Case Digest

G.R. No. 165424 June 9, 2009

LESTER BENJAMIN S. HALILI, Petitioner,

vs.
CHONA M. SANTOS-HALILI and THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.

Petitioner Lester Benjamin S. Halili filed a petition to declare his marriage to respondent Chona
M. Santos-Halili null and void on the basis of his psychological incapacity to perform the
essential obligations of marriage in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Pasig City, Branch 158. He
alleged that he wed respondent in civil rites thinking that it was a joke. After the ceremonies,
they never lived together as husband and wife, but maintained the relationship. However, they
started fighting constantly a year later, at which point petitioner decided to stop seeing
respondent and started dating other women. Immediately thereafter, he received prank calls
telling him to stop dating other women as he was already a married man. It was only upon
making an inquiry that he found out that the marriage was not fake. RTC: declared the marriage
null and void. found petitioner to be suffering from a mixed personality disorder, particularly
dependent and self-defeating personality disorder, as diagnosed by his expert witness, Dr.
Natividad Dayan. The court a quo held that petitioners personality disorder was serious and
incurable and directly affected his capacity to comply with his essential marital obligations to
respondent. CA: reversed and set aside the decision of the trial court on the ground that the
totality of the evidence presented failed to establish petitioners psychological incapacity. ISSUE:
W/N Lester Halili is proven psychologically incapacitated? RULING: GRANTED. The marriage
between petitioner and respondent is declared null and voi RATIONALE: It has been sufficiently
established that petitioner had a psychological condition that was grave and incurable and had a
deeply rooted cause. SC recognized that individuals with diagnosable personality disorders
usually have long-term concerns, and thus therapy may be long-term. Particularly, personality
disorders are long-standing, inflexible ways of behaving that are not so much severe mental
disorders as dysfunctional styles of living. These disorders affect all areas of functioning and,
beginning in childhood or adolescence, create problems for those who display them and for
others. Page 17 of 31 || PFR SEPT 7 2015 From the foregoing, it has been shown that petitioner
is indeed suffering from psychological incapacity that effectively renders him unable to perform
the essential obligations of marriage. Dr. Dayan stated that petitioners dependent personality
disorder was evident in the fact that petitioner was very much attached to his parents and
depended on them for decisions. Petitioners mother even had to be the one to tell him to seek
legal help when he felt confused on what action to take upon learning that his marriage to
respondent was for real. Dr. Dayan further observed that, as expected of persons suffering from a
dependent personality disorder, petitioner typically acted in a self-denigrating manner and
displayed a self-defeating attitude. This submissive attitude encouraged other people to take
advantage of him. This could be seen in the way petitioner allowed himself to be dominated,
first, by his father who treated his family like robots and, later, by respondent who was as
domineering as his father. When petitioner could no longer take respondents domineering ways,
he preferred to hide from her rather than confront her and tell her outright that he wanted to end
their marriage. DEPENDENT PERSONALITY DISORDER [a] personality disorder
characterized by a pattern of dependent and submissive behavior. Such individuals usually lack
self-esteem and frequently belittle their capabilities; they fear criticism and are easily hurt by
others comments. At times they actually bring about dominance by others through a quest for
overprotection. Dependent personality disorder usually begins in early adulthood. Individuals
who have this disorder may be unable to make everyday decisions without advice or reassurance
from others, may allow others to make most of their important decisions (such as where to live),
tend to agree with people even when they believe they are wrong, have difficulty starting
projects or doing things on their own, volunteer to do things that are demeaning in order to get
approval from other people, feel uncomfortable or helpless when alone and are often preoccupied
with fears of being abandoned.

G.R. No. 109975 February 9, 2001

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner,

vs.
ERLINDA MATIAS DAGDAG, respondent.

FACTS:
- Erlinda and Avelino got married in 1975 in the Aglipayan Church. After the
wedding, Avelino would frequently leave the family home and disappear for
months. When he reappears, he goes on drinking sprees. He even became
physically abusive. During a period of disappearance, Erlinda even heard that he
got imprisoned for some crime and escaped. Erlinda filed a petition for judicial
declaration of nullity of marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity.
- Erlinda and her sister testified that the former and Avelino would always quarrel,
and that he never stayed long at home.
- The RTC declared their marriage null and void, which the CA affirmed, saying
that Avelino's consistent irresponsibility, immaturity, prolonged absence or
abandonment, criminality, failure to support are indicative of a failure to perform
the duties of a married person which is incurable and such existed at the time of
the celebration of the marriage and became manifest only thereafter.

ISSUE:
- W/N the RTC and the CA erred

RULING:
- YES. Considering the guidelines provided in Republic vs CA and Molina, Erlinda
failed to comply with the guideline which requires that the root cause of
psychological incapacity must be medically or clinically identified and sufficiently
proven by experts, 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 SC has held in a previous case
that "expert testimony should have been presented to establish the precise cause
of the psychological incapacity, if any, in order to show that it existed at the
inception of the marriage.
G.R. No. 155800 March 10, 2006

LEONILO ANTONIO Petitioner,

vs.
MARIE IVONNE F. REYES, Respondent.

Facts:
• They were met in August 1989 when petitioner was 26 yrs. Old and respondent was
36 yrs. Old.
• A year after their first meeting, on Dec. 1990, they got married before a minister of the
Gospel at the Municipal City Hall and through subsequent church wedding at the Sta.
Rosa de Lima Parish, Bagong Ilog, Pasig.
• They begot a child, unfortunately died five months later.
• On March 8, 1993, petitioner filed a petition to have his marriage to respondent
declared null and void. On Article 36 of the Family Code alleging that respondent was
psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential obligations of marriage. He
asserted that at the time of the celebration of marriage the psychological incapacity of
respondent existed and still subsisting up to present.
• He claimed that respondent persistently lied about herself, the people around her, her
occupation, income, educational attainment and other events or things, to wit:
(1) She concealed the fact that she previously gave birth to an illegitimate son,
and instead introduced the boy to petitioner as the adopted child of her family. She only
confessed the truth about the boy’s parentage when petitioner learned about it from
other sources after their marriage.
(2) She fabricated a story that her brother-in-law, Edwin David, attempted to rape
and kill her when in fact, no such incident occurred.
(3) She misrepresented herself as a psychiatrist to her obstetrician, Dr. Consuelo
Gardiner, and told some of her friends that she graduated with a degree in psychology,
when she was neither.
(4) She claimed to be a singer or a free-lance voice talent affiliated with
Blackgold Recording Company (Blackgold); yet, not a single member of her family ever
witnessed her alleged singing activities with the group. In the same vein, she postulated
that a luncheon show was held at the Philippine Village Hotel in her honor and even
presented an invitation to that effect but petitioner discovered per certification by the
Director of Sales of said hotel that no such occasion had taken place.
(5) She invented friends named Babes Santos and Via Marquez, and under
those names, sent lengthy letters to petitioner claiming to be from Blackgold and touting
her as the "number one moneymaker" in the commercial industry worth P2 million.
Petitioner later found out that respondent herself was the one who wrote and sent the
letters to him when she admitted the truth in one of their quarrels. He likewise realized
that Babes Santos and Via Marquez were only figments of her imagination when he
discovered they were not known in or connected with Blackgold.
(6) She represented herself as a person of greater means, thus, she altered her
payslip to make it appear that she earned a higher income. She bought a sala set from
a public market but told petitioner that she acquired it from a famous furniture dealer.
She spent lavishly on unnecessary items and ended up borrowing money from other
people on false pretexts.
(7) She exhibited insecurities and jealousies over him to the extent of calling up
his officemates to monitor his whereabouts. When he could no longer take her unusual
behavior, he separated from her in August 1991. He tried to attempt a reconciliation but
since her behavior did not change, he finally left her for good in November 1991.
• He presented Dr. Dante Herrera Abcede, a psychiatrist and Dr. Arnulfo Lopez,
a clinical psychologist, who stated that petitioner was essentially a normal, introspective,
shy and conservative. On the other hand, respondent’ persistent and constant lying to
petitioner was abnormal or pathological.
• They further asserted that respondents extreme jealousy was also pathological.
Her suspected affair of petitioner was no actual basis. They conculded that respindent
was psychologically incapacitated to perform her essential marital responsibilities. • In
her version, she claimed that she performed her marital obligations by attending all the
needs of her husband and there was no truth to the allegation that she fabricated
stories, told lies, and invented personalities.
(1) She concealed her child by another man from petitioner because she was
afraid of losing her husband.
(2) She told petitioner about David’s attempt to rape and kill her because she
surmised such intent from David’s act of touching her back and ogling her from head to
foot.
(3) She was actually a BS Banking and Finance graduate and had been teaching
psychology at the Pasig Catholic School for two (2) years.
(4) She was a free-lance voice talent of Aris de las Alas, an executive producer
of Channel 9 and she had done three (3) commercials with McCann Erickson for the
advertisement of Coca-cola, Johnson & Johnson, and Traders Royal Bank. She told
petitioner she was a Blackgold recording artist although she was not under contract with
the company, yet she reported to the Blackgold office after office hours. She claimed
that a luncheon show was indeed held in her honor at the Philippine Village Hotel on 8
December 1979.
(5) She vowed that the letters sent to petitioner were not written by her and the
writers thereof were not fictitious. Bea Marquez Recto of the Recto political clan was a
resident of the United States while Babes Santos was employed with Saniwares.
(6) She admitted that she called up an officemate of her husband but averred
that she merely asked the latter in a diplomatic matter if she was the one asking for
chocolates from petitioner, and not to monitor her husband’s whereabouts.
(7) She belied the allegation that she spent lavishly as she supported almost ten
people from her monthly budget ofP7000
• Respondent presented Dr. Antonio Reyes, a psychiatrist to refute the
allegations anenther psychological condition.
• Dr. Lopez asseverated that the evaluation conducted by Dr. Reyes was not the
one who administered and interpreted respondent’s psychological evaluation, and he
made use only one instrument called CPRS which was not reliable because a good liar
can fake the results of such test.
 • The lower court gave credence to petitioner’s evidence and held respondent’s
propensity to lying about almost anything made her psychologically incapacitated.
Declared the marriage null and void.
• Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's decision. It held that the totality of
evidence presented was insufficient to establish Reyes' psychological incapacity. It
declared that the requirements in the 1997 Molina case had not been satisfied.

Issue/s:
WON Antonio can impose Article 36 of the Family Code as basis for declaring their
marriage null and void

Held: Yes

Rationale:
- The actual findings of the trial court are deemed binding on the SC, owing to the
great weight accorded to the opinion of the primary trier of facts. As such, it must
be considered that respondent had consistently lied about many material aspects
as to her character and personality. Her 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 case sufficiently satisfies the
Molina guidelines: First, that Antonio had sufficiently overcome his burden in
proving the psychological incapacity of his wife; Second, that the root cause of
Reyes' psychological incapacity has been medically or clinically identified that
was sufficiently proven by experts, and was clearly explained in the trial court's
decision; Third, that she fabricated friends and made up letters before she
married him prove that her psychological incapacity was have existed even
before the celebration of marriage; Fourth, that the gravity of Reyes'
psychological incapacity was considered so grave that a restrictive clause was
appended to the sentence of nullity prohibited by the National Appellate
Matrimonial Tribunal from contracting marriage without their consent; Fifth, that
she being an inveterate pathological liar makes her unable to commit the basic
tenets of relationship between spouses based on love, trust, and respect. Sixth,
that the CA clearly erred when it failed to take into consideration the fact that the
marriage was annulled by the Catholic Church. However, it is the factual findings
of the judicial trier of facts, and not of the canonical courts, that are accorded
significant recognition by this Court. Seventh, that Reyes' case is incurable
considering that Antonio tried to reconcile with her but her behavior remains
unchanged. All told, we conclude that petitioner has established his cause of
action for declaration of nullity under Article 36 of the Family Code. The RTC
correctly ruled, and the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the trial court. There
is little relish in deciding this present petition, pronouncing as it does the marital
bond as having been inexistent in the first place. It is possible that respondent,
despite her psychological state, remains in love with petitioner, as exhibited by
her persistent challenge to the petition for nullity. In fact, the appellate court
 placed undue emphasis on respondent’s avowed commitment to remain in the
marriage. Yet the Court decides these cases on legal reasons and not vapid
sentimentality. Marriage, in legal contemplation, is more than the legitimatization
of a desire of people in love to live together.
- WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The decision of the RTC dated 10
August 1995, declaring the marriage between petitioner and respondent NULL
and VOID under Article 36 of the Family Code, is REINSTATED. No costs.

G.R. No. 166357 January 14, 2015

VALERIO E. KALAW, Petitioner,

vs.
MA. ELENA FERNANDEZ, Respondent.

Facts:
Petitioner Valerio E. Kalaw (Tyrone) and respondent Ma. Elena Fernandez (Malyn) met
in 1973, maintained a relationship and eventually married in Hong Kong and
subsequently had four children. Shortly after the birth of their youngest son, Tyrone had
an extramarital affair with Jocelyn Quejano who gave birth to a son.
In May 1985, Malyn left the conjugal home and her four children with
Tyrone. Meanwhile, Tyrone started living with Jocelyn, who bore him three more
children.
In 1990, Tyrone went to the United States (US) with Jocelyn and their children. He left
his four children from his marriage with Malyn in a rented house in Valle Verde with only
a househelp and a driver.
The househelp would just call Malyn to take care of the children whenever any of them
got sick. Also, in accordance with their custody agreement, the children stayed with
Malyn on weekends.
Tyrone brought the two elder children, Rio and Ria to the US. After just one year, Ria
returned to the Philippines and chose to live with Malyn.
Meanwhile, Tyrone and Jocelyns family returned to the Philippines and resumed
physical custody of the two younger children, Miggy and Jay. According to Malyn, from
that time on, the children refused to go to her house on weekends because of alleged
weekend plans with their father.
Nine years since the de facto separation from his wife, Tyrone filed a petition for
declaration of nullity of marriage based on Article 36 of the Family Code. He alleged that
Malyn was psychologically incapacitated to perform and comply with the essential
marital obligations at the time of the celebration of their marriage. He further claimed
that her psychological incapacity was manifested by her immaturity and irresponsibility
towards Tyrone and their children during their co-habitation
Tyrone presented a psychologist, Dr. Cristina Gates (Dr. Gates), and a Catholic canon
law expert, Fr. Gerard Healy, S.J. (Fr. Healy), to testify on Malyns psychological
incapacity.
Dr. Gates explained on the stand that the factual allegations regarding Malyns behavior
her sexual infidelity, habitual mahjong playing, and her frequent nights-out with friends
may reflect a narcissistic personality disorder (NPD).
The trial court concluded that both parties are psychologically incapacitated to perform
the essential marital obligations under the Family Code.
The CA reversed the trial courts ruling because it is not supported by the facts on
record.

-
- In his Motion for Reconsideration,3 the petitioner implores the Court to take a
thorough second look into what constitutes psychological incapacity1; to uphold
the findings of the trial court as supported by the testimonies of three expert
witnesses; and consequently to find that the respondent, if not both parties, were
psychologically incapacitated to perform their respective essential marital
obligation.
- in the September 19, 2011 decision, the Court brushed aside the opinions
tendered by Dr. Cristina Gates,a psychologist, and Fr. Gerard Healy on the
ground that their conclusions were solely based on the petitioner’s version of the
events.
- After a long and hard second look, we consider it improper and unwarranted to
give to such expert opinions a merely generalized consideration and treatment,
least of all to dismiss their value as inadequate basis for the declaration of the
nullity of the marriage. Instead, we hold that said experts sufficiently and
competently described the psychological incapacity of the respondent within the
standards of Article 36 of the Family Code. We uphold the conclusions reached
by the two expert witnesses because they were largely drawn from the case
records and affidavits, and should not anymore be disputed after the RTC itself
had accepted the veracity of the petitioner’s factual premises.
- The Court has stressed in Marcos v. Marcos19 that there is no requirement for
one to bedeclared psychologically incapacitated to be personally examined by a
physician, because what is important is the presence of evidence that adequately
establishes the party’s psychological incapacity. Hence, "if the totality of evidence
presented is enough to sustain a finding of psychological incapacity, then actual
medical examination of the person concerned need not be resorted to."20
-
- In her Psychological Evaluation Report,24 Dr. Dayan impressed that the
respondent had "compulsive and dependent tendencies" to the extent of being
"relationship dependent." Based from the respondent’s psychological data, Dr.
Dayan indicated that:
- In her relationship with people, Malyne is likely to be reserved and seemingly
detached in her ways. Although she likes to be around people, she may keep her

1
Psychological incapacity as a ground for the nullity of marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code
refers to a serious psychological illness afflicting a party even prior to the celebration of the marriage
that is permanent as to deprive the party of the awareness of the duties and responsibilities of the
matrimonial bond he or she was about to assume.
 emotional distance. She, too, values her relationship but she may not be that
demonstrative of her affections. Intimacy may be quite difficult for her since she
tries to maintain a certain distance to minimize opportunities for rejection. To
others, Malyne may appear, critical and demanding in her ways. She can be
assertive when opinions contrary to those of her own are expressed. And yet,
she is apt to be a dependent person. At a less conscious level, Malyne fears that
others will abandon her. Malyne, who always felt a bit lonely, placed an
enormous value on having significant others would depend on most times.
- Respondent admittedly played mahjong, but it was not proven that she engaged
in mahjong so frequently that she neglected her duties as a mother and a wife.
Respondent refuted petitioner’s allegations that she played four to five times a
week. She maintained it was only two to three times a week and always withthe
permission of her husband and without abandoning her children at home. The
children corroborated this, saying that theywere with their mother when she
played mahjong in their relatives home.
- The fact that the respondent brought her children with her to her mahjong
sessions did not only point to her neglect of parental duties, but also manifested
her tendency to expose them to a culture of gambling.
- The respondent revealed her wanton disregard for her children’s moral and
mental development. This disregard violated her duty as a parent to safeguard
and protect her children, as expressly defined under Article 209 and Article 220
of the Family Code, to wit:
- Article 209. Pursuant to the natural right and duty of parents over the person and
property of their unemancipated children, parental authority and responsibility
shall includethe caring for and rearing of such children for civic consciousness
and efficiency and the development of their moral, mental and physical character
and well-being.
-
- More than twenty (20) years had passed since the parties parted ways. By now,
they must have already accepted and come to terms with the awful truth that
their marriage, assuming it existed in the eyes of the law, was already beyond
repair. Both parties had inflicted so much damage not only to themselves, but
also to the lives and psyche of their own children. It would be a greater injustice
should we insist on still recognizing their void marriage, and then force them and
their children to endure some more damage.
- WHEREFORE, the Court GRANTS the Motion for Reconsideration; REVERSES
and SETS ASIDE the decision promulgated on September 19, 2011; and
REINSTATES the decision rendered by the Regional Trial Court declaring the
marriage between the petitioner and the respondent on November 4, 1976 as
NULL AND VOID AB INITIO due to the psychological incapacity of the parties
pursuant to Article 36 of the Family Code.
-
-
-
 February 24, 2016

G.R. No. 209180

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner,

vs.
REGHIS M. ROMERO II and OLIVIA LAGMAN ROMERO, Respondents.

G.R. No. 209253

OLIVIA LAGMAN ROMERO, Petitioner,

vs.
REGHIS M. ROMERO II, Respondent.

Facts:
- The couple first met in 1971 when Reghis helped Olivia and her family as they
got stranded along Kennon Road in Baguio. Since then, Reghis developed a very
close relationship with Olivia’s family, especially with her parents who tried to
play matchmakers for Reghis and Olivia. In the desire to please Olivia’s parents,
Reghis courted Olivia and, eventually, Reghis and Olivia were married on May
11, 1972 and had two children.

- They experienced a turbulent and tumultuous marriage, often having violent

fights. Reghis could not forgive Olivia for dragging him into marriage and
resented her condescending attitude towards him. They became even more
estranged when Reghis became engrossed in his career and focused on
supporting his parents and siblings. As a result, he spent little time with his
family, causing Olivia to complain that Reghis failed to be a real husband to her.
In 1986, the couple parted ways.

- On June 16, 1998, Reghis filed a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage
before the RTC of Quezon City, docketed as Civil Case No. Q-98-34627, citing
his psychological incapacity to comply with his essential marital
obligations.

- Reghis also presented Dr. Valentina Nicdao-Basilio, a clinical psychologist, who

submitted a Psychological Evaluation Report dated April 28, 1998 and testified
that Reghis suffered from Obsessive Compulsive Personality Disorder (OCPD).
According to Dr. Basilio, Reghis’ behavioral disorder gave him a strong
obsession for whatever endeavor he chooses, such as his work, to the exclusion
of other responsibilities and duties such as those pertaining to his roles as father
and husband.
 - In a Decision dated November 5, 2008, the RTC granted the petition and
declared the marriage between Reghis and Olivia null and void ab initio on the
ground of psychological incapacity

- On March 21, 2013, the CA affirmed the findings of the RTC, holding that the
OCPD from which Reghis suffered made him yearn for professional
advancement and rendered him obligated to support his parents and siblings, at
the expense of his marital and filial duties. It ruled that Reghis’ condition amounts
to psychological incapacity within the contemplation of Article 36 of the Family
Code as it is permanent in nature and incurable.

Issue

- If the Court’s resolution is whether or not the CA erred in sustaining the RTC’s
declaration of nullity on the ground of psychological incapacity.

Ruling

- The Court finds merit in the petitions.

- The policy of the Constitution is to protect and strengthen the family as the basic
autonomous social institution, and marriage as the foundation of the family. As
such, the Constitution decrees marriage as legally inviolable and protects it from
dissolution at the whim of the parties. Thus, it has consistently been held that
psychological incapacity, as a ground to nullify a marriage under Article 36 of the
Family Code, should refer to the most serious cases of personality disorders
clearly demonstrative of an utter insensitivity or inability to give meaning and
significance to the marriage. It must be a malady that is so grave and permanent
as to deprive one of awareness of the duties and responsibilities of the
matrimonial bond one is about to assume.

- Motives for entering into a marriage are varied and complex. The State does not
and cannot dictate on the kind of life that a couple chooses to lead. Any attempt
to regulate their lifestyle would go into the realm of their right to privacy and
would raise serious constitutional questions.

- The right to marital privacy2 applies. Thus, marriages entered into for other
purposes, limited or otherwise, such as convenience, companionship, money,
status, and title, provided that they comply with all the legal requisites, are
equally valid. Love, though the ideal consideration in a marriage contract, is
not the only valid cause for marriage. Other considerations, not precluded by
law, may validly support a marriage.

2
allows married couples to structure their marriages in almost any way they see fit, to live together or live
apart, to have children or no children, to love one another or not, and so on.
 - Article 36 of the Family Code must be limited to cases where there is a downright
incapacity or inability to assume and fulfill the basic marital obligations, not a
mere refusal, neglect or difficulty, much less, ill will, on the part of the errant
spouse. Thus, absent sufficient evidence to prove psychological incapacity
within the context of Article 36 of the Family Code, the Court is compelled to
uphold the indissolubility of the marital tie

- WHEREFORE, the petitions are GRANTED. The Decision dated March 21, 2013
and the Resolution dated September 12, 2013 of the Court of Appeals in CA-
G.R. CV No. 94337 are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, the
petition for declaration of nullity of marriage filed under Article 36 of the Family
Code of the Philippines, as amended, is DISMISSED.

G.R. No. 189607

RENATO A. CASTILLO, Petitioner,

vs.
LEA P. DE LEON CASTILLO, Respondent.

Facts:
- On May 25, 1972, Respondent Lea Castillo married Benjamin Bautista. Without
filing for legal separation, on January 6, 1979 the respondent married herein
petitioner Renato Castillo.

- On May 28, 2001, Renato filed before the RTC a petition for Declaration of Nullity
of Marriage praying that his marriage to Lea be declared void on the grounds of
psychological incapacity and her subsiding marriage to Bautista. Citing Article 36
of the Family Code.

- Respondent opposed the petition and contented among others that her marriage
to Bautista was null and void as the had not secured license thereof.

- RTC declared the marriage between petitioner and respondent null and void ab
initio on the ground that it was a bigamous marriage under Article 41 of the
Family Code.3

3Art. 41. A marriage contracted by any person during subsistence of a previous

marriage shall be null and void, unless before the celebration of the subsequent
marriage, the prior spouse had been absent for four consecutive years and the spouse
present has a well-founded belief that the absent spouse was already dead. In case of
disappearance where there is danger of death under the circumstances set forth in the
 - The RTC said that the fact that Lea's marriage to Bautista was subsisting when
she married Renato on 6 January 1979, makes her marriage to Renato
bigamous, thus rendering it void ab initio.

February 6, 2017

G.R. No. 214064

MIRASOL CASTILLO, Petitioner

vs.
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES and FELIPE IMPAS, Respondents

Facts:
- On April 22, 1984 Mirasol and got married and eventually had 2 children
together. During their courtship, Mirasol discovered that Felipe sustained his
affair with his former girlfriend. The couple’s relationship turned tumultuous after
the revelation but with the intervention of their parents they reconciled.

- According to Mirasol, their marriage was harmonious but after 13 years of

marriage, Felipe resumed philandering. Their family and friends witnessed him
with different women and on one account she caught him in a compromising act
with another woman. When she did, he did not bother to explain or apologize.
Felipe’s irresponsible acts like co-habitating with another woman, not
communicating effectively with his wife, and not supporting their children for a
period of not less than 10 years without any reason constitutes a severe
psychological disorder.

- In support of her case, Mirasol presented clinical psychologist Sheila Marie

Montefalcon who in her Psychological Evaluation Report concluded that Felipe is
Psychologically incapacitated to fulfill his marital obligations.

- On June 6, 2011, Mirasol filed a Complaint for the Declaration of Nullity of

Marriage before the RTC of Dasmarinas Cavite. The Complaint was granted by
the trial court.

provisions of Article 391 of the Civil Code, an absence of only two years shall be
sufficient.

For the purpose of contracting the subsequent marriage under the preceding paragraph
the spouse present must institute a summary proceeding as provided in this Code for
the declaration of presumptive death of the absentee, without prejudice to the effect of
reappearance of the absent spouse.
 - On appeal, the CA reversed and set aside the decision of the RTC ruling that
Mirasol failed to present sufficient evidence to prove that Felipe was suffering
from psychological incapacity, thus, incapable of performing marital obligations
due to some psychological illness existing at the time of the celebration of the
marriage

Issue:
- Whether or not the totality of evidence presented warrants, as the RTC
determined, the declaration of nullity of the marriage of Mirasol and Felipe on the
ground of the latter’s psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family
Code.

Ruling:
- The findings on Felipe’s personality profile did not emanate from a personal
interview with the subject himself. Apart from the psychologist’s opinion and
petitioner’s allegations, no other reliable evidence was cited to prove that Felipe’s
sexual infidelity was a manifestation of his alleged personality disorder, which
should be grave, deeply rooted, and incurable.4 The mere allegations made
against him are not equivalent to proof.

- In order for sexual infidelity to constitute as a psychological incapacity, the

respondent’s unfaithfulness must be established as a manifestation of a
disordered personality, completely preventing the respondent from discharging
the essential obligations of a marital state. There must be proof of natal or
supervening disabling factor that effectively incapacitated him from complying
with the obligation to be faithful to his spouse.

- Therefore, irreconcilable differences, sexual infidelity, or perversion, emotional

immaturity and irresponsibility and the like do not by themselves warrant a finding

4 G.R. No. 108763, February 13, 1997, 268 SCRA 198. - "psychological incapacity" has
been intended by law to be confined to the most serious cases of personality disorders
clearly demonstrative of an utter insensitivity or inability to give meaning and
significance to the marriage. Psychological incapacity must be characterized by:

(a) gravity, i.e., it must be grave and serious such that the party would be
incapable of carrying out the ordinary duties required in a marriage, (
b) juridical antecedence, i.e., it must be rooted in the history of the party
antedating the marriage, although the overt manifestations may emerge only
after the marriage, and (
c) incurability, i.e., it must be incurable, or even if it were otherwise, the cure
would be beyond the means of the party involved.
 of psychological incapacity under Article 36, as the same may only be due to a
person’s refusal or unwillingness to assume the essential obligations of marriage.

- The evidence must also show a link, medical or the like, between the acts that
manifest psychological incapacity and the psychological disorder itself.

- The Court is not persuaded that the natal or supervening disabling factor which
effectively incapacitated him from complying with his obligation to be faithful to
his wife was medically or clinically established.
- this Court laid down the more definitive guidelines5 in the disposition of
psychological incapacity cases, viz.:

(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. Such incurability may be absolute or even relative only
in regard to the other spouse, not necessarily absolutely against every one of the
same sex.

(5) Such illness must be grave enough to bring about the disability of the
party to assume the essential obligations of marriage. In other words, there is a
natal or supervening disabling factor in the person, an adverse integral element
in the personality structure that effectively incapacitates the person from really
accepting and thereby complying with the obligations essential to 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.

5
Republic v. Court of Appeals and Molina
 (8) The trial court must order the prosecuting attorney or fiscal and the
Solicitor General to appear as counsel for the state.

G.R. No. 166562 March 31, 2009

BENJAMIN G. TING, Petitioner,

vs.
CARMEN M. VELEZ-TING, Respondent.

Facts:
- Benjamin Ting and Carmen Velez-Ting first met in 1972 while they were
classmates in medical school. They fell in love, and they were wed on July 26,
1975 in Cebu City when respondent was already pregnant with their first child. On
October 21, 1993, after being married for more than 18 years to petitioner and
while their youngest child was only two years old, Carmen filed a verified petition
before the RTC of Cebu City praying for the declaration of nullity of their marriage
based on Article 36 of the Family Code. She claimed that Benjamin suffered from
psychological incapacity even at the time of the celebration of their marriage,
which, however, only became manifest thereafter.

- Carmen’s allegations of Benjamins psychological incapacity consisted of the

following manifestations:
1. Benjamins alcoholism, which adversely affected his family relationship
and his profession;
2. Benjamins violent nature brought about by his excessive and regular
drinking;
3. His compulsive gambling habit, as a result of which Benjamin found it
necessary to sell the family car twice and the property he inherited from his
father in order to pay off his debts, because he no longer had money to pay
the same; and
4. Benjamins irresponsibility and immaturity as shown by his failure and
refusal to give regular financial support to his family.

- In his answer, Benjamin denied being psychologically incapacitated. He

maintained that he is a respectable person, as his peers would confirm. He also
pointed out that it was he who often comforted and took care of their children, while
Carmen played mahjong with her friends twice a week. Both presented expert
witnesses (psychiatrist) to refute each other’s claim. RTC ruled in favor of the
respondent declaring the marriage null and void.

- Petitioner appealed to the CA. CA reversed RTC’s decision. Respondent filed a

motion for reconsideration, arguing that the Molina guidelines should not be
applied to this case
Issue
- Whether or not the CA correctly ruled that the requirement of proof of psychological
incapacity for the declaration of absolute nullity of marriage based on Article 36 of the
Family Code has been liberalized and if Cas decision declaring the marriage null and void
is in accordance with the law.

Ruling
- The Case involving the application of Article 36 must be treated distinctly and
judged not on the basis of a priori assumptions, predilections or generalizations
but according to its own attendant facts. 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. But where, as in
this case, the parties had the full opportunity to present professional and expert
opinions of psychiatrists tracing the root cause, gravity and incurability of a party’s
alleged psychological incapacity, then such expert opinion should be presented
and, accordingly, be weighed by the court in deciding whether to grant a petition
for nullity of marriage.

- There is no evidence that adduced by respondent insufficient to prove that

petitioner is psychologically unfit to discharge the duties expected of him as a
husband, and more particularly, that he suffered from such psychological
incapacity as of the date of the marriage eighteen (18) years ago.

- In this case, respondent failed to prove that petitioner’s "defects" were present at
the time of the celebration of their marriage. She merely cited that prior to their
marriage, she already knew that petitioner would occasionally drink and gamble
with his friends; but such statement, by itself, is insufficient to prove any pre-
existing psychological defect on the part of her husband. Neither did the evidence
adduced prove such "defects" to be incurable.

- WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition for review on certiorari is

GRANTED. The November 17, 2003 Amended Decision and the December 13,
2004 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 59903 are accordingly
REVERSED and SET ASIDE.

January 11, 2018

G.R. No. 218630

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner

vs.
KATRINA S. TOBORA-TIONGLICO, Respondent

Facts:
- This is a petition for review on certiorari of the Decision dated May 27, 2015 of the
CA in CA-G.R. CV No. 101985, which affirmed the May 8, 2012 Decision rendered
by the RTC of Imus Cavite, Branch 20, granting the petition for declaration of nullity
of marriage on the ground of Article 36 of the Family Code and declaring the
marriage of Katrina S. Tabora-Tionglico and Lawrence C. Tionglico void ab initio.

- Respondent Katrina filed a petition for declaration of nullity of her marriage with
Lawrence C. Tionglico on the ground of psychological incapacity under Article 36
of the Family Code.

- Katrina and Lawrence met in 1997 and after a brief courtship she got pregnant.
Lawrence did not receive the news well as he was worried how it would affect his
image and how his parents would take the situation. The two got married on July
22, 2000. Even during the early stage of their marriage, it was marred by bickering
and quarrels. A few months into her pregnancy, Katrina moved into the home of
Lawrence's parents until the birth of their child, Lanz. Lawrence was allegedly
distant and did not help in rearing their child, saying he knew nothing about children
and how to run a family. According to Katrina, Lawrence spent almost every night
out for late dinners, parties and drinking sprees. Katrina also noticed that Lawrence
was alarmingly dependent on his mother and suffered from a very high degree of
immaturity.

- In 2003, due to their incessant fighting, Lawrence asked Katrina to leave his
parents' home and never to come back. They have been separated in fact since
then.

- Katrina consulted with a psychiatrist, Dr. Juan Arellano (Dr. Arellano), who
confirmed her beliefs on Lawrence's psychological incapacity. Dr. Arellano, based
on the narrations of Katrina, diagnosed Lawrence with Narcissistic Personality
Disorder, that is characterized by a heightened sense of self-importance and
grandiose feelings that he is unique in some way. Dr. Arellano determined that this
personality disorder is permanent, incurable, and deeply integrated within his
psyche

- The RTC granted the petition and declared the marriage of Katrina and Lawrence
as void ab initio. The CA affirmed the RTC decision, the dispositive portion of which
reads: WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. Accordingly, the Decision of the
Regional Trial Court of Imus, Cavite, Branch 20, in Civil Case No. 4903-11dated8
May 2012 is hereby AFFIRMED. Hence, this petition for review on certiorari.
- The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) points out that there has been a myriad
of cases declaring that psychological assessment based solely on the information
coming from either party in a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage is
considered as hearsay evidence. It is evident that in this case, the psychiatrist
obtained his data, in concluding that Lawrence is psychologically incapacitated,
exclusively from Katrina.
-
Issue
- Whether the totality of evidence presented by Katrina supports the findings of both
the RTC and the CA that Lawrence is psychologically incapacitated to perform his
essential marital obligations, meriting the dissolution of his marriage with Katrina

Ruling:
- First, Dr. Arellano's findings that Lawrence is psychologically incapacitated were
based solely on Katrina's statements.1âwphi1 It bears to stress that Lawrence,
despite notice, did not participate in the proceedings below, nor was he interviewed
by Dr. Arellano despite being invited to do so. To make conclusions and
generalizations on a spouse's psychological condition based on the information
fed by only one side, as in the case at bar, is, to the Court's mind, not different from
admitting hearsay evidence as proof of the truthfulness of the content of such
evidence.

- Second, the testimony of Katrina as regards the behavior of Lawrence hardly

depicts the picture of a psychologically incapacitated husband. Their frequent
fights, his insensitivity, immaturity and frequent night-outs can hardly be said to be
a psychological illness. These acts, in our view, do not rise to the level of the
"psychological incapacity" that the law requires, and should be distinguished from
the "difficulty," if not outright "refusal" or "neglect" in the performance of some
marital obligations that characterize some marriages. 25 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 illness. The psychological illness that must afflict a party at the
inception of the marriage should be a malady so grave and permanent as to
deprive the party of his or her awareness of the duties and responsibilities of the
matrimonial bond he or she was then about to assume.

- Although We commiserate with Katrina's predicament, We are hardpressed to

affirm the RTC and CA when the totality of evidence is clearly lacking to support
the factual and legal conclusion that Lawrence and Katrina's marriage is void ab
initio

- WHEREFORE, the petition for review on certiorari is hereby GRANTED. The

Decision dated May 27, 2015 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 101985,
which affirmed the May 8, 2012 Decision rendered by the Regional Trial Court of
Imus Cavite, Branch 20, granting the petition for declaration of nullity of marriage
on the ground of Article 36 of the Family Code and declaring the marriage of
Katrina S. Tabora-Tionglico and Lawrence C. Tionglico void ab initio, is
hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The petition for declaration of nullity of
marriage docketed as Civil Case No. 4903-11 is hereby DISMISSED.

G.R. No. 166357 January 14, 2015

VALERIO E. KALAW, Petitioner,
vs.
MA. ELENA FERNANDEZ, Respondent.

Facts

- In the case at bar, Kalaw, Petitioner presented the testimonies of two supposed
expert witnesses who concluded that respondent is psychologically incapacitated.
Petitioner’s experts heavily relied on petitioner’s allegations of respondent’s
constant mahjong sessions, visits to the beauty parlor, going out with friends,
adultery, and neglect of their children. Petitioner’s experts opined that respondent’s
alleged habits, when performed constantly to the detriment of quality and quantity
of time devoted to her duties as mother and wife, constitute a psychological
incapacity in the form of NPD.
- However, the Supreme Court in its September 19, 2011 decision dismissed the
complaint for declaration of nullity of the marriage on the ground that there was no
factual basis for the conclusion of psychological incapacity.

Issue

- Whether or not the marriage was void on the ground of psychological incapacity.

Ruling

- Yes. The Court in granting the Motion for Reconsideration held that Fernandez
was indeed psychologically incapacitated as they relaxed the previously set forth
guidelines with regard to this case.

- The Court held that the guidelines set in the case of Republic v. CA have turned
out to be rigid, such that their application to every instance practically condemned
the petitions for declaration of nullity to the fate of certain rejection. But Article 36
of the Family Code must not be so strictly and too literally read and applied given
the clear intendment of the drafters to adopt its enacted version of “less specificity”
obviously to enable “some resiliency in its application.” Instead, every court should
approach the issue of nullity “not on the basis of a priori assumptions, predilections
or generalizations, but according to its own facts” in recognition of the verity that
no case would be on “all fours” with the next one in the field of psychological
incapacity as a ground for the nullity of marriage; hence, every “trial judge must
take pains in examining the factual milieu and the appellate court must, as much
as possible, avoid substituting its own judgment for that of the trial court.

- In the task of ascertaining the presence of psychological incapacity as a ground

for the nullity of marriage, the courts, which are concededly not endowed with
expertise in the field of psychology, must of necessity rely on the opinions
of experts in order to inform themselves on the matter, and thus enable
themselves to arrive at an intelligent and judicious judgment. Indeed, the
 conditions for the malady of being grave, antecedent and incurable demand the in-
depth diagnosis by experts.

- Personal examination by party not required; totality of evidence must be

considered

- We have to stress that the fulfillment of the constitutional mandate for the State to
protect marriage as an inviolable social institution only relates to a valid marriage.
No protection can be accorded to a marriage that is null and void ab initio, because
such a marriage has no legal existence.

- There is no requirement for one to be declared psychologically incapacitated to be

personally examined by a physician, because what is important is the presence of
evidence that adequately establishes the party’s psychological incapacity. Hence,
“if the totality of evidence presented is enough to sustain a finding of psychological
incapacity, then actual medical examination of the person concerned need not be
resorted to.”

- Expert opinion considered as decisive evidence as to psychological and

emotional temperaments

- The findings and evaluation by the RTC as the trial court deserved credence
because it was in the better position to view and examine the demeanor of the
witnesses while they were testifying. The position and role of the trial judge in the
appreciation of the evidence showing the psychological incapacity were not to be
downplayed but should be accorded due importance and respect.

- The Court considered it improper and unwarranted to give to such expert opinions
a merely generalized consideration and treatment, least of all to dismiss their value
as inadequate basis for the declaration of the nullity of the marriage. Instead, we
hold that said experts sufficiently and competently described the psychological
incapacity of the respondent within the standards of Article 36 of the Family Code.
We uphold the conclusions reached by the two expert witnesses because they
were largely drawn from the case records and affidavits, and should not anymore
be disputed after the RTC itself had accepted the veracity of the petitioner’s factual
premises.

- The Court also held that the courts must accord weight to expert testimony on the
psychological and mental state of the parties in cases for the declaration of the
nullity of marriages, for by the very nature of Article 36 of the Family Code the
courts, “despite having the primary task and burden of decision-making,
must not discount but, instead, must consider as decisive evidence the
expert opinion on the psychological and mental temperaments of the
parties.”

- Willfully exposing children to gambling constitutes neglect of parental duties

 - The frequency of the respondent’s mahjong playing should not have delimited our
determination of the presence or absence of psychological incapacity. Instead, the
determinant should be her obvious failure to fully appreciate the duties and
responsibilities of parenthood at the time she made her marital vows. Had she fully
appreciated such duties and responsibilities, she would have known that bringing
along her children of very tender ages to her mahjong sessions would expose them
to a culture of gambling and other vices that would erode their moral fiber.
Nonetheless, the long-term effects of the respondent’s obsessive mahjong playing
surely impacted on her family life, particularly on her very young children.

- The fact that the respondent brought her children with her to her mahjong sessions
did not only point to her neglect of parental duties, but also manifested her
tendency to expose them to a culture of gambling. Her willfully exposing her
children to the culture of gambling on every occasion of her mahjong sessions was
a very grave and serious act of subordinating their needs for parenting to the
gratification of her own personal and escapist desires.

- The respondent revealed her wanton disregard for her children’s moral and mental
development. This disregard violated her duty as a parent to safeguard and protect
her children.

- WHEREFORE, the Court GRANTS the Motion for Reconsideration; REVERSES

and SETS ASIDE the decision promulgated on September 19, 2011; and
REINSTATES the decision rendered by the Regional Trial Court declaring the
marriage between the petitioner and the respondent on November 4, 1976 as
NULL AND VOID AB JN/TIO due to the psychological incapacity of the parties
pursuant to Article 36 of the Family Code.

Hence,
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 which,
as so expressed by Article 68 of the Family Code, include their mutual obligations to live
together, observe love, respect and fidelity and render help and support. There is hardly
any doubt that the intendment of the law has been to confine the meaning of
psychological incapacity to the most Page 4 of 31 || PFR SEPT 7 2015 serious cases of
personality disorders clearly demonstrative of an utter insensitivity or inability to give
meaning and significance to the marriage. This psychological condition must exist at the
time the marriage is celebrated. The law does not evidently envision, upon the other
hand, an inability of the spouse to have sexual relations with the other. This conclusion
is implicit under Article 54 of the Family Code which considers children conceived prior
to the judicial declaration of nullity of the void marriage to be legitimate. The other forms
of psychoses, if existing at the inception of marriage, like the state of a party being of
unsound mind or concealment of drug addiction, habitual alcoholism, homosexuality or
lesbianism, merely renders the marriage contract voidable pursuant to Article 46, Family
Code. If drug addiction, habitual alcoholism, lesbianism or homosexuality should occur
only during the marriage, they become mere grounds for legal separation under Article
55 of the Family Code. These provisions of the Code, however, do not necessarily
preclude the possibility of these various circumstances being themselves, depending on
the degree and severity of the disorder, indicia of psychological incapacity. Until further
statutory and jurisprudential parameters are established, every circumstance that may
have some bearing on the degree, extent, and other conditions of that incapacity must,
in every case, be carefully examined and evaluated so that no precipitate and
indiscriminate nullity is peremptorily decreed. The well-considered opinions of
psychiatrists, psychologists, and persons with expertise in psychological disciplines
might be helpful or even desirable.

(d) What to allege. - A petition under Article 36 of Family Code shall specially allege te
complete facts showing the either or both parties were psychologically incapacitated
from complying with the essential marital obligations of marriages at the time of the
celebration of marriage even if such incapacity becomes manifest only after its
celebration.6

6 Section 2 of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC