Ochosa v. Alano Corporal Gagarin who also made a similar admission to Jose.

Jose
G.R. No. 167459 drove Bona away from their living quarters. Bona left with Ramona
26 January 2011 and went to Basilan.
Leonardo-De Castro, J: In 1994, Ramona left Bona and came to live with Jose. It is Jose who
FACTS: is currently supporting the needs of Ramona.
Jose met Bona in August 1973 when he was a young lieutenant in Jose filed a Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage, docketed
the AFP while the latter was a seventeen-year-old first year college as Civil Case No. 97-2903 with the RTC of Makati City, Branch 140,
drop-out. They had a whirlwind romance that culminated into sexual seeking to nullify his marriage to Bona on the ground of the latter’s
intimacy and eventual marriage on 27 October 1973 before the psychological incapacity to fulfill the essential obligations of
Honorable Judge Cesar S. Principe in Basilan. marriage.
The couple did not acquire any property. Neither did they incur any The fourth and final witness was Elizabeth E. Rondain, a
debts. Their union produced no offspring. In 1976, however, they psychiatrist,
found an abandoned and neglected one-year-old baby girl whom who testified that after conducting several tests, she reached the
they later registered as their daughter, naming her Ramona Celeste conclusion that respondent was suffering from histrionic personality
Alano Ochosa. disorder.
During their marriage, Jose was often assigned to various parts of The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) submitted its opposition
the Philippine archipelago as an officer in the AFP. Bona did not to
cohabit with him in his posts, preferring to stay in her hometown of the petition on the ground that "the factual settings in the case at
Basilan. Neither did Bona visit him in his areas of assignment, bench, in no measure at all, can come close to the standards
except required to decree a nullity of marriage (Santos v. CA, 240 SCRA 20
in one (1) occasion when Bona stayed with him for four (4) days. [1995])."
In 1987, Jose was charged with rebellion for his alleged participation In a Decision dated 11 January 1999, the trial court granted the
in the failed coup d’etat. He was incarcerated in Camp Crame. petition and nullified the parties’ marriage on the finding that the
It appears that Bona was an unfaithful spouse. Even at the onset of evidence presented Gravity, Antecedence, and Incurability.
their marriage when Jose was assigned in various parts of the The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) appealed the said ruling to
country, she had illicit relations with other men. Bona apparently did the Court of Appeals which sided with the OSG’s contention that the
not change her ways when they lived together at Fort Bonifacio; she trial court erred in granting the petition despite Jose’s abject failure
entertained male visitors in her bedroom whenever Jose was out of to
their living quarters. discharge the burden of proving the alleged psychological incapacity
When Jose could no longer bear these rumors, he got a military pass of his wife, Bona, to comply with the essential marital obligations.
from his jail warden and confronted Bona. Thus, the Court of Appeals reversed and set aside the trial court
During their confrontation, Bona admitted her relationship with Decision in its assailed Decision dated October 11, 2000.
Jose filed a Motion for Reconsideration but this was denied by the against its dissolution and nullity.
Court of Appeals for lack of merit in its assailed Resolution dated (2) The root cause of the psychological incapacity must be
March 10, 2005. (a) medically or clinically identified, (b) alleged in the
Hence, this Petition. complaint, (c) sufficiently proven by experts and (d) clearly
ISSUE/S: explained in the decision. Article 36 of the Family Code
Whether or not Bona should be deemed psychologically requires that the incapacity must be psychological – not
incapacitated to comply with the essential marital obligations. (NO) physical, although its manifestations and/or symptoms may
HELD/RATIO: be physical. The evidence must convince the court that the
The petition for declaration of nullity of marriage which Jose filed in parties, or one of them, was mentally or physically ill to such
the trial court hinges on Article 36 of the Family Code, to wit: an extent that the person could not have known the
• A marriage contracted by any party who, at the time of obligations he was assuming, or knowing them, could not
the celebration, was psychologically incapacitated to have given valid assumption thereof. Expert evidence may
comply with the essential marital obligations of marriage, be given by qualified psychiatrists and clinical psychologists.
shall likewise be void even if such incapacity becomes (3) The incapacity must be proven to be existing at "the time
manifest only after its solemnization. of the celebration" of the marriage. The evidence must show
In the landmark case of Santos v. Court of Appeals, we observed that the illness was existing when the parties exchanged
that psychological incapacity must be characterized by (a) gravity, their "I do’s." The manifestation of the illness need not be
(b) juridical antecedence, and (c) incurability. The incapacity must perceivable at such time, but the illness itself must have
be attached at such moment, or prior thereto.
grave or serious such that the party would be incapable of carrying (4) Such incapacity must also be shown to be medically or
out the ordinary duties required in marriage; it must be rooted in the clinically permanent or incurable. Such incurability may be
history of the party antedating the marriage, although the overt absolute or even relative only in regard to the other spouse,
manifestations may emerge only after marriage; and it must be not necessarily absolutely against everyone of the same sex.
incurable or, even if it were otherwise, the cure would be beyond the (5) Such illness must be grave enough to bring about the
means of the party involved. disability of the party to assume the essential obligations of
Soon after, incorporating the three basic requirements of marriage. Thus, "mild characteriological peculiarities, mood
psychological incapacity as mandated in Santos, we laid down in changes, occasional emotional outburst" cannot be accepted
Republic v. Court of Appeals and Molina the following guidelines in as root causes. The illness must be shown as downright
the interpretation and application of Article 36 of the Family Code: much less ill will.
(1) The burden of proof to show the nullity of the marriage (6) The essential marital obligations must be those
belongs to the plaintiff. Any doubt should be resolved in embraced by Article 68 up to 71 of the Family Code as
favor of the existence and continuation of the marriage and regards the husband and wife as well as Articles 220, 221
and 225 of the same Code in regard to parents and their 220, 221 and 225 of the Family Code.
children. Such non-complied marital obligation(s) must also While we are not insensitive to petitioner’s suffering in view of the
be stated in the petition, proven by evidence and included in truly appalling and shocking behavior of his wife, still, we are bound
the text of the decision. by judicial precedents regarding the evidentiary requirements in
(7) Interpretations given by the National Appellate psychological incapacity cases that must be applied to the present
Matrimonial Tribunal of the Catholic Church in the case.
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. The Solicitor General shall discharge the
equivalent function of the defensor vinculi contemplated
under Canon 1095.9 (Citations omitted.)
In view of the foregoing, the badges of Bona’s alleged psychological
incapacity, i.e., her sexual infidelity and abandonment, can only be
convincingly traced to the period of time after her marriage to Jose
and not to the inception of the said marriage.
We have stressed time and again that Article 36 of the Family Code
is not to be confused with a divorce law that cuts the marital bond at
the time the causes therefore manifest themselves. It refers to a
serious psychological illness afflicting a party even before the
celebration of the marriage. It is a malady so grave and so
permanent as to deprive one of awareness of the duties and
responsibilities of the matrimonial bond one is about to assume.
These marital obligations are those provided under Articles 68 to 71,