So vs.

Valera

Facts:

In the case at bar, the petitioner Renato So, filed a petition for nullity of his marriage with respondent
Lorna Valera on the ground that her wife was psychologically incapacitated to exercise essential
obligations of marriage. (refused to cohabit and make love with him, did not love and respect him, did
not remain faithful to him.. did not want to practice her profession after passing the dental board
exam..)

The petitioner likewise related that respondent asked him to sign a blank marriage application form and
marriage contract, he signed these documents on the condition that these documents would only be
used if they decide to get married.

He admitted not knowing what happened to these documents and maintained that no marriage
ceremony took place.

On trial, the petitioner presented psychological report of clinical psychologist that there is psychological
impairment on the part of respondent lorna, that from a simple existence in the province, she was
thrust in the big city for her college education and so called “culture shock” make her temporarily forget
the harsh reality and her escapist and regressive tendencies stunted her psychological growth and
prevented her from fully functioning as a responsible adult.

According to psychologist, respondent is plagued with an Adjustment Disorder as manifested in her

impulsiveness, lack or restraint, lack of civility and a sense of decency in the conduct of her life.

The RTC nullified the marriage of petitioner and respondent. Its decision wholly dwelt on the question of
the respondent’s psychological incapacity based on the testimonies.

The Solicitor General appealed. The CA ruled that the petitioner failed to prove the respondent’s
psychological incapacity. According to CA, the respondent’s character, faults and defects did not
constitute psychological incapacity warranting the nullity of the parties’ marriage. The CA concluded
that the declaration of nullity of their marriage was not proper when the psychological disorder does not
meet the guidelines set fort in the case of Molina.

Issues:

Whether there exists sufficient ground to declare the marriage of petitioner and respondent null and
void.

Whether the CA erred in not ruling on the alleged lack of the essential and formal requisites of marriage

Ruling:

No. There is no sufficient basis exists to annul the marriage pursuant to Art. 36 of the Family Code.
Likewise, there was no case of lack essential and formal requisites of marriage has been proven or
validly ruled upon by the trial court.

No. The CA did not err in not ruling on the alleged lack of the essential and formal requisites of marriage.
The petitioner cites as ground for his appeal that the CA reversed and set aside the RTC decision without
touching on the trial court’s ruling that there was absence of the essential and formal requisites of
marriage. The argument of petitioner stems from the mistaken premise that the RTC ruled that the
petitioner’s marriage to respondent was null and void due to the absence of the essential and formal
requisites of marriage. However, on careful examination of the RTC decision, it shows that the trial court
did not discuss, much less rule on, the absence of the formal and essential requisites of marriage; it
simply recited the petitioner’s claim.

Tenebro vs CA

The SC were called on to decide the issue in this case concerning the effect of the judicial declaration of
the nullity of a second or subsequent marriage, on the ground of psychological incapacity, on an
individual’s criminal liability for bigamy. The SC hold that the subsequent judicial declaration of nullity of
marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity does not retroact to the date of the celebration of
the marriage insofar as the Philippines’ penal law are concerned. As such, an individual who contracts a
second or subsequent marriage during the subsistence of a valid marriage is criminally liable for bigamy,
notwithstanding the subsequent declaration that the second marriage is void ab initio on the ground of
psychological incapacity.

Facts:

Petitioner in this case, Veronico Tenebro, contracted marriage with private complainant Leticia Ancajas
thru civil rites. They live together continuously and without interruption until the petitioner confessed
that he had been previously married to a certain Hilda Villareyes. After showing a photocopy of a
marriage contract between him and villareyes, he left Ancajas stating that he was going to cohabit with
villareyes.

However, petitioner contracted another marriage with a certain Nilda Villegas, again, thru civil rites.
When Ancajas (the second wife) learned of this third marriage, she verified from villareyes whether
tenebro and her were indeed married. Villareyes (first wife) confirmed that she is married with tenebro.

Thereafter, Ancajas filed a complaint for bigamy against Tenebro.

During the trial, petitioner admitted having cohabited with villareyes but denied that they were validly
married to each other, claiming that no marriage ceremony took place so solemnize their union. He
alleged that he signed a marriage contract merely to enable her to get the allotment from his office in
connection with his work as a Seaman. He further argued that his second marriage with Ancajas has
been declared void ab initio due to psychological incapacity.

RTC rendered decision finding Tenebro guilty of the crime of bigamy under art. 349 of the RPC.

On appeal, the CA affirmed the decision of the trial court.

Issue:

Whether or not tenebro is guilty of bigamy

Held:
Yes. Tenebro is guilty of bigamy. Individual who contracts a second marriage during the subsistence of a
valid marriage is criminally liable for bigamy notwithstanding the subsequent declaration of the second
marriage as void ab initio on the ground of psychological incapacity.

Concurring of Justice Vitug

Would the absolute nullity of either the first or the second marriage, prior to its judicial declaration as
being void, constitute a valid defense in a criminal action for bigamy?

“I believe that, except for a valid marriage on account of the psychological incapacity of a party or both
parties to the marriage under Art. 36 of the Family Code, the answer must be in affirmative. Void
marriages are inexistent from the very beginning, and no judicial decree is required to establish their
nullity. In contrast to a voidable marriage which legally exists until judicially annulled (and therefore, not
a defense in a bigamy charge if the second marriage were contracted prior to the decree of annulment).
The complete nullity, however, of a previously contracted marriage, being void ab initio and legally
inexistent, can out rightly be defense in an indictment of bigamy.

Wiegel vs. sempio-diy

Herein respondent Karl Heinz Wiegel asked for the declaration of nullity of his marriage with herein
petitioner lilia olive wiegel on the ground of Lilia’s previous existing marriage to one Eduardo Maxion.
(1978)

Lilia claimed the prior subsisting marriage was null and void because she was just forced to enter on that
said marital union.

She also claimed that her first husband was at the time of their marriage, is already married to someone
else.

Issue: was the said prior marriage void or merely voidable

SC: assuming that her previous marriage was vitiated by force, her prior marriage with will not be void
but merely voidable and therefore valid until annulled. Since no annulment has yet been made, it is clear
that when she married respondent wiegel, she was still validly married to her first husband and
consequently, her marriage to respondent is void.
Hernandez vs. ca

Petitioner lucita Hernandez and Mario Hernandez were married and had three children. Lucita filed
before the RTC of Tagaytay City a petition for annulment on the ground of psychological incapacity of
the respondent, Mario. The petitioner claimed that the respondent failed to perform his obligation to
support the family and contribute to the management of the household, he engaged in drinking sprees,
gambled and womanized at which point that he had an illegitimate child and contracted gonorrhea and
eventually infected her.

RTC dismissed the petition and was affirmed by the CA

ISSUE: w/n the respondent was psychologically incapacitated at the time of his marriage to the
petitioner.

Ruling

The petitioner failed to provide evidence proving that the respondent was psychologically incapacitated.
The respondent’s habitual alcoholism, womanizing and cohabitation with those he’s had extra-marital
affairs with, do not constitute psychological incapacity. Art. 36 of the FC requires that incapacity must be
psychological, not physical, although the manifestations or symptoms are physical.

Antonio vs. Reyes

Facts:

Petitioner Antonio filed a petition to have his marriage to respondent reyes declared null and void. He
anchored his petition for nullity on Art. 36 of the Family Code alleging that respondent was
psychologically incapacitated to comply with essential obligations of marriage as the respondent
persistently lied about herself, the people around her, her occupation, income, educational attainment,
paranoid, always jealous and other events or things. Respondent opposed the petition claiming that she
perform marital obligation by attending to all the needs of her husband. The RTC declared the marriage
of petitioner and respondent Marie null and void, however on appeal, the CA reversed the decision of
the trial court and held that the evidence given by the petitioner was not sufficient enough to prove the
psychological incapacity of the respondent.

Issue:

Whether or not the respondent’s persistence and consistency in lying constitutes psychological
incapacity

Ruling
Yes. The case sufficiently satisfies the guidelines in the Molina Case.

The petitioner had sufficiently overcome his burden in proving the psychological incapacity of his spouse
where apart from his own testimony, he presented witnesses who corroborated his allegations on his
wife’s behavior. (2 expert witness in the field of psychology, certifications from Blackgold record)

The root cause of respondent’s psychological incapacity has been medically or clinically identified,
alleged in the complaint, sufficiently proven by experts.

The respondent’s incapacity was established to have clearly existed at the time and even before the
celebration of marriage. (she fabricated friends, made up letters from fictitious characters, she keep
petitioner in the dark about her child’s real parentage)

The gravity of respondent’s psychological incapacity is sufficient to prove her disability to assume the
essential obligations of marriage. (parties had shared only a little over a year of cohabitation, such
circumstance speaks of the degree of tolerance of petitioner)

Respondent is evidently unable to comply with the essential marital obligations as embraced by Art. 68-
71 of the FC. (It is difficult to see how an inveterate pathological liar would be able to commit to the
basic tenets of relationship between spouses based on love, trust and respect.)

Psychological incapacity shown by the respondent is medically or clinically permanent or incurable.

(petitioner went back to the respondent after a month they initially separated, desiring to make their
marriage work, however, her behavior remained unchanged, as she continued to lie, fabricate stories,
and maintained excessive jealousy.)

Azcueta vs RP

Facts:

Less than two months after the first meeting of Petitioner Azcueta and Rodolfo Azcueta, they got
married, but after four years they got separated with no children.

The petitioner filed a petition for declaration of absolute nullity of marriage under Art. 36 of the Family
Code on the ground that her husband Rodolfo was psychologically incapacitated to comply with the
essential obligations of marriage as he was emotionally immature, irresponsible and continually failed to
adapt himself to married life and perform the essential responsibilities and duties of a husband.

Petitioner complained that her husband Rodolfo never bothered to look for a job and instead always
asked his mother for financial assistance. One time, the petitioner was informed that her husband
already found a job, but later she discovered that her husband didn’t actually get ab job and the money
he gave her (which supposedly his salary) came from his mother and when she confronted him, he cried
like a child.

They only had sex once a month because he would always say that sex was sacred and it should not be
enjoyed nor abused.
Dr. Villegas, a psychiatrist testified that Rodulfo is suffering from Dependent Personality Disorder
associated with sever inadequacy related to masculine strivings.

RTC rendered decision declaring the marriage between petitioner and Rodolfo as null and void ab initio.

However, Solicitor General appealed the RTC Decision on the ground that the totality of evidence
presented by petitioner failed to prove her spouse’s psychological incapacity pursuant to Art. 36 of the
Family Code and settled jurisprudence. The CA reversed the RTC decision.

Issue:

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.

Ruling:

The Supreme Court grant the petition of Azcueta, found that there was sufficient compliance with
Molina case to warrant annulment of the parties’ marriage under Art. 36.

Petitioner successfully discharged her burden to prove the psychological incapacity of her husband.

The root cause of Rodolfo’s psychological incapacity has been medically or clinically identified, alleged in
the petition, sufficiently proven by expert testimony, and clearly explained in the trial court’s decision.

Rodolfo’s psychological incapacity was established to have clearly existed at the time of and even before
the celebration of marriage.

Rodolfo’s psychological incapacity has been shown to be sufficiently grave, so as to render him unable to
assume the essential obligations of marriage.

Rodolfo is evidently unable to comply with essential marital obligations embodied in Articles 68 to 71 of
the Family Code.

The incurability of Rodolfo’s condition which has been deeply ingrained in his system since his early
years was supported by evidence and duly explained by the expert witness.

Kalaw vs Fernandez

Facts:

In the case at bar, petitioner Valerio Kalaw filed a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage based on
Art. 36 of the Family Code. He alleged that his wife (herein respondent) suffers from psychological
incapacity due to respondent’s constant mahjongs sessions, visiting beauty parlor, going out with
friends, adultery and neglect of their children.

On trial, the petitioner presented a psychologist and a Catholic canon law expert to testify on
respondent’s psychological incapacity. According to the psychologist, the respondent’s behavior may
reflect a narcissistic personality disorder (NPD) while according to the priest, the respondent’s
psychological incapacity is rooted in her role as the breadwinner of her family and this role allegedly
inflated to the respondent’s ego to the point that her needs became priority.
The respondent denied being psychologically incapacitated and maintained that it was Tyrone who was
suffering from psychological incapacity as manifested by his drug dependence, habitual drinking,
womanizing and physical violence, she also presented a psychologist as her expert witness.

The trial court concluded that both parties are psychologically incapacitated to perform the essential
marital obligations under the Family Code and declared that the parties’ marriage void ab initio pursuant
to Art. 36 of the Family Code.

The respondent appealed the trial court’s decision to the CA and the CA reversed the trial’s court’s
ruling because it is not supported by the facts on record, both parties’ allegations and incriminations
against each other do not support a finding of psychological incapacity.

The petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration.

Issue:

Whether petitioner has sufficiently proved that respondent suffers from psychological incapacity.

Ruling:

The petition has no merit. 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. The trial
court’s decision merely summarized the allegations, testimonies and evidence of the respective parties
but it did not actually assess the veracity of these allegations, the credibility of witnesses and weight of
the evidence.

Viñas vs Viñas

Facts:

In the case at bar, petitioner Glen Viñas filed a petition for the declaration of his marriage with
Mary Grace pursuant to Art. 36 of the Family Code on the ground that his wife was insecure, extremely
jealous, outgoing and prone to regularly resorting to any pretext to be able to leave the house, she lived
as if she was single and unmindful of her husband’s needs.

Presented on trial, a psychologist certified that the respondent was suffering from a Narcissistic
Personality Disorder with anti-social traits and concluded that the parties are not founded on mutual
love, trust, respect, commitment and fidelity to each other.

The RTC declared the marriage between the parties null and void on account of respondent’s
psychological incapacity.

The Office of Solicitor General appealed and claimed that no competent evidence exist proving that the
respondent indeed suffers from a Narcissistic Personality Disorder which prevents her from fulfilling her
marital obligations, specifically the RTC decision failed to cite the root cause of the respondent’s
disorder. The RTC did not state its own findings and merely relied on the psychologist’s statement.
ISSUE

Whether or not sufficient evidence exist justifying the RTC’s declaration of nullity of petitioner’s
marriage with his wife.

Ruling:

No. The Supreme Court find that the observations and conclusions of the trial court are insufficiently in-
depth and comprehensive to warrant the conclusion that a psychological incapacity existed that
prevented the respondent from complying with the essential obligations of marriage. It failed to identify
the root cause of the respondent’s narcissistic personality disorder and to prove that it existed at the
inception of the marriage. Neither did it explain the incapacitating nature of the alleged disorder, nor
show that the respondent was really incapable of fulfilling his duties due to some incapacity of a
psychological, not physical, nature.