114 Rumbaua vs Rumbua

GR No. 166738 August 14 2009

FACTS: Petitioner and respondent they married in Manila on February 23, 1993. Petitioner filed a
complaint for the declaration of nullity of marriage against the respondent alleging that the latter was
psychologically incapacitated to exercise the essential obligations of marriage as shown by the following
circumstances: the respondent reneged on his promise to live with her under one roof after finding
work; he failed to extend financial support to her; he blamed her for his mother’s death; he represented
himself as single in his transactions; and he pretended to be working in Davao, although he was
cohabiting with another woman in Novaliches, Quezon City.

The RTC redendered their marriage null and void, however, the CA revesed the decision.

ISSUE: WON the marriage between petitioner and respondent should be declared null and void on the
ground of psychological incapacity.

HELD: No. As the Court ruled in Molina, 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. The Court opines that it cannot presume psychological defect from the mere fact that
respondent refuses to comply with his marital duties. Thus, petition is denied.

115 Chi Ming Tsoi vs Court of Appeals

GR No. 119190 January 16, 1997

FACTS: Plaintiff married the defendant, as evidenced by their Marriage Contract. After the celebration of
their marriage and reception, they slept together on the same bed in the same room for the first night
of their married life but there was no sexual intercourse between them during the first night. The same
thing happened on the second, third and fourth nights. Because of this, they submitted themselves for
medical examinations. The results of their physical examinations were that she is healthy, normal and
still a virgin, while that of her husband's examination was kept confidential up to this time.

The plaintiff claims, that the defendant is impotent, a closet homosexual and that the defendant
married her, a Filipino citizen, to acquire or maintain his residency status here in the country. On trial,
the defendant admitted that since their marriage on May 22, 1988, until their separation on March 15,
1989, there was no sexual contact between them.The defendant submitted himself to a physical
examination. It is stated there, that there is no evidence of impotency. The lower court rendered
judgement declaring the marriage void. The CA affirmed the decision.

ISSUE: WON the marriage between plaintiff and respondent is void on the ground of psychological
incapacity.

HELD: YES. If a spouse, although physically capable but simply refuses to perform his or her essential
marriage obligations, and the refusal is senseless and constant, Catholic marriage tribunals attribute the
causes to psychological incapacity than to stubborn refusal. Senseless and protracted refusal is
equivalent to psychological incapacity. Thus, the prolonged refusal of a spouse to have sexual
intercourse with his or her spouse is considered a sign of psychological incapacity. Thus, the refusal to
perform one of the essential marital obligation renders a marriage void.

116 Antonio vs Reyes

GR No. 155800 March 10, 2006

FACTS: Barely a year after their first meeting, petitioner and respondent got married. In 1993, Antonio
filed a petition to annul their marriage due to the alleged psychological incapacity of Reyes maniesting
that the latter persistently lied about herself, the people around her, her occupation, income,
educational attainment and other events or things. She fabricates things and people only to serve her
make-believe world.

Antonio presented an expert who testified to Reyes’s psychological incapacity. Reyes denied all of
Antonio's allegations and she also presented an expert to prove her case. The RTC ruled against Reyes
and declared their marriage void. Meanwhile, The Matrimonial Tribunal of the church also annulled the
marriage and was even affirmed by the Vatican’s Roman Rata. However, the Court of Appeals reversed
the decision hence the appeal.

ISSUE: WON the marriage between petitioner and respondent should be declared null and void on the
ground of psychological incapacity.

HELD: Yes. The Supreme Court emphasized what fraud or misrepresentation means as contemplated in
Article 45 (3) of the Family Code vis-a-vis Article 46. Psychological Incapacity, the misrepresentation
done by Reyes points to her inadequacy to cope with her marital obligations, kindred to psychological
incapacity. In Article 45 (3), marriage may be annulled if the consent of either party was obtained by
fraud, and Article 46 which enumerates the circumstances constituting fraud under the previous article,
clarifies that “no other misrepresentation or deceit as to character, health, rank, fortune or chastity shall
constitute such fraud as will give grounds for action for the annulment of marriage.” These provisions of
Article 45 (3) and Article 46 cannot be applied in the case at bar because the misrepresentations done by
Reyes is not considered as fraud but rather such misrepresentations constitute her aberrant behaviour
which further constitutes Psychological Incapacity. Her misrepresentations are not lies sought to vitiate
Antonio’s consent to marry her. Her misrepresentations are evidence that Marie cannot simply
distinguish fiction/fantasy from reality which is so grave and it falls under the fourth guideline laid down
in the Molina Case. Hence, the Court declared their marriage null and void on the ground of
psychological incapacity.