You are on page 1of 24

continuation PART II PERSONS AND FAMILY

PRESUMPTIVE DEATH
Republic of the Philippines vs. Nolasco
FACTS:
Nolasco, a seaman, frst met Janet Monica Parker in a bar in England. After that, she lived
with him on his ship for 6 months. After his seamans contract has e!pired, he bro"ght her to
his hometown in #an Jose, Anti$"e. %he& got married in Jan"ar& '()*.
After the marriage celebration, he got another emplo&ment contract and left the province. +n
Jan"ar& '(),, Nolasco received a letter from his mother that '- da&s after Janet gave birth to
their son, she left. .e c"t short his contract to fnd Janet. .e ret"rned home in November
'(),.
.e did so b& sec"ring another contract which England is one of its port calls. .e wrote
several letters to the bar where he and Janet frst met, b"t all were ret"rned to him. .e
claimed that he in$"ired from his friends b"t the& too had no news abo"t Janet. +n '()),
Nolasco fled before the /%0 of Anti$"e a petition for the declaration of pres"mptive death of
his wife Janet.
/%0 granted the petition. %he /ep"blic thro"gh the #olicitor12eneral, appealed to the 0A,
contending that the trial co"rt erred in declaring Janet pres"mptivel& dead beca"se Nolasco
had failed to show that there e!isted a well1fo"nded belief for s"ch declaration. 0A a3rmed
the trial co"rts decision.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Nolasco has a ell!foun"e" belief that his ife is alrea"# "ea".
RU$IN%:
No. Nolasco failed to prove that he had complied with the third re$"irement "nder the Article
4' of the 5amil& 0ode, the e!istence of a 6well1fo"nded belief6 that Janet is alread& dead.
7nder Article 4', the time re$"ired for the pres"mption to arise has been shortened to 4
&ears8 however, there is a need for 9"dicial declaration of pres"mptive death to enable the
spo"se present to marr&. .owever, Article 4' imposes a stricter standard before declaring
pres"mptive death of one spo"se. +t re$"ires a 6well1fo"nded belief6 that the absentee is
alread& dead before a petition for declaration of pres"mptive death can be granted.
+n the case at bar, the 0o"rt fo"nd Nolascos alleged attempt to ascertain abo"t Janets
whereabo"ts too sketch& to form the basis of a reasonable or well1fo"nded belief that she
was alread& dead.
Nolasco, after ret"rning from his emplo&ment, instead of seeking help of local a"thorities or
of the :ritish Embass&, sec"red another contract to ;ondon. Janets alleged ref"sal to give
an& information abo"t her was too convenient an e!c"se to 9"stif& his fail"re to locate her. .e
did not e!plain wh& he took him ( months to fnall& reached #an Jose after he asked leave
from his captain. .e ref"sed to identif& his friends whom he in$"ired from. <hen the 0o"rt
asked Nolasco abo"t the ret"rned letters, he said he had lost them. Moreover, while he was
in ;ondon, he did not even dare to solicit help of a"thorities to fnd his wife.
%he circ"mstances of Janets depart"re and Nolascos s"bse$"ent behavior make it ver&
di3c"lt to regard the claimed belief that Janet was dead a well1fo"nded one.
____________________
Republic vs. CA
%R No. &'()&*+ ,ece-ber (+ .//'
FACTS:
Alan Alegro, the petitioner, wa !arrie" with Lea in #anuar$ %&&'( Lea arri)e" ho!e late in
Fe*ruar$ %&&' an" Alan tol" her that i+ he en,o$ li+e o+ a ingle peron, it will *e *etter +or
her to go *ac- to her parent( Lea le+t a+ter that .ght( Allan chec-e" i+ he went to her
parent/ houe *ut wa not there an" e)en in0uire" to her +rien"( 1e went *ac- to the
parent2in2law/ houe an" learne" that Lea ha" *een to their houe *ut le+t without notice(
1e then ought help +ro! the 3aranga$ 4aptain( For o!eti!e, Alan "eci"e" to wor- a part2
ti!e ta5i "ri)er an" "uring hi +ree ti!e he woul" loo- +or Lea in the !all( In #une 677%, Alan
reporte" Lea/ "iappearance to the local police tation an" an alar! notice wa iue"( 1e
alo reporte" the "iappearance in N3I on #ul$ 677%( Alan .le" a petition in March 677% +or
the "eclaration o+ preu!pti)e "eath o+ hi wi+e(
ISSUE: 8hether Alan ha a well2+oun"e" *elie+ that hi wi+e i alrea"$ "ea"(
HELD:
The court rule" that Alan +aile" to pro)e that he ha a well2+oun"e" *elie+, *e+ore he .le" hi
petition with RT4, that hi poue wa "ea"( 1e +aile" to preent a witne other than the
3aranga$ 4aptain( 1e e)en +aile" to preent thoe +rien" o+ Lea which he in0uire" to
corro*orate hi teti!on$( 1e alo +aile" to !a-e in0uirie +ro! hi parent2in2law regar"ing
Lea/ wherea*out *e+ore .ling hi petition in the RT4( It coul" ha)e enhance" hi cre"i*ilit$
ha" he !a"e in0uirie +ro! hi parent2in2law a*out Lea9 wherea*out coni"ering that
Lea9 +ather wa the owner o+ Ra"io DYMS( 1e "i" report an" ee- help o+ the local police
authoritie an" N3I to locate Lea *ut he "i" o onl$ a+ter the OS: .le" it notice to "i!i
hi petition in RT4(
____________
cannot .n" Repu*lic ) #o!oc
___________
SSS VS JARQUE
FACTS
In %&'' 4le!ente 3ailon an" Alice Dia; !arrie" in 3arcelona, Sorogon( %'< $ear later,
4le!ente .le" an action to "eclare the preu!pti)e "eath o+ Alice he *eing an a*entee(
% | P a g e
The petition wa grante" in %&=7( In %&>?, 4le!ente !arrie" #ar0ue( The two li)e together
untile 4le!ente/ "eath in %&&>( #ar0ue then ought to clai! her hu*an"/ SSS *ene.t an"
the a!e were grante" her( On the other han", a certain 4ecilia 3aion2Yap who clai!e" that
he i the "aughter o+ 3ailon to a certain Elia #a$ona petitione" *e+ore the SSS that the$ *e
gi)en the rei!*ure!ent +or the +uneral pen"ing +or it wa actuall$ the! who houl"ere"
the *urial e5pene o+ 4le!ente( The$ +urther clai! that 4le!ente contracte" three
!arriage@ one with Alice, another with Elia an" the other with #ar0ue( 4ecilia alo a)erre"
that Alice i ali)e an" -ic-ing an" Alice u*e0uentl$ e!erge"@ 4ecilia clai!e" that 4le!ente
o*taine" the "eclaration o+ Alice/ preu!pti)e "eath in *a" +aith +or he wa aware o+ the
wherea*out o+ Alice or i+ not he coul" ha)e eail$ locate" her in her parent/ place( She wa
in Sorogon all along in her parent/ place( She went there upon learning that 4le!ente ha"
*een ha)ing e5tra2!arital aAair( SSS then rule" that #ar0ue houl" rei!*ure what ha" *een
grante" her an" to return the a!e to 4ecilia ince he houl"ere" the *urial e5pene an"
that the *ene.t houl" go to Alice *ecaue her reappearance ha" ter!inate" 4le!ente/
!arriage with 1ar0ue( Further, SSS rule" that the RT4/ "eciion in "eclaring Alice to *e
preu!pti)el$ "eath i erroneou( Tereita appeale" the "eciion o+ the SSS *e+ore the Social
Securit$ 4o!iion an" the SS4 aBr!e" SSS( The 4A howe)er rule" the contrar$(
ISSUE: 8hether or not the !ere appearance o+ the a*ent poue "eclare" preu!pti)el$
"ea" auto!aticall$ ter!inate the u*e0uent !arriage(
HELD: There i no pre)iou !arriage to retore +or it i ter!inate" upon 4le!ente/ "eath(
Li-ewie there i no u*e0uent !arriage to ter!inate +or the a!e i ter!inate" upon
4le!ente/ "eath( SSS i correct in ruling that it i +utile +or Alice to purue the recor"ing o+
her reappearance *e+ore the local ci)il regitrar through an aB"a)it or a court action( 3ut it i
not correct +or the SSS to rule upon the "eclaration !a"e *$ the RT4( The SS4 or the SSS ha
no ,u"icial power to re)iew the "eciion o+ the RT4( SSS i in"ee" e!powere" to "eter!ine a
to who houl" *e the right+ul *ene.ciar$ o+ the *ene.t o*taine" *$ a "eceae" !e!*er in
cae o+ "ipute *ut uch power "oe not inclu"e the appellate power to re)iew a court
"eciion or "eclaration( In the cae at *ar, the RT4 ruling i *in"ing an" #ar0ue/ !arriage to
4le!ente i till )ali" *ecaue no aB"a)it wa .le" *$ Alice to !a-e -nown her
reappearance legall$( Alice reappeare" onl$ a+ter 4le!ente/ "eath an" in thi cae he can
no longer .le uch an aB"a)it@ in thi cae the *a" +aith Cor goo" +aithD o+ 4le!ente can no
longer *e raie" E the !arriage herein i coni"ere" )oi"a*le an" !ut *e attac-e" "irectl$
not collaterall$ E it i howe)er i!poi*le +or a "irect attac- ince there i no longer a
!arriage to *e attac-e" +or the a!e ha *een ter!inate" upon 4le!ente/ "eath(
__________
REPUBLIC V. GRANADA
G.R. No. 187512, J!"# 1$, 2%12&
D'CTRINE:
E)en i+ the RT4 erre" in ruling that therepon"ent wa a*le to pro)e her Fwell2+oun"e" *elie+G
that her a*ent poue wa alrea"$ "ea", uch or"er alrea"$ .nal an" can no longer *e
!o"i.e" or re)ere"( In"ee", FCnDothing i !ore ettle" in law than that when a ,u"g!ent
*eco!e .nal an" e5ecutor$, it *eco!e i!!uta*le an" unaltera*le( The a!e !a$
no longer *e !o"i.e" in an$ repect, e)en i+ the !o"i.cation i !eant to correct what i
percei)e" to *e an erroneou concluion o+ +act or law(G
FACTS:
4$ru an" Yolan"a :rana"a, *oth e!plo$ee o+ Su!i"a Electric 4o!pan$, got !arrie" in
%&&?(
So!eti!e in Ma$ %&&H, when Su!i"a Electric Philippine cloe" "own, 4$ru went to Taiwan
to ee- e!plo$!ent( Yolan"a clai!e" that +ro! that ti!e, he "i" not recei)e an$
co!!unication +ro! her hu*an", notwithtan"ing eAort to locate hi!( 1er *rother teti.e"
that he ha" a-e" the relati)e o+ 4$ru regar"ing the latter/ wherea*out, to no a)ail(
A+ter nine I&J $ear o+ waiting, Yolan"a .le" a Petition to ha)e 4$ru "eclare" preu!pti)el$
"ea" with the RT4 Lipa 4it$( On = Fe*ruar$ 677', the RT4 ren"ere" a Deciion "eclaring 4$ru
a preu!pti)el$ "ea"(
On %7 March 677', petitioner Repu*lic o+ the Philippine, repreente" *$ the OS:, .le" a
Motion +or Reconi"eration o+ thi Deciion( Petitioner argue" that Yolan"a ha" +aile" to e5ert
earnet eAort to locate 4$ru an" thu +aile" to pro)e her well2+oun"e" *elie+ that he
wa alrea"$ "ea"( The !otion wa "enie"( The OS: then ele)ate" the cae on appeal to the
4ourt o+ Appeal( Yolan"a .le" a Motion to Di!i on the groun" that the 4A ha" no
,uri"iction o)er the appeal( She argue" that her Petition +or Declaration o+ Preu!pti)e
Death, *ae" on Article H% o+ the Fa!il$ 4o"e, wa a u!!ar$ ,u"icial procee"ing, in which
the ,u"g!ent i i!!e"iatel$ .nal an" e5ecutor$ an", thu, not appeala*le(
The appellate court grante" Yolan"a/ Motion to Di!i on the groun" o+ lac- o+ ,uri"iction(
4iting Repu*lic )( 3er!u"e;2Lorino, the 4A rule" that a petition +or "eclaration o+
preu!pti)e "eath un"er Rule H% o+ the Fa!il$ 4o"e i a u!!ar$ procee"ing( Thu,
,u"g!ent thereon i i!!e"iatel$ .nal an" e5ecutor$ upon notice to the partie(
Petitioner !o)e" +or reconi"eration, which wa "enie"( 1ence, the preent petition un"er
Rule H'(
ISSUES:
%( 8hether the or"er o+ the RT4 in a u!!ar$ procee"ing +or the "eclaration o+ preu!pti)e
"eath i i!!e"iatel$ .nal an" e5ecutor$ upon notice to the partie an", hence, i not u*,ect
to or"inar$ appeal(
6( 8hether the 4A erre" in aBr!ing the RT4/ grant o+ the petition +or "eclaration o+
preu!pti)e "eath *ae" on e)i"ence that repon"ent ha" preente"(
HELD:
Ye, the "eclaration o+ preu!pti)e "eath i .nalan" i!!e"iatel$ e5ecutor$( E)en i+ the RT4
erre" in granting the petition, uch or"er can no longer *e aaile"(
RATI':
%( A petition +or "eclaration o+ preu!pti)e "eath o+ an a*ent poue +or the purpoe o+
contracting a u*e0uent !arriage un"er Article H% o+ the Fa!il$ 4o"e i a u!!ar$
procee"ing Fa pro)i"e" +orG un"er the Fa!il$ 4o"e( Ta-en together, Article H%, 6?>, 6H=
an" 6'? o+ the Fa!il$ 4o"e pro)i"e that ince a petition +or "eclaration o+ preu!pti)e "eath
i a u!!ar$ procee"ing, the ,u"g!ent o+ the court therein hall *e i!!e"iatel$ .nal an"
e5ecutor$(
3$ e5pre pro)iion o+ law, the ,u"g!ent o+ the court in a u!!ar$ procee"ing hall *e
i!!e"iatel$ .nal an" e5ecutor$( A a !atter o+ coure, it +ollow that no appeal can *e ha"
o+ the trial court/ ,u"g!ent in a u!!ar$ procee"ing +or the "eclaration o+ preu!pti)e
"eath o+ an a*ent poue un"er Article H% o+ the Fa!il$ 4o"e( It goe without a$ing,
howe)er, that an aggrie)e" part$ !a$ .le a petition +or certiorari to 0uetion a*ue o+
"icretion a!ounting to lac- o+ ,uri"iction( Such petition houl" *e .le" in the 4ourt o+
Appeal in accor"ance with theDoctrine o+ 1ierarch$ o+ 4ourt( To *e ure, e)en i+ the 4ourt/
original ,uri"iction to iue a writ o+ certiorari i concurrent with the RT4 an" the 4ourt o+
Appeal in certain cae, uch concurrence "oe not anction an unretricte" +ree"o! o+
choice o+ court +oru!( Fro! the "eciion o+ the 4ourt o+ Appeal, the loing part$ !a$ then
.le a petition +or re)iew on certiorari un"er Rule H' o+ the Rule o+ 4ourt with the Supre!e
6 | P a g e
4ourt( Thi i *ecaue the error which the court !a$ co!!it in the e5ercie o+ ,uri"iction
are !erel$ error o+ ,u"g!ent which are the proper u*,ect o+ an appeal(
In u!, un"er Article H% o+ the Fa!il$ 4o"e, the loing part$ in a u!!ar$ procee"ing +or the
"eclaration o+ preu!pti)e "eath !a$ .le a petition +or certiorari with the 4A on the groun"
that, in ren"ering ,u"g!ent thereon, the trial court co!!itte" gra)e a*ue o+ "icretion
a!ounting to lac- o+ ,uri"iction( Fro! the "eciion o+ the 4A, the aggrie)e" part$ !a$
ele)ate the !atter to thi 4ourt )ia a petition +or re)iew on certiorari un"er Rule H' o+ the
Rule o+ 4ourt(
6( Petitioner alo aail the RT4/ grant o+ the Petition +or Declaration o+ Preu!pti)e Death
o+ the a*ent poue o+ repon"ent on the groun" that he ha" not a""uce" the e)i"ence
re0uire" to eta*lih a well2+oun"e" *elie+ that her a*ent poue wa alrea"$ "ea", a
e5prel$ re0uire" *$ Article H% o+ the Fa!il$ 4o"e(
For the purpoe o+ contracting the u*e0uent !arriage un"er the prece"ing paragraph, the
poue preent !ut intitute a u!!ar$ procee"ing a pro)i"e" in thi 4o"e +or the
"eclaration o+ preu!pti)e "eath o+ the a*entee, without pre,u"ice to the eAect o+
reappearance o+ the a*ent poue(
The poue preent i, thu, *ur"ene" to pro)e that hi poue ha *een a*ent an" that he
ha a well2+oun"e" *elie+ that the a*ent poue i alrea"$ "ea" *e+orethe preent poue
!a$ contract a u*e0uent !arriage( The law "oe not "e.ne what i !eant *$ a well2
groun"e" *elie+ i a tate o+ the !in" or con"ition pro!pting the "oing o+ an o)ert act( It !a$
*e pro)e" *$ "irect e)i"ence or circu!tantial e)i"ence which !a$ ten", e)en in a light
"egree, to eluci"ate the in0uir$ or ait to a "eter!ination pro*a*l$ +oun"e" in truth( An$
+act or circu!tance relating to the character, ha*it, con"ition, attach!ent, properit$ an"
o*,ect o+ li+e which uuall$ control the con"uct o+ !en, an" are the !oti)e o+ their action,
wa, o +ar a it ten" to e5plain or characteri;e their "iappearance or throw light on their
intention, co!petence e)i"ence on the ulti!ate 0uetion o+ hi "eath(
The *elie+ o+ the preent poue !ut *e the reult o+ proper an" honet to goo"ne
in0uirie an" eAort to acertain the wherea*out o+ the a*ent poue an" whether the
a*ent poue i till ali)e or i alrea"$ "ea"( 8hether or not the poue preent acte" on a
well2+oun"e" *elie+ o+ "eath o+ the a*ent poue "epen" upon the in0uirie to *e "rawn
+ro! a great !an$ circu!tance occurring *e+ore an" a+ter the"iappearance o+ the a*ent
poue an" the nature an" e5tent o+ the in0uirie !a"e *$ preent poue( IFootnote
o!itte", un"ercoring upplie"(J
Appl$ing the +oregoing tan"ar" to the preent cae, petitioner point out that repon"ent
Yolan"a "i" not initiate a "iligent earch to locate her a*ent hu*an"( 8hile her *rother
Dio"a"o 4a"acio teti.e" to ha)ing in0uire" a*out the wherea*out o+ 4$ru +ro! the
latter/ relati)e, thee relati)e were not preente" to corro*orate Dio"a"o/ teti!on$( In
hort, repon"ent wa allege"l$ not "iligent in her earch +or her hu*an"( Petitioner argue
that i+ he were, he woul" ha)e ought in+or!ation +ro! the Taiwanee 4onular OBce or
aitance +ro! othergo)ern!ent agencie in Taiwan or the Philippine( She coul" ha)e alo
utili;e" !a !e"ia +or thi en", *ut he "i" not( 8ore, he +aile" to e5plain thee
o!iion(
The Repu*lic/ argu!ent are well2ta-en( Ne)erthele, we are contraine" to "en$ the
Petition(
The RT4 ruling on the iue o+ whether repon"ent wa a*le to pro)e her Fwell2+oun"e"
*elie+G that her a*ent poue wa alrea"$ "ea" prior to her .ling o+ the Petition to "eclare
hi! preu!pti)el$ "ea" i alrea"$ .nal an" can no longer *e !o"i.e" or re)ere"( In"ee",
FCnDothing i !ore ettle" in law than that when a ,u"g!ent *eco!e .nal an" e5ecutor$, it
*eco!e i!!uta*le an" unaltera*le( The a!e !a$ no longer *e !o"i.e" in an$ repect,
e)en i+ the !o"i.cation i !eant to correct what i percei)e" to *e an erroneou concluion
o+ +act or law(
___________________
R#(!)*+, -.. CA /"0 A*#12o
FACTS:
Alan Alegro, the petitioner, wa !arrie" with Lea in #anuar$ %&&'( Lea
arri)e" ho!e late in Fe*ruar$ %&&' an" Alan tol" her that i+ he en,o$
li+e o+ a ingle peron, it will *e *etter +or her to go *ac- to her parent(
Lea le+t a+ter that .ght( Allan chec-e" i+ he went to her parent/ houe
*ut wa not there an" e)en in0uire" to her +rien"( 1e went *ac- to the
parentKinKlaw/ houe an" learne" that Lea ha" *een to their houe
*ut le+t without notice( 1e then ought help +ro! the 3aranga$
4aptain( For o!e ti!e, Alan "eci"e" to wor- a partKti!e ta5i "ri)er
an" "uring hi +ree ti!e he woul" loo- +or Lea in the !all( In #une
677%, Alan reporte" Lea/ "iappearance to the local police tation an"
an alar! notice wa iue"( 1e alo reporte" the "iappearance in N3I
on #ul$ 677%( Alan .le" a petition in March 677% +or the "eclaration o+
preu!pti)e "eath o+ hi wi+e(
ISSUE:
8hether Alan ha a wellK+oun"e" *elie+ that hi wi+e i alrea"$ "ea"(
HELD:
The court rule" that Alan +aile" to pro)e that he ha a wellK+oun"e"
*elie+, *e+ore he .le" hi petition with RT4, that hi poue wa "ea"(
1e +aile" to preent a witne other than the 3aranga$ 4aptain( 1e
e)en +aile" to preent thoe +rien" o+ Lea which he in0uire" to
corro*orate hi teti!on$( 1e alo +aile" to !a-e in0uirie +ro! hi
parentKinKlaw regar"ing Lea/ wherea*out *e+ore .ling hi petition in
the RT4( It coul" ha)e enhance" hi cre"i*ilit$ ha" he !a"e in0uirie
+ro! hi parentKinKlaw a*out Lea9 wherea*out coni"ering that Lea9
+ather wa the owner o+ Ra"io DYMS( 1e "i" report an" ee- help o+
the local police authoritie an" N3I to locate Lea *ut he "i" o onl$
a+ter the OS: .le" it notice to "i!i hi petition in RT4(
________
R#(!)*+, o3 45# P5+*+((+"#. VS. B#26!0#7 8 Lo2+"o
G.R. No. 19%258. J/"!/2: 1;, 2%%5
F/,4.: :loria 3er!u"e; an" Francico Lorino were !arrie" in #une %&>=( The wi+e wa
unaware that her hu*an" wa a ha*itual "rin-er with )iolent attitu"e an" character an" ha"
the propenit$ to go out with hi +rien" to the point o+ *eing una*le to wor-( In %&&% he le+t
hi! an" returne" to her parent together with her three chil"ren( She went a*roa" to wor-
+or her upport her chil"ren( Fro! the ti!e he le+t hi!, he ha" no co!!unication with hi!
or hi relati)e(
In 6777, nine $ear a+ter lea)ing her hu*an", :loria .le" a )eri.e" petition with the RT4
? | P a g e
un"er the rule on Su!!ar$ #u"icial Procee"ing in the Fa!il$ Law( The lower court iue" an
or"er +or the pu*lication o+ the petition in a newpaper o+ general circulation(
In No)e!*er =, 677%, the RT4 grante" the u!!ar$ petition( Although the ,u"g!ent wa
.nal an" e5ecutor un"er the pro)iion o+ Act( 6H= o+ the Fa!il$ 4o"e, the OS: +or the
Repu*lic o+ the Philippine .le" a notice o+ appeal(
I..!#:
8hether or not the +actual an" legal *ae +or a ,u"icial "eclaration o+ preu!pti)e "eath
un"er Art H% o+ the Fa!il$ 4o"e were "ul$ eta*lihe"(
H#*0:
Art( 6?> o+ the Fa!il$ 4o"e un"er Title LI Su!!ar$ #u"icial Procee"ing in the Fa!il$ Law,
et the tenor +or cae coure" *$ thee rule, to witM
Art6?>( Nntil !o"i.e" *$ the Supre!e 4ourt, the proce"ural rule in thi Title hall appl$ in
all cae pro)i"e" +or in thi 4o"e re0uiring u!!ar$ court procee"ing( Such cae hall *e
"eci"e" in an e5pe"ition/ !anner with out regar" technical rule(
The ,u"ge o+ the RT4 +ull$ co!plie" with the a*o)e2cite" pro)iion *$ e5pe"itioul$ ren"ing
,u"g!ent within ninet$ I&7J "a$ a+ter the +or!al oAer o+ e)i"ence *$ the petitioner(
________
Republic of the Philippines 0S. 1er-u"e2 3 $orino
%.R. No. &)/.'4. 5anuar# &(+ .//'
FACTS: :loria 3er!u"e; an" Francico Lorino were !arrie" in #une %&>=( The wi+e wa
unaware that her hu*an" wa a ha*itual "rin-er with )iolent attitu"e an" character an" ha"
the propenit$ to go out with hi +rien" to the point o+ *eing una*le to wor-( In %&&% he le+t
hi! an" returne" to her parent together with her three chil"ren( She went a*roa" to wor-
+or her upport her chil"ren( Fro! the ti!e he le+t hi!, he ha" no co!!unication with hi!
or hi relati)e(
In 6777, nine $ear a+ter lea)ing her hu*an", :loria .le" a )eri.e" petition with the RT4
un"er the rule on Su!!ar$ #u"icial Procee"ing in the Fa!il$ Law( The lower court iue" an
or"er +or the pu*lication o+ the petition in a newpaper o+ general circulation(
In No)e!*er =, 677%, the RT4 grante" the u!!ar$ petition( Although the ,u"g!ent wa
.nal an" e5ecutor un"er the pro)iion o+ Act( 6H= o+ the Fa!il$ 4o"e, the OS: +or the
Repu*lic o+ the Philippine .le" a notice o+ appeal(
ISSUE: 8hether or not the +actual an" legal *ae +or a ,u"icial "eclaration o+ preu!pti)e
"eath un"er Art H% o+ the Fa!il$ 4o"e were "ul$ eta*lihe"(
HELD: Art( 6?> o+ the Fa!il$ 4o"e un"er Title LI Su!!ar$ #u"icial Procee"ing in the Fa!il$
Law, et the tenor +or cae coure" *$ thee rule, to witM
Art6?>( Nntil !o"i.e" *$ the Supre!e 4ourt, the proce"ural rule in thi Title hall appl$ in
all cae pro)i"e" +or in thi 4o"e re0uiring u!!ar$ court procee"ing( Such cae hall *e
"eci"e" in an e5pe"ition/ !anner without regar" technical rule(
The ,u"ge o+ the RT4 +ull$ co!plie" with the a*o)e2cite" pro)iion *$ e5pe"itioul$ ren"ing
,u"g!ent within ninet$ I&7J "a$ a+ter the +or!al oAer o+ e)i"ence *$ the petitioner(
____________

REPUBLIC 'F THE PHILIPPINES) . FERVENTIN' U. TANG'G.R. No. 191%92, $1 J!*:
2%%;, SEC'ND DIVISI'N <Q!+.!6)+"1, # .=
In %&>=, Fer)entino Tango, repon"ent, an" Maria #oe Oillar*a were !arrie" in ci)il
rite( Tango an" Oillar*a ha" onl$ pent a night together an" ha" *een inti!ate once when Oi
llar*a tol" Fer)entino that he an" her +a!il$ will oon *e lea)ing +or the NSA( Oillar*a
aure" Tango that the +or!er will .le a petition o that the latter can li)e with her in the NSA
an" in the e)ent that the petition "enie", Oillar*a pro!ie" to return to the Philippine to
li)e with Tango( Therea+ter, Oillar*a an" her +a!il$ Pew to Seattle, NSA( Tango an" Oillar*a
-ept in touch +or a $ear *e+ore Oillar*a toppe" repon"ing to Tan
go/ letter( Tango ha" in0uire" +ro! Oillar*a/ uncle o+ Oillar*a/ wherea*out *ut it turne"
out that e)en the latter/ relati)e ha" no i"ea( Tango olicite" the aitance
o+ a +rien" in Te5a, *ut to no a)ail( Finall$, Tango ought the ai" o+ hi parent in Lo Angele
an" hi aunt in Seattle, *ut again, to no a)ail( Thi pro!pte" Tango to .le a petition *e+ore
the RT4 +or the "eclaration o+ preu!pti)e "eath o+ Oillar*a un"er Article H% o+ the Fa!il$
4o"e( The RT4 iue" an Or"er "eclaring Oillar*a
preu!pti)el$ "ea"( On appeal *$ the Repu*lic o+ the Philippine, the 4A aBr!e" the RT4/
or"er(

ISSUE:
8hether Tango ha eta*lihe" a *ai to +or! a well2+oun"e" *elie+ that hi a*ent
poue i alrea"$ "ea"
HELD:
3$ e5pre pro)iion o+ law, the ,u"g!ent o+ the court in a u!!ar$ procee"ing hall *e
i!!e"iatel$ .nal an" e5ecutor$( A a !atter o+ coure, it +ollow that no appeal can *e ha"
o+ the trial
court/ ,u"g!ent in a u!!ar$ procee"ing +or the "eclaration o+ preu!pti)e "eath o+ an
a*ent
poue un"er Article H% o+ the Fa!il$ 4o"e( It goe without a$ing, howe)er, that an
aggrie)e" part$ !a$ .le a petition +or certiorari to 0uetion a*ue o+ "icretion a!ounting to
lac- o+ ,uri"iction( Such petition houl" *e .le" in the 4ourt o+ Appeal in accor"ance with
the Doctrine o+ 1ierarch$ o+ 4ourt( To *e
ure, e)en i+ the 4ourt/ original ,uri"iction to iue a writ o+ certiorari i concurrent with the
RT4 an"
the 4ourt o+ Appeal in certain cae, uch concurrence "oe not anction an unretricte"
+ree"o! o+ choice o+ court +oru!( Fro! the "eciion o+ the 4ourt o+ Appeal, the loing part$
!a$ then .le a petition +or re)iew on certiorari un"er Rule H' o+ the Rule o+ 4ourt with the
Supre!e 4ourt( Thi i *ecaue the error which the court !a$ co!!it in the e5ercie
o+ ,uri"iction are !erel$ error o+ ,u"g!ent which are the proper u*,ect o+ an appeal( In the
cae *e+ore u, petitioner co!!itte" a eriou proce"ural lape when it .le" a notice
o+ appeal in the 4ourt o+ Appeal intea" o+ a petition +or certiorari( The RT4 e0uall$ erre" in
gi)ing "ue coure to ai" appeal an" or"ering the tran!ittal o+ the recor" o+ the cae to the
appellate court( 3$ no !ean "i" the 4ourt o+ Appeal ac0uire ,uri"iction to re)iew the
,u"g!ent o+ the RT4 which, *$ e5pre pro)iion o+ law, wa i!!e"iatel$ .nal an" e5ecutor$(
A""ing to the con+uion, the 4ourt o+ Appeal entertaine" the appeal an" treate" the a!e
a an or"inar$ appeal un"er Rule H% o+ the Rule o+ 4ourt( A it were, the 4ourt o+ Appeal
co!!itte" gra)e re)eri*le error when it +aile" to "i!i the erroneou appeal o+ the
Repu*lic on the groun" o+ lac- o+ ,uri"iction *ecaue, *$ e5pre pro)iion o+ the law, the
H | P a g e
,u"g!ent wa not appeala*le 3e+ore u, petitioner .le" a petition +or re)iew on certiorari
un"er Rule H' o+ the Rule o+ 4ourt( 3ut, e)en i+ petitioner ue" the correct !o"e o+ appeal at
thi le)el, the han" o+ the 4ourt are
tie"( 8ithout a "ou*t, the "eciion o+ the trial court ha" long *eco!e .nal( Deepl$ ingraine" i
n our,uripru"ence i the principle that a "eciion that ha ac0uire" .nalit$ *eco!e
i!!uta*le an" unaltera*le( A uch, it !a$ no longer *e !o"i.e" in an$ repect e)en i+ the
!o"i.cation i !eant to correct erroneou concluion o+ +act or law an" whether it will *e
!a"e *$ the court that ren"ere" it or *$ the highet court o+ the lan"( In light o+ the
+oregoing, it woul" *e unnecear$, i+ not uele, to "icu the iue raie" *$ petitioner(
The "octrine o+ .nalit$ o+ ,u"g!ent i groun"e" on the +un"a!ental principle o+ pu*lic polic$
an" oun" practice that, at the ri- o+ occaional error, the ,u"g!ent o+ court an" the awar"
o+ 0uai2,u"icial agencie !ut *eco!e .nal on o!e "e.nite "ate .5e" *$ law( The onl$
e5ception to the general rule are the correction o+ clerical error, the o calle" nunc pro tunc
entrie which caue no pre,u"ice to an$ part$, )oi" ,u"g!ent, an" whene)er circu!tance
tranpire a+ter the .nalit$ o+ the "eciion which ren"er it e5ecution un,ut an" ine0uita*le(
None o+ the e5ception o*tain here to !erit the re)iew ought(
_______________
REPUBLIC 'F THE PHILIPPINES -. MARIA FE ESPIN'SA CANT'R, G.R. No. 18>921,
D#,#6)#2 1%, 2%1$
0ivil law8 Article 4' of the 5amil& 0ode re$"ires that the present spo"se has a well1fo"nded
belief that the prior spo"se was alread& dead.
Mere a*ence o+ the poue Ie)en +or uch perio" re0uire" *$ the lawJ, lac- o+ an$ new that
uch a*entee i till ali)e, +ailure to co!!unicate or general preu!ption o+ a*ence un"er
the 4i)il 4o"e woul" not uBce( Thi concluion procee" +ro! the pre!ie that Article H% o+
the Fa!il$ 4o"e place upon the preent poue the *ur"en o+ pro)ing the a""itional an"
!ore tringent re0uire!ent o+ Fwell2+oun"e" *elie+G which can onl$ *e "icharge" upon a
howing o+ proper an" honet2to2goo"ne in0uirie an" eAort to acertain not onl$ the
a*ent poue/ wherea*out *ut, !ore i!portantl$, that the a*ent poue i till ali)e or i
alrea"$ "ea"(
The law "i" not "e.ne what i !eant *$ Fwell2+oun"e" *elie+(G It "epen" upon the
circu!tance o+ each particular cae( It "eter!ination, o to pea-, re!ain on a cae2to2
cae *ai( To *e a*le to co!pl$ with thi re0uire!ent, the preent poue !ut pro)e that
hiQher *elie+ wa the reult o+ "iligent an" reaona*le eAort an" in0uirie to locate the
a*ent poue an" that *ae" on thee eAort an" in0uirie, heQhe *elie)e that un"er the
circu!tance, the a*ent poue i alrea"$ "ea"( It re0uire e5ertion o+ acti)e eAort Inot a
!ere pai)e oneJ(
#trict standard prescribed "nder Article 4' of the 5amil& 0ode is for the present spo"se=s
beneft.
The re0uiite ,u"icial "eclaration o+ preu!pti)e "eath o+ the a*ent poue Ian"
cone0uentl$, the application o+ a tringent tan"ar" +or it iuanceJ i alo +or the preent
poue/ *ene.t( It i inten"e" to protect hi!Qher +ro! a cri!inal proecution o+ *iga!$
un"er Article ?H& o+ the Re)ie" Penal 4o"e which !ight co!e into pla$ i+ heQhe woul"
pre!aturel$ re!arr$ an the court/ "eclaration(
Npon the iuance o+ the "eciion "eclaring hiQher a*ent poue preu!pti)el$ "ea", the
preent poue/ goo" +aith in contracting a econ" !arriage i eAecti)el$ eta*lihe"( The
"eciion o+ the co!petent court contitute uBcient proo+ o+ hiQher goo" +aith an" hiQher
cri!inal intent in cae o+ re!arriage i eAecti)el$ negate"( Thu, +or purpoe o+ re!arriage,
it i necear$ to trictl$ co!pl$ with the tringent tan"ar" an" ha)e the a*ent poue
,u"iciall$ "eclare" preu!pti)el$ "ea"(
_______________
G.R. No. 18>921, D#,#6)#2 1%, 2%1$
REPUBLIC 'F THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. MARIA FE ESPIN'SA
CANT'R, /espondent(
D E C I S I ' N
BRI'N, 5.:
The petition +or re)iew on certiorari
%
*e+ore u aail the "eciion
6
"ate" Augut 6=, 677> o+
the 4ourt o+ Appeal I0AJ in 4AE:(R( SP No( 7%''>EMIN which aBr!e" the or"er
?
"ate"
Dece!*er %', 677R o+ the Regional Trial 4ourt I/%0J, 3ranch 6', Sorona"al 4it$, South
4ota*ato, in SP Proc( 4ae No( ?%?E6', "eclaring #err$ F( 4antor, repon"ent Maria Fe
Epinoa 4antor/ hu*an", preu!pti)el$ "ea" un"er Article H% o+ the Fa!il$ 4o"e(
T5# F/,4!/* A"4#,#0#"4.
The repon"ent an" #err$ were !arrie" on Septe!*er 67, %&&=( The$ li)e" together a
hu*an" an" wi+e in their con,ugal "welling in Agan 1o!e, Sorona"al 4it$, South 4ota*ato(
So!eti!e in #anuar$ %&&>, the couple ha" a )iolent 0uarrel *rought a*out *$M I%J the
repon"ent/ ina*ilit$ to reach Fe5ual cli!a5G whene)er he an" #err$ woul" ha)e inti!ate
!o!ent@ an" I6J #err$/ e5preion o+ ani!oit$ towar" the repon"ent/ +ather(
A+ter their 0uarrel, #err$ le+t their con,ugal "welling an" thi wa the lat ti!e that the
repon"ent e)er aw hi!( Since then, he ha" not een, co!!unicate" nor hear" an$thing
+ro! #err$ or a*out hi wherea*out(
On Ma$ 6%, 6776, or !ore than +our IHJ $ear +ro! the ti!e o+ #err$/ "iappearance, the
repon"ent .le" *e+ore the RT4 a petition
H
+or her hu*an"/ "eclaration o+ preu!pti)e
"eath, "oc-ete" a SP Proc( 4ae No( ?%?E6'( She clai!e" that he ha" a wellE+oun"e" *elie+
that #err$ wa alrea"$ "ea"( She allege" that he ha" in0uire" +ro! her !otherEinElaw, her
*rotherEinElaw, her iterEinElaw, a well a her neigh*or an" +rien", *ut to no a)ail( In
the hope o+ .n"ing #err$, he alo allege"l$ !a"e it a point to chec- the patient/ "irector$
whene)er he went to a hopital( All thee earnet eAort, the repon"ent clai!e", pro)e"
+utile, pro!pting her to .le the petition in court(
T5# R!*+"1 o3 45# RTC
A+ter "ue procee"ing, the RT4 iue" an or"er granting the repon"ent/ petition an"
"eclaring #err$ preu!pti)el$ "ea"( It conclu"e" that the repon"ent ha" a wellE+oun"e"
*elie+ that her hu*an" wa alrea"$ "ea" ince !ore than +our IHJ $ear ha" pae" without
the +or!er recei)ing an$ new a*out the latter or hi wherea*out( The "ipoiti)e portion o+
the or"er "ate" Dece!*er %', 677R rea"MchanRo*le)irtualLawli*rar$
81EREFORE, the 4ourt here*$ "eclare, a it here*$ "eclare" that repon"ent #err$ F( 4antor
i preu!pti)el$ "ea" puruant to Article H% o+ the Fa!il$ 4o"e o+ the Philippine without
pre,u"ice to the eAect o+ the reappearance o+ the a*ent poue #err$ F(
4antor(
'
4hanRo*leOirtualawli*rar$
T5# R!*+"1 o3 45# CA
' | P a g e
The cae reache" the 4A through a petition +or certiorari
R
.le" *$ the petitioner, Repu*lic o+
the Philippine, through the OBce o+ the Solicitor :eneral I>#2J( In it Augut 6=, 677>
"eciion, the 4A "i!ie" the petitioner/ petition, .n"ing no gra)e a*ue o+ "icretion on
the RT4/ part, an", accor"ingl$, +ull$ aBr!e" the latter/ or"er,
thuMchanRo*le)irtualLawli*rar$
81EREFORE, pre!ie +oregoing IicJ, the intant petition i here*$ DISMISSED an" the
aaile" Or"er "ate" Dece!*er %', 677R "eclaring #err$ F( 4antor preu!pti)el$ "ea" i
here*$ AFFIRMED in toto(
=
4hanRo*leOirtualawli*rar$
The petitioner *rought the !atter )ia a Rule H' petition *e+ore thi 4ourt(
T5# P#4+4+o"
The petitioner conten" that certiorari lie to challenge the "eciion, ,u"g!ent or .nal
or"er o+ trial court in petition +or "eclaration o+ preu!pti)e "eath o+ an a*ent poue
un"er Rule H% o+ the Fa!il$ 4o"e( It !aintain that although ,u"g!ent o+ trial court in
u!!ar$ ,u"icial procee"ing, inclu"ing preu!pti)e "eath cae, are "ee!e" i!!e"iatel$
.nal an" e5ecutor$ Ihence, not appeala*le un"er Article 6H= o+ the Fa!il$ 4o"eJ, thi rule
"oe not !ean that the$ are not u*,ect to re)iew on certiorari(
The petitioner alo poit that the repon"ent "i" not ha)e a wellE+oun"e" *elie+ to ,uti+$ the
"eclaration o+ her hu*an"/ preu!pti)e "eath( It clai! that the repon"ent +aile" to
con"uct the re0uiite "iligent earch +or her !iing hu*an"( Li-ewie, the petitioner in)ite
thi 4ourt/ attention to the atten"ant circu!tance urroun"ing the cae, particularl$, the
"egree o+ earch con"ucte" an" the repon"ent/ reultant +ailure to !eet the trict tan"ar"
un"er Article H% o+ the Fa!il$ 4o"e(
T5# I..!#.
The petition poe to u the +ollowing iueM
I%J 8hether certiorari lie to challenge the "eciion, ,u"g!ent or .nal or"er o+ trial court
in petition +or "eclaration o+ preu!pti)e "eath o+ an a*ent poue un"er Article H% o+ the
Fa!il$ 4o"e@ an"
I6J 8hether the repon"ent ha" a wellE+oun"e" *elie+ that #err$ i alrea"$ "ea"(
T5# Co!24?. R!*+"1
@# 12/"4 45# (#4+4+o".
a. >n the +ss"e of the Propriet& of 0ertiorari as a /emed&
Court6s 5u"7-ent in the 5u"icial Procee"in7s for ,eclaration of Presu-ptive ,eath
Is Final an" E8ecutor#+ 9ence+ Unappealable
The Fa!il$ 4o"e wa e5plicit that the court/ ,u"g!ent in u!!ar$ procee"ing, uch a the
"eclaration o+ preu!pti)e "eath o+ an a*ent poue un"er Article H% o+ the Fa!il$ 4o"e,
hall *e i!!e"iatel$ .nal an" e5ecutor$(
Article H%, in relation to Article 6H=, o+ the Fa!il$ 4o"e pro)i"eMchanRo*le)irtualLawli*rar$
Art( H%( A !arriage contracte" *$ an$ peron "uring u*itence o+ a pre)iou !arriage hall
*e null an" )oi", unle *e+ore the cele*ration o+ the u*e0uent !arriage, the prior poue
ha" *een a*ent +or +our conecuti)e $ear an" the poue preent ha a wellE+oun"e" *elie+
that the a*ent poue wa alrea"$ "ea"( In cae o+ "iappearance where there i "anger o+
"eath un"er the circu!tance et +orth in the pro)iion o+ Article ?&% o+ the 4i)il 4o"e, an
a*ence o+ onl$ two $ear hall *e uBcient(
For the purpoe o+ contracting the u*e0uent !arriage un"er the prece"ing paragraph the
poue preent !ut intitute a u!!ar$ procee"ing a pro)i"e" in thi 4o"e +or the
"eclaration o+ preu!pti)e "eath o+ the a*entee, without pre,u"ice to the eAect o+
reappearance o+ the a*ent poue(
Art( 6H=( The ,u"g!ent o+ the court hall *e i!!e"iatel$ .nal an" e5ecutor$( Cun"ercore
ourD
8ith the ,u"g!ent *eing .nal, it necearil$ +ollow that it i no longer u*,ect to an appeal,
the "ipoition an" concluion therein ha)ing *eco!e i!!uta*le an" unaltera*le not onl$
a againt the partie *ut e)en a againt the court(
>
Mo"i.cation o+ the court/ ruling, no
!atter how erroneou i no longer per!ii*le( The .nal an" e5ecutor$ nature o+ thi
u!!ar$ procee"ing thu prohi*it the reort to appeal( A e5plaine" in /ep"blic of the Phils.
v. :erm"de?@;orino,
&
the right to appeal i not grante" to partie *ecaue o+ the e5pre
!an"ate o+ Article 6H= o+ the Fa!il$ 4o"e, to witMchanRo*le)irtualLawli*rar$
I" S!66/2: J!0+,+/* P2o,##0+"1. !"0#2 45# F/6+*: Co0#, 45#2# +. "o 2#1*#6#"4/2:
(#2+o0 A+45+" A5+,5 4o (#23#,4 /" /((#/*, (2#,+.#*: )#,/!.# B!016#"4. 2#"0#2#0
45#2#!"0#2, ): #C(2#.. (2o-+.+o" o3 A24+,*#& 2>7, F/6+*: Co0#, .!(2/, /2#
D+66#0+/4#*: E"/* /"0 #C#,!4o2:.F It wa erroneou, there+ore, on the part o+ the RT4 to
gi)e "ue coure to the Repu*lic/ appeal an" or"er the tran!ittal o+ the entire recor" o+ the
cae to the 4ourt o+ Appeal(
A" /((#**/4# ,o!24 /,G!+2#. "o B!2+.0+,4+o" 4o 2#-+#A / B!016#"4 A5+,5, ): #C(2#..
(2o-+.+o" o3 */A, +. +66#0+/4#*: E"/* /"0 #C#,!4o2:. A we ha)e ai" in Aeloria vs.
0omelec, Fthe right to appeal i not a natural right nor i it a part o+ "ue proce, +or it i
!erel$ a tatutor$ pri)ilege(G S+",#, ): #C(2#.. 6/"0/4# o3 A24+,*# 2>7 o3 45# F/6+*:
Co0#, /** B!016#"4. 2#"0#2#0 +" .!66/2: B!0+,+/* (2o,##0+"1. +" F/6+*: L/A /2#
D+66#0+/4#*: E"/* /"0 #C#,!4o2:,F 45# 2+154 4o /((#/* A/. "o4 12/"4#0 4o /": o3
45# (/24+#. 45#2#+". The Repu*lic o+ the Philippine, a oppoitor in the petition +or
"eclaration o+ preu!pti)e "eath, houl" not *e treate" "iAerentl$( It ha" no right to appeal
the RT4 "eciion o+ No)e!*er =, 677%( Ce!phae our@ italic upplie"D
Certiorari $ies to Challen7e the ,ecisions+ 5u"7-ents or Final :r"ers of Trial
Courts in a Su--ar# Procee"in7 for the ,eclaration of Presu-ptive ,eath Un"er
the Fa-il# Co"e
A loing part$ in thi procee"ing, howe)er, i not entirel$ le+t without a re!e"$( 8hile
,uripru"ence tell u that no appeal can *e !a"e +ro! the trial court/ ,u"g!ent, an
aggrie)e" part$ !a$, ne)erthele, .le a petition +or certiorari un"er Rule R' o+ the Rule o+
4ourt to 0uetion an$ a*ue o+ "icretion a!ounting to lac- or e5ce o+ ,uri"iction that
tranpire"(
A hel" in Be los #antos v. /odrig"e?, et al.,
%7
the +act that a "eciion ha *eco!e .nal "oe
not auto!aticall$ negate the original action o+ the 4A to iue certiorari, prohi*ition an"
R | P a g e
!an"a!u in connection with or"er or procee iue" *$ the trial court( 0ertiorari !a$ *e
a)aile" o+ where a court ha acte" without or in e5ce o+ ,uri"iction or with gra)e a*ue o+
"icretion, an" where the or"inar$ re!e"$ o+ appeal i not a)aila*le( Such a proce"ure .n"
upport in the cae o+ /ep"blic v. %ango,
%%
wherein we hel" thatMchanRo*le)irtualLawli*rar$
Thi cae preent an opportunit$ +or u to ettle the rule on appeal o+ ,u"g!ent ren"ere" in
u!!ar$ procee"ing un"er the Fa!il$ 4o"e an" accor"ingl$, re.ne our pre)iou "eciion
thereon(
Article 6?> o+ the Fa!il$ 4o"e, un"er Title LIM SNMMARY #NDI4IAL PRO4EEDIN:S IN T1E
FAMILY LA8, eta*lihe the rule that go)ern u!!ar$ court procee"ing in the Fa!il$
4o"eM
FART( 6?>( Nntil !o"i.e" *$ the Supre!e 4ourt, the proce"ural rule in thi Title hall appl$
in all cae pro)i"e" +or in thi 4o"e re0uiring u!!ar$ court procee"ing( Such cae hall
*e "eci"e" in an e5pe"itiou !anner without regar" to technical rule(G
In turn, Article 6'? o+ the Fa!il$ 4o"e peci.e the cae co)ere" *$ the rule in chapter
two an" three o+ the a!e title( It tateM
FART( 6'?( The +oregoing rule in 4hapter 2 an" ? hereo+ hall li-ewie go)ern.!66/2:
(2o,##0+"1. .le" un"er Article >1, '%, R&, =?, &R, %6H an" 6%=, ino+ar a the$ are
applica*le(G IEmphasis s"pplied(J
In plain te5t, Article 6H= in 4hapter 6 o+ the a!e title rea"M
FART( 6H=( The ,u"g!ent o+ the court hall *e i!!e"iatel$ .nal an" e5ecutor$(G
3$ e5pre pro)iion o+ law, the ,u"g!ent o+ the court in a u!!ar$ procee"ing hall *e
i!!e"iatel$ .nal an" e5ecutor$( A a !atter o+ coure, it +ollow that no appeal can *e ha"
o+ the trial court/ ,u"g!ent in a u!!ar$ procee"ing +or the "eclaration o+ preu!pti)e
"eath o+ an a*ent poue un"er Article H% o+ the Fa!il$ 4o"e( I4 1o#. A+45o!4 ./:+"1,
5oA#-#2, 45/4 /" /112+#-#0 (/24: 6/: E*# / (#4+4+o" 3o2 ,#24+o2/2+ 4o G!#.4+o"
/)!.# o3 0+.,2#4+o" /6o!"4+"1 4o */,H o3 B!2+.0+,4+o". S!,5 (#4+4+o" .5o!*0 )# E*#0
+" 45# Co!24 o3 A((#/*. +" /,,o20/",# A+45 45# Do,42+"# o3 H+#2/2,5: o3 Co!24.. To
*e ure, e)en i+ the 4ourt/ original ,uri"iction to iue a writ o+ certiorari i concurrent with
the RT4 an" the 4ourt o+ Appeal in certain cae, uch concurrence "oe not anction an
unretricte" +ree"o! o+ choice o+ court +oru!( Ce!phai ourD
Oiewe" in thi light, we .n" that the petitioner/ reort to certiorari un"er Rule R' o+ the Rule
o+ 4ourt to 0uetion the RT4/ or"er "eclaring #err$ preu!pti)el$ "ea" wa proper(
b. >n the +ss"e of the E!istence of <ell@5o"nded :elief
The Essential Re;uisites for the ,eclaration of Presu-ptive ,eath Un"er Article *&
of the Fa-il# Co"e
3e+ore a ,u"icial "eclaration o+ preu!pti)e "eath can *e o*taine", it !ut *e hown that the
prior poue ha" *een a*ent +or +our conecuti)e $ear an" the preent poue ha" a wellE
+oun"e" *elie+ that the prior poue wa alrea"$ "ea"( Nn"er Article H% o+ the Fa!il$ 4o"e,
there are +our IHJ eential re0uiite +or the "eclaration o+ preu!pti)e
"eathMchanRo*le)irtualLawli*rar$
%( That the a*ent poue ha *een !iing +or +our conecuti)e $ear, or two
conecuti)e $ear i+ the "iappearance occurre" where there i "anger o+ "eath
un"er the circu!tance lai" "own in Article ?&%, 4i)il 4o"e@
6( That the preent poue wihe to re!arr$@
?( T5/4 45# (2#.#"4 .(o!.# 5/. / A#**83o!"0#0 )#*+#3 45/4 45# /).#"4## +.
0#/0I an"
H( That the preent poue .le a u!!ar$ procee"ing +or the "eclaration o+
preu!pti)e "eath o+ the a*entee(
%6
The Present Spouse 9as the 1ur"en of Proof to Sho that All the Re;uisites Un"er
Article *& of the Fa-il# Co"e Are Present
The *ur"en o+ proo+ ret on the preent poue to how that all the re0uiite un"er Article
H% o+ the Fa!il$ 4o"e are preent( Since it i the preent poue who, +or purpoe o+
"eclaration o+ preu!pti)e "eath, u*tantiall$ aert the aBr!ati)e o+ the iue, it tan"
to reaon that the *ur"en o+ proo+ lie with hi!Qher( 1e who allege a +act ha the *ur"en o+
pro)ing it an" !ere allegation i not e)i"ence(
%?
,eclaration of Presu-ptive ,eath Un"er Article *& of the Fa-il# Co"e I-poses a
Stricter Stan"ar"
Nota*l$, Article H% o+ the Fa!il$ 4o"e, co!pare" to the ol" pro)iion o+ the 4i)il 4o"e which
it upere"e", i!poe a .42+,4#2 .4/"0/20( It re0uire a Fwell@fo"nded beliefG that the
a*entee ialread& dead *e+ore a petition +or "eclaration o+ preu!pti)e "eath can *e
grante"( 8e ha)e ha" occaion to !a-e the a!e o*er)ation in /ep"blic v. Nolasco,
%H
where
we note" the crucial "iAerence *etween Article H% o+ the Fa!il$ 4o"e an" Article >? o+ the
4i)il 4o"e, to witMchanRo*le)irtualLawli*rar$
Nn"er Article H%, the ti!e re0uire" +or the preu!ption to arie ha *een hortene" to +our
IHJ $ear@ howe)er, there i nee" +or a ,u"icial "eclaration o+ preu!pti)e "eath to ena*le the
poue preent to re!arr$( Alo, Article H% o+ the Fa!il$ 4o"e i!poe a.42+,4#2
.4/"0/20 than the 4i)il 4o"eM Article >? o+ the 4i)il 4o"e !erel$ re0uire either that there
*e no news that s"ch absentee is still alive@ or the a*entee igenerall& considered to be
dead an" believed to be so b& the spo"se present, or ipres"med dead un"er Article ?&7
an" ?&% o+ the 4i)il 4o"e( T5# F/6+*: Co0#, !(o" 45# o45#2 5/"0, (2#.,2+)#. /. Dell
foun"e" beliefF 45/4 45# /).#"4## +.alrea"# "ea" )#3o2# / (#4+4+o" 3o2 0#,*/2/4+o"
o3 (2#.!6(4+-# 0#/45 ,/" )# 12/"4#0.
Thu, !ere a*ence o+ the poue Ie)en +or uch perio" re0uire" *$ the lawJ, lac- o+ an$
new that uch a*entee i till ali)e, +ailure to co!!unicate or general preu!ption o+
a*ence un"er the 4i)il 4o"e woul" not uBce( Thi concluion procee" +ro! the pre!ie
that Article H% o+ the Fa!il$ 4o"e place upon the preent poue the *ur"en o+ pro)ing the
a""itional an" !ore tringent re0uire!ent o+ Fwell@fo"nded beliefG which can onl$ *e
"icharge" upon a howing o+ proper an" honetEtoEgoo"ne in0uirie an" eAort to
acertain not onl$ the a*ent poue/ wherea*out *ut, !ore i!portantl$, that the a*ent
poue i till ali)e or i alrea"$ "ea"(
%'
The Re;uire-ent of Well3Foun"e" 1elief
The law "i" not "e.ne what i !eant *$ FwellE+oun"e" *elie+(G It "epen" upon the
= | P a g e
circu!tance o+ each particular cae( It "eter!ination, o to pea-, re!ain on a caeEtoE
cae *ai( To *e a*le to co!pl$ with thi re0uire!ent, the preent poue !ut pro)e that
hiQher *elie+ wa the reult o+0+*+1#"4 /"0 2#/.o"/)*# #Jo24. /"0 +"G!+2+#. to locate the
a*ent poue an" that *ae" on thee eAort an" in0uirie, heQhe *elie)e that un"er the
circu!tance, the a*ent poue i alrea"$ "ea"( I4 2#G!+2#. #C#24+o" o3 /,4+-# #Jo24
<"o4 / 6#2# (/..+-# o"#=.
To illutrate thi "egree o+ F"iligent an" reaona*le earchG re0uire" *$ the law, an anal$i
o+ the +ollowing rele)ant cae i warrante"M
i. Republic of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals <Tenth ,iv.=
%R
In /ep"blic of the Philippines v. 0o"rt of Appeals C%enth Biv.D,
%=
the 4ourt rule" that the
preent poue +aile" to pro)e that he ha" a wellE+oun"e" *elie+ that hi a*ent poue wa
alrea"$ "ea" *e+ore he .le" hi petition( 1i eAort to locate hi a*ent wi+e allege"l$
conite" o+ the +ollowingM
I%J 1e went to hi inElaw/ houe to loo- +or her@
I6J 1e ought the *aranga$ captain/ ai" to locate her@
I?J 1e went to her +rien"/ houe to .n" her an" in0uire" a*out her wherea*out a!ong hi
+rien"@
IHJ 1e went to Manila an" wor-e" a a partEti!e ta5i "ri)er to loo- +or her in !all "uring hi
+ree ti!e@
I'J 1e went *ac- to 4at*alogan an" again loo-e" +or her@ an"
IRJ 1e reporte" her "iappearance to the local police tation an" to the N3I(
Depite thee allege" Fearnet eAort,G the 4ourt till rule" againt the preent poue( The
4ourt +oun" that he +aile" to preent the peron +ro! who! he allege"l$ !a"e in0uirie an"
onl$ reporte" hi wi+e/ a*ence a+ter the OS: .le" it notice to "i!i hi petition in the
RT4(
The 4ourt alo pro)i"e" the +ollowing criteria +or "eter!ining the e5itence o+ a FwellE
+oun"e" *elie+G un"er Article H% o+ the Fa!il$ 4o"eMchanRo*le)irtualLawli*rar$
The *elie+ o+ the preent poue !ut *e the reult o+ proper an" honet to goo"ne
in0uirie an" eAort to acertain the wherea*out o+ the a*ent poue an" whether the
a*ent poue i till ali)e or i alrea"$ "ea"( 8hether or not the poue preent acte" on a
wellE+oun"e" *elie+ o+ "eath o+ the a*ent poue "epen" upon the in0uirie to *e "rawn
+ro! a great !an$ circu!tance occurring *e+ore an" a+ter the "iappearance o+ the a*ent
poue an" the nature an" e5tent o+ the in0uirie !a"e *$ CtheD preent
poue(
%>
4hanRo*leOirtualawli*rar$
ii. Republic v. %rana"a
%&
Si!ilarl$ in 2ranada, the 4ourt rule" that the a*ent poue +aile" to pro)e her FwellE+oun"e"
*elie+G that her a*ent poue wa alrea"$ "ea" prior to her .ling o+ the petition( In thi cae,
the preent poue allege" that her *rother ha" !a"e in0uirie +ro! their relati)e regar"ing
the a*ent poue/ wherea*out( The preent poue "i" not report to the police nor ee-
the ai" o+ the !a !e"ia( Appl$ing the tan"ar" in /ep"blic of the Philippines v. 0o"rt of
Appeals C%enth Biv.D,
67
the 4ourt rule" againt the preent poue, a
+ollowMchanRo*le)irtualLawli*rar$
Appl$ing the +oregoing tan"ar" to the preent cae, petitioner point out that
repon"ent Ko*/"0/ 0+0 "o4 +"+4+/4# / 0+*+1#"4 .#/2,5 4o *o,/4# 5#2 /).#"4 5!.)/"0.
@5+*# 5#2 )2o45#2 D+o.0/0o C/0/,+o 4#.4+E#0 4o 5/-+"1 +"G!+2#0 /)o!4 45#
A5#2#/)o!4. o3 C:2!. 32o6 45# */44#2?. 2#*/4+-#., 45#.# 2#*/4+-#. A#2# "o4
(2#.#"4#0 4o ,o22o)o2/4# D+o.0/0o?. 4#.4+6o":. In hort, repon"ent wa allege"l$ not
"iligent in her earch +or her hu*an"( Petitioner argue that i+ he were, he woul" ha)e
ought in+or!ation +ro! the Taiwanee 4onular OBce or aitance +ro! other go)ern!ent
agencie in Taiwan or the Philippine( She coul" ha)e alo utili;e" !a !e"ia +or thi en",
*ut he "i" not( 8ore, he +aile" to e5plain thee o!iion(
iii. Republic v. Nolasco
6%
In Nolasco, the preent poue .le" a petition +or "eclaration o+ preu!pti)e "eath o+ hi
wi+e, who ha" *een !iing +or !ore than +our $ear( 1e teti.e" that hi eAort to .n" her
conite" o+M
I%J Searching +or her whene)er hi hip "oc-e" in Englan"@
I6J Sen"ing her letter which were all returne" to hi!@ an"
I?J In0uiring +ro! their +rien" regar"ing her wherea*out, which all pro)e" +ruitle(
The 4ourt rule" that the preent poue/ in)etigation were too -etch$ to +or! a *ai that
hi wi+e wa alrea"$ "ea" an" rule" that the piece o+ e)i"ence onl$ pro)e" that hi wi+e ha"
choen not to co!!unicate with their co!!on ac0uaintance, an" not that he wa "ea"(
iv. The present case
In the cae at *ar, the repon"ent/ FwellE+oun"e" *elie+G wa anchore" on her allege"
Fearnet eAortG to locate #err$, which conite" o+ the +ollowingMchanRo*le)irtualLawli*rar$
I%J She !a"e in0uirie a*out #err$/ wherea*out +ro! her inElaw, neigh*or an" +rien"@
an"

I6J 8hene)er he went to a hopital, he aw to it that he loo-e" through the patient/
"irector$, hoping to .n" #err$(
Thee eAort, howe)er, +ell hort o+ the Ftringent tan"ar"G an" "egree o+ "iligence re0uire"
*$ ,uripru"ence +or the +ollowing reaonM
First, the repon"ent "i" not acti)el$ loo- +or her !iing hu*an"( It can *e in+erre" +ro!
the recor" that her hopital )iit an" her cone0uent chec-ing o+ the patient/ "irector$
therein were unintentional( She "i" not purpoel$ un"erta-e a "iligent earch +or her hu*an"
a her hopital )iit were not planne" nor pri!aril$ "irecte" to loo- +or hi!( Thi 4ourt thu
coni"er thee atte!pt inuBcient to engen"er a *elie+ that her hu*an" i "ea"(
Secon", he "i" not report #err$/ a*ence to the police nor "i" he ee- the ai" o+ the
> | P a g e
authoritie to loo- +or hi!( 8hile a .n"ing o+ wellE+oun"e" *elie+ )arie with the nature o+ the
ituation in which the preent poue i place", un"er preent con"ition, we .n" it proper
an" pru"ent +or a preent poue, whoe poue ha" *een !iing, to ee- the ai" o+ the
authoritie or, at the )er$ leat, report hiQher a*ence to the police(
Thir", he "i" not preent a witnee #err$/ relati)e or their neigh*or an" +rien", who
can corro*orate her eAort to locate #err$( 8ore, thee peron, +ro! who! he allege"l$
!a"e in0uirie, were not e)en na!e"( A hel" in Nolasco, the preent poue/ *are
aertion that he in0uire" +ro! hi +rien" a*out hi a*ent poue/ wherea*out i
inuBcient a the na!e o+ the +rien" +ro! who! he !a"e in0uirie were not i"enti.e" in
the teti!on$ nor preente" a witnee(
$astl#, there wa no other corro*orati)e e)i"ence to upport the repon"ent/ clai! that he
con"ucte" a "iligent earch( Neither wa there upporting e)i"ence pro)ing that he ha" a
wellE+oun"e" *elie+ other than her *are clai! that he in0uire" +ro! her +rien" an" inElaw
a*out her hu*an"/ wherea*out(
In u!, the 4ourt i o+ the )iew that the repon"ent !erel$ engage" in a Fpai)e earchG
where he relie" on uncorro*orate" in0uirie +ro! her inElaw, neigh*or an" +rien"( S5#
3/+*#0 4o ,o"0!,4 / 0+*+1#"4 .#/2,5 *ecaue her allege" eAort are inuBcient to +or! a
wellE+oun"e" *elie+ that her hu*an" wa alrea"$ "ea"( A hel" in /ep"blic of the Philippines
v. 0o"rt of Appeals C%enth Biv.D,
66
FCwDhether or not the poue preent acte" on a wellE
+oun"e" *elie+ o+ "eath o+ the a*ent poue "epen" upon the in0uirie to *e "rawn +ro! a
great !an$ circu!tance occurring *e+ore an" a+ter the "iappearance o+ the a*ent poue
an" the nature an" e5tent o+ the in0uirie !a"e *$ CtheD preent poue(G
Strict Stan"ar" Approach Is Consistent ith the State6s Polic# to Protect an"
Stren7then >arria7e
In the a*o)eEcite" cae, the 4ourt, +ull$ aware o+ the poi*le colluion o+ poue in
nulli+$ing their !arriage, ha conitentl$ applie" the Ftrict tan"ar"G approach( Thi i to
enure that a petition +or "eclaration o+ preu!pti)e "eath un"er Article H% o+ the Fa!il$
4o"e i not ue" a a tool to con)enientl$ circu!)ent the law( 4ourt houl" ne)er allow
proce"ural hortcut an" houl" enure that the tricter tan"ar" re0uire" *$ the Fa!il$
4o"e i !et( In /ep"blic of the Philippines v. 0o"rt of Appeals C%enth Biv.D,
6?
we e!phai;e"
thatMchanRo*le)irtualLawli*rar$
In )iew o+ the u!!ar$ nature o+ procee"ing un"er Article H% o+ the Fa!il$ 4o"e +or the
"eclaration o+ preu!pti)e "eath o+ one/ poue, 45# 0#12## o3 0!# 0+*+1#",# .#4 ):
45+. Ho"o2/)*# Co!24 +" 45# /)o-#86#"4+o"#0 ,/.#. +" *o,/4+"1 45# A5#2#/)o!4. o3
/ 6+..+"1 .(o!.# 6!.4 )# .42+,4*: ,o6(*+#0 A+45( There ha)e *een ti!e when Article
H% o+ the Fa!il$ 4o"e ha" *een reorte" to *$ partie wihing to re!arr$ -nowing +ull$ well
that their allege" !iing poue are ali)e an" well( It i e)en poi*le that thoe who
cannot ha)e their !arriage 555 "eclare" n"ll an" voidun"er Article ?R o+ the Fa!il$ 4o"e
reort to Article H% o+ the Fa!il$ 4o"e +or relie+ *ecaue o+ the 555 u!!ar$ nature o+ it
procee"ing(
The application o+ thi tricter tan"ar" *eco!e e)en !ore i!perati)e i+ we coni"er the
State/ polic$ to protect an" trengthen the intitution o+ !arriage(
6H
Since !arriage er)e
a the +a!il$/ +oun"ation
6'
an" ince it i the tate/ polic$ to protect an" trengthen the
+a!il$ a a *aic ocial intitution,
6R
!arriage houl" not *e per!itte" to *e "iol)e" at the
whi! o+ the partie( In interpreting an" appl$ing Article H%, thi i the un"erl$ing rationale E
to uphol" the anctit$ o+ !arriage( Arro&o, Jr. v. 0o"rt of Appeals
6=
rePecte" thi enti!ent
when we tree"M
CTheD protection o+ the *aic ocial intitution o+ !arriage an" the +a!il$ in the preer)ation
o+ which the State ha the tronget interet@ the pu*lic polic$ here in)ol)e" i o+ the !ot
+un"a!ental -in"( In Article II, Section %6 o+ the 4ontitution there i et +orth the +ollowing
*aic tate polic$M
The State recogni;e the anctit$ o+ +a!il$ li+e an" hall protect an" trengthen the +a!il$ a
a *aic autono!ou ocial intitution(
Strict Stan"ar" Prescribe" Un"er Article *& of the Fa-il# Co"e Is for the Present
Spouse6s 1ene?t
The re0uiite ,u"icial "eclaration o+ preu!pti)e "eath o+ the a*ent poue Ian"
cone0uentl$, the application o+ a tringent tan"ar" +or it iuanceJ i alo +or the preent
poue/ *ene.t( It i inten"e" to protect hi!Qher +ro! a cri!inal proecution o+ *iga!$
un"er Article ?H& o+ the Re)ie" Penal 4o"e which !ight co!e into pla$ i+ heQhe woul"
pre!aturel$ re!arr$ sans the court/ "eclaration(
Npon the iuance o+ the "eciion "eclaring hiQher a*ent poue preu!pti)el$ "ea", the
preent poue/ goo" +aith in contracting a econ" !arriage i eAecti)el$ eta*lihe"( The
"eciion o+ the co!petent court contitute uBcient proo+ o+ hiQher goo" +aith an" hiQher
cri!inal intent in cae o+ re!arriage i eAecti)el$ negate"(
6>
Thu, +or purpoe o+
re!arriage, it i necear$ to trictl$ co!pl$ with the tringent tan"ar" an" ha)e the a*ent
poue ,u"iciall$ "eclare" preu!pti)el$ "ea"(
Final Wor"
A a .nal wor", it ha not ecape" thi 4ourt/ attention that the trict tan"ar" re0uire" in
petition +or "eclaration o+ preu!pti)e "eath ha not *een +ull$ o*er)e" *$ the lower
court( 8e nee" onl$ to cite the intance when thi 4ourt, on re)iew, ha conitentl$ rule"
on the anctit$ o+ !arriage an" reiterate" that an$thing le than the ue o+ the trict
tan"ar" neceitate a "enial( To recti+$ thi ituation, lower court are now e5prel$ put on
notice o+ the trict tan"ar" thi 4ourt re0uire in cae un"er Article H% o+ the Fa!il$ 4o"e(
@HEREF'RE, in )iew o+ the +oregoing, the aaile" "eciion "ate" Augut 6=, 677> o+ the
4ourt o+ Appeal, which aBr!e" the or"er "ate" Dece!*er %', 677R o+ the Regional Trial
4ourt, 3ranch 6', Sorona"al 4it$, South 4ota*ato, "eclaring #err$ F( 4antor preu!pti)el$
"ea" i here*$ REVERSED an" SET ASIDE(
S' 'RDERED.
____________
PSKCH'L'GICAL INCAPACITK
L#.4#2 H/*+*+ -. C5o"/ H/*+*+ <G.R. No. 195>2>=
FACTS:
& | P a g e
T5+. 2#.o*-#. 45# 6o4+o" 3o2 2#,o".+0#2/4+o" o3 45# A(2+* 19, 2%%8 2#.o*!4+o" o3 45+.
Co!24 "en$ing petitioner petition +or re)iew on certiorari Iun"er Rule H' o+ the Rule o+
4ourtJ( The petition ought to et ai"e the #anuar$ 6R, 677H "eciion an" Septe!*er 6H,
677H reolution o+ the 4ourt o+ Appeal I4AJ in 4A2:(R( 4O No( R77%7(
Petitioner Leter 3en,a!in S( 1alili .le" a petition to "eclare hi !arriage to repon"ent
4hona M( Santo21alili null an" )oi" on the *ai o+ hi p$chological incapacit$ to per+or!
the eential o*ligation o+ !arriage in the Regional Trial 4ourt IRT4J, Paig 4it$, 3ranch %'>(
1e allege" that he we" repon"ent in ci)il rite thin-ing that it wa a ,o-e( A+ter the
cere!onie, the$ ne)er li)e" together a hu*an" an" wi+e, *ut !aintaine" the relationhip(
1owe)er, the$ tarte" .ghting contantl$ a $ear later, at which point petitioner "eci"e" to
top eeing repon"ent an" tarte" "ating other wo!en( I!!e"iatel$ therea+ter, he recei)e"
pran- call telling hi! to top "ating other wo!en a he wa alrea"$ a !arrie" !an( It wa
onl$ upon !a-ing an in0uir$ that he +oun" out that the !arriage wa not +a-e(
E)entuall$, the RT4 +oun" petitioner to *e uAering +ro! a !i5e" peronalit$ "ior"er,
particularl$ "epen"ent an" el+2"e+eating peronalit$ "ior"er, a "iagnoe" *$ hi e5pert
witne, Dr( Nati)i"a" Da$an( The court a 0uo hel" that petitioner peronalit$ "ior"er wa
eriou an" incura*le an" "irectl$ aAecte" hi capacit$ to co!pl$ with hi eential !arital
o*ligation to repon"ent( It thu "eclare" the !arriage null an" )oi"(
On appeal, the 4A re)ere" an" et ai"e the "eciion o+ the trial court on the groun" that
the totalit$ o+ the e)i"ence preente" +aile" to eta*lih petitioner p$chological incapacit$(
Petitioner !o)e" +or reconi"eration( It wa "enie"(
The cae wa ele)ate" to the Supre!e 4ourt )ia a petition +or re)iew un"er Rule H'( 8e
aBr!e" the 4A "eciion an" reolution uphol"ing the )ali"it$ o+ the !arriage(
Petitioner then .le" thi !otion +or reconi"eration reiterating hi argu!ent that hi !arriage
to repon"ent ought to *e "eclare" null an" )oi" on the *ai o+ hi p$chological incapacit$(
1e tree" that the e)i"ence he preente", epeciall$ the teti!on$ o+ hi e5pert witne,
wa !ore than enough to utain the .n"ing an" concluion o+ the trial court that he wa
an" till i p$chologicall$ incapa*le o+ co!pl$ing with the eential o*ligation o+ !arriage(
ISSUE: 8hether or not, p$chological incapacit$ o+ the petitioner i a uBcient groun" +or
the nullit$ o+ !arriage( 8hether or not "eciion o+ the Regional Trial 4ourt houl" *e
reintate".
HELD:
4ourt reiterate" that court houl" interpret the pro)iion on p$chological incapacit$ Ia a
groun" +or the "eclaration o+ nullit$ o+ a !arriageJ on a cae2to2cae *ai gui"e" *$
e5perience, the .n"ing o+ e5pert an" reearcher in p$chological "icipline an" *$
"eciion o+ church tri*unal(
In Te, thi 4ourt "e.ne" "epen"ent peronalit$ "ior"er aM
a peronalit$ "ior"er characteri;e" *$ a pattern o+ "epen"ent an" u*!ii)e *eha)ior(
Such in"i)i"ual uuall$ lac- el+2etee! an" +re0uentl$ *elittle their capa*ilitie@ the$ +ear
critici! an" are eail$ hurt *$ other co!!ent( At ti!e the$ actuall$ *ring a*out
"o!inance *$ other through a 0uet +or o)erprotection(
In her p$chological report, Dr( Da$an tate" that petitioner "epen"ent peronalit$ "ior"er
wa e)i"ent in the +act that petitioner wa )er$ !uch attache" to hi parent an" "epen"e"
on the! +or "eciion( Petitioner/ !other e)en ha" to *e the one to tell hi! to ee- legal
help when he +elt con+ue" on what action to ta-e upon learning that hi !arriage to
repon"ent wa +or real(
Nlti!atel$, Dr( Da$an conclu"e" that petitioner/ peronalit$ "ior"er wa gra)e an"
incura*le an" alrea"$ e5itent at the ti!e o+ the cele*ration o+ hi !arriage to repon"ent
Fro! the +oregoing, it ha *een hown that petitioner i in"ee" uAering +ro! p$chological
incapacit$ that eAecti)el$ ren"er hi! una*le to per+or! the eential o*ligation o+
!arriage( Accor"ingl$, the !arriage *etween petitioner an" repon"ent i "eclare" null an"
)oi"
The "eciion o+ the Regional Trial 4ourt, Paig 4it$, 3ranch %'> "ate" April %=, %&&> i
REINSTATED(
________________
S(o!.#. B!#"/-#"4!2/ -.. CA
F/,4.: Sought to *e "eclare" null an" )oi" a* initio are certain "ee" o+ ale o+
real propert$ e5ecute" *$ "e+en"ant parent Leonar"o #oa0uin an" Feliciana Lan"rito in +a)or
o+ their co2"e+en"ant chil"ren( The petitioner conten" that there wa no actual )ali"
coni"eration an" that au!ing that there wa coni"eration in the u! rePecte"
the propertie are !ore than three2+ol" ti!e !ore )alua*le than the !all u! appearing
therein( The RT4 rule" in +a)or o+ the "e+en"ant an" "i!ie" the cae( RT4/ ruling wa
aBr!e" *$ 4A( 1ence the appeal(
I..!#:8hether or not there wa a )ali" coni"eration in the "ee" o+ ale
H#*0M I+ there i a !eeting o+ the !in" o+ the partie a to the price, the contract o+ ale i
)ali", "epite the !anner o+ pa$!ent, or e)en the *reach o+ that !anner o+ pa$!ent( I+ the
real price i not tate" in the contract, then the contract o+ ale i )ali" *ut u*,ect to
re+or!ation(
Art( %?''( E5cept in cae peci.e" *$ law, leion or ina"e0uac$ o+ caue hall not in)ali"ate
a contract, unle there ha *een +rau", !ita-e or un"ue inPuence(
Article %H=7 o+ the 4i)il 4o"e +urther pro)i"eM:ro ina"e0uac$ o+ price "oe not aAect
a contract o+ ale, e5cept a !a$ in"icate a "e+ect in the conent, or that the partie reall$
inten"e" a "onation or o!e other act or contract(
Petitioner +aile" to pro)e an$ o+ the intance !entione" in Article %?'' an" %H=7 o+ the
4i)il 4o"e which woul" in)ali"ate, or e)en aAect, the Dee" o+ Sale( In"ee", there i no
re0uire!ent that the price *e e0ual to the e5act )alue o+ the u*,ect !atter o+ ale( All the
repon"ent *elie)e" that the$ recei)e" the co!!utati)e )alue o+ what the$ ga)e(
__________
M/**+o" -. A*,/"4/2/
:R No( %H%'6>Octo*er ?%, 677R
F/,4.:
Ocar Mallion .le" a petition with the Regional Trial 4ourt ee-ing a"eclarationo+ nullit$ o+ hi
!arriage with E"ithaAlcantara "ue top$chological incapacit$(The RT4 "enie" the petition +or
+ailure to a""uce prepon"erance o+ e)i"ence(A the "eciion attaine" .nalit$, Mallion .le"
%7 | P a g e
another petition +or a "eclarationo+ nullit$ o+ !arriage, thi ti!e alleging that hi !arriage
wa null an" )oi""ue tothe +act that it wa cele*rate" without a )ali" !arriage licene( It wa
later"i!ie" *$ the petition .le" *$ the repon"ent on the groun" o+ re ,u"icataan" +oru!
hopping( 1ence, thi appeal(
I..!#:
Doe a pre)iou .nal ,u"g!ent "en$ing a petition +or "eclaration o+ nullit$ on the groun" o+
p$chological incapacit$ *ar a u*e0uent petition +or "eclaration o+ nullit$ on the groun" o+
lac- o+ !arriage liceneT
H#*0:
Ye( Petition i "enie"(
R/4+o:
Re ,u"icata applie( Declaration o+ nullit$ o+ !arriage on the groun" o+ lac- o+ !arriage
licene i *arre" *$ earlier "eciion on p$chological capacit$( Mallion i i!pl$ in)o-ing
"iAerent groun" +or the a!e caue o+ action, which i the nullit$ o+ !arriage( 8hen the
econ" cae wa .le" *ae" on another groun", there i a plitting o+ a caue o+ action,
which i prohi*ite"( 1e i etoppe" +ro! aerting that the !arriage ha" no !arriage licene
*ecaue he i!plie"l$ a"!itte" the a!e when he "i" not 0uetion the a*ence o+ a !arriage
licene in the .rt cae(
____________
Chi >in7 Tsoi vs. CA
%R No. &&(&(/+ 5anuar# &)+ &((@
FACTS:
4hi Ming Toi an" :ina Lao Toi wa !arrie" in %&>>( A+ter the cele*ration o+ their we""ing,
the$ procee" to the houe o+ "e+en"ant/ !other( There wa no e5ual intercoure *etween
the! "uring their .rt night an" a!e thing happene" until their +ourth night( In an eAort to
ha)e their hone$!oon in a pri)ate place, the$ went to 3aguio *ut :ina/ relati)e went with
the!( Again, there wa no e5ual intercoure ince the "e+en"ant a)oi"e" *$ ta-ing a long
wal- "uring ieta or leeping on a roc-ing chair at the li)ing roo!( Since Ma$ %&>> until
March %&>& the$ lept together in the a!e *e" *ut no atte!pt o+ e5ual intercoure
*etween the!( 3ecaue o+ thi, the$ u*!itte" the!el)e +or !e"ical e5a!ination to a
urologit in 4hinee :eneral 1opital in %&>&( The reult o+ the ph$ical e5a!ination o+ :ina
wa "icloe", while that o+ the hu*an" wa -ept con."ential e)en the !e"icine precri*e"(
There were allegation that the reaon wh$ 4hi Ming Toi !arrie" her i to !aintain hi
rei"enc$ tatu here in the countr$( :ina "oe not want to reconcile with 4hi Ming Toi an"
want their !arriage "eclare" )oi" on the groun" o+ p$chological incapacit$( On the other
han", the latter "oe not want to ha)e their !arriage annulle" *ecaue he lo)e her )er$
!uch, he ha no "e+ect on hi part an" i ph$icall$ an" p$chologicall$ capa*le an" ince
their relationhip i till $oung, the$ can till o)erco!e their "iAerence( 4hi Ming Toi
u*!itte" hi!el+ to another ph$ical e5a!ination an" the reult wa there i not e)i"ence
o+ i!potenc$ an" he i capa*le o+ erection(
ISSUE: 8hether 4hi Ming Toi/ re+ual to ha)e e5ual intercoure with hi wi+e contitute
p$chological incapacit$(
HELD:
The a*nor!al reluctance or unwillingne to conu!!ate hi !arriage i trongl$ in"icati)e
o+ a eriou peronalit$ "ior"er which to the !in" o+ the Supre!e 4ourt clearl$
"e!ontrate an utter ineniti)it$ or ina*ilit$ to gi)e !eaning an" igni.cance tot the
!arriage within the !eaning o+ Article ?R o+ the Fa!il$ 4o"e(
I+ a poue, although ph$icall$ capa*le *ut i!pl$ re+ue to per+or! hi or her eential
!arital o*ligation an" the re+ual i enele an" contant, 4atholic !arriage tri*unal
attri*ute the caue to p$chological incapacit$ than to tu**orn re+ual( Further!ore, one
o+ the eential !arital o*ligation un"er the Fa!il$ 4o"e i to procreate chil"ren thu
contant non2+ul.ll!ent o+ thi o*ligation will .nall$ "etro$ the integrit$ an" wholene o+
the !arriage(
_________
SANT'S -.. CA AND JULIA R'SARI' BEDIALSANT'S
G.R. No. 112%1; J/"!/2: >, 1;;5
FACTS:
Leouel Santo, a Firt Lieutenant in the Philippine Ar!$, !et #ulia in Iloilo( The two got
!arrie" in %&>R *e+ore a !unicipal trial court +ollowe" hortl$ therea+ter, *$ a church
we""ing( The couple li)e" with #ulia/ parent at the #( 3e"ia 4o!poun"( #ulia ga)e *irth to a
*a*$ *o$ in %&>= an" wa na!e" a Leouel Santo #r( Occaionall$, the couple will 0uarrel
o)er a nu!*er o+ thing ai"e +ro! the inter+erence o+ #ulia/ parent into their +a!il$ aAair(
#ulia le+t in %&>> to wor- in NS a a nure "epite Leouel/ plea to "iua"e her( Se)en
!onth a+ter her "eparture, he calle" her hu*an" an" pro!ie" to return ho!e upon the
e5piration o+ her contract in #ul$ %&>& *ut he ne)er "i"( Leouel got a chance to )iit NS
where he un"erwent a training progra! un"er AFP, he "eperatel$ trie" to locate or
o!ehow get in touch with #ulia *ut all hi eAort were o+ no a)ail(
Leouel .le" a co!plaint to ha)e their !arriage "eclare" )oi" un"er Article ?R o+ the Fa!il$
4o"e( 1e argue" that +ailure o+ #ulia to return ho!e or to co!!unicate with hi! +or !ore
than ' $ear are circu!tance that how her *eing p$chologicall$ incapacitate" to enter
into !arrie" li+e(
ISSUE: 8hether their !arriage can *e coni"ere" )oi" un"er Article ?R o+ the Fa!il$ 4o"e(
HELD:
The inten"!ent o+ the law ha *een to con.ne the !eaning o+ p$chological incapacit$ to the
!ot eriou cae o+ peronal "ior"er clearl$ "e!ontrati)e o+ an utter ineniti)it$ or
ina*ilit$ to gi)e !eaning an" igni.cance to the !arriage( Thi con"ition !ut e5it at the
ti!e the !arriage i cele*rate"(
%% | P a g e
Nn"enia*l$ an" un"ertan"a*l$, Leouel tan" aggrie)e", e)en "eperate, in hi preent
ituation( Regretta*l$, neither law nor ociet$ itel+ can alwa$ pro)i"e all the peci.c
anwer to e)er$ in"i)i"ual pro*le!( 8here+ore, hi petition wa "enie"(
__________
No4#.:
p$chological incapacit$ !ut *e characteri;e" *$ </= gra)it$, <)= ,uri"ical antece"ence, an"
<,= incura*ilit$( The incapacit$ !ut *e gra)e or eriou uch that the part$ woul" *e
incapa*le o+ carr$ing out the or"inar$ "utie re0uire" in !arriage@ it !ut *e roote" in the
hitor$ o+ the part$ ante"ating the !arriage, although the o)ert !ani+etation !a$ e!erge
onl$ a+ter the !arriage@ an" it !ut *e incura*le or, e)en i+ it were otherwie, the cure woul"
*e *e$on" the !ean o+ the part$ in)ol)e"(
______________________
Republic vs. CA an" >olina
%.R. No. &/4@)A Februar# &A+ &((@
FACTS:
The cae at *ar challenge the "eciion o+ 4A aBr!ing the !arriage o+ the repon"ent
Rori"el Molina to Re$nal"o Molina )oi" in the groun" o+ p$chological incapacit$( The couple
got !arrie" in %&>', a+ter a $ear, Re$nal"o !ani+ete" ign o+ i!!aturit$ an"
irreponi*ilit$ *oth a hu*an" an" a +ather pre+erring to pen" !ore ti!e with +rien"
who! he 0uan"ere" hi !one$, "epen" on hi parent +or ai" an" aitance an" wa
ne)er honet with hi wi+e in regar" to their .nance( In %&>R, the couple ha" an intene
0uarrel an" a a reult their relationhip wa etrange"( Rori"el 0uit her wor- an" went to
li)e with her parent in 3aguio 4it$ in %&>= an" a +ew wee- later, Re$nal"o le+t her an" their
chil"( Since then he a*an"one" the!(
ISSUE: 8hether or not the !arriage i )oi" on the groun" o+ p$chological incapacit$(
HELD:
The !arriage *etween Rori"el an" Re$nal"o u*it an" re!ain )ali"( 8hat contitute
p$chological incapacit$ i not !ere howing o+ irreconcila*le "iAerence an" conPiction
peronalitie( It i in"ipena*le that the partie !ut e5hi*it inclination which woul" not
!eet the eential !arital reponi*ilite an" "utie "ue to o!e p$chological illne(
Re$nal"o/ action at the ti!e o+ the !arriage "i" not !ani+et uch characteritic that
woul" co!prie groun" +or p$chological incapacit$( The e)i"ence hown *$ Rori"el !erel$
howe" that he an" her hu*an" cannot get along with each other an" ha" not hown
gra)it$ o+ the pro*le! neither it ,uri"ical antece"ence nor it incura*ilit$( In a""ition, the
e5pert teti!on$ *$ Dr Sion howe" no incura*le p$chiatric "ior"er *ut onl$
inco!pati*ilit$ which i not coni"ere" a p$chological incapacit$(
The +ollowing are the gui"eline a to the groun" o+ p$chological incapacit$ lai" et +orth in
thi caeM
*ur"en o+ proo+ to how nullit$ *elong to the plaintiA
root caue o+ the incapacit$ !ut *e !e"icall$ an" clinicall$ incline"
uch incapacit$ houl" *e in e5itence at the ti!e o+ the !arriage
uch incapacit$ !ut *e gra)e o a to "ia*le the peron in co!pl$ing with the
eential o+ !arital o*ligation o+ !arriage
uch incapacit$ !ut *e e!*race" in Art( R>2=% a well a Art 667, 66% an" 66' o+
the Fa!il$ 4o"e
"eciion o+ the National Matri!onial Appellate 4ourt or the 4atholic 4hurch !ut *e
repecte"
court hall or"er the proecuting attorne$ an" the .cal aigne" to it to act on
*ehal+ o+ the tate(
____________
VILLANUEVA -.. C'URT 'F APPEALS
FACTS:
Thi i a petition +or re)iew aailing the "eciion o+ the 4ourt o+ Appeal( Orlan" Oillanue)a
wa !arrie" to Lilia 4analita2Oillanue)a in %&>>( Orlan" e)entuall$ .le" +or annul!ent o+ their
!arriage *$ reaon o+ +orce an" "ure e!plo$e" on hi! in or"er to !arr$ Lilia who wa then
pregnant( 1e clai! to ha)e recei)e" haraing phone call an" )iit +ro! three !en( 1e
alo clai! that the ne)er coha*ite" an" that he coul"n/t ha)e i!pregnate" her *e+ore
!arriage an" that the chil" "ie" upon "eli)er$( Lilia howe)er contet that he +reel$ entere"
into the !arriage an" that the$ li)e" together +or one !onth an" he wrote her letter while
he wa in Manila( 1e )iite" her an" -new o+ her pregnanc$ an" the chil" "$ing *ecaue o+
pre!ature *irth( The cae wa "i!ie" an" Orlan" wa or"ere" to pa$ Lilia "a!age(
ISSUE
8hether or not the !arriage !a$ *e annulle"
RULING
The court rule" in the negati)e( The court ai" that it too- Orlan" +our $ear to clai! that he
wa coerce" into the !arriage which then ,uti.e the poi*ilit$ that he i a-ing +or the
annul!ent o+ ai" !arriage *$ reaon o+ a *iga!$ cae he i +acing( Alo, hi *eing a ecurit$
guar" !ut ha)e gi)en hi! proper -nowle"ge when it co!e to "e+en"ing hi!el+ !a-ing
the clai! o+ +orce "ue to +act tate" a*o)e untena*le( Alo, hi clai! that the$ "i" not
coha*it i not a groun" +or the annul!ent o+ !arriage epeciall$ ince he +aile" to pro)e that
thi wa "uet +rau", inti!i"ation, lac- o+ conent an" the other groun" +or annul!ent(
________________
Antonio vs. Re#es
%R No. &''4//+ >arch &/+ .//)
FACTS:
Leonilo Antonio, 6R $ear o+ age, an" Marie I)onne Re$e, ?R $ear o+ age !et in %&>&(
3arel$ a $ear a+ter their .rt !eeting, the$ got !arrie" at Manila 4it$ 1all an" then a
u*e0uent church we""ing at Paig in Dece!*er %&&7( A chil" wa *orn *ut "ie" ' !onth
later( Re$e peritentl$ lie" a*out herel+, the people aroun" her, her occupation, inco!e,
e"ucational attain!ent an" other e)ent or thing( She e)en "i" not conceal *earing an
illegiti!ate chil", which he repreente" to her hu*an" a a"opte" chil" o+ their +a!il$(
The$ were eparate" in Augut %&&% an" a+ter atte!pt +or reconciliation, he .nall$ le+t her +or
%6 | P a g e
goo" in No)e!*er %&&%( Petitioner then .le" in %&&? a petition to ha)e hi !arriage with
Re$e "eclare" null an" )oi" anchore" in Article ?R o+ the Fa!il$ 4o"e(
ISSUE: 8hether Antonio can i!poe Article ?R o+ the Fa!il$ 4o"e a *ai +or "eclaring their
!arriage null an" )oi"(
HELD:
P$chological incapacit$ pertain to the ina*ilit$ to un"ertan" the o*ligation o+ !arriage a
oppoe" to a !ere ina*ilit$ to co!pl$ with the!( The petitioner, ai"e +ro! hi own
teti!on$ preente" a p$chiatrit an" clinical p$chologit who attete" that contant l$ing
an" e5tre!e ,ealou$ o+ Re$e i a*nor!al an" pathological an" corro*orate" hi allegation
on hi wi+e/ *eha)ior, which a!ount to p$chological incapacit$( Repon"ent/ +antatic
a*ilit$ to in)ent, +a*ricate torie an" letter o+ .ctitiou character ena*le" her to li)e in a
worl" o+ !a-e2*elie)e that !a"e her p$chologicall$ incapacitate" a it ren"ere" her
incapa*le o+ gi)ing !eaning an" igni.cance to her !arriage( The root caue o+ Re$e/
p$chological incapacit$ ha)e *een !e"icall$ or clinicall$ i"enti.e" that wa uBcientl$
pro)en *$ e5pert( The gra)it$ o+ repon"ent/ p$chological incapacit$ wa coni"ere" o
gra)e that a retricti)e claue wa appen"e" to the entence o+ nullit$ prohi*ite" *$ the
National Appellate Matri!onial Tri*unal +ro! contracting !arriage without their conent( It
woul" *e "iBcult +or an in)eterate pathological liar to co!!it the *aic tenet o+ relationhip
*etween poue *ae" on lo)e, trut an" repect( Further!ore, Re$e/ cae i incura*le
coni"ering that petitioner trie" to reconcile with her *ut her *eha)ior re!ain unchange"(
1ence, the court conclu"e that petitioner ha eta*lihe" hi caue o+ action +or "eclaration
o+ nullit$ un"er Article ?R o+ the Fa!il$ 4o"e(
__________
MARC'S V. MARC'S
F/,4.
PlaintiA 3ren"a 3( Marco !arrie" 8ilon Marco in %&>6 an" the$ ha" .)e chil"ren( Alleging
that the hu*an" +aile" to pro)i"e !aterial upport to the +a!il$ an" ha)e reorte" to
ph$ical a*ue an" a*an"on!ent, 3ren"a .le" a cae +or the nullit$ o+ the !arriage +or
p$chological incapacit$( The RT4 "eclare" the !arriage null an" )oi" un"er Art( ?R which
wa howe)er re)ere" *$ 4A(
I..!#.
8hether peronal !e"ical or p$chological e5a!ination o+ the repon"ent *$ a ph$ician i a
re0uire!ent +or a "eclaration o+ p$chological incapacit$(
8hether the totalit$ o+ e)i"ence preente" in thi cae how p$chological incapacit$(
H#*0
P$chological incapacit$ a a groun" +or "eclaring the nullit$ o+ a !arriage, !a$ *e
eta*lihe" *$ the totalit$ o+ e)i"ence preente"( There i no re0uire!ent, howe)er that the
repon"ent *e e5a!ine" *$ a ph$ician or a p$chologit a a con"ition ine 0ua non +or
uch "eclaration( Although thi 4ourt i uBcientl$ con)ince" that repon"ent +aile" to
pro)i"e !aterial upport to the +a!il$ an" !a$ ha)e reorte" to ph$ical a*ue an"
a*an"on!ent, the totalit$ o+ hi act "oe not lea" to a concluion o+ p$chological
incapacit$ on hi part( There i a*olutel$ no howing that hi F"e+ectG were alrea"$ preent
at the inception o+ the !arriage or that the$ are incura*le( Oeril$, the *eha)ior o+ repon"ent
can *e attri*ute" to the +act that he ha" lot hi ,o* an" wa not gain+ull$ e!plo$e" +or a
perio" o+ !ore than i5 $ear( It wa "uring thi perio" that he *eca!e inter!ittentl$ "run-,
+aile" to gi)e !aterial an" !oral upport, an" e)en le+t the +a!il$ ho!e( Thu, hi allege"
p$chological illne wa trace" onl$ to ai" perio" an" not to the inception o+ the !arriage(
E0uall$ i!portant, there i no e)i"ence howing that hi con"ition i incura*le, epeciall$
now that he i gain+ull$ e!plo$e" a a ta5i "ri)er( In u!, thi 4ourt cannot "eclare the
"iolution o+ the !arriage +or +ailure o+ the petitioner to how that the allege" p$chological
incapacit$ i characteri;e" *$ gra)it$, ,uri"ical antece"ence an" incura*ilit$ an" +or her
+ailure to o*er)e the gui"eline a outline in Repu*lic )( 4A an" Molina(
__________
MARC'S V MARC'S $>$ SCRA 755 'CT'BER 1;, 2%%%
FACTS:
P$chological incapacit$, a a groun" +or "eclaring nullit$ o+ !arriage, !a$ *e eta*lihe"
*$ the totalit$ o+ e)i"ence preente"( There i no re0uire!ent that the repon"ent houl" *e
e5a!ine" a ph$ician or p$chologit a a con"itio ine 0ua non +or uch "eclaration
Septe!*er R, %&>6 E 3ren"a Marco IpetitionerJ an" 8ilonMarco Irepon"entJ
!arrie" *e+ore Paig MT4 an" Ma$ >, %&>? !arrie" again *e+ore Re)( E"uar"o
Ealea;ar Ico!!an" chaplainJ@ ha" ' chil"ren
1u*an" ha no wor-, o+ten 0uarrel an" *eat her an" the chil"ren( 1e woul" e)en
+orce her to ha)e e5 with hi!( In %&&6, the$ were li)ing eparatel$
Octo*er %=, %&&H E petitioner le+t with her chil"ren *ecaue repon"ent turne"
)iolent@ un"erwent !e"ical e5a! contuion "ue to ph$ical )iolence
Augut %&&' E petitioner went *ac- to get !iing chil" *ut wa chae" *$
repon"ent with a!urai
Social wor-er Sonia Millan/ tu"$ in"icate" that their chil"ren "ecri*e" their +ather
a cruel an" ph$icall$ a*ui)e
Dr Nati)i"a" Da$an Ip$chologitJ e)aluate" the appellee while appellant "i" not
RT4 +oun" repon"ent to *e p$chologicall$ incapacitate" *ut 4A re)ere" the
"eciion *ecaue p$chological incapacit$ ha not *een eta*lihe" uBcientl$ *$
the e)i"ence preente"
ISSUE:
8hether or not the e)i"ence preente" in the ai" cae are u*tanti)e an" uBcient in
ruling nullit$ o+ !arriage@ 8hether the teti!on$ o+ e5pert witne i re0uire"
HELD: Although the repon"ent +aile" to pro)i"e !aterial upport to the +a!il$, *eca!e
a*ui)e an" a*an"one" the!, the totalit$ o+ hi act "oe not lea" to a concluion o+
p$chological incapacit$ on hi part( There i a*olutel$ no howing that hi F"e+ectG were
alrea"$ preent at the ti!e o+ the !arriage or that it i incura*le( 1i allege" p$chological
illne wa onl$ trace" to the ti!e he lot hi ,o* an" not at the inception o+ the !arriage(
Art ?R o+ Fa!il$ 4o"e i not to *e con+ue" with "i)orce law that cut the !arital *on" at the
ti!e the caue !ani+et the!el)e( It re+er to a eriou p$chological illne aUicting a
part at the ti!e o+ the !arriage an" i o gra)e an" per!anent a to "epri)e one o+
%? | P a g e
awarene o+ the "utie an" reponi*ilitie o+ the !atri!onial *on" pro)i"e" in Art R> to =%,
667, 66% an" 66' o+ Fa!il$ 4o"e(
Neither i Article ?R to *e e0uate" with legal eparation, in which the groun" nee" not *e
roote" in p$chological incapacit$ *ut on ph$ical )iolence, !oral preure, !oral corruption,
ci)il inter"iction, "rug a""iction, ha*itual alcoholi!, e5ual in."elit$, a*an"on!ent an" the
li-e( At *et, the e)i"ence preente" *$ petitioner re+er onl$ to groun" +or legal eparation,
not +or "eclaring a !arriage )oi"( 3ecaue Article ?R ha *een a*ue" a a con)enient
"i)orce law, thi 4ourt lai" "own the proce"ural re0uire!ent +or it in)ocation in Molina(
Petitioner, howe)er, ha not +aith+ull$ o*er)e" the!( PETITION DENIED(
G.R. No. 17$1$8
B/,,/: -. B/,,/: /"0 R#(!)*+,
FACTS:
Noel an" Mari*el were weetheart( 1e +oun" Mari*el9 no**ih an" har"2to get trait
attracti)e(
Aroun" %&&=, he "eci"e" to *rea- up with Mari*el *ecaue he wa alrea"$ in)ol)e" with
another wo!an( The$ agree" to ee each other on a +rien"l$ *ai *ut the two ha" e)eral
ro!antic epio"e(
In No)e!*er %&&>, Mari*el in+or!e" Noel that he wa pregnant with hi chil"( Npon a")ice
o+ hi !other, Noel gru"gingl$ !arrie" Mari*el( The two li)e" on Noel9 +a!il$( Mari*el
re!aine" aloo+ an" "i"n9t contri*ute to hi +a!il$9 coAer( She re+ue" to ha)e e5 with hi!(
So!eti!e in %&&&, Noel an" Mari*el ha" an intene 0uarrel a*out Mari*el9 allege"
!icarriage cauing the latter to lea)e the houe an" ne)er ca!e *ac-(
Noel .le" a petition +or "eclaration o+ nullit$ o+ !arriage with the RT4 o+ Manila( RT4 "eclare"
the !arriage null an" )oi" on the groun" o+ Mari*el9 allege" p$chological incapacit$( Ne"$
L( Ta$ag, a clinical p$chologit who preente" a Noel9 witne, +oun" Mari*el una*le to
per+or! the eential !arital o*ligation o+ !arriage "ue to a Narciitic Peronalit$
Dior"er(
ISSUE:
8hether or not the !arriage *etween Noel an" Mari*el null an" )oi" un"er Article ?R o+ the
Fa!il$ 4o"e(
RULING:
No( Noel +aile" to pro)i"e uBcient e)i"ence to utain a .n"ing that Mari*el wa
p$chologicall$ incapacitate"( Noel9 e)i"ence !erel$ eta*lihe" that Mari*el re+ue" to
ha)e e5ual intercoure with hi! a+ter their !arriage, an" that he le+t hi! a+ter their 0uarrel
when he con+ronte" her a*out her allege" !icarriage( The p$chologit +aile" to eta*lih
that Mari*el9 allege" Narciitic Peronalit$ Dior"er incapacitate" her +ro! )ali"l$
au!ing the eential o*ligation o+ the !arriage( The a!e p$chologit e)en teti.e" that
Mari*el wa capa*le o+ entering into !arriage e5cept that it woul" *e "iBcult +or her to
utain one( Mere "iBcult$, it !ut *e tree", i not the incapacit$ conte!plate" un"er the
Article ?R o+ the Fa!il$ 4o"e(
P$chological incapacit$ !ut *e !ore than ,ut a V"iBcult$,V a Vre+ual,V or a VneglectV in
the per+or!ance o+ o!e !arital o*ligation( An unati+actor$ !arriage i not a null an"
)oi" !arriage(
MMMMMMMMMMM
,E,E$ 0S CA
Art 46 compared with P+
In %&RR, Da)i" an" Sharon !arrie" each other( The$/)e ha" +our chil"ren ince then( Da)i"
then +oun" out that Sharon i irreponi*le a a wi+e an" a a !other *ecaue "uring the
!arriage Sharon ha" e5tra2!arital aAair with )ariou other gu$ particularl$ with one
Muta+a I*rahi!, a #or"anian, with who! he ha" 6 chil"ren( She e)en !arrie" I*rahi!(
Da)i" a)erre" that Sharon i p$chologicall$ incapacitate" an" Da)i" u*!itte" the .n"ing
o+ Dr( Da$an which how that Sharon i in"ee" p$chologicall$ incapacitate"( Dr( Da$an
"eclare" that Sharon wa uAering +ro! Anti2Social Peronalit$ Dior"er e5hi*ite" *$ her
*latant "ipla$ o+ in."elit$@ that he co!!itte" e)eral in"icretion an" ha" no capacit$ +or
re!ore, e)en *ringing with her the two chil"ren o+ Muta+a I*rahi! to li)e with petitioner(
Such i!!aturit$ an" irreponi*ilit$ in han"ling the !arriage li-e her repeate" act o+
in."elit$ an" a*an"on!ent o+ her +a!il$ are in"ication o+ Anti2Social Peronalit$ Dior"er
a!ounting to p$chological incapacit$ to per+or! the eential o*ligation o+ !arriage(
ISSUE: 8hether or not PI ha *een pro)en(
HELD:
PI i not pro)en in court in thi cae( The e)i"ence i not uBcient( PI i inten"e" to the !ot
eriou cae o+ peronalit$ "ior"er which !a-e one *e incapa*le o+ per+or!ing the
eential !arital o*ligation( Sharon/ e5ual in."elit$ "oe not contitute PI nor "oe it
contitute the other +or! o+ p$choe which i+ e5iting at the inception o+ !arriage, li-e the
tate o+ a part$ *eing o+ unoun" !in" or conceal!ent o+ "rug a""iction, ha*itual alcoholi!,
ho!oe5ualit$ or le*iani!, !erel$ ren"er the !arriage contract )oi"a*le puruant to
Article HR, Fa!il$ 4o"e( I+ "rug a""iction, ha*itual alcoholi!, le*iani! or ho!oe5ualit$
houl" occur onl$ "uring the !arriage, the$ *eco!e !ere groun" +or legal eparation un"er
Article '' o+ the Fa!il$ 4o"e( Thee pro)iion, howe)er, "o not necearil$ preclu"e the
poi*ilit$ o+ thee )ariou circu!tance *eing the!el)e, "epen"ing on the "egree an"
e)erit$ o+ the "ior"er, in"icia o+ p$chological incapacit$( Se5ual in."elit$ i not one o+
thoe conte!plate" in law( Nntil +urther tatutor$ or ,uripru"ential para!eter are et or
eta*lihe", SI cannot *e appreciate" in +a)or o+ the "iolution o+ !arriage(
%H | P a g e
_______
LUCITA ESTRELLA HERNANDEN vs. C'URT 'F APPEALS /"0 MARI' C. HERNANDEN
G.R. No. 129%1%. D#,#6)#2 8, 1;;;
Lucita Etrella !arrie" Mario 1ernan"e; on #anuar$ %, %&>% an" the$ *egot three I?J chil"ren(
On #ul$ %7, %&&6, Lucita .le" *e+ore the RT4 o+ Taga$ta$ 4it$, a petition +or annul!ent o+
!arriage un"er Article ?R alleging that +ro! the ti!e o+ their !arriage, Mario +aile" to
per+or! hi o*ligation to upport the +a!il$, "e)oting !ot o+ thi ti!e "rin-ing, ha" aAair
with !an$ wo!en an" coha*iting with another wo!en with who! he ha" an illegiti!ate
chil", an" .nall$ a*an"oning her an" the +a!il$(
ISSUE: 8hether there wa p$chological incapacit$ un"er Article( ?R
HELD. No(
RATI':
1a*itual alcoholi!, e5ual in."elit$ or per)erion, an" a*an"on!ent "o not *$
the!el)e contitute groun" +or "eclaring a !arriage )oi" *ae" on p$chological
incapacit$( It !ut *e hown that thee +act are !ani+etation o+ a "icolore"
peronalit$ which !a-e pri)ate repon"ent co!pletel$ una*le to "icharge the eential
o*ligation o+ the !arital tate, an" not !erel$ "ue to pri)ate repon"ent/ $outh an"
el+2conciou +eeling o+ *eing han"o!e, a the appellate court hel"(
E5pert teti!on$ houl" *e preente" to eta*lih the precie caue o+ the p$chological
incapacit$ to how that it e5ite" at the ti!e o+ the !arriage( The *ur"en o+ proo+ to
how the nullit$ o+ the !arriage ret upon petitioner( The 4ourt i !in"+ul o+ the polic$
o+ the %&>= 4ontitution to protect an" trengthen the +a!il$ a the *aic autono!ou
ocial intitution an" !arriage a the +oun"ation o+ the +a!il$( Thu, an$ "ou*t houl" *e
reol)e" in +a)or o+ the )ali"it$ o+ the !arriage(
__________
PEREB 0S FERRARIS
Article ,6E Ps&chological +ncapacit&
Ar!i"a an" 3ri5 are a how*i; couple( The couple/ relationhip *e+ore the !arriage an"
e)en "uring their *rie+ union I+or well a*out a $ear or oJ wa not all *a"( During that
relati)el$ hort perio" o+ ti!e, Ar!i"a wa happ$ an" contente" with her li+e in the
co!pan$ o+ 3ri5( Ar!i"a e)en a"!it that 3ri5 wa a reponi*le an" lo)ing hu*an"(
Their pro*le! *egan when Ar!i"a tarte" "ou*ting 3ri5/ ."elit$( It wa onl$ when the$
tarte" .ghting a*out the call +ro! wo!en that 3ri5 *egan to with"raw into hi hell
an" corner, an" +aile" to per+or! hi o2calle" !arital o*ligation( 3ri5 coul" not
un"ertan" Ar!i"a/ lac- o+ trut in hi! an" her contant nagging( 1e thought her
upicion irrational( 3ri5 coul" not relate to her anger, te!per an" ,ealou$( Ar!i"a
preente" a p$chological e5pert IDr( Da$anJ who .n" 3ri5 to *e a chi;oi" an" a
"epen"ent an" a)oi"ant t$pe( Thi i e)i"ence" *$ 3ri5/
Flea)ing2the2houeG attitu"e whene)er the$ 0uarrele", the )iolent ten"encie "uring
epileptic attac-, the e5ual in."elit$, the a*an"on!ent an" lac- o+ upport, an" hi
pre+erence to pen" !ore ti!e with hi *an" !ate than hi +a!il$(
ISSUE: 8hether or not PI i atten"ant in the cae at *ar(
HELD: The S4 uphel" the "eciion o+ the lower court( The allege" !i5e" peronalit$
"ior"er, the Flea)ing2the2houeG attitu"e whene)er the$ 0uarrele", the )iolent
ten"encie "uring epileptic attac-, the e5ual in."elit$, the a*an"on!ent an" lac- o+
upport, an" hi pre+erence to pen" !ore ti!e with hi *an" !ate than hi +a!il$, are
not roote" on o!e "e*ilitating p$chological con"ition *ut a !ere re+ual or
unwillingne to au!e the eential o*ligation o+ !arriage an" thee "o not
contitute PI( Further, the e5pert wa not a*le to pro)e her .n"ing( Nota*l$, when a-e"
a to the root caue o+ repon"ent/ allege" p$chological incapacit$, Dr( Da$an/ anwer
wa )ague, e)ai)e an" inconclui)e( She replie" that uch "ior"er Fcan *e part o+ hi
+a!il$ up*ringingG She tate" that there wa a hitor$ o+ 3ri5/ parent ha)ing "iBcultie
in their relationhip2 thi i o+ coure inconclui)e +or uch ha no "irect *earing to the
cae at *ar(
8hat i p$chological incapacit$T
The ter! Fp$chological incapacit$G to *e a groun" +or the nullit$ o+ !arriage un"er
Article ?R o+ the Fa!il$ 4o"e, re+er to a eriou p$chological illne aUicting a part$
e)en *e+ore the cele*ration o+ the !arriage( It i a !ala"$ o gra)e an" o per!anent
a to "epri)e one o+ awarene o+ the "utie an" reponi*ilitie o+ the !atri!onial *on"
one i a*out to au!e( A all people !a$ ha)e certain 0uir- an" i"io$ncraie, or
iolate" characteritic aociate" with certain peronalit$ "ior"er, there i har"l$ an$
"ou*t that the inten"!ent o+ the law ha *een to con.ne the !eaning o+ Fp$chological
incapacit$G to the !ot eriou cae o+ peronalit$ "ior"er clearl$ "e!ontrati)e o+
an utter ineniti)it$ or ina*ilit$ to gi)e !eaning an" igni.cance to the !arriage( It i
+or thi reaon that the 4ourt rel$ hea)il$ on p$chological e5pert +or it un"ertan"ing
o+ the hu!an peronalit$( 1owe)er, the root caue !ut *e i"enti.e" a a p$chological
illne an" it incapacitating nature !ut *e +ull$ e5plaine" in court(
%' | P a g e
TUAS'N -. C'URT 'F APPEALS
FACTS
Maria Tuaon an" E!ilio Tuaon were a !arrie" in %&=6 an" thi relationhip pro"uce"
chil"ren( Maria now clai! that E!ilio !ani+ete" p$chological incapacit$ through )iolence
cauing her ph$ical in,urie an" "rug ue which caue hi! a upen"e" penalt$( Maria then
.le" a petition +or annul!ent *$ reaon o+ thi( Tuaon repon"e" with "enial tating that
their relationhip wa li)e" in har!on$ until o!e "iAerence !ani+ete" the!el)e( The
!arriage wa annulle" an" e)entuall$ Maria .le" +or a"!initration o+ con,ugal propertie
which E!ilio oppoe"( 1i counel a-e" the court to ha)e the hearing !o)e" *ecaue the
counel wa out o+ the countr$( On the "a$ o+ the hearing E!ilio +aile" to how up an" o he
wa "eclare" to ha)e wai)e" hi right to preent e)i"ence( The court "eclare" the !arriage
null an" )oi"( Maria then .le" a FMotion +or Diolution o+ 4on,ugal Partnerhip o+ :ain an"
A",u"ication to PlaintiA o+ the 4on,ugal PropertieG which wa e)entuall$ contete" *$ E!ilio
an" he later on .le" +or relie+ +ro! the "eciion o+ the court( Thi wa "enie" an" the 4A
aBr!e" thi "eciion(
ISSUE
8hether or not E!ilio !a$ clai! +or relie+ +ro! the ,u"g!ent o+ the 4A
RULING
The court rule" in the negati)e( It i necear$ when atte!pting to ha)e a .nal ,u"g!ent et
ai"e to *e ,uti.e" *$ +rau", acci"ent or !ita-e( In thi cae it wa the negligence o+
petitioner which caue" hi +ailure to preent e)i"ence( 1e clai! that it wa +or !e"ical
reaon that he wa not a*le to !a-e it to the hearing *ut +ailure to noti+$ counel i not the
+ault o+ the court( 1e wa gi)en the chance to *e in court *ut he negligentl$ threw awa$ thi
chance( 1e cannot *la!e the court +or thi *ecaue ai" "eciion wa well within "ue proce
o+ law( Thi !ean, he cannot clai! relie+ +ro! ,u"g!ent
______________
Te vs. Te
%R No. &)&@(A+ Februar# &A+ .//(
FACTS:
Petitioner E"war" Te .rt !et repon"ent Rowena Te in a gathering organi;e" *$ the Filipino2
4hinee aociation in their college( Initiall$, he wa attracte" to Rowena/ cloe +rien" *ut,
a the latter alrea"$ ha" a *o$+rien", the $oung !an "eci"e" to court Rowena, which
happene" in #anuar$ %&&R( It wa Rowena who a-e" that the$ elope *ut E"war" re+ue"
*ic-ering that he wa $oung an" ,o*le( 1er peritence, howe)er, !a"e hi! relent( The$
le+t Manila an" aile" to 4e*u that !onth@ he, pro)i"ing their tra)el !one$ o+ P>7,777 an"
he, purchaing the *oat tic-et(
The$ "eci"e" to go *ac- to Manila in April %&&R( Rowena procee"e" to her uncle/ houe an"
E"war" to hi parent/ ho!e( E)entuall$ the$ got !arrie" *ut without a !arriage licene(
E"war" wa prohi*ite" +ro! getting out o+ the houe unacco!panie" an" wa threatene" *$
Rowena an" her uncle( A+ter a !onth, E"war" ecape" +ro! the houe, an" ta$e" with hi
parent( E"war"/ parent wante" the! to ta$ at their houe *ut Rowena re+ue" an"
"e!an"e" that the$ ha)e a eparate a*o"e( In #une %&&R, he ai" that it wa *etter +or
the! to li)e eparate li)e an" the$ then parte" wa$(
A+ter +our $ear in #anuar$ 6777, E"war" .le" a petition +or the annul!ent o+ hi !arriage to
Rowena on the *ai o+ the latter/ p$chological incapacit$(
ISSUE: 8hether the !arriage contracte" i )oi" on the groun" o+ p$chological incapacit$(
HELD:
The partie/ whirlwin" relationhip late" !ore or le i5 !onth( The$ !et in #anuar$ %&&R,
elope" in March, e5change" !arital )ow in Ma$, an" parte" wa$ in #une( The p$chologit
who pro)i"e" e5pert teti!on$ +oun" *oth partie p$chologicall$ incapacitate"( Petitioner/
*eha)ioral pattern +all un"er the clai.cation o+ 0#(#"0#"4 (#2.o"/*+4: 0+.o20#2, /"0
2#.(o"0#"4?., 45/4 o3 45# "/2,+..+.4+, /"0 /"4+.o,+/* (#2.o"/*+4: 0+.o20#2
T5#2# +. "o 2#G!+2#6#"4 45/4 45# (#2.o" 4o )# 0#,*/2#0 (.:,5o*o1+,/**:
+",/(/,+4/4#0 )# (#2.o"/**: #C/6+"#0 ): / (5:.+,+/", +3 45# 4o4/*+4: o3 #-+0#",#
(2#.#"4#0 +. #"o!15 4o .!.4/+" / E"0+"1 o3 (.:,5o*o1+,/* +",/(/,+4:( Oeril$, the
e)i"ence !ut how a lin-, !e"ical or the li-e, *etween the act that !ani+et p$chological
incapacit$ an" the p$chological "ior"er itel+(
The preentation o+ e5pert proo+ preuppoe a thorough an" in2"epth ae!ent o+ the
partie *$ the p$chologit or e5pert, +or a conclui)e "iagnoi o+ a gra)e, e)ere an"
incura*le preence o+ p$chological incapacit$(
In"ee", petitioner, aUicte" with "epen"ent peronalit$ "ior"er, cannot au!e the
eential !arital o*ligation o+ li)ing together, o*er)ing lo)e, repect an" ."elit$ an"
ren"ering help an" upport, +or he i una*le to !a-e e)er$"a$ "eciion without a")ice +ro!
other, an" allow other to !a-e !ot o+ hi i!portant "eciion Iuch a where to li)eJ( A
clearl$ hown in thi cae, petitioner +ollowe" e)er$thing "ictate" to hi! *$ the peron
aroun" hi!( 1e i inecure, wea- an" gulli*le, ha no ene o+ hi i"entit$ a a peron, ha no
cohei)e el+ to pea- o+, an" ha no goal an" clear "irection in li+e(
%R | P a g e
A +or the repon"ent, her *eing aUicte" with antiocial peronalit$ "ior"er !a-e her
una*le to au!e the eential !arital o*ligation on account +or her "iregar" in the right
o+ other, her a*ue, !itreat!ent an" control o+ other without re!ore, an" her ten"enc$
to *la!e other( Moreo)er, a hown in thi cae, repon"ent i i!puli)e an" "o!ineering@
he ha" no 0ual! in !anipulating petitioner with her threat o+ *lac-!ail an" o+ co!!itting
uici"e(
3oth partie *eing aUicte" with gra)e, e)ere an" incura*le p$chological incapacit$, the
precipitou !arriage that the$ contracte" on April 6?, %&&R i thu, "eclare" null an" )oi"(
________
CARATINGLSIAKNGC' -. SIAKNGC'
FACTS
Thi i a petition +or re)iew on certiorari o+ the "eciion o+ the 4ourt o+ Appeal(
#uanita 4arating Sia$ngco wa !arrie" to Manuel Sia$ngco( Their !arriage "i" not pro"uce
chil"ren howe)er, the a"opte" a *o$( Manuel, a+ter *eing !arrie" +or 6H $ear .le" a petition
to the court ee-ing the nulli.cation o+ their !arriage *$ reaon o+ p$chological incapacit$
e5hi*ite" through o)er "o!ineering attitu"e an" cauing hi! e!*arra!ent an"
hu!iliation( The lower court "enie" hi petition( The 4A on the other han" re)ere" the
"eciion rel$ing on the "octor/ .n"ing that *ith partie are p$chologicall$ incapacitate"(
ISSUE
8hether or not one or *oth o+ the partie were pro)en p$chologicall$ incapacitate"
uBcient to warrant the nulli.cation o+ their !arriage(
RULING
The court rule" in the negati)e( Manuel/ relationhip with another wa caue" !erel$ *$ hi
e5ual in."elit$ which "oe not +all within the pur)iew o+ p$chological incapacit$( Thi act i
caue" *$ hi "eire to ha)e chil"ren which he hi!el+ a"!itte"( The teti!onie o+ the
"octor +aile" to how that thi in."elit$ i caue" *$ a p$chological illne or "ior"er( It i
necear$ that it hi *$ reaon o+ a p$chological "ior"er that he will *e co!pletel$ una*le
to per+or! hi !arital o*ligation(
8ith regar" to #uanita, Manuel +aile" to how that her action contitute p$chological
incapacit$ that woul" ren"er her una*le to per+or! her !arital o*ligation an" that a "octor
ha in +act tate" otherwie( The e)i"ence a""uce" +aile" to how uBcientl$ that the couple
or either o+ the poue were p$chologicall$ incapacitate", rather it howe" that the$ were
!erel$ ha)ing the !arital trou*le o+ *eco!ing tranger to each other an" wanting to get
out o+ it( The !arriage thu cannot *e "eclare" null an" )oi"(
___
SIAKNGC' V SIAKNGC' >>1 SCRA >22 'CT'BER 27, 2%%>
FACTS: A petition +or re)iew on certiorari o+ the "eciion o+ the 4ourt o+ Appeal
pro!ulgate" on 7% #ul$ 677?, re)ering the "eciion
6
o+ the Regional Trial 4ourt IRT4J, 3ranch
%76, Wue;on 4it$, "ate" ?% #anuar$ 677%, which "i!ie" the petition +or "eclaration o+
nullit$ o+ !arriage .le" *$ repon"ent herein #u"ge Manuel Sia$ngco
Augut %%, %&=? E #uanita 4arating IpetitionerJ !arrie" Manuel Sia$ngco
Irepon"entJ ci)il rite an" church on #une 6=, %&=?( A"opte" *a*$ *o$
Septe!*er 6', %&&= E repon"ent .le" +or "eclaration o+ nullit$ *ae" on Art ?R@
petitioner wa o)er "o!ineering, el.h, )olatile, nagger an" tri)ial( No repect +or
hi poition a ,u"ge( Thi i roote" in her "eep2eate" reent!ent +ro! lac- o+ lo)e
an" appreciation +ro! her parent
Accor"ing to petitioner, repon"ent i l$ing *ecaue he want to *e with hi
para!our
Repon"ent preente" Dr Oalentina :arcia Ip$chiatritJ@ +ro! her p$chiatric
e)aluation, *oth ha" narciitic p$chological repertoire Ialong with their other
!ala"apti)e traitJ, +aile" to a"e0uatel$ e!pathi;e Ior to *e reponi)e an"
eniti)eJ to each other/ nee" an" +eeling
3ae" on the p$chiatric report o+ Dr E"uar"o Maa*a, petitioner i p$chologicall$
capacitate" to co!pl$ with eential !arital o*ligation
#anuar$ ?%, 677% E RT4 "enie" petition +or nullit$ *ae" on inuBcient e)i"ence
#ul$ %, 677? E 4A re)ere" RT4 "eciion *ae" on p$chiatric report o+ Dr :arcia that
*oth are p$chologicall$ incapacitate" an" on the cae o+ 4hi Ming Toi ) 4A
ISSUE: 8hether root caue o+ p$chological incapacit$ wa i"enti.e" *ae" on Molina
gui"eline X6
%= | P a g e
HELD: 3ae" on the report o+ Dr( :arcia a well a +ro! the teti!onie o+ the partie an"
their witnee i that the onl$ eential !arital o*ligation which repon"ent Manuel wa not
a*le to +ul.ll, i+ an$, i the o*ligation o+ ."elit$( Se5ual in."elit$, per e, howe)er, "oe not
contitute p$chological incapacit$ within the conte!plation o+ the Fa!il$ 4o"e( It !ut *e
hown that repon"ent Manuel/ un+aith+ulne i a !ani+etation o+ a "ior"ere" peronalit$
which !a-e hi! co!pletel$ una*le to "icharge the eential o*ligation o+ the !arital
tate an" not !erel$ "ue to hi ar"ent wih to ha)e a chil" o+ hi own Peh an" *loo"(
Repon"ent +aile" to pro)e that hi wi+e/ *eha)ior an" action are gra)e p$chological
!ala"ie that paral$;e her +ro! co!pl$ing with the eential o*ligation o+ !arriage( Neither
i there an$ howing that thee V"e+ectV were alrea"$ preent at the inception o+ the
!arriage or that the$ are incura*le( In +act, Dr( Maa*a, whoe e5pertie a a p$chiatrit wa
a"!itte" *$ repon"ent Manuel, reporte" that petitioner wa p$chologicall$ capacitate" to
co!pl$ with the *aic an" eential o*ligation o+ !arriage( Dr( :arcia/ report "oe not
e)en !ention that petitioner i p$chologicall$ incapacitate"( PETITION :RANTED( 4A
DE4ISION 8AS REOERSED
_________
REPUBLIC V CABANTUGLBAGUI' G.R. N'. 171%>2 JUNE $%, 2%%8
FA4TSM Petition +or re)iew on the "eclaration o+ the nullit$ o+ !arriage *etween L$nette
4a*antug23aguio an" Martini Dico 3aguio
Augut %6, %&&= E L$nette an" Martini were !arrie" a+ter *eing pen pal ince %&&'
Initiall$, the couple ta$e" with L$nette/ parent( Martini onl$ ta$e" with hi wi+e
"uring wee-en", an" on wee-"a$ he wa at hi parent/ houe( L$nette oon
"ico)ere" that Martini wa a F!a!a/ *o$G
Npon the initence o+ Martini/ !other, hi allot!ent wa "i)i"e" e0uall$ *etween
her an" L$nette
#anuar$ %&&& E No in+or!ation a*out Martini( L$nette alo toppe" recei)ing her
hare o+ the allot!ent an" upon in0uir$ with Martini/ e!plo$er, he +oun" out that
he wa in Ala*ang, Muntinlupa
Octo*er %6, 6777 E L$nette .le" a co!plaint +or the "eclaration o+ the nullit$ o+
!arriage on the *ai o+ Martini/ p$chological incapacit$ to co!pl$ with the
eential !arital "utie an" o*ligation a tate" in Art( R>2=7 o+ the Fa!il$ 4o"e
Su!!on were er)e" upon Martini to which he "i" not .le an$ repone( No
colluion wa alo eta*lihe"(
Octo*er %H, %&&& E L$nette learne" that Martini "eclare" in hi e!plo$!ent recor"
that he wa SIN:LE an" na!e" hi !other a principal allotee
Repon"ent preente" the letter o+ clinical p$chologit who e)aluate" the *eha)ior
o+ Martini( 3ae" on the report, Martini how i!!ature peronalit$ "ior"er,
"epen"enc$ pattern an" el+2centere" !oti)e( The ituation i eriou, gra)e,
e5iting alrea"$ "uring the a"olecent perio" an" incura*le( A uch, Martini i
p$chologicall$ incapacitate" to co!pl$ with the eential o*ligation in !arriage
an" +a!il$
#anuar$ 6, 6776 E 4e*u 4it$ RT4 "eclare" that !arriage )oi" ince Martini wa
p$chologicall$ incapacitate" to co!pl$ with the eential !artial o*ligation o+
!arriage an" that a!e incapacit$ e5ite" at the ti!e o+ the cele*ration o+ the
!arriage
ISSUE: 8hether or not Martini/ *eing a F!a!a/ *o$G contitute a a p$chological
incapacit$ un"er Art( ?R o+ the Fa!il$ 4o"e
HELD: Art( ?R houl" not *e con+ue" with a "i)orce law that cut the !aterial *on" at the
ti!e the caue !ani+et the!el)e, nor with legal eparation in which the groun" nee"
not *e roote" in p$chological incapacit$ *ut on ph$ical )iolence, !oral preure, !oral
corruption, ci)il inter"iction, "rug a""iction, ha*itual alcoholi! e5ual in."elit$,
a*an"on!ent an" the li-e(
The ter! Vp$chological incapacit$V to *e a groun" +or the nullit$ o+ !arriage un"er Article ?R
o+ the Fa!il$ 4o"e, re+er to a eriou p$chological illne aUicting a part$ e)en *e+ore the
cele*ration o+ the !arriage( It i a !ala"$ o gra)e an" o per!anent a to "epri)e one o+
awarene o+ the "utie an" reponi*ilitie o+ the !atri!onial *on" one i a*out to au!e(
A all people !a$ ha)e certain 0uir- an" i"io$ncraie, or iolate" characteritic
aociate" with certain peronalit$ "ior"er, there i har"l$ a "ou*t that the inten"!ent o+
the law ha *een to con.ne the !eaning o+ Vp$chological incapacit$V to the !ot eriou
cae o+ peronalit$ "ior"er clearl$ "e!ontrati)e o+ an utter ineniti)it$ or ina*ilit$ to
gi)e !eaning an" igni.cance to the !arriage( CTDhe root caue !ut *e i"enti.e" a a
p$chological illne, an" it incapacitating nature !ut *e +ull$ e5plaine"(
For p$chological incapacit$ to ren"er a !arriage )oi" a* initio it !ut *e characteri;e" *$M
%( :ra)it$ E !ut *e gra)e an" eriou uch that the part$ woul" *e incapa*le o+
carr$ing out the or"inar$ "utie re0uire" in a !arriage
%> | P a g e
6( #uri"ical antece"ence E it !ut *e roote" in the hitor$ o+ the part$ ante"ating the
!arriage, although o)ert !ani+etation !a$ e!erge onl$ a+ter the !arriage
?( Incura*ilit$ E !ut *e incura*le, or e)en i+ it were otherwie, the cure woul" *e
*e$on" the !ean o+ the part$ in)ol)e"
In petition +or the "eclaration o+ nullit$ o+ !arriage, the *ur"en o+ pro)ing the nullit$ o+
!arriage lie on the plaintiA( An$ "ou*t houl" *e reol)e" in +a)or o+ the e5itence an"
continuation o+ the !arriage, an" againt the "iolution an" nullit$ Ie!per praeu!itur pro
!atri!onioJ
A een in thi cae, L$nette +aile" to pro)i"e uBcient e)i"ence to pro)e Martini/
p$chological incapacit$( 8hile the court $!pathi;e with her pre"ication, it .rt an"
+ore!ot "ut$ i to appl$ the law(
______________
M#"0o7/ -. R#(!)*+,, G.R. No. 15785>, No-#6)#2 12, 2%12
F/,4.:
Ara*elle an" Do!inic Men"o;a got !arrie" while Ara*elle wa eight !onth pregnant( The$
li)e" together *ut "epen"e" on their parent +or .nancial upport( Ara*elle ha" "iAerent ,o*
to upport the nee" o+ the +a!il$( 8hen Do!inic got e!plo$e" +or To$ota in 3el2Air Ma-ati in
%&&H, he pent hi .rt alar$ cele*rating with hi +rien"( Septe!*er o+ the a!e $ear,
Ara*elle +oun" out o+ Do!inic/ illicit relationhip with Yai"a, hi co2e!plo$ee(
4o!!unication *etween the! *eca!e rare an" the$ tarte" leeping in eparate roo!( In
No)e!*er %&&', Do!inic ga)e her a car a a *irth"a$ preent onl$ to .n" out that he "i" not
pa$ +or it, +orcing her to rel$ on her +ather2in2law +or the pa$!ent o+ the car( Do!inic
e)entuall$ got .re" +ro! hi ,o* *ecaue o+ he ran awa$ with P%RH,777 *elonging to hi
e!plo$er( 1e wa charge" with eta+a( Petitioner alo +oun" out that he win"le" !an$ o+ hi
client o!e o+ the! threatening her an" their +a!il$( On Octo*er %', %&&=, Do!inic
a*an"one" the con,ugal a*o"e *ecaue petitioner a-e" hi! +or Fti!e an" pace to thin-
thing o)er(G A !onth later, he re+ue" hi atte!pt at reconciliation, cauing hi! to threaten
to co!!it uici"e( She an" her +a!il$ i!!e"iatel$ le+t the houe to li)e in another place
conceale" +ro! hi!( On Augut ', %&&>, petitioner .le" in the RT4 her petition +or the
"eclaration o+ the nullit$ o+ her !arriage with Do!inic *ae" on hi p$chological incapacit$
un"er Article ?R o+ the Fa!il$ 4o"e( The RT4 +oun" that all the characteritic o+
p$chological incapacit$ which are gra)it$, antece"ence an" incura*ilit$, were atten"ant,
eta*lihing Do!inic/ p$chological incapacit$( The Repu*lic appeale" to the 4A, arguing
that there wa no howing that Do!inic/ peronalit$ trait either contitute" p$chological
incapacit$ e5iting at the ti!e o+ the !arriage or were o+ the nature conte!plate" *$ Article
?R o+ the Fa!il$ 4o"e@ that the teti!on$ o+ the e5pert witne wa not conclui)e upon the
court, an" that the real reaon +or the partie/ eparation ha" *een their +re0uent 0uarrel
o)er .nancial !atter an" the cri!inal cae *rought againt Do!inic( 4A re)ere" the
"eciion o+ RT4( 1ence, thi petition(
ISSNEM 8QN p$chological incapacit$ o+ Do!inic wa eta*lihe"
1ELDM
No( Fin"ing o+ Dr( Sa!on were one2i"e", *ecaue Do!inic wa not hi!el+ u*,ecte" to an
actual p$chiatric e)aluation *$ petitioner/ e5pert( 1e alo "i" not participate in the
procee"ing( An" that the .n"ing an" concluion on hi p$chological pro.le *$ her e5pert
were olel$ *ae" the teti!onie o+ the petitioner(
____________
R#(!)*+, - CA /"0 Q!+"4o. <G.R. No. 15;5;>=
F/,4.:
E"uar"o an" 4atalina were !arrie" in ci)il rite( 1owe)er, the couple were not *lee" with a
chil" *ecaue 4atalina ha" a h$terecto!$ +ollowing her econ" !arriage(
E"uar"o .le" a petition +or "eclaration o+ nullit$ o+ !arriage citing p$chological incapacit$
a a groun"( 1e allege" that 4atalina alwa$ le+t the houe without hi conent@ that he
engage" in pett$ argu!ent with hi!@ that he contantl$ re+ue" to gi)e in to hi e5ual
nee"@ that he pent !ot o+ her ti!e goiping with neigh*or intea" o+ caring +or their
a"opte" "aughter@ that he ga!*le" awa$ all hi re!ittance a an o)erea wor-er@ an"
that he a*an"one" the con,ugal ho!e with her para!our(
A upport to hi clai! o+ p$chological incapacit$, he alo preente" the reult o+ a neuro2
p$chiatric e)aluation con"ucte" *$ Dr( Anna*elle Re$e tating that 4atalina e5hi*ite" trait
o+ a *or"erline peronalit$ "ior"er that wa no longer treata*le(
4atalina "i" not appear "uring trial *ut a"!itte" her p$chological incapacit$( She "enie"
Pirting with "iAerent !en an" a*an"oning the con,ugal ho!e(
I..!#:8hether or not 4atalina wa p$chologicall$ incapacitate" to +ul.ll !arital "utie(
H#*0:No( Marriage re!ain )ali"(
P$chological incapacit$ i an incapacit$Qina*ilit$ to ta-e cogni;ance o+ an" to au!e *aic
!arital o*ligation, an" i not !erel$ the "iBcult$, re+ual or neglect in the per+or!ance o+
!arital o*ligation(
%& | P a g e
In /ep"blic v 0ACMolinaD, the Supre!e 4ourt ha eta*lihe" gui"eline in)ol)ing the nullit$
o+ !arriage *ae" on the groun" o+ p$chological incapacit$( Thee were not !et in the
intant cae ince the gra)it$, root caue an" incura*ilit$ o+ 4atalina9 purporte"
p$chological incapacit$ were not uBcientl$ eta*lihe"(
4atalina9 *eha)ior o+ +re0uent goiping, lea)ing the houe without E"uar"o9 conent,
re+ual to "o houehol" chore, an" ta-e care o+ their a"opte" "aughter were not eta*lihe"(
E"uar"o preente" no other witne to corro*orate thee allegation(
Alo, the RT4 an" 4A hea)il$ relie" on Dr( Re$e9 e)aluation "epite an$ +actual +oun"ation to
upport thi clai!( The report wa )ague a*out the root caue, gra)it$ an" incura*ilit$ o+ the
incapacit$(E)en the teti!on$ o+ Dr( Re$e tate" a general "ecription o+ *or"erline
peronalit$ "ior"er which "i" not e5plain the root caue a to wh$ 4atalina wa "iagnoe"
a uch( The$ "i" not peci+$ the act or o!iion or the gra)it$ which contitute" the
"ior"er( 8hat wa eta*lihe" wa that 4atalina wa chil"ih an" i!!ature(
Further!ore, Dr( Re$e ha" onl$ one inter)iew with 4atalina( Thi lac- the "epth an"
o*,ecti)it$ o+ an e5pert ae!ent(
Fro! the cant e)i"ence preente", it can *e a""uce" that 4atalina9 i!!aturit$ an"
apparent re+ual to per+or! her !arital o*ligation "o not contitute p$chological incapacit$
alone( It !ut *e hown that uch i!!ature act were !ani+etation o+ a "ior"ere"
peronalit$ that !a"e the poue co!pletel$ una*le to "icharge the eential o*ligation o+
!arriage(
______________
S!/7o -. S!/7o G.R. No. 19>>;$ : M/2,5 1%, 2%1%
SUAN' -.. SUAN'
G.R. No. 19>>;$
M/2,5 1%, 2%1%
F/,4.:
#ocel$n an" Angelito were %R $ear ol" when the$ .rt !et in #une %&>'@ the$ were rei"ent
o+ Laguna at that ti!e( A+ter !onth o+ courthip, #ocel$n went to Manila with Angelito an"
o!e +rien"( 1a)ing *een gone +or three "a$, their parent ought #ocel$n an" Angelito
an" a+ter .n"ing the!, *rought the! *ac- to 3iZan, Laguna( Soon therea+ter, #ocel$n an"
Angelito/ !arriage wa arrange" an" the$ were !arrie" on March ?, %&>R in a cere!on$
oBciate" *$ the Ma$or o+ 3iZan(
8ithout an$ !ean to upport the!el)e, #ocel$n an" Angelito li)e" with Angelito/ parent
a+ter their !arriage( The$ ha" *$ thi ti!e toppe" chooling( #ocel$n too- o"" ,o* an"
wor-e" +or Angelito/ relati)e a houehol" help( Angelito, on the other han", re+ue" to
wor- an" wa !ot o+ the ti!e "run-( #ocel$n urge" Angelito to .n" wor- an" )iolent 0uarrel
o+ten reulte" *ecaue o+ #ocel$n/ eAort(
#ocel$n le+t Angelito o!eti!e in #ul$ %&>=( Angelito therea+ter +oun" another wo!an with
who! he ha ince li)e"( The$ now ha)e chil"ren(
Ten $ear a+ter their eparation, or on Octo*er >, %&&=, #ocel$n .le" with the RT4 a petition
+or "eclaration o+ nullit$ o+ !arriage un"er Article ?R o+ the Fa!il$ 4o"e, a a!en"e"( She
clai!e" that Angelito wa p$chologicall$ incapacitate" to co!pl$ with the eential
o*ligation o+ !arriage( In a""ition to the a*o)e hitorical narrati)e o+ their relationhip, he
allege" in her co!plaint that +ro! the tart o+ their !arriage until their eparation in #ul$
%&>=, their relationhip ha *een !arre" with *itter 0uarrel that caue" un*eara*le ph$ical
an" e!otional pain inPicte" upon *$ Angelito@ that one o+ the !ain reaon +or their 0uarrel
wa Angelito/ re+ual to wor-, hi in"olence an" e5cei)e "rin-ing@ an" that Angelito/
p$chological incapacit$ tarte" at the ti!e o+ their !arriage an" pro)e to *e continuou,
per!anent an" incura*le(
In the RT4, #ocel$n reiterate" the inci"ent o+ her ph$ical *eating *$ Angelito *ut tol" the
4ourt that he wa not treate" )iolentl$ *e+ore the !arriage( Mar$,ane Serrano, #ocel$n/
aunt, corro*orate" #ocel$n/ teti!on$( The p$chologit teti.e" that Angelito hae" 4hronic
Antiocial Dior"er which wa per!anent an" incura*le( The RT4 annulle" the !arriage on
the groun" pro)i"e" *$ Santo )( 4ourt o+ Appeal( The 4A re)ere" an" et ai"e the
"eciion o+ the RT4(
I..!#: 8hether or not Angelito i p$chologicall$ incapacitate" to co!pl$ with the eential
!arital o*ligation(
R!*+"1: No( 3oth the p$chologit/ teti!on$ an" the p$chological report "i" not
conclui)el$ how the root caue, gra)it$ an" incura*ilit$ o+ Angelito/ allege" p$chological
con"ition( The p$chologit "eri)e" all her concluion +ro! in+or!ation co!ing +ro! #ocel$n
whoe *ia +or her caue cannot o+ coure *e "ou*te"( #ocel$n !erel$ teti.e" on Angelito/
ha*itual "run-enne, ga!*ling, re+ual to ee- e!plo$!ent an" the ph$ical *eating he
recei)e" +ro! hi! E all o+ which occurre" a+ter the !arriage(
Signi.cantl$, he "eclare" in her teti!on$ that Angelito howe" no ign o+ )iolent
*eha)ior, au!ing thi to *e in"icati)e o+ a peronalit$ "ior"er, "uring the courthip tage
or at the earliet tage o+ her relationhip with hi!( She teti.e" on the allege" ph$ical
*eating a+ter the !arriage, not *e+ore or at the ti!e o+ the cele*ration o+ the !arriage( She
"i" not clari+$ when thee *eating e5actl$ too- place E whether it wa near or at the ti!e o+
cele*ration o+ the !arriage or !onth or $ear a+ter( Thi i a clear e)i"entiar$ gap that
67 | P a g e
!ateriall$ aAect her caue, a the law an" it relate" ,uripru"ence re0uire that the
p$chological incapacit$ !ut e5it at the ti!e o+ the cele*ration o+ the !arriage( 1a*itual
"run-enne, ga!*ling an" re+ual to .n" a ,o*, while in"icati)e o+ p$chological incapacit$,
"o not, *$ the!el)e, how p$chological incapacit$( Stan"ing alone, ph$ical )iolence "oe
not contitute p$chological incapacit$(
_______
SUPPLEMENTAL N'TES: (*#/0+"1 45/4 I 6/0#
DEMURRER T'
THE EVIDENCE
C'MES N'@ the RESPONDENT, through the un"erigne" counel an" unto thi
1onora*le 4ourt, !ot repect+ull$ u*!it thi De!urrer to the E)i"ence Io+ the
ProecutionJ .le" with prior lea)e o+ thi 1onora*le 4ourt *$ a)erring, T1ATM
%J T1ERE IS NO DIRE4T PROOF OF DEFENDANT/S
PSY41OLO:I4AL IN4APA4ITY
6J T1E PROSE4NTION FAILED TO PROOE T1AT T1E DEFENDANT 1AD FAILED TO 4OMPLY 8IT1
T1E MARITAL O3LI:ATIONS AS PROOIDED IN ARTI4LES R>2=% AND ARTI4LES 667266' OF T1E
FAMILY 4ODE
'PENING STATEMENT
Thi i a cae +or Declaration o+ A*olute Nullit$ o+ a Ooi" !arriage .le" *$ herein petitioner,
B#"+4o N. Mo"4#2o, on the groun" o+ p$chological incapacit$ un"er Article ?R o+ the Fa!il$
4o"e o+ either or *oth partie( OP.:,5o*o1+,/* I",/(/,+4:O !"0#2 45+. ,o0# Ao!*0 6#/":
It !ut e5hi*it gravit&, antecedence an" inc"rabilit&M I%J 2ravit&, i+ the u*,ect cannot carr$
out the nor!al an" or"inar$ "utie o+ !arriage an" +a!il$ houl"ere" *$ an$ a)erage couple
e5iting un"er or"inar$ circu!tance o+ li+e an" wor-@ I6J antecedence, i+ the root o+ the
trou*le can *e trace" to the hitor$ o+ the u*,ect *e+ore the !arriage although it o)ert
!ani+etation appear onl$ a+ter the we""ing@ an" I?J inc"rabilit&, i+ treat!ent re0uire"
e5cee" the or"inar$ !ean o+ the u*,ect, or in)ol)e ti!e an" e5pene *e$on" the reach o+
the u*,ect( I#antos vs 0AD
STATEMENT 'F FACTS
The antece"ent tarte" li-e e)er$ lo)e torie rea", where !an !eet wo!an, an" thought
that the$ ha" *een truc- *$ the arrow o+ cupi"( The relationhip Pourihe" when a+ter a
chance !eeting an" *eca!e weetheart in %&>6( The plaintiA then upon the re0uet o+ the
i*ling o+ herein repon"ent aite" in the *uine( The wo!an herein wa o+ a 4hinee
"ecent an" ha" alrea"$ eta*lihe" )er$ well on tailoring *uine in Tagu!( The
relationhip Pourihe" !ore a *uine partner a *oth are incline" to !a-ing !one$ an"
pro.t, an" not urpriingl$, the !arriage goe awr$(
Petitioner herein i 3enito N( Montero an" repon"ent La$ Fong Soo2 Montero( Petitioner an"
repon"ent contracte" !arriage on Ma$ 6%, %&&H in Da)ao 4it$( 4hil"ren were *orn "uring
the !arriage, twin 1orace Si! S( Montero an" An+ernee Sent S( Montero( At the outet the
!arriage tarte" to *e ,ut .ne *ut e)entuall$ ha" grown our at the paing o+ ti!e *ecaue
o+ circu!tance narrate" an" a"!itte" in the teti!onie an" a"!iion o+ the partie( The
repon"ent ha" .le" .rt a legal eparation cae againt the petitioner which i now pen"ing
*e+ore 3ranch 6 o+ the Regional Trial 4ourt o+ Tagu! 4it$( It !ut *e note" that in that cae o+
Legal eparation, i+ in the e)ent o+ +a)ora*le ,u"g!ent a to the repon"ent in that pen"ing
cae an" againt the herein petitioner a the guilt$ poue woul" reult in +or+eiture o+ o!e
o+ hi propert$ right in +a)or o+ the repon"ent( The petitioner herein a a !ean o+
retaliator$ act ha" .le" thi preent action to "eclare the !arriage null an" )oi" +or the
reaon o+ the p$chological incapacit$ o+ the wi+e o+ which i the repon"ent in thi intant
cae(
THE PR'SECUTI'N?S EVIDENCE
The proecution preente" witnee an" "ocu!entM
%( M2.. R#)#,,/ C/22/"7/L R/6/. wa the 4linical P$chologit which
pro)i"e" +or an e5pert teti!on$ on the !atter o+ p$chological
incapacit$ within her .el" o+ e5pertie( She li-ewie i"enti.e" the
#u"icial AB"a)it E5hi*it FFG Ian" u* !ar-ingJ, Pro+eional Pro.le
!ar-e" a E5hi*it F:G an" e5poun" a well on the P$chological
E)aluation Report E5hi*it F1G which he ha" prepare"(
6( M2. Jo.#(5 S#"#2#. : Co*/2, 'H $ear ol", e!plo$e" a the Technical
Aitant to the Prei"entQ:eneral Manager o+ 4oronet 8oo" In"utirie, I48IIJ an"
alo the Operation Manager o+ Planter 8oo"circle In"utrie, IP8I4J(
3oth corporation are *ae" in Surigao "el Sur, where 3enito Montero, #r( i it
4hair!anQ Prei"ent( 1i teti!on$ i oAere" to corro*orate the truth+ulne
o+ the teti!on$ o+ the petitioner, 3enito Montero, a well a the teti!on$ o+ #oe
Morata, hi #u"icial AB"a)it !ar-e" a E5hi*it FIG(
ARGUMENT AND DISCUSSI'N
Petitioner, a+ter reting hi cae, ha +aile" to eta*lih uBcientl$ the P$chological
Incapacit$ un"er Article ?R o+ Fa!il$ 4o"e o+ *oth the plaintiA an" the "e+en"ant a pro)i"e"
in the gui"elineQre0uiite +or p$chological incapacit$ a enunciate" in the cae o+
IRepublic v. >olinaJM
a( The root caue o+ the p$chological incapacit$ !ut *eM
6% | P a g e
1. M#0+,/**: o2 ,*+"+,/**: +0#"4+E#0
2. A**#1#0 +" 45# ,o6(*/+"4
$. S!P,+#"4*: (2o-#" ): #C(#24.
>. C*#/2*: #C(*/+"#0 +" 45# 0#,+.+o"
*( The incapacit$ !ut *e (2o-#" 4o #C+.4 /4 45# 4+6# o3 45# ,#*#)2/4+o" o3 45#
6/22+/1# although the !ani+etation nee" not *e percei)a*le at uch ti!e(
c( The incapacit$ !ut alo *e hown to *e 6#0+,/**: o2 ,*+"+,/**: (#26/"#"4 o2
+",!2/)*#, although the incura*ilit$ !a$ *e relati)e onl$ in regar" to the other
poue, not necearil$ a*olutel$ againt e)er$one o+ the a!e e5(
"( The incapacit$ !ut *e 2#*#-/"4 4o 45# /..!6(4+o" o3 6/22+/1# o)*+1/4+o".
an" not to thoe unrelate" to !arriage li-e the e5ercie o+ a pro+eion or
e!plo$!ent in a ,o*(
e( Such +**"#.. 6!.4 )# 12/-# #"o!15 4o )2+"1 /)o!4 45# 0+./)+*+4: o+ the part$
to au!e the eential o*ligation o+ !arriage(
+( The #..#"4+/* 6/2+4/* o)*+1/4+o". !ut *e thoe e!*race" *$ Art( R> E=% an"
Art( 667 2 66' o+ the Fa!il$ 4o"e, with regar" to parent an" chil"ren( Such "o"L
,o6(*+/",# !ut alo *e tate in the petition, pro)en *$ e)i"ence, an" inclu"e" in
the te5t o+ the "eciion(
In the cae at *ar, 45# 3o**oA+"1 G!#.4+o". !ut thu *e anwere"M
<1= I. 45#2# /": .!P,+#"4 #-+0#",# 4o (2o-# 45# (.:,5o*o1+,/* +",/(/,+4: o3 45#
0#3#"0/"4T
I6J I. 45#2# /": (2oo3 45/4 45# 5#2#+" 0#3#"0/"4 5/0 3/+*#0 4o ,o6(*: A+45 45#
#..#"4+/* 6/2+4/* o)*+1/4+o". /. (2o-+0#0 +" A24+,*#. 98L71 /"0 A24+,*#. 22%L225 o3
45# F/6+*: Co0#Q
I" .!6, ha the proecution co!plie" with it o*ligation to eta*lih whether the
4o4/*+4: o3 #-+0#",# preente" i a"e0uate to utain a .n"ing o+ p$chological incapacit$
o that the !arriage can *e "eclare" null an" )oi"T
The )!20#" o3 (2oo3 to how the nullit$ o+ the !arriage *elong to the plaintiA,
/"0 /": 0o!)4 6!.4 )# 2#.o*-#0 +" 3/-o2 o3 45# #C+.4#",# o3 45# 6/22+/1# /"0
/1/+".4 +4. "!**+4:.
THERE IS N' DIRECT PR''F 'F DEFENDANT?S
PSKCH'L'GICAL INCAPACITK
The e)i"ence on recor" i *ere+t o+ an$ proo+ to uBcientl$ pro)e that *oth the partie are
uAering p$chological incapacit$( E)en with the teti!on$ preente" *$ the e5pert witne
cannot *e con)incing enough a to *e gi)en !uch weight an" *e relie" on in aeing the
p$chological tate an" oun"ne o+ *oth partie( M2.. R#)#,,/ C/22/"7/L R/6o.?
pare teti!on$ "oe not lea" to the ine)ita*le concluion that the partie were
p$chologicall$ incapacitate" to co!pl$ with the eential !arital o*ligation(
The "e+ene *ae" the argu!ent on the 3o**oA+"1 /06+..+o". ): 45# #C(#24 A+4"#.. on
the +..!# /. A5#" ,/" (/24+#. )# 0#,*/2#0 /. (.:,5o*o1+,/**: +",/(/,+4/4#0:
%J 8hen *oth partie re+ue" to coha*it with each other(
6J 8hen *oth partie ha)e conPicting peronalitie(
?J 8hen uch "iAerence can no longer *e reconcile"(
HJ The incapacit$ !ut relate to !arriage an" to other !atter(
'J The part an" partial !oo" change o+ *oth partie(
RJ Ner)ou *rea-"own te!!ing +ro! an argu!ent(
=J E)en without con"ucting an inter)iew with the repon"ent an" relie"
hea)il$ onl$ on the petitioner an" other witnee inter)iewe"@ till one can
*e uBcientl$ "eclare" a ha)ing a peronalit$ "ior"er Inarcii! an" paranoia
"ior"erJ enough to warrant a tate o+ *eing p$chologicall$ incapa*le to co!pl$ with the
!arital o*ligation(
Fro! the ,u"icial aB"a)it, p$chological e)aluation report an" teti!on$ o+ the
e5pert witne an" other witnee, nothing can *e "e"uce" that the repon"ent i uAering
+ro! p$chological incapacit$(
The a"!iion !a"e *$ M2.. R#)#,,/ C/22/"7/L R/6/. 32o6 1L7 +. ,o"42/2:
4o the e)i"entiar$ approach a repeate" in Tin7 v. 0ele2!Tin7 I
It i not enough that the repon"ent, allege" to *e p$chologicall$
incapacitate", ha" "iBcult$ in co!pl$ing with hi !arital o*ligation, or wa
unwilling to per+or! thee o*ligation( Proo+ o+ a natal or uper)ening "ia*ling +actor E
an a")ere integral ele!ent in the repon"ent/ peronalit$ tructure that eAecti)el$
incapacitate" hi! +ro! co!pl$ing with hi eential !arital o*ligation E !ut *e hown(

>ere "iCcult#+ refusal or ne7lect in the perfor-ance of -arital obli7ations
or ill ill on the part of the spouse is "iDerent fro- incapacit# roote" in so-e
"ebilitatin7 ps#cholo7ical con"ition or illnessE irreconcilable "iDerences+ se8ual
in?"elit# or perversion+ e-otional i--aturit# an" irresponsibilit# an" the
liFe+ "o not b# the-selves arrant a ?n"in7 of ps#cholo7ical incapacit#
un"er Article A)+ a the a!e !a$ onl$ *e "ue to a peron/ re+ual or
unwillingne to au!e the eential o*ligation o+ !arriage(
In SUAB: 0S SUAB:+ ./&/E
#uripru"ence hol" that there !ut *e e)i"ence howing a lin-, !e"ical or
the li-e, *etween the act that !ani+et p$chological incapacit$ an" the p$chological
"ior"er itel+(
In the case of $I> vs $I>+ ./&/ is ver& instr"ctive with regards to how the medical
assessment sho"ld be doneE
%he s"pposed personalit& disorders of the parties, considering that s"ch
diagnoses were made, co"ld have been f"ll& established b& ps#cho-etric an"
66 | P a g e
neurolo7ical tests which are designed to meas"re specifc aspects of people=s
intelligence, thinking, or personalit&.
.ere in this case the co"rt r"led that8
the e!pert opinion of a ps&chiatrist arrived at after a ma!im"m of seven CFD
ho"rs of interview, and "ns"pported b& separate ps&chological tests, cannot tie the hands
of the trial co"rt and prevent it from making its own fact"al fnding on what happened in
this case. The probative force of the testi-on# of an e8pert "oes not lie in a
-ere state-ent of his theor# or opinion+ but rather in the assistance that he
can ren"er to the courts in shoin7 the facts that serve as a
basis for his criterion an" the reasons upon hich the lo7ic of his
conclusion is foun"e".
Li-ewie, in the ,u"icial aB"a)it u*!itte" *$ herein Mr( Ra!a, nowhere "i" it
!entione" that it con"ucte" thoe ae!ent tool in or"er to uBcientl$ warrant the
)eracit$ o+ uch concluion co!ing +ro! an e5pert witne *eing a 4linical P$chologit o+
!ore than H7 $ear( She "i" not e)en con"ucte" an$ inter)iew with the repon"ent( The
concluion "eri)e" in "eclaring that *oth partie are incapacitate" were !erel$ co!ing
+ro! the petitioner an" the petitioner an" repon"ent/ e!plo$ee without ta-ing into
coni"eration the *iae an" pre,u"ice o+ the herein witnee with regar" to the relation
the$ ha)e with the partie o+ thi cae( In the cae o+ $i- vs. $i-, the e5pert witne e)en
ha" a chance to inter)iew +or = hour the repon"ent *ut the court till ha" not ta-en it a
enough to warrant uch concluion( Much !ore o in thi cae, where neither inter)iew nor
wa p$chological ae!ent tet con"ucte" to the repon"ent(
8ith repect to M2. Jo.#(5 S#"#2#. : Co*/2 hi!el+, with no !e"ical *ac-groun",
*eing a Technical Aitant to the :eneral Manager, herein petitioner Mr( Montero, woul" *e
coni"ere" a el+2er)ing tate!ent an" not *eing an e5pert witne cannot allege" that
the repon"ent La$ Fong Soo2Montero coul" *e uAering with a Peronalit$ Dior"er a thi
can *e *ruhe" ai"e a he i not an authorit$ on thi .el" o hi opinion cannot *e gi)en
cre"ence( It !ut *e ta-en into account that "uring the cro2 e5a!ination, he a"!itte" that
he ha" engage" in )er*al altercation with the wi+e creating a tint o+ "ou*t on the truth+ulne
o+ what ha *eing pro+ee" in hi teti!on$(
THE PR'SECUTI'N FAILED T' PR'VE THAT THE DEFENDANT HAD FAILED T'
C'MPLK @ITH THE MARITAL 'BLIGATI'NS AS PR'VIDED IN ARTICLES 98L71 AND
ARTICLES 22%L225 'F THE FAMILK C'DE
Fro! the e)i"ence preente" *$ the proecution, culle" +ro! the ,u"icial
aB"a)it o+ petitioner, repon"ent an" the witnee, there i no proo+ that the petitioner
an" repon"ent herein ha" +aile" to o!ehow ren"er their o*ligation a to the !arriage an"
a to their chil"ren although there were lape in the !arriage in the u*e0uent $ear which
turne" into an intentional re+ual to co!pl$ with the !arital o*ligation *$ *oth partie( 8hile
the +act that the relation ha" gone our *ut thi cannot *e enough reaon to "eclare the
partie a p$chologicall$ incapacitate"(
A24. 98 pro)i"e that the hu*an" an" wi+e are o*lige" to li)e
together, o*er)e !utual lo)e, repect an" ."elit$, an" ren"er
!utual help an" upport.
M!4!/* H#*(.LL Mutual help in)ol)e care "uring ic-ne, an"
*earing the incon)enience caue" *$ uch ic-ne, o+ the other
poue( L55
The o*ligation o+ !utual help, howe)er, i not li!ite" to !aterial
aitance an" care "uring ic-ne( It e5ten" to e)er$thing that
in)ol)e !oral aitance, an" !utual aAection an" regar"(
CProfessor :alaneJ
Article 9;L71 +urther "e.ne the !utual o*ligation o+ a !arital
partner towar" each other an" Article 22%, 225 an" 271 o+ the
Fa!il$ 4o"e e5pre the "utie o+ parent towar" their chil"ren(
R#.(o"0#"4?. (.:,5o*o1+,/* +",/(/,+4: A/. "o4 #.4/)*+.5#0 4o 5/-# ,*#/2*:
#C+.4#0 /4 45# 4+6# o3 /"0 #-#" )#3o2# 45# ,#*#)2/4+o" o3 6/22+/1# *$ the )er$ !ere
+act that the$ ha)e procreate" an" their lo)e *ore twin in the na!e o+ 1orace Si! S(
Montero an" An+ernee Sent S( Montero( An" a a"!itte" *$ the #u"icial AB"a)it o+ the
petitioner, Mr( Montero, on page 6 in hi anwer to 0uetion no(H that he ren"ere" an"
contri*ute" hi aitance to the +a!il$ *uine o+ hi wi+e which woul" in eAect in)ol)e
!utual help a part o+ the o*ligation *etween hu*an" an" wi+e(
R#.(o"0#"4?. (.:,5o*o1+,/* +",/(/,+4: 5/. "o4 .5oA" 4o )# .!P,+#"4*:
12/-#, .o /. 4o 2#"0#2 5#2 !"/)*# 4o /..!6# 45# #..#"4+/* o)*+1/4+o". o3 6/22+/1#.
The repon"ent in thi intant cae wa )er$ !in"+ul o+ the o*ligation at the initial tage o+
the !arriage( She e)en ha" trute" hi hu*an" in han"ling their other *uinee( I+
repon"ent then ha" *een col" later on with the !arriage, it i all *ecaue thee lo)e,
repect an" aAection ha" cru!*le" a+ter wa ha)ing *een an e!otionall$ *attere" an"
a*ue" wo!an on account o+ petitioner/ ina*ilit$ to *e +aith+ul an" lo)ing hu*an"( I+
paranoia ha" *een hown to e5hi*it in her *eha)ior it i +or the !ere +act that one o+ the
un"erl$ing reaon that he wa treate" +or NTI wa when her O3 :$ne upecte" it to *e e5
in"uce", couple" with the a"!iion *$ her hu*an" o+ ha)ing e)eral e5ual partner(
C'NCLUSI'N
3oth the report an" court teti!on$ o+ M2.. R#)#,,/ C/22/"7/L R/6/. ten"ere"
no e5planation on the 2oo4 ,/!.# that coul" ha)e *rought a*out uch *eha)ior on the part
o+ repon"ent(
Argua*l$, a li-el$ reaon that coul" ha)e inPuence" a .n"ing o+ no p$chological
incapacit$ o+ the +ollowing i!ilar cae o+ Republic vs CA G Huintos I:R %'&'&H, %6 No)
67%6J %t "i) 3era!in #@ Men"o2a vs >en"o2a I:R %'=RH&, %6 No) 67%6@ Republic vs
6? | P a g e
%alan7 I:(R( No( %R>??', R #une 67%%J ?r" Di) 3rion #@ Ia-bao vs Republic I:R %>H7R?,
6H #an 67%%J 6
n"
Di) Nachura #@ Torin7 vs Torin7 G Republic I:R %R'?6%, ? Aug 67%7J ?
r"

Di) 3rion #@ 5or"an Pa2 vs 5eanice Pavon Pa2 I:(R( No( %RR'=&, %> Fe* 67%7J 6n" Di)
4arpio #@ $i- vs $i- I:(R( No( %=RHRH, H Fe* 67%7J ?r" Di) Nachura # are itel+ anchore" on
a recogni;e" principle in pro)ing p$chological incapacit$ E that i, there i no p$chological
incapacit$ i+ the e)i"ence how that a poue !erel$ re+ue" to per+or! hi or her !arital
o*ligation, a oppoe" to that poue *eing incapacitate" to per+or! hi or her !arital
o*ligation@ argua*l$, u*tantial coha*itation an" the iring o+ chil"ren i e)i"ence that the
poue alrea"$ per+or!e" !arital o*ligation an" !a$ onl$ ha)e re+ue" to per+or! the!
later.
It wa onl$ in the e5ceptional cae o+ Socorro Re#es vs Ra-on Re#es I:(R( No(
%>'6>R, %> Aug 67%7J 6
n"
Di) Nachura #, where the !arriage wa nulli.e" "ue to
p$chological incapacit$, "epite e)i"ence o+ u*tantial coha*itation I+ro! %&=R to %&&=J
an" the iring o+ three chil"ren( A curor$ loo- woul" re)eal that although there wa no
inter)iew on the repon"ent an" he wa neither u*,ecte" to p$chological ae!ent tet
)!4 +4 6!.4 )# "o4#0 +" 45+. ,/.# that there were 452## #C(#24 A+4"#..#. who ha"
gi)en their opinion on the !atter o+ their .n"ing an" the root caue o+ the incapacit$ wa
properl$ e5plaine" *ae" on thorough an" in "epth loo- o+ the peronalit$ hitor$ o+ the
repon"ent( In thi cae clinical p$chologit an" a p$chiatrit corro*orate" on their
.n"ing a to the totalit$ o+ the e)i"ence o+ p$chological incapacit$( The repon"ent in thi
intant cae were +oun" to *e uAering on the +ollowing *eha)ior to wit M I%J pora"ic
.nancial upport@ I6J e5tra2!arital aAair@ I?J u*tance a*ue@ IHJ +aile" *uine atte!pt@
I'J unpai" !one$ o*ligation@ IRJ ina*ilit$ to -eep a ,o* that i not connecte" with the +a!il$
*uinee@ an" I=J cri!inal charge o+ estafa( To which i+ co!pare" to the allegation here
*eing i!pute" neither againt repon"ent nor to that o+ petitioner were ,ut *enign a
co!pare" to the gra)a!en o+ the .n"ing to that o+ the repon"ent in)ol)e" in the intant
cae of #ocorro /e&es vs /amon /e&es(
8hile the petitioner, 3enito Montero, an" repon"ent, La$ Fong Soo2Montero, herein thi
cae were a*le to upport an" !a-e their *uine Pourihe"@ the$ !anage" to ta-e care o+
their twin@ the$ *oth ha" "ipla$e" in"epen"ence in !a-ing "eciion regar"ing the !ot
*aic an" or"inar$ !atter that poue +ace e)er$ "a$@ *oth o+ the! ha" contri*ute" to the
!aterial, ph$ical an" e!otional well2*eing o+ the other +ro! the inception o+ !arriage
although later on ha" "ipla$e" an a"a!ant re+ual to co!pl$ with thoe *ecaue o+ uch
in"iAerence( Such though cannot !a-e the! *oth a p$chologicall$ incapacitate" to
co!pl$ with the !arital o*ligation within the !eaning o+ Article ?R(
Thu, thi 1onora*le 4ourt/ ae!ent o+ the relia*ilit$ o+ the allegation with regar" to
p$chological incapacit$ o+ the partie houl" *e gui"e" onl$ to what the proecution ha
preente" in thi cae( It i gui"e" *$ the truth a preente" *$ the proecution o +ar(
1ence, *ae" on what ha *een preente" *$ the proecution, thi 1onora*le 4ourt !ut rule
on the uBcienc$ o+ the e)i"ence againt the repon"ent to warrant a "eclaration o+ nullit$
o+ !arriage *ae" on P$chological Incapacit$( Otherwie, thi cae !ut *e "i!ie" an"
the repon"ent *e +ree" +ro! uch allegation(
A. #"!",+/4#0 +" Republic vs Encelan8 the court tree" that !arriage i an
in)iola*le ocial intitution protecte" *$ the State( An$ "ou*t houl" *e reol)e" in +a)or o+
it e5itence an" continuation an" againt it "iolution an" nullit$( It cannot *e "iol)e" at
the whi! o+ the partie nor *$ trangreion !a"e *$ one part$ to the other "uring the
!arriage(

An" o !ut it *e in thi a*o)e2entitle" cae, +or the +ailure o+ the proecution to
preent an$ e)i"ence "irectl$ pointing to herein repon"ent a ha)ing p$chologicall$
incapacit$ within the !eaning o+ article ?R o+ Fa!il$ 4o"e, repon"ent, LAY F'NG S''L
M'NTER'?. cae .le" *$ petitioner BENIT' M'NTER' houl" *e "i!ie"(
PRAKER
@HEREF'RE, PREMISES 4ONSIDERED, it i !ot repect+ull$ pra$e" o+ thi
1onora*le 4ourt that thi De!urrer to the E)i"ence *e grante" an" that the, RESPONDENT
LAY FON: SOO2 MONTERO cae" *e "i!ie" on inuBcienc$ o+ e)i"ence an" an$ "ou*t
!ut *e reol)e" in +a)or o+ the e5itence o+ the !arriage an" againt it nullit$ ( Repon"ent
an" counel pra$ +or uch other relie+ conitent with ,utice an" e0uit$ un"er the pre!ie(
RESPECTFULLK SUBMITTED thi on ____________________(
6H | P a g e