You are on page 1of 3

Martinez vs.

G.R. No. 162084 June 28, 2005
The spouses Martinez were the owners of a parcel of land as well as the house constructed
thereon. Daniel, Sr. executed a Last Will and Testament directing the subdivision of the property into
three lots. He then bequeathed the three lots to each of his sons, namely, Rodolfo, Manolo and Daniel,
Jr. Manolo was designated as the administrator of the estate.
Rodolfo found a deed of sale purportedly signed by his father, where the latter appears to have
sold to Manolo and his wife Lucila. Rodolfo filed a complaint for annulment of deed of sale and
cancellation of TCT against his brother Manolo and his sister-in-law Lucila before the RTC. RTC
dismissed the complaint for annulment of deed of sale on the ground that the trial court had no
jurisdiction over the action since there was no allegation in the complaint that the last will of Daniel
Martinez, Sr. had been admitted to probate. Rodolfo appealed the order to the CA.
In the meantime, the spouses Manolo and Lucila Martinez wrote Rodolfo, demanding that he
vacate the property. Rodolfo ignored the letter and refused to do so. This prompted the said spouses
to file a complaint for unlawful detainer against Rodolfo in the MTC of Manila. They alleged that they
were the owners of the property. The spouses Martinez alleged in their position paper that earnest
efforts toward a compromise had been made and/or exerted by them, but that the same proved futile.
No amicable settlement was, likewise, reached by the parties during the preliminary conference
because of irreconcilable differences.
Whether or not the certification to file action and the allegations in the complaint that the case
passed through the barangay are sufficient compliance to prove that earnest efforts were made.

Marcos v. Marcos, 343 SCRA 755, October 19, 2000

FACTS: Brenda and Wilson both worked during Marcos Administration. After the
EDSA revolution, both of them sought a discharge from the military service. He tried
to engage in different business but failed. Brenda always urged him to look for work
because he is the head of the family. Due to his failure to engage in permanent
employment, they would often quarrel and as a consequence, he would hit and beat
her. He would even force her to have sex with him despite her weariness. Thus, for
several times during their cohabitation, he would leave their house. In 1992, they
were already living separately. She did not want him to stay in their house anymore
so when she saw him in their house, she was so angry that she lambasted him. He
then turned violent, inflicting physical harm on her and even on her mother who
came to her aid. She sought for nullity of their marriage on the ground of
psychological incapacity. The Brenda submitted herself to psychologist Natividad A.
Dayan, Ph.D., for psychological evaluation. The court a quo found Wilson to be
psychologically incapacitated to perform his marital obligations mainly because of
his failure to find work to support his family and his violent attitude towards Brenda
and their children.
ISSUE: W/N there is a need for personal medical examination of respondent to prove
psychological incapacity? Whether the totality of evidence presented in this case
show psychological incapacity
HELD: Personal medical or psychological examination of respondent is not a
requirement for a declaration of psychological incapacity. Nevertheless, the totality
of the evidence she presented does not show such incapacity. Although SC is
convinced that respondent failed to provide material support to the family and may
have resorted to physical abuse and abandonment, the totality of these acts does
not lead to a conclusion of psychological incapacity on his part. There is absolutely
no showing that his defects were already present at the inception of the marriage
or that they are incurable.

Republic of the Philippines vs Crasus Iyoy

Citation: 470 SCRA 508

Facts: Crasus and Fely Iyoy married on December 16, 1961 which they had five
children. In 1984, Fely went to the United States and at the same year sent divorce
papers to Crasus asking the latter to sign them. In 1985, Crasus found out that Fely
married an American Citizen named Stephen Micklus and eventually bore him a
child. Fely went back to the Philippines occasionally, including once when she
attended the marriage of one of her children where she freely used the surname of
her second husband in the invitations. On March 1997, Crasus filed a complaint for
declaration of nullity in their marriage in the ground of psychological incapacity
since Fely unambiguously brought danger and dishonor to the family. Fely
however filed a
counterclaim and avouched therein that Crasus was a drunkard, womanizer, and
jobless, the reason forced the former to left for the United States. Furthermore, Fely
argued her marriage to Stephen Micklus valid since shes already an American
and therefore not covered by our laws.
Issue: Whether or not the abandonment and sexual infidelity per se constitute
psychological incapacity?
Ratio Decidendi: No since the evidences presented by the respondent failed to
psychological incapacity as the Article 36 of the Family Code contemplates
incapacity or inability to take cognizance of and to assume the basic marital
not a mere refusal, neglect or difficulty, much less, ill will, on the part of the errant
spouse. Irreconcilable differences, conflicting personalities, emotional immaturity
irresponsibility, physical abuse, habitual alcoholism, sexual infidelity or perversion,
and abandonment, by themselves, also do not warrant a finding of psychological
under the said Article (Republic vs Iyoy G.R. No. 152577).
In conclusion, Article 36 of the Family code is not to be confused with a divorce law
cuts the marital bond at the time the causes therefore manifest themselves. It
refers to a
serious psychological illness afflicting apart even before the celebration of marriage.
It is
a malady so grave and so permanent as to deprive one of awareness of the duties
responsibilities of the matrimonial bond one is about to assume (Republic vs Iyoy
No. 152577).
Holding: Petition granted; CA Decision reversed