Rio Arabelle V. Salvacion.

L3A - FamLaw
Santos v. CA, 240 SCRA 20
FACTS:
Leouel Santos, a member of the Army, met Julia in Iloilo City. In September 20, 1986,
they got married before the MTC in Iloilo City. Shortly, they married in church. The couple lived
with Julias parents. Soon, Julia gave birth to their first child, who was named after his father on
July 18, 1987. However, their marriage was flawed by the frequent interference of Julias parent
as averred by Leouel. Some disagreements the couple had was the issue of living independently
from Julias parents.
On May 18, 1998, Julia decided to left and work as nurse in United States despite of
Leouel dissuasion. After seven months, January 1, 1989, Julia called for the first time and
promised to Leouel to return home upon the expiration of her contract in July 1989. She never
did. She never did. 1990, Leouel got a chance to visit the United States, where he underwent a
training program of AFP, he desperately tried to locate, or to somehow get in touch with, Julia
but all his efforts were of no avail. Having failed to get Julia to come home, Leouel filed with the
RTC of Negros Oriental a complaint for Voiding their marriage on the ground of psychological
incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code. On May 31, 1991, Julia opposed the complaint
and denied its allegations then claiming that the petitioner is the one who had been irresponsible
and incompetent. The prosecutor ascertained that there is no collusion between the two. Leouels
petition is however denied by the lower on November 6, 1991. Again, the petition denied for ts
lack of merit.
However, Leouel brought the case to the Supreme Court. He argues that the failure of
Julia to return home, lor at the very least to communicate with him, for more than five years are
circumstances that clearly show her being psychologically incapacitated to enter into married
life.
ISSUE:
The issue in this case is whether or not marriage between the petitioner and private
respondent be declared nullity by virtue of Article 36 of the Family Code.
HELD:
The petition was denied.
The factual settings do not come close to the standard required to decree a nullity of
marriage. The Supreme Court deciding on the case noted that the term psychological
incapacity did not define in Family Code. Article 36 of the Family Code cannot be taken and
construed independently of but must stand in conjunction with, existing precepts in our law on
marriage. Psychological Incapacity should refer to no less than a mental (not physical) incapacity
that causes a party to be truly in cognitive of the basic marital covenants that along with must be
assumed and discharged by the parties to the marriage which under Art. 68:

The husband and wife are obliged to :

1) live together;
2)observe mutual love, respect and fidelity; and
3) render mutual help and support.
That Psychological Incapacity must be characterized by:
(a) Gravity
(b) Juridical antecedence
(c) Incurability
This implies that 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 the
marriage; and it mus be incurable or even if it were otherwise, the cure would be beyond the
means of the party involved.
The intendment of the law has been to confine the meaning of Psychological Incapacity
to the most serious cases of personality disorders clearly demonstrative of an utter insensitivity
or inability to give meaning and significance to the marriage. This psychological condition must
exist at the time the marriage is celebrated.