In the Philippines, perhaps, owing to its
predominantly catholic demographics, laws on marriage are stricter than in most
other democratic countries. We have no law on or allowing divorce, though there
is a bill pending in Congress legalizing it –but it’s not expected to see the
light of day until far in the future. What we do have is a slit of escape route
in our Family Code: Articles 35-38, 45, 53 and 55, with varying consequences.
In contrast, its preservation, promotion, and
protection are enshrined in our Constitution, and reinforced in our statutes,
as well:
ARTICLE XV of the 1987 Constitution provides:
Section
1. The State recognizes the Filipino family as the foundation of the nation.
Accordingly, it shall strengthen its solidarity and actively promote its total
development.
Section
2. Marriage, as an inviolable social institution, is the foundation of the
family and shall be protected by the State.
While the Family Code reinforces the foregoing edicts
in its opening article:
Art.
1. Marriage is a special contract of permanent union between a man
and a woman (efforts are unabated in trying to overthrow this provision by
same-sex marriage advocates) entered into in accordance with law for the
establishment of conjugal and family life. It is the foundation of the family
and an inviolable social institution whose nature, consequences, and incidents
are governed by law and not subject to stipulation, except that marriage
settlements may fix the property relations during the marriage within the
limits provided by this Code. (52a) (Italics and caption supplied)
Given the backdrop, there is no doubt that the state
recognizes inviolability and preservation of marriage as among its primordial
and lofty policies.
So just how tight does that make the escape route from
marriage? Very tight: obviously, to discourage its utility. You have to do a Harry
Houdini, so to speak.
Many though, myself included, are comfortable with the
status quo, that is, a state policy biased in favor of preservation of marital
union, as opposed to the state of norm in developed countries. However, it is
not to say that this sentiment is etched in stone.
Indeed, there are cases that put forth the ugly face
of marriage before the public consciousness & awareness (oftentimes
creating furor), which put the issue of marriage’s inviolability to nagging
question due to its sheer radicalism, unjustness, and unreasonableness:
physical and psychological abuse or battery of either spouse (it’s not always
the wife who’s battered); bisexuality; concealed homosexuality; even
prostitution of one’s own wife or partner, etc., and other circumstances that
reduce the aggrieved spouse to being an “object” of one’s maniacal
psyche.
To be clear, the family is worth saving every marriage
for. A parent who thinks about the welfare of his/her child would likely put up
with less than ideal marriage just to keep the child’s life in normalcy.
A caring parent to his/her child would find a hundred
ways of trying to save the marriage to protect the latter’s interest. However,
when all else fails, and violence, whether physical, mental or emotional, has
become a fixture at home, an end to marriage becomes expedient.
Everyone deserves happiness, and if you failed the
first time you ought to have another shot at the bat. Life is short, there’s no
sense in living it at the clutches of a failed marriage. Do yourself and your
child a favor: get out of it.
The next grim reality to a failed marriage
So you’ve figured out this is not the life you’ve
wanted to live your lifetime. Great! But are you out of misery now? Just like
that? Not so fast, and not quite yet!
Realizing you’ve got to get out is one thing; the
means to actually getting out is quite another.
Here are a few things that you
have to come to terms with:
Another headache (as though
you’ve not had enough): It will cost you
You will retain a lawyer; you
will pay for filing fee; you will pay for professional fee of a psychiatrist or
a psychologist if the petition is grounded on psychological incapacity;
There could be undesirable or
unintended consequences
You might escape your marriage,
and unwittingly leave your child bastardized. A judgment declaring a marriage
void ab initio (from the very beginning) carries with it an order to the
local civil registrar to change the status of the child from legitimate to
illegitimate, except if the petition is based on the ground of
psychological incapacity (Art. 36, Family Code), or grounded on Art. 53 for
failure to comply with the conditions set forth under Art 52 of the Family
Code: Registration of the judgment of annulment or absolute nullity of
marriage, registration of partition and distribution of community of or
conjugal property; and the registration of the delivery of the
child’s/children’s presumptive legitimes, with the appropriate local civil
registrar, and registries of property, before contracting a subsequent
marriage.
To better appreciate the
discussion above, please note the basic difference between a Petition for
Annulment, as referring to voidable marriages (valid until annulled in court)
under Art. 45 of the Family Code, and Petition for Declaration of Nullity of
Marriage, as referring to void marriages (void ab initio) under Articles
35, 36, 37, 38, and 53 of the Family Code.
Sort things out to cut cost
The speed (no speedier than six
months though) by which you are able to conclude your suit will directly impact
your cost. The shorter, the cheaper, keeping in mind that your counsel is paid
by the hour, or as more popular in the Philippines, by way of Appearance Fee,
on top of an Acceptance Fee. Even if you agree to a packaged Legal Fee, the
unnecessary time you spend litigating your cause will, in one way or another,
cost you, either through lost opportunities, or mental anxiety.
So go to court with only the
issue/s that need/s the court’s disposition. If possible, discuss and hopefully
agree with your ex-partner-to-be the issues on the custody of the
child/children, visitation rights, property arrangements, and support. That
way, the court can focus on the main issue of annulment or nullity of marriage.
Be careful, the odds are
stacked against you
Because the policy of the State
is for the protection, promotion, and preservation of the family, expect it to
flex its muscles in opposing your petition. As an inviolable institution, all
doubts to its validity will be resolved in favour of its maintenance. After
all, you, as the petitioner, have the onus of convincing the court and the
state that you have a compelling ground to overthrow the policy.
The key to a successful
petition is to discuss your circumstances exhaustively with your lawyer. The
lawyer will make out the ground out of the facts of your case. Remember that
it’s a tight escape route, so leave none to chances.
Most petitions are grounded on
psychological incapacity under Art. 36 (FC), not only because it preserves the
legitimacy of the child or children, but oftentimes it is the only available
ground for the declaration of nullity of marriage. Easy? No way, but only under
this ground do you have a room to maneuver your cause. That’s why it is left
undefined in the law, by design, so as to allow the court to use its utmost
discretion and judicious judgment, considering the leeway it has, on what to
consider as coming within the ambit of psychological incapacity.
Jurisprudence has laid the
parameters, in concurrence:
(1.) Juridical antecedent,
meaning that the ground raised existed even before marriage, though it may have
become apparent only after its celebration and during cohabitation;
(2.) Grave; and
(3.) Incurable.
The other grounds for
declaration of nullity are as fixed and immalleable as they are defined in law
leaving very little room, if at all, to work around in, viz:
Art. 35. The following
marriages shall be void from the beginning:
(1) Those contracted by any
party below eighteen years of age even with the consent of parents or
guardians;
(2) Those solemnized by any
person not legally authorized to perform marriages unless such marriages were
contracted with either or both parties believing in good faith that the
solemnizing officer had the legal authority to do so;
(3) Those solemnized without
license, except those covered the preceding Chapter;
(4) Those bigamous or
polygamous marriages not falling under Article 41;
(5) Those contracted through
mistake of one contracting party as to the identity of the other; and
(6) Those subsequent marriages
that are void under Article 53.
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 after its solemnization. (As
amended by Executive Order 227)
Art. 37. Marriages between the
following are incestuous and void from the beginning, whether relationship
between the parties be legitimate or illegitimate:
(1) Between ascendants and
descendants of any degree; and
(2) Between brothers and
sisters, whether of the full or half blood. (81a)
Art. 38. The following
marriages shall be void from the beginning for reasons of public policy:
(1) Between collateral blood
relatives whether legitimate or illegitimate, up to the fourth civil degree;
(2) Between step-parents and
step-children;
(3) Between parents-in-law and
children-in-law;
(4) Between the adopting parent
and the adopted child;
(5) Between the surviving
spouse of the adopting parent and the adopted child;
(6) Between the surviving
spouse of the adopted child and the adopter;
(7) Between an adopted child
and a legitimate child of the adopter;
(8) Between adopted children of
the same adopter; and
(9) Between parties where one,
with the intention to marry the other, killed that other person's spouse, or
his or her own spouse. (82)
The ground for annulment of
marriage is found under Art. 45 of the Family Code, viz:
Art. 45. A marriage may be
annulled for any of the following causes existing at the time of the marriage:
(1) That the party in whose
behalf it is sought to have the marriage annulled was eighteen years of age or
over but below twenty-one, and the marriage was solemnized without the consent
of the parents, guardian or person having substitute parental authority over
the party, in that order, unless after attaining the age of twenty-one, such
party freely cohabited with the other and both lived together as husband and
wife;
(2) That either party was of
unsound mind, unless such party after coming to reason, freely cohabited with
the other as husband and wife;
(3) That the consent of either
party was obtained by fraud, unless such party afterwards, with full knowledge
of the facts constituting the fraud, freely cohabited with the other as husband
and wife;
(4) That the consent of either
party was obtained by force, intimidation or undue influence, unless the same
having disappeared or ceased, such party thereafter freely cohabited with the
other as husband and wife;
(5) That either party was
physically incapable of consummating the marriage with the other, and such
incapacity continues and appears to be incurable; or
(6) That either party was
afflicted with a sexually-transmissible disease found to be serious and appears
to be incurable. (85a)
The Supreme Court issued a resolution approving the proposal of the Committee on the Revision of the Rules of Court on
the Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriagesand Annulment of Voidable Marriages.
Thanks for the post! By the way, do you know any good annulment lawyers in Manila?
ReplyDelete