51. Van Dorn vs J. Romillo Jr.

(Richard Upton, The allegations of abandonment in the petition

PR ) 139 SCRA 139, G.R. No. L-68470 for adoption, even absent the written consent of
ARTICLE 26 petitioner, sufficiently vested the lower court
FACTS: Alice Reyes Van Dorn is a citizen of the with jurisdiction since abandonment of the child
Philippines who married Richard Upton, a citizen by his natural parents is one of the
of the United States in Hongkong. After 10 years circumstances under which our statutes and
of marriage and two children, they got divorced jurisprudence dispense with the requirement of
in Nevada, United States of America, where the written consent to the adoption of their minor
petitioner subsequently married Theodore Van children.
Dorn. One year after, Richard Upton filed a civil
case with the Regional Trial Court Branch 115 6. CIVIL LAW; CHILD AND YOUTH WELFARE CODE;
in Pasay City praying to for the accounting of ADOPTION; ABANDONMENT, CONSTRUED. — In its
the business, the Galleon Shop, and to be given ordinary sense, the word "abandon" means to
the right to manage the business, on the ground forsake entirely, to forsake or renounce utterly.
that the business is conjugal property. He The dictionaries trace this word to the root idea
further contends that the divorce is not valid of "putting under a ban." The emphasis is on the
and binding in the Philippines, as it is contrary finality and publicity with which a thing or body
to local law and public policy, therefore he has is thus put in the control of another, hence, the
legal standing to claim said property. On her meaning of giving up absolutely, with intent
part, the petitioner filed for dismissal of the never to resume or claim one's rights or
civil case contending that the private respondent interests. In reference to abandonment of a child
is estopped from laying claim on the alleged by his parent, the act of abandonment imports
conjugal property because in the divorce "any conduct of the parent which evinces a
proceedings, by which the alien spouse is bound, settled purpose to forego all parental duties and
the private respondent agreed that they had no relinquish all parental claims to the child." It
community property. The RTC denied the motion to means "neglect or refusal to perform the natural
dismiss on the ground that the property is and legal obligations of care and support which
located in the Philippines so the divorce decree parents owe their children."
has no bearing in the case. Hence this petition
for certiorari and prohibition. 7. ID.; PARENTAL AUTHORITY; CANNOT BE ENTRUSTED
TO A PERSON SIMPLY OF FINANCIAL CONSIDERATION. —
ISSUE: WHETHER OR NOT THE ALIEN SPOUSE, DIVORCED In a number of cases, this Court has held that
FROM THE FILIPINA SPOUSE, HAS LEGAL STANDING ON parental authority cannot be entrusted to a
THE ALLEGED CONJUGAL ASSETS, IN THE PHILIPPINES person simply because he could give the child a
larger measure of material comfort than his
RULING: NO. Generally, divorce is not recognized natural parent.
in the Philippines as it is against morals, good
customs and public policy. However, aliens may 8. ID.; ID.; FACT THAT PARENT CARRIED AN AFFAIR
obtain divorce abroad, which the Philippines may WITH PARAMOUR, NOT SUFFICIENT BASIS TO CONCLUDE
recognize, provided they are valid according to THAT HE IS AN UNFIT FATHER. — The actuality that
their national law. In this case, the divorce in petitioner carried on an affair with a paramour
Nevada, USA is valid, thus, in the spirit of cannot be taken as sufficient basis for the
comity, it is recognized as also valid in the conclusion that petitioner was necessarily an
Philippines. Hence, the private respondent, as unfit father. Conventional wisdom and common
he is bound by the decision of his own coutry's human experience show that a "bad" husband does
Court, which validly exercised jurisdiction over not necessarily make a "bad" father. That a
him, and whose decision he does not repudiate, husband is not exactly an upright man is not,
he has no legal standing in the Philippine court strictly speaking, a sufficient ground to deprive
as husband of the petitioner as the divorce him as a father of his inherent right to parental
legally dissolved their marriage. He is further authority over the children.
estopped by his own representation before the
foreign Court in the divorce proceedings, from 10. CIVIL LAW; PARENTAL AUTHORITY; NOT DEPRIVED
asserting his right over the alleged conjugal BY VIRTUE OF LEGAL SEPARATION DECREED BY
property. To maintain the petitioner to still be AGREEMENT OF PARTIES. — The transfer of custody
legally obligated to the divorced husband is a over the children to Anna Marie by virtue of the
discrimination against her in her own country. decree of legal separation did not, of necessity,
Hence, it is only just that the petition be deprive petitioner of parental authority for the
granted. The civil case against petitioner with purpose of placing the children up for adoption.
the RTC was dismissed. Article 213 of the Family Code states: ". . . .
in case of legal separation of parents, parental
Note: This case was decided before August 3, 1988 authority shall be exercised by the parent
when the Family Code took effect. It became the designated by the court." In awarding custody,
basis for the codification of Article 26 (2) of the court shall take into account "all relevant
the Family Code. considerations, especially the choice of the
child over seven years of age, unless the parent
52. Cang v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 105308, chosen is unfit." It should be noted, however,
[September 25, 1998], 357 PHIL 129-165 that the law only confers on the innocent spouse
3. ID.; ID.; ID.; MAY BE DISPENSED WITH IF PARENT the "exercise" of parental authority. Having
ABANDONED CHILD. — Nevertheless, the requirement custody of the child, the innocent spouse shall
of written consent can be dispensed with if the implement the sum of parental rights with respect
parent has abandoned the child or that such to his rearing and care. The innocent spouse
parent is "insane or hopelessly intemperate." The shall have the right to the child's services and
court may acquire jurisdiction over the case even earnings, and the right to direct his activities
without the written consent of the parents or one and make decisions regarding his care and
of the parents provided that the petition for control, education health and religion. As such,
adoption alleges facts sufficient to warrant in instant case, petitioner may not be deemed as
exemption from compliance therewith. This is in having been completely deprived of parental
consonance with the liberality with which this authority, notwithstanding the award of custody
Court treats the procedural aspect of adoption. to Anna Marie in the legal separation case. To
reiterate, that award was arrived at by the lower 53. Republic vs. Orbecido III 472 SCRA 114 ,
court on the basis of the agreement of the October 05, 2005
spouses. ARTICLE 26
1. FAMILY CODE; MARRIAGES; DIVORCE; THE SUPREME
11. ID.; MARRIAGE; DIVORCE OBTAINED BY FILIPINOS COURT HOLDS THAT PARAGRAPH 2 OF ARTICLE 26 SHOULD
ABROAD, NOT RECOGNIZED. — As regards the divorce BE INTERPRETED TO INCLUDE CASES INVOLVING PARTIES
obtained in the United States, this Court has WHO, AT THE TIME OF THE CELEBRATION OF THE
ruled in Tenchavez v. Escaño that a divorce MARRIAGE WERE FILIPINO CITIZENS, BUT LATER ON,
obtained by Filipino citizen after the ONE OF THEM BECOMES NATURALIZED AS A FOREIGN
effectivity of the Civil Code is not recognized CITIZEN AND OBTAINS A DIVORCE DECREE.-
in this jurisdiction as it is contrary to State This case concerns the applicability of Paragraph
policy. While petitioner is now an American 2 of Article 26 to a marriage between two Filipino
citizen, as regards Anna Marie who has apparently citizens where one later acquired alien
remained a Filipino citizen, the divorce has no citizenship, obtained a divorce decree, and
legal effect. remarried while in the U.S.A. The interests of
the parties are also adverse, as petitioner
FACTS: Anna Marie filed a petition for legal representing the State asserts its duty to
separation upon learning of her husband's protect the institution of marriage while
extramarital affairs, which the trial court respondent, a private citizen, insists on a
approved the petition. Herbert sought a divorce declaration of his capacity to remarry.
from Anna Marie in the United States. The court Respondent, praying for relief, has legal
granted sole custody of the 3 minor children to interest in the controversy. The issue raised is
Anna, reserving the rights of visitation to also ripe for judicial determination inasmuch as
Herbert. when respondent remarries, litigation ensues and
The brother and sister-in-law of Anna filed for puts into question the validity of his second
the adoption of the 3 minor children. Herbert marriage. x x x We hold that Paragraph 2 of
contest the adoption, but the petition was Article 26 should be interpreted to include cases
already granted by the court. CA affirmed the involving parties who, at the time of the
decree of adoption, holding that Art. 188 of the celebration of the marriage were Filipino
FC requires the written consent of the natural citizens, but later on, one of them becomes
parents of the children to be adopted, but the naturalized as a foreign citizen and obtains a
consent of the parent who has abandoned the child divorce decree. The Filipino spouse should
is not necessary. It held that Herbert failed to likewise be allowed to remarry as if the other
pay monthly support to his children. Herbert party were a foreigner at the time of the
elevated the case to the Court. solemnization of the marriage. To rule otherwise
would be to sanction absurdity and injustice.
ISSUE: Whether or not the 3 minor children be Where the interpretation of a statute according
legally adopted without the written consent of to its exact and literal import would lead to
a natural parent on the ground that Herbert has mischievous results or contravene the clear
abandoned them. purpose of the legislature, it should be
construed according to its spirit and reason,
RULING: YES. Article 188 amended the statutory disregarding as far as necessary the letter of
provision on consent for adoption, the written the law. A statute may therefore be extended to
consent of the natural parent to the adoption has cases not within the literal meaning of its
remained a requisite for its validity. Rule 99 terms, so long as they come within its spirit or
of the Rules of the Court requires a written intent.
consent to the adoption signed by the child, xxx
and by each of its known living parents who is 2. FAMILY CODE; MARRIAGES; DIVORCE; THE SUPREME
not insane or hopelessly intemperate or has not COURT IS UNANIMOUS IN HOLDING THAT PARAGRAPH 2
abandoned the child. OF ARTICLE 26 OF THE FAMILY CODE (E.O. NO. 209,
Article 256 of the Family Code requires the AS AMENDED BY E.O. NO. 227), SHOULD BE
written consent of the natural parent for the INTERPRETED TO ALLOW A FILIPINO CITIZEN, WHO HAS
decree of adoption to be valid unless the parent BEEN DIVORCED BY A SPOUSE WHO HAD ACQUIRED
has abandoned the child or that the parent is FOREIGN CITIZENSHIP AND REMARRIED, ALSO TO
"insane or hopelessly intemperate." REMARRY.-
In reference to abandonment of a child by his We are unanimous in our holding that Paragraph 2
parent, the act of abandonment imports "any of Article 26 of the Family Code (E.O. No. 209,
conduct of the parent which evinces a settled as amended by E.O. No. 227), should be
purpose to forego all parental duties and interpreted to allow a Filipino citizen, who has
relinquish all parental claims to the child." It been divorced by a spouse who had acquired
means "neglect or refusal to perform the natural foreign citizenship and remarried, also to
and legal obligations of care and support which remarry.
parents owe their children."
3. FAMILY CODE; MARRIAGES; DIVORCE; THE RECKONING
In this case, however, Herbert did not manifest POINT IS NOT THE CITIZENSHIP OF THE PARTIES AT
any conduct that would forego his parental duties THE TIME OF THE CELEBRATION OF THE MARRIAGE, BUT
and relinquish all parental claims over his THEIR CITIZENSHIP AT THE TIME A VALID DIVORCE IS
children as to, constitute abandonment. Physical OBTAINED ABROAD BY THE ALIEN SPOUSE CAPACITATING
abandonment alone, without financial and moral THE LATTER TO REMARRY.-
desertion, is not tantamount to abandonment. We state the twin elements for the application
While Herbert was physically absent, he was not of Paragraph 2 of Article 26 as follows: 1. There
remiss in his natural and legal obligations of is a valid marriage that has been celebrated
love, care and support for his children. The between a Filipino citizen and a foreigner; and
Court find pieces of documentary evidence that 2. A valid divorce is obtained abroad by the
he maintained regular communications with his alien spouse capacitating him or her to remarry.
wife and children through letters and telephone, The reckoning point is not the citizenship of the
and send them packages catered to their whims. parties at the time of the celebration of the
marriage, but their citizenship at the time a
valid divorce is obtained abroad by the alien
spouse capacitating the latter to remarry. In Civil Registry and to be allowed to reuse her
this case, when Cipriano’s wife was naturalized maiden surname, Manalo.
as an American citizen, there was still a valid
marriage that has been celebrated between her and According to Article 26, paragraph 2 of the
Cipriano. As fate would have it, the naturalized Family Code,
alien wife subsequently obtained a valid divorce Where a marriage between a Filipino citizen and
capacitating her to remarry. Clearly, the twin a foreigner is validly celebrated and a divorce
requisites for the application of Paragraph 2 of is thereafter validly obtained abroad by the
Article 26 are both present in this case. Thus alien spouse incapacitating him or her to
Cipriano, the “divorced” Filipino spouse, should remarry, the Filipino spouse shall likewise have
be allowed to remarry. capacity to remarry under Philippine law

FACTS: Cipriano Orbecido III married Lady Myros ISSUES:

M. Villanueva at the United Church of Christ in 1. UNDER ARTICLE 26, PARAGRAPH 2 OF THE FAMILY
the Philippines in Lam-an, Ozamis City, on May CODE, CAN THE FILIPINO SPOUSE INITIATE THE
24, 1981. They were blessed with a son and a DIVORCE INSTEAD OF THE FOREIGN SPOUSE?
daughter, Kristoffer Simbortriz V. Orbecido and
Lady Kimberly V. Orbecido. 2. WAS THE DIVORCE OBTAINED BY MARELYN MANALO
FROM JAPAN VALID HERE IN THE PHILIPPINES?
Lady Myros left for the United States bringing
along their son Kristoffer in 1986. After few RULING:
years, Cipriano discovered that his wife had been 1. YES. The Court ruled that in interpreting the
naturalized as an American citizen. Cipriano law, the intent should be taken into
learned from his son that his wife had obtained consideration. According to Justice Alicia
a divorce decree sometime in 2000 and then Sempio-Dy, a member of the Civil Code Revision
married a certain Innocent Stanley and lived in Committee, the aim of the amendment is to avoid
California. the absurd situation of having the Filipino
deemed still married to a foreign spouse even
He then filed with the trial court a petition for though the latter is no longer married to the
authority to remarry invoking Paragraph 2 of former. According to the Supreme Court, the
Article 26 of the Family Code. No opposition was wording of Article 26, paragraph 2 of the Family
filed. Finding merit in the petition, the court Code requires only that there be a valid divorce
granted the same. The Republic, herein obtained abroad and does not discriminate as to
petitioner, through the Office of the Solicitor who should file the divorce, i.e., whether it is
General (OSG), sought reconsideration but it was the Filipino spouse or the foreign spouse. Also,
denied. Orbecido filed a petition for review of even if assuming arguendo that the provision
certiorari on the Decision of the RTC. should be interpreted that the divorce proceeding
ISSUE: WHETHER OR NOT RESPONDENT ORBECIDO CAN should be initiated by the foreign spouse, the
REMARRY UNDER ARTICLE 26 OF THE FAMILY CODE. Court will not follow such interpretation since
doing so would be contrary to the legislative
RULING: YES. The Court’s unanimous decision in intent of the law.
holding Article 26, paragraph 2 of the Family
Code be interpreted as allowing a Filipino In the issue of the application of Article 15 of
citizen who has been divorced by a spouse who had the Civil Code in this case, the Court ruled that
acquired a citizenship and remarried, also to even if Manalo should be bound by the nationality
remarry under Philippine law. principle, blind adherence to it should not be
allowed if it will cause unjust discrimination
The article should be interpreted to include and oppression to certain classes of individuals
cases involving parties who, at the time of the whose rights are equally protected by the law.
celebration of the marriage were Filipino
citizens, but later on,one of them became The Court also ruled that Article 26 of the Family
naturalized as a foreign citizen and obtained a Code is in violation of the equal protection
divorce decree. clause. They said that the limitation provided
by Article 26 is based on a superficial,
The instant case was one where at the time the arbitrary, and whimsical classification. The
marriage was solemnized, the parties were two violation of the equal protection clause in this
Filipino citizens, but later on, the wife was case is shown by the discrimination against
naturalized as an American citizen and Filipino spouses who initiated a foreign divorce
subsequently obtained a divorce granting her proceeding and Filipinos who obtained a divorce
capacity to remarry, and indeed, she remarried decree because the foreign spouse had initiated
an American citizen while residing in the US. The the divorce proceedings. Their circumstances are
Filipino spouse should likewise be allowed to alike, and making a distinction between them as
remarry as if the other party were a foreigner regards to the validity of the divorce decree
at the time of the solemnization of the marriage. obtained would give one undue favor and unjustly
discriminate against the other.
However, since Orbecido was not able to prove as
fact his wife’s naturalization, he was still The Court also said that it is the State’s duty
barred from remarrying. not only to strengthen the solidarity of the
Filipino family but also to defend, among others,
54. Republic v. Manalo G.R. No. 221029 April the right of children to special protection from
24, 2018 all forms of neglect abuse, cruelty, and other
ARTICLE 26 conditions prejudicial to their development. The
FACTS: Marelyn Tanedo Manalo was married to a State cannot do this if the application of
Japanese national, Yoshino Minoro. Manalo filed paragraph 2 of Article 26 of the Family Code is
a case for divorce in Japan and after due limited to only those foreign divorces initiated
proceedings, a divorce decree dated December 6, by the foreign spouse.
2011, was granted. Manalo now wants to cancel the
entry of marriage between her and Minoro from the 2. THE COURT CANNOT DETERMINE DUE TO INSUFFICIENT
EVIDENCE.
 FIVE YEARS DOES NOT SEVERE THE TIE OF A SUBSISTING
It has been ruled that foreign laws must be PREVIOUS MARRIAGE—MARITAL COHABITATION FOR A LONG
proven. There are two basic types of divorces: PERIOD OF TIME BETWEEN TWO INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE
(1) absolute divorce or a vinculo matrimonii, LEGALLY CAPACITATED TO MARRY EACH OTHER IS MERELY
which terminates the marriage, and (2) limited A GROUND FOR EXEMPTION FROM MARRIAGE LICENSE.-
divorce or a mensa et thoro, which suspends it Neither can respondent Judge take refuge on the
and leaves the bond in full force. The Joint Affidavit of David Manzano and Luzviminda
presentation solely of the divorce decree will Payao stating that they had been cohabiting as
not suffice to lead the Court to believe that the husband and wife for seven years. Just like
decree is valid or constitutes absolute divorce. separation, free and voluntary cohabitation with
The fact of divorce must still be proven. another person for at least five years does not
Therefore, the Japanese law on divorce must still severe the tie of a subsisting previous marriage.
be proved. Marital cohabitation for a long period of time
between two individuals who are legally
In this case, the Court remanded the case to the capacitated to marry each other is merely a
court of origin for further proceedings and ground for exemption from marriage license. It
reception of evidence as to the relevant Japanese could not serve as a justification for respondent
law on divorce. Judge to solemnize a subsequent marriage vitiated
by the impediment of a prior existing marriage.
55. Borja-Manzano vs. Sanchez 354 SCRA 1 ,
March 08, 2001 5. MARRIAGE; MARRIAGE LICENSES; HUSBAND AND WIFE;
ARTICLE 34 JUDGES; GROSS IGNORANCE OF THE LAW; A JUDGE
1. MARRIAGE; MARRIAGE LICENSES; HUSBAND AND WIFE; DEMONSTRATES GROSS IGNORANCE OF THE LAW WHEN HER
LEGAL RATIFICATION OF MARITAL COHABITATION; SOLEMNIZES A VOID AND BIGAMOUS MARRIAGE.-
REQUISITES.- Clearly, respondent Judge demonstrated gross
For this provision on legal ratification of ignorance of the law when he solemnized a void
marital cohabitation to apply, the following and bigamous marriage. The maxim “ignorance of
requisites must concur: 1. The man and woman must the law excuses no one” has special application
have been living together as husband and wife for to judges, who, under Rule 1.01 of the Code of
at least five years before the marriage; 2. The Judicial Conduct, should be the embodiment of
parties must have no legal impediment to marry competence, integrity, and independence. It is
each other, 3. The fact of absence of legal highly imperative that judges be conversant with
impediment between the parties must be present the law and basic legal principles. And when the
at the time of marriage; 4. The parties must law transgressed is simple and elementary, the
execute an affidavit stating that they have lived failure to know it constitutes gross ignorance
together for at least five years [and are without of the law.
legal impediment to marry each other]; and 5. The
solemnizing officer must execute a sworn
statement that he had ascertained the FACTS: Petitioner was a former Filipino citizen
qualifications of the parties and that he had who acquired Canadian citizenship through
found no legal impediment to their marriage. naturalization. He was married to the respondent
but was shocked of the infidelity on the part of
2. MARRIAGE; MARRIAGE LICENSES; HUSBAND AND WIFE; his wife. He went back to Canada and filed a
JUDGES; GROSS IGNORANCE OF THE LAW; A JUDGE OUGHT petition for divorce and was granted. Desirous
TO KNOW THAT A SUBSISTING PREVIOUS MARRIAGE IS A to marry another woman he now loved, he
DIRIMENT IMPEDIMENT, WHICH WOULD MAKE THE registered the divorce decree in the Civil
SUBSEQUENT MARRIAGE NULL AND VOID.- Registry Office and was informed that the foreign
Respondent Judge knew or ought to know that a decree must first be judicially recognized by a
subsisting previous marriage is a diriment competent Philippine court. Petitioner filed for
impediment, which would make the subsequent judicial recognition of foreign divorce and
marriage null and void. In fact, in his Comment, declaration of marriage as dissolved with the RTC
he stated that had he known that the late Manzano where respondent failed to submit any response.
was married he would have discouraged him from The RTC denied the petition on the basis that the
contracting another marriage. And respondent petitioner lacked locus standi. Thus, this case
Judge cannot deny knowledge of Manzano’s and was filed before the Court.
Payao’s subsisting previous marriage, as the same
was clearly stated in their separate affidavits ISSUE: WON THE SECOND PARAGRAPH OF ART 26 OF THE
which were subscribed and sworn to before him. FC EXTENDS TO ALIENS THE RIGHT TO PETITION A
COURT OF THIS JURISDICTION FROM THE RECOGNITION
3. MARRIAGE; MARRIAGE LICENSES; HUSBAND AND WIFE; OF A FOREIGN DIVORCE DECREE.
LEGAL SEPARATION; LEGAL SEPARATION DOES NOT
DISSOLVE THE MARRIAGE TIE, MUCH LESS AUTHORIZE RULING: NO. Not all of the requirements are met
THE PARTIES TO REMARRY, AND THIS HOLDS TRUE ALL by the couple making the said marriage null and
THE MORE WHEN THE SEPARATION IS MERELY DE FACTO.- void.
The fact that Manzano and Payao had been living
apart from their respective spouses for a long Article 34 of the Family Code provides: No
time already is immaterial. Article 63(1) of the license shall be necessary for the marriage of a
Family Code allows spouses who have obtained a man and a woman who have lived together as husband
decree of legal separation to live separately and wife for at least five years and without any
from each other, but in such a case the marriage legal impediment to marry each other. The
bonds are not severed. Elsewise stated, legal contracting parties shall state the foregoing
separation does not dissolve the marriage tie, facts in an affidavit before any person
much less authorize the parties to remarry. This authorized by law to administer oaths. The
holds true all the more when the separation is solemnizing officer shall also state under oath
merely de facto, as in the case at bar. that he ascertained the qualifications of the
contracting parties and found no legal impediment
4. MARRIAGE; MARRIAGE LICENSES; HUSBAND AND WIFE; to the marriage.
JUST LIKE SEPARATION, FREE AND VOLUNTARY
COHABITATION WITH ANOTHER PERSON FOR AT LEAST
For this provision on legal ratification of no license is required in such case is to avoid
marital cohabitation to apply, the following exposing the parties to humiliation, shame and
requisites must concur: embarrassment concomitant with the scandalous
1. The man and woman must have been living cohabitation of persons outside a valid marriage
together as husband and wife for at least five due to the publication of every applicant’s name
years before the marriage; for a marriage license. The publicity attending
2. The parties must have no legal impediment to the marriage license may discourage such persons
marry each other; from legitimizing their status. To preserve peace
3. The fact of absence of legal impediment in the family, avoid the peeping and suspicious
between the parties must be present at the time eye of public exposure and contain the source of
of marriage; gossip arising from the publication of their
4. The parties must execute an affidavit stating names, the law deemed it wise to preserve their
that they have lived together for at least five privacy and exempt them from that requirement.
years [and are without legal impediment to marry
each other]; and 3. CIVIL LAW; FAMILY CODE; MARRIAGES; THE FIVE-
5. The solemnizing officer must execute a sworn YEAR COMMON-LAW COHABITATION PERIOD, WHICH IS
statement that he had ascertained the COUNTED BACK FROM THE DATE OF CELEBRATION OF
qualifications of the parties and that he had MARRIAGE, SHOULD BE A PERIOD OF LEGAL UNION HAD
found no legal impediment to their marriage. IT NOT BEEN FOR THE ABSENCE OF THE MARRIAGE.-
Working on the assumption that Pepito and Norma
Not all of these requirements are present in the have lived together as husband and wife for five
case at bar. Making the decision of the years without the benefit of marriage, that five-
solemnizing officer questionable. year period should be computed on the basis of a
cohabitation as “husband and wife” where the only
Among the requisites of Article 34 is that missing factor is the special contract of
parties must have no legal impediment to marry marriage to validate the union. In other words,
each other. Considering that both parties has a the five-year common-law cohabitation period,
subsisting marriage, as indicated in their which is counted back from the date of
marriage contract that they are both “separated” celebration of marriage, should be a period of
is an impediment that would make their subsequent legal union had it not been for the absence of
marriage null and void. Just like separation, the marriage. This 5-year period should be the
free and voluntary cohabitation with another years immediately before the day of the marriage
person for at least 5 years does not severe the and it should be a period of cohabitation
tie of a subsisting previous marriage. Clearly, characterized by exclusivity—meaning no third
respondent Judge Sanchez demonstrated gross party was involved at any time within the 5 years
ignorance of the law when he solemnized a void and continuity—that is unbroken. Otherwise, if
and bigamous marriage. that continuous 5-year cohabitation is computed
without any distinction as to whether the parties
56. Niñal v. Bayadog, G.R. No. 133778, [March were capacitated to marry each other during the
14, 2000], 384 PHIL 661-675 entire five years, then the law would be
1. CIVIL LAW; FAMILY CODE; MARRIAGES; A VALID sanctioning immorality and encouraging parties
MARRIAGE LICENSE IS A REQUISITE OF MARRIAGE UNDER to have common law relationships and placing them
ARTICLE 53 OF THE CIVIL CODE, THE ABSENCE OF on the same footing with those who lived
WHICH RENDERS THE MARRIAGE VOID AB INITIO faithfully with their spouse. Marriage being a
PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 80 (3) IN RELATION TO ARTICLE special relationship must be respected as such
58.- and its requirements must be strictly observed.
A valid marriage license is a requisite of The presumption that a man and a woman deporting
marriage under Article 53 of the Civil Code, the themselves as husband and wife is based on the
absence of which renders the marriage void ab approximation of the requirements of the law. The
initio pursuant to Article 80(3) in relation to parties should not be afforded any excuse to not
Article 58. The requirement and issuance of comply with every single requirement and later
marriage license is the State’s demonstration of use the same missing element as a pre-conceived
its involvement and participation in every escape ground to nullify their marriage. There
marriage, in the maintenance of which the general should be no exemption from securing a marriage
public is interested. This interest proceeds from license unless the circumstances clearly fall
the constitutional mandate that the State within the ambit of the exception. It should be
recognizes the sanctity of family life and of noted that a license is required in order to
affording protection to the family as a basic notify the public that two persons are about to
“autonomous social institution.” Specifically, be united in matrimony and that anyone who is
the Constitution considers marriage as an aware or has knowledge of any impediment to the
“inviolable social institution,” and is the union of the two shall make it known to the local
foundation of family life which shall be civil registrar.
protected by the State. This is why the Family
Code considers marriage as “a special contract 4. CIVIL LAW; FAMILY CODE; MARRIAGES; ANY
of permanent union” and case law considers it MARRIAGE SUBSEQUENTLY CONTRACTED DURING THE
“not just an adventure but a lifetime LIFETIME OF THE FIRST SPOUSE SHALL BE ILLEGAL AND
commitment.” VOID.-
This is the same reason why our civil laws, past
2. CIVIL LAW; FAMILY CODE; MARRIAGES; THERE ARE or present, absolutely prohibited the concurrence
SEVERAL INSTANCES RECOGNIZED BY THE CIVIL CODE of multiple marriages by the same person during
WHEREIN A MARRIAGE LICENSE IS DISPENSED WITH.- the same period. Thus, any marriage subsequently
There are several instances recognized by the contracted during the lifetime of the first
Civil Code wherein a mar- riage license is spouse shall be illegal and void, subject only
dispensed with, one of which is that provided in to the exception in cases of absence or where the
Article 76, referring to the marriage of a man prior marriage was dissolved or annulled. The
and a woman who have lived together and Revised Penal Code complements the civil law in
exclusively with each other as husband and wife that the contracting of two or more marriages and
for a continuous and unbroken period of at least the having of extramarital affairs are considered
five years before the marriage. The rationale why
felonies, i.e., bigamy and concubinage and IS NECESSARY TO DECLARE A MARRIAGE AN ABSOLUTE
adultery. The law sanctions monogamy. NULLITY.-
Other than for purposes of remarriage, no
5. CIVIL LAW; FAMILY CODE; MARRIAGES; THE judicial action is necessary to declare a
SUBSISTENCE OF THE MARRIAGE EVEN WHERE THERE WAS marriage an absolute nullity. For other purposes,
ACTUAL SEVERANCE OF THE FILIAL COMPANIONSHIP such as but not limited to determination of
BETWEEN THE SPOUSES CANNOT MAKE ANY COHABITATION heirship, legitimacy or illegitimacy of a child,
BY EITHER SPOUSE WITH ANY THIRD PARTY AS BEING settlement of estate, dissolution of property
ONE AS “HUSBAND AND WIFE.”- regime, or a criminal case for that matter, the
Even assuming that Pepito and his first wife had court may pass upon the validity of marriage even
separated in fact, and thereafter both Pepito and in a suit not directly instituted to question the
respondent had started living with each other same so long as it is essential to the
that has already lasted for five years, the fact determination of the case. This is without
remains that their five-year period cohabitation prejudice to any issue that may arise in the
was not the cohabitation contemplated by law. It case. When such need arises, a final judgment of
should be in the nature of a perfect union that decla- ration of nullity is necessary even if the
is valid under the law but rendered imperfect purpose is other than to remarry. The clause “on
only by the absence of the marriage contract. the basis of a final judgment declaring such
Pepito had a subsisting marriage at the time when previous marriage void” in Article 40 of the
he started cohabiting with respondent. It is Family Code connotes that such final judgment
immaterial that when they lived with each other, need not be obtained only for purpose of
Pepito had already been separated in fact from remarriage.
his lawful spouse. The subsistence of the
marriage even where there was actual severance FACTS: Pepito Niñal was married to Teodulfa
of the filial companionship between the spouses Bellones on September 26, 1974. She was shot by
cannot make any cohabitation by either spouse Pepito resulting in her death on April 24, 1985.
with any third party as being one as “husband and One year and 8 months thereafter, Pepito and
wife.” respondent Norma Badayog got married without any
marriage license. In lieu thereof, Pepito and
6. CIVIL LAW; FAMILY CODE; MARRIAGES; VOID Norma executed an affidavit dated December 11,
MARRIAGES CAN BE QUESTIONED EVEN AFTER THE DEATH 1986 stating that they had lived together as
OF EITHER PARTY BUT VOIDABLE MARRIAGES CAN BE husband and wife for at least five years and were
ASSAILED ONLY DURING THE LIFETIME OF THE PARTIES thus exempt from securing a marriage license. On
AND NOT AFTER DEATH OF EITHER, IN WHICH CASE THE February 19, 1997, Pepito died in a car accident
PARTIES AND THEIR OFFSPRING WILL BE LEFT: AS IF
THE MARRIAGE HAD BEEN PERFECTLY VALID.- After their father’s death, petitioners filed a
The Code is silent as to who can file a petition petition for declaration of nullity of the
to declare the nullity of a marriage. Voidable marriage of Pepito to Norma alleging that the
and void marriages are not identical. A marriage said marriage was void for lack of a marriage
that is annulable is valid until otherwise license. The case was filed under the assumption
declared by the court; whereas a marriage that that the validity or invalidity of the second
is void ab initio is considered as having never marriage would affect petitioner’s successional
to have taken place and cannot be the source of rights.
rights. The first can be generally ratified or Norma filed a motion to dismiss on the ground
confirmed by free cohabitation or prescription that petitioners have no cause of action since
while the other can never be ratified. A voidable they are not among the persons who could file an
marriage cannot be assailed collaterally except action for annulment of marriage under Article
in a direct proceeding while a void marriage can 47 of the Family Code.
be attacked collaterally. Consequently, void
marriages can be questioned even after the death ISSUE:
of either party but voidable marriages can be (A) WHETHER OR NOT THE FIVE-YEAR COHABITATION AS
assailed only during the lifetime of the parties HUSBAND AND WIFE, IN THIS CASE, CAN BE CONSIDERED
and not after death of either, in which case the TO HAVE SUFFICIENTLY MET THE REQUIREMENT TO BE
parties and their offspring will be left as if EXEMPT FROM ACQUIRING A MARRIAGE LICENSE
the marriage had been perfectly valid. That is
why the action or defense for nullity is (B) WHETHER OR NOT PLAINTIFFS HAVE A CAUSE OF
imprescriptible, unlike voidable marriages where ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANT IN ASKING FOR THE
the action prescribes. Only the parties to a DECLARATION OF THE NULLITY OF MARRIAGE OF THEIR
voidable marriage can assail it but any proper DECEASED FATHER, PEPITO G. NIÑAL, WITH HER
interested party may attack a void marriage. SPECIALLY SO WHEN AT THE TIME OF THE FILING OF
THIS INSTANT SUIT, THEIR FATHER PEPITO G. NIÑAL
7. CIVIL LAW; FAMILY CODE; MARRIAGES; NO JUDICIAL IS ALREADY DEAD
DECREE IS NECESSARY IN ORDER TO ESTABLISH THE
NULLITY OF A MARRIAGE.- RULING:
Jurisprudence under the Civil Code states that (a) NO. The marriage of Pepito and Norma is void
no judicial decree is necessary in order to for absence of the marriage license. The two
establish the nullity of a marriage. “A void marriages involved herein having been solemnized
marriage does not require a judicial decree to prior to the effectivity of the Family Code (FC),
restore the parties to their original rights or the applicable law to determine their validity
to make the marriage void but though no sentence is the Civil Code which was the law in effect at
of avoidance be absolutely necessary, yet as well the time of their celebration. A valid marriage
for the sake of good order of society as for the license is a requisite of marriage under Article
peace of mind of all concerned, it is expedient 53 of the Civil Code, the absence of which renders
that the nullity of the marriage should be the marriage void ab initio. However, there are
ascertained and declared by the decree of a court several instances recognized by the Civil Code
of competent jurisdiction.” wherein a marriage license is dispensed with, one
of which is that provided in Article 76,
8. CIVIL LAW; FAMILY CODE; MARRIAGES; OTHER THAN referring to the marriage of a man and a woman
FOR PURPOSES OF REMARRIAGE, NO JUDICIAL ACTION who have lived together and exclusively with each
other as husband and wife for a continuous and 3. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; GUIDING PRINCIPLES IN
unbroken period of at least five years before the INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 36. —
marriage. The following guidelines in the interpretation
and application of Art. 36 of the Family Code are
In this case, they cannot be exempted even though hereby handed down for the guidance of the bench
they instituted an affidavit and claimed that and the bar: (1) The burden of proof to show the
they cohabit for at least 5 years because from nullity of the marriage belongs to the plaintiff.
the time of Pepito’s first marriage was dissolved Any doubt should be resolved in favor of the
to the time of his marriage with Norma, only existence and continuation of the marriage and
about 20 months had elapsed. Albeit, Pepito and against its dissolution and nullity. (2) The root
his first wife had separated in fact, and cause of the psychological incapacity must be (a)
thereafter both Pepito and Norma had started medically or clinically identified, (b) alleged
living with each other that has already lasted in the complaint, (c) sufficiently proven by
for five years, the fact remains that their five- experts and (d) clearly explained in the
year period cohabitation was not the cohabitation decision. (3) The incapacity must be proven to
contemplated by law. Hence, his marriage to Norma be existing at "the time of the celebration" of
is still void. the marriage. (4) Such incapacity must also be
shown to be medically or clinically permanent or
(b) The Code is silent as to who can file a incurable.Such incurability may be absolute or
petition to declare the nullity of a marriage. even relative only in regard to the other spouse,
Voidable and void marriages are not identical. not necessarily absolutely against everyone of
Consequently, void marriages can be questioned the same sex. (5) Such illness must be grave
even after the death of either party but voidable enough to bring about the disability of the party
marriages can be assailed only during the to assume the essential obligations of marriage
lifetime of the parties and not after death of (6) The essential marital obligations must be
either, in which case the parties and their those embraced by Articles 68 up to 71 of the
offspring will be left as if the marriage had Family Code as regards the husband and wife as
been perfectly valid. well as Articles 220, 221 and 225 of the same
Code in regard to parents and their children.
57. Republic v. Court of Appeals and Molina, Such non-complied marital obligation(s) must also
G.R. No. 108763, [February 13, 1997], 335 PHIL be stated in the petition, proven by evidence and
664-693 included in the text of the decision. (7)
1. CIVIL LAW; FAMILY CODE; ANNULMENT OF MARRIAGE; Interpretations given by the National Appellate
PSYCHOLOGICAL INCAPACITY; CONFINED TO THE MOST Matrimonial Tribunal of the Catholic Church in
SERIOUS CASES OF PERSONALITY DISORDER. — In the Philippines, while not controlling or
Leouel Santos vs. Court of Appeals,this Court, decisive, should be given great respect by our
speaking thru Mr. Justice Jose C. Vitug, ruled courts. (8) The trial court must order the
that "psychological incapacity should refer to prosecuting attorney or fiscal and the Solicitor
no less than a mental (not physical) incapacity General to appear as counsel for the state. No
...and that (t)here is hardly any doubt that the decision shall be handed down unless the
intendment of the law has been to confine the Solicitor General issues a certification, which
meaning of 'psychological incapacity' to the most will be quoted in the decision, briefly stating
serious cases of personality disorders clearly therein his reasons for his agreement or
demonstrative of an utter insensitivity or opposition, as the case may be, to the petition.
inability to give meaning and significance to the The Solicitor General, along with the prosecuting
marriage. This psychologic condition must exist attorney, shall submit to the court such
at the time the marriage is celebrated." Citing certification within fifteen (15) days from the
Dr. Gerardo Veloso, a former presiding judge of date the case is deemed submitted for resolution
the Metropolitan Marriage Tribunal of the of the court. The Solicitor General shall
Catholic Archdiocese of Manila, Justice Vitug discharge the equivalent function of the defensor
wrote that "the psychological incapacity must be vinculi contemplated under Canon 1095.
characterized by (a) gravity, (b) juridical
antecedence, and (c) incurability." PADILLA, J.,Separate Statement:

2. ID.;ID.;ID.;ID.;NOT A MERE OUTRIGHT REFUSAL CIVIL LAW; FAMILY CODE; ANNULMENT OF MARRIAGE;
OR NEGLECT IN PERFORMANCE OF MARITAL OBLIGATIONS PSYCHOLOGICAL INCAPACITY; EXISTENCE OF GROUND
OR INCOMPATIBILITY; CASE AT BAR. — On the other DEPEND ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE; TRIAL JUDGE MUST
hand, in the present case, there is no clear TAKE PAINS IN EXAMINING FACTUAL MILLIEU AND
showing to us that the psychological defect APPELLATE COURT MUST AVOID SUBSTITUTING ITS
spoken of is an incapacity. It appears to us to JUDGMENT FOR THAT OF THE TRIAL COURT. — I concur
be more of a "difficulty," if not outright in the result of the decision penned by Mr.
"refusal" or "neglect" in the performance of some Justice Panganiban but only because of the
marital obligations. Mere showing of peculiar facts of the case. As to whether or not
'irreconcilable differences" and "conflicting psychological incapacity exists in a given case
personalities" in no wise constitutes calling for annulment of a marriage, depends
psychological incapacity. It is not enough to crucially, more than in any field of the law, on
prove that the parties failed to meet their the facts of the case. In the field of
responsibilities and duties as married persons; psychological incapacity as a ground for
it is essential that they must be shown to be annulment of marriage, it is trite to say that
incapable of doing so, due to some psychological no case is on "all fours" with another case. The
(not physical) illness. The evidence adduced by trial judge must take pains in examining the
respondent merely showed that she and her husband factual millieu and the appellate court must, as
could not get along with each other. There had much as possible, avoid substituting its own
been no showing of the gravity of the problem; judgment for that of the trial court.
neither its juridical antecedence nor its
incurability. The expert testimony of Dr. Sison ROMERO, J.,Separate Opinion:
showed no incurable psychiatric disorder but only
incompatibility, not psychological incapacity. 1. CIVIL LAW; FAMILY CODE; ANNULMENT OF MARRIAGE;
OPPOSING AND CONFLICTING PERSONALITIES IS NOT
EQUIVALENT TO PSYCHOLOGICAL INCAPACITY. — The Family Code, must be able to pass the following
majority opinion, overturning that of the Court tests; viz:First,the incapacity must be
of Appeals which affirmed the Regional Trial psychological or mental not physical, in nature;
Court ruling, upheld petitioner Solicitor Second,the psychological incapacity must relate
General's position that "opposing and conflicting to the inability, not mere refusal, to understand
personalities" is not equivalent to psychological assume and discharge the basic marital
incapacity, for the latter "is not simply the obligations of living together, observing love,
neglect by the parties to the marriage of their respect and fidelity and rendering mutual help
responsibilities and duties, but a defect in and support; Third,the psychologic condition must
their psychological nature which renders them exist at the time the marriage is contracted
incapable of performing such marital although its overt manifestations may occur only
responsibilities and duties." thereafter; and Fourth,the mental disorder must
be grave or serious and incurable.
2. ID.;ID.;ID.;ID.;CASE AT BAR. — In the present
case, the alleged personality traits of Reynaldo, FACTS: Roridel & Reynaldo Molina were married on
the husband, did not constitute so much April 14, 1985 at the San Agustin Church. They
"psychological incapacity" as a "difficulty," if had a son, Andre Molina. A year after the
not outright "refusal" or "neglect" in the marriage, Reynaldo started manifesting signs of
performance of some marital obligations. "It is immaturity and irresponsibility: (1) spent more
not enough to prove that the parties failed to time with his friends (2) depended on his parents
meet their responsibilities and duties as married for aid & assistance (3) not honest with the
persons, it is essential that they must be shown finances (4) relieved of his job making Roridel
to be incapable of doing so, due to some the breadwinner of the family. Roridel went to
psychological (not physical) illness." live with his parents and afterwards, Reynaldo
abandoned her and the child. Roridel filed a case
3. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; INCAPACITY SHOULD NOT BE for the declaration of nullity of their marriage
THE RESULT OF MENTAL ILLNESS. — I would add that by virtue of her husband’s psychological
neither should the incapacity be the result of incapacity. Reynaldo claims that Roridel’s
mental illness. For if it were due to insanity strange behavior, refusal to perform marital
or defects in the mental faculties short of duties & failure to run the household & handle
insanity, there is a resultant defect or vice of finances caused their quarrels. Roridel on the
consent, thus rendering the marriage annullable other hand claims that her husband is immature,
under Art. 45 of the Family Code. irresponsible, dependent, disrespectful,
arrogant, chronic liar & infidel. He now lives
VITUG, J.,Concurring Opinion: with a mistress with whom he has a child.

1. CIVIL LAW; FAMILY CODE; ANNULMENT OF MARRIAGE; ISSUE: WON IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES AND
PSYCHOLOGICAL INCAPACITY; OTHER GROUNDS SHOULD CONFLICTING PERSONALITY CONSTITUTE PSYCHOLOGICAL
BE READ ALONG WITH IT IN DETERMINING ITS IMPORT. INCAPACITY
— In determining the import of "psychological
incapacity" under Article 36, one must also read HELD: NO. There is no clear showing that the
it along with, albeit to be taken as distinct psychological defect spoken of is an incapacity.
from, the other grounds enumerated in the Code, It appears to be more of a “difficulty” if not
like Articles 35, 37, 38 and 41 that would outright “refusal” or “neglect” in the
likewise, but for distinct reasons, render the performance of some marital obligations. Mere
marriage void ab initio, or Article 45 that would showing of “irreconcilable differences” and
make the marriage merely voidable, or Article 55 “conflicting personalities” in no wise constitute
that could justify a petition for legal psychological incapacity. It is not enough to
separation. Care must be observed so that these prove that the parties failed to meet their
various circumstances are not applied so responsibilities and duties as married persons;
indiscriminately as if the law were indifferent it is essential that they must be shown to be
on the matter. Article 36 of the Family Code incapable of doing so, due to some psychological
cannot be taken and construed independently of, (not physical) illness. The evidence merely
but must stand in conjunction with, existing adduced that Roridel and her husband could not
precepts in our law on marriage. Thus correlated, get along with each other. There had been no
'psychological incapacity' should refer to no showing of the gravity of the problem, neither
less than a mental (not physical) incapacity that its juridical antecedence nor its incurability.
causes a party to be truly incognitive of the
basic marital covenants that concomitantly must The following guidelines in the interpretation
be assumed and discharged by the parties to the and application of Art. 36 of the Family Code are
marriage which, as so expressed by Article 68 of hereby handed down for the guidance of the bench
the Family Code, include their mutual obligations and the bar:
to live together, observe love, respect and
fidelity and render help and support. There is 1. The burden of proof to show the nullity
hardly any doubt that the intendment of the law of the marriage belongs to the plaintiff.
has been to confine the meaning of 'psychological Any doubt should be resolved in favor of
incapacity' to the most serious cases of the existence and continuation of the
personality disorders clearly demonstrative of marriage and against its dissolution and
an utter insensitivity or inability to give nullity.
meaning and significance to the marriage. This 2. The root cause of the psychological
psychologic condition must exist at the time the incapacity must be (a) medically or
marriage is celebrated. The law does not clinically identified, (b) alleged in the
evidently envision, upon the other hand, an complaint, (c) sufficiently proven by
inability of the spouse to have sexual relations experts and (d) clearly explained in the
with the other. decision. Article 36 of the Family Code
requires that the incapacity must be
2. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; TESTS. — In fine, the term psychological – not physical, although its
psychological incapacity," to be a ground for the manifestations and/or symptoms may be
nullity of marriage under Article 36 of the physical.
 3. The incapacity must be proven to be and incidents are governed by law and not subject
existing at “the time of the celebration” to stipulation, except that marriage settlements
of the marriage. may fix the property relations during the
Such incapacity must also be shown to be marriage within the limits provided by this
medically of clinically permanent or Code." (Italics supplied.) The above provisions
incurable. Such incurability may be express so well and so distinctly the basic
absolute or even relative only in regard nucleus of our laws on marriage and the family,
to the other spouse, not necessarily and they are no doubt the tenets we still hold
absolutely against everyone of the same on to. The factual settings in the case at bench,
sex. in no measure at all, can come close to the
Such illness must be grave enough to bring standards required to decree a nullity of
about the disability of the party to marriage. Undeniably and understandably, Leouel
assume the essential obligations of stands aggrieved, even desperate, in his present
marriage. Thus, “mild characteriological situation. Regrettably, neither law nor society
peculiarities, mood changes, occasional itself can always provide all the specific
emotional outbursts” cannot be accepted answers to every individual problem.
as root causes.
4. The essential marital obligations must be 4. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; PSYCHOLOGICAL INCAPACITY,
those embraced by Article 68 up to 71 of CONSTRUED. — It should be obvious, looking at all
the Family Code as regards the husband and the foregoing disquisitions, including, and most
wife as well as Articles 220,221 and 225 importantly, the deliberations of the Family Code
of the same Code in regard to parents and Revision Committee itself, that the use of the
their children. Such non-complied marital phrase "psychological incapacity" under Article
obligation(s) must also be stated in the 36 of the Code has not been meant to comprehend
petition, proven be evidence and included all such possible cases of psychoses as, likewise
in the text of the decision. mentioned by some ecclesiastical authorities,
5. Interpretations given by the National extremely low intelligence, immaturity, and like
Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal of the circumstances (cited in Fr. Artemio Baluma's
Catholic Church in the Philippines, while "Void and Voidable Marriages in the Family Code
not controlling or decisive, should be and their Parallels in Canon Law," quoting from
given great respect by our courts. It is the Diagnostic Statistical Manual of Mental
clear that Article 36 was taken by the Disorder by the American Psychiatric Association;
Family Code Revision Committee from the Edward Hudson's "Handbook II for Marriage Nullity
1095 of the New Code of Canon Law, which Cases"). Article 36 of the Family Code cannot be
became effective in 1983.The trial court taken and construed independently of, but must
must order the prosecuting attorney or stand in conjunction with, existing precepts in
fiscal and Solicitor General to appear as our law on marriage. Thus correlated,
counsel for the state. No decision shall "psychological incapacity" should refer to no
be handed down unless the Solicitor less than a mental (not physical) incapacity that
General issues a certification, which will causes a party to be truly incognitive of the
be quoted in the decision, briefly stating basic marital covenants that concomitantly must
therein his reasons for his agreement or be assumed and discharged by the parties to the
opposition, as the case may be, to the marriage which, as so expressed by Article 68 of
petition. the Family Code, include their mutual obligations
Judgment reversed and set aside. to live together, observe love, respect and
fidelity and render help and support. There is
58. LEOUEL SANTOS, petitioner vs COURT OF hardly any doubt that the intendment of the law
APPEALS, defendant GR No. 112019. January 4, has been to confine the meaning of "psychological
1995 incapacity" to the most serious cases of
CIVIL LAW; FAMILY CODE; MARRIAGE; ANNULMENT personality disorders clearly demonstrative of
BASED ON PSYCHOLOGICAL INCAPACITY; MERE FAILURE an utter intensitivity or inability to give
TO RETURN HOME FOR MORE THAN FIVE (5) YEARS, NOT meaning and significance to the marriage. This
SUFFICIENT TO ESTABLISH PSYCHOLOGICAL psychologic condition must exist at the time the
INCAPACITY. — Leouel argues that the failure of marriage is celebrated. The law does not
Julia to return home, or at the very least to evidently envision, upon the other hand, an
communicate with him, for more than five years inability of the spouse to have sexual relations
are circumstances that clearly show her being with the other. This conclusion is implicit under
psychologically incapacitated to enter into Article 54 of the Family Code which considers
married life. Until further statutory and children conceived prior to the judicial
jurisprudential parameters are established, declaration of nullity of the void marriage to
every circumstance that may have some bearing on be "legitimate."
the degree, extent, and other conditions of that
incapacity must, in every case, be carefully 5. ID.; ID.; ID.; OTHER FORMS OF PSYCHOSES MAY
examined and evaluated so that no precipitate and BE CONSIDERED INDICIA OF PSYCHOLOGICAL
indiscriminate nullity is peremptorily decreed. INCAPACITY. — The other forms of psychoses, if
The well-considered opinions of psychiatrists, existing at the inception of marriage, like the
psychologists, and persons with expertise in state of a party being of unsound mind or
psychological disciplines might be helpful or concealment of drug addiction, habitual
even desirable. Marriage is not an adventure but alcoholism, homosexuality or lesbianism, merely
a lifetime commitment. We should continue to be renders the marriage contract voidable pursuant
reminded that innate in our society, then to Article 46, Family Code. If drug addiction,
enshrined in our Civil Code, and even now still habitual alcoholism, lesbianism or homosexuality
indelible in Article 1 of the Family Code, is should occur only during the marriage, they
that — "Article 1. Marriage is a special contract become mere grounds for legal separation under
of permanent union between a man and a woman Article 55 of the Family Code. These provisions
entered into in accordance with law for the of the Code, however, do not necessarily preclude
establishment of conjugal and family life. It is the possibility of these various circumstances
the foundation of the family and an inviolable being themselves, depending on the degree and
social institution whose nature, consequences,
severity of the disorder, indicia of it is apparent that private respondent Julia
psychological incapacity. Rosario Bedia-Santos has no intention of
cohabiting with petitioner, her husband, or
ROMERO, J., concurring: maintaining contact with him. In fact, her acts
eloquently show that she does not want her
1. CIVIL LAW; FAMILY CODE; MARRIAGE; ANNULMENT husband to know of her whereabouts and neither
BASED ON PSYCHOLOGICAL INCAPACITY; FAILURE TO has she any intention of living and cohabiting
RETURN HOME FOR MORE THAN FIVE (5) YEARS, NOT with him. To me there appears to be, on the part
SUFFICIENT BASIS FOR NULLITY. — I agree that of private respondent, an unmistakable indication
under the circumstances of the case, petitioner of psychological incapacity to comply with her
is not entitled to have his marriage declared a essential marital obligations, although these
nullity on the ground of psychological incapacity indications were made manifest after the
of private respondent. celebration of the marriage. It would be a great
injustice, I believe, to petitioner for this
2. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; REASON WHY PSYCHOLOGICAL Court to give a much too restrictive
INCAPACITY WAS NOT DEFINED. — By incorporating interpretation of the law and compel the
what is now Article 36 into the Family Code, the petitioner to continue to be married to a wife
Revision Committee referred to above intended to who for purposes of fulfilling her marital duties
add another ground to those already listed in the has, for all practical purposes, ceased to exist.
Civil Code as grounds for nullifying a marriage,
thus expanding or liberalizing the same. Inherent 2. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; NOT A SANCTION FOR ABSOLUTE
in the inclusion of the provision on DIVORCE; EVIDENT PURPOSE OF LAW MUST BE TAKEN
psychological incapacity was the understanding INTO CONSIDERATION IN GRANT OR DENIAL THEREOF;
that every petition for declaration of nullity BASIC PUBLIC POLICY INVOLVED. — Besides, there
based on it should be treated on a case-to-case are public policy considerations involved in the
basis; hence, the absence of a definition and an ruling the Court makes today. Is it not, in
enumeration of what constitutes psychological effect, directly or indirectly, facilitating the
incapacity. Moreover, the Committee feared that transformation of petitioner into a "habitual
the giving of examples would limit the tryster" or one forced to maintain illicit
applicability of the provision under the relations with another woman or women with
principle of ejusdem generis. But the law emerging problems of illegitimate children,
requires that the same be existing at the time simply because he is denied by private
of marriage although it be manifested later. respondent, his wife, the companionship and
conjugal love which he has sought from her and
3. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; SAFEGUARDS AGAINST ABUSE. to which he is legally entitled? I do not go as
— Admittedly, the provision on psychological far as to suggest that Art. 36 of the Family Code
incapacity, just like any other provision of law, is a sanction for absolute divorce but I submit
is open to abuse. To prevent this, "the court that we should not constrict it to non-
shall order the prosecuting attorney or fiscal recognition of its evident purpose and thus deny
assigned to it to appear on behalf of the State to one like petitioner, an opportunity to turn a
to take steps to prevent collusion between the new leaf in his life by declaring his marriage a
parties and to take care that evidence is not nullity by reason of his wife's psychological
fabricated or suppressed. Moreover, the judge, incapacity to perform an essential marital
in interpreting the provision on a case-to-case obligation.
basis, must be guided by "experience, the
findings of experts and researchers in FACTS: Leouel and Julia exchanged vows on
psychological disciplines, and by decisions of September 20, 1986. A year after the marriage,
church tribunals which, although not binding on the couple when quarreling over a number of
the civil courts, may be given persuasive effect things including the interference of Julia’s
since the provision was taken from Canon Law." parents into their marital affairs. On May 18,
1998, Julia finally left for the United States.
PADILLA, J., dissenting opinion: Leouel was then unable to communicate with her
for a period of five years and she had then
1. CIVIL LAW; FAMILY CODE; MARRIAGE; ANNULMENT virtually abandoned their family. Leouel filed a
BASED ON PSYCHOLOGICAL INCAPACITY; INDICATED BY case for nullity on the ground of psychological
LACK OF INTENTION TO COHABIT WITH SPOUSE IN CASE incapacity. The Regional Trial Court dismissed
AT BAR. — To my mind, it is clear that private the complaint for lack of merit. The Court of
respondent has been shown to be psychologically Appeals affirmed the decision of the trial court.
incapacitated to comply with at least one
essential marital obligation, i.e. that of living ISSUE: WON THE FAILURE OF JULIA TO RETURN HOME,
and cohabiting with her husband, herein OR AT THE VERY LEAST TO COMMUNICATE WITH HIM, FOR
petitioner. On the other hand, it has not been MORE THAN FIVE YEARS CONSTITUTE PSYCHOLOGICAL
shown that petitioner does not deserve to live INCAPACITY
and cohabit with his wife, herein private
respondent. A spouse's obligation to live and RUING: NO, the failure of Julia to return home
cohabit with his/her partner in marriage is a or to communicate with her husband Leouel for
basic ground rule in marriage, unless there are more than five years does not constitute
overpowering compelling reasons such as, for psychological incapacity.
instance, an incurable contagious disease on the Psychological incapacity must be characterized
part of a spouse or cruelty of one partner, by a) gravity, b) juridical antecedence, and c)
bordering on insanity. There may also be incurability
instances when, for economic and practical Psychological incapacity should refer to no less
reasons, husband and wife have to live than a mental (not physical) incapacity that
separately, but the marital bond between the causes a party to be truly incognitive of the
spouses always remains. Mutual love and respect basic marital covenants that concomitantly must
for each other would, in such cases, compel the be assumed and discharged by the parties to the
absent spouse to at least have regular contacts marriage which, as so expressed by Article 68 of
with the other to inform the latter of his/her the Family Code, include their mutual obligations
condition and whereabouts. In the present case,
to live together, observe love, respect and psychological incapacity were formulated on the
fidelity and render help and support. basis of studies of human behavior in general.

The intendment of the law has been to confine the Hence, the norms used for determining
meaning of “psychological incapacity” to the most psychological incapacity should apply to any
serious cases of personality disorders clearly person regardless of nationality.
demonstrative of an utter insensitivity or
inability to give meaning and significance to the 60. Antonio vs Reyes GR No. 155800
marriage. This psychologic condition must exist
at the time the marriage is celebrated. 2. CIVIL LAW; FAMILY CODE; MARRIAGES; ANNULMENT;
PSYCHOLOGICAL INCAPACITY; THE CONCEPT OF
Undeniably and understandably, Leouel stands PSYCHOLOGICAL INCAPACITY AS A GROUND FOR NULLITY
aggrieved, even desperate, in his present OF MARRIAGE IS NOVEL IN OUR BODY OF LAWS, ALTHOUGH
situation. Regrettably, neither law nor society MENTAL INCAPACITY HAS LONG BEEN RECOGNIZED AS A
itself can always provide all the specific GROUND FOR THE DISSOLUTION OF A MARRIAGE.-
answers to every individual problem Article 36 of the Family Code states that “[a]
Petition is denied. marriage contracted by any party who, at the time
of the celebration, was psychologically
59. Republic v. Quintero-Hamano G.R. No. incapacitated to comply with the essential
149498, 20 May 2004 marital obligations of marriage, shall likewise
be void even if such incapacity becomes manifest
FACTS: Toshio Hamano, a Japanese national, left only after its solemnization.” The concept of
respondent Lolita Hamano and their daughter a psychological incapacity as a ground for nullity
month after the celebration of the marriage, and of marriage is novel in our body of laws, although
returned to Japan with the promise to support his mental incapacity has long been recognized as a
family and take steps to make them Japanese ground for the dissolution of a marriage.
citizens. But except for 2 months, he never sent
any support to nor communicated with them despite 3. CIVIL LAW; FAMILY CODE; MARRIAGES; ANNULMENT;
the letters the respondent sent. He even visited JURISPRUDENCE HAS RECOGNIZED THAT PSYCHOLOGICAL
the Philippines but did not bother to see them. INCAPACITY “IS A MALADY SO GRAVE AND PERMANENT
Respondent, on the other hand, exerted all AS TO DEPRIVE ONE OF AWARENESS OF THE DUTIES AND
efforts to contact him, but to no avail. RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE MATRIMONIAL BOND ONE IS
ABOUT TO ASSUME.”-
Respondent filed a complaint for declaration of The notion that psychological incapacity pertains
nullity of their marriage on the ground of to the inability to understand the obligations
psychological incapacity, in which the trial of marriage, as opposed to a mere inability to
court rendered it so. CA affirmed trial court’s comply with them, was further affirmed in the
decision contesting before the SC that the Molina case. Therein, the Court, through then
requirements in Molina and Santos were not Justice (now Chief Justice) Panganiban observed
applicable for the case at bar involves a “mixed that “[t]he evidence [to establish psychological
marriage,” the husband being a Japanese national. incapacity] must convince the court that the
parties, or one of them, was mentally or
ISSUES: psychically ill to such extent that the person
1) WON TOSHIO IS PSYCHOLOGICALLY INCAPACITATED. could not have known the obligations he was
2) WON REQUIREMENTS IN MOLINA AND SANTOS assuming, or knowing them, could not have given
APPLICABLE IN MIXED MARRIAGES. valid assumption thereto.” Jurisprudence since
then has recognized that psychological incapacity
RULING: “is a malady so grave and permanent as to deprive
1) NO. The totality of evidence presented fell one of awareness of the duties and
short of proving that Toshio was psychologically responsibilities of the matrimonial bond one is
incapacitated to assume his marital about to assume.”
responsibilities. His act of abandonment was
doubtlessly irresponsible but it was never 4. CIVIL LAW; FAMILY CODE; MARRIAGES; ANNULMENT;
alleged nor proven to be due to some kind of GIVEN THE AVOWED STATE INTEREST IN PROMOTING
psychological illness. MARRIAGE AS THE FOUNDATION OF THE FAMILY, WHICH
IN TURN SERVES AS THE FOUNDATION OF THE NATION,
As the Court ruled in Molina, it is not enough THERE IS A CORRESPONDING INTEREST FOR THE STATE
to prove that a spouse failed to meet his TO DEFEND AGAINST MARRIAGES ILL-EQUIPPED TO
responsibility and duty as a married person; it PROMOTE FAMILY LIFE.-
is essential that he must be shown to be incapable Article 36 of the Family Code, in classifying
of doing so due to some psychological, not marriages contracted by a psychologically
physical, illness. There was no proof of a natal incapacitated person as a nullity, should be
or supervening disabling factor in the person, deemed as an implement of this constitutional
an adverse integral element in the personality protection of marriage. Given the avowed State
structure that effectively incapacitates a person interest in promoting marriage as the foundation
from accepting and complying with the obligations of the family, which in turn serves as the
essential to marriage. foundation of the nation, there is a
corresponding interest for the State to defend
Toshio’s act of abandonment was doubtlessly against marriages ill-equipped to promote family
irresponsible but it was never alleged nor proven life. Void ab initio marriages under Article 36
to be due to some kind of psychological illness. do not further the initiatives of the State
concerning marriage and family, as they promote
2) YES. In proving psychological incapacity, no wedlock among persons who, for reasons
distinction must be made between an alien spouse independent of their will, are not capacitated
and a Filipino spouse. The Court cannot be to understand or comply with the essential
lenient in the application of the rules merely obligations of marriage.
because the spouse alleged to be psychologically
incapacitated happens to be a foreign national. 5. CIVIL LAW; FAMILY CODE; MARRIAGES; ANNULMENT;
The medical and clinical rules to determine THE REQUIREMENT PROVIDED IN THE MOLINA CASE FOR
THE SOLICITOR GENERAL TO ISSUE A CERTIFICATION COMPREHEND THE LEGAL NATURE OF THE MARITAL BOND,
STATING HIS REASONS FOR HIS AGREEMENT OR MUCH LESS ITS PSYCHIC MEANING, AND THE
OPPOSITION TO THE PETITION FOR ANNULMENT OF CORRESPONDING OBLIGATIONS ATTACHED TO MARRIAGE,
MARRIAGE HAS BEEN DISPENSED WITH FOLLOWING THE INCLUDING PARENTING.-
IMPLEMENTATION OF A.M. NO. 02-11-10-SC, OR THE It should be noted that the lies attributed to
RULE ON DECLARATION OF ABSOLUTE NULLITY OF VOID respondent were not adopted as false pretenses
MARRIAGES AND ANNULMENT OF VOIDABLE MARRIAGES.- in order to induce petitioner into marriage. More
Molina had provided for an additional requirement disturbingly, they indicate a failure on the part
that the Solicitor General issue a certification of respondent to distinguish truth from fiction,
stating his reasons for his agreement or or at least abide by the truth. Petitioner’s
opposition to the petition. This requirement witnesses and the trial court were emphatic on
however was dispensed with following the respondent’s inveterate proclivity to telling
implementation of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC, or the lies and the pathologic nature of her mistruths,
Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void which according to them, were revelatory of
Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages. respondent’s inability to understand and perform
Still, Article 48 of the Family Code mandates the essential obligations of marriage. Indeed, a
that the appearance of the prosecuting attor- ney person unable to distinguish between fantasy and
or fiscal assigned be on behalf of the State to reality would similarly be unable to comprehend
take steps to prevent collusion between the the legal nature of the marital bond, much less
parties and to take care that evidence is not its psychic meaning, and the corresponding
fabricated or suppressed. Obviously, collusion obligations attached to marriage, including
is not an issue in this case, considering the parenting. One unable to adhere to reality cannot
consistent vigorous opposition of respondent to be expected to adhere as well to any legal or
the petition for declaration of nullity. In any emotional commitments.
event, the fiscal’s participation in the hearings
before the trial court is extant from the records 9. CIVIL LAW; FAMILY CODE; MARRIAGES; ANNULMENT;
of this case. THE PSYCHOLOGICAL INCAPACITY MUST BE SHOWN TO BE
MEDICALLY OR CLINICALLY PERMANENT OR INCURABLE.-
6. CIVIL LAW; FAMILY CODE; MARRIAGES; ANNULMENT; The final point of contention is the requirement
THE ROOT CAUSES OF RESPONDENT’S PSYCHOLOGICAL in Molina that such psychological incapacity be
INCAPACITY HAS BEEN MEDICALLY OR CLINICALLY shown to be medically or clinically permanent or
IDENTIFIED AND PROVEN BY EXPERTS AS PERENNIALLY incurable. It was on this score that the Court
TELLING LIES, FABRICATING RIDICULOUS STORIES AND of Appeals reversed the judgment of the trial
INVENTING PERSONALITIES AND SITUATIONS, OF court, the appellate court noting that it did not
WRITING LETTERS TO PETITIONER USING FICTITIOUS appear certain that respondent’s condition was
NAMES, AND OF LYING ABOUT HER ACTUAL OCCUPATION, incurable and that Dr. Abcede did not testify to
INCOME, EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT AND FAMILY such effect.
BACKGROUND, AMONG OTHERS.-
The root cause of respondent’s psychological 10. CIVIL LAW; FAMILY CODE; MARRIAGES; ANNULMENT;
incapacity has been medically or clinically THE REQUIREMENT THAT PSYCHOLOGICAL INCAPACITY
identified, alleged in the complaint, MUST BE SHOWN TO BE MEDICALLY OR CLINICALLY
sufficiently proven by experts, and clearly PERMANENT OR INCURABLE IS ONE THAT NECESSARILY
explained in the trial court’s decision. The CANNOT BE DIVINED WITHOUT EXPERT OPINION.-
initiatory complaint alleged that respondent, The requirement that psychological incapacity
from the start, had exhibited unusual and must be shown to be medically or clinically
abnormal behavior “of peren[n]ially telling lies, permanent or incurable is one that necessarily
fabricating ridiculous stories, and inventing cannot be divined without expert opinion. Clearly
personalities and situations,” of writing letters in this case, there was no categorical averment
to petitioner using fictitious names, and of from the expert witnesses that respondent’s
lying about her actual occupation, income, psychological incapacity was curable or incurable
educational attainment, and family background, simply because there was no legal necessity yet
among others. to elicit such a declaration and the appropriate
question was not accordingly propounded to him.
7. CIVIL LAW; FAMILY CODE; MARRIAGES; ANNULMENT; If we apply Pesca without deep reflection, there
THE SUPREME COURT HAD ALREADY HELD IN MARCOS VS. would be undue prejudice to those cases tried
MARCOS, 343 SCRA 755 (2000) THAT PERSONAL before Molina or Santos, especially those
EXAMINATION OF THE SUBJECT BY THE PHYSICIAN IS presently on appellate review, where presumably
NOT REQUIRED FOR THE SPOUSE TO BE DECLARED the respective petitioners and their expert
PSYCHOLOGICALLY INCAPACITATED.- witnesses would not have seen the need to adduce
The Court had already held in Marcos v. Marcos, a diagnosis of incurability. It may hold in those
343 SCRA 755 (2000), that personal examination cases, as in this case, that the psychological
of the subject by the physician is not required incapacity of a spouse is actually incurable,
for the spouse to be declared psychologically even if not pronounced as such at the trial court
incapacitated. We deem the methodology utilized level.
by petitioner’s witnesses as sufficient basis for
their medical conclusions. Admittedly, Drs. FACTS: In 1990, Leo married Marie, the latter
Abcede and Lopez’s common conclusion of being ten years his senior. In 1993, Leo filed
respondent’s psychological incapacity hinged to annul the marriage due to Marie’s
heavily on their own acceptance of petitioner’s Psychological Incapacity. Leo claimed that Marie
version as the true set of facts. However, since persistently lied about herself, the people
the trial court itself accepted the veracity of around her, her occupation, income, educational
petitioner’s factual premises, there is no cause attainment and other events or things. She would
to dispute the conclusion of psychological claim that she is a psychologist but she is not.
incapacity drawn therefrom by petitioner’s expert She would claim she is a singer with the company
witnesses. Blackgold and that she is the latter’s number 1
money maker but she’s not. She’d also spend
8. CIVIL LAW; FAMILY CODE; MARRIAGES; ANNULMENT; lavishly as opposed to her monthly income. She
A PERSON UNABLE TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN FANTASY fabricates things and people only to serve her
AND REALITY WOULD SIMILARLY BE UNABLE TO make believe world. Leo presented an expert that
proved Marie’s psychological incapacity. Marie and avoids him every time he wanted to have sexual
denied all Leo’s allegations and also presented intercourse with her. He never did. At least,
an expert to prove her case. The RTC ruled against there is nothing in the record to show that he
Marie and annulled the marriage. The Matrimonial had tried to find out or discover what the problem
Tribunal of the church also annulled the marriage with his wife could be. What he presented in
and was affirmed by the Vatican’s Roman Rata. The evidence is his doctor's Medical Report that
CA reversed the decision, hence the appeal. there is no evidence of his impotency and he is
Petitioner points out that one month after he and capable of erection. Since it is petitioner' s
his wife initially separated, he returned to her, claim that the reason is not psychological but
desiring to make their marriage work. However, perhaps physical disorder on the part of private
respondent's aberrant behavior remained respondent, it became incumbent upon him to prove
unchanged, as she continued to lie, fabricate such a claim. "If a spouse, although physically
stories, and maintained her excessive jealousy. capable but simply refuses to perform his or her
From this fact, he draws the conclusion that essential marriage obligations, and the refusal
respondent's condition is incurable. is senseless and constant, Catholic marriage
tribunals attribute the causes to psychological
ISSUE: WON PETITIONER HAS ESTABLISHED HIS CASUE incapacity than to stubborn refusal. Senseless
OF ACTION FOR DECLARATION OF NULLITY UNDER and protracted refusal is equivalent to
ARTICLE 36 OF THE FAMILY CODE psychological incapacity. Thus, the prolonged
refusal of a spouse to have sexual intercourse
RULING: YES. The petitioner's expert witnesses with his or her spouse is considered a sign of
testified in 1994 and 1995, and the trial court psychological incapacity." Evidently, one of the
rendered its decision on 10 August 1995. These essential marital obligations under the Family
events transpired well before Molina was Code is "To procreate children based on the
promulgated in 1997 and made explicit the universal principle that procreation of children
requirement that the psychological incapacity through sexual cooperation is the basic end of
must be shown to be medically or clinically marriage." Constant non-fulfillment of this
permanent or incurable. Such requirement was not obligation will finally destroy the integrity or
expressly stated in Article 36 or any other wholeness of the marriage. In the case at bar,
provision of the Family Code. the senseless and protracted refusal of one of
the parties to fulfill the above marital
The Molina case is not set in stone, and that the obligation is equivalent to psychological
interpretation of Article 36 relies heavily on a incapacity.
case-to-case perception. It would be insensate
to reason to mandate in this case an expert FACTS: Petitioner was married to private
medical or clinical diagnosis of incurability, respondent (Gina Lao-Tsoi). During their 10
since the parties would have had no impelling months of cohabitation (i.e., from May 22, 1998
cause to present evidence to that effect at the to March 15, 1989), they never have sexual
time this case was tried by the RTC more than ten intercourse. The wife claimed that her husband
(10) years ago. From the totality of the was impotent that even they sleep in the same
evidence, we are sufficiently convinced that the room and bed, nothing happened, that her husband
incurability of respondent's psychological is impotent, a closet homosexual as he did not
incapacity has been established by the show his penis. She said she had observed him
petitioner. Any lingering doubts are further using an eyebrow pencil and sometimes the
dispelled by the fact that the Catholic Church cleansing cream of his mother. She also said her
tribunals, which indubitably consider husband only married her to acquire or maintain
incurability as an integral requisite of his residency status here in the country and to
psychological incapacity, were sufficiently publicly maintain the appearance of a normal man
convinced that respondent was so incapacitated The wife initiated the nullity case of their
to contract marriage to the degree that annulment marriage on the ground of psychological
was warranted. incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code.
Though the husband does not want to end their
All told, we conclude that petitioner has marriage, he claimed that he was not impotent as
established his cause of action for declaration evidenced by his medical report and that it is
of nullity under Article 36 of the Family Code. his wife who avoid to have sexual intercourse.
The RTC correctly ruled, and the Court of Appeals
erred in reversing the trial court. ISSUE: WON CHI MING TSOI’S REFUSAL TO HAVE
SEXUAL INTERCOURSE WITH HIS WIFE CONSTITUTE
61. Chi Ming Tsoi vs. CA GR No. 119190 PSYCHOLOGICAL INCAPACITY, HENCE THE MARRIAGE IS
VOID
ID.; ID.; EITHER SPOUSE MAY PETITION COURT FOR
DECLARATION OF NULLITY OF MARRIAGE. — Neither the RULING: YES, SC held that the prolonged refusal
trial court nor the respondent court made a of a spouse to have sexual intercourse with his
finding on who between petitioner and private or her spouse is considered a sign of
respondent refuses to have sexual contact with psychological incapacity. If a spouse, although
the other. The fact remains, however, that there physically capable but simply refuses to perform
has never been coitus between them. At any rate, his or her essential marriage obligations, and
since the action to declare the marriage void may the refusal is senseless and constant, Catholic
be filed by either party, i.e., even the marriage tribunals attribute the causes to
psychologically incapacitated, the question of psychological incapacity than to stubborn
who refuses to have sex with the other becomes refusal. Senseless and protracted refusal is
immaterial. equivalent to psychological incapacity.

ID.; EVIDENCE; SENSELESS AND PROTRACTED REFUSAL One of the essential marital obligations under
OF ONE OF THE PARTIES TO FULFILL MARITAL the Family Code is “to procreate children basedon
OBLIGATION, EQUIVALENT TO PSYCHOLOGICAL the universal principle that procreation of
INCAPACITY. — Assuming it to be so, petitioner children through sexual cooperation is the basic
would have discussed with private respondent or end of marriage.” Constant non-fulfillment of
asked her what is ailing her, and why she balks this obligation will finally destroy the
integrity or wholeness of the marriage. In the marriage. 19 No less than the Constitution
case at bar, the senseless and protracted refusal recognizes the sanctity of marriage and the unity
of one of the parties to fulfill this marital of the family; it decrees marriage as legally
obligation is equivalent to psychological "inviolable" and protects it from dissolution at
incapacity. the whim of the parties. Both the family and
While the law provides that the husband and the marriage are to be "protected" by the state.
wife are obliged to live together, observer
mutual love, respect and fidelity, the sanction NB: Thus, in determining the import of
therefore is actually the “spontaneous, mutual "psychological incapacity" under Article 36, it
affection between husband and wife and not any must be read in conjunction with, although to be
legal mandate or court order (Cuaderno vs. taken as distinct from Articles 35, 21 37, 22 38,
Cuaderno, 120 Phil. 1298). Love is useless unless 23 and 41 24 that would likewise, but for
it is shared with another. Indeed, no man is an different reasons, render the marriage void ab
island, the cruelest act of a partner in marriage initio, or Article 45 25 that would make the
is to say “I could not have cared less.” This is marriage merely voidable, or Article 55 that
so because an ungiven self is an unfulfilled could justify a petition for legal separation.
self. The egoist has nothing but himself. In the Care must be observed so that these various
natural order, it is sexual intimacy that brings circumstances are not applied so indiscriminately
spouses wholeness and oneness. Sexual intimacy as if the law were indifferent on the matter. 26
is a gift and a participation in the mystery of Article 36 should not to be confused with a
creation. It is a function which enlivens the divorce law that cuts the marital bond at the
hope of procreation and ensures the continuation time the causes therefor manifest themselves. 27
of family relations. Neither it is to be equated with legal
separation, in which the grounds need not be
62. Armida Perez-Ferraris vs Brix Ferraris GR rooted in psychological incapacity but on
No. 162368 physical violence, moral pressure, moral
FACTS: The RTC rendered a Decision denying the corruption, civil interdiction, drug addiction,
petition for declaration of nullity of habitual alcoholism, sexual infidelity,
petitioner’s marriage with Brix Ferraris. The abandonment and the like.
trial court noted that suffering from epilepsy
does not amount to psychological incapacity under
Article 36 of the Civil Code and the evidence on
record were insufficient to prove infidelity.
Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was
denied where the trial court reiterated that
there was no evidence that respondent is mentally
or physically ill to such an extent that he could
not have known the obligations he was assuming,
or knowing them, could not have given valid
assumption thereof. Petitioner appealed to the
CA which affirmed in toto the judgment of the
trial court.

ISSUE: WHETHER OR NOT THE MARRIAGE OF PETITIONER

AND RESPONDENT IS VOID AB INITIO ON THE GROUND
OF RESPONDENT’S PSYCHOLOGICAL INCAPACITY.

RULING: NO, The term “psychological incapacity”

to be a ground for the nullity of marriage under
Article 36 of the Family Code, refers to a serious
psychological illness afflicting a party even
before the celebration of the marriage. It is a
malady so grave and so permanent as to deprive
one of awareness of the duties and
responsibilities of the matrimonial bond one is
about to assume.

Evidence on record did not convincingly establish

that respondent was suffering from psychological
incapacity. There is absolutely no showing that
his “defects” were already present at the
inception of the marriage, or that those are
incurable. We find respondent’s alleged mixed
personality disorder, the “leaving-the-house”
attitude whenever they quarreled, the violent
tendencies during epileptic attacks, the sexual
infidelity, the abandonment and lack of support,
and his preference to spend more time with his
band mates than his family, are not rooted on
some debilitating psychological condition but a
mere refusal or unwillingness to assume the
essential obligations of marriage.

While petitioner's marriage with the respondent

failed and appears to be without hope of
reconciliation, the remedy however is not always
to have it declared void ab initio on the ground
of psychological incapacity. An unsatisfactory
marriage, however, is not a null and void