CASE BRIEFING AND SYNTHESIS EXERCISE

By: [Dela Vega, Aira Kirsten R. LLAW192D]

CASE BRIEFING

Santos v. Court of Appeals, GR No. 112019, 04 January 1995

Petitioner Leouel Santos and Respondent Julia Rosario Bedia-Santos got married on September 20,
1986. It didn’t take long before the couple started having frequent disagreements about whether they
should live independently, or whenever Leouel spent a few days with his parents. On May 18, 1888, Julia
left for the States to work as a nurse despite the petitioner’s pleas to dissuade her and promised to return
upon the expiration of her contract in July 1989, but she never did. Leouel failed to get in touch with Julia
for more than five years and filed a complaint to void their marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code.
The petitioner, in his own words claim that “A wife who does not care to inform her husband about her
whereabouts of five years, more or less, is psychologically incapacitated.”. The Supreme Court denied
Leouel’s petition as the pieces of evidence submitted were “in no measure at all, can come close to the
standards required to decree a nullity of marriage”. Psychological incapacity, in reference to Article 36 of
the Family Code, states that 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.
Under Article 36 of the Code, "psychological incapacity" is meant to comprehend all such possible cases
of psychoses as, likewise mentioned by some ecclesiastical authorities, extremely low intelligence,
immaturity, and like circumstances; it 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 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, respect and fidelity and render help and
support.

Chi Ming Tsoi v. Court of Appeals, GR No. 119190, 16 January 1997

On May 22, 1988, Plaintiff Chi Ming Tsoi and defendant Gina Lao-Tsoi got married. The newlywed couple
spent their first night at the house of the defendant’s mother, slept in the same room and bed; however,
there was no sexual intercourse between the couple during their first four consecutive nights since their
marriage. In an effort to hold their honeymoon, the married couple even went to Baguio City but even
after the trip, there was still no sexual intercourse between the two and the defendant claims that she did
not even see her husband's private parts, nor did he see hers. Both the plaintiff and the defendant
underwent medical examinations at the Chinese General Hospital and results showed that Gina was
healthy, normal, and still a virgin, while that of her husband's results were kept confidential. The plaintiff
claims that the defendant was “impotent, a closeted homosexual and that their marriage should be
annulled due to psychological incapacity.”; the defendant on the other hand, put the blame on Gina for
their lack of intimacy. The Supreme Court rendered their marriage null and void because one of the
essential marital obligations under the family code is to procreate children through sexual cooperation.
The prolonged refusal of a spouse to have sexual intercourse with his/her spouse is considered a sign of
psychological incapacity.

Republic v. Court of Appeals, GR No. 108763, 13 February 1997

On August 16, 1990, the respondent, Roridel O. Molina filed a verified petition for the declaration of the
nullity of her marriage to Reynaldo Molin. The petition alleged that Roridel and Reynaldo were married on
April 14, 1985 and had a son, Andre O. Molina; a year after marriage, Reynaldo showed signs of
"immaturity and irresponsibility" as both husband and father that would often cause them to get into
quarrels since he'd spend more time with his peers on whom he squandered his money, he also
depended on his parents for aid and assistance and was never honest concerning their finances.
Reynaldo lost his job sometime in February 1986, and abandoned both Roridel and his child weeks after
her resignation, thus showing that he was psychologically incapable of complying with essential marital
obligations and that it would be the couple's best interest to have their marriage declared null and void to
free them from an incompatible marriage. In his answer filed on August 28, 1989, Reynaldo stated that
their misunderstandings were due to Roridel's strange behavior, her refusal to perform some of her
marital duties, and run their household finances. The Supreme Court did not nullify their marriage due to
psychological incapacity because there was no clear showing that the respondent’s 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. Merely showing of "irreconcilable differences" and "conflicting
personalities does not constitute to 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 (nor physical) illness. The following are the
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 medically or clinically identified,
alleged in the complaint, sufficiently proven by experts and clearly explained in the decision
(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.
(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.

Hernandez v. Court of Appeals, GR No. 126010, 08 December 1999

Petitioner Lucita Estrella Hernandez and the private respondent Mario C. Hernandez got married on
January 1, 1981, and had three children. Lucita filed a petition seeking the annulment of their marriage on
July 10, 1992, on the ground of psychological incapacity stating that from the time of their marriage till the
filing of the suit, the private respondent failed to perform his obligations to support the family and
contribute to the management of the household. The petitioner claims that Mario spent most of his time
drinking with his peers, having affairs with different women that threatened the petitioner's health by
infecting her with a sexually transmitted disease (STD), the respondent also engaged in physical violence
with the petitioner and his eldest son. The petitioner requested that the private respondent be ordered to
give support to their three children in the total amount of P9,000.00 every month; that she be awarded the
custody of their children; and that she be adjudged as the sole owner of a parcel of land located at Don
Gregorio Subdivision I in Bo. Bucal, Dasmariñas, Cavite, as well as the jeep which private respondent
took with him when he left the conjugal home on June 12, 1992. The Supreme Court did not nullify the
marriage due to psychological incapacity because the petitioner failed to show the existence of the
respondent's psychological incapacity at the time of the celebration of the marriage, and the private
respondent's alleged habitual alcoholism, sexual infidelity or perversion, and abandonment do not by
themselves constitute grounds for finding that he is suffering from psychological incapacity. 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
respondent's youth and self-conscious feeling of being handsome.

Marcos v. Marcos, GR No. 136490, 19 October 2000

The petitioner and the respondent first met sometime in 1980 when both of them were assigned in
Malacanang Palace during the Marcos Regime. They got married twice, the first was on September 6,
1982, the second on May 18, 1983, and had five children. Wilson left the military service in 1987 due to
the downfall of the Marcos Administration and engaged in different business ventures that unfortunately
did not prosper. His failure to gain employment would often cause them to quarrel and as a consequence,
he would hit her, beat her up, and even force her to have sexual intercourse despite her weariness. On
October 16, 1994; two years after they started living separately, they had a bitter quarrel that resulted in
the respondent turning violent, inflicting harm on the petitioner and to her mother, who came to her aid.
Their children described Wilson as a father who's cruel and physically abusive to them. The petitioner
requests their marriage to be void due to psychological incapacity on the grounds of his failure to provide
material support to the family, physical abuse, and abandonment. The Supreme Court did not nullify the
marriage due to psychological incapacity because the totality of the respondent's acts such as physical
violence, moral pressure, moral corruption, civil interdiction, drug addiction, habitual alcoholism, sexual
infidelity, abandonment and the likes does not lead to a psychological incapacity on his part. There is not
enough evidence to prove that the alleged psychological incapacity of the respondent is characterized by
gravity, juridical antecedence, and incurability. At best, the evidence presented by petitioner refers only to
grounds for legal separation, not for declaring a marriage void.

Republic v. Dagdag, GR No. 109975, 09 February 2001

The plaintiff, Erlinda Matias, and the defendant Avelino Parangan Dagdag got married. On September 17,
1975, Erlinda gave birth to two children in 1978 and 1982, respectively. A week after the wedding, Avelino
had started disappearing for months and would reappear without explanation. He would frequent drinking
with his peers and would always come home drunk, and when his wife refused to have sexual intercourse
with him, he'd resort to using physical violence. Due to this, Erlinda filed a petition to the court on July 3,
1990, to nullify her marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family
Code. The Supreme Court, however, did not annul the marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code, on
the ground that the husband suffers from psychological incapacity because 'Mere alcoholism and
abusiveness are not enough to show psychological incapacity. Nor is abandonment. These are common
in marriage. There must be showing that these traits, stemmed from psychological incapacity existing at
the time of celebration of the marriage.' Taking into consideration the guidelines in the interpretation of
Article 36 of the Family Code stated in the case of the Republic v. Court of Appeals and Molina, Erlinda
failed to comply with the second guideline that requires that the root cause of psychological incapacity
must be medically or clinically identified and sufficiently proven by experts since no psychiatrist or medical
doctor testified as to the alleged psychological incapacity of her husband.

CASE SYNTHESIS

1) Discuss and relate the case doctrines to one another in 5-10 sentences.
2) What's the main theme or subject common to all?
3) Are the cases in harmony or conflicting with one another? 
4) How are they similar or different from one another?
5) Harmonize and/or reconcile the doctrinal pronouncements and form your conclusion  -- What's the
latest jurisprudence or doctrine?  Did the Court deviate or depart from established jurisprudence?
6) You may also include your own observations, opinion, commentaries, or conclusion expressing your
agreement or disagreement with the string of decisions.  

NOTE: Save Filename as – “[Last Name, First Name] Case Briefing and Synthesis Exercise LLAW192D or LLAW192E
(as your section may be)”