Following the exchange of pleadings between the parties, petitioner clinical psychologists specifically trained in the tests use
rained in the tests use and
presented evidence consisting testimony from a psychiatrist, Dr. Cecilia C.
Villegas ; and Maxima Adato, petitioner's co-employee in the distillery in
addition petitioner included the report result that the parties were suffering
from personality disorder
RTC declared the marriage - null and void as the two were psychologically
incapacitated to comply with the essential marital obligations. (ON THE
GROUND ART. 36))
ISSUE: WHETHER OR NOT THE MARRIAGE IS NULL AND VOID ON
THE GROUND THAT BOTH ARE PSYCHOLOGICAL
INCAPACITATED UNDER ARTICLE 36?
RULING: No. OSG appealed to CA disagreeing and questioning RTC’s
ruling and the said ordered had been reversed and set aside on March 25
2002
- ruling in Santos v. Court of Appeals cites 3 factors characterizing
psychological incapacity to perform the essential marital obligations:
(1) gravity, (2) juridical antecedence, (3) incurability. We expounded
on the foregoing, to wit:
- The incapacity must be grave or serious such that the party would be
incapable of carrying out the ordinary duties required in marriage;
- it must be rooted in the history of the party antedating the marriage,
although the overt manifestations may emerge only after the
marriage; and it must be incurable or, even if it were otherwise, the
cure would be beyond the means of the party involved.
- It also states in Republic V CA, as the party alleging his own
psychological incapacity and that of his spouse, had the special
albatross to prove that he and his wife were suffering from "the most
serious cases of personality disorders clearly demonstrative of an
utter insensitivity or inability to give meaning and significance to the
marriage."
- Rather, Petitioner present petitioner presented the Psychiatric Report
of Dr. Villegas
- *READ THE REPORT OF PSYCHODYNAMICS OF THE CASE”
- The report and testimony of Dr. Villegas shows that she link
particular acts of the parties to the DSM IV's list of criteria for the
specific personality disorders but the results made by her where not
supported by any psychological test properly administered by
interpretation.
- The said report of Dr. Villegas was made only after maximum of 7
hours of interview without any separate psychological test cannot tie
the hands of the trial court and prevent it from making its own
factual finding on what happened in this case.
- The probative force of the testimony of an expert does not lie in a
mere statement of his theory or opinion
- -instead in the assistance that he can render to the courts in showing
the facts that serve as a basis for his criterion and the reasons upon
which the logic of his report is founded.
- Petition denied. CA decision affirmed.
**notes: Hindi puede ung report kahit galling siya sa psychiatrist kasi ung
results na galling sa psychiatrist ay gawa lang sa paguusap nila nung parties
wala kahit anong psychological test na ginawa ung psychiatrist**
**Bakit bawal? The parties could fake their answer para magresult sila na
psychological incapacitated sila**
**Bakit bawal kahit galling lang na sa psychiatrist: there is possibility that
they only contracted the psychiatrist and the psychiatrist did not produce a
results from a psychological test that would help her to establish a good
evidence that the parties is psychological incapacitated**
PADILLA RUMBAUA V RUMBAUA
PETITIONER: Rowena Padilla-Rambaua
RESPONDENT: Edward Rumbaua
FACTS:
- Respondent and petitioner were childhood neighbors in Dupax del
Norte, Nueva Vizcaya. Sometime in 1987, they met again and
became sweethearts but Edward’s family did not approve of their
relationship. After graduation from college in 1991, Edward
 promised to marry Rowena as soon as he found a job. The job came
in 1993, when the Philippine Air Lines (PAL) accepted Edward as a
computer engineer. Edward proposed to Rowena that they first have
a “secret marriage” in order not to antagonize his parents. Rowena
agreed; they were married in Manila on February 23, 1993. Rowena
and Edward, however, never lived together; Rowena stayed with her
sister in Fairview, Quezon City, while Edward lived with his parents
in Novaliches.
- They saw each other every day during the first 6 months of their
a. to grant a new trial within the period for taking an
appeal.
b. In addition, a motion for new trial may be filed only on
the grounds of (1) fraud, accident, mistake or excusable
negligence that could not have been guarded against by
ordinary prudence, and by reason of which the aggrieved
party’s rights have probably been impaired; or (2) newly
discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, the
aggrieved party could not have discovered and produced
at the trial, and that would probably alter the result if
presented.
intentional commission of errors by counsel, with a view
to securing new trials in the event of conviction, or an
adverse decision, as in the instant case.
3. Thus, we find no justifiable reason to grant the petitioner’s
requested remand.
Petitioner failed to establish the respondent’s psychological incapacity
- Dr. Tayag’s testimony shows that she initially described the general
characteristics of a person suffering from a narcissistic personality
disorder, she did not really show how and to what extent the
respondent exhibited these traits. She mentioned the buzz words that
jurisprudence requires for the nullity of a marriage – namely,
gravity, incurability, existence at the time of the marriage,
psychological incapacity relating to marriage – and in her own
limited way, related these to the medical condition she generally
described. The testimony, together with her report, however, suffers
from very basic flaws, she was not able to rove that the PI existed at
the time of the celebration of the marriage.

2. In the present case, the petitioner cites the inadequacy of the WHEREFORE, in view of these considerations, we DENY the petition
evidence presented by her former counsel as basis for a and AFFIRM the decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals dated June
remand. She did not, however, specify the inadequacy. That the 25, 2004and January 18, 2005, respectively, in CA-G.R. CV No. 75095.
RTC granted the petition for declaration of nullity prima
facie shows that the petitioner’s counsel had not been negligent
in handling the case. Granting arguendo that the petitioner’s
counsel had been negligent, the negligence that would justify a
new trial must be excusable, i.e. one that ordinary diligence and
prudence could not have guarded against. The negligence that
the petitioner apparently adverts to is that cited in Uy v. First
Metro Integrated Steel Corporation where we explained:
a. Blunders and mistakes in the conduct of the proceedings
in the trial court as a result of the ignorance,
inexperience or incompetence of counsel do not qualify
as a ground for new trial. If such were to be admitted as
valid reasons for re-opening cases, there would never be
an end to litigation so long as a new counsel could be VALERIO E. KALAW, Petitioner,
employed to allege and show that the prior counsel had
not been sufficiently diligent, experienced or vs. MA. ELENA FERNANDEZ, Respondent.
learned. This will put a premium on the willful and
Facts:
- In an earlier decision promulgated by the supreme court, it
dismissed the complaint for declaration of nullity of the marriage of
the parties upon finding that the petition had no merit.
- In the case, the petitioner failed to prove that his wife (respondent)
suffers from psychological incapacity. He presented the testimonies
of two supposed expert witnesses who concluded that respondent is
psychologically incapacitated, but the conclusions of these witnesses
were premised on the alleged acts or behavior of respondent which
had not been sufficiently proven. Petitioner’s experts heavily relied
on petitioner’s allegations of respondent’s constant mahjong
sessions, visits to the beauty parlor, going out with friends, adultery,
and neglect of their children. Petitioner’s experts opined that
respondent’s alleged habits, when performed constantly to the
detriment of quality and quantity of time devoted to her duties as
mother and wife, constitute a psychological incapacity in the form of
NPD.
- Indeed, the totality of the evidence points to the opposite conclusion.
A fair assessment of the facts would show that respondent was not
totally remiss and incapable of appreciating and performing her
marital and parental duties
- the Court finds no factual basis for the conclusion of psychological
incapacity. There is no error in the CA’s reversal of the trial court’s
ruling that there was psychological incapacity. Petition denied
- In his Motion for Reconsideration, the petitioner implores the Court
to take a thorough 2nd look into what constitutes psychological
incapacity; to uphold the findings of the trial court as supported by
the testimonies of three expert witnesses; and consequently to find
that the respondent, if not both parties, were psychologically
incapacitated to perform their respective essential marital obligation.
ISSUE: Whether or not there is psychological incapacity on the part of the
respondent.
RULING: YES. The Court in granting the Motion for Reconsideration held
that Fernandez was indeed psychologically incapacitated as they relaxed the
previously set forth guidelines with regard to this case.
*****Note: Molina guidelines were not abandoned, expert opinions were
just given much respect in this case.****
- Guidelines too rigid, thus relaxed IN THIS CASE
o The Court held that the guidelines set in the case of Republic
v. CA have turned out to be rigid, such that their application
to every instance practically condemned the petitions for
declaration of nullity to the fate of certain rejection. But
Article 36 of the Family Code must not be so strictly and too
literally read and applied given the clear intendment of the
drafters to adopt its enacted version of “less specificity”
obviously to enable “some resiliency in its application.”
Instead, every court should approach the issue of nullity “not
on the basis of a priori assumptions, predilections or
generalizations, but according to its own facts” in
recognition of the verity that no case would be on “all fours”
with the next one in the field of psychological incapacity as a
ground for the nullity of marriage; hence, every “trial judge
must take pains in examining the factual milieu and the
appellate court must, as much as possible, avoid substituting
its own judgment for that of the trial court.
o In the task of ascertaining the presence of psychological
incapacity as a ground for the nullity of marriage, the courts,
which are concededly not endowed with expertise in the
field of psychology, must of necessity rely on the opinions
of experts in order to inform themselves on the matter, and
thus enable themselves to arrive at an intelligent and
judicious judgment. Indeed, the conditions for the malady of
being grave, antecedent and incurable demand the in-
depth diagnosis by experts.
- Personal examination by party not required; totality of evidence
must be considered
- We have to stress that the fulfillment of the constitutional mandate
for the State to protect marriage as an inviolable social institution
only relates to a valid marriage. No protection can be accorded to a
marriage that is null and void
- ab initio, because such a marriage has no legal existence.
o There is no requirement for one to be declared
psychologically incapacitated to be personally examined by
a physician, because what is important is the presence of
 evidence that adequately establishes the party’s
psychological incapacity. Hence, “if the totality of evidence
presented is enough to sustain a finding of psychological
incapacity, then actual medical examination of the person
concerned need not be resorted to.”
o Verily, the totality of the evidence must show a link, medical
or the like, between the acts that manifest psychological
incapacity and the psychological disorder itself. If other
evidence showing that a certain condition could possibly
result from an assumed state of facts existed in the record,
the expert opinion should be admissible and be weighed as
an aid for the court in interpreting such other evidence on the
causation.
o Indeed, an expert opinion on psychological incapacity
should be considered as conjectural or speculative and
without any probative value only in the absence of other
evidence to establish causation. The expert’s findings under
such circumstances would not constitute hearsay that would
justify their exclusion as evidence.
- Expert opinion considered as decisive evidence as to
psychological and emotional temperaments
o 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 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.
o The Court considered it improper and unwarranted to give to
such expert opinions a merely generalized consideration and
treatment, least of all to dismiss their value as inadequate
basis for the declaration of the nullity of the marriage.
Instead, we hold that said experts sufficiently and
competently described the psychological incapacity of the
respondent within the standards of Article 36 of the Family
marriage. Put in this context, Robert’s testimony cannot be
disregarded for being self-serving.
The constitution describes marriage as “inviolable” while the
law portrays it as a “permanent union.” Nevertheless, the state’s
interest in any and all marriages entered into by individuals
should not amount to an unjustified intrusion into one’s right to
autonomy and human dignity.
To end, it is a pure and simple cruelty to give the couple a false
status considering they now separated and living their own lives.
LEONILO ANTONIO Petitioner,
vs. MARIE IVONNE F. REYES, Respondent.
Facts:
 Leonilo Antonio and Marie Reyes met in August 1989 when 26 and
36 years old respectively. They got married a year after. On 8 March
1993, petitioner filed a petition to have his marriage to respondent
declared null and void because of the latter’s psychological
incapacity. The following are his allegations:
o (1) She concealed the fact that she previously gave birth to
an illegitimate son and instead introduced the boy as the
adopted child of her family.
o (2) She fabricated a story that her brother-in-law, Edwin
David, attempted to rape and kill her when in fact, no such
incident occurred.
o (3) She misrepresented herself as a psychiatrist to her
obstetrician, Dr. Consuelo Gardiner, and told some of her
friends that she graduated with a degree in psychology, when
she was neither.
o (4) She claimed to be a singer or a free-lance voice talent
affiliated with Blackgold Recording Company which is not
true.
o (5) She invented friends named Babes Santos and Via
Marquez, and under those names, 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. Petitioner later found out that respondent
herself was the one who wrote and sent the letters to him.
 o (6) She represented herself as a person of greater means,
thus, she altered her payslip to make it appear that she
earned a higher income. She bought a sala set from a public
market but told petitioner that she acquired it from a famous
furniture dealer. She spent lavishly on unnecessary items and
ended up borrowing money from other people on false
pretexts.
o (7) She exhibited insecurities and jealousies over him to the
extent of calling up his officemates to monitor his
whereabouts. When he could no longer take her unusual
behavior, he separated from her in August 1991.
 He tried to attempt a reconciliation but since her behavior did not
change, he finally left her for good in November 1991. Dr. Lopez, a
clinical psychologist, stated based on the tests they conducted that
petitioner was essentially a normal, introspective, shy and
conservative type of person. On the other hand, they observed that
respondent’s persistent and constant lying to petitioner was abnormal
or pathological.
 In opposing the petition, respondent claimed that she performed her
marital obligations by attending to all the needs of her husband. She
asserted that there was no truth to the allegation that she fabricated
stories, told lies and invented personalities. Respondent presented
Dr. Antonio Efren Reyes, a psychiatrist, to refute the allegations
anent her psychological condition.
 Dr. Reyes testified that the series of tests conducted by his assistants
led him to conclude that respondent was not psychologically
incapacitated to perform the essential marital obligations. He
postulated that regressive behavior, gross neuroticism, psychotic
tendencies, and poor control of impulses, which are signs that might
point to the presence of disabling trends, were not elicited from
respondent.
 RTC ruled in favor of the petitioner. CA reversed RTC’s judgment.
Hence, this petition
The factual findings of the trial court are deemed binding on the SC, owing to the great weight
ISSUE: Whether or Not Marie Reyes is psychologically incapacitated
RULING:
 Yes, Psychological Incapacity is attendant. The guidelines
established in the Molina case is properly established in the case at
bar.
 The SC also emphasized what fraud means as contemplated in Art 45
(3) of the FC vis a vis Art 46 of the FC. In PI, the misrepresentation
done by Marie points to her inadequacy to cope with her marital
obligations, kindred to psychological incapacity. In Art 45 (3),
marriage may be annulled if the consent of either party was obtained
by fraud, and Article 46 which enumerates the circumstances
constituting fraud under the previous article, clarifies that “no other
misrepresentation or deceit as to character, health, rank, fortune or
chastity shall constitute such fraud as will give grounds for action for
the annulment of marriage.”
 These provisions of Art 45 (3) and Art 46 cannot be applied in the
case at bar because the misrepresentations done by Marie is not
considered as fraud but rather such misrepresentations constitute her
aberrant behaviour which further constitutes PI. Her
misrepresentations are not lies sought to vitiate Leo’s consent to
marry her. Her misrepresentations are evidence that Marie cannot
simply distinguish fiction/fantasy from reality which is so grave and
it falls under the fourth guideline laid down in the Molina Case.
 indeed, a person unable to distinguish between fantasy and reality
would similarly be unable to comprehend the legal nature of the
marital bond, much less its psychic meaning, and the corresponding
obligations attached to marriage, including parenting. One unable to
adhere to reality cannot be expected to adhere as well to any legal or
emotional commitments
***NOTES:
- 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.
accorded to the opinion of the primary trier of facts. As such, it must be considered that
respondent had consistently lied about many material aspects as to her character and
personality. Her fantastic ability to invent and fabricate stories and personalities enabled her to
live in a world of make-believe. This made her psychSTEMMERIK V. MAS
FACTS:
Stemmerik, a Danish citizen, wanted to buy Philippine property
due to its beauty. He consulted Atty Mas about his intention, to which
the latter advised him that he could legally buy such properties. Atty
Mas even suggested a big piece of property that he can buy, assuring
that it is alienable. Because of this, Stemmerik entrusted all of the
necessary requirements and made Atty Mas his attorney in fact as he
went back to Denmark. After some time, Atty Mas informed
Stemmerik that he found the owner of the big piece of property and
stated the price of the property is P3.8M. Stemmerik agreed, giving
Atty Mas the money, and the latter supposedly drawing up the
necessary paperwork.
- When Stemmerik asked when he could have the property
registered in his name, Atty Mas can’t be found. He returned to
the Philippines, employed another lawyer, and to his horror,
was informed that aliens couldn’t own Philippine Lands and
that the property was also inalienable. Stemmerik the filed a
DISBARMENT case against Atty MAS in the Commission on
Bar Discipline (CBD) of the IBP. The CBD ruled that Atty
Mas abused the trust and confidence of Stemmerik and
recommended that he be disbarred. The IBP Board of
Governors adopted such recommendationsRULING:
not get along with each other. There was absolutely no showing of the
gravity or juridical antecedence or incurability of the problems besetting their
marital union.
Psychological incapacity must be characterized by gravity, juridical
antecedence, and incurability. It must be more than just a difficulty, a refusal
or neglect in the performance of marital obligations. A mere showing of
irreconcilable differences and conflicting personalities does not constitute
psychological incapacity.Furthermore, the testimonial evidence from other
witnesses failed to identify and prove root cause of the alleged psychological
incapacity.
It just established that the spouses had an incompatibility or a defect that
could possibly be treated or alleviated through psychotherapy. The totality of
evidence presented was completely insufficient to sustain a finding of
psychological incapacity more so without any medical, psychiatric or
psychological examination
***

The court held that documents presented by Alfonso during the trial of the
case do not in any way show the alleged psychological incapacity of his wife.
The evidence was insufficient and shows grave abuse of discretion bordering
on absurdity. Alfonso testified and complained about three aspects of Leni’s
personality namely lack of attention to children, immaturity, and lack of an
intention of procreative sexuality and none of these three, singly or
collectively, constitutes psychological incapacity.

The law provides that: “Psychological incapacity must be characterized by

(a) juridical antecedence, (b) gravity and (c) incurability.” In the case at bar,
the evidence adduced by respondent merely shows that he and his wife could