LIM vs LIM

G.R. No 176464

FACTS
Petitioner, Edward N. Lim married Maria Cheryl Sta Cruz-Lim but petitioner
herein filed a petition and sought the declaration of nullity of his marriage to respondent
on the ground of the latter’s psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family
Code.
This was then declared by the Regional Trial Court null and void as the two were
psychologically incapacitated. Disagreeing to the decision made by the RTC, the Office
of the SolGen appealed to the CA questioning such parties. The appellate court granted
the appeal of the OSG and the reversed the decision of the trial court. Hence, the
instant petition.

ISSUE
Whether the marriage between petitioner and respondent is null and void
on the ground of the partie’s psychological incapacity.

RULING
NO. The seminal ruling in Santos v. Court of Appeals cites three (3) factors
characterizing psychological incapacity tonperform the essential marital obligations: (1)
gravity, (2) juridical antecedence, (3) incurability.
The court further expounded on the foregoing, to wit: 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 the marriage; and it
must be incurable or, even if it were otherwise, the cure
would be beyond the means of the party involved.

Hence, petition is denied and the decision rendered by the CA is affirmed.

Ochosa vs. Alano
G.R. no. 167459
January 26, 2011

FACTS

Petitioner herein, Jose Reynaldo B. Ochosa filed a petition for review on the declaration of the
nullity of his marriage with respondent Bona J. Alano on the ground of psychological incapacitation.
Petitioner alleged that respondent was an unfaithful spouse and had illicit relations with other men as
testified by petitioner’s two military aides. This allegation was further strengthed to prove the
psychological incapacitation of the respondent with the final witness Elizabeth E. Rondain, a
psychiatyrist who testified that respondent was suffering fromhistrionic personality disorder.

The RTC then rendered a decision declaring the marriage void ab initio on the ground of
psychological incapacitation of respondent under Article 36 of the Family Code as amended. The office
of the SolGen then appealed the said ruling to the CA and was granted where the decision was reversed
and set aside. Hence, the instant petition.

ISSUE

Whether respondent should be deemed psychologically incapacitated to comply with the

essential marital obligations.

RULING

NO. There is inadequate credible evidence that her "defects" were already present at the
inception of, or prior to, the marriage. In other words, her alleged psychological incapacity did not satisfy
the jurisprudential requisite of "juridical antecedence.

Verily, Dr. Rondain evaluated Bona’s psychological condition indirectly from the information
gathered solely from Jose and his witnesses. This factual circumstance evokes the possibility that the
information fed to the psychiatrist is tainted with bias for Jose’s cause, in the absence of sufficient
corroboration.

In fact, Bona’s dysfunctional family portrait which brought about her Histrionic Personality
Disorder as painted by Dr. Rondain was based solely on the assumed truthful knowledge of Jose, the
spouse who has the most to gain if his wife is found to be indeed psychologically incapacitated

We have stressed time and again that Article 36 of the Family Code 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.
Republic vs. Galang
GR No. 168335
June 6, 2011

FACTS
Respodent Galang and Juvy contracted marriage in Pampanga. They resided in
the respondent’s father in San Francisco, Mabalacat Pampanga. On August 4, 1999,
the respondent filed with the RTC a petition for the declaration of nullity of his marriage
with Juvy under Article 36 of the Family Code, as amended. Respondent alleged that
Juvy was psychologically incapacitated to exercise the essential obligations of marriage
as she was a kleptomaniac and a swindler – she stole repondent’s ATM and even had
total lack of care, love and affection for their child. This allegations were supported by a
psychological findings and said that indeed, Juvy suffered from personality and
behavioral disorders – lazy, being an estafador, lack of initiative and etc.
The RTC ruled for the nullifcatioon of the marriage and was affirmed the Court of
Appeals. Petitooner herein, through the OSG, filed a petition that the totality of the
evidence presented by the repsodne t was insufficient to establish the so-called
psychological incapacity.

ISSUE
Whether there is basis to nullify the respondent’s marriage to Juvy on the ground that at
the time of the celebration of the marriage, Juvy suffered from psychological incapacity
that prevented her from complying with her essential marital obligations.

RULING
Petition was granted and that no sufficient basis exists to annul the marriage on the
ground of psychological incapacity under the terms of Article 36 of the Family code.
The grounds mention by respondent, do not per se rise to the level of psychological
incapacity that the law requires. We stress that psychological incapacity must be more
than just a "difficulty," "refusal" or "neglect" in the performance of some marital
obligations. The respondent’s testimony failed to show that Juvy’s condition is a
manifestation of a disordered personality rooted in some incapacitating or debilitating
psychological condition that rendered her unable to discharge her essential
marital obligation. In like manner, Juvy’s acts of falsifying the respondent’s signature to
encash a check, of stealing the respondent’s ATM, and of squandering a huge portion
of the ₱15,000.00 that the respondent entrusted to her, while no doubt reprehensible,
cannot automatically be equated with a psychological disorder
Separately from the lack of the requisite factual basis, the psychologist’s report simply
stressed Juvy’s negative traits which she considered manifestations of Juvy’s
psychological incapacity We find this kind of conclusion and report grossly inadequate.
First, we note that the psychologist did not even identify the types of psychological tests
which she administered on the respondent and the root cause of Juvy’s psychological
condition.
The testimony was totally devoid of any information or insight into Juvy’s early life and
associations, how she acted before and at the time of the marriage, and how the
symptoms of a disordered personality developed. Simply put, the psychologist failed to
trace the history of Juvy’s psychological condition and to relate it to an existing
incapacity at the time of the celebration of the marriage.
In petitions for the declaration of nullity of marriage, the burden of proof to show
the nullity of marriage lies with the plaintiff.
Antonio v. Reyes
G.R. No. 155800
March 10, 2006

Petitioner filed a petition to have his marriage to respondent declared null and
void on the ground of Article 36 of the Family Code alleging that respondent was
psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential obligations of marriage.
He asserted that respondent’s incapacity existed at the time their marriage was
celebrated and still subsists up to the present. As manifestations of respondent’s
alleged psychological incapacity, petitioner claimed that respondent persistently lied
about herself, the people around her, her occupation, income, educational attainment
and other events or things. In support of these allegations, petitioner presented Dr.
Abcede and Dr. Amulfo’s psychological tests.
Shortly before the trial court rendered its decision, the Metropolitan Tribunal of
the Archdiocese of Manila annulled the Catholic marriage of the parties, on the ground
of lack of due discretion on the part of the parties

ISSUE:
Whether the state of facts as presented by petitioner sufficiently meets the standards set for the
declaration of nullity of a marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code.

RULING:

We find that the present case sufficiently satisfies the guidelines in Molina.
1. First. Petitioner had sufficiently overcome his burden in proving the
psychological incapacity of his spouse.
2. Second. The root cause of respondent’s psychological incapacity has
been medically or clinically identified, alleged In the complaint, sufficiently
proven by experts, and clearly explained in the trial court’s decision.
3. Third. Respondent’s psychological incapacity was established to have
clearly existed at the time of and even before the celebration of marriage.
She fabricated friends and made up letters from fictitious characters well
before she married petitioner.
4. Fourth. The gravity of respondent’s psychological incapacity is sufficient to
prove her disability to assume the essential obligations of marriage.
 5. Fifth. Respondent is evidently unable to comply with the essential marital
obligations as embraced by Articles 68 to 71 of the Family Code.
6. Sixth. The Court of Appeals clearly erred when it failed to take into
consideration the fact that the marriage of the parties was annulled by the
Catholic Church.
7. Seventh. The final point of contention is the requirement in Molina that
such psychological incapacity be shown to be medically or clinically
permanent or incurable. It was on this score that the Court of Appeals
reversed the judgment of the trial court, the appellate court noting that it
did not appear certain that respondent’s condition was incurable and that
Dr. Abcede did not testify to such effect.
The JURISPRUDENCE in the Case maintains that matrimonial consent is
considered ontologically defective and wherefore judicially ineffective when elicited by a
Part Contractant in possession and employ of a discretionary judgment faculty with a
perceptive vigor markedly inadequate for the practical understanding of the conjugal
Covenant or serious impaired from the correct appreciation of the integral significance
and implications of the marriage vows
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.
Republic vs. Molina G.R. No. 108763, February 13, 1997

FACTS

Respondent Roridel O. Molina verified a petition for declaration of nullity of her marriage to Reynaldo
Molina.

During the pre-trial on October 17, 1990, the following were stipulated:
1. That the parties herein were legally married on April 14, 1985 at the Church of St. Augustine, Manila;
2. That out of their marriage, a child named Albert Andre Olaviano Molina was born on July 29, 1986;
3. That the parties are separated-in-fact for more than three years;
4. That petitioner is not asking support for her and her child;
5. That the respondent is not asking for damages;
6. That the common child of the parties is in the custody of the petitioner wife

On May 14, 1991, the trial court rendered judgment declaring the marriage void. The appeal of petitioner
was denied by the Court of Appeals which affirmed in toto the RTC's decision. Hence, the present
recourse.

ISSUE:

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in the interpretation of the phrase PSYCHOLOGICAL INCAPACITY
and made an incorrect application thereof to the facts of the case.

RULING

The petition is meritorious.

In the case of Reynaldo, there is no showing that his alleged personality traits were constitutive
of psychological incapacity existing at the time of marriage celebration.
From their submissions and the Court's own deliberations, the following guidelines in the
interpretation and application of Art. 36 of the Family Code are hereby handed down for the
guidance of the bench and the bar:

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.
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
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.
The following are incapable of contracting marriage: Those who are unable to assume
the essential obligations of marriage due to causes of psychological nature.
8. The trial court must order the prosecuting attorney or fiscal and the Solicitor General to
appear as counsel for the
state.
In the instant case and applying Leouel Santos, we have already ruled to grant the petition.
Such ruling becomes even more cogent with the use of the foregoing guidelines.

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The assailed Decision is REVERSED and SET
ASIDE. The marriage of Roridel Olaviano to Reynaldo Molina subsists and remains valid.
CHI MING TSOI vs COURT OF APPEALS
G.R NO. 119190
January 16, 1997

FACTS
Sometime in May 22, 1988, petitioner and private respondent were
married. After the celebration and reception, and as they slept together at
the house of the private respondent’s mother, nothing happened which
was contrary to what a newly wedded couple is expected to do on their
first night. In an effort to have their honeymoon in a more private place,
couple then went to Baguio City. To no avail, there was no honeymoon
whatsoever and they simply slept together in the same room and on the
same bed since May 22 1988 until March 15, 1989. No sexual intercourse
occurred.
With this, the parties then submitted themselves for an examination
and it was founded that she is healthy, normal and still a virgin while that
of her husband’s was kept private.
Private respondent does not want to reconcile with the petitioner
and seeks to annul the marriage on the ground of psychological
incapacitation.
Considerations made on the evidences and were said to be NOT
FABRICATED, the lower court then rendered judgment and declared the
marriage VOID and was affirmed by the Court of Appeals. Hence, the
instant petition.

ISSUE
Whether the acts shown by the petitioner constitute psychological
incapacity and validly served as the ground for annulment of marriage.

RULING
 YES. The court ruled that one of the essential marital obligations under
the Family Code is "To procreate children based on the universal principle that
procreation of children through sexual cooperation is the basic end of marriage."
Constant non- fulfillment of this obligation will finally destroy the integrity or
wholeness of the marriage.
⮚ In the case at bar, the senseless and protracted refusal of one of the parties to
fulfill the above marital obligation is equivalent to
psychological incapacity.

REPUBLIC VS HON. COURT OF APPEALS

G.R 159594
November 12, 2012

FACTS

The case is an appeal by the State on the decision promulgated on July

30, 2003, where the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the declaration by Regional
Trial Court (RTC) Branch 38, of the nullity of the marriage between respondent
Eduardo De Quintos, Jr. (Eduardo) and Catalina Delos Santos-De Quintos
(Catalina) based on the latter’s psychological incapacity under the Article 36 of
the Family Code.

Eduardo filed the petition for nullity of marriage citing Catalina’s

psychological incapacity to comply with her essential marital obligations: (1)
Catalina always left their house without Eduardo’s consent; (2) she constantly
refused to give in to his sexual needs; (3) she spent most of her time gossiping
with neighbors of doing essential house chores; (4) she squandered by gambling
All his remittances as an overseas worker in Qatar since 1993; (5) she
abandoned the conjugal home in 1997 to live with another man. A neuro-
psychiatric evaluation was presented to show that Catalina exhibited traits of
Borderline Personality Disorder that was no longer treatable.

The RTC granted the petition and was affirmed by the CA. The State then
raised the lone error that the lower court in declaring the marriage null and void
and that Catalina’s psychological incapacity was not proven to exist.

ISSUE
Whether there was sufficient evidence warranting the declaration of the
nullity of Catalina’s marriage to Eduardo based on her psychological incapacity
under the Article 36 of the Family Code.

RULING
 No. The court ruled that both lower courts did not exact a compliance with
the requirement of sufficiently explaining the gravity, root cause and incurability
of Catalina’s purported psychological incapacity. Rather, they were liberal in their
appreciation of the scantly evidence that Eduardo submitted to establish the
incapacity.
Catalina’s immaturity alone did not constitute psychological incapacity. The only
fact established here, which Catalina even admitted in her Answer, was her
abandonment of the conjugal home to live with another man. Yet, abandonment
was not one of the grounds for the nullity of marriage under the Family Code. It
did not also constitute psychological incapacity, it being instead a ground for
legal separation under Article 55(10) of the Family Code
In fine, given the insufficiency of the evidence proving the psychological
incapacity of Catalina, we cannot but resolve in favor of the existence and
continuation of the marriage and against its dissolution and nullity.36
NAJERA vs NAJERA
G.R No. 164817
July 3, 2009

FACTS

Petitioner filed with the Regional Trial Court a verified petition for
Declaration of Nullity of Marriage with Alternative Prayer for Legal separation,
with Application for designation as Administrator Pendente Lite of the conjugal
partnership of Gains. Petitioner alleged that she and the respondent are
residents of Bugallon, Pangasinan, but the respondent is presently living in the
(United States of America).

In the case, petitioner contends that respondent was psychologically

incapacitated at the time when marriage was celebrated. With this incapacity,
respondent then failed to comply with the essential marital obligations of the
marriage and the incapacity became manifest only after marriage.

ISSUE
Whether or not the totality of petitioner’s evidence was able to prove that respondent
is psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential obligations of marriage
warranting the annulment of their marriage under Article 1: of the Family Code.

RULIN G

No. The evidence presented by the petitioner in regard to the physical violence or grossly
abusive conduct toward the petitioner and the respondent’s abandonment of the petitioner
justifiable cause for more than one year are grounds for legal separation only and not for
annulment of marriage under Article 1: of the Family Code.
HALILI vs HALILI
G.R No. 165424
June 9, 2009

FACTS

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 essential obligations of marriage in the
Regional Trial Court,

Petitioner 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.

It was founded by the RTC that petitioner was suffering from Mixed
Personality Disorder – dependent and self-defeating personality disorder, as
diagnosed by AN EXPERT WITNESS, Dr. Natividad Dayan.

On appeal, the CA reversed and set aside the decision of the trial court on
the ground that the totality of the evidence presented failed to establish
petitioner’s psychological incapacity. Petitioner moved for reconsideration. It was
denied. The case was elevated to this Court via a petition for review under Rule
45. We affirmed the CA’s decision and resolution upholding the validity of the
marriage.

ISSUE
 Whether the marriage be declared null and void on the ground of
petitioner’s psychological incapacity

RULING

Yes. The court ruled that, expert witness, Dr. Dayan stated that
petitioner’s dependent personality disorder was evident in the fact that petitioner
was very much attached to his parents and depended on them for decisions.
Petitioner’s 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.

Ultimately, Dr. Dayan concluded that petitioner’s personality disorder was grave
and incurable and already existent at the time of the celebration of his marriage
to respondent.

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. Accordingly, the marriage between petitioner
and respondent is declared null and void.
REPUBLIC vs ENCELAN
G.R 170022
January 9, 2013

FACTS

On August 25, 1979, Cesar married Lolita and the union bore two children.
To support the family, Cesar went to work in Saudi Arabia on May 15, 1984. And
while in Saudi Arabia, he learned that Lolita had been having an illicit affair with
Alvin Perez. Sometime in 1991, Lolita allegedly left the conjugal home with her
children and lived with Alvin. Since then, Cesar and Lolita had been separated.

On June 16, 1994, Cesar filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) a
petition against Lolita for the declaration of the nullity of his marriage based on
Lolita’s psychological incapacity. ‘Lolita denied the illicit affair and further insisted
that she is not psychologically incapacitated and that her act of leaving the
conjugal home was because irreconcilable difference with her mother-in-law.

The psychological incapacitation of Lolita was presented supported by a

psychological evaluation report by Dr. Faredo Fatima Flores of the National
Center for Mental Health where it was founded that Lolita was not suffering from
any form of major psychiatric relationship.

The RTC ruled and declared Cesar’s marriage to Lolita void, finding
insufficient basis to declare Lolita psychologically incapacitated to comply wwith
the essential marital obligations.
‘
 The petitioner through the Solicitor General (OSG) appelaed to the CA
and the CA significantly observed that infedility is only a ground for legal
separation, not for the declaration of the nullity of marriage. The OSG then filed
instant present petition.

ISSUE

Whether there exists sufficient basis to nullify Cesar’s marriage to Lolita

on the ground of psychological incapacity.

RULING
NO. The court ruled that no sufficient basis exists to annul Cesar’s
marriage to Lolita on the ground of psychological incapacity. Applying Article 36
of the Family Code, it was repeatedly stressed by the Court that psychological
incapacity contemplates "downright incapacity or inability to take cognizance of
and to assume the basic marital obligations”; not merely the refusal, neglect or
difficulty, much less ill will, on the part of the errant spouse In any event, sexual
infidelity and abandonment of the conjugal dwelling, even if true, do not
necessarily constitute psychological incapacity; these are simply grounds for
legal separation.
Cesar mistakenly relied on Dr. Flores’ psychological evaluation report on
Lolita to prove her alleged psychological incapacity.
In sum, we find that Cesar failed to prove the existence of Lolita’s psychological
incapacity; thus, the CA committed a reversible error when it reconsidered its original
decision.
Once again, we stress that marriage is an inviolable social institution31 protected by the
State. Any doubt should be resolved in favor of its existence its existence and
continuation and against its dissolution and nullity. It cannot be dissolved at the whim of
the parties nor by transgressions made by one party to the other during the marriage.