ASG Law

Tag: Marriage Law Philippines

  • Navigating Bigamy and Marital Deception in the Philippines: What You Need to Know

    When Can a Second Marriage Lead to a Bigamy Charge in the Philippines?

    G.R. No. 261666, January 24, 2024

    Imagine discovering your spouse remarried while your marriage remains legally binding. Bigamy, a crime under Philippine law, punishes this act. However, the nuances of marital law can create complexities. What happens if the second marriage lacks essential legal requirements? Can someone still be held liable?

    This case, Rommel Genio y Santos v. People of the Philippines, sheds light on this intricate area. It explores the burden of proof in bigamy cases, particularly when the validity of the second marriage is questioned. The Supreme Court’s decision clarifies when a second marriage, even if technically flawed, can lead to criminal liability.

    Understanding the Legal Framework of Bigamy in the Philippines

    Bigamy, as defined in Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code, occurs when a person contracts a second or subsequent marriage before the first marriage has been legally dissolved or before the absent spouse has been declared presumptively dead through a court judgment.

    To secure a conviction for bigamy, the prosecution must prove the following elements beyond reasonable doubt:

    • The offender was legally married.
    • The first marriage has not been legally dissolved or the absent spouse is not yet presumed dead.
    • The offender contracts a second or subsequent marriage.
    • The second or subsequent marriage possesses all essential requisites for validity.

    Crucially, the fourth element highlights that the *second* marriage must appear valid on its face. This element becomes complex when irregularities surround the second marriage’s solemnization.

    Article 350 of the Revised Penal Code addresses scenarios where a marriage is contracted against the provisions of law, stating: “The penalty of prisión correccional in its medium and maximum periods shall be imposed upon any person who, without being included in the provisions of the next preceding article, shall contract marriage knowing that the requirements of the law have not been complied with or that the marriage is in disregard of a legal impediment.”

    The Case of Rommel Genio: A Bigamy Charge Under Scrutiny

    Rommel Genio was charged with bigamy for marrying Maricar Santos Galapon while still legally married to Magdalena Esler Genio. Magdalena discovered Rommel’s second marriage through Facebook and a birth certificate of a child born to Rommel and Maricar.

    During the trial, Rommel admitted to both marriages but argued that his second marriage to Maricar was void because it was not solemnized by the Municipal Mayor of Guimba, Nueva Ecija, and no proper wedding ceremony occurred.

    The Regional Trial Court (RTC) convicted Rommel of bigamy. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed this decision, emphasizing the Marriage Certificate issued by the PSA as prima facie evidence of a valid marriage.

    The case reached the Supreme Court, questioning whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the second marriage possessed all essential requisites for validity.

    The Supreme Court considered the following key points:

    • The prosecution presented the Marriage Certificate as evidence of the second marriage’s validity.
    • The defense argued that the second marriage was void due to the absence of a duly authorized solemnizing officer and a proper marriage ceremony.
    • Witnesses testified that the Municipal Mayor did not officiate the wedding.

    The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of the prosecution proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, stating, “The constitutional right of the accused to be presumed innocent is not an empty platitude so quickly abrogated by a legal presumption seeking to establish guilt.”

    The Court found the evidence presented by Rommel created reasonable doubt regarding the validity of the second marriage. While it overturned the bigamy conviction, it found Rommel guilty of violating Article 350 of the Revised Penal Code, for knowingly contracting a marriage against the provisions of law.

    According to the Court, “by signing the Marriage Certificate and going through a sham marriage with Maricar on September 7, 2013, knowing that he was previously married to Magdalena and that the first marriage was never dissolved or declared void ab initio pursuant to Article 40 of the Family Code for the purpose of remarriage Rommel violated Article 350 of the RPC.”

    What This Means for Future Cases and Individuals

    This case underscores the importance of proving *all* elements of bigamy beyond a reasonable doubt, especially the validity of the second marriage. It highlights that even if a second marriage is flawed, individuals may still face criminal liability for knowingly entering into a marriage against the provisions of law.

    For businesses, this case emphasizes the need to ensure compliance with all legal requirements during employee marriages, especially in human resources and legal compliance contexts.

    Key Lessons:

    • Ensure all essential and formal requisites are met for a marriage to be valid.
    • Seek legal counsel before entering into a second marriage if the first marriage is not legally dissolved.
    • Be aware of the potential criminal liabilities associated with knowingly contracting a marriage against the law.

    Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

    Q: What is considered a valid marriage ceremony in the Philippines?

    A: A valid marriage ceremony requires the personal appearance of the contracting parties before a solemnizing officer and their declaration, in the presence of at least two witnesses, that they take each other as husband and wife.

    Q: What happens if the person solemnizing the marriage is not authorized?

    A: Marriages solemnized by an unauthorized person are generally void ab initio (from the beginning), unless either or both parties believed in good faith that the solemnizing officer had the legal authority to do so.

    Q: Can a person be charged with bigamy even if the second marriage is void?

    A: While a void second marriage may prevent a conviction for bigamy, the person may still be liable for violating Article 350 of the Revised Penal Code if they knowingly contracted a marriage against the law.

    Q: What is the difference between Article 349 and Article 350 of the Revised Penal Code?

    A: Article 349 defines and penalizes bigamy, while Article 350 addresses the act of knowingly contracting a marriage against the provisions of law, even if it doesn’t qualify as bigamy due to a lack of essential requisites.

    Q: What should I do if I suspect my spouse has committed bigamy?

    A: Gather evidence and seek legal advice immediately. A lawyer can help you understand your rights and options.

    Q: What are the penalties for bigamy and violating Article 350 in the Philippines?

    A: Bigamy carries a penalty of prisión mayor. Violating Article 350 carries a penalty of prisión correccional in its medium and maximum periods.

    Q: Does ignorance of marital law excuse someone from liability for bigamy?

    A: No. Article 3 of the Civil Code clearly states that “Ignorance of the law excuses no one from compliance therewith.” The accused is presumed to know the law, including the provisions of the Family Code on legal impediments to marriage, the essential and formal requisites for its validity, and the requirement of a prior judgment declaring the first marriage void for the purpose of remarriage.

    ASG Law specializes in Family Law. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.

  • Bigamy in the Philippines: Why You Need a Court Declaration Even for Void Marriages

    Second Marriage, First Crime: Why Declaring Your First Marriage Void in Court Matters

    Thinking of remarrying after a previous marriage that you believe was invalid from the start? Think again. Philippine law mandates a crucial step: obtaining a judicial declaration that your first marriage is void, even if it was inherently invalid. Skipping this step and proceeding with a second marriage can land you in serious trouble – specifically, facing bigamy charges. This Supreme Court case clarifies why getting that court declaration beforehand is not just a formality, but a legal necessity to avoid criminal prosecution.

    G.R. No. 137110, August 01, 2000: Vincent Paul G. Mercado A.K.A. Vincent G. Mercado vs. Consuelo Tan

    INTRODUCTION

    Imagine falling in love again after a previous marriage that was deeply flawed, perhaps even void from the beginning. You believe you’re free to marry, but Philippine law throws a curveball. Vincent Mercado found himself in this predicament, believing his first marriage was void, and marrying Consuelo Tan without formally nullifying the first union in court. This decision by the Supreme Court in Vincent Paul G. Mercado v. Consuelo Tan serves as a stark reminder: in the Philippines, even if your first marriage is void, you must secure a judicial declaration of its nullity before entering into a second marriage, or risk being charged with bigamy. The case highlights the critical importance of proper legal procedures in marital matters, especially when remarriage is involved. The central legal question: Can a person be convicted of bigamy for a second marriage if their first marriage was void ab initio but not yet judicially declared as such at the time of the second marriage?

    LEGAL CONTEXT: BIGAMY AND VOID MARRIAGES IN THE PHILIPPINES

    Bigamy, as defined under Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code, is committed when a person contracts a second or subsequent marriage before the first marriage has been legally dissolved. The law states:

    “The penalty of prision mayor shall be imposed upon any person who shall contract a second or subsequent marriage before the former marriage has been legally dissolved, or before the absent spouse has been declared presumptively dead by means of a judgment rendered in the proper proceedings.”

    For a bigamy charge to stand, four elements must be present:

    1. The offender is legally married.
    2. The first marriage has not been legally dissolved.
    3. The offender contracts a second or subsequent marriage.
    4. The second marriage has all the essential requisites for validity.

    Philippine law recognizes different types of marriages, including valid, voidable, and void ab initio (void from the beginning) marriages. Void ab initio marriages are considered as if they never happened due to certain defects present at the time of the marriage, such as lack of consent or being incestuous. Article 35, 36, 37, 38 and 53 of the Family Code enumerate grounds for void marriages. However, the Family Code, specifically Article 40, introduces a procedural requirement even for void marriages when remarriage is contemplated:

    “ART. 40. The absolute nullity of a previous marriage may be invoked for purposes of remarriage on the basis solely of a final judgment declaring such previous marriage void.”

    This provision was a game-changer. Prior to the Family Code, some jurisprudence suggested that a judicial declaration wasn’t necessary for void marriages, especially in criminal cases like bigamy. However, Article 40 and subsequent Supreme Court decisions aimed to clarify and standardize the process, emphasizing the need for a court declaration to ensure legal certainty and order in marital relationships. The legal landscape before Mercado v. Tan was marked by conflicting jurisprudence, with cases like People v. Mendoza and People v. Aragon suggesting no need for judicial declaration for void marriages in bigamy cases, contrasted by cases like Vda de Consuegra v. GSIS and Wiegel v. Sempio-Diy highlighting the need for such declaration, at least in civil contexts. Domingo v. CA further solidified the necessity of judicial declaration under the Family Code, bridging the gap between civil and criminal implications.

    CASE BREAKDOWN: MERCADO’S MARRIAGE MUDDLE

    Vincent Mercado was already married to Ma. Thelma Oliva in 1976. Despite this existing marriage, Vincent married Ma. Consuelo Tan in 1991. Crucially, at the time of his marriage to Consuelo, Vincent had not obtained any judicial declaration that his first marriage to Thelma was void. Consuelo later discovered Vincent’s prior marriage and filed a bigamy case against him. Interestingly, after the bigamy case was filed, Vincent initiated a separate civil action to have his first marriage to Thelma declared void ab initio under Article 36 of the Family Code (psychological incapacity). The Regional Trial Court (RTC) convicted Vincent of bigamy. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed this conviction, emphasizing that at the time of the second marriage, the first marriage was still legally subsisting as there was no judicial declaration of nullity yet.

    The Supreme Court, in affirming the lower courts’ decisions, meticulously traced the evolution of jurisprudence on this matter. The Court acknowledged the previous “conflicting” rulings but firmly stated that Article 40 of the Family Code, coupled with the ruling in Domingo v. CA, settled the issue. Justice Panganiban, writing for the Court, quoted:

    “A declaration of the absolute nullity of a marriage is now explicitly required either as a cause of action or a ground for defense; in fact, the requirement for a declaration of absolute nullity of a marriage is also for the protection of the spouse who, believing that his or her marriage is illegal and void, marries again. With the judicial declaration of the nullity of his or her first marriage, the person who marries again cannot be charged with bigamy.”

    The Supreme Court emphasized that even if Vincent’s first marriage was indeed void ab initio (a point the Court did not definitively rule on in this bigamy case), this void nature was not an automatic defense against bigamy. The critical moment was the date of the second marriage. At that time, no court had declared the first marriage void. Therefore, from the perspective of the law, the first marriage was still considered valid and existing. The Court reasoned that allowing a void ab initio argument without prior judicial declaration would create chaos and encourage individuals to bypass legal procedures. As the Court highlighted:

    “To repeat, the crime had already been consummated by then. Moreover, his view effectively encourages delay in the prosecution of bigamy cases; an accused could simply file a petition to declare his previous marriage void and invoke the pendency of that action as a prejudicial question in the criminal case. We cannot allow that.”

    Ultimately, the Supreme Court upheld Vincent Mercado’s conviction for bigamy, reinforcing the principle that a judicial declaration of nullity is a prerequisite for remarriage, even when a prior marriage is claimed to be void ab initio.

    PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: PROTECT YOURSELF FROM BIGAMY CHARGES

    The Mercado v. Tan case provides clear and crucial guidance for anyone considering remarriage after a previous marital union in the Philippines. It dispels any notion that simply believing your first marriage was void is enough to legally justify a second marriage. This ruling has significant practical implications:

    • Judicial Declaration is Mandatory: Regardless of whether you believe your previous marriage was void ab initio (e.g., due to lack of consent, psychological incapacity, etc.), you must obtain a judicial declaration of nullity from a Philippine court before entering into a subsequent marriage.
    • Timing is Everything: The judicial declaration must precede the second marriage. Obtaining a declaration after contracting a second marriage does not retroactively absolve you of bigamy.
    • No Self-Determination of Nullity: You cannot unilaterally declare your marriage void and act on that assumption. The determination of nullity is the court’s prerogative.
    • Protection Against Bigamy: Securing a judicial declaration is not just a procedural hoop; it’s your legal shield against potential bigamy charges if you remarry.

    Key Lessons from Mercado v. Tan:

    • Get a Court Order First: Before remarrying, always secure a judicial declaration of nullity for any prior marriage, even if you believe it was void.
    • Timing Matters in Bigamy: The crucial point is whether a judicial declaration existed *before* the second marriage was celebrated.
    • Don’t Assume, Consult a Lawyer: Do not assume your marriage is void and proceed with remarriage. Seek legal advice and initiate court proceedings to obtain a declaration of nullity.

    FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS (FAQs)

    Q: What is bigamy in the Philippines?

    A: Bigamy is the act of contracting a second marriage while still legally married to another person. It is a crime punishable under Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code.

    Q: What does “void ab initio” marriage mean?

    A: “Void ab initio” means void from the beginning. A void ab initio marriage is considered never to have legally existed due to inherent defects at the time of its celebration, such as lack of consent, incestuous relationships, or psychological incapacity as provided under Article 36 of the Family Code.

    Q: If my first marriage was void from the start, why do I need a court declaration to remarry?

    A: Philippine law, specifically Article 40 of the Family Code and clarified by Supreme Court jurisprudence like Mercado v. Tan, requires a judicial declaration of nullity even for void ab initio marriages for the purpose of remarriage. This is to ensure legal certainty and prevent individuals from unilaterally deciding their marriage is void and remarrying, which could lead to bigamy charges.

    Q: What happens if I remarry without a judicial declaration of nullity for my first (void) marriage?

    A: You risk being charged with bigamy, even if your first marriage was indeed void ab initio. As Mercado v. Tan illustrates, the lack of a prior judicial declaration at the time of the second marriage is the determining factor for a bigamy charge.

    Q: Is obtaining a judicial declaration of nullity the same as annulment?

    A: No. Annulment applies to voidable marriages, which are valid until annulled by a court. A judicial declaration of nullity, on the other hand, confirms that a marriage was void from the beginning. While both require court proceedings, they address different types of marital invalidity.

    Q: What should I do if I want to remarry and I’m unsure about the validity of my previous marriage?

    A: Consult with a lawyer immediately. A lawyer can assess your situation, advise you on the validity of your previous marriage, and guide you through the process of obtaining a judicial declaration of nullity if necessary, ensuring you avoid legal complications like bigamy.

    Q: Does this ruling mean that even if my first marriage was obviously invalid (like if I married my sibling unknowingly) I still need to go to court before remarrying?

    A: Yes, according to the current interpretation of Philippine law as clarified in cases like Mercado v. Tan and Domingo v. CA. Even in cases where the marriage is patently void, the safest and legally compliant course of action is to obtain a judicial declaration of nullity before remarrying to avoid any risk of bigamy charges.

    ASG Law specializes in Family Law and Criminal Defense, particularly in complex marital issues like annulment, declaration of nullity, and bigamy cases. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation and ensure your marital matters are handled with expertise and care.

  • Prejudicial Question Doctrine in Philippine Law: Can a Civil Case Halt a Criminal Prosecution?

    Navigating the Intersection of Civil and Criminal Cases: Understanding Prejudicial Question in Philippine Law

    When a civil case and a criminal case are intertwined, Philippine law provides a mechanism called a ‘prejudicial question’ to ensure judicial efficiency and prevent conflicting judgments. In essence, if the resolution of a civil case is crucial to determining guilt or innocence in a related criminal case, the criminal proceeding might be suspended. This principle aims to avoid scenarios where an individual could be found both innocent and guilty based on potentially contradictory court rulings. This case clarifies that not all related civil actions automatically qualify as prejudicial questions, especially in the context of marital disputes and criminal charges arising from marital relationships.

    G.R. No. 137567, June 20, 2000

    INTRODUCTION

    Imagine being accused of a crime that hinges on the validity of your marriage, while simultaneously fighting to annul that very marriage in civil court. This is the predicament faced by many individuals in the Philippines, where family law and criminal law often intersect in complex ways. The case of Beltran v. People delves into this intricate legal landscape, specifically examining the concept of a ‘prejudicial question’. Meynardo Beltran found himself facing a concubinage charge filed by his wife while his petition for nullity of marriage was pending. The central question before the Supreme Court was: Did the pending nullity case constitute a prejudicial question that should have suspended the concubinage proceedings?

    LEGAL CONTEXT: PREJUDICIAL QUESTION, CONCUBINAGE, AND MARRIAGE NULLITY

    The principle of prejudicial question is rooted in procedural efficiency and fairness. It prevents the absurdity of having two separate branches of government (civil and criminal courts) reaching potentially contradictory conclusions on the same essential facts. The Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, specifically Rule 111, Section 7, addresses prejudicial questions, stating that:

    “A petition for suspension of the criminal action based upon the pendency of a prejudicial question in a civil action may be presented in the court trying the criminal action…“

    For a civil case to be considered a prejudicial question, two key elements must be present, as consistently reiterated in Philippine jurisprudence:

    1. The civil action involves an issue similar or intimately related to the issue raised in the criminal action.
    2. The resolution of such issue in the civil action determines whether or not the criminal action may proceed.

    In the context of this case, the criminal charge is concubinage. Article 334 of the Revised Penal Code defines concubinage as committed by:

    “Any husband who shall keep a mistress in the conjugal dwelling, or shall have sexual intercourse under scandalous circumstances with a woman who is not his wife, or shall cohabit with her in any other place.“

    A crucial element of concubinage is the existence of a valid marriage. If there is no marriage, there can be no concubinage. This is where the civil case for nullity of marriage becomes relevant. Philippine law recognizes various grounds for nullity of marriage, including psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code. However, Article 40 of the Family Code also specifies:

    “The absolute nullity of a previous marriage may be invoked for purposes of remarriage on the basis solely of a final judgment declaring such previous marriage void.“

    This provision has been interpreted by the Supreme Court in cases like Domingo v. Court of Appeals to mean that while a final judgment of nullity is required for remarriage purposes, for other purposes, like defenses in other legal proceedings, the nullity of marriage can be proven by other means.

    CASE BREAKDOWN: BELTRAN’S FIGHT AGAINST CONCUBINAGE CHARGES

    Meynardo Beltran and Charmaine Felix were married in 1973 and had four children. After twenty-four years, Meynardo filed for nullity of marriage based on psychological incapacity. Charmaine, in her answer, alleged Meynardo had abandoned their home and was living with another woman, Milagros Salting. Subsequently, Charmaine filed a concubinage complaint against Meynardo and Milagros.

    Here’s a step-by-step breakdown of the legal proceedings:

    • Civil Case Filing (RTC Quezon City): Meynardo initiates a civil case for declaration of nullity of marriage.
    • Criminal Complaint (City Prosecutor, Makati): Charmaine files a concubinage complaint against Meynardo.
    • Information Filed (MTC Makati): The prosecutor finds probable cause, and a criminal case for concubinage is filed in the Metropolitan Trial Court (MTC).
    • Motion to Defer (MTC Makati): Meynardo asks the MTC to suspend the criminal proceedings, arguing the nullity case is a prejudicial question. Judge Cervantes denies this motion.
    • Certiorari to RTC Makati: Meynardo elevates the issue to the Regional Trial Court (RTC) via a petition for certiorari, seeking to overturn the MTC’s denial and asking for a preliminary injunction to stop the concubinage trial. Judge Tuazon, Jr. denies the petition.
    • Petition for Review to Supreme Court: Undeterred, Meynardo brings the case to the Supreme Court.

    Meynardo argued that if the civil court declared his marriage void ab initio (from the beginning), then he was never truly married, and therefore, could not be guilty of concubinage. He feared conflicting decisions: a valid marriage in civil court, but an acquittal in criminal court based on evidence of nullity. However, the Supreme Court disagreed with Beltran’s contentions.

    The Supreme Court, in its decision penned by Justice Buena, emphasized the two essential elements of a prejudicial question and found that the nullity case did not meet the second element in relation to the concubinage charge. The Court quoted its previous ruling in Carlos vs. Court of Appeals regarding the elements of prejudicial question:

    “(a) the civil action involves an issue similar or intimately related to the issue raised in the criminal action; and (b) the resolution of such issue determines whether or not the criminal action may proceed.“

    The Court clarified that while the nullity of marriage is related to the concubinage case, its resolution is not determinative of guilt or innocence in the criminal case at this stage. Crucially, the Supreme Court reiterated the doctrine established in Landicho v. Relova and affirmed in Donato v. Luna:

    >

    “Parties to the marriage should not be permitted to judge for themselves its nullity, for the same must be submitted to the judgment of the competent courts and only when the nullity of the marriage is so declared can it be held as void, and so long as there is no such declaration the presumption is that the marriage exists. Therefore, he who contracts a second marriage before the judicial declaration of nullity of the first marriage assumes the risk of being prosecuted for bigamy.“

    Applying this principle to concubinage, the Court reasoned that even if Beltran’s marriage were eventually declared void, at the time of the alleged concubinage, the marriage was presumed valid because there was no judicial declaration of nullity yet. Therefore, the pendency of the nullity case was not a prejudicial question that warranted the suspension of the criminal proceedings.

    PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: MARRIAGE, SEPARATION, AND CRIMINAL LIABILITY

    Beltran v. People serves as a critical reminder about the legal presumptions surrounding marriage in the Philippines and the consequences of actions taken before a marriage is formally declared null and void by a court. This ruling has significant implications for individuals contemplating separation or those in the process of annulment or nullity proceedings.

    Firstly, it reinforces that in the eyes of the law, a marriage is valid and subsisting until a court declares otherwise. Individuals cannot unilaterally decide their marriage is void and act as if they are single, especially when such actions could lead to criminal charges like concubinage or bigamy. Secondly, it clarifies that while evidence of nullity of marriage can be presented in a concubinage case, the mere pendency of a nullity case does not automatically suspend the criminal proceedings. The criminal court can proceed with the concubinage case even while the civil court is still deciding on the marriage’s validity.

    For legal practitioners, this case highlights the importance of advising clients to seek judicial declaration of nullity or annulment before engaging in conduct that could be construed as concubinage or bigamy. It also underscores the strict interpretation of prejudicial question in Philippine courts, particularly when it comes to marital offenses.

    Key Lessons from Beltran v. People:

    • Presumption of Marriage Validity: A marriage is presumed valid until a court declares it null and void.
    • No Self-Judgment of Nullity: Individuals cannot unilaterally declare their marriage void and act accordingly without facing potential legal repercussions.
    • Pendency is Not Determinative: The mere filing of a nullity case does not automatically halt related criminal proceedings like concubinage.
    • Seek Judicial Declaration First: To avoid criminal liability arising from marital relationships, obtain a judicial declaration of nullity or annulment before separating and cohabiting with another person.

    FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS (FAQs)

    Q: What exactly is a prejudicial question?

    A: A prejudicial question is a legal principle where a decision in a civil case is essential to determining whether a criminal case can proceed and affect the guilt or innocence of the accused. It prevents conflicting judgments from civil and criminal courts on the same core issue.

    Q: Does filing for annulment or nullity of marriage automatically stop a concubinage case?

    A: No. As illustrated in Beltran v. People, the pendency of a nullity case is generally not considered a prejudicial question that automatically suspends a concubinage case. The criminal case can proceed while the civil case is ongoing.

    Q: Can I use the argument that my marriage is void as a defense in a concubinage case?

    A: Yes, you can present evidence of the nullity of your marriage as a defense in a concubinage case. However, this does not guarantee an automatic acquittal. The court will evaluate the evidence presented. Crucially, at the time of the alleged concubinage, if there’s no judicial declaration of nullity, the marriage is presumed valid.

    Q: What should I do if I want to separate from my spouse and avoid concubinage charges?

    A: It is crucial to seek legal advice and ideally obtain a judicial declaration of nullity or annulment of your marriage before separating and cohabiting with another person. This will help protect you from potential criminal charges like concubinage.

    Q: Is psychological incapacity a valid ground for nullity of marriage in the Philippines?

    A: Yes, psychological incapacity as defined under Article 36 of the Family Code is a valid ground for nullity of marriage in the Philippines. However, it requires a thorough legal and psychological assessment to prove in court.

    Q: What is the difference between annulment and nullity of marriage?

    A: Nullity of marriage means the marriage was void from the beginning (void ab initio) due to the absence of essential requisites. Annulment, on the other hand, means the marriage was initially valid but is being terminated due to vitiated consent (like fraud or duress) or other grounds that occurred after the marriage.

    ASG Law specializes in Family Law and Criminal Defense. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.