RICARDO P. TORING vs. TERESITA M. TORING and REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R.

No. 165321, August 3, 2010

FACTS:
Ricardo and Teresita were married and had 3 children. Ricardo then filed a petition for
annulment based on Teresita psychological incapacity. He alleged that Teresita was an adulteress
and a squanderer. The doctor who performed the psychological evaluation conducted on Ricardo
and their son, Richardson, testified that the major factor that contributed to the demise of the
marriage is Teresita Narcissistic Personality Disorder that rendered her incapable to fulfill her
essential marital obligations.
ISSUE:
Whether or not there is sufficient basis to declare Ricardo and Teresita marriage void due to
psychological incapacity.
HELD:
No. Psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code must be characterized by
(a) gravity, (b) juridical antecedence, and (c) incurability, to be sufficient basis to annul a marriage.
The 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."
It is not acceptable that a mere narration of the statements of Ricardo and Richardson,
coupled with the results of the psychological tests administered only on Ricardo, without more,
already constitutes sufficient basis for the conclusion that Teresita suffered from Narcissistic
Personality Disorder.

MA. SOCORRO CAMACHO-REYES vs. RAMON REYES, G.R. No. 185286, August 18, 2010
FACTS:
Petitioner Maria Socorro Camacho-Reyes met respondent Ramon Reyes at the UP Diliman,
in 1972 when they were both 19 years old. Petitioner enjoyed respondents style of courtship which
included dining out, unlike other couples their age who were restricted by a university students
budget.
At that time, respondent held a job in the family business, the Aristocrat Restaurant.
Petitioners good impression of the respondent was not diminished by the latters habit of cutting
classes, not even by her discovery that respondent was taking marijuana.

On December 5, 1976, petitioner and respondent got married. They lived with Ramons
parents and they were supported by them. They had a child which made their financial difficulties
worse. All the business ventures of Ramon were unsuccessful and Socorro became the
breadwinner of the family.
To make things worse, despite the fact that Socorro would undergo an operation for
removal of a cyst, respondent remained unconcerned and unattentive; and simply read the
newspaper, and played dumb when petitioner requested that he accompany her as she was
wheeled into the operating room. They tried to attend counseling sessions but nothing has
changed. Sometime in 1996, petitioner confirmed that respondent was having an extra-marital
affair.
Petitioner filed a petition for declaration of nullity of her marriage with the respondent
alleging psychological incapacity to fulfill the essential marital obligations under Article 36 of the
Family Code.
The RTC granted the petition. CA reversed the RTC decision and declared the parties
marriage valid and subsisting. It held that the petitioner failed to sufficiently establish the alleged
psychological incapacity of her husband, as well as of herself.
ISSUE:
Whether the marriage between the parties is void ab initio on the ground of both parties
psychological incapacity, as provided in Article 36 of the Family Code.
HELD:
YES. In the case at bar, even without the experts conclusions, the factual antecedents
(narrative of events) alleged in the petition and established during trial, all point to the inevitable
conclusion that respondent is psychologically incapacitated to perform the essential marital
obligations.
Article 68 of the Family Code provides:
The husband and wife are obliged to live together, observe mutual love, respect and fidelity,
and render mutual help and support.
In the instant case, respondents pattern of behavior manifests an inability, nay, a
psychological incapacity to perform the essential marital obligations as shown by his: (1) sporadic
financial support; (2) extra-marital affairs; (3) substance abuse; (4) failed business attempts; (5)
unpaid money obligations; (6) inability to keep a job that is not connected with the family
businesses; and (7) criminal charges of estafa.

In fine, given the factual milieu of the present case and in light of the foregoing disquisition,
we find ample basis to conclude that respondent was psychologically incapacitated to perform the
essential marital obligations at the time of his marriage to the petitioner.

SILVINO A. LIGERALDE vs. MAY ASCENSION A. PATALINGHUG and the REPUBLIC OF THE
PHILIPPINES, G.R. NO. 168796, April 15, 2010
FACTS:
Silvino A. Ligeralde (Silvino) filed a petition to declare his marriage to May Ascension
A. Patalinghug (May) void on the ground of Mays psychological incapacity. Silvino claimed that
May was immature, irresponsible and unfaithful. Silvino alleged that at one time in their marriage,
May came home at 4:00 in the morning; she claimed to have watched a video program in a
neighboring town, but later admitted that she slept with her Palestinian boyfriend in a hotel.
Silvino persuaded her to be conscientious of her duties as wife and mother but his pleas
were ignored and would often lead to altercations or physical violence. Mays commitment to
reform dissuaded him from separating from her, and they started a new life.
However, after a few months, May was back to her old ways. One day, Silvino came home
and could not find her; he searched for her and later found her in a nearby apartment, drinking beer
with a male lover. May subsequently confessed that she had no more love for him, and they lived
separately.
The psychologist, to whom Silvino referred the matter for psychological evaluation, certified
that May was psychologically incapacitated to perform her essential marital obligations; that the
incapacity started when she was still young and became manifest after marriage; and that the
same was serious and incurable.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) declared the marriage of Silvino and May void. The Court of
Appeals (CA), however, reversed the RTCs decision, holding that Mays alleged sexual
infidelity, emotional immaturity and irresponsibility did not constitute psychological incapacity
within the contemplation of the Family Code, and that the psychologist failed to identify and
prove the root cause of the incapacity or that the incapacity was medically or clinically
permanent or incurable.
Silvino brought the case to the Supreme Court via a petition for certiorari. The Supreme
Court required May to comment but she could not be found.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the marriage of Silvino and May should be declared void on the ground of
Mays psychological incapacity.

HELD:
On procedural grounds, the petition before the Supreme Court deserved outright dismissal.
Silvino should have filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court
rather a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the same Rules.
Substantially, the petition has no merit. The CA committed no grave abuse of discretion in
rendering its decision.
Psychological incapacity required by Article 36 of the Family Code must be characterized
by

(a) gravity
(b) juridical antecedence and
(c) incurability.

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. It must be incurable or, even if it were
otherwise, the cure would be beyond the means of the party involved.
The Supreme Court had laid down the following guidelines in resolving petitions for
declaration of nullity of marriage based on Article 36 of the Family Code:
(1) The burden of proof to show the nullity of the marriage belongs to the plaintiff;
(2) the root cause of the psychological incapacity must be medically or clinically identified, alleged
in the complaint, sufficiently proven by experts and clearly explained in the decision;
(3) the incapacity must be proven to be existing at the time of the celebration of the marriage;
(4) such incapacity must also be shown to be medically or clinically permanent or incurable; and
(5) such illness must be grave enough to bring about the disability of the party to assume the
essential obligations of marriage.
Silvanos evidence failed to establish Mays psychological incapacity. His testimony did not
prove the root cause, gravity and incurability of Mays condition. Even the psychologist failed to
show the root cause of Mays psychological incapacity. The root cause of the psychological
incapacity must be identified as a psychological illness, it's incapacitating nature fully explained
and established by the totality of the evidence presented during trial.
More importantly, Mays actions did not rise to the level of the psychological incapacity
that the law requires. Mays act of living an adulterous life cannot automatically be equated with a
psychological disorder, especially when no specific evidence was shown that promiscuity was a
trait already existing at the inception of marriage.

Silvano must be able to establish that Mays unfaithfulness was a manifestation of a

disordered personality, which made her completely unable to discharge the essential obligations of
the marital state. May was far from being a perfect wife and a good mother. She certainly had
some character flaws. But these imperfections did not warrant a conclusion that she had a
psychological malady at the time of the marriage that rendered her incapable of fulfilling her marital
and family duties and obligations.

NOEL B. BACCAY vs. MARIBEL C. BACCAY and REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No.
173138, December 1, 2010
FACTS:
Noel and Maribel were sweethearts. He found Maribel's snobbish and hard-to get traits
attractive.
Around 1997, he decided to break up with Maribel because he was already involved with
another woman. They agreed to see each other on a friendly basis but the two had several
romantic episodes.
In November 1998, Maribel informed Noel that she was pregnant with his child. Upon
advice of his mother, Noel grudgingly married Maribel. The two lived on Noel's family. Maribel
remained aloof and didn't contribute to his family's coffer. She refused to have sex with him.
Sometime in 1999, Noel and Maribel had an intense quarrel about Maribel's alleged
miscarriage causing the latter to leave the house and never came back.
Noel filed a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage with the RTC of Manila. RTC
declared the marriage null and void on the ground of Maribel's alleged psychological incapacity.
Nedy L. Tayag, a clinical psychologist who presented as Noel's witness, found Maribel unable to
perform the essential marital obligations of marriage due to a Narcissistic Personality Disorder.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the marriage between Noel and Maribel null and void under Article 36 of the
Family Code.
HELD:
No. Noel failed to provide sufficient evidence to sustain a finding that Maribel was
psychologically incapacitated. Noel's evidence merely established that Maribel refused to have
sexual intercourse with him after their marriage, and that she left him after their quarrel when he
confronted her about her alleged miscarriage. The psychologist failed to establish that Maribel's

alleged Narcissistic Personality Disorder incapacitated her from validly assuming the essential
obligations of the marriage. The same psychologist even testified that Maribel was capable of
entering into marriage except that it would be difficult for her to sustain one. Mere difficulty, it must
be stressed, is not the incapacity contemplated under the Article 36 of the Family Code.
Psychological incapacity must be more than just a "difficulty," a "refusal," or a "neglect" in
the performance of some marital obligations. An unsatisfactory marriage is not a null and void
marriage.
ENRIQUE AGRAVIADOR y ALUNAN vs. ERLINDA AMPARO-AGRAVIADOR and REPUBLIC
OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 170729, December 8, 2010
FACTS:
Enrique first met Erlinda in 1971 at a beerhouse where Erlinda worked. Their meeting led to
a courtship, became sweethearts and soon entered into a common-law relationship, and finally got
married in 1973.
In 2001, Enrique filed a petition to have his marriage with Erlinda null and void under Article
36 of the Family Code. He alleged that Erlinda was psychologically incapacitated to exercise the
essential obligations of marriage. He claimed that she was carefree and irresponsible, refused to
do household chores, had extramarital affairs, did not take care of their sick child, consulted a witch
doctor, and refused to use the family name in her activities.
Enrique, aside from his testimony, also presented a certified true copy of their marriage
contract and the psychiatric evaluation report of Dr. Patac. In his psychiatric evaluation report, Dr.
Patac found Erlinda unable to fulfill the essential obligations of marriage as she manifested
inflexible maladaptive behavior even at the time before their marriage. In his conclusion stated that
Erlinda is suffering from a Mixed Personality Disorder where there is no definite treatment for such
illness.
Erlinda moved to dismiss the petition. The RTC denied her motion and took side on
Enrique.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Enrique can invoke Article 36 of the Family Code as the basis to nullify his
marriage to Erlinda.
HELD:
No. Psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code do not involve a species
of vice of consent. The spouse may have given free and voluntary consent to a marriage but was,

nonetheless, incapable of fulfilling such rights and obligations. Psychological incapacity to comply
with the essential marital obligation does not affect the consent to the marriage.
The totality of Enriques's evidence is insufficient to prove Erlinda's psychological incapacity.
Her refusal or unwillingness to perform certain marital obligations, and a number of unpleasant
personality traits such as immaturity, irresponsibility, and unfaithfulness do not rise to the level of
psychological incapacity that the law requires.
Dr. Patac's psychiatric evaluation report do not hold sufficient amount in proving that Erlinda
was psychological incapacitated to perform the essential marital duties. Dr. Patac did not
personally evaluate and examine Erlinda, as he relied only on the information fed by Enrique, the
partie's second[] child and household helper.

ROSALINO L. MARABLE vs. MYRNA F. MARABLE, G.R. No. 178741, January 17, 2011
FACTS:
In 1967 petitioner Rosalino Marable and respondent Myrna Marable were students in
Arellano University who became lovers after they met in a bus. They got married on December 19,
1970, in civil rites of Tanay, Rizal before Mayor Antonio C. Esguerra, and that following day is a
church wedding at the Chapel of Muntinlupa Bilibid Prison. Somehow they were blessed with 5
children but several years after the marriage their relationship got soured with frequent quarrels as
a consequence, their daughter rebelled and unexpectedly she got pregnant at her young age.
Eventually, the petitioner had incessant marital conflicts leading to withdrawal of marital obligations.
Rosalino Marable filed a petition for the declaration of nullity of his marriage on the ground
of his own psychological incapacity.
In support of his petition, petitioner presented Dr. Nedy L. Tayag, a clinical psychologist,
who reported that petitioner is suffering from "Antisocial Personality Disorder," characterized by a
pervasive pattern of social deviancy, rebelliousness, impulsivity, self-centeredness, deceitfulness
and lack of remorse which rooted in deep feelings of rejection starting from the family to peers, and
that his experiences have made him so self-absorbed for needed attention.
The RTC granted the petition; on the other hand the Court of Appeals reversed and set
aside the decision of the RTC thus judgment of the Court denied the appeal.
ISSUE:

Is psychological evaluation a necessity for the establishment of psychological incapacity of

a spouse for declaration of nullity of marriage?
HELD:
In this case yes but the examination still doesnt corroborate the contention of psychological
incapacity. The Court said that the petitioner was able to prove infidelity on his part and the
existence of "irreconcilable differences" and "conflicting personalities apparently, it doesnt
constitute psychological incapacity. Psychological incapacity must be more than just a "difficulty,"
"refusal" or "neglect" in the performance of some marital obligations. Rather, it is essential that the
concerned party was incapable of doing so, due to some psychological illness existing at the time
of the celebration of the marriage. The CA did not err in declaring the marriage of petitioner and
respondent as valid and subsisting. The totality of the evidence presented is insufficient to establish
petitioners psychological incapacity to fulfill his essential marital obligations.
Psychological examination by means of getting the emotional quotient through test must be
properly observed in every couple prior to marriage. Greater advantage if sets of personality and
psychological examination after attending marriage seminars should be one of the additional
requisites prior to the solemnization and in order to prevent any future relationship hostilities before
entering marriage life.

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. NESTOR GALANG, G.R. No. 168335, June 6, 2011
FACTS:
On March 9, 1994, the respondent and Juvy contracted marriage in Pampanga. They
resided in the house of the respondents father in San Francisco, Mabalacat, Pampanga. The
respondent worked as an artist-illustrator at the Clark Development Corporation, earning P8,500.00
monthly. Juvy, on the other hand, stayed at home as a housewife. They have one child,
Christopher.
On August 4, 1999, the respondent filed with the RTC a petition for the declaration of nullity
of his marriage with Juvy, under Article 36 of the Family Code, as amended. The case was
docketed as Civil Case No. 9494. He alleged that Juvy was psychologically incapacitated to
exercise the essential obligations of marriage, as she was a kleptomaniac and a swindler.
Psychological findings tend to confirm that the defendant suffers from personality and behavioral
disorders. These disorders are manifested through her grave dependency on gambling
and stealing money. She doesnt manifest any sense of responsibility and loyalty and these
disorders appear to be incorrigible.
The RTC nullified the parties marriage in its decision of January 22, 2001. The petitioner,
through the Office of the Solicitor General, appealed the RTC decision to the CA. The CA, in its

decision dated November 25, 2004,affirmed the RTC decision in toto. The petitioner moved to
reconsider this Decision, but the CA denied his motion in its resolution dated May 9, 2005.
ISSUES:
1) Whether or not the totality of the evidence presented by the respondent was insufficient to
establish Juvys psychological incapacity to perform her essential marital obligations.
2) Whether or not there is basis to nullify the respondents marriage to Juvy on the ground that at
the time of the celebration of the marriage, Juvy suffered from psychological incapacity that
prevented her from complying with her essential marital obligations.
HELD:
The respondents testimony merely showed that Juvy: (a) refused to wake up early to
prepare breakfast; (b) left their child to the care of their neighbors when she went out of the house;
(c) squandered a huge amount of the P15,000.00 that the respondent entrusted to her; (d) stole
the respondents ATM card and attempted to withdraw the money deposited in his account; (e)
falsified the respondents signature in order to encash a check; (f) made up false stories in order to
borrow money from their relatives; and (g) indulged in gambling.These acts, to our mind, do not per
se rise to the level of psychological incapacity that the law requires. We stress that psychological
incapacity must be more than just a "difficulty," "refusal" or "neglect" in the
performance of some marital obligations.
The psychologists report simply stressed Juvys negative traits which she considered
manifestations of Juvys psychological incapacity (e.g., laziness, immaturity and
irresponsibility; her involvement in swindling and gambling activities; and her lack of initiative
to change), and declared that psychological findings tend to confirm that the defendant suffers
from personality and behavioral disorders x x x she doesnt manifest any sense of responsibility
and loyalty, and these disorders appear to be incorrigible.
In the end, the psychologist opined without stating the psychological basis for her
conclusion that there is sufficient reason to believe that the defendant wife is psychologically
incapacitated to perform her marital duties as a wife and mother to their only son. She, likewise,
failed to successfully prove the elements of gravity and incurability.
After due consideration, the Court resolve to grant the petition, and hold that no
sufficient basis exists to annul the marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity under
the terms of Article 36 of the Family Code.
The Decision and the Resolution of the Court of Appeals, dated November 25, 2004 and
May 9, 2005,respectively, is set aside in CA-G.R. CV No. 70004 and accordingly dismiss Nestor
Galangs petition for the declaration of nullity of his marriage to Juvy Salazar under Article 36 of
the Family Code.

CYNTHIA E. YAMBAO vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES and PATRICIO E. YAMBAO, G.R.
No. 184063, January 24, 2011
FACTS:
Cynthia and Patricio were married. After 35 years of marriage, Cynthia filed a petition
before the RTC of Makati, praying that their marriage be declared void by reason of Patricios
psychological incapacity. Cynthia averred that through all the years of their married life, she was
the only one who earned a living and took care of the children. Patricio, she alleged, did nothing
but eat and sleep all day, and spend time with friends. She also claimed that, Patricio became
insecure and jealous and would get mad every time he would see her talking to other people, even
to her relatives. When Patricio started threatening to kill her, she decided to leave the conjugal
abode and live separately from him.
She then consulted a psychiatrist who concluded that respondent was indeed
psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential marital obligations. In his answer,
Patricio denied all the allegations of Cynthia. The RTC rendered a decision dismissing the petition
for lack of merit. The RTC held that Cynthia's evidence failed to support her argument that Patricio
was totally unaware of and incapacitated to perform his marital obligations such that the marriage
was void from the beginning. The trial court also rejected the supposed negative effect of
respondents Dependent Personality Disorder.
On appeal, the CA affirmed the RTCs decision. Petitioner argues that respondent's
Dependent Personality Disorder was sufficiently established by her testimony and that of her sister,
which testimonies were both credible considering that they have personal knowledge of the
circumstances prior to and during the parties' marriage. On the other hand, respondent's evidence
consisted merely of his sole testimony, which was self-serving and full of inconsistencies.
ISSUE:
Does the totality of Cynthias evidence establish Patricios psychological incapacity to
perform the essential obligations of marriage?
HELD:
The intendment of the law has been to confine the application of Article 36 to the most
serious cases of personality disorders clearly demonstrative of an utter insensitivity or inability to
give meaning and significance to the marriage. Thus, for a marriage to be annulled under Article
36 of the Family Code, the psychologically incapacitated spouse must be shown to suffer no less
than a mental (not physical) incapacity that causes him or her to be truly incognitive of the basic
marital covenants. It is a malady so grave and so permanent as to deprive one of awareness of the
duties and responsibilities of the matrimonial bond one is about to assume.

In this case, there is no showing that respondent was suffering from a psychological
condition so severe that he was unaware of his obligations to his wife and family. On the contrary,
respondent's efforts, though few and far between they may be, showed an understanding of his
duty to provide for his family, albeit he did not meet with much success. Whether his failure was
brought about by his own indolence or irresponsibility, or by some other external factors, is not
relevant. What is clear is that respondent, in showing an awareness to provide for his family, even
with his many failings, does not suffer from psychological incapacity.
Article 36 contemplates incapacity or inability to take cognizance of and to assume basic
marital obligations and not merely difficulty, refusal, or neglect in the performance of marital
obligations or ill will. This incapacity consists of the following: (a) a true inability to commit oneself
to the essentials of marriage; (b) this inability to commit oneself must refer to the essential
obligations of marriage: the conjugal act, the community of life and love, the rendering of mutual
help, the procreation and education of offspring; and (c) the inability must be tantamount to a
psychological abnormality.
It is not enough to prove that a spouse failed to meet his responsibility and duty as a
married person; it is essential that he must be shown to be incapable of doing so due to some
psychological illness.
That respondent, according to petitioner, "lack[ed] effective sense of rational judgment and
responsibility" does not mean he is incapable to meet his marital obligations. His refusal to help
care for the children, his neglect for his business ventures, and his alleged unbearable jealousy
may indicate some emotional turmoil or mental difficulty, but none have been shown to amount to a
psychological abnormality.
Moreover, even assuming that respondent's faults amount to psychological incapacity, it has
not been established that the same existed at the time of the celebration of the marriage.
In his psychological report, Dr. Tolentino merely said, "[b]ecause one's personality or
character is formed early in life, it has a clear ANTECEDENT and it has an enduring pattern of
inner experience that deviates from the expectations of the individual's culture," without explaining
this antecedent. Even petitioner, in her allegations, never explained how the alleged psychological
incapacity manifested itself prior to or at the time of the celebration of their marriage.

VALERIO E. KALAW vs. MA. ELENA FERNANDEZ, G.R. No. 166357, September 19, 2011
FACTS:
Tyrone Kalaw and Malyn Fernandez got married in 1976. After the birth of their 4th child,
Tyrone had an affair with Jocelyn Quejano.

In May 1985, Malyn left the conjugal home and her four children with Tyrone. Meanwhile,
Tyrone started living with Jocelyn, and they had three more children.
In 1990, Tyrone went to the United States (US) with Jocelyn and their children. On July 6,
1994, nine years since the de facto separation from his wife, Tyrone filed a petition for declaration
of nullity of marriage based on Article 36 of the Family Code. He alleged that Malyn was
psychologically incapacitated to perform and comply with the essential marital obligations at the
time of the celebration of their marriage.
He alleged that:
1) She leaves the children without proper care and attention as she played mahjong all day and all
night;
3) She leaves the house to party with male friends and returned in the early hours of the following
day; and
4) She committed adultery on June 9, 1985 in Hyatt Hotel with one Benjie whom he saw halfnaked in the hotel room.
Tyrone presented a psychologist, Dr. Cristina Gates (Dr. Gates), and a Catholic canon law
expert, Fr. Gerard Healy, S.J. (Fr. Healy), to testify on Malyns psychological incapacity. Dr. Gates
explained that Malyn suffers from Narcissistic Personalityu Disorder and that it may have been
evident even prior to her marriage because it is rooted in her family background and upbringing.
Fr. Healy concluded that Malyn was psychologically incapacitated to perform her marital
duties. He explained that her psychological incapacity is rooted in her role as the breadwinner of
her family.
This role allegedly inflated Malyns ego to the point that her needs became priority, while
her kids and husbands needs became secondary.
ISSUE:
Whether Tyrone has sufficiently proven that Malyn suffers from psychological incapacity
HELD:
No. He presented the testimonies of two supposed expert witnesses who concluded that
respondent is psychologically incapacitated, but the conclusions of these witnesses were premised
on the alleged acts or behavior of respondent which had not been sufficiently proven.
No proof whatsoever was presented to prove her visits to beauty salons or her frequent
partying with friends.
Malyns sexual infidelity was also not proven because she was only dating other men. Even
assuming that she had an extramarital affair with another man, sexual infidelity cannot be equated

with obsessive need for attention from other men. Sexual infidelity per se is a ground for legal
separation, but it does not necessarily constitute psychological incapacity.

JOSE REYNALDO B. OCHOSA vs. BONA J. ALANO and REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES,
G.R. No. 167459, January 26, 2011
FACTS:
Bonas illicit affairs with other men started at the onset of their marriage on October 27,
1973, when Jose was assigned in various parts of the country as an officer in the AFP. She
continued her infidelity even when they lived together at Fort Bonifacio, Makati City sometime in
1985, whenever Jose was out of their living quarters.
In 1987, Jose was incarcerated in Camp Crame for rebellion for the alleged participation of
the failed coup detat. He heard circulation of rumors of Bona getting caught having sex with his
driver, Corporal Gagarin.
He got a military pass from his jail warden and confronted Bona about the rumors, which
she and Gagarin admitted. Since then they were separated, and their foundling, Ramona Celeste,
stayed with Bona in Basilan until 1994 to live with Jose.
Jose Reynaldo B. Ochosa filed a Petition for the declaration of nullity of marriage between
him and Bona J. Alano, based on the ground of the latters psychological incapacity to fulfill the
essential marital obligations of marriage.
Elizabeth E. Rondain, a psychiatrist, one of the witnesses, testified and submitted a
psychological evaluation report on Bonas mental state. The interviews she had with Jose and two
of his witnesses brought her to the conclusion that respondent was suffering from histrionic
personality disorder, and it was traceable to her family history.
On January 11, 1999, the dispositive portion of the trial court declared the marriage of Jose
and Bona void ab initio on the ground of psychological incapacity of the respondent under Article
36 of the Family Code. The Court finds that Bonas illness exhibited gravity, antecedence, and
incurability.
OSG appealed the said ruling to the CA, and the CA subsequently granted the appeal and
reversed the ruling of the trial court decision.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Bona should be deemed psychologically incapacitated to comply with the
essential marital obligations.
HELD:
No. There is inadequate credible evidence that her defects were already present at the
inception of, or prior to, the marriage. Bonas alleged psychological incapacity did not satisfy the
jurisprudential requisite of juridical antecedence. Her persistent sexual infidelity and
abandonment are not badges of psychological incapacity nor cant it be traced to the inception of
their marriage.
The psychiatrists conclusion about Bonas HPD which made her prone to promiscuity and
sexual infidelity existed before her marriage to Jose, cannot be taken as credible proof of
antecedence since the method by which such an inference was reached leaves much to be desired
in terms of meeting the standard of evidence required in determining psychological incapacity.
Dr. Rondains conclusion was based solely on the assumed truthful knowledge of Jose. No
other witness testified to Bonas family history or her behavior prior to or at the beginning of their
marriage. The two witnesses only started to live with them in 1980 and 1986, respectively.
Verily, Dr. Rondain evaluated Bonas psychological condition directly from the information
gathered solely from Jose and his witnesses. These factual circumstances evoke the possibility
that the information fed to the psychiatrists is tainted with bias for Joses cause, in the absence of
sufficient corroboration.
Article 36 of the Family Code is not to be confused with a divorce law that cuts the marital
bond at the time the causes therefore manifest themselves. It refers to a serious psychological
illness afflicting a party even before the celebration of the marriage. It is a malady so grave and so
permanent as to deprive one of awareness of the duties and responsibilities of the matrimonial
bond one is about to assume. These marital obligations are those provided under Article 68 to 71,
220, 221 and 225 of the Family Code.

DANILO A. AURELIO vs. VIDA MA. CORAZON P. AURELIO, G.R. No. 175367, June 6, 2011
FACTS:
Petitioner Danilo A. Aurelio and respondent Vida Ma. Corazon Aurelio were married on
March 23, 1988. They have two sons, namely: Danilo Miguel and Danilo Gabriel.
On May 9, 2002, respondent filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, Branch 94, a
Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage. In her petition, respondent alleged that both she and
petitioner were psychologically incapacitated of performing and complying with their respective
essential marital obligations. In addition, respondent alleged that such state of psychological

incapacity was present prior and even during the time of the marriage ceremony. Hence,
respondent prays that her marriage be declared null and void under Article 36 of the Family Code.
It alleged among others that said psychological incapacity was manifested by lack of
financial support from the husband; his lack of drive and incapacity to discern the plight of his
working wife. The husband exhibited consistent jealousy and distrust towards his wife. His moods
alternated between hostile defiance and contrition. He refused to assist in the maintenance of the
family.
On the side of the wife on the other hand, is effusive and displays her feelings openly and
freely. Her feelings change very quickly from joy to fury to misery to despair, depending on her
day-to-day experiences. Her tolerance for boredom was very low. She was emotionally immature;
she cannot stand frustration or disappointment. She cannot delay to gratify her needs. She gets
upset when she cannot get what she wants. Self-indulgence lifts her spirits immensely. Their
hostility towards each other distorted their relationship. Their incapacity to accept and fulfill the
essential obligations of marital life led to the breakdown of their marriage.
On November 8, 2002, petitioner filed a Motion to Dismiss the petition. Petitioner principally
argued that the petition failed to state a cause of action and that it failed to meet the standards set
by the Court for the interpretation and implementation of Article 36 of the Family Code.
RTC denied the petition. CA affirmed.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the marriage shall be declared null and void?
HELD:
Petition denied. Marriage is null and void.
RATIO:
First, contrary to petitioners assertion, this Court finds that the root cause of psychological
incapacity was stated and alleged in the complaint. We agree with the manifestation of respondent
that the family backgrounds of both petitioner and respondent were discussed in the complaint as
the root causes of their psychological incapacity. Moreover, a competent and expert psychologist
clinically identified the same as the root causes.
Second, the petition likewise alleged that the illness of both parties was of such grave a
nature as to bring about a disability for them to assume the essential obligations of marriage. The
psychologist reported that respondent suffers from Histrionic Personality Disorder with Narcissistic
Features. Petitioner, on the other hand, allegedly suffers from Passive Aggressive (Negativistic)
Personality Disorder. The incapacity of both parties to perform their marital obligations was alleged
to be grave, incorrigible and incurable.

Lastly, this Court also finds that the essential marital obligations that were not complied with
were alleged in the petition. As can be easily gleaned from the totality of the petition, respondents
allegations fall under Article 68 of the Family Code which states that the husband and the wife are
obliged to live together, observe mutual love, respect and fidelity, and render mutual help and
support.

ARABELLE J. MENDOZA vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES and DOMINIC C. MENDOZA,

G.R. No. 157649, November 12, 2012
FACTS:
Anabelle and Dominic met in 1989 upon his return to the country from his employment in
Papua New Guinea. After a month of courtship, they became intimate and their intimacy led to her
pregnancy. They got married 8 months after on June 24, 1991. Being one with the fixed income,
she shouldered all of the familys expenses. Ironically, he spent his first sales commission on a
celebratory bash with his friends. In September 1994, she discovered his illicit affair with his coemployee and they started to sleep in separate rooms affecting their sexual relationship. Dominic
eventually got fired from his employment and was criminally charged with the violation of B.P. 22
and estafa.
ISSUE:
Is the marriage null and void on the basis of Article 36 of the Family Code?
HELD:
The appeal has no merit. The CA correctly indicated that the ill-feelings that the petitioner
harbored against Dominic furnished the basis to doubt the findings of the expert witness; that such
findings were one-sided and that he did not participate in the proceedings. The findings and
conclusions on his psychological profile were solely based on the self-serving testimonial
descriptions of him by the petitioner and her witnesses. The court finds the totality of evidence
adduced by the petitioner insufficient to prove that Dominic was psychologically unfit. Accordingly,
the RTCs findings that Dominics psychological incapacity was characterized by gravity,
antecedence and incurability could not stand scrutiny. His alleged immaturity, deceitfulness and
lack of remorse did not necessarily constitute psychological incapacity. The court denies the
petition for certiorari and affirms that decision of the Court of Appeals.

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS (NINTH DIVISION),
AND EDUARDO C. DE QUINTOS, .JR., G.R. No. 159594, November 12, 2012
FACTS:
Eduardo and Catalina were married in civil rites. However, the couple were not blessed with
a child because Catalina had a hysterectomy following her second marriage.
Eduardo filed a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage citing psychological incapacity
as a ground. He alleged that Catalina always left the house without his consent; that she engaged
in petty arguments with him; that she constantly refused to give in to his sexual needs; that she
spent most of her time gossiping with neighbors instead of caring for their adopted daughter; that
she gambled away all his remittances as an overseas worker; and that she abandoned the conjugal
home with her paramour.
As support to his claim of psychological incapacity, he also presented the results of a
neuropsychiatric evaluation conducted by Dr. Annabelle Reyes stating that Catalina exhibited traits
of a borderline personality disorder that was no longer treatable.
Catalina did not appear during trial but admitted her psychological incapacity. She denied
flirting with different men and abandoning the conjugal home.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Catalina was psychologically incapacitated to fulfill marital duties.
HELD:
No. Marriage remains valid.
Psychological incapacity is an incapacity/inability to take cognizance of and to assume
basic marital obligations, and is not merely the difficulty, refusal or neglect in the performance of
marital obligations.
In Republic v CA(Molina), the Supreme Court has established guidelines involving the
nullity of marriage based on the ground of psychological incapacity. These were not met in the
instant case since the gravity, root cause and incurability of Catalina's purported psychological
incapacity were not sufficiently established.

Catalina's behavior of frequent gossiping, leaving the house without Eduardo's consent,
refusal to do household chores, and take care of their adopted daughter were not established.
Eduardo presented no other witness to corroborate these allegations.
Also, the RTC and CA heavily relied on Dr. Reyes' evaluation despite any factual foundation
to support this claim. The report was vague about the root cause, gravity and incurability of the
incapacity.Even the testimony of Dr. Reyes stated a general description of borderline personality
disorder which did not explain the root cause as to why Catalina was diagnosed as such. They did
not specify the acts or omissions or the gravity which constituted the disorder. What was
established was that Catalina was childish and immature.
Furthermore, Dr. Reyes had only one interview with Catalina. This lacks the depth and
objectivity of an expert assessment.
From the scant evidence presented, it can be adduced that Catalina's immaturity and
apparent refusal to perform her marital obligations do not constitute psychological incapacity alone.
It must be shown that such immature acts were manifestations of a disordered personality that
made the spouse completely unable to discharge the essential obligations of marriage.