Name : Felicitas Araojo Subject : Persons and Family Relations Law Article 36:

Professor : Atty. Cerezo

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. (As amended by Executive Order Number 227 dated July 17, 1987) Case No. 1: G.R. No. 109975. February 9, 2001 REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner vs. ERLINDA MATIAS DAGDAG, respondent Facts: On July 3, 1990, Erlinda filed a civil case at the Regional Trial Court of Olongapo City a petition for judicial declaration of nullity of marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code psychological incapacity that his husband, Avelino Dagdag failed to perform his duties and essential marital obligations, emotionally immature and irresponsible, an alcoholic and a fugitive because of this Avelino Dagdag continuously destroying the integrity or wholeness of their marriage. The decision of the Court of Appeals dated April 22, 1993 CA-G.R. CY No. 34378, which affirmed the decision of the Regional Trial Court in Civil Case No. 380-0-90 declaring the marriage of Erlinda Matias Dagdag void under Article 36 of the Family Code. But the Solicitor-General filed a petition for review to contends the alleged psychological incapacity of Avelino Dagdag is not nature contemplated by Article 36 because respondent, failed to show the root cause of the psychological incapacity that must be medically or clinically identified and sufficiently proven by experts, since no psychiatrist or medical doctor testified on the alleged psychological incapacity, and the allegation that his husband is a fugitive was not sufficiently proven. Issue: Whether or not the Regional Trial Court and Court of Appeals correctly declared the marriage of respondent Erlinda Matias Dagdag as null and void under Article 36 of the Family Code. Ruling: No. The petition was GRANTED. The assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals dated April 22, 1993 CA-G.R. CY No. 34378 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Case No. 2: G.R. No. 162368. July 17, 2006 MA. ARMIDA PEREZ-FERRARIS, petitioner vs. BRIX FERRARIS, respondent Facts: Petitioner Ma. Armida Perez-Ferraris filed a civil case in the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City, Branch 151 rendered a Decision on April 20, 2001 denying the petition for declaration of nullity

of marriage with Brix Ferraris on the alleged mixed personality disorder, the leaving-the-house attitude, violent tendencies during epileptic attacks, sexual infidelity, abandonment and lack of support, and spending more time to his band mates than his family. Petitioner filed a review of Certiorari of the Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals dated April 30, 2003 and February 24, 2004 but the Court of Appeals denied the petition for lack of merit, for failure of the petitioner to sufficiently show respondents character that effectively incapacitated him from accepting and complying with the essential marital obligations and epilepsy does not amount to psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code. Issue: Whether or not the Court of Appeals committed any reversible error. Ruling: No. The motion for reconsideration of the Resolution dated June 9, 2004 denying the petition for review on certiorari for failure of the petitioner to sufficiently show that the Court of Appeals committed any reversible error, is DENIED WITH FINALITY. Case No. 3: G.R. No. 157610. October 19, 2007 ORLANDO G. TONGOL, petitioner vs. FILIPINAS M. TONGOL, respondent Facts: On August 19, 1996, Orlando filed before the Regional Trial Court of Makati City a declaration of nullity of his marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code with Filipinas on the ground that the latter is psychological incapacitated to comply with her essential marital obligations. On June 30, 1999, the Regional Trial Court of Makati City, Branch 149, rendered a Decision dismissing the petition. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed, in toto, the Decision of the Regional Trial Court. The case elevated to the Supreme Court, but the Court finds no cogent reason to depart from the assessment of the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals for the following reasons: 1) that the petitioner relies heavily on the findings of Dr. Villegas who made the following written evaluation regarding respondents grave psychological makeup, 2) failed to fully and satisfactorily explain respondent personality disorder that she has a disability to assume the essential marital obligations, 3) no evidence that such incapacity is incurable, and 4) the psychological incapacity considered under Article 36 in not meant to comprehend all possible cases of psychoses. Issue: Whether or not the evidence support the findings of the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals that Dra. Cecilia Villegas failed to state respondents inadequate personality disorder was grave, permanent and incurable. Ruling: Yes. The petition is DENIED. The September 25, 2002 Decision and March 19, 2003 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 66245 are AFFIRMED.