You are on page 1of 13

l. Barcelona vs.

CA, 412 SCRA 41



Facts:
Respondent Tadeo and petitioner Diana were legally married union begot five children
On 29 March 1995, private respondent Tadeo R. Bengzon (respondent Tadeo ) filed a Petition for
Annulment of Marriage against petitioner Diana M. Barcelona (petitioner Diana ).
Petition further alleged that petitioner Diana was psychologically incapacitated at the time of the
celebration of their marriage to comply with the essential obligations of marriage and such incapacity
subsists up to the present time. The petition alleged the non-complied marital obligations:
During their marriage, they had frequent quarrels due to their varied upbringing. Respondent, coming
from a rich family, was a disorganized housekeeper and was frequently out of the house. She would go to
her sisters house or would play tennis the whole day
When the family had crisis due to several miscarriages suffered by respondent and the sickness of a
child, respondent withdrew to herself and eventually refused to speak to her husband
On November 1977, the respondent, who was five months pregnant with Cristina Maria and on the
pretext of re-evaluating her feelings with petitioner, requested the latter to temporarily leave their
conjugal dwelling.
In his desire to keep peace in the family and to safeguard the respondents pregnancy, the petitioner was
compelled to leave their conjugal dwelling
The respondent at the time of the celebration of their marriage was psychologically incapacitated to
comply with the essential obligation of marriage and such incapacity subsisted up to and until the present
time. Such incapacity was conclusively found in the psychological examination conducted on the
relationship
between the petitioner and the respondent - Diana claims that petitioner falls short of the guidelines
stated in Molina case and there is no
cause for action .

ISSUE: WON petitioner stated a cause of action against Diana

HELD: YES, since petition stated legal right of Tadeo, correlative obligation of Diana, and her act or
omission as seen in facts

FAILURE TO STATE ROOT CAUSE AND GRAVE NATURE OF ILLNESS
Sec 2 of rules of declaration of absolute nullity of void marriage petition does not need to show (NOT)
root cause since only experts can determine it b the physical manifestations of physical incapacity

RESULT: PETITION IS DENIED, THERE IS CAUSE OF ACTION
Article 53 shall likewise be legitimate.

SIMPLIFICATION
DIANA contends that the 2nd petition of his husband is defective because it fails to allege the root cause
of the alleged psychological incapacity. It is not defective since the new rules do not require the petition to
allege expert opinion on the psychological incapacity, it follows that there is no need to allege in the
petition the root cause of the psychological incapacity. (only experts can determine the root cause and at
times they couldnt determine it). What the new Rules require the petition to allege are physical
manifestations indicative of psychological incapacity. Second petition of Tadeo complies with this
requirement. (he has stated in his petition facts to support his claim stated in the FACTS)

m. Siayngco vs. Siayngco, Octber 27, 2004

Sexual infidelity, per se, does not constitute psychological incapacity. It must be shown that respondents
unfaithfulness is a manifestation of a disordered personality which makes him completely unable to
discharge the essential obligations of the marital state and not merely due to his ardent wish to have a
child of his own flesh and blood. Mere showing of irreconcilable differences and conflicting personalities
does not constitute psychological incapacity.

FACTS:
Petitioner Juanita Carating-Siayngco and respondent Manuel were married at civil rites on 27 June 1973
and before the Catholic Church on August 11 1973. After discovering that they could not have a child of
their own, the couple decided to adopt a baby boy in 1977, who they named Jeremy. On 25 September
1997, or after twenty-four (24) years of married life together, respondent Manuel filed for the declaration
of its nullity on the ground of psychological incapacity of petitioner Juanita. He alleged that all
throughout their marriage, his wife exhibited an over domineering and selfish attitude towards him. In
her Answer, petitioner Juanita alleged that respondent Manuel is still living with her at their conjugal
home in Malolos, Bulacan; that he invented malicious stories against her so that he could be free to marry
his paramour. The trial court denied respondent Manuels petition for declaration of nullity of his
marriage to petitioner Juanita. The Court of Appeals reversed the RTC decision, relying mainly on the
psychiatric evaluation of Dr.
Garcia finding both Manuel and Juanita psychologically incapacitated. Hence, this petition for review on
certiorari of the decision of the Court of Appeals.

ISSUE:
Whether or not both Manuel and Juanita are psychologically incapacitated.

HELD:
The presumption is always in favor of the validity of marriage. Semper praesumitur pro matrimonio.
In the case at bar, respondent Manuel failed to prove that his wifes lack of respect for him, her jealousies
and obsession with cleanliness, her outbursts and her controlling nature, and her inability to endear
herself to his parents are grave psychological maladies that paralyze her from complying with the essential
obligations of marriage. Neither is there any showing that these defects were already present at the
inception of the marriage or that they are incurable. In fact, the psychiatrist reported that petitioner was
psychologically capacitated to comply with the basic and essential obligations of marriage.

The psychological report of respondent Manuels witness, Dr. Garcia, showed that the root cause of
petitioner Juanitas behavior is traceable not from the inception of their marriage as required by law
but from her experiences during the marriage, e.g., her in-laws disapproval of her as they wanted their
son to enter the priesthood, her husbands philandering, admitted no less by him, and her inability to
conceive.

An unsatisfactory marriage, however, is not a null and void marriage. Mere showing of
irreconcilable differences and conflicting personalities in no wise constitutes psychological incapacity.
As we stated in Marcos v. Marcos:

Article 36 of the Family Code, we stress, is not to be confused with a divorce law that cuts the marital
bond at the time the causes therefore manifests themselves. It refers to a serious psychological illness
afflicting a party even before the celebration of the marriage. It is a malady so grave and so permanent as
to deprive one of awareness of the duties and responsibilities of the matrimonial bond one is about to
assume.

Petition for review is hereby GRANTED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals is hereby REVERSED
and SET ASIDE. The Decision
of the Regional Trial Court is reinstated and given full force and effect.


n. Ferraris vs. Ferraris, July 17, 2006

Armida and Brix are a showbiz couple. The couples relationship before the marriage and even during
their brief union (for well about a year or so) was not all bad. During that relatively short period of time,
Armida was happy and contented with her life in the company of Brix. Armida even admits that Brix was
a responsible and loving husband. Their problems began when Armida started doubting Brix fidelity. It
was only when they started fighting about the calls from women that Brix began to withdraw into his shell
and corner, and failed to perform his so-called marital obligations. Brix could not understand Armidas
lack of trust in him and her constant naggings. He thought her suspicions irrational. Brix could not relate
to her anger, temper and jealousy. Armida presented a psychological expert (Dr. Dayan) who finds Brix to
be a schizoid and a dependent and avoidant type. This is evidenced by Brixs leaving-the-house attitude
whenever they quarreled, the violent tendencies during epileptic attacks, the sexual infidelity, the
abandonment and lack of support, and his preference to spend more time with his band mates than his
family.

ISSUE: Whether or not PI is attendant in the case at bar.

HELD: The SC upheld the decision of the lower courts. The alleged mixed personality disorder, the
leaving-the-house attitude whenever they quarreled, the violent tendencies during epileptic attacks, the
sexual infidelity, the abandonment and lack of support, and his preference to spend more time with his
band mates than his family, are not rooted on some debilitating psychological condition but a mere
refusal or unwillingness to assume the essential obligations of marriage and these do not constitute PI.
Further, the expert was not able to prove her findings. Notably, when asked as to the root cause of
respondents alleged psychological incapacity, Dr. Dayans answer was vague, evasive and inconclusive.
She replied that such disorder can be part of his family upbringing She stated that there was a history of
Brixs parents having difficulties in their relationship- this is of course inconclusive for such has no direct
bearing to the case at bar.

What is psychological incapacity?
The term psychological incapacity to be a ground for the nullity of marriage under Article 36 of the
Family Code, refers to a serious psychological illness afflicting a party even before the celebration of the
marriage. It is a malady so grave and so permanent as to deprive one of awareness of the duties and
responsibilities of the matrimonial bond one is about to assume. As all people may have certain quirks
and idiosyncrasies, or isolated characteristics associated with certain personality disorders, there is hardly
any doubt that the intendment of the law has been to confine the meaning of psychological incapacity to
the most serious cases of personality disorders clearly demonstrative of an utter insensitivity or inability
to give meaning and significance to the marriage. It is for this reason that the Courts rely heavily on
psychological experts for its understanding of the human personality. However, the root cause must be
identified as a psychological illness and its incapacitating nature must be fully explained in court.

o. Zamora vs. CA, February 7, 2007

Nature of the Case: appeal by certiorari to annul and set aside the decision and rule of CA

Issue: Whether there can be a declaration of nullity of the marriage between petitioner and private
respondent on the ground of psychological incapacity

Facts:
1) CA affirmed the dismissal of a complaint for declaration of nullity of marriage
2) June 4, 1970: married in Cebu City
3) Union did not produce a child
4) 1972: private respondent left for US to work as nurse, and later became a citizen (1989)
5) Returned in the pHils once in a while
6) Petitioner filed complaint for declaration of nullity of marriage anchored on the alleged psychological
incapacity of private respondent
7) Alleged that wife is horrified by the mere thought of having children as evidenced by the fact that she
had not born a petitioner a child; alleged she abandoned petitioner and lived in the US; lived together
only for not more than three years
8) Respondent denied allegations:
- She do not refuse to have a child
- She loves children
- Petitioner is unfaithful to herhad two affairs with different women and he begot atleast three children
with them

RTC: June 22, 1995: nothing in the evidence showed respondent is suffering from psychological
incapacityComplaint DISMISSED

CA: August 5, 1999: affirming the ruling of the trial court (Santos vs CA and Republic vs CA and Molina);
denied motion for reconsideration

DECISION OF SC: petition is DENIED. The decision and resolution of CA dated August 5, 1999 and
January 24, 2000 are AFFIRMED.

REASONS:
1) It is true that in Santos vs CA no specific mention of presentation of expert opinionbut it is important
is the presence (Marcos vs Marcos) of evidence that can adequately establish the partys psychological
condition. If the totality of evidence presented is enough to sustain a finding of psychological incapacity,
then actual medical examination of the person concerned need not be resorted to
2) Sec 2(d) of AM No 01-11-10 SC: Rule on declaration of Absolute nullity of Void Marriages and
ANnulment of Voidable Marriageswhat to allegethe complete facts should allege the physical
manifestations, if any, as are indicative of psychological incapacity at the time of the celebration of the
marriage but expert opinion need not be alleged

p. Republic vs. San Jose, Feb. 28, 2007

FACTS: Manolito San Jose and Laila Tanyag-San Jose got married and had two children. For nine years,
the couple stayed with Manolitos parents. Manolito was jobless and was hooked to gambling and drugs.
As for Laila, she sold fish at the wet market of Taguig. On August 20, 1998, Laila left Manolito and
transferred to her parents house. On March 9, 1999, Laila filed a Petition for Declaration of Nullity of
Marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity. Testifying for Laila, Dr. Nedy Tayag, a clinical
psychologist at the National Center for Mental Health, declared that from the psychological test and
clinical interview she conducted on Laila, she found Manolito, whom she did not personally examine, to
be psychologically incapacitated to perform the duties of a husband. RTC denied Lalilas petition. CA
reversed RTCs decision.

ISSUE: W/N Manolito is psychologically incapacitated

HELD: The term "psychological incapacity" to be a ground for the nullity of marriage under Article 36 of
the Family Code, refers to a serious psychological illness afflicting a party even before the celebration of
the marriage. It is a malady so grave and so permanent as to deprive one of the awareness of the duties
and responsibilities of the matrimonial bond one is about to assume. The report of Dr. Tayag shows that
her conclusion about Manolitos psychological incapacity was based on the information supplied by Laila
which she found to be factual. Undoubtedly, the doctors conclusion is hearsay. It is unscientific and
unreliable. Dr. Tayag's Psychological Report does not even show that the alleged anti-social personality
disorder of Manolito was already present at the inception of the marriage or that it is incurable. Neither
does it explain the incapacitating nature of the alleged disorder nor identify its root cause. It merely states
that "such disorder is considered to be grave and is deeply immersed within the system and continues to
influence the individual until the later stage of life." Manolito's alleged psychological incapacity is thus
premised on his being jobless and a drug user, as well as his inability to support his family and his refusal
or unwillingness to assume the essential obligations of marriage. Manolito's state or condition or attitude
has not been shown, however, to be a malady or disorder rooted on some incapacitating or debilitating
psychological condition.


q. Navarro vs. CA, April 13, 2007

FACTS:
On January 8, 2003 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 65677, reversing the Regional Trial
Courts declaration of nullity of the marriage of petitioner and respondent. Likewise assailed is the Court
of Appeals Resolution dated February 4, 2004 denying reconsideration. Narciso Navarro, Jr. with the
Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 37, he sought the declaration of nullity of his marriage to
respondent. Petitioner and respondent were college sweethearts. At the time they got married, both in
civil and church ceremonies, they were awaiting their first child. Since petitioner was still a medical
student, while respondent was a student of pharmacy, they lived with petitioners parents, on whom they
were financially dependent. Eventually, their union bore four children. He filed the petition for
nullification of their marriage when he found out their eldest daughter had been made pregnant by a man
whom respondent hired to follow him. She concluded that respondent was also psychologically
incapacitated to perform the marital obligations because she knew, from the start, that her husband was
going to be a doctor, yet she did not give him the support and understanding that was expected of a
doctors wife. For the respondents part, respondent refused to submit to the psychiatric examination
asked by the petitioner, but said she would do so only when her defense requires it. She averred that she
had no marital problems, not until petitioner had an illicit affair with a certain Dr. Lucila Posadas.
Petitioner denied the affair. Respondent narrated that early 1984, she caught petitioner and Lucila inside
the Harana Motel in Sta. Mesa where a confrontation ensued. After the incident, petitioner seldom went
home until he permanently left his family sometime in 1986. On August 21, 1998, the trial court held that
petitioner and respondent were both psychologically incapacitated to perform their marital obligations.
The marriage between the parties is (sic) dated June 2, 1973 is hereby declared null and void.

ISSUES:
1) Is the conclusion of the Court of Appeals that the lower court (RTC) erred in finding the parties
(petitioner and respondent) both psychologically incapacitated under Article 36 of The Family Code
correct or not?
2) Is the conclusion of the Honorable Court of Appeals that the evidence failed to show that the parties
(petitioner and respondent) were completely unable to discharge the essential obligations of marriage
correct or not?

HELD
1) The Honorable Court of Appeals is correct, Article 36 of the Family Code states that, a marriage
contracted by any party who, at the time of the celebration, was psychologically incapacitated to comply
with the essential marital obligations of marriage, shall likewise be void even if such incapacity becomes
manifest only after its solemnization. Psychological incapacity required by Art. 36 must be characterized
by (a) gravity, (b) juridical antecedence, and (c) incurability. Psychological incapacity should refer to no
less than a mental (not physical) incapacity that causes a party to be truly in cognitive of the basic marital
covenants that concomitantly must be assumed and discharged by the parties to the marriage. These
include the obligations to live together, observe mutual love, respect and fidelity, and render mutual help
and support.

2) The Honorable Court of Appeals is correct, petitioner failed to show that grave and incurable
incapacity, on the part of both spouses, existed at the time of the celebration of the marriage. Their
bickering and arguments even before their marriage and respondents scandalous outbursts in public, at
most, show their immaturity, and immaturity does not constitute psychological incapacity. Thus so far,
both petitioner and respondent have not shown proof of a natal or supervening disabling factor, an
adverse integral element in their personality structure that effectively incapacitates them from accepting
and complying with the obligations
essential to marriage.

r. Tongol vs. Tongol, Oct. 19, 2007

FACTS:
On August 19, 1996, Orlando filed before the RTC of Makati City a verified petition for the declaration of
nullity of his marriage with Filipinas on the ground that the later is psychologically incapacitated to
comply with her essential marital obligations. Orlando Tongol alleged that Filipinas was unable to
perform her duty as a wife because of Filipinas unbearable attitude that will lead to their constant
quarrel. In her answer with Counter-Petition, Filipinas admitted that efforts at reconciliation have been
fruitless and that their marriage is a failure. However, she claims that their marriage failed because it is
Orlandos insufficiency to fulfill his obligation as a married man. Both parties underwent a psychological
exam which proved that the respondent Filipinas Tongol has a psychological insufficiency.

ISSUE:
Does the psychological problem of Mrs. Filipinas Tongol enough to compel the court to nullify their
marriage?

HELD:
No, as elucidated iin Molina, the psychological incapacity must exist during the ceremony of the marriage,
the psychological incapacity must be apparent as to the extent that the other party is incapable the
significance of their marriage and lastly, the malady must be incurable. The definition or manifestation of
marriage must within the scope of Article 36 of the Family Code. As in the present case, the psychological
insufficiency of Mrs. Tongol is not severe that would render her incapable of recognizing the sanctity of
her marital contract with her husband, second, Dr. Vellegas failed to prove that the ailment is incurable.
As to the facts of the psychological examination report say: the emotional mlady is caused merely by
rejection of Mrs. Tongol by her mother when she was young. Further, the facts of the case did not show
that Mrs. Tongol did not care about the welfare o her children. And the financial issue as being cited in the
facts, the court deemed that such phenomena is natural in every marriage and can be settled easily. Hence
the court dismissed the petition of the nullity of marriage.


s. Paras vs. CA, August 2, 2007

FACTS:
On May 21, 1964, petitioner Rosa Yap married respondent Justo J. Paras in Bindoy, Negros Oriental. They
begot four (4) children, namely: Raoul (deceased), Cindy Rose (deceased), Dahlia, and Reuel. Twenty-
nine (29) years thereafter, or on May 27, 1993, Rosa filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 31,
Dumaguete City, a complaint for annulment of her marriage with Justo, under Article 36 of the Family
Code, docketed as Civil Case No. 10613. She alleged that Justo is psychologically incapacitated to exercise
the essential obligations of marriage as shown by the following circumstances: (a) he dissipated her
business assets and forged her signature in one mortgage transaction; (b) he lived with a concubine and
sired a child with her; (c) he did not give financial support to his children; and (d) he has been remiss in
his duties both as a husband and as a father. She met Justo in 1961 in Bindoy. She was then a student of
San Carlos University, Cebu City. He courted her, frequently spending time at her "Botica." Eventually, in
1964, convinced that he loved her, she agreed to marry him. Their wedding was considered one of the
"most celebrated" marriages in Bindoy. Sometime in 1975, their daughter Cindy Rose was afflicted with
leukemia. It was her family who paid for her medication. Also, in 1984, their son Raoul was electrocuted
while Justo was in their rest house with his "barkadas." He did not heed her earlier advice to bring Raoul
in the rest house as the latter has the habit of climbing the rooftop. To cope with the death of the children,
the entire family went to the United States. However, after three months, Justo abandoned them and left
for the Philippines. Upon her return to the Philippines, she was shocked to find her "Botica" and other
businesses heavy in debt and he disposed without her consent a conjugal piece of land. At other times, he
permitted the municipal government to take gasoline from their gas station free of charge. His act of
maintaining a mistress and siring an illegitimate child was the last straw that prompted her to file the
present case. She found that after leaving their conjugal house in 1988, Justo lived with Jocelyn Ching.
Their cohabitation resulted in the birth of a baby girl, Cyndee Rose, obviously named after her (Rosa) and
Justos deceased daughter Cindy Rose Paras.
He also denied forging her signature in one mortgage transaction. He maintained that he did not
dispose of a conjugal property and that he and Rosa personally signed the renewal of a sugar crop loan
before the banks authorized employee. He did not abandon his family in the United States. For his part,
he was granted only three (3) months leave as municipal mayor of Bindoy, thus, he immediately returned
to the Philippines. He spent for his childrens education. At first, he resented supporting them because he
was just starting his law practice and besides, their conjugal assets were more than enough to provide for
their needs. He admitted though that there were times he failed to give them financial support because of
his lack of income. What caused the inevitable family break-out was Rosas act of embarrassing him
during his birthday celebration in 1987. She did not prepare food for the guests. When confronted, she
retorted that she has nothing to do with his birthday. This convinced him of her lack of concern. This was
further aggravated when she denied his request for engine oil when his vehicle broke down in a
mountainous and NPA-infested area. As to the charge of concubine, he alleged that Jocelyn Ching is not
his mistress, but her secretary in his Law Office. She was impregnated by her boyfriend, a certain Grelle
Leccioness. Cyndee Rose Ching Leccioness is not his daughter.
After trial or on February 28, 1995, the RTC rendered a Decision upholding the validity of the
marriage. It found that: (a) Justo did not abandon the conjugal home as he was forced to leave after Rosa
posted guards at the gates of their house; (b) the conjugal assets were sufficient to support the family
needs, thus, there was no need for Justo to shell out his limited salary; and (c) the charge of infidelity is
unsubstantiated. The RTC observed that the relationship between the parties started well, negating the
existence of psychological incapacity on either party at the time of the celebration of their marriage. And
lastly, it ruled that there appeared to be a collusion between them as both sought the declaration of nullity
of their marriage.
On October 18, 2000, this Court rendered its Decision finding him guilty of falsifying Rosas
signature in bank documents, immorality, and abandonment of his family. He was suspended from the
practice of law, thus: the respondent is suspended from the practice of law for SIX (6) MONTHS on the
charge of falsifying his wifes signature in bank documents and other related loan instruments; and for
ONE (1) YEAR from the practice of law on the charges of immorality and abandonment of his own family,
the penalties to be served simultaneously. Let notice of this Decision be spread in respondents record as
an attorney, and notice of the same served on the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and on the Office of
the Court Administrator for circulation to all the courts concerned. On December 8, 2000, the Court of
Appeals affirmed the RTC Decision in the present case, holding that "the evidence of the plaintiff (Rosa)
falls short of the standards required by law to decree a nullity of marriage." It ruled that Justos alleged
defects or idiosyncrasies "were sufficiently explained by the evidence," Rosa contends that this Courts
factual findings in A.C. No. 5333 for disbarment are conclusive on the present case. Consequently, the
Court of Appeals erred in rendering contrary factual findings. Also, she argues that she filed the instant
complaint sometime in May, 1993

ISSUES:
1) Whether the factual findings of this Court in A.C. No. 5333 are conclusive on the present case;
2) Whether a remand of this case to the RTC for reception of expert testimony on the root cause of Justos
alleged psychological
incapacity is necessary; and
3) Whether the totality of evidence in the case shows psychological incapacity on the part of Justo.

HELD:
1) A reading of the Court of Appeals Decision shows that she has no reason to feel aggrieved. In fact, the
appellate court even assumed that her charges "are true," but concluded that they are insufficient to
declare the marriage void on the ground of
psychological incapacity. Justo's alleged infidelity, failure to support his family and alleged abandonment
of their family home are true, such traits are at best indicators that he is unfit to become an ideal husband
and father. However, by themselves, these grounds are insufficient to declare the marriage void due to an
incurable psychological incapacity. These grounds, we must emphasize, do not manifest that he was truly
in cognitive of the basic marital covenants that he must assume and discharge as a married person. While
they may manifest the "gravity" of his alleged psychological incapacity, they do not necessarily show
incurability, such that while his acts violated the covenants of marriage, they do not necessarily show
that such acts show an irreparably hopeless state of psychological incapacity which prevents him from
undertaking the basic obligations of marriage in the future.

2) The root cause of the psychological incapacity must be (a) medically or clinically identified, (b) alleged
in the complaint, (c) sufficiently proven by experts, and (d) clearly explained in the decision. Article 36 of
the Family Code requires that the incapacity must be psychological -- not physical, although its
manifestations and/or symptoms may be physical. The evidence must convince the court that the parties,
or one of them, was mentally or psychically ill to such an extent that the person could not have known the
obligations he was assuming, or knowing them, could not have given valid assumption thereof. Although
no example of such incapacity need be given here so as not to limit the application of the provision under
the principle of ejusdem generis, nevertheless such root cause must be identified as psychological illness
and its incapacitating nature fully explained. Expert evidence may be given by qualified psychiatrists and
clinical psychologists.
3) ART. 36. A marriage contracted by a party who, at the time of celebration, was psychologically
incapacitated to comply with the essential marital obligations of marriage shall likewise be void even if
such incapacity becomes manifest only after its solemnization. psychological incapacity must be
characterized by (a) gravity; (b) juridical antecedence; and (c) incurability.

t. Halili vs. Halili and Republic, Apr. 16, 2008

FACTS:
Petitioner and the respondent married on July 4,1995 at the City Hall of Manila. After the wedding, they
continued to live with their respective parents and never lived together but maintained their relationship
nonetheless. Petitioner filed in the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City a petition for the nullity of their
marriage on the ground that the respondent was psychologically incapacitated to fulfill his essential
marital obligations. He also pointed out that they never lived together as husband and wife and they never
consummated their marriage. On April 17, 1998, the Regional Trial Court declared that the marriage
between the petitioner and the respondent is null and void. The respondents appealed to the Court of
Appeals, on January 26, 2004. The Court of Appeals reversed and set aside the decision of the Regional
Trial Court on the ground that totality of the evidence presented failed to established petitioner's
psychological incapacity. The petitioner appealed to the Supreme Court for reconsideration. On June 9,
2009, the Supreme Court set aside the decision of the Court of Appeals and reinstated the decision of the
Regional Trial Court.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the totality of evidence presented is sufficient to prove that the petitioner suffered from
psychological incapacity which effectively prevented him to comply from his essential marital obligations.

HELD:
Yes, because ultimately the psychologist sufficiently established that petitioner had psychological
condition that was grave and incurable and had a deeply rooted cause and that already existed at the time
of the celebration of his marriage to the respondent.


u. Bier vs. Bier and Republic, Feb. 27, 2008

This petition for review on certiorari seeks to set aside the March 20, 2006 decision and July 3, 2006
resolution of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-

FACTS
Petitioner Renne Enrique E. Bier met respondent Ma. Lourdes A. Bier through his sister. Their
courtship, which blossomed as a result of the exchange of long distance calls between them, lasted six
months. Back then, petitioner observed respondent to be a very sweet and thoughtful person. This, he
said, made him fall in love with her.
On July 26, 1992, six months after their first meeting, they were married. Everything went well for the
first three years of their marriage. As petitioner was based in Saudi Arabia as an electronics technician at
Saudia Airlines, the parties decided to maintain two residences, one in the Philippines and another in
Saudi Arabia. They took turns shuttling between the two countries just so they could spend time together.
The couple started experiencing marital problems after three years of marriage. According to petitioner,
respondent ceased to be the person he knew and married. She started becoming aloof towards him and
began to spend more time with her friends than with him, refusing even to have sexual relations with him
for no apparent reason. She became an alcoholic and a chain-smoker. She also started
neglecting her husband's needs and the upkeep of their home, and became an absentee wife. After being
gone from their home for days on end, she would return without bothering to account for her absence. As
a result, they frequently quarreled.
Finally, on April 10, 1997, respondent suddenly left for the United States. Petitioner has not heard from
her since.
On April 1, 1998, petitioner instituted in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, Branch 89, a
petition for the declaration of nullity of marriage on the ground that respondent was psychologically
incapacitated to fulfill her essential marital obligations to petitioner. It was docketed as Civil Case No. Q-
98-33993. RTC ruled in favor of the petitioner
Respondent Republic of the Philippines, through the OSG, appealed the decision of the RTC to the CA,
docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 66952. The CA held that petitioner failed to comply with the guidelines laid
down in Molina Case (Republic vs CA ; Molina) as the root cause of respondent's psychological incapacity
was not medically or clinically identified. Worse, the same was not even alleged in the
petition filed in the court a quo. CA Reversed the decision of the RTC
Petitioner moved for reconsideration of the CA decision. The same was denied. Hence, this recourse.
Petitioner contends that the guidelines enunciated in Molina, specifically its directive that the root cause
of the psychological incapacity must be
identified as a psychological illness and its incapacitating nature fully explained, and that it must be
proven to be existing at the inception of the marriage, need not be strictly complied with as Molina itself
stated the guidelines were merely "handed down for the guidance of the bench and bar" and were not
meant to be a checklist of requirements in deciding cases involving psychological incapacity.
Furthermore, even assuming arguendo that the Molina doctrine should be applied, the RTC erred in
ruling that he failed to comply therewith.

ISSUE: WON His petition has merits

HELD: It has no merits as such, the petition was denied The trial court apparently overlooked the fact that
this Court has been consistent in holding that if a petition for nullity based on psychological incapacity is
to be given due course, its gravity, root cause, incurability and the fact that it existed prior to or at the time
of celebration of the marriage must always be proved. Also, even if The Molina Case was never meant to
be a checklist of the requirements in deciding cases involving Article 36 (psychological incapacity) of the
Family Code, a showing of the gravity, juridical antecedence and incurability of the party's psychological
incapacity and its existence at the inception of the marriage cannot be dispensed with.We hold that the
trial court's decision to declare the parties' marriage void ab initio by reason of respondent's psychological
incapacity was clearly and manifestly erroneous as it overlooked the need to show the gravity, root cause
and incurability of respondent's psychological incapacity and that it was already present at the inception
of the marriage. In the case at bar, petitioner was able to establish that respondent was remiss in her
duties as a wife and had become a happy-go-lucky woman who
failed to attend to her husband's needs and who eventually abandoned him. However, the totality of her
acts, as testified to by petitioner and his brother, was not tantamount to a psychological incapacity, as
petitioner would have us believe. Habitual alcoholism, chain-smoking, failure or refusal to meet one's
duties and responsibilities as a married person and eventual abandonment of a spouse do not suffice to
nullify a marriage on the basis .