The husband filed a case against the wife alleging that the wife is psychologically

incapacitated to fulfill her marital obligation because the wife is always leaving the house,
come nighttime and is often seen in a nightclub, entertaining different men and was
alleged to have been engaged in sexual intercourse with some men other than her
husband. Later, the RTC declared that the woman is psychologically incapacitated.

One week after the decision rendered by the RTC, the wife discovered that she was
pregnant. What will be the status of the child who will definitely be born after there was
already a decision rendered by the court?

The status of the child would be that of illegitimate.

Article 36 provides that “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.

In connection to this, Article 54 provides that “children conceived or born before the
judgment of annulment or absolute nullity of the marriage under Article 36 has become final
and executory shall be considered legitimate.”

In the case at bar, the RTC already declared the woman to be psychologically incapacitated,
hence, the judgment for absolute nullity of the marriage may be granted.

Since it is a week after the decision by RTC that the pregnancy was discovered, the child is
conceived after the judgment, which is contrary to requirement under Article 54 that the
child be conceived or born before the judgment of annulment or absolute nullity.

Article 15 of the Family Code provides that “children conceived and born outside a valid
marriage are illegitimate, unless otherwise provided in this Code.”

Since psychological incapacity was proved, the marriage is now rendered void and cannot be
ratified, therefore, the child was conceived and will be born outside a valid marriage, making
him or her an illegitimate child.

In 2014, a 16-year old girl agreed to live with B who is legally separated from his wife.
Later in 2016 (A is now 18) the wife of B died. In 2020 (A is now 22), B got into an accident.
At that time, Ms. A is pregnant. So A and B decided to marry each other in the presence of
a Mayor who solemnized the marriage but without marriage license. What is the status of
the contract of marriage?

The status of the marriage is valid.

Let us address the facts.

It must be understood that the legal impediment pertains to the non-existence of legal
impediment only at the time of the marriage ceremony and not during all those previous five
(5) years. During the five-year period, it is not necessary that they must not have suffered
from any legal impediment.

In the case at bar, there is no legal impediment at the time of the marriage since A and B
cohabitated from 2016-2020 or for six years. The death of the previous wife enables B to
marry A and A at the time of the marriage was already 22 years old, thus, has a full legal
capacity to contract marriage following Article 2 of the family code on the essential
requisites.

As to the authority of the solemnizing officer.

Article 3 provides that “Authority of the solemnizing officer” is a formal requisite of a

Article 7 enumerates the persons who may solemnize a marriage: Incumbent member of the
Judiciary; Priest, Rabbi, Imam or minister of religious sect; ship captain or airplane chief in
articulo mortis; military commander in articulo mortis; and consul-general, consul or vice-
consul.

The Family Code excluded the Mayor as an officer who may solemnize a marriage. However,
pursuant to the Local Government Code, the mayor of a city or municipality is now
empowered to solemnize a marriage within its jurisdiction.

If the marriage is in articulo mortis, the mayor is not authorized to solemnize such since it is
not specifically provided in the Local Government Code. Or if the marriage is solemnized
outside his jurisdiction then he is not authorized. Generally, the marriage is void due to the
absence of a formal requisite.

However, Article 35 provides that “a marriage shall be void from the beginning: (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.”

Since A and B believed in good faith that the Mayor has an authority to solemnize their
marriage, their marriage shall remain valid. However, the mayor who did not have the
authority shall be civilly, criminally, and administratively liable.
Other than that, the marriage will remain valid.

A is the husband and B is the wife, they are newlyweds. However, they have difficulty
consummating the marriage because her coitus is small and she is excruciating pain. The
couple decide to have operation for B so they can conceive a child. The operation is a
success because the enlargement involved the removal of the ovaries, B is incapable of
bearing children.

A is no longer interested in copulating with his wife because of what he saw during the
operation, can the marriage be annulled?

The marriage cannot be annulled.

Article 45 provides that “A marriage may be annulled for any of the following causes,
existing at the time of the marriage xxx (5) that either party was physically incapable of
consummating the marriage with the other and such incapacity continues and appears to be
incurable.”

In the case at bar the wife only incapable of bearing children which is equivalent to being
sterile. Sterility and impotency are different situation. Impotency is a ground for annulment
under Article 45, par 5, while sterility is not a ground for annulment because a sterile person
can successfully engage in sexual coition. Even if the wife is physically incapable of
consummating the marriage due to an operation in which her ovaries were removed, and as
a result of which she was unable to bear children, the marriage cannot be annulled.
Furthermore, both of them agreed to such operation therefore, both are equally at fault
following the rule of Volenti Non Fit Injuria.