Professional Documents
Culture Documents
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."
Ruling:
Ruling:
Santos vs. CA
Tuazon vs. CA
Facts:
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:
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;
Facts:
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.
1.
2.
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
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:
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.
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
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:
Ruling: NO
Tenebro vs. CA
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.
Issue:
Ruling:
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
3.
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
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
Issue:
Ruling:
Psychological incapacity has been defined, thus:
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.
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.
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.
Issue:
Is the marriage between Rowena and Edward void ab
initio on the ground of their psychological incapacity?