Case Notes: Article 36 – Psychological Incapacity Cases
after the marriage ceremonies.
1. Lim v. Court of Appeals (1992)
- Nelly Lim (P) - suffering from schizophrenia before, during and after marriage;
Juan Sim (R) sought for annulment – would present Dr. Acampado, a doctor who
specializes in psychiatry
- Nelly opposed – Acampado barred to testify – violation of physician-patient
relationship. Sim contended that Acampado would be presented as an expert.
- SC: denied petition – mere fact of making a communication as well as the date
of consultation and number of consultations are not privileged from disclosure.
-Acampado’s expert opinion excluded information about Nelly when she was
examined; information elicited during consultation with physician in the presence
of third parties excludes info from mantle of protection.
2. Salita v. Magtolis (1994)
- Erwin Espinosa (R) sued for annulment – Joselita Salita (P) failed to understand
and accept the demands of being a newly qualified doctor – frequently
complained of his lack of attention to even to her own mother – caused to lose his
job – contained in a Bill of Particulars.
- Joselita not convinced of the sufficiency of the Bill of Particulars
- SC: denied petition – ultimate facts are those facts which the expected evidence
will support – Bill of Particulars filed by Erwin was sufficient to state a cause of
action.
3. Krohn v Court of Appeals (1994)
- Edgar Krohn (R) sought annulment – would present Confidential Psychiatric
Evaluation Report – Ma Paz Hernandez (P) opposed – would violate the rule on
privileged communication.
- Ma Paz underwent psychological testing in an effort to ease marital strain –
relationship developed into a stormy one – Edgar obtained nullification of their
church marriage – due to lack of due discretion existent at the time of the
wedding – church marriage was nullified.
- SC: denied petition – prohibition only applies to one duly authorized to practice
medicine, surgery or obstetrics – patient’s husband does not come within
prohibition – Ma Paz failed to question testimony as “hearsay” – said to have
waived objection.
4. Chi Ming Tsoi v. Court of Appeals (1997)
- Gina Lao – Tsoi (R) sought annulment of marriage with Chi Ming Tsoi (P) –
still virgin, no attempt to have intercourse, closet homosexual, has not seen
husband’s private part – Chi Ming has small dick but not impotent haha.
- SC: petition denied – annulment declared null and void – prolonged refusal of
spouse to have sexual intercourse with Gina – psychological incapacity – there is
senseless refusal to fulfill marital obligation of procreation – 10 months of no sex
5. Santos v. Court of Appeals (1995)
- Leouel Santos (P) sought annulment – Julia Rosario Bedia (R) as a nurse in
USA failed to return home or communicate for more than 5 years was
psychological incapacity – RTC denied petition – CA also denied.
- SC: petition denied – marriage subsisting – incapacity must be characterized by
gravity, judicial antecedence, and incurability – must be so grave and serious that
the incapable party could not carry out the duties required in marriage.- must be
rooted in the history of party antedating the marriage
6. Republic v. CA and Molina (1997)
- Roridel Molina (R) filed petition for annulment – Reynaldo Molina, husband,
showed signs of immaturity and irresponsibility as a husband – preferred to
spend more time with friends – cannot perform marital obligations – highly
immature and habitual quarrelsome. RTC granted; CA granted; Republic sought
petition for review before SC- SolGen said such decision tended to establish the
most liberal divorce procedure in the world
- SC: granted petition; reversed ruling – marriage valid and subsisting; not void;
opposing and conflicting personalities not a ground for psychological incapacity
– traits were not shown to have existed at the time marriage was celebrated
- Guidelines: a. Burden of proof to show nullity of marriage belongs to plaintiff;
b. Root cause of psychological incapacity must be medically or conically
identified, alleged in complaint, proven by experts, clearly explained in decision
– identified as a psychological illness and its incapacitating nature fully explained
c. Incapacity must be proven to have existed during the celebration of marriage –
manifestation need not to be perceivable at that time.
d. incapacity must be shown to be permanent or incurable - incapacity relevant
to assumption of marriage obligations – may be absolute or relevant
e. illness must be grave enough – shown is downright incapability not mere
refusal, neglect or difficulty – natal or supervening factor in the person
f. essential marital obligations must be those enumerated in the family code (as
husband and wife or parents and children) – must also be stated in petition
g. interpretations of National Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal not controlling but
be given great respect
h. trial court must order prosecuting attorney or fiscal and SolGen to appear as
counsel for the State – certification must first be issued before rendering decision
7. Hernandez v. Court of Appeals (1999)
- Lucila Estrella Hernandez (P) filed annulment – Mario Hernandez (R) failed to
support for family and contribute to management of household – devoted most of
the time to drinking with friends – cohabited with another and then bore a child –
infecting her with STD – irresponsible, immature, unprepared to assume duties.
- RTC denied petition; CA denied petition of Lucila
- SC: denied petition; marriage valid and subsisting – no evidence to establish
that incapacity existed at the time of marriage – habitual alcoholism, sexual
infidelity, abandonment not sufficient grounds – not merely grounded upon
Mario’s looks and self-conscious feeling of being handsome.
8. Marcos v. Marcos (2000)
- Brenda Marcos (P) sought annulment – Wilson Marcos – failed to provide
material support to family and resorted to acts of physical abuse and
abandonment
- RTC: granted petition; CA reversed decision – totality of evidence presented
did not establish the psychological incapacity
- SC: denied petition – absolutely nothing to show that the defects were present
during the marriage ceremony or that they were incurable – physician not
required to examine the person to determine psychological incapacity but the
evidence presented must be enough to sustain conclusion.
9. Republic v. Dagdag (2001)
- Erlinda Matias Dagdag (R) sought annulment – Avelino Dagdag abandoned
family – disappear and then reappear – indulged in drinking spree and would
inflict physical injuries and a fugitive from justice
- RTC: granted petition – null and void; CA: affirmed RTC’s decision
- SC: reversed decision – marriage valid and subsisting – W/N psychological
incapacity exists depends on the facts of the case – Erlinda failed to comply with
Molina – root cause not identified and proven – crime committed by Avelino was
not even alleged.
10. Malcampo-Sin v. Sin (2001)
- Florence Malcampo-Sin (P) sought annulment; Phillip Sin (R) –
psychologically incapacitated
- RTC: denied; for insufficiency of evidence; CA – affirmed decision, marriage
valid and subsisting
SC: reversed and set aside CA decision; State did not intervene – no participation
and did not file any pleading, motion or position paper. Task of protecting
marriage requires vigilant participation and not mere pro forma compliance.
Article 36 requires procedural and substantive compliance with the rules and
guidelines.
11. Pesca v. Pesca (2001)
- Lorna Pesca (P) sought annulment – Zosimo Pesca (R) emotionally immature
and irresponsible – habitual drinker, cruel and violent
- RTC: granted petition marriage null and void; CA – reversed decision –
incapacity was not proven to be grave and incurable - did not show that Zosimo
not able to perform marital obligations
- SC: denied petition – marriage valid and subsisting – Molina guidelines not
merely advisory – emotional incapacity and irresponsibility not psychological
incapacity
12. Choa v. Choa (2002)
- Alfonso Choa (R) filed petition for annulment of marriage – Leni Choa (P) for
psychological incapacity – evidence of Alfonso: Leni incapacitated because of
her filing of series of charges against him – abnormal for a wife to do so; lack of
attention to children, immaturity and lack of intention to procreate sexually; she
filed motion for demurrer of evidence in RTC – it denied – Alfonso was able to
present quantum of evidence that Leni must controvert – CA also denied petition
for certiorari – proper remedy: Leni presents evidence and then if unfavorable
decision, she must appeal..
- SC: granted petition; denial of demurrer which is tainted with grave abuse of
discretion may be assailed through certiorari – demurrer – challenges the
sufficiency plaintiff’s evidence to sustain a verdict – SC convinced that evidence
against Leni was insufficient.
- case of annulment dismissed – insufficient evidence – Leni was not conducted
any examination by Dr. Gauzon – no personal knowledge of the facts
- totality of evidence presented by Alfonso was not enough – RTC committed
grave abuse of discretion in denying Leni’s demurrer.
13. Barcelona v. Court of Appeals (2003)
- Tadeo Bengzon (R) filed petition to annul – his first petition was withdrawn. He
filed second petition to annul for psychological incapacity –Diana Barcelona
sought to dismiss – no cause of action and committed forum shopping
- RTC denied Diana’s motion – CA denied motion – no litis pendentia – Tadeo
had caused dismissal before filing 2nd petition – no res judicata because there is
no final decision as to merits.
- SC: denied petition – disorganized housekeeper, neglected duties, wanted
Tadeo to leave conjugal house – SC said these are sufficiently alleges a cause of
action – no litis pendentia – no res judicata.
14. Dedel v. Court of Appeals (2004)
- David Dedel (P) – sought for annulment; Sharon Corpuz (R) – irresponsible and
immature wife and mother, extra-marital affairs with several men, abandoned
David to join Ibrahim in Jordan and had two children.
- Dr. Dayan testified that David is hardworking and diligent and that Sharon
suffered Anti-Social Personality Disorder because of infidelity; no remorse.
- RTC: granted petition, marriage null and void; CA reversed decision, dismissed
- SC: denied petition; marriage valid and subsisting; sexual infidelity of Sharon
not psychological incapacity – promiscuity did not exist prior or at the inception
of marriage; circumstances only ground for legal separation – David was not able
to show that these acts are manifestations of disordered personality.

15. Republic v. Quintero-Hamano (2004)
- Lolita Quintero-Hamano (R) filed petition for annulment; Toshio Hamano, a
Japanese national – psychologically incapacitated to assume marital obligations –
stopped giving financial support, visited Philippines but never talked again to
Lolita; abandoned his family, irresponsible, unconcerned for needs of family
- RTC: granted petition, marriage null and void; CA: affirmed decision – Toshio
left family a month after marriage; never sent support
- SC: reversed decision, marriage valid – mere abandonment and insensitivity for
his family not psychological incapacity; Lolita failed to prove that Toshio had a
disorder to incapacitate him to assume marital responsibilities; rules apply even if
wife is Filipino and husband is foreigner – rules determining psychological
incapacity formulated based on studies of human in general.
16. Carating-Siayngco v. Siayngco (2004)
- Manuel Siayngco (R) filed petition for annulment; Juanita Carating-Siayngco
exhibited domineering and selfish attitude, showed no respect with regard to high
position of Manuel’s office as a judge, embarrassed of wife’s outbursts
- RTC: denied petition, marriage valid and subsisting; CA reversed, null and void
relied on Dr. Garcia’s report – both partners psychologically incapacitated –
partner relational problem – defective communication pattern
- SC: reversed decision, marriage valid; Manuel’s sexual infidelity does not
equate to psychological incapacity; Juanita’s acts also did not amount to such;
case of partners who became busier and busier, sacrificed intimacy.
17. Antonio v. Reyes (2005)
- Leonilo Antonio (P) sought annulment; Marie Ivonne Reyes (R) – concealment
of fact that she previously gave birth to illegitimate son, fabricated story that she
was raped by brother-in-law, misrepresented herself as psychiatrist, claimed to be
a singer and had a concert in tribute to her, invented friends and wrote letters for
saying that she was a very good artist and moneymaker, altered her payslip to
show that she earned higher income – abnormal and persistent lying; fabricated
stories – world of make-believe – loka loka ang putangina!
- RTC: granted petition, marriage null and void; CA: reversed – psychologists
failed to state if the disorder of Marie was incurable; totality of evidence
presented was not sufficient.
- The Metropolitan Tribunal of Archdiocese of Manila annulled the marriage –
affirmed by National Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal and Roman Rota of
Vatican.
- SC: reversed decision, granted petition, marriage null and void; Leonilo was
able to prove psychological incapacity – presented witnesses and certifications;
incapacity was clearly identified – perennially telling lies, fabricating ridiculous
stories and inventing personalities and situations – linked to clinical causes by the
psychologists; persistent lying violates respect to one another – constant lying to
Leonilo undermined basic tenets of relationship – love, truth and respect.
- It was established that the illness existed before marriage; grave and made
Marie incapacitated to comply with marital obligations.
- Church considered so grave that the decision of Church had a restrictive clause
– prohibiting her to marry without the tribunal’s consent.
- when doctors testified in trial court, no jurisprudential clarity yet – Molina not
yet promulgated; Santos did not include the requirement of incurability;
psychologists were silent when they testified as to the incurability of disorder.
18. Republic v. Iyoy (2005)
- Crasus Iyoy (R) filed petition for annulment; Fely Ada Rosal – hot-tempered,
nagger, extravagant, left for the USA, got a divorce and then got naturalized and
then married an American.
- RTC: granted petition marriage void ab initio; CA affirmed – applied Article 26
and said that Crasus may marry because Fely had already got a divorce.
- SC: reversed the decision; insufficient evidence to prove that Fely is
psychologically incapacitated; testimonies in the RTC are self-serving and not
enough; Article 26 not applicable because when Fely got a divorce, she was still
a Filipino and not yet naturalized American – hence, Pinoy laws govern – divorce
decree not valid; SolGen allowed to intervene in the case; case may only be a
ground for legal separation.
19. Yu v. Yu (2006)
- Eric Yu (P) filed habeas corpus in CA against Caroline Tanchay-Yu (R) who
withheld custody of their child; Caroline filed petition for annulment in Pasig
RTC with prayer to award to her the custody; SC awarded custody to Eric
pending habeas corpus; Caroline then filed Motion for modification of her
visitation rights; Eric opposed – equal to forum shopping; Caroline withdrew
motion because she is busy.
- Eric filed his own petition in the Pasig RTC for annulment with prayer to award
custody to him; CA dismissed the habeas corpus – moot and academic
- Caroline then filed petition for habeas corpus in Pasay RTC to award to her
custody of child. Eric filed motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and forum
shopping
- Pasig RTC asserted its jurisdiction and granted custody to Eric; Pasay RTC
denied Eric’s motion to dismiss.
- CA: denied petition – no grave abuse of discretion when Pasay assumed
jurisdiction over habeas corpus; no forum shopping because Caroline filed
habeas after CA dismissed Eric’s habeas corpus petition; jurisdiction over issue
of custody did not attach to Pasig RTC.
- SC: meritorious – reversed CA and ordered Pasig RTC to continue proceedings;
petition in Pasig RTC more appropriate action to determine custody issue; law of
the case not applicable; judgment on issue of custody in the nullity of marriage
case in Pasig RTC would constitute res judicata on habeas corpus petition in the
Pasay RTC because the former has the jurisdiction over the parties and the
subject matter.
20. Perez-Ferraris v. Ferraris (2006)
- Armida Perez-Ferraris (P) sought annulment; Brix Ferraris (R) – psychological
incapacity because of epilepsy and infidelity
- RTC: denied petition – epilepsy not psychological incapacity; insufficient
evidence on infidelity; CA: affirmed decision – Armida failed to prove that the
defect was incurable and present at the inception of marriage; Dr. Dayan’s
testimony did not prove mixed personality disorder and that there was
supervening disabling factor.
- SC: affirmed decision; act not grave, permanent and incurable; Dr. Dayan failed
to explain how she arrived at her conclusion that Brix was a schizoid – testimony
was vague, evasive and inconclusive; condition was just a mere refusal to assume
obligations to marriage – unsatisfactory marriage not a null and void marriage.
21. Mallion v. Alcantara (2006)
- Oscar Mallion (P) filed annulment – Editha Alcantara (R) was psychologically
incapacitate; RTC denied petition – insufficient evidence; CA denied also for
paying docket and lawful fees within reglementary period.
- Oscar then filed annulment for lack of marriage license with RTC; Editha
sought to dismiss because of res judicata and forum shopping. RTC granted
dismissal of the petition.
- SC: denied petition; already res judicata; same action but only different
grounds; he is barred – he already conceded to the valid marriage in the first
action; he should have presented the lack of license issue in the first petition.
22. Catalan v. Court of Appeals (2007)
- Felicitas Amor-Catalan (P) and Orlando Catalan (R) were married in
Pangasinan; mirated to USA and became naturalized citizens; got a divorce.
- Orlando married Merope Braganza. Felicitas sought for declaration of nullity or
marriage because it was bigamous – Merope has prior existing marriage with
Eusebio Bristol.
- RTC: granted petition; Orlando and Merope’s marriage null and void.
- CA: reversed decision and dismissed the petition for annulment.
- SC: determine first if divorce decree does not restrict marriage, CA correct in
ruling that Felicitas did not have personality because she had no existing interest,
the marriage ties being already cut; if divorce decree restricts marriage or limited
divorce , RTC correct in ruling that marriage was bigamous.
- SC remanded case to RTC for reception of additional evidence – needed to
check the divorce decree and the foreign law granting or restricting remarriage.
23. Republic v. Tanyag-San Jose (2007)
- Laila Tanyag-San Jose (R) filed petition for annulment; Manolito San Jose (R)
was jobless and hooked in gambling and drugs – under Anti Social Personality
Disorder; Dr. Tayag testified but did not personally examine Manolito.
- RTC: denied petition, marriage valid – insufficient evidence, being job not
equivalent to incapacity; Tayag was not able to interview Manolito or relatives;
CA- reversed decision – totality of evidence sufficient
- SC: reversed decision, marriage valid and subsisting; root cause must be
identified as psychological illness and incapacitating nature must be fully
explained; Tayag’s conclusion is hearsay - unreliable and unscientific; no
personal knowledge on the facts – merely fed by Laila; report did not prove that
the defect was already present at the inception of marriage; not a malady.
24. Zamora v. Court of Appeals (2007)
- Bernardino Zamora (P) sought for annulment; Norma Mercado-Zamora (R) –
horrified by the mere thought of having children and that she had not borne him a
child – abandoned him and left for US as a nurse and became American citizen.
- RTC: denied petition, marriage valid – reason why Norma left Pinas was
because of Bernardino’s infidelity; CA: affirmed decision – mere refusal to have
a child not psychological incapacity.
- SC: denied petition, marriage valid – totality of evidence was insufficient;
allegation that Norma refused to cohabit and bear child was disputed – Norma
loves children and Bernardino committed infidelity.
25. Navarro, Jr. v. Cecilio-Navarro (2007)
- Narciso Navarro, Jr. (P) sought annulment; Cynthia Cecilio-Navarro (R) –
constantly quarreling Narciso for having no time, not being able to give the
things she wanted, refusal to have sex.
- Cynthia did not undergo examination; she said that marital problems arose
when she caught Narciso with another woman in Harana Motel.
- RTC: granted petition, marriage null and void, partners were both
psychologically incapacitated; CA – reversed decision – constant arguments,
bickering, and conflicts did not consist of psychological incapacity; no showing
that such were existing at the time of marriage.
- SC: denied petition, marriage valid; squabbles and refusal to sleep do not mean
psychological incapacity; Diagnosis of doctor based only on Narciso’s stories; no
personal knowledge – hence, no probative value and mere hearsay; situation
shows their immaturity, which is not a ground; no showing that it is grave and
incurable and existing at the time of inception of marriage.
26. Republic v. Cabantug-Baguio (2008)
- Lynette Cabantug-Baguio (R) sought annulment; Martini Baguio – mama’s boy
and a seaman working overseas – never again communicated with Lynnette; Dr.
Gerong testified that Martini suffered core personality dysfunctions.
- RTC: granted petition, marriage null and void; CA: affirmed decision – totality
of evidence was able to prove that Martini was psychologically incapacitated.
- SC: reversed decision, marriage valid – Dr. Gerong failed to present a detailed
finding, no past life, attitudes, habits and character to explain the incapacity,
failed to discuss why grave, incurable and permanent; even failed to identify
what kind of disorder Martini was suffering from; interviews only derived from
Lynette; she failed to discharge onus probandi; totality of evidence was lacking.
27. Almelor v. RTC-Las Pinas (2008)
- Leonila Trinidad-Almelor (R) sought annulment; Manuel Almelor – harsh
disciplinarian, unreasonably meticulous, easily angered, deep attachment with
mother, concealment of homosexuality (caught him kissing another man)
- RTC: granted petition, marriage null and void – under Article 45 because of
concealment of homosexuality; CA: denied outright petition, affirmed decision –
wrong remedy asserted – should have been ordinary appeal instead of petition for
annulment of judgment
- SC: reversed decision, marriage valid and subsisting; procedural rules must be
liberally construed to afford justice; error was due to Manuel’s counsel;
concealment of homosexuality is the proper ground for annulment of marriage
not homosexuality per se – no sufficient proof was presented to prove that
Manuel is a homosexual and that he concealed it – nowhere could it be found that
Manuel was a homo during marriage and that he concealed such fact.
28. Dimayuga-Laurena v. Court of Appeals (2008)
- Ma. Darlene Dimayuga-Laurena (P) filed annulment; Jesse Lauro Laurena (R)
was incapacitated – womanizer, gives priority always to parents, feminine
tendencies, neglect of family needs, insensitive, tendency to lead bachelor’s life.
- RTC: denied petition, marriage valid and subsisting – manifestation was not so
serious and grave to consider it as psychological incapacity – evidence only
showed that she could not get along with Jesse; CA: affirmed decision – Darlene
failed to prove the root cause of the incapacity – not clinically identified –
psychiatrist only based findings on stories of Darlene – not able to prove that it
existed at the time of inception of marriage.
- SC: denied petition, marriage valid and subsisting – sexual infidelity, repeated
physical violence, homosexuality moral pressure to change religion are not
grounds for annulment but only for legal separation – failed to identify the root
cause; failed to prove that the incapacity was grave, incurable and existing at the
time fo inception of marriage.
29. Ngo-Te v. Te (2009)
- Edward Kenneth Ngo-Te (P) sought for annulment; Rowena Ong Gutierrez Yu-
Te (R) – both parties are psychologically incapacitated – Edward – unsure in
marriage, introvert, not sociable prefers to be religiously attached – extremely
introvert to the point of weakening the marriage; Rowena – aggressive-rebellious
type of woman – Narcissistic and Anti Social Personality Disorder – used force
and threats against Edward, knowing he is weak.
- RTC: granted petition, marriage null and void; CA: reversed decision – failure
to prove psychological incapacity; psychologist did not examine Rowena;
evidence fell short of requirements in Molina and Santos.
- SC: granted petition, marriage null and void – cases must be decided not on
basis of assumptions or generalizations but according to the facts; each case is to
be treated differently; Molina has become a straitjacket – forcing all sizes to fit
into and be bound; Molina has allowed psychopaths, etc to continuously pervert
the sanctity of marriage; Court need not to worry about possible abuse – enough
safeguards against collusion – Court should rather be alarmed by rising number
of cases involving marital abuse, child abuse, violence, etc. Court not
demolishing sanctity of families but it actually protects it by refusing to allow a
person inflicted with disorder, unable to comply with the obligations, to remain
in a marital bond.
- there is no marriage to speak of in the first place, as the same is null and void.
To indulge in imagery, the declaration of nullity under Article 36 will simply
provide a decent burial to a stillborn marriage.
- not suggesting that Molina be abrogated – interpret provision on a case to case
basis guided by experience, scientific findings and decisions of church tribunals
- suggestion for option in trial courts to refer the case to a court-appointed
psychologist to assist the courts.
- assessments were sufficient – Edward suffering from dependent personality
disorder; Rowena suffering from anti-social personality disorder
-Edward cannot assume marital obligations – unable to make everyday decisions,
followed every dictate; Rowena – impulsive and domineering.
30. Ting v. Velez-Ting (2009)
- Carmen Velez-Ting (R) sought for annulment; Benjamin Ting – drinker and
gambler – forcing to have sex with Carmen; failed to provide financial support;
irresponsible and immature.
- RTC: granted petition, marriage null and void; psychologist’s findings were
found to prove the psychological incapacity; CA: first, they denied petition and
adopted RTC’s decision; on MFR, reversed and said that marriage was voi.
- SC: granted petition, reversed decision, marriage valid and subsisting; Molina
doctrine not abrogated; totality of evidence given was not sufficient to warrant
annulment; greater weight to Benjamin’s psychologist presented; presumption
towards the validity of marriage.
31. Azcueta v. Republic (2009)
- Marietta Azcueta (P) filed petition for annulment; Rodolfo Azcueta (R) –
emotionally immature, irresponsible, negligent of his marital duties.
- psychiatrist who examined, Dr. Villegas – Rodolfo suffered cross-identification
with the mother who was the dominant figure in the family; Dependent
Personality Disorder – severe inadequacy related to masculine strivings; cannot
perform good sex – thinks that he is sexing his mother and not his wife
- RTC: granted petition, marriage null and void – Rodolfo cannot make his own
decisions and cannot carry his responsibilities as a husband; CA: reversed
decision, marriage valid – failure to sufficiently prove the incapacity – that it was
not grave and incurable and existed at the time of marriage – behavior only
caused by his youth and emotional immaturity.
- SC: granted petition, marriage null and void – case must be judged according to
its own peculiar facts and not by prior generalizations and assumptions; there was
sufficient compliance with Molina doctrine; testimony corroborated by testimony
of close relative of Rodolfo plus the psychological report; root cause was alleged;
judge must consider as decisive the evidence of expert opinion; illness was grave,
incurable and existed prior the inception of marriage.
32. So v. Valera (2009)
- Renato Reyes-So (P) filed annulment; Lorna Valera (R) – refusal to cohabit and
make love, unfaithful, refusal to give emotional, spiritual, psychological help,
failure to establish family home and to enter into permanent union (19 years
common law relationship before finally getting married); suffered from
Adjustment Disorder (coming from province to Manila – culture shock) and
Compulsive Behavior Patterns (constant use of marijuana, gambling, etc)
- RTC: granted petition, marriage null and void; CA – reversed decision – Renato
failed to prove incapacity; failed to establish that it is incurable and permanent;
did not follow guidelines in Molina.
- SC: denied petition, marriage valid and subsisting; totality of evidence
presented was not enough to sustain incapacity; there was already a long time of
common law relationship – certainly the act was present at the marriage time;
conclusions of psychologist based from statements of Renato only; assessment
was not comprehensive – only provided snapshots of Lorna’s life – illness must
be downright incapacity and not mere refusal; only a case of parties who have
been together for some time and then grew tired of each other.
33. Halili v. Santos-Halili (2009)
- Lester Benjamin Halili (P) sought annulment against Chona Santos-Halili (R) –
alleged that Lester thought the marriage was a joke and started dating other
women – only the time when he found out that the marriage was real.
- RTC: granted petition, marriage null and void; CA: reversed decision – totality
of evidence presented was not enough.
- SC: first, it denied petition, marriage valid and subsisting; on MFR, it reversed
itself and granted petition, marriage null and void – consider as essential the
opinion of the expert – Lester suffering from mixed personality disorder from
self-defeating personality disorder and dependent personality disorder – marriage
was an impulsive decision – no consummation, no sex, no living in with Chona –
Lester very much attached with parents and could not decide on matters.
34. Najera v. Najera (2009)
- Digna Najera (P) sought annulment or in the alternative, legal separation;
Eduardo Najera (R) – Borderline Personality Disorder – jobless, failed to give
financial support, abandoned family home and jumped ship in Los Angeles
- RTC: declared legal separation, not annulment; CA – affirmed decision of RTC
- SC: denied petition, marriage valid and subsisting – totality of evidence
insufficient – conclusion of psychologist based on stories Digna relayed –
conclusions are unscientific and unreliable – only grounds for legal separation
and not annulment – finding of psychologist not supported by decision of
National Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal.
35. Padilla-Rumbaua v. Rumbaua (2009)
- Rowena Padilla-Rumbaua (P) sought annulment; Edward Rumabaua (R) –
failure to extend financial support, blamed Rowena for mother’s death, pretended
to be working in Davao but was only cohabiting with another woman, refusal to
live with Rowena as it may affect family and career, operates in a self-centered
manner and egocentric, uses others for his own advantage.
- RTC: granted petition, marriage null and void; CA: reversed decision – no
mention of cause of narcissistic personality disorder, no discussion on Edward’s
childhood and developmental years
- SC: denied petition, marriage valid and subsisting; remand of case to RTC is
improper; blunders and mistakes in conduct of proceedings as a result of
ignorance and incompetency do not call for a new trial; totality of evidence
presented insufficient – testimony did not prove the root cause, gravity and
incurability of the condition – act of living in not automatically equal to
psychological incapacity – doctor’s conclusion based only on information fed
only by one side – considered only as hearsay – observations not comprehensive
to warrant such conclusions – testimony and report rich in generalities but
lacking in specificity
36. Aspillaga v. Aspillaga (2009)
- Rodolfo Aspillaga (P) sought for annulment; Aurora Apon-Aspillaga (R) –
domineering, spendthrift, frequently humiliated him, tactless, suspicious. Aurora
said that while she was in Japan, Rodolfo brought into the conjugal home a
concubine – led to disintegration of marriage.
- Psychologist Dr. Maaba – both Rodolfo and Aurora are psychological
handicaps which could be traced from unhealthy maturational development.
- RTC: granted petition, marriage null and void; CA: reversed decision
- SC: denied petition, marriage valid and subsisting – Maaba failed to reveal that
the condition was grave; no link between disorder to the non-performance of
marital obligations; mere difficulty to comply not equivalent to incapacity;
money disagreements common with couples; report only proved incompatibility
and irreconcilable differences, not synonymous with Article 36.
37. Lim v. Sta. Cruz-Lim (2010) evidence presented regarding promiscuity – failure to establish that
- Edward Lim (P) sought annulment; Ma. Sheryl Sta. Cruz-Lim (R) – wants to unfaithfulness is a manifestation of a disordered personality.
live separately from grandparents, registered a complaint in which he caught
Edward in a compromising position with a caregiver of Edward’s lola, which
caused embarrassment to the family, also filed case for concubinage and injuries;
in his amended petition – both of them suffered incapacities; Edward – dependent
personality disorder and Sheryl – histrionic personality disorder
- RTC: granted petition, marriage null and void; CA: reversed – marriage valid.
- SC: denied petition, marriage valid and subsisting; psychologist not able to
interview any family member or Sheryl herself; information supplied by Edward
only and an employee in Edward’s business; three times interview only lasted for
1 ½ to 2 ½ hours only per session; conducted no tests; did not link the particular
acts of parties to the specific disorders; conclusion could not tie hands of trial
court.

38. Pavon-Paz v. Paz (2010)

- Jeanice Pavon Paz (R) sought for declaration of nullity; Jordan Paz (P) –
uncontrollable tendency to be self preoccupied and self-indulgent, becomes
violent and abusive whenever his whims were not satisfied, tendency to lie his
whereabouts, habit of hanging out with friends, dependent and attached to his
mother, does not help taking care of their son, threatening to hurt her.
- RTC: granted petition, marriage null and void – psychologist able to prove
Borderline Personality Disorder – impulsive behavior and instability – due to his
family background; CA: dismissed appeal because no motion for reconsideration
was first sought – dismissed because of procedural flaw.
- SC: granted petition, marriage valid and subsisting; Jeanice was not able to
prove psychological incapacity; Gates’ reports only based on interviews with
Jeanice – disregarded because only hearsay – no particularity on the Borderline
Disorder – did not explain why is it grave or incurable that made Jordan
incapacitated – totality of evidence presented was insufficient.

39. Suazo v. Suazo (2010)

40. Ligeralde v. Patalinghud (2010)

- Silvino Ligeralde (P) sought for annulment; May Ascension Patalinghug (R) –
negative marital behavior, immature, irresponsible, carefree, committed infidelity
with Palestinian boyfriend, drinking beer with male lover.
- RTC: granted petition, marriage null and void; CA: reversed RTC decision –
Silvino was no able to identify and prove the root cause and that it is incurable.
- SC: denied petition, marriage valid and subsisting; should have dismissed the
case in the first place; review for certiorari under Rule 45 not under Rule 65 – no
abuse of discretion in the CA; petition no merit – did not prove root cause,
gravity, incurability; failed to show that the root cause is identified with the
illness – adulterous life not automatically equated with disorder – no specific