SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. 203284 November 14, 2016

NICOLAS S. MATUDAN vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES and MARILYN B. MATUDAN
DEL CASTILLO, J.

NATURE OF THE ACTION: Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage

FACTS:

Nicolas Matudan and Marilyn Matudan were married in 1976. They had four children. In 1985,
Marilyn left to work abroad. From then on, petitioner and the children lost contact with her. She
had not been seen nor heard from again. Nicolas inquired from the relatives of the respondent
but they did not tell him her whereabouts. In 2008, Nicolas filed for Declaration of Nullity of
Marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity. It was alleged that Marilyn never provided
financial support to the family and never communicated with them. Furthermore, Nicolas stated
that he had a happy marital relationship with the respondent and never had a fight with her. The
only reason he was filing the case was because of Marilyns abandonment. Both the Trial Court
and the Court of Appeals denied that the existence of Marilyns psychological incapacity. Hence,
the petition.

ISSUE:
w/n abandonment warrants a finding of psychological incapacity thereby a ground for declaring
the marriage void

RULING: No. The court denies the petition.

The landmark case of Santos v. Court of Appeals taught us that psychological incapacity under
Article 36 of the Family Code must be characterized by (a) gravity, (b) juridical antecedence, and
(c) incurability. Thus, the incapacity "must be grave or serious such that the party would be
incapable of carrying out the ordinary duties required in marriage; it must be rooted in the history
of the party antedating the marriage, although the overt manifestations may emerge only after
marriage; and it must be incurable or, even if it were otherwise, the cure would be beyond the
means of the party involved." In this connection, the burden of proving psychological incapacity
is on the petitioner, pursuant to Republic v. Court of Appeals, or the Molina case.

While the petitioner professed psychological incapacity, he could not establish its gravity, juridical
antecedence, and incurability. Petitioner's evidence consists mainly of his judicial affidavit and
testimony; the judicial affidavits and testimonies of his daughter Maricel and Dr. Tayag; and Dr.
Tayag's psychological evaluation report on the psychological condition both petitioner and
Marilyn. The supposed evaluation of Marilyn's psychological condition was based solely on
petitioner's account, since Marilyn did not participate in the proceedings.

'Psychological incapacity,' as a ground to nullify a marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code,
should refer to no less than a mental-- not merely 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 in Article 68 of the Family Code,
among others, include their mutual obligations to live together, observe love, respect and fidelity
and render help and support.
 SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 214064, February 06, 2017
MIRASOL CASTILLO vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES AND FELIPE IMPAS
PERALTA, J.:

NATURE OF THE ACTION: Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage

FACTS:
As their parents were good friends and business partners, Mirasol and Felipe started as friends
then, eventually, became sweethearts. During their courtship, Mirasol discovered that Felipe
sustained his affair with his former girlfriend. With the intervention of their parents, they reconciled.
They got married in 1984 and were blessed with two children. In 2011, Mirasol filed a Complaint
for declaration of nullity of marriage. She alleged that at the beginning, the marriage was good.
However, after a few years Felipe resumed philandering. She even caught her husband on the
act. Tired of his infidelity, Mirasol left the conjugal dwelling and stopped any communication with
him. Felipe's irresponsible acts like cohabiting with another woman, not communicating with her,
and not supporting their children for a period of not less than ten years without any reason,
constitute a severe psychological disorder. In support of her case, Mirasol presented clinical
psychologist Sheila Marie Montefalcon who, in her Psychological Evaluation Report, concluded
that Felipe is psychologically incapacitated to fulfill the essential marital obligations. The trial court
rendered the marriage null and void while CA reversed the decision.

ISSUE: w/n Felipe's marital infidelity is symptomatic of a grave psychological disorder which
rendered him incapable of performing his spousal obligations

RULING: No. This Court rules in the negative.

Irreconcilable differences, sexual infidelity or perversion, emotional immaturity and irresponsibility

and the like, do not by themselves warrant a finding of psychological incapacity under Article 36,
as the same may only be due to a person's refusal or unwillingness to assume the essential
obligations of marriage. In order for sexual infidelity to constitute as psychological incapacity,
the respondent's unfaithfulness must be established as a manifestation of a disordered
personality, completely preventing the respondent from discharging the essential obligations of
the marital state; there must be proof of a natal or supervening disabling factor that effectively
incapacitated him from complying with the obligation to be faithful to his spouse. 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.

As discussed, the findings on Felipe's personality profile did not emanate from a personal
interview with the subject himself. Apart from the psychologist's opinion and petitioner's
allegations, no other reliable evidence was cited to prove that Felipe's sexual infidelity was a
manifestation of his alleged personality disorder, which is grave, deeply rooted, and incurable.
We are not persuaded that the natal or supervening disabling factor which effectively
incapacitated him from complying with his obligation to be faithful to his wife was medically or
clinically established.
 THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 200072, June 20, 2016
PHILIP YU vs. VIVECA LIM YU
PERALTA, J.

NATURE OF THE ACTION: Petition for Legal Separation

FACTS:
Philip Yu and Viveca Lim Yu were married in 1984 and had four children. In 1993, Viveca left the
conjugal home with their children and filed in RTC Pasig a Petition for Legal Separation for
repeated physical violence, grossly abusive conduct against her and the children, sexual infidelity,
and attempt on her life. Philip denied these and claimed that it was Viveca who attacked him a
few times. He also prayed in his Counterclaim for the declaration of nullity of their marriage due
to Viveca's psychological incapacity, claiming that she was excessively jealous, cynical, and
insecure. Philip tried withdrawing the Counterclaim but the court still granted his motion and
denied the petition for legal separation as it had become moot and academic. During the
pendency of the first petition, Philip also filed a separate petition for declaration of nullity of
marriage in RTC Batangas. Viveca claimed that she was unaware of the proceedings in RTC
Bantangas which prompted her to file for a Petition for Annulment of Judgment. CA granted the
petition. Hence, Philip elevated the matter to the SC.

ISSUE: w/n annulment of judgment granting the Declaration of Nullity is proper on the basis of
improper service of summons

RULING: Yes. The petition is bereft of merit.

In the present case, We find that Viveca was completely prevented from participating in the
Declaration of Nullity case because of the fraudulent scheme employed by Philip insofar as the
service of summons is concerned. It is undisputed that when Philip filed the Petition for
Declaration of Nullity of Marriage, an action which affects his personal status, Viveca was already
residing in the United States of America. Thus, extraterritorial service of summons under Section
15, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court is the proper mode by which summons may be served on Viveca,
a non-resident defendant who is not found in the Philippines. In compliance therewith, Philip
claims that Viveca was duly served summons because: (1) copies of the summons, complaint,
and order of the Batangas court were published in Tempo, a newspaper of general circulation on
March 27, 2008 and April 3, 2008; and (2) the sheriff served copies of the summons, complaint,
and order of the Batangas court on Viveca at their conjugal home in Pasig City, her last known
address.

Philip fervently asserts the propriety of their conjugal home address as Viveca's "last known
address," well within the true meaning and intent of the rules. But as borne by the records of the
instant case, not only is he mistaken, factual considerations herein belie his claims of good faith.
First and foremost, it is undisputed that the parties herein are also parties in a Legal Separation
case, previously filed by Viveca way back in 1994. As pointed out by the appellate court, Philip
knew that Viveca had already left their conjugal home and moved to a different local address for
purposes of the pendency of the Legal Separation case. Philip cannot be allowed to feign
ignorance to the fact that Viveca had already intentionally abandoned their conjugal abode and
that of all the addresses that Viveca resided at, their conjugal home in Horizon Condominium is
her least recent address.
 SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 207406, January 13, 2016
NORBERTO A. VITANGCOL vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
LEONEN, J.

NATURE OF THE ACTION: Action for Bigamy

FACTS:
Norberto married Alice in 1994. After some time, Alice began hearing rumors that Norberto was
also married to another woman. She eventually discovered that Norberto was previously married
to a certain Gina in 1987, as evidenced by a marriage contract registered with the National
Statistics Office. Alice subsequently filed a criminal Complaint for bigamy against Norberto. He
countered by saying that before the marriage to Alice, he confessed that he had a fake marriage
with former college girlfriend Gina. He later discovered that Alice had a paramour and warned her
of possible criminal liability if she continued seeing her paramour. Allegedly in retaliation to the
threat of criminal action against her, Alice filed the case of bigamy. Both RTC and CA found
Norberto guilty. Hence, the petition.

ISSUE: w/n the Certification from the Office of the Civil Registrar that it has no record of the
marriage license issued to petitioner Norberto A. Vitangcol and his first wife Gina proves the nullity
of petitioner's first marriage and exculpates him from the bigamy charge

RULING: No. The petition for acquittal is denied.

The Certification from the Office of the Civil Registrar that it has no record of the marriage license
is suspect. Assuming that it is true, it does not categorically prove that there was no marriage
license. Furthermore, marriages are not dissolved through mere certifications by the civil registrar.
For more than seven years before his second marriage, petitioner did nothing to have his alleged
spurious first marriage declared a nullity. Even when this case was pending, he did not present
any decision from any trial court nullifying his first marriage. This Certification does not prove that
petitioner's first marriage was solemnized without a marriage license. It does not categorically
state that Marriage License No. 8683519 does not exist.

Assuming without conceding that petitioner's first marriage was solemnized without a marriage
license, petitioner remains liable for bigamy. Petitioner's first marriage was not judicially
declared void. Nor was his first wife Gina judicially declared presumptively dead under the Civil
Code.

As early as 1968, this court held in Landicho v. Relova, et al. that parties to a marriage should not
be permitted to judge for themselves its nullity, only competent courts having such authority. Prior
to such declaration of nullity, the validity of the first marriage is beyond question. A party who
contracts a second marriage then assumes the risk of being prosecuted for bigamy.