annulment

**superpinay13** · June 3rd, 2004 05:58 PM

Originally posted by Ungas
Conjugal properties when acquired materials or properties were bought after the date of marriage. Anything that is bought before getting married is considered as personal asset.

Oo naman may habol pa ang mga anak pagdating financial supports. Basta nagkahiwalay ang mga magulang habang sila ay nasa murang edad. 18 ang legal age, dito sa atin. Pag nagkahiwalay ang magulang at ang anak ay 18 na, hindi na ito sakop.

sir ungas;
thank you very much sa reply!

**Ungas** · June 3rd, 2004 06:03 PM

Teka Cel, ano ba ang puno't dulo nyan tinatanong mo? PM mo na lang sa akin. Medyo nalilito ako sa mga tanong at sitwasyon. :D

**jason7100** · June 3rd, 2004 06:13 PM

Originally posted by Hero
sa aking nalalaman, ang civil nga ang ipinapa-annul.. wala ka naman naririnig na nagpapa-annul sa church diba?..and thats why sa court ka nagpapa-annul kasi you want the wedding contract to be deemed null and void.

a church wedding is a combination of a religious (sacrament of matrimony)and a legal (where you sign the wedding contract with the sponsors as witnesses) joining of the husband and wife. Now, kaya nga may wedding banns published sa parish ng couple so that the public may know kung sinong ikakasal at kung may problem man (ie kasal sa iba) eh pwedeng ipatigil ang kasal.

exactly.... wedding is a civil contract between two parties (husband and wife) unfortunately, this contract has no provision for "pretermination" after some period of time. The reason behind is that the state wants to "as much as possible" make the two person stay together for life as tp preserve its' sanctity. Kaya nga tayo tinatanong sa altar "ikaw ba ay nagpunta dito ng walang pag-aalinlangan at sa iyong sariling pag-kukusa?" I think after annulment, di pa rin ata pwede magpakasal ulit...its in divorce that you can re-marry.. kaso wala tayo nyan sa Pinas.... any lawyers here for a legal opinion?

FrankDrebin · July 28th, 2004 03:47 PM

THE RESURRECTION!

Question mga gurus...

1. What is the difference between annulment and divorce?

2. Kapag na-annuled ba yung kasal niyo eh void na ang marriage from the start so it means there is no legal marriage that took place?

3. If annulment is granted how about yung surname ng mga children? Carry pa nila yung sa father?

**111prez** · July 28th, 2004 03:53 PM

frankdrebs -- ito lang ang ma sagot ko sa tanong mo

1. annulment and divorce have the same legal effect, i.e. puede mag remarry unless of course the grounds for annulment incapacitates one party from ever remarrying. mag kaiba lang ang terminology kasi we do not use divorce in the philippines. the word annulment naman is not being used in the us

2. the marriage is not necessarily void from the beginning unless it was annulled for being void ab initio, i.e. it was totally void from the very start and cannot be corrected by a subsequent valid marriage. it really depends on the ground of annulment. if you got married say when you were 15, then this is void ab initio. if you got married but did not get parental consent, this can be corrected. also, if you got married to a relative within the 5th degree of consanguinity, this can never be validated also so void ab initio ito

3. if the marriage was valid at the beginning, legitimate pa rin ang mga bata. they carry the surname of the father. if void ab initio, then it is otherwise but the father can voluntarily recognize the children. may bagong implementing rules and regulations na pinalabas ng NSO on this voluntary recognition of illegitimate children

FrankDrebin · July 28th, 2004 04:03 PM

Wow that was fast benderbot! Thanks! Another one...

Art. 35. The following marriages shall be void from the beginning:

(1) Those contracted by any party below eighteen years of age even with the consent of parents or guardians;

(2) Those solemnized by any person not legally authorized to perform marriages unless such marriages were contracted with either or both parties believing in good faith that the solemnizing officer had the legal authority to do so;

(3) Those solemnized without license, except those covered the preceding Chapter;

(4) Those bigamous or polygamous marriages not failing under Article 41;

(5) Those contracted through mistake of one contracting party as to the identity of the other; and <-- pakiexplain naman ito sa mga dumb persons like me

(6) Those subsequent marriages that are void under Article 53.

Art. 53. Either of the former spouses may marry again after compliance with the requirements of the immediately preceding Article; otherwise, the subsequent marriage shall be null and void. <-- also this one.

Thanks uli. Sa mga nag-iisip kaso po ito ng kaibigan ko.

**111prez** · July 28th, 2004 04:46 PM

frankdrebs -- ito lang ang sagot ko but paki validate na rin sa ibang abogado kasi wala akong hawak na text book dito and there might have been some new decisions by our supreme court on these provisions also. stock knowledge lang ito so here goes:

1. (5) Those contracted through mistake of one contracting party as to the identity of the other; and <-- pakiexplain naman ito sa mga dumb persons like me -- pare, hindi ka naman dumb. the only dumb questions are those that are not asked, hehehehe. an example i can give you is in the case of twins and i mean look alike twins. for some reason you did not marry the right one but the other twin. of course the chances of this happening is unlikely but still, malay mo, hahahaha.

2. Art. 53. Either of the former spouses may marry again after compliance with the requirements of the immediately preceding Article; otherwise, the subsequent marriage shall be null and void. <-- also this one. -- this means that if the marriage was void, they can contract the marriage again but they have to follow all the requirements na. for example, nag asawa when they were 15. this is void ab initio. they both are already 25, this does not make their marriage valid. to cement the bond, they should marry again but this time get all the necessary permits and licenses. kung aba sa natirik na sasakyan (kasi nasa tsikot.com tayo) i jump start, hehehehe

i hope that i was helpful

**pparado** · July 28th, 2004 05:57 PM

a marriage took place more than 10 yrs ago sa church. they were of legal age. (but the parents of the girl, also had a hand in 'forcing' them into it)

since the day of marriage, the contracting parties never saw each other again. to this day...feeling ng kaibigan ko, naloko sya...dahil sabi nung female partidos...buntis yung girlie.

the man left for work dahil nagkaroon na ng job offer in a place other than the place of marriage. and he did so...thinking it was for the child. turns out...di naman pala buntis ang girlie...

how do you go about this? for sure both parties may want an annulment. but I am speaking only from one side (my friend).

so, technically...like in another topic up there...no cohabitation occurred...

mga pards...i would really appreciate answers that may lead to resolving this, para makapag-asawa na ulit yung tropa ko...

any recommendations for lawyers that have a track record in this respect will be truly considered.

maraming salamat.

**111prez** · July 28th, 2004 06:04 PM

pparado -- AKO! hehehehe, joke lang. eh kung puede lang why not. kaya lang wala ako dyan sa atin ngayon

makaka recommend ako but it depends kung saan located yung mga parties or party filing the case. for example, it makes no sense recommending a lawyer, say based in davao, if the party (or the case) is to be filed in manila. gastos lang yun and of course, knowledge with the local setup and judges helps (wink wink, mwahahaha)

PM mo ako. eh hehehehe, i dont know how this works but i guess an email will be sent to me ?????