DEADLINE: NOVEMBER 17 (SATURDAY) 12:00

NN
1. Santos vs Santos
-​QUIOGUE
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.

2. Chi ming tsoi vs CA

- ​AGUIRRE
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 suppose 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.
3. Antonio vs reyes
- ​CHIN CHIN
4. Republic vs molina
- ​BALDEO
Republic v. CA and Molina
G.R. No. 108763
February 13, 1997
Panganiban, ​J​.
Petitioner: Republic of the Philippines
Respondents: Court of Appeals and Roridel Oliviano Molina

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 defensor vinculi contemplated under Canon 1095.

Dispositive: Petition is GRANTED. The assailed Decision is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The
marriage of Roridel Olaviano to Reynaldo Molina subsists and remains valid.

5. Salita vs Magtolis
-​ ​ESTERIA
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.

6. Toring vs toring
- ​BUAN

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.
7. Republic vs Hamano
- ​PAGTANANAN
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.

8. Te vs te
- ​PASCUA
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
threats from 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.

Ruling:

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.

9. Halili vs halili
- ​ESCALONA
10. Azcueta vs azcueta
- ​CABUNGCAL
11. Buenaventura vs CA
- ​YU
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.

12. Najera vs najeta

- ​GUILING
13. Rambaua vs rambaua
- ​MERIDA
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.

14. So ​vs. Valera (G.R. 150677), June 5, 2009

BAYRON

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: WoN 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.