SANTOS vs.

CA and JULIA BEDIA-SANTOS

G.R. No. 112019 January 4 1995
In relation to Article 36
FACTS: This is a petition for review on certiorari filed by Leouel Santos, the petitioner in
his attempt to have his marriage with Julia Bedia-Santos be declared a nullity. Leouel, a
first rank lieutenant in the Philippine Army, first met Julia in Iloilo City. The meeting proved
to be an eventful day between the two, as they have later on exchanged their vows before
the Court in Iloilo City on September 20 1986, then followed by a church wedding. The
couple lived with Julias parents in the same city. On July 18 1987, Julia gave birth to a
baby boy named Leouel Santos, Jr. However, due to the interference of the wifes parents
over their marital affairs, they started to quarrel over a number of other things, i.e. their
plan to move out from his parents-in-laws abode, and the frequent days wherein the
petitioner spends a few days with his own parents. In 1988, Julia decided to work abroad
(US) as a nurse, despite the petitioners efforts to dissuade her. She called after 7 months
of her departure, promising that she will return. However, she never did the same. Leouel
tried to desperately reach and contact her when he went to the United States, but all of his
efforts turned in vain. Having failed to make Julia return home, the petitioner filed a
complaint for Voiding of Marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code. He argued that the
failure of Julia to return home, or communicate with him for more than five years shows
that the respondent is psychologically incapacitated to enter into married life. Thereafter,
summons were made, wherein the respondent argued that the petitioner was irresponsible
and incompetent. The trial court later on dismissed the case, which was then affirmed by
the Court of Appeals.
ISSUE: Whether or not the marriage between Leouel Santos and Julia Bedia-Santos be
nullified on the ground of psychological incapacity under Article 36.
RULING: No. Article 36 of the Family Code cannot be taken and construed independently
of, but must stand in conjunction with, existing percepts in our law on marriage. Thus
correlated, psychological incapacity should refer to no less than a mental (NOT
PHYSICAL) incapacity that causes a party to be truly incognitive of the basic marital
covenants that concomitantly must be assumed and discahrged by the parties to the
marriage which include obligations to live together, observe love, respect and fidelity and
render help and support. Psychological incapacity has been confined with the most serious
cases of personality disorders clearly demonstrative of an utter insensitivity or inability to
give significance to the marriage.
Note: You may read the whole case in Sta. Maria, hehe. Page 222-223.