SANTOS v.
BEDIA-SANTOS friends (2) depended on his parents for aid &
Leouel Santos, then a First Lieutenant of the
Philippine Army, got married with Julia Bedia on
Sept. 20, 1986. They lived with Julia’s parents in
La Paz, Iloilo. Their son, Leouel Santos, Jr. was
born on July 18, 1987. They started to have
problems: (1) frequent interference of Julia’s
parents (2) when & where they’d start living
independently (3) Leouel’s spending a few days
with his parents. Julia left for the US to work as a
nurse on May 18, 1988. She only called up Leouel
seven months after she left with promise to
return after her contract expires on July 1989.
She didn’t come back. Leouel had a training in
the US and he looked for Julia but he never found
her. He filed a case for voiding their marriage
under article 36 of the FC (marriage contracted
by either party who at the time of the marriage
was psychologically incapacitated to comply with
the essential obligations of marriage shall
likewise be void even if such incapacity shall be
manifest after the solemnization). Leouel claims
that Julia’s failure to communicate with him &
inform him of her whereabouts are proof that
she’s psychologically incapacitated to comply
with the essential obligations of marriage. Julia
denied her husband’s allegations saying it was
her husband who was irresponsible &
incompetent. She filed a manifestation stating
that she would neither appear nor submit
evidence. Trial court & CA dismissed the
complaint.
ISSUE: WON Julia is psychologically
incapacitated?
HELD: NO. Dismissed. Affirmed.
RATIO:
For psychological incapacity to be proven, there
must be a real inability to commit oneself to the
essential obligations of marriage. Mere difficulty
of assuming these obligations which could be
overcome by normal effort does not constitute
incapacity. Dr. Veloso of the Metropolitan
Marriage Tribunal gave 3 characteristics of
psychological incapacity: (1) gravity that would
really render one incapable of carrying out the
ordinary duties in marriage (2) juridical
antecedence means it should be rooted in
history, existing prior to the marriage (3)
incurability including cure that is beyond the
party’s means. Circumstances of the case at bar
do not amount to psychological incapacity.
REPUBLIC V. COURT OF APPEALS
Roridel & Reynaldo Molina were married on April
14, 1985 at the San Agustin Church. They had a
son, Andre Molina. A year after the marriage,
Reynaldo started manifesting signs of immaturity
and irresponsibility: (1) spent more time with his
Ü trina joy a. solidon Ü
1
assistance (3) not honest with the finances (4)
relieved of his job making Roridel the
breadwinner of the family. Roridel went to live
with his parents and afterwards, Reynaldo
abandoned her and the child. Roridel filed a case
for the declaration of nullity of their marriage by
virtue of her husband’s psychological incapacity.
Reynaldo claims that Roridel’s strange behavior,
refusal to perform marital duties & failure to run
the household & handle finances caused their
quarrels. Roridel on the other hand claims that
her husband is immature, irresponsible,
dependent, disrespectful, arrogant, chronic liar &
infidel. He now lives with a mistress with whom
he has a child.
ISSUE: WON Reynaldo is psychologically
incapacitated?
HELD: NO. Marriage is valid.
RATIO:
1. They seem to have a difficulty or outright
refusal or neglect in performing their
obligations. They’re not incapable of doing
them.
2. Failure of their expectations is not tantamount
to psychological incapacity.
3. Guidelines for Art. 36
a. Burden of proof to show nullity of
marriage: plaintiff. Presumption of
existence of marriage over its dissolution &
nullity.
b. Root cause of incapacity should be:
medically/clinically defined, alleged in
complaint, proven by experts, clearly
explained in decision.
c. Existing at time of celebration of marriage.
d. Medically/clinically permanent or incurable,
whether absolute or relative. Incapacity
directly related to assumption of marital
obligations, doesn’t include incapacity in
profession, etc.
e. Grave to render them incapable. Not mere
refusal, neglect or difficulty or ill will.
f. Essential obligations outlined in FC Art. 68-
71 and 220, 221, 225. State non-
compliance in petition with evidence,
include in decision.
g. Consider National Appellate Matrimonial
Tribunal of the Catholic Church in the
Philippines interpretations. Not binding
should be given respect since this law
originated from Canon law. Harmonize civil
law w/religious faith.
h. Prosecuting attorney/fiscal and Sol. Gen.
will appear as counsels for the state. They
should submit certification within 15 days
from submission of case for resolution.
 APIAG V. CANTERO
Maria Apiag and Esmeraldo Cantero were
married on August 11, 1947. They had two
children: Teresita and Glicerio. Cantero left his
family without any apparent cause and left Maria
to raise the family on her own. According to
Cantero, their marriage was a drama marriage
set-up by their parents and that they never lived
together as husband wife. Several years after,
Cantero went to Hinundayan, Southern Leyte
where Apiag and her children were staying. They
begged for support but he ignored them. They
sent him a letter demanding support which was
also ignored. They learned that he was already
married to Nievas Ygay with whom he has 5
children. Apiag along with her 2 children, Teresita
& Glicerio, filed charge of gross misconduct for
committing bigamy and falsification of public
documents against Cantero. Cantero claims that
he got married without any annulment or
declaration of nullity of his first marriage because
he believed that it was void ab initio thus nothing
was to be voided. Apiag was living with another
man with whom she has one child. The parties
entered into a compromise agreement. Cantero
agreed to give ¼ of his GSIS retirement to
Teresita & Glicerio. He likewise included them as
his beneficiaries, appointed them as heirs to his
property inherited from his parents, authorized
them to receive P4,000.00 monthly allowance on
the condition that they will withdraw the charges.
They started receiving the allowance but they
still pushed through with the case. Found guilty
by lower court. Cantero died while case was
pending.
ISSUES:
1. WON gross misconduct is applicable?
2. WON first marriage is valid?
3. WON judge is liable?
HELD: Dismissed. Cantero acquitted.
RATIO:
1. NO. Misconduct in office should include only
those acts which affect ones performance of
his duties as an officer, not as a private
individual. Prove that it is a transgression of an
established and definite rule of action.
Involved here are personal acts, not official.
2. NO. However, old law will apply to Cantero
because it is more favorable for him. Ruling in
Odayat v. Amante ruling will apply: No
judicial decree of nullity is needed to establish
the invalidity of void marriages. Thus, he was
free to contract second marriage without court
declaration of the nullity of first marriage. New
law requires declaration of nullity before one
remarries. Falsification accusation fails.
3. YES. He will be administratively liable. He’s
expected to maintain high ethical principles
Ü trina joy a. solidon Ü
2
and free from appearance of impropriety
including his personal behavior. But since this
is his only wrongdoing throughout the 32 years
that he has served the government and the
Court saw his sincerity to repent and reform,
he’ll be dealt with leniency. He should have
been fined but since he passed away already,
case will just be dismissed.
DOMINGO V. CA
Delia Soledad Domingo and Roberto Domingo
were married on Nov. 29, 1976 at the YMCA
Youth Center Building. Unknown to her, he had a
prior subsisting marriage with Emerlinda dela
Paz. She only learned about the marriage when
dela Paz sued them for bigamy. Delia has been
working in Saudi since January 23, 1979. Roberto
has been unemployed and dependent on her
since 1983. She entrusted the administration of
her real & personal properties to Roberto which
cost P350,000.00. She learned that her husband
was cohabiting with another woman & that he
was disposing her properties without her
consent. He requested that he turnover the
properties but he refused. Thus she filed this
petition for the declaration of nullity of marriage
and separation of property against Roberto.
Lower court & CA dismissed the case.
ISSUES:
1. WON judicial declaration of void marriage is
necessary only for purpose of remarriage?
HELD: NO. Petition denied.
RATIO:
Judicial declaration of nullity was instituted to
prevent just about anyone from declaring that
his/her marriage was void. This judgment is
reserved to the court. Previous court decisions
and laws were inconsistent regarding this matter
until Family Code required this esp. for purposes
of remarriage. This aims to protect people with
void marriages. With the declaration, they’re free
to marry without the danger of being charged
with bigamy.
Necessary to prove that a person is legally free
to contract a second marriage if the first
marriage was void ab initio (TERRE V. TERRE)
Prove nullity with testimonial and/or
documentary evidence.
But should not be taken to mean as only those
who will remarry need the judicial declaration of
nullity. Art. 40 FC simply states that only a final
judicial declaration of nullity can certify that one
is free to contract a second marriage. Marriage is
an inviolable social institution protected by the
state. Thus, it should be accorded great respect.
Its validity or invalidity can’t be decided by just
about anyone.
Declaration of absolute nullity of marriage would
have other consequences such as separation of
property.
LENI CHOA V. ALFONSO CHOA
Leni & Alfonso Choa were married on March 15,
1981. They had two children: Cheryl Lynne and
Albryan. Alfonso filed a petition for the
declaration of nullity of their marriage based on
Leni’s incapacity.
ISSUE: WON Cheryl is psychologically
incapacitated?
HELD: NO. PETITION GRANTED. VALID
MARRIAGE.
RATIO:
Alfonso presented insufficient evidence to prove
Leni’s incapacity.
1. Filing of case is not entirely connected to
psychological incapacity.
2. Grounds of Alfonso: lack of attention to their
children, immaturity, lack of intention to
procreate are not sufficient to render one as
psychologically incapable. Reasons should be
grave, with juridical antecedence and
incurable.
3. His proof only show that they can’t get along
with each other but not incapable. Mild
characterological peculiarities, mood
changes, and occasional emotional outbursts
are not acceptable causes of psychological
incapacity.
4. Physician’s testimony: He admitted that couple
are curable if only they will be subjected to
family therapy. Besides, he did not examine
Leni so his findings are not really reliable. He
only based this on Alfonso’s claims. The
records of the case will not give him accurate
findings. Medical examinations/findings are
admissible. They just need to present
sufficient evidence.
TSOI V. CA
Gina and Chi Ming Tsoi were married on May 22,
1988. According to Gina, since the time of their
marriage, they never had a sexual intercourse.
They underwent medical examinations. She was
found healthy & normal. Chi Ming underwent
medication which was confidential. She claims
that her husband’s a homosexual who married
her to maintain his residency status and to prove
that he is really a man. Chi Ming claims that it is
Gina who refuses to have sexual intercourse.
Gina filed a petition for declaration of nullity of
marriage on the ground of Chi Ming’s
psychological incapacity. New medical
Ü trina joy a. solidon Ü
3
examination proved that Chi Ming is capable of
having sexual intercourse. Lower court & CA
declared Alfonso as psychologically incapacitated
to discharge essential marital obligations due to
his reluctance or unwillingness to consummate
marriage.
ISSUE: WON Chi Ming is psychologically
incapable?
HELD: Yes. Granted. Marriage void.
RATIO:
1. No intercourse since marriage. Chi Ming
should have discussed the problem with
his wife if she indeed refused to have
sexual intercourse with him. Or he could
have resorted to the court if she still
resisted.
2. Senseless & protracted refusal is
equivalent to psychological incapacity.
3. Procreation is one of the essential marital
obligations and constant non-fulfillment
of such will destroy marriage.
4. Filipinas are modest, Leni would have not
subjected herself to such public scrutiny if
she was just making this up.
5. Chi Ming’s reluctance & unwillingness to
perform sexual acts with a wife he claims
he loves dearly, proves that this is a
hopeless situation & of his serious
personality disorder. Grave enough.
NINAL V. BAYADOG
Pepito Ninal was married to Teodulfa Bellones on
Sept. 26, 1974. They had three children. Pepito
shot Teodulfa which caused her death on April
24, 1985. 20 months after Teodulfa’s death,
Pepito got married to Norma Bayadog without a
license. They issued a statement which states
that they had lived together as husband & wife
for at least 5 years. Upon Pepito’s death, his &
Teodulfa’s children, filed petition for the
declaration of nullity of their marriage because
this would affect their succession rights.
ISSUES:
1. WON second marriage is valid?
2. WON children have standing to request
for declaration of absolute nullity?
HELD: NO. PETITION GRANTED.
RATIO:
1. No. Their marriage does not fall under those
marriages of exceptional character which are
exempted from obtaining a license. They
can’t be considered as those who had been
living together as husband & wife for at least
5 years. This provision only covers those
unions which are valid without legal
 impediment had it not been for the lack of
marriage. The parties should have not been
involved with anyone at anytime within 5
years. They had only lived together, legally,
for 20 months, which is after Teodulfa’s
death.

2. YES. Void marriages can be attacked

collaterally even after the death of either
party. It is imprescritible. Any interested party
can attack void marriages. Declaration of
nullity is for everyone’s peace of mind. It can
be used for other purposes like succession,
etc. Not just for remarriage.

Ü trina joy a. solidon Ü

4