Case No.

45
Republic v. CA Molina

Facts:
Roridel Olaviano got married to Reynaldo Molina in 1985, they bore a son a year after. Subsequently, Reynaldo
manifested signs of immaturity and irresponsibility both as father and a husband; that he preferred to spend time
with his friends and squandered his earned money with them, showed dishonesty regarding the family’s finances.
Later on, Reynaldo was relieved of his job, since then, Roridel had been the breadwinner. Sometime later,
Roridel quitted her job and went to live with her parents. Thereafter, Reynaldo abandoned his wife and son.

Issue:
Whether or not the immaturity and irresponsibility of Reynaldo constitutes psychological incapacity

Held:
No. There is no basis showing to us that the defect irreconcilable differences spoken of constitutes psychological
incapacity. The evidence merely adduced that Roridel and her husband could not get along with each other. The
expert testimony made by Dr. Sison showed no incurable psychiatric disorder that could’ve had prevent the
husband from discharging his marital obligations. The presented evidence only showed incompatibility which is
not considered as psychological incapacity.

Case No. 46
Kalaw v. Fernandez

Facts:
Valerio Kalaw (Tyrone) and Ma. Elena Fernandez (Malyn) married in Hong Kong. They had four children. Shortly
after the birth of the younger son, Valerio had an affair with Jocelyn Quijano, she bore him a son. Malyn left the
common home and her children with Tyrone. Thereafter, Jocelyn moved in with Tyrone and bore three more
children. Tyrone with his family, excluding his children with Malyn, went to the US. Nine years after they agreed to
live separately, Tyrone filed a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage. He argued that Malyn was
psychologically incapacitated at the time of the celebration of their marriage as she; leaves the house for
mahjong sessions, going out with male friends, adultery, and neglect of their children.

Issue:
Whether or not Tyrone has sufficiently proved that Malyn suffers from psychological incapacity

Held:
No. The petition has no meritorious basis. The conclusions of the presented supposed experts by the petitioner
were alleged in information, no concrete proof presented whatsoever. Thus, the argument of the petitioner did not
suffice to constitute psychological incapacity as they were mere allegations.

Case No. 47
Republic v. Encelan

Facts:
Cesar married Lolita, they had two children. Cesar went to work abroad, shortly after, he learned that Lolita is
having an affair with Alvin Perez. He left their conjugal dwelling, he then filed a petition against Lolita for the
declaration of the nullity of his marriage on the ground of his wife’s psychological incapacity. Lolita denied that
affair and averred that her being psychologically incapacitated has no basis; that she left their dwelling because
of differences with her mother-in-law. Cesar presented the psychological evaluation report on Lolita. The finding
showed Lolita was not suffering psychiatric illness, but she had interpersonal problems with her co-workers,
impatient, and that she had been unable to discharge her marital duties.

Issue:
Whether or not psychological incapacity is present in the person of Lolita

Held:
No. There is no sufficient basis existing to annul Cesar’s marriage to Lolita on the ground of psychological
incapacity. To constitute psychological incapacity, it be proven that unfaithfulness and abandonment are
manifestations of a disordered personality that actually prevented the erring spouse from discharging the marital
duties, which the court found lacking or not present in the person of Lolita.
Case No. 48
Ligeralde v. Patalinghug and the Republic

Facts:
Silvino Ligeralde filed a petition declaring his marriage and May Ascension Patalinghug void on the ground of
psychological incapacity present in the person of the respondent. May was immature, irresponsible, and
unfaithful as claimed by her husband. In spite of all these, Silvino wanted reconciliation to save the marriage as
they were blessed with four children. Months after, May was back to her old ways. They agreed to live separately
because of this. Silvino consulted a psychologist regarding May’s behavior, the finding showed that May was
psychologically incapacitated which started when she was young but only manifested as an adult. The RTC
declared the marriage null and void, but the CA reversed the decision stating May’s behavior did not suffice to
constitute psychological incapacity.

Issue:
Whether or not the marriage of Silvino and May should be declared void on the ground of May’s psychological
incapacity

Held:
The petition is denied. Psychological incapacity required by Art. 36 must be characterized by (a) gravity, (b)
juridical antecedence and (c) in-curability. The defect spoken of must be grave or serious such that the party
would be incapable of carrying out the essential obligations required in a long-lasting marriage. It must be
showed that it was rooted in the history of the erring spouse, in this case, May’s. In the case en banc, the
petitioner failed to establish enough evidence to prove May’s psychological incapacity. In addition, the factual
acts referred to as incapacity of the respondent do not rise to the level the law requires.

Case No. 49
Republic v. Orbecido

Facts:
In 1981, Cipriano Orbecido and Lady Myro Villanueva got married in Ozamis City and had two children. Wife
decided to leave for the United States to work. A few years later, the wife became a naturalized as a US citizen.
Thereafter, Orbecido learned that his naturalized American citizen wife obtained divorce thereat and married to a
man named Stanley. Orbecido filed a petition with the Trial Court for authority to remarry invoking the Article 26
(2) of the Family Code, Court granted his petition. The Republic, herein petitioner, through the Office of the
Solicitor General sought for reconsideration but was denied. Hence, this petition on review for certiorari was filed.

Issue:
Whether or not Orbecido can remarry under Article 26 (2) of the Family Code

Held:
Yes. The Court looked at the legal intent of the provision and found out that the Civil Code Revision Committee’s
intent in including Article 26 is to avoid the absurd situation wherein the Filipino spouse is deemed to remain
married to the foreigner when, after obtaining the divorce, the foreigner is no longer married to the Filipino.  
However, considering that in the present petition there is no sufficient evidence
submitted and on record, we are unable to declare, based on respondent’s bare allegations that his wife, who
was naturalized as an American citizen, had obtained a divorce decree and had remarried an American, that
respondent is now capacitated to remarry. He is barred from remarrying until such time where he presented
competent evidence.

Case No. 50
Arroyo v. de Arroyo

Facts:
Dolores Vasquez de Arroyo left her common home with her husband Mariano Arroyo, with the intention of living
separate from him. Mariano’s efforts to induce her to resume marital relations were all in vain. Thereafter,
Mariano initiated an action to compel her to return to the matrimonial home and live with him as a dutiful wife.
Dolores averred she had been compelled to leave because of the cruel treatment of her husband. She in turn
prayed that a decree of separation be declared and the liquidation of the conjugal partnership as well as
permanent separate maintenance. 

Issue:
Whether or not the courts can compel spouses to cohabit with each other.
Held:
No. It is not within the province of the courts of this country to attempt to compel one of the spouses to cohabit
with, and render conjugal rights to, the other. Of course, where the property rights of one of the pairs are invaded,
an action for restitution of such rights can be maintained. But the courts are disinclined to sanction the doctrine
that an order, enforcible by process of contempt, may be entered to compel the restitution of the purely personal
rights of consortium.  At best such an order can be effective for no other
purpose than to compel the spouses to live under the same roof; and the experience of countries where the court
of justice have assumed to compel the cohabitation of married people shows that the policy of the practice is
extremely questionable.

Case No. 51
NOT FOUND

Case No. 52
Camara v. Rueda

Facts:
Luisa Goitia y de la Camara and Jose Campos y Rueda got married and stayed together for a month before
petitioner returned to her parent’s home. Luisa filed a complaint against Jose for support outside the conjugal
home.  It was alleged that respondent demanded her to perform unchaste and lascivious acts on his genital
organs. Since Luisa kept on refusing, Jose maltreated her by word and deed, inflicting injuries upon her face and
different body parts.  The trial court ruled in favor of Jose and stated that Luisa could not compel her husband to
support her except in the conjugal home unless it is by virtue of a judicial decree granting her separation or
divorce from respondent. 

Issue:
Whether or not Goitia can claim for support outside of the conjugal domicile.

Held: 
No. The law will not permit the husband to evade or terminate his obligation to support his wife if the wife is
driven away from the conjugal home because of his wrongful acts.  In the case at bar, the wife was forced to
leave the conjugal abode because of the lewd designs and physical assault of the husband, she can therefore
claim support from the husband for separate maintenance even outside the conjugal home.

Case No. 53
De Villanueva v. Villanueva

Facts:
Aurelia Dadivas de Villanueva married Rafael Villanueva, they had three children. The respondent was guilty of
repeated acts of infidelity. To keep the family intact, the plaintiff continued in having marital relations with the
defendant. However, Rafael did not stop from his extramarital relations with other women. It worsened when the
Plaintiff started experiencing brutality and receiving abusive words. Plaintiff decided to withdraw from the situation
she was in. The two decided to live separately.

Issue:
Whether or not the defendant should financially support plaintiff after the separation

Held:
Yes. The wife has an undeniable right to relief based on the proven repeated infidelity and cruel behavior of the
husband towards the wife. The law is not so unreasonable as to require a wife to live in marital relations with a
husband whose incurable bad behavior towards other women makes common cohabitation with him unbearable.
In order to entitle a wife for separate maintenance, it is not necessary to explicitly for a husband to bring a woman
into the conjugal dwelling. It is enough having extramarital relations outside the common house as long as
proven.