The Supreme Court (SC) clarified several issues involving marriage, bigamy, and parental authority in recent rulings.

In Boado v. Galvez-Boado, the Court ruled that a spouse’s inability to love or emotionally connect — if rooted in a genuine personality disorder — may constitute psychological incapacity and be grounds for declaring a marriage void.

The Court also held that concealing one’s homosexuality from a spouse may amount to fraud and serve as a basis for annulment.

To prove psychological incapacity, the Court reiterated that testimonies from family members and friends may be considered.

It also ruled that a negative certification from the local civil registrar is required to establish the absence of a marriage license.

In Maliwat-Melad v. Melad, the Court ruled that marriages officiated by individuals without legal authority are generally invalid, except when one or both parties believed in good faith that the officiant had such authority.

The Court further clarified that the prescriptive period for filing a bigamy case begins only upon discovery of the bigamous marriage, not upon registration.

It also ruled that only the injured spouse may seek nullification of a bigamous marriage, and that a person charged with bigamy may raise the defense that the first marriage was void from the start.

This defense must be proven in the criminal case, which proceeds independently of civil nullity proceedings.

On legitimacy, the Court ruled in Republic v. Tangarorang that children remain legitimate even if their parents’ marriage is later declared void due to psychological incapacity.

The Court also ruled that children legitimized by the subsequent marriage of their parents may use the father’s surname if there was no legal impediment at the time of conception, and that nonmarital children may likewise use the father’s surname if clearly acknowledged through official or written documents.