Ochosa vs.

Alano
G.R. No. 167459, 640 SCRA
517, Jan. 26, 2011
FACTS:
• Jose is a military man who got married to Bona.
Sometime during their marriage, Jose got appointed
as Battalion Commander of the Security Escort Group
and was given a quarter for him and his family at Fort
Santiago in 1985.
• During this periods, it appeared that Bona was
unfaithful to her spouse as she later on admitted
having sexual relations with Jose’s driver whenever
the latter was out on duty.
• This prompted Jose to file a petition for declaration of
nullity of marriage on the ground of Bona’s
psychological incapacity to perform the basic
obligations of marriage. The trial court granted the
petition but was later on reversed and set aside by the
CA. Hence, this petition.
ISSUE:
• Whether or not Bona should be deemed
psychologically incapacitated to comply with the
essential marital obligations.
RULING:
• No. Psychological incapacity 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 marriage; and it must be incurable
or, even if it were otherwise, the cure would be beyond
the means of the party involved
• Bona’s alleged psychological incapacity, her sexual
infidelity and abandonment, can only be convincingly
traced to the period of time after her marriage to Jose
and not to the inception of the said marriage. Petition
is denied.
Yambao vs. REP
G.R. No. 184063, 640 SCRA
35, Jan. 24, 2011
FACTS:
• Cynthia and Patricio were married on December 21,
1968. On July 11, 2003, after 35 years of marriage,
She filed a Petition before the RTC Makati City,
praying that the marriage be declared null and void by
reason of Patricio’s psychological incapacity, pursuant
to Article 36 of the Family Code.
• In her petition before the RTC, petitioner narrated
that since the beginning their married life had been
marred by bickering, quarrels, and recrimination due
to the latter’s inability to comply with the essential
obligations of married life.
• On February 9, 2007, the RTC rendered a
decision dismissing the petition for lack of merit.
• The CA affirmed the decision of the RTC which
denied petitioner’s petition for the nullity of marriage
to respondent Patricio E. Yambao on the ground of
psychological incapacity.
ISSUE:
• Does the totality of petitioner’s evidence
establish respondent’s psychological incapacity
to perform the essential obligations of marriage?
RULING:
• No. 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. 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. Petition is denied