Ochosa vs.

Alano
G.R. No. 181881
January 26, 2011
Leonardo De Casto, J
FACTS:
Jose, a young lieutenant in the AFP, met and married Bonain Basilan in 1973. In 1976, they
found an abandoned and neglected one-year old baby girl whom they later registered as their
daughter, naming her Ramona Celeste Alano Ochosa. During the marriage, Jose was often
assigned to various parts of the Philippines as a member of the AFP. Bona did not cohabit with him
in his posts, preferring to stay in her hometown of Basilan. It appears however that Bona was an
unfaithful spouse. Even at the onset of their marriage when Jose was assigned in various parts of
the country, she had illicit relations with other men. Bona was even caught by a security aide to
be having sex with Jose's driver. Word circulate of such infidelity and when Jose confronted Bona
about it, the latter admitted having a relationship with said driver.
Thus, Jose filed a Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage on the ground of Bona's
psychological incapcity to fulfill the essential obligations of marriage. Jose and his two military
aides testified on Bona's infidelity. A psychiatrist testified that after conducting several tests, she
reached the conclusion that Bona was suffering from histrionic personality disorder which she
described as her personality was that she had an excessive emotion and attention seeking
behavior and therefore could not develop sympathy in feelings and had difficulty in maintaining
emotional intimacy. The psychiatrist stated that her disorder was traceable to her family history,
having for a father a gamble and womanizer and a mother who was a battered wife. Finally, the
psychiatrist said that there was no possibility of a cure since Bona did not have insight of what
was happening to her and refused to acknowledge the reality. The Solicitor-General opposed the
petition stating that it did not come close to the standards required to decree a nullity of
marriage.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Bona should be deemed psychologically incapacitated and unable to comply
with essential marital obligations?
HELD:
No. The petition for nullity hinges on Article 36 of the Family Code which provides 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 the landmark case of Santos v. CA, it was held that psychological incapacity must be
characterized by (a)gravity, (b) juridical antecedence, and (c) incurability. The incapacity must be
grave or serious such that the party would be incapable of carrying out the ordinary duties
required in marriage; it must be rooted in the history of the party antedating the marriage,
although the overt manifestations may emerge only after marriage; and it must be incurable or,
even if it were otherwise, the cure would be beyond the means of the party involved.
Further, after the court had laid down the three basic requirements of psychological
incapacity in Santos. In Republic v. CA and Molina, the following guidelines in the interpretation
and application of Article 36 of the Family Code were laid down: (1) The 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, whether absolute or relative
only in regard to the other spouse; (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 Article 68 up to 71, 220, 221 and 225 of the Family Code;
(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; and
(8) The trial court must order the prosecuting attorney or fiscal and the Solicitor General to
appear as counsel for the state.
Next, in Marcos vs. Marcos, it was held that 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, and that what is important is the presence of evidence
that can adequately establish the party's psychological condition.
In the case at bar, the evidence presented were the testimonies of Jose, his military aides
and the psychiatrist. But this is inadequate in proving that her defects were already present at
the inception of, or prior to, the marriage. Only the uncorroborated testimony of Jose supported
the allegation that Bonas sexual promiscuity already existed prior to the marriage. The
psychiatrists testimony on Bonas histrionic personality disorder did not meet the standard of
evidence required in determining psychological incapacity as her findings did not emanate from a
personal interview with Bona herself and merely relied on her interview with Jose and his other
witnesses.
This factual circumstance evokes the possibility that the information fed to the psychiatrist
is tainted with bias for Joses cause, in the absence of sufficient corroboration. In view of the
foregoing, the badges of Bonas alleged psychological incapacity, i.e., her sexual infidelity and
abandonment, can only be convincingly traced to the period of time after her marriage to Jose and
not to the inception of the said marriage.
It is stressed that Article 36 is not to be confused with a divorce law that cuts the marital
bond at the time the causes therefore manifest themselves. It refers to a serious psychological
illness afflicting a party even before the celebration of the marriage. It is a malady so grave and
so permanent as to deprive one of awareness of the duties and responsibilities of the matrimonial
bond one is about to assume.