Republic of the Philippines Bonifacio, Makati City where they resided with their

SUPREME COURT military aides.

Manila
In 1987, Jose was charged with rebellion for his alleged
FIRST DIVISION participation in the failed coup d’etat. He was incarcerated
in Camp Crame.
G.R. No. 167459 January 26, 2011
It appears that Bona was an unfaithful spouse. Even at the
JOSE REYNALDO B. OCHOSA, Petitioner, onset of their marriage when Jose was assigned in various
vs. parts of the country, she had illicit relations with other
BONA J. ALANO and REPUBLIC OF THE men. Bona apparently did not change her ways when they
PHILIPPINES, Respondents. lived together at Fort Bonifacio; she entertained male
visitors in her bedroom whenever Jose was out of their
DECISION living quarters. On one occasion, Bona was caught by
Demetrio Bajet y Lita, a security aide, having sex with
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.: Jose’s driver, Corporal Gagarin. Rumors of Bona’s sexual
infidelity circulated in the military community. When Jose
This is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of could no longer bear these rumors, he got a military pass
the Rules of Court seeking to set aside the Decision1dated from his jail warden and confronted Bona.
October 11, 2004 as well as the Resolution2 dated March
10, 2005 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 65120, During their confrontation, Bona admitted her relationship
which reversed and set aside the Decision3 dated January with Corporal Gagarin who also made a similar admission
11, 1999 of the Regional Trial Court of Makati City, Branch to Jose. Jose drove Bona away from their living quarters.
140 in Civil Case No. 97-2903. In the said January 11, 1999 Bona left with Ramona and went to Basilan.
Decision, the trial court granted petitioner Jose Reynaldo
Ochosa’s (Jose) petition for the declaration of nullity of In 1994, Ramona left Bona and came to live with Jose. It is
marriage between him and private respondent Bona J. Jose who is currently supporting the needs of Ramona.
Alano (Bona).
Jose filed a Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage,
The relevant facts of this case, as outlined by the Court of docketed as Civil Case No. 97-2903 with the RTC of Makati
Appeals, are as follows: City, Branch 140, seeking to nullify his marriage to Bona on
the ground of the latter’s psychological incapacity to fulfill
It appears that Jose met Bona in August 1973 when he was the essential obligations of marriage.
a young lieutenant in the AFP while the latter was a
seventeen-year-old first year college drop-out. They had a Summons with a copy of the petition and its annexes were
whirlwind romance that culminated into sexual intimacy duly served upon Bona who failed to file any responsive
and eventual marriage on 27 October 1973 before the pleading during the reglementary period.
Honorable Judge Cesar S. Principe in Basilan. The couple
did not acquire any property. Neither did they incur any Pursuant to the order of the trial court, the Public
debts. Their union produced no offspring. In 1976, Prosecutor conducted an investigation to determine
however, they found an abandoned and neglected one- whether there was collusion between the parties. Said
year-old baby girl whom they later registered as their prosecutor submitted a report that she issued a subpoena
daughter, naming her Ramona Celeste Alano Ochosa. to both parties but only Jose appeared; hence, it can not
be reasonably determined whether or not there was
During their marriage, Jose was often assigned to various collusion between them.
parts of the Philippine archipelago as an officer in the AFP.
Bona did not cohabit with him in his posts, preferring to Trial on the merits of the case ensued. Petitioner along
stay in her hometown of Basilan. Neither did Bona visit with his two military aides, Gertrudes Himpayan Padernal
him in his areas of assignment, except in one (1) occasion and Demetrio Bajet y Lita, testified about respondent’s
when Bona stayed with him for four (4) days. marital infidelity during the marriage.

Sometime in 1985, Jose was appointed as the Battalion The fourth and final witness was Elizabeth E. Rondain, a
Commander of the Security Escort Group. He and Bona, psychiatrist, who testified that after conducting several
along with Ramona, were given living quarters at Fort tests, she reached the conclusion that respondent was
suffering from histrionic personality disorder which she Such a ground to be invalidative (sic) of marriage, the
described as follows: degree of incapacity must exhibit GRAVITY, ANTECEDENCE
and INCURABILITY.
"Her personality is that she has an excessive emotion and
attention seeking behavior. So therefore they don’t
1âwphi1 From the evidence presented, the Court finds that the
develop sympathy in feelings and they have difficulty in psychological incapacity of the respondent exhibited
maintaining emotional intimacy. In the case of Mr. Ochosa GRAVITY, ANTECEDENCE and INCURABILITY.
he has been a military man. It is his duty to be transferred
in different areas in the Philippines. And while he is being It is grave because the respondent did not carry out the
transferred from one place to another because of his normal and ordinary duties of marriage and family
assignments as a military man, Mrs. Bona Alano refused to shouldered by any average couple existing under everyday
follow him in all his assignments. There were only few circumstances of life and work. The gravity was manifested
occasions in which she followed him. And during those in respondent’s infidelity as testified to by the petitioner
times that they were not living together, because of the and his witnesses.
assignments of Mr. Ochosa she developed extra marital
affair with other man of which she denied in the beginning The psychological incapacity of the respondent could be
but in the latter part of their relationship she admitted it traced back to respondent’s history as testified to by the
to Mr. Ochosa that she had relationship with respondent’s expert witness when she said that respondent’s bad
driver. I believe with this extra marital affair that is her experience during her childhood resulted in her difficulty
way of seeking attention and seeking emotions from other in achieving emotional intimacy, hence, her continuous
person and not from the husband. And of course, this is illicit relations with several men before and during the
not fulfilling the basic responsibility in a marriage." marriage.

According to Rondain, respondent’s psychological disorder Considering that persons suffering from this kind of
was traceable to her family history, having for a father a personality disorder have no insight of their condition,
gambler and a womanizer and a mother who was a they will not submit to treatment at all. As in the case at
battered wife. There was no possibility of a cure since bar, respondent’s psychological incapacity clinically
respondent does not have an insight of what is happening identified as Histrionic Personality Disorder will remain
to her and refused to acknowledge the reality. incurable.4 (Emphasis supplied.)

With the conclusion of the witnesses’ testimonies, Thus, the dispositive portion of the trial court Decision
petitioner formally offered his evidence and rested his dated January 11, 1999 read:
case.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby
The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) submitted its rendered DECLARING the marriage of JOSE REYNALDO B.
opposition to the petition on the ground that "the factual OCHOSA and BONA J. ALANO on October 27, 1973 at
settings in the case at bench, in no measure at all, can Basilan City VOID AB INITIO on ground of psychological
come close to the standards required to decree a nullity of incapacity of the respondent under Article 36 of the Family
marriage (Santos v. CA, 240 SCRA 20 [1995])." Code as amended with all the effects and consequences
provided for by all applicable provisions of existing
In a Decision dated 11 January 1999, the trial court pertinent laws.
granted the petition and nullified the parties’ marriage
on the following findings, viz: After this Decision becomes final, let copies thereof be
sent to the Local Civil Registrar of Basilan City who is
xxxx directed to cancel the said marriage from its Civil Registry,
and the Local Civil Registrar of Makati City for its
Article 36 of the Family Code, as amended, provides as information and guidance.5
follows:
The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) appealed the said
‘A marriage contracted by any party who, at the time of ruling to the Court of Appeals which sided with the OSG’s
the celebration, was psychologically incapacitated to contention that the trial court erred in granting the
comply with the essential marital obligations of marriage, petition despite Jose’s abject failure to discharge the
shall likewise be void even if such incapacity becomes burden of proving the alleged psychological incapacity of
manifest only after its solemnization.’ his wife, Bona, to comply with the essential marital
obligations.
Thus, the Court of Appeals reversed and set aside the trial that both our Constitution and our laws cherish
court Decision in its assailed Decision dated October 11, the validity of marriage and unity of the family.
2004, the dispositive portion of which states: Thus, our Constitution devotes an entire Article on
the Family, recognizing it "as the foundation of
WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED, the appealed the nation." It decrees marriage as legally
Decision dated 11 January 1999 in Civil Case No. 97-2903 "inviolable," thereby protecting it from dissolution
of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City, Branch at the whim of the parties. Both the family and
140, is accordingly REVERSED and SET ASIDE, and another marriage are to be "protected" by the state.
is entered DISMISSING the petition for declaration of
nullity of marriage.6 The Family Code echoes this
constitutional edict on marriage and the
Jose filed a Motion for Reconsideration but this was family and emphasizes
denied by the Court of Appeals for lack of merit in its their permanence, inviolability and solidar
assailed Resolution dated March 10, 2005. ity.

Hence, this Petition. (2) The root cause of the psychological incapacity
must be (a) medically or clinically identified, (b)
The only issue before this Court is whether or not Bona alleged in the complaint, (c) sufficiently proven by
should be deemed psychologically incapacitated to comply experts and (d) clearly explained in the decision.
with the essential marital obligations. Article 36 of the Family Code requires that the
incapacity must be psychological – not physical,
The petition is without merit. although its manifestations and/or symptoms may
be physical. The evidence must convince the court
The petition for declaration of nullity of marriage which that the parties, or one of them, was mentally or
Jose filed in the trial court hinges on Article 36 of the physically ill to such an extent that the person
Family Code, to wit: could not have known the obligations he was
assuming, or knowing them, could not have given
valid assumption thereof. Although no example of
A marriage contracted by any party who, at the time of the
such incapacity need be given here so as not to
celebration, was psychologically incapacitated to comply
limit the application of the provision under the
with the essential marital obligations of marriage, shall
principle of ejusdem generis, nevertheless such
likewise be void even if such incapacity becomes manifest
root cause must be identified as a psychological
only after its solemnization.
illness and its incapacitating nature fully
explained. Expert evidence may be given by
In the landmark case of Santos v. Court of Appeals,7 we
qualified psychiatrists and clinical psychologists.
observed that psychological incapacity must be
characterized by (a) gravity, (b) juridical antecedence, and
(3) The incapacity must be proven to be existing at
(c) incurability. The incapacity must be grave or serious
"the time of the celebration" of the marriage. The
such that the party would be incapable of carrying out the
evidence must show that the illness was existing
ordinary duties required in marriage; it must be rooted in
when the parties exchanged their "I do’s." The
the history of the party antedating the marriage, although
manifestation of the illness need not be
the overt manifestations may emerge only after marriage;
perceivable at such time, but the illness itself
and it must be incurable or, even if it were otherwise, the
must have attached at such moment, or prior
cure would be beyond the means of the party involved.
thereto.
Soon after, incorporating the three basic requirements of
(4) Such incapacity must also be shown to be
psychological incapacity as mandated in Santos, we laid
medically or clinically permanent or incurable.
down in Republic v. Court of Appeals and Molina8 the
Such incurability may be absolute or even relative
following guidelines in the interpretation and application
only in regard to the other spouse, not necessarily
of Article 36 of the Family Code:
absolutely against everyone of the same sex.
Furthermore, such incapacity must be relevant to
(1) The burden of proof to show the nullity of the
the assumption of marriage obligations, not
marriage belongs to the plaintiff. Any doubt
necessarily to those not related to marriage, like
should be resolved in favor of the existence and
the exercise of a profession or employment in a
continuation of the marriage and against its
job. Hence, a pediatrician may be effective in
dissolution and nullity. This is rooted in the fact
diagnosing illnesses of children and prescribing This is one instance where, in view of the
medicine to cure them but may not be evident source and purpose of the Family
psychologically capacitated to procreate, bear and Code provision, contemporaneous
raise his/her own children as an essential religious interpretation is to be given
obligation of marriage. persuasive effect. Here, the State and the
Church – while remaining independent,
(5) Such illness must be grave enough to bring separate and apart from each other –
about the disability of the party to assume the shall walk together in synodal cadence
essential obligations of marriage. Thus, "mild towards the same goal of protecting and
characteriological peculiarities, mood changes, cherishing marriage and the family as the
occasional emotional outburst" cannot be inviolable base of the nation.
accepted as root causes. The illness must be
shown as downright incapacity or inability, not a (8) The trial court must order the prosecuting
refusal, neglect or difficulty, much less ill will. In attorney or fiscal and the Solicitor General to
other words, there is a natal or supervening appear as counsel for the state. No decision shall
disabling factor in the person, an adverse integral be handed down unless the Solicitor General
element in the personality structure that issues a certification, which will be quoted in the
effectively incapacitates the person from really decision, briefly stating therein his reasons for his
accepting and thereby complying with the agreement or opposition, as the case may be, to
obligations essential to marriage. the petition. The Solicitor General, along with the
prosecuting attorney, shall submit to the court
(6) The essential marital obligations must be those such certification within fifteen (15) days from the
embraced by Article 68 up to 71 of the Family date the case is deemed submitted for resolution
Code as regards the husband and wife as well as of the court. The Solicitor General shall discharge
Articles 220, 221 and 225 of the same Code in the equivalent function of the defensor
regard to parents and their children. Such non- vinculi contemplated under Canon
complied marital obligation(s) must also be stated 1095.9 (Citations omitted.)
in the petition, proven by evidence and included
in the text of the decision. In Marcos v. Marcos,10 we previously held that the
foregoing guidelines do not require that a physician
(7) Interpretations given by the National Appellate examine the person to be declared psychologically
Matrimonial Tribunal of the Catholic Church in the incapacitated. In fact, the root cause may be
Philippines, while not controlling or decisive, "medically or clinicallyidentified." What is important is the
should be given great respect by our courts. It is presence of evidence that can adequately establish the
clear that Article 36 was taken by the Family Code party’s psychological condition. For, indeed, if the totality
Revision Committee from Canon 1095 of the New of evidence presented is enough to sustain a finding of
Code of Canon Law, which became effective in psychological incapacity, then actual medical examination
1983 and which provides: of the person concerned need not be resorted to.

"The following are incapable of It is also established in jurisprudence that from these
contracting marriage: Those who are requirements arise the concept that Article 36 of the
unable to assume the essential Family Code does not really dissolve a marriage; it simply
obligations of marriage due to causes of recognizes that there never was any marriage in the first
psychological nature." place because the affliction – already then existing – was
so grave and permanent as to deprive the afflicted party of
Since the purpose of including such awareness of the duties and responsibilities of the
provision in our Family Code is to matrimonial bond he or she was to assume or had
harmonize our civil laws with the religious assumed.11
faith of our people, it stands to reason
that to achieve such harmonization, great A little over a decade since the promulgation of
persuasive weight should be given to the Molina guidelines, we made a critical assessment of
decisions of such appellate tribunal. the same in Ngo Te v. Yu-Te,12 to wit:
Ideally – subject to our law on evidence –
what is decreed as canonically invalid In hindsight, it may have been inappropriate for the Court
should also be decreed civilly void. to impose a rigid set of rules, as the one in Molina, in
resolving all cases of psychological incapacity. With regard to Bona’s sexual promiscuity prior to her
Understandably, the Court was then alarmed by the marriage to Jose, we have only the uncorroborated
deluge of petitions for the dissolution of marital bonds, testimony of Jose made in open court to support this
and was sensitive to the OSG’s exaggeration of Article 36 allegation. To quote the pertinent portion of the
as the "most liberal divorce procedure in the world." The transcript:
unintended consequences of Molina, however, has taken
its toll on people who have to live with deviant behavior, Q: So, what was the reason why you have broken with
moral insanity and sociopathic personality anomaly, your wife after several years -
which, like termites, consume little by little the very
foundation of their families, our basic social institutions. A: Well, I finally broke up with my wife because I can no
Far from what was intended by the Court, Molina has longer bear the torture because of the gossips that she
become a strait-jacket, forcing all sizes to fit into and be had an affair with other men, and finally, when I have a
bound by it. Wittingly or unwittingly, the Court, in chance to confront her she admitted that she had an affair
conveniently applying Molina, has allowed diagnosed with other men.
sociopaths, schizophrenics, nymphomaniacs, narcissists
and the like, to continuously debase and pervert the Q: With other men. And, of course this – her life with
sanctity of marriage. Ironically, the Roman Rota has other men of course before the marriage you have already
annulled marriages on account of the personality disorders known –
of the said individuals.13
A: Yes, your honor.
However, our critique did not mean that we had declared
an abandonment of the Molina doctrine. On the contrary, Q: So, that this gossips – because you said that you
we simply declared and, thus, clarified in the same Te case thought that this affair would go to end after your
that there is a need to emphasize other perspectives as marriage?
well which should govern the disposition of petitions for
declaration of nullity under Article 36. Furthermore, we
A: Yes, I was thinking about that.
reiterated in the same case the principle that each case
must be judged, not on the basis of a priori assumptions,
Q: So, that after several years she will not change so that’s
predilections or generalizations but according to its own
why you can’t bear it anymore?
facts. And, to repeat for emphasis, courts should interpret
the provision on a case-to-case basis; guided by
experience, the findings of experts and researchers in A: Yes, ma’am.20
psychological disciplines, and by decisions of church
tribunals.14 Dr. Rondain’s testimony and psychiatric evaluation report
do not provide evidentiary support to cure the doubtful
In the case at bar, the trial court granted the petition for veracity of Jose’s one-sided assertion. Even if we take into
the declaration of nullity of marriage on the basis of Dr. account the psychiatrist’s conclusion that Bona harbors a
Elizabeth Rondain’s testimony15 and her psychiatric Histrionic Personality Disorder that existed prior to her
evaluation report16 as well as the individual testimonies of marriage with Jose and this mental condition purportedly
Jose17 and his military aides - Mrs. Gertrudes Himpayan made her helplessly prone to promiscuity and sexual
Padernal18 and Corporal Demetrio Bajet.19 infidelity, the same cannot be taken as credible proof of
antecedence since the method by which such an inference
was reached leaves much to be desired in terms of
We are sufficiently convinced, after a careful perusal of
meeting the standard of evidence required in determining
the evidence presented in this case, that Bona had been,
psychological incapacity.
on several occasions with several other men, sexually
disloyal to her spouse, Jose. Likewise, we are persuaded
that Bona had indeed abandoned Jose. However, we The psychiatrist’s findings on Bona’s personality profile did
cannot apply the same conviction to Jose’s thesis that the not emanate from a personal interview with the subject
totality of Bona’s acts constituted psychological incapacity herself as admitted by Dr. Rondain in court, as follows:
as determined by Article 36 of the Family Code. There is
inadequate credible evidence that her "defects" were Q: How about, you mentioned that the petitioner came for
already present at the inception of, or prior to, the psychological test, how about the respondent, did she
marriage. In other words, her alleged psychological come for interview and test?
incapacity did not satisfy the jurisprudential requisite of
"juridical antecedence." A: No, ma’am.
Q: Did you try to take her for such? Even if we give the benefit of the doubt to the testimonies
at issue since the trial court judge had found them to be
A: Yes, ma’am. credible enough after personally witnessing Jose and the
witnesses testify in court, we cannot lower the evidentiary
Q: And what did she tell you, did she come for an benchmark with regard to information on Bona’s pre-
interview? marital history which is crucial to the issue of antecedence
in this case because we have only the word of Jose to rely
A: There was no response, ma’am.21 on. In fact, Bona’s dysfunctional family portrait which
brought about her Histrionic Personality Disorder as
As a consequence thereof, Dr. Rondain merely relied on painted by Dr. Rondain was based solely on the assumed
her interview with Jose and his witness, Mrs. Padernal, as truthful knowledge of Jose, the spouse who has the most
well as the court record of the testimonies of other to gain if his wife is found to be indeed psychologically
witnesses, to wit: incapacitated. No other witness testified to Bona’s family
history or her behavior prior to or at the beginning of the
marriage. Both Mrs. Padernal and Corporal Bajet came to
Q: And you said you did interviews. Who did the
know Bona only during their employment in petitioner’s
interview?
household during the marriage. It is undisputed that Jose
and Bona were married in 1973 while Mrs. Padernal and
A: I interviewed Mr. Ochosa and their witness Padernal,
Corporal Bajet started to live with petitioner’s family only
ma’am.
in 1980 and 1986, respectively.

Q: When you say Padernal are you referring to Gertrudes

We have previously held that, in employing a rigid and
Himpayan Padernal who testified in this court?
stringent level of evidentiary scrutiny to cases like this, we
do not suggest that a personal examination of the party
A: Yes, ma’am. alleged to be psychologically incapacitated is mandatory;
jurisprudence holds that this type of examination is not a
xxxx mandatory requirement. While such examination is
desirable, we recognize that it may not be practical in all
Q: Other than the interviews what else did you do in order instances given the oftentimes estranged relations
to evaluate members of the parties? between the parties. For a determination though of a
party’s complete personality profile, information coming
A: I also interviewed (sic) the transcript of stenographic from persons with personal knowledge of the juridical
notes of the testimonies of other witnesses, ma’am. antecedents may be helpful. This is an approach in the
application of Article 36 that allows flexibility, at the same
xxxx time that it avoids, if not totally obliterate, the credibility
gaps spawned by supposedly expert opinion based entirely
Q: Was there also a psychological test conducted on the on doubtful sources of information.23
respondent?
However, we have also ruled in past decisions that to
A: Yes, your honor. make conclusions and generalizations on a spouse’s
psychological condition based on the information fed by
Q: It was on the basis of the psychological test in which only one side, similar to what we have pointed out in the
you based your evaluation report? case at bar, is, to the Court’s mind, not different from
admitting hearsay evidence as proof of the truthfulness of
A: It was based on the psychological test conducted and the content of such evidence.24
clinical interview with the other witnesses, your Honor.22
Anent the accusation that, even at the inception of their
Verily, Dr. Rondain evaluated Bona’s psychological marriage, Bona did not wish to be with Jose as a further
condition indirectly from the information gathered solely manifestation of her psychological incapacity, we need
from Jose and his witnesses. This factual circumstance only to look at the testimonial records of Jose and his
evokes the possibility that the information fed to the witnesses to be convinced otherwise, to wit:
psychiatrist is tainted with bias for Jose’s cause, in the
absence of sufficient corroboration. JOSE OCHOSA’S TESTIMONY:

Q: How long did you stay with your wife?

A: We were married in 1973 and we separated in 1988 but Q: You know them because of the proximity of the
in all those years there were only few occasions that we quarters?
were staying together because most of the time I’m in the
field. A: Yes, ma’am.

Q: Now, you said most of the time you were in the field, Q: It was only during this 1980 to 1983, three (3) years that
did you not – your wife come with you in any of your you lived together that you have a chance to be with the
assignments? spouses?

A: Never, but sometimes she really visited me and stayed xxxx

for one (1) day and then –
A: Since 1980 to 1983 we lived together in the same
Q: And, where did your wife stayed when she leaves you? house.

A: She was staying with her mother in Basilan. xxxx

Q: Where were you assigned most of the time? Q: Now, Madam Witness, after 1983, where did you reside
together with your husband?
A: I was assigned in Davao, Zamboanga, Cotabato, Basilan.
A: In Cagayan de Oro and in 1986 we came back to Manila,
Q: And, of course she would come to your place every now in Fort Bonifacio.
and then because it is not very far –
Q: You mean, in the same house where petitioner and the
A: No, ma’am, once in a while only. respondent lived together?

Q: Did you not go home to your conjugal home? A: Yes. Ma’am.

A: I have a chanced also to go home because we were Q: How long did you live in the house where the petitioner
allowed to at least three (3) days every other month. and the respondent stay?

Q: So, if you start from the marriage up to 1988 so that is A: Twelve years now since 1983 to 1995.
16 years you were supposed to have been living together?
Q: Where was the petitioner working at that time, from
A: No, actually in 19 – middle of 1987 because in 1987 I 1982 to 1995?
was in x x x.25
A: He is a soldier, a Colonel.
GERTRUDES PADERNAL’S TESTIMONY:
Q: Do you know where he was assigned during this time?
Q: Now, do you know when they lived together as
husband and wife? A: Yes, ma’am, G-3.

A: 1979. Q: May we know where this G-3 is?

Q: And you said that you have known the petitioner and A: Fort Bonifacio, ma’am.
the respondent in this case because in fact, you lived with
them together in the same quarters. Does the quarters Q: What about the wife, where does she stay?
have different rooms?
A: At Fort Bonifacio, in their house.26
A: Yes, ma’am.
DR. ELIZABETH E. RONDAIN’S TESTIMONY:
Q: But very near each other?
Q: Now, they got married in 1973, am I correct?
A: Yes, ma’am.
A: Yes, ma’am.
Q: But the matter of the work or assignment of the away from their conjugal home in 1988. On the contrary,
petitioner, he was assigned in different Provinces or the record shows that it was Jose who was constantly
Barangays in the Philippines? away from Bona by reason of his military duties and his
later incarceration. A reasonable explanation for Bona’s
A: Yes, ma’am. refusal to accompany Jose in his military assignments in
other parts of Mindanao may be simply that those
Q: Now, when the wife or the respondent in this case did locations were known conflict areas in the seventies. Any
not go with the husband in different places of his doubt as to Bona’s desire to live with Jose would later be
assignment did you ask her why what was the reason why erased by the fact that Bona lived with Jose in their
she did not like to go those places? conjugal home in Fort Bonifacio during the following
decade.
A: She just did not want to. The wife did not go with him
because… by transferring from one place to another, she In view of the foregoing, the badges of Bona’s alleged
just don’t want to go, she just wanted to stay in Basilan psychological incapacity, i.e., her sexual infidelity and
where her hometown is, ma’am. abandonment, can only be convincingly traced to the
period of time after her marriage to Jose and not to the
Q: Did the petitioner herein tell you why the respondent inception of the said marriage.
don’t want to go with him?
We have stressed time and again that Article 36 of the
A: Yes, I asked, the answer of the petitioner was she simply Family Code is not to be confused with a divorce law that
did not want to go with him because she did not want him cuts the marital bond at the time the causes therefore
to be appointed to far away places. manifest themselves. It refers to a serious psychological
illness afflicting a party even before the celebration of the
Q: And would it be that since she did not like to go with marriage. It is a malady so grave and so permanent as to
the husband in some far away different assignments she deprive one of awareness of the duties and responsibilities
also assumed that the assignments were in this war of the matrimonial bond one is about to assume. These
regions they were always fighting considering the place in marital obligations are those provided under Articles 68 to
Basilan they were in fighting atmosphere? 71, 220, 221 and 225 of the Family Code.28

A: It is possible but he was transferred to Manila and she While we are not insensitive to petitioner’s suffering in
also refused to stay in Manila, ma’am. view of the truly appalling and shocking behavior of his
wife, still, we are bound by judicial precedents regarding
the evidentiary requirements in psychological incapacity
Q: When was that that she refused to come to Manila?
cases that must be applied to the present case.
A: I think, sometime in 1983, ma’am. She did not follow
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED and the assailed
immediately. She stayed with him only for four (4) months,
Decision of the Court of Appeals is hereby AFFIRMED.
ma’am.
SO ORDERED.
Q: Now, do you know if the petitioner and the respondent
were living together as husband and wife for this period of
time during the relationship? TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO
Associate Justice
A: Yes, ma’am. After their marriage I believe their
relationship was good for a few months until he was WE CONCUR:
transferred to Julu. I believe during that time when they
were together the husband was giving an attention to her. RENATO C. CORONA
The husband was always there and when the husband Chief Justice
transferred to Basilan, the attention was not there Chairperson
anymore, ma’am.27
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, MARIANO C. DEL
It is apparent from the above-cited testimonies that Bona, JR. CASTILLO
contrary to Jose’s assertion, had no manifest desire to Associate Justice Associate Justice
abandon Jose at the beginning of their marriage and was,
in fact, living with him for the most part of their
relationship from 1973 up to the time when Jose drove her