Page 1 of 31 || PFR SEPT 7 2015
Marriage is not an adventure but a lifetime commitment.
Art. 36. A marriage contracted by any party who, at the time of the celebration,
was psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential marital
obligations of marriage, shall likewise be void even if such incapacity becomes
manifest only after its solemnization.
Santos vs CA
FACTS:
Leouel and Julia were married on September 20, 1986.
They were first married before the MTC in Iloilo. Shortly, they married in a
church. They lived with Julia’s parents. Soon, she gave birth to their first child.
Some disagreements the couple had was the issue of living independently from
Julia’s parents.
On 18 May 1988, Julia finally left for USA to work as a nurse. Julia, via phone
call, promised to return home upon the expiration of her contract in July 1989.
She never did.
When Leouel got a chance to visit the United States, where he underwent a
training program of AFP, he desperately tried to locate, or to somehow get in
touch with, Julia but all his efforts were of no avail.
Having failed to get Julia to come home, Leouel filed with the RTC a complaint
for voiding their marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity. RTC
dismissed the complaint. CA affirmed the dismissal.
ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent is psychologically incapacitated for failure to return
home or communicate with the plaintiff.
HELD:
No, Justice Sempio-Diy opined that 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. 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 intensitivity or inability to give meaning and
significance to the marriage. The case at bar can ,in no measure at all, come
close to the standards required to decree a nullity of marriage.
It should be hard and in its full length.
Note: Art. 36 FC
CHI MING TSOI vs CA
FACTS:
Chi Ming Tsoi and Gina Lao Tsoi was married in 1988. After the celebration of
their wedding, they proceed to the house of defendant’s 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 Gina’s 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
Page 2 of 31 || PFR SEPT 7 2015
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 he is capable of erection even though it is not in its full legth and there is
no evidence of impotency.
ISSUE:
Whether or not plaintiff is psychologically incapacitated for refusing to have
sexual intercourse with his wife(respondent).
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 to 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.
RATIO:
1. Senseless & protracted refusal is equivalent to psychological incapacity.
2. Procreation is one of the essential marital obligations and constant non-
fulfillment of such will destroy marriage.
3. Marriage is definitely not for children but for two consenting adults who view
the relationship with love amor gignit amorem, respect, sacrifice and a
continuing commitment to compromise, conscious of its value as a sublime
social institution
4. Essential marital obligations under the Family Code is “to procreate children
based on the universal principle that procreation of children through sexual
cooperation is the basic end of marriage.”
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES vs CA
Family Code
Art. 36. A marriage contracted by any party who, at the time of the celebration,
was psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential marital
obligations of marriage, shall likewise be void even if such incapacity becomes
manifest only after its solemnization.
Facts:
Reynaldo and Roridel Molina were married on August 14, 1985 in San Agustin
Church (valid marriage) and had a son, Andre Molina. After a year of marriage,
Reynaldo was alleged to show signs of immaturity and irresponsibility as a
husband and father manifested by: 1) spending more time with his friends
rather than his family; 2) dependence to his parents for financial support; 3)
dishonesty on their financial status. An intense quarrel made Reynaldo decide to
leave Roridel and their child, thus showing that he is incapable of complying
with the essence of his marital obligation.
In Reynaldo’s defense, their frequent quarrels were due to: 1) Roridel's strange
behavior of insisting on maintaining her group of friends even after their
marriage; 2) Roridel's refusal to perform some of her marital duties such as
cooking meals; and 3) Roridel's failure to run the household and handle their
finances.
RTC renders that the marriage was void in accordance to the Article 36 of the
Family Code. This has been affirmed by CA. The solicitor general assails this
decision of CA, since the affirming court gave an erroneous interpretation to
“psychological incapacity”. If said conduct, observed and considered as a whole,
tends to cause the union to self-destruct because it defeats the very objectives
of marriage, then there is enough reason to leave the spouses to their individual
Page 3 of 31 || PFR SEPT 7 2015
fates. OSC further argues that "opposing and conflicting personalities" is not
equivalent to psychological incapacity, explaining that such ground "is not
simply the neglect by the parties to the marriage of their responsibilities and
duties, but a defect in their psychological nature which renders them incapable
of performing such marital responsibilities and duties."
Issue:
The issue whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in affirming RTC decision
i.e. the marriage is void on the grounds of psychological incapacity.
Ruling:
Petition is MERITUOUS. The assailed decision is REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
Marriage of Roridel and Reynaldo Molina subsists and remains valid.
Rationale:
• More than proving the manifestations of irresponsibility to fulfill the
marital obligation, it must also be shown that these acts were due to
psychological incapacity.
• There has been no proof of psychological defect on the part of
Reynaldo. The action is a mere “difficulty” if not a “refusal” to perform
his marital obligations, but not psychological incapacity.
• The incapacity should be proven to exist during the celebration of the
marriage.
• The court has laid down guidance for the interpretation of psychological
incapacity (paraphrased):
a. The plaintiff the has the burden to prove psychological
incapacity
b. The cause of the psychological incapacity must be medically
identified, alleged in the complaint, sufficiently proven by
experts, and must be clearly stated in the decision.
c. The incapacity must be proven existing during the celebration
of the marriage
d. The incapacity should be proven medically and clinically
incurable.
e. The gravity of the illness must lead to the disability of the party
to assume essential obligations of marriage
f. Such marital obligations must be based on the existing laws of
marriage (Family Code 68, 71, 220, 221, 225).
g. 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.
h. No decision shall he handed down unless the Solicitor General
issues a certification, which will be quoted in the decision,
briefly staring therein his reasons for his agreement or
opposition, as the case may be, to the petition.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
HERNANDEZ vs COURT OF APPEALS
Santos vs CA ruling
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
Page 4 of 31 || PFR SEPT 7 2015
serious cases of personality disorders clearly demonstrative of an utter
insensitivity or inability to give meaning and significance to the marriage. This
psychological condition must exist at the time the marriage is celebrated. The
law does not evidently envision, upon the other hand, an inability of the spouse
to have sexual relations with the other. This conclusion is implicit under Article
54 of the Family Code which considers children conceived prior to the judicial
declaration of nullity of the void marriage to be legitimate.
The other forms of psychoses, if existing at the inception of marriage, like the
state of a party being of unsound mind or concealment of drug addiction,
habitual alcoholism, homosexuality or lesbianism, merely renders the marriage
contract voidable pursuant to Article 46, Family Code. If drug addiction, habitual
alcoholism, lesbianism or homosexuality should occur only during the marriage,
they become mere grounds for legal separation under Article 55 of the Family
Code. These provisions of the Code, however, do not necessarily preclude the
possibility of these various circumstances being themselves, depending on the
degree and severity of the disorder, indicia of psychological incapacity.
Until further statutory and jurisprudential parameters are established, every
circumstance that may have some bearing on the degree, extent, and other
conditions of that incapacity must, in every case, be carefully examined and
evaluated so that no precipitate and indiscriminate nullity is peremptorily
decreed. The well-considered opinions of psychiatrists, psychologists, and
persons with expertise in psychological disciplines might be helpful or even
desirable.
Family Code
Art. 55. A petition for legal separation may be filed on any of the following
grounds:
(1) Repeated physical violence or grossly abusive conduct directed
against the petitioner, a common child, or a child of the petitioner;
(2) Physical violence or moral pressure to compel the petitioner to
change religious or political affiliation;
(3) Attempt of respondent to corrupt or induce the petitioner, a
common child, or a child of the petitioner, to engage in prostitution, or
connivance in such corruption or inducement;
(4) Final judgment sentencing the respondent to imprisonment of more
than six years, even if pardoned;
(5) Drug addiction or habitual alcoholism of the respondent;
(6) Lesbianism or homosexuality of the respondent;
(7) Contracting by the respondent of a subsequent bigamous marriage,
whether in the Philippines or abroad;
(8) Sexual infidelity or perversion;
(9) Attempt by the respondent against the life of the petitioner; or
(10) Abandonment of petitioner by respondent without justifiable cause
for more than one year.
For purposes of this Article, the term "child" shall include a child by nature or by
adoption.
Facts:
Lucita (petitioner) and Mario (respondent) met in Philippine Christian University
in Dasmarias, Cavite. Petitioner, who was at that time, a college teacher, is five
years older than Mario, who was her student and a college freshman during
their first encounter. They became sweethearts and got married on January 1,
1981.
After the marriage, Mario continued 2 more years in college while being
sustained by his parents. Lucita provides the allowance and other financial
needs for her husband. After he graduated, Mario decided to help Lucita in her
business since he couldn’t find a stable job. But then the business suffered as
Mario spent the money to his other women. He also spent the money being with
his friends and in betting on cockfights.
Page 5 of 31 || PFR SEPT 7 2015
After the birth of her first child, Lucita discovered her husband’s extramarital
affairs. The petitioner still accepted Mario after that in order to save their
marriage. After that, in fact, Mario was offered with a job through Lucita’s family
friend, and worked in Renolds Philippines, Inc. However, the respondent, upon
applying for an early retirement plan offered by the company, move out of the
company and took with him a total amount of P53,000. He spent the money to
his vices: smoking, drinking, gambling, and womanizing. Mario returned back to
his womanizing, and had several extramarital affairs. Because of this, he had
acquired STD (gonorrhea), which he later on passed to Lucita. Both undergone
treatment and were cured. When Lucita confronted Mario about the extramarital
affairs, the latter beat the former, resulting to the petitioner’s confinement in
the hospital. The statement was supported by Lucita’s childhood friend, Ester
Alfaro, who affirmed the facts mentioned.
On April 10, 1993, the RTC dismissed the petition for the annulment of marriage
by Lucita. Citing Article 55 of the Family Code, psychological incapacity is not
constituted by the grounds mentioned in the said article of the code.
Furthermore, the grounds for sexual transmitted disease it was not established
that fraud has been committed by the husband (which is contained in Article 45,
FC).
The Court of Appeals affirmed RTC’s decision.
Issue:
Whether the CA erred in affirming the RTC decision to dismiss the petition for
the annulment of marriage.
Ruling:
The decision of CA is AFFIRMED.
Rationale:
• SC cited the Santos vs CA ruling. In the instant case, Lucita presented
self-serving declarations of the instances that Mario was psychologically
incapable of fulfilling his marital obligations. The only supporting
evidence that she has provided was the statement from her childhood
friend, affirming the sworn statement of events. The petitioner failed to
present, first, factual evidence that the events really did happened; and
second, that the acts were out of psychological incapacity.
• The acts of habitual alcoholism, sexual infidelity, and abandonment of
marital obligations do not constitute psychological incapacity. 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.
• The Court is mindful of the policy of the 1987 Constitution to protect
and strengthen the family as the basic autonomous social institution
and marriage as the foundation of the family.
MARCOS v MARCOS
(promulgated October 19, 2000)
FACTS: Wilson and Brenda were both former military personnel, they became
sweethearts when they were working as security for the Marcoses in Malacañan
in 1980. They got married civilly in 1982 and then before a reverend in 1983.
Eventually, Wilson couldn't get a decent job, and then he became violent; he
became physically abusive towards Brenda, their children and even towards
other people. They subsequently started living separately. Brenda filed a case
of Declaration of Nullity of their marriage on the ground of psychological
incapacity against Wilson. She presented the findings of a psychologist who
evaluated her (but not Wilson). The RTC dissolved their marriage. The CA
reversed the RTC ruling saying that it is necessary that the root cause of
Wilson's psychological incapacity be medically and clinically identified,
sufficiently proven by experts and clearly explained in the decision, and that the
totality of the evidence failed to show such incapacity.
ISSUES: W/N a personal medical or psychological examination is a requirement
for a declaration of psychological incapacity, W/N the evidence established the
incapacity of Wilson
RULING: NO, and NO. The case of Republic vs CA and Molina states the
guidelines governing the application and interpretation of Article 36, and as
Page 6 of 31 || PFR SEPT 7 2015
mandated in Santos vs CA, the basic requirements incorporated in the
guidelines are that the psychological capacity must be characterized by gravity,
juridical antecedence, and incurability. It is not required that a physician
examine the person to be declared psychologically incapacitated. What is
important is the presence of evidence that can adequately establish the party's
psychological condition.
Even though Wilson failed to provide material support and resorted to physical
abuse and abandonment, there is absolutely no showing that his defects were
already present at the inception of the marriage or that they are incurable. His
alleged psychological illnes was traced only to the time when he lost his job,
could not find a good job, became intermittently drunk, failed to give support,
and left the family home. It was not traced to the inception of the marriage.
There is also no evidence that his condition is incurable. He is now gainfully
employed as a taxi driver.
REPUBLIC v DAGDAG
(promulgated February 9, 2001)
FACTS: Erlinda and Avelino got married in 1975 in the Aglipayan Church. After
the wedding, Avelino would frequently leave the family home and disappear for
months. When he reappears, he goes on drinking sprees. He even became
physically abusive. During a period of disappearance, Erlinda even heard that
he got imprisoned for some crime and escaped. Erlinda filed a petition for
judicial declaration of nullity of marriage on the ground of psychological
incapacity. Erlinda and her sister testified that the former and Avelino would
always quarrel, and that he never stayed long at home. The RTC declared their
marriage null and void, which the CA affirmed, saying that Avelino's consistent
irresponsibility, immaturity, prolonged absence or abandonment, criminality,
failure to support are indicative of a failure to perform the duties of a married
person which is incurable and such existed at the time of the celebration of the
marriage and became manifest only thereafter.
ISSUE: W/N the RTC and the CA erred
RULING: YES. Considering the guidelines provided in Republic vs CA and
Molina, Erlinda failed to comply with the guideline which requires that the root
cause of psychological incapacity must be medically or clinically identified and
sufficiently proven by experts, since no psychiatrist or medical doctor testified
as to the alleged psychological incapacity of her husband. Further, the allegation
that the husband is a fugitive from justice was not sufficiently proven. In fact,
the crime for which he was arrested was not even alleged. The SC has held in a
previous case that "expert testimony should have been presented to establish
the precise cause of the psychological incapacity, if any, in order to show that it
existed at the inception of the marriage.”
Republic of the Philippines v. Lolita Quintero-
Hermano
Facts:
• On June 17, 1996, respondent, Lolita Quintero-Hermano file a complaint
for Declaration of Nullity of her marriage to her husband Toshio
Hamano, a Japanese national, on the ground of Psychological incapacity.
• She alleged that they were started a common-law relationship in Japan.
• They later lived in the Philippines for a month. Thereafter, Toshio went
back to Japan andlived there half a year.
• On Nov. 16, 1987, respondent gave birth (daughter)
• On Jan. 14, 1988, they get married by Judge Isauro Balderia of the MTC
of Bacoor, Cavite.
• Unknown to her, her husband was psychologically incapacitated to
assume his marital responsibilities, which incapacity became manifest
after the marriage.
• One month after the marriage, Toshio went back to Japan and promised
to return by Christmas.
• After 2 mons of sending money to respondent, he stopped giving
financial support. Respondent learned from a friend that Toshio visited
Phils. But did not bother to see them.
• The summons issued to Toshio but it was remained unserved because
Toshio was no longer residing at the given address.
Page 7 of 31 || PFR SEPT 7 2015
• On July 8, 1996, she filed an ex parte motion for leave to effect service
of summons by publication.
• Trail court granted the motion. Giving Toshio 15 days to file an answer.
• He failed to file a responsive pleading after 60 days from publication.
• Respondent filed a motion refer to the case to the prosecutor for
investigation. The trial court granted.
• On Nov. 20, 1996, prosecutor Rolando Gonzales filed a report finding
that no collusion existed between the parties. He prayed that the Office
of the Provincial Prosecutor be allowed to intervene to ensure that the
evidence submitted was not fabricated.
• Trial court rendered decision that the marriage declared null and void.
• On declaring the decision on the ground of psychological incapacity, the
trial court held that:
It is clear from the records of the case that respondent spouses failed
to fulfill his obligations as husband of the petitioner and father to his daughter.
Respondent remained irresponsible and unconcerned over the needs and
welfare of his family. Such indifference, to the mind of the Court, is a clear
manifestation of insensitivity and lack of respect for his wife and child which
characterizes a very immature person. Certainly, such behavior could be traced
to respondent’s mental incapacity and disability of entering into marital life.
Issue/s:
WON respondent successfully proved Toshio’s psychological incapacity to fulfill
his marital responsibilities.
HELD: NO.
Rationale:
The court found that the totality of evidence presented fell short of proving
that Toshio was psychologically incapacitated to assume his marital
responsibilities. Toshioa’s act of abandonement was doubtlessly irresponsible
but it was not provem to be due to some kind of psychological illness. No other
evidence was presented showing that his behaviour was caused by a
psychological disorder. It would have greatly helped respondent’s case had she
presented evidence that medically or clinically identified his illness. That could
have been done through an expert witness.
Remember that abandonment is also a ground for legal separation. We cannot
presume psychological defect from the mere fact that Toshio abandoned his
family immediately after the celebration of the marriage. In Molina ruling, it is
not enought to prove that a spouse failed to meet his responsibility and duty as
a married couple; it is essential that he must be shown to be incapable of doing
so due to some psychological, not physical illness.
Wherefore, the petition for review is hereby Granted. The decision dated Aug.
28, 1997 of the CA is hereby Reversed and Set Aside.
Leonila Antonio v. Marie Ivonnie Reyes
Facts:
• They were met in August 1989 when petitioner was 26 yrs. Old and
respondent was 36 yrs. Old.
• A year after their first meeting, on Dec. 1990, they got married before a
minister of the Gospel at the Municipal City Hall and through
subsequent church wedding at the Sta. Rosa de Lima Parish, Bagong
Ilog, Pasig.
• They begot a child, unfortunately died five months later.
• On March 8, 1993, petitioner filed a petition to have his marriage to
respondent declared null and void. On Article 36 of the Family Code
alleging that respondent was psychologically incapacitated to comply
with the essential obligations of marriage. He asserted that at the time
of the celebration of marriage the psychological incapacity of
respondent existed and still subsisting up to present.
• He claimed that respondent persistently lied about herself, the people
around her, her occupation, income, educational attainment and other
events or things, to wit:
(1) She concealed the fact that she previously gave birth to an illegitimate
son, and instead introduced the boy to petitioner as the adopted child of her
family. She only confessed the truth about the boy’s parentage when petitioner
learned about it from other sources after their marriage.
Page 8 of 31 || PFR SEPT 7 2015
(2) She fabricated a story that her brother-in-law, Edwin David, attempted to
rape and kill her when in fact, no such incident occurred.
(3) She misrepresented herself as a psychiatrist to her obstetrician, Dr.
Consuelo Gardiner, and told some of her friends that she graduated with a
degree in psychology, when she was neither.
(4) She claimed to be a singer or a free-lance voice talent affiliated with
Blackgold Recording Company (Blackgold); yet, not a single member of her
family ever witnessed her alleged singing activities with the group. In the same
vein, she postulated that a luncheon show was held at the Philippine Village
Hotel in her honor and even presented an invitation to that effect but petitioner
discovered per certification by the Director of Sales of said hotel that no such
occasion had taken place.
(5) She invented friends named Babes Santos and Via Marquez, and under
those names, sent lengthy letters to petitioner claiming to be from Blackgold
and touting her as the "number one moneymaker" in the commercial industry
worth P2 million. Petitioner later found out that respondent herself was the one
who wrote and sent the letters to him when she admitted the truth in one of
their quarrels. He likewise realized that Babes Santos and Via Marquez were
only figments of her imagination when he discovered they were not known in or
connected with Blackgold.
(6) She represented herself as a person of greater means, thus, she altered her
payslip to make it appear that she earned a higher income. She bought a sala
set from a public market but told petitioner that she acquired it from a famous
furniture dealer. She spent lavishly on unnecessary items and ended up
borrowing money from other people on false pretexts.
(7) She exhibited insecurities and jealousies over him to the extent of calling up
his officemates to monitor his whereabouts. When he could no longer take her
unusual behavior, he separated from her in August 1991. He tried to attempt a
reconciliation but since her behavior did not change, he finally left her for good
in November 1991.
• He presented Dr. Dante Herrera Abcede, a psychiatrist and Dr. Arnulfo
Lopez, a clinical psychologist, who stated that petitioner was essentially
a normal, introspective, shy and conservative. On the other hand,
respondent’ persistent and constant lying to petitioner was abnormal or
pathological.
• They further asserted that respondents extreme jealousy was also
pathological. Her suspected affair of petitioner was no actual basis. They
conculded that respindent was psychologically incapacitated to perform
her essential marital responsibilities.
• In her version, she claimed that she performed her marital obligations
by attending all the needs of her husband and there was no truth to the
allegation that she fabricated stories, told lies, and invented
personalities.
(1) She concealed her child by another man from petitioner because she was
afraid of losing her husband.
(2) She told petitioner about David’s attempt to rape and kill her because she
surmised such intent from David’s act of touching her back and ogling her from
head to foot.
(3) She was actually a BS Banking and Finance graduate and had been teaching
psychology at the Pasig Catholic School for two (2) years.
(4) She was a free-lance voice talent of Aris de las Alas, an executive producer
of Channel 9 and she had done three (3) commercials with McCann Erickson for
the advertisement of Coca-cola, Johnson & Johnson, and Traders Royal Bank.
She told petitioner she was a Blackgold recording artist although she was not
under contract with the company, yet she reported to the Blackgold office after
office hours. She claimed that a luncheon show was indeed held in her honor at
the Philippine Village Hotel on 8 December 1979.
(5) She vowed that the letters sent to petitioner were not written by her and
the writers thereof were not fictitious. Bea Marquez Recto of the Recto political
clan was a resident of the United States while Babes Santos was employed with
Saniwares.
(6) She admitted that she called up an officemate of her husband but averred
that she merely asked the latter in a diplomatic matter if she was the one
asking for chocolates from petitioner, and not to monitor her husband’s
whereabouts.
(7) She belied the allegation that she spent lavishly as she supported almost ten
people from her monthly budget ofP7000
• Respondent presented Dr. Antonio Reyes, a psychiatrist to refute the
allegations anenther psychological condition.
Page 9 of 31 || PFR SEPT 7 2015
• Dr. Lopez asseverated that the evaluation conducted by Dr. Reyes was
not the one who administered and interpreted respondent’s
psychological evaluation, and he made use only one instrument called
CPRS which was not reliable because a good liar can fake the results of
such test.
• The lower court gave credence to petitioner’s evidence and held
respondent’s propensity to lying about almost anything made her
psychologically incapacitated. Declared the marriage null and void.
• Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's decision. It held that the
totality of evidence presented was insufficient to establish Reyes'
psychological incapacity. It declared that the requirements in the 1997
Molina case had not been satisfied.
Issue/s:
WON Antonio can impose Article 36 of the Family Code as basis for declaring
their marriage null and void
Held: Yes
Rationale:
The actual findings of the trial court are deemed binding on the SC, owing to the
great weight accorded to the opinion of the primary trier of facts. As such, it
must be considered that respondent had consistently lied about many material
aspects as to her character and personality. Her fantastic ability to invent and
fabricate stories and personalities enabled her to live in a world of make-
believe. This made her psychologically incapacitated as it rendered her
incapable of giving meaning and significance to her marriage.
The case sufficiently satisfies the Molina guidelines:
First, that Antonio had sufficiently overcome his burden in proving the
psychological incapacity of his wife;
Second, that the root cause of Reyes' psychological incapacity has been
medically or clinically identified that was sufficiently proven by experts, and was
clearly explained in the trial court's decision;
Third, that she fabricated friends and made up letters before she married him
prove that her psychological incapacity was have existed even before the
celebration of marriage;
Fourth, that the gravity of Reyes' psychological incapacity was considered so
grave that a restrictive clause was appended to the sentence of nullity
prohibited by the National Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal from contracting
marriage without their consent;
Fifth, that she being an inveterate pathological liar makes her unable to commit
the basic tenets of relationship between spouses based on love, trust, and
respect.
Sixth, that the CA clearly erred when it failed to take into consideration the fact
that the marriage was annulled by the Catholic Church. However, it is the
factual findings of the judicial trier of facts, and not of the canonical courts, that
are accorded significant recognition by this Court.
Seventh, that Reyes' case is incurable considering that Antonio tried to reconcile
with her but her behavior remains unchanged.
All told, we conclude that petitioner has established his cause of action for
declaration of nullity under Article 36 of the Family Code. The RTC correctly
ruled, and the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the trial court.
There is little relish in deciding this present petition, pronouncing as it does the
marital bond as having been inexistent in the first place. It is possible that
respondent, despite her psychological state, remains in love with petitioner, as
exhibited by her persistent challenge to the petition for nullity. In fact, the
appellate court placed undue emphasis on respondent’s avowed commitment to
remain in the marriage. Yet the Court decides these cases on legal reasons and
not vapid sentimentality. Marriage, in legal contemplation, is more than the
legitimatization of a desire of people in love to live together.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The decision of the RTC dated 10 August
1995, declaring the marriage between petitioner and respondent NULL and
VOID under Article 36 of the Family Code, is REINSTATED. No costs.
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v.
LAILA TANYAG-SAN JOSE & MANOLITO SAN JOSE
FACTS:
Page 10 of 31 || PFR SEPT 7 2015
Laila Tanyag-San Jose (Laila), 19 year old & 4 months and Manolito San Jose
(Manolito), was 20 years and 10 months old were married on June 12, 1988.
The couple have 2 children Joana Marie who was .
Being jobless and a drug user is not a state or condition or attitude shown to be
a malady or disorder rooted on some incapacitating or debilitating psychological
condition.
Repondents Manolito San Jose and Laila Tanyag-San Jose got married.
Thereafter Laila gave birth to two children. Laila, then left Manolito for being
jobless and hooked into gambling and drugs.
Laila then filed a Petition for Declartion of Nullity on the ground of psychological
incapacity before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig City.
Dr. Nedy Tayag found that Manolito was psychologically incapacitated based on
the testimony of Laila. Dr. Tayag further said that he suffers from anti-social
personality disorder because of the following overt manipulations: the presence
of drug, the absence of remourse, the constant incapacity in terms of
maintaining the marital relationship, the lack of concern to his family, and his
self-centeredness.
The RTC denied Laila‘s petition on the ground that it is not enough to prove that
one failed to perform his marital duty, it is essential that it must be shown that
the other party is incapable of doing so due to psychological incapacity not
physical illness.
Laila appealed to Court of Appeals (CA). The CA held that Manolito was
psychologically incapacitated hence their marriage is void ab Initio. The CA
concluded that the deficiency of Manolito was so grave and so permanent as to
deprive one of awareness of the duties and responsibilities of the matrimonial
bond one is about to assume.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Manolito is psychologically incapacitated
HELD:
Psychological incapacity, as a ground for nullity of marriage, has been succinctly
expounded in the recent case of Ma. Armida Perez-Ferraris v. Brix Ferraris
(Ferraris), the term “psychological incapacity” to be a ground for the nullity of
marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code, refers to a serious psychological
illness afflicting a party even before the celebration of the marriage. It is a
malady so grave and so permanent as to deprive one of the awareness of the
duties and responsibilities of the matrimonial bond one is about to assume.
As the earlier-quoted Report of Dr. Tayag shows, her conclusion about Manolito‘s
psychological incapacity was based on the information supplied by Laila which
she found to be ―factual.‖ Undoubtedly, the doctor‘s conclusion is hearsay. It is
―unscientific and unreliable,‖ so this Court declared in Choa v. Choa where the
assessment of the therein party sought to be declared psychologically
incapacitated was based merely on the information communicated to the doctor
by the therein respondent-spouse. In this case, Dr. Gauzon had no personal
knowledge of the facts he testified to, as these had merely been relayed to him
by respondent. The former was working on pure suppositions and secondhand
information fed to him by one side. Consequently, his testimony can be
dismissed as unscientific and unreliable.
Parenthetically, Dr. Tayag’s Psychological Report does not even show that the
alleged anti-social personality disorder of Manolito was already present at the
inception of the marriage or that it is incurable. Neither does it explain the
incapacitating nature of the alleged disorder nor identify its root cause. It
merely states that “such disorder is considered to be grave and is deeply
immersed within the system and continues to influence the individual until the
later stage of life.”
Manolito’s alleged psychological incapacity is thus premised on his being jobless
and a drug user, as well as his inability to support his family and his refusal or
unwillingness to assume the essential obligations of marriage. Manolito’s state
or condition or attitude has not been shown, however, to be a malady or
disorder rooted on some incapacitating or debilitating psychological condition.
ALMELOR V. RTC-LAS PINAS, G.R. NO. 179620
FACTS:
Petitioner Manuel G. Almelor (Manuel) and respondent Leonida Trinidad
(Leonida) were married on January 29, 1989 and had three children.
Manuel and Leonida are both medical practitioners, an anesthesiologist and a
pediatrician, respectively. After eleven (11) years of marriage, Leonida filed a
petition with the RTC in Las Piñas City to annul their marriage on the ground
Page 11 of 31 || PFR SEPT 7 2015
that Manuel was psychologically incapacitated to perform his marital obligations.
Leonida that in the public eye, Manuel was the picture of a perfect husband and
father but this was not the case in his private life. At home, Leonida described
Manuel as a harsh disciplinarian, unreasonably meticulous, easily angered.
Manuel’s unreasonable way of imposing discipline on their children was the
cause of their frequent fights as a couple.
Leonida complained that this was in stark contrast to the alleged lavish affection
Manuel has for his mother. She also alleged that her husband has concealed
from her his homosexuality. She caught him in an indiscreet telephone
conversation manifesting his affection for a male caller. She also found several
pornographic homosexual materials in his possession. And she saw Manuel
kissed another man on the lips. The man was a certain Dr. Nogales. When she
confronted Manuel, he denied everything. At this point, Leonida took her
children and left their conjugal abode. Since then, Manuel stopped giving
support to their children. Dr. Valentina del Fonso Garcia, a clinical psychologist,
was presented to prove Leonida’s claim. She testified that she conducted
evaluative interviews and a battery of psychiatric tests on Leonida.
She also had a one-time interview with Manuel and face-to-face. She concluded
that Manuel is psychologically incapacitated and such incapacity is marked by
antecedence; it existed even before the marriage and appeared to be incurable.
Manuel countered that the true cause of Leonida’s hostility against him was
their professional rivalry.
The trial court nullified the marriage, not on the ground of Article 36, but Article
45 of the Family Code on November 25, 2005. CA denied the appeal.
1. Declaring the marriage contracted by herein parties on 29 January 1989 and
all its effects under the law null and void from the beginning;
2. Dissolving the regime of community property between the same parties with
forfeiture of defendant's share thereon in favor of the same parties' children
whose legal custody is awarded to plaintiff with visitorial right afforded to
defendant;
3. Ordering the defendant to give monthly financial support to all the children;
and
4. Pursuant to the provisions of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC:
a. Directing the Branch Clerk of this Court to enter this Judgment upon its
finality in the Book of Entry of Judgment and to issue an Entry of Judgment
in accordance thereto;
b. Directing the Local Civil Registrars of Las Piñas City and Manila City to
cause the registration of the said Entry of Judgment in their respective Books
of Marriages. Upon compliance, a decree of nullity of marriage shall be
issued.
ISSUE: Whether or not the marriage between the two can be declared as null
and void due to fraud by reason of Manuel’s concealment of his homosexuality.
HELD:
Concealment of homosexuality is the proper ground to annul a marriage, not
homosexuality per se.
Evidently, no sufficient proof was presented to substantiate the allegations that
Manuel is a homosexual and that he concealed this to Leonida at the time of
their marriage. The lower court considered the public perception of Manuel’s
sexual preference without the corroboration of witnesses.
Also, it took cognizance of Manuel’s peculiarities and interpreted it against his
sexuality. Even granting that Manuel is indeed a homosexual, there was nothing
in the complaint or anywhere in the case was it alleged and proven that Manuel
hid such sexuality from Leonida and that Leonida’s consent had been vitiated by
such.
FC.36. A marriage contracted by any party who, at the time of the celebration,
was psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential marital
obligations of marriage, shall likewise be void even if such incapacity becomes
manifest only after its solemnization.
Edward Kenneth Ngo Te, Petitioner vs. Rowena
Ong Gutierrez Yu-Te, Respondent
Facts:
- In January of 1996, Edward Te and Rowena Te met in a Filipino-Chinese
association in theri college. Having similar angst towards their families,
the two understood each other and developed a certain degree of
Page 12 of 31 || PFR SEPT 7 2015
closeness. In March 1996 (3months) after their first meeting, Rowena
asked Edward that they elope. At first he refused, as he was young and
jobless.
- But Rowena was persistent and made him relent. They left Manila and
sailed to Cebu, he, providing their travel money and she purchasing the
boat ticket.
- However, Edward’s 80,000.00 only lasted for a month, which was used
for their pension house accommodation and daily sustenance. They
could not find a job, so in April 1996, they decided to go back to Manila.
- Rowena stayed at her uncle’s house while Edward to his parents’ home.
As his family was abroad, Rowena kept on telephoning him, threatening
that she would commit suicide, so Edward agreed to stay with her at
her uncle’s place.
- On April 23,1996, Rowena’s uncle brought the two to a court to get
married. He was then 25 and she 20. The two continued to stay at her
uncle’s place and Edward was treated as a prisoner-he was not allowed
to go out unaccompanied.
- Her uncle also showed Edward his guns and warned him not to leave
Rowena.
- At one point, Edward was able to call home and talk to his brother who
suggested that they should live at their parents’ home and live with
them.
- Edward relayed it to Rowena, who however suggested that he should
get his inheritance so that they could live on their own. He then talked
to his father but his father got mad and told him that he will be
disinherited and insisted that Edward must go home.
- After a month, Edward escaped from the house of Rowena’s uncle, and
stayed with his parents. His family then, hid him from Rowena and her
family.
- In June 1996, Edward was able to talk to Rowena. Unmoved by his
persistence that they should live with his parents; she said that it was
better for them to live separate lives. They then parted ways.
- On Jan. 19, 2000 (almost 4 years after) Edward filed for a petition for
the annulment of his marriage to Rowena on the basis of Psychological
incapacity.
- Rowena did not file an answer, on July 11, 2000, the trial court ordered
OCP to investigate whether there was collusion between the parties.
- On July 27, 2000, OSG entered and deputized the OCP to appear on its
behalf and assist in the scheduled hearings.
- On August 23, 2000 the OCP submitted an investigation report stating
that it could not determine if there was collusion between the parties
- The clinical psychologist who examined petitioner found both parties
psychologically incapacitated.
- On July 30, 2001 the Trial Court declared the marriage null and void on
the ground that both parties were psychologically incapacitated to
comply with the essential marital obligations.
- The Republic, represented by the OSG filed its notice of appeal.
WHY IT IS NOT PI
- CA reversed the decision of the RTC and ruled that the petitioner failed
to prove the psychological incapacity of respondent. It stated that the
clinical psychologist did not personally examine the respondent and
only relied on the information provided by the petitioner
ISSUE:
Whether or not the marriage between parties is null and void based on
Article 36 of the Family Code.
Page 13 of 31 || PFR SEPT 7 2015
RULING:
The decision of the RTC dated July 30, 2001 was reinstated.
The court considered the psychological assessment adequate which
produced the findings that both parties are afflicted with personality
disorders; petitioner having dependent personality disorder and respondent
as a narcissistic and for having antisocial personality disorder.
WHY IT IS PI and SC’s RULING
Petitioner, who is afflicted with dependent personality disorder, cannot
assume the essential marital obligations of living together, observing love,
respect and fidelity and rendering help and support, for he is unable to
make everyday decisions without advice from others, allows others to make
most of his important decisions (such as where to live), tends to agree with
people even when he believes they are wrong, has difficulty doing things on
his own, volunteers to do things that are demeaning in order to get
approval from other people, feels uncomfortable or helpless when alone and
is often preoccupied with fears of being abandoned.67 As clearly shown in
this case, petitioner followed everything dictated to him by the persons
around him. He is insecure, weak and gullible, has no sense of his identity
as a person, has no cohesive self to speak of, and has no goals and clear
direction in life.
Although on a different plane, the same may also be said of the respondent.
Her being afflicted with antisocial personality disorder makes her unable to
assume the essential marital obligations. This finding takes into account her
disregard for the rights of others, her abuse, mistreatment and control of
others without remorse, her tendency to blame others, and her intolerance
of the conventional behavioral limitations imposed by society.68 Moreover,
as shown in this case, respondent is impulsive and domineering; she had no
qualms in manipulating petitioner with her threats of blackmail and of
committing suicide.
Both parties being afflicted with grave, severe and incurable psychological
incapacity, the precipitous marriage which they contracted on April 23, 1996
is thus, declared null and void.
The Encyclopedia of Mental Health
A group of disorders involving behaviors or traits that are characteristic of a
person’s recent and long-term functioning. Patterns of perceiving and
thinking are not usually limited to isolated episodes but are deeply
ingrained, inflexible, maladaptive and severe enough to cause the individual
mental stress or anxieties or to interfere with interpersonal relationships
and normal functioning. Personality disorders are often recognizable by
adolescence or earlier, continue through adulthood and become less obvious
in middle or old age. An individual may have more than one personality
disorder at a time.
The common factor among individuals who have personality disorders,
despite a variety of character traits, is the way in which the disorder leads
to pervasive problems in social and occupational adjustment. Some
individuals with personality disorders are perceived by others as
overdramatic, paranoid, obnoxious or even criminal, without an awareness
of their behaviors. Such qualities may lead to trouble getting along with
other people, as well as difficulties in other areas of life and often a
tendency to blame others for their problems. Other individuals with
personality disorders are not unpleasant or difficult to work with but tend to
be lonely, isolated or dependent. Such traits can lead to interpersonal
difficulties, reduced self-esteem and dissatisfaction with life.
Marieta C. Azcueta, petitioner VS. Republic of
the Philippines and the CA, respondents
FACTS:
- Marieta C. Azcueta and Rodolfo Azcueta met in 1993. They got married
on July 24, 1993 at St. Anthony of Padua Church, Antipolo City. At the
time of the marriage, Marietta was 23 while Rodolfo was 28. After 4
years of marriage the separated (1997). They have no children.
- On March 2, 2002 Marieta filed before RTC a petiion for declaration of
absolute nullity of marriage under Art. 36 of FC.
- Rodolfo failed to appear and file an answer despite service of summons
upon him. Trial Court then ordered the City prosecutor to investigate
whether there was collusion between the parties. But in the report filed
by the Prosecutor, there was no collusion found between the parties.
- On Aug.21, 2002, OSG entered its appearance for the RP and submitted
a written authority for the City Prosecutor to appear in the case on the
State’s behalf under the supervision and control of the SG.
Page 14 of 31 || PFR SEPT 7 2015
- Marieta claimed that Rodolfo was psychologically incapacitated to
comply with the essential obligations of marriage, that he was
emotionally immature, irresponsible and continually failed to adapt
himself to married life and perform the essential responsibilities and
duties of a husband.
- She claimed that Rodolfo never bothered to look for a job and instead
always ask her mother for financial assistance. It was Rodolfo’s mother
who found them a room near the Azcueta’s home and it was also the
mother who paid for the monthly rental.
- She also claimed that she constantly encourage her husband to find a
job but Rodolfo told her that he was too old and most jobs have an age
limit and that he had no clothes to wear for job interviews. So she
bought his husband new clothes and a pair of shoes and even give him
money to apply for a job. Rodolfo however pretended that he finally
found a job. During his supposed work time he would stay at his
parent’s house and his supposed salary that was given to Marieta was
from his mother.
- When confronted, Marieta alleged that Rodolfo cried like a child and told
her that he lied so that she would stop nagging him on getting a job.
He also told her that his parents can support their needs. She claimed
that Rodolfo was so dependent on his mother and that all his decisions
and attitudes in life should be in conformity with those of his mother.
- She complained that whenever Rodolfo would get drunk he became
physically abusive.
- Their sexual relationship was also unsatisfactory that they only had sex
once a month and that Marieta never enjoyed it.
- When she asked Rodolfo to move to another place and rent a small
room rather than live near his parents, Rodolfo did not agree. Because
of this, she was forced to leave their residence and see if he will follow
her but he did not.
- During the trial, Rodolfo’s first cousin testified and corroborated with
Marieta’s testimony that Rodolfo was not employed when he married
and he merely relied on the allowance given by his mother. The witness
also confirmed that that it was the mother who paid for the rent and
that during the time when Rodolfo alleged that he has job and wearing
a business attire, he would go to his parent’s house and that Rodolfo is
still residing at the house of his mother and not living together with
Marieta.
WHY IT IS PI
- Marieta also presented Dr. Cecilia Villegas, a psychiatrist who testified
that after examining marieta, her psychological evaluation was
matured, independent, very responsible focused and has direction and
ambition in life. Therefore, she was not psychologically incapacitated to
perform the duties and responsibilities of marriage.
- Dr. Villegas added that based on the information gathered from
petitioner, she found that Rodolfo showed that he was psychologically
incapacitated to perform his marital duties and responsibilities, Dr.
Villegas concluded that he was suffering from Dependent Personality
Disorder associated with severe inadequacy related to masculine
strivings.
- She explained that persons suffering from Dependent Personality
Disorder were those whose response to ordinary life was ineffectual and
inept, characterized by loss of self-confidence, constant self-doubt,
inability to make his own decisions and dependency on other people.
She added that the root cause of this psychological problem was a cross
– identification with the mother who was the dominant figure in the
family considering that Rodolfo’s father was a seaman and always out of
the house. She stated that this problem began during the early stages
in his life but manifested only after the celebration of his marriage.
According to Dr. Villegas, this kind of problem was also severe because
he will not be able to make and carry out on the responsibilities
expected of a married person. It was incurable because it started in
early development and therefore deeply ingrained into his personality.
- RTC declared the marriage null and void ab initio (October 25, 2004)
Page 15 of 31 || PFR SEPT 7 2015
- The evidence presented by Marieta established that Rodolfo failed to
perform his commitments and obligations as a husband. He failed
likewise to have sexual intercourse with the wife because it is a result
of the unconscious guilt feeling of having sexual relationship since he
could not distinguish between the mother and the wife and therefore
sex relationship will not be satisfactory as expected.
WHY IT IS NOT PI
- Rodolfo is suffering from dependent personality disorder and therefore
cannot make his own decision and cannot carry on his responsibilities
as a husband. The marital obligations to live together, observe mutual
love, respect, support was not fulfilled.
- SG appealed the RTC decision objecting (a) the psychiatric report of Dr.
Villegas was based solely on the information provided Marieta and was
not based on an examination of Rodolfo (b) there was no showing that
the alleged psychological defects were present at the inception of
marriage or that such defects were grave, permanent and incurable.
- CA reversed the RTC decision and ruled that Marieta failed to
sufficiently prove the psychological incapacity of Rodolfo or that his
alleged psychological disorder existed prior to the marriage and was
grave and incurable.
- CA reasoned that the evidence on record failed to demonstrate that
Marieta’s alleged irresponsibility and overdependence on his mother is
symptomatic of psychological incapacity.
- Records show that the parties were living in harmony in the first few
years of the marriage and were living in their own rented apartment.
Rodolfo often times asks his mother for financial support may be
brought about his feelings of embarrassment that he cannot contribute
to the family coffers, considering that it was his wife who is working for
the family. Likewise stated that the respondent does not want to have a
child because he is not yet ready to have one-that this is not at all
manifestation of irresponsibility.
- On the contrary, Rodolfo shown that he has full grasp of reality and
completely understands the implication of having a child especially that
he is unemployed. That the only problem in the union is Rodolfo’s
alleged irresponsibility and unwillingness to leave her mother, whic was
not proven in this case to be psychological –rooted.
- That the behaviour of Rodolfo was only caused by his youth and
emotional immaturity which by themselves, do not constitute
psychological incapacity.
- Psychological incapacity must be more than just a difficulty, refusal or
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.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the totality of the evidence presented is adequate to sustain
a finding that Rodolfo is psychologically incapacitated to comply with his
essential marital obligations.
RULING:
The petition is granted. The decision of RTC is reinstated.
With the evidence presented by Marieta the court find Rodolfo totally failed
in his commitments and obligations as a husband. Rodolfo’s emotional
immaturity and irresponsibility is grave and he has no showing of
improvement. He failed likewise to have sexual intercourse with the wife
because it is a result of the unconscious guilt feeling of having sexual
relationship since he could not distinguish between the mother and the wife
and therefore sex relationship will not be satisfactory as expected.
Rodolfo is suffering from dependent personality disorder and therefore
cannot make it his own decision and cannot carry on his responsibilities as a
husband. The marital obligations to live together, observe mutual
love, respect, support was not fulfilled by Rodolfo.
Page 16 of 31 || PFR SEPT 7 2015
Considering the totality of evidence of the petitioner clearly show that
respondent failed to comply with his marital obligations.
Rodolfo’s psychological incapacity was established to have clearly existed at
the time of and even before the celebration of marriage. Rodolfo’s
irresponsibility, oevrdepenced on his mother and abnormal sexual reticence
were evident that they manifest his dependent personality disorder must
have existed even prior to the marriage being rooted in his early
development and by product of his upbringing and family life.
His psychological incapacity has been shown to be sufficiently grave, so as
to render him unable to assume the essential obligations of marriage.
The reasoning of CA was not supported by evidence thus, it only strengthen
the argument of Marieta which was supported by an expert witness.
In Te vs Te
• One who is afflicted with dependent personality disorder, cannot
assume the essential marital obligations of living together, observing
love, respect and fidelity and rendering help and support, for he is
unable to make everyday decisions without advice from others, allows
others to make most of his important decisions, tends to agree with
people even when he believes they are wrong, has difficulty doing
things on his own, volunteers to do things that are demeaning in order
to get approval from other people, feels uncomfortable or helpless when
alone and is often preoccupied with fears of being abandoned.
Thus the court is not dissolving the marital bonds on account of either
party’s psychological incapacity, it 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 psychological disorder, who cannot
comply with or assume the essential marital obligations, from remaining in
that sacred bond.
HALILI V HALILI
FACTS
Petitioner Lester Benjamin S. Halili filed a petition to declare his marriage to
respondent Chona M. Santos-Halili null and void on the basis of his
psychological incapacity to perform the essential obligations of marriage in the
Regional Trial Court (RTC), Pasig City, Branch 158.
He alleged that he wed respondent in civil rites thinking that it was a joke. After
the ceremonies, they never lived together as husband and wife, but maintained
the relationship. However, they started fighting constantly a year later, at which
point petitioner decided to stop seeing respondent and started dating other
women. Immediately thereafter, he received prank calls telling him to stop
dating other women as he was already a married man. It was only upon making
an inquiry that he found out that the marriage was not fake.
RTC: declared the marriage null and void.
found petitioner to be suffering from a mixed personality disorder, particularly
dependent and self-defeating personality disorder, as diagnosed by his expert
witness, Dr. Natividad Dayan. The court a quo held that petitioners personality
disorder was serious and incurable and directly affected his capacity to comply
with his essential marital obligations to respondent.
CA: reversed and set aside the decision of the trial court on the ground that the
totality of the evidence presented failed to establish petitioners psychological
incapacity.
ISSUE:
W/N Lester Halili is proven psychologically incapacitated?
RULING:
GRANTED. The marriage between petitioner and respondent is declared null and
voi
RATIONALE:
It has been sufficiently established that petitioner had a psychological condition
that was grave and incurable and had a deeply rooted cause. SC recognized that
individuals with diagnosable personality disorders usually have long-term
concerns, and thus therapy may be long-term. Particularly, personality disorders
are long-standing, inflexible ways of behaving that are not so much severe
mental disorders as dysfunctional styles of living. These disorders affect all
areas of functioning and, beginning in childhood or adolescence, create
problems for those who display them and for others.
Page 17 of 31 || PFR SEPT 7 2015
From the foregoing, it has been shown that petitioner is indeed suffering from
psychological incapacity that effectively renders him unable to perform the
essential obligations of marriage.
Dr. Dayan stated that petitioners dependent personality disorder was evident in
the fact that petitioner was very much attached to his parents and depended on
them for decisions. Petitioners mother even had to be the one to tell him to
seek legal help when he felt confused on what action to take upon learning that
his marriage to respondent was for real.
Dr. Dayan further observed that, as expected of persons suffering from a
dependent personality disorder, petitioner typically acted in a self-denigrating
manner and displayed a self-defeating attitude. This submissive attitude
encouraged other people to take advantage of him. This could be seen in the
way petitioner allowed himself to be dominated, first, by his father who treated
his family like robots and, later, by respondent who was as domineering as his
father. When petitioner could no longer take respondents domineering ways, he
preferred to hide from her rather than confront her and tell her outright that he
wanted to end their marriage.
DEPENDENT PERSONALITY DISORDER
[a] personality disorder characterized by a pattern of dependent and submissive
behavior. Such individuals usually lack self-esteem and frequently belittle their
capabilities; they fear criticism and are easily hurt by others comments. At
times they actually bring about dominance by others through a quest for
overprotection.
Dependent personality disorder usually begins in early adulthood. Individuals
who have this disorder may be unable to make everyday decisions without
advice or reassurance from others, may allow others to make most of their
important decisions (such as where to live), tend to agree with people even
when they believe they are wrong, have difficulty starting projects or doing
things on their own, volunteer to do things that are demeaning in order to get
approval from other people, feel uncomfortable or helpless when alone and are
often preoccupied with fears of being abandoned.
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
NAJERA V NAJERA
FACTS
Petitioner Digna A. Najera
Respondent Eduardo J. Najera
On January 27, 1997, petitioner filed with the RTC a verified Petition for
Declaration of Nullity of Marriage with Alternative Prayer for Legal Separation,
with Application for Designation as Administrator Pendente Lite of the Conjugal
Partnership of Gains.
They were married on January 31, 1988 (Pangasinan). They are childless.
Petitioner claimed that at the time of the celebration of marriage, respondent
was psychologically incapacitated d/t the ff grounds:
(a) At the time of their marriage, petitioner was already employed with
the Special Services Division of the Provincial Government of Pangasinan, while
respondent was jobless. He did not exert enough effort to find a job and was
dependent on petitioner for support. Only with the help of petitioners elder
brother, who was a seaman, was respondent able to land a job as a seaman in
1988 through the Intercrew Shipping Agency.
(b) While employed as a seaman, respondent did not give petitioner
sufficient financial support and she had to rely on her own efforts and the help
of her parents in order to live.
(c) As a seaman, respondent was away from home from nine to ten
months each year. In May 1989, when he came home from his ship voyage, he
started to quarrel with petitioner and falsely accused her of having an affair with
another man. He took to smoking marijuana and tried to force petitioner into it.
When she refused, he insulted her and uttered unprintable words against her.
He would go out of the house and when he arrived home, he was always drunk.
(d) When respondent arrived home from his ship voyage in April 1994,
as had been happening every year, he quarreled with petitioner. He continued to
be jealous, he arrived home drunk and he smoked marijuana. On July 3, 1994,
while he was quarreling with petitioner, without provocation, he inflicted
physical violence upon her and attempted to kill her with a bolo. She was able
to parry his attack with her left arm, yet she sustained physical injuries on
different parts of her body. She was treated by Dr. Padlan, and the incident was
reported at the Bugallon Police Station.
(e) Respondent left the family home, taking along all their personal
belongings. He lived with his mother at Banaga, Bugallon, Pangasinan, and he
abandoned petitioner.
Page 18 of 31 || PFR SEPT 7 2015
Petitioner prayed that upon filing of the petition, an Order be issued appointing
her as the sole administrator of their conjugal properties; and that after trial on
the merits, judgment be rendered
(1) declaring their marriage void ab initio in accordance with Article 36 of the
Family Code;
(2) in the alternative, decreeing legal separation of petitioner and respondent
pursuant to Title II of the Family Code; and
(3) declaring the dissolution of the conjugal partnership of petitioner and
respondent and the forfeiture in
favor of petitioner of respondents share in the said properties pursuant to
Articles 42 (2) and 63 (2) of the Family Code; and
(4) granting petitioner other just and equitable reliefs.
RESPONDENT's ANSWER: April 17, 1997, he denied the material allegations
in the petition and averred that petitioner was incurably immature, of dubious
integrity, with very low morality, and guilty of infidelity. He claimed that the
subject house and lot were acquired through his sole effort and money. As
counterclaim, respondent prayed for the award of P200,000.00 as moral
damages
RTC: GRANTED
1. Decreeing legal separation of Petitioner/Plaintiff Digna Najera and
respondent/defendant Eduardo Najera;
2. Ordering the dissolution of the conjugal partnership of the petitioner/
plaintiff and respondent/defendant, and to divide the same equally between
themselves pursuant to their Joint Manifestation/Motion
CA: AFFIRMED in toto.
ISSUE
Whether or not the totality of petitioners evidence was able to prove that
respondent is psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential
obligations of marriage warranting the annulment of their marriage under Article
36 of the Family Code.



RULING
DENIED. CA affirmed.
RATIONALE
Court agrees with the Court of Appeals that the totality of the evidence
submitted by petitioner failed to satisfactorily prove that respondent was
psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential obligations of
marriage. The root cause of respondents alleged psychological incapacity was
not sufficiently proven by experts or shown to be medically or clinically
permanent or incurable.
Psychologist Cristina Gates conclusion that respondent was psychologically
incapacitated (Borderline Personality Disoreder) was based on facts relayed to
her by petitioner and was not based on her personal knowledge and evaluation
of respondent; thus, her finding is unscientific and unreliable.
The Court agrees with the Court of Appeals that the evidence presented by
petitioner in regard to the physical violence or grossly abusive conduct of
respondent toward petitioner and respondents abandonment of petitioner
without justifiable cause for more than one year are grounds for legal
separation only and not for annulment of marriage under Article 36 of the
Family Code.
Petitioners argument is without merit (that the Court of Appeals failed to
consider the Decision of the National Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal which her
counsel sought to be admitted). Given the preceding disquisitions, petitioner-
appellant should not expect SC to give credence to the Decision of the National
Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal when, apparently, it was made on a different set
of evidence of which SC have no way of ascertaining their truthfulness.
Maria Socorro Camacho-Reyes vs. Ramon Reyes
The Facts of the Case are as Follows:
Maria Socorro Camacho-Reyes met respondent Ramon Reyes at the
University of the Philippines (UP), Diliman, in 1972 when they were both
nineteen (19) years old. They were simply classmates then in one university
subject when respondent cross-enrolled from the UP Los Banos campus.
Since both resided in Mandaluyong City, they saw each other every day
and drove home together from the university.
Page 19 of 31 || PFR SEPT 7 2015
Easily impressed, petitioner enjoyed respondent’s style of courtship
which included dining out, unlike other couples their age who were restricted by
a university student’s budget. At that time, respondent held a job in the family
business, the Aristocrat Restaurant. Petitioner’s good impression of the
respondent was not diminished by the latter’s habit of cutting classes, not even
by her discovery that respondent was taking marijuana.
Not surprisingly, only petitioner finished university studies, obtaining a
degree in AB Sociology from the UP. By 1974, respondent had dropped out of
school on his third year, and just continued to work for the Aristocrat
Restaurant.
On December 5, 1976, the year following petitioner’s graduation and
her father’s death, petitioner and respondent got married. At that time,
petitioner was already five (5) months pregnant and employed at the Population
Center Foundation.
Initially, respondent was able to give support by giving the amount of
1,500 and on March 22, 1977, financial difficulties started. Respondent said that
he stopped giving the allowance because he resigned from work due to the slow
advancement of the family business. He wanted to venture into something new
and established many businesses which all failed.
The last and unprofitable business of respondent was a fishpond in
Mindoro. He was away from the family for a couple of days without giving effort
to even communicate with them. And on 1985, after suffering from a previous
miscarriage, she gave birth to a third son. Petitioner noticed that respondent
was indifferent from the suffering she endured for their 20-years of struggle to
make the union better, but to no avail respondent seemed not to care. Finally on
1989, the fishpond business altogether stopped.
It was followed by his sexual infidelity confirmed in 1996. Not only was
the respondent irresponsible to give support to his family, but also he was not
able to fulfil his obligations to his household. One of the worst events that
happened in the life of the couple was when petitioner was operated. It was of
the removal of a cyst which the respondent simply ignored and never seemed to
care. He just read the newspaper and played dumb when asked to accompany
her when she was wheeled to the operating room.
She also had failed attempts to regain the relationship by attending a
marriage encounter group with Adolfo, respondent’s elder brother and Peregrina
his wife. At first they had series of counselling, but it did not fix the broken
relantionship.
In 1997, Adolfo brought respondent to Dr. Natividad A. Dayan for a
psychological assessment to determine benchmarks of current psychological
functioning. As with all other attempts to help him, respondent resisted and did
not continue with the clinical psychologist’s recommendation to undergo
psychotherapy.
At about this time, petitioner, with the knowledge of respondent’s
siblings, told respondent to move out of their house. Respondent acquiesced to
give space to petitioner.
With the de facto separation, the relationship still did not improve.
Neither did respondents relationship with his children.
Finally, in 2001, petitioner filed (before the RTC) 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.
She presented several expert witnesses to show that [respondent] is
psychologically incapacitated. Clinical psychologist Dayan diagnosed
[respondent] as purportedly suffering from Mixed Personality Disorder (Schizoid
Narcissistic and Anti-Social Personality Disorder). Further, clinical psychologist
Magno found [respondent] to be suffering from an Antisocial Personality
Disorder with narcissistic and dependent features, while Dr. Villegas diagnosed
[respondent] to be suffering from Personality Disorder of the anti-social type,
associated with strong sense of Inadequacy especially along masculine strivings
and narcissistic features.
The RTC granted the petition and declared the marriage between the
parties null and void on the ground of their psychological incapacity. His motion
for reconsideration was also denied by the lower court.
Respondent appealed to the Court of Appeals, challenging the decision
of the RTC by denying the allegations against him. The CA granted his petition.
Hence, the respondent elevated the matter to the Supreme Court.
Issue:
Whether or not the evidences by expert witnesses bear weight to prove
the psychological incapacity of respondent?
Ruling:
Page 20 of 31 || PFR SEPT 7 2015
The Supreme Court Granted the Petition and reversed the ruling of the psychologically incapacitated to perform the duties and
Court of Appeals. The decision of the RTC is reinstated, declaring the Marriage responsibilities of marriage.
Null and Void. Dr. Natividad Dayan:
1. In Santos vs. CA, the jurisprudential function in characterizing Diagnostic Impression
psychological incapacity to perform marital obligations are 1. Gravity 2. Axis I : Drug Dependence
Juridical antecedence and 3. Incurability. The High Court presented and Axis II : Mixed Personality Disorder
acknowledges the findings of the three experts to wit: [Schizoid, Narcissistic and Antisocial Personality Disorder]
Axis III : None
Dra. Cecilia Villegas Axis IV : Psychosocial and Environmental Problems:
a. She found out that petitioner was raised in a family where she Severe: He seems to be very good at planning and starting things but is unable
found out that her father was disabled, but despite his handicap, he to accomplish anything; unable to give priority to the needs of his
was able to assume his financial and emotional responsibilities to family; in social relationships.
his family and to a limited extent, his social functions (sic). Despite Axis V : Global Assessment of Functioning Fair (Emphasis supplied)[14]
this, he has been described as the unseen strength in the family.
While her mother, was not the demonstrative, affectionate and the Dr. Estrella T. Tiongson-Magno
emotional mother (sic). Her love and concern came in the form of
positive attitudes, advices (sic) and encouragements (sic), but not Summary and Conclusion
the caressing, sensitive and soothing touches of an emotional
reaction (sic). Psychological home environment did not permit one From the evidence available from [petitioners] case
to nurture a hurt feeling or depression, but one has to stand up and history and from her psychological assessment, and
to help himself (sic). This trained her to subjugate (sic) emotions to despite the non-cooperation of the respondent, it is
reasons. possible to infer with certainty the nullity of this
b. Respondent on the other hand, he is intelligent and has bright ides. marriage. Based on the information available about the
However, this seemed not coupled with emotional attributes such as respondent, he suffers from [an] antisocial personality
perseverance, patience, maturity, direction, focus, adequacy, disorder with narcissistic and dependent features that
stability and confidence to make it work. He complained that he did renders him too immature and irresponsible to assume
not feel the support of his wife regarding his decision to go into his the normal obligations of a marriage.
own business. But when he failed, the more he became negativistic Diagnosis for [petitioner]:
and closed to suggestions especially from [petitioner]. He was too
careful not to let go or make known his strong sense of inadequacy, Axis I Partner Relational Problem
ambivalence, doubts, lack of drive and motivation or even feelings Axis II Obsessive Compulsive Personality Style with Self-
of inferiority, for fear of rejection or loss of pride. When things did Defeating features
not work out according to his plans, he suppressed his hostilities in Axis III No diagnosis
negative ways, such as stubbornness, sarcasm or drug intake. Axis IV Psychosocial Stressors-Pervasive Family Discord
c. Petitioner manifested inadequacies along her affective sphere, that (spouses immaturity, drug abuse, and
made her less responsive to the emotional needs of her husband, infidelity)
who needed a great amount of it, rendering her relatively Severity: 4-severe
psychologically incapacitated to perform the duties and
responsibilities of marriage. [Respondent], on the other hand, Diagnosis for [respondent]
has manifested strong clinical evidences (sic), that he is
suffering from a Personality Disorder, of the antisocial type, Axis I Partner Relational Problem
associated with strong sense of Inadequacy along masculine
strivings and narcissistic features that renders him
Page 21 of 31 || PFR SEPT 7 2015
Axis II Antisocial Personality Disorder with marked
narcissistic, aggressive sadistic and
dependent features
Axis III No diagnosis
Axis IV Psychosocial Stressors-Pervasive Family Discord
(successful wife)
Severity: 4 (severe)
2. Based on these findings, the CA denied the testimonies of Dr. Magno
and Villegas alleging them as hearsay. The clinical psychologists’ and
psychiatrist’s assessment were not based solely on the narration or
personal interview of the petitioner. Other informants such as
respondent’s own son, siblings and in-laws, and sister-in-law (sister of
petitioner), testified on their own observations of respondent’s behavior
and interactions with them, spanning the period of time they knew him.
These were also used as the basis of the doctors’ assessments.
3. In the instant case, respondents 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. In fine, given the factual milieu of the present case and in
light of the foregoing disquisition, we find ample basis to conclude that
respondent was psychologically incapacitated to perform the essential
marital obligations at the time of his marriage to the petitioner.
4. Legal Basis? Article 36 of the Family Code: A marriage contracted by
any party who, at the time of the celebration, was psychologically
incapacitated to comply with the essential marital obligations of
marriage, shall likewise be void even if such incapacity becomes
manifest only after solemnization, and Art. 68 of the same Code
provides:
The husband and wife are obliged to live
together, observe mutual love, respect and
fidelity, and render mutual help and support.
Similarly, Articles 69-71 further 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. And the respondent failed to comply with these
obligations declaring the marriage null and void.
Kalaw vs. Fernandez
The Facts of the Case are as Follows:
Valerio Kalaw and Ma. Elena Fernandez met in 1973. They maintained
their relationship and married the November 4, 1976. They had four children,
Valerio (Rio), Maria Eva (Ria), Ramon Miguel (Miggy or Mickey), and Jaime
Teodoro (Jay).
Shortly after the birth of their youngest son, Tyrone had an extramarital
affair with Jocelyn Quejano (Jocelyn), who gave birth to a son in March 1983.
In May 1985, Malyn left the conjugal home (the house of her Kalaw in-
laws) 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 from his marriage with Malyn in a rented
house in Valle Verde with only a househelp and a driver. The househelp would
just call Malyn to take care of the children whenever any of them got sick. Also,
in accordance with their custody agreement, the children stayed with Malyn on
weekends.
In 1994, the two elder children, Rio and Ria, asked for Malyns
permission to go to Japan for a one-week vacation. Malyn acceded only to learn
later that Tyrone brought the children to the US. After just one year, Ria
returned to the Philippines and chose to live with Malyn.
Meanwhile, Tyrone and Jocelyns family returned to the Philippines and
resumed physical custody of the two younger children, Miggy and Jay. According
to Malyn, from that time on, the children refused to go to her house on
weekends because of alleged weekend plans with their father.
On July 6, 1994, Tyrone filed a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage
based on Article 36 of the Family Code. He alleges that Malyn is psychological
incapacitated as manifested in her behavior.
1. she left the children without proper care and attention as she played
mahjong all day and all night;
Page 22 of 31 || PFR SEPT 7 2015
2. she left the house to party with male friends and returned in the early hours
of the following day; and
3. she committed adultery on June 9, 1985, which act Tyrone discovered in
flagrante delicto.
During trial both were presented as witnesses on this matter:
Tyrone’s Version
on June 9, 1985, he and his brother-in-law, Ronald Fernandez (Malyns
brother), proceeded to Hyatt Hotel and learned that Malyn was occupying a room
with a certain Benjie Guevarra (Benjie). When he proceeded to the said room, he saw
Benjie and Malyn inside. At rebuttal, Tyrone elaborated that Benjie was wearing only a
towel around his waist, while Malyn was lying in bed in her underwear. After an
exchange of words, he agreed not to charge Malyn with adultery when the latter
agreed to relinquish all her marital and parental rights. They put their agreement in
writing before Atty. Jose Palarca.
Tyrone presented a psychologist, Dr. Cristina Gates (Dr. Gates), and a
Catholic canon law expert, Fr. Gerard Healy, S.J. (Fr. Healy), to testify on Malyns
psychological incapacity.
Dr. Gates explained on the stand that the factual allegations regarding
Malyns behavior her 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.
Dr. Gates reported that Malyns personality disorder may have been evident
even prior to her marriage because it is rooted in her family background and
upbringing, which the psychologist gathered to be materially deprived and without a
proper maternal role model.
Dr. Gates based her diagnosis on the facts revealed by her interviews with
Tyrone, Trinidad Kalaw (Tyrones sister-in-law), and the son Miggy. She also read the
transcript of Tyrones court testimony.
Fr. Healy 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.
Fr. Healy clarified that playing mahjong and spending time with friends are not
disorders by themselves. They only constitute psychological incapacity whenever
inordinate amounts of time are spent on these activities to the detriment of ones
familial duties.[23] Fr. Healy characterized Malyns psychological incapacity as grave
and incurable.[24]
He based his opinion on his interview with Tyrone, the trial transcripts, as well as the
report of Dr. Natividad Dayan (Dr. Dayan), Malyns expert witness.[25] He clarified that
he did not verify the truthfulness of the factual allegations regarding Malyns habits
because he believed it is the courts duty to do so.[26] Instead, he formed his opinion
on the assumption that the factual allegations are indeed true.
Malyns version
Malyn denied being psychologically incapacitated.[27] 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.
[28]
And in those instances, she always had Tyrones permission and would often bring
the children and their respective yayaswith her.[29] She maintained that she did not
neglect her duties as mother and wife.
Malyn admitted leaving the conjugal home in May 1985. She, however,
explained that she did so only to escape her physically abusive husband.[30] On the
day she left, Tyrone, who preferred to keep Malyn a housewife, was upset that Malyn
was preparing to go to work. He called up the security guards and instructed them
not to let Malyn out of the house. Tyrone then placed cigarette ashes on Malyns head
and proceeded to lock the bedroom doors. Fearing another beating, Malyn rushed out
of their bedroom and into her mother-in-laws room. She blurted that Tyrone would
beat her up again so her mother-in-law gave her P300 to leave the house.[31] She
never returned to their conjugal home.
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.[32]
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. She admitted finding her brother Ronald and Tyrone at the door of the Hyatt
Hotel room, but maintained being fully clothed at that time.[33] Malyn insisted that she
wrote the letter relinquishing all her spousal and parental rights under duress.[34]
After the Hyatt Hotel incident, Malyn only saw her children by surreptitiously visiting
them in school. She later obtained partial custody of the children as an incident to the
Page 23 of 31 || PFR SEPT 7 2015
legal separation action filed by Tyrone against her (which action was subsequently
dismissed for lack of interest).
As an affirmative defense, Malyn maintained that it was Tyrone who was suffering
from psychological incapacity, as manifested by his drug dependence, habitual
drinking, womanizing, and physical violence.[35] Malyn presented Dr. Dayan a clinical
psychologist, as her expert witness.
Dr. Dayan interviewed Tyrone, Malyn, Miggy/Mickey, Jay, and Ria for her psychological
evaluation of the spouses. The factual narrations culled from these interviews reveal
that Tyrone found Malyn a lousy mother because of her mahjong habit,[36] while
Malyn was fed up with Tyrones sexual infidelity, drug habit, and physical abuse.[37] Dr.
Dayan determined that both Tyrone and Malyn were behaviorally immature. They
encountered problems because of their personality differences, which ultimately led to
the demise of their marriage. Her diagnostic impressions are summarized below:
The marriage of Tyrone and Malyn was a mistake from the very
beginning. Both of them were not truly ready for marriage even
after two years of living together and having a child. When Malyn
first met Tyrone who showered her with gifts, flowers, and affection
she resisted his overtures. She made it clear that she could take
him or leave him. But the minute she started to care, she became a
different person clingy and immature, doubting his love, constantly
demanding reassurance that she was the most important person in
his life. She became relationship-dependent. It appears that her
style then was when she begins to care for a man, she puts all her
energy into him and loses focus on herself. This imbalance between
thinking and feeling was overwhelming to Tyrone who admitted that
the thought of commitment scared him. Tyrone admitted that when
he was in his younger years, he was often out seeking other
women. His interest in them was not necessarily for sex, just for
fun dancing, drinking, or simply flirting.
Both of them seem behaviorally immature. For some time, Malyn
adapted to her husband who was a moody man with short temper
and unresolved issues with parents and siblings. He was a distancer,
concerned more about his work and friends tha[n] he was about
spending time with his family. Because of Malyns and Tyrones
backgrounds (both came from families with high conflicts) they
experienced turmoil and chaos in their marriage. The conflicts they
had struggled to avoid suddenly galloped out of control Their
individual personalities broke through, precipitating the demise of
their marriage.[38]
Dr. Dayan likewise wrote in her psychological evaluation report that Malyn
exhibited significant, but not severe, dependency, narcissism, and
compulsiveness.[39]
On the stand, the psychologist elaborated that while Malyn had relationship problems
with Tyrone, she appeared to have a good relationship with her kids.[40] As for Tyrone,
he has commitment issues which prevent him from committing himself to his duties
as a husband. He is unable to remain faithful to Malyn and is psychologically
incapacitated to perform this duty.[41]
Childrens version
The children all stated that both their parents took care of them, provided for their
needs, and loved them. Rio testified that they would accompany their mother to
White Plains on days that she played mahjong with her friends. None of them
reported being neglected or feeling abandoned.
The two elder kids remembered the fights between their parents but it was only Ria
who admitted actually witnessing physical abuse inflicted on her mother.[42] The two
elder kids also recalled that, after the separation, their mother would visit them only
in school.[43]
The children recalled living in Valle Verde with only the househelp and driver during
the time that their dad was abroad.[44] While they did not live with their mother while
they were housed in Valle Verde, the kids were in agreement that their mother took
care of them on weekends and would see to their needs. They had a common
recollection that the househelp would call their mother to come and take care of them
in Valle Verde whenever any of them was sick.[45]
Other witnesses
Dr. Cornelio Banaag, Tyrones attending psychiatrist at the Manila Sanitarium, testified
that, for the duration of Tyrones confinement, the couple appeared happy and the
wife was commendable for the support she gave to her spouse.[46] He likewise
testified that Tyrone tested negative for drugs and was not a drug dependent.[47]
Malyns brother, Ronald Fernandez, confirmed Tyrones allegation that they found
Malyn with Benjie in the Hyatt hotel room. Contrary to Tyrones version, he testified
that neither he nor Tyrone entered the room, but stayed in the hallway. He likewise
did not recall seeing Benjie or Malyn half-naked.[48]
Page 24 of 31 || PFR SEPT 7 2015
Tyrone then presented Mario Calma (Mario), who was allegedly part of Malyns group incapacity has been clinically established and was found to be
of friends. He stated on the stand that they would go on nights-out as a group and pervasive, grave and incurable.[54]
Malyn would meet with a male musician-friend afterwards.[49] The trial court then declared the parties marriage void ab initio pursuant to Article 36
of the Family Code.[55]
Social worker
Court of Appeals Ruling:
The trial court ordered the court social worker, Jocelyn V. Arre (Arre), to conduct a
social case study on the parties as well as the minor children. Arre interviewed the On appeal, the appellate court reversed the decision of the RTC on the ground that
parties Tyrone and Malyn; the minor children Miggy/Mickey and Jay; Tyrones live-in Tyrone failed to discharge his burden of proving her alleged psychological incapacity.
partner, Jocelyn;[50] and Tyrone and Malyns only daughter, Ria. While both parents are
[65]
financially stable and have positive relationships with their children, she She argues that the testimonies of her children and the findings of the court social
recommended that the custody of the minor children be awarded to Malyn. Based on
worker to the effect that she was a good, loving, and attentive mother are sufficient
the interviews of family members themselves, Malyn was shown to be more available
to the children and to exercise better supervision and care. The social worker to rebut Tyrones allegation that she was negligent and irresponsible.[66]
commended the fact that even after Malyn left the conjugal home in 1985, she made
efforts to visit her children clandestinely in their respective schools. And while she was
only granted weekend custody of the children, it appeared that she made efforts to
She assails Dr. Gatess report as one-sided and lacking in depth. Dr. Gates did not
personally attend to their needs and to devote time with them.[51]
On the contrary, Tyrone, who had custody of the children since the couples de interview her, their common children, or even Jocelyn. Moreover, her report failed to
facto separation, simply left the children for several years with only a maid and a
driver to care for them while he lived with his second family abroad.[52] The social state that Malyns alleged psychological incapacity was grave and incurable.[67] Fr.
worker found that Tyrone tended to prioritize his second family to the detriment of his Healys testimony, on the other hand, was based only on Tyrones version of the facts.
children with Malyn. Given this history during the formative years of the children, the
social worker did not find Tyrone a reliable parent to whom custody of adolescents [68]

may be awarded.

Ruling of the Regional Trial Court[53] Malyn reiterates the appellate courts ruling that the trial court Decision is intrinsically

After summarizing the evidence presented by both parties, the trial court concluded defective for failing to support its conclusion of psychological incapacity with factual
that both parties are psychologically incapacitated to perform the essential marital
findings.
obligations under the Family Code. The courts Decision is encapsulated in this
paragraph:

From the evidence, it appears that parties are both suffering from
psychological incapacity to perform their essential marital
obligations under Article 36 of the Family Code. The parties entered
into a marriage without as much as understanding what it
entails. They failed to commit themselves to its essential
obligations: the conjugal act, the community of life and love, the
rendering of mutual help, the procreation and education of their
children to become responsible individuals. Parties psychological
incapacity is grave, and serious such that both are incapable of
carrying out the ordinary duties required in marriage. The
Almost four years after filing her memorandum, respondent apparently had a change
of heart and filed a Manifestation with Motion for Leave to Withdraw Comment and
Memorandum.[69]She manifested that she was no longer disputing the possibility that
their marriage may really be void on the basis of Tyrones psychological
incapacity. She then asked the Court to dispose of the case with justice.[70] Her
manifestation and motion were noted by the Court in its January 20, 2010 Resolution.
[71]
Page 25 of 31 || PFR SEPT 7 2015
psychologically incapacitated, but the conclusions of these
Issue:
Whether or not petitioner has sufficiently proved that respondent suffers from witnesses were premised on the alleged acts or behavior of

psychological incapacity respondent which had not been sufficiently proven. Petitioners

experts heavily relied on petitioners allegations of respondents

Ruling: constant mahjong sessions, visits to the beauty parlor, going

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is DENIED. The Court of Appeals out with friends, adultery, and neglect of their children.

May 27, 2004 Decision and its December 15, 2004 Resolution in CA-G.R. CV No. Petitioners experts opined that respondents alleged habits,

64240 areAFFIRMED. when performed constantly to the detriment of quality and

quantity of time devoted to her duties as mother and wife,

1. The CA committed no reversible error in setting aside constitute a psychological incapacity in the form of NPD.
the trial courts Decision for lack of legal and factual
4. Given the insufficiency of evidence that respondent actually
basis. Article 36 of the Family Code states: A marriage
contracted by any party who, at the time of the engaged in the behaviors described as constitutive of NPD,
celebration, was psychologically incapacitated to
comply with the essential marital obligations of there is no basis for concluding that she was indeed
marriage, shall likewise be void even if such incapacity
psychologically incapacitated. Indeed, the totality of the
becomes manifest only after its solemnization.
2. Psychological incapacity to be proven or inability to take evidence points to the opposite conclusion. A fair assessment of

cognizance of and to assume the basic marital obligations. the facts would show that respondent was not totally remiss
[72]
The burden of proving psychological incapacity is on the and incapable of appreciating and performing her marital and

plaintiff.[73] The plaintiff must prove that the incapacitated party, parental duties. Not once did the children state that they were

based on his or her actions or behavior, suffers a serious neglected by their mother. On the contrary, they narrated that

psychological disorder that completely disables him or her from she took care of them, was around when they were sick, and

understanding and discharging the essential obligations of the cooked the food they like. It appears that respondent made real

marital state. The psychological problem must be grave, must efforts to see and take care of her children despite her

have existed at the time of marriage, and must be incurable.[74] estrangement from their father.There was no testimony

whatsoever that shows abandonment and neglect of familial

3. petitioner failed to prove that his wife (respondent) suffers from duties. While petitioner cites the fact that his two sons, Rio and
psychological incapacity. He presented the testimonies of two Miggy, both failed the second elementary level despite having

supposed expert witnesses who concluded that respondent is

Page 26 of 31 || PFR SEPT 7 2015
tutors, there is nothing to link their academic shortcomings to
Malyns actions.
5. After poring over the records of the case, the Court finds no
factual basis for the conclusion of psychological incapacity.
There is no error in the CAs reversal of the trial courts ruling
that there was psychological incapacity. The trial courts Decision
merely summarized the allegations, testimonies, and evidence
of the respective parties, but it did not actually assess the
veracity of these allegations, the credibility of the witnesses,
and the weight of the evidence. The trial court did not make
factual findings which can serve as bases for its legal conclusion
of psychological incapacity. 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.
Arabelle Mendoza vs Republic
(2012)
Arabelle sought to have her marriage with Dominic declared null and void on the
ground of Psychological Incapacity.
RTC declared the marriage VOID AB INITIO
CA reversed RTC decision
Arabelle raised this appeal in SC
SC: DENIED appeal, AFFIRMED CA.
Doctrine: To entitle petitioner spouse to a declaration of the nullity of his or her
marriage, the totality of the evidence must sufficiently prove that respondent
spouse's psychological incapacity was grave, incurable and existing prior to the
time of the marriage.
Facts:
Dominic and Arabelle got married during her 8th month of pregnancy in 1991.
The couple were still dependent on their parents. She gave birth to a daughter.
Dominic had to borrow money for the medical bills of mother and child. Arabelle
got a stable job in Sanofi and was the one who shouldered the household bills.
Dominic became an encyclopaedia salesman after his graduation before finally
landing a job as a car salesman for Toyota. When he earned his first
commission, he spent it on a bash with his colleagues. Arabelle eventually found
out that Dominic had an affair with an officemate in Toyota causing the couple
to sleep in separate rooms. Dominic gave Arabelle a car as a gift. Later he
asked her to issue cheques for the payment of the car (Php 120,000). Arabella
found out that the cheques were not used to pay for the car. She also found out
that Dominic got fired after running away with Php 164,000, swindled some of
his clients who threatened Arabelle and her family. Dominic was eventually
imprisoned for BP 22 (Bouncing Checks) and estafa. It was Arabelle and her
mother who bailed him out. She then asked "time and space to think things
over." A month later, she refused his attempt at reconciliation, causing him to
threaten to commit suicide. At that, she and her family immediately left the
house to live in another place concealed from him.
Arabelle instituted the case for declaration of nullity based on Art 36.
RTC: presented herself as a witness, together with a psychiatrist, Dr.
Rocheflume Samson, and Professor Marites Jimenez. On his part, Dominic did
not appear during trial and presented no evidence.
Dr Samson’s characterization of the couple:
Arabelle: mature, strong and responsible individual
Dominic: inadequate, immature and irresponsible. His criminal acts in
the present time are mere extensions of his misconduct established in
childhood. His childhood experiences of separations and emotional
deprivation largely contributed to this antisocial (sociopathic) attitude
and lifestyle. Respondent had evidently failed to comply with what is
required of him as a husband and father. Besides from his adulterous
relationship and irresponsibility, his malevolent conduct and lack of true
remorse indicate that he is psychologically incapacitated to fulfill the
role of a married man.
RTC found that all the characteristics of psychological incapacity, i.e., gravity,
antecedence and incurability (Molina Doctrine)
Page 27 of 31 || PFR SEPT 7 2015
CA: there was no showing that Dominic’s personality traits either constituted
psychological incapacity existing at the time of the marriage or were of the
nature contemplated by Article 36 of the Family Code; that the testimony of the
expert witness, while persuasive, was not conclusive upon the court; and that
the real reason for the parties’ separation had been their frequent quarrels over
financial matters and the criminal cases brought against Dominic.
ISSUE: WON the marriage can be declared Valid Ab Initio because of
Psychological Incapacity.
HELD/RATIO: NO. The totality of the evidence adduced by petitioner is
insufficient to prove that Dominic was psychologically incapacitated.
• findings were one-sided and self-serving, because Dominic was not himself
subjected to an actual psychiatric evaluation by petitioner’s expert; and that
he also did not participate in the proceedings, Dr. Samson conceded that
there was the need for her to resort to other people in order to verify the
facts derived from petitioner about Dominic’s psychological profile, those
people were referred by Arabelle herself.
• Emotional immaturity and irresponsibility cannot be equated with
psychological incapacity.
• By the very nature of cases involving the application of Article 36, it is logical
and understandable to give weight to the expert opinions furnished by
psychologists regarding the psychological temperament of parties in order to
determine the root cause, juridical antecedence, gravity and incurability of the
psychological incapacity. However, such opinions, while highly advisable, are
not conditions sine qua non in granting petitions for declaration of nullity of
marriage. At best, courts must treat such opinions as decisive but not
indispensable evidence in determining the merits of a given case. In fact, if
the totality of evidence presented is enough to sustain a finding of
psychological incapacity, then actual medical or psychological examination of
the person concerned need not be resorted to. The trial court, as in any other
given case presented before it, must always base its decision not solely on the
expert opinions furnished by the parties but also on the totality of evidence
adduced in the course of the proceedings.
AGAIN: To qualify as psychological incapacity as a ground for nullification of
marriage, a person’s psychological affliction must be grave and serious as to
indicate an utter incapacity to comprehend and comply with the essential
objects of marriage, including the rights and obligations between husband and
wife. The affliction must be shown to exist at the time of marriage, and must be
incurable.
Republic vs Rodolfo De Gracia
(2014)
Rodolfo sought to have her marriage with Natividad declared null and void on
the ground of Psychological Incapacity.
RTC declared the marriage VOID AB INITIO
OSG intervened and appealed to CA
CA AFFIRMED RTC decision
SC: DENIED appeal, AFFIRMED CA.
Facts:
The couple met while in high school. Three months into the marriage, due to the
girl’s pregnancy, Rodolfo (21 years old) was allegedly forced to marry Natividad
(18 years old) on February 15, 1969. They had 2 kids. Rodolfo did not have a
regular job except that of being a "kristo" and "bangkero sa hantak" in gambling
pits. When he decided to train in the army, Natividad sold their house without
his consent. She moved to Dipolog to cohabit with an Engr Terez. In 1991, she
had a second marriage to Antonio Mondarez and lived with him since. From
1972, Rodolfo was left to take care of their two kids. Note that Rodolfo also had
another child with another woman.
When the complaint was filed, Natividad did not file an answer but submitted
herself to Psychiatric Examination by Dr. Zalsos.
Dr. 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.”
Natividad — lacked the willful cooperation of being a wife and a
mother to her two daughters.
Rodolfo — failed to perform his obligations as a husband, adding too
that he sired a son with another woman.
the mental condition of both parties already existed at the time of the
celebration of marriage, although it only manifested after.
the "couple’s union was bereft of the mind, will and heart for the
obligations of marriage.”
CA: affirmed the ruling of the RTC, Natividad’s emotional immaturity,
irresponsibility and promiscuity by themselves do not necessarily equate to
Page 28 of 31 || PFR SEPT 7 2015
psychological incapacity BUT "their degree or severity, as duly testified to by Dr.
Zalsos, has sufficiently established a case of psychological disorder so profound
as to render Natividad incapacitated to perform her essential marital
obligations."
ISSUE: WON marriage should be rendered void on psychological incapacity
HELD: NO.
RATIO:
• the psychiatric evaluation report of Dr. Zalsos which does NOT explain in
reasonable detail how Natividad’s condition could be characterized as grave,
deeply-rooted, and incurable within the parameters of psychological incapacity
jurisprudence.
• Dr. Zalsos failed to disclose the types of psychological tests which she
administered on Natividad, Dr. Zalsos
• she failed to identify in her report the root cause of Natividad's condition and
to show that it existed at the time of the parties' marriage.
• she failed to show the gravity or seriousness of Natividad's behavior in
relation to her failure to perform the essential marital obligations
• the finding contained therein on the incurability of Natividad's condition is
unsupported by any factual or scientific basis
• the conclusion appears to be drawn out as a bare conclusion and even self-
serving.
• although expert opinions furnished by psychologists regarding the
psychological temperament of parties are usually given considerable weight
by the courts, the existence of psychological incapacity must still be
proven by independent evidence
• 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 marriage
Kalaw v. Fernandez G.R. No. 166357,
September 19, 2011
FACTS:
Tyrone Kalaw and Malyn Fernandez got married in 1976. After the birth of their
4th child, Tyrone had an affair with Jocelyn Quejano. In May 1985, Malyn left
the conjugal home and her four children with Tyrone. Meanwhile, Tyrone started
living with Jocelyn, and they had three more children. In 1990, Tyrone went to
the United States (US) with Jocelyn and their children. On July 6, 1994, nine
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. He
alleged that Malyn was psychologically incapacitated to perform and comply
with the essential marital obligations at the time of the celebration of their
marriage. He alleged that 1) She leaves the children without proper care and
attention as she played mahjong all day and all night; 2) She leaves the house
to party with male friends and returned in the early hours of the following day;
and 3) She committed adultery on June 9, 1985 in Hyatt Hotel with one Benjie
whom he saw half-naked in the hotel room. Tyrone presented a psychologist, Dr.
Cristina Gates (Dr. Gates), and a Catholic canon law expert, Fr. Gerard Healy,
S.J. (Fr. Healy), to testify on Malyn’s psychological incapacity. Dr. Gates
explained that Malyn suffers from Narcissistic Personalityu Disorder and that it
“may have been evident even prior to her marriage” because it is rooted in her
family background and upbringing. Fr. Healy 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 Malyn’s ego to the point that her needs
became priority, while her kids’ and husband’s needs became secondary.
ISSUE:
Whether Tyrone has sufficiently proven that Malynsuffers from psychological
incapacity
HELD:
No. 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. No proof whatsoever was presented to
prove her visits to beauty salons or her frequent partying with friends. Malyn’s
sexual infidelity was also not proven because she was only dating other men.
Even assuming that she had an extramarital affair with another man, sexual
infidelity cannot be equated with obsessive need for attention from other men.
Sexual infidelity per se is a ground for legal separation, but it does not
necessarily constitute psychological incapacity.
G.R. No. 208790, January 21, 2015
GLENN VIÑAS vs MARY GRACE PAREL VIÑAS
Page 29 of 31 || PFR SEPT 7 2015
FACTS:
On April 26, 1999, Glenn and Mary Grace, then 25 and 23 years old,
respectively, got married in civil rites held in Lipa City, Batangas. Mary Grace
was already pregnant then. The infant however, died at birth due to weakness
and malnourishment. Glenn alleged that the infant’s death was caused by Mary
Grace’s heavy drinking and smoking during her pregnancy. The couple lived
together under one roof. Glenn worked as s bartender, while Mary Grace was a
production engineer. Sometime in March 2006, Mary Grace left the home which
she shared with Glenn. Glenn subsequently, found out that Mary Grace went to
work in Dubai. At the time the instant petition was filed. Mary Grace had not
returned yet. On February 18, 2009, Glenn filed a petition “for the declaration of
nullity of the marriage with Mary Grace. To ease their marital problems, Glenn
sought professional guidance and submitted himself to a psychological
evaluation by Clinical Psychologist Nedy Tayag, (Dr. Tayag). Dr. Tayg found him
as “amply aware of the marital roles” and “capable of maintaining a mature and
healthy heterosexual relationship”. On the other hand, Dr. Tayag assessed Mary
Grace’s personality through the data she had gathered from Glenn and his
cousin, Rodelito Mayo, who knew Mary Grace way back in college.
ISSUE:
Whether or not sufficient evidence exist justifying the RTC’s declaration of nullity
of his marriage with Mary Grace.
HELD:
The lack of personal examination or assessment of the respondent by a
psychologist or psychiatrist is not necessarily fatal in a petition for the
declaration of nullity of marriage. “If the totality of evidence presented is
enough to sustain a finding of psychological incapacity, then actual medical
examination of the person concerned need not to be resorted to. In the present
case, the respondent’s stubborn refusal to cohabit with the petitioner was
doubtlessly irresponsible, but it was never proven to be rooted in some
psychological illness. Likewise, the respondent’s act of living with another
woman four years into the marriage cannot automatically be equated with a
psychological disorder, especially when no specific evidence was shown that
promiscuity was a trait already existing at the inception of marriage. In fact,
petitioner herself admitted that respondent was caring and faithful when they
were going steady and for a time after their marriage; their problems only came
in later.
*** To use the words, Navales vs Navales:
Article 36 contemplates downright incapacity or inability to take cognizance of
and to assume basic marital obligations. Mere “difficulty” “refusal” or “neglect”
in the performance of marital obligations or “ill will” on the part of the spouse is
different from “incapacity” rooted on some debilitating psychological condition
or illness. Indeed, irreconcilable differences; sexual infidelity or perversion,
emotional immaturity, and irresponsibility, and the like, do not by themselves
warrant a finding of psychological incapacity under Article 36, as the same may
only be due to a person’s refusal or unwillingness to assume that essentials
obligations of marriage and not due to some psychological illness that is
contemplated by said rule.
MALLILIN VS. JAMESOLAMIN AND REPUBLIC,
G.R. 192718
FACTS:
Robert F. Malilin and Luz Jamesolamin were married on September 6, 1972.
They have 3 children.
On March 16, 1994 Robert filed for declaration of nullity of marriage before the
RTC.
Robert alleged that 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. Luz had been remiss in
her duties both as a wife and as a mother as shown by the following
circumstances: (1) it was he who did the cleaning of the room because Luz did
not know how to keep order; (2)it was her mother who prepared their meal
while her sister was the one who washed their clothes because she did not want
her polished nails destroyed; (3)it was also her sister who took care of their
children while she spent her time sleeping and looking at the mirror; (4) when
she resumed her schooling, she dated different men; (5) he received
anonymous letters reporting her loitering with male students; (6) when he was
not home, she would receive male visitors; (7) a certain Romy Padua slept in
their house when he was away; and (6) she would contract loans without his
knowledge. Robert presented the testimony of Myrna Delos Reyes Villanueva
(Villanueva), Guidance Psychologist II of Northern Mindanao Medical Center.
RTC denied the petition. Robert appealed this judgment before the CA where it
was docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 54261.
On January 29, 1999, the CA reversed the RTC-Br. 23 decision “due to lack of
participation of the State as required under Article 48 of the Family Code.”
Page 30 of 31 || PFR SEPT 7 2015
On May 8, 2000, while the case was pending before the trial court, Robert filed
a petition for marriage annulment with the Metropolitan Tribunal of First
Instance for the Archdiocese of Manila (Metropolitan Tribunal). On October 10,
2002, the 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 Canon 1095.
This decision was affirmed by the National Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal
(NAMT).
On September 20, 2002, the 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.
The State, represented by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), interposed
an appeal with the CA. The OSG argued that Robert failed to make a case for
declaration of nullity of his marriage with Luz. It pointed out that the real cause
of the marital discord was the sexual infidelity of Luz. Such ground, the OSG
contended, should not result in the nullification of the marriage under the law,
but merely constituted a ground for legal separation.
The CA, in its November 20, 2009 Decision,4 granted the petition and reversed
the RTC decision. The decision, including the decretal portion,
ISSUE:
Whether or not the marriage between the two can be declared as null and void
due to Psychological Incapacity
HELD
The CA, in its November 20, 2009 Decision,4 granted the petition and reversed
the RTC decision. The decision, including the decretal portion. Closer scrutiny of
the records reveals, as correctly noted by the Solicitor General, sexual infidelity
are not rooted on some debilitating psychological condition but a mere refusal
or unwillingness to assume the essential obligations of marriage.
Robert fell short of establishing the fact that at the time of their marriage, Luz
was suffering from a psychological defect which in fact deprived [her] of the
ability to assume the essential duties of marriage and its concomitant
responsibilities.
YUK LING ONG V CO
GR NO 206653
FACTS:
Petitioner Yuk Ling Ong (petitioner), a British-Hong Kong national, and
respondent Benjamin Co (respondent), a Filipino citizen, were married on
October 3, 1982 at Ellinwood-Malate Church.
On April 26, 2001, Benjamin Co filed a petition for declaration of nullity6 on the
ground of psychological incapacity before the RTC, which was docketed as Civil
Case No. CV-01-0177. Respondent stated that petitioner’s address was 600
Elcano St., Binondo, Manila.
On July 19, 2002, respondent filed another petition for declaration of nullity7 on
the ground of psychological incapacity before the RTC. Respondent indicated
that petitioner’s address was 23 Sta. Rosa Street, Unit B-2 Manresa Garden
Homes, Quezon City.
On July 29, 2002, the RTC issued summons.8 In his Server’s Return,9 process
server Rodolfo Torres, Jr. stated that, on August 1, 2002, substituted service of
summons with the copy of the petition was effected after several futile attempts
to serve the same personally on petitioner. The said documents were received
by Mr. Roly Espinosa, a security officer.
On December 11, 2002, the RTC rendered a decision10 in Civil Case No.
02-0306 finding respondent’s marriage with petitioner as void ab initio on the
ground of psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code. It stated
that summons was served on petitioner on August 1, 2002, but she failed to file
her responsive pleading within the reglementary period. The public prosecutor
also stated that there were no indicative facts to manifest collusion. Thus, the
RTC concluded that petitioner was psychologically incapacitated to perform her
essential marital obligations.
Consequently, petitioner filed a petition for annulment of judgment11 under
Rule 47 of the Rules of Court before the CA on November 24, 2008, claiming
that she was never notified of the cases filed against her. She prayed that the
RTC decision, dated December 11, 2002, in Civil Case No. 02-0306, be nullified
on the grounds of extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction.
Petitioner alleged that first, respondent committed extrinsic fraud because, as
seen in Civil Case No. CV-01-0177, he deliberately indicated a wrong address to
prevent her from participating in the trial;second, jurisdiction over her person
was not acquired in Civil Case No. 02-0306 because of an invalid substituted
service of summons as no sufficient explanation, showing impossibility of
personal service, was stated before resorting to substituted service of
summons; third, the alleged substituted service was made on a security guard
of their townhouse and not on a member of her household; and fourth, she was
not psychologically incapacitated to perform her marital obligations.
November 2008, petitioner received a subpoena from the Bureau of
Immigration and Deportation (BID) directing her to appear before the said
agency because her permanent residence visa was being subjected to
cancellation proceedings because her marriage was nullified by the court.
Yuk Ling Ong appeared before the BID, she was furnished with the copies of the
following documents: (1) petition for declaration of nullity of marriage filed as
Civil Case No. CV-01-0177; (2) petition for declaration of nullity of marriage
docketed as Civil Case No. 02-0306; (3) Decision,4 dated December 11, 2002,
in Civil Case No. 02-0306 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 260 (RTC),
Parañaque City, declaring the marriage between petitioner and respondent as
Page 31 of 31 || PFR SEPT 7 2015
void ab initio; and (4) their marriage contract5 with the subject decision
annotated
On July 19, 2002, respondent filed another petition for declaration of nullity7 on
the ground of psychological incapacity before the RTC, docketed as Civil Case
No. 02-0306. Respondent indicated that petitioner’s address was 23 Sta. Rosa
Street, Unit B-2 Manresa Garden Homes, Quezon City. On July 29, 2002, the
RTC issued summons.8 In his Server’s Return,9 process server Rodolfo Torres,
Jr. stated that, on August 1, 2002, substituted service of summons with the
copy of the petition was effected after several futile attempts to
serve the same personally on petitioner. The said documents were received by
Mr. Roly Espinosa, a security officer.

ISSUE
1. Whether or not the Trial Court in Civil Case No. 02-0306 validly acquired
jurisdiction over the person of the petitioner.
2. Whether or not the facts proven by the petitioner constitute extrinsic fraud
within the purview of Rule 47 of the Rules of Court
HELD
June 27, 2012, the CA rendered the assailed decision finding the petition for
annulment of judgment to be devoid of merit. It held that there was no
sufficient proof to establish that respondent employed fraud to insure
petitioner’s non-participation in the trial of Civil Case No. CV-01-0177
The Court finds merit in the petition.
Petitioner raises two grounds to support her claim for annulment of judgment:
(1) extrinsic fraud and (2) lack of jurisdiction. Her contention on the existence
of extrinsic fraud, however, is too unsubstantial to warrant consideration. The
discussion shall then focus on the ground of lack of jurisdiction