Philippine e-Legal Forum

The hope is to make the Law Central, Philippines a comprehensive collection of legal tools, information and resources for the Philippines. This endeavor is made easier by the fact that helpful resources and sites are already online.

This is also intended to be partly driven by all users. There is a "submit" or "add" link in some menu items, i.e., new entries for law firms, law schools, blawgs and the Philippine Online Law Dictionary. The other items, however, are not yet available for general use. Please use the Contact Us menu should you want to submit other helpful resources, primarily books and journals. Submissions in the directories and resources, as well as comments and suggestions, are most welcome.

This is a spin-off from the Atty-at-Work. See also Philippine Online Law Dictionary.

Definition of terms and phrases used in the legal system of the Philippines. Go here to view the Philippine Online Law Dictionary.

Just recently, the Supreme Court promulgated a decision (Antonio vs. Reyes, G.R. No.  155800, 10 March 2006) in connection with a petition for declaration of nullity under Article 36 (psychological incapacity) of the Family Code.  The Supreme Court sustained the nullity of the marriage based on the psychological incapacity of the wife (respondent).

In that petition, the petitioner-husband claimed that respondent persistently lied about herself, the people around her, her occupation, income, educational attainment and other events or things, including: (1) she introduced her illegitimate child to her petitioner-husband as an adopted child of her family; (2) she misrepresented herself as a psychiatrist, with a degree in psychology; (3) she falsely claimed to be a singer or a free-lance voice talent;  (4) she invented friends and, under the names of those imaginary friends, sent lengthy letters to petitioner-husband touting her as the “number one moneymaker” in the commercial industry worth 2 million; and (5) she represented herself as a person of greater means, altering her payslip to make it appear that she earned a higher income.

The Supreme Court decided the petition using the guidelines (click here or here) set forth in Molina, thus:

First. Petitioner had sufficiently overcome his burden in proving the psychological incapacity of his spouse.  The petitioner must be able to establish the cause of action with preponderance of evidence (however, any finding of collusion among the parties would necessarily negate such proofs). The petitioner-husband, apart from his own testimony, presented witnesses who corroborated his allegations on his wife’s behavior.  He also presented two (2) expert witnesses from the field of psychology who testified that the aberrant behavior of respondent was tantamount to psychological incapacity. 

Second. The root cause of respondent’s psychological incapacity has been medically or clinically identified, alleged in the complaint, sufficiently proven by experts, and clearly explained in the trial court’s decision.  It was shown that respondent has that propensity for telling lies about almost anything, be it her occupation, her state of health, her singing abilities, her income, etc. She has this fantastic ability to invent and fabricate stories and personalities. She practically lived in a world of make believe making her therefore not in a position to give meaning and significance to her marriage to petitioner. In persistently and constantly lying to petitioner, respondent undermined the basic tenets of relationship between spouses that is based on love, trust and respect. As concluded by the psychiatrist presented by petitioner, such repeated lying is abnormal and pathological and amounts to psychological incapacity.

Third. Respondent’s psychological incapacity was established to have clearly existed at the time of and even before the celebration of marriage.  She fabricated friends and made up letters from fictitious characters well before she married petitioner. Likewise, she kept petitioner in the dark about her natural child’s real parentage as she only confessed when the latter had found out the truth after their marriage.

Fourth. The gravity of respondent’s psychological incapacity is sufficient to prove her disability to assume the essential obligations of marriage. It is immediately discernible that the parties had shared only a little over a year of cohabitation before the exasperated petitioner left his wife. Whatever such circumstance speaks of the degree of tolerance of petitioner, it likewise supports the belief that respondent’s psychological incapacity, as borne by the record, was so grave in extent that any prolonged marital life was dubitable. It should be noted that the lies attributed to respondent were not adopted as false pretenses in order to induce petitioner into marriage. More disturbingly, they indicate a failure on the part of respondent to distinguish truth from fiction, or at least abide by the truth. A person unable to distinguish between fantasy and reality would similarly be unable to comprehend the legal nature of the marital bond, much less its psychic meaning, and the corresponding obligations attached to marriage, including parenting.

Fifth. Respondent is evidently unable to comply with the essential marital obligations as embraced by Articles 68 to 71 of the Family Code. Article 68, in particular, enjoins the spouses to live together, observe mutual love, respect and fidelity, and render mutual help and support. As noted by the trial court, it is difficult to see how an inveterate pathological liar would be able to commit to the basic tenets of relationship between spouses based on love, trust and respect.

Sixth. The Court of Appeals clearly erred when it failed to take into consideration the fact that the marriage of the parties was annulled by the Catholic Church. Such deliberate ignorance is in contravention of Molina, which held that interpretations given by the National Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal of the Catholic Church in the Philippines, while not controlling or decisive, should be given great respect by our courts. 

Seventh. The final point of contention is the requirement in Molina that such psychological incapacity be shown to be medically or clinically permanent or incurable.  In this case, while respondent’s psychosis is quite grave, the expert witnesses did not explicitly state that the psychological incapacity was incurable. However, there was a good reason for such silence.

The petitioner’s expert witnesses testified in 1994 and 1995, and the trial court rendered its decision on 10 August 1995. These events transpired well before Molina was promulgated in 1997 and made explicit the requirement that the psychological incapacity must be shown to be medically or clinically permanent or incurable. Such requirement was not expressly stated in Article 36 or any other provision of the Family Code. On the other hand, in Santos (decided in January 1995), the Supreme Court omitted any reference to incurability as a characteristic of psychological incapacity.  Certainly, Santos did not clearly mandate that the incurability of the psychological incapacity be established in an action for declaration of nullity. At least, there was no jurisprudential clarity at the time of the trial of this case and the subsequent promulgation of the trial court’s decision that required a medical finding of incurability. Such requisite arose only with Molina in 1997, at a time when this case was on appellate review, or after the reception of evidence.

We are aware that in Pesca vs. Pesca, the Court countered an  argument  that Molina and Santos should not apply retroactively with the observation that the interpretation or construction placed by the courts of a law constitutes a part of that law as of the date the statute in enacted.  Yet we approach this present case from utterly practical considerations. The requirement that psychological incapacity must be shown to be medically or clinically permanent or incurable is one that necessarily cannot be divined without expert opinion. Clearly in this case, there was no categorical averment from the expert witnesses that respondent’s psychological incapacity was curable or incurable simply because there was no legal necessity yet to elicit such a declaration and the appropriate question was not accordingly propounded to him.  If we apply Pesca without deep reflection, there would be undue prejudice to those cases tried before Molina or Santos, especially those presently on appellate review, where presumably the respective petitioners and their expert witnesses would not have seen the need to adduce a diagnosis of incurability. It may hold in those cases, as in this case, that the psychological incapacity of a spouse is actually incurable, even if not pronounced as such at the trial court level.

Other note-worthy matters:

Psychological incapacity, which a ground for annulment of marriage (which is different from divorce), contemplates downright incapacity or inability to take cognizance of and to assume the basic marital obligations; not a mere refusal, neglect or difficulty, much less, ill will, on the part of the errant spouse. 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. Among the grounds for annulment of marriage, psychological incapacity is the more (if not the most) commonly used. It is also one of the more controversial provisions of the Family Code (Article 36).

The 8-point guideline (shortened here) in the interpretation and application of Article 36 were handed down in Molina:

1. The plaintiff (the spouse who filed the petition in court) has burden of showing the nullity of the marriage. Our laws cherish the validity of marriage and unity of the family, so any doubt is resolved in favor of the existence/continuation of the marriage.

2. The root cause of the psychological incapacity must be (a) medically or clinically identified, (b) alleged in the complaint, (c) sufficiently proven by experts and (d) clearly explained in the decision. Article 36 of the Family Code requires that the incapacity must be psychological - not physical, although its manifestations and/or symptoms may be physical. Expert evidence may be given by qualified psychiatrists and clinical psychologists.

3. The incapacity must be proven to be existing at “the time of the celebration” of the marriage. The evidence must show that the illness was existing when the parties exchanged their “I do’s.” The manifestation of the illness need not be perceivable at such time, but the illness itself must have attached at such moment, or prior thereto.

4. Such incapacity must also be shown to be medically or clinically permanent or incurable. Such incurability may be absolute or even relative only in regard to the other spouse, not necessarily absolutely against everyone of the same sex. Furthermore, such incapacity must be relevant to the assumption of marriage obligations, not necessarily to those not related to marriage, like the exercise of a profession or employment in a job.

5. Such illness must be grave enough to bring about the disability of the party to assume the essential obligations of marriage. Thus, “mild characteriological peculiarities, mood changes, occasional emotional outbursts” cannot be accepted as root causes.

6. The essential marital obligations must be those embraced by Articles 68 up to 71 of the Family Code as regards the husband and wife as well as Articles 220, 221 and 225 of the same Code in regard to parents and their children. Such non-complied marital obligation(s) must also be stated in the petition, proven by evidence and included in the text of the decision.

7. Interpretations given by the National Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal of the Catholic Church in the Philippines, while not controlling or decisive, should be given great respect by our courts.

8. The trial court must order the prosecuting attorney or fiscal and the Solicitor General to appear as counsel for the state. No decision shall be handed down unless the Solicitor General issues a certification, which will be quoted in the decision, briefly stating therein his reasons for his agreement or opposition, as the case may be, to the petition. (Republic vs. Iyoy, 2005)

I always hear people say that they want to get married (and actually getting married) outside the Philippines, on the ground that they could easily get a divorce out there.  I find this strange, for two main reasons:

1.   When we marry, it is supposed to be forever. There may be other reasons for getting married, but I believe the sole reason should be love; the kind of love that transcends time and any impediments that life throws our way. Now, I’m not saying this simply because Valentines day is just around the corner. No less than the Philippine Constitution (Art. XV, Sec. 2) and the Family Code (Art. 1) expressly characterize marriage as the foundation of the family and an inviolable social institution. The law states that it is a special contract of a permanent union between a man and a woman (same sex marriage is not yet recognized in the Philippines). It is inviolable. It is permanent. In short, you don’t think of divorce when you get married.

2.  More importantly, divorce is generally not recognized in the Philippines. If you’re a Filipino, it doesn’t matter where you get your divorce – such divorce is invalid/void under Philippine law. I can almost hear someone saying, “Why ‘generally’?” Let me explain.

Under the nationality principle (Art. 15, Civil Code), all Filipinos – regardless where they may be in the world - are bound by Philippine laws on family rights and duties, status, condition, and legal capacity. Otherwise stated, Philippine law on marriage follows you wherever you may go. You can run, but you can’t hide. Divorce among Filipino spouses – whether secured here or abroad - is NOT allowed.

Let us complicate matters.

What if a Filipino gets married to a foreigner and the foreigner secures a divorce? Is that divorce valid? Would it make a difference if the foreigner-spouse files for divorce here in the Philippines, and not abroad? Would it also make any difference if the Filipino spouse, instead of the foreigner, is the one filing for divorce?

While divorce is not allowed, annulment is recognized in the Philippines. Is this merely a play of words? Is “annulment” simply another term for “divorce”?

What if the woman is a Philippine citizen, will she lose her Philippine citizenship if she marries a foreigner? If she does, will this mean that she can now ask for divorce if allowed in the country of her husband?

What if a Filipino gets married, then becomes a citizen of another country, and seeks a divorce? Is that divorce valid?

What is the effect, if any, of the Citizenship Retention and Re-acquisition Act of 2003 (Republic Act No. 9225), wherein Philippine citizens can retain (or re-acquire) their Philippine citizenship despite becoming a citizen of another country though naturalization?

The procedure for annulment or declaration of nullity of marriages in the Philippines is covered by a specific issuance of the Supreme Court - the “Rules on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages“.

The procedure (e.g., filing, pre-trial, trial) is clearly provided in said issuance, so allow me to focus instead on the following “steps”:

1. Make sure it is the last resort. As stated in my previous post, love and marriage are supposed to be forever. Try all options, like counselling, to make it work.

2. Get your first house in order. Getting into another relationship or marriage, while the first marital bond is still existing, is a sure way of courting criminal liability (adultery/concubinage, bigamy). A subsequent petition for declaration of nullity/annulment of marriage is not a defense in the criminal action.

3. Realize that it will cost you. This is one of the ironies of love; it will cost you to get out of a previous marriage and consummate your love with another. Expenses include the fees for your lawyer or counsel, the filing fees, professional fees for the psychologist (if psychological incapacity), appearance fees, etc. Of course, there are other expenses.

4. Discuss the custody of children, property arrangements and support. The custody of children and the separation of properties in annulment are the more loaded issues. If possible, discuss these matters beforehand (also, the wife and the children are entitled to legal support during the pendency of the proceedings). In contrast, collusion is prohibited in seeking an annulment and it is the duty of the public prosecutor to ensure that no such collusion exists.

5. Prepare/file the Petition. You have to decide where to file the petition (in the province or city where the petitioner or the respondent resides for the last 6 months). For pyschological incapacity (Article 36, Family Code), the petition may be filed by either spouse (even the one suffering from the psychological incapacity). Even an Overseas Filipino Worker (OFW) may file the petition while he/she is abroad, but the verification/ certification against forum-shopping must be authenticated in the nearest Philippine embassy. The contents of the petition are clearly set out in the rules.

6. Pre-trial and trial. Again, this is extensively discussed in the rules.