Antonio vs.

Reyes

Principle:

 Since the purpose of including such provision (Article 36) in our Family Code is
to harmonize our civil laws with the religious faith of our people, it stands to
reason that to achieve such harmonization, great persuasive weight should be
given to decisions of such appellate tribunal. Ideally—subject to our law on
evidence—what is decreed as canonically invalid should also be decreed civilly
void.”
 In deciding a case under Article 36 of Family code, a case-to case basis approach,
guided by experience, in the findings of experts and researchers in psychological
disciplines, and by decisions of church tribunals which, although not binding on
the civil courts, may be given persuasive effect since the provision was taken
from Canon Law.

Facts:

Petitioner and respondent met in August 1989 when petitioner was 26 years old and
respondent was 36 years of age. Barely a year after their first meeting, they got married
before a minister of the Gospel at the Manila City Hall, and through a subsequent church
wedding at the Sta. Rosa de Lima Parish, Bagong Ilog, Pasig, Metro Manila on 6
December 1990. Out of their union, a child was born on 19 April 1991, who sadly died
five (5) months later.

On 8 March 1993, petitioner filed a petition to have his marriage to respondent declared
null and void. He anchored his petition for nullity on Article 36 of the Family Code
alleging that respondent was psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential
obligations of marriage. He asserted that respondent's incapacity existed at the time
their marriage was celebrated and still subsists up to the present.

As manifestations of respondent's alleged psychological incapacity, petitioner claimed

that respondent persistently lied about herself, she introduced her illegitimate child to
her husband as an adopted child of the family, she lied to people around her. She
represents herself as psychiatrist, a singer or a free-lance voice talent affiliated with
Blackgold Recording Company, she also misrepresents her income, educational
attainment and worst she invented imaginary friends that applauding the respondent as
“number one money maker” in commercial industry.

Petitioner presented Dr. Dante Herrera Abcede, a psychiatrist, and Dr. Arnulfo V. Lopez,
a clinical psychologist, who 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. It undermined the basic relationship that should be
based on love, trust and respect. They further asserted that respondent's extreme
jealousy was also pathological. It reached the point of paranoia since there was no
actual basis for her to suspect that petitioner was having an affair with another woman.
They concluded based on the foregoing that respondent was psychologically
incapacitated to perform her essential marital obligations.

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.

Issue/s:

Whether the state of facts as presented by petitioner sufficiently meets the standards
set for the declaration of nullity of a marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code.

Rulings:

RTC - Declared the marriage null and void

CA - Reversed the RTC decision on the ground that the incurability of the
psychological incapacity of the respondent was not proven and testified by the medical
experts.
SC - Reversed and set aside the CA decision, Reinstate the RTC decision declaring the
marriage Null and Void based on Article 36 of Family Code.

Metropolitan Tribunal of the Archdiocese of Manila – Annulled the marriage of the

couple because of lack of due discretion of the part of both parties.
National Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal – Affirmed the decision but declared that only
the respondent was impaired by lack of due discretion
Roma Rota the Vatican – Affirmed the decision.

Ratio:

Petitioner had sufficiently overcome his burden in proving the psychological incapacity
of his spouse. Apart from his own testimony, he presented witnesses who corroborated
his allegations on his wife's behavior, and certifications from Blackgold Records and the
Philippine Village Hotel Pavillon which disputed respondent's claims pertinent to her
alleged singing career. He also presented two expert witnesses from the field of
psychology who testified that the aberrant behavior of respondent was tantamount to
psychological incapacity. The root cause of respondent's psychological incapacity
has been medically or clinically identified, alleged in the complaint, sufficiently
proven by experts, and clearly explained in the trial court's decision. The initiatory
complaint alleged that respondent, from the start, had exhibited unusual and abnormal
behavior "of perennially telling lies, fabricating ridiculous stories, and inventing
personalities and situations," of writing letters to petitioner using fictitious names,
and of lying about her actual occupation, income, educational attainment, and family
background, among others.

Respondent's psychological incapacity was established to have clearly existed at the

time of and even before the celebration of marriage. She fabricated friends and made
up letters from fictitious characters well before she married petitioner. The gravity of
respondent's psychological incapacity is sufficient to prove her disability to assume the
essential obligations of marriage. It is immediately discernible that the parties had
shared only a little over a year of cohabitation before the exasperated petitioner left his
wife. Whatever such circumstance speaks of the degree of tolerance of petitioner, it
likewise supports the belief that respondent's psychological incapacity, as borne by the
record, was so grave in extent that any prolonged marital life was dubitable.

Respondent is evidently unable to comply with the essential marital obligations as

embraced by Articles 68 to 71 of the Family Code. Article 68, in particular, enjoins the
spouses to live together, observe mutual love, respect and fidelity, and render mutual
help and support. As noted by the trial court, 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.

The Court of Appeals clearly erred when it failed to take into consideration the fact that
the marriage of the parties was annulled by the Catholic Church. The appellate court
apparently deemed this detail totally inconsequential as no reference was made to it
anywhere in the assailed decision despite petitioner's efforts to bring the matter to its
attention. Such deliberate ignorance is in contravention of Molina, which held that
interpretations given by the National Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal of the Catholic
Church in the Philippines, while not controlling or decisive, should be given great
respect
by our courts.

The final point of contention is the requirement in Molina that such psychological
incapacity be shown to be medically or clinically permanent or incurable. Petitioner
points out that one month after he and his wife initially separated, he returned to her,
desiring to make their marriage work. However, respondent's aberrant behavior
remained unchanged, as she continued to lie, fabricate stories, and maintained her
excessive jealousy. From this fact, he draws the conclusion that respondent's condition
is incurable.
 Paz vs. Paz G.R. No. 166579, 18 February 2010
FACTS:
Petitioner: Jordan Chaz Paz
Respondent: Jeanice Pavon Paz
Petitioner and respondent met in Nov 1996. Respondent was 19 years old and
Petitioner was 27 years old. In Jan. 1997, they became a couple, became engaged and
had their civil wedding on July 3, 1997 and their church wedding on September 21,
1997.
- One son: Evan Gaubert
- After a big fight, respondent left home
- Respondent filed for declaration of nullity of marriage against petitioner. Reason:
Jordan’s psychological incapacity (self pre-occupation and abusive and violent
tendencies)
o Jordan was heavily dependent on and attached to his mother
o Always on his playstation
o Jordan resented their son and spent more time with his friends rather
than help her
o Jordan threatened to hurt her with a pair of scissors and always subjects
her to verbal lashing and insults and also once threatened to hit her with
a golf club
o not provided any financial support or visited their son since she left

Psychologist Cristina R. Gates (Gates) testified that Jordan was afflicted with "Borderline
Personality Disorder
Petitioner alleged: Jeanice has her own personal insecurities and that her actions
showed her lack of maturity, childishness and emotional inability to cope with the
struggles of marriage and the psychological examination was one-sided as he was not
able to undergo formal psychological examination.
RTC Decision on March 13, 2003: Marriage is null and void ab initio.
Custody of son is with the Jeanice, no visitation rights for Jordan
Jordan was psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential obligations of
marriage, particularly Articles 68 and 70 of the Family Code.
On 6 June 2003, Jordan filed a Notice of Appeal directly on CA.
CA – denied the appeal as the petitioner failed to observe the rule laid down in AM-
No.02-11-10-SC, which to file a motion for reconsideration or new trial in the RTC
He subsequently files the appeal to SC in turn was denied in a minute resolution.
He submits to SC that the AM-No.02-11-10-SC should not have been strictly applied
against him because it took effect only on March 2003 less than two months prior to the
rendition of trial court’s decision.
SC – granted Jordan’s Motion and reinstate the petition.
ISSUE: WON Jordan is psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential
marital obligations

RULING: The petition has merit. The mere showing of "irreconcilable differences"
and "conflicting personalities" does not constitute psychological incapacity.
In Santos v. Court of Appeals, the Court first 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
(b) judicial antecedence; and

It must be rooted in the history of the party antedating the marriage, although the overt
manifestations may emerge only after the marriage;
(c) incurability.

It must be incurable, or even if it were otherwise, the cure would be beyond the means
of the party involved.
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.
The burden of proof to show the nullity of marriage lies on the plaintiff
The Court notes that the Gates on Jordan’s psychological incapacity were based
exclusively on her interviews with Jeanice and the transcript of stenographic notes of
Jeanice’s testimony before the trial court. Jordan was not actually evaluated.
- One sided examination.
- Not shown to be so grave to be permanently incapable pf carrying out his marital
obligations.
- Failure to explain or describe the “pattern of behavior” which shows that Jordan
indeed suffers from Borderline Personality Disorder.
- Failure to adequately explain why Jordan’s condition was incurable.
 Dino vs. Dino G.R. No. 178044, 19 January 2011
FACTS:
Petitioner: Alain M. Diñ o
Respondent: Caridad L. Diñ o
Petitioner and respondent are childhood sweethearts. They started living together in
1984 until they decided to separate in 1994. In 1996, petitioner and respondent decided
to live together again. On 14 January 1998, they were married before Mayor Vergel
Aguilar of Las Piñ as City.
30 May 2001 - petitioner filed an action for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage against
respondent, citing psychological incapacity
- respondent failed in her marital obligation to give love and support to him
- depleted the family assets by shopping
- respondent was also alleged to be unfaithful and hurtful and violent towards the
petitioner

Extrajudicial service of summons was effected upon respondent, who is now living in
USA. Petitioner later learned that respondent filed a petition for divorce/dissolution of
her marriage with petitioner, which was granted by the Superior Court of California on
25 May 2001. Petitioner also learned that on 5 October 2001, respondent married a
certain Manuel V. Alcantara.
Dr. Nedy L. Tayag (Dr. Tayag), a clinical psychologist, submitted a psychological report
establishing that respondent was suffering from Narcissistic Personality Disorder 
RTC decision on January 14, 1998: Marriage is null and void.
- Dissolving the regime of absolute community of property.
- A DECREE OF ABSOLUTE NULLITY OF MARRIAGE shall only be issued upon
compliance with Article[s] 50 and 51 of the Family Code.

Petitioner filed a motion for partial reconsideration questioning the dissolution of the
absolute community of property 
On 12 March 2007 the trial court partially granted the motion and modified its 18
October 2006 Decision:
- 1) Declaring the marriage between plaintiff ALAIN M. DIÑ O and defendant MA.
CARIDAD L. DIÑ O on January 14, 1998, and all its effects under the law, as NULL
and VOID from the beginning; and
- 2) Dissolving the regime of absolute community of property.
- A DECREE OF ABSOLUTE NULLITY OF MARRIAGE shall be issued after
liquidation, partition and distribution of the parties’ properties under Article
147 of the Family Code.
ISSUE: WON the trial court erred when it ordered that a decree of absolute nullity
of marriage shall only be issued after liquidation, partition, and distribution of
the parties’ properties under Article 147 of the Family Code.

RULING: Petition has merit.

Article 147. When a man and a woman who are capacitated to marry each other, live
exclusively with each other as husband and wife without the benefit of marriage or
under a void marriage, their wages and salaries shall be owned by them in equal shares
and the property acquired by both of them through their work or industry shall be
governed by the rules on co-ownership.
For Article 147 of the Family Code to apply, these elements must be present:
1. The man and the woman must be capacitated to marry each other;
2. They live exclusively with each other as husband and wife; and
3. Their union is without the benefit of marriage, or their marriage is void.
Neither party can encumber or dispose by acts inter vivos of his or her share in the
property acquired during cohabitation and owned in common, without the consent of
the other, until after the termination of their cohabitation.
When only one of the parties to a void marriage is in good faith, the share of the party in
bad faith in the co-ownership shall be forfeited in favor of their common children. In
case of default of or waiver by any or all of the common children or their descendants,
each vacant share shall belong to the respective surviving descendants. In the absence
of descendants, such share shall belong to the innocent party. In all cases, the forfeiture
shall take place upon termination of the cohabitation.
Void Marriages under Article 40 of Family Code and Voidable Marriages under
Article 45 of Family Code – Existence of Valid Marriage and Valid Pre-nuptial or
Property Regime therefore must be governed by Article 50 of Family Code. Unlike
Void Marriages under Article 36 of Family Code, no valid marriage exists from the
start therefore rule on co-ownership will be followed for the properties own and
acquire spouses during their cohabitation.

FALLO: WHEREFORE, we AFFIRM the Decision of the trial court with

the MODIFICATION that the decree of absolute nullity of the marriage shall be issued
upon finality of the trial court’s decision without waiting for the liquidation, partition,
and distribution of the parties’ properties under Article 147 of the Family Code.
 Republic vs. de Gracia G.R. No. 171557, 12 February 2014
FACTS:
Petitioner: Republic of the Philippines
Respondent: Rodolfo O. De Gracia
Rodolfo and Natividad were married on February 15, 1969 at the Parish of St. Vincent
Ferrer in Salug, Zamboanga del Norte and have two children: Ma. Reynilda R. De Gracia
(Ma. Reynilda) and Ma. Rizza R. De Gracia (Ma. Rizza)
On December 28, 1998, Rodolfo filed a verified complaint for declaration of nullity of
marriage (complaint) before the RTC alleging that Natividad was psychologically
incapacitated to comply with her essential marital obligations.
Rodolfo (21 years old, no stable job and he was a “kristo” and “bangkero sa hantak” in
cockpit games) testified that he first met Natividad (18 years old) 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.
When Rodolfo left to join and train with army, Natividad sold their house without his
consent. Natividad moved to Dipolog City and cohabited with an Engineer Terez, and
bore him a child named Julie Ann Terez.
Natividad even contracted a second marriage on January 11, 1991 with another man
named Antonia Modarez.
Rodolfo was left to take care of their children and exerted effort to save their marriage
which, however, failed because of Natividad psychological incapacity.
Natividad and Rodolfo underwent psychiatric examination to Dr. Cheryl T. Zalsos in
response to Rodolfo’s claims. The doctor stated that both were psychologically
incapacitated to comply with the essential marital obligations, 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.”
Doctor Zalsos findings:
- Natividad lacked the willful cooperation of being a wife and a mother to her two
daughters
- Rodolfo failed to perform his obligations as a husband, he sired a son with
another woman
- These mental condition of both parties already existed at the time of the
celebration of marriage, although it only manifested after.
RTC decision on October 17, 2000 declared the marriage between Rodolfo and
Natividad void on the ground of psychological incapacity.
- relied on the findings and testimony of Dr. Zalsos, holding that Natividad’s
emotional immaturity exhibited a behavioral pattern which in psychiatry
constitutes a form of personality disorder that existed at the time of the parties’
marriage but manifested only thereafter.

The Republic appealed to the CA, averring that there was no showing that Natividad’s
personality traits constituted psychological incapacity as envisaged under Article 36 of
the Family Code, and that the testimony of the expert witness was not conclusive upon
the court.

CA decision on June 2, 2005 affirmed the ruling of the RTC, finding that while
Natividad’s emotional immaturity, irresponsibility and promiscuity by
themselves do not necessarily equate to psychological incapacity, “their degree or
severity, as duly testified to by Dr. Zalsos, has sufficiently established a case of
psychological disorder so profound as to render Natividad incapacitated to
perform her essential marital obligations.

ISSUE: WON the CA erred in sustaining the RTC’s finding of psychological

incapacity.

RULING: The petition is meritorious.

“Psychological incapacity,” as a ground to nullify a marriage under Article 36 of the
Family Code, 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
To the Court’s mind, Natividad’s refusal to live with Rodolfo and to assume her
duties as wife and mother as well as her emotional immaturity, irresponsibility
and infidelity do not rise to the level of psychological incapacity that would justify
the nullification of the parties’ marriage. 
- Insufficiency of evidence to prove the gravity of the psychological illness of
both parties
- Failure to explain in reasonable detail the root cause of the behavior of
Natividad
- Failure to disclose the test administered by Dr. Zalsos

FALLO: WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. CA decision is reversed and set aside
the marriage of the couple remain valid and subsisting.
 Kalaw vs. Fernandez G.R. No. 166357, 14 January 2015

FACTS
Tyrone Kalaw and Malyn Fernandez met in 1973 and got married on 1976 in Hong-
Kong and bore 4 children.
Tyrone had an extramarital affair with Jocelyn Quejano who give birth to a son in March
1983.
In 1985 Malyn left the conjugal home while Tyrone started living with Jocelyn who bore
three more children and they decided to go to US.
The children of Tyrone and Malyn were left in a rented house together with them are
house help and driver. During weekends and whenever one of them got sick, Malyn
stayed and take care of them.
Later, tyrone took custody of 4 children but one of them chose to live with Malyn and
since then Malyn were not able to see her 3 other children.
On July 1994, Tyrone filed a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage base on Art.
36 of Family Code.
The trial court ordered the court social worker to conduct a social case study and the
results were;
1. They recommended that the custody of minor children be awarded to Malyn
since she was shown to be more available to the children and exercise better
supervision and care.
2. They observed that Tyrone simply left the children for several years with only
maid and a driver to care for them while he lived with his second family abroad
prioritizing his second family.
RTC – Declared that both of the parties are psychological incapacitated as contemplated
in Art. 36 of Family code thus the marriage is void ab initio.
CA – Reverse the RTC Decision, Evidence provided are sufficient for Legal Separation
not for Art. 36 of family code.
Tyrone appealed to SC.
But during the pendency of the case, Malyn filed a Manifestation with Motion for Leave
to Withdraw Comment and Memorandum. She then asked the court to dispose of the
case with justice.

ISSUE:
WON the marriage was void on the ground of psychological incapacity despite the
respondent’s manifestation to withdraw.

RULING:  
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.

RATIO:
- Failed to provide enough evidence to prove the psychological incapacity of Malyn
- The petitioner’s allegations were countered by the testimonies of his children
with Malyn and the observation and recommendation report of the Court Social
Worker.
- Not once did the children state that the neglected by their mother, on contrary
they narrated that she took care of them and was always around when they were
sick.
 CATALAN VS CA
FACTS:
Petitioner Felicitas Amor-Catalan married respondent Orlando on June 4, 1950 in
Mabini, Pangasinan.4 Thereafter, they migrated to the United States of America and
allegedly became naturalized citizens thereof. After 38 years of marriage, Felicitas and
Orlando divorced in April 1988
Two months after the divorce, or on June 16, 1988, Orlando married respondent
Merope in Calasiao, Pangasinan.
Felicitas filed a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage with damages against
Orlando and Merope on the ground that the marriage is bigamous, Merope had a prior
subsisting marriage with Eusebio Bristol.
RTC - declared in favor of plaintiff Felicitas Amor Catalan and against defendants
Orlando B. Catalan and Merope E. Braganza as their marriage is void ab initio
Respondents appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals, which reversed the decision
of the RTC.
Then the petitioner filed an appeal to SC.

ISSUE:
WHETHER PETITIONER HAS THE PERSONALITY TO FILE A PETITION FOR THE
DECLARATION OF NULLITY OF MARRIAGE OF THE RESPONDENTS ON THE GROUND
OF BIGAMY

RULING:
THE SUPREME COURT REMANDED to the trial court for its proper disposition

RATIO:
- Without the divorce decree and foreign law as part of the evidence, we cannot
rule on the issue of whether petitioner has the personality to file the petition for
declaration of nullity of marriage.
- Only a party who can demonstrate "proper interest" can file the petitioner for
declaration of nullity of marriage.
- Divorce means the legal dissolution of a lawful union for a cause arising after
marriage. But divorces are of different types. The two basic ones are (1) absolute
divorce or a vinculo matrimonii and (2) limited divorce or a mensa et thoro.