Republic v.

CA and Molina GR 108763, 13 February 1997 Facts: On 14 April 1985, plaintiff Roridel Molina married defendant Reynaldo Molina which union bore a son. After a year of marriage, Reynaldo showed signs of immaturity and irresponsibility as a husband and father as he preferred to spend more time with his friends, depended on his parents for support, and was never honest with Roridel in regard to their finances resulting in frequent quarrels between them. The RTC-La Trinidad, Benguet granted Roridels petition for declaration of nullity of her marriage which was affirmed by the CA. Held: Psychological incapacity must be characterized by gravity, juridical antecedence, and incurability. Irreconcilable differences and conflicting personalities do not constitute psychological incapacity. It laid down the following guidelines in applying Article 36 of the family Code: (a) plaintiff has the burden of proof; (b0 root cause must be medically/clinically identified, alleged in the complaint; sufficiently proven by experts, and clearly explained in the decision; (c) incapacity must exist at the time of marriage; (d) it must be incurable; (e) its gravity disables essential marital obligations; (f) as enumerated in Articles 68-71, 220, 221 and 225 of the Family Code; (g) Interpretation of the national Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal of the catholic Church should be given great respect; and (h) Prosecution and Solicitor General must appear as counsel for the state. Santos vs. CA GR 112019 January 4, 1995 Facts: Leouel Santos married Julia Beda, who left the US to work as a nurse but did not communicate with him and never returned to the Philippines. Article 36 was invoked to void the marriage. Held: Mere difficulty or refusal to comply with marital obligations does not constitute psychological incapacity. It must be characterized by (1) gravity, (2) juridical antecedence, and (3) incurability, referring to no less than a mental incapacity that renders the respondent unable to recognize marital obligations. Tenebro vs. CA GR 150758 February 18, 2004 Facts: Veronico Tenebro and Leticia Ancajas got married, but the Veronico married Nilda Villegas after. Bigamy case. Held: Subsequent judicial declaration of nullity of marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity does not retroact to the date of the celebration of the marriage insofar as the Philippines penal laws are concerned. As such, an individual who contracts a second or subsequent marriage during the subsistence of a valid marriage is criminally liable for bigamy, notwithstanding the subsequent declaration that the second marriage is void ab initio on the ground of psychological incapacity.

Chi Ming Tsoi vs. CA GR 119190 Jan. 16, 1997 Facts: Gina Loi and Chi Ming Tsoi never had sex ever since they got married. Ming Tsoi never denied the fact and even said that it was Gina that refused to have sex. Held: Prolonged refusal (ten months) of both spouses to have sex with each other is psychological incapacity because it goes beyond physical incapability. It has become a senseless and constant refusal to comply with one of the most important essential marital obligations. Hernandez vs. CA G.R. No. 126010, 8 December 1999 Facts: Mario Hernandez married Lucita Estrella, who later alleged that Mario failed to perform his obligations to support the family, devoting most of his time drinking, had affairs with many women, and cohabiting with another woman with whom he had an illegitimate child, and finally abandoning her and the family. The RTC-Tagaytay City dismissed the petition which was affirmed by the CA. Held: No. The Supreme Court ruled that the aforementioned acts do not by themselves constitute grounds for psychological incapacity within the contemplation of the Family Code. It must be shown that these acts are manifestations of a disordered personality which make Mario completely unable to discharge his essential marital obligations, and not merely due to his youth and self-conscious feelings of being handsome. Marcos vs. Marcos G.R. No. 136490, 19 October 2000 Facts: Plaintiff Brenda Marcos and defendant Wilson Marcos were married twice on 6 September 1982 and on 8 May 1983. They had five children. Brenda filed a case for nullity of the marriage for psychological incapacity, alleging that Wilson failed to provide material support to the family and had resorted to physical abuse and abandonment. The RTC declared their marriage null and void under article 36 of the Family Code. However, the Court of appeals reversed the said decision. Held: Although the Supreme Court is sufficiently convinced that Wilson failed to provide material support and resorted to physical abuse and abandonment, the totality of his acts does not lead to psychological incapacity. Examination by physician or psychologist is not a condition sine qua non for the declaration of psychological incapacity.