LEOUEL SANTOS, petitioner vs.

THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS AND JULIA

ROSARIO BEDIA-SANTOS, respondents.
G.R. No. 112019 January 4, 1995 DECLARATION OF NULLITY OF MARRIAGE ON THE
GROUND OF PSYCHOLOGICAL INCAPACITY.
FACTS:
Leouel and Julia were married on September 20, 1986. They were first married before
the MTC in Iloilo. Shortly, they married in a church. They lived with Julias parents. Soon, she
gave birth to their first child. Some disagreements the couple had, was the issue of living
independently from Julias parents.
On 18 May 1988, Julia finally left for USA to work as a nurse. Julia, via phone call,
promised to return home upon the expiration of her contract in July 1989. She never did. When
Leouel got a chance to visit the United States, where he underwent a training program of AFP,
he desperately tried to locate, or to somehow get in touch with, Julia but all his efforts were of
no avail.
Having failed to get Julia to come home, Leouel filed with the RTC a complaint for
voiding their marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity. RTC dismissed the complaint.
CA affirmed the dismissal.
Hence, this petition.

APPLICABLE LAW:
Article 36 of the Family Code provides that a marriage contracted by any party who, at
the time of the celebration was psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential marital
obligations of marriage, shall likewise be void even if such incapacity becomes manifest only
after its solemnization.

ISSUE:
Whether or Not, Julias failure to return home or at the very least to communicate with
him, for more than five years are circumstances that clearly show her being psychologically
incapacitated.

HELD:
No. Justice Sempio-Diy opined that psychological incapacity must be characterized by
(a) gravity, (b) juridical antecedence, and (c) incurability. The incapacity must be grave or
serious such that the party would be incapable of carrying out the ordinary duties required in

marriage; it must be rooted in the history of the party antedating the marriage, although the
overt manifestations may emerge only after the marriage; and it must be incurable or, even if it
were otherwise, the cure would be beyond the means of the party involved. The intendment of
the law has been to confine the meaning of "psychological incapacity" to the most serious cases
of personality disorders clearly demonstrative of an utter insensitivity or inability to give meaning
and significance to the marriage. The case at bar can, in no measure at all, comes close to the
standards required to decree a nullity of marriage.

PADILLA, J., dissenting:

Justice Padilla noted that in his opinion, it is clear that private respondent has been
shown to be psychologically incapacitated to comply with at least one essential marital
obligation, i.e. that of living and cohabiting with her husband.

CHI MING TSOI, petitioner vs. COURT OF APPEALS and GINA LAO-TSOI, respondents.

G.R. No. 119190 January 16, 1997 - DECLARATION OF NULLITY OF MARRIAGE ON THE
GROUND OF PSYCHOLOGICAL INCAPACITY.

FACTS:
Chi Ming Tsoi and Gina Lao were married in 1988. After the celebration of their wedding,
they proceed to the house of defendants mother. There was no sexual intercourse between
them during their first night and same thing happened until their fourth night. In an effort to have
their honeymoon in a private place, they went to Baguio but Ginas relatives went with them.
Again, there was no sexual intercourse since the defendant avoided by taking a long walk
during siesta or sleeping on a rocking chair at the living room. Since May 1988 until March 1989
they slept together in the same bed but no attempt of sexual intercourse between them.
Because of this they submitted themselves for medical examination to a urologist in Chinese
General Hospital in 1989. The result of the physical examination of Gina was disclosed, while
that of the husband was kept confidential even the medicine prescribed.
There were allegations that the reason why Chi Ming Tsoi married her is to maintain his
residency status here in the country. Gina does not want to reconcile with Chi Ming Tsoi and
want their marriage declared void on the ground of psychological incapacity. On the other hand,
the latter does not want to have their marriage annulled because he loves her very much, he
has no defect on his part and is physically and psychologically capable and since their
relationship is still young, they can still overcome their differences. Chi Ming Tsoi submitted
himself to another physical examination and the result was there is no evidence of impotency
and he is capable of erection.
The trial court rendered a judgment declaring VOID the marriage entered into by the
plaintiff with the defendant. The CA affirmed the trial courts decision.
Hence, this appeal.

APPLICABLE LAWS:
Article 36 of the Family Code provides that a marriage contracted by any party who, at
the time of the celebration was psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential marital
obligations of marriage, shall likewise be void even if such incapacity becomes manifest only
after its solemnization.
Article 68 of the Family Code states that the husband and wife are obliged to live
together, observe mutual love, respect and fidelity, and render mutual help and support.

ISSUE:
Whether or Not, Chi Ming Tsois refusal to have sexual intercourse with his wife
constitutes psychological incapacity.

HELD:
Yes. The abnormal reluctance or unwillingness to consummate his marriage is strongly
indicative of a serious personality disorder which to the mind of the Supreme Court clearly
demonstrates an utter insensitivity or inability to give meaning and significance to the marriage
within the meaning of the Family Code.
If a spouse, although physically capable but simply refuses to perform his or her
essential marital obligations and the refusal is senseless and constant, Catholic marriage
tribunals attribute the causes to psychological incapacity than to stubborn refusal. Furthermore,
one of the essential marital obligations under the Family Code is to procreate children thus
constant non-fulfillment of this obligation will finally destroy the integrity and wholeness of the
marriage.

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner vs. REYNALDO MOLINA, respondent.

268 SCRA 198 - DECLARATION OF NULLITY OF MARRIAGE ON THE GROUND OF

PSYCHOLOGICAL INCAPACITY.

FACTS:
On April 14, 1985, plaintiff Roridel O. Molina married Reynaldo Molina which union bore
a son.
After a year of marriage, Reynaldo showed signs of immaturity and irresponsibility as a
husband and father as he preferred to spend more time with his friends, depended on his
parents for assistance, and was never honest with his wife in regard to their finances resulting in
frequent quarrels between them.
The RTC granted Roridels petition for declaration of nullity of her marriage which was
affirmed by the CA.

APPLICABLE LAW:
Article 36 of the Family Code provides that a marriage contracted by any party who, at
the time of the celebration was psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential marital
obligations of marriage, shall likewise be void even if such incapacity becomes manifest only
after its solemnization.

ISSUE:
Whether or Not, irreconcilable differences and conflicting personalities constitute
psychological incapacity.

HELD:
There is no clear showing that the psychological defect spoken of is an incapacity. It
appears to be more of a difficulty, if not outright refusal or neglect in the performance of
some marital obligations.
Mere showing of irreconcilable differences and conflicting personalities in no wise
constitutes psychological incapacity. It is not enough to prove that the parties failed to meet their
responsibilities and duties as married persons; it is essential that they must be shown to be
incapable of doing so, due to some psychological (not physical) illness.

The evidence merely adduce that Roridel and her husband could not get along with each
other. There had been no showing of the gravity of the problem, neither its juridical antecedence
nor its incurability.
The following guidelines in the interpretation and application of Article 36 of the Family
Code of the Philippines are hereby handed down for the guidance of the bench and the bar:
1. The burden of proof to show the nullity of the marriage belongs to the plaintiff. Any doubt
should be resolved in favor of the existence 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.
3. The incapacity must be proven to be existing at the time of the celebration of the marriage.
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.
5. Such illness must be grave enough to bring about the disability of the party to assume the
essential obligations of marriage. Thus, mild characteriological peculiarities, mood changes,
occasional emotional outbursts cannot be accepted as root causes.
6. The essential marital obligations must be those embraced by Articles 68 up to 71 of the
Family Code as regards the husband and wife as well as Articles 220, 221 and 225 of the same
Code in regard to parents and their children. Such non-complied marital obligation(s) must also
be stated in the petition, proven by evidence and included in the text of the decision.
7. Interpretations given by the National Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal of the Catholic Church in
the Philippines, while not controlling or decisive, should be given great respect by our courts. It
is clear that Article 36 was taken by the Family Code Revision Committee from Canon 1095 of
the New Code of Canon Law, which became effective in 1983.
8. The trial court must order the prosecuting attorney or fiscal and Solicitor General to appear as
counsel of the state. No decision shall be handed down unless the Solicitor General issues
a certification, which will be quoted in the decision, briefly stating therein his reasons for his
agreement or opposition, as the case may be, to the petition.

LUCITA ESTRELLA HERNANDEZ, petitioner vs. COURT OF APPEALS and MARIO C.

HERNANDEZ, respondents.
[G.R. No. 126010. December 8, 1999] - DECLARATION OF NULLITY OF MARRIAGE ON
THE GROUND OF PSYCHOLOGICAL INCAPACITY.

FACTS:
Lucita and Marcio met in Philippine Christian University in Dasmarinas when lucita was
Marcios teacher for two consecutive semesters. Lucita was 5 years older than Marcio. They
later on became sweethearts and eventually got married. They also had a child. Lucita
supported the family as her husband continued studying, supported by his parents. The first few
years of their marriage went okay. But this eventually changed. Marcio had an extra-marital
relation with another student who was also married. When Lucita discovered this, he asked
Lucio to end it. He promised to but did not fulfill it and left their conjugal home and child. After
some time, he returned to Lucita and she accepted him. However, his attitude worsened when
he got employed to Reynold Philippines, Inc. He engaged in extreme promiscuous conduct
during the latter part of 1986. As a result, private respondent contracted gonorrhea and infected
petitioner.
Petitioner averred that on one occasion of a heated argument, private respondent hit
their eldest child who was then barely a year old. Private respondent is not close to any of their
children as he was never affectionate and hardly spent time with them.
On July 10, 1992, petitioner filed before the RTC a petition seeking the annulment of her
marriage to private respondent on the ground of psychological incapacity. RTC and CA denied
the petition.
Hence, this case.

APPLICABLE LAW:
Article 36 of the Family Code provides that a marriage contracted by any party who, at
the time of the celebration was psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential marital
obligations of marriage, shall likewise be void even if such incapacity becomes manifest only
after its solemnization.

ISSUE:
Whether or Not, Marcio is psychologically incapacitated to fulfill his marital obligations.

HELD:
The psychological incapacity of a spouse, as a ground for declaration of nullity of
marriage, must exist at the time of the celebration of marriage. More so, chronic sexual
infidelity, abandonment, gambling and use of prohibited drugs are not grounds per se, of
psychological incapacity of a spouse. Certainly, petitioner-appellants declaration that at the time
of their marriage her respondent-husbands character was on the borderline between a
responsible person and the happy-go-lucky, could not constitute the psychological incapacity in
contemplation of Article 36 of the Family Code.

BRENDA B. MARCOS, petitioner, vs. WILSON G. MARCOS, respondent.

[G.R. No. 136490. October 19, 2000] - DECLARATION OF NULLITY OF MARRIAGE ON THE
GROUND OF PSYCHOLOGICAL INCAPACITY.

FACTS:
Petitioner Brenda Marcos and Respondent Wilson Marcos were married twice and had
five children. After the downfall of President Marcos, the respondent left the military service in
1987. Consequently, due to the respondents failure to engage in any gainful employment, they
would often quarrel and the respondent would hit and beat the petitioner. As a result, in 1992
they were already living separately. Thus, petitioner filed for annulment of marriage assailing Art.
36 of the Family Code.
The court a quo found the respondent to be psychologically incapacitated to perform his
marital obligations. However, the Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the RTC because
psychological incapacity had not been established by the totality of the evidence presented.

APPLICABLE LAW:
Article 36 of the Family Code provides that a marriage contracted by any party who, at
the time of the celebration was psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential marital
obligations of marriage, shall likewise be void even if such incapacity becomes manifest only
after its solemnization.

ISSUE:
Whether or Not, Respondent Wilson Marcos failure to find work to support his family and
his violent attitude towards Petitioner Brenda Marcos and their children constituted
psychological incapacity.

HELD:
The court ruled the negative.
The totality of the respondents acts does not lead to a conclusion of psychological
incapacity on his part. There is absolutely no showing that his defects were already present at
the inception of the marriage or that they are incurable. Article 36 of the Family Code is not to be

confused with a divorce law that cuts the marital bond at the time the causes therefore 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 and so permanent as to deprive one of
awareness of the duties and responsibilities of the matrimonial bond one is about to assume.
Psychological incapacity, as a ground for declaring the nullity of marriage, may be
established by the totality of evidence presented. There is no requirement, however that the
respondent should be examined by a physician or a psychologist as a condition sine qua non for
such declaration.

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. ERLINDA MATIAS DAGDAG, respondent.

G.R. No. 109975

February 9, 2001 - DECLARATION OF NULLITY OF MARRIAGE ON THE
GROUND OF PSYCHOLOGICAL INCAPACITY.

FACTS:
Erlinda Matias married Avelino Parangan Dagdag and begot two children. Avelino would
disappear for months without explanation and attend to drinking sprees with friends and return
home drunk when with the family; forced his wife to have sexual intercourse and if she resisted,
would inflict injure to the latter. He left his family again and never heard of him. Erlinda was
constrained to look for a job to fend for themselves. Erlinda then learned that Avelino was
imprisoned for some crime, and that he escaped from jail who remains at-large at date.
Erlinda filed for judicial declaration of nullity of marriage on the ground of psychological
incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code. The trial court rendered a decision declaring the
marriage void under Artcile 36 of the Family Code. The Solicitor General appealed to the Court
of Appeals raising that the lower court erred in declaring the apellee's marriage to Avelino
Dagdag null and void on the ground of psychological incapacity of the latter, pursuant to Article
36 of the Family Code, the psychological incapacity of the nature contemplated by the law not
having been proven to exist. However, the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the trial
court.

APPLICABLE LAW:
Article 36 of the Family Code provides that a marriage contracted by any party who, at
the time of the celebration was psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential marital
obligations of marriage, shall likewise be void even if such incapacity becomes manifest only
after its solemnization.

ISSUE:
Whether or Not, immaturity and irresponsibility, habitual alcoholic, and being a fugitive
from justice constitute psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code to declare
the marriage null and void.

HELD:

No. The ruling in Republic v. Court of Appeals and Molina case is reiterated herein in
which the Court laid down the following GUIDELINES in the interpretation and application of
Article 36 of the Family Code:
(1) The burden of proof to show the nullity of the marriage belongs to the plaintiff.
(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.
(3) The incapacity must be proven to be existing at the time of the celebration of the marriage.
(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.
(5) Such illness must be grave enough to bring about the disability of the party to assume the
essential obligations of marriage.
(6) The essential marital obligations must be those embraced by Articles 68 up to 71 of the
Family Code as regards the husband and wife as well as Articles 220, 221 and 225 of the same
Code in regard to parents and their children
(7) Interpretations given by the National Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal of the Catholic Church in
the Philippines, while not controlling or decisive, should be given great respect by our courts.
(8) The trial court must order the prosecuting attorney or fiscal and the Solicitor General to
appear as counsel for the state.

University of the East Manila

COLLEGE OF LAW

LEGAL WRITING

(CASE DIGEST)

Submitted To:

Atty. Felix T. De Ramos

Submitted By:

April Hannah Tolentino

October 10, 2014