ARTICLE 36 prevent the person from complying with

-> It is basedfrom the CANON Law essential marital obligations

-> If you enter into a marriage and one
or both is psychologically incapacitated Psychological Incapacity must be
to comply with essential marriage characterized by:
obligation then there is no marriage. The a. Gravity
function of the court here is to only - It must be so serious that
declare that there is no marriage. No it results to the inability to
termination or dissolve since in the first carry out essential marital
place there is no marriage to dissolve. obligations
-> In divorce the marriage is dissolved - No gravity if only mild
by judgment. personality disorders
-> Psychological incapacity must (mood swings)
translate into the failure to comply with - It is not enough to prove
the essential marital obligations. Psychological Incapacity. It
-> National Appellate Matrimonial must result in failure to
Tribunal (OLD). This is not binding and comply with essential
the State will not honor this. marital obligations
-> Marriage Tribunal Office (NEW) (evidence of failure to
-> Need clear and convincing evidence support/ infidelity).
b. Juridical Antecedent
Psychological Incapacity - Must be rooted in the
-> Not a personality disorder. It’s not history of the person
even in the DSM V - Could be congenital or
-> No definite definition experienced a
-> The decision of the court must always supervening disabling
be on a case-to-case basis guided by factor (Like trauma)
experience in contrast to the principle - Something must have
ejusdem generis happened
-> No case is on all fours - You must prove the
-> Can’t understand the obligations existence of behavior not
therefore cannot comply with them. only before the marriage
-> Those who understand but choose but also DURING the
not to do so are not psychologically marriage.
incapacitated c. Incurability
-> The medical root of psychological - Changed by Tan-Andal.
incapacity is not needed (or an expert)
what is important is the personality Absolute Psychological Incapacity - to
structure manifest later which will every marriage it is the same
Relative Psychological Incapacity -
depends on the person, pertains to only
one person
Tan-Andal vs Andal. (Marijuana user
+ Reversal of Molina)
Mario and Rosanna were married
and had 1 child. Mario was irritable and
moody and did not have any work.
Mario admitted to be using marijuana.
Mario acted weird as a father to
Samantha and there were instances
where he wanted to take her away.
Mario used their money excessively and
caused their business to close and shut
down.
There was a time Mario was
smoking marijuana in a room while
Samantha was in the room. This gave
Rosanna no choice but to take
Samantha to her parents which caused
Mario to act erratic till the police arrived
Supreme Court approved of this
stating that the evidence presented by
Rosanna clearly proved that Mario’s
drug use was of sufficient durability the
antedated the marriage and the
persistent failure to be rehabilitated
showed the utter disregard to his marital
obligations as well as the obligations to
his child. There was also failure to
render mutual help by failing to find
employment and even driving the
company to bankruptcy is indicative of
psychological incapacity. Mario failed to
do his duties as a parent and as a
husband.
The Supreme Court took the
opportunity to revisit the Molina
Guidelines and other nullity cases
after Molina. Thus new guidelines for
psychological incapacity were laid
down.
Must be humans and be on a
case-to-case basis.The burden of proof
to prove psychological incapacity is with
the petitioner who filed it against their
spouse.
1. Clear and convincing evidence is
needed because there is a presumption
on the validity of marriage (need mo
lagpasan evidence of this). In an
ordinary case you both start from zero (
Preponderance of evidence ). But since
there is already a presumption of validity
of marriage, you need clear and
convincing evidence to overcome and
rebut this presumption and not mere
preponderance of evidence. In criminal
cases, however, proof beyond
reasonable doubt. There is already a
threshold to be overtaken which is the
presumption of the validity of marriage.
Expert testimony is NOT a
requirement.
If the marriage is void, then it is
the duty of the court to declare it as
void. Psychological incapacity is not
equated to mental incapacity or not
necessarily personality disorder.
Concurring Opinion of J. Javier
Is the judge really equipped in
deciding “the personality structure” of a
“psychologically incapacitated person”?
If Psychologists and Psychiatrists have
differing opinions and still have a hard
time in clearly defining the personality
structure of a person, what more can
laymen do?
Republic vs Molina. Psychological
Incapacity is not mental incapacity.
Essential Marital Obligations 68-71
(to the spouse) 220, 221, 225
(children)
-> essential marital obligation not
complied with or failed to be observed
must be specified.
1. Prove the characteristics exist then
present proof (burden is on the plaintiff)
- Any doubts must be resolved in
favor of the existence and
continuation of marriage.
2. Root cause must be identified
- The medical root of
psychological incapacity is not
needed (or an expert) what is
important is the personality
structure manifest later which
will prevent the person from
complying with essential marital
obligations
- Need not be clinically or
medically identified
3. Prove juridical antecedence
- Proof must be presented that the
Psychological Incapacity must
have existed before the marriage
- Could be congenital or
experienced a supervening
disabling factor (Like trauma)
- Something must have happened
- Need not be by an expert, this
can be proved by ordinary
witnesses
4. Prove Incurability
- Must be understood in the legal
sense not in a medical sense
(Tan-Andal)
- It must be enduring and the
personality structures of the
people in the marriage at bar
must be incompatible and
antagonistic that it results to the
inevitable breakdown of marriage
- In a medical sense, why is a
person allowed to remarry if the
incapacity is incurable. So, in the
legal sense, the incapacity is
limited to the current marriage
subject to question.
5. Prove Gravity
- Must be grave enough
6. State and prove what specific marital
obligations not complied
7. Interpretation of the National
Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal must not
be observed but respected
8. Certificate from the OSG (OLD no
longer needed)
Can we apply Article 36 to a mixed
marriage? YES. Because the study of
Psychological Incapacity is a study of
human personality in general not
national.
[October 25, 2022]
Prelims:
He who comes to court must do so with
clean hands. Johnny cannot file a case
to recover the 5 million since there is
also fault on his part.
Tan vs Andal, Te vs Te - Relaxed the
Molina Case who placed marriage in a
straight jacket. Molina said that psych
incapacity should be medically and
clinically identified
Te vs Te
Edward eloped with a girl who he
later married and kept him like a
prisoner in his own home along with her
uncle who had guns. Edward later
returned to the family to get the
inheritance but did not return to
Rowena. 4 years later, he filed for a
petition for nullification. RTC petition
approved but CA reversed. SC granted
the petition. Edward Dependent
Personality Disorder and Rowena had
Narcissistic Personality Disorder.
SC stated that “In hindsight, it
was inappropriate for us to set such rigid
rules in Molina which forced us to fit it in
a straight jacket”. Psychological
Incapacity should be flexible. The
principle of ‘case-to-case basis’ was
hindered by the decision of the Molina
case.
If it is our duty to declare
marriage as valid, it is equally our duty
to declare marriage as void if it is void.
This is done in order to protect the
sanctity of marriage and to protect the
family which is the basic social
institution.
Antonio vs Reyes
. Marie Reyes was a consistent
and pathological liar about herself and
her accomplishments.She fabricated
stories. The Church granted the nullity.
RTC Marriage was void but CA reversed
it. SA granted. The church’s decisions
cannot be followed but should bear
weight.
Refusal can understand the
obligations of marriage while
Psychologically incapacitated cannot
understand because of inability to do so.
PErsistent and constant lying undermine
the relationship.
Chi Ming Tsoi vs CA
Obligation to procreate.
The concept of Psychological capacity is
a resilient concept and should be done
on a case to case basis. Alam nia dapat
niyang gawin pero he refused to do so
XD
"Doctrine of triennial cohabitation" it is a
doctrine of common law, which declares
the presumption that the husband is
impotent should the wife still remain a
virgin after living together with the
husband for three years.

Marcos vs Marcos
Psych incapacity need not to
have medical proof and need not to
have an expert to testify to. Article 36
should not be equated with legal
separation which the grounds need not
be rooted in psychological incapacity but
on physical violence, moral pressure,
civil interdiction, drug addiction, habitual
alcoholism, sexual infidelity,
abandonment and the like.
Juridical Antecedence.- Psych
Incapacity must exist before marriage.
This could be inborn or superveing
enabling traumatic experience.
Essential Marital Obligations
To the Spouse
1. To procreate children through
sexual cooperation is the basic
end of marriage (universal
principle)
2. To live together under one roof
(Art.68) because togetherness
spells the unity of marriage
3. To observe mutual love,
respect, and fidelity (Art.68)
because these are the basic
postulates of marriage
4. To render mutual help and
support (Art 68)
5. To jointly support the family
(Art. 70)
6. Not to commit acts that will
bring danger, dishonor, or
injury to each other and the
family (Art.72)
To the Children
1. Rights and duties of the parents
exercising parental authority (Art.
220)
2. Civil Liability of parents regarding
the injuries and damages caused
by their unemancipated children
living in their company (Art. 221)
3. Duty of the parents to exercise
legal guardianship over the
property of their unemancipated
children (Art.225)
[Oct. 28, 2022]
Can the trial court grant moral damages
after declaring the marriage void for
psychological incapacity?
Buenaventura vs CA
There was an order for paying of moral
damages based on Article 21. SC
reversed the findings on moral damages
SC: In Article 21, the acts mentioned
there are willful. A willful act is
contradictory to the act that is a product
of psychological incapacity since it is a
situation where the party does not
understand the obligation of marital
obligations due to personality structure.
Meaning, it is the innate inability to
understand such obligations therefore it
cannot be equated with willful acts.
 It is possible to be granted moral
damages for a void marriage but such
must be based on another act that is
not due to psychological incapacity. It
can be based on another act that is
done deliberately and with malice.
Petition for nullity
This is a mere declaration that
the marriage never existed. The
marriage was void ab initio.
In divorce, there was a valid
marriage severed. In legal separation,
there is a valid marriage and this decree
does not dissolve the marriage. This
only allows the parties to live separately
and divide properties.
Can you file a petition for nullity on
the ground the you are the one
psychologically incapacitated?
Yes.
Dedel vs Dedel. (Jordanian)
Facts:
Petitioner David and Sharon got
married in 1967 and had 4 children.
During the marriage, petitioner claimed
that Sharon turned out to be immature
and irresponsible as a wife and mother,
and had extra-marital affairs with several
men (3) one of which includes Ibrahim.
Sharon later married Ibrahim and
had 2 children. When Ibrahim left,
Sharon went to the petitioner with her 2
children who took them all in. But later
on, Sharon abandoned the petitioner
and left with her 2 children to join
Ibrahim and would then only return to
the country for special occasions.
Petitioner filed for declaration of nullity
on the grounds of psychological
incapacity under Article 36. Petitioner
presented Dr. Dayan who testified that
Sharon was suffering from Antisocial
Personality disorder exhibited by her
blatant infidelity and had no remorse
even when bringing in her 2 children
from Ibrahim.
RTC: Marriage null and void.
CA: Reversed the decision saying
Sharon was not psychologically
incapacitated to perform marital
obligations; the psych incapacity was
not attended by gravity, juridical
antecedence and permanence; the
evidence presented by the petitioner
falls short to prove psych incapacity.
SA: The evidence presented can only
be grounds to legal separation and not
the declaration of a marriage void.
Sharon’s sexual infidelity can hardly
qualify as being mentally or psychically
ill to such an extent that she could not
have known the obligations she was
assuming, or knowing them, could not
have given a valid assumption thereof. It
appears that respondent’s promiscuity
did not exist prior to or at the inception
of the marriage. What is, in fact,
disclosed by the records is a blissful
marital union at its celebration, later
affirmed in church rites, and which
produced four children. The sexual
infidelity and abandoment themselves
do not constitute psych incapacity, and
neither do immaturity and
irresponsibility.
Sexual infidelity is not sufficient
proof the one spouse is suffering from
psychological incapacity. While indeed
such acts can be manifestations, you
must prove that the source or cause of
that is psych ass. There is a difference
in the failure to understand the marital
obligations, and the mere refusal or
unwillingness to do them.
If there is awareness of the
marital obligations, then it negates
psychological incapacity.
Dela Fuente vs Dela Fuente
Facts:
The husband was molesting and
maltreating the wife Maria. The wife was
treated as a sex slave and was
demanded to engage in sexual actvities
4-5 times a day even at work during the
wife’s lunch break.
Doctor said that the husband had
Paranoid Personality Disorder. His
father was also a psychiatric patient.
SC: Granted. There is gravity, juridical
antecedence and incurability. The
husband failed to observe the essential
obligation of living together, observe
mutual love, respect and fidelity. The
repetitive act of harassment towards the
wife is psychological abuse meant to
dominate against the partner.
Res Judicata (Bar by prior judgment)
This is a matter settled by
judgment. It is the rule saying that a final
judgment or decree by a court is
conclusive of the rights of the parties in
all later suits on points and matters
determined in the former suit.
This doctrine is a rule which pervades
every well-regulated system of
jurisprudence and is founded upon the
following precepts of common law,
namely: (1) public policy and necessity,
which makes it to the interest of the
State that there should be an end to
litigation, and (2) the hardship on the
individual that he should be vexed twice
for the same cause. A contrary doctrine
would subject the public peace and
quiet to the will and neglect of
individuals and prefer the gratification of
the litigious disposition on the part of
suitors to the preservation of the public
tranquility and happiness.
Res judicata in this sense requires the
concurrence of the following requisites:
(1) the former judgment is final
(2) it is rendered by a court having
jurisdiction over the subject matter and
the parties
(3) it is a judgment or an order on the
merits
(4) there is -- between the first and the
second actions -- identity of parties, of
subject matter, and of causes of action.
Mallion vs Alcantara.
Oscar Mallion filed a petition in
1995 for declaration of nullity on the
grounds of psychological incapacity
which was dismissed for failure to
adduce preponderant evidence.
In 1999, petitioner filed another
case for declaration of nullity of
marriage alleging that the marriage was
celebrated without a marriage license.
Respondent Editha Alcanatara
comments that both cases prayed for
the same remedy and violated the rule
on forum shopping.
Petitioner insists that because the
action for declaration of nullity of
marriage on the ground of psychological
incapacity and the action for declaration
of nullity of marriage on the ground of
absence of marriage license constitute
separate causes of action, the present
case would not fall under the prohibition
against splitting a single cause of action
nor would it be barred by the principle
of res judicata.
Issue: Should the matter of the
invalidity of a marriage due to the
absence of an essential requisite
prescribed by Article 4 of the Family
Code be raised in the same proceeding
where the marriage is being impugned
on the ground of a party’s psychological
incapacity under Article 36 of the Family
Code?
No. The petitioner simply invoked
different grounds for the same cause of
action which is the declaration of nullity
of marriage. The alleged absence of a
marriage license which petitioner raises
now could have been presented and
heard in the earlier case.
Once an option has been taken and a
case is filed in court, the parties must
ventilate all matters and relevant
issues therein. The filing of another
action regarding the same controversy
will be needlessly squandering time,
effort and financial resources because
he is barred by law from litigating the
same controversy all over again.
Since Oscar initially filed under Article
36, he impliedly conceded that the
marriage had been solemnized in
accordance with law. Therefore, the
petitioner is now deemed to have
waived any defects therein. For this
reason, the Court finds that the present
action for declaration of nullity of
marriage on the ground of lack of
marriage license is barred by the earlier
decision.
There is criticism regarding this
jurisprudence. Example was what if
later, the couple found out they were
brother and sister? What bears more
weight? Technicality (res judicata) or
public policy?
Villarica vs Villarica
There was a petition for nullity of
marriage. However the church marriage
was the one identified and mentioned in
the petition not the civil marriage. The
RTC nullified the marriage registered by
the church but did not dwell on the civil
marriage.

SC allowed the amendment of the

decision since only one marriage was
referred to and it was the same for both
spouses.

[Nov 4, 2022]

After proving Psychological

Incapacity, it is required to link such
incapacity to a specific failure to do an
essential marriage obligation.