2 SUPREME COURT

0 REPORTS
ANNOTATED
Santos vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 112019. January 4, 1995. *

LEOUEL SANTOS, petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS AND JULIA

ROSARIO BEDIA-SANTOS, respondents.
Remedial Law; Circular 28–91; Circular 28–91 requires a certification of non-forum shopping.—
The petition should be denied not only because of its non-compliance with Circular 28–91, which requires
a certification of non-forum shopping, but also for its lack of merit.
Civil Law; Family Code; Void and Void able Marriages; Psychological Incapacity; Psychological
incapacity must be characterized by a) gravity, b) juridical antecedence, and c) incurability.—
Justice Sempio-Diy cites with approval the work of Dr. Gerardo Veloso, a former Presiding Judge of the
Metropolitan Marriage Tribunal of the Catholic Archdiocese of Manila (Branch I), who opines that
psychological incapacity must be characterized by (a) gravity, (b) juridical antecedence, and (c)
incurability. The incapacity must be grave or serious such that the party would be incapable of carrying
out the ordinary duties, required in marriage; it must be rooted in the history of the party antedating the
marriage, although the overt manifestations may emerge only after the marriage; and it must be incurable
or, even if it were otherwise, the cure would be beyond the means of the party involved.
Same; Same; Same; Article 36 of the Family Code cannot be taken and construed independently of,
but must stand in conjunction with, existing precepts in our law on marriage.—It should be obvious,
looking at all the foregoing disquisitions, including, and most importantly, the deliberations of the Family
Code Revision Committee itself, that the use of the phrase ‘psychological incapacity” under Article 36 of
the Code has not been meant to comprehend all such possible cases of psychoses as, likewise mentioned
by some ecclesiastical authorities, extremely low intelligence, immaturity, and like circumstances (cited
in Fr. Artemio Baluma’s “Void and Voidable Marriages in the Family Code and their Parallels in Canon
Law,” quoting from the Diagnostic Statistical Manual of Mental Disorder by the American Psychiatric
Association; Edward Hudson’s “Handbook II for Marriage Nullity Cases”). Article 36 of the Family Code
cannot be taken and construed independently of, but must stand in conjunction with, existing precepts
_______________

*
 EN BANC.

21

VOL. 240, 21
JANUARY 4, 1995
Santos vs. Court of
Appeals
in our law on marriages. Thus correlated, “psychological incapacity” should refer to no less than a
mental (not physical) incapacity that causes a party to be truly incognitive of the basic marital covenants
that concomitantly must be assumed and discharged by the parties to the marriage which, as so expressed
by Article 68 of the Family Code, include their mutual obligations to live together, observe love, respect
and fidelity and render help and support.
Same; Same; Same; Same; The intendment of the law has been to confine the meaning of
“psychological incapacity” to the most serious cases of personality disorders clearly demonstrative of an
utter insensibility or inability to give meaning and significance to the marriage.—There is hardly any
doubt that the intendment of the law has been to confine the meaning of “psychological incapacity” to the
most serious cases of personality disorders clearly demonstrative of an utter insensitivity or inability to
give meaning and significance to the marriage. This psychologic condition must exist at the time the
marriage is celebrated. The law does not evidently envision, upon the other hand, an inability of the
spouse to have sexual relations with the other. This conclusion is implicit under Article 54 of the Family
Code which considers children conceived prior to the judicial declaration of nullity of the void marriage
to be “legitimate.”
Same; Same; Same; Same; Other forms of psychoses, if existing at the inception of marriage
merely renders the marriage contract voidable pursuant to Article 46, Family Code.—The other forms of
psychoses, if existing at the inception of marriage, like the state of a party being of unsound mind or
concealment of drug addiction, habitual alcoholism, homosexuality or lesbianism, merely renders the
marriage contract voidable pursuant to Article 46, Family Code. If drug addiction, habitual alcoholism,
lesbianism or homosexuality should occur only during the marriage, they become mere grounds for legal
separation under Article 55 of the Family Code. These provisions of the Code, however, do not
necessarily preclude the possibility of these various circumstances being themselves, depending on the
degree and severity of the disorder, indicia of psychological incapacity.

PADILLA, J., Dissenting Opinion:

Civil Law; Family Code; Void and Voidable Marriages; Psychological Incapacity; Private

respondent has been shown to be psychologically incapacitated to comply with at least one essential
marital obligation, i.e. that of living and cohabiting with her husband.—To my mind, it;is clear that
private respondent has been
22

2 SUPREME
2 COURT REPORTS
ANNOTATED
Santos vs. Court of
Appeals
shown to be psychologically incapacitated to comply with at least one essential marital obligation,
i.e. that of living and cohabiting with her husband, herein petitioner. On the other hand, it has not been
shown that petitioner does not deserve to live and cohabit with his wife, herein private respondent
Same; Same; Same; Same; A spouse’s obligation to live and cohabit with his/her partner in
marriage is a basic ground rule in marriage.—A spouse’s obligation to live and cohabit with his/her
partner in marriage is a basic ground rule in marriage, unless there are overpowering compelling reasons
such as, for instance, an incurable contagious disease on the part of a spouse or cruelty of one partner,
bordering on insanity. There may also be instances when, for economic and practical reasons; husband
and wife have to live separately, but the marital bond between the spouses always remains. Mutual love
and respect for each other would, in such cases, compel the absent spouse to at least have regular contacts
with the other to inform the latter of his/ her condition and whereabouts.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Private respondent Julia Rosario Bedia-Santos has no intention of
cohabiting with petitioner, her husband.—In the present case, it is apparent that private respondent Julia
Rosario Bedia-Santos has no intention of cohabiting with petitioner, her husband, or maintaining contact
with him. In fact, her acts eloquently show that she does not want her husband to know of her
whereabouts and neither has she any intention of living and cohabiting with him.

ROMERO, J., Concurring:

Civil Law; Family Code; Void and Voidable Marriages; Psychological Incapacity; Inherent in the

inclusion of the provision on psychological incapacity was the understanding that every petition for
declaration of nullity based on it should be treated on a case-to-case basis; hence, the absence of a
definition and an enumeration of what constitutes psychological incapacity.—Clearly, by incorporating
what is now Article 36 into the Family Code, the Revision Committee referred to above intended to add
another ground to those already listed in the Civil Code as grounds for nullifying a marriage, thus
expanding or liberalizing the same. Inherent in the inclusion of the provision on psychological incapacity
was the understanding that every petition for declaration of nullity based on it should be treated on a case-
to-case basis; hence, the absence of a definition and an enumeration of what constitutes psychological
incapacity. Moreover, the Committee feared that the giving of examples would limit the applicability of
the provision under the principle of ejusdem generis. But the law requires that the
23

VOL, 240, 23
JANUARY 4, 1995
Santos vs. Court of
Appeals
same be existing at the time of marriage although it be manifested later.
Same; Same; Same; Same; The judge, in interpreting the provision on a case-to-case basis, must
be guided by “experience, the findings of experts and researchers in psychological disciplines, and by
decisions of church tribunals which, although not binding on the civil courts, maybe given persuasive
effect since the provision was taken from Canon Law.”—Admittedly, the provision on psychological
incapacity, just like any other provision of law, is open to abuse. To prevent this, “the court shall order the
prosecuting attorney or fiscal assigned to it to appear on behalf of the State to take steps to prevent
collusion between the parties and to take care that evidence is not fabricated or suppressed.” Moreover,
the judge, in interpreting the provision on a case-to-case basis, must be guided by “experience, the
findings of experts and researchers in psychological disciplines, and by decisions of church tribunals
which, although not binding on the civil courts, may be given persuasive effect since the provision was
taken from Canon Law.”
Same; Same; Same; Same; Article 36 is a recognition of the reality that some marriages, by reason
of the incapacity of one of the contracting parties, fall short of this ideal; thus, the parties are constrained
to find a way of putting an end to their union through some legally-accepted means.—The  constitutional
and statutory provisions on the family will remain the lodestar which our society will hope to achieve
ultimately. Therefore, the inclusion of Article 36 is not to be taken as an abandonment -of the ideal which
we all cherish, If at all, it is a recognition of the reality that some marriages, by reason of the incapacity of
one of the contracting parties, fall short of this ideal; thus, the parties are constrained to find a way of
putting an end to their union through some legally-accepted means.

PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the Court of Appeals.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

     Alexander G. Amor for petitioner.
     Saleto J. Erames for private respondent.

VITUG, J.:

Concededly a highly, if not indeed the most likely, controversial provision introduced by the
Family Code is Article 36 (as amended by E.O. No. 227 dated 17 July 1987), which declares:
24
2 SUPREME COURT
4 REPORTS
ANNOTATED
 Santos vs. Court of Appeals
“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.”
The present petition for review on certiorari, at the instance of Leouel Santos (“Leouel”), brings
into fore the above provision which is now invoked by him. Undaunted by the decisions of the
court a quo  and the Court of Appeals,  Leouel persists in beseeching its application in his attempt
1 2

to have his marriage with herein private respondent, Julia Rosario Bedia-Santos (“Julia”),
declared a nullity.
It was in Iloilo City where Leouel, who then held the rank of First Lieutenant in the
Philippine Army, first met Julia. The meeting proved to be an eventful day for Leouel and Julia.
On 20 September 1986, the two exchanged vows before Municipal Trial Court Judge Cornelio
G. Lazaro of Iloilo City, followed, shortly thereafter, by a church wedding. Leouel and Julia
lived with the latter’s parents at the J. Bedia Compound, La Paz, Iloilo City, On 18 July 18 July
1987, Julia gave birth to a baby boy, and he was christened Leouel Santos, Jr. The ecstasy,
however, did not last long. It was bound to happen, Leouel averred, because of the frequent
interference by Julia’s parents into the young spouses’ family affairs. Occasionally, the couple
would also start a “quarrel” over a number of other things, like when and where the couple
should start living independently from Julia’s parents or whenever Julia would express
resentment on Leouel’s spending a few days with his own parents.
On 18 May 1988, Julia finally left for the United States of America to work as a nurse despite
Leouel’s pleas to so dissuade her, Seven months after her departure, or on 01 January 1989. Julia
called up Leouel for the first time by long distance telephone. She promised to return home upon
the expiration of her contract in July 1989. She never did. When Leouel got a chance to visit the
United States, where he underwent a training program under
_______________

 Per Judge Enrique Garrovillo.

1

 Penned by Justice Jainal Rasul, concurred in by Justices Pedro Ramirez and Ramon Mabutas, Jr.
2

25
VOL. 240, JANUARY 4, 25
1995
Santos vs. Court of Appeals
the auspices of the Armed Forces of the Philippines from 10 April up to 25 August 1990, he
desperately tried to locate, or to somehow get in touch with, Julia but all his efforts were of no
avail,
Having failed to get Julia to somehow come home, Leouel filed with the Regional Trial Court
of Negros Oriental, Branch 30, a complaint for “Voiding of Marriage Under Article 36 of the
Family Code” (docketed, Civil Case No. 9814). Summons was served by publication in a
newspaper of general circulation in Negros Oriental.
On 31 May 1991, respondent Julia, in her answer (through counsel), opposed the complaint
and denied its allegations, claiming, in main, that it was the petitioner who had, in fact, been
irresponsible and incompetent.
A possible collusion between the parties to obtain a decree of nullity of their marriage was
ruled out by the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor (in its report to the court).
 On 25 October 1991, after pre-trial conferences had repeatedly been
set, albeit unsuccessfully, by the court, Julia ultimately filed a manifestation, stating that she
would neither appear nor submit evidence.
On 06 November 1991, the court a quo finally dismissed the complaint for lack of merit. 3

Leouel appealed to the Court of Appeals. The latter affirmed the decision of the trial court. 4

The petition should be denied not only because of its noncompliance with Circular 28–91,
which requires a certification of non-forum shopping, but also for its lack of merit.
Leouel argues that the failure of Julia to return home, or at the very least to communicate with
him, for more than five years are circumstances that clearly show her being psychologically
incapacitated to enter into married life. In his own words, Leouel asserts:
“x x x (T)here is no love, there is no affection for (him) because respondent Julia Rosario Bedia-Santos
failed all these years to communicate with the petitioner. A wife who does not care to inform
_______________

 Rollo, 37–42.
3

 Rollo, 13–18.
4

26
2 SUPREME COURT
6 REPORTS
ANNOTATED
Santos vs. Court of Appeals
her husband about her whereabouts for a period of five years, more or less, is psychologically
incapacitated to comply with the essential marital obligations of marriage. Respondent Julia Rosario
Bedia-Santos is one such wife.”
The Family Code did not define the term “psychological incapacity.” The deliberations during
the sessions of the Family Code Revision Committee, which has drafted the Code, can, however,
provide an insight on the import of the provision.
“‘Article 35—The following marriages shall be void from the beginning:
‘xxx     xxx     xxx.
‘Article 36—x x x
‘(7) Those marriages contracted by any party who, at the time of the celebration, was wanting in the sufficient
use of reason or judgment to understand the essential nature of marriage or was psychologically or mentally
incapacitated to discharge the essential marital obligations, even if such lack of incapacity is made manifest after the
celebration.’

“On subparagraph (7), which as lifted from the Canon Law, Justice (Jose B.L.) Reyes suggested that
they say ‘wanting in sufficient use’ instead of ‘wanting in the sufficient use/ but Justice (Eduardo)
Caguioa preferred to say ‘wanting in the sufficient use.’ On the other hand, Justice Reyes proposed that
they say ‘wanting in sufficient reason.’ Justice Caguioa, however, pointed out that the idea is that one is
not lacking in, judgment but that he is lacking in the exercise of judgment. He added that lack of
judgment would make the marriage voidable. Judge (Alicia Sempio-) Diy remarked that lack of judgment
is more serious than insufficient use of judgment and yet the latter would make the marriage null and void
and the former only voidable. Justice Caguioa suggested that subparagraph (7) be modified to read:
"That contracted by any party who, at the time of the celebration, was psychologically or mentally incapacitated to
discharge the essential marital obligations, even if such lack or incapacity is made manifest after the celebration.’

“Justice Caguioa explained that the phrase ‘was wanting in sufficient use of reason or judgment to
understand the essential nature of marriage’ refers to defects in the mental faculties vitiating consent,
which is not the idea in subparagraph (7), but lack of appreciation of one’s marital obligations.
 27
VOL. 240, JANUARY 4, 27
1995
Santos vs. Court of Appeals
“Judge Diy raised the question: Since ‘insanity’ is also a psychological or mental incapacity, why is
‘insanity’ only a ground for annulment and not for declaration of nullity? In reply, Justice Caguioa
explained that in insanity, there is the appearance of consent, which is the reason why it is a ground for
voidable marriages, while subparagraph (7) does not refer to consent but to the very essence of marital
obligations.
“Prof. (Araceli) Baviera suggested that, in subparagraph (7), the word ‘mentally’ be deleted, with
which Justice Caguioa concurred. Judge Diy, however, preferred to retain the word ‘mentally.’
“Justice Caguioa remarked that subparagraph (7) refers to psychological Impotence. Justice (Ricardo)
Puno stated that sometimes a person may be psychologically impotent with one but not with another.
Justice (Leonor Ines-) Luciano said that it is called selective impotency.
“Dean (Fortunato) Gupit stated that the confusion lies in the fact that in inserting the Canon Law
annulment in the Family Code, the Committee used a language which describes a ground for voidable
marriages under the Civil Code. Justice Caguioa added that in Canon Law, there are no voidable
marriages. Dean Gupit said that this is precisely the reason why they should make a distinction,
“Justice Puno remarked that in Canon Law, the defects in marriage cannot be cured.
“Justice Reyes pointed out that the problem is: Why is ‘insanity’ a ground for voidable marriage,
while  psychological or mental incapacity’ is a ground for void ab initio marriages? In reply, Justice
‘

Caguioa explained that insanity is curable and there are lucid intervals, while psychological incapacity is
not.
“On another point, Justice Puno suggested that the phrase ‘even if such lack or incapacity is made
manifest  be modified to read ‘even if such lack or incapacity becomes manifest.’
’

“Justice Reyes remarked that in insanity, at the time of the marriage, it is not apparent.
“Justice Caguioa stated that there are two interpretations of the phrase, ‘psychologically or mentally
incapacitated'—in the first one, there is vitiation of consent because one does not know all the
consequences of the marriages, and if he had known these completely, he might not have consented to the
marriage.
“x x x      x x x      x x x
“Prof. Bautista stated that he is in favor of making psychological incapacity a ground for voidable
marriages since otherwise it will encourage one who really understood the consequences of marriage to
claim that he did not and to make excuses for invalidating the marriage by acting as if he did not
understand the obligations of marriage. Dean Gupit added that it is a loose way of providing for divorce,
“x x x      x x x      x x x
28
2 SUPREME COURT
8 REPORTS
ANNOTATED
Santos vs. Court of Appeals
“Justice Caguioa explained that his point is that in the case of incapacity by reason of defects in the
mental faculties, which is less than insanity, there is a defect in consent and, therefore, it is clear that it
should be a ground for voidable marriage because there is the appearance of consent and it is capable of
convalidation for the simple reason that there are lucid intervals and there are cases when the insanity is
curable. He emphasized that psychological incapacity does not refer to mental faculties and has nothing to
do with consent; it refers to obligations attendant to marriage.
“x x x      x x x      x x x
 “On psychological incapacity, Prof. (Flerida Ruth P.) Romero inquired if they do not consider it as
going to the very essence of consent, She asked if they are really removing it from consent. In reply,
Justice Caguioa explained that, ultimately, consent in general is affected but he stressed that his point is
that it is not principally a vitiation of consent since there is a valid consent. He objected to the lumping
together of the validity of the marriage celebration and the obligations attendant to marriage, which are
completely different from each other, because they require a different capacity, which is eighteen years of
age, for marriage but in contract, it is different. Justice Puno, however,, felt that psychological incapacity
is still a kind of vice of consent and that it should not be classified as a voidable marriage which is
incapable of convalidation; it should be convalidated but there should be no prescription. In other words,
as long as the defect has not been cured, there is always a right to annul the marriage and if the defect has
been really cured, it should be a defense in the action for annulment so that when the action for annulment
is instituted, the issue can be raised that actually, although one might have been psychologically
incapacitated, at the time the action is brought, it is no longer true that he has no concept of the
consequence of marriage.
“Prof. (Esteban) Bautista raised the question: Will not cohabitation be a defense? In response, Justice
Puno stated that even the bearing of children and cohabitation should not be a sign that psychological
incapacity has been cured.
“Prof. (Romero) opined that psychological incapacity is still insanity of a lesser degree. Justice
Luciano suggested that they invite a psychiatrist, who is the expert on this matter, Justice Caguioa,
however, reiterated that psychological incapacity is not a defect in the mind but in the understanding of
the consequences of marriage, and therefore, a psychiatrist will not be a help.
“Prof. Bautista stated that, in the same manner that there is a lucid interval in insanity, there are also
momentary periods when there is an understanding of the consequences of marriage; Justice Reyes and
Dean Gupit remarked that the ground of psychological incapacity will
29
VOL. 240, JANUARY 4, 29
1995
Santos vs. Court of Appeals
not apply if the marriage was contracted at the time when there is understanding of the consequence of
marriage.5

“x x x      x x x      x x x
“Judge Diy proposed that they include physical incapacity to copulate among the grounds for void
marriages, Justice Reyes commented that in some instances the impotence is only temporary and only
with respect to a particular person. Judge Diy stated that they can specify that it is incurable. Justice
Caguioa remarked that the term ‘incurable’ has a different meaning in law and in medicine. Judge Diy
stated that ‘psychological incapacity’ can also be cured. Justice Caguioa, however, pointed out that
‘psychological incapacity’ is incurable.
“Justice Puno observed that under the present draft provision, it is enough to show that at the time of
the celebration of the marriage, one was psychologically incapacitated so that later on if already he can
comply with the essential marital obligations, the marriage is still void ab initio. Justice Caguioa
explained that since in divorce, the psychological incapacity may occur after the marriage, in void
marriages, it has to be at the time of the celebration of marriage. He, however, stressed that the idea in the
provision is that at the time of the celebration of the marriage, one is psychologically incapacitated to
comply with the essential marital obligations, which incapacity continues and later becomes manifest.
“Justice Puno and Judge Diy, however, pointed out that it is possible that after the marriage, one’s
psychological incapacity becomes manifest but later on he is cured. Justice Reyes and Justice Caguioa
opined that the remedy in this case is to allow him to remarry. 6

“x x x      x x x      x x x
“Justice Puno formulated the next Article as follows:
“ ‘Article 37. A marriage contracted by any party who, at the time of the celebration, was psychologically
incapacitated, to comply with the essential obligations of marriage shall likewise be void from the beginning even if
such incapacity becomes manifest after its solemnization.’

“Justice Caguioa suggested that ‘even if be substituted with ‘although’ On the other hand, Prof.
Bautista proposed that the clause ‘although such incapacity becomes manifest after its solemnization’ be
deleted since it may encourage one to create the manifestation of
_______________

 Deliberations of the Family Code Revision Committee, July 26, 1986.

5

 Deliberations of the Family Code Revision Committee, August 2,1986.

6

30
3 SUPREME COURT
0 REPORTS
ANNOTATED
Santos vs. Court of Appeals
psychological incapacity Justice Caguioa pointed out that, as in other provisions, they cannot argue on the
basis of abuse,
“Judge Diy suggested that they also include mental and physical incapacities, which are lesser in
degree than psychological incapacity. Justice Caguioa explained that mental and physical incapacities are
vices of consent while psychological incapacity is not a species of vice of consent.
“Dean Gupit read what Bishop Cruz said on the matter in the minutes of their February 9, 1984
meeting:
“‘On the’ third ground, Bishop Cruz indicated that the phrase ‘psychological or mental impotence’ is an invention of
some churchmen who are moralists but not canonists, that is why it is considered a weak phrase. He said that the
Code of Canon Law would rather express it as ‘psychological or mental incapacity to discharge. . .’

“Justice Caguioa remarked that they deleted the word ‘mental’ precisely to distinguish it from vice of
consent. He explained that ‘psychological incapacity’ refers to lack of understanding of the essential
obligations of marriage,
“Justice Puno reminded the members that, at the last meeting, they have decided not to go into the
classification of ‘psychological incapacity’ because there was a lot of debate on it and that this is
precisely the reason why they classified it as a special case.
“At this point, Justice Puno remarked that, since there have been annulments of marriages arising
from psychological incapacity, Civil Law should not reconcile with Canon Law because it is a new
ground even under Canon Law.
“Prof. Romero raised the question: With this common provision in Civil Law and in Canon Law, are
they going to have a provision in the Family Code to the effect that marriages annulled or declared void
by the church on the ground of psychological incapacity is automatically annulled in Civil Law? The
other members replied negatively.
“Justice Puno and Prof. Romero inquired if Article 37 should be retroactive or prospective in
application,
“Judge Diy opined that she was for its retroactivity because it is their answer to the problem of church
annulments of marriages, which are still valid under the Civil Law. On the other hand, Justice Reyes and
Justice Puno were concerned about the avalanche of cases.
“Dean Gupit suggested that they put the issue to a vote, which the Committee approved.
“The members voted as follows:

1. “(1)Justice Reyes, Justice Puno and Prof. Romero were for prospectivity.

31
VOL. 240, JANUARY 4, 31
1995
Santos vs. Court of Appeals

1. “(2)Justice Caguioa, Judge Diy, Dean Gupit, Prof. Bautista and Director Eufemio were for
retroactivity.
2. “(3)Prof. Baviera abstained.

“Justice Caguioa suggested that they put in the prescriptive period of ten years within which the action
for declaration of nullity of the marriage should be filed in court. The Committee approved the
suggestion. 7

It could well be that, in sum, the Family Code Revision Committee in ultimately deciding to
adopt the provision with less specificity than expected, has, in fact, so designed the law as to
allow some resiliency in its application. Mme. Justice Alicia V. Sempio-Diy, a member of the
Code Committee, has been quoted by Mr. Justice Josue N. Bellosillo in Salita vs. Hon. Magtolis
(G.R. No. 106429, 13 June 1984); thus: 8

“The Committee did not give any examples of psychological incapacity for fear that the giving of
examples would limit the applicability of the provision under the principle of ejusdem generis. Rather, the
Committee would like the judge to interpret the provision on a case-to-case basis, guided by experience,
the findings of experts and researchers in psychological disciplines, and by decisions of church tribunals
which, although not binding on the civil courts, may be given persuasive effect since the provision was
taken from Canon Law.
A part of the provision is similar to Canon 1095 of the New Code of Canon Law,  which reads: 9

_______________

 Deliberations of the Family Code Revision Committee, August 9, 1986.

7

 In her “Handbook on the Family Code.”

8

 Marriage in Canon Law, Delaware: Michael Glazier, Inc., 1986, 129–130.

9

C 1095
Sunt incapaces matrimonii contrahendi;

1. 1.qui sufficiente rationis usu carent;

2. 2.qui laborant gravi defectu discretionis iudicii circa iura a et official matrimonialia essentialia mutuo tradenda et acceptanda;
3. 3.qui ob causas naturae psychicae obligationes matrimonii essentiales assumere non valent

32
3 SUPREME COURT
2 REPORTS
ANNOTATED
Santos vs. Court of Appeals
“Canon 1095. They are incapable of contracting marriage;

1. 1.who lack sufficient use of reason;

2. 2.who suffer from a grave defect of discretion of judgment concerning essential matrimonial
rights and duties, to be given and accepted mutually;
3. 3.who for causes of psychological nature are unable to assume the essential obligations of
marriage.” (Italics supplied.)
Accordingly, although neither decisive nor even perhaps all that persuasive for having no
juridical or secular effect, the jurisprudence under Canon Law prevailing at the time of the
code’s enactment, nevertheless, cannot be dismissed as impertinent for its value as an aid, at
least, to the interpretation or construction of the codal provision.
One author, Ladislas Orsy, S.J., in his treatise,  giving an account on how the third paragraph
10

of Canon 1095 has been framed, states:

“The history of the drafting of this canon does not leave any doubt that the legislator intended, indeed, to
broaden the rule. A strict and narrow norm was proposed first:
Those who cannot assume the essential obligations of marriage because of a grave psycho-sexual
anomaly (ob gravem anomaliam psychosexualem) are unable to contract marriage (cf. SCH/1975, canon
297, a new canon, novus);
then a broader one followed:
‘. . .because of a grave psychological anomaly (ob gravem anomaliam psychicam) . . .’ (cf. SCH/1980,
canon 1049);
then the same wording was retained in the text submitted to the pope (cf. SCH/1982, canon 1095,
3);
finally, a new version was promulgated:
‘because of causes of a psychological nature (ob causas naturae psychiae).’
“So the progress was from psycho-sexual to psychological anomaly, then the term anomaly was
altogether eliminated. It would be, however, incorrect to draw the conclusion that the cause of the
incapacity need not be some kind of psychological disorder; after all, normal and
_______________

 Ibid., 131–132.
10

33
VOL. 240, JANUARY 4, 33
1995
Santos vs. Court of Appeals
healthy person should be able to assume the ordinary obligations of marriage.”
Fr. Orsy concedes that the term “psychological incapacity” defies any precise definition since
psychological causes can be of an infinite variety.
In a book, entitled “Canons and Commentaries on Marriage,” written by Ignatius Gramunt,
Javier Hervada and LeRoy Wauck, the following explanation appears:
“This incapacity consists of the following: (a) a true inability to commit oneself to the essentials of
marriage. Some psychosexual disorders and other disorders of personality can be the psychic cause of this
defect, which is here described in legal terms. This particular type of incapacity consists of a real inability
to render what is due by the contract. This could be compared to the incapacity of a farmer to enter a
binding contract to deliver the crops which he cannot possibly reap; (b) this inability to commit oneself
must refer to the essential obligations of marriage: the conjugal act, the community of life and love, the
rendering of mutual help, the procreation and education of offspring; (c) the inability must be tantamount
to a psychological abnormality. The mere difficulty of assuming these obligations, which could be
overcome by normal effort, obviously does not constitute incapacity. The canon contemplates a true
psychological disorder which incapacitates a person from giving what is due (cf. John Paul II, Address to
R. Rota, Feb. 5, 1987). However, if the marriage is to be declared invalid under this incapacity, it must be
proved not only that the person is afflicted by a psychological defect, but that the defect  did in
fact deprive the person, at the moment of giving consent, of the ability to assume the essential duties of
marriage and consequently of the possibility of being bound by these duties.”
Justice Sempio-Diy  cites with approval the work of Dr. Gerardo Veloso. a former Presiding
11

Judge of the Metropolitan Marriage Tribunal of the Catholic Archdiocese of Manila (Branch I),
who opines that psychological incapacity must be characterized by (a) gravity (b) juridical
antecedence, and (c) incurability. The incapacity must be grave or serious such that the party
would be incapable of carrying out the ordinary duties required in marriage;
_______________

 Handbook on the Family Code, First Edition, 1988.

11

34
3 SUPREME COURT
4 REPORTS
ANNOTATED
Santos vs. Court of Appeals
it must be rooted in the history of the party antedating the marriage. although the overt
manifestations may emerge only after the marriage; and it must be incurable or, even if it were
otherwise, the cure would be beyond the means of the party involved.
It should be obvious, looking at all the foregoing disquisitions, including, and most
importantly, the deliberations of the Family Code Revision Committee itself, that the use of the
phrase “psychological incapacity” under Article 36 of the Code has not been meant to
comprehend all such possible cases of psychoses as, likewise mentioned by some ecclesiastical
authorities, extremely low intelligence, immaturity, and like circumstances (cited in Fr. Artemio
Balumad’s “Void and Voidable Marriages in the Family Code and their Parallels in Canon Law,”
quoting from the Diagnostic Statistical Manual of Mental Disorder by the American Psychiatric
Association; Edward Hudson’s “Handbook II for Marriage Nullity Cases”). Article 36 of the
Family Code cannot be taken and construed independently of, but must stand in conjunction
with, existing precepts in our law on marriage. Thus correlated, “psychological incapacity”
should refer to no less than a mental (not physical) incapacity that causes a party to be truly
incognitive of the basic marital covenants that concomitantly must be assumed and discharged
by the parties to the marriage which, as so expressed by Article 68 of the Family Code, include
their mutual obligations to live together, observe love, respect and fidelity and render help and
support. There is hardly any doubt that the intendment of the law has been to confine the
meaning of “psychological incapacity” to the most serious cases of personality disorders clearly
demonstrative of an utter insensitivity or inability to give meaning and significance to the
marriage. This psychologic condition must exist at the time the marriage is celebrated. The law
does not evidently envision, upon the other hand, an inability of the spouse to have sexual
relations with the other. This conclusion is implicit under Article 54 of the Family Code which
considers children conceived prior to the judicial declaration of nullity of the void marriage to be
“legitimate.”
The other forms of psychoses, if existing at the inception of marriage, like the state of a party
being of unsound mind or concealment of drug addiction, habitual alcoholism, homosexuality or
lesbianism, merely renders the marriage contract voidable
35
VOL. 240, JANUARY 4, 35
1995
Santos vs. Court of Appeals
pursuant to Article 46, Family Code. If drug addiction, habitual alcoholism, lesbianism or
homosexuality should occur only during the marriage, they become mere grounds for legal
separation under Article 55 of the Family Code. These provisions of the Code, however, do not
necessarily preclude the possibility of these various circumstances being themselves, depending
on the degree and severity of the disorder, indicia of psychological incapacity.
Until further statutory and jurisprudential parameters are established, every circumstance that
may have some bearing on the degree, extent, and other conditions of that incapacity must, in
every case, be carefully examined and evaluated so that no precipitate and indiscriminate nullity
is peremptorily decreed. The well-considered opinions of psychiatrists, psychologists, and
persons with expertise in psychological disciplines might be helpful or even desirable.
Marriage is not just an adventure but a lifetime commitment. We should continue to be
reminded that innate in our society, then enshrined in our Civil Code, and even now still
indelible in Article 1 of the Family Code, is that—
“Article 1. Marriage is a special contract of permanent union between a man and a woman entered into in
accordance with law for the establishment of conjugal and family life, It is the foundation of the family
and an inviolable social institution whose nature, consequences, and incidents are governed by law and
not subject to stipulation, except that marriage settlements may fix the property relations during the
marriage within the limits provided by this Code.” (Italics supplied.)
Our Constitution is no less emphatic:
“Section 1. The State recognizes the Filipino family as the foundation of the nation. Accordingly, it shall
strengthen its solidarity and actively promote its total development.
“Section 2. Marriage, as an inviolable social institution, is the foundation of the family and shall be
protected by the State.” (Article XV, 1987 Constitution).
The above provisions express so well and so distinctly the basic nucleus of our laws on marriage
and the family, and they are no doubt the tenets we still hold on to.
36
3 SUPREME COURT
6 REPORTS
ANNOTATED
Santos vs. Court of Appeals
The factual settings in the case at bench, in no measure at all, can come close to the standards
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.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
     Narvasa (C.J.), Bidin, Regalado, Davide,
Jr., Bellosillo, Melo, Quiason, Puno, Kapunan and Mendoza, JJ., concur.
     Feliciano, J., On leave.
     Padilla, J., See dissent.
     Romero, J., See separate opinion.
DISSENTING OPINION

PADILLA, J.:
It is difficult to dissent from a well-written and studied opinion as Mr. Justice Vitug’s
ponencia. But, after an extended reflection on the facts of this case, I cannot see my way clear
into holding, as the majority do, that there is no ground for the declaration of nullity of the
marriage between petitioner and private respondent.
To my mind, it is clear that private respondent has been shown to be psychologically
incapacitated to comply with at least one essential marital obligation, i.e., that of living and
cohabiting with her husband, herein petitioner. On the other hand, it has not been shown that
petitioner does not deserve to live and cohabit with his wife, herein private respondent.
There appears to be no disagreement that the term “psychological incapacity” defies precision
in definition. But, as used in Article 36 of the Family Code as a ground for the declaration of
nullity of marriage, the intent of the framers of the Code is evidently to expand and liberalize the
grounds for nullifying a marriage, as well pointed out by Madam Justice Flerida Ruth P. Romero
in her separate opinion in this case.
While it is true that the broad term “psychological incapacity” can open the doors to abuse by
couples who may wish to have an
37
VOL. 240, JANUARY 4, 37
1995
Santos vs. Court of Appeals
easy way out of their marriage, there are, however, enough safeguards against this contingency,
among which, is the intervention by the State, through the public prosecutor, to guard against
collusion between the parties and/or fabrication of evidence.
In the case at bench, it has been abundantly established that private respondent Julia Rosario
Bedia-Santos exhibits specific behavior which, to my mind, shows that she is psychologically
incapacitated to fulfill her essential marital obligations, to wit:

1. a.It took her seven (7) months after she left for the United States to call up her husband.
2. b.Julia promised to return home after her job contract expired in July 1989, but she never
did and neither is there any showing that she informed her husband (herein petitioner) of
her whereabouts in the U.S.A.
3. c.When petitioner went to the United States on a mission for the Philippine Army, he
exerted efforts to “touch base” with Julia; there were no similar efforts on the part of
Julia to do the same.
4. d.When petitioner filed this suit, more than five (5) years had elapsed, without Julia
indicating her plans to rejoin the petitioner or her whereabouts.
5. e.When petitioner filed this case in the trial court, Julia, in her answer, claimed that it is
the former who.has. been irresponsible and incompetent.
6. d.During the trial, Julia waived her right to appear and submit evidence.

A spouse’s obligation to live and cohabit with his/her partner in marriage is a basic ground rule
in marriage, unless there are overpowering compelling reasons such as, for instance, an incurable
contagious disease on the part of a spouse or cruelty of one partner, bordering on insanity. There
may also be instances when, for economic and practical reasons, husband and wife have to live
separately, but the marital bond between the spouses always remains. Mutual love and respect
for each other would, in such cases, compel the absent spouse to at least have regular contacts
with the other to inform the latter of his/her condition and whereabouts.
 38
3 SUPREME COURT
8 REPORTS
ANNOTATED
Santos vs. Court of Appeals
In the present case, it is apparent that private respondent Julia Rosario Bedia-Santos has no
intention of cohabiting with petitioner, her husband, or maintaining contact with him. In fact, her
acts eloquently show that she does not want her husband to know of her whereabouts and neither
has she any intention of living and cohabiting with him.
To me there appears to be, on the part of private respondent, an unmistakable indication of
psychological incapacity to comply with her essential marital obligations, although these
indications we made manifest after the celebration of the marriage.
It would be great injustice, I believe, to petitioner for this Court to give a much too restrictive
interpretation of the law and compel the petitioner to continue to be married to a wife who for
purposes of fulfilling her marital duties has, for all practical purposes, ceased to exist.
Besides, there are public policy considerations involved in the ruling the Court makes today.
Is it not, in effect, directly or indirectly, facilitating the transformation of petitioner into a
“habitual tryster” or one forced to maintain illicit relations with another woman or women with
emerging problems of illegitimate children, simply because he is denied by private respondent,
his wife, the companionship and conjugal love which he has sought from her and to which he is
legally entitled?
I do not go as far as to suggest that Art. 36 of the Family Code is a sanction for absolute
divorce but I submit that we should not constrict it to non-recognition of its evident purpose and
thus deny to one like petitioner, an opportunity to turn a new leaf in his life by declaring his
marriage a nullity by reason of his wife’s psychological incapacity to perform an essential
marital obligation.
I therefore vote to GRANT the petition and to DECLARE the marriage between petitioner
Leouel Santos and private respondent Julia Rosario Bedia-Santos VOID on the basis of Article
36 of the Family Code.
SEPARATE OPINION

ROMERO, J., Concurring:

I agree that under the circumstances of the case, petitioner is not entitled to have his marriage
declared a nullity on the ground
39
VOL. 240, JANUARY 4, 39
1995
Santos vs. Court of Appeals
of psychological incapacity of private respondent.
However, as a member of both the Family Law Revision Committee of the Integrated Bar of
the Philippines and the Civil Code Revision Committee of the UP Law Center, I wish to add
some observations. The letter  dated April 15, 1985 of then Judge Alicia V. Sempio-Diy written
1

in behalf of the Family Law and Civil Code Revision Committee to then Assemblywoman
Mercedes Cojuangco-Teodoro traced the background of the inclusion of the present Article 36 in
the Family Code.
“During its early meetings, the Family Law Committee had thought of including a chapter on absolute
divorce in the draft of a new Family Code (Book I of the Civil Code) that it had been tasked by the IBP
and the UP Law Center to prepare. In fact, some members of the Committee were in prepare. In fact,
some members of the Committee were in favor of a no-fault divorce between the spouses after a number
of years of separation, legal or de-facto. Justice J.B.L. Reyes was then requested to prepare a proposal for
an action for dissolution of marriage and the effects thereof based on two grounds: (a) five continuous
years of separation between the spouses, with or without a judicial decree of legal separation, and (b)
whenever a married person would have obtained a decree of absolute divorce in another country.
Actually, such a proposal is one for absolute divorce but called by another name. Later, even the Civil
Code Revision Committee took time to discuss the proposal of Justice Reyes on this matter.
Subsequently, however, when the Civil Code Revision Committee and Family Law Committee started
holding joint meetings on the preparation of the draft of the New Family Code, they agreed and
formulated the definition of marriage as—
‘a special contract of permanent partnership between a man and a woman entered into in accordance with law for the
_______________

1
 Written pursuant to the request of Assemblywoman Mercedes Cojuangco-Teodoro during the March 23, 1985 joint meeting
of the Family Law and Civil Code Revision Committees at the UP Law Center for comments on P.B. 3149 (Pacificador Bill) on
Divorce, P.B. No. 1086 (Monfort and Collantes Bill) on Recognition of Church Annulments of Marriages, P.B. No. 2347 (Sitoy
Bill) on Additional Grounds for Annulment of Marriage and Legal Separation and P.B. No. 1350 (Kalaw Bill) on Equal Rights of
Filipino Women which were pending before her Sub-Committee.

40
4 SUPREME COURT
0 REPORTS
ANNOTATED
Santos vs. Court of Appeals
establishment of conjugal and family life. It is an inviolable social institution whose nature, consequences, and
incidents are governed by law and not subject to stipulation, except that marriage settlements may fix the property
relations during the marriage within the limits provided by law.’

With the above definition, and considering the Christian traditional concept of marriage of the Filipino
people as a permanent, inviolable, indissoluble social institution upon which the family and society are
founded, and also realizing the strong opposition that any provision on absolute divorce would encounter
from the Catholic Church and the Catholic sector of our citizenry to whom the great majority of our
people belong, the two Committees in their joint meetings did not pursue the idea of absolute divorce and
instead opted for an action for judicial declaration of invalidity of marriage based on grounds available
in the Canon Law. It was thought that such an action would not only be an acceptable alternative to
divorce but would also solve the nagging problem of church annulments of marriages on grounds not
recognized by the civil law of the State. Justice Reyes was thus requested to again prepare a draft of
provisions on such action for declaration of invalidity of marriage. Still later, to avoid the overlapping of
provisions on void marriages as found in the present Civil Code and those proposed by Justice Reyes on
judicial declaration of invalidity of marriage on grounds similar to the Canon law, the two Committees
now working as a Joint Committee in the preparation of a New Family Code decided to consolidate the
present provisions on void marriages with the proposals of Justice Reyes. The result was the inclusion of
an additional kind of void marriage in the enumeration of void marriage in the present Civil Code, to wit:
‘(7) Those marriages contracted by any party who, at the time of the celebration, was wanting in the sufficient use of
reason or judgment to understand the essential nature of marriage or was psychologically or mentally incapacitated
to discharge the essential marital obligations, even if such lack or incapacity is made manifest after the celebration. ’

as well as the following implementing provisions:

‘Art. 32. The absolute nullity of a marriage may be invoked or pleaded only on the basis of a final judgment
declaring the marriage void, without prejudice to the provision of Article 34.'
‘Art. 33. The action or defense for the declaration of the absolute nullity of a marriage shall not prescribe/
x x x      x x x      x x x
41
VOL. 240, JANUARY 4, 41
1995
Santos vs. Court of Appeals
It is believed that many hopelessly broken marriages in our country today may already be dissolved or
annulled on the grounds proposed by the Joint Committee on declaration of nullity as well as annulment
of marriages, thus rendering an absolute divorce law unnecessary. In fact, during a conference with Father
Gerald Healy of the Ateneo University as well as another meeting with Archbishop Oscar Cruz of the
Archdiocese of Pampanga, the Joint Committee was informed that since Vatican II, the Catholic Church
has been declaring marriages null and void on the ground of lack of due discretion’ for causes that, in
other jurisdictions, would be clear grounds for divorce, like teen-age or premature marriages; marriage to
a man who, because of some personality disorder or disturbance, cannot support a family;; the foolish or
ridiculous choice of a spouse by an otherwise perfectly normal person; marriage to a woman who refuses
to cohabit with her husband or who refuses to have children. Bishop Cruz also informed the Committee
that they have found out in tribunal work that a lot of machismo among husbands are manifestations of
their sociopathic personality anomaly, like inflicting physical violence upon their wives, constitutional
indolence or laziness, drug dependence or addiction, and psychosexual anomaly. x x x. (Italics supplied)
Clearly, by incorporating what is now Article 36 into the Family Code, the Revision Committee
referred to above intended to add another ground to those already listed in the Civil Code as
ground for nullifying a marriage, thus expanding or liberalizing the same. Inherent in the
inclusion of the provision on psychological incapacity was the understanding that every petition
for declaration of nullity based on it should be treated on a caseto-case basis; hence, the absence
of a definition and an enumeration of what constitutes psychological incapacity. Moreover, the
Committee feared that the giving of examples would limit the applicability of the provision
under the principle of ejusdem generis. But the law requires that the same be existing at the time
of marriage although it be manifested later.
Admittedly, the provision on psychological incapacity, just like any other provision of law, is
open to abuse. To prevent this, “the court shall order the prosecuting attorney or fiscal assigned
to it to appear on behalf of the State to take steps to prevent collusion between the parties and to
take care that evidence is not fabricated or suppressed.”  Moreover, the judge, in interpreting
2

_______________

 FAMILY CODE, Art. 48.

2

42
4 SUPREME COURT
2 REPORTS
ANNOTATED
Santos vs. Court of Appeals
the provision on a case-to-case basis, must be guided by “experience, the findings of experts and
researchers in psychological disciplines, and by decisions of church tribunals which, although
not binding on the civil courts, may be given persuasive effect since the provision was taken
from Canon Law.” 3
 The constitutional and statutory provisions on the family  will remain the lodestar which our
4

society will hope to achieve ultimately. Therefore, the inclusion of Article 36 is not to be taken
as an abandonment of the ideal which we all cherish. If at all, it is a recognition of the reality that
some marriages, by reason of the incapacity of one of the contracting parties, fall short of this
ideal; thus, the parties are constrained to find a way of putting an end to their union through
some legally-accepted means.
Any criticism directed at the way that judges have interpreted the provision since its
enactment as to render it easier for unhappily-married couples to separate is addressed, not to the
wisdom of the lawmakers but to the manner by which some members of the Bench have
implemented the provision. These are not interchangeable, each being separate and distinct from
the other.
Petition denied.
Note.—Declaration of nullity of marriage carries ipso facto a judgment for the liquidation of
property, custody and support of children, etc. There is no need of filing a separate civil action
for such purposes. (Domingo vs. Court of Appeals, 226 SCRA 572 [1993])

——o0o——
_______________

 J.A. V. SEMPIO-DIY, HANDBOOK OF THE FAMILY CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES, 37 (1988).

3

 As quoted in the majority opinion.

4