1. Chi Ming Tsoi v.

Court of Appeals, 266 SCRA 325

Facts:
CHI MING TSOI, petitioner, -versus- COURT OF APPEALS and GINA LAO-TSOI, respondents.
GR No. 119190, SECOND DIVISION, 16 January 1997, TORRES, JR., J.

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 the case at bar, the senseless and protracted refusal of one of the parties to fulfill the
above marital obligation is equivalent to psychological incapacity.
FACTS:
Chi Ming Tsoi and Gina Lao-Tsoi were married on 22 May 1988. On the night of their wedding day,
they slept together on the same bed in the same room. According to Gina, they were supposed to
have sexual intercourse, but Chi Ming Tsoi turned his back on her and went to sleep. It continually
happened on the second, third and fourth nights. When they had their honeymoon in Baguio City for
four days, Chi Ming Tsoi distanced himself and there was still no attempt of sexual intercourse
between them. Because of this, they both submitted themselves for medical examinations. The result
of Gina’s physical examination was she was healthy, normal, and still a virgin. As for Chi Ming Tsoi, his
penis was examined for the purpose of finding out whether he was impotent. The result showed that
there was no evidence of impotency and he was capable of erection and of having sexual intercourse
with a woman.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the alleged refusal to have sexual intercourse constitutes psychological incapacity.

(YES)
RULING:
Chi Ming Tso also claims that he wanted to have sex with Gina; that the reason for Gina's refusal may
not be psychological but physical disorder as stated above. Assuming it to be so, he would have
discussed with Gina or asked her what is ailing her, and why she balks and avoids him every time he
wanted to have sexual intercourse with her. He never did. At least, there is nothing in the record to
show that he had tried to find out or discover what the problem with his wife could be. 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 the case at bar, the senseless and protracted refusal of one of the parties to fulfill the
above marital obligation is equivalent to psychological incapacity.

2. Antonio V. Reyes, GR no.

Antonio v. Reyes, G.R. No.15580
( On Psychological Incapacity as ground for Annulment of Marriage)

G.R. No. 155800, March 10, 2006

LEONILO ANTONIO Petitioner,vs.

MARIE IVONNE F. REYES, Respondent.

Facts:

Antonio and Reyes was married on 6 December 1990, bore child on 1993 but only died 5mos. On 8
March 1993, petitioner filed a petition to have his marriage to respondent declared null and void. He
anchored his petition for nullity on Article 36 of the Family Code alleging that respondent was
psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential obligations of marriage. respondent’s
persistent and constant lying to petitioner was abnormal or pathological. It undermined the basic
relationship that should be based on love, trust and respect. Comprehensive Psycho-Pathological
Rating Scale (CPRS), dr. Reyes, (respondent) Dr. Lopez, psychologist, psychiatrist, Dr.Abcede
As manifestations of respondent’s alleged psychological incapacity, petitioner claimed that
respondent persistently lied about herself, the people around her, her occupation, income,
educational attainment and other events or things. In support of this claim, he presented doctors. In
opposing the petition, respondent claimed that she performed her marital obligations by attending to
all the needs of her husband. She asserted that there was no truth to the allegation that she
fabricated stories, told lies and invented personalities.

After trial, the lower court gave credence to petitioner’s evidence and held that respondent’s
propensity to lying about almost anything−her occupation, state of health, singing abilities and her
income, among others−had been duly established. According to the trial court, respondent’s fantastic
ability to invent and fabricate stories and personalities enabled her to live in a world of make-believe.
This made her psychologically incapacitated as it rendered her incapable of giving meaning and
significance to her marriage. The trial court thus declared the marriage between petitioner and
respondent null and void.

Shortly before the trial court rendered its decision, the Metropolitan Tribunal of the Archdiocese of
Manila annulled the Catholic marriage of the parties, on the ground of lack of due discretion on the
part of the parties.

The appellate court reversed the RTC’s judgment. While conceding that respondent may not have
been completely honest with petitioner, the Court of Appeals nevertheless held that the totality of
the evidence presented was insufficient to establish respondent’s psychological incapacity.

Issue:

Whether the state of facts as presented by petitioner sufficiently meets the standards set for the
declaration of nullity of a marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code.

Held:

Yes, the case sufficiently meet the Molina Guidelines. Molina established the guidelines presently
recognized in the judicial disposition of petitions for nullity under Article 36. The Court has
consistently applied Molina since its promulgation in 1997, and the guidelines therein operate as the
general rules. The notion that psychological incapacity pertains to the inability to understand the
obligations of marriage, as opposed to a mere inability to comply with them, was further affirmed in
the Molina66 case. Therein, the Court, through then Justice (now Chief Justice) Panganiban observed
that “[t]he evidence [to establish psychological incapacity] must convince the court that the parties,
or one of them, was mentally or psychically ill to such extent that the person could not have known
the obligations he was assuming, or knowing them, could not have given valid assumption thereto.”

Article 36 of the Family Code states that “[a] marriage contracted by any party who, at the time of the
celebration, was psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential marital obligations of
marriage, shall likewise be void even if such incapacity becomes manifest only after its
solemnization.”

Therefore, marriage between petitioner and respondent is NULL and VOID under Article 36 of the
Family Code.

Yes) Republic vs. Molina established the guidelines presently recognized in the judicial disposition of
petitions for nullity under Article 36. The Court has consistently applied Molina since its
promulgation in 1997, and the guidelines therein operate as the general rules. They warrant citation
in full:
1) The burden of proof to show the nullity of the marriage belongs to the plaintiff. Any doubt
should be resolved in favor of the existence and continuation of the marriage and against its
dissolution and nullity.
2) The root cause of the psychological incapacity must be: (a) medically or clinically identified,
(b) alleged in the complaint, (c) sufficiently proven by experts and (d) clearly explained in the
decision.
3) The incapacity must be proven to be existing at "the time of the celebration" of the marriage.
4) Such incapacity must also be shown to be medically or clinically permanent or incurable.
5) Such illness must be grave enough to bring about the disability of the party to assume the
essential obligations of marriage.
6) The essential marital obligations must be those embraced by Articles 68 up to 71 of the
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 children.
7) Interpretations given by the National Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal of the Catholic Church
in the Philippines, while not controlling or decisive, should be given great respect by our
courts.

Petitioner had sufficiently overcome his burden in proving the psychological incapacity of his spouse.
Apart from his own testimony, he presented witnesses who corroborated his allegations on his wife's
behavior, and certifications from Blackgold Records and the Philippine Village Hotel Pavillon which
disputed respondent's claims pertinent to her alleged singing career. He also presented two expert
witnesses from the field of psychology who testified that the aberrant behavior of respondent was
tantamount to psychological incapacity. The root cause of respondent's psychological incapacity has
been medically or clinically identified, alleged in the complaint, sufficiently proven by experts, and
clearly explained in the trial court's decision. The initiatory complaint alleged that respondent, from
the start, had exhibited unusual and abnormal behavior "of peren[n]ially telling lies, fabricating
ridiculous stories, and inventing personalities and situations," of writing letters to petitioner using
fictitious names, and of lying about her actual occupation, income, educational attainment, and family
background, among others.

Respondent's psychological incapacity was established to have clearly existed at the time of and even
before the celebration of marriage. She fabricated friends and made up letters from fictitious
characters well before she married petitioner. he gravity of respondent's psychological incapacity is
sufficient to prove her disability to assume the essential obligations of marriage. It is immediately
discernible that the parties had shared only a little over a year of cohabitation before the exasperated
petitioner left his wife. Whatever such circumstance speaks of the degree of tolerance of petitioner,
it likewise supports the belief that respondent's psychological incapacity, as borne by the record, was
so grave in extent that any prolonged marital life was dubitable. Respondent is evidently unable to
comply with the essential marital obligations as embraced by Articles 68 to 71 of the Family Code.
Article 68, in particular, enjoins the spouses to live together, observe mutual love, respect and fidelity,
and render mutual help and support. As noted by the trial court, it is difficult to see how an inveterate
pathological liar would be able to commit to the basic tenets of relationship between spouses based
on love, trust and respect.
The Court of Appeals clearly erred when it failed to take into consideration the fact that the marriage
of the parties was annulled by the Catholic Church. The appellate court apparently deemed this detail
totally inconsequential as no reference was made to it anywhere in the assailed decision despite
petitioner's efforts to bring the matter to its attention.Such deliberate ignorance is in contravention
of Molina, which held that interpretations given by the National Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal of
the Catholic Church in the Philippines, while not controlling or decisive, should be given great respect
by our courts.
The final point of contention is the requirement in Molina that such psychological incapacity be
shown to be medically or clinically permanent or incurable. Petitioner points out that one month
after he and his wife initially separated, he returned to her, desiring to make their marriage work.
However, respondent's aberrant behavior remained unchanged, as she continued to lie, fabricate
stories, and maintained her excessive jealousy. From this fact, he draws the conclusion that
respondent's condition is incurable.

3.

Procedural History
A Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assailing the March 16, 2000
Decision and May 22, 2000 Resolutionof the Court of Appeals which was dismissed for lack of merit.

Facts:

Leni Choa and Alfonso Choa were married and out of this union, two children were born. Alfonso
Choa filed before the RTC a complaint for annulment of his marriage to Leni Choabased on
the alleged psychological incapacity of the latter. Instead of offering any objection to it, Leni filed a
Motion to Dismiss (Demurrer of Evidence). The RTC denied Leni’s Demurrer to Evidence. The RTC
held that Alfonso was able to establish quantum of evidence that Leni should controvert. Thus, Leni
elevated the case to the CA by way of Petition for Certiorari. The CA ruled that the denial of the
demurrer was merely interlocutory, hence certiorari under Rule 65 of the Ruled of Court was not
available. The proper remedy was for the defense to present evidence; and if an unfavorable decision
was handed down later, to take an appeal therefrom.

Issue:

1) Whether or not the certiorari is available to correct an order denying a demurrer to evidence.
2) Whetheror not the RTC commit grave abuse of discretion by violating or ignoring the applicable
law and jurisprudence.

Held:

1) Yes. In general interlocutory orders are neither appealable nor subject to certiorari proceedings but
this rule is not absolute (Tadeo v. People). The Court declared that appeal – not certiorari – in due time
was indeed the proper remedy provided that there was no grave abuse of discretion or excess of
jurisdiction or oppressive exercise of judicial authority. Section 1 of Rule 65 reads as follows: “Sec. 1.
Petition for certiorari -- When any tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial
functions has acted without or in excess of its or his jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, and there is no appeal, nor any plain, speedy, and adequate
remedy in the ordinary course of law, a person aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition in the
proper court, alleging the facts with certainty and praying that judgment be rendered annulling or
modifying the proceedings of such tribunal, board or officer, and granting such incidental reliefs as law
and justice may require.”

2) Yes. The Court is mindful of the ruling that a medical examination is not a conditio sine qua non to
a finding of psychological incapacity, so long as the totality of evidence presented is enough to
establish the incapacity adequately. However, in the present case, the totality of evidence presented by
respondent was completely insufficient to sustain a finding of psychological incapacity -- more so
without any medical, psychiatric or psychological examination. The trial court should have carefully
studied and assessed the evidence presented by respondent and taken into account the prevailing
jurisprudence on the matter. It could then have easily concluded, as concluded in the case, that it was
useless to proceed further with the tedious process of hearing contravening proof. His evidence was
obviously, grossly and clearly insufficient to support a declaration of nullity of marriage based on
psychological incapacity. Withal, it was grave abuse of discretion for the RTC to deny the Demurrer
and to violate or ignore this Court’s rulings in point. Indeed, continuing the process of litigation would
have been a total waste of time and money for the parties and an unwelcome imposition on the trial
court’s docket. The Court ruled that a lower court or tribunal commits abuse of discretion when it
violates the Constitution, the law, or existing jurisprudence. Any decision, order or resolution of a
lower court tantamount to overruling a judicial pronouncement of the highest Court is unmistakably a
very grave abuse of discretion.

4. DAVID B. DEDEL, petitioner, -versus- COURT OF APPEALS and SHARON L. CORPUZ-

DEDEL a.k.a. JANE IBRAHIM, respondents.

GR No. 151867, FIRST DIVISION, 29 January 2004, YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

Respondent’s sexual infidelity or perversion and abandonment do not by themselves constitute
psychological incapacity within the contemplation of the Family Code. Neither could her emotional
immaturity and irresponsibility be equated with psychological incapacity. It must be shown that these
acts are manifestations of a disordered personality which make her completely unable to discharge the
essential obligations of the marital state, not merely due to her youth, immaturity or sexual
promiscuity.

FACTS:

David Dedel and Sharon Corpuz-Dedel started out as acquaintances and eventually led to the exchange
of their marital vows. Their union produced four children.

David alleged that during the marriage, Sharon turned out to be an irresponsible and immature wife and
mother. She had extra-marital affairs with several men. Despite undergoing a psychiatric treatment,
Sharon did not stop her illicit relationship with one Mustafa Ibrahim, a Jordanian national whom she
married and had two children. When Mustafa left the country, Sharon returned to David bringing along
her two children by Mustafa. Thereafter, Sharon abandoned David and joined Mustafa in Jordan with
their two children.

A psychological evaluation on Sharon showed that Such immaturity and irresponsibility in handling the
marriage like her repeated acts of infidelity and abandonment of her family are indications of Anti
Social Personality Disorder amounting to psychological incapacity to perform the essential obligations
of marriage.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the aberrant sexual behavior of Sharon falls within psychological incapacity under the
Family Code.

(NO)

RULING:

A personality disorder is a very complex and elusive phenomenon which defies easy analysis and
definition. In this case, respondent's sexual infidelity can hardly qualify as being mentally or
psychically ill to such an extent that she could not have known the obligations she was assuming, or
knowing them, could not have given a valid assumption thereof. Sharon’s promiscuity did not exist
prior to or at the inception of the marriage. What is, in fact, disclosed by the records is a blissful marital
union at its celebration, later armed in church rites, and which produced four children.

Respondent’s sexual infidelity or perversion and abandonment do not by themselves constitute

psychological incapacity within the contemplation of the Family Code. Neither could her emotional
immaturity and irresponsibility be equated with psychological incapacity. It must be shown that these
acts are manifestations of a disordered personality which make her completely unable to discharge the
essential obligations of the marital state, not merely due to her youth, immaturity or sexual
promiscuity.

5. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner -versus- LOLITA QUINTERO-HAMANO,

respondent. GR No. 149498, THIRD DIVISION, 20 May 2004, CORONA, J.
The guidelines incorporate the three basic requirements earlier mandated by the Court in Santos v. CA:
"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. In fact, the root cause may be “medically or clinically
identified.” Toshio’s act of abandonment was doubtlessly irresponsible, but it was never alleged nor
proven to be due to some kind of psychological illness.
FACTS:
Lolita Quintero-Hamano filed a complaint for declaration of nullity of her marriage to her husband
Toshio Hamano, a Japanese national, on the ground of psychological incapacity, which incapacity
became manifest only after the celebration of their marriage.
Lolita alleged that one month after their marriage, Toshio returned to Japan and promised to return
in their conjugal home by Christmas to celebrate the holidays with their family. After sending money
to Lolita for two months, Toshio stopped giving financial support. She wrote him several times, but
he never responded.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Lolita was able to prove the psychological incapacity of Toshio to perform his marital
obligations.

(NO)
RULING:
The guidelines incorporate the three basic requirements earlier mandated by the Court in Santos v.
CA: "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. In fact, the root cause may be “medically or clinically
identified.” What is important is the presence of evidence that can adequately establish the party’s
psychological condition. Toshio’s act of abandonment was doubtlessly irresponsible, but it was never
alleged nor proven to be due to some kind of psychological illness. After respondent testified on how
Toshio abandoned his family, no other evidence was presented showing that his behavior was caused
by a psychological disorder. Although, as a rule, there was no need for an actual medical examination,
it would have greatly helped respondent’s case had she presented evidence that medically or clinically
identified his illness. As we ruled in Molina, it is not enough to prove that a spouse failed to meet his
responsibility and duty as a married person; it is essential that he must be shown to be incapable of
doing so due to some psychological, not physical, illness.

6. .JUANITA CARATING-SIAYNGCO, Petitioner, -versus- MANUEL SIAYNGCO,

Respondent

G.R. No. 158896, SECOND DIVISION, October 27, 2004, CARPIO, J.

"Psychological incapacity" under Article 36 of the Family Code is not meant to comprehend all
possible cases of psychoses. It should refer, rather, to no less than a mental (not physical) incapacity
that causes a party to be truly incognitive of the basic marital covenants that concomitantly must be
assumed and discharged by the parties to the marriage. Psychological incapacity must be characterized
by (a) gravity, (b) juridical antecedence, and (c) incurability.

FACTS:

Petitioner and respondent Manuel were married at civil rites on 27 June 1973 and before the Catholic
Church on 11 August 1973. After discovering that they could not have a child of their own, the couple
decided to adopt a baby boy in 1977, who they named Jeremy.

On 25 September 1997, or after twenty-four years of married life together, respondent Manuel filed for
the declaration of its nullity on the ground of psychological incapacity of petitioner Juanita. He alleged
that all throughout their marriage, his wife exhibited an over domineering and selfish attitude towards
him which was exacerbated by her extremely volatile and bellicose nature; that she incessantly
complained about almost everything and anyone connected with him like his elderly parents, the staff
in his office and anything not of her liking like the physical arrangement, tables, chairs, wastebaskets in
his office and with other trivial matters; that she showed no respect or regard at all for the prestige and
high position of his office as judge of the Municipal Trial Court; that she would yell and scream at him
and throw objects around the house within the hearing of their neighbors; that she cared even less about
his professional advancement as she did not even give him moral support and encouragement; that her
psychological incapacity arose before marriage, rooted in her deep-seated resentment and
vindictiveness for what she perceived as lack of love and appreciation from her own parents since
childhood and that such incapacity is permanent and incurable and, even if treatment could be
attempted, it will involve time and expense beyond the emotional and physical capacity of the parties;
and that he endured and suffered through his turbulent and loveless marriage to her for twenty-two (22)
years.

In her Answer, petitioner Juanita alleged that respondent Manuel is still living with her at their conjugal
home in Malolos, Bulacan; that he invented malicious stories against her so that he could be free to
marry his paramour; that she is a loving wife and mother; that it was respondent Manuel who was
remiss in his marital and family obligations; that she supported respondent Manuel in all his endeavors
despite his philandering; that she was raised in a real happy family and had a happy childhood contrary
to what was stated in the complaint.

Respondent Manuel presented Dr. Valentina Garcia whose professional qualifications as a psychiatrist
were admitted by petitioner Juanita. From her psychiatric evaluation, Dr. Garcia concluded that Manuel
de Jesus Siayngco and Juanita Victoria Carating-Siayngco contributed to the marital collapse. There is
a partner relational problem which affected their capacity to sustain the marital bond with love, support
and understanding.

The partner relational problem (coded V61/10 in the Fourth Edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical
Manual of Mental Disorders or DSM IV) is secondary to the psychopathology of both spouses. Manuel
and Juanita had engaged themselves in a defective communication pattern which is characteristically
negative and deformed. This affected their competence to maintain the love and respect that they
should give to each other.

Dr. Eduardo Maaba, whose expertise as a psychiatrist was admitted by respondent Manuel, testified
that he conducted a psychiatric evaluation on petitioner Juanita, the results of which were embodied in
his report. Said report stated that the psychiatric evaluation found the respondent to be psychologically
capacitated to comply with the basic and essential obligations of marriage.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in declaring the marriage of petitioner and respondent void

(YES)

RULING

We have here a case of a husband who is constantly embarrassed by his wife's outbursts and
overbearing ways, who finds his wife's obsession with cleanliness and the tight reign on his wallet
"irritants" and who is wounded by her lack of support and respect for his person and his position as a
Judge. In our book, however, these inadequacies of petitioner which led respondent to file a case
against her do not amount to psychological incapacity to comply with the essential marital obligations.

"Psychological incapacity" under Article 36 of the Family Code is not meant to comprehend all
possible cases of psychoses. It should refer, rather, to no less than a mental (not physical) incapacity
that causes a party to be truly incognitive of the basic marital covenants that concomitantly must be
assumed and discharged by the parties to the marriage. Psychological incapacity must be characterized
by (a) gravity, (b) juridical antecedence, and (c) incurability.

What emerges from the psychological report of Dr. Garcia as well as from the testimonies of the parties
and their witnesses is that the only essential marital obligation which respondent Manuel was not able
to fulfill, if any, is the obligation of fidelity.Sexual infidelity, per se, however, does not constitute
psychological incapacity within the contemplation of the Family Code. An unsatisfactory marriage,
however, is not a null and void marriage. Mere showing of "irreconcilable differences" and "conflicting
personalities" in no wise constitutes psychological incapacity.
7.

REPUBLIC v. RORIDEL OLAVIANO MOLINA, GR No. 108763, 1997-02-13

Facts:

This case was commenced on August 16, 1990 with the filing by respondent Roridel O. Molina of a
verified petition for declaration of nullity of her marriage to Reynaldo Molina. the petition alleged that
Roridel and Reynaldo were married on April 14, 1985... that a son, Andre O. Molina was born... that
after a year of marriage, Reynaldo showed signs of "immaturity and irresponsibility" as a husband and
a father since he preferred to spend more time with his peers and friends... that he depended on his
parents for aid and assistance, and was never honest with his wife in regard to their finances, resulting
in frequent quarrels between them... that sometime in February 1986, Reynaldo was relieved of his job
in Manila, and since... then Roridel had been the sole breadwinner of the family... that in October 1986
the couple had a very intense quarrel, as a result of which their relationship was estranged; that in
March 1987, Roridel resigned from her job in Manila and went to live with her parents in Baguio
City... that a few weeks later, Reynaldo left Roridel and their child, and had since then abandoned
them... that Reynaldo had thus shown that he was psychologically incapable of complying with
essential marital obligations and was a highly immature and habitually quarrelsome... individual who
thought of himself as a king to be served... that it would be to the couple's best interest to have their
marriage declared null and void in order to free them from what appeared to be an incompatible
marriage from the start.

Reynaldo admitted that he and Roridel could no longer live together as husband and wife

Evidence for herein respondent wife consisted of her own testimony and that of her friends Rosemarie
Ventura and Maria Leonora Padilla as well as of Ruth G. Lalas, a social worker, and of Dr. Teresita
Hidalgo-Sison, a psychiatrist of the Baguio General Hospital and Medical Center. Reynaldo did not
present any evidence as he appeared only during the pre-trial conference.

Issues:

the Court of Appeals made an erroneous and incorrect interpretation of the phrase 'psychological
incapacity' (as provided under Art. 36 of the Family Code) and made an incorrect application thereof to
the facts of the case,

Ruling:

psychological incapacity should refer to no less than a mental (not physical) incapacity x x x and that
(t)here 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. This psychologic
condition must exist at the... time the marriage is celebrated.

On the other hand, in the present case, there is no clear showing to us that the psychological defect
spoken of is an incapacity. It appears to us to be more of a "difficulty," if not outright "refusal" or
"neglect" in the performance of some marital obligations. Mere showing of

"irreconciliable differences" and "conflicting personalities" in no wise constitutes psychological

incapacity. It is not enough to prove that the parties failed to meet their responsibilities and duties as
married persons; it is essential that they must be shown to be incapable... of doing so, due to some
psychological (not physical) illness.
From their submissions and the Court's own deliberations, the following guidelines in the interpretation
and application of Art. 36 of the Family Code are hereby handed down for the guidance of the bench
and the bar:

(1) The burden of proof to show the nullity of the marriage belongs to the plaintiff. Any doubt should
be resolved in favor of the existence and continuation of the marriage and against its dissolution and
nullity

(2) The root cause of the psychological incapacity must be (a) medically or clinically identified, (b)
alleged in the complaint, (c) sufficiently proven by experts and (d) clearly explained in the decision.

(3) The incapacity must be proven to be existing at "the time of the celebration" of the marriage.

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

(5) Such illness must be grave enough to bring about the disability of the party to assume the essential
obligations of marriage

(6) The essential marital obligations must be those embraced by Articles 68 up to 71 of the 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 children

(7) Interpretations given by the National Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal of the Catholic Church in the
Philippines,…

(8) The trial court must order the prosecuting attorney or fiscal and the Solicitor General to appear as
counsel for the state.

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The assailed Decision is REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
The marriage of Roridel Olaviano to Reynaldo Molina subsists and remains valid.

8.

Edward Kenneth Ngo Te vs Rowena Yu-Te

written by Howard

G. R. No. 161793 – 579 SCRA 193 – Civil Law – Family Code – Article 36: Psychological Incapacity
– Molina Case Merely a Guideline

Every case involving psychological incapacity must be resolved on a case-to-case basis

Note: This case relaxed the application of the Molina Guidelines

FACTS:

Edward Kenneth Ngo Te met Rowena Ong Gutierrez Yu in a Filipino-Chinese gathering in a school
campus. They did not have interest with each other at first but they developed a certain degree of
closeness due to the fact that they share the same angst with their families. In 1996, while still in
college, Rowena proposed to Kenneth that they should elope. Kenneth initially refused on the ground
that he was still young and jobless. But due to Rowena’s persistence Kenneth complied bringing with
him P80K. The money soon after disappeared and they found themselves forced to return to their
respective home. Subsequently, Rowena’s uncle brought the two before a court and had had them be
married. After marriage, Kenneth and Rowena stayed with her uncle’s house where Kenneth was
treated like a prisoner.

Meanwhile, Kenneth was advised by his dad to come home otherwise he will be disinherited. One
month later, Kenneth was able to escape and he was hidden from Rowena’s family. Kenneth later
contacted Rowena urging her to live with his parents instead. Rowena however suggested that he
should get his inheritance instead so that they could live together separately or just stay with her uncle.

Kenneth however was already disinherited. Upon knowing this, Rowena said that it is better if they live
separate lives from then on. Four years later, Kenneth filed a petition for annulment of his marriage
with Rowena. Rowena did not file an answer. The City Prosecutor, after investigation, submitted that
he cannot determine if there is collusion between the two parties. Eventually, the case was tried. The
opinion of an expert was sought wherein the psychologist subsequently ruled that both parties are
psychologically incapacitated. The said relationship between Kenneth and Rowena is said to be
undoubtedly in the wreck and weakly-founded. The break-up was caused by both parties’ unreadiness
to commitment and their young age. Kenneth was still in the state of finding his fate and fighting
boredom, while Rowena was still egocentrically involved with herself. The trial court ruled that the
marriage is void upon the findings of the expert psychologist. The Solicitor General (OSG) appealed
and the Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the OSG. The OSG claimed that the psychological
incapacity of both parties was not shown to be medically or clinically permanent or incurable (Molina
case). The clinical psychologist did not personally examine Rowena, and relied only on the
information provided by Kenneth. Further, the psychological incapacity was not shown to be attended
by gravity, juridical antecedence and incurability. All these were requirements set forth in the Molina
case to be followed as guidelines.

ISSUE: Whether or not the expert opinion of the psychologist should be admitted despite the
guidelines established in the landmark case of Molina.

HELD: Yes, such is possible. The Supreme Court ruled that admittedly, the SC may have
inappropriately imposed a set of rigid rules in ascertaining Psychological Incapacity in the Molina case.
So much so that the subsequent cases after Molina were ruled accordingly to the doctrine set therein.
And that there is not much regard for the law’s clear intention that each case is to be treated differently,
as “courts should interpret the provision on a case-to-case basis; guided by experience, the findings of
experts and researchers in psychological disciplines, and by decisions of church tribunals.” The SC
however is not abandoning the Molina guidelines, the SC merely reemphasized that there is need to
emphasize other perspectives as well which should govern the disposition of petitions for declaration of
nullity under Article 36 such as in the case at bar. The principle that each case must be judged, not on
the basis of a priori assumptions, predilections or generalizations but according to its own facts. And, to
repeat for emphasis, courts should interpret the provision on a case-to-case basis; guided by experience,
the findings of experts and researchers in psychological disciplines, and by decisions of church
tribunals.

The SC then ruled that the marriage of Kenneth and Rowena is null and void due to both parties’
psychological disorder as evidenced by the finding of the expert psychologist. Both parties being
afflicted with grave, severe and incurable psychological incapacity. Kenneth cannot assume the
essential marital obligations of living together, observing love, respect and fidelity and rendering help
and support, for he is unable to make everyday decisions without advice from others. He is too
dependent on others. Rowena cannot perform the essential marital obligations as well due to her
intolerance and impulsiveness.

9.

Facts:

Marietta C. Azcueta and Rodolfo B. Azcueta married on July 24, 1993, at St. Anthony of Padua
Church in Antipolo City.

Marietta was 23 years old and Rodolfo was 28 at the time of marriage.
They separated in 1997 after four years of marriage and had no children.

On March 2, 2002, Marietta filed a petition for the declaration of absolute nullity of their marriage
under Article 36 of the Family Code with the RTC of Antipolo City.

Rodolfo failed to appear and file an answer despite being served with summons.

The City Prosecutor's investigation found no collusion between the parties.

The Office of the Solicitor General entered its appearance for the Republic of the Philippines.

Marietta claimed Rodolfo was psychologically incapacitated to fulfill marital obligations, citing
emotional immaturity, irresponsibility, dependency on his mother, lack of employment, financial
dependency, physical violence, unsatisfactory sexual relationship, and refusal to have children.

Witnesses, including Rodolfo's cousin and psychiatrist Dr. Cecilia Villegas, supported Marietta's
claims. Dr. Villegas diagnosed Rodolfo with Dependent Personality Disorder.

The RTC declared the marriage null and void ab initio on October 25, 2004.

The Solicitor General appealed the decision, arguing the psychiatric report was based solely on
Marietta's information and lacked proof of psychological defects at the inception of the marriage.

The CA reversed the RTC's decision, stating Marietta failed to prove Rodolfo's psychological
incapacity.

Marietta filed a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court.

Issue:

Whether the totality of the evidence presented is adequate to sustain a finding that Rodolfo is
psychologically incapacitated to comply with his essential marital obligations.

Ruling:

The Supreme Court granted the petition and reinstated the RTC's Amended Decision dated July 19,
2005, declaring the marriage between Marietta and Rodolfo null and void ab initio.

Ratio:

The Supreme Court found Marietta successfully proved Rodolfo's psychological incapacity.

There is no requirement for the respondent spouse to be personally examined by a physician or

psychologist; the totality of evidence matters.

Marietta's testimony was corroborated by a close relative of Rodolfo and expert testimony from Dr.
Villegas.

Dr. Villegas diagnosed Rodolfo with Dependent Personality Disorder, linking it to his upbringing and
family life.

The disorder was severe, permanent, and incurable, rendering Rodolfo unable to fulfill his marital
obligations.

Rodolfo's psychological incapacity existed at the time of and before the marriage.
The CA's reasoning that Rodolfo's behavior was due to immaturity or youth was speculative and
unsupported by evidence.

The Supreme Court concluded that the declaration of nullity of the marriage was proper under Article
36 of the Family Code, as Rodolfo's psychological incapacity was grave, permanent, and rendered him
unable to assume the essential obligations of marriage.

AZCUETA VS REPUBLICG.R. NO. 180668MAY 26, 2009

FACTS:

Petitioner Marietta C. Azcueta and Rodolfo Azcueta got married on July 24, 1993. They separated after
four years ofmarriage. On March 2, 2002, petitioner filed with RTC- Antipolo City a petition for
declaration of absolute nullity ofmarriage under Article 36 of the Family Code. She claimed that
Rodolfo was emotionally immature, irresponsible, violentand always dependent on his mother for all
his decisions and attitudes in life

During the trial, petitioner presented Rodolfo’s first cousin, Florida de Ramos, as a witness who
testified that Rodolfo is

indeed dependent on his mother for all his decisions. Petitioner likewise presented Dr. Cecilia Villegas,
a psychiatrist, whotestified that petitioner is mature, independent, very responsible, focused and has
direction and ambition in life. Rodolfoon the other hand, was suffering from Dependent Personality
Disorder associated with severe inadequacy related tomasculine strivings.RTC rendered declared the
marriage void ab initio. CA reversed the RTC decision. Petitioner elevated the case to theSupreme
Court.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the marriage is void ab initio on the ground of psychological incapacity?

(Whether the totality of the evidence presented is adequate to sustain a finding that Rodolfo is
psychologically incapacitated to comply with his essential marital obligations.)

RULING:

Yes. There was sufficient compliance with Molina to warrant the annulment of the parties’ marriage
under Article 36.

First, petitioner successfully discharged her burden to prove the psychological incapacity of her
husband.

Second, the root cause of Rodolfo’s psychological incapacity has been medically or clinically
identified, alleged in the petition, sufficiently proven by expert testimony, and clearly explained in the
trial court’s decision.

Third, Rodolfo’s psychological incapacity was established to have clearly existed at the time of and
even before the celebration of marriage. These manifestations of Rodolfo’s dependent personality
disorder must have existed even prior to the marriage being rooted in his early development and a by-
product of his upbringing and family life.

Fourth, Rodolfo’s psychological incapacity has been shown to be sufficiently grave, so as to render
him unable to assume the essential obligations of marriage.
Fifth , Rodolfo is evidently unable to comply with the essential marital obligations embodied in
Articles 68 to 71 of the Family Code. As noted by the trial court, as a result of Rodolfo’s dependent
personality disorder, he cannot make his own decisions and cannot fulfill his responsibilities as a
husband. Rodolfo plainly failed to fulfill the marital obligations to live together,observe mutual love,
respect, support under Article 68. Indeed, one who is unable to support himself, much less a wife;one
who cannot independently make decisions regarding even the most basic and ordinary matters that
spouses face everyday; one who cannot contribute to the material, physical and emotional well-being of
his spouse is psychologically incapacitated to comply with the marital obligations within the meaning
of Article 36.

Sixth, the incurability of Rodolfo’s condition which has been deeply ingrained in his system since his
early years was supported by evidence and duly explained by the expert witness.

This brings to mind the following pronouncement in Te:

In dissolving marital bonds on account of either party’s psychological incapacity, the Court is not
demolishing the foundation of families, but it is actually protecting the sanctity of marriage, because it
refuses to allow a person afflictedwith a psychological disorder, who cannot comply with or assume the
essential marital obligations, from remaining in thatsacred bond. It may be stressed that the infliction of
physical violence, constitutional indolence or laziness, drugdependence or addiction, and psychosexual
anomaly are manifestations of a sociopathic personality anomaly. Let it benoted that in Article 36,
there is no marriage to speak of in the first place, as the same is void from the very beginning.
Toindulge in imagery, the declaration of nullity under Article 36 will simply provide a decent burial to
a stillborn marriage

10.

TOPIC: Psychological Incapacity

FACTS:

Silvino and May got married on October 3, 1984. They were blessed with four children. Silvino
claimed that, during their marriage, he observed that May had several manifestations of a negative
marital behavior. He described her as immature, irresponsible and carefree. Her infidelity,
negligence and nocturnal activities, he claimed, characterized their marital relations. Sometime in
September 1995, May arrived home at 4:00 o’clock in the morning. Her excuse was that she had
watched a video program in a neighboring town, but admitted later to have slept with her Palestinian
boyfriend in a hotel. Silvino tried to persuade her to be conscientious of her duties as wife and mother.
His pleas were ignored. His persuasions would often lead to altercations or physical violence.

The couple started a new life. A few months after, however, he realized that their marriage was
hopeless. May was back again to her old ways. This was demonstrated when Silvino arrived home one
day and learned that she was nowhere to be found. He searched for her and found her in a nearby
apartment drinking beer with a male lover. Later, May confessed that she had no more love for
him. They then lived separately. Silvino referred the matter to Dr. Tina Nicdao-Basilio for
psychological evaluation. The psychologist certified that May was psychologically incapacitated to
perform her essential marital obligations; On October 22, 1999, the RTC declared the marriage of
Silvino and May null and void. Its findings were based on the Psychological Evaluation Report of
Dr. Tina Nicdao-Basilio. The Court of Appeals reversed the RTC decision. It ruled that private
respondent’s alleged sexual infidelity, emotional immaturity and irresponsibility do not constitute
psychological incapacity within the contemplation of the Family Code.

ISSUE: Whether or not the private respondent is psychologically incapacitated to respond to comply
with the essential obligations of marriage.

RULING: NO. The Court view that petitioner’s evidence failed to establish respondent May’s
psychological incapacity characterized by gravity, juridical antecedence and incurability. The facts of
petitioner were not sufficient to prove the root cause, gravity and incurability of private
respondent’s condition. Petitioner's testimony did not prove the root cause, gravity and incurability of
private respondent’s condition. Even Dr. Nicdao-Basilio failed to show the root cause of her
psychological incapacity. The root cause of the psychological incapacity must be identified as a
psychological illness, its incapacitating nature fully explained and established by the totality of
the evidence presented during trial. More importantly, the acts of private respondent do not even rise
to the level of the "psychological incapacity" that the law requires. Private respondent's act of
living an adulterous life cannot automatically be equated with a psychological disorder, especially
when no specific evidence was shown that promiscuity was a trait already existing at the inception of
marriage. Petitioner must be able to establish that respondent's unfaithfulness is a manifestation of a
disordered personality, which makes her completely unable to discharge the essential obligations of the
marital state.

11.

G.R. No. 165321 August 3, 2010

RICARDO P. TORING, Petitioner, vs. TERESITA M. TORING and REPUBLIC OF THE

PHILIPPINES, Respondents

FACTS:

Ricardo and Teresita were married and had 3 children. Ricardo then filed a petition for annulment
based on Teresita psychological incapacity. He alleged that Teresita was an adulteress and a
squanderer. The doctor who performed the psychological evaluation conducted on Ricardo and their
son, Richardson, testified that the major factor that contributed to the demise of the marriage is Teresita
Narcissistic Personality Disorder that rendered her incapable to fulfill her essential marital obligations.

ISSUE: Is there sufficient basis to declare Ricardo and Teresita marriage void due to
psychological incapacity?

HELD: No. Psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code must be characterized by (a)
gravity, (b) juridical antecedence, and (c) incurability, to be sufficient basis to annul a marriage. The
psychological incapacity should refer to "no less than a mental (not physical) incapacity that causes a
party to be truly incognitive of the basic marital covenants that concomitantly must be assumed and
discharged by the parties to the marriage." It is not acceptable that a mere narration of the statements of
Ricardo and Richardson, coupled with the results of the psychological tests administered only on
Ricardo, without more, already constitutes sufficient basis for the conclusion that Teresita suffered
from Narcissistic Personality Disorder.

12.

H. R. No. 185286 August 18, 2010MA. SOCORRO CAMACHO-REYES,Petitioner,vs.RAMON

REYES,Respondent.

Facts:

Petitioner Maria Socorro Camacho-Reyes and Ramon Reyesgot married on December 5, 1976 when
the petitioner was already five months pregnant. The newlywedslived with Ramon’s family and all
their living expenses were shouldered by Ramon’s parents. Salary of the spouses was spent solely for
the personal expenses of each. Initially, Ramon gave Socorro a monthly allowance of P1,500 from his
salary. When their first child was born on March 22, 1977, financial difficulties started. A year into
their marriage, the monthly allowance stopped. Ramon resigned from his job in their family business
and decided to venture in different businesses, which took him away from his family. Ramon however
did not exert any effort to communicate with his family, even after Socorro gave birth to their third
child. As with Ramon’s business ventures, all did not succeed and added to the trail of debt. Not
surprisingly, the relationship of the parties deteriorated.
In 1996, Socorro confirmed that Ramon was having an extra marital affair, and soon realized that
Ramon was not only unable to provide financially for their family, but he was, more importantly,
remiss in his obligation to remain faithful to her and their family. One last episode that sealed the fate
of the parties’ marriage was a surgical operation on Socorro for the removal of a cyst. Although his
wife was about to be operated on, Ramon remained unconcerned and unattentive.

In an attempt to salvage what was left in their marriage, Socorro approach Ramon’s siblings, who in
turn invited the parties to counseling sessions which still did not improve the relationship. Adolfo,
Ramon’s sibling, also brought Ramon to Dr. Natividad A. Dayan for a psychological assessment to
"determine benchmarks of current psychological functioning." Ramon resisted and did not continue
with the clinical psychologist’s recommendation to undergo psychotherapy. Socorro then told Ramon
to move out of their house. The separation did not improve the relationship of the parties and between
Ramon and the children, thus the petition for declaration of nullity of her marriage was file before the
RTC alleging the latter’s psychological incapacity to fulfill the essential marital obligations under
Article 36 of the Family Code.This petition was granted by the RTC. A motion for reconsideration was
filed by Ramon before the RTC but denied the same. Ramon then appealed to the Court of Appeals,
which on its decision on May 23, 2007, stated that the decision of RTC was reversed and set aside
despite the testimony of experts regarding Ramon’s condition. Socorro then appealed to the Supreme
Court by reason that the Court of Appeals erred in not ruling that both parties are psychologically
incapacitated to comply with the essential obligations of the marriage and that the psychological
incapacity was established in court by a preponderance of evidence.Issue:Whether or not the marriage
between the parties is void ab initio on the ground of both parties’ psychological incapacity, as
provided in Article 36 of the Family Code

.Held:

The Supreme Court held that the decision of the Court of Appeals is reversed. The decision of the
Regional Trial Court, Branch 89, Quezon City in Civil Case No. Q-01-44854 declaring the marriage
between petitioner and respondent NULL and VOID under Article 36 of the Family Code is
REINSTATED.

The appellate court is mistaken in declaring that the psychological incapacity of Ramon is not
incurable. A recommendation of therapy does not automatically imply curability. In general,
recommendations for therapy are given by clinical psychologists, or even psychiatrists, to manage
behavior. In Kaplan and Saddock’s textbook entitled Synopsis of Psychiatry, treatment, ranging from
psychotherapy to pharmacotherapy, for all the listed kinds of personality disorders are recommended.
In short, Dr. Dayan’s recommendation that respondent should undergo therapy does not necessarily
negate the finding that respondent’s psychological incapacity is incurable.Moreover, Dr. Dayan, during
her testimony, categorically declared that respondent is psychologically incapacitated to perform the
essential marital obligations. As aptly stated by Justice Romero in her separate opinion in the
ubiquitously cited case of Republic v. Court of Appeals & Molina: The professional opinion of a
psychological expert became increasingly important in such cases. Data about the person’s entire life,
both before and after the ceremony, were presented to these experts and they were asked to give
professional opinions about a party’s mental capacity at the time of the wedding.

13.

G. R. No. 178741: January 17,2011 ROSALINO L. MARABLE, Petitioner, vs. MYRNA F.

MARABLE, Respondent. VILLARAMA, JR., J:

FACTS:

Petitioner seeks the declaration of nullity of his marriage with respondent based on his psychological
incapacity. The marriage between petitioner and respondent was at first smooth, but turned sour shortly
after they got married. They fought frequently, which got worse when their business ventures were
failing and had financial trouble. Another factor that lead to the escalation of their bickering was that
their children were spoiled by petitioner, and that such made the children unsociable. Petitioner
eventually had a short-lived affair with another woman, which lead to even more fighting. Petitioner
eventually left respondent, and filed for a declaration of nullity of marriage due to psychological
incapacity. In court, petitioner presented the findings of a specialist, who declared petitioner was
psychologically incapacitated to fulfill his marriage obligations. The specialist said that petitioner
exhibited "antisocial behavior disorder" which made petitioner seek too much attention to himself, and
thus making him incapable of complying with his marriage obligations. It was stated that petitioner had
a father who was a womanizer, which lead petitioner to develop feelings of insecurity and need for
attention.

The trial court found such sufficient to declare the marriage of petitioner void. The Court of Appeals,
however, reversed said decision. It ruled that petitioner failed to substantiate his incapacity, to show
that the problem is incurable, and that it is rooted in a psychological problem present upon the
marriage.

ISSUE: Whether or not petitioner is psychologically incapacitated to perform his marriage obligations.

HELD: Petition is without merit. Civil Law: It is the burden of the party asserting the incapacity to
show that said disorder is rooted in a psychological problem and existed during the celebration of the
marriage. In the case at bar, petitioner failed to establish such. All the specialist did is to make general
assumptions that petitioner indeed has antisocial personality disorder. There are no factual bases to
support such a conclusion. In fact, the events leading to the filing of the suit says otherwise. The
marriage between the petitioner and respondent did have good moments. The petitioner is also a doting
father to his children, to the point of spoiling them even. This shows that petitioner is not the self-
centered attention seeker he is claiming to be. Even his history with his womanizing father does not
completely substantiate his claim. It can be seen that it was the general dissatisfaction with his marriage
that made him seek comfort elsewhere.

Hence, the petition to declare the marriage void for psychological incapacity must be denied.

14.

CHARACTERISTICS OF PSYCHOLOGICAL INCAPACITYYAMBAO vs. REPUBLIC OF

THE PHILIPPINESG.R. No. 184063January 24. 2011

Facts:

Petitioner Cynthia E. Yambao and respondent Patricio E. Yambao married on December 21,
1968. On July 11, 2003, after 35years of marriage and three children raised into
adulthood,petitioner filed a petition before the Regional Trial Court, Makati City, praying the
marriage be declared null and void due to her husband’s psychological incapacity
pursuant to Article 36 of the Family Code. Petitioner claims that her marriage is
marred by bickering, quarrels and recrimination because of the respondent’s difficulty to find a stable
job, failure in the family business, refusal to change children’s diapers while petitioner was still
recovering from her Caesarean operation, insecurity and jealousy towards acquaintances and
relatives, eating and sleeping all day, gambling,and threats to kill her. She then consulted with a
psychiatrist who concluded that the respondent suffered from Dependent Personality
Disorder. On February 9, 2007, the Regional Trial Court dismissed the petition for lack of
merit. On April 16, 2008, the Court of Appeals affirmed the Regional Trial Court’s
Decision;hence, this petition for review before the Supreme Court.

Issue:

Whether or not the totality of petitioner’s evidence establishes the respondent’s

psychological incapacity to perform the essential obligations of marriage.

Ruling:No. Though there are existing antecedents, assumptions,predilections, or

generalizations, this case must be treated uniquely, given its facts and idiosyncrasies. For
marriage to be annulled under Article 36 of the Family Code, it must be proven that
the incapacitated spouse manifested mental, not physical,incapacity causing him or her to be
truly incognitive of the basic marital covenants. The spouse must suffer from a mental incapacity so
severe that he is and becomes unaware of his marital and familial obligations.
Psychological incapacity must be judged according to: (a)gravity, (b)juridical antecedence, and (c)
incurability.

Article 36 considers incapacity or inability to take cognizance of and to assume basic marital
obligations as totally different from mere difficulty, refusal, neglect or ill will in the
performance of marital obligations. Incapacity is defined as:

(a) true inability to commit oneself to the essentials of marriage;

(b) this inability to commit oneself must refer to the essential obligations of marriage: the conjugal act,
the community of life and love, the rendering of mutual help, the procreation and education of
offspring; and
(c) the inability must be tantamount to a psychological abnormality.

All marriages go through “ bickerings, quarrels and recrimination” and rough patches. In this
case, the respondent may not be the ideal husband for petitioner’s exacting standards but
they have gone through 35 years of marriage and have raised 3children into adulthood
“without any major parenting problems”.Moreover, respondent never committed infidelity
or physically abused the petitioner or their children. These facts do not prove psychological
incapacity.

chrome-extension://kdpelmjpfafjppnhbloffcjpeomlnpah/https://www.ustcivillaw.com/wp-content/uploads/
2021/08/Persons-and-Family-Relations_HVNj62YQuGoFTpNVUVNb.pdf