1) Quick orientation: “annulment” isn’t one thing in Philippine family law

In everyday speech, people say “annulment” to mean “ending a marriage.” Legally, Philippine courts handle marriage challenges through two different actions, with different grounds and effects:

A. Annulment of a voidable marriage (Family Code, Article 45)

This applies when the marriage was valid at the start but is voidable due to specific defects (e.g., lack of parental consent for certain ages, fraud, force/intimidation, incapacity to consummate, serious STD).

B. Declaration of absolute nullity (void marriage) (Family Code, Articles 35, 36, 37, 38, 40, 41, 44)

This applies when the marriage is void from the beginning, such as:

no license (with limited exceptions),
bigamous marriages (subject to Article 40),
incestuous/void-by-public-policy marriages,
psychological incapacity under Article 36, and others.

Why this matters: “Abandonment” is not listed as a ground under Article 45, and it is not a direct ground that makes a marriage void under the nullity provisions. But abandonment can still matter indirectly (especially in Article 36 cases, legal separation, and presumptive death).

2) Bottom line: Abandonment is not a stand-alone ground for “annulment”

A. Not a ground for annulment (voidable marriage)

Article 45 does not include abandonment. Even severe abandonment after the wedding does not fit the Article 45 list.

B. Not automatically a ground for nullity

Abandonment by itself does not automatically mean the marriage was void from the start. A spouse can abandon while the marriage remains legally valid.

So what is abandonment, legally speaking? It is generally treated as:

a marital wrong that may support legal separation, and/or
a factual indicator that may support psychological incapacity if the abandonment reflects a deeper, grave personality structure or inability to assume marital obligations.

3) Where abandonment is explicitly recognized: Legal separation

If the goal is to obtain a court decree acknowledging the spouse’s fault and allowing separation of bed and board (and property consequences), abandonment is most directly relevant to legal separation.

Under the Family Code, legal separation recognizes certain grounds such as (in substance) abandonment and other serious marital misconduct. One commonly invoked concept is abandonment without just cause, often framed together with refusal to comply with marital obligations.

Important: legal separation does not allow remarriage

Even if the court grants legal separation, the marriage bond remains. You cannot remarry.

Practical meaning: If someone is asking “Can I file annulment because my spouse abandoned me?” the honest legal answer is:

Not on abandonment alone, but you may be looking at legal separation or Article 36 (if the facts truly fit), or presumptive death (in specific absence scenarios).

4) The pathway where abandonment often gets argued: Psychological incapacity (Article 36)

A. What Article 36 is (and is not)

Psychological incapacity is a legal ground to declare a marriage void from the beginning because one spouse was psychologically incapacitated to comply with essential marital obligations.

It is not:

mere immaturity,
“incompatibility,”
a tendency to be irresponsible,
ordinary marital conflict,
or simply leaving the family.

Abandonment can be evidence, but the core issue is:

Did the spouse have a grave and juridically antecedent incapacity that renders them truly unable (not merely unwilling) to perform essential marital obligations?

B. Essential marital obligations (the usual frame)

Courts often connect “essential obligations” to:

mutual love, respect, fidelity, and support,
living together,
rendering help and support,
parental duties (when children exist),
commitment to the marital partnership.

Abandonment may relate to failure of cohabitation, support, fidelity, and parental duties—but the court will ask whether that failure is due to true psychological incapacity rather than choice, vice, or neglect.

5) Supreme Court doctrine: from Molina to Tan-Andal, and what it means for abandonment cases

A. Early landmark rulings (doctrinal foundations)

Philippine jurisprudence developed guardrails to prevent Article 36 from becoming “divorce by another name.” A historically influential case is Republic v. Court of Appeals and Molina, which articulated structured guidelines. Over time, later decisions clarified that Molina’s guidelines were not meant to be a rigid checklist, and that courts must focus on substance.

B. Modern recalibration: Tan-Andal v. Andal (2021)

The Supreme Court significantly clarified Article 36’s application, emphasizing points widely understood in practice today:

Psychological incapacity is a legal concept, not strictly a medical diagnosis.
The incapacity must be serious enough to prevent compliance with essential obligations.
The incapacity must be shown to have existed at the time of marriage (juridical antecedence), even if it becomes obvious later.
Expert testimony is helpful but not always indispensable; courts may rely on the totality of evidence (credible testimony, history, conduct, corroboration).
Courts should avoid treating Article 36 as an “easy exit,” but must also avoid impossible standards that defeat legitimate claims.

C. What this means when the fact pattern is “abandonment”

After Tan-Andal’s clarifications, abandonment is best litigated under Article 36 only if you can demonstrate that the abandonment is a manifestation of a deeper incapacity—examples that may (depending on proof) support an Article 36 theory:

a long-standing pattern of inability to form genuine intimacy or commitment,
chronic irresponsibility rooted in personality structure (not just laziness),
persistent deceit, manipulation, or abusive patterns showing incapacity to respect the spouse as a partner,
total disregard for children and family duties reflecting inability—not simply refusal—to assume obligations.

What usually fails: Cases where the evidence shows the spouse simply:

fell out of love,
chose another partner,
refused responsibility,
became absent for work reasons but remained functional,
or left due to conflict—without proof of a grave, pre-existing incapacity.

Key judicial instinct: If the story sounds like “my spouse is a bad spouse,” the court looks for more: why is this a psychological incapacity existing from the start, rather than ordinary marital breakdown?

6) Another legal route people confuse with annulment: Presumptive death (Article 41)

If a spouse has been missing for the required period and the present spouse has a well-founded belief that the absentee is dead, the present spouse may seek a judicial declaration of presumptive death to remarry.

This is not annulment.
It has strict requirements and serious consequences if the absentee reappears.

This is relevant when “abandonment” is not merely leaving the home, but a prolonged disappearance where the spouse’s whereabouts are unknown.

7) Comparing the options when abandonment is the main fact

Option 1: Legal separation

Best fit when: you can prove abandonment as a marital wrong and want court-recognized separation and property consequences. Limits: no remarriage.

Option 2: Article 36 (nullity) using abandonment as evidence

Best fit when: abandonment is only the tip of an iceberg—there is strong proof of grave, pre-existing incapacity to assume marital obligations. Result: marriage void from the start; remarriage becomes possible (subject to rules like recording and finality).

Option 3: Presumptive death

Best fit when: spouse is truly missing for years and there is a well-founded belief of death.

Option 4: Support, custody, protection orders, property remedies (even without ending the marriage)

If the immediate need is financial support, child custody/support, protection from violence, or property protection, these remedies can be pursued even if the marriage remains legally intact.

8) Evidence and proof: what courts typically look for in “abandonment + Article 36” cases

To use abandonment effectively in an Article 36 case, you generally need more than the fact of leaving. Strong cases often show:

A pre-marriage history consistent with incapacity (e.g., longstanding patterns in family, relationships, work, values).
Early-marriage manifestations (problems appearing soon after marriage can help show antecedence).
Consistency and pervasiveness (not a one-off event).
Corroboration:
- relatives/friends who witnessed conduct,
- documentary proof (messages, financial records, admissions),
- barangay records, police reports if applicable,
- proof of refusal to provide support, disappearance, infidelity patterns, etc.
A coherent clinical/behavioral explanation (even without an expert, the narrative must demonstrate incapacity, not mere choice).

Caution: Courts are wary of “scripted” testimony. Credibility and detail matter.

9) Procedure basics (high-level)

Actions for declaration of nullity or annulment are governed by special rules of court procedure (the family law rules on nullity/annulment), typically requiring:

filing in the proper Family Court (usually where the petitioner resides, subject to venue rules),
service of summons,
participation/appearance of the Office of the Solicitor General in cases where required,
mandatory investigation against collusion in older practice (handled through modern procedure safeguards),
presentation of evidence in hearings,
decision and finality,
annotation/recording of the decree in civil registry records.

Because procedure has traps (jurisdiction, venue, service, evidence sequencing, registry requirements), these cases are not “forms you fill out”—they are litigated.

10) Effects of a successful case (and why the correct remedy matters)

If legal separation is granted

spouses may live separately;
property regime consequences apply;
marriage remains (no remarriage).

If annulment (voidable marriage) is granted

marriage considered valid until annulled;
children conceived before decree are generally legitimate;
property relations are settled under the law and the decree’s terms;
remarriage allowed after compliance with requirements.

If nullity is declared (void marriage, including Article 36)

marriage treated as void from the beginning;
children’s status depends on the particular ground and circumstances, but the law protects children’s legitimacy in many scenarios;
property relations handled under rules on void marriages and good/bad faith;
remarriage allowed after compliance with recording/registration requirements.

11) Common misconceptions (and the legally correct framing)

“He left us—so the marriage is void.”

Not automatically. Leaving is a fact. Voidness depends on statutory grounds.

“If there’s abandonment, that’s annulment.”

Abandonment aligns more naturally with legal separation. For “ending the marriage bond,” the usual paths are Article 36 (if truly applicable) or other void/voidable grounds—abandonment isn’t one.

“We’ve been separated for years—so it’s annulled.”

No. There is no automatic annulment by separation duration.

“Cheating + leaving = Article 36.”

Infidelity and abandonment can be evidence, but courts still require proof of grave psychological incapacity existing at the time of marriage.

12) Practical issue-spotting: when abandonment might support Article 36

Abandonment is most persuasive for Article 36 when it is part of a broader pattern such as:

repeated, entrenched inability to commit to family life,
total emotional detachment and incapacity for mutuality,
persistent deception/manipulation showing inability to respect marital partnership,
severe, enduring irresponsibility that predates marriage and persists despite consequences.

Abandonment is least persuasive when it appears to be:

a conscious choice due to a new relationship,
a reaction to conflict without deeper incapacity,
purely economic migration or work-related separation with continued support/communication,
an act of anger or temporary separation.

13) Takeaways

Abandonment is not a direct ground for annulment under Article 45.
Abandonment is more directly relevant to legal separation, but legal separation does not allow remarriage.
Abandonment can be used as evidence in Article 36 psychological incapacity cases only if the evidence shows a grave, pre-existing incapacity to assume essential marital obligations—not just refusal or neglect.
Supreme Court doctrine, especially the modern clarifications in Tan-Andal, focuses courts on the totality of evidence and treats psychological incapacity as a legal (not purely medical) concept—while still requiring seriousness and antecedence.

This article is general legal information in the Philippine context and is not a substitute for advice from a lawyer who can evaluate the specific facts, documents, and available evidence.