Santos vs.

CA (January 4, 1995) decided by the SC en banc, interpreting for the first time Article 36 of the Family Code
Facts: Leouel Santos, then a First Lieutenant of the Philippine Army, got married with Julia Bedia on Sept. 20, 1986. They lived with Julias parents in La Paz, Iloilo. Their son, Leouel Santos, Jr. was born on July 18, 1987. They started to have problems: (1) frequent interference of Julias parents (2) when & where theyd start living independently (3) Leouels spending a few days with his parents. Julia left for the US to work as a nurse on May 18, 1988. She only called up Leouel, for the first time, seven months after she left with promise to return after her contract expires on July 1989. She didnt come back. Leouel had training in the US and looked for Julia but never found her. He filed a case for voiding their marriage under Art 36 of the FC. Leouel claims that Julias failure to communicate with him & inform him of her whereabouts are proof that shes psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential obligations of marriage. Julia denied her husbands allegations saying it was her husband who was irresponsible & incompetent. She filed a manifestation stating that she would neither appear nor submit evidence. Trial court & CA dismissed the complaint. Issue: Was Julie Santos psychologically incapacitated, thus rendering the marriage void? Held: No, thus marriage still valid. Article 36 of the Family Code cannot be taken independently of but must stand in conjunction with, existing precepts and laws on marriage. Psychological incapacity refers to the mental incapacity of a party to the marriage to be truly incognitive of the basic marital covenants. The facts were not enough to show psychological incapacity. What was shown was lack of willingness to comply with marital obligations. (Note: In psychological incapacity these 3 must be present and proved: a. gravity that would really render one incapable of carrying out the ordinary duties in marriage b. juridical antecedence means it should be rooted in history, existing prior to the marriage c. incurability including cure that is beyond the partys means.) (From reans uploaded pfr digests. Sorry, walang permission, so footnote na lang hehe. And thanks:) ) Additional: Leouel asserts: There is no love, there is no affection for him because respondent Julia Bedia-Santps failed all these years to communicate with the petitioner. A wife who does not care to inform her husband about her whereabouts for a period of 5 years, more or less, is psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential marital obligations of marriage. Respondent is one such wife. Deliberations during the sessions of the Family Code Revision Committee:

lifted from Canon Law: Canon 1095. They are incapable of contracting marriage: ...3. who for causes of psychological nature are unable to assume the essential obligations of marriage. - original version: (7) those marriages contracted by any party who, at the time of the celebration, was wanting in the sufficient use of reason or judgment to understand the essential nature of marriage or was psychologically or mentally incapacitated to discharge the essential marital obligations, even if such lack of incapacity is made manifest after the celebration. - Comments/remarks of drafters: J. Reyes: proposed using wanting in sufficient reason J. Caguioa: pointed out that the idea is that one is not lacking in judgment but that he is lacking in the exercise of judgment; lack of judgment would make the marriage voidable Sempio-Dy: lack of judgment is more serious than insufficient use of judgment and yet the latter would make the marriage null and void and the former only voidable J. Caguioa: explained that the phrase was wanting in sufficient use of reason or judgment to understand the essential nature of marriage refers to defects in the mental faculties vitiating consent, and the idea is lack of appreciation of ones marital obligations Sempio-Dy: raised the question, since insanity is also a psychological or mental incapacity, why is insanity only a ground for annulment and not for the declaration of nullity? J. Caguioa: (in reply) in insanity, there is the appearance of consent, which is the reason why it is a ground for the voidable marriages, while subparagraph (7) does not refer to consent but to the very essence of marital obligations Prof. Baviera: suggested that word mentally be deleted J. Caguioa: (7) refers to psychological impotence J.Puno: sometimes a person may be psychologically impotent with one but not with another.--- J.Luciano: it is called selective impotency Dean Gupit: confusion lies in the fact that in inserting the Canon Law annulment in the Family Code, the committee used a language which describes a ground for voidable marriages under the Civil Code. J.Puno: in Canon Law, the defects in marriage cannot be cured

IN SUM:

J. Caguioa: insanity is curable and there are lucid intervals (thus only ground for voidable marriage) J.caguioa: there is vitiation of consent because one does not know all the consequences of marriages; in the case of incapacity by reason of defects in the mental faculties, which is less than insanity, there is a defect in consent and therefore it is clear that it should be a ground fore voidable marriage because there is appearance of consentPI does not refer to mental faculties and has nothing to do with consent; it refers to obligations attendant to marriage; ultimately, consent in general is affected but he stressed that his point is that it is not principally a vitiation of consent since there is a valid consent J.Puno: even the bearing of children and cohabitation should not be a sign that PI has been cured J. Caguioa: (on the suggestion that a psychiatrist be invited) PI is not a defect in the mind but in the understanding of the consequences of marriage The idea in the provision is that at the time of the celebration of marriage, one is PI to comply with the essential marital obligations, which continues and later becomes manifest Judge Diy suggested mental and physical incapacities, which are lesser in degree than PI, be includedCaguioa said that mental and physical incapacities are vices of consent while PI is not a species of vice of consent Bishop Cruz: psychological/mental impotence is an invention of some churchmen who are moralists but not canonists, that is why it is considered a weak phrase. J.Caguioa: remarked that they deleted the word mental precisely to distinguish it from vice of consent; that PI refers to lakc of understanding of the essential obligations of marriage With this common provision in Civil Law and in Canon Law, are they going to have a provision in the Family Code to the effect that marriages annulled or declared void by the church on the ground of PI is automatically annulled in Civil Law?NO Prospective/Retroactive application?Diy: retroactive (to answer the problem of church-annulled marriages) Reyes and Puno: concerned about the avalanche of cases; votation: 3- prospectivity, 5- retroactivity, 1- abstained Prescriptive period of 10 years within which the action for declaration of nullity of the marriage should be filed in court

Family Code Revision Committee in ultimately deciding to adopt the provision with less specificity than expected, has so designed the law as to allow some resiliency in its application. Sempio-Diy: committee did not give any examples of PI for fear that the giving of examples would limit the applicability of the provision under the principle ejusdem generis; judge to interpret it on a case-to-case basis, guided by experts and researchers, and decisions of church tribunal (not binding but may be given persuasive effect) Fr: Orsy: (on the framing of the canon) from psycho-sexual to psychological anomaly was eliminated; the cause of the incapacity need not be some kind of psychological disorder; PI defies any precise definition since psychological causes can be of an infinitive variety In a book by Gramunt, Hervada & Wauck: the incapacity consists of (a) a true inability to commit oneself to the essentials of marriage, (b) inability to commit must refer to the essential obligations of marriage, (c) inability must be tantamount to psychological abnormality (not merely difficulty of assuming the obligations) Sempio-Diy: approved of Dr.Velolos work who opines that PI must be characterized by gravity (that the party would be incapable of carrying out ordinary duties required in marriage), juridical antecedence (rooted in the history of the party) and incurability (even if it were, cure would be beyond the means of the party) The use of the phrase PI has not been meant to comprehend all such possible cases of psychoses as extremely low intelligence, immaturity, and like circumstances Art.36 cant be taken and construed independently of, but must stand in conjunction with, existing precepts in our law on marriage. PI should refer to no less than a mental (not physical) incapacity that causes a party to be truly incognitive of the basic marital covenants...to live together, observe love, respect and fidelity and render help and support... To confine it to the most serious cases of personality disorders clearly demonstrative of an utter insensitivity or inability to give meaning and significance of marriage... must exist at the time of the celebration of marriage... does not envision an inability to have sexual relations Until further statutory and jurisprudential parameters are established, every circumstance must be carefully

examined and evaluated. Well-considered opinions of psychiatrists, psychologists, and other experts in psych disciplines might be helpful/desirable.