Psychological Incapacity (Art.

36, FC)   
1. Santos v. CA ( G.R. No. 112019, January 4, 1995)                               
2. Chi Ming Tsoi v. CA (G.R. No. 119190, January 16, 1997 266 SCRA 325)                              
3. Republic v. CA, Molina (G.R. No. 108763, February 13, 1997)                               
4. Marcos v. Marcos (G.R. No. 136490, October 19, 2000 343 SCRA 755) 
5. Republic v. Hamano ( G.R. No. 149498, May 20, 2004, 428 SCRA 735)                           
6. Buenaventura v. CA ( G.R. Nos. 27358/127449, March 31, 2005)
7. Antonio v. Reyes ( G.R. No. 155880, March 10, 2006)                                 
8. Edward Kenneth Ngo-Te v. Rowena Te (G.R. No. 161793, February 13, 2009)                                 
9. Aurelio v. Aurelio ( G.R. No. 175367, June 6, 2011)                                
10. Tan-Andal vs Andal (G.R. No. 196359, May 11, 2021)
 G.R. No. 112019
January 4, 1995
LEOUEL SANTOS, petitioner,
vs.
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS AND JULIA ROSARIO BEDIA-SANTOS, respondents

FACTS:

 September 20, 1986 -  Leouel, 1st lieutenant of the army, exchanged vows with Julia before MTC,
Iloilo City  Judge Lazaro, followed shortly after by a church wedding. They lived with Julia’s
parents. They had a baby boy, Leoul Santos Jr. 
 Thereafter, Leouel averred because of frequent interference of Julia’s parents into their family
affairs.
 May 18, 1988- Julia left for US to work as a nurse despite Leouel’s pleas to so dissuade her. 
 January 1, 1989- Julia called up Leouel for the first time by long distance telephone and promised to
return home upon the expiration of her contract on July 1989, she never did. 
 When Leouel got a chance to visit her in the US, he desperately tried to locate Julia but his efforts
were of no avail. 
 Having failed to get Julia to somehow come home, Leouel filed with the RTC of Negros Oriental a
complaint for “Voiding the marriage under Art. 36 of the Family Code”.
 May 31, 1991- Julia in her answer opposed the complaint and denied its allegations, claiming that it
was Leouel who was irresponsible and incompetent. 
 October 25, 1991- after pre-trial conferences had repeatedly been set, albeit unsuccessfully, Julia
filed a manifestation stating that she would neither appear nor submit evidence. 
 Nov 6, 1991- complaint was dismissed for lack of merit. 
 Leouel appealed to the CA which affirmed the decision of the RTC for lack of merit. 
 Leouel argues that the failure of Julia to return home, or the very least communicate with him, for
more than five years are circumstances that clearly show her being psychologically incapacitated to
enter into married life.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the failure of Julia to return home, or at the very least communicate with Leouel for more
than five years constitute psychological incapacity.

RULING: 
No. Psychological incapacity must be characterized by a) gravity, b) juridical antecedence, and c) incurability.
—Justice Sempio-Diy cites with approval the work of Dr. Gerardo Veloso, a former Presiding Judge of the
Metropolitan Marriage Tribunal of the Catholic Archdiocese of Manila (Branch I), who opines that
psychological incapacity must be characterized by (a) gravity, (b) juridical antecedence, and (c) incurability.
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.

There is hardly any doubt that the intendment of the law has been to confine the meaning of “psychological
incapacity” to the most serious cases of personality disorders clearly demonstrative of an utter insensitivity
or inability to give meaning and significance to the marriage.

PETITION WAS DENIED.

 G.R. No. 119190
January 16, 1997
CHI MING TSOI, petitioner,
vs.
COURT OF APPEALS and GINA LAO-TSOI, respondents.

TORRES, JR., J.:

FACTS:
 Petitioner and her wife married on May 22, 1988. Since their marriage until March 15, 1989 there
was no sexual intercourse between them.
 Because of this, they submitted themselves for medical examinations which concluded that she is
healthy, normal and still a virgin, while that of her husband's examination info was kept confidential.
 The wife claimed that the defendant is impotent, a closet homosexual, and married her only to
acquire or maintain his residency status here in the country and to publicly maintain the appearance
of a normal man.
 The defendant admitted that the marriage was not consummated; claimed that the defect was on
his wife. Further, a doctor concluded that he is not impotent. He insisted for their marriage to
remain valid because they are still very young and there is still a chance to overcome their
differences.
 Their marriage was declared VOID by the RTC, also affirmed by CA. Hence this instant petition.

ISSUE:
Whether or not, the refusal of the petitioner to have sexual intercourse with her wife constitute a ground for
annulment by reason of psychological incapacity.

RULING:
YES. One of the essential marital obligations under the Family Code is "To procreate children based on the
universal principle that procreation of children through sexual cooperation is the basic end of marriage."
Constant non- fulfillment of this obligation clearly demonstrates an ‘utter insensitivity or inability to give
meaning and significance to the marriage’ within the meaning of Article 36 of the Family Code. In the case at
bar, the senseless and protracted refusal of one of the parties to fulfill the above marital obligation is
equivalent to psychological incapacity.

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING PREMISES, the assailed decision of the Court of Appeals dated November 29,
1994 is hereby AFFIRMED in all respects and the petition is hereby DENIED for lack of merit.
 268 SCRA 198
G.R. No. 108763
Feb. 13, 1997
Republic vs. Court of Appeals & Molina

FACTS:
 Spouses Roridel and Reynaldo Molina were married on April 14, 1985 at the San Agustin Church in
Manila; that a son, Andre O. Molina was born.
 After a year of marriage, Reynaldo showed signs of immaturity and irresponsibility as a husband and
a father since he preferred to spend more time with his peers and friends on whom he squandered
his money; that he depended on his parents for aid and assistance, and was never honest with his
wife in regard to their finances, resulting in frequent quarrels between them.
 Sometime in February 1986, Reynaldo was relieved of his job in Manila, and since then Roridel had
been the sole breadwinner of the family; that in October 1986 the couple had a very intense quarrel,
as a result of which their relationship was estranged; that in March 1987, Roridel resigned from her
job in Manila and went to live with her parents in Baguio City; that a few weeks later, Reynaldo left
Roridel and their child, and had since then abandoned them.
 Reynaldo had shown that he was psychologically incapable of complying with essential marital
obligations and was a highly immature and habitually quarrelsome individual who thought of himself
as a king to be served; and that it would be to the couples best interest to have their marriage
declared null and void in order to free them from what appeared to be an incompatible marriage
from the start.
 RTC declared the marriage void, and CA affirmed the RTC’s decision.

Issue:
Whether or not the marriage is void on the ground of psychological incapacity.

Ruling:
No. The marriage between Roridel and Reynaldo subsists and remains valid. In the case at bar, there is no
showing that his alleged personality traits were constitutive of psychological incapacity existing at the time
of marriage celebration. While some effort was made to prove that there was a failure to fulfill pre-nuptial
impressions of thoughtfulness and gentleness on Reynaldo’s part and of being conservative, homely and
intelligent on the part of Roridel, such failure of expectation is not indicative of antecedent psychological
incapacity.

The following guidelines in the interpretation and application of Article 36 of the Family Code are hereby
handed down for the guidance of the bench and the bar:
1. The burden of proof to show the nullity of the marriage belongs to the plaintiff. Any doubt should
be resolved in favor of the existence and continuation of the marriage and against its dissolution
and nullity;
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
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. Such
incurability may be absolute or even relative only in regard to the other spouse, not necessarily
absolutely against everyone of the same sex;
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 Solicitor General, along with the
prosecuting attorney, shall submit to the court such certification within fifteen (15) days from the
date the case is deemed submitted for resolution of the court.
 G.R. No. 136490
October 19, 2000
BRENDA B. MARCOS, petitioner,
vs.
WILSON G. MARCOS, respondent.

FACTS:
 Brenda and Wilson, both members of the Armed Forces of the Philippines were married twice, first
in 1982 in a civil wedding at the Municipal Court of Pasig and then in 1983 before Command
Chaplain, at the Presidential Security Command Chapel in Malacañang Park, Manila.
 After leaving the military service, Wilson ventured into some business ventures but was
unsuccessful. He was not able to look for work. The circumstance caused constant quarrels between
the husband and wife which caused the husband to beat the wife; wife was forced multiple times to
have sex with husband; husband would inflict physical harm (severe discipline) to their children at
the slightest of reasons.
 In 1994, Wilson and Brenda had a quarrel in their house. Wilson allegedly inflicted harm on Brenda
and even on her mother who was trying to come to her aid. Medical examinations were done as a
result and on the following day, she and her children left their house and went to her sister for
refuge.
 RTC RULING: Found Wilson to be psychologically incapacitated to perform his marital obligations
mainly because of his failure to find work to support his family and his violent attitude towards
appellee and their children declared the marriage of both parties null and void ab initio pursuant to
Article 36 of the Family Code and dissolved all their conjugal properties in accordance with Articles
126 and 129 of the same Code in relation to Articles 50, 51 and 52 relative to the delivery of the
legitime of parties' children.
 CA RULING: Reversed the ruling of the RTC and declared the marriage of both parties as VALID.
Psychological incapacity had not been established by the totality of the evidence presented. The
incapacity must be proven to be existing at the time of the celebration of the marriage and shown to
be medically or clinically permanent or incurable. It must also be grave enough to bring about the
disability of the parties to assume the essential obligations of marriage as set forth in Articles 68 to
71 and Articles 220 to 225 of the Family Code and such non-complied marital obligations must
similarly be alleged in the petition, established by evidence and explained in the decision. Hence, this
petition.

ISSUE:
Whether or NOT the CA has erred in its decision to SET ASIDE RTC’s findings of Psychological Incapacity on
the part of the Respondent in a Petition for declaration of nullity of marriage for lack of merits.

RULING:
No. Article 36 of the Family Code requires that the incapacity must be psychological - not physical, although
its manifestations and/or symptoms may be physical. In the case at bar, the Court that for psychological
incapacity to be a ground for nullity of marriage, both parties or one of them, must be as supported by
evidence to be shown as mentally and physically ill so as to impede both or one of the parties to fully
exercise his/her marital obligations. Expert opinions by clinical psychologists and/or psychiatrists may serve
as valid evidence. 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 (d) clearly explained in the
decision. This incapacity must be shown to be existing at the time of the celebration of marriage, and it is
incurable and medically and clinically permanent. The TOTALITY OF EVIDENCE, however, is not enough in
finding that respondent was psychologically incapacitated. His alleged psychological illness may be brought
about by the circumstance noting that Wilson was not able to look for a good work, thus, was unable to
provide for his family which caused him to be constantly drunk and occasionally left their home. There is no
evidence to show that his is an incurable condition. This petition is thus DENIED.

G.R. No. 161793

February 13, 2009
EDWARD KENNETH NGO TE, Petitioner, vs. ROWENA ONG GUTIERREZ YU-TE, Respondent,
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Oppositor.

FACTS:
 Edward Kenneth Ngo-Te met Rowena Ong Gutierrez Yu in a Filipino-Chinese gathering in a school
campus. They did not have interest with each other at first but they developed a certain degree of
closeness due to the fact that they share the same angst with their families.
 While still in college, Rowena proposed to Kenneth that they should elope. Kenneth initially refused
on the ground that he was still young and jobless. But due to Rowena’s persistence Kenneth
complied bringing with him P80K. They went to Cebu. The money soon after disappeared and they
found themselves forced to return to their respective home.
 Subsequently, Rowena’s uncle brought the two before a court and had had them be married. After
marriage, Kenneth and Rowena stayed with her uncle’s house where Kenneth was treated like a
prisoner.
 Meanwhile, Kenneth was advised by his dad to come home otherwise he will be disinherited. One
month later, Kenneth was able to escape and he was hidden from Rowena’s family. Kenneth later
contacted Rowena urging her to live with his parents instead. Rowena however suggested that he
should get his inheritance so that they could live together separately or just stay with her uncle.
Kenneth said he was already disinherited. Upon knowing this, Rowena said that it is better if they
live separate lives from then on.
 Four years later, Kenneth filed a petition for annulment of his marriage with Rowena. Rowena did
not file an answer. The City Prosecutor, after investigation, submitted that he cannot determine if
there is collusion between the two parties.
 Eventually, the case was tried. The opinion of an expert was sought wherein the psychologist
subsequently ruled that both parties are psychologically incapacitated. The said relationship
between Kenneth and Rowena is said to be undoubtedly in the wreck and weakly founded. Kenneth
was still in the state of finding his fate and fighting boredom, while Rowena was still egocentrically
involved with herself (narcissistic).
 Based on these findings, the trial court ruled that the marriage is void.
 The Solicitor General (OSG) appealed to the CA, claiming that the psychological incapacity of both
parties was not shown to be medically or clinically permanent or incurable (Molina case); the clinical
psychologist did not personally examine Rowena and relied only on the information provided by
Kenneth; and the psychological incapacity was not shown to be attended by gravity, juridical
antecedence, and incurability.
 The Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the OSG.

ISSUE: 
Whether or not the expert opinion of the psychologist should be admitted despite the guidelines established
in the landmark case of Molina.

RULING: 
Yes. It was ruled that admittedly, the SC may have inappropriately imposed a set of rigid rules in ascertaining
Psychological Incapacity in the Molina case. So much so that the subsequent cases after Molina were ruled
accordingly to the doctrine set therein. And that there is not much regard for the law’s clear intention
that each case is to be treated differently, as “courts should interpret the provision on a case-to-case basis;
guided by experience, the findings of experts and researchers in psychological disciplines, and by decisions of
church tribunals.” The SC is not abandoning the Molina guidelines, it merely reemphasized that there is need
to emphasize other perspectives as well which should govern the disposition of petitions for declaration of
nullity under Article 36 such as in the case at bar. The principle that each case must be judged, not on the
basis of a priori  assumptions, predilections or generalizations but according to its own facts.

The SC then ruled that the marriage of Kenneth and Rowena is null and void due to both parties’
psychological disorder as evidenced by the finding of the expert psychologist. Both parties being afflicted
with grave, severe and incurable psychological incapacity. Kenneth cannot assume the essential marital
obligations of living together, observing love, respect and fidelity, and rendering help and support, for he is
unable to make everyday decisions without advice from others. He is too dependent on others. Rowena
cannot perform the essential marital obligations as well due to her intolerance and impulsiveness.
 LEONILO ANTONIO, Petitioner, vs. MARIE IVONNE F. REYES, Respondent.
G.R. No. 155800
March 10, 2006
Tinga, J.

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.
 As manifestations of respondent’s alleged psychological incapacity, petitioner claimed that
respondent persistently lied about herself, the people around her, her occupation, income,
educational attainment and other events or things.
 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.
 In support of his petition, petitioner presented a psychiatrist, and 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.
 The lower court gave credence to petitioner’s evidence. According to the trial court, respondent’s
fantastic ability to invent and fabricate stories and personalities enabled her to live in a world of
make-believe. This made her psychologically incapacitated as it rendered her incapable of giving
meaning and significance to her marriage. The trial court thus declared the marriage between
petitioner and respondent null and void.
 Shortly before the trial court rendered its decision, the Metropolitan Tribunal of the Archdiocese of
Manila annulled the Catholic marriage of the parties, on the ground of lack of due discretion on the
part of the parties.
 During the pendency of the appeal before the Court of Appeals, the Metropolitan Tribunal’s ruling
was affirmed with modification by both the National Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal, which held
instead that only respondent was impaired by a lack of due discretion.
 The appellate court reversed the RTC’s judgment. While conceding that respondent may not have
been completely honest with petitioner, the Court of Appeals nevertheless held that the totality of
the evidence presented was insufficient to establish respondent’s psychological incapacity. It
declared that the requirements in the case of Republic v. Court of Appeals governing the application
and interpretation of psychological incapacity had not been satisfied. Hence, this Petition for Review
on Certiorari which assails the Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the CA erred in its decision declaring that the evidences presented were insufficient to
conclusively establish the respondent’s psychological incapacity based on the Molina Guidelines.

RULING:
Yes. The Court of Appeal erred. The Supreme Court find that the present case sufficiently satisfies the
guidelines in Molina: First, that Antonio had sufficiently overcome his burden in proving the psychological
incapacity of his wife; Second, that the root cause of Reyes' psychological incapacity has been medically or
clinically identified that was sufficiently proven by experts, and was clearly explained in the trial court's
decision; Third, that she fabricated friends and made up letters from fictitious characters before she married
him, prove that her psychological incapacity has existed even before the celebration of marriage; Fourth,
that the gravity of Reyes' psychological incapacity was considered so grave that a restrictive clause was
appended to the sentence of nullity prohibited by the National Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal from
contracting marriage without their consent; Fifth, that she being an inveterate pathological liar makes her
unable to commit the basic tenets of relationship between spouses based on love, trust, and respect. Sixth,
that the CA clearly erred when it failed to take into consideration the fact that the marriage was annulled by
the Catholic Church. While not controlling or decisive, it should be given great respect by our courts. (NOTE:
It is the factual findings of the judicial trier of facts, and not of the canonical courts, that are accorded
significant recognition by this Court.) Seventh, that Reyes' case is incurable considering that Antonio tried to
reconcile with her but her behavior remains unchanged.

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The decision of the RTC dated 10 August 1995, declaring the marriage
between petitioner and respondent NULL and VOID under Article 36 of the Family Code, is Reinstated.
 G.R. No. 175367
June 6, 2011
DANILO A. AURELIO, Petitioner,
vs.
VIDA MA. CORAZON P. AURELIO, Respondent.

FACTS:
 Petitioner Danilo A. Aurelio and respondent Vida Ma. Corazon Aurelio were married on March 23,
1988. They have two sons, namely: Danilo Miguel and Danilo Gabriel.
 Four years after their marriage, on 9 May 2002, the wife with the RTC of Quezon a Petition for
Declaration of Nullity of Marriage. In the petition it was alleged that both the petitioner and
respondent were suffering from psychological incapacity in the performance of the essential marital
obligations.
 The wife stated that this state was present even before and during the time of the marriage
ceremony. Putting forward Article 36 of the Family Code, she prays that their marriage be declared
null and void.
 On the side of the husband, psychological incapacity manisfested by lack of financial support from
him as well as his lack of drive for his wife. He also was consistently jealous and distrust his wide. His
moods were very hostile and he constantly refused to assist in the maintenance of the family.
 Moreover, on the side of the wife, her moods changed quickly – from feeling very high in spirits to
instantly switching to despair all depending on her day-to-day experiences. She was emotionally
immature that she gets really upset if she cannot get what she wants. With all these said, their
marriage broke down and they both were incapacitated to accept and fulfill the essential obligations
of a marital life.
 However, on 8 November 2002, the petitioner filed a Motion to Dismiss the said petition of the wife.
He argues that the petition did not state a cause of action and that it did not meet the standards set
by the Court for the implementation of Article 36 of the Family Code. The RTC denied the petition
and the CA affirmed it. Hence, this petition.
 On January 14, 2003, the RTC issued an Order denying petitioner’s motion.
 On February 21, 2003, petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which was, however, denied by
the RTC in an Order dated December 17, 2003. In denying petitioner’s motion, the RTC ruled that
respondent’s petition for declaration of nullity of marriage complied with the requirements of the
Molina doctrine, and whether or not the allegations are meritorious would depend upon the proofs
presented by both parties during trial.
 On February 16, 2004, petitioner appealed the RTC decision to the CA via petition for certiorari
under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.
 In a Resolution dated October 26, 2004, the CA dismissed petitioner’s motion for reconsideration. In
its Decision, the CA affirmed the ruling of the RTC and held that respondent’s complaint for
declaration of nullity of marriage when scrutinized in juxtaposition with Article 36 of the Family Code
and the Molina doctrine revealed the existence of a sufficient cause of action.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the marriage shall be declared null and void.

RULING:
Yes. Under the law, 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. In this case, the Court finds that
the root cause of psychological incapacity was stated and alleged in the complaint. 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.

GR. No. 127358

G. March 31, 2005
Consolidated with: G.R. No. 127449
March 31, 2005
NOEL BUENAVENTURA, Petitioner,
vs.
COURT OF APPEALS and ISABEL LUCIA SINGH BUENAVENTURA, respondents.

FACTS:
 Petitioner and Respondent were legally married on July 4, 1979. They both had a son.
 On July 12, 1992, however, Noel filed a petition for the declaration of nullity of marriage on the
ground of the alleged psychological incapacity of his wife, Isabel Singh Buenaventura, herein
respondent.
 After respondent filed her answer, petitioner, with leave of court, amended his petition by stating
that both he and his wife were psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential obligations
of marriage.
 In response, respondent filed an amended answer denying the allegation that she was
psychologically incapacitated. RTC granted the petition and ruled that:
1. The marriage between the two parties is null and void ab initio
2. Plaintiff must pay defendant moral damages in the amount of 2.5 million pesos and
exemplary damages of 1 million pesos with 6% interest from the date of this decision plus
attorney’s fees of P100,000.00
3. Plaintiff must pay the defendant expenses of litigation of P50,000.00, plus costs;
4. Their conjugal properties must be liquidated.
5. Plaintiff give a regular support in favor of his son Javy Singh Buenaventura in the amount
of P15,000.00 monthly, subject to modification as the necessity arises
6. Respondent shall have custody of their son.
7. Respondent Isabel may revert back to using her maiden name: SINGH.
 Noel appealed the RTC’s decision to the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision
of the RTC and denied the subsequent motion for consideration. The CA also modified the monthly
allowance of Jay Singh Buenaventura from P15,000 to P20,000.
 Respondent contest the decision of the CA contending that the moral damages awarded, the legal
fees he had to pay, and the liquidation of their conjugal properties especially his retirement benefits
had no lawful basis. Hence this petition for certiorari.

ISSUE:
Whether or NOT the RTC has erred in declaring the marriage of Petitioner Noel and Respondent Isabel to be
void ab initio on the ground of Psychological Incapacity and granting the subsequent moral damages to
respondent Isabel.

RULING:
No. But the granting of moral damages to respondent should be reversed. Article 36 of the Family Code
states: “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 means that one is truly
incognitive of the basic marital covenants. In this case, Noel’s admission, that he deceived the defendant-
appellee into marrying him by professing true love instead of revealing to her that he was under heavy
parental pressure to marry and that because of pride he married defendant-appellee. But in truth, he was
not ready for marriage and he did everything to get out of it deliberately. In ruling that Noel was
psychologically incapable of fulfilling his marital responsibilities, the CA and RTC erred in awarding moral
damages. It is without basis in law and fact. Psychological incapacity is beyond control of the party because
of innate incapability and not willful. Therefore, there should be no award for moral damages. The Petition
for Review on Certiorari (G.R. No. 127358) contesting the Court of Appeals’ Resolutions of September 2,
1996 and November 13, 1996 which increased the support pendente lite in favor of the parties’ son, Javy
Singh Buenaventura, is now MOOT and ACADEMIC and is, accordingly, DISMISSED.

G.R. No. 149498

May 20, 2004
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner,
vs.
LOLITA QUINTERO-HAMANO, respondent.

FACTS:
 June 17, 1996 - Lolita Quintero-Hamano filed a complaint for declaration of nullity of her marriage to
her husband Toshio Hamano, a Japanese National, on the ground of psychological incapacity. 
 Lolita alleges that in October 1986, she and Toshio started a common-law relationship in Japan. They
later lived in Ph for a month, thereafter, went back to Japan and stayed there for half of 1987. On
Nov 16, 1987, she gave birth to their child and got married on January 14, 1988 before the MTC
Judge Balderia. 
 One month after their marriage, Toshio returned to Japan and promised to return by Christmas to
celebrate the holidays with his family. After sending money to Lolita for 2 months, Toshio stopped
giving financial support. Lolita wrote to him several times, but he never responded. Lolita learned
from her friends that Toshio went to PH but did not bother to see her or her child. 
 Summons issued to Toshio remained unserved because he was no longer residing at his given
address. On July 8, 1996- Lolita filed an ex parte (motion for order without waiting for a response
from the other side) for leave to effect service of summons by publication. Motion granted. 
 Toshio failed to file a responsive pleading after the lapse of 60 days from publication, hence, Lolita
filed a motion to refer the case to prosecutor for investigation. Motion granted. 
 November 20, 1996- prosecutor Gonzales filed a report finding no collusion between parties. 
 August 28, 1997 - trial court rendered a decision providing that the marriage of Lolita and Toshio is
hereby declared Null and Void.RTC held that it is clear from the records of the case that respondent
spouse failed to fulfill his obligations as husband of the petitioner and father to his daughter.
Respondent remained irresponsible and unconcerned over the needs and welfare of his family. Such
indifference, to the mind of the Court, is a clear manifestation of insensitivity and lack of respect for
his wife and child which characterizes a very immature person. Certainly, such behavior could be
traced to respondent’s mental incapacity and disability of entering into marital life.
 OSG representing Republic of the PH appealed to the CA but denied in August 28,1997. The
appellate court found that Toshio left respondent and their daughter a month after the celebration
of the marriage and returned to Japan with the promise to support his family and take steps to make
them Japanese citizens. He never sent any support (except for 2 months) nor communicated despite
letters of Lolita. Appellate court concluded that Toshio was psychologically incapacitated to perform
his marital obligations to his family and to “observe mutual love, respect, fidelity and render mutual
help and support” - Art 68 of FC.
  The appellate court concluded that this case is not to be equated with the Molina and Santos case
given that this is a mixed marriage. Hence, this appeal by the Republic of PH.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the CA erred in holding that Lolita was able to prove the psychological incapacity of Toshio
to perform his marital obligations. 

RULING: 
Yes. The guidelines incorporate the three basic requirements earlier mandated by the Court in Santos:
“psychological incapacity must be characterized by (a) gravity (b) juridical antecedence and (c) incurability.”
The foregoing guidelines do not require that a physician examine the person to be declared psychologically
incapacitated. In fact, the root cause may be “medically or clinically identified.” What is important is the
presence of evidence that can adequately establish the party’s psychological condition. For indeed, 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. 

The court finds that the totality of evidence presented fell short of proving that Toshio was psychologically
incapacitated to assume his marital responsibilities. Toshio’s act of abandonment was doubtlessly
irresponsible but it was never alleged nor proven to be due to some kind of psychological illness. After
respondent testified on how Toshio abandoned his family, no other evidence was presented showing that his
behavior was caused by a psychological disorder. Although, as a rule, there was no need for an actual
medical examination, it would have greatly helped respondent’s case had she presented evidence that
medically or clinically identified his illness. This could have been done through an expert witness. 

We cannot presume psychological defect from the mere fact that Toshio abandoned his family immediately
after the celebration of the marriage. As we ruled in Molina, it is not enough to prove that a spouse failed to
meet his responsibility and duty as a married person; it is essential that he must be shown to be incapable of
doing so due to some psychological, not physical, illness. There was no proof of a natal or supervening
disabling factor in the person, an adverse integral element in the personality structure that effectively
incapacitates a person from accepting and complying with the obligations essential to marriage. 

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

Versus
COURT OF APPEALS and RORIDEL OLAVIANO MOLINA
G.R. No. 108763
February 13, 1997

FACTS:
 This case was commenced on August 16, 1990 with the filing by respondent Roridel O. Molina of a
verified petition for declaration of nullity of her marriage to Reynaldo Molina.
 Essentially, the petition alleged that Roridel and Reynaldo were married on April 14, 1985 at the San
Agustin Church in Manila and had a son, Andre O. Molina. After a year of marriage, Reynaldo
showed signs of "immaturity and irresponsibility" as a husband and a father since he preferred to
spend more time with his peers and friends on whom he squandered his money; that he depended
on his parents for aid and assistance, and was never honest with his wife in regard to their finances,
resulting in frequent quarrels between them. Sometime in February 1986, Reynaldo was relieved of
his job in Manila, and since then Roridel had been the sole breadwinner of the family.
 In October 1986, the couple had a very intense quarrel of which their relationship was estranged.
 In March 1987, Roridel resigned from her job in Manila and went to live with her parents in Baguio
City. A few weeks later, Reynaldo left Roridel and their child and abandoned them. Reynaldo had
thus shown that he was psychologically incapable of complying with essential marital obligations and
 was a highly immature and habitually quarrelsome individual who thought of himself as a king to be
served, and that it would be to the couple's best interest to have their marriage declared null and
void.
 In his Answer filed on August 28, 1989, Reynaldo admitted that he and Roridel could no longer live
together as husband and wife, but contended that their misunderstandings and frequent quarrels
were due to (1) Roridel's strange behavior of insisting on maintaining her group of friends even after
their marriage; (2) Roridel's refusal to perform some of her marital duties such as cooking meals; and
(3) Roridel's failure to run the household and handle their finances.
 The marriage was declared by the Regional Trial Court of La Trinidad, Benguet as void ab ignition on
the ground of ‘psychological incapacity’ and was later affirmed by the Court of Appeals.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the Court of Appeals made an erroneous and incorrect interpretation of the phrase
'psychological incapacity' (as provided under Art. 36 of the Family Code) and made an incorrect application
thereof to the facts of the case.

RULING:
YES. In Leouel Santos vs. Court of Appeals, the Court, speaking thru Mr. Justice Jose C. Vitug, ruled that
"psychological incapacity should refer to no less than a mental (nor physical) incapacity . . . and that (t)here
is hardly any doubt that the intendment of the law has been to confine the meaning of 'psychological
incapacity' to the most serious cases of personality disorders clearly demonstrative of an utter insensitivity
or inability to give meaning and significance to the marriage. This psychologic condition must exist at the
time the marriage is celebrated." Psychological incapacity must be characterized by (a) gravity, (b) juridical
antecedence, and (c) incurability.

On the other hand, in the present case, there is no clear showing that the psychological defect spoken of is
an incapacity. It appears to be more of a "difficulty," if not outright "refusal" or "neglect" in the performance
of some marital obligations. Mere showing of "irreconcilable differences" and "conflicting personalities"
doesn’t constitute psychological incapacity. It is not enough to prove that the parties failed to meet their
responsibilities and duties as married persons. It is essential that they must be shown to be incapable of
doing so, due to some psychological (nor physical) illness.

The evidence adduced by respondent merely showed that she and her husband could not get along with
each other. There had been no showing of the gravity of the problem. In the case of Reynaldo, there is no
showing that his alleged personality traits were constitutive of psychological incapacity existing at the time
of marriage celebration. 

NOTE:
The following guidelines in the interpretation and application of Art. 36 of the Family Code are hereby
handed down for the guidance of the bench and the bar:

1. The burden of proof to show the nullity of the marriage belongs to the plaintiff. Any doubt should be
resolved in favor of the existence and continuation of the marriage and against its dissolution and
nullity. This is rooted in the fact that both our Constitution and our laws cherish the validity of
marriage and unity of the family. Thus, our Constitution devotes an entire Article on the Family,
recognizing it "as the foundation of the nation." It decrees marriage as legally "inviolable," thereby
protecting it from dissolution at the whim of the parties. Both the family and marriage are to be
"protected" by the state.

The Family Code echoes this constitutional edict on marriage and the family and emphasizes the
permanence, inviolability and solidarity
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 (d) clearly explained in the decision.
Article 36 of the Family Code requires that the incapacity must be psychological — not physical.
although its manifestations and/or symptoms may be physical. The evidence must convince the
court that the parties, or one of them, was mentally or physically ill to such an extent that the
person could not have known the obligations he was assuming, or knowing them, could not have
given valid assumption thereof. Although no example of such incapacity need be given here so as
not to limit the application of the provision under the principle of ejusdem generis, nevertheless
such root cause must be identified as a psychological illness and its incapacitating nature explained.
Expert evidence may be given qualified psychiatrist and clinical psychologists.

3. The incapacity must be proven to be existing at "the time of the celebration" of the marriage. The
evidence must show that the illness was existing when the parties exchanged their "I do's." The
manifestation of the illness need not be perceivable at such time, but the illness itself must have
attached at such moment, or prior thereto.

4. Such incapacity must also be shown to be medically or clinically permanent or incurable. Such
incurability may be absolute or even relative only in regard to the other spouse, not necessarily
absolutely against everyone of the same sex. Furthermore, such incapacity must be relevant to the
assumption of marriage obligations, not necessarily to those not related to marriage, like the
exercise of a profession or employment in a job. Hence, a pediatrician may be effective in diagnosing
illnesses of children and prescribing medicine to cure them but may not be psychologically
capacitated to procreate, bear and raise his/her own children as an essential obligation of marriage.

5. Such illness must be grave enough to bring about the disability of the party to assume the essential
obligations of marriage. Thus, "mild characteriological peculiarities, mood changes, occasional
emotional outbursts" cannot be accepted as root causes. The illness must be shown as downright
incapacity or inability, nor a refusal, neglect or difficulty, much less ill will. In other words, there is a
natal or supervening disabling factor in the person, an adverse integral element in the personality
structure that effectively incapacitates the person from really accepting and thereby complying with
the obligations essential to 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. It is clear
that Article 36 was taken by the Family Code Revision Committee from Canon 1095 of the New Code
of Canon Law, which became effective in 1983 and which provides:

The following are incapable of contracting marriage: Those who are unable to assume the essential
obligations of marriage due to causes of psychological nature.

Since the purpose of including such provision 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 decision of such appellate tribunal. Ideally — subject to our law
on evidence — what is decreed as canonically invalid should also be decreed civilly void.
 This is one instance where, in view of the evident source and purpose of the Family Code provision,
contemporaneous religious interpretation is to be given persuasive effect. Here, the State and the
Church — while remaining independent, separate and apart from each other — shall walk together
in synodal cadence towards the same goal of protecting and cherishing marriage and the family as
the inviolable base of the nation.

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 he handed down unless the Solicitor General issues a
certification, which will be quoted in the decision, briefly staring therein his reasons for his
agreement or opposition, as the case may be, to the petition. The Solicitor General, along with the
prosecuting attorney, shall submit to the court such certification within fifteen (15) days from the
date the case is deemed submitted for resolution of the court. The Solicitor General shall discharge
the equivalent function of the defensor vinculi contemplated under Canon 1095.

G.R. No. 196359

Tan-Andal vs. Andal

FACTS:
 In 1995, Rosanna Tan and Mario Victor Andal married each other. They were blessed with one child.
However, even before their marriage, Rosanna already observed Mario to be extremely irritable and
moody.
 Earlier in their marriage, Rosanna also observed Mario to be emotionally immature, irresponsible,
irritable, and psychologically imbalanced. Rosanna later learned that Mario was a drug addict. Due to
his erratic behavior, Rosanna caused Mario to be confined in a drug rehab center twice.
 Mario’s irresponsibility even caused the closure of their family business. Mario also exposed their
daughter to his drug use.
 In December 2000, fed up with Mario, Rosanna chose to live separately from him. In August 2003,
Rosanna filed a petition to have her marriage with Mario be declared void on the ground that Mario
was psychologically incapacitated to perform the essential marital obligations.
 To prove her case, she presented a psychologist (Dr. Fonso Garcia) who, after interviewing Rosanna,
Rosanna’s daughter, and Rosanna’s sister, concluded that Mario was psychologically incapacitated to
perform essential marital obligations.
 Dr. Garcia did not interview Mario as the latter, despite invitation, refused an interview. In her
assessment, Dr. Garcia found Mario to be suffering from Narcissistic Antisocial Personality Disorder.
 In May 2007, the trial court voided the marriage between Rosanna and Mario as it ruled that
Rosanna was able to prove her case. The Court of Appeals however reversed the trial court on the
ground that the findings of Dr. Garcia was unscientific and unreliable because she diagnosed Mario
without interviewing him.
 On appeal, the Supreme Court took the opportunity to revisit the Molina Guidelines and the
other nullity cases decided by the Supreme Court after Molina.

ISSUE: 
Whether or not the marriage between Rosanna and Mario is void.

RULING: 
Yes. Dr. Garcia’s expert testimony is given due weight. HOWEVER, the Supreme Court declared, among
others, that in psychological incapacity cases, expert testimony is NOT a requirement.

Below is the Supreme Court’s new set of guidelines in determining the existence of psychological incapacity:
1. The burden of proof in proving psychological incapacity is still on the plaintiff. The Supreme Court
however clarified that the quantum of proof required in nullity cases is clear and convincing
 evidence which is more than preponderant evidence (ordinary civil cases) but less than proof beyond
reasonable doubt (criminal cases). This is because marriage is presumed valid and in this jurisdiction,
a presumption can only be rebutted with clear and convincing evidence.
2. Psychological incapacity is neither a mental incapacity nor a personality disorder that must be
proven through expert testimony. There must be proof, however, of the durable or enduring
aspects of a person’s personality, called “personality structure,” which manifests itself through clear
acts of dysfunctionality that undermines the family. The spouse’s personality structure must make it
impossible for him or her to understand and, more important, to comply with his or her essential
marital obligations. Proof of these aspects of personality need not be given by an expert. Ordinary
witnesses who have been present in the life of the spouses before the latter contracted marriage
may testify on behaviors that they have consistently observed from the supposedly incapacitated
spouse.
3. Incurable, not in the medical, but in the legal sense; incurable as to the partner. Psychological
incapacity is so enduring and persistent with respect to a specific partner, and contemplates a
situation where the couple’s respective personality structures are so incompatible and antagonistic
that the only result of the union would be the inevitable and irreparable breakdown of the marriage.
4. As to gravity, it must be shown that the incapacity is caused by a genuinely serious psychic cause. It
is not necessary that it must be shown that the psychological incapacity is a serious or dangerous
illness BUT that “mild characterological peculiarities, mood changes, occasional emotional
outbursts” are excluded. The psychological incapacity cannot be mere “refusal, neglect, or difficulty,
much less ill will.”
5. Juridical antecedence. The incapacity must be proven to be existing at the time of the celebration of
the marriage even if such incapacity becomes manifest only after its solemnization.
6. Essential marital obligations are not limited to those between spouses. Hence, those covered 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.
7. The decisions of the National Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal of the Catholic Church of the
Philippines has persuasive effect on nullity cases pending before secular courts. Canonical decisions
are, to reiterate, merely persuasive and not binding on secular courts. Canonical decisions are to
only serve as evidence of the nullity of the secular marriage, but ultimately, the elements of
declaration of nullity under Article 36 must still be weighed by the judge.

SUMMARY: 
Psychological incapacity consists of clear acts of dysfunctionality that show a lack of understanding and
concomitant compliance with one’s essential marital obligations due to psychic causes. It is not a medical
illness that has to be medically or clinically identified; hence, expert opinion is not required. As an explicit
requirement of the law, the psychological incapacity must be shown to have been existing at the time of the
celebration of the marriage, and is caused by a durable aspect of one’s personality structure, one that was
formed before the parties married. Furthermore, it must be shown caused by a genuinely serious psychic
cause. To prove psychological incapacity, a party must present clear and convincing evidence of its existence.

The Supreme Court also emphasized that in voiding ill-equipped marriages, courts are not really violating the
inviolability of marriage as a social institution which is enshrined in no less than the Constitution. Courts
should not hesitate to declare such marriages void solely for the sake of their permanence when,
paradoxically, doing so destroyed the sanctity afforded to marriage. In declaring ill-equipped marriages as
void ab initio, the courts assiduously defend and promote the sanctity of marriage as an inviolable social
institution. The foundation of our society is thereby made all the stronger.