NICOLAS MATUDAN v.

REPUBLIC, MARILYN MATUDAN

G.R. No. 203284
November 14, 2016

I. Ticker – Family Code, Art. 36. Psychological Incapacity.

II. Doctrine
Psychological incapacity in petitions for declaration of nullity of marriage 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.

(gravity, juridical antecedence, and incurability)

III. Facts
 October 26, 2976 – petitioner Nicolas married respondent Marilyn in Laoang,
Northern Samar. They had 4 children.
 1985 – Marilyn left to work abroad. Nicolas and their children lost contact with her
and had not seen nor heard from her again.
 23 years later, petitioner Nicolas filed a Petition for Declaration of Nullity of
Marriage, alleging that:
o Before, during and after their marriage, Marilyn was psychologically
incapable of fulfilling her obligations as a wife and mother
o Marilyn consistently neglected and failed to provide petitioner and their
children with necessary emotion and financial care, support and sustenance,
esp. after leaving for work abroad
o Based on expert evaluation by Clinical Psych Dr. Nedy Tayag, Marilyn
psych incapacity is grave, permanent and incurable.
o Petitioner’s consent to the marriage was obtained through fraud as Marilyn
misrepresented and concealed her psych condition from him.
o Testimonies of petitioner, their daughter Maricel, and Dr. Tayag were
submitted in evidence.
 RTC dismissed the Petition declaring that petitioner’s evidence failed to
sufficiently prove Marilyn’s psych incapacity.
o Cited Santos v. CA which provided the ruling that psych incapacity must be
characterized by (1) gravity, (2) juridical antecedence and (3) incurability.
 CA affirmed the RTC Decision. Hence, the SC Petition.

IV. Issue – W/N the RTC and CA were correct in ruling that petitioner was unable to
prove Marilyn’s psych incapacity.

V. Decision / Ruling
 SC DENIES the Petition.
 Citing the same Santos v. CA case, it ruled that psychological incapacity under
Art. 36 of the Family Code must be characterized by (1) gravity, (2) juridical
antecedence and (3) incurability.
o 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.

 While petitioner professed psychological incapacity, he could not establish its

gravity, juridical antecedence and incurability.
o The supposed evaluation of Marilyn’s psych condition was based solely on
petitioner’s account since Marilyn did not participate in the proceedings.
o Complete facts should allege the physical manifestations as are indicative of
psych incapacity at the time of the celebration of the marriage.
o The testimonies failed to show gravity and juridical antecedence.

 Psychological incapacity, as a ground to nullify a marriage should refer to no less

than a mental 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 in Article 68 of the Family Code,
among others, include their mutual obligations to live together, observe love,
respect and delity and render help and support.

 The intendment of the law has been to confine the meaning of psychological
incapacity to the most serious case of personality disorders clearly
demonstrative of an utter insensitivity or inability to give meaning and
significance to the marriage.