Photo from Unsplash | Brayden Prato
The following post does not create a lawyer-client relationship between Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices (or any of its lawyers) and the reader. It is still best for you to engage the services of a lawyer or you may directly contact and consult Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices to address your specific legal concerns, if there is any.
Also, the matters contained in the following were written in accordance with the law, rules, and jurisprudence prevailing at the time of writing and posting, and do not include any future developments on the subject matter under discussion.
AT A GLANCE:
A declaration of nullity of marriage based on the psychological incapacity of one or both spouses under Article 36 should not affect the status of the children in accordance with Article 54 of the Family Code.
The instant case stemmed from the Petition filed by Linney seeking the declaration of nullity of her marriage with Ramer before the trial court, invoking psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code.
Linney alleged, among others, that she and Ramer begot a child prior to their marriage. The child, named Sharemahlyne, was born on September 9, 2006. Linney and Ramer were married on April 12, 2007, or shortly after Sharemahlyne’s birth.
The Petition also alleged that Linney and Ramer had troubles throughout their relationship. Their problems were caused mainly by Ramer’s physical, emotional, and verbal abuse of Linney and Sharemahlyne, and his alcoholism, addiction to gambling, illicit affairs, and financial dependence on his parents.
Linney eventually filed a case against Ramer for violation of Republic Act No. 9262 (VAWC). This prompted Ramer to take Sharemahlyne away and threaten Linney that he would not return their daughter if she did not drop the VAWC case against him. Eventually, Ramer brought Sharemahlyne back to Linney’s mother and apologized. Despite this, Ramer and Linney separated sometime in 2018.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) granted the petition and declared the marriage void due to the husband’s psychological incapacity. However, it also declared their child illegitimate since she was born before their marriage, and her birth certificate did not show she was legitimated.
Issue: Whether the RTC erroneously declared Sharemahlyne L. Tangarorang an illegitimate child.
The Supreme Court’s Decision
The RTC gravely erred in declaring Sharemahlyne to be an illegitimate child of respondents. The civil status of children is not a collateral issue that the courts may not resolve in petitions for the declaration of nullity of marriage.
At the outset, Article 165 of the Family Code provides that “children conceived and born outside a valid marriage are illegitimate, unless otherwise provided in the Family Code.” However, children may be legitimated by a subsequent valid marriage of their parents under Articles 177 and 178 of the same Code, if their parents were not disqualified by any impediment to marry each other at the time of their conception.
In this case, it is undisputed that respondents are the biological parents of Sharemahlyne. As shown in her Certificate of Live Birth, she was born on September 9, 2006 to respondents who were not disqualified by any impediment to marry each other. While psychological incapacity was later found to have rendered respondent Ramer incapable of fulfilling his essential marital obligations, such incapacity is not an impediment under the law that would disqualify him from contracting marriage. Thus, with their marriage taking effect on April 12, 2007, Sharemahlyne had been legitimated.
Considering that “a void marriage is deemed never to have taken place at all, the nullity of the marriage, as a general rule, will make the child’s status illegitimate from conception. However, Article 54 of the Family Code provides for exceptions:
“Art. 54. 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. Children conceived or born of the subsequent marriage under Article 53 shall likewise be legitimate.”
For void marriages under Article 36, Article 54 of the Family Code did not distinguish between a child born prior to the marriage and a child born during the subsisting marriage. All the provision requires for legitimacy is that the child must be conceived or born prior to the judgment of absolute nullity under Article 36.
It would also not be amiss to point out that the Family Code does not provide for a scenario where a legitimated child may revert to illegitimacy. This is in keeping with the principle that a legitimate status is more favorable to the child. Considering that in the eyes of the law, the legitimate child enjoys a preferred and superior status, the law protects the presumption of legitimacy, which is based on the broad principles of natural justice and the supposed virtue of the mother. The presumption is grounded on the policy to protect innocent offspring from the odium of illegitimacy. It would thus be absurd to relegate children “to the status of illegitimacy, when they are already enjoying the rights accorded to legitimated children.” To entertain such a situation would be anathema to the intent and purpose of the law in prioritizing the best interests of the child.
The Supreme Court held that there is no substantial distinction between legitimate and legitimated children for purposes of determining the legitimacy of children of marriages later declared void under Article 36 of the Family Code. A declaration of nullity of marriage based on the psychological incapacity of one or both spouses under Article 36 should not affect the status of the children in accordance with Article 54 of the Family Code.
Source:
Republic of the Philippines vs. Linney Jean L. Tangarorang and Ramer R. Tangarorang
G.R. No. 272006 | February 5, 2025
SC: Children’s Legitimacy Unaffected by Marriage Nullified for Psychological Incapacity
Click here to subscribe to our newsletter
Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices specializes in business law and labor law consulting. For inquiries regarding legal services, you may reach us at info@alburolaw.com, or dial us at (02)7745-4391/ 0917-5772207/ 09778050020.
All rights reserved.