The Rules of Court were conceived with great care and

thoroughness in order to guarantee the orderly dispensation of

justice. The Family Code of the Philippines allows the following
proceedings: 1) Petition for Annulment of Marriage, 2) Declaration of
Nullity of Marriage and 3) Legal Separation.

Annulment is a court proceeding with the objective of severing

marital relations between husband and wife. A Petition for Annulment
of Marriage is filed when the marriage is considered voidable or if the
marriage is valid but is susceptible of being voided pursuant to the
grounds provided by law. Declaration of Nullity of Marriage is a
proceeding where the marriage is sought to be declared void ab intio
or void from the beginning. Legal Separation is a proceeding which
merely seeks to declare the bed and board separation of husband
and wife without affecting the validity and existence of their marital
union.

In any case, any doubt shall be resolved in favor of the validity

of the marriage.1 No less than the Constitution of 1987 sets the policy
to protect and strengthen the family as the basic social institution and
marriage as the foundation of the family.2

The facts however will only allow legal separation.

Ricardo Dalisay (Cardo) and Alyanna (Yannie) met on June or

July of 2009 through common friends. Although they became lovers,
the relationship eventually ended after 2 months since the parties
were still Law students then. On May 6 to 9 2011, the two crossed
paths when the woman served as a judge in the barangay beauty
pageant where Cardo resided. Communication once again ceased
after the former informed the latter that she was pregnant. Only the
relatives of Yannie gave him updates. He also found out that she was
in a relationship with a foreign lesbian.

For 7 months, they did not see each other, but with the
intervention of the Yannie’s mother and other relatives, Cardo was
pressured to accept his responsibility of raising the child. Thereafter,
Alyanna’s family threatened Cardo in the presence of his parents that
if he will not get married with Alyanna, they will not use Cardo’s family
name as the child’s last name. Since Yannie was already 7 months
pregnant coupled with all the intimidation inflicted on him, he agreed
to marry her in a hurried mental disposition. On December 31, 2011,

1
Carating-Siayngco v. Siayngco, G.R. No. 158896, October 27, 2004
2
Sections 1 and 2, Article XV of the Philippine Constitution of 1987.

1
the parties got married at Baguio Cathedral. A month after the
wedding, the Respondent gave birth to their child Aura Ganda.

The parties were staying in the house of Yannie’s parents

because of lack of knowledge in taking care of the baby and the need
to work. Cardo was working in Angeles for the weekdays, while
Alyanna stayed unemployed and left the responsibility of taking care
of the child with her parents. It was then that quarrels started to
ensue between the parties. The parties moved in the house of
Cardo’s grandparents where they stayed for 2-3 months before
transferring to their own house.

Yannie opted to be a bum and laze around and refused to

perform her duties and responsibilities to support the family. She
would also always suspect that her husband has another woman.
She would slap him on both sides of his face multiple times. There is
also an incident when the wife urinated on all of Cardo’s clothes, only
because she did not want him to leave the house. Cardo tried very
hard to understand his wife’s thinking and behaviour, and justified
that she was still adjusting to a new place and married life, but he
was wrong and the daily struggle of bearing with his wife’s behaviour
grew on him. Later on, Cardo, through Facebook, saw his wife sitting
on her paramour’s lap in a sensual manner, suggesting that the latter
was having a sexual relationship with said foreigner.

Fights consumed their 1- year relationship. The love and

respect for each other was replaced by hatred. Whenever together,
the two would only argue and attack each other.

The issues are the following:

1. Whether or not Annulment is the best option under the
circumstances
2. Whether or not the facts will allow only a Legal Separation
3. Whether or not the marriage is defective

Article 45. A marriage may be annulled for any of the following

causes, existing at the time of the marriage:

xxx

(4) That the consent of either party was obtained by force,

intimidation or undue influence, unless the same having

2
disappeared or ceased, such party thereafter freely cohabited
with the other as husband and wife

Article 47. The action for annulment of marriage must be filed by

the following persons and within the periods indicated therein:

xxx

(4) For causes mentioned in number 4 of Article 45, by the

injured party, within five years from the time the force,
intimidation or undue influence disappeared or ceased

It should be noted that for a marriage to take place, there are

essential requisites and formal requisites which must first be met.

The essential requisites of marriage are: (1) legal capacity of

the contracting party, who must be male and female; and (2) consent
is freely given in the presence of the solemnizing officer3.

The formal requisites of marriage are: (1) authority of the

solemnizing officer, (2) a valid marriage license (except in specific
instances mentioned under Chapter 2 of the Family Code); and (3) a
marriage ceremony which takes place with both of the contracting
parties appearing before the solemnizing officer and declaring that
they take each other as husband and wife in the presence of not less
than two witnesses of legal age4.

The second essential requisite, consent freely given, will be

absent if that is the case. That will make the marriage void ab initio.

However, for the petition of annulment to succeed, the force

and intimidation employed must be serious enough or it was so
irresistible that you had no other choice but to give your consent.
Force, intimidation and undue influence as contemplated under the
Family Code and defined by the Civil Code of the Philippines, must
be established clearly and distinctively.

Force refers to physical violence. There is violence when in

order to wrest consent, serious or irresistible force is employed.5

3
Article 2, Family Code.
4
Article 3, Family Code.
5
Article 1335 of the New Civil Code of the Philippines.

3
 There is intimidation when one of the contracting parties is
compelled by a reasonable and well-grounded fear of an imminent
and grave evil upon his person or property, or upon the person or
property of his spouse, descendants or ascendants, to give his
consent.6

There is undue influence when a person takes improper

advantage of his power over the will of another, depriving the latter of
a reasonable freedom of choice.7

Based on the given facts, since the threat and intimidation is

not grave, annulment is not an option.

Article 55. A petition for legal separation may be filed on any of

the following grounds:
(1) Repeated physical violence or grossly abusive conduct
directed against the petitioner, a common child, or a child of the
petitioner

xxx

(8) Sexual infidelity or perversion

Article 63. The decree of legal separation shall have the

following effects:
(1) The spouses shall be entitled to live separately from each
other, but the marriage bonds shall not be severed;
(2) The absolute community of the conjugal partnership shall be
dissolved and liquidated but the offending spouse shall have no
right to any share of the net profits earned by the absolute
community or the conjugal partnership, which shall be forfeited
in accordance with the provisions of Article 43 (2);
(3) The custody of the minor children shall be awarded to the
innocent spouse, subject to the provisions of Article 213 of this
Code; and
(4) The offending spouse shall be disqualified from inheriting
from the innocent spouse by intestate succession. Moreover,
provisions in favour of the offending spouse made in the will of
the innocent spouse shall be revoked by operation of law.

It is clear that due to unavoidable jealousy, the wife has a

tendency to hit her husband multiple times on the face. Also, the

6
Article 1336 of the New Civil Code of the Philippines.
7
Article 1337 of the New Civil Code of the Philippines.

4
circumstance wherein the wife urinated on the husband’s clothes is a
conduct abusive in nature. Therefore paragraph 1 of Article 55 of the
Family Code is present; there has been repeated physical violence or
grossly abusive conduct directed against the petitioner.

Due also to the sexual infidelity of the wife, Paragraph 8 of

Article 55, this could also be grounds for legal separation.

In regard to the physical violence or grossly abusive conduct of

respondent toward petitioner and respondent’s infidelity are grounds
for legal separation only and not for annulment of marriage under
Article 36 of the Family Code.

Article 36. 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 its
solemnization.

In Santos v. Court of Appeals,8 the term psychological

incapacity was defined, thus –

". . . [P]sychological incapacity" should refer to no less than a mental

(not physical) incapacity that causes a party to be truly cognitive 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 psychological incapacity must be characterized by –

(a) Gravity – It must be grave or serious such that the party would be
incapable of carrying out the ordinary duties required in a marriage;

(b) Juridical Antecedence – It must be rooted in the history of the

party antedating the marriage, although the overt manifestations may
emerge only after the marriage; and

8
G.R. No. 112019, January 04, 1995, 240 SCRA 20.

5
(c) Incurability – It must be incurable or, even if it were otherwise, the
cure would be beyond the means of the party involved.

It is implied in the facts mentioned that the Respondent has

excessive dependence on others, pervasive distrust and suspicion,
angry or hostile reaction to perceived circumstances, unjustified,
recurrent suspicion that spouse is unfaithful, etc. This may be a
cause of a personality disorder still unknown to the parties.
Moreover, it is grave because the respondent did not carry out the
normal and ordinary duties of marriage and family shouldered by any
average couple existing under everyday circumstances of life and
work. The gravity was also manifested in respondent’s infidelity.

In Marcos v. Marcos,9 it was further clarified that there is no

requirement that the defendant/respondent spouse should be
personally examined by a physician or psychologist as a condition
sine qua non for the declaration of nullity of marriage based on
psychological incapacity. Such psychological incapacity, however,
must be established by the totality of the evidence presented during
the trial.

In the case of Dedel v. Court of Appeals et al10, the doctor

declared that Sharon was suffering from Anti-Social Personality
Disorder exhibited by her blatant display of infidelity; that she
committed several indiscretions and had no capacity for remorse,
even bringing with her the two children of Mustafa Ibrahim to live with
petitioner. Such immaturity and irresponsibility in handling the
marriage like her repeated acts of infidelity and abandonment of her
family are indications of Anti-Social Personality Disorder amounting to
psychological incapacity to perform the essential obligations of
marriage.

However in People v. Encelan11, it states that 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. No evidence on record exists to support
Cesar’s allegation that Lolita’s infidelity and abandonment were
manifestations of any psychological illness.
9
G.R. No. 136490, October 19, 2000, 343 SCRA 755.
10
G.R. No. 151867, January 29, 2004.
11
G.R. No. 170022, January 9, 2013.

6
 According to facts given, a declaration of nullity of marriage
cannot be filed in Court because it cannot succeed due to lack of
evidence.

The policy of the Constitution is to protect and strengthen the

family as the basic social institution, and marriage as the foundation
of the family. Because of this, the Constitution decrees marriage as
legally inviolable and protects it from dissolution at the whim of the
parties. In this regard, psychological incapacity as a ground to nullify
the marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code, as amended,
should refer to the most serious cases of personality disorders clearly
demonstrative of an utter insensitivity or inability to give meaning and
significance to the marriage.12 It should refer to no less than a mental
- not merely 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
provided under Article 68 of the Family Code, among others, include
their mutual obligations to live together, observe love, respect and
fidelity, and render help and support.13 In other words, it must be a
malady that is so grave and permanent as to deprive one of
awareness of the duties and responsibilities of the matrimonial bond
one is about to assume.14

In Republic v. De Quintos et al, sexual infidelity was not a valid

ground for the nullity of marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code,
considering that there should be a showing that such marital infidelity
was a manifestation of a disordered personality that made her
completely unable to discharge the essential obligations of
marriage.15

Client must file a petition for legal separation.]

12
Republic v. Romero, G.R. Nos. 209180 and 209253, February 24, 2016.
13
Republic v. De Gracia, 726 Phil. 502, 509 (2014).
14
Republic v. Romero, citing Navales v. Navales, 578 Phil. 826, 840 (2008).
15
G.R. No. 159594, citing Villalon v. Villalon, November 12, 2012