PHILIP YU vs.

VIVECA LIM YU
G.R. No. 200072, 20 June 2016. Third Division (Peralta, J.)

Topic: Extrinsic Fraud in the Service of Summons;

Extraterritorial Service of Summons
Facts
Petitioner Philip Yu and respondent Viveca Yu were married on November 18, 1984. However,
Viveca left the conjugal home with their four (4) children and filed a Petition for Legal Separation
against Philip, for repeated violence grossly abusive conduct against her and the children, sexual
infidelity, and attempt on her life. Pursuant thereto, she prayed for distribution of their conjugal
partnership valued at approximately Php 5,000,000.00.
Philip, on the other hand, denied the accusations against him, claiming that it was Viveca who
attacked him few times. After the marriage, he discovered Viveca’s excessively jealous, cynical and
insecure behavior. Philip prayed in his Counterclaim for the declaration of nullity of their marriage
due to Viveca’s psychological incapacity, rendering her incapable of complying with her marital
obligations. Thereafter, Philip filed a Motion to Withdraw Counterclaim for Declaration of Nullity of
Marriage.
RTC Ruling
The trial court dismissed the Petition for Legal Separation on ground that the parties are in pari
delicto. Notwithstanding the foregoing Court's findings, the same becomes moot with the
declaration of nullity of the marriage of the parties, on the ground of the psychological incapacity of
petitioner, Viveca Yu, pursuant to the Decision of Branch 10, RTC of Balayan, Batangas, which
attained its finality on October 13, 2008.
Contention of Viveca: She was completely unaware of the proceedings before the RTC of Balayan,
Batangas, nullifying her marriage with Philip on the ground of her psychological incapacity.
Pursuant thereto, jurisdiction over her person did not properly vest since she was not duly served
with Summons. She alleged that she was deprived of her right to due process when Philip
fraudulently declared that her address upon which she may be duly summoned was still at their
conjugal home, when he clearly knew that she had long left said address for the United States of
America.
CA Ruling
CA granted Viveca’s petition. The Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage affecting the
personal status of private respondent is in the nature of an action in rem. Grant of petition,
notwithstanding, it is beyond cavil that the court a quo was justified in resorting to summons by
publication. Petitioner is a nonresident defendant. The court a quo validly acquired jurisdiction to
hear and decide the case given that as adumbrated, in a proceeding in rem, jurisdiction over the
person of the defendant is not a prerequisite to confer jurisdiction on the court, provided that the
court acquires jurisdiction over the res.

SISON YC |
Issue
WON appellate court erred in setting aside the decision of the Batangas RTC despite its own finding
that said court validly acquired jurisdiction when Summons was duly served on Viveca by
publication.

SC Ruling

NO. The Court find that Viveca was completely prevented from participating in the Declaration of
Nullity case because of the fraudulent scheme employed by Philip insofar as the service of
summons is concerned.

The overriding consideration in extrinsic fraud is that the fraudulent scheme of the prevailing
litigant prevented a party from having his day in court.

Summons is a writ by which the defendant is notified of the action brought against him. Through its
service, the court acquires jurisdiction over his person. As a rule, Philippine courts cannot try any
case against a defendant who does not reside and is not found in the Philippines because of the
impossibility of acquiring jurisdiction over his person unless he voluntarily appears in court.
Section 15, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court, however, enumerates the actions in rem or quasi in rem
when Philippine courts have jurisdiction to hear and decide the case because they have jurisdiction
over the res, and jurisdiction over the person of the non-resident defendant is not essential.

Thus, under Section 15 of Rule 14 of the Rules of Court, a defendant who is a non-resident and is not
found in the country may be served with summons by extraterritorial service, among others, when
the action affects the personal status of the plaintiff, and the same made be made thru publication
and sending a copy of the summons and order of the court by registered mail to the defendant's last
known address, also with leave of court.
In this case, private respondent knew that petitioner left the conjugal home on account of their
marital difficulties. She temporarily resided at her parent's house in Greenhills, Mandaluyong,
Metro Manila. But during the pendency of the Legal Separation case, she lived in Quezon City. This
much was revealed by private respondent himself in the Amended Answer with Counterclaim filed in
the Legal Separation suit. This knowledge notwithstanding, private respondent declared before the
court a quo that the "last known address" of petitioner was still her conjugal abode at Unit 1603
Horizon Condominium, Meralco Avenue, Ortigas, Pasig City. While private respondent knew that it
was well-nigh impossible for petitioner to receive Summons and other court notices at their former
conjugal home, still, he supplied the aforesaid address.

SISON YC |
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. REGHIS ROMERO II and OLIVIA LAGMAN ROMERO
G.R. No. 209180. 24 February 2016. First Division (Perlas-Bernabe, J.)

Topic: Art. 36, FC (Psychological Incapacity); Res Judiciata

Facts
Reghis and Olivia met in Baguio City in 1971, when Reghis helped Olivia and her family who were
stranded along Kennon Road. To please Olivia’s parents, Reghis courted Olivia and they eventually
became sweethearts. During that time, Reghis was still a student, and he was determined to finish
his studies and provide financial needs of his siblings and parents. Thus, Reghis tried to break-up
with Olivia, because he felt that her demanding attitude would prevent him from reaching his
personal and family goals; Olivia, however, refused and insisted on staying with Reghis overnight at
the latter’s dormitory. The next day, Reghis brought Olivia home and while nothing happened
between them, Olivia’s parents believed that they had eloped and planned for them to get married.
Reghis initially objected as he was unemployed and still unprepared; but Olivia’s parents assured
that they would shoulder all expenses and would support them until they are financially able.
The couple experienced a turbulent and tumultuous marriage; Reghis could not forgive Olivia for
dragging him into marriage and resented her condescending attitude towards him. They become
even more estranged when Reghis secured a job as a medical representative and became engrossed
in his career and focused on supporting his parents and siblings. As a result he spent a little time
with his family. Pursuant thereto, Reghis filed a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage, citing
his psychological incapacity to comply with his essential marital obligations.
Contention of Reghis :As testified by his clinical psychologist, Reghis suffered from Obsessive
Compulsive Personality Disorder, which is the root of the couple’s disagreements, and at the same
time is incurable. It gave Reghis a strong obsession for whatever endeavor he chooses, such as his
work, to the exclusion of other responsibilities and duties such as those pertaining to his roles as
father and husband.
Contention of Olivia : Reghis was capacitated to discharge the essential marital obligations before,
at the time, and after the celebration of their marriage.
Likewise, the petition is barred by res judicata inasmuch as Reghis had previously filed the same
petition on ground that she is allegedly psychologically incapacitated, but it was dismissed.

RTC and CA Ruling

RTC granted the petition and declared the marriage between Reghis and Olivia is null and void ab
initio on the ground of psychological incapacity. CA affirmed the findings of the RTC

Both courts relied on the findings and testimony of Dr. Basilio, holding that Reghis suffered from a
disorder that rendered him unable to perform the obligations of love, respect and fidelity towards
Olivia as it gave him a strong obsession to succeed in his career, to the exclusion of his
responsibilities as a father and husband. It ruled that Reghis’ condition amounts to psychological
incapacity within the contemplation of Article 36 of the Family Code as it is permanent in nature
and incurable.

SISON YC |
Anent the issue of res judicata, RTC remarked that there is NO identity of causes of action between
the petitions previously filed, which ascribed psychological incapacity on Olivia’s part, and the
present case which is brought on the ground of Reghis’ own psychological incapacity.

Issue

WON CA erred in sustaining the RTC’s declaration of nullity on the ground of psychological
incapacity.

SC Ruling

YES.

To warrant the declaration of nullity of marriage, the psychological incapacity must: (a) be grave or
serious such that the party would be incapable of carrying out the ordinary duties required in a
marriage; (b) have juridical antecedence, i.e., it must be rooted in the history of the party antedating
the marriage, although the overt manifestations may emerge only after the marriage; and (c) be
incurable, or even if it were otherwise, the cure would be beyond the means of the party involved.

Thus, marriages entered into for other purposes, limited or otherwise, such as convenience,
companionship, money, status, and title, provided that they comply with all the legal requisites, are
equally valid. Love, though the ideal consideration in a marriage contract, is not the only valid cause
for marriage. Other considerations, not precluded by law, may validly support a marriage.

ROBERT MALLILIN VS. LUZ JAMESOLAMIN and the REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
G.R. No. 192718. 18 February 2015. Second Division (Mendoza, J.)

Topic: Art. 36 in relation to Art. 68, FC;

Guidelines in resolving Declaration of Nullity of Marriage Cases;
Characterization and Definition of Psychological Incapacity;
Legal Separation; and
Interpretations of the Metropolitan Tribunal and National Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal
is not controlling or decisive but is given persuasive value only by the courts.
Facts
Robert and Luz were married in 1972. However, Robert filed a complaint for declaration of nullity
of marriage, but it was denied. On appeal, CA reversed the said decision, due to lack of participation
of the State as required under Art. 48 of the Family Code. Hence, the case was remanded to the RTC
for further proceedings.

Contention of Robert: At the time of the celebration of their marriage, Luz was suffering from
psychological and mental incapacity, and unpreparedness to enter into such marital life and to
comply with its essential obligations and responsibilities. Such incapacity became even more
apparent during their marriage when Luz exhibited clear manifestation of immaturity,
irresponsibility, deficiency of independent rational judgment, and inability to cope with the heavy
and oftentimes demanding obligation of a parent.

SISON YC |
Luz was already living in California, USA, and had married an American. He also revealed that when
they were still engaged, Luz continued seeing and dating another boyfriend, a certain Lt. Liwag. He
also claimed that from the outset, Luz had been remiss in her duties both as a wife and as a mother
as shown by the following circumstances: (1) when she resumed her schooling, she dated different
men; (2) he received anonymous letters reporting her loitering with male students; (3) when he
was not home, she would receive male visitors; (4) a certain Romy Padua slept in their house when
he was away; and (5) she would contract loans without his knowledge.

Robert further argues that the sexual indiscretion of Luz with different men coupled with the fact
that she failed to function as a home maker to her family and as a housewife to him incapacitated
her from accepting and complying with her essential marital obligations. For said reason, he asserts
that the case of Luz was not a mere case of sexual infidelity, but clearly an illness that was rooted on
some debilitating psychological condition which incapacitated her to carry out the responsibilities
of a married woman. Robert avers that a sex maniac is not just a mere sexual infidel but one who is
suffering from a deep psychological problem.

RTC, MT and NMAT Ruling

RTC had rendered a decision declaring the marriage null and void on the ground of psychological
incapacity on the part of Luz as she failed to comply with the essential marital obligations.

Likewise, Metropolitan Tribunal handed down a decision declaring their marriage invalid ab initio
on the ground of grave lack of due discretion on the part of both parties as contemplated by the
second paragraph of Canon1095. This decision was affirmed by the National Appellate Matrimonial
Tribunal (NAMT).

Contention of the OSG: Robert failed to make a case for declaration of nullity of his marriage with
Luz; the real cause of the marital discord was the sexual infidelity of Luz, and such ground should
not result in the nullification of the marriage under the law, but merely constituted a ground for
legal separation.

With regard to the findings of the Metropolitan Tribunal and the NAMT, the OSG claims that the
same were only given persuasive value and were not controlling or decisive in cases of nullity of
marriage. Further, the decision was based on grave lack of discretion of judgment concerning
matrimonial rights and obligations due to outside factors other than psychological incapacity as
contemplated in Article 36 of the Family Code. The OSG also raises the strong possibility of
collusion between the parties.

Pursuant thereto, CA granted the petition and reversed the RTC decision.

Issue

WON the totality of the evidence adduced proves that Luz was psychologically incapacitated to
comply with the essential obligations of marriage warranting the annulment of their marriage
under Article 36 of the Family Code.

SC Ruling

NO.

SISON YC |
Psychological incapacity, as a ground to nullify a marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code,
should refer to no less than a mental – not merely 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 in Article 68 of the Family Code,
among others, include their mutual obligations to live together; observe love, respect and fidelity;
and render help and support. There is hardly a 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.

Psychological incapacity as required by Article 36 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
only emerge after the marriage. It must be incurable or, even if it were otherwise, the cure would be
beyond the means of the party involved.

The well-settled guidelines in resolving petitions for declaration of nullity of marriage based on
Article 36 of the Family Code, includes:

(1) The burden of proof to show the nullity of the marriage belongs to the plaintiff. Any doubt
should be resolved in favor of the existence and continuation of the marriage and against its
dissolution and nullity.

(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.

(5) Such illness must be grave enough to bring about the disability of the party to assume the
essential obligations of marriage. Thus, mild characteriological peculiarities, mood changes,
occasional emotional outbursts cannot be accepted as root causes.

(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.

SISON YC |
Guided by these pronouncements, the Court is of the considered view that Robert’s evidence failed
to establish the psychological incapacity of Luz.

Robert’s reliance on the NAMT decision is misplaced. To hold that annulment of marriages decreed
by the NAMT under the second paragraph of Canon 1095 should also be covered would be to
expand what the lawmakers did not intend to include. To consider church annulments as additional
grounds for annulment under Article 36 would be legislating from the bench. As stated in Republic
v. Court of Appeals and Molina, interpretations given by the NAMT of the Catholic Church in the
Philippines are given great respect by our courts, but they are not controlling or decisive.

As asserted by the OSG, the allegations of the petitioner make a case for legal separation. Hence, this
decision is without prejudice to an action for legal separation if a party would want to pursue such
proceedings. In this disposition, the Court cannot decree a legal separation because in such
proceedings, there are matters and consequences like custody and separation of properties that
need to be considered and settled.

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. RODOLFO DE GRACIA

G.R. No. 171557. 12 February 2014. Second Division (Perlas-Bernabe, J.)

Topic: Emotional immaturity and irresponsibility CANNOT be equated with psychological

incapacity, in the absence of sufficient evidence to the contrary.

Rodolfo and Natividad were married on February 15, 1969. However, in 1998, Rodolfo filed a
verified complaint for declaration of nullity of marriage. Pursuant thereto, the public prosecutor
conducted an investigation to determine if collusion exists between Rodolfo and Natividad and
found that there was none. Trial on the merits then ensued.

Contention of Rodolfo: He was forced to marry Natividad barely three (3) months into their
courtship in light the latter’s accidental pregnancy.

After the marriage, Rodolfo decided to join and train with the army, Natividad, on the other hand,
left their conjugal home and sold their house without his consent. She then moved to Dipolog City
where she lived with a certain Engineer Terez, and bore him a child named Julie Ann Terez. After
cohabiting with Terez, Natividad contracted a second marriage in 1991 with another man named
Antonio Mondarez and has lived since then with the latter in Cagayan de Oro City.

Natividad failed to file her answer, as well as appear during trial, despite service of summons.
Nonetheless, she informed the court that she submitted herself for psychiatric examination to Dr.
Cheryl T. Zalsos (Dr. Zalsos)

Findings of Dr. Cheryl Zalsos: Both Rodolfo and Natividad were psychologically incapacitated to
comply with the essential marital obligations. Both parties suffered from utter emotional
immaturity which is unusual and unacceptable behavior considered as deviant from persons who
abide by established norms of conduct. As for Natividad, Dr. Zalsos also observed that she lacked
the willful cooperation of being a wife and a mother to her two daughters. Similarly, Rodolfo failed
to perform his obligations as a husband, adding too that he sired a son with another woman.

SISON YC |
Further, Dr. Zalsos noted that the mental condition of both parties already existed at the time of the
celebration of marriage, although it only manifested after.

Contention of the OSG: The acts committed by Natividad did not demonstrate psychological
incapacity as contemplated by law, but are mere grounds for legal separation under the Family
Code.

RTC and CA Ruling

RTC declared the marriage between Rodolfo and Natividad void on the ground of psychological
incapacity; on appeal, CA affirmed the said ruling. Both courts relied heavily on the findings of Dr.
Zalsos; and held that while Natividad’s emotional immaturity, irresponsibility and promiscuity by
themselves do not necessarily equate to psychological incapacity, their degree or severity has
sufficiently established a case of psychological disorder so profound as to render Natividad
incapacitated to perform her essential marital obligations.

Issue

WON CA erred in sustaining the RTC’s finding of psychological incapacity.

SC Ruling

YES.

Emotional immaturity and irresponsibility could not be equated with psychological incapacity as it
was not shown that these acts are manifestations of a disordered personality which make her
completely unable to discharge the essential marital obligations of the marital state, not merely due
to her youth, immaturity or sexual promiscuity.

In the same light, the Court, in the case of Pesca v. Pesca, ruled against a declaration of nullity, as
petitioner therein utterly failed, both in her allegations in the complaint and in her evidence, to
make out a case of psychological incapacity on the part of respondent, let alone at the time of
solemnization of the contract, so as to warrant a declaration of nullity of the marriage, significantly
noting that the “emotional immaturity and irresponsibility, invoked by her, cannot be equated with
psychological incapacity.

The Court maintains a similar view in this case. Based on the evidence presented, there exists
insufficient factual or legal basis to conclude that Natividad’s emotional immaturity,
irresponsibility, or even sexual promiscuity, can be equated with psychological incapacity.

After poring over the records, the Court, however, does not find any such evidence sufficient
enough to uphold the court a quo’s nullity declaration. To the Court’s mind, Natividad’s refusal to
live with Rodolfo and to assume her duties as wife and mother as well as her emotional immaturity,
irresponsibility and infidelity do not rise to the level of psychological incapacity that would justify
the nullification of the parties’ marriage. Indeed, to be declared clinically or medically incurable is
one thing; to refuse or be reluctant to perform one’s duties is another.

To hark back, psychological incapacity refers only to the most serious cases of personality disorders
clearly demonstrative of an utter insensitivity or inability to give meaning and significance to the

SISON YC |
marriage. In the final analysis, the Court does not perceive a disorder of this nature to exist in the
present case. Thus, for these reasons, coupled too with the recognition that marriage is an
inviolable social institution and the foundation of the family, the instant petition is hereby
GRANTED.

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. CESAR ENCELAN

G.R. No. 170022. 09 January 2013. Second Division (Brion, J.)

Topic: Sexual infidelity and abandonment of the conjugal dwelling, even if true, do not necessarily
constitute psychological incapacity, these are simply grounds for legal separation.

Facts

Cesar and Lolita was married in 1979. In order to support the family, Cesar went to work in Saudi
Arabia. During such period, Cesar learned that Lolita had been having an illicit affair with Alvin
Perez; and in 1991, Lolita allegedly left the conjugal home with her children and lived with Alvin.
Pursuant thereto, Cesar filed a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage based on Lolita’s
psychological incapacity.

Contention of Lolita: Alvin used to be an associate in her business, and denied the alleged affair.
Further, that she left their home because of irreconcilable differences with mother-in-law.

Evidence in support of the allegations of Cesar: The psychological evaluation report presented
by Cesar showed that Lolita was NOT suffering from any form of major psychiatric illness, but she
had been unable to provide the expectations expected of her for a good and lasting marital
relationship; her transferring from one job to the other depicts some interpersonal problems with
co-workers as well as her impatience in attaining her ambitions, and her refusal to go with her
husband abroad signifies her reluctance to work out a good marital and family relationship.

RTC and CA Ruling

RTC declared Cesar's marriage to Lolita void on ground that the latter is psychologically
incapacitated to comply with the essential marital obligations. On appeal, CA initially set aside the
RTC's verdict, finding that Lolita's abandonment of the conjugal dwelling and infidelity were NOT
SERIOUS cases of personality disorder/psychological illness. Lolita merely refused to comply
with her marital obligations which she was capable of doing. CA significantly observed that
infidelity is only a ground for legal separation, not for the declaration of the nullity of a marriage.

CA however, set aside its original decision, and affirmed the RTC's decision. In its amended
decision, CA found two circumstances indicative of Lolita’s serious psychological incapacity that
resulted in her gross infidelity: (1) Lolita’s unwarranted refusal to perform her marital obligations
to Cesar; and (2) Lolita’s willful and deliberate act of abandoning the conjugal dwelling.

Issue

WON there exists sufficient basis to nullify Cesar's marriage to Lolita on the ground of psychological
incapacity.

SISON YC |
SC Ruling

NO.

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. The plaintiff bears the burden of proving the juridical
antecedence, gravity and incurability of the condition 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. NO evidence on record exists to support Cesar's
allegation that Lolita's infidelity and abandonment were manifestations of any psychological illness.

Dr. Flores' observation on Lolita's interpersonal problems with co-workers does not suffice as a
consideration for the conclusion that she was at the time of her marriage psychologically
incapacitated to enter into a marital union with Cesar. Aside from the time element involved, a
wife's psychological fitness as a spouse cannot simply be equated with her professional/work
relationship; workplace obligations and responsibilities are poles apart from their marital
counterparts. While both spring from human relationship, their relatedness and relevance to one
another should be fully established for them to be compared or to serve as measures of comparison
with one another.
Dr. Flores' further belief that Lolita's refusal to go with Cesar abroad signified a reluctance to work
out a good marital relationship is a mere generalization unsupported by facts and is, in fact, a rash
conclusion that this Court cannot support.

Hence, the Court found that Cesar failed to prove the existence of Lolita's psychological incapacity;
thus, the CA committed a reversible error when it reconsidered its original decision.

SISON YC |
VALERIO KALAW VS. MA. ELENA FERNANDEZ
G.R. No. 166357. 19 September 2011. First Division (Del Castillo, J.)

Topic: Psychological Incapacity

Facts
Petitioner Valerio E. Kalaw and respondent Ma. Elena Fernandez (Malyn) met in 1973. They
maintained a relationship and eventually married in Hong Kong in 1976. Shortly after the birth of
their youngest son, Tyrone had an extramarital affair with Jocelyn Quejano. In May 1985, Malyn left
the conjugal home and her four children with Tyrone. Meanwhile, Tyrone started living with
Jocelyn, who bore him three more children. In 1990, Tyrone went to the United States (US) with
Jocelyn and their children. He left his four children in a rented house, with a house helper and
driver.
Nine (9) years since the de facto separation from his wife, Tyrone filed a petition for declaration of
nullity of marriage based on Article 36 of the Family Code.
Contention of Tyrone: Dr. Gates, psychologist, explained that Malyns behavior, sexual infidelity,
habitual mahjong playing, and her frequent nights-out with friends may reflect a narcissistic
personality disorder (NPD). NPD is present when a person is obsessed to meet her wants and
needs in utter disregard of her significant others. Malyns NPD is manifest in her utter neglect of her
duties as a mother. Fr. Healy, Catholic Canon Law expert, corroborated Dr. Gates assessment. He
concluded that Malyn was psychologically incapacitated to perform her marital duties. He
explained that her psychological incapacity is rooted in her role as the breadwinner of her family.
This role allegedly inflated Malyns ego to the point that her needs became priority, while her kids
and husbands needs became secondary. Malyn is so self-absorbed that she is incapable of
prioritizing her familys needs.
Contention of Malyn: While she admitted playing mahjong, she denied playing as frequently as
Tyrone alleged. She maintained that she did so only two to three times a week and always between
1 p.m. to 6 p.m. only. Malyn admitted leaving the conjugal home in May 1985. She, however,
explained that she did so only to escape her physically abusive husband.
Further, Malyn explained that she applied for work, against Tyrones wishes, because she wanted to
be self-sufficient. Her resolve came from her discovery that Tyrone had a son by Jocelyn and had
secretly gone to the US with Jocelyn.
Likewise, Malyn denied the allegation of adultery. She maintained that Benjie only booked a room
at the Hyatt Hotel for her because she was so drunk after partying with friends. Malyn insisted that
she wrote the letter relinquishing all her spousal and parental rights under duress.
RTC Ruling

SISON YC |
RTC concluded that both parties are psychologically incapacitated to perform the essential marital
obligations under the Family Code.
Issue
WON petitioner has sufficiently proved that respondent suffers from psychological incapacity.
SC Ruling
A petition for declaration of nullity of marriage is governed by Article 36 of the Family Code.
Psychological incapacity is the downright incapacity or inability to take cognizance of and to
assume the basic marital obligations. The burden of proving psychological incapacity is on the
plaintiff. The plaintiff must prove that the incapacitated party, based on his or her actions or
behavior, suffers a serious psychological disorder that completely disables him or her from
understanding and discharging the essential obligations of the marital state. The psychological
problem must be grave, must have existed at the time of marriage, and must be incurable.

In the case at bar, petitioner failed to prove that his wife suffers from psychological incapacity. He
presented the testimonies of two supposed expert witnesses who concluded that respondent is
psychologically incapacitated, but the conclusions of these witnesses were premised on the alleged
acts or behavior of respondent which had NOT been sufficiently proven. In fact, respondent presented
contrary evidence refuting these allegations of the petitioner.

What transpired between the parties is acrimony and, perhaps, infidelity, which may have
constrained them from dedicating the best of themselves to each other and to their children. There
may be grounds for legal separation, but certainly not psychological incapacity that voids a
marriage.

VALERIO KALAW VS. MA. ELENA FERNANDEZ

G.R. No. 166357. 14 January 2015. First Division (Del Castillo, J.)

Topic: What constitutes Psychological Incapacity;

Arts. 202 and 209, FC

Facts
In relation to the case entitled Valerio Kalaw vs. Ma. Elena Fernandez, (G.R. No. 166357) dated 19
September 2011, petitioner implores the Court to take a thorough second look into what
constitutes psychological incapacity.

Petitioner in the previous case alleged that his wife in psychologically incapacitated, anchored on
the following grounds, which was previously attested to by the witnesses petitioner had presented
during trial, to wit: (1) respondent constantly played mahjong and neglected their children as a
result.; and (2) respondent’s alleged constant visits to the beauty parlor, going out with friends, and
obsessive need for attention from other men.

SISON YC |
Issue

WON the motion for reconsideration has merit.

SC Ruling

Yes.

Psychological Incapacity

Psychological incapacity as a ground for the nullity of marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code
refers to a serious psychological illness afflicting a party even prior to the celebration of the
marriage that is permanent as to deprive the party of the awareness of the duties and
responsibilities of the matrimonial bond he or she was about to assume.

Although the Family Code has not defined the term psychological incapacity, it appeared that the
members of the Family Code Revision Committee were not unanimous on the meaning, and in the
end they decided to adopt the provision "with less specificity than expected" in order to have the
law "allow some resiliency in its application." Illustrative of the "less specificity than expected"
has been the omission by the Family Code Revision Committee to give any examples of
psychological incapacity that would have limited the applicability of the provision conformably
with the principle of ejusdem generis, because the Committee desired that the courts should
interpret the provision on a case-to-case basis, guided by experience, the findings of experts and
researchers in psychological disciplines, and the decisions of church tribunals that had persuasive
effect by virtue of the provision itself having been taken from the Canon Law.

On the other hand, as the Court has observed in Santos v. Court of Appeals, the deliberations of the
Family Code Revision Committee and the relevant materials on psychological incapacity as a
ground for the nullity of marriage have rendered it obvious that the term psychological incapacity
as used in Article 36 of the Family Code "has NOT been meant to comprehend all such possible cases
of psychoses as, likewise mentioned by some ecclesiastical authorities, extremely low intelligence,
immaturity, and like circumstances," and could not be taken and construed independently of "but
must stand in conjunction with, existing precepts in our law on marriage." Thus correlated:
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 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. This psychologic
condition must exist at the time the marriage is celebrated.

Notwithstanding, Article 36 of the Family Code must not be so strictly and too literally read and
applied given the clear intendment of the drafters to adopt its enacted version of "less specificity"
obviously to enable "some resiliency in its application." Instead, every court should approach the

SISON YC |
issue of nullity NOT on the basis of a priori assumptions, predilections or generalizations, but
according to its own facts, in recognition of the verity that no case would be on all fours with the
next one in the field of psychological incapacity as a ground for the nullity of marriage; hence, every
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.

Duty as a parent

Respondent admittedly played mahjong, but it was not proven that she engaged in mahjong so
frequently that she neglected her duties as a mother and a wife. Respondent refuted petitioner’s
allegations that she played four to five times a week. She maintained it was only two to three times
a week and always with the permission of her husband and without abandoning her children at
home.

The fact that the respondent brought her children with her to her mahjong sessions did not only
point to her neglect of parental duties, but also manifested her tendency to expose them to a culture
of gambling. Her willfully exposing her children to the culture of gambling on every occasion of her
mahjong sessions was a very grave and serious act of subordinating their needs for parenting to the
gratification of her own personal and escapist desires.

The respondent revealed her wanton disregard for her children’s moral and mental development.
This disregard violated her duty as a parent to safeguard and protect her children, as expressly
defined under Article 209 and Article 220 of the Family Code, to wit:

Article 209. Pursuant to the natural right and duty of parents over the person and
property of their unemancipated children, parental authority and responsibility shall
includethe caring for and rearing of such children for civic consciousness and efficiency
and the development of their moral, mental and physical character and well-being.

Article 220. The parents and those exercising parental authority shall have with respect
to their unemancipated children or wards the following rights and duties:

(1) To keep them in their company, to support, educate and instruct them by
right precept and good example, and to provide for their upbringing in
keeping with their means;

(3) To provide them with moral and spiritual guidance, inculcate in them
honesty, integrity, self-discipline, self-reliance, industry and thrift, stimulate
their interest in civic affairs, and inspire in them compliance with the duties
of citizenship;

(4) To enhance, protect, preserve and maintain their physical and mental
health at all times;

(5) To furnish them with good and wholesome educational materials,

supervise their activities, recreation and association with others, protect
them from bad company, and prevent them from acquiring habits
detrimental to their health, studies and morals;

SISON YC |
 In dissolving marital bonds on account of either party's psychological incapacity, the Court
is not demolishing the foundation of families, but it is actually protecting the sanctity of marriage,
because it refuses to allow a person afflicted with a psychological disorder, who cannot comply with
or assume the essential marital obligations, from remaining in that sacred bond. It may be stressed
that the infliction of physical violence, constitutional indolence or laziness, drug dependence or
addiction, and psycho sexual anomaly are manifestations of a sociopathic personality anomaly. Let
it be noted that in Article 36, there is no marriage to speak of in the first place, as the same is void
from the very beginning. To indulge in imagery, the declaration of nullity under Article 36 will
simply provide a decent burial to a stillborn marriage.

NOEL BACCAY vs. MARIBEL BACCAY and REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

G.R. No. 173138. 1 December 2010. Third Division (Villarma, Jr., J.)

Topic: Psychological Incapacity on the basis of respondent’s refusal to have sexual intercourse with
petitioner husband
Art. 36 in relation to Art 68, FC
Facts
Noel courted Maribel, but it was only after years of continuous pursuit that Maribel accepted Noels
proposal and the two became sweethearts. Noel considered Maribel as the snobbish and hard-to-
get type; that she was inordinately shy when around his family, and so to bring her closer to them,
he always invited Maribel to attend family gatherings and other festive occasions, Maribel,
however, would try to avoid Noels invitations and whenever she attended those occasions he
observed that Maribel was invariably aloof or snobbish. Not once did she try to get close to any of

SISON YC |
his family members. Noel tried to break up with Maribel, but Maribel refused and offered to accept
Noels relationship with the other woman so long as they would not sever their ties.
Despite their efforts to keep their meetings strictly friendly, however, Noel and Maribel had several
romantic moments together. In November 1998, Maribel informed Noel that she was pregnant with
his child. Upon advice of his mother, Noel grudgingly agreed to marry Maribel. Noel and Maribel
were immediately wed. After the marriage ceremony, Noel and Maribel agreed to live with Noels
family in their house.
Contention of Noel: During all the time she lived with Noels family, Maribel remained aloof and did
not go out of her way to endear herself to them. Maribel never contributed to the family’s coffer,
also, she refused to have any sexual contact with Noel.
Refusal to procreate as psychological incapacity. Insofar as he was concerned, the last time he had
sexual intercourse with Maribel was before the marriage when she was drunk. They never had any
sexual intimacy during their marriage. Noel claims that if a spouse senselessly and constantly
refuses to perform his or her marital obligations, Catholic marriage tribunals attribute the causes to
psychological incapacity rather than to stubborn refusal. He insists that the CA should not have
considered the pre-marital sexual encounters between him and Maribel in finding that the latter
was not psychologically incapacitated to procreate through marital sexual cooperation. He argues
that making love for procreation and consummation of the marriage for the start of family life is
different from plain, simple and casual sex.
After less than two years of marriage, Noel filed a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage.
Despite summons, Maribel did not participate in the proceedings.
RTC Ruling
RTC rendered a decision in favor of Noel. RTC found that Maribel failed to perform the essential
marital obligations of marriage, and such failure was due to a personality disorder called
Narcissistic Personality Disorder characterized by juridical antecedence, gravity and incurability as
determined by a clinical psychologist.
Contention of the OSG: Maribels refusal to have sexual intercourse with Noel did not constitute
psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code as her traits were merely mild
peculiarities in her character or signs of ill-will and refusal or neglect to perform her marital
obligations.

CA Ruling
On appeal by the OSG, the CA reversed the decision of the RTC.
Maribels refusal to have sexual intercourse with Noel did not constitute a ground to find her
psychologically incapacitated under Article 36 of the Family Code. As Noel admitted, he had
numerous sexual relations with Maribel before their marriage. Noel having failed to prove Maribels
alleged psychological incapacity, any doubts should be resolved in favor of the existence and
continuation of the marriage and against its dissolution and nullity.

SISON YC |
Issue
WON the marriage between the parties is null and void under Article 36 of the Family Code.

SC Ruling
NO.
The Court held in Santos v. Court of Appeals that the phrase psychological incapacity is not meant to
comprehend all possible cases of psychoses. It refers 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 which, as 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. The intendment of the law has been to confine it
to the most serious of cases of personality disorders clearly demonstrative of an utter insensitivity
or inability to give meaning and significance to the marriage.
In this case, the totality of evidence presented by Noel was not sufficient to sustain a finding that
Maribel was psychologically incapacitated. Noels evidence merely established that Maribel refused
to have sexual intercourse with him after their marriage, and that she left him after their quarrel
when he confronted her about her alleged miscarriage. He failed to prove the root cause of the
alleged psychological incapacity and establish the requirements of gravity, juridical antecedence,
and incurability.
The Court emphasizes that the burden falls upon petitioner, not just to prove that private
respondent suffers from a psychological disorder, but also that such psychological disorder renders
her truly incognitive of the basic marital covenants that concomitantly must be assumed and
discharged by the parties to the marriage. Psychological incapacity must be more than just a
difficulty, a refusal, or a neglect in the performance of some marital obligations. An unsatisfactory
marriage is not a null and void marriage.

MA. SOCORRO CAMACHO-REYES VS. RAMON REYES

G.R. No. 185286. 18 August 2010. Second Division (Nachura, J.)

Topic:

Facts

Petitioner and respondent got married. At that time, petitioner was already five (5) months
pregnant and employed at the Population Center Foundation. All living expenses were shouldered
by respondent’s paren

ts, and the couples respective salaries were spent solely for their personal needs.

SISON YC |
Contention of the petitioner: When their first child was born in 1977, financial difficulties started.
A year into their marriage, the monthly allowance of P1,500.00 from respondent stopped. Further,
respondent no longer handed his salary to petitioner. When petitioner mustered enough courage to
ask the respondent about this, the latter told her that he had resigned due to slow advancement
within the family business. Notwithstanding, respondent ventured into a new business, which took
him away from his young family for days on end without any communication.

Petitioner suggested that they live separately from her in-laws, however, the new living
arrangement engendered further financial difficulty. While petitioner struggled to make ends meet
as the single-income earner of the household, respondents business floundered. Although without
any means to support his family, respondent refused to go back to work for the family business.
Respondent came up with another business venture, engaging in scrap paper and carton trading. As
with all of respondent’s business ventures, this did not succeed and added to the trail of debt which
now hounded not only respondent, but petitioner as well. Not surprisingly, the relationship of the
parties deteriorated.

Petitioner, on the other hand, confirmed that respondent was having an extra-marital affair.

Pursuant thereto, petitioner filed a petition for the declaration of nullity of her marriage with the
respondent, alleging the latter’s psychological incapacity to fulfill the essential marital obligations
under Article 36 of the Family Code.

RTC and CA Ruling

RTC granted the petition and declared the marriage between the parties null and void on the
ground of their psychological incapacity, on the basis of the oral and documentary evidence
obtained from the three (3) experts presented namely: Doctors Magno, Dayan and Villegas.
CA, on the other hand, reversed the RTC and declared that the said marriage as valid and subsisting.

Issue

WON the marriage between the parties is void ab initio on the ground of both parties psychological
incapacity, as provided in Article 36 of the Family Code.

SC Ruling

YES.

Article 36 in relation to Arts. 68, 69-71 of the Family Code, define the mutual obligations of a
marital partner towards each other and Articles 220, 225 and 271 of the Family Code express the
duties of parents toward their children. Article 36 does not define what psychological incapacity
means. It left the determination of the same solely to the Court on a case to case basis.

In the case at bar, the Court hold that the court a quos findings regarding the respondents alleged
mixed personality disorder, his come and go attitude, failed business ventures, inadequate/delayed
financial support to his family, sexual infidelity, insensitivity to petitioners’ feelings,
irresponsibility, failure to consult [petitioner] on his business pursuits, unfulfilled promises, failure
to pay debts in connection with his failed business activities, taking of drugs, etc. are not rooted on

SISON YC |
some debilitating psychological condition but on serious marital difficulties/differences and mere
refusal or unwillingness to assume the essential obligations of marriage.
Respondent’s defects were not present at the inception of marriage. They were even able to live in
harmony in the first few years of their marriage, which bore them two children. In fact, petitioner
admitted in her Amended Petition that initially they lived comfortably and respondent would give
his salary in keeping with the tradition in most Filipino households, but the situation changed when
respondent resigned from the family-owned Aristocrat Restaurant and thereafter, respondent
failed in his business ventures.
What is evident is that petitioner really encountered a lot of difficulties in their marriage. However,
it is jurisprudentially settled that psychological incapacity must be more than just a difficulty, a
refusal or a neglect in the performance of some marital obligations, it is essential that they must be
shown to be incapable of doing so, due to some psychological illness existing at the time of the
celebration of the marriage.

While petitioner’s marriage with 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. No
less than the Constitution recognizes the sanctity of marriage and the unity of the family; it decrees
marriage as legally inviolable and protects it from dissolution at the whim of the parties. Both the
family and marriage are to be protected by the State.

That notwithstanding, herein respondent’s pattern of behavior manifests an inability, nay, a

psychological incapacity to perform the essential marital obligations as shown by his: (1) sporadic
financial support; (2) extra-marital affairs; (3) substance abuse; (4) failed business attempts; (5)
unpaid money obligations; (6) inability to keep a job that is not connected with the family
businesses; and (7) criminal charges of estafa.

SISON YC |