PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATIONS

Case Digests

Professor: Atty. Marietta P. Turingan

Section: Sunday 8:00–11:00 A.M., 12:00–2:00 P.M.
First Semester, Academic Year 2018-2019

Group 1
1. Birad, Kathrina D.
2. Bugayon, Marco A.
3. Castillano, Marmie G.
4. Cortez, Alyssa G.
5. Gonzaga, Jemayca P.
6. Monteadora, Honey Gladys A.
7. Paras, Donnalyn Amor B.
8. Reyes, Aina Mikaela O.

17 November 2018
 Table of Contents

I. Hernandez v CA …………………………………………………………… 3

II. Azcueta v Azcueta …………………………………………………………..5

III. Buenaventura v CA ………………………………………………………….6

IV. Aurelio v Aurelio …………………………………………………………… 7

V. Kalaw v Fernandez …………………………………………………………. 9

VI. Republic v Molina ………………………………………………………….. 11

2
G.R. No. 126010 December 8, 1999

LUCITA ESTRELLA HERNANDEZ, petitioner,

versus
COURT OF APPEALS and MARIO C. HERNANDEZ, respondents.

FACTS:

Lucita Estrella Hernandez and Mario C. 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 Mario. The petitioner claimed that the respondent failed to
perform his obligation to support the family and contribute to the management of the
household. Lucita also alleged that Mario engaged in drinking sprees, gambled and
womanized at which came a point that he had an illegitimate child. Also, it endangered her
health by infecting her with a sexually transmissible disease (STD).

Lucita also asked that for having abandoned the family, Mario should be ordered to give
support to their three children in the total amount of P9,000.00 every month and that the
custody of the children be awarded to her. Further, she requested to be adjudged as the owner
of their conjugal home, as well as the jeep which Mario took with him when he left.

The trial court rendered a decision dismissing the petition for annulment of marriage filed by
Lucita. It said that the circumstances on which Lucita anchors her petition were grounds for
legal separation, and not for annulment. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the
trial court. It ruled that “psychological incapacity”, as a ground for declaration of nullity of
marriage, must exist at the time of the celebration of the marriage. Also, chronic sexual
infidelity, abandonment, gambling and use of prohibited drugs are not grounds per se, of
psychological incapacity of a spouse.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the marriage of Lucita and Mario should be annulled on the ground of private
respondent’s psychological incapacity.

HELD:

In contemplation of Article 36 of the Family Code, requires that incapacity must be

psychological, not physical, although the manifestations or symptoms are physical. Thus,
Lucita 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. Hence, the acts
and attitudes complained of by petitioner-appellant happened after the marriage and there is
no proof that the same have already existed at the time of the celebration of the marriage to
constitute the psychological incapacity under the said rule. Also, as expressed in Article 68 of

3
the Family Code, the parties should fulfill their mutual obligations to live together, observe
love, respect and fidelity and render help and support. This conclusion is implicit under
Article 54 of the Family Code which considers children conceived prior to the judicial
declaration of nullity of the void marriage to be "legitimate." As for the other claims prayed
for by the petitioner, the Court believed that those should be litigated in a separate proceeding
for legal separation, dissolution of property regime, and/or custody of children.

4
G.R. No. 180668 May 26, 2009

MARIETA C. AZCUETA, Petitioner,

versus
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES and THE COURT OF APPEALS, Respondents.

FACTS:

Petitioner Marietta Azcueta filed with the RTC a petition for declaration of absolute nullity of
marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code against her husband, Rodolfo Azcueta.

According to the petitioner, Rodolfo was psychologically incapacitated to comply with the
essential obligations of marriage for he was emotionally immature, irresponsible and
continually failed to adapt himself to married life and perform the essential responsibilities
and duties of a husband.

This contention was proven during the trial as petitioner presented Rodolfo’s first cousin,
Florida de Ramos, and Dr. Cecilia Villegas, a psychiatrist, as witnesses.
The RTC granted the petition, however it was reversed by the Court of Appeals; hence, this
case.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the totality of evidence presented is adequate to sustain a finding that Rodolfo
is psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential marital obligations

HELD:

Yes. When a witness testified under oath before the lower court and was cross-examined, she
thereby presented evidence in the form of testimony. Significantly, petitioner’s narration of
facts was corroborated in material points by the testimony of a close relative of Rodolfo. Dr.
Villegas likewise testified in court to elaborate on her report and fully explain the link
between the manifestations of Rodolfo’s psychological incapacity and the psychological
disorder itself. It is a settled principle of civil procedure that the conclusions of the trial court
regarding the credibility of witnesses are entitled to great respect from the appellate courts
because the trial court had an opportunity to observe the demeanor of witnesses while giving
testimony which may indicate their candor or lack thereof.

The manifestations of incapacity to comply or assume his marital obligations were linked to
medical or clinical causes by an expert witness with more than forty years’ experience from
the field of psychology in general and psychological incapacity, in particular.
WHEREFORE, the decision of the RTC is REINSTATED.

5
G.R. Nos. 127358 and G.R. Nos. 127449 March 31, 2005

NOEL BUENAVENTURA, Petitioner,

versus
COURT OF APPEALS and ISABEL LUCIA SINGH BUENAVENTURA, Respondents

FACTS:

A declaration of nullity of marriage was filed by Noel Buenaventura on the ground that both
he and his wife, Isabel Lucia Singh, were psychologically incapacitated. In response, Isabel
filed an amended answer denying the allegation that she was psychologically incapacitated.
Noel and Isabel were allegedly married because Noel’s parents were pressuring him to marry.
Instead of telling Isabel about this, Noel choose to “profess his love” towards Isabel even
though he was not in love with her. Isabel contented that she suffered mental anguish,
anxiety, besmirched reputation, sleepless nights not only in those years the parties were
together but also after and throughout their separation.

Trial Court declared the marriage void but awarded Isabel moral and exemplary damages
ordering the liquidation of the assets equally partitioned between them such as the retirement
benefits of Noel and the shares of stock in Manila Memorial Park, a regular support in favor
of his son with the amount of 15,000 monthly, and awarded the care and custody of their son
to Isabel.

ISSUE:

Whether or not damages can be awarded in marriages declared void on the ground of
psychological incapacity

HELD:

According to 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, thus, making the acts of petitioner constitute
psychological incapacity.

Awarding moral damages on the same set of facts was invalid because of the declaration that
both parties are psychologically incapacitated. According to the court, it must be noted that
Article 21 of the Civil Code states that, “The individual must willfully cause loss or injury to
another.” There is a need that the act is willful and hence done in complete freedom. In
granting moral damages, therefore, the trial court and the Court of Appeals could not but
have assumed that the acts on which the moral damages were based were done willfully and
freely, otherwise the grant of moral damages would have no leg to stand on.

6
G.R. No. 175367 June 6, 2011

DANILO A. AURELIO, Petitioner,

versus
VIDA MA. CORAZON P. AURELIO, Respondent.

FACTS:

The petitioner Danilo Aurelio was married to Vida Aurelio, herein respondent, with two kids,
namely: Danilo Gabriel and Danilo Miguel. On May 2002, Vida Aurelio filed a Petition for
Declaration of Nullity of their Marriage before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City,
Branch 94 on the ground that both of them are psychologically incapacitated – that they
failed in performing and complying with their essential marital obligations and their
incapacity to accept and fulfill such essential obligations of marital life led to the breakdown
of their marriage– which manifested even before and during the celebration of their marriage.
Hence, respondent prays that their marriage be declared null and void under Article 36 of the
1987 Constitution.

Petitioner filed a motion to dismiss the case before the RTC claiming that the respondent
Vida has not satisfied the requirements as to the implementation of Article 36, but was
subsequently denied by the court. RTC maintained its ruling in favour of the respondent and
so, petitioner Danilo brought the case before the Court of Appeals. The court finds no merit
to the petition.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the marriage be declared null and void under Article 36 provision on
Psychological Incapacity.

HELD:

Instant petition DENIED. RTC decision REAFFIRMED by CA. The marriage is null and
void.

Rationale:

To give merit on psychological incapacity as a ground to declare marriage null and void, the
court has considered the Molina Doctrine as guidelines in determining cases involving Article
36: The petitioner shall determine the following:
1. Burden of Proof to show nullity belongs to the plaintiff.
2. The root cause of the psychological incapacity must be:
a) Medically or clinically identified;
b) Alleged in the complaint;
c) Sufficiently proven by experts and;

7
 d) Clearly explained in the decision.
3. The incapacity must be proven to be existing at "the time of the celebration" of the
marriage.
4. Such incapacity must also be shown to be medically or clinically permanent or
incurable.
5. Such illness must be grave enough to bring about the disability of the party to assume
the essential obligations of marriage.
6. The essential marital obligations must be those embraced by Articles 68 up to 71 of
the Family Code as regards the husband and wife, as well as Articles 220, 221 and
225 of the same Code in regard to parents and their children. Such non-complied
marital obligation(s) must also be stated in the petition, proven by evidence and
included in the text of the decision.
7. 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.
8. The trial court must order the prosecuting attorney or fiscal and the Solicitor General
to appear as counsel for the state. No decision shall be handed down unless the
Solicitor General issues a certification, which will be quoted in the decision, briefly
stating therein his reasons for his agreement or opposition, as the case may be, to the
petition.

The Court finds that the root cause of psychological incapacity was stated and alleged in the
complaint. It likewise alleged that the illness of both parties was of such grave a nature as to
bring about a disability for them to assume the essential obligations of marriage. The
psychologist reported that respondent suffers from Histrionic Personality Disorder with
Narcissistic Features. Petitioner, on the other hand, allegedly suffers from Passive Aggressive
(Negativistic) Personality Disorder. The incapacity of both parties to perform their marital
obligations was alleged to be grave, incorrigible and incurable. Lastly, the Court also finds
that the essential marital obligations that were not complied with were alleged in the petition.
A perusal of the Molina guidelines would show that the same contemplate a situation wherein
the parties have presented their evidence, witnesses have testified, and that a decision has
been reached by the court after due hearing.

8
G.R. No. 166357 September 19, 2011

VALERIO E. KALAW, Petitioner,

versus
MA. ELENA FERNANDEZ, Respondent.

FACTS:

Petitioner Valerio E. Kalaw (Tyrone) and respondent Ma. Elena Fernandez (Malyn) were
married in Hong Kong on November 4, 1976 and had four children, Valerio (Rio), Maria Eva
(Ria), Ramon Miguel (Miggy or Mickey), and Jaime Teodoro (Jay). Tyrone had an
extramarital affair with Jocelyn Quejano, who gave birth to a son in March 1983. In May
1985, Malyn left the conjugal home and her four children with Tyrone. Meanwhile, Tyrone
started living with Jocelyn, who bore him three more children. In 1990, Tyrone went to the
United States (US) with Jocelyn and their children. He left his four children from his
marriage with Malyn in a rented house in Valle Verde with only a househelp and a driver.
Also, in accordance with their custody agreement, the children stayed with Malyn on
weekends.

On July 6, 1994, nine years since the de facto separation from his wife, Tyrone filed a
petition for declaration of nullity of marriage based on Article 36 of the Family Code. He
alleged that Malyn was psychologically incapacitated to perform and comply with the
essential marital obligations at the time of the celebration of their marriage. He further
claimed that her psychological incapacity was manifested by her immaturity and
irresponsibility towards Tyrone and their children during their co-habitation, as shown by
Malyn’s acts: 1) leaving the children without proper care and attention as she played mahjong
all day and all night; 2) leaving the house to party with male friends and returning in the early
hours of the following day; and, 3) committing adultery on June 9, 1985 which act Tyrone
discovered in flagrante delicto. Tyrone presented a psychologist, Dr. Cristina Gates, and a
Catholic canon law expert, Fr. Gerard Healy, S.J., to testify on Malyn’s psychological
incapacity.

Petitioner Tyrone argues that he has presented preponderant evidence to prove that
respondent is psychologically incapacitated to perform her essential marital obligations, to
wit: a) the expert witnesses, Dr. Gates and Fr. Healy, proved on the stand that respondents
egocentric attitude, immaturity, self-obsession and self-centeredness were manifestations of
respondents Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD); b) these expert witnesses proved that
respondents NPD is grave and incurable and prevents her from performing her essential
martial obligations; and, c) that respondents NPD existed at the time of the celebration of the
marriage because it is rooted in her upbringing, family background, and socialite lifestyle
prior to her marriage.

9
ISSUE:

Whether Tyrone has sufficiently proved that Malyn suffered from psychological incapacity

HELD:

No, petitioner Tyrone has not sufficiently proved that respondent Malyn suffered from
psychological incapacity.

A petition for declaration of nullity of marriage is governed by Article 36 of the Family Code
which provides that “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.”

Psychological incapacity is the downright incapacity or inability to take cognizance of and to

assume the basic marital obligations. The burden of proving psychological incapacity is on
the plaintiff. The plaintiff must prove that the incapacitated party, based on his or her actions
or behavior, suffers a serious psychological disorder that completely disables him or her from
understanding and discharging the essential obligations of the marital state. The
psychological problem must be grave, must have existed at the time of marriage, and must be
incurable.

In the case at bar, 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 the petitioner’s allegations of
respondent’s constant mahjong sessions, visits to the beauty parlor, going out with friends,
adultery, and neglect of their children. Petitioners experts opined that respondents 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. But
petitioner’s allegations, which served as the bases or underlying premises of the conclusions
of his experts, were not actually proven. In fact, respondent presented contrary evidence
refuting these allegations of the petitioner.

What transpired between the parties is acrimony and, perhaps, infidelity, which may have
constrained them from dedicating the best of themselves to each other and to their children.
There may be grounds for legal separation, but certainly not psychological incapacity that
voids a marriage.

10
G.R. No. 108763 February 13, 1997

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner,

versus
COURT OF APPEALS AND RORIDEL OLVIANO MOLINA, respondent.

FACTS:

Reynaldo and Roridel were married on April 14, 1985 at the San Agustin Church in Manila.
Their marriage begot a son.

After a year of marriage, Reynaldo showed signs of immaturity and irresponsibility resulting
in frequent quarrels between the spouses. On March 1987, Roridel resigned from her job and
then went to live with her parents in Baguio city. Reynaldo then abandoned Roridel and their
child.

Roridel petitioned for the nullity of their marriage on the ground that Reynaldo was
psychologically incapable of complying with the marital obligations.

On August 28, 1989, Reynaldo filed his answer and stated that Roridel also failed to comply
with the marital obligations.

The pre-trial commenced on October 17, 1990. Then on May 14, 1991, the trial court
rendered judgement declaring the marriage void, thus the case at bar.

In his petition, the Solicitor General insisted that the Court of Appeals erred in their decision
to void the marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity. Petitioner argues that
opposing and conflicting personalities are not equal to psychological incapacity.

ISSUE:

Whether or not psychological incapacity was established to void the marriage of Reynaldo
and Roridel.

HELD:

The petition is granted. The marriage of Reynaldo and Roridel subsists and remains valid.
The court ruled that psychological incapacity should refer to no less than a mental incapacity;
and that the intent of the legislature was to confine its meaning to the most serious cases of
personality disorders which clearly shows the inability to give significance to marriage.
Psychological incapacity must be characterized by gravity, juridical antecedence, and
incurability.

11
Due to the improper interpretations and applications arrived at by the lower courts on this
particular issue, the SC found it wise to construe the law and lay down guidelines in
interpretation and application of Art. 36. Here, the SC sought the help of two amici curiae –
considered an external aid in statutory construction. The guidelines set forth are thus: (1) the
burden of proof belongs to the plaintiff; (2) the root cause of psychological incapacity must
be medically or clinically identified, alleged in the complaint, sufficiently proven by expert,
and clearly explained in the decision; (3) the incapacity must be proven to be existing at the
time of the celebration of marriage; (4) the incapacity must be medically or clinically
permanent or incurable; (5) such illness must be grave enough to disable fulfillment of
essential marital obligations; (6) the essential marital obligation must be embraced by
Articles 68 to 71 of the Family Code as regards husband and wife, and Articles 220 to 225 of
the same code as regards parents and their children; (7) interpretation made by the National
Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal of the Catholic Church are to be given great weight; and (8)
the fiscal and the Solicitor-General must appear as counsel for the State.

12