You are on page 1of 5



"psychological incapacity" to the most serious cases of personality disorders clearly demonstrative of
an utter intensitivity or inability to give meaning and significance to the marriage. The case at bar can ,in

FACTS: In 1988, Orly married Lilia. In 1992, Orly filed an annulment case of their marriage on the

no measure at all, come close to the standards required to decree a nullity of marriage.

ground that he was forced to marry Lilia becaue he received phone calls from a certain Ka Celso, a
member of NPA, who threatened him to be killed if he wont marry Lilia. He also claimed that he was
defrauded by Lilia by making him believe that he was pregnant. Lilia denied these allegations, claiming
Orly freely cohabitated with her and showed 14 letters as proof of Orlys affection and care towards her.
ISSUE: Whether or not there really was fraud in obtaining Orlys consent to marry Lilia

HELD: No. It is obvious that Orly seeks to annul his marriage because of a pending bigamy case filed
by Lilia. Also, Orlys contentions were not concretely established, taki8ng in consideration that he is a
security guard who is knowledgeable of self-defense. His allegations that he never had an erection
during their sexual intercourse is a lie. Also, it took him four years to file an action, which only supports
Lilias contention that he freely cohabitated with her.
FACTS: Leouel and Julia were married on September 20, 1986. They were first married before the
MTC in Iloilo. Shortly, they married in a church. They lived with Julias parents. Soon, she gave birth to
their first child. Some disagreements the couple had was the issue of living independently from Julias

COURT OF APPEALS and MARIO C. HERNANDEZG.R. No. 126010. December 8, 1999
Lucita Estrella married Mario Hernandez on January 1, 1981 and they begot three (3) children. On
July10, 1992, Lucita filed before the RTC of Tagaytay City, a petition for annulment of marriage under
Article36 alleging that from the time of their marriage, Mario failed to perform his obligation to support
the family,devoting most of this time drinking, had affairs with many women and cohabiting with another
women withwhom he had an illegitimate child, and finally abandoning her and the family.
Whether there was psychological incapacity under Article. 36

Habitual alcoholism, sexual infidelity or perversion, and abandonment do not by themselvesconstitute

grounds for declaring a marriage void based on psychological incapacity. It must be shownthat these
facts are manifestations of a discolored personality which make private respondentcompletely unable to
discharge the essential obligations of the marital state, and not merely due toprivate respondents youth
and self-conscious feeling of being handsome, as the appellate court held.

parents. On 18 May 1988, Julia finally left for USA to work as a nurse. Julia, via phone call, promised to
return home upon the expiration of her contract in July 1989. She never did. When Leouel got a chance

JOSE LAM, petitioner, vs. ADRIANA CHUA, respondent

to visit the United States, where he underwent a training program of AFP, he desperately tried to locate,

The case commenced on March 11, 1994 upon the filing of a petition for declaration of nullity of
marriage by Adriana Chua against Jose Lam in the Regional Trial Court of Pasay City (Branch
109). Adriana alleged in the petition that: she and Jose were married on January 13, 1984; out of said
marriage, they begot one son, John Paul Chua Lam; Jose was psychologically incapacitated to comply
with the essential marital obligations of marriage but said incapacity was not then apparent; such
psychological incapacity of Jose became manifest only after the celebration of the marriage when he
frequently failed to go home, indulged in womanizing and irresponsible activities, such as, mismanaging
the conjugal partnership of gains; in order to save what was left of the conjugal properties, she was
forced to agree with Jose on the dissolution of their conjugal partnership of gains and the separation of
present and future properties; said agreement was approved by the Regional Trial Court of Makati City
(Branch 149) in a Decision dated February 28, 1994; they had long been separated in bed and board;
they have agreed that the custody of their child will be with her, subject to visitation rights of Jose.
Adriana prayed that the marriage between her and Jose be declared null and void but she failed to
claim and pray for the support of their child, John Paul.

or to somehow get in touch with, Julia but all his efforts were of no avail. Having failed to get Julia to
come home, Leouel filed with the RTC a complaint for voiding their marriage on the ground of
psychological incapacity. RTC dismissed the complaint. CA affirmed the dismissal. Hence, this petition.
ISSUE: W/N Julias failure to return home or at the very least to communicate with him, for more than
five years are circumstances that clearly show her being psychologically incapacitated

HELD: No. Justice Sempio-Diy opined that psychological incapacity must be characterized by (a)
gravity, (b) juridical antecedence, and (c) incurability. The incapacity must be grave or serious such that
the party would be incapable of carrying out the ordinary duties required in marriage; it must be rooted
in the history of the party antedating the marriage, although the overt manifestations may emerge only
after the marriage; and it must be incurable or, even if it were otherwise, the cure would be beyond the
means of the party involved. The intendment of the law has been to confine the meaning of

On June 23, 1994, Adriana filed an Urgent Motion to Re-Open [4] on the ground that she was able
to secure additional new evidence which were significant, material and indispensable. On July 6, 1994,
the trial court granted the motion to re-open the case and held a hearing for the reception of additional

evidence. The Pasay RTC admitted into evidence the Marriage Contract dated May 25, 1977 between
Jose and one Celia Santiago, and another Marriage Contract dated May 6, 1982between Jose and one
Evan Lock,[5] showing that Jose had been married twice before he married Adriana in 1984.
On August 4, 1994, the Pasay RTC rendered its Decision [6] the dispositive portion of which reads
as follows:
IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the Court hereby declares the marriage between petitioner Adriana Chua
and respondent Jose Lam null and void for being bigamous by nature. The Local Civil Registrar of Quezon City
and the Office of the Civil Registrar General are hereby ordered to cancel the marriage between Adriana Chua and
Jose Lam celebrated on January 13, 1984 by Hon. Guillermo L. Loja of the Metropolitan Trial Court, Quezon
Likewise, respondent Jose Lam is hereby ordered to give a monthly support to his son John Paul Chua Lam in the
amount of P20,000.00.
It is hereby agreed by the First Party and the Second Party that the First Party and the Second Party shall initially
contribute P250,000.00 each to a common fund, to be increased as required, to be used solely and exclusively for
the benefit of their son. Said common fund shall be managed and administered by the Second Party, subject to
periodic accounting, until the son reaches majority age.
WHEREFORE, finding the aforequoted agreement to be in order, and not being contrary to law, morals or public
policy, the same is hereby APPROVED. Accordingly, the conjugal partnership of gains existing between the said
spouses is dissolved and a decree of complete separation is established in accordance with the provisions of
Chapter 6 of the Family Code of the Philippines. The parties are hereby enjoined to faithfully comply with the
conditions of their Agreement as embodied in this petition and the same shall, as between the parties, be deemed
to be a decision and/or award in the matters treated in the aforesaid settlement.

Alcantara v Mallion GR No. 141528| Oct. 31, 2006

Does a previous final judgment denying a petition for declaration of nullity on the ground of
psychologicalincapacity bar a subsequent petition for declaration of nullity on the ground of lack of
marriage license.

Oscar P. Mallion
Editha Alcantara
Oct. 24, 1995: Mallion filed @ RTC-San Pablo a petition for decalaration for nullity on the ground
of psychological incapacity
RTC: DENIED! Failure to adduce preponderant evidence
CA: DISMISSED! Mallions failure to pay the docket fees within the reglementary period

July 12, 1999: When decision on the first case attained its finality (the one with grounds of
Psychologicalincapacity), Mallion filed another petition of declaration of nullity, this time, on the ground
of lack of marriage license @ RTC-San PabloISSUE
WoN the marriage is void for the absence of Marriage LicenseHELD
Petition is DENIED! The case is barred by res judicata!RD
Res judicata- a matter adjudged; a thing judicially acted upon or decidedo
there should be an end to litigation
dual aspect: 1. Bar by prior judgment upon the same claim or cause of action 2. Issues resolved
informer suit cannot again be raised between same parties involving different cause of action
Requisites of res judicata:
Former judgment is final it is rendered by a court having jurisdiction over the subject matter and the
it is a judgment or an order there is -- between the first and the second actions -iof parties, of subject matter, and of causes of action
Mallion invoked the same cause of action on different grounds
Same cause: declaration of nullity
What differs is the ground upon which the cause of action is predicated upon
Mallion conceded in the first civil case that the marriage had been solemnized and celebrated
inaccordance with law. The alleged absence of marriage license could have been presented in the
*Mians Annotation: according to Atty. Legarda, Mallion is ESTOPPED kasi it was implied from the first
marriage thatthere was a Marriage License. Regarding the validity of marriage (since this is under the
absence of requisites), Ithink the marriage is VALID, kasi if he was estopped from filing the 2
Nd petition, then its tantamount toacknowledging that a marriage license really exists. Likewise, his
petition on the ground of psych incapacity wasalso dismissed. What do you think?)

Republic vs Quintero-Hamano (428 SCRA 735)

CASE ISSUE: W/N the Molina doctrine and requisites for
psychological Republic vs. Quintero-Hamano (428 SCRA 735)
W/N the Molina doctrine and requisites for psychological
incapacity listed in Santos vs. Court of Appeals apply to a mixed
marriage (marriage between a foreigner and Filipino)
T, a Japanese citizen, married L, a Filipina with whom he had a
daughter. One month after marriage T returned to Japan with a
promise to come back to the Philippines by Christmas. T sent
money for supp y y pp g ort for 2 months only and never sent
money for support again. T visited the Philippines but did not
even meet up with his wife L and their child.
L filed a declaration of nullity on the grounds of psychological
incapacity, as evidenced by her being abandoned by T and that
no support ft 2 th RTC d CA l th t th i i ll t came after 2 months.
RTC and CA rule that the marriage is null and void because of
psychological incapacity. CA states that Molina and Santos cases
do not apply to case at bar since T is Japanese.
OSG petitions for review to the SC and the SC declares that
there is lack of evidence to support declaration of nullity on the
grounds of psychological incapacity.
Molina doctrine does not require personal medical examination
of Republic vs. Quintero-Hamano (428 SCRA 735) Molina
doctrine does not require personal medical examination of the
person who is psychologically incapacitated to marry. However,
evidence of medical and clinical finding of any illness constituting

psychological incapacity will greatly help. This can be done by an

expert witness Mere abandonment is not constitutive of
psychological incapacity. There must be proof of a natal or
supervening disabling factor in the person, an adverse integral
element in the personality structure that effectively incapacitates
a person from accepting and complying with the obligations
essential to marriage. In proving psychological incapacity, we
find no distinction between an alien spouse and a Filipino spouse.
We cannot be lenient in the app y lication of the rules merely
because the spouse alleged to be psychologically incapacitated
happens to be a foreign national. The medical and clinical rules to
determine psychological incapacity were formulated on the basis
of studies of human behavior in general. Hence, the norms used
for determining psychological incapacity should apply to any
person regardless of nationality.
Navarro vs Cecillo-Navarro (G R No 162049 04-13-07)
CASE ISSUE: Psychological incapacity alleged Navarro vs. CecilloNavarro (G.R. No. 162049, 04-13-07)
Psychological incapacity alleged FACTS: Dr. N and C are
spouses with 4 children. Dr. N claims that respondent doesnt
support him in his profession and would constantly quarrel with
him, thus making him distraught, harassed, and unhappy.
C meanwhile claims that petitioner doesnt have time for his
family and that he had an affair with a certain Dr. L.
Dr. N sought for nullity of marriage with the RTC of Manila, and
RTC declared both parties psychologically incapacitated, thus
making the marriage void. CA reversed the decision saying that
parties are not psychologically incapacitated, thus the marriage
still subsists.

The intent of the law is to is to limit the scope of psychological

Navarro vs. Cecillo-Navarro (G.R. No. 162049, 04-13-07) The
intent of the law is to is to limit the scope of psychological
incapacity to incurable and serious cases of personality disorders,
existing at the time of marriage, that demonstrate ones lack of
capacity, sensitivity or understanding to the meaning and
significance of marriage It must be apparent meaning and
significance of marriage. It must be apparent that some
psychological illness is the reason why incapability to perform
ones essential marital obligations is present. Frequent quarrels,
disagreements, bickerings, scand l b i bli d h i il hi dalous
outbursts in public, and other similar things only show, at the
most, the spouses immaturity and not psychological incapacity.

in Malolos, Bulacan; and, that she supported him in all his

endeavors. J alleged that she had a happy childhood and was
raised in a happy family.

Carating-Siayngco vs Siayngco (441 SCRA 422)

Psychological incapacity refers to a serious psychological illness

afflicting a party even before the celebration of marriage. It is a
malady so grave and permanent as to deprive one of awareness
of the duties and responsibilities of the matrimonial bond.

CASE ISSUE: Psychological incapacity alleged Siayngco vs.

Siayngco (441 SCRA 422) Psychological incapacity alleged
After 24 years of married life together, M filed for the
declaration of nullity of his marriage with J on the ground of
Psychological Incapacity.
M alleged that throughout their marriage, J was domineering,
selfish, and volatile; that she complained about almost everythi h
h did i hi l hing; that she did not give him moral support nor
showed respect to his position as a judge of the MTC; and, that
her psychological incapacity was rooted in her unhappy
J said that she still loved her husband despite all his
philandering, that he just invented malicious stories against her
so that he could marry his paramour, that they still lived together

Supreme Court held in Republic vs Dagdag that psychological
Siayngco vs. Siayngco (441 SCRA 422)
Supreme Court held in Republic vs Dagdag that psychological
Incapacity must be judged on a case to case basis. It should
refer to no less than a mental (not physical) incapacity that
causes the party to be truly incognitive of the b h b d dd h db
basic covenants that must be assumed and discharged by parties
to the marriage. It must be characterized by gravity, juridical
antecedence and incurability.

An unsatisfactory marriage is not a null and void marriage. Mere

showing of irreconcilable differences and conflicting personalities
do not constitute p y g p y g y, sychological incapacity.
Regrettably, there are situations where neither law nor society
can provide the specific answers to every individual problem.
Antonio vs. Reyes
FACTS: Antonio vs. Reyes (G.R. No. 155880, 03-10-06)
A filed for a petition for the declaration of nullity of his marriage
with R putting forth the latters psychological incapacity as a
ground. Such was alleged because of Rs persistent lying about
herself, the people around her, her occupation, income,
educational attainment and other events or things. His allegations

were supported by findings of a psychiatrist and a clinical

psychologist, saying that she is a pathological liar.
R likewise offered a psychological evaluation to counter the
Court granted the declaration of nullity.
The Metropolitan Tribunal of the Archdiocese of Manila annulled
the marriage of the parties on the ground of the parties lack of
due discretion. Then, an appeal to the Court of Appeals was
made, reversing RTC s decision s decision holding the
insufficiency of evidence to , holding the insufficiency of evidence
to establish respondents psychological incapacity
In Santos vs Court of Appeals Justice Vitug said that Antonio vs.
Reyes (G.R. No. 155880, 03-10-06)
In Santos vs. Court of Appeals, Justice Vitug said that
psychological incapacity should refer to less than a mental (not
physical) incapacity that causes a party to be truly incognitive of
the basic marital covenants that concomitantly must be assumed
and discharged by the parties to the marriage.
Such a view was furthered in the Molina case. Justice
Panganiban observed that the evidence to establish psychological
incapacity must convince the court that the parties, or one of
them, was mentally or physically ill to such extent that the person
could not have known the obligations he was assuming, or
knowing them, could not have given valid assumption thereto.
Since then, psychological incapacity is considered a malady so
grave and permanent as to deprive one of awareness of the
duties and responsibilities of the matrimonial bond one is about to

Tenebro vs Court of Appeals (423 SCRA 272)

CASE ISSUE: W/N a judicial declaration of nullity of a second or
subsequent Tenebro vs. Court of Appeals (423 SCRA 272)
marriage on the grounds of psychological incapacity is a
defense in a criminal case of bigamy. FACTS:
V contracted marriage with L. After a year, V informed L that he
had been previously married to H five years previously.
Thereafter, V contracted yet another marriage, this one with a
cert.. When L learned of this third marriage, s h e filed a
complaint for bigamy against V.
V claims as a defense that the declaration of the nullity of the
second marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity is an
indicator that this marriage lacks the essential requisites for
validity. This retroacts to the date of celebration of the second
marriage, and there being no valid second marriage, there can be
no bigamy
Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code penalizes the mere act of
contracting a second or a subsequent marriage during the
subsistence of a valid marriage.
The declaration of nullity of the second marriage on the ground
f hl l d h d o f psyc h ological incapacity is not an in dicator t hat
Vs marriage to L lacks the essential requisites for validity.
Although judicial declaration of nullity of a marriage on the
ground of psychological incapacity retroacts to the date of the
celebration of marriage, there still exists legal effects. Marriage,
although void ab initio, may still produce legal consequences such
as incurring criminal liability for bigamy.