Domingo vs CA, G.R. No.

104818
G.R. No. 104818, September 17, 1993
Domingo vs Court of Appeals

FACTS:
Roberto Domingo married Delia Soledad in 1976 while being married with Emerlina dela
Paz.
He has been unemployed and completely dependent upon Delia, who has been working
in Saudi Arabia, for support and subsistence.
Delia only found out about the prior marriage when Emerlina sued them for bigamy in
1983.
In 1989, she found out that Roberto was cohabiting with another woman and he was
disposing of some of her properties without her knowledge and consent.
In May 1991, Delia filed a petition for judicial declaration of nullity of her marriage to
Roberto and separation of property.
ISSUE:
Whether or not a petition for judicial declaration of a void marriage is necessary. If in
affirmative, whether the same should be filed only for purpose of remarriage.
RULING:
Yes. A declaration of the absolute nullity of 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 purpose of contracting a second marriage, the sole
basis acceptable in law for the said projected marriage be free from legal infirmity is a
final judgment declaring the previous marriage void.
The requirement for a declaration of absolute nullity of a marriage is also for the
protection of the spouse who, believing that his or her marriage is illegal and void,
marries again. With the judicial declaration of the nullity of his or her first marriage, the
person who marries again cannot be charged with bigamy.
Article 40 as finally formulated included the significant clause denotes that final
judgment declaring the previous marriage void need not be obtained only for purposes of
remarriage. A person can conceive of other instances other than remarriage, such as in
case of an action for liquidation, partition, distribution and separation of property
between the spouses, as well as an action for the custody and support of their common
children and the delivery of the latters' presumptive legitimes. In such cases, however,
one is required by law to show proof that the previous one was an absolute nullity.
Marriage is an inviolable social institution, is the foundation of the family; as such, it
shall be protected by the State. As a matter of policy, there should be a final judgment
declaring the marriage void and a party should not declare for himself or herself whether
or not the marriage is void.

IWASAWA VS GANGAN GR 204169

FACTS: Petitioner, a Japanese national, met private respondent sometime in 2002 in
one of his visits to the Philippines. Private respondent introduced herself as single and
has never married before. Since then, the two became close to each other. Later that
year, petitioner came back to the Philippines and married private respondent on
November 28, 2002 in Pasay City. After the wedding, the couple resided in Japan. In
July 2009, petitioner noticed his wife become depressed. Suspecting that something
might have happened in the Philippines, he confronted his wife about it. To his shock,
private respondent confessed to him that she received news that her previous husband
passed away. Petitioner sought to confirm the truth of his wifes confession and
discovered that indeed, she was married to one Raymond Maglonzo Arambulo and that
their marriage took place on June 20, 1994. This prompted petitioner to file a petition for
the declaration of his marriage to private respondent as null and void on the ground that
their marriage is a bigamous one.
ISSUE: W/N the marriage of petitioner and respondent is bigamous
RULING: YES. This Court has consistently held that a judicial declaration of nullity is
required before a valid subsequent marriage can be contracted; or else, what transpires
is a bigamous marriage, which is void from the beginning as provided in Article 35(4) of
the Family Code of the Philippines. And this is what transpired in the instant case. As
correctly pointed out by the OSG, the documentary exhibits taken together concretely
establish the nullity of the marriage of petitioner to private respondent on the ground that
their marriage is bigamous. The exhibits directly prove the following facts: ( 1) that
private respondent married Arambulo on June 20, 1994 in the City of Manila; (2) that
private respondent contracted a second marriage this time with petitioner on November
28, 2002 in Pasay City; (3) that there was no judicial declaration of nullity of the marriage
of private respondent with Arambulo at the time she married petitioner; (3) that Arambulo
died on July 14, 2009 and that it was only on said date that private respondent's
marriage with Arambulo was deemed to have been dissolved; and ( 4) that the second
marriage of private respondent to petitioner is bigamous, hence null and void, since the
first marriage was still valid and subsisting when the second marriage was contracted.

Case Digest: Republic vs. Encelan

G.R. No. 170022, January 9, 2013
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. CESAR ENCELAN, Respondent.
BRION, J.:
FACTS:
Respondent Cesar married Lolita and the union bore two children. To support his family,
Cesar went to work in Saudi Arabia. While still in Saudi Arabia, Cesar learned that Lolita
had been having an illicit affair with Alvin Perez (Alvin). Subsequently, Lolita allegedly left
the conjugal home with her children and lived with Alvin. Since then, Cesar and Lolita
had been separated. Thereafter, Cesar filed with the RTC a petition against Lolita for the
declaration of the nullity of his marriage based on Lolitas psychological incapacity.
At the trial, Cesar affirmed his allegations of Lolitas infidelity and subsequent
abandonment of the family home. He testified that he continued to provide financial
support for Lolita and their children even after he learned of her illicit affair with Alvin.
RTC declared Cesars marriage to Lolita void. Upon reconsideration, CA affirmed the
RTCs decision. The Office of the Solicitor General then filed the present petition.
ISSUE: Whether or not there exists sufficient basis to nullify the marriage.
HELD: The petition is meritorious.
CIVIL LAW: Psychological Incapacity
Article 36 of the Family Code governs psychological incapacity as a ground for
declaration of nullity of marriage. In interpreting this provision, the Court have repeatedly
stressed that psychological incapacity contemplates downright incapacity or inability to
take cognizance of and to assume the basic marital obligations; not merely the refusal,
neglect or difficulty, much less ill will, on the part of the errant spouse. The plaintiff bears
the burden of proving the juridical antecedence (i.e., the existence at the time of the
celebration of marriage), gravity and incurability of the condition of the errant spouse. In
this case, Cesars testimony failed to prove Lolitas alleged psychological incapacity.
In any event, sexual infidelity and abandonment of the conjugal dwelling, even if true, do
not necessarily constitute psychological incapacity; these are simply grounds for legal
separation. To constitute psychological incapacity, it must be shown that the
unfaithfulness and abandonment are manifestations of a disordered personality that
completely prevented the erring spouse from discharging the essential marital
obligations.
Petition is GRANTED. The decision of CA is set aside.

G.R. No. L-53703 August 19, 1986

Weigel vs Sempio-Diy
FACTS:
Karl Heinz Weigel asked for the declaration of Nullity of his marriage with Lilia Oliva
Weigel on the ground that the latter has existing marriage with Eduardo A. Maxion.
Lilia claimed that prior marriage was null and void because she and Eduardo were
forced to enter said marital union. She likewise alleged that Eduardo was married to
someone else.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Karl's marriage with Lilia is void.
RULING:
Yes. It was not necessary for Lilia to prove that her first marriage was vitiated with force
because it will not be void but merely voidable(Art. 85, Civil Code). Such marriage is
valid until annulled. Since no annulment has yet been made, it is clear that when she
married Karl, she is still validly married to her first husband.
Consequently, her
marriage to Karl is void. Likewise, there is no need of introducing evidence on Lilia's
prior marriage for then such marriage though void still needs a judicial declaration before
she can remarry. Accordingly, Karl and Lilias marriage are regarded void under the law.

Wiegel vs. Sempio-Dy

143 SCRA 449
FACTS:
Karl Wiegel was married to Lilia Wiegel on July 1978. Lilia was married with a certain
Eduardo Maxion in 1972. Karl then filed a petition in the Juvenile and Domestic
Relations Court for the declaration of nullity of his marriage with Lilia on the ground of
latters former marriage. Having been allegedly force to enter into a marital union, she
contents that the first marriage is null and void. Lilia likewise alleged that Karl was
married to another woman before their marriage.
ISSUE: Whether Karls marriage with Lilia is void.
HELD:
It was not necessary for Lilia to prove that her first marriage was vitiated with force
because it will not be void but merely voidable. Such marriage is valid until annulled.
Since no annulment has yet been made, it is clear that when she married Karl, she is still
validly married to her first husband. Consequently, her marriage to Karl is void.
Likewise, there is no need of introducing evidence on the prior marriage of Karl for then
such marriage though void still needs a judicial declaration before he can remarry.
Accordingly, Karl and Lilias marriage are regarded void under the law.

Anaya vs. Palaroan

36 SCRA 97
FACTS:
Aurora Anaya and Fernando Palaroan were married in 1953. Palaroan filed an action for
annulment of the marriage in 1954 on the ground that his consent was obtained through
force and intimidation. The complaint was dismissed and upheld the validity of the
marriage and granting Auroras counterclaim. While the amount of counterclaim was
being negotiated, Fernando divulged to her that several months prior to their marriage,
he had pre-marital relationship with a close relative of his. According to her, the nondivulgement to her of such pre-marital secret constituted fraud in obtaining her consent.
She prayed for the annulment of her marriage with Fernando on such ground.
ISSUE: Whether or not the concealment to a wife by her husband of his pre-marital
relationship with another woman is a ground for annulment of marriage.
HELD:
The concealment of a husbands pre-marital relationship with another woman was not
one of those enumerated that would constitute fraud as ground for annulment and it is
further excluded by the last paragraph providing that no other misrepresentation or
deceit as to.. chastity shall give ground for an action to annul a marriage. Hence, the
case at bar does not constitute fraud and therefore would not warrant an annulment of
marriage.

Anaya vs Palaroan
G.R. No. L-27930, November 26, 1970
FACTS:
Aurora Anaya filed a complaint for annulment of marriage against Fernando Palaroan
wherein she alleged the following: she and Fernando were married in 1953; after one
month of their marriage, Fernando filed an action for annulment against her; the trial
court dismissed the complaint, upholding the validity of their marriage and granting her
counterclaim; while the amount of the counterclaim was being negotiated, Fernando
divulged that several months prior to the marriage, he had pre-marital relationships with
a close relative of his; and the non-divulgement to her of the aforementioned pre-marital
secret constituted fraud that would have precluded her from going through the marriage.
Aurora prayed for the annulment of the marriage and for moral damages. Fernando
denied having had pre-marital relationship with a close relative and having committed
any fraud against Aurora. He did not pray for the dismissal of the complaint but for its
dismissal with respect to moral damages. The trial court dismissed the complaint,
holding that Auroras allegation of fraud was legally insufficient to invalidate her
marriage. Aurora appealed.
ISSUE:
Is non-disclosure to a wife by her husband of his pre-marital relationship with another
woman a ground for annulment of marriage?
HELD:
No. Non-disclosure of a husbands pre-marital relationship with another woman is not
one of the enumerated circumstances that would constitute a ground for annulment (Art.
85, Civil Code; Art. 45, Family Code); and it is further excluded by the last paragraph of
the article (Art. 86, Civil Code; Art. 46, Family Code), providing that no other
misrepresentation or deceit as to chastity shall give ground for an action to annul a
marriage. While a woman may detest such non-disclosure of premarital lewdness or feel
having been thereby cheated into giving her consent to the marriage, nevertheless the
law does not assuage her grief after her consent was solemnly given, for upon marriage
she entered into an institution in which society, and not herself alone, is interested. The
lawmakers intent being plain, the Courts duty is to give effect to the same, whether it
agrees with the rule or not. (Anaya vs Palaroan, G.R. No. L-27930, November 26, 1970)

Anaya vs. Palaroan

G.R. No. L-27930, November 26, 1970
Facts: On 7 January 1954, after one month of marriage to Aurora Anaya, Fernando
Palaroan filed a complaint to annul it on the ground that his consent was obtained
through force and intimidation. The court dismissed the complaint and granted Aurora's
counterclaim. While the amount of the counterclaim was being negotiated, Fernando
allegedly divulged that several months prior to the marriage, he had pre-marital
relationships with a close relative of his. Anaya filed suit to annul the marriage and to
recover moral damages.
Fernando denied having had pre-marital relationship with a close relative and having
committed any fraud against Aurora. He did not pray for the dismissal of the complaint
but for its dismissal "with respect to the alleged moral damages." Aurora replied stating
that Fernando had no intention of performing his marital duties and obligations since the
marriage was contracted as a means for him to escape marrying the close relative that
was intimated above. The trial court dismissed the complaint, holding that Aurora's
allegation of the fraud was legally insufficient to invalidate her marriage. Aurora
appealed.
Issue: Is non-disclosure to a wife by her husband of his pre-marital relationship with
another woman a ground for annulment of marriage?
Held: No. Non-disclosure of a husband's pre-marital relationship with another woman is
not one of the enumerated circumstances that would constitute a ground for annulment;
and it is further excluded by the last paragraph of the article, providing that "no other
misrepresentation or deceit as to ... chastity" shall give ground for an action to annul a
marriage. While a woman may detest such non-disclosure of premarital lewdness or feel
having been thereby cheated into giving her consent to the marriage, nevertheless the
law does not assuage her grief after her consent was solemnly given, for upon marriage
she entered into an institution in which society, and not herself alone, is interested. The
lawmaker's intent being plain, the Court's duty is to give effect to the same, whether it
agrees with the rule or not.