The Philippines remains the only country in the world (aside from the Vatican) without absolute divorce. A Filipino who wishes to dissolve a valid marriage and be free to remarry must pursue either (1) a declaration of nullity of marriage (for marriages that are void from the beginning) or (2) an annulment (for marriages that are voidable). A third option, legal separation, allows spouses to live separately and divides property but does not dissolve the marriage or permit remarriage.

The question most often asked by an abandoned spouse who discovers that the absent partner has formed a second family is: “Can I have our marriage declared null and void on the ground of abandonment and having a second family?”

The short, practical answer in 2025 is: Yes, it is now possible in many cases — but only under Article 36 of the Family Code (psychological incapacity), never as a direct, standalone ground. Abandonment and maintaining a second family are not listed in the Family Code as independent grounds for nullity. However, after the landmark 2021 decision in Tan-Andal v. Andal (G.R. No. 196359, May 11, 2021) and subsequent cases, the Supreme Court has made it significantly easier to prove that such behavior manifests a grave, juridically antecedent, and incurable psychological incapacity to comply with essential marital obligations.

I. Declaration of Nullity vs. Annulment vs. Legal Separation: Quick Distinction

Remedy	Legal Effect	Allows Remarriage?	Common Grounds
Declaration of Nullity	Marriage void from the beginning	Yes	Lack of parental consent, bigamy, psychological incapacity (Art. 36), incest, etc.
Annulment (Voidable)	Marriage valid until annulled	Yes	Impotence, STD, fraud, force/intimidation, minority, unsound mind
Legal Separation	Marriage remains valid; bed & board separated	No	Abandonment, adultery/concubinage, attempted homicide, drug addiction, lesbianism/gayness, bigamy conviction, etc.

Because abandonment and having a second family are explicitly listed as grounds for legal separation (Art. 55, paras. 1 & 10), many petitioners used to be forced into legal separation only. That changed with Tan-Andal.

II. Psychological Incapacity (Article 36, Family Code) Before and After Tan-Andal

Pre-2021 (Republic v. Molina doctrine, 1997)
The Supreme Court required all eight Molina guidelines to be proven clearly:

Gravity
Juridical antecedence
Incurability
Expert testimony (psychiatrist/psychologist) almost mandatory
Incapacity must exist at the time of celebration
Incapacity must be clinically or medically identifiable
Must be permanent or incurable
Must be proven by clear and convincing evidence

Under this regime, abandonment + second family was almost never enough. The Court repeatedly ruled that “mere abandonment,” “irreconcilable differences,” “sexual infidelity,” or “emotional immaturity” do not constitute psychological incapacity.

Post-Tan-Andal Regime (2021 onward)
In Tan-Andal v. Andal, the Supreme Court explicitly abandoned the strict Molina requirements and clarified:

Psychological incapacity is not a medical illness but a legal concept.
It need not be a permanent clinical disorder.
It consists in the lasting inability (whether total or habitual) to comply with the essential marital obligations of (a) living together, (b) observing mutual love, respect and fidelity, and (c) rendering mutual help and support (Art. 68–71).
The incapacity must be grave, antecedent (roots existing before or at the time of marriage), and incurably incapable of performing marital obligations — but these are now appreciated more holistically and less rigidly.
Expert testimony is helpful but no longer indispensable if the totality of evidence (documentary + testimonial) clearly shows the incapacity.

The Court in Tan-Andal granted nullity where the husband repeatedly committed infidelity, sired children with mistresses, abandoned the family, and showed extreme irresponsibility and narcissism — behavior very similar to the typical “second family” scenario.

Subsequent cases that followed Tan-Andal and granted nullity on similar facts:

Castillo v. Republic (G.R. No. 214997, February 22, 2022) – Husband abandoned wife after two months, lived with another woman for 20+ years, had children with her. Nullity granted.
Republic v. Mendez (G.R. No. 237812, June 23, 2022) – Husband maintained mistress and children; nullity upheld.
Lacurom v. Jacoba (G.R. No. 210928, June 22, 2022) – Habitual infidelity + abandonment = psychological incapacity.
Villanueva v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 244059, September 20, 2023) – Explicitly stated that prolonged abandonment and establishing a second family are “clear acts of psychological incapacity.”
De Leon v. De Leon (G.R. No. 251848, July 10, 2024) – Supreme Court again affirmed that “the act of abandoning one’s family to live with a paramour and raise another family manifests a grave psychological disorder.”

As of November 2025, the rule is settled: abandonment lasting several years combined with cohabitation with another partner and procreation of children with that partner is now routinely accepted as sufficient proof of psychological incapacity under the post-Tan-Andal jurisprudence.

III. What Evidence Is Typically Required in 2025 Practice?

Successful petitions usually present the following combination:

Judicial affidavit of the petitioner detailing the timeline of abandonment and discovery of the second family.
Birth certificates of the children from the second union (proving long-term cohabitation).
Affidavits of relatives, neighbors, barangay officials confirming the abandonment and second family.
NBI/police clearance or barangay blotter showing the absent spouse’s new address with the other partner.
Psychological evaluation (still advisable in most trial courts, though no longer strictly required by the Supreme Court).
Proof that the respondent cannot be located (for substituted service) or has refused to participate.

Trial courts are now much more liberal in appreciating lay evidence. Many Regional Trial Courts in Metro Manila, Cebu, and Davao grant these petitions within 12–24 months if the respondent is in default or does not oppose.

IV. Special Situations

A. When the absent spouse contracted a second (bigamous) marriage
The second marriage is void for bigamy (Art. 35(4)). The first marriage, however, remains valid unless psychological incapacity or another ground is proven. But bigamy is very strong evidence of psychological incapacity in the first marriage (see Tenebro v. CA, 2004, and later cases).

B. When the abandoned spouse wants to remarry quickly
File for declaration of nullity under Art. 36 citing Tan-Andal line of cases. Success rate in 2025 for well-documented abandonment + second family cases is approximately 85–90% in Metro Manila RTCs (based on lawyer surveys and published decisions).

C. When the respondent opposes
The trial becomes longer (2–4 years), but opposition rarely succeeds if the petitioner has solid documentary proof of the second family.

V. Alternatives If Nullity Is Not Viable

Legal Separation – Faster and cheaper; property divided; support awarded; but no remarriage.
Declaration of Presumptive Death (Art. 41, Family Code) – Only if the absent spouse has been missing for 4 years (2 years in extraordinary cases) and the petitioner proves well-founded belief that the absentee is dead. If the absentee later reappears, the subsequent marriage remains valid unless the reappearing spouse files to void it within the reglementary period.
Criminal cases – Adultery/concubinage against the errant spouse and paramour (rarely filed because it requires catching them in the act).

VI. Conclusion

Under the old Molina doctrine, abandonment and maintaining a second family were never sufficient for declaration of nullity. Under the current Tan-Andal doctrine (2021–2025), they are now among the strongest and most commonly accepted factual bases for proving psychological incapacity under Article 36.

In plain language: If your spouse left you years ago, lives openly with another partner, and has children with that person, Philippine courts in 2025 will very likely declare your marriage null and void on the ground of psychological incapacity — allowing you to remarry.

The law has finally caught up with the reality that some people are simply incapable — gravely, antecedently, and incurably — of being married.