You are on page 1of 46

No.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34

DATE Januray 4, 1995 April 10, 1996 July 12,1996 July 31, 1996 February 13, 1997 December 8, 1999 April 12, 2000 October 19, 2000 February 9, 2001 April 17, 2001 November 26, 2002 January 29, 2004 March 4, 2004 October 4, 2004 March 10, 2005 March 31, 2005 September 21, 2005 March 10, 2006 March 31, 2006 July 17, 2006 February 7, 2007 April 13, 2007 August 2, 2007 June 27, 2008 August 26, 2008 November 7, 2008 December 16, 2008 February 13, 2009 March 31, 2009 June 5, 2009 June 9, 2009 August 14, 2009 May 26, 2009 April 15, 2010

G.R. No. 112019 G.R. No. 116607 G.R. No. 167206 G.R. No. 122749 G.R. No. 108763 G.R. No. 126010 G.R. No. 127623 G.R. No. 136490 G.R. No. 109975 G.R. No. 136921 G.R. No. 143376 G.R. No. 151867 G.R. No. 145370 G.R. NO. 158896 G.R. No. 155800 G.R. No. 127358 G.R. No. 152577 G.R. No. 155800 G.R. No. 139676 G.R. No. 162368 G.R. No. 141917 G.R. No. 162049 G.R. No. 147824 G.R. No. 166662 G.R. No. 179620 G.R. No. 155635 G.R. No. 179922 G.R. No. 161793 G.R. No. 166562 G.R. No. 150677 G.R. No. 165424 G.R. No. 166738 G.R. No. 180668 G.R. No. 168796

CASE TITLE LEOUEL SANTOS v. COURT OF APPEALS and SANTOS TUASON v. COURT OF APPEALS JAIME VILLALON v. MA.CORAZON VILLALON VALDEZ v. REGIONAL TRIAL COURT REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v. COURT OF APPEALS and RORIDEL OLAVIANO MOLINA LUCITA ESTRELLA HERNANDEZ v. COURT OF APPEALS and MARIO C. HERNANDEZ FILIPINA Y. SY v. COURT OF APPEALS, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, SAN FERNANDO, PAMPANGA,BRANCH XLI, and FERNANDO SY, BRENDA B. MARCOS v. WILSON G. MARCOS REPUBLIC v. DAGDAG PESCA v. PESCA LENI O. CHOA v. ALFONSO C. OCHOA DAVID B. DEDEL v. COURT OF APPEALS and SHARON L. CORPUZ-DEDEL ANCHETA v. ANCHETA SIAYNGCO v. SIAYNGCO ANTONIO v. REYES NOEL BUENAVENTURA v. COURT OF APPEALS REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v. IYOY ANTONIO v. REYES REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v. NORMA CUISON-MELGAR FERRARIS v. FERRARIS BERNARDINO S. ZAMORA vs. COURT OF APPEALS and NORMA MERCADO ZAMORA NARCISO S. NAVARRO, JR. v. CYNTHIA CECILIO-NAVARRO ROSA YAP-PARAS vs. JUSTO J. PARAS NAVALES v. NAVALES
MANUEL G. ALMELOR v. REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF LAS PINAS CITY, BRANCH 254, AND LEONIDA T. ALMELOR MARIA REBECCA MAKAPUGAY BAYOT v. COURT OF APPEALS AND VICENTE MADRIGAL BAYOT JUAN DE DIOS CARLOS v. FELICIDAD SANDOVAL and TEOFILO CARLOS II

SAME

TE v. TE BENJAMIN G. TING v. CARMEN M. VELEZ-TING RENATO REYES-SO v. LORNA VALER LESTER BENJAMIN S. HALILI v. CHONA M. SANTOS-HALILI and REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES ROWENA PADILLA-RUMBAUA v. EDWARD RUMBAUA MARIETA C. AZCUETA v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES and COURT OF APPEALS SILVINO A. LIGERALDE v. ASCENTION A. PATALINHUG and the REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

ANCHETA v. ANCHETA G.R. No. 145370 March 4, 2004 FACTS: Petitioner Marietta Ancheta and respondent Rodolfo Ancheta were married on March 5, 1959 and had eight children. After 33 years of marriage the petitioner left the respondent and their children. Their conjugal properties were later separated through a court-sanctioned compromise agreement where the petitioner got among others a resort in Cavite. When the husband wanted to marry again, he filed before the Regional Trial Court a petition for the declaration of nullity of his marriage with the petitioner on the ground of psychological incapacity on June 5, 1995. Although he knew that the petitioner was already residing at the resort in Cavite, he alleged in his petition that the petitioner was residing at Las Piñas, Metro Manila, such that summons never reached her. Nevertheless substituted service was rendered to their son at his residence in Cavite. Petitioner was then declared in default for failing to answer the said petition. Just over a month after it was filed, the trial court granted the petition and declared the marriage of the parties void ab initio. Five years later, petitioner challenged the trial court‟s order declaring as void ab initio her marriage with respondent Rodolfo, citing extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction over her person, among others. She alleged that the respondent lied on her real address in his petition so she never received summons on the case, hence depriving her of her right to be heard. The Court of Appeals dismissed her petition so she now comes to the Supreme Court for review on certiorari. ISSUE: Whether or not the declaration of nullity of marriage was valid? HELD: NO. The trial court and the public prosecutor defied Article 48 of the Family Code and Rule 18, Section 6 of the 1985 Rules of Court (now Rule 9, Section 3[e] of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure). A grant of annulment of marriage or legal separation by default is fraught with the danger of collusion, says the Court. “Hence, in all cases for annulment, declaration of nullity of marriage and legal separation, the prosecuting attorney or fiscal is ordered to appear on behalf of the State for the purpose of preventing any collusion between the parties and to take care that their evidence is not fabricated or suppressed.” “If the defendant-spouse fails to answer the complaint, the court cannot declare him or her in default but instead, should order the prosecuting attorney to determine if collusion exists between the parties. The prosecuting attorney or fiscal may oppose the application for legal separation or annulment through the presentation of his own evidence, if in his opinion, the proof adduced is dubious and fabricated.” Here, the trial court immediately received the evidence of the respondent ex-parte and rendered judgment against the petitioner “without a whimper of protest from the public prosecutor who even did not challenge the motion to declare petitioner in default.” The Supreme Court reiterates: “The task of protecting marriage as an inviolable social institution requires vigilant and zealous participation and not mere pro-forma compliance. The protection of marriage as a sacred institution requires not just the defense of a true and genuine union but the exposure of an invalid one as well.” Petition is GRANTED.

ANTONIO v. REYES G.R. No. 155800 March 10, 2005 FACTS: On December 6, 1990 Leonilo Antonio and Marie Reyes married each other. On March 8, 1993 petitioner filed for declaration of nullity based on Art. 36 alleging that the respondents pathological lying about almost anything were manifestations of her psychological incapacity. Petitioner presented two doctors who corroborated each other in declaring the respondent to be psychologically incapacitated to comply with marital obligations. Respondent denied being a pathological liar, presented another doctor who conducted a test and found her not to be psychologically incapacitated. One doctor presented by the petitioner assailed the finding of respondent‟s doctor stating that the test is inconclusive due to its unreliability. The RTC found the evidences presented by the petitioner to warrant the grant of the decree. On respondents appeal to the CA, the church annulled the marriage due to lack of discretion of both parties. Notwithstanding the findings of the RTC and the annulment by the church the CA reversed the RTC‟s decision stating that the evidences of the petitioner failed to comply with the guidelines set in the Molina case (Republic vs. CA). ISSUES: 1. Is the pathological lying of a spouse manifestations of psychological incapacity? 2. Were the guidelines in the Molina case sufficiently satisfied? HELD: 1. Yes. Psychological incapacity refers to an “inability to understand the obligations of marriage” such actions of the wife are manifestations of this inability. 2. Yes. In understanding Article 36, “the preference of the revision committee was for the judge to interpret the provision on a case-to-case basis, guided by experience, in the findings of experts and researchers in psychological disciplines, and by decisions of church tribunals which, although not binding on the civil courts, may be given persuasive effect since the provision was taken from Canon Law." Also, “Molina is not set in stone… the interpretation of Article 36 relies heavily on a case-to-case perception.”

NOEL BUENAVENTURA v. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 127358, March 31, 2005 FACTS: July 12 1992, Noel Buenaventura filed a petition for the declaration of nullity of marriage on the ground that he and his wife were psychologically incapacitated. The Regional Trial Court in its decision declared the marriage entered into between petitioner and respondent is void ab initio. The court ordered the liquidation of the assets of the conjugal partnership property; ordered petitioner a regular support in favor of his son in the amount of 15,000 monthly, subject to modification as the necessity arises, and awarded the care and custody of the minor to his mother. Petitioner appealed before the Court of Appeals and while the appeal was pending, the Court of Appeals, upon respondent‟s motion issued a resolution increasing the support pendants like to P20, 000. The Court of Appeals dismissal petitioner appeal for lack of merit and affirmed in to the RTC decision. Petitioner motion for reconsideration was denied, hence this petition. ISSUE: Whether or not co-ownership is applicable to valid marriage. HELD: The general rule applies, which is in case a marriage is declared void ab initio, the property regime applicable to be liquidated, partitioned and distributed is that of equal co-ownership. Since the properties ordered to be distributed by the court were there, both by the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals, to have been acquired during the union of the parties, the same would be covered by the co-ownership. No fruits of a separate property of one of the parties appear to have been included or involved in said distribution.

Cheryl Lynne and Albryan. not a refusal. Leni filed a Motion to Dismiss (Demurrer to Evidence).LENI O. 1981. After 5 years of trial. 1993. November 26. . 1998 and the Motion for Reconsideration dated March 22. The grounds of Alfonso are Leni‟s lack of attention to their children. Reasons should be grave.R. CHOA v ALFONSO C. The illness must be shown as downright incapacity or inability. Negros Occidental Branch 51. and immaturity. 1998. Choa is psychologically incapacitated HELD: Marriage is still valid. 143376. The RTC denied the Motion to Dismiss dated December 2. with juridical antecedence and incurable. Alfonso submitted his Formal of Exhibits. February 20. 1999. After 12 years. November 8. Two children were born out of their marriage. The case reached the Court of Appeals and eventually the Supreme Court. 1993. Alfonso presented insufficient evidence to prove Leni‟s incapacity. does not help in the household chores. neglect or difficulty. OCHOA G. on October 27. Alfonso filed an annulment of his marriage to the Regional Trial Court. Alfonso changes his petition to declaration of nullity due to psychological incapacity. . ISSUE: Whether or not Leni O. No. 2002 FACTS: Leni and Alfonso were married on March 15. The medical doctor who testified during the proceedings mentioned that the spouses had an “incompatibility” which results to a defect in their marriage and not psychological incapacity of one of the spouses.

Crasus learned that Fely married an American and had a child. In 1984. 2005 FACTS: The case is a petition for review by the RP represented by the Office of the Solicitor General on certiorari praying for the reversal of the decision of the CA dated July 30. In 1985. Crasus submitted his testimony. it was affirmed in the CA. and the invitation where Fely used her new husband‟s last name as evidences. 2001 affirming the judgment of the RTC declaring the marriage of Crasus L. Irreconcilable differences.” . neglect or difficulty. in the same year she sent letters to Crasus asking him to sign divorce papers. Fely denied the claims and asserted that Crasus was a drunkard. conflicting personalities. Furthermore. Article 36 “is not to be confused with a divorce law that cuts the marital bond at the time the causes therefore manifest themselves. The RTC found the evidences sufficient and granted the decree. during one she attended the marriage of one of her children in which she used her husband‟s last name as hers in the invitation. by themselves. On March 25. ISSUE: Does abandonment and sexual infidelity per se constitute psychological incapacity? HELD: The evidences presented by the respondent fail to establish psychological incapacity. Iyoy (respondent) and Ada Rosal-Iyoy null and void based on Article 36. 152577 September 21. the certification of the recording of their marriage contract. had no job. Fely went back to the Philippines on several occasions. on the part of the errant spouse.R. not a mere refusal. habitual alcoholism.” Finally. Fely went to the US.REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v. IYOY G. No. ill will. Article 36 “contemplates downright incapacity or inability to take cognizance of and to assume the basic marital obligations. womanizer. emotional immaturity and irresponsibility. and abandonment. It refers to a serious psychological illness afflicting a party even before the celebration of marriage. sexual infidelity or perversion. 1961 Crasus Iyoy and Ada Rosal-Iyoy married each other. It is a malady 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. much less. they had 5 children. Crasus filed a complaint for declaration of nullity alleging that Fely‟s acts brought “danger and dishonor” to the family and were manifestations of her psychological incapacity. On December 16. and that since 1988 she was already an American citizen and not covered by our laws. physical abuse. also do not warrant a finding of psychological incapacity under the said Article. 1997.

It was blissful marriage for the couple during the two months of the year that they could stay together . petitioner argues. he chased petitioner with a loaded shotgun and threatened to kill her in the presence of the children. on the assumption that the Molina ruling could be applied retroactively. 17-year old Rez. is an entirely novel provision in our statute books. Six months later. The Court reiterates its reminder that marriage is an inviolable social institution and the foundation of the family6that the State cherishes and protects. It started in 1988. let alone at the time of solemnization of the contract. petitioner and her children left the conjugal abode. they got married on 03 March 1975. as well as the guidelines set out in Republic vs. Indeed. the guidelines therein outlined should be taken to be merely advisory and not mandatory in nature. to make out a case of psychological incapacity on the part of respondent. totally terminating that relationship. promulgated on 14 January 1995. Court of Appeals and Molina. HELD: The phrase "psychological incapacity" borrowed from Canon law. the concept has escaped jurisprudential attention. Petitioner and her children left the conjugal home for good and stayed with her sister. the application of the Santos and Molina dicta should warrant only a remand of the case to the trial court for further proceedings and not its dismissal. Petition is DENIED. and she returned home to give him a chance to change. ISSUE: Whether or not psychological incapacity is present in this case. invoked by her. until the relatively recent enactment of the Family Code. They did not live together as petitioner was still a student in college and respondent. 2001 FACTS: Petitioner Lorna G. both in her allegations in the complaint and in her evidence. 11-year old Ryan. The children themselves were not spared from physical violence. He was convicted by the Metropolitan Trial Court of Caloocan City and sentenced to eleven days of imprisonment. At all events. violent and a habitual drinker. would have the decision of the Court of Appeals reversed on the thesis that the doctrine enunciated in Santos vs. when she noticed that respondent surprisingly showed signs of "psychological incapacity" to perform his marital covenant. But. things did not so turn out as expected. . and.when respondent was on vacation. Pesca first met sometime in 1975 while on board an interisland vessel bound for Bacolod City. After a whirlwind courtship. He was cruel. Petitioner. Pesca and respondent Zosimo A. While the Court commiserates with petitioner in her unhappy marital relationship with respondent. The Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the trial court and declared the marriage between petitioner and respondent valid and subsisting. cannot be equated with psychological incapacity. to her dismay. Petitioner likewise sought the custody of her minor children and prayed for support pendente lite. His "true color" of being an emotionally immature and irresponsible husband became apparent. and a case was filed against respondent for slight physical injuries. the law has not quite given up.PESCA v. should have no retroactive application and. a seaman. Emotional immaturity and irresponsibility. and 9-year old Richie. Court of Appeals. Petitioner filed a complaint with the barangay authorities. At one time. In these cases. Petitioner sued respondent before the Regional Trial Court for the declaration of nullity of their marriage invoking psychological incapacity. In any case. may not necessarily be the fitting denouement to it. Two months later. however. Finally. matters became worse. 19-year old Ruhem. neither should we. petitioner decided to forgive respondent. in her plea to this Court. petitioner said. the young couple established their residence in Quezon City until they were able to build their own house in Caloocan City where they finally resided. on 19 November 1992. had to leave the country on board an oceangoing vessel barely a month after the marriage. so as to warrant a declaration of nullity of the marriage. promulgated on 13 February 1997. The union begot four children. PESCA APRIL 17. petitioner has utterly failed.

2001 and a new judgment entered dismissing the petitioner‟s petition for lack of merit. Likewise. Villalon before the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City. Except for petitioner‟s general claim that on certain occasions he had two girlfriends at the same time. The RTC declared the marriage between the petitioner and respondent celebrated on April 22.2004. asserting that the Court of Appeals erred in finding that he failed to prove his psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code.JAIME VILLALON v. as he wants the court to believe. the Court of Appeals rendered a decision that reversed and set aside the decision dated November 12. the petitioner had only two instances of infidelity for the past 13 years of their marriage which contradicted the statement of Dr. petitioner took this recourse under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. The petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of the Appellate court‟s decision which was denied in order. respect and fidelity and render help and support. Thus. include their mutual obligations to live together. There is hardly any doubt that the intendment of the law has been to confine the meaning of psychological incapacity to the most serious cases of personality disorders clearly demonstrative of an utter insensitivity or inability to give meaning and significance to the marriage. the evidence reveals that the petitioner was a good husband most of the time when he was living with the respondent. Also. The disorder is a pervasive maladaptation in terms of interpersonal and occupational functioning with main symptoms of grand ideation about oneself. 167206 July 12.1978 as null and void ab initio on the ground of psychological incapacity on the part of the petitioner pursuant to Article 36 of the Family Code.1996 FACTS: This is a Civil case filed on July 12. as so expressed by Article 68 of the Family Code. MA. Moreover. Court of Appeals. . The petitioner cited his psychological incapacity which he claimed existed even prior to his marriage with the respondent. the Supreme Court is not convinced that petitioner is a “serial or habitual adulterer”. ISSUE: Is marital infidelity in at least two occasions a grave psychological disorder which rendered the petitioner incapable of performing his spousal and parental obligations? HELD: In Santos Vs. Although the petitioner suffered from Narcissistic Histrionic Personality Disorder with Casanova Complex even before the marriage and thus had the tendency to cheat on his wife. The petition has no merit. Corazon N.CORAZON VILLALON G. the court held that psychological incapacity as a ground for declaration of nullity of a marriage should refer to no less than a mental incapacity that causes a party to be truly in cognitive of the basic marital covenants that concomitantly must be assumed and discharged by parties to the marriage which. Villalon for the annulment of his marriage to Respondent Ma. His psychological incapacity is about a disorder called Narcissistic Histrionic Personality Disorder with Casanova complex.R No. observe love. no details or explanation were given of such circumstances that would demonstrate petitioner‟s inability to be faithful to the respondent. The respondent filed an appeal from the decision of the Regional Trial Court. self centeredness.1996 by the petitioner Jaime F. As stated by the respondent. On March 23. a person with Casanova Complex exhibits habitual adulterous behavior and goes from one relationship to another. such conclusion was not sufficiently backed by concrete evidence showing that petitioner indeed had several affairs and finds it difficult to be faithful. a loving father to his children as well as a good provider. Dayan that the person suffering from Casanova Complex umps from one relationship to another. thinking he is unique and wanting to always be the one followed.

2003 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G. Narciso Navarro. at most. No. 65677. from the start. Petitioner and respondent were college sweethearts. he sought the declaration of nullity of his marriage to respondent. . respondent refused to submit to the psychiatric examination asked by the petitioner. Mesa where a confrontation ensued. 2) The Honorable Court of Appeals is correct. CV No. Eventually. their union bore four children. and immaturity does not constitute psychological incapacity. v. a marriage contracted by any party who. He filed the petition for nullification of their marriage when he found out their eldest daughter had been made pregnant by a man whom respondent hired to follow him. Branch 37. yet she did not give him the support and understanding that was expected of a doctor‟s wife. Article 36 of the Family Code states that. Thus so far. that her husband was going to be a doctor. and render mutual help and support. She concluded that respondent was also psychologically incapacitated to perform the marital obligations because she knew. they were awaiting their first child. but said she would do so only when her defense requires it. At the time they got married. show their immaturity. with the Regional Trial Court of Manila. at the time of the celebration. ISSUES: 1) Is the conclusion of the Court of Appeals – that the lower court (RTC) erred in finding the parties (petitioner and respondent) both psychologically incapacitated under Article 36 of The Family Code – correct or not? 2) Is the conclusion of the Honorable Court of Appeals – that the evidence failed to show that the parties (petitioner and respondent) were completely unable to discharge the essential obligations of marriage – correct or not? HELD: 1) The Honorable Court of Appeals is correct. 2004 denying reconsideration. they lived with petitioner‟s parents. on the part of both spouses. both in civil and church ceremonies. These include the obligations to live together. petitioner failed to show that grave and incurable incapacity. (b) juridical antecedence. on whom they were financially dependent. and (c) incurability. respect and fidelity. The marriage between the parties is (sic) dated June 2. Psychological incapacity required by Art.R. reversing the Regional Trial Court‟s declaration of nullity of the marriage of petitioner and respondent. Respondent narrated that early 1984.NARCISO S. Psychological incapacity should refer to no less than a mental (not physical) incapacity that causes a party to be truly in cognitive of the basic marital covenants that concomitantly must be assumed and discharged by the parties to the marriage. was psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential marital obligations of marriage. She averred that she had no marital problems. existed at the time of the celebration of the marriage.R. NAVARRO. Lucila Posadas. CYNTHIA CECILIO-NAVARRO G. After the incident. 2007 FACTS: On January 8. Petitioner denied the affair. observe mutual love. not until petitioner had an illicit affair with a certain Dr. 36 must be characterized by (a) gravity. petitioner seldom went home until he permanently left his family sometime in 1986. 1998. both petitioner and respondent have not shown proof of a natal or supervening disabling factor. while respondent was a student of pharmacy. shall likewise be void even if such incapacity becomes manifest only after its solemnization. JR. Likewise assailed is the Court of Appeals‟ Resolution dated February 4. On August 21. 1973 is hereby declared null and void. she caught petitioner and Lucila inside the Harana Motel in Sta. 162049 April 13. Their bickering and arguments even before their marriage and respondent‟s scandalous outbursts in public. For the respondent‟s part. an adverse integral element in their personality structure that effectively incapacitates them from accepting and complying with the obligations essential to marriage. the trial court held that petitioner and respondent were both psychologically incapacitated to perform their marital obligations. Jr. Since petitioner was still a medical student.

5333 are conclusive on the present case. Upon her return to the Philippines. They begot four (4) children. Dahlia. and 3) Whether the totality of evidence in the case shows psychological incapacity on the part of Justo. 1964. we must emphasize. Paras in Bindoy. She alleged that Justo is psychologically incapacitated to exercise the essential obligations of marriage as shown by the following circumstances: (a) he dissipated her business assets and forged her signature in one mortgage transaction. immorality. It was her family who paid for her medication. failure to support his family and alleged abandonment of their family home are true. (b) alleged in the complaint. She met Justo in 1961 in Bindoy. 2007 FACTS: On May 21. On December 8. Also. and (d) he has been remiss in his duties both as a husband and as a father. He also denied forging her signature in one mortgage transaction. These grounds. by themselves. in 1964. or knowing them. they do not necessarily show „incurability‟. He was suspended from the practice of law. and abandonment of his family. (b) juridical antecedence. When confronted. Twenty-nine (29) years thereafter. he immediately returned to the Philippines. the penalties to be served simultaneously. docketed as Civil Case No. a complaint for annulment of her marriage with Justo." Rosa contends that this Court‟s factual findings in A. And lastly." It ruled that Justo‟s alleged defects or idiosyncrasies "were sufficiently explained by the evidence. under Article 36 of the Family Code. Justo abandoned them and left for the Philippines. the Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC Decision in the present case. This was further aggravated when she denied his request for engine oil when his vehicle broke down in a mountainous and NPA-infested area. Branch 31. He spent for his children‟s education. However. petitioner Rosa Yap married respondent Justo J. Sometime in 1975. 2) Whether a remand of this case to the RTC for reception of expert testimony on the root cause of Justo‟s alleged psychological incapacity is necessary. Although no example of such incapacity need be given here so as not to limit the application of the provision under the principle of ejusdem generis. (c) sufficiently proven by experts. or on May 27. Cyndee Rose Ching Leccioness is not his daughter. No. and (c) incurability.ROSA YAP-PARAS vs. As to the charge of concubine. The RTC observed that the relationship between the parties started well. This convinced him of her lack of concern. (b) the conjugal assets were sufficient to support the family needs. such that while his acts violated the covenants of marriage. obviously named after her (Rosa) and Justo„s deceased daughter Cindy Rose Paras. Justo lived with Jocelyn Ching. However. their daughter Cindy Rose was afflicted with leukemia. do not manifest that he was truly in cognitive of the basic marital covenants that he must assume and discharge as a married person. she argues that she filed the instant complaint sometime in May. 10613. Justo's alleged infidelity. At other times. His act of maintaining a mistress and siring an illegitimate child was the last straw that prompted her to file the present case. these grounds are insufficient to declare the marriage void due to an incurable psychological incapacity. and (c) the charge of infidelity is unsubstantiated.R. (c) he did not give financial support to his children. the appellate court even assumed that her charges "are true. could not have given valid assumption thereof. 36. He did not abandon his family in the United States. a certain Grelle Leccioness. she was shocked to find her "Botica" and other businesses heavy in debt and he disposed without her consent a conjugal piece of land. It found that: (a) Justo did not abandon the conjugal home as he was forced to leave after Rosa posted guards at the gates of their house. and (d) clearly explained in the decision.C. She found that after leaving their conjugal house in 1988. Consequently. the Court of Appeals erred in rendering contrary factual findings. HELD: 1) A reading of the Court of Appeals‟ Decision shows that she has no reason to feel aggrieved. PARAS G. No. nevertheless such root cause must be identified as a psychological illness and its incapacitating nature fully explained. convinced that he loved her. and Reuel. this Court rendered its Decision finding him guilty of falsifying Rosa‟s signature in bank documents." Eventually. The evidence must convince the court that the parties. their son Raoul was electrocuted while Justo was in their rest house with his "barkadas. What caused the inevitable family break-out was Rosa‟s act of embarrassing him during his birthday celebration in 1987. After trial or on February 28. To cope with the death of the children. she agreed to marry him. 2000. after three months. thus. (b) he lived with a concubine and sired a child with her. psychological incapacity must be characterized by (a) gravity. No. He maintained that he did not dispose of a conjugal property and that he and Rosa personally signed the renewal of a sugar crop loan before the bank‟s authorized employee. Expert evidence may be given by qualified psychiatrists and clinical psychologists. At first. In fact." He did not heed her earlier advice to bring Raoul in the rest house as the latter has the habit of climbing the rooftop. frequently spending time at her "Botica. 3) ART. they do not necessarily show that such acts show an irreparably hopeless state of psychological incapacity which prevents him from undertaking the basic obligations of marriage in the future. Negros Oriental. Let notice of this Decision be spread in respondent‟s record as an attorney. Dumaguete City. He admitted though that there were times he failed to give them financial support because of his lack of income. Their wedding was considered one of the "most celebrated" marriages in Bindoy. Their cohabitation resulted in the birth of a baby girl. but her secretary in his Law Office. 1993. thus: the respondent is suspended from the practice of law for SIX (6) MONTHS on the charge of falsifying his wife‟s signature in bank documents and other related loan instruments. at the time of celebration. thus. 147824 August 2. such traits are at best indicators that he is unfit to become an ideal husband and father. their conjugal assets were more than enough to provide for their needs. the entire family went to the United States. . Rosa filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC). and notice of the same served on the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and on the Office of the Court Administrator for circulation to all the courts concerned. 5333 for disbarment are conclusive on the present case. Article 36 of the Family Code requires that the incapacity must be psychological -. there was no need for Justo to shell out his limited salary. Cindy Rose (deceased).C. She was then a student of San Carlos University. While they may manifest the "gravity" of his alleged psychological incapacity. negating the existence of psychological incapacity on either party at the time of the celebration of their marriage. On October 18. she retorted that she has nothing to do with his birthday. She was impregnated by her boyfriend. For his part. it ruled that there appeared to be a collusion between them as both sought the declaration of nullity of their marriage. She did not prepare food for the guests. namely: Raoul (deceased). Also. he permitted the municipal government to take gasoline from their gas station free of charge. he was granted only three (3) months leave as municipal mayor of Bindoy. the RTC rendered a Decision upholding the validity of the marriage. JUSTO J." but concluded that they are insufficient to declare the marriage void on the ground of psychological incapacity. 2000. 1993 ISSUES: 1) Whether the factual findings of this Court in A.not physical. and for ONE (1) YEAR from the practice of law on the charges of immorality and abandonment of his own family. he resented supporting them because he was just starting his law practice and besides. 1995. he alleged that Jocelyn Ching is not his mistress. 2) The root cause of the psychological incapacity must be (a) medically or clinically identified. Cebu City. 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. was mentally or psychically ill to such an extent that the person could not have known the obligations he was assuming. in 1984. or one of them. Cyndee Rose. He courted her. although its manifestations and/or symptoms may be physical. A marriage contracted by a party who. holding that "the evidence of the plaintiff (Rosa) falls short of the standards required by law to decree a nullity of marriage.

.

1970 in Cebu City. Thereafter. if evidence in this case already shows the psychological incapacity of private respondent. Neither has it been shown that there was an incurable defect on the part of defendant. To support his position. he also alleged that private respondent abandoned him by living in the United States and had in fact become an American citizen. and that throughout their marriage they lived together for not more than three years.R. the trial court rendered its decision. 141917 February 7. and the court is also convinced that he has two children. psychologists. at the time of the celebration. COURT OF APPEALS and NORMA MERCADO ZAMORA G. 2) Whether or not the presentation of psychologists and/or psychiatrists is still desirable. and he begot at least three children with them. was psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential marital obligations of marriage. 3) A petition under Article 36 of the Family Code shall specifically allege the complete facts showing that either or both parties were psychologically incapacitated from complying with the essential marital obligations of marriage at the time of the celebration of marriage even if such incapacity becomes manifest only after its celebration. The union did not produce any child. they lived together at No. Cebu City. and whether she has made her residence abroad permanent by acquiring U. There is no evidence of psychological incapacity on the part of defendant so that she could not carry out the ordinary duties required in married life. and then left again in 1974. No. Respondent denied that she refused to have a child. On June 22. She returned to the Philippines for a few months. citizen. Petitioner filed a complaint for declaration of nullity of marriage anchored on the alleged "psychological incapacity" of private respondent. and persons with expertise in psychological disciplines might be helpful or even desirable. alleging that he had been unfaithful to her. ZAMORA vs. she made periodic visits to Cebu City until 1989. as provided for under Article 36 of the Family Code. HELD: 1) The Courts merely said in that case that "the well-considered opinions of psychiatrists. He allegedly had two affairs with different women. She also faulted her husband for the breakup of their marriage. She portrayed herself as one who loves children as she is a nurse by profession and that she would from time to time borrow her husband‟s niece and nephews to care for them. 1995. her refusal to bear children with petitioner. . 50-A Gorordo Avenue. shall likewise be void even if such incapacity becomes manifest only after its solemnization. when she was already a U. citizenship 2) Article 36 of the Family Code provides that a marriage contracted by any party who. Cebu City. whether she has a child. Furthermore.BERNARDINO S. no expert opinion is helpful or even desirable to determine whether private respondent has been living abroad and away from her husband for many years. ISSUES: 1) Whether or not the Court of Appeals misapplied facts of weight and substance affecting the result of the present case. The plaintiff himself admitted that he has a child.S. nothing in the evidence of plaintiff shows that the defendant suffered from any psychological incapacity or that she failed to comply with her essential marital obligations. The plaintiff consented to defendant‟s trip to the United States in 1974. and her living a solitary life in the United States for almost three (3) decades are enough indications of psychological incapacity to comply with essential marital obligations under Article 36 of the Family Code. he alleged that his wife was "horrified" by the mere thought of having children as evidenced by the fact that she had not borne petitioner a child. However. After their marriage." However. She [defendant] wanted to earn money there because she wanted to help her husband build a big house at the Beverly Hills. private respondent left for the United States to work as a nurse. In 1972. 3) Whether or not private respondent‟s refusal to live with petitioner under one roof for more than twenty (20) years.S. 2007 FACTS: Petitioner and respondent were married on June 4.

on July 18. 112019 / 58 SCAD 17 January 4. In her answer. as so expressed by Article 68 of the Family Code. psychologists and persons with expertise in psychological disciplines might be helpful or even desirable in Marriage is not just and adventure but a lifetime commitment. include their mutual obligations to live together. Seven months thereafter or on January 1. Summons was served by publication in a newspaper of general circulation in Negros Oriental. Thus correlated. 1986 in Iloilo MTC and later by church wedding. Julia claimed that it was Leouel who was irresponsible and incompetent. 1989. The relationship turned sour when they began quarrelling over frequent interference On May 18. and even now still indelible in Section 1 of the Family Code…the . 20. Leouel went to the US for a training program He then filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) for the nullification of their marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code. They lived with the latter‟s parents and eventually gave birth to Leouel Santos. on the ground of psychological incapacity. Jr. Leouel Santos married private respondent Julia Bedia on Sept. then enshrined in the Civil Code. There is hardly any doubt that the intendment of the law has been to confine the meaning of psychological incapacity to the most serious cases of personality disorders clearly demonstrative of an utter insensitivity or inability to give meaning and The well-considered opinions of psychiatrists. Julia left for the United States (US) to work as nurse despite Leouel‟s protestations. Given the chance. respect and fidelity and render help and support. COURT OF APPEALS and SANTOS GR No. 1995 FACTS: Lt. “psychological incapacity” should refer no less than a mental (not physical) incapacity that causes a party to be truly in cognitive of the basic marital covenants that concomitantly must be assumed and discharged by the parties to the marriage which. We should continue to be reminded that innate in our society.LEOUEL SANTOS v. 1987. The RTC in November ISSUE: Whether or not the marriage may be declared a nullity pursuant to Article 36 of the Fami HELD: Article 36 cannot be taken and construed independently. but must stand in conjunction with existing precepts of laws on marriage. but she never did. 1988. she called up from the US with the promise of returning home soon. observe love.

” “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. There is no proof as well that Nilda had had sex with different guys – a condition for nymphomia. NAVALES G. who has a borderline personality. Article 36 contemplates downright incapacity or inability to take cognizance of and to assume basic marital obligations. The SC also finds the finding of the psychological expert to be insufficient to prove the PI of Nilda. .NAVALES v. and the like. motions. the petition would still be granted. incurable or grave as contemplated by Article 36 of the Family Code. No. And even if the SC would consider the case based on the merits. a social deviant. Reynaldo also presented the findings of a psychologist who concluded that based on Nilda‟s acts. Reynaldo then filed a petition to have their marriage be annulled. 166662 June 27. an alcoholic. and suffering from anti-social personality disorder. She also said that she only needs the job in order to support herself because Reynaldo is not supporting her. sexual infidelity or perversion. There were no other pleadings. or position papers filed by the Public Prosecutor or OSG. Nilda on her part attacked Reynaldo‟s allegations. There being doubt as to Nilda‟s PI the SC ruled that this case be resolved in favor of the validity of marriage. Reynaldo proposed to Nilda and they got married in 1988. Because of his fear that Nilda may be wed to an American. HELD: The petition must be granted because the State‟s participation in this case is wanting. She also drives home with other guys even though Reynaldo would be there to fetch her. Nilda and Reynaldo met in a local bar where Nilda was a waitress. do not by themselves warrant a finding of psychological incapacity under Article 36. irreconcilable differences. Nilda is a nymphomaniac. her job makes her flirt with her male clients. And she refused to have a child with Reynaldo because that would only destroy her figure. He presented her cousin as a witness that attested that Nilda was flirting with other guys even with Reynaldo‟s presence. She also showed proof that she projected herself as a married woman and that she handles an aerobics class which is exclusive to females only. She later worked as a gym instructor and according to Reynaldo‟s allegations. Indeed. among others. emotional immaturity and irresponsibility. The testimonies presented by people the expert interviewed were not concretely established as the fact as to how those people came up with their respective information was not as well shown. 2008 FACTS: In 1986. ISSUE: Whether the marriage between Reynaldo and Nilda is null and void on the ground of Nilda‟s psychological incapacity. She said that it is actually Reynaldo who is a womanizer and that in fact she has filed a case of concubine against him which was still pending. which illnesses are incurable and are the causes of Nilda‟s psychological incapacity to perform her marital role as wife to Reynaldo. She also projected herself as single.R. Mere “difficulty. The 1st year of their marriage went well until Nilda began to work when she neglected some of her duties as a wife. and no controverting evidence presented by them before the judgment was rendered. The acts presented by Reynaldo by themselves are insufficient to establish a psychological or mental defect that is serious. Reynaldo is aware that Nilda has an illegitimate child out of wedlock. as the same may only be due to a person‟s refusal or unwillingness to assume the essential obligations of marriage and not due to some psychological illness that is contemplated by said rule. The RTC and the CA ruled in favor of Reynaldo.

neither its juridical antecedence nor its incurability. It appears to us to be more of a "difficulty. although its manifestations and/or symptoms may be physical. There had been no showing of the gravity of the problem. Thus. to the petition. not necessarily absolutely against everyone of the same sex.REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v. (4) Such incapacity must also be shown to be medically or clinically permanent or incurable. and was never honest with his wife in regard to their finances. "mild characteriological peculiarities. Any doubt should be resolved in favor of the existence and continuation of the marriage and against its dissolution and nullity. (8) The trial court must order the prosecuting attorney or fiscal and the Solicitor General to appear as counsel for the state. Such incurability may be absolute or even relative only in regard to the other spouse. as the case may be. plaintiff Roridel O.not physical. After a year of marriage. resulting in frequent quarrels between them. occasional emotional outbursts" cannot be accepted as root causes. should be given great respect by our courts. The assailed Decision is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. which will be quoted in the decision. COURT OF APPEALS and RORIDEL OLAVIANO MOLINA February 13. (5) Such illness must be grave enough to bring about the disability of the party to assume the essential obligations of marriage. briefly stating therein his reasons for his agreement or opposition. (7) Interpretations given by the National Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal of the Catholic Church in the Philippines. 36 of the Family Code are hereby handed down for the guidance of the bench and the bar: (1) The burden of proof to show the nullity of the marriage belongs to the plaintiff. Reynaldo showed signs of "immaturity and irresponsibility" as a husband and a father as he preferred to spend more time with his peers and friends. proven by evidence and included in the text of the decision. mood changes. The following guidelines in the interpretation and application of Art. 1985. 1997 FACTS: On April 14. it is essential that they must be shown to be incapable of doing so. while not controlling or decisive. Such non-complied marital obligation(s) must also be stated in the petition. It is not enough to prove that the parties failed to meet their responsibilities and duties as married persons. The RTC granted Roridel petition for declaration of nullity of her marriage which was affirmed by the CA. The evidence adduced by respondent merely showed that she and her husband could not get along with each other. (6) The essential marital obligations must be those embraced by Articles 68 up to 71 of the Family Code as regards the husband and wife as well as Articles 220. which became effective in 1983. (b) alleged in the complaint. depended on his parents for aid and assistance. It is clear that Article 36 was taken by the Family Code Revision Committee from Canon 1095 of the New Code of Canon Law. (3)The incapacity must be proven to be existing at "the time of the celebration" of the marriage. 221 and 225 of the same Code in regard to parents and their children. Article 36 of the Family Code requires that the incapacity must be psychological . . ISSUE: Do irreconcilable differences and conflicting personalities constitute psychological incapacity? HELD: There is no clear showing to us that the psychological defect spoken of is incapacity. No decision shall be handed down unless the Solicitor General issues a certification. (2) The root cause of the psychological incapacity must be (a) medically or clinically identified." if not outright "refusal" or "neglect" in the performance of some marital obligations Mere showing of "irreconcilable differences" and "conflicting personalities" in no wise constitutes psychological incapacity. (c) sufficiently proven by experts and (d) clearly explained in the decision. due to some psychological (not physical) illness. Molina married Reynaldo Molina which union bore a son.

Their problems began when petitioner started doubting respondent‟s fidelity. Also. We find respondent‟s alleged mixed personality disorder. respondent was a responsible and loving husband. Notably. During that relatively short period of time. It is a malady 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. the couple‟s relationship before the marriage and even during their brief union (for well about a year or so) was not all bad. petitioner‟s evidence showed that respondent‟s alleged failure to perform his so-called marital obligations was not at all a manifestation of some deep-seated. refers to a serious psychological illness afflicting a party even before the celebration of the marriage. He thought her suspicions irrational." In fact. it decrees marriage as legally "inviolable" and protects it from dissolution at the whim of the parties. permanent and incurable psychological malady. grave. or an "adverse integral element" in respondent‟s character that effectively incapacitated him from accepting. Petition dismissed with finality. Dr. No less than the Constitution recognizes the sanctity of marriage and the unity of the family. 2006 FACTS: This is a resolution of the Supreme Court on the Motion for Reconsideration filed by the petitioner regarding the dismissal of her petition for declaration of nullity of her marriage to the respondent. it seems to belong to the realm of theoretical speculation. Dayan did not explain how she arrived at her diagnosis that respondent has a mixed personality disorder called "schizoid. there is hardly any doubt that the intendment of the law has been to confine the meaning of "psychological incapacity" to the most serious cases of personality disorders clearly demonstrative of an utter insensitivity or inability to give meaning and significance to the marriage. and his preference to spend more time with his band mates than his family. Dayan clearly demonstrate that there was really "a natal or supervening disabling factor" on the part of respondent. and failed to perform his so. the remedy however is not always to have it declared void ab initio on the ground of psychological incapacity. Both the family and marriage are to be "protected" by the state.called marital obligations. temper and jealousy. Respondent could not relate to her anger. or isolated characteristics associated with certain personality disorders." and why he is the "dependent and avoidant type. Dr. the root cause must be identified as a psychological illness and its incapacitating nature must be fully explained. the violent tendencies during epileptic attacks. however. An unsatisfactory marriage. Dayan‟s answer was vague. the "leaving-the-house" attitude whenever they quarreled. petitioner was happy and contented with her life in the company of respondent. At any rate. ISSUE: How shall psychological incapacity be proven? HELD: The term "psychological incapacity" to be a ground for the nullity of marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code. is not a null and void marriage. It is for this reason that the Court relies heavily on psychological experts for its understanding of the human personality. While petitioner‟s marriage with the respondent failed and appears to be without hope of reconciliation. However. the essential marital obligations. the sexual infidelity. Dayan‟s statement that one suffering from such mixed personality disorder is dependent on others for decision x x x lacks specificity. She replied that such disorder "can be part of his family upbringing" x x x. To be sure. It was only when they started fighting about the calls from women that respondent began to withdraw into his shell and corner. x x x. Dr. when asked as to the root cause of respondent‟s alleged psychological incapacity. Quite apart from being plainly self-serving. by petitioner‟s own reckoning. But this input on the supposed problematic history of respondent‟s parents also came from petitioner. the abandonment and lack of support. Dayan‟s information that respondent had extramarital affairs was supplied by the petitioner herself. which petitioner failed to convincingly demonstrate. 13 As all people may have certain quirks and idiosyncrasies.FERRARIS v. In fact. . thereby complying with. She stated that there was a history of respondent‟s parents having difficulties in their relationship. are not rooted on some debilitating psychological condition but a mere refusal or unwillingness to assume the essential obligations of marriage. Dr. FERRARIS July 17. and. Respondent could not understand petitioner‟s lack of trust in him and her constant naggings. Nor did Dr. evasive and inconclusive.

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. As manifestations of respondent‟s alleged psychological incapacity. no such incident occurred. not a single member of her family ever witnessed her alleged singing activities with the group. singing abilities and her income. Edwin David. They further asserted that respondent‟s extreme jealousy was also pathological. the lower court gave credence to petitioner‟s evidence and held that respondent‟s propensity to lying about almost anything−her occupation. sent lengthy letters to petitioner claiming to be from Black gold and touting her as the “number one moneymaker” in the commercial industry worth P2 million. a psychiatrist. He tried to attempt a reconciliation but since her behavior did not change. they observed that respondent‟s persistent and constant lying to petitioner was abnormal or pathological. On the other hand. He asserted that respondent‟s incapacity existed at the time their marriage was celebrated and still subsists up to the present. HELD: It should be noted that the lies attributed to respondent were not adopted as false pretenses in order to induce petitioner into marriage. state of health. This made her psychologically incapacitated as it rendered her incapable of giving meaning and significance to her marriage. petitioner presented Dr. or at least abide by the truth. 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. Dr. It undermined the basic relationship that should be based on love. that petitioner was essentially a normal. (3) She misrepresented herself as a psychiatrist to her obstetrician. can it be definitively concluded that respondent‟s condition is incurable? It would seem. who stated. After trial. and Dr. a clinical psychologist. Abcede). 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. much less its psychic meaning. a person unable to distinguish between fantasy and reality would similarly be unable to comprehend the legal nature of the marital bond. 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 Black gold. Lopez). (7) She exhibited insecurities and jealousies over him to the extent of calling up his officemates to monitor his whereabouts. Indeed. Dante Herrera Abcede (Dr. petitioner claimed that respondent persistently lied about herself. when she was neither. she altered her pay slip to make it appear that she earned a higher income. REYES March 10. When he could no longer take her unusual behavior. there was no categorical averment from the expert witnesses that respondent‟s psychological incapacity was curable or incurable. She bought a sala set from a public market but told petitioner that she acquired it from a famous furniture dealer. “From the totality of the evidence. based on the tests they conducted. shy and conservative type of person. They concluded based on the foregoing that respondent was psychologically incapacitated to perform her essential marital obligations.ANTONIO v. More disturbingly. She spent lavishly on unnecessary items and ended up borrowing money from other people on false pretexts. introspective. yet. to wit: (1) She concealed the fact that she previously gave birth to an illegitimate son. But the requirement that psychological incapacity must be shown to be medically or clinically permanent or incurable is one that necessarily cannot be divined without expert opinion. “From the totality of the evidence. trust and respect. The trial court thus declared the marriage between petitioner and respondent null and void. among others−had been duly established. (5) She invented friends named Babes Santos and Via Marquez. (6) She represented herself as a person of greater means. her occupation. were revelatory of respondent‟s inability to understand and perform the essential obligations of marriage. income. . that respondent‟s psychosis is quite grave. including parenting. Clearly in this case. One unable to adhere to reality cannot be expected to adhere as well to any legal or emotional commitments. he finally left her for good in November 1991. thus. (4) She claimed to be a singer or a free-lance voice talent affiliated with Black gold Recording Company (Black gold). he separated from her in August 1991. (2) She fabricated a story that her brother-in-law. educational attainment and other events or things. respondent‟s fantastic ability to invent and fabricate stories and personalities enabled her to live in a world of make-believe. 2006 FACTS: Petitioner filed a petition to have his marriage to respondent declared null and void. It reached the point of paranoia since there was no actual basis for her to suspect that petitioner was having an affair with another woman. and the corresponding obligations attached to marriage. ISSUE: Whether or not there is sufficient basis/showing of psychological incapacity as to render the marriage null and void. the people around her. which according to them. He anchored his petition for nullity on Article 36 of the Family Code alleging that respondent was psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential obligations of marriage. attempted to rape and kill her when in fact. and told some of her friends that she graduated with a degree in psychology. In support of his petition. we are sufficiently convinced that the incurability of respondent‟s psychological incapacity has been established by the petitioner. and under those names. According to the trial court. Lopez (Dr. Petitioner‟s witnesses and the trial court were emphatic on respondent‟s inveterate proclivity to telling lies and the pathologic nature of her mistruths. at least. Arnulfo V. Consuelo Gardiner. they indicate a failure on the part of respondent to distinguish truth from fiction. however.

The psychological report of respondent Manuel‟s witness. the couple decided to adopt a baby boy in 1977. however. In fact. Garcia finding both Manuel and Juanita psychologically incapacitated. respondent Manuel filed for the declaration of its nullity on the ground of psychological incapacity of petitioner Juanita. is not a null and void marriage. his wife exhibited an over domineering and selfish attitude towards him. Semper praesumitur pro matrimonio. her outbursts and her controlling nature. and her inability to conceive.. After discovering that they could not have a child of their own. her husband‟s philandering. Marcos: Article 36 of the Family Code. admitted no less by him. In her Answer. The Court of Appeals reversed the RTC decision. Petition for review is hereby GRANTED. . her in-laws‟ disapproval of her as they wanted their son to enter the priesthood. the psychiatrist reported that petitioner was psychologically capacitated to comply with the basic and essential obligations of marriage. respondent Manuel failed to prove that his wife‟s lack of respect for him.g. In the case at bar. showed that the root cause of petitioner Juanita‟s behavior is traceable – not from the inception of their marriage as required by law – but from her experiences during the marriage. that he invented malicious stories against her so that he could be free to marry his paramour. petitioner Juanita alleged that respondent Manuel is still living with her at their conjugal home in Malolos. or after twenty-four (24) years of married life together. The trial court denied respondent Manuel‟s petition for declaration of nullity of his marriage to petitioner Juanita. 2004 FACTS: Petitioner Juanita Carating-Siayngco and respondent Manuel were married at civil rites on 27 June 1973 and before the Catholic Church on August 11 1973. her jealousies and obsession with cleanliness. relying mainly on the psychiatric evaluation of Dr. Neither is there any showing that these “defects” were already present at the inception of the marriage or that they are incurable. He alleged that all throughout their marriage.SIAYNGCO v. Garcia. On 25 September 1997. It is a malady 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. SIAYNGCO October 4. who they named Jeremy. this petition for review on certiorari of the decision of the Court of Appeals. It refers to a serious psychological illness afflicting a party even before the celebration of the marriage. Mere showing of “irreconcilable differences” and “conflicting personalities” in no wise constitutes psychological incapacity. and her inability to endear herself to his parents are grave psychological maladies that paralyze her from complying with the essential obligations of marriage. HELD: The presumption is always in favor of the validity of marriage. Bulacan. is not to be confused with a divorce law that cuts the marital bond at the time the causes therefore manifests themselves. An unsatisfactory marriage. The Decision of the Regional Trial Court is reinstated and given full force and effect. ISSUE: Whether or not both Manuel and Juanita are psychologically incapacitated. The Decision of the Court of Appeals is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. we stress. Dr. Hence. As we stated in Marcos v. e.

On the other hand. drug addiction. a lieutenant in the Presidential Security Command. hardworking. The grounds for legal separation. Dra. which need not be rooted in psychological incapacity. Hence. “psychological incapacity” should refer to no less than a mental. Decision affirmed. abandonment. civil interdiction.DAVID B. include physical violence. DEDEL v. a perfectionist who wants all tasks and projects completed up to the final detail and who exerts his best in whatever he does. Natividad Dayan testified that she conducted a psychological evaluation of David and found him to be conscientious. 1996 and May 20. David instituted a case for the nullity of their marriage on account of Sharon‟s psychological incapacity to perform basic marital obligations. that she committed several indiscretions and had no capacity for remorse even bringing with her the two children of the Jordanian to live with David. include their mutual obligations to live together. Despite the treatment by a clinical psychiatrist. David accepted her back and even considered the illegitimate children as his own. and the like. Court of Appeals. Since then. They had four children. which make the respondent completely unable to discharge the essential obligations of the marital state. incapacity that causes a party to be truly in cognitive of the basic marital covenants that concomitantly must be assumed and discharged by the parties to the marriage which as so expressed in Article 68 of the Family Code. not merely due to her youth. Sharon‟s infidelity is not equivalent to psychologically incapacity. immaturity or sexual promiscuity. The trial court declared their marriage null and void on the ground of the psychological incapacity of Sharon to perform the essential obligations of marriage. Dra. Dayan declared that Sharon was suffering from AntiSocial Personality Disorder exhibited by her blatant display of infidelity. The law intended to confine the meaning of “psychological incapacity” to the most serious cases of personality disorders clearly demonstrative of an utter insensitivity of inability to give meaning and significance to the marriage. Such immaturity and irresponsibility in handling the marriage like her repeated acts of infidelity and abandonment of her family are indications of the said disorder amounting to psychological incapacity to perform the essential obligations of marriage. moral pressure. While the Court of Appeals set aside the trial court‟s judgment and ordered the dismissal of the petition. However. Sharon would only return to the country on special occasions. Petition denied. and a Jordanian national. As held in Santos vs. ISSUE: Whether or not Sharon‟s infidelity is equivalent to psychologically incapacity. respect and fidelity and render help and support. Sharon‟s sexual infidelity or perversion and abandonment do not by themselves constitute psychological incapacity within the contemplation of the Family Code. He claimed that Sharon had extra-marital affairs with several men including a dentist in the AFP. CORPUZ-DEDEL January 29. When the Jordanian national left the country. observe love. habitual alcoholism.1967 in a civil and church wedding. . Neither could her emotional immaturity and irresponsibility be equated with psychological incapacity. whom she married and with whom she had two children. he appealed to the Supreme Court. the circumstances relied upon by David are grounds for legal separation under Article 55 of the Family Code not for declaring a marriage void. Sharon abandoned David to join the Jordanian national with her two children. It must be shown that these acts are manifestations of a disordered personality. 2004 FACTS: David Dedel and Sharon Corpuz were married on September 28. respectively. diligent. At best. Sharon did not stop her illicit relationship with the Jordanian. Sharon returned to David bringing along her two children by the Jordanian national. HELD: No. not physical. sexual infidelity. David‟s motion for reconsideration was denied. COURT OF APPEALS and SHARON L.

2000 FACTS: Brenda B. juridical antecedence and incurability. especially now that he is gainfully employed as a taxi driver. there is no evidence showing that his condition is incurable. MARCOS v. Marcos married Wilson Marcos in 1982 and they had five children. . HELD: Psychological incapacity. failed to give material and moral support. WILSON G. Thus. There is absolutely no showing that his "defects" were already present at the inception of the marriage or that they are incurable. Whether personal medical or psychological examination of the respondent by a physician is a requirement for a declaration of psychological incapacity. and even left the family home. 2. MARCOS October 19. the totality of his acts does not lead to a conclusion of psychological incapacity on his part. Equally important. as a ground for declaring the nullity of a marriage. There is no requirement. his alleged psychological illness was traced only to said period and not to the inception of the marriage. Alleging that the husband failed to provide material support to the family and have resorted to physical abuse and abandonment. Verily. In sum. ISSUES: 1. It was during this period that he became intermittently drunk. may be established by the totality of evidence presented. Brenda filed a case for the nullity of the marriage for psychological incapacity. Although this Court is sufficiently convinced that respondent failed to provide material support to the family and may have resorted to physical abuse and abandonment. Whether or not the totality of evidence presented in this case show psychological incapacity. The RTC declared the marriage null and void under Article 36 which was however reversed by the CA.BRENDA B. the behavior of respondent can be attributed to the fact that he had lost his job and was not gainfully employed for a period of more than six years. and for her failure to observe the guidelines outlined in Molina. however that the respondent should be examined by a physician or a psychologist as a condition since qua non for such declaration. this Court cannot declare the dissolution of the marriage for failure of petitioner to show that the alleged psychological incapacity is characterized by gravity.

2 which requires that the root cause of psychological incapacity must be medically or clinically identified and sufficiently proven by experts. He would from time to time. Since Avelino could not be located. A week after the wedding. Upon trial. the allegation that the husband is a fugitive from justice was not sufficiently proven. DAGDAG 351 SCRA 425 FACTS: Erlinda Matias and Avelino Dagdag contracted marriage on September 7. HELD: The court contented that Erlinda failed to comply with guideline No. Furthermore. They begot two children. Erlinda filed a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage on the grounds of psychological incapacity. since no psychiatrist or medical doctor testified as to the alleged psychological incapacity of her husband. Erlinda presented Virginia Dagdag who attested to the psychological incapacity of Avelino. On October 1993. He was always drunk and would forced his wife to submit to sexual intercourse and inflict physical injuries on her if she refused. ISSUE: Whether or not Avelino Dagdag is psychologically incapacitated. Avelino started leaving his family without explanation.REPUBLIC v. summons was served by publication. The Court of Appeals affirmed trials‟ court decision. . 1975. The trial court rendered a decision in favor of respondent without waiting for the prosecutor‟s manifestation. Erlinda was forced to work and learned that Avelino was imprisoned and that he escaped from jail. he left his family and was never heard from him again. The investigating prosecutor was likewise not given an opportunity to present controversy evidence since the trial court‟s decision was prematurely rendered. disappear and suddenly reappear for a few months.

127623 April 12. choosing to live with his mistress instead.FILIPINA Y. and refusal to have sex and performing the marital act only to satisfy himself does not constitute psychological incapacity. and FERNANDO SY. HELD: Marriage is void due to lack of marriage license. REGIONAL TRIAL COURT. PAMPANGA. even if the issue was unassigned. 1992. 2000 FACTS: On August 4.R. Filipina filed a petition for the declaration of absolute nullity of her marriage to Fernando on the ground of psychological incapacity. SAN FERNANDO. ISSUES: 1. The general rule is that you do not assign an error in judgment. G. it was so obvious from the record that there was no marriage license which proved that the marriage is void because there was no marriage license. Whether or not the marriage between petitioner and private respondent is void from the beginning for lack of a marriage license at the time of the ceremony.BRANCH XLI. . No. and 2. Whether or not private respondent is psychologically incapacitated at the time of said marriage celebration to warrant a declaration of its absolute nullity. The issue on the psychological incapacity of Fernando Sy was rendered moot and academic. refusal to live with her without fault on her part. SY v. Habitual alcoholism. COURT OF APPEALS. Lower court and CA denied the petition. It falls short of the quantum of evidence. the appellate court will not tackle that unassigned error or issue. But in this case.

The Supreme Court emphasized the resiliency with which the concept should be applied and the case-to-case basis by which the provision should be interpreted. with the advice of his brother. On January 18. she said that it was better for them to live separate lives. Rowena proceeded to her uncle‟s house and Edward went back to his parents‟ home. she is suffering the grave.R. the psychological incapacity was not shown to be attended by gravity. 2009 FACTS: Petitioner Edward Kenneth Ngo and respondent Rowena Ong Gutierrez Yu-Te first met in a gathering organized by the Filipino-Chinese association in their college. but the patriarch got mad and told Edward that he would be disinherited and insisted that Edward must go home. 1996. On June 15. there is a need to emphasize other perspectives as well which should govern the disposition of petitions for declaration of nullity under Article 36. TE G. Evidently. It simply declared that. petitioner filed before Supreme Court the instant petition for review on certiorari . Eventually. Reyes . the appellate court reversed and set aside the trial court‟s ruling. Court of Appeals and Molina needed for the declaration of nullity of the marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code. On April 23. At first. Rowena‟s uncle brought the two to a court to get married. the evidence adduced fell short of the requirements stated in Republic v. After a month. had. the findings of experts and researchers in psychological disciplines. HELD: No. timely filed its notice of appeal in the Court of Appeals. . Her uncle also showed Edward his guns warned the latter not to leave Rowena. Edward was able to talk to Rowena and again proposed that they should live with his parents. guided by experience. it claimed that in hindsight.TE v. The clinical psychologist who examined the petitioner found both parties psychologically incapacitated. on the other hand. not on the basis of a priori assumptions. It ruled that petitioner failed to prove the psychological incapacity of respondent. Both parties displayed psychological incapacities that made marriage a big mistake for them to take. It reemphasized that courts should interpret the provision on a case-to-case basis. The trial court. rendered its decision declaring the marriage of the parties null and void on the ground that both parties were psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential marital obligations. Dissatisfied. At this point. it was intended by the law makers not to give any examples of psychological incapacity for fear that by so doing. and incurable presence of Narcissistic and Antisocial Personality Disorder that started since childhood and only manifested during marriage. In March 1996. No. Therefore. they went back to Manila. The law is then so designed as to allow some resiliency in its application. They continued to stay at her uncle‟s house. Later on. 2005. Tinga in Antonio v. both parties have impulsively taken marriage for granted as they are still unaware of themselves. and by decisions of church tribunals. in resolving all cases of psychological incapacity. They desired that the courts should interpret the provision on a case-to-case basis. She. 161793 / 579 SCRA 193 February 13. Apparently. Rowena had a different idea. Furthermore. told Rowena that they should stay at his parent‟s home and live with them. guided by experience. the petitioner decided to court Rowena. They left Manila and sailed to Cebu in the same month. as aptly stated by Justice Dante O. each case must be judged. their resources were eventually depleted by their expenses. been rendered ineffectual by the imposition of a set of strict standards in Molina . She suggested that he should get his inheritance so they can live on their own. Rowena threatened to commit suicide. it might limit the applicability of the provision under the principle of ejusdem generis . and by decisions of church tribunals which. the declaration of nullity of marriage due to psychological incapacity should be restricted on the requirements stated in Molina. the petitioner refused citing that he was young and jobless. as so intended by its framers. In sum. it may have been inappropriate for the Court to impose a rigid set of rules. the findings of experts and researchers in psychological disciplines. 2000. In April 1996. However. During their time in Cebu. As a result. predilections or generalizations but according to its own facts. The Republic. juridical antecedence and incurability. the Supreme Court stressed that it is not suggesting the abandonment of Molina in this case. Edward talked to his father about this. somehow. Edward was not allowed to go out unaccompanied. Further. especially when they asked for him through the telephone. On review. ISSUE: Whether or not. They then parted ways. At this point in time. Rowena‟s persistence made him relent. on July 30. and relied only on the information provided by petitioner. represented by the Office of the Solicitor General. insincere and undoubtedly uncaring in her strides toward convenience. 2001. although not binding on the civil courts. severe. as the one in Molina . Edward. His family hid him from Rowena and her family. the Court gave due course to the petition and required the parties to submit their respective memoranda. Edward agreed to stay with Rowena at her uncle‟s house. The clinical psychologist did not personally examine respondent. On the other hand. Edward filed a petition before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City for the annulment of his marriage to Rowena on the basis of latter‟s psychological incapacity. In 1996. Rowena asked Edward to elope. may be given persuasive effect since the provision itself was taken from the Canon Law. just like prisoner. is extremely exploitative and aggressive so as to be unlawful. three months after their first meeting. Edward was able to escape from the house of Rowena‟s uncle and stayed with his parents. The petitioner is extremely introvert to the point of weakening their relationship by his weak behavioral disposition.

On December 10. the Court of Appeals reversed and set aside the decision of the Regional Trial Court. the Regional Trial Court nullified the marriage due to psychological incapacity to comply with the essential marital obligations of marriage on the part of the respondent.RENATO REYES-SO v. or neglect in the performance of marital obligations is different from incapacity rooted on some debilitating psychological condition or illness. 2009. HELD: No. the Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals preserving the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent. Mere difficulty. On November 8. enough to nullify the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent. . 1991. Therefore. 2009 FACTS: The petitioner and the respondent live-in together without the benefit of marriage since 1973 and they bore three children. because Article 36 contemplates downright incapacity or inability to take cognizance of and to assume basic marital obligations. On July 4. refusal. On June 5. A person's refusal or unwillingness to assume the essential obligations of marriage and not some psychological illness that is contemplated by this rule. The Republic of the Philippines appealed the decision of the Regional Trial Court to the Court of Appeals due to failure of the petitioner to prove the respondent being psychologically incapacitated. On May 14. ISSUE: Whether or not the evidence presented in this case was a total meaning of Article 36 of the Family Code.R. 1996. they exchanged their marital vows at the Caloocan City Hall. 1999. The petitioner then appealed the decision of the Court of Appeals to the Supreme Court praying for the reinstatement of the decision of the Regional Trial Court. LORNA VALER G. 150677 June 5. the petitioner filed with the Regional Trial Court of Makati a petition for the declaration of nullity of marriage with the respondent. 2001. the Supreme Court denied the petition due to lack of merit and holds that no sufficient basis existed to annul the marriage pursuant to Article 36 of the Family Code. No.

HELD: Yes. the Supreme Court set aside the decision of the Court of Appeals and reinstated the decision of the Regional Trial Court. . on January 26. He also pointed out that they never lived together as husband and wife and they never consummated their marriage. 2004. Petitioner filed in the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City a petition for the nullity of their marriage on the ground that the respondent was psychologically incapacitated to fulfill his essential marital obligations. ISSUE: Whether or not the totality of evidence presented is sufficient to prove that the petitioner suffered from psychological incapacity which effectively prevented him to comply from his essential marital obligations. On April 17. 165424 June 9. CHONA M. they continued to live with their respective parents and never lived together but maintained their relationship nonetheless. The respondents appealed to the Court of Appeals. On June 9.LESTER BENJAMIN S. 2009 FACTS: Petitioner and the respondent married on July 4. SANTOS-HALILI and REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES G. 1998.1995 at the City Hall of Manila. 2009. The petitioner appealed to the Supreme Court for reconsideration. because ultimately the psychologist sufficiently established that petitioner had psychological condition that was grave and incurable and had a deeply rooted cause and that already existed at the time of the celebration of his marriage to the respondent. The Court of Appeals reversed and set aside the decision of the Regional Trial Court on the ground that totality of the evidence presented failed to established petitioner's psychological incapacity.R. After the wedding. HALILI v. the Regional Trial Court declared that the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent is null and void. No.

and clearly explained in the trial court's decision. The solicitor-general appealed the Regional Trial Court's decision objecting that the psychiatric report of the psychologist was based solely on the information given by the petitioner and not based on personal examination of Rodolfo. the regional Trial Court. petitioner Marieta Azcueta married Rodolfo Azcueta at Antipolo City. 2009 FACTS: On July 24. 180668 May 26. The petitioner filed to the Supreme Court a petition for review on certiorari assailing the decision of the Court of Appeals. thus making the marriage between the petitioner and Rodolfo VALID. Branch 72 declared the marriage null and void abinitio pursuant to Article 36 of the Family Code. Moreover.MARIETA C. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES and COURT OF APPEALS G. 1993. . it has also been shown to be sufficiently grave. because the petitioner successfully discharged her burdens to prove the psychological incapacity of his husband. On July 19. petitioner filed with the Regional Trial Court of Antipolo City a petition for declaration of absolute nullity of marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code of the Philippines. On March 2. No. 2007. 2009. the Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the Regional Trial Court. 2005. HELD: Yes. They ceased to live together as husband and wife in 1997. 2002. On May 26. Furthermore. the root cause of Rodolfo's psychological incapacity has been medically or clinically identified. AZCUETA v. sufficiently proven by expert's testimony. so as to render him unable ta assume the essential obligations of marriage. R. Rodolfo's psychological incapacity was established to have clearly existed at the time and even before the celebration of their marriage. On August 31. the Supreme Court granted the petition and reinstated the decision of the Regional Trial Court declaring the marriage annulled. 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.

she did not explain why she came to the conclusion that the respondent's incapacity is "deep seated and incurable". 2009. they never lived together in one habitat because their marriage was a secret to Edward's family. However. Furthermore. 2004. filed a petition to the Supreme Court praying for the Court of Appeal's decision be set aside and regional Trials Court's decision be reinstated. deny the petition for lack of merit. 1993. 2002. ISSUE: Whether or not. the psychologist was able to prove that the respondent is indeed psychologically incapacitated according to Article 36 of the Family Code of the Philippines. In 1995. she did not mention the cause of the respondent's so-called "narcissistic personality disorder". . On June 25.R No. not happy with the decision of the Court of Appeals. as it was rend despite the absence of required certifications from the Solicitor General. The Supreme Court on August 14. the Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the Regional Trial Court due to prematurity thus denied the nullification of the parties' marriage. EDWARD RUMBAUA G." Rowena filed for nullity of their marriage due to psychological incapacity in the Regional Trial Court of Manila. The Court nullified the marriage in its decision on April 19. Edward's mother died and he blamed Rowena being responsible for her death associating it to the discovering of their "secret marriage. The Republic of the Philippines appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals due to prematurity. Rowena Padilla and Edward Rumbaua were married in City of Manila. when Article 36 of the Family Code of the Philippines states that evidence presented must show that the incapacitated party was mentally or physically ill so that he or she could not have known the marital obligations assumed in marriage. HELD: No.ROWENA PADILLA-RUMBAUA v. Rowena. 2009 FACTS: On February 23. 166738 August 14. the psychologist did not have enough proof because in her psychiatric report. thus affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals dated June 25. she failed to explain to the court an insight into the respondent's development years. 2004.

) Yes. . HELD: 1. 1996 FACTS: In 1989. ISSUES: 1.) whether or not Maria‟s claim that Emilio was already psychologically incapacitated at the time of the marriage and becomes manifest only after their marriage is a valid ground for the nullity of their marriage. Emilio Tuason failed to present witnesses or evidences that would prove his innocence that led to the courts‟ decision to declare their marriage void under Article 36 of the Family Code based on the evidences presented by Maria Tuason. 116607 April 10. In her complaint Maria alleged that she and Emilio were married on June 3.) whether or not Emilio Tuason‟s claim that he was deprived of due process is correct. 2. COURT OF APPEALS G. Tuason filed with the Regional Trial Court. 1972 and as a result begot two children and at the time of the marriage Emilio Tuason was already Psychologically Incapacitated to comply with his essential marital obligation which became manifest afterward and resulted in violent fights between them.) No because his failure to inform or to notify the court about his confinement and medical treatment therefrom is negligence which is not excusable that led the court to deny his petition. branch 149 of Makati a petition for annulment or declaration of nullity of her marriage to petitioner Emilio Tuason. No. 2. private respondent Maria Victoria L. Maria also alleged that Emilio is a drug user and a womanizer that in 1984 he left the conjugal home and cohabitated with three women in succession. After he left the conjugal dwelling he gave minimal support to the family and even refused to pay for the tuition of his children compelling Maria to accept donations and dole-outs from her family and friends.R.TUASON v. Emilio likewise become spendrift and abused his administration of the conjugal partnership.

the property relations of the parties during the period of cohabitation is governed by the provisions of Article 147 or 148 such as the case may be of the family code. In a petition dated June 22. ISSUE: 1. Valdez sought the declaration of nullity of the marriage pursuant to Article 36 of the Family Code. The petition was filed in the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City. Branch 102. REGIONAL TRIAL COURT G. regardless of the cause. Article 147 is just a remake of article 144 of the civil code as interpreted and so applied in previous cases.R. Wherefore. the trial court rendered its decision on the 29th day of July 1994 granted the petition to declare their marriage null and void under Article 36 of the Family Code on the ground of their mutual psychological incapacity to comply with their essential marital obligations.) Whether or not the court applied the correct law in the liquidation of their properties. 1992. In a void marriage. 1971 as a result begot five children. . of the trial court are affirmed. the questioned orders dated May 5. 122749 July 31. No. After hearing the parties following the joinder of the issues. HELD: The court applied the law correctly. 1996 FACTS: Antonio Valdez and Consuelo Gomez were married on January 5. 1995. 1995 and October 30.VALDEZ v.

accordingly. 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. be weighed by the court in deciding whether to grant a petition for nullity of marriage. But where. the parties had the full opportunity to present professional and expert opinions of psychiatrists tracing the root cause.BENJAMIN G. by the very nature of cases involving the application of Article 36. gravity and incurability of a party‟s alleged psychological incapacity. 2009 FACTS: On October 21. Carmen filed a verified petition before the RTC of Cebu City praying for the declaration of nullity of their marriage based on Article 36 of the Family Code. At best. then actual medical or psychological examination of the person concerned need not be resorted to. The petition for review on certiorari is GRANTED. 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. the petitioner appealed to the CA. On January 9. The trial court. TING v. which. as in any other given case presented before it. 166562 March 31. HELD: No. after being married for more than 18 years to petitioner and while their youngest child was only two years old. No. courts must treat such opinions as decisive but not indispensable evidence in determining the merits of a given case. gravity and incurability of the psychological incapacity. juridical antecedence. reversing the trial court‟s ruling. such opinions. if the totality of evidence presented is enough to sustain a finding of psychological incapacity. Oñate‟s findings and the admissions made by Benjamin in the course of his deposition. and found him to be psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential obligations of marriage. then such expert opinion should be presented and. 1998. On October 19. She claimed that Benjamin suffered from psychological incapacity even at the time of the celebration of their marriage. CARMEN M. only became manifest thereafter. as in this case. 2000. are not conditions sine qua non in granting petitions for declaration of nullity of marriage. The RTC gave credence to Dr. However. In fact. the lower court rendered its decision declaring the marriage between petitioner and respondent null and void. while highly advisable. VELEZ-TING G.R. ISSUE: Whether or not the CA correctly ruled that the requirement of proof of psychological incapacity for the declaration of absolute nullity of marriage based on Article 36 of the Family Code has been liberalized. however. 1993. .

ex gratia argumenti . It is the concealment of homosexuality. REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF LAS PINAS CITY. incessant quarrels and/or beatings. Such concealment presupposes bad faith and intent to defraud the other party in giving consent to the marriage.a marriage may be annulled when the consent of either party was obtained by fraud. 2007. RTC rendered judgment granting the petition for annulment. but one that is constitutive of fraud. he was still attached to his mother and dependent on her especially on decision-making. unpredictable mood swings. neglect. stating that the marriage between Manuel and Leonida was void from the beginning on the ground of psychological incapacity. After eleven (11) years of marriage. and not homosexuality per se . she regarded Manuel as a very thoughtful person who got along well with other people. Homosexuality per se is not among those cited. that vitiates the consent of the innocent party. they met each other in 1981 at San Lazaro Hospital where they worked as medical students. Thus. They had three children. Three years after. homosexuality per se is only a ground for legal separation. but its concealment. No. She also contended that Manuel was up to this time. AND LEONIDA T. the lower court committed grave abuse of discretion. and difficulty. Leonida filed a petition with the RTC in Las Pinas City to annul their marriage on the ground that Manuel was psychologically incapacitated to perform his marital obligations. On November 25. 179620 August 26. Concealment in this case is not simply a blanket denial. but by declaring the marriage void from its existence. Prior to their union. This Court is mindful of the constitutional policy to protect and strengthen the family as the basic autonomous social institution and marriage as the foundation of the family. any doubt should be resolved in favor of the validity of marriage. such as concealment of homosexuality. HELD: The Supreme Court ruled that the decision of the lower court is not correct. It is this fundamental element that respondent failed to prove. or failure in the performance of some marital obligations do not suffice to establish psychological incapacity. At that time. 1989. The trial court declared that Leonida's petition for nullity had "no basis at all because the supporting grounds relied upon can not legally make a case under Article 36 of the Family Code. BRANCH 254. CA affirmed in toto the decision of the trial court. To reiterate. Verily.MANUEL G. To be valid. . abandonment. The Family Code has enumerated an exclusive list of circumstances constituting fraud. vices. They soon became sweethearts. mere allegations of conflicting personalities. On July 31. Nowhere in the said decision was it proven by preponderance of evidence that Manuel was a homosexual at the onset of his marriage and that he deliberately hid such fact to his wife. infidelities. it must be freely given by both parties. the lower court cannot appreciate it as a ground to annul his marriage with Leonida. An allegation of vitiated consent must be proven by preponderance of evidence. an anesthesiologist and a pediatrician. It is its concealment that serves as a valid ground to annul a marriage. 2005. respectively. Consent is an essential requisite of a valid marriage. Manuel Almelor and Leonida Almelor got married at the Manila Cathedral. Molina : Indeed.R. ALMELOR v. not only by solely taking into account petitioner's homosexuality per se and not its concealment. Manuel and Leonida are both medical practitioners. ISSUE: Whether or not the decision of the lower court was correct in upholding the marriage between Leonida and Manuel null and void on the ground of psychological incapacity. Frequent quarrels of the couple rooted from the harsh disciplinary measure of Manuel to their children. they got married. Even assuming. ALMELOR G. The State and the public have vital interest in the maintenance and preservation of these social institutions against desecration by fabricated evidence. 2008 FACTS: On January 29." It went further by citing Republic v. Leonida averred that Manuel's kind and gentle demeanor did not last long. The law is clear . irreconcilable differences. that Manuel is a homosexual.

at the time of the divorce. 2000 affirmation by Secretary of Justice Tuquero of the October 6. Greenhills. CA ruled in favor of Rebecca stating that the marriage between the spouses was already dissolved upon the grant of divorce since Rebecca was an American citizen when she applied for such decree. Rebecca. and duly affirmed by Civil Decree No. our Rules of Court clearly provide that with respect to actions in personam . On March 21. Veritably.MARIA REBECCA MAKAPUGAY BAYOT v. a country which allows divorce. Rebecca gave birth to Marie Josephine Alexandra or Alix. at the time she applied for and obtained her divorce from Vicente. therefore. during. As things stand. the Dominican court issued Civil Decree No. she chose. Third . and (3) when she secured the divorce from the Dominican Republic. as above elucidated. Fourth . as distinguished from actions in rem . initiated divorce proceedings in the Dominican Republic. assuming for argument that she was in fact later recognized. Rebecca personally appeared. On November 27. Vicente filed a Motion to Dismiss. It is essential that there should be an opportunity to challenge the foreign judgment. as affirmed by the Department of Justice (DOJ). 1997. Before the Court of the First Instance of the Judicial District of Santo Domingo. 2001. 2001. At the very least. as is evident in the text of the Civil Decrees. RTC ruled against Vicente. Thus. in said proceedings. the fact that Rebecca may have been duly recognized as a Filipino citizen by force of the June 8. was an American citizen and remains to be one. and shortly after her divorce. The following are compelling circumstances indicative of her American citizenship: (1) she was born in Agaña. bind both Rebecca and Vicente. sometime in 1996. 2008 FACTS: Vicente and Rebecca were married on April 20. insisting on her Filipino citizenship. (2) in the birth certificate of Alix. she secured personally said divorce as an American citizen. Rebecca filed another petition. . as a Filipino citizen. To the motion to dismiss. a certain Dr. In this jurisdiction. absent proof of an effective repudiation of such citizenship. her American citizenship to govern her marital relationship. COURT OF APPEALS AND VICENTE MADRIGAL BAYOT November 7. 1979 in Sanctuario de San Jose. for declaration of absolute nullity of marriage on the ground of Vicente's alleged psychological incapacity. Rebecca was bound by the national laws of the United States of America. Rebecca interposed an opposition. is subject to proof to the contrary. Guam. 1995 Bureau Order of Recognition will not. First . Mandaluyong City. Rebecca was still to be recognized. particularly: (1) during her marriage as shown in the marriage certificate. in order for the court in this jurisdiction to properly determine its efficacy. USA. the reckoning point is the citizenship of the parties at the time a valid divorce is obtained. As the records show. Alejandro Torrens. 1996. in determining whether or not a divorce secured abroad would come within the pale of the country's policy against absolute divorce. and represented herself as an American citizen. the foreign divorce decrees rendered and issued by the Dominican Republic court are valid and. being an American citizen. a foreign judgment merely constitutes prima facie evidence of the justness of the claim of a party and. the foreign divorce secured by Rebecca was valid. but represented herself in public documents as an American citizen. Rebecca had consistently professed. asserted. while Vicente was duly represented by counsel. Second . On February 22. 1996 after Civil Decree No. and that. consequently. 1982 in San Francisco. there is no valid divorce to speak of. 1996. HELD: There can be no serious dispute that Rebecca. this time before the Muntinlupa City RTC. On June 8. and (3) she was. For as we stressed at the outset. 362/96. a holder of an American passport. standing alone. (2) the principle of jus soli is followed in this American territory granting American citizenship to those who are born there. assisted by counsel. 1996. And as aptly found by the CA. California. and may still be. ISSUE: Whether or not the divorce decree obtained by Rebecca in Guam was sufficient to dissolve the marriage bond between them. work to nullify or invalidate the foreign divorce secured by Rebecca as an American citizen on February 22. as such. 362/96 was rendered on February 22. 406/97 issued on March 4. Vicente and Rebecca's marital relationship seemed to have soured as the latter. personally secured the foreign divorce while Vicente was duly represented by his counsel. the property relations of Vicente and Rebecca were properly adjudicated through their Agreement executed on December 14. the application for the declaration of nullity of marriage before the RTC was no longer needed. From then on. Finally. before.

In the case at bar. sufficiently proven by experts and clearly explained in the decision 3) The incapacity must be proven to be existing at the time of the celebration of the marriage 4) Such illness must be grave enough to bring about the disability of the party to assume the essential obligation of marriage. alleged in the complaint.SILVINO A. May was back again to her old style. the cure would be beyond the means of the party involved. Tina Nicdao-Basilio for psychological evaluation. 168796 April 15. She even admitted to have slept with her Palestinian boyfriend. The Court likewise laid down the guidelines in resolving petitions for declaration of nullity of marriage. HELD: Article 36 of the Family Code states: A marriage contracted by any party who. It must be rooted in history of the party antedating the marriage. the testimony of Silvino did not prove the root cause. Silvino and May got married and they had four children. The root cause of the psychological incapacity must be identified as a psychological illness and its incapacitating nature must be fully established by the evidences presented. But even then. R. or. at the time of the celebration. Reconciliation took place. Silvino‟s deep love for her. This was the basis of the decision of the RTC declaring the marriage null and void on October 22. Silvino came to believe that his wife is psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential marital obligations. During the marriage however. was psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential marital obligations of marriage. The psychologist certified that May was psychologically incapacitated to perform her essential marital obligations. 2) The root cause of the psychological incapacity must be medically or clinically identified. Relevant to this petition are the following: 1) The burden of proof to show the nullity of the marriage belongs to the plaintiff. even if it were otherwise. Court of Appeals. emotional immaturity and irresponsibility do not constitute psychological incapacity within the contemplation of the Family Code and that the psychologist failed to identify and prove the root cause thereof and that the incapacity was medically or clinically permanent or incurable. Prior to the filing of the complaint against the respondent. ASCENTION A. On October 3. negligence. No. shall likewise be void even if such incapacity becomes manifest only after its solemnization. although the manifestations may emerge only after the marriage. 1999. ISSUE: Whether or not May‟s behavior constitutes psychological incapacity pursuant to article 36 of the Family Code. It must be incurable. gravity and incurability of Patalinghug‟s condition. She confessed that she had no more love for him. Nicdao-Basilio failed to show the root cause of Patalinghug‟s psychological incapacity. that the incapacity started when she was still young and became manifest after marriage and that the same was serious and incurable. Even Dr. 2010 FACTS: This is a petition to review the decision of the RTC of Dagupan City which was reversed by the decision of the Court of Appeals on November 30. juridical antecedence and incurability. The Court of Appeals nevertheless reversed the above decision on the grounds that respondent‟s alleged sexual infidelity. Silvino had consulted Dr. The incapacity must be grave or serious such that the party would be incapable of carrying out the ordinary duties required in marriage. A few months later. LIGERALDE v. 1984. PATALINHUG and the REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES G. their children and the commitment of May prevented him from leaving her. Psychological incapacity required by Article 36 must be characterized by gravity. in Republic vs. infidelity and irresponsibility. 2004 declaring the marriage between Silvino Ligeralde (petitioner) and May Ascension Patalinghug (respondent) as null and void. May had several signs of marital behaviors such as immaturity. They then lived separately. . based on Article 36 of the Family Code.

Lucita filed before the RTC of Tagaytay City. 1992. devoting most of this time drinking. Mario failed to perform his obligation to support the family. 1999 FACTS: Lucita Estrella married Mario Hernandez on January 1. 126010 December 8. a petition for annulment of marriage under Article 36 alleging that from the time of their marriage. as the appellate court held. Expert testimony should be presented to establish the precise cause of the psychological incapacity to show that it existed at the time of the marriage. any doubt should be resolved in favor of the validity of the marriage. Habitual alcoholism. Thus. HELD. The burden of proof to show the nullity of the marriage rests upon petitioner. COURT OF APPEALS and MARIO C. No. and abandonment do not by themselves constitute grounds for declaring a marriage void based on psychological incapacity. sexual infidelity or perversion. It must be shown that these facts are manifestations of a discolored personality which make private respondent completely unable to discharge the essential obligations of the marital state. ISSUE: Whether there was psychological incapacity under Article.LUCITA ESTRELLA HERNANDEZ v. and finally abandoning her and the family. and not merely due to private respondent‟s youth and self-conscious feeling of being handsome. 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. No. 1981 and they begot three (3) children. On July 10.R. had affairs with many women and cohabiting with another women with whom he had an illegitimate child. HERNANDEZ G. 36. .

While an actual medical. The circumstances relied upon by Norma are grounds for legal separation under Article 55 of the Family Code. an expert witness would have strengthened Norma‟s claim of Eulogio‟s alleged psychological incapacity. 1965. only the active participation of the Public Prosecutor or the OSG will ensure that the interest of the State is represented and protected in proceedings for annulment and declaration of nullity of marriages by preventing collusion between the parties. Molina. Truly. no other evidence was presented to show that Eulogio was not cognizant of the basic marital obligations as outlined in Articles 68 to 72. in order that the allegation of psychological incapacity may not be considered a mere fabrication. 221. The State should have been given the opportunity to present controverting evidence before the judgment was rendered. Norma‟s omission to present one is fatal to her position. not physical. In this case. an adverse integral element in the personality structure that effectively incapacitates a person from accepting and complying with the obligations essential to marriage. 139676 March 31.REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v. evidence other than Norma‟s lone testimony should have been adduced. psychiatric or psychological examination is not a condition sine qua non to a finding of psychological incapacity. unbearable jealousy. it is essential that he must be shown to be incapable of doing so due to some psychological. . There can be no conclusion of psychological incapacity where there is absolutely no showing that the "defects" were already present at the inception of the marriage or that they are incurable. habitual alcoholism. maltreatment. HELD: No. and 225 of the Family Code. NORMA CUISON-MELGAR G. or the fabrication or suppression of evidence. There was no proof of a natal or supervening disabling factor in the person. it is not enough to prove that a spouse failed to meet his responsibility and duty as a married person. illness. It was not sufficiently proved that Eulogio was really incapable of fulfilling his duties due to some incapacity of a psychological nature. Further. and abandonment of his family since December 27. Norma filed for declaration of nullity of her marriage on the ground of Eulogio‟s psychological incapacity alleging his immaturity. No. 1985. 2006 FACTS: Norma and Eulogio were married on March 27. and not merely physical. constitutional laziness. As the Court ruled in Republic of the Philippines v. All told. ISSUE: Whether or not the alleged psychological incapacity of respondent is in the nature contemplated by Article 36 of the Family Code.R. 220. the State did not actively participate in the prosecution of the case at the trial level.

she discovered that Roberto cohabited with another woman and had been disposing some of her properties which is administered by Roberto. Soledad‟s prayer for separation of property will simply be the necessary consequence of the judicial declaration of absolute nullity of their marriage. the said person is freed from being charged with bigamy. an ordinary civil action has to be instituted for that purpose is baseless. the custody and support of the common children and the delivery of their presumptive legitimes. ISSUE: Whether or not a petition for judicial declaration should only be filed for purposes of remarriage. married with Roberto Domingo in 1976. With this. law states that final judgment shall provide for the liquidation. Truly. only the active participation of the Public Prosecutor or the OSG will ensure that the interest of the State is represented and protected in proceedings for annulment and declaration of nullity of marriages by preventing collusion between the parties. When a marriage is declared void ab initio. the declaration of such voidance is unnecessary and superfluous. one of which is the separation of property according to the regime of property relations governing them. filed a petition for the declaration of nullity of marriage and separation of property. However. the petitioner‟s suggestion that for their properties be separated. HELD: The declaration of the nullity of marriage is indeed required for purposed of remarriage.w . She came to know the previous marriage when the latter filed a suit of bigamy against her. She did not know that Domingo had been previously married to Emerlinda dela Paz in 1969. The latter claims that because their marriage was void ab initio. The State should have been given the opportunity to present controverting evidence before the judgment was rendered.DOMINGO VS. The Family Code has clearly provided the effects of the declaration of nullity of marriage. unless such matters had been adjudicated in previous judicial proceedings. when she came home from Saudi during her one-month leave from work. or the fabrication or suppression of evidence. Furthermore. but in order to provide a basis for the separation and distribution of properties acquired during the marriage. On the other hand. the State did not actively participate in the prosecution of the case at the trial level. Soledad insists the declaration of the nullity of marriage not for the purpose of remarriage. it is also necessary for the protection of the subsequent spouse who believed in good faith that his or her partner was not lawfully married marries the same. CA 226 SCRA 572 FACTS: Soledad Domingo. In this case. partition and distribution of the properties of the spouses. Hence.

One who enters into a subsequent marriage without first obtaining such judicial declaration is guilty of bigamy. ISSUE: Whether Mercado committed bigamy in spite of filing the declaration of nullity of the former marriage. The fact that the first marriage is void from the beginning is not a defense in a bigamy charge. The decision in 1993 declared marriage between Mercado and Oliva null and void. Mercado only filed the declaration of nullity of his marriage with Oliva right after Tan filed bigamy case.MERCADO VS. He contracted second marriage without the judicial declaration of the nullity.” In the case at bar. by then. Hence. the crime had already been consummated. HELD: A judicial declaration of nullity of a previous marriage is necessary before a subsequent one can be legally contracted. Tan filed bigamy against Mercado and after a month the latter filed an action for declaration of nullity of marriage against Oliva. Vicent Mercado was previously married with Thelma Oliva in 1976 before he contracted marriage with Consuelo Tan in 1991 which the latter claims she did not know. TAN 337 SCRA 122 FACTS: Dr. This principle applies even if the earlier union is characterized by statute as “void. .

Wages and salaries earned by each party shall belong to him or her exclusively (Art. or a criminal case for that matter. no judicial action is necessary to declare a marriage an absolute nullity. the sole basis acceptable in law.CARINO VS. She wanted to have half of the P140k. Yee also claimed that she only found out about the previous marriage on SPO4’s funeral. For other purposes. . prior to his second marriage.000. In such instances. In 1993. this time with Susan Yee Carino. 148 of FC). the court may pass upon the validity of marriage even after the death of the parties thereto. evidence must be adduced. their property relations is governed by Art 147 of the FC which provides that everything they earned during their cohabitation is presumed to have been equally contributed by each party – this includes salaries and wages earned by each party notwithstanding the fact that the other may not have contributed at all. SPO4 is already bedridden and he was under the care of Yee. The SC ruled that Yee has no right to the benefits earned by SPO4 as a policeman for their marriage is void due to bigamy. The marriage between Yee and SPO4 is likewise null and void for the same has been solemnized without the judicial declaration of the nullity of the marriage between Nicdao and SPO4. SPO4 contracted a second marriage. legitimacy or illegitimacy of a child. she is only entitled to properties. he died 13 days after his marriage with Yee. is a final judgment declaring the previous marriage void. the spouses went on to claim the benefits of SPO4. so long as it is essential to the determination of the case. in their situation. This is because the two were capacitated to marry each other for there were no impediments but their marriage was void due to the lack of a marriage license. for purposes other than remarriage. the absolute nullity of a previous marriage may be invoked for purposes of remarriage on the basis solely of a final judgment declaring such previous marriage void.00. Yee admitted that her marriage with SPO4 was solemnized during the subsistence of the marriage b/n SPO4 and Nicdao but the said marriage between Nicdao and SPO4 is null and void due to the absence of a valid marriage license as certified by the local civil registrar. such as but not limited to the determination of heirship. In 1988. where the absolute nullity of a previous marriage is sought to be invoked for purposes of contracting a second marriage. settlement of estate. These need not be limited solely to an earlier final judgment of a court declaring such previous marriage void. Nicdao is entitled to the full benefits earned by SPO4 as a cop even if their marriage is likewise void. for said projected marriage to be free from legal infirmity. money etc owned by them in common in proportion to their respective contributions. and even in a suit not directly instituted to question the validity of said marriage. testimonial or documentary.00 while Yee was able to collect a total of P21. ISSUE: Whether or not the absolute nullity of marriage may be invoked to claim presumptive legitimes HELD: The marriage between Nicdao and SPO4 is null and void due the absence of a valid marriage license. to prove the existence of grounds rendering such a previous marriage an absolute nullity. Thereafter. In 1992. He had 2 children with her. Under Article 40 of the FC. Nicdao was able to claim a total of P140. Meaning. However. CARINO 351 SCRA 127 FACTS: In 1969 SPO4 Santiago Carino married Susan Nicdao Carino. dissolution of property regime. Yee filed an action for collection of sum of money against Nicdao. In 1992.000.

a person who contracts subsequent marriage before the declaration of nullity of the previous marriage assumes the risk of being prosecuted for bigamy and such a case the criminal case may not be suspended on the ground of the pendency of a civil case for declaration of nullity. Jarillo argues that she should not be liable of bigamy since her marriage to both Alocillo and Uy are null and void due to absence of marriage license. Without such declaration. . In 1999. contracted a second marriage with Uy in 1979 and have their church wedding in 1995. it is assumed that the prior marriage was valid and contracting a subsequent marriage constitutes bigamy. ISSUE: Whether or not the petitioner should be held liable for bigamy HELD: The SC affirmed the decision of RTC and CA for the reason that the petitioner already consummated the charge of bigamy before she filed a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage. It futher states that. PEOPLE FACTS: Victoria Jarillo while being married with Alocillo in 1974.JARILLO VS. Jarillo filed a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage against Alocillo due to psychological incapacity which was granted in 2003 by RTC of Makati. Pending the case. Uy filed annulment against Jarillo before RTC of Manila and charged Jarillo of bigamy in RTC of Pasay.

petitioner asserted that the marriage between his late brother Teofilo and respondent Felicidad was a nution of property regime. there is no valid divorce to speak of. 2) Whether or not the filing of petition for the declaration of nullity of marriage of herein petitioner was valid. petitioner Juan De Dios Carlos. HELD: The grounds for declaration of absolute nullity of marriage must be proved. On May 13. During the lifetime of Felix Carlos. is not as fatal as appellee represents it to be. the absence of which renders the marriage void ab initio pursuant to Article 80(3) in relation to Article 58 of the Civil Code the failure to reflect the serial number of the marriage license on the marriage contract evidencing the marriage between Teofilo Carlos and appellant Felicidad Sandoval. Teofilo Carlos II (Teofilo II). 2008 FACTS: Spouses Felix B. Cavite on May 14. Neither judgment on the pleadings nor summary judgment is allowed. evidenced by the Marriage Certificate submitted in this case. 1962. the first three (3) parcels of land were transferred and registered in the name of Teofilo. In 1994. and that. Aside from the dearth of evidence to the contrary. FELICIDAD SANDOVAL and TEOFILO CARLOS II December 16. therefore. They left six parcels of land to their compulsory heirs. then Justice of the Peace who officiated the impugned marriage. although irregular. he agreed to transfer his estate to Teofilo. Teofilo Carlos and petitioner Juan De Dios Carlos. So is confession of judgment disallowed. or a criminal case for that matter. and even in a suit not directly insti RTC declared the marriage between defendant Felicidad Sandoval and Teofilo Carlos solemnized at Silang. Upon Teofilo's death. undertook to deliver and turn over the share of the other legal heir.. null and void ab initio for lack of the requisite marriage license. The agreement was made in order to avoid the payment of inheritance taxes. On the o . the court may pass upon the validity of marriage even after the death of the parties thereto. told Rowena that they should stay at his parent‟s home and live with them. appellant Felicidad Sandoval's affirmation of the existence of said marriage license is corroborated by the following statement in the affidavit executed by Godofredo Fojas. the parcels of land were registered in the name of respondent Felicidad and co-respondent. While it may be readily conceded that a valid marriage license is among the formal requisites of marriage. with the advice of his brother.the primary evidence of marriage is not proof that a marriage did not take place. Teofilo II. Carlos and Felipa Elemia died intestate. Eventually. neither should appellants' non-presentation of the subject marriage license be taken as proof that the same was not pJ). Edward. If the non-presentation of the marriage contract . in turn. ISSUES: 1) Whether or not the marriage between Felicidad and Teofilo should be rendered null and void. petitioner instituted a suit against respondents before the RTC in Muntinlupa City. He was survived by respondents Felicidad and their son. Teofilo. In his complaint. CA reversed the decision of the trial court.JUAN DE DIOS CARLOS v. 1992. Teofilo died intestate.

No. 1949. and that any person. He insisted that his being the surviving brother of Cresenciano who had died without any issue entitled him to onehalf of the real properties acquired by Cresenciano before his death. No. is confined only to proceedings commenced after March 15. The petitioner alleged that the marriage between Cresenciano and Leonila had been celebrated without a marriage license. 1950. but.M. No.M. Hence.M. 117 entitled In Re: Petition for Nullification of Marriage Contract between Cresenciano Ablaza and Leonila Honato. 02-11-10-SC extends only to marriages covered by the Family Code. paragraph (a). 2003. Those commenced before March 15. A. 02-11-10-SC explicitly provides the limitation that a petition for declaration of absolute nullity of void marriage may be filed solely by the husband or wife. the law in effect at the time of the celebration of the marriage. the effectivity date of A. Based on Carlos v. 2000. even after the death of Cresenciano. being a procedural rule that is prospective in application.[2] ISSUES: Whether or not the petitioner is a real party in interest in the action to seek the declaration of nullity of the marriage of his deceased brother. those celebrated under the regime of the Family Code prior to March 15. 2003.M. of A. and 2. thereby rendering the marriage void ab initio for having been solemnized without a marriage license. 02-11-10-SC had absolutely no application to the petitioner. 02-11-10-SC (Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages). which took effect on August 3. the rule on the exclusivity of the parties to the marriage as having the right to initiate the action for declaration of nullity of the marriage under A. himself included. due to the marriage being void ab initio. 02-11-10-SC.[11] the following actions for declaration of absolute nullity of a marriage are excepted from the limitation. Isidro Ablaza. the Court has to clarify the impact to the issue posed herein of Administrative Matter (A. Specifically. 1988. Such limitation demarcates a line to distinguish between marriages covered by the Family Code and those solemnized under the regime of the Civil Code.M. 1949 between his late brother Cresenciano Ablaza and Leonila Honato. Considering that the marriage between Cresenciano and Leonila was contracted on December 26. to wit: 1. 2003. due to such license being issued only on January 9. petitioner. REPUBLIC FACTS: On October 17. No. Masbate a petition for the declaration of the absolute nullity of the marriage contracted on December 26. Sandoval. thereby making him a real party in interest. Section 2. Those filed vis-à-vis marriages celebrated during the effectivity of the Civil Code and. 2003. the petitioner filed in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Cataingan. the applicable law was the old Civil Code. .) No.ABLAZA VS. could impugn the validity of the marriage between Cresenciano and Leonila at any time. which took effect on March 15. The case was docketed as Special Case No. HELD: Before anything more.

was clearly filed out of time. After 12 years. The parties then. . There. They were blessed with 2 sons. ISSUES: Whether or not the RTC erred in rendering the decision on March and May 2004 despite alleged denial of due process. We upheld the judgment of nullity of the marriage even if it was based solely on evidence presented by therein private respondent. No timely appeal was taken from the trial court’s judgment. In Tuason. TAN GR No. HELD: The issue raised in this petition has been settled in the case of Tuason v. private respondent therein filed a petition for the annulment of her marriage on the ground of her husband’s psychological incapacity. 167139 FACTS: Petitioner and respondent were married in 1989 at Manila Cathedral in Intramuros. the alleged negligence of counsel resulting in petitioner‟s loss of the right to appeal is not a ground for vacating the trial court‟s judgments. after failing to appear on two scheduled hearings. petitioner filed a case for annulment of marriage based on Art 36 of Family Code. In the present case. the trial court deemed him to have waived his right to present evidence and rendered judgment based solely on the evidence presented by private respondent. which the trial court received on 28 June 2004. Controversy arose when petitioner cancelled the offer to purchase the Corinthian Hills Subd Lot 12 Blk 2 and authorized Megaworld to offer the property to other interested party and the alleged out-of-the country of the petitioner with their children without the knowledge of the respondent. Applying the doctrine laid down in Tuason. We held that the decision annulling the marriage had already become final and executory when the husband failed to appeal during the reglementary period. He argued he was denied due process when. Court of Appeals.CHAN-TAN vs. the trial court rendered judgment declaring the nullity of the marriage and awarding custody of the children to private respondent therein.[30] Petitioner‟s motion for reconsideration of the 17 May 2004 resolution. The compromise agreement was approved in partial by RTC in July 2003 and 2004 the trial court rendered decision declaring the marriage between the parties void due to mutual psychological incapacity. submitted a compromise agreement concerning the custody of the children and some of their properties. prompting the respondent to file an omnibus motion seeking the full custody of their children and to turn over to respondent documents and titles in respondent's name. the 30 March 2004 decision and the 17 May 2004 resolution of the trial court had become final and executory upon the lapse of the reglementary period to appeal. The husband claimed that the decision of the trial court was null and void for violation of his right to due process. Manila. We also ruled in Tuason that notice sent to the counsel of record is binding upon the client and the neglect or failure of the counsel to inform the client of an adverse judgment resulting in the loss of the latter‟s right to appeal is not a ground for setting aside a judgment valid and regular on its face.

a British subject. Antique after learning of Janet Monica's departure. Antique in 1980 after his seaman’s contract expired. instead of seeking the help of local authorities or of the British Embassy. HELD: The respondent failed to establish that he had the well-founded belief required by law that his absent wife was already dead that would sustain the issuance of a court order declaring Janet Monica Parker presumptively dead. He testified that he had no knowledge of her family background even after the marriage and did not report the disappearance to the authorities. Nolasco received a letter from his mother informing him that Parker had left Antique. During trial. The petition was granted by lower court and was also affirmed by the appellate court. On January 1982. NOLASCO 220 SCRA 20 FACTS: Gregorio Nolasco filed before the Regional Trial Court of Antique a petition for the declarationof the presumptive death of his wife Janet Monica Parker. Nolasco claimed he asked permission to leave the ship and return home to look for his wife. The Court also views respondent's claim that Janet Monica declined to give any information as to her personal background even after she had married respondent 17 too convenient an excuse to justify his failure to locate her. the republic appealed to the SC.REPUBLICS VS. and that their friends received no news from Parker. As such. under unspecified circumstances. while working overseas. In the case at bar. invoking Article 41 of the Family Code. The Republic of the Philippines opposed the petition through the Provincial Prosecutor of Antique who had been deputized to assist the Solicitor General in the case. After the marriage celebration. Parker lived with Nolasco on his ship for six months until they returned to Nolasco’s hometown of San Jose. in a bar in England during one of his ship’s port calls. When he arrived in San Jose. Nolasco testified that he was seaman and that he had first met Parker. a vast city of many millions of inhabitants. He testified that his efforts to look for her whenever their ship docked in England were fruitless. the Court considers that the investigation allegedly conducted by respondent in his attempt to ascertain Janet Monica Parker's whereabouts is too sketchy to form the basis of a reasonable or wellfounded belief that she was already dead. Antique. Nolasco obtained another employment as a seaman and left his wife with his parents in Antique. he secured another seaman's contract and went to London. The same can be said of the loss of the alleged letters respondent had sent to his wife which respondent claims were all returned to him. Respondent said he had lost these returned letters. . to look for her there. ISSUES: Whether or not Nolasco has a well-founded belief that his wife is already dead. Sometime in 1983. NOlasco married Parker in San Jose. From that chance meeting onwards. that the letters he sent to Parker’s address in England were all returned to him.

2001 before the Ligao City RTC for the declaration of presumptive death of Maria within the contemplation of Article 41 of the Family Code. Ferventino and Maria were married4 in civil rites before then Mayor Ignacio Bunye of Muntinlupa City. Upon inquiry from the latter’s uncle. Capt. and his aunt Anita Castro-Mayor in Seattle. The next 14 years went by without any news of Maria. The two had only spent a night together and had been intimate once when Maria told Ferventino that she and her family will soon be leaving for the United States of America (USA). he sought the aid of his parents Antonio and Eusebia in Los Angeles.REPUBLICS VS. in Las Piñas. that she will file a petition so he can live with her in the USA. TANGO 594 SCRA 560 FACTS: On March 9. Antonio Ledesma. He also solicited the assistance of a friend in Texas. None of Maria’s relatives witnessed the ceremony as they were opposed to her relationship with Ferventino. HELD: . their attempts to find Maria proved fruitless. Air Force. USA.S. Like. 1987. Finally. Ledesma though. In the event that said petition is denied. On the belief that his wife had died. He claims to have forgotten her address since. Maria and her family flew to Seattle. Ferventino recounts the efforts he made to find Maria. Out of resentment. he burned all the letters Maria wrote him. On March 13. she promised to return to the Philippines to live with him. Ferventino learned that even Maria’s relatives were unaware of her whereabouts. 1987. Luis Aris of the U. Ferventino filed a verified petition5 dated October 1. Ferventino alleges that Maria kept in touch for a year before she stopped responding to his letters. however. but to no avail. ISSUES: Whether or not Ferventino Tango has a well-founded belief that his wife is already dead. Maria assured Ferventino.

a medical certificate on the result thereof. No. 1955. She did not file an answer. . without pronouncement as to costs. 1957. the plaintiff prays for a decree annulling his marriage to the defendant with the following facts: (a) Such marriage was contracted on August 3. REPUBLIC G. The incidents of the status are governed by law. The Court entered a decree annulling the marriage between the plaintiff and the defendant.R. 1955. 1956. to intervene for the State to see that the evidence of the plaintiff is not a frame-up. the defendant was granted additional five (5) days to comply in relation to the order issued in the preceding number. 1957. in the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Zamboanga. (d) On September 29. ISSUES: The issue is whether or not the marriage in question may be annulled on the strength only of the lone testimony of the husband who claimed and testified that his wife was and is impotent HELD: No. 1950 before a judge of the municipal court of Zamboanga City. The decree is set aside and the case was remanded to the lower court for further proceedings in accordance with the decision. not by will of the parties. In the case at bar. the defendant was summoned and served a copy of the complaint. L-12790 FACTS: In a complaint filed on June 7. The Court deemed lack of interest on her part in the case. pursuant to Article 88 of the Civil Code. or fabricated. within ten (10) days from the receipt of the order. 1957. (f) On March 14. the annulment of the marriage in question was decreed upon the sole testimony of the husband who was expected to give testimony tending or aiming at securing the annulment of his marriage he sought and seeks. 11. (c) On June 14. The lone testimony of the husband that his wife is physically incapable of sexual intercourse is insufficient to tear asunder the ties that have bound them together as husband and wife. (g) On April. the Court entered an order requiring the defendant to submit to a physical examination by a competent lady physician to determine her physical capacity for copulation and to submit. 1956. Whether the wife is really impotent cannot be deemed to have been satisfactorily established. (b) The ground for the annulment was that the office of the defendant’s genitals was to small to allow the penetration of a male organ or penis for copulation. On April 26.JIMENEZ VS. concocted. the Court directed the city attorney of Zamboanga to inquire whether there was a collusion. (e) On December 17. The law specifically enumerates the legal grounds that must be proved to exist by indubitable evidence. to annul a marriage. the city attorney filed a motion for reconsideration of the decree thus entered upon the ground that: (a) The defendant’s impotency was not satisfactorily established as required by law. the defendant did not show.