Oscar Mallion vs. Editha Alcantara GR No.

141528 October 31, 2006 Facts: Oscar Mallion filed a petition with the Regional Trial Court seeking a declaration of nullity of his marriage with Editha Alcantara due to psychological incapacity. The RTC denied the petition. As the decision attained finality, Mallion filed another petition for a declaration of nullity of marriage, this time alleging that his marriage was null and void due to the fact that it was celebrated without a valid marriage license. Issue: Does a previous final judgment denying a petition for declaration of nullity on the ground of psychological incapacity bar a subsequent petition for declaration of nullity on the ground of lack of marriage license? Held: Res judicata1 applies. Mallion is simply invoking different grounds for the same cause of action which is the nullity of marriage. When the second case was filed based on another ground, there is a splitting of a cause of action which is prohibited. He is estopped from asserting that the first marriage had no marriage license because in the first case he impliedly admitted the same when he did not question the absence of a marriage license.

Chi Ming Tsoi vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 119190 Jan 16, 1997
FACTS: Chi MinTsoi and Gina Lao-Tsoi were married for 10 months. But still their marriage was not consummated because the husband refuses to have sexual intercourse with his spouse. Even if she already made efforts, they still failed to consummate their marriage by performing coitus. The spouses decided to undergo a medical check up to see if there was something wrong with them. The Doctor found out that there was nothing wrong with their organs and that the man was not impotent. ISSUE: Whether or not the refusal of private respondent to have sexual communion with petitioner is psychological incapacity, which may be a ground for annulment, in the light of Article 36 of the Family Code. HELD: The issue of whether or not the appellant is psychologically incapacitated to discharge a basic marital obligation was resolved upon a review of both the documentary and testimonial evidence on record. Appellant admitted that he did not have sexual relations with his wife after almost ten months of cohabitation, and it appears that he is not suffering from any physical disability. Such abnormal reluctance or unwillingness to consummate his marriage is strongly indicative of a serious personality disorder which to the mind of this 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 (See Santos vs. Court of Appeals) REASONING: If a spouse, although physically capable but simply refuses to perform his or her essential marriage obligations, and the refusal is senseless and constant, Catholic marriage tribunals attribute the causes to psychological incapacity than to stubborn refusal. Senseless and protracted refusal is equivalent to psychological incapacity. Thus, the prolonged refusal of a spouse to have sexual intercourse with his or her spouse is considered a sign of psychological incapacity.

G.R. No. 161793

February 13, 2009

EDWARD KENNETH NGO TE, Petitioner, vs. ROWENA ONG GUTIERREZ YU-TE, Respondent, REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Oppositor. FACTS: Kenneth met Rowena in a Filipino-Chinese gathering on campus. They did not have interest with each other at first but they developed a certain degree of closeness due to the fact that they share the same angst with their families. In 1996, while still in college, Rowena proposed that they should elope. Kenneth initially refused on the ground that he is young and jobless but due to Rowenas persistence Kenneth complied bringing with him P80K. The money soon after disappeared and they found themselves forced to return to their respective home. Subsequently, Rowenas uncle brought the two before a court and had had them be married. After marriage, Kenneth and Rowena stayed with her uncles house where Kenneth was treated like a prisoner. Kenneth was advised by his dad to come home otherwise he will be disinherited. One month later, Kenneth was able to escape and he was hidden from Rowenas family. Kenneth later contacted Rowena urging her to live with his parents instead. Rowena however suggested that he should get his inheritance so that they could live together separately or just stay with her uncle. Kenneth however was already disinherited. Upon knowing this, Rowena said that it is better if they live separate lives from then on. Four years later, filed for an annulment of their marriage. Rowena did not file an answer. The City Prosecutor, after investigation, submitted that he cannot determine if there is collusion between the 2 parties hence the need to try the merits of the case. The opinion of an expert was sought wherein the psychologist subsequently ruled that both parties are psychologically incapacitated. The said relationship between Edward and Rowena is said to be undoubtedly in the wreck and weakly-founded. The break-up was caused by both parties unreadiness to commitment and their young age. He was still in the state of finding his fate and fighting boredom, while she was still egocentrically involved with herself. The trial court ruled that the marriage is void upon the ruling of the expert psychologist. The OSG appealed and the CA ruled in favor of the OSG. The OSG claimed that the psychological incapacity of both parties was not shown to be medically or clinically permanent or incurable (Molina case). The clinical psychologist did not personally examine respondent, and relied only on the information provided by petitioner. Further, the psychological incapacity was not shown to be attended by gravity, juridical antecedence and incurability. All these were requirements set forth in the Molina case to be followed as guidelines. ISSUE: Whether or not the expert opinion of the psychologist should be admitted in lieu of the guidelines established in the landmark case of Molina. HELD: The SC ruled that admittedly, the SC may have inappropriately imposed a set of rigid rules in ascertaining PI. So much so that the subsequent cases after Molina were ruled accordingly to the doctrine set therein. And that there is not much regard for the laws clear intention that each case is to be treated differently, as courts should interpret the provision on a case-to-case basis; guided by experience, the findings of experts and researchers in psychological disciplines, and by decisions of church tribunals. The SC however is not abandoning the Molina guidelines, the SC merely reemphasized that there is need to emphasize

other perspectives as well which should govern the disposition of petitions for declaration of nullity under Article 36 such as in the case at bar. The principle that each case must be judged, not on the basis of a priori assumptions, predilections or generalizations but according to its own facts. And, to repeat for emphasis, courts should interpret the provision on a case-to-case basis; guided by experience, the findings of experts and researchers in psychological disciplines, and by decisions of church tribunals. The SC then ruled that the marriage of Kenneth and Rowena is null and void due to both parties psychological disorder as evidenced by the finding of the expert psychologist. Both parties being afflicted with grave, severe and incurable psychological incapacity. Kenneth 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. He is too dependent on others. Rowena cannot perform the essential marital obligations as well due to her intolerance and impulsiveness. MARCOS VS. MARCOS G.R No. 136490 Oct. 19, 2000 FACTS: Brenda B. Marcos married Wilson Marcos in 1982 and they had five children. Alleging that the husband failed to provide material support to the family and have resorted to physical abuse and abandonment, Brenda filed a case for the nullity of the marriage on the ground that Wilson Marcos has psychological incapacity. The RTC declared the marriage null and void under Article 36 which was however reversed by the Court of Appeals ISSUES: 1. Whether personal medical or psychological examination of the respondent by a physician is a requirement for a declaration of psychological incapacity. 2. Whether or not the totality of evidence presented in this case show psychological incapacity. HELD: Psychological incapacity, as a ground for declaring the nullity of a marriage, may be established by the totality of evidencepresented. There is no requirement, however that the respondent should be examined by a physician or a psychologist as a conditionsince qua non for such declaration.Although this Court is sufficiently convinced that respondent failed to provide material support to the family and may haveresorted to physical abuse and abandonment, the totality of his acts does not lead to a conclusion of psychological incapacity on hispart. There is absolutely no showing that his defects were already present at the inception of the marriage or that they areincurable.Verily, the behavior of respondent can be attributed to the fact that he had lost his job and was not gainfully employed for aperiod of more than six years. It was during this period that he became intermittently drunk, failed to give material and moral support,and even left the family home.Thus, his alleged psychological illness was traced only to said period and not to the inception of the marriage. Equallyimportant, there is no evidence showing that his condition is incurable, especially now that he is gainfully employed as a taxi driver.In sum, this Court cannot declare the dissolution of the marriage for failure of petitioner to show that the alleged psychologicalincapacity is characterized by gravity, juridical antecedence and incurability; and for her failure to observe the guidelines outlined inMolina.

Marietta Azcueta vs. Rodolfo Azcueta G.R No. 180660 May 26, 2009 Facts: Marietta Azcueta (Marietta) filed a petition for declaration of absolute nullity of her marriage to Rodolfo Azcueta (Rodolfo) before the Regional Trial Court (RTC). Marietta averred that Rodolfo was psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential obligations of marriage. Marietta complained that despite her encouragement, Rodolfo never bothered to look for a job and always depended on his mother for financial assistance and for his decisions. It was Rodolfos mother who found them a room near the Azcueta home and paid the monthly rental. Rodolfo also pretended to have found work and gave Marietta money which actually came from Rodolfos mother. When Marietta confronted him, Rodolfo cried like a child and told her his parents could support their needs. They had sex only once a month which Marietta never enjoyed. When they discussed this, Rodolfo told Marietta that sex was sacred and should not be enjoyed or abused. Rodolfo also told her he was not ready for a child. When Marietta asked Rodolfo if they could move to another place, he did not agree and she was forced to leave and see if he would follow her. He did not. Rodolfos first cousin, who at one time lived with Rodolfos family, corroborated Mariettas testimony that Rodolfo was not gainfully employed and relied on the allowance given by his mother who also paid the rentals for the room the couple lived in. The psychiatrist who examined Marietta testified that she found the latter to be mature, independent, focused, responsible, had a direction and ambition in life, and was not psychologically incapacitated to perform the duties and responsibilities of marriage. Based on information gathered from Marietta, the same psychiatrist found Rodolfo to be suffering from Dependent Personality Disorder characterized by loss of self-confidence, constant self-doubt, inability to make his own decisions and dependency on other people. The psychiatrist explained that the root cause of the disorder was a crossidentification with Rodolfos mother who was the dominant figure in the family considering that Rodolfos father, a seaman, wasalways out of the house. She added that the problem began during the early stages of Rodolfos life but manifested only after his marriage. She stated that the problem was severe, because he would not be able take on the responsibilities of a spouse, and incurable, because it began in early development and had been deeply ingrained in his personality. She, thus,concluded that Rodolfo was psychologically incapacitated to perform his marital duties and responsibilities. Rodolfo failed to appear and file an answer despite service of summons on him. The City Prosecutor found no collusion between the parties. Based on the evidence presented by Marietta, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) declared the marriage void ab initio. The Solicitor General appealed the RTCs decision, arguing that the psychiatric report was based solely on the information given by Marietta, and there was no showing that the alleged psychological disorder was present at the start of the marriage or that it was grave, permanent and incurable.The Court of Appeals reversed the RTCs decision. Marietta, thus, brought the case to the Supreme Court on a petition for review on certiorari. Issue: Whether or not Rodolfo is psychologically incapacitated to justify a declaration that his marriage to Marrieta is void ab initio under Article 36 of the Family Code.

Held: Rodolfo was psychologically incapacitated to perform his marital duties because of his Dependent Personality Disorder. His marriage to Marietta was declared void ab initio. Marietta sufficiently discharged her burden to prove her husbands psychological incapacity. As held in Marcos vs. Marcos [397 Phil. 840 (2000)], there is no requirement that the respondent spouse should be personally examined by a physician or psychologist as a condition sine qua non for the declaration of nullity of marriage based on psychological incapacity. What matters is whether the totality of evidence presented is adequate to sustain a finding of psychological incapacity. Mariettas testimony was corroborated in material points by Rodolfos close relative, and supported by the psychiatrists testimony linking the manifestations of Rodolfos psychological incapacity and the psychological disorder itself. It is a settled principle of civil procedure that the conclusions of the trial court regarding the credibility of witnesses are entitled to great respect from the appellate courts because the trial court had an opportunity to observe the demeanor of witnesses while giving testimony which may indicate their candor or lack thereof. Since the trial court itself accepted the veracity of Mariettas factual premises, there is no cause to dispute the conclusion of psychological incapacity drawn therefrom by her expert witness. Benjamin Ting vs. Carmen Velez Ting G.R No. 166562 March 31, 2009 The subsequent Ting v. Velez-Ting[20] follows Tes lead when it reiterated that Te did not abandon Molina; far from abandoning Molina, it simply suggested the relaxation of its stringent requirements, cognizant of the explanation given by the Committee on the Revision of the Rules on the rationale of the Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages:[21] To require the petitioner to allege in the petition the particular root cause of the psychological incapacity and to attach thereto the verified written report of an accredited psychologist or psychiatrist have proved to be too expensive for the parties. They adversely affect access to justice of poor litigants. It is also a fact that there are provinces where these experts are not available. Thus, the Committee deemed it necessary to relax this stringent requirement enunciated in the Molina Case. The need for the examination of a party or parties by a psychiatrist or clinical psychologist and the presentation of psychiatric experts shall now be determined by the court during the pre-trial conference. Te, therefore, instead of substantially departing from Molina,[22] merely stands for a more flexible approach in considering petitions for declaration of nullity of marriages based on psychological incapacity. It is also noteworthy for its evidentiary approach in these cases, which it expounded on as follows: By the very nature of Article 36, courts, despite having the primary task and burden of decisionmaking, must not discount but, instead, must consider as decisive evidence the expert opinion on the psychological and mental temperaments of the parties.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition for review on certiorari is GRANTED. The November 17, 2003 Amended Decision and the December 13, 2004 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 59903 are accordingly REVERSED and SET ASIDE.