Atty. Richard Abangan, Jr. Law Office

20/01/2026

03/01/2026

SUPREME COURT DECLARES MARRIAGE VOID DUE TO WIFE'S CONTROLLING CONDUCT

The Supreme Court (SC) has affirmed the Court of Appeals (CA) ruling that nullified the marriage of a couple on the ground of the wife's psychological incapacity demonstrated through her domineering and controlling attitude to the extent that she always demands her husband to always update her of his whereabouts.

In a 14-page decision authored by Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul Inting, the SC's Third Division has declared void from the beginning the marriage between a couple on the ground of the wife's psychological incapacity as provided under Article 36 of the Family Code.

The couple were married on January 22, 1995. They had no antenuptial agreement, and their property relations are governed by the regime of absolute community of property.

The husband narrated that even prior to the wedding, the psychological incapacity of his wife, whose childhood was marked with overindulgence at a time when her pathogenic family was still wealthy, was demonstrated by her domineering attitude coupled with her lazy and poor study habits.

He added that after the wedding, the wife's incapacity to perform her marital obligations supposedly became more apparent given that she continued to be domineering and controlling as she required the husband to always update her of his whereabouts. She also displayed an arrogant and haughty attitude, especially towards his mother.

More than these, the husband also claimed that the wife's psychologically abused their children when she physically attacked him in the presence of their kids while he was holding their daughter, and reached the point when she sneaked in the house of the husband's mother to take the kids home without telling anyone. This paved the way for him to file a petition for nullification of marriage.

A clinical psychologist testified that the wife suffered from Narcissistic Personality Disorder with paranoid features, which is categorized as grave, incurable, and with antecedents. The expert recommended the nullification of their marriage.

In her defense, the wife countered that it was the husband who abused their children, not only psychologically but also sexually. She averred that in times of disagreement, her husband also physically and verbally abused her.

The Regional Trial Court and Court of Appeals (CA) granted the petition and declared void ab initio their marriage. The CA gave much weight to the psychological reports, which showed that the wife's psychological incapacity is grave and incurable. Aggrieved the wife elevated the case before the Supreme Court.

In denying her appeal, the high court found no valid reason to overturn the consistent findings and conclusions of the RTC and the CA, which are supported by the evidence on record.

It cited the landmark case of Tan-Andal vs. Andal, which requires that in order to grant the nullification of marriage due to psychological incapacity, the same must be grave enough to cause the couple's inability, not mere refusal, neglect, or difficulty, to perform the essential marital obligations.

It must also be shown that the psychological incapacity existed prior to or at the time of the celebration of the marriage, and it must be proven that the spouse, by reason of his or her psychological incapacity, persistently fails to comply with the essential marital obligations.

The SC agreed to the CA finding that the evidence presented by the husband is sufficient to establish that the wife suffered from a narcissistic personality disorder with paranoid features through the accounts of his witnesses, corroborated by the psychological report and testimony of the clinical psychologist.

It also emphasized that the nature of the wife's psychological incapacity is severe and pervasive, citing the psychological reports that revealed it affects all areas of her life, to the point that she is unable to perform her essential marital obligations to her husband.

The high court also took into consideration that it is quite apparent that the wife's psychological incapacity, as shown by the behavioral manifestations of her personality disorder, existed even before their marriage, as the same is rooted in her childhood and carried over into her adulthood.

It ruled that since their marriage was declared void, the rules on co-ownership, in relation to Article 147 of the Family Code, govern the liquidation, partition, and distribution of their common properties.

Hence, the highest bench deemed it proper to remand the case back to the trial court, as it appears that both parties have raised issues regarding their property relations in their respective pleadings.

18/12/2025

"RETIREMENT BENEFIT IS A RIGHT AND NOT A PRIVILEGE OR A DOLE OUT"— SUPREME COURT

The Supreme Court (SC) has affirmed the Court of Appeals (CA) decision granting retirement pay worth about P680,112 to a part-time employee with fixed-term employment, emphasizing that all employees in the private sector, regardless of their status, are entitled to retirement pay.

In a 13-page ruling authored by Associate Justice Ramon Paul Hernando, the SC's First Division denied the appeal of International School Manila (ISM) questioning the grant of retirement pay to its former employee Ireland Carreon Cabrido.

ISM employed Cabrido as an Afternoon Activity (AFAC) and Athletic Activity (ATAC) coach from August 14, 1995, to May 29, 2020. During the pandemic lockdown, Cabrido still received a salary from March 2020 to May 2020.

In July 2020, ISM offered an early retirement package for those who (1) were at least 50 years old and (2) had worked for at least 5 years as of January 31, 2021. Cabrido expressed his intent to avail of the offer.

When Cabrido received ISM's computation, he questioned why his retirement pay was fixed at PHP 298,196. He asserted that based on his 25 years of service, the computation should have been PHP 680,112. ISM denied Cabrido's request, paving the way for him to file a labor complaint before the labor arbiter.

The labor arbiter dismissed his complaints, noting that he is a part-time employee who has a fixed-term employment status. It added that at the time Cabrido availed early retirement, he was only 50 years old, way below the 60-year-old requirement to avail retirement pay under Republic Act No. 7641.

The said decision was affirmed by the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), prompting him to elevate the case before the Court of Appeals (CA).

In reversing the said ruling, the CA ruled that Cabrido is entitled to Option A of ISM's Retirement Plan because he falls under said category. It noted that Cabrido is at least 50 years of age and has completed 10 years of service, which perfectly suits the said retirement option.

The Supreme Court agreed with the Court of Appeals, citing the United Nations Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner's statement that the right to social security is of central importance in guaranteeing human dignity for all persons when they are faced with circumstances that deprive them of their capacity to fully realize their human rights.

It emphasized that ISM cannot renege on its obligation and refuse to grant Cabrido his retirement pay under the pretense that it was doling out financial aid. Its claim that Cabrido, being only 50 years old, is not entitled to retirement pay under the Labor Code, which requires that the employee be at least 60 years old, is nothing but misleading and fraudulent representation.

The highest bench underscored that the grant of retirement benefits is not an issue of generosity or greed of the employer.

"The issue of the grant of retirement benefit is not an issue of generosity and greed... Employers should be reminded to take the issue of retirement with careful consideration. Retirement is a right and not a privilege; neither is it considered a 'dole out,'" the Supreme Court said.

14/10/2025

SUPREME COURT: MARRIAGE SOLEMNIZED BY UNAUTHORIZED OFFICER REMAINS VALID IF ONE SPOUSE ACTED IN GOOD FAITH

| The Supreme Court (SC) has affirmed the validity of a marriage of a couple even though the one who solemnized the ceremony was an unauthorized officer, saying they acted in good faith and believed the officer had the legal authority.

In a 10-page ruling penned by Associate Justice Mario Lopez (retired), the SC's Second Division upheld the validity of the marriage contracted by Eloisa Maliwat-Melad and Amancio Melad as it junked the petition filed by the former to declare their marriage void on the ground that the officiant was not a judge, as she had believed at the time of the ceremony.

In March 1993, Eloisa and Amancio got married at the Tarlac City Hall. Their marriage contract showed that the marriage was solemnized by Judge Condrado De Gracia. They were blessed with three children.

Throughout their union, Eloisa and Amancio encountered various marital problems. In 2017, Eloisa consulted a lawyer regarding the possibility of filing a legal separation case against her husband. Eloisa showed their marriage contract to her lawyer, who said he knew Judge De Gracia, the solemnizing officer of Eloisa and Amancio's marriage.

Eloisa also presented pictures of the marriage ceremony to her lawyer, who noticed that Judge De Gracia was not in the picture. The lawyer found out that it seemed Judge De Gracia was not the solemnizing officer, but Rosalio Florendo, whom he knew as a fellow member of the Tarlac City Rotary Club.

This prompted Eloisa to file a petition to nullify their marriage due to lack of authority of the solemnizing officer. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) denied the petition, citing insufficient evidence to establish the identities of Judge De Gracia and Florendo.

The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC’s ruling, emphasizing that the marriage contract, being a public document, serves as prima facie, or initial, proof of the marriage and its details. Aggrieved, Eloisa elevated the case before the Supreme Court.

In affirming the lower court's ruling, the SC clarified that while a marriage officiated by someone without legal authority is generally void, it has an exemption: if one or both spouses genuinely believed that the person had the authority to solemnize the marriage.

The high court cited Articles 3 and 4 of the Family Code, which provide that one of the formal requirements of a valid marriage is the authority of the solemnizing officer. It likewise mentioned Article 35(2), which states that a marriage is void if the officiant lacks authority—unless one or both parties believe in good faith that the officiant is authorized.

The SC explained that Eloisa failed to prove that the officiant lacked authority, as it found that the marriage certificate showed that Judge De Gracia was then an incumbent judge within the jurisdiction of Tarlac City and had legal authority to officiate the marriage under the Family Code.

It stressed that the legal presumption in favor of the marriage contract stating the solemnizing officer’s authority must be respected in the absence of clear and convincing evidence to the contrary.

The highest bench stressed out that Eloisa and Amancio's marriage falls under the exception in Article 35(2) of the Family Code and remains valid.

Meanwhile, Senior Associate Justice Marvic Leonen dissented from the decision, saying even if the solemnizing officer’s lack of authority falls under the exception, the absence of a personal declaration by the spouses during the ceremony—where they publicly take each other as husband and wife—renders the marriage void.

Leonen added that irregularities in the ceremony and the officiant’s authority raise reasonable doubt about the marriage’s validity.

31/08/2025

Did You Know? Posting a Debtor’s Personal Information on Social Media to Compel Payment is a Crime

Read more in the comment section.

07/07/2025

For inquiries, you may call Notarial Section at 268-9270

02/07/2025

27/06/2025

The (SC) has ruled that a land sale made through a verbal, unwritten agreement can be considered valid and binding—as long as it has been partly or fully carried out.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Samuel H. Gaerlan, the SC’s Third Division upheld the verbal sale of land between Marcos Batara (Batara) and his nephew Benedicto Ocampo (Ocampo). Even without a written contract, the SC found the sale valid because Ocampo had already received the land title, moved into the property, and made improvements on it.

The land was registered in the name of Batara, who passed away in 1974. His children, Noblesa and Ernesto, only learned of their father’s ownership of the property in 2007, when they received a notice to pay unpaid real estate taxes on the land and found out that the same was being occupied by their cousin, Ocampo.

Noblesa and Ernesto filed a case to reclaim the land from Ocampo, saying they were the rightful heirs. Ocampo, on the other hand, claimed he bought the land from Batara while the latter was still alive. After Batara died, Ocampo kept paying installments to Marcelo, Batara’s brother.

Ocampo admitted that the sale was not evidenced by any written document because Batara died before they could execute the necessary instruments. But Ocampo provided the owner’s copy of land title as proof, claiming Batara gave it to him after the initial payment in 1972.

Ruling in Ocampo’s favor, the SC said that under the Civil Code, a sale of land must be in writing to be enforced in court. This written document serves as proof that both parties agreed to the sale.

However, the sale is still considered valid even without a written contract if it has already been fully or partly carried out. In such cases, a verbal agreement can still be legally binding, and witnesses may be allowed to testify to prove that the sale happened.

In this case, the sale was partially executed as Ocampo had partially paid for the land, taken possession of it, received the land title, and paid real property taxes. The SC thus admitted the testimonies of Ocampo and his witnesses, which proved the sale.

The SC, however, found that Ocampo’s payments to Batara’s brother Marcelo were ineffective because he was not authorized to accept them on behalf of his brother’s heirs.

Therefore, while the sale remains valid, Ocampo must pay the remaining balance of the purchase price, with interest, to Noblesa and Ernesto.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://tinyurl.com/yeapyzcd.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://tinyurl.com/msxr7hsd.

Copying of this content is subject to the SC PIO’s Credit Attribution Policy: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/credit-attribution-policy/.

26/06/2025

The (SC) has ruled that a spouse’s inability to love or emotionally connect with their partner, if rooted in a genuine personality disorder, may be considered evidence of psychological incapacity and a ground to declare a marriage void.

In a Decision written by Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen, the SC’s Second Division reinstated an earlier ruling of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) which declared a couple’s marriage void from the beginning due to the husband’s psychological incapacity to fulfill his marital duties.

The couple met in 1999 and married in 2002. They did not live together immediately, as the husband worked in Saudi Arabia. They were only physically together for about five years, and their relationship was marked by frequent arguments and periods of separation.

In 2016, the husband filed a petition to nullify the marriage, supported by a psychologist’s diagnosis of his Passive-Aggressive Personality Disorder, which made it difficult for him to maintain close relationships. The RTC initially granted his petition, but reversed the same on reconsideration. The Court of Appeals denied the husband’s appeal.

The SC, however, ruled in favor of the husband, finding that he had sufficiently proven psychological incapacity.

Under Article 36 of the Family Code, a marriage is void if one or both spouses are psychologically unable to fulfill their marital duties—even if the condition becomes evident only after the wedding. The incapacity must be deeply rooted in the person’s character and must have existed before the marriage.

The SC clarified that psychological incapacity can manifest long after the wedding, so a spouse who initially appears capable may later show signs of inability. If this comes from a genuine psychological condition, the marriage can still be declared void.

In this case, the SC found that the husband’s emotional detachment stemmed from a strict and emotionally distant upbringing. While he could provide for his family financially, he struggled to meet his wife’s emotional needs, including basic companionship.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://tinyurl.com/2zjba472.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://tinyurl.com/8e67mcme.

Read the Dissenting Opinion of Associate Justice Jhosep Y. Lopez at https://tinyurl.com/56e9rs43.

Copying of this content is subject to the SC PIO’s Credit Attribution Policy: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/credit-attribution-policy/.