Santos v.
Court of Appeals (DIGESTED CASE)
240 SCRA 20, January 4, 1995 (En Banc), J. Vitug
FACTS OF THE CASE:
Plaintiff Leouel Santos married defendant Julia Bedia on September 20,
1986. On May 18 1988, Julia left for the U.S. She did not communicate with
Leouel and did not return to the country. In 1991, Leoul filed with the RTC
of Negros Oriental, a complaint for voiding the marriage under Article 36 of
the Family Code of the Philippines. The RTC dismissed the complaint and
the CA affirmed the dismissal.
ISSUE:
Does the failure of Julia to return home, or at the very least to
communicate with him, for more than five years constitute psychological
incapacity?
RULING:
No, the failure of Julia to return home or to communicate with her husband
Leouel for more than five years does not constitute psychological
incapacity.
Pyschological incapacity must be characterized by (a) GRAVITY (b)
JURIDICAL ANTECEDENCE (c) INCURABILITY
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 dischargedby
the parties to the marriage which, as so expressed by Art. 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 the meaning of
“PSYCHOLOGICAL INCAPACITY” to the mot serious cases of personality
disorders clearly demonstrative of an utter insensitivity or inablity to give
meaning and significance to the marriage. This psychological 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
PETITION IS DENIED.
CHI MING TSOI vs. COURT OF APPEALS, GINA LAO-TSOI
GR NO. 119190 January 16, 1997
FACTS:
Ching married Gina on May 22, 1988 at the Manila Cathedral,
Intramuros, Manila as evidenced by their marriage contract. After the
celebration they had a reception and then proceeded to the house of the
Ching Ming Tsoi’s mother. There they slept together on the same bed in
the same room for the first night of their married life.
Gina’s version: that contrary to her expectations that as newlyweds they
were supposed to enjoy making love that night of their marriage, or having
sexual intercourse, with each other, Ching however just went to bed, slept
on one side and then turned his back and went to sleep. There was no
sexual intercourse between them that night. The same thing happened on
the second, third and fourth nights.
In an effort to have their honey moon 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 Ching’s mother, uncle and
nephew as they were all invited by her husband. There was no sexual
intercourse between them for four days in Baguio since Ching avoided her
by taking a long walk during siesta time or by just sleeping on a rocking
chair located at the living room.
They slept together in the same room and on the same bed since May 22,
1988 (day of their marriage) until March 15, 1989 (ten months). But during
this period there was no attempt of sexual intercourse between them. Gina
claims that she did not even see her husband’s private parts nor did he see
hers.
Because of this, they submitted themselves for medical examinations to
Dr. Eufemio Macalalag. Results were that Gina is healthy, normal and still a
virgin while Ching’s examination was kept confidential up to this time.
The Gina claims that her husband is impotent, a closet homosexual as he
did not show his penis. She said she had observed him using an eyebrow
pencil and sometimes the cleansing cream of his mother. She also said her
husband only married her to acquire or maintain his residency status here
in the country and to publicly maintain the appearance of a normal man
Ching’s version: he claims that if their marriage shall be annulled by
reason of psychological incapacity, the fault lies with Gina. He does not
want their marriage annulled for reasons of (1) that he loves her very
much (2) that he has no defect on his part and he is physically and
psychologically capable (3) since the relationship is still very young and if
there is any differences between the two of them, it can still be reconciled
and that according to him, if either one of them has some incapabilities,
there is no certainty that this will not be cured.
Ching admitted that since his marriage to Gina there was no sexual
contact between them. But, the reason for this, according to the
defendant, was that everytime he wants to have sexual intercourse with
his wife, she always avoided him and whenever he caresses her private
parts, she always removed his hands.
ISSUE: Whether or not Ching is psychologically incapacitated to comply
with the essential marital obligations of marriage
RULING: The Supreme Court affirmed the decisions of the trial court and
Court of Appeals in rendering as VOID the marriage entered into by Ching
and Gina on May 22, 1988. No costs.
RATIO: The Supreme Court held that the prolonged refusal of a spouse to
have sexual intercourse with his or her spouse is considered a sign of
psychological incapacity. If a spouse, although physically capable but
simply refuses to perform his or her essential marriage obligations, and the
refusal is senseless and constant, Catholic marriage tribunals attribute the
causes to psychological incapacity than to stubborn refusal. Senseless and
protracted refusal is equivalent to 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.
While the law provides that the husband and the wife are obliged to live
together, observer mutual love, respect and fidelity, the sanction therefore
is actually the “spontaneous, mutual affection between husband and wife
and not any legal mandate or court order (Cuaderno vs. Cuaderno, 120
Phil. 1298). 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.
Republic v. CA and Molina
GR 108763, 13 February 1997
En Banc, Panganiban (p): 8 concur, 3 concur in result
Facts: Roridel Olaviano was married to Reynaldo Molina on 14 April 1985 in
Manila, and gave birth to a son a year after. Reynaldo showed signs of
“immaturity and irresponsibility” on the early stages of the marriage,
observed from his tendency to spend time with his friends and
squandering his money with them, from his dependency from his parents,
and his dishonesty on matters involving his finances. Reynaldo was
relieved of his job in 1986, Roridel became the sole breadwinner
thereafter. In March 1987, Roridel resigned from her job in Manila and
proceeded to Baguio City. Reynaldo left her and their child a week later.
The couple are separated-in-fact for more than three years.
On 16 August 1990, Roridel filed a verified petition for declaration of nullity
of her marriage to Reynaldo Molina. Evidence for Roridel consisted of her
own testimony, that of two of her friends, a social worker, and a
psychiatrist of the Baguio General Hospital and Medical Center. Reynaldo
did not present any evidence as he appeared only during the pre-trial
conference. On 14 May 1991, the trial court rendered judgment declaring
the marriage void. The Solicitor General appealed to the Court of Appeals.
The Court of Appeals denied the appeals and affirmed in toto the RTC’s
decision. Hence, the present recourse.
Issue: Whether opposing or conflicting personalities should be construed as
psychological incapacity
Held: The Court of Appeals erred in its opinion the Civil Code Revision
Committee intended to liberalize the application of Philippine civil laws on
personal and family rights, and holding psychological incapacity as a broad
range of mental and behavioral conduct on the part of one spouse
indicative of how he or she regards the marital union, his or her personal
relationship with the other spouse, as well as his or her conduct in the long
haul for the attainment of the principal objectives of marriage; where said
conduct, observed and considered as a whole, tends to cause the union to
self-destruct because it defeats the very objectives of marriage, warrants
the dissolution of the marriage.

The Court reiterated its ruling in Santos v. Court of Appeals, where

psychological incapacity should refer to no less than a mental (not
physical) incapacity, existing at the time the marriage is celebrated, and
that 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. Psychological
incapacity must be characterized by gravity, juridical antecedence, and
incurability. In the present case, there is no clear showing to us that the
psychological defect spoken of is an incapacity; but appears to be more of
a “difficulty,” if not outright “refusal” or “neglect” in the performance of
some marital obligations. Mere showing of “irreconcilable differences” and
“conflicting personalities” in no wise constitutes psychological incapacity.

The Court, in this case, promulgated the guidelines in the interpretation

and application of Article 36 of the Family Code, removing any visages of it
being the most liberal divorce procedure in the world: (1) The burden of
proof belongs to the plaintiff; (2) the root cause of psychological incapacity
must be medically or clinically identified, alleged in the complaint,
sufficiently proven by expert, and clearly explained in the decision; (3) The
incapacity must be proven existing at the time of the celebration of
marriage; (4) the incapacity must be clinically or medically permanent or
incurable; (5) such illness must be grave enough; (6) the essential marital
obligation must be embraced by Articles 68 to 71 of the Family Code as
regards husband and wife, and Articles 220 to 225 of the same code as
regards parents and their children; (7) interpretation made by the National
Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal of the Catholic Church, and (8) the trial
must order the fiscal and the Solicitor-General to appeal as counsels for
the State.

The Supreme Court granted the petition, and reversed and set aside the
assailed decision; concluding that the marriage of Roridel Olaviano to
Reynaldo Molina subsists and remains valid.