respondent’s obsessive mahjong playing surely
impacted her family life particularly on her very young
children. Her willfully exposing her children to the
culture of gambling on every occasion of her mahjong
sessions was a very grave and serious act of
subordinating their needs for parenting to the
gratification of her own personal and escapist desires.
The respondent revealed her wanton disregard for her
children’s moral and mental development. This
disregard violated her duty as a parent to safeguard and
protect her children (Kalaw v. Fernandez, G.R. No.
166357, January 14, 2015)
Q: Was the Molina doctrine abandoned by the recent
ruling in the abovementioned case of Kalaw vs.
Fernandez (G.R. No. 166357, January 14, 2015)?
A: NO. The Court in this case merely recognized the
unintended consequences of strictly applying the
standards set in Molina. The resiliency with which the
concept (of psychological incapacity) should be applied
and the case-to-case basis by which the provision
should be interpreted, as so intended by its framers,
had, somehow, been rendered ineffectual by the
imposition of a set of strict standards in Molina. In
hindsight, it may have been inappropriate for the Court
to impose a rigid set of rules, as the one in Molina, in
resolving all cases of psychological incapacity. The
unintended consequences of Molina has taken its toll on
people who have to live with deviant behavior, moral
insanity and sociopathic personality anomaly, which,
like termites, consume little by little the very foundation
of their families, our basic social institutions. Far from
what was intended by the Court, Molina has become a
strait-jacket, forcing all sizes to fit into and be bound by
it.
In the abovementioned case, the Supreme Court is not
suggesting the abandonment of Molina. It simply
declares that there is a need to emphasize other
perspectives as well which should govern the
disposition of petitions for declaration of nullity under
Article 36.
Q: Rodolfo and Natividad were married. On
December 28, 1998, Rodolfo filed a verified
complaint for declaration of nullity of marriage
before the RTC alleging that Natividad was
psychologically incapacitated to comply with her
essential marital obligations. In support of his
complaint, Rodolfo testified, among others, that he
first met Natividad when they were students at the
Barangay High School of Sindangan, and he was
forced to marry her barely three (3) months into
their courtship in light of her accidental pregnancy.
At the time of their marriage, he was 21 years old,
while Natividad was 18 years of age.
He had no stable job and merely worked in the
gambling cockpits as "kristo" and "bangkero sa
hantak." When he decided to join and train with the
army, Natividad left their conjugal home and sold
their house without his consent. Thereafter,
Natividad moved to Dipolog City where she lived
with a certain Engineer Terez (Terez), and bore him
a child named Julie Ann Terez. After cohabiting with
Terez, Natividad contracted a second marriage on
January 11, 1991 with another man named Antonio
Mondarez and has lived since then with the latter in
Cagayan de Oro City. From the time Natividad abandoned
them in 1972, Rodolfo was left to take care of Ma.
Reynilda and Ma. Rizza and he exerted earnest efforts to
save their marriage which, however, proved futile
because of Natividad’s psychological incapacity that
appeared to be incurable. For her part, Natividad failed
to file her answer, as well as appear during trial, despite
service of summons. Nonetheless, she informed the court
that she submitted herself for psychiatric examination to
Dr. Cheryl T. Zalsos (Dr. Zalsos) in response to Rodolfo’s
claims. Rodolfo also underwent the same examination.
In her two-page psychiatric evaluation report, Dr. Zalsos
stated that both Rodolfo and Natividad were
psychologically incapacitated to comply with the
essential marital obligations, finding that both parties
suffered from "utter emotional immaturity [which] is
unusual and unacceptable behavior considered [as]
deviant from persons who abide by established norms of
conduct." As for Natividad, Dr. Zalsos also observed that
she lacked the willful cooperation of being a wife and a
mother to her two daughters. On February 10, 1999, the
Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), representing
petitioner Republic of the Philippines (Republic), filed
an opposition to the complaint, contending that the acts
committed by Natividad did not demonstrate
psychological incapacity as contemplated by law, but are
mere grounds for legal separation under the Family
Code. Should the marriage be dissolved?
A: NO. "Psychological incapacity," as a ground to nullify a
marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code, should refer to
no less than a mental – not merely physical – 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 68of the Family Code, among others,
include their mutual obligations to live together, observe
love, respect and fidelity and render help and support. The
RTC, as affirmed by the CA, heavily relied on the psychiatric
evaluation report of Dr. Zalsos which does not, however,
explain in reasonable PERSONS AND FAMILY
RELATIONS
47
detail how Natividad’s condition could be characterized
as grave, deeply-rooted, and incurable within the
parameters of psychological incapacity jurisprudence.
Aside from failing to disclose the types of psychological
tests which she administered on Natividad, Dr. Zalsos
failed to identify in her report the root cause of
Natividad's condition and to show that it existed at the
time of the parties' marriage. Neither was the gravity or
seriousness of Natividad's behavior in relation to her
failure to perform the essential marital obligations
sufficiently described in Dr. Zalsos's report. To hark
back to what has been earlier discussed, psychological
incapacity refers only to the most serious cases of
personality disorders clearly demonstrative of an utter
insensitivity or inability to give meaning and
significance to the marriage. In the final analysis, the
Court does not perceive a disorder of this nature to exist
in the present case. Thus, for these reasons, coupled too
with the recognition that marriage is an inviolable social
institution and the foundation of the family, the instant
petition is hereby granted. (Republic v. Gracia, G.R. No.
171557, February 12, 2014)
Q: Rachel worked as a domestic helper in Hong Kong
to provide for the needs of Jose, the love of her life.
Eventually, the couple got married and settled in a
house they acquired. The married life ran smoothly
up until Rachel filed a petition for declaration of
nullity of marriage. Her petition anchored on the
ground that Jose was psychologically incapacitated
to fulfill his essential marital obligations. She
alleged that Jose was a violent man who used to
physically abuse her. She added that Jose was a
drunkard and always had sexual relations with
different women aside from Rachel. On his part, Jose
simply denied all the allegations in the petition. Is
Jose psychologically incapacitated?
A: No. For psychological incapacity to exist, it should
refer to no less than a mental and not merely physical
incapacity that causes a party to be truly incognitive of
the basic marital covenants as provided for under
Article 68 of the Family Code. In other words, it must be
a malady that is so grave and permanent as to deprive
one of awareness of the duties and responsibilities of
the matrimonial bond one is about to assume. Also,
following the case of Republic vs Molina, the totality of
evidence must show that psychological incapacity exists
and its gravity, juridical antecedence, and incurability
must be duly established. Here, there is no sufficient
evidence to prove that psychological incapacity exists.
Absent sufficient evidence, Courts are compelled to
uphold the indissolubility of the marital tie. (Del Rosario
v. Del Rosario, G.R. No. 222541, February 15, 2017)
Q: Reghis and Olivia were married and were blessed
with two (2) children. However, the couple
experienced a turbulent and tumultuous marriage,
often having violent fights and jealous fits. Reghis
could not forgive Olivia for dragging him into
marriage and resented her condescending attitude
towards him. They became even more estranged
when Reghis secured a job as a medical
representative and became engrossed in his career
and focused on supporting his parents and siblings.
As a result, he spent little time with his family,
causing Olivia to complain that Reghis failed to be a
real husband to her. In 1986, the couple parted
ways. Reghis then filed a petition for declaration of
nullity of marriage citing his psychological incapacity to
comply with his essential marital obligations. The
clinical psychologist submitted a report and testified
that Reghis suffered from Obsessive Compulsive
Personality Disorder (OCPD). This gave him a strong
obsession for whatever endeavour he chooses, such as
his work, to the exclusion of other responsibilities and
duties such as those pertaining to his roles as father and
husband. Dr. Basilio surmised that Reghis’ OCPD was the
root of the couple’s disagreements and that the same is
incurable. The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG),
representing the Republic, opposed the petition. Should
the marriage be declared null and void?
A: No. The requirements for psychological incapacity do not
concur. Reghis’ testimony shows that he was able to comply
with his marital obligations which, therefore, negates the
existence of a grave and serious psychological incapacity on
his part. Reghis admitted that he and Olivia lived together as
husband and wife under one roof for fourteen (14) years and
both of them contributed in purchasing their own house.
Reghis also fulfilled his duty to support and take care of his
family. Moreover, the OCPD which Reghis allegedly suffered
from was not shown to have juridical antecedence. No
specific behavior or habits during his adolescent years were
shown which would explain his behavior during his marriage
with Olivia. Dr. Basilio simply concluded that Reghis’
disorder is incurable but failed to explain how she came to
such conclusion. Based on the appreciation of the RTC, Dr.
Basilio did not discuss the concept of OCPD, its classification,
cause, symptoms, and cure, and failed to show how and to
what extent the respondent exhibited this disorder in order
to create a necessary inference that Reghis’ condition had no
definite treatment or is incurable.
Article 36 of the Family Code must not be confused with a
divorce law that cuts the marital bond at the time the
grounds for divorce manifest themselves; rather, it must be
limited to cases where there is a downright incapacity or
inability to assume and fulfill the basic marital obligations,
not a mere refusal, neglect or difficulty, much less, ill will, on
the part of the errant CIVIL LAW
48
U NIVERSITYOFSANTOT OMAS201 9GOLDENN OTES
spouse. (Republic v. Romero II, G.R. No. 209180, February 26, 2016)
Q: Would the state of being of unsound mind or the concealment of drug addiction, habitual
alcoholism, homosexuality or lesbianism be considered indicia of psychological incapacity, if existing
at the inception of marriage? (2002 Bar)
A: The state of being of unsound mind, the concealment of drug addiction, habitual alcoholism, lesbianism or
homosexuality may be indicia of psychological incapacity, depending on the degree of severity of the disorder.
However, the concealment of drug addiction, habitual alcoholism, lesbianism or homosexuality is a ground of
annulment of marriage (Santos v. CA, G.R. No. 112019, January 4, 1995).
Q: Art. 36 of the FC provides that a marriage contracted by any party who, at the time of the
celebration, was psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential marital obligations of
marriage, shall be void. Choose the spouse listed below who is psychologically incapacitated.
a. Nagger
b. Gay or Lesbian
c. Congenital sexual pervert
d. Gambler
e. Alcoholic (2006 Bar)

A: B and C. They may serve as indicia of psychological incapacity, depending on the degree and severity of the
disorder (Santos v. CA, G.R. No. 112019, January 4, 1995). If the condition of homosexuality, lesbianism or
sexual perversion, existing at the inception of the marriage, is of such a degree as to prevent any form of
sexual intimacy, any of them may qualify as a ground for psychological incapacity. The law provides that the
husband and wife are obliged to live together, observe mutual love, respect and fidelity (FC, Art. 68).
More than just showing the manifestations of incapacity, the petitioner must show that the respondent is
incapacitated to comply with the essential marital obligations of marriage and that it is also essential that he
must be shown to be incapable of doing so due to some psychological, not physical illness (Republic v.
Quintero- Hamano, G.R. No. 149498, May 20, 2004).
Q: After living together as husband and wife for two (2) years, Gina and Marjune formalized their
marital union through civil rites. As months passed, the communication between Gina and Marjune
became less frequent until it ceased altogether. Thus, Gina filed a petition to declare her marriage
with Marjune null and void on the basis of the latter's psychological incapacity.
During trial, Gina presented the findings of Professor Emma Astudillo-Sanchez (Prof. Sanchez), the
psychologist who conducted a psychological examination of the parties. She concluded that Gina and
Marjune's personality disorders "affected their behaviors even before they contracted marriage and,
in the presence of situational factors, became more evident during the time they were together during
the marriage. Is upholding the annulment based on the expert opinion of the psychologist sufficient
proof of the presence of psychological incapacity?
A: NO, the said report failed
to show that these traits
existed prior to Gina's
marriage and that her
alleged personality disorder
is incurable or that the cure
is beyond her means. There
was simply no discernible
explanation on the juridical
antecedence or incurability
of Gina's supposed
condition. More significantly,
the relation of such
condition to Gina's inability
to perform her essential
marital obligations was not
sufficiently shown. To
reiterate, the psychological
condition ought to pertain to
personality disorders that
are grave and serious such
that the party would be
incapable of carrying out the
ordinary duties required in a
marriage. Unfortunately, the
Case Analysis Report fails to
demonstrate this crucial
point. In determining the
existence of psychological
incapacity, a clear and
understandable causation
between the party's
condition and the party's
inability to perform the
essential marital covenants
must be shown A
psychological report that is
essentially comprised of
mere platitudes, however
speckled with technical
jargon, would not cut the
marriage ties. (Republic v.
Tecag, G.R. No. 229272,
November 19, 2018)
3. INCESTUOUS
MARRIAGES