The policy of our constitution to protect

and strengthen the family as the basic

autonomous social institution and
marriage as the foundation of the family.
Our family law is based on the policy that
marriage is not a mere contract, but a
social institution in which the state is
vitally interested. Thus, our law specifically
protects it.

INTRODUCTION
BUT, WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF A
PERSON ENTERED INTO
MARRIAGE AND CANNOT
PERFOM HIS/HER MARITAL
OBLIGATION?
GR NO. 180668, MAY 26, 2009

REPORT BY: MANDING, J.

 Name: Marietta
Marietta and Rodolfo marry each other in less than 2
Name: Rodolfo Age: 23 years old
Age: 28 years old Info: Eldest of 5 siblings months after they met. At the time of the marriage,

Info: 3/5 among boys, mother’s Reason for marrying Rodolfo: Marietta is 23 years old while Rodolfo is 28 years old.

boy To get out of her family

However, they separated after 4 years of marriage. Later
on, Marietta filed a petition for declaration of absolute
nullity of marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code.

Marietta claimed that Rodolfo was psychologically

incapacitated to comply with the essential marital
obligations of marriage because Rodolfo was emotionally
immature, irresponsible and continually failed to adapt
himself to married life and perform his responsibilities
and duties as husband.

Rodolfo never bothered to look for a job and always

asked his mother for financial assistance. In fact, it was
Rodolfo’s mother who is paying their monthly rental.
Marietta encouraged him to look for a job but his response was that he was too old and
most job has age qualifications and no clothes to wear for job interviews. To inspire him,
Marietta bought him new clothes and a pair of shoes. Later, Rodolfo told that he already
got a job but she then discovered that Rodolfo didn’t actually get a job and the money
that he gave her (which was supposedly his salary) came from his mother.

When she confronted Rodolfo, he cried like a child and pretended to have a job just to
stop nagging him about applying for a job. He also said that his parents can support their
needs. Marietta then claimed that Rodolfo was so dependent on his mother and that all
his decisions and attitudes in life should be in conformity with his mother.

Further, Marietta claimed that every time Rodolfo is drunk he becomes physically violent.
Their sexual relationship was also unsatisfactory; they only had sex once a month and
Marietta never enjoyed it. Rodolfo always says that sex is sacred and should not be
enjoyed or abused.
 During the trial...

Dr. Villegas: Rodolfo showed that he was

psychologically incapacitated to perform his
marital duties and responsibilities. Villegas
concluded that he was suffering from
Dependent Personality Disorder associated with
severe inadequacy related to masculine
strivings. Florida: True.
Periodt. Locked.
DPDs were those whose response to the ordinary way of life was ineffectual and inept,
characterized by loss of self-confidence, constant self-doubt, inability to make their own
decisions, and dependency on other people. The root cause of this psychological
problem was cross-identification with the mother who was the dominant figure in the
family considering that respondent’s father was a seaman.

Villegas stated that this problem began during the early stages of his life but manifested
only after the celebration of his marriage. Hence, it is incurable because it started in early
development and therefore deeply ingrained into his personality.
Rodolfo failed to appear and file an answer despite the service of summons upon him,
and since there was no collusion between them, the RTC rendered a decision declaring
the marriage as null and void ab initio. But the CA reversed it.

Hence, this appeal.

WON the totality of the evidence
presented is adequate to sustain
that Rodolfo is psychologically
incapacitated to comply with his
essential marital obligations.
In Molina Case, the Court laid down the guidelines in the interpretation and application of
Article 36.

1. The burden of proof to show the nullity of the marriage belongs to the plaintiff. Any
doubt should be resolved in favor of the existence and continuation of the marriage
and against its dissolution and nullity.
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.
Article 36 of the Family Code requires that the incapacity must be psychological - not
physical, although its manifestations and/or symptoms may be physical.
The evidence must convince the court that the parties were mentally or physically ill to
such an extent that the person could not have known the obligations he was assuming.

3. The incapacity must be proven to be existing at the time of the celebration of the
marriage. The evidence must be show that the illness was existing when the parties
exchanged their “I do’s”.

4. Such incapacity must also be shown to be medically or clinically permanent or

incurable. Such incapacity must be relevant to the assumption of marriage obligations.

5. Such illness must be grave enough to bring out the disability of the party to assume the
essential obligations of marriage. The illness must be shown as downright incapacity or
inability. In other words, there is a natal or supervening disability factor in the person, an
adverse integral element in the personality structure that effectively incapacitates the
person from really complying with the obligations to marriage.
In Santos v. CA, the court declared that psychological incapacity must be characterized
by: (a) gravity; (b) juridical antecedence; and (c) incurability. It should refer to “no less
than a mental, not physical, incapacity that causes a party to be truly in-cognitive of the
basic marital covenants to marriage.

After a thorough review of the records, the SC found that there was sufficient compliance
to warrant the annulment of the parties’ marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code.

First, Marietta successfully discharged her burden to prove the psychological incapacity
of Rodolfo. Marietta testified in court based on the psychiatric report between the
manifestations of Rodolfo’s psychological incapacity and the psychological disorder itself.
There is no requirement that the respondent spouse should be personally examined by a
physician or psychologist as a condition sine qua non for the declaration of nullity of
marriage based on psychological incapacity. What matters is whether the totality of
evidence presented is adequate to sustain a finding of psychological incapacity.
Second, the root cause of Rodolfo’s psychological incapacity has been medically or
clinically identified sufficiently proven by expert testimony and clearly explained in the
RTC decision.
Dr. Villegas evaluation:

Marietta is the eldest of 5 siblings and is expected to be the role model for her younger
siblings. But she developed resentment towards her father and promised to herself that
she’d get out of the family and the reason she was married to Rodolfo 1 1/2 months after
they met without knowing anything about him. During their 4 years of marriage, she
realized that Rodolfo could not fulfill his obligations in terms of loving, caring, protection,
financial support, and sex.

Rodolfo, who was always available to his mother’s needs; their relationship became
symbiotic that led to prolonged and abnormal dependence to his mother. His mother,
being the stronger and dominant parent, is a convenient role model, but the reversal of
role became confusing that led to his ambivalence of his identity and grave dependency.
His inhibitions in a sexual relationship is referable to an unconscious guilt feelings of
defying the mother’s love. He has a difficulty in delineating between the wife and and the
mother, which crippled him psychologically.
And this was the root cause of his Dependent Personality Disorder due to a strong and
prolonged dependence on a parent of the opposite sex. It is considered permanent and
incurable in nature because it started early in his life and was ingrained into his
personality structure.

Third, Rodolfo’s psychological incapacity was established to have clearly existed at the
time of and even before the celebration of marriage.

Fourth, Rodolfo’s psychological incapacity has been shown to be sufficiently given, as to

make him unable to assume the essential obligations of marriage. And evidently unable to
comply with the essential marital obligations embodied in Articles 68 to 71 of the Family
Code. He cannot make his own decisions and cannot fulfill his responsibilities as a
husband.
With respect to the concept of psychological incapacity, courts must take into account
not only developments in science and medicine but also changing social and cultural
mores, including the blurring of traditional gender roles. In this day and age, women have
taken on increasingly important roles in the financial and material support of their
families. This, however, does not change the ideal that the family should be an
"autonomous" social institution, wherein the spouses cooperate and are equally
responsible for the support and well-being of the family. In the case at bar, the spouses
from the outset failed to form themselves into a family, a cohesive unit based on mutual
love, respect and support, due to the failure of one to perform the essential duties of
marriage.
With the preponderant evidence presented by Marietta, the court finds that Rodolfo is
totally failed his commitments and obligations as a husband.

Wherefore, their marriage is declared as null and void.

LF:
new jowa