TC: DENIED

Case: Leouel Santos v The Honorable Court of Appeals

and Julia Rosario Bedia-Santos
CA: DENIED
Citation: GR No. 112019, January 4, 1995
SC: DENIED
Nature: Civil Case

Facts:

Leouel Santos, a First Lieutenant in the Philippine Army, first met Julia in Iloilo City. On September 20, 1986, the two got married before a
municipal trial court followed by a church wedding. The couple lived in J. Bedia Compound with Julia’s parents. On July 1987, a baby boy was
born and christened Leouel Santos Jr. However, not long after the marriage, the two frequently quarreled because of Julia’s parents’
interference in the family affair. On May 18, 1988, Julia left for the USA to work as a nurse despite Leouel dissuasion. Seven months after her
departure, Julia called Leouel for the first time through long distance phone call promising to return home after the expiration of her contract
in July 1989. However, she never did. When Leouel got a chance to visit the USA for a training program under the AFP from April to August
1990, he desperately tried to locate her or to get in touch with her but to no avail. Having failed to get Julia to come home, Leoeul filed with
the RTC of Negros Oriental, Branch 30, a complaint for voiding marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code. The RTC dismissed the
complaint. Leouel appealed to the CA. CA affirmed RTC’s decision. Hence, the petition before the SC.

Arguments / Defenses of Respective Parties:

Husband: Leouel Santos Wife: Julia Rosario Bedia-Santos

Leouel argues that the failure of Julia to return home or at the very In her answer through counsel, Julia opposed the complaint
least communicate with him for more than five years are denying the allegations claiming that it was Leomuel who had in
circumstances that clearly show her being psychologically fact been irresponsible and incompetent.
incapacitated to enter into married life.

ISSUE/S:

Wbether or not their marriage can be considered void until Article 36 of the Family Code of the Philippines.

SC Ruling:

No, their marriage cannot be considered void under Article 36 of the Family Code of the Philippines. The intendment of the law has been to
confine the meaning of psychological incapacity to the most serious cases of personality disorder clearly demonstrative of an utter
insensitivity or inability to give meaning and significance to the marriage. The factual settings of the case, in no measure at all can come
close to the standards required to decree a nullity of marriage. Hence, petition was denied.
 TC: GRANTED
Case: Chi Ming Tsoi v CA and Gina Lao-Tsoi
CA: DENIED
Citation: GR No, 119190 January 16, 199

Nature: Civil Case SC: DENIED

Facts:

On May 22, 1988, Chi-Ming Tsoi married Gina at the Manila Cathedral. Sometimes, in their marriage, Gina filed for nullity of marriage on the
ground of psychological incapacity which was granted by the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City (Branch 89). Chi Ming Tsoi appealed the
decision of the RTC before the CA which denied his Motion for Reconsideration. Hence, the petition before the SC.

Arguments / Defenses of Respective Parties:

W: Gina La-Tsoi H: Chi-Ming Tsoi

After the celebration of marriage and wedding reception, newlyweds Chi-Ming Tsoi claimed that he loves his wife very much and that he
proceeded to husband’s mother’s house. However, there was no has no defect on his part. He is physically and psychologically
consummation of marriage as husband just went to bed, slept on one capable.
side turned his back and went to sleep. This went for four nights.
He admitted that there was no sexual contact between them for
Newlyweds then stayed in Baguio City for honeymoon but nothing almost ten months because Gina avoided him and whenever he
happened between them as husband avoided Gina by taking a long caressed her private parts, she always removed his hands.
walk during siesta time or by sleeping on a rocking chair located at
the living room. He claimed that he forced his wife only once but did not continue
because she was shaking.
They slept together for almost ten months from May 22, 1988 to
March 15, 1989 but there was no attempt of sexual intercourse She claimed that Gina filed a case against him because she is afraid
between them. that she will be forced to return the pieces of jewelry of his mother.

Gina claimed that husband is impotent and a closeted homosexual as He also submitted himself to physical examination and as stated in
he did not show his penis. She had observed that husband once used the Medical Report, there is no evidence of impotency and he is
the eyebrow pencil and cleansing cream of his mother. capable of erection. He is capable of having sexual intercourse with
a woman.
Gina claimed that husband married her for residency status and to
maintain his appearance as a normal man.

ISSUE/S:

Whether or not the refusal of the couple to have sexual intercourse with each other constitutes psychological incapacity
that makes the marriage void.

SC Ruling:

Yes, the refusal of the couple to have sexual intercourse with each other constitutes PI. The Court provides that one of the essential marital
obligations under the Family Code is “To procreate children based on the universal principle that procreation of children through sexual
cooperation is the basic end of marriage.” Constant non- fulfillment of this obligation will finally destroy the integrity or wholeness of the
marriage. In this case, the Court ruled that the senseless and protracted refusal of one of the parties to fulfill the above marital obligation is
equivalent to psychological incapacity. Hence, petition denied.
 TC: GRANTED
Case: Brenda B. Marcos v Wilson G Marcos
CA: DENIED
Citation: GR No. 136490 October 19, 2000

Nature: Civil Case SC: DENIED

Facts:
The parties sometime met in 1980, Wilson being a President Guard of President Ferdinand Marcos and Brenda being an escort of Imee
Marcos. They got married twice, first on September 1982 before the Municipal Court in Pasig and second on May 1983 at a chapel in
Malacañang Park, Manila. They were blessed with five children. After the downfall of President Marcos, Wilson left the military service in 1987
and engaged in different business ventures that failed. Due to his failure to engage in any gainful employment, they would often quarrel and
as a consequence, he would hit and beat her. He would also inflict physical harm on their children for a slight mistake and was so severe in
reprimanding them. Thus, for several times during their cohabitation, he would leave their house. In 1992, they were already living separately.
Brenda filed for nullity of marriage on the grounds of psychological incapacity. The RTC ruled Wilson to be PI for the failure to perform his
marital obligations mainly due to failure to find work to support his family and his violent attitude towards Brenda and their children. CA
reversed RTC’s decision. Hence, the petition before the SC.

Arguments / Defenses of Respective Parties:

W: Brenda Marcos H: Wilson Marcos

On October 16, 1994, they had a bitter quarrel. As they were already The root cause of Wilson’s psychological incapacity was not alleged
living separately, Brenda got angry when she saw him in their house in the petition, nor medically or clinically identified as a
and lambasted him. He then turned violent inflicting physical harm on psychological illness or sufficiently proven by an expert. He was not
her and even her mother who come to her aid.
subjected to any psychological or psychiatric evaluation. The
psychological findings about Wilson by psychiatrist Natividad Dayan
On October 19, 1994, she submitted herself to medical examination
at Mandaluyong Medical Center where her injuries were diagnosed as were based only on the interviews conducted with Brenda.
contusions.

On August 1995, she, together with her two sisters and driver, went
to him to look for their missing children, Nikko. Upon seeing them, he
got mad, ran after them, and beat her driver.

In the case study conducted by Social Worker Sonia C. Milan, the

children described their father as cruel and physically abusive
towards them.

ISSUE/S:

1.) Whether or not there is a need for personal medical examination to prove PI
2.) Whether the totality of evidence presented in the case shows PI

SC Ruling:

1.) No, the personal medical or psychological examination of a person is not a requirement for a declaration of psychological
incapacity. The guidelines incorporate the three basic requirements earlier mandated by the Court in Santos v. Court of Appeals:
"psychological incapacity must be characterized by (a) gravity (b) juridical antecedence, and (c) incurability." The foregoing
guidelines do not require that a physician examine the person to be declared psychologically incapacitated.
2.) No, the totality of the evidence presented in the present case, including the testimonies of Brenda, the common children, Brenda's
sister and the social worker, was not enough to sustain a finding that Wilson was psychologically incapacitated. Although the Court
is convinced that Wilson failed to provide material support to the family and may have resorted to physical abuse and
abandonment, the totality of his acts does not lead to a conclusion of psychological incapacity on his part. There is absolutely no
showing that his "defects" were already present at the inception of the marriage or that they are incurable.
 TC: GRANTED
Case: Republic vs. Matias-Dagdag
CA: GRANTED
Citation: G.R. No. 109975 February 9, 2001

Nature: Civil Case SC: DENIED

Facts:
Erlinda Matias married Avelino Parangan Dagdag and begot two children. On the course of their marriage, Avelino would disappear for months
without explanation and reappear for months again. During the time when he was with his family, he indulged to drinking sprees with friends
and return home drunk. He would force his wife to have sexual intercourse and if she resisted, would inflict injury to the latter. On October
1993, he left his family again and never heard of him.  Erlinda was constrained to look for a job to fend for themselves. Erlinda then learned
that Avelino was imprisoned for some crime, and that he escaped from jail and still remains at-large. On July 3, 1990, Erlinda filed with RTC
Olongapo City for judicial declaration of nullity of marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code. The
trial court issued an Order giving investigating prosecutor until Jan 2, 1991 to conduct investigation. However, on Dec 27, 1990, RTC rendered
a decision declaring the marriage of Erlinda void without waiting for the investigating prosecutor’s manifestation. The Solicitor General
appealed to the Court of Appeals raising that the lower court erred in declaring Erlinda’s marriage to Avelino Dagdag null and void on the
ground of psychological incapacity of the latter, the psychological incapacity of the nature contemplated by the law not having been proven to
exist. However, the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the RTC. Hence, the petition before the SC.

Arguments / Defenses of Respective Parties:

W: Erlinda Matias-Dagdag RP represented by OSG

Erlinda testified and presented her sister-in-law Virginia Dagdag. SG contends that alleged PI is not of the nature contemplated
Virginia testified that Erlinda is married to her brother Avelino. She under Article 36 of the Family Code. OSG raised the issue as to
testified that Erlinda and Avelino always quarreled, and that Avelino whether the husband has PI being emotionally immature,
irresponsible, a habitual alcoholic and a fugitive of justice.
never stayed for long at the couple's house. She knew that Avelino
had been gone for a long time now, and that she pitied Erlinda and
the children.

ISSUE/S:

Whether or not immaturity and irresponsibility, habitual alcoholic, and a fugitive from justice constitutes psychological
incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code to declare the marriage null and void.

SC Ruling:

No, the ruling in Republic v. Court of Appeals and Molina case is reiterated in this case in which the Court laid down that one of the
guidelines under Art 36 of the Family Code requires that the root cause of psychological incapacity must be medically or clinically identified
and sufficiently proven by experts. Erlinda failed to comply with this guideline since no psychiatrist or medical doctor testified as to the
alleged psychological incapacity of her husband. Further, the allegation that the husband is a fugitive from justice was not sufficiently
proven. In fact, the crime for which he was arrested was not even alleged. The investigating prosecutor was likewise not given an
opportunity to present controverting evidence since the trial court's decision was prematurely rendered. Hence, the petition is granted and
CA’s decision is reversed.
 TC: GRANTED
Case: Leonilo Antonio v Marie Ivonne Reyes
CA: DENIED
Citation: GR No. 155880 March 10, 2006

Nature: Civil Case SC: GRANTED

Facts:
ON December 6, 1990, barely one year after their first meeting, Leonilo and Marie got married. On 1991, they have a child who sadly died five
months later. On March 8, 1993, Leonilo filed a petition for their marriage to be null and void on grounds of psychological incapacity under
Article 36 of the Family Code of the Philippines. He alleged that his wife Marie, respondent, was PI to comply with the essential obligations of
marriage. Leonilo claimed that Marie persistently lied about her occupation, income, educational attainment and other events or things. The
RTC of Makati hence declared the marriage null and void. However, CA reversed RTC’s decision. Hence, the petition before the SC.

Arguments / Defenses of Respective Parties:

H: Leonilo Antonio W: Marie Ivonne Reyes

In his manifestation, Leonilo claimed that respondent persistently Marie opposed the petition presenting her version, to wit:
lied, to wit:
1.) She concealed the fact that she had an illegitimate son and 1.) She concealed her child by another man from Leonilo
instead introduced the boy to him as the adopted child of because she was afraid of losing her husband.
her family. She confessed the truth about the boy’s 2.) She told Leonilo about David’s attempt to rape and kill
parentage when Leonilo learned about it from other her surmised from David’s act of touching her back and
sources. ogling her from head to foot.
2.) She fabricated a story that her brother-in-law, Edwin 3.) She was actually a BS Banking and Finance graduate and
David, attempted to rape and kill her when in fact no such has been teaching psychology at the Pasig Catholic
incident occurred. School for two years.
3.) She misrepresented herself as a psychiatrist to her 4.) She claimed that she was a free-lance voice talent of Aris
obstetrician and told some of her friends that she de las Alas and that she had done three commercials. She
graduated with a degree in psychology when she was told Leonilo that she was a Blackgold recording artist
neither. although she was not under contract yet she reported to
4.) She claimed to be a singer or a free-lance voice talent Blackgold Office after office hours and that a luncheon
affiliated with Blackgold Recording Company and that a show was held in her honor.
luncheon show was held in her honor yet no one can 5.) She claimed that Bea Marquez Recto and Babes Santos
substantiate her claim. were not fictitious and that the lengthy letters sent to
5.) She invented friends namely Babes Santos and Via petitioner were not from her.
Marquez und under those names, sent lengthy letters to 6.) She admitted that she called his officemate but only to
petitioner claiming to be from Blackgold and touting her to ask in a diplomatic manner if she was the one asking
be the number 1 moneymaker in the company. petitioner for chocolates
6.) She altered her payslip to make it appear that she earned 7.) She claimed that she was not spending lavishly as she
a higher income. She spent lavishly and ended up supported almost ten people from her monthly budget of
borrowing from other people in false pretext. 7,000 pesos.
7.) She exhibited insecurities and jealousies to the extent of
calling his workmates to monitor his whereabouts.

ISSUE/S:

Whether or not Antonio can invoke Article 36 of the Family Code of the Philippines declaring his marriage null and void.

SC Ruling:

Yes. The case satisfies the guidelines in the Molina case. The root cause of respondent’s psychological incapacity has been medically or
clinically identified, sufficiently proven by experts, and clearly explained in the trial court’s decision. A person unable to distinguish between
fantasy and reality would similarly be unable to comprehend the legal nature of the marital bond, much less its psychic meaning, and the
corresponding obligations attached to marriage, including parenting. From the totality of the evidence, the Court is sufficiently convinced
that the incurability of respondent’s psychological incapacity has been established by the petitioner. Hence, petition granted.
 TC: DENIED
Case: Perez-Ferraris vs. Ferraris
CA: DENIED
Citation: G.R. No. 162368 July 17, 2006

Nature: Civil Case SC: DENIED

Facts:
On February 20, 2001, the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City, Branch 151 rendered a Decision denying the petition for declaration of nullity of
petitioner's marriage with Brix Ferraris. The trial court noted that suffering from epilepsy does not amount to psychological incapacity under
Article 36 of the Family Code and the evidence on record were insufficient to prove infidelity. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was
denied in an Order dated April 20, 2001 where the trial court reiterated that there was no evidence that respondent is mentally or physically ill
to such an extent that he could not have known the obligations he was assuming, or knowing them, could not have given valid assumption
thereof. Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals which affirmed the judgment of the RTC. Hence, the petition before the SC.

Arguments / Defenses of Respective Parties:

W: Ma. Armida Perez- Ferraris H: Brix Ferraris

-Petitioner claimed that respondent has extramarital affairs and that -Dr. Dayan’s testimony failed to establish the substance of
there was a history of respondent’s parents having difficulties in their respondent’s psychological incapacity. She failed to explain how she
marriage. arrived that Brix has mixed personality disorder. When Dr. Dayan
was asked regarding the root cause of respondent’s alleged PI, Dr.
-Dr. Dayan, the expert on this case, also testified that respondent Dayan’s answer was vague, evasive and inconclusive. She replied
has a mixed personality disorder called schizoid and that he is the that such disorder can be part of his family upbringing stating the
dependent and avoidant type. problematic history of his parents. However, such information came
from Armida.
-Armida claimed that Brix allegedly leaves the house whenever they -In addition, the marriage was not at all bad in the beginning. By
quarrel and has violent tendencies during his epileptic attacks. He is Armida’s reckoning, Brix was a responsible and loving husband. It
unfaithful and preferred to spend more time with his bandmates than was only when petitioner started to doubt Brix fidelity that Brix
his family. failed to perform his marital obligations proving that failure on the
said obligations was not a permanent and incurable psychological
condition.

ISSUE/S:

Whether or not petitioner can invoke Article 36 of the Family Code of the Philippines declaring his marriage null and void.

SC Ruling:

No, the SC upheld the decision of the lower courts. As all people may have certain quirks and idiosyncrasies, or isolated characteristics
associated with certain personality disorders, there is hardly any doubt that the intendment of the law has been to confine the meaning of
"psychological incapacity" to the most serious cases of personality disorders clearly demonstrative of an utter insensitivity or inability to give
meaning and significance to the marriage. The evidence on record did not convincingly establish that respondent was suffering from
psychological incapacity. There is absolutely no showing that his "defects" were already present at the inception of the marriage, or that
those are incurable.
 TC: GRANTED
Case: Bier vs. Bier
CA: DENIED
Citation: G.R. No. 173294 February 27, 2008

Nature: Civil Case SC: DENIED

Facts:

Petitioner Renne Enrique E. Bier met respondent Ma. Lourdes A. Bier through his sister. Six months after their first meeting, they were married
at the UST Santissimo Rosario Parish Church. Everything went well for the first three years of their marriage. As petitioner was based in Saudi
Arabia as an electronics technician at Saudia Airlines, the parties decided to maintain two residences, one in the Philippines and another in
Saudi Arabia. They took turns shuttling between the two countries just so they could spend time together. The couple started experiencing
marital problems after three years of marriage. According to petitioner, respondent started becoming aloof towards him and began to spend
more time with her friends than with him, refusing even to have sexual relations with him for no apparent reason, and became an alcoholic
and a chain-smoker. They frequently quarreled. Finally, on April 10, 1997, respondent suddenly left for the United States. Petitioner has not
heard from her since. On 1998, petitioner filed a petition before the RTC of Quezon City for the declaration of nullity of marriage on the
ground that respondent was psychologically incapacitated to fulfill her essential marital obligations to petitioner. After trial, the RTC rendered
judgment granting the petition. Respondent Republic of the Philippines, through the OSG, appealed the decision of the RTC to the CA. The CA
granted the appeal and reversed the decision of the trial court. Petitioner moved for reconsideration of the CA decision. The same was denied.
Hence, this recourse.

Arguments / Defenses of Respective Parties:

Renne Enrique Bier Ma. Lourdes A. Bier

- Petitioner together with his brother, Roderico Bier, testified of -Dr. Tayag’s report relied only on the information fed by petitioner.
respondent’s remission in her duties as a wife, had become a happy- Her report was really hearsay evidence since she had no personal
go-lucky woman that eventually abandoned her husband. knowledge of the alleged facts she was testifying on. Her testimony
should have thus been dismissed for being unscientific and
-Petitioner also presented as evidence a psychological report written
unreliable. Furthermore, the report also failed to identify the root
by Dr. Nedy Tayag, a clinical psychologist, which found respondent to
be suffering from narcissistic personality disorder. cause of respondent's narcissistic personality disorder and to prove
that it existed at the inception of the marriage.

ISSUE/S:
Whether or not the totality of the evidence presented was enough to establish that respondent was psychologically incapacitated to perform
her essential marital obligations.

SC Ruling:

No, petition was denied. Although there is no requirement that a party to be declared psychologically incapacitated should be personally
examined by a physician or a psychologist (as a condition sine qua non), there is nevertheless still a need to prove the psychological
incapacity through independent evidence adduced by the person alleging said disorder. In the present case, petitioner was able to establish
that respondent was remiss in her duties as a wife. However, the totality of her acts, was not tantamount to a psychological incapacity.
Habitual alcoholism, chain-smoking, failure or refusal to meet one's duties and responsibilities as a married person and eventual
abandonment of a spouse do not suffice to nullify a marriage on the basis of psychological incapacity, if not shown to be due to some
psychological illness.
 TC: GRANTED
Case: Te vs. Te
CA: DENIED
Citation: G.R. No. 16179 February 13, 2009

Nature: Civil Case SC: GRANTED

Facts:

The parties’ whirlwind relationship lasted more or less six (6) months. They met in January 1996, eloped in March, exchanged marital vows in
April, and parted ways in June. After almost four years, or on January 18, 2000 Edward filed a petition before the Regional Trial Court of
Quezon City for the annulment of his marriage to Rowena on the basis of the latter’s psychological incapacity. The psychologist who provided
expert testimony found both parties psychologically incapacitated. Petitioner’s behavioral pattern falls under the classification of dependent
personality disorder, and the respondent that of the narcissistic and antisocial personality disorder. The trial court, on July 11, 2000, rendered
its decision declaring the marriage of the parties null and void on the ground that both parties were psychologically incapacitated to comply
with the essential marital obligations. In review, the appellate court reversed and set aside the trial court’s ruling. It ruled that petitioner failed
to prove the psychological incapacity of respondent or the clinical psychologist did not personally examine respondent, and relied only on the
information provided by petitioner. Further, the psychological incapacity was not shown to be attended by gravity, juridical antecedence and
incurability. In sum, the evidence adduced fell short of the requirements stated in the Molina case needed for the declaration of nullity of the
marriage under Art 36 of the Family Code. Dissatisfied, petitioner filed before the court instant petition for review on certiorari.

Arguments / Defenses of Respective Parties:

Edward Kenneth Ngo Te Rowena Te and RP

Edward posited that the trial court declared the marriage void, not -OSG contends the root cause of the psychological incapacity was
only because of respondent’s psychological incapacity, but rather likewise not alleged in the petition; neither was it medically or
due to both parties’ psychological incapacity. clinically identified. The purported incapacity of both parties was
not shown to be medically or clinically permanent or incurable. And
He also pointed out that there is no requirement for the psychologist the clinical psychologist did not personally examine the respondent.
to personally examine respondent. Thus, the OSG concludes that the requirements in Molina were not
satisfied.

ISSUE/S:
Whether the marriage contracted is void on the ground of PI.

SC Ruling:

Yes. The psychologist who provided expert testimony found both parties psychologically incapacitated. Edward’s behavioral pattern falls
under the classification of dependent personality disorder, and Rowena’s, that of the narcissistic and antisocial personality disorder. There is
no requirement that the person to be declared psychologically incapacitated be personally examined by a physician, if the totality of
evidence presented is enough to sustain a finding of psychological incapacity. Verily, the evidence must show a link, medical or the like,
between the acts that manifest psychological incapacity and the psychological disorder itself. Since both parties were being afflicted with
grave, severe and incurable psychological incapacity, the precipitous marriage that they contracted on April 23, 1996 is thus, declared null
and void.