Judge. When
MANZANO
respondent Judge solemnized
v. SANCHEZ
said marriage, he knew or ought
to know that the same was void
and bigamous, as the marriage
contract clearly stated that both
contracting parties were
"separated."
Respondent Judge, on the other
hand, claims that when he
officiated the marriage between
Manzano and Payao he did not
For other purposes, such as but not limited to determination of
heirship, legitimacy or illegitimacy of a child, settlement of
estate, dissolution of property regime, or a criminal case for
that matter, the court may pass upon the validity of marriage
even in a suit not directly instituted to question the same so
long as it is essential to the determination of the case. This is
without prejudice to any issue that may arise in the case.
When such need arises, a final judgment of declaration of
nullity is necessary even if the purpose is other than to
remarry. The clause “on the basis of a final judgment
declaring such previous marriage void” in Article 40 of the
Family Code connotes that such final judgment need not be
obtained only for purpose of remarriage.”
1) Whether or In Article 34 of the Family Code provides “No license shall
not be necessary for the marriage of a man and a woman who
convalidation of have lived together as husband and wife for at least five years
the second and without any legal impediment to marry each other.
union of the Respondent Judge cannot take refuge on the Joint Affidavit of
respondent falls David Manzano and Luzviminda Payao stating that they had
under the been cohabiting as husband and wife for seven years. Just
purview of like separation, free and voluntary cohabitation with another
Article 34 of theperson for at least five years does not severe the tie of a
Family Code. subsisting previous marriage. Marital cohabitation for a long
period of time between two individuals who
2) Whether or are legallycapacitated to marry each other is merely a ground
not Respondent for exemption from marriage license. It could not serve as
Judge is guilty a justification for respondent Judge to solemnize a
of gross subsequent marriage vitiated by the impediment of a prior
ignorance of the existing marriage.
law.
For this provision on legal ratification of marital
cohabitation to apply, the following requisites must
concur:
1. The man and woman must have been living together as
 know that Manzano was legally
married. What he knew was that
the two had been living together
as husband and wife for seven
years already without the benefit
of marriage, as manifested in
their joint affidavit. According to
him, had he known that the late
Manzano was married, he would
have advised the latter not to
marry again; otherwise, he
(Manzano) could be charged
with bigamy. He then prayed
that the complaint be dismissed
for lack of merit and for being
designed merely to harass him.
After an evaluation of the
Complaint and the Comment,
the Court Administrator
recommended that respondent
Judge be found guilty of gross
ignorance of the law and be
ordered to pay a fine of P2,000,
with a warning that a repetition
of the same or similar act would
be dealt with more severely.
Leouel Santos, who then held
the rank of First Lieutenant in
SANTOS the Philippine Army, first met
v. CA Julia. The meeting later proved
to be an eventful day for Leouel
and Julia. On 20 September
1986, the two exchanged vows
before Municipal Trial Court
husband and wife for at least five years before the marriage;
2. The parties must have no legal impediment to marry each
other; 3. The fact of absence of legal impediment between the
parties must be present at the time of marriage; 4. The parties
must execute an affidavit stating that they have lived together
for at least five years and are without legal impediment to
marry each other; and 5. The solemnizing officer must
execute a sworn statement that he had ascertained the
qualifications of the parties and that he had found no legal
impediment to their marriage.
Not all of these requirements are present in the case at bar. It
is significant to note that in their separate affidavits executed
on 22 March 1993 and sworn to before respondent Judge
himself, David Manzano and Luzviminda Payao expressly
stated the fact of their prior existing marriage. Also, in their
marriage contract, it was indicated that both were "separated."
Respondent Judge knew or ought to know that a subsisting
previous marriage is a diriment impediment, which would
make the subsequent marriage null and void. Neither can
respondent Judge take refuge on the Joint Affidavit of David
Manzano and Luzviminda Payao stating that they had been
cohabiting as husband and wife for seven years. Just like
separation, free and voluntary cohabitation with another
person for at least five years does not severe the tie of a
subsisting previous marriage. Clearly, respondent Judge
demonstrated gross ignorance of the law when he solemnized
a void and bigamous marriage.
Whether or not No. Before deciding on the case, the SC noted that the Family
the failed to
communicate Code did not define the term “psychological incapacity”, which
and inform her is adopted from the Catholic Canon Law. But basing it on the
husband about deliberations of the Family Code Revision Committee, the
her
whereabouts for provision in PI, adopted with less specificity than expected,
a period of five has been designed to allow some resiliency in its application.
Judge Cornelio G. Lazaro of
Iloilo City, followed, shortly
thereafter, by a church wedding.
Leouel and Julia lived with the
latter’s parents at the J. Bedia
Compound, La Paz, Iloilo City.
On 18 July 1987, Julia gave birth
to a baby boy, and he was
christened Leouel Santos, Jr.
Leouel averred, because of the
frequent interference by Julia’s
parents into the young spouses
family affairs. Occasionally, the
couple would also start a
“quarrel” over a number of other
things, like when and where the
couple should start living
independently from Julia’s
parents or whenever Julia would
express resentment on Leouel’s
spending a few days with his
own parents.
On 18 May 1988, Julia finally left
for the United Sates of America
to work as a nurse despite
Leouel’s pleas to so dissuade
her. Seven months after her
departure, or on 01 January
1989, Julia called up Leouel for
the first time by long distance
telephone. She promised to
return home upon the expiration
of her contract in July 1989. She
never did. When Leouel got a
chance to visit the United States,
where he underwent a training
years, more or The FCRC did not give any examples of PI for fear that the
less, is
psychologically giving of examples would limit the applicability of the provision
incapacitated. under the principle of ejusdem generis. Rather, the FCRC
would like the judge to interpret the provision on a case-to-
case basis, guided by experience, the findings of experts and
researchers in psychological disciplines, and by decisions of
church tribunals which, although not binding on the civil
courts, may be given persuasive effect since the provision
was taken from Canon Law. The term “psychological
incapacity” defies any precise definition since psychological
causes can be of an infinite variety.
Article 36 of the Family Code cannot be taken and construed
independently of but must stand in conjunction with, existing
precepts in our law on marriage. PI 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 which (Art. 68), include their mutual
obligations to live together, observe love, respect and fidelity
and render help and support. The intendment of the law has
been to confine the meaning of PI to the most serious cases
of personality disorders clearly demonstrative of an utter
insensitivity or inability to give meaning and significance to the
marriage. This psychological condition must exist at the time
the marriage is celebrated. The SC also notes that PI must be
characterized by (a) gravity, (b) juridical antecedence, and
(c) incurability. The incapacity must be grave or serious such
program under the auspices of that the party would be incapable of carrying out the ordinary
the Armed Forces of the
Philippines from 01 April up to duties required in marriage; it must be rooted in the history of
25 August 1990, he desperately the party antedating the marriage, although the overt
tried to locate, or to somehow manifestations may emerge only after the marriage; and it
get in touch with, Julia but all his
efforts were of no avail. must be incurable or, even if it were otherwise, the cure would
be beyond the means of the party involved.
Having failed to get Julia to
somehow come home, Leouel In the case at bar, although Leouel stands aggrieved, his
filed with the regional trial Court petition must be dismissed because the alleged PI of his wife
of Negros Oriental, Branch 30, a
complaint for “Voiding of is not clearly shown by the factual settings presented. The
marriage Under Article 36 of the factual settings do not come close to to the standard required
Family Code” (docketed, Civil to decree a nullity of marriage.
Case No. 9814). Summons was
served by publication in a
newspaper of general circulation
in Negros Oriental.

Leouel argues that the failure of

Julia to return home, or at the
very least to communicate with
him, for more than five years are
circumstances that clearly show
her being psychologically
incapacitated to enter into
married life. In his own words,
Leouel asserts:

(T)here is no leave, there is no

affection for (him) because
respondent Julia Rosario
BediaSantos failed all these
years to communicate with the
petitioner. A wife who does not
care to inform her husband
 about her whereabouts for a
period of five years, more or
less, is psychologically
incapacitated.
Ching married Gina on May 22,
1988 at the Manila Cathedral,
Intramuros, Manila as evidenced
by their marriage contract. After
the celebration they had a
reception and then proceeded
to the house of the Ching Ming
Tsoi’s mother. There they slept
together on the same bed in the
same room for the first night of
their married life.
Gina’s version: that contrary to
her expectations that as
newlyweds they were supposed
CHI MING to enjoy making love that night
TSOI v. CA of their marriage, or having
sexual intercourse, with each
other, Ching however just went
to bed, slept on one side and
then turned his back and went
to sleep. There was no sexual
intercourse between them that
night. The same thing happened
on the second, third and fourth
nights.
In an effort to have their honey
moon in a private place where
they can enjoy together during
their first week as husband and
wife they went to Baguio City.
But they did so together with
Whether or not The Supreme Court affirmed the decisions of the trial court
Ching is and Court of Appeals in rendering as VOID the marriage
psychologically entered into by Ching and Gina on May 22, 1988. No costs.
incapacitated to
comply with the The Supreme Court held that the prolonged refusal of a
essential spouse to have sexual intercourse with his or her spouse is
marital considered a sign of psychological incapacity. If a spouse,
obligations of although physically capable but simply refuses to perform his
marriage or her essential marriage obligations, and the refusal is
senseless and constant, Catholic marriage tribunals attribute
the causes to psychological incapacity than to stubborn
refusal. Senseless and protracted refusal is equivalent to
psychological incapacity.
One of the essential marital obligations under the Family
Code is “to procreate children basedon the universal
principle that procreation of children through sexual
cooperation is the basic end of marriage.” Constant non-
fulfillment of this obligation will finally destroy the integrity or
wholeness of the marriage. In the case at bar, the senseless
and protracted refusal of one of the parties to fulfill this
marital obligation is equivalent to psychological incapacity.
While the law provides that the husband and the wife are
obliged to live together, observer mutual love, respect and
fidelity, the sanction therefore is actually the “spontaneous,
mutual affection between husband and wife and not any legal
mandate or court order (Cuaderno vs. Cuaderno, 120 Phil.
1298). Love is useless unless it is shared with another.
Indeed, no man is an island, the cruelest act of a partner in
marriage is to say “I could not have cared less.” This is so
because an ungiven self is an unfulfilled self. The egoist has
nothing but himself. In the natural order, it is sexual intimacy
Ching’s mother, uncle and
nephew as they were all invited
by her husband. There was no
sexual intercourse between
them for four days in Baguio
since Ching avoided her by
taking a long walk during siesta
time or by just sleeping on a
rocking chair located at the
living room.
They slept together in the same
room and on the same bed
since May 22, 1988 (day of their
marriage) until March 15, 1989
(ten months). But during this
period there was no attempt of
sexual intercourse between
them. Gina claims that she did
not even see her husband’s
private parts nor did he see
hers.
Because of this, they submitted
themselves for medical
examinations to Dr. Eufemio
Macalalag. Results were that
Gina is healthy, normal and still
a virgin while Ching’s
examination was kept
confidential up to this time.
The Gina claims that her
husband is impotent, a closet
homosexual as he did not show
his penis. She said she had
observed him using an eyebrow
pencil and sometimes the
cleansing cream of his mother.
She also said her husband only
that brings spouses wholeness and oneness. Sexual intimacy
is a gift and a participation in the mystery of creation. It is a
function which enlivens the hope of procreation and ensures
the continuation of family relations.
ndeed, the Supreme Court declared the marriage between
Chi Ming Tsoi and his wife as null and void. Since it was
proven that Chi Ming Tsoi was not impotent, it was clear that
he simply refused to have sex with his wife. Thus, according
the Supreme Court:
If a spouse, although physically capable but simply refuses to
perform his or her essential marriage obligations, and the
refusal is senseless and constant, Catholic marriage tribunals
attribute the causes to psychological incapacity than to
stubborn refusal. Senseless and protracted refusal is
equivalent to psychological incapacity. Thus, the prolonged
refusal of a spouse to have sexual intercourse with his or her
spouse is considered a sign of psychological incapacity.
Evidently, one of the essential marital obligations under the
Family Code is ‘to procreate children based on the universal
principle that procreation of children through sexual
cooperation is the basic end of marriage.’ Constant non-
fulfillment of this obligation will finally destroy the integrity or
wholeness of the marriage. In the case at bar, the senseless
and protracted refusal of one of the parties to fulfill the above
marital obligation is equivalent to psychological incapacity.”
This case is also remembered for its definition of love and
marriage. In its final statements, Justice Torres stated:
While the law provides that the husband and the wife are
obliged to live together, observe mutual love, respect and
fidelity, the sanction therefor is actually the ‘spontaneous,
mutual affection between husband and wife and not any legal
mandate or court order’. Love is useless unless it is shared
with another. Indeed, no man is an island, the cruelest act of
married her to acquire or a partner in marriage is to say ‘I could not have cared less.’
maintain his residency status This is so because an ungiven self is an unfulfilled self. The
here in the country and to egoist has nothing but himself. In the natural order, it is
publicly maintain the sexual intimacy which brings spouses wholeness and
appearance of a normal man oneness. Sexual intimacy is a gift and a participation in the
Ching’s version: he claims that if mystery of creation. It is a function which enlivens the hope of
their marriage shall be annulled procreation and ensures the continuation of family relations.”
by reason of psychological
incapacity, the fault lies with
Gina. He does not want their
marriage annulled for reasons of
(1) that he loves her very much
(2) that he has no defect on his
part and he is physically and
psychologically capable (3)
since the relationship is still very
young and if there is any
differences between the two of
them, it can still be reconciled
and that according to him, if
either one of them has some
incapabilities, there is no
certainty that this will not be
cured.
Ching admitted that since his
marriage to Gina there was no
sexual contact between them.
But, the reason for this,
according to the defendant, was
that everytime he wants to have
sexual intercourse with his wife,
she always avoided him and
whenever he caresses her
private parts, she always
removed his hands.