Tag: Family Code

Divorce in the Philippines

June 14, 2024

“Mild characteriological peculiarities, mood changes, occasional emotional outbursts” are still not accepted grounds that would warrant a finding of psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code.

Many couples in the Philippines have been trapped and endure the cruel consequences of their error in choosing a right spouse. Despite of abuses, infidelity, and abandonment, among other reasons (mostly committed by the husbands) Philippine congress deliberately avoided enacting divorce law due, mainly, to the influence of religion, especially the Roman Catholic Church and other conservative Christian denomination. Catholicism and Christianism were merely brought to the Philippines by its conquerors (the Spanish and Americans) and yet these countries which brought this faith to the Philippines have long allowed divorce in their respective jurisdictions. It has even become a comic story to tell that the only countries in the world where divorce is illegal are Vatican and the Philippines.

Anyhow, there are two brave gentlemen in the 19th Congress of the Philippines who are openly advocating the enactment of divorce law. Senators Robinhood Padilla and Raffy Tulfo said they are ready to hear all sides and that it should have a rigorous process to ensure that it will not be abused.

Indeed there are countless instances in the Philippines where a spouse wanted to get out of unwanted marriages. But they are prevented by the lack of legal process to terminate their marriages. Ours is a very strict mechanism of annulment, and, if I remember right the MCLE lecture of Atty. Katrina Legarda, of the thousands of annulment cases that reached the Supreme Court, not more than 5% of which have been granted. For the husbands or the wives who fell in wrongful partners this is not so good. Madalang pa sa patak ng ulan sa tag init.

Religion or church prevents them from staying out of erroneous partnership but I can’t imagine the help extended by the religion or the church while they are suffering from abusive and cruel marriage relationship. Is suffering the painful consequence of error in choice by virtue of the teaching saying “{W}hat therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder”?[1]. Did God really intend this?

After the ruling of the Supreme Court in the case Tan-Andal vs. Andal[2], I was of the impression that the stringent parameters in annulling marriages became a little bit relax. Unfortunately, what changed mainly is the holding that psychological incapacity is no longer a mental or personality disorder that should be proven by medical experts. It may now be proven by ordinary witnesses. However, the totality of the evidence must show that any one of the spouses’ personality made him/her impossible to understand and comply essential marital obligations. In this instance there must be witnesses or proofs that can attest to spouses’ personality and behaviour even before contracting marriage.

Following are the guidelines set forth by the Supreme Court in the case of Carullo-Padua vs. Padua[3] to warrant a finding of psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code and grant a prayer for annulment of marriage.

1. Parameters used in the case of Tan-Andal vs. Andal in determining what constitutes psychological incapacity:

a. The psychological incapacity must be shown to have been existing at the time of the celebration of marriage;

b. Caused by a durable aspect of one’s personality structure, one that was formed prior to their marriage;

c. Caused by a genuinely serious psychic cause; and

d. Proven by clear and convincing evidence.

2. Psychological incapacity is now neither a mental incapacity nor a personality disorder that must be proven by expert opinion. There must be proof, however, of the durable or enduring aspects of a person’s personality, called “personality structure,” which manifests itself through dear acts of dysfunctionality that undermines the family. The spouse’s personality structure must make it impossible for him or her to understand and, more important, to comply with his or her essential marital obligations.
a. Proof of these aspects of personality need not be given by an expert. Ordinary witnesses who have been present in the life of the spouses before the latter contracted marriage may testify on behaviors that they have consistently observed from the supposedly incapacitated spouse. From there, the judge will decide if these behaviors are indicative of a true and serious incapacity to assume the essential marital obligations. b. In this way, the Code Committee’s intent to limit the incapacity to “psychic causes” is fulfilled. Furthermore, there will be no need to label a person as having a mental disorder just to obtain a decree of nullity. A psychologically incapacitated person need not be shamed and pathologized for what could have been a simple mistake in one’s choice of intimate partner, a mistake too easy to make as when one sees through rose-colored glasses. A person’s psychological incapacity to fulfill his or her marital obligations should not be at the expense of one’s dignity, because it could very well be that he or she did not know that the incapacity existed in the first place.

3. Expert testimony or the testimony of a psychologist/psychiatrist is no longer required to prove psychological incapacity. Ordinary witnesses who have been present in the spouses’ lives before they contracted marriage may testify on their observations as to the incapacitated spouse’s behavior. What is important is that the totality of evidence is sufficient to support a finding of psychological incapacity.

4. Juridical antecedence of psychological incapacity may be proven by ordinary witnesses who can describe the incapacitated spouse’s past experiences or environment while growing up which may have triggered one’s particular behaviour. The gravity of psychological incapacity must be shown to have been caused by a genuinely serious psychic cause. Thus, “mild characteriological peculiarities, mood changes, occasional emotional outbursts” are still not accepted grounds that would warrant a finding of psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code.

5. Tan-Andal also modified the requirement on incurability – that psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code must now be incurable, not in the medical, but in the legal sense. As explained, psychological incapacity must be:

“[…] so enduring and persistent with respect to a specific partner, and contemplates a situation where the couple’s respective personality structures are so incompatible and antagonistic that the only result of the union would be the inevitable and irreparable breakdown of the marriage. An undeniable pattern of such persisting failure [to be a present, loving, faithful, respectful, and supportive spouse] must be established so as to demonstrate that there is indeed a psychological anomaly or incongruity in the spouse relative to the other.”

6. Although that there is no requirement for one to be personally examined by a physician before he may be declared psychologically incapacitated because what is important is the presence of evidence that adequately establishes the party’s psychological incapacity, the totality of evidence to be presented must support a finding of psychological incapacity. The testimonies of ordinary witnesses who have been present in the life of the spouses before the contracting the marriage should include behaviors that they have consistently observed from the supposedly incapacitated spouse.

7. Sexual infidelity and abandonment, are grounds for legal separation under Article 55 of the Family Code and not for declaration of nullity of marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code.

8. Article 36 contemplates incapacity or inability to take cognizance of and to assume basic marital obligations and not merely difficulty, refusal, or neglect in the performance of marital obligations or ill will. This incapacity consists of the following:

a. true inability to commit oneself to the essentials of marriage;

b. this inability to commit oneself must refer to the essential obligations of marriage: the conjugal act, the community of life and love, the rendering of mutual help, the procreation and education of offspring; and

c. the inability must be tantamount to a psychological abnormality.

9. Article 36 of the Family Code contemplates downright incapacity or inability to take cognizance of and to assume the basic marital obligations. It is not enough to prove that a spouse failed to meet his responsibilities and duties as a married person; incapacity must be so enduring and persistent with respect to a specific partner, that the only result of the union would be the inevitable and irreparable breakdown of the marriage.

10. Irreconcilable differences, conflicting personalities, emotional immaturity and irresponsibility, physical abuse, habitual alcoholism, sexual infidelity or perversion, and abandonment, by themselves, also do not warrant a finding of psychological incapacity under the said Article. It must be stressed that an unsatisfactory marriage is not a null and void marriage.

References

[1] Holy Bible, Mark 10:9

[2] G.R. No. 196359, Supreme Court of the Philippines, May 11, 2021

[3] G.R. No. 208258, Supreme Court of the Philippines, April 27, 2022

June 25, 2025
Fraudulent Concealment of Pregnancy as a Ground for Annulment of Marriage?

November 15, 2024

This is the case of Republic of the Philippines vs. Villacorta, G.R. No. 249953 June 23, 2021

FACTS

In April of 2001, Melvin learned that Janufi was pregnant. Melvin was “surprised” and “doubtful” to learn Janufi was already one month pregnant because they had sexual intercourse only in March of 2001. Although Melvin doubted the paternity of the child, Janufi supposedly assured him that he was the only person she had sexual intercourse with. This put his doubts to rest. On December 1, 2001, Janufi gave birth to a baby girl named Mejan Dia and she and Melvin then began living together. After almost three years or on August 14, 2004, Melvin and Janufi finally got married. When the couple quarreled Melvin had the DNA test of the Mejan Dia. The DNA test result showed that there is a 00.00% probability that Mejan Dia is daughter of Melvin.

Melvin seeks annulment of their marriage on the ground of fraud alleging concealment of pregnancy.

“The Republic argues that the RTC decision annulling the marriage is not in accord with law and jurisprudence because the Family Code expressly provides that a marriage may be annulled on the basis of fraud through concealment only if “x x x at the time of the marriage, the wife was pregnant and she concealed the fact that such pregnancy was by a man other than her husband.” In the case at bar, Mejan Dia was already almost three years old when Melvin and Janufi got married on August 4, 2004. Evidently, Janufi was not pregnant at the time of her marriage and Article 46(2) cannot apply. Further, the OSG claims that it is clear from Janufi’s messages that she had no intention to deceive Melvin into acknowledging the paternity of Mejan Dia. While Janufi may have misrepresented the state of her chastity, it cannot be discounted that she honestly believed that Mejan Dia was sired by Melvin. The Court agrees.

“…. . . . . In this regard, the Family Code provides:

Art. 45. A marriage may be annulled for any of the following causes, existing at the time of the marriage:

(I) 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 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;

(2) That either party was of unsound mind, unless such party after coming to reason, freely cohabited with the other as husband and wife;

(3) 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;

(4) That the consent of either party was obtained by force, intimidation or undue influence, unless the same having disappeared or ceased, such party thereafter freely cohabited with the other as husband and wife;

(5) That either party was physically incapable of consummating the marriage with the other, and such incapacity continues and appears to be incurable; or

(6) That either party was afflicted with a sexually transmissible disease found to be serious and appears to be incurable. (Underscoring supplied)

As opined by CA Justice Eduardo P. Caguioa, a member of the Civil Code Revision and Family Law Committee, “[a]lthough fraud to vitiate consent has been defined by the Civil Code as insidious words and machinations which lead a party to enter into a contract without which he would not have entered into, this general definition of fraud in the Civil Code is not absolutely applicable to marriage since the subsequent article of the Code (referring to Article 86 of the Civil Code) limits the kinds of fraud which will serve as grounds for annulment. Consequently, in order to annul a marriage on the ground of fraud, the fraud must consist of one of those enumerated in Article 86.” Article 86 of the Civil Code is the precursor of Article 46 of the Family Code, which now states:

Art. 46. Any of the following circumstances shall constitute fraud referred to in Number 3 of the preceding Article:

(1) Non-disclosure of a previous conviction by final judgment of the other party of a crime involving moral turpitude;

(2) Concealment by the wife of the fact that at the time of the marriage, she was pregnant bv a man other than her husband;

(3) Concealment of sexually transmissible disease, regardless of its nature, existing at the time of the marriage; or

(4) Concealment of drug addiction, habitual alcoholism or homosexuality or lesbianism existing at the time of the marriage.

No other misrepresentation or deceit as to character, health, rank, fortune or chastity shall constitute such fraud as will give grounds for action for the annulment of marriage.

“Based on the foregoing, it is evident that to constitute fraud that warrants annulment under Article 46(2): I) the wife must have been pregnant by a man other than her husband at the time of the marriage and 2) the wife must have fraudulently concealed the same.

“In this regard, the OSG correctly argues that the concealed pregnancy, which vitiates consent, must have existed at the time of the marriage. Justice Eduardo Caguioa explains that “[t]he essence of the fraud in this case is the non-disclosure of the present pregnancy of the wife x x x the pregnancy must exist at the time of the celebration of the marriage, thus, if the wife had previous relations with other men and as a consequence of which she became pregnant or bore a child previously, the concealment thereof will not be a ground for annulling the marriage if at the time the marriage was celebrated the wife was not pregnant.” It is the concealment of the fact of pregnancy by another man at the time of marriage that constitutes fraud as a ground for annulment. “No other misrepresentation or deceit as to character, health, rank, fortune or chastity shall constitute such fraud as will give grounds for action for the annulment of marriage.

“In the instant case, the facts readily reveal that Mejan Dia was already almost three years old when Melvin and Janufi got married on August 4, 2004. As Janufi was not pregnant at the time of the marriage, any purported fraud she may have committed to induce Melvin to marry her cannot be considered the fraudulent concealment contemplated under Article 46(2). Indeed, the Court has held that not all fraudulent acts can be invoked to annul a marriage. The circumstances of fraud under Article 45(3) are exclusive and restrictive. In Anaya v. Palaroan, the Court resolved the question of whether or not the non-disclosure to a wife by her husband of his pre-marital relationship with another woman was a ground for annulment of marriage under Article 86 of the Civil Code. Speaking through Justice J.B.L. Reyes, the Court held that:

The intention of Congress to confine the circumstances that can constitute fraud as ground for annulment of marriage to the foregoing three cases may be deduced from the fact that, of all the causes of nullity enumerated in Article 85, fraud is the only one given special treatment in a subsequent article within the chapter on void and voidable marriages. If its intention were otherwise, Congress would have stopped at Article 85, for, anyway, fraud in general is already mentioned therein as a cause for annulment. But Article 86 was also enacted, expressly and specifically dealing with “fraud referred to in number 4 of the preceding article,” and proceeds by enumerating the specific frauds (misrepresentation as to identity, nondisclosure of a previous conviction, and concealment of pregnancy), making it clear that Congress intended to exclude all other frauds or deceits. To stress further such intention, the enumeration of the specific frauds was followed by the interdiction: “No other misrepresentation or deceit as to character, rank, fortune or chastity shall constitute such fraud as will give grounds for action for the annulment of marriage.”

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 [x x x] 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.

June 25, 2025

Tag: Family Code

Divorce in the Philippines

References

Fraudulent Concealment of Pregnancy as a Ground for Annulment of Marriage?

FACTS