Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Digest Legmed
Digest Legmed
Such testimony then is considered nothing but hearsay. PETITION DENIED FOR
LACK OF MERIT.
SANTOS V CA 240 SCRA 20 JANUARY 4, 1995
FACTS: Leouel Santos (petitioner) and Julia Rosario Bedia were married on
September 20, 1986 in Iloilo City
May 18, 1988 Julia left for the US as a nurse. She did not disclose where
she lived; petitioner tried to locate her in the US but was unsuccessful. He
then filed with RTC a complaint for nullity of marriage
May 31, 1991 Julia opposed complaint and alleged that the petitioner
was the one who had been irresponsible and incompetent
No collusion proven by the provincial prosecutor
November 6, 1991 court dismissed the case for lack of merit. Petitioner
appealed on the basis that Julias failure to return and lack of
communication proves she is psychologically incapacitated
ISSUE: Whether Julias behavior (failure to return home and lack of intention of
communicating with Leouel) constitutes as psychological incapacity
HELD: Psychological incapacity is characterized by: 1. Gravity; 2. Juridical
antedence and; 3. Incurability. The incapacity must be grave or serious such that
the party would be incapable of carrying out the ordinary duties required in
marriage; it must be rooted in the history of the party antedating the marriage,
although the overt manifestations may emerge only after the marriage; and it
must be incurable or, even if it were otherwise, the cure would be beyond the
means of the party involved.
Psychological incapacity does not cover all psychoses (extremely low
intelligence, immaturity, etc) Article 36 of the Family Code cannot be taken and
construed independently of, but must stand in conjunction with, existing
precepts in our law on marriage. Thus correlated, "psychological incapacity"
should refer to no less than a mental (not physical) incapacity that causes a
party to be truly incognitive of the basic marital covenants that concomitantly
must be assumed and discharged by the parties to the marriage which, as so
expressed by Article 68 of the Family Code, include their mutual obligations to
live together, observe love, respect and fidelity and render help and support.
There is hardly any doubt that the intendment of the law has been to confine the
meaning of "psychological incapacity" to the most serious cases of personality
disorders clearly demonstrative of an utter insensitivity or inability to give
meaning and significance to the marriage. This psychological condition must
exist at the time the marriage is celebrated. The law does not evidently envision,
upon the other hand, an inability of the spouse to have sexual relations with the
other. This conclusion is implicit under Article 54 of the Family Code which
considers children conceived prior to the judicial declaration of nullity of the void
marriage to be "legitimate."
The other forms of psychoses, if existing at the inception of marriage, like the
state of a party being of unsound mind or concealment of drug addiction,
habitual alcoholism, homosexuality or lesbianism, merely renders the marriage
contract voidable pursuant to Article 46, Family Code. If drug addiction, habitual
alcholism, lesbianism or homosexuality should occur only during the marriage,
they become mere grounds for legal separation under Article 55 of the Family
Code. These provisions of the Code, however, do not necessarily preclude the
possibility of these various circumstances being themselves, depending on the
marital duties and; 3. Roridels failure to run the household and run their
finances
Olavianos allegations were corroborated by her friends, Ruth Salas (social
worker) and Dr. Teresita Hidalgo-Sison (psychiatrist); submitted documents
confirming such while Reynaldo did not present any evidence during pretrial
May 14, 1991 Family court declared marriage null and void. CA affirmed
the same
ISSUE:
Whether opposing and conflicting personalities is equivalent to
psychological incapacity; Guidelines of proving psychological incapacity
HELD: In Santos v CA, psychological incapacity refers to not just mental or
physical incapacity but should be characterized by: a. gravity; b. juridical
antecedence; c. incurability. In the present case, there is no clear indication that
the psychological defect spoken of is an incapacity but more of a difficulty or
neglect in performing marital obligations. It is not enough to prove that the
parties failed to meet their responsibilities but they must show that they are
incapable of doing so, due to some psychological illness
Guidelines for Psychological Incapacity:
1. Burden of proof belongs to the plaintiff any doubt should be
resolved in favor of the existence and continuation of the marriage
2. Root cause of psychological incapacity must be: a. medically or
clinically identified; b. alleged in the complaint; c. sufficiently
proven by experts and; d. clearly explained in the decision
3. Psychological incapacity must be proven to be existing at the time
(during) celebration of marriage need not be perceivable at such
time but must be existing at the time thereof or prior to it
4. Incurability clinically permanent or incurable. Such incapacity must be
relevant to the assumption of marital obligations, not necessarily those
related to marriage.
5. Gravity must be grave enough to bring about the disability of the party
to assume essential marital obligations.
Mild character biological
peculiarities, e.g. mood changes, occasional emotional outbursts cannot
be accepted as such. There is a natal or supervening disabling factor in
the person that effectively incapacitates the person from fulfilling his/her
essential marital obligations
6. The essential marital obligations must be those mentioned in Art
68-71 of the Family Code as well as Art 220, 221, And 225 relating
to parents and children
7. Interpretations given by the court should be given respect
8. Participation of the State Fiscal or Solicitor General must appear as
counsel for the State
PETITION IS GRANTED. MARRIAGE IS VALID AND SUBSISTING
SEPARATE OPINIONS:
J. PADILLA Maintained position in Santos v CA. Each case must be judged
based on its own facts. The trial judge must take pains in examining the actual
milieu and CA must avoid substituting its own judgment for that of the trail court.
J. ROMERO Psychological incapacity should not be the result of mental illness.
For if it were due to insanity or defects in the mental faculties (imbecility), there
is a resultant defect of vice of consent, thus rendering the marriage voidable
under Art 45 of Family Code. Psychological incapacity does not refer to mental
faculties and has nothing to do with consent; it refers to obligations attendant to
marriage
HERNANDEZ V COURT OF APPEALS 320 SCRA 76 DECEMBER 8, 1999
FACTS: Petition for review on certiorari of the decision of the CA dated January
30, 1996 affirming RTC decision dated April 10, 1993 which dismissed the
petition for annulment of marriage filed by petitioner
Lucita Estrella (petitioner) and Mario Hernandez were married on January
1, 1981 in Silang, Cavite with three children
July 10, 1992 petitioner filed before Tagaytay RTC a petition for
annulment on the grounds of psychological incapacity; from the time of
the marriage up to present, cohabited with another woman, immature and
irresponsible, had STD, alcoholic
October 8, 1992 Mario did not answer Lucitas allegations. Assistant
provincial prosecutor found no evidence of collusion
April 10, 1993 RTC dismissed petition for annulment. January 30, 1996,
CA affirmed RTC decision
ISSUE: Whether alcoholism constitutes as psychological incapacity; Whether CA
erred in holding that the petitioner failed to show that Marios psychological
incapacity existed at the time of the celebration of marriage
HELD:
Respondents alleged habitual alcoholism, sexual infidelity and
abandonment do not by themselves constitute grounds psychological incapacity.
It must be shown that these acts are manifestations of a disordered personality
which make respondent completely unable to perform essential marital
obligations.
As in Republic v CA, expert testimony should be presented to establish the
precise cause of respondents alleged psychological incapacity in order to show
that it existed at the inception of the marriage. The burden of proof to show the
nullity of marriage rests on the petitioner. CA DECISION AFFIRMED
MARCOS V MARCOS 343 SCRA 755 OCTOBER 19, 2000
FACTS: Psychological incapacity, as a ground for declaring nullity of marriage,
may be established by the totality of evidence presented.
There is no
requirement that the respondent should be examined a physician or psychologist
as a conditio sine qua non for such declaration
September 6, 1982 Brenda Marcos (petitioner) and WilsonMarcos
(respondent) married before Pasig MTC and May 8, 1983 married again
before Rev. Eduardo Ealeazar (command chaplain); had 5 children
Husband has no work, often quarrel and beat her and the children. He
would even force her to have sex with him. In 1992, they were living
separately
October 17, 1994 petitioner left with her children because respondent
turned violent; underwent medical exam contusions due to physical
violence
August 1995 petitioner went back to get missing child but was chased by
respondent with samurai
Social worker Sonia Millans study indicated that their children described
their father as cruel and physically abusive
ISSUE: Whether or not the evidences presented in the said case are substantive
and sufficient in ruling nullity of marriage; Whether the testimony of expert
witness is required
HELD: Although the respondent failed to provide material support to the family,
became abusive and abandoned them, the totality of his acts does not lead to a
conclusion of psychological incapacity on his part. There is absolutely no
showing that his defects were already present at the time of the marriage or
that it is incurable. His alleged psychological illness was only traced to the time
he lost his job and not at the inception of the marriage.
Art 36 of Family Code is not to be confused with divorce law that cuts the marital
bond at the time the causes manifest themselves. It refers to a serious
psychological illness afflicting a part at the time of the marriage and is so grave
and permanent as to deprive one of awareness of the duties and responsibilities
of the matrimonial bond provided in Art 68 to 71, 220, 221 and 225 of Family
Code.
Neither is Article 36 to be equated with legal separation, in which the grounds
need not be rooted in psychological incapacity but on physical violence, moral
pressure, moral corruption, civil interdiction, drug addiction, habitual alcoholism,
sexual infidelity, abandonment and the like. At best, the evidence presented by
petitioner refers only to grounds for legal separation, not for declaring a marriage
void. Because Article 36 has been abused as a convenient divorce law, this Court
laid down the procedural requirements for its invocation in Molina. Petitioner,
however, has not faithfully observed them. PETITION DENIED.
REPUBLIC V DAGDAG 351 SCRA 425 FEBRUARY 9, 2001
FACTS: For review on certiorari is the decision of the Court of Appeals dated April
22, 1993, in CA-G.R. CY No. 34378, which affirmed the decision of the Regional
Trial Court of Olongapo City in Civil Case No. 380-0-90 declaring the marriage of
Erlinda Matias Dagdag and Avelino Dagdag void under Article 36 of the Family
Code.
September 7, 1975 Erlinda Matias herein respondent (16 yrs old) married
Avelino Parangan Dagdag (20) at INC Cuyapo Nueva Ecija. With two
children. After marriage, habitual disappearance of Avelino, alcoholic,
forced her to have sex with him, physically abusive
1993 Avelino abandoned his family. Respondent found that he was
imprisoned and he escaped from jail on October 22, 1985
July 3, 1990 Erlinda filed with Olongapo RTC declaration of nullity of
marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity. Since Avelino was at
large, summons were served by publication. During trial, she presented
her sister-in-law as a witness
Investigating officer found no collusion between said parties
December 17, 1990 RTC declared marriage null and void
August 21, 1991 motion for reconsideration from OSG that alcoholism,
physical violence and abandonment do not constitute psychological
incapacity.
ISSUE: Whether or not RTC and CA correctly declared the marriage as null and
void under Art. 36 on the ground that the husband suffers from psychological
incapacity as he is emotionally immature and irresponsible, a habitual alcoholic
and fugitive from justice
HELD: Respondent failed to comply with guideline #2 of Molina case which
requires that the root cause of psychological incapacity must be medically or
clinically identified and sufficiently proven by experts. No psychiatrist or medical
doctor testified as to the alleged psychological incapacity of the husband. The
allegation that he is a fugitive was also not sufficiently proven. The Investigating
prosecutor also was not given an opportunity to present controverting evidence
since RTC rendered decision prematurely.
MALCAMPOS-SIN V SIN 355 SCRA 285 MARCH 26, 2001
FACTS: Petition for declaration of nullity of marriage due to psychological
incapacity
June 4, 1987 Florence Malcampo (petitioner) and Philipp Sin
(respondent), a Portuguese citizen, were married at St. Jude Catholic
Parish, Manila
September 20, 1994 Florence filed with Pasig RTC a complaint for
declaration of nullity of marriage
June 16, 1995 RTC dismissed Florences petition
December 19, 1995 Florence filed a notice of appeal to CA
April 30, 1998 CA dismissed Florences petition and affirmed RTC
decision
June 23, 1998 petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration with CA but
was denied on January 19, 1999
ISSUE:
Whether or not CA erred in denying the petitioners motion for
reconsideration in declaring the nullity of her marriage with the respondent
HELD: The SC reversed the decision and remanded it to the RTC for proper retrial, providing guidelines in the interpretation and application of Article 36 of the
Family CodE (based on Molina case):
1. The burden of proving the nullity of the marriage belongs to the plaintiff.
Any doubts should be resolved in favor of the existence and continuation
of the marriage (semper praesumitur pro matrimonio). This is rooted in
the fact that both the Constitution and the Law cherish the validity of the
marriage and the unity of the family.
2. The root cause of psychological incapacity must be: a. medically or
clinically identified; b. alleged in the complaint; c. sufficiently proven by
experts and; d. clearly explained in the decision. Article 36 of the Family
Code requires that the incapacity must be psychological not physical,
although its manifestations and/or symptoms may be physical. The
evidence must convince the court that the parties, or one of them, was
mentally or psychically (sic) ill to such an extent that the person could not
have known the obligations he was assuming, or knowing them, could not
have given valid assumption thereof.
3. The incapacity was be proven to be existing at the time of the celebration
of the marriage and is still existing
10
11
12
failed to show that the issues in the court had been resolved arbitrarily
without basis
ISSUES: Is certiorari available to correct an order denying a demurrer to
evidence? In its denial, did the RTC commit grave abuse of discretion by violating
or ignoring the applicable law and jurisprudence?
HELD: In general, interlocutory orders are neither appealable nor subject to
certiorari proceedings. However, this rule is not absolute. In Tadeo v. People, 21
this Court declared that appeal -- not certiorari -- in due time was indeed the
proper remedy, provided there was no grave abuse of discretion or excess of
jurisdiction or oppressive exercise of judicial authority. In fact, Rules 41 and 65 of
the Rules of Court expressly recognize this exception and allow certiorari when
the lower court acts with grave abuse of discretion in the issuance of an
interlocutory order.
The evidence against respondent (herein petitioner) is grossly insufficient to
support any finding of psychological incapacity that would warrant a declaration
of nullity of the parties marriage. The documents presented by respondent
during the trial do not in any way show the alleged psychological incapacity of
his wife. It is the height of absurdity and inequity to condemn her as
psychologically incapacitated to fulfill her marital obligations, simply because
she filed cases against him. Sorely lacking in respondents evidence is proof that
the psychological incapacity was grave enough to bring about the disability of a
party to assume the essential obligations of marriage. In Molina, we affirmed that
"mild characterological peculiarities, mood changes and occasional emotional
outbursts cannot be accepted as root causes of psychological incapacity.
Dr. Antonio M. Gauzon, utterly failed to identify and prove the root cause of the
alleged psychological incapacity. Specifically, his testimony did not show that the
incapacity, if true, was medically or clinically permanent or incurable. Neither did
he testify that it was grave enough to bring about the disability of the party to
assume the essential obligations of marriage.
BARCELONA V CA 412 SCRA 41 SEPTEMBER 24, 2003
FACTS: Petition for Review before us assails the 30 May 1997 Decision as well as
the 7 August 1997 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 43393.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the Order dated 21 January 1997 of the Regional
Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 106, in Civil Case No. Q-95-24471. The
Regional Trial Court refused to dismiss private respondents Petition for
Annulment of Marriage for failure to state a cause of action and for violation of
Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 04-94. The assailed Resolution denied
petitioners motion for reconsideration.
March 29, 1995 Tadeo Bengzon filed a petition for annulment against
Diana Barcelona (petitioner). On May 9, 1995, Tadeo filed a motion to
withdraw petition which the RTC granted on June 7, 1995
July 21, 1995 Tadeo filed annulment again but petitioner filed a motion to
dismiss on two grounds: no cause of action and violates SC administrative
circular 04-94 on forum shopping
Ground for dismissal of the petition for reconsideration filed by petitioner
(against deferring resolution) was the complainants failure to state a
cause of action but according to Judge Pison, petitioner was shown to have
violated the complainants right so there is cause of action.
13
14
15
16
of Appeals had reversed the judgment of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati
declaring the marriage of Leonilo N. Antonio (petitioner) and Marie Ivonne F.
Reyes (respondent), null and void
Decembher 6, 1990 petitioner and respondent were married in Pasig and
had a child who died 5 months after birth
March 8, 1993 petitioner filed for declaration of nullity based on Art. 36,
alleging that respondent is psychologically incapacitated to comply with
essential marital obligations, incapacity existed at the time of the
marriage and exists up to the present
Petitioner alleged that respondent is a pathological liar who lied about
everything
Petitioner presented Dr Dante Abcede (psychiatrist) and Dr Arnulfo Lopez
(clinical psychologist); based on their tests, respondents constant lying
was pathological or abnormal. This undermined the basic relationship of
the marriage.
Respondent denied all allegations; presented Dr Antonio Efren Reyes
(psychiatrist) who tested respondent and found her to be psychologically
capacitated to perform marital duties
Dr. Lopez asseverated that there were flaws in the evaluation conducted
by Dr. Reyes as (i) he was not the one who administered and interpreted
respondents psychological evaluation, and (ii) he made use of only one
instrument called CPRS which was not reliable because a good liar can
fake the results of such test
Church annulled marriage due to lack of discretion on both parties but CA
reversed decision on the insufficiency of evidence provided
ISSUE: Whether evidences presented by petitioner are sufficient to prove
psychological incapacity of respondent
HELD: In understanding Art 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."
Each case must be judged not on the basis of a priori assumptions, predilections
or generalizations but according to its own facts. Petitioner was able to
sufficiently prove the psychological incapacity of his spouse (witnesses, experts,
etc).
The root cause of respondents psychological incapacity has been
medically or clinically identified, alleged in the complaint, sufficiently proven by
experts, and clearly explained in the trial courts decision. The initiatory
complaint alleged that respondent, from the start, had exhibited unusual and
abnormal behavior "of peren[n]ially telling lies, fabricating ridiculous stories, etc.
Respondents psychological incapacity was established to have clearly existed at
the time of and even before the celebration of marriage. She fabricated friends
and made up letters from fictitious characters well before she married petitioner.
Likewise, she kept petitioner in the dark about her natural childs real parentage
as she only confessed when the latter had found out the truth after their
marriage. Also, The gravity of respondents psychological incapacity is sufficient
to prove her disability to assume the essential obligations of marriage.
17
and
sexual
infidelity
per
se
constitute
HELD: Court finds that the totality of evidence presented by respondent Crasus
failed miserably to establish the alleged psychological incapacity of his wife Fely;
therefore, there is no basis for declaring their marriage null and void under
Article 36 of the Family Code of the Philippines. He submitted only two other
pieces of evidence: (1) the Certification on the recording with the Register of
Deeds of the Marriage Contract between respondent Crasus and Fely, such
marriage being celebrated on 16 December 1961; and (2) the invitation to the
wedding of Crasus, Jr., their eldest son, in which Fely used her American
husbands surname. Even considering the admissions made by Fely herself in
her Answer to respondent Crasuss Complaint filed with the RTC, the evidence is
not enough to convince this Court that Fely had such a grave mental illness that
prevented her from assuming the essential obligations of marriage.
Article 26, paragraph 2, refers to a special situation wherein one of the couple
getting married is a Filipino citizen and the other a foreigner at the time the
marriage was celebrated. By its plain and literal interpretation, the said
provision cannot be applied to the case of respondent Crasus and his
wife Fely because at the time Fely obtained her divorce, she was still a
18
Filipino citizen. Although the exact date was not established, Fely herself
admitted in her Answer filed before the RTC that she obtained a divorce from
respondent Crasus sometime after she left for the United States in 1984, after
which she married her American husband in 1985. In the same Answer, she
alleged that she had been an American citizen since 1988. At the time she filed
for divorce, Fely was still a Filipino citizen, and pursuant to the nationality
principle embodied in Article 15 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, she was still
bound by Philippine laws on family rights and duties, status, condition, and legal
capacity, even when she was already living abroad. Philippine laws, then and
even until now, do not allow and recognize divorce between Filipino spouses.
Thus, Fely could not have validly obtained a divorce from respondent Crasus.
DECISION REVERSED AND SET ASIDE. MARRIAGE IS VALID AND SUBSISTING
YU V YU 484 SCRA 485 MARCH 10, 2006
FACTS: Petitioner Eric Jonathan Yu filed a petition for habeas corpus before CA on
January 11, 2002 alleging that his estranged wife Caroline Tanchay-Yu
(respondent) unlawfully withheld from him the custody of their minor child
March 3, 2002 respondent filed a petition for declaration of nullity of
marriage and dissolution of ACP before Pasig RTC
March 21, 2002 while habeas corpus was pending, CA awarded petitioner
of full custody over their child with full visitation rights to respondent
Petitioner and respondent later filed on April 5, 2002 before the appellate court a
Joint Motion to Approve Interim Visitation Agreement which was, by Resolution of
April 24, 2002, approved.
On April 18, 2002, respondent filed before the appellate court a Motion for the
Modification of her visiting rights under the Interim Visitation Agreement. To the
Motion, petitioner filed an Opposition with Motion to Cite Respondent for
Contempt of Court in light of her filing of the petition for declaration of nullity of
marriage before the Pasig RTC which, so he contended, constituted forum
shopping.
By Resolution of July 5, 2002, the appellate court ordered respondent and her
counsel to make the necessary amendment in her petition for declaration of
nullity of marriage before the Pasig City RTC in so far as the custody aspect is
concerned, under pain of contempt.
In compliance with the appellate courts Resolution of July 5, 2002, respondent
filed a Motion to Admit Amended Petition before the Pasig RTC. She, however,
later filed in December 2002 a Motion to Dismiss her petition, without prejudice,
on the ground that since she started residing and conducting business at her
new address at Pasay City, constraints on resources and her very busy schedule
rendered her unable to devote the necessary time and attention to the petition.
The Pasig RTC granted respondents motion and accordingly dismissed the
petition without prejudice, by Order of March 28, 2003.
On June 12, 2003, petitioner filed his own petition for declaration of nullity of
marriage and dissolution of the absolute community of property before the Pasig
RTC, docketed as JDRC Case No. 6190, with prayer for the award to him of the
sole custody of Bianca, subject to the final resolution by the appellate court of his
petition for habeas corpus.
19
20
PETITION
A matter [already] judged", and may refer to two things: in both civil law and common
law legal systems, a case in which there has been a final judgment and is no longer
subject to appeal
21
22
23
24
October 12, 2000 Lynette filed a complaint for the declaration of the
nullity of marriage on the basis of Martinis psychological incapacity to
comply with the essential marital duties and obligations as stated in Art.
68-70 of the Family Code
Summons were served upon Martini to which he did not file any response.
No collusion was also established.
October 14, 1999 Lynette learned that Martini declared in his
employment records that he was SINGLE and named his mother as
principal allotee
Respondent presented the letter of clinical psychologist who evaluated the
behavior of Martini. Based on the report, Martini shows immature
personality disorder, dependency patterns and self-centered motives. The
situation is serious, grave, existing already during the adolescent period
and incurable. As such, Martini is psychologically incapacitated to comply
with the essential obligations in marriage and family
January 2, 2002 Cebu City RTC declared that marriage void since Martini
was psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential martial
obligations of marriage and that same incapacity existed at the time of the
celebration of the marriage
25
In petitions for the declaration of nullity of marriage, the burden of proving the
nullity of marriage lies on the plaintiff. Any doubt should be resolved in favor of
the existence and continuation of the marriage, and against the dissolution and
nullity (semper praesumitur pro matrimonio)
As seen in this case, Lynette failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove
Martinis psychological incapacity.
While the court sympathizes with her
predication, its first and foremost duty is to apply the law.
LIGERALDE V PATALINGHUG G.R. NO. 168796 APRIL 15, 2010
FACTS: Petition to review RTC decision on November 30, 2004 concerning the
declaration of nullity of marriage between Silvino Ligeralde (petitioner) and May
Ascension A. Patlinghug (respondent)
October 3, 1984 Silvino and May got married and had four children.
Respondent displayed signs of immaturity, negligence, infidelity and
irresponsibility soon after
Silvino was reluctant to leave his wife because of his love for her. He gave
her another chance after finding out she was sleeping with another man
but after a few months, May was back to her old ways and it seemed
impossible for her to change
Prior to filing the complaint against Patalinghug, Ligeralde consulted Dr
Tina Nicdao-Basilio (psychologist). Based on the psychological evaluation,
May was psychologically incapacitated to perform her essential martial
obligations; that the incapacity started when she was young and became
manifest after marriage; and that the same was serious and incurable
October 22, 1999 RTC decalared the marriage of Ligeralde and
Patalinghug based on the psychological evaluation report of Dr. Basilio
CA reversed the RTC decision on the grounds that respondents alleged
sexual infidelity, 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 or that the incapacity was medically or clinically permanent or
incurable.
ISSUE:
Whether Patalinhugs behavior constitutes psychological incapacity
pursuant to Art 36 of the Family Code
HELD: Art. 36 of the Family Code states: A marriage contracted by any party
who, at the time of the celebration, was psychologically incapacitated to comply
with the essential marital obligations of marriage; shall likewise be void even if
such incapacity becomes manifest only after its solemnization
Psychological incapacity required by Art. 36 must be characterized by (a) gravity,
(b) juridical antecedence and (c) incurability. The incapacity must be grave or
serious such that the party would be incapable of carrying out the ordinary
duties required in marriage. It must be rooted in the history of the party
antedating the marriage, although the overt manifestations may emerge only
after the marriage. It must be incurable or, even if it were otherwise, the cure
would be beyond the means of the party involved. 7 The Court likewise laid down
the guidelines in resolving petitions for declaration of nullity of marriage, based
on Article 36 of the Family Code, in Republic v. Court of Appeals. 8 Relevant to this
petition are the following:
26
1. The burden of proof to show the nullity of the marriage belongs to the
plaintiff
2. The root cause of the psychological incapacity must be medically or
clinically identified, alleged in the complaint, 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 incapacity must also be shown to be medically or clinically
permanent or incurable
5. Such illness must be grave enough to bring about the disability of the
party to assume the essential obligations of marriage
Petitioners testimony did not prove the root cause, gravity and incurability of
Patalinghugs condition. Even Dr. Nicdao-Basilio failed to show the root cause of
her psychological incapacity. 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