You are on page 1of 13

Soli vs.

Magtolis
Erwin Espinosa, 32, and Joselita Salita, 22, were married at the
Roman Catholic Church in Ermita, Manila, on 25 January 1986.
A year later, their union turned sour. They separated in fact in
1988. Subsequently, Erwin sued for annulment on the ground of
Joselitas psychological incapacity.
The petition for annulment was filed before the Regional Trial
Court of Quezon City on 7 January 1992. Therein it is alleged that
"[s]ometime in 1987, petitioner came to realize that respondent
was psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential
marital obligations of their marriage, which incapacity existed at
the time of the marriage although the same became manifest only
thereafter."

telephone. She promised to return home upon the expiration of her


contract in July 1989. She never did. When Leouel got a chance to
visit the United States where he underwent a training program, he
desperately tried to locate Julia but all his efforts were of no avail.
Thus, Leouel filed with the RTC a complaint for
"Voiding of marriage Under Article 36 of the Family Code".
On 06 November 1991, the court a quo finally
dismissed the complaint for lack of merit. The CA affirmed the
decision of the trial court.
Leouel argues that the failure of Julia to return home, or
at the very least to communicate with him, for more than five
years are circumstances that clearly show her being
psychologically incapacitated to enter into married life.
Issue:

Issue: WON the allegations in the petition for annulment of


marriage are sufficient

Is Leouel and Julias marriage void ab initio on the


ground of Julias psychological incapacity?

Ruling:

Ruling:

We sustain the view of respondent Court of Appeals that the Bill


of Particulars filed by private respondent is sufficient to state a
cause of action, and to require more details from private
respondent would be to ask for information on evidentiary
matters.

"Psychological incapacity" should refer to no less than


a mental (not physical) incapacity that causes a party to be truly
incognitive of the basic marital covenants that concomitantly must
be assumed and discharged by the parties to the marriage as so
expressed by Article 68 of the Family Code. 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
intensitivity or inability to give meaning and significance to the
marriage. This psychological condition must exist at the time the
marriage is celebrated.

we have no other recourse but to order the immediate resumption


of the annulment proceeding which have already been delayed for
more than two years now, even before it could reach its trial stage.
Whether petitioner is psychologically incapacitated should be
immediately determined.
The Committee did not give any examples of psychological
incapacity for fear that the giving of examples would limit the
applicability of the provision under the principles of ejusdem
generis. Rather, the Committee would like the judge to interpret
the provision on a case-to-case basis, guided by experience, the
findings of experts and researchers in psychological disciplines,
and by decisions of church tribunals which, although not binding
on the civil courts, may be given persuasive effect since the
provision was taken from Canon Law.

The factual settings in the case at bench, in no measure


at all, can come close to the standards required to decree a nullity
of marriage. 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.

Santos vs. CA

private respondent Maria Victoria Lopez Tuason filed


with the RTC a petition for annulment or declaration of nullity of
her marriage to petitioner Emilio R. Tuason.

G.R. No. 112019, January 4, 1995


Ponente: VITUG, J.

Tuazon vs. CA
Facts:

In her complaint, private respondent alleged that she and


petitioner were married on & begot two children;

Contributor: Alona Suzell B. Ruyeras


Facts:
It was in Iloilo City where Leouel, who then held the
rank of First Lieutenant in the Philippine Army, first met Julia.
On 20 September 1986, the two exchanged vows before
MTC Judge Cornelio G. Lazaro of Iloilo City, followed, shortly
thereafter, by a church wedding.
The ecstasy, however, did not last long. It was bound to
happen, Leouel averred, because of the frequent interference by
Julia's parents into the young spouses family affairs.
On 18 May 1988, Julia finally left for the United States
of America to work as a nurse despite Leouel's pleas to so
dissuade her.
Seven months after her departure, or on 01 January
1989, Julia called up Leouel for the first time by long distance

at the time of the marriage, petitioner was already


psychologically incapacitated to comply with his essential marital
obligations - resulted in violent fights between husband and wife,
that petitioner used prohibited drugs, was apprehended by the
authorities and sentenced to a one-year suspended penalty and has
not been rehabilitated; that petitioner was a womanizer, he left the
conjugal home and cohabited with three women in succession,
that petitioner likewise became a spendthrift and abused his
administration of the conjugal partnership by alienating some of
their assets and incurring large obligations with banks, credit card
companies and other financial institutions, without private
respondent's consent; t
attempts at reconciliation were made but they all failed
because of petitioner's refusal to reform.

In addition to her prayer for annulment of marriage, private


respondent prayed for powers of administration to save the
conjugal properties from further dissipation.
Petitioner insists that he has a valid and meritorious
defense. He cites the Family Code which provides that in actions
for annulment of marriage or legal separation, the prosecuting
officer should intervene for the state because the law looks with
disfavor upon the haphazard declaration of annulment of
marriages by default. He contends that when he failed to appear at
the scheduled hearings, the trial court should have ordered the
prosecuting officer to intervene for the state and inquire as to the
reason for his non-appearance.[20]
Articles 48 and 60 of the Family Code read as follows:
Art. 48. In all cases of annulment or declaration of absolute nullity
of marriage, the Court shall order the prosecution attorney or
fiscal assigned to it to appear on behalf of the State to take steps to
prevent collusion between the parties and to take care that
evidence is not fabricated or suppressed.
Ruling:
A grant of annulment of marriage or legal separation by default is
fraught with the danger of collusion. 22 Hence, in all cases for
annulment, declaration of nullity of marriage and legal separation,
the prosecuting attorney or fiscal is ordered to appear on behalf of
the state for the purpose of preventing any collusion between the
parties and to take care that their evidence is not fabricated or
suppressed.

Facts:
On May 22, 1988, Chi Ming Tsoi married the Gina
Lao-Tsoi.
After the celebration of their marriage and wedding
reception, they slept together on the same bed in the same room
for the first night of their married life. It is the version of the Gina,
that contrary to her expectations, that as newlyweds they were
supposed to enjoy making love with each other, there was no
sexual intercourse between them during the first night. The same
thing happened on the second, third and fourth nights.
In an effort to have their honeymoon in a private place
where they can enjoy together during their first week as husband
and wife, they went to Baguio City. But, they did so together with
her mother, an uncle, his mother and his nephew who were all
invited by the Chi Ming Tsoi. But still, during this period, there
was no sexual intercourse between them, since Chi Ming Tsoi
avoided her by taking a long walk during siesta time or by just
sleeping on a rocking chair located at the living room.
Ching Ming Tsoi even admitted that since their
marriage on May 22, 1988, until their separation on March 15,
1989, there was no sexual contact between them.
The RTC rendered the marriage between Chi Ming Tsoi
and Gina void ab initio. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial
court's decision.
Hence, the instant petition.
Issue:

If the defendant spouse fails to answer the complaint, the court


cannot declare him or her in default but instead, should order the
prosecuting attorney to determine if collusion exists between the
parties. 23
The prosecuting attorney or fiscal may oppose the application for
legal separation or annulment through the presentation of his own
evidence, if in his opinion, the proof adduced is dubious and
fabricated. 24
Our Constitution is committed to the policy of strengthening the
family as a basic social institution. 25 Our family law is based on
the policy that marriage is not a mere contract, but a social
institution in which the state is vitally interested. The state can
find no stronger anchor than on good, solid and happy families.
The break up of families weakens our social and moral fabric and,
hence, their preservation is not the concern alone of the family
members.
The facts in the case at bar do not call for the strict application of
Articles 48 and 60 of the Family Code. For one, petitioner was not
declared in default by the trial court for failure to answer.
Petitioner filed his answer to the complaint and contested the
cause of action alleged by private respondent. He actively
participated in the proceedings below by filing several pleadings
and cross-examining the witnesses of private respondent. It is
crystal clear that every stage of the litigation was characterized by
a no-holds barred contest and not by collusion.
Chi Ming Tsoi vs. CA
G.R. No. 119190, January 16, 1997
Ponente: TORRES, JR., J.
Contributor: Alona Suzell B. Ruyeras

Is Chi Ming Tsoi and Ginas marriage void ab initio on


the ground of Chi Ming Tsois psychological incapacity?
Ruling: YES
Prolonged refusal of a spouse to have sexual
intercourse with his or her spouse is considered a sign of
psychological incapacity.
Evidently, one 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." Constant non-fulfillment of this
obligation will finally destroy the integrity or wholeness of the
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.
Love is useless unless it is shared with another. An
ungiven self is an unfulfilled self. In the natural order, it is sexual
intimacy which brings spouses wholeness and oneness. Sexual
intimacy is a gift and a participation in the mystery of creation. It
is a function which enlivens the hope of procreation and ensures
the continuation of family relations.
This Court, finding the gravity of the failed relationship
in which the parties found themselves trapped in its mire of
unfulfilled vows and unconsummated marital obligations grants
the petition for declaration of nullity of marriage.
Republic vs. CA and Molina
G.R. No. 108763, February 13, 1997
Ponente: PANGANIBAN, J.
Contributor: Alona Suzell B. Ruyeras

Facts:
Roridel and Reynaldo were married on April 14, 1985.
After a year of marriage, Reynaldo showed signs of
"immaturity and irresponsibility" as a husband and a father since
he preferred to spend more time with his peers and friends on
whom he squandered his money; that he depended on his parents
for aid and assistance, and was never honest with his wife in
regard to their finances, resulting in frequent quarrels between
them.
In 1987, Reynaldo left Roridel and their child, and had
since then abandoned them.
Roridel filed a petition for declaration of the nullity of
their marriage. The RTC declared the marriage void. The CA
affirmed in toto the RTC's decision.
Hence, the present recourse.
Issue:
Is Roridel and Reynaldos marriage void ab initio on
the ground of Reynaldos psychological incapacity?
Ruling: NO
Mere showing of "irreconciliable differences" and
"conflicting personalities" in no wise constitutes psychological
incapacity.
The following are the guidelines in the interpretation
and application of Art. 36 of the Family Code for the guidance of
the bench and the bar:
(1) The burden of proof to show the nullity of the
marriage belongs to the plaintiff. xxx;
(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. xxx;
(3) The incapacity must be proven to be existing at "the
time of the celebration" of the marriage. xxx;
(4) Such incapacity must also be shown to be medically
or clinically permanent or incurable. xxx;

Lucita and Marcio met in Philippine Christian University in


Dasmarinas when lucita was Marcios teacher for two consecutive
semesters.
Lucita was 5 years older than Marcio. They later on became
sweethearts and eventually got married. They also had a child.
Lucita supported the family as her husband continued studying,
supported by his parents. The first few years of their marriage
went okay. But this eventually changed. Marcio had an extramarital relation with another student who was also married. When
Lucita discovered this, he asked Lucio to end it. He promised to
but did not fulfill it and left their conjugal home and child.
After some time, he returned to Lucita and she accepted him.
However, his attitude worsened when he got employed to Reynold
Philippines, Inc. He engaged in extreme promiscuous conduct
during the latter part of 1986.
As a result, private respondent contracted gonorrhea and infected
petitioner. Petitioner averred that on one occasion of a heated
argument, private respondent hit their eldest child who was then
barely a year old. Private respondent is not close to any of their
children as he was never affectionate and hardly spent time with
them. On July 10, 1992, petitioner filed before the RTC a petition
seeking the annulment of her marriage to private respondent on
the ground of psychological incapacity. RTC and CA denied the
petition. Hence, this case.
ISSUE: W/N Marcio is psychologically incapacitated to fulfill his
marital obligations
HELD: The psychological incapacity of a spouse, as a ground for
declaration of nullity of marriage, must exist at the time of the
celebration of marriage. More so, chronic sexual infidelity,
abandonment, gambling and use of prohibited drugs are not
grounds per se, of psychological incapacity of a spouse. Certainly,
petitioner-appellants declaration that at the time of their marriage
her respondent-husbands character was on the borderline
between a responsible person and the happy-go-lucky, could not
constitute the psychological incapacity in contemplation of Article
36 of the Family Code.
Marcos vs. Marcos
G.R. No. 136490, October 19, 2000
Ponente: PANGANIBAN, J.

(5) Such illness must be grave enough to bring about


the disability of the party to assume the essential obligations of
marriage.xxx ;

Contributor: Alona Suzell B. Ruyeras

(6) The essential marital obligations must be those


embraced by Articles 68-71 of the Family Code as regards the
husband and wife as well as Articles 220, 221 and 225 of the same
Code in regard to parents and their children.xxx ;

Brenda and Wilson first met sometime in 1980 when


both of them were assigned at the Malacaang Palace, she as an
escort of Imee Marcos and he as a Presidential Guard of President
Ferdinand Marcos. Through telephone conversations, they became
acquainted and eventually became sweethearts.

(7) Interpretations given by the National Appellate


Matrimonial Tribunal of the Catholic Church in the Philippines,
while not controlling or decisive, should be given great respect by
our courts. xxx;
(8) The trial court must order the prosecuting attorney
or fiscal and the Solicitor General to appear as counsel for the
state. xxx;
Hence, the marriage of Roridel Olaviano to Reynaldo
Molina subsists and remains valid.
Hernandez vs. CA
FACTS:

Facts:

Thereafter, Wilson and Brenda were married twice on


September 6, 1982, solemnized by Judge Eriberto H. Espiritu and
on May 8, 1983, solemnized by Rev. Eduardo L. Eleazar,
Command Chaplain, at the Presidential Security Command
Chapel in Malacaang.
After the downfall of President Marcos, Wilson left the
military service and engaged in different business ventures that
did not however prosper. As a wife, Brenda always urged him to
look for work so that their children would see him as a good
provider. Due to his failure to engage in any gainful employment,
they would often quarrel and as a consequence, he would hit and
beat her. He would also inflict physical harm on their children and
was so severe in the way he chastised them. In 1992, they were
already living separately.

On October 16, 1994, when Brenda saw Wilson in their


house, she was so angry that she lambasted him. He then turned
violent, inflicting physical harm on her and even on her mother
who came to her aid.

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 to her.

RTC found Wilson to be psychologically incapacitated


and declared Brenda and Wilsons marriage void ab initio. CA
reversed RTCs decision.

In October 1993, he left his family again and that was the last that
they heard from him. Erlinda learned that Avelino was imprisoned
for some crime, and that he escaped from jail and remains at large
to-date. In July 1990, Erlinda filed with the RTC of Olongapo
City a petition for judicial declaration of nullity of marriage on the
ground of psychological incapacity. Since Avelino could not be
located, summons was served by publication in the Olongapo
News, a newspaper of general circulation. On the date set for
presentation of evidence, only Erlinda and her counsel appeared.
Erlinda testified and presented her sister-in-law as her only
witness.

Issues:
1.
2.

Is Wilson required to submit himself to psychological


examination?
Is Wilson and Brendas marriage void ab initio on the
ground of Wilsons psychological incapacity?
Ruling:

1.

2.

Psychological incapacity, as a ground for declaring the


nullity of a marriage, may be established by the totality of
evidence presented. There is no requirement that Wilson should be
examined by a physician or a psychologist as a conditio sine qua
non for such declaration.

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. The Investigating Prosecutor conducted an
investigation and found that there was no collusion between the
parties.

The guidelines laid down in Republic vs CA and


Molina do not require that a physician examine the person to be
declared psychologically incapacitated. In fact, the root cause may
be "medically or clinically identified." What is important is the
presence of evidence that can adequately establish the party's
psychological condition. For indeed, 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.

However, he intended to intervene in the case to avoid fabrication


of evidence. Without waiting for the investigating prosecutors
manifestation, the trial court declared the marriage of Erlinda and
Avelino void under Article 36. 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.

NO

NO
The totality of the evidence presented in the present case was
not enough to sustain a finding that Wilson was psychologically
incapacitated. Although this Court is sufficiently convinced that
Wilson failed to provide material support to the family and may
have resorted to physical abuse and abandonment, the totality of
his acts does not lead to a conclusion of psychological incapacity
on his part. There is absolutely no showing that his "defects" were
already present at the inception of the marriage or that they are
incurable.
Verily, the behavior of respondent can be attributed to
the fact that he had lost his job and was not gainfully employed
for a period of more than six years. It was during this period that
he became intermittently drunk, failed to give material and moral
support, and even left the family home.
Equally important, there is no evidence showing that
his condition is incurable, especially now that he is gainfully
employed as a taxi driver.
Republic vs. Dagdag
FACTS:
On September 7, 1975, Erlinda Matias, 16 years old, married
Avelino Parangan Dagdag, 20 years old, at the Iglesia Filipina
Independent Church in Cuyapo, Nueva Ecija. The marriage
certificate was issued by the Office of the Local Civil Registrar of
the Municipality of on October 20, 1988. Erlinda and Avelino
begot two children.
The birth certificates were issued by the Office of the Local Civil
Registrar of the Municipality of Cuyapo, Nueva Ecija also on
October 20, 1988. A week after the wedding, Avelino started
leaving his family without explanation. He would disappear for
months, suddenly re-appear for a few months, and then disappear
again. During the times when he was with his family, he indulged

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. Since the trial court
denied the Motion for Reconsideration, the Solicitor General
appealed to the CA. The CA affirmed the decision of the trial
court holding that Avelino Dagdag is psychologically
incapacitated not only because he failed to perform the duties and
obligations of a married person but because he is emotionally
immature and irresponsible, an alcoholic, and a criminal.
ISSUE:
Did the CA correctly declare 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?
HELD:
Whether or not psychological incapacity exists in a given case
calling for annulment of a marriage, depends crucially, more than
in any field of law, on the facts of the case. Each case must be
judged, not on the basis of a priori assumptions, predilections or
generalizations but according to its own facts.
In regard to psychological incapacity as a ground for annulment of
marriage, it is trite to say that no case is on all fours with
another case. 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.
In REPUBLIC VS. MOLINA (268 SCRA 198), the Court laid
down the GUIDELINES in the interpretation of Article 36 of the
Family
Code.
Taking into consideration these guidelines, it is evident that
Erlinda failed to comply with the above-mentioned evidentiary
requirements. Erlinda failed to comply with guideline number 2
which requires that the root cause of psychological incapacity

must be medically or clinically proven by experts, since no


psychiatrist or medical doctor testified as to the alleged
psychological incapacity of her husband.
Further, the allegation that the husband is a fugitive from justice
was not sufficiently proven. In fact, the crime for which he was
arrested was not even alleged. The investigating prosecutor was
likewise not given an opportunity to present controverting
evidence since the trial courts decision was prematurely rendered.
Sin vs. Sin

ISSUE: W/N the guidelines for psychological incapacity in the


case of Republic vs CA & Molina should be taken in
consideration in deciding in this case.

HELD: Yes. In the Molina case, guidelines were laid down by the
SC before a case would fall under the category of psychological
incapacity to declare a marriage null and void. This decision has
force and effect of a law. These guidelines are mandatory in
nature. Petition denied.

FACTS:

Florence, the petitioner, was married with Philipp, a Portuguese


citizen in January 1987. Florence filed in September 1994, a
complaint for the declaration of nullity of their marriage. Trial
ensued and the parties presented their respective documentary and
testimonial evidence. In June 1995, trial court dismissed
Florences petition and throughout its trial, the State did not
participate in the proceedings. While Fiscal Jabson filed with the
trial court a manifestation dated November 1994 stating that he
found no collusion between the parties, he did not actively
participated therein. Other than having appearance at certain
hearings, nothing more was heard of him.

ISSUE: Whether the declaration of nullity may be declared even


with the absence of the participation of the State in the
proceedings.

HELD:
Article 48 of the Family Code states that in all cases of
annulment or declaration of absolute nullity of marriage, the Court
shall order the prosecuting attorney or fiscal assigned to it to
appear on behalf of the state to take steps to prevent collusion
between the parties and to take care that evidence is not fabricated
or suppressed. The trial court should have ordered the prosecuting
attorney or fiscal and the Solicitor-General to appear as counsel
for the state. No decision shall be handed down unless the
Solicitor General issues a certification briefly stating his reasons
for his agreement or opposition as the case may be, to the
petition. The records are bereft of an evidence that the State
participated in the prosecution of the case thus, the case is
remanded for proper trial.
Pesca vs. Pesca
FACTS: The petitioner and respondent were married and had four
children. Lorna filed a petition for declaration of nullity of their
marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity on the part of
her husband. She alleged that he is emotionally immature and
irresponsible. He was cruel and violent. He was a habitual drinker.
Whenever she tells him to stop or at least minimize his drinking,
her husband would hurt her. There was even a time when she was
chased by a loaded shotgun and threatened to kill her in the
presence of their children. The children also suffered physical
violence. Petitioner and their children left the home. Two months
later, they returned upon the promise of respondent to change. But
he didnt. She was battered again. Her husband was imprisoned
for 11 days for slight physical injuries. RTC declared their
marriage null and void. CA reversed RTCs ruling. Hence, this
petition.

The "doctrine of stare decisis," ordained in Article 8 of the Civil


Code, expresses that judicial decisions applying or interpreting
the law shall form part of the legal system of the Philippines. The
rule follows the settled legal maxim legis interpretado legis
vim obtinet that the interpretation placed upon the written law
by a competent court has the force of law.
Choa vs. Choa
FACTS:
Leni Choa and Alfonso Choa got married in 1981. They have 2
children namely Cheryl Lynne and Albryan. In 1993, Alfonso
filed an annulment of his marriage to Leni. Afterwards, he filed
an amended complaint for the declaration of nullity of their
marriage based on psychological incapacity. The case went to
trial and the trial court further held that Alfonso presented
quantum evidence that Leni needs to controvert for the dismissal
of the case.

Alfonso claimed that Leni charged him with perjury, concubinage


and deportation which shows latters psychological incapacity
because according to him it clearly showed that his wife not only
wanted him behind bars but also to banish outside the country.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Alfonso Chua presented quantum evidence for the
declaration of nullity of his marriage with Leni on the ground of
psychological incapacity.
HELD:
The court held that documents presented by Alfonso during the
trial of the case do not in any way show the alleged psychological
incapacity of his wife. The evidence was insufficient and shows
grave abuse of discretion bordering on absurdity. Alfonso
testified and complained about three aspects of Lenis personality
namely lack of attention to children, immaturity, and lack of an
intention of procreative sexuality and none of these three, singly
or collectively, constitutes psychological incapacity.

Psychological incapacity must be characterized by gravity,


juridical antecedence, and incurability. It must be more than just a
difficulty, a refusal or a neglect in the performance of marital
obligations. A mere showing of irreconcilable differences and
conflicting personalities does not constitute psychological
incapacity.

Furthermore, the testimonial evidence from other witnesses failed


to identify and prove root cause of the alleged psychological
incapacity. It just established that the spouses had an
incompatibility or a defect that could possibly be treated or
alleviated through psychotherapy. The totality of evidence

presented was completely insufficient to sustain a finding of


psychological incapacity more so without any medical, psychiatric
or psychological examination.
Barcelona vs. CA
Facts: Respondent Tadeo and petitioner Diana were legally
married union begot five children

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)
Dedel vs. CA

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 ).

G.R. No. 151867, January 29, 2004

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:

Contributor: Alona Suzell B. Ruyeras

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

Ponente: YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

Facts:
David B. Dedel met respondent Sharon L. Corpuz
Dedel while he was working in the advertising business of his
father. The acquaintance led to courtship and romantic relations,
culminating in a civil wedding on September 28, 1966. This was
followed by a church wedding on May 20, 1967.
David avers that during the marriage, Sharon turned out
to be an irresponsible and immature wife and mother. She had
extra-marital affairs with several men.
Sharon was even confined in the Manila Medical City
for treatment by Dr. Lourdes Lapuz, a clinical psychiatrist. David
alleged that despite the treatment, Sharon did not stop her illicit
relationship with the Jordanian national named Mustafa Ibrahim,
whom she married and with whom she had two children.
However, when Mustafa Ibrahim left the country, Sharon returned
to Davud bringing along her two children by Ibrahim. David
accepted her back and even considered the two illegitimate
children as his own. However, on December 9, 1995, Sharon
abandoned David to join Ibrahim in Jordan with their two
children.
David filed on April 1, 1997 a petition seeking the
declaration of nullity of his marriage on the ground of
psychological incapacity.
Issue:

Diana claims that petitioner falls short of the guidelines stated in


Molina case and there is no cause for action .

Is Sharon and Davids marriage void ab initio on the


ground of Sharons psychological incapacity?

ISSUE: WON petitioner stated a cause of action against Diana

Ruling: NO

HELD: YES, since petition stated legal right of Tadeo, correlative


obligation of Diana, and her act or omission as seen in facts

Sharons sexual infidelity or perversion and


abandonment do not by themselves constitute psychological
incapacity within the contemplation of the Family Code. Neither
could her emotional immaturity and irresponsibility be equated
with psychological incapacity. It must be shown that these acts are
manifestations of a disordered personality which make respondent
completely unable to discharge the essential obligations of the
marital state, not merely due to her youth, immaturity or sexual
promiscuity.

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

At best, the circumstances relied upon by petitioner are


grounds for legal separation under Article 55 of the Family Code.

Article 53 shall likewise be legitimate.


SIMPLIFICATION

Tenebro vs. CA

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

G.R. No. 150758, February 18, 2004


Ponente: YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Contributor: Alona Suzell B. Ruyeras
Facts:

Veronico Tenebro, contracted marriage with Leticia


Ancajas on April 10, 1990. Tenebro and Ancajas lived together
continuously and without interruption until the latter part of 1991,
when Tenebro informed Ancajas that he had been previously
married to a certain Hilda Villareyes on November 10, 1986.
Tenebro showed Ancajas a photocopy of a marriage contract
between him and Villareyes. Invoking this previous marriage, he
left the conjugal dwelling which he shared with Ancajas, stating
that he was going to cohabit with Villareyes.
On January 25, 1993, Tenebro contracted yet another
marriage, this one with a certain Nilda Villegas. When Ancajas
learned of this third marriage, she verified from Villareyes
whether the latter was indeed married to Tenebro. In a handwritten
letter, Villareyes confirmed that Tenebro was indeed her husband.
Ancajas thereafter filed a complaint for bigamy against

In October 1986, Lolita and Toshio started a commonlaw relationship in Japan.


On January 14, 1988, while in the Philippines, she and
Toshio were married by Judge Isauro M. Balderia. One month
after their marriage, Toshio returned to Japan and promised to
return by Christmas to celebrate the holidays with his family.
After sending money to respondent for two months, Toshio
stopped giving financial support. She wrote him several times but
he never responded. Sometime in 1991, Lolita learned from her
friends that Toshio visited the Philippines but he did not bother to
see her and their child.
On June 17, 1996, Lolita Quintero-Hamano filed a
complaint for declaration of nullity of her marriage to her husband
Toshio Hamano, a Japanese national, on the ground of
psychological incapacity.

petitioner.
Tenebro, however, opposed saying that (a) his marriage
with Villareyes was void on the ground of the lack of a marriage
ceremony while (2) that with Ancajas was declared void on the
ground of psychological incapacity.

RTC rendered the marriage between Toshio and Lolita


null and void. The CA affirmed the RTCs decision.
Issues:

The RTC found Tenebro guilty beyond reasonable


doubt of the crime of bigamy. The Court of Appeals affirmed
RTCs decision.

Does abandonment and insensitivity to ones marital


responsibilities constitute psychological incapacity?
Does it make a difference that the spouse alleged to be
psychologically incapacitated is a foreigner?

Issue:

Ruling:

Can Tenebro invoke the nullity of his previous


marriages as a defense for the crime of bigamy?
Ruling: NO
As to his marriage with Villareyes, sufficient evidence
was presented to show its validity and existence.
As to his marriage with Ancajas, the subsequent
judicial declaration of nullity of marriage on the ground of
psychological incapacity does not retroact to the date of the
celebration of the marriage insofar as the Philippines penal laws
are concerned.
As such, an individual who contracts a second or
subsequent marriage during the subsistence of a valid marriage is
criminally liable for bigamy, notwithstanding the subsequent
declaration that the second marriage is void ab initio on the
ground of psychological incapacity.
Although the judicial declaration of the nullity of a
marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity retroacts to
the date of the celebration of the marriage insofar as the vinculum
between the spouses is concerned, it is significant to note that said
marriage is not without legal effects.
Among these effects is that children conceived or born
before the judgment of absolute nullity of the marriage shall be
considered legitimate. There is therefore a recognition written into
the law itself that such a marriage, although void ab initio, may
still produce legal consequences. Among these legal consequences
is incurring criminal liability for bigamy.

NO
We find that the totality of evidence presented fell short
of proving that Toshio was psychologically incapacitated to
assume his marital responsibilities. Toshios act of abandonment
was doubtlessly irresponsible but it was never alleged nor proven
to be due to some kind of psychological illness. After respondent
testified on how Toshio abandoned his family, no other evidence
was presented showing that his behavior was caused by a
psychological disorder. Although, as a rule, there was no need for
an actual medical examination, it would have greatly helped
respondents case had she presented evidence that medically or
clinically identified his illness. This could have been done through
an expert witness. This respondent did not do.
As we ruled in Molina, it is not enough to prove that a
spouse failed to meet his responsibility and duty as a married
person; it is essential that he must be shown to be incapable of
doing so due to some psychological, not physical, illness.
NO
In proving psychological incapacity, we find no
distinction between an alien spouse and a Filipino spouse. We
cannot be lenient in the application of the rules merely because
the spouse alleged to be psychologically incapacitated happens to
be a foreign national. The medical and clinical rules to determine
psychological incapacity were formulated on the basis of studies
of human behavior in general. Hence, the norms used for
determining psychological incapacity should apply to any person
regardless of nationality.
Juanita Carating-Siayngco vs Manuel Siayngco

Republic vs. Hamano


Facts:
G.R. No. 149498, May 20, 2004
Ponente: CORONA, J.
Contributor: Alona Suzell B. Ruyeras
Facts:

Petitioner Juanita Carating-Siayngco (Petitioner Juanita)


and respondent Manuel were married at civil rites on 27 June
1973 and before the Catholic Church on 11 August 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.

3.

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.

our book, however, these inadequacies of petitioner Juanita which


led respondent Manuel to file a case against her do not amount to
psychological incapacity to comply with the essential marital
obligations.

Manuel:
He alleged that all throughout their marriage, his wife exhibited
an over domineering and selfish attitude towards him which was
exacerbated by her extremely volatile and bellicose nature; that
she incessantly complained about almost everything and anyone
connected with him like his elderly parents, the staff in his office
and anything not of her liking like the physical arrangement,
tables, chairs, wastebaskets in his office and with other trivial
matters; that she showed no respect or regard at all for the prestige
and high position of his office as judge of the Municipal Trial
Court; that she would yell and scream at him and throw objects
around the house within the hearing of their neighbors; that she
cared even less about his professional advancement as she did not
even give him moral support and encouragement; that her
psychological incapacity arose before marriage, rooted in her
deep-seated resentment and vindictiveness for what she perceived
as lack of love and appreciation from her own parents since
childhood and that such incapacity is permanent and incurable
and, even if treatment could be attempted, it will involve time and
expense beyond the emotional and physical capacity of the
parties; and that he endured and suffered through his turbulent and
loveless marriage to her for twenty-two (22) years.
4. 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; that she is a loving wife and mother; that it was
respondent Manuel who was remiss in his marital and family
obligations; that she supported respondent Manuel in all his
endeavors despite his philandering; that she was raised in a real
happy family and had a happy childhood contrary to what was
stated in the complaint.
5. DR. EDUARDO MAABA, whose expertise as a psychiatrist
was admitted by respondent Manuel, [31] testified that he conducted
a psychiatric evaluation on petitioner Juanita, the results of which
were embodied in his report. Said report stated in part:
Based on the clinical interviews and the results of the
psychological tests, respondent Juanita Victoria CaratingSiayngco, was found to be a mature, conservative, religious and
highly intelligent woman who possess [sic] more than enough
psychological potentials for a mutually satisfying long term
heterosexual relationship. Superego is strong and she is respectful
of traditional institutions of society like the institution of
marriage. She was also found to be a loving, nurturing and selfsacrificing woman who is capable of enduring severe
environmental stress in her social milieu. Finally, she is realityoriented and therefore capable of rendering fair and sound
decision.
In summary, the psychiatric evaluation found the respondent to be
psychologically capacitated to comply with the basic and essential
obligations of marriage.
Issue: WON the marriage is null and void due to psych incapacity
Ruling:
On the other hand, sexual intimacy for procreation is a non-issue
herein. Rather, we have here a case of a husband who is
constantly embarrassed by his wifes outbursts and overbearing
ways, who finds his wifes obsession with cleanliness and the tight
reign on his wallet irritants and who is wounded by her lack of
support and respect for his person and his position as a Judge. In

What emerges from the psychological report of Dr. Garcia as well


as from the testimonies of the parties and their witnesses is that
the only essential marital obligation which respondent Manuel
was not able to fulfill, if any, is the obligation of fidelity. [49]Sexual
infidelity, per se, however, does not constitute psychological
incapacity within the contemplation of the Family Code. [50] It must
be shown that respondent Manuels unfaithfulness is a
manifestation of a disordered personality which makes him
completely unable to discharge the essential obligations of the
marital state[51] and not merely due to his ardent wish to have a
child of his own flesh and blood. In herein case, respondent
Manuel has admitted that: I had [extra-marital] affairs because I
wanted to have a child at that particular point.

Juanita:
espondent Manuel failed to prove that his wifes lack of respect for
him, her jealousies and obsession with cleanliness, her outbursts
and her controlling nature (especially with respect to his salary),
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.[53] In fact, Dr. Maaba, whose
expertise as a psychiatrist was admitted by respondent Manuel,
reported that petitioner was psychologically capacitated to comply
with the basic and essential obligations of marriage.
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.

Buenaventura vs. CA

Facts: Noel Buenaventura filed a position for the declaration of


nullity of marriage on the ground that both he and his wife were
psychologically
incapacitated.
The RTC in its decision, declared the marriage entered into
between petitioner and respondent null and violation ordered the
liquidation of the assets of the conjugal partnership property;
ordered petitioner a regular support in favor of his son in the
amount of 15,000 monthly, subject to modification as the
necessity arises, and awarded the care and custody of the minor to
his mother.
Petitioner appealed before the CA. While the appeal was pending,
the CA, upon respondents motion issued a resolution increasing
the support pendants like to P20, 000.
The CA dismissal petitioner appeal for lack of merit and affirmed
in to the RTC decision. Petitioner motion for reconsideration was
denied, hence this petition.

Issue:
Ruling:
Psychological incapacity has been defined, thus:

. . . no less than a mental (not physical) incapacity that causes a


party to be truly incognitive of the basic marital covenants that
concomitantly must be assumed and discharged by the parties
to the marriage which, as so expressed by Article 68 of the
Family Code, include their mutual obligations to live together,
observe love, respect and fidelity and render help and support.
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. . . .[18]
The Court of Appeals and the trial court considered the acts
of the petitioner after the marriage as proof of his psychological
incapacity, and therefore a product of his incapacity or inability to
comply with the essential obligations of marriage. Nevertheless,
said courts considered these acts as willful and hence as grounds
for granting moral damages. It is contradictory to characterize acts
as a product of psychological incapacity, and hence beyond the
control of the party because of an innate inability, while at the
same time considering the same set of acts as willful. By declaring
the petitioner as psychologically incapacitated, the possibility of
awarding moral damages on the same set of facts was negated.
The award of moral damages should be predicated, not on the
mere act of entering into the marriage, but on specific evidence
that it was done deliberately and with malice by a party who had
knowledge of his or her disability and yet willfully concealed the
same. No such evidence appears to have been adduced in this
case.

Does abandonment and sexual infidelity per se constitute


psychological incapacity?
Held:
The evidences presented by the respondent fail to establish
psychological incapacity.
Furthermore, Article 36 contemplates downright incapacity or
inability to take cognizance of and to assume the basic marital
obligations; not a mere refusal, neglect or difficulty, much less, ill
will, on the part of the errant spouse. Irreconcilable differences,
conflicting
personalities,
emotional
immaturity
and
irresponsibility, physical abuse, habitual alcoholism, sexual
infidelity or perversion, and abandonment, by themselves, also do
not warrant a finding of psychological incapacity under the said
Article.
Finally, Article 36 is not to be confused with a divorce law
thatcuts the marital bond at the time the causes therefore manifest
themselves. It refers to a serious psychological illness afflicting
aparty even before the celebration of 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.
Antonio vs. Reyes
G.R. No. 155800, March 10, 2006
Ponente: TINGA, J.

For the same reason, since psychological incapacity means


that one is truly incognitive of the basic marital covenants that one
must assume and discharge as a consequence of marriage, it
removes the basis for the contention that the petitioner purposely
deceived the private respondent. If the private respondent was
deceived, it was not due to a willful act on the part of the
petitioner. Therefore, the award of moral damages was without
basis in law and in fact.
Republic vs. Iyoy
The case is a petition for review by the RP represented by the
Office of the Solicitor General on certiorari praying for
thereversal of the decision of the CA dated July 30, 2001
affirming the judgment of the RTC declaring the marriage of
Crasus L. Iyoy(respondent) and Ada Rosal-Iyoy null and void
based on Article 36.
On December 16, 1961 Crasus Iyoy and Ada Rosal-Iyoy married
each other, they had 5 children. In 1984, Fely went to the US,
inthe same year she sent letters to Crasus asking him to sign
divorce papers. In 1985, Crasus learned that Fely married an
Americanand had a child. Fely went back to the Philippines on
several occasions, during one she attended the marriage of one of
her children inwhich she used her husbands last name as hers in
the invitation.
March 25, 1997, Crasus filed a complaint for declaration of nullity
alleging that Felys acts brought danger and dishonor to the
family and were manifestations of her psychological incapacity.
Crasus submitted his testimony, the certification of the recording
of their marriage contract, and the invitation where Fely used her
newhusbands last name as evidences.
Fely denied the claims and asserted that Crasus was a drunkard,
womanizer, had no job, and thatsince 1988 she was already an
American citizen and not covered by our laws. The RTC found the
evidences sufficient and granted thedecree; it was affirmed in the
CA.
Issue:

Contributor: Alona Suzell B. Ruyeras


Facts:
Statistics never lie, but lovers often do, quipped a sage.
Leonilo Antonio and Marie Ivonne Reyes met in
August 1989. Barely a year after their first meeting, they got
married before a minister of the Gospel at the Manila City Hall,
and through a subsequent church wedding at the Sta. Rosa de
Lima Parish on 6 December 1990. Out of their union, a child was
born on 19 April 1991, who sadly died five (5) months later.
On 8 March 1993, Leonilo filed a petition to have his
marriage to Marie Ivonne declared null and void on the ground of
psychological incapacity.
Leonilo claimed that Marie Ivonne persistently lied
about herself, the people around her, her occupation, income,
educational attainment and other events or things, to wit:
(1) She concealed the fact that she previously gave
birth to an illegitimate son, and instead introduced the boy as the
adopted child of her family;
(2) She fabricated a story that her brother-in-law
attempted to rape and kill her;
(3) She misrepresented herself as a psychiatrist to her
obstetrician and told some of her friends that she graduated with a
degree in psychology;
(4) She claimed to be a singer or a free-lance voice
talent affiliated with Blackgold Recording Company (Blackgold);
(5) She invented friends named Babes Santos and Via
Marquez, and under those names, sent lengthy letters to petitioner
claiming to be from Blackgold and touting her as the "number one
moneymaker" in the commercial industry worth P2 million.
Leonilo later found out that Marie Ivonne herself wrote those
letters;

(6) She altered her payslip to make it appear that she


earned a higher income; and
(7) She exhibited jealousies over him to the extent of
calling up his officemates to monitor his whereabouts.
The RTC rendered the marriage between Leonilo and
Marie Ivonne as null and void ab initio. The CA, however,
reversed the RTCs judgment.
Issue:
Is Marie Ivonnes propensity to lie about almost
everything tantamount to psychological incapacity?

case, the State did not actively participate in the prosecution of the
case at the trial level. The State should have been given the
opportunity to present controverting evidence before the judgment
was rendered.
Truly, only the active participation of the Public Prosecutor or the
OSG will ensure that the interest of the State is represented and
protected in proceedings for annulment and declaration of nullity
of marriages by preventing collusion between the parties, or the
fabrication or suppression of evidence.
Ferraris vs. Ferraris
G.R. No. 162368, July 17, 2006

Ruling: YES

Ponente: YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

We find that the present case sufficiently satisfies the


guidelines in Molina.

Contributor: Alona Suzell B. Ruyeras

Marie Ivonne practically lived in a world of make


believe making her therefore not in a position to give meaning and
significance to her marriage with Leonilo.
As correctly concluded by the psychiatrist presented by
Leonilo, such repeated lying is abnormal and pathological and
amounts to psychological incapacity.

Facts:
Ma. Armida Perez-Ferraris (Amy) was married to Brix
Ferraris (Brix).
During their relatively short marriage, Amy was happy
and contented with her life in the company of Brix. In fact, by
Amy's own reckoning, Brix was a responsible and loving
husband.

Republic vs. Mwlgar


FACTS:
Norma and Eulogio were married on March 27, 1965. Norma filed
for declaration of nullity of her marriage on the ground of
Eulogios psychological incapacity alleging his immaturity,
habitual alcoholism, unbearable jealousy, maltreatment,
constitutional laziness, and abandonment of his family since
December 27, 1985.
ISSUE: Whether or not the alleged psychological incapacity of
respondent is in the nature contemplated by Article 36 of the
Family Code.

Their problems, however, began when Amy started


doubting Brix's fidelity. They started fighting about the calls from
women that Brix allegedly received. Brix, since then, allegedly
failed to perform his so-called marital obligations.
Amy thereafter filed a petition for the declaration of
nullity of her marriage with Brix on the ground of psychological
incapacity. She alleged that Brix was violent whenever he
experiences epileptic attacks and that he was not faithful to her.
On February 20, 2001, the RTC rendered a decision
denying the petition. The CA affirmed RTCs decision.
Issue:

HELD: No. The circumstances relied upon by Norma are grounds


for legal separation under Article 55 of the Family Code. As the
Court ruled in Republic of the Philippines v. Molina, it is not
enough to prove that a spouse failed to meet his responsibility and
duty as a married person, it is essential that he must be shown to
be incapable of doing so due to some psychological, not physical,
illness.
There was no proof of a natal or supervening disabling factor in
the person, an adverse integral element in the personality structure
that effectively incapacitates a person from accepting and
complying with the obligations essential to marriage. Further, no
other evidence was presented to show that Eulogio was not
cognizant of the basic marital obligations as outlined in Articles
68 to 72, 220, 221, and 225 of the Family Code.
It was not sufficiently proved that Eulogio was really incapable of
fulfilling his duties due to some incapacity of a psychological
nature, and not merely physical. All told, in order that the
allegation of psychological incapacity may not be considered a
mere fabrication, evidence other than Normas lone testimony
should have been adduced. While an actual medical, psychiatric
or psychological examination is not a condition sine qua non to a
finding of psychological incapacity, an expert witness would have
strengthened Normas claim of Eulogios alleged psychological
incapacity.
Normas omission to present one is fatal to her position. There can
be no conclusion of psychological incapacity where there is
absolutely no showing that the "defects" were already present at
the inception of the marriage or that they are incurable. In this

Does infidelity and violent tendencies during epileptic


attacks tantamount to psychological incapacity?
Ruling: NO
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.
There is no 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.
Amy's evidence showed that Brix's alleged failure to
perform his so-called marital obligations was not at all a
manifestation of some deep-seated, grave, permanent and
incurable psychological malady. To be sure, the couple's
relationship before the marriage and even during their brief union
(for well about a year or so) was not all bad.
We find Brix'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.
While petitioner's marriage with the respondent failed
and appears to be without hope of reconciliation, the remedy
however is not always to have it declared void ab initio on the
ground of psychological incapacity. An unsatisfactory marriage,
however, is not a null and void marriage.

Ngo-Te vs. Yu-Te


G.R. No. 16179, February 13, 2009
Ponente: NACHURA, J.
Contributor: Alona Suzell B. Ruyeras
Facts:
Edward Kenneth Ngo Te first got a glimpse of
respondent Rowena Ong Gutierrez Yu-Te in a gathering organized
by the Filipino-Chinese association in their college. Sharing
similar angst towards their families, the two understood one
another and developed a certain degree of closeness towards each
other.
In March 1996, or around three months after their first
meeting, Rowena asked Edward that they elope. At first, he
refused, bickering that he was young and jobless. Her persistence,
however, made him relent. Thus, they left Manila and sailed to
Cebu that month; he, providing their travel money and she,
purchasing the boat ticket.
However, Edwards P80,000.00 lasted for only a
month. And they could not find a job. In April 1996, they decided
to go back to Manila. Rowena proceeded to her uncles house and
Edward to his parents home. As his family was abroad, and
Rowena kept on telephoning him, threatening him that she would
commit suicide, Edward agreed to stay with Rowena at her
uncles place.
On April 23, 1996, Rowenas uncle brought the two to
a court to get married. He was then 25 years old, and she, 20. The
two then continued to stay at her uncles place where Edward was
treated like a prisonerhe was not allowed to go out
unaccompanied. Her uncle also showed Edward his guns and
warned the latter not to leave Rowena. Rowena suggested that
Edward should get his inheritance so that they could live on their
own. Edward talked to his father about this, but the patriarch got
mad, told Edward that he would be disinherited, and insisted that
Edward must go home.

Ruling: YES
The parties whirlwind relationship lasted more or less
six (6) months. They met in January 1996, eloped in March,
exchanged marital vows in May, and parted ways in June. The
psychologist who provided expert testimony found both parties
psychologically incapacitated. Edwards behavioral pattern falls
under the classification of dependent personality disorder, and
Rowenas, that of the narcissistic and antisocial personality
disorder.
Indeed, Edward, who is afflicted with dependent
personality disorder, cannot assume the essential marital
obligations of living together, observing love, respect and fidelity
and rendering help and support, for he is unable to make everyday
decisions without advice from others, allows others to make most
of his important decisions, tends to agree with people even when
he believes they are wrong, has difficulty doing things on his own,
volunteers to do things that are demeaning in order to get approval
from other people, feels uncomfortable or helpless when alone
and is often preoccupied with fears of being abandoned. As
clearly shown in this case, petitioner followed everything dictated
to him by the persons around him. He is insecure, weak and
gullible, has no sense of his identity as a person, has no cohesive
self to speak of, and has no goals and clear direction in life.
Although on a different plane, the same may also be said
of Rowena. Her being afflicted with antisocial personality
disorder makes her unable to assume the essential marital
obligations. This finding takes into account her disregard for the
rights of others, her abuse, mistreatment and control of others
without remorse, her tendency to blame others, and her
intolerance of the conventional behavioral limitations imposed by
society. Moreover, as shown in this case, Rowena is impulsive and
domineering; she had no qualms in manipulating petitioner with
her threats of blackmail and of committing suicide.
Both parties being afflicted with grave, severe and
incurable psychological incapacity, the precipitous marriage
which they contracted on April 23, 1996 is thus, declared null and
void.
Republic vs. CA and De Quintos
G.R. No. 159594, November 12, 2012
Ponente: BERSAMIN, J.
Contributor: Alona Suzell B. Ruyeras
Facts:
Eduardo and Catalina were married on March 16, 1977.

After a month, Edward escaped from the house of


Rowenas uncle, and stayed with his parents. His family then hid
him from Rowena.

On April 6, 1998, Eduardo filed a petition for the


declaration of nullity of their marriage citing Catalinas
psychological incapacity.

In June 1996, Edward was able to talk to Rowena.


Unmoved by his persistence that they should live with his parents,
she said that it was better for them to live separate lives. They
then parted ways.

Catalina did not interpose any objection to the petition,


but prayed to be given her share in the conjugal house and lot.

After almost four years, Edward filed a petition for the


declaration of the nullity of their marriage.
The RTC declared the marriage between Edward and
Rowena null and void. The CA reversed the RTCs decision.

Eduardo testified that Catalina always left their house


without his consent; that she engaged in petty arguments with
him; that she constantly refused to give in to his sexual needs; that
she spent most of her time gossiping with neighbors instead of
doing the household chores and caring for their adopted daughter;
that she squandered by gambling all his remittances as an overseas
worker in Qatar since 1993; and that she abandoned the conjugal
home in 1997 to live with Bobbie Castro, her paramour.

Issue:
Is the marriage between Rowena and Edward void ab
initio on the ground of their psychological incapacity?

Eduardo presented the results of the neuro-psychiatric


evaluation conducted by Dr. Annabelle L. Reyes, a psychiatrist.

Based on the tests she administered on Catalina, Dr.


Reyes opined that Catalina exhibited traits of Borderline
Personality Disorder.
The RTC granted Eduardos petition. The CA affirmed
the RTCs decision.
Issue:
Is the marriage between Eduardo and Catalina null and
void on the ground of Catalinas psychological incapacity?
Ruling: NO
Psychological incapacity contemplates an incapacity or
inability to take cognizance of and to assume basic marital
obligations; not merely the difficulty, refusal, or neglect in the
performance of marital obligations or ill will.
Firstly, Catalinas supposed behavior were not even
established. Eduardo presented no other witnesses to corroborate
his allegations.
Secondly, the results of the neuro-psychological
evaluation by Dr. Reyes were ostensibly vague about the root
cause and gravity of Catalinas alleged psychological incapacity.
Thirdly, we have said that the expert evidence
presented in cases of declaration of nullity of marriage based on
psychological incapacity presupposes a thorough and in-depth
assessment of the parties by the psychologist or expert. However,
Dr. Reyes had only one interview with Catalina, and did not
personally seek out and meet with other persons, aside from
Eduardo.
Fourthly, the only fact established here, which Catalina
admitted, was her abandonment of the conjugal home to live with
another man. Yet, abandonment and sexual infidelity are not valid
grounds for the declaration of nullity of marriage.
Mendoza vs. Republic
G.R. No. 157649, November 12, 2012
Ponente: BERSAMIN, J.

To make matters worse, Dominic was fired from his


employment after he ran away with P164,000.00 belonging to his
employer. He was convicted with violation of Batas Pambansa
Blg. 22 and estafa. Arabelle also discovered that he had also
swindled many clients.
On October 15, 1997, Arabelle asked Dominic for
"time and space to think things over." A month later, she refused
his attempt at reconciliation, causing him to threaten to commit
suicide. At that, she and her family immediately went to live in
another place concealed from him.
Arabelle then filed in the RTC her petition for the
declaration of the nullity of her marriage with Dominic based on
his psychological incapacity.
RTC ruled that the marriage between Arabelle and
Dominic is void ab initio. The CA reversed RTCs decision.
Issue:
Is the marriage between Arabelle and Dominic void ab
initio on the ground of psychological incapacity?
Ruling: NO
The ill-feelings that Arabelle harbored towards
Dominic, which she admitted during her consultation with Dr.
Samson, furnished the basis to doubt the findings of her expert
witness. Dr. Samson, herself, conceded that there was the need for
her to resort to other people in order to verify the facts derived
from Arabelle about Dominics psychological profile considering
the ill-feelings she harbored towards him. It turned out, however,
that the only people she interviewed about Dominic were those
whom Arabelle herself referred.
In fine, the failure to examine and interview Dominic
himself naturally cast serious doubt on Dr. Samsons findings.
In light of the foregoing, even if the expert opinions of
psychologists are not conditions sine qua non in the granting of
petitions for declaration of nullity of marriage, the actual medical
examination of the allegedly psychologically incapacitated
spouse can be dispensed with only if the totality of evidence
presented was enough to support a finding of his psychological
incapacity.

Contributor: Alona Suzell B. Ruyeras


Facts:
Arabelle and Dominic had been next-door neighbors in
the appartelle they were renting while they were still in college.
After a month of courtship, they became intimate and
their intimacy ultimately led to her pregnancy. They got married
on her eighth month of pregnancy.

Republic vs. Encelan


G.R. No. 170022, January 9, 2013
Ponente: BRION, J.
Contributor: Alona Suzell B. Ruyeras
Facts:

Dominic remained jobless and dependent upon his


father for support until he finished his college course.
Arabelle took on various jobs to meet the familys
needs. She shouldered all of the familys expenses.
In September 1994, she discovered his illicit
relationship his co-employee. Eventually, communication between
them became rare until they started to sleep in separate rooms.
In November 1995, Dominic gave her a Daihatsu
Charade car as a birthday present. He asked her to issue two blank
checks that he claimed would be for the cars insurance coverage.
She soon found out, however, that the checks were paid for his
personal needs. Worse, she also found out that he did not pay for
the car itself, forcing her to rely on her father-in-law to pay part of
the cost of the car, leaving her to bear the balance of P120,000.00.

On August 25, 1979, Cesar married Lolita.


To support his family, Cesar went to work in Saudi
Arabia.
While still in Saudi Arabia, Cesar learned that Lolita
had been having an illicit affair with Alvin Perez. Lolita allegedly
left the conjugal home with her children and lived with Alvin.
Since then, Cesar and Lolita had been separated.
On June 16, 1995, Cesar filed with the RTC a petition
against Lolita for the declaration of the nullity of his marriage
based on Lolitas psychological incapacity.
Lolita denied that she had an affair with Alvin; she
contended that Alvin used to be an associate in her promotions

business. She insisted that she is not psychologically incapacitated


and that she left their home because of irreconcilable differences
with her mother-in-law.
Cesar presented the psychological evaluation report
prepared by Dr. Fareda Fatima Flores who found that Lolita was
"not suffering from any form of major psychiatric illness," but had
been "unable to provide the expectations expected of her for a
good and lasting marital relationship"; also, her "transferring from
one job to the other depicts some interpersonal problems with coworkers".
RTC declared Cesars marriage to Lolita void. The CA
originally set aside the RTCs verdict but later on affirmed the
RTCs decision.
Issue:
Is Cesar and Lolitas marriage void ab initio on the
ground of Lolitas psychological incapacity?
Ruling: NO

In interpreting Article 36 of the Family Code, we have


repeatedly stressed that psychological incapacity contemplates
"downright incapacity or inability to take cognizance of and to
assume the basic marital obligations"; not merely the refusal,
neglect or difficulty, much less ill will, on the part of the errant
spouse.
Sexual infidelity and abandonment of the conjugal
dwelling, even if true, do not necessarily constitute psychological
incapacity; these are simply grounds for legal separation. To
constitute psychological incapacity, it must be shown that the
unfaithfulness and abandonment are manifestations of a
disordered personality that completely prevented the erring spouse
from discharging the essential marital obligations.
Dr. Flores psychological evaluation report on Lolita, in
fact, established that Lolita did not suffer from any major
psychiatric illness. Dr. Flores observation on Lolitas
interpersonal problems with co-workers cannot simply be equated
with a wifes psychological fitness as a spouse. Workplace
obligations and responsibilities are poles apart from their marital
counterparts.

You might also like