The marriage between Minda and Melvin is void ab initio for lack of the formal requisite of a valid marriage.

Artcile 4 of the Family Code provides that in absence of any essential or formal requisites, a marriage shall be deemed void from the beginning. The Family Code further provides that marriages solemnized without a valid marriage license shall be rendered void ab initio except for marriages of exceptional character. In the case of Minda and Melvin, their marriage does not fall within the exception for they cohabited for only four years before they contracted marriage. Thus the affidavit they executed could not validly replace the marriage license. The absence of marriage license renders their marriage void. Article 34 of the Family Code provides that no marriage license is necessary when the contracting parties have lived as husband and wife for 5 years atleast and had no legal impediment during such. The parties only need to execute an affidavit wherein they will indicate that they have cohabited with each other for 5 years and during such they possessed no legal impediment. Minda and Melvin, despite the fact they did not suffer from any legal impediment, have lived as husband and wife from 2001 to December 2005 only. Thus 4 years of cohabitation does not include them within the purview of Article 34. Also, the marriage of Minda and Melvin was attended only by one witness, Judy. This constitute an irregularity in the formal requisite that the parties should appear before the solemnizing officer and personally declare that they take each other as husband and wife in the presence of two witnesses of legal age. Artcile 4 of the FC states that an irregularity in the formal requisite shall not affect the marriage but will render the person responsible civilly, criminally and administratively liable. In the case of Minda and Melvins marriage having been attended by only one witness, can render the person liable civilly, criminally, or administratively liable. With respect to the action filed by Melvin against Minda for declaration of nullity on the ground of psychological incapacity, the same shall not prsoper. Assuming that all the essential and formal requisites were present during their marriage, the grounds provided by Melvin are not sufficient to render the marriage void because of psychological incapacity. Accoridng to the case of Santos v. bedia-santos, psychological incapacity is the utter insensitivity and incapability to fulfill the marital obligations. Psychological incapacity is different from vice of consent for in the latter there is defect in consent while in the former there is valid consent, however, the party which is incapacitated could not fulfill such valid consent. The case further enumerated (1)gravity (2) juridical antecedent and (3) incurability as requisites of psychological capacity.

In the grounds cited by Melvin, the lesbian relationship of Minda with Judy before their marriage and the serious disagreements they had because of such, do not possess such gravity that would render Minda incapable of fulfilling her obligations as wife to Melvin. Based on the facts, Minda was able to fulfill such, she supported her husband and sent him to lawschool and is even supporting the need so the children and their family. (then enumerated rules stated in Republic v. Molina) With such restrictions and requirements needed to satisfy, Melvins claim would not stand. First of all the psychological incapacity of Minda was not medically identified and was not even alleged to exist during the marriage. Concealment of lesbianism, at the very least, could just render the marriage voidable. According to the FC, when the consent of the other party was obtained thru fraud, like when lesbianism or homosexuality as concealed, the injured party may ask the court to annul the marriage 5 years from the time of full knowledge of the facts constituting the fraud. However, because their marriage is void, this cannot apply. In granting custody of anton to Melvin during the pendency of the litigation, the court committed a reversible error. This is because anton being born outside a valid marriage renders him illegitimate. According to the fc, the mother has exclusive parental authority over the illegitimate child, and in the case minda should be granted custody. (may kadugtong pa pero mali na.:P)