ARTICLE 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 its solemnization.

SANTOS VS SANTOS DENIED

 Leouel, a First Lieutenant in the Leouel argues that the failure of Julia to return Article 36 of the Family Code cannot be taken and construed independently of, but must stand
Philippine Army home, or at the very least to communicate with in conjunction with existing precepts in our law on marriage. Thus, Psychological Incapacity
 Wedding, lived with Julia’s him, for more than five years are circumstances should refer to no less than mental(not physical) incapacity that causes a party to be truly
parents that clearly show her being psychologically incognitive of the basic marital covenants that concomitantly must be assumed and discharged
 Couple would start quarrelling incapacitated to enter into married life by the parties to the marriage which as so expressed by Article 68 of the family code, include
over when and where they their marital obligations to live together, observe love and respect and fidelity and render help
should start living and support.
independently from Julia’s
parents and Julia’s sentiment The intendment of the law has been to confide the meaning of PI to the most serious cases of
regarding Leouel’s spending a personality disorders clearly demonstrative of an utter insensitivity or inability to give meaning
few days with his own parents and significance to the marriage.
 Julia went to USA(nurse),
promised to return but she The factual settings in the case at bench, in no measure at all, can come close to the standards
never did required to decree a nullity of marriage. Undeniably and understandably, Leouel stands
aggrieved, even desperate in his present situation. Regrettably, neither law nor society itself can
always provide all the specific answers to every individual problem.

CHI MING TSOI VS CA GRANTED

 Refusal to have carnal Both submitted themselves for medical If a spouse, although physically capable, but simply refuses to perform his/her essential
knowledge (kay gamayg otin. examinations: marriage obligations, and the refusal is senseless and constant, Catholic marriage tribunals
hahahahaha) She is healthy, normal and still a virgin, while attribute the causes to psychological incapacity. Sesnseless and protracted refusal is equivalent
the doctor prescribed medications for her to Psychological Incapacity. Thus, the prolonged refusal of a spouse to have sexual intercourse
husband. with his or her spouse is considered a sign of psychological incapacity.

Plaintiff: husband is impotent and a closet One of the essential marital obligations under the FC is “to procreate children based on the
homosexual, married her to acquire or maintain universal principle that procreation of children through sexual cooperation is the basic end of
his residency status here in the country marriage.” Constant non-fulfillment of his obligation will finally destroy the integrity or
wholeness of the marriage. In the case at bar, the senseless and protracted refusal of one of the
Dr. Alteza Jr: there is no evidence of impotency parties to fulfill the above marital obligation is equivalent to psychological incapacity.
and he is capable of erection, capable of having
sexual intercourse with a woman An ungiven self is an unfulfilled self.

REPUBLIC VS CA AND MOLINA DENIED

 A year after marriage, husband Evidence for herein respondent wife consisted The psychological incapacity must be characterized by
showed signs of immaturity and of her own testimony and that of her friends (a) Gravity
irresponsibility Rosemarie Ventura and Maria Leonora Padilla (b) Juridical antecedence
 Preferred to spend more time as well as of Ruth G. Lalas, a social worker, and (c) incurability
with his peers and friends of Dr. Teresita Hidalgo-Sison, a psychiatrist of
 Squandered money the Baguio General Hospital and Medical Center In the present case, there is no clear showing to us that the psychological defect spoken of is an
 Depended on his parents for aid incapacity. It appears to us to be more of a "difficulty," if not outright "refusal" or "neglect" in
and assistance the performance of some marital obligations. Mere showing of "irreconciliable differences" and
 Intense quarrel, Reynaldo left "conflicting personalities" in no wise constitutes psychological incapacity. It is not enough to
her and their children 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 nor get
along with each other. There had been no showing of the gravity of the problem; neither its
juridical antecedence nor its incurability. The expert testimony of Dr. Sison showed no
incurable psychiatric disorder but only incompatibility, not psychological incapacity.

During its deliberations, the Court decided to go beyond merely ruling on the facts of this
case vis-a-visexisting law and jurisprudence. In view of the novelty of Art. 36 of the Family Code
and the difficulty experienced by many trial courts interpreting and applying it, the Court
decided to invite two amici curiae, namely, the Most Reverend Oscar V. Cruz, Vicar
Judicial (Presiding Judge) of the National Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal of the Catholic Church
in the Philippines, and Justice Ricardo C. Puno, a member of the Family Code Revision
Committee. The Court takes this occasion to thank these friends of the Court for their
informative and interesting discussions during the oral argument on December 3, 1996, which
they followed up with written memoranda.

From their submissions and the Court's own deliberations, 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: (Molina guidelines)

Instant case applied Santos vs CA. Such ruling becomes even more cogent with the use of the
foregoing guidelines.

MARCOS VS MARCOS DENIED

 Failure to engage in any gainful The appellee submitted herself to psychologist The Molina guidelines do not require that a physician examine the person to be declared
employment resulted in Natividad A. Dayan PhD for psychological psychologically incapacitated. In fact, the root cause may be "medically or clinically identified."
quarrelling and as a evaluation, while the appellant on the other What is important is the presence of evidence that can adequately establish the
consequence he would hit and hand, did not. party's psychological condition. For indeed, if the totality of evidence presented is enough to
beat her, force to have sex with sustain a finding of psychological incapacity, then actual medical examination of the person
him, inflict physical harm on In the case study conducted by Social Worker concerned need not be resorted to.
children Sonia C. Millan, the children described their
father as cruel and physically abusive to them The main question, then, is whether the totality of the evidence presented in the present case -
- including the testimonies of petitioner, the common children, petitioner's sister and the social
Testimonies of petitioner, common children, worker -- was enough to sustain a finding that respondent was psychologically incapacitated.
petitioner’s sister and the social worker
We rule in the negative. Although this Court is sufficiently convinced that respondent failed to
Petitioner: the testimonies and the results of provide material support to the family and may have resorted to physical abuse and
various tests that were submitted to determine abandonment, the totality of his acts does not lead to a conclusion of psychological incapacity
respondent's psychological incapacity to on his part. There is absolutely no showing that his "defects" were already present at the
perform the obligations of marriage should not inception of the marriage or that they are incurable.
have been brushed aside by the Court of
Appeals, simply because respondent had not Verily, the behavior of respondent can be attributed to the fact that he had lost his job and was
taken those tests himself. not gainfully employed for a period of more than six years. It was during this period that he
became intermittently drunk, failed to give material and moral support, and even left the family
home.
Thus, his alleged psychological illness was traced only to said period and not to the inception of
the marriage. Equally important, there is no evidence showing that his condition is incurable,
especially now that he is gainfully employed as a taxi driver.
DEDEL VS CA DENIED
 Sharon turned out to be an Petitioner presented Dr. Natividad A. Dayan, In this case, respondent’s sexual infidelity can hardly qualify as being mentally or psychically ill
irresponsible and immature who testified that she conducted a psychological to such an extent that she could not have known the obligations she was assuming, or knowing
wife and mother, extra-marital evaluation of petitioner and found him to be them, could not have given a valid assumption thereof. It appears that respondent’s promiscuity
affairs with several men conscientious, hardworking, diligent, a did not exist prior to or at the inception of the marriage. What is, in fact, disclosed by the records
perfectionist who wants all tasks and projects is a blissful marital union at its celebration, later affirmed in church rites, and which produced
completed up to the final detail and who exerts four children.
his best in whatever he does.
Respondent’s sexual infidelity or perversion and abandonment do not by themselves constitute
On the other hand, Dr. Dayan declared that psychological incapacity within the contemplation of the Family Code. Neither could her
Sharon was suffering from Anti-Social emotional immaturity and irresponsibility be equated with psychological incapacity. It must be
Personality Disorder exhibited by her blatant shown that these acts are manifestations of a disordered personality which make respondent
display of infidelity; that she committed several completely unable to discharge the essential obligations of the marital state, not merely due to
indiscretions and had no capacity for remorse, her youth, immaturity or sexual promiscuity.
even bringing with her the two children of
Mustafa Ibrahim to live with petitioner. Such At best, the circumstances relied upon by petitioner are grounds for legal separation under
immaturity and irresponsibility in handling the Article 55 of the Family Code.
marriage like her repeated acts of infidelity and
abandonment of her family are indications of
Anti-Social Personality Disorder amounting to
psychological incapacity to perform the
essential obligations of marriage.

TENEBRO VS CA BIGAMY CASE 1

 1st: Hilda Villareyes Petitioner argues that this subsequent judicial What petitioner fails to realize is that a declaration of the nullity of the second marriage on the
2nd: Leticia Ancajas (Bigamy) declaration of nullity of the 2nd marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity is of absolutely no moment insofar as the State’s penal laws
3rd: Nilda Villegas ground of Psychological Incapacity retroacts to are concerned.
the date of the celebration of the marriage to
Ancajas. As such, he argues that, since his As a second or subsequent marriage contracted during the subsistence of petitioner’s valid
marriage to Ancajas was subsequently declared marriage to Villareyes, petitioner’s marriage to Ancajas would be null and void ab initio
void ab initio, the crime of bigamy was not completely regardless of petitioner’s psychological capacity or incapacity.
committed
A plain reading of the law, therefore, would indicate that the provision penalizes the mere act
of contracting a second or a subsequent marriage during the subsistence of a valid marriage.
Thus, as soon as the second marriage to Ancajas was celebrated on April 10, 1990, during the
subsistence of the valid first marriage, the crime of bigamy had already been consummated.

There is therefore a recognition written into the law itself that such a marriage, although void
ab initio, may still produce legal consequences. Among these legal consequences is incurring
criminal liability for bigamy.

JARILLO VS CA BIGAMY CASE 2

 Victoria Jarillo and Rafael The subsequent judicial declaration of the nullity of the first marriage was immaterial because
Alcocillo (declared null and void prior to the declaration of nullity, the crime had already been consummated. Moreover,
due to Psychological Incapacity) petitioner’s assertion would only delay the prosecution of bigamy cases considering that an
 Victoria contracted a accused could simply file a petition to declare his previous marriage void and invoke the
subsequent marriage with pendency of that action as a prejudicial question in the criminal case. We cannot allow that.
Emmanuel Uy
 Jarillo was charged with bigamy
 Thus, under the law, a marriage, even one which is void or voidable, shall be deemed valid until
declared otherwise in a judicial proceeding. In this case, even if petitioner eventually obtained
a declaration that his first marriage was void ab initio, the point is, both the first and the second
marriage were subsisting before the first marriage was annulled

However, for humanitarian purposes, and considering that petitioner’s marriage to Alocillo has
after all been declared by final judgment to be void ab initio on account of the latter’s
psychological incapacity, by reason of which, petitioner was subjected to manipulative abuse,
the Court deems it proper to reduce the penalty imposed by the lower courts.

REPUBLIC VS HAMANO DENIED

 She and Toshio started a Petitioner: mere abandonment by Toshio of his We disagree. In proving psychological incapacity, we find no distinction between an alien
common law relationship in family and his insensitivity to them did not spouse and a Filipino spouse. We cannot be lenient in the application of the rules merely
Japan, then got married automatically constitute psychological because the spouse alleged to be psychologically incapacitated happens to be a foreign national.
 One month after marriage, incapacity. His behavior merely indicated The medical and clinical rules to determine psychological incapacity were formulated on the
Toshio returned to Japan and simple inadequacy in the personality of a spouse basis of studies of human behavior in general. Hence, the norms used for determining
promised to return falling short of reasonable expectations. psychological incapacity should apply to any person regardless of nationality.
 After sending money to Respondent failed to prove any severe and
respondent for 2 months, Toshio incurable personality disorder on the part of We find that the totality of evidence presented fell short of proving that Toshio was
stopped giving financial support Toshio, in accordance with the guidelines set psychologically incapacitated to assume his marital responsibilities. Toshio’s act of
 She wrote to him several times in Molina. abandonment was doubtlessly irresponsible but it was never alleged nor proven to be due to
but he never responded, visited some kind of psychological illness. After respondent testified on how Toshio abandoned his
Philippines but he did not Appellate Court: family, no other evidence was presented showing that his behavior was caused by a
bother to see her and their child the requirements in Molina and Santos do not psychological disorder. Although, as a rule, there was no need for an actual medical
apply here because the present case involves a examination, it would have greatly helped respondent’s case had she presented evidence that
"mixed marriage," the husband being a Japanese medically or clinically identified his illness. This could have been done through an expert
national. witness. This respondent did not do.

ANTONIO VS REYES GRANTED

 Pathological liar Petitioner presented Dr. Dante Herrera Abcede We find that the present case sufficiently satisfies the guidelines in Molina.
(Dr. Abcede), a psychiatrist, and Dr. Arnulfo V.
First. Petitioner had sufficiently overcome his burden in proving the psychological incapacity of
Lopez (Dr. Lopez), a clinical psychologist, who his spouse. Apart from his own testimony, he presented witnesses who corroborated his
stated, based on the tests they conducted, that allegations on his wife’s behavior, and certifications from Blackgold Records and the Philippine
petitioner was essentially a normal, Village Hotel Pavillon which disputed respondent’s claims pertinent to her alleged singing
introspective, shy and conservative type of career. He also presented two (2) expert witnesses from the field of psychology who testified
person. On the other hand, they observed that that the aberrant behavior of respondent was tantamount to psychological incapacity. In any
respondent’s persistent and constant lying to event, both courts below considered petitioner’s evidence as credible enough. Even the
petitioner was abnormal or pathological. It appellate court acknowledged that respondent was not totally honest with petitioner.
undermined the basic relationship that should
be based on love, trust and respect. They further Second. The root cause of respondent’s psychological incapacity has been medically or clinically
asserted that respondent’s extreme jealousy identified, alleged in the complaint, sufficiently proven by experts, and clearly explained in the
was also pathological. It reached the point of trial court’s decision. The initiatory complaint alleged that respondent, from the start, had
paranoia since there was no actual basis for her exhibited unusual and abnormal behavior "of peren[n]ially telling lies, fabricating ridiculous
to suspect that petitioner was having an affair stories, and inventing personalities and situations," of writing letters to petitioner using
with another woman. They concluded based on fictitious names, and of lying about her actual occupation, income, educational attainment, and
the foregoing that respondent was family background, among others.
psychologically incapacitated to perform her
essential marital obligations. These allegations, initially characterized in generalities, were further linked to medical or
clinical causes by expert witnesses from the field of psychology. Petitioner presented two (2)
Respondent presented Dr. Antonio Efren Reyes such witnesses in particular. Dr. Abcede, a psychiatrist who had headed the department of
(Dr. Reyes), a psychiatrist, to refute the psychiatry of at least two (2) major hospitals. She practically lived in a world of make believe
allegations anent her psychological condition. making her therefore not in a position to give meaning and significance to her marriage to
Dr. Reyes testified that the series of tests petitioner. In persistently and constantly lying to petitioner, respondent undermined the basic
conducted by his assistant, together with the tenets of relationship between spouses that is based on love, trust and respect. As concluded by
screening procedures and the Comprehensive the psychiatrist presented by petitioner, such repeated lying is abnormal and pathological and
Psycho-Pathological Rating Scale (CPRS) he amounts to psychological incapacity.
himself conducted, led him to conclude that
respondent was not psychologically Third. Respondent’s psychological incapacity was established to have clearly existed at the time
incapacitated to perform the essential marital of and even before the celebration of marriage. She fabricated friends and made up letters from
obligations. fictitious characters well before she married petitioner. Likewise, she kept petitioner in the dark
about her natural child’s real parentage as she only confessed when the latter had found out the
truth after their marriage.

Fourth. 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.

Fifth. 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.

Sixth. 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. 88 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.

We stated earlier that Molina is not set in stone, Seventh. The final point of contention is the requirement in Molina that such psychological
and that the interpretation of Article 36 relies incapacity be shown to be medically or clinically permanent or incurable. It was on this score
heavily on a case-to-case perception. It would be that the Court of Appeals reversed the judgment of the trial court, the appellate court noting
insensate to reason to mandate in this case an that it did not appear certain that respondent’s condition was incurable and that Dr. Abcede did
expert medical or clinical diagnosis of not testify to such effect
incurability, since the parties would have had no
impelling cause to present evidence to that But on careful examination, there was good reason for the experts’ taciturnity on this point.
effect at the time this case was tried by the RTC The petitioner’s expert witnesses testified in 1994 and 1995, and the trial court rendered its
more than ten (10) years ago. From the totality decision on 10 August 1995. These events transpired well before Molina was promulgated in
of the evidence, we are sufficiently convinced 1997 and made explicit the requirement that the psychological incapacity must be shown to be
that the incurability of respondent’s medically or clinically permanent or incurable. Such requirement was not expressly stated in
psychological incapacity has been established Article 36 or any other provision of the Family Code.
by the petitioner.
NAJERA VS NAJERA DENIED
 Respondent was jobless, while Psychologist Cristina R. Gates testified that she As found by the Court of Appeals, Psychologist Cristina Gates’ conclusion that respondent was
employed as a seaman, was interviewed petitioner, but not respondent who psychologically incapacitated was based on facts relayed to her by petitioner and was not based
away from home from 9-10 was abroad. on her personal knowledge and evaluation of respondent; thus, her finding is unscientific and
months each year, quarreled unreliable. Moreover, the trial court correctly found that petitioner failed to prove with
with her, was jealous 1. Respondent is afflicted with psychological certainty that the alleged personality disorder of respondent was incurable.
hang-ups which are rooted in the kind of family
background he has. His mother had an The Court agrees with the Court of Appeals that the evidence presented by petitioner in regard
extramarital affair and separated from to the physical violence or grossly abusive conduct of respondent toward petitioner and
Respondent’s father. This turn of events left an respondent’s abandonment of petitioner without justifiable cause for more than one year are
irreparable mark upon Respondent, gauging grounds for legal separation only and not for annulment of marriage under Article 36 of the
from his alcoholic and marijuana habit. In time, Family Code.
he seemed steep in a kind of a double bind
where he both deeply loved and resented his Petitioner: Court of Appeals failed to consider the Decision of the National Appellate
mother. Matrimonial Tribunal
2. His baseless accusation against his wife and
his violent behavior towards her appears to be Canon 1095. The following are incapable of contracting marriage:
an offshoot of deep-seated feelings and
recurrent thoughts towards his own mother. 1. those who lack sufficient use of reason;
Unable to resolve his childhood conflicts and
anger, he turned to his wife as the scapegoat for 2. those who suffer from a grave lack of discretion of judgment concerning the
all his troubles. essential matrimonial rights and obligations to be mutually given and accepted;

3. Based on the Diagnostic and Statistical 3. those who, because of causes of a psychological nature, are unable to assume the
Manual (DSM IV), Respondent is afflicted with a essential obligations of marriage.
Borderline Personality Disorder as marked by
his pattern of instability in his interpersonal
relationships, his marred self-image and self- It must be pointed out that in this case, the basis of the declaration of nullity of marriage by the
destructive tendencies, his uncontrollable National Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal is not the third paragraph of Canon 1095 which
impulses. Eduardo Najera’s psychological mentions causes of a psychological nature, but the second paragraph of Canon 1095 which
impairment as traced to his parents’ separation, refers to those who suffer from a grave lack of discretion of judgment concerning essential
aggravated by the continued meddling of his matrimonial rights and obligations to be mutually given and accepted.
mother in his adult life, antedates his marriage
to Petitioner Digna Aldana.

4. Psychologist Cristina Gates testified that the

chances of curability of respondent’s
psychological disorder were nil. Its curability
depended on whether the established organic
damage was minimal -- referring to the
malfunction of the composites of the brain
brought about by habitual drinking and
marijuana, which possibly afflicted respondent
with borderline personality disorder and
uncontrollable impulses.
FERRARIS VS FERRARIS DENIED
 Amy Perez case Dr. Dayan: Court of Appeals:
1. Respondent has a mixed personality disorder Dr. Dayan did not explain how she arrived at her diagnosis that respondent has a mixed
called "schizoid," and he is the "dependent and personality disorder called "schizoid," and why he is the "dependent and avoidant type." In fact,
avoidant type." He is dependent on others for Dr. Dayan's statement that one suffering from such mixed personality disorder is dependent on
decision others for decision x x x lacks specificity; it seems to belong to the realm of theoretical
2. Such disorder "can be part of his family speculation. Also, Dr. Dayan's information that respondent had extramarital affairs was
upbringing" supplied by the petitioner herself. Notably, when asked as to the root cause of respondent's
3. She stated that there was a history of alleged psychological incapacity, Dr. Dayan's answer was vague, evasive and inconclusive. She
respondent's parents having difficulties in their replied that such disorder "can be part of his family upbringing" x x x. She stated that there was
relationship. a history of respondent's parents having difficulties in their relationship. But this input on the
supposed problematic history of respondent's parents also came from petitioner. Nor did Dr.
Dayan clearly demonstrate that there was really "a natal or supervening disabling factor" on the
part of respondent, or an "adverse integral element" in respondent's character that effectively
incapacitated him from accepting, and, thereby complying with, the essential marital
obligations.

Filed an MR, denied. Certiorari.

Supreme Court:
We find respondent's alleged mixed personality disorder, the "leaving-the-house" attitude
whenever they quarreled, the violent tendencies during epileptic attacks, the sexual infidelity,
the abandonment and lack of support, and his preference to spend more time with his band
mates than his family, are not rooted on some debilitating psychological condition but a mere
refusal or unwillingness to assume the essential obligations of marriage.

While petitioner's marriage with the respondent failed and appears to be without hope of
reconciliation, the remedy however is not always to have it declared void ab initio on the ground
of psychological incapacity. An unsatisfactory marriage, however, is not a null and void
marriage. No less than the Constitution recognizes the sanctity of marriage and the unity of the
family; it decrees marriage as legally "inviolable" and protects it from dissolution at the whim
of the parties. Both the family and marriage are to be "protected" by the state

PARAS VS PARAS DENIED

 psychological incapacity and To substantiate her charges, Rosa offered Accordingly, one’s unfitness as a lawyer does not automatically mean one’s unfitness as
disbarment (suspended from documentary and testimonial evidence. a husband or vice versa. The yardsticks for such roles are simply different. This is why the
practice of law) disposition in a disbarment case cannot be conclusive on an action for declaration of nullity of
Rosa’s main grounds in seeking the declaration marriage. While Rosa’s charges sufficiently proved Justo’s unfitness as a lawyer, however, they
of nullity of her marriage with Justo are may not establish that he is psychologically incapacitated to perform his duties as a husband. In
his infidelity, profligacy which includes the the disbarment case, "the real question for determination is whether or not the attorney is still
falsification of her signature in one of the loan a fit person to be allowed the privileges as such." Its purpose is "to protect the court and the
documents, failure to support the children, public from the misconduct of officers of the court." On the other hand, in an action for
and abandonment of the family. declaration of nullity of marriage based on the ground of psychological incapacity, the question
for determination is whether the guilty party suffers a grave, incurable, and pre-existing mental
incapacity that renders him truly incognitive of the basic marital covenants. Its purpose is to
free the innocent party from a meaningless marriage. In this case, as will be seen in the following
discussion, Justo’s acts are not sufficient to conclude that he is psychologically incapacitated,
albeit such acts really fall short of what is expected from a lawyer.