Brenda B. Marcos v. Wilson MarcosG.R. No. 13649, Oct.

19, 20003
rd

Division
FACTS:

Petitioner Brenda Marcos and Respondent Wilson Marcos were married twice and hadfive children. After
the downfall of President Marcos, the respondent left the military service in1987. Consequently, due to
the respondents failure to engage in any gainful employment, theywould often quarrel and the
respondent would hit and beat the petitioner. As a result, in 1992they were already living
separately. Thus, petitioner filed for annulment of marriage assailing A r t . 3 6 o f t h e
Family Code. The court a quo found the respondent to be
p s y c h o l o g i c a l l y incapacitated to perform his marital obligations. However, the Court of
Appeals reversed thedecision of the RTC because psychological incapacity had not been established
by the totality of the evidence presented.
ISSUE:

Whether or not Respondent Wilson Marcos failure to find work to support his family a n d
his violent attitude towards Petitioner Brenda Marcos and their children
c o n s t i t u t e d psychological incapacity.
HELD:

The court ruled the negative.

RATIONALE:

The totality of the respondents acts does not lead to a

c o n c l u s i o n o f psychological incapacity on his part. There is absolutely no showing
that his defects werea l r e a d y p r e s e n t a t t h e i n c e p t i o n o f t h e m a r r i a g e o r t h a t t h e y
a r e i n c u r a b l e . A r t i c l e 3 6 o f t h e Family Code is not to be confused with a divorce law
that cuts the marital bond at the time the causes therefore manifest themselves. It refers to a serious
psychological illness afflicting a partye v e n b e f o r e t h e c e l e b r a t i o n o f t h e m a r r i a g e . I t i s a
m a l a d y s o g r a v e a n d s o p e r m a n e n t a s t o deprive one of awareness of the duties and
responsibilities of the matrimonial bond one is aboutto assume.
POLICY:

Psychological incapacity, as a ground for declaring the nullity of marriage, may

beestablished by the totality of evidence presented. There is no requirement, however that
therespondent should be examined by a physician or a psychologist as a condition sine qua non for such
declaration