Annulment (and Related Remedies) on the Ground of Failure to Provide Support in Philippine Law
1. Context: Annulment, Nullity & Legal Separation
Philippine family courts entertain three distinct petitions that spouses sometimes confuse:
| Remedy | Statutory Basis | What It Declares | Typical “Grounds” Catalogue |
|---|---|---|---|
| Declaration of Nullity | Arts. 35, 36, 37, 38, 53, 81 Family Code | Marriage void from the beginning | e.g., lack of license, psychological incapacity, incestuous marriage |
| Annulment (Voidable Marriage) | Arts. 45–46 Family Code | Marriage valid until annulled | lack of parental consent (18-21 yrs), fraud, force/intimidation, impotence, STD |
| Legal Separation | Arts. 55–63 Family Code | Spouses remain married but live apart; property regime dissolved | repeated violence, “grossly abusive conduct or repeated failure to comply with marital obligations,” etc. |
“Failure to provide support” is not listed as an independent ground for annulment or nullity, but it may:
- Constitute “psychological incapacity” under Article 36 (nullity);
- Be punished as economic abuse under R.A. 9262;
- Supply a ground for legal separation under Art. 55(3) (“habitual disregard of marital obligations”);
- Establish constructive abandonment (Art. 55[10]).
2. Statutory Duty of Support
- Family Code Art. 194: support includes everything indispensable for sustenance, dwelling, clothing, medical care, education, transportation.
- Arts. 195–199 identify persons obliged and define support pendente lite.
- The duty is reciprocal, lifelong, and survives annulment/nullity as to common children (Art. 50, 176).
3. Psychological Incapacity (Art. 36) via Non-Support
| Requirement (Molina doctrine, clarified in Tan-Andal v. Andal, G.R. No. 196359, May 11 2021) | How Non-Support Fits |
|---|---|
| Root cause, medically/clinically identified | Expert testimony often traces persistent non-support to narcissistic, antisocial, or substance-related personality disorders. |
| Pre-existing | Patterns (e.g., squandering earnings, chronic job desertion) shown to exist at or before the wedding. |
| Grave & Incapacitating | Must render spouse incapable—not merely unwilling—to discharge essential obligations (support, fidelity, consortium). |
| Incurable | Despite repeated demands, counseling, or court-ordered support pendente lite, the spouse remains unable to give support. |
Key Cases
- Marcos v. Marcos, G.R. No. 136490 (Oct 19 2000): husband’s refusal to work and provide support = psychological incapacity.
- Antonio v. Reyes, G.R. No. 155800 (Mar 10 2006): economic abandonment plus womanizing, held incurable.
- Tan-Andal (2021): liberalized approach—psychiatric report helpful but not indispensable; totality of evidence rule prevails.
4. Legal Separation Ground
Art. 55(3) punishes “habitual, grossly abusive conduct” including repeated refusal to support. Elements:
- Frequency/Repetition – isolated lapse insufficient.
- Seriousness – spouse/children suffered substantial privation.
- Absence of Valid Cause – e.g., not due to involuntary unemployment.
Legal separation does not dissolve the bond; neither spouse may remarry.
5. Economic Abuse & Criminal Liability
- R.A. 9262 (Violence Against Women and Their Children Act) §3-C.: “deprivation or threat of deprivation of financial support” = economic abuse.
- Punishable by imprisonment (2 mo–20 yrs) & fine.
- Action independent of marital remedy; conviction strengthens psychological-incapacity proof.
6. Evidence and Litigation Strategy
| Item | Purpose |
|---|---|
| Income records, bank statements | Show capacity to earn vs. deliberate non-support. |
| Demand letters, barangay blotters | Demonstrate repeated requests ignored. |
| Receipts shouldered by petitioner | Quantify support gap. |
| Social worker or psychologist report | Tie conduct to incurable personality disorder. |
| Criminal docket (VAWC) or protection orders | Corroborate economic abuse. |
7. Procedure Highlights
- Venue: Family Court where petitioner resides for at least 6 months (or where child resides).
- Petition content: articulate factual matrix of non-support, expert findings, dates, efforts to obtain support.
- Support pendente lite: file Motion within 5 days from service of summons (Rule on Provisional Orders, A.M. 02-11-12-SC).
- Mandatory Counsel De Parte & Prosecutor participation (to guard against collusion).
- Cooling-off & Mediation: not applicable to nullity or annulment, but attempted in legal separation unless violence alleged.
8. Effects of a Successful Petition
| Remedy Won | Civil Effects |
|---|---|
| Nullity/Annulment granted | Marriage bond dissolved; parties free to remarry; support obligation to children continues; property regime liquidated per Arts. 50–51 (nullity) or Art. 50, 43(2) (annulment). |
| Legal separation | No remarriage; conjugal/ACP liquidated (Art. 63[2]); right to inherit from guilty spouse revoked (Art. 63[4]). |
| Criminal conviction (VAWC) | Damages, restitution, mandatory protection orders; does not dissolve marriage. |
9. Common Misconceptions
- “Any failure to give money = annulment.” False. Must amount to psychological incapacity or meet Art. 55 criteria.
- “Once annulled, spouse owes no support.” Duties to children—and sometimes to financially dependent spouse if bad faith—remain.
- “We can waive support in a prenup.” Void. The right to support is inalienable (Art. 2035 Civil Code).
10. Practical Tips for Practitioners
- Build the pattern: gather at least 3-5 years of documentary proof of non-support interspersed with demands.
- Parallel track: consider filing VAWC complaint early; the provisional protection order can compel immediate support.
- Explore mediation for purely economic issues before heading to nullity; non-support sometimes stems from miscommunication.
- Educate clients on Tan-Andal: focus on incapacity, not mere refusal.
- Prepare for cross-examination: opposing counsel will portray non-support as temporary unemployment or force majeure.
11. Conclusion
While “failure to provide support” is not an enumerated ground for annulment per se, Philippine jurisprudence has consistently treated chronic, deliberate economic abandonment as potent evidence of psychological incapacity under Article 36, a statutory ground for nullity. It simultaneously qualifies as a ground for legal separation and as economic abuse punishable under R.A. 9262. Petitioners must therefore plead and prove (1) the statutory requirements of the chosen marital remedy and (2) the specific, continuous, and incurable character of the respondent’s non-support. A strategic blend of civil and criminal actions, backed by robust evidence and expert testimony, maximizes the likelihood of relief for the aggrieved spouse and children while safeguarding their right to adequate support.