BESO VS.

DAGUMAN
A.M. No. MTJ-99-1211, January 28, 2000
Complainant: Zenaida S. Beso
Respondent: Judge Juan Daguman, MCTC, Sta. Margarita-Tarangan, Pagsanjan, Samar
Ponente: J. Ynares-Santiago

Facts:
Judge stands charged with Neglect of Duty and Abuse of Authority by Beso. In the Complaint-Affidavit
dated December 12, 1997, the complainant charged judge with solemnizing marriage outside of his
jurisdiction and of negligence in not retaining a copy and not registering the marriage contract with the
office of the Local Civil Registrar with the following facts:
(a) On August 28, 1997, the complainant and complainants fiance, Bernardito A. Yman, got married
under the solemnization of the respondent in the respondents residence in Calbayog City, Samar;
(b) That after the wedding, Yman abandoned the complainant;
(c) That when Yman left, the complainant inquired to the City Civil Registrar to inquire regarding her
Marriage Contract. The complainant found out that her marriage was not registered;
(d) The complainant wrote to the respondent to inquire and the former found out that all the copies were
taken by Yman and no copy was retained by the respondent.
The respondent averred with the following rationale:
(a) Respondent solemnized the marriage because of the urgent request of the complainant and
Yman. He also believed that being a Filipino overseas worker, the complainant deserved more than
ordinary official attention under present Government policy;
(b) Respondent was also leaning on the side of liberality of the law so that it may be not too expensive
and complicated for citizens to get married;
(c) Respondents failure to file the marriage contract was beyond his control because Yman absconded
with the missing copies of the marriage certificate.
(d) Respondent, however, tried to recover custody of the missing documents.

The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) in an evaluation report dated, August 11, 1998 found the
respondent Judge committed non-feasance in office and recommended that he be fined Five
Thousand Pesos (P5,000).
Issues:
The issues raised in this complaint are:
(1) Whether or not the respondent solemnized a marriage outside of his jurisdiction; and
(2) Whether or not the respondent committed negligence by not retaining a copy and not registering the
complainants marriage before the office of the Local Civil Registrar.

Held:
(1) Yes. The judge solemnized a marriage outside of his jurisdiction. Article 7 of the Family Code
provides that marriage may be solemnized by, Any incumbent member of the judiciary with the courts
jurisdiction. In relation thereto, according to Article 8 of the Family Code, there are only three instances
with which a judge may solemnize a marriage outside of his jurisdiction:
(1.1) when either or both the contracting parties is at the point of death;
(1.2) when the residence of either party is located in a remote place;
(1.3) where both of the parties request the solemnizing officer in writing in which case the marriage may
be solemnized at a house or place designated by them in a sworn statement to that effect.
In this case, non of the three instances is present.
(2) Yes. The judge committed negligence. Pursuant to Article 23 of the Family code, such duty to register
the marriage is the respondents duty. The same article provides, It shall be the duty of the person
solemnizing the marriage to send the duplicate and triplicate copies of the certificate not later than
fifteen (15) days after the marriage, to the local civil registrar of the place where the marriage was
solemnized. Proper receipts shall be issued by the local civil registrar to the solemnizing officer
transmitting copies of the marriage certificate. The solemnizing officer shall retain in his file the
quadruplicate copy of the marriage certificate, the original of the marriage license, and in proper cases,
the affidavit of the contracting party regarding the solemnization of the marriage in a place other than
those mentioned in Article 8..
The recommendation of the OCA stands.

Republic vs. CA and Molina

G.R. No. 108763 February 13, 1997
FACTS:
The case at bar challenges the decision of CA affirming the marriage of the
respondent Roridel Molina to Reynaldo Molina void in the ground of
psychological incapacity. The couple got married in 1985, after a year, Reynaldo
manifested signs of immaturity and irresponsibility both as husband and a father
preferring to spend more time with friends whom he squandered his money,
depends on his parents for aid and assistance and was never honest with his
wife in regard to their finances. In 1986, the couple had an intense quarrel and
as a result their relationship was estranged. Roridel quit her work and went to
live with her parents in Baguio City in 1987 and a few weeks later, Reynaldo left
her and their child. Since then he abandoned them.
ISSUE: Whether or not the marriage is void on the ground of psychological
incapacity.
HELD:
The marriage between Roridel and Reynaldo subsists and remains valid. What
constitutes psychological incapacity is not mere showing of irreconcilable
differences and confliction personalities. It is indispensable that the parties
must exhibit inclinations which would not meet the essential marital
responsibilites and duties due to some psychological illness. Reynaldos action
at the time of the marriage did not manifest such characteristics that would
comprise grounds for psychological incapacity. The evidence shown by Roridel
merely showed that she and her husband cannot get along with each other and
had not shown gravity of the problem neither its juridical antecedence nor its
incurability. In addition, the expert testimony by Dr Sison showed no incurable
psychiatric disorder but only incompatibility which is not considered as
psychological incapacity.
The following are the guidelines as to the grounds of psychological incapacity

laid set forth in this case:

burden of proof to show nullity belongs to the plaintiff

root causes of the incapacity must be medically and clinically inclined

such incapacity should be in existence at the time of the marriage

such incapacity must be grave so as to disable the person in complying

with the essentials of marital obligations of marriage

such incapacity must be embraced in Art. 68-71 as well as Art 220, 221
and 225 of the Family Code

decision of the National Matrimonial Appellate Court or the Catholic

Church must be respected

court shall order the prosecuting attorney and the fiscal assigned to it to
act on behalf of the state.

SANTOS VS. CA AND BEDIA-SANTOS

MARCH 28, 2013 ~ VBDIAZ

SANTOS vs. CA AND JULIA ROSARIO BEDIA-SANTOS

G.R. No. 112019 January 4, 1995
FACTS: Leouel Santos, a First Lieutenant in the Philippine Army, met
Julia in Iloilo. The two got married in 1986 before a municipal trial
court followed shortly thereafter, by a church wedding. The couple
lived with Julias parents at the J. Bedia Compound. Julia gave birth
to a baby boy in 1987 and was named as Leouel Santos Jr.
Occasionally, the couple will quarrel over a number of things aside
from the interference of Julias parents into their family affairs.
Julia left in 1988 to work in US as a nurse despite Leouels pleas to
dissuade her. Seven months after her departure, she called her
husband and promised to return home upon the expiration of her
contract in July 1989 but she never did. Leouel got a chance to visit
US where he underwent a training program under AFP, he
desperately tried to locate or somehow get in touch with Julia but all
his efforts were of no avail.

Leouel filed a complaint to have their marriage declared void under

Article 36 of the Family Code. He argued that failure of Julia to return
home or to communicate with him for more than 5 years are
circumstances that show her being psychologically incapacitated to
enter into married life.
ISSUE: Whether their marriage can be considered void under Article
36 of the Family Code.
HELD:
The intendment of the law has been to confine the meaning of
psychological incapacity to the most serious cases of personal
disorders clearly demonstrative of an utter insensitivity or inability
to give meaning and significance to the marriage. This condition
must exist at the time the marriage is celebrated.
Undeniably and understandably, Leouel stands aggrieved, even
desperate, in his present situation. Regrettably, neither law nor
society itself can always provide all the specific answers to every
individual problem. Wherefore, his petition was denied.
__________
Notes:
psychological incapacity must be characterized by (a) gravity, (b)
juridical antecedence, and (c) incurability. The incapacity must be
grave or serious such that the party would be incapable of carrying
out the ordinary duties required in marriage; it must be rooted in the
history of the party antedating the marriage, although the overt
manifestations may emerge only after the marriage; and it must be
incurable or, even if it were otherwise, the cure would be beyond the
means of the party involved.

FROM ATTY BAYANI^^

In 1990, Leo married Marie, the latter being ten years his senior. In 1993, Leo filed to annul
the marriage due to Maries PI. Leo claimed that Marie persistently lied about herself, the
people around her, her occupation, income, educational attainment and other events or
things. She would claim that she is a psychologist but she is not. Shed claim she is a singer
with the company Blackgold and that she is the latters number 1 money maker but shes
not. Shed also spend lavishly as opposed to her monthly income. She fabricates things and
people only to serve her make believe world. Leo presented an expert that proved Maries
PI. Marie denied all Leos allegations and also presented an expert to prove her case. The
RTC ruled against Marie and annulled the marriage. The Matrimonial Tribunal of the church
also annulled the marriage and was affirmed by the Vaticans Roman Rata. The CA
reversed the decision hence the appeal.
ISSUE: Whether or not PI is attendant to the case.
HELD: Yes, PI is attendant. The guidelines established in the Molina case is properly
established in the case at bar.
The SC also emphasized what fraud means as contemplated in Art 45 (3) of the FC vis a vis
Art 46 of the FC. In PI, the misrepresentation done by Marie points to her inadequacy to
cope with her marital obligations, kindred to psychological incapacity. In Art 45 (3), marriage
may be annulled if the consent of either party was obtained by fraud, and Article 46 which
enumerates the circumstances constituting fraud under the previous article, clarifies that no
other misrepresentation or deceit as to character, health, rank, fortune or chastity shall
constitute such fraud as will give grounds for action for the annulment of marriage. These
provisions of Art 45 (3) and Art 46 cannot be applied in the case at bar because the
misrepresentations done by Marie is not considered as fraud but rather such
misrepresentations constitute her aberrant behaviour which further constitutes PI. Her
misrepresentations are not lies sought to vitiate Leos consent to marry her. Her
misrepresentations are evidence that Marie cannot simply distinguish fiction/fantasy from
reality which is so grave and it falls under the fourth guideline laid down in the Molina Case.

SYNTHESIZING MARABLE VS. MARABLE AND ITS CASE DIGEST

Title:

ROSALINO L. MARABLE, Petitioner, vs. MYRNA F. MARABLE, Respondent,

G.R. No. 178741, promulgated on January 17, 2011.
639 SCRA 557, 567
Legal Issue:
Is psychological evaluation a necessity for the establishment of psychological
incapacity of a spouse for declaration of nullity of marriage?

Legal
Facts:
In 1967 petitioner Rosalino Marable and respondent Myrna Marable were students in
Arellano University who became lovers after they met in a bus. They got married
on December 19, 1970, in civil rites of Tanay, Rizal before Mayor Antonio C.
Esguerra, and that following day is a church wedding at the Chapel of Muntinlupa
Bilibid Prison. Somehow they were blessed with 5 children but several years after
the marriage their relationship got soured with frequent quarrels as a consequence,
their daughter rebelled and unexpectedly she got pregnant at her young age.
Eventually, the petitioner had incessant marital conflicts leading to withdrawal of
marital obligations. Rosalino Marable filed a petition for the declaration of nullity of
his marriage on the ground of his own psychological incapacity. In support of his
petition, petitioner presented Dr. Nedy L. Tayag, a clinical psychologist, who
reported that petitioner is suffering from "Antisocial Personality Disorder,"
characterized by a pervasive pattern of social deviancy, rebelliousness, impulsivity,
self-centeredness, deceitfulness and lack of remorse which rooted in deep feelings
of rejection starting from the family to peers, and that his experiences have made
him so self-absorbed for needed attention. The RTC granted the petition; on the
other hand the Court of Appeals reversed and set aside the decision of the RTC thus
judgment of the Court denied the appeal.

Holding and Reasoning:

In this case yes but the examination still doesnt corroborate the contention
of psychological incapacity. The Court said that the petitioner was able to prove
infidelity on his part and the existence of "irreconcilable differences" and
"conflicting personalities apparently, it doesnt constitute psychological incapacity.
Psychological incapacity must be more than just a "difficulty," "refusal" or "neglect"
in the performance of some marital obligations. Rather, it is essential that the
concerned party was incapable of doing so, due to some psychological illness
existing at the time of the celebration of the marriage . The CA did not err in
declaring the marriage of petitioner and respondent as valid and subsisting. The
totality of the evidence presented is insufficient to establish petitioners
psychological incapacity to fulfill his essential marital obligations.
Policing:

Psychological examination by means of getting the emotional quotient

through test must be properly observed in every couple prior to marriage. Greater
advantage if sets of personality and psychological examination after attending
marriage seminars should be one of the additional requisites prior to the
solemnization and in order to prevent any future relationship hostilities before
entering marriage life.

Synthesis:
In Marable v. Marable, 639 SCRA 557, 567, The Supreme Court ruled that conflicting
personalities do not constitute psychological incapacity. Furthermore, the provision
in Article 36 does not stress either of its characteristic as to the gravity, juridical
antecedence and incurability, indicating such guidelines that the burden of proof
belongs to the plaintiff to which its medical or psychological examination clearly
explains or bring about such totality of evidence in establishing psychological
incapacity.