Republic vs.

Dagdag
Facts: Erlinda Matias married Avelino Parangan Dagdag and begot two children.
Avelino would disappear for months without explanation and attend to drinking sprees
with friends and return home drunk when with the family; forced his wife to have sexual
intercourse and if she resisted, would inflict injure to the latter. He left his family again
and never heard of him. Erlinda was constrained to look for a job to fend for
themselves. Erlinda then learned that Avelino was imprisoned for some crime, and that
he escaped from jail who remains at-large at date.Erlinda filed for judicial declaration of
nullity of marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the
Family Code. The trial court rendered a decision declaring the marriage void under
Artcile 36 of the Family Code. The Solicitor General appealed to the Court of Appeals
raising that the lower court erred in declaring the apellee's marriage to Avelino Dagdag
null and void on the ground of psychological incapacity of the latter, pursuant to Article
36 of the Family Code, the psychological incapacity of the nature contemplated by the
law not having been proven to exist. However, the Court of Appeals affirmed the
decision of the trial court
Issue: Whether or not immaturity and irresponsibility, habitual alcoholic, and a fugitive
from justice constitutes psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code to
declare the marriage null and void.
Ruling: No. The ruling in Republic v. Court of Appeals and Molina case is reiterated
herein in which the Court laid down the following GUIDELINES in the interpretation and
application of Article 36 of the Family Code:
(1) The burden of proof to show the nullity of the marriage belongs to the plaintiff.
(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. Article 36 of the Family Code requires that the incapacity must
be psychological - not physical, although its manifestations and/or symptoms may be
physical.
(3) The incapacity must be proven to be existing at the time of the celebration of the
marriage.
(4) Such incapacity must also be shown to be medically or clinically permanent
or incurable. Such incurability may be absolute or even relative only in regard to the
other spouse, not necessarily absolutely against everyone of the same sex.
(5) Such illness must be grave enough to bring about the disability of the party to
assume the essential obligations of marriage.
(6) The essential marital obligations must be those embraced by Articles 68 up to 71 of
the Family Codeas regards the husband and wife as well as Articles 220, 221 and 225
of the same Code in regard to parents and their children

(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.
(8) The trial court must order the prosecuting attorney or fiscal and the Solicitor General
to appear as counsel for the state.

Aurelio vs. Aurelio

FACTS:
Petitioner Danilo A. Aurelio and respondent Vida Ma. Corazon Aurelio were married on
March 23, 1988. They have two sons, namely: Danilo Miguel and Danilo Gabriel.
On May 9, 2002, respondent filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City,
Branch 94, a Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage. In her petition, respondent
alleged that both she and petitioner were psychologically incapacitated of performing
and complying with their respective essential marital obligations. In addition, respondent
alleged that such state of psychological incapacity was present prior and even during
the time of the marriage ceremony. Hence, respondent prays that her marriage be
declared null and void under Article 36 of the Family Code. It alleged among others that
said psychological incapacity was manifested by lack of financial support from the
husband; his lack of drive and incapacity to discern the plight of his working wife. The
husband exhibited consistent jealousy and distrust towards his wife. His moods
alternated between hostile defiance and contrition. He refused to assist in the
maintenance of the family.
On the side of the wife on the other hand, is effusive and displays her feelings openly
and freely. Her feelings change very quickly from joy to fury to misery to despair,
depending on her day-to-day experiences. Her tolerance for boredom was very low. She
was emotionally immature; she cannot stand frustration or disappointment. She cannot
delay to gratify her needs. She gets upset when she cannot get what she wants. Selfindulgence lifts her spirits immensely. Their hostility towards each other distorted their
relationship. Their incapacity to accept and fulfill the essential obligations of marital life
led to the breakdown of their marriage.
On November 8, 2002, petitioner filed a Motion to Dismiss the petition. Petitioner
principally argued that the petition failed to state a cause of action and that it failed to
meet the standards set by the Court for the interpretation and implementation of Article
36 of the Family Code.
RTC denied the petition. CA affirmed.
ISSUE:

Whether or not the marriage shall be declared null and void?

HELD:
Petition denied. Marriage is null and void.
RATIO:
First, contrary to petitioners assertion, this Court finds that the root cause of
psychological incapacity was stated and alleged in the complaint. We agree with the
manifestation of respondent that the family backgrounds of both petitioner and
respondent were discussed in the complaint as the root causes of their psychological
incapacity. Moreover, a competent and expert psychologist clinically identified the same
as the root causes.
Second, the petition likewise alleged that the illness of both parties was of such grave a
nature as to bring about a disability for them to assume the essential obligations of
marriage. The psychologist reported that respondent suffers from Histrionic Personality
Disorder with Narcissistic Features. Petitioner, on the other hand, allegedly suffers from
Passive Aggressive (Negativistic) Personality Disorder. The incapacity of both parties to
perform their marital obligations was alleged to be grave, incorrigible and incurable.
Lastly, this Court also finds that the essential marital obligations that were not complied
with were alleged in the petition. As can be easily gleaned from the totality of the
petition, respondents allegations fall under Article 68 of the Family Code which states
that the husband and the wife are obliged to live together, observe mutual love, respect
and fidelity, and render mutual help and support.

DOCTRINE:
The following are the guidelines to aid the courts in the disposition of cases involving
psychological incapacity: (1) Burden of proof to show the nullity of the marriage belongs
to the plaintiff; (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; (3) The incapacity must be proven to be existing at
the time of the celebration of the marriage; (4) Such incapacity must also be shown to
be medically or clinically permanent or incurable; (5) Such illness must be grave enough
to bring about the disability of the party to assume the essential obligations of marriage;
(6) The essential marital obligations must be those embraced by Articles 68 up to 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. Such non-complied marital
obligation(s) must also be stated in the petition, proven by evidence and included in the
text of the decision; (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; (8) The trial court must order 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, which will be quoted in the decision, briefly stating therein his reasons for
his agreement or opposition, as the case may be, to the petition.

Perez-Ferraris vs. Ferraris

On February 20, 2001, the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City, Branch 151
rendered a Decision denying the petition for declaration of nullity of petitioner's marriage
with Brix Ferraris. The trial court noted that suffering from epilepsy does not amount to
psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Civil Code and the evidence on record was
insufficient to prove infidelity.
On April 20, 2001, petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied,
the trial court reiterated that there was no evidence that respondent is
mentally or physically ill to such an extent that he could not have known the
obligations he was assuming, or knowing them, could not have given valid assumption
thereof .
Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals which affirmed in to the judgment of
the trial court.
On June 9, 2004, Court of Appeals resolves the motion for reconsideration filed by petitioner
Ma. Armida Perez-Ferraris, denying the petition for review on certiorari of the Decision and Resolution
of the said court dated April 30, 2003 and February 24, 2004, respectively, for failure of the petitioner to
sufficiently show that the Court of Appeals committed any reversible error.

ISSUE
: Whether or not psychological incapacity exists in a given case calling for annulment
of marriage will render the judgment in favor to the petitioner?
HELD:
The motion for reconsideration of the Resolution dated June 9, 2004 denying the petition for review on
certiorari for failure of the petitioner to sufficiently show that the Court of Appeals committed any
reversible error, is DENIED WITH FINALITY
RATIONALE:
The evidence on record did not convincingly establish that respondent was
suffering from psychological incapacity. There is absolutely no showing that his
"defects" were already present at the inception of the marriage, or that those are incurable.
The Court found Brixs alleged mixed personality disorder, the "leavingthe-house" attitude whenever he and Amy quarreled, the violent tendencies during
epileptic attacks, the sexual infidelity, the abandonment and lack of support, and his

preference to spend more time with his band mates than his family, are not rooted
on some debilitating psychological condition but a mere refusal or unwillingness to assume the
essential obligations of marriage.
A mere showing of irreconcilable differences and conflicting
personalities in no wise constitute psychological incapacity; it is not enough to prove
that the parties failed to meet their responsibilities and duties as married persons;
it is essential that they must be shown to be in capable of doing so due to some
psychological, not physical, illness.
The intendment of the law has been to confine the meaning of psychological in capacity to
the most serious cases of personality disorders clearly demonstrative of an utter
insensitivity or inability to give meaning and significance to the marriage.

Chi Ming Tsoi vs. Court of Appeals

FACTS:
Chi Ming Tsoi and Gina Lao Tsoi was married in 1988. After the celebration of their
wedding, they proceed to the house of defendants mother. There was no sexual
intercourse between them during their first night and same thing happened until their
fourth night. In an effort to have their honeymoon in a private place, they went to
Baguio but Ginas relatives went with them. Again, there was no sexual intercourse
since the defendant avoided by taking a long walk during siesta or sleeping on a rocking
chair at the living room.
Since May 1988 until March 1989 they slept together in the same bed but no attempt of
sexual intercourse between them. Because of this, they submitted themselves for
medical examination to a urologist in Chinese General Hospital in 1989. The result of
the physical examination of Gina was disclosed, while that of the husband was kept
confidential even the medicine prescribed. There were allegations that the reason why
Chi Ming Tsoi married her is to maintain his residency status here in the country. Gina
does not want to reconcile with Chi Ming Tsoi and want their marriage declared void on
the ground of psychological incapacity. On the other hand, the latter does not want to
have their marriage annulled because he loves her very much, he has no defect on his
part and is physically and psychologically capable and since their relationship is still
young, they can still overcome their differences. Chi Ming Tsoi submitted himself to
another physical examination and the result was there is not evidence of impotency and
he is capable of erection.
ISSUE: Whether Chi Ming Tsois refusal to have sexual intercourse with his wife
constitutes psychological incapacity.
HELD:
The abnormal reluctance or unwillingness to consummate his marriage is strongly
indicative of a serious personality disorder which to the mind of the Supreme Court
clearly demonstrates an utter insensitivity or inability to give meaning and significance
tot the marriage within the meaning of Article 36 of the Family Code.

If a spouse, although physically capable but simply refuses to perform his or her
essential marital obligations and the refusal is senseless and constant, Catholic
marriage tribunals attribute the causes to psychological incapacity than to stubborn
refusal. Furthermore, one of the essential marital obligations under the Family Code is
to procreate children thus constant non-fulfillment of this obligation will finally destroy
the integrity and wholeness of the marriage.

Santos vs. Court of Appeals and Julia Rosario Bedia

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

Psychological incapacity must be characterized by (a) gravity, (b) juridical

antecedence, and (c) incurability. The incapacity must be grave or serious such that the
party would be incapable of carrying out the ordinary duties required in marriage; it must
be rooted in the history of the party antedating the marriage, although the overt
manifestations may emerge only after the marriage; and it must be incurable or, even if
it were otherwise, the cure would be beyond the means of the party involved.

Republic of the Philippines vs. Court of Appeals and Molina

FACTS:
The case at bar challenges the decision of CA affirming the marriage of the respondent
Roridel Molina to Reynaldo Molina void in the ground of psychological incapacity. The
couple got married in 1985, after a year, Reynaldo manifested signs of immaturity and
irresponsibility both as husband and a father preferring to spend more time with friends
whom he squandered his money, depends on his parents for aid and assistance and
was never honest with his wife in regard to their finances. In 1986, the couple had an
intense quarrel and as a result their relationship was estranged. Roridel quit her work
and went to live with her parents in Baguio City in 1987 and a few weeks later,
Reynaldo left her and their child. Since then he abandoned them.
ISSUE: Whether or not the marriage is void on the ground of psychological incapacity.
HELD:
The marriage between Roridel and Reynaldo subsists and remains valid. What
constitutes psychological incapacity is not mere showing of irreconcilable differences
and confliction personalities. It is indispensable that the parties must exhibit inclinations
which would not meet the essential marital responsibilities and duties due to some
psychological illness. Reynaldos action at the time of the marriage did not manifest
such characteristics that would comprise grounds for psychological incapacity. The
evidence shown by Roridel merely showed that she and her husband cannot get along
with each other and had not shown gravity of the problem neither its juridical
antecedence nor its incurability. In addition, the expert testimony by Dr Sison showed
no incurable psychiatric disorder but only incompatibility which is not considered as
psychological incapacity.
The following are the guidelines as to the grounds of psychological incapacity laid set
forth in this case:

burden of proof to show nullity belongs to the plaintiff

root causes of the incapacity must be medically and clinically inclined
such incapacity should be in existence at the time of the marriage
such incapacity must be grave so as to disable the person in complying with the
essentials of marital obligations of marriage

such incapacity must be embraced in Art. 68-71 as well as Art 220, 221 and 225
of the Family Code
decision of the National Matrimonial Appellate Court or the Catholic Church must
be respected
court shall order the prosecuting attorney and the fiscal assigned to it to act on
behalf of the state.

Ocampo vs. Florenciano

FACTS:
Jose de Ocampo and Serafina Florenciano were married in 1938. They begot several
children who are not living with plaintiff. In March 1951, latter discovered on several
occasions that his wife was betraying his trust by maintaining illicit relations with Jose
Arcalas. Having found out, he sent the wife to Manila in June 1951 to study beauty
culture where she stayed for one year. Again plaintiff discovered that the wife was
going out with several other man other than Arcalas. In 1952, when the wife finished
her studies, she left plaintiff and since then they had lived separately. In June 1955,
plaintiff surprised his wife in the act of having illicit relations with Nelson Orzame. He
signified his intention of filing a petition for legal separation to which defendant
manifested conformity provided she is not charged with adultery in a criminal action.
Accordingly, Ocampo filed a petition for legal separation in 1955.
ISSUE: Whether the confession made by Florenciano constitutes the confession of
judgment disallowed by the Family Code.
HELD:
Florencianos admission to the investigating fiscal that she committed adultery, in the
existence of evidence of adultery other than such confession, is not the confession of
judgment disallowed by Article 48 of the Family Code. What is prohibited is a
confession of judgment, a confession done in court or through a pleading. Where there
is evidence of the adultery independent of the defendants statement agreeing to the
legal separation, the decree of separation should be granted since it would not be
based on the confession but upon the evidence presented by the plaintiff. What the law
prohibits is a judgment based exclusively on defendants confession. The petition
should be granted based on the second adultery, which has not yet prescribed .

Te vs. Te. G.R. No. 161793

Edward Kenneth Ngo Te met Rowena Ong Gutierrez Yu at a Filipino-Chinese

gathering at a school campus. They did not have interest with each other at first but
they developed a certain degree of closeness due to the fact that they share the same

angst with their families. In 1996, while still in college, Rowena proposed to Kenneth
that they should elope. Kenneth initially refused on the ground that he was still young
and jobless. But due to Rowenas persistence Kenneth complied bringing with him
P80K. The money soon after disappeared and they found themselves forced to return to
their respective home. Subsequently, Rowenas uncle brought the two before a court
and had had them be married. After marriage, Kenneth and Rowena stayed with her
uncles house where Kenneth was treated like a prisoner.
Meanwhile, Kenneth was advised by his dad to come home otherwise he will be
disinherited. One month later, Kenneth was able to escape and he was hidden from
Rowenas family. Kenneth later contacted Rowena urging her to live with his parents
instead. Rowena however suggested that he should get his inheritance instead so that
they could live together separately or just stay with her uncle.
Kenneth however was already disinherited. Upon knowing this, Rowena said that
it is better if they live separate lives from then on. Four years later, Kenneth filed a
petition for annulment of his marriage with Rowena. Rowena did not file an answer. The
City Prosecutor, after investigation, submitted that he cannot determine if there is
collusion between the two parties. Eventually, the case was tried. The opinion of an
expert was sought wherein the psychologist subsequently ruled that both parties are
psychologically incapacitated. The said relationship between Kenneth and Rowena is
said to be undoubtedly in the wreck and weakly-founded. The break-up was caused by
both parties unreadiness to commitment and their young age. Kenneth was still in the
state of finding his fate and fighting boredom, while Rowena was still egocentrically
involved with herself. The trial court ruled that the marriage is void upon the findings of
the expert psychologist. The Solicitor General (OSG) appealed and the Court of
Appeals ruled in favor of the OSG. The OSG claimed that the psychological incapacity
of both parties was not shown to be medically or clinically permanent or
incurable (Molina case). The clinical psychologist did not personally examine Rowena,
and relied only on the information provided by Kenneth. Further, the psychological
incapacity was not shown to be attended by gravity, juridical antecedence and
incurability. All these were requirements set forth in the Molina case to be followed as
guidelines.
ISSUE: Whether or not the expert opinion of the psychologist should be admitted in lieu
of the guidelines established in the landmark case of Molina.
HELD: Yes, such is possible. The Supreme Court ruled that admittedly, the SC may
have inappropriately imposed a set of rigid rules in ascertaining Psychological

Incapacity in the Molina case. So much so that the subsequent cases after Molina were
ruled accordingly to the doctrine set therein. And that there is not much regard for the
laws clear intention that each case is to be treated differently, as courts should
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. The SC however is not abandoning the Molina guidelines, the SC merely
reemphasized that there is need to emphasize other perspectives as well which should
govern the disposition of petitions for declaration of nullity under Article 36 such as in
the case at bar. The principle that each case must be judged, not on the basis of a
priori assumptions, predilections or generalizations but according to its own facts. And,
to repeat for emphasis, courts should 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.
The SC then ruled that the marriage of Kenneth and Rowena is null and void due to
both parties psychological disorder as evidenced by the finding of the expert
psychologist. Both parties being afflicted with grave, severe and incurable psychological
incapacity. Kenneth 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. He is too dependent on others.
Rowena cannot perform the essential marital obligations as well due to her intolerance
and impulsiveness.