Sunteți pe pagina 1din 20

Santos vs Court of Appeals and Santos

G.R. No. 112019 January 4, 1995


FACTS: Plaintiff Leouel Santos married defendant Julia Bedia on September 20, 1986. Initially
living with the parents of Julia, their family affairs would be marked by frequent interference by her
parents, causing them to quarrel frequently. On May 18, 1988, Julia left for the U.S. To work as a
nurse. She only communicated once with her husband. She did not communicate with Leouel
thereafter and did not return to the country. Leouel went to the U.S. For training, but despite exerting
diligent efforts to locate his wife, was unable to succeed. In 1991, Leouel filed with the RTC of
Negros Oriental, a complaint for voiding of the marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code. The
RTC dismissed the complaint and the CA affirmed the dismissal. ISSUE: Does the failure of Julia to
return home, or at the very least to communicate with him, for more than five years constitute
psychological incapacity?
HELD: No, the failure of Julia to return home or to communicate with her husband Leouel for more
than five years does not constitute psychological incapacity.Psychological incapacity must be
characterized by a) gravity, b) juridical antecedence, and c) incurability 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 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.
The intendment of the law has been to confine the meaning of “psychological incapacity” to the
emost serious cases of personality disorders clearly demonstrative of an utter insensitivity or inability
to give meaning and significance to the marriage. This psychologic condition must exist at the time
the marriage is celebrated.
Undeniably and understandably, Leouel stands aggrieved, even desperate, in his present situation.
Regrettably, neither law nor society itself can always provide all the specific answers to every
individual problem. Petition is denied.
Chi Ming Tsoi vs Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 119190, January 16, 1997
FACTS: Sometime on May 22, 1988, Chi Ming Tsoi married Gina Lao at the Manila Cathedral,
Intramuros, Manila. The wedding ceremony was followed by the wedding reception, which was held
in South Villa, Makati. After the celebration, they went and proceeded to the house of the
defendant’s mother, went straight to their rooms, lied down in a single bed and spent the first night of
their married life together but nothing happened. Contrary to Gina Lao’s expectations, as newlyweds
they were supposed to enjoy making love or having sexual intercourse with each other. Chi Ming
Tsoi went to bed, turned his back on his wife, and slept the whole night. The same thing happened on
the second night, the third and the fourth. In fact, a week passed and the spouses never consummated
their marriage.
At the end of that week, the spouses went to Baguio City for their honeymoon. Gina Lao-Tsoi
expected a romantic weekend where she and her husband would spend their whole time together as a
loving couple, but Chi Ming Tsoi wanted to spend it with his entire family. Thus, instead of spending
the weekend alone with his wife, he brought along his mother, uncle and nephew. At nights, he
would take long walks alone and afterwards sleep in a rocking chair in the living room while his wife
slept by herself in the bedroom. Nothing happened during their honeymoon. Again, they never
consummated their marriage. They slept together in the same room and on the same bed since May
22, 1988 until March 15, 1989. But during this period there was no attempt of sexual intercourse
between them. Because of this, they submitted themselves to medical examination and the result was
that Gina Lao- Tsoi is healthy, normal and still a virgin. She then filed a petition for declaration of
nullify of marriage. According to her, her husband was psychologically incapacitated to perform his
basic marital obligations. Gina Lao-Tsoi claimed that Chi Ming Tsoi’s failure of the deed is due to
the fact that he is probably impotent but she wasn’t sure because she has not yet seen Chi Ming
Tsoi’s private parts. He vehemently denied his wife’s allegations. To refute her claim, he submitted
himself for physical examination. He was examined by Dr. Sergio Alteza, Jr. and found out that their
is no evidence of impotence and he is capable of erection. He also stated that he does not want to
have their marriage annulled because he loves her so much and that he has no defect of his part, and
since their relationship is still young, they can overcome their differences. Gina Lao-Tsoi alleged that
the reason he married her was to maintain his residency status in the country.
ISSUE: Whether Chi Ming Tsoi’s refusal to have sexual intercourse with his wife constitutes
psychological incapacity.
HELD: The refusal of one party to consummate the marriage is a sign of psychological incapacity
and hence, a ground of declaration of nullify of marriage. The court declared the marriage
between Chi Ming Tsoi and his wife null and void. Since it was proven that Chi MIng Tsoi was not
impotent, it was clear that he simply refused to have sex with his wife. If the spouse although
physically capable simply refuses to perform his or her essential obligations, and if the refusal is
senseless and constant, Catholic marriage tribunals attribute the cause to psychological incapacity
than to stubborn refusal. Senseless and protracted refusal is equivalent to psychological incapacity.
Thus, the prolonged refusal of a spouse is a sign of psychological incapacity. One of the essential
marital obligations under the family code is to procreate children, thus, constant non-fulfillment of
this obligation will finally destroy the integrity and wholeness of the marriage.
Republic v. CA and Molina
G.R. No. 108763, February 13, 1997
FACTS:
On 14 April 1985, Roridel and Reynaldo got married at the San Agustin Church in Manila. A year
after, Andre, their son, was born. It was also in the same year, according to Roridel, that Reynaldo
started showing signs of immaturity and irresponsibility as a husband and a father: (a) he would
rather spend his time and money on his friends, (b) he would ask his parents for aid and assistance,
and (c) he would lie to Roridel about their finances. In the same year, Reynaldo was also fired from
his job, so Roridel had been the sole breadwinner since then.
On March 1987, Roridel resigned from her job in Manila and went to live with her parents in Baguio
City, and a few weeks later, Reynaldo abandoned Roridel and their child.
On 16 August 1990, Roridel filed a petition for the declaration of nullity of her marriage with
Reynaldo. In his answer, Reynaldo admitted that he and Roridel could no longer live together as
husband and wife, but argued that their frequent quarrels were due to: (a) Roridel’s strange behavior
of insisting on maintaining her group of friends even after their marriage, (b) her refusal to perform
some of her marital duties such as cooking meals, and (c) her failure to run the household and handle
their finances.
The pieces of evidence used by Roridel include her own testimony and that of her friends, a social
worker, and a psychiatrist; Reynaldo is also already living with another woman at the time of the
trial.
On 14 May 1991, RTC of La Trinidad, Benguet declared the marriage void ab initio on the ground of
psychological incapacity. Then, on 25 January 1993, the CA denied Reynaldo’s petition and affirmed
RTC’s decision; it relied heavily on the trial court’s findings that the marriage between the parties
broke up because of their opposing and conflicting personalities.
In his petition to the SC, the Solicitor General contended that the CA’s decision is erroneous and
commented that the application of Article 36 of the Family Code is the most liberal divorce
proceeding in the world. The Sol Gen further argued that opposing and conflicting personalities is
not equivalent to psychological incapacity – that such ground is not simply the neglect by the parties
to the marriage of their responsibilities and duties, but a defect in their psychological nature which
renders them incapable of performing such marital responsibilities and duties.
ISSUE:
WON the CA erred in affirming the RTC’s decision declaring the marriage of Roridel and Reynaldo
void ab initio based on the latter’s psychological incapacity
HELD:
YES.
The psychological defect of Reynaldo spoken of is not incapacity, but more of a difficulty or outright
refusal or neglect in the performance of some of his marital obligations. Irreconcilable differences
and conflicting personalities do not constitute psychological incapacity. It is essential that the
offending party must be shown to be incapable of performing marital obligations due to some
psychological illness.
Psychological incapacity must also be characterized by (a) gravity, (b) juridical antecedence, and (c)
incurability. The evidence presented, however, failed to establish these three requisites and only
showed that Roridel and Reynaldo could not get along– that they are incompatible with each other.
For the guidance of the bench and the bar, the Court handed down the following guidelines in
applying Article 36 of the FC:
1. The burden of proof to show the nullity of the marriage belongs to the plaintiff. Any doubt should
be resolved in favor of the existence and continuation of the marriage.
2. The root cause of the psychological incapacity must be (a) medically or clinically identified, (b)
alleged in the complaint, (c) sufficiently proven by experts, and (d) clearly explained in the decision.
The incapacity must be psychological -- not physical, although its manifestations and/or symptoms
may be physical. The evidence must convince the court that the parties, or one of them, were
mentally or psychologically ill to such an extent that the person could not have known the obligations
he was assuming, or knowing them, could not have given valid assumption thereof...Expert evidence
may be given by qualified psychiatrists and clinical psychologists.
3. The incapacity must be proven to be existing before or at the time of the wedding; the
manifestation of the illness need not be perceivable at such time.
4. The incapacity must also be shown to be incurable, which may be absolute or even relative only in
regard to the other spouse, not necessarily absolutely against everyone of the same sex. Such
incapacity must be relevant to the assumption of marriage obligations, not necessarily to those not
related to marriage, like the exercise of a profession or employment in a job.
5. Such illness must be grave enough to bring about the disability of the party to assume the essential
obligations of marriage. The illness must be shown as downright incapacity or inability, not a refusal,
neglect or difficulty, much less ill will.
6. The essential marital obligations must be those embraced by Articles 68 up to 71 of the FC as
regards the husband and wife, as well as Articles 220, 221, and 225 of the same Code regarding
parents and their children. Such non-complied marital obligation(s) must also be stated in the
petition, proven by evidence and included in the text of the decision.
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 since Article 36 was taken by the Family Code Revision Committee from
Canon 1095 of the New Code of Canon Law.
8. The trial court must order the prosecuting attorney or fiscal and the Solicitor General to appear as
counsel for the state. No decision shall be handed down unless the Solicitor General issues a
certification, which will be quoted in the decision, briefly stating therein his reasons for his
agreement or opposition, as the case may be, to the petition. The Solicitor General, along with the
prosecuting attorney, shall submit to the court such certification within fifteen (15) days from the
date the case is deemed submitted for resolution of the court. The Solicitor General shall discharge
the equivalent function of the defensorvinculi contemplated under Canon 1095.
Dispositive: Petition is GRANTED. The assailed Decision is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The
marriage of RoridelOlaviano to Reynaldo Molina subsists and remains valid.
Salita vs Magtolis
G.R. No. 106429, June 13, 1994
FACTS:
Erwin Espinosa and Joselita Salita were married on January 25, 1986. A year later, their union turned
sour. They separated in fact in 1988. Subsequently, Erwin sued for annulment on the ground of
Joselita’s psychological incapacity. The petition for annulment was filed before the Regional Trial
Court of Quezon City. Dissatisfied with the allegation in the petition, Joselita moved for a bill of
particulars which the trial court granted. In Espinosa’s bill of particulars, he specified that respondent
Salita was psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential marital obligations of their
marriage in that she was unable to understand and accept the demands made by his profession. Still
Joselita was not contented with the Bill of Particulars. She argued that the assertion in the Bill of
Particulars is a statement of legal conclusion made by petitioner’s counsel and not an averment of
‘ultimate facts,’ as required by the Rules of Court.
She filed a petition of certiorari with the Supreme Court, but the Court referred her petition to the
Court of Appeals for resolution. However, the Court of Appeals denied due course to her petition.
Hence, this instant petition for review on certiorari filed by Joselita Salita questioning the Resolution
of the Court of Appeals denying due course to her petition. ISSUE:
Whether or not the allegations in the petition for annulment of marriage and the subsequent bill of
particulars filed in amplification of the petition are sufficient HELD:
Yes. The Court sustain the view of respondent Court of Appeals that the Bill of Particulars filed by
private respondent is sufficient to state a cause of action, and to require more details from private
respondent would be to ask for information on evidentiary matters. Indeed, petitioner has already
been adequately apprised of private respondent’s cause of action against her thus —
. . . . (she) was psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential marital obligations of their
marriage in that she was unable to understand and accept the demands made by his profession — that
of a newly qualified Doctor of Medicine — upon petitioner’s time and efforts so that she frequently
complained of his lack of attention to her even to her mother, whose intervention caused petitioner to
lose his job.
On the basis of the aforequoted allegations, it is evident that petitioner can already prepare her
responsive pleading or for trial. Private respondent has already alleged that " she (petitioner) was
unable to understand and accept the demands made by his profession . . . upon his time and efforts . .
. " Certainly, she can respond to this. To demand for more details would indeed be asking for
information on evidentiary facts — facts necessary to prove
essential or ultimate facts. For sure, the additional facts called for by petitioner regarding her
particular acts or omissions would be evidentiary, and to obtain evidentiary matters is not the
function of a motion for bill of particulars.
Toring vs Toring
G.R. No. 165321, August 3, 2010
FACTS:
Ricardo Toring and Teresita Toring married on 1978 and begot three children. In 1999, Ricardo filed
a petition for annulment before the RTC on the ground of psychological incapacity because he
alleged that Teresita cannot comply with her obligations as a wife prior to, at the time of, and
subsequent to the celebration of marriage.
He presented as evidence the psychological evaluation of Teresita signed by his expert witness,
psychiatrist Dr. Cecilia Albaran. He alleged in his petition that Teresita was an adultress and a
squanderer because all the money that Ricardo sent her were spent inappropriately; even leaving
debts which Ricardo had to pay every time he comes home. Furthermore, he alleged that she failed to
pay their children’s tuition fees and the amortization for the house Ricardo acquired for the family
despite all the money he had given Teresita. He also accused her of infidelity when he knew that she
was pregnant with another man, knowing well that the child could not be his because he worked as a
seaman abroad, and all their sexual acts were controlled through withdrawal.
Because of these testimonies, including their eldest son’s, Richardson, Dr.Albaran evaluated Teresita
and said that she has Narcissistic Personality Disorder, even without evaluating Teresita herself.
OSG opposed the petition and said that there is no basis for the annulment to be granted. However,
RTC favored Ricardo. The Solicitor General filed an appeal on the Court of Appeals which reversed
the decision of the RTC.
Hence, the petition.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the petition for annulment can be granted on the ground of psychological incapacity
HELD:
No. The Court reiterated their decision in Santos v. CA where they characterized psychological
incapacity by 1) gravity, 2) incurability, and 3) juridical antecedence. They also said that the burden
of proof to prove psychological incapacity belongs to the plaintiff, and any doubt shall be reserved in
favor of the marriage.
Also, Dr.Albaran’s evaluation of Teresita is an insufficient basis to conclude her as a psychologically
incapacitated spouse. First, she was not able to evaluate her personally, only relying on one-sided
testimonies of Ricardo and Richardson. Second, she failed to provide the required insights and details
such as what, how, when, where and since when of Teresita’s alleged Narcissistic Personality
Disorder.
Ricardo’s allegations against Teresita of being a squanderer and adulteress do not constitute
psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code. Mere difficulty, refusal, or neglect in
the performance of marital obligations or ill will on the part of the spouse is different from incapacity
rooted on some psychological condition or illness.
Lastly, the root cause of the alleged psychological incapacity must also be included in the petition,
which should clearly describe the physical manifestations indicative of the psychological incapacity.
Ricardo’s failure to prove that Teresita suffered from psychological incapacity means the petition
shall also be denied.
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. They started a
common-law relationship in Japan and lived in the Philippines for a month. Afterwards, Toshio went
back to Japan and stayed there for half of 1987. Lolita then gave birth on November 16, 1987 with
their child.
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. Lolita
wrote him several times but Toshio never responded. 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 and the summons issued to him remained
unserved. And 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:
No, 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. Any doubt should be
resolved in favor of the validity of the marriage.
Toshio’s act of abandonment was irresponsible but it was not 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 Toshio’s
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. Therefore,
Toshio was not considered as psychologically incapacitated.
Te vs Te
G.R. No. 161793, February 13, 2009
FACTS: Edward Kennetng Ngo Te, the petioner, first met Rowena Ong Gutierrez Te, the
respondent, in a gathering organized by Filipino-Chinese Association in their college. Edward was
first attracted to the bestfriend of Rowena but since that person already has a boyfriend, Edward, on
January 1996, decided to court Rowena instead.
After 3 months, March 1996 when Rowena asked Edward to elope. Edward refused the request of
Rowena saying that he was still young and jobless. But due to the persistence of Rowena, Edward
then agreed to left Manila. They went to Cebu with P80,000 travel money provided by Edward while
Rowena bought the boat tickets.
April 1996, they decided to return to Manila as they could not find a job and that their travel money
lasted only for a month. Rowena went to her uncle's house while Edward went to his parents' house.
But Rowena keep on threatening him thus Edward decided to live also at her uncle's. On April 23,
1996, Rowena's uncle brought the two of them to a court to get married. While living at the uncle's
place, Edward was not allowed to go out unaccompanied and receives threatsfrom the uncle.
Edward escaped from Rowena and her uncle and stayed with his parents. His family hid him from
Rowena and her family.In June 1996, Edward was able to talk to Rowena. They decided to live
separate lives.
On January 18, 2000, Edward filed a petition before Quezon City RTC branch 106 for the annulment
of his marriage to Rowena on the ground of latter's psychological incapacity. Rowena did not file an
answer. The trial court ordered OCP to investigate if there was collusion between the parties.
On August 23, 2000, the OCP submitted a report stating that it could not determine if there was
collusion between the parties.
The clinical psychologist found both parties psychologically incapacitated. The result showed that
both of them are emotionally immature and recklessly impulsive upon the mariage. Edward was still
unsure and unready to commit himself while Rowena is said to be aggressive-rebellious type of
woman.
The trial court, on July 2001, rendered its Decision declaring the marriage void on the ground that
both parties were psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential marital obligations.
The appellate court reversed the trial court's ruling. It ruled that the petitioner failed to prove the
psychological incapacity of the respondent. The psychologist did not personally examined her and
relied only on the information provided by the petitioner.
The petitioner filed instant petition for review on certiorari. He said that the marriage is void not only
because of respondent's psychological incapacity but rather of them. ISSUE: Whether or not, based
on Article 36 of the Family Code, the marriage between parties is void. HELD: Yes, the marriage is
void. The parties' relationship lasted more or less six (6) months. The psychologist found that both
parties are psychologically incapacitated. The petitioner falls under classification of dependent
personality disorder, while the respondent has narcissistic and antisocial personality disorder.
Also, it was emphasized that there is no requirement that the person to be declared psychologically
incapacitated be personally examined by physician if the evidence presented is enough to sustain a
finding of psychological incapacity.
The petitioner being afflicted with dependent personality disorder cannot assume marital obligations
of living together. He is unable to make everyday decisions, and has difficulty of making difficult
decisions on his own. He is insecure, weak, and has no sense of identity as a person. On the other
hand, the respondent being afflicted with antisocial personality disorder, is also unable to perform
essential marital obligations. She tends to disregard the rights, abuse, and mistreat others.
The marriage was declared null and void.
Azcueta vs Republic of the Philippines and CA
G.R. No. 180668, May 26, 2009
FACTS:
Petitioner Marietta C. Azcueta and Rodolfo met in 1993 and in less than 2 months, they got married.
At the time of their marriage, petitioner was 23 years old while respondent was 28. After 4 years of
marriage they separated.
On March 2, 2002, petitioner filed with the Regional Trial Court a petition for declaration of absolute
nullity of marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code. Meanwhile, respondent failed to appear and
file an answer despite service of summons upon him.
In her petition and during her testimony, petitioner claimed that her husband Rodolfo was
psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential obligations of marriage. According to
petitioner, Rodolfo was emotionally immature, irresponsible and continually failed to adapt himself
to married life and perform the essential responsibilities and duties of a husband.
Petitioner complained that Rodolfo never bothered to look for a job and instead always asked his
mother for financial assistance. When they were married it was Rodolfos mother who found them a
room near the Azcueta home and it was also his mother who paid the monthly rental.
Petitioner also testified that she constantly encouraged her husband to find employment. She even
bought him a newspaper every Sunday but Rodolfo told her that he was too old and most jobs have
an age limit and that he had no clothes to wear to job interviews. Sometime later, her husband told
petitioner that he already found a job and petitioner was overjoyed. However, some weeks after,
petitioner was informed that her husband had been seen at the house of his parents when he was
supposed to be at work. Petitioner discovered that her husband did not actually get a job and the
money he gave her (which was supposedly his salary) came from his mother.
Petitioner claimed that Rodolfo was so dependent on his mother and that all his decisions and
attitudes in life should be in conformity with those of his mother.
Additionally, when petitioner requested that they move to another place and rent a small room rather
than live near his parents, Rodolfo did not agree. Because of this, she was forced to leave their
residence and see if he will follow her. But he did not.
Apart from the foregoing, petitioner complained that every time Rodolfo would get drunk he became
physically violent towards her. Their sexual relationship was also unsatisfactory. They only had sex
once a month and petitioner never enjoyed it. When they discussed this problem, Rodolfo would
always say that sex was sacred and it should not be enjoyed nor abused.
During the trial of the case, petitioner presented Rodolfos first cousin, Florida de Ramos, as a
witness. She corroborated petitioners testimony that Rodolfo was indeed not gainfully
employed when he married petitioner and he merely relied on the allowance given by his mother.
Petitioner likewise presented Dr. Cecilia Villegas, a psychiatrist. Dr. Villegas testified that after
examining petitioner for her psychological evaluation, she found petitioner to be mature,
independent, very responsible, focused and has direction and ambition in life.She also observed that
petitioner works hard for what she wanted and therefore, she was not psychologically incapacitated
to perform the duties and responsibilities of marriage. Dr. Villegas added that based on the
information gathered from petitioner, she found that Rodolfo showed that he was psychologically
incapacitated to perform his marital duties and responsibilities. Dr. Villegas concluded that he was
suffering from Dependent Personality Disorder associated with severe inadequacy related to
masculine strivings.
She explained that persons suffering from Dependent Personality Disorder were those whose
response to ordinary way of life was ineffectual and inept, characterized by loss of self-confidence,
constant self-doubt, inability to make his own decisions and dependency on other people. She added
that the root cause of this psychological problem was a cross-identification with the mother who was
the dominant figure in the family considering that respondents father was a seaman and always out of
the house. She stated that this problem began during the early stages in his life but manifested only
after the celebration of his marriage. According to Dr. Villegas, this kind of problem was also severe
because he will not be able to make and to carry on the responsibilities expected of a married person.
It was incurable because it started in early development and therefore deeply ingrained into his
personality.
Based on petitioners evidence, the RTC rendered a Decision declaring the marriage void ab initio.
The Solicitor General appealed the RTC Decision objecting that (a) the psychiatric report of Dr.
Villegas was based solely on the information provided by petitioner and was not based on an
examination of Rodolfo; and (b) there was no showing that the alleged psychological defects were
present at the inception of marriage or that such defects were grave, permanent and incurable.
Resolving the appeal, the CA reversed the RTC and essentially ruled that petitioner failed to
sufficiently prove the psychological incapacity of Rodolfo or that his alleged psychological disorder
existed prior to the marriage and was grave and incurable.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the marriage between MarietaAzcueta and Rodolfo Azcueta is void ab initio under
Art. 36 of the Family Code
HELD:
Rodolfo was psychologically incapacitated to perform his marital duties because of his Dependent
Personality Disorder. His marriage to Marietta was declared void ab initio. Marietta sufficiently
discharged her burden to prove her husband’s psychological incapacity. As held in Marcos vs.
Marcos [397 Phil. 840 (2000)], there is no requirement that the
respondent spouse should be personally examined by a physician or psychologist as a condition sine
qua non for the declaration of nullity of marriage based on psychological incapacity. What matters is
whether the totality of evidence presented is adequate to sustain a finding of psychological
incapacity. Marietta’s testimony was corroborated in material points by Rodolfo’s close relative, and
supported by the psychiatrist’s testimony linking the manifestations of Rodolfo’s psychological
incapacity and the psychological disorder itself. It is a settled principle of civil procedure that the
conclusions of the trial court regarding the credibility of witnesses are entitled to great respect from
the appellate courts because the trial court had an opportunity to observe the demeanor of witnesses
while giving testimony which may indicate their candor or lack thereof. Since the trial court itself
accepted the veracity of Marietta’s factual premises, there is no cause to dispute the conclusion of
psychological incapacity drawn therefrom by her expert witness. The root cause of Rodolfo’s
psychological incapacity was alleged in the petition, medically or clinically identified, sufficiently
proven by testimony of an expert witness with more than 40 years experience in the field of
psychology and psychological incapacity, and clearly explained in the trial court’s decision. As held
in Te vs. Te (G.R. No. 161793, 13 February 2009), “(b)y the very nature of Article 36, courts, despite
having the primary task and burden of decision-making, must not discount but, instead, must
consider as decisive evidence the expert opinion on the psychological and mental temperaments of
the parties.”
Rodolfo’s psychological incapacity was also established to have clearly existed at the time of and
even before the celebration of marriage. Witnesses were united in testifying that from the start of the
marriage, Rodolfo’s irresponsibility, overdependence on his mother and abnormal sexual reticence
were already evident. These manifestations of Rodolfo’s Dependent Personality Disorder must have
existed even prior to the marriage being rooted in his early development and a by-product of his
upbringing and family life. Furthermore, Rodolfo’s psychological incapacity had been shown to be
grave so as to render him unable to assume the essential obligations of marriage. The Court of
Appeals’ opinion that Rodolfo’s requests for financial assistance from his mother might have been
due to embarrassment for failing to contribute to the family coffers and that his motive for not
wanting a child was a “responsible” realization since he was unemployed, were dismissed by the
High Court for being speculative and unsupported by evidence. The Supreme Court likewise
disagreed with the Court of Appeals’ finding that Rodolfo’s irresponsibility and overdependence on
his mother could be attributed to immaturity, noting that at the time of his marriage, Rodolfo was
almost 29 years old. Also, the expert testimony identified a grave clinical or medical cause for
Rodolfo’s abnormal behavior – Dependent Personality Disorder. A person afflicted with Dependent
Personality Disorder cannot assume the essential marital obligations of living together, observing
love, respect and fidelity and rendering help and support, for he is unable to make everyday decisions
without advice from others, allows others to make most of his important decisions (such as where to
live), tends to agree with people even when he believes they are wrong, has difficulty doing things on
his own, volunteers to do things that are demeaning in order to get approval from other people, feels
uncomfortable or helpless when alone and is often preoccupied with fears of being abandoned. (Te
vs. Te, supra) One who is unable to support himself, much less a wife; one who cannot independently
make decisions
regarding even the most basic matters that spouses face every day; and one who cannot contribute to
the material, physical and emotional well-being of his spouse, is psychologically incapacitated to
comply with the marital obligations within the meaning of Article 36 of the Family Code. This is not
to say, however, that anyone diagnosed with Dependent Personality Disorder is automatically
deemed psychologically incapacitated to perform his/her marital obligations. The court must evaluate
the facts, as guided by expert opinion, and carefully examine the type of disorder and the gravity
thereof before declaring the nullity of a marriage under Article 36. Finally, it has been established
that Rodolfo’s condition is incurable, having been deeply ingrained in his system since his early
years.
Buenaventura vs CA
G.R. No. 127358. March 31, 2005
FACTS:
These cases involve a petition for the declaration of nullity of marriage, which was filed by petitioner
Noel Buenaventura on July 12, 1992, on the ground of the alleged psychological incapacity of his
wife, Isabel Singh Buenaventura, herein respondent. After respondent filed her answer, petitioner,
with leave of court, amended his petition by stating that both he and his wife were psychologically
incapacitated to comply with the essential obligations of marriage. In response, respondent filed an
amended answer denying the allegation that she was psychologically incapacitated. Isabel after the
declaration of Noel’s psychological incapacity sued for moral and exemplary damages which the trial
court approved hence the present petition.
ISSUE:
Whether or not a person can seek moral and exemplary damages after having his/her spouse be
declared psychologically incapacitated to perform the requisites of marriage.
HELD:
No, by declaring the petitioner as psychologically incapacitated, the possibility of awarding moral
damages on the same set of facts was negated. The award of moral damages should be predicated,
not on the mere act of entering into the marriage, but on specific evidence that it was done
deliberately and with malice by a party who had knowledge of his or her disability and yet willfully
concealed the same. No such evidence appears to have been adduced in this case.
For the same reason, since psychological incapacity means that one is truly incognitive of the basic
marital covenants that one must assume and discharge as a consequence of marriage, it removes the
basis for the contention that the petitioner purposely deceived the private respondent. If the private
respondent was deceived, it was not due to a willful act on the part of the petitioner. Therefore, the
award of moral damages was without basis in law and in fact.
Since the grant of moral damages was not proper, it follows that the grant of exemplary damages
cannot stand since the Civil Code provides that exemplary damages are imposed in addition to moral,
temperate, liquidated or compensatory damages.
Padilla-Rumbaua vs Rumbaua
G.R. No. 166738. August 14, 2009
FACTS: On February 23, 1993, Rowena Padilla and Edward Rumbaua were married in City of
Manila. However, they never lived together in one habitat because their marriage was a secret to
Edward's family. In 1995, Edward's mother died and he blamed Rowena being responsible for her
death associating it to the discovering of their "secret marriage." Rowena filed for nullity of their
marriage due to psychological incapacity in the Regional Trial Court of Manila. The Court nullified
the marriage in its decision on April 19, 2002. The Republic of the Philippines appealed the decision
to the Court of Appeals due to prematurity, as it was rend despite the absence of required
certifications from the Solicitor General. On June 25, 2004, the Court of Appeals reversed the
decision of the Regional Trial Court due to prematurity thus denied the nullification of the parties'
marriage. Rowena, not happy with the decision of the Court of Appeals, filed a petition to the
Supreme Court praying for the Court of Appeal's decision be set aside and regional Trials Court's
decision be reinstated. The Supreme Court on August 14, 2009, deny the petition for lack of merit,
thus affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals dated June 25, 2004.
ISSUE: Whether or not, the psychologist was able to prove that the respondent is indeed
psychologically incapacitated according to Article 36 of the Family Code of the Philippines. HELD:
No. The psychologist did not have enough proof because in her psychiatric report, she did not
mention the cause of the respondent's so-called "narcissistic personality disorder", she failed to
explain to the court an insight into the respondent's development years. Furthermore, she did not
explain why she came to the conclusion that the respondent's incapacity is "deep seated and
incurable", when Article 36 of the Family Code of the Philippines states that evidence presented must
show that the incapacitated party was mentally or physically ill so that he or she could not have
known the marital obligations assumed in marriage.
So vs. Valera
G.R. 150677, June 5, 2009
FACTS:
So (petitioner) was 17 while the Valera was 21 when they first met in a party, where which the latter
taught the former to smoke marijuana. Both of them were students while the petitioner was working
in his father’s business. Within the next two months, respondent dropped out from school, applied for
a job and was purportedly raped by her employer. In 1973, Valera asked So to stay in his apartment,
then petitioner’s parents fetched the two to live with them. So sent Valera to school who then passed
the dentistry board exam, put up a dental clinic but subsequently quit dental practice and joined the
petitioner in his business.
Petitioner related that respondent asked him to sign a blank marriage contract in 1986 without any
ceremony. Regardless of such, their marriage was registered in 1991 after the couple separated.
Internal problems were encountered by the couple during their cohabitation. The two built
disagreements in deciding for their business. So often slept in the car because Valera would lock him
out of the house whenever coming home late. He claimed Valera doesn’t take care of their children
and she was employed to gambling.
So claimed that Valera was psychologically incapacitated to exercise the essential obligations of
marriage due to: failure and refusal to cohabit and establish conjugal and family life; lack of love and
respect to the petitioner; unfaithfulness; and failure to provide support both to him and their children.
ISSUE:
Whether or not complaint against the respondent’s state as psychologically incapacitated sufficient
HELD:
SC found the claim insufficient. In 18 years long, Court is doubtful on why had they not discovered
the psychological Incapacity sooner which is supposedly must be proven to be existing at the time of
the celebration of the marriage. The respondent even seemed to be educationally well for even
passing the board exam.
It turned out that Valera had not been psychologically examined. The psych exam only took place
through a transcript of stenographic notes of the hearings and clinical interviews of the petitioner.
The examination was not sufficiently in-depth. The particulars and conclusions are disproportionate
and seemed to be exaggerated. It was not enough to totally judge the entire life of the respondent.
Here, petitioner failed to prove his claim, given that the burden is weighted on him. Psychologist’s
testimony failed to show how Valera’s behavioral disorder was medically or clinically permanent or
incurable.
SC concludes that human faults and couple’s adversaries are not unusual and would result to fatigue.
To be tired and give up on one’s husband is not necessarily a sign of psychological
illness, neither can falling out of love to be labeled. SC believes that separation is not necessary to
remedy the couple’s marital knot.

S-ar putea să vă placă și