PSYCHOLOGICAL INCAPACITY

The elements of Psychological incapacity are: RULING:

The prolonged and contanst reluctance or unwillingness to consummate his marriage is
(a) Grave – It must be grave or serious such that the party would be incapable of carrying out the strongly indicative of a serious personality disorder which to the mind of the Supreme Court clearly
ordinary duties required in a marriage; demonstrates an utter insensitivity or inability to give meaning and significance to the marriage within
the meaning of Article 36 of the Family Code.
(b) Juridical Antecedence – It must be rooted in the history of the party antedating the marriage, If a spouse, although physically capable but simply refuses to perform his or her essential
although the overt manifestations may emerge only after the marriage; and marital obligations and the refusal is senseless and constant, Catholic marriage tribunals attribute the
causes to psychological incapacity than to stubborn refusal. Furthermore, one of the essential marital
(c) Incurable and Permanent – It must be incurable or, even if it were otherwise, the cure would be obligations under the Family Code is to procreate children thus constant non-fulfillment of this
beyond the means of the party involved. obligation will finally destroy the integrity and wholeness of the marriage.
Love is useless unless it is shared with another. Indeed, no man is an island, the cruelest act
of a partner in marriage is to say “I could not have cared less.” This is so because an ungiven self is an
1. CHI MING TSOI VS CA unfulfilled self. The egoist has nothing but himself. In the natural order, it is sexual intimacy that brings
spouses wholeness and oneness. Sexual intimacy is a gift and a participation in the mystery of creation.
FACTS: It is a function which enlivens the hope of procreation and ensures the continuation of family relations.
Chi Ming Tsoi and Gina Lao Tsoi was married in 1988. After the celebration of their wedding,
they proceed to the house of defendant’s mother. There was no sexual intercourse between them
during their first night and same thing happened until their fourth night. In an effort to have their 2. SANTOS V. CA
honeymoon in a private place, they went to Baguio but Gina’s relatives went with them. Again, there
was no sexual intercourse since the defendant avoided by taking a long walk during siesta or sleeping Facts:
on a rocking chair at the living room. Since May 1988 until March 1989 they slept together in the same Leouel Santos is a member of the Army who met Julia in Ilioilo City. On September 20, 1986,
bed but no attempt of sexual intercourse between them. the two exchange vows before the RTC of Iloilo, which was shortly followed by a church wedding.
Because of this, they submitted themselves for medical examination to a urologist in Chinese Sometime in 1988, Julia decided to leave for US to work as a nurse, despite the pleas to
General Hospital in 1989. The result of the physical examination of Gina was disclosed, while that of dissuade her otherwise. Seven months have passed since her leaving for US before Julia made her first
the husband was kept confidential even the medicine prescribed. There were allegations that the call to Santos promising that she will return home after the expiration of her contract. However, Julia
reason why Chi Ming Tsoi married her is to maintain his residency status here in the country. Gina does did not make good of her promise despite Santos even going over to US in one of his trips under the
not want to reconcile with Chi Ming Tsoi and want their marriage declared void on the ground of auspices of the Philippine Army to persuade Julia to come back to the Philippines.
psychological incapacity. On the other hand, the latter does not want to have their marriage annulled Julia’s persistent refusal to return home and her alleged failure to communicate with Santos
because he loves her very much, he has no defect on his part and is physically and psychologically for a period of five years have prompted the latter to file an annulment case stating as a ground the
capable and since their relationship is still young, they can still overcome their differences. Chi Ming psychological incapacity of Julia under Article 36 of the Family Code. According to Santos, a wife who
Tsoi submitted himself to another physical examination and the result was there is not evidence of does not care to inform her husband of her whereabouts for five years and does not communicate with
impotency and he is capable of erection. him is psychologically incapacitated.

ISSUE: Issue:
Whether Chi Ming Tsoi’s refusal to have sexual intercourse with his wife constitutes psychological Whether or not Julia was psychologically incapacitated to warrant the annulment of her marriage with
incapacity. Santos 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 personalities.
Ruling: It is indispensable that the parties must exhibit inclinations which would not meet the essential marital
No. In the words of the Supreme Court, “psychological incapacity” should refer to no less than responsibilities and duties due to some psychological illness. Reynaldo’s action at the time of the
a mental (not physical) incapacity that causes a party to be truly incognitive of the basic marital marriage did not manifest such characteristics that would comprise grounds for psychological
covenants that concomitantly must be assumed and discharged by the parties to the marriage which, incapacity. The evidence shown by Roridel merely showed that she and her husband cannot get along
as so expressed by Article 68 of the Family Code, include their mutual obligations to live together, with each other and had not shown gravity of the problem neither its juridical antecedence nor its
observe love, respect and fidelity and render help and support. incurability. In addition, the expert testimony by Dr Sison showed no incurable psychiatric disorder but
There is hardly any doubt that the intendment of the law has been to confine the meaning of only incompatibility which is not considered as psychological incapacity.
“psychological incapacity” to the most serious cases of personality disorders clearly demonstrative of The following are the guidelines as to the grounds of psychological incapacity laid set forth in
an utter insensitivity or inability to give meaning and significance to the marriage. This psychologic this case:
condition must exist at the time the marriage is celebrated. • burden of proof to show nullity belongs to the plaintiff
Accordingly, the factual setting of the case at bench had in no way measure at all, to the • root causes of the incapacity must be medically and clinically inclined
standards required to decree the marriage as null and void. While the court recognizes that Santos is • such incapacity should be in existence at the time of the marriage
undeniably aggrieved, even desperate in his current condition, regrettably, however, neither law nor • such incapacity must be grave so as to disable the person in complying with the essentials of
society itself can have all the answers to every individual problem. marital obligations of marriage
• such incapacity must be embraced in Art. 68-71 as well as Art 220, 221 and 225 of the Family
Code
• decision of the National Matrimonial Appellate Court or the Catholic Church must be
3. REPUBLIC VS CA AND MOLINA respected
• court shall order the prosecuting attorney and the fiscal assigned to it to act on behalf of the
FACTS: state.

The case at bar challenges the decision of CA affirming the marriage of the respondent Roridel Molina
to Reynaldo Molina void in the ground of psychological incapacity. The couple got married in 1985, 4. LUCITA E. HERNANDEZ VS. CA AND MARIO HERNANDEZ
after a year, Reynaldo manifested signs of immaturity and irresponsibility both as husband and a father
preferring to spend more time with friends whom he squandered his money, depends on his parents
Facts:
for aid and assistance and was never honest with his wife in regard to their finances. In 1986, the
On 1 January 1981, Lucita Estrella married Mario Hernandez, and they begot three children.
couple had an intense quarrel and as a result their relationship was estranged. Roridel quit her work
On 10 July 1992, Lucita filed a petition for annulment of marriage under Article36 of the Family Code.
and went to live with her parents in Baguio City in 1987 and a few weeks later, Reynaldo left her and
She alleged that from the time of their marriage, Mario failed to perform his obligations to support the
their child. Since then he abandoned them.
family, devoting most of his time drinking, had affairs with many women, and cohabiting with another
woman with whom he had an illegitimate child, and finally abandoning her and the family. The
ISSUE:
RTCTagaytay City dismissed the petition which was affirmed by the CA.
Whether or not the marriage is void on the ground of psychological incapacity.
Issue:
RULING:
Whether or not Mario’s habitual alcoholism, sexual infidelity/perversion and family abandonment
constitute psychological
incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code. watched with eagle eyes. He also denied that he gambled. He alleged that even without a steady source
of income, he still shared in the payment of the amortization of their house in BF Homes, Parañaque
Ruling: City. He also denied that he threatened to kill petitioner, considering that there was never any evidence
No. The Supreme Court ruled that the aforementioned acts do not by themselves constitute grounds that he had ever harmed or inflicted physical injury on petitioner to justify the latter having a nervous
for psychological incapacity within the contemplation of the Family Code. It must be shown that these breakdown. He further alleged that he never consulted any psychiatrist, and denied that he was
acts are manifestations of a disordered personality which make Mario completely unable to discharge psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential obligations of marriage.
his essential marital obligations, and not merely due to his youth and self-conscious feelings of being RTC dismissed the petition for lack of merit holding that petitioner wife’s evidence failed to
handsome. support her argument that respondent husband was indeed psychologically incapacitated to fulfill his
marital obligations.
• The RTC concluded that while respondent might have been deficient in providing financial
support, his presence, companionship, and love allowed petitioner to accomplish many things. Thus,
5. YAMBAO V. REPUBLIC AND YAMBAO respondent could be relied on for love, fidelity, and moral support, which are obligations expected of
a spouse under Article 68 of the Family Code.
FACTS:
Petitioner Cynthia Yambao (hereinafter petitioner wife) filed a Petition for Declaration of On appeal, the CA affirmed the decision of the RTC. It held that:
Nullity of her marriage with respondent Patricio Yambao (hereinafter respondent husband) after 35
years of marriage. She invoked the ground of psychological incapacity pursuant to Article 36 of the
Family Code. ISSUE:
Petitioner wife alleged that since the beginning, her marriage with the respondent husband WON the totality of petitioner wife’s evidence establish respondent’s psychological incapacity to
had been marred by bickering, quarrels, and recrimination due to the latter’s inability to comply with perform the essential obligations of marriage?
the essential obligations to married life. She elaborated by saying that through all the years of their
married life, she was the only one who earned a living and took care of the children and that respondent RULING:
husband just ate and slept all day and would spend time with friends. In addition, she claimed that No.In Santos v. Court of Appeals, the Court held that psychological incapacity must be
respondent husband would venture into several businesses but all of these failed. Respondent husband characterized by (a) gravity (b) juridical antecedence, and (c) incurability. These guidelines do not
was also a gambler. Petitioner wife also claimed that, when their children were babies, respondent did require that a physician examine the person to be declared psychologically incapacitated. In fact, the
not even help to change their diapers or feed them, even while petitioner was recovering from her root cause may be “medically or clinically identified.” What is important is the presence of evidence
caesarean operation, proffering the excuse that he knew nothing about children. Later, respondent that can adequately establish the party’s psychological condition.
husband became insecure and jealous and would get mad every time he would see petitioner talking The intendment of the law has been to confine the application of Article 36 to the most serious
to other people, even to her relatives. When respondent husband started threatening to kill petitioner, cases of personality disorders clearly demonstrative of an utter insensitivity or inability to give meaning
she decided to leave the conjugal abode and live separately from him. She then consulted a psychiatrist and significance to the marriage. Thus, for a marriage to be annulled under Article 36 of the Family
who concluded that respondent was indeed psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential Code, the psychologically incapacitated spouse must be shown to suffer no less than a mental (not
marital obligations. physical) incapacity that causes him or her to be truly incognitive of the basic marital covenants. It is a
Respondent husband denied that he has refused to work. He claimed that he had been trying malady so grave and so permanent as to deprive one of awareness of the duties and responsibilities of
to find a decent job, but was always unable to because of his old age and lack of qualifications. He also the matrimonial bond one is about to assume.
claimed that he did not stay long in the jobs he had because the same could not support the needs of In this case, there is no showing that respondent was suffering from a psychological condition
his family, and yielded benefits that were not commensurate to the efforts he exerted. He had ventured so severe that he was unaware of his obligations to his wife and family. On the contrary, respondent’s
into small businesses but they failed due to various economic crises. Respondent further claimed that efforts, though few and far between they may be, showed an understanding of his duty to provide for
he was not, in fact, contented with living with petitioner’s relatives since his every move was being his family, albeit he did not meet with much success. 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 6. Natividad informed the court that she submitted herself for psychiatric examination to Dr. Zalsos in
respondent, in showing an awareness to provide for his family, even with his many failings, does not response to Rodolfo’s claims. Rodolfo also underwent the same examination.
suffer from psychological incapacity. 7. In her two-page psychiatric evaluation report, Dr. Zalsos stated that both Rodolfo and Natividad were
Article 36 contemplates incapacity or inability to take cognizance of and to assume basic psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential marital obligations, finding that both parties
marital obligations and not merely difficulty, refusal, or neglect in the performance of marital suffered from “utter emotional immaturity [which] is unusual and unacceptable behavior considered
obligations or ill will. This incapacity consists of the following: (a) a true inability to commit oneself to [as] deviant from persons who abide by established norms of conduct.”
the essentials of marriage; (b) this inability to commit oneself must refer to the essential obligations of
marriage: the conjugal act, the community of life and love, the rendering of mutual help, the 8. The Office of the Solicitor General, representing petitioner Republic, filed an opposition to the
procreation and education of offspring; and (c) the inability must be tantamount to a psychological complaint, contending that the acts committed by Natividad did not demonstrate psychological
abnormality. It is not enough to prove that a spouse failed to meet his responsibility and duty as a incapacity as contemplated by law, but are mere grounds for legal separation under the Family Code.
married person; it is essential that he must be shown to be incapable of doing so due to some 9. The RTC declared the marriage between Rodolfo and Natividad void on the ground of psychological
psychological illness. incapacity, relying on the findings and testimony of Dr. Zalsos.
That respondent, according to petitioner, “lack[ed] effective sense of rational judgment and 10. The Republic appealed to the CA. The CA affirmed the ruling of the RTC.
responsibility” does not mean he is incapable to meet his marital obligations. His refusal to help care
for the children, his neglect for his business ventures, and his alleged unbearable jealousy may indicate ISSUE:
some emotional turmoil or mental difficulty, but none have been shown to amount to a psychological
abnormality. Moreover, even assuming that respondent’s faults amount to psychological incapacity, it Whether or not the CA erred in sustaining the RTC’s finding of psychological incapacity.
has not been established that the same existed at the time of the celebration of the marriage.
Furthermore, as found by both RTC and CA, respondent never committed infidelity or RULING:
physically abused petitioner or their children. In fact, considering that the children lived with both The petition is meritorious.
parents, it is safe to assume that both made an impact in the children’s upbringing. Still, the parties “Psychological incapacity,” as a ground to nullify a marriage under Article 36 of the Family
were able to raise three children into adulthood “without any major parenting problems,” and such Code, should refer to no less than a mental not merely physical incapacity that causes a party to be
fact could hardly support a proposition that the parties’ marriage is a nullity. truly 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 68 of the Family Code, among others,
include their mutual obligations to live together, observe love, respect and fidelity and render help and
support. There is hardly any doubt that the intendment of the law has been to confine the meaning of
6. REPUBLIC v. DE GRACIA “psychological incapacity” to the most serious cases of personality disorders clearly demonstrative of
an utter insensitivity or inability to give meaning and significance to the marriage.
FACTS: The psychiatric evaluation of Dr. Zalsos did not explain in reasonable detail how Natividad’s
1. Rodolfo met Natividad when they were high school students, and he was forced to marry her barely condition could be characterized as grave, deeply–rooted, and incurable within the parameters of
three months into their courtship in light of her accidental pregnancy. Rodolfo and Natividad have two psychological incapacity jurisprudence. Aside from failing to disclose the types of psychological tests
children. which she administered on Natividad, Dr. Zalsos failed to identify in her report the root cause of
2. When Rodolfo decided to join and train with the army, Natividad left their conjugal home and sold Natividad’s condition and to show that it existed at the time of the parties’ marriage. Neither was the
their house without his consent. gravity or seriousness of Natividad’s behavior in relation to her failure to perform the essential marital
3. Natividad moved to Dipolog City where she lived with another man and bore him a child. obligations sufficiently described in Dr. Zalsos’s report.
4. Natividad later contracted a second marriage with another man named and lived with him since. Further, the finding contained therein on the incurability of Natividad’s condition remains
5. Rodolfo filed a complaint for declaration of nullity of marriage before the RTC, alleging that Natividad unsupported by any factual or scientific basis and, hence, appears to be drawn out as a bare conclusion
was psychologically incapacitated to comply with her essential marital obligations. and even self –serving.
 Although expert opinions furnished by psychologists regarding the psychological present time. Such incapacity was conclusively found in the psychological examination conducted on
temperament of parties are usually given considerable weight by the courts, the existence of the relationship between the petitioner and the Respondent.
psychological incapacity must still be proven by independent evidence. 8. Under Article 36 of the Family Code, the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent is void
ab initio and needs to be annulled. This petition is in accordance with Article 39 thereof.

The second petition states the ultimate facts on which respondent bases his claim in
accordance with Section 1, Rule 8 of the old Rules of Court. Ultimate facts refer to the principal,
7. Barcelona v. Court of Appeals determinative, constitutive facts upon the existence of which the cause of action rests. The term does
not refer to details of probative matter or particulars of evidence which establish the material
The petition alleged that respondent Tadeo and petitioner Diana were legally married at the elements.
Holy Cross Parish after a whirlwind courtship as shown by the marriage contract attached to the Petitioner Diana relies mainly on the rulings in Santos v. Court of Appeals as well as in Republic v. Court
petition. The couple established their residence in Quezon City. The union begot five children. The of Appeals and Molina. Santos gave life to the phrase "psychological incapacity," a novel provision in
petition further alleged that petitioner Diana was psychologically incapacitated at the time of the the Family Code, by defining the term in this wise:
celebration of their marriage to comply with the essential obligations of marriage and such incapacity . . . "psychological incapacity" should refer to no less than mental (not physical) incapacity that causes
subsists up to the present time. The petition alleged the non-complied marital obligations in this a party to be truly incognitive of the basic marital covenants that concomitantly must be assumed and
manner: discharged by the parties to the marriage which, as so expressed by Article 68 of the Family Code,
include their mutual obligations to live together, observe love, respect and fidelity and render help and
1. During their marriage, they had frequent quarrels due to their varied upbringing. Respondent, support. There is hardly any doubt that the intendment of the law has been to confine the meaning of
coming from a rich family, was a disorganized housekeeper and was frequently out of the house. She "psychological incapacity" to the most serious cases of personality disorders clearly demonstrative of
would go to her sister’s house or would play tennis the whole day. an utter insensitivity or inability to give meaning and significance to the marriage. This psychologic
2. When the family had crisis due to several miscarriages suffered by respondent and the sickness of a condition must exist at the time the marriage is celebrated.
child, respondent withdrew to herself and eventually refused to speak to her husband.
3. On November 1977, TADEO , who was five months pregnant with Cristina Maria and on the pretext Molina additionally provided procedural guidelines to assist the courts and the parties in cases for
of re-evaluating his feelings with Diana, requested the latter to temporarily leave their conjugal annulment of marriages grounded on psychological incapacity.
dwelling. He further insisted that he wanted to feel a little freedom from Diana’s marital authority and
influences. Diana argued that she could occupy another room in their conjugal dwelling to Petitioner Diana argues that the second petition falls short of the guidelines set forth in Santos and
accommodate Tadeo’s desire, but no amount of plea and explanation could dissuade him from Molina. Specifically, she contends that the second petition is defective because it fails to allege the root
demanding that the Diana leave their conjugal dwelling. cause of the alleged psychological incapacity. The second petition also fails to state that the alleged
4. In his desire to keep peace in the family and to safeguard the respondent’s pregnancy, the petitioner psychological incapacity existed from the celebration of the marriage and that it is permanent or
was compelled to leave their conjugal dwelling and reside in a condominium located in Greenhills. incurable. Further, the second petition is devoid of any reference of the grave nature of the illness to
5. This separation resulted in complete estrangement between the petitioner and the Respondent. The bring about the disability of the petitioner to assume the essential obligations of marriage. Lastly, the
petitioner waived his right to the conjugal dwelling in respondent’s favor through an extrajudicial second petition did not even state the marital obligations which petitioner Diana allegedly failed to
dissolution of their conjugal partnership of gains. The separation in fact between the petitioner and comply due to psychological incapacity.
the respondent still subsists to the present time.
6. The parties likewise agreed on the custody and support of the children. The extrajudicial dissolution Subsequent to Santos and Molina, the Court adopted the new Rules on Declaration of Absolute Nullity
of conjugal partnership of gains is hereto attached as Annex "C" and taken as an integral part hereof. of Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages ("new Rules"). Specifically, Section 2,
7. The respondent at the time of the celebration of their marriage was psychologically incapacitated to paragraph (d) of the new Rules provides:
comply with the essential obligation of marriage and such incapacity subsisted up to and until the
SEC. 2. Petition for declaration of absolute nullity of void marriages — several times but never respondent. In 1991, she learned from her friend that Toshio visited the
country but did not bother to see her nor their child.
(d) What to allege. —A petition under Article 36 of the Family Code shall specifically allege the complete Toshio was no longer residing at his given address thus summons issued to him remained
facts showing that either or both parties were psychologically incapacitated from complying with the unserved. Consequently, in 1996, Lolita filed an ex parte motion for leave to effect service of summons
essential marital obligations of marriage at the time of the celebration of marriage even if such by publication. The motion was granted and the summons, accompanied by a copy of the petition, was
incapacity becomes manifest only after its celebration. published in a newspaper of general circulation giving Toshio 15 days to file his answer. Toshio filed to
respond after the lapse of 60 days from publication, thus, Lolita filed a motion to refer the case to the
The complete facts should allege the physical manifestations, if any, as are indicative of psychological prosecutor for investigation.
incapacity at the time of the celebration of the marriage but expert opinion need not be alleged.
(Emphasis supplied) ISSUE: Whether Toshio was psychologically incapacitated to perform his marital obligation.

Procedural rules apply to actions pending and unresolved at the time of their passage. The obvious HELD:
effect of the new Rules providing that "expert opinion need not be alleged" in the petition is that there The Court is mindful of the 1987 Constitution to protect and strengthen the family as basic
is also no need to allege the root cause of the psychological incapacity. Only experts in the fields of autonomous social institution and marriage as the foundation of the family. Thus, any doubt should
neurological and behavioral sciences are competent to determine the root cause of psychological be resolved in favor of the validity of the marriage.
incapacity. Since the new Rules do not require the petition to allege expert opinion on the psychological Toshio’s act of abandonment was doubtlessly irresponsible but it was never alleged nor
incapacity, it follows that there is also no need to allege in the petition the root cause of the proven to be due to some kind of psychological illness. Although as rule, actual medical examinations
psychological incapacity. are not needed, it would have greatly helped Lolita had she presented evidence that medically or
clinically identified Toshio’s illness. This could have been done through an expert witness. It is essential
Science continues to explore, examine and explain how our brains work, respond to and control the that a person show incapability of doing marital obligation due to some psychological, not physical
human body. Scientists still do not understand everything there is to know about the root causes of illness. Hence, Toshio was not considered as psychologically incapacitated.
psychological disorders. The root causes of many psychological disorders are still unknown to science Mere abandonment by Toshio of his family and his insensitivity to them did not automatically
even as their outward, physical manifestations are evident. Hence, what the new Rules require the constitute psychological incapacity. His behavior merely indicated simple inadequacy in the personality
petition to allege are the physical manifestations indicative of psychological incapacity. Respondent of a spouse falling short of reasonable expectations. Respondent failed to prove any severe and
Tadeo’s second petition complies with this requirement. incurable personality disorder on the part of Toshio, in accordance with the guidelines set in Molina.

8. REPUBLIC VS QUINTERO-HAMANO 9. Tongol v. Tongol

FACTS: FACTS:
Lolita Quintero-Hamano filed a complaint in 1996 for declaration of nullity of her marriage
with Toshio Hamano, a Japanese national, on the ground of psychological incapacity. She and Toshio Orlando G. Tongol and Filipinas M. Tongol were married on August 27, 1967. Out of their union, they
started a common-law relationship in Japan and lived in the Philippines for a month. Thereafter, Toshio begot four children, namely: Crisanto, Olivia, Frederick, and Ma. Cecilia. On May 13, 1994, Orlando and
went back to Japan and stayed there for half of 1987. Lolita then gave birth on November 16, 1987. Filipinas filed a petition for dissolution of their conjugal partnership of gains, which was granted in a
In 1988, Lolita and Toshio got married in MTC-Bacoor, Cavite. After a month of their marriage, Judgment issued by the RTC of Makati City, Branch 143 on April 24, 1995.
Toshio returned to Japan and promised to return by Christmas to celebrate the holidays with his family.
Toshio sent money for two months and after that he stopped giving financial support. She wrote him
On August 19, 1996, Orlando filed before the RTC of Makati City a verified petition for the declaration Dr. Villegas also failed to fully and satisfactorily explain if the personality disorder of respondent is grave
of nullity of his marriage with Filipinas on the ground that the latter is psychologically incapacitated to enough to bring about her disability to assume the essential obligations of marriage. There is no
comply with her essential marital obligations. Orlando alleged that Filipinas was unable to perform her evidence that such incapacity is incurable. Neither in her written evaluation nor in her testimony did
duty as a wife because of Filipinas unbearable attitude that will lead to their constant quarrel. In her Dr. Villegas categorically and conclusively characterizes respondent’s inadequate personality disorder
answer with Counter-Petition, Filipinas admitted that efforts at reconciliation have been fruitless and as permanent or incurable.
that their marriage is a failure. However, she claims that their marriage failed because it is Orlando`s
insufficiency to fulfill his obligation as married man. Both parties underwent a psychological exam The psychological incapacity considered under Article 36 of the Family Code is not meant to
which proved that the respondent Filipinas Tongol has a psychological insufficiency. comprehend all possible cases of psychoses. The fourth guideline in Molina requires that the
psychological incapacity as understood under Article 36 of the Family Code must be relevant to the
Evidence for Orlando consisted of his own testimony, that of his sister, Angelina Tongol, and of Annaliza assumption of marriage obligations, not necessarily to those not related to marriage, like the exercise
Guevara, an employee in the pharmaceutical company owned by the spouses Tongol. Orlando also of a profession or employment in a job. In the present case, the testimonies of petitioner and
presented Dr. Cecilia Villegas, a psychiatrist who conducted a psychological examination of both respondent as well as the other witnesses regarding the spouses’ differences and misunderstanding
parties. Orlando submitted documents evidencing their marriage, the birth of their four children, the basically revolve around and are limited to their disagreement regarding the management of their
RTC decision granting the petition for dissolution of their conjugal partnership of gains, and the written business. A mere showing of irreconcilable differences and conflicting personalities in no wise
evaluation of Dr. Villegas regarding the spouses’ psychological examination. On the other hand, record constitutes psychological incapacity. In addition, it is true that the marital obligations of a husband and
shows that evidence for Filipinas only consisted of her own testimony. wife enumerated under the Family Code include the mutual responsibility of the spouses to manage
the household and provide support for the family, which means that compliance with this obligation
On June 30, 1999, the RTC of Makati City, Branch 149, rendered a Decision dismissing the petition on necessarily entails the management of the income and expenses of the household. While
appeal, the CA affirmed, in toto, the Decision of the RTC. Hence, herein petition. disagreements on money matters would, no doubt, affect the other aspects of one’s marriage as to
make the wedlock unsatisfactory, this is not a sufficient ground to declare a marriage null and void.
ISSUE:
Marital obligation includes not only a spouse’s obligation to the other spouse but also one’s obligation
Whether or not the totality of the evidence presented in the present case is enough to sustain a finding toward their children. In the present case, no evidence was presented to show that respondent had
that herein respondent is psychologically incapacitated to comply with her essential marital been remiss in performing her obligations toward their children as enumerated in Article 220 of the
obligations. Family Code.

RULING:

The Court cannot see how respondent’s personality disorder would render her unaware of the essential 10. MARCOS V. MARCOS
marital obligations, or to borrow the terms used in Santos Case, “to be truly in cognitive of the basic
marital covenants that concomitantly must be assumed and discharged by the parties to the marriage.” FACTS:
What has been established in the instant case is that, by reason of her feelings of inadequacy and Wilson Marcos and Brenda Marcos first met sometime in 1980 when both of them were
rejection, respondent not only encounters a lot of difficulty but even refuses to assume some of her assigned at the Malacanang Palace, she as an escort of Imee Marcos and he as a Presidential Guard of
obligations towards her husband, such as respect, help and support for him. However, this Court has President Ferdinand Marcos. They got married twice, first was on September 6, 1982 and on May 8,
ruled that psychological incapacity must be more than just a “difficulty,” a “refusal” or”neglect” in the
1983 and blessed with five children. After the downfall of President Marcos, he left the military service
performance of some marital obligations. in 1987 and then engaged in different business ventures that did not succeeded. Due to his failure to
engage in any gainful employment, they would often quarrel and as a consequence, he would hit and
beat her. He would also inflict physical harm on their children. In 1992, they were already living They decided to go back to Manila in April 1996. Rowena proceeded to her uncle’s house and Edward
separately. On October 16, 1994, when Brenda saw him in their house, she was so angry that she to his parents’ home. Eventually they got married but without a marriage license. Edward was
lambasted him. Wilson then turned violent, inflicting physical harm on her and even on her mother prohibited from getting out of the house unaccompanied and was threatened by Rowena and her
who came to her aid. On October 17, 1994, she and their children left the house and sought refuge in uncle. After a month, Edward escaped from the house, and stayed with his parents. Edward’s parents
her sister’s house. On October 19, 1994, she submitted herself to medical examination at the wanted them to stay at their house but Rowena refused and demanded that they have a separate
Mandaluyong Medical Center. Thus, petitioner filed for annulment of marriage in the RTC assailing abode. In June 1996, she said that it was better for them to live separate lives and they then parted
Article 36 of the Family Code. The court ruled the respondent to be psychologically incapacitated to ways.
perform his marital obligations. But the Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the RTC because
psychological incapacity had not been established by the totality of the evidence presented. Hence, After four years in January 2000, Edward filed a petition for the annulment of his marriage to Rowena
this appeal. on the basis of the latter’s psychological incapacity.

ISSUES: ISSUE: Whether the marriage contracted is void on the ground of psychological incapacity.
Whether or not there is a need for personal medical examination of respondent to prove psychological
incapacity? Whether the totality of evidence presented in this case show psychological incapacity? HELD:

HELD: The parties’ whirlwind relationship lasted more or less six months. They met in January 1996, eloped
The testimonies of petitioner, the common children, petitioner’s sister and the social worker were not in March, exchanged marital vows in May, and parted ways in June. The psychologist who provided
enough to sustain a finding that the respondent was psychologically incapacitated. Personal medical or expert testimony found both parties psychologically incapacitated. Petitioner’s behavioral pattern falls
psychological examination of respondent is not a requirement for a declaration of psychological under the classification of dependent personality disorder, and respondent’s, that of the narcissistic
incapacity. Nevertheless, the totality of the evidence she presented does not show such incapacity. and antisocial personality disorder
Although Supreme Court is convinced that respondent failed to provide material support to the family
and may have resorted to physical abuse and abandonment, the totality of these acts does not lead to There is no requirement that the person to be declared psychologically incapacitated be personally
a conclusion of psychological incapacity on his part. There is absolutely no showing that his “defects” examined by a physician, if the totality of evidence presented is enough to sustain a finding of
were already present at the inception of the marriage or that they are incurable. psychological incapacity. Verily, the evidence must show a link, medical or the like, between the acts
that manifest psychological incapacity and the psychological disorder itself.

11. TE VS TE The presentation of expert proof presupposes a thorough and in-depth assessment of the parties by
the psychologist or expert, for a conclusive diagnosis of a grave, severe and incurable presence of
FACTS: psychological incapacity.

Petitioner Edward Te first met respondent Rowena Te in a gathering organized by the Filipino-Chinese Indeed, petitioner, afflicted with dependent personality disorder, cannot assume the essential marital
association in their college. Initially, he was attracted to Rowena’s close friend but, as the latter already obligations of living together, observing love, respect and fidelity and rendering help and support, for
had a boyfriend, the young man decided to court Rowena, which happened in January 1996. It was he is unable to make everyday decisions without advice from others, and allows others to make most
Rowena who asked that they elope but Edward refused bickering that he was young and jobless. Her of his important decisions (such as where to live). As clearly shown in this case, petitioner followed
everything dictated to him by the persons around him. He is insecure, weak and gullible, has no sense
persistence, however, made him relent. They left Manila and sailed to Cebu that month; he, providing
their travel money of P80,000 and she, purchasing the boat ticket. of his identity as a person, has no cohesive self to speak of, and has no goals and clear direction in life.
As for the respondent, her being afflicted with antisocial personality disorder makes her unable to as a psychological illness and its incapacitating nature fully explained. Expert
assume the essential marital obligations on account for her disregard in the rights of others, her abuse, evidence may be given by qualified psychiatrists and clinical psychologists.
mistreatment and control of others without remorse, and her tendency to blame others. Moreover,
as shown in this case, respondent is impulsive and domineering; she had no qualms in manipulating (3) The incapacity must be proven to be existing at "the time of the celebration"
petitioner with her threats of blackmail and of committing suicide. of the marriage. The evidence must show that the illness was existing when the
parties exchanged their "I do’s." The manifestation of the illness need not be
Both parties being afflicted with grave, severe and incurable psychological incapacity, the precipitous perceivable at such time, but the illness itself must have attached at such
marriage that they contracted on April 23, 1996 is thus, declared null and void. moment, or prior thereto.

(4) Such incapacity must also be shown to be medically or clinically permanent or

incurable. Such incurability may be absolute or even relative only in regard to the
Thus, the Court laid down in Republic of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals and other spouse, not necessarily absolutely against everyone of the same sex.
Molina8 stringent guidelines in the interpretation and application of Article 36 of the Furthermore, such incapacity must be relevant to the assumption of marriage
Family Code, to wit: obligations, not necessarily to those not related to marriage, like the exercise of a
profession or employment in a job. Hence, a pediatrician may be effective in
(1) The burden of proof to show the nullity of the marriage belongs to the plaintiff. diagnosing illnesses of children and prescribing medicine to cure them but may
Any doubt should be resolved in favor of the existence and continuation of the not be psychologically capacitated to procreate, bear and raise his/her own
marriage and against its dissolution and nullity. This is rooted in the fact that both children as an essential obligation of marriage.
our Constitution and our laws cherish the validity of marriage and unity of the
family. Thus, our Constitution devotes an entire Article on the Family, recognizing (5) Such illness must be grave enough to bring about the disability of the party to
it "as the foundation of the nation." It decrees marriage as legally "inviolable," assume the essential obligations of marriage. Thus, "mild characteriological
thereby protecting it from dissolution at the whim of the parties. Both the family peculiarities, mood changes, occasional emotional outbursts" cannot be
and marriage are to be "protected" by the state. accepted as root causes. The illness must be shown as downright incapacity or
inability, not a refusal, neglect or difficulty, much less ill will. In other words, there
The Family Code echoes this constitutional edict on marriage and the family and is a natal or supervening disabling factor in the person, an adverse integral
emphasizes their permanence, inviolability and solidarity. element in the personality structure that effectively incapacitates the person from
really accepting and thereby complying with the obligations essential to marriage.
(2) The root cause of the psychological incapacity must be: (a) medically or
clinically identified, (b) alleged in the complaint, (c) sufficiently proven by (6) The essential marital obligations must be those embraced by Articles 68 up to
experts and (d) clearly explained in the decision. Article 36 of the Family 71 of the Family Code as regards the husband and wife as well as Articles 220,
Code requires that the incapacity must be psychological - not physical, although 221 and 225 of the same Code in regard to parents and their children. Such non-
its manifestations and/or symptoms may be physical. The evidence must complied marital obligation(s) must also be stated in the petition, proven by
convince the court that the parties, or one of them, was mentally or psychically ill evidence and included in the text of the decision.
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. (7) Interpretations given by the National Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal of the
Although no example of such incapacity need be given here so as not to limit the Catholic Church in the Philippines, while not controlling or decisive, should be
application of the provision under the principle of ejusdem generis (Salita v. given great respect by our courts. x x x.9 (Emphasis supplied)
Magtolis, 233 SCRA 100, 108), nevertheless such root cause must be identified
AZCUETA v Republic and CA
ISSUE:
FACTS:
Whether or not the totality of the evidence presented is adequate to sustain a finding that Rodolfo is
1. Petitioner complained that Rodolfo never bothered to look for a job and instead always asked his
psychologically incapacitated to comply with his essential marital obligations.
mother for financial assistance. When they were married it was Rodolfo’s mother who found them a
room near the Azcueta home and it was also his mother who paid the monthly rental.
2. Sometime later, her husband told petitioner that he already found a job and petitioner was RULING:
overjoyed. However, some weeks after, petitioner was informed that her husband had been seen at Yes. After a thorough review of the records of the case, we find that there was sufficient compliance
the house of his parents when he was supposed to be at work. Petitioner discovered that her husband with the guidelines in the Molina case to warrant the annulment of the parties’ marriage under Article
didn’t actually get a job and the money he gave her (which was supposedly his salary) came from his 36.
mother. When she confronted him about the matter, Rodolfo allegedly cried like a child and told her The Court laid down in Republic of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals and Molina stringent guidelines
in the interpretation and application of Article 36 of the Family Code, to wit:
that he pretended to have a job so that petitioner would stop nagging him about applying for a job. He
also told her that his parents can support their needs. Petitioner claimed that Rodolfo was so
dependent on his mother and that all his decisions and attitudes in life should be in conformity with (1) The burden of proof to show the nullity of the marriage belongs to the plaintiff;
those of his mother.
3. Apart from the foregoing, petitioner complained that every time Rodolfo would get drunk he became (2) The root cause of the psychological incapacity must be: (a) medically or clinically identified, (b)
physically violent towards her. Their sexual relationship was also unsatisfactory. They only had sex once alleged in the complaint, (c) sufficiently proven by experts and (d) clearly explained in the decision;
a month and petitioner never enjoyed it. When they discussed this problem, Rodolfo would always say
that sex was sacred and it should not be enjoyed nor abused. He did not even want to have a child yet (3) The incapacity must be proven to be existing at “the time of the celebration” of the marriage;
because he claimed he was not ready. Additionally, when petitioner requested that they move to
another place and rent a small room rather than live near his parents, Rodolfo did not agree. Because (4) Such incapacity must also be shown to be medically or clinically permanent or incurable;
of this, she was forced to leave their residence and see if he will follow her. But he did not.
Dr. Villegas concluded that he was suffering from Dependent Personality Disorder associated with (5) Such illness must be grave enough to bring about the disability of the party to assume the essential
severe inadequacy related to masculine strivings. obligations of marriage;
4. She explained that persons suffering from Dependent Personality Disorder were those whose
(6) The essential marital obligations must be those embraced by Articles 68 up to 71 of the Family Code
response to ordinary way of life was ineffectual and inept, characterized by loss of self-confidence,
as regards the husband and wife as well as Articles 220, 221 and 225 of the same Code in regard to
constant self-doubt, inability to make his own decisions and dependency on other people. She added
that the root cause of this psychological problem was a cross-identification with the mother who was parents and their children;
the dominant figure in the family considering that respondent’s father was a seaman and always out
of the house. She stated that this problem began during the early stages in his life but manifested only (7) Interpretations given by the National Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal of the Catholic Church in the
after the celebration of his marriage. According to Dr. Villegas, this kind of problem was also severe Philippines, while not controlling or decisive, should be given great respect by our courts.
because he will not be able to make and to carry on the responsibilities expected of a married person.
It was incurable because it started in early development and therefore deeply ingrained into his In all, the Court agrees with the trial court that the declaration of nullity of the parties’ marriage
personality. pursuant to Article 36 of the Family Code is proper under the premises.
 “refusal” or “neglect,” in the performance of some marital obligations that characterize some
AGRAVIADOR V. AMPARO-AGRAVIADOR marriages to the level of psychological incapacity that the law requires. He merely showed that Erlinda
had some personality defects that showed their manifestation during the marriage; his testimony
FACTS: sorely lacked details necessary to establish that the respondent’s defects existed at the inception of
Petitioner Enrique Agraviador y Alunan (Enrique)challenges the resolution of the Court of the marriage. His claims that Erlinda “does not accept her fault,” “does not want to change,” and
Appeals (CA) which reversed the resolution of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) MuntinlupaCity, declaring “refused to reform” are insufficient to establish a psychological or mental defect that is serious, grave,
the marriage of the petitioner and respondent Erlinda Amparo-Agraviador (Erlinda) null and void on or incurable as contemplated by Article 36 of the Family Code.
the ground of the latter’s psychological incapacity.
In 1971, Enrique, then a security guard, first met Erlinda at a beerhouse where the latter Second, Dr. Patac failed to clarify the circumstances that led the respondent to act the way she did in
worked, and later on became sweethearts after courtship. They soon entered into a common-law her attempt to establish the juridical antecedence of the respondent’s condition. The report that he
relationship, but later contracted marriage in 1973, whereby they begot four children. Enrique’s family, submit likewise failed to prove the gravity or seriousness of the respondent’s condition, as his
however, expressed their apprehensions because Erlinda came from a broken family and because of enumeration of the respondent’s purported behavioural defects (as related to him by third persons),
the nature of her work. and on this basis characterized the respondent to be suffering from mixed personality disorder deemed
In 2001, petitioner filed a petition for the declaration of nullity of marriage on the basis of insufficient. There was no other statement regarding the degree of severity of the respondent’s
respondent’s psychological incapacity, alleging that she was carefree and irresponsible, and refused to condition, why and to what extent the disorder is grave, and how it incapacitated her to comply with
do household chores like cleaning and cooking; stayed away from their house for long periods of time; the duties required in marriage. The Psychiatric Evaluation Report likewise failed to adequately explain
had an affair with a lesbian; did not take care of their sick child to the point of his death; consulted a how Dr. Patac came to the conclusion that the respondent’s personality disorder had “no definite
witch doctor in order to bring him bad fate; and refused to use the family name Agraviador in her treatment.” It did not discuss the concept of mixed personality disorder, i.e., its classification, cause,
activities. He also claimed that she refused to have sex with him because she became very close to a symptoms, and cure, and failed to show how and to what extent the respondent exhibited this disorder
male border of their house, and even caught their love notes and trysts. However, because the root in order to create a necessary inference that the respondent’s condition had no definite treatment or
cause of her psychological incapacity was not medically identified and alleged in the petition, motion is incurable.
was denied. The petitioner, thus, presented testimonial and documentary evidence to substantiate his
claims through the psychiatric evaluation report of Dr. Juan Cirilo L. Patac, who claimed that Erlinda is
suffering from a Personality Disorder (Mixed Personality Disorder). She was said to been having this
SOCORRO CAMACHO-REYES, VS. RAMON REYES,
disorder since her adolescence, with no definite treatment for her disorder.
FACTS:
ISSUE: Marital difficulties, which mostly is due to the respondent’s actions, caused the petitioner to
file a petition for declaration of nullity of her marriage with the respondent alleging psychological
Whether there is basis to nullify the petitioner’s marriage to the respondent on the ground of incapacity to fulfill the essential marital obligations under Article 36 of the Family Code.
psychological incapacity to comply with the essential marital obligations. Traversing the petition, respondent denied petitioner’s allegations that he was psychologically
incapacitated. Respondent maintained that he was not remiss in performing his obligations to his
HELD: family—both as a spouse to petitioner and father to their children.
No, the totality of evidence presented failed to establish the respondent’s psychological incapacity. [Petitioner] presented several expert witnesses to show that [respondent] is psychologically
incapacitated. Clinical psychologist Dayan diagnosed [respondent] as purportedly suffering from Mixed
RATIO: Personality Disorder (Schizoid Narcissistic and Anti-Social Personality Disorder). Further, clinical
The court held that both Enrique’s court testimony,as well as Dr. Patac’s Psychiatric Evaluation Report psychologist Magno found [respondent] to be suffering from an Antisocial Personality Disorder with
fell short in proving that the respondent was psychologically incapacitated to perform the essential narcissistic and dependent features, while Dr. Villegas diagnosed [respondent] to be suffering from
marital duties. First, petitioner’s claims should be distinguished from the “difficulty,” if not outright
Personality Disorder of the anti-social type, associated with strong sense of Inadequacy especially along state of the parties’ marriage from the perception of one of the parties, herein petitioner. Certainly,
masculine strivings and narcissistic features. petitioner, during their marriage, had occasion to interact with, and experience, respondent’s pattern
The RTC granted the petition and declared the marriage between the parties null and void on of behavior which she could then validly relay to the clinical psychologists and the psychiatrist.
the ground of their psychological incapacity. For another, the clinical psychologists’ and psychiatrist’s assessment were not based solely on
The respondent appealed to the Court of Appeals. The appellate court reversed the RTC the narration or personal interview of the petitioner. Other informants such as respondent’s own son,
decision and declared the parties’ marriage valid and subsisting. It held that the petitioner failed to siblings and in-laws, and sister-in-law (sister of petitioner), testified on their own observations of
sufficiently establish the alleged psychological incapacity of her husband, as well as of herself. It held: respondent’s behavior and interactions with them, spanning the period of time they knew him. These
“In the case at bar, we hold that the court a quo’s findings regarding the [respondent’s] alleged were also used as the basis of the doctors’ assessments.
mixed personality disorder, his “come and go” attitude, failed business ventures, inadequate/delayed Within their acknowledged field of expertise, doctors can diagnose the psychological make up
financial support to his family, sexual infidelity, insensitivity to [petitioner’s] feelings, irresponsibility, of a person based on a number of factors culled from various sources. A person afflicted with a
failure to consult [petitioner] on his business pursuits, unfulfilled promises, failure to pay debts in personality disorder will not necessarily have personal knowledge thereof. In this case, considering that
connection with his failed business activities, taking of drugs, etc. are not rooted on some debilitating a personality disorder is manifested in a pattern of behavior, self-diagnosis by the respondent
psychological condition but on serious marital difficulties/differences and mere refusal or unwillingness consisting only in his bare denial of the doctors’ separate diagnoses, does not necessarily evoke
to assume the essential obligations of marriage. [Respondent’s] “defects” were not present at the credence and cannot trump the clinical findings of experts.
inception of marriage. They were even able to live in harmony in the first few years of their marriage, In sum, we find points of convergence & consistency in all three reports and the respective
which bore them two children xxx. In fact, [petitioner] admitted in her Amended Petition that initially testimonies of Doctors Magno, Dayan and Villegas, i.e.: (1) respondent does have problems; and (2)
they lived comfortably and [respondent] would give his salary in keeping with the tradition in most these problems include chronic irresponsibility; inability to recognize and work towards providing the
Filipino households, but the situation changed when [respondent] resigned from the family-owned needs of his family; several failed business attempts; substance abuse; and a trail of unpaid money
Aristocrat Restaurant and thereafter, [respondent] failed in his business ventures. It appears, however, obligations.
that [respondent] has been gainfully employed with Marigold Corporation, Inc. since 1998, which fact It is true that a clinical psychologist’s or psychiatrist’s diagnoses that a person has personality
was stipulated upon by the [petitioner].” disorder is not automatically believed by the courts in cases of declaration of nullity of marriages.
Indeed, a clinical psychologist’s or psychiatrist’s finding of a personality disorder does not exclude a
ISSUE: finding that a marriage is valid and subsisting, and not beset by one of the parties’ or both parties’
Whether or not the Court of Appeals was correct when it rejected the testimonies of Doctors Magno psychological incapacity.
and Villegas. In the case at bar, however, even without the experts’ conclusions, the factual antecedents
(narrative of events) alleged in the petition and established during trial, all point to the inevitable
RULING: conclusion that respondent is psychologically incapacitated to perform the essential marital
NO. The Supreme Court held: obligations.
Notwithstanding these telling assessments, the CA rejected, wholesale, the testimonies of The respondent’s pattern of behavior manifests an inability, nay, a psychological incapacity to
Doctors Magno and Villegas for being hearsay since they never personally examined and interviewed perform the essential marital obligations as shown by his: (1) sporadic financial support; (2) extra-
the respondent. marital affairs; (3) substance abuse; (4) failed business attempts; (5) unpaid money obligations; (6)
inability to keep a job that is not connected with the family businesses; and (7) criminal charges of
The lack of personal examination and interview of the respondent, or any other person diagnosed with estafa.
personality disorder, does not per se invalidate the testimonies of the doctors. Neither do their findings
automatically constitute hearsay that would result in their exclusion as evidence.
For one, marriage, by its very definition, necessarily involves only two persons. The totality of
the behavior of one spouse during the cohabitation and marriage is generally and genuinely witnessed
mainly by the other. In this case, the experts testified on their individual assessment of the present
RICARDO P. TORING V. TERESITA M. TORING and REPUBLIC OF THE cause of the alleged psychological incapacity. Neither did the evidence indicate that the alleged
psychological incapacity existed prior to or at the time of marriage, nor that the incapacity was grave
PHILIPPINES and incurable.
The RTC ruled to annul the marriage on the basis of the evidence and testimony presented in
DOCTRINE: court. However, the Solicitor General appealed the case and the Court of Appeals reversed the ruling
A marriage will be annulled on the ground of psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family on the ground that the RTC did not satisfy the rules and guidelines set by this Court in Republic v. Court
Code if it is characterized by (a) gravity, (b) juridical antecedence, and (c) incurability. Furthermore, the of Appeals and Molina. The RTC failed point out the root illness or defect that caused Teresita’s
root cause of the psychological incapacity must be alleged in the complaint and duly proven. The psychological incapacity, and likewise failed to show that the incapacity already existed at the time of
complete facts should allege the physical manifestations, if any, as are indicative of psychological celebration of marriage.
incapacity at the time of the celebration of the marriage but expert opinion need not be alleged. The CA found that the conclusions from Dr. Albaran’s psychological evaluation do not appear
to have been drawn from well-rounded and fair sources, and dwelt mostly on hearsay statements and
FACTS: rumors. Likewise, the CA found that Ricardo’s allegations on Teresita’s overspending and infidelity do
Petitioner Ricardo and Respondent Teresita are husband and wife with three children. After not constitute adequate grounds for declaring the marriage null and void under Article 36 of the Family
20 years of marriage, Ricardo filed a petition for annulment before the RTC. He claimed that Teresita Code. These allegations, even if true, could only effectively serve as grounds for legal separation or a
was psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential obligations of marriage prior to, at the criminal charge for adultery.
time of, and subsequent to the celebration of their marriage. Therefore, he asked the court to declare
his marriage to Teresita null and void. He alleges that Teresita is a squanderer because she did not ISSUE:
know how to manage the funds of the family and is always incurring debts. Aside from this, Teresita
likewise failed to remit amounts she collected as sales agent of a plastic-ware and cosmetics company. Whether or not the CA erred in reversing the decision of the trial court.
She left the family’s utility bills and their children’s tuition fees unpaid. She also missed paying the rent
and the amortization for the house that Ricardo acquired for the family. He also alleges that Teresita is HELD:
an adultress because she presents herself as a single woman and sees other men while Ricardo is away
for work as an overseas contract worker. He also suspected that she was pregnant with another man’s No, the CA is correct in reversing the decision made by the trial court because the decision of the latter
child and proved himself correct when Teresita incurred a miscarriage. He claims that he could not have failed to comply with the standards and guidelines provided for by jurisprudence.
fathered the child because his three instances of sexual contact with Teresita were characterized by
“withdrawals”. RATIO:
To bolster his position, Ricardo introduced the testimony and evidence prepared by Dr. Cecilia
R. Albaran. The doctor stated that the demise of the marriage of the spouses was due to the Narcissistic In the leading case of Santos v. Court of Appeals,et al.,11we held that psychological incapacity under
Personality Disorder of Teresita. Her behavioral patterns indicate this kind of disorder which is Article 36 of the Family Code must be characterized by (a) gravity, (b) juridical antecedence, and (c)
considered to be grave and incurable based on the fact that individuals do not recognize the symptoms incurability, to be sufficient basis to annul a marriage.
as it is ego syntonic and they feel there is nothing wrong in them. Interestingly, the doctor based her
diagnosis from the testimony given by Ricardo and Richardson, the eldest child of the couple. This is We further expounded on Article 36 of the Family Code in Molina and laid down definitive guidelines
because Dr. Albaran was not able to conduct a personal psychiatric evaluation over Teresita. in the interpretation and application of this article. These guidelines incorporate the basic
In opposing the petition for annulment, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) contended requirements of gravity, juridical antecedence and incurability established in the Santos case, as
that there was no basis to declare Teresita psychologically incapacitated. It asserted that the follows:
psychological evaluation conducted on Ricardo (and his son Richardson) only revealed a vague and
general conclusion on these parties’ personality traits but not on Teresita’s psychological makeup. The
OSG also argued that the evidence adduced did not clinically identify and sufficiently prove the medical
 In so far as the present factual situation is concerned, what should not be lost in reading and applying SUAZO v. SUAZO
our established rulings is the intent of the law to confine the application of Article 36 of the Family
Code to the most serious cases of personality disorders; these are the disorders that result in the utter FACTS:
insensitivity or inability of the afflicted party to give meaning and significance to the marriage he or she Angelito Suazo and Jocelyn Suazo were married when they were 16 years old only. Without any means
contracted. Furthermore, the psychological illness and its root cause must have been there from the
to support themselves, they lived with Angelito’s parents while Jocelyn took odd jobs and Angelito
inception of the marriage. From these requirements arise the concept that Article 36 of the Family
Code does not really dissolve a marriage; it simply recognizes that there never was any marriage in the refused to work and was most of the time drunk. Petitioner urged him to find work but this often
first place because the affliction – already then existing – was so grave and permanent as to deprive resulted to violent quarrels. A year after their marriage, Jocelyn left Angelito. Angelito thereafter found
the afflicted party of awareness of the duties and responsibilities of the matrimonial bond he or she
another woman with whom he has since lived. 10 years later, she filed a petition for declaration of
was to assume or had assumed.
In the present case and guided by these standards, we find the totality of the petitioner’s nullity of marriage under Art. 36 Psychological incapacity. Jocelyn testified on the alleged physical
evidence to be insufficient to prove that Teresita was psychologically incapacitated to perform her beating she received. The expert witness corroborated parts of Jocelyn’s testimony. Both
duties as a wife.
First of all, the testimony given by Dr. Albaran was based solely on the testimony of Ricardo, her psychological report and testimony concluded that Angelito was psychologically incapacitated.
the petitioner and their son, Richardson. No personal evaluation was made as to the condition of However, B was not personally examined by the expert witness. The RTC annulled the marriage on the
Teresita to properly conclude that she is indeed inflicted with the Narcissistic Personality Disorder. ground that Angelito is unfit to comply with his marital obligation, such as “immaturity, i.e., lack of an
Conclusions and generalizations about Teresita’s psychological condition, based solely on information
fed by Ricardo, are not any different in kind from admitting hearsay evidence as proof of the effective sense of rational judgment and responsibility, otherwise peculiar to infants (like refusal of
truthfulness of the content of such evidence. the husband to support the family or excessive dependence on parents or peer group approval) and
Second, it was not proven that the condition of Teresita was present from the moment the
habitual alcoholism, or the condition by which a person lives for the next drink and the next
marriage was celebrated. The only other party outside of the spouses who gave statements for
purposes of Teresita’s psychological evaluation was Richardson, the spouses’ eldest son who would not drinks” but the CA reversed it and held that the respondent may have failed to provide material
have been very reliable as a witness in an Article 36 case because he could not have been there when support to the family and has resorted to physical abuse, but it is still necessary to show that they were
the spouses were married and could not have been expected to know what was happening between
his parents until long after his birth. manifestations of a deeper psychological malaise that was clinically or medically identified. The theory
Finally, the contention of Ricardo that the root cause of the psychological incapacity need not of the psychologist that the respondent was suffering from an anti-social personality syndrome at
be alleged in the petition is without merit. While in other cases, the court has allowed the petition to the time of the marriage was not the product of any adequate medical or clinical investigation. The
do away with the root cause, it is because the root cause has been described based on the physical
manifestations which are indicative of the psychological incapacity. The statement of the root cause evidence that she got from the petitioner, anecdotal at best, could equally show that the behavior of
does not need to be in medical terms or be technical in nature, as the root causes of many psychological the respondent was due simply to causes like immaturity or irresponsibility which are not equivalent
disorders are still unknown to science. It is enough to merely allege the physical manifestations
to psychological incapacity, or the failure or refusal to work could have been the result of rebelliousness
constituting the root cause of the psychological incapacity. Hence, the statement of the root cause is a
requirement that cannot be dispensed with but it may be proven either by an express statement or on the part of one who felt that he had been forced into a loveless marriage.
through the description of its physical manifestations.
ISSUE:
Whether or not there is a basis to nullify Jocelyn’s marriage with Angelito under Article 36 of the Family
Code.
 obligations or ill will on the part of the spouse is different from incapacity rooted in some debilitating
HELD: psychological condition or illness; irreconcilable differences, sexual infidelity or perversion, emotional
The Court find the petition devoid of merit. The CA committed no reversible error of law in setting immaturity and irresponsibility and the like, do not by themselves warrant a finding of psychological
aside the RTC decision, as no basis exists to declare Jocelyn’s marriage with Angelito a nullity under incapacity under Article 36, as the same may only be due to a person’s refusal or unwillingness to
Article 36 of the Family Code and its related jurisprudence. assume the essential obligations of marriage.
Jocelyn’s evidence is insufficient to establish Angelito’s psychological incapacity. The
psychologist evaluated Angelito’s psychological condition only in an indirect manner – she derived all
her conclusions from information coming from Jocelyn whose bias for her cause cannot of course be
doubted. The psychlologist, using meager information coming from a directly interested party, could
not have secured a complete personality profile and could not have conclusively formed an objective
opinion or diagnosis of Angelito’s psychological condition. While the report or evaluation may be
conclusive with respect to Jocelyn’s psychological condition, this is not true for Angelito’s. The
methodology employed simply cannot satisfy the required depth and comprehensiveness of
examination required to evaluate a party alleged to be suffering from a psychological disorder. Both
the psychologist’s report and testimony simply provided a general description of Angelito’s purported
anti-social personality disorder, supported by the characterization of this disorder as chronic, grave and
incurable. The psychologist was conspicuously silent, however, on the bases for her conclusion or the
particulars that gave rise to the characterization she gave. Jurisprudence holds that there must be
evidence showing a link, medical or the like, between the acts that manifest psychological incapacity
and the psychological disorder itself. A’s testimony regarding the habitual drunkenness, gambling and
refusal to find a job, while indicative of psychological incapacity, do not, by themselves,
show psychological incapacity. All these simply indicate difficulty, neglect or mere refusal to perform
marital obligations.
It is not enough that the respondent, alleged to be psychologically incapacitated, had
difficulty in complying with his marital obligations, or was unwilling to perform these obligations. Proof
of a natal or supervening disabling factor – an adverse integral element in the respondent’s
personality structure that effectively incapacitated him from complying with his essential marital
obligations – must be shown. Mere difficulty, refusal or neglect in the performance of marital