Thursday, August 11, 2022

GR No 119190 January 16, 1997

Leouel Santos, petitioner

The Honorable Court of Appeals and Julia Rosario Bedia-Santos

Ponente: Vitug, J.

Ruling Type: petition for review on certiorari

Law Involved: Art. 36 (as amended by EO 227 dated 17 July 1987) which declares:

Art. 36. A marriage contracted by any party who, at the time of the celebration, was psychologi-
cally incapacitated to comply with the essential marital obligations of marriage, shall likewise be
void even if such incapacity becomes manifest only after its solemnization.

Issue
whether or not:
whether or not Julia’s actions of failing to return home and communicate with her husband for five years
fulfill the requirements of psychological incapacity, which would render their marriage void

syllogistic:
A marriage contracted by any party who, at the time of the celebration, was psychologically in-
capacitated to comply with the essential marital obligations of marriage, shall likewise be void
even if such incapacity becomes manifest only after its solemnization.

Julia Rosario Bedia-Santos was not psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential
marital obligations of marriage. Therefore, the marriage cannot be declared a nullity.

Facts

The petitioner, Leouel Santos, and the respondent, Julia Rosario Bedia-Santos, were married on Septem-
ber 20, 1986, whereupon the couple proceeded to live with the parents of the respondent and to have one
child. Not long after the marriage, they started to quarrel over a number of things, some which the peti-
tioner alluded was due to the frequent interference by Julia’s parents into their family affairs; they would
also quarrel about when they should start living independently from Julia’s parents, and Julia would also
be resentful when Leouel spends a few days with his own parents.

on 18 May 1988, not two years after they were married, Julia left for the USA to work as a nurse despite
the protestations of Leouel. Seven months after her arrival, she called Leouel via long distance telephone
and promised to return home upon the expiration of her contract in July 1989; she never did, whereupon

1
Leouel got a chance to visit the United Sates when he underwent a training program under the AFP from
April to August of 1990, during which he desperately tried to locate or get in touch with his wife, to no
avail.

Having failed in his efforts to locate or get in touch with his wife. Leouel then filed a complaint with the
RTC of Negros Oriental, branch 30, for “voiding of marriage under Art. 36 of the Family Code (docketed,
Civil Case No. 9814). Respondent Julia, through counsel, opposed the complaint and claimed that it was
the petitioner who had been irresponsible and incompetent. Several pre-trial conferences were repeatedly
and unsuccessfully set by the court, after which Julia ultimately filed a manifestation on 25 October 1991,
stating that she would neither appear nor submit evidence.

On November 9, 1991, the court a quo dismissed the complaint for lack of merit. Complainant appealed
to the Court of Appeal, which affirmed the decision of the RTC and denied the petition of the com-
plainant due to 1. non-compliance with Circ. 28-91 (certification of non-shopping), and 2. lack of merit.

Leouel asserts that “a wife who does not care to inform her husband about her whereabouts for a period of
five years, more or less, is psychologically incapacitated.” The Family Code does not define the term
“psychological incapacity,” which precipitated an en banc SC deliberation on whether the term applies as
intended in the case of Bedia-Santos.

Justice Sempio-Diy cites with approval the work of Dr. Gerardo Veloso, a former presiding Judge of the
Metropolitan Marriage Tribunal of the Catholic Archdiocese of Manila, who stipulates that psychological
incapacity must be characterized by:

a. gravity
b. juridical antecedence, and
c. incurability,

none of which are apparent in the case of the defendant.

Ruling

The factual settings of the case do not come close to fulfilling the standards required to decree a nullity of
marriage, despite the defendant being aggrieved and desperate in his present situation. Neither law nor so-
ciety can always provide all the specific answers to every individual problem.

Wherefore, the petition is DENIED.

Prepared by:

Audrey Rose B. Oviedo

Batch 2026