Republic v. Romero| GR Nos.

209180/209253| 02/24/2016| Perlas-Bernabe, he indulged in drinking sprees with friends and would return home drunk. He
J would force his wife to submit to sexual intercourse and if she refused, he
Pinakasalan lang daw ni Reghis si Olivia dahil kind and accommodating would inflict physical injuries on her.
parents neto. May OCPD daw siya at priority niya na I support parents at
siblings niya at the expense of his marital and filial duties. “VALID Marriage That Erlinda learned that Avelino was imprisoned for some crime and escaped
pa rin” from jail.

FACTS: On 07/03/1990, Erlinda filed with the RTC a petition for declaration of nullity
of marriage on the ground of PI under Art 26 of the FC. Since Avelino could
The case is a consolidated petitions assailing the decision of CA affirming the not be located, summons was served by publication in the Olongapo News, a
decision of RTC Branch 225 QC declaring the marriage of Reghis and Olivia newspaper of general circulation.
null and void ab initio on the ground of PI under Art 36 of the FC.
That the trial court rendered decision about a month before the deadline for
That SPS Romero got married in 1972 and was blessed with two children. submission of the investigating prosecutor’s manifestation. (Prematurely
That when they were still sweethearts, Reghis attempted to break up with rendered)
Olivia because of her demanding attitude which might prevent him from his
personal and family goals. The RTC ruled in favor of Erlinda and was affirmed by the CA upon appeal
by the Solicitor General. Hence, the petition.
That Reghis married Olivia not out of love but to please Olivia’s parents since
they were so kind and accommodating. That the couple parted ways in 1986 ISSUE:
after several violent fights and jealous fits.
Whether or not the trial court and the Court of Appeals correctly declared the
Reghis filed with the RTC a declaration of nullity of their marriage under Art marriage as null and void under Article 36 of the Family Code, on the ground
36 of the FC. That having an Obsessive Compulsive Personality Disorder that the husband suffers from gical incapacity as he isemotionally immature
(OCPD) incapacitated him to perform his marital obligations. RTC ruled on and irresponsible, a habitual alcoholic, and a fugitive from justice. (NO)
his favor, which was affirmed by CA on appeal by Olivia and the Republic.
RULING: Petition GRANTED
ISSUE:
Republic v. Molina guideline par (2) was not complied with by Erlinda, which
Whether or not the CA erred in sustaining the RTC’s declaration of nullity on requires that the root cause of psychological incapacity must be medically or
the ground of psychological incapacity. (YES) clinically identified and sufficiently proven by experts, since no psychiatrist or
medical doctor testified as to the alleged psychological incapacity of her
RULING: Petition GRANTED husband.

Article 36 of the Family Code, should refer to the most serious cases of Further, the allegation that the husband is a fugitive from justice was not
personality disorders clearly demonstrative of an utter insensitivity or inability sufficiently proven. In fact, the crime for which he was arrested was not even
to give meaning and significance to the marriage. Not a mere refusal, neglect alleged. The investigating prosecutor was likewise not given an opportunity to
or difficulty, much less, ill will, on the part of the errant spouse. present controverting evidence since the trial court's decision was prematurely
rendered.
To warrant the declaration of nullity of marriage, the psychological incapacity
must: (a) be grave or serious such that the party would be incapable of In Republic v. Court of Appeals and Molina, the Court laid down the
carrying out the ordinary duties required in a marriage; (b) have juridical following GUIDELINES in the interpretation and application of Article 36 of
antecedence, i.e., it must be rooted in the history of the party antedating the the Family Code:
marriage, although the overt manifestations may emerge only after the
marriage; and (c) be incurable, or even if it were otherwise, the cure would be "(1) The burden of proof to show the nullity of the marriage belongs to the
beyond the means of the party involved. (The court finds that the foregoing plaintiff. Any doubt should be resolved in favor of the existence and
requirements do not concur.) continuation of the marriage and against its dissolution and nullity. This is
rooted in the fact that both our Constitution and our laws cherish the validity
Dr. Basilio did not discuss the concept of OCPD and has not shown its of marriage and unity of the family. x x x
juridical antecedence aside from mere conclusions. He also failed to show
how and to what extent the respondent exhibited this disorder in order to (2) The root cause of the psychological incapacity must be: (a) medically or
create a necessary inference that Reghis’ condition had no definite treatment clinically identified, (b) alleged in the complaint, (c) sufficiently proven by
or is incurable. experts and (d) clearly explained in the decision. Article 36 of the Family
Code requires that the incapacity must be psychological - not physical,
Reghis admitted that he and Olivia lived together as husband and wife under although its manifestations and/or symptoms may be physical. The evidence
one roof for fourteen (14) years and both of them contributed in purchasing must convince the court that the parties, or one of them, was mentally or
their own house in Parañaque City. That he was a good provider. psychically ill to such an extent that the person could not have known the
obligations he was assuming, or knowing them, could not have given valid
Marriages entered into for other purposes, limited or otherwise, such as assumption thereof. Although no example of such incapacity need be given
convenience, companionship, money, status, and title, provided that they here so as not to limit the application of the provision under the principle of
comply with all the legal requisites, are equally valid. Love, though the ideal ejusdemgeneris (Salita vs. Magtolis, 233 SCRA 100, June 13, 1994),
consideration in a marriage contract, is not the only valid cause for marriage. nevertheless such root cause must be identified as a psychological illness and
Other considerations, not precluded by law, may validly support a marriage. its incapacitating nature fully explained. Expert evidence may be given by
qualified psychiatrists and clinical psychologists.
Republic v. Dagdag| GR No. 109975| 02/09/2009| Quisumbing, J.
Walang ni-present si Erlinda na Psychiatrist o Dr. na mag testify sa root (3) The incapacity must be proven to be existing at "the time of the
cause ng psychological incapacity ni Avelino. Di rin ni allege yung crim na celebration" of the marriage. The evidence must show that the illness was
ni-commit niya para sabihin he is fugitive from justice (escapee). Di rin existing when the parties exchanged their "I do's." The manifestation of the
nakapg present ng controverting evidence investigating prosecutor kasi illness need not be perceivable at such time, but the illness itself must have
premature pag render ng decision ng trial court. attached at such moment, or prior thereto.

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

permanent or incurable. Such incurability may be absolute or even relative
The case is a petition for certiorari assailing the decision of the CA affirming only in regard to the other spouse, not necessarily absolutely against everyone
the decision of RTC Olongapo City declaring marriage of Avelino and Erlinda of the same sex. Furthermore, such incapacity must be relevant to the
void under Art. 36 of the FC. assumption of marriage obligations, not necessarily to those not related to
marriage, like the exercise of a profession or employment in a job. Hence, a
That they married in 1975 and were issued marriage certificate in 1988. They pediatrician may be effective in diagnosing illnesses of children and
begotten 2 children. prescribing medicine to cure them but may not be psychologically capacitated
to procreate, bear and raise his/her own children as an essential obligation of
That a week after wedding, Avelino started to leave his family without marriage.
explanation. He would disappear for months, suddenly reappear for a few
months, then disappear again. During the times when he was with his family,

1
(5) Such illness must be grave enough to bring about the disability of the party must be assumed and discharged by the parties to the marriage which (Art.
to assume the essential obligations of marriage. Thus, "mild characteriological 68), include their mutual obligations to live together, observe love, respect and
peculiarities, mood changes, occasional emotional outbursts" cannot be fidelity and render help and support. The intendment of the law has been to
accepted as root causes. The illness must be shown as downright incapacity or confine the meaning of PI to the most serious cases of personality disorders
inability, not a refusal, neglect or difficulty, much less in will. In other words, clearly demonstrative of an utter insensitivity or inability to give meaning and
there is a natal or supervening disabling factor in the person, an adverse significance to the marriage. This psychological condition must exist at the
integral element in the personality structure that effectively incapacitates the time the marriage is celebrated. The SC also notes that PI must be
person from really accepting and thereby complying with the obligations characterized by (a) gravity, (b) juridical antecedence, and (c) incurability.
essential to marriage. The incapacity must be grave or serious such that the party would be
incapable of carrying out the ordinary duties required in marriage; it must be
(6) The essential marital obligations must be those embraced by Articles 68 up rooted in the history of the party antedating the marriage, although the overt
to 71 of the Family Code20 as regards the husband and wife as well as manifestations may emerge only after the marriage; and it must be incurable
Articles 220, 221 and 225 of the same Code21 in regard to parents and their or, even if it were otherwise, the cure would be beyond the means of the party
children. Such non-complied marital obligation(s) must also be stated in the involved.
petition, proven by evidence and included in the text of the decision.
Republic v. CA & Molina| GR No. 108763| 02/13/1997| Panganiban, J.
(7) Interpretations given by the National Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal of
Hindi porket magkaiba ugali ninyo at di kayo magkasundo sa mga bagay
the Catholic Church in the Philippines, while not controlling or decisive,
bagayh e PI na. Petition GRANTED.
should be given great respect by our courts.
FACTS:
(8) The trial court must order the prosecuting attorney or fiscal and the
Solicitor General to appear as counsel for the state. No decision shall be That Roridel Olaviano was married to Reynaldo Molina on 14 April 1985 in
handed down unless the Solicitor General issues a certification, which will be Manila, and gave birth to a son a year after. Reynaldo showed signs of
quoted in the decision, briefly stating therein his reasons for his agreement or “immaturity and irresponsibility” on the early stages of the marriage, observed
opposition, as the case maybe, to the petition. The Solicitor-General, along from his tendency to spend time with his friends and squandering his money
with the prosecuting attorney, shall submit to the court such certification with them, from his dependency from his parents, and his dishonesty on
within fifteen (15) days from the date the case is deemed submitted for matters involving his finances. Reynaldo was relieved of his job in 1986,
resolution of the court. The Solicitor-General shall discharge the equivalent Roridel became the sole breadwinner thereafter. In March 1987, Roridel
function of the defensor vinculi contemplated under Canon 1095." resigned from her job in Manila and proceeded to Baguio City. Reynaldo left
her and their child a week later. The couple is separated-in-fact for more than
Santos v. Bedia-Santos| GR No. 112019| 01/04/1995| Vitug, J. three years.
Hindi na raw kasi bumalik si Julia pagkatapos niya pumunta mag work sa US
without the knowledge of Leouel at 5yrs na raw wala communication. Not That on 16 August 1990, Roridel filed a verified petition for declaration of
valid ground for PI nullity of her marriage to Reynaldo Molina. Evidence for Roridel consisted of
her own testimony, that of two of her friends, a social worker, and a
FACTS: psychiatrist of the Baguio General Hospital and Medical Center. Reynaldo did
not present any evidence as he appeared only during the pre-trial conference.
Leouel and Julia got married on September 1986. The lived with the latter's On 14 May 1991, the trial court rendered judgment declaring the marriage
family. The marriage was strained, however. The couple frequently had void. The Solicitor General appealed to the Court of Appeals. The Court of
quarrels about when they would start living independently from Julia's Appeals denied the appeals and affirmed in toto the RTC’s decision. Hence,
parents, and days where Leouel was away, spending time with his own the present recourse.
parents. In 1988, Julia went to the US to work as a nurse despite Leouel's
opposition. When she was able to contact him through long distance telephone ISSUE:
call, she promised she would return when her contract expired. She never did.
Leouel got the chance to be in the US due to a military training. There he tried Whether or not opposing and conflicting personalities amount to PI. (NO)
his best to look or contact his wife but to no avail.
RULING: See MOLINA case guidelines in Republic v. Dagdag
Leouel then filed to nullify their marriage due to Julia's psychological
incapacity. Julia countered that it was Leouel who was incompetent. The The Court reiterated its ruling in Santos v. Court of Appeals, where
prosecutor ascertained that there is no collusion between the two. Leouel’s psychological incapacity should refer to no less than a mental (not physical)
petition is however, denied by the lower and appellate court. incapacity, existing at the time the marriage is celebrated, and that there is
hardly any doubt that the intendment of the law has been to confine the
ISSUE: meaning of ‘psychological incapacity’ to the most serious cases of personality
disorders clearly demonstrative of an utter insensitivity or inability to give
Whether or not there is an actual PI in the case that would justify the nullity of meaning and significance to the marriage.
their marriage. (NONE)
Psychological incapacity must be characterized by gravity, juridical
RULING: antecedence, and incurability. In the present case, there is no clear showing to
us that the psychological defect spoken of is an incapacity; but appears to be
Although Leouel stands aggrieved, his petition must be dismissed because the more of a “difficulty,” if not outright “refusal” or “neglect” in the
alleged psychological incapacity of his wife is not clearly shown by the performance of some marital obligations. Mere showing of “irreconcilable
factual settings presented. differences” and “conflicting personalities” in no wise constitutes
psychological incapacity
Before deciding on the case, the SC noted that the Family Code did not define
the term “psychological incapacity”, which is adopted from the Catholic
Canon Law. But basing it on the deliberations of the Family Code Revision Brenda Marcos v. Wilson Marcos| GR No. 136490| 10/19/2000|
Committee, the provision in PI, adopted with less specificity than expected, Panganiban, J.
has been designed to allow some resiliency in its application. The FCRC did Nawalan (6yrs no work) at di makapaghanap ng trabaho si Wilson at
not give any examples of PI for fear that the giving of examples would limit napapadalas na rin pag inom. Nagiging violent at nasasaktan na rin niya
the applicability of the provision under the principle of ejusdem generis. Brenda at mga anak nila. Pero di yon PI as per Molina guidelines and totality
Rather, the FCRC would like the judge to interpret the provision on a case-to- of evidence.
case basis, guided by experience, the findings of experts and researchers in
FACTS:
psychological disciplines, and by decisions of church tribunals which,
although not binding on the civil courts, may be given persuasive effect since That petitioner Brenda B. Marcos and respondent Wilson G. Marcos married
the provision was taken from Canon Law. twice. First was on September 6, 1982, with Judge Espiritu as solemnizing
officer, held at the Municipal Court of Pasig and second was on May 8, 1983
The term “psychological incapacity” defies any precise definition since
by Rev. Eleazar, Command Chaplain at the Presidential Security Command
psychological causes can be of an infinite variety.
Chapel in Malacañang Park, Manila. They were both military personnel. They
Article 36 of the Family Code cannot be taken and construed independently of begot 5 (five) children.
but must stand in conjunction with, existing precepts in our law on marriage.
Wilson left military service in 1987 and started a business that did not
PI should refer to no less than a mental (not physical) incapacity that causes a
prosper. Brenda put up a business until she was able to put up a trading and
party to be truly incognitive of the basic marital covenants that concomitantly
construction company.

2
That due to Wilson’s to engage in any gainful employment, they would often Catholic Church tribunals, which indubitably consider incurability as an
quarrel and as a consequence, he would hit and beat her. He would even force integral requisite of psychological incapacity, were sufficiently convinced that
her to have sex with him despite her weariness. He would also inflict physical respondent was so incapacitated to contract marriage to the degree that
harm on their children for a slight mistake and was so severe in the way he annulment was warranted.
chastised them.
First. Petitioner had sufficiently overcome his burden in proving the
The trial court found Wilson to be psychologically incapacitated mainly psychological incapacity of his spouse. Apart from his own testimony, he
because of his failure to find work to support his family and his violent presented witnesses who corroborated his allegations on his wife’s behavior
attitude towards appellee and their children. In appeal, the CA reversed the
trial court’s ruling and held that psychological incapacity had not been Second. The root cause of respondent’s psychological incapacity has been
established by the totality of the evidence presented. Hence, the petition. medically or clinically identified, alleged in the complaint, sufficiently proven
by experts, and clearly explained in the trial court’s decision
ISSUE:
Third. Respondent’s psychological incapacity was established to have clearly
Whether or not the totality of evidence presented was enough to sustain a existed at the time of and even before the celebration of marriage. She
finding that respondent was psychologically incapacitated. (NO) fabricated friends and made up letters from fictitious characters well before
she married petitioner.

Fourth. The gravity of respondent’s psychological incapacity is sufficient to

prove her disability to assume the essential obligations of marriage.

RULING: Fifth. Respondent is evidently unable to comply with the essential marital
obligations as embraced by Articles 68 to71 of the Family Code. Article 68, in
Although the respondent failed to provide material support to the family and particular, enjoins the spouses to live together, observe mutual love, respect
may have resorted to physical abuse and abandonment, these do not and fidelity, and render mutual help and support.
necessitate psychological incapacity.
Sixth. The Court of Appeals clearly erred when it failed to take into
The behaviors can be attributed to the respondent’s loss of employment for a consideration the fact that the marriage of the parties was annulled by the
period of more than six years. It was from this that he became intermittently Catholic Church
drunk, failed to give material and moral support and leave the family home.
Therefore, his psychological incapacity can be traced to this certain period and Seventh. The final point of contention is the requirement in Molina that such
not before the marriage nor during the inception of the marriage. Equally psychological incapacity be shown to be medically or clinically permanent or
important, the condition was not proven to be incurable, especially now that incurable. It was on this score that the Court of Appeals reversed the judgment
he is again gainfully employed as a taxi driver. of the trial court, the appellate court noting that it did not appear certain that
respondent’s condition was incurable and that Dr. Abcede did not testify to
NOTE: Other issue as to the need of personal examination such effect.
Molina guidelines do not require that a physician examine the person to be *Petitioner also mentioned that he tried to work out their marriage, however,
declared psychologically incapacitated. In fact, the root cause may be respondent's behavior remained unchanged.
"medically or clinically identified." What is important is the presence of
evidence that can adequately establish the party's psychological condition.
Republic v. Melgar| GR No. 139676| 03/31/2006| Austria-Martinez, J.
For indeed, if the totality of evidence presented is enough to sustain a finding
Naging alcoholic, seloso at tamad si Eulogio. Pero nagsimula lang naman eto
of psychological incapacity, then actual medical examination of the person
nung pinanganak panganay nila at nung mawalan siya ng trabaho. At best,
concerned need not be resorted to.
legal separation (Art 55) lang yung circumstances, hindi under Art. 36

Antonio v. Reyes| GR No. 155800| 03/10/2006| Tinga, J. ”Statistics never

lie, but lovers often do”
Sinungaling, mahilig gumawa ng istorya na di naman totoo at selosa si Reyes. FACTS:
Sinubukan rin ni Antonio balaikan asawa niya pero walang pagbabago.
Incurable. Petition GRANTED. That on March 27, 1965, Norma and Eulogio were married before the
Catholic Church in Dagupan City. Their union begot five children.
FACTS:
That on August 19,1996, Norma filed for declaration of nullity of her
That Antonio and Reyes met in 1989 and were married in 1990. Upon the marriage on the ground of Eulogio’s psychological incapacity to comply with
unbearable psychological incapacity of Reyes, Antonio left her almost a year his essential marital obligations. According to Norma the manifestations of
after. Eulogio’s psychological incapacity are his immaturity, habitual alcoholism,
unbearable jealousy, maltreatment, laziness, and abandonment of his family
Antonio filed a petition to declare his marriage null and void alleging Reyes since December 27, 1985.
as psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential obligations of
marriage (Art 36 of FC). Antonio alleges that Reyes persistently lied about her The RTC rendered a decision nullifying the marriage between N & E which
life, her company, her occupation, income and education. That the acts the CA affirmed upon appeal by petitioner, represented by the OSG. Hence,
undermined the basic relationship that should be based on love, trust, and the petition.
respect. He as well asserted that respondent's incapacity existed at the time
their marriage was celebrated and still subsists up to the present. ISSUE:

Both Antonio and Reyes brought in experts to prove their individual claims. Whether or not the alleged psychological incapacity of respondent is in the
Reyes’ witness used a Comprehensive Psych-Pathological Rating Scale, nature contemplated by Art 36 of the FC. (NO)
showing results that Reyes is not psychologically incapacitated; yet Antonio’s
witness claims that the test is not reliable. RULING:

The trial court ruled in favor of petitioner but was reversed by the CA as it The Court cannot presume psychological defect from the mere fact of
was not shown with certainty that respindents condition was incurable. Hence, Eulogio’s immaturity, habitual alcoholism, unbearable jealousy, maltreatment,
the petition. constitutional laziness, and abandonment of his family. These circumstances
by themselves cannot be equated with psychological incapacity within the
ISSUE: contemplation of the Family Code. It must be shown that these acts are
manifestations of a disordered personality which make Eulogio completely
Whether or not Reyes’ conditions and actions are bases for psychological unable to discharge the essential obligations of the marital state.
incapacity, thus nullifying the marriage. (YES)
It is essential that he must be shown to be incapable of doing so due to some
RULING: psychological, not physical, illness. There was no proof of a natal or
supervening disabling factor in the person, an adverse integral element in the
From the totality of the evidence, the court was sufficiently convinced that the personality structure that effectively incapacitates a person from accepting and
incurability of respondent’s psychological incapacity has been established by complying with the obligations essential to marriage.
the petitioner. Any lingering doubts are further dispelled by the fact that the

3
*While an actual medical, psychiatric or psychological examination is not a Obvious na insufficient evidence na ni-present ni Alfonso. Di dapat ni-deny
condition sine qua non to a finding of psychological incapacity, an expert demurrer to evidence. Ni file-an ka lang cases, Pi na agad?
witness would have strengthened Norma’s claim of Eulogio’s alleged
psychological incapacity. FACTS:

Note: That Leni Choa and Alfonso Choa got married in 1981. They have 2 children
namely Cheryl Lynne and Albryan.
In this case, the State did not actively participate in the prosecution of the case
at the trial level. Other than the Public Prosecutor’s Manifestation26 that no In 1993, Alfonso filed an annulment of his marriage to Leni. Afterwards, he
collusion existed between the contending parties and the brief cross- filed an amended complaint for the declaration of nullity of their marriage
examination. based on psychological incapacity. The case went to trial and the trial court
held that Alfonso presented quantum evidence that Leni needs to controvert
The State should have been given the opportunity to present controverting for the dismissal of the case. Alfonso claimed that Leni charged him with
evidence before the judgment was rendered.28 Truly, only the active perjury, concubinage and deportation which shows latter’s psychological
participation of the Public Prosecutor or the OSG will ensure that the interest incapacity because according to him it clearly showed that his wife not only
of the State is represented and protected in proceedings for annulment and wanted him behind bars but also to banish outside the country.
declaration of nullity of marriages by preventing collusion between the
parties, or the fabrication or suppression of evidence. Leni’s demurrer to evidence was denied despite the patent weakness and
gross insufficiency of respondent’s evidence.
Dimayuga-Laurena v. CA| GR No. 159220| 09/22/2008| Carpio, J.
Petitioner elevated the case to CA but denied the same. Hence, the petition.
Nag honeymoon sa Baguio pero kasama yung anak ng helper nila. Natulog pa
sa hotel suite nila. ISSUE:
Problema rin conjugal property gains. Di kasali yung sa parents ng Whether or not Alfonso Chua presented quantum evidence for the declaration
respondents. of nullity of his marriage with Leni on the ground of psychological incapacity.
(NO)
FACTS:
RULING: Petition GRANTED. PI case DISMISSED.
Petitioner Darlene anchored her petition on respondent Jesse’s
irresponsibility, infidelity and homosexual tendencies. He even compelled her The court held that documents presented by Alfonso during the trial of the
to change her religion and there were also repeated physical violence. case do not in any way show the alleged psychological incapacity of his wife.
The evidence was insufficient and shows grave abuse of discretion (on the
That after their wedding, they went to Baguio but with a 15yo boy who slept
part of trial court) bordering on absurdity.
in their hotel suite. That when Darlene had a miscarriage and almost bled to
death, Jesse was just watching television. Alfonso testified and complained about three aspects of Leni’s personality
namely lack of attention to children, immaturity, and lack of an intention of
Petitioner alleged that respondent gave priority to the needs of his parents;
procreative sexuality and none of these three, singly or collectively,
would come home past midnight; and even tried to convert her to his religion.
constitutes psychological incapacity.
In addition, respondent was a womanizer. That he had lived a bachelor’s life
while Darlene was away. Psychological incapacity must be characterized by gravity, juridical
antecedence, and incurability. It must be more than just a difficulty, a refusal
The trial court denied the petition for declaration of nullity of marriage and
or a neglect in the performance of marital obligations. A mere showing of
was also affirmed by the CA.
irreconcilable differences and conflicting personalities does not constitute
ISSUE: psychological incapacity.

Whether or not Jesse is psychologically incapacitated. (NO) Furthermore, the testimonial evidence from other witnesses failed to identify
and prove root cause of the alleged psychological incapacity. It just
RULING: established that the spouses had an incompatibility or a defect that could
possibly be treated or alleviated through psychotherapy. The totality of
Court held that psychological incapacity must be characterized by: evidence presented was completely insufficient to sustain a finding of
1.Gravity – it must be grave and serious such that the party would be psychological incapacity more so without any medical, psychiatric or
incapable of carrying out ordinary duties required in a marriage. (there is no psychological examination.
evidence there is incapacity of husband to the assumption of marriage is due
to psychological incapacity and not merely because of refusal, neglect, or Andal (Rosanna) v. Andal (Mario)| GR No. 196359| 05/11/2021| Leonen,
difficulty, much less ill will) J.
Marriage; Annulment of Marriage – Psychological Incapacity –
2. Judicial antecedence – must be rooted in history of the party antedating the Abandonment of certain portions of the Molina Guidelines – Expert witness
marriage, although the overt manifestations may emerge after the marriage. not needed in proving psychological incapacity
(Petitioner failed to prove this as she only cited that during their honeymoon
they had a 15 year old who slept with them, but respondent explained that FACTS:
they have had sex several times before said honeymoon and the buy was with
them to take their pictures and due to money constraints, he had to stay in one In 1995, Rosanna Tan and Mario Victor Andal married each other. They were
room with them) blessed with one child. However, even before their marriage, Rosanna already
observed Mario to be extremely irritable and moody. Earlier in their marriage,
3. Incurability – must be incurable, or the cure would be beyond the means of Rosanna also observed Mario to be emotionally immature, irresponsible,
party involved. (In this case Dr. Lapuz failed to convince the court that irritable, and psychologically imbalanced. Rosanna later learned that Mario
husband’s psychological incapacity was incurable, (e.g. when they reach the was a drug addict. Due to his erratic behavior, Rosanna caused Mario to be
age of 50s or 60s, they may settle down) confined in a drug rehab center twice. Mario’s irresponsibility even caused the
closure of their family business. Mario also exposed their daughter to his drug
The burden proof belongs to the plaintiff to nullify the marriage. Any doubt use. In December 2000, fed up with Mario, Rosanna chose to live separately
should be in favor of the marriage. Petitioners reasons for annulment of from him. In August 2003, Rosanna filed a petition to have her marriage with
marriage, such as sexual infidelity, repeated physical violence, homosexuality, Mario be declared void on the ground that Mario was psychologically
physical violence or moral pressure to compel petitioner to change religious incapacitated to perform the essential marital obligations.
affiliation, and abandonment are grounds for legal separation but not for
declaring a marriage void. To prove her case, she presented a psychologist (Dr. Fonso Garcia) who, after
interviewing Rosanna, Rosanna’s daughter, and Rosanna’s sister, concluded
Choa (Leni) v. Choa (Alfonso)| GR No. 143376| 11/26/2002| Panganiban, that Mario was psychologically incapacitated to perform essential marital
J. obligations. Dr. Garcia did not interview Mario as the latter, despite invitation,
Pwede certiorari (Rule 65) sa interlocutory order basta may Grave abuse of refused an interview. In her assessment, Dr. Garcia found Mario to be
discretion sa part ng trial court at hindi practical ang appeal for a plain, suffering from Narcissistic Antisocial Personality Disorder.
adequate and speedy trial.
On May 2007, the trial court voided the marriage between Rosanna and Mario
as it ruled that Rosanna was able to prove her case. The Court of Appeals

4
however reversed the trial court on the ground that the findings of Dr. Garcia To prove psychological incapacity, a party must present clear and convincing
was unscientific and unreliable because she diagnosed Mario without evidence of its existence.
interviewing him.
The Supreme Court also emphasized that in voiding ill-equipped marriages,
On appeal, the Supreme Court took the opportunity to revisit the Molina courts are not really violating the inviolability of marriage as a social
Guidelines and the other nullity cases decided by the Supreme Court after institution which is enshrined in no less than the Constitution. Courts should
Molina. not hesitate to declare such marriages void solely for the sake of their
permanence when, paradoxically, doing so destroyed the sanctity afforded to
ISSUE: marriage. In declaring ill-equipped marriages as void ab initio, the courts
really assiduously defend and promote the sanctity of marriage as an
Whether or not the marriage between Rosanna and Mario is void under Art 36 inviolable social institution. The foundation of our society is thereby made all
of the FC. (YES) the more strong.
RULING: Amadea Angela K. Aquino v Rodolfo and Abdulah Aquino.
Dr. Garcia’s expert testimony is given due weight. HOWEVER, the Supreme Rodolfo Aquino v. Amadea Angela Aquino
Court declared, among others, that in psychological incapacity cases, expert
testimony is NOT a requirement. Non marital child's right to inherit from her grandfather estate. Angela moved
that she be included in the distribution and partition of Miguel's estate for
Below is the Supreme Court’s new set of guidelines in determining the
being only child of Arturo, predeceased son of Miguel, the LOLO.
existence of psychological incapacity:

1. The burden of proof in proving psychological incapacity is still on She alleged that her parents were planning to marry before Arturo died. She
the plaintiff. The Supreme Court however clarified that the lived with her mother and the Aquino family at their ancestral home. She was
quantum of proof required in nullity cases is clear and convincing also continuously recognized as Arturo's natural child. The LOLO called her
evidence which is more than preponderant evidence (ordinary civil Maggie. Under his instruction, she was named as one of the heirs and was
cases) but less than proof beyond reasonable doubt (criminal given a commercial lot which rentals are paid to her.
cases). This is because marriage is presumed valid and in this
jurisdiction, a presumption can only be rebutted with clear and Rodolfo opposed contending that Angela was never recognized and was born
convincing evidence. more than 9 months after after Arturo's death which Angela opposed. Abdulah
2. Psychological incapacity is neither a mental incapacity nor a here is the appointed administrator.
personality disorder that must be proven through expert testimony.
There must be proof, however, of the durable or enduring aspects Angela filed a motion for distribution of residue of state or for allowance to
of a person’s personality, called “personality structure,” which the heirs which was granted by the RTC. She had legal right to monthly
manifests itself through clear acts of dysfunctionality that allowance like the legal heirs have. Aquino clan was deemed estopped from
undermines the family. The spouse’s personality structure must denying Angela's filiation. MR was denied.
make it impossible for him or her to understand and, more
important, to comply with his or her essential marital obligations. Rodolfo's petition was denied by the CA on the ground of forum shopping and
Proof of these aspects of personality need not be given by an res judicata. MR was denied.
expert. Ordinary witnesses who have been present in the life of the
spouses before the latter contracted marriage may testify on Rodolfo argued that she was already barred claiming her non marital filiation
behaviors that they have consistently observed from the to Arturo since she was born after his death. Abdulah argued that she failed to
supposedly incapacitated spouse prove her filiation and not a legal heir of Miguel's estate. This was favored by
3. Incurable, not in the medical, but in the legal sense; incurable as to the CA. MR was denied.
the partner. Psychological incapacity is so enduring and persistent
with respect to a specific partner, and contemplates a situation Angela filed a petition before the SC arguing her right since she enjoyed same
where the couple’s respective personality structures are so love and support from her grandfather and family, estoppel should apply. SC
incompatible and antagonistic that the only result of the union 3rd division denied on the ground that Art. 992 of the CC bars the illegitimate
would be the inevitable and irreparable breakdown of the marriage. child from inheriting ab intestato from the legitimate children and relatives of
4. As to gravity, it must be shown that the incapacity is caused by a his father or mother. Rodolfo was found guilty of forum shopping and litis
genuinely serious psychic cause. It is not necessary that it must be pendentia. MR was denied.
shown that the psychological incapacity is a serious or dangerous Angela moved the case before the SC en banc.
illness BUT that “mild characterological peculiarities, mood
changes, occasional emotional outbursts” are excluded. The WON Angela, non marital child of Arturo who was a marital child of Miguel
psychological incapacity cannot be mere “refusal, neglect, or can inherit.
difficulty, much less ill will.”
5. Juridical antecedence. The incapacity must be proven to be CC and FC would favor more the illegitimate children of illegitimate children
existing at the time of the celebration of the marriage even if such themselves over illegitimate issues of legitimate children. PAG
incapacity becomes manifest only after its solemnization. ILLEGITIMATE ANG PARENT, PWEDE MAGMANA SA LOLO EITHER
6. Essential marital obligations are not limited to those between LEGITIMATE OR ILLEGITIMATE CHILD, PAG LEGITIMATE ANG
spouses. Hence, those covered by Articles 68 up to 71 of the PARENT, LEGITIMATE CHILD LANG PWEDE.
Family Code as regards the husband and wife as well as Articles
220, 221 and 225 of the same Code in regard to parents and their 992 would bar ANGELA because Arturo was legitimate child of Miguel. Non
children. marital children are barred from reciprocate intestate succession. Relative
7. The decisions of the National Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal of must be construed in its general application, it must be applied literally.
the Catholic Church of the Philippines has persuasive effect on
nullity cases pending before secular courts. Canonical decisions 989 and 990 of the CC provide reciprocity in intestate succession of non-
are, to reiterate, merely persuasive and not binding on secular marital children depending on their parents' marital status. Between the
courts. Canonical decisions are to only serve as evidence of the natural child and the legitimate relatives of the mother or father who
nullity of the secular marriage, but ultimately, the elements of acknowledged it, the code denies any right of succession.
declaration of nullity under Article 36 must still be weighed by the
judge. Art 992 provides that intestate succession is based on the decedent's presumed
will. Parents may choose not to marry despite having no legal impediment to
SUMMARY: Psychological incapacity consists of clear acts of marry. Impediment does not necessarily mean either is married to another.
dysfunctionality that show a lack of understanding and concomitant Mother may be a victim of sexual assault or father died before marriage.
compliance with one’s essential marital obligations due to psychic causes. It is These children born form these instances are also ILLEGITIMATE.
not a medical illness that has to be medically or clinically identified; hence,
expert opinion is not required. As an explicit requirement of the law, the The court adopted Art 992 regardless of the circumstances of their births;
psychological incapacity must be shown to have been existing at the time of children are qualified to inherit from their direct ascendants such as their
the celebration of the marriage, and is caused by a durable aspect of one’s grandparent by their right of representation. Both marital and non-marital
personality structure, one that was formed before the parties married. children, whether born from a marital or non-marital child, are blood relatives
Furthermore, it must be shown caused by a genuinely serious psychic cause. of their parents and other descendants.

5
Art 195 provides mandatory nature of the support from grandparents to among others, with infidelity and praying for the custody and care of their
grandchildren regardless of status. No illegitimate children who are exposed children who were living with their mother. The charges in this very
to bastardy, only illegitimate parents. complaint add emphasis to the findings of the neuro-psychiatrist handling the
patient, that plaintiff really lives more in fancy than in reality, a strong
This ruling only applies when the non-marital child has a right of indication of schizophrenia. The trial court rendered a decision declaring null
representation to their parent's share in her grandparent's legitimacy. and void and of no effect the marriage celebrated between Emilio Aguinaldo
Suntay and Isabel Cojuangco-Suntay . Prior to that, the respondent filed a case
However, Angela must prove her filiation first by virtue of Art 982 of the CC.
against the petition, Emilio Suntay, for parricide. The latter was been
She was born on 10 9 1978 before the FC but moved to be included on 07 02
2003. Under the FC, recognition of an illegitimate child must be brought diagnosed as suffering from mental aberration classified as schizophrenia.
within the lifetime of the alleged parents. This right was vested even prior to Respondent Isabel Aguinaldo Cojuangco Suntay filed before the Regional
the effectivity of the FC and must be filed 4 years after attaining the age of Trial Court a petition for issuance in her favor of Letters of Administration of
majority. Angela attained majority on 10 09 1999, she filed on 07 17 2003, the Intestate Estate of her late grandmother Cristina Aguinaldo Suntay.
not yet prescribed until 10 09 2003. Petitioner moved to dismiss the special proceeding case alleging in the main
that respondent Isabel should not be appointed as administratrix of the
No provision under the CC who guides a child who was born after her father's decedent’s estate (appointed by the court to administer the estate). In support
death in proving filiation with him. No question that her parents did not get thereof, petitioner argues that under Article 992 of the Civil Code an
married despite no impediment. Enjoyment or possession of the status of a illegitimate child has no right to succeed by right of representation the
natural child is only a ground for obligatory recognition but not itself legitimate relatives of her father or mother. Emilio Aguinaldo Suntay,
sufficient operative acknowledgement. Only those who are legally respondent Isabel’s father predeceased his mother, the late Cristina Aguinaldo
acknowledged have the right to inherit.
Suntay and thus, opened succession by representation. Petitioner contends that
as a consequence of the declaration by the then CFI of Rizal that the marriage
Estoppel should be appreciated as it was narrated in detail. Her right to
participate in her father's inheritance should necessarily follow. Non marital of the respondent Isabel’s parents is null and void, the latter is an illegitimate
child is allowed to participate despite no recognition by her father during his child, and has no right nor interest in the estate of her paternal grandmother
lifetime. the decedent.

DNA testing is allowed. Whether or not the marriage of respondent Isabel’s parents was
void or voidable.
RTC held her as an acknowledged natural child or legitimate child while CA
held her failure to prove her filiation. Case is remanded to the RTC for The marriage was voidable. In reading the pertinent portions of the
reception of evidence. decision of the CFI of Rizal shows that the marriage is voidable. There is no
controversy that the marriage between the parties was affected on July 9,
Succession is not only a mode of acquiring ownership; a way for properties to 1958, years after plaintiff’s mental illness had set in. This fact would justify a
be transferred from one person to another. Persons born out of wedlock enjoy declaration of nullity of the marriage under Article 85 of the Civil Code which
the equal and inalienable rights to which they are entitled including provides:
inheritance right. She just needs to prove her filiation.
Art. 85 (sic) A marriage may be annulled for any of the following
Classification and distinction embedded in the FC and CC are best left to the causes, existing at the time of the marriage: (3) That either party was of
legislative. unsound mind, unless such party, after coming to reason, freely cohabited
with the other as husband and wife; Articles 80, 81, 82 and 83 of the New
REMANDED. Civil Code classify what marriages are void while Article 85 enumerates the
causes for which a marriage may be annulled.
VOIDABLE MARRIAGES
Grounds for annulment The fundamental distinction between void and voidable marriages
is that void marriage is deemed never to have taken place at all. On the other
Katipunan vs. Tenorio, 38 OG 172, 1937
hand, a voidable marriage, is considered valid and produces all its civil
Marcos Katipunan brought an action in the CFI of Manila to annul effects, until it is set aside by final judgment of a competent court in an action
his marriage with Rita Tenorio. Marcos alleged that Tenorio was not of sound for annulment.
mind when he married her. The defendant through her guardian in her answer
CONSENT OBTAINED BY FRAUD
denied the allegations of the Plaintiff. Represented by her guardian ad litem,
the defendant alleged that she was mentally sound when she married the
plaintiff, she did so freely and voluntarily. They had been living together as Edgar Teves vs. The Commission on Elections and Herminio G. Teves
husband and wife since 1919, until as husband and wife until the defendant
suffered a mental ailment in 1926 for the reason that she was confined at San Edgar Teves was a candidate for the position of Representative of
Lazaro Hospital and later in Psychopathic Hospital where she is at present. the 3rd legislative district of Negros Oriental during the 2007 elections.
They had four children who are under the custody of Leonora Katipunan. Respondent filled a petition to disqualify Edgar on the ground that he was
Furthermore, the defendant who needs the care and support and moral convicted of violating Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, for possessing
protection of the plaintiff would be so unjustly and inhumanly abandoned pecuniary or financial interest in a cockpit, which involves a crime of moral
without the protection of her husband. turpitude. COMELEC first division disqualified Edgar and ordered the
cancellation of his certificate of Candidacy. However, Comelec en banc
Whether or not a marriage can still be annulled after one of the denied the petition for review filed by Edgar for being moot since he lost in
spouses becomes insane several years after the marriage. the elections.

No. Unless it can be proven that Tenorio’s condition was existing

Whether the crime of which petitioner Edgar Y. Teves was
prior to/during the celebration of the marriage, insanity cannot be a ground for convicted in Teves v. Sandiganbayan1 involved moral turpitude.
annulment because every presumption goes in favor of marriage’s validity.
Insanity occurs after the celebration of the marriage does not constitute a
cause for nullity. No. Moral turpitude has been defined as everything which is done
contrary to justice, modesty, or good morals; an act of baseness, vileness or
Frederico Suntay vs. Isabel Cojuanco Suntay depravity in the private and social duties which a man owes his fellowmen, or
to society in general. The fact that petitioner lost in the congressional race in
On July 9, 1958, Emilio Aguinaldo Suntay, son of petitioner the May 14, 2007 elections did not effectively moot the issue of whether he
Federico Suntay and Isabel Cojuangco-Suntay were married in the Portuguese was disqualified from running for public office on the ground that the crime
Colony of Macao. They had three children and all surnamed Cojuangco he was convicted of involved moral turpitude. It is still a justiciable issue
Suntay. Four years later, the marriage soured so that in 1962, Isabel which the COMELEC should have resolved instead of merely declaring that
the disqualification case has become moot in view of petitioner’s defeat.
Cojuangco-Suntay filed a criminal case against her husband Emilio Aguinaldo
Further, there is no basis in the COMELEC’s findings that petitioner is
Suntay. In retaliation, Emilio Aguinaldo filed before the then Court of First eligible to run again in the 2010 elections because his disqualification shall be
Instance (CFI) a complaint for legal separation against his wife, charging her, deemed removed after the expiration of a period of five years from service of

6
the sentence. Assuming that the elections would be held on May 14, 2010, the Clara Street. They proceeded to secure a marriage license and later returned to
records show that it was only on May 24, 2005 when petitioner paid the fine the same church where the marriage was celebrated in the evening. His
of P10,000.00 he was sentenced to pay in Teves v. Sandiganbayan. Such counsel has 'dramatized the visit of Jose Atienza and companions, and the
being the reckoning point, thus, the five-year disqualification period will end "plans" drawn to force Jose Ruiz into the marriage, Jose's passive and
only on May 25, 2010. Therefore, he would still be ineligible to run for public downcast attitude, all in an effort to maintain the proposition that Jose Ruiz
office during the May 14, 2010 elections. went with them that afternoon "convinced" by the following "arguments": the
threats of the father supported by his "balisong" the unveiled intimidation by
Fernando Aquino vs. Conchita Delizo Atty. Villavicencio that if he would not marry Pelagia Atienza, he would have
difficulty when he would take the bar examinations because, as he said, many
Fernando Aquino filed a complaint in September 1955 on the have been rejected admission to the bar on the ground of immorality; and the
ground of fraud against Conchita Delizo that at the date of his marriage with promise of Atty. Villavicencio that Ruiz would be physically "safe" if he
the former on December 1954, concealed the fact that she was pregnant by would go with . It appears that in the course of the conversation during the
another man (her brother-in-law, Aquino’s own brother). And sometime in visit, Ruiz made the statement that he could not marry Pelagia because he was
April 1955 or about 4 months after their marriage, gave birth to a child. already a married man. This so aroused Jose Atienza that he grabbed Ruiz'
During the trial, Provincial Fiscal Jose Go co- represented the state in the necktie, exclaiming: "So you mean to fool my daughter!" Those present
proceedings to prevent collusion. Only Fernando Aquino testified. The only intervened quickly, and the dispute stopped.
documentary evidence presented was the marriage contract between the
parties. Conchita Delizo did not appear nor presented any evidence. CFI-Rizal Whether or Not Jose Ruiz was forced into marrying Pelagia
dismissed petitioner’s complaint for annulment of marriage, which was Atienza by the use of force, undue intimidation or threat.
affirmed by CA thus a petition for certiorari to review the decisions.
No. It was not sufficiently established that Jose Atienze inflicted
Whether or not the concealment of the wife that at the time of their forced, undue intimidation or threat against Jose Ruiz. Ratio: The flare of
marriage she was pregnant by a man other than her husband constitutes fraud anger is easily understandable. But it is not sufficiently established that Jose
and is a ground for annulment. Atienza displayed any "balisong", or made any threat against the life of Ruiz.
In fact, only a one-and-a-half-inch knife was found in his possession by the
Yes. The concealment of the wife that at the time of their marriage policeman whom the companions of Ruiz called upon seeing what they
she was pregnant by a man other than her husband constitutes fraud and is a believed to be the beginning of trouble. As to the threat to obstruct his
ground for annulment. Delizo was allegedly to be only more than four months admission to the Bar, by filing charges against him for immorality, the
pregnant at the time of her marriage. At this stage, it could hardly be expected authorities are unanimous that it is not such a duress as to constitute a reason
to know merely by looking, whether or not she was pregnant because she was for annulling the marriage. And where a man marries under the threat of, or
“naturally plump” and she must have attempted to conceal the true state of constraint from, a lawful prosecution for seduction or bastardy, he cannot
affairs. In the following circumstances, the court remanded the case for new avoid the marriage on the ground of duress. As to the promise by Atty.
trial and decision complained is set aside. Villavicencio, it is apparent that when defendant was invited to go with them
and marry Pelagia, he had some fears that he might be subjected to bodily
Aurora A. Anaya vs. Fernando O. Palaroan harm in retaliation for the dishonor inflicted upon her family. For this reason,
he had to be assured by Villavicencio that he would be safe if he went with
them. From this statement, we cannot infer what appellant's attorney would
After one month of marriage, Fernando Palaroan filed a complaint for cleverly infer, i. e., that Ruiz would not be safe if he did not follow them.
annulment of marriage against Aurora Anaya on the ground that his consent Appellant would make it appear that that afternoon Ruiz was practically
was obtained through force and intimidation. The court dismissed the kidnapped by Pelagia's relatives until after the marriage ceremony. That
complaint and granted Aurora's counterclaim. While the amount of the cannot be true. He had many occasions to escape, as pointed out in appellee's
counterclaim was being negotiated, Fernando allegedly divulged that several brief. He had companions in the house whom he could have asked for help.
months prior to the marriage, he had pre-marital relationships with a close There was even the policeman. Now, considering that the law presumes
relative of his.  strongly the validity of marriage once the formal ceremonies have been
completed, we are led to the conclusion that although plaintiff may not have
Anaya filed suit to annul the marriage and to recover moral damages, alleging looked upon the ceremony as the happy culmination of youthful romance, still
that the non-divulgement to her of such pre-marital secret constituted fraud in the evidence does not warrant a pronouncement that his consent to it was
obtaining her consent. Fernando denied the allegation. The trial court obtained through force or intimidation.
dismissed the complaint, holding that Aurora's allegation of the fraud was
legally insufficient to invalidate her marriage. Aurora appealed.  IMPOTENCE

Whether or not non-disclosure to a wife by her husband of his pre- Joel Jimenez vs. Remedios Cañizares
marital relationship with another woman a ground for annulment of marriage?
On June 7, 1955 plaintiff Joel Jimenez prays for a decree annulling
No. Non-disclosure of a husband's pre-marital relationship with his marriage to the defendant Remedios Cañizares contracted on 3 August
another woman is not one of the enumerated circumstances that would 1950 before a judge of the municipal court of Zamboanga City, upon the
constitute a ground for annulment; and it is further excluded by the last ground that the office of her genitals or vagina was too small to allow the
paragraph of the article, providing that "no other misrepresentation or deceit penetration of a male organ or penis for copulation; that the condition of her
as to ... chastity" shall give ground for an action to annul a marriage. While a genitals as described above existed at the time of marriage and continues to
woman may detest such non-disclosure of premarital lewdness or feel having exist; and that for that reason he left the conjugal home two nights and one
been thereby cheated into giving her consent to the marriage, nevertheless the day after they had been married.
law does not assuage her grief after her consent was solemnly given, for upon
Whether the marriage in question may be annulled on the strength
marriage she entered into an institution in which society, and not herself
only of the lone testimony of the husband who claimed and testified that his
alone, is interested. The lawmaker's intent being plain, the Court's duty is to
wife was and is impotent.
give effect to the same, whether it agrees with the rule or not.

VIOLENCE, INTIMIDATION, or UNDUE INFLUENCE No. The incidents of the status are governed by law, not by will of
the parties. The law specifically enumerates the legal grounds, that must be
Ruiz vs. Atienza (1941) proved to exist by indubitable evidence, to annul a marriage. In the case at
bar, the annulment of the marriage in question was decreed upon the sole
Jose Ruiz and Pelagia Atienza, both single, were sweethearts. Nine testimony of the husband who was expected to give testimony tending or
months later, she became an unmarried mother. After the baby’s birth on Nov. aiming at securing the annulment of his marriage he sought and seeks.
14, 1938, Pelagie’s father Jose Atienza, Atty. Villavicencio her cousin-in-law, Whether the wife is really impotent cannot be deemed to have been
and three other persons visited Jose Ruiz at the boarding house where he satisfactorily established, because from the commencement of the proceedings
lived. They requested, and after some discussion, convinced him to marry until the entry of the decree she had abstained from taking part therein.
Pelagia. With his cousin Alfredo Asuncion, Jose went to Tanduay street where Although her refusal to be examined or failure to appear in court show
Pelagia was living, and from there went to the Aglipayan Church at Maria indifference on her part, yet from such attitude the presumption arising out of

7
the suppression of evidence could not arise or be inferred because women of in which the judgment is immediately final and executory and, thus, not
this country are by nature coy, bashful and shy and would not submit to a appealable. The CA granted the motion.
physical examination unless compelled to by competent authority. This the
Court may do without doing violence to and infringing in this case is not self- Whether or not the dismissal of the appeal correct, considering that
incrimination. She is not charged with any offense. She is not being compelled the Family Code provides for summary procedure
to be a witness against herself.1 "Impotency being an abnormal condition
should not be presumed. The presumption is in favor of potency." 2 The lone Judgment declaring a spouse presumptively dead is immediately
testimony of the husband that his wife is physically incapable of sexual final and executory; remedy is Rule 65, not Rule 45. The RTC decision is
intercourse is insufficient to tear asunder the ties that have bound them immediately final and executory and not subject to ordinary appeal. Since a
together as husband and wife. The decree appealed from is set aside and the petition for declaration of presumptive death is a summary proceeding, the
case remanded to the lower court for further proceedings in accordance with judgment of the court therein shall be immediately final and executory. The
this decision, without pronouncement as to costs. appropriate remedy is a special civil action for certiorari if there is a showing
of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
MARRIAGE WHEN ONE SPOUSE IS ABSENT
By express provision of law, the judgment of the court in a
summary proceeding shall be immediately final and executory. As a matter of
SSS vs. Jarque (2006)
course, it follows that no appeal can be had of the trial court's judgment in a
summary proceeding for the declaration of presumptive death of an absent
In 1955 Clemente Bailon and Alice Diaz married in Barcelona, spouse under Article 41 of the Family Code. It goes without saying, however,
Sorsogon. Some 15 years later, Clemente filed an action to declare the that an aggrieved party may file a petition for certiorari to question abuse of
presumptive death of Alice she being an absentee. The petition was granted in discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction. Such petition should be filed in
1970. In 1983, Clemente married Teresita Jarque. The two live together until the Court of Appeals in accordance with the Doctrine of Hierarchy of Courts.
Clemente’s death in 1998. Jarque then sought to claim her husband’s SSS To be sure, even if the Court's original jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari
benefits and the same were granted her. On the other hand, a certain Cecilia is concurrent with the RTCs and the Court of Appeals in certain cases, such
Bailon-Yap who claimed that she is the daughter of Bailon to a certain Elisa concurrence does not sanction an unrestricted freedom of choice of court
Jayona petitioned before the SSS that they be given the reimbursement for the forum. From the decision of the Court of Appeals, the losing party may then
funeral spending for it was actually them who shouldered the burial expenses file a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court
of Clemente. They further claim that Clemente contracted three marriages; with the Supreme Court. This is because the errors which the court may
one with Alice, another with Elisa and the other with Jarque. Cecilia also commit in the exercise of jurisdiction are merely errors of judgment which are
averred that Alice is alive and kicking and Alice subsequently emerged; the proper subject of an appeal. In sum, under Article 41 of the Family Code,
Cecilia claimed that Clemente obtained the declaration of Alice’s presumptive the losing party in a summary proceeding for the declaration of presumptive
death in bad faith for he was aware of the whereabouts of Alice or if not he death may file a petition for certiorari with the CA on the ground that, in
could have easily located her in her parents’ place. She was in Sorsogon all rendering judgment thereon, the trial court committed grave abuse of
along in her parents’ place. She went there upon learning that Clemente had discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction. From the decision of the CA, the
been having extra-marital affairs. SSS then directed Jarque to reimburse what aggrieved party may elevate the matter to this Court via a petition for review
had been granted her and to return the same to Cecilia since she shouldered on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
the burial expenses and that the benefits should go to Alice because her
reappearance had terminated Clemente’s marriage with Harque. Further, SSS BUCCAT V BUCCAT 1941
ruled that the RTC’s decision in declaring Alice to be presumptively death is
erroneous. Teresita appealed the decision of the SSS before the Social CONSENT OBTAINED BY FRAUD
Security Commission and the SSC affirmed SSS. Jarque appealed to the Court
FACTS: It was established before the trial court: The Plaintiff met the
of Appeals and the latter ruled in her favor.
defendant in March 1938. After several interviews, both were committed on
Whether or not the mere appearance of the absent spouse declared September 19 of that year. On November 26 the same year, the plaintiff
presumptively dead automatically terminates the subsequent marriage. married the defendant in a Catholic Cathedral in Baguio. They, then cohabited
for about eighty-nine days. Defendant gave birth to a child of nine months on
No. There is no previous marriage to restore for it is terminated February 23, 1939. Following this event, Plaintiff and Defendant separated.
upon Clemente’s death. Likewise, there is no subsequent marriage to On March 20, 1939 the plaintiff filed an action for annulment of marriage
terminate for the same is terminated upon Clemente’s death. SSS is correct in before the CFI of Baguio City. The plaintiff claimed that he consented to the
ruling that it is futile for Alice to pursue the recording of her reappearance marriage because the defendant assured him that she was virgin. The trial
before the local civil registrar through an affidavit or a court action. But it is court dismissed the complaint. Hence, this appeal. Basically, Godofredo
not correct for the SSS to rule upon the declaration made by the RTC. The Buccat (Plaintiff)and Luida Mangonon (Defendant) got married on
SSC or the SSS has no judicial power to review the decision of the RTC. SSS November26, 1938. Luida gave birth after 89 days and on March 20,1939
is indeed empowered to determine as to who should be the rightful beneficiary Godofredo filed for annulment of marriage before the CFI because he was led
of the benefits obtained by a deceased member in case of disputes but such to believe by Luida that she was a virgin. The trial court dismissed the
power does not include the appellate power to review a court decision or complaint, so Godofredo appealed.
declaration. In the case at bar, the RTC ruling is binding and Jarque’s
marriage to Clemente is still valid because no affidavit was filed by Alice to ISSUE: WON the annulment for Godofredo Buccat’s marriage be granted on
make known her reappearance legally. Alice reappeared only after Clemente’s the grounds that Luida concealed her pregnancy before the marriage
death and in this case, she can no longer file such an affidavit; in this case the
RULINGS: No. Clear and authentic proof is needed in order to nullify a
bad faith [or good faith] of Clemente can no longer be raised – the marriage
marriage, a sacred institution in which the State is interested and where
herein is considered voidable and must be attacked directly not collaterally – it
society rests. In this case, the court did not find any proof that there was
is however impossible for a direct attack since there is no longer a marriage to
concealment of pregnancy constituting fraud as a ground for annulment. It
be attacked for the same has been terminated upon Clemente’s death.
was unlikely that Godofredo, a first-year law student, did not suspect anything
Republic vs. Granada (2012) about Luida’s condition considering that she was in an advanced stage of
pregnancy(highly developed physical manifestation, ie. Enlarged stomach)
Yolanda Granada and Cyrus Granada got married in 1991. In 1994, when they got married. As she gave birth less than 3 months after they got
Cyrus went to Taiwan to seek employment but since then, he never married, she must have looked very pregnant even before they were married.
communicated with Yolanda. After nine (9) years of waiting, she filed a Thus, consent freely given: ARTICLE 4 and 45 FC. SC affirmed the lower
Petition to have Cyrus declared presumptively dead which the RTC granted. court’s decision. Costs to plaintiff -appellant.
The Republic of the Philippines appealed from the decision contending that
Yolanda failed to prove earnest efforts to locate Cyrus and thus, failed to Jones v Hortiguela 1937
prove well-founded belief that he was already dead. Yolanda moved to
MARRIAGE WHEN SPOUSE IS ABSENCE
dismiss the appeal contending that the Petition for Declaration of Presumptive
Death based under Art. 41, Family Code was a summary judicial proceeding

8
FACTS: This is an appeal taken from an order issued by the CFI declaring
Felix Hortiguela, Marciana Escanio's second widower and Angelita Jones, her
daughter by her first marriage are both heirs of Marciana who died intestate.

CFI granted Felix payment of his share of the conjugal properties and of his
usufructuary right and the remaining part to Angelita.

On May 03, 1934, Angelita who was then married to Ernesto Lardizabal filed
a motion alleging herself to be the sole heir. Her mother's marriage was null
and void. She added of having been assisted only by Felix's counsel despite
being only a minor.

ISSUES: WON the marriage between Felix and Marciana null and void.

RULINGS: No. On Dec. 1914, Marciana married Arthur Jones in a Catholic

church. The latter secured a passport to go abroad on January 10, 1918 and
thereafter nothing was heard from him. Proceedings were instituted on
October 1919 before the CFI Leyte to have Jones judicially declared an
absentee and on the 25th of said month, he was declared so.

Under art. 186 of the CC, declaration of absence would take effect only after 6
months of publication in the official newspaper. This was published on Dec.
1919, Jan to June, 1920 and April 1921. On May 06, 1927, Felix and
Marciana got married before the justice of the peace and signed certificate of
marriage.

Angelita contends that the counting must be on April 23, 1921 not on Oct. 25
1919 wherein only 6 years and 14 days NOT 7 years had elapsed on the date
of celebration rendering it null and void.

UNTENABLE. Civil marriage does not require judicial declaration of

absentee. It's sole purpose is to enable the taking of necessary precautions for
the administration of the estate of the absentee. For civil marriages, the law
only requires that the spouse has been absent for 7 consecutive years at the
time of celebration of the 2nd marriage, the the spouse present does not know
his or her former spouse to be living whom generally reputed to be death and
the present spouse believes so. It should be counted from January 10, 1918
when last news was received about him. It was already more than 9 years had
elapsed on May 6, 1927, date of celebration of the civil marriage.

Section VIII of Gen. Orders 68 does not provide that failure to transmit such
certificate to the municipal secretary annuls the marriage. All the requisites of
valid marriage was present during the celebration, forwarding a copy of MC is
NOT one.

Both Marciana and Angelita believed that Arthur was already dead. Angelita
lived with them after her marriage to Hortiguela who treated her as true
stepdaughter. They even traveled together.

Sec 334, no 24 of the CC, a person not heard from in 7 years is presumed
dead.

VALID marriage was contracted and BOTH are heirs.