Originally Posted by sars_notd_virus
I was showing that the word 'annulment' has a different definition in the Dictionary, which most people in the world would agree with, to that uniquely understood by the Courts in Phil.
The dictionary definition is the same as the Church, and indeed UK law, which is :- there was no marriage because of a fault in the conditions. Simply: as would be the case if the priest was not a priest but an imposter who fooled everyone at the time but later the truth was discovered. There would have been no marriage, so void from the start (void ab initio) it never happened.
(http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/de.../english/annul)
The Court in ROP's definition coincides pretty much with probably what every court in all the rest of the world calls divorce. That is, there was a valid marriage but for subsequent reasons it is dissolved.
If I am wrong I should be most grateful if you would explain how an 'annulmen't in the court in Phil differs from say a divorce in UK, and how it has any connection with an annulment, as defined in any dictionary, by the Church, and by the law in say UK.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annulment
Annulment is a legal procedure for declaring a marriage null and void.
[1] Unlike divorce, it is usually retroactive, meaning that an annulled marriage is considered to be invalid from the beginning almost as if it had never taken place.....................
Divorce (or the dissolution of marriage) is the termination of a marital union, the canceling and/or reorganizing of the legal duties and responsibilities of marriage, thus dissolving the bonds of matrimony between a married couple under the rule of law of the particular country and/or state.
AND
Divorce should not be confused with annulment, which declares the marriage null and void; with legal separation (a legal process by which a married couple may formalize a de facto separation while remaining legally married) or with de facto separation (a process where the spouses informally stop cohabiting).
.
Quote Reply
