112. Rombaua v.

Rombaua

GR No. 166738, 14 August 2009

FACTS:

Rowena filed a petition to declare the nullification of her marriage with Edward Rumbaua, on
the ground that the latter is psychologically incapacitated to comply with marital obligations. She
alleged that she and Edward never lived together due to their “secret marriage” and that Edward was
reneged on the promise to live with her after finding a job. He also failed to provide financial support
and presented himself as single in all his transactions. Lastly, he pretended to work in Davao although he
was cohabiting with another woman in Novaliches City.

ISSUE: W/N the marriage is void due to psychological incapacity.

HELD:

No. Edward’s stubborn refusal to cohabit with Rowena was irresponsible, but it was never
proven to be rooted in some psychological illness. He merely refused to cohabit with her for fear of
jeopardizing his application for a scholarship, and later due to his fear of antagonizing his family. More
so, his act of representing himself as single in his visa application, could only at best amount to
forgetfulness, insensitivity or emotional immaturity, not necessarily psychological incapacity.

115. Te v. Te

GR No. 161793, 13 February 2009

FACTS:

Edward and Rowena started out as acquaintances, but they eventually eloped. Theirs was a
whirlwind relationship because they soon got married which only lasted for six months. When their
families found out about it, Edward was prohibited from getting out of the house. After a month,
Edward escaped from the house, and stayed with his parents. Edward’s parents wanted them to stay at
their house, but Rowena refused and said that it was better for them to live separate lives and so they
parted ways.
 Edward filed a petition for the annulment of his marriage to Rowena on the basis of the latter’s
psychological incapacity.

ISSUE: Whether the marriage contracted is void on the ground of psychological incapacity.

HELD:

Yes. The psychologist who provided expert testimony found both parties psychologically
incapacitated. Edward’s behavioral pattern falls under the classification of dependent personality
disorder, and Rowena’s was that of the narcissistic and antisocial personality disorder. The presentation
of expert proof presupposes a thorough and in-depth assessment of the parties by the psychologist or
expert, for a conclusive diagnosis of a grave, severe and incurable presence of psychological incapacity.

116. Choa v. Choa

GR No. 143376, 26 November 2002

FACTS:

Leni Choa and Alfonso Choa got married in 1981. In 1993, Alfonso filed an annulment of his
marriage to Leni. Afterwards, he filed an amended complaint for the declaration of nullity of their
marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity.

Alfonso claimed that Leni charged him with perjury, concubinage and deportation which proves
Leni’s psychological incapacity because according to him, it was an indicia that his wife not only wanted
him behind bars, but also to be banished from the country.

ISSUE: Whether or not Alfonso Chua presented sufficient evidence to warrant a declaration of nullity of
his marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity.

HELD:

No. The documents presented by Alfonso do not in any way show the alleged psychological
incapacity of Leni. The pieces of evidence showed grave abuse of discretion bordering on
absurdity. Alfonso testified and complained about three aspects of Leni’s personality: lack of attention
to children, immaturity, and lack of an intention of procreative sexuality and none of these three, singly
or collectively, constitutes psychological incapacity.

118. Siayngco v. Siayngco

GR No. 158896, 27 October 2004

FACTS:

Juanita Siayngco and Manuel Siayngco are husband and wife. After discovering that they could
not bear a child, they decided to adopt a baby boy. After 24 years of being married, Manuel filed a
petition for the declaration of nullity of marriage based on the alleged psychological incapacity of
Juanita. He alleged that throughout their marriage, Juanita showed an over-domineering and selfish
attitude towards him.

ISSUE: W/N the marriage is void due to psychological incapacity.

HELD:

No. Manuel failed to prove that his wife’s lack of respect for him, her jealousies, outbursts, and
her controlling nature constitute psychological incapacity which would paralyze her from complying with
the essential obligations of marriage. Neither was it shown that these “defects” were already present at
the inception of marriage nor were they incurable.

120. Republic v. CA and Molina

GR No. 108763, 13 February 1997

FACTS:

Roridel Molina and Reynaldo Molina 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, relied on his parents for assistance and was never honest
with his wife with regard their finances. Soon, they separated from each other. Roridel quit her work
and went to live with her parents while Reynaldo abandoned her and their child.
ISSUE: W/N the marriage is void on the ground of psychological incapacity.

HELD:

No. 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 responsibilities due to some psychological illness. The following are the
guidelines as to the grounds of psychological incapacity provided for in this case:

 Plaintiff has burden of proof to establish psychological incapacity

 root cause of the incapacity must be medically and clinically proven

 such incapacity should be in existence at the time of the marriage

 such incapacity must be so grave as to disable the person in complying with the essential 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.

122. Paz v. Paz

GR No. 166579, 18 February 2010

FACTS:

Jeanice Paz alleged that her husband, Jordan Chan, was psychologically incapable of assuming
the essential obligations of marriage that was manifested by his uncontrollable tendency to be self-
preoccupied and self-indulgent, as well as his predisposition to become violent and abusive. He had a
tendency to lie about his whereabouts and had the habit of hanging out and spending a great deal of
time with his friends. He has not provided any financial support or visited their son since she left their
conjugal home.

ISSUE: W/N Jordan is psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential marital obligations

HELD:
 No. The totality of the evidence failed to show that Jordan was psychologically incapacitated to
comply with the essential marital obligations and such incapacity was grave, incurable, and existing at
the time of the solemnization of their marriage. His alleged psychological incapacity was not shown to
be so grave and so permanent as to deprive him of the awareness of the duties and responsibilities of
the matrimonial bond.

123. LIM v. LIM

G.R. No. 176464, 4 February 2010

FACTS:

Having practiced Chinese customs, Edward Lim and Cheryl Lim lived with the former’s
grandparents during their marriage. During their stay in Forbes Park, all expenses were provided by
Edward’s grandparents. However, Cheryl insisted that they live separately from Edward’s family. Soon
thereafter, Cheryl filed a criminal complaint for Concubinage and Physical Injuries against Edward. In
return, Edward filed an amended petition including an allegation of his own psychological incapacity, as
both he and respondent were diagnosed with personality disorders—dependent personality disorder
and histrionic personality disorder, respectively.

ISSUE: Whether the marriage between Edward and Cheryl is void on the ground of the parties’
psychological incapacity.

HELD:

No. A judge should not substitute his own psychological assessment of the parties for that of
the psychologist or the psychiatrist. However, a judge has the bounden duty to rule on what the law is,
as applied to a certain set of facts.

The expert opinion of a psychiatrist based on interview and unsupported by separate

psychological tests cannot tie the hands of the trial court and prevent it from making its own factual
finding on what happened in this case. The probative force of the testimony of an expert does not lie in
a mere statement of his theory or opinion, but rather in the assistance that he can render to the courts
in showing the facts that serve as a basis for his criterion and the reasons upon which the logic of his
conclusion is founded

124. LIGERALDE v. PATALINGHUG

GR No. 168796, 15 April 2010

FACTS:

Silvino claimed that during his marriage with May, the latter had several manifestations of a
negative marital behavior. He described her as immature, irresponsible and carefree and engaged in
illicit affairs.

Despite attempts of reconciliation, may confessed that she had no more love for him. They then
lived separately. With May's irresponsible, immature and immoral behavior, Silvino believed that she is
psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential obligations of marriage. Prior to the filing of
the complaint, apsychological evaluation certified that May was psychologically incapacitated to
perform her essential marital obligations; that the incapacity started when she was still young and
became manifest after marriage; and that the same was serious and incurable

The RTC declared the marriage of Silvino and May null and void, but the Court of Appeals
reversed the RTC decision.

ISSUE: w/n the marriage is void by reason of psychological incapacity

HELD:

No. May’s act of living an adulterous life cannot automatically be equated with a psychological
disorder, especially when no specific evidence was shown that such was already existing at the inception
of marriage. Silvino must be able to establish that May’s unfaithfulness is a manifestation of a
disordered personality, which makes her completely unable to discharge the essential obligations of the
marital state. Even Dr. Nicdao-Basilio failed to show the root cause of her psychological incapacity. The
root cause of the psychological incapacity must be identified as a psychological illness, its incapacitating
nature fully explained and established by the totality of the evidence presented during trial.

125. Toring v. Toring

GR No. 165321, 3 August 2010

FACTS:

Petitioner Ricardo and Respondent Teresita are husband and wife. After 20 years of marriage,
Ricardo filed a petition to nullify their marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity. He claimed
that Teresita was a squanderer. Aside from this, She left the family’s utility bills and their children’s
tuition fees unpaid. She also missed paying the rent and the amortization for the house that Ricardo
acquired for the family. He also alleges that Teresita is an adulteress because she presents herself as a
single woman and sees other men while Ricardo is away for work He also suspected that she was
pregnant with another man’s child and proved himself correct when Teresita incurred a miscarriage.
ISSUE: w/n the marriage is void by reason of psychological incapacity

HELD:

No. the testimony given by Dr. Albaran was based solely on the testimony of Ricardo and his
son. No personal evaluation was made as to the condition of Teresita to properly conclude that she is
indeed inflicted with Narcissistic Personality Disorder. Second, it was not proven that the condition of
Teresita was present from the moment the marriage was celebrated. Lastly, the statement of the root
cause is a requirement that cannot be dispensed with, but it may be proven either by an express
statement or through the description of its physical manifestations.

126. MARABLE V. MARABLE

G.R. No. 178741, 17 January 2011

FACTS:

During the marriage between Rosalino and Myrna, quarrels became common occurrences.
Rosalino developed a relationship with another woman. When Myrna learned about the affair, Rosalino
promptly terminated it. But despite the end of the affair, their quarrels aggravated. He felt that he was
unloved, unwanted and unappreciated and so he left the family home. Later, he converted to Islam after
dating several women.

Rosalino filed a petition for declaration of nullity of his marriage to Myrna on the ground of his
psychological incapacity to perform the essential responsibilities of marital life. Hepresented the
Psychological Report of Dr. Nedy L. Tayag. The report stated that petitioner is suffering from “Antisocial
Personality Disorder.

ISSUE: w/n the marriage is void by reason of psychological incapacity

HELD:

No. The evaluation of Dr. Tayag fell short of the required proof which the Court can rely on as
basis to declare the marriage void. It is indispensable that the evidence must show a link, medical or the
like, between the acts that manifest psychological incapacity and the psychological disorder itself.
Rosalino tried to make it appear that his family history of having a womanizer for a father, was one of
the reasons why he engaged in extra-marital affairs during his marriage. However, it appears more likely
that he became unfaithful as a result of a general dissatisfaction with his marriage rather than a
psychological disorder rooted in his personal history
127. OCHOSA V. ALANO

G.R. No. 181881, 26 January 2011

FACTS:

During the marriage of Jose and Bona, Jose was often assigned to various parts of the
Philippines as a member of the AFP. Bona had illicit relations with other men whenever Jose was
assigned in various parts of the country. Word circulated of such infidelity and when Jose
confronted Bona about it, the latter admitted such relationships. Jose then filed a petition for
declaration of nullity of marriage on the ground of Bona’s psychological incapacity to fulfill the essential
obligations of marriage.

A psychiatrist testified that after conducting several tests, she reached the conclusion
that Bona was suffering from histrionic personality disorder and that said disorder was traceable to her
family history. Finally, the psychiatrist said that there was no possibility of a cure since Bona refused
to acknowledge the reality.

ISSUE: W/N Bona is psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential marital obligations.

HELD:

No. The psychiatrist’s testimony on Bona’s histrionic personality disorder did not meet the
standard of evidence required in determining psychological incapacity as her findings did not emanate
from a personal interview with Bona and merely relied on her interview with Jose and his other
witnesses. This factual circumstance evokes the possibility that the information fed to the psychiatrist is
tainted with bias for Jose’s cause, in the absence of sufficient corroboration. In view of the foregoing,
the badges of Bona’s alleged psychological incapacity can only be traced to the period of time after her
marriage to Jose and not to the inception of their marriage.