Norberto A.

Vitangcol vs People of the Philippines

Nature of the Case:

Facts: Norberto Vitangcol married Alice Eduardo in 19894without the latter knowing about his un
dissolved marriage with Gina Gaerlan in 1987. Vitangcol convinced Alice that his marriage with Gaerlan
was a “fake marriage and proceeded with their wedding. Him and Eduardo have three children together.
In 2007, Norberto discovered that Alice had an affair with a married man, and confirmed it through one
of their phone calls. Finding that Norberto had a second marriage despite his previous marriage still valid,
the Regional Trial Court finds Norberto Vitangcol guilty of Bigamy and was sentenced to prision mayor
(eight years and one day in prison). Norberto filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied by the
Court of appeals. He then filed a Certiorary to which the People of the Philippines, through the Office of
the Solicitor General, filed a commentary.

Issue: Whether or not the alleged claim of absence of the subsisting marriage certificate from the Civil
Registrar proves the nullity of the marriage and frees him from the bigamy charge.

Ruling: The petition for Certiorary was denied and Vitangcol is sentenced to 8 years and 1 day of prision
mayor as maximum.

Ratio: Bigamy is Punishable under Article 349 of the Civil code, which states that “The penalty of prision
mayor shall be imposed upon any person who shall contract a second or subsequent marriage before the
former marriage has been legally dissolved.” Although Vitangcol argued that there was no marriage
license, there was still a solemnization that happened between him and Gaerlan, Therefore, he is still
liable of Bigamy because of the lack of declaration of Nullity of the previous marriage.

For an accused to be convicted of Bigamy, all four elements should be present: that the offender has
been legally married; that the first marriage has not been legally dissolved or, in case his or her spouse is
absent, the absent spouse could not yet be presumed dead according to the Civil Code; that he contracts
a second or subsequent marriage; and that the second or subsequent marriage has all the essential
requisites for validity. According to the findings by the Supreme Court, the first three elements of Bigamy
are present, which makes Norberto Vitangcol liable for Bigamy.
Republic of the Philippines vs Erlinda Matias Dagdag

Nature of the Case:

Facts:

On September 7, 1975, Erlinda Matias married Avelino Parangan Dagdag, who were 16 and 20 years old
by that time. They have two children, Avelyn and Eden Dagdag. They live in District 8 Cuyapo, Nueva
Ecija, located at the back of the house of their in-laws. After a week prior to the marriage, Avelino would
disappear and reappear after a few months. He would go home drunk and would force his wife to sexual
intercourse, with physical harm as punishment to refusal. On October 1993, Avelino left again, this time
for good. Erlinda worked as a manicurist at Olongapo City to support herself and her family. Later did
she know that Avelino was arrested for some crime, and escaped on October 22, 1985. On July 3, 1990,
Erlinda filed a petition for Judicial declaration of the nullity of marriage on the grounds of psychological
incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code, with Virginia Dagdag as her witness. On December 27,
1990, the Trial Court rendered the marriage between Erlinda Matias and Avelino Dagdag void under
Article 36 of the Family Code. The Solicitor General then appealed to the Court of Appeals that there
was an error of decision regarding the declaration of the nullity of the marriage. On April 22, 1993, the
court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the Trial Court under the grounds that Avelino Dagdag is
Psychologically incapacitated by means of immaturity and habitual drinking.

Issue: Whether or not the RTC made the correct judgement of the Nullity of Marriage between Avelino
Dagdag and Erlinda Matias.

Ruling: The Petition is granted and the Decision of the Court of Appeals on April 22, 1993 is Reversed
and Set Aside.

Ratio: Under Article 36 of the Family code “A marriage contracted by any party who, at the time of the
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”. Since the evidence presented showed that Avelino Dagdag was Psychologically
Incapacitated after the solemnization of the marriage, the marriage is liable for nullity.
However, in the case of Republic of the Philippines vs Court of Molina, the court laid down
guidelines in the interpretation of Article 36 of the Family Code. The petitioner failed to comply with
the second requirement of the guideline, which claims that the Psychological Incapacity must be
“clinically or medically identified.” There was no medical history claiming that Avelino Dagdag has
Psychological Incapacity, which proves that the judgement made by the Trial Court was not sought
out properly and was prematurely rendered.
Leouel Santos vs Court of Appeals and Julia Rosario Bedia-Santos
Nature of the Case:

Facts:
Leouel and Santos and Julia Bedia met at a meeting in Iloilo City. They both then took vows before
Municipal Trial Court Judge Cornelio Lazaro of Iloilo City on September 20, 1986. The couple lived
with Julia’s parents at J. Bedia Compund, La Paz, Iloilo City. Julia gave birth to a baby boy, Leouel
Santos Jr. However, Leouel averred because of the latter’s parents frequently interfering in their
family affairs. Ocassionally, the couple would start quarrels over certain things which would affect
their marriage. Julia left to work in the United States on May 18, 1988, despite the disagreement of
Leoue to her decision. On January 2, 1989, seven months after her departure, she called Leoue
promising to go back to the Philippines after her contract was up. When Leoue had an opportunity to
go to the US for a training program under the auspices of the United States, he desperately tried to
locate Julia’s whereabouts, but to no avail. Leoue then filed a complaint under the Regional Trial
Court of Negros Oriental for “Voiding of Marriage under Art. 36 of the Family Code. Julia responded,
through counsel, that she denied all allegations and claiming that it was Leoue who was
irresponsible and incompetent. On November 6, 1991, the court dismissed the complaint for lack of
merit. Leouel then appealed to the Court of appeals.
Issue: 1.) Whether or not the marriage of Leouel and Julia can be considered void under Article 36 of
the Family Code.

2.) Whether or not Article 37 should be Prospective or Retroactive in application.

Ruling: 1.) Petition is denied.
2.) Article 37 is Retroactive in effect.
Ratio: The court deliberated on sub paragraph 7 of Article 36, which describes the lack of judgment
of either of the contracting parties at the time of the marriage. Different opinions of whether
Psychological Incapacity were subject to a voidable or void marriage.
The court then deliberated on the sentence structure and retroactivity/prospectivity of Art. 37.
The votings were as follows: Justices Reyes, Puno and Romero were for Prospectivity; Justices
Caguioa, Sempio-Diy, Dean Gupit, Prof Bautista, and Director Eufemio were from Retroactivity; Prof
Baviera Abstained.
Since the court find that the nature of Psychological Incapacity is not mentioned in the case,
it is ruled that the marriage is voidable, for other forms of Psychoses, such as unsound mind,
habitual alcoholism, homosexuality, etc. merely renders the marriage voidable, and not void ab initio.
Psychological Incapacity only refers to the mental (not physical) incapacity of a party which renders
the marriage void.
Chi Ming Tsoi vs Court of Appeals and Gina Lao Tsoi
Nature of the Case:

Facts:
On May 22, 1988, Chi Ming Tsoi married Gina Lao at the Manila Catherdral in Intramuros, Manila.
After their celebration of Marriage, they proceeded to the house of Gina’s mother. According to Gina,
Chi Ming Tsoi, instead of making love, or having sexual intercourse, he decided to turn his back and
go to sleep. This happened on the second to fourth night. In an effort to have their honeymoon in a
private place, they went to Baguio City. But they brought their Mothers, an Uncle, and Tsi Ming’s
nephew, who were all invited by Tsi Ming Tsoi. No Sexual Intercourse happened between the couple
because Tsi Ming Tsoi avoided his wife by either taking long walks during their siesta or sleeping in
a rocking chair located at their living room. The couple slept in the same room and bed from May 22,
1988 until March 15, 1989, but no sexual intercourse took place. The couple decided to have
medical examinations, to which the husband’s results were kept confidential. No treatment was
given to Gina. Tsi Ming Tsoi was asked to return but never did. The wife claims that his husband is
impotent and a closeted homosexual since he did not show his penis. She also observed Tsi Ming
Tsoi using his mother’s eyebrow pencil and sometimes the cleansing cream of his mother. She also
claims that Tsi Ming Tsoi married her for residency in the Philippines.
However, Tsi Ming Tsoi claims that it’s his wife’s fault if the marriage is to be annulled. He does not
want an annulment because 1) He loves his wife very much; and 2) he has no defect on his part
and; 3) conflicts between him and his wife can still be reconciled. Tsi Ming Tsoi underwent a
Physical Examination to determine whether he is impotent or not. The Doctor claims that there is no
evidence of impotence and Tsoi is capable of erection. The doctor says that he asked Tsi Ming Tsoi
to masturbate to find out if he has an erection of 2 inches, or 5 cm. Tsi Ming Tsoi’s penis lengthed 1
inch and 1cm. Although the length was small, the doctor claims that he is still capable of sexual
intercourse.
Issue: Whether or Not Tsi Ming Tsoi is Psychologically Incapacitated under Art. 36 of the Family
Code.
Ruling: Yes, because the marriage has not been consummated due to lack of empathy.
Ratio: While the law provides that the husband and the wife are obliged to live together, observe
mutual love, respect and fidelity (Art. 68, Family Code), the sanction therefor is actually the
"spontaneous, mutual affection between husband and wife and not any legal mandate or court
order" (Cuaderno vs. Cuaderno 120 Phil. 1298). Love is useless unless it is shared with another.
Indeed, no man is an island, the cruelest act of a partner in marriage is to say "I could not have
cared less."
Republic vs Molina
Nature of the Case:

Facts:
The case commenced on Aug. 16, 1990 with the filing of Roridel O. Molina of the petition of
declaration of Nullity of her marriage to Reynaldo Molina. Roridel and Reynaldo Molina were married
on April 14, 1985 in at San Agustin Church in Manila. But after a year of marriage, Reynaldo showed
signs of “immaturity and irresponsibility” as husband and a father, since he preferred to spend more
time with his peers who squandered on his money; depended on his parents for aid and assistance;
and has not been completely honest with his wife with regards to finances. Sometime in 1986,
Reynaldo was relieved from his job and Roridel became the sole breadwinner of the family. On
October 1986, the couple had an intense quarrel which rendered their relationship as estranged. On
March 1987, Roridel resigned from her job and went to live with her parents in Baguio City,
Reynaldo left her and the child, abandoning his family. On August 28, 1989, Reynaldo admitted that
he and Roridel cannot live together, although he reasons that 1) Roridel’s strange behavior of
insisting on maintaining her peer group; 2) Roridel’s refusal to perform some of her marital duties
even after marriage; and 3) Roridel’s failure to run the household and finances.
On May 14, 1991, the trial court rendered judgement declaring the marriage void. The appeal of
petitioner was denied by the CA which affirmed in toto the RTC’s decision.
Issue: Whether or not there is Psychological Incapacity among the parties.
Ruling: There is no Psychological Incapacity in the marriage, but merely a “difficulty” in fulfilling the
marital obligations.
Ratio: In the case of Leouel Santos vs Court of Appeals, “Psychological Incapacity should refer to no
less than a mental(not physical capacity…..”
Brenda Marcos vs Wilson Marcos
Nature of the Case:

Facts:
Wilson and Brenda Marcos were both Military personnel who met sometime in 1980. Wilson was a
PSG of Malacanang and Brenda was an escort of Imee Marcos. After their marriage on Sept. 6,
1982, they resided at No 1702 Daisy St., Hulo Bliss, Mandaluyong. After the downfall of President
Marcos, Wilson left the Military in 1987 and engaged in different business ventures that did not work
for him. Brenda, as a wife, urged Wilson to look for work so that the children would see him as the
head of the family.Due to his failure to land a job, the couple would quarrel, which would result to
Wilson physically abusing Brenda and the children. He would even force Brenda to have sex with
him despite her weariness. They lived separately in 1992.Brenda filed a case for nullity of Marriage,
claiming that Wilson was Psychologically Incapacitated. However, the CA reversed the RTC’s rule
that there was no Psychological Incapacity present in the case.
Issues: Whether or Not Wilson’s failure to find work and physical abuse against Brenda are grounds
for Psychological incapacity.
Ruling: The rule is negative.

Ratio: The physical violence acted was not due to Psychological Incapacity, but to the failure of
Wilson to find work. Wilson resorted to violence due to a problem that existed in the period of
marriage, not prior to the marriage. Therefore, he is not liable for Psychological Incapacity. Petitioner
lacked to provide evidence despite the testimonies of the children, personal medical records and
testimonies of peers.
Leonilo Antonio vs Marie Ivonne Reyes
Nature of the Case:

Facts:
Barely a year after Leonilo and Marie met, they got married. Subsequently, on March 19913 Antonio
filed a petition to have his marriage declared null and void. He claims that Ivonne was
Psychologically Incapacitated under Art. 36 of the Family Code. He claims that she consistently lied
about herself, her occupation, income, education, to her friends, and other things or events.
In support to his claims, Antonio presented a Physician and Clinical Psychologist. Basing from their
observations, Ivonne’s persistent lying to Leonilo was abnormal or pathological. Before the court
rendered decision, the Metropolitan Tribunal of the Archdiocese of Manila rendered the marriage
between the two parties null and void. According to the trial court, her ability to invent stories
enabled her to live in her own make-believe world. This rendered her Psychologically Incapacitated
because it rendered her from giving meaning and significance to her marriage. However, RTC
reversed the decision holding the evidence to be insufficient.
Issue: Whether or not the Psychological Incapacity of Reyes was shown to be clinically permanent
or uncurable.

Ruling: Yes. Expert Testimonies were given that prove that Psychological Incapacity existed even
before the marriage ceremony and went on until the petition. Since Reyes showed that she is
Psychologically Incapacitated, she cannot render the essence of her marriage, thus in violation of
Article 36 of the Family Code.
Rene Bier vs Lourdes Bier and the Republic of the Philippines
Nature of the Case:

Facts:
Rene met Lourdes through her sister. The courtship between the couple blossomed, and Rene
observed that Loudes was a sweet and thoughtful person, which made him fall in love with her. On
July 26, 1992, both parties married in UST Santissimo Rosario Parish Church. Everything went well
for the couple. Once Rene was based in Saudi Arabia, the couple decided to maintain two
residences, One in the Philippines and one in Saudi. However, after three months of marriage, the
couple started having frequent quarrels. Rene claims that Lourdes changed, and was not the wife
she knew. She started drinking, chain smoking, going out with her friends, and became aloof
towards him. As a result, Lourdes left for US on April 10, 1997. Rene then filed a petition for
declaration of nullity of marriage on the ground that Lourdes was Psychologically incapacitated to
fulfill her marital obligations.
RTC granted petition but CA reversed and set aside the decision of the RTC
Issue: Whether or not the totality of evidence presented by Rene was enough to establish proof of
Psychological Incapacity of Lourdes at the inception of marriage.

Ruling: The petition is without merit.

Ratio: Change in the respondent’s feelings towards his partner is not a sign of Psychological
Incapacity. Rene, although having a psychological basis of proof of Psychological Incapacity of his
wife, did not consider that there should be knowledge of the other party regarding the
documents/evidence presented. All evidence presented were merely by Rene, without the consent
of Lourdes. Thus, it renders that the petition was not bearing.
Edward Kenneth Ngo Te vs Rowela Ong Gutierrez Yu-Te and the Republic of the Philippines
Nature of the Case:

Facts:
Edward got a first glimpse of Rowela at a gathering organized by the Fil-Sino Association at their
college. Edward was initially attracted to Rowela’s friend. But, since the latter had a boyfriend, he
decided to court Rowela. In March 1996, Rowena asked Edward that they elope. Edward argued
that he was still young and jobless. Rowela Persisted, to which Edward agreed. They left Manila and
sailed for Cebu; Edward providing the travel money and Rowela purchasing the boat tickets.
However, Edward’s P80,000 didn’t last long enough. The couple decided to go back to Manila, as
Rowena proceeded to her uncle’s house and Edward to his parent’s home. Eventually they got
married without a license. Edward was prohibited from getting out of the house unaccompanied and
was threatened by Rowena and her uncle. After a month, Edward escaped from his house, and
stayed with his parents. Edward’s parents wanted them to stay at their house but Rowena refused
and demanded that they have a separate abode. In June 1996, she said that it was better for them
to live separate lives and part ways. After four years, on January 2000, Edward filed a petition for the
annulment of his marriage to Rowena on the basis of his marriage to Rowena on the basis of the
latter’s Psychological Incapacity.
Issue: Whether or not the marriage is void on the ground of Psychological Incapacity.
Ruling: Yes. Both parties are on the ground of Psychological Incapacity.