Case Synthesis

In the case of Juan dela Cruz versus Juana dela Cruz, the court is likely to side with the petitioner, Juan
dela Cruz, in his petition for Nullity of Marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code.
The petitioner claims that his wife, the respondent, is psychologically incapacitated to perform her
essential marital obligation and such psychological incapacity which already existed at the time of the
celebration of their marriage characterized by severity, gravity, incurability and judicial antecedence as it is
engrained deeply in her system.
Article 36 states that a marriage contracted by any party who, at the time of the celebration, was
psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential marital obligations of marriage, shall likewise be
void even if such incapacity becomes manifest only after its solemnization.
In the petition filed, it was stated that from the moment the petitioner met the respondent, the latter was
somewhat liberated and loves night life. This continued and even worsened though the respondent
already knew that she was pregnant. After the birth of their child, the respondent did other things that
should not be done by a married woman such as having intimate relationships with other men and even
giving birth to two other children fathered not by the petitioner.
In Republic of the Philippines vs Court of Appeals & Roridel Olaviano Molina, although the facts are
similar to the case being discussed (the respondent preferred to spend more time with his friends than his
family on whom he squandered his money, depended on his parents for aid and assistance and was
dishonest to his wife regarding his finances and lived with a mistress with whom he has a child), the ruling
of the court was that the marriage is valid despite the evidence presented. The evidence presented
merely shows that the respondent was having a difficulty or outright refusal or neglect in performing his
obligations, not that he was incapable of doing them.
This, however, was not the case for Juana dela Cruz. According to the psychiatrist who examined her, she
is psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential responsibility of a married person.
In another case, L. Hernandez vs CA & M. Hernandez, the court rules that there was no psychological
incapacity under Article 36. Similar to Juan dela Cruz vs Juana dela Cruz, the respondent also failed to
perform his obligation to support the family, devoting most of his time drinking, and other acts unbecoming

Rodriguez, Raisa

of a married person. However, it is to be noted that unlike M. Hernandez, Juana dela Cruzs incapacity
has existed even before the celebration of marriage --- a key guideline set by the Supreme Court in
invoking the psychological incapacity under Article 36.
Another case that was filed for the nullity of marriage for psychological incapacity was Marcos vs Marcos.
The SC ruled in the negative under the grounds that psychological incapacity, as a ground for declaring
the nullity of marriage, may be established by the totality of evidence presented. Although the SC is
sufficiently convinced that the respondent failed to support his family and may have resorted to physical
abuse and abandonment, the totality of his acts does not lead to a conclusion of psychological incapacity
on his part. Also, there was no evidence presented that could prove that the respondents faults were
already present even before the celebration of marriage and whether these faults are incurable. In Juana
dela Cruz case however, despite the similarity of the facts presented, it is to be reiterated that the
condition of the respondent was present even before marriage and that as per the psychiatrists
evaluation, her condition is deemed to be incurable.
Lastly, from the case of the Republic of the Philippines vs Erlinda Matias Dagdag, it can be noted that
cases of nullification of marriage under Article 36 are to be treated on a case to case basis. However, the
SC has enumerated guidelines in invoking the psychological incapacity under Article 36 which are as
follows:
1. The burden of proof to show the nullity of marriage belong to the plaintif
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
3. The incapacity must be proven at the time of the celebration of the marriage
4. Psychological incapacity must be shown to be medically or clinically permanent or incurable
5. Such illness must be grave enough to bring about the disability of the party to assume the
essential obligations of marriage
6. The essential obligations must be those embodied by Article 69 to 71 of the Family Code as well
as Article 220, 221 and 335.
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 and

Rodriguez, Raisa

8. The trial court must order the prosecuting attorney or fiscal and Solicitor General to appear as
counsel for the state. No decision shall be handed down unless the Supreme Court issues a
certification.
These guidelines, the ones applicable to the plaintif (Juan dela Cruz), have been met in the petition filed
unlike other cases mentioned, as reference, lacked a thing or two from the listed guidelines or the totality
of the evidence failed to be classified under psychological incapacity as ground for nullification of
marriage.

Reference Cases: GR Nos. 108763, 126010, 136490 & 109975

Rodriguez, Raisa