Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Doctrines - Annulment Cases 2010-13
Doctrines - Annulment Cases 2010-13
Doctrines - Annulment Cases 2010-13
Encelan
G.R. No. 170022
January 9, 2013
The Supreme Court has repeatedly stressed that
psychological incapacity contemplates downright
incapacity or inability to take cognizance of and to
assume the basic marital obligations not merely the
refusal, neglect or difficulty, much less ill will, on the
part of the errant spouse.Article 36 of the Family Code
governs psychological incapacity as a ground for declaration
of nullity of marriage. It provides 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. In interpreting this provision, the Court has
repeatedly
stressed
that
psychological
incapacity
contemplates downright incapacity or inability to take
cognizance of and to assume the basic marital
obligations not merely the refusal, neglect or difficulty,
much less ill will, on the part of the errant spouse. The
plaintiff bears the burden of proving the juridical
antecedence (i.e., the existence at the time of the
celebration of marriage), gravity and incurability of the
condition of the errant spouse.
Sexual infidelity and abandonment of the
conjugal dwelling, even if true, do not necessarily
constitute psychological incapacity; these are simply
grounds for legal separation.Sexual infidelity and
abandonment of the conjugal dwelling, even if true, do not
necessarily constitute psychological incapacity; these are
simply grounds for legal separation. To constitute
psychological incapacity, it must be shown that the
unfaithfulness and abandonment are manifestations of a
disordered personality that completely prevented the erring
spouse from discharging the essential marital obligations. No
evidence on record exists to support Cesars allegation that
Lolitas infidelity and abandonment were manifestations of
any psychological illness.
Aside from the time element involved, a wifes
psychological fitness as a spouse cannot simply be
equated with her professional/work relationship;
workplace obligations and responsibilities are poles
apart
from
their
marital
counterparts.Cesar
mistakenly relied on Dr. Flores psychological evaluation
report on Lolita to prove her alleged psychological
incapacity. The psychological evaluation, in fact, established
that Lolita did not suffer from any major psychiatric illness.
Dr. Flores observation on Lolitas interpersonal problems
with co-workers, to our mind, does not suffice as a
consideration for the conclusion that she wasat the time of
her marriagepsychologically incapacitated to enter into a
marital union with Cesar. Aside from the time element
involved, a wifes psychological fitness as a spouse cannot
simply be equated with her professional/work relationship;
workplace obligations and responsibilities are poles apart
from their marital counterparts. While both spring from
human relationship, their relatedness and relevance to one
another should be fully established for them to be compared
or to serve as measures of comparison with one another. To
be sure, the evaluation report Dr. Flores prepared and
submitted cannot serve this purpose. Dr. Flores further
belief that Lolitas refusal to go with Cesar abroad signified a
reluctance to work out a good marital relationship is a mere
generalization unsupported by facts and is, in fact, a rash
conclusion that this Court cannot support.
Marriage is an inviolable social institution
protected by the State. Any doubt should be resolved
in favor of its existence and continuation and against
its dissolution and nullity.Once again, we stress that
marriage is an inviolable social institution protected by the
State. Any doubt should be resolved in favor of its existence
and continuation and against its dissolution and nullity. It
cannot be dissolved at the whim of the parties nor by
transgressions made by one party to the other during the
marriage.
Mendoza vs. Republic
G.R. No. 157649
November 12, 2012
The Supreme Court is mindful of the policy of the
1987 Constitution to protect and strengthen the
family as the basic autonomous social institution and
marriage as the foundation of the family. Thus, any
doubt should be resolved in favor of the validity of the
marriage.In Hernandez, 320 SCRA 76 (1999), we
ruminated that: xxx expert testimony should have been
presented to establish the precise cause of private
respondents psychological incapacity, if any, in order to
show that it existed at the inception of the marriage. The
burden of proof to show the nullity of the marriage rests
upon petitioner. The Court is mindful of the policy of the
1987 Constitution to protect and strengthen the family as
the basic autonomous social institution and marriage as the
Marcos. But where, like here, the parties had the full
opportunity to present the professional and expert opinions
of psychiatrists tracing the root cause, gravity and
incurability of the alleged psychological incapacity, then the
opinions should be presented and be weighed by the trial
courts in order to determine and decide whether or not to
declare the nullity of the marriages. It bears repeating that
the trial courts, as in all the other cases they try, must
always base their judgments not solely on the expert
opinions presented by the parties but on the totality of
evidence adduced in the course of their proceedings.
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 must concomitantly be assumed and
discharged by the parties to the marriage that, as so
expressed by Article 68 of the Family Code, include
their mutual obligations to live together, to observe
love, respect and fidelity, and to render help and
support.We have time and again held that 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 must
concomitantly be assumed and discharged by the parties to
the marriage that, as so expressed by Article 68 of the
Family Code, include their mutual obligations to live
together, to observe love, respect and fidelity, and to render
help and support. We have also held 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. To qualify as
psychological incapacity as a ground for nullification of
marriage, a persons psychological affliction must be grave
and serious as to indicate an utter incapacity to comprehend
and comply with the essential objects of marriage, including
the rights and obligations between husband and wife. The
affliction must be shown to exist at the time of marriage,
and must be incurable.
Republic vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 159594
November 12, 2012
Psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the
Family Code contemplates an incapacity or inability to
take cognizance of and to assume basic marital
obligations, and is not merely the difficulty, refusal, or
neglect in the performance of marital obligations or ill
Supreme Court Administrative Matter No. 02-1110 prohibits the filing of a motion to dismiss in actions
for annulment of marriage.Before anything else, it
bears to point out that had respondents complaint been
filed after March 15, 2003, this present petition would have
been denied since Supreme Court Administrative Matter No.
02-11-10 prohibits the filing of a motion to dismiss in
actions for annulment of marriage. Be that as it may, after a
circumspect review of the arguments raised by petitioner
herein, this Court finds that the petition is not meritorious.
Guidelines in the Disposition of Cases Involving
Psychological Incapacity (Molina Guidelines).In
Republic v. Court of Appeals, 281 SCRA 639 (1997), this
Court created the Molina guidelines to aid the courts in the
disposition of cases involving psychological incapacity, to
wit: (1) Burden of proof to show the nullity of the marriage
belongs to the plaintiff. (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. Such non-complied
marital obligation(s) must also be stated in the petition,
proven by evidence and included in the text of the
decision. (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. (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
handed down unless the Solicitor General issues a
certification, which will be quoted in the decision,
briefly stating therein his reasons for his agreement
or opposition, as the case may be, to the petition.
Supreme Court Administrative Matter No. 02-1110, has modified the Molina Guidelines, particularly
Section 2(d) thereof, stating that the certification of
the Solicitor General is dispensed with to avoid
delay.This
Court,
pursuant
to
Supreme
Court
Administrative Matter No. 02-11-10, has modified the above
August 3, 2010
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.In the leading
case of Santos v. Court of Appeals, et al., 240 SCRA 20
(1995), we held that 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.
The psychological illness and its root cause must
have been there from the inception of the marriage.
Sub-sequent jurisprudence on psychological incapacity
applied these basic guidelines to varying factual situations,
thus confirming the continuing doctrinal validity of Santos.
In so far as the present factual situation is concerned, what
should not be lost in reading and applying our established
rulings is the intent of the law to confine the application of
Article 36 of the Family Code to the most serious cases of
personality disorders; these are the disorders that result in
the utter insensitivity or inability of the afflicted party to give
meaning and significance to the marriage he or she
contracted. Furthermore, the psychological illness and its
root cause must have been there from the inception of the
marriage. From these requirements arise the concept that
Article 36 of the Family Code does not really dissolve a
marriage; it simply recognizes that there never was any
marriage in the first place because the afflictionalready
then existingwas so grave and permanent as to deprive
the afflicted party of awareness of the duties and
responsibilities of the matrimonial bond he or she was to
assume or had assumed.
Court has long been negatively critical in
considering psychological evaluations, presented in
evidence, derived solely from one-sided sources,
particularly from the spouse seeking the nullity of the
marriage.We are in no way convinced 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. This Court