PSYCHOLOGICAL INCAPACITY-ARTICLE 36

LEOUEL SANTOS, petitioner, PSYCHOLOGICAL IN CAPACITY ARTICLE 36

vs.THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS AND JULIA ROSARIO
BEDIA-SANTOS, respondents. CHI MING TSOI, petitioner
vs.COURT OF APPEALS and GINA LAO-TSOI, respondents
Digest by: John Dondi Balbuena
Digest by: John Dondi Balbuena

Principle: Principle: “the senseless and protracted refusal of one of the parties to fulfill
psychological incapacity must be characterized by (a) gravity, (b) the above marital obligation is equivalent to psychological incapacity”
juridical antecedence, and (c) incurability
Facts:
On May 22, 1988, the plaintiff married the defendant. After the celebration of
Facts: their marriage and wedding reception at the South Villa, Makati, they went and
On 20 September 1986, Leouel Santos and Julia Santos were proceeded to the house of defendant's mother. There, they slept together on
married. They often quarreled for many reasons. the same bed in the same room for the first night of their married life. There
On 18 May 1988, Julia finally left for the United Sates of America was no sexual intercourse between them during the first night. The same thing
happened on the second, third and fourth nights.
to work as a nurse despite Leouel's pleas to so dissuade her.
Seven months after her departure, or on 01 January 1989, Julia They went to Baguio for a honeymoon for 4 days together with an uncle, his
called up Leouel for the first time by long distance telephone. She mother and his nephew they were all invited by the defendant to join them.
promised to return home upon the expiration of her contract in But, during this period, there was no sexual intercourse between them, since
July 1989. She never did. When Leouel got a chance to visit the the defendant avoided her by taking a long walk during siesta time or by just
United States, where he underwent a training program under the sleeping on a rocking chair located at the living room. They slept together in
the same room and on the same bed since May 22, 1988 until March 15, 1989.
auspices of the Armed Forces of the Philippines from 01 April up But during this period, there was no attempt of sexual intercourse between
to 25 August 1990, he desperately tried to locate, or to somehow them.
get in touch with, Julia but all his efforts were of no avail.
Having failed to get Julia to somehow come home, Leouel filed a They submitted themselves for medical examinations on January 20, 1989. The
complaint for "Voiding of marriage Under Article 36 of the Family results of their physical examinations were that she is healthy, normal and still a
virgin, while that of her husband's examination was kept confidential up to this
Code" Summons was served by publication in a newspaper of time. While no medicine was prescribed for her, the doctor prescribed
general circulation. medications for her husband which was also kept confidential. The doctor found
In this case the court provided that psychological incapacity must out that from the original size of two (2) inches, or five (5) centimeters,
be characterized by a)gravity- incapacity must be grave or the penis of the defendant lengthened by one (1) inch and one
serious such that the party would be incapable of carrying out the centimeter.
ordinary duties required in marriage b)judicial antecedence-it The plaintiff claims, that the defendant is impotent, a closet homosexual as he
must be rooted in the history of the party antedating the did not show his penis. She said, that she had observed the defendant using an
marriage, although the overt manifestations may emerge only eyebrow pencil and sometimes the cleansing cream of his mother. And that,
after the marriage c)incurability-it must be incurable or, even if according to her, the defendant married her, a Filipino citizen, to acquire or
it were otherwise, the cure would be beyond the means of the maintain his residency status here in the country and to publicly maintain the
appearance of a normal man. The plaintiff is not willing to reconcile with her
party involved. husband.
Psychological incapacity does not vitiate consent compared to
mental incapacity. Gina Lao filed before the courts a declaration of nullity of their marriage due to
psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code.
Issue:
Defense:
WHETHER OR NOT THE FACTUAL SETTINGS IN THE He does not want his marriage with his wife annulled for several reasons, viz:
MARRIAGE OF LEOUEL AND JULIA BE A GROUND FOR (1) that he loves her very much; (2) that he has no defect on his part and he is
DECLARATION OF NULLITY OF MARRIAGE UNDER physically and psychologically capable; and, (3) since the relationship is still
ARTICLE 36 OF THE FAMILY CODE. very young and if there is any differences between the two of them, it can still
be reconciled.
Ruling: The RTC and CA granted the petition of Gina Lao.
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 Issue: WHETHER THE LOWER COURTS ERRED IN DECLARING THE
marriage. Undeniably and understandably, Leouel stands MARRIAGE OF CHI MING CHOI AND GINA LAO NULL AND VOID
aggrieved, even desperate, in his present situation. Regrettably, UNDER ARTICLE 36 OF THE FAMILY CODE. (No)
neither law nor society itself can always provide all the specific Ruling: The judgment of the trial court which was affirmed by this Court is not
answers to every individual problem. Since in case of doubts, the based on a stipulation of facts. The issue of whether or not the appellant is
court will rule in favor of the marriage as mandated by the psychologically incapacitated to discharge a basic marital obligation was resolved
upon a review of both the documentary and testimonial evidence on record. If a
Constitution.
spouse, although physically capable but simply refuses to perform his or her essential
marriage obligations, and the refusal is senseless and constant, Catholic marriage
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. tribunals attribute the causes to psychological incapacity than to stubborn refusal.
Senseless and protracted refusal is equivalent to psychological incapacity. Thus, the
prolonged refusal of a spouse to have sexual intercourse with his or her spouse is
considered a sign of psychological incapacity. Constant non- fulfillment of the
obligation to procreate under the Family Code will finally destroy the integrity or
wholeness of the marriage. In the case at bar, the senseless and protracted refusal of
one of the parties to fulfill the above marital obligation is equivalent to psychological
incapacity. An expressive interest in each other's feelings at a time it is needed by the
other can go a long way in deepening the marital relationship. Marriage is definitely
not for children but for two consenting adults who view the relationship with love
amor gignit amorem, respect, sacrifice and a continuing commitment to compromise,
conscious of its value as a sublime social institution
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING PREMISES , the assailed decision of the Court of of marriage obligations, not necessarily to those not related to
Appeals dated November 29, 1994 is hereby AFFIRMED in all respects and the
petition is hereby DENIED for lack of merit.
marriage, like the exercise of a profession or employment in a job.
PSYCHOLOGICAL IN CAPACITY ARTICLE 36 Hence, a pediatrician may be effective in diagnosing illnesses of
children and prescribing medicine to cure them but may not be
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES,  psychologically capacitated to procreate, bear and raise his/her
vs. COURT OF APPEALS and RORIDEL OLAVIANO own children as an essential obligation of marriage. (5) Such
MOLINA, respondents. illness must be grave enough to bring about the disability
of the party to assume the essential obligations of
Digest by: marriage. Thus, "mild characteriological peculiarities, mood
John Dondi Balbuena changes, occasional emotional outbursts" cannot be accepted
as root causes. The illness must be shown as downright incapacity
Principle: or inability, nor a refusal, neglect or difficulty, much less ill will. In
guidelines of the interpretation of Article 36 of the Family Code other words, there is a natal or supervening disabling factor in the
person, an adverse integral element in the personality structure
Facts: that effectively incapacitates the person from really accepting and
Roridel and Reynaldo Molina were married on April 14, 1985. thereby complying with the obligations essential to marriage. (6)
After a year of marriage, Reynaldo showed signs of "immaturity The essential marital obligations must be those embraced
and irresponsibility" as a husband and a father since he preferred by Articles 68 up to 71 of the Family Code as regards the
to spend more time with his peers and friends on whom he husband and wife as well as Articles 220, 221 and 225 of
squandered his money; that he depended on his parents for aid the same Code in regard to parents and their children.
and assistance, and was never honest with his wife in regard to Such non-complied marital obligation(s) must also be stated in the
their finances, resulting in frequent quarrels between them; that petition, proven by evidence and included in the text of the
sometime in February 1986, Reynaldo was relieved of his job in decision.(7) Interpretations given by the National Appellate
Manila, and since then Roridel had been the sole breadwinner of Matrimonial Tribunal of the Catholic Church in the
the family. Reynaldo abandoned Roridel and their child. Philippines, while not controlling or decisive, should be
On August 16, 1990 Roridel O. Molina filed a petition for given great respect by our courts. Since Article 36 of the
declaration of nullity of her marriage to Reynaldo Molina due to Family Code is clearly derived from Canon 1095 (8) The trial
the latter’s psychological incapacity. court must order the prosecuting attorney or fiscal and
the Solicitor General to appear as counsel for the state. No
Defense: decision shall he handed down unless the Solicitor General issues
Reynaldo claims that their misunderstandings and frequent a certification, which will be quoted in the decision, briefly staring
quarrels were due to (1) Roridel's strange behavior of insisting on therein his reasons for his agreement or opposition, as the case
maintaining her group of friends even after their marriage; (2) may be, to the petition. The Solicitor General, along with the
Roridel's refusal to perform some of her marital duties such as prosecuting attorney, shall submit to the court such certification
cooking meals; and (3) Roridel's failure to run the household and within fifteen (15) days from the date the case is deemed
handle their finances. submitted for resolution of the court. The Solicitor General shall
discharge the equivalent function of the defensor
Issue: WHETHER THE MARITAL SETTINGS IN THIS CASE vinculi contemplated under Canon 1095.
CONSTITUTES PSYCHOLOGICAL INCAPACITY. (No)
In this case, the Court applied the ruling in Santos v CA.
Ruling: In this case, the guidelines for the interpretation and
application of Article 36 of the Family Code. (1) The burden of WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The assailed Decision is
proof to show the nullity of the marriage belongs to the REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The marriage of Roridel Olaviano to
plaintiff. Any doubt should be resolved in favor of the existence Reynaldo Molina subsists and remains valid.
and continuation of the marriage and against its dissolution and
nullity.(2) The root cause of the psychological incapacity
must be (a) medically or clinically identified, (b) alleged in
the complaint, (c) sufficiently proven by experts and (d)
clearly explained in the decision. Article 36 of the Family Code
requires that the incapacity must be psychological — not physical.
although its manifestations and/or symptoms may be physical.
Although no example of such incapacity need be given here so as
not to limit the application of the provision under the principle
of ejusdem generis, nevertheless such root cause must be
identified as a psychological illness and its incapacitating nature
explained. Expert evidence may be given qualified psychiatrist and
clinical psychologists. (3) The incapacity must be proven to
be existing at "the time of the celebration" of the
marriage. The evidence must show that the illness was existing
when the parties exchanged their "I do's." The manifestation of
the illness need not be perceivable at such time, but the illness
itself must have attached at such moment, or prior thereto.(4)
Such incapacity must also be shown to be medically or
clinically permanent or incurable. Such incurability may be
absolute or even relative only in regard to the other spouse, not
necessarily absolutely against everyone of the same sex.
Furthermore, such incapacity must be relevant to the assumption
 sine qua non to a finding of psychological incapacity.

PSYCHOLOGICAL IN CAPACITY ARTICLE 36 PSYCHOLOGICAL IN CAPACITY ARTICLE 36

BRENDA B. MARCOS, Petitioner, DAVID B. DEDEL, Petitioner, 

v. WILSON G. MARCOS, Respondent. vs.COURT OF APPEALS and SHARON L. CORPUZ-DEDEL a.k.a.
JANE IBRAHIM, Respondents.
Digest by: John Dondi Balbuena REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES,  Oppositor-Respondent
Principle: if the totality of evidence presented is enough to sustain a Digest by: John Dondi Balbuena
finding of psychological incapacity, then actual medical examination of the
person concerned need not be resorted to Principle: apply the law no matter how harsh it may be
Facts: Brenda and Wilson Marcos were married on September 6, 1982. Facts: On September 28, 1966, David Dedel and Sharon Corpuz-
Due to Wilson’s failure to engage in any gainful employment, they would
Dedel were married.
often quarrel and as a consequence, he would hit and beat her. He would
even force her to have sex with him despite her weariness. He would also During the marriage, Sharon turned out to be an irresponsible and
inflict physical harm on their children for a slight mistake and was so immature wife and mother. She had extra-marital affairs with
severe in the way he chastised them. Thus, for several times during their several men: a dentist in the Armed Forces of the Philippines; a
cohabitation, he would leave their house. In 1992, they were already living Lieutenant in the Presidential Security Command and later a
separately. Jordanian national.
In the case study conducted by Social Worker the children described their Sharon was once confirmed for treatment by a clinical psychiatrist.
father as cruel and physically abusive to them. Brenda submitted herself David alleged that despite the treatment, Sharon did not stop her
for psychological evaluation while Wilson on the other hand did not.
RTC ruled in favor of Brenda because Wilson is psychologically
illicit relationship with Mustafa Ibrahim, whom she married and
incapacitated to perform his marital obligations mainly because of his with whom she had two children. However, when Mustafa Ibrahim
failure to find work to support his family and his violent attitude towards left the country, Sharon returned to petitioner bringing along her
Brenda and their children. two children by Ibrahim. David accepted her back and even
CA reversed the ruling of the RTC. The CA held that psychological considered the two illegitimate children as his own. Thereafter, on
incapacity had not been established by the totality of the evidence December 9, 1995, Sharon abandoned petitioner to join Ibrahim in
presented. Jordan with their two children. Since then, Sharon would only
Issue: 1. WHETHER THERE IS A NEED TO PERFORM A MEDICAL return to the country on special occasions.
EXAMINATION TO PROVE PSYCHOLOGICAL INCAPACITY (No)
On April 1, 1997, David Dedel filed a petition seeking the
2.WHETHER THE MARITAL SETTINGS IN THIS CASE CONSTITUTE
PSYCHOLOGICAL INCAPACITY. (No) declaration of nullity of his marriage on the ground of
Ruling: 1. The guidelines in interpreting Article 36 of the Family Code psychological incapacity.
presented in Republic v CA and Molina incorporated the requisites of
psychological incapacity mentioned in Santos v CA. The foregoing Issue: WHETHER THE TOTALITY OF THE EVIDENCE
guidelines do not require that a physician examine the person to be PRESENTED IS ENOUGH TO SUSTAIN A FINDING THAT
declared psychologically incapacitated. In fact, the root cause may be SHARON IS PSYCHOLOGICALLY INCAPACITATED. (No)
medically or clinically identified. What is important is the presence of
evidence that can adequately establish the party’s psychological condition.
Ruling: Respondent’s sexual infidelity or perversion and
For indeed, if the totality of evidence presented is enough to sustain a
finding of psychological incapacity, then actual medical examination of the abandonment do not by themselves constitute psychological
person concerned need not be resorted to. incapacity within the contemplation of the Family Code. Neither
2.The guidelines incorporate the three basic requirements earlier could her emotional immaturity and irresponsibility be equated
mandated by the Court in Santos v. Court of Appeals: "psychological with psychological incapacity. It must be shown that these acts are
incapacity must be characterized by (a) gravity (b) juridical antecedence, manifestations of a disordered personality which make respondent
and (c) incurability." The foregoing guidelines do not require that a completely unable to discharge the essential obligations of the
physician examine the person to be declared psychologically incapacitated. marital state, not merely due to her youth, immaturity 16 or sexual
According to the guidelines presented in the case of Molina, the existence
promiscuity. At best, the circumstances relied upon by petitioner
of the psychological incapacity must be on the inception of marriage. Thus,
his alleged psychological illness was traced only to said period of more are grounds for legal separation under Article 55  of the Family
than six years. It was during this period that he became intermittently Code. However, we pointed out in Marcos v. Marcos that Article 36
drunk, failed to give material and moral support, and even left the family is not to be equated with legal separation in which the grounds
home and not to the inception of the marriage. Equally important, there is need not be rooted in psychological incapacity but on physical
no evidence showing that his condition is incurable, especially now that he violence, moral pressure, civil interdiction, drug addiction, habitual
is gainfully employed as a taxi driver. Article 36 of the Family Code should alcoholism, sexual infidelity, abandonment and the like. In short,
not be confused with legal separation provided in Article 55 of the same the evidence presented by petitioner refers only to grounds for
code. Article 36 of the Family Code, we stress, is not to be confused with a
legal separation, not for declaring a marriage void.
divorce law that cuts the marital bond at the time the causes therefor
manifest themselves. It refers to a serious psychological illness afflicting a
party even before the celebration of the marriage. It is a malady so grave We cannot deny the grief, frustration and even desperation of
and so permanent as to deprive one of awareness of the duties and petitioner in his present situation. Regrettably, there are
responsibilities of the matrimonial bond one is about to assume. Neither is circumstances, like in this case, where neither law nor society can
Article 36 to be equated with legal separation, in which the grounds need provide the specific answers to every individual problem.  While we
not be rooted in psychological incapacity but on physical violence, moral sympathize with petitioner’s marital predicament, our first and
pressure, moral corruption, civil interdiction, drug addiction, habitual foremost duty is to apply the law no matter how harsh it may be.
alcoholism, sexual infidelity, abandonment and the like. At best, the
evidence presented by petitioner refers only to grounds for legal
separation, not for declaring a marriage void. WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the petition is DENIED.
The decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 60406,
WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED and assailed Decision AFFIRMED, which ordered the dismissal of Civil Case No. 97-467 before the
except that portion requiring personal medical examination as a conditio Regional Trial Court of Makati, Branch 149, is AFFIRMED. No
costs.

PSYCHOLOGICAL IN CAPACITY ARTICLE 36

PSYCHOLOGICAL IN CAPACITY ARTICLE 36
VERONICO TENEBRO, petitioner
vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, respondent. VICTORIA S. JARILLO, Petitioner,
vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
Digest by: John Dondi Balbuena
Digest by: John Dondi Balbuena
Principle:
Marriage is a special contract, the key characteristic of which is its Principle:
permanence. When an individual manifests a deliberate pattern of flouting all that is required for the charge of bigamy to prosper is that the first
the foundation of the State’s basic social institution, the State’s criminal marriage be subsisting at the time the second marriage is contracted
laws on bigamy step in.
Facts:
Facts: On May 24, 1974, Victoria Jarillo and Rafael Alocillo were married.
Veronico Tenebro, contracted marriage with Leticia Ancajas on April 10, On April 16, 1995, Victoria Jarillo contracted a subsequent marriage with
1990. Tenebro informed Ancajas that he had been previously married to a Emmanuel Uy.
certain Hilda Villareyes on November 10, 1986. Emmanuel Uy discovered on January 12, 1999 about Jarillo’s subsisting
On January 25, 1993, petitioner contracted yet another marriage, this one marriage.
with a certain Nilda Villegas. Uy charged Victoria Jarillo with bigamy.
Ancajas thereafter filed a complaint for bigamy against Tenebro. Jarillo filed against Alocillo, on October 5, 2000, for declaration of nullity of
their marriage and on March 28, 2003, declaring petitioner’s 1974 and
Defense: 1975 marriages to Alocillo null and void ab initio on the ground of Alocillo’s
Tenebro (1) denies the existence of his first marriage to Villareyes, and (2) psychological incapacity.
argues that the declaration of the nullity of the second marriage on the
ground of psychological incapacity, which is an alleged indicator that his Issue:
marriage to Ancajas lacks the essential requisites for validity, retroacts to WHETHER THE COURT’S DECLARATION OF THE NULLITY OF
the date on which the second marriage was celebrated. Hence, petitioner MARRIAGE OF JARILLO AND ALOCILLO IS A MODIFYING
argues that all four of the elements of the crime of bigamy are absent, and CIRCUMSTANCE IN THE CRIMINAL LIABILITY OF BIGAMY. (No)
prays for his acquittal.
Ruling:
Issue: WHETHER THE DECLARATION OF NULLITY OF A The landmark case is Tenebro v CA. In that case the court held that “since
MARRIAGE ON THE GROUND OF PSYCHOLOGICAL INCAPACITY a marriage contracted during the subsistence of a valid marriage is
HAS EFFECTS IN INCURRING CRIMINAL LIABILITY FOR BIGAMY. automatically void, the nullity of this second marriage is not per se an
(No) argument for the avoidance of criminal liability for bigamy. x x x A plain
reading of [Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code], therefore, would
Ruling: indicate that the provision penalizes the mere act of contracting a second
A declaration of the nullity of the second marriage on the ground of or subsequent marriage during the subsistence of a valid marriage."
psychological incapacity is of absolutely no moment insofar as the State’s The subsequent judicial declaration of nullity of petitioner’s two marriages
penal laws are concerned. to Alocillo cannot be considered a valid defense in the crime of bigamy.
As a second or subsequent marriage contracted during the subsistence of The moment petitioner contracted a second marriage without the previous
petitioner’s valid marriage to Villareyes, petitioner’s marriage to Ancajas one having been judicially declared null and void, the crime of bigamy was
would be null and void ab initio completely regardless of petitioner’s already consummated because at the time of the celebration of the second
psychological capacity or incapacity. Since a marriage contracted during marriage, petitioner’s marriage to Alocillo, which had not yet been declared
the subsistence of a valid marriage is automatically void, the nullity of this null and void by a court of competent jurisdiction, was deemed valid and
second marriage is not per se an argument for the avoidance of criminal subsisting. Neither would a judicial declaration of the nullity of petitioner’s
liability for bigamy. The moment that Tenebro married Ancajas marriage to Uy make any difference.
consummates the crime of bigamy under Article 349 of the Revised Civil
Code. There is no cogent reason for distinguishing between a subsequent IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the petition is PARTLY GRANTED. The
marriage that is null and void purely because it is a second or subsequent Decision of the Court of Appeals dated July 21, 2003, and its Resolution
marriage, and a subsequent marriage that is null and void on the ground dated July 8, 2004 are hereby MODIFIED as to the penalty imposed, but
of psychological incapacity, at least insofar as criminal liability for bigamy is AFFIRMED in all other respects. Petitioner is sentenced to suffer an
concerned. indeterminate penalty of imprisonment from Two (2) years, Four (4)
months and One (1) day of prision correccional, as minimum, to Eight (8)
WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, the instant petition for review is years and One (1) day of prision mayor, as maximum.
DENIED. The assailed decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No.
21636, convicting petitioner Veronico Tenebro of the crime of Bigamy and
sentencing him to suffer the indeterminate penalty of four (4) years and
two (2) months of prision correccional, as minimum, to eight (8) years and
one (1) day of prision mayor, as maximum, is AFFIRMED in toto.

nrob1es
 PSYCHOLOGICAL IN CAPACITY ARTICLE 36
PSYCHOLOGICAL IN CAPACITY ARTICLE 36
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, 
vs. LOLITA QUINTERO-HAMANO, respondent. LEONILO ANTONIO Petitioner, 
vs. MARIE IVONNE F. REYES, Respondent.
Digest by: John Dondi Balbuena
Digest by: John Dondi Balbuena
Principle:
In proving psychological incapacity, we find no distinction between Principle:
an alien spouse and a Filipino spouse. the totality of the evidence presented will be the basis of the Court’s
decision in the declaration of nullity of marriage
Facts:
Lolita Hamano alleged that in October 1986, she and Toshio Facts: On 6 December 1990, Leonilo Antonio and Marie Reyes were
started a common-law relationship in Japan and they had a child. married. On 8 March 1993, Antonio filed a petition to have his marriage to
Reyes declared null and void under Article 36 of the Family Code alleging
Subsequently, they were married on January 14, 1988.
that Reyes was psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential
One month after their marriage, Toshio returned to Japan and obligations of marriage.
promised to return by Christmas to celebrate the holidays with his Lopez (Dr. Lopez), a clinical psychologist, who stated, based on the tests
family. After sending money to respondent for two months, Toshio they conducted, that Antonio was essentially a normal, introspective, shy
stopped giving financial support. She wrote him several times but and conservative type of person. On the other hand, they observed that
he never responded. Sometime in 1991, respondent learned from Reyes’ persistent and constant lying to Antonio was pathological. It
her friends that Toshio visited the Philippines but he did not undermined the basic relationship that should be based on love, trust and
bother to see her and their child. respect. They further asserted that respondent’s extreme jealousy was also
pathological it reached the level of the so-called paranoid jealousy.
Issue: Issue: WHETHER THE MARRIAGE SETTINGS IN THIS CASE
WHETHER MIXED MARRIAGES IS EXEMPT FROM THE WOULD BE A GROUND FOR THE DECLARATION OF NULLITY OF
APPLICATION OF GUIDELINES IN THE MOLINA CASE AND MARRIAGE.
SANTOS CASE. (No)
Ruling: In the case at bar, the guidelines in the application and interpretation
Ruling: of Article 36 of the Family Code laid in Republic v CA and Molina was used.
1. Antonio had sufficiently overcome his burden in proving the psychological
We find that the totality of evidence presented fell short of proving incapacity of his spouse. Apart from his own testimony, he presented witnesses
that Toshio was psychologically incapacitated to assume his who corroborated his allegations on his wife’s behavior, and certifications from
marital responsibilities. Toshio’s act of abandonment was Blackgold Records and the Philippine Village Hotel Pavillon which disputed
doubtlessly irresponsible but it was never alleged nor proven to be respondent’s claims pertinent to her alleged singing career. He also presented
due to some kind of psychological illness. After respondent two (2) expert witnesses from the field of psychology who testified that the
aberrant behavior of respondent was tantamount to psychological incapacity.
testified on how Toshio abandoned his family, no other evidence 2. The root cause of respondent’s psychological incapacity has been medically
was presented showing that his behavior was caused by a or clinically identified, alleged in the complaint, sufficiently proven by experts,
psychological disorder. Although, as a rule, there was no need for and clearly explained in the trial court’s decision. Dr. Abcede’s and Dr. Lopez’
an actual medical examination, it would have greatly helped based their conclusions of psychological incapacity on the case record,
respondent’s case had she presented evidence that medically or particularly the trial transcripts of respondent’s testimony, as well as the
supporting affidavits of petitioner.
clinically identified his illness. This could have been done through 3. Reyes’ psychological incapacity was established to have clearly existed at the
an expert witness. This respondent did not do.  time of and even before the celebration of marriage. She fabricated friends and
We must remember that abandonment is also a ground for legal made up letters from fictitious characters well before she married Antonio.
separation. There was no showing that the case at bar was not Likewise, she kept Antonio in the dark about her natural child’s real parentage
just an instance of abandonment in the context of legal as she only confessed when the latter had found out the truth after their
marriage.
separation. We cannot presume psychological defect from the 4. The gravity of Reyes’ psychological incapacity is sufficient to prove her
mere fact that Toshio abandoned his family immediately after the disability to assume the essential obligations of marriage.
celebration of the marriage. 5. Reyes is evidently unable to comply with the essential marital obligations as
In proving psychological incapacity, we find no distinction between embraced by Articles 68 to 71 of the Family Code. Article 68, in particular,
an alien spouse and a Filipino spouse. We cannot be lenient in the enjoins the spouses to live together, observe mutual love, respect and fidelity,
and render mutual help and support. As noted by the trial court, it is difficult to
application of the rules merely because the spouse alleged to be see how an inveterate pathological liar would be able to commit to the basic
psychologically incapacitated happens to be a foreign national. tenets of relationship between spouses based on love, trust and respect.
The medical and clinical rules to determine psychological 6. The Court of Appeals clearly erred when it failed to take into consideration
incapacity were formulated on the basis of studies of human the fact that the marriage of the parties was annulled by the Catholic Church.
behavior in general. Hence, the norms used for determining The decision and the interpretations given by the National Appellate Matrimonial
Tribunal of the Catholic Church in the Philippines, while not controlling or
psychological incapacity should apply to any person regardless of decisive, should be given great respect by our courts.
nationality. 7. The final point of contention is the requirement in Molina that such
psychological incapacity be shown to be medically or clinically permanent or
WHEREFORE, the petition for review is hereby GRANTED. The incurable. Antonio points out that one month after he and his wife initially
decision dated August 28, 1997 of the Court of Appeals is separated, he returned to her, desiring to make their marriage work. However,
respondent’s aberrant behavior remained unchanged, as she continued to lie,
hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. fabricate stories, and maintained her excessive jealousy. From this fact, he
draws the conclusion that respondent’s condition is incurable.
All told, we conclude that petitioner has established his cause of action for
declaration of nullity under Article 36 of the Family Code. The RTC correctly
ruled, and the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the trial court. WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 68053, dated February 23, 2004, and
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The decision of the RTC dated 10
August 1995, declaring the marriage between petitioner and respondent NULL
its Resolution dated August 5, 2004, are hereby AFFIRMED.
and VOID under Article 36 of the Family Code, is REINSTATED. No costs.

PSYCHOLOGICAL IN CAPACITY ARTICLE 36

PSYCHOLOGICAL IN CAPACITY ARTICLE 36
DIGNA A. NAJERA, Petitioner, 
vs. EDUARDO J. NAJERA, Respondent. MA. ARMIDA PEREZ-FERRARIS, petitioner, 
vs. BRIX FERRARIS, respondent.
Digest by: John Dondi Balbuena
Digest by: John Dondi Balbuena
Principle:
subject to our law on evidence – what is decreed as [canonically] Principle:
invalid should be decreed civilly void x x x. An unsatisfactory marriage, however, is not a null and void
marriage.
Facts: Digna and Eduardo Najera were married on January 31,
Facts:
1988.
Ma. Armida Ferraris filed a petition for declaration of nullity of her marriage
Eduardo did not exert enough effort to find a job and was with Brix Ferraris.
dependent on Digna for support. Only with the help of petitioner’s Maria sought the help of Dr. Dayan to establish Brix’ alleged psychological
elder brother, who was a seaman, was respondent able to land a incapacity.
job as a seaman in 1988. Dr. Dayan held that Brix has a mixed personality disorder called schizoid
Eduardo did not give enough financial support to Digna. that is why he is the dependent and avoidant type.
He started to quarrel with Digna and falsely accused her of having
an affair with another man. He took to smoking marijuana and Issue:
WHETHER THE DIAGNOSIS OF DR. DAYAN BE ENOUGH TO
tried to force petitioner into it. When she refused, he insulted her.
SUPPORT THE ALLEGED PSYCHOLOGICAL INCAPACITY OF BRIX.
While Eduardo was quarreling with Digna, without provocation, he (No)
inflicted physical violence upon her and attempted to kill her with
a bolo. Ruling:
On January 27, 1997, Digna filed a petition for Declaration of Dr. Dayan did not explain how she arrived at her diagnosis that
Nullity of Marriage with Alternative Prayer for Legal Separation, respondent has a mixed personality disorder called "schizoid," and
with Application for Designation as Administrator Pendente Lite of why he is the "dependent and avoidant type." In fact, Dr. Dayan's
the Conjugal Partnership of Gains. statement that one suffering from such mixed personality disorder
is dependent on others for decision x x x lacks specificity; it seems
Issue: WHETHER THE MARITAL SETTINGS IN THIS CASE to belong to the realm of theoretical speculation. Also, Dr. Dayan's
BE A GROUND FOR DECLARATION OF NULLITY OF information that respondent had extramarital affairs was supplied
MARRIAGE UNDER ARTICLE 36 OF THE FAMILY CODE. by the petitioner herself. Article 36 should not to be confused with
(No) a divorce law that cuts the marital bond at the time the causes
therefor manifest themselves. Neither it is to be equated with legal
Ruling: Applying the guidelines provided in Republic v CA and separation, in which the grounds need not be rooted in
Molina especially what is provided in number 7: psychological incapacity but on physical violence, moral pressure,
Interpretations given by the National Appellate Matrimonial moral corruption, civil interdiction, drug addiction, habitual
Tribunal of the Catholic Church in the Philippines, while not alcoholism, sexual infidelity, abandonment and the like.
controlling or decisive, should be given great respect by our
courts. It is clear that Article 36 was taken by the Family Code WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the motion for
Revision Committee from Canon 1095 of the New Code of Canon reconsideration of the Resolution dated June 9, 2004 denying the
law, which became effective in 1983 and which provides: petition for review on certiorari for failure of the petitioner to
The following are incapable of contracting marriage: sufficiently show that the Court of Appeals committed any
1. those who lack sufficient use of reason; reversible error, is DENIED WITH FINALITY.
2. those who suffer from a grave lack of discretion of judgment
concerning the essential matrimonial rights and obligations to be
mutually given and accepted;
3. those who, because of causes of a psychological nature, are
unable to assume the essential obligations of marriage.
During the proceedings in the National Apellate Matrimonial
Tribunal of the Catholic Church in the Philippines, Digna presented
her sister-in-law, her mother and Psychologist Cristina Getes
which decided that the marriage between Digna and Eduardo is
void in accordance to Canon 1095, 2 of the Code of Canon Law.
Hence, it is true that the Courts take high respect on the decisions
of the Catholic Church but in the case at bar the decision was not
derived on psychological incapacity. The totality of the evidence
presented by Digna before the court failed miserably in supporting
her claim that Eduardo was psychologically incapacitated.
 the Court of Appeals. While this Court commiserates with Rosa’s
plight, however, it has no choice but to apply the law. Dura lex
sed lex.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The assailed Decision and
Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 49915
are AFFIRMED. No pronouncement as to costs.

PSYCHOLOGICAL IN CAPACITY ARTICLE 36

PSYCHOLOGICAL IN CAPACITY ARTICLE 36
ROSA YAP PARAS, petitioner, 
vs. JUSTO J. PARAS, respondent. LESTER BENJAMIN S. HALILI, Petitioner, 
vs.CHONA M. SANTOS-HALILI and THE REPUBLIC OF THE
Digest by: John Dondi Balbuena PHILIPPINES, Respondents.
Principle: Digest by: John Dondi Balbuena
Dura lex sed lex.
Principle:
Facts: psychological incapacity that effectively renders one unable to
On May 21, 1964, petitioner Rosa Yap married respondent Justo J. perform the essential obligations of marriage
Paras.
Sometime in 1975, their daughter Cindy Rose was afflicted with Facts:
leukemia. In 1984, their son Raoul was electrocuted while Justo Lester Benjamin S. Halili and respondent Chona M. Santos-Halili
was in their rest house with his "barkadas." were only 21 and 19 years of age, respectively, when they got
To cope with the death of the children, the entire family went to married on July 4, 1995. After the wedding, they continued to live
the United States. Her sisters supported them throughout their with their respective parents and never lived together but
two-year stay there. However, after three months, Justo maintained the relationship nonetheless.
abandoned them and left for the Philippines. Upon her return to Lester stopped seeing Chona and went on dates with other
the Philippines, she was shocked to find her "Botica" and other women.
businesses heavy in debt. She then realized Justo was a profligate. Lester filed a petition for the declaration of nullity of the marriage
At one time, he disposed without her consent a conjugal piece of on the ground that he was psychologically incapacitated to fulfill
land.16 At other times, he permitted the municipal government to his essential marital obligations to Chona. He claimed that he
take gasoline from their gas station free of charge. thought that the wedding performed was a “joke” and that the
She endured all of Justo’s shortcomings, but his act of maintaining marriage certificate he signed was “fake.” He also pointed out that
a mistress and siring an illegitimate child was the last straw that he and respondent never lived together as husband and wife and
prompted her to file the present case. never consummated the marriage. Lester sought the help of Dr.
Dayan. According to Dr. Dayan, petitioner was suffering from a
Issue: WHETHER THE TOTALITY OF EVIDENCE IN THE personality disorder characterized as “a mixed personality disorder
CASE SHOWS PSYCHOLOGICAL INCAPACITY ON THE PART from self-defeating personality to dependent personality disorder
OF JUSTO AS TO JUSTIFY THE DECLARATION OF NULLITY brought about by a dysfunctional family background.” According to
OF MARRIAGE. (No) Dr. Dayan, this was very much evident in petitioner’s impulsive
decision to get married despite having gone steady with
Ruling: respondent for only six months.
The guidelines provided in the Molina case and in the Santos case RTC granted the petition and declared petitioner psychologically
are applicable in this case. It may be true that the decision of the incapacitated to fulfill the essential marital obligations.
court in A.C. No. 5333 ruled in favor of Rosa but the evidence of CA reversed and set aside the RTC decision and held that, taken
Rosa falls short of the standards required by law to decree a in totality, the evidence for petitioner failed to establish his
nullity of marriage. Rosa’s inability to offer the testimony of a psychological incapacity.
psychologist is fatal to her case, being in violation of the tenets Issue: WHETHER THE MARITAL SETTINGS IN THIS CASE
laid down by this Court in Molina.Thus, she failed to substantiate CONSTITUTES PSYCHOLOGICAL INCAPACITY.
her allegation that Justo is psychologically incapacitated from Ruling: Although petitioner was able to establish his immaturity, as
complying with the essential obligations of marriage. evidenced by the psychological report and as testified to by him
While this Court is convinced that the charges hurled against Justo and Dr. Dayan, the same hardly constituted sufficient cause for
by Rosa, such as sexual infidelity, falsification of her signature, declaring the marriage null and void on the ground of
abandonment and inadequate support of children, are true, psychological incapacity. It had to be characterized by gravity,
nonetheless, there is nothing in the records showing that they juridical antecedence and incurability. Lester failed to prove the
were caused by a psychological disorder on his part. In other gravity and incurability of the psychological disorder except for the
words, the totality of the evidence is not sufficient to show that mere statement or conclusion to that effect in the psychological
Justo is psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential report. The fact that he and Chona never lived together as
marital obligations. There is no evidence that Justo’s "defects" husband and wife fails to move us considering that there may be
were present at the inception of the marriage. His "defects" instances when, for economic and practical reasons, a married
surfaced only in the latter years when these events took place; couple might have to live separately though the marital bond
their two children died; he lost in the election; he failed in his between them remains. In fact, both parties were college students
business ventures and law practice; and felt the disdain of his wife when they got married and were obviously without the financial
and her family. means to live on their own.
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DENIED. The January 26,
In sum, this Court finds no cogent reason to reverse the ruling of 2004 decision and September 24, 2004 resolution of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 60010 are AFFIRMED.
Costs against petitioner.

PSYCHOLOGICAL IN CAPACITY ARTICLE 36 PSYCHOLOGICAL IN CAPACITY ARTICLE 36

LESTER BENJAMIN S. HALILI, Petitioner,  EDWARD KENNETH NGO TE, Petitioner, 

vs.CHONA M. SANTOS-HALILI and THE REPUBLIC OF THE vs.ROWENA ONG GUTIERREZ YU-TE, Respondent,
PHILIPPINES, Respondents. RECON REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Oppositor.

Digest by: John Dondi Balbuena Digest by: John Dondi Balbuena

Principle: Principle:
psychological incapacity that effectively renders one unable to law’s intention that it is the courts, on a case-to-case basis, that
perform the essential obligations of marriage should determine whether a party to a marriage is psychologically
incapacitated
Facts:
Dr. Dayan was able to establish the dependent personality Facts: In March 1996 Rowena asked Edward that they elope. At first, he
disorder of Lester before the court and traced it to his refused, bickering that he was young and jobless. Her persistence,
dysfunctional family life. however, made him relent. Thus, they left Manila and sailed to Cebu that
month. In April 1996, they decided to go back to Manila. Rowena
proceeded to her uncle’s house and Edward to his parents’ home. As his
Issue: family was abroad, and Rowena kept on telephoning him, threatening him
WHETHER THE TOTALITY OF THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED that she would commit suicide, Edward agreed to stay with Rowena at her
PROVED LESTER’S PSYCHOLOGICAL INCAPACITY. (Yes) uncle’s place. On April 23, 1996, Rowena’s uncle brought the two to a
court to get married. He was then 25 years old, and she, 20. The two then
Ruling: continued to stay at her uncle’s place where Edward was treated like a
Te v. Yu-Te and the Republic, this Court reiterated that courts prisoner. Her uncle also showed Edward his guns and warned the latter
should interpret the provision on psychological incapacity (as a not to leave Rowena. After a month, Edward escaped from the house of
Rowena’s uncle, and stayed with his parents. After knowing that Edward
ground for the declaration of nullity of a marriage) on a case-to-
was deprived of his inheritance, Rowena agreed to end the relationship.
case basis — guided by experience, the findings of experts and On January 18, 2000, Edward filed before the court a petition for the
researchers in psychological disciplines and by decisions of church declaration of the nullity of his marriage with Rowena.
tribunals.  The clinical psychologist who examined Edward found both of the
Accordingly, we emphasized that, by the very nature of Article 36, psychologically incapacitated. Edward was diagnosed with dependent
courts, despite having the primary task and burden of decision- personality disorder and Rowena of antisocial narcissistic personality
making, must consider as essential the expert opinion on the disorder.
psychological and mental disposition of the parties.
Issue: WHETHER THE DIAGNOSIS OF THE CLINICAL
Ultimately, Dr. Dayan concluded that petitioner’s personality PSYCHOLOGIST BECOME A GROUND FOR THE
disorder was grave and incurable and already existent at the time DECLARATION OF NULLITY OF MARRIAGE. (Yes)
of the celebration of his marriage to respondent as what is
Ruling: The court held that decisions made on the ground of psychological
provided in Santos v CA. incapacity as provided in Article 36 of the Family Code shall be based on the
It has been sufficiently established that petitioner had a factual findings on the case and not on priori decisions and generalizations. The
psychological condition that was grave and incurable and had a application of Article 36 should be on case to case basis guided by the opinions
deeply rooted cause. This Court, in the same Te case, recognized of experts.
that individuals with diagnosable personality disorders usually The seriousness of the diagnosis and the gravity of the disorders considered,
the Court, in this case, finds as decisive the psychological evaluation made by
have long-term concerns, and thus therapy may be long-term. the expert witness; and, thus, rules that the marriage of the parties is null and
From the foregoing, it has been shown that petitioner is indeed void on ground of both parties’ psychological incapacity. We further consider
suffering from psychological incapacity that effectively renders him that the trial court, which had a first-hand view of the witnesses’ deportment,
unable to perform the essential obligations of marriage. arrived at the same conclusion. Edward, who is afflicted with dependent
Accordingly, the marriage between petitioner and respondent is personality disorder, cannot assume the essential marital obligations of living
together, observing love, respect and fidelity and rendering help and support,
declared null and void. for he is unable to make everyday decisions without advice from others, allows
others to make most of his important decisions (such as where to live), tends to
WHEREFORE, the motion for reconsideration is hereby GRANTED. agree with people even when he believes they are wrong, has difficulty doing
The April 16, 2008 resolution of this Court and the January 26, things on his own, volunteers to do things that are demeaning in order to get
2004 decision and September 24, 2004 resolution of the Court of approval from other people, feels uncomfortable or helpless when alone and is
often preoccupied with fears of being abandoned. 67 As clearly shown in this
Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 60010 are SET ASIDE.  case, petitioner followed everything dictated to him by the persons around him.
The decision of the Regional Trial Court, Pasig City, Branch 158 He is insecure, weak and gullible, has no sense of his identity as a person, has
dated April 17, 1998 is hereby REINSTATED.  no cohesive self to speak of, and has no goals and clear direction in life.
Rowena being afflicted with antisocial personality disorder makes her unable to
assume the essential marital obligations. This finding takes into account her
disregard for the rights of others, her abuse, mistreatment and control of others favor of Dr. Obra's findings.
without remorse, her tendency to blame others, and her intolerance of the
conventional behavioral limitations imposed by society. Moreover, as shown in WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition for Review on Certiorari is
this case, respondent is impulsive and domineering; she had no qualms in GRANTED. The November 17, 2003 Amended Decision and the December
manipulating petitioner with her threats of blackmail and of committing suicide. 13, 2004 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 59903 are
The court with the help of experts, was able to establish the gravity, judicial
accordingly REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
antecedence and the incurability of the psychological incapacity of both parties.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition for review on certiorari is
GRANTED. The August 5, 2003 Decision and the January 19, 2004 Resolution of
the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 71867 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE,
and the Decision, dated July 30, 2001, REINSTATED.

PSYCHOLOGICAL IN CAPACITY ARTICLE 36

BENJAMIN G. TING, Petitioner, PSYCHOLOGICAL IN CAPACITY ARTICLE 36

v. CARMEN M. VELEZ-TING, Respondent.
MARIETA C. AZCUETA Petitioner, 
Digest by: John Dondi Balbuena vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES AND THE COURT OF
APPEALS, Respondents.
Principle:Semper praesumitur pro matrimonio
Digest by: John Dondi Balbuena
Facts: On July 26, 1975, Benjamin and Carmen got married.
On October 21, 1993, after being married for more than 18 years to Principle: The declaration of nullity under Article 36 will simply
petitioner, Carmen filed a verified petition before the RTC of Cebu City
provide a decent burial to a stillborn marriage.
praying for the declaration of nullity of their marriage based on Article 36
of the Family Code.
Facts: Marieta and Rodolfo got married on July 24, 1993. On March 2,
She based her allegations on Benjamin’s gambling, violent nature because
of drinking problems, immaturity and irresponsibility. Carmen also claims 2002, Marieta filed a petition for declaration of absolute nullity of
that she was physically abused by Benjamin. marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code.
During the proceedings, Carmen presented Dr. Pureza as witness. Dr. Marieta presented Dr. Villegas, a psychologist who was able to
Pureza unable to see Benjamin personally, based her diagnosis on the asses Marieta in her psychological evaluation and found that
transcript of the stenographic notes taken on Benjamin’s deposition. She Marieta was a very responsible, focused and has direction and
concluded that Benjamin's compulsive drinking, compulsive gambling and ambition in life. She also observed that petitioner works hard for
physical abuse of respondent are clear indications that petitioner suffers
what she wanted and therefore, she was not psychologically
from a personality disorder.
Benjamin also presented Dr. Obra as his witness. Dr. Obra evaluated incapacitated to perform the duties and responsibilities of
Benjamin's psychological behavior based on the transcript of stenographic marriage. However, Dr. Villegas added that based on the
notes, as well as the psychiatric evaluation report prepared by a information gathered from petitioner, she found that Rodolfo
psychiatrist from the University of Pretoria in South Africa, and his showed that he was psychologically incapacitated to perform his
interview with Benjamin's brothers. marital duties and responsibilities. Dr. Villegas concluded that he
Contrary to Dr. Pureza's findings, Dr. Obra observed that there is nothing was suffering from Dependent Personality Disorder associated
wrong with petitioner's personality, considering the latter's good with severe inadequacy related to masculine strivings.
relationship with his fellow doctors and his good track record as
anesthesiologist.
Issue: WHETHER THE PSYCHOLOGICAL FINDINGS OF DR.
Issue: WHETHER THE DOCTRINE IN THE MOLINA CASE IS VILLEGAS ARE ENOUGH TO ESTABLISH RODOLFO’S
APPLICABLE TO THIS CASE. (Yes) PSYCHOLOGICAL INCAPACITY. (Yes)

Ruling: The court held here that the doctrine of stare decisis will no Ruling: The marriage settings in the case at bar satisfactorily
longer be applicable if only the prior ruling of the court has been overruled fulfilled the guidelines laid down in the Molina case. First, Marieta
and a different view is adopted and the new doctrine will be applied adduced evidence was enough to overcome the burden of proof
prospectively. The court find the totality of evidence adduced by
that Rodolfo was indeed psychologically incapacitated through her
respondent insufficient to prove that petitioner is psychologically unfit to
discharge the duties expected of him as a husband, and more particularly,
testimony, the testimony of Rodolfo’s relative and the findings of
that he suffered from such psychological incapacity. The psychological Dr. Villegas. Second, the root cause of Rodolfo’s psychological
illness that must have afflicted a party at the inception of the marriage incapacity was traced on his relationship with his mother. Third,
should be a malady so grave and permanent as to deprive one of Dr. Villegas established that the psychological incapacity of
awareness of the duties and responsibilities of the matrimonial bond he or Rodolfo existed before and at the time of the marriage since she
she is about to assume. In this case, Carmen failed to prove that alleged that dependent psychological disorder starts in early
petitioner's "defects" were present at the time of the celebration of their adulthood. Fouth, Dr. Villegas also established the incurability of
marriage. She merely cited that prior to their marriage, she already knew
Rodolfo’s condition and held that the disorder started early in
that petitioner would occasionally drink and gamble with his friends; but
such statement, by itself, is insufficient to prove any pre-existing
development and became so deeply ingrained in his personality
psychological defect on the part of her husband. Neither did the evidence and cannot be changed or cured at the present stage. Fifth the
adduced prove such "defects" to be incurable. The two experts provided disorder of Rodolfo was so grave that he cannot understand and
contradicting psychological evaluations: Dr. Pureza testified that carry on the obligations that come with marriage because he was
Benjamin's behavior is a positive indication of a personality disorder, while not able to distinguish his relationship between his mother and his
Dr. Obra maintained that there is nothing wrong with petitioner's wife. Sixth, evidently, Rodolfo was not able to embody the
personality. Moreover, there appears to be greater weight in Dr. Obra's essential marital obligations of a husband to his wife embraced in
opinion because, aside from analyzing the transcript of Benjamin's
Article 68-71 of the Family Code since he cannot make his own
deposition, Dr. Obra also took into consideration the psychological
evaluation report furnished by another psychiatrist in South Africa who
decisions, he cannot fulfill responsibilities on his own and failed to
personally examined Benjamin, as well as his (Dr. Obra's) personal observe mutual love, respect and support due to his current
interview with Benjamin's brothers. Logically, therefore, the balance tilts in condition.
The Court held in Te v Te, the Court is not demolishing the
foundation of families, but it is actually protecting the sanctity of authority and responsibility shall includethe caring for and rearing
marriage, because it refuses to allow a person afflicted with a of such children for civic consciousness and efficiency and the
psychological disorder, who cannot comply with or assume the development of their moral, mental and physical character and
essential marital obligations, from remaining in that sacred bond. well-being.
The declaration of nullity under Article 36 will simply provide a
decent burial to a stillborn marriage. Article 220. The parents and those exercising parental authority
shall have with respect to their unemancipated children or wards
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Amended Decision the following rights and duties:
dated July 19, 2005 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 72, (1) To keep them in their company, to support, educate
Antipolo City in Civil Case No. 02-6428 is REINSTATED.  and instruct them by right precept and good example,
and to provide for their upbringing in keeping with their
means;
(2) x x x x
(3) To provide them with moral and spiritual guidance,
PSYCHOLOGICAL IN CAPACITY ARTICLE 36 inculcate in them honesty, integrity, self-discipline, self-
reliance, industry and thrift, stimulate their interest in
VALERIO E. KALAW, Petitioner,  civic affairs, and inspire in them compliance with the
vs. MA. ELENA FERNANDEZ, Respondent. duties of citizenship;
(4) To enhance, protect, preserve and maintain their
physical and mental health at all times;
Digest by: John Dondi Balbuena
(5) To furnish them with good and wholesome
Principle: educational materials, supervise their activities,
there is a corresponding interest for the State to defend against recreation and association with others, protect them from
marriages ill-equipped to promote family life bad company, and prevent them from acquiring habits
detrimental to their health, studies and morals;
Facts: According also to the findings of Dr. Dayan, she was able to
Valerio E. Kalaw and Ma. Elena Fernandez were married on conclude that both parties are psychologically incapacitated since
November 4, 1976. Valerio admitted that he was afraid of commitment and has no
Valerio filed a petition for the declaration of nullity with his stable concept of marriage on the time he married Elena.
marriage with Ma. Elena. In this case, the marriage never existed from the beginning
Valerio alleged that respondent constantly played mahjong, going because the respondent was afflicted with psychological incapacity
to the parlor, partying with friends, adultery and neglected their at and prior to the time of the marriage. Hence, the Court should
children as a result. not hesitate to declare the nullity of the marriage between the
Defense: Maria Elena refuted the allegations of Valerio by claiming parties.
that she only plays mahjong twice to thrice a week compared to
four times to five times a week and brings her children to their WHEREFORE, the Court GRANTS the Motion for Reconsideration;
relative’s house. REVERSES and SETS ASIDE the decision promulgated on
September 19, 2011; and REINSTATES the decision rendered by
Issue: the Regional Trial Court declaring the marriage between the
WHETHER THE MARITAL SETTINGS IN THE CASE AT BAR petitioner and the respondent on November 4, 1976 as NULL AND
CONSTITUTES PSYCHOLOGICAL INCAPACITY. (Yes) VOID AB INITIO due to the psychological incapacity of the parties
pursuant to Article 36 of the Family Code.
Ruling:
Dr. Dayan through the Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory
established Valerie’s dependency, narcissism and compulsive
tendencies.
The findings of Dr. Dayan also corroborated with the findings of
Dr. Gates that Elena is afflicted with Narcissistic Personality
Disorder and Antisocial Disorder. This can be traced back to
Elena’s childhood background where her father died on a vehicular
accident and she on her teenage years, assumed the role of a
breadwinner. She also got the testimony of her eldest son, Valerio
which expressed that he could not see the sincerity of maternal
care in Elena and that he would stay with his father instead.
Fr. Healey, an expert of Canon laws also expressed his sentiments
about the case he was able to conclude based on the facts that
Elena’s narcissism was grave, incurable and existed before and at
the time of her marriage with Valerio.
Elena also failed in fulfilling marital obligations by bringing her
children every time she plays mahjong. There is a wanton
disregard for her children’s moral and mental development. She
disregarded her duty to safeguard and protect her children as
embraced in Articles 209 and 220 of the Family Code which
provide:

Article 209. Pursuant to the natural right and duty of parents over
the person and property of their unemancipated children, parental
 psychological evaluation reports may be deemed very strict, but these are
proper, in view of the principle that any doubt should be resolved in favor
of the validity of the marriage and the indissolubility of the marital
tie. After all, marriage is an inviolable institution protected by the State.

WHEREFORE, the petitions are GRANTED. The Decision dated March 21,

2013 and the Resolution dated September 12, 2013 of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 94337 are hereby REVERSED and SET
ASIDE. Accordingly, the petition for declaration of nullity of marriage filed
under Article 36 of the Family Code of the Philippines, as amen ded,
is DISMISSED.

PSYCHOLOGICAL IN CAPACITY ARTICLE 36

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, PSYCHOLOGICAL IN CAPACITY ARTICLE 36

vs. REGHIS M. ROMERO II and OLIVIA LAGMAN ROMERO, Respondents.
NICOLAS S. MATUDAN, Petitioner,
vs.REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES and MARILYN B.
Digest by: John Dondi Balbuena MATUDAN, Respondents.

Principle: any doubt should be resolved in favor of the validity of the Digest by: John Dondi Balbuena
marriage and the indissolubility of the marital tie
Principle: the identical rulings of the trial and appellate courts should be
Facts: Reghis and Olivia were married on May 11, 1972. Reghis was still a given due respect and finality
student at the time, determined to finish his studies and provide for the
financial needs of his siblings and parents. Reghis alleged that he was not Facts: Nicolas S, Matudan and Marilyn B. Matudan were married on
ready to marry at the time of their marriage but he cannot turn down October 26, 1976.
Olivia’s parents because they only showed nothing but kindness to him. In 1985, Marilyn left to work abroad. From then on, petitioner and the
On June 16, 1998, Reghis filed a petition for declaration of nullity of children lost contact with her; she had not been seen nor heard from
marriage citing his psychological incapacity to comply with his essential again.
marital obligations. Twenty-three years later, or on June 20, 2008, petitioner filed a Petition
Reghis also presented Dr. Basilio, a clinical psychologist, who submitted a for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage based on psychological incapacity of
Psychological Evaluation Report dated April 28, 1998 and testified that Marilyn.
Reghis suffered from Obsessive Compulsive Personality Disorder (OCPD). Nicolas presented his testimony, the testimony of Maricel and Dr. Tayag.
According to Dr. Basilio, Reghis’ behavioral disorder gave him a strong In Nicolas’ affidavit, he claimed that respondent failed to perform her
obsession for whatever endeavour he chooses, such as his work, to the duties as a wife to him. Respondent never gave petitioner and their
exclusion of other responsibilities and duties such as those pertaining to children financial and emotional support, love and care during their
his roles as father and husband. Dr. Basilio surmised that Reghis’ OCPD cohabitation. She was irresponsible, immature and exhibited irrational
was the root of the couple’s disagreements and that the same is incurable, behavior towards petitioner and their children. She was self-centered, had
explaining too that Reghis was an unwilling groom as marriage was no remorse and involved herself in activities defying social and moral
farthest from his mind at the time and, as such, felt cheated into marriage. ethics. But on cross examination, Nicolas testified that he and the
respondent had a happy married life and they never had a fight. The only
Issue: WHETHER OR NOT THE CA ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE DECISION reason why he filed this case was because Marilyn abandoned him and
OF THE RTC DECLARING THE MARRIAGE IN THIS CASE NULL AND VOID their children. Contrary to his statement in his affidavit.
UNDER ARTICLE 36 OF THE FAMILY CODE. (Yes) Maricel who was only 2 years old when Marilyn left, corroborated the
testimony of Nicolas that since respondent left the conjugal dwelling she
Ruling: After a thorough review of the records of this case, the Court finds never provided financial support to the family and never communicated
that the foregoing requirements do not concur. Reghis’ testimony shows with them.
that he was able to comply with his marital obligations which, therefore, Dr. Tayag subjected Nicolas to psychological test and interview. She
negates the existence of a grave and serious psychological incapacity on likewise interviewed Maricel Matudan. She came up with the findings that
his part. In Reghis’ claim that he married Olivia not out of love, the Court Nicolas is suffering from Passive-Aggressive Personality Disorder and
applied the ruling in Republic v Albios where the court held: Thus, Marilyn has Narcissistic Personality Disorder with Antisocial Traits.
marriages entered into for other purposes, limited or otherwise, such as
convenience, companionship, money, status, and title, provided that they Issue: WHETHER THE TOTALITY OF THE EVIDENCE ADDUCED BY
comply with all the legal requisites, are equally valid. Love, though the NICOLAS BEFORE THE COURTS ABLE TO PROVE MARILYN’S
ideal consideration in a marriage contract, is not the only valid cause for PSYCHOLOGICAL INCAPACITY. (No)
marriage. Other considerations, not precluded by law, may validly support
a marriage. Ruling: The issue of whether or not psychological incapacity exists in a
In the claim of OCPD, Dr. Basilio failed to establish the juridical given case calling for annulment of marriage depends crucially, more than
antecedence of the condition because she never showed evidence that in any field of the law, on the facts of the case. Such factual issue,
show specific behavior or habits during his adolescent years were shown however, is beyond the province of this Court to review. It is not the
which would explain his behavior during his marriage with Olivia. Simply function of the Court to analyze or weigh all over again the evidence or
put, Dr. Basilio’s medical report did not establish that Reghis’ incapacity premises supportive of such factual determination. It is a well-established
existed long before he entered into marriage. Dr. Basilio simply concluded principle that factual findings of the trial court, when affirmed by the Court
that Reghis’ disorder is incurable but failed to explain how she came to of Appeals, are binding on this Court, save for the most compelling and
such conclusion. Dr. Basilio did not discuss the concept of OCPD, its cogent reasons. The findings of Dr. Tayag were solely based on the
classification, cause, symptoms, and cure, and failed to show how and to information fed to her by Nicolas whose bias in favor of him cannot be
what extent the respondent exhibited this disorder in order to create a doubted. The court found the conclusions insufficient to warrant the
necessary inference that Reghis’ condition had no definite treatment or is conclusion of Marilyn’s psychological incapacity. To make conclusions and
incurable. generalizations on the respondent's psychological condition based on the
The standards used by the Court in assessing the sufficiency of information fed by only one side is, to our mind, not different from
admitting hearsay evidence as proof of the truthfulness of the content of from the psychologist's opinion and petitioner's allegations, no other
such evidence. Nicolas failed to establish the requisites of psychological reliable evidence was cited to prove that Felipe's sexual infidelity was a
incapacity laid down in the Santos case namely 1. gravity 2. judicial manifestation of his alleged personality disorder, which is grave, deeply
antecedence 3. incurability. rooted, and incurable. We are not persuaded that the natal or supervening
Finally, the identical rulings of the trial and appellate courts should be disabling factor which effectively incapacitated him from complying with
given due respect and finality. This Court is not a trier of facts. his obligation to be faithful to his wife was medically or clinically
established. Based on the records, this Court finds that there exists
WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED. The January 31, 2012 Decision insufficient factual or legal basis to conclude that Felipe's sexual infidelity
and August 23, 2012 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. and irresponsibility can be equated with psychological incapacity as
95392 are AFFIRMED. contemplated by law. We reiterate that there was no other evidence
adduced.

WHEREFORE, we DENY the petition for review on certiorari filed by

herein petitioner Mirasol Castillo. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the assailed
Decision and Resolution, dated March 10, 2014 and August 28, 2014,
respectively, of the Court of Appeals.

PSYCHOLOGICAL IN CAPACITY ARTICLE 36

MIRASOL CASTILLO, Petitioner PSYCHOLOGICAL IN CAPACITY ARTICLE 36

vs.REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES and FELIPE IMPAS, Respondents
RACHEL A. DEL ROSARIO, Petitioner
Digest by: John Dondi Balbuena vs. JOSE O. DEL ROSARIO and COURT OF APPEALS, Respondents

Principle: the trial courts, as in all the other cases they try, must always Digest by: John Dondi Balbuena
base their judgments not solely on the expert opinions presented by the
parties but on the totality of evidence adduced in the course of their Principle: a marriage, no matter how unsatisfactory, is not a null and void
proceedings marriage
Facts: On December 28, 1989 Rachel and Jose got married.
Facts: On April 22, 1984 Mirasol Castillo and Felipe Impas got married. In 1998, Rachel went back to Hongkong to work as domestic
On June 6, 2011, Mirasol filed a Complaint for declaration of nullity of helper/caregiver and has been working there ever since, only returning to
marriage based on the alleged psychological capacity of Felipe. the Philippines every year for a vacation.
Mirasol alleged that at the beginning, their union was harmonious In September 2011, Rachel filed a petition for declaration of nullity of
prompting her to believe that the same was made in heaven. However, marriage before the RTC alleging that Jose was psychologically
after thirteen (13) years of marriage, Felipe resumed philandering. Their incapacitated to fulfill his essential marital obligations based on the
relatives and friends saw him with different women. One time, she has just following: Jose (1) would often indulge in drinking sprees; (2) tends to
arrived from a trip and returned home to surprise her family. But to her become violent when he gets drunk; (2) avoids discharging his duties as a
consternation, she caught him in a compromising act with another woman. father to Wesley and as a husband to Rachel, which includes sexual
intimacy; (3) flirts openly and represented himself as single; and (4)
Mirasol presented clinical psychologist Sheila Marie Montefalcon  who, in engaged in an extra-marital affair with a bar girl who he brought to the
her Psychological Evaluation Report, concluded that Felipe is conjugal dwelling on several occasions.
psychologically incapacitated to fulfill the essential marital obligations. Rachel, however, admitted that their married life ran smoothly during its
(NPD) The reports was based on information given by Mirasol and their early years, and it was only later in their marriage that Jose started
common friend. frequenting bars and engaging in drinking sessions.
Rachel also presented the testimonies of Wesley and her sisters, Beverly
Issue: WHETHER THE ADDUCED EVIDENCE BY MIRASOL BEFORE and Jocelyn Cabusora, which corroborated her allegations, as well as the
THE COURT IS ENOUGH TO SUPPORT FELIPE’S PSYCHOLOGICAL testimony of Dr. Nedy L. Tayag (Dr. Tayag), who prepared the
INCAPACITY. (No) Psychological Report (Report) on Rachel. The remarks section of Dr.
Tayag's Report, which was primarily based on her interview with Rachel
Ruling: Sexual infidelity, by itself, is not sufficient proof that petitioner is and Wesley, stated that Jose suffered from Antisocial Personality Disorder
suffering from psychological incapacity. It must be shown that the acts of (APD).
unfaithfulness are manifestations of a disordered personality which make
him completely unable to discharge the essential obligations of marriage. Issue: WHETHER THE CA ERRED IN REVERSING THE RTCs
Psychological incapacity must be more than just a "difficulty," "refusal" or DECISION. (No)
"neglect" in the performance of some marital obligations. It may be true
that the courts give weight to the expert opinions furnished by Ruling: Dr. Tayag's Report does not explain in detail how Jose's APD
psychologists but these opinions shall be treated as decisive but not could be characterized as grave, deeply rooted in his childhood, and
indispensable evidence in determining the merits of a case. The decision of incurable within the jurisprudential parameters for establishing
the court must be based on the totality of evidence adduced before the psychological incapacity as laind out in Santos v CA. Dr. Tayag did not
Courts in the course of proceedings. The presentation of any form of personally assess or interview Jose to determine, at the very least, his
medical or psychological evidence to show the psychological incapacity, background that could have given her a more accurate basis for
however, did not mean that the same would have automatically ensured concluding that his APD is rooted in his childhood or was already existing
the granting of the petition for declaration of nullity of marriage. It bears at the inception of the marriage. Dr. Tayag's assessment, even when taken
repeating that the trial courts, as in all the other cases they try, must together with the various testimonies, failed to show that Jose's
always base their judgments not solely on the expert opinions presented immaturity, irresponsibility, and infidelity rise to the level of psychological
by the parties but on the totality of evidence adduced in the course of their incapacity that would justify the nullification of the parties' marriage. To
proceedings. Mirasol failed to establish Felipe’s psychological incapacity in reiterate and emphasize, psychological incapacity must be more than just
relation to the guidelines presented in Republic v CA and Molina and in a "difficulty," "refusal" or "neglect" in the performance of the marital
Santos v CA. Montefalcon's testimony and psychological evaluation report obligations; it is not enough that a party prove that the other failed to
do not provide evidentiary support to cure the doubtful veracity of meet the responsibility and duty of a married person.
Mirasol's one-sided assertion. the findings on Felipe's personality profile did Article 36 of the Family Code, as amended, is not a divorce law that cuts
not emanate from a personal interview with the subject himself. Apart the marital bond at the time the grounds for divorce manifest
themselves; a marriage, no matter how unsatisfactory, is not a null and application of Article 36 of the Family Code as laid out in the Molina case.
void marriage. Thus, absent sufficient evidence establishing psychological Maria Teresa was able to overcome the burden of proof that Rodolfo was
incapacity within the context of Article 36, the Court is compelled to psychologically incapacitated due to his Paranoia Personality Disorder. Dr.
uphold the indissolubility of the marital tie. Lopez explained the root cause must have been caused by a pathogenic
parental model he discovered that Rodolfo’s father was a psychiatric
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision dated May 29, 2015 patient such that the respondent developed a similar symptom or psychic
and the Resolution dated December 1, 2015 of the Court of Appeals in CA- contamination which is called double insanity. The said disorder started
G.R. CV No. 102745 are hereby AFFIRMED. Accordingly, the petition for during respondent's late childhood years and developed in his early
declaration of nullity of marriage filed under Article 36 of the Family Code, adolescent years. He further testified that this disorder is very severe,
as amended, is DISMISSED. serious and incurable because of the severe paranoia of the patient; that
patients with this kind of personality disorder could never accept that there
is something wrong with them and if ever forced to seek treatment, they
would rather engage in an intellectual battle with the therapist rather than
cooperate with them. Rodolfo was also unable to perform essential marital
obligations embraced by Article 68 of the Family Code and was shown in
his apathy in Maria Teresa’s petition for the declaration of nullity of their
marriage. The gravity, judicial antecedence and incurability of the
condition of Rodolfo was successfully established by the findings.

The very institution that our laws are meant to protect.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition is GRANTED. The
marriage of Maria Teresa Tani-De La Fuente and Rodolfo De La Fuente is
declared NULL and VOID. The Decision and Resolution of the Court of
Appeals dated August 29, 2008 and May 25, 2009, respectively, in CA-G.R.
CV. No. 76243 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Decision dated
August 14, 2002 of Branch 107, Regional Trial Court of Quezon City in Civil
PSYCHOLOGICAL IN CAPACITY ARTICLE 36 Case No. Q-99-37829 is REINSTATED.
PSYCHOLOGICAL IN CAPACITY ARTICLE 36
MARIA TERESA B. TANI-DE LA FUENTE, Petitioner
vs RODOLFO DE LA FUENTE, JR., Respondent MANUEL R. BAKUNAWA III, Petitioner,
 v. NORA REYES BAKUNAWA, Respondent.
Digest by: John Dondi Balbuena
Principle: the notion of psychological incapacity should not only be based Digest by:
on a medical or psychological disorder, but should consist of the inability to John Dondi Balbuena
comply with essential marital obligations such that public interest is
imperiled Principle:
Facts: While they were still sweethearts, Maria Teresa already noticed the Court accords the same with great respect with the decisions of the
that Rodolfo was an introvert and was prone to jealousy. On June 21, Tribunal of the Catholic Church but does not consider the same as
1984, Maria Teresa and Rodolfo got married controlling and decisive, in line with prevailing jurisprudence
Rodolfo's attitude worsened as they went on with their marital life. He was
jealous of everyone who talked to Maria Teresa, and would even skip work Facts:
at his family's printing press to stalk her. Rodolfo's jealousy was so severe Nora and Manuel got married on July 26, 1975.
that he once poked a gun at his own 15-year old cousin who was staying Manuel worked in his family’s construction business and would go home
at their house because he suspected his cousin of being Maria Teresa's every weekend he chose to spend his limited time with friends and
lover. girlfriends instead of his family. Nora resented this and they started
In addition, Rodolfo treated Maria Teresa like a sex slave. They would quarreling about Manuel's behavior. Worse, Manuel depended on his father
have sex four (4) or five (5) times a day. 13 At times, Rodolfo would fetch and on Nora for their family's needs.
Maria Teresa from her office during her lunch break, just so they could On June 19, 2008, Manuel filed a petition for declaration of nullity of
have sex.14 During sexual intercourse, Rodolfo would either tie her to the marriage on the ground that he and Nora are psychologically incapacitated
bed or poke her with things. Rodolfo also suggested that they invite a third to comply with the essential obligations of marriage.
person with them while having sex, or for Maria Teresa to have sex with Manuel presented a psychiatrist, Dr. Cecilia Villegas (Dr. Villegas), who
another man in Rodolfo's presence. Rodolfo's suggestions made Maria testified that Manuel has Intermittent Explosive Disorder, characterized by
Teresa feel molested and maltreated. irritability and aggressive behavior that is not proportionate to the cause.
Sometime in 1986, during a quarrel, Rodolfo poked Maria Teresa’s head Dr. Villegas diagnosed Nora with Passive Aggressive Personality Disorder,
with a gun. Maria left their conjugal property. marked by a display of negative attitude and passive resistance in her
On June 3, 1999, Maria Teresa filed a petition for declaration of nullity of relationship with Manuel. Her findings were based on her interview with
marriage on the ground of Rodolfo’s psychological incapacity. Aside from Manuel and the parties' eldest son, Moncho, because Nora did not
Maria Teresa, Dr. Arnulfo V. Lopez (Dr. Lopez), a clinical psychologist, was participate in the psychological assessment.
presented as an expert witness.
Dr. Lopez’ in-depth interview and conducted a battery of tests with Maria Issue:
Teresa and Rodolfo’s best friend Dr. Lopez concluded that Maria Teresa WHETHER THE CA ERRED IN REVERSING THE DECISION OF RTC.
was not suffering from any severe mental disorder and diagnosed Rodolfo (No)
with paranoid personality disorder manifested by damaging behavior
like reckless driving and extreme jealousy; his being distrustful and Ruling: The totality of evidence presented by Manuel comprising of his
suspicious; his severe doubts and distrust of friends and relatives of [Maria testimony and that of Dr. Villegas, as well as the latter's psychological
Teresa]; his being irresponsible and lack of remorse; his resistance to evaluation report, is insufficient to prove that he and Nora are
treatment; and his emotional coldness and severe immaturity. He also psychologically incapacitated to perform the essential obligations of
testified that this kind of disorder is actually one of the severe forms of marriage.
personality disorder even more severe than the other personality disorders Dr. Villegas' conclusion that Manuel is afflicted with Intermittent Explosive
like the borderline and narcissistic personality disorders. Disorder and that Nora has Passive Aggressive Personality Disorder which
render them psychologically incapacitated under Article 36 of the Family
Issue: WHETHER THE CA ERRED IN REVERSING THE DECISION Code, is solely based on her interviews with Manuel and the parties' eldest
OF THE RTC. (Yes) child, Moncho. Consequently, the CA did not err in not according probative
value to her psychological evaluation report and testimony. Dr. Villegas did
Ruling: Dr. Lopez’ findings were able to fulfill the guidelines of the not administer any psychological tests on Manuel despite having had the
opportunity to do so. While the Court has declared that there is no be attributed to the latter's family or childhood, which are circumstances
requirement that the person to be declared psychologically incapacitated prior to the parties' marriage; no evidence has been adduced to
should be personally examined by a physician, much less be subjected to substantiate this fact. Dr. Sta. Ana-Ponio did not make a specific finding
psychological tests, this rule finds application only if the totality of that this was the origin of respondent's alleged inability to appreciate
evidence presented is enough to sustain a finding of psychological marital obligations.
incapacity. The Court applied Section 1, Rule 129 of the Rules of Court in this
With regard to the Confirmatory Decree of the National Tribunal of case which provides:
Appeals, which affirmed the decision of the Metropolitan Tribunal of First "'Unless the evidence presented clearly reveals a situation where the
Instance for the Archdiocese of Manila in favor of nullity of the Catholic parties or one of them, by reason of a grave and incurable psychological
marriage of Manuel and Nora, the Court accords the same with great illness existing at the time the marriage was celebrated, was incapacitated
respect but does not consider the same as controlling and decisive, in line to fulfill the obligations of marital life (and thus could not then have validly
with prevailing jurisprudence. entered into a marriage), then we are compelled to uphold the
indissolubility of the marital tie."
WHEREFORE, the petition for review is hereby DENIED. The Decision
dated March 27, 2014 and Resolution dated April 22, 2015 of the Court of WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED. The August 29, 2013 Decision and
Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 98579 are AFFIRMED. January 6, 2014 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No.
96662 are AFFIRMED.

PSYCHOLOGICAL IN CAPACITY ARTICLE 36

MARIA CONCEPCION N. SINGSON a.k.a. CONCEPCION N.

SINGSON, Petitioner PSYCHOLOGICAL IN CAPACITY ARTICLE 36
vs.BENJAMIN L. SINGSON, Respondent
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, 
Digest by: John Dondi Balbuena v. KATRINA S. TOBORA-TIONGLICO,* Respondent.

Principle: the totality of the adduced evidence will determine the Digest by: John Dondi Balbuena
resolution of the cases under Article 36 of the Family Code.
Principle:
Facts: To make conclusions and generalizations on a spouse's psychological
On July 6, 1974, Maria and Benjamin L. Singson were married. During their condition based on the information fed by only one side, as in the case at
marriage, Maria noticed that Benjamin was dishonest, unreasonably bar, is, to the Court's mind, not different from admitting hearsay evidence
extravagant at the expense of the family's welfare, extremely vain as proof of the truthfulness of the content of such evidence
physically and spiritually and a compulsive gambler. Facts:
On February 27, 2007, Maria Concepcion N. Singson filed a Petition for Katrina and Lawrence got married on July 22, 2000.
declaration of nullity of marriage based on Article 36 of the Family Code. Even during the early stage of their marriage, it was marred by bickering
Benjamin was confined at Metro Psych Facility, a rehabilitation institution and quarrels. Lawrence was distant and did not help in rearing their child,
in Pasig City; and that respondent's attending psychiatrist, Dr. Benita Sta. saying he knew nothing about children and how to run a family. Lawrence
Ana-Ponio which diagnosed Benjamin with having Pathological spent almost every night out for late dinners, parties and drinking
Gambling. sprees. Katrina noticed that Lawrence was alarmingly dependent on his
mother and suffered from a very high degree of immaturity.
Issue: WHETHER THE CA ERRED IN REVERSING THE DECISION Katrina consulted with a psychiatrist, Dr. Juan Arellano (Dr. Arellano), who
OF THE RTC. (No) confirmed her beliefs on Lawrence's psychological incapacity. Dr. Arellano,
based on the narrations of Katrina, diagnosed Lawrence with Narcissistic
Ruling: Maria failed to prove that Benjamin was psychologically Personality Disorder, that is characterized by a heightened sense of
incapacitated to comply with the essential marital obligations because she self-importance and grandiose feelings that he is unique in some way.
failed to establish that such incapacity was grave and serious, and that it
existed at the time of the marriage, and that it is incurable. We agree with Issue:
the CA that the evidence on record does not establish that respondent's Whether the totality of evidence presented by Katrina supports
psychological incapacity was grave and serious as defined by the findings of both the RTC and the CA that Lawrence is
jurisprudential parameters since Benjamin had a job; provided money for psychologically incapacitated. (No)
the family from the sale of his property; provided the land where the
family home was built on; and lived in the family home with petitioner- Ruling:
appellee and their children. Psychological incapacity has been intended by law to be confined to the
Maria did not proffer any convincing proof that Benjamin’s mere most serious cases of personality disorders clearly demonstrative of an
confinement at the rehabilitation center confirmed the gravity of the utter insensitivity or inability to give meaning and significance to the
latter’s psychological incapacity. Neither does petitioner’s bare claim that marriage. It must be characterized by gravity, juridical antecedence and
respondent is a pathological gambler, is irresponsible, and is unable to incurability.
keep a job, necessarily translate into unassailable proof that Benjamin is Using the standards lain on the Molina case, the court finds that Katrina
psychologically incapacitated to perform the essential marital obligations failed to sufficiently prove that Lawrence is psychologically incapacitated to
because psychological incapacity does not equate to difficulty, refusal and discharge the duties expected of a husband. Dr. Arellano’s findings were
neglect in the performance of marital obligations. solely based on Katrina’s self-serving statements. To make conclusions and
Maria failed to establish the specific root cause of the Pathological generalizations on a spouse's psychological condition based on the
Gambling of Benjamin due to absence of proof. information fed by only one side, as in the case at bar, is, to the Court's
petitioner's claim that respondent's alleged psychological incapacity could mind, not different from admitting hearsay evidence as proof of the
truthfulness of the content of such evidence. Their frequent fights,
Lawrence’ insensitivity, immaturity and frequent night-outs can hardly be essential obligations of marriage, are not enough. These traits do not
said to be a psychological illness. hese acts, in our view, do not rise to the equate to an inability to perform marital obligations due to a psychological
level of the "psychological incapacity" that the law requires, and should be illness present at the time the marriage was solemnized. Psychological
distinguished from the "difficulty," if not outright "refusal" or "neglect" in incapacity must be more titan just a "difficulty," "refusal," or "neglect" in
the performance of some marital obligations that characterize some the performance, of some marital obligations. Abegael failed to prove the
marriages. The psychological illness that must afflict a party at the root cause of the alleged psychological incapacity, and to establish the
inception of the marriage should be a malady so grave and permanent as requirements of gravity, juridical antecedence, and incurability. The
to deprive the party of his or her awareness of the duties and psychological report, was based entirely on Abegael's assumed knowledge
responsibilities of the matrimonial bond he or she was then about to of Marco's family background and upbringing, Ms. Tayag was not able to
assume. establish with certainty that Marco's alleged psychological incapacity was
grave enough to bring about the inability of Marco to assume the essential
obligations of marriage, so that the same was medically permanent or
WHEREFORE, the petition for review on certiorari is hereby GRANTED.
incurable. Also, it did not fully explain the details of Marco's alleged
The Decision dated May 27, 2015 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV
disorder and its root cause; how Ms. Tayag came to the conclusion that
No. 101985, which affirmed the May 8, 2012 Decision rendered by the
respondent-appellee's condition was incurable; and how it related to the
Regional Trial Court of Imus Cavite, Branch 20, granting the petition for
essential marital obligations that respondent-appellee failed to assume.
declaration of nullity of marriage on the ground of Article 36 of the Family
The issue of whether or not psychological incapacity exists in a given case
Code and declaring the marriage of Katrina S. Tabora-Tionglico and
calling for annulment of marriage depends crucially, more than in any field
Lawrence C. Tionglico void ab initio, is hereby REVERSED and SET
of the law, on the facts of the case. Abegael failed to establish the alleged
ASIDE. The petition for declaration of nullity of marriage docketed as Civil
psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code based on the
Case No. 4903-11 is hereby DISMISSED.
characteristics laid out in Santos v CA (a) gravity, (b) juridical
antecedence, and (c) incurability. The totality of the presented evidence
was not able to over come the Constitutional mandate of the dissolution
and continuation of marriage.

WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED. The December 14, 2012 Decision

and August 29, 2013 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No.
95112 are AFFIRMED.

PSYCHOLOGICAL IN CAPACITY ARTICLE 36

PSYCHOLOGICAL IN CAPACITY ARTICLE 36

ABIGAEL AN ESPINA-DAN, Petitioner, v. MARCO DAN, Respondent. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner,

v. MARTIN NIKOLAI Z. JAVIER AND MICHELLE K. MERCADO-
JAVIER, Respondents.
Digest by: John Dondi Balbuena

Principle: Digest by: John Dondi Balbuena

the incapacity should be established by the totality of evidence presented
during trial, making it incumbent upon the petitioner to sufficiently prove Principle:
the existence of the psychological incapacity the incapacity should be established by the totality of evidence
presented during trial, making it incumbent upon the petitioner to
Facts:
sufficiently prove the existence of the psychological incapacity
Abigael An Espina-Dan and Marco Dan - an Italian national - met in a
chatroom on the internet  sometime in May, 2005.
Marco flew in from Italy and tied the knot with Abegael on January 23, Facts: Michelle and Martin were married on February 8, 2002.
2006. On February 23, 2006, the couple lived together in Italy. On November 20, 2008, Martin filed a Petition for Declaration of
In their exchanges of chat messages and letters, Abegael found Nullity of Marriage and Joint Custody of Common Minor Child
respondent to be sweet, kind and jolly, He made her feel that he really under Article 36 of the Family Code. Martin alleged that both he
cared for her. He was romantic, although at times, respondent was and Michelle were psychologically incapacitated to comply with the
impatient and easily got irritated. essential obligations of marriage.
petitioner noticed that the respondent was not circumcised, addicted to
In order to support the allegations in his petition, Martin testified
marijuana and video games, has poor hygiene and dependent on his
mother.
on his own behalf, and presented the psychological findings of Dr.
On 18 April 2007, she flew back to the Philippines. Since then, there was Elias D. Adamos.
no communication between them. The findings of Adamos were based on the statements of Martin
She filed for a petition of the declaration of the nullity of her marriage with and Michelle’s and Martin’s common friend, Jose. Dr. Adamos
Marco on the ground of Marco’s psychological incapacity. She presented diagnosed both the couple as having Narcissistic Personality
her mother and Dr. Tayag as her witness. Disorder.
Dr. Tayag diagnosed Marco with Dependent Personality Disorder with
Underlying Antisocial Traits based solely on the statements of Issue: WHETHER THE FINDINGS OF DR. ADAMOS WERE
Abegaela and her mother.
ABLE TO SUPPORT THE PETITION TO DECLARE THE
Issue: WHETHER THE TOTALITY OF THE EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE MARRIAGE NULL AND VOID. (Yes)
OVERCOME THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRESUMPTION OF THE
DISSOLUBILITY OF MARRIAGE. (No) Ruling: This Court found that there was insufficient evidence
presented to support the alleged psychological incapacity of
Ruling: The Court find the totality of the Abegael's evidence insufficient to Michelle. The findings of Dr. Adamos faild to establish the gravity,
prove Marco was psychologically incapacitated to perform his marital incurability and juridical antecedence of Michelle’s condition. The
obligations. Abegael's depiction of Marco as irresponsible, childish, overly evidence was unilateral and unreliable since Jose and Martin only
dependent on his mother, addicted to video games, addicted to drugs,
lazy, had poor hygiene, and his refusal or unwillingness to assume the
met Michelle on early adulthood and there was no chance that
they were able to establish the root cause of the alleged marriage to petitioner. Indubitably, Dr. Tudla's report and testimony enjoy
personality disorder. such probative force emanating from the assistance her opinion gave to
But Dr. Adamos’ findings were able to establish Martin’s NPD. Dr. the courts to show the facts upon which her psychological conclusion was
based. In Republic v Pangasinan, Psychological incapacity may manifest
Adamos concluded from the tests administered on Martin that this
itself after the celebration of the marriage even if it already exists at the
disorder was rooted in the traumatic experiences he experienced time of the marriage. Liezl's histrionic personality disorder was the cause
during his childhood, having grown up around a violent father who of her inability to discharge her marital obligations to love, respect and
was abusive of his mother. This adversely affected Martin in such give concern, support and fidelity to her husband. It is true that sexual
a manner that he formed unrealistic values and standards on his infidelity and abandonment are grounds for legal separation. It may be
own marriage, and proposed unconventional sexual practices. noted, however, that the courts a quo duly connected such aberrant acts
When Michelle would disagree with his ideals, Martin would not of Liezl as actual manifestations of her histrionic personality disorder.
only quarrel with Michelle, but would also inflict harm on her.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The April 25, 2017 Decision and
Other manifestations include excessive love for himself, self-
January 11, 2018 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No.
entitlement, immaturity, and self-centeredness. 105873 are AFFIRMED.
The marriage was declared null and void based on Martin’s
psychological incapacity.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition for review

on certiorari is PARTIALLY GRANTED insofar as the
psychological incapacity of respondent Michelle K. Mercado-Javier
is concerned. The Decision dated July 10, 2013 and Resolution
dated November 28, 2013 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV
No. 98015 are MODIFIED to the extent that the marriage of the
respondents on February 8, 2002 is declared NULL and VOID AB
INITIO due to the psychological incapacity of respondent Martin
Nikolai Z. Javier, pursuant to Article 36 of the Family Code.

PSYCHOLOGICAL IN CAPACITY ARTICLE 36

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. LIBERATO P. MOLA

CRUZ, Respondent.
Digest by:
John Dondi Balbuena

Principle:
each case must be judged, not on the basis of a priori assumptions,
predilections or generalizations but according to its own facts

Facts: Liberato and Liezl were married on August 30, 2002.

Liezl worked as an entertainer and Liberato as a construction worker in
Japan. Liberato noticed changes in Liezl. She began going out of the house
without his permission and started giving respondent the cold treatment.
Liezl also started getting angry at respondent for no reason. The couple
later returned to the Philippines after Liezl was released from detention
due to overstaying in Japan. Liezl admitted to him that she was having an
affair with a Japanese man. One day, he found Liezl's Japanese lover in
their house. To his surprise, Liezl introduced him to her lover as her elder
brother.
Respondent decided to file a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage
under Article 36 of the Family Code.
Liberato presented expert witness, Dr. Pacita Tudla (Dr. Tudla) a clinical
psychologist. Tudla based her findings in the statements of Liberato, Liezl
and Ma. Luisa Conag-Liezl’s younger sister. Based on the evaluation and
assessment procedure she followed, Dr. Tudla found that Liezl was
afflicted by histrionic personality disorder, a pervasive pattern of behavior
characterized by excessive emotionality and attention seeking. A histrionic
so afflicted tends to be perceived by others as selfish, egotistical and
unreliable; seeking immediate gratification; over-reactive to even minor
provocations; suggestible; and lacking in analytical ability.

Issue: WHETHER THE FINDINGS IN THIS CASE ARE ENOUGH TO

SUPPORT THE ALLEGED PSYCHOLOGICAL INCAPACITY OF LIEZL.
(Yes)

Ruling: Dr. Tudla was able to collect and verify largely the same facts in
the course of her psychological evaluation of both spouses and her
interview of Liezl's sister. Dr. Tudla's report gave a description of histrionic
personality disorder, and correlated the characteristics of this disorder with
Liezl's behavior from her formative years through he course of her