Republic vs Orbecido III Facts: 1981 - Cipriano Orbecido III married Lady myros Villanueva at United Church of Christ

in Lam-an, Ozamis city. Their marriage was blessed with a son and a daughter, Kristoffer and Lady Kimberly (1986), Ciprianos wife went to US bringing his son Kristoffer. A few years later Cipriano discovered that his wife had been naturalized as an American citizen (2000) Cipriano learned from his son that his wife had obtained a divorce decree and then married a certain Innocent Stanly. Stanley and Lady Myros and Kristoffer lived in California. Cipriano filed with TC a petition for authority to remarry. RTC: Granted OSG sought reconsideration but denied

Issue: W/N Orbecido can remarry under Art. 26 of FC Held: - SC provided the twin element of Art. 26 1. There is a valid marriage that has been celebrated between a Filipino citizen and a foreigner 2. A valid divorce is obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating him or her to remarry - The reckoning point is not the citizenship of the parties at the time of the celebration of the marriage, but their citizenship at the time a valid divorce is obtained abroad by the alien spouce capacitating the latter to remarry. - In this case, Ciprianos wife was naturalized American Citizen, there was still a valid marriage that has been celebrated. - The naturalized wife subsequently obtained a valid divorce capcitating her to remarry. - However, Cipriano was not able to prove as fact his wifes naturalization he is still barred from remarrying. Leouel Santos vs Court of Appeals & Julia Rosario Bedia Santos Facts: - Leouel a member of the army met Julia in Iloilo City. In September 1986, they got married. - The couple latter lived with Julias parents, they had a son in 1987. - Their marriage, however, was marred by the frequent interference of Julias parent as averred by Leouel. - The couple also occasionally quarrels about on when they would start living independently from Julias parents.

In 1988, Julia went to US to work as a nurse despite Leouels opposition. She promised Leouel to return after seven months after however she never went home. In 1990 Leouel had a chance to in the US due to a military training. He desperately tried to locate his wife but to no avail. Leouel, in an effort to at least have his wife come home, filed to nullify their marriage due to Julias psychological incapacity. Leouel asserted that due to Julias failure to return home or at least communicate with him even with all his effort constitutes psychological incapacity. Julia attacked the complaint and she said that it is Leouel who is incompetent. The prosecutor ascertained that there is no collusion between the two. RTC and CA: denied the petition.

ISSUE: W/N there is psychological incapacity? HELD: - Family code did not defined Psychological incapacity adopted from Catholic Canon Law. But based on the deliberations, it was adopted with less specificity than expected, has been designed to allow some resiliency in its application. - FC did not give any examples of PI for fear that the giving of examples would limit the applicability of the provision under the principle of ejusdem generis. However, it allows the judge to decide on a case-to case basis, and be guided by experience. - However article 36 cannot be taken and construed independently of but must stand in conjunction with, existing precepts in our law on marriage. - PI should refer to no less than a mental 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 include their mutual obligations to live together, observe love, respect and fidelity and render help and support. - The psychological condition must exist at the time the marriage is celebrated (a) gravity (b) juridical antecedence incurability - The incapacity must be grave or serious such that the party would be incapable of carrying out the ordinary duties required in marriage. - In the case at bar, although Leouel stands aggrieved, his petition must be dismissed because the alleged PI of his wife is not clearly shown by the factual settings presented. Republic vs. CA and Molina G.R. No. 108763 February 13, 1997 FACTS:

The case at bar challenges the decision of CA affirming the marriage of the respondent Roridel Molina to Reynaldo Molina void in the ground of psychological incapacity. The couple got married in 1985, after a year, Reynaldo manifested signs of immaturity and irresponsibility both as husband and a father preferring to spend more time with friends whom he squandered his money, depends on his parents for aid and assistance and was never honest with his wife in regard to their finances. In 1986, the couple had an intense quarrel and as a result their relationship was estranged. Roridel quit her work and went to live with her parents in Baguio City in 1987 and a few weeks later, Reynaldo left her and their child. Since then he abandoned them. ISSUE: Whether or not the marriage is void on the ground of psychological incapacity. HELD: The marriage between Roridel and Reynaldo subsists and remains valid. What constitutes psychological incapacity is not mere showing of irreconcilable differences and confliction personalities. It is indispensable that the parties must exhibit inclinations which would not meet the essential marital responsibilites and duties due to some psychological illness. Reynaldos action at the time of the marriage did not manifest such characteristics that would comprise grounds for psychological incapacity. The evidence shown by Roridel merely showed that she and her husband cannot get along with each other and had not shown gravity of the problem neither its juridical antecedence nor its incurability. In addition, the expert testimony by Dr Sison showed no incurable psychiatric disorder but only incompatibility which is not considered as psychological incapacity.

The following are the guidelines as to the grounds of psychological incapacity laid set forth in this case: burden of proof to show nullity belongs to the plaintiff root causes of the incapacity must be medically and clinically inclined such incapacity should be in existence at the time of the marriage such incapacity must be grave so as to disable the person in complying with the essentials of marital obligations of marriage such incapacity must be embraced in Art. 68-71 as well as Art 220, 221 and 225 of the Family Code decision of the National Matrimonial Appellate Court or the Catholic Church must be respected court shall order the prosecuting attorney and the fiscal assigned to it to act on behalf of the state.

Marcos vs Marcos Facts: - Parties was married twice (1) Civilly in Municipality of Pasig and (2) in Command Chapel in Malacanang. - They had 5 children. - Wilson Marcos joined the AFP in 1973, and was transferred to PSC in Malacanang during Marcos regime. - Appellee, joined the womens auxiliary corps under the Phil. Air force in 1978. After EDSA revolution both sought a discharge from the military - In 1980 when both were met in Malacanang and eventually became sweethearts. - After their Marriage they resided in Mandaluyong a house acquired by appellee while she was single. - After the downfall of Marcos, he left the military and engaged in different business ventures that did not prosper. As a wife she urged him to look for work so that their children would see him as a good provider of the family. Due to his failure to find gainful employment, the would often quarrel and as a consequence, he would hit and beat her. And even force her to have sex with him despite her weariness. He would inflict physical harm on their children for slight mistake and was so severe in the way he chastised them. - In 1992, they were living separately. She was able to put up NS Ness Trading and Construction Development Corporation. - The 'straw that broke the camel's back' took place on October 16, 1994, when they had a bitter quarrel. As they were already living separately, she did not want him to stay in their house anymore. On that day, when she saw him in their house, she was so angry that she lambasted him. He then turned violent, inflicting physical harm on her and even on her mother who came to her aid. The following day, October 17, 1994, she and their children left the house and sought refuge in her sister's house. - "On October 19, 1994, she submitted herself [to] medical examination at the Mandaluyong Medical Center where her injuries were diagnosed as contusions - "Sometime in August 1995, she together with her two sisters and driver, went to him at the Bliss unit in Mandaluyong to look for their missing child, Niko. Upon seeing them, he got mad. After knowing the reason for their unexpected presence, he ran after them with a samurai and even [beat] her driver. - "At the time of the filing of this case, she and their children were renting a house in Camella, Paraaque, while the appellant was residing at the Bliss unit in Mandaluyong. - "In the case study conducted by Social Worker Sonia C. Millan, the children described their father as cruel and physically abusive to them - RTC: Found him psychologically incapacitated - CA: PI had not been established by the totality of the evidence. HELD:

"psychological incapacity must be characterized by (a) gravity (b) juridical antecedence, and (c) incurability." - The foregoing guidelines do not require that a physician examine the person to be declared psychologically incapacitated. In fact, the root cause may be "medically or clinically identified." What is important is the presence of evidence that can adequately establish the party's psychological condition. For indeed, 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. Evidence presented: testimonies of the common children, petitioners sister and the social worker was enough to sustain a finding that respondent was PI. SC: Ruled negatively although this court is sufficiently convinced that 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 no showing that his defects were already present at the inception of the marriage or that they were incurable. Verily, the behavior of respondent can be attributed to the fact that he had lost his job and was not gainfully employed for a period of more than six years. It was during this period that he became intermittently drunk, failed to give material and moral support, and even left the family home. Thus, his alleged psychological illness was traced only to said period and not to the inception of the marriage. Equally important, there is no evidence showing that his condition is incurable, especially now that he is gainfully employed as a taxi driver. Antonio vs. Reyes GR No. 155800, March 10, 2006 FACTS: Leonilo Antonio, 26 years of age, and Marie Ivonne Reyes, 36 years of age met in 1989. Barely a year after their first meeting, they got married at Manila City Hall and then a subsequent church wedding at Pasig in December 1990. A child was born but died 5 months later. Reyes persistently lied about herself, the people around her, her occupation, income, educational attainment and other events or things. She even did not conceal bearing an illegitimate child, which she represented to her husband as adopted child of their family. They were separated in

August 1991 and after attempt for reconciliation, he finally left her for good in November 1991. Petitioner then filed in 1993 a petition to have his marriage with Reyes declared null and void anchored in Article 36 of the Family Code. ISSUE: Whether Antonio can impose Article 36 of the Family Code as basis for declaring their marriage null and void. HELD: Psychological incapacity pertains to the inability to understand the obligations of marriage as opposed to a mere inability to comply with them. The petitioner, aside from his own testimony presented a psychiatrist and clinical psychologist who attested that constant lying and extreme jealousy of Reyes is abnormal and pathological and corroborated his allegations on his wifes behavior, which amounts to psychological incapacity. Respondents fantastic ability to invent, fabricate stories and letters of fictitious characters enabled her to live in a world of make-believe that made her psychologically incapacitated as it rendered her incapable of giving meaning and significance to her marriage. The root causes of Reyes psychological incapacity have been medically or clinically identified that was sufficiently proven by experts. The gravity of respondents psychological incapacity was considered so grave that a restrictive clause was appended to the sentence of nullity prohibited by the National Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal from contracting marriage without their consent. It would be difficult for an inveterate pathological liar to commit the basic tenets of relationship between spouses based on love, trust and respect. Furthermore, Reyes case is incurable considering that petitioner tried to reconcile with her but her behavior remain unchanged.

Hence, the court conclude that petitioner has established his cause of action for declaration of nullity under Article 36 of the Family Code. Buenaventura vs CA - the lower court found that plaintiff-appellant deceived the defendant-appellee into marrying him by professing true love instead of revealing to her that he was under heavy parental pressure to marry and that because of pride he married defendantappellee; that he was not ready to enter into marriage as in fact his career was and

always would be his first priority; that he was unable to relate not only to defendantappellee as a husband but also to his son, Javy, as a father; that he had no inclination to make the marriage work such that in times of trouble, he chose the easiest way out, that of leaving defendantappellee and their son; that he had no desire to keep defendant-appellee and their son as proved by his reluctance and later, refusal to reconcile after their separation; that the aforementioned caused defendant-appellee to suffer mental anguish, anxiety, besmirched reputation, sleepless nights not only in those years the parties were together but also after and throughout their separation. - Noel Buenaventura filed a position for the declaration of nullity of marriage on the ground that both he and his wife were psychologically incapacitated. - The RTC in its decision declared the marriage entered in to between petitioner and respondent null and violation. - RTC ordered the liquidation of the assets of the conjugal partnership and ordered the regular suppor in favor of his son in the amount of P15,000 monthly, subject to modification as the necessity arises, and awarded the care and custody of the minor to his mother. - Petitioner appealed before the CA. while appeal was pending, respondent like to increase support to P20,000. HELD: Psychological incapacity has been defined, thus: . . . 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 marriagewhich, 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. 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. Since present case does not involve bigamous marriage. The provision of article 50, providing for the dissolution of absolute community or conjugal partnership does not apply. Thus the general rule applies which is in case a marriage is declared void ab initio, the property regime applicable to be liquidated, partitioned and distributed is that equal co-ownership.

Republic vs. Quintero-Hamano GR No. 149498, May 20, 2004

FACTS: Lolita Quintero-Hamano filed a complaint in 1996 for declaration of nullity of her marriage with Toshio Hamano, a Japanese national, on the ground of psychological incapacity. She and Toshio started a common-law relationship in Japan and lived in the Philippines for a month. Thereafter, Toshio went back to Japan and stayed there for half of 1987. Lolita then gave birth on November 16, 1987. In 1988, Lolita and Toshio got married in MTC-Bacoor, Cavite. After a month of their marriage, Toshio returned to Japan and promised to return by Christmas to celebrate the holidays with his family. Toshio sent money for two months and after that he stopped giving financial support. She wrote him several times but never respondent. In 1991, she learned from her friend that Toshio visited the country but did not bother to see her nor their child. Toshio was no longer residing at his given address thus summons issued to him remained unserved. Consequently, in 1996, Lolita filed an ex parte motion for leave to effect service of summons by publication. The motion was granted and the summons, accompanied by a copy of the petition, was published in a newspaper of general circulation giving Toshio 15 days to file his answer. Toshio filed to respond after the lapse of 60 days from publication, thus, Lolita filed a motion to refer the case to the prosecutor for investigation. ISSUE: Whether Toshio was psychologically incapacitated to perform his marital obligation. HELD: The Court is mindful of the 1987 Constitution to protect and strengthen the family as basic autonomous social institution and marriage as the foundation of the family. Thus, any doubt should be resolved in favor of the validity of the marriage. Toshios act of abandonment was doubtlessly irresponsible but it was never alleged nor proven to be due to some kind of psychological illness. Although as rule, actual medical examinations are not needed, it would have greatly helped Lolita had she presented evidence that medically or clinically identified Toshios illness. This could have been done through an expert witness. It is essential that a person show incapability of doing marital obligation due to some psychological, not physical illness. Hence, Toshio was not considered as psychologically incapacitate