REPUBLIC V CABANTUG-BAGUIO G.R. NO.

171042 JUNE 30, 2008

FACTS: Petition for review on the declaration of the nullity of marriage between
Lynette Cabantug-Baguio and Martini Dico Baguio
August 12, 1997 Lynette and Martini were married after being pen pals
since 1995
Initially, the couple stayed with Lynettes parents. Martini only stayed with his
wife during weekends, and on weekdays he was at his parents house.
Lynette soon discovered that Martini was a mamas boy
Upon the insistence of Martinis mother, his allotment was divided equally
between her and Lynette
January 1999 No information about Martini. Lynette also stopped receiving
her share of the allotment and upon inquiry with Martinis employer, she
found out that he was in Alabang, Muntinlupa
October 12, 2000 Lynette filed a complaint for the declaration of the nullity
of marriage on the basis of Martinis psychological incapacity to comply with
the essential marital duties and obligations as stated in Art. 68-70 of the
Family Code
Summons were served upon Martini to which he did not file any response. No
collusion was also established.
October 14, 1999 Lynette learned that Martini declared in his employment
records that he was SINGLE and named his mother as principal allotee
Respondent presented the letter of clinical psychologist who evaluated the
behavior of Martini. Based on the report, Martini shows immature personality
disorder, dependency patterns and self-centered motives. The situation is
serious, grave, existing already during the adolescent period and incurable.
As such, Martini is psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential
obligations in marriage and family
January 2, 2002 Cebu City RTC declared that marriage void since Martini
was psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential martial
obligations of marriage and that same incapacity existed at the time of the
celebration of the marriage
ISSUE: Whether or not Martinis being a mamas boy constitutes as a
psychological incapacity under Art. 36 of the Family Code
HELD: Art. 36 should not be confused with a divorce law that cuts the material
bond at the time the causes manifest themselves, nor with legal separation in which
the grounds need not be rooted in psychological incapacity but on physical violence,
moral pressure,
moral corruption, civil interdiction, drug addiction, habitual
alcoholism sexual infidelity, abandonment and the like.
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 a 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. [T]he root cause must be identified
as a psychological illness, and its incapacitating nature must be fully explained.
For psychological incapacity to render a marriage void ab initio it must be
characterized by:
1. Gravity must be grave and serious such that the party would be incapable
of carrying out the ordinary duties required in a marriage
2. Juridical antecedence it must be rooted in the history of the party
antedating the marriage, although overt manifestations may emerge only
after the marriage
3. Incurability must be incurable, or even if it were otherwise, the cure would
be beyond the means of the party involved
In petitions for the declaration of nullity of marriage, the burden of proving the
nullity of marriage lies on the plaintiff. Any doubt should be resolved in favor of the
existence and continuation of the marriage, and against the dissolution and nullity
(semper praesumitur pro matrimonio)
As seen in this case, Lynette failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove Martinis
psychological incapacity. While the court sympathizes with her predication, its first
and foremost duty is to apply the law.