Following the exchange of pleadings between the parties, petitioner - *READ THE REPORT OF PSYCHODYNAMICS OF THE CASE”

presented evidence consisting testimony from a psychiatrist, Dr. Cecilia C.

Villegas ; and Maxima Adato, petitioner's co-employee in the distillery in - The report and testimony of Dr. Villegas shows that she link
addition petitioner included the report result that the parties were suffering particular acts of the parties to the DSM IV's list of criteria for the
from personality disorder specific personality disorders but the results made by her where not
supported by any psychological test properly administered by
RTC declared the marriage - null and void as the two were psychologically clinical psychologists specifically trained in the tests use and
incapacitated to comply with the essential marital obligations. (ON THE interpretation.
GROUND ART. 36))
- The said report of Dr. Villegas was made only after maximum of 7
ISSUE: WHETHER OR NOT THE MARRIAGE IS NULL AND VOID ON hours of interview without any separate psychological test cannot tie
THE GROUND THAT BOTH ARE PSYCHOLOGICAL the hands of the trial court and prevent it from making its own
INCAPACITATED UNDER ARTICLE 36? factual finding on what happened in this case.

RULING: No. OSG appealed to CA disagreeing and questioning RTC’s - The probative force of the testimony of an expert does not lie in a
ruling and the said ordered had been reversed and set aside on March 25 mere statement of his theory or opinion
2002
- -instead in the assistance that he can render to the courts in showing
- ruling in Santos v. Court of Appeals cites 3 factors characterizing the facts that serve as a basis for his criterion and the reasons upon
psychological incapacity to perform the essential marital obligations: which the logic of his report is founded.
(1) gravity, (2) juridical antecedence, (3) incurability. We expounded
on the foregoing, to wit: - Petition denied. CA decision affirmed.

- The incapacity must be grave or serious such that the party would be **notes: Hindi puede ung report kahit galling siya sa psychiatrist kasi ung
incapable of carrying out the ordinary duties required in marriage; results na galling sa psychiatrist ay gawa lang sa paguusap nila nung
parties wala kahit anong psychological test na ginawa ung psychiatrist**
- it must be rooted in the history of the party antedating the marriage,
although the overt manifestations may emerge only after the **Bakit bawal? The parties could fake their answer para magresult sila na
marriage; and it must be incurable or, even if it were otherwise, the psychological incapacitated sila**
cure would be beyond the means of the party involved.
**Bakit bawal kahit galling lang na sa psychiatrist: there is possibility that
- It also states in Republic V CA, as the party alleging his own they only contracted the psychiatrist and the psychiatrist did not produce a
psychological incapacity and that of his spouse, had the special results from a psychological test that would help her to establish a good
albatross to prove that he and his wife were suffering from "the most evidence that the parties is psychological incapacitated**
serious cases of personality disorders clearly demonstrative of an
utter insensitivity or inability to give meaning and significance to the
marriage."

- Rather, Petitioner present petitioner presented the Psychiatric Report

of Dr. Villegas
PADILLA RUMBAUA V RUMBAUA the petitioner apparently adverts to is that cited in Uy v. First
PETITIONER: Rowena Padilla-Rambaua Metro Integrated Steel Corporation where we explained:
RESPONDENT: Edward Rumbaua a.  Blunders and mistakes in the conduct of the proceedings
in the trial court as a result of the ignorance,
FACTS: inexperience or incompetence of counsel do not qualify
as a ground for new trial.  If such were to be admitted as
- Respondent and petitioner were childhood neighbors in Dupax del valid reasons for re-opening cases, there would never be
Norte, Nueva Vizcaya. Sometime in 1987, they met again and an end to litigation so long as a new counsel could be
employed to allege and show that the prior counsel had
became sweethearts but Edward’s family did not approve of their
not been sufficiently diligent, experienced or
relationship. After graduation from college in 1991, Edward learned.  This will put a premium on the willful and
promised to marry Rowena as soon as he found a job. The job came intentional commission of errors by counsel, with a view
in 1993, when the Philippine Air Lines (PAL) accepted Edward as a to securing new trials in the event of conviction, or an
computer engineer. Edward proposed to Rowena that they first have adverse decision, as in the instant case.
a “secret marriage” in order not to antagonize his parents. Rowena
agreed; they were married in Manila on February 23, 1993. Rowena 3.  Thus, we find no justifiable reason to grant the petitioner’s
requested remand.
and Edward, however, never lived together; Rowena stayed with her
sister in Fairview, Quezon City, while Edward lived with his parents Petitioner failed to establish the respondent’s psychological incapacity
in Novaliches.
- They saw each other every day during the first 6 months of their - Dr. Tayag’s testimony shows that she initially described the general
a. to  grant a new trial within the period for taking an characteristics of a person suffering from a narcissistic personality
appeal.   disorder, she did not really show how and to what extent the
b. In addition, a motion for new trial may be filed only on respondent exhibited these traits.  She mentioned the buzz words
the grounds of (1) fraud, accident, mistake or excusable
that jurisprudence requires for the nullity of a marriage – namely,
negligence that could not have been guarded against by
ordinary prudence, and by reason of which the aggrieved gravity, incurability, existence at the time of the marriage,
party’s rights have probably been impaired; or (2) newly psychological incapacity relating to marriage – and in her own
discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, the limited way, related these to the medical condition she generally
aggrieved party could not have discovered and produced described.  The testimony, together with her report, however, suffers
at the trial, and that would probably alter the result if from very basic flaws, she was not able to rove that the PI existed at
presented. the time of the celebration of the marriage.
2.  In the present case, the petitioner cites the inadequacy of the WHEREFORE, in view of these considerations, we DENY the petition
evidence presented by her former counsel as basis for a and AFFIRM the decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals dated June
remand.  She did not, however, specify the inadequacy.  That the
25, 2004and January 18, 2005, respectively, in CA-G.R. CV No. 75095.
RTC granted the petition for declaration of nullity prima
facie shows that the petitioner’s counsel had not been negligent
in handling the case. Granting arguendo that the petitioner’s
counsel had been negligent, the negligence that would justify a
new trial must be excusable, i.e. one that ordinary diligence and
prudence could not have guarded against. The negligence that
 the testimonies of three expert witnesses; and consequently to find
that the respondent, if not both parties, were psychologically
incapacitated to perform their respective essential marital obligation.

ISSUE: Whether or not there is psychological incapacity on the part of the

respondent.
VALERIO E. KALAW, Petitioner,
RULING: YES. The Court in granting the Motion for Reconsideration held
vs. MA. ELENA FERNANDEZ, Respondent. that Fernandez was indeed psychologically incapacitated as they relaxed the
previously set forth guidelines with regard to this case.
Facts:
*****Note: Molina guidelines were not abandoned, expert opinions were
- In an earlier decision promulgated by the supreme court, it
just given much respect in this case.****
dismissed the complaint for declaration of nullity of the marriage of
 
the parties upon finding that the petition had no merit.
- Guidelines too rigid, thus relaxed IN THIS CASE
- In the case, the petitioner failed to prove that his wife (respondent) o The Court held that the guidelines set in the case of Republic
suffers from psychological incapacity. He presented the testimonies
v. CA have turned out to be rigid, such that their application
of two supposed expert witnesses who concluded that respondent is
to every instance practically condemned the petitions for
psychologically incapacitated, but the conclusions of these witnesses
declaration of nullity to the fate of certain rejection. But
were premised on the alleged acts or behavior of respondent which
Article 36 of the Family Code must not be so strictly and too
had not been sufficiently proven. Petitioner’s experts heavily relied
literally read and applied given the clear intendment of the
on petitioner’s allegations of respondent’s constant mahjong
drafters to adopt its enacted version of “less specificity”
sessions, visits to the beauty parlor, going out with friends, adultery,
obviously to enable “some resiliency in its application.”
and neglect of their children. Petitioner’s experts opined that
Instead, every court should approach the issue of nullity “not
respondent’s alleged habits, when performed constantly to the
on the basis of a priori assumptions, predilections or
detriment of quality and quantity of time devoted to her duties as
generalizations, but according to its own facts” in
mother and wife, constitute a psychological incapacity in the form of
recognition of the verity that no case would be on “all fours”
NPD.
with the next one in the field of psychological incapacity as a
ground for the nullity of marriage; hence, every “trial judge
- Indeed, the totality of the evidence points to the opposite conclusion. must take pains in examining the factual milieu and the
A fair assessment of the facts would show that respondent was not appellate court must, as much as possible, avoid substituting
totally remiss and incapable of appreciating and performing her its own judgment for that of the trial court.
marital and parental duties
o In the task of ascertaining the presence of psychological
- the Court finds no factual basis for the conclusion of psychological incapacity as a ground for the nullity of marriage, the courts,
incapacity. There is no error in the CA’s reversal of the trial court’s which are concededly not endowed with expertise in the
ruling that there was psychological incapacity. Petition denied field of psychology, must of necessity rely on the opinions
of experts in order to inform themselves on the matter, and
- In his Motion for Reconsideration, the petitioner implores the Court thus enable themselves to arrive at an intelligent and
to take a thorough 2nd look into what constitutes psychological judicious judgment. Indeed, the conditions for the malady of
incapacity; to uphold the findings of the trial court as supported by
 being grave, antecedent and incurable demand the in- appreciation of the evidence showing the psychological
depth diagnosis by experts. incapacity were not to be downplayed but should be
accorded due importance and respect.
- Personal examination by party not required; totality of evidence o The Court considered it improper and unwarranted to give to
must be considered such expert opinions a merely generalized consideration and
treatment, least of all to dismiss their value as inadequate
- We have to stress that the fulfillment of the constitutional mandate basis for the declaration of the nullity of the marriage.
for the State to protect marriage as an inviolable social institution Instead, we hold that said experts sufficiently and
only relates to a valid marriage. No protection can be accorded to a competently described the psychological incapacity of the
marriage that is null and void respondent within the standards of Article 36 of the Family
- ab initio, because such a marriage has no legal existence. marriage. Put in this context, Robert’s testimony cannot be
o There is no requirement for one to be declared disregarded for being self-serving.
psychologically incapacitated to be personally examined by  
a physician, because what is important is the presence of The constitution describes marriage as “inviolable” while the
evidence that adequately establishes the party’s law portrays it as a “permanent union.” Nevertheless, the
psychological incapacity. Hence, “if the totality of evidence state’s interest in any and all marriages entered into by
presented is enough to sustain a finding of psychological individuals should not amount to an unjustified intrusion into
incapacity, then actual medical examination of the person one’s right to autonomy and human dignity.
concerned need not be resorted to.”  
To end, it is a pure and simple cruelty to give the couple a false
o Verily, the totality of the evidence must show a link, medical status considering they now separated and living their own lives.
or the like, between the acts that manifest psychological
incapacity and the psychological disorder itself. If other
evidence showing that a certain condition could possibly LEONILO ANTONIO Petitioner,
result from an assumed state of facts existed in the record, vs. MARIE IVONNE F. REYES, Respondent.
the expert opinion should be admissible and be weighed as
an aid for the court in interpreting such other evidence on the Facts:
causation.
o Indeed, an expert opinion on psychological incapacity  Leonilo Antonio and Marie Reyes met in August 1989 when 26 and
should be considered as conjectural or speculative and 36 years old respectively. They got married a year after. On 8 March
without any probative value only in the absence of other 1993, petitioner filed a petition to have his marriage to respondent
evidence to establish causation. The expert’s findings under declared null and void because of the latter’s psychological
such circumstances would not constitute hearsay that would incapacity. The following are his allegations:
justify their exclusion as evidence.
o (1) She concealed the fact that she previously gave birth to
- Expert opinion considered as decisive evidence as to an illegitimate son and instead introduced the boy as the
psychological and emotional temperaments adopted child of her family.
o (2) She fabricated a story that her brother-in-law, Edwin
o The findings and evaluation by the RTC as the trial court David, attempted to rape and kill her when in fact, no such
deserved credence because it was in the better position to incident occurred.
view and examine the demeanor of the witnesses while they
were testifying. The position and role of the trial judge in the
 o (3) She misrepresented herself as a psychiatrist to her Dr. Antonio Efren Reyes, a psychiatrist, to refute the allegations
obstetrician, Dr. Consuelo Gardiner, and told some of her anent her psychological condition.
friends that she graduated with a degree in psychology, when  Dr. Reyes testified that the series of tests conducted by his assistants
she was neither. led him to conclude that respondent was not psychologically
o (4) She claimed to be a singer or a free-lance voice talent incapacitated to perform the essential marital obligations. He
affiliated with Blackgold Recording Company which is not postulated that regressive behavior, gross neuroticism, psychotic
true. tendencies, and poor control of impulses, which are signs that might
o (5) She invented friends named Babes Santos and Via point to the presence of disabling trends, were not elicited from
Marquez, and under those names, sent lengthy letters to respondent.
petitioner claiming to be from Blackgold and touting her as  RTC ruled in favor of the petitioner. CA reversed RTC’s judgment.
the "number one moneymaker" in the commercial industry Hence, this petition
worth P2 million. Petitioner later found out that respondent
ISSUE: Whether or Not Marie Reyes is psychologically incapacitated
herself was the one who wrote and sent the letters to him.
o (6) She represented herself as a person of greater means, RULING:
thus, she altered her payslip to make it appear that she
earned a higher income. She bought a sala set from a public  Yes, Psychological Incapacity is attendant. The guidelines
market but told petitioner that she acquired it from a famous established in the Molina case is properly established in the case at
furniture dealer. She spent lavishly on unnecessary items and bar.
ended up borrowing money from other people on false  The SC also emphasized what fraud means as contemplated in Art 45
pretexts. (3) of the FC vis a vis Art 46 of the FC. In PI, the misrepresentation
o (7) She exhibited insecurities and jealousies over him to the done by Marie points to her inadequacy to cope with her marital
extent of calling up his officemates to monitor his obligations, kindred to psychological incapacity. In Art 45 (3),
whereabouts. When he could no longer take her unusual marriage may be annulled if the consent of either party was obtained
behavior, he separated from her in August 1991. by fraud, and Article 46 which enumerates the circumstances
 He tried to attempt a reconciliation but since her behavior did not constituting fraud under the previous article, clarifies that “no other
change, he finally left her for good in November 1991. Dr. Lopez, a misrepresentation or deceit as to character, health, rank, fortune or
clinical psychologist, stated based on the tests they conducted that chastity shall constitute such fraud as will give grounds for action for
petitioner was essentially a normal, introspective, shy and the annulment of marriage.”
conservative type of person. On the other hand, they observed that  These provisions of Art 45 (3) and Art 46 cannot be applied in the
respondent’s persistent and constant lying to petitioner was abnormal case at bar because the misrepresentations done by Marie is not
or pathological. considered as fraud but rather such misrepresentations constitute her
 In opposing the petition, respondent claimed that she performed her aberrant behaviour which further constitutes PI. Her
marital obligations by attending to all the needs of her husband. She misrepresentations are not lies sought to vitiate Leo’s consent to
asserted that there was no truth to the allegation that she fabricated marry her. Her misrepresentations are evidence that Marie cannot
stories, told lies and invented personalities. Respondent presented simply distinguish fiction/fantasy from reality which is so grave and
it falls under the fourth guideline laid down in the Molina Case.
  indeed, a person unable to distinguish between fantasy and reality recommended that he be disbarred. The IBP Board of
would similarly be unable to comprehend the legal nature of the Governors adopted such recommendationsRULING:
marital bond, much less its psychic meaning, and the corresponding
obligations attached to marriage, including parenting. One unable to The court held that documents presented by Alfonso during the trial of the
adhere to reality cannot be expected to adhere as well to any legal or case do not in any way show the alleged psychological incapacity of his wife.
emotional commitments The evidence was insufficient and shows grave abuse of discretion bordering
on absurdity. Alfonso testified and complained about three aspects of Leni’s
***NOTES: personality namely lack of attention to children, immaturity, and lack of an
- The petitioner, aside from his own testimony, presented a psychiatrist and clinical
intention of procreative sexuality and none of these three, singly or
psychologist who attested that constant lying and extreme jealousy of Reyes is collectively, constitutes psychological incapacity.
abnormal and pathological and corroborated his allegations on his wife's behavior,
which amounts to psychological incapacity. The law provides that: “Psychological incapacity must be characterized by
(a) juridical antecedence, (b) gravity and (c) incurability.” In the case at bar,
The factual findings of the trial court are deemed binding on the SC, owing to the great weight
accorded to the opinion of the primary trier of facts. As such, it must be considered that
the evidence adduced by respondent merely shows that he and his wife could
respondent had consistently lied about many material aspects as to her character and not get along with each other. There was absolutely no showing of the
personality. Her fantastic ability to invent and fabricate stories and personalities enabled her to gravity or juridical antecedence or incurability of the problems besetting their
live in a world of make-believe. This made her psych STEMMERIK V. MAS marital union.

FACTS: Psychological incapacity must be characterized by gravity, juridical

Stemmerik, a Danish citizen, wanted to buy Philippine property antecedence, and incurability. It must be more than just a difficulty, a refusal
due to its beauty. He consulted Atty Mas about his intention, to which or neglect in the performance of marital obligations. A mere showing of
the latter advised him that he could legally buy such properties. Atty irreconcilable differences and conflicting personalities does not constitute
Mas even suggested a big piece of property that he can buy, assuring psychological incapacity.Furthermore, the testimonial evidence from other
that it is alienable. Because of this, Stemmerik entrusted all of the witnesses failed to identify and prove root cause of the alleged psychological
necessary requirements and made Atty Mas his attorney in fact as he incapacity.
went back to Denmark. After some time, Atty Mas informed
Stemmerik that he found the owner of the big piece of property and It just established that the spouses had an incompatibility or a defect that
stated the price of the property is P3.8M. Stemmerik agreed, giving could possibly be treated or alleviated through psychotherapy. The totality of
Atty Mas the money, and the latter supposedly drawing up the evidence presented was completely insufficient to sustain a finding of
necessary paperwork. psychological incapacity more so without any medical, psychiatric or
- When Stemmerik asked when he could have the property psychological examination
registered in his name, Atty Mas can’t be found. He returned to
the Philippines, employed another lawyer, and to his horror, ***
was informed that aliens couldn’t own Philippine Lands and
that the property was also inalienable. Stemmerik the filed a
DISBARMENT case against Atty MAS in the Commission on
Bar Discipline (CBD) of the IBP. The CBD ruled that Atty
Mas abused the trust and confidence of Stemmerik and