Hernandez vs.

Court of Appeals
Facts: 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: WON the respondent was psychologically incapacitated at the time of his marriage to
the petitioner.
Ruling
NO. 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.

IV.
General Rule: Void Marriage under article 36 of the Family Code, Psychological Incapacity is no
less than a mental not physical incapacity that causes a party to be incognitive to understand
the obligations of marriage.
In this case, the general rule applies. The petitioner failed to provide evidence that there is
innate incapacity/inability of respondent to comply with essential obligations of marriage.
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. 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.

IV. Characteristics of Psychological Incapacity:

Gravity – illness must be serious enough
Juridical Antecedence – rooted in the history of party and proven existing at the time of marriage
although the overt acts are manifested during the marriage or after.
Incurability – shown to be medically or clinically permanently or incurable; absolutely or relative
only to other spouse.
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.)