RE

:

LIST OF JURISPRUDENCE RE ARTICLE 36 PSYCHOLOGICAL
INCAPACITY

1.Valerio E. Kalaw vs. Ma. Elena Fernandez (G.R. No. 166357, 14 January
2015)pages 3-5

2.GLENN VIÑAS, Petitioner, v. MARY GRACE PAREL (G.R. No. 208790, January 21,
2015 )pages 6-7

3.Mallilin vs. Jamesolamin, ( GR No. 192718 February 18, 2015)pages 8-11

4.Republic vs. CA and Molina (G.R. No. 108763 February 13, 1997)pages 12-13

5.Suazo v. Suazo G.R. No. 164493 : March 10, 2010 pages 14-15

6.Jose Reynaldo B. Ochosa vs. Bona J. Alano and Republic of the Philippine pages
16-17

7.G.R. No. 170022, January 9, 2013
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. CESAR ENCELAN, Respondent. Pages
18-19

8.REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. RODOLFO O. DE GRACIA | G.R. No. 171557 |
February 12, 2014 pages 20-23

9.ROWENA PADILLA-RUMBAUA vs. EDWARD RUMBAUA GR 166738, August 14,
2009 pages 24-25

10.NAJERA v NAJERA, G.R. No. 164817, July 3, 2009 pages 26-28

11.HALILI v. HALILI, G.R. No. 165424, June 9, 2009 pages 29-30

12.TING v TING, G.R. No. 166562, March 31, 2009 pages 31-32

13.AZCUETA v AZCUETA, G.R. No 180660 pages 33-37

14.HERNANDEZ v. COURT OF APPEALS pages 38-39

15.TE v TE G.R. No. 161793, February 13, 2009 pages 40- 43

16.ASPILLAGA v. ASPILLAGA, G.R. No. 170925, October 26, 2009 pages 44-46

17.LAURENA v. COURT OF APPEALS, G.R. No. 159220, September 22, 2008 pages
47-51

1|Page

18.REPUBLIC v. CABANTUG-BAGUIO, G.R. No. 171042, June 30, 2008 pages 52-54

19.BIER v. BIER, G.R. No. 173294, February 27, 2008, 547 SCRA 123 pages 55-57

2O.NAVALES v. NAVALES, G.R. No. 167523, June 27, 2008 pages 58-59

21.CHI MING TSOI v. COURT OF APPEALS, 78 SCAD 57, 266 SCRA 325 pages 60-61

22.REPUBLIC v. QUINTERO HAMANO, 428 SCRA 735 pages 62-64

23.TONGOL v. TONGOL , G.R. No. 157610, October 19, 2007 537 SCRA 135 pages
65-66

24.PARAS v. PARAS, G.R. No. 147824, August 2, 2007, 529 SCRA 81 pages 67-69

25.ANTONIO v ANTONIO, G.R. No. 155880, March 10, 2006 pages 70-71

26.FERRARIS v. FERRARIS, G.R No. 162368 July 17, 2006PEREZ- pages 72-73

27.BUENAVENTURA v CA, G.R. No. 127358/127449, March 31, 2005, 454 SCRA 261
FACTS: page 74

28.REPUBLIC v. DAGDAG, G.R. No. 109975, February 9, 2001 pages 75-76

29.SANTOS V. CA, 240 Scra 20 (1995)pages 77-78

30.Leonila Antonio v. Marie Ivonnie Reyes pages 79-82

31.REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v. LAILA TANYAG-SAN JOSE & MANOLITO SAN
JOSE pages 83-84

32.ALMELOR V. RTC-LAS PINAS, G.R. NO. 179620 pages 85-86

33. Arabelle Mendoza vs Republic (2012)pages 87-88

34.Republic vs Rodolfo De Gracia (2014)pages 89-90

35.YUK LING ONG V CO GR NO 206653 pages 91-93

36.SECOND DIVISION, G.R. NO. 158896, October 27, 2004, JUANITA CARATING-
SIAYNGCO, petitioner, vs. MANUEL SIAYNGCO, respondent pages 94-96

37.MENDOZA V REPUBLICGR 157854, NOVEMBER 12, 2012 pages 97-103

2|Page

1.

Valerio E. Kalaw vs. Ma. Elena Fernandez (G.R. No. 166357, 14
January 2015)

G.R. No. 166357 – Civil Law – Persons and Family Relations – Family Code –
Article 36; Psychological Incapacity – Gambling in the Presence of One’s
Children

Testimonies of Expert Witnesses as Evaluated by the Trial Court Must Be
Given Due Consideration

Burden of Proof in Proving Psychological Incapacity Does Not Solely Lie on
Plaintiff

FACTS:

In 1994, Valerio “Tyrone” Kalaw filed a petition to have his marriage with
Ma. Elena Fernandez be annulled on the ground that Elena is psychologically
incapacitated. The RTC, after hearing the expert witnesses testify in court,
eventually granted the petition, but on appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed
the said decision. Tyrone appealed to the Supreme Court. In September
2011, the Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the CA. Tyrone filed a
motion for reconsideration.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the September 2011 decision (657 SCRA 822) should be
reversed.

HELD:

Yes.

Trial court’s findings of facts should be given due weight

3|Page

a psychologist. it was shown that Elena was too addicted to mahjong that she would even bring her children to her mahjong sessions which were so frequent and would last from early in the afternoon to past midnight. Respondent could also establish the psychological incapacity of the plaintiff spouse The plaintiff in an annulment case under Article 36 carries the burden to prove the nullity of the marriage. but also manifested her tendency to expose them to a culture of gambling. the marriage has to be deemed null and void. upon closer look at the testimonies of the children. however. Gerard Healy on the ground that their conclusions were solely based on the Tyrone’s version of the events. psychological incapacity may exist in one party alone or in both of them. The position and role of the trial judge in the appreciation of the evidence showing the psychological incapacity were not to be downplayed but should be accorded due importance and respect. and Fr. Therefore. the respondent. the SC noted that all the children of Tyrone and Elena testified that although their parents have differences. Her willfully exposing her children to the culture of gambling on every occasion of her mahjong sessions was a very grave and serious act of subordinating their needs for parenting to the gratification of her own personal and escapist desires. The courts are justified in declaring a marriage null and void under Article 36 of the Family Code regardless of whether it is the petitioner or the respondent who imputes the psychological incapacity to the other as long as the imputation is fully substantiated with proof. could also establish the psychological incapacity of the plaintiff spouse if the respondent raised the matter in her/his answer. as the defendant spouse. it was not proper for the SC to brush aside the opinions tendered by Dr. 4|Page . The fact that the Elena brought her children with her to her mahjong sessions did not only point to her neglect of parental duties. However. and if psychological incapacity of either or both is established. both took good care of them. and should not anymore be disputed after the RTC itself had accepted the veracity of the Tyrone’s factual premises. Elena’s excessive mahjong sessions is indicative of her psychological incapacity In the September 2011 ruling.The SC ruled that it misappreciated the findings made by the RTC when the SC reviewed the case in September 2011. The SC ruled that the findings and evaluation by the RTC as the trial court deserved credence because it was in the better position to view and examine the demeanor of the witnesses while they were testifying. The conclusions reached by the two expert witnesses because they were largely drawn from the case records and affidavits. Cristina Gates. Indeed.

1976 as NULL AND VOID AB JN/TIO due to the psychological incapacity of the parties pursuant to Article 36 of the Family Code. the Court GRANTS the Motion for Reconsideration. FALLO: WHEREFORE. 2011. REVERSES and SETS ASIDE the decision promulgated on September 19. 5|Page . and REINSTATES the decision rendered by the Regional Trial Court declaring the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent on November 4.This revealed her wanton disregard for her children’s moral and mental development.

R. Mary Grace’s personality was assessed through the data gathered from Glenn and his cousin and diagnos ed her to be suffering from a Narcissistic Personality Disorder with anti- social traits.2. Hence. trust. RULING: No. Testimony of Expert Witness FACTS: Glenn filed a Petition for the declaration of nullity of his marriage with Mary Grace. commitment and fidelity t o each other. 208790. January 21. MARY GRACE PAREL (G. The doctor found him as “amply aware of his marital roles” and “capable of maintaining a mature and healthy heterosexual relationship. then actual medical examinatio n of the person concerned need not be resorted to. In the case of Mary Grac e. GLENN VIÑAS. The lack of personal examination or assessment of the respondent by a psychologist or psychiatrist is not necessarily fatal in a petition for the declar ation of nullity of marriage. If the totality of evidence presented is enough to sustain a finding of psychological incapacity. Dr. however. the documentary evidence offered do not sufficiently prove the r 6|Page . v. No.” On the other hand. The doctor then concluded that Mary Grace and Glenn’s relation ship is not founded on mutual love. 2015 ) Psychological incapacity. respect. Petitioner. Glenn sought professional guidance and submitted himself to a psych ological evaluation by Clinical Psychologist. ISSUE: Whether or not the lack of personal examination or assessment of a psychol ogist or psychiatrist is fatal in a petition for the declaration of nullity of marri age. Tayag recommended the propriety of declaring the nullity of the couple’s marriage.

this sa me statement cannot be made with respect to the respondent’s condition. while the various tests administered on the petitioner could have been used as a fair gauge to assess her own psychological condition. To make conclusions and generalizations on the respondent’s psychological con dition based on the information fed by only one side is. Moreover. not diffe rent from admitting hearsay evidence as proof of the truthfulness of the cont ent of such evidence. gravity. incurability of Mary Grace’s condition and that it existed a t the inception of marriage. 7|Page . to our mind.oot cause.

Luz was suffering from psychological and mental incapacity and unpreparedness to enter into such marital life and to comply with its essential obligations and responsibilities. Robert filed a case for annulment of their marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code. Robert’s petition was tried by the family court (RTC) of CDO. They begot three children. 8|Page . ( GR No. should refer to no less than a mental – not merely physical – incapacity that causes a party to be truly incognitive of the basic marital covenants that concomitantly must be assumed and discharged by the parties to the marriage which. deficiency of independent rational judgment. 2015) FACTS: Robert and Luz were married in 1972. Mallilin vs. among others. On 16 March 1994. as so expressed in Article 68 of the Family Code. Robert alleged that at the time of the celebration of their marriage.3. Robert’s petition with Metropolitan Tribunal and the National Matrimonial Tribunal of the Catholic Church was granted and their marriage declared void) After the hearing. and inability to cope with the heavy and oftentimes demanding obligation of a parent.  What is “psychological incapacity” within the meaning of Article 36 of the Family Code of the Philippines? “Psychological incapacity. He alleged that such incapacity became even more apparent during their marriage when Luz exhibited clear manifestation of immaturity. irresponsibility. include their mutual obligations to live together. the family court granted the petition but the Court of Appeals reversed family court and declared that there is no psychological incapacity. 192718 February 18. Decision: Court of Appeals is correct. (In the meantime.” as a ground to nullify a marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code. Jamesolamin. Main Issue: Whether or not the Court of Appeals is correct in declaring that there is no psychological incapacity to warrant annulment of marriage.

respect and fidelity. the cure would be beyond the means of the party involved. There is hardly a doubt that the intendment of the law has been to confine the meaning of “psychological incapacity” to the most serious cases of personality disorders clearly demonstrative of an utter insensitivity or inability to give meaning and significance to the marriage. Thus. even if it were otherwise. It must be incurable or. Any doubt should be resolved in favor of the existence and continuation of the marriage and against its dissolution and nullity. “(4) Such incapacity must also be shown to be medically or clinically permanent or incurable. and render help and support. “(1) The burden of proof to show the nullity of the marriage belongs to the plaintiff. Article 36 of the Family Code requires that the incapacity must be psychological — not physical. “(3) The incapacity must be proven to be existing at “the time of the celebration” of the marriage.”  What characterizes “psychological incapacity” to constitute grounds for annulment of marriage? a) gravity c) incurability b) juridical antecedence and “The incapacity must be grave or serious such that the party would be incapable of carrying out the ordinary duties required in marriage. although the overt manifestations may only emerge after the marriage.observe love. although its manifestations and/or symptoms may be physical. (c) sufficiently proven by experts and (d) clearly explained in the decision.”  Guidelines in resolving petitions for declaration of nullity of marriage. “mild 9|Page . “(5) Such illness must be grave enough to bring about the disability of the party to assume the essential obligations of marriage. (b) alleged in the complaint. “(2) The root cause of the psychological incapacity must be (a) medically or clinically identified. It must be rooted in the history of the party antedating the marriage.

”  Is sexual perversion or promiscuity of an errant spouse alone enough to constitute psychological incapacity? When can sexual promiscuity be considered psychological incapacity? “No. constitute grounds for declaring a marriage void based on psychological incapacity. Psychological incapacity refers only to the most serious cases of personality disorders clearly demonstrative of an utter insensitivity or inability to give meaning and significance to the marriage. while not controlling or decisive. much less ill will. Robert argues that the series of sexual indiscretion of Luz were external manifestations of the psychological defect that she was suffering within her person. deeply rooted. “(8) The trial court must order the prosecuting attorney or fiscal and the Solicitor General to appear as counsel for the state. to refuse or be reluctant to perform one’s duties is another. The Court has repeatedly stressed that psychological incapacity contemplates “downright incapacity or inability to take cognizance of and to assume the basic marital obligations. “(7) Interpretations given by the National Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal of the Catholic Church in the Philippines.Indeed. on the part of the errant spouse. Robert failed to prove that Luz’s disposition of not cleaning the room.The alleged failure of Luz to assume her duties as a wife and as a mother. irresponsibility and infidelity. as well as her emotional immaturity. was grave. mood changes. by themselves. should be given great respect by our courts. occasional emotional outbursts” cannot be accepted as root causes. and propensity for dating and receiving different male visitors. proven by evidence and included in the text of the decision.”  When can the evidence of psychological incapacity be considered as medically and clinically indentified? “Based on the records. As correctly found by the CA.” not merely the refusal. “(6) The essential marital obligations must be those embraced by Articles 68 up to 71 of the Family Code as regards the husband and wife as well as Articles 220. and incurable within the parameters of jurisprudence on psychological incapacity. which could be 10 | P a g e . to be declared clinically or medically incurable is one thing. washing the clothes. neglect or difficulty. 221 and 225 of the same Code in regard to parents and their children. Such non-complied marital obligation(s) must also be stated in the petition. preparing their meal. cannot rise to the level of psychological incapacity that justifies the nullification of the parties’ marriage. sexual infidelity or perversion and abandonment do not.characteriological peculiarities.

deeply rooted. respondent’s act of living an adulterous life cannot automatically be equated with a psychological disorder. the belated presentation of the decision of the NAMT cannot be given value since it was not offered during the trial. Rule 132. Although it is true that in the case of Republic v. while not controlling or decisive. Ideally – subject to our law on evidence – what is decreed as [canonically] invalid should be decreed civilly void x x x. Robert’s testimony alone is insufficient to prove the existence of psychological incapacity. Thus: Since the purpose of including such provision in our Family Code is to harmonize our civil laws with the religious faith of our people. no other convincing evidence was adduced to prove that these sexual indiscretions were considered as nymphomania.  What is the probative value of the decision of the National Matrimonial Tribunal of the Catholic Church? “…the decision of the Metropolitan Tribunal is insufficient to prove the psychological incapacity of Luz. great persuasive weight should be given to decisions of such appellate tribunal. which made her completely unable to discharge the essential obligations of the marital state. The petitioner must be able to establish that the respondent’s unfaithfulness was a manifestation of a disordered personality. it stands to reason that to achieve such harmonization. however.” “…. the Court stated that interpretations given by the NAMT of the Catholic Church in the Philippines. and that it was grave. and the Court has in no way of ascertaining the evidence considered by the same tribunal.” (Please observed however the tenor of the underscored portion of the decision. Section 34 of the Rules of Evidence provides: The court shall consider no evidence which has not been formally offered. and incurable within the term of psychological incapacity embodied in Article 36. still it is subject to the law on evidence.considered as nymphomania or “excessive sex hunger. should be given great respect by our courts. especially when no specific evidence was shown that promiscuity was a trait already existing at the inception of marriage. 11 | P a g e . Court of Appeals and Molina. In this regard. To stress.” Other than his allegations. Pertinently. Robert’s argument that nymphomania constitutes psychological incapacity might have been considered had it been backed up with proper evidence. The purpose of which the evidence is offered must be specified.

In 1986. In addition. after a year. 1997) FACTS: The case at bar challenges the decision of CA affirming the marriage of the respondent Roridel Molina to Reynaldo Molina void in the ground of psychological incapacity. ISSUE: Whether or not the marriage is void on the ground of psychological incapacity. Since then he abandoned them. Reynaldo’s action at the time of the marriage did not manifest such characteristics that would comprise grounds for psychological incapacity. 12 | P a g e .R. CA and Molina (G. What constitutes psychological incapacity is not mere showing of irreconcilable differences and confliction personalities. No. depends on his parents for aid and assistance and was never honest with his wife in regard to their finances. the couple had an intense quarrel and as a result their relationship was estranged. Republic vs. The couple got married in 1985. the expert testimony by Dr Sison showed no incurable psychiatric disorder but only incompatibility which is not considered as psychological incapacity. 108763 February 13.4. Roridel quit her work and went to live with her parents in Baguio City in 1987 and a few weeks later. Reynaldo left her and their child. It is indispensable that the parties must exhibit inclinations which would not meet the essential marital responsibilites and duties due to some psychological illness. Reynaldo manifested signs of immaturity and irresponsibility both as husband and a father preferring to spend more time with friends whom he squandered his money. HELD: The marriage between Roridel and Reynaldo subsists and remains valid. The evidence shown by Roridel merely showed that she and her husband cannot get along with each other and had not shown gravity of the problem neither its juridical antecedence nor its incurability.

68-71 as well as Art 220.The following are the guidelines as to the grounds of psychological incapacity laid set forth in this case:  burden of proof to show nullity belongs to the plaintiff  root causes of the incapacity must be medically and clinically inclined  such incapacity should be in existence at the time of the marriage  such incapacity must be grave so as to disable the person in complying with the essentials of marital obligations of marriage  such incapacity must be embraced in Art. 221 and 225 of the Family Code  decision of the National Matrimonial Appellate Court or the Catholic Church must be respected  court shall order the prosecuting attorney and the fiscal assigned to it to act on behalf of the state 13 | P a g e .

Indolence. Physical Violence Not Necessarily Psychological Incapacity In 1985. It was Jocelyn who had to work while Angelito was lazy. Angelito was also constantly drunk. Further. could not have secured a complete personality profile and could not have conclusively formed an objective opinion or diagnosis of Angelito’s psychological condition. The psychologist. neglect or mere 14 | P a g e . ISSUE: Whether or not the marriage should be annulled on the ground of psychological incapacity.5. Jocelyn filed a petition to have their marriage be declared void on the ground that Angelito was psychologically incapacitated. she concluded that Angelito is psychologically incapacitated to perform the essential marital obligations. In 1997.R. Suazo v. But their marriage did not turn out to be ideal. by themselves. And in 1987. Jocelyn presented Dr. 164493 : March 10. The RTC voided the marriage but the Court of Appeals reversed the decision. Psychological Incapacity – Drunkenness. In 1986. Suazo G. 2010 615 SCRA 154 – Civil Law – Persons and Family Relations – Family Code – Article 36. gambling and refusal to find a job. No. Angelito would beat her. using meager information coming from a directly interested party (Jocelyn). They were just 16 years old at that time. All these simply indicate difficulty. In court. Jocelyn and Angelito Suazo met each other. Laguna. When confronted by Jocelyn. HELD: No. do not. Angelito left Jocelyn for another woman. Nedy Tayag who testified that based on her interview with Jocelyn and the description fed to her by Jocelyn. show psychological incapacity. they got married before the Mayor of Biñan. habitual drunkenness. while indicative of psychological incapacity.

Jurisprudence holds that there must be evidence showing a link. such violence. In this case. however. this evidence does not satisfy the requirement of Article 36 and its related jurisprudence. specifically the requisites provided for in the case of Santos vs CA. medical or the like. does not constitute psychological incapacity. that Jocelyn’s account of the physical beatings she received from Angelito were true. standing alone. between the acts that manifest psychological incapacity and the psychological disorder itself. Anent Angelito’s violent tendencies.refusal to perform marital obligations that cannot be considered to be constitutive of psychological incapacity in the absence of proof that these are manifestations of an incapacity rooted in some debilitating psychological condition or illness. Even assuming. the psychologist failed to link the violence to psychological incapacity. therefore. physical violence on women indicates abnormal behavioral or personality patterns. 15 | P a g e .

Psychological Incapacity – Juridical Antecedence Sexual Infidelity and Abandonment are not per se Psychological Incapacity In 1973. in only about three months of knowing each other. 16 | P a g e . Ochosa presented Gertrudes Padernal and Demetrio Bajet. he confronted Alona and the latter eventually left him. In 1987.R. Ochosa filed a petition to have their marriage be declared void on the ground that Alona was psychologically incapacitated to perform the essential marital obligations. Alona is suffering from Histrionic Personality Disorder. Some time in the mid 90’s. The RTC declared the marriage void but on appeal. a member of the Armed Forces. While in prison. Ochosa presented Dr. Lastly. Elizabeth Rondain who testified that based on her evaluation. No. Alano and Republic of the Philippine G. Ochosa vs.6. the Court of Appeals reversed the RTC ruling. Both were under their household employ and they testified that indeed Alona was unfaithful to Ochosa and that Alona abandoned Ochosa. 167459 640 SCRA 517 – Civil Law – Persons and Family Relations – Family Code – Article 36. Jose Reynaldo B. that Alona has an excessive emotion and attention seeking behavior. She however admitted having an affair with various men during the marriage. ISSUE: Whether or not psychological incapacity was proven in the case at bar. When he got out of prison. But due to his work. Ochosa was assigned in different places in different times. Ochosa was incarcerated for his participation in a failed coup d’etat. In court. he heard of his wife’s infidelity. married each other. at that time a college drop out. Bona J. and Bona Alano. Jose Ochosa.

Those testimonies by Ochosa et al can hardly be considered as objective. Although it is true that there is no requirement that the spouse sought to be declared psychologically incapacitated should be personally examined by a psychologist this is only true if the alleged psychological incapacity can be proven through independent means. What’s clear is that said infidelity and abandonment only happened after the marriage. NOTE: In this case. Ochosa failed to link Alano’s infidelity and abandonment as something that is psychologically rooted so as to support a finding of psychological incapacity. juridical antecedence was not proven since the said infidelity and abandonment by Alano were not proven to have existed at the time of the marriage. In this case. Dr. the witnesses (Padernal and Bajet) who testified on Alona’s infidelity and abandonment only knew Ochosa and Alano in 1980 and 1986. They are self-serving. Rondain only based his conclusion on the statements made by Ochosa and those of Padernal and Bajet. the SC also emphasized that Article 36 does not actually dissolve a marriage. there is really no marriage to speak of – hence. 17 | P a g e . What it does is that it recognizes that. if it is present at the time of the marriage. the need to declare such marriage void. Thus. Secondly. the totality of the evidence failed to support a finding that Alona is psychologically incapacitated.HELD: No. in the first place. In fact. respectively. Firstly.

At the trial. Cesar learned that Lolita had been having an illicit affair with Alvin Perez (Alvin).R. 2013 REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES. CESAR ENCELAN. CIVIL LAW: Psychological Incapacity 18 | P a g e . No. RTC declared Cesars marriage to Lolita void. While still in Saudi Arabia. HELD: The petition is meritorious. Cesar went to work in Saudi Arabia. BRION. January 9.: FACTS: Respondent Cesar married Lolita and the union bore two children. Since then. Lolita allegedly left the conjugal home with her children and lived with Alvin. Subsequently. He testified that he continued to provide financial support for Lolita and their children even after he learned of her illicit affair with Alvin. Thereafter. Respondent. ISSUE: Whether or not there exists sufficient basis to nullify the marriage. The Office of the Solicitor General then filed the present petition. Cesar filed with the RTC a petition against Lolita for the declaration of the nullity of his marriage based on Lolitas psychological incapacity.7. Cesar and Lolita had been separated. G. Cesar affirmed his allegations of Lolitas infidelity and subsequent abandonment of the family home. 170022. v. To support his family. J. Petitioner. CA affirmed the RTCs decision. Upon reconsideration.

gravity and incurability of the condition of the errant spouse. In this case.e. even if true. 19 | P a g e . neglect or difficulty. sexual infidelity and abandonment of the conjugal dwelling.. do not necessarily constitute psychological incapacity. The decision of CA is set aside. these are simply grounds for legal separation. much less ill will. Cesars testimony failed to prove Lolitas alleged psychological incapacity. on the part of the errant spouse. The plaintiff bears the burden of proving the juridical antecedence (i. the Court have repeatedly stressed that psychological incapacity contemplates downright incapacity or inability to take cognizance of and to assume the basic marital obligations. not merely the refusal. Petition is GRANTED. In interpreting this provision. the existence at the time of the celebration of marriage). In any event.Article 36 of the Family Code governs psychological incapacity as a ground for declaration of nullity of marriage. it must be shown that the unfaithfulness and abandonment are manifestations of a disordered personality that completely prevented the erring spouse from discharging the essential marital obligations. To constitute psychological incapacity.

Ma.8. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. Rodolfo testified that – . to refuse or be reluctant to perform one's duties is another FACTS: Rodolfo and Natividad were married on February 15. Rizza. DE GRACIA | G. The refusal to live with one’s spouse and to assume her duties as wife and mother as well as her emotional immaturity.R. alleging that Natividad was psychologically incapacitated to comply with her essential marital obligations. No. namely.At the time of their 20 | P a g e . 171557 | February 12.He first met Natividad when they were students at the Barangay High School of Sindangan and he was forced to marry her barely 3 months into their courtship in light of her accidental pregnancy. 2014 Although expert opinions furnished by psychologists regarding the psychological temperament of parties are usually given considerable weight by the courts. The public prosecutor conducted an investigation to determine if collusion exists between Rodolfo and Natividad and found that there was none. irresponsibility and infidelity do not rise to the level of psychological incapacity that would justify the nullification of the parties' marriage. to be declared clinically or medically incurable is one thing. Trial on the merits then ensued. Rodolfo filed a complaint for declaration of nullity of marriage before the RTC. They lived in Zamboanga del Norte and have 2 children. . the existence of psychological incapacity must still be proven by independent evidence. 1969. RODOLFO O. Reynilda and Ma. Indeed.

contending that the acts committed by Natividad did not demonstrate psychological incapacity as contemplated by law. filed an opposition to the complaint. while Natividad was 18 years of age. Dr. finding that both parties suffered from "utter emotional immaturity which is unusual and unacceptable behavior considered as deviant from persons who abide by established norms of conduct. Zalsos stated that both Rodolfo and Natividad were psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential marital obligations. Rodolfo was left to take care of their children and exerted earnest efforts to save their marriage which proved futile because of Natividad’s psychological incapaci ty that appeared to be incurable.marriage. he was 21 years old. will and heart for the obligations of marriage. but the CA affirmed the ruling of the RTC. and bore him a child named Julie Ann Terez. ." The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG). PSYCHIATRIC EVALUATION REPORT : Dr. despite service of summon.Thereafter. Natividad contracted a second marriage on January 11. Natividad moved to Dipolog City where she lived with a certain Engineer Terez.Since 1972. although it only manifested after. but are mere grounds for legal separation under the Family Code. representing petitioner Republic of the Philippines (Republic). Natividad failed to file her answer and appear during trial. Zalsos concluded that the "couple’s union was bereft of the mind. finding that while 21 | P a g e . Further. . Natividad left their conjugal home and sold their house without his consent.When he decided to join and train with the army. but she informed the court that she submitted herself for psychiatric examination to Dr. Rodolfo also underwent the same examination.After cohabiting with Terez. Zalsos. relying on the findings and testimony of Dr." . Dr. Based on the foregoing. The Republic appealed to the CA. 1991 with another man named Antonio Mondarez and has lived since then with the latter in Cagayan de Oro City. He had no stable job and merely worked in the gambling cockpits as "kristo" and "bangkero sa hantak. . Zalsos in response to Rodolfo’s cla ims. The RTC declared the marriage between Rodolfo and Natividad void on the ground of psychological incapacity. Zalsos noted that the mental condition of both parties already existed at the time of the celebration of marriage. Cheryl T.

CA. Zalsos. as duly testified to by Dr. citing the case of Santos v. declared that psychological incapacity must be characterized by: (a) gravity (it must be grave and serious such that the party would be incapable of carrying out the ordinary duties required in a marriage). "their degree or severity. The Court.Natividad’s emotional immaturity. irresponsibility and promiscuity by themselves do not necessarily equate to psychological incapacity. should refer to no less than a mental – not merely 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." as a ground to nullify a marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code. The law did not intend to confine the meaning of "psychological incapacity" to the most serious cases of personality disorders clearly demonstrative of an utter insensitivity or inability to give meaning and significance to the marriage. there exists insufficient factual or legal basis to conclude that Natividad’s emotional immaturity. "Psychological incapacity. and (c) incurability 22 | P a g e . or even sexual promiscuity. irre sponsibility. can be equated with psychological incapacity. has sufficiently established a case of psychological disorder so profound as to render Natividad incapacitated to perform her essential marital obligations. although the overt manifestations may emerge only after the marriage). (b) juridical antecedence (it must be rooted in the history of the party antedating the marriage." ISSUE : Whether the CA erred in sustaining the RTC’s finding of psychological incapacity – RULING YES : The Court ruled that based on the evidence presented.

or even if it were otherwise. Zalsos which does not. Zalsos's testimony during trial. also fails to convince the Court of her conclusion that Natividad was psychologically incapacitated. however. heavily relied on the psychiatric evaluation report of Dr. Verily. explain in reasonable detail how Natividad’s condition could be characterized as grave. The finding contained in the report on the incurability of Natividad's condition remains unsupported by any factual or scientific basis and. Zalsos failed to identify in her report the root cause of Natividad's condition and to show that it existed at the time of the parties' marriage . the existence of psychological incapacity must still be proven by independent evidence. Zalsos's report. after poring over the records. to be declared clinically or medically incurable is one thing. Indeed. as affirmed by the CA. the Court does not find any such evidence sufficient enough to uphold the court a quo's nullity declaration. hence. the cure would be beyond the means of the party involved). Neither was the gravity or seriousness of Natividad's behavior in relation to her failure to perform the essential marital obligations sufficiently described in Dr. (it must be incurable. which is essentially a reiteration of her report. to refuse or be reluctant to perform one's duties is another 23 | P a g e . Dr. In the same vein. although expert opinions furnished by psychologists regarding the psychological temperament of parties are usually given considerable weight by the courts. The rulings of the RTC. Dr. Natividad's refusal to live with Rodolfo and to assume her duties as wife and mother as well as her emotional immaturity. and incurable within the parameters of psychological incapacity jurisprudence . appears to be drawn out as a bare conclusion and even self-serving. Aside from failing to disclose the types of psychological tests which she administered on Natividad. However. irresponsibility and infidelity do not rise to the level of psychological incapacity that would justify the nullification of the parties' marriage. deeply-rooted.

EDWARD RUMBAUA GR 166738. he represented himself as single in his transactions. 24 | P a g e . together with her report. The RTC nullified the marriage in its decision. the psychologist was able to prove that the respondent is indeed psychologically incapacitated according to Article 36 of the Family Code of the Philippines. Rowena. She alleged that the respondent was psychologically incapacitated to exercise the essential obligations of marriage as shown by the following circumstances: the respondent reneged on his promise to be true with her under one roof after finding work. 2009 FACTS: Rowena Padilla and Edward Rumbaua were married. August 14. ISSUE: Whether or not.9. suffers from very basic flaws. However. he failed to extend financial support to her. and he pretended to be working in Davao. Tayag. The Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the Regional Trial Court due to prematurity thus denied the nullification of the parties' marriage. they never lived together in one habitat because their marriage was a secret to Edward's family. The testimony of Dr. then filed a petition to the Supreme Court praying for the Court of Appeal's decision be set aside and RTC's decision be reinstated. Rowena filed for nullity of their marriage due to psychological incapacity. ROWENA PADILLA-RUMBAUA vs. RULING: No. although he was cohabiting with another woman. The Republic of the Philippines appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals due to prematurity. as it was rendered despite the absence of required certifications from the Solicitor General. he blamed her for his mother‘s death.

First. As the doctor admitted to the prosecutor. and about events on or about the time of the marriage and immediately thereafter.that the person sought to be declared psychologically incapacitated should be personally examined by a physician or psychologist as a condition sine qua non to arrive at such declaration. of course. however. no reason exists why such independent proof cannot be admitted and given credit. No such independent evidence. In short. Second. most notably on how the respondent can be said to be suffering from narcissistic personality disorder. why and to what extent the disorder is grave and incurable. Neither the law nor jurisprudence requires. what she medically described was not related or linked to the respondent’s exact condition except in a very general way. only the petitioner. 25 | P a g e . how and why it was already present at the time of the marriage. her testimony was short on factual basis for her diagnosis because it was wholly based on what the petitioner related to her. and the effects of the disorder on the respondent’s awareness of and his capability to undertake the duties and responsibilities of marriage. she did not at all examine the respondent. appears on record to have been gathered in this case. her testimony and report were rich in generalities but disastrously short on particulars. All these are critical to the success of the petitioner’s case. If a psychological disorder can be proven by independent means. particularly about the respondent’s early life and associations.

They were married on January 31. No. as had been happening every year. He took to smoking marijuana and tried to force petitioner into it. while respondent was jobless. When she refused. NAJERA v NAJERA. he was always drunk. (c) As a seaman. with Application for Designation as Administrator Pendente Lite of the Conjugal Partnership of Gains. 1988 (Pangasinan).10. They are childless. Only with the help of petitioners elder brother. petitioner was already employed with the Special Services Division of the Provincial Government of Pangasinan. (d) When respondent arrived home from his ship voyage in April 1994. G. July 3. 1997. he arrived home drunk and he smoked 26 | P a g e . Petitioner claimed that at the time of the celebration of marriage. He would go out of the house and when he arrived home. He continued to be jealous. he started to quarrel with petitioner and falsely accused her of having an affair with another man. was respondent able to land a job as a seaman in 1988 through the Intercrew Shipping Agency. respondent was psychologically incapacitated d/t the ff grounds: (a) At the time of their marriage. 164817. In May 1989. when he came home from his ship voyage. He did not exert enough effort to find a job and was dependent on petitioner for support. 2009 To Consider Church Annulments As Additional Grounds For Nullity Of Marriage Under Article 36 Would Be Legislating From The Bench In January 27. he insulted her and uttered unprintable words against her.R. respondent did not give petitioner sufficient financial support and she had to rely on her own efforts and the help of her parents in order to live. (b) While employed as a seaman. he quarreled with petitioner. petitioner filed with the RTC a verified Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage with Alternative Prayer for Legal Separation. respondent was away from home from nine to ten months each year. who was a seaman.

without provocation. yet she sustained physical injuries on different parts of her body. and the incident was reported at the Bugallon Police Station. while he was quarreling with petitioner. She was treated by Dr.000. and guilty of infidelity. he denied the material allegations in the petition and averred that petitioner was incurably immature. He claimed that the subject house and lot were acquired through his sole effort and money. Ordering the dissolution of the conjugal partnership of the petitioner/plaintiff and respondent/defendant. 1994. and that after trial on the merits. he inflicted physical violence upon her and attempted to kill her with a bolo. Padlan. decreeing legal separation of petitioner and respondent pursuant to Title II of the Family Code. with very low morality. respondent prayed for the award of P200. (e) Respondent left the family home. 2. ISSUE: Whether or not the totality of petitioners evidence was able to prove that respondent is psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential obligations of marriage warranting the annulment of their marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code. He lived with his mother at Banaga. and he abandoned petitioner Petitioner prayed that upon filing of the petition. and to divide the same equally between themselves pursuant to their Joint Manifestation/Motion CA : AFFIRMED in toto. On July 3. As counterclaim. She was able to parry his attack with her left arm.00 as moral damages RTC : GRANTED 1.marijuana. and (3) declaring the dissolution of the conjugal partnership of petitioner and respondent and the forfeiture in favor of petitioner of respondents share in the said properties pursuant to Articles 42 (2) and 63 (2) of the Family Code. Pangasinan. Decreeing legal separation of Petitioner/Plaintiff Digna Najera and respondent/defendant Eduardo Najera. 27 | P a g e . an Order be issued appointing her as the sole administrator of their conjugal properties. Bugallon. of dubious integrity. (2) in the alternative. and (4) granting petitioner other just and equitable reliefs. judgment be rendered (1) declaring their marriage void ab initio in accordance with Article 36 of the Family Code. taking along all their personal belongings. 1997. RESPONDENT's ANSWER: April 17.

Psychologist Cristina Gates conclusion that respondent was psychologically incapacitated (Borderline Personality Disoreder) was based on facts relayed to her by petitioner and was not based on her personal knowledge and evaluation of respondent. 28 | P a g e . her finding is unscientific and unreliable. CA affirmed RATIONALE Court agrees with the Court of Appeals that the totality of the evidence submitted by petitioner failed to satisfactorily prove that respondent was psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential obligations of marriage.RULING: DENIED. thus. The root cause of respondents alleged psychological incapacity was not sufficiently proven by experts or shown to be medically or clinically permanent or incurable. petitioner-appellant should not expect SC to give credence to the Decision of the National Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal when. it was made on a different set of evidence of which SC have no way of ascertaining their truthfulness. Petitioners argument is without merit (that the Court of Appeals failed to consider the Decision of the National Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal which her counsel sought to be admitted). Given the preceding disquisitions. The Court agrees with the Court of Appeals that the evidence presented by petitioner in regard to the physical violence or grossly abusive conduct of respondent toward petitioner and respondents abandonment of petitioner without justifiable cause for more than one year are grounds for legal separation only and not for annulment of marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code. apparently.

but maintained the relationship. CA : reversed and set aside the decision of the trial court on the ground that the totality of the evidence presented failed to establish petitioners psychological incapacity. they never lived together as husband and wife. at which point petitioner decided to stop seeing respondent and started dating other women.” FACTS: Petitioner Lester Benjamin S. HALILI v. he received prank calls telling him to stop dating other women as he was already a married man. After the ceremonies. 29 | P a g e . found petitioner to be suffering from a mixed personality disorder. No. as diagnosed by his expert witness. 2009 The Supreme court granted the nullity of marriage based on the finding that the petitioner was suffering from “mixed personality disorder from self- defeating personality disorder to dependent personality disorder. He alleged that he wed respondent in civil rites thinking that it was a joke. G. Dr. The court a quo held that petitioners personality disorder was serious and incurable and directly affected his capacity to comply with his essential marital obligations to respondent. It was only upon making an inquiry that he found out that the marriage was not fake. they started fighting constantly a year later. Branch 158. particularly dependent and self-defeating personality disorder. Santos-Halili null and void on the basis of his psychological incapacity to perform the essential obligations of marriage in the Regional Trial Court (RTC). June 9.11. Pasig City. 165424. RTC : declared the marriage null and void. Natividad Dayan. Immediately thereafter. HALILI. Halili filed a petition to declare his marriage to respondent Chona M.R. However.

RATIONALE: It has been sufficiently established that petitioner had a psychological condition that was grave and incurable and had a deeply rooted cause. The marriage between petitioner and respondent is declared null and void. Particularly. beginning in childhood or adolescence. SC recognized that individuals with diagnosable personality disorders usually have long-term concerns.ISSUE: W/N Lester Halili is proven psychologically incapacitated? RULING: GRANTED. create problems for those who display them and for others 30 | P a g e . personality disorders are long-standing. These disorders affect all areas of functioning and. and thus therapy may be long- term. inflexible ways of behaving that are not so much severe mental disorders as dysfunctional styles of living.

Both presented expert witnesses (psychiatrist) to refute each others claim. only became manifest thereafter. Benjamin’s violent nature brought about by his excessive and regular drinking. Carmen filed a verified petition before the RTC of Cebu City praying for the declaration of nullity of their marriage based on Article 36 of the Family Code.12. RTC ruled in favor of the respondent declaring the marriage null and void. No. because he no longer had money to pay the same. March 31. as a result of which Benjamin found it necessary to sell the family car twice and the property he inherited from his father in order to pay off his debts. 2. His compulsive gambling habit. Benjamin denied being psychologically incapacitated. He maintained that he is a respectable person. 3. which adversely affected his family relationship and his profession. Benjamin’s alcoholism. On October 21. Carmen’s allegations of Benjamin’s psychological incapacity consisted of the following manifestations: 1. G. She claimed that Benjamin suffered from psychological incapacity even at the time of the celebration of their marriage. Benjamin’s irresponsibility and immaturity as shown by his failure and refusal to give regular financial support to his family. They fell in love. which. and they were wed on July 26. and 4. 2009 FACTS: Benjamin Ting and Carmen Velez-Ting first met in 1972 while they were classmates in medical school. 1993. while Carmen played mahjong with her friends twice a week.R. 1975 in Cebu City when respondent was already pregnant with their first child. however. 166562. In his answer. 31 | P a g e . as his peers would confirm. He also pointed out that it was he who often comforted and took care of their children. TING v TING. after being married for more than 18 years to petitioner and while their youngest child was only two years old.

No. 32 | P a g e .Petitioner appealed to the CA. Respondent filed a motion for reconsideration. CA reversed RTC’s decision. 3. respondent’s argument that the doctrinal guidelines prescribed in Santos and Molina should not be applied retroactively for being contrary to the principle of stare decisis is no longer new. and more particularly. predilections or generalizations but according to its own attendant facts. that he suffered from such psychological incapacity as of the date of the marriage eighteen (18) years ago. 2. Whether or not the CA correctly ruled that the requirement of proof of psychological incapacity for the declaration of absolute nullity of marriage based on Article 36 of the Family Code has been liberalized. Courts should interpret the provision on a case-to-case basis. Whether the CAs decision declaring the marriage between petitioner and respondent null and void is in accordance with law and jurisprudence. guided by experience. the findings of experts and researchers in psychological disciplines. There is no evidence that adduced by respondent insufficient to prove that petitioner is psychologically unfit to discharge the duties expected of him as a husband. 3. Whether the CA violated the rule on stare decisis when it refused to follow the guidelines set forth under the Santos and Molina cases. arguing that the Molina guidelines should not be applied to this case Issues: 1. and by decisions of church tribunals. Held: 1. 2. The Case involving the application of Article 36 must be treated distinctly and judged not on the basis of a priori assumptions.

like a psychiatrist or psychologist. there was no collusion found between the parties. 2002. Azcueta and Rodolfo Azcueta met in 1993. Trial Court then ordered the City prosecutor to investigate whether there was collusion between the parties. OSG entered its appearance for the RP and submitted a written authority for the City Prosecutor to appear in the case on the State’s behalf under the supervision and control of the SG. After 4 years of marriage the separated (1997). 2002 Marieta filed before RTC a petiion for declaration of absolute nullity of marriage under Art. Antipolo City. No 180660 The testimony of an expert witness. G. - On Aug. - On March 2. But in the report filed by the Prosecutor. 1993 at St. They have no children. Marietta was 23 while Rodolfo was 28. if credible and if consistent with the totality of the evidence. - Rodolfo failed to appear and file an answer despite service of summons upon him. 33 | P a g e . 36 of FC. NOTE: This is a landmark case on Psychological Incapacity which proclaims. They got married on July 24.21. must be given weight. FACTS: - Marieta C. habitual lying as constitutive of psychological incapacity which may lead to nullity of marriage.13 AZCUETA v AZCUETA. which is also credible. Anthony of Padua Church. habitual lying as constitutive of psychological incapacity which may lead to nullity of marriage. At the time of the marriage. under certain circumstances.R.

Rodolfo however pretended that he finally found a job. that he was emotionally immature. she was forced to leave their residence and see if he will follow her but he did not. During his supposed work time he would stay at his parent’s house and his supposed salary that was given to Marieta was from his mother. - Their sexual relationship was also unsatisfactory that they only had sex once a month and that Marieta never enjoyed it. Rodolfo did not agree. irresponsible and continually failed to adapt himself to married life and perform the essential responsibilities and duties of a husband. He also told her that his parents can support their needs. Rodolfo’s first cousin testified and corroborated with Marieta’s testimony that Rodolfo was not employed when he married And he merely relied on the allowance given by his mother. It was RodolfoÕs mother who found them a room near the Azcueta’s home and it was also the mother who paid for the monthly rental. - She also claimed that she constantly encourage her husband to find a job but Rodolfo told her that he was too old and most jobs have an age limit and that he had no clothes to wear for job interviews. WHY IT IS PI 34 | P a g e . - She complained that whenever Rodolfo would get drunk he became physically abusive. - During the trial.Marieta claimed that Rodolfo was psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential obligations of marriage. he would go to his parent’s house and that Rodolfo is still residing at the house of his mother and not living together with Marieta. - When she asked Rodolfo to move to another place and rent a small room rather than live near his parents. She claimed that Rodolfo was so dependent on his mother and that all his decisions and attitudes in life should be in conformity with those of his mother. Because of this. So she bought his husband new clothes and a pair of shoes and even give him money to apply for a job. Marieta alleged that Rodolfo cried like a child and told her that he lied so that she would stop nagging him on getting a job. The witness also confirmed that that it was the mother who paid for the rent and that during the time when Rodolfo alleged that he has job and wearing a business attire. - She claimed that Rodolfo never bothered to look for a job and instead always ask her mother for financial assistance. - When confronted.

respect. He failed likewise to have sexual intercourse with the wife because it is a result of the unconscious guilt feeling of having sexual relationship since he could not distinguish between the mother and the wife and therefore sex relationship will not be satisfactory as expected. support was not fulfilled. It was incurable because it started in early development and therefore deeply ingrained into his personality.- Marieta also presented Dr. very responsible focused and has direction and ambition in life. independent. this kind of problem was also severe because he will not be able to make and carry out on the responsibilities expected of a married person. The marital obligations to live together. 2004 The evidence presented by Marieta established that Rodolfo failed to perform his commitments and obligations as a husband. she found that Rodolfo showed that he was psychologically incapacitated to perform his marital duties and responsibilities. a psychiatrist who testified that after examining marieta. Villegas concluded that he was suffering from Dependent Personality Disorder associated with severe inadequacy related to masculine strivings. observe mutual love. - Dr. She added that the root cause of this psychological problem was a cross Ð identification with the mother who was the dominant figure in the family considering that Rodolfo’s father was a seaman and always out of the house. her psychological evaluation was matured. Therefore. constant self-doubt. - She explained that persons suffering from Dependent Personality Disorder were those whose response to ordinary life was ineffectual and inept. Dr. Cecilia Villegas. WHY IT IS NOT PI - Rodolfo is suffering from dependent personality disorder and therefore cannot make his own decision and cannot carry on his responsibilities as a husband. According to Dr. Villegas added that based on the information gathered from petitioner. - 35 | P a g e . Villegas. - RTC declared the marriage null and void ab initio (October 25. characterized by loss of self-confidence. she was not psychologically incapacitated to perform the duties and responsibilities of marriage. inability to make his own decisions and dependency on other people. She stated that this problem began during the early stages in his life but manifested only after the celebration of his marriage.

refusal or neglect in the performance of some marital obligations. it is essential that they must be shown to be incapable of doing so. permanent and incurable. Rodolfo shown that he has full grasp of reality and completely understands the implication of having a child especially that he is unemployed. - Psychological incapacity must be more than just a difficulty. Likewise stated that the respondent does not want to have a child because he is not yet ready to have one-that this is not at all manifestation of irresponsibility On the contrary. which was not proven in this case to be psychological rooted. - Records show that the parties were living in harmony in the first few years of the marriage and were living in their own rented apartment. That the only problem in the union is Rodolfo’s alleged irresponsibility and unwillingness to leave her mother. ISSUE: 36 | P a g e . - CA reasoned that the evidence on record failed to demonstrate that Marieta’s alleged irresponsibility and overdependence on his mother is symptomatic of psychological incapacity. do not constitute psychological incapacity.SG appealed the RTC decision objecting (a) the psychiatric report of Dr. - That the behaviour of Rodolfo was only caused by his youth and emotional immaturity which by themselves. due to some psychological illness existing at the time of the celebration of the marriage. considering that it was his wife who is working for the family. Villegas was based solely on the information provided Marieta and was not based on an examination of Rodolfo (b) there was no showing that the alleged psychological defects were present at the inception of marriage or that such defects were grave. Rodolfo often times asks his mother for financial support may be brought about his feelings of embarrassment that he cannot contribute to the family coffers. - CA reversed the RTC decision and ruled that Marieta failed to sufficiently prove the psychological incapacity of Rodolfo or that his alleged psychological disorder existed prior to the marriage and was grave and incurable.

Rodolfo’s irresponsibility. Rodolfo is suffering from dependent personality disorder and therefore cannot make it his own decision and cannot carry on his responsibilities as a husband. Rodolfo’s psychological incapacity was established to have clearly existed at the time of and even before the celebration of marriage. so as to render him unable to assume the essential obligations of marriage. The reasoning of CA was not supported by evidence thus. support was not fulfilled by Rodolfo. observe mutual love. Whether or not the totality of the evidence presented is adequate to sustain a finding that Rodolfo is psychologically incapacitated to comply with his essential marital obligations. His psychological incapacity has been shown to be sufficiently grave. respect. Considering the totality of evidence of the petitioner clearly show that respondent failed to comply with his marital obligations. overdependence on his mother and abnormal sexual reticence were evident that they manifest his dependent personality disorder must have existed even prior to the marriage being rooted in his early development and by product of his upbringing and family life. With the evidence presented by Marieta the court find Rodolfo totally failed in his commitments and obligations as a husband. The marital obligations to live together. He failed likewise to have sexual intercourse with the wife because it is a result of the unconscious guilt feeling of having sexual relationship since he could not distinguish between the mother and the wife and therefore sex relationship will not be satisfactory as expected. 37 | P a g e . RULING: The petition is granted. The decision of RTC is reinstated. Rodolfo’s emotional immaturity and irresponsibility is grave and he has no showing of improvement. it only strengthen the argument of Marieta which was supported by an expert witness.

14. The RTC dissolved their marriage. They got married civilly in 1982 and then before a reverend in 1983. Wilson couldn't get a decent job. ISSUES: W/N a personal medical or psychological examination is a requirement for a declaration of psychological incapacity. Eventually. sufficiently proven by experts and clearly explained in the decision. W/N the evidence established the incapacity of Wilson RULING: 38 | P a g e . they became sweethearts when they were working as security for the Marcoses in Malaca– an in 1980. HERNANDEZ v. She presented the findings of a psychologist who evaluated her (but not Wilson). and then he became violent. They subsequently started living separately. and that the totality of the evidence failed to show such incapacity. if the totality of evidence presented is enough to sustain a finding of psychological incapacity. their children and even towards other people. Brenda filed a case of Declaration of Nullity of their marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity against Wilson. COURT OF APPEALS Asserts there is no requirement that the person to be declared psychologically incapacitated be personally examined by a physician. The CA reversed the RTC ruling saying that it is necessary that the root cause of Wilson's psychological incapacity be medically and clinically identified. FACTS: Wilson and Brenda were both former military personnel. he became physically abusive towards Brenda.

could not find a good job. His alleged psychological illness was traced only to the time when he lost his job. the basic requirements incorporated in the guidelines are that the psychological capacity must be characterized by gravity. What is important is the presence of evidence that can adequately establish the party's psychological condition. failed to give support. and incurability. and NO. Even though Wilson failed to provide material support and resorted to physical abuse and abandonment. became intermittently drunk. juridical antecedence. The case of Republic vs CA and Molina states the guidelines governing the application and interpretation of Article 36. there is absolutely no showing that his defects were already present at the inception of the marriage or that they are incurable. NO. It was not traced to the inception of the marriage. and as mandated in Santos vs CA. He is now gainfully employed as a taxi driver 39 | P a g e . There is also no evidence that his condition is incurable. It is not required that a physician examine the person to be declared psychologically incapacitated. and left the family home.

providing their travel money and she purchasing the boat ticket.R. No. which was used for their pension house accommodation and daily sustenance. so in April 1996. Having similar angst towards their families. Edward Te and Rowena Te met in a Filipino-Chinese association in their college. as he was young and jobless. TE v TE G. They left Manila and sailed to Cebu. - Rowena stayed at her uncle’s house while Edward to his parents home. Edward’s 80. - 40 | P a g e . Rowena kept on telephoning him. As his family was abroad. threatening that she would commit suicide. so Edward agreed to stay with her at her uncle’s place. At first he refused. February 13.000. 2009 The supreme court granted nullity of marriage as it was shown that the petitioner was suffering from dependent personality disorder and the respondent was also suffering from dependent personality disorder and the respondent was also suffering from narcissistic and anti-social personality disorder. they decided to go back to Manila. 161793.15. - However.00 only lasted for a month. They could not find a job. both consistent with psychological incapacity to perform the essential marital obligation. - But Rowena was persistent and made him relent. the two understood each other and developed a certain degree of closeness. he. FACTS: - In January of 1996. In March 1996 (3months) after their first meeting. Rowena asked Edward that they elope.

- Rowena did not file an answer. - The Republic. Edward was able to call home and talk to his brother who suggested that they should live at their parents home and live with them. - On July 27. and stayed with his parents. she said that it was better for them to live separate lives. - Edward relayed it to Rowena. - After a month. He was then 25 and she 20. 2000. He then talked to his father but his father got mad and told him that he will be disinherited and insisted that Edward must go home. OSG entered and deputized the OCP to appear on its behalf and assist in the scheduled hearings. His family then. the trial court ordered OCP to investigate whether there was collusion between the parties. 2001 the Trial Court declared the marriage null and void on the ground that both parties were psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential marital obligations. 2000. - Her uncle also showed Edward his guns and warned him not to leave Rowena. Unmoved by his persistence that they should live with his parents. Edward escaped from the house of Rowena’s uncle. represented by the OSG filed its notice of appeal. on July 11. WHY IT IS NOT PI 41 | P a g e . In June 1996. - At one point. The two continued to stay at her uncle’s place and Edward was treated as a prisoner-he was not allowed to go out unaccompanied.On April 23.1996. 2000 (almost 4 years after) Edward filed for a petition for the annulment of his marriage to Rowena on the basis of Psychological incapacity. They then parted ways. 19. who however suggested that he should get his inheritance so that they could live on their own. hid him from Rowena and her family. Edward was able to talk to Rowena. - On July 30. 2000 the OCP submitted an investigation report stating that it could not determine if there was collusion between the parties - The clinical psychologist who examined petitioner found both parties psychologically incapacitated. - On Jan. - On August 23. Rowena’s uncle brought the two to a court to get married.

feels uncomfortable or helpless when alone and is often preoccupied with fears of being abandoned. and her intolerance of the conventional behavioral limitations imposed by society. respect and fidelity and rendering help and support. for he is unable to make everyday decisions without advice from others. her abuse. This finding takes into account her disregard for the rights of others. the same may also be said of the respondent. the precipitous marriage which they 42 | P a g e . Her being afflicted with antisocial personality disorder makes her unable to assume the essential marital obligations. petitioner having dependent personality disorder and respondent as a narcissistic and for having antisocial personality disorder. has no cohesive self to speak of. observing love. The court considered the psychological assessment adequate which produced the findings that both parties are afflicted with personality disorders. WHY IT IS PI and SCÕs RULING Petitioner. tends to agree with people even when he believes they are wrong. RULING: The decision of the RTC dated July 30. her tendency to blame others. as shown in this case. has difficulty doing things on his own. she had no qualms in manipulating petitioner with her threats of blackmail and of committing suicide. weak and gullible. respondent is impulsive and domineering. Although on a different plane. It stated that the clinical psychologist did not personally examine the respondent and only relied on the information provided by the petitioner ISSUE: Whether or not the marriage between parties is null and void based on Article 36 of the Family Code. 2001 was reinstated. allows others to make most of his important decisions (such as where to live). severe and incurable psychological incapacity. and has no goals and clear direction in life. volunteers to do things that are demeaning in order to get approval from other people.- CA reversed the decision of the RTC and ruled that the petitioner failed to prove the psychological incapacity of respondent. mistreatment and control of others without remorse. Moreover. cannot assume the essential marital obligations of living together. has no sense of his identity as a person.As clearly shown in this case. Both parties being afflicted with grave. petitioner followed everything dictated to him by the persons around him. who is afflicted with dependent personality disorder. He is insecure.

Such traits can lead to interpersonal difficulties. continue through adulthood and become less obvious in middle or old age. An individual may have more than one personality disorder at a time. reduced self-esteem and dissatisfaction with life 43 | P a g e . Personality disorders are often recognizable by adolescence or earlier.contracted on April 23. as well as difficulties in other areas of life and often a tendency to blame others for their problems. isolated or dependent. obnoxious or even criminal. Such qualities may lead to trouble getting along with other people. declared null and void. is the way in which the disorder leads to pervasive problems in social and occupational adjustment. The Encyclopedia of Mental Health A group of disorders involving behaviors or traits that are characteristic of a person’s recent and long-term functioning. The common factor among individuals who have personality disorders. maladaptive and severe enough to cause the individual mental stress or anxieties or to interfere with interpersonal relationships and normal functioning. Patterns of perceiving and thinking are not usually limited to isolated episodes but are deeply ingrained. Other individuals with personality disorders are not unpleasant or difficult to work with but tend to be lonely. paranoid. inflexible. without an awareness of their behaviors. Some individuals with personality disorders are perceived by others as overdramatic. 1996 is thus. despite a variety of character traits.

ASPILLAGA. No. FACTS: Rodolfo Aspillaga filed a petition for annulment of marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity on the part of Aurora Aspillaga. 2009 Mere incompatibility and irreconcilable difference are not enough. Aurora alleged that Rodolfo’s cohabitation with her cousin led to the disintegration of their marriage and their eventual separation. ISSUE: 44 | P a g e . Aurora alleged upon her return to Manila. Hence this petition. Psychological disorders do not manifest that both parties are truly incapacitated to perform the basic marital covenants. Mere difficulty is not synonymous to incapacity. expert witness Dr. Eduardo Maaba explained that both parties are psychologically incapacitated.R. as his concubine. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration. she discovered that while she was in Japan.16. October 26. G. Lecita Rose A. but the motion was also denied. Psychological incapacity is reserved to the most serious cases of personality disorder. The RTC found the parties psychologically incapacitated to enter into marriage. The CA reversed the RTC decision and declared the marriage of Rodolfo and Aurora Aspillaga valid. Rodolfo brought into their conjugal home her cousin. During trial. Besina. ASPILLAGA v. 170925. Doctrine: The fact that certain psychological conditions will hamper their performance of their marital obligations does not mean that they suffer from psychological incapacity as contemplated under Article 36 of the Family Code.

45 | P a g e . 36 must be characterized by (a) gravity. Maaba failed to reveal that the psychological conditions were grave or serious enough to bring about an incapacity to assume the essential obligations of marriage. 2007). In the instant case. and it must be incurable or.Whether or not the marriage is void on the ground of the parties’ psychological incapacity HELD: No. Maaba was able to establish the parties’ personality disorder. The intention of the law is to confine the meaning of “psychological incapacity” to the most serious cases of personality disorders clearly demonstrative of an utter insensitivity or inability to give meaning and significance to the marriage (Tongol v. The incapacity must be grave or serious such that the party would be incapable of carrying out the ordinary duties required in marriage. Mere difficulty is not synonymous to incapacity. Dr.R.R. (b) juridical antecedence. 112019. Psychological disorders do not manifest that both parties are truly incapacitated to perform the basic marital covenants. the cure would be beyond the means of the party involved.” “refusal” or “neglect” in the performance of some marital obligations (Republic v. Court of Appeals (G. October 19. CA). G. The fact that these psychological conditions will hamper their performance of their marital obligations does not mean that they suffer from psychological incapacity as contemplated under Article 36 of the Family Code. although the overt manifestations may emerge only after the marriage. however. As early as 1995. Incompatibility and irreconcilable differences cannot be equated with psychological incapacity as understood juristically. No. January 4. Moreover. It must be stressed that psychological incapacity must be more than just a “difficulty. even if it were otherwise. it has been categorically ruled that: Psychological incapacity required by Art. there is nothing that shows incurability of these disorders. 157610. Dr. in Santos v. Indeed. 1995). he failed to link the parties’ psychological disorders to his conclusion that they are psychologically incapacitated to perform their obligations as husband and wife. No. Tongol. and (c) incurability. it must be rooted in the history of the party antedating the marriage.

While disagreements on money matters would. In fact. the same likewise fails to convince. affect the other aspects of one’s marriage as to make the wedlock unsatisfactory.As to Rodolfo’s allegation that Aurora was a spendthrift. and even normal. occurrence between husbands and wives. the Court takes judicial notice of the fact that disagreements regarding money matters are a common. this is not a ground to declare a marriage null and void. no doubt. 46 | P a g e .

2008 The totality of the marriage life as affected by the gross irresponsibility and utter disregard by the subject spouse toward family life as manifested by his or her actions must be taken into consideration.17.R. 47 | P a g e . Darlene Dimayuga-Laurena (petitioner) and Jesse Lauro Laurena (respondent) met in January 1983. 159220. she and respondent went to Baguio City for their honeymoon. petitioner filed a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage against respondent. September 22. Manila. They were accompanied by a 15-year old boy. G. No. and the incapacity existed at the time of the celebration of the marriage although she discovered it only after the marriage. On 19 October 1993. Mark Jordan who was born on 2 July 1985 and Michael Joseph who was born on 11 November 1987. Petitioner alleged that after their wedding. FACTS: Ma. LAURENA v. COURT OF APPEALS. Petitioner alleged that respondent was psychologically incapable of assuming the essential obligations of marriage.1[4] They were married on 19 December 1983 at the Church of Saint Augustine in Intramuros. They have two children.

respondent abandoned their conjugal home and stopped supporting their children. Petitioner alleged that respondents psychological incapacity was manifested by his infidelity. Laurel Highway. Palanan. house and lot on Palaspas Street. respondent was a womanizer. 48 | P a g e . she and respondent acquired the following properties which were all part of their conjugal partnership of gains: 1. Petitioner alleged that respondent gave priority to the needs of his parents. In addition. Petitioner further alleged that during their marriage. dealership of Jeddah Caltex Service Station in Pres. 3. and even tried to convert her to his religion. would come home past midnight. Petitioner alleged that in September 1990. utter neglect of his family’s needs. According to petitioner. Petitioner also noticed that respondent had feminine tendencies. They would frequently quarrel and one time. who respondent invited to sleep in their hotel suite. she almost bled to death while respondent continued watching a television show at the foot of their matrimonial bed. Batangas. She discovered that respondent had been living a bachelors life while she was away. Batangas (Jeddah Caltex Station). Petitioner became pregnant in March 1984 but suffered a miscarriage. Makati City. Petitioner lived in Batangas for three years while she tended to their gasoline station while respondent remained in Paraaque City.the son of one of respondents house helpers. Tanauan. respondent hit her face. irresponsibility. 2. and tendency to lead a bachelors life. insensitivity. they settled in respondents house in Better Living Subdivision. Paraaque City. Tanauan. duplex house and lot located at 4402 Dayap Street. After their honeymoon.

and 5. Whether respondent is psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential marital obligations. Respondent denied petitioners allegations. Respondent alleged that some of the properties claimed by petitioner were not part of their conjugal partnership of gains. Whether the properties excluded by the Court of Appeals form part of the conjugal partnership of gains between petitioner and respondent. and for monthly support of P25. He asserted that petitioner was emotionally immature. unreasonable. L- 300 van and L-200 pick-up. for custody of their children. RULING: The petition has no merit. Petitioner prayed for the dissolution of the conjugal partnership of gains. Respondent prayed for the dismissal of the petition ISSUE: 1. and 2. Jeddah Trucking. The petition for declaration of nullity of marriage is anchored on Article 36 of the Family Code which provides that [a] marriage contracted by any 49 | P a g e . Personal vehicles consisting of a Mitsubishi Lancer. Petitioner Failed to Prove Respondents Psychological Incapacity. unstable. Safari pick-up. stubborn. and extremely jealous.000. 4.

Finally. she found it strange that respondent allowed their 15-year old companion. the psychological condition must exist at the time the marriage is celebrated. to sleep in their room. the Court first declared that psychological incapacity must be characterized by (a) gravity. Petitioner only cited that during their honeymoon. and (c) Incurability It must be incurable.party who. at the time of celebration. respondent explained that he and petitioner already stayed in a hotel for one night before they went to Baguio City and that they had sexual relations even before their marriage. and (c) incurability. (b) judicial antecedence. the son of one of respondents house helpers. The Court explained: (a) Gravity It must be grave and serious such that the party would be incapable of carrying out the ordinary duties required in a marriage. Petitioner also failed to prove that respondents psychological incapacity was existing at the time of the celebration of their marriage. However. although the overt manifestations may emerge only after the marriage. was psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential marital obligations of marriage. (b) Judicial Antecedence It must be rooted in the history of the party antedating the marriage. Respondent explained that the 50 | P a g e . In Santos v. It must be confined to the most serious cases of personality disorders clearly demonstrative of an utter insensitivity or inability to give meaning and significance to the marriage. or even if it were otherwise. Court of Appeals. the cure would be beyond the means of the party involved. shall likewise be void even if such incapacity becomes manifest only after its solemnization. It should refer to no less than a mental (not physical) incapacity that causes a party to be truly incognitive of the basic marital covenants that concomitantly must be assumed and discharged by the parties to the marriage.

boy was with them to take pictures and videos of their stay in Baguio City and had to stay with them in the room due to monetary constraints. 51 | P a g e . and existing at the time of the solemnization of their marriage. incurable. the totality of the evidence presented by petitioner failed to show that respondent was psychologically incapacitated and that such incapacity was grave. In sum.

She therafter realized that Martini was a ―mama‘s boy. Martini never communicated with Lynnette. when Martini returned from work. Since then. Lynette had not heard from Martini and stopped receiving her share of the allotment. G. Hence.R.‖ On Martini‘s mother insistence. No. When Lynette and Martini finally met. REPUBLIC v. drawing her to inquire from Martini’s employer who told her that he had already disembarked. FACTS: Respondent Lynnette Baguio (Lynnette) and Martini Baguio (Martini). The couple lived at Lynette‘s parents. Since then. Lynette suggested that they lived with Martini‘s parents but the later disagreed. 171042. Because of this. got married in 1997. Martini‘s money was equally divided between her and Lynette. he stayed with his parents. Martini stayed there only on weekends and during weekdays. Lynette soon found out that he was in Muntinlupa. Lynnette learned that Martini declared in his employment records that he is “single” and named his mother as principal allottee. CABANTUG-BAGUIO. Psychological incapacity must be characterized by utter insensitivity or inability to give meaning and significance to the marriage. he stayed with his parents. On investigation. he informed her that they should part ways. a seaman working overseas. In 1999. The RTC found that Martini‘s being ―mama‘s boy‖ manifests his psychologically incapacity to 52 | P a g e . Lynette later on noticed that every time the two of them talk. it must be downright incapacity to perform. Lynette filed before Regional Trial Court of Cebu a Complaint for the Declaration of Nullity of Marriage on the ground of Martini‘s psychological incapacity to comply with essential marital duties and obligations under Articles 68-70 of the Family Code. 2008 Psychological Incapacity cannot be mere refusal or neglect to comply with the obligations. The last time the two of them talked was at the airport when Martini was about to depart for abroad.18. June 30. Martini would always mention his mother and his family.

The CA held that Lynette‘s oral deposition and the Psychological Evaluation Report of Dr. moral pressure. It is a malady so grave and so permanent as to deprive one of awareness of the duties and responsibilities of the matrimonial bond one is about to assume. or isolated characteristics associated with certain personality disorders. and 41 which provide different grounds to render a marriage void ab initio. habitual alcoholism. a clinical psychologist. Care must be observed so that these various circumstances are not to be applied indiscriminately as if the law were indifferent on the matter. As all people may have certain quirks and idiosyncrasies. “Psychological incapacity” has been elucidated on as follows: The term “psychological incapacity” to be a ground for the nullity of marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code. declaring Martini‘s psychological incapacity was sufficient proof that indeed Martini suffers psychological incapacity. Gerong. as well as Article 45 which dwell on voidable marriages. ISSUE: Whether or not CA erred in declaring the marriage between Lynette and Martini null and void on the ground of latter‘s psychological incapacity HELD: Article 36 of the Family Code on which Lynnette anchors her complaint provides that “[a] marriage contracted by any party who. The Solicitor General challenged the RTC‘s decision before the Court of Appeals.” Article 36 must be read in conjunction with the other articles in the Family Code. specifically Articles 35. civil interdiction. drug addiction. 38. abandonment. there is hardly a doubt that the intendment of the law has been to confine the meaning of “psychological incapacity” to the most serious cases of personality disorders clearly 53 | P a g e . sexual infidelity. And Article 36 should not be confused with a divorce law that cuts the marital bond at the time the causes therefore manifest themselves. and the like. refers to a serious psychological illness afflicting a party even before the celebration of the marriage. nor with legal separation in which the grounds need not be rooted in psychological incapacity but on physical violence. at the time of the celebration. 37.comply with the essential marital obligations of marriage. and Article 55 on legal separation. was psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential marital obligations of marriage. moral corruption. and that the same incapacity existed at the time the couple exchanged their marriage vows. shall likewise be void even if such incapacity becomes manifest only after its solemnization.

The root cause must be identified as a psychological illness. however. to do so. and its incapacitating nature must be fully explained the mere showing of “irreconcilable differences” and “conflicting personalities” does not constitute psychological incapacity nor does failure of the parties to meet their responsibilities and duties as married persons. it is gathered that Martini’s failure to establish a common life with her stems from his refusal.” The doctor’s findings and conclusion were derived from his interview of Lynnette and her sister and Lynnette’s deposition. In another vein. Gerong found that Martini’s “personality disorders” including his being a “mama’s boy” are “serious. grave. not refusal or neglect or difficulty. not incapacity. It is downright incapacity. 54 | P a g e . that any such personality disorders of Martini have been existing since Martini’s adolescent years has not been explained. Here. after interviewing Lynnette and considering her deposition. Dr. From Lynnette’s deposition. It is essential that the parties to a marriage must be shown to be insensitive to or incapable of meeting their duties and responsibilities due to some psychological (not physical) illness.which renders a marriage void on the ground of psychological incapacity. existing already during the adolescent period and incurable” and concluded that Martini “appeared” to be dependent upon his family and unable “to establish a domicile for his family and to support his family. which insensitivity or incapacity should have been existing at the time of the celebration of the marriage even if it becomes manifest only after its solemnization.demonstrative of an utter insensitivity or inability to give meaning and significance to the marriage. how the doctor arrived at the conclusion. much less ill will.

respondent ceased to be theperson he knew and married. six months after their first meeting. She also startedneglecting her husband's needs and the upkeep of their home. This. respondent suddenly left for the United States. Lourdes A. February 27. • The couple started experiencing marital problems after three years of marriage. No. Bier through his sister. she would return without bothering to account for her absence. 173294. he said. 1992. G. the parties decided to maintain two residences. 2008.refusing even to have sexual relations with him for no apparent reason. 1997. Petitioner has not heard from her since. Back then. BIER v. BIER. • 55 | P a g e .R. After being gone from their home for days onend. According to petitioner. which blossomed as a result of the exchange of long distance calls between them. one inthe Philippines and another in Saudi Arabia. She became an alcoholic and a chain-smoker. Their courtship. petitioner observed respondent to be a very sweet andthoughtful person. lasted six months. Everything went well for the first three years of their marriage. 547 SCRA 123 FACTS: • Petitioner Renne Enrique E. • Finally. • On July 26. Bier met respondent Ma. on April 10. Aspetitioner was based in Saudi Arabia as an electronics technician at Saudia Airlines. and became an absentee wife. They took turns shuttling between the two countries just so they could spend time together. they were married. She started becoming aloof towards him and began to spend more time with her friends than with him. As a result. made him fall in love with her.19. they frequently quarreled.

CA Reversed the decision of the RTC • Petitioner moved for reconsideration of the CA decision.On April 1. even assuming arguendo that the Molina doctrine should be applied. 1998. Worse. even if The Molina Case was never meant to be a checklist of the requirements in deciding cases involving Article 36 (psychological 56 | P a g e . docketed as CA-G. ISSUE: WON His petition has merits HELD: It has no merits as such. The CA held that petitioner failed to comply with the guidelines laid down in Molina Case (Republic vs CA .66952. its gravity. need not be strictly complied with as Molina itself stated the guidelines were merely "handed down for the guidance of the bench and bar"and were not meant to be a checklist of requirements in deciding cases involving psychological incapacity. Petitioner contends that the guidelines enunciated in Molina. RTC ruled in favor of the petitioner • Respondent Republic of the Philippines. It wasdocketed as Civil Case No. this recourse. specifically its directive that the root cause of the psychological incapacity must be identified as a psychological illness and its incapacitating nature fully explained. The same was denied. Furthermore. a petition for the declaration of nullity of marriage on the ground that respondent was psychologically incapacitated to fulfill her essential marital obligations to petitioner. CV No. the petition was denied The trial court apparently overlooked the fact that this Court has been consistent in holding that if a petition for nullity based on psychological incapacity is to be given due course. the same was not even alleged in the petition filed in the court a quo .R. Q-98-33993. the RTC erred in ruling that he failed to comply there with. Also. Hence. root cause. appealed the decision of the RTC to the CA. through the OSG. petitioner instituted in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City. incurability and the fact that it existed prior to or at the time of celebration of the marriage must always be proved. and that it must be proven to be existing at the inception of the marriage. Molina) as the root cause of respondent's psychological incapacity was not medically or clinically identified. Branch 89.

incapacity)of the Family Code. failure or refusal to meet one's duties and responsibilities as a married person and eventual abandonment of a spouse do not suffice to nullify a marriage on the basis of PI. However. Habitual alcoholism. In the case at bar. 57 | P a g e . was not tantamount to a psychological incapacity. as petitioner would have us believe. We hold that the trial court's decision to declare the parties' marriage void ab initio by reason of respondent's psychological incapacity was clearly and manifestly erroneous as it overlooked the need to show the gravity. a showing of the gravity. chain-smoking. the totality of her acts. petitioner was able to establish that respondent was remiss in her duties as a wife and had become a happy-go-lucky woman who failed to attend to her husband's needs and who eventually abandoned him. juridical antecedence and incurability of the party's psychological incapacity and its existence at the inception of the marriage cannot be dispensed with. as testified to by petitioner and his brother. root cause and incurability of respondent's psychological incapacity and that it was already present at the inception of the marriage.

her job makes her flirt with her male clients.2O. The 1st year of their marriage went well until Nilda began to work when she neglected some of her duties as a wife. G.R. Nilda and Reynaldo met in a local bar where Nilda was a waitress. NAVALES v. Article 36: Psychological Incapacity FACTS: In 1986. And she refused to have a child with Reynaldo because that would only destroy her figure. Reynaldo proposed to Nilda and they got married in 1988. She also projected herself as single. a social deviant. She later worked as a gym instructor and according to Reynaldo’s allegations. 167523. NAVALES. No. who has a borderline personality. and suffering from anti-social personality disorder. The manifestations of psychological incapacity must be attributed to a psychological illness and not merely physical illness. Nilda is a nymphomaniac. She also drives home with other guys even though Reynaldo would be there to fetch her. Reynaldo is aware that Nilda has an illegitimate child out of wedlock. Because of his fear that Nilda may be wed to an American. an alcoholic. June 27. Reynaldo then filed a petition to have their marriage be annulled. 2008 Mere isolated idiosyncrasies of a spouse are not of themselves manifestations of psychological incapacity to perform the essential marital obligations. among others. which illnesses are incurable 58 | P a g e . He presented her cousin as a witness that attested that Nilda was flirting with other guys even with Reynaldo’s presence. Reynaldo also presented the findings of a psychologist who concluded that based on Nilda’s acts.

She said that it is actually Reynaldo who is a womanizer and that in fact she has filed a case of concubinage against him which was still pending. She also showed proof that she projected herself as a married woman and that she handles an aerobics class which is exclusive to females only.and are the causes of Nilda’s psychological incapacity to perform her marital role as wife to Reynaldo. She also said that she only needs the job in order to support herself because Reynaldo is not supporting her. The acts presented by Reynaldo by themselves are insufficient to establish a psychological or mental defect that is serious. Article 36 contemplates downright incapacity or inability to take cognizance of and to assume basic marital obligations. irreconcilable differences. incurable or grave as contemplated by Article 36 of the Family Code. HELD: The petition must be granted because the State’s participation in this case is wanting. The testimonies presented by people the expert interviewed were not concretely established as the fact as to how those people came up with their respective information was not as well shown. or position papers filed by the Public Prosecutor or OSG. do not by themselves warrant a finding of psychological incapacity under Article 36. And even if the SC would consider the case based on the merits. Nilda on her part attacked Reynaldo’s allegations. and the like. The SC also finds the finding of the psychological expert to be insufficient to prove the PI of Nilda. the petition would still be granted. Mere “difficulty. Indeed. as the same may only be due to a person’s refusal or unwillingness to assume the essential obligations of marriage and not due to some psychological illness that is contemplated by said rule. ISSUE: Whether the marriage between Reynaldo and Nilda is null and void on the ground of Nilda’s psychological incapacity. and no controverting evidence presented by them before the judgment was rendered. sexual infidelity or perversion. There is no proof as well that Nilda had 59 | P a g e .” “refusal” or “neglect” in the performance of marital obligations or “ill will” on the part of the spouse is different from “incapacity” rooted on some debilitating psychological condition or illness. motions. The RTC and the CA ruled in favor of Reynaldo. There were no other pleadings. emotional immaturity and irresponsibility.

while that of the husband was kept confidential even the medicine prescribed. There was no sexual intercourse between them during their first night and same thing happened until their fourth night. there was no sexual intercourse since the defendant avoided by taking a long walk during siesta or sleeping on a rocking chair at the living room. protracted. 266 SCRA 325 It involves a senseless. There were allegations that the reason why Chi Ming Tsoi 60 | P a g e . one of the essential marital obligations under the Family Code is to procreate children based on the universal principle that procreation of children through sexual cooperation is the basic end of marriage. Constant non-fulfillment of this obligation will finally destroy the integrity or wholeness of the marriage. Because of this. and constant refusal to comply with the essential marital obligations by one or both spouses although he. There being doubt as to Nilda’s PI the SC ruled that this case be resolved in favor of the validity of marriage.had sex with different guys – a condition for nymphomia. they proceed to the house of defendant’s mother. COURT OF APPEALS. Evidently. they submitted themselves for medical examination to a urologist in Chinese General Hospital in 1989. she or they are physically capable of performing such obligations. After the celebration of their wedding. FACTS: Chi Ming Tsoi and Gina Lao Tsoi was married in 1988. The result of the physical examination of Gina was disclosed. 21. CHI MING TSOI v. they went to Baguio but Gina’s relatives went with them. In an effort to have their honeymoon in a private place. Since May 1988 until March 1989 they slept together in the same bed but no attempt of sexual intercourse between them. 78 SCAD 57. Again.

Senseless & protracted refusal is equivalent to psychological incapacity. On the other hand. ISSUE: Whether or not plaintiff is psychologically incapacitated for refusing to have sexual intercourse with his wife(respondent). the latter does not want to have their marriage annulled because he loves her very much. Catholic marriage tribunals attribute the causes to psychological incapacity than to stubborn refusal. they can still overcome their differences. Gina does not want to reconcile with Chi Ming Tsoi and want their marriage declared void on the ground of psychological incapacity. although physically capable but simply refuses to perform his or her essential marital obligations and the refusal is senseless and constant. 3. he has no defect on his part and is physically and psychologically capable and since their relationship is still young. 2. If a spouse.married her is to maintain his residency status here in the country. Furthermore. RATIO: 1. Procreation is one of the essential marital obligations and constant non- fulfillment of such will destroy marriage. Chi Ming Tsoi submitted himself to another physical examination and the result was he is capable of erection even though it is not in its full length and there is no evidence of impotency. conscious of its value as a sublime social institution. one of the essential marital obligations under the Family Code is to procreate children thus constant non-fulfillment of this obligation will finally destroy the integrity and wholeness of the marriage. HELD: The abnormal reluctance or unwillingness to consummate his marriage is strongly indicative of a serious personality disorder which to the mind of the Supreme Court clearly demonstrates an utter insensitivity or inability to give meaning and significance to the marriage within the meaning of Article 36 of the Family Code. Marriage is definitely not for children but for two consenting adults who view the relationship with love . 61 | P a g e . sacrifice and a continuing commitment to compromise. respect.

her husband was psychologically incapacitated to assume his marital responsibilities. a Japanese national. 62 | P a g e . On Nov. they get married by Judge Isauro Balderia of the MTC of Bacoor. 428 SCRA 735 Separation or abandonment alone is not conclusive proof of psychological incapacity. respondent gave birth (daughter) On Jan.22 REPUBLIC v. Cavite. She alleged that they were started a common-law relationship in Japan. 16. Toshio went back to Japan andlived there half a year. They later lived in the Philippines for a month. respondent. 1988. 1987. 14. 1996. QUINTERO HAMANO. Thereafter. FACTS: On June 17. on the ground of Psychological incapacity. which incapacity became manifest after the marriage. The fact that the person alleged to be psychologically incapacitated is a foreigner does not negate the existence of such incapacity. Unknown to her. Lolita Quintero-Hermano file a complaint for Declaration of Nullity of her marriage to her husband Toshio Hamano.

Certainly. He prayed that the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor be allowed to intervene to ensure that the evidence submitted was not fabricated.One month after the marriage. Respondent filed a motion refer to the case to the prosecutor for investigation. 1996. On declaring the decision on the ground of psychological incapacity. to the mind of the Court. ISSUE: WON respondent successfully proved Toshio’s psychological incapacity to fulfill his marital responsibilities 63 | P a g e . Trial court rendered decision that the marriage declared null and void. After 2 months of sending money to respondent. The trial court granted. prosecutor Rolando Gonzales filed a report finding that no collusion existed between the parties. Toshio went back to Japan and promised to return by Christmas. The summons issued to Toshio but it was remained unserved because Toshio was no longer residing at the given address. is a clear manifestation of insensitivity and lack of respect for his wife and child which characterizes a very immature person. he stopped giving financial support. Respondent remained irresponsible and unconcerned over the needs and welfare of his family. He failed to file a responsive pleading after 60 days from publication. 20. Respondent learned from a friend that Toshio visited Phils. she filed an ex parte motion for leave to effect service of summons by publication. such behavior could be traced to respondent’s mental incapacity and disability of entering into marital life. the trial court held that: It is clear from the records of the case that respondent spouses failed to fulfill his obligations as husband of the petitioner and father to his daughter. Trail court granted the motion. On Nov. Giving Toshio 15 days to file an answer. But did not bother to see them. 1996. On July 8. Such indifference.

1997 of the CA is hereby Reversed and Set Aside. the petition for review is hereby Granted. Remember that abandonment is also a ground for legal separation.HELD: NO. not physical illness. it is essential that he must be shown to be incapable of doing so due to some psychological. 64 | P a g e . The decision dated Aug. That could have been done through an expert witness. Wherefore. It would have greatly helped respondents case had she presented evidence that medically or clinically identified his illness. We cannot presume psychological defect from the mere fact that Toshio abandoned his family immediately after the celebration of the marriage. In Molina ruling. Toshioa’s act of abandonment was doubtlessly irresponsible but it was not proven to be due to some kind of psychological illness. 28. it is not enough to prove that a spouse failed to meet his responsibility and duty as a married couple. No other evidence was presented showing that his behaviour was caused by a psychological disorder. Rationale: The court found that the totality of evidence presented fell short of proving that Toshio was psychologically incapacitated to assume his marital responsibilities.

R. Both parties underwent a psychological exam which proved that the respondent Filipinas Tongol has a psychological insufficiency. TONGOL . 157610. In her Answer with Counter-Petition. However. G.23 TONGOL v. he or she can still be considered as a completely irresponsible person vis-à-vis his or her married life if he or she spends almost the whole day working and not minding his or her family. October 19. 2007 537 SCRA 135 Hence. ISSUE: 65 | P a g e . Orlando filed before the RTC of Makati City a verified petition for the declaration of nullity of his marriage with Filipinas on the ground that the latter is psychologically incapacitated to comply with her essential marital obligations. 1996. No. she claims that their marriage failed because it is Orlandos insufficiency to fulfill his obligation as married man. FACTS: On August 19. while a person may be truly very efficient and mentally capable in undertaking a particular profession in life. Filipinas admitted that efforts at reconciliation have been fruitless and that their marriage is a failure. Orlando Tongol alleged that Filipinas was unable to perform her duty as a wife because of Filipinas unbearable attitude that will lead to their constant quarrel.

the psychological incapacity must be apparent as to the extent that the other party is incapable the significance of their marriage and lastly. vellega’s failed to prove the that the ailment is incurable. Dr. ________ 66 | P a g e . as elucidated in Molina the psychological incapacity must exist during the ceremony of the marriage. Hence the court dismissed the petition of the nullity of marriage. the psychological insufficiency of Mrs tongol is not severe that would render her incapable of recognize the sanctity of her marital contract with her husband. second.W/ON the psychological problem of Mrs. And the financial issue as being cited in the facts. the facts of the case did not show that Mrs. Tongol did not care about the welfare of their children. the malady must be incurable. the court deemed that such phenomena is natural in every marriage and can be settled easily. Filipina Tongol enough to compel the court to nullify their marriage? RULING: No. Further. The definition or manifestation of marriage must within the scope of article 36 of the Family Code. As in the present case. Tongol by her mother when she was young. As to the facts of the psychological examination report say: the emotional malady is accused merely by rejection of Mrs.

G.It was her family who paid for her medication. and (d)he has been remiss in his duties both as a husband and as a father. or on May 27. in 1984. 1993. Paras in Bindoy.Rosafiled with the Regional Trial Court (RTC). petitioner Rosa Yap married respondent Justo J. their son Raoul was electrocuted while Justo was in their rest house with his "barkadas. 1964. They begot four (4) children. Cindy Rose(deceased). She was then a student of San Carlos University. PARAS v. namely: Raoul (deceased). 10613. 2007. August 2. No.Negros Oriental. Dumaguete City. Dahlia. she was shocked to find her "Botica" and 67 | P a g e . and Reuel. Also. Cebu City. the entire family went to the United States. Sometime in 1975. Branch 31. docketed as Civil Case No. PARAS. She alleged that Justo is psychologically incapacitated to exercise the essential obligations of marriage as shown by the following circumstances: (a) he dissipated her business assets and forged her signature in one mortgage transaction." Eventually. 529 SCRA 81 The court may or may not accept the testimony of the psychologist or psychiatrist because the decision must be based on the totality of the evidence. she agreed to marry him. Justo abandoned them and left for the Philippines. He courted her. after three months. However. Upon her return to the Philippines. under Article 36 of the Family Code.R. (c) he did not give financial support to his children. Their wedding was considered one of the "most celebrated "marriages in Bindoy. 147824. Twenty-nine (29) years thereafter. in1964 convinced that he loved her. a complaint for annulment of her marriage with Justo. frequently spending time at her "Botica.24. FACTS: On May 21. She met Justo in 1961in Bindoy." He did not heed her earlier advice to bring Raoul in the rest house as the latter has the habit of climbing the rooftop. their daughter Cindy Rose was afflicted with leukemia. (b) he lived with a concubine and sired a child with her. To cope with the death of the children.

he was granted only three (3) months leave as municipal mayor of Bindoy. He was suspended from the practice of law. the Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC Decision in the present case. He admitted though that there were times he failed to give them financial support because of his lack of income.their conjugal assets were more than enough to provide for their needs. She was impregnated by her boyfriend. he alleged that Jocelyn Ching is not his mistress. He spent for his children’s education. This was further aggravated when she denied his request for engine oil when his vehicle broke down in a mountainous and NPA-infested area. At other times. this Court rendered its Decision finding him guilty of falsifying Rosa’s signature in bank documents. thus: the respondent is suspended from the practice of law for SIX (6) MONTHS on the charge of falsifying his wife’s signature in bank documents and other related loan instruments. She did not prepare food for the guests. On December 8.At first. there was no need for Justo to shell out his limited salary. For his part. 1995. he permitted the municipal government to take gasoline from their gas station free of charge. she retorted thatshe has nothing to do with his birthday. and for ONE (1) YEAR from the practice of law on the charges of immorality and abandonment of his own family. When confronted. Justo lived with Jocelyn Ching. Their cohabitation resulted in the birth of a baby girl.On October 18. His act of maintaining a mistress and siring an illegitimate child was the last straw that prompted her to file the present case. The RTC observed that the relationship between the parties started well. And lastly. the penalties to be served simultaneously. it ruled that there appeared to be a collusion between them as both sought the declaration of nullity of their marriage. 68 | P a g e . and abandonment of his family. What caused the inevitable family break-out was Rosa’s act of embarrassing him during his birthday celebration in 1987. He maintained that he did not dispose of a conjugal property and that he and Rosa personally signed the renewal of a sugar crop loan before the bank’s authorized employee. Cyndee Rose Ching Leccioness is not his daughter. Cyndee Rose. This convinced him of her lack of concern. It found that: (a) Justo did not abandon the conjugal home as he was forced to leave after Rosa posted guards at the gates of their house. the RTC rendered a Decision upholding the validity ofthe marriage.After trial or on February 28. immorality. She found that after leaving their conjugal house in 1988. He also denied forging her signature in one mortgage transaction. negating the existence of psychological incapacity on either party at the time of the celebration of their marriage. and (c) the charge of infidelity is unsubstantiated. thus. he resented supporting them because he was just starting his law practice and besides. thus. Let notice of this Decision be spread in respondent’s record as an attorney. and notice of the same served on the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and on the Office of the Court Administrator for circulation to all the courts concerned. 2000. he immediately returned to the Philippines. As to the charge of concubine.other businesses heavy in debt and he disposed without her consent a conjugal piece of land. a certain Grelle Leccioness. (b) the conjugal assets were sufficient to support the family needs. but her secretary in his Law Office. 2000. obviously named after her (Rosa) and Justo‘s deceased daughter Cindy Rose Paras. He did not abandon his family in the United States.

holding that "the evidence of the plaintiff (Rosa) falls short of the standards required by
law to decree a nullity of marriage." It ruled that Justo’s alleged defects or
idiosyncrasies "were sufficiently explained by the evidence," Rosa contends that this
Court’s
factual findings in A.C. No. 5333 for disbarment are conclusive on the present case.
Consequently, the Court of Appeals erred in rendering contrary factual findings. Also,
she argues that she filed the instant complaint sometime in May, 1993

ISSUE:

1) Whether the factual findings of this Court in A.C. No. 5333 are conclusive on the
presentcase;2) Whether a remand of this case to the RTC for reception of expert
testimony on the root cause of Justo’s alleged psychological incapacity is necessary;
and3) Whether the totality of evidence in the case shows psychological incapacity on
the part of Justo

HELD:

1) A reading of the Court of
Appeals’
Decision shows that she has no reason to feel aggrieved. In fact, the appellate court
even assumed that her charges "are true," but concluded that they are insufficient to
declare the marriage void on the ground of psychological incapacity. Justo's alleged
infidelity, failure to support his family and alleged abandonment of their
family home are true, such traits are at best indicators that he is unfit to become an
ideal husband and father. However, by themselves, these grounds are insufficient to
declare the marriage void due to an incurable psychological incapacity. These grounds,
we must emphasize, do not manifest that he was truly in cognitive of the basic marital
covenants that he must assume and discharge as a married person. While they
may manifest the "gravity" of his alleged psychological incapacity, they do not
necessarily show incurability’, such that while his acts violated the covenants of
marriage, they do not necessarily show that such acts show an irreparably hopeless
state of psychological incapacity which prevents him from undertaking the basic
obligations of marriage in the future.2) The root cause of the psychological
incapacity must be (a) medically or clinically identified,(b) alleged in the complaint,
(c) sufficiently proven by experts, and (d) clearly explained inthe decision.
Article 36 of the Family Code requires that the incapacity must be psychological --not
physical, although its manifestations and/or symptoms may be physical. The evidence
must convince the court that the parties, or one of them, were mentally or psychically
ill to such an extent that the person could not have known the obligations he was
assuming, or knowing them ,could not have given valid assumption thereof. Although

69 | P a g e

no example of such incapacity need be given here so as not to limit the
application of the provision under the principle of ejusdem generis,
nevertheless such root cause must be identified as a psychological illness and its
incapacitating nature fully explained. Expert evidence may be given by
qualified psychiatrists and clinical psychologist \3) ART. 36. A marriage
contracted by a party who, at the time of celebration, was psychologically
incapacitated to comply with the essential marital obligations of marriage shall likewise
be void even if such incapacity becomes manifest only after its
solemnization.
Psychological incapacity must be characterized by (a) gravity; (b) juridical
antecedence; and (c)incurability

25.

ANTONIO v ANTONIO, G.R. No. 155880, March 10, 2006

The mere fact therefore that a psychiatrist personally examined the subject
person is not an assurance that his or her findings would be sustained.

FACTS:

Leonilo Antonio, 26 years of age, and Marie Ivonne Reyes, 36 years of age
met in 1989. Barely a year after their first meeting, they got married at
Manila City Hall and then a subsequent church wedding at Pasig in December
1990. A child was born but died 5 months later. Reyes persistently lied
about herself, the people around her, her occupation, income, educational
attainment and other events or things. She even did not conceal bearing an
illegitimate child, which she represented to her husband as adopted child of
their family. They were separated in August 1991 and after attempt for
reconciliation, he finally left her for good in November 1991. Petitioner then
filed in 1993 a petition to have his marriage with Reyes declared null and
void anchored in Article 36 of the Family Code.

ISSUE:

Whether Antonio can impose Article 36 of the Family Code as basis for
declaring their marriage null and void.

70 | P a g e

HELD:

Psychological incapacity pertains to the inability to understand the
obligations of marriage as opposed to a mere inability to comply with them.
The petitioner, aside from his own testimony presented a psychiatrist and
clinical psychologist who attested that constant lying and extreme jealousy
of Reyes is abnormal and pathological and corroborated his allegations on
his wife’s behavior, which amounts to psychological incapacity.
Respondent’s fantastic ability to invent, fabricate stories and letters of
fictitious characters enabled her to live in a world of make-believe that made
her psychologically incapacitated as it rendered her incapable of giving
meaning and significance to her marriage. The root causes of Reyes’
psychological incapacity have been medically or clinically identified that was
sufficiently proven by experts. The gravity of respondent’s psychological
incapacity was considered so grave that a restrictive clause was appended to
the sentence of nullity prohibited by the National Appellate Matrimonial
Tribunal from contracting marriage without their consent. It would be
difficult for an inveterate pathological liar to commit the basic tenets of
relationship between spouses based on love, trust and respect.
Furthermore, Reyes’ case is incurable considering that petitioner tried to
reconcile with her but her behavior remain unchanged.

Hence, the court conclude that petitioner has established his cause of action
for declaration of nullity under Article 36 of the Family Code.

71 | P a g e

Brix could not relate to her anger. Their problems began when Armida started doubting Brix’ fidelity. and failed to perform his so-called marital obligations. Armida presented a psychological expert (Dr. Dayan) who finds Brix to be a schizoid and a dependent and avoidant type. During that relatively short period of time.26. Armida even admits that Brix was a responsible and loving husband. Article 36: Psychological Incapacity FACTS: Armida and Brix are a showbiz couple. G. FERRARIS v. He thought her suspicions irrational. The couple’s relationship before the marriage and even during their brief union (for well about a year or so) was not all bad. temper and jealousy.R No. 2006 Clearly. FERRARIS. Brix could not understand Armida’s lack of trust in him and her constant naggings. the ground is restricted to psychological incapacity “to comply with the essential marital obligations. 162368 July 17. Armida was happy and contented with her life in the company of Brix. This is evidenced by Brix’s 72 | P a g e . It was only when they started fighting about the calls from women that Brix began to withdraw into his shell and corner. It must be a psychological illness afflicting a party even before the celebration of marriage.” The malady or mental disposition of one or both of the spouses must be such as to seriously and effectively prevent them from having a functional and normal marital life clearly conducive to bringing up a healthy personal inter-marital relationship within the family which is necessary for its growth.

“leaving-the-house” attitude whenever they quarreled, the violent
tendencies during epileptic attacks, the sexual infidelity, the abandonment
and lack of support, and his preference to spend more time with his band
mates than his family.

ISSUE:

Whether or not PI is attendant in the case at bar.

HELD:

The SC upheld the decision of the lower courts. The alleged mixed
personality disorder, the “leaving-the-house” attitude whenever they
quarreled, the violent tendencies during epileptic attacks, the sexual
infidelity, the abandonment and lack of support, and his preference to spend
more time with his band mates than his family, are not rooted on some
debilitating psychological condition but a mere refusal or unwillingness to
assume the essential obligations of marriage and these do not constitute PI.
Further, the expert was not able to prove her findings. Notably, when asked
as to the root cause of respondent’s alleged psychological incapacity, Dr.
Dayan’s answer was vague, evasive and inconclusive. She replied that such
disorder “can be part of his family upbringing” She stated that there was a
history of Brix’s parents having difficulties in their relationship- this is of
course inconclusive for such has no direct bearing to the case at bar.

What is psychological incapacity?

The term “psychological incapacity” to be a ground for the nullity of
marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code, refers to a serious
psychological illness afflicting a party even before the celebration of the
marriage. It is a malady so grave and so permanent as to deprive one of
awareness of the duties and responsibilities of the matrimonial bond one is
about to assume. As all people may have certain quirks and idiosyncrasies,
or isolated characteristics associated with certain personality disorders, there
is hardly any doubt that the intendment of the law has been to confine the
meaning of “psychological incapacity” to the most serious cases of
personality disorders clearly demonstrative of an utter insensitivity or
inability to give meaning and significance to the marriage. It is for this

73 | P a g e

reason that the Courts rely heavily on psychological experts for its
understanding of the human personality. However, the root cause must be
identified as a psychological illness and its incapacitating nature must be
fully explained in court.

27.

BUENAVENTURA v CA, G.R. No. 127358/127449, March 31, 2005,
454 SCRA 261 FACTS:

FACTS:

Defendant spouses Leonardo Joaquin and Feliciana Landrito are the parents
of plaintiffs Consolacion, Nora, Emma and Natividad as well as of defendants
Fidel, Tomas, Artemio, Clarita, Felicitas, Fe, and Gavino, all surnamed
JOAQUIN. The married Joaquin children are joined in this action by their
respective spouses. Sought to be declared null and void ab initio are certain
deeds of sale covering 6 parcels of land executed by defendant parents
Leonardo Joaquin and Feliciana Landrito in favor of their co-defendant
children and the corresponding certificates of title issued in their names. In
seeking the declaration of nullity of the aforesaid deeds of sale
and certificates of title, plaintiffs, in their complaint, aver that the purported
sale of the properties in litis was the result of a deliberate conspiracy
designed to unjustly deprive the rest of the compulsory heirs (plaintiffs
herein) of their legitime.

ISSUE:

74 | P a g e

Whether Petitioners have a legal interest over the properties subject of
the Deeds of Sale

RULING:

Petitioners do not have any legal interest over the properties subject of
the Deeds of Sale. As the appellate court stated, petitioners’ right to their
parents’ properties is merely inchoate and vests only upon their parents’
death. While still living, the parents of petitioners are free to dispose of their
properties. In their overzealousness to safeguard their future legitime,
petitioners forget that theoretically, the sale of the lots to their siblings does
not affect the value of their parents’ estate. While the sale of the lots
reduced the estate, cash of equivalent value replaced the lots taken from the
estate.

28.

REPUBLIC v. DAGDAG, G.R. No. 109975, February 9, 2001

The law does not define what psychological incapacity is and therefore, the
determination is left solely with the courts on case-to-case basis.
Determination of psychological incapacity “ depends on the facts of the
case”. Each case must be judged, not on the basis of a priori assumptions,
predilections or generalization but according to its own facts.”

FACTS:

Erlinda and Avelino got married in 1975 in the Aglipayan Church. After the
wedding, Avelino would frequently leave the family home and disappear for
months. When he reappears, he goes on drinking sprees. He even became
physically abusive. During a period of disappearance, Erlinda even heard
that he got imprisoned for some crime and escaped. Erlinda filed a petition
for judicial declaration of nullity of marriage on the ground of psychological
incapacity. Erlinda and her sister testified that the former and Avelino would
always quarrel, and that he never stayed long at home. The RTC declared
their marriage null and void, which the CA affirmed, saying that Avelino's
consistent irresponsibility, immaturity, prolonged absence or abandonment,
criminality, failure to support are indicative of a failure to perform the duties
of a married person which is incurable and such existed at the time of the
celebration of the marriage and became manifest only thereafter.

75 | P a g e

the crime for which he was arrested was not even alleged. in order to show that it existed at the inception of the marriage. Further. since no psychiatrist or medical doctor testified as to the alleged psychological incapacity of her husband. The SC has held in a previous case that "expert testimony should have been presented to establish the precise cause of the psychological incapacity. 76 | P a g e . Erlinda failed to comply with the guideline which requires that the root cause of psychological incapacity must be medically or clinically identified and sufficiently proven by experts. Considering the guidelines provided in Republic vs CA and Molina. if any. In fact. the allegation that the husband is a fugitive from justice was not sufficiently proven.ISSUE: W/N the RTC and the CA erred RULING : YES.

CA. 1986. trust and commitment. FACTS: Leouel and Julia were married on September 20. 240 Scra 20 (1995) “Psychological Incapacity” is a mental disorder of the most serious type showing the incapability of one or both spouses to comply with the essential marital obligations of love. Leouel filed with the RTC a complaint for voiding their marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity. 77 | P a g e . She never did. mutual help and support. gravity and incurability and its root causes must be clinically identified or examined. via phone call. he desperately tried to locate. she gave birth to their first child. It must be characterized by juridical antecedence. RTC dismissed the complaint. When Leouel got a chance to visit the United States. respect. cohabitation. promised to return home upon the expiration of her contract in July 1989. where he underwent a training program of AFP. CA affirmed the dismissal. Shortly. Julia finally left for USA to work as a nurse. They lived with JuliaÕs parents. SANTOS V. Julia but all his efforts were of no avail.29. On 18 May 1988. They were first married before the MTC in Iloilo. Soon. Having failed to get Julia to come home. Some disagreements the couple had was the issue of living independently from JuliaÕs parents. they married in a church. Julia. or to somehow get in touch with.

the cure would be beyond the means of the party involved. HELD: No.ISSUE: Whether or not respondent is psychologically incapacitated for failure to return home or communicate with the plaintiff. The incapacity must be grave or serious such that the party would be incapable of carrying out the ordinary duties required in marriage. Justice Sempio-Diy opined that psychological incapacity must be characterized by (a) gravity. come close to the standards required to decree a nullity of marriage. 78 | P a g e . although the overt manifestations may emerge only after the marriage. even if it were otherwise. The case at bar can . and it must be incurable or. (b) juridical antecedence. it must be rooted in the history of the party antedating the marriage. It should be hard and in its full length. The intendment of the law has been to confine the meaning of "psychological incapacity" to the most serious cases of personality disorders clearly demonstrative of an utter intensitivity or inability to give meaning and significance to the marriage. and (c) incurability.in no measure at all.

A year after their first meeting. 1993. unfortunately died five months later. He claimed that respondent persistently lied about herself. and instead introduced the boy to petitioner as the adopted child of her family. They begot a child. her occupation. they got married before a minister of the Gospel at the Municipal City Hall and through subsequent church wedding at the Sta. Bagong Ilog. On Article 36 of the Family Code alleging that respondent was psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential obligations of marriage. on Dec. 1990.30. Old. Rosa de Lima Parish. to wit: (1) She concealed the fact that she previously gave birth to an illegitimate son. Leonila Antonio v. She only confessed the truth about the boy’s 79 | P a g e . educational attainment and other events or things. the people around her. On March 8. He asserted that at the time of the celebration of marriage the psychological incapacity of respondent existed and still subsisting up to present. Marie Ivonnie Reyes Facts: They were met in August 1989 when petitioner was 26 yrs. Old and respondent was 36 yrs. income. petitioner filed a petition to have his marriage to respondent declared null and void. Pasig.

sent lengthy letters to petitioner claiming to be from Blackgold and touting her as the "number one moneymaker" in the commercial industry worth P2 million. Arnulfo Lopez. he separated from her in August 1991. Her suspected affair of petitioner was no actual basis. Dante Herrera Abcede.parentage when petitioner learned about it from other sources after their marriage (2) She fabricated a story that her brother-in-law. and told some of her friends that she graduated with a degree in psychology. thus. She bought a sala set from a public market but told petitioner that she acquired it from a famous furniture dealer. attempted to rape and kill her when in fact. Consuelo Gardiner. Dr. who stated that petitioner was essentially a normal. yet. a psychiatrist and Dr. a clinical psychologist. introspective. (5) She invented friends named Babes Santos and Via Marquez. not a single member of her family ever witnessed her alleged singing activities with the group. she claimed that she performed her marital obligations by attending all the needs of her husband and there was no truth to the 80 | P a g e . she postulated that a luncheon show was held at the Philippine Village Hotel in her honor and even presented an invitation to that effect but petitioner discovered per certification by the Director of Sales of said hotel that no such occasion had taken place. On the other hand. Edwin David. They concluded that respondent was psychologically incapacitated to perform her essential marital responsibilities. He tried to attempt a reconciliation but since her behavior did not change. he finally left her for good in November 1991. respondent persistent and constant lying to petitioner was abnormal or pathological. and under those names. she altered her payslip to make it appear that she earned a higher income. In the same vein. She spent lavishly on unnecessary items and ended up borrowing money from other people on false pretexts. Petitioner later found out that respondent herself was the one who wrote and sent the letters to him when she admitted the truth in one of their quarrels. When he could no longer take her unusual behavior. when she was neither. (7) She exhibited insecurities and jealousies over him to the extent of calling up his officemates to monitor his whereabouts. He presented Dr. They further asserted that respondents extreme jealousy was also pathological. no such incident occurred. shy and conservative. (6) She represented herself as a person of greater means. (3) She misrepresented herself as a psychiatrist to her obstetrician. In her version. (4) She claimed to be a singer or a free-lance voice talent affiliated with Blackgold Recording Company (Blackgold). He likewise realized that Babes Santos and Via Marquez were only figments of her imagination when he discovered they were not known in or connected with Blackgold.

She claimed that a luncheon show was indeed held in her honor at the Philippine Village Hotel on 8 December 1979. Antonio Reyes.allegation that she fabricated stories. Declared the marriage null and void. ISSUE: 81 | P a g e . and he made use only one instrument called CPRS which was not reliable because a good liar can fake the results of such test. an executive producer of Channel 9 and she had done three (3) commercials with McCann Erickson for the advertisement of Coca- cola. and Traders Royal Bank. It declared that the requirements in the 1997 Molina case had not been satisfied. Bea Marquez Recto of the Recto political clan was a resident of the United States while Babes Santos was employed with Saniwares. (4) She was a free-lance voice talent of Aris de las Alas. The lower court gave credence to petitioner’s evidence and held respondent’s propensity to lying about almost anything made her psychologically incapacitated. Johnson & Johnson. and invented personalities. told lies. yet she reported to the Blackgold office after office hours. Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's decision. (7) She belied the allegation that she spent lavishly as she supported almost ten people from her monthly budget ofP7000 Respondent presented Dr. (5) She vowed that the letters sent to petitioner were not written by her and the writers thereof were not fictitious. (6) She admitted that she called up an officemate of her husband but averred that she merely asked the latter in a diplomatic matter if she was the one asking for chocolates from petitioner. (3) She was actually a BS Banking and Finance graduate and had been teaching psychology at the Pasig Catholic School for two (2) years. (2) She told petitioner about David’s attempt to rape and kill her because she surmised such intent from David’s act of touching her back and ogling her from head to foot. and not to monitor her husband’s whereabouts. Reyes was not the one who administered and interpreted respondent’s psychological evaluation. It held that the totality of evidence presented was insufficient to establish Reyes' psychological incapacity. a psychiatrist to refute the allegations another psychological condition Lopez asseverated that the evaluation conducted by Dr. (1) She concealed her child by another man from petitioner because she was afraid of losing her husband. She told petitioner she was a Blackgold recording artist although she was not under contract with the company.

and was clearly explained in the trial court's decision. There is little relish in deciding this present petition. The RTC correctly ruled. All told. Her fantastic ability to invent and fabricate stories and personalities enabled her to live in a world of make-believe. that she fabricated friends and made up letters before she married him prove that her psychological incapacity was have existed even before the celebration of marriage Fourth. it must be considered that respondent had consistently lied about many material aspects as to her character and personality. that she being an inveterate pathological liar makes her unable to commit the basic tenets of relationship between spouses based on love.WON Antonio can impose Article 36 of the Family Code as basis for declaring their marriage null and void HELD: Yes Rationale: The actual findings of the trial court are deemed binding on the SC. and not of the canonical courts. trust. Sixth. remains in love with petitioner. we conclude that petitioner has established his cause of action for declaration of nullity under Article 36 of the Family Code. Seventh. Marriage. that the root cause of Reyes' psychological incapacity has been medically or clinically identified that was sufficiently proven by experts. Third. that Antonio had sufficiently overcome his burden in proving the psychological incapacity of his wife. and respect. that the gravity of Reyes' psychological incapacity was considered so grave that a restrictive clause was appended to the sentence of nullity prohibited by the National Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal from contracting marriage without their consent. It is possible that respondent. This made her psychologically incapacitated as it rendered her incapable of giving meaning and significance to her marriage. that Reyes' case is incurable considering that Antonio tried to reconcile with her but her behavior remains unchanged. However. 82 | P a g e . owing to the great weight accorded to the opinion of the primary trier of facts. and the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the trial court. In fact. that the CA clearly erred when it failed to take into consideration the fact that the marriage was annulled by the Catholic Church. as exhibited by her persistent challenge to the petition for nullity. Yet the Court decides these cases on legal reasons and not vapid sentimentality. Second. The case sufficiently satisfies the Molina guidelines: First. As such. despite her psychological state. Fifth. it is the factual findings of the judicial trier of facts. that are accorded significant recognition by this Court. the appellate court placed undue emphasis on respondent’s avowed commitment to remain in the marriage. pronouncing as it does the marital bond as having been inexistent in the first place.

and his self-centeredness. WHEREFORE. the absence of remorse. The couple have 2 children Joana Marie who was . Dr. declaring the marriage between petitioner and respondent NULL and VOID under Article 36 of the Family Code. is more than the legitimatization of a desire of people in love to live together. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v. 1988. the lack of concern to his family. Thereafter Laila gave birth to two children. The decision of the RTC dated 10 August 1995. Dr. Laila then filed a Petition for Declartion of Nullity on the ground of psychological incapacity before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig City. Repondents Manolito San Jose and Laila Tanyag-San Jose got married. 19 year old & 4 months and Manolito San Jose (Manolito). was 20 years and 10 months old were married on June 12.in legal contemplation. Tayag further said that he suffers from anti-social personality disorder because of the following overt manipulations: the presence of drug. then left Manolito for being jobless and hooked into gambling and drugs. No costs 31. is REINSTATED. Laila. the constant incapacity in terms of maintaining the marital relationship. Being jobless and a drug user is not a state or condition or attitude shown to be a malady or disorder rooted on some incapacitating or debilitating psychological condition. The RTC denied Laila’s petition on the ground that it is not enough to prove that one failed to perform his marital duty. LAILA TANYAG-SAN JOSE & MANOLITO SAN JOSE FACTS: Laila Tanyag-San Jose (Laila). it is essential that it must be shown that the other party is incapable of doing so due to psychological incapacity not physical 83 | P a g e . Nedy Tayag found that Manolito was psychologically incapacitated based on the testimony of Laila. the petition is GRANTED.

The CA concluded that the deficiency of Manolito was so grave and so permanent as to deprive one of awareness of the duties and responsibilities of the matrimonial bond one is about to assume. Choa where the assessment of the therein party sought to be declared psychologically incapacitated was based merely on the information communicated to the doctor by the therein respondent-spouse. Manolito’s alleged psychological incapacity is thus premised on his being jobless and a drug user. It is a malady so grave and so permanent as to deprive one of the awareness of the duties and responsibilities of the matrimonial bond one is about to assume. so this Court declared in Choa v. Dr. has been succinctly expounded in the recent case of Ma. Gauzon had no personal knowledge of the facts he testified to. The CA held that Manolito was psychologically incapacitated hence their marriage is void ab Initio. The former was working on pure suppositions and secondhand information fed to him by one side. Tayag shows. the doctor’s conclusion is hearsay. Parenthetically. refers to a serious psychological illness afflicting a party even before the celebration of the marriage. as a ground for nullity of marriage.illness. as well as his inability to 84 | P a g e . Undoubtedly. It is unscientific and unreliable. Consequently. It merely states that such disorder is considered to be grave and is deeply immersed within the system and continues to influence the individual until the later stage of life. the term psychological incapacity to be a ground for the nullity of marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code. Tayag’s Psychological Report does not even show that the alleged anti-social personality disorder of Manolito was already present at the inception of the marriage or that it is incurable. In this case. his testimony can be dismissed as unscientific and unreliable. ISSUE: Whether or not Manolito is psychologically incapacitated HELD: Psychological incapacity. Dr. Laila appealed to Court of Appeals (CA). Brix Ferraris (Ferraris). As the earlier-quoted Report of Dr. as these had merely been relayed to him by respondent. Neither does it explain the incapacitating nature of the alleged disorder nor identify its root cause. her conclusion about Manolito’s psychological incapacity was based on the information supplied by Laila which she found to be factual. Armida Perez-Ferraris v.

unreasonably meticulous. 1989 and had three children. ALMELOR V. respectively. Leonida complained that this was in stark contrast to the alleged lavish affection Manuel has for his mother. She also found several pornographic homosexual materials in his possession. easily angered. an anesthesiologist and a pediatrician. Leonida filed a petition with the RTC in Las Pi–as City to annul their marriage on the ground that Manuel was psychologically incapacitated to perform his marital obligations. When she confronted Manuel. to be a malady or disorder rooted on some incapacitating or debilitating psychological condition. however. Leonida that in the public eye. She caught him in an indiscreet telephone conversation manifesting his affection for a male caller. At this point. And she saw Manuel kissed another man on the lips. At home. 32. 179620 FACTS: Petitioner Manuel G. Nogales.support his family and his refusal or unwillingness to assume the essential obligations of marriage. Manuel and Leonida are both medical practitioners. Manolito’s state or condition or attitude has not been shown. NO. G. RTC-LAS PINAS. 85 | P a g e .R. Manuel was the picture of a perfect husband and father but this was not the case in his private life. he denied everything. After eleven (11) years of marriage. The man was a certain Dr. Manuel’s unreasonable way of imposing discipline on their children was the cause of their frequent fights as a couple. She also alleged that her husband has concealed from her his homosexuality. Leonida described Manuel as a harsh disciplinarian. Almelor (Manuel) and respondent Leonida Trinidad (Leonida) were married on January 29.

and 4. ISSUE: Whether or not the marriage between the two can be declared as null and void due to fraud by reason of ManuelÕs concealment of his homosexuality. CA denied the appeal. Manuel countered that the true cause of Leonida’s hostility against him was their professional rivalry. a clinical psychologist. Dr. Valentina del Fonso Garcia. it existed even before the marriage and appeared to be incurable. not on the ground of Article 36. a decree of nullity of marriage shall be issued. Evidently. She testified that she conducted evaluative interviews and a battery of psychiatric tests on Leonida. Since then. 2005. 1. Also. 02-11-10-SC a. Pursuant to the provisions of A. She concluded that Manuel is psychologically incapacitated and such incapacity is marked by antecedence. She also had a one-time interview with Manuel and face-to-face.Directing the Branch Clerk of this Court to enter this Judgment upon its finality in the Book of Entry of Judgment and to issue an Entry of Judgment in accordance thereto. Directing the Local Civil Registrars of Las Pi–as City and Manila City to cause the registration of the said Entry of Judgment in their respective Books of Marriages.Leonida took her children and left their conjugal abode. Even granting that Manuel is indeed 86 | P a g e . b. Dissolving the regime of community property between the same parties with forfeiture of defendant's share thereon in favor of the same parties' children whose legal custody is awarded to plaintiff with visitorial right afforded to defendant.M. Upon compliance. not homosexuality per se. The lower court considered the public perception of Manuel’s sexual preference without the corroboration of witnesses. but Article 45 of the Family Code on November 25. The trial court nullified the marriage. Manuel stopped giving support to their children. Ordering the defendant to give monthly financial support to all the children. No. it took cognizance of Manuel’s peculiarities and interpreted it against his sexuality. 2. no sufficient proof was presented to substantiate the allegations that Manuel is a homosexual and that he concealed this to Leonida at the time of their marriage. 3. Declaring the marriage contracted by herein parties on 29 January 1989 and all its effects under the law null and void from the beginning. was presented to prove Leonida’s claim. HELD: Concealment of homosexuality is the proper ground to annul a marriage.

the totality of the evidence must sufficiently prove that respondent CA: there was no showing that Dominic’s personality traits either constituted psychological incapacity existing at the time of the marriage or were of the nature contemplated by Article 36 of the Family Code. AFFIRMED CA. FC. while persuasive. shall likewise be void even if such incapacity becomes manifest only after its solemnization. A marriage contracted by any party who. there was nothing in the complaint or anywhere in the case was it alleged and proven that Manuel hid such sexuality from Leonida and that Leonida’s consent had been vitiated by such. was not conclusive upon the court. Doctrine: To entitle petitioner spouse to a declaration of the nullity of his or her marriage.36. and that the real reason for the parties’ separation had been their frequent quarrels over financial matters and the criminal cases brought against Dominic. 33. that the testimony of the expert witness. Arabelle Mendoza vs Republic (2012) FACTS: Arabelle sought to have her marriage with Dominic declared null and void on the ground of Psychological Incapacity. RTC declared the marriage VOID AB INITIO CA reversed RTC decision Arabelle raised this appeal in SC SC: DENIED appeal. was psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential marital obligations of marriage. 87 | P a g e . at the time of the celebration.a homosexual.

¥findings were one-sided and self-serving. it is logical and understandable to give weight to the expert opinions furnished by psychologists regarding the psychological temperament of parties in order to determine the root cause. Samson conceded that there was the need for her to resort to other people in order to verify the facts derived from petitioner about Dominic’s psychological profile. if the totality of evidence presented is enough to sustain a finding of psychological incapacity. and that he also did not participate in the proceedings. The totality of the evidence adduced by petitioner is insufficient to prove that Dominic was psychologically incapacitated. then actual medical or psychological examination of the person concerned need not be resorted to. gravity and incurability of the psychological incapacity. By the very nature of cases involving the application of Article 36. At best. In fact.ISSUE: WON the marriage can be declared Valid Ab Initio because of Psychological Incapacity. including the rights and obligations between husband and wife. such opinions. juridical antecedence. a person’s psychological affliction must be grave and serious as to indicate an utter incapacity to comprehend and comply with the essential objects of marriage. The affliction must be shown to exist at the time of marriage. as in any other given case presented before it. AGAIN: To qualify as psychological incapacity as a ground for nullification of marriage. are not conditions sine qua non in granting petitions for declaration of nullity of marriage. must always base its decision not solely on the expert opinions furnished by the parties but also on the totality of evidence adduced in the course of the proceedings. Emotional immaturity and irresponsibility cannot be equated with psychological incapacity. while highly advisable. However. HELD/RATIO: NO. because Dominic was not himself subjected to an actual psychiatric evaluation by petitioner’s expert. The trial court. Dr. and must be incurable 88 | P a g e . those people were referred by Arabelle herself. courts must treat such opinions as decisive but not indispensable evidence in determining the merits of a given case.

Rodolfo was left to take care of their two kids. Rodolfo did not have a regular job except that of being a "kristo" and "bangkero sa hantak" in gambling pits. When the complaint was filed. both parties suffered from "utter emotional immaturity which is unusual and unacceptable behavior considered as deviant from persons who abide by established norms of 89 | P a g e . In 1991. Note that Rodolfo also had another child with another woman. RTC declared the marriage VOID AB INITIO OSG intervened and appealed to CA CA AFFIRMED RTC decision SC: DENIED appeal. 1969. Natividad sold their house without his consent. When he decided to train in the army. AFFIRMED CA. she had a second marriage to Antonio Mondarez and lived with him since. She moved to Dipolog to cohabit with an Engr Terez. Rodolfo (21 years old) was allegedly forced to marry Natividad (18 years old) on February 15. From 1972. due to the girlÕs pregnancy. Zalsos: both Rodolfo and Natividad were psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential marital obligations. Three months into the marriage. Dr. Zalsos. They had 2 kids. Facts: The couple met while in high school. Natividad did not file an answer but submitted herself to Psychiatric Examination by Dr. Republic vs Rodolfo De Gracia (2014) FACTS: Rodolfo sought to have her marriage with Natividad declared null and void on the ground of Psychological Incapacity.34.

RATIO: ¥the psychiatric evaluation report of Dr. Dr. Natividad’s emotional immaturity. Zalsos failed to disclose the types of psychological tests which she administered on Natividad. Zalsos.conduct. although it only manifested after. will and heart for the obligations of marriage. the "couple’s union was bereft of the mind. adding too that he sired a son with another woman. CA: affirmed the ruling of the RTC. ¥Dr. the existence of psychological incapacity must still be proven by independent evidence ¥psychological incapacity refers only to the most serious cases of personality disorders clearly demonstrative of an utter insensitivity or inability to give meaning and significance to the marriage 90 | P a g e . Zalsos which does NOT explain in reasonable detail how NatividadÕs condition could be characterized as grave. the mental condition of both parties already existed at the time of the celebration of marriage. Natividad lacked the willful cooperation of being a wife and a mother to her two daughters. and incurable within the parameters of psychological incapacity jurisprudence. deeply-rooted. ¥she failed to show the gravity or seriousness of Natividad's behavior in relation to her failure to perform the essential marital obligations ¥the finding contained therein on the incurability of Natividad's condition is unsupported by any factual or scientific basis ¥the conclusion appears to be drawn out as a bare conclusion and even self-serving." ISSUE: WON marriage should be rendered void on psychological incapacity HELD: NO. Rodolfo failed to perform his obligations as a husband. as duly testified to by Dr. ¥although expert opinions furnished by psychologists regarding the psychological temperament of parties are usually given considerable weight by the courts. has sufficiently established a case of psychological disorder so profound as to render Natividad incapacitated to perform her essential marital obligations. irresponsibility and promiscuity by themselves do not necessarily equate to psychological incapacity BUT "their degree or severity. Zalsos ¥she failed to identify in her report the root cause of Natividad's condition and to show that it existed at the time of the parties' marriage.

the RTC issued summons.9 process server Rodolfo Torres. 2001.8 In his Server’s Return. substituted service of summons with the copy of the petition was effected after several futile attempts to serve the same personally on petitioner. a security officer. 2002. Rosa Street. Benjamin Co filed a petition for declaration of nullity6 on the ground of psychological incapacity before the RTC. a Filipino citizen. 2002. 2002. the RTC rendered a decision10 in Civil Case No.. YUK LING ONG V CO GR NO 206653 FACTS: P etitioner Yuk Ling Ong (petitioner). On December 11.35. Jr. On April 26. Manila On July 19. which was docketed as Civil Case No. 2002. Unit B-2 Manresa Garden Homes. The said documents were received by Mr. 2002. Quezon City. but she failed to file her responsive 91 | P a g e . 02-0306 finding respondent’s marriage with petitioner as void ab initio on the ground of psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code. On July 29. Respondent indicated that petitioner’s address was 23 Sta. It stated that summons was served on petitioner on August 1. CV-01- 0177. Binondo. respondent filed another petition for declaration of nullity7 on the ground of psychological incapacity before the RTC. were married on October 3. Respondent stated that petitioner’s address was 600 Elcano St. 1982 at Ellinwood-Malate Church. stated that. a British-Hong Kong national. on August 1. Roly Espinosa. and respondent Benjamin Co (respondent).

she was not psychologically incapacitated to perform her marital obligations. Respondent indicated that petitioner’s address was 23 Sta. jurisdiction over her person was not acquired in Civil Case No. he deliberately indicated a wrong address to prevent her from participating in the trial. Unit B-2 Manresa Garden Homes. 02-0306 of the Regional Trial Court. 2002.pleading within the reglementary period. on August 92 | P a g e . stated that. second. 2002. (2) petition for declaration of nullity of marriage docketed as Civil Case No. showing impossibility of personal service. petitioner received a subpoena from the Bureau of Immigration and Deportation (BID) directing her to appear before the said agency because her permanent residence visa was being subjected to cancellation proceedings because her marriage was nullified by the court. respondent committed extrinsic fraud because. CV-01-0177. 2008.4 dated December 11. be nullified on the grounds of extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction. Petitioner alleged that first. claiming that she was never notified of the cases filed against her. docketed as Civil Case No. declaring the marriage between petitioner and respondent as void ab initio. 02-0306. Rosa Street. 2002. in Civil Case No. 2002. she was furnished with the copies of the following documents: (1) petition for declaration of nullity of marriage filed as Civil Case No. dated December 11. the alleged substituted service was made on a security guard of their townhouse and not on a member of her household. Consequently. On July 29. the RTC issued summons. CV-01-0177.9 process server Rodolfo Torres. She prayed that the RTC decision. was stated before resorting to substituted service of summons.8 In his Server’s Return. Branch 260 (RTC). Quezon City. third. in Civil Case No. Jr. (3) Decision. November 2008. The public prosecutor also stated that there were no indicative facts to manifest collusion. respondent filed another petition for declaration of nullity7 on the ground of psychological incapacity before the RTC. petitioner filed a petition for annulment of judgment11 under Rule 47 of the Rules of Court before the CA on November 24. and (4) their marriage contract with the subject decision annotated On July 19. Paranaque City. the RTC concluded that petitioner was psychologically incapacitated to perform her essential marital obligations. 02-0306. 02-0306. Yuk Ling Ong appeared before the BID. 02- 0306 because of an invalid substituted service of summons as no sufficient explanation. and fourth. as seen in Civil Case No. Thus.

The discussion shall then focus on the ground of lack of jurisdiction 93 | P a g e . 2012. 2002. Petitioner raises two grounds to support her claim for annulment of judgment: (1) extrinsic fraud and (2) lack of jurisdiction. Whether or not the Trial Court in Civil Case No. Roly Espinosa. Whether or not the facts proven by the petitioner constitute extrinsic fraud within the purview of Rule 47 of the Rules of Court HELD : June 27. Her contention on the existence of extrinsic fraud.1. It held that there was no sufficient proof to establish that respondent employed fraud to insure petitioner’s non-participation in the trial of Civil Case No. 02-0306 validly acquired jurisdiction over the person of the petitioner. however. CV-01-0177 The Court finds merit in the petition. ISSUE 1. is too unsubstantial to warrant consideration. The said documents were received by Mr. 2. a security officer. substituted service of summons with the copy of the petition was effected after several futile attempts to serve the same personally on petitioner. the CA rendered the assailed decision finding the petition for annulment of judgment to be devoid of merit.

she showed no respect or regard for the prestige and position of his office as a judge and would yell and scream at him or throw objects at him within hearing of their neighbours.36. Juanita. That the incapacity was borne about by the perceived lack of love and support she received from her own parents since childhood. alleging that Manuel merely invented stories about her so he could be freed to marry his paramour. 94 | P a g e . it was Manuel who was remiss in his marital and family obligations and she supported Manuel in all his endeavors. respondent An Unsatisfactory Marriage. 2004. vs. To support his petition. 158896. he alleged that his wife exhibited a domineering and selfish attitude towards him. and she was raised in a real and happy family and had a happy childhood contrary to Manuel’s allegations. Juanita denied the allegations. which she carried over to the marriage. SECOND DIVISION. Answering. NO. Is Not A Null And Void Marriage… FACTS: Judge Manuel Siayngco filed a petition for declaration of nullity of her marriage to his wife. G. and complained about anything and everything connected with him.R. MANUEL SIAYNGCO. October 27. petitioner. JUANITA CARATING-SIAYNGCO. was extremely volatile and bellicose. based on psychological incapacity.

warranting the dissolution of their marriage RULING: Our pronouncement in Republic v. It found both parties psychologically incapacitated to perform the essential marital obligations. due to her jealousy. an expressive interest in each other’s feelings at a time it is needed by the other can go a long way in deepening the marital relationship. the Court of Appeals did not heed. There. the latter reversed the RTC decision. Dagdag⁠1 is apropos. Marriage is definitely not for children but for two consenting adults who view the relationship with love “amore gignit amorem”. On appeal to the CA. In contrast to some countries. we held that whether or not psychological incapacity exists in a given case calling for the declaration of the nullity of the marriage depends crucially on the facts of the case. sacrifice and a continuing commitment to compromise conscious of its value as a sublime social institution. Valentina Tan. After presentations of witnesses and documentary evidence. to the constant delivery of irritating curtain lectures to her husband. ISSUE: Whether or not the parties a psychologically incapacitated to perform the essential marital obligations toward each other. both parties presented their own expert witnesses to disprove psychological incapacity. the trial court dismissed the petition. our laws do not look at a marital partner as a mere refrigerator in the Kitchen even if he or she sometimes may sound like a firetruck. But.To support each other’s positions. the dissolution of the marriage is not the remedy in such cases. may have succumbed. as in the instant case. Manuel present Dr. Since marital union is a two-way process. Each case must be closely scrutinized and judged according to its own facts as there can be no case that is on “all fours” with another. the CA held. it stated: “The present state of our laws on marriage does not favor knee-jerk responses to slight stabs of the Pavlovian hammer on marital relations. as our laws now stand. 95 | P a g e . This. who concluded that both Manuel and Juanita had a partner relational problem which affected their capacity to sustain the marital bond. In so ruling. A wife.

is not a null and void marriage. Regrettably. It refers to a serious psychological illness afflicting a party even before the celebration of the marriage. sexual intimacy for procreation is a non-issue herein. we stress. who finds his wife’s obsession with cleanliness and the tight reign on his wallet “irritants” and who is wounded by her lack of support and respect for his person and his position as a Judge. from the totality of the evidence adduced by both parties. to a marriage that is no longer working.⁠As we stated in Marcos v.⁠ WHEREFORE. never had coitus. It is a malady so grave and so permanent as to deprive one of awareness of the duties and responsibilities of the matrimonial bond one is about to assume. is not to be confused with a divorce law that cuts the marital bond at the time the causes therefore manifests themselves.The Court of Appeals perfunctorily applied our ruling in Chi Ming Tsoi despite a clear divergence in its factual milieu with the case at bar. where neither law nor society can provide the specific answers to every individual problem.” Thus. so to speak. In Chi Ming Tsoi. We are not downplaying the frustration and misery respondent Manuel might be experiencing in being shackled. An unsatisfactory marriage. we have been allowed a window into the Siayngcos’s life and have perceived therefrom a simple case of a married couple drifting apart. however. Mere showing of “irreconcilable differences” and “conflicting personalities” in no wise constitutes psychological incapacity. however. Marcos:0 Article 36 of the Family Code. We sustained the wife for the reason that an essential marital obligation under the Family Code is procreation such that “the senseless and protracted refusal of one of the parties to On the other hand. Rather. despite sharing the same bed from the time of their wedding night on 22 May 1988 until their separation on 15 March 1989. we have here a case of a husband who is constantly embarrassed by his wife’s outbursts and overbearing ways. with the husband consequently falling out of love and wanting a way out. The Decision dated 01 July 2003 of the Court of Appeals is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. the couple involved therein. The perplexed wife filed the petition for the declaration of the nullity of her marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity of her husband. the petition for review is hereby GRANTED. there are situations like this one. In our book. these inadequacies of petitioner Juanita which led respondent Manuel to file a case against her do not amount to psychological incapacity to comply with the essential marital obligations fulfill the above marital obligation is equivalent to psychological incapacity. becoming strangers to each other. The Decision dated 31 January 2001 of the Regional Trial Court of 96 | P a g e .

1991. must always base their judgments not solely on the expert opinions presented by the parties but on the totality of evidence adduced in the course of their proceedings. Quezon City. It bears repeating that the trial courts. 37. as in all the other cases they try. 2012 Psychological Incapacity as ground for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage Doctrine: To entitle petitioner spouse to a declaration of the nullity of his or her marriage. 97 | P a g e . MENDOZA V REPUBLIC GR 157854. Branch 102 is reinstated and given full force and effect. No costs. NOVEMBER 12. the totality of the evidence must sufficiently prove that respondent spouse's psychological incapacity was grave. incurable and existing prior to the time of the marriage. FACTS: · Petitioner and Dominic were in an intimate relationship which led to petitioner’s pregnancy with their daughter. They got married on her eighth month of pregnancy in civil rites solemnized in Pasay City on June 24.

and Professor Marites Jimenez. 1997. 1998. After petitioner and her mother bailed him out of jail. Later on." A month later. she and her family immediately left the house to live in another place concealed from him.000. To make matters worse. for which he was arrested and incarcerated. however. At that. Dominic abandoned the conjugal abode because petitioner asked him for "time and space to think things over. she also found out that he did not pay for the car itself. communication between them became rare until they started to sleep in separate rooms · In November 1995. Relying on the pronouncements in 98 | P a g e . · On August 5. · RTC declared the marriage between petitioner and Dominic an absolute nullity · CA reversed the judgment of the RTC.000. causing him to threaten to commit suicide. leaving her to bear the balance of P120. he asked her to issue two blank checks that he claimed would be for the car’s insurance coverage. She soon found out. petitioner discovered that he had also swindled many clients some of whom were even threatening petitioner.00 belonging to his employer. Eventually.· Petitioner discovered Dominic’s illicit relationship with his co-employee. that the checks were not paid for the car’s insurance coverage but for his personal needs. her mother and her sister themselves. Dominic gave her a Daihatsu Charade car as a birthday present. together with a psychiatrist. He was criminally charged with violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. petitioner filed in the RTC her petition for the declaration of the nullity of her marriage with Dominic based on his psychological incapacity · Petitioner presented herself as a witness. Dr. Dominic was fired from his employment after he ran away with P164. she refused his attempt at reconciliation. Specifically. 22 and estafa. it refused to be bound by the findings and conclusions of petitioner’s expert witness.00. Worse. · Dominic did not appear during trial and presented no evidence. Rocheflume Samson. The CA held the testimonies of petitioner’s witnesses insufficient to establish Dominic’s psychological affliction to be of such a grave or serious nature that it was medically or clinically rooted. · On October 15. forcing her to rely on her father-in-law to pay part of the cost of the car.

but not necessarily a medically rooted psychological affliction that cannot be cured. deceitful and without remorse for his dishonesty. Court of Appeals and Pesca v. Accordingly. and that he suffered from such psychological incapacity as of the date of the marriage. however. Such characteristics. are indicative of an immature mind. which she admitted during her consultation with Dr. nor does the fact that the respondent is a criminal suspect for estafa or violation of the B. Pesca. or to feel remorse for his misbehavior. HELD: NO. Dagdag. Even the respondent’s alleged sexual infidelity is not necessarily equivalent to psychological incapacity. and lack of affection. do not necessarily constitute a case of psychological incapacity. Hernandez v. that such findings were one-sided. A person’s inability to share or take responsibility. The CA correctly indicated that the ill-feelings that she harbored towards Dominic.Republic v.P. the CA did not err in dismissing the petition for declaration of nullity of marriage. Samson. the CA observed: In her testimony. ISSUE: WON the marriage should be declared void on the ground of psychological incapacity. because 99 | P a g e . or even to share his earnings with family members. furnished the basis to doubt the findings of her expert witness. We find the totality of the evidence adduced by petitioner insufficient to prove that Dominic was psychologically unfit to discharge the duties expected of him as a husband. 22 constitutes a ground for the nullification of his marriage to petitioner. Blg. We consider the CA’s refusal to accord credence and weight to the psychiatric report to be well taken and warranted. petitioner described her husband as immature.

if any. and that he also did not participate in the proceedings. Samson’s findings. the root cause of his psychological incapacity because said expert did not examine Dominic in person before completing her report but simply relied on other people’s recollection and opinion for that purpose. The burden of proof to show the nullity of the marriage rests upon petitioner. and that the findings and conclusions on his psychological profile by her expert were solely based on the self-serving testimonial descriptions and characterizations of him rendered by petitioner and her witnesses. In fine. In Dagdag. Samson conceded that there was the need for her to resort to other people in order to verify the facts derived from petitioner about Dominic’s psychological profile considering the ill-feelings she harbored towards him. The CA’s reliance on Dagdag. In Hernandez.Dominic was not himself subjected to an actual psychiatric evaluation by petitioner’s expert. Hernandez and Pesca was not misplaced." But here. we ruminated that: xxx expert testimony should have been presented to establish the precise cause of private respondent’s psychological incapacity. The Court is mindful of the policy of the 1987 Constitution to protect and strengthen the family as the basic autonomous social institution and marriage as the foundation of the family. 2 which requires that the root cause of psychological incapacity must be medically or clinically identified and sufficiently proven by experts. we ruled that "Erlinda failed to comply with guideline No. however. Thus. since no psychiatrist or medical doctor testified as to the alleged psychological incapacity of her husband. in order to show that it existed at the inception of the marriage. It is easy to see why. that the only people she interviewed about Dominic were those whom petitioner herself referred. much less prove. any doubt should be resolved in favor of the validity of the 100 | P a g e . Moreover. the failure to examine and interview Dominic himself naturally cast serious doubt on Dr. The CA rightly refused to accord probative value to the testimony of such expert for being avowedly given to show compliance with the requirements set in Santos and Molina for the establishment of Dominic’s psychological incapacity. the expert’s testimony on Dominic’s psychological profile did not identify. It turned out. Dr.

let alone at the time of solemnization of the contract. are not conditions sine qua non in granting petitions for declaration of nullity of marriage.marriage. so as to warrant a declaration of nullity of the marriage. Velez-Ting: By the very nature of cases involving the application of Article 36. as in any other given case presented before it. as the Court has reminded in Ting v. Apparent from the aforecited pronouncements is that it was not the absence of the medical expert’s testimony alone that was crucial but rather petitioners’ failure to satisfactorily discharge the burden of showing the existence of psychological incapacity at the inception of the marriage. The Court in Pesca observed that: At all events. In fact. gravity and incurability of the psychological incapacity. it is logical and understandable to give weight to the expert opinions furnished by psychologists regarding the psychological temperament of parties in order to determine the root cause. both in her allegations in the complaint and in her evidence. such opinions. But the expert evidence submitted here did not establish the precise cause of the supposed psychological incapacity of Dominic. the totality of the evidence proving such incapacity at and prior to the time of the marriage was the crucial consideration. In other words. then actual medical or psychological examination of the person concerned need not be resorted to. invoked by her. to make out a case of psychological incapacity on the part of respondent. if the totality of evidence presented is enough to sustain a finding of psychological incapacity. must always base its decision not solely on the expert opinions furnished by the parties but also on the totality of evidence adduced in the course of the proceedings. 101 | P a g e . The trial court. petitioner has utterly failed. while highly advisable. juridical antecedence. However. Emotional immaturity and irresponsibility. cannot be equated with psychological incapacity. courts must treat such opinions as decisive but not indispensable evidence in determining the merits of a given case. much less show that the psychological incapacity existed at the inception of the marriage. At best.

Court of Appeals: "psychological incapacity must be characterized by (a) gravity (b) juridical antecedence.Petitioner’s view that the Court in Marcos stated that the personal medical or psychological examination of respondent spouse therein was not a requirement for the declaration of his psychological incapacity is not entirely accurate. a person’s psychological affliction must be grave and serious as to indicate an utter incapacity to comprehend and comply with the essential objects of marriage. and (c) incurability. The affliction must be shown to exist at the time of marriage. For indeed. In fact. we should emphasize herein. This did not mean that the presentation of any form of medical or psychological evidence to show the psychological incapacity would have automatically ensured the granting of the petition for declaration of nullity of marriage. if the totality of evidence presented is enough to sustain a finding of psychological incapacity." What is important is the presence of evidence that can adequately establish the party’s psychological condition. the root cause may be "medically or clinically identified. the statement in Marcos ran as follows: The guidelines incorporate the three basic requirements earlier mandated by the Court in Santos v. Accordingly. was the "presence of evidence that can adequately establish the party’s psychological condition. The medical report failed to show that his actions indicated a 102 | P a g e . In light of the foregoing. and must be incurable. To qualify as psychological incapacity as a ground for nullification of marriage. To be clear. the actual medical examination of Dominic was to be dispensed with only if the totality of evidence presented was enough to support a finding of his psychological incapacity. including the rights and obligations between husband and wife." The foregoing guidelines do not require that a physician examine the person to be declared psychologically incapacitated. even if the expert opinions of psychologists are not conditions sine qua non in the granting of petitions for declaration of nullity of marriage. What was essential. then actual medical examination of the person concerned need not be resorted to. antecedence and incurability could not stand scrutiny. the RTC’s findings that Dominic’s psychological incapacity was characterized by gravity." as the Court said in Marcos.

On the contrary. defender of the marital bond) to oppose petitions for. deceitfulness and lack of remorse for his dishonesty and lack of affection did not necessarily constitute psychological incapacity. the Resolution explicitly required the OSG to actively participate in all stages of the proceedings. Finally. 02-11-10 rendered appeals by the OSG no longer required. Nor were his supposed sexual infidelity and criminal offenses manifestations of psychological incapacity. If at all. The contention is grossly erroneous and unfounded. 103 | P a g e . albeit indicative of immaturity. petitioner contends that the Court’s Resolution in A.M. His inability to share or to take responsibility or to feel remorse over his misbehavior or to share his earnings with family members.. The obvious intent of the Resolution was to require the OSG to appear as counsel for the State in the capacity of a defensor vinculi (i. and that the appeal by the OSG was a mere superfluity that could be deemed to have become functus officio if not totally disregarded.e. psychological affliction of such a grave or serious nature that it was medically or clinically rooted. No. The Resolution nowhere stated that appeals by the OSG were no longer required. thereby ensuring that only the meritorious cases for the declaration of nullity of marriages based on psychological incapacity-those sufficiently evidenced by gravity. and to appeal judgments in favor of declarations of nullity of marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code. was not necessarily a medically rooted psychological affliction that was incurable. Emotional immaturity and irresponsibility did not equate with psychological incapacity. they would constitute a ground only for an action for legal separation under Article 55 of the Family Code. incurability and juridical antecedence- would succeed. His alleged immaturity.

104 | P a g e .