Lack of Marriage License Nullifies Union Even When Psychological Incapacity Fails

The Supreme Court recently settled a marriage nullity case with an important lesson: a marriage can be declared void for lack of a marriage license even when the ground originally pleaded—psychological incapacity—fails. In Bounsit-Torralba v. Torralba (G.R. No. 214392, December 7, 2022), the Court reinstated the trial court's declaration of nullity, but on a different ground than the one the wife originally invoked.

The case also clarifies when the exemption from the marriage license requirement under Article 34 of the Family Code applies—and when it does not.

The Facts of the Case

Sue Ann and Joseph met in college in Cebu City in 1989. Joseph would visit Sue Ann's boarding house while drunk and using drugs with friends. They became sweethearts only in December 1995, when Joseph was already working as a seaman. Because Joseph was in a hurry to report for work abroad, they entered into a hasty civil marriage on January 26, 1996, in Pinamungajan, Cebu—without a marriage license.

During the marriage, Joseph allegedly never showed love and respect. He would contribute his salary to conjugal funds, then ask for the money back to spend on vices. He gambled, drank, womanized, and showed baseless jealousy. In 2000, he was disembarked by his employer for drug trafficking in Mexico. The couple had one child, born in 2000. By 2001, Sue Ann left for Dubai to support the family, and Joseph later disappeared.

In 2007, Sue Ann filed a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code. She also stated the lack of a marriage license. Joseph never filed an answer.

The Procedural History

The Regional Trial Court of Toledo City granted the petition, declaring the marriage void under Article 36. The Office of the Solicitor General appealed. The Court of Appeals reversed, finding that psychological incapacity was not sufficiently proven—but it did not rule on the lack of marriage license issue.

On appeal to the Supreme Court, the OSG argued that the petition was procedurally defective because the main issue—grave abuse of discretion for refusing to rule on the license issue—belongs under Rule 65, not Rule 45. The Court, however, chose to disregard the procedural lapse in the interest of substantial justice.

Why Psychological Incapacity Failed

The Court applied the guidelines from Republic v. Molina as modified by Tan-Andal v. Andal (G.R. No. 196359, May 11, 2021). Under these rules, psychological incapacity must be characterized by gravity, juridical antecedence, and incurability.

The Court found that Sue Ann's evidence merely showed Joseph was a "compulsive gambler, habitual drunkard, womanizer, illegal substance user, and even a drug trafficker." These actuations, the Court said, are not related to his marital obligations. They reflect personal issues with himself, not an incapacity to comply with the essential obligations of marriage.

The Court also rejected the psychological assessment report. It was based solely on interviews with Sue Ann and her sister—not with Joseph, his parents, or any relative who could testify about his upbringing. The expert witness traced the supposed Anti-Social Personality Disorder to Joseph's adolescence, yet no one who knew him during that period was interviewed. There was no independent proof.

The Marriage Was Still Void—For Lack of a License

Despite rejecting psychological incapacity, the Court declared the marriage void from the beginning under Article 35(3) of the Family Code, which voids marriages solemnized without a license.

The marriage certificate showed no license but had a box marked indicating that no marriage license was necessary because the marriage was being solemnized under Article 34 of Executive Order No. 209. Article 34 exempts from the license requirement couples who have lived together as husband and wife for at least five years without legal impediment.

The Court found this exemption inapplicable. The parties became sweethearts only in December 1995 and married in January 1996. They never lived together as husband and wife for five years before the marriage. They also never executed the affidavit required by Article 34. Therefore, the license requirement applied, and its absence made the marriage void.

Practical Takeaways

• A marriage without a license is void from the beginning unless it falls under the exemptions in Chapter 2 of the Family Code, including the Article 34 cohabitation exemption.
• The Article 34 exemption is strict: the couple must have lived together as husband and wife for at least five years before the marriage and must execute an affidavit stating this fact.
• Psychological incapacity requires more than bad behavior. Gambling, drinking, womanizing, and even drug trafficking do not automatically amount to psychological incapacity under Article 36.
• Expert testimony must be based on reliable sources. A psychological report based only on the petitioner's account, without examining the respondent or those who knew him intimately, may be given little weight.
• Courts may relax procedural rules to resolve cases on their merits, especially when an established fact—like the absence of a marriage license—clearly voids the marriage.

This article is general information and not legal advice. For your specific situation, consult a lawyer or ask ASG Legal AI.