BRENDA MARCOS vs WILSON MARCOS

Facts:

1. Brenda and Wilson Marcos first met in 1980 when both of them were assigned in Malacañang Palace;
Brenda as an escort of Irene Marcos while Wilson as a Presidential Guard of then Pres. Marcos. They
got married twice (first on Sept.6, 1982 in MTC Pasig, and; second on May 8, 1983 in Malacañang
Palace). They had five children.
2. After the downfall of Pres. Marcos, Wilson left the military service in 1987 and engaged himself in different
business ventures but did not succeeded. For failure of Wilson to engage in any gainful employment, they
often quarrel to the point that he had been hitting and beating Brenda. Sometimes, he would even force
Brenda to have sex with him. He also inflicts physical harm to their children. One time, he also inflicted
physical harm to Brenda’s mom who came to aid her.
3. During their cohabitation, Wilson often leave their house, and in 1992, they lived separately.
4. In a case study conducted by a Social Worker, the children described their father as cruel and physically
abusive to them.
5. Brenda filed a petition for the declaration of nullity of their marriage with the RTC anchored on Article 36
of the Family Code. She submitted herself to a psychologist for psychological evaluation, while Wilson,
on the other hand, did not.

RTC: declared the marriage between Brenda and Wilson Marcos null and void ab initio pursuant to Art.36
of the Family Code – it found Wilson Marcos to be psychologically incapacitated to perform his marital
obligations mainly because of his failure to find work to support his family and his violent attitude towards
his wife and children

CA: reversed RTC’s decision – psychological incapacity had not been established by the totality of the
evidence presented

Issue:

 Whether or not a personal medical or psychological examination of Wilson is a requirement for a

declaration of psychological incapacity
 Whether or not the totality of evidence presented by Brenda shows psychological incapacity of Wilson
(evidence presented by petitioner were: her own testimonies and that of their common children, her sister
and the social worker)
 Whether or not Wilson Marcos is psychologically incapacitated that would render his marriage with Brenda
null and void ab initio

Ruling:

Need for Personal Medical Examination

In Republic vs Molina, the guidelines governing the application and the interpretation of psychological incapacity
were laid down by the court:
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 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. Article
36 of the Family Code requires that the incapacity must be psychological — not physical, although its
manifestations and/or symptoms may be physical.
3. The incapacity must be proven to be existing at ‘the time of the celebration’ of the marriage (manifestation
of the illness must have attached at such moment, or prior thereto).
4. Such incapacity must also be shown to be medically or clinically permanent or incurable; and such
incapacity must be relevant to the assumption of marriage obligations.
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.

These guidelines incorporated three basic requirements – psychological incapacity must be characterized by:
(a) gravity (b) juridical antecedence, and (c) incurability. The guidelines DO NOT REQUIRE that a
physician examine the person to be declared psychologically incapacitated. What is important is the presence
of evidence that can adequately establish the person’s psychological condition.

Totality of evidence presented

Although this Court is sufficiently convinced that respondent failed to provide material support to the family
and may have resorted to physical abuse and abandonment, the totality of his acts does not lead to a
conclusion of psychological incapacity on his part. There is absolutely no showing that his "defects" were
already present at the inception of the marriage or that they are incurable.

Verily, the behavior of respondent can be attributed to the fact that he had lost his job and was not gainfully
employed for a period of more than six years. It was during this period that he became intermittently drunk,
failed to give material and moral support, and even left the family home. Thus, his alleged psychological illness
was traced only to said period and not to the inception of the marriage. Equally important, there is no evidence
showing that his condition is incurable, especially now that he is gainfully employed as a taxi driver.

Psychological incapacity, under Article 36 of the Family Code 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. These marital obligations are those provided under Articles 68 to 71, 220, 221 and 225 of the Family
Code.

The Court cannot declare the dissolution of the marriage for failure of petitioner to show that the alleged
psychological incapacity is characterized by gravity, juridical antecedence and incurability; and for her failure
to observe the guidelines in outlined in Molina.