Cosca vs Palaypayon 1994

Facts:
Juvy Cosca, stenographer, filed an administrative case against Judge Palaypayon of
MTC of Tinambac, CamSur for the illegal solemnization of marriages. The petitioner
alleged that the respondent failed to sign and issue the marriage contracts that the
latter solemnized. The respondent even allegedly celebrated a marriage with no
marriage license invoking Art. 34 (more than 5 years cohabitation), but the groom
was then 18 years old when contracted the marriage.
Issue/s: Whether or not the marriages solemnized by Judge Palaypayon be
considered valid?
Ruling: YES, the marriages is still valid because the Family Code provides that
irregularities in the formal requisites shall not affect the validity of the marriage, the
party or parties responsible for the irregularities shall be civilly, criminally and
administratively liable. In this case at bar, Judge Palaypayon caused the
irregularities and the couples that he married believed in good faith that the former
celebrated their marriage with no attached constraints

Geronimo vs CA 1993
Facts: Ireneo Geronimo questioned the validity of the marriage between his sister
Graciana and Antonio Esman. The complainant wanted to be appointed as the
administrator of the estates of Graciano. He contended that the wedding was
celebrated without a marriage license due to the absence of the license numbers on
the marriage contract.
ISSUE: Whether or not the marriage was valid?
RULING: YES, the marriage of Graciana and Antonio is valid. According to the
decision of the Supreme Court, non-indication of the marriage license number could
only serve that the number was not recorded. It could not be accepted as clear and
convincing proof of non- issuance of the required marriage license.

Atienza vs Brilliantes Jr. 1995

Lupo Atienza filed an administrative case on immorality and appearance of
Impropriety against Judge Brilliantes who unlawfully cohabited with the formers
wife Yolanda. Lupo claimed that the respondent was previously married to a certain
Zenaida Onkiko having five children. The judge defended that his marriage with
Onkiko was invalid due to the absence of a marriage licence. The celebration of the
marriage without licence even happened twice when he subsequently married
Yolanda in the United States thus thereby former allegedly acted in good faith.
Brilliantes also argued that Art 40 of the Family Code promulgated in 1988 was not
applicable because his primary marriage was contracted in 1965, thus he was single
in his second marriage in 1991.

ISSUE: Whether or not Judge Brilliantes defence in valid?

RULIING: NO, after the promulgation of the Family Code, the law requires a judicial
declaration of the nullity of the previous marriage even though the first marriage
was contracted before the effectivity of such code (Art. 40). The Family Code is
given retroactive effect unless prejudice to vested or acquired rights given by the
civil code and other laws. But Judge Brilliantes failed to prove that his rights were
impaired. Also, Art. 40 is procedural in nature, thus no rights are attached. The
respondent could not invoke good faith, because as a lawyer and even a judge, he
should know the requisites of marriage. Such actions are against The Code of
Judicial Ethics. Wherefore, Judge Brilliantes was dismissed from the service.

Mariategui vs CA 1992
Lupo Mariategui had three wives during his life time. But he died without leaving a
will, thus the children of his first and second wife contested the validity of his third
marriage with Felipa Velasco due to the absence of marriage license and contract.
The petition also alleged that the children of the third marriage (Jacinto, Julian and
Paulina) should be considered illegitimate due to absence of proof of their
legitimacy.
ISSUE: Whether or not the marriage of Lupo and Felipa was valid and their children
considered legitimate?
RULING: YES, marriage may be presumed to have taken place between Lupo and
and Felipa. The law presumes that a man and awoman deporting themselves as
husband and wife have entered into a lawful contract of marriage.

In child legitimacy, pertinent documents are required by Art. 172 (record of birth
and etc.) but in this case at bar Julian and Paulina failed to show such requirements.
But the Supreme Court said that even in the absence of such documents as proof,
the children of the third marriage continuously enjoyed the status as legitimate
children of Lupo Mariategui in the same manner as their brother Jacinto enjoyed the
privilege.
Republic vs. Iyoy
Fely and Crasus were married and had 5 chidren. After some time Fely left Crasus,
and the former went to the US where she allegedly applied for divorce and was
granted. She then allegedly married an American and had a child. Upon knowing
Felys actions, Crasus filed for annulment of marriage invoking Art. 36(Psychological
Incapacity) on the grounds of abandonment, sexual infidelity and bigamy. The RTC
annulled the marriage and the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision, thereby the
Solicitor General submitted a petition to the Supreme Court.
Issue: Whether or not the divorce contracted by Fely was valid?
Whether or not the grounds invoked by Crasus sufficient for annulment of
marriage?

Ruling: NO, the divorce cannot be considered and Art 26 par. 2 of the Family Code
shall not be considered because Fely procured the divorce when she was still a
Filipino Citizen. There is no sufficient proof that she was naturalized as a US citizen
when she had the divorce.
The burden of proof is vested on the complainant. Thus on this case, the grounds
cited by the complainant Crassus were not sufficient enough to invoke Art 36
(Psychological Incapacity). The causes were only sufficient for legal separation.
Wherefore, the petition is Granted and the decisions of the CA and RTC reversed.

Republic vs. Orbecido III

Cipriano Orbecido and Lady Villanueva, both Filipino citizens, contracted marriage.
But unfortunately Lady went to the US and was allegedly naturalized as an
American citizen. Subsequently she sought for divorce on her marriage with
Cipriano then married and American. Orbecido filed a petition for authority to
remarry invoking Art 26 par.2 of Family Code. The RTC granted the annulment
thereby the Solicitor General filed a petition for certiorari and resolution to the
Supreme Court.
Isuue: Whether or not Art. 26 par.2 was sufficiently invoked?

Ruling: NO, Cipriano Orbecido where the burden of proof rest, failed to supply
sufficient evidence that would prove for him to remarry, thus making the claims
against Lady Villanueva as mere allegations. But if the facts stipulated against Lady
were proven with clear convincing evidence, then the Court could have granted the
annulment invoking Art. 26 par. 2. Wherefore the SC granted the SGs petition; and
set-aside and reversed the RTCs decision.

Navarro vs Domagtoy
Mayor Navarro of Dapa, Surigao del Norte filed a complaint against Judge Nando
Domagtoy for gross misconduct, inefficiency in office and ignorance of the law.
Judge Domagtoy solemnized the marriages of:

Gaspar Tagadan and Arlyn Borga without the declaration of presumptive

death from the previous spouse of the groom which Art 41 requires.
Floriano Sumaylo and Gemma del Rosario outside of his courts jurisdiction in
violation of art 8.

Respondent judge contended that the first marriage did not violate the family code
because he only relied on the Affidavit issued by the Municipal Trial Judge of Basey,
Samar, confirming the fact that Mr. Tagadan and his first wife have not seen each
other for almost seven years. In the second marriage, he claimed that he did not
violate Art 7 which provides that the solemnization officers shall only celebrate the
marriage within his jurisdiction. Thus, he invoked the provisions of Art 8 as a
defense.

ISSUE: Whether or not his defences are valid?

Ruling: NO, the first marriage is considered bigamous and therefore should be void.
Article 41 of the Family Code expressly provides that a marriage contracted by any
person during the subsistence of a previous marriage shall be null and void, unless
before the celebration of the subsequent marriage, the prior spouse had been
absent for four consecutive years and the spouse present had a well-founded belief
that the absent spouse was already dead. In case of disappearance where there is
danger of death under the circumstances set forth in the provisions of Articles 391
of the Civil Code, an absence of only two years shall be sufficient. For the purpose
of contracting the subsequent marriage under the preceding paragraph, the spouse
present institute a summary proceeding as provided in this Code for the declaration
of presumptive death of the absentee without prejudice to the effect
of reappearance of the absent spouse.

In the second marriage, the judge invoked Art 8 as a defence but it only provides
that a marriage can be held outside of the judge's chambers or courtroom only in
the following instances: (1) at the point of death, (2) in remote places in accordance
with Article 29 or (3) upon request of both parties in writing in a sworn statement to
this effect. There is no proof that either Sumaylo or del Rosario was at the point
of death or in the remote place. Moreover, the written request presented addressed
to the respondent judge was made by only one party, Gemma del Rosario.
Wherefore, the Supreme Court suspended Judge Domagtoy on the grounds
complained against him.

Pilapil vs. Ibay-Somera

Imelda Pilapil, a Filipino, married Erich Geiling who is German. Their marriage was
celebrated in Germany. Unfortunately, Erich filed for divorce in a German court for
failure of marriage and was granted. After 5 months, he filed a complaint of Adultery
in two Regional Trial Courts against Imelda. The latter allegedly had an adulterous
relationship with Jesus Chua and another William Chia.

Issue: Whether or not the Philippine Courts have jurisdiction?

Ruling: NO, because the complainant, a foreigner, does not qualify as an offended
spouse having obtained a final divorce degree under his national law prior filing of
complaint. The adultery case charged against Imelda cannot be tried and decided
because such case is a private offense, thus cannot be prosecuted de officio.

Balogbog vs. CA
Basilio Balogbog and Genoveva Arnibal died intestate in 1951 and 1961
respectively. They had three children, Leoncia, Gaudioso and Gavino, their older
brother who died in 1935. Ramoncito and Generoso claimed that they were the
legitimate children of Gavino by Catalina Ubas and they were entitled to the onethird share in the estate of their grandparents. However, Leoncia and Gaudioso
claimed they are not aware that their brother has 2 sons and that he was married.
They questioned validity of the marriage due to the absence of a marriage contract
between their brother Gavino and Catalina. The siblings of Gavino even
strengthened their contention by obtaininga certificate from the local Civil Registrar
of Asturias to the effect that the office did not have a record of the names of Gavino
and Catalina.

Issue: Whether or not the marriage of Gavino and Catalina valid?

Ruling: YES, a marriage contract is considered primary evidence of marriage, failure
to present it would not mean that marriage did not take place. Other evidence may
be presented where in this case evidence consisting of the testimonies of witnesses
was held competent to prove the marriage of Gavino and Catalina. Gaudioso
himself admitted during a separate police investigation proceeding that indeed
Ramonito is his nephew as the latter is the son of his elder brother Gavino. And
under the Code of Civil procedure, a man and a woman deporting themselves as
husband and wife have entered into a contract of marriage be rebutted by cogent
proof to the contrary. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of CA and CFI of
Cebu granting respondents Ramonito and Generoso 1/3 of estate of Basilio and
Genoveva Balogbog.

Quita vs CA
Fe Quita and Arturo Padlan, both Filipinos, were married in the Philippines. After
some time, they sought for divorce in the US. After the divorce, Fe, the petitioner,
contracted two more succeeding marriages. In the other hand, Arturo died in the
Philippines without leaving a will. Before his death, he was allegedly married to
Blandina Dandan and having seven children. The alleged Padlan children claimed
that they should have successional rights being legitimate children of Arturo.
Issue: Whether or not the Arturos marriage to Fe was still valid?
Ruling: YES, the divorce was not valid because both were Filipino citizens when they
availed such. Therefore, the subsequent marriage between Blandina and Arturo was
considered void due to its bigamous nature. But in the issue of the successional
rights of the Padlan children, the Supreme Court agrees with petitioner that no
dispute exists either as to the right of the six (6) Padlan children to inherit from the
decedent because there are proofs that they have been duly acknowledged by him
and petitioner herself even recognizes them as heirs of Arturo Padlan.

Ninal vs Bayadog
Pepito Ninal and Teodulfa Bellones were married but the former shot the latter
causing her death. After a year and eight months, Pepito married Norma Badayog
without a marriage licence invoking Art 34 where cohabitation of at least five years
would exempt such requirement. After some time, Pepito died in a car accident
without leaving any will. The children of the first marriage petitioned for the
declaration of nullity of the second marriage even though their father was already

dead. RTC granted Normas petition to dismiss due to the silence of the Family Code
on the issue, and the court ruled that the children should have filed before the
death of their father.
ISSUE: Whether or not the children of the deceased Pepito and Teodulfa have the
legal personality to file the petition for the declaration of nullity of marriage?
RULING: YES, the marriage between Pepito and Norma is considered void ab initio.
The fact the free cohabitation started during the subsistence of a marriage, thus
such action is considered in itself adulterous and bigamous in nature. Therefore,
void marriages can be questioned even after the death of either party but voidable
marriages can be assailed only during the lifetime of the parties and not after death
of either, in which case the parties and their offspring will be left as if the marriage
had been perfectly valid.

Amor-Catalan vs CA
The petitioner Felicitas Amor-Catalan married the respondent Orlando in
Pangasinan. The couple then migrated to the US and was later on naturalized. But
after 38 years of marriage, the couple sought for divorce and was granted. Orlando
went back to the Pangasinan and married a certain Merope. The petitioner filed a
complaint and contended that the marriage contracted by Merope was bigamous of
a subsisting marriage with Eusebio. The RTC declared the marriage of Orlando and
Merope null and void ab initio. But the respondents appealed and was granted by
the CA that reversed and set-aside the RTCs decision.
ISSUE: Whether or not Felicitas, the petitioner, has the legal personality to file a
petition for the declaration of nullity of the respondents marriage?
RULING: Needs further evidence, to identify if the petitioner has such personality,
the Supreme Court remanded to the trial court for proper disposition due to the
absence of divorce decree and proof of a foreign law allowing it. If it is proved that
a valid divorce decree was obtained and the same did not allow respondent
Orlandos remarriage, then the trial court should declare respondents marriage as
bigamous and void ab initio. On the contrary, if it is proved that a valid divorce
decree was obtained which allowed Orlando to remarry, then the trial court must
dismiss the instant petitio to declare nullity of marriage on the ground
that petitioner Felicitas Amor-Catalan lacks legal personality to file the same

Tenebro vs. CA
Veronico Tenebro and Leticia Ancajas were married. After some time, the former
confessed to the latter that he was previously married to Hilda Villareyes. Veronico
showed a photocopy of his previous marriage contract and said that he is going to
live again with Hilda. Then after, Leticia found out that Veronico contracted another
marriage to a certain Nilda Villegas. Hence, Leticia filed a criminal case of bigamy.
Tenebro claimed that the case shall not prosper because his marriage with the
complainant was declared void ab initio on grounds of psychological incapacity. The
RTC found Tenebro guilty beyond reasonable doubt of bigamy and the A affirmed the
decision. The petitioner then filed for review to the SC.
ISSUE: Whether or not the 2nd marriage of Veronico and Leticia can be a ground for
bigamy.
RULING: YES, when the elements of bigamy are satisfied even the second marriage
was void ab initio, he is still liable of the crime. In entering the second marriage,
bigamy was consummated even though the subsequent was void ab initio on
grounds of psychological incapacity. The Supreme court denied the petition for
review and affirmed the decision of the CA and RTC.

Carlos vs Sandoval

Teofilo Carlos and petitioner Juan De Dios Carlos were brothers who each have three
parcels of land by virtue of inheritance. Later Teofilo died intestate. He was survived
by respondents Felicidad Sandoval and their son, Teofilo Carlos II. Upon Teofilos
death, two parcels of land were registered in the name of Felicidad and Teofilo II. In
August 1995, Carlos commenced an action against respondents before the court a
quo. In his complaint, Carlos asserted that the marriage between his late brother
and Felicidad was a nullity in view of the absence of the required marriage license.
He likewise maintained that his deceased brother was neither the natural nor the
adoptive father of Teofilo Carlos II. He argued that the properties covered by such
certificates of title, including the sums received by respondents as proceeds, should
be reconveyed to him.

HELD: The grounds for declaration of absolute nullity of marriage must be

proved. Neither judgment on the pleadings nor summary judgment is
allowed. So is confession of judgment disallowed. Carlos argues that the CA
should have applied Rule 35 of the Rules of Court governing summary judgment,
instead of the rule on judgment on the pleadings. Petitioner is misguided. Whether it
is based on judgment on the pleadings or summary judgment, the CA was correct in
reversing the summary judgment rendered by the trial court. Both the rules on
judgment on the pleadings and summary judgments have no place in cases of
declaration of absolute nullity of marriage and even in annulment of marriage.
A petition for declaration of absolute nullity of void marriage may be filed
solely by the husband or wife. Exceptions: (1) Nullity of marriage cases
commenced before the effectivity of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC; and
(2)Marriages celebrated during the effectivity of the Civil Code. Under
the Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment
of Voidable Marriages, the petition for declaration of absolute nullity of marriage
may not be filed by any party outside of the marriage. A petition for declaration of
absolute nullity of void marriage may be filed solely by the husband or the
wife. Only an aggrieved or injured spouse may file a petition for annulment of
voidable marriages or declaration of absolute nullity of void marriages. Such
petition cannot be filed by compulsory or intestate heirs of the spouses or by the
State. The Committee is of the belief that they do not have a legal right to file the
petition. Compulsory or intestate heirs have only inchoate rights prior to the death
of their predecessor, and, hence, can only question the validity of the marriage of
the spouses upon the death of a spouse in a proceeding for the settlement of the
estate of the deceased spouse filed in the regular courts. On the other hand, the
concern of the State is to preserve marriage and not to seek its dissolution. The Rule
extends only to marriages entered into during the effectivity of the Family Code
which took effect on August 3, 1988.
The advent of the Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages marks
the beginning of the end of the right of the heirs of the deceased spouse to bring a
nullity of marriage case against the surviving spouse. But the Rule never intended
to deprive the compulsory or intestate heirs of their successional rights.
While A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC declares that a petition for declaration of absolute
nullity of marriage may be filed solely by the husband or the wife, it does not mean
that the compulsory or intestate heirs are without any recourse under the law. They
can still protect their successional right, for, as stated in the Rationale of the Rules
on Annulment of Voidable Marriages and Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void
Marriages, compulsory or intestate heirs can still question the validity of the
marriage of the spouses, not in a proceeding for declaration of nullity but upon the
death of a spouse in a proceeding for the settlement of the estate of the deceased
spouse filed in the regular courts.

It is emphasized, however, that the Rule does not apply to cases already
commenced before March 15, 2003 although the marriage involved is within the
coverage of the Family Code. This is so, as the new Rule which became effective on
March 15, 2003 is prospective in its application.
Petitioner commenced the nullity of marriage case against respondent Felicidad in
1995. The marriage in controversy was celebrated on May 14, 1962. Which law
would govern depends upon when the marriage took place.
The marriage having been solemnized prior to the effectivity of the Family Code, the
applicable law is the Civil Code which was the law in effect at the time of its
celebration. But the Civil Code is silent as to who may bring an action to declare the
marriage void. Does this mean that any person can bring an action for the
declaration of nullity of marriage?
True, under the New Civil Code which is the law in force at the time the respondents
were married, or even in the Family Code,there is no specific provision as to who
can file a petition to declare the nullity of marriage; however, only a party who can
demonstrate proper interest can file the same. A petition to declare the nullity of
marriage, like any other actions, must be prosecuted or defended in the name of
the real party-in-interest and must be based on a cause of action. Thus, in Nial v.
Badayog, the Court held that the children have the personality to file the petition to
declare the nullity of marriage of their deceased father to their stepmother as it
affects their successional rights

Marcos vs Marcos 2000

FACTS: Brenda B. Marcos married Wilson Marcos in 1982 and they had five children.
Alleging that the husband failed to provide material support to the family and have
resorted to physical abuse and abandonment, Brenda filed a case for the nullity of

the marriage on the ground that Wilson Marcos has psychological incapacity. The
RTC declared the marriage null and void under Article 36 which was however
reversed by the Court of Appeals
ISSUES: 1. Whether personal medical or psychological examination of the
respondent by a physician is a requirement for a declaration of psychological
incapacity.
2. Whether or not the totality of evidence presented in this case show psychological
incapacity.
HELD: Psychological incapacity, as a ground for declaring the nullity of a marriage,
may be established by the totality of evidencepresented. There is no requirement,
however that the respondent should be examined by a physician or a psychologist
as a conditionsince qua non for such declaration.Although this Court is sufficiently
convinced that respondent failed to provide material support to the family and may
haveresorted to physical abuse and abandonment, the totality of his acts does not
lead to a conclusion of psychological incapacity on hispart. There is absolutely no
showing that his defects were already present at the inception of the marriage or
that they areincurable.Verily, the behavior of respondent can be attributed to the
fact that he had lost his job and was not gainfully employed for aperiod of more
than six years. It was during this period that he became intermittently drunk, failed
to give material and moral support,and even left the family home.Thus, his alleged
psychological illness was traced only to said period and not to the inception of the
marriage. Equallyimportant, there is no evidence showing that his condition is
incurable, especially now that he is gainfully employed as a taxi driver.In sum, this
Court cannot declare the dissolution of the marriage for failure of petitioner to show
that the alleged psychologicalincapacity is characterized by gravity, juridical
antecedence and incurability; and for her failure to observe the guidelines outlined
inMolina.
husband may use wifes confidential report/ m
edical record
to show psychological incapacity
Santos V. CA
240 SCRA 20psychological incapacity must refer to
mental
(not physical)
incapacity

to comprehend basic mental covenantscharacterized by gravity, juridical

antecedence, incurability, existing at the time of the marriage
Chi Ming Tsoi v. CA
G.R. No. 119190 (January 16, 1997)Facts:1) RTC QC Br 89 which decreed the
annulmentof the marriage on the ground ofpsychological incapacity2) Petitioner
appealed the decision of the trialcourt to CA (42758) which affirmed the RTCdecision
(Nov 29, 1994)3) Denied motion for reconsideration (February14, 1995)4) May 22,
1988 plaintiff married defendant atManila cathedral, Intramuros manila

marriage contact-evidence5) Wedding reception South Villa Makati

house of d
efendants mother
6) No making love on the first nyt aftermarriage

same with second, third andfourth nights7) Baguio city

first week as husband andwife

with mother, uncle, his mother andnephew of defendant

n sexual intercoursewithin the 4-day stay8) May 22, 1988- March 15, 1989

but duringthis period no attempt of sexual intercourse

between them, not even saw husbands
private parts9) Submitted themselves to medicalexamination

CGH- January 20, 198910)

She was healthy, still a virgin; her husbands

results were kept confidential

givenmedication but confidential

asked to returnbut never did11) Impotent husband, closet homosexual,defendant

married her a Filipino citizen toacquire and maintain residency statusCLAIM OF
DEFENDANT: if marriage will be annulledby reason of psychological incapacity, it will
be fault ofthe wifeHe did not want marriage to be annulled due to:a) He loves her so
muchb) He has no defect on his part and he isphysically and psychologically
capablec) The relationship is till young and differencescan still be reconciled\ d)
Defect can be cured with medical technology
Admitted that no sexual intercourse fromMay 22, 1988 to March 15, 1989

blames wife
Two reasons given by him: 1) she isafraid that she will return jewelry ofhermother
(forced) ; 2) that her husbandwill consummate the marriage
He insists on the validity of the marriage12) Submitted himself to examination

Dr.Sergio Atleza Jr said he has no signs ofimpotency and capable of

erectionDECISION OF TRIAL COURT: declared Voidmarriage . let copy be furnished
the local civil registrarof QC and of Manila
CA: affirmed TCs decision
DECISION OF SUPREME COURT: petition to bebereft of merit; assailed decision of
the CA dated Nov29, 1994 AFFIRMED in all respects and the petition ishereby
DENIED for lack of merit.REASONS:1) Private respondent has the burden ofproving
the allegations in her complaint

noindependent evidence to prove the allegednon-coitus between husband and wife

onlybasis is admission of petitioner2) Need to prevent collusion between parties

CC provides that no judgment annullingmarriage shall be promulgated upon

astipulation of facts or by confession of judgments3) But since petitioner did not
want marriage tobe annulled

then no collusion betweenparties4) Issue that failure to have sexual

intercoursemeant psychological incapacity of both

other reasons may exist

the court said thefact that no coitus happened betweenthem

no need to determine who did notwant to have sex with whom5) Wanted to have
sex but refuses

maybebecause of pain?== no attempt to discoverwhat the problem with his wife

could be6) One of the essential marital obligationsunder the FC is to procreate
children basedon the universal principle that procreation ofchildren through sexual
cooperation is thebasic end of mar
riage
if one althoughphysically capable but simply refuses toperform his or her essential
maritalobligations and the refusal is senseless andconstant

even canon Law attribute thecause to psychological incapacity

C2013 | PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATIONS | PROF. KATRINA LEGARDA | 37

7) Court find the gravity of the failedrelationship in which the parties

foundthemselves trapped in its mire of unfulfilledvows and unconsummated
maritalobligations can do no less but sustain thestudied judgment of respondent
appellatecourt
Republic v. Olaviano Molina
(1997)Facts:1) Petition for review on certiorari under theRule 45 challenging the
January 25, 1993decision of CA affirming
in toto
the May 14,1991 decision of the RTC of La TrinidadBenguet which declared the
marriage ofrespondent Roridel Olaviano Molina toReynaldo Molina void
ab initio
on the ground
of psychological capacity under Article 36
of the Family Code2) Case filed August 16, 1990 (nullity ofmarriage)3) April 14,
1985: marriage of Roridel andReynaldo, san Agustin Church4) Son: Andre Molina5)
After a year of marriage:
Showed signs of immaturity
Preferred to stay with peers and friendssquandering his money
Depended on parents for aid andassistance
Never honest with wife about finances6) February 1986: relieved from work7)
October 1986: intense quarrel8) March 1987: Roridel resigned from job inManila and
went to live with parents inBaguio City9) Few weeks later: Reynaldo left Roridel
andtheir child and abandoned them10) Reynaldo psychologically incapable
ofcomplying with essential marital obligations
REYNALDOs CLAIMS
1) Filed August 28, 1989: contended thatmisunderstandings were due to:a)
Roridelss strange behavior of insisting

on maintaining her friends even aftermarriageb) Her refusal to perform some of

hermarital duties such as cooking mealsc)
Roridels failure to run the h
ouseholdand handle their financesTHE FOLLOWING WERE STIPULATED:1) Petitioner
is not asking for support for herchild and her2) Respondent is not asking for
damages3) Parties are separated in fact for three years4) Common child of the
parties is in custody ofthe
petitioners wife

WIFEs WITNESSES: Friends: Rosemarie

Ventura and Maria Leonora Padilla; RuthLalas a social worker and Dr.
TeresitaHidalgo-Sison (psychiatrist of BGH)
TRIAL COURTS DECISION: May 14, 1991:
declaring marriage null and voidCA: denied appeal of petitioner and affirmed
in toto

the RTC decision

SOLICITOR GENERAL: insists that the CAmade an erroneous and incorrect
interpretation of the phrase psychologicalincapacity. He said that appealed
decision
tended to establish in effect the most liberal
divorce procedure in the world

Solicitors appeal was denied

RTCrelying on the fact that marriagebetween parties broke up because oftheir
opposing and conflictingpersonalities.
-

SG argued that opposing and

conflicting personalities is not equivalent
to psychological capacity
PSYCHOLOGICAL INCAPACITY: is notsimply
neglect
by the parties to themarriage of their responsibilities andduties but a
defect
in their psychologicalnature which renders them incapable ofperforming such
marital responsibilitiesand dutiesSC RULING: Petition is meritoriousREASONS:1)
Justice Vitug: psychological incapacity refersto the most serious cases of
personalitydisorders clearly demonstrative of an utterinsensitivity or inability to give
meaning andsignificance to the marriage; this conditionmust exist at the time the
marriage iscelebrated2) It should be characterized by: a) gravity, b) juridical
antecedence and c) incurability3) In the present case:
There is no clear showing that thepsychological defect spoken of is anincapacity
but merely a difficulty if notoutright refusal or neglect in the
performance of some marital obligations
Mere showing of irreconcible differencesand conflicting personalities in no
wiseconstitutes psychological incapacity
It is essential to show that the partiesare incapable of meeting their
maritalresponsibilities and not mere failure

C2013 | PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATIONS | PROF. KATRINA LEGARDA | 38

-

No gravity in the problem, neither juridical antecedence nor incurability4) Court

invited two
amici curiae
(Most revOscar Cruz and Justice Ricardo Puno: theirguidance:a) The burden of proof
to show the nullityof marriage belongs to the plaintiff- anydoubt should be resolved
in -- favor ofthe validity and continuation of themarriage

permanence, solidarity andinviolability of marriageb) The root cause of the

psychologicalincapacity must be 1) medically orclinically identified; 2) alleged in
thecomplaint; 3) sufficiently proven byexperts and 4) clearly explained in
thedecision

the evidence must convincethe court that the parties or one of them,was mentally
or psychically ill to such anextent that the person could not haveknown the
obligations he was assumingor knowing them, could not have givenvalid
assumption thereof.c) The incapacity must be proven existingduring the time of the
celebration of themarriaged) Such incapacity must also be shown tobe medically or
clinically permanent orincurable

incapacity must be relevantto assumption of marriage obligationsnot necessarily

those not related tomarriage like exercise of professione) Such illness must be grave
enough tobring about the disability of the party toassume the essential obligations
ofmarriage- illness must be shown asdownright incapacity or inability and nota
refusal, neglect or difficulty much lessill willf) The essential marital obligations
mustbe those embraced by Arts 68-71 offamily code (to husband and wife) andARTs
220, 221 and 225 (parents andtheir children)g) Interpretations given by the
NationalAppellate Matrimonial tribunal of theCatholic Church in the Philippines
whilenot controlling or decisive, should begiven great respect by our courts

Art36 taken from the Canon 1095 of theNew Code of Canon Law (1983)- whatis
decreed to be canonically void be alsocivilly voidh) The trial court must order
theprosecuting attorney or fiscal and theSolicitor general to appear as counselfor
the stateDECISION OF SC: petition is GRANTED. Theassailed decision is REVERSED
and SET ASIDE.The marriage of Roridel Olaviano and ReynaldoMolina subsists and
remains valid.SEPARATE STATEMENT:PADILLA, J

Each case must be judged, not on the basisof

a priori
assumptions, predilections orgeneralizations but according to its ownfacts

the facts in this case does not supportconclusion of psychological

incapacitySEPARATE OPINIONROMERO, J.

Not mere refusal and neglect or difficulty

Neither should the incapacity be the result ofmental illness. For if it were due to
insanityor defects in the mental faculties short ofinsanity, there is the resultant
defect of viceof consent, thus rendering the marriageannullable (Art 45 family Code)

Psychological incapacity does not refer tomental faculties and has nothing to do
withconsent, it refers to obligations attendant tomarriage

Psychological incapacity is insanity of alesser degree

Remedy was to allow the afflicted spouse toremarry

Bases for determining void marriages:a) Lack of one or more of the

essentialrequisites of marriage as contractb) Reasons of public policyc) Special
cases and special situations(includes psychological incapacity)

Canon Law- valid and void marriage only

In the case conflicting and opposing

personalities of the spouses were notconsidered equivalent to

psychologicalincapacity

Senseless and protracted refusal isequivalent to psychological incapacity (ChiMing

Tsoi vs CA)

Concurs that this marriage remainssubsisting and validCONCURRING

OPINIONVITUG, J.

Should give much value to Canon Law jurisprudence as an aid to the

interpretationand construction of the statutory enactment

Marriage
void ab initio
, Art 45- merelyvoidable, Art 55- legal separation

The term psychological incapacity to beground for the nullity of the marriage
underArt 36 of the FC must pass the followingtests:a) Incapacity must be
psychological ormental not physical in natureb) Psychological incapacity must relate
tothe inability, not mere refusal to understand, assume and discharge the basic
marital obligations of living together, observing love and respect

C2013 | PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATIONS | PROF. KATRINA LEGARDA | 39

and fidelity and rendering mutual helpand supportc) Psychology condition must
exist at thetime the marriage is contracted althoughits overt manifestations may
occur onlythereafter andd) The mental disorder must be grave orserious and
incurableSection 2 Art. XV (marriage as an inviolable socialinstitution, is the
foundation of the family and shall beprotected by the State) , Section 12, Art II ( The
Staterecognizes the sanctity of family life and shall protectand strengthen the
family as a basic autonomoussocial institution), Section 1, Article XV ( The
Staterecognizes the Filipino family as the foundation of thenation. Accordingly, it
shall strengthen its solidarityand actively promote its total development) of
theConstitution show how the state regard marriage andthe family