Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Tyrone was
Family Code Article 36; Psychological Incapacity Totality not able to prove Elenas psychological incapacity since the
of Evidence expert witnesses he presented heavily relied on Tyrones
allegations of Elenas constant mahjong sessions, visits to the
Burden of proving psychological incapacity is on the plaintiff beauty parlor, going out with friends, adultery, and neglect of
their children. Tyrones allegations, which served as the bases
In 1976, Valerio Tyrone Kalaw and Ma. Elena Fernandez or underlying premises of the conclusions of his experts, were
married each other in Hong Kong. They had 4 children. not actually proven. In fact, during trial, Elena was able to
rebut Tyrones allegations. Even their children testified that
Elena attended to them and had no issues with the care shown
In 1985, Elena left Tyrone. Meanwhile, Tyrone had an affair
them by their mother.
with another woman and even had children with the other
woman. Tyrone later on went to the US with that other woman
and their children. He left behind his 4 children. It was a The most that the evidence can prove in this case are grounds
househelp and their driver who had to take care of the 4 for legal separation but not psychological incapacity.
children. Elena would only visit the children on weekends.
The SC emphasized that psychological incapacity is the
In 1994, Tyrone filed a petition to have his marriage with downright incapacity or inability to take cognizance of and to
Elena be declared void on the ground that Elena is assume the basic marital obligations. The plaintiff must prove
psychologically incapacitated. He presented two expert that the incapacitated party, based on his or her actions or
witnesses, namely: Dr. Cristina Gates (Psychologist) and Fr. behavior, suffers a serious psychological disorder that
Gerard Healy (Catholic Canon Law Expert). completely disables him or her from understanding and
discharging the essential obligations of the marital state. The
psychological problem must be grave, must have existed at the
Dr. Gates testified that based on her interview with Tyrone as
time of marriage, and must be incurable.
to Elenas personality, she concluded that Elena is suffering
from narcissistic personality disorder. This was manifested by
her sexual infidelity, habitual mahjong playing, and her
frequent nights-out with friends.
Read full text
Fr. Healy corroborated the testimony of Dr. Gates. However,
like Dr. Gates, Fr. Healy did not personally evaluate Elena. He NOTE: This was reversed by the Supreme Court in January
even said that he assumed that the factual allegations made by 2015 upon motion for reconsideration by Tyrone. Many said
Tyrone were true and that it is however the duty of the court to that the SC relaxed the application of Article 36 due to such
make a final determination as to the truth of such allegations. reversal but was denied so by the SC Spokesperson Atty. Ted
He merely evaluated the statements. Te.
ISSUE: Whether Antonio can impose Article 36 of the Family This petition seeks to set aside the November 30,
Code as basis for declaring their marriage null and void. 2004 Decision[1] of the Court of Appeals (CA) which reversed
the Decision[2] of the Regional Trial Court of Dagupan
HELD: City (RTC) declaring the marriage between petitioner Silvino
A. Ligeralde (Silvino) and private respondent May Ascension
Psychological incapacity pertains to the inability to understand A. Patalinghug (May) null and void.
the obligations of marriage as opposed to a mere inability to
comply with them. The petitioner, aside from his own Silvino and May got married on October 3,
testimony presented a psychiatrist and clinical psychologist 1984. They were blessed with four children. Silvino claimed
who attested that constant lying and extreme jealousy of Reyes that, during their marriage, he observed that May had several
is abnormal and pathological and corroborated his allegations manifestations of a negative marital behavior. He described
on his wifes behavior, which amounts to psychological her as immature, irresponsible and carefree. Her infidelity,
incapacity. Respondents fantastic ability to invent, fabricate negligence and nocturnal activities, he claimed, characterized
stories and letters of fictitious characters enabled her to live in their marital relations.
a world of make-believe that made her psychologically
incapacitated as it rendered her incapable of giving meaning Sometime in September 1995, May arrived home
and significance to her marriage. The root causes of Reyes at 4:00 oclock in the morning. Her excuse was that she had
psychological incapacity have been medically or clinically watched a video program in a neighboring town, but admitted
identified that was sufficiently proven by experts. The gravity later to have slept with her Palestinian boyfriend in a
of respondents psychological incapacity was considered so hotel. Silvino tried to persuade her to be conscientious of her
grave that a restrictive clause was appended to the sentence of duties as wife and mother. His pleas were ignored. His
nullity prohibited by the National Appellate Matrimonial persuasions would often lead to altercations or physical
Tribunal from contracting marriage without their consent. It violence.
would be difficult for an inveterate pathological liar to commit
the basic tenets of relationship between spouses based on love, In the midst of these, Silvinos deep love for her, the
trust and respect. Furthermore, Reyes case is incurable thought of saving their marriage for the sake of their children,
considering that petitioner tried to reconcile with her but her and the commitment of May to reform dissuaded him from
behavior remain unchanged. separating from her. He still wanted to reconcile with her.
Hence, the court conclude that petitioner has established his The couple started a new life. A few months after,
cause of action for declaration of nullity under Article 36 of however, he realized that their marriage was hopeless. May
the Family Code. was back again to her old ways. This was demonstrated when
Silvino arrived home one day and learned that she was
nowhere to be found. He searched for her and found her in a
nearby apartment drinking beer with a male lover.
SILVINO A. LIGERALDE, G.R. NO. With Mays irresponsible, immature and immoral
Petitioner, behavior, Silvino came to believe that she is psychologically
Present:incapacitated to comply with the essential obligations of
marriage.
CORONA,
VELASCO, JR.,Prior to the filing of the complaint, Silvino referred
- versus - NACHURA,the matter to Dr. Tina Nicdao-Basilio for psychological
PERALTA, and
evaluation. The psychologist certified that May was
MENDOZA,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
MAY ASCENSION A. was serious and incurable.[3]
PATALINGHUG and the Promulgated:
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, On October 22, 1999, the RTC declared the marriage
Respondents. April 15,
of2010
Silvino and May null and void. Its findings were based on
x the Psychological Evaluation Report of Dr. Tina Nicdao-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- Basilio.
--------------------x
The Court of Appeals reversed the RTC decision. It
DECISION ruled that private respondents alleged sexual infidelity,
emotional immaturity and irresponsibility do not constitute duties required in marriage. It must be rooted in the history of
psychological incapacity within the contemplation of the the party antedating the marriage, although the overt
Family Code and that the psychologist failed to identify and manifestations may emerge only after the marriage. It must be
prove the root cause thereof or that the incapacity was incurable or, even if it were otherwise, the cure would be
medically or clinically permanent or incurable. beyond the means of the party involved.[7] The Court likewise
laid down the guidelines in resolving petitions for declaration
Hence, this petition for certiorari under Rule 65. of nullity of marriage, based on Article 36 of the Family Code,
The core issue raised by petitioner Silvino Ligeralde is that the in Republic v. Court of Appeals.[8]Relevant to this petition are
assailed order of the CA is based on conjecture and, therefore, the following:
issued without jurisdiction, in excess of jurisdiction and/or
with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of (1) The burden of proof to show the nullity of the
jurisdiction.[4] marriage belongs to the plaintiff; (2) the root cause of the
psychological incapacity must be medically or clinically
The Court required the private respondent to identified, alleged in the complaint, sufficiently proven by
comment but she failed to do so. Efforts were exerted to locate experts and clearly explained in the decision; (3) the
her but to no avail. incapacity must be proven to be existing at the "time of the
celebration" of the marriage; (4) such incapacity must also be
Nevertheless, the petition is technically and shown to be medically or clinically permanent or incurable;
substantially flawed. On procedural grounds, the Court agrees and (5) such illness must be grave enough to bring about the
with the public respondent that the petitioner should have filed disability of the party to assume the essential obligations of
a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 instead of this marriage.
petition for certiorari under Rule 65. For having availed of the
wrong remedy, this petition deserves outright dismissal. Guided by these pronouncements, it is the Courts
considered view that petitioners evidence failed to establish
Substantially, the petition has no merit. In order to respondent Mays psychological incapacity.
avail of the special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of
the Revised Rules of Court,[5] the petitioner must clearly show Petitioner's testimony did not prove the root cause,
that the public respondent acted without jurisdiction or with gravity and incurability of private respondents condition. Even
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess in Dr. Nicdao-Basilio failed to show the root cause of her
jurisdiction. By grave abuse of discretion is meant such psychological incapacity. The root cause of the psychological
capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent incapacity must be identified as a psychological illness, its
to lack of jurisdiction. The abuse of discretion must be patent incapacitating nature fully explained and established by the
and gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or a totality of the evidence presented during trial.[9]
virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law, or to act at
all in contemplation of law as where the power is exercised in More importantly, the acts of private respondent do
an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of passion and not even rise to the level of the psychological incapacity that
hostility. In sum, for the extraordinary writ of certiorari to lie, the law requires. Private respondent's act of living an
there must be capricious, arbitrary or whimsical exercise of adulterous life cannot automatically be equated with a
power.[6] psychological disorder, especially when no specific evidence
was shown that promiscuity was a trait already existing at the
In this case at bench, the Court finds no commission inception of marriage. Petitioner must be able to establish that
of a grave abuse of discretion in the rendition of the assailed respondent's unfaithfulness is a manifestation of a disordered
CA decision dismissing petitioners complaint for declaration personality, which makes her completely unable to discharge
of nullity of marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code. the essential obligations of the marital state.[10]
Upon close scrutiny of the records, we find nothing whimsical, Doubtless, the private respondent was far from being
arbitrary or capricious in its findings. a perfect wife and a good mother. She certainly had some
character flaws. But these imperfections do not warrant a
A petition for declaration of nullity of marriage is conclusion that she had a psychological malady at the time of
anchored on Article 36 of the Family Code which provides: the marriage that rendered her incapable of fulfilling her
marital and family duties and obligations.[11]
ART. 36. A marriage contracted by
any party who, at the time of the celebration, WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED.
was psychologically incapacitated to comply
with the essential marital obligations of SO ORDERED.
marriage, shall likewise be void even if such
incapacity becomes manifest only after its
solemnization.
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.: Evidence for Orlando consisted of his own testimony, that of
his sister, Angelina Tongol, and of Annaliza Guevara, an
Assailed in the present Petition for Review employee in the pharmaceutical company owned by the
on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court is the spouses Tongol. Orlando also presented Dr. Cecilia Villegas, a
Decision[1] of the Court of Appeals (CA) dated September 25, psychiatrist who conducted a psychological examination of
2002 in CA-G.R. CV No. 66245, and its Resolution of March both parties. Orlando submitted documents evidencing their
19, 2003, denying petitioner's motion for reconsideration. The marriage, the birth of their four children, the RTC decision
CA Decision affirmed, in toto, the Decision of the Regional granting the petition for dissolution of their conjugal
Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City, Branch 149, which partnership of gains, and the written evaluation of Dr. Villegas
dismissed the petition for declaration of nullity of marriage regarding the spouses' psychological examination. On the
filed by herein petitioner Orlando Tongol. other hand, record shows that evidence for Filipinas only
consisted of her own testimony.
The facts of the case are as follows:
On June 30, 1999, the RTC of Makati City, Branch 149,
Orlando G. Tongol (Orlando) and Filipinas rendered a Decision dismissing the petition.
M. Tongol (Filipinas) were married on August 27, 1967. Out
of their union, they begot four children, namely: Crisanto, On appeal, the CA affirmed, in toto, the Decision of the RTC.
born in 1968; Olivia, born in 1969; Frederick, born in 1971, Hence, herein petition raising the following issues:
and; Ma. Cecilia, born in 1972.
1. WHETHER OR NOT THE
On May 13, 1994, Orlando and Filipinas filed a petition for EVIDENCE SUPPORTS THE
dissolution of their conjugal partnership of gains, which was FINDINGS OF THE TRIAL
granted in a Judgment issued by the RTC of Makati City, COURT AND THE HONORABLE
Branch 143 on April 24, 1995. COURT OF APPEALS THAT
DRA. CECILIA VILLEGAS
On August 19, 1996, Orlando filed before the RTC FAILED TO STATE WHETHER
of Makati City a verified petition for the declaration of nullity OR NOT RESPONDENT'S
of his marriage with Filipinas on the ground that the latter is INADEQUATE PERSONALITY
psychologically incapacitated to comply with her essential DISORDER WAS GRAVE,
marital obligations. PERMANENT AND INCURABLE
(par. 12, p. 3, Annex A, hereof).
In his Petition, Orlando contended that he and Filipinas got
married over the objection of the latter's family; their marriage
2. WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, THE (1) The burden of proof to show the nullity
COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN of the marriage belongs to the plaintiff. Any
DISMISSING THE APPEAL (p. doubt should be resolved in favor of the
7, ibid.). existence and continuation of the marriage
and against its dissolution and nullity. This is
3. WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, THE rooted in the fact that both our Constitution
COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN and our laws cherish the validity of marriage
DENYING THE MOTION FOR and unity of the family. Thus, our
RECONSIDERATION (Annex B, Constitution devotes an entire Article on the
hereof).[2] Family, recognizing it as the foundation of
the nation. It decrees marriage as legally
inviolable, thereby protecting it from
The basic issue to be resolved in the instant case is whether or dissolution at the whim of the parties. Both
not the totality of the evidence presented in the present case is the family and marriage are to be protected
enough to sustain a finding that herein respondent is by the state.
psychologically incapacitated to comply with her essential
marital obligations. The Family Code echoes this constitutional
edict on marriage and the family and
In Santos v. Court of Appeals,[3] the term psychological emphasizes their permanence, inviolability
incapacity was defined as: and solidarity.
In her testimony, Dr. Villegas explained respondent's A- Because of her basic rejection at that
personality disorder in this wise: time, Sir. She was afraid
that Mr. Tongol was already rejecting her as
ATTY. VILLAREAL - a wife and being attracted to other people,
but it is the way of how Mrs. Tongolreacted
xxxx to her own feelings of rejection, Sir.
DECISION
Trial on the merits ensued thereafter. Respondent Manuel The partner relational problem (coded V61/10 in the Fourth
first took the witness stand and elaborated on the allegations in Edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental
his petition. He testified that his parents never approved of his Disorders or DSM IV) is secondary to the psychopathology of
marriage as they still harbored hope that he would return to the both spouses. Manuel and Juanita had engaged themselves in a
seminary.[4] The early years of their marriage were difficult defective communication pattern which is characteristically
years as they had a hard time being accepted as husband and negative and deformed. This affected their competence to
wife by his parents and it was at this period that his wife maintain the love and respect that they should give to each
started exhibiting signs of being irritable and other.
temperamental[5] to him and his parents.[6] She was also
obsessive about cleanliness which became the common source Marriage requires a sustained level of adaptation from both
of their quarrels.[7] He, however, characterized their union as partners who are expected to use healthy strategies to solve
happy during that period of time in 1979 when they moved to their disputes and differences. Whereas Juanita would be
Malolos as they were engrossed in furnishing their new house. derogatory, critical, argumentative, depressive and obsessive-
[8]
In 1981, when he became busy with law school and with compulsive, Manuel makes use of avoidance and suppression.
various community organizations, it was then that he felt that In his effort to satisfy the self and to boost his masculine ego
he and his wife started to drift apart. [9] He then narrated to cover up for his felt or imagined inadequacies, he became
incidents during their marriage that were greatly embarrassing callused to the detrimental effects of his unfaithfulness and his
and/or distressing to him, e.g., when his wife quarreled with failure to prioritize the marriage. Both spouses, who display
an elderly neighbor;[10] when she would visit him in his office narcissistic psychological repertoire (along with their other
and remark that the curtains were already dirty or when she maladaptive traits), failed to adequately empathize (or to be
kicked a trash can across the room or when she threw a responsive and sensitive) to each others needs and feelings.
ballpen from his table;[11] when she caused his office drawer to The matrimonial plot is not conducive to a healthy and a
be forcibly opened while he was away;[12] when she confronted progressive marriage. Manuel and Juanita have shown their
a female tenant of theirs and accused the tenant of having an psychologically [sic] incapacity to satisfactorily comply with
affair with him;[13] and other incidents reported to him which the fundamental duties of marriage. The clashing of their
would show her jealous nature. Money matters continued to be patterns of maladaptive traits, which warrant the diagnosis of
a source of bitter quarrels.[14] Respondent Manuel could not personality disorder not otherwise specified (PDNOS, with
forget that he was not able to celebrate his appointment as code 301.9 as per DSM IV criteria) will bring about more
judge in 1995 as his wife did not approve it, ostensibly for emotional mishaps and psychopathology. These rigid sets of
lack of money, but she was very generous when it came to traits which were in existence before the marriage will tend to
celebrations of their parish priest. [15] Respondent Manuel then be pervasive and impervious to recovery.[25]
denied that he was a womanizer [16] or that he had a mistress.
[17]
Lastly, respondent Manuel testified as to their conjugal In her defense, petitioner Juanita denied respondent
properties and obligations.[18] Manuels allegations. She insisted that they were a normal
Next, LUCENA TAN, respondent Manuels Clerk of couple who had their own share of fights; that they were
Court, testified that petitioner Juanita seldom went to happily married until respondent Manuel started having extra-
respondent Manuels office.[19] But when she was there, she marital affairs[26] which he had admitted to her.[27] Petitioner
would call witness to complain about the curtains and the Juanita professed that she would wish to preserve her marriage
cleanliness of the office.[20] One time, witness remembered and that she truly loved her husband. [28] She stated further that
petitioner Juanita rummaging through respondent Manuels she has continuously supported respondent Manuel, waiting
drawer looking for his address book while the latter was in up for him while he was in law school to serve him food and
Subic attending a conference.[21] When petitioner Juanita could drinks. Even when he already filed the present case, she would
not open a locked drawer she called witness, telling the latter still attend to his needs. [29] She remembered that after the pre-
that she was looking for the telephone number of respondents trial, while they were in the hallway, respondent Manuel
hotel room in Subic. A process server was requested by implored her to give him a chance to have a new family.[30]
petitioner Juanita to call for a locksmith in the town proper. DR. EDUARDO MAABA, whose expertise as a
When the locksmith arrived, petitioner Juanita ordered him to psychiatrist was admitted by respondent Manuel, [31] testified
open the locked drawer. On another occasion, particularly in that he conducted a psychiatric evaluation on petitioner
August of 1998, witness testified that she heard petitioner Juanita, the results of which were embodied in his report. Said
Juanita remark to respondent Manuel sino bang batang report stated in part:
bibinyagan na yan? Baka anak mo yan sa labas?[22]
As his third witness, respondent Manuel presented DR. Based on the clinical interviews and the results of the
VALENTINA GARCIA whose professional qualifications as a psychological tests, respondent Juanita Victoria
psychiatrist were admitted by petitioner Juanita. [23] From her Carating-Siayngco, was found to be a mature,
psychiatric evaluation,[24] Dr. Garcia concluded: conservative, religious and highly intelligent woman
who possess [sic] more than enough psychological
To sum up, Manuel de Jesus Siayngco and Juanita Victoria potentials for a mutually satisfying long term
Carating-Siayngco contributed to the marital collapse. There is heterosexual relationship. Superego is strong and she is
a partner relational problem which affected their capacity to respectful of traditional institutions of society like the
sustain the marital bond with love, support and understanding. institution of marriage. She was also found to be a
loving, nurturing and self-sacrificing woman who is
capable of enduring severe environmental stress in her definitely not for children but for two consenting adults who
social milieu. Finally, she is reality-oriented and view the relationship with love amore gignit amorem, sacrifice
therefore capable of rendering fair and sound decision. and a continuing commitment to compromise conscious of its
value as a sublime social institution (Chi Ming Tsoi vs. Court
In summary, the psychiatric evaluation found the of Appeals, 266 SCRA 324).
respondent to be psychologically capacitated to comply
with the basic and essential obligations of marriage.[32] This court, finding the gravity of the failed relationship in
which the parties found themselves trapped in its mire of
CRISPINA SEVILLA, a friend of the spouses Siayngco unfulfilled vows and unconsummated marital obligations, can
since 1992 described the Siayngcos as the ideal couple, sweet do no less, but reverse and set aside the decision of the lower
to each other.[33] The couple would religiously attend prayer court. Plaintiff Manuel is entitled to have his marriage
meetings in the community.[34] Both were likewise leaders in declared a nullity on the ground of psychological incapacity,
their community.[35] Witness then stated that she would often not only of defendant but also of himself.[40]
go to the house of the couple and, as late as March 2000, she
still saw respondent Manuel there.[36] Petitioner contends that the Court of Appeals erred
On 31 January 2001, the trial court denied respondent I. IN ITS FINDINGS THAT PETITIONER
Manuels petition for declaration of nullity of his marriage to JUANITA IS PSYCHOLOGICALLY
petitioner Juanita holding in part that: INCAPACITATED
II. IN ITS FINDINGS OF FACT THAT
The asserted psychological incapacity of the defendant is not PETITIONER AND RESPONDENT
preponderantly supported in evidence. The couple [was] SEPARATED ON MARCH 1997, THE TRUTH
happily married and after four years of marital bliss [was] IS THAT THEY ARE STILL LIVING
blest with a son. Their life together continued years thereafter TOGETHER AS HUSBAND AND WIFE AT
in peace and prosperity. THE TIME OF THE FILING OF THE
PETITION UP TO THE PRESENT
The psychiatric finding that defendant has been critical,
depressed and obsessive doubtless arose later in the parties III. WHEN IT DID NOT FOLLOW THE
relationship sometime in the early 90s when the defendant- GUIDELINES LAID DOWN BY THE
wife started receiving letters that the plaintiff is playing footsy. SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF
REPUBLIC V. MOLINA
xxx xxx xxx IV.IN DECLARING THE MARRIAGE OF
HEREIN PETITIONER AND RESPONDENT
The present state of our laws on marriage does not favor knee- NULL AND VOID ON GROUND OF
jerk responses to slight stabs of the Pavlovian hammer on PSYCHOLOGICAL INCAPACITY UNDER
marital relations. A wife, as in the instant case, may have ARTICLE 36 OF THE FAMILY CODE
succumbed, due to her jealousy, to the constant delivery of
irritating curtain lectures to her husband. But, as our laws now
stand, the dissolution of the marriage is not the remedy in such
The Courts Ruling
cases. In contrast to some countries, our laws do not look at a
marital partner as a mere refrigerator in the Kitchen even if he
or she sometimes may sound like a firetruck. [37]
A motion for reconsideration was filed but was denied in Our pronouncement in Republic v. Dagdag[41] is apropos.
an order dated 04 May 2001.[38] There, we held that whether or not psychological incapacity
exists in a given case calling for the declaration of the nullity
On 01 July 2003, the Court of Appeals reversed the RTC of the marriage depends crucially on the facts of the case.
decision, relying mainly on the psychiatric evaluation of Dr. Each case must be closely scrutinized and judged according to
Garcia finding both Manuel and Juanita psychologically its own facts as there can be no case that is on all fours with
incapacitated and on the case of Chi Ming Tsoi v. Court of another. This, the Court of Appeals did not heed.
Appeals.[39] Thus:
The Court of Appeals perfunctorily applied our ruling in
The report clearly explained the root cause of the alleged Chi Ming Tsoi despite a clear divergence in its factual milieu
psychological incapacity of plaintiff Manuel and defendant with the case at bar. In Chi Ming Tsoi, the couple involved
Juanita. It appears that there is empathy between plaintiff and therein, despite sharing the same bed from the time of their
defendant. That is a shared feeling which between husband wedding night on 22 May 1988 until their separation on 15
and wife must be experienced not only by having spontaneous March 1989, never had coitus. The perplexed wife filed the
sexual intimacy but a deep sense of spiritual communion. petition for the declaration of the nullity of her marriage on the
Marital union is a two-way process. An expressive interest in ground of psychological incapacity of her husband. We
each others feelings at a time it is needed by the other can go a sustained the wife for the reason that an essential marital
long way in deepening the marital relationship. Marriage is obligation under the Family Code is procreation such that the
senseless and protracted refusal of one of the parties to fulfill
the above marital obligation is equivalent to psychological such time, but the illness itself must have attached at such
incapacity. moment, or prior thereto.
On the other hand, sexual intimacy for procreation is a
non-issue herein. Rather, we have here a case of a husband (4) Such incapacity must also be shown to be medically or
who is constantly embarrassed by his wifes outbursts and clinically permanent or incurable. Such incurability may be
overbearing ways, who finds his wifes obsession with absolute or even relative only in regard to the other spouse,
cleanliness and the tight reign on his wallet irritants and who not necessarily absolutely against everyone of the same sex.
is wounded by her lack of support and respect for his person Furthermore, such incapacity must be relevant to the
and his position as a Judge. In our book, however, these assumption of marriage obligations, not necessarily to those
inadequacies of petitioner Juanita which led respondent not related to marriage like the exercise of a profession or
Manuel to file a case against her do not amount to employment in a job. Hence, a pediatrician may be effective in
psychological incapacity to comply with the essential marital diagnosing illnesses of children and prescribing medicine to
obligations. cure them but may not be psychologically capacitated to
procreate, bear and raise his/her own children as an essential
It was in Santos v. Court of Appeals[42] where we declared obligation of marriage.
that psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family
Code is not meant to comprehend all possible cases of (5) Such illness must be grave enough to bring about the
psychoses. It should refer, rather, to no less than a mental (not disability of the party to assume the essential obligations of
physical) incapacity that causes a party to be truly incognitive marriage. Thus, mild characteriological peculiarities, mood
of the basic marital covenants that concomitantly must be changes, occasional emotional outbursts cannot be accepted as
assumed and discharged by the parties to the marriage. root causes. The illness must be shown as downright
Psychological incapacity must be characterized by (a) gravity, incapacity or inability, not a refusal, neglect or difficulty,
(b) juridical antecedence, and (c) incurability.[43] In Republic v. much less ill will. In other words, there is a natal or
Court of Appeals[44] we expounded: supervening disabling factor in the person, an adverse integral
element in the personality structure that effectively
(1) The burden of proof to show the nullity of marriage incapacitates the person from really accepting and thereby
belongs to the plaintiff. Any doubt should be resolved in favor complying with the obligations essential to marriage.
of the existence and continuation of the marriage and against
its dissolution and nullity. This is rooted in the fact that both (6) The essential marital obligations must be those embraced
our Constitution and our laws cherish the validity of marriage by Articles 68 up to 71 of the Family Code as regards the
and unity of the family. Thus, our Constitution devotes an husband and wife as well as Articles 220, 221 and 225 of the
entire Article on the Family, recognizing it as the foundation same Code in regard to parents and their children. Such non-
of the nation. It decrees marriage as legally inviolable, thereby complied marital obligation(s) must also be stated in the
protecting it from dissolution at the whim of the parties. Both petition, proven by evidence and included in the text of the
the family and marriage are to be protected by the state. The decision.
Family Code echoes this constitutional edict on marriage and
the family and emphasizes their permanence, inviolability and (7) Interpretations given by the National Appellate
solidarity. Matrimonial Tribunal of the Catholic Church in the
Philippines, while not controlling or decisive, should be given
(2) The root cause of the psychological incapacity must be a) great respect by our courts.[45]
medically or clinically identified, b) alleged in the complaint,
c) sufficiently proven by experts and d) clearly explained in With the foregoing pronouncements as compass, we now
the decision. Article 36 of the Family Code requires that the resolve the issue of whether or not the totality of evidence
incapacity must be psychological not physical, although its presented is enough to sustain a finding of psychological
manifestations and/or symptoms may be physical. The incapacity against petitioner Juanita and/or respondent
evidence must convince the court that the parties, or one of Manuel.
them, was mentally or physically 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. Although no example of such incapacity A. RE: PSYCHOLOGICAL INCAPACITY OF
need be given here so as not to limit the application of the RESPONDENT MANUEL
provision under the principle of ejusdem generis, nevertheless
such root cause must be identified as a psychological illness
and its incapacitating nature fully explained. Expert evidence We reiterate that the state has a high stake in the
may be given by qualified psychiatrists and clinical preservation of marriage rooted in its recognition of the
psychologists. sanctity of married life and its mission to protect and
strengthen the family as a basic autonomous social institution.
[46]
With this cardinal state policy in mind, we held in Republic
(3) The incapacity must be proven to be existing at the time of
v. Court of Appeals [47] that the burden of proof to show the
the celebration of the marriage. The evidence must show that
nullity of marriage belongs to the plaintiff (respondent Manuel
the illness was existing when the parties exchanged their I dos.
herein). Any doubt should be resolved in favor of the existence
The manifestation of the illness need not be perceivable at
and continuation of the marriage and against its dissolution marriage or that they are incurable.[53] In fact, Dr. Maaba,
and nullity. whose expertise as a psychiatrist was admitted by respondent
Manuel, reported that petitioner was psychologically
In herein case, the Court of Appeals committed capacitated to comply with the basic and essential obligations
reversible error in holding that respondent Manuel is of marriage.[54]
psychologically incapacitated. The psychological report of Dr.
Garcia, which is respondent Manuels own evidence, contains The psychological report of respondent Manuels witness,
candid admissions of petitioner Juanita, the person in the best Dr. Garcia, on the other hand, does not help his case any.
position to gauge whether or not her husband fulfilled the Nothing in there supports the doctors conclusion that
essential marital obligations of marriage: petitioner Juanita is psychologically incapacitated. On the
contrary, the report clearly shows that the root cause of
She talked about her spouse, My husband is kind, a good petitioner Juanitas behavior is traceable not from the inception
provider, cool, intelligent but a liar, masamang magalit at of their marriage as required by law but from her experiences
gastador In spite of what he has done to me, I take care of him during the marriage, e.g., her in-laws disapproval of her as
whenever he is sick. He is having extra marital affairs because they wanted their son to enter the priesthood,[55] her husbands
he wants to have a child. I believe that our biggest problem is philandering, admitted no less by him,[56] and her inability to
not having a child. It is his obsession to have a child with his conceive.[57] Dr. Garcias report paints a story of a husband and
girl now. He started his relationship with this girl in 1994. I wife who grew professionally during the marriage, who
even saw them together in the car. I think that it was the girl pursued their individual dreams to the hilt, becoming busier
who encouraged him to file the petition. She feels that the and busier, ultimately sacrificing intimacy and togetherness as
problems in the relationship is [sic] paulit-ulit, but, that she a couple. This was confirmed by respondent Manuel himself
still is willing to pursue it. during his direct examination.[58]
Thus, from the totality of the evidence adduced by both
parties, we have been allowed a window into the Siayngcoss
life and have perceived therefrom a simple case of a married
x x x. Overall, she feels that he is a good spouse and that he is couple drifting apart, becoming strangers to each other, with
not really psychologically incapacitated. He apparently told the husband consequently falling out of love and wanting a
her, You and Jeremy should give me a chance to have a new way out.
family. She answered and said, Ikaw tinuruan mo akong to
fight for my right. Ipaglalaban ko ang marriage natin.[48] An unsatisfactory marriage, however, is not a null and
void marriage. Mere showing of irreconcilable differences and
conflicting personalities in no wise constitutes psychological
What emerges from the psychological report of Dr. incapacity.[59]As we stated in Marcos v. Marcos:[60]
Garcia as well as from the testimonies of the parties and their
witnesses is that the only essential marital obligation which
respondent Manuel was not able to fulfill, if any, is the Article 36 of the Family Code, we stress, is not to be confused
obligation of fidelity.[49]Sexual infidelity, per se, however, does with a divorce law that cuts the marital bond at the time the
not constitute psychological incapacity within the causes therefore manifests themselves. It refers to a serious
contemplation of the Family Code.[50] It must be shown that psychological illness afflicting a party even before the
respondent Manuels unfaithfulness is a manifestation of a celebration of the marriage. It is a malady so grave and so
disordered personality which makes him completely unable to permanent as to deprive one of awareness of the duties and
discharge the essential obligations of the marital state [51] and responsibilities of the matrimonial bond one is about to
not merely due to his ardent wish to have a child of his own assume.
flesh and blood. In herein case, respondent Manuel has
admitted that: I had [extra-marital] affairs because I wanted to We are not downplaying the frustration and misery
have a child at that particular point.[52] respondent Manuel might be experiencing in being shackled,
so to speak, to a marriage that is no longer working.
Regrettably, there are situations like this one, where neither
law nor society can provide the specific answers to every
B. RE: PSYCHOLOGICAL INCAPACITY OF individual problem.[61]
PETITIONER JUANITA
WHEREFORE, the petition for review is hereby
GRANTED. The Decision dated 01 July 2003 of the Court of
As aforementioned, the presumption is always in favor of Appeals is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The
the validity of marriage. Semper praesumitur pro matrimonio. Decision dated 31 January 2001 of the Regional Trial Court of
In the case at bar, respondent Manuel failed to prove that his Quezon City, Branch 102 is reinstated and given full force and
wifes lack of respect for him, her jealousies and obsession effect. No costs.
with cleanliness, her outbursts and her controlling nature
(especially with respect to his salary), and her inability to SO ORDERED.
endear herself to his parents are grave psychological maladies
that paralyze her from complying with the essential
obligations of marriage. Neither is there any showing that
these defects were already present at the inception of the
Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied6 for lack of
merit; thus, she filed a petition for review on certiorari with
this Court. As already stated, the petition for review was
denied for failure of petitioner to show that the appellate
tribunal committed any reversible error.
Republic of the Philippines Petitioner filed the instant motion for reconsideration.7 The
SUPREME COURT Court required respondent Brix Ferraris to file comment8 but
Manila failed to comply; thus, he is deemed to have waived the
opportunity to file comment. Further, the Court directed the
FIRST DIVISION Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) to comment on
petitioner's motion for reconsideration which it complied on
March 2, 2006.
G.R. No. 162368 July 17, 2006
Issue:
Should the annulment for Godofredo Buccats marriage be
Anaya vs Palaroan granted on the grounds that Luida concealed her pregnancy
Anaya vs. Palaroan before the marriage?
36 SCRA 97
Held:
FACTS: No. Clear and authentic proof is needed in order to nullify a
marriage, a sacred institution in which the State is interested
Aurora Anaya and Fernando Palaroan were married in 1953. and where society rests.
Palaroan filed an action for annulment of the marriage in 1954 In this case, the court did not find any proof that there was
on the ground that his consent was obtained through force and concealment of pregnancy constituting fraud as a ground for
intimidation. The complaint was dismissed and upheld the annulment. It was unlikely that Godofredo, a first-year law
validity of the marriage and granting Auroras counterclaim. student, did not suspect anything about Luidas condition
While the amount of counterclaim was being negotiated, considering that she was in an advanced stage of pregnancy
Fernando divulged to her that several months prior to their (highly developed physical manifestation, ie. enlargedstomach
marriage, he had pre-marital relationship with a close relative ) when they got married.
of his. According to her, the non-divulgement to her of such
pre-marital secret constituted fraud in obtaining her consent. Decision:
She prayed for the annulment of her marriage with Fernando SC affirmed the lower courts decision. Costs to plaintiff-
on such ground. appellant
HELD:
The concealment of a husbands pre-marital relationship with Aquino vs Delizo
another woman was not one of those enumerated that would Aquino vs. Delizo
constitute fraud as ground for annulment and it is further 109 Phil 21
excluded by the last paragraph providing that no other
misrepresentation or deceit as to.. chastity shall give ground FACTS:
for an action to annul a marriage. Hence, the case at bar does
not constitute fraud and therefore would not warrant an Fernando Aquino filed a complaint in September 1955 on the
annulment of marriage. ground of fraud against Conchita Delizo that at the date of her
marriage with the former on December 1954, concealed the
fact that she was pregnant by another man and sometime in
April 1955 or about 4 months after their marriage, gave birth In the following circumstances, the court remanded the case
to a child. During the trial, Provincial Fiscal Jose Goco for new trial and decision complained is set aside.
represent the state in the proceedings to prevent collusion.
Only Aquino testified and the only documentary evidence
presented was the marriage contract between the parties.
Delizo did not appear nor presented any evidence.
HELD:
The concealment by the wife of the fact that at the time of the
marriage, she was pregnant by a man other than her husband
constitutes fraud and is a ground for annulment of marriage.
Delizo was allegedly to be only more than four months
pregnant at the time of her marriage. At this stage, it is hard to
say that her pregnancy was readily apparent especially since
she was naturally plump or fat. It is only on the 6th month of
pregnancy that the enlargement of the womans abdomen
reaches a height above the umbilicus, making the roundness of
the abdomen more general and apparent.