Articles 52, 53 and 54 of the Family of Code

The Family Code of the Philippines

Executive Order No. 209      July 6, 1987

        Art. 52. The judgment of annulment or of absolute nullity of the marriage, the partition and distribution of the properties of the spouses and the delivery of the children’s presumptive legitimes shall be recorded in the appropriate civil registry and registries of property; otherwise, the same shall not affect third persons. (n)

Art. 53. Either of the former spouses may marry again after compliance with the requirements of the immediately preceding Article; otherwise, the subsequent marriage shall be null and void.

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.

           Under Article 52, the following must be recorded in appropriate civil registry and registries of property.

1.            judgment of annulment or of absolute nullity

2.            the partition and distribution of the spouses’ properties

3.            the delivery of the children's presumptive legitimes

If these are not recorded, then third persons shall not be affected. This means that whatever legal act performed by the spouses and their children will not affect the rights of other people with whom they may have transacted.

For example, a judgement on the nullity of marriage has become final and executory but the partition and distribution of the spouses’ properties are not yet recorded in the Registry of Deeds. The husband then contracts a loan from a bank. To secure the loan, he uses a parcel of land, which he and his wife jointly own by virtue of their marriage. The claim of the bank on the parcel of land is not affected by such declaration of the nullity of marriage since the partition and distribution of the spouses’ property is not yet recorded in the Registry of Deeds. The claim of the bank on the subject parcel of land is not diminished by the subsequent distribution and partition of property between the spouses. The bank can still foreclose such property as a whole in case the husband defaults on his payments for the loan he obtained from the bank.

However, to prevent such a scenario, the Supreme Court promulgated the Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages (A. M. No. 02-11-10-SC). Section 2 provides

(a) The court shall issue the Decree after:

(1) Registration of the entry ofjudgment granting the petition for declaration of nullity or annulment of marriage in the Civil Registry where the marriage was celebrated and in the Civil Registry of the place where the Family Court is located;

(2) Registration of the approved partition and distribution of the properties of the spouses, in the proper Register of Deeds where the real properties are located; and

(3) The delivery of the children's presumptive legitimes in cash, property, or sound securities.

(b) The court shall quote in the Decree the dispositive portion of the judgment entered and attach to the Decree the approved deed of partition.

Except in the case of children under Articles 36 and 53 of the Family Code, the court shall order the Local Civil Registrar to issue an amended birth certificate indicating the new civil status of the children affected.

Under Article 53, the spouses whose marriage has been annulled or declared null and void, can enter into another marriage, provided that they have complied the requirements set forth under Article 52 as enumerated above. If either of the spouses subsequently contracts a marriage without first complying with these requirements, such marriage shall be null and void.

Under Article 54, marriages deemed null and void by virtue of the grounds provided for under Article 36 (Psychological incapacity) and Article 53 (non-registration of judgement to civil registry and registries of property) can produce legitimate child, if such child is conceived or born before the judgement on annulment or nullity of marriage has become final and executory. Because such child is considered legitimate, he/she become the perforce heirs of his/her parents whose marriage is either annulled or declared void. Such benefit is what Article 54 contemplates. The legitimate child would enjoy the same rights as those of other children that his/her parents might have with other legitimate partners.

Reference:

Albano, Ed Vincent (2017). Persons and Family Relations. Central Book Supply Inc.: Manila

-------------------------

by Permanent Class Number 4 in Persons and Family Relations, LSPU, First Semester, SY2019-2020

Date Last Updated: 29Nov2019

Republic vs. Javier

Nullification of Marriage Under Article 36 (Psychological Incapacity) of The Family Code

Republic vs. Javier

G.R. No. 210518, April 18, 2018

Facts:

            Martin Javier sought to nullify her marriage with Michelle Javier on the ground that both of them were both psychologically incapacitated as provided for under Article 36 of the Family Code. He submitted the psychological evaluations of Dr. Elias D. Adamos, with whom he underwent counselling for a year. However, the evaluation for his wife was only based on his narration and that of Jose Vicente Luis Serra, a common friend of him and his wife. Dr. Adamos’ diagnosis indicated that both Martin and Michelle suffered Narcissistic Personality Disorder, considered grave and incurable, and rendered them incapacitated to perform essential marital obligations.

Issue:

            Should the marriage of Martin and Michelle be declared null and void based on the findings of Dr. Adamos?

Ruling:

            Yes, but only for the findings on Martin. The Supreme Court held that Dr. Adamos’ diagnosis for Martin was sufficiently in-depth and comprehensive while the same was not true for Michelle’s diagnosis. While the Court yielded to the acceptability of psychological evaluations based on third-person accounts, the same should be viewed with extreme caution since third-person accounts of facts, particularly that of the husband seeking nullification of marriage, could be laden with biases. Moreover, Dr. Adamos did not interview anyone who could have sufficient knowledge on Michelle’s childhood, from which, the psychological incapacity was allegedly rooted. In Martin’s case, Dr. Adamos’ findings of the traumatic experiences with an abusive father was personally relayed by Martin.

            The Court held that Martin was indeed psychologically incapacitated. Thus, his marriage with Michelle was declared null and void. Further, the Court emphasized that nullification of marriage should still be determined on a case-to-case basis following the guidelines enunciated in Republic vs. Molina.