August 6, 2019

 No ceremony; marriage is void

 Voidable- valid but flawed

Voidable/annulled

Grounds as stated in Article 45

-cohabitation at age 21 (married below 21) is already a ratification; 5 years to challenge the validity

-ratification is done by someone who needed the consent

-parental consent should be written

-insanity

-drunk, sleepwalking, and other conditions when not in your sound mind

-can be filed by either parties or the parents

-the insane spouse can only be challenged in his/her lucid moment

-fraud

-non-disclosure of previous conviction (by final judgement)

-crime that involves moral turpitude (malice manifested in the crime)

-concealment of pregnancy

-concealment of STD whether it’s curable or not

**within 5 years upon discovery of the fraud can the innocent spouse challenge the marriage

Void marriage in relation to crime

-killing the other spouse; knowledge is immaterial

-Doctrine of unclean hands

-crime for legal separation; more than 6 years; based on the length of the penalty
-Consent was obtained by force, intimidation, undue influence

-shot gun marriages

-threats

-prescription: 5 years

-force should have violence

-imminent and grave evil

-undue influence: moral ascendancy

-can be exercised even by a third person

-intimidation must be evil; has no legal basis to do these

-Cannot consumate; can’t be ratified

-with STD

-incurable

-does not need to be concealed

-cannot be ratified

Procedure and Effects of Termination of Marriage

-Children conceived and born before the marriage is challenged is considered legitimate

-Void marriage: children are illegitimate

-during the pendency: couple can agree regarding the support; based on capacity; not permanent

-custody: the court shall decide

-child is below 5 years old (goes to the mother)

-case of presumptive legitime; what the children will receive

Article 48

-the court has to make sure that there is no collusion; evidence is not frabricated
Cases:

-Tuazon v CA: collusion

-Ancheta v Ancheta: extrinsic fraud; jurisdiction

-Yu v Yu: incidental issues; habeas corpus

-Yu v Reyes-Carpio: installment judgements