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.
Effectiveness of Neuromotor Task Training Combined With Kinaesthetic Training in Children With Developmental Co - Ordination Disorder - A Randomised Trial SRJI Vol-1 Issue-1 Year-2013