Article 36 Psychological Incapacity (in relation to PROVING PSYCHOLOGICAL

INCAPACITY)
- Separation or abandonment alone is not conclusive proof of professional incapacity (p.236 STA MARIA)
- Applies even to mixed marriages since medical and clinical rules to determine psychological incapacity were
formulated on the basis of studies of human behavior in general (p.237 STA. MARIA)
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_

REPUBLIC VS. QUINTERO-HAMANO (GR. No. 149498, May 20, 2004)

Facts:
At bar is a petition to review the decision of the CA and RTC of Rizal declaring as null
and void the marriage between respondent Lolita Quintero-Hamano and Japanese husband Toshio
Hamano on the ground of psychological incapacity. In 1986, they had a common law relationship in
Japan and then lived for a month in the Philippines. Thereafter, Toshio went back to Japan and
stayed there until mid-1987 while Lolita was left here and on November 1987 gave birth to their
daughter. In January 1988 they were married by Judge Balderia of the Municipal Trial Court of
Bacoor, Cavite. Unknown to respondent, Toshio was psychologically incapacitated to assume his
marital responsibilities which became manifest only after their celebration of marriage. A month
after their marriage, Toshio went back to Japan and promised Lolita to be home by the holidays and
that he will take steps to make them Japanese citizens. Toshio sent to respondent money for 2
months after which he stopped giving financial support despite Lolitas letters. He even came back
to the Philippines but did not visit them.
Complaint for declaration of nullity was filed by Lolita in June 1996. Since Toshio was no
longer residing at the given address, the summons remained unserved so the respondent filed an
ex parte motion for leave to effect service of summons by publication which the trial court granted.
The summons and copy of the petition were published in a newspaper of general circulation giving
him 15 days to respond but he did not. The respondents motion to refer the case to the prosecutor
for investigation was granted by the trial court and then Lolita testified on how Toshio abandoned
his family. Trial court ruling: Toshio failed to fulfill his obligations as husband and father as he
remained irresponsible and unconcerned over the needs and welfare of his family. That he was very
immature and such behavior could be traced to respondents mental incapacity and disability of
entering into marital life. The CA affirmed this decision adding that pursuant to Article 68 of the
Family Code, the husband failed to observe mutual love, respect and fidelity, and render mutual
help and support. Hence, this appeal by petitioner Republic arguing that the CA erred in holding
that the respondent was able to prove psychological incapacity of Toshio to perform his marital
obligations, despite respondents failure to comply with the guidelines laid down in the Molina case.
Issue:
Whether or not respondent successfully proved Toshios psychological incapacity to
fulfil his marital responsibilities
Held:
NO. The petition was granted and the decisions of RTC and CA were reversed and set
aside. The Court ruled in favor of the petitioner with the latter contending that mere abandonment
by Toshio of his family and his insensitivity to them did not automatically constitute psychological
incapacity. His behavior merely indicated simple inadequacy in the personality of a spouse falling
short of reasonable expectations. Respondent also failed to prove any severe and incurable
personality disorder on the part of Toshio, in accordance with the guidelines set in Molina which
states that 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. Article 36 requires that the incapacity must be
psychologicalnot physical although its manifestations and/or symptoms may be
physical. The evidence must convince the court that the parties, or one of them, was
mentally or psychically 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.

The Court determined that the totality of evidence presented fell short of proving Toshios
psychological incapacity to assume his marital obligations. That his abandonment, though
doubtlessly irresponsible, was never proven to be due to some kind of psychological illness.
Respondent merely testified on the abandonment by Toshio without presenting evidence that the
latter was mentally ill as identified clinically or medically. Although, as a rule, there was no need for
an actual medical examination (as mandated by the Court in Santos case), expert witness proving
that Toshio was mentally ill as identified clinically or medically would have greatly helped
respondents case. Santos case further states that What is important is the presence of evidence
that can adequately establish the partys psychological condition. For indeed, if the totality of
evidence presented is enough to sustain a finding of psychological incapacity, then actual medical
examination of the person concerned need not be resorted to.