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.