Professional Documents
Culture Documents
PFR Art 36-39
PFR Art 36-39
104818 September 17, 1993 Petitioner filed a Motion to Dismiss on the ground that the petition
stated no cause of action. The marriage being void ab initio, the
ROBERTO DOMINGO, petitioner, petition for the declaration of its nullity is, therefore, superfluous
vs. and unnecessary. It added that private respondent has no property
COURT OF APPEALS and DELIA SOLEDAD AVERA represented by which is in his possession.
her Attorney-in-Fact MOISES R. AVERA,respondents.
On August 20, 1991, Judge Maria Alicia M. Austria issued an Order
Jose P.O. Aliling IV for petitioner. denying the motion to dismiss for lack of merit. She explained:
De Guzman, Meneses & Associates for private respondent. Movant argues that a second marriage contracted after a
first marriage by a man with another woman is illegal and
void (citing the case of Yap v. Court of Appeals, 145 SCRA
229) and no judicial decree is necessary to establish the
invalidity of a void marriage (citing the cases of People v.
ROMERO, J.:
Aragon, 100 Phil. 1033; People v. Mendoza, 95 Phil. 845).
Indeed, under the Yap case there is no dispute that the
The instant petition seeks the reversal of respondent court's ruling second marriage contracted by respondent with herein
finding no grave abuse of discretion in the lower court's order
petitioner after a first marriage with another woman is
denying petitioner's motion to dismiss the petition for declaration
illegal and void. However, as to whether or not the second
of nullity of marriage and separation of property.
marriage should first be judicially declared a nullity is not
an issue in said case. In the case of Vda. de Consuegra
On May 29, 1991, private respondent Delia Soledad A. Domingo v. GSIS, the Supreme Court ruled in explicit terms, thus:
filed a petition before the Regional Trial Court of Pasig entitled
"Declaration of Nullity of Marriage and Separation of Property"
And with respect to the right of the second wife, this
against petitioner Roberto Domingo. The petition which was
Court observed that although the second marriage can be
docketed as Special Proceedings No. 1989-J alleged among others
presumed to be void ab initio as it was celebrated while
that: they were married on November 29, 1976 at the YMCA Youth
the first marriage was still subsisting, still there is need for
Center Bldg., as evidenced by a Marriage Contract Registry No.
judicial declaration of its nullity. (37 SCRA 316, 326)
1277K-76 with Marriage License No. 4999036 issued at Carmona,
Cavite; unknown to her, he had a previous marriage with one
The above ruling which is of later vintage deviated from
Emerlina dela Paz on April 25, 1969 which marriage is valid and still
the previous rulings of the Supreme Court in the
existing; she came to know of the prior marriage only sometime in
aforecited cases of Aragon and Mendoza.
1983 when Emerlina dela Paz sued them for bigamy; from January
23 1979 up to the present, she has been working in Saudi Arabia
and she used to come to the Philippines only when she would avail Finally, the contention of respondent movant that
of the one-month annual vacation leave granted by her foreign petitioner has no property in his possession is an issue
employer since 1983 up to the present, he has been unemployed that may be determined only after trial on the merits.1
and completely dependent upon her for support and subsistence;
out of her personal earnings, she purchased real and personal A motion for reconsideration was filed stressing the erroneous
properties with a total amount of approximately P350,000.00, application of Vda. de Consuegra v. GSIS2 and the absence of
which are under the possession and administration of Roberto; justiciable controversy as to the nullity of the marriage. On
sometime in June 1989, while on her one-month vacation, she September 11, 1991, Judge Austria denied the motion for
discovered that he was cohabiting with another woman; she reconsideration and gave petitioner fifteen (15) days from receipt
further discovered that he had been disposing of some of her within which to file his answer.
properties without her knowledge or consent; she confronted him
about this and thereafter appointed her brother Moises R. Avera Instead of filing the required answer, petitioner filed a special civil
as her attorney-in-fact to take care of her properties; he failed and action of certiorari and mandamus on the ground that the lower
refused to turn over the possession and administration of said court acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of
properties to her brother/attorney-in-fact; and he is not authorized jurisdiction in denying the motion to dismiss.
to administer and possess the same on account of the nullity of
their marriage. The petition prayed that a temporary restraining On February 7, 1992, the Court of Appeals3 dismissed the petition.
order or a writ of preliminary injunction be issued enjoining It explained that the case of Yap v. CA4 cited by petitioner and that
Roberto from exercising any act of administration and ownership of Consuegra v. GSIS relied upon by the lower court do not have
over said properties; their marriage be declared null and void and relevance in the case at bar, there being no identity of facts
of no force and effect; and Delia Soledad be declared the sole and because these cases dealt with the successional rights of the
exclusive owner of all properties acquired at the time of their void second wife while the instant case prays for separation of property
marriage and such properties be placed under the proper corollary with the declaration of nullity of marriage. It observed
management and administration of the attorney-in-fact. that the separation and subsequent distribution of the properties
acquired during the union can be had only upon proper
determination of the status of the marital relationship between
said parties, whether or not the validity of the first marriage is it is not for the spouses to judge whether that marriage
denied by petitioner. Furthermore, in order to avoid duplication was void or not. That judgment is reserved to the courts. .
and multiplicity of suits, the declaration of nullity of marriage may . . 10
be invoked in this proceeding together with the partition and
distribution of the properties involved. Citing Articles 48, 50 and 52 This dissenting opinion was adopted as the majority position in
of the Family Code, it held that private respondent's prayer for subsequent cases involving the same issue. Thus, in Gomez
declaration of absolute nullity of their marriage may be raised v. Lipana, 11 the Court abandoned its earlier ruling in
together with other incidents of their marriage such as the the Aragon and Mendoza cases. In reversing the lower court's
separation of their properties. Lastly, it noted that since the Court order forfeiting the husband's share of the disputed property
has jurisdiction, the alleged error in refusing to grant the motion to acquired during the second marriage, the Court stated that "if the
dismiss is merely one of law for which the remedy ordinarily would nullity, or annulment of the marriage is the basis for the
have been to file an answer, proceed with the trial and in case of application of Article 1417, there is need for a judicial declaration
an adverse decision, reiterate the issue on appeal. The motion for thereof, which of course contemplates an action for that purpose."
reconsideration was subsequently denied for lack of merit. 5
Citing Gomez v. Lipana, the Court subsequently held in Vda. de
Hence, this petition. Consuegra v. Government Service Insurance System, that "although
the second marriage can be presumed to be void ab initio as it was
The two basic issues confronting the Court in the instant case are celebrated while the first marriage was still subsisting, still there is
the following. need for judicial declaration of such nullity."
First, whether or not a petition for judicial declaration of a void In Tolentino v. Paras,12 however, the Court turned around and
marriage is necessary. If in the affirmative, whether the same applied the Aragon and Mendoza ruling once again. In granting the
should be filed only for purposes of remarriage. prayer of the first wife asking for a declaration as the lawful
surviving spouse and the correction of the death certificate of her
Second, whether or not SP No. 1989-J is the proper remedy of deceased husband, it explained that "(t)he second marriage that
private respondent to recover certain real and personal properties he contracted with private respondent during the lifetime of his
allegedly belonging to her exclusively. first spouse is null and void from the beginning and of no force and
effect. No judicial decree is necessary to establish the invalidity of a
Petitioner, invoking the ruling in People v. Aragon6 and People void marriage."
v. Mendoza,7 contends that SP. No. 1989-J for Declaration of
Nullity of Marriage and Separation of Property filed by private However, in the more recent case of Wiegel v. Sempio-Diy 13 the
respondent must be dismissed for being unnecessary and Court reverted to the Consuegra case and held that there was "no
superfluous. Furthermore, under his own interpretation of Article need of introducing evidence about the existing prior marriage of
40 of the Family Code, he submits that a petition for declaration of her first husband at the time they married each other, for then
absolute nullity of marriage is required only for purposes of such a marriage though void still needs according to this Court a
remarriage. Since the petition in SP No. 1989-J contains no judicial declaration of such fact and for all legal intents and
allegation of private respondent's intention to remarry, said purposes she would still be regarded as a married woman at the
petition should therefore, be dismissed. time she contracted her marriage with respondent Karl Heinz
Wiegel."
On the other hand, private respondent insists on the necessity of a
judicial declaration of the nullity of their marriage, not for Came the Family Code which settled once and for all the conflicting
purposes of remarriage, but in order to provide a basis for the jurisprudence on the matter. A declaration of the absolute nullity
separation and distribution of the properties acquired during of a marriage is now explicitly required either as a cause of action
coverture. or a ground for defense. 14Where the absolute nullity of a previous
marriage is sought to be invoked for purposes of contracting a
There is no question that the marriage of petitioner and private second marriage, the sole basis acceptable in law for said projected
respondent celebrated while the former's previous marriage with marriage be free from legal infirmity is a final judgment declaring
one Emerlina de la Paz was still subsisting, is bigamous. As such, it the previous marriage void. 15
is from the beginning.8 Petitioner himself does not dispute the
absolute nullity of their marriage.9 The Family Law Revision Committee and the Civil Code Revision
Committee 16 which drafted what is now the Family Code of the
The cases of People v. Aragon and People v. Mendoza relied upon Philippines took the position that parties to a marriage should not
by petitioner are cases where the Court had earlier ruled that no be allowed to assume that their marriage is void even if such be
judicial decree is necessary to establish the invalidity of a void, the fact but must first secure a judicial declaration of the nullity of
bigamous marriage. It is noteworthy to observe that Justice Alex their marriage before they can be allowed to marry again. This is
Reyes, however, dissented on these occasions stating that: borne out by the following minutes of the 152nd Joint Meeting of
the Civil Code and Family Law Committees where the present
Article 40, then Art. 39, was discussed.
Though the logician may say that where the former
marriage was void there would be nothing to dissolve, still
B. Article 39. — action is filed to annul it, which the other members
affirmed. Justice Puno remarked that if this is so, then the
The absolute nullity of a marriage may be invoked only on phrase "absolute nullity" can stand since it might result in
the basis of a final judgment declaring the marriage void, confusion if they change the phrase to "invalidity" if what
except as provided in Article 41. they are referring to in the provision is the declaration
that the marriage is void.
Justice Caguioa remarked that the above provision should
include not only void but also voidable marriages. He then Prof. Bautista commented that they will be doing away
suggested that the above provision be modified as with collateral defense as well as collateral attack. Justice
follows: Caguioa explained that the idea in the provision is that
there should be a final judgment declaring the marriage
The validity of a marriage may be invoked only . . . void and a party should not declare for himself whether or
not the marriage is void, while the other members
affirmed. Justice Caguioa added that they are, therefore,
Justice Reyes (J.B.L. Reyes), however, proposed that they
trying to avoid a collateral attack on that point. Prof.
say:
Bautista stated that there are actions which are brought
on the assumption that the marriage is valid. He then
The validity or invalidity of a marriage may be invoked
asked: Are they depriving one of the right to raise the
only . . .
defense that he has no liability because the basis of the
liability is void? Prof. Bautista added that they cannot say
On the other hand, Justice Puno suggested that they say: that there will be no judgment on the validity or invalidity
of the marriage because it will be taken up in the same
The invalidity of a marriage may be invoked only . . . proceeding. It will not be a unilateral declaration that, it is
a void marriage. Justice Caguioa saw the point of Prof.
Justice Caguioa explained that his idea is that one cannot Bautista and suggested that they limit the provision to
determine for himself whether or not his marriage is valid remarriage. He then proposed that Article 39 be
and that a court action is needed. Justice Puno accordingly reworded as follows:
proposed that the provision be modified to read:
The absolute nullity of a marriage for purposes of
The invalidity of a marriage may be invoked only on the remarriage may be invoked only on the basis of final
basis of a final judgment annulling the marriage or judgment . . .
declaring the marriage void, except as provided in Article
41. Justice Puno suggested that the above be modified as
follows:
Justice Caguioa remarked that in annulment, there is no
question. Justice Puno, however, pointed out that, even if The absolute nullity of a previous marriage may
it is a judgment of annulment, they still have to produce be invoked for purposes of establishing the
the judgment. validity of a subsequent marriage only on the
basis of a final judgment declaring such previous
Justice Caguioa suggested that they say: marriage void, except as provided in Article 41.
The invalidity of a marriage may be Justice Puno later modified the above as follows:
invoked only on the basis of a final
judgment declaring the marriage invalid, For the purpose of establishing the validity of a
except as provided in Article 41. subsequent marriage, the absolute nullity of a
previous marriage may only be invoked on the
Justice Puno raised the question: When a marriage is basis of a final judgment declaring such nullity,
declared invalid, does it include the annulment of a except as provided in Article 41.
marriage and the declaration that the marriage is void?
Justice Caguioa replied in the affirmative. Dean Gupit Justice Caguioa commented that the above
added that in some judgments, even if the marriage is provision is too broad and will not solve the
annulled, it is declared void. Justice Puno suggested that objection of Prof. Bautista. He proposed that
this matter be made clear in the provision. they say:
Prof. Baviera remarked that the original idea in the For the purpose of entering into a subsequent
provision is to require first a judicial declaration of a void marriage, the absolute nullity of a previous
marriage and not annullable marriages, with which the marriage may only be invoked on the basis of a
other members concurred. Judge Diy added that final judgment declaring such nullity, except as
annullable marriages are presumed valid until a direct provided in Article 41.
Justice Caguioa explained that the idea in the previous marriage may be invoked solely for purposes of
above provision is that if one enters into a remarriage, thus rendering irrelevant the clause "on the basis
subsequent marriage without obtaining a final solely of a final judgment declaring such previous marriage void."
judgment declaring the nullity of a previous
marriage, said subsequent marriage is void ab That Article 40 as finally formulated included the significant clause
initio. denotes that such final judgment declaring the previous marriage
void need not be obtained only for purposes of remarriage.
After further deliberation, Justice Puno Undoubtedly, one can conceive of other instances where a party
suggested that they go back to the original might well invoke the absolute nullity of a previous marriage for
wording of the provision as follows: purposes other than remarriage, such as in case of an action for
liquidation, partition, distribution and separation of property
The absolute nullity of a previous marriage may between the erstwhile spouses, as well as an action for the custody
be invoked for purposes of remarriage only on and support of their common children and the delivery of the
the basis of a final judgment declaring such latters' presumptive legitimes. In such cases, evidence needs must
previous marriage void, except as provided in be adduced, testimonial or documentary, to prove the existence of
Article 41. 17 grounds rendering such a previous marriage an absolute nullity.
These need not be limited solely to an earlier final judgment of a
In fact, the requirement for a declaration of absolute nullity of a court declaring such previous marriage void. Hence, in the instance
marriage is also for the protection of the spouse who, believing where a party who has previously contracted a marriage which
that his or her marriage is illegal and void, marries again. With the remains subsisting desires to enter into another marriage which is
judicial declaration of the nullity of his or her first marriage, the legally unassailable, he is required by law to prove that the
person who marries again cannot be charged with bigamy. 18 previous one was an absolute nullity. But this he may do on the
basis solely of a final judgment declaring such previous marriage
void.
Just over a year ago, the Court made the pronouncement that
there is a necessity for a declaration of absolute nullity of a prior
subsisting marriage before contracting another in the recent case This leads us to the question: Why the distinction? In other words,
of Terre v. Terre. 19 The Court, in turning down the defense of for purposes of remarriage, why should the only legally acceptable
respondent Terre who was charged with grossly immoral conduct basis for declaring a previous marriage an absolute nullity be a final
consisting of contracting a second marriage and living with another judgment declaring such previous marriage void? Whereas, for
woman other than complainant while his prior marriage with the purposes other than remarriage, other evidence is acceptable?
latter remained subsisting, said that "for purposes of determining
whether a person is legally free to contract a second marriage, a Marriage, a sacrosanct institution, declared by the Constitution as
judicial declaration that the first marriage was null and void ab an "inviolable social institution, is the foundation of the family;" as
initio is essential." such, it "shall be protected by the State."20 In more explicit terms,
the Family Code characterizes it as "a special contract of
As regards the necessity for a judicial declaration of absolute permanent union between a man and a woman entered into in
nullity of marriage, petitioner submits that the same can be accordance with law for the establishment of conjugal, and family
maintained only if it is for the purpose of remarriage. Failure to life." 21 So crucial are marriage and the family to the stability and
allege this purpose, according to petitioner's theory, will warrant peace of the nation that their "nature, consequences, and
dismissal of the same. incidents are governed by law and not subject to stipulation . .
."22 As a matter of policy, therefore, the nullification of a marriage
for the purpose of contracting another cannot be accomplished
Article 40 of the Family Code provides:
merely on the basis of the perception of both parties or of one that
their union is so defective with respect to the essential requisites
Art. 40. The absolute nullity of a previous
of a contract of marriage as to render it void ipso jure and with no
marriage may be invoked for purposes of legal effect — and nothing more. Were this so, this inviolable social
remarriage on the basis solely of a final judgment
institution would be reduced to a mockery and would rest on very
declaring such previous marriage void. (n)
shaky foundations indeed. And the grounds for nullifying marriage
would be as diverse and far-ranging as human ingenuity and fancy
Crucial to the proper interpretation of Article 40 is the position in could conceive. For such a social significant institution, an official
the provision of the word "solely." As it is placed, the same shows state pronouncement through the courts, and nothing less, will
that it is meant to qualify "final judgment declaring such previous satisfy the exacting norms of society. Not only would such an open
marriage void." Realizing the need for careful craftsmanship in and public declaration by the courts definitively confirm the nullity
conveying the precise intent of the Committee members, the of the contract of marriage, but the same would be easily verifiable
provision in question, as it finally emerged, did not state "The through records accessible to everyone.
absolute nullity of a previous marriage may be invoked solely for
purposes of remarriage . . .," in which case "solely" would clearly
That the law seeks to ensure that a prior marriage is no
qualify the phrase "for purposes of remarriage." Had the
impediment to a second sought to be contracted by one of the
phraseology been such, the interpretation of petitioner would
parties may be gleaned from new information required in the
have been correct and, that is, that the absolute nullity of a
Family Code to be included in the application for a marriage
license, viz, "If previously married, how, when and where the (4) The innocent spouse may revoke the designation of the other
previous marriage was dissolved and annulled." 23 spouse who acted in bad faith as a beneficiary in any insurance
policy, even if such designation be stipulated as irrevocable; and
Reverting to the case before us, petitioner's interpretation of Art.
40 of the Family Code is, undoubtedly, quite restrictive. Thus, his (5) The spouse who contracted the subsequent marriage in bad
position that private respondent's failure to state in the petition faith shall be disqualified to inherit from the innocent spouse by
that the same is filed to enable her to remarry will result in the testate and intestate succession. (n)
dismissal of SP No. 1989-J is untenable. His misconstruction of Art.
40 resulting from the misplaced emphasis on the term "solely" was Art. 44. If both spouses of the subsequent marriage acted in bad
in fact anticipated by the members of the Committee. faith, said marriage shall be void ab initio and all donations by
reason of marriage and testamentary disposition made by one in
Dean Gupit commented the word "only" may be favor of the other are revoked by operation of law. (n) 26
misconstrued to refer to "for purposes of
remarriage." Judge Diy stated that "only" refers Based on the foregoing provisions, private respondent's ultimate
to "final judgment." Justice Puno suggested that prayer for separation of property will simply be one of the
they say "on the basis only of a final judgment." necessary consequences of the judicial declaration of absolute
Prof. Baviera suggested that they use the legal nullity of their marriage. Thus, petitioner's suggestion that in order
term "solely" instead of "only," which the for their properties to be separated, an ordinary civil action has to
Committee approved. 24 (Emphasis supplied) be instituted for that purpose is baseless. The Family Code has
clearly provided the effects of the declaration of nullity of
Pursuing his previous argument that the declaration for absolute marriage, one of which is the separation of property according to
nullity of marriage is unnecessary, petitioner suggests that private the regime of property relations governing them. It stands to
respondent should have filed an ordinary civil action for the reason that the lower court before whom the issue of nullity of a
recovery of the properties alleged to have been acquired during first marriage is brought is likewise clothed with jurisdiction to
their union. In such an eventuality, the lower court would not be decide the incidental questions regarding the couple's properties.
acting as a mere special court but would be clothed with Accordingly, the respondent court committed no reversible error in
jurisdiction to rule on the issues of possession and ownership. In finding that the lower court committed no grave abuse of
addition, he pointed out that there is actually nothing to separate discretion in denying petitioner's motion to dismiss SP No. 1989-J.
or partition as the petition admits that all the properties were
acquired with private respondent's money. WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby DENIED. The decision of
respondent Court dated February 7, 1992 and the Resolution dated
The Court of Appeals disregarded this argument and concluded March 20, 1992 are AFFIRMED.
that "the prayer for declaration of absolute nullity of marriage may
be raised together with the other incident of their marriage such as SO ORDERED.
the separation of their properties."
When a marriage is declared void ab initio, the law states that the
final judgment therein shall provide for "the liquidation, partition
and distribution of the properties of the spouses, the custody and
support of the common children, and the delivery of their
presumptive legitimes, unless such matters had been adjudicated
in previous judicial proceedings." 25 Other specific effects flowing
therefrom, in proper cases, are the following:
Private respondent further argues that "[c]onclusions of law and Furthermore, the particulars prayed for such as names of
evidentiary matters need not be stated in the complaint. The rules persons, names of corporations, dates, amounts involved,
of pleading limit the statement of the cause of action only to such a specification of property for identification purposes, the
operative facts as would give rise to the right of action of the particular transactions involving withdrawals and
plaintiff to obtain relief against the wrongdoer. The details of disbursements, and a statement of other material facts as
probative matter or particulars of evidence, statements of law, would support the conclusions and inferences in the
inferences and arguments need not be stated." 8 complaint, are not evidentiary in nature. On the contrary,
those particulars are material facts that should be clearly
In a nutshell, the ultimate question is whether the Bill of Particulars and definitely averred in the complaint in order that the
submitted by herein respondent is of sufficient definiteness or defendant may, in fairness, be informed of the claims
particularity as to enable herein petitioner to properly prepare her made against him to the end that he may be prepared to
responsive pleading or for trial. meet the issues at the trial.
A complaint only needs to state the "ultimate facts constituting the The aforementioned pronouncement cannot apply to the instant case.
plaintiff’s cause or causes of action." 9 Ultimate facts has been That ruling involves alleged "misappropriation and theft of public
defined as "those facts which the expected evidence will funds, plunder of the nation’s wealth, extortion, blackmail, bribery,
support." 10 As stated by private respondent, "[t]he term does not embezzlement, and other acts of corruption, betrayal of public trust
refer to the details of probative matter or particulars of evidence and brazen abuse of power." The respondents therein pray for
reconveyance, reversion, accounting, restitution and damages. There,
by which these material elements are to be established." It refers
the alleged illicit acts should be fully documented. The instant case, on
to "the facts which the evidence on the trial will prove, and not the
the other hand, concerns marital relationship. It would be
evidence which will be required to prove the existence of those
unreasonable, if not unfeeling, to document each and every
facts." And a motion for bill of particulars will not be granted if the circumstance of marital disagreement. True, the complaining spouse
complaint, while not very definite, nonetheless already states a will have to prove his case, but that will not come until trial begins.
sufficient cause of action. 11 A motion for bill of particulars may not
call for matters which should form part of the proof of the
Consequently, we have no other recourse but to order the immediate
complaint upon trial. Such information may be obtained by other resumption of the annulment proceeding which have already been
means. 12 delayed for more than two years now, even before it could reach its
trial stage. Whether petitioner is psychologically incapacitated should
We sustain the view of respondent Court of Appeals that the Bill of be immediately determined. There is no point in unreasonably
Particulars filed by private respondent is sufficient to state a cause delaying the resolution of the petition and prolonging the agony of the
of action, and to require more details from private respondent wedded couple who after coming out from a storm still have the right
would be to ask for information on evidentiary matters. Indeed, to a renewed blissful life either alone or in the company of each other.
petitioner has already been adequately apprised of private
respondent’s cause of action against her thus — A word on Art. 36 of the Family Code. 16 We do not see the need to
define or limit the scope of the provision. Not in this case, at least. For,
. . . . (she) was psychologically incapacitated to comply with the we are not called upon to do so, the actual controversy being the
essential marital obligations of their marriage in that she was sufficiency of the bill of particulars. To interpret the provision at this
unable to understand and accept the demands made by his juncture would be to give an obiter dictum which is ill-timed. Besides,
profession — that of a newly qualified Doctor of Medicine — upon it appears that petitioner in her memorandum has demonstrated a
good grasp of what Art. 36 actually covers. Suffice it to say that Mme.
petitioner’s time and efforts so that she frequently complained of
Justice Sempio-Diy, formerly of the Court of Appeals and a member of
his lack of attention to her even to her mother, whose intervention
the Civil Code Revision Committee that drafted the Family code,
caused petitioner to lose his job.
explains —
On the basis of the aforequoted allegations, it is evident that The Committee did not give any examples of psychological incapacity
petitioner can already prepare her responsive pleading or for trial. for fear that the giving of examples would limit the applicability of the
Private respondent has already alleged that "she (petitioner) was provision under the principle of ejusdem generis. Rather, the
unable to understand and accept the demands made by his Committee would like the judge to interpret the provision on a case-
profession . . . upon his time and efforts . . . " Certainly, she can to-case basis, guided by experience, the findings of experts and
respond to this. To demand for more details would indeed be researchers in psychological disciplines, and by decisions of church
asking for information on evidentiary facts — facts necessary to tribunals which, although not binding on the civil courts, may be given
prove essential or ultimate facts. 13 For sure, the additional facts persuasive effect since the provision was taken from Canon Law. 17
called for by petitioner regarding her particular acts or omissions
would be evidentiary, and to obtain evidentiary matters is not the WHEREFORE, there being no reversible error, the instant petition is
function of a motion for bill of particulars. 14 DENIED and the questioned Resolution of respondent Court of Appeals
dated 21 July 1992 is AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED.
G.R. No. 112019 January 4, 1995 Having failed to get Julia to somehow come home, Leouel filed
with the regional trial Court of Negros Oriental, Branch 30, a
LEOUEL SANTOS, petitioner, complaint for "Voiding of marriage Under Article 36 of the Family
vs. Code" (docketed, Civil Case No. 9814). Summons was served by
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS AND JULIA ROSARIO BEDIA- publication in a newspaper of general circulation in Negros
SANTOS, respondents. Oriental.
It was in Iloilo City where Leouel, who then held the rank of First Leouel argues that the failure of Julia to return home, or at the
Lieutenant in the Philippine Army, first met Julia. The meeting later very least to communicate with him, for more than five years are
proved to be an eventful day for Leouel and Julia. On 20 circumstances that clearly show her being psychologically
September 1986, the two exchanged vows before Municipal Trial incapacitated to enter into married life. In his own words, Leouel
Court Judge Cornelio G. Lazaro of Iloilo City, followed, shortly asserts:
thereafter, by a church wedding. Leouel and Julia lived with the
latter's parents at the J. Bedia Compound, La Paz, Iloilo City. On 18 . . . (T)here is no leave, there is no affection for (him)
July 1987, Julia gave birth to a baby boy, and he was christened because respondent Julia Rosario Bedia-Santos failed all
Leouel Santos, Jr. The ecstasy, however, did not last long. It was these years to communicate with the petitioner. A wife
bound to happen, Leouel averred, because of the frequent who does not care to inform her husband about her
interference by Julia's parents into the young spouses family whereabouts for a period of five years, more or less, is
affairs. Occasionally, the couple would also start a "quarrel" over a psychologically incapacitated.
number of other things, like when and where the couple should
start living independently from Julia's parents or whenever Julia The family Code did not define the term "psychological incapacity."
would express resentment on Leouel's spending a few days with The deliberations during the sessions of the Family Code Revision
his own parents. Committee, which has drafted the Code, can, however, provide an
insight on the import of the provision.
On 18 May 1988, Julia finally left for the United Sates of America to
work as a nurse despite Leouel's pleas to so dissuade her. Seven Art. 35. The following marriages shall be void from the beginning:
months after her departure, or on 01 January 1989, Julia called up
Leouel for the first time by long distance telephone. She promised
xxx xxx xxx
to return home upon the expiration of her contract in July 1989.
She never did. When Leouel got a chance to visit the United States,
Art. 36. . . .
where he underwent a training program under the auspices of the
Armed Forces of the Philippines from 01 April up to 25 August
1990, he desperately tried to locate, or to somehow get in touch (7) Those marriages contracted by any party who, at the time of
with, Julia but all his efforts were of no avail. the celebration, was wanting in the sufficient use of reason or
judgment to understand the essential nature of marriage or was
psychologically or mentally incapacitated to discharge the essential explained that insanity is curable and there are lucid intervals,
marital obligations, even if such lack of incapacity is made manifest while psychological incapacity is not.
after the celebration.
On another point, Justice Puno suggested that the phrase "even if
On subparagraph (7), which as lifted from the Canon Law, Justice such lack or incapacity is made manifest" be modified to read
(Jose B.L.) Reyes suggested that they say "wanting in sufficient "even if such lack or incapacity becomes manifest."
use," but Justice (Eduardo) Caguioa preferred to say "wanting in
the sufficient use." On the other hand, Justice Reyes proposed that Justice Reyes remarked that in insanity, at the time of the
they say "wanting in sufficient reason." Justice Caguioa, however, marriage, it is not apparent.
pointed out that the idea is that one is not lacking in judgment but
that he is lacking in the exercise of judgment. He added that lack of Justice Caguioa stated that there are two interpretations of the
judgment would make the marriage voidable. Judge (Alicia Sempio- phrase "psychological or mentally incapacitated" — in the first one,
) Diy remarked that lack of judgment is more serious than there is vitiation of consent because one does not know all the
insufficient use of judgment and yet the latter would make the consequences of the marriages, and if he had known these
marriage null and void and the former only voidable. Justice completely, he might not have consented to the marriage.
Caguioa suggested that subparagraph (7) be modified to read:
xxx xxx xxx
"That contracted by any party who, at the time of the
celebration, was psychologically incapacitated to
Prof. Bautista stated that he is in favor of making psychological
discharge the essential marital obligations, even if such
incapacity a ground for voidable marriages since otherwise it will
lack of incapacity is made manifest after the celebration."
encourage one who really understood the consequences of
marriage to claim that he did not and to make excuses for
Justice Caguioa explained that the phrase "was wanting in invalidating the marriage by acting as if he did not understand the
sufficient use of reason of judgment to understand the essential obligations of marriage. Dean Gupit added that it is a loose way of
nature of marriage" refers to defects in the mental faculties providing for divorce.
vitiating consent, which is not the idea in subparagraph (7), but
lack of appreciation of one's marital obligations.
xxx xxx xxx
Prof. (Esteban) Bautista raised the question: Will not cohabitation Justice Caguioa suggested that "even if" be substituted with
be a defense? In response, Justice Puno stated that even the "although." On the other hand, Prof. Bautista proposed that the
bearing of children and cohabitation should not be a sign that clause "although such incapacity becomes manifest after its
psychological incapacity has been cured. solemnization" be deleted since it may encourage one to create
the manifestation of psychological incapacity. Justice Caguioa
Prof. Romero opined that psychological incapacity is still insanity of pointed out that, as in other provisions, they cannot argue on the
a lesser degree. Justice Luciano suggested that they invite a basis of abuse.
psychiatrist, who is the expert on this matter. Justice Caguioa,
however, reiterated that psychological incapacity is not a defect in Judge Diy suggested that they also include mental and physical
the mind but in the understanding of the consequences of incapacities, which are lesser in degree than psychological
marriage, and therefore, a psychiatrist will not be a help. incapacity. Justice Caguioa explained that mental and physical
incapacities are vices of consent while psychological incapacity is
Prof. Bautista stated that, in the same manner that there is a lucid not a species of vice or consent.
interval in insanity, there are also momentary periods when there
is an understanding of the consequences of marriage. Justice Reyes Dean Gupit read what Bishop Cruz said on the matter in the
and Dean Gupit remarked that the ground of psychological minutes of their February 9, 1984 meeting:
incapacity will not apply if the marriage was contracted at the time
when there is understanding of the consequences of marriage.5 "On the third ground, Bishop Cruz indicated that the
phrase "psychological or mental impotence" is an
xxx xxx xxx invention of some churchmen who are moralists but not
canonists, that is why it is considered a weak phrase. He
Judge Diy proposed that they include physical incapacity to said that the Code of Canon Law would rather express it
copulate among the grounds for void marriages. Justice Reyes as "psychological or mental incapacity to discharge . . ."
commented that in some instances the impotence that in some
instances the impotence is only temporary and only with respect Justice Caguioa remarked that they deleted the word "mental"
to a particular person. Judge Diy stated that they can specify that it precisely to distinguish it from vice of consent. He explained that
is incurable. Justice Caguioa remarked that the term "incurable" "psychological incapacity" refers to lack of understanding of the
has a different meaning in law and in medicine. Judge Diy stated essential obligations of marriage.
that "psychological incapacity" can also be cured. Justice Caguioa,
however, pointed out that "psychological incapacity" is incurable. Justice Puno reminded the members that, at the last meeting, they
have decided not to go into the classification of "psychological
Justice Puno observed that under the present draft provision, it is incapacity" because there was a lot of debate on it and that this is
enough to show that at the time of the celebration of the precisely the reason why they classified it as a special case.
marriage, one was psychologically incapacitated so that later on if
already he can comply with the essential marital obligations, the At this point, Justice Puno, remarked that, since there having been
marriage is still void ab initio. Justice Caguioa explained that since annulments of marriages arising from psychological incapacity,
in divorce, the psychological incapacity may occur after the Civil Law should not reconcile with Canon Law because it is a new
marriage, in void marriages, it has to be at the time of the ground even under Canon Law.
celebration of marriage. He, however, stressed that the idea in the
provision is that at the time of the celebration of the marriage, one Prof. Romero raised the question: With this common provision in
is psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential Civil Law and in Canon Law, are they going to have a provision in
marital obligations, which incapacity continues and later becomes the Family Code to the effect that marriages annulled or declared
manifest. void by the church on the ground of psychological incapacity is
automatically annulled in Civil Law? The other members replied
Justice Puno and Judge Diy, however, pointed out that it is possible negatively.
that after the marriage, one's psychological incapacity become
manifest but later on he is cured. Justice Reyes and Justice Caguioa Justice Puno and Prof. Romero inquired if Article 37 should be
opined that the remedy in this case is to allow him to remarry. 6 retroactive or prospective in application.
xxx xxx xxx Justice Diy opined that she was for its retroactivity because it is
their answer to the problem of church annulments of marriages,
Justice Puno formulated the next Article as follows: which are still valid under the Civil Law. On the other hand, Justice
Reyes and Justice Puno were concerned about the avalanche of
Art. 37. A marriage contracted by any party who, at the time of the cases.
celebration, was psychologically incapacitated, to comply with the
Dean Gupit suggested that they put the issue to a vote, which the One author, Ladislas Orsy, S.J., in his treaties, 10 giving an account
Committee approved. on how the third paragraph of Canon 1095 has been framed,
states:
The members voted as follows:
The history of the drafting of this canon does not leave any doubt
(1) Justice Reyes, Justice Puno and Prof. Romero were for that the legislator intended, indeed, to broaden the rule. A strict
prospectivity. and narrow norm was proposed first:
(2) Justice Caguioa, Judge Diy, Dean Gupit, Prof. Bautista and Those who cannot assume the essential
Director Eufemio were for retroactivity. obligations of marriage because of a grave
psycho-sexual anomaly (ob gravem anomaliam
(3) Prof. Baviera abstained. psychosexualem) are unable to contract marriage
(cf. SCH/1975, canon 297, a new canon, novus);
Justice Caguioa suggested that they put in the prescriptive period
of ten years within which the action for declaration of nullity of the then a broader one followed:
marriage should be filed in court. The Committee approved the
suggestion.7 . . . because of a grave psychological anomaly (ob gravem
anomaliam psychicam) . . . (cf. SCH/1980, canon 1049);
It could well be that, in sum, the Family Code Revision Committee
in ultimately deciding to adopt the provision with less specificity then the same wording was retained in the text submitted to the
than expected, has in fact, so designed the law as to allow some pope (cf. SCH/1982, canon 1095, 3);
resiliency in its application. Mme. Justice Alicia V. Sempio-Diy, a
member of the Code Committee, has been quoted by Mr. Justice finally, a new version was promulgated:
Josue N. Bellosillo in Salita vs. Hon. Magtolis (G.R. No. 106429, 13
June 1994); thus:8 because of causes of a psychological nature (ob causas
naturae psychiae).
The Committee did not give any examples of psychological
incapacity for fear that the giving of examples would limit the So the progress was from psycho-sexual to psychological
applicability of the provision under the principle of ejusdem anomaly, then the term anomaly was altogether
generis. Rather, the Committee would like the judge to interpret eliminated. it would be, however, incorrect to draw the
the provision on a case-to-case basis, guided by experience, the conclusion that the cause of the incapacity need not be
findings of experts and researchers in psychological disciplines, and some kind of psychological disorder; after all, normal and
by decisions of church tribunals which, although not binding on the healthy person should be able to assume the ordinary
civil courts, may be given persuasive effect since the provision was obligations of marriage.
taken from Canon Law.
Fr. Orsy concedes that the term "psychological incapacity" defies
A part of the provision is similar to Canon 1095 of the New Code of any precise definition since psychological causes can be of an
Canon Law,9 which reads: infinite variety.
Canon 1095. They are incapable of contracting marriage: In a book, entitled "Canons and Commentaries on Marriage,"
written by Ignatius Gramunt, Javier Hervada and LeRoy Wauck, the
1. who lack sufficient use of reason; following explanation appears:
2. who suffer from a grave defect of discretion of This incapacity consists of the following: (a) a true inability
judgment concerning essentila matrimonial rights and to commit oneself to the essentials of marriage. Some
duties, to be given and accepted mutually; psychosexual disorders and other disorders of personality
can be the psychic cause of this defect, which is here
3. who for causes of psychological nature are unable to described in legal terms. This particular type of incapacity
assume the essential obligations of marriage. (Emphasis consists of a real inability to render what is due by the
supplied.) contract. This could be compared to the incapacity of a
farmer to enter a binding contract to deliver the crops
Accordingly, although neither decisive nor even perhaps all that which he cannot possibly reap; (b) this inability to commit
persuasive for having no juridical or secular effect, the oneself must refer to the essential obligations of
jurisprudence under Canon Law prevailing at the time of the code's marriage: the conjugal act, the community of life and
enactment, nevertheless, cannot be dismissed as impertinent for love, the rendering of mutual help, the procreation and
its value as an aid, at least, to the interpretation or construction of education of offspring; (c) the inability must be
the codal provision. tantamount to a psychological abnormality. The mere
difficulty of assuming these obligations, which could be
overcome by normal effort, obviously does not constitute
incapacity. The canon contemplates a true psychological contract voidable pursuant to Article 46, Family Code. If drug
disorder which incapacitates a person from giving what is addiction, habitual alcholism, lesbianism or homosexuality should
due (cf. John Paul II, Address to R. Rota, Feb. 5, 1987). occur only during the marriage, they become mere grounds for
However, if the marriage is to be declared invalid under legal separation under Article 55 of the Family Code. These
this incapacity, it must be proved not only that the person provisions of the Code, however, do not necessarily preclude the
is afflicted by a psychological defect, but that the possibility of these various circumstances being themselves,
defect did in fact deprive the person, at the moment of depending on the degree and severity of the disorder, indicia of
giving consent, of the ability to assume the essential psychological incapacity.
duties of marriage and consequently of the possibility of
being bound by these duties. Until further statutory and jurisprudential parameters are
established, every circumstance that may have some bearing on
Justice Sempio-Diy 11 cites with approval the work of Dr. Gerardo the degree, extent, and other conditions of that incapacity must, in
Veloso, a former Presiding Judge of the Metropolitan Marriage every case, be carefully examined and evaluated so that no
Tribunal of the Catholic Archdiocese of Manila (Branch 1), who precipitate and indiscriminate nullity is peremptorily decreed. The
opines that psychological incapacity must be characterized by (a) well-considered opinions of psychiatrists, psychologists, and
gravity, (b) juridical antecedence, and (c) incurability. The persons with expertise in psychological disciplines might be helpful
incapacity must be grave or serious such that the party would be or even desirable.
incapable of carrying out the ordinary duties required in marriage;
it must be rooted in the history of the party antedating the Marriage is not an adventure but a lifetime commitment. We
marriage, although the overt manifestations may emerge only should continue to be reminded that innate in our society, then
after the marriage; and it must be incurable or, even if it were enshrined in our Civil Code, and even now still indelible in Article 1
otherwise, the cure would be beyond the means of the party of the Family Code, is that —
involved.
Art. 1. Marriage is a special contract of permanent
It should be obvious, looking at all the foregoing disquisitions, union between a man a woman entered into in
including, and most importantly, the deliberations of the Family accordance with law for the establishment of conjugal and
Code Revision Committee itself, that the use of the phrase family life. It is the foundation of the family and an
"psychological incapacity" under Article 36 of the Code has not inviolable social institution whose nature, consequences,
been meant to comprehend all such possible cases of psychoses as, and incidents are governed by law and not subject to
likewise mentioned by some ecclesiastical authorities, extremely stipulation, except that marriage settlements may fix the
low intelligence, immaturity, and like circumstances (cited in Fr. property relations during the marriage within the limits
Artemio Baluma's "Void and Voidable Marriages in the Family Code provided by this Code. (Emphasis supplied.)
and their Parallels in Canon Law," quoting from the Diagnostic
Statistical Manual of Mental Disorder by the American Psychiatric Our Constitution is no less emphatic:
Association; Edward Hudson's "Handbook II for Marriage Nullity
Cases"). Article 36 of the Family Code cannot be taken and
Sec. 1. The State recognizes the Filipino family as the
construed independently of, but must stand in conjunction with,
foundation of the nation. Accordingly, it shall strengthen
existing precepts in our law on marriage. Thus correlated,
its solidarity and actively promote its total development.
"psychological incapacity" should refer to no less than a mental
(not physical) incapacity that causes a party to be truly incognitive
Sec. 2. Marriage, as an inviolable social institution, is the
of the basic marital covenants that concomitantly must be
foundation of the family and shall be protected by the
assumed and discharged by the parties to the marriage which, as
State. (Article XV, 1987 Constitution).
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 support. There is hardly any doubt that the The above provisions express so well and so distinctly the basic
intendment of the law has been to confine the meaning of nucleus of our laws on marriage and the family, and they are doubt
"psychological incapacity" to the most serious cases of personality the tenets we still hold on to.
disorders clearly demonstrative of an utter intensitivity or inability
to give meaning and significance to the marriage. This pschologic The factual settings in the case at bench, in no measure at all, can
condition must exist at the time the marriage is celebrated. The come close to the standards required to decree a nullity of
law does not evidently envision, upon the other hand, an inability marriage. Undeniably and understandably, Leouel stands
of the spouse to have sexual relations with the other. This aggrieved, even desperate, in his present situation. Regrettably,
conclusion is implicit under Article 54 of the Family Code which neither law nor society itself can always provide all the specific
considers children conceived prior to the judicial declaration of answers to every individual problem.
nullity of the void marriage to be "legitimate."
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED.
The other forms of psychoses, if existing at the inception of
marriage, like the state of a party being of unsound mind or SO ORDERED.
concealment of drug addiction, habitual alcoholism, homosexuality
or lesbianism, merely renders the marriage
G.R. No. 108763 February 13, 1997 individual who thought of himself as a king to be served; and that it
would be to the couple's best interest to have their marriage
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, declared null and void in order to free them from what appeared
vs. to be an incompatible marriage from the start.
COURT OF APPEALS and RORIDEL OLAVIANO
MOLINA, respondents. In his Answer filed on August 28, 1989, Reynaldo admitted that he
and Roridel could no longer live together as husband and wife, but
contended that their misunderstandings and frequent quarrels
were due to (1) Roridel's strange behavior of insisting on
PANGANIBAN, J.: maintaining her group of friends even after their marriage; (2)
Roridel's refusal to perform some of her marital duties such as
cooking meals; and (3) Roridel's failure to run the household and
The Family Code of the Philippines provides an entirely new
handle their finances.
ground (in addition to those enumerated in the Civil Code) to
assail the validity of a marriage, namely, "psychological
incapacity." Since the Code's effectivity, our courts have been During the pre-trial on October 17, 1990, the following were
swamped with various petitions to declare marriages void based stipulated:
on this ground. Although this Court had interpreted the meaning
of psychological incapacity in the recent case of Santos vs. Court 1. That the parties herein were legally married on April 14, 1985 at
of Appeals, still many judges and lawyers find difficulty in the Church of St. Augustine, Manila;
applying said novel provision in specific cases. In the present case
and in the context of the herein assailed Decision of the Court of 2. That out of their marriage, a child named Albert Andre Olaviano
Appeals, the Solicitor General has labelled — exaggerated to be Molina was born on July 29, 1986;
sure but nonetheless expressive of his frustration — Article 36 as
the "most liberal divorce procedure in the world." Hence, this 3. That the parties are separated-in-fact for more than three years;
Court in addition to resolving the present case, finds the need to
lay down specific guidelines in the interpretation and application 4. That petitioner is not asking support for her and her child;
of Article 36 of the Family Code.
5. That the respondent is not asking for damages;
Before us is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45
challenging the January 25, 1993 Decision1 of the Court of
6. That the common child of the parties is in the custody of the
Appeals2 in CA-G.R. CV No. 34858 affirming in toto the May 14,
petitioner wife.
1991 decision of the Regional Trial Court of La Trinidad,3 Benguet,
which declared the marriage of respondent Roridel Olaviano
Evidence for herein respondent wife consisted of her own
Molina to Reynaldo Molina void ab initio, on the ground of
testimony and that of her friends Rosemarie Ventura and Maria
"psychological incapacity" under Article 36 of the Family Code.
Leonora Padilla as well as of Ruth G. Lalas, a social worker, and of
Dr. Teresita Hidalgo-Sison, a psychiatrist of the Baguio General
The Facts
Hospital and Medical Center. She also submitted documents
marked as Exhibits "A" to "E-1." Reynaldo did not present any
This case was commenced on August 16, 1990 with the filing by evidence as he appeared only during the pre-trial conference.
respondent Roridel O. Molina of a verified petition for declaration
of nullity of her marriage to Reynaldo Molina. Essentially, the
On May 14, 1991, the trial court rendered judgment declaring the
petition alleged that Roridel and Reynaldo were married on April
marriage void. The appeal of petitioner was denied by the Court of
14, 1985 at the San Agustin Church4 in Manila; that a son, Andre O.
Appeals which affirmed in toto the RTC's decision. Hence, the
Molina was born; that after a year of marriage, Reynaldo showed
present recourse.
signs of "immaturity and irresponsibility" as a husband and a father
since he preferred to spend more time with his peers and friends
The Issue
on whom he squandered his money; that he depended on his
parents for aid and assistance, and was never honest with his wife
in regard to their finances, resulting in frequent quarrels between In his petition, the Solicitor General insists that "the Court of
them; that sometime in February 1986, Reynaldo was relieved of Appeals made an erroneous and incorrect interpretation of the
his job in Manila, and since then Roridel had been the sole phrase 'psychological incapacity' (as provided under Art. 36 of the
breadwinner of the family; that in October 1986 the couple had a Family Code) and made an incorrect application thereof to the
very intense quarrel, as a result of which their relationship was facts of the case," adding that the appealed Decision tended "to
estranged; that in March 1987, Roridel resigned from her job in establish in effect the most liberal divorce procedure in the world
Manila and went to live with her parents in Baguio City; that a few which is anathema to our culture."
weeks later, Reynaldo left Roridel and their child, and had since
then abandoned them; that Reynaldo had thus shown that he was In denying the Solicitor General's appeal, the respondent Court
psychologically incapable of complying with essential marital relied5 heavily on the trial court's findings "that the marriage
obligations and was a highly immature and habitually quarrel some between the parties broke up because of their opposing and
conflicting personalities." Then, it added it sown opinion that "the they must be shown to be incapable of doing so, due to some
Civil Code Revision Committee (hereinafter referred to as psychological (nor physical) illness.
Committee) intended to liberalize the application of our civil laws
on personal and family rights. . . ." It concluded that: The evidence adduced by respondent merely showed that she and
her husband could nor get along with each other. There had been
As ground for annulment of marriage, We view no showing of the gravity of the problem; neither its juridical
psychologically incapacity as a broad range of mental and antecedence nor its incurability. The expert testimony of Dr. Sison
behavioral conduct on the part of one spouse indicative of showed no incurable psychiatric disorder but only incompatibility,
how he or she regards the marital union, his or her not psychological incapacity. Dr. Sison testified:8
personal relationship with the other spouse, as well as his
or her conduct in the long haul for the attainment of the COURT
principal objectives of marriage. If said conduct, observed
and considered as a whole, tends to cause the union to Q It is therefore the recommendation of the psychiatrist based on
self-destruct because it defeats the very objectives of your findings that it is better for the Court to annul (sic) the
marriage, then there is enough reason to leave the marriage?
spouses to their individual fates.
A Yes, Your Honor.
In the case at bar, We find that the trial judge committed
no indiscretion in analyzing and deciding the instant case,
Q There is no hope for the marriage?
as it did, hence, We find no cogent reason to disturb the
findings and conclusions thus made.
A There is no hope, the man is also living with another woman.
Respondent, in her Memorandum, adopts these discussions of the
Q Is it also the stand of the psychiatrist that the parties are
Court of Appeals.
psychologically unfit for each other but they are psychologically fit
with other parties?
The petitioner, on the other hand, argues that "opposing and
conflicting personalities" is not equivalent to psychological
incapacity, explaining that such ground "is not simply A Yes, Your Honor.
the neglect by the parties to the marriage of their responsibilities
and duties, but a defect in their psychological nature which renders Q Neither are they psychologically unfit for their professions?
them incapable of performing such marital responsibilities and
duties." A Yes, Your Honor.
The petition is meritorious. In the case of Reynaldo, there is no showing that his alleged
personality traits were constitutive of psychological incapacity
In Leouel Santos vs. Court of Appeals6 this Court, speaking thru Mr. existing at the time of marriage celebration. While some effort was
Justice Jose C. Vitug, ruled that "psychological incapacity should made to prove that there was a failure to fulfill pre-nuptial
refer to no less than a mental (nor physical) incapacity . . . and that impressions of "thoughtfulness and gentleness" on Reynaldo's part
(t)here is hardly any doubt that the intendment of the law has of being "conservative, homely and intelligent" on the part of
been to confine the meaning of 'psychological incapacity' to the Roridel, such failure of expectation is nor indicative of antecedent
most serious cases of personality disorders clearly demonstrative psychological incapacity. If at all, it merely shows love's temporary
of an utter insensitivity or inability to give meaning and significance blindness to the faults and blemishes of the beloved.
to the marriage. This psychologic condition must exist at the time
the marriage is celebrated." Citing Dr. Gerardo Veloso, a former During its deliberations, the Court decided to go beyond merely
presiding judge of the Metropolitan Marriage Tribunal of the ruling on the facts of this case vis-a-vis existing law and
Catholic Archdiocese of Manila,7 Justice Vitug wrote that "the jurisprudence. In view of the novelty of Art. 36 of the Family Code
psychological incapacity must be characterized by (a) gravity, (b) and the difficulty experienced by many trial courts interpreting and
juridical antecedence, and (c) incurability." applying it, the Court decided to invite two amici curiae, namely,
the Most Reverend Oscar V. Cruz,9 Vicar Judicial (Presiding Judge)
On the other hand, in the present case, there is no clear showing of the National Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal of the Catholic
to us that the psychological defect spoken of is an incapacity. It Church in the Philippines, and Justice Ricardo C. Puno, 10 a member
appears to us to be more of a "difficulty," if not outright "refusal" of the Family Code Revision Committee. The Court takes this
or "neglect" in the performance of some marital obligations. Mere occasion to thank these friends of the Court for their informative
showing of "irreconciliable differences" and "conflicting and interesting discussions during the oral argument on December
personalities" in no wise constitutes psychological incapacity. It is 3, 1996, which they followed up with written memoranda.
not enough to prove that the parties failed to meet their
responsibilities and duties as married persons; it is essential that
From their submissions and the Court's own deliberations, the emotional outbursts" cannot be accepted as root causes. The
following guidelines in the interpretation and application of Art. 36 illness must be shown as downright incapacity or inability, nor a
of the Family Code are hereby handed down for the guidance of refusal, neglect or difficulty, much less ill will. In other words, there
the bench and the bar: is a natal or supervening disabling factor in the person, an adverse
integral element in the personality structure that effectively
(1) The burden of proof to show the nullity of the marriage belongs incapacitates the person from really accepting and thereby
to the plaintiff. Any doubt should be resolved in favor of the complying with the obligations essential to marriage.
existence and continuation of the marriage and against its
dissolution and nullity. This is rooted in the fact that both our (6) The essential marital obligations must be those embraced by
Constitution and our laws cherish the validity of marriage and unity Articles 68 up to 71 of the Family Code as regards the husband and
of the family. Thus, our Constitution devotes an entire Article on wife as well as Articles 220, 221 and 225 of the same Code in
the Family, 11 recognizing it "as the foundation of the nation." It regard to parents and their children. Such non-complied marital
decrees marriage as legally "inviolable," thereby protecting it from obligation(s) must also be stated in the petition, proven by
dissolution at the whim of the parties. Both the family and evidence and included in the text of the decision.
marriage are to be "protected" by the state.
(7) Interpretations given by the National Appellate Matrimonial
The Family Code 12 echoes this constitutional edict on marriage and Tribunal of the Catholic Church in the Philippines, while not
the family and emphasizes the permanence, controlling or decisive, should be given great respect by our courts.
inviolability and solidarity It is clear that Article 36 was taken by the Family Code Revision
Committee from Canon 1095 of the New Code of Canon Law,
(2) The root cause of the psychological incapacity must be (a) which became effective in 1983 and which provides:
medically or clinically identified, (b) alleged in the complaint, (c)
sufficiently proven by experts and (d) clearly explained in the The following are incapable of contracting marriage:
decision. Article 36 of the Family Code requires that the incapacity Those who are unable to assume the essential obligations
must be psychological — not physical. although its manifestations of marriage due to causes of psychological nature. 14
and/or symptoms may be physical. The evidence must convince
the court that the parties, or one of them, was mentally or Since the purpose of including such provision in our Family Code is
physically ill to such an extent that the person could not have to harmonize our civil laws with the religious faith of our people, it
known the obligations he was assuming, or knowing them, could stands to reason that to achieve such harmonization, great
not have given valid assumption thereof. Although no example of persuasive weight should be given to decision of such appellate
such incapacity need be given here so as not to limit the tribunal. Ideally — subject to our law on evidence — what is
application of the provision under the principle of ejusdem decreed as canonically invalid should also be decreed civilly void.
generis, 13 nevertheless such root cause must be identified as a
psychological illness and its incapacitating nature explained. Expert This is one instance where, in view of the evident source and
evidence may be given qualified psychiatrist and clinical purpose of the Family Code provision, contemporaneous religious
psychologists. interpretation is to be given persuasive effect. Here, the State and
the Church — while remaining independent, separate and apart
(3) The incapacity must be proven to be existing at "the time of the from each other — shall walk together in synodal cadence towards
celebration" of the marriage. The evidence must show that the the same goal of protecting and cherishing marriage and the family
illness was existing when the parties exchanged their "I do's." The as the inviolable base of the nation.
manifestation of the illness need not be perceivable at such time,
but the illness itself must have attached at such moment, or prior (8) The trial court must order the prosecuting attorney or fiscal and
thereto. the Solicitor General to appear as counsel for the state. No
decision shall he handed down unless the Solicitor General issues a
(4) Such incapacity must also be shown to be medically or clinically certification, which will be quoted in the decision, briefly staring
permanent or incurable. Such incurability may be absolute or even therein his reasons for his agreement or opposition, as the case
relative only in regard to the other spouse, not necessarily may be, to the petition. The Solicitor General, along with the
absolutely against everyone of the same sex. Furthermore, such prosecuting attorney, shall submit to the court such certification
incapacity must be relevant to the assumption of marriage within fifteen (15) days from the date the case is deemed
obligations, not necessarily to those not related to marriage, like submitted for resolution of the court. The Solicitor General shall
the exercise of a profession or employment in a job. Hence, a discharge the equivalent function of the defensor
pediatrician may be effective in diagnosing illnesses of children and vinculi contemplated under Canon 1095.
prescribing medicine to cure them but may not be psychologically
capacitated to procreate, bear and raise his/her own children as an In the instant case and applying Leouel Santos, we have already
essential obligation of marriage. ruled to grant the petition. Such ruling becomes even more cogent
with the use of the foregoing guidelines.
(5) Such illness must be grave enough to bring about the disability
of the party to assume the essential obligations of marriage. Thus,
"mild characteriological peculiarities, mood changes, occasional
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The assailed Decision is In an effort to have their honeymoon in a private place
REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The marriage of Roridel Olaviano to where they can enjoy together during their first week as
Reynaldo Molina subsists and remains valid. SO ORDERED. husband and wife, they went to Baguio City. But, they did
so together with her mother, an uncle, his mother and his
G.R. No. 119190 January 16, 1997 nephew. They were all invited by the defendant to join
them. [T]hey stayed in Baguio City for four (4) days. But,
CHI MING TSOI, petitioner, during this period, there was no sexual intercourse
vs. between them, since the defendant avoided her by taking
COURT OF APPEALS and GINA LAO-TSOI, respondents. a long walk during siesta time or by just sleeping on a
rocking chair located at the living room. They slept
together in the same room and on the same bed since
May 22, 1988 until March 15, 1989. But during this period,
there was no attempt of sexual intercourse between
TORRES, JR., J.: them. [S]he claims, that she did not: even see her
husband's private parts nor did he see hers.
Man has not invented a reliable compass by which to steer a
marriage in its journey over troubled waters. Laws are seemingly
Because of this, they submitted themselves for medical
inadequate. Over time, much reliance has been placed in the works
examinations to Dr. Eufemio Macalalag, a urologist at the
of the unseen hand of Him who created all things.
Chinese General Hospital, on January 20, 1989.
Sometime on May 22, 1988, the plaintiff married the The plaintiff is not willing to reconcile with her husband.
defendant at the Manila Cathedral, . . . Intramuros Manila,
as evidenced by their Marriage Contract. (Exh. "A") On the other hand, it is the claim of the defendant that if
their marriage shall be annulled by reason of
After the celebration of their marriage and wedding psychological incapacity, the fault lies with his wife.
reception at the South Villa, Makati, they went and
proceeded to the house of defendant's mother. But, he said that he does not want his marriage with his
wife annulled for several reasons, viz: (1) that he loves her
There, they slept together on the same bed in the same very much; (2) that he has no defect on his part and he is
room for the first night of their married life. physically and psychologically capable; and, (3) since the
relationship is still very young and if there is any
It is the version of the plaintiff, that contrary to her differences between the two of them, it can still be
expectations, that as newlyweds they were supposed to reconciled and that, according to him, if either one of
enjoy making love, or having sexual intercourse, with each them has some incapabilities, there is no certainty that
other, the defendant just went to bed, slept on one side this will not be cured. He further claims, that if there is
thereof, then turned his back and went to sleep . There any defect, it can be cured by the intervention of medical
was no sexual intercourse between them during the first technology or science.
night. The same thing happened on the second, third and
fourth nights. The defendant admitted that since their marriage on May
22, 1988, until their separation on March 15, 1989, there
was no sexual contact between them. But, the reason for
this, according to the defendant, was that everytime he Petitioner alleges that the respondent Court of Appeals erred:
wants to have sexual intercourse with his wife, she always
avoided him and whenever he caresses her private parts, I
she always removed his hands. The defendant claims, that
he forced his wife to have sex with him only once but he in affirming the conclusions of the lower court that there
did not continue because she was shaking and she did not was no sexual intercourse between the parties without
like it. So he stopped. making any findings of fact.
ACCORDINGLY, judgment is hereby rendered declaring as Section 1. Judgment on the pleadings. — Where an
VOID the marriage entered into by the plaintiff with the answer fails to tender an issue, or otherwise admits the
defendant on May 22, 1988 at the Manila Cathedral, material allegations of the adverse party's pleading, the
Basilica of the Immaculate Conception, Intramuros, court may, on motion of that party, direct judgment on
Manila, before the Rt. Rev. Msgr. Melencio de Vera. such pleading. But in actions for annulment of marriage or
Without costs. Let a copy of this decision be furnished the for legal separation the material facts alleged in the
Local Civil Registrar of Quezon City. Let another copy be complaint shall always be proved.
furnished the Local Civil Registrar of Manila.
The foregoing provision pertains to a judgment on the pleadings.
SO ORDERED. What said provision seeks to prevent is annulment of marriage
without trial. The assailed decision was not based on such a
judgment on the pleadings. When private respondent testified
On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision.
under oath before the trial court and was cross-examined by oath
before the trial court and was cross-examined by the adverse
Hence, the instant petition.
party, she thereby presented evidence in form of a testimony.
After such evidence was presented, it be came incumbent upon Petitioner claims that there is no independent evidence on record
petitioner to present his side. He admitted that since their to show that any of the parties is suffering from phychological
marriage on May 22, 1988, until their separation on March 15, incapacity. Petitioner also claims that he wanted to have sex with
1989, there was no sexual intercourse between them. private respondent; that the reason for private respondent's
refusal may not be psychological but physical disorder as stated
To prevent collusion between the parties is the reason why, as above.
stated by the petitioner, the Civil Code provides that no judgment
annulling a marriage shall be promulgated upon a stipulation of We do not agree. Assuming it to be so, petitioner could have
facts or by confession of judgment (Arts. 88 and 101[par. 2]) and discussed with private respondent or asked her what is ailing her,
the Rules of Court prohibit such annulment without trial (Sec. 1, and why she balks and avoids him everytime he wanted to have
Rule 19). sexual intercourse with her. He never did. At least, there is nothing
in the record to show that he had tried to find out or discover what
The case has reached this Court because petitioner does not want the problem with his wife could be. What he presented in evidence
their marriage to be annulled. This only shows that there is no is his doctor's Medical Report that there is no evidence of his
collusion between the parties. When petitioner admitted that he impotency and he is capable of erection. 5 Since it is petitioner's
and his wife (private respondent) have never had sexual contact claim that the reason is not psychological but perhaps physical
with each other, he must have been only telling the truth. We are disorder on the part of private respondent, it became incumbent
reproducing the relevant portion of the challenged resolution upon him to prove such a claim.
denying petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration, penned with
magisterial lucidity by Associate Justice Minerva Gonzaga- If a spouse, although physically capable but simply refuses
Reyes, viz: to perform his or her essential marriage obligations, and
the refusal is senseless and constant, Catholic marriage
The judgment of the trial court which was affirmed by this tribunals attribute the causes to psychological incapacity
Court is not based on a stipulation of facts. The issue of than to stubborn refusal. Senseless and protracted refusal
whether or not the appellant is psychologically is equivalent to psychological incapacity. Thus, the
incapacitated to discharge a basic marital obligation was prolonged refusal of a spouse to have sexual intercourse
resolved upon a review of both the documentary and with his or her spouse is considered a sign of psychological
testimonial evidence on record. Appellant admitted that incapacity.6
he did not have sexual relations with his wife after almost
ten months of cohabitation, and it appears that he is not Evidently, one of the essential marital obligations under the Family
suffering from any physical disability. Such abnormal Code is "To procreate children based on the universal principle that
reluctance or unwillingness to consummate his marriage procreation of children through sexual cooperation is the basic end
is strongly indicative of a serious personality disorder of marriage." Constant non- fulfillment of this obligation will finally
which to the mind of this Court clearly demonstrates an destroy the integrity or wholeness of the marriage. In the case at
'utter insensitivity or inability to give meaning and bar, the senseless and protracted refusal of one of the parties to
significance to the marriage' within the meaning of Article fulfill the above marital obligation is equivalent to psychological
36 of the Family Code (See Santos vs. Court of Appeals, incapacity.
G.R. No. 112019, January 4, 1995).4
As aptly stated by the respondent court,
Petitioner further contends that respondent court erred in holding
that the alleged refusal of both the petitioner and the private An examination of the evidence convinces Us that the
respondent to have sex with each other constitutes psychological husband's plea that the wife did not want carnal
incapacity of both. He points out as error the failure of the trial intercourse with him does not inspire belief. Since he was
court to make "a categorical finding about the alleged not physically impotent, but he refrained from sexual
psychological incapacity and an in-depth analysis of the reasons for intercourse during the entire time (from May 22, 1988 to
such refusal which may not be necessarily due to physchological March 15, 1989) that he occupied the same bed with his
disorders" because there might have been other reasons, — i.e., wife, purely out of symphaty for her feelings, he deserves
physical disorders, such as aches, pains or other discomforts, — to be doubted for not having asserted his right seven
why private respondent would not want to have sexual intercourse though she balked (Tompkins vs. Tompkins, 111 Atl. 599,
from May 22, 1988 to March 15, 1989, in a short span of 10 cited in I Paras, Civil Code, at p. 330). Besides, if it were
months. true that it is the wife was suffering from incapacity, the
fact that defendant did not go to court and seek the
First, it must be stated that neither the trial court nor the declaration of nullity weakens his claim. This case was
respondent court made a finding on who between petitioner and instituted by the wife whose normal expectations of her
private respondent refuses to have sexual contact with the other. marriage were frustrated by her husband's inadequacy.
The fact remains, however, that there has never been coitus Considering the innate modesty of the Filipino woman, it
between them. At any rate, since the action to declare the is hard to believe that she would expose her private life to
marriage void may be filed by either party, i.e., even the public scrutiny and fabricate testimony against her
psychologically incapacitated, the question of who refuses to have husband if it were not necessary to put her life in order
sex with the other becomes immaterial. and put to rest her marital status.
We are not impressed by defendant's claim that what the
evidence proved is the unwillingness or lack of intention
to perform the sexual act, which is not phychological
incapacity, and which can be achieved "through proper
motivation." After almost ten months of cohabitation, the
admission that the husband is reluctant or unwilling to
perform the sexual act with his wife whom he professes to
love very dearly, and who has not posed any
insurmountable resistance to his alleged approaches, is
indicative of a hopeless situation, and of a serious
personality disorder that constitutes psychological
incapacity to discharge the basic marital covenants within
the contemplation of the Family Code.7
While the law provides that the husband and the wife are obliged
to live together, observe mutual love, respect and fidelity (Art. 68,
Family Code), the sanction therefor is actually the "spontaneous,
mutual affection between husband and wife and not any legal
mandate or court order" (Cuaderno vs. Cuaderno 120 Phil. 1298).
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
unfulfilled self. The egoist has nothing but himself. In the natural
order, it is sexual intimacy which brings spouses wholeness and
oneness. Sexual intimacy is a gift and a participation in the mystery
of creation. It is a function which enlivens the hope of procreation
and ensures the continuation of family relations.
SO ORDERED.
G.R. No. 136490 October 19, 2000 in Malacañang Park, Manila (Exh. A-1). Out of their marriage, five
(5) children were born (Exhs. B, C, D, E and F).
BRENDA B. MARCOS, petitioner,
vs. "Appellant Wilson G. Marcos joined the Armed Forces of the
WILSON G. MARCOS, respondent. Philippines in 1973. Later on, he was transferred to the Presidential
Security Command in Malacañang during the Marcos Regime.
DECISION Appellee Brenda B. Marcos, on the other hand, joined the
Women's Auxilliary Corps under the Philippine Air Force in 1978.
PANGANIBAN, J.: After the Edsa Revolution, both of them sought a discharge from
the military service.
Psychological incapacity, as a ground for declaring the nullity of a
marriage, may be established by the totality of evidence "They first met sometime in 1980 when both of them were
presented. There is no requirement, however, that the respondent assigned at the Malacañang Palace, she as an escort of Imee
should be examined by a physician or a psychologist as a conditio Marcos and he as a Presidential Guard of President Ferdinand
sine qua non for such declaration. Marcos. Through telephone conversations, they became
acquainted and eventually became sweethearts.
The Case
"After their marriage on September 6, 1982, they resided at No.
1702 Daisy Street, Hulo Bliss, Mandaluyong, a housing unit which
Before us is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the
she acquired from the Bliss Development Corporation when she
Rules of Court, assailing the July 24, 1998 Decision1 of the Court of
was still single.
Appeals (CA) in CA-GR CV No. 55588, which disposed as follows:
"It was established during the trial that the parties were married "On October 19, 1994, she submitted herself [to] medical
twice: (1) on September 6, 1982 which was solemnized by Judge examination at the Mandaluyong Medical Center where her
Eriberto H. Espiritu at the Municipal Court of Pasig (Exh. A); and (2) injuries were diagnosed as contusions (Exh. G, Records, 153).
on May 8, 1983 which was solemnized by Rev. Eduardo L. Eleazar,
Command Chaplain, at the Presidential Security Command Chapel "Sometime in August 1995, she together with her two sisters and
driver, went to him at the Bliss unit in Mandaluyong to look for
their missing child, Niko. Upon seeing them, he got mad. After Issues
knowing the reason for their unexpected presence, he ran after
them with a samurai and even [beat] her driver. In her Memorandum,6 petitioner presents for this Court's
consideration the following issues:
"At the time of the filing of this case, she and their children were
renting a house in Camella, Parañaque, while the appellant was "I. Whether or not the Honorable Court of Appeals could
residing at the Bliss unit in Mandaluyong. set aside the findings by the Regional Trial Court of
psychological incapacity of a respondent in a Petition for
"In the case study conducted by Social Worker Sonia C. Millan, the declaration of nullity of marriage simply because the
children described their father as cruel and physically abusive to respondent did not subject himself to psychological
them (Exh. UU, Records, pp. 85-100). evaluation.
"The appellee submitted herself to psychologist Natividad A. II. Whether or not the totality of evidence presented and
Dayan, Ph.D., for psychological evaluation (Exh. YY, Records, pp. the demeanor of all the witnesses should be the basis of
207-216), while the appellant on the other hand, did not. the determination of the merits of the Petition." 7
"The court a quo found the appellant to be psychologically The Court's Ruling
incapacitated to perform his marital obligations mainly because of
his failure to find work to support his family and his violent attitude We agree with petitioner that the personal medical or
towards appellee and their children, x x x."3 psychological examination of respondent is not a requirement for a
declaration of psychological incapacity. Nevertheless, the totality
Ruling of the Court of Appeals of the evidence she presented does not show such incapacity.
Reversing the RTC, the CA held that psychological incapacity had Preliminary Issue: Need for Personal Medical Examination
not been established by the totality of the evidence presented. It
ratiocinated in this wise: Petitioner contends that the testimonies and the results of various
tests that were submitted to determine respondent's psychological
"Essential in a petition for annulment is the allegation of the root incapacity to perform the obligations of marriage should not have
cause of the spouse's psychological incapacity which should also be been brushed aside by the Court of Appeals, simply because
medically or clinically identified, sufficiently proven by experts and respondent had not taken those tests himself. Petitioner adds that
clearly explained in the decision. The incapacity must be proven to the CA should have realized that under the circumstances, she had
be existing at the time of the celebration of the marriage and no choice but to rely on other sources of information in order to
shown to be medically or clinically permanent or incurable. It must determine the psychological capacity of respondent, who had
also be grave enough to bring about the disability of the parties to refused to submit himself to such tests.
assume the essential obligations of marriage as set forth in Articles
68 to 71 and Articles 220 to 225 of the Family Code and such non- In Republic v. CA and Molina,8 the guidelines governing the
complied marital obligations must similarly be alleged in the application and the interpretation of psychological
petition, established by evidence and explained in the decision. incapacity referred to in Article 36 of the Family Code9 were laid
down by this Court as follows:
"In the case before us, the appellant was not subjected to any
psychological or psychiatric evaluation. The psychological findings "1) The burden of proof to show the nullity of the
about the appellant by psychiatrist Natividad Dayan were based marriage belongs to the plaintiff. Any doubt should be
only on the interviews conducted with the appellee. Expert resolved in favor of the existence and continuation of the
evidence by qualified psychiatrists and clinical psychologists is marriage and against its dissolution and nullity. This is
essential if only to prove that the parties were or any one of them rooted in the fact that both our Constitution and our laws
was mentally or psychically ill to be truly incognitive of the marital cherish the validity of marriage and unity of the family.
obligations he or she was assuming, or as would make him or her x Thus, our Constitution devotes an entire Article on the
x x unable to assume them. In fact, he offered testimonial evidence Family, recognizing it 'as the foundation of the nation.' It
to show that he [was] not psychologically incapacitated. The root decrees marriage as legally 'inviolable,' thereby protecting
cause of his supposed incapacity was not alleged in the petition, it from dissolution at the whim of the parties. Both the
nor medically or clinically identified as a psychological illness or family and marriage are to be 'protected' by the state.
sufficiently proven by an expert. Similarly, there is no evidence at
all that would show that the appellant was suffering from an xxx xxx xxx
incapacity which [was] psychological or mental - not physical to the
extent that he could not have known the obligations he was
2) The root cause of the psychological incapacity must be:
assuming: that the incapacity [was] grave, ha[d] preceded the
(a) medically or clinically identified, (b) alleged in the
marriage and [was] incurable."4
complaint, (c) sufficiently proven by experts and (d)
clearly explained in the decision. Article 36 of the Family
Hence, this Petition.5 Code requires that the incapacity must be psychological -
not physical, although its manifestations and/or xxx xxx xxx
symptoms may be physical. The evidence must convince
the court that the parties, or one of them, was mentally or (8) The trial court must order the prosecuting attorney or
psychically ill to such an extent that the person could not fiscal and the Solicitor General to appear as counsel for
have known the obligations he was assuming, or knowing the state. No decision shall be handed down unless the
them, could not have given valid assumption thereof. Solicitor General issues a certification, which will be
Although no example of such incapacity need be given quoted in the decision, briefly stating therein his reasons
here so as not to limit the application of the provision for his agreement or opposition, as the case may be, to
under the principle ofejusdem generis, nevertheless such the petition. The Solicitor General, along with the
root cause must be identified as a psychological illness prosecuting attorney, shall submit to the court such
and its incapacitating nature fully explained. Expert certification within fifteen (15) days from the date the
evidence may be given by qualified psychiatrists and case is deemed submitted for resolution of the court. The
clinical psychologists. Solicitor General shall discharge the equivalent function of
the defensor vinculicontemplated under Canon 1095."10
3) The incapacity must be proven to be existing at 'the
time of the celebration' of the marriage. The evidence The guidelines incorporate the three basic requirements earlier
must show that the illness was existing when the parties mandated by the Court in Santos v. Court of
exchanged their 'I do's.' The manifestation of the illness Appeals:11 "psychological incapacity must be characterized by (a)
need not be perceivable at such time, but the illness itself gravity (b) juridical antecedence, and (c) incurability." The
must have attached at such moment, or prior thereto. foregoing guidelines do not require that a physician examine the
person to be declared psychologically incapacitated. In fact, the
4) Such incapacity must also be shown to be medically or root cause may be "medically or clinically identified." What is
clinically permanent or incurable. Such incurability may be important is the presence of evidence that can adequately
absolute or even relative only in regard to the other establish the party's psychological condition. For indeed, if the
spouse, not necessarily absolutely against everyone of the totality of evidence presented is enough to sustain a finding of
same sex. Furthermore, such incapacity must be relevant psychological incapacity, then actual medical examination of the
to the assumption of marriage obligations, not necessarily person concerned need not be resorted to.
to those not related to marriage, like the exercise of a
profession or employment in a job. Hence, a pediatrician Main Issue: Totality of Evidence Presented
may be effective in diagnosing illnesses of children and
prescribing medicine to cure them but not be The main question, then, is whether the totality of the evidence
psychologically capacitated to procreate, bear and raise presented in the present case -- including the testimonies of
his/her own children as an essential obligation of petitioner, the common children, petitioner's sister and the social
marriage. worker -- was enough to sustain a finding that respondent was
psychologically incapacitated.
5) Such illness must be grave enough to bring about the
disability of the party to assume the essential obligations We rule in the negative. Although this Court is sufficiently
of marriage. Thus, 'mild characteriological peculiarities, convinced that respondent failed to provide material support to
mood changes, occasional emotional outbursts cannot be the family and may have resorted to physical abuse and
accepted as root causes. The illness must be shown as abandonment, the totality of his acts does not lead to a conclusion
downright incapacity or inability, not a refusal, neglect or of psychological incapacity on his part. There is absolutely no
difficulty, much less ill will. In other words, there is a natal showing that his "defects" were already present at the inception of
or supervening disabling factor in the person, an adverse the marriage or that they are incurable.
integral element in the personality structure that
effectively incapacitates the person from really accepting
Verily, the behavior of respondent can be attributed to the fact
and thereby complying with the obligations essential to
that he had lost his job and was not gainfully employed for a
marriage.
period of more than six years. It was during this period that he
became intermittently drunk, failed to give material and moral
6) The essential marital obligations must be those support, and even left the family home.
embraced by Articles 68 up to 71 of the Family Code as
regards the husband and wife as well as Articles 220, 221
Thus, his alleged psychological illness was traced only to said
and 225 of the same Code in regard to parents and their
period and not to the inception of the marriage. Equally important,
children. Such non-complied marital obligation(s) must
there is no evidence showing that his condition is incurable,
also be stated in the petition, proven by evidence and
especially now that he is gainfully employed as a taxi
included in the text of the decision.
driver.1âwphi1
SO ORDERED.
G.R. No. 149498 May 20, 2004 respondent’s motion to present her evidence ex parte. She then
testified on how Toshio abandoned his family. She thereafter
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, offered documentary evidence to support her testimony.
vs.
LOLITA QUINTERO-HAMANO, respondent. On August 28, 1997, the trial court rendered a decision, the
dispositive portion of which read:
DECISION
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the marriage between
CORONA, J.: petitioner Lolita M. Quintero-Hamano and Toshio
Hamano, is hereby declared NULL and VOID.
Before us is a petition for review of the decision 1 dated August 20,
2001 of the Court of Appeals2 affirming the decision3 dated August The Civil Register of Bacoor, Cavite and the National
28, 1997 of the Regional Trial Court of Rizal, Branch 72, declaring Statistics Office are ordered to make proper entries into
as null and void the marriage contracted between herein the records of the afore-named parties pursuant to this
respondent Lolita M. Quintero-Hamano and her husband Toshio judgment of the Court.
Hamano.
SO ORDERED.4
On June 17, 1996, respondent Lolita Quintero-Hamano filed a
complaint for declaration of nullity of her marriage to her husband In declaring the nullity of the marriage on the ground of Toshio’s
Toshio Hamano, a Japanese national, on the ground of psychological incapacity, the trial court held that:
psychological incapacity.
It is clear from the records of the case that respondent
Respondent alleged that in October 1986, she and Toshio started a spouses failed to fulfill his obligations as husband of the
common-law relationship in Japan. They later lived in the petitioner and father to his daughter. Respondent
Philippines for a month. Thereafter, Toshio went back to Japan and remained irresponsible and unconcerned over the needs
stayed there for half of 1987. On November 16, 1987, she gave and welfare of his family. Such indifference, to the mind
birth to their child. of the Court, is a clear manifestation of insensitivity and
lack of respect for his wife and child which characterizes a
On January 14, 1988, she and Toshio were married by Judge Isauro very immature person. Certainly, such behavior could be
M. Balderia of the Municipal Trial Court of Bacoor, Cavite. traced to respondent’s mental incapacity and disability of
Unknown to respondent, Toshio was psychologically incapacitated entering into marital life.5
to assume his marital responsibilities, which incapacity became
manifest only after the marriage. One month after their marriage, The Office of the Solicitor General, representing herein petitioner
Toshio returned to Japan and promised to return by Christmas to Republic of the Philippines, appealed to the Court of Appeals but
celebrate the holidays with his family. After sending money to the same was denied in a decision dated August 28, 1997, the
respondent for two months, Toshio stopped giving financial dispositive portion of which read:
support. She wrote him several times but he never responded.
Sometime in 1991, respondent learned from her friends that WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, and pursuant to
Toshio visited the Philippines but he did not bother to see her and applicable law and jurisprudence on the matter and
their child. evidence on hand, judgment is hereby rendered
denying the instant appeal. The decision of the court a
The summons issued to Toshio remained unserved because he was quo is AFFIRMED. No costs.
no longer residing at his given address. Consequently, on July 8,
1996, respondent filed an ex parte motion for leave to effect SO ORDERED.6
service of summons by publication. The trial court granted the
motion on July 12, 1996. In August 1996, the summons, The appellate court found that Toshio left respondent and their
accompanied by a copy of the petition, was published in a daughter a month after the celebration of the marriage, and
newspaper of general circulation giving Toshio 15 days to file his returned to Japan with the promise to support his family and take
answer. Because Toshio failed to file a responsive pleading after steps to make them Japanese citizens. But except for two months,
the lapse of 60 days from publication, respondent filed a motion he never sent any support to nor communicated with them despite
dated November 5, 1996 to refer the case to the prosecutor for the letters respondent sent. He even visited the Philippines but he
investigation. The trial court granted the motion on November 7, did not bother to see them. Respondent, on the other hand,
1996. exerted all efforts to contact Toshio, to no avail.
On November 20, 1996, prosecutor Rolando I. Gonzales filed a The appellate court thus concluded that respondent was
report finding that no collusion existed between the parties. He psychologically incapacitated to perform his marital obligations to
prayed that the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor be allowed to his family, and to "observe mutual love, respect and fidelity, and
intervene to ensure that the evidence submitted was not render mutual help and support" pursuant to Article 68 of the
fabricated. On February 13, 1997, the trial court granted
Family Code of the Philippines. The appellate court rhetorically In Molina, we came up with the following guidelines in the
asked: interpretation and application of Article 36 for the guidance of the
bench and the bar:
But what is there to preserve when the other spouse is an
unwilling party to the cohesion and creation of a family as (1) The burden of proof to show the nullity of the
a social inviolable institution? Why should petitioner be marriage belongs to the plaintiff. Any doubt should be
made to suffer in a marriage where the other spouse is resolved in favor of the existence and continuation of the
not around and worse, left them without even helping marriage and against its dissolution and nullity. This is
them cope up with family life and assist in the upbringing rooted in the fact that both our Constitution and our laws
of their daughter as required under Articles 68 to 71 of cherish the validity of marriage and unity of the family. x x
the Family Code?7 x
The appellate court emphasized that this case could not be (2) The root cause of the psychological incapacity must
equated with Republic vs. Court of Appeals and Molina 8 and Santos be: (a) medically or clinically identified, (b) alleged in the
vs. Court of Appeals.9 In those cases, the spouses were Filipinos complaint, (c) sufficiently proven by experts and (d)
while this case involved a "mixed marriage," the husband being a clearly explained in the decision. Article 36 of the Family
Japanese national. Code requires that the incapacity must be psychological -
not physical, although its manifestations and/or
Hence, this appeal by petitioner Republic based on this lone symptoms may be physical. The evidence must convince
assignment of error: the court that the parties, or one of them, was mentally or
psychically ill to such an extent that the person could not
I have known the obligations he was assuming, or knowing
them, could not have given valid assumption thereof.
Although no example of such incapacity need be given
The Court of Appeals erred in holding that respondent
here so as not to limit the application of the provision
was able to prove the psychological incapacity of Toshio
under the principle of ejusdem generis (Salita vs. Magtolis,
Hamano to perform his marital obligations, despite
233 SCRA 100, June 13, 1994), nevertheless such root
respondent’s failure to comply with the guidelines laid
cause must be identified as a psychological illness and its
down in the Molina case.10
incapacitating nature fully explained. Expert evidence may
be given by qualified psychiatrists and clinical
According to petitioner, mere abandonment by Toshio of his family
psychologists.
and his insensitivity to them did not automatically constitute
psychological incapacity. His behavior merely indicated simple
(3) The incapacity must be proven to be existing at "the
inadequacy in the personality of a spouse falling short of
time of the celebration" of the marriage. The evidence
reasonable expectations. Respondent failed to prove any severe
must show that the illness was existing when the parties
and incurable personality disorder on the part of Toshio, in
exchanged their "I do’s." The manifestation of the illness
accordance with the guidelines set in Molina.
need not be perceivable at such time, but the illness itself
must have attached at such moment, or prior thereto.
The Office of the Public Attorney, representing respondent,
reiterated the ruling of the courts a quo and sought the denial of
(4) Such incapacity must also be shown to be medically or
the instant petition.
clinically permanent or incurable. Such incurability may be
absolute or even relative only in regard to the other
We rule in favor of petitioner.
spouse, not necessarily absolutely against everyone of the
same sex. Furthermore, such incapacity must be relevant
The Court is mindful of the policy of the 1987 Constitution to to the assumption of marriage obligations, not necessarily
protect and strengthen the family as the basic autonomous social to those not related to marriage, like the exercise of a
institution and marriage as the foundation of the family.11 Thus, profession or employment in a job. Hence, a pediatrician
any doubt should be resolved in favor of the validity of the may be effective in diagnosing illnesses of children and
marriage.12 prescribing medicine to cure them but may not be
psychologically capacitated to procreate, bear and raise
Respondent seeks to annul her marriage with Toshio on the ground his/her own children as an essential obligation of
of psychological incapacity. Article 36 of the Family Code of the marriage.
Philippines provides that:
(5) Such illness must be grave enough to bring about the
Art. 36. A marriage contracted by any party who, at the time of the disability of the party to assume the essential obligations
celebration, was psychologically incapacitated to comply with the of marriage. Thus, "mild characteriological peculiarities,
essential marital obligations of marriage, shall likewise be void mood changes, occasional emotional outbursts" cannot
even if such incapacity becomes manifest only after its be accepted as root causes. The illness must be shown as
solemnization. downright incapacity or inability, not a refusal, neglect or
difficulty, much less ill will. In other words, there is a natal
or supervening disabling factor in the person, an adverse some kind of psychological illness. After respondent testified on
integral element in the personality structure that how Toshio abandoned his family, no other evidence was
effectively incapacitates the person from really accepting presented showing that his behavior was caused by a psychological
and thereby complying with the obligations essential to disorder. Although, as a rule, there was no need for an actual
marriage. medical examination, it would have greatly helped respondent’s
case had she presented evidence that medically or clinically
(6) The essential marital obligations must be those identified his illness. This could have been done through an expert
embraced by Articles 68 up to 71 of the Family Code as witness. This respondent did not do.
regards the husband and wife as well as Articles 220, 221
and 225 of the same Code in regard to parents and their We must remember that abandonment is also a ground for legal
children. Such non-complied marital obligation(s) must separation.16 There was no showing that the case at bar was not
also be stated in the petition, proven by evidence and just an instance of abandonment in the context of legal separation.
included in the text of the decision. We cannot presume psychological defect from the mere fact that
Toshio abandoned his family immediately after the celebration of
(7) Interpretations given by the National Appellate the marriage. As we ruled in Molina, it is not enough to prove that
Matrimonial Tribunal of the Catholic Church in the a spouse failed to meet his responsibility and duty as a married
Philippines, while not controlling or decisive, should be person; it is essential that he must be shown to be incapable of
given great respect by our courts. x x x doing so due to some psychological,not physical, illness.17 There
was no proof of a natal or supervening disabling factor in the
(8) The trial court must order the prosecuting attorney or person, an adverse integral element in the personality structure
fiscal and the Solicitor General to appear as counsel for that effectively incapacitates a person from accepting and
the state. No decision shall be handed down unless the complying with the obligations essential to marriage. 18
Solicitor General issues a certification, which will be
quoted in the decision, briefly stating therein his reasons According to the appellate court, the requirements
for his agreement or opposition, as the case may be, to in Molina and Santos do not apply here because the present case
the petition. The Solicitor-General, along with the involves a "mixed marriage," the husband being a Japanese
prosecuting attorney, shall submit to the court such national. We disagree. In proving psychological incapacity, we find
certification within fifteen (15) days from the date the no distinction between an alien spouse and a Filipino spouse. We
case is deemed submitted for resolution of the court. The cannot be lenient in the application of the rules merely because
Solicitor-General shall discharge the equivalent function the spouse alleged to be psychologically incapacitated happens to
of the defensor vinculicontemplated under Canon be a foreign national. The medical and clinical rules to determine
1095.13 (emphasis supplied) psychological incapacity were formulated on the basis of studies of
human behavior in general. Hence, the norms used for
The guidelines incorporate the three basic requirements earlier determining psychological incapacity should apply to any person
mandated by the Court in Santos: "psychological incapacity must regardless of nationality.
be characterized by (a) gravity (b) juridical antecedence and (c)
incurability."14 The foregoing guidelines do not require that a In Pesca vs. Pesca,19 this Court declared that marriage is an
physician examine the person to be declared psychologically inviolable social institution that the State cherishes and protects.
incapacitated. In fact, the root cause may be "medically or clinically While we commiserate with respondent, terminating her marriage
identified." What is important is the presence of evidence that can to her husband may not necessarily be the fitting denouement.
adequately establish the party’s psychological condition. For
indeed, if the totality of evidence presented is enough to sustain a WHEREFORE, the petition for review is hereby GRANTED. The
finding of psychological incapacity, then actual medical decision dated August 28, 1997 of the Court of Appeals is
examination of the person concerned need not be resorted to. 15 hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
Petitioner showed that Toshio failed to meet his duty to live with,
care for and support his family. He abandoned them a month after
his marriage to respondent. Respondent sent him several letters
but he never replied. He made a trip to the Philippines but did not
care at all to see his family.
Now is also opportune time to comment on another common legal 1) The burden of proof to show the nullity of the marriage
guide utilized in the adjudication of petitions for declaration of belongs to the plaintiff. Any doubt should be resolved in
nullity under Article 36. All too frequently, this Court and lower favor of the existence and continuation of the marriage
courts, in denying petitions of the kind, have favorably cited
and against its dissolution and nullity. This is rooted in the or supervening disabling factor in the person, an adverse
fact that both our Constitution and our laws cherish the integral element in the personality structure that
validity of marriage and unity of the family. Thus, our effectively incapacitates the person from really accepting
Constitution devotes an entire Article on the Family, and thereby complying with the obligations essential to
recognizing it "as the foundation of the nation." It decrees marriage.
marriage as legally "inviolable," thereby protecting it from
dissolution at the whim of the parties. Both the family and 6) The essential marital obligations must be those
marriage are to be "protected"’ by the state. embraced by Articles 68 up to 71 of the Family Code as
regards the husband and wife as well as Articles 220, 221
The Family Code echoes this constitutional edict on and 225 of the same Code in regard to parents and their
marriage and the family and emphasizes their children. Such non-complied marital obligation(s) must
permanence, inviolability and solidarity. also be stated in the petition, proven by evidence and
included in the text of the decision.
2) The root cause of the psychological incapacity must be:
(a) medically or clinically identified, (b) alleged in the 7) Interpretations given by the National Appellate
complaint, (c) sufficiently proven by experts and (d) Matrimonial Tribunal of the Catholic Church in the
clearly explained in the decision. Article 36 of the Family Philippines, while not controlling or decisive, should be
Code requires that the incapacity must be psychological– given great respect by our courts. It is clear that Article 36
not physical, although its manifestations and/or was taken by the Family Code Revision Committee from
symptoms may be physical. The evidence must convince Canon 1095 of the New Code of Canon Law, which
the court that the parties, or one of them, was mentally or became effective in 1983 and which provides:
psychically ill to such an extent that the person could not
have known the obligations he was assuming, or knowing "The following are incapable of contracting marriage: Those who
them, could not have given valid assumption thereof. are unable to assume the essential obligations of marriage due to
Although no example of such incapacity need be given causes of psychological nature."
here so as not to limit the application of the provision
under the principle ofejusdem generis, nevertheless such Since the purpose of including such provision in our Family Code is
root cause must be identified as a psychological illness to harmonize our civil laws with the religious faith of our people, it
and its incapacitating nature fully explained. Expert stands to reason that to achieve such harmonization, great
evidence may be given by qualified psychiatrists and persuasive weight should be given to decisions of such appellate
clinical psychologists. tribunal. Ideally—subject to our law on evidence—what is decreed
as canonically invalid should also be decreed civilly void.77
3) The incapacity must be proven to be existing at "the
time of the celebration" of the marriage. The evidence Molina had provided for an additional requirement that the
must show that the illness was existing when the parties Solicitor General issue a certification stating his reasons for his
exchanged their "I do’s." The manifestation of the illness agreement or opposition to the petition.78 This requirement
need not be perceivable at such time, but the illness itself however was dispensed with following the implementation of A.M.
must have attached at such moment, or prior thereto. No. 02-11-10-SC, or the Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of
Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages.79 Still,
4) Such incapacity must also be shown to be medically or Article 48 of the Family Code mandates that the appearance of the
clinically permanent or incurable. Such incurability may be prosecuting attorney or fiscal assigned be on behalf of the State to
absolute or even relative only in regard to the other take steps to prevent collusion between the parties and to take
spouse, not necessarily absolutely against everyone of the care that evidence is not fabricated or suppressed. Obviously,
same sex. Furthermore, such incapacity must be relevant collusion is not an issue in this case, considering the consistent
to the assumption of marriage obligations, not necessarily vigorous opposition of respondent to the petition for declaration
to those not related to marriage, like the exercise of a of nullity. In any event, the fiscal’s participation in the hearings
profession or employment in a job. Hence, a pediatrician before the trial court is extant from the records of this case.
may be effective in diagnosing illnesses of children and
prescribing medicine to cure them but not be As earlier noted, the factual findings of the RTC are now deemed
psychologically capacitated to procreate, bear and raise binding on this Court, owing to the great weight accorded to the
his/her own children as an essential obligation of opinion of the primary trier of facts, and the refusal of the Court of
marriage. Appeals to dispute the veracity of these facts. As such, it must be
considered that respondent had consistently lied about many
5) Such illness must be grave enough to bring about the material aspects as to her character and personality. The question
disability of the party to assume the essential obligations remains whether her pattern of fabrication sufficiently establishes
of marriage. Thus, "mild characteriological peculiarities, her psychological incapacity, consistent with Article 36 and
mood changes, occasional emotional outbursts" cannot generally, the Molina guidelines.
be 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 is a natal
We find that the present case sufficiently satisfies the guidelines Q- Would you say then, Mr. witness, that because of these
in Molina. actuations of the respondent she is then incapable of performing
the basic obligations of her marriage?
First. Petitioner had sufficiently overcome his burden in proving
the psychological incapacity of his spouse. Apart from his own A- Well, persistent lying violates the respect that one owes
testimony, he presented witnesses who corroborated his towards another. The lack of concern, the lack of love towards the
allegations on his wife’s behavior, and certifications from Blackgold person, and it is also something that endangers human
Records and the Philippine Village Hotel Pavillon which disputed relationship. You see, relationship is based on communication
respondent’s claims pertinent to her alleged singing career. He also between individuals and what we generally communicate are our
presented two (2) expert witnesses from the field of psychology thoughts and feelings. But then when one talks and expresse[s]
who testified that the aberrant behavior of respondent was their feelings, [you] are expected to tell the truth. And therefore, if
tantamount to psychological incapacity. In any event, both courts you constantly lie, what do you think is going to happen as far as
below considered petitioner’s evidence as credible enough. Even this relationship is concerned. Therefore, it undermines that basic
the appellate court acknowledged that respondent was not totally relationship that should be based on love, trust and respect.
honest with petitioner.80
Q- Would you say then, Mr. witness, that due to the behavior of
As in all civil matters, the petitioner in an action for declaration of the respondent in constantly lying and fabricating stories, she is
nullity under Article 36 must be able to establish the cause of then incapable of performing the basic obligations of the
action with a preponderance of evidence. However, since the marriage?
action cannot be considered as a non-public matter between
private parties, but is impressed with State interest, the Family xxx
Code likewise requires the participation of the State, through the
prosecuting attorney, fiscal, or Solicitor General, to take steps to ATTY. RAZ: (Back to the witness)
prevent collusion between the parties and to take care that
evidence is not fabricated or suppressed. Thus, even if the
Q- Mr. witness, based on the testimony of Mr. Levy Mendoza, who
petitioner is able establish the psychological incapacity of
is the third witness for the petitioner, testified that the respondent
respondent with preponderant evidence, any finding of collusion
has been calling up the petitioner’s officemates and ask him (sic)
among the parties would necessarily negate such proofs.
on the activities of the petitioner and ask him on the behavior of
the petitioner. And this is specifically stated on page six (6) of the
Second. The root cause of respondent’s psychological incapacity transcript of stenographic notes, what can you say about this, Mr.
has been medically or clinically identified, alleged in the complaint, witness?
sufficiently proven by experts, and clearly explained in the trial
court’s decision. The initiatory complaint alleged that respondent,
A- If an individual is jealous enough to the point that he is
from the start, had exhibited unusual and abnormal behavior "of
paranoid, which means that there is no actual basis on her suspect
peren[n]ially telling lies, fabricating ridiculous stories, and
(sic) that her husband is having an affair with a woman, if carried
inventing personalities and situations," of writing letters to
on to the extreme, then that is pathological. That is not abnormal.
petitioner using fictitious names, and of lying about her actual
We all feel jealous, in the same way as we also lie every now and
occupation, income, educational attainment, and family
then; but everything that is carried out in extreme is abnormal or
background, among others.81
pathological. If there is no basis in reality to the fact that the
husband is having an affair with another woman and if she
These allegations, initially characterized in generalities, were persistently believes that the husband is having an affair with
further linked to medical or clinical causes by expert witnesses different women, then that is pathological and we call that
from the field of psychology. Petitioner presented two (2) such paranoid jealousy.
witnesses in particular. Dr. Abcede, a psychiatrist who had headed
the department of psychiatry of at least two (2) major
Q- Now, if a person is in paranoid jealousy, would she be
hospitals,82 testified as follows:
considered psychologically incapacitated to perform the basic
obligations of the marriage?
WITNESS:
A- Yes, Ma’am.83
Given that as a fact, which is only based on the affidavit provided
to me, I can say that there are a couple of things that [are] terribly
The other witness, Dr. Lopez, was presented to establish not only
wrong with the standards. There are a couple of things that seems
the psychological incapacity of respondent, but also the
(sic) to be repeated over and over again in the affidavit. One of
psychological capacity of petitioner. He concluded that respondent
which is the persistent, constant and repeated lying of the
"is [a] pathological liar, that [she continues] to lie [and] she loves to
"respondent"; which, I think, based on assessment of normal
fabricate about herself."84
behavior of an individual, is abnormal or pathological. x x x
These two witnesses based their conclusions of psychological
ATTY. RAZ: (Back to the witness)
incapacity on the case record, particularly the trial transcripts of
respondent’s testimony, as well as the supporting affidavits of
petitioner. While these witnesses did not personally examine essential obligations of marriage. Indeed, a person unable to
respondent, the Court had already held in Marcos v. Marcos85 that distinguish between fantasy and reality would similarly be unable
personal examination of the subject by the physician is not to comprehend the legal nature of the marital bond, much less its
required for the spouse to be declared psychologically psychic meaning, and the corresponding obligations attached to
incapacitated.86 We deem the methodology utilized by petitioner’s marriage, including parenting. One unable to adhere to reality
witnesses as sufficient basis for their medical conclusions. cannot be expected to adhere as well to any legal or emotional
Admittedly, Drs. Abcede and Lopez’s common conclusion of commitments.
respondent’s psychological incapacity hinged heavily on their own
acceptance of petitioner’s version as the true set of facts. The Court of Appeals somehow concluded that since respondent
However, since the trial court itself accepted the veracity of allegedly tried her best to effect a reconciliation, she had amply
petitioner’s factual premises, there is no cause to dispute the exhibited her ability to perform her marital obligations. We are not
conclusion of psychological incapacity drawn therefrom by convinced. Given the nature of her psychological condition, her
petitioner’s expert witnesses. willingness to remain in the marriage hardly banishes nay
extenuates her lack of capacity to fulfill the essential marital
Also, with the totality of the evidence presented as basis, the trial obligations. Respondent’s ability to even comprehend what the
court explicated its finding of psychological incapacity in its essential marital obligations are is impaired at best. Considering
decision in this wise: that the evidence convincingly disputes respondent’s ability to
adhere to the truth, her avowals as to her commitment to the
To the mind of the Court, all of the above are indications that marriage cannot be accorded much credence.
respondent is psychologically incapacitated to perform the
essential obligations of marriage. It has been shown clearly from At this point, it is worth considering Article 45(3) of the Family
her actuations that respondent has that propensity for telling lies Code which states that a marriage may be annulled if the consent
about almost anything, be it her occupation, her state of health, of either party was obtained by fraud, and Article 46 which
her singing abilities, her income, etc. She has this fantastic ability enumerates the circumstances constituting fraud under the
to invent and fabricate stories and personalities. She practically previous article, clarifies that "no other misrepresentation or
lived in a world of make believe making her therefore not in a deceit as to character, health, rank, fortune or chastity shall
position to give meaning and significance to her marriage to constitute such fraud as will give grounds for action for the
petitioner. In persistently and constantly lying to petitioner, annulment of marriage." It would be improper to draw linkages
respondent undermined the basic tenets of relationship between between misrepresentations made by respondent and the
spouses that is based on love, trust and respect. As concluded by misrepresentations under Articles 45 (3) and 46. The fraud under
the psychiatrist presented by petitioner, such repeated lying is Article 45(3) vitiates the consent of the spouse who is lied to, and
abnormal and pathological and amounts to psychological does not allude to vitiated consent of the lying spouse. In this case,
incapacity.87 the misrepresentations of respondent point to her own inadequacy
to cope with her marital obligations, kindred to psychological
Third. Respondent’s psychological incapacity was established to incapacity under Article 36.
have clearly existed at the time of and even before the celebration
of marriage. She fabricated friends and made up letters from Fifth. Respondent is evidently unable to comply with the essential
fictitious characters well before she married petitioner. Likewise, marital obligations as embraced by Articles 68 to 71 of the Family
she kept petitioner in the dark about her natural child’s real Code. Article 68, in particular, enjoins the spouses to live together,
parentage as she only confessed when the latter had found out the observe mutual love, respect and fidelity, and render mutual help
truth after their marriage. and support. As noted by the trial court, it is difficult to see how an
inveterate pathological liar would be able to commit to the basic
Fourth. The gravity of respondent’s psychological incapacity is tenets of relationship between spouses based on love, trust and
sufficient to prove her disability to assume the essential obligations respect.
of marriage. It is immediately discernible that the parties had
shared only a little over a year of cohabitation before the Sixth. The Court of Appeals clearly erred when it failed to take into
exasperated petitioner left his wife. Whatever such circumstance consideration the fact that the marriage of the parties was
speaks of the degree of tolerance of petitioner, it likewise supports annulled by the Catholic Church. The appellate court apparently
the belief that respondent’s psychological incapacity, as borne by deemed this detail totally inconsequential as no reference was
the record, was so grave in extent that any prolonged marital life made to it anywhere in the assailed decision despite petitioner’s
was dubitable. efforts to bring the matter to its attention.88 Such deliberate
ignorance is in contravention of Molina, which held that
It should be noted that the lies attributed to respondent were not interpretations given by the National Appellate Matrimonial
adopted as false pretenses in order to induce petitioner into Tribunal of the Catholic Church in the Philippines, while not
marriage. More disturbingly, they indicate a failure on the part of controlling or decisive, should be given great respect by our courts.
respondent to distinguish truth from fiction, or at least abide by
the truth. Petitioner’s witnesses and the trial court were emphatic As noted earlier, the Metropolitan Tribunal of the Archdiocese of
on respondent’s inveterate proclivity to telling lies and the Manila decreed the invalidity of the marriage in question in
pathologic nature of her mistruths, which according to them, were a Conclusion89 dated 30 March 1995, citing the "lack of due
revelatory of respondent’s inability to understand and perform the discretion" on the part of respondent.90Such decree of nullity was
affirmed by both the National Appellate Matrimonial maintained her excessive jealousy. From this fact, he draws the
Tribunal,91 and the Roman Rota of the Vatican.92 In fact, conclusion that respondent’s condition is incurable.
respondent’s psychological incapacity was considered so grave that
a restrictive clause93was appended to the sentence of nullity From the totality of the evidence, can it be definitively concluded
prohibiting respondent from contracting another marriage without that respondent’s condition is incurable? It would seem, at least,
the Tribunal’s consent. that respondent’s psychosis is quite grave, and a cure thereof a
remarkable feat. Certainly, it would have been easier had
In its Decision dated 4 June 1995, the National Appellate petitioner’s expert witnesses characterized respondent’s condition
Matrimonial Tribunal pronounced: as incurable. Instead, they remained silent on whether the
psychological incapacity was curable or incurable.
The JURISRPRUDENCE in the Case maintains that matrimonial
consent is considered ontologically defective and wherefore But on careful examination, there was good reason for the experts’
judicially ineffective when elicited by a Part Contractant in taciturnity on this point.
possession and employ of a discretionary judgment faculty with a
perceptive vigor markedly inadequate for the practical The petitioner’s expert witnesses testified in 1994 and 1995, and
understanding of the conjugal Covenant or serious impaired from the trial court rendered its decision on 10 August 1995. These
the correct appreciation of the integral significance and events transpired well before Molina was promulgated in 1997 and
implications of the marriage vows. made explicit the requirement that the psychological incapacity
must be shown to be medically or clinically permanent or
The FACTS in the Case sufficiently prove with the certitude incurable. Such requirement was not expressly stated in Article 36
required by law that based on the depositions of the Partes in or any other provision of the Family Code.
Causa and premised on the testimonies of the Common and Expert
Witnesse[s], the Respondent made the marriage option in tenure On the other hand, the Court in Santos, which was decided in
of adverse personality constracts that were markedly antithetical January 1995, began its discussion by first citing the deliberations
to the substantive content and implications of the Marriage of the Family Code committee,96 then the opinion of canonical
Covenant, and that seriously undermined the integrality of her scholars,97 before arriving at its formulation of the doctrinal
matrimonial consent in terms of its deliberative component. In definition of psychological incapacity.98 Santos did refer to Justice
other words, afflicted with a discretionary faculty impaired in its Caguioa’s opinion expressed during the deliberations that
practico-concrete judgment formation on account of an adverse "psychological incapacity is incurable,"99 and the view of a former
action and reaction pattern, the Respondent was impaired from presiding judge of the Metropolitan Marriage Tribunal of the
eliciting a judicially binding matrimonial consent. There is no Archdiocese of Manila that psychological incapacity must be
sufficient evidence in the Case however to prove as well the fact of characterized "by (a) gravity, (b) juridical antecedence, and (c)
grave lack of due discretion on the part of the Petitioner. 94 incurability."100 However, in formulating the doctrinal rule on
psychological incapacity, the Court in Santos omitted any reference
Evidently, the conclusion of psychological incapacity was arrived at to incurability as a characteristic of psychological incapacity.101
not only by the trial court, but also by canonical bodies. Yet, we
must clarify the proper import of the Church rulings annulling the This disquisition is material as Santos was decided months before
marriage in this case. They hold sway since they are drawn from a the trial court came out with its own ruling that remained silent on
similar recognition, as the trial court, of the veracity of petitioner’s whether respondent’s psychological incapacity was incurable.
allegations. Had the trial court instead appreciated respondent’s Certainly, Santos did not clearly mandate that the incurability of
version as correct, and the appellate court affirmed such the psychological incapacity be established in an action for
conclusion, the rulings of the Catholic Church on this matter would declaration of nullity. At least, there was no jurisprudential clarity
have diminished persuasive value. After all, it is the factual findings at the time of the trial of this case and the subsequent
of the judicial trier of facts, and not that of the canonical courts, promulgation of the trial court’s decision that required a medical
that are accorded significant recognition by this Court. finding of incurability. Such requisite arose only with Molina in
1997, at a time when this case was on appellate review, or after
Seventh. The final point of contention is the requirement the reception of evidence.
in Molina that such psychological incapacity be shown to be
medically or clinically permanent or incurable. It was on this score We are aware that in Pesca v. Pesca,102 the Court countered an
that the Court of Appeals reversed the judgment of the trial court, argument that Molina and Santos should not apply retroactively
the appellate court noting that it did not appear certain that
respondent’s condition was incurable and that Dr. Abcede did not with the observation that the interpretation or construction placed
testify to such effect.95 by the courts of a law constitutes a part of that law as of the date
the statute in enacted.103 Yet we approach this present case from
Petitioner points out that one month after he and his wife initially utterly practical considerations. The requirement that
separated, he returned to her, desiring to make their marriage psychological incapacity must be shown to be medically or
work. However, respondent’s aberrant behavior remained clinically permanent or incurable is one that necessarily cannot be
unchanged, as she continued to lie, fabricate stories, and divined without expert opinion. Clearly in this case, there was no
categorical averment from the expert witnesses that respondent’s
psychological incapacity was curable or incurable simply because
there was no legal necessity yet to elicit such a declaration and the
appropriate question was not accordingly propounded to him. If
we apply Pesca without deep reflection, there would be undue
prejudice to those cases tried before Molina or Santos, especially
those presently on appellate review, where presumably the
respective petitioners and their expert witnesses would not have
seen the need to adduce a diagnosis of incurability. It may hold in
those cases, as in this case, that the psychological incapacity of a
spouse is actually incurable, even if not pronounced as such at the
trial court level.
We stated earlier that Molina is not set in stone, and that the
interpretation of Article 36 relies heavily on a case-to-case
perception. It would be insensate to reason to mandate in this case
an expert medical or clinical diagnosis of incurability, since the
parties would have had no impelling cause to present evidence to
that effect at the time this case was tried by the RTC more than ten
(10) years ago. From the totality of the evidence, we are
sufficiently convinced that the incurability of respondent’s
psychological incapacity has been established by the petitioner.
Any lingering doubts are further dispelled by the fact that the
Catholic Church tribunals, which indubitably consider incurability
as an integral requisite of psychological incapacity, were
sufficiently convinced that respondent was so incapacitated to
contract marriage to the degree that annulment was warranted.
SO ORDERED.
G.R. No. 161793 February 13, 2009 uncle also showed Edward his guns and warned the latter not to
leave Rowena.7 At one point, Edward was able to call home and
EDWARD KENNETH NGO TE, Petitioner, talk to his brother who suggested that they should stay at their
vs. parents’ home and live with them. Edward relayed this to Rowena
ROWENA ONG GUTIERREZ YU-TE, Respondent, who, however, suggested that he should get his inheritance so that
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Oppositor. they could live on their own. Edward talked to his father about
this, but the patriarch got mad, told Edward that he would be
DECISION disinherited, and insisted that Edward must go home.8
NACHURA, J.: After a month, Edward escaped from the house of Rowena’s uncle,
and stayed with his parents. His family then hid him from Rowena
and her family whenever they telephoned to ask for him.9
Far from novel is the issue involved in this petition. Psychological
incapacity, since its incorporation in our laws, has become a
clichéd subject of discussion in our jurisprudence. The Court treats In June 1996, Edward was able to talk to Rowena. Unmoved by his
this case, however, with much ado, it having realized that current persistence that they should live with his parents, she said that it
jurisprudential doctrine has unnecessarily imposed a perspective was better for them to live separate lives. They then parted ways.10
by which psychological incapacity should be viewed, totally
inconsistent with the way the concept was formulated—free in After almost four years, or on January 18, 2000, Edward filed a
form and devoid of any definition. petition before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City,
Branch 106, for the annulment of his marriage to Rowena on the
For the resolution of the Court is a petition for review on certiorari basis of the latter’s psychological incapacity. This was docketed as
under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assailing the August 5, 2003 Civil Case No. Q-00-39720.11
Decision1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 71867.
The petition further assails the January 19, 2004 As Rowena did not file an answer, the trial court, on July 11, 2000,
Resolution2 denying the motion for the reconsideration of the ordered the Office of the City Prosecutor (OCP) of Quezon City to
challenged decision. investigate whether there was collusion between the parties.12 In
the meantime, on July 27, 2000, the Office of the Solicitor General
The relevant facts and proceedings follow. (OSG) entered its appearance and deputized the OCP to appear on
its behalf and assist it in the scheduled hearings. 13
Petitioner Edward Kenneth Ngo Te first got a glimpse of
respondent Rowena Ong Gutierrez Yu-Te in a gathering organized On August 23, 2000, the OCP submitted an investigation report
by the Filipino-Chinese association in their college. Edward was stating that it could not determine if there was collusion between
then initially attracted to Rowena’s close friend; but, as the latter the parties; thus, it recommended trial on the merits.14
already had a boyfriend, the young man decided to court Rowena.
That was in January 1996, when petitioner was a sophomore The clinical psychologist who examined petitioner found both
student and respondent, a freshman.3 parties psychologically incapacitated, and made the following
findings and conclusions:
Sharing similar angst towards their families, the two understood
one another and developed a certain degree of closeness towards BACKGROUND DATA & BRIEF MARITAL HISTORY:
each other. In March 1996, or around three months after their first
meeting, Rowena asked Edward that they elope. At first, he EDWARD KENNETH NGO TE is a [29-year-old] Filipino male adult
refused, bickering that he was young and jobless. Her persistence, born and baptized Born Again Christian at Manila. He finished two
however, made him relent. Thus, they left Manila and sailed to years in college at AMA Computer College last 1994 and is
Cebu that month; he, providing their travel money and she, currently unemployed. He is married to and separated from
purchasing the boat ticket.4 ROWENA GUTIERREZ YU-TE. He presented himself at my office for
a psychological evaluation in relation to his petition for
However, Edward’s ₱80,000.00 lasted for only a month. Their Nullification of Marriage against the latter by the grounds of
pension house accommodation and daily sustenance fast depleted psychological incapacity. He is now residing at 181 P. Tuazon
it. And they could not find a job. In April 1996, they decided to go Street, Quezon City.
back to Manila. Rowena proceeded to her uncle’s house and
Edward to his parents’ home. As his family was abroad, and Petitioner got himself three siblings who are now in business and
Rowena kept on telephoning him, threatening him that she would one deceased sister. Both his parents are also in the business world
commit suicide, Edward agreed to stay with Rowena at her uncle’s by whom he [considers] as generous, hospitable, and patient. This
place.5 said virtues are said to be handed to each of the family member.
He generally considers himself to be quiet and simple. He clearly
On April 23, 1996, Rowena’s uncle brought the two to a court to remembers himself to be afraid of meeting people. After 1994, he
get married. He was then 25 years old, and she, 20.6 The two then tried his luck in being a Sales Executive of Mansfield International
continued to stay at her uncle’s place where Edward was treated Incorporated. And because of job incompetence, as well as being
like a prisoner—he was not allowed to go out unaccompanied. Her quiet and loner, he did not stay long in the job until 1996. His
interest lie[s] on becoming a full servant of God by being a priest or supported him by giving him military escort. Petitioner, however,
a pastor. He [is] said to isolate himself from his friends even during did not inform them that he signed a marriage contract with
his childhood days as he only loves to read the Bible and hear its respondent. When they knew about it[,] petitioner was referred
message. for counseling. Petitioner[,] after the counseling[,] tried to contact
respondent. Petitioner offered her to live instead to[sic] the home
Respondent is said to come from a fine family despite having a lazy of petitioner’s parents while they are still studying. Respondent
father and a disobedient wife. She is said to have not finish[ed] her refused the idea and claimed that she would only live with him if
collegiate degree and shared intimate sexual moments with her they will have a separate home of their own and be away from his
boyfriend prior to that with petitioner. parents. She also intimated to petitioner that he should already get
his share of whatever he would inherit from his parents so they
In January of 1996, respondent showed her kindness to petitioner can start a new life. Respondent demanded these not knowing
and this became the foundation of their intimate relationship. [that] the petitioner already settled his differences with his own
After a month of dating, petitioner mentioned to respondent that family. When respondent refused to live with petitioner where he
he is having problems with his family. Respondent surprisingly chose for them to stay, petitioner decided to tell her to stop
retorted that she also hates her family and that she actually harassing the home of his parents. He told her already that he was
wanted to get out of their lives. From that [time on], respondent disinherited and since he also does not have a job, he would not be
had insisted to petitioner that they should elope and live together. able to support her. After knowing that petitioner does not have
Petitioner hesitated because he is not prepared as they are both any money anymore, respondent stopped tormenting petitioner
young and inexperienced, but she insisted that they would and informed petitioner that they should live separate lives.
somehow manage because petitioner is rich. In the last week of
March 1996, respondent seriously brought the idea of eloping and The said relationship between Edward and Rowena is said to be
she already bought tickets for the boat going to Cebu. Petitioner undoubtedly in the wreck and weakly-founded. The break-up was
reluctantly agreed to the idea and so they eloped to Cebu. The caused by both parties[’] unreadiness to commitment and their
parties are supposed to stay at the house of a friend of young age. He was still in the state of finding his fate and fighting
respondent, but they were not able to locate her, so petitioner was boredom, while she was still egocentrically involved with herself.
compelled to rent an apartment. The parties tried to look for a job
but could not find any so it was suggested by respondent that they TESTS ADMINISTERED:
should go back and seek help from petitioner’s parents. When the
parties arrived at the house of petitioner, all of his whole family Revised Beta Examination
was all out of the country so respondent decided to go back to her
home for the meantime while petitioner stayed behind at their Bender Visual Motor Gestalt Test
home. After a few days of separation, respondent called petitioner
by phone and said she wanted to talk to him. Petitioner responded
Draw A Person Test
immediately and when he arrived at their house, respondent
confronted petitioner as to why he appeared to be cold,
Rorschach Psychodiagnostic Test
respondent acted irrationally and even threatened to commit
suicide. Petitioner got scared so he went home again. Respondent
would call by phone every now and then and became angry as Sach’s Sentence Completion Test
petitioner does not know what to do. Respondent went to the
extent of threatening to file a case against petitioner and MMPI
scandalize his family in the newspaper. Petitioner asked her how
he would be able to make amends and at this point in time[,] TEST RESULTS & EVALUATION:
respondent brought the idea of marriage. Petitioner[,] out of
frustration in life[,] agreed to her to pacify her. And so on April 23, Both petitioner and respondent are dubbed to be emotionally
1996, respondent’s uncle brought the parties to Valenzuela[,] and immature and recklessly impulsive upon swearing to their marital
on that very same day[,] petitioner was made to sign the Marriage vows as each of them was motivated by different notions on
Contract before the Judge. Petitioner actually never applied for any marriage.
Marriage License.
Edward Kenneth Ngo Te, the petitioner in this case[,] is said to be
Respondent decided that they should stay first at their house until still unsure and unready so as to commit himself to marriage. He is
after arrival of the parents of petitioner. But when the parents of still founded to be on the search of what he wants in life. He is
petitioner arrived, respondent refused to allow petitioner to go absconded as an introvert as he is not really sociable and displays a
home. Petitioner was threatened in so many ways with her uncle lack of interest in social interactions and mingling with other
showing to him many guns. Respondent even threatened that if he individuals. He is seen too akin to this kind of lifestyle that he finds
should persist in going home, they will commission their military it boring and uninteresting to commit himself to a relationship
friends to harm his family. Respondent even made petitioner sign a especially to that of respondent, as aggravated by her dangerously
declaration that if he should perish, the authorities should look for aggressive moves. As he is more of the reserved and timid type of
him at his parents[ ]ۥand relatives[ ]ۥhouses. Sometime in June of person, as he prefer to be religiously attached and spend a solemn
1996, petitioner was able to escape and he went home. He told his time alone.
parents about his predicament and they forgave him and
ROWENA GUTIERREZ YU-TE, the respondent, is said to be of the that the RTC declared the marriage void, not only because of
aggressive-rebellious type of woman. She is seen to be somewhat respondent’s psychological incapacity, but rather due to both
exploitative in her [plight] for a life of wealth and glamour. She is parties’ psychological incapacity. Petitioner also points out that
seen to take move on marriage as she thought that her marriage there is no requirement for the psychologist to personally examine
with petitioner will bring her good fortune because he is part of a respondent. Further, he avers that the OSG is bound by the actions
rich family. In order to have her dreams realized, she used force of the OCP because the latter represented it during the trial; and it
and threats knowing that [her] husband is somehow weak-willed. had been furnished copies of all the pleadings, the trial court
Upon the realization that there is really no chance for wealth, she orders and notices.27
gladly finds her way out of the relationship.
For its part, the OSG contends in its memorandum,28 that the
REMARKS: annulment petition filed before the RTC contains no statement of
the essential marital obligations that the parties failed to comply
Before going to marriage, one should really get to know himself with. The root cause of the psychological incapacity was likewise
and marry himself before submitting to marital vows. Marriage not alleged in the petition; neither was it medically or clinically
should not be taken out of intuition as it is profoundly a serious identified. The purported incapacity of both parties was not shown
institution solemnized by religious and law. In the case presented to be medically or clinically permanent or incurable. And the
by petitioner and respondent[,] (sic) it is evidently clear that both clinical psychologist did not personally examine the respondent.
parties have impulsively taken marriage for granted as they are still Thus, the OSG concludes that the requirements in Molina 29 were
unaware of their own selves. He is extremely introvert to the point not satisfied.30
of weakening their relationship by his weak behavioral disposition.
She, on the other hand[,] is extremely exploitative and aggressive The Court now resolves the singular issue of whether, based on
so as to be unlawful, insincere and undoubtedly uncaring in her Article 36 of the Family Code, the marriage between the parties is
strides toward convenience. It is apparent that she is suffering the null and void.31
grave, severe, and incurable presence of Narcissistic and Antisocial
Personality Disorder that started since childhood and only I.
manifested during marriage. Both parties display psychological
incapacities that made marriage a big mistake for them to take.15 We begin by examining the provision, tracing its origin and
charting the development of jurisprudence interpreting it.
The trial court, on July 30, 2001, rendered its Decision16 declaring
the marriage of the parties null and void on the ground that both Article 36 of the Family Code32 provides:
parties were psychologically incapacitated to comply with the
essential marital obligations.17 The Republic, represented by the
Article 36. A marriage contracted by any party who, at the time of
OSG, timely filed its notice of appeal.18
the celebration, was psychologically incapacitated to comply with
the essential marital obligations of marriage, shall likewise be void
On review, the appellate court, in the assailed August 5, 2003 even if such incapacity becomes manifest only after its
Decision19 in CA-G.R. CV No. 71867, reversed and set aside the trial solemnization.
court’s ruling.20 It ruled that petitioner failed to prove the
psychological incapacity of respondent. The clinical psychologist
As borne out by the deliberations of the Civil Code Revision
did not personally examine respondent, and relied only on the
Committee that drafted the Family Code, Article 36 was based on
information provided by petitioner. Further, the psychological
grounds available in the Canon Law. Thus, Justice Flerida Ruth P.
incapacity was not shown to be attended by gravity, juridical
Romero elucidated in her separate opinion in Santos v. Court of
antecedence and incurability. In sum, the evidence adduced fell
Appeals:33
short of the requirements stated in Republic v. Court of Appeals
and Molina21 needed for the declaration of nullity of the marriage
However, as a member of both the Family Law Revision Committee
under Article 36 of the Family Code.22 The CA faulted the lower
of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and the Civil Code Revision
court for rendering the decision without the required certification
Commission of the UP Law Center, I wish to add some
of the OSG briefly stating therein the OSG’s reasons for its
observations. The letter dated April 15, 1985 of then Judge Alicia V.
agreement with or opposition to, as the case may be, the
Sempio-Diy written in behalf of the Family Law and Civil Code
petition.23 The CA later denied petitioner’s motion for
Revision Committee to then Assemblywoman Mercedes
reconsideration in the likewise assailed January 19, 2004
Cojuangco-Teodoro traced the background of the inclusion of the
Resolution.24
present Article 36 in the Family Code.
Dissatisfied, petitioner filed before this Court the instant petition
"During its early meetings, the Family Law Committee had thought
for review on certiorari. On June 15, 2005, the Court gave due
of including a chapter on absolute divorce in the draft of a new
course to the petition and required the parties to submit their
Family Code (Book I of the Civil Code) that it had been tasked by
respective memoranda.25
the IBP and the UP Law Center to prepare. In fact, some members
of the Committee were in favor of a no-fault divorce between the
In his memorandum,26 petitioner argues that the CA erred in
spouses after a number of years of separation, legal or de facto.
substituting its own judgment for that of the trial court. He posits
Justice J.B.L. Reyes was then requested to prepare a proposal for
an action for dissolution of marriage and the effects thereof based ‘Art. 32. The absolute nullity of a marriage may be invoked or
on two grounds: (a) five continuous years of separation between pleaded only on the basis of a final judgment declaring the
the spouses, with or without a judicial decree of legal separation, marriage void, without prejudice to the provision of Article 34.’
and (b) whenever a married person would have obtained a decree
of absolute divorce in another country. Actually, such a proposal is ‘Art. 33. The action or defense for the declaration of the absolute
one for absolute divorce but called by another name. Later, even nullity of a marriage shall not prescribe.’
the Civil Code Revision Committee took time to discuss the
proposal of Justice Reyes on this matter. xxxxxxxxx
Subsequently, however, when the Civil Code Revision Committee It is believed that many hopelessly broken marriages in our country
and Family Law Committee started holding joint meetings on the today may already be dissolved or annulled on the grounds
preparation of the draft of the New Family Code, they agreed and proposed by the Joint Committee on declaration of nullity as well
formulated the definition of marriage as — as annulment of marriages, thus rendering an absolute divorce law
unnecessary. In fact, during a conference with Father Gerald Healy
‘a special contract of permanent partnership between a man and a of the Ateneo University, as well as another meeting with
woman entered into in accordance with law for the establishment Archbishop Oscar Cruz of the Archdiocese of Pampanga, the Joint
of conjugal and family life. It is an inviolable social institution Committee was informed that since Vatican II, the Catholic Church
whose nature, consequences, and incidents are governed by law has been declaring marriages null and void on the ground of "lack
and not subject to stipulation, except that marriage settlements of due discretion" for causes that, in other jurisdictions, would be
may fix the property relations during the marriage within the limits clear grounds for divorce, like teen-age or premature marriages;
provided by law.’ marriage to a man who, because of some personality disorder or
disturbance, cannot support a family; the foolish or ridiculous
With the above definition, and considering the Christian traditional choice of a spouse by an otherwise perfectly normal person;
concept of marriage of the Filipino people as a permanent, marriage to a woman who refuses to cohabit with her husband or
inviolable, indissoluble social institution upon which the family and who refuses to have children. Bishop Cruz also informed the
society are founded, and also realizing the strong opposition that Committee that they have found out in tribunal work that a lot of
any provision on absolute divorce would encounter from the machismo among husbands are manifestations of their sociopathic
Catholic Church and the Catholic sector of our citizenry to whom personality anomaly, like inflicting physical violence upon their
the great majority of our people belong, the two Committees in wives, constitutional indolence or laziness, drug dependence or
their joint meetings did not pursue the idea of absolute divorce addiction, and psychosexual anomaly.34
and, instead, opted for an action for judicial declaration of
invalidity of marriage based on grounds available in the Canon Law. In her separate opinion in Molina,35 she expounded:
It was thought that such an action would not only be an acceptable
alternative to divorce but would also solve the nagging problem of At the Committee meeting of July 26, 1986, the draft provision
church annulments of marriages on grounds not recognized by the read:
civil law of the State. Justice Reyes was, thus, requested to again
prepare a draft of provisions on such action for celebration of
"(7) Those marriages contracted by any party who, at the time of
invalidity of marriage. Still later, to avoid the overlapping of
the celebration, was wanting in the sufficient use of reason or
provisions on void marriages as found in the present Civil Code and
judgment to understand the essential nature of marriage or was
those proposed by Justice Reyes on judicial declaration of invalidity
psychologically or mentally incapacitated to discharge the essential
of marriage on grounds similar to the Canon Law, the two
marital obligations, even if such lack of incapacity is made manifest
Committees now working as a Joint Committee in the preparation
after the celebration."
of a New Family Code decided to consolidate the present
provisions on void marriages with the proposals of Justice Reyes.
The twists and turns which the ensuing discussion took finally
The result was the inclusion of an additional kind of void marriage
in the enumeration of void marriages in the present Civil Code, to produced the following revised provision even before the session
was over:
wit:
Interestingly, the Committee did not give any examples of The problem as treated can be summarized, thus: do sexual
psychological incapacity for fear that by so doing, it might limit the anomalies always and in every case imply a grave
applicability of the provision under the principle of ejusdem psychopathological condition which affects the higher faculties of
generis. The Committee desired that the courts should interpret intellect, discernment, and freedom; or are there sexual anomalies
the provision on a case-to-case basis; guided by experience, the that are purely so – that is to say, they arise from certain
findings of experts and researchers in psychological disciplines, and physiological dysfunction of the hormonal system, and they affect
by decisions of church tribunals which, although not binding on the the sexual condition, leaving intact the higher faculties however, so
civil courts, may be given persuasive effect since the provision that these persons are still capable of free human acts. The
itself was taken from the Canon Law.37 The law is then so designed evidence from the empirical sciences is abundant that there are
as to allow some resiliency in its application.38 certain anomalies of a sexual nature which may impel a person
towards sexual activities which are not normal, either with respect
Yet, as held in Santos,39 the phrase "psychological incapacity" is not to its frequency [nymphomania, satyriasis] or to the nature of the
meant to comprehend all possible cases of psychoses. It refers to activity itself [sadism, masochism, homosexuality]. However, these
no less than a mental (not physical) incapacity that causes a party anomalies notwithstanding, it is altogether possible that the higher
to be truly noncognitive of the basic marital covenants that faculties remain intact such that a person so afflicted continues to
concomitantly must be assumed and discharged by the parties to have an adequate understanding of what marriage is and of the
the marriage which, as expressed by Article 6840 of the Family gravity of its responsibilities. In fact, he can choose marriage freely.
Code, include their mutual obligations to live together, observe The question though is whether such a person can assume those
love, respect and fidelity; and render help and support. The responsibilities which he cannot fulfill, although he may be able to
intendment of the law has been to confine it to the most serious of understand them. In this latter hypothesis, the incapacity to
cases of personality disorders clearly demonstrative of an utter assume the essential obligations of marriage issues from the
insensitivity or inability to give meaning and significance to the incapacity to posit the object of consent, rather than the incapacity
marriage.41 This interpretation is, in fact, consistent with that in to posit consent itself.
Canon Law, thus:
Ecclesiastical jurisprudence has been hesitant, if not actually
3.5.3.1. The Meaning of Incapacity to Assume. A sharp conceptual confused, in this regard. The initial steps taken by church courts
distinction must be made between the second and third were not too clear whether this incapacity is incapacity to posit
paragraphs of C.1095, namely between the grave lack of consent or incapacity to posit the object of consent. A case c.
discretionary judgment and the incapacity to assume the essential Pinna, for example, arrives at the conclusion that the intellect,
obligation. Mario Pompedda, a rotal judge, explains the difference under such an irresistible impulse, is prevented from properly
by an ordinary, if somewhat banal, example. Jose wishes to sell a deliberating and its judgment lacks freedom. This line of reasoning
house to Carmela, and on the assumption that they are capable supposes that the intellect, at the moment of consent, is under the
according to positive law to enter such contract, there remains the influence of this irresistible compulsion, with the inevitable
object of the contract, viz, the house. The house is located in a conclusion that such a decision, made as it was under these
different locality, and prior to the conclusion of the contract, the circumstances, lacks the necessary freedom. It would be
house was gutted down by fire unbeknown to both of them. This is incontrovertible that a decision made under duress, such as this
the hypothesis contemplated by the third paragraph of the canon. irresistible impulse, would not be a free act. But this is precisely
The third paragraph does not deal with the psychological process the question: is it, as a matter of fact, true that the intellect is
of giving consent because it has been established a priori that both always and continuously under such an irresistible compulsion? It
would seem entirely possible, and certainly more reasonable, to 3.5.3.5 Indications of Incapacity. There is incapacity when either or
think that there are certain cases in which one who is sexually both of the contractants are not capable of initiating or
hyperaesthetic can understand perfectly and evaluate quite maintaining this consortium. One immediately thinks of those
maturely what marriage is and what it implies; his consent would cases where one of the parties is so self-centered [e.g., a
be juridically ineffective for this one reason that he cannot posit narcissistic personality] that he does not even know how to begin a
the object of consent, the exclusive jus in corpus to be exercised in union with the other, let alone how to maintain and sustain such a
a normal way and with usually regularity. It would seem more relationship. A second incapacity could be due to the fact that the
correct to say that the consent may indeed be free, but is spouses are incapable of beginning or maintaining a heterosexual
juridically ineffective because the party is consenting to an object consortium, which goes to the very substance of matrimony.
that he cannot deliver. The house he is selling was gutted down by Another incapacity could arise when a spouse is unable to
fire. concretize the good of himself or of the other party. The canon
speaks, not of the bonum partium, but of the bonum conjugum. A
3.5.3.2. Incapacity as an Autonomous Ground. Sabattani seems to spouse who is capable only of realizing or contributing to the good
have seen his way more clearly through this tangled mess, of the other party qua persona rather than qua conjunx would be
proposing as he did a clear conceptual distinction between the deemed incapable of contracting marriage. Such would be the case
inability to give consent on the one hand, and the inability to fulfill of a person who may be quite capable of procuring the economic
the object of consent, on the other. It is his opinion that good and the financial security of the other, but not capable of
nymphomaniacs usually understand the meaning of marriage, and realizing the bonum conjugale of the other. These are general
they are usually able to evaluate its implications. They would have strokes and this is not the place for detained and individual
no difficulty with positing a free and intelligent consent. However, description.
such persons, capable as they are of eliciting an intelligent and free
consent, experience difficulty in another sphere: delivering the A rotal decision c. Pinto resolved a petition where the concrete
object of the consent. Anne, another rotal judge, had likewise circumstances of the case concerns a person diagnosed to be
treated the difference between the act of consenting and the act suffering from serious sociopathy. He concluded that while the
of positing the object of consent from the point of view of a person respondent may have understood, on the level of the intellect, the
afflicted with nymphomania. According to him, such an affliction essential obligations of marriage, he was not capable of assuming
usually leaves the process of knowing and understanding and them because of his "constitutional immorality."
evaluating intact. What it affects is the object of consent: the
delivering of the goods. Stankiewicz clarifies that the maturity and capacity of the person
as regards the fulfillment of responsibilities is determined not only
3.5.3.3 Incapacity as Incapacity to Posit the Object of Consent. at the moment of decision but also and especially during the
From the selected rotal jurisprudence cited, supra, it is possible to moment of execution of decision. And when this is applied to
see a certain progress towards a consensus doctrine that the constitution of the marital consent, it means that the actual
incapacity to assume the essential obligations of marriage (that is fulfillment of the essential obligations of marriage is a pertinent
to say, the formal object of consent) can coexist in the same consideration that must be factored into the question of whether a
person with the ability to make a free decision, an intelligent person was in a position to assume the obligations of marriage in
judgment, and a mature evaluation and weighing of things. The the first place. When one speaks of the inability of the party to
decision coram Sabattani concerning a nymphomaniac affirmed assume and fulfill the obligations, one is not looking at
that such a spouse can have difficulty not only with regard to the matrimonium in fieri, but also and especially at matrimonium in
moment of consent but also, and especially, with regard to the facto esse. In [the] decision of 19 Dec. 1985, Stankiewicz collocated
matrimonium in facto esse. The decision concludes that a person in the incapacity of the respondent to assume the essential
such a condition is incapable of assuming the conjugal obligation of obligations of marriage in the psychic constitution of the person,
fidelity, although she may have no difficulty in understanding what precisely on the basis of his irresponsibility as regards money and
the obligations of marriage are, nor in the weighing and evaluating his apathy as regards the rights of others that he had violated.
of those same obligations. Interpersonal relationships are invariably disturbed in the presence
of this personality disorder. A lack of empathy (inability to
Prior to the promulgation of the Code of Canon Law in 1983, it was recognize and experience how others feel) is common. A sense of
not unusual to refer to this ground as moral impotence or psychic entitlement, unreasonable expectation, especially favorable
impotence, or similar expressions to express a specific incapacity treatment, is usually present. Likewise common is interpersonal
rooted in some anomalies and disorders in the personality. These exploitativeness, in which others are taken advantage of in order
anomalies leave intact the faculties of the will and the intellect. It is to achieve one’s ends.
qualified as moral or psychic, obviously to distinguish it from the
impotence that constitutes the impediment dealt with by C.1084. Authors have made listings of obligations considered as essential
Nonetheless, the anomalies render the subject incapable of matrimonial obligations. One of them is the right to the communio
binding himself in a valid matrimonial pact, to the extent that the vitae. This and their corresponding obligations are basically
anomaly renders that person incapable of fulfilling the essential centered around the good of the spouses and of the children.
obligations. According to the principle affirmed by the long Serious psychic anomalies, which do not have to be necessarily
tradition of moral theology: nemo ad impossibile tenetur. incurable, may give rise to the incapacity to assume any, or several,
or even all of these rights. There are some cases in which
xxxx interpersonal relationship is impossible. Some characteristic
features of inability for interpersonal relationships in marriage Court of Appeals,45 explained that when private respondent
include affective immaturity, narcissism, and antisocial traits. testified under oath before the lower court and was cross-
examined by the adverse party, she thereby presented evidence in
Marriage and Homosexuality. Until 1967, it was not very clear the form of testimony. Importantly, the Court, aware of parallel
under what rubric homosexuality was understood to be decisions of Catholic marriage tribunals, ruled that the senseless
invalidating of marriage – that is to say, is homosexuality and protracted refusal of one of the parties to fulfill the marital
invalidating because of the inability to evaluate the responsibilities obligation of procreating children is equivalent to psychological
of marriage, or because of the inability to fulfill its obligations. incapacity.
Progressively, however, rotal jurisprudence began to understand it
as incapacity to assume the obligations of marriage so that by The resiliency with which the concept should be applied and the
1978, Parisella was able to consider, with charity, homosexuality as case-to-case basis by which the provision should be interpreted, as
an autonomous ground of nullity. This is to say that a person so so intended by its framers, had, somehow, been rendered
afflicted is said to be unable to assume the essential obligations of ineffectual by the imposition of a set of strict standards in
marriage. In this same rotal decision, the object of matrimonial Molina,46 thus:
consent is understood to refer not only to the jus in corpus but also
the consortium totius vitae. The third paragraph of C.1095 From their submissions and the Court's own deliberations, the
[incapacity to assume the essential obligations of marriage] following guidelines in the interpretation and application of Art. 36
certainly seems to be the more adequate juridical structure to of the Family Code are hereby handed down for the guidance of
account for the complex phenomenon that homosexuality is. The the bench and the bar:
homosexual is not necessarily impotent because, except in very
few exceptional cases, such a person is usually capable of full (1) The burden of proof to show the nullity of the
sexual relations with the spouse. Neither is it a mental infirmity, marriage belongs to the plaintiff. Any doubt should be
and a person so afflicted does not necessarily suffer from a grave resolved in favor of the existence and continuation of the
lack of due discretion because this sexual anomaly does not by marriage and against its dissolution and nullity. This is
itself affect the critical, volitive, and intellectual faculties. Rather, rooted in the fact that both our Constitution and our laws
the homosexual person is unable to assume the responsibilities of cherish the validity of marriage and unity of the family.
marriage because he is unable to fulfill this object of the Thus, our Constitution devotes an entire Article on the
matrimonial contract. In other words, the invalidity lies, not so Family, recognizing it "as the foundation of the nation." It
much in the defect of consent, as in the defect of the object of decrees marriage as legally "inviolable," thereby
consent. protecting it from dissolution at the whim of the parties.
Both the family and marriage are to be "protected" by the
3.5.3.6 Causes of Incapacity. A last point that needs to be state.
addressed is the source of incapacity specified by the canon:
causes of a psychological nature. Pompedda proffers the opinion The Family Code echoes this constitutional edict on
that the clause is a reference to the personality of the contractant. marriage and the family and emphasizes their
In other words, there must be a reference to the psychic part of permanence, inviolability and solidarity.
the person. It is only when there is something in the psyche or in
the psychic constitution of the person which impedes his capacity
(2) The root cause of the psychological incapacity must be
that one can then affirm that the person is incapable according to
(a) medically or clinically identified, (b) alleged in the
the hypothesis contemplated by C.1095.3. A person is judged
complaint, (c) sufficiently proven by experts and (d)
incapable in this juridical sense only to the extent that he is found
clearly explained in the decision. Article 36 of the Family
to have something rooted in his psychic constitution which
Code requires that the incapacity must be psychological—
impedes the assumption of these obligations. A bad habit deeply
not physical, although its manifestations and/or
engrained in one’s consciousness would not seem to qualify to be a
symptoms may be physical. The evidence must convince
source of this invalidating incapacity. The difference being that
the court that the parties, or one of them, was mentally or
there seems to be some freedom, however remote, in the
psychically ill to such an extent that the person could not
development of the habit, while one accepts as given one’s psychic
have known the obligations he was assuming, or knowing
constitution. It would seem then that the law insists that the
them, could not have given valid assumption thereof.
source of the incapacity must be one which is not the fruit of some
Although no example of such incapacity need be given
degree of freedom.42
here so as not to limit the application of the provision
under the principle of ejusdem generis, nevertheless such
Conscious of the law’s intention that it is the courts, on a case-to- root cause must be identified as a psychological illness
case basis, that should determine whether a party to a marriage is and its incapacitating nature fully explained. Expert
psychologically incapacitated, the Court, in sustaining the lower evidence may be given by qualified psychiatrists and
court’s judgment of annulment in Tuason v. Court of clinical psychologists.
Appeals,43 ruled that the findings of the trial court are final and
binding on the appellate courts.44
(3) The incapacity must be proven to be existing at "the
time of the celebration" of the marriage. The evidence
Again, upholding the trial court’s findings and declaring that its must show that the illness was existing when the parties
decision was not a judgment on the pleadings, the Court, in Tsoi v.
exchanged their "I do's." The manifestation of the illness This is one instance where, in view of the evident source
need not be perceivable at such time, but the illness itself and purpose of the Family Code provision,
must have attached at such moment, or prior thereto. contemporaneous religious interpretation is to be given
persuasive effect. Here, the State and the Church—while
(4) Such incapacity must also be shown to be medically or remaining independent, separate and apart from each
clinically permanent or incurable. Such incurability may be other—shall walk together in synodal cadence towards
absolute or even relative only in regard to the other the same goal of protecting and cherishing marriage and
spouse, not necessarily absolutely against everyone of the the family as the inviolable base of the nation.
same sex. Furthermore, such incapacity must be relevant
to the assumption of marriage obligations, not necessarily (8) The trial court must order the prosecuting attorney or
to those not related to marriage, like the exercise of a fiscal and the Solicitor General to appear as counsel for
profession or employment in a job. Hence, a pediatrician the state. No decision shall be handed down unless the
may be effective in diagnosing illnesses of children and Solicitor General issues a certification, which will be
prescribing medicine to cure them but may not be quoted in the decision, briefly stating therein his reasons
psychologically capacitated to procreate, bear and raise for his agreement or opposition, as the case may be, to
his/her own children as an essential obligation of the petition. The Solicitor General, along with the
marriage. prosecuting attorney, shall submit to the court such
certification within fifteen (15) days from the date the
(5) Such illness must be grave enough to bring about the case is deemed submitted for resolution of the court. The
disability of the party to assume the essential obligations Solicitor General shall discharge the equivalent function of
of marriage. Thus, "mild characterological peculiarities, the defensor vinculi contemplated under Canon 1095.47
mood changes, occasional emotional outbursts" cannot
be accepted as root causes. The illness must be shown as Noteworthy is that in Molina, while the majority of the Court’s
downright incapacity or inability, not a refusal, neglect or membership concurred in the ponencia of then Associate Justice
difficulty, much less ill will. In other words, there is a natal (later Chief Justice) Artemio V. Panganiban, three justices
or supervening disabling factor in the person, an adverse concurred "in the result" and another three—including, as
integral element in the personality structure that aforesaid, Justice Romero—took pains to compose their individual
effectively incapacitates the person from really accepting separate opinions. Then Justice Teodoro R. Padilla even
and thereby complying with the obligations essential to emphasized that "each case must be judged, not on the basis of a
marriage. priori assumptions, predelictions or generalizations, but according
to its own facts. In the field of psychological incapacity as a ground
(6) The essential marital obligations must be those for annulment of marriage, it is trite to say that no case is on ‘all
embraced by Articles 68 up to 71 of the Family Code as fours’ with another case. The trial judge must take pains in
regards the husband and wife as well as Articles 220, 221 examining the factual milieu and the appellate court must, as much
and 225 of the same Code in regard to parents and their as possible, avoid substituting its own judgment for that of the trial
children. Such non-complied marital obligation(s) must court."48
also be stated in the petition, proven by evidence and
included in the text of the decision. Predictably, however, in resolving subsequent cases,49 the Court
has applied the aforesaid standards, without too much regard for
(7) Interpretations given by the National Appellate the law’s clear intention that each case is to be treated differently,
Matrimonial Tribunal of the Catholic Church in the as "courts should interpret the provision on a case-to-case basis;
Philippines, while not controlling or decisive, should be guided by experience, the findings of experts and researchers in
given great respect by our courts. It is clear that Article 36 psychological disciplines, and by decisions of church tribunals."
was taken by the Family Code Revision Committee from
Canon 1095 of the New Code of Canon Law, which In hindsight, it may have been inappropriate for the Court to
became effective in 1983 and which provides: impose a rigid set of rules, as the one in Molina, in resolving all
cases of psychological incapacity. Understandably, the Court was
"The following are incapable of contracting marriage: then alarmed by the deluge of petitions for the dissolution of
Those who are unable to assume the essential obligations marital bonds, and was sensitive to the OSG’s exaggeration of
of marriage due to causes of psychological nature." Article 36 as the "most liberal divorce procedure in the
world."50 The unintended consequences of Molina, however, has
Since the purpose of including such provision in our taken its toll on people who have to live with deviant behavior,
Family Code is to harmonize our civil laws with the moral insanity and sociopathic personality anomaly, which, like
religious faith of our people, it stands to reason that to termites, consume little by little the very foundation of their
achieve such harmonization, great persuasive weight families, our basic social institutions. Far from what was intended
should be given to decisions of such appellate tribunal. by the Court, Molina has become a strait-jacket, forcing all sizes to
Ideally— subject to our law on evidence—what is decreed fit into and be bound by it. Wittingly or unwittingly, the Court, in
as canonically invalid should also be decreed civilly void. conveniently applying Molina, has allowed diagnosed sociopaths,
schizophrenics, nymphomaniacs, narcissists and the like, to
continuously debase and pervert the sanctity of marriage.
Ironically, the Roman Rota has annulled marriages on account of classification of dependent personality disorder, and respondent’s,
the personality disorders of the said individuals. 51 that of the narcissistic and antisocial personality disorder. 56
The Court need not worry about the possible abuse of the remedy By the very nature of Article 36, courts, despite having the primary
provided by Article 36, for there are ample safeguards against this task and burden of decision-making, must not discount but,
contingency, among which is the intervention by the State, instead, must consider as decisive evidence the expert opinion on
through the public prosecutor, to guard against collusion between the psychological and mental temperaments of the parties. 57
the parties and/or fabrication of evidence.52 The Court should
rather be alarmed by the rising number of cases involving marital Justice Romero explained this in Molina, as follows:
abuse, child abuse, domestic violence and incestuous rape.
Furthermore, and equally significant, the professional opinion of a
In dissolving marital bonds on account of either party’s psychological expert became increasingly important in such cases.
psychological incapacity, the Court is not demolishing the Data about the person's entire life, both before and after the
foundation of families, but it is actually protecting the sanctity of ceremony, were presented to these experts and they were asked
marriage, because it refuses to allow a person afflicted with a to give professional opinions about a party's mental capacity at the
psychological disorder, who cannot comply with or assume the time of the wedding. These opinions were rarely challenged and
essential marital obligations, from remaining in that sacred bond. It tended to be accepted as decisive evidence of lack of valid consent.
may be stressed that the infliction of physical violence,
constitutional indolence or laziness, drug dependence or addiction, The Church took pains to point out that its new openness in this
and psychosexual anomaly are manifestations of a sociopathic area did not amount to the addition of new grounds for
personality anomaly.53 Let it be noted that in Article 36, there is no annulment, but rather was an accommodation by the Church to
marriage to speak of in the first place, as the same is void from the the advances made in psychology during the past decades. There
very beginning.54 To indulge in imagery, the declaration of nullity was now the expertise to provide the all-important connecting link
under Article 36 will simply provide a decent burial to a stillborn between a marriage breakdown and premarital causes.
marriage.
During the 1970s, the Church broadened its whole idea of marriage
The prospect of a possible remarriage by the freed spouses should from that of a legal contract to that of a covenant. The result of
not pose too much of a concern for the Court. First and foremost, this was that it could no longer be assumed in annulment cases
because it is none of its business. And second, because the judicial that a person who could intellectually understand the concept of
declaration of psychological incapacity operates as a warning or a marriage could necessarily give valid consent to marry. The ability
lesson learned. On one hand, the normal spouse would have to both grasp and assume the real obligations of a mature, lifelong
become vigilant, and never again marry a person with a personality commitment are now considered a necessary prerequisite to valid
disorder. On the other hand, a would-be spouse of the matrimonial consent.
psychologically incapacitated runs the risk of the latter’s disorder
recurring in their marriage.
Rotal decisions continued applying the concept of incipient
psychological incapacity, "not only to sexual anomalies but to all
Lest it be misunderstood, we are not suggesting the abandonment kinds of personality disorders that incapacitate a spouse or both
of Molina in this case. We simply declare that, as aptly stated by spouses from assuming or carrying out the essential obligations of
Justice Dante O. Tinga in Antonio v. Reyes,55 there is need to marriage. For marriage . . . is not merely cohabitation or the right
emphasize other perspectives as well which should govern the of the spouses to each other's body for heterosexual acts, but is, in
disposition of petitions for declaration of nullity under Article 36. its totality the right to the community of the whole of life; i.e., the
At the risk of being redundant, we reiterate once more the right to a developing lifelong relationship. Rotal decisions since
principle that each case must be judged, not on the basis of a priori 1973 have refined the meaning of psychological or psychic capacity
assumptions, predilections or generalizations but according to its for marriage as presupposing the development of an adult
own facts. And, to repeat for emphasis, courts should interpret the personality; as meaning the capacity of the spouses to give
provision on a case-to-case basis; guided by experience, the themselves to each other and to accept the other as a distinct
findings of experts and researchers in psychological disciplines, and person; that the spouses must be ‘other oriented’ since the
by decisions of church tribunals. obligations of marriage are rooted in a self-giving love; and that
the spouses must have the capacity for interpersonal relationship
II. because marriage is more than just a physical reality but involves a
true intertwining of personalities. The fulfillment of the obligations
We now examine the instant case. of marriage depends, according to Church decisions, on the
strength of this interpersonal relationship. A serious incapacity for
The parties’ whirlwind relationship lasted more or less six (6) interpersonal sharing and support is held to impair the relationship
months. They met in January 1996, eloped in March, exchanged and consequently, the ability to fulfill the essential marital
marital vows in May, and parted ways in June. The psychologist obligations. The marital capacity of one spouse is not considered in
who provided expert testimony found both parties psychologically isolation but in reference to the fundamental relationship to the
incapacitated. Petitioner’s behavioral pattern falls under the other spouse.
Fr. Green, in an article in Catholic Mind, lists six elements necessary to intelligent and judicious determination of the case. The rule, however,
the mature marital relationship: does not dispense with the parties’ prerogative to present their own
expert witnesses.
"The courts consider the following elements crucial to the marital
commitment: (1) a permanent and faithful commitment to the Going back, in the case at bench, the psychological assessment, which
marriage partner; (2) openness to children and partner; (3) stability; we consider as adequate, produced the findings that both parties are
(4) emotional maturity; (5) financial responsibility; (6) an ability to afflicted with personality disorders—to repeat, dependent personality
cope with the ordinary stresses and strains of marriage, etc." disorder for petitioner, and narcissistic and antisocial personality
disorder for respondent. We note that The Encyclopedia of Mental
Fr. Green goes on to speak about some of the psychological conditions Health discusses personality disorders as follows—
that might lead to the failure of a marriage:
A group of disorders involving behaviors or traits that are
"At stake is a type of constitutional impairment precluding conjugal characteristic of a person’s recent and long-term functioning. Patterns
communion even with the best intentions of the parties. Among the of perceiving and thinking are not usually limited to isolated episodes
psychic factors possibly giving rise to his or her inability to fulfill but are deeply ingrained, inflexible, maladaptive and severe enough to
marital obligations are the following: (1) antisocial personality with its cause the individual mental stress or anxieties or to interfere with
fundamental lack of loyalty to persons or sense of moral values; (2) interpersonal relationships and normal functioning. Personality
hyperesthesia, where the individual has no real freedom of sexual disorders are often recognizable by adolescence or earlier, continue
choice; (3) the inadequate personality where personal responses through adulthood and become less obvious in middle or old age. An
consistently fall short of reasonable expectations. individual may have more than one personality disorder at a time.
xxxx The common factor among individuals who have personality disorders,
despite a variety of character traits, is the way in which the disorder
leads to pervasive problems in social and occupational adjustment.
The psychological grounds are the best approach for anyone who
Some individuals with personality disorders are perceived by others as
doubts whether he or she has a case for an annulment on any other
overdramatic, paranoid, obnoxious or even criminal, without an
terms. A situation that does not fit into any of the more traditional
awareness of their behaviors. Such qualities may lead to trouble
categories often fits very easily into the psychological category.
getting along with other people, as well as difficulties in other areas of
life and often a tendency to blame others for their problems. Other
As new as the psychological grounds are, experts are already detecting individuals with personality disorders are not unpleasant or difficult to
a shift in their use. Whereas originally the emphasis was on the work with but tend to be lonely, isolated or dependent. Such traits can
parties' inability to exercise proper judgment at the time of the lead to interpersonal difficulties, reduced self-esteem and
marriage (lack of due discretion), recent cases seem to be dissatisfaction with life.
concentrating on the parties' incapacity to assume or carry out their
responsibilities and obligations as promised (lack of due competence).
Causes of Personality Disorders Different mental health viewpoints
An advantage to using the ground of lack of due competence is that at
propose a variety of causes of personality disorders. These include
the time the marriage was entered into civil divorce and breakup of
Freudian, genetic factors, neurobiologic theories and brain wave
the family almost always is proof of someone's failure to carry out
activity.
marital responsibilities as promised at the time the marriage was
entered into."581avvphi1
Freudian Sigmund Freud believed that fixation at certain stages of
development led to certain personality types. Thus, some disorders as
Hernandez v. Court of Appeals59 emphasizes the importance of
described in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders
presenting expert testimony to establish the precise cause of a party’s
(3d ed., rev.) are derived from his oral, anal and phallic character
psychological incapacity, and to show that it existed at the inception of
types. Demanding and dependent behavior (dependent and passive-
the marriage. And as Marcos v. Marcos60 asserts, there is no
aggressive) was thought to derive from fixation at the oral stage.
requirement that the person to be declared psychologically
Characteristics of obsessionality, rigidity and emotional aloofness were
incapacitated be personally examined by a physician, if the totality of
thought to derive from fixation at the anal stage; fixation at the phallic
evidence presented is enough to sustain a finding of psychological
stage was thought to lead to shallowness and an inability to engage in
incapacity.61 Verily, the evidence must show a link, medical or the like,
intimate relationships.lawphil.net However, later researchers have
between the acts that manifest psychological incapacity and the
found little evidence that early childhood events or fixation at certain
psychological disorder itself.
stages of development lead to specific personality patterns.
This is not to mention, but we mention nevertheless for emphasis,
Genetic Factors Researchers have found that there may be a genetic
that the presentation of expert proof presupposes a thorough and in-
factor involved in the etiology of antisocial and borderline personality
depth assessment of the parties by the psychologist or expert, for a
disorders; there is less evidence of inheritance of other personality
conclusive diagnosis of a grave, severe and incurable presence of
disorders. Some family, adoption and twin studies suggest that
psychological incapacity.62 Parenthetically, the Court, at this point,
schizotypal personality may be related to genetic factors.
finds it fitting to suggest the inclusion in the Rule on Declaration of
Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable
Marriages,63 an option for the trial judge to refer the case to a court- Neurobiologic Theories In individuals who have borderline personality,
appointed psychologist/expert for an independent assessment and researchers have found that low cerebrospinal fluid 5-
evaluation of the psychological state of the parties. This will assist the hydroxyindoleacetic acid (5-HIAA) negatively correlated with measures
courts, who are no experts in the field of psychology, to arrive at an of aggression and a past history of suicide attempts. Schizotypal
personality has been associated with low platelet monoamine oxidase disregard, lack of remorse for mistreatment of others and the need to
(MAO) activity and impaired smooth pursuit eye movement. control others.
Brain Wave Activity Abnormalities in electroencephalograph (EEG) Although characteristics of this disorder describe criminals, they also
have been reported in antisocial personality for many years; slow may befit some individuals who are prominent in business or politics
wave is the most widely reported abnormality. A study of borderline whose habits of self-centeredness and disregard for the rights of
patients reported that 38 percent had at least marginal EEG others may be hidden prior to a public scandal.
abnormalities, compared with 19 percent in a control group.
During the 19th century, this type of personality disorder was referred
Types of Disorders According to the American Psychiatric Association’s to as moral insanity. The term described immoral, guiltless behavior
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (3d ed., rev., that was not accompanied by impairments in reasoning.lawphil.net
1987), or DSM-III-R, personality disorders are categorized into three
major clusters: According to the classification system used in the Diagnostic and
Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (3d ed., rev. 1987), anti-social
Cluster A: Paranoid, schizoid and schizotypal personality disorders. personality disorder is one of the four "dramatic" personality
Individuals who have these disorders often appear to have odd or disorders, the others being borderline, histrionic and narcissistic.66
eccentric habits and traits.
The seriousness of the diagnosis and the gravity of the disorders
Cluster B: Antisocial, borderline, histrionic and narcissistic personality considered, the Court, in this case, finds as decisive the psychological
disorders. Individuals who have these disorders often appear overly evaluation made by the expert witness; and, thus, rules that the
emotional, erratic and dramatic. marriage of the parties is null and void on ground of both parties’
psychological incapacity. We further consider that the trial court,
Cluster C: Avoidant, dependent, obsessive-compulsive and passive- which had a first-hand view of the witnesses’ deportment, arrived at
aggressive personality disorders. Individuals who have these disorders the same conclusion.
often appear anxious or fearful.
Indeed, petitioner, who is afflicted with dependent personality
The DSM-III-R also lists another category, "personality disorder not disorder, cannot assume the essential marital obligations of living
otherwise specified," that can be used for other specific personality together, observing love, respect and fidelity and rendering help and
disorders or for mixed conditions that do not qualify as any of the support, for he is unable to make everyday decisions without advice
specific personality disorders. from others, allows others to make most of his important decisions
(such as where to live), tends to agree with people even when he
believes they are wrong, has difficulty doing things on his own,
Individuals with diagnosable personality disorders usually have long-
volunteers to do things that are demeaning in order to get approval
term concerns, and thus therapy may be long-term.64
from other people, feels uncomfortable or helpless when alone and is
often preoccupied with fears of being abandoned.67 As clearly shown
Dependent personality disorder is characterized in the following in this case, petitioner followed everything dictated to him by the
manner— persons around him. He is insecure, weak and gullible, has no sense of
his identity as a person, has no cohesive self to speak of, and has no
A personality disorder characterized by a pattern of dependent and goals and clear direction in life.
submissive behavior. Such individuals usually lack self-esteem and
frequently belittle their capabilities; they fear criticism and are easily Although on a different plane, the same may also be said of the
hurt by others’ comments. At times they actually bring about respondent. Her being afflicted with antisocial personality disorder
dominance by others through a quest for overprotection. makes her unable to assume the essential marital obligations. This
finding takes into account her disregard for the rights of others, her
Dependent personality disorder usually begins in early adulthood. abuse, mistreatment and control of others without remorse, her
Individuals who have this disorder may be unable to make everyday tendency to blame others, and her intolerance of the conventional
decisions without advice or reassurance from others, may allow others behavioral limitations imposed by society.68 Moreover, as shown in
to make most of their important decisions (such as where to live), tend this case, respondent is impulsive and domineering; she had no
to agree with people even when they believe they are wrong, have qualms in manipulating petitioner with her threats of blackmail and of
difficulty starting projects or doing things on their own, volunteer to committing suicide.
do things that are demeaning in order to get approval from other
people, feel uncomfortable or helpless when alone and are often Both parties being afflicted with grave, severe and incurable
preoccupied with fears of being abandoned.65 and antisocial psychological incapacity, the precipitous marriage which they
personality disorder described, as follows— contracted on April 23, 1996 is thus, declared null and void.
Characteristics include a consistent pattern of behavior that is WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition for review on
intolerant of the conventional behavioral limitations imposed by a certiorari is GRANTED. The August 5, 2003 Decision and the January
society, an inability to sustain a job over a period of years, disregard 19, 2004 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 71867
for the rights of others (either through exploitiveness or criminal are REVERSED and SET ASIDE, and the Decision, dated July 30, 2001,
behavior), frequent physical fights and, quite commonly, child or REINSTATED.
spouse abuse without remorse and a tendency to blame others. There
is often a façade of charm and even sophistication that masks
SO ORDERED.
G.R. No. 166579 February 18, 2010 added that Jordan has not provided any financial support or visited
their son since she left their conjugal home.
JORDAN CHAN PAZ, Petitioner,
vs. Psychologist Cristina R. Gates (Gates) testified that Jordan was
JEANICE PAVON PAZ, Respondent. afflicted with "Borderline Personality Disorder as manifested in his
impulsive behavior, delinquency and instability."5 Gates concluded
DECISION that Jordan’s psychological maladies antedate their marriage and
are rooted in his family background. Gates added that with no
CARPIO, J.: indication of reformation, Jordan’s personality disorder appears to
be grave and incorrigible.
The Case
Jordan denied Jeanice’s allegations. Jordan asserted that Jeanice
exaggerated her statements against him. Jordan said that Jeanice
This is a petition for review1 of the 9 August 20042 and 26
has her own personal insecurities and that her actions showed her
November 20043 Resolutions of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV
lack of maturity, childishness and emotional inability to cope with
No. 80473. In its 9 August 2004 Resolution, the Court of Appeals
the struggles and challenges of maintaining a married life.
dismissed petitioner Jordan Chan Paz’s (Jordan) appeal of the 13
May 2003 Decision4 of the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City, Branch
69 (trial court), which granted respondent Jeanice Pavon Paz’s Jordan also objected to the psychological report offered by
(Jeanice) petition for declaration of nullity of marriage. In its 26 Jeanice. Jordan pointed out that he was not subjected to any
November 2004 Resolution, the Court of Appeals denied Jordan’s interview or psychological tests by Gates. Jordan argued that
motion for reconsideration. Gates’ conclusions were mere speculations, conjectures and
suppositions from the information supplied by Jeanice. Jordan
alleged that it was patently one-sided and is not admissible in
The Facts
evidence as it was based on hearsay statements of Jeanice which
were obviously self-serving. Jordan said he wants Jeanice back and
Jordan and Jeanice met sometime in November 1996. Jeanice was
prayed for the dismissal of the petition.
only 19 years old while Jordan was 27 years old. In January 1997,
they became a couple and, on 10 May 1997, they were formally
The Ruling of the Trial Court
engaged. They had their civil wedding on 3 July 1997, and their
church wedding on 21 September 1997. They have one son, Evan
Gaubert, who was born on 12 February 1998. After a big fight, On 13 May 2003, the trial court granted Jeanice’s petition. The trial
Jeanice left their conjugal home on 23 February 1999. court declared that Jordan’s psychological incapacity, which was
specifically identified as "Borderline Personality Disorder,"
deprived him of the capacity to fully understand his responsibilities
On 15 September 1999, Jeanice filed a petition for declaration of
under the marital bond. The trial court found that Jordan was
nullity of marriage against Jordan. Jeanice alleged that Jordan was
psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential
psychologically incapable of assuming the essential obligations of
obligations of marriage, particularly Articles 686 and 707 of the
marriage. According to Jeanice, Jordan’s psychological incapacity
Family Code. The trial court also declared that Jordan’s
was manifested by his uncontrollable tendency to be self-
psychological incapacity, being rooted in his family background,
preoccupied and self-indulgent, as well as his predisposition to
antedates the marriage and that without any sign of reformation,
become violent and abusive whenever his whims and caprices
found the same to be grave and incurable.
were not satisfied.
On 18 August 2005, Jordan filed a motion for reconsideration. In Dimayuga-Laurena v. Court of Appeals,19 the Court explained:
While Jordan admits that he failed to file a motion for
reconsideration of the trial court’s 13 May 2003 Decision, Jordan (a) Gravity – It must be grave and serious such that the
submits that Section 20 of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC should not have party would be incapable of carrying out the ordinary
been strictly applied against him because it took effect only on 15 duties required in a marriage;
March 2003, or less than two months prior to the rendition of the
trial court’s 13 May 2003 Decision. Moreover, Jordan enjoins the
(b) Judicial Antecedence – It must be rooted in the history
Court to decide the case on the merits so as to preserve the
of the party antedating the marriage, although the overt
sanctity of marriage as enshrined in the Constitution.
manifestations may emerge only after the marriage; and
Q- As a last question Madam witness. So all in all your In sum, the totality of the evidence presented by Jeanice failed to
conclusions here on page 1 to page 5 of your Report are show that Jordan was psychologically incapacitated to comply with
all based on the statement and perception of the the essential marital obligations and that such incapacity was
petitioner (Jeanice) on the respondent (Jordan)? grave, incurable, and existing at the time of the solemnization of
their marriage.1avvphi1
A- Yes Mam.24
In Republic v. Cabantug-Baguio,32 we said:
Consequently, Gates’ report and testimony were hearsay evidence
since she had no personal knowledge of the alleged facts she was The Constitution sets out a policy of protecting and strengthening
testifying on.25 Gates’ testimony should have thus been dismissed the family as the basic social institution and marriage as the
for being unscientific and unreliable.26 foundation of the family. Marriage, as an inviolable institution
protected by the State, cannot be dissolved at the whim of the
Moreover, contrary to the ruling of the trial court, Jordan’s alleged parties. In petitions for the declaration of nullity of marriage, the
psychological incapacity was not shown to be so grave and so burden of proof to show the nullity of marriage lies on the plaintiff.
permanent as to deprive him of the awareness of the duties and Any doubt should be resolved in favor of the existence and
responsibilities of the matrimonial bond. At best, Jeanice’s continuation of the marriage and against its dissolution and
allegations showed that Jordan was irresponsible, insensitive, or nullity.33
emotionally immature. The incidents cited by Jeanice do not show
that Jordan suffered from grave psychological maladies that WHEREFORE, we GRANT the petition. We SET ASIDE the 9 August
paralyzed Jordan from complying with the essential obligations of 2004 and 26 November 2004 Resolutions of the Court of Appeals.
marriage. We REVERSE the 13 May 2003 Decision of the Regional Trial Court
of Pasig, Branch 69. The marriage of Jeanice Pavon Paz to Jordan
What the law requires to render a marriage void on the ground of Chan Paz subsists and remains valid.
psychological incapacity is downright incapacity, not refusal or
neglect or difficulty, much less ill will.27 The mere showing of SO ORDERED.
"irreconcilable differences" and "conflicting personalities" does not
constitute psychological incapacity.28
Dr. Nedy L. Tayag (Dr. Tayag), a clinical psychologist, submitted a WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, judgment is hereby
psychological report establishing that respondent was suffering rendered:
from Narcissistic Personality Disorder which was deeply ingrained
in her system since her early formative years. Dr. Tayag found that 1) Declaring the marriage between plaintiff ALAIN M.
respondent’s disorder was long-lasting and by nature, incurable. DIÑO and defendant MA. CARIDAD L. DIÑO on January 14,
1998, and all its effects under the law, as NULL and VOID
In its 18 October 2006 Decision, the trial court granted the petition from the beginning; and
on the ground that respondent was psychologically incapacited to
2) Dissolving the regime of absolute community of shall be deemed to have contributed jointly in the acquisition
property. thereof if the former’s efforts consisted in the care and
maintenance of the family and of the household.
A DECREE OF ABSOLUTE NULLITY OF MARRIAGE shall be issued
after liquidation, partition and distribution of the parties’ Neither party can encumber or dispose by acts inter vivos of his or
properties under Article 147 of the Family Code. her share in the property acquired during cohabitation and owned
in common, without the consent of the other, until after the
Let copies of this Order be furnished the parties, the Office of the termination of their cohabitation.
Solicitor General, the Office of the City Prosecutor of Las Piñas City
and the Local Civil Registrar of Las Piñas City, for their information When only one of the parties to a void marriage is in good faith,
and guidance.5 the share of the party in bad faith in the co-ownership shall be
forfeited in favor of their common children. In case of default of or
Hence, the petition before this Court. waiver by any or all of the common children or their descendants,
each vacant share shall belong to the respective surviving
The Issue descendants. In the absence of descendants, such share shall
belong to the innocent party. In all cases, the forfeiture shall take
place upon termination of the cohabitation.
The sole issue in this case is whether the trial court erred when it
ordered that a decree of absolute nullity of marriage shall only be
issued after liquidation, partition, and distribution of the parties’ For Article 147 of the Family Code to apply, the following elements
properties under Article 147 of the Family Code. must be present:
The Ruling of this Court 1. The man and the woman must be capacitated to marry
each other;
The petition has merit.
2. They live exclusively with each other as husband and
wife; and
Petitioner assails the ruling of the trial court ordering that a decree
of absolute nullity of marriage shall only be issued after liquidation,
partition, and distribution of the parties’ properties under Article 3. Their union is without the benefit of marriage, or their
147 of the Family Code. Petitioner argues that Section 19(1) of the marriage is void.9
Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Null Marriages and
Annulment of Voidable Marriages6 (the Rule) does not apply to All these elements are present in this case and there is no question
Article 147 of the Family Code. that Article 147 of the Family Code applies to the property
relations between petitioner and respondent.
We agree with petitioner.
We agree with petitioner that the trial court erred in ordering that
The Court has ruled in Valdes v. RTC, Branch 102, Quezon City that a decree of absolute nullity of marriage shall be issued only after
in a void marriage, regardless of its cause, the property relations of liquidation, partition and distribution of the parties’ properties
the parties during the period of cohabitation is governed either by under Article 147 of the Family Code. The ruling has no basis
Article 147 or Article 148 of the Family Code.7 Article 147 of the because Section 19(1) of the Rule does not apply to cases governed
Family Code applies to union of parties who are legally capacitated under Articles 147 and 148 of the Family Code. Section 19(1) of the
and not barred by any impediment to contract marriage, but Rule provides:
whose marriage is nonetheless void,8 such as petitioner and
respondent in the case before the Court. Sec. 19. Decision. - (1) If the court renders a decision granting the
petition, it shall declare therein that the decree of absolute nullity
Article 147 of the Family Code provides: or decree of annulment shall be issued by the court only after
compliance with Articles 50 and 51 of the Family Code as
implemented under the Rule on Liquidation, Partition and
Article 147. When a man and a woman who are capacitated to
Distribution of Properties.
marry each other, live exclusively with each other as husband and
wife without the benefit of marriage or under a void marriage,
their wages and salaries shall be owned by them in equal shares The pertinent provisions of the Family Code cited in Section 19(1)
and the property acquired by both of them through their work or of the Rule are:
industry shall be governed by the rules on co-ownership.
Article 50. The effects provided for in paragraphs (2), (3), (4) and
In the absence of proof to the contrary, properties acquired while (5) of Article 43 and in Article 44 shall also apply in proper cases to
they lived together shall be presumed to have been obtained by marriages which are declared void ab initio or annulled by final
their joint efforts, work or industry, and shall be owned by them in judgment under Articles 40 and 45.10
equal shares. For purposes of this Article, a party who did not
participate in the acquisition by the other party of any property
The final judgment in such cases shall provide for the liquidation, property or conjugal partnership of gains, there is a need to
partition and distribution of the properties of the spouses, the liquidate, partition and distribute the properties before a decree of
custody and support of the common children, and the delivery of annulment could be issued. That is not the case for annulment of
their presumptive legitimes, unless such matters had been marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code because the marriage
adjudicated in previous judicial proceedings. is governed by the ordinary rules on co-ownership.
All creditors of the spouses as well as of the absolute community of In this case, petitioner’s marriage to respondent was declared void
the conjugal partnership shall be notified of the proceedings for under Article 3615 of the Family Code and not under Article 40 or
liquidation. 45. Thus, what governs the liquidation of properties owned in
common by petitioner and respondent are the rules on co-
In the partition, the conjugal dwelling and the lot on which it is ownership. In Valdes, the Court ruled that the property relations of
situated, shall be adjudicated in accordance with the provisions of parties in a void marriage during the period of cohabitation is
Articles 102 and 129. governed either by Article 147 or Article 148 of the Family
Code.16The rules on co-ownership apply and the properties of the
Article 51. In said partition, the value of the presumptive legitimes spouses should be liquidated in accordance with the Civil Code
of all common children, computed as of the date of the final provisions on co-ownership. Under Article 496 of the Civil Code,
judgment of the trial court, shall be delivered in cash, property or "[p]artition may be made by agreement between the parties or by
sound securities, unless the parties, by mutual agreement judicially judicial proceedings. x x x." It is not necessary to liquidate the
approved, had already provided for such matters. properties of the spouses in the same proceeding for declaration of
nullity of marriage.
The children of their guardian, or the trustee of their property, may
ask for the enforcement of the judgment. WHEREFORE, we AFFIRM the Decision of the trial court with
the MODIFICATION that the decree of absolute nullity of the
marriage shall be issued upon finality of the trial court’s decision
The delivery of the presumptive legitimes herein prescribed shall in
without waiting for the liquidation, partition, and distribution of
no way prejudice the ultimate successional rights of the children
the parties’ properties under Article 147 of the Family Code.
accruing upon the death of either or both of the parents; but the
value of the properties already received under the decree of
annulment or absolute nullity shall be considered as advances on SO ORDERED.
their legitime.
Upon an assiduous review of the records, we resolve to grant the In time, in Republic v. Court of Appeals,8 the Court set some
petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration. guidelines for the interpretation and application of Article 36 of the
Family Code, as follows:
I
(1) The burden of proof to show the nullity of the
Psychological incapacity as a ground for the nullity of marriage marriage belongs to the plaintiff. Any doubt should be
under Article 36 of the Family Code refers to a serious resolved in favor of the existence and continuation of the
psychological illness afflicting a party even prior to the celebration marriage and against its dissolution and nullity. This is
of the marriage that is permanent as to deprive the party of the rooted in the fact that both our Constitution and our laws
awareness of the duties and responsibilities of the matrimonial cherish the validity of marriage and unity of the family.
bond he or she was about to assume. Although the Family Code Thus, our Constitution devotes an entire Article on the
has not defined the term psychological incapacity, the Court has Family, recognizing it "as the foundation of the nation." It
usually looked up its meaning by reviewing the deliberations of the decrees marriage as legally "inviolable," thereby
sessions of the Family Code Revision Committee that had drafted protecting it from dissolution at the whim of the parties.
the Family Code in order to gain an insight on the provision. It Both the family and marriage are to be "protected" by the
appeared that the members of the Family Code Revision state.
Committee were not unanimous on the meaning, and in the end
they decided to adopt the provision "with less specificity than The Family Code echoes this constitutional edict on
expected" in order to have the law "allow some resiliency in its marriage and the family and emphasizes their
application."4Illustrative of the "less specificity than expected" has permanence, inviolability and solidarity.
been the omission by the Family Code Revision Committee to give
any examples of psychological incapacity that would have limited (2) The root cause of the psychological incapacity must be
the applicability of the provision conformably with the principle of (a) medically or clinically identified, (b) alleged in the
ejusdem generis, because the Committee desired that the courts complaint, (c) sufficiently proven by experts and (d)
should interpret the provision on a case-to-case basis, guided by clearly explained in the decision. Article 36 of the Family
experience, the findings of experts and researchers in Code requires that the incapacity must be psychological
psychological disciplines, and the decisions of church tribunals that — not physical, althoughits manifestations and/or
had persuasive effect by virtue of the provision itself having been symptoms may be physical. The evidence must convince
taken from the Canon Law.5 the court that the parties, or one of them, was mentally or
psychically ill to such an extent that the person could not
On the other hand, as the Court has observed in Santos v. Court of have known the obligations he was assuming, or knowing
Appeals,6 the deliberations of the Family Code Revision Committee them, could not have given valid assumption thereof.
and the relevant materials on psychological incapacity as a ground Although no example of such incapacity need be given
for the nullity of marriage have rendered it obvious that the term here so as not to limit the application of the provision
psychological incapacity as used in Article 36 of the Family under the principle of ejusdem generis, nevertheless such
Code"has not been meant to comprehend all such possible cases root cause must be identified as a psychological illness
of psychoses as, likewise mentioned by some ecclesiastical and its incapacitating nature fully explained. Expert
authorities, extremely low intelligence, immaturity, and like evidence may be given by qualified psychiatrists and
circumstances," and could not be taken and construed clinical psychologists.
independently of "but must stand in conjunction with, existing
precepts in our law on marriage." Thus correlated:- (3) The incapacity must be proven tobe existing at "the
time of the celebration" of the marriage. The evidence
x x x "psychological incapacity" should refer to no less than a must show that the illness was existing when the parties
mental (not physical) incapacity that causes a party to be truly exchanged their "I do’s." The manifestation of the illness
incognitive of the basic marital covenants that concomitantly must need not be perceivable at such time, but the illness itself
be assumed and discharged by the parties to the marriage which, must have attached at such moment, or prior thereto.
as so expressed by Article 68 of the Family Code, include their
mutual obligations to live together, observe love, respect and (4) Such incapacity must also be shown to be medically or
fidelity and render help and support. There is hardly any doubt clinically permanent or incurable. Such incurability may be
that the intendment of the law has been to confine the meaning of absolute or even relative only in regard to the other
"psychological incapacity" to the most serious cases of personality spouse, not necessarily absolutely against everyone of the
disorders clearly demonstrative of an utter insensitivity or inability same sex. Furthermore, such incapacity must be relevant
to give meaning and significance to the marriage. This psychologic to the assumption of marriage obligations, not necessarily
condition must exist at the time the marriage is celebrated. The to those not related to marriage, like the exercise of a
law does not evidently envision, upon the other hand, an inability profession or employment in a job. Hence, a pediatrician
of the spouse to have sexual relations with the other. This may be effective in diagnosing illnesses of children and
conclusion is implicit under Article 54 of the Family Code which
prescribing medicine to cure them but may not be quoted in the decision, briefly stating therein his reasons
psychologically capacitated to procreate, bear and raise for his agreement or opposition, as the case may be, to
his/her own children as an essential obligation of the petition. The Solicitor General, along with the
marriage. prosecuting attorney, shall submit to the court such
certification within fifteen (15) days from the date the
(5) Such illness must be grave enough to bring about the case is deemed submitted for resolution of the court. The
disability of the party to assume the essential obligations Solicitor General shall discharge the equivalent function of
of marriage. Thus, "mild characteriological peculiarities, the defensor vinculi contemplated under Canon 1095.9
mood changes, occasional emotional outbursts" cannot
be accepted as root causes. The illness must be shown as The foregoing guidelines have turned out to be rigid, such that
downright incapacity or inability, not a refusal, neglect or their application to every instance practically condemned the
difficulty, much less ill will. In other words, there is a natal petitions for declaration of nullity to the fate of certain rejection.
or supervening disabling factor in the person, an adverse But Article 36 of the Family Code must not be so strictly and too
integral element in the personality structure that literally read and applied given the clear intendment of the
effectively incapacitates the person from really accepting drafters to adopt its enacted version of "less specificity" obviously
and thereby complying with the obligations essential to to enable "some resiliency in its application." Instead, every court
marriage. should approach the issue of nullity "not on the basis of a priori
assumptions, predilections or generalizations, but according to its
(6) The essential marital obligations must be those own facts" in recognition of the verity that no case would be on
embraced by Articles 68 up to 71 of the Family Code as "all fours" with the next one in the field of psychological incapacity
regards the husband and wife as well as Articles 220, 221 as a ground for the nullity of marriage; hence, every "trial judge
and 225 of the same Code in regard to parents and their must take pains in examining the factual milieu and the appellate
children. Such non-complied marital obligation(s) must court must, asmuch as possible, avoid substituting its own
also be stated in the petition, proven by evidence and judgment for that of the trial court."10
included in the text of the decision.
In the task of ascertaining the presence of psychological incapacity
(7) Interpretations given by the National Appellate as a ground for the nullity of marriage, the courts, which are
Matrimonial Tribunal of the Catholic Church in the concededly not endowed with expertise in the field of psychology,
Philippines, while not controlling or decisive, should be must of necessity rely on the opinions of experts in order to inform
given great respect by our courts. It is clear that Article 36 themselves on the matter, and thus enable themselves to arrive at
was taken by the Family Code Revision Committee from an intelligent and judicious judgment. Indeed, the conditions for
Canon 1095 of the New Code of Canon Law, which the malady of being grave, antecedent and incurable demand the
became effective in 1983 and which provides: in-depth diagnosis by experts.11
A : When your score is 73 and above, that means that it is very The probative force of the testimony of an expert does not lie in a
significant. So, if 72 and below, it will be considered as acceptable. mere statement of her theory or opinion, but rather in the
assistance that she can render to the courts in showing the facts
Q : In what area did Mrs. Kalaw obtain high score? that serve as a basis for her criterion and the reasons upon which
the logic of her conclusion is founded.29 Hence, we should weigh
A : Under dependency, her score is 78; under narcissism, is 79; and consider the probative value of the findings of the expert
under compulsiveness, it is 84.27 witnesses vis-à-vis the other evidence available.
It is notable that Dr. Dayan’s findings did not contradict but The other expert of the petitioner was Fr. Healy, a canon law
corroborated the findings of Dr. Gates to the effect that the expert, an advocate before the Manila Archdiocese and
respondent had been afflicted with Narcissistic Personality Matrimonial Tribunal, and a consultant of the Family Code Revision
Disorder as well as with AntiSocial Disorder. Dr. Gates relevantly Committee. Regarding Father Healy’s expert testimony, we have
testified: once declared that judicial understanding of psychological
incapacity could be informed by evolving standards, taking into
account the particulars of each case, by current trends in
ATTY. GONONG
psychological and even by canonical thought, and by
experience.30 It is prudent for us to do so because the concept of
Q : Could you please repeat for clarity. I myself is [sic] not quite
psychological incapacity adopted under Article 36 of the Family
familiar with psychology terms. So, more or less, could you please
Code was derived from Canon Law.
tell me in more layman’s terms how you arrived at your findings
that the respondent is self-centered or narcissistic?
Father Healy tendered his opinion onwhether or not the
respondent’s level of immaturity and irresponsibility with regard to
A : I moved into this particular conclusion. Basically, if you ask
her own children and to her husband constituted psychological
about her childhood background, her fatherdied in a vehicular
incapacity, testifying thusly:
accident when she was in her teens and thereafter she was
prompted to look for a job to partly assume the breadwinner’s role
ATTY. MADRID
in her family. I gathered that paternal grandmother partly took
care of her and her siblings against the fact that her own mother
was unable to carry out her respective duties and responsibilities Q : Now, respondent Ma. Elena Fernandez claims that she is not
towards Elena Fernandez and her siblings considering that the psychologically incapacitated. On the facts as you read it based on
husband died prematurely. And there was an indication that Elena the records of this case before this Honorable Court, what can you
Fernandez on several occasions ever told petitioner that he cannot say to that claim of respondent?
blame her for being negligent as a mother because she herself
never experienced the care and affection of her own mother A : I would say it is a clear case of psychological incapacity because
herself. So, there is a precedent in her background, in her of her immaturity and traumatic irresponsibility with regards to her
childhood, and indeed this seems to indicate a particular script, we own children.
call it in psychology a script, the tendency to repeat somekind of
experience or the lack of care, let’s say some kind of deprivation, Q : So what you are saying is that, the claim of respondent that she
there is a tendency to sustain it even on to your own life when you is not psychologically incapacitated is not true?
have your own family. I did interview the son because I was not
satisfied with what I gathered from both Trinidad and Valerio and A : Yes. It should be rejected.
even though as a young son at the age of fourteen already
expressed the he could not see, according to the child, the sincerity Q : Why do you say so?
of maternal care on the part of Elena and that he preferred to live
with the father actually.
A : Because of what she has manifested in her whole lifestyle,
inconsistent pattern has been manifested running through their
Q : Taking these all out, you came to the conclusion that life made a doubt that this is immaturity and irresponsibility
respondent is self-centered and narcissistic? because her family was dysfunctional and then her being a model
in her early life and being the bread winner of the family put her in
A : Actually respondent has some needs which tempts [sic] from a an unusual position of prominence and then begun to inflate her
deprived childhood and she is still insearch of this. In her several own ego and she begun to concentrate her own beauty and that
boyfriends, it seems that she would jump from one boyfriend to became an obsession and that led to her few responsibility of
another. There is this need for attention, this need for love on subordinating to her children to this lifestyle that she had
other people. embraced.
A : Also the same thing. It just did notfit in to her lifestyle to fulfill Q : Is this narcissism, Fr. Healy, acquired by accident or congenital
her obligation to her husband and toher children. She had her own or what?
priorities, her beauty and her going out and her mahjong and
associating with friends. They were the priorities of her life. A : No. The lifestyle generates it. Once you become a model and
still the family was depended [sic] upon her and she was a model
Q : And what you are saying is that, her family was merely at Hyatt and then Rustan’s, it began to inflate her ego so much that
secondary? this became the top priority in her life. It’s her lifestyle.
A : Secondary. Q : What you are saying is that, the narcissism of respondent even
expanded after the marriage?
Q : And how does that relate to psychological incapacity?
A : That could have expanded because it became very obvious after
A : That she could not appreciate or absorb or fulfill the obligations the marriage because she was neglecting such fundamental
of marriage which everybody takes for granted. The concentration obligations.
on the husband and the children before everything else would be
subordinated to the marriage withher. It’s the other way around. Q : And how about the matter of curability, is this medically or
clinically curable, this narcissism that you mentioned?
Her beauty, her going out, her beauty parlor and her mahjong,
they were their priorities in her life. A : Let’s say, it was manifested for so many years in her life. It was
found in her family background situation. Say, almost for sure
Q : And in medical or clinical parlance, what specifically do you call would be incurable now.
this?
Q : What specific background are you referring to?
A : That is narcissism where the person falls in love with himself is
from a myt[h]ical case in Roman history. A : Well, the fact when the father died and she was the
breadwinner and her beauty was so important to give in her job
Q : Could you please define tous what narcissism is? and money and influence and so on. But this is a very unusual
situation for a young girl and her position in the family was exalted
A : It’s a self-love, falling in love with oneself to make up for the in a very very unusual manner and therefore she had that pressure
loss of a dear friend as in the case of Narcissus, the myth, and then on her and in her accepting the pressure, in going along with it and
that became known in clinical terminology as narcissism. When a putting it in top priority.31
person is so concern[ed] with her own beauty and prolonging and
protecting it, then it becomes the top priority in her life. Given his credentials and conceded expertise in Canon Law, Father
Healy’s opinions and findings commanded respect. The
xxxx contribution that his opinions and findings could add to the judicial
determination of the parties’ psychological incapacity was
substantive and instructive. He could thereby inform the trial court
Q : And you stated that circumstances that prove this narcissism.
on the degrees of the malady that would warrant the nullity of
How do you consider this narcissism afflicting respondent, it is
marriage, and he could as well thereby provideto the trial court an
grave, slight or ….?
analytical insight upon a subject as esoteric to the courts as
psychological incapacity has been. We could not justly disregard
A : I would say it’s grave from the actual cases of neglect of her
his opinions and findings. Appreciating them together with those
family and that causes serious obligations which she has ignored
of Dr. Gates and Dr. Dayan would advance more the cause of
and not properly esteemed because she is so concern[ed] with
justice. The Court observed in Ngo Te v. Yu-Te:32
herself in her own lifestyle. Very serious.
By the very nature of Article 36, courts, despite having the primary
Q : And do you have an opinion whether or not this narcissism
task and burden of decision-making, must not discount but,
afflicting respondent was already existing at the time or marriage
instead, must consider as decisive evidence the expert opinion on
or even thereafter?
the psychological and mental temperaments of the parties.
xxxx
Justice Romero explained this in Molina, as follows:
ATTY. PISON: How long would she stay playing mahjong say one (4) To enhance, protect, preserve and maintain their
session? physical and mental health at all times;
WITNESS : Really long cuz’we would go to my aunt’s house in (5) To furnish them with good and wholesome
White Plains and I think we would get there by lunch then leave, educational materials, supervise their activities,
we fall asleep. I think it was like one in the morning. ATTY. PISON: recreation and association with others, protect them from
You, you went there? She brought you? bad company, and prevent them from acquiring habits
detrimental to their health, studies and morals;
WITNESS : Yeah, to play withmy cousins, yeah and my brothers &
sisters. (6) x x x x
WITNESS: Yeah, almost all the time but sometimes, I guess she’d (8) x x x x
go out by herself.38
(9) x x x x (emphasis supplied)
The fact that the respondent brought her children with her to her
mahjong sessions did not only point to her neglect of parental The September 19, 2011 decision did not properly take into
duties, but also manifested her tendency to expose them to a consideration the findings of the RTC to the effect that both the
culture of gambling. Her willfully exposing her children to the petitioner and the respondent had been psychologically
culture of gambling on every occasion of her mahjong sessions was incapacitated, and thus could not assume the essential obligations
a very grave and serious act of subordinating their needs for of marriage. The RTC would not have found so without the
parenting to the gratification of her own personal and escapist allegation to that effect by the respondent in her
desires. This was the observation of Father Healy himself. In that answer,39 whereby she averred that it was not she but the
regard, Dr. Gates and Dr. Dayan both explained that the current petitioner who had suffered from psychological incapacity.
psychological state of the respondent had been rooted on her own
childhood experience. The allegation of the petitioner’spsychological incapacity was
substantiated by Dr. Dayan, as follows:
The respondent revealed her wanton disregard for her children’s
moral and mental development. This disregard violated her duty as ATTY. BRETAÑA:
a parent to safeguard and protect her children, as expressly
defined under Article 209 and Article 220 of the Family Code, to Q : You stated earlier that both parties were behaviorally
wit: immature?
Article 209. Pursuant to the natural right and duty of parents over A : Yes, sir.
the person and property of their unemancipated children, parental
authority and responsibility shall includethe caring for and rearing Q : And that the marriage was a mistake?
of such children for civic consciousness and efficiency and the
development of their moral, mental and physical character and
A : Yes, sir.
well-being.
Q : What is your basis for your statement that respondent was Q : Madam Witness, you never directly answered my question on
behaviorally immature? whether the petitioner was psychologically incapacitated to
perform his duty as a husband. You only said that the petitioner
A : Sir, for the reason that even before the marriage Malyn had was behaviorally immature and that the marriage was a mistake.
noticed already some of those short temper of the petitioner but Now, may I asked [sic] you that question again and request you to
she was very much in love and so she lived-in with him and even answer that directly?
the time that they were together, that they were living in, she also
had noticed some of his psychological deficits if we may say so. But A : Sir, he is psychologically incapacitated.40
as I said, because she is also dependent and she was one who
determined to make the relationship work, she was denying even Although the petitioner, as the plaintiff, carried the burden to
those kinds of problems that she had seen. prove the nullity of the marriage, the respondent, as the defendant
spouse, could establish the psychological incapacity of her husband
Q : To make it clear, Madam witness, I’m talking here of the because she raised the matter in her answer. The courts are
petitioner, Mr. Kalaw. What led you to conclude that Mr. Kalaw justified in declaring a marriage null and void under Article 36 of
was behaviorally immature? the Family Code regardless of whether it is the petitioner or the
respondent who imputes the psychological incapacity to the other
A : I think he also mentioned that his concept of marriage was not as long as the imputation is fully substantiated with proof. Indeed,
duly stable then. He was not really thinking of marriage except that psychological incapacity may exist in one party alone or in both of
his wife got pregnant and so he thought that he had to marry her. them, and if psychological incapacity of either or both is
And even that time he was not also a monogamous person. established, the marriage has to be deemed null and void.
Q : Are you saying, Madam Witness, that ultimately the decision to More than twenty (20) years had passed since the parties parted
marry lied on the petitioner? A : I think so, Sir. ways. By now, they must have already accepted and come to terms
with the awful truth that their marriage, assuming it existed in the
Q : Now, in your report, Madam Witness, you mentioned here that eyes of the law, was already beyond repair. Both parties had
the petitioner admitted to you that in his younger years he was inflicted so much damage not only to themselves, but also to the
often out seeking other women. I’m referring specifically to page lives and psyche of their own children. It would be a greater
18. He also admitted to you that the thought of commitment injustice should we insist on still recognizing their void marriage,
scared him, the petitioner. Now, given these admissions by and then force them and their children to endure some more
petitioner to you, my questions is, is it possible for such a person to damage. This was the very same injustice that Justice Romero
enter into marriage despite this fear of commitment and given his decried in her erudite dissenting opinion in Santos v. Court of
admission that he was a womanizer? Is it possible for this person Appeals:41
to stop his womanizing ways during the marriage?
It would be great injustice, I believe, to petitioner for this Court to
A : Sir, it’s difficult. give a much too restrictive interpretation of the law and compel
the petitioner to continue to be married to a wife who for
purposes of fulfilling her marital duties has, for all practical
Q : It would be difficult for that person?
purposes, ceased to exist.
A : Yes, Sir.
Besides, there are public policy considerations involved in the
ruling the Court makes today.1âwphi1 It is not, in effect, directly or
Q : What is the probability of this person giving up his womanizing
indirectly, facilitating the transformation of petitioner into a
after marriage?
"habitual tryster" or one forced to maintain illicit relations with
another woman or women with emerging problems of illegitimate
A : Sir, I would say the probability of his giving up is almost only children, simply because he is denied by private respondent, his
20%. wife, the companionship and conjugal love which he has sought
from her and towhich he is legally entitled?
Q : So, it is entirely possible that the respondent womanized during
his marriage with the respondent? I do not go as far as to suggest that Art. 36 of the Family Code is a
sanction for absolute divorce but I submit that we should not
A : Yes, Sir. constrict it to non-recognition of its evident purpose and thus deny
to one like petitioner, an opportunity to turn a new leaf in his life
Q : What is the bearing of this fearof commitment on the part of by declaring his marriage a nullity by reason of his wife’s
the petitioner insofar as his psychological capacity to perform his psychological incapacity to perform an essential marital obligation.
duties as a husband is concerned? In this case, the marriage never existed from the beginning
because the respondent was afflicted with psychological incapacity
A : Sir, it would impair his ability to have sexual integrity and also at and prior to the time of the marriage. Hence, the Court should
to be fully committed to the role of husband to Malyn. not hesitate to declare the nullity of the marriage between the
parties.
To stress, our mandate to protect the inviolability of marriage as due to the psychological incapacity of the parties pursuant to
the basic foundation of our society does not preclude striking Article 36 of the Family Code.
down a marital union that is "ill-equipped to promote family life,"
thus: No pronouncement on costs of suit.
FELICITAS AMOR-CATALAN, Petitioner, Respondents appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals, which
vs. reversed the decision of the RTC, thus:
COURT OF APPEALS, MANILA, ORLANDO B. CATALAN and
MEROPE E. BRAGANZA, Respondents. WHEREFORE, premises considered, we hereby GRANT the appeal
and consequently REVERSE and SET ASIDE the appealed decision.
DECISION We likewise DISMISS Civil Case No. D-10636, RTC, Branch 44,
Dagupan City. No costs.
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:
SO ORDERED.11
1
This petition for review assails the Decision of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 69875 dated August 6, 2004, which After the motion for reconsideration was denied, petitioner filed
reversed the Decision2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Dagupan the instant petition for review raising the following issues:
City, Branch 44, in Civil Case No. D-10636, declaring the marriage
between respondents Orlando B. Catalan and Merope E. Braganza I.
void on the ground of bigamy, as well as the Resolution 3 dated
January 27, 2005, which denied the motion for reconsideration. WHETHER PETITIONER HAS THE REQUIRED STANDING IN COURT
TO QUESTION THE NULLITY OF THE MARRIAGE BETWEEN
Petitioner Felicitas Amor-Catalan married respondent Orlando on RESPONDENTS;
June 4, 1950 in Mabini, Pangasinan.4Thereafter, they migrated to
the United States of America and allegedly became naturalized II.
citizens thereof. After 38 years of marriage, Felicitas and Orlando
divorced in April 1988.5
WHETHER THE FAILURE OF THE COURT OF APPEALS TO DECLARE
THE QUESTIONED MARRIAGE VOID CONSTITUTES REVERSIBLE
Two months after the divorce, or on June 16, 1988, Orlando ERROR.12
married respondent Merope in Calasiao, Pangasinan.6 Contending
that said marriage was bigamous since Merope had a prior
Petitioner contends that the bigamous marriage of the
subsisting marriage with Eusebio Bristol, petitioner filed a petition
respondents, which brought embarrassment to her and her
for declaration of nullity of marriage with damages in the RTC of
children, confers upon her an interest to seek judicial remedy to
Dagupan City7 against Orlando and Merope.
address her grievances and to protect her family from further
embarrassment and humiliation. She claims that the Court of
Respondents filed a motion to dismiss8 on the ground of lack of Appeals committed reversible error in not declaring the marriage
cause of action as petitioner was allegedly not a real party-in- void despite overwhelming evidence and the state policy
interest, but it was denied.9 Trial on the merits ensued. discouraging illegal and immoral marriages.13
On October 10, 2000, the RTC rendered judgment in favor of the The main issue to be resolved is whether petitioner has the
petitioner, the dispositive portion of which reads: personality to file a petition for the declaration of nullity of
marriage of the respondents on the ground of bigamy. However,
WHEREFORE, judgment is declared in favor of plaintiff Felicitas this issue may not be resolved without first determining the
Amor Catalan and against defendants Orlando B. Catalan and corollary factual issues of whether the petitioner and respondent
Merope E. Braganza, as follows: Orlando had indeed become naturalized American citizens and
whether they had actually been judicially granted a divorce decree.
1) The subsequent marriage of Merope Braganza with
Orlando B. Catalan is declared null and void ab initio; While it is a settled rule that the Court is not a trier of facts and
does not normally undertake the re-examination of the evidence
2) The defendants are ordered jointly and severally to pay presented by the contending parties during the trial of the
plaintiff by way of moral damages the amount of case,14 there are, however, exceptions to this rule, like when the
P300,000.00, exemplary damages in the amount of findings of facts of the RTC and the Court of Appeals are
P200,000.00 and attorney’s fees in the amount of conflicting, or when the findings are conclusions without citation of
P50,000.00, including costs of this suit; and specific evidence on which they are based.15
3) The donation in consideration of marriage is ordered Both the RTC and the Court of Appeals found that petitioner and
revoked and the property donated is ordered awarded to respondent Orlando were naturalized American citizens and that
the heirs of Juliana Braganza. they obtained a divorce decree in April 1988. However, after a
careful review of the records, we note that other than the
Furnish copies of this Decision to Atty. Napoleon B. Arenas, Jr. and allegations in the complaint and the testimony during the trial, the
Atty. Nolan Evangelista.
records are bereft of competent evidence to prove their Freed from their existing marital bond, each of the former spouses
naturalization and divorce. no longer has any interest nor should each have the personality to
inquire into the marriage that the other might subsequently
The Court of Appeals therefore had no basis when it held: contract. x x x Viewed from another perspective, Felicitas has no
existing interest in Orlando’s subsequent marriage since the
In light of the allegations of Felicitas’ complaint and the validity, as well as any defect or infirmity, of this subsequent
documentary and testimonial evidence she presented, we deem it marriage will not affect the divorced status of Orlando and
undisputed that Orlando and Felicitas are American citizens and Felicitas. x x x26
had this citizenship status when they secured their divorce decree
in April 1988. We are not therefore dealing in this case with Filipino True, under the New Civil Code which is the law in force at the time
citizens whose marital status is governed by the Family Code and the respondents were married, or even in the Family Code, there is
our Civil Code, but with American citizens who secured their no specific provision as to who can file a petition to declare the
divorce in the U.S. and who are considered by their national law to nullity of marriage; however, only a party who can demonstrate
be free to contract another marriage. x x x16 "proper interest" can file the same. A petition to declare the nullity
of marriage, like any other actions, must be prosecuted or
Further, the Court of Appeals mistakenly considered the failure of defended in the name of the real party in interest 27 and must be
the petitioner to refute or contest the allegation in respondents’ based on a cause of action.28 Thus, in Niñal v. Bayadog,29 the Court
brief, that she and respondent Orlando were American citizens at held that the children have the personality to file the petition to
the time they secured their divorce in April 1988, as sufficient to declare the nullity of the marriage of their deceased father to their
establish the fact of naturalization and divorce.17 We note that it stepmother as it affects their successional rights.1awphi1.net
was the petitioner who alleged in her complaint that they acquired
American citizenship and that respondent Orlando obtained a Significantly, Section 2(a) of The Rule on Declaration of Absolute
judicial divorce decree.18 It is settled rule that one who alleges a Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages,
fact has the burden of proving it and mere allegation is not which took effect on March 15, 2003, now specifically provides:
evidence.19
SECTION 2. Petition for declaration of absolute nullity of void
Divorce means the legal dissolution of a lawful union for a cause marriages. —
arising after marriage. But divorces are of different types. The two
basic ones are (1) absolute divorce or a vinculo matrimonii and (2) (a) Who may file. — A petition for declaration of absolute nullity of
limited divorce or a mensa et thoro. The first kind terminates the void marriage may be filed solely by the husband or the wife.
marriage, while the second suspends it and leaves the bond in full
force.20 A divorce obtained abroad by an alien may be recognized xxxx
in our jurisdiction, provided such decree is valid according to the
national law of the foreigner.21 However, before it can be In fine, petitioner’s personality to file the petition to declare the
recognized by our courts, the party pleading it must prove the nullity of marriage cannot be ascertained because of the absence
divorce as a fact and demonstrate its conformity to the foreign law of the divorce decree and the foreign law allowing it. Hence, a
allowing it, which must be proved considering that our courts remand of the case to the trial court for reception of additional
cannot take judicial notice of foreign laws.22 evidence is necessary to determine whether respondent Orlando
was granted a divorce decree and whether the foreign law which
Without the divorce decree and foreign law as part of the granted the same allows or restricts remarriage. If it is proved that
evidence, we cannot rule on the issue of whether petitioner has a valid divorce decree was obtained and the same did not allow
the personality to file the petition for declaration of nullity of respondent Orlando’s remarriage, then the trial court should
marriage. After all, she may have the personality to file the petition declare respondents’ marriage as bigamous and void ab initio but
if the divorce decree obtained was a limited divorce or a mensa et reduce the amount of moral damages from ₱300,000.00 to
thoro; or the foreign law may restrict remarriage even after the ₱50,000.00 and exemplary damages from ₱200,000.00 to
divorce decree becomes absolute.23 In such case, the RTC would be ₱25,000.00. On the contrary, if it is proved that a valid divorce
correct to declare the marriage of the respondents void for being decree was obtained which allowed Orlando to remarry, then the
bigamous, there being already in evidence two existing marriage trial court must dismiss the instant petition to declare nullity of
certificates, which were both obtained in the Philippines, one in marriage on the ground that petitioner Felicitas Amor-Catalan lacks
Mabini, Pangasinan dated December 21, 1959 between Eusebio legal personality to file the same.
Bristol and respondent Merope,24 and the other, in Calasiao,
Pangasinan dated June 16, 1988 between the respondents. 25 WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, let this case be REMANDED
to the trial court for its proper disposition. No costs.
However, if there was indeed a divorce decree obtained and
which, following the national law of Orlando, does not restrict SO ORDERED.
remarriage, the Court of Appeals would be correct in ruling that
petitioner has no legal personality to file a petition to declare the
nullity of marriage, thus: