Bier vs Bier

Facts:
Petitioner Renne Enrique Bier met respondent Ma. Lourdes A. Bier through his sister.
On July 26, 1992, six months after their first meeting, they were married. Eberything
went well for the first three years of their marriage. As petitioner was based in Saudi
Arabia as an electronic technician at Saudi Airlines, the parties decided to maintain two
residences, one in the Philippines and another in Saudi. They took turns shuttling
between the two countries just so they could spend time together.

The couple started experiencing marital problems after three years of marriage. She
started becoming aloof towards him and began to spend more time with her friends than
with him, refusing even to have sexual relations with him for no apparent reason. She
became an alcoholic and a chain-smoker. She also started neglecting her husband’s
needs and the upkeep of their home, and became an absentee wife. After being hone
from their home for days on end, she would return without bothering to account for her
absentee. As a result, they frequently quarreled. Finally, on April 10, 1997, respondent
suddenly left for the US. Petitioner has not heard from her since.

On April 1, 1998, petitioner filed a petition for the declaration of nullity of marriage on the
ground that respondent was psychologically incapacitated to fulfill her essential marital
obligations to petitioner.

After trial, the court rendered judgment granting the petition. Respondent, through OSG,
appealed the decision of the RTC to the CA, the appeal was granted. Decision of the
trial court was revered and set aside. CA held that petitioner failed to comply with the
guidelines laid down in Molina as the root cause of respondent’s psychological
incapacity was nit medically or clinically identified. Worse, the same was not even
alleged in the petition filed in the court a quo. As such, it granted the appeal and revered
the decision of the trial court.

Issue:
Whether or not Ma. Lourdes’s actions constitute psychological incapacity, and are
sufficient basis for nullity of marriage

Ruling:
The petition lacks merit and the respondent’s actions do not establish psychological
incapacity. The trial court apparently overlooked the fact that this Court has been
consistent in holding that if a petition for nullity based on psychological incapacity is to
be given due course, its gravity, root cause, incurability and the fact that it existed prior
to or at the time of celebration of the marriage must always be proved. Also even of the
Molina case was never meant to be a checklist of the requirements in deciding cases
involving Article 36 of the FC, showing of the gravity, juridical antecedents and
incurability of the party’s psychological incapacity and its existence at the inception of
the marriage cannot be dispensed with.
 Eliscupidez vs. Eluscupidez

Facts:
Gerardo a. Eliscupidez and Glenda C. Eliscupidez were married. Gerardo here filed a
Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code. Art.
36. 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
itssolemnization

Issue:
Whether or not the totality of evidence presented by Gerardo that include the
testimonies of his witnesses and the psychological evaluation report of Dr. Tayag is
suffiecient to show Glenda’s psychological incapacity.

Ruling:
Yes. In Republic v. Molina (1997) the Court laid down the guidelines in the disposition of
psychological incapacity cases. 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. Expert evidence may be given by
qualified psychiatrists and clinical psychologists.

He presented, among others, the Psychological Evaluation Report (Report) of clinical

psychologist Dr. Nedy L. Tayag. Dr. Tayag conducted her psychological evaluation of
Gerardo through personal examination while her assessment of the psychological
behavior of Glenda was based on her interviews of Gerardo, Oro (kasambahay), and
Vilma Cascabel Viernes (sister of Glenda). Dr. Tayag found Glenda Psychologically
incapacitated and recommends that their marriage be declared null and void RTC
granted the petition. The OSG argued that the reliance of the RTC on the findings and
conclusions of Dr. Tayag was without merit considering that her psychological
evaluation of Glenda was based only on the information given to her by Gerardo, Oro,
and Viernes.

We agree with the refusal of the CA to give credence and weight to the Report of Dr.
Tayag. As found by the CA, Glenda Moreover, the conclusion of Dr. Tayag that
respondent's psychological incapacity existed early in her life were merely based on the
information provided by Viernes that she and respondent were their father's second
family, and that respondent was very manipulative. Dr. Tayag merely generalized her
explanations as to the reason behind and the extent of respondent's alleged personality
disorder. The CA correctly pointed out that Dr. Tayag's Report failed to explain in detail
how respondent's condition could be characterized as grave, deeply-rooted, and
incurable within the doctrinal context of "psychological incapacity." 
 Buenaventura vs. Buenventura

Facts:
This case was instituted by Petitioner Noel Buenaventura where he stated that he and
his wife, Isabel Lucia Singh Buenaventura, were both psychologically incapacitated to
comply with the essential obligations of marriage. The lower court found that petitioner
was merely under heavy parental pressure to marry, and deceived Private Respondent
Isabel Singh to marry. Buenaventura was unable to relate to his wife, as a husband, and
their son, Javy, as a father. Moreso, he had no inclination to make the marriage work
such that in times of trouble, he’d rather choose to leave his family than reconcile with
his wife.

Issue:
Whether or not, based on the findings of the lower court, the marriage between
Buenaventura and Singh may be declared null and void under Article 36 of the Family
Code, due to the psychological incapacity of the petitioner.

Ruling:
Yes. The Court of Appeals and the trial court considered the acts of the petitioner after
the marriage as proof of his psychological incapacity, and therefore a product of his
incapacity or inability to comply with the essential obligations of marriage. Psychological
incapacity has been defined, as no less than a mental (not 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, as so expressed by Article 68 of the Family Code, include their mutual
obligations to live together, observe love, respect and fidelity and render help and
support. 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.