Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 4

Article

36 Cases
Santos v. CA

Republic v. Molina

Hernandez v. CA

Grounds for Denial


Points to Remember
Lack of affection and failure to communicate for five years are not Psychological Incapacity should refer to no less than a mental (not
sufficient to prove psychological incapacity.
physical) incapacity that causes a party to be truly incognitive of the basic
marital covenants that concomitantly must be assumed and discharged by
the parties to the marriage which, as so expressed by Article 68 of the
Family Code, include their mutual obligations to live together, observe,
love and respect, and render help and support. There is hardly any doubt
that 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.

Gravity, juridical antecedence and incurability.
There is no showing that his alleged personality traits were
1. The burden of proof belongs to the plaintiff.
constitutive of psychological incapacity existing at the time of the
2. The root cause of the psychological incapacity must be:
marriage celebration. While some effort was made to prove that
a. Medically or clinically identified
there was a failure to fulfill pre-nuptial impressions of
b. Alleged in the complaint
thoughtfulness and gentleness on Reynaldos part of being
c. Sufficiently proven by experts
conservative, homely and intelligent on the part of Roridel, such
d. Clearly explained in the decision
failure of expectation is nor indicative of antecedent psychological
3. The incapacity must be proven to be existing at the time of the
incapacity. If at all, it merely shows loves temporary blindness to
celebration of the marriage.
the faults and blemishes of the beloved.
4. Such incapacity must also be shown to be medically or clinically
permanent or incurable.
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
Article 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 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.
Habitual alcoholism, sexual infidelity or perversion, and
abandonment do not by themselves constitute grounds for
finding that he is suffering from psychological incapacity within
the contemplation of the Family Code. It must be shown that
these acts are manifestations of a disordered personality which
make private respondent completely unable to discharge the
essential obligations of the marital state, and not merely due to
private respondents youth and self-conscious feeling of being
handsome.

Marcos v. Marcos

Republic v. Dagdag
Republic v. Quintero-
Hamano

Respondent failed to provide material support to the family and


may have resorted to physical abuse and abandonment, the
totality of his 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.
Taking into consideration the Molina guidelines, she failed to
comply with guideline no. 2 (rootcause)
We find that the totality of evidence presented fell short of
proving that Toshio was psychologically incapacitated to assume
his marital responsibilities. Toshios act of abandonment was
doubtlessly irresponsible but it was never alleged nor proven to
be due to some kind of psychological illness.
Failed to prove juridical antecedence, incurablity and gravity

Republic v. Tanyag-
Jose
Almelor v. RTC Las RTC ruled marriage is null and void under Art. 45
Pinas

Homosexuality per se is a ground for legal separation.

Concealment of homosexuality is a ground for annulment of
marriage:

In the RTC, homosexuality was not even proven much less that
this was concealed.
Najera v. Najera
The totality of evidence presented failed to prove psychological
incapacity.

The Church annulment was not considered because it was not
offered in evidence during trial and because it was based on lack
of discretion of judgment.
Mendoza v. Republic The husbands personality was described by the Psych report as
inadequate, immature and irresponsible.

Totality of evidence did not prove psychological incapacity.
Republic v. Encelan
Sexual infidelity and abandonment do not constitute
psychological incapacity.

Psych report stated that respondent was not suffering from any
for of psychological illness.
Republic v. De Gracia Root cause of the incapacity was not identified and it was not
shown if it was in existence at the time of the marriage; did not
also state gravity and seriousness of the disorder and its
incurability.

If the totality of evidence presented is enough to sustain a finding of


psychological incapacity, then actual medical examination of the person
concerned need not be resorted to.

Vinas v. Parel-Vinas
Marlin v.
Jamesolamin

Yuk Ling Ong v. Co


That the wife is outgoing, strong-willed and not inclined to do


household chores does not prove psychological incapacity.
Nedy Tayag only interviewed husband and cousin.
Failed to prove Art. 36 because he presented only his own
testimony; Psych failed to interview respondent.

Church annulment was not offered during trial and is based on lac
of discretion.
Wife was not properly served summons, decision declaring
marriage null and void was declared to be VOID.

Article 36 Cases
Chi Ming Tsoi v CA

Grounds for Granting


Evidently, one of the essential marital obligations under the
Family Code is To procreate children based on the universal
principle that procreation of children through sexual cooperation
is the basic end of marriage.

Constant non-fulfillment of this obligation 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.

Points to Remember
It is sexual intimacy, which bring spouses wholeness and oneness.
Sexual intimacy is a gift and a participation in the mystery of creation.
It is a function, which enlivens the hope of procreation and ensures
the continuation of family relations.
There is absence of empathy between petitioner and private
respondent. That is a shared feeling which between husband and
wife must be experiences not only by having spontaneous sexual
intimacy but a deep sense of spiritual communion.
Marital union is a two-way process. An expressive interest in each
others 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 amorgignita morem, respect
sacrifice and a continuing commitment to compromise, conscious of
its value as sublime social institution.
Antonio v. Reyes
Was able to comply with the Molina requirements despite the fact
that the case was filed and decided by the RTC before the
guidelines took effect.
Te v. Te
Petitioner has dependent personality disorder while respondent In dissolving marital bonds on account of either partys psychological
has anti-social personality disorder.
incapacity, the Court is not demolishing the foundation of families, but it
actually protecting the sanctity of marriage, because it refuses to allow a
person afflicted with a psychological disorder, who cannot comply with or
assume the essential marital obligations, from remaining in that sacred
bond.
Each case must be judges, not on the basis of a priori assumptions,
predilections or generalizations but according to its own facts.
Courts should interpret the provision on a case-to-case basis: guided by
experience, the findings of experts and researchers in psychological
disciplines, and by decisions of church tribunals.
Azcueta v. Azcueta
Complied with Molina guidelines.

Halili v. Halili
Was able to prove psychological incapacity (dependent
personality disorder)
Camacho-Reyes
v. Even without experts conclusion, factual antecedents in the The lack of personal examination and interview of the respondent, or any
Reyes
petition and established during trial, all point to inevitable other person diagnosed with personality disorder, does not per se
conclusion that respondent is psychologically incapacitated to invalidate the testimonies of the doctor. Neither do their findings
perform marital obligations.
automatically constitute hearsay that would result in their exclusion as
evidence.
For one, marriage, by its very definition, necessarily involves only two
persons. The totality of the behavior of one spouse during the cohabitation
and marriage is generally and genuinely witnessed mainly by the other.
Kalaw v. Fernandez
Experts sufficiently and competently described the psychological
incapacity of the respondent within the standards of Article 36 of
the Family Code.