In the Philippines, absolute divorce remains unavailable to the majority of the population under the Family Code (Executive Order No. 209, as amended). The only ways to legally dissolve a marriage for non-Muslims are through (1) declaration of nullity of a void marriage, (2) annulment of a voidable marriage, or (3) legal separation (which does not allow remarriage).
The public commonly uses the term “annulment” to refer to both declaration of nullity and annulment proper. This article covers both procedures comprehensively, including grounds, requirements, documentary evidence, procedure, costs, and legal effects as of December 2025.
I. Void vs. Voidable Marriages: Key Distinction
| Classification | Legal Status | Effect of Judgment | Who Can File | Prescriptive Period |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Void ab initio (Art. 35, 36, 37, 38, 53) | Never existed legally | Marriage declared never to have existed; parties may remarry | Any interested party, even third persons (except psychological incapacity – only spouse) | No prescription (except bigamy if one party acted in good faith – 10 years from discovery for property partition) |
| Voidable (Art. 45) | Valid until annulled by court | Valid from celebration until judgment of annulment; parties may remarry only after finality | Only the injured/innocent spouse | 5 years from discovery/cessation of cause |
II. Grounds for Declaration of Absolute Nullity (Void Marriages)
The marriage is invalid from the beginning. The most commonly invoked grounds in practice are:
Psychological incapacity (Art. 36) – the most frequently used ground (approximately 85–90% of all cases)
- Incapacity to comply with essential marital obligations (support, cohabitation, fidelity, respect) due to a psychological cause
- Must be grave, juridically antecedent (existing at the time of marriage even if manifested later), and incurable or, if curable, the cure is beyond the financial or practical capacity of the parties
- Landmark rulings: Republic v. Molina (1997), Tan-Andal v. Andal (2021), Kalaw v. Fernandez (2015), Ngo Te v. Yu-Te (2009), Republic v. Dagdag (2023) – the Supreme Court has progressively liberalized the interpretation; it is no longer required to be a serious mental illness or listed in DSM-5
Absence of marriage license (except when license not required, e.g., Art. 27, 28, 33, 34)
Bigamous or polygamous marriage (Art. 35(4))
Mistake as to identity (Art. 35(5))
Incestuous marriages (Art. 37)
Marriages void by reason of public policy (Art. 38 – between collateral blood relatives up to fourth civil degree, step-parents/step-children, parents-in-law/children-in-law, adopting parent/adopted child, etc.)
Subsequent marriage after presumptive death without judicial declaration of presumptive death or failure to comply with Art. 41 requirements
III. Grounds for Annulment of Voidable Marriages (Art. 45)
- Under 18 years old at the time of marriage
- Lack of parental consent (18–21 years old) or parental advice (21–25 years old)
- Insanity/unsound mind of either party
- Consent obtained by fraud (concealment of STD, pregnancy by another man, conviction of crime involving moral turpitude, drug addiction, habitual alcoholism, homosexuality, etc.)
- Consent obtained by force, intimidation, or undue influence
- Physical incapacity to consummate the marriage (permanent impotence)
- Serious and incurable sexually transmissible disease existing at the time of marriage
Prescriptive periods (Art. 47):
- Underage: anytime before reaching 21
- Lack of parental consent/advice: within 5 years after attaining 21/25
- Insanity: anytime before death of either party
- Fraud: within 5 years from discovery
- Force/intimidation: within 5 years from cessation
- Impotence/STD: within 5 years after marriage
IV. Who May File the Petition
| Ground | Who May File |
|---|---|
| Psychological incapacity | Only one of the spouses (the “psychologically capacitated” one) |
| Other void marriages | Either spouse, any interested party, or the State |
| Voidable marriages | Only the injured spouse |
| Minor (below 18) | Parent, guardian, or the minor upon reaching 18 |
A spouse who knew of the ground at the time of marriage but proceeded anyway is generally barred by estoppel or ratification (except psychological incapacity).
V. Jurisdiction and Venue
- Exclusive original jurisdiction: Family Court of the Regional Trial Court
- Venue: Province or city where the petitioner or the respondent has been residing for at least six (6) months immediately prior to the filing
- If petitioner is residing abroad: Family Court of the National Capital Region or the place where the respondent resides
- Overseas Filipino workers: may file in their place of residence abroad if authenticated, but it is safer to file in the Philippines
VI. Mandatory Procedural Requirements (A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC)
- Personal filing of verified petition by the petitioner (no filing through attorney-in-fact except in meritorious cases)
- Pre-trial is mandatory and cannot be waived
- Mandatory case conference and collation of evidence
- Fiscal/Prosecutor and Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) must investigate collusion
- Trial on the merits even if respondent defaults
- Clinical psychologist or psychiatrist evaluation is practically required in Art. 36 cases (though not strictly mandatory after Tan-Andal, courts still almost always appoint one)
- Judgment becomes final after 15 days from notice; no motion for reconsideration allowed (directly to Court of Appeals via Rule 45)
VII. Documentary Requirements (Standard List)
A. Common to all cases
- Original Certificate of Marriage (PSA-issued)
- Birth certificates of children (if any)
- Certificate of No Marriage (CENOMAR) of both parties (to prove no subsequent marriage)
- Barangay certification of residence of petitioner
- Affidavit of non-collusion
- Judicial Affidavit of petitioner and witnesses
B. For psychological incapacity cases (additional)
- Psychological evaluation report by a licensed clinical psychologist or psychiatrist (usually court-appointed, but party-submitted reports are allowed)
- Deposition or judicial affidavit of the psychologist
- Proof of gravity, antecedence, and incurability (medical records, testimonies of family/friends)
C. For impotence/STD
- Medical examination report (usually court-ordered)
D. For fraud
- Proof of the concealed fact (birth certificate showing pregnancy by another, criminal conviction, etc.)
E. For lack of license
- Certification from Local Civil Registrar that no license was issued
VIII. Costs and Expenses (2025 Estimates)
| Item | Approximate Cost (PHP) |
|---|---|
| Filing fee (nullity/annulment) | 15,000 – 25,000 |
| Prosecutor/OSG fees | 8,000 – 12,000 |
| Psychologist/psychiatrist fee | 50,000 – 150,000 |
| Lawyer’s acceptance fee | 150,000 – 500,000+ |
| Publication (if respondent cannot be found) | 15,000 – 30,000 |
| Court-appointed psychologist (if indigent) | Free or minimal |
| Total average cost (Art. 36 case) | 350,000 – 1,200,000 (Metro Manila) |
Provincial cases are usually 30–50% cheaper. Indigent litigants may avail of free legal assistance from PAO.
IX. Duration
- Simple cases (bigamy, lack of license): 1–2 years
- Psychological incapacity cases: 2–5 years on average (longer if appealed)
- With full cooperation and no appeal: possible within 18–24 months
X. Effects of Final Judgment
- Parties regain capacity to remarry
- Children remain legitimate (Art. 54) except children of subsequent void marriages under Art. 41
- Property regime is dissolved; liquidation and partition required
- Donations propter nuptias are revoked if the ground is fraud, force, impotence, or STD
- Presumptive legitime of children is reserved
- Spouse in bad faith forfeits share in net profits
XI. Important Notes and Recent Jurisprudence (as of December 2025)
- The Supreme Court continues to liberalize Article 36 (see Republic v. Dagdag, G.R. No. 228988, 2023; Castillo v. Republic, 2024) – clear and convincing evidence is now the standard (not beyond reasonable doubt)
- Online or proxy marriages of Filipinos are generally void
- Foreign divorce obtained by a Filipino spouse while still a Filipino citizen is not recognized (Republic v. Manalo, 2018 applies only if the divorce was obtained after naturalization)
- Recognition of foreign judgment of divorce/annulment is possible via Rule 39 if the foreign court had jurisdiction and the ground is compatible with Philippine law
- The Absolute Divorce Bill remains pending in the Senate as of December 2025 and is not yet law
This article reflects the current state of Philippine family law as applied nationwide. Parties are nevertheless strongly advised to consult a family law specialist, as each case is highly factual and success depends heavily on evidence presentation.