You are on page 1of 6

G.R. No. 109975 February 9, 2001 Republic of the Philippines Vs.

Erlinda Matias Dagdag

Facts: Erlinda Matias married Avelino Parangan Dagdag on October 20, 1988.They begot two children
namely Avelyn M. Dagdag, born on January 16, 1978; and Eden M. Dagdag, born on April 21, 1982. A
week after the wedding, Avelino started leaving his family without explanation. He would disappear for
months, suddenly reappear for a few months, then disappear again. During the times when he was with
his family, he indulged in drinking sprees with friends and would return home drunk. He would force his
wife to submit to sexual intercourse and if she refused, he would inflict physical injuries on her. On
October 1993, he left his family again and that was the last they heard from him. The family is left to tend
for themselves. Finally, Erlinda learned that Avelino was imprisoned for some crime, and that he escaped
from jail on October 22, 1985. A certification dated February 14, 1990, was issued by Jail Warden Orlando
S. Limon. Avelino remains at-large to date. On July 3, 1990, Erlinda filed with the Regional Trial Court of
Olongapo City a petition for judicial declaration of nullity of marriage on the ground of psychological
incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code. The trial court issued an Order giving the investigating
prosecutor until January 2, 1991, to manifest in writing whether or not he would present controverting
evidence, and stating that should he fail to file said manifestation, the case would be deemed submitted
for decision. In compliance with the Order, the investigating prosecutor conducted an investigation and
found that there was no collusion between the parties. However, he intended to intervene in the case to
avoid fabrication of evidence. On December 27, 1990, without waiting for the investigating prosecutor's
manifestation dated December 5, 1990, the trial court rendered a decision declaring the marriage of
Erlinda and Avelino void under Article 36 of the Family Code On January 29, 1991, the investigating
prosecutor filed a Motion to Set Aside Judgment on the ground that the decision was prematurely
rendered since he was given until January 2, 1991 to manifest whether he was presenting controverting
evidence. The Office of the Solicitor General likewise filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the decision on
the ground that the same is not in accordance with the evidence and the law. Motion for reconsideration
was denied. Solicitor General appealed to the Supreme Court and on April 22, 1993 CA affirmed the
decision of the trial court. Hence, this petition for review.
Issue: Whether or not the trial court and the Court of Appeals correctly declared the marriage as null and
void under Article 36 of the Family Code, on the ground that the husband suffers from psychological
incapacity as he is emotionally immature and irresponsible, a habitual alcoholic, and a fugitive from
justice.
Ruling: Whether or not psychological incapacity exists in a given case calling for annulment of a
marriage, depends crucially, more than in any field of the law, on the facts of the case. Each case must be
judged, not on the basis of a prior assumptions, predilections or generalizations but according to its own
facts. The trial judge must take pains in examining the factual milieu and the appellate court must, as
much as possible, avoid substituting its own judgment for that of the trial court. Taking into consideration
the guidelines laid down in Republic v. CA and Molina, it is evident that Erlinda failed to comply with the
above-mentioned evidentiary requirements. Moreover, expert testimony should have been presented to
establish the precise cause of private respondent's psychological incapacity, if any, in order to show that it
existed at the inception of the marriage. The burden of proof to show the nullity of the marriage rests upon
petitioner. Thus, any doubt should be resolved in favor of the validity of the marriage. The present petition
is GRANTED. The assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals dated April 22, 1993, in CA-G.R. CY No.
34378 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE.

G.R. No. 162368 July 17, 2006 Ma. Armida Perez-Ferraris vs. Brix Ferraris
Facts: The couples relationship before the marriage and even during their brief union 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. Petitioner
filed a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity in the RTC.
RTC denied the petition where they ruled that epilepsy does not amount to psychological incapacity and s
were not evidences were not sufficient to prove infidelity. Petitioner filed for motion for reconsideration
which was denied having no evidence that respondent was mentally or physically ill. Petitioner appealed
to the CA, CA affirmed the RTCs decision. Petitioner gain filed for motion for reconsideration which was
denied by the CA. Thus, she filed for a petition for review of certiorari.
Issue: Whether or not there was psychological incapacity in the case.
Ruling: The issue of whether or not psychological incapacity exists in a given case calling for annulment
of marriage depends crucially, more than in any field of the law, on the facts of the case. It is a wellestablished principle that factual findings of the trial court, when affirmed by the CA, are binding on the SC
save for the most compelling and cogent reasons, like when the findings of the appellate court go beyond
the issues of the case, run contrary to the admissions of the parties to the case, or fail to notice certain
relevant facts which, if properly considered, will justify a different conclusion; or when there is a
misappreciation of facts, which are unavailing in the instant case. The root cause must be identified as a
psychological illness and its incapacitating nature must be fully explained, which the petitioner failed to
convincingly demonstrate. The respondent's 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. A "difficulty," if not outright "refusal" or "neglect" in the
performance of some marital obligations and that a mere showing of irreconcilable differences and
conflicting personalities in no wise constitute psychological incapacity is not enough to prove that the
parties failed to meet their responsibilities and duties as married persons. It is essential that they must be
shown to be incapable of doing so, due to some psychological, not physical, illness. The motion for
reconsideration 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.

CHI MING TSOI VS. C.A.


Facts: On May 22, 1988, Gina Lao married Chi Ming Tsoi. Since their marriage until their separation on
March 15, 1989, there was no sexual contact between them. Gina filed a case of annulment of marriage
on the ground of psychological incapacity with the RTC of Quezon City. The RTC granted annulment
which was affirmed by the CA.
Issue: Is the failure to the husband to have sexual intercourse with his wife from the time of the marriage
until their separation on March 15 1989 a ground for psychological incapacity.
Ruling: On of the essential marital obligations under the Family Code is to procreate children based on
the universal principle that procreation of children through sexual cooperation is the basic end of
marriage.
In the case at bar, the senseless and protracted refusal of one of the parties to fulfill the above marital
obligation is equivalent to psychological incapacity.

Leouel Santos vs. CA GR No. 112019, January 4, 1995


FACTS: Leouel, a First Lieutenant in the Philippine Army, met Julia in Iloilo. The two got married in 1986
before a municipal trial court followed shortly thereafter, by a church wedding. The couple lived with
Julias parents at the J. Bedia Compound. Julia gave birth to a baby boy in 1987 and was named as
Leouel Santos Jr. Occasionally, the couple will quarrel over a number of things aside from the
interference of Julias parents into their family affairs.
Julia left in 1988 to work in US as a nurse despite Leouels pleas to dissuade her. Seven months after her
departure, she called her husband and promised to return home upon the expiration of her contract in July
1989 but she never did. Leouel got a chance to visit US where he underwent a training program under
AFP, he desperately tried to locate or somehow get in touch with Julia but all his efforts were of no avail.
Leouel filed a complaint to have their marriage declared void under Article 36 of the Family Code. He
argued that failure of Julia to return home or to communicate with him for more than 5 years are
circumstances that show her being psychologically incapacitated to enter into married life.
ISSUE: Whether their marriage can be considered void under Article 36 of the Family Code.
HELD: The intendment of the law has been to confine the meaning of psychological incapacity to the most
serious cases of personal disorders clearly demonstrative of an utter insensitivity or inability to give
meaning and significance to the marriage. This condition must exist at the time the marriage is
celebrated.
Undeniably and understandably, Leouel stands aggrieved, even desperate, in his present situation.
Regrettably, neither law nor society itself can always provide all the specific answers to every individual
problem. Wherefore, his petition was denied.

Tongol vs. Tongol


The facts of the case are as follows:
Orlando G. Tongol (Orlando) and Filipinas M. Tongol (Filipinas) were married on August 27, 1967. Out of
their union, they begot four children, namely: Crisanto, born in 1968; Olivia, born in 1969; Frederick, born
in 1971, and; Ma. Cecilia, born in 1972.
On May 13, 1994, Orlando and Filipinas filed a petition for dissolution of their conjugal partnership of
gains, which was granted in a Judgment issued by the RTC of Makati City, Branch 143 on April 24, 1995.
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 latter is psychologically incapacitated to comply
with her essential marital obligations.
In his Petition, Orlando contended that he and Filipinas got married over the objection of the latter's family;
their marriage was not a happy one because of her parents' continued interference and attempt to break
up their union; greatly influenced by her parents, Filipinas, even at the early stages of their marriage,
already treated Orlando with contempt and without the love and respect due him as her husband; when
Orlando started a junk shop business, Filipinas ridiculed him instead of giving him encouragement; later
on, his business became successful and he was able to embark upon another business venture; he put
up a pharmaceutical company which also became profitable; Filipinas then became interested and began
to interfere in the operation of the business; however, because of her bad attitude, the employees were
aloof; she also resented the fact that her husband got along well with the employees; as a result, she
quarreled with her husband causing the latter embarrassment; she even suspected that the income of the
business was being given to her husband's relatives; their continued fighting persisted and affected their
children; efforts at reconciliation proved futile because their differences had become irreconcilable and
their marriage impossible; in 1990, Orlando decided to live separately from Filipinas; in 1994, the spouses
filed a petition for dissolution of their property relationship; and the petition was granted in 1995.
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 Orlando who is
psychologically incapacitated to fulfill his obligations as a married man.
Evidence for Orlando consisted of his own testimony, that of his sister, Angelina Tongol, and of Annaliza
Guevara, an employee in the pharmaceutical company owned by the spouses Tongol. Orlando also
presented Dr. Cecilia Villegas, a psychiatrist who conducted a psychological examination of both parties.
Orlando submitted documents evidencing their marriage, the birth of their four children, the RTC decision
granting the petition for dissolution of their conjugal partnership of gains, and the written evaluation of Dr.
Villegas regarding the spouses' psychological examination. On the other hand, record shows that
evidence for Filipinas only consisted of her own testimony.

Held:
What has been established in the instant case is that, by reason of her feelings of inadequacy and
rejection, respondent not only encounters a lot of difficulty but even refuses to assume some of her
obligations towards her husband, such as respect, help and support for him. However, this Court has
ruled that psychological incapacity must be more than just a difficulty, a refusal or a neglect in the
performance of some marital obligations.
Second, Dr. Villegas also failed to fully and satisfactorily explain if the personality disorder of respondent
is grave enough to bring about her disability to assume the essential obligations of marriage. Petitioner
contends that respondent's exaggerated reactions to normal situations, her unreasonable feelings of
rejection brought about by her dysfunctional upbringing, are all indications of the gravity of her
psychological condition. Even granting that respondent's psychological disorder is serious, the fact
remains that there is no evidence to prove that such condition is of such nature as to render respondent
incapable of carrying out the ordinary duties required in marriage.
Third, there is no evidence that such incapacity is incurable. Neither in her written evaluation nor in her
testimony did Dr. Villegas categorically and conclusively characterize respondent's inadequate personality
disorder as permanent or incurable.
Fourth, the psychological incapacity considered under Article 36 of the Family Code is not meant to
comprehend all possible cases of psychoses.The fourth guideline in Molina requires that the
psychological incapacity as understood under Article 36 of the Family Code must be relevant to the
assumption of marriage obligations, not necessarily to those not related to marriage, like the exercise of a
profession or employment in a job. In the present case, the testimonies of both petitioner and respondent
as well as the other witnesses regarding the spouses' differences and misunderstanding basically revolve
around and are limited to their disagreement regarding the management of their business. In fact,
respondent herself, in her Memorandum submitted to the trial court, claimed that their quarrels arose
solely from their disagreement on how to run their business.This is confirmed by the testimony of
petitioner's sister who lived with the spouses for a considerable period of time. However, a mere showing
of irreconcilable differences and conflicting personalities in no wise constitutes psychological incapacity.
In addition, it is true that the marital obligations of a husband and wife enumerated under the Family Code
include the mutual responsibility of the spouses to manage the household and provide support for the
family, which means that compliance with this obligation necessarily entails the management of the
income and expenses of the household. While disagreements on money matters would, no doubt, affect
the other aspects of one's marriage as to make the wedlock unsatisfactory, this is not a sufficient ground
to declare a marriage null and void. In the present case, respondent's disagreement with her husband's
handling of the family's business and finances and her propensity to start a fight with petitioner spouse
regarding these matters can hardly be considered as a manifestation of the kind of psychological
incapacity contemplated under Article 36 of the Family Code. In fact, the Court takes judicial notice of the
fact that disagreements regarding money matters is a common, and even normal, occurrence between
husbands and wives.
Fifth, marital obligation includes not only a spouse's obligation to the other spouse but also one's
obligation toward their children.
In sum, it is not disputed that respondent is suffering from a psychological disorder. However, the totality
of the evidence presented in the present case does not show that her personality disorder is of the kind

contemplated by Article 36 of the Family Code as well as jurisprudence as to render her psychologically
incapacitated or incapable of complying with the essential obligations of marriage.
It remains settled that the State has a high stake in the preservation of marriage rooted in its recognition
of the sanctity of married life and its mission to protect and strengthen the family as a basic autonomous
social institution. Hence, any doubt should be resolved in favor of the existence and continuation of the
marriage and against its dissolution and nullity.

You might also like