Legal Desk of Atty. Rodmarc Sanchez

25/09/2026

19/09/2026

ANNULMENT : CAN “NO LONGER LOVING YOUR SPOUSE” BE A GROUND TO DECLARE A MARRIAGE VOID?

Not by itself. In Boado v. Galvez-Boado and Republic of the Philippines, G.R. No. 263627, November 4, 2024, the Supreme Court revisited the meaning of psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code. The Court declared the marriage void after finding, by clear and convincing evidence, that the husband’s inability to fulfill his essential marital obligations was rooted in a durable aspect of his personality.

The Supreme Court emphasized an important point:

Psychological incapacity may become fully apparent only years after the marriage.

Thus, the fact that a spouse initially appeared capable of performing marital obligations does not automatically prevent a later finding of psychological incapacity. What must still be established is that the incapacity has a genuine psychic cause, is sufficiently grave, and is rooted in a personality structure that existed before the marriage, even if its manifestations became evident only later.

DOES “FALLING OUT OF LOVE” AUTOMATICALLY NULLIFY A MARRIAGE?

No. A spouse cannot simply go to court and say, “I don’t love my husband/wife anymore,” and expect the marriage to be declared void.

Article 36 requires something substantially more serious than ordinary marital unhappiness, incompatibility, neglect, refusal, difficulty, or loss of affection.

The petitioner must establish psychological incapacity by clear and convincing evidence. The personality structure involved must make it practically impossible for the spouse to understand and, more importantly, comply with essential marital obligations.

WHY WAS BOADO DIFFERENT?

In Boado, evidence was presented concerning the husband’s upbringing, emotional development, behavior, relationships, and diagnosed Passive-Aggressive Personality Disorder. The Court found that his inability to emotionally connect with his wife was not merely a temporary change of heart but was rooted in a durable aspect of his personality.

The Court notably recognized that loving one’s spouse is an important essential marital obligation, alongside the obligations imposed by the Family Code.

The ruling therefore does not create a general rule that a “loveless marriage” is automatically void. Rather, the legal question remains:

Is the failure to love, respect, support, live with, or emotionally connect with the spouse merely a refusal or marital difficulty or is it the manifestation of a genuine and enduring psychological incapacity contemplated under Article 36?

That distinction must be established through the totality of the evidence.

A PRACTICAL EXAMPLE

A husband who simply loses interest in his wife, has disagreements with her, leaves the family, or develops feelings for another person is not automatically psychologically incapacitated.

But where evidence establishes that his persistent inability to form and maintain the marital relationship arises from an enduring personality structure that predates the marriage and renders him genuinely incapable of fulfilling essential marital obligations, Article 36 may apply, even when the incapacity became clearly manifested only years after the wedding.

Importantly, following Tan-Andal and reiterated in Boado, psychological incapacity is a legal concept. A psychologist or psychiatrist’s testimony is not indispensable. Courts may consider testimony from ordinary witnesses who personally observed the spouse’s behavior and circumstances before and during the marriage.

KVP LEGAL TAKEAWAY:
“I no longer love my spouse” is not, standing alone, a ground to declare a marriage void. The law looks beyond the breakdown of the relationship and asks whether clear and convincing evidence establishes a genuine, enduring psychological incapacity to perform the essential obligations of marriage.

For legal information and educational discussion only. The application of Article 36 depends on the particular facts and evidence of each case.

19/09/2026

𝐋𝐀𝐖 𝐃𝐀𝐘 | 𝐒𝐄𝐏𝐓𝐄𝐌𝐁𝐄𝐑 𝟏𝟗

The Integrated Bar of the Philippines joins the nation in the observance of Law Day, celebrated every September 19 pursuant to Proclamation No. 1477, s. 1975. The proclamation recognizes the indispensable role of the administration of justice in a democracy and the important contribution of lawyers in strengthening the rule of law.

Today, we honor the members of the legal profession whose work advances justice, protects rights, and upholds the principles upon which our democratic institutions stand.

May this occasion remind us that the practice of law is not only a profession, but also a continuing responsibility to serve the public, defend the rule of law, and help make justice accessible to all.

Happy Law Day!

Serve the Country. Hail the IBP!

16/09/2026

I had the pleasure today of witnessing two seasoned lawyers go at each other in open court.

Neither was willing to give an inch. Every assertion was met with an objection. Every argument had a counterargument. Every concession was hard-earned.

It was, for lack of a better description, an intellectual boxing match.

Watching them made me wonder: how many professions routinely put two people in direct collision with each other, with each one duty-bound to fight for an entirely different interest?

It also reminded me why law school recitations are the way they are.

The dreaded recitations, the follow-up questions, the professor who refuses to accept a vague answer, the pressure of having to think while someone is waiting for you to make a mistake—they are not merely academic exercises. They prepare you for moments like this.

Because inside the courtroom, you do not always have the luxury of saying, “Sorry Atty., di ko po nabasa yung case.”

You have to listen. You have to think. You have to know when to object, when to concede, when to insist, and when to change course. And unlike in law school, a mistake is no longer just a bad recitation or a low grade.

Your client's life, liberty, or property may be on the line.

But perhaps the best part came after the heated exchange.

The hearing ended. Both counsels gave their respective, “Permission to leave, Your Honor.”

Then, outside the battle they had just fought, they shook hands and smiled at each other.

And I think that is something young lawyers—and even clients—should always remember.

Opposing counsel is not necessarily your enemy. Advocacy requires us to be adversarial, sometimes fiercely so, but it does not require us to be hostile.

We argue because that is our duty. We challenge each other's positions because the system works best when both sides are competently represented. But when the hearing ends, professionalism should remain.

Fight hard for your client. Stand your ground when the law and the facts demand it. But never confuse the lawyer across the aisle with the cause he or she represents.

At the end of the day, we are all officers of the court—lawyers doing our respective jobs, on different sides of the same pursuit of justice.

23/08/2026

26/07/2026

𝗚𝗢𝗢𝗗 𝗡𝗘𝗪𝗦! 𝗡𝗮𝗶𝘀𝗮𝗯𝗮𝘁𝗮𝘀 𝗻𝗮 𝗮𝗻𝗴 𝗚𝗜𝗗𝗔 𝗼 𝗟𝗮𝘀𝘁 𝗠𝗶𝗹𝗲 𝗦𝗰𝗵𝗼𝗼𝗹𝘀 𝗔𝗰𝘁. 🏫

Ang 𝗥𝗲𝗽𝘂𝗯𝗹𝗶𝗰 𝗔𝗰𝘁 𝗡𝗼. 𝟭𝟮𝟯𝟮𝟭, 𝗼 𝗚𝗜𝗗𝗔 𝗦𝗰𝗵𝗼𝗼𝗹𝘀 𝗔𝗰𝘁, ay isang mahalagang hakbang para matiyak na walang magiging hadlang sa bawat batang Pilipino na makapag-aral, saan man sila naroroon sa bansa.

Malaki ang maitutulong ng batas upang mabawasan ang mga sitwasyong kailangang lumusong sa ilog, maglakad ng ilang kilometro sa gitna ng init, o tumawid sa mga sirang tulay ang ating mga estudyante bago makarating sa paaralan.

𝗦𝗮 𝗶𝗹𝗮𝗹𝗶𝗺 𝗻𝗴 𝗯𝗮𝘁𝗮𝘀, 𝗯𝗶𝗯𝗶𝗴𝘆𝗮𝗻 𝗻𝗴 𝗺𝗮𝘀 𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗮𝘄 𝗮𝘁 𝗺𝗮𝘀 𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗯𝗮𝘆 𝗻𝗮 𝘀𝘂𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁𝗮 𝗮𝗻𝗴 𝗺𝗴𝗮 𝗲𝘀𝘁𝘂𝗱𝘆𝗮𝗻𝘁𝗲, 𝗴𝘂𝗿𝗼, 𝗮𝘁 𝗸𝗼𝗺𝘂𝗻𝗶𝗱𝗮𝗱 𝘀𝗮 𝗺𝗴𝗮 𝗚𝗲𝗼𝗴𝗿𝗮𝗽𝗵𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆 𝗜𝘀𝗼𝗹𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗗𝗶𝘀𝗮𝗱𝘃𝗮𝗻𝘁𝗮𝗴𝗲𝗱 𝗔𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘀 (𝗚𝗜𝗗𝗔)—mula sa pagpapalawak ng access sa paaralan, sapat na silid-aralan at learning resources, hanggang sa mga insentibo at suporta para sa mga g**ong pinipiling maglingkod sa mga komunidad na ito.

Bibigyan din ng prayoridad sa pagkuha ang mga kuwalipikadong g**o at iba pang kawani ng paaralan na mga residente o handang manirahan sa komunidad at may ugnayang pangkultura sa mga GIDA communities, upang mas maging epektibo ang kanilang pakikipag-ugnayan sa mga mag-aaral.

Maraming salamat sa aking mga kapwa senador, kongresista, at sa lahat ng naging bahagi ng pagsasabatas ng GIDA Schools Act. Bunga ito ng sama-samang pagtutulungan, at 𝗶𝗸𝗶𝗻𝗮𝘁𝘂𝘁𝘂𝘄𝗮 𝗸𝗼 𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗶𝘁𝗼 𝗮𝗻𝗴 𝗸𝗮𝘂𝗻𝗮-𝘂𝗻𝗮𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗴 𝗽𝗮𝗻𝘂𝗸𝗮𝗹𝗮𝗻𝗴 𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗻𝗮𝗶𝘀𝗮𝗯𝗮𝘁𝗮𝘀 𝗺𝘂𝗹𝗮 𝗻𝗮𝗻𝗴 𝗺𝘂𝗹𝗶 𝘁𝗮𝘆𝗼𝗻𝗴 𝗺𝗮𝗴𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗴𝗸𝗼𝗱 𝘀𝗮 𝗦𝗲𝗻𝗮𝗱𝗼. Higit sa lahat, tagumpay ito para sa mga batang Pilipinong matagal nang naghihintay na mailapit sa kanila ang de-kalidad na edukasyon.

Ang edukasyon ay karapatan, at hindi dapat maging hadlang ang layo ng paaralan sa kinabukasan ng isang bata. Dahil 𝗸𝗮𝗽𝗮𝗴 𝗺𝗮𝘀 𝗻𝗶𝗹𝗮𝗹𝗮𝗽𝗶𝘁 𝗻𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗻 𝗮𝗻𝗴 𝗲𝘀𝗸𝘂𝘄𝗲𝗹𝗮𝗵𝗮𝗻 𝘀𝗮 𝗺𝗴𝗮 𝗯𝗮𝘁𝗮, 𝗺𝗮𝘀 𝗻𝗶𝗹𝗮𝗹𝗮𝗽𝗶𝘁 𝗱𝗶𝗻 𝗻𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗻 𝘀𝗶𝗹𝗮 𝘀𝗮 𝗸𝗮𝘁𝘂𝗽𝗮𝗿𝗮𝗻 𝗻𝗴 𝗸𝗮𝗻𝗶𝗹𝗮𝗻𝗴 𝗺𝗴𝗮 𝗽𝗮𝗻𝗴𝗮𝗿𝗮𝗽. ❤️🔥🇵🇭

25/07/2026

25/07/2026

🏫 𝐒𝐜𝐡𝐨𝐨𝐥 𝐋𝐢𝐚𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲: 𝑾𝒉𝒆𝒓𝒆 𝑫𝒐𝒆𝒔 𝒂 𝑻𝒆𝒂𝒄𝒉𝒆𝒓’𝒔 𝑫𝒖𝒕𝒚 𝒐𝒇 𝑪𝒂𝒓𝒆 𝑩𝒆𝒈𝒊𝒏 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝑬𝒏𝒅?

When parents send their children to school, the law automatically transfers a portion of parental authority to the educational institution. Under Articles 218 and 219 of the Family Code, school administrators and teachers exercise 𝗦𝗽𝗲𝗰𝗶𝗮𝗹 𝗣𝗮𝗿𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗮𝗹 𝗔𝘂𝘁𝗵𝗼𝗿𝗶𝘁𝘆 (𝘪𝘯 𝘭𝘰𝘤𝘰 𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘴) over minor students.

𝙒𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙙𝙤𝙚𝙨 𝙩𝙝𝙞𝙨 𝙢𝙚𝙖𝙣 𝙬𝙝𝙚𝙣 𝙖𝙣 𝙖𝙘𝙘𝙞𝙙𝙚𝙣𝙩 𝙤𝙧 𝙞𝙣𝙟𝙪𝙧𝙮 𝙤𝙘𝙘𝙪𝙧𝙨 𝙤𝙣 𝙘𝙖𝙢𝙥𝙪𝙨?

𝐕𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐫𝐢𝐨𝐮𝐬 𝐋𝐢𝐚𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲. Teachers and school heads are held principally and solidarily liable for damages caused by minor students under their supervision, instruction, or custody.

𝐁𝐞𝐲𝐨𝐧𝐝 𝐂𝐥𝐚𝐬𝐬𝐫𝐨𝐨𝐦 𝐇𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐬. Special parental authority is not strictly limited to the traditional 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM schedule. It applies to all authorized school activities, including field trips, varsity practices, and sanctioned after-school events.

𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐃𝐞𝐟𝐞𝐧𝐬𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐃𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐠𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞. To be cleared of liability, the school or teacher must prove that they exercised the diligence of a good father of a family (bonus pater familias)—meaning reasonable foresight and precautions were implemented to prevent harm.

𝙏𝙝𝙚 𝘽𝙤𝙩𝙩𝙤𝙢 𝙇𝙞𝙣𝙚: Special parental authority balances the school’s right to enforce reasonable discipline with the legal duty to maintain a safe environment for every student.



⚖️ 𝑫𝑰𝑺𝑪𝑳𝑨𝑰𝑴𝑬𝑹: This post is for informational purposes only. School liability cases depend heavily on specific facts and evidence. For legal assistance, please consult directly with a lawyer.

25/07/2026

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE: Atty. Rodmarc Sanchez, Senior Associate of KVP LAW, attended a legal seminar on the latest Department of Justice (DOJ) updates, policies, and procedures as part of the firm’s commitment to continuous legal education and professional development.

At KVP LAW, we believe that staying abreast of the latest legal developments enables us to provide timely, accurate, and effective legal advice to our clients. By continuously enhancing our knowledge and keeping pace with changes in the law, we ensure that every client receives legal services grounded in current jurisprudence, updated procedures, and best practices.