Rule: A petition for declaration of absolute nullity of void marriage may be filed Ruling: The Supreme Court ruled
urt ruled that the grounds for declaration of absolute
solely by the husband or wife. Exceptions: (1) Nullity of marriage cases
commenced before the effectivity of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC; and (2) Marriages
celebrated during the effectivity of the Civil Code
Carlos vs. Sandoval
Facts:
 Spouses Felix B. Carlos and Felipa Elemia died intestate. They left six
parcels of land to their compulsory heirs, Teofilo Carlos and petitioner
Juan De Dios Carlos.
 Eventually, the first three (3) parcels of land were transferred and
registered in the name of Teofilo. Parcel No. 4 was registered in the name of
Teofilo.
 However, in 1992, Teofilo died intestate. He was survived by respondents
Felicidad and their son, Teofilo Carlos II. Upon Teofilos death, Parcel Nos.
5 & 6 were registered in the name of respondent Felicidad and co-
respondent, Teofilo II.
 In 1994, petitioner (Carlos) instituted a suit against respondents in the RTC
of Multinlupa City. In the said case, they have submitted the approval of a
partial compromise agreement recognizing their respective shares in the said
land.
 In 1995, petitioner commenced an action against respondent before the court
a quo with the following cause of action: (a) declaration of nullity of
marriage; (b) status of a child; (c) recovery of property; (d) reconveyance;
and (e) sum of money and damages. Primarily, petitioner asserted that the
marriage between his brother and the respond is in nullity due to the absence
of marriage license.
 Respondent, on the other hand, states that the dearth of details regarding the
requisite of marriage did not invalidate her marriage to Teofilo. The
respondent moved for summary judgment. Attached to the motion was the
affidavit of the justice of peace who solemnized the marriage.
 However, petitioner opposed the motion for summary judgment on the
ground of irregularity of the contract evidencing the marriage.
 RTC – It ruled that the marriage between Teofilo and Felicidad as NULL
AND VOID AB INITIO for lack of the requisite marriage license.
 Dissatisfied, respondents appealed to the CA in annulling the marriage of
Teofilo Sr. and Felicidad and in declaring Teofilo II as not an illegitimate son
of the former.
 CA – Reversed and SET ASIDE the ruling of the RTC (Applied Art. 88
and Art, 101 of the Civil Code; Petitioner – MR = DENIED
Issue: Whether or not a marriage may be declared VOID AB INITIO through a
judgment on the pleadings or a summary judgment and without the benefit of a
trial; WON a party who is NOT A SPOUSE can file a nullity of marriage.
nullity of marriage must be proved. Neither judgment on the pleadings nor
summary judgment is allowed. Carlos argues that the CA should have applied Rule
35 of the Rules of Court governing summary judgment, instead of the rule on judgment
on the pleadings. Petitioner is misguided. Whether it is based on judgment on the
pleadings or summary judgment, the CA was correct in reversing the summary
judgment rendered by the trial court. Both the rules on judgment on the pleadings and
summary judgments have no place in cases of declaration of absolute nullity of
marriage and even in annulment of marriage.
A petition for declaration of absolute nullity of void marriage may be filed solely
by the husband or wife. Exceptions: (1) Nullity of marriage cases commenced
before the effectivity of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC; and (2) Marriages celebrated
during the effectivity of the Civil Code. Under the Rule on Declaration of Absolute
Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages, the petition for
declaration of absolute nullity of marriage may not be filed by any party outside of the
marriage.
A petition for declaration of absolute nullity of void marriage may be filed solely by
the husband or the wife. Only an aggrieved or injured spouse may file a petition
for annulment of voidable marriages or declaration of absolute nullity of void
marriages. Such petition cannot be filed by compulsory or intestate heirs of the spouses
or by the State. The Committee is of the belief that they do not have a legal right to
file the petition. Compulsory or intestate heirs have only inchoate rights prior to the
death of their predecessor, and, hence, can only question the validity of the marriage
of the spouses upon the death of a spouse in a proceeding for the settlement of the
estate of the deceased spouse filed in the regular courts. On the other hand, the
concern of the State is to preserve marriage and not to seek its dissolution. The
Rule extends only to marriages entered into during the effectivity of the Family Code
which took effect on August 3, 1988.
The advent of the Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages marks
the beginning of the end of the right of the heirs of the deceased spouse to bring a
nullity of marriage case against the surviving spouse. But the Rule never intended to
deprive the compulsory or intestate heirs of their successional rights.
While A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC declares that a petition for declaration of absolute
nullity of marriage may be filed solely by the husband or the wife, it does not mean
that the compulsory or intestate heirs are without any recourse under the law. They
can still protect their successional right, for, as stated in the Rationale of the Rules
on Annulment of Voidable Marriages and Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void
Marriages, compulsory or intestate heirs can still question the validity of the
marriage of the spouses, not in a proceeding for declaration of nullity but upon
the death of a spouse in a proceeding for the settlement of the estate of the
deceased spouse filed in the regular courts.
It is emphasized, however, that the Rule does not apply to cases already commenced
before March 15, 2003 although the marriage involved is within the coverage of the
Family Code. This is so, as the new Rule which became effective on March 15, 2003
is prospective in its application.
Petitioner commenced the nullity of marriage case against respondent Felicidad in
1995. The marriage in controversy was celebrated on May 14, 1962. Which law would
govern depends upon when the marriage took place.
The marriage having been solemnized prior to the effectivity of the Family Code, the
applicable law is the Civil Code which was the law in effect at the time of its
celebration. But the Civil Code is silent as to who may bring an action to declare the
marriage void. Does this mean that any person can bring an action for the declaration
of nullity of marriage?
True, under the New Civil Code which is the law in force at the time the
respondents were married, or even in the Family Code, there is no specific
provision as to who can file a petition to declare the nullity of marriage; however,
only a party who can demonstrate “proper interest” can file the same. A petition
to declare the nullity of marriage, like any other actions, must be prosecuted or
defended in the name of the real party-in-interest and must be based on a cause of
action. Thus, in Niñal v. Badayog, the Court held that the children have the
personality to file the petition to declare the nullity of marriage of their deceased
father to their stepmother as it affects their successional rights.
Rule: experts can determine it b the physical manifestations of physical
incapacity.PETITION IS DENIED, THERE IS CAUSE OF ACTION.

Barcelona vs. CA ART. 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
FACTS: after its solemnization.

Respondent Tadeo and petitioner Diana were legally married union begot five
The Supreme Court held that psychological incapacity should refer to a mental
children. On 29 March 1995, private respondent Tadeo R. Bengzon filed a Petition
incapacity that causes a party to be truly incognitive of the basic marital covenants
for Annulment of Marriage against petitioner Diana M. Barcelona. Petition further
such as those enumerated in Article 68 of the Family Code and must be
alleged that petitioner Diana was psychologically incapacitated at the time of the
characterized by gravity, juridical antecedence and incurability.
celebration of their marriage to comply with the essential obligations of marriage
and such incapacity subsists up to the present time. The petition allegedthe non-
complied marital obligations. During their marriage, they had frequent quarrels The elements of Psychological incapacity are:
due to their varied upbringing. Respondent, coming from a rich family, wasa
disorganized housekeeper and was frequently out of the house. She would go to (a) Grave – It must be grave or serious such that the party would be incapable of
her sister‘s house or would play tennis the whole day. When the family had crisis carrying out the ordinary duties required in a marriage;
due to several miscarriages suffered by respondent and the sickness of a child,
respondent withdrew to herself and eventually refused to speak to her husband. (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
On November 1977, the respondent, who was five months pregnant with Cristina marriage; and
Maria and on the pretext of re-evaluatingher feelings with petitioner, requested the
latter to temporarily leave their conjugal dwelling. In his desire to keep peace in (c) Incurable and Permanent – It must be incurable or, even if it were otherwise,
the family and to safeguard the respondent‘s pregnancy, the petitioner was the cure would be beyond the means of the party involved.
compelled to leave their conjugal dwelling. The respondent at the time of the
celebration of their marriage was psychologically incapacitated to comply with
theessential obligation of marriage and such incapacity subsisted up to and until
the present time. Such incapacity wasconclusively found in the psychological
examination conducted on the relationship between the petitioner and
therespondent Diana claims that petitioner falls short of the guidelines stated in
Molina case and there is no cause for action.

ISSUE:

Whether of not petitioner stated a cause of action against Diana.

RULING:

YES, since petition stated legal right of Tadeo, correlative obligation of Diana,
and her act or omission as seen infacts FAILURE TO STATE ROOT CAUSE
AND GRAVE NATURE OF ILLNESS. Sec 2 of rules of declaration of absolute
nullity of void marriage – petition does not need to show root cause sinceonly