Other Grounds for Dissolution of Marriage

Written by

Psychological incapacity is actually the most difficult to prove as a ground in petitions for annulment of marriage. Although most difficult, this is most frequently use by lawyers and petitioners. Probably, the petitioner just want to get out of the marriage although he/she has no grounds at all, and because there is no divorce in the Philippines, they have no other alternative but utilize psychological incapacity.

Because there is no divorce in the Philippines, lawyers of couples (husbands or wives) who want to end their marriages frequently use Article 36 of the Family Code in seeking annulment of marriage. This is the provision on psychological incapacity. This ground for annulment of marriage is the most difficult ground to prove. If the lawyer in the Office of the Solicitor General who is assigned to the case relentlessly pursues the case up to the Supreme Court, it is more likely that a petition for annulment of marriages will be denied. The statistics of annulment cases grounded on psychological incapacity and decided by the Supreme Court would tell us that almost always the Supreme Court upheld the preservation of marriage. Psychological incapacity is very difficult to prove (especially when a case reaches the Supreme Court) considering that the law has no definite definition as to what psychological incapacity is. The entire Family Code did not even set parameters which may guide lawyers and parties as to the existence of psychological incapacity on the part of either spouse.

There is only a jurisprudence to consult to guide lawyers in deciding whether psychological incapacity exists and that his/her client has a cause of action. Here is one jurisprudential definition of psychological incapacity in the case of Valerio E. Kalaw vs. Ma. Elena Fernandez, G.R. No. 166357, January 14, 2015 quoting another case:

“Psychological incapacity 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, as so expressed by Article 68 of the Family Code, include their mutual obligations to live together, observe love, respect and fidelity and render help and support. There is hardly any doubt that the intendment of the law has been to confine the meaning of “psychological incapacity 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 law does not evidently envision, upon the other hand, an inability of the spouse to have sexual relations with the other. This conclusion is implicit under Article 54 of the Family Code which considers children conceived prior to the judicial declaration of nullity of the void marriage to be “legitimate.”

It what further stated in that case that, “psychological incapacity as a ground for the nullity of marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code refers to a serious psychological illness afflicting a party even prior to the celebration of the marriage that is permanent as to deprive the party of the awareness of the duties and responsibilities of the matrimonial bond he or she was about to assume. Although the Family Code has not defined the term psychological incapacity, the Court has usually looked up its meaning by reviewing the deliberations of the sessions of the Family Code Revision Committee that had drafted the Family Code in order to gain an insight on the provision. It appeared that the members of the Family Code Revision Committee were not unanimous on the meaning, and in the end they decided to adopt the provision “with less specificity than expected” in order to have the law “allow some resiliency in its application. Illustrative of the “less specificity than expected” has been the omission by the Family Code Revision Committee to give any examples of psychological incapacity that would have limited the applicability of the provision conformably with the principle of ejusdem generis, because the Committee desired that the courts should interpret the provision on a case-to-case basis, guided by experience, the findings of experts and researchers in psychological disciplines, and the decisions of church tribunals that had persuasive effect by virtue of the provision itself having been taken from the Canon Law.”

The Family Code provides other grounds for dissolution of marriage. If these grounds exist and supported by evidence, not just testimonial, the marriage will almost certainly be decreed annulled.

Legal overview of Other Grounds for Dissolution of Marriage.

Under Article 35 of the Family Code, the following marriages shall be void from the very beginning:

Those contracted by any party below eighteen years of age even with the consent of parents or guardians;
Those solemnized by any person not legally authorized to perform marriages unless such marriages were contracted with either or both parties believing in good faith that the solemnizing officer had the legal authority to do so;
Those solemnized without a license, except those covered by preceding Chapter (referring to Articles 27 to 34 of the Family Code);
Those bigamous or polygamous marriages under Article 41;
Those contracted through mistake of one of the contracting party as to the identity of the other; and,
Those subsequent marriages that are void under Article 53.

Under Article 37 of the Family Code, the following marriages are incestuous and void from the beginning, whether the relationship between the parties be legitimate or illegitimate:

Between ascendants and descendants of any degree;
Between brothers and sisters, whether of the full or half blood.

Under Article 38 of the Family code the following marriages shall be void from the beginning for reasons of public policy:

Between collateral blood relatives, whether legitimate or illegitimate, up to the fourth civil degree;
Between step-parents and step-children;
Between parents-in-law and children-in-law;
Between the adopting parent and the adopted child;
Between the surviving spouse of the adopting parent and the adopted child;
Between the surviving spouse of the adopted child and the adopter;
Between an adopted child and a legitimate child of the adopter;
Between adopted children of the same adopter; and
Between parties where one, with the intention to marry the other, killed that other person’s spouse or his or her own spouse.

Under Article 41 of the Family Code the 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 the well-founded belief that the absent spouse was already dead.

Article 45 of the Family Code provides that marriage may be annulled for the following causes, existing at the time of the marriage:

That the party in whose behalf it is sought to have the marriage annulled was eighteen years of age or over but below twenty one, and the marriage was solemnized without 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 unsound mind, unless such party, after coming to reason, freely cohabited with the other as husband and wife;
That the consent of 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, or undue influence, unless the same having disappeared or cease, 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 sexually-transmissible disease found to be serious and appears to be incurable.