PFR Digests: Psychological Incapacity

Santos vs. Bedia-Santos Republic vs CA & Molina

240 SCRA 20 268 SCRA 198

FACTS: Leouel Santos, a First Lieutenant in the Philippine Army, met Julia in Iloilo. The two got FACTS:
married in 1986 before a municipal trial court followed shortly thereafter, by a church wedding. The
couple lived with Julia’s parents at the J. Bedia Compound. Julia gave birth to a baby boy in 1987 and The case at bar challenges the decision of CA affirming the marriage of the respondent Roridel Molina
was named as Leouel Santos Jr. Occasionally, the couple will quarrel over a number of things aside to Reynaldo Molina void in the ground of psychological incapacity. The couple got married in 1985,
from the interference of Julia’s parents into their family affairs. after a year, Reynaldo manifested signs of immaturity and irresponsibility both as husband and a father
Julia left in 1988 to work in US as a nurse despite Leouel’s pleas to dissuade her. Seven months after preferring to spend more time with friends whom he squandered his money, depends on his parents for
her departure, she called her husband and promised to return home upon the expiration of her contract aid and assistance and was never honest with his wife in regard to their finances. In 1986, the couple
in July 1989 but she never did. Leouel got a chance to visit US where he underwent a training program had an intense quarrel and as a result their relationship was estranged. Roridel quit her work and went
under AFP, he desperately tried to locate or somehow get in touch with Julia but all his efforts were of to live with her parents in Baguio City in 1987 and a few weeks later, Reynaldo left her and their child.
no avail. Since then he abandoned them.

Leouel filed a complaint to have their marriage declared void under Article 36 of the Family Code. He ISSUE: Whether or not the marriage is void on the ground of psychological incapacity.
argued 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. HELD:

ISSUE: Whether their marriage can be considered void under Article 36 of the Family Code. The marriage between Roridel and Reynaldo subsists and remains valid. What constitutes
psychological incapacity is not mere showing of irreconcilable differences and confliction
HELD: personalities. It is indispensable that the parties must exhibit inclinations which would not meet the
essential marital responsibilites and duties due to some psychological illness. Reynaldo’s action at the
The intendment of the law has been to confine the meaning of psychological incapacity to the most time of the marriage did not manifest such characteristics that would comprise grounds for
serious cases of personal disorders clearly demonstrative of an utter insensitivity or inability to give psychological incapacity. The evidence shown by Roridel merely showed that she and her husband
meaning and significance to the marriage. This condition must exist at the time the marriage is cannot get along with each other and had not shown gravity of the problem neither its juridical
celebrated. antecedence nor its incurability. In addition, the expert testimony by Dr Sison showed no incurable
psychiatric disorder but only incompatibility which is not considered as psychological incapacity.
Undeniably and understandably, Leouel stands aggrieved, even desperate, in his present situation.
Regrettably, neither law nor society itself can always provide all the specific answers to every The following are the guidelines as to the grounds of psychological incapacity laid set forth in this
individual problem. Wherefore, his petition was denied. case:
__________ • burden of proof to show nullity belongs to the plaintiff
Notes: • root causes of the incapacity must be medically and clinically inclined
Psychological incapacity must be characterized by (a) gravity, (b) juridical antecedence, and (c) • such incapacity should be in existence at the time of the marriage
incurability. The incapacity must be grave or serious such that the party would be incapable of carrying • such incapacity must be grave so as to disable the person in complying with the essentials of
out the ordinary duties required in marriage; it must be rooted in the history of the party antedating the marital obligations of marriage
marriage, although the overt manifestations may emerge only after the marriage; and it must be • such incapacity must be embraced in Art. 68-71 as well as Art 220, 221 and 225 of the
incurable or, even if it were otherwise, the cure would be beyond the means of the party involved. Family Code
decision of the National Matrimonial Appellate Court or the Catholic Church must be respected
court shall order the prosecuting attorney and the fiscal assigned to it to act on behalf of the state.
PFR Digests: Psychological Incapacity

Choa vs Choa Tsoi vs CA

392 SCRA 641 266 SCRA 641

FACTS: FACTS:

Leni Choa and Alfonso Choa got married in 1981. They have 2 children namely Cheryl Lynne and Chi Ming Tsoi and Gina Lao Tsoi was married in 1988. After the celebration of their wedding, they
Albryan. In 1993, Alfonso filed an annulment of his marriage to Leni. Afterwards, he filed an proceed to the house of defendant’s mother. There was no sexual intercourse between them during
amended complaint for the declaration of nullity of their marriage based on psychological incapacity. their first night and same thing happened until their fourth night. In an effort to have their honeymoon
The case went to trial and the trial court further held that Alfonso presented quantum evidence that Leni in a private place, they went to Baguio but Gina’s relatives went with them. Again, there was no sexual
needs to controvert for the dismissal of the case. intercourse since the defendant avoided by taking a long walk during siesta or sleeping on a rocking
chair at the living room. Since May 1988 until March 1989 they slept together in the same bed but no
Alfonso claimed that Leni charged him with perjury, concubinage and deportation which shows latter’s attempt of sexual intercourse between them. Because of this, they submitted themselves for medical
psychological incapacity because according to him it clearly showed that his wife not only wanted him examination to a urologist in Chinese General Hospital in 1989. The result of the physical examination
behind bars but also to banish outside the country. of Gina was disclosed, while that of the husband was kept confidential even the medicine prescribed.
There were allegations that the reason why Chi Ming Tsoi married her is to maintain his residency
ISSUE: Whether or not Alfonso Chua presented quantum evidence for the declaration of nullity of his status here in the country. Gina does not want to reconcile with Chi Ming Tsoi and want their marriage
marriage with Leni on the ground of psychological incapacity. declared void on the ground of psychological incapacity. On the other hand, the latter does not want to
have their marriage annulled because he loves her very much, he has no defect on his part and is
HELD: physically and psychologically capable and since their relationship is still young, they can still
overcome their differences. Chi Ming Tsoi submitted himself to another physical examination and the
The court held that documents presented by Alfonso during the trial of the case do not in any way show result was there is not evidence of impotency and he is capable of erection.
the alleged psychological incapacity of his wife. The evidence was insufficient and shows grave abuse
of discretion bordering on absurdity. Alfonso testified and complained about three aspects of Leni’s ISSUE: Whether Chi Ming Tsoi’s refusal to have sexual intercourse with his wife constitutes
personality namely lack of attention to children, immaturity, and lack of an intention of procreative psychological incapacity.
sexuality and none of these three, singly or collectively, constitutes psychological incapacity.
HELD:
Psychological incapacity must be characterized by gravity, juridical antecedence, and incurability. It
must be more than just a difficulty, a refusal or a neglect in the performance of marital obligations. A The abnormal reluctance or unwillingness to consummate his marriage is strongly indicative of a
mere showing of irreconcilable differences and conflicting personalities does not constitute serious personality disorder which to the mind of the Supreme Court clearly demonstrates an utter
psychological incapacity. insensitivity or inability to give meaning and significance tot the marriage within the meaning of
Article 36 of the Family Code.
Furthermore, the testimonial evidence from other witnesses failed to identify and prove root cause of
the alleged psychological incapacity. It just established that the spouses had an incompatibility or a If a spouse, although physically capable but simply refuses to perform his or her essential marital
defect that could possibly be treated or alleviated through psychotherapy. The totality of evidence obligations and the refusal is senseless and constant, Catholic marriage tribunals attribute the causes to
presented was completely insufficient to sustain a finding of psychological incapacity more so without psychological incapacity than to stubborn refusal. Furthermore, one of the essential marital obligations
any medical, psychiatric or psychological examination. under the Family Code is to procreate children thus constant non-fulfillment of this obligation will
finally destroy the integrity and wholeness of the marriage.
PFR Digests: Psychological Incapacity

Marcos vs Marcos Ngo Te vs Yu-Te

343 SCRA 755 579 SCRA 193

FACTS: FACTS: The parties’ whirlwind relationship lasted more or less six (6) months. They met in January
Wilson Marcos and Brenda Marcos first met sometime in 1980 when both of them were assigned at the 1996, eloped in March, exchanged marital vows in May, and parted ways in June. After almost four
Malacanang Palace, she as an escort of Imee Marcos and he as a Presidential Guard of President years, or on January 18, 2000, Edward filed a petition before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) Quezon
Ferdinand Marcos. They got married twice, first was on September 6, 1982 and on May 8, 1983 and City for the annulment of his marriage to Rowena on the basis of the latter’s psychological incapacity.
blessed with five children. After the downfall of President Marcos, he left the military service in 1987 The psychologist who provided expert testimony found both parties psychologically incapacitated.
and then engaged in different business ventures that did not succeeded. Due to his failure to engage in Petitioner’s behavioral pattern falls under the classification of dependent personality disorder, and the
any gainful employment, they would often quarrel and as a consequence, he would hit and beat her. He respondent’s, that of the narcissistic and antisocial personality disorder.
would also inflict physical harm on their children. In 1992, they were already living separately. On
October 16, 1994, when Brenda saw him in their house, she was so angry that she lambasted him. The trial court, on July 30, 2001, rendered its decision declaring the marriage of the parties null and
Wilson then turned violent, inflicting physical harm on her and even on her mother who came to her void on the ground that both parties were psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential
aid. On October 17, 1994, she and their children left the house and sought refuge in her sister’s house. marital obligations. On review, the appellate court reversed and set aside the trial’s court ruling. It ruled
On October 19, 1994, she submitted herself to medical examination at the Mandaluyong Medical that petitioner failed to prove the psychological incapacity of respondent, for the clinical psychologist
Center. Thus, petitioner filed for annulment of marriage in the RTC assailing Article 36 of the Family did not personally examine respondent, and relied only on the information provided by petitioner.
Code. The court ruled the respondent to be psychologically incapacitated to perform his marital Further, the psychological incapacity was not shown to be attended by gravity, juridical antecedence
obligations. But the Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the RTC because psychological and incurability. In sum, the evidence adduced fell short of the requirements stated in the Molina case
incapacity had not been established by the totality of the evidence presented. Hence, this appeal. needed for the declaration of nullity of the marriage under Art. 36 of the Family Code. Dissatisfied,
petitioner filed before the SC the instant petition for review on certiorari. He posited that the trial court
ISSUES: declared the marriage void, not only because of respondent’s psychological incapacity, but rather due to
Whether or not there is a need for personal medical examination of respondent to prove psychological both parties’ psychological incapacity. He also pointed out that there is no requirement for the
incapacity? Whether the totality of evidence presented in this case show psychological incapacity? psychologist to personally examine respondent.

HELD: ISSUE: Whether, based on Article 36 of the Family Code, the marriage between the parties is null and
The testimonies of petitioner, the common children, petitioner’s sister and the social worker were not void?
enough to sustain a finding that the respondent was psychologically incapacitated. Personal medical or
psychological examination of respondent is not a requirement for a declaration of psychological HELD: The petition for review for certiorari was granted. The decision of the CA was reversed and set
incapacity. Nevertheless, the totality of the evidence she presented does not show such incapacity. aside, and the decision of the trial court was reinstated. Both parties afflicted with grave, severe and
Although Supreme Court is convinced that respondent failed to provide material support to the family incurable psychological incapacity, the precipitous marriage is, thus, declared null and void. For the
and may have resorted to physical abuse and abandonment, the totality of these acts does not lead to a fulfillment of the obligations of marriage depends on the strength of this interpersonal relationship. A
conclusion of psychological incapacity on his part. There is absolutely no showing that his “defects” serious incapacity for interpersonal sharing and support is held to impair the relationship and
were already present at the inception of the marriage or that they are incurable. consequently, the ability to fulfill the essential marital obligations.

The root cause of the psychological incapacity must be (a) medically or clinically identified, (b) alleged
in the complaint, (c) sufficiently proven by experts and (d) clearly explained in the decision. Article 36
of the Family Code requires that the incapacity must be psychological – not physical, although its
manifestations and/or symptoms may be physical.

In dissolving the marital bonds on account of either party’s psychological incapacity, the Court is not
demolishing the foundation of families, but it is actually protecting the sanctity of marriage, because it
refuses to allow a person afflicted with a psychological disorder, who cannot comply with or assume
the essential marital obligations, from remaining that sacred bond. Let it be noted that in Art. 36, there
is no marriage to speak of in the first place, as the same is void from the very beginning.
PFR Digests: Psychological Incapacity

Aurelio vs Aurelio Mallilin vs Jamesolamin

650 SCRA 561 751 SCRA 1

FACTS: Facts:
Petitioner Danilo A. Aurelio and respondent Vida Ma. Corazon Aurelio were married on March 23, Robert and Luz were married on September 6, 1972. They begot three (3) children.
1988. On May 9, 2002, respondent filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, Branch On March 16, 1994, Robert filed a complaint for declaration of nullity of marriage before the RTC
94, a Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage. In her petition, respondent alleged that both she On March 7, 1996, RTC denied the petition January 29, 1999, the CA reversed the RTC decision "due
and petitioner were psychologically incapacitated of performing and complying with their respective to lack of participation of the State as required under Article 48 of the Family Code."
essential marital obligations. In addition, respondent alleged that such state of psychological incapacity
was present prior and even during the time of the marriage ceremony. Hence, respondent prays that her In the complaint, Robert alleged that at the time of the celebration of their marriage, Luz was suffering
marriage be declared null and void under Article 36 of the Family Code. It alleged among others that from psychological and mental incapacity and unpreparedness to enter into such marital life and to
said psychological incapacity was manifested by lack of financial support from the husband; his lack of comply with its essential obligations and responsibilities. Such incapacity became even more apparent
drive and incapacity to discern the plight of his working wife. The husband exhibited consistent during their marriage when Luz exhibited clear manifestation of immaturity, irresponsibility, deficiency
jealousy and distrust towards his wife. His moods alternated between hostile defiance and contrition. of independent rational judgment, and inability to cope with the heavy and oftentimes demanding
He refused to assist in the maintenance of the family. obligation of a parent.

On the side of the wife on the other hand, is effusive and displays her feelings openly and freely. Her Luz filed her Answer with Counterclaim contesting the complaint. She averred that it was Robert who
feelings change very quickly – from joy to fury to misery to despair, depending on her day-to-day manifested psychological incapacity in their marriage. Despite due notice, however, she did not appear
experiences. Her tolerance for boredom was very low. She was emotionally immature; she cannot stand during the trial.
frustration or disappointment. She cannot delay to gratify her needs. She gets upset when she cannot
get what she wants. Self-indulgence lifts her spirits immensely. Their hostility towards each other When Robert testified, he disclosed that Luz was already living in California, USA, and had married an
distorted their relationship. Their incapacity to accept and fulfill the essential obligations of marital life American. He also revealed that when they were still engaged, Luz continued seeing and dating another
led to the breakdown of their marriage. boyfriend, a certain Lt. Liwag. He also claimed that from the outset, Luz had been remiss in her duties
both as a wife and as a mother as shown by the following circumstances: (1) it was he who did the
On November 8, 2002, petitioner filed a Motion to Dismiss the petition. Petitioner principally argued cleaning of the room because Luz did not know how to keep order; (2)it was her mother who prepared
that the petition failed to state a cause of action and that it failed to meet the standards set by the Court their meal while her sister was the one who washed their clothes because she did not want her polished
for the interpretation and implementation of Article 36 of the Family Code. RTC denied the petition. nails destroyed; (3)it was also her sister who took care of their children while she spent her time
CA affirmed. sleeping and looking at the mirror; (4) when she resumed her schooling, she dated different men; (5) he
received anonymous letters reporting her loitering with male students; (6) when he was not home, she
ISSUE: Whether or not the marriage shall be declared null and void? would receive male visitors; (7) a certain Romy Padua slept in their house when he was away; and (6)
she would contract loans without his knowledge.
HELD: Petition denied. Marriage is null and void.
In addition, Robert presented the testimony of Myrna Delos Reyes Villanueva (Villanueva), Guidance
RATIO: Psychologist.
First, contrary to petitioner’s assertion, this Court finds that the root cause of psychological incapacity
was stated and alleged in the complaint. We agree with the manifestation of respondent that the family On May 8, 2000, while the case was pending before the trial court, Robert filed a petition for marriage
backgrounds of both petitioner and respondent were discussed in the complaint as the root causes of annulment with the Metropolitan Tribunal of First Instance for the Archdiocese of Manila.
their psychological incapacity. Moreover, a competent and expert psychologist clinically identified the
same as the root causes. On October 10, 2002, the Metropolitan Tribunal handed down a decision declaring their marriage
invalid ab initio on the ground of grave lack of due discretion on the part of both parties as
Second, the petition likewise alleged that the illness of both parties was of such grave a nature as to contemplated by the second paragraph of Canon 1095. This decision was... affirmed by the National
bring about a disability for them to assume the essential obligations of marriage. The psychologist Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal
reported that respondent suffers from Histrionic Personality Disorder with Narcissistic Features.
Petitioner, on the other hand, allegedly suffers from Passive Aggressive (Negativistic) Personality Prior to that on September 20, 2002, the RTC had rendered a decision declaring the marriage null and
Disorder. The incapacity of both parties to perform their marital obligations was alleged to be grave, void on the ground of psychological incapacity on the part of Luz as she failed to comply with the
incorrigible and incurable. essential marital obligations.

Lastly, this Court also finds that the essential marital obligations that were not complied with were The State, represented by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), interposed an appeal with the CA.
alleged in the petition. As can be easily gleaned from the totality of the petition, respondent’s
allegations fall under Article 68 of the Family Code which states that “the husband and the wife are The CA granted the petition and reversed the RTC decision.
obliged to live together, observe mutual love, respect and fidelity, and render mutual help and support.”
PFR Digests: Psychological Incapacity

Robert filed a motion for reconsideration, but it was denied by the CA Guided by these pronouncements, the Court is of the considered view that Robert's evidence failed to
establish the psychological incapacity of Luz.
Issues:
First, the testimony of Robert failed to overcome the burden of proof to show the nullity of the
whether the totality of the evidence adduced proves that Luzwas psychologically incapacitated to marriage. Other than his self-serving testimony, no other evidence was adduced to show the alleged
comply with the essential obligations of marriage warranting the annulment of their marriage under incapacity of Luz.
Article 36 of the Family Code.
Second, the root cause of the alleged psychological incapacity of Luz was not medically or clinically
Ruling: identified, and sufficiently proven during the trial.

"Psychological incapacity," as a ground to nullify a marriage under Article 36of the Family Code, As correctly found by the CA, sexual infidelity or perversion and abandonment do not, by themselves,
should refer to no less than a mental not merely physical incapacity that causes a party to be truly constitute grounds for declaring a marriage void based on psychological incapacity.
incognitive of the basic marital covenants that concomitantly must be assumed... and discharged by the
parties to the marriage which, as so expressed in Article 68of the Family Code, among others, include Third, the psychological report of Villanueva, Guidance Psychologist II of the Northern Mindanao
their mutual obligations to live together; observe love, respect and fidelity; and render help and Medical Center, Cagayan de Oro City, was insufficient to prove the psychological incapacity of Luz.
support. There is hardly a doubt that the intendment of... the law has been to confine the meaning of
"psychological incapacity" to the most serious cases of personality disorders clearly demonstrative of Fourth, the decision of the Metropolitan Tribunal is insufficient to prove the psychological incapacity
an utter insensitivity or inability to give meaning and significance to the marriage.[7] of Luz. Although it is true that in the case of Republic v. Court of Appeals and Molina,[14] the Court
stated that interpretations given by... the NAMT of the Catholic Church in the Philippines, while not
Psychological incapacity as required by Article 36 must be characterized by (a) gravity, (b) juridical controlling or decisive, should be given great respect by our courts, still it is subject to the law on
antecedence and (c) incurability. evidence.

In Republic v. Court of Appeals and Eduardo C. De Quintos, Jr.,[9]the Court reiterated the well-settled In fine, the Court holds that the CA decided correctly. Petitioner Robert failed to adduce sufficient and
guidelines in resolving petitions for declaration of nullity of marriage, embodied in Republic v. Court convincing evidence to prove the alleged psychological incapacity of Luz.
of Appeals and Molina,[10] based on Article 36 of the Family Code.Thus:
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED.
(1) The burden of proof to show the nullity of the marriage belongs to the plaintiff. Any doubt should
be resolved in favor of the existence and continuation of the marriage and against its dissolution and
nullity.

(2) The root cause of the psychological incapacity must be (a) medically or clinically identified, (b)
alleged in the complaint, (c) sufficiently proven by experts and (d) clearly explained in the decision.
Article 36 of the Family Code requires that the incapacity must be... psychological not physical,
although its manifestations and/or symptoms may be physical.

(3) The incapacity must be proven to be existing at "the time of the celebration" of the marriage.

(5) Such illness must be grave enough to bring about the disability of the party to assume the essential
obligations of marriage. Thus, "mild characteriological peculiarities, mood changes, occasional
emotional outbursts" cannot be accepted as root causes.

The essential marital obligations must be those embraced by Articles 68 up to 71 of the Family Code as
regards the husband and wife as well as Articles 220, 221 and 225 of the same Code in regard to
parents and their children.

Interpretations given by the National Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal of the Catholic Church in the
Philippines, while not controlling or decisive, should be given great respect by our courts.

The trial court must order the prosecuting attorney or fiscal and the Solicitor General to appear as
counsel for the state