LEOUEL SANTOS

vs.
COURT OF APPEALS AND JULIA ROSARIO BEDIA-SANTOS
G.R. No. 112019 January 4, 1995

FACTS:
Petitioner Leouel, a Lieutenant in the Philippine Army, met Julia in Iloilo City. In 1986,
they first got married in a Municipal Trial Court in Iloilo City then followed by a church
wedding. The married couple lived together with Julias parents in a compound and then
eventually Julia gave birth to a baby boy. Interference by Julias parents over the couples
quarrels happened and that the couple would also argue in living independently.

In 1988, Julia worked in the US as a nurse and left Leouel despite his pleas to dissuade
her. Julia called Leouel and promised to return home upon the expiration of her contract but she
never did. In 1990, Leouel got the chance to be in the US due to a military training and exerted
effort to locate his wife but he failed to do so.

Then, Leouel filed with the RTC, a complaint for "Voiding of marriage Under Article 36
of the Family Code" but Julia claimed that he was the one who had been irresponsible and
incompetent. The court dismissed the complaint thus this appeal arguing that failure of Julia to
return home or to communicate with him for more than 5 years are circumstances that show her
being psychologically incapacitated to enter into married life.

ISSUE:
Whether or not psychological incapacity is enough to make the marriage void.

HELD:
The Supreme Court first clarified that the Family Code did not define the term
psychological incapacity because the term psychological incapacity defies any precise
definition since psychological causes can be of an infinite variety. The incapacity must be grave
or serious such that the party would be incapable of carrying out the ordinary duties required in
marriage and must be characterized by (a) gravity, (b) juridical antecedence, and (c) incurability.

In the case at bar, the failure of Julia to both come home and communicate with her
husband for more than 5 years does not constitute psychological incapacity. Article 36 of the
Family Code was not meant to cover all cases of psychoses such as the matter of low
intelligence, immaturity and same circumstances. 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 which, as so expressed by Article 68 of the Family Code, include their mutual
obligations to live together, observe love, respect and fidelity and render help and support.

Although Leouel stands aggrieved, his petition must be dismissed because the alleged
psychological incapacity of his wife is not clearly shown by the factual settings presented.
Neither law nor society itself can always provide all the specific answers to every individual
problem. Wherefore, his petition was denied.
 Thus the doctrine in declaring the nullity of marriage based on psychological incapacity
applies only to the most serious cases of conditions wherein there is a clear inability to
demonstrate the meaning and significance of marriage and it must have been existing at the time
the marriage is celebrated.