Cosca vs Palaypayon 1994

Facts:
Juvy Cosca, stenographer, filed an administrative case against Judge Palaypayon of MTC of Tinambac,
CamSur for the illegal solemnization of marriages. The petitioner alleged that the respondent failed to
sign and issue the marriage contracts that the latter solemnized. The respondent even allegedly
celebrated a marriage with no marriage license invoking Art. 34 (more than 5 years cohabitation), but
the groom was then 18 years old when contracted the marriage.
Issue/s: Whether or not the marriages solemnized by Judge Palaypayon be considered valid?
Ruling: YES, the marriages is still valid because the Family Code provides that irregularities in the formal
requisites shall not affect the validity of the marriage, the party or parties responsible for the
irregularities shall be civilly, criminally and administratively liable. In this case at bar, Judge Palaypayon
caused the irregularities and the couples that he married believed in good faith that the former
celebrated their marriage with no attached constraints

Geronimo vs CA 1993
Facts: Ireneo Geronimo questioned the validity of the marriage between his sister Graciana and Antonio
Esman. The complainant wanted to be appointed as the administrator of the estates of Graciano. He
contended that the wedding was celebrated without a marriage license due to the absence of the
license numbers on the marriage contract.
ISSUE: Whether or not the marriage was valid?
RULING: YES, the marriage of Graciana and Antonio is valid. According to the decision of the Supreme
Court, non-indication of the marriage license number could only serve that the number was not
recorded. It could not be accepted as clear and convincing proof of non- issuance of the required
marriage license.







Atienza vs Brilliantes Jr. 1995
Lupo Atienza filed an administrative case on immorality and appearance of Impropriety against Judge
Brilliantes who unlawfully cohabited with the formers wife Yolanda. Lupo claimed that the respondent
was previously married to a certain Zenaida Onkiko having five children. The judge defended that his
marriage with Onkiko was invalid due to the absence of a marriage licence. The celebration of the
marriage without licence even happened twice when he subsequently married Yolanda in the United
States thus thereby former allegedly acted in good faith. Brilliantes also argued that Art 40 of the Family
Code promulgated in 1988 was not applicable because his primary marriage was contracted in 1965,
thus he was single in his second marriage in 1991.

ISSUE: Whether or not Judge Brilliantes defence in valid?
RULIING: NO, after the promulgation of the Family Code, the law requires a judicial declaration of the
nullity of the previous marriage even though the first marriage was contracted before the effectivity of
such code (Art. 40). The Family Code is given retroactive effect unless prejudice to vested or acquired
rights given by the civil code and other laws. But Judge Brilliantes failed to prove that his rights were
impaired. Also, Art. 40 is procedural in nature, thus no rights are attached. The respondent could not
invoke good faith, because as a lawyer and even a judge, he should know the requisites of marriage.
Such actions are against The Code of Judicial Ethics. Wherefore, Judge Brilliantes was dismissed from the
service.

Mariategui vs CA 1992
Lupo Mariategui had three wives during his life time. But he died without leaving a will, thus the children
of his first and second wife contested the validity of his third marriage with Felipa Velasco due to the
absence of marriage license and contract. The petition also alleged that the children of the third
marriage (Jacinto, Julian and Paulina) should be considered illegitimate due to absence of proof of their
legitimacy.
ISSUE: Whether or not the marriage of Lupo and Felipa was valid and their children considered
legitimate?
RULING: YES, marriage may be presumed to have taken place between Lupo and and Felipa. The law
presumes that a man and awoman deporting themselves as husband and wife have entered into a
lawful contract of marriage.
In child legitimacy, pertinent documents are required by Art. 172 (record of birth and etc.) but in this
case at bar Julian and Paulina failed to show such requirements. But the Supreme Court said that even in
the absence of such documents as proof, the children of the third marriage continuously enjoyed the
status as legitimate children of Lupo Mariategui in the same manner as their brother Jacinto enjoyed
the privilege.
Republic vs. Iyoy
Fely and Crasus were married and had 5 chidren. After some time Fely left Crasus, and the former went
to the US where she allegedly applied for divorce and was granted. She then allegedly married an
American and had a child. Upon knowing Felys actions, Crasus filed for annulment of marriage invoking
Art. 36(Psychological Incapacity) on the grounds of abandonment, sexual infidelity and bigamy. The RTC
annulled the marriage and the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision, thereby the Solicitor General
submitted a petition to the Supreme Court.
Issue: Whether or not the divorce contracted by Fely was valid?
Whether or not the grounds invoked by Crasus sufficient for annulment of marriage?

Ruling: NO, the divorce cannot be considered and Art 26 par. 2 of the Family Code shall not be
considered because Fely procured the divorce when she was still a Filipino Citizen. There is no sufficient
proof that she was naturalized as a US citizen when she had the divorce.
The burden of proof is vested on the complainant. Thus on this case, the grounds cited by the
complainant Crassus were not sufficient enough to invoke Art 36 (Psychological Incapacity). The causes
were only sufficient for legal separation. Wherefore, the petition is Granted and the decisions of the CA
and RTC reversed.

Republic vs. Orbecido III
Cipriano Orbecido and Lady Villanueva, both Filipino citizens, contracted marriage. But unfortunately
Lady went to the US and was allegedly naturalized as an American citizen. Subsequently she sought for
divorce on her marriage with Cipriano then married and American. Orbecido filed a petition for
authority to remarry invoking Art 26 par.2 of Family Code. The RTC granted the annulment thereby the
Solicitor General filed a petition for certiorari and resolution to the Supreme Court.
Isuue: Whether or not Art. 26 par.2 was sufficiently invoked?
Ruling: NO, Cipriano Orbecido where the burden of proof rest, failed to supply sufficient evidence that
would prove for him to remarry, thus making the claims against Lady Villanueva as mere allegations. But
if the facts stipulated against Lady were proven with clear convincing evidence, then the Court could
have granted the annulment invoking Art. 26 par. 2. Wherefore the SC granted the SGs petition; and
set-aside and reversed the RTCs decision.

Navarro vs Domagtoy
Mayor Navarro of Dapa, Surigao del Norte filed a complaint against Judge Nando Domagtoy for gross
misconduct, inefficiency in office and ignorance of the law. Judge Domagtoy solemnized the marriages
of:
Gaspar Tagadan and Arlyn Borga without the declaration of presumptive death from the
previous spouse of the groom which Art 41 requires.
Floriano Sumaylo and Gemma del Rosario outside of his courts jurisdiction in violation of art 8.
Respondent judge contended that the first marriage did not violate the family code because he only
relied on the Affidavit issued by the Municipal Trial Judge of Basey, Samar, confirming the fact that
Mr. Tagadan and his first wife have not seen each other for almost seven years. In the second marriage,
he claimed that he did not violate Art 7 which provides that the solemnization officers shall only
celebrate the marriage within his jurisdiction. Thus, he invoked the provisions of Art 8 as a defense.

ISSUE: Whether or not his defences are valid?

Ruling: NO, the first marriage is considered bigamous and therefore should be void. Article 41 of the
Family Code expressly provides that a marriage contracted by any person during the subsistence of a
previous marriage shall be null and void, unless before the celebration of the subsequent marriage, the
prior spouse had been absent for four consecutive years and the spouse present had a well-founded
belief that the absent spouse was already dead. In case of disappearance where there is danger of death
under the circumstances set forth in the provisions of Articles 391 of the Civil Code, an absence of
only two years shall be sufficient. For the purpose of contracting the subsequent marriage under the
preceding paragraph, the spouse present institute a summary proceeding as provided in this Code for
the declaration of presumptive death of the absentee without prejudice to the effect of reappearance of
the absent spouse.
In the second marriage, the judge invoked Art 8 as a defence but it only provides that a marriage can be
held outside of the judge's chambers or courtroom only in the following instances: (1) at the point of
death, (2) in remote places in accordance with Article 29 or (3) upon request of both parties in writing in
a sworn statement to this effect. There is no proof that either Sumaylo or del Rosario was at the point
of death or in the remote place. Moreover, the written request presented addressed to the respondent
judge was made by only one party, Gemma del Rosario. Wherefore, the Supreme Court suspended
Judge Domagtoy on the grounds complained against him.


Pilapil vs. Ibay-Somera
Imelda Pilapil, a Filipino, married Erich Geiling who is German. Their marriage was celebrated in
Germany. Unfortunately, Erich filed for divorce in a German court for failure of marriage and was
granted. After 5 months, he filed a complaint of Adultery in two Regional Trial Courts against Imelda.
The latter allegedly had an adulterous relationship with Jesus Chua and another William Chia.

Issue: Whether or not the Philippine Courts have jurisdiction?
Ruling: NO, because the complainant, a foreigner, does not qualify as an offended spouse having
obtained a final divorce degree under his national law prior filing of complaint. The adultery case
charged against Imelda cannot be tried and decided because such case is a private offense, thus cannot
be prosecuted de officio.

Balogbog vs. CA
Basilio Balogbog and Genoveva Arnibal died intestate in 1951 and 1961 respectively. They had three
children, Leoncia, Gaudioso and Gavino, their older brother who died in 1935. Ramoncito and Generoso
claimed that they were the legitimate children of Gavino by Catalina Ubas and they were entitled to the
one-third share in the estate of their grandparents. However, Leoncia and Gaudioso claimed they are
not aware that their brother has 2 sons and that he was married. They questioned validity of the
marriage due to the absence of a marriage contract between their brother Gavino and Catalina. The
siblings of Gavino even strengthened their contention by obtaininga certificate from the local Civil
Registrar of Asturias to the effect that the office did not have a record of the names of Gavino and
Catalina.
Issue: Whether or not the marriage of Gavino and Catalina valid?
Ruling: YES, a marriage contract is considered primary evidence of marriage, failure to present it would
not mean that marriage did not take place. Other evidence may be presented where in this case
evidence consisting of the testimonies of witnesses was held competent to prove the marriage of
Gavino and Catalina. Gaudioso himself admitted during a separate police investigation proceeding that
indeed Ramonito is his nephew as the latter is the son of his elder brother Gavino. And under the Code
of Civil procedure, a man and a woman deporting themselves as husband and wife have entered into a
contract of marriage be rebutted by cogent proof to the contrary. The Supreme Court affirmed the
decision of CA and CFI of Cebu granting respondents Ramonito and Generoso 1/3 of estate of Basilio and
Genoveva Balogbog.


Quita vs CA
Fe Quita and Arturo Padlan, both Filipinos, were married in the Philippines. After some time, they
sought for divorce in the US. After the divorce, Fe, the petitioner, contracted two more succeeding
marriages. In the other hand, Arturo died in the Philippines without leaving a will. Before his death, he
was allegedly married to Blandina Dandan and having seven children. The alleged Padlan children
claimed that they should have successional rights being legitimate children of Arturo.
Issue: Whether or not the Arturos marriage to Fe was still valid?
Ruling: YES, the divorce was not valid because both were Filipino citizens when they availed such.
Therefore, the subsequent marriage between Blandina and Arturo was considered void due to its
bigamous nature. But in the issue of the successional rights of the Padlan children, the Supreme Court
agrees with petitioner that no dispute exists either as to the right of the six (6) Padlan children to inherit
from the decedent because there are proofs that they have been duly acknowledged by him and
petitioner herself even recognizes them as heirs of Arturo Padlan.

Ninal vs Bayadog
Pepito Ninal and Teodulfa Bellones were married but the former shot the latter causing her death. After
a year and eight months, Pepito married Norma Badayog without a marriage licence invoking Art 34
where cohabitation of at least five years would exempt such requirement. After some time, Pepito died
in a car accident without leaving any will. The children of the first marriage petitioned for the
declaration of nullity of the second marriage even though their father was already dead. RTC granted
Normas petition to dismiss due to the silence of the Family Code on the issue, and the court ruled that
the children should have filed before the death of their father.
ISSUE: Whether or not the children of the deceased Pepito and Teodulfa have the legal personality to
file the petition for the declaration of nullity of marriage?
RULING: YES, the marriage between Pepito and Norma is considered void ab initio. The fact the free
cohabitation started during the subsistence of a marriage, thus such action is considered in itself
adulterous and bigamous in nature. Therefore, void marriages can be questioned even after the death
of either party but voidable marriages can be assailed only during the lifetime of the parties and not
after death of either, in which case the parties and their offspring will be left as if the marriage had been
perfectly valid.




Amor-Catalan vs CA
The petitioner Felicitas Amor-Catalan married the respondent Orlando in Pangasinan. The couple then
migrated to the US and was later on naturalized. But after 38 years of marriage, the couple sought for
divorce and was granted. Orlando went back to the Pangasinan and married a certain Merope. The
petitioner filed a complaint and contended that the marriage contracted by Merope was bigamous of a
subsisting marriage with Eusebio. The RTC declared the marriage of Orlando and Merope null and void
ab initio. But the respondents appealed and was granted by the CA that reversed and set-aside the RTCs
decision.
ISSUE: Whether or not Felicitas, the petitioner, has the legal personality to file a petition for the
declaration of nullity of the respondents marriage?
RULING: Needs further evidence, to identify if the petitioner has such personality, the Supreme Court
remanded to the trial court for proper disposition due to the absence of divorce decree and proof of a
foreign law allowing it. If it is proved that a valid divorce decree was obtained and the same did not
allow respondent Orlandos remarriage, then the trial court should declare respondents marriage as
bigamous and void ab initio. On the contrary, if it is proved that a valid divorce decree was obtained
which allowed Orlando to remarry, then the trial court must dismiss the instant petitio to declare nullity
of marriage on the ground that petitioner Felicitas Amor-Catalan lacks legal personality to file the same
Tenebro vs. CA
Veronico Tenebro and Leticia Ancajas were married. After some time, the former confessed to the latter
that he was previously married to Hilda Villareyes. Veronico showed a photocopy of his previous
marriage contract and said that he is going to live again with Hilda. Then after, Leticia found out that
Veronico contracted another marriage to a certain Nilda Villegas. Hence, Leticia filed a criminal case of
bigamy. Tenebro claimed that the case shall not prosper because his marriage with the complainant was
declared void ab initio on grounds of psychological incapacity. The RTC found Tenebro guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of bigamy and the A affirmed the decision. The petitioner then filed for review to the
SC.
ISSUE: Whether or not the 2
nd
marriage of Veronico and Leticia can be a ground for bigamy.
RULING: YES, when the elements of bigamy are satisfied even the second marriage was void ab initio, he
is still liable of the crime. In entering the second marriage, bigamy was consummated even though the
subsequent was void ab initio on grounds of psychological incapacity. The Supreme court denied the
petition for review and affirmed the decision of the CA and RTC.






Carlos vs Sandoval

Teofilo Carlos and petitioner Juan De Dios Carlos were brothers who each have three parcels of land by
virtue of inheritance. Later Teofilo died intestate. He was survived by respondents Felicidad Sandoval
and their son, Teofilo Carlos II. Upon Teofilos death, two parcels of land were registered in the name of
Felicidad and Teofilo II. In August 1995, Carlos commenced an action against respondents before the
court a quo. In his complaint, Carlos asserted that the marriage between his late brother and Felicidad
was a nullity in view of the absence of the required marriage license. He likewise maintained that his
deceased brother was neither the natural nor the adoptive father of Teofilo Carlos II. He argued that the
properties covered by such certificates of title, including the sums received by respondents as proceeds,
should be reconveyed to him.
HELD: The grounds for declaration of absolute nullity of marriage must be proved. Neither judgment
on the pleadings nor summary judgment is allowed. So is confession of judgment disallowed. Carlos
argues that the CA should have applied Rule 35 of the Rules of Court governing summary judgment,
instead of the rule on judgment on the pleadings. Petitioner is misguided. Whether it is based on
judgment on the pleadings or summary judgment, the CA was correct in reversing the summary
judgment rendered by the trial court. Both the rules on judgment on the pleadings and summary
judgments have no place in cases of declaration of absolute nullity of marriage and even in annulment
of marriage.
A petition for declaration of absolute nullity of void marriage may be filed solely by the husband or
wife. Exceptions: (1) Nullity of marriage cases commenced before the effectivity of A.M. No. 02-11-10-
SC; and (2)Marriages celebrated during the effectivity of the Civil Code. Under the Rule on Declaration
of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages, the petition for
declaration of absolute nullity of marriage may not be filed by any party outside of the marriage. A
petition for declaration of absolute nullity of void marriage may be filed solely by the husband or the
wife. Only an aggrieved or injured spouse may file a petition for annulment of voidable marriages
or declaration of absolute nullity of void marriages. Such petition cannot be filed by compulsory or
intestate heirs of the spouses or by the State. The Committee is of the belief that they do not have a
legal right to file the petition. Compulsory or intestate heirs have only inchoate rights prior to the death
of their predecessor, and, hence, can only question the validity of the marriage of the spouses upon the
death of a spouse in a proceeding for the settlement of the estate of the deceased spouse filed in the
regular courts. On the other hand, the concern of the State is to preserve marriage and not to seek its
dissolution. The Rule extends only to marriages entered into during the effectivity of the Family Code
which took effect on August 3, 1988.
The advent of the Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages marks the beginning of the
end of the right of the heirs of the deceased spouse to bring a nullity of marriage case against the
surviving spouse. But the Rule never intended to deprive the compulsory or intestate heirs of their
successional rights.
While A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC declares that a petition for declaration of absolute nullity of marriage may
be filed solely by the husband or the wife, it does not mean that the compulsory or intestate heirs are
without any recourse under the law. They can still protect their successional right, for, as stated in the
Rationale of the Rules on Annulment of Voidable Marriages and Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void
Marriages, compulsory or intestate heirs can still question the validity of the marriage of the spouses,
not in a proceeding for declaration of nullity but upon the death of a spouse in a proceeding for the
settlement of the estate of the deceased spouse filed in the regular courts.
It is emphasized, however, that the Rule does not apply to cases already commenced before March 15,
2003 although the marriage involved is within the coverage of the Family Code. This is so, as the new
Rule which became effective on March 15, 2003 is prospective in its application.
Petitioner commenced the nullity of marriage case against respondent Felicidad in 1995. The marriage in
controversy was celebrated on May 14, 1962. Which law would govern depends upon when the
marriage took place.
The marriage having been solemnized prior to the effectivity of the Family Code, the applicable law is
the Civil Code which was the law in effect at the time of its celebration. But the Civil Code is silent as to
who may bring an action to declare the marriage void. Does this mean that any person can bring an
action for the declaration of nullity of marriage?
True, under the New Civil Code which is the law in force at the time the respondents were married, or
even in the Family Code,there is no specific provision as to who can file a petition to declare the nullity
of marriage; however, only a party who can demonstrate proper interest can file the same. A petition
to declare the nullity of marriage, like any other actions, must be prosecuted or defended in the name of
the real party-in-interest and must be based on a cause of action. Thus, in Nial v. Badayog, the Court
held that the children have the personality to file the petition to declare the nullity of marriage of their
deceased father to their stepmother as it affects their successional rights









Marcos vs Marcos 2000
FACTS: Brenda B. Marcos married Wilson Marcos in 1982 and they had five children. Alleging that the
husband failed to provide material support to the family and have resorted to physical abuse and
abandonment, Brenda filed a case for the nullity of the marriage on the ground that Wilson Marcos has
psychological incapacity. The RTC declared the marriage null and void under Article 36 which was
however reversed by the Court of Appeals
ISSUES: 1. Whether personal medical or psychological examination of the respondent by a physician is a
requirement for a declaration of psychological incapacity.
2. Whether or not the totality of evidence presented in this case show psychological incapacity.
HELD: Psychological incapacity, as a ground for declaring the nullity of a marriage, may be established by
the totality of evidencepresented. There is no requirement, however that the respondent should be
examined by a physician or a psychologist as a conditionsince qua non for such declaration.Although this
Court is sufficiently convinced that respondent failed to provide material support to the family and may
haveresorted to physical abuse and abandonment, the totality of his acts does not lead to a conclusion
of psychological incapacity on hispart. There is absolutely no showing that his defects were already
present at the inception of the marriage or that they areincurable.Verily, the behavior of respondent can
be attributed to the fact that he had lost his job and was not gainfully employed for aperiod of more
than six years. It was during this period that he became intermittently drunk, failed to give material and
moral support,and even left the family home.Thus, his alleged psychological illness was traced only to
said period and not to the inception of the marriage. Equallyimportant, there is no evidence showing
that his condition is incurable, especially now that he is gainfully employed as a taxi driver.In sum, this
Court cannot declare the dissolution of the marriage for failure of petitioner to show that the alleged
psychologicalincapacity is characterized by gravity, juridical antecedence and incurability; and for her
failure to observe the guidelines outlined inMolina.
husband may use wifes confidential report/ m
edical record
to show psychological incapacity
Santos V. CA
240 SCRA 20psychological incapacity must refer to
mental
(not physical)
incapacity
to comprehend basic mental covenantscharacterized by gravity, juridical antecedence, incurability,
existing at the time of the marriage
Chi Ming Tsoi v. CA
G.R. No. 119190 (January 16, 1997)Facts:1) RTC QC Br 89 which decreed the annulmentof the marriage
on the ground ofpsychological incapacity2) Petitioner appealed the decision of the trialcourt to CA
(42758) which affirmed the RTCdecision (Nov 29, 1994)3) Denied motion for reconsideration
(February14, 1995)4) May 22, 1988 plaintiff married defendant atManila cathedral, Intramuros manila

marriage contact-evidence5) Wedding reception South Villa Makati

house of d
efendants mother
6) No making love on the first nyt aftermarriage

same with second, third andfourth nights7) Baguio city

first week as husband andwife

with mother, uncle, his mother andnephew of defendant

n sexual intercoursewithin the 4-day stay8) May 22, 1988- March 15, 1989

but duringthis period no attempt of sexual intercourse
between them, not even saw husbands
private parts9) Submitted themselves to medicalexamination

CGH- January 20, 198910)
She was healthy, still a virgin; her husbands
results were kept confidential

givenmedication but confidential

asked to returnbut never did11) Impotent husband, closet homosexual,defendant married her a Filipino
citizen toacquire and maintain residency statusCLAIM OF DEFENDANT: if marriage will be annulledby
reason of psychological incapacity, it will be fault ofthe wifeHe did not want marriage to be annulled due
to:a) He loves her so muchb) He has no defect on his part and he isphysically and psychologically
capablec) The relationship is till young and differencescan still be reconciled\ d) Defect can be cured
with medical technology
-
Admitted that no sexual intercourse fromMay 22, 1988 to March 15, 1989

blames wife
-
Two reasons given by him: 1) she isafraid that she will return jewelry ofhermother (forced) ; 2) that her
husbandwill consummate the marriage
-
He insists on the validity of the marriage12) Submitted himself to examination

Dr.Sergio Atleza Jr said he has no signs ofimpotency and capable of erectionDECISION OF TRIAL COURT:
declared Voidmarriage . let copy be furnished the local civil registrarof QC and of Manila
CA: affirmed TCs decision
DECISION OF SUPREME COURT: petition to bebereft of merit; assailed decision of the CA dated Nov29,
1994 AFFIRMED in all respects and the petition ishereby DENIED for lack of merit.REASONS:1) Private
respondent has the burden ofproving the allegations in her complaint

noindependent evidence to prove the allegednon-coitus between husband and wife

onlybasis is admission of petitioner2) Need to prevent collusion between parties

CC provides that no judgment annullingmarriage shall be promulgated upon astipulation of facts or by
confession of judgments3) But since petitioner did not want marriage tobe annulled

then no collusion betweenparties4) Issue that failure to have sexual intercoursemeant psychological
incapacity of both

other reasons may exist

the court said thefact that no coitus happened betweenthem

no need to determine who did notwant to have sex with whom5) Wanted to have sex but refuses

maybebecause of pain?== no attempt to discoverwhat the problem with his wife could be6) One of the
essential marital obligationsunder the FC is to procreate children basedon the universal principle that
procreation ofchildren through sexual cooperation is thebasic end of mar
riage
if one althoughphysically capable but simply refuses toperform his or her essential maritalobligations
and the refusal is senseless andconstant

even canon Law attribute thecause to psychological incapacity

C2013 | PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATIONS | PROF. KATRINA LEGARDA | 37
7) Court find the gravity of the failedrelationship in which the parties foundthemselves trapped in its
mire of unfulfilledvows and unconsummated maritalobligations can do no less but sustain thestudied
judgment of respondent appellatecourt
Republic v. Olaviano Molina
(1997)Facts:1) Petition for review on certiorari under theRule 45 challenging the January 25,
1993decision of CA affirming
in toto
the May 14,1991 decision of the RTC of La TrinidadBenguet which declared the marriage ofrespondent
Roridel Olaviano Molina toReynaldo Molina void
ab initio
on the ground
of psychological capacity under Article 36
of the Family Code2) Case filed August 16, 1990 (nullity ofmarriage)3) April 14, 1985: marriage of Roridel
andReynaldo, san Agustin Church4) Son: Andre Molina5) After a year of marriage:
-
Showed signs of immaturity
-
Preferred to stay with peers and friendssquandering his money
-
Depended on parents for aid andassistance
-
Never honest with wife about finances6) February 1986: relieved from work7) October 1986: intense
quarrel8) March 1987: Roridel resigned from job inManila and went to live with parents inBaguio City9)
Few weeks later: Reynaldo left Roridel andtheir child and abandoned them10) Reynaldo psychologically
incapable ofcomplying with essential marital obligations
REYNALDOs CLAIMS
1) Filed August 28, 1989: contended thatmisunderstandings were due to:a)
Roridelss strange behavior of insisting
on maintaining her friends even aftermarriageb) Her refusal to perform some of hermarital duties such
as cooking mealsc)
Roridels failure to run the h
ouseholdand handle their financesTHE FOLLOWING WERE STIPULATED:1) Petitioner is not asking for
support for herchild and her2) Respondent is not asking for damages3) Parties are separated in fact for
three years4) Common child of the parties is in custody ofthe
petitioners wife

WIFEs WITNESSES: Friends: Rosemarie
Ventura and Maria Leonora Padilla; RuthLalas a social worker and Dr. TeresitaHidalgo-Sison (psychiatrist
of BGH)
TRIAL COURTS DECISION: May 14, 1991:
declaring marriage null and voidCA: denied appeal of petitioner and affirmed
in toto

the RTC decision
SOLICITOR GENERAL: insists that the CAmade an erroneous and incorrect
interpretation of the phrase psychologicalincapacity. He said that appealed decision
tended to establish in effect the most liberal
divorce procedure in the world

-

Solicitors appeal was denied
RTCrelying on the fact that marriagebetween parties broke up because oftheir opposing and
conflictingpersonalities.
-

SG argued that opposing and
conflicting personalities is not equivalent
to psychological capacity
-
PSYCHOLOGICAL INCAPACITY: is notsimply
neglect
by the parties to themarriage of their responsibilities andduties but a
defect
in their psychologicalnature which renders them incapable ofperforming such marital responsibilitiesand
dutiesSC RULING: Petition is meritoriousREASONS:1) Justice Vitug: psychological incapacity refersto the
most serious cases of personalitydisorders clearly demonstrative of an utterinsensitivity or inability to
give meaning andsignificance to the marriage; this conditionmust exist at the time the marriage
iscelebrated2) It should be characterized by: a) gravity, b) juridical antecedence and c) incurability3) In
the present case:
-
There is no clear showing that thepsychological defect spoken of is anincapacity
but merely a difficulty if notoutright refusal or neglect in the
performance of some marital obligations
-
Mere showing of irreconcible differencesand conflicting personalities in no wiseconstitutes
psychological incapacity
-
It is essential to show that the partiesare incapable of meeting their maritalresponsibilities and not mere
failure

C2013 | PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATIONS | PROF. KATRINA LEGARDA | 38
-
No gravity in the problem, neither juridical antecedence nor incurability4) Court invited two
amici curiae
(Most revOscar Cruz and Justice Ricardo Puno: theirguidance:a) The burden of proof to show the
nullityof marriage belongs to the plaintiff- anydoubt should be resolved in -- favor ofthe validity and
continuation of themarriage

permanence, solidarity andinviolability of marriageb) The root cause of the psychologicalincapacity must
be 1) medically orclinically identified; 2) alleged in thecomplaint; 3) sufficiently proven byexperts and 4)
clearly explained in thedecision

the evidence must convincethe court that the parties or one of them,was mentally or psychically ill to
such anextent that the person could not haveknown the obligations he was assumingor knowing them,
could not have givenvalid assumption thereof.c) The incapacity must be proven existingduring the time
of the celebration of themarriaged) Such incapacity must also be shown tobe medically or clinically
permanent orincurable

incapacity must be relevantto assumption of marriage obligationsnot necessarily those not related
tomarriage like exercise of professione) Such illness must be grave enough tobring about the disability of
the party toassume the essential obligations ofmarriage- illness must be shown asdownright incapacity
or inability and nota refusal, neglect or difficulty much lessill willf) The essential marital obligations
mustbe those embraced by Arts 68-71 offamily code (to husband and wife) andARTs 220, 221 and 225
(parents andtheir children)g) Interpretations given by the NationalAppellate Matrimonial tribunal of
theCatholic Church in the Philippines whilenot controlling or decisive, should begiven great respect by
our courts

Art36 taken from the Canon 1095 of theNew Code of Canon Law (1983)- whatis decreed to be
canonically void be alsocivilly voidh) The trial court must order theprosecuting attorney or fiscal and
theSolicitor general to appear as counselfor the stateDECISION OF SC: petition is GRANTED. Theassailed
decision is REVERSED and SET ASIDE.The marriage of Roridel Olaviano and ReynaldoMolina subsists and
remains valid.SEPARATE STATEMENT:PADILLA, J

Each case must be judged, not on the basisof
a priori
assumptions, predilections orgeneralizations but according to its ownfacts

the facts in this case does not supportconclusion of psychological incapacitySEPARATE
OPINIONROMERO, J.

Not mere refusal and neglect or difficulty

Neither should the incapacity be the result ofmental illness. For if it were due to insanityor defects in the
mental faculties short ofinsanity, there is the resultant defect of viceof consent, thus rendering the
marriageannullable (Art 45 family Code)

Psychological incapacity does not refer tomental faculties and has nothing to do withconsent, it refers to
obligations attendant tomarriage

Psychological incapacity is insanity of alesser degree

Remedy was to allow the afflicted spouse toremarry

Bases for determining void marriages:a) Lack of one or more of the essentialrequisites of marriage as
contractb) Reasons of public policyc) Special cases and special situations(includes psychological
incapacity)

Canon Law- valid and void marriage only


In the case conflicting and opposing
personalities of the spouses were notconsidered equivalent to psychologicalincapacity

Senseless and protracted refusal isequivalent to psychological incapacity (ChiMing Tsoi vs CA)

Concurs that this marriage remainssubsisting and validCONCURRING OPINIONVITUG, J.

Should give much value to Canon Law jurisprudence as an aid to the interpretationand construction of
the statutory enactment

Marriage
void ab initio
, Art 45- merelyvoidable, Art 55- legal separation

The term psychological incapacity to beground for the nullity of the marriage underArt 36 of the FC must
pass the followingtests:a) Incapacity must be psychological ormental not physical in natureb)
Psychological incapacity must relate tothe inability, not mere refusal to understand, assume and
discharge the basic marital obligations of living together, observing love and respect

C2013 | PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATIONS | PROF. KATRINA LEGARDA | 39
and fidelity and rendering mutual helpand supportc) Psychology condition must exist at thetime the
marriage is contracted althoughits overt manifestations may occur onlythereafter andd) The mental
disorder must be grave orserious and incurableSection 2 Art. XV (marriage as an inviolable
socialinstitution, is the foundation of the family and shall beprotected by the State) , Section 12, Art II (
The Staterecognizes the sanctity of family life and shall protectand strengthen the family as a basic
autonomoussocial institution), Section 1, Article XV ( The Staterecognizes the Filipino family as the
foundation of thenation. Accordingly, it shall strengthen its solidarityand actively promote its total
development) of theConstitution show how the state regard marriage andthe family