REPUBLIC V CABANTUG-BAGUIO G.R. NO.

171042 JUNE 30, 2008

FACTS: Petition for review on the declaration of the nullity of marriage between Lynette Cabantug-
Baguio and Martini Dico Baguio
 August 12, 1997 – Lynette and Martini were married after being pen pals since 1995
 Initially, the couple stayed with Lynette’s parents. Martini only stayed with his wife during
weekends, and on weekdays he was at his parent’s house. Lynette soon discovered that Martini
was a “mama’s boy”
 Upon the insistence of Martini’s mother, his allotment was divided equally between her and
Lynette
 January 1999 – No information about Martini. Lynette also stopped receiving her share of the
allotment and upon inquiry with Martini’s employer, she found out that he was in Alabang,
Muntinlupa
 October 12, 2000 – Lynette filed a complaint for the declaration of the nullity of marriage on
the basis of Martini’s psychological incapacity to comply with the essential marital duties and
obligations as stated in Art. 68-70 of the Family Code
 Summons were served upon Martini to which he did not file any response. No collusion was
also established.
 October 14, 1999 – Lynette learned that Martini declared in his employment records that he
was SINGLE and named his mother as principal allotee
 Respondent presented the letter of clinical psychologist who evaluated the behavior of Martini.
Based on the report, Martini shows immature personality disorder, dependency patterns and
self-centered motives. The situation is serious, grave, existing already during the adolescent
period and incurable. As such, Martini is psychologically incapacitated to comply with the
essential obligations in marriage and family
 January 2, 2002 – Cebu City RTC declared that marriage void since Martini was psychologically
incapacitated to comply with the essential martial obligations of marriage and that same
incapacity existed at the time of the celebration of the marriage

ISSUE: Whether or not Martini’s being a “mama’s boy” constitutes as a psychological incapacity under
Art. 36 of the Family Code

HELD: Art. 36 should not be confused with a divorce law that cuts the material bond at the time the
causes manifest themselves, nor with legal separation in which the grounds need not be rooted in
psychological incapacity but on physical violence, moral pressure, moral corruption, civil interdiction,
drug addiction, habitual alcoholism sexual infidelity, abandonment and the like.

The term "psychological incapacity" to be a ground for the nullity of marriage under Article 36 of the
Family Code, 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. As all people may have certain quirks
and idiosyncrasies, or isolated characteristics associated with certain personality disorders, there is
hardly a 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. [T]he root cause must be
identified as a psychological illness, and its incapacitating nature must be fully explained.

For psychological incapacity to render a marriage void ab initio it must be characterized by:
 1. Gravity – must be grave and serious such that the party would be incapable of carrying out the
ordinary duties required in a marriage
2. Juridical antecedence – it must be rooted in the history of the party antedating the marriage,
although overt manifestations may emerge only after the marriage
3. Incurability – must be incurable, or even if it were otherwise, the cure would be beyond the
means of the party involved

In petitions for the declaration of nullity of marriage, the burden of proving the nullity of marriage lies
on the plaintiff. Any doubt should be resolved in favor of the existence and continuation of the
marriage, and against the dissolution and nullity (semper praesumitur pro matrimonio)

As seen in this case, Lynette failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove Martini’s psychological
incapacity. While the court sympathizes with her predication, its first and foremost duty is to apply the
law.