Bier v. Bier February 27, 2008 547 SCRA 123 FACTS: Petitioner Renne Enreque Bier married Ma.

Lourdes Bier on July 26 1992 at UST Santissimo Rosario Parish Church. Theire union went on well, until three years had passed and Ma. Lourdes has changed. She became alcoholic, chain smoker and always staying out with her friends and neglects her duty as a wife to her husband and finally, on April 10, 1997, respondent suddenly left for the United States. Petitioner has not heard from her ever since. On April 1, 1998, petitioner instituted in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, Branch 89, a petition for the declaration of nullity of marriage on the ground that respondent was psychologically incapacitated to fulfill her essential marital obligations to petitioner. But the, Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) filed a certification and manifested its disfavor towards declaring the marriage null and void. It argued that no persuasive evidence was presented warranting the grant of the petition, specially since petitioner failed to comply with the guidelines laid down in Republic v. CA and Molina[4] (Molina). In Molina psychological incapacity is elucidated as follows: (a) gravity, (b) juridical antecedence, and (c) incurability. ISSUE: Is the negligence of Ma. Lourdes Bier to perform her obligation as wife is a psychological incapacity? RULING: NO, psychological incapacity must be confined only to the most serious cases of personality disorders clearly demonstrative of an utter insensitivity or inability to give meaning and significance to the marriage. This psychological condition must exist at the time the marriage is celebrated. Furthermore, there is absolutely no showing that her defects were already present at the inception of the marriage or that they are incurable. Apparently the wife lost the emotional affection for her husband, thus, it was her purpose to neglect her duties as a wife. Thus the court DENIED the petition to nullify the marriage. TONGOL vs. TONGOL Facts: On August 19, 1996, Orlando filed before the RTC of Makati City a verified petition for the declaration of nullity of his marriage with Filipinas on the ground that the latter is psychologically incapacitated to comply with her essential marital obligations. Orlando Tongol alleged that Filipinas was unable to perform her duty as a wife because of Filipinas

unbearable attitude that will lead to their constant quarrel. In her Answer with Counter-Petition, Filipinas admitted that efforts at reconciliation have been fruitless and that their marriage is a failure. However, she claims that their marriage failed because it is Orlando s insufficiency to fulfil his obligation as married man. Both paties underwent a psychological exam which proved that the respondent Filipinas Tongol has a psychological insufficiency. Does the psychological problem of of Mrs. Filipina Tongol enough to compel the court to nullify their marriage? No, as elucidated in Molina the psychological incapacity must exist during the ceremony of the marriage, the psychological incapacity must be apparent as to the extent that the other party is uncapable the significance of their marriage and lastly, the malady must be incurable. The definition or manifestation of marriage must within the scope of article 36 of the Family Code. As in the present case, the psychological isufficiency of Mrs tongol is not severe that would render her incapable of recognize the sanctity of her marital contract with her husband, second, Dr. vellegas ffailed to prove the that the ailment is incurable. As to the facts of the psychological examination report say: the emotional malady is cused merely by rejection of Mrs. Tongol by her mother when she was yong. Further, the facts of the case did not show that Mrs. Tongol did not care about the welfare of their children. And the financial issue as being cited in the facts, the court deemed that such phenomena is natural in evry marriage and can be settled easily. Hence the court dismissed the petition of the nullity of marriage. Antonio vs Reyes FACTS: In 1990, Leo married Marie, the latter being ten years his senior. In 1993, Leo filed to annul the marriage due to Marie s PI. Leo claimed that Marie persistently lied about herself, the people around her, her occupation, income, educational attainment and other events or things. She would claim that she is a psychologist but she is not. She d claim she is a singer with the company Blackgold and that she is the latter s number 1 money maker but she s not. She d also spend lavishly as opposed to her monthly income. She fabricates things and people only to serve her make believe world. Leo presented an expert that proved Marie s PI. Marie denied all Leo s allegations and also presented an expert to prove her case. The RTC ruled against Marie and annulled the marriage. The Matrimonial Tribunal of the church also annulled the marriage and was affirmed by the Vatican s Roman Rata. The CA reversed the decision hence the appeal.

ISSUE: Whether or not PI is attendant to the case. HELD: Yes, PI is attendant. The guidelines established in the Molina case is properly established in the case at bar. The SC also emphasized what fraud means as contemplated in Art 45 (3) of the FC vis a vis Art 46 of the FC. In PI, the misrepresentation done by Marie points to her inadequacy to cope with her marital obligations, kindred to psychological incapacity. In Art 45 (3), marriage may be annulled if the consent of either party was obtained by fraud, and Article 46 which enumerates the circumstances constituting fraud under the previous article, clarifies that no other misrepresentation or deceit as to character, health, rank, fortune or chastity shall constitute such fraud as will give grounds for action for the annulment of marriage. These provisions of Art 45 (3) and Art 46 cannot be applied in the case at bar because the misrepresentations done by Marie is not considered as fraud but rather such misrepresentations constitute her aberrant behaviour which further constitutes PI. Her misrepresentations are not lies sought to vitiate Leo s consent to marry her. Her misrepresentations are evidence that Marie cannot simply distinguish fiction/fantasy from reality which is so grave and it falls under the fourth guideline laid down in the Molina Case. Chi Ming Tsoi vs. Court of Appeals, 266 SCRA 324 - G.R. No. 119190, 16 January 1997 Facts: On 22 May 1988, respondent Gina Lao married petitioner Chi Ming Tsoi. Since their marriage until their separation on 15 March 1989, there was no sexual contact between them. Gina filed a case of annulment of marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity. The RTC-Quezon City granted annulment, and the Court of appeals affirmed said decision. Issue; Whether or not Chi Ming Tsoi s failure top have sexual intercourse with his wife, Gina, form the time of the marriage until the time of their separation a ground for psychological incapacity. Ruling: Yes. The Supreme Court ruled that the senseless and protracted refusal of the husband to have sexual intercourse to procreate children, an essential marital obligation, form the time of the marriage up to the their separation ten months later is equivalent to psychological incapacity. Judgment affirmed.

Azcueta vs. Republic, G.R. No. 180668; 26 May 2009 Facts: Marietta Azcueta (Marietta) filed a petition for declaration of absolute nullity of hermarriage to Rodolfo Azcueta (Rodolfo) before the Regional Trial Court (RTC). Marietta averredthat Rodolfo was psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential obligations ofmarriage. Marietta complained that despite her encouragement, Rodolfo never bothered to lookfor a job and always depended on his mother for financial assistance and for his decisions. Itwas Rodolfo s mother who found them a room near the Azcueta home and paid the monthlyrental. Rodolfo also pretended to have found work and gave Marietta money which actuallycame from Rodolfo s mother. When Marietta confronted him, Rodolfo cried like a child and toldher his parents could support their needs. They had sex only once a month which Mariettanever enjoyed. When they discussed this, Rodolfo told Marietta that sex was sacred and shouldnot be enjoyed or abused. Rodolfo also told her he was not ready for a child. When Mariettaasked Rodolfo if they could move to another place, he did not agree and she was forced toleave and see if he would follow her. He did not. Rodolfo s first cousin, who at one time lived with Rodolfo s family, corroboratedMarietta s testimony that Rodolfo was not gainfully employed and relied on the allowance givenby his mother who also paid the rentals for the room the couple lived in. The psychiatrist who examined Marietta testified that she found the latter to be mature,independent, focused, responsible, had a direction and ambition in life, and was notpsychologically incapacitated to perform the duties and responsibilities of marriage. Based oninformation gathered from Marietta, the same psychiatrist found Rodolfo to be suffering fromDependent Personality Disorder characterized by loss of self-confidence, constant self-doubt,inability to make his own decisions and dependency on other people. The psychiatrist explained that the root cause of the disorder was a cross-identification with Rodolfo s motherwho was the dominant figure in the family considering that Rodolfo s father, a seaman, wasalways out of the house. She added that the problem began during the early stages o fRodolfo s life but manifested only after his marriage. She stated that the problem was severe,because he would not be able take on the responsibilities of a spouse, and incurable, because itbegan in early development and had been deeply ingrained in his personality. She, thus,concluded that Rodolfo was psychologically incapacitated to perform his marital duties

andresponsibilities. Rodolfo failed to appear and file an answer despite service of summons on him. TheCity Prosecutor found no collusion between the parties. Based on the evidence presented by Marietta, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) declaredthe marriage void ab initio.The Solicitor General appealed the RTC s decision, arguing that the psychiatric reportwas based solely on the information given by Marietta, and there was no showing that thealleged psychological disorder was present at the start of the marriage or that it was grave,permanent and incurable.The Court of Appeals reversed the RTC s decision. Marietta, thus, brought the case tothe Supreme Court on a petition for review on certiorari. Issue: Whether or not Rodolfo is psychologically incapacitated to justify a declaration that his marriage to Marrieta is void ab initio under Article 36 of the Family Code. Ruling: Rodolfo was psychologically incapacitated to perform his marital duties because of his Dependent Personality Disorder. His marriage to Marietta was declared void ab initio. Marietta sufficiently discharged her burden to prove her husband s psychologicalincapacity. As held in Marcos vs. Marcos [397 Phil. 840 (2000)], there is no requirement thatthe respondent spouse should be personally examined by a physician or psychologist as acondition sine qua non for the declaration of nullity of marriage based on psychologicalincapacity. What matters is whether the totality of evidence presented is adequate to sustain afinding of psychological incapacity. Marietta s testimony was corroborated in material points byRodolfo s close relative, and supported by the psychiatrist s testimony linking the manifestationsof Rodolfo s psychological incapacity and the psychological disorder itself. It is a settledprinciple of civil procedure that the conclusions of the trial court regarding the credibility ofwitnesses are entitled to great respect from the appellate courts because the trial court had anopportunity to observe the demeanor of witnesses while giving testimony which may indicatetheir candor or lack thereof. Since the trial court itself accepted the veracity of Marietta s factualpremises, there is no cause to dispute the conclusion of psychological incapacity drawntherefrom by her expert witness.

The root cause of Rodolfo s psychological incapacity was alleged in the petition,medically or clinically identified, sufficiently proven by testimony of an expert witness with morethan 40 years experience in the field of psychology and psychological incapacity, and clearlyexplained in the trial court s decision. As held in Te vs. Te (G.R. No. 161793, 13 February2009), (b)y the very nature of Article 36, courts, despite having the primary task and burden ofdecisionmaking, must not discount but, instead, must consider as decisive evidence the expertopinion on the psychological and mental temperaments of the parties." Rodolfo s psychological incapacity was also established to have clearly existed at thetime of and even before the celebration of marriage. Witnesses were united in testifying thatfrom the start of the marriage, Rodolfo s irresponsibility, overdependence on his mother andabnormal sexual reticence were already evident. These manifestations of Rodolfo s DependentPersonality Disorder must have existed even prior to the marriage being rooted in his earlydevelopment and a by-product of his upbringing and family life. Furthermore, Rodolfo s psychological incapacity had been shown to be grave so as torender him unable to assume the essential obligations of marriage. The Court of Appeals opinion that Rodolfo s requests for financial assistance from his mother might have been due toembarrassment for failing to contribute to the family coffers and that his motive for not wanting achild was a responsible realization since he was unemployed, were dismissed by the HighCourt for being speculative and unsupported by evidence. The Supreme Court likewisedisagreed with the Court of Appeals finding that Rodolfo s irresponsibility and overdependenceon his mother could be attributed to immaturity, noting that at the time of his marriage, Rodolfowas almost 29 years old. Also, the expert testimony identified a grave clinical or medical causefor Rodolfo s abnormal behavior Dependent Personality Disorder. A person afflicted with Dependent Personality Disorder cannot assume the essentialmarital obligations of living together, observing love, respect and fidelity and rendering help andsupport, for he is unable to make everyday decisions without advice from others, allows others to make most of his important decisions (such as where to live), tends to agree with peopleeven when he believes they are wrong, has difficulty doing things on his own, volunteers to dothings that are demeaning in order to get approval from other people, feels uncomfortable orhelpless when alone and is often

preoccupied with fears of being abandoned. One who is unable to support himself, much less a wife; one who cannot independentlymake decisions regarding even the most basic matters that spouses face every day; and onewho cannot contribute to the material, physical and emotional well-being of his spouse, ispsychologically incapacitated to comply with the marital obligations within the meaning of Article36 of the Family Code. This is not to say, however, that anyone diagnosed with Dependent Personality Disorderis automatically deemed psychologically incapacitated to perform his/her marital obligations. The court must evaluate the facts, as guided by expert opinion, and carefully examine the typeof disorder and the gravity thereof before declaring the nullity of a marriage under Article 36. Finally, it has been established that Rodolfo s condition is incurable, having been deeplyingrained in his system since his early years. DEDEL vs. CA 421 scra 461 FACTS: In 1966, David and Sharon married each other. They ve had four children since then. David then found out that Sharon is irresponsible as a wife and as a mother because during the marriage Sharon had extra-marital affairs with various other guys particularly with one Mustafa Ibrahim, a Jordanian, with whom she had 2 children. She even married Ibrahim. David averred that Sharon is psychologically incapacitated and David submitted the findings of Dr. Dayan which shows that Sharon is indeed psychologically incapacitated. Dr. Dayan declared that Sharon was suffering from Anti-Social Personality Disorder exhibited by her blatant display of infidelity; that she committed several indiscretions and had no capacity for remorse, even bringing with her the two children of Mustafa Ibrahim to live with petitioner. Such immaturity and irresponsibility in handling the marriage like her repeated acts of infidelity and abandonment of her family are indications of Anti-Social Personality Disorder amounting to psychological incapacity to perform the essential obligations of marriage. ISSUE: Whether or not PI has been proven. HELD: PI is not proven in court in this case. The evidence is not sufficient. PI is intended to the most serious cases of personality disorders which make one be incapable of performing the essential marital obligations. Sharon s sexual

infidelity does not constitute PI nor does it constitute the other forms of psychoses which if existing at the inception of marriage, like the state of a party being of unsound mind or concealment of drug addiction, habitual alcoholism, homosexuality or lesbianism, merely renders the marriage contract voidable pursuant to Article 46, Family Code. If drug addiction, habitual alcoholism, lesbianism or homosexuality should occur only during the marriage, they become mere grounds for legal separation under Article 55 of the Family Code. These provisions, however, do not necessarily preclude the possibility of these various circumstances being themselves, depending on the degree and severity of the disorder, indicia of psychological incapacity. Sexual infidelity is not one of those contemplated in law. Until further statutory or jurisprudential parameters are set or established, SI cannot be appreciated in favor of the dissolution of marriage. Hernandez versus CA ( for civil law pero dili pa ni xa included for Friday sa next na ni) Facts: Petitioner Lucita Estrella Hernandez and private respondent Mario C. Hernandez were married. The former is older than the latter. They had three kids. On July 10, 1992, petitioner filed a petition seeking the annulment of her marriage to private respondent on the ground of psychological incapacity. She alleged that from the time of their marriage up to the time of the filing of the suit, private respondent failed to perform his obligation to support the family and contribute to the management of the household, devoting most of his time engaging in drinking sprees with his friends. She further claimed that private respondent, after they were married, cohabited with another woman with whom he had an illegitimate child, while having affairs with different women, and that, because of his promiscuity, private respondent endangered her health by infecting her with a sexually transmissible disease (STD). Issue: in the case at bar, can the petitioner use the psychological incapacity of his husband as a ground for the nullity of their marriage? Ruling: the circumstances mentioned by the petitioner in support of her claim that respondent was psychologically incapacitated to marry her are among the grounds cited by the law as valid reasons for the grant of legal separation (Article 55 of the Family Code) - not as grounds for a declaration of nullity of marriages or annulment thereof. Psychological incapacity of a spouse, as a ground for declaration of nullity of marriage, must exist at the time of the celebration of marriage. The acts and attitudes complained of by petitioner-appellant happened after the marriage and

there is no proof that the same have already existed at the time of the celebration of the marriage to constitute the psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code. The court dismissed the petition. Mercado vs. Tan 337 SCRA 122 FACTS: Dr. Vicent Mercado was previously married with Thelma Oliva in 1976 before he contracted marriage with Consuelo Tan in 1991 which the latter claims she did not know. Tan filed bigamy against Mercado and after a month the latter filed an action for declaration of nullity of marriage against Oliva. The decision in 1993 declared marriage between Mercado and Oliva null and void. ISSUE: Whether Mercado committed bigamy in spite of filing the declaration of nullity of the former marriage. HELD: A judicial declaration of nullity of a previous marriage is necessary before a subsequent one can be legally contracted. One who enters into a subsequent marriage without first obtaining such judicial declaration is guilty of bigamy. This principle applies even if the earlier union is characterized by statute as void. In the case at bar, Mercado only filed the declaration of nullity of his marriage with Oliva right after Tan filed bigamy case. Hence, by then, the crime had already been consummated. He contracted second marriage without the judicial declaration of the nullity. The fact that the first marriage is void from the beginning is not a defense in a bigamy charge. Digest on ATIENZA V. BRILLANTES JR. (Voidable Marriage) FACTS: Lupo Atienza lived together with Yolanda de Castro with whom he has two children. He purchased a house in Bel-Air, Makati where his family stayed. He stays there too whenever he s in Manila. In Dec., 1991, he was surprised to see Manila Metropolitan Trial Court Judge Francisco Brillantes sleeping on his bed. Their boy informed him that Brillantes had been cohabiting with de Castro. Later on, Brillantes prevented him from visiting his children. He claims that Brillantes is married to Zenaida Ongkiko with whom he has five children. Atienza filed a complaint for Gross Immorality & Appearance of

Impropriety against Brillantes. Brillantes claims that his marriage to Ongkiko is not valid because of lack of marriage license. According to him, Ongkiko abandoned him 19 years ago leaving their children with him. He claims that he believed that he was single when he married de Castro because his first marriage was void. ISSUE: WON Brillantes can contract a second marriage without a judicial declaration of nullity? HELD: No. Dismissed from service. RATIO: 1. FC Art. 40: judicial declaration of nullity of previous marriage is needed before one can enter into a second marriage. Rule has retroactive effect thus applicable to Brillantes even if he got married under the Civil Code. 2. Bad faith and sinister motives of Brillantes proven by his marriage to Ongkiko. They underwent two ceremonies however he never got a license. Then, he immorally and illegally cohabited with de Castro. Not fit for the judiciary. San Gabriel v. San gabriel facts: Plaintiff mother and son filed a complaint for support against defendant. In defendant s counter-claim, the latter prayed for the annulment of his marriage to petitioner on feb. 21, 1952 on the grounds of duress and irregularity in the issuance of the license. Defendant contend that his signature appearing the applications for ML was forged and that it was not signed by the local civil registrar, but by a clerk in the latter s office, Ramos. He also contends the improper filing of application which should have been in manila not rizal for he was not residing in the latter. Issue: would such irregularities vitiate the marriage? Ruling: NO. Lack of residence alone or the fact that the applications contain false statements would not affect the validity of a marriage. Along the same vein, lack of authority on the part of the subscribing officer would not render the marriage void where the essential requirements for its validity were present. This irregularity is primarily the lookout of the subscribing officer or his superior. The mere fact that the marriage probably took place on a Sunday would not necessarily vitiate the marriage on the ground that it constitutes a violation of the requirement that the marriage shall be solemnized publicly in the office of the judge in an open court. bugayong v ginez facts:

Benjamin Bugayong, a serviceman in the US Navy was married with Leonila Ginez on August 1949 at Pangasinan while on furlough leave, leaving his wife Leonila in the care of his sisters as she goes to school On or about July 1951, she left the dwelling of the sisters-inlaw and informed her husband by letter that she had gone to Pangasinan to reside with her mother. Petitioner then began receiving letters from Valeriana Polangco, informing him of alleged acts of infidelity of his wife. He also admitted that his wife informed him by letter that a certain Eliong kissed her. In August 1952, Bugayong went to Pangasinan and looked for his wife. They proceeded to the house of Pedro, cousin of the plaintiff where they stayed for 1 day and 1 night as husband and wife and slept together in their own house. He tried to verify with Leonila the truth on the information he received but instead of answering, she merely packed up and left which he took as a confirmation of the acts of infidelity. He then filed a complaint for legal separate ion. ISSUE: WON Benjamin s act of searching for and sleeping with his wife constitutes condonation HELD: Yes. Because even if not yet proven, he had a belief in mind that his wife was already unfaithful yet he still tried to take her back. The ponencia relied mostly on US cases. A single voluntary act of marital intercourse between the parties ordinarily is sufficient to constitute condonation and where the parties live in the same house, it is presumed that they live on terms of matrimonial cohabitation. Aquino vs. Delizo 109 Phil 21 FACTS: Fernando Aquino filed a complaint in September 1955 on the 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 to a child. During the trial, Provincial Fiscal Jose Goco 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. CFI-Rizal dismissed petitioner s complaint for annulment of marriage, which was affirmed by CA thus a petition for certiorari to review the decisions.

ISSUE: Whether or not concealment of pregnancy as alleged by Aquino does not constitute such fraud as would annul a marriage. 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 woman s abdomen reaches a height above the umbilicus, making the roundness of the abdomen more general and apparent. In the following circumstances, the court remanded the case for new trial and decision complained is set aside.