Valerio Kalaw vs Ma. Elena Fernandez 2.

she left the house to party

GR No. 166357 September 19, 2011 with male friends and returned in the
early hours of the following day; and
3. she committed adultery on
Topic: Declaration of nullity of marriage based on
June 9, 1985, which act Tyrone
Psychological Incapacity discovered in flagrante delicto.

Facts:
Petitioner and respondent met in 1973. They maintained Petitioner’s claim
a relationship and eventually married in Hong Kong on He narrated the circumstances of Malyns alleged
November 4, 1976; and had four children. Shortly after infidelity. According to him, on June 9, 1985, he and his
the birth of their youngest son, petitioner had an brother-in-law, Ronald Fernandez (Malyns brother),
extramarital affair with Jocelyn Quejano, who gave birth proceeded to Hyatt Hotel and learned that Malyn was
to a son in March 1983. occupying a room with a certain Benjie Guevarra
(Benjie). When he proceeded to the said room, he saw
In May 1985, respondent left the conjugal home and her Benjie and Malyn inside. At rebuttal, he elaborated that
four children with petitioner. Meanwhile, petitioner Benjie was wearing only a towel around his waist, while
started living with Jocelyn, who bore him three more respondent was lying in bed in her underwear. Petitioner
children. presented a psychologist, and a Catholic canon law
expert to testify on respondent’s psychological
In 1990, petitioner went to the (US) with Jocelyn and incapacity.
their children. He left his four children from his marriage
with respondent in a rented house in Valle Verde with The Dr. explained on the stand that the factual
only a househelp and a driver. The househelp would just allegations regarding respondent’s behavior her sexual
call respondent to take care of the children whenever any infidelity, habitual mahjong playing, and her frequent
of them got sick. Also, in accordance with their custody nights-out with friends may reflect a narcissistic
agreement, the children stayed with respondent on personality disorder (NPD). NPD is present when a
weekends. person is obsessed to meet her wants and needs in utter
disregard of her significant others. Respondent’s NPD is
In 1994, the two elder children asked for respondent’s manifest in her utter neglect of her duties as a mother.
permission to go to Japan for a one-week vacation. She
acceded only to learn later that petitioner brought the The Catholic canon law expert corroborated the doctor’s
children to the US. After just one year, Ria (one of their assessment. He concluded that respondent was
children) returned to the Philippines and chose to live psychologically incapacitated to perform her marital
with Malyn. duties. He explained that her psychological incapacity is
Meanwhile, petitioner and Jocelyns family returned to rooted in her role as the breadwinner of her family. This
the Philippines and resumed physical custody of the two role allegedly inflated her ego to the point that her needs
younger children. According to respondent, from that became priority, while her kids and husbands needs
time on, the children refused to go to her house on became secondary. She is so self-absorbed that she is
weekends because of alleged weekend plans with their incapable of prioritizing her family’s needs.
father.
Respondent’s Claim
On July 6, 1994, nine years since the de facto separation She denied being psychologically incapacitated. While
from his wife, peitioner filed a petition for declaration of she admitted playing mahjong, she denied playing as
nullity of marriage based on Article 36 of the Family frequently as petitioner’s alleged. She maintained that
Code. He claimed that her psychological incapacity was she did so only two to three times a week and always
manifested by her immaturity and irresponsibility between 1 p.m. to 6 p.m. only. And in those instances,
towards him and their children during their co- she always had petitioner’s permission and would often
habitation, as shown by respondent’s following acts: bring the children and their respective yayas with
her. She maintained that she did not neglect her duties as
1. she left the children without mother and wife.
proper care and attention as she played
mahjong all day and all night; She admitted leaving the conjugal home in May
1985. She, however, explained that she did so only to While both parents are financially stable and have
escape her physically abusive husband. On the day she positive relationships with their children, she
left, Tyrone, who preferred to keep Malyn a housewife, recommended that the custody of the minor children be
was upset that Malyn was preparing to go to work. awarded to respondent. Based on the interviews of
family members themselves, respondent was shown to
She denied the allegation of adultery. She maintained be more available to the children and to exercise better
that Benjie only booked a room at the Hyatt Hotel for supervision and care. The social worker commended the
her because she was so drunk after partying with fact that even after respondent left the conjugal home in
friends. She admitted finding her brother Ronald and 1985, she made efforts to visit her children clandestinely
petitioner at the door of the Hyatt Hotel room, but in their respective schools. And while she was only
maintained being fully clothed at that time. granted weekend custody of the children, it appeared that
she made efforts to personally attend to their needs and
As an affirmative defense, she maintained that it was to devote time with them.
petitioner who was suffering from psychological On the contrary, petitioner who had custody of the
incapacity, as manifested by his drug dependence, children since the couples de facto separation, simply
habitual drinking, womanizing, and physical violence. left the children for several years with only a maid and a
driver to care for them while he lived with his second
family abroad.
Childrens’s side
The children all stated that both their parents took care The trial court then declared the parties marriage void ab
of them, provided for their needs, and loved them; initio pursuant to Article 36 of the Family Code.
testified that they would accompany their mother to Malyn appealed the trial courts Decision to the CA. The
White Plains on days that she played mahjong with her CA reversed the trial courts ruling because it is not
friends; none of them reported being neglected or feeling supported by the facts on record. Both parties allegations
abandoned. and incriminations against each other do not support a
finding of psychological incapacity.
The two elder kids remembered the fights between their
parents but it was only Ria who admitted actually
Issue:
witnessing physical abuse inflicted on her mother. The
Whether petitioner has sufficiently proved that
two elder kids also recalled that, after the separation,
respondent suffers from psychological incapacity
their mother would visit them only in school.
Ruling:
Other witnesses
The petition has no merit. The CA committed no
Dr. Cornelio Banaag, Tyrones attending psychiatrist at
reversible error in setting aside the trial courts Decision
the Manila Sanitarium, testified that, for the duration of
for lack of legal and factual basis.
petitioner’s confinement, the couple appeared happy and
the wife was commendable for the support she gave to
her spouse. He likewise testified that petitioner tested
negative for drugs and was not a drug dependent. Psychological incapacity is the downright incapacity or
inability to take cognizance of and to assume the basic
Malyns brother, Ronald Fernandez, confirmed marital obligations. The burden of proving
petitioner’s allegation that they found respondent with psychological incapacity is on the plaintiff. The plaintiff
Benjie in the Hyatt hotel room. Contrary to petitioner’s must prove that the incapacitated party, based on his or
version, he testified that neither he nor petitioner entered her actions or behavior, suffers a serious psychological
the room, but stayed in the hallway. He likewise did not disorder that completely disables him or her from
recall seeing Benjie or respondent half-naked. understanding and discharging the essential obligations
of the marital state. The psychological problem must be
Social worker grave, must have existed at the time of marriage, and
The trial court ordered the court social worker to must be incurable.
conduct a social case study on the parties as well as the
minor children. Given the insufficiency of evidence that respondent
actually engaged in the behaviors described as
constitutive of NPD, there is no basis for concluding that present any proof, other than his own testimony, that the
she was indeed psychologically incapacitated. Indeed, mahjong sessions were so frequent that respondent
the totality of the evidence points to the opposite neglected her family. While he intimated that two of his
conclusion. A fair assessment of the facts would show sons repeated the second grade, he was not able to link
that respondent was not totally remiss and incapable of this episode to respondent’s mahjong-playing.
appreciating and performing her marital and parental
duties. Not once did the children state that they were Also unproven was petitioner’s claim about respondent’s
neglected by their mother. On the contrary, they narrated alleged constant visits to the beauty parlor, going out
that she took care of them, was around when they were with friends, and obsessive need for attention from other
sick, and cooked the food they like. It appears that men. No proof whatsoever was presented to prove her
respondent made real efforts to see and take care of her visits to beauty salons orher frequent partying with
children despite her estrangement from their father. friends. Petitioner presented Mario (an alleged
There was no testimony whatsoever that shows companion of respondent during these nights-out) in
abandonment and neglect of familial duties. order to prove that respondent had affairs with other
men, but Mario only testified that respondent appeared
Kalaw vs Fernandez GR No 166357 January 14, 2015 to be dating other men. Even assuming arguendothat
petitioner was able to prove that respondent had an
Topic: Psychological incapacity extramarital affair with another man, that one instance of
In the case at bar, petitioner failed to prove that his wife sexual infidelity cannot, by itself, be equated with
(respondent) suffers from psychological incapacity. He obsessive need for attention from other men. Sexual
presented the testimonies of two supposed expert infidelity per seis a ground for legal separation, but it
witnesses who concluded that respondent is does not necessarily constitute psychological incapacity.
psychologically incapacitated, but the conclusions of
these witnesses were premised on the alleged acts or Given the insufficiency of evidence that respondent
behavior of respondent which had not been sufficiently
actually engaged in the behaviors described as
proven. Petitioner’s experts heavily relied on petitioner’s
allegations of respondent’s constant mahjong sessions, constitutive of NPD, there is no basis for concluding that
visits to the beauty parlor, going out with friends, she was indeed psychologically incapacitated. Indeed,
adultery, and neglect of their children. Petitioner’s the totality of the evidence points to the opposite
experts opined that respondent’s alleged habits, when conclusion. A fair assessment of the facts would show
performed constantly to the detriment of quality and that respondent was not totally remiss and incapable of
quantity of time devoted to her duties as mother and appreciating and performing her marital and parental
wife, constitute a psychological incapacity in the form of
duties. Not once did the children state that they were
NPD.
neglected by their mother. On the contrary, they narrated
But petitioner’s allegations, which served as the bases or
that she took care of them, was around when they were
underlying premises of the conclusions of his experts,
were not actually proven. In fact, respondent presented sick, and cooked the food they like. It appears that
contrary evidence refuting these allegations of the respondent made real efforts tosee and take care of her
petitioner. children despite her estrangement from their father.
For instance, petitioner alleged that respondent There was no testimony whatsoever that shows
constantly played mahjong and neglected their children abandonment and neglect of familial duties.
as a result. Respondent admittedly played mahjong, but
it was not proven that she engaged in mahjong so Psychological incapacity as a ground for the nullity of
frequently that she neglected her duties as a mother and marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code refers to a
a wife. Respondent refuted petitioner’s allegations that serious psychological illness afflicting a party even prior
she played four to five times a week. She maintained it to the celebration of the marriage that is permanent as to
was only two to three times a week and always with the deprive the party of the awareness of the duties and
permission of her husband and without abandoning her responsibilities of the matrimonial bond he or she was
children at home. The children corroborated this, saying about to assume. Although the Family Code has not
that they were with their mother when she played defined the term psychological incapacity, the Court has
mahjong in their relative’s home. Petitioner did not usually looked up its meaning by reviewing the
deliberations of the sessions of the Family Code assuming, or knowing them, could not have
Revision Committee that had drafted the Family Code in given valid assumption thereof. Although no
order to gain an insight on the provision. It appeared that example of such incapacity need be given here
so as not to limit the application of the provision
the members of the Family Code Revision Committee
under the principle of ejusdem generis,
were not unanimous on the meaning, and in the end they nevertheless such root cause must be identified
decided to adopt the provision "with less specificity than as a psychological illness and its incapacitating
expected" in order to have the law "allow some nature fully explained. Expert evidence may be
resiliency in its application."4 Illustrative of the "less given by qualified psychiatrists and clinical
specificity than expected" has been the omission by the psychologists.
Family Code Revision Committee to give any examples (3) The incapacity must be proven tobe existing
of psychological incapacity that would have limited the at "the time of the celebration" of the marriage.
applicability of the provision conformably with the The evidence must show that the illness was
principle of ejusdem generis, because the Committee existing when the parties exchanged their "I
do’s." The manifestation of the illness need not
desired that the courts should interpret the provision on a
be perceivable at such time, but the illness itself
case-to-case basis, guided by experience, the findings of must have attached at such moment, or prior
experts and researchers in psychological disciplines, and thereto.
the decisions of church tribunals that had persuasive (4) Such incapacity must also be shown to be
effect by virtue of the provision itself having been taken medically or clinically permanent or incurable.
from the Canon Law. Such incurability may be absolute or even
relative only in regard to the other spouse, not
necessarily absolutely against everyone of the
In time, in Republic v. Court of Appeals,8 the Court set same sex. Furthermore, such incapacity must be
some guidelines for the interpretation and application of relevant to the assumption of marriage
Article 36 of the Family Code, as follows: obligations, not necessarily to those not related
(1) The burden of proof to show the nullity of to marriage, like the exercise of a profession or
the marriage belongs to the plaintiff. Any doubt employment in a job. Hence, a pediatrician may
should be resolved in favor of the existence and be effective in diagnosing illnesses of children
continuation of the marriage and against its and prescribing medicine to cure them but may
dissolution and nullity. This is rooted in the fact not be psychologically capacitated to procreate,
that both our Constitution and our laws cherish bear and raise his/her own children as an
the validity of marriage and unity of the family. essential obligation of marriage.
Thus, our Constitution devotes an entire Article (5) Such illness must be grave enough to bring
on the Family, recognizing it "as the foundation about the disability of the party to assume the
of the nation." It decrees marriage as legally essential obligations of marriage. Thus, "mild
"inviolable," thereby protecting it from characteriological peculiarities, mood changes,
dissolution at the whim of the parties. Both the occasional emotional outbursts" cannot be
family and marriage are to be "protected" by the accepted as root causes. The illness must be
state. shown as downright incapacity or inability, not a
The Family Code echoes this constitutional edict refusal, neglect or difficulty, much less ill will.
on marriage and the family and emphasizes their In other words, there is a natal or supervening
permanence, inviolability and solidarity. disabling factor in the person, an adverse
(2) The root cause of the psychological integral element in the personality structure that
incapacity must be (a) medically or clinically effectively incapacitates the person from really
identified, (b) alleged in the complaint, (c) accepting and thereby complying with the
sufficiently proven by experts and (d) clearly obligations essential to marriage.
explained in the decision. Article 36 of the (6) The essential marital obligations must be
Family Code requires that the incapacity must be those embraced by Articles 68 up to 71 of the
psychological — not physical, althoughits Family Code as regards the husband and wife as
manifestations and/or symptoms may be well as Articles 220, 221 and 225 of the same
physical. The evidence must convince the court Code in regard to parents and their children.
that the parties, or one of them, was mentally or Such non-complied marital obligation(s) must
psychically ill to such an extent that the person also be stated in the petition, proven by evidence
could not have known the obligations he was and included in the text of the decision.
 (7) Interpretations given by the National generalizations, but according to its own facts" in
Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal of the Catholic recognition of the verity that no case would be on "all
Church in the Philippines, while not controlling fours" with the next one in the field of psychological
or decisive, should be given great respect by our
incapacity as a ground for the nullity of marriage; hence,
courts. It is clear that Article 36 was taken by the
Family Code Revision Committee from Canon every "trial judge must take pains in examining the
1095 of the New Code of Canon Law, which factual milieu and the appellate court must, asmuch as
became effective in 1983 and which provides: possible, avoid substituting its own judgment for that of
"The following are incapable of contracting the trial court."
marriage: Those who are unable to assume the
essential obligations of marriage due to causes In the task of ascertaining the presence of psychological
of psychological nature." incapacity as a ground for the nullity of marriage, the
Since the purpose of including suchprovision in courts, which are concededly not endowed with
our Family Code is to harmonize our civil laws expertise in the field of psychology, must of necessity
with the religious faith of our people, it stands to rely on the opinions of experts in order to inform
reason that to achieve such harmonization, great themselves on the matter, and thus enable themselves to
persuasive weight should be given to decisions
arrive at an intelligent and judicious judgment. Indeed,
of such appellate tribunal. Ideally — subject to
our law on evidence — whatis decreed as the conditions for the malady of being grave, antecedent
canonically invalid should also be decreed and incurable demand the in-depth diagnosis by experts.
civilly void.
This is one instance where, inview of the evident II. The findings of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) on
source and purpose of the Family Code the existence or non-existence of a party’s psychological
provision, contemporaneous religious incapacity should be final and binding for as long as
interpretation is to be given persuasive effect. such findings and evaluation of the testimonies of
Here, the State and the Church — while witnesses and other evidence are not shown to be clearly
remaining independent, separate and apart from and manifestly erroneous.12 In every situation where the
each other — shall walk together in synodal findings of the trial court are sufficiently supported by
cadence towards the same goal of protecting and the facts and evidence presented during trial, the
cherishing marriage and the family as the appellate court should restrain itself from substituting its
inviolable base of the nation. own judgment.13 It is not enough reason to ignore the
(8) The trial court must order the prosecuting findings and evaluation by the trial court and substitute
attorney or fiscal and the Solicitor General to our own as an appellate tribunal only because the
appear as counsel for the state. No decision shall Constitution and the Family Code regard marriage as an
be handed down unless the Solicitor General inviolable social institution. We have to stress that the
issues a certification, which will be quoted in the fulfilment of the constitutional mandate for the State to
decision, briefly stating therein his reasons for protect marriage as an inviolable social institution14 only
his agreement or opposition, as the case may be, relates to a valid marriage. No protection can be
to the petition. The Solicitor General, along with accordedto a marriage that is null and void ab initio,
the prosecuting attorney, shall submit to the because such a marriage has no legal existence.15
court such certification within fifteen (15) days In declaring a marriage null and void ab initio, therefore,
from the date the case is deemed submitted for the Courts really assiduously defend and promote the
resolution of the court. The Solicitor General sanctity of marriage as an inviolable social institution.
shall discharge the equivalent function of the The foundation of our society is thereby made all the
defensor vinculi contemplated under Canon more strong and solid.
1095.
Here, the findings and evaluation by the RTC as the trial
court deserved credence because it was in the better
The foregoing guidelines have turned out to be rigid, position to view and examine the demeanor of the
such that their application to every instance practically witnesses while they were testifying.16 The position and
condemned the petitions for declaration of nullity to the role of the trial judge in the appreciation of the evidence
showing the psychological incapacity were not to be
fate of certain rejection.
downplayed but should be accorded due importance and
Instead, every court should approach the issue of nullity respect.
"not on the basis of a priori assumptions, predilections or
Admittedly, Dr. Gates based her findings on the
transcript of the petitioner’s testimony, as well as on her evidence.
interviews of the petitioner, his sister Trinidad, and his The psychological grounds are the best approach for
son Miguel. Although her findings would seem to be anyone who doubts whether he or she has a case for an
unilateral under such circumstances, it was not right to annulment on any other terms. A situation that does not
disregard the findings on that basis alone. After all, her fit into any of the more traditional categories often fits
expert opinion took into consideration other factors very easily into the psychological category.
extant in the records, including the own opinions of As new as the psychological grounds are, experts are
another expert who had analyzed the issue from the side already detecting a shift in their use. Whereas originally
of the respondent herself. Moreover, it is already settled the emphasis was on the parties' inability to exercise
that the courts must accord weight to expert testimony proper judgment at the time of the marriage (lack of due
discretion), recent cases seem to be concentrating on the
on the psychological and mental state of the parties in
parties' incapacity to assume or carry out their
cases for the declaration of the nullityof marriages, for responsibilities and obligations as promised (lack of due
by the very nature of Article 36 of the Family Code the competence). An advantage to using the ground of lack
courts, "despite having the primary task and burden of of due competence is that at the time the marriage was
decision-making, must not discount but, instead, must entered into civil divorce and breakup of the family
consider as decisive evidence the expert opinion on the almost always is proof of someone's failure to carry out
marital responsibilities as promised at the time the
psychological and mental temperaments of the parties."
marriage was entered into."

The expert opinion of Dr. Gates was ultimately Hernandez v. Court of Appeals emphasizes the
importance of presenting expert testimony to establish
necessary herein to enable the trial court to properly
the precise cause of a party's psychological incapacity,
determine the issue of psychological incapacity of the and to show that it existed at the inception of the
respondent (if not alsoof the petitioner). Consequently, marriage. And as Marcos v. Marcos asserts, there is no
the lack of personal examination and interview of the requirement that the person to be declared
person diagnosed with personality disorder, like the psychologically incapacitated be personally examined by
respondent, did not per se invalidate the findings of the a physician, if the totality of evidence presented is
experts. The Court has stressed in Marcos v. enough to sustain a finding of psychological incapacity.
Verily, the evidence must show a link, medical or the
Marcos19 that there is no requirement for one to be like, between the acts that manifest psychological
declared psychologically incapacitated to be personally incapacity and the psychological disorder itself.
examined by a physician, because what is important is
Noteworthy is that in Molina, while the majority of the
the presence of evidence that adequately establishes the
Court’s membership concurred in the ponencia of then
party’s psychological incapacity. Hence, "if the totality
Associate Justice (later Chief Justice) Artemio V.
of evidence presented is enough to sustain a finding of
Panganiban, three justices concurred "in the result" and
psychological incapacity, then actual medical
another three--including, as aforesaid, Justice Romero--
examination of the person concerned need not be
took pains to compose their individual separate opinions.
resorted to."
Then Justice Teodoro R. Padilla even emphasized that
Verily, the totality of the evidence must show a link,
"each case must be judged, not on the basis of a priori
medical or the like, between the acts that manifest
assumptions, predilections or generalizations, but
psychological incapacity and the psychological disorder
according to its own facts. In the field of psychological
itself. If other evidence showing that a certain condition
incapacity as a ground for annulment of marriage, it is
could possibly result from an assumed state of facts
trite to say that no case is on ‘all fours’ with another
existed in the record, the expert opinion should be
case. The trial judge must take pains in examining the
admissible and be weighed as an aid for the court in
factual milieu and the appellate court must, as much as
interpreting such other evidence on the
possible, avoid substituting its own judgment for that of
causation.21 Indeed, an expert opinion on psychological
the trial court."
incapacity should be considered as conjectural or
speculative and without any probative value only in the
Lest it be misunderstood, we are not suggesting the
absence of other evidence to establish causation. The
abandonment of Molina in this case. We simply declare
expert’s findings under such circumstances would not
that, as aptly stated by Justice Dante O. Tinga in Antonio
constitute hearsay that would justify their exclusion as
v. Reyes, there is need to emphasize other perspectives
as well which should govern the disposition of petitions decision promulgated on September 19, 2011; and
for declaration of nullity under Article 36. At the risk of REINSTATES the decision rendered by the Regional
being redundant, we reiterate once more the principle Trial Court declaring the marriage between the petitioner
that each case must be judged, not on the basis of a and the respondent on November 4, 1976 as NULL
priori assumptions, predilections or generalizations but AND VOID AB INITIO due to the psychological
according to its own facts. And, to repeat for emphasis, incapacity of the parties pursuant to Article 36 of the
courts should interpret the provision on a case-to-case Family Code.
basis; guided by experience, the findings of experts and
researchers in psychological disciplines, and by
decisions of church tribunals. Roberto Domingo vs CA and Delia Soledad Avera
represented by her Attorney-in-Fact Moises R. Avera
The frequency of the respondent’s mahjong playing GR No 104818 September 17, 1993
should not have delimited our determination of the
presence or absence of psychological incapacity. Instead, Topic: Declaration of Nullity of Marriage and
the determinant should be her obvious failure to fully Separation of Property
appreciate the duties and responsibilities of parenthood
at the time she made her marital vows. Had she fully Facts:
appreciated such duties and responsibilities, she would Soledad Domingo, married with Roberto Domingo in
have known that bringing along her children of very 1976, filed a petition for the declaration of nullity of
tender ages to her mahjong sessions would expose them marriage and separation of property. She did not know
to a culture of gambling and other vices that would erode that Domingo had been previously married to Emerlinda
their moral fiber. dela Paz in 1969. She came to know the previous
marriage when the latter filed a suit of bigamy against
The fact that the respondent brought her children with her.
her to her mahjong sessions did not only point to her
neglect of parental duties, but also manifested her Furthermore, when she came home from Saudi during
tendency to expose them to a culture of gambling. Her her one-month leave from work, she discovered that
willfully exposing her children to the culture of Roberto cohabited with another woman and had been
gambling on every occasion of her mahjong sessions disposing some of her properties which is administered
was a very grave and serious act of subordinating their by Roberto. The latter claims that because their
needs for parenting to the gratification of her own marriage was void ab initio, the declaration of such
personal and escapist desires. voidance is unnecessary and superfluous. On the other
Although the petitioner, as the plaintiff, carried the hand, Soledad insists the declaration of the nullity of
burden to prove the nullity of the marriage, the marriage not for the purpose of remarriage, but in order
respondent, as the defendant spouse, could establish the to provide a basis for the separation and distribution of
psychological incapacity of her husband because she properties acquired during the marriage.
raised the matter in her answer. The courts are justified
in declaring a marriage null and void under Article 36 of Issue:
the Family Code regardless of whether it is the petitioner Whether or not a petition for judicial declaration of a
or the respondent who imputes the psychological void marriage is necessary. If in the affirmative, whether
incapacity to the other as long as the imputation is fully the same should be filed only for purposes of remarriage.
substantiated with proof. Indeed, psychological
incapacity may exist in one party alone or in both of Ruling:
them, and if psychological incapacity of either or both is A declaration of the absolute nullity of a marriage is now
established, the marriage has to be deemed null and explicitly required either as a cause of action or a ground
void. for defense. 14 Where the absolute nullity of a previous
marriage is sought to be invoked for purposes of
WHEREFORE, the Court GRANTS the Motion for contracting a second marriage, the sole basis acceptable
Reconsideration; REVERSES and SETS ASIDE the in law for said projected marriage be free from legal
infirmity is a final judgment declaring the previous jurisdiction to decide the incidental questions regarding
marriage void. the couple's properties.

The Family Law Revision Committee and the Civil

Code Revision Committee 16 which drafted what is now
the Family Code of the Philippines took the position that
parties to a marriage should not be allowed to assume
that their marriage is void even if such be the fact but
must first secure a judicial declaration of the nullity of
their marriage before they can be allowed to marry
again.

In fact, the requirement for a declaration of absolute

nullity of a marriage is also for the protection of the
spouse who, believing that his or her marriage is illegal
and void, marries again. With the judicial declaration of
the nullity of his or her first marriage, the person who
marries again cannot be charged with bigamy.

That Article 40 as finally formulated included the

significant clause denotes that such final judgment
declaring the previous marriage void need not be
obtained only for purposes of remarriage. Undoubtedly,
one can conceive of other instances where a party might
well invoke the absolute nullity of a previous marriage
for purposes other than remarriage, such as in case of an
action for liquidation, partition, distribution and
separation of property between the erstwhile spouses, as
well as an action for the custody and support of their
common children and the delivery of the latters'
presumptive legitimes. In such cases, evidence needs
must be adduced, testimonial or documentary, to prove
the existence of grounds rendering such a previous
marriage an absolute nullity. These need not be limited
solely to an earlier final judgment of a court declaring
such previous marriage void. Hence, in the instance
where a party who has previously contracted a marriage
which remains subsisting desires to enter into another
marriage which is legally unassailable, he is required by
law to prove that the previous one was an absolute
nullity. But this he may do on the basis solely of a final
judgment declaring such previous marriage void.

The Family Code has clearly provided the effects of the

declaration of nullity of marriage, one of which is the
separation of property according to the regime of
property relations governing them. It stands to reason
that the lower court before whom the issue of nullity of a
first marriage is brought is likewise clothed with