1.

SANTOS V SANTOS
GR NO. 112019
JANUARY 4, 1995
PONENTE: Vitug, J

FACTS

Petitioner, Leouel Santos, married respondent, Julia Rosario Bedia-Santos in 1986

before a municipal trial court in Iloilo city. The said couple lived with the
latter's parents house and because of the interference of Julia's parents to the
spouses' marital affairs and their constant quarrel, the said marriage faced a
fallout.
In 1988, Julia left to work as a nurse in the United States despite Leouel's
dissuasion. Julia didn't return as promised. Leouel, under a training program of
the AFP, went to the US and tried locating Julia but failed.
Without any hopes of Julia coming home, petitioner filed a complaint to declare
their marriage void under Article 36 of the Family Code. Petitioner argues that his
wife's failure to return home or even communicate with him for more than five years
are circumstances showing psychological incapacity. The RTC dismissed their
complaint for lack of merit. The CA affirmed the RTC's decision.

ISSUE

WON the grounds of psychological incapacity cited in the case should be appreciated

HELD

No. The petition was denied. Based on the deliberations of the Family Code Revision
Committee, the provision of phsychological incapacity was designed to allow some
resilience. Article 36 of the Family Code should be construed with the existing
precepts of marriage law. The term psychological incapacity should refer to not
just mere mental incapacity that causes a party to be truly incognitive of basic
marital covenants that concomitantly must be assumed and discharged by the parties
to the marriage which (Art. 68), include their mutual obligations to live together,
observe love, respect and fidelity and render help and support. The SC notes that
psychological incapacity must be characterised by (a) gravity, (b) juridical
antecedence, and (c) incurability. Mere abandonment cannot therefore qualify as
psychological incapacity on the part of Julia.

----
2. TSOI V TSOI
GR No. 119190
January 16, 1997
Ponente: Torres, JR., J

FACTS

Chi Ming Tsoi and Gina Lao-Tsoi got married on May 22, 1988 in Manila. According to
Gina's version, contrary to her expectations as newlyweds who were supposed to
enjoy making love, Chi Ming just went to sleep. No coitus happened even on that
night and in the following ten months after their marriage. There was no attempt of
sexual intercourse between the two.
They submitted themselves for medical examinations and the results showed Gina is
healthy while Chi Ming's results were kept secret. Gina claimed that her husband
was impotent, a closet homosexual who never showed his genitals.
Chi Ming, on the other hand, alleged that their marriage should not be annulled for
there is no defect on his part, physically or psychologically and that since they
can still reconcile and fix the differences between them. He admitted that no
sexual intercourse happened during their marriage and that was because she always
avoided him whenever he wants to have coition with her.

ISSUE
WON Chi Ming Tsoi's non desire of sexual consumation indicates psychological
incapacity

HELD
Yes. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the decisions of the trial court and
appellate court rendering the marriage void. The SC held that the prolonged refusal
of a spouse to have sexual intercourse indicates psychological incapacity.
One of the essential marital obligations under the Family Code is �to procreate
children basedon 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
this marital obligation is equivalent to psychological incapacity.
Love is useless unless it is shared with another. Indeed, no man is an island, the
cruelest act of a partner in marriage is to say �I could not have cared less.� This
is so because an ungiven self is an unfulfilled self. The egoist has nothing but
himself. In the natural order, it is sexual intimacy that 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.

---
3. REPUBLIC V MOLINA
GR no. 108763
February 13,1997
Ponente: Panganiban, J.

FACTS
Roridel Molina, respondent, filed a verified petition for declaration of nullity of
her marriage to Reynaldo Molina on August 16, 1990. The said petition alleged the
solemnization of their marriage on April 14, 1985 and that a son, Andre Molina was
born. It was also claimed that after a year of marriage, Reynaldo showed the
following signs of "immaturity and irresponsibility" as a spouse and a father: he
spent more time with his peers whom he squandered his money, depended on his
parents for assistance and lied to his wife about their finances causing quarrels
between them. He even lost his job which put all the financial responsibilities on
Roridel's shoulders. After an intense quarrel, Roridel left Manila to live with her
parents in Baguio. Reynaldo had abandoned the family a few weeks later. The said
petition claimed that these signs show Reynaldo is psychologically incapable of
complying with essential marital obligations thus their marriage has to be declared
null and void.
Reynaldo's Answer, despite admitting that both of them can't live together anymore,
contended that their quarrels were actually caused by his wife's strange behavior.
The RTC declared the marriage void and an appeal of the petitioner was denied by
the CA, hence, the present recourse.

ISSUE
WON opposing or conflicting personalities constitute psychological incapacity.

HELD
No. There is no clear showing that the psychological defect spoken of is an
incapacity. It appears to be more of a �difficulty� if not outright �refusal� or
�neglect� in the performance of some marital obligations.
From the Court's own deliberations, the following guidelines in the interpretation
and application of Art. 36 of the Family Code were established: 1) The burden of
proof to show the nullity of marriage belongs to the plaintiff; 2) the root cause
of PI must be (a) medically or clinically identified (b) alleged in the complaint
(c) sufficiently proven by experts (d) clearly explained in the decision; 3) it
must be existing at the time of the celebration of the marriage; 4) it must be
medically or clinically permanent or incurable; 5) it must be grave enough to bring
about the disability of the party to assume the marital obligations of marriage; 6)
the marital obligations must be embraced by Articles 68 to 71, and Articles 220,
221 and 225 in regard of parents and their children; 7) interpretation by the
National Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal of Catholic of Church of the Philippines,
although not binding, should be given great respect; and 8) the prosecuting
attorney or fiscal and the Solicitor General must appear as counsel for the State.
The petition is granted.

---
4. REYES V REYES
MA. SOCORRO CAMACHO-REYES, Petitioner,
vs.
RAMON REYES, Respondent.
GR no. 185286
August 18, 2010
Ponente: Nachura, J.

FACTS
Petitioner Maria Socorro Camacho-Reyes and Ramon Reyes got married on December 5,
1976 when the petitioner was already five months pregnant. The couple lived with
the respondent's parents who shouldered their living expenses. At first, Ramon was
giving Socorro a monthly allowance of P1,500 from his salary.
It was on March 22, 1997, the birth of their first child, when their financial
difficulties started. The monthly allowance stopped. Ramon resigned from his job in
their family business and ventured into different business, which all failed,
brought a trail of debts and kept him away from his family. These events caused the
parties' relationship to deteriorate.
In 1996, Socorro found out Ramon's extra-marital affair and eventually, he failed
to provide for the financial needs as well as the fulfillment of his duties as a
spouse and a father.
Petitioner tried to salvage the marriage by asking help from Ramon's siblings who
invited them to counseling sessions. Still, there was no improvement as Ramon was
not cooperative. One of his siblings even brought Ramon for a psychological
assessment to "determine benchmarks of current psychological functioning." Ramon
resisted and did not go on with the psychotherapy. Socorro then asked Ramon to move
out of their house to which Ramon acquiesced.
The de facto separation did not improve the relationship and a petition for the
declaration of nullity of her marriage to Ramon was filed by Socorro before the RTC
alleging the latter's psychological incapacity to fulfill the essential marital
obligations under Article 36 of the Family Code. The RTC granted the petition.
However, the CA reversed the said decision and granted Ramon's appeal, hence, this
appeal to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE
WON the marriage between the parties is void ab initio under Article 36 of the
Family Code

HELD
Yes. The Supreme Court reversed the CA's decision and reinstated the RTC's decision
that the said marriage is null and void under Article 36 of the Family Code.
Based on the evidence presented, with emphasis on the pervasive pattern of
behaviors of the respondent and outcome of the assessment/diagnos[is] of expert
witnesses, Dra. Dayan, Dra. Mango and Dra. Villegas on the psychological condition
of the respondent, the Court finds that the marriage between the parties from its
inception has a congenital infirmity termed �psychological incapacity�. Dr. Dayan's
recommendation that respondent should undergo psychotherapy does not necessarily
negate the incurability of his psychological incapacity. In the case at bar,
however, even without the experts� conclusions, the factual antecedents (narrative
of events) alleged in the petition and established during trial, all point to the
inevitable conclusion that respondent is psychologically incapacitated to perform
the essential marital obligations.

5. SUAZO V SUAZO
G.R. No. 164493
March 10, 2010
BRION, J.

FACTS