SECOND DIVISION Who is to blame when a

G.R. No. 119190 January 16, marriage fails?

1997
This case was originally
CHI MING TSOI, petitioner, commenced by a distraught wife
vs. against her uncaring husband in
COURT OF APPEALS and the Regional Trial Court of Quezon
GINA LAO-TSOI, respondents. City (Branch 89) which decreed
the annulment of the marriage on
TORRES, JR., J.: the ground of psychological
incapacity. Petitioner appealed the
Man has not invented a reliable decision of the trial court to
compass by which to steer a respondent Court of Appeals (CA-
marriage in its journey over G.R. CV No. 42758) which affirmed
troubled waters. Laws are the Trial Court's decision
seemingly inadequate. Over time, November 29, 1994 and
much reliance has been placed in correspondingly denied the motion
the works of the unseen hand of for reconsideration in a resolution
Him who created all things. dated February 14, 1995.
 the South Villa, Makati, they went
The statement of the case and and proceeded to the house of
of the facts made by the trial court defendant's mother.
and reproduced by the Court of
Appeals1 its decision are as There, they slept together on
follows: the same bed in the same room
for the first night of their married
From the evidence adduced, the life.
following acts were preponderantly
established: It is the version of the plaintiff,
that contrary to her expectations,
Sometime on May 22, 1988, the that as newlyweds they were
plaintiff married the defendant at supposed to enjoy making love, or
the Manila Cathedral, . . . having sexual intercourse, with
Intramuros Manila, as evidenced each other, the defendant just
by their Marriage Contract. (Exh. went to bed, slept on one side
"A") thereof, then turned his back and
went to sleep . There was no
After the celebration of their sexual intercourse between them
marriage and wedding reception at during the first night. The same
thing happened on the second, room. They slept together in the
third and fourth nights. same room and on the same bed
since May 22, 1988 until March 15,
In an effort to have their 1989. But during this period, there
honeymoon in a private place was no attempt of sexual
where they can enjoy together intercourse between them. [S]he
during their first week as husband claims, that she did not: even see
and wife, they went to Baguio City. her husband's private parts nor did
But, they did so together with her he see hers.
mother, an uncle, his mother and
his nephew. They were all invited Because of this, they submitted
by the defendant to join them. themselves for medical
[T]hey stayed in Baguio City for examinations to Dr. Eufemio
four (4) days. But, during this Macalalag, a urologist at the
period, there was no sexual Chinese General Hospital, on
intercourse between them, since January 20, 1989.
the defendant avoided her by
taking a long walk during siesta The results of their physical
time or by just sleeping on a examinations were that she is
rocking chair located at the living healthy, normal and still a virgin,
while that of her husband's citizen, to acquire or maintain his
examination was kept confidential residency status here in the
up to this time. While no medicine country and to publicly maintain
was prescribed for her, the doctor the appearance of a normal man.
prescribed medications for her
husband which was also kept The plaintiff is not willing to
confidential. No treatment was reconcile with her husband.
given to her. For her husband, he
was asked by the doctor to return On the other hand, it is the
but he never did. claim of the defendant that if their
marriage shall be annulled by
The plaintiff claims, that the reason of psychological incapacity,
defendant is impotent, a closet the fault lies with his wife.
homosexual as he did not show his
penis. She said, that she had But, he said that he does not
observed the defendant using an want his marriage with his wife
eyebrow pencil and sometimes the annulled for several reasons, viz:
cleansing cream of his mother. (1) that he loves her very much;
And that, according to her, the (2) that he has no defect on his
defendant married her, a Filipino part and he is physically and
psychologically capable; and, (3) the defendant, was that everytime
since the relationship is still very he wants to have sexual
young and if there is any intercourse with his wife, she
differences between the two of always avoided him and whenever
them, it can still be reconciled and he caresses her private parts, she
that, according to him, if either always removed his hands. The
one of them has some defendant claims, that he forced
incapabilities, there is no certainty his wife to have sex with him only
that this will not be cured. He once but he did not continue
further claims, that if there is any because she was shaking and she
defect, it can be cured by the did not like it. So he stopped.
intervention of medical technology
or science. There are two (2) reasons,
according to the defendant , why
The defendant admitted that the plaintiff filed this case against
since their marriage on May 22, him, and these are: (1) that she is
1988, until their separation on afraid that she will be forced to
March 15, 1989, there was no return the pieces of jewelry of his
sexual contact between them. But, mother, and, (2) that her husband,
the reason for this, according to
the defendant, will consummate B"), and he is capable of erection.
their marriage. (Exh. "2-C")

The defendant insisted that The doctor said, that he asked

their marriage will remain valid the defendant to masturbate to
because they are still very young find out whether or not he has an
and there is still a chance to erection and he found out that
overcome their differences. from the original size of two (2)
inches, or five (5) centimeters, the
The defendant submitted penis of the defendant lengthened
himself to a physical examination. by one (1) inch and one
His penis was examined by Dr. centimeter. Dr. Alteza said, that
Sergio Alteza, Jr., for the purpose the defendant had only a soft
of finding out whether he is erection which is why his penis is
impotent . As a result thereof, Dr. not in its full length. But, still is
Alteza submitted his Doctor's capable of further erection, in that
Medical Report. (Exh. "2"). It is with his soft erection, the
stated there, that there is no defendant is capable of having
evidence of impotency (Exh. "2- sexual intercourse with a woman.
 In open Court, the Trial decision be furnished the Local
Prosecutor manifested that there is Civil Registrar of Quezon City. Let
no collusion between the parties another copy be furnished the
and that the evidence is not Local Civil Registrar of Manila.
fabricated."2
SO ORDERED.
After trial, the court rendered
judgment, the dispositive portion On appeal, the Court of Appeals
of which reads: affirmed the trial court's decision.

ACCORDINGLY, judgment is Hence, the instant petition.

hereby rendered declaring as
VOID the marriage entered into by Petitioner alleges that the
the plaintiff with the defendant on respondent Court of Appeals
May 22, 1988 at the Manila erred:
Cathedral, Basilica of the
Immaculate Conception, I. in affirming the conclusions of
Intramuros, Manila, before the Rt. the lower court that there was no
Rev. Msgr. Melencio de Vera. sexual intercourse between the
Without costs. Let a copy of this
parties without making any there was no collusion between
findings of fact. them.

II. in holding that the refusal of We find the petition to be bereft

private respondent to have sexual of merit.
communion with petitioner is a
psychological incapacity inasmuch Petitioner contends that being
as proof thereof is totally absent. the plaintiff in Civil Case No. Q-89-
3141, private respondent has the
III. in holding that the alleged burden of proving the allegations
refusal of both the petitioner and in her complaint; that since there
the private respondent to have sex was no independent evidence to
with each other constitutes prove the alleged non-coitus
psychological incapacity of both. between the parties, there remains
no other basis for the court's
IV. in affirming the annulment conclusion except the admission of
of the marriage between the petitioner; that public policy should
parties decreed by the lower court aid acts intended to validate
without fully satisfying itself that marriage and should retard acts
intended to invalidate them; that
the conclusion drawn by the trial motion of that party, direct
court on the admissions and judgment on such pleading. But in
confessions of the parties in their actions for annulment of marriage
pleadings and in the course of the or for legal separation the material
trial is misplaced since it could facts alleged in the complaint shall
have been a product of collusion; always be proved.
and that in actions for annulment
of marriage, the material facts The foregoing provision pertains
alleged in the complaint shall to a judgment on the pleadings.
always be proved.3 What said provision seeks to
prevent is annulment of marriage
Section 1, Rule 19 of the Rules without trial. The assailed decision
of Court reads: was not based on such a judgment
on the pleadings. When private
Section 1. Judgment on the respondent testified under oath
pleadings. — Where an answer before the trial court and was
fails to tender an issue, or cross-examined by oath before the
otherwise admits the material trial court and was cross-examined
allegations of the adverse party's by the adverse party, she thereby
pleading, the court may, on presented evidence in form of a
testimony. After such evidence
was presented, it be came The case has reached this Court
incumbent upon petitioner to because petitioner does not want
present his side. He admitted that their marriage to be annulled. This
since their marriage on May 22, only shows that there is no
1988, until their separation on collusion between the parties.
March 15, 1989, there was no When petitioner admitted that he
sexual intercourse between them. and his wife (private respondent)
have never had sexual contact
To prevent collusion between with each other, he must have
the parties is the reason why, as been only telling the truth. We are
stated by the petitioner, the Civil reproducing the relevant portion of
Code provides that no judgment the challenged resolution denying
annulling a marriage shall be petitioner's Motion for
promulgated upon a stipulation of Reconsideration, penned with
facts or by confession of judgment magisterial lucidity by Associate
(Arts. 88 and 101[par. 2]) and the Justice Minerva Gonzaga-Reyes,
Rules of Court prohibit such viz:
annulment without trial (Sec. 1,
Rule 19).
 The judgment of the trial court mind of this Court clearly
which was affirmed by this Court is demonstrates an 'utter insensitivity
not based on a stipulation of facts. or inability to give meaning and
The issue of whether or not the significance to the marriage' within
appellant is psychologically the meaning of Article 36 of the
incapacitated to discharge a basic Family Code (See Santos vs. Court
marital obligation was resolved of Appeals, G.R. No. 112019,
upon a review of both the January 4, 1995).4
documentary and testimonial
evidence on record. Appellant Petitioner further contends that
admitted that he did not have respondent court erred in holding
sexual relations with his wife after that the alleged refusal of both the
almost ten months of cohabitation, petitioner and the private
and it appears that he is not respondent to have sex with each
suffering from any physical other constitutes psychological
disability. Such abnormal incapacity of both. He points out
reluctance or unwillingness to as error the failure of the trial
consummate his marriage is court to make "a categorical
strongly indicative of a serious finding about the alleged
personality disorder which to the psychological incapacity and an in-
depth analysis of the reasons for them. At any rate, since the action
such refusal which may not be to declare the marriage void may
necessarily due to physchological be filed by either party, i.e., even
disorders" because there might the psychologically incapacitated,
have been other reasons, — i.e., the question of who refuses to
physical disorders, such as aches, have sex with the other becomes
pains or other discomforts, — why immaterial.
private respondent would not want
to have sexual intercourse from Petitioner claims that there is
May 22, 1988 to March 15, 1989, no independent evidence on
in a short span of 10 months. record to show that any of the
parties is suffering from
First, it must be stated that phychological incapacity. Petitioner
neither the trial court nor the also claims that he wanted to have
respondent court made a finding sex with private respondent; that
on who between petitioner and the reason for private respondent's
private respondent refuses to have refusal may not be psychological
sexual contact with the other. The but physical disorder as stated
fact remains, however, that there above.
has never been coitus between
 We do not agree. Assuming it to respondent, it became incumbent
be so, petitioner could have upon him to prove such a claim.
discussed with private respondent
or asked her what is ailing her, If a spouse, although physically
and why she balks and avoids him capable but simply refuses to
everytime he wanted to have perform his or her essential
sexual intercourse with her. He marriage obligations, and the
never did. At least, there is refusal is senseless and constant,
nothing in the record to show that Catholic marriage tribunals
he had tried to find out or discover attribute the causes to
what the problem with his wife psychological incapacity than to
could be. What he presented in stubborn refusal. Senseless and
evidence is his doctor's Medical protracted refusal is equivalent to
Report that there is no evidence of psychological incapacity. Thus, the
his impotency and he is capable of prolonged refusal of a spouse to
erection.5 Since it is petitioner's have sexual intercourse with his or
claim that the reason is not her spouse is considered a sign of
psychological but perhaps physical psychological incapacity.6
disorder on the part of private
 Evidently, one of the essential An examination of the evidence
marital obligations under the convinces Us that the husband's
Family Code is "To procreate plea that the wife did not want
children based on the universal carnal intercourse with him does
principle that procreation of not inspire belief. Since he was not
children through sexual physically impotent, but he
cooperation is the basic end of refrained from sexual intercourse
marriage." Constant non- during the entire time (from May
fulfillment of this obligation will 22, 1988 to March 15, 1989) that
finally destroy the integrity or he occupied the same bed with his
wholeness of the marriage. In the wife, purely out of symphaty for
case at bar, the senseless and her feelings, he deserves to be
protracted refusal of one of the doubted for not having asserted
parties to fulfill the above marital his right seven though she balked
obligation is equivalent to (Tompkins vs. Tompkins, 111 Atl.
psychological incapacity. 599, cited in I Paras, Civil Code, at
p. 330). Besides, if it were true
As aptly stated by the that it is the wife was suffering
respondent court, from incapacity, the fact that
defendant did not go to court and
seek the declaration of nullity not phychological incapacity, and
weakens his claim. This case was which can be achieved "through
instituted by the wife whose proper motivation." After almost
normal expectations of her ten months of cohabitation, the
marriage were frustrated by her admission that the husband is
husband's inadequacy. Considering reluctant or unwilling to perform
the innate modesty of the Filipino the sexual act with his wife whom
woman, it is hard to believe that he professes to love very dearly,
she would expose her private life and who has not posed any
to public scrutiny and fabricate insurmountable resistance to his
testimony against her husband if it alleged approaches, is indicative of
were not necessary to put her life a hopeless situation, and of a
in order and put to rest her marital serious personality disorder that
status. constitutes psychological
incapacity to discharge the basic
We are not impressed by marital covenants within the
defendant's claim that what the contemplation of the Family
evidence proved is the Code.7
unwillingness or lack of intention
to perform the sexual act, which is
 While the law provides that the brings spouses wholeness and
husband and the wife are obliged oneness. Sexual intimacy is a gift
to live together, observe mutual and a participation in the mystery
love, respect and fidelity (Art. 68, of creation. It is a function which
Family Code), the sanction enlivens the hope of procreation
therefor is actually the and ensures the continuation of
"spontaneous, mutual affection family relations.
between husband and wife and
not any legal mandate or court It appears that there is absence
order" (Cuaderno vs. Cuaderno of empathy between petitioner and
120 Phil. 1298). Love is useless private respondent. That is — a
unless it is shared with another. shared feeling which between
Indeed, no man is an island, the husband and wife must be
cruelest act of a partner in experienced not only by having
marriage is to say "I could not spontaneous sexual intimacy but a
have cared less." This is so deep sense of spiritual
because an ungiven self is an communion. Marital union is a
unfulfilled self. The egoist has two-way process. An expressive
nothing but himself. In the natural interest in each other's feelings at
order, it is sexual intimacy which a time it is needed by the other
can go a long way in deepening IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING
the marital relationship. Marriage PREMISES , the assailed decision
is definitely not for children but for of the Court of Appeals dated
two consenting adults who view November 29, 1994 is hereby
the relationship with love amor AFFIRMED in all respects and the
gignit amorem, respect, sacrifice petition is hereby DENIED for lack
and a continuing commitment to of merit.
compromise, conscious of its value
as a sublime social institution. SO ORDERED.

This Court, finding the gravity Regalado, Romero, Puno and

of the failed relationship in which Mendoza, JJ., concur.
the parties found themselves
trapped in its mire of unfulfilled Footnote
vows and unconsummated marital
obligations, can do no less but FIRST DIVISION
sustain the studied judgment of
respondent appellate court. January 8, 2018

G.R. No. 210766

 Trial Court (RTC) of Parañaque
MARIA CONCEPCION N. City, Branch 260, in Civil Case No.
SINGSON a.k.a. CONCEPCION 07-0070.
N. SINGSON, Petitioner
vs. Factual Antecedents
BENJAMIN L. SINGSON,
Respondent On February 27, 2007, Maria
Concepcion N. Singson a.k.a.
DECISION Concepcion N. Singson (petitioner)
filed a Petition5 for declaration of
DEL CASTILLO, J.: nullity of marriage based on Article
36 of the Family Code of the
Assailed in this Petition for Philippines6 (Family Code). This
Review on Certiorari1 are the was docketed as Civil Case No. 07-
August 29, 2013 Decision2 of the 0070.
Court of Appeals (CA) and its
January 6, 2014 Resolution3 in CA- It was alleged therein that on
G.R. CV No. 96662, which reversed July 6, 1974, petitioner and
and set aside the November 12, Benjamin L. Singson (respondent)
2010 Decision4 of the Regional were married before the Rev. Fr.
Alfonso L. Casteig at St. Francis and that because she could expect
Church, Mandaluyong, Rizal; that no help or assistance at all from
said marriage produced four respondent she was compelled to
children, all of whom are now of work doubly hard to support her
legal age; that when they started family as the sole breadwinner.
living together, petitioner noticed
that respondent was "dishonest, Petitioner also averred that at
unreasonably extravagant at the the time she filed this Petition,
expense of the family's welfare, respondent was confined at Metro
extremely vain physically and Psych Facility,8 a rehabilitation
spiritually,"7 and a compulsive institution in Pasig City; and that
gambler; that respondent was respondent's attending
immature, and was w1ab1e to psychiatrist, Dr. Benita Sta. Ana-
perform his paternal duties; that Ponio (Dr. Sta. Ana-Ponio), made
respondent was also irresponsible, the following diagnosis on
an easy-going man, and guilty of respondent:
infidelity; that respondent's
abnormal behavior made him Based on history, mental
completely unable to render any status examination and
help, support, or assistance to her; observation, he is diagnosed to be
suffering from Pathological his wife, issuing bouncing checks
Gambling as manifested by: in order to finance his gambling[;]

a. preoccupation with e. has jeopardized his

gambling, thinking of ways to get relationship with his wife, lost the
money with which to gamble as respect of his children, lost a good
seen in his stealing and pawning career in banking because of
jewelries and appliances[;] gambling[;]

b. needs to gamble with f. [relies] on his parents, his

increasing amounts of money in wife, and siblings to provide
order to achieve the desired money to relieve a desperate
effect[;] fmancial situation caused by
gambling[;]
c. lies to family members or
others to conceal the extent of While he apparently had
[his] involvement with gambling[;] Typhoid fever that resulted [in]
behavioral changes as a young
d. committed illegal acts boy, it would be difficult to say
such as forging the signature of that the psychotic episodes he
manifested in 2003 and 2006 [are] Such pattern is inflexible and
etiologically related to the general pervasive and has led to significant
medical condition that occurred in impairment in social, occupational
his childhood. and interpersonal relationship. In
[respondent's] case, this has
Furthermore, [respondent] persisted for several years, and
manifests an enduring pattern of can be traced back [to] his
behavior that deviates markedly adolescence since he started
from the expectations of our gambling while in high school. He
culture as manifested in the is therefore diagnosed to be
following areas: suffering from Personality
Disorder.
a. his ways of perceiving and
interpreting [his own] self, other All these[,] put together,
people, and events[;] [hinder respondent] from
performing his marital
b. his emotional response[;] obligations.9

c. his poor impulse control[;] Petitioner moreover asserted

that respondent came from a
"distraught" family and had a but that she did not attain her
"dysfunctional" childhood;10 that goal.
respondent had all the love, care,
and protection of his parents as Finally, petitioner claimed that
the youngest child for some time; she and respondent did not enter
but that these parental love, care into any ante-nuptial agreement to
and protection were, however, govern their prope1ty relations as
transferred to his youngest brother husband and wife and that they
who was born when respondent had no conjugal assets or debts.
was almost five years old; and that
these factors caused respondent On June 19, 2007, respondent
emotional devastation from which filed his Answer.11
he never recovered.
Traversing petitioner's
Petitioner added that unknown allegations, respondent claimed
to her, respondent even as a high that "psychological incapacity"
school student, was already must be characterized by gravity,
betting on jai alai. She also juridical antecedence, and
claimed that she tried to adjust to incurability, which are not present
respondent's personality disorders, in the instant case because
petitioner's allegations are not who wants to get out of it; that
supported by facts. contrary to petitioner's claim that
he is a good-for-nothing fellow, he
Respondent further averred that has a college degree in business
it was not true that he failed to administration, and is a bank
render any help, support or employee, and, that it was money
assistance to petitioner and their problem, and not his alleged
family; that the family home where personality disorder, that is the
petitioner and their children are wall that divided him and
living was in fact his own capital petitioner.
property; that his shortcomings as
mentioned by petitioner do not Respondent also claimed that
pertain to the most grave or petitioner failed to lay the basis for
serious cases of personality the conclusions of the psychiatrist
disorders that would satisfy the to the effect that he is suffering
standards required to obtain a from pathological gambling and
decree of nullity of marriage; that personality disorder; that
petitioner's complaint is nothing petitioner's allegation that he came
more than a complaint of a woman from a distraught family and that
with an unsatisfactory marriage he suffered emotional devastation
is vague, and bereft of particular hence the family home is their
details, and even slanderous; and conjugal property; that he and
that assuming that he had not petitioner also have a house and
acted the way petitioner expected lot in Tagaytay City, as well as
him to conduct himself, his actions bank accounts that are in
and behavior are not psychological petitioner's name only; and he and
illnesses or personality disorders, petitioner also have investments in
but simply physical illnesses of the shares of stocks, cars, household
body, akin to hypertension and appliances, furniture, and jewelry;
allied sicknesses, and that these and that these are conjugal assets
physical illnesses are not at all because they came from
incurable psychiatric disorders that petitioner's salaries and his
were present at the time of his (respondent's) own inheritance
marriage with petitioner. money.

Respondent furthermore Respondent moreover alleged

claimed that he and petitioner had that before the filing of the
conjugal assets and debts; that present Petition, petitioner had
the land where their family home caused him to be admitted into the
is built came from his earnings, Metro Psych Facility for treatment;
that on account of his confinement On February 23, 2010,
and treatment in this psychiatric petitioner filed her Formal Offer of
facility, he has incurred medical Evidence which included a
expenses and professional medical photocopy of the marriage
fees; and that since it is petitioner contract; the birth certificates of
who manages all their finances their four children; her son Jose’s
and conjugal assets it stands to Judicial Affidavit dated April 2,
reason that he should be awarded 2008; a photocopy of Dr. Sta. Ana-
'"spousal support." Ponio's Judicial Affidavit dated
June 25, 2008; Clinical Summary
On July 25, 2007, the RTC of respondent issued by Dr. Sta.
issued its Pre-Trial Order.12 Ana-Ponio dated February 11,
2007 (Clinical Summary); her
Trial thereafter ensued. (petitioner's) own Judicial Affidavit
Petitioner's witnesses included dated April 2, 2008; a photocopy
herself, her son, Jose Angelo of Transfer Certificate of Title
Singson (Jose), and Dr. Sta. Ana- (TCT) No. 179751 registered in the
Ponio. names of the parties' four
children:, and a notarized
document entitled "Summary of
Sources and Uses of Funds for did not establish [his]
tJ1e period November 1999 to psychological incapacity x x x to
March 31, 2008" executed by comply with the essential martial
petitioner and described as a obligations x x x".17 Petitioner
detailed summary of expenses filed her Opposition18 thereto, and
paid for with the proceeds of respondent tendered his Comment
respondent's share in the sale of thereon.19
the latter's house in Magallanes
Village.13 On May 17, 2010, the RTC
denied respondent’s Motion to
Respondent filed his Comment Dismiss and stood pat on its March
thereon.14 29, 2010 Order.20

On March 29, 2010, the RTC During the September 30, 2010
admitted petitioner’s exhibits.15 hearing, respondent’s counsel
manifested that his client was
On May 13, 2010, respondent waiving the right to present
filed a Motion to Dismiss16 "on the countervailing evidence.
ground that the totality of Respondent’s counsel also moved
evidence presented by petitioner that the Petition at bar be
submitted for decision on the basis
of the evidence already on the 1. DECLARING null and void
record. The RTC thus declared the ab initio the marriage between
case submitted for decision.21 MARIA CONCEPCION v. SINGSON
a.k.a. CONCEPCION N. SINGSON
Ruling of the Regional Trial and BENJAMIN L SINGSON
Court solemnized on JULY 6, 1974 in
Mandaluyong City or any other
In its Decision of November 12, marriage between them on the
2010, the RTC granted the Petition ground of psychological' incapacity
and declared the marriage of the respondent.
between petitioner and respondent
void ab initio on the ground of the 2. ORDERING the Local Civil
latter’s psychological incapacity. Registrar of Mandaluyong City and
The RTC disposed thus- the National Statistics Office to
cancel the marriage between the
WHEREFORE, in view of the petitioner and the respondent as
foregoing considerations, the appearing in the Registry of
petition is GRANTED. Judgment is Marriage.
hereby rendered[:]
 There are no other issues in because the totality of evidence
this case. showed that respondent is
suffering from a psychological
Let copies of this Decision be condition that is grave, incurable,
furnished the Local Civil Registrars and has juridical antecedence.
ofMandaluyong City and
Parañaque City, the Office of the The RTC also found that the
Solicitor General, the Office of the combined testimonies of petitioner
Civil Register General (National and Dr. Sta. Ana-Ponio
Statistics Office) and the Office of convincingly showed that
the City Prosecutor, Parañaque respondent is psychologically
City. incapacitated to perform the
essential marital obligations; that
SO ORDERED.22 respondent's inability to perform
his marital obligations as set out in
The RTC ruled that the Articles 68 to 71 of the Family
requisites warranting a finding of Code, was essentially due to a
psychological incapacity under psychological abnormality arising
Article 36 of the family Code are from a pathological and utterly
present in the instant case irresistible urge to gamble.
 by spouses was donated in favor
The RTC cited "[Dr. Sta. Ana- of the parties' children as
Ponio's] findings [which] reveal evidenced by TCT No.
that respondent is suffering from
Personality Disorder known as Respondent moved for
Pathological Gambling."23 It ruled reconsideration of this verdict.
that it has been shown that this
personality disorder was present at But in its older dated January 6,
the time of celebration of marriage 2011,24 the RTC denied
but became manifest only later; respondent's motion for
that because of this personality reconsideration. It reiterated that
disorder respondent had already the expert witness had adequately
jeopardized his relationship with established that respondent is
his family; and that respondent's suffering from "Pathological
psychological disorder hinders the Gambling Personality Disorder''
performance of his obligations as a which is grave, permanent, and
husband and as a father. has juridical antecedence. On
February 4, 2011, respondent filed
Lastly, the RTC found that the a Notice of Appeal25 which was
only property owned in common
given due course by the RTC in its Declaration of Nullity of Marriage is
order26 dated February 28, 2011. DISMISSED.

Ruling of the Court of Appeals SO ORDERED.27

In its Decision of August 29, The CA held that the totality of

2013, the CA overturned the RTC, evidence presented by petitioner
and disposed as follows: failed to establish respondent's
alleged psychological incapacity to
WHEREFORE, the appeal is perform the essential marital
GRANTED. The Decision dated 12 obligations, which in this case, was
November 2010 issued by the not at all proven to be grave or
Regional Trial Court, Branch 260, serious, much less incurable, and
Parañaque City in Civil Case No. furthermore was not existing at
07-0070, declaring the marriage the time of the marriage. What is
between Maria Concepcion N. more, the CA declared that any
Singson and Benjamin L. Singson doubt should be resolved in favor
null and void ab initio, is of the existence and continuation
REVERSED AND SET ASIDE. of the marriage, and against its
Instead, the Petition for dissolution and nullity, in
obedience to the mandate of the heavy reliance on Dr. Sta. Ana-
Constitution and statutory laws; Ponio's finding that respondent
and that in this case, petitioner was psychologically incapacitated
failed to discharge the burden of to perform the essential marital
proving that respondent is obligations due to a personality
suffering from a serious or grave disorder known as pathological
psychological disorder that gambling. The CA held that,
completely disables or contrary to petitioner's claim that
incapacitates him from respondent's pathological
understanding and discharging the gambling was grave or serious, the
essential obligations of the marital evidence in fact showed that the
union. latter was truly capable of carrying
out the ordinary duties of a
According to the CA, married man because he had a
psychological incapacity is the job, had provided money for the
downright or utter incapacity or family from the sale of his own
inability to take cognizance of and property, and he likewise provided
to assume the basic marital the land on which the family home
obligations. The CA did not go was built, and he also lives in the
along with the RTC, which placed
family home with petitioner and caring person when he was
their children. courting her; that petitioner
likewise admitted that respondent
On top of these, the CA ruled also brought petitioner to the
that it is settled that mere hospital during all four instances
difficulty, refusal or neglect in the when she gave birth to their four
performance of marital obligations, children.
or ill will on the part of a spouse,
is different from incapacity rooted In other words, the CA found
in some debilitating psychological that respondent's purported
condition or illness; that the pathological gambling was not
evidence at bar showed that proven to be incurable or
respondent's alleged pathological permanent since respondent has
gambling arose after the marriage; been undergoing treatment since
that in fact petitioner admitted 2003 and has been responding to
that she was not aware of any the treatment.
gambling by respondent before
they got married; that petitioner Petitioner moved for
moreover acknowledged that reconsideration28 of the CA's
respondent was a kind and a Decision. But her motion was
denied by the CA in its Resolution Reply,32 and Memorandum33 that
of January 6, 2014.29 respondent's psychological
incapacity had been duly proved in
Issue court, including its juridical
antecedence, incurability, and
Hence, the instant recourse gravity.
with petitioner raising the
following question – First, petitioner maintains that
respondent failed to perform the
[WHETHER] THE [CA] ERRED marital duties of mutual love,
IN REVERSING THE DECISION OF respect, and support; that Dr. Sta.
THE [RTC].30 Ana-Ponio's expert findings are
corroborated by the testimonies of
Petitioner's Arguments petitioner end her son Jose both of
whom demonstrated that
In praying for the reversal of respondent’s psychological
the assailed CA Decision and incapacity is grave or serious
Resolution, and in asking for the rendering him incapable to
reinstatement of the RTC Decision, perform the essential marital
petitioner argues in her Petition,31 obligations; that for his pan,
respondent had adduced no proof traced back when respondents
that he (respondent) is capable of was already betting on jai alai
carrying out the ordinary duties even in high school, and this was
required in a marriage for the not known to his family; that the
reason that everything that the Clinical Summary was based on
family had saved and built had information provided not only by
been squandered by respondent; petitioner, but by respondent’s
and that respondent's confinement sister, and by respondent himself;
at the rehabilitation facility is itself that such juridical antecedence
proof of the gravity or seriousness was neither questioned nor
of his psychological incapacity. overthrown by countervailing
evidence; and that the root cause
Second, petitioner contends could be traced back to
that respondent’s psychological respondent’s flawed relationship
incapacity preceded the marriage, with his parents which developed
as shown in Dr. Sta. Ana-Ponio’s into a psychological disorder that
Clinical Summary, which pointed existed before the marriage.
out that such psychological
incapacity, which included Third, petitioner insists that this
pathological gambling, can be Court can take judicial notice of
the fact that personality disorders grounds raised by petitioner before
are generally incurable and the RTC and the CA; that
permanent, and must continuously petitioner's evidence indeed failed
be treated medically; that in this to prove convincingly that he
case the Clinical Summary; had (respondent) is psychologically
pointed out that respondent's incapacitated to comply with the
understanding of his gambling essential marital obligations, hence
problem is only at the surface there is no basis to declare the
level; and that in point of fact Dr. parties' marriage void ab initio.
Sta. Ana-Ponio had affirmed that
personality disorders are incurable. Our Ruling

Respondent’s Arguments The Petition will not succeed.

In his Comment34 and It is axiomatic that the validity

Memorandum,35 respondent of marriage and the unity of the
counters that the assailed CA family are enshrined in our
Decision should be affirmed. He Constitution and statutory laws,
argues that the grounds cited by hence any doubts attending the
petitioner are the self-same same are to be resolved in favor of
the continuance and validity of the law for the establishment of
marriage and that the burden of conjugal and family life" and as
proving the nullity of the same "the foundation of the family and
rests at all times upon the an inviolable social institution."
petitioner.36 "The policy of the
Constitution is to protect and In the instant case, petitioner
strengthen the family as the basic impugns the inviolability of this
social institution, and marriage as social institution by suing out
the foundation of the family. pursuant to Article 36 of the
Because of this, the Constitution Family Code, which provides that:
decrees marriage as legally
inviolable and protects it from Art. 36. A marriage
dissolution at the whim of the contracted by any party who, at
parties."37 the time of the celebration, was
psychologically incapacitated to
Article 1 of the Family Code comply with the essential marital
describes marriage as "a special obligations of marriage, shall
contract of permanent union likewise be void even if such
between a man and a woman incapacity becomes manifest only
entered into in accordance with
after its solemnization. (As expressed in Article 68 of the
amended by Executive Order 227) Family Code, among others,
include their mutual obligations to
Petitioner's case will thus be live together, observe love, respect
examined in light of the well- and fidelity and render help and
entrenched case law rulings support. There is hardly any doubt
interpreting and construing the that the intendment of the law has
quoted Article, to wit: been to confine the meaning of
'psychological incapacity' to the
'Psychological incapacity,' as most serious cases of personality
a ground to nullify a marriage disorders clearly demonstrative of
under Article 36 of the Family an utter insensitivity or inability to
Code, should refer to no less than give meaning and significance to
a mental - not merely physical - the marriage. In Santos v. CA
incapacity that causes a party to (Santos), the Court first declared
be truly incognitive of the basic that psychological incapacity must
marital covenants that be characterized by: (a) gravity
concomitantly must be assumed (i.e., it must be grave and serious
and discharged by the parties to such that the party would be
the marriage which, as so incapable of carrying out the
ordinary duties required in a that the Court established in
marriage); (b) juridical Santos.38
antecedence (i.e., it must be
rooted in the history of the party In setting aside the RTC's
antedating the marriage, although ruling, the CA in this case held that
the overt manifestations may petitioner failed to prove that
emerge only after the marriage); respondent was psychologically
and (c) incurability (i.e., it must be incapacitated to comply with the
incurable, or even if it were essential marital obligations
otherwise, the cure would be because she failed to establish that
beyond the means of the party such incapacity was grave and
involved). The Court laid down serious, and that it existed at the
more definitive guidelines in the time of the marriage, and that it is
interpretation and application of incurable. We agree.
Article 36 of the Family Code in
Republic of the Phils. v. CA, x x x At the outset, this Court is
[also known as the Molina constrained to peruse the records
guidelines]. These guidelines because of the conflicting findings
incorporate the basic requirements between the trial court and the
appellate court.39 We thus did
peruse and review the records, money for the family from the sale
and we are satisfied that the CA of his property; provided the land
correctly found that respondent where the family home was built
has the capability and ability to on; and lived in the family home
perform his duties as a husband with petitioner-appellee and their
and father as against the RTC' s children."40
rather general statement that
respondent's psychological or Upon the other hand, petitioner
personality disorder hinders the herself testified that respondent
performance of his basic had a job as the latter "was
obligations as a husband and a working at a certain point."41 This
father. is consistent with the information
in Dr. Sta. Ana-Ponio's Clinical
We agree with the CA that the Summary and testimony, which
evidence on record does not were both included in petitioner's
establish that respondent's formal offer of evidence,
psychological incapacity was grave respecting the parties' relationship
and serious as defined by history that petitioner and
jurisprudential parameters since respondent met at the bank where
"[respondent] had a job; provided petitioner was applying for a job
and where respondent was that the items for their family
employed as a credit investigator budget, such as their children's
prior to their courtship and their education, the payments for
marriage.42 association dues, and for electric
bills came from this money.
It is significant to note
moreover that petitioner also And no less significant is
submitted as part of her evidence petitioner's admission that
a notarized summary dated respondent provided the land upon
February 18, 2010 which which the family home was built,
enumerated expenses paid for by thus -
the proceeds of respondent's share
in the sale of his parents' home in [Respondent's counsel to the
Magallanes, Makati City which witness, petitioner]
amounted to around ₱2.9 million.
Although petitioner was Q: Does [respondent] [own]
insinuating that this amount was any real property?
insufficient to cover the family
expenses from 1999 to 2008, we A: No.
note that she admitted under oath
 Q: He does not [own] any Q: Who owned this property?
real property?
A: Based on the document,
A: No. it's Benjamin Singson.

Q: Showing to you Transfer Q: Where is this property

Certificate of Title No. 413513 of located?
the Register of Deeds of Rizal
which has been transferred with A: It is located in United
the Register of Deeds of Paranaque.
Paranaque and is now re-
numbered as S-25470, which is in Q: Where in United
the name of [respondent], Filipino, Paranaque?
of legal age, single.
A: No. 2822 Daang Hari.
xxxx
Q: Are you staying in that
[COURT to the witness, property?
petitioner]
 A: We are staying in that Q: Based on the document,
property. who is the registered owner?

xxxx A: It says there,

[respondent], Your Honor.
[Respondent's counsel to the
Witiress, petitioner] Q: Who owns it now?

Q: How about the house A: The children because it

there, in the United Parañaque was donated [to them].43
[property], who owns it?
What's more, petitioner and
A: It was donated to the respondent likewise lived together
children. as husband and wife since their
marriage on July 6, 1974 (and in
xxxx the company of their four children,
too). In fact, shunting aside the
[COURT to the witness, time that respondent was under
petitioner] treatment at the Metro Psych
Facility, petitioner did not allege
any instance when respondent irresponsible, and is unable to
failed to live with them. keep a job, necessarily translate
into unassailable proof that
To the foregoing, we ought to respondent is psychologically
add the fact that petitioner herself incapacitated to perform the
admitted, that respondent likewise essential marital obligations. It is
brought her to the hospital during settled that "[p]sychological
all four instances that she gave incapacity under Article 36 of the
birth to their children.44 Family Code contemplates an
incapacity or inability to take
By contrast, petitioner did not cognizance of and to assume basic
proffer any convincing proof that marital obligations, and is not
respondent’s mere confinement at merely the difficulty, refusal, or
the rehabilitation center confirmed neglect in the performance of
the gravity of the latter’s marital obligations or ill will."45
psychological incapacity. "[I]t is not enough to prove that a
spouse failed to meet his
Neither does petitioner’s bare responsibility and duty as a
claim that respondent is a married person; it is essential that
pathological gambler, is he or she must be shown to be
incapable of doing so because of
some psychological, not physical, A: Yes. [S]ir, [respondent]
illness."46 has been my patient since 2003,
during his first admission and
Nor can Dr. Sta. Ana-Ponio's again [in] 2006, [S]ir.
testimony in open court and her
Clinical Summary be taken for Q: So, he was confined twice
gospel truth in regard to the in your facility, [M]adam witness?
charge that respondent is afflicted
with utter inability to appreciate A: Yes, [S]ir.
his marital obligations. That much
is clear from the following Q: Why was he confined,
testimony – Madam witness?

[Petitioner's counsel to the A: He was initially confined

witness, Dr. Sta. Ana-Ponio] because of problems with
gambling and subsequently
Q: Madam Witness, do you because of [behavioral] problem,
know the respondent in this case, [S]ir.
Benjamin Singson?
 xxxx facility in October because of his
uncontrolled behavior, [S]ir.
Q: What was the cause of his
second confinement, Madam xxxx
[W]itness?
Q: So, what [were] your
A: Initially, he was able to clinical findings on the state of the
cope after discharged. However, respondent, Benjamin Singson,
[in] September of 2006, he Madam witness?
knocked on the doors of the maids
in the middle of the night. And in A: Based on history, mental
one occasion, he got his car in the status examination and
garage and drove out bumping the observations during his stay, I
car parked right across the garage found that [respondent] is
and he [also kept] takfr1g things suffering from pathological
out from his cabinet. And if the gambling. Also, with his history of
maids would clean [these], he typhoid fever when he was
[would] immediately take them out younger, it is difficult to attribute
again. So, he was brought to the the behavioral changes that he
manifested in 2003 and 2006.
Aside from pathological gambling, problems which [makes] his
[respondent] is suffering from a personal[,] family[,] and social
personality disorder, [S]ir. life[,] and even his vocational
pleasure [suffer]. He was pre-
Q: What are the results or occupied with gambling, thinking
symptoms of this personality of ways to get money with which
disorder with [regard] to to gamble as seen in his stealing
[respondent's dealings] with other and pawning jewelries and
people, with his wife and his appliances. He needs to amble
family, [M]adam witness? with increasing amounts of money
in order achieve his desired effects
A: Your Honor, may I read into gambling, [S]ir.
from my report to refresh my
memory. COURT: Your findings, Dr.,
are incorporated in your report?
COURT: Go ahead.
A: Yes, Your Honor.
A: Because of his
maladaptive behavior, xxxx
[respondent] sees [sic] his
 [Cross-examination of Dr. suffering from personality
Sta. Ana-Ponio by respondent’s disorder?
counsel]
A: Yes,[S]ir.
Q: Who were the ones who
made the examination, Madam Q: What does this mean in
witness? layman’s language, [M]adam
witness?
A: I made the examination,
[S]ir, and also the psychologist did A: Personality disorder is a
the psychological testing, [S]ir. maladaptive pattern of behavior
that has distracted his ability to
Q: Now, in your opinion as perform his functions as a married
an expert witness, Madam witness, man to his wife as a father to his
which we would like to request children and as a person who is
[from] this Honorable Court, later supposed to be employed
on, that you present your productively, [S]ir.47
credentials as expert witness, you
concluded that the respondent is Futhermore, "[h]abitual
drunkenness, gambling and failure
to find a job, [while undoubtedly Here again, well-entrenched is
negative traits are nowhere nearly the rule that "there must be proof
the equivalent of ‘psychological of a natal or supervening disabling
incapacity’], in the absence of factor that effectively incapacitated
[incontrovertible] proof that these the respondent spouse from
are manifestations of an incapacity complying with the basic marital
rooted in some debilitating obligations x x x."50 "A cause has
psychological condition or to be shown and linked with the
illness."48 manifestations of the psychological
incapacity."51
We now turn to the second
point. Again, in view of the Again we agree with the CA
contrasting findings of the trial that the RTC did not clearly or
court and appellate court,49 we correctly lay down the bases or
take recourse to the records to premises for this particular finding
assist us in evaluating the relative to respondent's
perspective postures taken by the psychological incapacity, thus:
parties.
Second, there is also
sufficient evidence to prove that
the respondent's inabilities to history of typhoid fever when he
perform his marital obligations was was younger, it is difficult to
a result of not mere intentional attribute the behavioral changes
refusal on his part but are caused that he manifested in 2003 and
by psychological abnormality. Such 2006."53 Besides, Dr. Sta. Ana-
psychological incapacity of the Ponio admitted that it was not she
respondent has been shown as herself, but another psychologist
already present at the time of who conducted the tests.54 And
celebration of marriage but this psychologist was not
became manifest only after the presented by petitioner. More than
solemnization. x x x.52 that, Dr. Sta. Ana-Ponio's
testimony regarding respondent's
As heretofore mentioned, the alleged admission that he was
medical basis or evidence adverted allegedly betting on jai alai when
to by the RTC did not specifically he was still in high school is
identify the root cause of essentially hearsay as no witness
respondent's alleged psychological having personal knowledge of that
incapacity. In fact, Dr. Sta. Ana- fact was called to the witness
Ponio did not point to a definite or stand. And, although Dr. Sta. Ana-
a definitive cause, viz. "with his Ponio claimed to have interviewed
respondent's sister in connection Nor is there basis for upholding
therewith, the latter did testify in petitioner's contention that
court. And we are taught that respondent's family was
"[t]he stringency by which the "distraught" and that respondent's
Court assesses the sufficiency of conduct was "dysfunctional";
psychological evaluation reports is again, there is no evidence to
necessitated by the attest to this. These are very
pronouncement in our Constitution serious charges which must be
that marriage is an inviolable substantiated by clear evidence
institution protected by the which, unfortunately, petitioner did
State."55 not at all adduce. Indeed, Dr. Sta.
Ana-Ponio did not make a specific
Equally bereft of merit is finding that this was the origin of
petitioner's claim that respondent's respondent's alleged inability to
alleged psychological incapacity appreciate marital obligations.
could be attributed to the latter's
family or childhood, which are Needless to say, petitioner
circumstances prior to the parties' cannot lean upon her son Jose's
marriage; no evidence has been testimony that his father's
adduced to substantiate this fact. psychological incapacity existed
before or at the time of CA's finding that she was not
marriage.1âwphi1 It has been held aware of any gan1b1ing by
that the parties' child is not a very respondent before they got
reliable witness in an Article 36 married and that respondent was a
case as "he could not have been kind and caring person when he
there when the spouses were was courting her.58
married and could not have been
expected to know what was Against this backdrop, we must
happening between his parents uphold the CA's declaration that
until long after his birth."56 petitioner failed to prove that
respondents alleged psychological
To support her Article 36 incapacity is serious or grave and
petition, petitioner ought to have that it is incurable or permanent.
adduced convincing, competent
and trustworthy evidence to To be sure, this Court cannot
establish the cause of respondent's take judicial notice of petitioner's
alleged psychological incapacity assertion that "personality
and that the same antedated their disorders are generally incurable"
marriage.57 If anything, petitioner as this is not a matter that courts
failed to successfully dispute the are mandated to take judicial
notice under Section 1, Rule 129 Resolution of the Court of Appeals
of the Rules of Court.59 in CA-G.R. CV No. 96662 are
AFFIRMED.
"'Unless the evidence presented
clearly reveals a situation where SO ORDERED.
the parties or one of them, by
reason of a grave and incurable MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO
psychological illness existing at the Associate Justice
time the marriage was celebrated,
was incapacitated to fulfill the WE CONCUR:
obligations of marital life (and thus
could not then have validly MARIA LOURDES P.A. SERENO
entered into a marriage), then we Chief Justice
are compelled to uphold the Chairperson
indissolubility of the marital tie."60 TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE
This is the situation here. CASTRO
Associate Justice FRANCIS H.
WHEREFORE, the Petition is JARDELEZA
DENIED. The August 29, 2013 Associate Justice
Decision and January 6, 2014
 NOEL GIMENEZ TIJAM 2 Id. at 32-50; penned by
Associate Justice Associate Justice Nina G. Antonio-
Valenzuela and concun-ed in by
CERTIFICATION Associate Justices Isaias P.
Dicdican and Michael P. Elbinias.
Pursuant to the Section 13,
Article VIII of the Constitution, I 3 Id. at 51-52.
certify that the conclusions in the
above Decision had been reached 4 Id. at 58-158; penned by
in consultation before the case Presiding Judge Jaime M. Ouray.
was assigned to the writer of the
opinion of the Court’s Division. 5 Records, pp. 3-7.

MARIA LOURDES P.A. SERENO 6 Also known as Executive

Chief Justice Order No. 209.

Footnotes 7 Records, p. 4.

1 Rollo, pp. 3-31. 8 Also referred to as Metro

Psych Facility and Rehabilitation
Institute in some parts of the
records. 14 Folder of Exhibits, pp. 657-
660.
9 Records, pp. 5-6.
15 Records, p.382.
10 Id. at 4.
16 Id. at 391-408.
11 Id. at 77-90.
17 Id. at 391; emphasis and
12 Id. at 115-116. underscoring in the original.

13 Folder of Exhibits, pp. 616- 18 Id. at 411-412.

655; Petitioner also filed a
Manifestation dated October 7, 19 Id. at 447-450.
2010 wherein she stated that she
and the "Concepcion G. 20 Id. at 418.
Nepomuceno" appearing in the
Marriage Contract marked as 21 Id. at 501.
Exhibit "A" pertains to one and the
same person (Records, p.504). 22 Rollo, pp. 67-68.
 32 Id. at 347-358
23 Id. at 63: emphasis and
italics in the original. 33 Id. at 519-554.

24 Records, pp. 591-593. 34 Id. at 336-342.

25 Id. at 613-614. 35 Id. at 365-516.

26 Id. at 615. 36 Suazo v. Suazo, 629 Phil.

157, 174 (2010).
27 Rollo, p. 49.
37 Del Rosario v. Del Rosario,
28 CA rollo, pp. 235-244. G.R. No. 222541, February 15,
2017.
29 Rollo, pp. 51-52.
38 Republic v. De Gracia, 726
30 Id. at 18. Phil. 502, 509-511 (2014).

31 Id. at 3-31. 39 Suazo v. Suazo, supra note

36 at 181.
 47 TSN, April 20, 2009, pp. 9-
40 Rollo, p. 44. 23.

41 TSN, January 25, 2010, p. 48 Suazo vs Suazo, supra note

22. 36 at 184.

42 TSN, April 20, 2009, pp. 15- 49 Id. at 181.

16.
50 Republic v. Court of Appeals,
43 TSN, January 25, 2010, pp. supra note 45 at 271.
33-40.
51 Republic v. Galang, supra
44 Id. at 9. note 46 at 674.

45 Republic v. Court of Appeals, 52 Rollo, p. 66 (RTC Decision,

698 Phil. 257,265 (2012). p. 9); Emphasis and italics in the
original.
46 Republic v. Galang 665 Phil.
658,673-674 (2011). 53 TSN, April 20, 2009, p. 17.
 54 Id. at 22 and 62-63. states, their political history, forms
of government and symbols of
55 Republic v. Pangasinan, G.R. nationality, the law of nations, the
No. 214077, August 10, 2016. admiralty and maritime courts of
the world and their seals, the
56 Toring v. Taring, 640 Phil. political constitution and history of
434, 452 (2010). the Philippines, the official acts of
the legislative, executive and
57 Republic v. Galang, supra judicial departments of the
note 46 at 675; Republic v. Philippines, the laws of nature, the
Pangasinan, supra note 55. measure of time, and the
geographical divisions.(la)
58 TSN, May 28, 2009, pp. 9-
10. 60 Agraviador v. Amparo-
Agraviador, 652 Phil. 49, 70
59 SECTION l. Judicial notice, (2010).
when mandatory. - A court shall
take judicial notice. without the
introduction of evidence, of the
existence and territorial extent of
SECOND DIVISION
 Resolution,2 dated March 10, 2014
February 6, 2017 and August 28, 2014, respectively,
of the Court of Appeals (CA),
G.R. No. 214064 which ruled against the dissolution
and nullity of her marriage under
MIRASOL CASTILLO, Article 36 of the Family Code.
Petitioner
vs. The facts of the case follow:
REPUBLIC OF THE
PHILIPPINES and FELIPE As their parents were good
IMPAS, Respondents friends and business partners,
Mirasol and Felipe started as
DECISION friends then, eventually, became
sweethearts. During their
PERALTA, J.: courtship, Mirasol discovered that
Felipe sustained his affair with his
We resolve the petition for former girlfriend. The couple's
review on certiorari filed by relationship turned tumultuous
petitioner Mirasol Castillo (Mirasol) after the revelation. With the
challenging the Decision1 and intervention of their parents, they
reconciled. They got married in different women. One time, she
Bani, Pangasinan on April 22, 1984 has just arrived from a trip and
and were blessed with two (2) returned home to surprise her
children born in 1992 and in family. But to her consternation,
2001.3 she caught him in a compromising
act with another woman. He did
On June 6, 2011, Mirasol filed a not bother to explain or apologize.
Complaint4 for declaration of Tired of her husband's infidelity,
nullity of marriage before the she left the conjugal dwelling and
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of stopped any communication with
Dasmariñas, Cavite, Branch 90. him.5 Felipe's irresponsible acts
like cohabiting with another
Mirasol alleged that at the woman, not communicating with
beginning, their union was her, and not supporting their
harmonious prompting her to children for a period of not less
believe that the same was made in than ten (10) years without any
heaven. However, after thirteen reason, constitute a severe
(13) years of marriage, Felipe psychological disorder.6
resumed philandering. Their
relatives and friends saw him with
 In support of her case, Mirasol (particularly lack of parental
presented clinical psychologist parenting) caused him to have a
Sheila Marie Montefalcon defective superego and he proved
(Montefalcon) who, in her to be selfish, immature and
Psychological Evaluation Report,7 negligent person and followed a
concluded that Felipe is pattern of gross irresponsibility
psychologically incapacitated to and gross disregard of the feelings
fulfill the essential marital of his partner/wife disregarding
obligations. A portion of the report the marriage contract and the
reads: commitment he agreed on during
the wedding. In other words, the
x x xx root cause of respondent's flawed
personality pattern can be in
The personality disorder childhood milieu. Respondent's
speaks of antecedence as it has an familial constellation, unreliable
early onset, with an enduring parenting style from significant
pattern and behavior that deviates figures around him, and
markedly from the expectations of unfavorable childhood experiences
the individual's culture. His poor have greatly affected his
parental and family molding perceptions of himself and his
environment in general. The his marital duties and
respondent did not grow up responsibilities to his wife. He
mature enough to cope with his failed to render mutual help and
obligations and responsibilities as support (Article 68, FC).
married man and father.
Additionally, it also speaks of
It also speaks of gravity as incurability, as respondent has no
he was not able to carry out the psychological insight that he has a
normative and ordinary duties of character problem. He would not
marriage and family, shouldered acknowledge the pain he caused
by any married man, existing in to people around him. People
ordinary circumstances. He just suffering from this personality
cannot perform his duties and disorder are unmotivated to
obligations as a husband, as he treatment and impervious to
entered into marriage for his own recovery. There are no
self-satisfaction and gratification, medications and laboratory
manipulate and denigrate the examinations to be taken for
petitioner for his own pleasures maladaptive behavior such as the
and satisfaction. In the process, NPD (Narcissistic Personality
respondent was unable to assume Disorder).
 In a Decision9 dated January
Otherwise stated, his 20, 2012, the RTC in Civil Case No.
personality disorder is chronic and 4853-11 declared the marriage
pervasive affecting many aspects between Mirasol and Felipe null
of his life, such as social and void. The dispositive portion
functioning and close of the decision states:
relationships.1âwphi1 Apparently,
he has failed to develop WHEREFORE, premises
appropriate adjustment methods. considered, Court hereby declares
He lacks the intrapersonal and the marriage contract by the
interpersonal integration that petitioner MIRASOL CASTILLO to
caused him the failure to the respondent FELIPE IMPAS on
understand the very nature of that April 22, 1984 in Bani, Pangasinan
sharing of life that is directed to be NULL AND VOID AB INITIO.
toward the solidarity and
formation of family. ACCORDINGLY, pursuant to
the provisions of A.M. No. 02-11-
x x x x8 10-SC, the Clerk of Court is
directed to enter this judgment
upon its finality in the Book of
Entry of Judgment and to issue the
corresponding Entry of Judgment. SO ORDERED.10
Thereupon, the Office of the Civil
Registrars in Bani, Pangasinan and On February 22, 2012, the
Imus, Cavite, are also mandated to Republic of the Philippines,
cause the registration of the said through the Office of the Solicitor
ENTRY OF JUDGMENT in their General (OSG), filed a motion for
respective Book of Marriages. reconsideration, which the RTC
denied in an Order11 dated April
Likewise, furnish the 3, 2012.
petitioner and the counsel of the
petitioner, the respondent, the On appeal, the CA in CA-G.R.
Solicitor General, 3rd Assistant CV No. 99686 reversed and set
Provincial Prosecutor Oscar R. aside the decision of the RTC,
Jarlos and the Civil Registrar ruling that Mirasol failed to present
General with copies hereof. sufficient evidence to prove that
Felipe was suffering from
Upon compliance, the Court psychological incapacity, thus,
shall forthwith issue the DECREE incapable of performing marital
OF NULLITY OF MARRIAGE. obligations due to some
psychological illness existing at the affairs. In the complaint filed by
time of the celebration of the Mirasol, she said that after they
marriage.12 A pertinent portion of got married, their relationship as
the decision reads: husband and wife went smoothly
and that she was of the belief that
x x xx she had a marriage made in
heaven.
Based on the records, it
appears more likely that Felipe In short, Felipe's marital
became unfaithful as a result of infidelity does not appear to be
unknown factors that happened symptomatic of a grave
during the marriage and not psychological disorder which
because of his family background. rendered him incapable of
His tendency to womanize was not performing his spousal obligations.
shown to be due to causes of a Sexual infidelity, by itself, is not
psychological nature that are sufficient proof that petitioner is
grave, permanent and incurable. suffering from psychological
In fact, it was only after thirteen incapacity. It must be shown that
(13) years of marriage that he the acts of unfaithfulness are
started to engage in extra-marital manifestations of a disordered
personality which make him incapacity of Felipe, We cannot but
completely unable to discharge the rule in favor of the existence and
essential obligations of marriage. continuation of the marriage and
Since that situation does not against its dissolution and nullity.
obtain in the case, Mirasol's claim
of psychological incapacity must WHEREFORE, the appeal is
fail. Psychological incapacity must GRANTED. The Decision dated
be more than just a "difficulty," January 20, 2012 is REVERSED
"refusal" or "neglect" in the and SET ASIDE.
performance of some marital
obligations. Rather, it is essential SO ORDERED.13
that the concerned party was
incapable of doing so, due to some Upon the denial of her motion
psychological illness existing at the for reconsideration, Mirasol
time of the celebration of the elevated the case before this Court
marriage. raising the issue, thus:

In fine, given the [Petitioner] was able to

insufficiency of the evidence establish that respondent is
proving the psychological suffering from grave psychological
condition that rendered him is psychologically incapacitated to
incognitive of his marital comply with the essential
covenants under Article 36 of the obligations of marriage. The
Family Code. conclusions of the trial court
regarding the credibility of the
Basically, the issue to be witnesses are entitled to great
resolved by this Court is whether respect because of its opportunity
or not the totality of evidence to observe the demeanor of the
presented warrants, as the RTC witnesses. Since the court a quo
determined, the declaration of accepted the veracity of the
nullity of the marriage of Mirasol petitioner's premises, there is no
and Felipe on the ground of the cause to dispute the conclusion of
latter's psychological incapacity Felipe's psychological incapacity
under Article 36 of the Family drawn from the expert witness.
Code. She claims that Montefalcon was
correct in interviewing her for it
This Court rules in the negative. was submitted that it was only her
who knew best whether her
Mirasol alleges that she has husband was complying with his
sufficiently established that Felipe marital obligations. Moreover, the
OSG admits that personal proved his refusal to perform his
examination of the respondent by marital obligations.14 Moreover,
the clinical psychologist is not an she has no personal knowledge of
indispensable requisite for a the facts from which she based
finding of psychological incapacity. her findings and was working on
pure assumptions and secondhand
On the other hand, the OSG information related to her by one
argues that Mirasol failed to side.15
establish from the totality of
evidence the gravity, juridical Time and again, it was held that
antecedence and incurability of "psychological incapacity" has
Felipe's alleged Narcissistic been intended by law to be
Personality Disorder. The confined to the most serious cases
conclusions of the clinical of personality disorders clearly
psychologist that he was demonstrative of an utter
psychologically incapacitated and insensitivity or inability to give
that such incapacity was present meaning and significance to the
at the inception of the marriage marriage.16 Psychological
were not supported by evidence. incapacity must be characterized
At most, the psychologist merely by (a) gravity, i.e., it must be
grave and serious such that the disposition of psychological
party would be incapable of incapacity cases, viz.:
carrying out the ordinary duties
required in a marriage, (b) juridical x x xx
antecedence, i.e., it must be
rooted in the history of the party (1) The burden of proof to
antedating the marriage, although show the nullity of the marriage
the overt manifestations may belongs to the plaintiff. Any doubt
emerge only after the marriage, should be resolved in favor of the
and (c) incurability, i.e., it must be existence and continuation of the
incurable, or even if it were marriage and against its
otherwise, the cure would be dissolution and nullity. x x x
beyond the means of the party
involved.17 (2) The root cause of the
psychological incapacity must be
In the case of Republic v. Court (a) medically or clinically identified,
of Appeals and Molina,18 this (b) alleged in the complaint, (c)
Court laid down the more sufficiently proven by experts and
definitive guidelines in the (d) clearly explained in the
decision. x x x
 there is a natal or supervening
(3) The incapacity must be disabling factor in the person, an
proven to be existing at "the time adverse integral element in the
of the celebration" of the personality structure that
marriage. x x x effectively incapacitates the person
from really accepting and thereby
(4) Such incapacity must also complying with the obligations
be shown to be medically or essential to marriage.
clinically permanent or incurable.
Such incurability may be absolute (6) The essential marital
or even relative only in regard to obligations must be those
the other spouse, not necessarily embraced by Articles 68 up to 71
absolutely against everyone of the of the Family Code as regards the
same sex. x x x husband and wife as well as
Articles 220, 221 and 225 of the
(5) Such illness must be same Code in regard to parents
grave enough to bring about the and their children. x x x
disability of the party to assume
the essential obligations of (7) Interpretations given by
marriage. x x x In other words, the National Appellate Matrimonial
Tribunal of the Catholic Church in As held in Ting v. Velez-Ting:21
the Philippines, while not
controlling or decisive, should be By the very nature of cases
given great respect by our courts. involving the application of Article
xxx 36, it is logical and understandable
to give weight to the expert
(8) The trial court must order opinions furnished by
the prosecuting attorney or fiscal psychologists regarding the
and the Solicitor General to appear psychological temperament of
as counsel for the state. x x x parties in order to determine the
root cause, juridical antecedence,
xxx19 gravity and incurability of the
psychological incapacity. However,
The existence or absence of the such opinions, while highly
psychological incapacity shall be advisable, are not conditions sine
based strictly on the facts of each qua non in granting petitions for
case and not on a priori declaration of nullity of marriage.
assumptions, predilections or At best, courts must treat such
generalizations.20 opinions as decisive but not
indispensable evidence in
determining the merits of a given that the same would have
case. In fact, if the totality of automatically ensured the granting
evidence presented is enough to of the petition for declaration of
sustain a finding of psychological nullity of marriage. It bears
incapacity, then actual medical or repeating that the trial courts, as
psychological examination of the in all the other cases they try,
person concerned need not be must always base their judgments
resorted to. The trial court, as in not solely on the expert opinions
any other given case presented presented by the parties but on
before it, must always base its the totality of evidence adduced in
decision not solely on the expert the course of their proceedings.23
opinions furnished by the parties
but also on the totality of evidence Guided by the foregoing
adduced in the course of the principles and after a careful
proceedings.22 perusal of the records, this Court
rules that the totality of the
The presentation of any form of evidence presented failed to
medical or psychological evidence establish Felipe's psychological
to show the psychological incapacity.
incapacity, however, did not mean
 Clinical psychologist Question: [W]here did you
Montefalcon opined that base your conclusion that
respondent is encumbered with a supported your findings that the
personality disorder classified as husband of Mirasol is
Narcissistic Personality Disorder psychologically incapacitated to
deeply ingrained in his personality comply with the essential
structure that rendered him obligations of marriage?
incapacitated to perform his
marital duties and obligations. In Answer: From the interviews
her direct testimony, she stated: I had with the petitioner and also
from my interview of the couple's
ATTY. BAYAUA: common friend who validated all
information given to me by the
Question: Were you able to petitioner.
interview and conduct examination
on the respondent? Question: You mean to say
you were not able to interview the
Answer: No, sir. respondent?
 Answer: No sir. But I sent Question: Madam witness,
him an invitation to undergo the were you able to determine at
same psychological evaluation I what point in time in the life of the
administered with the petitioner respondent did he acquire this
but he did not respond to my disorder that you mentioned?
invitation.
Answer: The disorder of the
Question: [W]hat relevant respondent already existed even at
information were you able to the time of celebration of their
gather from your interview of the marriage, although the incapacity
friend of the couple? became manifest only after their
marriage. His disorder seemed to
Answer: She validated every have started during the early years
piece of information relayed to me of his life.
by the petitioner during the
interview. Question: In your expert
opinion, what would be the likely
x x xx source of the disorder of the
respondent?
 Answer: The disorder of the x x x24
respondent seemed to have
developed during the early years The RTC noticeably relied
of his life due to his poor parental heavily on the result of the
and family [molding] particularly psychological evaluation by
lack of parental guidance. [His] Montefalcon. A perusal of the
parents separated when he was RTC's decision would reveal that
still young and when [his] mother there was no assessment of the
had another affair and lived with veracity of such allegations, the
her common-law husband. credibility of the witnesses, and
Respondent's familial constellation the weight of the pieces of
and [unfavorable] childhood evidence presented. Also, there
experiences have greatly affected were no factual findings which can
his perceptions of himself and his serve as bases for its conclusion of
environment. Respondent did not Felipe's psychological incapacity.
grow up mature enough to cope
with his obligations and The presentation of expert
responsibilities as a married man proof in cases for declaration of
and father. nullity of marriage based on
psychological incapacity
presupposes a thorough and an in- disorder, it was, however,
depth assessment of the parties by admitted that she evaluated
the psychologist or expert, for a respondent's psychological
conclusive diagnosis of a grave, condition indirectly from the
severe and incurable presence of information gathered from Mirasol
psychological incapacity.25 The and her witness. Felipe's
probative force of the testimony of dysfunctional family portrait which
an expert does not lie in a mere brought about his personality
statement of her theory or opinion, disorder as painted in the
but rather in the assistance that evaluation was based solely on the
she can render to the courts in assumed truthful knowledge of
showing the facts that serve as a petitioner. There was no
basis for her criterion and the independent witness
reasons upon which the logic of knowledgeable of respondent's
her conclusion is founded.26 upbringing interviewed by the
psychologist or presented before
Although the evaluation report the trial court. Angelica Mabayad,
of Montefalcon expounds on the the couple's common friend,
juridical antecedence, gravity and agreed with petitioner's claims in
incurability of Felipe's personality the interview with the
psychologist, confirmed the to declare petitioner's marriage to
information given by petitioner, respondent as void.
and alleged that she knew Felipe
as "chick boy" or ''playboy."27 She While the examination by a
did not testify before the court a physician of a person in order to
quo. declare him psychologically
incapacitated is not required, the
As such, there are no other root cause thereof must still be
convincing evidence asserted to "medically or clinically identified,"
establish Felipe's psychological and adequately established by
condition and its associations in his evidence.28 We cannot take the
early life. Montefalcon's testimony conclusion that Felipe harbors a
and psychological evaluation personality disorder existing prior
report do not provide evidentiary to his marriage which purportedly
support to cure the doubtful incapacitated him with the
veracity of Mirasol's one-sided essential marital obligations as
assertion. The said report falls credible proof of juridical
short of the required proof for the antecedence. The manner by
Court to rely on the same as basis which such conclusion was
reached leaves much to be desired
in terms of meeting the standard the issue of antecedence in this
of evidence required in case because we only have
determining psychological petitioner's words to rely on. To
incapacity. The lack of make conclusions and
corroborative witness and generalizations on a spouse's
evidence regarding Felipe's psychological condition based on
upbringing and family history the information fed by only one
renders Montefalcon's opinion on side, as in the case at bar, is, to
the root cause of his psychological the Court's mind, not different
incapacity conjectural or from admitting hearsay evidence
speculative. as proof of the truthfulness of the
content of such evidence.29
Even if the testimonies of
Mirasol and Montefalcon at issue Anent Felipe's sexual infidelity,
are considered since the judge had Mirasol alleged in her judicial
found them to be credible enough, affidavit, to wit:
this Court cannot lower the
evidentiary benchmark with regard x x xx
to information on Felipe's pre-
marital history which is crucial to
 Question: You said Madam This turned our relationship sour
Witness that after several months and it led to being stormy.
you and respondent became
sweethearts, what happened next Question: You said Madam
Madam Witness? Witness that you and respondent's
relationship became sour and
Answer: Sir, while we were stormy, what happened next, if
already sweethearts, I got any?
dismayed when respondent was
also maintaining another woman Answer: Sir, my relationship
who was his former girlfriend. with respondent should have been
ended had it not been with the
Question: What was the timely intervention of our parents.
reaction of the respondent when Respondent and I reconciled.
you told him about his relation
with his former girlfriend? x x xx

Answer: Respondent was Question: Madam Witness as

shocked and became moody Sir. you said you finally got married
with the respondent as evidenced
in fact by a Marriage Certificate. considering that he is already a
What happened next after the father?
marriage?
Answer: No, Sir. I thought
Answer: After our wedding, that having our first child would
our relationship as husband and already change the ways of
wife went on smoothly. I was of respondent. The birth of our first
the belief that my marriage was child did not actually help improve
made in heaven and that respondent's ways because
respondent had already reformed respondent is really a man who is
his ways and had completely not contented with one woman
deviated from his relationship with even before we got married;
his ex-girlfriend;
xxx31
x x x30
Question: After you gave
Question: After giving birth birth to you[r] second child what
to your first child did respondent happened next Madam Witness?
change or become responsible
 Answer: Sir, after thirteen marriage.33 In order for sexual
(13) years of marriage, respondent infidelity to constitute as
is back to his old habit where he psychological incapacity, the
has been seen having relationship respondent's unfaithfulness must
with a different woman. This was be established as a manifestation
also seen by our relatives and of a disordered personality,
friends of respondent. completely preventing the
respondent from discharging the
x xx32 essential obligations of the marital
state; there must be proof of a
Irreconcilable differences, natal or supervening disabling
sexual infidelity or perversion, factor that effectively incapacitated
emotional immaturity and him from complying with the
irresponsibility and the like, do not obligation to be faithful to his
by themselves warrant a finding of spouse.34 It is indispensable that
psychological incapacity under the evidence must show a link,
Article 36, as the same may only medical or the like, between the
be due to a person's refusal or acts that manifest psychological
unwillingness to assume the incapacity and the psychological
essential obligations of disorder itself.35
 Basic is the rule that bare
As discussed, the findings on allegations, unsubstantiated by
Felipe's personality profile did not evidence, are not equivalent to
emanate from a personal interview proof, i.e., mere allegations are
with the subject himself. Apart not evidence.36 Based on the
from the psychologist's opinion records, this Court finds that there
and petitioner's allegations, no exists insufficient factual or legal
other reliable evidence was cited basis to conclude that Felipe's
to prove that Felipe's sexual sexual infidelity and irresponsibility
infidelity was a manifestation of can be equated with psychological
his alleged personality disorder, incapacity as contemplated by law.
which is grave, deeply rooted, and We reiterate that there was no
incurable. We are not persuaded other evidence adduced. Aside
that the natal or supervening from the psychologist, petitioner
disabling factor which effectively did not present other witnesses to
incapacitated him from complying substantiate her allegations on
with his obligation to be faithful to Felipe's infidelity notwithstanding
his wife was medically or clinically the fact that she claimed that their
established. relatives saw him with other
women. Her testimony, therefore,
is considered self-serving and had the assailed Decision and
no serious evidentiary value. Resolution, dated March 10, 2014
and August 28, 2014, respectively,
In sum, this Court finds no of the Court of Appeals.
cogent reason to reverse the ruling
of the CA against the dissolution SO ORDERED.
and nullity of the parties' marriage
due to insufficiency of the DIOSDADO M. PERALTA
evidence presented. The policy of Associate Justice
the State is to protect and
strengthen the family as the basic WE CONCUR:
social institution and marriage is
the foundation of the family. Thus, ANTONIO T. CARPIO
any doubt should be resolved in Associate Justice
favor of validity of the marriage.37 Chairperson
MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO*
WHEREFORE, we DENY the Associate Justice JOSE
petition for review on certiorari CATRAL MENDOZA
filed by herein petitioner Mirasol Associate Justice
Castillo. Accordingly, we AFFIRM
 See separate dissent the Division Chairperson’s
MARVIC M.V.F. LEONEN Attestation, I certify that the
Associate Justice conclusions in the above Decision
had been reached in consultation
ATTESTATION before the case was assigned to
the writer of the opinion of the
I attest that the conclusions in Court’s Division.
the above Decision had been
reached in consultation before the MARIA LOURDES P.A. SERENO
case was assigned to the writer of Chief Justice
the opinion of the Court’s Division.
Footnotes
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice * Associate Justice Francis H.
Chairperson, Second Division Jardeleza, no part; Associate
Justice Mariano C. del Castillo
CERTIFICATION designated Additional Member per
Special Order No. 2416-J dated
Pursuant to the Section 13, January 4, 2017.
Article VIII of the Constitution and
 1 Penned by Associate Justice
Magdangal M. De Leon, with 9 Penned by Executive Judge
Associate Justices Stephen C. Cruz Perla V. Cabrera-Faller, rollo, pp.
and Eduardo B. Peralta, Jr., 60-62.
concurring, rollo, pp. 27-39.
10 Id. at 62.
2 Id. at 58-59.
11 Id. at 63.
3 Id at 28.
12 Id. at 38-39.
4 Records, pp. 14-19.
13 Id. at 38-39.
5 Id at 16-17.
14 Id. at 80.
6 Id. at 17.
15 Id. at 84.
7 Id. at 43-54.
16 Santos v. Court of Appeals,
8 Id at 52-53. (Underscoring 310 Phil. 21, 40 (1995).
supplied).
 17 Republic v. Cabantug- 23 Mendoza v. Republic, 698
Baguio, 579 Phil. 187 (2008) citing Phil. 241, 254 (2012).
Republic v. Iyoy, G.R. No.
7152577, September 21, 2005, 24 TSN, December 12, 2011,
470 SCRA 508, 521. pp. 4-5. (Emphasis supplied).

18 G.R. No. 108763, February 25 Marable v. Marable, 654 Phil.

13, 1997, 268 SCRA 198. 528, 538 (2011).

19 Id. at 209-213. 26 Republic of the Philippines

vs. Court of Appeals and De
20 Republic v. Dagdag, G.R. No. Quintos, Jr., G.R. No. 159594,
109975, February 9, 2001, 351 November 12, 2012, 685 SCRA 33,
SCRA 425, 431. 46. (Emphasis supplied).

21 G.R. No. 166562, March 31, 27 Records, pp. 43-44.

2009, 582 SCRA 694, 709.
28 Republic v. Cabantug-
22 Id (Emphasis supplied) Baguio, supra note 17.
 29 Ochosa v. Alano, 655 Phil. 36 Real v. Belo, 542 Phil. 109,
512 (2011). 122 (2007).

30 Records, pp. 56-57. 37 Villalon v. Villalon, 512 Phil.

219, 230 (2005).
31 Id at 58.

32 Id at 59.

33 Republic of the Philippines

vs. Court of Appeals and De
Quintos, Jr., supra note 26, at 47-
48

34 Toring v. Toring, 640 Phil.

434 (2010). (Emphasis supplied).

35 Marable v. Marable, supra

note 25, at 539.
 G.R. No. 166357
January 14, 2015

VALERIO E. KALAW,
Petitioner,
vs.
MA. ELENA FERNANDEZ,
Respondent.

RESOLUTION

BERSAMIN, J.:

In our decision promulgated on

September 19, 2011,1 the Court
dismissed the complaint for
declaration of nullity of the
marriage of the parties upon the
SPECIAL FIRST DIVISION
following ratiocination, to wit:
 had not been sufficiently proven.
The petition has no merit. The Petitioner’s experts heavily relied
CA committed no reversible error on petitioner’s allegations of
in setting aside the trial court's respondent’s constant mahjong
Decision for lack of legal and sessions, visits to the beauty
factual basis. parlor, going out with friends,
adultery, and neglect of their
xxxx children. Petitioner’s experts
opined that respondent’s alleged
In the case at bar, petitioner habits, when performed constantly
failed to prove that his wife to the detriment of quality and
(respondent) suffers from quantity of time devoted to her
psychological incapacity. He duties as mother and wife,
presented the testimonies of two constitute a psychological
supposed expert witnesses who incapacity in the form of NPD.
concluded that respondent is
psychologically incapacitated, but But petitioner’s allegations,
the conclusions of these witnesses which served as the bases or
were premised on the alleged acts underlying premises of the
or behavior of respondent which conclusions of his experts, were
not actually proven. In fact, her children at home. The children
respondent presented contrary corroborated this, saying that they
evidence refuting these allegations were with their mother when she
of the petitioner. played mahjong in their relative’s
home. Petitioner did not present
For instance, petitioner alleged any proof, other than his own
that respondent constantly played testimony, that the mahjong
mahjong and neglected their sessions were so frequent that
children as a result. Respondent respondent neglected her family.
admittedly played mahjong, but it While he intimated that two of his
was not proven that she engaged sons repeated the second grade,
in mahjong so frequently that she he was not able to link this
neglected her duties as a mother episode to respondent’s mahjong-
and a wife. Respondent refuted playing. The least that could have
petitioner’s allegations that she been done was to prove the
played four to five times a week. frequency of respondent’s
She maintained it was only two to mahjong-playing during the years
three times a week and always when these two children were in
with the permission of her second grade. This was not done.
husband and without abandoning Thus, while there is no dispute
that respondent played mahjong, dating other men. Even assuming
its alleged debilitating frequency arguendothat petitioner was able
and adverse effect on the children to prove that respondent had an
were not proven. extramarital affair with another
man, that one instance of sexual
Also unproven was petitioner’s infidelity cannot, by itself, be
claim about respondent’s alleged equated with obsessive need for
constant visits to the beauty attention from other men. Sexual
parlor, going out with friends, and infidelity per seis a ground for
obsessive need for attention from legal separation, but it does not
other men. No proof whatsoever necessarily constitute
was presented to prove her visits psychological incapacity.
to beauty salons orher frequent
partying with friends. Petitioner Given the insufficiency of
presented Mario (an alleged evidence that respondent actually
companion of respondent during engaged in the behaviors
these nights-out) in order to prove described as constitutive of NPD,
that respondent had affairs with there is no basis for concluding
other men, but Mario only testified that she was indeed
that respondent appeared to be psychologically incapacitated.
Indeed, the totality of the familial duties. While petitioner
evidence points to the opposite cites the fact that his two sons, Rio
conclusion. A fair assessment of and Miggy, both failed the second
the facts would show that elementary level despite having
respondent was not totally remiss tutors, there is nothing to link their
and incapable of appreciating and academic short comings to Malyn’s
performing her marital and actions.
parental duties. Not once did the
children state that they were After poring over the records of
neglected by their mother. On the the case, the Court finds no factual
contrary, they narrated that she basis for the conclusion of
took care of them, was around psychological incapacity. There is
when they were sick, and cooked no error in the CA’s reversal of the
the food they like. It appears that trial court’s ruling that there was
respondent made real efforts tosee psychological incapacity. The trial
and take care of her children court’s Decision merely
despite her estrangement from summarized the allegations,
their father. There was no testimonies, and evidence of the
testimony whatsoever that shows respective parties, but it did not
abandonment and neglect of actually assess the veracity of
these allegations, the credibility of WHEREFORE, premises
the witnesses, and the weight of considered, the petition is DENIED.
the evidence. The trial court did The Court of Appeals’ May 27,
not make factual findings which 2004 Decision and its December
can serve as bases for its legal 15, 2004 Resolution in CA-G.R. CV
conclusionof psychological No. 64240 are AFFIRMED. SO
incapacity. ORDERED.2

What transpired between the In his Motion for

parties is acrimony and, perhaps, Reconsideration,3 the petitioner
infidelity, which may have implores the Court to take a
constrained them from dedicating thorough second look into what
the best of themselves to each constitutes psychological
other and to their children. There incapacity; to uphold the findings
may be grounds for legal of the trial court as supported by
separation, but certainly not the testimonies of three expert
psychological incapacity that voids witnesses; and consequently to
a marriage. find that the respondent, if not
both parties, were psychologically
incapacitated to perform their
respective essential marital bond he or she was about to
obligation. assume. Although the Family Code
has not defined the term
Upon an assiduous review of psychological incapacity, the Court
the records, we resolve to grant has usually looked up its meaning
the petitioner’s Motion for by reviewing the deliberations of
Reconsideration. the sessions of the Family Code
Revision Committee that had
I drafted the Family Code in order to
gain an insight on the provision. It
Psychological incapacity as a appeared that the members of the
ground for the nullity of marriage Family Code Revision Committee
under Article 36 of the Family were not unanimous on the
Code refers to a serious meaning, and in the end they
psychological illness afflicting a decided to adopt the provision
party even prior to the celebration "with less specificity than
of the marriage that is permanent expected" in order to have the law
as to deprive the party of the "allow some resiliency in its
awareness of the duties and application."4 Illustrative of the
responsibilities of the matrimonial "less specificity than expected" has
been the omission by the Family Appeals,6 the deliberations of the
Code Revision Committee to give Family Code Revision Committee
any examples of psychological and the relevant materials on
incapacity that would have limited psychological incapacity as a
the applicability of the provision ground for the nullity of marriage
conformably with the principle of have rendered it obvious that the
ejusdem generis, because the term psychological incapacity as
Committee desired that the courts used in Article 36 of the Family
should interpret the provision on a Code"has not been meant to
case-to-case basis, guided by comprehend all such possible
experience, the findings of experts cases of psychoses as, likewise
and researchers in psychological mentioned by some ecclesiastical
disciplines, and the decisions of authorities, extremely low
church tribunals that had intelligence, immaturity, and like
persuasive effect by virtue of the circumstances," and could not be
provision itself having been taken taken and construed
from the Canon Law.5 independently of "but must stand
in conjunction with, existing
On the other hand, as the Court precepts in our law on marriage."
has observed in Santos v. Court of Thus correlated:-
 an utter insensitivity or inability to
x x x "psychological incapacity" give meaning and significance to
should refer to no less than a the marriage. This psychologic
mental (not physical) incapacity condition must exist at the time
that causes a party to be truly the marriage is celebrated. The
incognitive of the basic marital law does not evidently envision,
covenants that concomitantly must upon the other hand, an inability
be assumed and discharged by the of the spouse to have sexual
parties to the marriage which, as relations with the other. This
so expressed by Article 68 of the conclusion is implicit under Article
Family Code, include their mutual 54 of the Family Code which
obligations to live together, considers children conceived prior
observe love, respect and fidelity to the judicial declaration of nullity
and render help and support. of the void marriage to be
There is hardly any doubt that the "legitimate."7
intendment of the law has been to
confine the meaning of In time, in Republic v. Court of
"psychological incapacity" to the Appeals,8 the Court set some
most serious cases of personality guidelines for the interpretation
disorders clearly demonstrative of
and application of Article 36 of the parties. Both the family and
Family Code, as follows: marriage are to be "protected" by
the state.
(1) The burden of proof to
show the nullity of the marriage The Family Code echoes this
belongs to the plaintiff. Any doubt constitutional edict on marriage
should be resolved in favor of the and the family and emphasizes
existence and continuation of the their permanence, inviolability and
marriage and against its solidarity.
dissolution and nullity. This is
rooted in the fact that both our (2) The root cause of the
Constitution and our laws cherish psychological incapacity must be
the validity of marriage and unity (a) medically or clinically identified,
of the family. Thus, our (b) alleged in the complaint, (c)
Constitution devotes an entire sufficiently proven by experts and
Article on the Family, recognizing it (d) clearly explained in the
"as the foundation of the nation." decision. Article 36 of the Family
It decrees marriage as legally Code requires that the incapacity
"inviolable," thereby protecting it must be psychological — not
from dissolution at the whim of the physical, althoughits
manifestations and/or symptoms psychiatrists and clinical
may be physical. The evidence psychologists.
must convince the court that the
parties, or one of them, was (3) The incapacity must be
mentally or psychically ill to such proven tobe existing at "the time
an extent that the person could of the celebration" of the
not have known the obligations he marriage. The evidence must show
was assuming, or knowing them, that the illness was existing when
could not have given valid the parties exchanged their "I
assumption thereof. Although no do’s." The manifestation of the
example of such incapacity need illness need not be perceivable at
be given here so as not to limit the such time, but the illness itself
application of the provision under must have attached at such
the principle of ejusdem generis, moment, or prior thereto.
nevertheless such root cause must
be identified as a psychological (4) Such incapacity must also
illness and its incapacitating nature be shown to be medically or
fully explained. Expert evidence clinically permanent or incurable.
may be given by qualified Such incurability may be absolute
or even relative only in regard to
the other spouse, not necessarily disability of the party to assume
absolutely against everyone of the the essential obligations of
same sex. Furthermore, such marriage. Thus, "mild
incapacity must be relevant to the characteriological peculiarities,
assumption of marriage mood changes, occasional
obligations, not necessarily to emotional outbursts" cannot be
those not related to marriage, like accepted as root causes. The
the exercise of a profession or illness must be shown as
employment in a job. Hence, a downright incapacity or inability,
pediatrician may be effective in not a refusal, neglect or difficulty,
diagnosing illnesses of children much less ill will. In other words,
and prescribing medicine to cure there is a natal or supervening
them but may not be disabling factor in the person, an
psychologically capacitated to adverse integral element in the
procreate, bear and raise his/her personality structure that
own children as an essential effectively incapacitates the person
obligation of marriage. from really accepting and thereby
complying with the obligations
(5) Such illness must be grave essential to marriage.
enough to bring about the
 (6) The essential marital by the Family Code Revision
obligations must be those Committee from Canon 1095 of
embraced by Articles 68 up to 71 the New Code of Canon Law,
of the Family Code as regards the which became effective in 1983
husband and wife as well as and which provides:
Articles 220, 221 and 225 of the
same Code in regard to parents "The following are incapable of
and their children. Such non- contracting marriage: Those who
complied marital obligation(s) are unable to assume the essential
must also be stated in the petition, obligations of marriage due to
proven by evidence and included causes of psychological nature."
in the text of the decision.
Since the purpose of including
(7) Interpretations given by the suchprovision in our Family Code is
National Appellate Matrimonial to harmonize our civil laws with
Tribunal of the Catholic Church in the religious faith of our people, it
the Philippines, while not stands to reason that to achieve
controlling or decisive, should be such harmonization, great
given great respect by our courts. persuasive weight should be given
It is clear that Article 36 was taken to decisions of such appellate
tribunal. Ideally — subject to our (8) The trial court must order
law on evidence — whatis decreed the prosecuting attorney or fiscal
as canonically invalid should also and the Solicitor General to appear
be decreed civilly void. as counsel for the state. No
decision shall be handed down
This is one instance where, unless the Solicitor General issues
inview of the evident source and a certification, which will be
purpose of the Family Code quoted in the decision, briefly
provision, contemporaneous stating therein his reasons for his
religious interpretation is to be agreement or opposition, as the
given persuasive effect. Here, the case may be, to the petition. The
State and the Church — while Solicitor General, along with the
remaining independent, separate prosecuting attorney, shall submit
and apart from each other — shall to the court such certification
walk together in synodal cadence within fifteen (15) days from the
towards the same goal of date the case is deemed submitted
protecting and cherishing marriage for resolution of the court. The
and the family as the inviolable Solicitor General shall discharge
base of the nation. the equivalent function of the
defensor vinculi contemplated generalizations, but according to
under Canon 1095.9 its own facts" in recognition of the
verity that no case would be on
The foregoing guidelines have "all fours" with the next one in the
turned out to be rigid, such that field of psychological incapacity as
their application to every instance a ground for the nullity of
practically condemned the marriage; hence, every "trial judge
petitions for declaration of nullity must take pains in examining the
to the fate of certain rejection. But factual milieu and the appellate
Article 36 of the Family Code must court must, asmuch as possible,
not be so strictly and too literally avoid substituting its own
read and applied given the clear judgment for that of the trial
intendment of the drafters to court."10
adopt its enacted version of "less
specificity" obviously to enable In the task of ascertaining the
"some resiliency in its application." presence of psychological
Instead, every court should incapacity as a ground for the
approach the issue of nullity "not nullity of marriage, the courts,
on the basis of a priori which are concededly not
assumptions, predilections or endowed with expertise in the field
of psychology, must of necessity evidence are not shown to be
rely on the opinions of experts in clearly and manifestly
order to inform themselves on the erroneous.12 In every situation
matter, and thus enable where the findings of the trial
themselves to arrive at an court are sufficiently supported by
intelligent and judicious judgment. the facts and evidence presented
Indeed, the conditions for the during trial, the appellate court
malady of being grave, antecedent should restrain itself from
and incurable demand the in-depth substituting its own judgment.13 It
diagnosis by experts.11 is not enough reason to ignore the
findings and evaluation by the trial
II court and substitute our own as an
appellate tribunal only because the
The findings of the Regional Constitution and the Family Code
Trial Court (RTC) on the existence regard marriage as an inviolable
or non-existence of a party’s social institution. We have to
psychological incapacity should be stress that the fulfilment of the
final and binding for as long as constitutional mandate for the
such findings and evaluation of the State to protect marriage as an
testimonies of witnesses and other inviolable social institution14 only
relates to a valid marriage. No of the witnesses while they were
protection can be accordedto a testifying.16 The position and role
marriage that is null and void ab of the trial judge in the
initio, because such a marriage appreciation of the evidence
has no legal existence.15 showing the psychological
incapacity were not to be
In declaring a marriage null and downplayed but should be
void ab initio, therefore, the Courts accorded due importance and
really assiduously defend and respect.
promote the sanctity of marriage
as an inviolable social institution. Yet, in the September 19, 2011
The foundation of our society is decision, the Court brushed aside
thereby made all the more strong the opinions tendered by Dr.
and solid. Cristina Gates,a psychologist, and
Fr. Gerard Healy on the ground
Here, the findings and that their conclusions were solely
evaluation by the RTC as the trial based on the petitioner’s version
court deserved credence because of the events.
it was in the better position to
view and examine the demeanor
 After a long and hard second the veracity of the petitioner’s
look, we consider it improper and factual premises.17
unwarranted to give to such expert
opinions a merely generalized Admittedly, Dr. Gates based her
consideration and treatment, least findings on the transcript of the
of all to dismiss their value as petitioner’s testimony, as well as
inadequate basis for the on her interviews of the petitioner,
declaration of the nullity of the his sister Trinidad, and his son
marriage. Instead, we hold that Miguel. Although her findings
said experts sufficiently and would seem to be unilateral under
competently described the such circumstances, it was not
psychological incapacity of the right to disregard the findings on
respondent within the standards of that basis alone. After all, her
Article 36 of the Family Code. We expert opinion took into
uphold the conclusions reached by consideration other factors extant
the two expert witnesses because in the records, including the own
they were largely drawn from the opinions of another expert who
case records and affidavits, and had analyzed the issue from the
should not anymore be disputed side of the respondent herself.
after the RTC itself had accepted Moreover, it is already settled that
the courts must accord weight to psychological incapacity of the
expert testimony on the respondent (if not alsoof the
psychological and mental state of petitioner). Consequently, the lack
the parties in cases for the of personal examination and
declaration of the nullityof interview of the person diagnosed
marriages, for by the very nature with personality disorder, like the
of Article 36 of the Family Code respondent, did not per se
the courts, "despite having the invalidate the findings of the
primary task and burden of experts. The Court has stressed in
decision-making, must not Marcos v. Marcos19 that there is
discount but, instead, must no requirement for one to
consider as decisive evidence the bedeclared psychologically
expert opinion on the incapacitated to be personally
psychological and mental examined by a physician, because
temperaments of the parties."18 what is important is the presence
of evidence that adequately
The expert opinion of Dr. Gates establishes the party’s
was ultimately necessary herein to psychological incapacity. Hence, "if
enable the trial court to properly the totality of evidence presented
determine the issue of is enough to sustain a finding of
psychological incapacity, then incapacity should be considered as
actual medical examination of the conjectural or speculative and
person concerned need not be without any probative value only in
resorted to."20 the absence of other evidence to
establish causation. The expert’s
Verily, the totality of the findings under such circumstances
evidence must show a link, would not constitute hearsay that
medical or the like, between the would justify their exclusion as
acts that manifest psychological evidence.22 This is so, considering
incapacity and the psychological that any ruling that brands the
disorder itself. If other evidence scientific and technical procedure
showing that a certain condition adopted by Dr. Gates as weakened
could possibly result from an by bias should be eschewed if it
assumed state of facts existed in was clear that her psychiatric
the record, the expert opinion evaluation had been based on the
should be admissible and be parties’ upbringing and
weighed as an aid for the court in psychodynamics.23 In that
interpreting such other evidence context, Dr. Gates’ expertopinion
on the causation.21 Indeed, an should be considered not in
expert opinion on psychological
isolation but along with the other psychological data, Dr. Dayan
evidence presented here. indicated that:

Moreover, in its determination In her relationship with people,

of the issue of psychological Malyne is likely to be reserved and
incapacity, the trial court was seemingly detached in her ways.
expectedto compare the expert Although she likes to be around
findings and opinion of Dr. people, she may keep her
Natividad Dayan, the respondent’s emotional distance. She, too,
own witness, and those of Dr. values her relationship but she
Gates. may not be that demonstrative of
her affections. Intimacy may be
In her Psychological Evaluation quite difficult for her since she
Report,24 Dr. Dayan impressed tries to maintain a certain distance
that the respondent had to minimize opportunities for
"compulsive and dependent rejection. To others, Malyne may
tendencies" to the extent of being appear, critical and demanding in
"relationship dependent." Based her ways. She can be assertive
from the respondent’s when opinions contrary to those of
her own are expressed. And yet,
she is apt to be a dependent Dr. Dayan was able to clearly
person. At a less conscious level, interpret the results of the Millon
Malyne fears that others will Clinical Multiaxial Inventory test26
abandon her. Malyne, who always conducted on the respondent,
felt a bit lonely, placed an observing that the respondent
enormous value on having obtained high scores on
significant others would depend on dependency, narcissism and
most times. compulsiveness, to wit:

xxxx Atty. Bretania

But the minute she started to Q : How about this Millon

care, she became a different Clinical Multiaxial Inventory?
person— clingy and immature,
doubting his love, constantly A : Sir, the cut of the score
demanding reassurance that she which is supposed to be normal is
was the most important person in 73 percental round and there are
his life. She became relationship- several scores wherein Mrs. Kalaw
dependent.25 obtained very high score and these
are on the score of dependency, It is notable that Dr. Dayan’s
narcissism and compulsion. findings did not contradict but
corroborated the findings of Dr.
Q : Would you please tell us Gates to the effect that the
again, Madam Witness, what is the respondent had been afflicted with
acceptable score? Narcissistic Personality Disorder as
well as with AntiSocial Disorder.
A : When your score is 73 and Dr. Gates relevantly testified:
above, that means that it is very
significant. So, if 72 and below, it ATTY. GONONG
will be considered as acceptable.
Q : Could you please repeat for
Q : In what area did Mrs. Kalaw clarity. I myself is [sic] not quite
obtain high score? familiar with psychology terms. So,
more or less, could you please tell
A : Under dependency, her me in more layman’s terms how
score is 78; under narcissism, is you arrived at your findings that
79; under compulsiveness, it is the respondent is self-centered or
84.27 narcissistic?
 A : I moved into this particular her for being negligent as a
conclusion. Basically, if you ask mother because she herself never
about her childhood background, experienced the care and affection
her fatherdied in a vehicular of her own mother herself. So,
accident when she was in her there is a precedent in her
teens and thereafter she was background, in her childhood, and
prompted to look for a job to indeed this seems to indicate a
partly assume the breadwinner’s particular script, we call it in
role in her family. I gathered that psychology a script, the tendency
paternal grandmother partly took to repeat somekind of experience
care of her and her siblings against or the lack of care, let’s say some
the fact that her own mother was kind of deprivation, there is a
unable to carry out her respective tendency to sustain it even on to
duties and responsibilities towards your own life when you have your
Elena Fernandez and her siblings own family. I did interview the son
considering that the husband died because I was not satisfied with
prematurely. And there was an what I gathered from both
indication that Elena Fernandez on Trinidad and Valerio and even
several occasions ever told though as a young son at the age
petitioner that he cannot blame of fourteen already expressed the
he could not see, according to the
child, the sincerity of maternal Q : And that led you to
care on the part of Elena and that conclude?
he preferred to live with the father
actually. A : And therefore I concluded
that she is self-centered to the
Q : Taking these all out, you point of neglecting her duty as a
came to the conclusion that wife and as a mother.28
respondent is self-centered and
narcissistic? The probative force of the
testimony of an expert does not lie
A : Actually respondent has in a mere statement of her theory
some needs which tempts [sic] or opinion, but rather in the
from a deprived childhood and she assistance that she can render to
is still insearch of this. In her the courts in showing the facts
several boyfriends, it seems that that serve as a basis for her
she would jump from one criterion and the reasons upon
boyfriend to another. There is this which the logic of her conclusion is
need for attention, this need for founded.29 Hence, we should
love on other people. weigh and consider the probative
value of the findings of the expert experience.30 It is prudent for us
witnesses vis-à-vis the other to do so because the concept of
evidence available. psychological incapacity adopted
under Article 36 of the Family
The other expert of the Code was derived from Canon
petitioner was Fr. Healy, a canon Law.
law expert, an advocate before the
Manila Archdiocese and Father Healy tendered his
Matrimonial Tribunal, and a opinion onwhether or not the
consultant of the Family Code respondent’s level of immaturity
Revision Committee. Regarding and irresponsibility with regard to
Father Healy’s expert testimony, her own children and to her
we have once declared that husband constituted psychological
judicial understanding of incapacity, testifying thusly:
psychological incapacity could be
informed by evolving standards, ATTY. MADRID
taking into account the particulars
of each case, by current trends in Q : Now, respondent Ma. Elena
psychological and even by Fernandez claims that she is not
canonical thought, and by psychologically incapacitated. On
the facts as you read it based on A : Because of what she has
the records of this case before this manifested in her whole lifestyle,
Honorable Court, what can you say inconsistent pattern has been
to that claim of respondent? manifested running through their
life made a doubt that this is
A : I would say it is a clear case immaturity and irresponsibility
of psychological incapacity because her family was
because of her immaturity and dysfunctional and then her being a
traumatic irresponsibility with model in her early life and being
regards to her own children. the bread winner of the family put
her in an unusual position of
Q : So what you are saying is prominence and then begun to
that, the claim of respondent that inflate her own ego and she begun
she is not psychologically to concentrate her own beauty and
incapacitated is not true? that became an obsession and that
led to her few responsibility of
A : Yes. It should be rejected. subordinating to her children to
this lifestyle that she had
Q : Why do you say so? embraced.
 Q : You only mentioned her
relationship with the children, the Q : And how does that relate to
impact. How about the impact on psychological incapacity?
the relationship of the respondent
with her husband? A : That she could not
appreciate or absorb or fulfill the
A : Also the same thing. It just obligations of marriage which
did notfit in to her lifestyle to fulfill everybody takes for granted. The
her obligation to her husband and concentration on the husband and
toher children. She had her own the children before everything else
priorities, her beauty and her would be subordinated to the
going out and her mahjong and marriage withher. It’s the other
associating with friends. They way around.
were the priorities of her life.
Her beauty, her going out, her
Q : And what you are saying is beauty parlor and her mahjong,
that, her family was merely they were their priorities in her
secondary? life.

A : Secondary.
 Q : And in medical or clinical protecting it, then it becomes the
parlance, what specifically do you top priority in her life.
call this?
xxxx
A : That is narcissism where the
person falls in love with himself is Q : And you stated that
from a myt[h]ical case in Roman circumstances that prove this
history. narcissism. How do you consider
this narcissism afflicting
Q : Could you please define respondent, it is grave, slight or
tous what narcissism is? ….?

A : It’s a self-love, falling in love A : I would say it’s grave from

with oneself to make up for the the actual cases of neglect of her
loss of a dear friend as in the case family and that causes serious
of Narcissus, the myth, and then obligations which she has ignored
that became known in clinical and not properly esteemed
terminology as narcissism. When a because she is so concern[ed] with
person is so concern[ed] with her herself in her own lifestyle. Very
own beauty and prolonging and serious.
 Q : And do you have an opinion Q : Is this narcissism, Fr. Healy,
whether or not this narcissism acquired by accident or congenital
afflicting respondent was already or what?
existing at the time or marriage or
even thereafter? A : No. The lifestyle generates
it. Once you become a model and
xxxx still the family was depended [sic]
upon her and she was a model at
A : When you get married you Hyatt and then Rustan’s, it began
don’t develop narcissism or to inflate her ego so much that
psychological incapacity. You bring this became the top priority in her
with you into the marriage and life. It’s her lifestyle.
then it becomes manifested
because in marriage you accept Q : What you are saying is that,
these responsibilities. And now you the narcissism of respondent even
show that you don’t accept them expanded after the marriage?
and you are not capable of
fulfilling them and you don’t care A : That could have expanded
about them. because it became very obvious
after the marriage because she breadwinner and her beauty was
was neglecting such fundamental so important to give in her job and
obligations. money and influence and so on.
But this is a very unusual situation
Q : And how about the matter for a young girl and her position in
of curability, is this medically or the family was exalted in a very
clinically curable, this narcissism very unusual manner and
that you mentioned? therefore she had that pressure on
her and in her accepting the
A : Let’s say, it was manifested pressure, in going along with it
for so many years in her life. It and putting it in top priority.31
was found in her family
background situation. Say, almost Given his credentials and
for sure would be incurable now. conceded expertise in Canon Law,
Father Healy’s opinions and
Q : What specific background findings commanded respect. The
are you referring to? contribution that his opinions and
findings could add to the judicial
A : Well, the fact when the determination of the parties’
father died and she was the psychological incapacity was
substantive and instructive. He making, must not discount but,
could thereby inform the trial court instead, must consider as decisive
on the degrees of the malady that evidence the expert opinion on the
would warrant the nullity of psychological and mental
marriage, and he could as well temperaments of the parties.
thereby provideto the trial court an
analytical insight upon a subject as Justice Romero explained this in
esoteric to the courts as Molina, as follows:
psychological incapacity has been.
We could not justly disregard his Furthermore, and equally
opinions and findings. Appreciating significant, the professional
them together with those of Dr. opinion of a psychological expert
Gates and Dr. Dayan would became increasingly important in
advance more the cause of justice. such cases. Data about the
The Court observed in Ngo Te v. person's entire life, both before
Yu-Te:32 and after the ceremony, were
presented to these experts and
By the very nature of Article 36, they were asked togive
courts, despite having the primary professional opinions about a
task and burden of decision- party's mental capacity at the time
of the wedding. These opinions marriage from that of a legal
were rarely challenged and tended contract to that of a covenant. The
to be accepted as decisive result of this was that it could no
evidence of lack of valid consent. longer be assumed in annulment
cases that a person who could
The Church took pains to point intellectually understand the
out that its new openness in this concept of marriage could
area did not amount to the necessarily give valid consent to
addition of new grounds for marry. The ability to both grasp
annulment, but rather was an and assume the real obligations of
accommodation by the Church to a mature, lifelong commitmentare
the advances made in psychology now considered a necessary
during the past decades. There prerequisite to valid matrimonial
was now the expertise to provide consent.
the all-important connecting link
between a marriage breakdown Rotal decisions continued
and premarital causes. applying the concept of incipient
psychological incapacity, "not only
During the 1970s, the Church to sexual anomalies but to all kinds
broadened its whole idea of ofpersonality disorders that
incapacitate a spouse or both `other oriented' since the
spouses from assuming or carrying obligations of marriage are rooted
out the essential obligations of in a self-giving love; and that the
marriage. For marriage . . . is not spouses must have the capacity
merely cohabitation or the right of for interpersonal relationship
the spouses to each other's body because marriage is more than
for hetero sexual acts, but is, in its just a physical reality but involves
totality the right to the community a true intertwining of personalities.
of the whole of life; i.e., the right The fulfillment of the obligations
to a developing lifelong ofmarriage depends, according to
relationship. Rotal decisions since Church decisions, on the strength
1973 have refined the meaning of of this interpersonal relationship. A
psychological or psychic capacity serious incapacity for interpersonal
for marriage as presupposing the sharing and support is held to
development of an adult impair the relationship and
personality; as meaning the consequently, the ability to fulfill
capacity of the spouses to give the essential marital obligations.
themselves to each other and to The marital capacity of one spouse
accept the other as a distinct is not considered in isolation but in
person; that the spouses must be
reference to the fundamental Fr. Green goes on to speak
relationship to the other spouse. about some of the psychological
conditions that might lead to the
Fr. Green, in an article in failure of a marriage:
Catholic Mind, lists six elements
necessary to the mature marital "At stake is a type of
relationship: constitutional impairment
precluding conjugal communion
"The courts consider the even with the best intentions of
following elements crucial to the the parties. Among the psychic
marital commitment: (1) a factors possibly giving rise to his
permanent and faithful orher inability to fulfill marital
commitment to the marriage obligations are the following: (1)
partner; (2) openness to children antisocial personality with its
and partner; (3) stability; (4) fundamental lack of loyalty to
emotional maturity; (5) financial persons or sense of moral values;
responsibility; (6) an ability to (2) hyperesthesia, where the
cope with the ordinary stresses individual has no real freedom of
and strains of marriage, etc." sexual choice; (3) the inadequate
personality where personal
responses consistently fall short of exercise proper judgment at the
reasonable expectations. time of the marriage (lack of due
discretion), recent cases seem to
xxxx be concentrating on the parties'
incapacity to assume or carry out
The psychological grounds are their responsibilities and
the best approach for anyone who obligations as promised(lack of
doubts whether he or she has a due competence). An advantage to
case for an annulment on any using the ground of lack of due
other terms. A situation that does competence is that at the time the
not fit into any of the more marriage was entered into civil
traditional categories often fits divorce and breakup of the family
very easily into the psychological almost always is proof of
category. someone's failure to carry out
marital responsibilities as
As new as the psychological promisedat the time the marriage
grounds are, experts are already was entered into."
detecting a shift in their use.
Whereas originally the emphasis Hernandez v. Court of Appeals
was on the parties' inability to emphasizes the importance of
presenting expert testimony to This is not to mention, but we
establish the precise cause of a mention nevertheless for
party's psychological incapacity, emphasis, that the presentation of
and to show that it existed at the expert proof presupposes a
inception of the marriage. And as thorough and in-depth assessment
Marcos v. Marcosasserts, there is of the parties by the psychologist
no requirement that the person to or expert, for a conclusive
be declared psychologically diagnosis of a grave, severe and
incapacitated be personally incurable presence of
examined by a physician, if the psychological incapacity.33
totalityof evidence presented is
enough to sustain a finding of Ngo Tealso emphasized that in
psychological incapacity. Verily, light of the unintended
the evidence must show a link, consequences of strictly applying
medical or the like, between the the standards set in Molina,34 the
acts that manifest psychological courts should consider the totality
incapacity and the psychological of evidence in adjudicating
disorder itself. petitions for declaration of nullity
of marriage under Article 36 of the
Family Code, viz:
 another three--including, as
The resiliency with which the aforesaid, Justice Romero--took
concept should be applied and the pains to compose their individual
case-to-case basis by which the separate opinions. Then Justice
provision should be interpreted, as Teodoro R. Padilla even
so intended by its framers, had, emphasized that "each case must
somehow, been rendered be judged, not on the basis of a
ineffectual by the imposition of a priori assumptions, predilections or
set of strict standards in Molina, generalizations, but according to
thus: its own facts. In the field of
psychological incapacity as a
xxxx ground for annulment of marriage,
it is trite to say that no case is on
Noteworthy is that in Molina, ‘all fours’ with another case. The
while the majority of the Court’s trial judge must take pains in
membership concurred in the examining the factual milieu and
ponencia of then Associate Justice the appellate court must, as much
(later Chief Justice) Artemio V. as possible, avoid substituting its
Panganiban, three justices own judgment for that of the trial
concurred "in the result" and court."
 Understandably, the Court was
Predictably, however, in then alarmed by the deluge of
resolving subsequent cases, the petitions for the dissolution of
Court has applied the aforesaid marital bonds, and was sensitive
standards, without too much to the OSG's exaggeration of
regard for the law's clear intention Article 36 as the "most liberal
that each case is to be treated divorce procedure in the world."
differently, as "courts should The unintended consequences of
interpret the provision on a case- Molina, however, has taken its toll
to-case basis; guided by on people who have to live with
experience, the findings of experts deviant behavior, moral insanity
and researchers in psychological and sociopathic personality
disciplines, and by decisions of anomaly, which, like termites,
church tribunals." consume little by little the very
foundation of their families, our
In hindsight, it may have been basic social institutions. Far
inappropriate for the Court to fromwhat was intended by the
impose a rigid set of rules, as the Court, Molina has become a strait-
one in Molina, in resolving all jacket, forcing all sizes to fit into
cases of psychological incapacity. and be bound by it. Wittingly or
unwittingly, the Court, in parties and/or fabrication of
conveniently applying Molina, has evidence. The Court should rather
allowed diagnosed sociopaths, be alarmed by the rising number
schizophrenics, nymphomaniacs, of cases involving marital abuse,
narcissists and the like, child abuse, domestic violence and
tocontinuously debase and pervert incestuous rape.
the sanctity of marriage. Ironically,
the Roman Rota has annulled In dissolving marital bonds on
marriages on account of the account of either party's
personality disorders of the said psychological incapacity, the Court
individuals. isnot demolishing the foundation
of families, but it is actually
The Court need not worry about protecting the sanctity of
the possible abuse of the remedy marriage, because it refuses to
provided by Article 36, for there allow a person afflicted with a
are ample safeguards against this psychological disorder, who cannot
contingency, among which is the comply with or assume the
intervention by the State, through essential marital obligations, from
the public prosecutor, to guard remaining in that sacred bond. It
against collusion between the may be stressed that the infliction
of physical violence, constitutional case. We simply declare that, as
indolence or laziness, drug aptly stated by Justice Dante O.
dependence or addiction, and Tinga in Antonio v. Reyes, there is
psycho sexual anomaly are need to emphasize other
manifestations of a sociopathic perspectives as well which should
personality anomaly. Let itbe govern the disposition of petitions
noted that in Article 36, there is no for declaration of nullity under
marriage to speak of in the first Article 36. At the risk of being
place, as the same is void from the redundant, we reiterate once more
very beginning. To indulge in the principle that each case must
imagery, the declaration of nullity be judged, not on the basis of a
under Article 36 will simply provide priori assumptions, predilections or
a decent burial to a stillborn generalizations but according to its
marriage. own facts. And, to repeat for
emphasis, courts should interpret
xxxx the provision on a case-to-case
basis; guided by experience, the
Lest it be misunderstood, we findings of experts and researchers
are not suggesting the in psychological disciplines, and by
abandonment of Molina in this decisions of church tribunals.35
 this, saying that theywere with
III their mother when she played
mahjong in their relatives
In the decision of September [Link] did not present
19, 2011,the Court declared as any proof, other than his own
follows: testimony, that the mahjong
sessions were so frequent that
Respondent admittedly played respondent neglected her family.
mahjong, but it was not proven While he intimated that two of his
that she engaged in mahjong so sons repeated the second grade,
frequently that she neglected her he was not able to link this
duties as a mother and a wife. episode to respondent’s mahjong-
Respondent refuted petitioner’s playing. The least that could have
allegations that she played four to been done was to prove the
five times a week. She maintained frequency of respondent’s
it was only two to three times a mahjong-playing during the years
week and always withthe when these two children were in
permission of her husband and second grade. This was not done.
without abandoning her children at Thus, while there is no dispute
home. The children corroborated that respondent played mahjong,
its alleged debilitating frequency mahjong sessions would expose
and adverse effect on the children them to a culture of gambling and
were not proven.36 (Emphasis other vices that would erode their
supplied) moral fiber.

The frequency of the Nonetheless, the long-term

respondent’s mahjong playing effects of the respondent’s
should not have delimited our obsessive mahjong playing surely
determination of the presence or impacted on her family life,
absence of psychological particularly on her very young
incapacity. Instead, the children. We do find to be
determinant should be her obvious revealing the disclosures made by
failure to fully appreciate the Valerio Teodoro Kalaw37 – the
duties and responsibilities of parties’ eldest son – in his
parenthood at the time she made deposition, whereby the son
her marital vows. Had she fully confirmed the claim of his father
appreciated such duties and that his mother had been hooked
responsibilities, she would have on playing mahjong, viz:
known that bringing along her
children of very tender ages to her
 ATTY. PISON: From the time WITNESS : Not really, but it
before your parent’s separation, was a lot. Not actually, I can’t, I
do you remember any habit or can’t…
activity or practice which your
mother engaged in, before the ATTY. PISON: How long would
separation? she stay playing mahjong say one
session?
WITNESS: Yeah, habit? She
was a heavy smoker and she likes WITNESS : Really long cuz’we
to play mahjong a lot, and I can’t would go to my aunt’s house in
remember. White Plains and I think we would
get there by lunch then leave, we
xxxx fall asleep. I think it was like one
in the morning. ATTY. PISON: You,
ATTY. PISON: You said that you went there? She brought you?
your mother played mahjong
frequently. How frequent, do you WITNESS : Yeah, to play
remember? withmy cousins, yeah and my
brothers & sisters.
 ATTY. PISON: Were you her own personal and escapist
brought all the time? desires. This was the observation
of Father Healy himself. In that
WITNESS: Yeah, almost all the regard, Dr. Gates and Dr. Dayan
time but sometimes, I guess she’d both explained that the current
go out by herself.38 psychological state of the
respondent had been rooted on
The fact that the respondent her own childhood experience.
brought her children with her to
her mahjong sessions did not only The respondent revealed her
point to her neglect of parental wanton disregard for her children’s
duties, but also manifested her moral and mental development.
tendency to expose them to a This disregard violated her duty as
culture of gambling. Her willfully a parent to safeguard and protect
exposing her children to the her children, as expressly defined
culture of gambling on every under Article 209 and Article 220
occasion of her mahjong sessions of the Family Code, to wit:
was a very grave and serious act
of subordinating their needs for Article 209. Pursuant to the
parenting to the gratification of natural right and duty of parents
over the person and property of good example, and to provide for
their unemancipated children, their upbringing in keeping with
parental authority and their means;
responsibility shall includethe
caring for and rearing of such (2) x x x x
children for civic consciousness
and efficiency and the (3) To provide them with moral
development of their moral, and spiritual guidance, inculcate in
mental and physical character and them honesty, integrity, self-
well-being. discipline, self-reliance, industry
and thrift, stimulate their interest
Article 220. The parents and in civic affairs, and inspire in them
those exercising parental authority compliance with the duties of
shall have with respect to their citizenship;
unemancipated children or wards
the following rights and duties: (4) To enhance, protect,
preserve and maintain their
(1) To keep them in their physical and mental health at all
company, to support, educate and times;
instruct them by right precept and
 (5) To furnish them with good RTC to the effect that both the
and wholesome educational petitioner and the respondent had
materials, supervise their activities, been psychologically incapacitated,
recreation and association with and thus could not assume the
others, protect them from bad essential obligations of marriage.
company, and prevent them from The RTC would not have found so
acquiring habits detrimental to without the allegation to that
their health, studies and morals; effect by the respondent in her
answer,39 whereby she averred
(6) x x x x that it was not she but the
petitioner who had suffered from
(7) x x x x psychological incapacity.

(8) x x x x The allegation of the

petitioner’spsychological incapacity
(9) x x x x (emphasis supplied) was substantiated by Dr. Dayan,
as follows:
The September 19, 2011
decision did not properly take into ATTY. BRETAÑA:
consideration the findings of the
 Q : You stated earlier that both she lived-in with him and even the
parties were behaviorally time that they were together, that
immature? they were living in, she also had
noticed some of his psychological
A : Yes, sir. deficits if we may say so. But as I
said, because she is also
Q : And that the marriage was a dependent and she was one who
mistake? determined to make the
relationship work, she was denying
A : Yes, sir. even those kinds of problems that
she had seen.
Q : What is your basis for your
statement that respondent was Q : To make it clear, Madam
behaviorally immature? witness, I’m talking here of the
petitioner, Mr. Kalaw. What led
A : Sir, for the reason that even you to conclude that Mr. Kalaw
before the marriage Malyn had was behaviorally immature?
noticed already some of those
short temper of the petitioner but A : I think he also mentioned
she was very much in love and so that his concept of marriage was
not duly stable then. He was not him, the petitioner. Now, given
really thinking of marriage except these admissions by petitioner to
that his wife got pregnant and so you, my questions is, is it possible
he thought that he had to marry for such a person to enter into
her. And even that time he was marriage despite this fear of
not also a monogamous person. commitment and given his
admission that he was a
Q : Are you saying, Madam womanizer? Is it possible for this
Witness, that ultimately the person to stop his womanizing
decision to marry lied on the ways during the marriage?
petitioner? A : I think so, Sir.
A : Sir, it’s difficult.
Q : Now, in your report, Madam
Witness, you mentioned here that Q : It would be difficult for that
the petitioner admitted to you that person?
in his younger years he was often
out seeking other women. I’m A : Yes, Sir.
referring specifically to page 18.
He also admitted to you that the
thought of commitment scared
 Q : What is the probability of his duties as a husband is
this person giving up his concerned?
womanizing after marriage?
A : Sir, it would impair his
A : Sir, I would say the ability to have sexual integrity and
probability of his giving up is also to be fully committed to the
almost only 20%. role of husband to Malyn.

Q : So, it is entirely possible Q : Madam Witness, you never

that the respondent womanized directly answered my question on
during his marriage with the whether the petitioner was
respondent? psychologically incapacitated to
perform his duty as a husband.
A : Yes, Sir. You only said that the petitioner
was behaviorally immature and
Q : What is the bearing of this that the marriage was a mistake.
fearof commitment on the part of Now, may I asked [sic] you that
the petitioner insofar as his question again and request you to
psychological capacity to perform answer that directly?
 A : Sir, he is psychologically psychological incapacity may exist
incapacitated.40 in one party alone or in both of
them, and if psychological
Although the petitioner, as the incapacity of either or both is
plaintiff, carried the burden to established, the marriage has to
prove the nullity of the marriage, be deemed null and void.
the respondent, as the defendant
spouse, could establish the More than twenty (20) years
psychological incapacity of her had passed since the parties
husband because she raised the parted ways. By now, they must
matter in her answer. The courts have already accepted and come
are justified in declaring a to terms with the awful truth that
marriage null and void under their marriage, assuming it existed
Article 36 of the Family Code in the eyes of the law, was already
regardless of whether it is the beyond repair. Both parties had
petitioner or the respondent who inflicted so much damage not only
imputes the psychological to themselves, but also to the lives
incapacity to the other as long as and psyche of their own children.
the imputation is fully It would be a greater injustice
substantiated with proof. Indeed, should we insist on still recognizing
their void marriage, and then force ruling the Court makes
them and their children to endure today.1âwphi1 It is not, in effect,
some more damage. This was the directly or indirectly, facilitating
very same injustice that Justice the transformation of petitioner
Romero decried in her erudite into a "habitual tryster" or one
dissenting opinion in Santos v. forced to maintain illicit relations
Court of Appeals:41 with another woman or women
with emerging problems of
It would be great injustice, I illegitimate children, simply
believe, to petitioner for this Court because he is denied by private
to give a much too restrictive respondent, his wife, the
interpretation of the law and companionship and conjugal love
compel the petitioner to continue which he has sought from her and
to be married to a wife who for towhich he is legally entitled?
purposes of fulfilling her marital
duties has, for all practical I do not go as far as to suggest
purposes, ceased to exist. that Art. 36 of the Family Code is a
sanction for absolute divorce but I
Besides, there are public policy submit that we should not
considerations involved in the constrict it to non-recognition of its
evident purpose and thus deny to down a marital union that is "ill-
one like petitioner, an opportunity equipped to promote family life,"
to turn a new leaf in his life by thus:
declaring his marriage a nullity by
reason of his wife’s psychological Now is also the opportune time
incapacity to perform an essential to comment on another common
marital obligation. In this case, the legal guide utilized in the
marriage never existed from the adjudication of petitions for
beginning because the respondent declaration of nullity in the
was afflicted with psychological adjudication of petitions for
incapacity at and prior to the time declaration of nullity under Article
of the marriage. Hence, the Court 36. All too frequently, this Court
should not hesitate to declare the and lower courts, in denying
nullity of the marriage between petitions of the kind, have
the parties. favorably cited Sections 1 and 2,
Article XV of the Constitution,
To stress, our mandate to which respectively state that "[t]he
protect the inviolability of marriage State recognizes the Filipino family
as the basic foundation of our as the foundation of the nation.
society does not preclude striking Accordingly, it shall strengthen its
solidarity and actively promote its protect it, based on whatever
total development[t]," and that socio-political influences it deems
[m]arriage, as an inviolable social proper, and subject of course to
institution, is the foundation of the the qualification that such
family and shall be protected by legislative enactment itself adheres
the State." These provisions to the Constitution and the Bill of
highlight the importance of the Rights. This being the case, it also
family and the constitutional falls on the legislature to put into
protection accorded to the operation the constitutional
institution of marriage. provisions that protect marriage
and the family. This has been
But the Constitution itself does accomplished at present through
not establish the parameters of the enactment of the Family Code,
state protection to marriage as a which defines marriage and the
social institution and the family, spells out the
foundation of the family. It corresponding legal effects,
remains the province of the imposes the limitations that affect
legislature to define all legal married and family life, as well as
aspects of marriage and prescribe prescribes the grounds for
the strategy and the modalities to declaration of nullity and those for
legal separation. While it may constitutional protection of
appear that the judicial denial of a marriage. Given the avowed State
petition for declaration of nullity is interest in promoting marriage as
reflective of the constitutional the foundation of the family, which
mandate to protect marriage, such in turn serves as the foundation of
action in fact merely enforces a the nation, there is a
statutory definition of marriage, corresponding interest for the
not a constitutionally ordained State to defend against marriages
decree of what marriage is. ill-equipped to promote family life.
Indeed, if circumstances warrant, Void ab initio marriages under
Sections 1 and 2 of Article XV need Article 36 do not further the
not be the only constitutional initiatives of the State concerning
considerations to be taken into marriage and family, as they
account in resolving a petition for promote wedlock among persons
declaration of nullity. Indeed, who, for reasons independent of
Article 36 of the Family Code, in their will, are not capacitated to
classifying marriages contracted by understand or comply with the
a psychologically incapacitated essential obligations of
person as a nullity, should be marriage.42 (Emphasis supplied)
deemed as an implement of this
 WHEREFORE, the Court LUCAS P. BERSAMIN
GRANTS the Motion for Associate Justice
Reconsideration; REVERSES and
SETS ASIDE the decision WE CONCUR:
promulgated on September 19,
2011; and REINSTATES the TERESITA J. LEONARDO DE
decision rendered by the Regional CASTRO
Trial Court declaring the marriage Associate Justice
between the petitioner and the Chairperson
respondent on November 4, 1976 MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO
as NULL AND VOID AB INITIO due Associate Justice JOSE
to the psychological incapacity of PORTUGAL PEREZ*
the parties pursuant to Article 36 Associate Justice
of the Family Code.
MARVIC M.V.F. LEONEN**
No pronouncement on costs of Associate Justice
suit.
CERTIFICATION
SO ORDERED.
 Pursuant to Section 13, Article 1 657 SCRA 822.
VIII of the Constitution, I certify
that the conclusions in the above 2 Id. at 836-839.
Resolution had been reached in
consultation before the case was 3 Rollo, pp. 689-704.
assigned to the writer of the
opinion of the Court's Division. 4 See Santos v. Court of
Appeals, G.R. No. 112019, January
MARIA LOURDES P.A. SERENO 4, 1995, 240 SCRA 20, 31.
Chief Justice
5 See Salita v. Magtolis, G.R No.
Footnotes 106429, June 13, 1994, 233 SCRA
100, 107-108.
* Per Special Order No. 1080
dated September 13, 2011. 6 Supra note 4.

** Pursuant to the third 7 Id. at 34.

paragraph of Section 7, Rule 2,
Internal Rules. 8 G.R. No. 108763, February
13, 1997, 268 SCRA 198.
 13 Separate Statement of
9 Id. at 209-213. Justice Teodoro R. Padilla in
Republic v. Court of Appeals, supra
10 Separate Statement of note 10.
Justice Teodoro Padilla in Republic
v. Court of Appeals, supra, note 8, 14 Article XV of the 1987
at 214. Constitution provides:

11 Hernandez v. Court of Section 2. Marriage, as an

Appeals, G.R. No. 126010, inviolable social institution, is the
December 8, 1999, 320 SCRA 76; foundation of the family and shall
Republic v. Quintero-Hamano, G.R. be protected by the State.
No. 149498, May 20, 2004, 428
SCRA 735. 15 Camacho-Reyes v. Reyes,
G.R. No. 185286, August 18, 2010,
12 Tuason v. Court of Appeals, 628 SCRA 461 ("[B]lind adherence
G.R. No. 116607, April 10, 1996, by the courts to the exhortation in
256 SCRA 158, 170. the Constitution and in our
statutes that marriage is an
inviolable social institution, and
validating a marriage that is null 18 Ngo Te v. Yu-Te, G.R. No.
and void despite convincing proof 161793, February 13, 2009, 579
of psychological incapacity, SCRA 193, 228.
trenches on the very reason why a
marriage is doomed from its 19 G.R. No. 136490, October
inception should not be forcibly 19, 2000, 343 SCRA 755, 757.
inflicted upon its hapless partners
for life."). 20 Id. at 764.

16 Collado v. Intermediate 21 Herrera, Remedial Law,

Appellate Court, G.R. No. 72780, Volume V (1999), pp. 804-805.
February 13, 1992, 206 SCRA 206,
212; People v. Basmayor, G.R. No. 22 Camacho-Reyes v. Reyes,
182791, February 10, 2009, 578 supra, note 15, at 487.
SCRA 369, 382-383.
23 Carcereny, et al., Annulment
17 Antonio v. Reyes, G.R. No. in the Philippines: Clinical and
155800, March 10, 2006, 484 Legal Issues (2010), p. 16.
SCRA 353, 379.
 24 Records Volume II, pp. 87- 29 Lim v. Sta. Cruz-Lim, G.R.
105. No. 176464, February 4, 2010, 611
SCRA 569, 585.
25 Id. at 100, 103.
30 Antonio v. Reyes, supra note
26 A psychological test used to 17, at 370.
find personality disorders based on
the respondent’s answers to 175 31 TSN dated June 17, 1998,
true/false questions (Ng, et al., pp. 24-28.
Legal and Clinical Bases of
Psychological Incapacity [2006], p. 32 Supra note 18.
109).
33 Id. at 229-232.
27 TSN dated January 30, 1996,
p. 13. 34 Republic v. Court of Appeals,
supra, note 8.
28 TSN dated February 15,
1995, pp. 8-10. 35 Supra note 18, at 220-228.

36 Decision, pp. 837-838.

 37 Records, pp. 354-391. 40 TSN dated March 14, 1996,
pp. 10-12.
38 Id. at 363.
41 Supra note 4, at 38.
39 Paragraph 3 (Records, Vol. I,
p. 20) of which runs: 42 Antonio v. Reyes, supra note
17, at 371-373.
3. She specifically denies the
allegations contained in
paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 of the
Petition alleging that the
respondent was psychologically
incapacitated to comply with the
essential obligations to the
marriage and that such incapacity
manifested itself only after the
marriage, the truth of the matter
being that it is the petitioner who
is psychologically incapacitated.
FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. 162368 July

17, 2006

MA. ARMIDA PEREZ-

FERRARIS, petitioner,
vs.
 BRIX FERRARIS, On February 20, 2001, the
respondent. Regional Trial Court of Pasig City,
Branch 151 rendered a Decision1
RESOLUTION denying the petition for declaration
of nullity of petitioner's marriage
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.: with Brix Ferraris. The trial court
noted that suffering from epilepsy
This resolves the motion for does not amount to psychological
reconsideration filed by petitioner incapacity under Article 36 of the
Ma. Armida Perez-Ferraris of the Civil Code and the evidence on
Resolution dated June 9, 2004 record were insufficient to prove
denying the petition for review on infidelity. Petitioner's motion for
certiorari of the Decision and reconsideration was denied in an
Resolution of the Court of Appeals Order2 dated April 20, 2001 where
dated April 30, 2003 and February the trial court reiterated that there
24, 2004, respectively, for failure was no evidence that respondent
of the petitioner to sufficiently is mentally or physically ill to such
show that the Court of Appeals an extent that he could not have
committed any reversible error. known the obligations he was
assuming, or knowing them, could
not have given valid assumption a mixed personality disorder; that
thereof. she failed to clearly demonstrate
that there was a natal or
Petitioner appealed to the Court supervening disabling factor or an
of Appeals which affirmed3 in toto adverse integral element in
the judgment of the trial court. It respondent's character that
held that the evidence on record effectively incapacitated him from
did not convincingly establish that accepting and complying with the
respondent was suffering from essential marital obligations.5
psychological incapacity or that his
"defects" were incurable and Petitioner's motion for
already present at the inception of reconsideration was denied6 for
the marriage.4 The Court of lack of merit; thus, she filed a
Appeals also found that Dr. petition for review on certiorari
Dayan's testimony failed to with this Court. As already stated,
establish the substance of the petition for review was denied
respondent's psychological for failure of petitioner to show
incapacity; that she failed to that the appellate tribunal
explain how she arrived at the committed any reversible error.
conclusion that the respondent has
 Petitioner filed the instant The issue of whether or not
motion for reconsideration.7 The psychological incapacity exists in a
Court required respondent Brix given case calling for annulment of
Ferraris to file comment8 but failed marriage depends crucially, more
to comply; thus, he is deemed to than in any field of the law, on the
have waived the opportunity to file facts of the case.9 Such factual
comment. Further, the Court issue, however, is beyond the
directed the Office of the Solicitor province of this Court to review. It
General (OSG) to comment on is not the function of the Court to
petitioner's motion for analyze or weigh all over again the
reconsideration which it complied evidence or premises supportive of
on March 2, 2006. such factual determination.10 It is
a well-established principle that
After considering the arguments factual findings of the trial court,
of both the petitioner and the when affirmed by the Court of
OSG, the Court resolves to deny Appeals, are binding on this
petitioner's motion for Court,11 save for the most
reconsideration. compelling and cogent reasons,
like when the findings of the
appellate court go beyond the
issues of the case, run contrary to bond one is about to assume.13
the admissions of the parties to As all people may have certain
the case, or fail to notice certain quirks and idiosyncrasies, or
relevant facts which, if properly isolated characteristics associated
considered, will justify a different with certain personality disorders,
conclusion; or when there is a there is hardly any doubt that the
misappreciation of facts,12 which intendment of the law has been to
are unavailing in the instant case. confine the meaning of
"psychological incapacity" to the
The term "psychological most serious cases of personality
incapacity" to be a ground for the disorders clearly demonstrative of
nullity of marriage under Article 36 an utter insensitivity or inability to
of the Family Code, refers to a give meaning and significance to
serious psychological illness the marriage.14 It is for this
afflicting a party even before the reason that the Court relies heavily
celebration of the marriage. It is a on psychological experts for its
malady so grave and so understanding of the human
permanent as to deprive one of personality. However, the root
awareness of the duties and cause must be identified as a
responsibilities of the matrimonial psychological illness and its
incapacitating nature must be fully "defects" were already present at
explained,15 which petitioner the inception of the marriage, or
failed to convincingly demonstrate. that those are incurable.

As aptly held by the Court of Quite apart from being plainly

Appeals: self-serving, petitioner's evidence
showed that respondent's alleged
Simply put, the chief and basic failure to perform his so-called
consideration in the resolution of marital obligations was not at all a
marital annulment cases is the manifestation of some deep-
presence of evidence that can seated, grave, permanent and
adequately establish respondent's incurable psychological malady. To
psychological condition. Here, be sure, the couple's relationship
appellant contends that there is before the marriage and even
such evidence. We do not agree. during their brief union (for well
Indeed, the evidence on record did about a year or so) was not all
not convincingly establish that bad. During that relatively short
respondent was suffering from period of time, petitioner was
psychological incapacity. There is happy and contented with her life
absolutely no showing that his in the company of respondent. In
fact, by petitioner's own reckoning, At any rate, Dr. Dayan did not
respondent was a responsible and explain how she arrived at her
loving husband. x x x. Their diagnosis that respondent has a
problems began when petitioner mixed personality disorder called
started doubting respondent's "schizoid," and why he is the
fidelity. It was only when they "dependent and avoidant type." In
started fighting about the calls fact, Dr. Dayan's statement that
from women that respondent one suffering from such mixed
began to withdraw into his shell personality disorder is dependent
and corner, and failed to perform on others for decision x x x lacks
his so-called marital obligations. specificity; it seems to belong to
Respondent could not understand the realm of theoretical
petitioner's lack of trust in him and speculation. Also, Dr. Dayan's
her constant naggings. He thought information that respondent had
her suspicions irrational. extramarital affairs was supplied
Respondent could not relate to her by the petitioner herself. Notably,
anger, temper and jealousy. x x x. when asked as to the root cause of
respondent's alleged psychological
xxxx incapacity, Dr. Dayan's answer
was vague, evasive and
inconclusive. She replied that such respondent's supposed
disorder "can be part of his family psychological or mental malady
upbringing" x x x. She stated that existed even before the marriage.
there was a history of All these omissions must be held
respondent's parents having up against petitioner, for the
difficulties in their relationship. But reason that upon her devolved the
this input on the supposed onus of establishing nullity of the
problematic history of respondent's marriage. Indeed, any doubt
parents also came from petitioner. should be resolved in favor of the
Nor did Dr. Dayan clearly validity of the marriage and the
demonstrate that there was really indissolubility of the marital
"a natal or supervening disabling vinculum.16
factor" on the part of respondent,
or an "adverse integral element" in We find respondent's alleged
respondent's character that mixed personality disorder, the
effectively incapacitated him from "leaving-the-house" attitude
accepting, and, thereby complying whenever they quarreled, the
with, the essential marital violent tendencies during epileptic
obligations. Of course, petitioner attacks, the sexual infidelity, the
likewise failed to prove that abandonment and lack of support,
and his preference to spend more the performance of some marital
time with his band mates than his obligations and that a mere
family, are not rooted on some showing of irreconcilable
debilitating psychological condition differences and conflicting
but a mere refusal or unwillingness personalities in no wise constitute
to assume the essential obligations psychological incapacity; it is not
of marriage. enough to prove that the parties
failed to meet their responsibilities
In Republic v. Court of and duties as married persons; it is
Appeals,17 where therein essential that they must be shown
respondent preferred to spend to be incapable of doing so, due to
more time with his friends than his some psychological, not physical,
family on whom he squandered his illness.
money, depended on his parents
for aid and assistance, and was Also, we held in Hernandez v.
dishonest to his wife regarding his Court of Appeals18 that habitual
finances, the Court held that the alcoholism, sexual infidelity or
psychological defects spoken of perversion, and abandonment do
were more of a "difficulty," if not not by themselves constitute
outright "refusal" or "neglect" in grounds for declaring a marriage
void based on psychological marriage are to be "protected" by
incapacity. the state.20

While petitioner's marriage with Thus, in determining the import

the respondent failed and appears of "psychological incapacity" under
to be without hope of Article 36, it must be read in
reconciliation, the remedy however conjunction with, although to be
is not always to have it declared taken as distinct from Articles
void ab initio on the ground of 35,21 37,22 38,23 and 4124 that
psychological incapacity. An would likewise, but for different
unsatisfactory marriage, however, reasons, render the marriage void
is not a null and void marriage.19 ab initio, or Article 4525 that
No less than the Constitution would make the marriage merely
recognizes the sanctity of marriage voidable, or Article 55 that could
and the unity of the family; it justify a petition for legal
decrees marriage as legally separation. Care must be observed
"inviolable" and protects it from so that these various
dissolution at the whim of the circumstances are not applied so
parties. Both the family and indiscriminately as if the law were
indifferent on the matter.26 Article
36 should not to be confused with sufficiently show that the Court of
a divorce law that cuts the marital Appeals committed any reversible
bond at the time the causes error, is DENIED WITH FINALITY.
therefor manifest themselves.27
Neither it is to be equated with SO ORDERED.
legal separation, in which the
grounds need not be rooted in Panganiban, C.J., Austria-
psychological incapacity but on Martinez, Callejo, Sr., Chico-
physical violence, moral pressure, Nazario, J.J., concur.
moral corruption, civil interdiction,
drug addiction, habitual Footnotes
alcoholism, sexual infidelity,
abandonment and the like.28 1 Rollo, pp. 96-99. Penned by
Judge Franchito N. Diamante.
WHEREFORE, in view of the
foregoing, the motion for 2 Id. at 101.
reconsideration of the Resolution
dated June 9, 2004 denying the 3 Id. at 9-19. Penned by
petition for review on certiorari for Associate Justice Renato C.
failure of the petitioner to Dacudao and concurred in by
Associate Justices Godardo A. Manila Banking Corporation, G.R.
Jacinto and Danilo B. Pine. No. 162270, April 6, 2005, 455
SCRA 97, 106.
4 Id. at 17.
11 Domingo v. Robles, G.R. No.
5 Id. at 18. 153743, March 18, 2005, 453
SCRA 812, 817.
6 Id. at 7.
12 Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines,
7 Id. at 208-227. Inc. v. Macalinao, G.R. No.
141856, February 11, 2005, 451
8 Id. at 228. SCRA 63, 69.

9 Concurring Opinion of Justice 13 Marcos v. Marcos, 397 Phil.

Teodoro R. Padilla in Republic v. 840, 851 (2000).
Court of Appeals, 335 Phil. 664,
680 (1997). 14 Santos v. Court of Appeals,
310 Phil. 21, 40 (1995).
10 Abacus Real Estate
Development Center, Inc. v.
 15 Republic v. Court of Appeals, 21 Art. 35. The following
supra note 9 at 677. marriages shall be void from the
beginning:
16 Rollo, pp. 111-113.
(1) Those contracted by any
17 Supra note 9 at 669 & 674. party below eighteen years of age
even with the consent of parents
18 377 Phil. 919, 931 (1999). or guardians;

19 Carating-Siayngco v. (2) Those solemnized by any

Siayngco, G.R. No. 158896, person not legally authorized to
October 27, 2004, 441 SCRA 422, perform marriages unless such
439. marriages were contracted with
either or both parties believing in
20 Republic v. Iyoy, G.R. No. good faith that the solemnizing
152577, September 21, 2005, 470 officer had the legal authority to
SCRA 508, 522. do so;
 (3) Those solemnized without a parties be legitimate or
license, except those covered by illegitimate:
the preceding Chapter;
(1) Between ascendants and
(4) Those bigamous or descendants of any degree; and
polygamous marriages not falling
under Article 41; (2) Between brothers and
sisters, whether of the full or half
(5) Those contracted through blood.
mistake of one contracting party
as to the identity of the other; and 23 Art. 38. The following
marriages shall be void from the
(6) Those subsequent beginning for reasons of public
marriages that are void under policy:
Article 53.
(1) Between collateral blood
22 Art. 37. Marriages between relatives, whether legitimate or
the following are incestuous and illegitimate, up to the fourth civil
void from the beginning, whether degree;
the relationship between the
 (2) Between step-parents and
step-children; (8) Between the adopted
children of the same adopter; and
(3) Between parents-in-law and
children-in-law; (9) Between parties where one,
with the intention to marry the
(4) Between the adopting other, killed that other person's
parent and the adopted child; spouse or his or her own spouse.

(5) Between the surviving 24 Art. 41. A marriage

spouse of the adopting parent and contracted by any person during
the adopted child; the subsistence of a previous
marriage shall be null and void,
(6) Between the surviving unless before the celebration of
spouse of the adopted child and the subsequent marriage, the prior
the adopter; spouse had been absent for four
consecutive years and the spouse
(7) Between an adopted child present had a well-founded belief
and a legitimate child of the that the absent spouse was
adopter; already dead. In case of
disappearance where there is causes, existing at the time of the
danger of death under the marriage:
circumstances set forth in the
provisions of Article 391 of the (1) That the party in whose
Civil Code, an absence of only two behalf it is sought to have the
years shall be sufficient. marriage annulled was eighteen
years of age or over but below
For the purpose of contracting twenty-one, and the marriage was
the subsequent marriage under solemnized without the consent of
the preceding paragraph, the the parents, guardian or person
spouse present must institute a having substitute parental
summary proceeding as provided authority over the party, in that
in this Code for the declaration of order, unless after attaining the
presumptive death of the age of twenty-one, such party
absentee, without prejudice to the freely cohabited with the other and
effect of reappearance of the both lived together as husband
absent spouse. and wife;

25 Art. 45. A marriage may be (2) That either party was of

annulled for any of the following unsound mind, unless such party
after coming to reason, freely LEONILO ANTONIO
cohabited with the other as Petitioner,
husband and wife; vs.
MARIE IVONNE F. REYES,
(3) That the consent of either Respondent.
party was obtained by fraud,
unless such party afterwards, with DECISION
full knowledge of the facts
constituting the fraud, freely TINGA, J.:
cohabited with the other as
husband and wife Statistics never lie, but lovers
THIRD DIVISION often do, quipped a sage. This sad
truth has unsettled many a love
transformed into matrimony. Any
sort of deception between
spouses, no matter the gravity, is
always disquieting. Deceit to the
G.R. No. 155800 March
depth and breadth unveiled in the
10, 2006
following pages, dark and
irrational as in the modern noir
tale, dims any trace of certitude on Antecedent Facts
the guilty spouse’s capability to
fulfill the marital obligations even Petitioner and respondent met
more. in August 1989 when petitioner
was 26 years old and respondent
The Petition for Review on was 36 years of age. Barely a year
Certiorari assails the Decision1 and after their first meeting, they got
Resolution2 of the Court of married before a minister of the
Appeals dated 29 November 2001 Gospel4 at the Manila City Hall,
and 24 October 2002. The Court of and through a subsequent church
Appeals had reversed the wedding5 at the Sta. Rosa de Lima
judgment3 of the Regional Trial Parish, Bagong Ilog, Pasig, Metro
Court (RTC) of Makati declaring Manila on 6 December 1990.6 Out
the marriage of Leonilo N. Antonio of their union, a child was born on
(petitioner) and Marie Ivonne F. 19 April 1991, who sadly died five
Reyes (respondent), null and void. (5) months later.
After careful consideration, we
reverse and affirm instead the trial On 8 March 1993,7 petitioner
court. filed a petition to have his
marriage to respondent declared
null and void. He anchored his (1) She concealed the fact that
petition for nullity on Article 36 of she previously gave birth to an
the Family Code alleging that illegitimate son,10 and instead
respondent was psychologically introduced the boy to petitioner as
incapacitated to comply with the the adopted child of her family.
essential obligations of marriage. She only confessed the truth about
He asserted that respondent’s the boy’s parentage when
incapacity existed at the time their petitioner learned about it from
marriage was celebrated and still other sources after their
subsists up to the present.8 marriage.11

As manifestations of (2) She fabricated a story that

respondent’s alleged psychological her brother-in-law, Edwin David,
incapacity, petitioner claimed that attempted to rape and kill her
respondent persistently lied about when in fact, no such incident
herself, the people around her, her occurred.12
occupation, income, educational
attainment and other events or (3) She misrepresented herself
things, 9 to wit: as a psychiatrist to her
obstetrician, Dr. Consuelo
Gardiner, and told some of her Sales of said hotel that no such
friends that she graduated with a occasion had taken place.15
degree in psychology, when she
was neither.13 (5) She invented friends named
Babes Santos and Via Marquez,
(4) She claimed to be a singer and under those names, sent
or a free-lance voice talent lengthy letters to petitioner
affiliated with Blackgold Recording claiming to be from Blackgold and
Company (Blackgold); yet, not a touting her as the "number one
single member of her family ever moneymaker" in the commercial
witnessed her alleged singing industry worth P2 million.16
activities with the group. In the Petitioner later found out that
same vein, she postulated that a respondent herself was the one
luncheon show was held at the who wrote and sent the letters to
Philippine Village Hotel in her him when she admitted the truth
honor and even presented an in one of their quarrels.17 He
invitation to that effect14 but likewise realized that Babes Santos
petitioner discovered per and Via Marquez were only
certification by the Director of figments of her imagination when
he discovered they were not
known in or connected with he could no longer take her
Blackgold.18 unusual behavior, he separated
from her in August 1991. He tried
(6) She represented herself as a to attempt a reconciliation but
person of greater means, thus, she since her behavior did not change,
altered her payslip to make it he finally left her for good in
appear that she earned a higher November 1991.21
income. She bought a sala set
from a public market but told In support of his petition,
petitioner that she acquired it from petitioner presented Dr. Dante
a famous furniture dealer.19 She Herrera Abcede (Dr. Abcede), a
spent lavishly on unnecessary psychiatrist, and Dr. Arnulfo V.
items and ended up borrowing
money from other people on false Lopez (Dr. Lopez), a clinical
pretexts.20 psychologist, who stated, based on
the tests they conducted, that
(7) She exhibited insecurities petitioner was essentially a
and jealousies over him to the normal, introspective, shy and
extent of calling up his officemates conservative type of person. On
to monitor his whereabouts. When the other hand, they observed that
respondent’s persistent and In opposing the petition,
constant lying respondent claimed that she
performed her marital obligations
to petitioner was abnormal or by attending to all the needs of
pathological. It undermined the her husband. She asserted that
basic relationship that should be there was no truth to the
based on love, trust and allegation that she fabricated
respect.22 They further asserted stories, told lies and invented
that respondent’s extreme jealousy personalities.24 She presented her
was also pathological. It reached version, thus:
the point of paranoia since there
was no actual basis for her to (1) She concealed her child by
suspect that petitioner was having another man from petitioner
an affair with another woman. because she was afraid of losing
They concluded based on the her husband.25
foregoing that respondent was
psychologically incapacitated to (2) She told petitioner about
perform her essential marital David’s attempt to rape and kill
obligations.23 her because she surmised such
intent from David’s act of touching
her back and ogling her from head company, yet she reported to the
to foot.26 Blackgold office after office hours.
She claimed that a luncheon show
(3) She was actually a BS was indeed held in her honor at
Banking and Finance graduate and the Philippine Village Hotel on 8
had been teaching psychology at December 1979.28
the Pasig Catholic School for two
(2) years.27 (5) She vowed that the letters
sent to petitioner were not written
(4) She was a free-lance voice by her and the writers thereof
talent of Aris de las Alas, an were not fictitious. Bea Marquez
executive producer of Channel 9 Recto of the Recto political clan
and she had done three (3) was a resident of the United States
commercials with McCann Erickson while Babes Santos was employed
for the advertisement of Coca- with Saniwares.29
cola, Johnson & Johnson, and
Traders Royal Bank. She told (6) She admitted that she called
petitioner she was a Blackgold up an officemate of her husband
recording artist although she was but averred that she merely asked
not under contract with the the latter in a diplomatic matter if
she was the one asking for finding of psychological incapacity
chocolates from petitioner, and not on her part.32
to monitor her husband’s
whereabouts.30 In addition, respondent
presented Dr. Antonio Efren Reyes
(7) She belied the allegation (Dr. Reyes), a psychiatrist, to
that she spent lavishly as she refute the allegations anent her
supported almost ten people from psychological condition. Dr. Reyes
her monthly budget of testified that the series of tests
P7,000.00.31 conducted by his assistant,33
together with the screening
In fine, respondent argued that procedures and the
apart from her non-disclosure of a Comprehensive Psycho-
child prior to their marriage, the Pathological Rating Scale (CPRS)
other lies attributed to her by he himself conducted, led him to
petitioner were mostly hearsay conclude that respondent was not
and unconvincing. Her stance was psychologically incapacitated to
that the totality of the evidence perform the essential marital
presented is not sufficient for a obligations. He postulated that
regressive behavior, gross
neuroticism, psychotic tendencies, After trial, the lower court gave
and poor control of impulses, credence to petitioner’s evidence
which are signs that might point to and held that respondent’s
the presence of disabling trends, propensity to lying about almost
were not elicited from anything−her occupation, state of
respondent.34 health, singing abilities and her
income, among others−had been
In rebuttal, Dr. Lopez duly established. According to the
asseverated that there were flaws trial court, respondent’s fantastic
in the evaluation conducted by Dr. ability to invent and fabricate
Reyes as (i) he was not the one stories and personalities enabled
who administered and interpreted her to live in a world of make-
respondent’s psychological believe. This made her
evaluation, and (ii) he made use of psychologically incapacitated as it
only one instrument called CPRS rendered her incapable of giving
which was not reliable because a meaning and significance to her
good liar can fake the results of marriage.36 The trial court thus
such test.35 declared the marriage between
petitioner and respondent null and
void.
 upheld by the Roman Rota of the
Shortly before the trial court Vatican.39
rendered its decision, the
Metropolitan Tribunal of the Petitioner duly alerted the Court
Archdiocese of Manila annulled the of Appeals of these rulings by the
Catholic marriage of the parties, Catholic tribunals. Still, the
on the ground of lack of due appellate court reversed the RTC’s
discretion on the part of the judgment. While conceding that
parties.37 During the pendency of respondent may not have been
the appeal before the Court of completely honest with petitioner,
Appeals, the Metropolitan the Court of Appeals nevertheless
Tribunal’s ruling was affirmed with held that the totality of the
modification by both the National evidence presented was
Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal, insufficient to establish
which held instead that only respondent’s psychological
respondent was impaired by a lack incapacity. It declared that the
of due discretion.38 Subsequently, requirements in the case of
the decision of the National Republic v. Court of Appeals40
Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal was governing the application and
interpretation of psychological respect from the appellate courts
incapacity had not been satisfied. because the trial court had an
opportunity to observe the
Taking exception to the demeanor of witnesses while
appellate court’s pronouncement, giving testimony which may
petitioner elevated the case to this indicate their candor or lack
Court. He contends herein that the thereof.42 The Court is likewise
evidence conclusively establish guided by the fact that the Court
respondent’s psychological of Appeals did not dispute the
incapacity. veracity of the evidence presented
by petitioner. Instead, the
In considering the merit of this appellate court concluded that
petition, the Court is heavily such evidence was not sufficient to
influenced by the credence establish the psychological
accorded by the RTC to the factual incapacity of respondent.43
allegations of petitioner.41 It is a
settled principle of civil procedure Thus, the Court is impelled to
that the conclusions of the trial accept the factual version of
court regarding the credibility of petitioner as the operative facts.
witnesses are entitled to great Still, the crucial question remains
as to whether the state of facts as Tsoi v. Court of Appeals,48
presented by petitioner sufficiently wherein the Court definitively
meets the standards set for the concluded that a spouse was
declaration of nullity of a marriage psychologically incapacitated under
under Article 36 of the Family Article 36.
Code. These standards were
definitively laid down in the Court’s This state of jurisprudential
1997 ruling in Republic v. Court of affairs may have led to the
Appeals44 (also known as the misperception that the remedy
Molina case45), and indeed the afforded by Article 36 of the
Court of Appeals cited the Molina Family Code is hollow, insofar as
guidelines in reversing the RTC in the Supreme Court is
the case at bar.46 Since Molina concerned.49 Yet what Molina and
was decided in 1997, the Supreme the succeeding cases did ordain
Court has yet to squarely affirm was a set of guidelines which,
the declaration of nullity of while undoubtedly onerous on the
marriage under Article 36 of the petitioner seeking the declaration
Family Code.47 In fact, even of nullity, still leave room for a
before Molina was handed down, decree of nullity under the proper
there was only one case, Chi Ming circumstances. Molina did not
foreclose the grant of a decree of although mental incapacity has
nullity under Article 36, even as it long been recognized as a ground
raised the bar for its allowance. for the dissolution of a marriage.

Legal Guides to Understanding The Spanish Civil Code of 1889

Article 36 prohibited from contracting
marriage persons "who are not in
Article 36 of the Family Code the full enjoyment of their reason
states that "[a] marriage at the time of contracting
contracted by any party who, at marriage."51 Marriages with such
the time of the celebration, was persons were ordained as void,52
psychologically incapacitated to in the same class as marriages
comply with the essential marital with underage parties and persons
obligations of marriage, shall already married, among others. A
likewise be void even if such party’s mental capacity was not a
incapacity becomes manifest only ground for divorce under the
after its solemnization."50 The Divorce Law of 1917,53 but a
concept of psychological incapacity marriage where "either party was
as a ground for nullity of marriage of unsound mind" at the time of its
is novel in our body of laws, celebration was cited as an
"annullable marriage" under the
Marriage Law of 1929.54 Divorce Such cause for the annulment
on the ground of a spouse’s of marriage is recognized as a vice
incurable insanity was permitted of consent, just like insanity
under the divorce law enacted impinges on consent freely given
during the Japanese occupation.55 which is one of the essential
Upon the enactment of the Civil requisites of a contract.59 The
Code in 1950, a marriage initial common consensus on
contracted by a party of "unsound psychological incapacity under
mind" was classified under Article Article 36 of the Family Code was
85 of the Civil Code as a voidable that it did not constitute a specie
marriage.56 The mental capacity, of vice of consent. Justices
or lack thereof, of the marrying Sempio-Diy and Caguioa, both
spouse was not among the members of the Family Code
grounds for declaring a marriage revision committee that drafted
void ab initio.57 Similarly, among the Code, have opined that
the marriages classified as psychological incapacity is not a
voidable under Article 45 (2) of the vice of consent, and conceded that
Family Code is one contracted by a the spouse may have given free
party of unsound mind.58 and voluntary consent to a
marriage but was nonetheless consummating the marriage,
incapable of fulfilling such rights which makes the marriage only
and obligations.60 Dr. Tolentino voidable under Article 45 (5) of the
likewise stated in the 1990 edition Civil Code x x x [and thus] should
of his commentaries on the Family have been a cause for annulment
Code that this "psychological of the marriage only."62 At the
incapacity to comply with the same time, Tolentino noted "[it]
essential marital obligations does would be different if it were
not affect the consent to the psychological incapacity to
marriage."61 understand the essential marital
obligations, because then this
There were initial criticisms of would amount to lack of consent
this original understanding of to the marriage."63 These
Article 36 as phrased by the Family concerns though were answered,
Code committee. Tolentino opined beginning with Santos v. Court of
that "psychologically incapacity to Appeals,64 wherein the Court,
comply would not be through Justice Vitug,
acknowledged that "psychological
juridically different from incapacity should refer to no less
physical incapacity of than a mental (not physical)
incapacity that causes a party to psychically ill to such extent that
be truly incognitive of the basic the person could not have known
marital covenants that the obligations he was assuming,
concomitantly must be assumed or knowing them, could not have
and discharged by the parties to given valid assumption thereto."67
the marriage."65 Jurisprudence since then has
recognized that psychological
The notion that psychological incapacity "is a malady so grave
incapacity pertains to the inability and permanent as to deprive one
to understand the obligations of of awareness of the duties and
marriage, as opposed to a mere responsibilities of the matrimonial
inability to comply with them, was bond one is about to assume."68
further affirmed in the Molina66
case. Therein, the Court, through It might seem that this present
then Justice (now Chief Justice) understanding of psychological
Panganiban observed that "[t]he incapacity deviates from the literal
evidence [to establish wording of Article 36, with its
psychological incapacity] must central phase reading
convince the court that the parties, "psychologically incapacitated to
or one of them, was mentally or comply
 decisions of church tribunals
with the essential marital which, although not binding on
obligations of marriage."69 At the
same time, it has been the civil courts, may be given
consistently recognized by this persuasive effect since the
Court that the intent of the Family provision was taken from Canon
Code committee was to design the Law."70
law as to allow some resiliency in
its application, by avoiding specific We likewise observed in
examples that would limit the Republic v. Dagdag:71
applicability of the provision under
the principle of ejusdem generis. Whether or not psychological
Rather, the preference of the incapacity exists in a given case
revision committee was for "the calling for annulment of a
judge to interpret the provision on marriage, depends crucially, more
a case-to-case basis, guided by than in any field of the law, on the
experience, in the findings of facts of the case. Each case must
experts and researchers in be judged, not on the basis of a
psychological disciplines, and by priori assumptions, predilections or
generalizations but according to its
own facts. In regard to account the particulars of each
psychological incapacity as a case, current trends in
ground for annulment of marriage, psychological and even canonical
it is trite to say that no case is on thought, and experience. It is
"all fours" with another case. The under the auspices of the
trial judge must take pains in deliberate ambiguity of the
examining the factual milieu and framers that the Court has
the appellate court must, as much developed the Molina rules, which
as possible, avoid substituting its have been consistently applied
own judgment for that of the trial since 1997. Molina has proven
court.72 indubitably useful in providing a
unitary framework that guides
The Court thus acknowledges courts in adjudicating petitions for
that the definition of psychological declaration of nullity under Article
incapacity, as intended by the 36. At the same time, the Molina
revision committee, was not cast guidelines are not set in stone, the
in intractable specifics. Judicial clear legislative intent mandating a
understanding of psychological case-to-case perception of each
incapacity may be informed by situation, and Molina itself arising
evolving standards, taking into from this evolutionary
understanding of Article 36. There concept of psychological incapacity
is no cause to disavow Molina at was derived from canon law,73
present, and indeed the disposition and as one member admitted,
of this case shall rely primarily on enacted as a solution to the
that precedent. There is need problem of marriages already
though to emphasize other annulled by the Catholic Church
perspectives as well which should but still existent under civil law.74
govern the disposition of petitions It would be disingenuous to
for declaration of nullity under disregard the influence of Catholic
Article 36. Church doctrine in the formulation
and subsequent understanding of
Of particular notice has been Article 36, and the Court has
the citation of the Court, first in expressly acknowledged that
Santos then in Molina, of the interpretations given by the
considered opinion of canon law National Appellate Matrimonial
experts in the interpretation of Tribunal of the local Church, while
psychological incapacity. This is not controlling or decisive, should
but unavoidable, considering that be given great respect by our
the Family Code committee had courts.75 Still, it must be
bluntly acknowledged that the emphasized that the Catholic
Church is hardly the sole source of declaration of nullity under Article
influence in the interpretation of 36. All too frequently, this Court
Article 36. Even though the and lower courts, in denying
concept may have been derived petitions of the kind, have
from canon law, its incorporation favorably cited Sections 1 and 2,
into the Family Code and Article XV of the Constitution,
subsequent judicial interpretation which respectively state that "[t]he
occurred in wholly secular State recognizes the Filipino family
progression. Indeed, while Church as the foundation of the nation.
thought on psychological Accordingly, it shall strengthen its
incapacity is merely persuasive on solidarity and actively promote its
the trial courts, judicial decisions total developmen[t]," and that
of this Court interpreting "[m]arriage, as an inviolable social
psychological incapacity are institution, is the foundation of the
binding on lower courts.76 family and shall be protected by
the State." These provisions
Now is also opportune time to highlight the importance of the
comment on another common family and the constitutional
legal guide utilized in the protection accorded to the
adjudication of petitions for institution of marriage.
 and the family. This has been
But the Constitution itself does accomplished at present through
not establish the parameters of the enactment of the Family Code,
state protection to marriage as a which defines marriage and the
social institution and the family, spells out the
foundation of the family. It corresponding legal effects,
remains the province of the imposes the limitations that affect
legislature to define all legal married and family life, as well as
aspects of marriage and prescribe prescribes the grounds for
the strategy and the modalities to declaration of nullity and those for
protect it, based on whatever legal separation. While it may
socio-political influences it deems appear that the judicial denial of a
proper, and subject of course to petition for declaration of nullity is
the qualification that such reflective of the constitutional
legislative enactment itself adheres mandate to protect marriage, such
to the Constitution and the Bill of action in fact merely enforces a
Rights. This being the case, it also statutory definition of marriage,
falls on the legislature to put into not a constitutionally ordained
operation the constitutional decree of what marriage is.
provisions that protect marriage Indeed, if circumstances warrant,
Sections 1 and 2 of Article XV need Void ab initio marriages under
not be the only constitutional Article 36 do not further the
considerations to be taken into initiatives of the State concerning
account in resolving a petition for marriage and family, as they
declaration of nullity. promote wedlock among persons
who, for reasons independent of
Indeed, Article 36 of the Family their will, are not capacitated to
Code, in classifying marriages understand or comply with the
contracted by a psychologically essential obligations of marriage.
incapacitated person as a nullity,
should be deemed as an These are the legal premises
implement of this constitutional that inform us as we decide the
protection of marriage. Given the present petition.
avowed State interest in promoting
marriage as the foundation of the Molina Guidelines As Applied in
family, which in turn serves as the This Case
foundation of the nation, there is a
corresponding interest for the As stated earlier, Molina
State to defend against marriages established the guidelines
ill-equipped to promote family life. presently recognized in the judicial
disposition of petitions for nullity Article on the Family, recognizing it
under Article 36. The Court has "as the foundation of the nation."
consistently applied Molina since It decrees marriage as legally
its promulgation in 1997, and the "inviolable," thereby protecting it
guidelines therein operate as the from dissolution at the whim of the
general rules. They warrant parties. Both the family and
citation in full: marriage are to be "protected"’ by
the state.
1) The burden of proof to show
the nullity of the marriage belongs The Family Code echoes this
to the plaintiff. Any doubt should constitutional edict on marriage
be resolved in favor of the and the family and emphasizes
existence and continuation of the their permanence, inviolability and
marriage and against its solidarity.
dissolution and nullity. This is
rooted in the fact that both our 2) The root cause of the
Constitution and our laws cherish psychological incapacity must be:
the validity of marriage and unity (a) medically or clinically identified,
of the family. Thus, our (b) alleged in the complaint, (c)
Constitution devotes an entire sufficiently proven by experts and
(d) clearly explained in the be identified as a psychological
decision. Article 36 of the Family illness and its incapacitating nature
Code requires that the incapacity fully explained. Expert evidence
must be psychological–not may be given by qualified
physical, although its psychiatrists and clinical
manifestations and/or symptoms psychologists.
may be physical. The evidence
must convince the court that the 3) The incapacity must be
parties, or one of them, was proven to be existing at "the time
mentally or psychically ill to such of the celebration" of the
an extent that the person could marriage. The evidence must show
not have known the obligations he that the illness was existing when
was assuming, or knowing them, the parties exchanged their "I
could not have given valid do’s." The manifestation of the
assumption thereof. Although no illness need not be perceivable at
example of such incapacity need such time, but the illness itself
be given here so as not to limit the must have attached at such
application of the provision under moment, or prior thereto.
the principle of ejusdem generis,
nevertheless such root cause must
 4) Such incapacity must also be raise his/her own children as an
shown to be medically or clinically essential obligation of marriage.
permanent or incurable. Such
incurability may be absolute or 5) Such illness must be grave
even relative only in regard to the enough to bring about the
other spouse, not necessarily disability of the party to assume
absolutely against everyone of the the essential obligations of
same sex. Furthermore, such marriage. Thus, "mild
incapacity must be relevant to the characteriological peculiarities,
assumption of marriage mood changes, occasional
obligations, not necessarily to emotional outbursts" cannot be
those not related to marriage, like accepted as root causes. The
the exercise of a profession or illness must be shown as
employment in a job. Hence, a downright incapacity or inability,
pediatrician may be effective in not a refusal, neglect or difficulty,
diagnosing illnesses of children much less ill will. In other words,
and prescribing medicine to cure there is a natal or supervening
them but not be psychologically disabling factor in the person, an
capacitated to procreate, bear and adverse integral element in the
personality structure that
effectively incapacitates the person Tribunal of the Catholic Church in
from really accepting and thereby the Philippines, while not
complying with the obligations controlling or decisive, should be
essential to marriage. given great respect by our courts.
It is clear that Article 36 was taken
6) The essential marital by the Family Code Revision
obligations must be those Committee from Canon 1095 of
embraced by Articles 68 up to 71 the New Code of Canon Law,
of the Family Code as regards the which became effective in 1983
husband and wife as well as and which provides:
Articles 220, 221 and 225 of the
same Code in regard to parents "The following are incapable of
and their children. Such non- contracting marriage: Those who
complied marital obligation(s) are unable to assume the essential
must also be stated in the petition, obligations of marriage due to
proven by evidence and included causes of psychological nature."
in the text of the decision.
Since the purpose of including
7) Interpretations given by the such provision in our Family Code
National Appellate Matrimonial is to harmonize our civil laws with
the religious faith of our people, it of Void Marriages and Annulment
stands to reason that to achieve of Voidable Marriages.79 Still,
such harmonization, great Article 48 of the Family Code
persuasive weight should be given mandates that the appearance of
to decisions of such appellate the prosecuting attorney or fiscal
tribunal. Ideally—subject to our assigned be on behalf of the State
law on evidence—what is decreed to take steps to prevent collusion
as canonically invalid should also between the parties and to take
be decreed civilly void.77 care that evidence is not
fabricated or suppressed.
Molina had provided for an Obviously, collusion is not an issue
additional requirement that the in this case, considering the
Solicitor General issue a consistent vigorous opposition of
certification stating his reasons for respondent to the petition for
his agreement or opposition to the declaration of nullity. In any event,
petition.78 This requirement the fiscal’s participation in the
however was dispensed with hearings before the trial court is
following the implementation of extant from the records of this
A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC, or the Rule case.
on Declaration of Absolute Nullity
 As earlier noted, the factual We find that the present case
findings of the RTC are now sufficiently satisfies the guidelines
deemed binding on this Court, in Molina.
owing to the great weight
accorded to the opinion of the First. Petitioner had sufficiently
primary trier of facts, and the overcome his burden in proving
refusal of the Court of Appeals to the psychological incapacity of his
dispute the veracity of these facts. spouse. Apart from his own
As such, it must be considered testimony, he presented witnesses
that respondent had consistently who corroborated his allegations
lied about many material aspects on his wife’s behavior, and
as to her character and certifications from Blackgold
personality. The question remains Records and the Philippine Village
whether her pattern of fabrication Hotel Pavillon which disputed
sufficiently establishes her respondent’s claims pertinent to
psychological incapacity, her alleged singing career. He also
consistent with Article 36 and presented two (2) expert
generally, the Molina guidelines. witnesses from the field of
psychology who testified that the
aberrant behavior of respondent
was tantamount to psychological requires the participation of the
incapacity. In any event, both State, through the prosecuting
courts below considered attorney, fiscal, or Solicitor
petitioner’s evidence as credible General, to take steps to prevent
enough. Even the appellate court collusion between the parties and
acknowledged that respondent to take care that evidence is not
was not totally honest with fabricated or suppressed. Thus,
petitioner.80 even if the petitioner is able
establish the psychological
As in all civil matters, the incapacity of respondent with
petitioner in an action for preponderant evidence, any
declaration of nullity under Article finding of collusion among the
36 must be able to establish the parties would necessarily negate
cause of action with a such proofs.
preponderance of evidence.
However, since the action cannot Second. The root cause of
be considered as a non-public respondent’s psychological
matter between private parties, incapacity has been medically or
but is impressed with State clinically identified, alleged in the
interest, the Family Code likewise complaint, sufficiently proven by
experts, and clearly explained in presented two (2) such witnesses
the trial court’s decision. The in particular. Dr. Abcede, a
initiatory complaint alleged that psychiatrist who had headed the
respondent, from the start, had department of psychiatry of at
exhibited unusual and abnormal least two (2) major hospitals,82
behavior "of peren[n]ially telling testified as follows:
lies, fabricating ridiculous stories,
and inventing personalities and WITNESS:
situations," of writing letters to
petitioner using fictitious names, Given that as a fact, which is
and of lying about her actual only based on the affidavit
occupation, income, educational provided to me, I can say that
attainment, and family there are a couple of things that
background, among others.81 [are] terribly wrong with the
standards. There are a couple of
These allegations, initially things that seems (sic) to be
characterized in generalities, were repeated over and over again in
further linked to medical or clinical the affidavit. One of which is the
causes by expert witnesses from persistent, constant and repeated
the field of psychology. Petitioner lying of the "respondent"; which, I
think, based on assessment of communication between
normal behavior of an individual, is individuals and what we generally
abnormal or pathological. x x x communicate are our thoughts and
feelings. But then when one talks
ATTY. RAZ: (Back to the and expresse[s] their feelings,
witness) [you] are expected to tell the
truth. And therefore, if you
Q- Would you say then, Mr. constantly lie, what do you think is
witness, that because of these going to happen as far as this
actuations of the respondent she is relationship is concerned.
then incapable of performing the Therefore, it undermines that basic
basic obligations of her marriage? relationship that should be based
on love, trust and respect.
A- Well, persistent lying violates
the respect that one owes towards Q- Would you say then, Mr.
another. The lack of concern, the witness, that due to the behavior
lack of love towards the person, of the respondent in constantly
and it is also something that lying and fabricating stories, she is
endangers human relationship. then incapable of performing the
You see, relationship is based on basic obligations of the marriage?
 A- If an individual is jealous
xxx enough to the point that he is
paranoid, which means that there
ATTY. RAZ: (Back to the is no actual basis on her suspect
witness) (sic) that her husband is having an
affair with a woman, if carried on
Q- Mr. witness, based on the to the extreme, then that is
testimony of Mr. Levy Mendoza, pathological. That is not abnormal.
who is the third witness for the We all feel jealous, in the same
petitioner, testified that the way as we also lie every now and
respondent has been calling up the then; but everything that is carried
petitioner’s officemates and ask out in extreme is abnormal or
him (sic) on the activities of the pathological. If there is no basis in
petitioner and ask him on the reality to the fact that the husband
behavior of the petitioner. And this is having an affair with another
is specifically stated on page six woman and if she persistently
(6) of the transcript of believes that the husband is
stenographic notes, what can you having an affair with different
say about this, Mr. witness? women, then that is pathological
and we call that paranoid jealousy.
 These two witnesses based
Q- Now, if a person is in their conclusions of psychological
paranoid jealousy, would she be incapacity on the case record,
considered psychologically particularly the trial transcripts of
incapacitated to perform the basic respondent’s testimony, as well as
obligations of the marriage? the supporting affidavits of
petitioner. While these witnesses
A- Yes, Ma’am.83 did not personally examine
respondent, the Court had already
The other witness, Dr. Lopez, held in Marcos v. Marcos85 that
was presented to establish not personal examination of the
only the psychological incapacity subject by the physician is not
of respondent, but also the required for the spouse to be
psychological capacity of declared psychologically
petitioner. He concluded that incapacitated.86 We deem the
respondent "is [a] pathological liar, methodology utilized by
that [she continues] to lie [and] petitioner’s witnesses as sufficient
she loves to fabricate about basis for their medical conclusions.
herself."84 Admittedly, Drs. Abcede and
Lopez’s common conclusion of
respondent’s psychological respondent is psychologically
incapacity hinged heavily on their incapacitated to perform the
own acceptance of petitioner’s essential obligations of marriage.
version as the true set of facts. It has been shown clearly from her
However, since the trial court itself actuations that respondent has
accepted the veracity of that propensity for telling lies
petitioner’s factual premises, there about almost anything, be it her
is no cause to dispute the occupation, her state of health,
conclusion of psychological her singing abilities, her income,
incapacity drawn therefrom by etc. She has this fantastic ability to
petitioner’s expert witnesses. invent and fabricate stories and
personalities. She practically lived
Also, with the totality of the in a world of make believe making
evidence presented as basis, the her therefore not in a position to
trial court explicated its finding of give meaning and significance to
psychological incapacity in its her marriage to petitioner. In
decision in this wise: persistently and constantly lying to
petitioner, respondent undermined
To the mind of the Court, all of the basic tenets of relationship
the above are indications that between spouses that is based on
love, trust and respect. As
concluded by the psychiatrist Fourth. The gravity of
presented by petitioner, such respondent’s psychological
repeated lying is abnormal and incapacity is sufficient to prove her
pathological and amounts to disability to assume the essential
psychological incapacity.87 obligations of marriage. It is
immediately discernible that the
Third. Respondent’s parties had shared only a little
psychological incapacity was over a year of cohabitation before
established to have clearly existed the exasperated petitioner left his
at the time of and even before the wife. Whatever such circumstance
celebration of marriage. She speaks of the degree of tolerance
fabricated friends and made up of petitioner, it likewise supports
letters from fictitious characters the belief that respondent’s
well before she married petitioner. psychological incapacity, as borne
Likewise, she kept petitioner in the by the record, was so grave in
dark about her natural child’s real extent that any prolonged marital
parentage as she only confessed life was dubitable.
when the latter had found out the
truth after their marriage.
 It should be noted that the lies comprehend the legal nature of
attributed to respondent were not the marital bond, much less its
adopted as false pretenses in psychic meaning, and the
order to induce petitioner into corresponding obligations attached
marriage. More disturbingly, they to marriage, including parenting.
indicate a failure on the part of One unable to adhere to reality
respondent to distinguish truth cannot be expected to adhere as
from fiction, or at least abide by well to any legal or emotional
the truth. Petitioner’s witnesses commitments.
and the trial court were emphatic
on respondent’s inveterate The Court of Appeals somehow
proclivity to telling lies and the concluded that since respondent
pathologic nature of her mistruths, allegedly tried her best to effect a
which according to them, were reconciliation, she had amply
revelatory of respondent’s inability exhibited her ability to perform her
to understand and perform the marital obligations. We are not
essential obligations of marriage. convinced. Given the nature of her
Indeed, a person unable to psychological condition, her
distinguish between fantasy and willingness to remain in the
reality would similarly be unable to marriage hardly banishes nay
extenuates her lack of capacity to circumstances constituting fraud
fulfill the essential marital under the previous article, clarifies
obligations. Respondent’s ability to that "no other misrepresentation
even comprehend what the or deceit as to character, health,
essential marital obligations are is rank, fortune or chastity shall
impaired at best. Considering that constitute such fraud as will give
the evidence convincingly disputes grounds for action for the
respondent’s ability to adhere to annulment of marriage." It would
the truth, her avowals as to her be improper to draw linkages
commitment to the marriage between misrepresentations made
cannot be accorded much by respondent and the
credence. misrepresentations under Articles
45 (3) and 46. The fraud under
At this point, it is worth Article 45(3) vitiates the consent of
considering Article 45(3) of the the spouse who is lied to, and
Family Code which states that a does not allude to vitiated consent
marriage may be annulled if the of the lying spouse. In this case,
consent of either party was the misrepresentations of
obtained by fraud, and Article 46 respondent point to her own
which enumerates the inadequacy to cope with her
marital obligations, kindred to Sixth. The Court of Appeals
psychological incapacity under clearly erred when it failed to take
Article 36. into consideration the fact that the
marriage of the parties was
Fifth. Respondent is evidently annulled by the Catholic Church.
unable to comply with the The appellate court apparently
essential marital obligations as deemed this detail totally
embraced by Articles 68 to 71 of inconsequential as no reference
the Family Code. Article 68, in was made to it anywhere in the
particular, enjoins the spouses to assailed decision despite
live together, observe mutual love, petitioner’s efforts to bring the
respect and fidelity, and render matter to its attention.88 Such
mutual help and support. As noted deliberate ignorance is in
by the trial court, it is difficult to contravention of Molina, which
see how an inveterate pathological held that interpretations given by
liar would be able to commit to the the National Appellate Matrimonial
basic tenets of relationship Tribunal of the Catholic Church in
between spouses based on love, the Philippines, while not
trust and respect. controlling or decisive, should be
given great respect by our courts.
 As noted earlier, the In its Decision dated 4 June
Metropolitan Tribunal of the 1995, the National Appellate
Archdiocese of Manila decreed the Matrimonial Tribunal pronounced:
invalidity of the marriage in
question in a Conclusion89 dated The JURISRPRUDENCE in the
30 March 1995, citing the "lack of Case maintains that matrimonial
due discretion" on the part of consent is considered ontologically
respondent.90 Such decree of defective and wherefore judicially
nullity was affirmed by both the ineffective when elicited by a Part
National Appellate Matrimonial Contractant in possession and
Tribunal,91 and the Roman Rota employ of a discretionary
of the Vatican.92 In fact, judgment faculty with a perceptive
respondent’s psychological vigor markedly inadequate for the
incapacity was considered so grave practical understanding of the
that a restrictive clause93 was conjugal Covenant or serious
appended to the sentence of impaired from the correct
nullity prohibiting respondent from appreciation of the integral
contracting another marriage significance and implications of the
without the Tribunal’s consent. marriage vows.
 practico-concrete judgment
The FACTS in the Case formation on account of an
sufficiently prove with the adverse action and reaction
certitude required by law that pattern, the Respondent was
based on the depositions of the impaired from eliciting a judicially
Partes in Causa and premised on binding matrimonial consent.
the testimonies of the Common There is no sufficient evidence in
and Expert Witnesse[s], the the Case however to prove as well
Respondent made the marriage the fact of grave lack of due
option in tenure of adverse discretion on the part of the
personality constracts that were Petitioner.94
markedly antithetical to the
substantive content and Evidently, the conclusion of
implications of the Marriage psychological incapacity was
Covenant, and that seriously arrived at not only by the trial
undermined the integrality of her court, but also by canonical
matrimonial consent in terms of its bodies. Yet, we must clarify the
deliberative component. In other proper import of the Church
words, afflicted with a rulings annulling the marriage in
discretionary faculty impaired in its this case. They hold sway since
they are drawn from a similar incapacity be shown to be
recognition, as the trial court, of medically or clinically permanent
the veracity of petitioner’s or incurable. It was on this score
allegations. Had the trial court that the Court of Appeals reversed
instead appreciated respondent’s the judgment of the trial court, the
version as correct, and the appellate court noting that it did
appellate court affirmed such not appear certain that
conclusion, the rulings of the respondent’s condition was
Catholic Church on this matter incurable and that Dr. Abcede did
would have diminished persuasive not testify to such effect.95
value. After all, it is the factual
findings of the judicial trier of Petitioner points out that one
facts, and not that of the canonical month after he and his wife
courts, that are accorded initially separated, he returned to
significant recognition by this her, desiring to make their
Court. marriage work. However,
respondent’s aberrant behavior
Seventh. The final point of remained unchanged, as she
contention is the requirement in continued to lie, fabricate stories,
Molina that such psychological and maintained her excessive
jealousy. From this fact, he draws But on careful examination,
the conclusion that respondent’s there was good reason for the
condition is incurable. experts’ taciturnity on this point.

From the totality of the The petitioner’s expert

evidence, can it be definitively witnesses testified in 1994 and
concluded that respondent’s 1995, and the trial court rendered
condition is incurable? It would its decision on 10 August 1995.
seem, at least, that respondent’s These events transpired well
psychosis is quite grave, and a before Molina was promulgated in
cure thereof a remarkable feat. 1997 and made explicit the
Certainly, it would have been requirement that the psychological
easier had petitioner’s expert incapacity must be shown to be
witnesses characterized medically or clinically permanent
respondent’s condition as or incurable. Such requirement
incurable. Instead, they remained was not expressly stated in Article
silent on whether the psychological 36 or any other provision of the
incapacity was curable or Family Code.
incurable.
 On the other hand, the Court in incurability."100 However, in
Santos, which was decided in formulating the doctrinal rule on
January 1995, began its discussion psychological incapacity, the Court
by first citing the deliberations of in Santos omitted any reference to
the Family Code committee,96 incurability as a characteristic of
then the opinion of canonical psychological incapacity.101
scholars,97 before arriving at its
formulation of the doctrinal This disquisition is material as
definition of psychological Santos was decided months before
incapacity.98 Santos did refer to the trial court came out with its
Justice Caguioa’s opinion own ruling that remained silent on
expressed during the deliberations whether respondent’s
that "psychological incapacity is psychological incapacity was
incurable,"99 and the view of a incurable. Certainly, Santos did not
former presiding judge of the clearly mandate that the
Metropolitan Marriage Tribunal of incurability of the psychological
the Archdiocese of Manila that incapacity be established in an
psychological incapacity must be action for declaration of nullity. At
characterized "by (a) gravity, (b) least, there was no jurisprudential
juridical antecedence, and (c) clarity at the time of the trial of
this case and the subsequent present case from utterly practical
promulgation of the trial court’s considerations. The requirement
decision that required a medical that psychological incapacity must
finding of incurability. Such be shown to be medically or
requisite arose only with Molina in clinically permanent or incurable is
1997, at a time when this case one that necessarily cannot be
was on appellate review, or after divined without expert opinion.
the reception of evidence. Clearly in this case, there was no
categorical averment from the
We are aware that in Pesca v. expert witnesses that respondent’s
Pesca,102 the Court countered an psychological incapacity was
argument that Molina and Santos curable or incurable simply
should not apply retroactively because there was no legal
necessity yet to elicit such a
with the observation that the declaration and the appropriate
interpretation or construction question was not accordingly
placed by the courts of a law propounded to him. If we apply
constitutes a part of that law as of Pesca without deep reflection,
the date the statute in there would be undue prejudice to
enacted.103 Yet we approach this those cases tried before Molina or
Santos, especially those presently diagnosis of incurability, since the
on appellate review, where parties would have had no
presumably the respective impelling cause to present
petitioners and their expert evidence to that effect at the time
witnesses would not have seen the this case was tried by the RTC
need to adduce a diagnosis of more than ten (10) years ago.
incurability. It may hold in those From the totality of the evidence,
cases, as in this case, that the we are sufficiently convinced that
psychological incapacity of a the incurability of respondent’s
spouse is actually incurable, even psychological incapacity has been
if not pronounced as such at the established by the petitioner. Any
trial court level. lingering doubts are further
dispelled by the fact that the
We stated earlier that Molina is Catholic Church tribunals, which
not set in stone, and that the indubitably consider incurability as
interpretation of Article 36 relies an integral requisite of
heavily on a case-to-case psychological incapacity, were
perception. It would be insensate sufficiently convinced that
to reason to mandate in this case respondent was so incapacitated
an expert medical or clinical
to contract marriage to the degree petition for nullity. In fact, the
that annulment was warranted. appellate court placed undue
emphasis on respondent’s avowed
All told, we conclude that commitment to remain in the
petitioner has established his marriage. Yet the Court decides
cause of action for declaration of these cases on legal reasons and
nullity under Article 36 of the not vapid sentimentality. Marriage,
Family Code. The RTC correctly in legal contemplation, is more
ruled, and the Court of Appeals than the legitimatization of a
erred in reversing the trial court. desire of people in love to live
together.
There is little relish in deciding
this present petition, pronouncing WHEREFORE, the petition is
as it does the marital bond as GRANTED. The decision of the RTC
having been inexistent in the first dated 10 August 1995, declaring
place. It is possible that the marriage between petitioner
respondent, despite her and respondent NULL and VOID
psychological state, remains in under Article 36 of the Family
love with petitioner, as exhibited Code, is REINSTATED. No costs.
by her persistent challenge to the
 SO ORDERED. case was assigned to the writer of
the opinion of the Court’s Division.
DANTE O. TINGA
Associate Justice LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR: Chairman, Third Division

LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING CERTIFICATION

Associate Justice
Chairman Pursuant to Section 13, Article
ANTONIO T. CARPIO VIII of the Constitution, and the
Associate Justice CONCHITA Attestation by the Division’s
CARPIO MORALES Chairman, it is hereby certified
Asscociate Justice that the conclusions in the above
Decision had been reached in
ATTESTATION consultation before the case was
assigned to the writer of the
I attest that the conclusions in opinion of the Court’s Division.
the above Decision had been
reached in consultation before the ARTEMIO V. PANGANIBAN
 Chief Justice
5 Solemnized by the Parish
Footnotes Priest, Rev. Fr. Rodolfo Aguirre
Gallardo.
1 Penned by Associate Justice
Ruben T. Reyes, concurred in by 6 Rollo, pp. 69, 91.
Associate Justices Renato C.
Dacudao and Mariano C. Del 7 Records, pp. 1-5.
Castillo; See rollo, pp. 67-84.
8 Id. at 1-2.
2 Rollo, p. 86.
9 Id. at 2-3. See also rollo, pp.
3 Penned by Judge (now 69, 91.
Associate Justice of the Court of
Appeals) Josefina Guevara- 10 Named Tito F. Reyes II, born
Salonga. on 21 January 1982.

4 Solemnized by Rev. Victor M. 11 Supra note 8.

Navarro, Minister of the PCCC, Las
Piñas, Metro Manila. 12 Rollo, pp. 69, 92.
 13 Id. at 70, 92. 22 Id. at 71-72, 92-93.

14 Id. at 95. 23 Id.

15 Supra note 13. 24 Id. at 93.

16 Id. at 70, 92. 25 Id. at 74, 94.

17 TSN, 8 September 1993, p. 26 Id.

12.
27 Id. at 73, 93.
18 Id. at 12-13. See also
records, p. 91. 28 Id.

19 Rollo, pp. 71, 92. 29 Id.

20 Id.; records, p. 3. 30 Id. at 74, 94.

21 Rollo, pp. 71, 92. 31 Id. at 73, 94.

 41 Rollo, p. 95.
32 Id. at 77-78.
42 Limketkai Sons Milling, Inc.
33 Miss Francianina Sanches. v. Court of Appeals, 321 Phil. 105,
126 (1995), citing Serrano v. Court
34 Rollo, p. 94. of Appeals, 196 SCRA 107 (1991).

35 Id. at 72, 93; TSN, 23 March 43 Rollo, p. 82.

1995, pp. 15-17.
44 Supra note 40.
36 Rollo, pp. 95-96.
45 The petitioning spouse and
37 Id. at 97-98. co-respondent in the case being
Roridel O. Molina. Id.
38 Id. at pp. 99-100.
46 Rollo, p. 78.
39 Id. at 101-103.
47 There were two cases since
40 335 Phil. 664 (1997). 1997 wherein the Court did let
stand a lower court order declaring
as a nullity a marriage on the basis the Court did not review the
of Article 36. These cases are Sy v. finding of psychological incapacity.
Court of Appeals, 386 Phil. 760
(2000), and Buenaventura v. Court 48 334 Phil. 294 (1997).
of Appeals, G.R. Nos. 127358 &
127449, 31 March 2005, 454 SCRA 49 It does not escape this
261. However, in Sy, the Court Court’s attention that many lower
found that the marriage was void courts do grant petitions for
ab initio due to the lack of a declaration of nullity under Article
marriage license at the time the 36, and that these decisions are
marriage was solemnized, and not elevated for review to the
thus declined to pass upon the Supreme Court.
question of psychological
incapacity. In Buenaventura, since 50 See Family Code, Art. 36.
the parties chose not to challenge
the trial court’s conclusion of 51 Translated from the original
psychological incapacity and Spanish by Justice F.C. Fisher. See
instead raised questions on the F.C. Fisher, The Civil Code of Spain
award of damages and support, with Philippine Notes and
References 45 (Fifth Ed., 1947).
The original text of Article 83 (2) freely cohabited with the other as
of the Spanish Civil Code reads: husband or wife. See Civil Code,
"No pueden contraer matrimonio: Art. 85 (3).
x x x (2) Los que no estuvieren en
el pleno ejercicio du su razon al 57 See Civil Code, Art. 80.
tiempo de contraer matrimonio."
58 Subject to the same
52 See Spanish Civil Code. qualifications under Article 85 (3)
(1889) Art. 101. of the Civil Code. See note 56.

53 Act No. 2710 (1917). 59 See Civil Code, Art. 1327 (2)
in relation to Art. 1318 (1).
54 See Act No. 3613 (1929),
Sec. 30 (c) 60 See Santos v. Court of
Appeals, 310 Phil. 21, 32-33
55 See Executive Order No. 141 (1995). See also A. Sempio Diy,
(1943), Sec. 2 (5). Handbook on the Family Code of
the Philippines 37 (1988). A
56 Unless the party of unsound contrary view though was
mind, after coming to reason, expressed by Justice Ricardo Puno,
also a member of the Family Code most serious cases of personality
commission. See Santos v. Court disorders clearly demonstrative of
of Appeals, ibid. an utter insensitivity or inability to
give meaning and significance to
61 I A. Tolentino, Civil Code of marriage." Id.
the Philippines: Commentaries and
Jurisprudence 274-275 (1990 ed.). 66Supra note 40.

62 Id. 67 Id. at 677.

63 Id. at 274. 68 Marcos v. Marcos, 397 Phil.

840, 851 (2000).
64 Supra note 60.
69 It may be noted that a
65 Id. at 40, emphasis supplied. previous incarnation of Article 36,
The Court further added, "[t]here subsequently rejected by the
is hardly any doubt that the Family Code Commission, stated
intendment of the law has been to that among those void ab initio
confine the meaning of marriages are those "contracted by
‘psychological incapacity’ to the any party who, at the time of the
celebration, was wanting in the
sufficient use of reason or 71 G.R. No. 109975, 9 February
judgment to understand the 2001, 351 SCRA 425.
essential nature of marriage or
was psychologically or mentally 72 Id. at 431; citing Republic v.
incapacitated to discharge the Court of Appeals, 268 SCRA 198,
essential marital obligations, even 214 (1997), Padilla, J., Separate
if such lack of incapacity is made Statement.
manifest after the celebration."
See Santos v. Court of Appeals, 73 See Santos v. Court of
supra note 60, at 30. Appeals, supra note 60, at 32-39.

70 Salita v. Magtolis, G.R. No. 74 See Sempio-Diy, supra note

106429, 13 June 1994, 233 SCRA 60, at 36.
100, 107-108; citing A. Sempio-
Diy, supra note 60, at 37, 75 Republic v. Court of Appeals,
emphasis supplied. See also supra note 40, at 678.
Santos v. Court of Appeals, supra
note 60, at 36; Republic v. Court 76 Thus, Chi Ming Tsoi v. Court
of Appeals, supra note 40, at 677. of Appeals, supra note 48, wherein
the psychological incapacity of the
petitioner was recognized by the 81 Records, pp. 2-3.
Court from the fact that he did not
engage in sexual relations with his 82 University of Santo Tomas
wife during their ten (10) month Hospital and UERM Memorial
marital cohabitation, remains a Medical Center. Dr. Abcede
binding precedent, even though it likewise was the past president of
was decided shortly before the the Philippine Psychiatrist
Molina case. Association. TSN, February 23,
1994, p. 6.
77 Republic v. Court of Appeals,
supra note 40, at 676-680. 83 TSN, 23 February 1994, pp.
7-9, 11-12.
78 Id. at 680.
84 TSN, 23 March 1995, p. 12.
79 See Carating-Siayngco v.
Siayngco, G.R. No. 158896, 27 85397 Phil. 840 (2000).
October 2004, 441 SCRA 422, 435.
86 Id. at 850.
80 Rollo, p. 82.
 87 Rollo, pp. 95-96. sufficient evidence to prove lack of
due discretion on the part of
88 As shown by the Motion(s) petitioner. See also note 38.
for Early Resolution of the Case
filed by petitioner with the 91 Rollo, pp. 99-100.
canonical declarations attached as
annexes. 92 Id. at 101-103.

89 Id. at 97-98. 93 "A restrictive clause is

herewith attached to this sentence
90 The Metropolitan Tribunal of of nullity to the effect that the
the Archdiocese of Manila based respondent may not enter into
the decree of invalidity on the another marriage without the
ground of lack of due discretion on express consent of this Tribunal, in
the part of both parties. On deference to the sanctity and
appeal, however, the National dignity of the sacrament of
Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal matrimony, as well as for the
modified the judgment by holding protection of the intended
that lack of due discretion applied spouse."; rollo, p. 97.
to respondent but there was no
 94 Rollo, p. 99. Emphasis the Family Code Revision
supplied, citations omitted. Committee itself, that the use of
the phrase "psychological
95 Rollo, p. 82. incapacity" under Article 36 of the
Code has not been meant to
96 Santos v. Court of Appeals, comprehend all such possible
supra note 60, at 30-36. cases of psychoses as, likewise
mentioned by some ecclesiastical
97 Id. at 37-39. authorities, extremely low
intelligence, immaturity, and like
98 Id. at 39-40. circumstances (cited in Fr. Artemio
Baluma's "Void and Voidable
99 Id. at 33. Marriages in the Family Code and
their Parallels in Canon Law,"
100 Id. at 39. quoting from the Diagnostic
Statistical Manual of Mental
101 "It should be obvious, Disorder by the American
looking at all the foregoing Psychiatric Association; Edward
disquisitions, including, and most Hudson's "Handbook II for
importantly, the deliberations of Marriage Nullity Cases"). Article 36
of the Family Code cannot be intendment of the law has been to
taken and construed confine the meaning of
independently of but must stand in "psychological incapacity" to the
conjunction with, existing precepts most serious cases of personality
in our law on marriage. Thus disorders clearly demonstrative of
correlated, "psychological an utter intensitivity or inability to
incapacity" should refer to no less give meaning and significance to
than a mental (not physical) the marriage. This psychologic
incapacity that causes a party to condition must exist at the time
be truly incognitive of the basic the marriage is celebrated. The
marital covenants that law does not evidently envision,
concomitantly must be assumed upon the other hand, an inability
and discharged by the parties to of the spouse to have sexual
the marriage which, as so relations with the other. This
expressed by Article 68 of the conclusion is implicit under Article
Family Code, include their mutual 54 of the Family Code which
obligations to live together, considers children conceived prior
observe love, respect and fidelity to the judicial declaration of nullity
and render help and support. of the void marriage to be
There is hardly any doubt that the "legitimate."
 themselves, depending on the
"The other forms of psychoses, degree and severity of the
if existing at the inception of disorder, indicia of psychological
marriage, like the state of a party incapacity.
being of unsound mind or
concealment of drug addiction,
habitual alcoholism, homosexuality
or lesbianism, merely renders the
marriage contract voidable
pursuant to Article 46, Family
Code. If drug addiction, habitual
alcoholism, lesbianism or
homosexuality should occur only
during the marriage, they become
mere grounds for legal separation
under Article 55 of the Family
SECOND DIVISION
Code. These provisions of the
Code, however, do not necessarily
G.R. No. 185286
preclude the possibility of these
August 18, 2010
various circumstances being
 are none. On the other hand, blind
MA. SOCORRO CAMACHO- adherence by the courts to the
REYES, Petitioner, exhortation in the Constitution1
vs. and in our statutes that marriage
RAMON REYES, Respondent. is an inviolable social

DECISION institution, and validating a

marriage that is null and void
NACHURA, J.: despite convincing proof of
psychological incapacity, trenches
This case is, again, an instance on the very reason why a marriage
of the all-too-familiar tale of a that is doomed from its inception
marriage in disarray. should not be forcibly inflicted
upon its hapless partners for life.
In this regard, we air the caveat
that courts should be extra careful At bar is a petition for review on
before making a finding of certiorari assailing the decision of
psychological incapacity or the Court of Appeals in CA -G.R.
vicariously diagnosing personality CV No. 897612 which reversed the
disorders in spouses where there decision of the Regional Trial
Court, Branch 89, Quezon City in free spirited and bright, although
Civil Case No. Q-01-44854.3 he did not follow conventions and
traditions.4 Since both resided in
First, we unfurl the facts. Mandaluyong City, they saw each
other every day and drove home
Petitioner Maria Socorro together from the university.
Camacho-Reyes met respondent
Ramon Reyes at the University of Easily impressed, petitioner
the Philippines (UP), Diliman, in enjoyed respondent’s style of
1972 when they were both courtship which included dining
nineteen (19) years old. They were out, unlike other couples their age
simply classmates then in one who were restricted by a university
university subject when student’s budget. At that time,
respondent cross-enrolled from the respondent held a job in the family
UP Los Baños campus. The casual business, the Aristocrat
acquaintanceship quickly Restaurant. Petitioner’s good
developed into a boyfriend- impression of the respondent was
girlfriend relationship. Petitioner not diminished by the latter’s habit
was initially attracted to of cutting classes, not even by her
respondent who she thought was
discovery that respondent was Thereafter, the newlyweds lived
taking marijuana. with the respondent’s family in
Mandaluyong City. All living
Not surprisingly, only petitioner expenses were shouldered by
finished university studies, respondent’s parents, and the
obtaining a degree in AB Sociology couple’s respective salaries were
from the UP. By 1974, respondent spent solely for their personal
had dropped out of school on his needs. Initially, respondent gave
third year, and just continued to petitioner a monthly allowance of
work for the Aristocrat Restaurant. ₱1,500.00 from his salary.

On December 5, 1976, the year When their first child was born
following petitioner’s graduation on March 22, 1977, financial
and her father’s death, petitioner difficulties started. Rearing a child
and respondent got married. At entailed expenses. A year into
that time, petitioner was already their marriage, the monthly
five (5) months pregnant and allowance of ₱1,500.00 from
employed at the Population Center respondent stopped. Further,
Foundation. respondent no longer handed his
salary to petitioner. When
petitioner mustered enough separately from her in-laws.
courage to ask the respondent However, the new living
about this, the latter told her that arrangement engendered further
he had resigned due to slow financial difficulty. While petitioner
advancement within the family struggled to make ends meet as
business. Respondent’s game plan the single-income earner of the
was to venture into trading household, respondent’s business
seafood in the province, supplying floundered. Thereafter, another
hotels and restaurants, including attempt at business, a fishpond in
the Aristocrat Restaurant. Mindoro, was similarly
However, this new business took unsuccessful. Respondent gave
respondent away from his young money to petitioner sporadically.
family for days on end without any Compounding the family’s financial
communication. Petitioner simply woes and further straining the
endured the set up, hoping that parties’ relationship was the
the situation will change. indifferent attitude of respondent
towards his family. That his
To prod respondent into business took him away from his
assuming more responsibility, family did not seem to bother
petitioner suggested that they live respondent; he did not exert any
effort to remain in touch with Mindoro and he did not even
them while he was away in inquire on the health of either the
Mindoro. petitioner or the newborn. A week
later, respondent arrived in Manila,
After two (2) years of acting nonchalantly while playing
struggling, the spouses transferred with the baby, with nary an
residence and, this time, moved in attempt to find out how the
with petitioner’s mother. But the hospital bills were settled.
new set up did not end their
marital difficulties. In fact, the In 1989, due to financial
parties became more estranged. reverses, respondent’s fishpond
Petitioner continued to carry the business stopped operations.
burden of supporting a family not Although without any means to
just financially, but in most aspects support his family, respondent
as well. refused to go back to work for the
family business. Respondent came
In 1985, petitioner, who had up with another business venture,
previously suffered a miscarriage, engaging in scrap paper and
gave birth to their third son. At carton trading. As with all of
that time, respondent was in respondent’s business ventures,
this did not succeed and added to
the trail of debt which now One of the last episodes that
hounded not only respondent, but sealed the fate of the parties’
petitioner as well. Not surprisingly, marriage was a surgical operation
the relationship of the parties on petitioner for the removal of a
deteriorated. cyst. Although his wife was about
to be operated on, respondent
Sometime in 1996, petitioner remained unconcerned and
confirmed that respondent was unattentive; and simply read the
having an extra-marital affair. She newspaper, and played dumb
overheard respondent talking to when petitioner requested that he
his girlfriend, a former secretary, accompany her as she was
over the phone inquiring if the wheeled into the operating room.
latter liked respondent’s gift to After the operation, petitioner felt
her. Petitioner soon realized that that she had had enough of
respondent was not only unable to respondent’s lack of concern, and
provide financially for their family, asked her mother to order
but he was, more importantly, respondent to leave the recovery
remiss in his obligation to remain room.
faithful to her and their family.
 Still, petitioner made a string of respondent remained
"final" attempts to salvage what uncooperative.
was left of their marriage.
Petitioner approached In 1997, Adolfo brought
respondent’s siblings and asked respondent to Dr. Natividad A.
them to intervene, confessing that Dayan for a psychological
she was near the end of her rope. assessment to "determine
Yet, even respondent’s siblings benchmarks of current
waved the white flag on psychological functioning." As with
respondent. all other attempts to help him,
respondent resisted and did not
Adolfo Reyes, respondent’s continue with the clinical
elder brother, and his spouse, psychologist’s recommendation to
Peregrina, members of a marriage undergo psychotherapy.
encounter group, invited and
sponsored the parties to join the At about this time, petitioner,
group. The elder couple scheduled with the knowledge of
counseling sessions with petitioner respondent’s siblings, told
and respondent, but these did not respondent to move out of their
improve the parties’ relationship as
house. Respondent acquiesced to psychologically incapacitated.
give space to petitioner. Respondent maintained that he
was not remiss in performing his
With the de facto separation, obligations to his family—both as a
the relationship still did not spouse to petitioner and father to
improve. Neither did respondent’s their children.
relationship with his children.
After trial (where the
Finally, in 2001,5 petitioner filed testimonies of two clinical
(before the RTC) a petition for the psychologists, Dr. Dayan and Dr.
declaration of nullity of her Estrella Magno, and a psychiatrist,
marriage with the respondent, Dr. Cecilia Villegas, were
alleging the latter’s psychological presented in evidence), the RTC
incapacity to fulfill the essential granted the petition and declared
marital obligations under Article 36 the marriage between the parties
of the Family Code. null and void on the ground of
their psychological incapacity. The
Traversing the petition, trial court ruled, thus:
respondent denied petitioner’s
allegations that he was
 Wherefore, on the ground of MICHAEL CAMACHO REYES, who
psychological incapacity of both are already of age and have the
parties, the petition is GRANTED. full civil capacity and legal rights to
Accordingly, the marriage between decide for themselves having
petitioner MA. SOCORRO finished their studies, are free to
PERPETUA CAMACHO and decide for themselves.
respondent RAMON REYES
contracted on December 4, 1976 The Decision becomes final
at the Archbishop’s Chapel Villa upon the expiration of fifteen (15)
San Miguel Mandaluyong, Rizal, is days from notice to the parties.
declared null and void under Art. Entry of Judgment shall be made if
36 of the Family Code, as no Motion for Reconsideration or
amended. Henceforth, their New Trial or Appeal is filed by any
property relation is dissolved. of the parties, the Public
Prosecutor or the Solicitor General.
Parties are restored to their
single or unmarried status. Upon finality of this Decision,
the Court shall forthwith issue the
Their children JESUS TEODORO corresponding Decree if the parties
CAMACHO REYES and JOSEPH have no properties[.] [O]therwise,
the Court shall observe the Local Civil Registry of
procedure prescribed in Section 21 Mandaluyong and Quezon City.
of AM 02-11-10 SC.
Let [a] copy of this Decision be
The Decree of Nullity quoting furnished the parties, their
the dispositive portion of the counsel, the Office of the Solicitor
Decision (Sec. 22 AM 02-11-10 SC) General, the Public Prosecutor, the
shall be issued by the Court only Office of the Local Civil Registrar,
after compliance with Articles 50 & Mandaluyong City, the Office of
51 of the Family Code as the Local Civil Registrar, Quezon
implemented under the Rules on City and the Civil Registrar General
Liquidation, Partition and at their respective office
Distribution of Property (Sections addresses.
19 & 21, AM 02-11-10 SC) in a
situation where the parties have SO ORDERED.6
properties.
Finding no cogent reason to
The Entry of Judgment of this reverse its prior ruling, the trial
Decision shall be registered in the court, on motion for
reconsideration of the respondent,
affirmed the declaration of nullity GRANTED. The Decision dated
of the parties’ marriage. May 23, 2007 and Order dated
July 13, 2007 of the Regional Trial
Taking exception to the trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 89 in
court’s rulings, respondent Civil Case No. Q-01-44854 are
appealed to the Court of Appeals, REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The
adamant on the validity of his Amended Petition for Declaration
marriage to petitioner. The of Nullity of Marriage is hereby
appellate court, agreeing with the DISMISSED. No pronouncement as
respondent, reversed the RTC and to costs.7
declared the parties’ marriage as
valid and subsisting. Significantly, Undaunted by the setback,
a special division of five (two petitioner now appeals to this
members dissenting from the Court positing the following issues:
majority decision and voting to
affirm the decision of the RTC) I
ruled, thus:
THE COURT OF APPEALS
WHEREFORE, premises ERRED IN NOT RULING THAT
considered, the appeal is RESPONDENT IS
PSYCHOLOGICALLY EXPERT WITNESSES PRESENTED
INCAPACITATED TO COMPLY BY PETITIONER.
WITH THE ESSENTIAL
OBLIGATIONS OF MARRIAGE. IV

II THE COURT OF APPEALS

ERRED IN NOT RULING THAT THE
THE COURT OF APPEALS FINDINGS OF THE TRIAL COURT
ERRED IN NOT RULING THAT ARE BINDING ON IT.
PETITIONER IS LIKEWISE
PSYCHOLOGICALLY V
INCAPACITATED TO COMPLY
WITH THE ESSENTIAL THE COURT OF APPEALS
OBLIGATIONS OF MARRIAGE. ERRED IN NOT RULING THAT THE
TOTALITY OF THE EVIDENCE
III PRESENTED DULY ESTABLISHED
THE PSYCHOLOGICAL
THE COURT OF APPEALS INCAPACITIES OF THE PARTIES
ERRED WHEN IT DISREGARDED TO COMPLY WITH THE
THE TESTIMONIES OF THE
ESSENTIAL OBLIGATIONS OF PARTIES’ MARRIAGE, WHICH IS
MARRIAGE. UNDOUBTEDLY VOID AB INITIO
UNDER ARTICLE 36 OF THE
VI FAMILY CODE, DOES NOT
FURTHER THE INITIATIVES OF
THE COURT OF APPEALS THE STATE CONCERNING
ERRED IN NOT RULING THAT THE MARRIAGE AND FAMILY AND
PSYCHOLOGICAL INCAPACITIES THEREFORE, NOT COVERED BY
OF THE PARTIES TO COMPLY THE MANTLE OF THE
WITH THE ESSENTIAL CONSTITUTION ON THE
OBLIGATIONS OF MARRIAGE PROTECTION OF MARRIAGE.
WERE ESTABLISHED, NOT
MERELY BY A TOTALITY, BUT BY VIII
A PREPONDERANCE OF
EVIDENCE. THE COURT OF APPEALS
ERRED IN NOT RULING THAT THE
VII AMENDED PETITION WAS
VALIDLY AMENDED TO CONFORM
THE COURT OF APPEALS TO EVIDENCE.8
ERRED IN NOT RULING THAT THE
 Essentially, petitioner raises the Article 36 of the Family Code
singular issue of whether the reads:
marriage between the parties is
void ab initio on the ground of "A marriage contracted by any
both parties’ psychological party who, at the time of the
incapacity, as provided in Article celebration, was psychologically
36 of the Family Code. incapacitated to comply with the
essential marital obligations of
In declaring the marriage null marriage, shall likewise be void
and void, the RTC relied heavily on even if such incapacity becomes
the oral and documentary manifest only after solemnization."
evidence obtained from the three
(3) experts i.e., Doctors Magno, and Art. 68 of the same Code
Dayan and Villegas. The RTC provides:
ratiocinated, thus:
"The husband and wife are
After a careful evaluation of the obliged to live together, observe
entire evidence presented, the mutual love, respect and fidelity,
Court finds merit in the petition. and render mutual help and
support."
 totality of the evidence presented,
Similarly, Articles 69-71 further with emphasis on the pervasive
define the mutual obligations of a pattern of behaviors of the
marital partner towards each other respondent and outcome of the
and Articles 220, 225 and 271 of assessment/diagnos[is] of expert
the Family Code express the duties witnesses, Dra. Dayan, Dra.
of parents toward their children. Mango and Dra. Villegas on the
psychological condition of the
Article 36 does not define what respondent, the Court finds that
psychological incapacity means. It the marriage between the parties
left the determination of the same from its inception has a congenital
solely to the Court on a case to infirmity termed "psychological
case basis. incapacity" which pertains to the
inability of the parties to effectively
xxxx function emotionally, intellectually
and socially towards each other in
Taking into consideration the relation to their essential duties to
explicit guidelines in the mutually observe love, fidelity and
determination of psychological respect as well as to mutually
incapacity in conjunction to the render help and support, (Art. 68
Family Code). In short, there was their assessment/diagnos[is] as
already a fixed niche in the credible or a product of an honest
psychological constellation of evaluation on the psychological
respondent which created the status of the respondent. This
death of his marriage. There is no psychological incapacity of the
reason to entertain any slightest respondent, in the uniform words
doubt on the truthfulness of the of said three (3) expert witnesses,
personality disorder of the is serious, incurable and exists
respondent. before his marriage and renders
him a helpless victim of his
The three expert witnesses structural constellation. It is
have spoken. They were beyond the respondent’s impulse
unanimous in their findings that control. In short, he is weaponless
respondent is suffering from or powerless to restrain himself
personality disorder which from his consistent behaviors
psychologically incapacitated him simply because he did not consider
to fulfill his basic duties to the the same as wrongful. This is
marriage. Being professionals and clearly manifested from his
hav[ing] solemn duties to their assertion that nothing was wrong
profession, the Court considered in his marriage with the petitioner
and considered their relationship respondent were unanimous that
as a normal one. In fact, with this separation is the remedy to the
belief, he lent deaf ears to seriously ailing marriage of the
counseling and efforts extended to parties. Respondent confirmed this
them by his original family stand of his siblings.
members to save his marriage. In
short, he was blind and too xxxx
insensitive to the reality of his
marital atmosphere. He totally The process of an ideal
disregarded the feelings of atmosphere demands a give and
petitioner who appeared to have take relationship and not a one
been saturated already that she sided one. It also requires
finally revealed her misfortunes to surrender to the fulfillment of the
her sister-in-law and willingly essential duties to the marriage
submitted to counseling to save which must naturally be observed
their marriage. However, the hard by the parties as a consequence of
position of the respondent finally their marriage. Unfortunately, the
constrained her to ask respondent more than 21 years of marriage
to leave the conjugal dwelling. between the parties did not create
Even the siblings of the a monument of marital integrity,
simply because the personality person or a perfectionist while
disorder of the respondent which respondent is a free spirited or
renders him psychologically carefree person. Thus, the
incapacitated to fulfill his basic weakness of the respondent
duties to his marriage, is deeply cannot be catered by the
entombed in his structural system petitioner and vice-versa.
and cure is not possible due to his
belief that there is nothing wrong Resultantly, the psychological
with them. incapacities of both parties
constitute the thunder bolt or
The checkered life of the parties principal culprit on their inability to
is not solely attributable to the nurture and reward their marital
respondent. Petitioner, too, is to life with meaning and significance.
be blamed. Dra. Villegas was firm So much so that it is a pity that
that she, too, is afflicted with though their marriage is intact for
psychological incapacity as her 21 years, still it is an empty
personality cannot be harmonized kingdom due to their psychological
with the personality of the incapacity which is grave,
respondent. They are poles apart. incurable and has origin from
Petitioner is a well-organized
unhealthy event in their growing The Court finds that with this
years. reality, both parties suffer in agony
by continuously sustaining a
Both parties to the marriage are marriage that exists in paper only.
protected by the law. As human Hence, it could no longer chain or
beings, they are entitled to live in jail the parties whose marriage
a peaceful and orderly remains in its crib with its boots
environment conducive to a and diaper due to factors beyond
healthy life. In fact, Article 72 of the physical, emotional, intellectual
the Family Code provides remedy and social ability of the parties to
to any party aggrieved by their sustain.9
marital reality. The case of the
parties is already a settled matter In a complete turnaround,
due to their psychological albeit disposing of the case
incapacity. In the words of Dra. through a divided decision, the
Magno, their marriage, at the very appellate court diverged from the
inception, was already at the findings of the RTC in this wise:
funeral parlor. Stated differently,
there was no life at all in their On the basis of the guidelines
marriage for it never existed at all. [in Republic v. Court of Appeals
and Molina] vis-à-vis the totality of [respondent] to be suffering from
evidence presented by herein an Antisocial Personality Disorder
[petitioner], we find that the latter with narcissistic and dependent
failed to sufficiently establish the features, while Dr. Villegas
alleged psychological incapacity of diagnosed [respondent] to be
her husband, as well as of herself. suffering from Personality Disorder
There is thus no basis for declaring of the anti-social type, associated
the nullity of their marriage under with strong sense of Inadequacy
Article 36 of the Family Code. especially along masculine
strivings and narcissistic features.
[Petitioner] presented several
expert witnesses to show that Generally, expert opinions are
[respondent] is psychologically regarded, not as conclusive, but as
incapacitated. Clinical psychologist purely advisory in character. A
Dayan diagnosed [respondent] as court may place whatever weight
purportedly suffering from Mixed it chooses upon such testimonies.
Personality Disorder (Schizoid It may even reject them, if it finds
Narcissistic and Anti-Social that they are inconsistent with the
Personality Disorder). Further, facts of the case or are otherwise
clinical psychologist Magno found unreasonable. In the instant case,
neither clinical psychologist Magno of [respondent] is not incurable as
nor psychiatrist Dr. Villegas the [petitioner] would like this
conducted a psychological Court to think. It bears stressing
examination on the [respondent]. that [respondent] was referred to
Dayan for "psychological
Undoubtedly, the assessment evaluation to determine
and conclusion made by Magno benchmarks of current
and Dr. Villegas are hearsay. They psychological functioning." The
are "unscientific and unreliable" as undeniable fact is that based on
they have no personal knowledge Dayan’s personal examination of
of the psychological condition of the [respondent], the assessment
the [respondent] as they never procedures used, behavioral
personally examined the observations made, background
[respondent] himself. information gathered and
interpretation of psychological
xxxx data, the conclusion arrived at is
that there is a way to help the
[I]t can be gleaned from the [respondent] through individual
recommendation of Dayan that the therapy and counseling sessions.
purported psychological incapacity
 Even granting arguendo that alleged mixed personality disorder,
the charges cast by the his "come and go" attitude, failed
[petitioner] on [respondent], such business ventures,
as his failure to give regular inadequate/delayed financial
support, substance abuse, support to his family, sexual
infidelity and "come and go" infidelity, insensitivity to
attitude are true, the totality of the [petitioner’s] feelings,
evidence presented still falls short irresponsibility, failure to consult
of establishing that [respondent] is [petitioner] on his business
psychologically incapacitated to pursuits, unfulfilled promises,
comply with the essential marital failure to pay debts in connection
obligations within the with his failed business activities,
contemplation of Article 36 of the taking of drugs, etc. are not rooted
Family Code. on some debilitating psychological
condition but on serious marital
xxxx difficulties/differences and mere
refusal or unwillingness to assume
In the case at bar, we hold that the essential obligations of
the court a quo’s findings marriage. [Respondent’s] "defects"
regarding the [respondent’s] were not present at the inception
of marriage. They were even able
to live in harmony in the first few xxxx
years of their marriage, which bore
them two children xxx. In fact, As regards the purported
[petitioner] admitted in her psychological incapacity of
Amended Petition that initially they [petitioner], Dr. Villegas’
lived comfortably and [respondent] Psychiatric Report states that
would give his salary in keeping [petitioner] "manifested
with the tradition in most Filipino inadequacies along her affective
households, but the situation sphere, that made her less
changed when [respondent] responsive to the emotional needs
resigned from the family-owned of her husband, who needed a
Aristocrat Restaurant and great amount of it, rendering her
thereafter, [respondent] failed in relatively psychologically
his business ventures. It appears, incapacitated to perform the duties
however, that [respondent] has and responsibilities of marriage.
been gainfully employed with
Marigold Corporation, Inc. since However, a perusal of the
1998, which fact was stipulated Amended Petition shows that it
upon by the [petitioner]. failed to specifically allege the
complete facts showing that xxxx
petitioner was psychologically
incapacitated from complying with What is evident is that
the essential marital obligations of [petitioner] really encountered a
marriage at the time of celebration lot of difficulties in their marriage.
[thereof] even if such incapacity However, it is jurisprudentially
became manifest only after its settled that psychological
celebration xxx. In fact, what was incapacity must be more than just
merely prayed for in the said a "difficulty," a "refusal" or a
Amended Petition is that judgment "neglect" in the performance of
be rendered "declaring the some marital obligations, it is
marriage between the petitioner essential that they must be shown
and the respondent solemnized on to be incapable of doing so, due to
04 December 1976 to be void ab some psychological illness existing
initio on the ground of at the time of the celebration of
psychological incapacity on the the marriage.
part of the respondent at the time
of the celebration of marriage x x While [petitioner’s] marriage
x. with [respondent] failed and
appears to be without hope of
reconciliation, the remedy, taken as distinct from Articles 35,
however, is not always to have it 37, 38 and 41 that would likewise,
declared void ab initio on the but for different reasons, render
ground of psychological incapacity. the marriage void ab initio, or
An unsatisfactory marriage, Article 45 that would make the
however, is not a null and void marriage merely voidable, or
marriage. No less than the Article 55 that could justify a
Constitution recognizes the petition for legal separation. Care
sanctity of marriage and the unity must be observed so that these
of the family; it decrees marriage various circumstances are not
as legally "inviolable" and protects applied so indiscriminately as if the
it from dissolution at the whim of law were indifferent on the matter.
the parties. Both the family and Article 36 should not be confused
marriage are to be "protected" by with a divorce law that cuts the
the State. marital bond at the time the
causes therefor manifest
Thus, in determining the import themselves. x x x
of "psychological incapacity" under
Article 36, it must be read in It remains settled that the State
conjunction with, although to be has a high stake in the
preservation of marriage rooted in as valid and subsisting.
its recognition of the sanctity of Accordingly, we grant the petition.
married life and its mission to
protect and strengthen the family Santos v. Court of Appeals11
as a basic autonomous social solidified the jurisprudential
institution. Hence, any doubt foundation of the principle that the
should be resolved in favor of the factors characterizing
existence and continuation of the psychological incapacity to perform
marriage and against its the essential marital obligations
dissolution and nullity.10 are: (1) gravity, (2) juridical
antecedence, and (3) incurability.
After a thorough review of the We explained:
records of the case, we cannot
subscribe to the appellate court’s The incapacity must be grave or
ruling that the psychological serious such that the party would
incapacity of respondent was not be incapable of carrying out the
sufficiently established. We ordinary duties required in
disagree with its decision declaring marriage; it must be rooted in the
the marriage between the parties history of the party antedating the
marriage, although the overt
manifestations may emerge only social status, intellectual
after the marriage; and it must be achievement is quite important to
incurable or, even if it were the family values (sic). All children
otherwise, the cure would be were equipped with high
beyond the means of the party intellectual potentials (sic) which
involved.12 made their parents proud of them.
Father was disabled, but despite
As previously adverted to, the his handicap, he was able to
three experts were one in assume his financial and emotional
diagnosing respondent with a responsibilities to his family and to
personality disorder, to wit: a limited extent, his social
functions (sic). Despite this, he
1. Dra. Cecilia C. Villegas has been described as the unseen
strength in the family.
PSYCHODYNAMICS OF THE
CASE Mother [of petitioner] was
[actively involved] in activities
[Petitioner] is the second outside the home. Doing volunteer
among 6 siblings of educated and community services, she was
parents. Belonging to an average not the demonstrative,
affectionate and the emotional systematic, prudent, loyal,
mother (sic). Her love and concern competent and has a strong sense
came in the form of positive of duty (sic). But emotionally, she
attitudes, advices (sic) and is not as sensitive. Her analytical
encouragements (sic), but not the resources and strong sense of
caressing, sensitive and soothing objectivity predisposed her to a
touches of an emotional reaction superficial adjustments (sic). She
(sic). Psychological home acts on the dictates of her mind
environment did not permit one to and reason, and less of how she
nurture a hurt feeling or feels (sic). The above qualities are
depression, but one has to stand perfect for a leader, but less
up and to help himself (sic). This effective in a heterosexual
trained her to subjugate (sic) relationship, especially to her
emotions to reasons. husband, who has deep seated
sense of inadequacy, insecurity,
Because of her high low self esteem and self-worth
intellectual endowment, she has despite his intellectual assets (sic).
easy facilities for any undertakings Despite this, [petitioner] remained
(sic). She is organized, planned in her marriage for more than 20
(sic), reliable, dependable, years, trying to reach out and
lending a hand for better second set of brood (sic), where
understanding and relationship there were less bounds (sic) and
(sic). She was hoping for the time limitations during his growing up
when others, like her husband stage. Additionally, he was
would make decision for her (sic), acknowledged as the favorite of
instead of being depended upon. his mother, and was described to
But the more [petitioner] tried to have a close relationship with her.
compensate for [respondent’s] At an early age, he manifested
shortcomings, the bigger was the clinical behavior of conduct
discrepancy in their coping disorder and was on marijuana
mechanisms (sic). At the end, regularly. Despite his apparent
[petitioner] felt unloved, high intellectual potentials (sic), he
unappreciated, uncared for and felt that he needed a "push" to
she characterized their marriage as keep him going. His being a "free
very much lacking in relationship spirit", attracted [petitioner], who
(sic). adored him for being able to do
what he wanted, without being
On the other hand, bothered by untraditional,
[respondent] is the 9th of 11 unacceptable norms and differing
siblings and belonged to the ideas from other people. He
presented no guilt feelings, no attitudes (sic) and sarcasm,
remorse, no anxiety for whatever stubbornness and insults, his
wrongdoings he has committed. spitting at her face which impliedly
His studies proved too much of a meant "you are nothing as
pressure for him, and quit at the compared to me" were in reality,
middle of his course, despite his his defenses for a strong sense of
apparent high intellectual inadequacy (sic).
resources (sic).
As described by [petitioner],
His marriage to [petitioner] he is intelligent and has bright
became a bigger pressure. Trying ides. However, this seemed not
to prove his worth, he quit work coupled with emotional attributes
from his family employment and such as perseverance, patience,
ventured on his own. With no maturity, direction, focus,
much planning and project study, adequacy, stability and confidence
his businesses failed. This became to make it work. He complained
the sources (sic) of their marital that he did not feel the support of
conflicts, the lack of relationships his wife regarding his decision to
(sic) and consultations (sic) with go into his own business. But
each other, his negativistic when he failed, the more he
became negativistic and closed to untraditional and different from
suggestions especially from others. Preoccupation is centered
[petitioner]. He was too careful on himself, (sic) an unconscious
not to let go or make known his wish for the continuance of the
strong sense of inadequacy, gratification of his dependency
ambivalence, doubts, lack of drive needs, (sic) in his mother-son
and motivation or even feelings of relationship. From this stems his
inferiority, for fear of rejection or difficulties in heterosexual
loss of pride. When things did not relationship with his wife, as
work out according to his plans, he pressures, stresses, (sic) demands
suppressed his hostilities in and expectations filled up in (sic)
negative ways, such as up in their marital relationship.
stubbornness, sarcasm or drug Strong masculine strivings is
intake. projected.

His decision making is For an intelligent person like

characterized by poor impulse [respondent], he may sincerely
control, lack of insight and want to be able to assume his
primitive drives. He seemed to feel duties and responsibilities as a
more comfortable in being husband and father, but because
of a severe psychological deficit, strong sense of Inadequacy along
he was unable to do so. masculine strivings and narcissistic
features that renders him
Based on the clinical data psychologically incapacitated to
presented, it is the opinion of the perform the duties and
examiner, that [petitioner] responsibilities of marriage. This is
manifested inadequacies along her characterized by his inability to
affective sphere, that made her conform to the social norms that
less responsive to the emotional ordinarily govern many aspects of
needs of her husband, who adolescent and adult behavior. His
needed a great amount of it, being a "free spirit" associated
rendering her relatively with no remorse, no guilt feelings
psychologically incapacitated to and no anxiety, is distinctive of
perform the duties and this clinical condition. His
responsibilities of marriage. prolonged drug intake [marijuana]
[Respondent], on the other hand, and maybe stronger drugs lately,
has manifested strong clinical are external factors to boost his
evidences (sic), that he is suffering ego.
from a Personality Disorder, of the
antisocial type, associated with
 The root cause of the above
clinical conditions is due to his It existed before marriage,
underlying defense mechanisms, but became manifest only after the
or the unconscious mental celebration, due to marital
processes, that the ego uses to demands and stresses. It is
resolve conflicts. His prolonged considered as permanent in nature
and closed attachments to his because it started early in his
mother encouraged cross psychological development, and
identification and developed a therefore became so engrained
severe sense of inadequacy into his personality structures (sic).
specifically along masculine It is considered as severe in
strivings. He therefore has to degree, because it hampered,
camouflage his weakness, in terms interrupted and interfered with his
of authority, assertiveness, normal functioning related to
unilateral and forceful decision heterosexual adjustments.
making, aloofness and (emphasis supplied)13
indifference, even if it resulted to
antisocial acts. His narcissistic 2. Dr. Natividad A. Dayan
supplies rendered by his mother
was not resolved (sic).
 Adolfo and Mandy[, breadwinner of the family because
respondent]’s brothers, referred she has a stable job.
[respondent] to the clinic. [Respondent]’s brothers learned
According to them, respondent has from friends that [petitioner] is
not really taken care of his wife really disappointed with him. She
and children. He does not seem to has discussed things with him but
have any direction in life. He he always refused to listen. She
seems to be full of bright ideas does not know what to do with
and good at starting things but he him anymore. She has grown tired
never gets to accomplish anything. of him.
His brothers are suspecting (sic)
that until now [respondent] is still When [respondent] was
taking drugs. There are times asked about his drug problem, he
when they see that [respondent] is mentioned that he stopped taking
not himself. He likes to bum it in 1993. His brothers think that
around and just spends the day at he is not telling the truth. It is so
home doing nothing. They wish hard for [respondent] to stop
that he’d be more responsible and taking drugs when he had been
try to give priority to his family. hooked to it for the past 22 years.
[Petitioner,] his wife[,] is the When [respondent] was also asked
what his problems are at the xxxx
moment, he mentioned that he
feels lonely and distressed. He Interpretation of
does not have anyone to talk to. Psychological Data
He feels that he and his wife
[have] drifted apart. He wants to A. Intellectual / Cognitive
be close to somebody and discuss Functioning
things with this person but he is
not given the chance. He also xxxx
mentioned that one of his weak
points is that he is very tolerant of B. Vocational Preference
people[,] that is why he is taken
advantage of most of the time. He xxxx
wants to avoid conflict so he’d
rather be submissive and C. Socio Emotional
compliant. He does not want to Functioning
hurt anyone [or] to cause anymore
pain. He wants to make other xxxx
people happy.
 In his relationships with less dominant partner. He feels
people, [respondent] is apt to better when he has to follow than
project a reserved, aloof and when he has to take the lead. A
detached attitude. [Respondent] self-contained person[,] he does
exhibits withdrawal patterns. He not really need to interact with
has deep feelings of inadequacy. others in order to enjoy life and to
Due to a low self-esteem, he tends be able to move on. He has a
to feel inferior and to exclude small need of companionship and
himself from association with is most comfortable alone. He,
others. He feels that he is too[,] feels uncomfortable in
"different" and as a result is prone expressing his more tender
to anticipate rejections. Because of feelings for fear of being hurt.
the discomfort produced by these Likewise, he maybe very angry
feelings, he is apt to avoid within but he may choose to
personal and social involvement, repress this feeling.
which increases his preoccupation [Respondent’s] strong need for
with himself and accentuates his social approval, which could have
tendency to withdraw from stemmed from some deep seated
interpersonal contact. insecurities makes him submissive
[Respondent] is also apt to be the and over [compliant]. He tends to
make extra effort to please people. and nervousness. Likewise, he is
Although at times[, he] already also entertaining feelings of
feels victimized and taken hopelessness and is preoccupied
advantage of, he still tolerates with negative thought. He feels
abusive behavior for fear of that he is up in the air but with no
interpersonal conflicts. Despite sound foundation. He is striving
[for] goals which he knows he will
his [dis]illusion with people, never be able to attain. Feeling
he seeks to minimize dangers of discouraged and distressed, he has
indifference and disapproval [of] difficulty concentrating and
others. Resentments are focusing on things which he needs
suppressed. This is likely to result to prioritize. He has many plans
in anger and frustrations which is but he can’t accomplish anything
likewise apt to be repressed. because he is unable to see which
path to take. This feeling of
There are indications that hopelessness is further aggravated
[respondent] is[,] at the by the lack of support from
moment[,] experiencing significant others.
considerable tension and anxiety.
He is prone to fits of apprehension Diagnostic Impression
 of his family; in social
Axis I : Drug Dependence relationships.

Axis II : Mixed Personality Axis V : Global Assessment

Disorder of Functioning – Fair (Emphasis
supplied)14
[Schizoid, Narcissistic and
Antisocial Personality Disorder] 3. Dr. Estrella T. Tiongson-
Magno
Axis III : None
Summary and Conclusion
Axis IV : Psychosocial and
Environmental Problems: From the evidence available
from [petitioner’s] case history and
Severe from her psychological
assessment, and despite the non-
He seems to be very good at cooperation of the respondent, it is
planning and starting things but is possible to infer with certainty the
unable to accomplish anything; nullity of this marriage. Based on
unable to give priority to the needs the information available about the
respondent, he suffers from [an] even when she knew he was a
antisocial personality disorder with pothead, then despite the abuse,
narcissistic and dependent took so long to do something
features that renders him too about her situation.
immature and irresponsible to
assume the normal obligations of a Diagnosis for [petitioner]:
marriage. As for the petitioner, she
is a good, sincere, and Axis I Partner Relational
conscientious person and she has Problem
tried her best to provide for the
needs of her children. Her Axis II Obsessive Compulsive
achievements in Personality Style with Self-
Defeating features
this regard are praiseworthy.
But she is emotionally immature Axis III No diagnosis
and her comprehension of human
situations is very shallow for a Axis IV Psychosocial
woman of her academic and Stressors-Pervasive Family Discord
professional competence. And this (spouse’s immaturity, drug abuse,
explains why she married RRR and infidelity)
 Severity: 4-severe xxxx

Diagnosis for [respondent] One has to go back to

[respondent’s] early childhood in
Axis I Partner Relational order to understand the root cause
Problem of his antisocial personality
disorder. [Respondent] grew up
Axis II Antisocial Personality the ninth child in a brood of 11.
Disorder with marked narcissistic, His elder siblings were taken cared
aggressive sadistic and dependent of by his grandmother.
features [Respondent’s] father was kind,
quiet and blind and [respondent]
Axis III No diagnosis was [reared] by his mother.
Unfortunately, [respondent’s]
Axis IV Psychosocial mother grew up believing that she
Stressors-Pervasive Family Discord was not her mother’s favorite
(successful wife) child, so she felt "api, treated like
poor relations." [Respondent’s]
Severity: 4 (severe) mother’s reaction to her perceived
rejection was to act out—with poor with others was impaired so that
impulse control and poor mood he cannot sustain a relationship
regulation (spent money like with one person for a long time,
water, had terrible temper which is devastating in a marriage.
tantrums, etc.). Unwittingly, his
mother became [respondent’s] [Respondent’s] narcissistic
role model. personality features were
manifested by his self-
However, because [respondent] centeredness (e.g. moved to
had to get on with the business of Mindoro and lived there for 10
living, he learned to use his good years, leaving his family in
looks and his charms, and learned Manila); his grandiose sense of
to size up the weaknesses of self-importance (e.g. he would just
others, to lie convincingly and to "come and go," without telling his
say what people wanted to hear wife his whereabouts, etc.); his
(esp. his deprived mother who sense of entitlement (e.g. felt
liked admiration and attention, his entitled to a mistress because
siblings from whom he borrowed [petitioner] deprived him of his
money, etc.). In the process, his marital rights, etc.);
ability to love and to empathize interpersonally exploitative (e.g.
let his wife spend for all the with marked narcissistic features
maintenance needs of the family, and aggressive sadistic and
etc.); and lack of empathy (e.g. dependent features, is
when asked to choose between his psychologically incapacitated to
mistress and his wife, he said he fulfill the essential obligations of
would think about it, etc.) The marriage: to love, respect and
aggressive sadistic personality render support for his spouse and
features were manifested whom children. A personality disorder is
he has physically, emotionally and not curable as it is permanent and
verbally abusive [of] his wife when stable over time.
high on drugs; and his dependent
personality features were From a psychological viewpoint,
manifested by his need for others therefore, there is evidence that
to assume responsibility for most the marriage of [petitioner] and
major areas of his life, and in his [respondent is] null and void from
difficulty in doing things on his the very beginning. (emphasis
own. supplied)15

[Respondent], diagnosed with Notwithstanding these telling

an antisocial personality disorder assessments, the CA rejected,
wholesale, the testimonies of For one, marriage, by its very
Doctors Magno and Villegas for definition,16 necessarily involves
being hearsay since they never only two persons. The totality of
personally examined and the behavior of one spouse during
interviewed the respondent. the cohabitation and marriage is
generally and genuinely witnessed
We do not agree with the CA. mainly by the other. In this case,
the experts testified on their
The lack of personal individual assessment of the
examination and interview of the present state of the parties’
respondent, or any other person marriage from the perception of
diagnosed with personality one of the parties, herein
disorder, does not per se petitioner. Certainly, petitioner,
invalidate the testimonies of the during their marriage, had
doctors. Neither do their findings occasion to interact with, and
automatically constitute hearsay experience, respondent’s pattern
that would result in their exclusion of behavior which she could then
as evidence. validly relay to the clinical
psychologists and the psychiatrist.
 For another, the clinical IV),19 instructs us on the general
psychologists’ and psychiatrist’s diagnostic criteria for personality
assessment were not based solely disorders:
on the narration or personal
interview of the petitioner. Other A. An enduring pattern of inner
informants such as respondent’s experience and behavior that
own son, siblings and in-laws, and deviates markedly from the
sister-in-law (sister of petitioner), expectations of the individual's
testified on their own observations culture. This pattern is manifested
of respondent’s behavior and in two (2) or more of the following
interactions with them, spanning areas:
the period of time they knew
him.17 These were also used as (1) cognition (i.e., ways of
the basis of the doctors’ perceiving and interpreting self,
assessments. other people, and events)

The recent case of Lim v. Sta. (2) affectivity (i.e., the range,
Cruz-Lim,18 citing The Diagnostic intensity, liability, and
and Statistical Manual of Mental appropriateness of emotional
Disorders, Fourth Edition (DSM response)
 (3) interpersonal functioning E. The enduring pattern is not
better accounted for as a
(4) impulse control manifestation or a consequence of
another mental disorder.
B. The enduring pattern is
inflexible and pervasive across a F. The enduring pattern is not
broad range of personal and social due to the direct physiological
situations. effects of a substance (i.e., a drug
of abuse, a medication) or a
C. The enduring pattern leads general medical condition (e.g.,
to clinically significant distress or head trauma).
impairment in social, occupational
or other important areas of Specifically, the DSM IV outlines
functioning. the diagnostic criteria for Antisocial
Personality Disorder:
D. The pattern is stable and of
long duration, and its onset can be A. There is a pervasive pattern
traced back at least to adolescence of disregard for and violation of
or early adulthood. the rights of others occurring since
age 15 years, as indicated by three
(or more) of the following: (5) reckless disregard for safety
of self or others
(1) failure to conform to social
norms with respect to lawful (6) consistent irresponsibility, as
behaviors as indicated by indicated by repeated failure to
repeatedly performing acts that sustain consistent work behavior
are grounds for arrest or honor financial obligations

(2) deceitfulness, as indicated (7) lack of remorse as indicated

by repeated lying, use of aliases, by being indifferent to or
or conning others for personal rationalizing having hurt,
profit or pleasure mistreated, or stolen from another

(3) impulsivity or failure to plan B. The individual is at least 18

ahead years.

(4) irritability and C. There is evidence of conduct

aggressiveness, as indicated by disorder with onset before age 15
repeated physical fights or assaults years.
 separate diagnoses, does not
D. The occurrence of antisocial necessarily evoke credence and
behavior is not exclusively during cannot trump the clinical findings
the course of schizophrenia or a of experts.
manic episode.20
The CA declared that, based on
Within their acknowledged field Dr. Dayan’s findings and
of expertise, doctors can diagnose recommendation, the
the psychological make up of a psychological incapacity of
person based on a number of respondent is not incurable.
factors culled from various
sources. A person afflicted with a The appellate court is mistaken.
personality disorder will not
necessarily have personal A recommendation for therapy
knowledge thereof. In this case, does not automatically imply
considering that a personality curability. In general,
disorder is manifested in a pattern recommendations for therapy are
of behavior, self-diagnosis by the given by clinical psychologists, or
respondent consisting only in his even psychiatrists, to manage
bare denial of the doctors’ behavior. In Kaplan and Saddock’s
textbook entitled Synopsis of opinion in the ubiquitously cited
Psychiatry,21 treatment, ranging case of Republic v. Court of
from psychotherapy to Appeals & Molina:23
pharmacotherapy, for all the listed
kinds of personality disorders are [T]he professional opinion of a
recommended. In short, Dr. psychological expert became
Dayan’s recommendation that increasingly important in such
respondent should undergo cases. Data about the person’s
therapy does not necessarily entire life, both before and after
negate the finding that the ceremony, were presented to
respondent’s psychological these experts and they were asked
incapacity is incurable. to give professional opinions about
a party’s mental capacity at the
Moreover, Dr. Dayan, during time of the wedding. These
her testimony, categorically opinions were rarely challenged
declared that respondent is and tended to be accepted as
psychologically incapacitated to decisive evidence of lack of valid
perform the essential marital consent.
obligations.22 As aptly stated by
Justice Romero in her separate
 … [Because] of advances made substance abuse; and a trail of
in psychology during the past unpaid money obligations.
decades. There was now the
expertise to provide the all- It is true that a clinical
important connecting link between psychologist’s or psychiatrist’s
a marriage breakdown and diagnoses that a person has
premarital causes. personality disorder is not
automatically believed by the
In sum, we find points of courts in cases of declaration of
convergence & consistency in all nullity of marriages. Indeed, a
three reports and the respective clinical psychologist’s or
testimonies of Doctors Magno, psychiatrist’s finding of a
Dayan and Villegas, i.e.: (1) personality disorder does not
respondent does have problems; exclude a finding that a marriage
and (2) these problems include is valid and subsisting, and not
chronic irresponsibility; inability to beset by one of the parties’ or
recognize and work towards both parties’ psychological
providing the needs of his family; incapacity.
several failed business attempts;
 On more than one occasion, we "psychodynamics of the case" and
have rejected an expert’s opinion the factors characterizing the
concerning the supposed psychological incapacity. Dr.
psychological incapacity of a Villegas' sparse testimony does not
party.24 In Lim v. Sta. Cruz-Lim,25 lead to the inevitable conclusion
we ruled that, even without that the parties were
delving into the non-exclusive list psychologically incapacitated to
found in Republic v. Court of comply with the essential marital
Appeals & Molina,26 the stringent obligations. Even on questioning
requisites provided in Santos v. from the trial court, Dr. Villegas'
Court of Appeals27 must be testimony did not illuminate on the
independently met by the party parties' alleged personality
alleging the nullity of the marriage disorders and their incapacitating
grounded on Article 36 of the effect on their marriage x x x.
Family Code. We declared, thus:
Curiously, Dr. Villegas' global
It was folly for the trial court to conclusion of both parties'
accept the findings and personality disorders was not
conclusions of Dr. Villegas with supported by psychological tests
nary a link drawn between the properly administered by clinical
psychologists specifically trained in court and prevent it from making
the tests' use and interpretation. its own factual finding on what
The supposed personality happened in this case. The
disorders of the parties, probative force of the testimony of
considering that such diagnoses an expert does not lie in a mere
were made, could have been fully statement of his theory or opinion,
established by psychometric and but rather in the assistance that he
neurological tests which are can render to the courts in
designed to measure specific showing the facts that serve as a
aspects of people's intelligence, basis for his criterion and the
thinking, or personality. reasons upon which the logic of
his conclusion is founded.
xxxx
In the case at bar, however,
The expert opinion of a even without the experts’
psychiatrist arrived at after a conclusions, the factual
maximum of seven (7) hours of antecedents (narrative of events)
interview, and unsupported by alleged in the petition and
separate psychological tests, established during trial, all point to
cannot tie the hands of the trial the inevitable conclusion that
respondent is psychologically seem to be normal and even
incapacitated to perform the charming and ingratiating. Their
essential marital obligations. histories, however, reveal many
areas of disordered life
Article 68 of the Family Code functioning. Lying, truancy,
provides: running away from home, thefts,
fights, substance abuse, and illegal
Art. 68. The husband and wife activities are typical experiences
are obliged to live together, that patients report as beginning
observe mutual love, respect and in childhood. x x x Their own
fidelity, and render mutual help explanations of their antisocial
and support. behavior make it seem mindless,
but their mental content reveals
In this connection, it is well to the complete absence of delusions
note that persons with antisocial and other signs of irrational
personality disorder exhibit the thinking. In fact, they frequently
following clinical features: have a heightened sense of reality
testing and often impress
Patients with antisocial observers as having good verbal
personality disorder can often intelligence.
 inability to keep a job that is not
x x x Those with this disorder connected with the family
do not tell the truth and cannot be businesses; and (7) criminal
trusted to carry out any task or charges of estafa.
adhere to any conventional
standard of morality. x x x A On the issue of the petitioner’s
notable finding is a lack of remorse purported psychological incapacity,
for these actions; that is, they we agree with the CA’s ruling
appear to lack a conscience.28 thereon:

In the instant case, A perusal of the Amended

respondent’s pattern of behavior Petition shows that it failed to
manifests an inability, nay, a specifically allege the complete
psychological incapacity to perform facts showing that petitioner was
the essential marital obligations as psychologically incapacitated from
shown by his: (1) sporadic complying with the essential
financial support; (2) extra-marital marital obligations of marriage at
affairs; (3) substance abuse; (4) the time of the celebration of
failed business attempts; (5) marriage even if such incapacity
unpaid money obligations; (6) became manifest only after its
celebration x x x. In fact, what [petitioner] is supposedly suffering
was merely prayed for in the said from an Inadequate Personality
Amended Petition is that judgment [Disorder] along the affectional
be rendered "declaring the area does not amount to
marriage between the petitioner psychological incapacity under
and the respondent solemnized on Article 36 of the Family Code. Such
04 December 1976 to be void ab alleged condition of [petitioner] is
initio on the ground of not a debilitating psychological
psychological incapacity on the condition that incapacitates her
part of the respondent at the time from complying with the essential
of the celebration of the marriage marital obligations of
xxx marriage.1avvphi1 In fact, in the
Psychological Evaluation Report of
At any rate, even assuming clinical psychologist Magno,
arguendo that [petitioner’s] [petitioner] was given a glowing
Amended Petition was indeed evaluation as she was found to be
amended to conform to the a "good, sincere, and
evidence, as provided under conscientious person and she has
Section 5, Rule 10 of the Rules of tried her best to provide for the
Court, Dr. Villegas’ finding that needs of her children. Her
achievements in this regard are separate statement in Republic v.
praiseworthy." Even in Dr. Villegas’ Court of Appeals and Molina:30
psychiatric report, it was stated
that [petitioner] was able to x x x Each case must be
remain in their marriage for more judged, not on the basis of a priori
than 20 years "trying to reach out assumptions, predilections or
and lending a hand for better generalizations but according to its
understanding and relationship." own facts. In the field of
With the foregoing evaluation psychological incapacity as a
made by no less than [petitioner’s] ground for annulment of marriage,
own expert witnesses, we find it it is trite to say that no case is on
hard to believe that she is "all fours" with another case. The
psychologically incapacitated trial judge must take pains in
within the contemplation of Article examining the factual milieu and
36 of the Family Code.29 the appellate court must, as much
as possible, avoid substituting its
All told, it is wise to be own judgment for that of the trial
reminded of the caveat articulated court."
by Justice Teodoro R. Padilla in his
 In fine, given the factual milieu Family Code is REINSTATED. No
of the present case and in light of costs.
the foregoing disquisition, we find
ample basis to conclude that SO ORDERED.
respondent was psychologically
incapacitated to perform the ANTONIO EDUARDO B.
essential marital obligations at the NACHURA
time of his marriage to the Associate Justice
petitioner.
WE CONCUR:
WHEREFORE, the petition is
GRANTED. The decision of the ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Court of Appeals in CA -G.R. CV Associate Justice
No. 89761 is REVERSED. The Chairperson
decision of the Regional Trial DIOSDADO M. PERALTA
Court, Branch 89, Quezon City in Associate Justice ROBERTO A.
Civil Case No. Q-01-44854 ABAD
declaring the marriage between Associate Justice
petitioner and respondent NULL
and VOID under Article 36 of the JOSE CATRAL MENDOZA
 Associate Justice above Decision had been reached
in consultation before the case
ATTESTATION was assigned to the writer of the
opinion of the Court’s Division.
I attest that the conclusions in
the above Decision had been RENATO C. CORONA
reached in consultation before the Chief Justice
case was assigned to the writer of
the opinion of the Court’s Division. Footnotes

ANTONIO T. CARPIO 1 Article XV, Section 2 of the

Associate Justice Constitution.
Chairperson, Second Division
2 Penned by Associate Justice
CERTIFICATION Celia C. Librea-Leagogo, with
Associate Justices Mario L. Guarina
Pursuant to Section 13, Article III and Pampio A. Abarintos
VIII of the Constitution and the concurring, and Associate Justices
Division Chairperson's Attestation, Vicente Q. Roxas and Teresita Dy-
I certify that the conclusions in the
Liacco Flores dissenting, rollo, pp.
9-45. 9 Id. at 257-260.

3 Penned by Judge Elsa I. De 10 Id. at 38-44.

Guzman, id. at 237-261.
11 G.R. No. 112019, January 4,
4 Psychiatric Report of Dr. 1995, 240 SCRA 20.
Cecilia C. Villegas, id. at 404.
12 Rollo, pp. 33-34.
5 The original petition was filed
in July of 2001; RTC records, pp. 13 Id. at 413-416.
1-18; the amended petition, in
December of the same year, id. at 14 Id. at 390-397.
87-88.
15 Id. at 372-375.
6 Rollo, pp. 260-261.
16 Article 1 of the Family Code.
7 Id. at 231.
Art. 1. Marriage is a special
8 Id. at 102-103. contract of permanent union
between a man and a woman
entered into in accordance with 21 See Kaplan and Saddock's
law for the establishment of Synopsis of Psychiatry and
conjugal and family life. x x x Psychology Behavioral
Sciences/Clinical Psychiatry (8th
17 Rollo, pp. 243, 248-249. ed.), 1998.

18 G.R. No. 176464, February 22 Rollo, pp. 243-247.

4, 2010.
23 G.R. No. 108763, February
19 Quick Reference to the 13, 1997, 268 SCRA 198, 219.
Diagnostic Criteria from DSM IV-
TR, American Psychiatric 24 Padilla-Rumabaua v.
Association, 2000. Rumbaua, G.R. No. 166738,
August 14, 2009, 596 SCRA 157;
20 See Kaplan and Saddock's Paz v. Paz, G.R. No. 166579,
Synopsis of Psychiatry and February 18, 2010.
Psychology Behavioral
Sciences/Clinical Psychiatry (8th 25 Supra note 18.
ed.), p. 785.
26 Supra.

27 Supra note 11.

28 Supra note 20.

29 Rollo, p. 43

30 Supra note 23, at 214.

 BRION, J.:

We resolve the appeal filed by

petitioner Ricardo P. Toring from
the May 31, 2004 decision1 of the
Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R.
THIRD DIVISION CV No. 71882. The CA reversed
the August 10, 2001 judgment of
G.R. No. 165321 the Regional Trial Court (RTC),
August 3, 2010 Branch 106 of Quezon City in Civil
Case No. Q-99-36662,2 nullifying
RICARDO P. TORING, Ricardo's marriage with
Petitioner, respondent Teresita M. Toring on
vs. the ground of psychological
TERESITA M. TORING and incapacity.
REPUBLIC OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Respondents. THE FACTS

DECISION
 Ricardo was introduced to City Court of Quezon City. They
Teresita in 1978 at his aunt’s begot three children: Richardson,
house in Cebu. Teresita was then Rachel Anne, and Ric Jayson.
his cousin’s teacher in Hawaiian
dance and was conducting lessons On February 1, 1999, more
at his aunt’s house. Despite their than twenty years after their
slight difference in age (of five wedding, Ricardo filed a petition
years), the younger Ricardo found for annulment before the RTC. He
the dance teacher attractive and claimed that Teresita was
fell in love with her. He pursued psychologically incapacitated to
Teresita and they became comply with the essential
sweethearts after three months of obligations of marriage prior to, at
courtship. They eloped soon after, the time of, and subsequent to the
hastened by the bid of another celebration of their marriage. He
girlfriend, already pregnant, to get asked the court to declare his
Ricardo to marry her. marriage to Teresita null and void.

Ricardo and Teresita were At the trial, Ricardo offered in

married on September 4, 1978 evidence their marriage contract;
before Hon. Remigio Zari of the the psychological evaluation and
signature of his expert witness, would come home and be
psychiatrist Dr. Cecilia R. Albaran, welcomed by debts incurred by his
and his and Dr. Albaran’s wife; he had to settle these to
respective testimonies. Teresita avoid embarrassment.
did not file any answer or
opposition to the petition, nor did Aside from neglect in paying
she testify to refute the allegations debts she incurred from other
against her.3 people, Teresita likewise failed to
remit amounts she collected as
Ricardo alleged in his petition sales agent of a plasticware and
and in his testimony at the trial cosmetics company. She left the
that Teresita was an adulteress family’s utility bills and their
and a squanderer. He was an children’s tuition fees unpaid. She
overseas seaman, and he regularly also missed paying the rent and
sent money to his wife to cover the amortization for the house that
the family’s living expenses and Ricardo acquired for the family, so
their children’s tuition. Teresita, their children had to live in a small
however, was not adept in rented room and eventually had to
managing the funds he sent and be taken in by Ricardo’s parents.
their finances. Many times, Ricardo When confronted by Ricardo,
Teresita would simply offer the characterized by "withdrawals";
excuse that she spent the funds other than these, no other sexual
Ricardo sent to buy things for the contacts with his wife transpired,
house and for their children. as he transferred and lived with
his relatives after a month of living
Ricardo likewise accused with Teresita in Cebu. Ricardo
Teresita of infidelity and suspected reported, too, of rumors that his
that she was pregnant with wife represented herself to others
another man’s child. During one of as single, and went out on dates
his visits to the country, he noticed with other men when he was not
that Teresita’s stomach was around.
slightly bigger. He tried to
convince her to have a medical Ricardo opined that his wife
examination but she refused. Her was a very extravagant,
miscarriage five months into her materialistic, controlling and
pregnancy confirmed his worst demanding person, who mostly
suspicions. Ricardo alleged that had her way in everything; had a
the child could not have been his, taste for the nightlife and was very
as his three instances of sexual averse to the duties of a
contact with Teresita were housewife; was stubborn and
independent, also most marital obligations. To quote Dr.
unsupportive, critical and Albaran:
uncooperative; was unresponsive
to his hard work and sacrifices for Teresita, the respondent[,] has
their family; and was most [sic] shown to manifest the
painfully unmindful of him.4 He following pervasive pattern of
believed that their marriage had behaviors: a sense of entitlement
broken down beyond repair and as she expected favorable
that they both have lost their treatment and automatic
mutual trust and love for one compliance to her wishes, being
another.5 interpersonally exploitative as on
several occasions she took
Dr. Cecilia R. Albaran testified advantage of him to achieve her
that a major factor that own ends, lack of empathy as she
contributed to the demise of the was unwilling to recognize her
marriage was Teresita’s partners [sic] feelings and needs[,]
Narcissistic Personality Disorder taking into consideration her own
that rendered her psychologically feelings and needs only, her
incapacitated to fulfill her essential haughty and arrogant behavior
and attitude and her proneness to
blame others for her failures and admitted, though, that she did not
shortcomings. These patterns of personally observe and examine
behavior speaks [sic] of a Teresita; she sent Teresita a
Narcissistic Personality Disorder, personally-delivered notice for the
which started to manifest in early conduct of a psychiatric
adulthood. The disorder is evaluation, but the notice
considered to be grave and remained unanswered.
incurable based on the fact that
individuals do not recognize the In opposing the petition for
symptoms as it is ego syntonic and annulment, the Office of the
they feel there is nothing wrong in Solicitor General (OSG) contended
them. Because of that[,] they that there was no basis to declare
remain unmotivated for treatment Teresita psychologically
and impervious to recovery.6 incapacitated. It asserted that the
psychological evaluation conducted
She based her diagnosis on the on Ricardo (and his son
information she gathered from her Richardson) only revealed a vague
psychological evaluation on and general conclusion on these
Ricardo and Richardson (Ricardo parties’ personality traits but not
and Teresita’s eldest son). She on Teresita’s psychological
makeup. The OSG also argued that to assume the essential obligations
the evidence adduced did not of marriage. The OSG appealed
clinically identify and sufficiently the decision to the CA.
prove the medical cause of the
alleged psychological incapacity. The CA reversed the RTC
Neither did the evidence indicate decision and held that the trial
that the alleged psychological court’s findings did not satisfy the
incapacity existed prior to or at the rules and guidelines set by this
time of marriage, nor that the Court in Republic v. Court of
incapacity was grave and Appeals and Molina.7 The RTC
incurable. failed to specifically point out the
root illness or defect that caused
The RTC agreed with Ricardo, Teresita’s psychological incapacity,
and annulled his marriage to and likewise failed to show that
Teresita. In short, the RTC the incapacity already existed at
believed Dr. Albaran’s the time of celebration of
psychological evaluation and marriage.
testimony and, on the totality of
Ricardo’s evidence, found Teresita The CA found that the
to be psychologically incapacitated conclusions from Dr. Albaran’s
psychological evaluation do not Ricardo faults the CA for
appear to have been drawn from disregarding the factual findings of
well-rounded and fair sources, and the trial court, particularly the
dwelt mostly on hearsay expert testimony of Dr. Albaran,
statements and rumors. Likewise, and submits that the trial court –
the CA found that Ricardo’s in declaring the nullity of the
allegations on Teresita’s marriage – fully complied with
overspending and infidelity do not Molina.
constitute adequate grounds for
declaring the marriage null and In its Comment,8 the OSG
void under Article 36 of the Family argued that the CA correctly
Code. These allegations, even if reversed the RTC’s decision,
true, could only effectively serve particularly in its conclusion that
as grounds for legal separation or Ricardo failed to comply with this
a criminal charge for adultery. Court’s guidelines for the proper
interpretation and application of
THE PETITION AND THE Article 36 of the Family Code.
PARTIES’ ARGUMENTS Reiterating its earlier arguments
below, the OSG asserts that the
evidence adduced before the trial
court failed to show the gravity, expertise on the subject cannot be
juridical antecedence, or doubted. Interestingly, Ricardo
incurability of the psychological further argued that alleging the
incapacity of Teresita, and failed root cause in a petition for
as well to identify and discuss its annulment under Article 36 of the
root cause. The psychiatrist, Family Code is no longer
likewise, failed to show that necessary, citing Barcelona v.
Teresita was completely unable to Court of Appeals.10
discharge her marital obligations
due to her alleged Narcissistic These positions were collated
Personality Disorder. and reiterated in the memoranda
the parties filed.
Ricardo’s Reply9 reiterated that
the RTC decision thoroughly THE COURT’S RULING
discussed the root cause of
Teresita’s psychological incapacity We find the petition
and identified it as Narcissistic unmeritorious, as the CA
Personality Disorder. He claimed committed no reversible error
that sufficient proof had been when it set aside the RTC’s
adduced by the psychiatrist whose
decision for lack of legal and We further expounded on
factual basis. Article 36 of the Family Code in
Molina and laid down definitive
In the leading case of Santos v. guidelines in the interpretation and
Court of Appeals, et al.,11 we held application of this article. These
that psychological incapacity under guidelines incorporate the basic
Article 36 of the Family Code must requirements of gravity, juridical
be characterized by (a) gravity, (b) antecedence and incurability
juridical antecedence, and (c) established in the Santos case, as
incurability, to be sufficient basis follows:
to annul a marriage. The
psychological incapacity should (1) The burden of proof to
refer to "no less than a mental show the nullity of the marriage
(not physical) incapacity that belongs to the plaintiff. Any doubt
causes a party to be truly should be resolved in favor of the
incognitive of the basic marital existence and continuation of the
covenants that concomitantly must marriage and against its
be assumed and discharged by the dissolution and nullity. This is
parties to the marriage."12 rooted in the fact that both our
Constitution and our laws cherish
the validity of marriage and unity (a) medically or clinically identified,
of the family. Thus, our (b) alleged in the complaint, (c)
Constitution devotes an entire sufficiently proven by experts and
Article on the Family, recognizing it (d) clearly explained in the
"as the foundation of the nation." decision. Article 36 of the Family
It decrees marriage as legally Code requires that the incapacity
"inviolable," thereby protecting it must be psychological - not
from dissolution at the whim of the physical, although its
parties. Both the family and manifestations and/or symptoms
marriage are to be "protected" by may be physical. The evidence
the state. must convince the court that the
parties, or one of them, was
The Family Code echoes this mentally or psychically ill to such
constitutional edict on marriage an extent that the person could
and the family and emphasizes not have known the obligations he
their permanence, inviolability and was assuming, or knowing them,
solidarity. could not have given valid
assumption thereof. Although no
(2) The root cause of the example of such incapacity need
psychological incapacity must be be given here so as not to limit the
application of the provision under must have attached at such
the principle of ejusdem generis moment, or prior thereto.
(Salita v. Magtolis, 233 SCRA 100,
108), nevertheless such root cause (4) Such incapacity must also
must be identified as a be shown to be medically or
psychological illness and its clinically permanent or incurable.
incapacitating nature fully Such incurability may be absolute
explained. Expert evidence may be or even relative only in regard to
given by qualified psychiatrists and the other spouse, not necessarily
clinical psychologists. absolutely against everyone of the
same sex. Furthermore, such
(3) The incapacity must be incapacity must be relevant to the
proven to be existing at "the time assumption of marriage
of the celebration" of the obligations, not necessarily to
marriage. The evidence must show those not related to marriage, like
that the illness was existing when the exercise of a profession or
the parties exchanged their "I employment in a job. Hence, a
do's." The manifestation of the pediatrician may be effective in
illness need not be perceivable at diagnosing illnesses of children
such time, but the illness itself and prescribing medicine to cure
them but may not be disabling factor in the person, an
psychologically capacitated to adverse integral element in the
procreate, bear and raise his/her personality structure that
own children as an essential effectively incapacitates the person
obligation of marriage. from really accepting and thereby
complying with the obligations
(5) Such illness must be grave essential to marriage.
enough to bring about the
disability of the party to assume (6) The essential marital
the essential obligations of obligations must be those
marriage. Thus, "mild embraced by Articles 68 up to 71
characteriological peculiarities, of the Family Code as regards the
mood changes, occasional husband and wife as well as
emotional outbursts" cannot be Articles 220, 221 and 225 of the
accepted as root causes. The same Code in regard to parents
illness must be shown as and their children. Such non-
downright incapacity or inability, complied marital obligation(s)
not a refusal, neglect or difficulty, must also be stated in the petition,
much less ill will. In other words, proven by evidence and included
there is a natal or supervening in the text of the decision.
 36 of the Family Code to the most
(7) Interpretations given by the serious cases of personality
National Appellate Matrimonial disorders; these are the disorders
Tribunal of the Catholic Church in that result in the utter insensitivity
the Philippines, while not or inability of the afflicted party to
controlling or decisive, should be give meaning and significance to
given great respect by our the marriage he or she contracted.
courts.13 Furthermore, the psychological
illness and its root cause must
Subsequent jurisprudence on have been there from the
psychological incapacity applied inception of the marriage. From
these basic guidelines to varying these requirements arise the
factual situations, thus confirming concept that Article 36 of the
the continuing doctrinal validity of Family Code does not really
Santos. In so far as the present dissolve a marriage; it simply
factual situation is concerned, recognizes that there never was
what should not be lost in reading any marriage in the first place
and applying our established because the affliction – already
rulings is the intent of the law to then existing – was so grave and
confine the application of Article permanent as to deprive the
afflicted party of awareness of the a. Dr. Albaran’s psychological
duties and responsibilities of the evaluation and testimony
matrimonial bond he or she was to
assume or had assumed.14 Dr. Albaran concluded in her
psychological evaluation that
In the present case and guided Teresita suffers from Narcissistic
by these standards, we find the Personality Disorder that rendered
totality of the petitioner’s evidence her psychologically incapacitated
to be insufficient to prove that to assume essential marital
Teresita was psychologically obligations. To support her
incapacitated to perform her duties findings and conclusion, she
as a wife. As already mentioned, banked on the statements told to
the evidence presented consisted her by Ricardo and Richardson,
of the testimonies of Ricardo and which she narrated in her
Dr. Albaran, and the latter’s evaluation. Apparently relying on
psychological evaluation of Ricardo the same basis, Dr. Albaran added
and Richardson from where she that Teresita’s disorder manifested
derived a psychological evaluation during her early adulthood and is
of Teresita. grave and incurable.
 To say the least, we are greatly This Court has long been
disturbed by the kind of testimony negatively critical in considering
and evaluation that, in this case, psychological evaluations,
became the basis for the presented in evidence, derived
conclusion that no marriage really solely from one-sided sources,
took place because of the particularly from the spouse
psychological incapacity of one of seeking the nullity of the marriage.
the parties at the time of
marriage. In So v. Valera,15 the Court
considered the psychologist’s
We are in no way convinced testimony and conclusions to be
that a mere narration of the insufficiently in-depth and
statements of Ricardo and comprehensive to warrant the
Richardson, coupled with the finding of respondent’s
results of the psychological tests psychological incapacity because
administered only on Ricardo, the facts, on which the conclusions
without more, already constitutes were based, were all derived from
sufficient basis for the conclusion the petitioner’s statements whose
that Teresita suffered from bias in favor of his cause cannot
Narcissistic Personality Disorder. be discounted. In another case,
Padilla-Rumbaua v. Rumbaua,16 To be sure, we have recognized
the Court declared that while the that the law does not require that
various tests administered on the the allegedly incapacitated spouse
petitioner-wife could have been be personally examined by a
used as a fair gauge to assess her physician or by a psychologist as a
own psychological condition, this condition sine qua non for the
same statement could not be declaration of nullity of marriage
made with respect to the under Article 36 of the Family
respondent-husband’s Code.18 This recognition,
psychological condition. To our however, does not signify that the
mind, conclusions and evidence, we shall favorably
generalizations about Teresita’s appreciate, should be any less
psychological condition, based than the evidence that an Article
solely on information fed by 36 case, by its nature, requires.
Ricardo, are not any different in
kind from admitting hearsay Our recognition simply means
evidence as proof of the that the requirements for nullity
truthfulness of the content of such outlined in Santos and Molina need
evidence.17 not necessarily come from the
allegedly incapacitated spouse. In
other words, it is still essential – that trace their roots to the
although from sources other than incapacity already present at the
the respondent spouse – to show time of marriage.
his or her personality profile, or its
approximation, at the time of In the present case, the only
marriage; the root cause of the other party outside of the spouses
inability to appreciate the essential who was ever asked to give
obligations of marriage; and the statements for purposes of
gravity, permanence and Teresita’s psychological evaluation
incurability of the condition. was Richardson, the spouses’
eldest son who would not have
Other than from the spouses, been very reliable as a witness in
such evidence can come from an Article 36 case because he
persons intimately related to them, could not have been there when
such as relatives, close friends or the spouses were married and
even family doctors or lawyers could not have been expected to
who could testify on the allegedly know what was happening
incapacitated spouse’s condition at between his parents until long
or about the time of marriage, or after his birth.
to subsequent occurring events
 We confirm the validity of this marriage to Ricardo, nor do we
observation from a reading of the find these fights to be indicative of
summary of Richardson’s interview problems traceable to any basic
with the pyschologist: Richardson’s psychological disorder existing at
statement occupied a mere one the time of marriage. For one,
paragraph (comprising eleven these points of dispute are not
sentences) in the psychological uncommon in a marriage and
evaluation and merely recited relate essentially to the usual roots
isolated instances of his parents of marital problems – finances,
fighting over the foreclosure of fidelity and religion. The
their house, his father’s alleged psychologist, too, never delved
womanizing, and their differences into the relationship between
in religion (Ricardo is a Catholic, mother and son except to observe
while Teresita is a Mormon).19 their estranged relationship due to
a previous argument – a money
We find nothing unusual in problem involving Ricardo’s
these recited marital incidents to financial remittances to the family.
indicate that Teresita suffered To state the obvious, the
from some psychological disorder psychologist’s evaluation never
as far back as the time of her explained how the recited
incidents, made by one who was adulthood, presuming thereby that
not even born at the time of the the incapacity should have been
spouses’ marriage, showed a there when the marriage was
debilitating psychological celebrated. Dr. Albaran never
incapacity already existing at that explained, too, the incapacitating
time. nature of Teresita’s alleged
personality disorder, and how it
Of more serious consequence, related to the essential marital
fatal to Ricardo’s cause, is the obligations that she failed to
failure of Dr. Albaran’s assume. Neither did the good
psychological evaluation to fully doctor adequately explain in her
explain the details – i.e., the what, psychological evaluation how
how, when, where and since when grave and incurable was Teresita’s
– of Teresita’s alleged Narcissistic psychological disorder.
Personality Disorder. It seems to
us that, with hardly any supporting Dr. Albaran’s testimony at the
evidence to fall back on, Dr. trial did not improve the
Albaran simply stated out of the evidentiary situation for Ricardo,
blue that Teresita’s personality as it still failed to provide the
disorder manifested itself in early required insights that would have
remedied the evidentiary gaps in the personality disorder."20 Dr.
her written psychological Albaran’s obvious uncertainty in
evaluation. In fact, Dr. Albaran’s her assessment only proves our
cross-examination only made the point that a complete personality
evidentiary situation worse when profile of the spouse, alleged to be
she admitted that she had psychologically incapacitated,
difficulty pinpointing the root could not be determined from
cause of Teresita’s personality meager information coming only
disorder, due to the limited from a biased source.
information she gathered from
Ricardo and Richardson regarding b. Ricardo’s testimony
Teresita’s personal and family
history. To directly quote from the Ricardo testified in court that
records, Dr. Albaran confessed this Teresita was a squanderer and an
limitation when she said that adulteress. We do not, however,
"[t]he only data that I have is that, find Ricardo’s characterizations of
the respondent seem [sic] to have his wife sufficient to constitute
grown from a tumultuous family psychological incapacity under
and this could be perhaps the [sic] Article 36 of the Family Code.
contributory to the development of Article 36 contemplates downright
incapacity or inability to take be their family residence. This kind
cognizance of and to assume basic of irresponsibility, however, does
marital obligations. Mere not rise to the level of a
"difficulty," "refusal, or "neglect" in psychological incapacity required
the performance of marital under Article 36 of the Family
obligations or "ill will" on the part Code. At most, Teresita’s
of the spouse is different from mismanagement of the family’s
"incapacity" rooted on some finances merely constituted
debilitating psychological condition difficulty, refusal or neglect, during
or illness.21 the marriage, in the handling of
funds intended for the family’s
Ricardo’s testimony merely financial support.
established that Teresita was
irresponsible in managing the Teresita’s alleged infidelity,
family’s finances by not paying even if true, likewise does not
their rent, utility bills and other constitute psychological incapacity
financial obligations. Teresita’s under Article 36 of the Family
spendthrift attitude, according to Code. In order for sexual infidelity
Ricardo, even resulted in the loss to constitute as psychological
of the house and lot intended to incapacity, the respondent’s
unfaithfulness must be established not fill in the deficiencies we have
as a manifestation of a disordered observed, given the absence of an
personality, completely preventing adverse integral element and link
the respondent from discharging to Teresita’s allegedly disordered
the essential obligations of the personality.
marital state;22 there must be
proof of a natal or supervening Moreover, Ricardo failed to
disabling factor that effectively prove that Teresita’s alleged
incapacitated her from complying character traits already existed at
with the obligation to be faithful to the inception of their marriage.
her spouse.23 Article 36 of the Family Code
requires that the psychological
In our view, Ricardo utterly incapacity must exist at the time of
failed in his testimony to prove the celebration of the marriage,
that Teresita suffered from a even if such incapacity becomes
disordered personality of this kind. manifest only after its
Even Ricardo’s added testimony, solemnization.24 In the absence of
relating to rumors of Teresita’s this element, a marriage cannot be
dates with other men and her annulled under Article 36.
pregnancy by another man, would
 Root cause of the psychological notwithstanding, we see the need
incapacity needs to be alleged in a to address this issue to further
petition for annulment under clarify our statement in Barcelona,
Article 36 of the Family Code which Ricardo misquoted and
misinterpreted to support his
Citing Barcelona,25 Ricardo present petition that "since the
defended the RTC decision, new Rules do not require the
alleging that the root cause in a petition to allege expert opinion on
petition for annulment under the psychological incapacity, it
Article 36 of the Family Code is no follows that there is also no need
longer necessary. We find this to allege in the petition the root
argument completely at variance cause of the psychological
with Ricardo’s main argument incapacity."26
against the assailed CA decision –
i.e., that the RTC, in its decision, In Barcelona, the petitioner
discussed thoroughly the root assailed the bid for annulment for
cause of Teresita’s psychological its failure to state the "root cause"
incapacity as Narcissistic of the respondent’s alleged
Personality Disorder. These psychological incapacity. The Court
conflicting positions, resolved this issue, ruling that the
petition sufficiently stated a cause nature, as the root causes of many
of action because the petitioner – psychological disorders are still
instead of stating a specific root unknown to science. It is enough
cause – clearly described the to merely allege the physical
physical manifestations indicative manifestations constituting the
of the psychological incapacity. root cause of the psychological
This, the Court found to be incapacity. Section 2, paragraph
sufficiently compliant with the first (d) of the Rule on Declaration of
requirement in the Molina case – Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages
that the "root cause" of the and Annulment of Voidable
psychological incapacity be alleged Marriages (Rules)27 in fact
in an Article 36 petition. provides:

Thus, contrary to Ricardo’s SEC. 2. Petition for declaration

position, Barcelona does not do of absolute nullity of void
away with the "root cause" marriages.
requirement. The ruling simply
means that the statement of the xxxx
root cause does not need to be in
medical terms or be technical in
 (d) What to allege. – A petition
under Article 36 of the Family As we explained in Barcelona,
Code shall specially allege the the requirement alleging the root
complete facts showing that either cause in a petition for annulment
or both parties were under Article 36 of the Family
psychologically incapacitated from Code was not dispensed with by
complying with the essential the adoption of the Rules. What
marital obligations of marriages at the Rules really eliminated was the
the time of the celebration of need for an expert opinion to
marriage even if such incapacity prove the root cause of the
becomes manifest only after its psychological incapacity. The Court
celebration. further held that the Rules, being
procedural in nature, apply only to
The complete facts should actions pending and unresolved at
allege the physical manifestations, the time of their
if any, as are indicative of adoption.1avvphi1
psychological incapacity at the
time of the celebration of the To sum up, Ricardo failed to
marriage but expert opinion need discharge the burden of proof to
not be alleged. show that Teresita suffered from
psychological incapacity; thus, his rooted in some psychological
petition for annulment of marriage illness that Article 36 of the Family
must fail. Ricardo merely Code addresses.28
established that Teresita had been
remiss in her duties as a wife for WHEREFORE, premises
being irresponsible in taking care considered, we DENY the petition
of their family’s finances – a fault and AFFIRM the decision of the
or deficiency that does not amount Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No.
to the psychological incapacity that 71882. Costs against the
Article 36 of the Family Code petitioner.
requires. We reiterate that
irreconcilable differences, sexual SO ORDERED.
infidelity or perversion, emotional
immaturity and irresponsibility, ARTURO D. BRION
and the like, do not by themselves Associate Justice
warrant a finding of psychological
incapacity, as the same may only WE CONCUR:
be due to a person’s difficulty,
refusal or neglect to undertake the CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES
obligations of marriage that is not Associate Justice
 LUCAS P. BERSAMIN
Associate Justice ROBERTO A. Pursuant to Section 13, Article
ABAD* VIII of the Constitution, and the
Associate Justice Division Chairperson’s Attestation,
it is hereby certified that the
MARTIN S. VILLARAMA, JR. conclusions in the above Decision
Associate Justice had been reached in consultation
before the case was assigned to
ATTESTATION the writer of the opinion of the
Court’s Division.
I attest that the conclusions in
the above Decision had been RENATO C. CORONA
reached in consultation before the Chief Justice
case was assigned to the writer of
the opinion of the Court’s Division. Footnotes

CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES * Designated additional Member

Associate Justice of the Third Division, in view of the
retirement of Chief Justice Reynato
CERTIFICATION
S. Puno, per Special Order No. 843
dated May 17, 2010. 10 G.R. No. 130087, September
24, 2003, 412 SCRA 41, 49-50.
1 Rollo, pp. 18-29.
11 310 Phil. 21 (1995).
2 RTC rollo, pp. 1-6.
12 Id. at 40.
3 Rollo, p. 19.
13 Republic v. Court of Appeals
4 RTC rollo, p. 4. and Molina, supra note 7, at 676-
678.
5 Id. at 5.
14 See So v. Valera, G.R. No.
6 Id. at 51. 150677, June 5, 2009, 588 SCRA
319; Padilla-Rumbaua v.
7 335 Phil. 664 (1997). Rumbaua, G.R. No. 166738,
August 14, 2009, 596 SCRA 157.
8 Rollo, pp. 43-52.
15 Supra note 14.
9 Id. at 58-62.
 16 Supra note 14. Dedel v. Court of Appeals, 466
Phil. 226, 233-232 (2004).
17 Ibid.
23 Bier v. Bier, G.R. No.
18 Marcos v. Marcos, G.R. No. 166562, March 31, 2009.
136490, October 19, 2000, 343
SCRA 755. 24 Santos v. Court of Appeals,
et al., supra note 11.
19 RTC rollo, p. 50.
25 Supra note 10.
20 Id. at 157.
26 Id. at 50.
21 Navales v. Navales, G.R. No.
167523, June 27, 2008, 556 SCRA 27 Effective March 15, 2003.
272.
28 Supra note 21, at 288.
22 Santos v. Santos, supra note
11; Hernandez v. Court of Appeals,
377 Phil. 919, 931-932 (1999);
 DECISION

PERALTA, J.:

For the Court's resolution is a

Petition for Review filed by
petitioner Marietta N. Barrido
questioning the Decision1 of the
Court of Appeals (CA), dated
THIRD DIVISION November 16, 2006, and its
Resolution2 dated January 24,
G.R. No. 176492 2007 in CA-G.R. SP No. 00235.
October 20, 2014 The CA affirmed the Decision3 of
the Regional Trial Court (RTC)
MARIETTA N. BARRIDO, ofBacolod City, Branch 53, dated
Petitioner, July 21, 2004, in Civil Case No. 03-
vs. 12123, which ordered the partition
LEONARDO V. NONATO, of the subject property.
Respondent.
 The facts, as culled from the Court in Cities (MTCC) of Bacolod
records, are as follows: In the City, Branch 3.
course of the marriage of
respondent Leonardo V. Nonato Barrido claimed, by way of
and petitioner Marietta N. affirmative defense, that the
Barrido,they were able to acquire a subject property had already been
property situated in Eroreco, sold to their children, Joseph
Bacolod City, consisting ofa house Raymund and Joseph Leo. She
and lot, covered by Transfer likewise moved for the dismissal of
Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T- the complaint because the MTCC
140361. On March 15, 1996, their lacked jurisdiction, the partition
marriage was declared void on the case being an action incapable of
ground of psychological incapacity. pecuniary estimation.
Since there was no more reason to
maintain their co-ownership over The Bacolod MTCC rendered a
the property, Nonato asked Decision dated September 17,
Barrido for partition, but the latter 2003, applying Article 129 of the
refused. Thus, on January 29, Family Code. It ruled in this wise:
2003, Nonato filed a Complaint for
partition before the Municipal Trial
 WHEREFORE, PREMISES brought about by this suit; and an
CONSIDERED, judgment is hereby additional ₱10,000.00 as
rendered, ordering the conjugal exemplary damages to deter
property of the former Spouses others from following suit; and
Leonardo and Marietta Nonato, a attorney’s fees of ₱2,000.00 and
house and lot covered by TCT No. litigation expenses of ₱575.00.
T-140361 located at Eroreco,
Bacolod City, which was their SO ORDERED.4
conjugal dwelling, adjudicated to
the defendant Marietta Nonato, Nonato appealed the MTCC
the spouse with whom the Decision before the RTC. On July
majority of the common children 21, 2004, the Bacolod RTC
choose to remain. reversed the ruling of the MTCC. It
found that even though the MTCC
Furthermore, defendant’s aptly applied Article 129 of the
counterclaim is hereby granted, Family Code, it nevertheless made
ordering plaintiff to pay defendant a reversible error in adjudicating
₱10,000.00 as moral damages for the subject property to Barrido. Its
the mental anguish and dispositive portion reads:
unnecessary inconvenience
 WHEREFORE, premises Joseph Leo Nonato pursuant to
considered, the decision dated Article 51 of the Family Code.
September 17, 2003 is hereby
REVERSED and SET ASIDE and a SO ORDERED.5
new judgment is hereby rendered
ordering the parties: Upon appeal, the CA affirmed
the RTC Decision on November 16,
(1) to equitably partition the 2006. It held that since the
house and lot covered by TCT No. property’s assessed value was only
T-140361; ₱8,080.00, it clearly fell within the
MTCC’s jurisdiction. Also, although
(2) to reimburse Joseph the RTC erred in relying on Article
Raymund and Joseph Leo Nonato 129 of the FamilyCode, instead of
of the amount advanced by them Article 147, the dispositive portion
in payment of the debts and of its decision still correctly
obligation of TCT No. T-140361 ordered the equitable partition of
with Philippine National Bank; the property. Barrido filed a Motion
for Reconsideration, which was,
(3) to deliver the presumptive however, denied for lack of merit.
legitimes of Joseph Raymund and
 Hence, Barrido brought the case CHILDREN, JOSEPH LEO NONATO
to the Court via a Petition for AND JOSEPH RAYMUND NONATO.
Review. She assigned the following
errors in the CA Decision: III.

I. THE HONORABLE COURT OF

APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING
THE HONORABLE COURT OF THAT ARTICLE 129 OF THE
APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING FAMILY CODE HAS NO
THAT THE MTCC HAD APPLICATION IN THE PRESENT
JURISDICTION TO TRY THE CASE, ON THE ASSUMPTION
PRESENT CASE.
THAT THE TRIAL COURT HAD
II. JURISDICTION OVER THE CASE.6

THE HONORABLE COURT OF The petition lacks merit.

APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING
THAT THE LOT COVERED BY TCT Contrary to Barrido’s
NO. T-140361 IS CONJUGAL contention, the MTCC has
AFTER BEING SOLD TO THE jurisdiction to take cognizance of
real actions or those affecting title (3) Exclusive original jurisdiction
to real property, or for the in all civil actions which involve
recovery of possession, or for the title to, or possession of, real
partition or condemnation of, or property, or any interest therein
foreclosure of a mortgage on real where the assessed value of the
property.7 Section 33 of Batas propertyor interest therein does
Pambansa Bilang 1298 provides: not exceed Twenty thousand
pesos (₱20,000.00)or, in civil
Section 33. Jurisdiction of actions in Metro Manila, where
Metropolitan Trial Courts, such assessed value does not
Municipal Trial Courts and exceed Fifty thousand pesos
Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in (₱50,000.00) exclusive of interest,
civil cases.– Metropolitan Trial damages of whatever kind,
Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and attorney's fees, litigation expenses
Municipal Circuit and costs: Provided, That value of
such property shall be determined
Trial Courts shall exercise: by the assessed value of the
adjacent lots. (as amended by R.A.
xxxx No. 7691)9
 Here, the subject property’s Although Article 12911 provides
assessed value was merely for the
₱8,080.00, an amount which
certainly does not exceed the procedure in case of dissolution
required limit of ₱20,000.00 for of the conjugal partnership
civil actions outside Metro Manila regime, Article 147 specifically
tofall within the jurisdiction of the covers the effects of void
MTCC. Therefore, the lower court marriages on the spouses’
correctly took cognizance of the property relations. Article 147
instant case. reads:

The records reveal that Art. 147. When a man and a

Nonatoand Barrido’s marriage had woman who are capacitated to
been declared void for marry each other, live exclusively
psychological incapacity under with each other as husband and
Article 3610 of the Family Code. wife without the benefit of
During their marriage, however, marriage or under a void marriage,
the conjugal partnership regime their wages and salaries shall be
governed their property relations. owned by them in equal shares
and the property acquired by both
of them through their work or
industry shall be governed by the Neither party can encumber or
rules on co-ownership. dispose by acts inter vivos of his or
her share in the property acquired
In the absence of proof to the during cohabitation and owned in
contrary, properties acquired while common, without the consent of
they lived together shall be the other, until after the
presumed tohave been obtained termination of their cohabitation.
by their joint efforts, work or
industry, and shall beowned by When only one of the parties to
them in equal shares. For a void marriage is in good faith,
purposes of this Article, a party the share of the party in bad faith
who did not participate in the in the co-ownership shall be
acquisition by the other party of forfeited in favor of their common
any property shall be deemed to children. In case of default of or
have contributed jointly in the waiver by any or all of the
acquisition thereof if the former's common children or their
efforts consisted in the care and descendants, each vacant share
maintenance of the family and of shall belong to the respective
the household. surviving descendants. In the
absence of descendants, such marriage or their marriage is void.
share shall belong to the innocent Here, all these elements are
party.1âwphi1 In all cases, the present.13 The term "capacitated"
forfeiture shall take place upon inthe first paragraph of the
termination of the cohabitation. provision pertains to the legal
capacity of a party to contract
This particular kind of co- marriage.14 Any impediment to
ownership applies when a man marry has not been shown to have
and a woman, suffering no illegal existed on the part of either
impedimentto marry each other, Nonato or Barrido. They lived
exclusively live together as exclusively with each other as
husband and wife under a void husband and wife. However, their
marriage or without the benefit of marriage was found to be void
marriage.12 It is clear, therefore, under Article 36 of the Family
that for Article 147 to operate, the Code on the ground of
man and the woman: (1) must be psychological incapacity.15
capacitated to marry each other;
(2) live exclusively with each other Under this property regime,
as husband and wife; and (3) their property acquired by both spouses
union is without the benefit of through their work and industry
shall be governed by the rules on In the analogous case of
equal coownership. Any property Valdez,18 it was likewise averred
acquired during the union is prima that the trial court failed to apply
faciepresumed to have been the correct law that should govern
obtained through their joint the disposition of a family dwelling
efforts. A party who did not in a situation where a marriage is
participate in the acquisition of the declared void ab initiobecause of
property shall be considered as psychological incapacity on the
having contributed to the same part of either or both parties in the
jointly if said party's efforts contract of [Link] Court
consisted in the care and held that the court a quodid not
maintenance of the family commit a reversible error in
household.16 Efforts in the care utilizing Article 147 of the Family
and maintenance of the family and Code and in ruling that the former
household are regarded as spouses own the family home and
contributions to the acquisition of all their common property in equal
common property by one who has shares, as well as in concluding
no salary or income or work or that, in the liquidation and
industry.17 partition of the property that they
owned in common, the provisions
on coownership under the Civil be jointly owned by them in equal
Code should aptly prevail.19 The shares. Barrido, however, claims
rules which are set up to govern that the ownership over the
the liquidation of either the property in question is already
absolute community or the vested on their children, by virtue
conjugal partnership of gains, the of a Deed of Sale. But aside from
property regimes recognized for the title to the property still being
valid and voidable marriages, are registered in the names of the
irrelevant to the liquidation of the former spouses, said document of
co-ownership that exists between safe does not bear a notarization
common-law spousesor spouses of of a notary public. It must be
void marriages.20 noted that without the notarial
seal, a document remains to be
Here, the former spouses both private and cannot be converted
agree that they acquired the into a public document,21 making
subject property during the it inadmissible in evidence unless
subsistence of their marriage. properly authenticated.22
Thus, it shall be presumed to have Unfortunately, Barrido failed to
been obtained by their joint prove its due execution and
efforts, work or industry, and shall authenticity. In fact, she merely
annexed said Deed of Sale to her Associate Justice
position paper. Therefore, the Acting Chairperson
subject property remains to be
owned in common by Nonato and WE CONCUR:
Barrido, which should be divided in
accordance with the rules on co- MARTIN S. VILLARAMA, JR.
ownership. Associate Justice
BIENVENIDO L. REYES
WHEREFORE, premises Associate Justice ESTELA M.
considered, the petition is DENIED. PERLAS-BERNABE**
The Decision of the Court of Associate Justice
Appeals, dated November 16,
2006, as well as its Resolution FRANCIS H. JARDELEZA
dated January 24, 2007 in CA-G.R. Associate Justice
SP No. 00235, are hereby
AFFIRMED. ATTESTATION

SO ORDERED. I attest that the conclusions in

the above Decision had been
DIOSDADO M. PERALTA* reached in consultation before the
case was assigned to the writer of MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO
the opinion of the Court's Division. Chief Justice

DIOSDADO M. PERALTA Footnotes

Associate Justice
Acting Chairperson, Third * Per Special Order No. 1815
Division dated October 3, 2014 .

CERTIFICATION ** Designated Acting Member,

in lieu of Associate Justice
Pursuant to Section 13, Article Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr., per
VIII of the Constitution and the Special Order No. 1816 dated
Division Acting Chairperson's October 3, 2014.
Attestation, I certify that the
conclusions in the above Decision 1 Penned by Associate Justice
had been reached in consultation Pampio A. Abarintos, with
before the case was assigned to Associate Justices Agustin S. Dizon
the writer of the opinion of the and Priscilla Baltazar-Padilla;
Court's Division. concurring; rollo, pp. 21-32.
 2 Id at 39-40. 9 Emphasis ours.

3 CA rollo, pp. 29-33. 10 Art. 36. A marriage

contracted by any party who, at
4 Rollo, pp. 23-24. the time of the celebration, was
psychologically incapacitated to
5 Id. at 24. comply with the essential marital
obligations of marriage, shall
6 Id. at 14. likewise be void even if such
incapacity becomes manifest only
7 Fortune Motors (Phils.), Inc. after its solemnization. (As
v. Court of Appeals, 258-A Phil. amended by Executive Order 227)
336, 340 (1989).
11 Art. 129. Upon the
8 Entitled AN ACT dissolution of the conjugal
REORGANIZING THE JUDICIARY, partnership regime, the following
APPROPRIATING FUNDS procedure shall apply:
THEREFOR, AND FOR OTHER
PURPOSES. (1) An inventory shall be
prepared, listing separately all the
properties of the conjugal (4) The debts and obligations of
partnership and the exclusive the conjugal partnership shall be
properties of each spouse. paid out of the conjugal
assets.1âwphi1
(2) Amounts advanced by the
conjugal partnership in payment of In case of insufficiency of said
personal debts and obligations of assets, the spouses shall be
either spouse shall be credited to solidarily liable for the unpaid
the conjugal partnership as an balance with their separate
asset thereof. properties, in accordance with the
provisions of paragraph (2) of
(3) Each spouse shall be Article 121.
reimbursed for the use ofhis or her
exclusive funds in the acquisition (5) Whatever remains of the
of property or for the value of his exclusive properties of the spouses
or her exclusive property, the shall thereafter be delivered to
ownership of which has been each of them.
vested by law in the conjugal
partnership. (6) Unless the owner had been
indemnified from whatever source,
the loss or deterioration of (8) The presumptive legitimes
movables used for the benefit of of the common children shall be
the family, belonging to either delivered upon the partition in
spouse, even due to fortuitous accordance with Article 51.
event, shall be paid to said spouse
from the conjugal funds, if any. (9) In the partition of the
properties, the conjugal dwelling
(7) The net remainder of the and the lot on which it is situated
conjugal partnership properties shall, unless otherwise agreed
shall constitute the profits, which upon by the parties, be
shall be divided equally between adjudicated to the spouse with
husband and wife, unless a whom the majority of the common
different proportion or division was children choose to remain.
agreed upon in the marriage Children below the age of seven
settlements or unless there has years are deemed to have chosen
been a voluntary waiver or the mother, unless the court has
forfeiture of such share as decided otherwise. In case there is
provided in this Code. no such majority, the court shall
decide, taking into consideration
the best interests of said children.
 18 Valdes v. Regional Trial
12 Valdes v. Regional Trial Court, Branch 102, Quezon City,
Court, Branch 102, Quezon City, supranote 12.
328 Phil. 1289, 1296 (1996).
19 Id.
13 Mercado-Fehr v. Fehr, 460
Phil. 445, 457 (2003). 20 Id.

14 Valdes v. Regional Trial 21 Gonzales v. Atty. Ramos,

Court, Branch 102, Quezon City, 499 Phil. 345, 347 (2005).
supranote 12.
22 Salas v. Sta. Mesa Market
15 Mercado-Fehr v. Fehr, Corporation, 554 Phil. 343, 348
supranote 13. (2007).

16 Id.

17 Agapay v. Palang, 342 Phil.

302, 311 (1997).
 G.R. No. 188400

MARIA TERESA B. TANI-DE

LA FUENTE, Petitioner
vs
RODOLFO DE LA FUENTE,
JR., Respondent

DECISION

LEONEN, J.:

Psychological incapacity is a
mental illness that leads to an
inability to comply with or
comprehend essential marital
SECOND DIVISION
obligations.
March 8, 2017
This resolves the Petition for
Review1 filed by Maria Teresa B.
Tani- De La Fuente (Maria Teresa) University of Sto. Tomas
assailing the Court of Appeals Treasurer's Office.6 Meanwhile,
Decision2 and Resolution3 dated Rodolfo, who was unable to finish
August 29, 2008 and May 25, his college degree, found
2009, respectively, in CA- G.R. CV. continued employment at his
No. 76243, which reversed the family's printing press business.7
Decision4 dated August 14, 2002
of Branch 107 of the Regional Trial While they were still
Court of Quezon City in Civil Case sweethearts, Maria Teresa already
No. Q- 99-37829. noticed that Rodolfo was an
introvert and was prone to
Petitioner Maria Teresa and jealousy.8 She also observed that
respondent Rodolfo De La Fuente, Rodolfo appeared to have no
Jr. (Rodolfo) first met when they ambition in life and felt insecure of
were students at the University of his siblings, who excelled in their
Sto. Tomas. Soon thereafter, they studies and careers.9
became sweethearts.5
On June 21, 1984, Maria Teresa
After graduating from college, and Rodolfo got married in
Maria Teresa found work at the Mandaluyong City. They had two
children: Maria Katharyn, who was would have sex four (4) or five (5)
born on May 23, 1985, and Maria times a day.13 At times, Rodolfo
Kimberly, who was born on April 6, would fetch Maria Teresa from her
1986.10 office during her lunch break, just
so they could have sex.14 During
Rodolfo's attitude worsened as sexual intercourse, Rodolfo would
they went on with their marital either tie her to the bed or poke
life. He was jealous of everyone her with things.15 Rodolfo also
who talked to Maria Teresa, and suggested that they invite a third
would even skip work at his person with them while having
family's printing press to stalk sex, or for Maria Teresa to have
her.11 Rodolfo's jealousy was so sex with another man in Rodolfo's
severe that he once poked a gun presence.16 Rodolfo's suggestions
at his own 15-year old cousin who made Maria Teresa feel molested
was staying at their house because and maltreated.17 Whenever
he suspected his cousin of being Maria Teresa refused Rodolfo's
Maria Teresa's lover.12 advances or suggestions, he would
get angry and they would
In addition, Rodolfo treated quarrel.18
Maria Teresa like a sex slave. They
 Maria Teresa sought the advice never saw Rodolfo again after
of a doctor, a lawyer, and a priest, that, and she supported their
as well as any person she thought children by herself.22
could help her and Rodolfo.19
Maria Teresa also suggested that On June 3, 1999, Maria Teresa
she and Rodolfo undergo marriage filed a petition for declaration of
counselling, but Rodolfo refused nullity of marriage23 before the
and deemed it as mere Regional Trial Court of Quezon
"kalokohan".20 City. The case was initially
archived because Rodolfo failed to
Sometime in 1986, the couple file a responsive pleading.24 Maria
quarrelled because Rodolfo Teresa moved for the revival of
suspected that Maria Teresa was the Petition.25 The trial court
having an affair.21 In the heat of granted the motion and referred
their quarrel, Rodolfo poked a gun the case to the Office of the City
at Maria Teresa's head. Maria Prosecutor for collusion
Teresa, with their two (2) investigation.26 Assistant City
daughters in tow, left Rodolfo and Prosecutor Jocelyn S. Reyes found
their conjugal home after the no collusion and recommended the
gunpoking incident. Maria Teresa trial of the case on the merits.27
 Dr. Lopez also interviewed
Despite notice, Rodolfo failed to Rodolfo's best friend.32
attend the scheduled pre-trial
conference.28 The pre-trial After subjecting Maria Teresa to
conference was declared closed interviews and tests, Dr. Lopez
and terminated, and Maria Teresa concluded that Maria Teresa was
was allowed to present her not suffering from any severe
evidence.29 mental disorder and had no
indication of any organic or
Aside from Maria Teresa, Dr. functional impairment.33 Although
Arnulfo V. Lopez (Dr. Lopez), a Dr. Lopez found that Maria Teresa
clinical psychologist, was had an emotionally disturbed
presented as an expert witness.30 personality, he opined that this
Dr. Lopez testified that he was not severe enough to
conducted an in-depth interview constitute psychological
with Maria Teresa to gather incapacity.34
information on her family
background and her marital life Dr. Lopez affirmed that he sent
with Rodolfo, and subjected her to Rodolfo a letter of invitation
a battery of psychological tests.31 through registered mail.35 After
two (2) months, Rodolfo contacted to treatment; and his emotional
Dr. Lopez and said, "Doctor, ano coldness and severe
ba ang pakialam niyo sa amin, immaturity."37
hindi niyo naman ako kilala." Dr.
Lopez explained that he only Dr. Lopez stated that Rodolfo's
wanted to hear Rodolfo's side of disorder was one of the severe
the story, but Rodolfo replied with, forms of personality disorder, even
"[I]nuulit ko doktor, wala kayong more severe than the other
pakialam sa akin."36 personality disorders like
borderline and narcissistic
Dr. Lopez diagnosed Rodolfo personality disorders.38 Dr. Lopez
with "paranoid personality disorder explained that Rodolfo's
manifested by [Rodolfo's] personality disorder was most
damaging behavior like reckless probably caused by a pathogenic
driving and extreme jealousy; his parental model.39 Rodolfo's family
being distrustful and suspicious; background showed that his father
his severe doubts and distrust of was a psychiatric patient, and
friends and relatives of [Maria Rodolfo might have developed
Teresa]; his being irresponsible psychic contamination called
and lack of remorse; his resistance double insanity, a symptom similar
to his father's.40 Dr. Lopez further non-appearance as a waiver of his
claimed that Rodolfo's disorder right to present evidence.46
was serious and incurable because
of his severe paranoia.41 On June 26, 2002, the trial
court directed the Office of the
Dr. Lopez recommended that Solicitor General to submit its
Maria Teresa and Rodolfo's comment on Maria Teresa's formal
marriage be annulled due to offer of evidence.47 The Office of
Rodolfo's incapacity to perform his the Solicitor General was also
marital obligations.42 directed to submit its
certification.48 The Office of the
Summons was served upon Solicitor General, however, failed
Rodolfo but he did not file any to comply with the trial court's
responsive leading.43 He likewise orders; thus, the case was
did not appear during the pre-trial submitted for decision without the
conference.44 He was given a certification and comment from
specific date to present evidence the Office of the Solicitor
but he still failed to appear.45 he General.49
trial court eventually deemed his
 On August 14, 2002, the trial WHEREFORE IN VIEW OF
court promulgated its Decision50 THE FOREGOING, judgment is
granting the petition for hereby rendered, to wit:
declaration of nullity of marriage.
(1) Declaring the marriage of
While Dr. Lopez was not able to petitioner, MARIA TERESA B. TANI
personally examine Rodolfo, the DE LA FUENTE to respondent,
trial court gave credence to his RODOLFO DE LA FUENTE, JR. null
findings as they were based on and void on the ground of
information gathered from credible respondent's psychological
informants. The trial court held incapacity pursuant to Article 36 of
that the marriage between Maria the Family Code. Their conjugal
Teresa and Rodolfo should be partnership (sic) property relations
declared null and void because is hereby dissolved. There being
"[Rodolfo's] psychological no mention of properties acquired
incapacity [was] grave, serious by the parties, no pronouncement
and incurable."51 The dispositive as to its liquidation and partition is
portion of the trial court's decision hereby made;
reads:
 (2) Their children, Maria of Quezon City and Mandaluyong
Katharyn and Maria Kimberly, both City where the marriage was
surnamed De la Fuente shall celebrated upon the finality of this
remain legitimate. They shall Decision.
remain in the custody of the
petitioner. SO ORDERED.52 (Emphasis
in the original)
(3) Both parties must
support their children. There being On August 20, 2002, the Office
no evidence presented as to the of the Solicitor General filed a
capability of the respondent to motion for reconsideration.53 The
give support, no pronouncement is Office of the Solicitor General
hereby made in the meantime; explained that it was unable to
submit the required certification
(4) Henceforth, the petitioner because it had no copies of the
shall be known by her maiden transcripts of stenographic
name, TANI. notes.54 It was also unable to
inform the trial court of its lack of
Let copies of this Decision be transcripts due to the volume of
furnished the Local Civil Registrars cases it was handling.55
 The Office of the Solicitor
On September 13, 2002, the General filed an appeal before the
trial court denied the motion for Court of Appeals.57 It argued that
reconsideration, with the the trial court erred a) in deciding
dispositive portion reading: the case without the required
certification from the Office of the
WHEREFORE, considering Solicitor General,58 and b) in
the foregoing, the Motion for giving credence to Dr. Lopez's
Reconsideration filed by the Office conclusion of Rodolfo's severe
of the Solicitor General is hereby personality disorder. It held that
deemed moot and academic. Dr. Lopez's finding was based on
insufficient data and did not follow
This Court would like to call the standards set forth in the
the attention of the Office of the Molina case.59
Solicitor General that this case was
filed on June 3, 1999 and there The Court of Appeals granted60
should be no more delay in the the Office of the Solicitor General's
disposition of the case.56 appeal.
 The Court of Appeals ruled that terms during the early part of their
the testimony of Dr. Lopez was marriage. It also negated her claim
unreliable for being hearsay, thus, that Rodolfo's psychological defect
the trial court should not have existed at the time of the
given it weight.61 The Court of celebration of their marriage, and
Appeals also disagreed with Dr. that it deprived him of the ability
Lopez's finding that Rodolfo's to assume the essential duties of
behavior descended from marriage.63 The dispositive
psychological illness contemplated portion of the Court of Appeals
under Article 36 of the Family decision reads:
Code.62
WHEREFORE, the DECISION
In addition, the Court of DATED AUGUST 14, 2002 is
Appeals emphasized that Maria REVERSED and the petition for
Teresa's admission that she declaration of nullity of the
married Rodolfo with the belief marriage of the parties is
that he would change, and that DISMISSED.
they were in a relationship for five
(5) years before getting married, SO ORDERED.64 (Emphasis
showed that they were in good in the original)
 incapacity existed, such conclusion
Maria Teresa moved for should be upheld.69
reconsideration65 but this was
denied by the Court of Appeals in Rodolfo filed a Comment70
its Resolution66 dated May 25, stating that he was not opposing
2009. Maria Teresa's Petition since "[h]e
firmly believes that there is in fact
On July 24, 2009, Maria Teresa no more sense in adjudging him
filed a Petition for Review on and petitioner as married."71
Certiorari.67
The Office of the Solicitor
Petitioner argued that based on General, in its Comment,72 agreed
current jurisprudence, trial courts that a physician was not required
had a wider discretion on whether to declare a person psychologically
expert opinion was needed to incapacitated but emphasized that
prove psychological incapacity.68 the evidence presented must be
Petitioner further argued that for able to adequately prove the
as long as the trial court had basis presence of a psychological
in concluding that psychological condition. The Office of the
Solicitor General maintained that
Maria Teresa was unable to Rodolfo's psychological incapacity
sufficiently prove Rodolfo's alleged should be dismissed as hearsay as
psychological incapacity.73 it was based solely on information
given by petitioner to Dr. Lopez.76
The Office of the Solicitor
General pointed out that Dr. The only issue raised for the
Lopez's psychological report stated resolution of this Court is whether
that his assessment was based on the Court of Appeals erred in
interviews he made with petitioner denying the Petition for
and two (2) of the parties' Declaration of Nullity of Marriage
common friends. However, Dr. because petitioner's evidence was
Lopez did not name the two (2) insufficient to prove that Rodolfo
common friends in the report.74 was psychologically incapacitated
Furthermore, during trial Dr. Lopez to fulfill his marital obligations.
testified that he only interviewed
petitioner and Rodolfo's best The Petition is granted.
friend, not two (2) friends as
indicated in his report.75 The The 1995 case of Santos v.
Office of the Solicitor General Court of Appeals77 was the first
insisted that the finding of case that attempted to lay down
the standards for determining followed when interpreting and
psychological incapacity under applying Article 36 of the Family
Article 36 of the Family Code. Code:
Santos declared that
"psychological incapacity must be (1) The burden of proof to
characterized by (a) gravity, (b) show the nullity of the marriage
juridical antecedence, and (c) belongs to the plaintiff. Any doubt
incurability."78 Furthermore, the should be resolved in favor of the
incapacity "should refer to no less existence and continuation of the
than a mental (not physical) marriage and against its
incapacity that causes a party to dissolution and nullity. This is
be truly incognitive of the basic rooted in the fact that both our
marital covenants that Constitution and our laws cherish
concomitantly must be assumed the validity of marriage and unity
and discharged by the parties to of the family. Thus, our
the marriage[.]"79 Constitution devotes an entire
Article on the Family, recognizing it
Two (2) years later, Republic v. "as the foundation of the nation."
Court of Appeals and Molina,80 It decrees marriage as legally
provided the guidelines to be "inviolable," thereby protecting it
from dissolution at the whim of the physical, although its
parties. Both the family and manifestations and/or symptoms
marriage are to be "protected" by may be physical. The evidence
the state. must convince the court that the
parties, or one of them, was
The Family Code echoes this mentally or psychically ill to such
constitutional edict on marriage an extent that the person could
and the family and emphasizes not have known the obligations he
their permanence, inviolability and was assuming, or knowing them,
solidarity. could not have given valid
assumption thereof. Although no
(2) The root cause of the example of such incapacity need
psychological incapacity must be be given here so as not to limit the
(a) medically or clinically identified, application of the provision under
(b) alleged in the complaint, (c) the principle of ejusdem generis,
sufficiently proven by experts and nevertheless such root cause must
(d) clearly explained in the be identified as a psychological
decision. Article 36 of the Family illness and its incapacitating nature
Code requires that the incapacity fully explained. Expert evidence
must be psychological - not may be given by qualified
psychiatrists and clinical the other spouse, not necessarily
psychologists. absolutely against everyone of the
same sex. Furthermore, such
(3) The incapacity must be incapacity must be relevant to the
proven to be existing at "the time assumption of marriage
of the celebration" of the obligations, not necessarily to
marriage. The evidence must show those not related to marriage, like
that the illness was existing when the exercise of a profession or
the parties exchanged their "I employment in a job. Hence, a
do's." The manifestation of the pediatrician may be effective in
illness need not be perceivable at diagnosing illnesses of children
such time, but the illness itself and prescribing medicine to cure
must have attached at such them but may not be
moment, or prior thereto. psychologically capacitated to
procreate, bear and raise his/her
(4) Such incapacity must also own children as an essential
be shown to be medically or obligation of marriage.
clinically permanent or incurable.
Such incurability may be absolute (5) Such illness must be
or even relative only in regard to grave enough to bring about the
disability of the party to assume (6) The essential marital
the essential obligations of obligations must be those
marriage. Thus, "mild embraced by Articles 68 up to 71
characterological peculiarities, of the Family Code as regards the
mood changes, occasional husband and wife as well as
emotional outbursts" cannot be Articles 220, 221 and 225 of the
accepted as root causes. The same Code in regard to parents
illness must be shown as and their children. Such non-
downright incapacity or inability, complied marital obligation(s)
not a refusal, neglect or difficulty, must also be stated in the petition,
much less ill will. In other words, proven by evidence and included
there is a natal or supervening in the text of the decision.
disabling factor in the person, an
adverse integral element in the (7) Interpretations given by
personality structure that the National Appellate Matrimonial
effectively incapacitates the person Tribunal of the Catholic Church in
from really accepting and thereby the Philippines, while not
complying with the obligations controlling or decisive, should be
essential to marriage. given great respect by our courts.
It is clear that Article 36 was taken
by the Family Code Revision weight should be given to
Committee from Canon 1095 of decisions of such appellate
the New Code of Canon Law, tribunal. Ideally - subject to our
which became effective in 1983 law on evidence - what is decreed
and which provides: as canonically invalid should also
be decreed civilly void.
"The following are
incapable of contracting marriage: This is one instance where,
Those who are unable to assume in view of the evident source and
the essential obligations of purpose of the Family Code
marriage due to causes of provision, contemporaneous
psychological nature." religious interpretation is to be
given persuasive effect. Here, the
Since the purpose of State and the Church - while
including such provision in our remaining independent, separate
Family Code is to harmonize our and apart from each other - shall
civil laws with the religious faith of walk together in synodal cadence
our people, it stands to reason towards the same goal of
that to achieve such protecting and cherishing marriage
harmonization, great persuasive
and the family as the inviolable Solicitor General shall discharge
base of the nation. the equivalent function of the
defensor vinculi contemplated
(8) The trial court must order under Canon 1095.81 (Emphasis in
the prosecuting attorney or fiscal the original)
and the Solicitor General to appear
as counsel for the state. No Contrary to the ruling of the
decision shall be handed down Court of Appeals, we find that
unless the Solicitor General issues there was sufficient compliance
a certification, which will be with Molina to warrant the nullity
quoted in the decision, briefly of petitioner's marriage with
stating therein his reasons for his respondent. Petitioner was able to
agreement or opposition, as the discharge the burden of proof that
case may be, to the petition. The respondent suffered from
Solicitor General, along with the psychological incapacity.
prosecuting attorney, shall submit
to the court such certification The Court of Appeals chided the
within fifteen (15) days from the lower court for giving undue
date the case is deemed submitted weight to the testimony of Dr.
for resolution of the court. The Lopez since he had no chance to
personally conduct a thorough
study and analysis of respondent's Camacho-Reyes v. Reyes85
mental and psychological states that the non-examination of
condition. The Court of Appeals one of the parties will not
cited Republic v. Dagdag,82 where automatically render as hearsay or
this Court held that "the root invalidate the findings of the
cause of psychological incapacity examining psychiatrist or
must be medically or clinically psychologist, since "marriage, by
identified and sufficiently proven its very definition, necessarily
by experts."83 The Court of involves only two persons. The
Appeals then ruled that totality of the behavior of one
"[o]bviously, this requirement is spouse during the cohabitation
not deemed complied with where and marriage is generally and
no psychiatrist or medical doctor genuinely witnessed mainly by the
testifies on the alleged other."86
psychological incapacity of one
party."84 Marcos v. Marcos87 emphasizes
that Molina does not require a
The Court of Appeals is physician to examine a person and
mistaken. declare him/her to be
psychologically incapacitated. respondent' [s] personality by
What matters is that the totality of taking into consideration the
evidence presented establishes the psychological impression and
party's psychological condition.88 conclusion he gathered from the
analysis of the different behaviors
Dr. Lopez's testimony, as he manifested during the time that
corroborated by petitioner, he and petitioner were living
sufficiently proved that respondent together. According to him, under
suffered from psychological the Diagnostic Statistical Manual,
incapacity. Respondent's paranoid he found the respondent to be
personality disorder made him suffering from a paranoid
distrustful and prone to extreme personality disorder manifested by
jealousy and acts of depravity, the respondent's damaging
incapacitating him to fully behavior like reckless driving and
comprehend and assume the extreme jealousy; his being
essential obligations of marriage. distrustful and suspicious; his
As the trial court found: severe doubts and distrust of
friends and relatives of the
Dr. Lopez testified that he petitioner; his being irresponsible
arrived at his conclusion of and lack of remorse; his resistance
to treatment; and his emotional called double insanity. This,
coldness and severe immaturity. according to Dr. Lopez is usually
He also testified that this kind of developed among close family
disorder is actually one of the members, bestfriends (sic),
severe forms of personality sweethearts and even couples who
disorder even more severe than are close to one another; that
the other personality disorders like people close to one another get
the borderline and narcissistic psychically contaminated; that
personality disorders. surprisingly, the symptom that the
father manifested is the same as
As to the root cause, [h]e those of the respondent. The said
explained that this must have been disorder started during
caused by a pathogenic parental respondent's late childhood years
model. As he investigated the and developed in his early
family background of the adolescent years.
respondent, Dr. Lopez discovered
that his father was a psychiatric He further testified that this
patient such that the respondent disorder is very severe, serious
developed a similar symptom or and incurable because of the
psychic contamination which is severe paranoia of the patient;
that patients with this kind of By the very nature of Article 36,
personality disorder could never courts, despite having the ultimate
accept that there is something task of decision-making, must give
wrong with them and if ever due regard to expert opinion on
forced to seek treatment, they the psychological and mental
would rather engage in an disposition of the parties.90
intellectual battle with the
therapist rather than cooperate The root cause of respondent's
with them. paranoid personality disorder was
hereditary in nature as his own
Dr. Lopez concluded that father suffered from a similar
because of respondent's disorder. Dr. Lopez stated that
personality disorder, he is respondent's own psychological
incapacitated to perform his disorder probably started during
marital obligations of giving love, his late childhood years and
respect, and support to the developed in his early adolescent
petitioner.1âwphi1 He years. Dr. Lopez explained that
recommends that the marriage be respondent's psychological
annulled.89 (Emphasis supplied) incapacity to perform his marital
obligations was likely caused by
growing up with a pathogenic The incurability and severity of
parental model. respondent's psychological
incapacity were likewise discussed
The juridical antecedence of by Dr. Lopez. He vouched that a
respondent's psychological person with paranoid personality
incapacity was also sufficiently disorder would refuse to admit
proven during trial. Petitioner that there was something wrong
attested that she noticed and that there was a need for
respondent's jealousy even before treatment. This was corroborated
their marriage, and that he would by petitioner when she stated that
often follow her to make sure that respondent repeatedly refused
she did not talk to anyone or cheat treatment. Petitioner consulted a
on him.91 She believed that he lawyer, a priest, and a doctor, and
would change after they got suggested couples counselling to
married;92 however, this did not respondent; however, respondent
happen. Respondent's jealousy refused all of her attempts at
and paranoia were so extreme and seeking professional help.
severe that these caused him to Respondent also refused to be
poke a gun at petitioner's head.93 examined by Dr. Lopez.
 Article 68 of the Family Code coercive control. At first,
obligates the husband and wife "to respondent only inflicted
live together, observe mutual love, nonphysical forms of mistreatment
respect and fidelity, and render on petitioner by alienating her
mutual help and support." In this from her family and friends due to
case, petitioner and respondent his jealousy, and stalking her due
may have lived together, but the to his paranoia. However, his
facts narrated by petitioner show jealousy soon escalated into
that respondent failed to, or could physical violence when, on
not, comply with the obligations separate instances, he poked a
expected of him as a husband. He gun at his teenage cousin, and at
was even apathetic that petitioner petitioner.
filed a petition for declaration of
nullity of their marriage. Coercive control is a form of
psychological abuse, which refers
This Court also noticed to a pattern of behavior meant to
respondent's repeated acts of dominate a partner through
harassment towards petitioner, different tactics such as physical
which show his need to intimidate and sexual violence, threats,
and dominate her, a classic case of emotional insults, and economic
deprivation.94 Although not her child whether legitimate or
specifically named, coercive illegitimate, within or without the
control as a form of psychological family abode, which result in or is
abuse or harm has been likely to result in physical, sexual,
recognized in Republic Act No. psychological harm or suffering, or
9262 or the Anti-Violence Against economic abuse including threats
Women and Children Act of 2004: of such acts, battery, assault,
coercion, harassment or arbitrary
SECTION 3. Definition of deprivation of liberty. It includes,
Terms. -As used in this Act, but is not limited to, the following
acts:
(a) "Violence against women
and their children" refers to any C. "Psychological violence"
act or a series of acts committed refers to acts or omissions causing
by any person against a woman or likely to cause mental or
who is his wife, former wife, or emotional suffering of the victim
against a woman with whom the such as but not limited to
person has or had a sexual or intimidation, harassment, stalking,
dating relationship, or with whom damage to property, public ridicule
he has a common child, or against or humiliation, repeated verbal
abuse and mental infidelity. It and partnership entail. It would be
includes causing or allowing the of utmost cruelty for this Court to
victim to witness the physical, decree that petitioner should
sexual or psychological abuse of a remain married to respondent.
member of the family to which the After she had exerted efforts to
victim belongs, or to witness save their marriage and their
pornography in any form or to family, respondent simply refused
witness abusive injury to pets or to to believe that there was anything
unlawful or unwanted deprivation wrong in their marriage. This
of the right to custody and/or shows that respondent truly could
visitation of common children. not comprehend and perform his
marital obligations. This fact is
Respondent's repeated behavior persuasive enough for this Court
of psychological abuse by to believe that respondent's
intimidating, stalking, and isolating mental illness is incurable.
his wife from her family and
friends, as well as his increasing In granting the petition and
acts of physical violence, are proof declaring void the marriage of
of his depravity, and utter lack of Maria Teresa and Rodolfo, this
comprehension of what marriage Court reiterates the
pronouncement we made in an Since the State's interest
opinion in Mallilin v. must be toward the stability of
Jamesolamin:95 society, the notion of psychological
incapacity should not only be
Our choices of intimate based on a medical or
partners define us - inherent psychological disorder, but should
ironically in our individuality. consist of the inability to comply
Consequently, when the law with essential marital obligations
speaks of the nature, such that public interest is
consequences, and incidents of imperiled.96
marriage governed by law, this
refers to responsibility to children, Lastly, this Court takes note of
property relations, Ngo Te v. Gutierrez Yu Te's
disqualifications, privileges, and observation that a straitjacket
other matters limited to ensuring application of the Molina guidelines
the stability of society.1âwphi1 "has taken its toll on people who
The state's interest should not have to live with deviant behavior,
amount to unwarranted intrusions moral insanity and sociopathic
into individual liberties. personality anomaly, which, like
termites, consume little by little
the very foundation of their August 14, 2002 of Branch 107,
families, our basic social Regional Trial Court of Quezon City
institutions."97 Ironically, the in Civil Case No. Q-99-37829 is
ultimate effect of such stringent REINSTATED.
application of the Molina guidelines
is the perversion of the family unit, SO ORDERED.
the very institution that our laws
are meant to protect. MARVIC M.V.F. LEONEN
Associate Justice
WHEREFORE, premises
considered, the Petition is WE CONCUR:
GRANTED. The marriage of Maria
Teresa Tani-De La Fuente and ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Rodolfo De La Fuente is declared Associate Justice
NULL and VOID. The Decision and Chairperson
Resolution of the Court of Appeals TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE
dated August 29, 2008 and May CASTRO
25, 2009, respectively, in CA-G.R. Associate Justice DIOSDADO
CV. No. 76243 are REVERSED and M. PERALTA
SET ASIDE. The Decision dated Associate Justice
 the Division Chairperson’s
JOSE CATRAL MENDOZA Attestation, I certify that the
Associate Justice conclusions in the above Decision
had been reached in the case was
ATTESTATION assigned to the writer of the
opinion of the Court’s Division.
I attest that the conclusions in
the above Decision had been MARIA LOURDES P.A. SERENO
reached in consultation before the Chief Justice
case was assigned to the writer of
the opinion of the Court’s Division. Footnotes

ANTONIO T. CARPIO * Designated as Fifth Member

Associate Justice per S.0. No. 2416-EE dated
Chairperson, Second Division January 4, 2017.

CERTIFICATION 1 Rollo, pp. 12-35.

Pursuant to the Section 13, 2 Id. at 37-53. The Decision,

Article VIII of the Constitution and docketed as CA-G.R. CV. No.
76243, was penned by Associate
Justice Lucas P. Bersamin and 5 Id. at 83.
concurred in by Associate Justices
Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe and 6 Id. at 84.
Ramon M. Bato, Jr. of the
Seventeenth Division, Court of 7 Id.
Appeals, Manila.
8 Id.
3 Id. at 55-56. The Resolution
was penned by Associate Justice 9 Id.
Ramon M. Bato, Jr. and concurred
in by Associate Justices Mariano C. 10 Id.
Del Castillo and Estela M. Perlas-
Bernabe of the Special Former 11 Id. at 85.
Seventeenth Division, Court of
Appeals, Manila. 12 Id.

4 Id. at 82-95. The Decision 13 Id.

was penned by Presiding Judge
Rosalina L. Luna Pison. 14 Id.
 15 Id. at 86.

16 Id.

11 Id.
January 11, 2018
18 Id.
G.R. No. 218630
19 Id.
REPUBLIC OF THE
20 Id.
PHILIPPINES, Petitioner
vs.
21 Id. at 86-87.
KATRINA S. TOBORA-
TIONGLICO, Respondent
22 Id. at 87.
DECISION
23 Id. at I 5 I . Comment of the
Office of the Solicitor General.
TIJAM, J.:
 Tionglico (Lawrence) on the
This is a petition for review on ground of psychological incapacity
certiorari of the Decision1 dated under Article 36 of the Family
May 27, 2015 of the Court of Code.
Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No.
101985, which affirmed the May 8, Katrina and Lawrence met
2012 Decision2 rendered by the sometime in 1997 through a group
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Imus of mutual friends. After a brief
Cavite, Branch 20, granting the courtship, they entered into a
petition for declaration of nullity of relationship. When she got
marriage on the ground of Article pregnant, the two panicked as
36 of the Family Code and both their parents were very strict
declaring the marriage of Katrina and conservative. Lawrence did
S. Tabora-Tionglico and Lawrence not receive the news well as he
C. Tionglico void ab initio. was worried how it would affect
his image and how his parents
Respondent Katrina S. Tabora- would take the situation.3
Tionglico (Katrina) filed a petition Nevertheless, they got married on
for declaration of nullity of her July 22, 2000.4
marriage with Lawrence C.
 Even during the early stage of out for late dinners, parties and
their marriage, it was marred by drinking sprees.8 Katrina noticed
bickering and quarrels. As early as that Lawrence was alarmingly
their honeymoon, they were dependent on his mother and
fighting so much that they went suffered from a very high degree
their separate ways most of the of immaturity.9 Lawrence would
time and Katrina found herself repeatedly taunt Katrina to fight
wandering the streets of Hong with him and they lost all intimacy
Kong alone.5 between them as he insisted to
have a maid sleep in their
Upon their return, they moved bedroom every night to see to the
into the home of Lawrence's needs of Lanz.10
parents until the birth of their
child, Lanz Rafael Tabora Tionglico Lawrence refused to yield to
(Lanz), on December 30, 2000.6 and questioned any and all of
Lawrence was distant and did not Katrina's decisions-from the
help in rearing their child, saying manner by which she took care of
he knew nothing about children Lanz, to the way she treated the
and how to run a family.7 household help. Most fights ended
Lawrence spent almost every night up in full blown arguments, often
in front of Lanz. One time, when incapacity. Dr. Arellano, based on
Katrina remembered and missed the narrations of Katrina,
her youngest brother who was diagnosed Lawrence with
then committed in a substance Narcissistic Personality Disorder,
rehabilitation center, Lawrence that is characterized by a
told her to stop crying or sleep in heightened sense of self-
the rehabilitation center if she will importance and grandiose feelings
not stop.11 that he is unique in some way.13

In 2003, due to their incessant Dr. Arellano determined that

fighting, Lawrence asked Katrina this personality disorder is
to leave his parents' home and permanent, incurable, and deeply
never to come back. They have integrated within his psyche;14
been separated in fact since and that it was present but
then.12 repressed at the time of the
celebration of the marriage and
Katrina consulted with a the onset was in early adulthood.
psychiatrist, Dr. Juan Arellano (Dr. His maladaptive and irresponsible
Arellano), who confirmed her behaviors interfered in his capacity
beliefs on Lawrence's psychological to provide mutual love, fidelity,
respect, mutual help, and support Custody over the couple's· minor
to his wife.15 child is awarded to petitioner, with
reasonable visitation rights
The RTC granted the petition accorded to respondent, preferably
and declared the marriage of Saturday and Sunday, or as the
Katrina and Lawrence as void ab parties may agree among
initio. It disposed, thus: themselves.

WHEREFORE, judgment is Furnish a copy of this

hereby rendered declaring the decision the Office of the Solicitor-
marriage of Katrina S. Tabora- General, the National Statistics
Tionglico and Lawrence C. Office and the Local Civil Registrar
Tionglico Ito (sic) as void ab initio. of Imus, Cavite who, in turn, shall
As a necessary consequence of endorse a copy of the same to the
this pronouncement, petitioner Local Civil Registrar of
shall cease using the surname of Mandaluyong City, ·Metro Manila,
her husband having lost the right so that the appropriate
over the same and so as to avoid amendment and/or cancellation of
the misconception that she is still the parties' marriage can be
the legal wifo of respondent.
effected in its registry. Furnish, The Office of the Solicitor
likewise, the parties and counsel. General (OSG) points out that
there has been a myriad of cases
SO ORDERED.16 declaring that psychological
assessment based solely on the
The CA affirmed the RTC information coming from either
decision, the dispositive portion of party in a petition for declaration
which reads: of nullity of marriage is considered
as hearsay evidence. It is evident
WHEREFORE, the appeal is that in this case, the psychiatrist
DENIED. Accordingly, the Decision obtained his data, in concluding
of the Regional Trial Court of that Lawrence is psychologically
Imus, Cavite, Branch 20, in Civil incapacitated, exclusively from
Case No. 4903-11dated8 May 2012 Katrina.
is hereby AFFIRMED.17
The Office of the Solicitor
Hence, this petition for review General (OSG) points out that
on certiorari. there has been a myriad of cases
declaring that psychological
assessment based solely on the
information coming from either come up with his findings. In any
party in a petition for declaration case, the decision must be based
of nullity of marriage is considered not solely on the expert opinions
as hearsay evidence. It is evident but on the totality of evidence
that in this case, the psychiatrist adduced in the course of the
obtained his data, in concluding proceedings, which the RTC and
that Lawrence is psychologically the CA have found to have been
incapacitated, exclusively from sufficient in proving Lawrence's
Katrina. psychological incapacity.

Katrina counters that the facts, The issue before Us is plainly

bases and surrounding whether the totality of evidence
circumstances of each and every presented by Katrina supports the
case for the nullity is different findings of both the RTC and the
from the other and must be CA that Lawrence is
appreciated for its distinctiveness. psychologically incapacitated to
She points out that the perform his essential marital
psychological report of Dr. Arellano obligations, meriting the
clearly outlined well-accepted dissolution of his marriage with
scientific and reliable tests18 to Katrina.
 antecedence, i.e., it must be
Contrary to the findings of both rooted in the history of the party
the RTC and the CA, We rule in antedating the marriage, although
the negative. the overt manifestations may
emerge only after the marriage,
Time and again, it has been and (c) incurability, i.e., it must be
held that "psychological incurable, or even if it were
incapacity" has been intended by otherwise, the cure would be
law to be confined to the most beyond the means of the party
serious cases of personality involved.19
disorders clearly demonstrative of
an utter insensitivity or inability to The case of Republic of the
give meaning and significance to Philippines v. Court of
the marriage. Psychological Appeals20has set out the
incapacity must be characterized guidelines that has been the core
by (a) gravity, i.e., it must be of discussion of practically all
grave and serious such that the declaration of nullity of marriage
party would be incapable of on the basis of psychological
carrying out the ordinary duties incapacity cases that We have
required in a marriage, (b) juridical decided:
 of the celebration" of the
(1) The burden of proof to marriage. xxx
show the nullity of the marriage
belongs to the plaintiff. Any doubt (4) Such incapacity must also
should be resolved in favor of the be shown to be medically or
existence and continuation of the clinically permanent or incurable.
marriage and against its xxx
dissolution and nullity. xxx
(5) Such illness must be grave
(2) The root cause of the enough to bring about the
psychological incapacity must be: disability of the party to assume
(a) medically or clinically identified, the essential obligations of
(b) alleged in the complaint, (c) marriage. xxx
sufficiently proven by experts and
(d) clearly explained in the (6) The essential marital
decision. xxx obligations must be those
embraced by Articles 68 up to 71
(3) The incapacity must be of the Family Code as regards the
proven to be existing at "the time husband and wife as well as
Articles 220, 221 and 225 of the
same Code in regard to parents agreement or opposition, as the
and their children. xxx case may be, to the petition.
xxx21
(7) Interpretations given by the
National Appellate Matrimonial Using these standards, We find
Tribunal of the Catholic Church in that Katrina failed to sufficiently
the Philippines, while not prove that Lawrence is
controlling or decisive, should be psychologically incapacitated to
given great respect by our courts. discharge the duties expected of a
xxx husband.

(8) The trial court must order Indeed, and We have oft-
the prosecuting attorney or fiscal repeated that the trial courts, as in
and the Solicitor General to appear all the other cases they try, must
as counsel for the state. No always base their judgments not
decision shall be handed down solely on the expert opinions
unless the Solicitor General issues presented by the parties but on
a certification, which will be the totality of evidence adduced in
quoted in the decision, briefly the course of their proceedings.22
stating therein his reasons for his
Here, We find the totality of and finding of the clinical
evidence clearly wanting. psychologist cannot [be] relied
upon to substantiate the
First, Dr. Arellano's findings that petitioner-appellant's theory of the
Lawrence is psychologically psychological incapacity of his
incapacitated were based solely on wife.
Katrina's statements.1âwphi1 It
bears to stress that Lawrence, It bears stressing that
despite notice, did not participate Marilyn never participated in the
in the proceedings below, nor was proceedings below. The clinical
he interviewed by Dr. Arellano psychologist's evaluation of the
despite being invited to do so. respondent-appellee's condition
was based mainly on the
The case of Nicolas S. Matudan information supplied by her
v. Republic of the Philippines and husband, the petitioner, and to
Marilyn B. Matudan23is instructive some extent from their daughter,
on the matter: Maricel. It is noteworthy, however,
that Maricel was only around two
Just like his own statements (2) years of age at the time the
and testimony, the assessment respondent left and therefore
cannot be expected to know her We first note a critical factor
mother well. Also, Maricel would in appreciating or evaluating the
not have been very reliable as a expert opinion evidence - the
witness in an Article 36 case psychologist's testimony and the
because she could not have been psychological evaluation report -
there when the spouses were that Jocelyn presented. Based on
married and could not have been her declarations in open court, the
expected to know what was psychologist evaluated Angelito's
happening between her parents psychological condition only in an
until long after her birth. On the indirect manner - she derived all
other hand, as the petitioning her conclusions from information
spouse, Nicolas' description of coming from Jocelyn whose bias
Marilyn's nature would certainly be for her cause cannot of course be
biased, and a psychological doubted. Given the source of the
evaluation based on this one-sided information upon which the
description can hardly be psychologist heavily relied upon,
considered as credible. The ruling the court must evaluate the
in Jocelyn Suazo v. Angelita Suazo, evidentiary worth of the opinion
el al., is illuminating on this score: with due care and with the
application of the more rigid and
stringent set of standards outlined While the report or evaluation may
above i.e., that there must be a be conclusive with respect to
thorough and in-depth assessment Jocelyn's psychological condition,
of the parties by the psychologist this is not true for Angelito's. The
or expert, for a conclusive methodology employed simply
diagnosis of a psychological cannot satisfy the required depth
incapacity that is grave, severe and comprehensiveness of
and incurable. examination required to evaluate a
party alleged to be suffering from
xxxx a psychological disorder. In short,
this is not the psychological report
From these perspectives, we that the Court can rely on as basis
conclude that the psychologist, for the conclusion that
using meager information coming psychological incapacity exists.
from a directly interested party,
could not have secured a complete In the earlier case of Rowena
personality profile and could not Padilla-Rumbaua v. Edward
have conclusively formed an Rumbaua, it was similarly declared
objective opinion or diagnosis of that '[t]o make conclusions and
Angelito's psychological condition. generalizations on the
respondent's psychological from. Narcissistic Personality
condition based on the information Disorder with antisocial traits on
fed by only one side is, to our the basis of what she perceives as
mind, not different from admitting manifestations of the same. The
hearsay evidence as proof of the report neither explained the
truthfulness of the content of such incapacitating nature of the
evidence.' alleged disorder, nor showed that
the respondent-appellee was really
At any rate, We find the incapable of fulfilling her duties
report prepared by the clinical due to some incapacity of a
psychologist on the psychological psychological, not physical, nature.
condition of the respondent- (Emphasis Ours)
appellee to be insufficient to
warrant the conclusion that a The same could be said in this
psychological incapacity existed case, where the various tests
that prevented Marilyn from conducted by Dr. Arellano can
complying with the essential most certainly be conclusive of the
obligations of marriage. In said psychological disposition of
report, Dr. Tayag merely Katrina, but cannot be said to be
concluded that Marilyn suffers indicative of the psychological
condition of Lawrence. There was picture of a psychologically
simply no other basis for Dr. incapacitated husband. Their
Arellano to conclude that Lawrence frequent fights, his insensitivity,
was psychologically incapacitated immaturity and frequent night-outs
to perform his essential marital can hardly be said to be a
obligations apart from Katrina's psychological illness. These acts, in
self-serving statements. To make our view, do not rise to the level of
conclusions and generalizations on the "psychological incapacity" that
a spouse's psychological condition the law requires, and should be
based on the information fed by distinguished from the "difficulty,"
only one side, as in the case at if not outright "refusal" or
bar, is, to the Court's mind, not "neglect" in the performance of
different from admitting hearsay some marital obligations that
evidence as proof of the characterize some marriages.25 It
truthfulness of the content of such is not enough to prove that a
evidence.24 spouse failed to meet his
responsibility and duty as a
Second, the testimony of married person; it is essential that
Katrina as regards the behavior of he must be shown to be incapable
Lawrence hardly depicts the of doing so due to some
psychological illness. The Katrina to prove Lawrence's
psychological illness that must alleged psychological incapacity.
afflict a party at the inception of Basic is the rule that bare
the marriage should be a malady allegations, unsubstantiated by
so grave and permanent as to evidence, are not equivalent to
deprive the party of his or her proof, i.e., mere allegations are
awareness of the duties and not evidence.27 Here, we reiterate
responsibilities of the matrimonial that apart from the psychiatrist,
bond he or she was then about to Katrina did not present other
assume.26 witnesses to substantiate her
allegations on Lawrence's
Although We commiserate with psychological incapacity. Her
Katrina's predicament, We are testimony, therefore, is considered
hardpressed to affirm the RTC and self-serving and had no serious
CA when the totality of evidence is evidentiary value.28
clearly lacking to support the
factual and legal conclusion that WHEREFORE, the petition for
Lawrence and Katrina's marriage is review on certiorari is hereby
void ab initio. No other evidence or GRANTED. The Decision dated
witnesses were presented by May 27, 2015 of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 101985,
which affirmed the May 8, 2012 WE CONCUR:
Decision rendered by the Regional
Trial Court of Imus Cavite, Branch MARIA LOURDES P.A. SERENO
20, granting the petition for Associate Justice
declaration of nullity of marriage Chairperson
on the ground of Article 36 of the TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE
Family Code and declaring the CASTRO
marriage of Katrina S. Tabora- Associate Justice LUCAS P.
Tionglico and Lawrence C. BERSAMIN
Tionglico void ab initio, is hereby Associate Justice
REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The
petition for declaration of nullity of MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO
marriage docketed as Civil Case Associate Justice
No. 4903-11 is hereby DISMISSED.
CERTIFICATION
SO ORDERED.
Pursuant to the Section 13,
NOEL GIMENEZ TIJAM Article VIII of the Constitution, I
Associate Justice certify that the conclusions in the
above Decision had been reached 1 Penned by Associate Justice
in consultation before the case Socorro B. Inting, and concurred in
was assigned to the writer of the by Associate Justices Priscilla J.
opinion of the Court’s Division. Baltazar-Padilla and Mario V.
Lopez.; Rollo, pp. 25-36.
MARIA LOURDES P.A. SERENO
Chief Justice 2 Penned by Presiding Judge
Fernando L. Felicen; Id. at 31-34.
Footnotes
3 Id. at 32 and 44.
**Referred to as Katrina S.
Tabora-Tionglico in the RTC and 4 Id. at 26.
CA Decisions and other pleadings.
5 Id. at 37.
*Designated additional Member
per Raffle dated November 20, 6 Id. at 42.
2017 vice Associate Justice Francis
H. Jardeleza. 7 Id. at 26.

8 Id. at 37.
 18 Psychiatric and psychological
9 Id. at 46. interviews, Rhodes Sentence
Completion Test, Draw a Person
10 Id. at 47. Test, Zung Anxiety and Depression
Scale, Examination of Mental
11 Id. at 38. Status and Mental Processes,
Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale,
12 Id. at 48. Social Case History. and Survey of
Interpersonal Values, see rollo, pp.
13 Id. at 52. 54-55.

14 Id. 19 Castillo v. Republic, G.R. No.

214064, February 6, 2017.
15 Id. at 53.
20 335 Phil. 664 (1997) and
16 Id. at 33-34. 268 SCRA 198.

17 Id. at 29. 21 Id. at 676-679.

 22 Mendoza v. Rep. of the
Phils., et. al., 698 Phil. 241, 0254
(2012).

23 G.R. No. 203284, November

14, 2016.

24 Castillo v. Republic, supra

note 19.

25 Padilla-Rumbaua v.
Rumbaua, 612 Phil. 1061, 1083
(2009).

26 Id at 1092.

27 Castillo v. Republic, supra

note 19.

28 Id.
 MARCO DAN, Respondent

DECISION

DEL CASTILLO, J.:

This Petition for Review on

Certiorari1 seeks to set aside the
December 14, 2012 Decision2 and
August 29, 2013 Resolution3 of
the Court of Appeals (CA) denying
FIRST DIVISION the Petition in CA-G.R. CV
No.95112 and herein petitioner's
APRIL 16, 2018 Motion for Reconsideration,4
respectively, thus affirming the
G.R. No. 209031 January 4, 2010 Decision5 of the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Las
ABIGAEL AN EPINA-DAN, Piñas City, Branch 254, in Civil
Petitioner Case No. LP07-0155.
vs
 Factual Antecedents Soon after the wedding,
respondent returned to Italy.
Petitioner Abigael An Espina- Petitioner followed thereafter, or
Dan and respondent Marco Dan - on February 23, 2006. The couple
an Italian national - met "in a lived together in Italy.
chatroom [o]n the internet"6
sometime in May, 2005. They soon On April 18, 2007, petitioner left
became "chatmates" and "began respondent and flew back into the
exchanging letters which further country.
drew them emotionally closer to
each other"7 even though Ruling of the Regional Trial
petitioner was in the Philippines Court
while respondent lived in Italy.
On September 14, 2007,
In November, 2005, respondent petitioner filed a Petition8 for
proposed marriage. The following declaration of nullity of her
year, he flew in from Italy and tied marriage, docketed as Civil Case
the knot with petitioner on January No. LP-07-0155with the RTC of Las
23, 2006. Piñas City, Branch 254. The Office
of the Solicitor General
representing the Republic of the jolly. He made her feel that he
Philippines opposed the petition. really cared for her. He was
romantic. X X X [A]lthough at
On January 4, 2010, the RTC times, respondent was impatient
issued its Decision dismissing the and easily got irritated, X X X.
petition on the ground that
petitioner's evidence failed to xxxx
adequately prove respondent's
alleged psychological incapacity. It On 9 January 2006,
held, thus: respondent flew in to the
Philippines and x x x they got
Testifying thru her Judicial married on 23 January 2006 X X X.
Affidavit x x x petitioner stated During their honeymoon, petitioner
that sometime in May 2005, she noticed that the respondent was
chanced upon the respondent, an not circumcised, x x x
Italian, in the internet xxx and [R]espondent (also) asked her
they became regular chatmates. x where to find marijuana since he
x x In their exchanges of chat had to sniff some. This made
messages and letters, she found petitioner angry and she quarrelled
respondent to be sweet, kind and
with him. Respondent apologized house. it was respondent's mother
later. who managed the household.

On 29 January 2006, X X X Respondent was also

respondent flew back to Italy and addicted to video games. During
on 26 February 2006, xxx work days, playing video games
petitioner left to join respondent in was always the first thing he does
Italy. Xxx After a few days, when he wakes up and the last
respondent started displaying thing he does before retiring.
traits, character and attitude During rest days, he would play
different from that of Marco whom video games the whole day. There
she had known thru the internet. was never a quality time he spent
He was immature, childish, with her, the kind of time that a
irresponsible and dependent. He responsible husband would spend
depended on his mother to do or with his wife.
to decide things for him. It was
even his mother who decided Respondent was also
where they lived and how the addicted to video games. During
house should be arranged. When work days, playing video games
they transferred to a separate was always the first thing he does
when he wakes up and the last deodorant on his underarms for he
thing he does before retiring. would not do it himself. He refused
During rest days, he would play circumcision.
video games the whole day. There
was never a quality time he spent Sometime in May 2006, she
with her, the kind of time that a caught him in their house while
responsible husband would spend using marijuana. When
with his wife. confronted, he get mad and
pushed her [hard] and hit her in
Respondent was extremely the arm, [and told] her to go back
lazy that he never helped her in to the Philippines. X X X
doing all the household chores. He
also has extremely poor hygiene. In October 2006, x x x they
He seldom takes a bath and transferred to another house.
brushes his teeth. For him to be Living in a separate house from his
able to take a bath, petitioner mother did not improve their
would literally push him to the marital relationship. His addiction
bathroom or hand him his to video games worsened. They
toothbrush with toothpaste to seldom talk to each other as he
brush his teeth. She had to put did not want to be disturbed while
playing games. His addiction to She further stated that
drugs likewise worsened. He would respondent x x x only gave her
often invite his friends to their moncy for food. He spent most of
house for pot sessions, X X X to his income for video games. If
her extreme fright and discomfort. they ran out of food, it was her
mother-in-law who supported
xxxx them.

On 18 April 2007. she flew xxxx

back to the Philippines. XXX Since
then, there was no communication Next presented was NEDY
between them. XX x Petitioner TAYAG, a clinical psychologist,
took this as lack of interest on his who testified x x x in her direct-
part to save their marriage, reason examination that petitioner xxx
why she decided to file this was subjected to a series of
petition (TSN, August 11, 2008, psychological tests, written and
pp. 6-10). oral form. She likewise subjected
the mother of the petitioner to
xxxx clarificatory analysis x x x.
 In her evaluation, she found and information supplied by the
no sign or symptom of major petitioner, and the description of
psychological incapacity of the the petitioner's mother regarding
petitioner, while respondent is how she perceived the respondent.
suffering from a xxx Dependent
Personality Disorder with On cross-examination, x x x
Underlying Anti-Social Trait, by his she described respondent x x x as
parasitic attitude, allowing other "Mama's Boy", which attitude can
people to be the handler of his be narcissistic because of his
own personal sustenance, even attachment to the mother. He can
hygienic wise, which somehow do whatever he wants because the
distorted the notion on how to mother will always be at his back.
handle marital obligations in terms She likewise stated that the
of mutual understanding, respondent is an unhygienic
communication and emotional person and the reason why he
intent. She was able to arrive at opted to lure herein petitioner to
these findings on respondent be his wife was because he
although he did not submit himself wanted her to be an extension of
for the same psychological tests, his maternal needs to sustain his
through the clinical assessments own desire.
 mother of herein petitioner. Her
On clarificatory questions of Judicial Affidavit x x x was adopted
the Court x x x Ms. Tayag testified as her direct-testimony, which was
that she was able to describe the entirely in corroboration of the
respondent xxx because of the testimony of petitioner Abigael An
description made by the petitioner Espina-Dan.
and her mother. She however,
admitted that as disclosed to her On cross-examiration x x x.
by the petitioner, she (petitioner) She testified that respondent had
was not able to have a bonding or not assumed his responsibilities as
to know well the respondent a married man, his dependency on
because more often than not the drugs, his dependency on his
respondent was always in the mother with regard to their
company of the mother that a finances were just toid by her
pathological symbiotic relationship daughter, petitioner herein, during
developed between the mother their conversations in the internet
and son. and therefore she has no personal
knowledge to what happened to
Last witness presented was her daughter, petitioner herein.
MS. VIOLETA G. ESPINA, the
 xxxx juridical antecedence, and (c)
incurability. The incapacity must
Article 36 of the Family Code be grave or serious such that the
x x x provides: party would be incapable of
carrying out the ordinary duties
A marriage contracted by required in marriage; it must be
any party who, at the time of the rooted in the history of the party
celebration of marriage, was antedating the marriage, although
psychologically incapacitated to the overt manifestations may
comply with the essential marital emerge only after the marriage,
obligations of marriage, shall and it must be incurable or, even if
likewise be void even if such it were otherwise, the cure would
incapacity becomes manifest only be beyond the means of the party
after its solemnization. involved.

The Supreme Court in the In the instant case, the

case of Santos v. Court of Appeals, clinical psychologist found
(240 SCRA 20, 24) declared that respondent to be suffering from x
psychological incapacity must be x x Dependent Personality
characterized by (a) gravity, (6) Disorder with underlying Antisocial
traits, x x x which x x x is 'grave, arrived at the conclusion that
severe, long lasting and incurable respondent was totally dependent
by any treatment'. x x x (on] his mother, his propensity
[with] illegal substance, his
XXXX instability to maintain even his
personal hygiene, and his neglect
The clinical psychologist['s] to assume his responsibilities as a
findings and conclusion were husband, Nedy Tayag failed to
derived from her interviews of explain. It bears recalling that
petitioner and her mother. petitioner and respondent were
However, from petitioner's Judicial chatmates in 2005 and contracted
Affidavit xxx, it was gathered that marriage in 2006 when respondent
respondent's failure to establish a was already 35 years old, far
common life with her stems from removed from adolescent years.
his refusal, not incapacity to do so.
It is downright incapacity, not Noteworthy is petitioner's
refusal or neglect or difficulty, admission that she and respondent
much less ill will, which renders a met in a chat room in the internet.
marriage void on the ground of Respondent was very sweet, kind
psychological incapacity. How she and jolly. He was romantic. He
made her feel that he cared even husband to petitioner, she would
if they were apart. He always find reason to say
remembered important occasions otherwise.
and he would always send her
sweet messages and funny jokes x As to her allegation that
x x which revealed the harmonious respondent was unhygienic; x x x
relationship of the couple before it was admitted by no less than
their marriage. From this, it can be the psychologist, Nedy Tayag that
inferred how responsible in a country like Italy wherein the
respondent was to faithfully weather is different from the
comply with his obligations as a Philippines, the people there do
boyfriend. During marriage, not bathe regularly x x x. With
respondent was working and respect to circumcision, we all
giving her money though not know that circumcision is not
enough as she said (TSN, August common in European countries.
11, 2008, p. 15). With this You cannot compel respondent to
premise, it is therefore safe to undergo circumcision since it is
conclude that no matter how hard against their culture. However,
respondent would try to show his respondent expressed his
best, to show his capability as
willingness to be circumcised, but mother was all out in helping them
later on, changed his mind. since the salary of the respondent
was not sufficient to sustain their
As to her allegation that needs.
respondent was a drug dependent,
petitioner never showed that she All told, the Court cannot see
exerted effort to seek medical help how the personality disorder of
for her husband. Undeniably, drug respondent would render him
addiction is curable and therefore unaware of the basic marital
it can hardly be considered as a covenants that concomitantly must
manifestation of the kind of be assumed and discharged by
psychological incapacity him, At the most, the
contemplated under Article 36 of psychological evaluation of the
the Family Code. parties proved only incompatibility
and irreconcilable differences,
With regard to the considering also their culture
dependency of respondent to his differences, which cannot be
mother, it was not well established equated with psychological
by the petitioner. X X X What is incapacity. Along this line, the
clear was that respondent's aforesaid psychological evaluation
made by Ms. Tayag is burden of overcoming the legal
unfortunately one sided (and) presumption of validity and the
based only on the narrations made continuance of her marriage with
by petitioner who had known respondent, declaration of nullity
respondent only for a short period of same marriage is not in order.
of time and too general to notice
these specific facts thereby failing WHEREFORE, premises
to serve its purpose in aiding the considered, the petition for
Court in arriving at a just declaration of nullity of marriage is
resolution of this case. hereby DENIED, for lack of merit
and accordingly, the same petition
In sum, inasmuch as the is hereby DISMISSED.
evidence adduced by petitioner in
support of her petition is miserably Furnish the Office of the
wanting in force to convince this Solicitor General and the Office of
Court that her marriage with the City Prosecutor, Las Piñas City,
respondent comes and qualifies for their information and
under the provision of Article 36 of guidance.9
the Family Code and hence unable
to discharge completely her
 Petitioner moved to Thus, the court a quo correctly
reconsider,10 but in an April 28, denied the petition for annulment
2010 Order,11 the RTC held its of marriage x x x.
ground.
XXXX
Ruling of the Court of Appeals
In Toring v. Toring, the
Petitioner filed an appeal before Supreme Court held that
the CA, docketed as CA-G.R. CV psychological incapacity under
No. 95112. In its assailed Article 36 of the Family Code must
December 14, 2012 Decision, be characterized by (a) gravity, (b)
however, the CA denied the appeal juridical antecedence, and (c)
and affirmed the RTC Decision, incurability, to be sufficient basis
declaring thus: to annul a marriage. The
psychological incapacity should
x x x There is no ground to refer to no less than a mental (not
declare the marriage xxx null and physical) incapacity that causes a
void on the ground of party to be truly incognitive of the
psychological incapacity under basic marital covenants that
Article 36 of the Family Code. concomitantly must be assumed
and discharged by the parties to the continuing doctrinal validity of
the marriage. Santos. Insofar as the present
factual situation is concerned,
It further expounded on what should not be lost in reading
Article 36 x x x in Republic v. Court and applying our established
of Appeals and Molina and laid rulings is the intent of the law to
down definitive guidelines in the confine the application of Article
interpretation and application of 36 of the Family Code to the most
this article. These guidelines serious cases of personality
incorporate the basic requirements disorders; these are the disorders
of gravity, juridical antecedence that result in the utter insensitivity
and incurability established in the or inability of the afflicted party to
Santos case, as follows: give meaning and significance to
the marriage he or she contracted.
xxxx Furthermore, the psychological
illness and its root cause must
Subsequent jurisprudence on have been there from the
psychological incapacity applied inception of the marriage. From
these basic guidelines to varying these requirements arise the
factual situations, thus confirming concept that Article 36 xxx does
not really dissolve a marriage: it dependent on his mother, addicted
simply recognizes that there never to video games, addicted to drugs,
was any marriage in the first place lazy, had poor hygiene, and his
because the affliction - already refusal or unwillingness to assume
then existing - was so grave and the essential obligations of
permanent as to deprive the marriage, are not enough. These
afflicted party of awareness of the traits do not equate to an inability
duties and responsibilities of the to perform marital obligations due
matrimonial bond he or she was to to a psychological illness present
assume or had assumed. at the time the marriage was
solemnized. Psychological
In the present case, We find incapacity must be more than just
the totality of the petitioner- a "difficulty," "refusal," or
appellant's evidence insufficient to "neglect" in the performance of
prove respondent-appellee was some marital obligations. It is not
psychologically incapacitated to enough the respondent-appellee,
perform his marital obligations. alleged to be psychologically
Petitioner-appellant's depiction of incapacitated, had difficulty in
respondent-appellee as complying with his marital
irresponsible, childish, overly obligations, or was unwilling to
perform these obligations. Proof of not by themselves warrant a
a natal or supervening disabling finding of psychological incapacity
factor - an adverse integral x x x, as the same may only be
element in the respordent's due to a person's refusal or
personality structure that unwillingness to assume the
effectively incapacitated him from essential obligations of marriage.
complying with his essential It is essential that the spouse must
marital obligations - must be be shown to be incapable of
shown. performing marital obligations, due
to some psychological illness
Mere difficulty, refusal, or existing at the time of the
neglect in the performance of celebration of the marriage.
marital obligations, or ill will on the Respondent-appellee's condition or
part of the spouse, is different personality disorder has not been
from incapacity rooted in some shown to be a malady rooted on
debilitating psychological condition some incapacitating psychological
or illness; irreconcilable condition.
differences, sexual infidelity or
perversion, emotional immaturity It will be noted [that] Ms.
and irresponsibility and the like, do Tayag did not administer
psychological tests on respondent- above, i.e., that there must be a
appellee. The conclusion in the thorough and in-depth assessment
psychological report of Ms. Tayag of the parties by the psychologist
that respondent-appellee was or expert, for a conclusive
suffering from Dependent diagnosis of a psychological
Personality Disorder, with incapacity that is grave, severe,
underlying Anti-Social traits, was and incurable. Thus, We cannot
based merely on information credit Ms. Tayag's findings as
supplied by petitioner-appellant conclusive, as she did not conduct
and Violeta (mother of the an actual psychological
petitioner-appellant). examination on respondent-
appellee. The information relied
Generally, expert opinions upon by Ms. Tayag could not have
are regarded, not as conclusive, secured a complete personality
but as purely advisory in profile and could not have
character. The court must evaluate conclusively formed an objective
the evidentiary worth of the opinion or diagnosis of
opinion with due care and with the respondent-appellee's
application of the more rigid and psychological condition. The
stringent set of standards outlined methodology employed (i.e.,
gathering information regarding appellee's family background and
respondent-appellee from upbringing, Ms. Tayag was not
petitioner-appellant and Violeta, able to establish with certainty
without interviewing respondent- that respondert-appellee's alleged
appelles himself), simply cannot psychological incapacity was grave
satisfy the required depth and enough to bring about the inability
comprehensiveness of examination of the respondent-appellee to
required to evaluate a party assume the essential obligations of
alleged to be suffering from a marriage, so that the same was
psychological disorder. medically permanent or incurable.
Also, it did not fully explain the
Plaintiff-appellant failed to details of respondent-appellee's
prove the root cause of the alleged alleged disorder and its root
psychological incapacity, and to cause; how Ms. Tayag came to the
establish the requirements of conclusion that respondent-
gravity, juridical antecedence, and appeliee's condition was incurable;
incurability. The psychological and how it related to the essential
report, was based entirely on marital obligations that
petitioner-appellant's assumed respondent-appellee failed to
knowledge of respondent- assume.
 in this case, the only proof This Court finds the totality
which bears on the claim that of evidence presented by
respondent-appellee is petitioner-appellant failed to
psychologically incapacitated, is his establish the alleged psychological
allegedly being irresponsible, incapacity of her husband x x x.
childish, overly dependent on his Therefore, there is no basis to
mother, addicted to video games, declare their marriage null and
addicted to drugs, lazy, had poor void x x x.
hygiene, and his refusal or
unwillingness to assume the The Constitution sets out a
essential obligations of marriage. policy of protecting and
It is worthy to emphasize that strengthening the family as the
Article 36 X X X contemplates basic social institution and
downright incapacity or inability to marriage as the foundation of the
take cognizance of and to assume family. Marriage, as an inviolable
the basic marital obligations; not a institution protected by the State,
mere refusal, neglect or difficulty, cannot be dissolved at the whim of
much less, ill will, on the part of the parties. In petitions for the
the errant spouse. declaration of nullity of marriage,
the burden of proof to show the August 29, 2013 Resolution, the
nullity of marriage lies on the CA stood its ground. Hence, the
plaintiff. Any doubt should be instant Petition.
resolved in favor of the existence
and continuation of the marriage Issue
and against its dissolution and
nullity. Petitioner mainly contends
that –
WHEREFORE, the appeal is
DISMISSED. "The Decision of the THE TOTALITY OF
Regional Trial Court, Branch 254, PETITIONER'S EVIDENCE
Las Piñas City dated 4 January ESTABLISHED THE
2010, in Civil Case No. LP-07- PSYCHOLOGICAL INCAPACITY OF
0155, is AFFIRMED. RESPONDENT AND SATISFIED
THE STANDARDS OF REPUBLIC
SO ORDERED.12 (Citations VS. COURT OF APPEALS AND
omitted) MOLINA AND OTHER PREVAILING
JURISPRUDENCE IN POINT.13
Petitioner moved for
reconsideration, but in its assailed Petitioner's Arguments
 love, respect and fidelity, and
Petitioner argues that the root render mutual help and support to
cause of respondent's her.
psychological incapacity was
clinically identified, sufficiently Petitioner adds that her
alleged in the petition, and proved allegations in the petition for
by adequate evidence; that declaration of nullity are
respondent's psychological specifically linked to medical and
incapacity was shown to be clinical causes as diagnosed by Dr.
existing at the time of the Tayag, which diagnosis is
celebration of the marriage, and contained in the latter's report
that the same is medically which forms part of the evidence
permanent, incurable, and grave in the case; that such diagnosis is
enough as to bring about the backed by scientific tests and
inability of respondent to assume expert determination, which
his obligations in marriage, and sufficiently prove respondent's
that as a consequence, respondent psychological incapacity; that Dr.
is incapable of fulfilling his duties Tayag has adequately determined
as a husband under the obligation that respondent's condition is
to live together, observe mutual grave, incurable, and existed prior
to and at the time of his marriage rooted and stems from his
to petitioner; that respondent has formative years - a product of
been suffering from Dependent faulty child-rearing practices and
Personality Disorder with unhealthy familial constellation
Underlying Anti-Social Trait which that altered his emotional and
deterred him from appropriately moral development.
discharging his duties and
responsibilities as a married man; Finally, petitioner argues that it
that despite considerable efforts is not necessary that personal
exerted by petitioner, respondent examination of respondent be
remained true to his propensities conducted in order that he may be
and even defiant, to the point of diagnosed or declared as
exhibiting violence; that no psychologically incapacitated. She
amount of therapy - no matter cites the cases of Marcos v.
how intensive - can possibly Marcos14 and Antonio v. Reyes,15
change respondent, but rather he as well as the case of Suazo v.
would always be in denial of his Suazo,16 in which latter case it
own condition and resist any form was held that a personal
of treatment; and that examination of the party alleged to
respondent's condition is deep- be psychologically incapacitated is
not necessarily mandatory, bụt In its Comment20 praying for
merely desirable, as it may not be denial, the State calls for
practical in all instances given the affirmance of the CA dispositions,
oftentimes estranged relations arguing that no new issues that
between the partics. She suggests merit reversal have been raised in
instead that pursuant to the ruling the Petition. It contends that
in Ngo Te v. Gutierrez Yu-Te,17 petitioner failed to prove the
"each case must be judged, not on elements of gravity, juridical
the basis of a priori presumptions, antecedence, and incurability; that
predilections or generalizations, quite the contrary, petitioner even
but according to its own facts"18 admitted that incipiently,
and that courts "should interpret respondent was romantic, funny,
the provision on a case-to-case responsible, working, and giving
basis, guided by experience, the money to her; that petitioner's
findings of experts and researchers allegations of video game and
in psychological disciplines x x drug addiction are uncorroborated,
x."19 and her failure to seek medical
treatment therefor in behalf of her
The State's Arguments husband must be considered
against her, that such addictions
are curable and could not be the bond one is about to assume; that
basis for a declaration of the psychological evaluation of
psychological incapacity; that respondent was based on one-
respondent's irresponsibility, sided information supplied by
immaturity, and over-dependence petitioner and her mother - which
on his mother do not automatically renders the same of doubtful
justify a conclusion of credibility; and that while personal
psychological incapacity under examination of respondent is
Article 36 of the Family Code; that indeed not mandatory, there are
the intent of the law is to confine instances where it is required -
the meaning of psychological such as in this case, where the
incapacity to the most serious information supplied to the
cases of personality disorders - psychologist unilaterally comes
existing at the time of the from the side of the petitioner,
marriage -- clearly demonstrating which renders such information
an utter insensitivity or inability to biased and partial as would
give meaning and significance to materially affect the psychologist's
the marriage, and depriving the assessment.
spouse of awareness of the duties
and responsibilities of the marital Our Ruling
 him only for a short period of time;
The Court denies the petition. Dr. Tayag's psychological report -
which is practically onesided for
Both the trial and appellate the latter's failure to include
courts dismissed the petition in respondent in the study; and the
Civil Case No. LP-07-0155 on the account of petitioner's mother,
ground that petitioner's evidence which is deemed biased and thus
failed to sufficiently prove that of doubtful credibility.
respondent was psychologically
incapacitated to enter marriage at The Court agrees.
the time. They held that while
petitioner alleged such condition, Petitioner's evidence consists
she was unable to establish its mainly of her judicial affidavit and
existence, gravity, juridical testimony; the judicial affidavits
antecedence, and incurability and testimonies of hermother and
based solely on her testimony, Dr. Tayag; and Dr. Tayag's
which is insufficient, self-serving, psychological evaluation report on
unreliable, and uncorroborated, as the psychological condition of both
she did not know respondent very petitioner and respondent. The
well enough - having been with deterınination of respondent's
alleged psychological incapacity unfit for marriage. As correctly
was based solely on petitioner's observed by the trial and appellate
account and that of her mother, courts, the couple simply drifted
since respondent was presumably apart as a result of irreconcilable
in Italy and did not participate in differences and basic
the proceedings. incompatibility owing to
differences in culture and
This is insufficient. upbringing, and the very short
period that they spent together
At some point in her accounts, prior to their tying the knot. As for
petitioner admitted that before respondent's claimed addiction to
and during their marriage, video games and cannabis, the
respondent was working and trial and appellate courts are
giving money to her; that correct in their ruling that these
respondent was romantic, sweet, are not an incurable condition, and
thoughtful, responsible, and petitioner has not shown that she
caring; and that she and helped her husband overcome
respondent enjoyed a harmonious them - as part of her marital
relationship. This belies her claim obligation to render support and
that petitioner was psychologically aid to respondent.
 under Article 36 of the Family
"What is important is the Code, should refer to no less than
presence of evidence that can a mental -- not merely physical -
adequately establish the party's incapacity that causes a party to
psychological condition.21 "[T]he be truly incognitive of the basic
complete facts should allege the marital covenants that
physical manifestations, if any, as concomitantly must be assumed
are indicative of psychological and discharged by the parties to
incapacity at the time of the the marriage which, as so
celebration of the marriage"22 expressed in Article 38 of the
such that "[i]f the totality of Family Code, among others,
evidence presented is enough to include their mutual obligations to
sustain a finding of psychological live together, observe love, respect
incapacity, then actual medical and fidelity and render help and
examination of the person support. There is hardly any doubt
concerned need not be resorted that the intendment of the law has
to."23 been to confine the meaning of
psychological incapacity to the
'Psychological incapacity,' as most serious cases of personality
a ground to nullify a marriage disorders clearly demonstrative of
an utter insensitivity or inability to petitions for the declaration of
give meaning and significance to nullity of marriage, viz.:
the marriage.24
We cannot help but note
With the declared insufficiency that Dr. Tayag's conclusions about
of the testimonies of petitioner and the respondent's psychological
her witness, the weight of proving incapacity were based on the
psychological incapacity shifts to information fed to her by only one
Dr. Tayag's expert findings. side --- the petitioner -- whose
However, her determinations were bias in favor of her cause cannot
not based on actual tests or be doubted. While this
interviews conducted on circumstance alone does not
respondent himself - but on disqualify the psychologist for
personal accounts of petitioner reasons of bias, her report,
alone. This will not do as well. testimony and conclusions deserve
the application of a more rigid and
x x x Rumbaua provides stringent set of standards in the
some guidelines on how the courts manner we discussed above. For,
should evaluate the testimonies of effectively, Dr. Tayag only
psychologists or psychiatrists in diagnosed the respondent from
the prism of a third party account; insufficiently in-depth and
she did not actually hear, see and comprehensive to warrant the
evaluate the respondent and how conclusion that a psychological
he would have reacted and incapacity existed that prevented
responded to the doctor's probes. the respondent from complying
with the essential obligations of
Dr. Tayag, in her report, marriage. It failed to identify the
merely summarized the petitioner's root cause of the respondent's
narrations, and on this basis narcissistic personality disorder
characterized the respondent to be and to prove that it existed at the
a self-centered, egocentric, and inception of the marriage. Neither
unremorseful person who believes did it explain the incapacitating
that the world revolves around nature of the alleged disorder, nor
him'; and who 'used love as a . . . show that the respondent was
deceptive tactic for exploiting the really incapable of fulfilling his
confidence [petitioner) extended duties due to some incapacity of a
towards him.'. . . psychological, not physical, nature.
Thus, we cannot avoid but
We find these conclude that Dr. Tayag's
observations and conclusions conclusion in her Report -- i.e.,
that the respondent suffered mind, not different from admitting
"Narcissistic Personality Disorder hearsay evidence as proof of the
with traces of Antisocial truthfulness of the content of such
Personality Disorder declared to be evidence.25
grave and incurable’- is an
unfounded statement, not a Concomitantly, the rulings of
necessary inference from her the trial and appellate courts -
previous characterization and identical in most respects -are
portrayal of the respondent. While entitled to respect and
the various tests administered on finality.1âwphi1 The same being
the petitioner could have been correct, this Court finds no need to
used as a fair gauge to assess her disturb them.
own psychological condition, this
same statement cannot be made The issue of whether or not
with respect to the respondent's psychological incapacity exists in a
condition. To make conclusions given case calling for annulment of
and generalizations on the marriage depends crucially, more
respondent's psychological than in any field of the law, on the
condition based on the information facts of the case. Such factual
fed by only one side is, to our issue, however, is beyond the
province of this Court to review. It ordinary duties required in
is not the function of the Court to marriage; it must be rooted in the
analyze or weigh all over again the history of the party antedating the
evidence or premises supportive of marriage, although the overt
such factual determination. It is a manifestations may emerge only
well-established principle that after marriage, and it must be
factual findings of the trial court, incurable or, even if it were
when affirmed by the Court of otherwise, the cure would be
Appeals, are binding on this Court, beyond the means of the party
save for the most compelling and involved."27 Finally, the burden of
cogent reasons x x x.26 proving psychological incapacity is
on the petitioner.
To reiterate, psychological
incapacity under Article 36 of the X X X Indeed, the incapacity
Family Code must be characterized should be established by the
by (a) gravity, (b) juridical totality of evidence presented
antecedence, and (c) incurability, during trial, making it incumbent
"The incapacity must be grave or upon the petitioner to sufficiently
serious such that the party would prove the existence of the
be incapable of carrying out the psychological incapacity. 28
 With petitioner's failure to prove (On leave)
her case, her petition for MARIA LOURDES P.A. SERENO
declaration of nullity of her Chief Justice
marriage was correctly dismissed TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE
by the courts below. CASTRO
Associate Justice LUCAS P.
WHEREFORE, the Petition is BERSAMIN
DENIED. The December 14, 2012 Associate Justice
Decision and August 29, 2013
Resolution of the Court of Appeals NOEL GIMENEZ TIJAM
in CA-G.R. CV No.95112 are Associate Justice
AFFIRMED.
ATTESTATION
SO ORDERED.
I attest that the conclusions in
MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO the above Decisionhad been
Associate Justice reached in consultation before the
case was assigned to the writer of
WE CONCUR: the opinion of the Court’s Division.
 TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE Footnotes
CASTRO
Associate Justice * On leave.
Acting Chairperson
** Designated as Acting
CERTIFICATION Chairperson per Special Order No.
2540 dated February 28, 2018.
Pursuant to the Section 13,
Article VIII of the Constitution and *** Designated as additional
the Division Chairperson’s member per October 24, 2017
Attestation, I certify that the raffle vice J. Jardeleza who
conclusions in the above Decision recused due to prior action as
had been reached in consultation Solicitor General
before the case was assigned to
the writer of the opinion of the 1 Rollo, pp. 9-26.
Court’s Division.
2 ld. at 61-81; penned by
ANTONIO T. CARPIO Associate Justice Nina G. Antonio
Acting Chief Justice Valenzuela and concurred in by
Associate Justices Isaias P.
Dicdican and Michael P. Elbinias. 11 Id. at 57.

3 Id. at 94-95. 12 Id. at 69-80.

4 Id. at 82-92. 13 Id. at 16.

5 Id. at 36-42; penned by 14 397 Phil. 840 (2000).

Presiding Judge Gloria
ButayAglugub. 15 519 Phil. 337 (2006).

6 Id. at 28. 16 029 Phil. 157 (2010).

7 Id. 17 598 Phil. 666 (2009).

8 Id. al 28-34. 18 Id. at 699

9 Id. at 37-42. 19 Id.

10 ld. at 43-56. 20 Rollo, pp. 135-155.

 21 Marcus v. Marcos,supra note 27 Santos v. Court of Appeals,
14 at 850. 310 Phil. 21.39 (1995).

22 Republic v. Galang, 565Phil. 28 Republic v. Court of Appeals,

658, 672 (201). 698 Phil. 257, 267 (2012).

23 Zamora v. Court of Appeals, * Per Special Order No. 2539

543 Phil. 701, 708 (2007). dated February 28, 2018.

24 Republic v. De Gracia, 726

Phil. 502, 509 (2014).

25 Viñas v. Parel-Viñas, 751

Phil. 762, 775-775 (2015), citing
Rumbaua v. Rumbaua, 612 Phil.
1061 (2009).

26 Perez-Ferruris v. Ferraris,
527 Phil. 722,727 (2006).
 G.R. No. 181409
February 11, 2010

INTESTATE ESTATE OF
MANOLITA GONZALES VDA.
DE CARUNGCONG,
represented by MEDIATRIX
CARUNGCONG, as
Administratrix, Petitioner,
vs.
PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES and WILLIAM
SATO, Respondents.

DECISION

CORONA, J.:
THIRD DIVISION
Article 332 of the Revised Penal
Code provides:
 3. Brothers and sisters and
ART. 332. Persons exempt from brothers-in-law and sisters-in-law,
criminal liability. – No criminal, but if living together.
only civil liability shall result from
the commission of the crime of The exemption established by
theft, swindling, or malicious this article shall not be applicable
mischief committed or caused to strangers participating in the
mutually by the following persons: commission of the crime.
(emphasis supplied)
1. Spouses, ascendants and
descendants, or relatives by For purposes of the
affinity in the same line; aforementioned provision, is the
relationship by affinity created
2. The widowed spouse with between the husband and the
respect to the property which blood relatives of his wife (as well
belonged to the deceased spouse as between the wife and the blood
before the same shall have passed relatives of her husband) dissolved
into the possession of another; by the death of one spouse, thus
and ending the marriage which created
such relationship by affinity? Does
the beneficial application of Article after being duly sworn, depose
332 cover the complex crime of and state that:
estafa thru falsification?
1. I am the duly appointed
Mediatrix G. Carungcong, in her Administratrix of the Intestate
capacity as the duly appointed Estate of Manolita Carungcong Y
administratrix1 of petitioner Gonzale[s], docketed as Spec.
intestate estate of her deceased Procs. No. [Q]-95-23621[,]
mother Manolita Gonzales vda. de Regional Trial Court of Quezon
Carungcong, filed a complaint- City, Branch 104, being one (1) of
affidavit2 for estafa against her her surviving daughters. Copy of
brother-in-law, William Sato, a the Letters of Administration dated
Japanese national. Her complaint- June 22, 1995 is hereto attached
affidavit read: as Annex "A" to form an integral
part hereof.
I, MEDIATRIX CARUNGCONG Y
GONZALE[S], Filipino, of legal age, 2. As such Administratrix, I am
single, and resident of Unit 1111, duty bound not only to preserve
Prince Gregory Condominium, 105 the properties of the Intestate
12th Avenue, Cubao, Quezon City, Estate of Manolita Carungcong Y
Gonzale[s], but also to recover Gonzale[s], [s]pecifically on o[r]
such funds and/or properties as about November 24, 1992, their
property belonging to the estate father William Sato, through
but are presently in the possession fraudulent misrepresentations, was
or control of other parties. able to secure the signature and
thumbmark of my mother on a
3. After my appointment as Special Power of Attorney whereby
Administratrix, I was able to confer my niece Wendy Mitsuko Sato,
with some of the children of my who was then only twenty (20)
sister Zenaida Carungcong Sato[,] years old, was made her attorney-
who predeceased our mother in-fact, to sell and dispose four (4)
Manolita Carungcong Y Gonzales, valuable pieces of land in Tagaytay
having died in Japan in 1991. City. Said Special Power of
Attorney, copy of which is
4. In my conference with my attached as ANNEX "A" of the
nieces Karen Rose Sato and Affidavit of Wendy Mitsuko Sato,
Wendy Mitsuko Sato, age[d] 27 was signed and thumbmark[ed] by
and 24 respectively, I was able to my mother because William Sato
learn that prior to the death of my told her that the documents she
mother Manolita Carungcong Y was being made to sign involved
her taxes. At that time, my mother Special Power of Attorney to sell
was completely blind, having gone her Tagaytay properties.
blind almost ten (10) years prior to
November, 1992. 7. On the basis of the aforesaid
Special Power of Attorney, William
5. The aforesaid Special Power Sato found buyers for the property
of Attorney was signed by my and made my niece Wendy
mother in the presence of Wendy, Mitsuko Sato sign three (3) deeds
my other niece Belinda Kiku Sato, of absolute sale in favor of (a)
our maid Mana Tingzon, and Anita Ng (Doc. 2194, Page No. 41,
Governor Josephine Ramirez who Book No. V, Series of 1992 of
later became the second wife of Notary Public Vicente B. Custodio),
my sister’s widower William Sato. (b) Anita Ng (Doc. No. 2331, Page
No. 68, Book No. V, Series of 1992
6. Wendy Mitsuko Sato attests of Notary Public Vicente B.
to the fact that my mother signed Custodio) and (c) Ruby Lee Tsai
the document in the belief that (Doc. No. II, Page No. 65, Book
they were in connection with her No. II, Series of 1993 of Notary
taxes, not knowing, since she was Public Toribio D. Labid). x x x
blind, that the same was in fact a
 8. Per the statement of Wendy Tsai paid ₱8,000,000.00 for the
Mitsuko C. Sato, the considerations property covered by Tax
appearing on the deeds of Declaration No. GR-016-0735, and
absolute sale were not the true the proceeds thereof were likewise
and actual considerations received turned over to William Sato.
by her father William Sato from
the buyers of her grandmother’s 10. The considerations
properties. She attests that Anita appearing on the deeds of sale
Ng actually paid ₱7,000,000.00 for were falsified as Wendy Mitsuko C.
the property covered by TCT No. Sato has actual knowledge of the
3148 and ₱7,034,000.00 for the true amounts paid by the buyers,
property covered by TCT No. as stated in her Affidavit, since she
3149. All the aforesaid proceeds was the signatory thereto as the
were turned over to William Sato attorney-in-fact of Manolita
who undertook to make the proper Carungcong Y Gonzale[s].
accounting thereof to my mother,
Manolita Carungcong Gonzale[s]. 11. Wendy was only 20 years
old at the time and was not in any
9. Again, per the statement of position to oppose or to refuse her
Wendy Mitsuko C. Sato, Ruby Lee father’s orders.
 to do so, to the damage and
12. After receiving the total prejudice of the estate of the
considerations for the properties deceased Manolita Carungcong Y
sold under the power of attorney Gonzale[s] and of the heirs which
fraudulently secured from my include his six (6) children with my
mother, which total sister Zenaida Carungcong Sato. x
₱22,034,000.00, William Sato x x3
failed to account for the same and
never delivered the proceeds to Wendy Mitsuko Sato’s
Manolita Carungcong Y Gonzale[s] supporting affidavit and the special
until the latter died on June 8, power of attorney allegedly issued
1994. by the deceased Manolita Gonzales
vda. de Carungcong in favor of
13. Demands have been made Wendy were attached to the
for William Sato to make an complaint-affidavit of Mediatrix.
accounting and to deliver the
proceeds of the sales to me as In a resolution dated March 25,
Administratrix of my mother’s 1997, the City Prosecutor of
estate, but he refused and failed, Quezon City dismissed the
and continues to refuse and to fail complaint.4 On appeal, however,
the Secretary of Justice reversed That on or about the 24th day
and set aside the resolution dated of November, 1992, in Quezon
March 25, 1997 and directed the City, Philippines, the above-named
City Prosecutor of Quezon City to accused, by means of deceit, did,
file an Information against Sato for then and there, wil[l]fully,
violation of Article 315, paragraph unlawfully and feloniously defraud
3(a) of the Revised Penal Code.5 MANOLITA GONZALES VDA. DE
Thus, the following Information CARUNGCONG in the following
was filed against Sato in the manner, to wit: the said accused
Regional Trial Court of Quezon induced said Manolita Gonzales
City, Branch 87:6 Vda. De Carungcong[,] who was
already then blind and 79 years
INFORMATION old[,] to sign and thumbmark a
special power of attorney dated
The undersigned accuses November 24, 1992 in favor of
WILLIAM SATO of the crime of Wendy Mitsuko C. Sato, daughter
ESTAFA under Article 315[,] par. of said accused, making her
3(a) of the Revised Penal Code, believe that said document
committed as follows: involved only her taxes, accused
knowing fully well that said
document authorizes Wendy covered by T.C.T. No. 3149 with
Mitsuko C. Sato, then a minor, to Tax Declaration No. GR-016-0721,
sell, assign, transfer or otherwise Cadastral Lot No. 7104;
dispose of to any person or entity
of her properties all located at 4. Eight Hundred Eighty Eight
Tagaytay City, as follows: (888) square meters more or less
with Tax Declaration No. GR-016-
1. One Thousand Eight Hundred 1735, Cadastral Lot No. 7062;
Seven(ty) One (1,871) square
meters more or less and covered registered in the name of
by T.C.T. No. 3147; Manolita Gonzales Vda. De
Carungcong, and once in the
2. Five Hundred Forty (540) possession of the said special
square meters more or less and power of attorney and other
covered by T.C.T. No. 3148 with pertinent documents, said accused
Tax Declaration No. GR-016-0722, made Wendy Mitsuko Sato sign
Cadastral Lot No. 7106; the three (3) Deeds of Absolute
Sale covering Transfer Certificate
3. Five Hundred Forty (540) of Title [TCT] No. 3148 for
square meters more or less and ₱250,000.00, [TCT] No. 3149 for
₱250,000.00 and [Tax Declaration] ₱22,034,000, the actual amount
GR-016-0735 for ₱650,000.00 and received by Sato.
once in possession of the proceeds
of the sale of the above properties, Sato moved for the quashal of
said accused, misapplied, the Information, claiming that
misappropriated and converted the under Article 332 of the Revised
same to his own personal use and Penal Code, his relationship to the
benefit, to the damage and person allegedly defrauded, the
prejudice of the heirs of Manolita deceased Manolita who was his
Gonzales Vda. De Carungcong who mother-in-law, was an exempting
died in 1994. circumstance.

Contrary to law.7 The prosecution disputed Sato’s

motion in an opposition dated
Subsequently, the prosecution March 29, 2006.
moved for the amendment of the
Information so as to increase the In an order dated April 17,
amount of damages from 2006,8 the trial court granted
₱1,150,000, the total amount Sato’s motion and ordered the
stated in the deeds of sale, to dismissal of the criminal case:
 accused and Zenaida’s mother,
The Trial Prosecutor’s herein complainant, are still son[-
contention is that the death of the in-law] and mother-in-law and
wife of the accused severed the they remained son[-in-law] and
relationship of affinity between mother-in-law even beyond the
accused and his mother-in-law. death of Zenaida.
Therefore, the mantle of
protection provided to the accused Article 332(1) of the Revised
by the relationship is no longer Penal Code, is very explicit and
obtaining. states no proviso. "No criminal, but
only civil liability[,] shall result
A judicious and thorough from the commission of the crime
examination of Article 332 of the of theft, swindling or malicious
Revised Penal Code convinces this mischief committed or caused
Court of the correctness of the mutually by xxx 1) spouses,
contention of the [d]efense. While ascendants and descendants, or
it is true that the death of Zenaida relatives by affinity in the same
Carungcong-Sato has extinguished line."
the marriage of accused with her,
it does not erase the fact that
 Article 332, according to WHEREFORE, finding the
Aquino, in his Commentaries [to] Motion to Quash Original
Revised Penal Code, preserves Information meritorious, the same
family harmony and obviates is GRANTED and, as prayed for,
scandal, hence even in cases of case is hereby DISMISSED.
theft and malicious mischief,
where the crime is committed by a SO ORDERED.9 (underlining
stepfather against his stepson, by supplied in the original)
a grandson against his
grandfather, by a son against his The prosecution’s motion for
mother, no criminal liability is reconsideration10 was denied in
incurred by the accused only civil an order dated June 2, 2006.11
(Vicente Alavare, 52 Phil. 65;
Adame, CA 40 OG 12th Supp. 63; Dissatisfied with the trial court’s
Cristobal, 84 Phil. 473). rulings, the intestate estate of
Manolita, represented by
Such exempting circumstance is Mediatrix, filed a petition for
applicable herein. certiorari in the Court of Appeals12
which, however, in a decision13
dated August 9, 2007, dismissed argument of petitioner that the
it. It ruled: fact of death of Zenaida dissolved
the relationship by affinity
[W]e sustain the finding of [the between Manolita and private
trial court] that the death of respondent Sato, and thus
Zenaida did not extinguish the removed the protective mantle of
relationship by affinity between Article 332 of the Revised Penal
her husband, private respondent Code from said private
Sato, and her mother Manolita, respondent; and that
and does not bar the application of notwithstanding the death of
the exempting circumstance under Zenaida, private respondent Sato
Article 332(1) of the Revised Penal remains to be the son-in-law of
Code in favor of private Manolita, and a brother-in-law of
respondent Sato. petitioner administratrix. As further
pointed out by the OSG, the filing
We further agree with the of the criminal case for estafa
submission of the [Office of the against private respondent Sato
Solicitor General (OSG)] that already created havoc among
nothing in the law and/or existing members of the Carungcong and
jurisprudence supports the Sato families as private
respondent’s daughter Wendy being "relatives by affinity in the
Mitsuko Sato joined cause with her same line" under Article 332(1) of
aunt [Mediatrix] Carungcong y the same Code. We cannot draw
Gonzales, while two (2) other the distinction that following the
children of private respondent, death of Zenaida in 1991, private
William Francis and Belinda Sato, respondent Sato is no longer the
took the side of their father. son-in-law of Manolita, so as to
exclude the former from the
There is a dearth of exempting circumstance provided
jurisprudence and/or for in Article 332 (1) of the
commentaries elaborating on the Revised Penal Code.
provision of Article 332 of the
Revised Penal Code. However, Ubi lex non distinguit nec nos
from the plain language of the distinguere debemos. Basic is the
law, it is clear that the exemption rule in statutory construction that
from criminal liability for the crime where the law does not
of swindling (estafa) under Article distinguish, the courts should not
315 of the Revised Penal Code distinguish. There should be no
applies to private respondent Sato, distinction in the application of law
as son-in-law of Manolita, they where none is indicated. The
courts could only distinguish where Article 332 (1) of the Revised
there are facts or circumstances Penal Code’s simple language is
showing that the lawgiver intended most favorable to Sato.14
a distinction or qualification. In
such a case, the courts would The appellate court denied
merely give effect to the lawgiver’s reconsideration.15 Hence, this
intent. The solemn power and duty petition.
of the Court to interpret and apply
the law does not include the Petitioner contends that the
power to correct by reading into Court of Appeals erred in not
the law what is not written therein. reversing the orders of the trial
court. It cites the commentary of
Further, it is an established Justice Luis B. Reyes in his book
principle of statutory construction on criminal law that the rationale
that penal laws are strictly of Article 332 of the Revised Penal
construed against the State and Code exempting the persons
liberally in favor of the accused. mentioned therein from criminal
Any reasonable doubt must be liability is that the law recognizes
resolved in favor of the accused. the presumed co-ownership of the
In this case, the plain meaning of property between the offender and
the offended party. Here, the time the crime was allegedly
properties subject of the estafa committed. Thus, while the death
case were owned by Manolita of Zenaida extinguished her
whose daughter, Zenaida marriage with Sato, it did not
Carungcong-Sato (Sato’s wife), dissolve the son-in-law and
died on January 28, 1991. Hence, mother-in-law relationship
Zenaida never became a co-owner between Sato and Zenaida’s
because, under the law, her right mother, Manolita.
to the three parcels of land could
have arisen only after her mother’s For his part, the Solicitor
death. Since Zenaida predeceased General maintains that Sato is
her mother, Manolita, no such covered by the exemption from
right came about and the mantle criminal liability provided under
of protection provided to Sato by Article 332. Nothing in the law and
the relationship no longer existed. jurisprudence supports petitioner’s
claim that Zenaida’s death
Sato counters that Article 332 dissolved the relationship by
makes no distinction that the affinity between Sato and
relationship may not be invoked in Manolita. As it is, the criminal case
case of death of the spouse at the against Sato created havoc among
the members of the Carungcong the blood relatives of the deceased
and Sato families, a situation spouse and (2) the extent of the
sought to be particularly avoided coverage of Article 332.
by Article 332’s provision
exempting a family member Effect of Death on Relationship
committing theft, estafa or By Affinity as Absolutory Cause
malicious mischief from criminal
liability and reducing his/her Article 332 provides for an
liability to the civil aspect only. absolutory cause16in the crimes of
theft, estafa (or swindling) and
The petition has merit. malicious mischief. It limits the
responsibility of the offender to
The resolution of this case rests civil liability and frees him from
on the interpretation of Article 332 criminal liability by virtue of his
of the Revised Penal Code. In relationship to the offended party.
particular, it calls for the
determination of the following: (1) In connection with the relatives
the effect of death on the mentioned in the first paragraph, it
relationship by affinity created has been held that included in the
between a surviving spouse and exemptions are parents-in-law,
stepparents and adopted
children.17 By virtue thereof, no a familial relation resulting from
criminal liability is incurred by the marriage.24 It is a fictive kinship,
stepfather who commits malicious a fiction created by law in
mischief against his stepson;18 by connection with the institution of
the stepmother who commits theft marriage and family relations.
against her stepson;19 by the
stepfather who steals something If marriage gives rise to one’s
from his stepson;20 by the relationship by affinity to the blood
grandson who steals from his relatives of one’s spouse, does the
grandfather;21 by the accused extinguishment of marriage by the
who swindles his sister-in-law death of the spouse dissolve the
living with him;22 and by the son relationship by affinity?
who steals a ring from his
mother.23 Philippine jurisprudence has no
previous encounter with the issue
Affinity is the relation that one that confronts us in this case. That
spouse has to the blood relatives is why the trial and appellate
of the other spouse. It is a courts acknowledged the "dearth
relationship by marriage or of jurisprudence and/or
commentaries" on the matter. In affinity is dissolved. It follows the
contrast, in the American legal rule that relationship by affinity
system, there are two views on ceases with the dissolution of the
the subject. As one Filipino author marriage which produces it (Kelly
observed: v. Neely, 12 Ark. 657, 659, 56 Am
Dec. 288). On the other hand, the
In case a marriage is relationship by affinity is continued
terminated by the death of one of despite the death of one of the
the spouses, there are conflicting spouses where there are living
views. There are some who issues or children of the marriage
believe that relationship by affinity "in whose veins the blood of the
is not terminated whether there parties are commingled, since the
are children or not in the marriage relationship of affinity was
(Carman vs. Newell, N.Y. 1 [Denio] continued through the medium of
25, 26). However, the better view the issue of the marriage"
supported by most judicial (Paddock vs. Wells, 2 Barb. Ch.
authorities in other jurisdictions is 331, 333).25
that, if the spouses have no living
issues or children and one of the The first view (the terminated
spouses dies, the relationship by affinity view) holds that
relationship by affinity terminates The first view admits of an
with the dissolution of the exception. The relationship by
marriage either by death or affinity continues even after the
divorce which gave rise to the death of one spouse when there is
relationship of affinity between the a surviving issue.27 The rationale
parties.26 Under this view, the is that the relationship is preserved
relationship by affinity is simply because of the living issue of the
coextensive and coexistent with marriage in whose veins the blood
the marriage that produced it. Its of both parties is commingled.28
duration is indispensably and
necessarily determined by the The second view (the
marriage that created it. Thus, it continuing affinity view) maintains
exists only for so long as the that relationship by affinity
marriage subsists, such that the between the surviving spouse and
death of a spouse ipso facto ends the kindred of the deceased
the relationship by affinity of the spouse continues even after the
surviving spouse to the deceased death of the deceased spouse,
spouse’s blood relatives. regardless of whether the
marriage produced children or
not.29 Under this view, the
relationship by affinity endures Article 332(1) of the Revised Penal
even after the dissolution of the Code.
marriage that produced it as a
result of the death of one of the First, the terminated affinity
parties to the said marriage. This view is generally applied in cases
view considers that, where of jury disqualification and
statutes have indicated an intent incest.31 On the other hand, the
to benefit step-relatives or in-laws, continuing affinity view has been
the "tie of affinity" between these applied in the interpretation of
people and their relatives-by- laws that intend to benefit step-
marriage is not to be regarded as relatives or in-laws. Since the
terminated upon the death of one purpose of the absolutory cause in
of the married parties.30 Article 332(1) is meant to be
beneficial to relatives by affinity
After due consideration and within the degree covered under
evaluation of the relative merits of the said provision, the continuing
the two views, we hold that the affinity view is more appropriate.
second view is more consistent
with the language and spirit of Second, the language of Article
332(1) which speaks of "relatives
by affinity in the same line" is family.33 Congress has also
couched in general language. The affirmed as a State and national
legislative intent to make no policy that courts shall preserve
distinction between the spouse of the solidarity of the family.34 In
one’s living child and the surviving this connection, the spirit of Article
spouse of one’s deceased child (in 332 is to preserve family harmony
case of a son-in-law or daughter- and obviate scandal.35 The view
in-law with respect to his or her that relationship by affinity is not
parents-in-law)32 can be drawn affected by the death of one of the
from Article 332(1) of the Revised parties to the marriage that
Penal Code without doing violence created it is more in accord with
to its language. family solidarity and harmony.

Third, the Constitution declares Fourth, the fundamental

that the protection and principle in applying and in
strengthening of the family as a interpreting criminal laws is to
basic autonomous social institution resolve all doubts in favor of the
are policies of the State and that it accused. In dubio pro reo. When
is the duty of the State to in doubt, rule for the accused.36
strengthen the solidarity of the This is in consonance with the
constitutional guarantee that the viewed through the lens of the
accused shall be presumed basic purpose of Article 332 of the
innocent unless and until his guilt Revised Penal Code to preserve
is established beyond reasonable family harmony by providing an
doubt.37 absolutory cause. Since the goal of
Article 332(1) is to benefit the
Intimately related to the in accused, the Court should adopt
dubio pro reo principle is the rule an application or interpretation
of lenity.38 The rule applies when that is more favorable to the
the court is faced with two accused. In this case, that
possible interpretations of a penal interpretation is the continuing
statute, one that is prejudicial to affinity view.
the accused and another that is
favorable to him. The rule calls for Thus, for purposes of Article
the adoption of an interpretation 332(1) of the Revised Penal Code,
which is more lenient to the we hold that the relationship by
accused. affinity created between the
surviving spouse and the blood
Lenity becomes all the more relatives of the deceased spouse
appropriate when this case is survives the death of either party
to the marriage which created the Code only applies to the felonies of
affinity. (The same principle theft, swindling and malicious
applies to the justifying mischief. Under the said provision,
circumstance of defense of one’s the State condones the criminal
relatives under Article 11[2] of the responsibility of the offender in
Revised Penal Code, the mitigating cases of theft, swindling and
circumstance of immediate malicious mischief. As an act of
vindication of grave offense grace, the State waives its right to
committed against one’s relatives prosecute the offender for the said
under Article 13[5] of the same crimes but leaves the private
Code and the absolutory cause of offended party with the option to
relationship in favor of accessories hold the offender civilly liable.
under Article 20 also of the same
Code.) However, the coverage of
Article 332 is strictly limited to the
Scope of Article 332 of The felonies mentioned therein. The
Revised Penal Code plain, categorical and unmistakable
language of the provision shows
The absolutory cause under that it applies exclusively to the
Article 332 of the Revised Penal simple crimes of theft, swindling
and malicious mischief. It does not the offense, that determines the
apply where any of the crimes crime being charged in the
mentioned under Article 332 is Information.42 It is the exclusive
complexed with another crime, province of the court to say what
such as theft through falsification the crime is or what it is named.43
or estafa through falsification.39 The determination by the
prosecutor who signs the
The Information against Sato Information of the crime
charges him with estafa. However, committed is merely an opinion
the real nature of the offense is which is not binding on the
determined by the facts alleged in court.44
the Information, not by the
designation of the offense.40 What A reading of the facts alleged in
controls is not the title of the the Information reveals that Sato
Information or the designation of is being charged not with simple
the offense but the actual facts estafa but with the complex crime
recited in the Information.41 In of estafa through falsification of
other words, it is the recital of public documents. In particular,
facts of the commission of the the Information states that Sato,
offense, not the nomenclature of by means of deceit, intentionally
defrauded Manolita committed as signed and thumbmarked the SPA
follows: in favor of Wendy Mitsuko Sato,
daughter of Sato;
(a) Sato presented a document
to Manolita (who was already blind (d) using the document, he sold
at that time) and induced her to the properties to third parties but
sign and thumbmark the same; he neither delivered the proceeds
to Manolita nor accounted for the
(b) he made Manolita believe same and
that the said document was in
connection with her taxes when it (d) despite repeated demands,
was in fact a special power of he failed and refused to deliver the
attorney (SPA) authorizing his proceeds, to the damage and
minor daughter Wendy to sell, prejudice of the estate of Manolita.
assign, transfer or otherwise
dispose of Manolita’s properties in The above averments in the
Tagaytay City; Information show that the estafa
was committed by attributing to
(c) relying on Sato’s inducement Manolita (who participated in the
and representation, Manolita execution of the document)
statements other than those in signature and thumbmark,
fact made by her. Manolita’s acts therefore, served as her
of signing the SPA and affixing her conformity to Sato’s proposal that
thumbmark to that document were she execute a document to settle
the very expression of her specific her taxes.
intention that something be done
about her taxes. Her signature and Thus, by inducing Manolita to
thumbmark were the affirmation of sign the SPA, Sato made it appear
her statement on such intention as that Manolita granted his daughter
she only signed and thumbmarked Wendy a special power of attorney
the SPA (a document which she for the purpose of selling,
could not have read) because of assigning, transferring or
Sato’s representation that the otherwise disposing of Manolita’s
document pertained to her taxes. Tagaytay properties when the fact
In signing and thumbmarking the was that Manolita signed and
document, Manolita showed that thumbmarked the document
she believed and adopted the presented by Sato in the belief
representations of Sato as to what that it pertained to her taxes.
the document was all about, i.e., Indeed, the document itself, the
that it involved her taxes. Her SPA, and everything that it
contained were falsely attributed presumption that Sato, as the
to Manolita when she was made to possessor of the falsified
sign the SPA. document and the one who
benefited therefrom, was the
Moreover, the allegations in the author thereof.
Information that
Furthermore, it should be noted
(1) "once in the possession of that the prosecution moved for the
the said special power of attorney amendment of the Information so
and other pertinent documents, as to increase the amount of
[Sato] made Wendy Mitsuko Sato damages from ₱1,150,000 to
sign the three (3) Deeds of ₱22,034,000. This was granted by
Absolute Sale" and the trial court and was affirmed by
the Court of Appeals on certiorari.
(2) "once in possession of the This meant that the amended
proceeds of the sale of the above Information would now state that,
properties, said accused, while the total amount of
misapplied, misappropriated and consideration stated in the deeds
converted the same to his own of absolute sale was only
personal use and benefit" raise the ₱1,150,000, Sato actually received
the total amount of ₱22,034,000 Since the crime with which
as proceeds of the sale of respondent was charged was not
Manolita’s properties.45 This also simple estafa but the complex
meant that the deeds of sale crime of estafa through
(which were public documents) falsification of public documents,
were also falsified by making Sato cannot avail himself of the
untruthful statements as to the absolutory cause provided under
amounts of consideration stated in Article 332 of the Revised Penal
the deeds. Code in his favor.

Therefore, the allegations in the Effect of Absolutory Cause

Information essentially charged a Under Article 332 on Criminal
crime that was not simple estafa. Liability For The Complex Crime of
Sato resorted to falsification of Estafa Through Falsification of
public documents (particularly, the Public Documents
special power of attorney and the
deeds of sale) as a necessary The question may be asked: if
means to commit the estafa. the accused may not be held
criminally liable for simple estafa
by virtue of the absolutory cause
under Article 332 of the Revised
Penal Code, should he not be However, a proper appreciation
absolved also from criminal liability of the scope and application of
for the complex crime of estafa Article 332 of the Revised Penal
through falsification of public Code and of the nature of a
documents? No. complex crime would negate
exemption from criminal liability
True, the concurrence of all the for the complex crime of estafa
elements of the two crimes of through falsification of public
estafa and falsification of public documents, simply because the
document is required for a proper accused may not be held criminally
conviction for the complex crime of liable for simple estafa by virtue of
estafa through falsification of the absolutory cause under Article
public document. That is the ruling 332.
in Gonzaludo v. People.46 It
means that the prosecution must The absolutory cause under
establish that the accused resorted Article 332 is meant to address
to the falsification of a public specific crimes against property,
document as a necessary means namely, the simple crimes of theft,
to commit the crime of estafa. swindling and malicious mischief.
Thus, all other crimes, whether separate charges of estafa and
simple or complex, are not falsification of public document,
affected by the absolutory cause not as a single charge for the
provided by the said provision. To single (complex) crime of estafa
apply the absolutory cause under through falsification of public
Article 332 of the Revised Penal document.
Code to one of the component
crimes of a complex crime for the Under Article 332 of the Revised
purpose of negating the existence Penal Code, the State waives its
of that complex crime is to unduly right to hold the offender
expand the scope of Article 332. In criminally liable for the simple
other words, to apply Article 332 crimes of theft, swindling and
to the complex crime of estafa malicious mischief and considers
through falsification of public the violation of the juridical right
document would be to mistakenly to property committed by the
treat the crime of estafa as a offender against certain family
separate simple crime, not as the members as a private matter and
component crime that it is in that therefore subject only to civil
situation. It would wrongly liability. The waiver does not apply
consider the indictment as when the violation of the right to
property is achieved through (and When estafa is committed through
therefore inseparably intertwined falsification of a public document,
with) a breach of the public however, the matter acquires a
interest in the integrity and very serious public dimension and
presumed authenticity of public goes beyond the respective rights
documents. For, in the latter and liabilities of family members
instance, what is involved is no among themselves. Effectively,
longer simply the property right of when the offender resorts to an
a family relation but a paramount act that breaches public interest in
public interest. the integrity of public documents
as a means to violate the property
The purpose of Article 332 is to rights of a family member, he is
preserve family harmony and removed from the protective
obviate scandal.47 Thus, the mantle of the absolutory cause
action provided under the said under Article 332.
provision simply concerns the
private relations of the parties as In considering whether the
family members and is limited to accused is liable for the complex
the civil aspect between the crime of estafa through
offender and the offended party. falsification of public documents, it
would be wrong to consider the property),49 a complex crime
component crimes separately from constitutes a violation of diverse
each other. While there may be juridical rights or interests by
two component crimes (estafa and means of diverse acts, each of
falsification of documents), both which is a simple crime in itself.50
felonies are animated by and Since only a single criminal intent
result from one and the same underlies the diverse acts,
criminal intent for which there is however, the component crimes
only one criminal liability.48 That are considered as elements of a
is the concept of a complex crime. single crime, the complex crime.
In other words, while there are This is the correct interpretation of
two crimes, they are treated only a complex crime as treated under
as one, subject to a single criminal Article 48 of the Revised Penal
liability. Code.

As opposed to a simple crime In the case of a complex crime,

where only one juridical right or therefore, there is a formal (or
interest is violated (e.g., homicide ideal) plurality of crimes where the
which violates the right to life, same criminal intent results in two
theft which violates the right to or more component crimes
constituting a complex crime for single criminal liability and requires
which there is only one criminal the imposition of a single penalty:
liability.51 (The complex crime of
estafa through falsification of Although [a] complex crime
public document falls under this quantitatively consists of two or
category.) This is different from a more crimes, it is only one crime in
material (or real) plurality of law on which a single penalty is
crimes where different criminal imposed and the two or more
intents result in two or more crimes constituting the same are
crimes, for each of which the more conveniently termed as
accused incurs criminal liability.52 component crimes.53 (emphasis
The latter category is covered supplied)
neither by the concept of complex
crimes nor by Article 48. —∞——∞——∞—

Under Article 48 of the Revised In [a] complex crime, although

Penal Code, the formal plurality of two or more crimes are actually
crimes (concursus delictuorum or committed, they constitute only
concurso de delitos) gives rise to a one crime in the eyes of the law as
well as in the conscience of the
offender. The offender has only the single complex crime of estafa
one criminal intent. Even in the and falsification of public
case where an offense is a documents.
necessary means for committing
the other, the evil intent of the Therefore, it would be incorrect
offender is only one.54 to claim that, to be criminally liable
for the complex crime of estafa
For this reason, while a through falsification of public
conviction for estafa through document, the liability for estafa
falsification of public document should be considered separately
requires that the elements of both from the liability for falsification of
estafa and falsification exist, it public document. Such approach
does not mean that the criminal would disregard the nature of a
liability for estafa may be complex crime and contradict the
determined and considered letter and spirit of Article 48 of the
independently of that for Revised Penal Code. It would
falsification. The two crimes of wrongly disregard the distinction
estafa and falsification of public between formal plurality and
documents are not separate material plurality, as it improperly
crimes but component crimes of treats the plurality of crimes in the
complex crime of estafa through
falsification of public document as (2) deceit was employed to
a mere material plurality where make the offended party sign the
the felonies are considered as document;
separate crimes to be punished
individually. (3) the offended party
personally signed the document
Falsification of Public and
Documents May Be a Necessary
Means for Committing Estafa Even (4) prejudice is caused to the
Under Article 315 (3[a]) offended party.

The elements of the offense of While in estafa under Article

estafa punished under Article 315 315(a) of the Revised Penal Code,
(3[a]) of the Revised Penal Code the law does not require that the
are as follows: document be falsified for the
consummation thereof, it does not
(1) the offender induced the mean that the falsification of the
offended party to sign a document cannot be considered as
document;
a necessary means to commit the effectively his evil design to
estafa under that provision. swindle his mother-in-law. In
particular, he used the SPA to sell
The phrase "necessary means" the Tagaytay properties of
does not connote indispensable Manolita to unsuspecting third
means for if it did, then the persons.
offense as a "necessary means" to
commit another would be an When the offender commits in a
indispensable element of the latter public document any of the acts of
and would be an ingredient falsification enumerated in Article
thereof.55 In People v. Salvilla,56 171 of the Revised Penal Code as
the phrase "necessary means" a necessary means to commit
merely signifies that one crime is another crime, like estafa, theft or
committed to facilitate and insure malversation, the two crimes form
the commission of the other.57 In a complex crime under Article 48
this case, the crime of falsification of the same Code.58 The
of public document, the SPA, was falsification of a public, official or
such a "necessary means" as it commercial document may be a
was resorted to by Sato to means of committing estafa
facilitate and carry out more because, before the falsified
document is actually utilized to Applying the above principles to
defraud another, the crime of this case, the allegations in the
falsification has already been Information show that the
consummated, damage or intent falsification of public document
to cause damage not being an was consummated when Sato
element of the crime of presented a ready-made SPA to
falsification of a public, official or Manolita who signed the same as
commercial document.59 In other a statement of her intention in
words, the crime of falsification connection with her taxes. While
was committed prior to the the falsification was consummated
consummation of the crime of upon the execution of the SPA, the
estafa.60 Actually utilizing the consummation of the estafa
falsified public, official or occurred only when Sato later
commercial document to defraud utilized the SPA. He did so
another is estafa.61 The damage particularly when he had the
to another is caused by the properties sold and thereafter
commission of estafa, not by the pocketed the proceeds of the sale.
falsification of the Damage or prejudice to Manolita
document.621avvphi1 was caused not by the falsification
of the SPA (as no damage was yet
caused to the property rights of Therefore, the crime committed
Manolita at the time she was made would only have been the simple
to sign the document) but by the crime of estafa.63 On the other
subsequent use of the said hand, absent any inducement
document. That is why the (such as if Manolita herself had
falsification of the public document been the one who asked that a
was used to facilitate and ensure document pertaining to her taxes
(that is, as a necessary means for) be prepared for her signature, but
the commission of the estafa. what was presented to her for her
signature was an SPA), the crime
The situation would have been would have only been the simple
different if Sato, using the same crime of falsification.64
inducement, had made Manolita
sign a deed of sale of the WHEREFORE, the petition is
properties either in his favor or in hereby GRANTED. The decision
favor of third parties. In that case, dated August 9, 2007 and the
the damage would have been resolution dated January 23, 2008
caused by, and at exactly the of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R.
same time as, the execution of the S.P. No. 95260 are REVERSED and
document, not prior thereto. SET ASIDE. The case is remanded
to the trial court which is directed Associate Justice
to try the accused with dispatch
for the complex crime of estafa ATTESTATION
through falsification of public
documents. I attest that the conclusions in
the above Decision had been
SO ORDERED. reached in consultation before the
case was assigned to the writer of
RENATO C. CORONA the opinion of the Court’s Division.
Associate Justice
Chairperson RENATO C. CORONA
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR: Chairperson
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.
Associate Justice ANTONIO CERTIFICATION
EDUARDO B. NACHURA
Associate Justice Pursuant to Section 13, Article
DIOSDADO M. PERALTA VIII of the Constitution, I certify
Associate Justice JOSE C. that the conclusions in the above
MENDOZA Decision had been reached in
consultation before the case was 4 Id., pp. 85-88.
assigned to the writer of the
opinion of the Court’s Division. 5 Resolution No. 313, s. 2000
dated February 17, 2000. Id., pp.
REYNATO S. PUNO 81-84.
Chief Justice
6 Docketed as Criminal Case
Footnotes No. Q-00-91385. Id., pp. 91-92.

1 Per letters of administration 7 Id.

dated June 22, 1995 issued by the
Regional Trial Court of Quezon 8 Penned by Judge Fatima
City, Branch 104 in SP. Proc. Q-95- Gonzales-Asdala. Id., pp. 126-129.
23621.
9 Id.
2 Docketed as I.S. No. 96-
19651. Rollo, pp. 89-90. 10 Dated April 26, 2006. Id.,
pp. 130-131.
3 Id.
11 Id., p. 131.
 accused who acts with criminal
12 Docketed as CA-G.R. S.P. intent, freedom and intelligence
No. 95260. does not incur criminal liability for
an act that constitutes a crime
13 Penned by Associate Justice (Regalado, Florenz, Criminal Law
Celia C. Librea-Leagogo and Conspectus, Third Edition, 61-62
concurred in by Associate Justices [2007]).
Regalado E. Maambong (retired)
and Sixto C. Marella, Jr. of the 17 Id., p. 736.
Seventeenth Division of the Court
of Appeals. Rollo, pp. 28-40. 18 People v. Alvarez, 52 Phil. 65
(1928).
14 Id.
19 Aquino, Ramon and Carolina
15 Id., pp. 42-43. Griño Aquino, The Revised Penal
Code, Volume III, 374 (1997),
16 An absolutory cause is a citing People v. Adame, CA 40
circumstance which is present O.G. Supp. No. 12, p. 63.
prior to or simultaneously with the
offense by reason of which the
 20 Id. citing People v. Tupasi, 26 Back v. Back, L.R.A.
36 O.G. 2086. 1916C,752, 148 Iowa 223, 125
N.W. 1009, [Link]. 1912B,
21 Id. citing People v. Patubo, 1025 citing Blodget v. Brinsmaid, 9
CA-G.R. No. 10616-R, 15 August Vt. 27; Noble v. State, 22 Ohio St.
1953. 541; State v. Brown, 47 Ohio St.
102, 23 N. E. 747, 21 Am. St. Rep.
22 Id. citing People v. Navas, 790; Wilson v. State, 100 Tenn.
CA 51 O.G. 219. 596, 46 S. W. 451, 66 Am. St.
Rep. 789; Johnson v. State, 20
23 Id. citing People v. Cristobal, Tex. App. 609, 54 Am. Rep. 535;
84 Phil. 473 (1949). Pegues v. Baker, 110 Ala. 251, 17
South. 943; Tagert v. State, 143
24 Blodget v. Brinsmaid, 9 Vt. Ala. 88, 39 South. 293, 111 Am.
27, 1837 WL 1956 (Vt.). St. Rep. 17; Bigelow v. Sprague,
140 Mass. 425, 5 N. E. 144;
25 Sta. Maria, Melencio, Vannoy v. Givens, 23 N. J. Law,
Persons and Family Relations Law, 201; 1 Bishop, New Crim.
Fourth Edition, 228-229 (2004). Procedure, § 901; 26 Cyc. 845.
 27 In this connection, one of 28 In re Bourdeux’ Estate, 37
the commentators on the Revised Wash. 2d 561, 225 P.2d 433, 26
Penal Code wrote: A.L.R. 2d 249.

Death of the spouse terminates 29 Carman v. Newell, N.Y. 1

the relationship by affinity (Kelly v. Denio 25.
Neely, 12 Ark. 6[5]7, 659, 56 AmD
288; Chase v. Jennings, 38 Me. 30 In re Bourdeux’ Estate,
44, 45) unless the marriage has supra. This view has been adopted
resulted in issue who is still living, and applied in Security Union
in which case the relationship of Casualty Co. v. Kelly, [Link].,
affinity continues (Dearmond v. 299 S.W. 286; American General
Dearmond, 10 Ind. 191; Bigelow v. Insurance Co. v. Richardson,
Sprague, 140 Mass. 425, 5 NE [Link]., 132 S.W.2d 161;
144). Simcoke v. Grand Lodge of A. O.
U. W. of Iowa, 84 Iowa 383, 51
See Reyes, Luis B., Revised N.W. 8, 15 L.R.A. 114; Faxon v.
Penal Code, Book I, Fifteenth Grand Lodge Brotherhood of
Edition Revised 188, (2001). Locomotive Firemen and M. E.
Rhea, 87 [Link]. 262; McGaughey
v. Grand Lodge A. O. U. W. of Dearmond, supra note 27 and
State of Minnesota, 148 Minn. 136, Bigelow v. Sprague, supra note 27
180 N.W. 1001; Hernandez v. are all jury disqualification cases.
Supreme Forest Woodmen Circle,
[Link]., 80 S.W.2d 346; 32 Or between the child of a
Renner v. Supreme Lodge of living parent and the surviving
Bohemian Slavonian Benevolent child of a deceased parent (in case
Society, 89 Wis. 401, 62 N.W. 80 of a stepchild with respect to the
following Jones v. Mangan, 151 stepparent).
Wis. 215, 138 N.W. 618; Steele v.
Suwalski, 7 Cir., 75 F.2d 885, 99 33 Section 12, Article II and
A.L.R. 588; Benefield v. United Section 1, Article 15.
States, D.C., 58 [Link]. 904;
Lewis v. O'Hair, [Link]., 130 34 Section 2, Republic Act No.
S.W.2d 379. 8369 (Family Courts Act of 1997).

31 Indeed, Kelly v. Neely, supra 35 Aquino and Griño Aquino,

note 27, Paddock v. Wells, 2 Barb. supra note 19.
Ch. 331, 333, Chase v. Jennings,
supra note 27, Dearmond v.
 36 See Justice Renato C. 41 Id. citing People v.
Corona’s separate (concurring) Resayaga, G.R. No. 49536, 30
opinion in People v. Temporada March 1988, 159 SCRA 426 and
(G.R. No., 173473, 17 December Santos v. People, G.R. No. 77429,
2008, 574 SCRA 258, 318-328). 29 January 1990, 181 SCRA 487.

37 See Section 14 (2), Article 42 Id. citing People v. Elesterio,

III, Constitution. G.R. No. 63971, 09 May 1989, 173
SCRA 243.
38 Justice Corona’s separate
(concurring) opinion in People v. 43 Herrera, Oscar, Remedial
Temporada, supra. Law, Volume Four – Criminal
Procedure, 59 (1992 Edition
39 Regalado, Florenz, supra reprinted in 2001).
note 16, p. 736.
44 People v. Gorospe, 53 Phil.
40 Malto v. People, G.R. No. 960 (1928).
164733, 21 September 2007, 533
SCRA 643. 45 While the parties as well as
the CA and RTC decisions spoke of
an amended Information, the said
amended Information was not 51 Regalado, supra note 6, p.
included in the records of this 172.
case.
52 Id.
46 G.R. No. 150910, 06
February 2006, 481 SCRA 569. 53 Id., p. 176.

47 Aquino, Ramon and Carolina 54 Reyes, supra note 8, p. 650.

Griño Aquino, The Revised Penal
Code, Volume III, 374 (1997). 55 People v. Salvilla, G.R. No.
86163, 26 April 1989, 184 SCRA
48 Regalado, supra note 16, p. 671.
172.
56 Id.
49 Aquino, Ramon and Carolina
Griño Aquino, supra note 47 at p. 57 Id.
662.
58 Reyes, supra note 20 at p.
50 Id. 226.
 59 Id.

60 Id. THIRD DIVISION

61 Id. G.R. No. 173614

September 28, 2007
62 Id.
LOLITA D. ENRICO,
63 See United States v. Berry, 5 Petitioner,
Phil. 370 (1905) and United States vs.
v. Malong, 36 Phil. 821 (1917). HEIRS OF SPS. EULOGIO B.
MEDINACELI AND TRINIDAD
CATLI-MEDINACELI,
REPRESENTED BY VILMA M.
ARTICULO, Respondents.

DECISION

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:
 marriage of Eulogio and petitioner
The instant Petition for Lolita D. Enrico. Substantially, the
Certiorari filed under Rule 65 of complaint alleged, inter alia, that
the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure Eulogio and Trinidad were married
assails the Order,1 dated 3 May on 14 June 1962, in Lal-lo,
2006 of the Regional Trial Court Cagayan.3 They begot seven
(RTC) of Aparri, Cagayan, Branch children, herein respondents,
6, in Civil Case No. II-4057, namely: Eduardo, Evelyn, Vilma,
granting reconsideration of its Mary Jane, Haizel, Michelle and
Order,2 dated 11 October 2005, Joseph Lloyd.4 On 1 May 2004,
and reinstating respondents’ Trinidad died.5 On 26 August
Complaint for Declaration of Nullity 2004, Eulogio married petitioner
of Marriage. before the Municipal Mayor of Lal-
lo, Cagayan.6 Six months later, or
On 17 March 2005, on 10 February 2005, Eulogio
respondents, heirs of Spouses passed away.7
Eulogio B. Medinaceli (Eulogio)
and Trinidad Catli-Medinaceli In impugning petitioner’s
(Trinidad) filed with the RTC, an marriage to Eulogio, respondents
action for declaration of nullity of averred that the same was entered
into without the requisite marriage have lived together as husband
license. They argued that Article and wife for at least five years. To
348 of the Family Code, which further their cause, respondents
exempts a man and a woman who raised the additional ground of
have been living together for at lack of marriage ceremony due to
least five years without any legal Eulogio’s serious illness which
impediment from securing a made its performance impossible.
marriage license, was not
applicable to petitioner and In her Answer, petitioner
Eulogio because they could not maintained that she and Eulogio
have lived together under the lived together as husband and wife
circumstances required by said under one roof for 21 years openly
provision. Respondents posited and publicly; hence, they were
that the marriage of Eulogio to exempted from the requirement of
Trinidad was dissolved only upon a marriage license. From their
the latter’s death, or on 1 May union were born Elvin Enrico and
2004, which was barely three Marco Enrico, all surnamed
months from the date of marriage Medinaceli, on 28 October 1988
of Eulogio to petitioner. Therefore, and 30 October 1991, respectively.
petitioner and Eulogio could not She further contended that the
marriage ceremony was performed
in the Municipal Hall of Lal-lo, The Complaint should be
Cagayan, and solemnized by the dismissed.
Municipal Mayor. As an affirmative
defense, she sought the dismissal 1) Administrative Matter No. 02-
of the action on the ground that it 11-10-SC promulgated by the
is only the contracting parties Supreme Court which took effect
while living who can file an action on March 15, 2003 provides in
for declaration of nullity of Section 2, par. (a)11 that a
marriage. petition for Declaration of Absolute
Nullity of a Void Marriage may be
On 11 October 2005, the RTC filed solely by the husband or the
issued an Order,9 granting the wife. The language of this rule is
dismissal of the Complaint for lack plain and simple which states that
of cause of action. It cited A.M. such a petition may be filed solely
No. 02-11-10-SC,10 dated 7 March by the husband or the wife. The
2003, promulgated by the rule is clear and unequivocal that
Supreme Court En Banc as basis. only the husband or the wife may
The RTC elucidated on its position file the petition for Declaration of
in the following manner: Absolute Nullity of a Void
Marriage. The reading of this Court DISMISSED with costs de officio.
is that the right to bring such 13
petition is exclusive and this right
solely belongs to them. Respondents filed a Motion for
Consequently, the heirs of the Reconsideration thereof. Following
deceased spouse cannot substitute the filing by petitioner of her
their late father in bringing the Comment to the said motion, the
action to declare the marriage null RTC rendered an Order14 dated 3
and void.12 (Emphasis supplied.) May 2006, reversing its Order of
11 October 2005. Hence, the RTC
The dispositive portion of the reinstated the complaint on the
Order, thus, reads: ratiocination that the assailed
Order ignored the ruling in Niñal v.
WHEREFORE, [the] Motion to Bayadog,15 which was on the
Dismiss raised as an affirmative authority for holding that the heirs
defense in the answer is hereby of a deceased spouse have the
GRANTED. Accordingly, the standing to assail a void marriage
Complaint filed by the even after the death of the latter.
[respondents] is hereby It held that Section 2(a) of A.M.
No. 02-11-20-SC, which provides
that a petition for declaration of Order subject of this motion for
absolute nullity of void marriage reconsideration held that the case
may be filed solely by the husband of Niñal vs. Bayadog is now
or the wife, applies only where superseded by the new Rule on
both parties to a void marriage are Declaration of Absolute Nullity of
still living.16 Where one or both Marriages (hereinafter referred to
parties are deceased, the RTC held as the Rule) because the Supreme
that the heirs may file a petition to Court has rejected the case of
declare the marriage void. The Niñal vs. Bayadog by approving
RTC expounded on its stance, the Rule on Nullity of Void
thus: Marriages. The Order further held
that it is only the husband or the
The questioned Order wife who is (sic) the only parties
disregarded the case of Niñal vs. allowed to file an action for
Bayadog, 328 SCRA 122 (March declaration of nullity of their
14, 2000) in which the Supreme marriage and such right is purely
Court, First Division, held that the personal and is not transmissible
heirs of a deceased person may upon the death of the parties.
file a petition for the declaration of
his marriage after his death. The
 It is admitted that there seems to file a petition to declare his
to be a conflict between the case marriage void. However, upon the
of Niñal vs. Bayadog and Section death of the parent his heirs have
2(a) of the Rule. In view of this, already a vested right over
the Court shall try to reconcile the whatever property left by the
case of Niñal vs. Bayadog and the parent. Such vested right should
Rule. To reconcile, the Court will not be frustrated by any rules of
have to determine [the] basic procedure such as the Rule. Rules
rights of the parties. The rights of of Procedure cannot repeal rights
the legitimate heirs of a person granted by substantive law. The
who entered into a void marriage heirs, then, have a legal standing
will be prejudiced particularly with in Court.
respect to their successional
rights. During the lifetime of the If the heirs are prohibited from
parent[,] the heirs have only an questioning the void marriage
inchoate right over the property of entered by their parent, especially
the said parents. Hence, during when the marriage is illegal and
the lifetime of the parent, it would feloniously entered into, it will give
be proper that it should solely be premium to such union because
the parent who should be allowed the guilty parties will seldom, if
ever at all, ask for the annulment procedure which shall be
of the marriage. Such void applicable.17
marriage will be given a semblance
of validity if the heirs will not be Perforce, the decretal portion of
allowed to file the petition after the RTC Order of 3 May 2006
the death of the parent. states:

For these reasons, this Court In view of the foregoing, the

believes that Sec. 2(a) of the Rules Court grants the motion for
on Declaration of Absolute Nullity reconsideration dated October 31,
of Marriage is applicable only when 2005 and reinstate this case.18
both parties to a (sic) void
marriage are still living. Upon the Aggrieved, petitioner filed a
death of anyone of the guilty party Motion for Reconsideration of the
to the void marriage, his heirs may foregoing Order; however, on 1
file a petition to declare the the June 2006, the RTC denied the
(sic) marriage void, but the Rule is said motion on the ground that no
not applicable as it was not filed b new matter was raised therein.19
the husband or the wife. It shall
be the ordinary rule of civil
 Hence, the instant Petition Court of Appeals and the RTCs (for
under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of writs enforceable within their
Civil Procedure on the sole respective regions), to issue writs
question of whether the case law of mandamus, prohibition or
as embodied in Niñal, or the Rule certiorari, the litigants are well
on Declaration of Absolute Nullity advised against taking a direct
of Void Marriages and Annulment recourse to this Court.20 Instead,
of Voidable Marriages, as specified they should initially seek the
in A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC of the proper relief from the lower courts.
Supreme Court applies to the case As a court of last resort, this Court
at bar. should not be burdened with the
task of dealing with causes in the
At the outset, we note that first instance. Where the issuance
petitioner took an abbreviated of an extraordinary writ is
route to this Court, countenancing concurrently within the
the hierarchy of courts. competence of the Court of
Appeals or the RTC, litigants must
We have earlier emphasized observe the principle of hierarchy
that while the Supreme Court has of courts.21 However, it cannot be
the concurrent jurisdiction with the gainsaid that this Court has the
discretionary power to brush aside granted the right to file a petition
procedural lapses if compelling for the declaration of nullity of his
reasons, or the nature and marriage after his death.
importance of the issues raised,
warrant the immediate exercise of We grant the Petition.
its jurisdiction.22 Moreover,
notwithstanding the dismissibility In reinstating respondents’
of the instant Petition for its failure Complaint for Declaration of Nullity
to observe the doctrine on the of Marriage, the RTC acted with
hierarchy of courts, this Court will grave abuse of discretion.
proceed to entertain the case
grounded as it is on a pure While it is true that Niñal in no
question of law. uncertain terms allowed therein
petitioners to file a petition for the
Petitioner maintains that A.M. declaration of nullity of their
No. 02-11-10-SC governs the father’s marriage to therein
instant case. A contrario, respondent after the death of their
respondents posit that it is Niñal father, we cannot, however, apply
which is applicable, whereby the its ruling for the reason that the
heirs of the deceased person were impugned marriage therein was
solemnized prior to the effectivity Marriages as contained in A.M. No.
of the Family Code. The Court in 02-11-10-SC is explicit in its scope,
Niñal recognized that the to wit:
applicable law to determine the
validity of the two marriages Section 1. Scope. – This Rule
involved therein is the Civil Code, shall govern petitions for
which was the law in effect at the declaration of absolute nullity of
time of their celebration.23 What void marriages and annulment of
we have before us belongs to a voidable marriages under the
different milieu, i.e., the marriage Family Code of the Philippines.
sought to be declared void was
entered into during the effectivity The Rules of Court shall apply
of the Family Code. As can be suppletorily. (Emphasis supplied.)
gleaned from the facts, petitioner’s
marriage to Eulogio was The categorical language of
celebrated in 2004.1âwphi1 A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC leaves no
room for doubt. The coverage
The Rule on Declaration of extends only to those marriages
Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages entered into during the effectivity
and Annulment of Voidable
of the Family Code which took the ambit of A.M. No. 02-11-10-
effect on 3 August 1988.24 SC.

Moreover, A.M. No. 02-11-10- Hence, in resolving the issue

SC took effect on 15 March 2003, before us, we resort to Section
following its publication in a 2(a) of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC,
newspaper of general circulation. which provides:
Thus, contrary to the opinion of
the RTC, there is no need to Section 2. Petition for
reconcile the provisions of A.M. declaration of absolute nullity of
No. 02-11-10-SC with the ruling in void marriages. –
Niñal, because they vary in scope
and application. As has been (a) Who may file. – A petition
emphasized, A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC for declaration of absolute nullity
covers marriages under the Family of void marriage may be filed
Code of the Philippines, and is solely by the husband or the wife.
prospective in its application. The (n) (Emphasis supplied.)
marriage of petitioner to Eulogio
was celebrated on 26 August There is no ambiguity in the
2004, and it squarely falls within Rule. Absolute sententil expositore
non indiget. When the language of of void marriages. Such petitions
the law is clear, no explanation of cannot be filed by the compulsory
it is required. Section 2(a) of A.M. or intestate heirs of the spouses or
No. 02-11-10-SC, makes it the sole by the State. [Section 2; Section 3,
right of the husband or the wife to paragraph a]
file a petition for declaration of
absolute nullity of void marriage. Only an aggrieved or injured
spouse may file a petition for
The Rationale of the Rules on annulment of voidable marriages
Annulment of Voidable Marriages or declaration of absolute nullity of
and Declaration of Absolute Nullity void marriages. Such petition
of Void Marriages, Legal cannot be filed by compulsory or
Separation and Provisional Orders intestate heirs of the spouses or
explicates on Section 2(a) in the by the State. The Committee is of
following manner, viz: the belief that they do not have a
legal right to file the petition.
1. Only an aggrieved or injured Compulsory or intestate heirs have
spouse may file petitions for only inchoate rights prior to the
annulment of voidable marriages death of their predecessor, and
and declaration of absolute nullity hence can only question the
validity of the marriage of the compulsory or intestate heirs are
spouses upon the death of a already without any recourse
spouse in a proceeding for the under the law. They can still
settlement of the estate of the protect their successional right,
deceased spouse filed in the for, as stated in the Rationale of
regular courts. On the other hand, the Rules on Annulment of
the concern of the State is to Voidable Marriages and
preserve marriage and not to seek Declaration of Absolute Nullity of
its dissolution.25 (Emphasis Void Marriages, Legal Separation
supplied.) and Provisional Orders,
compulsory or intestate heirs can
Respondents clearly have no still question the validity of the
cause of action before the court a marriage of the spouses, not in a
quo. Nonetheless, all is not lost for proceeding for declaration of
respondents. While A.M. No. 02- nullity, but upon the death of a
11-10-SC declares that a petition spouse in a proceeding for the
for declaration of absolute nullity settlement of the estate of the
of void marriage may be filed deceased spouse filed in the
solely by the husband or the wife, regular courts.
it does not mean that the
 WHEREFORE, the Petition is Associate Justice
GRANTED. Civil Case No. II-4057 Chairperson
filed before the Regional Trial MA. ALICIA AUSTRIA-
Court of Aparri, Cagayan, Branch MARTINEZ
6, is ORDERED DISMISSED Associate Justice ANTONIO
without prejudice to challenging EDUARDO B. NACHURA
the validity of the marriage of Associate Justice
Lolita D. Enrico to Eulogio B.
Medinaceli in a proceeding for the RUBEN T. REYES
settlement of the estate of the Associate Justice
latter. No costs.
ATTESTATION
SO ORDERED.
I attest that the conclusions in
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO the above Decision were reached
Associate Justice in consultation before the case
was assigned to the writer of the
WE CONCUR: opinion of the Court’s Division.

CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO

 Associate Justice 1 Penned by Judge Rolando R.
Chairperson, Third Division Velasco; rollo, pp. 12-13.

CERTIFICATION 2 Penned by Judge Virgilio M.

Alameda, id. at 15-20.
Pursuant to Section 13, Article
VIII of the Constitution, and the 3 Id. at 4.
Division Chairperson’s Attestation,
it is hereby certified that the 4 Id.
conclusions in the above Decision
were reached in consultation 5 Id.
before the case was assigned to
the writer of the opinion of the 6 Id. at 5.
Court’s Division.
7 Id.
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice 8 ART. 34. No license shall be
necessary for the marriage of a
Footnotes man and a woman who have lived
together as husband and wife for
at least five years and without any 11 Sec. 2. Petition for
legal impediment to marry each declaration of absolute nullity of
other. The contracting parties shall void marriages. –
state the foregoing facts in an
affidavit before any person (a) Who may file. – A petition
authorized by law to administer for declaration of absolute nullity
oaths. The solemnizing officer shall of void marriage may be filed
also state under oath that he solely by the husband or the wife.
ascertained the qualifications of
the contracting parties and found 12 Rollo, p. 17.
no legal impediments to the
marriage. 13 Id. at 20.

9 Rollo, pp. 15-20. 14 Id. at 12-13.

10 Rule on Declaration of 15 384 Phil. 661, 672-675

Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages (2000).
And Annulment of Voidable
Marriages. 16 Rollo, p. 13.
 17 Id. at 12-13. 23 Niñal v. Bayadog, supra note
15 at 667, citing Tamano v. Hon.
18 Id. Ortiz, 353 Phil. 775 (1998).

19 Id. at 14. 24 Modequillo v. Breva, G.R.

No. 86355, 31 May 1990, 185
20 Pearson v. Intermediate SCRA 766, 772. It must be noted
Appellate Court, 356 Phil. 341, 355 that Article 257 of the Family Code
(1998). provides that, "This Code shall
take effect one year after the
21 Id. completion of its publication in a
newspaper of general circulation,
22 Tano v. Hon. Gov. Socrates, as certified by the Executive
343 Phil. 670, 700 (1997); Del Mar Secretary, Office of the President."
v. Philippine Amusement and The Code was published on 4
Gaming Corporation, 400 Phil. 307, August 1987 in the Manila
326-327 (2000), citing Hon. Chronicle, and took effect one year
Fortich v. Hon. Corona, 352 Phil. after its publication, or on 3
461, 480 (1998); August 1988, considering that
1988 is a leap year; See Sempio-
Diy, "Handbook on the Family
Code of the Philippines," 1995 Ed.,
p. 393, citing Memorandum
Circular No. 85 of the Office of the
President dated 7 November 1988.

25 Rationale of the Rules on

Annulment of Voidable Marriages
and Declaration of Absolute Nullity
of Void Marriages, Legal
Separation and Provisional Orders.
 ISIDRO ABLAZA, Petitioner,
vs.
REPUBLIC OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

DECISION

BERSAMIN, J.:

Whether a person may bring an

action for the declaration of the
absolute nullity of the marriage of
his deceased brother solemnized
under the regime of the old Civil
Code is the legal issue to be
THIRD DIVISION determined in this appeal brought
by the petitioner whose action for
G.R. No. 158298 that purpose has been dismissed
August 11, 2010 by the lower courts on the ground
that he, not being a party in the
assailed marriage, had no right to The petitioner alleged that the
bring the action. marriage between Cresenciano
and Leonila had been celebrated
Antecedents without a marriage license, due to
such license being issued only on
On October 17, 2000, the January 9, 1950, thereby
petitioner filed in the Regional Trial rendering the marriage void ab
Court (RTC) in Cataingan, Masbate initio for having been solemnized
a petition for the declaration of the without a marriage license. He
absolute nullity of the marriage insisted that his being the
contracted on December 26, 1949 surviving brother of Cresenciano
between his late brother who had died without any issue
Cresenciano Ablaza and Leonila entitled him to one-half of the real
Honato.1 The case was docketed properties acquired by Cresenciano
as Special Case No. 117 entitled In before his death, thereby making
Re: Petition for Nullification of him a real party in interest; and
Marriage Contract between that any person, himself included,
Cresenciano Ablaza and Leonila could impugn the validity of the
Honato; Isidro Ablaza, petitioner. marriage between Cresenciano
and Leonila at any time, even after
the death of Cresenciano, due to
the marriage being void ab initio.2 SO ORDERED.

Ruling of the RTC The petitioner seasonably filed

a motion for reconsideration, but
On October 18, 2000, 3 the RTC the RTC denied the motion for
dismissed the petition, stating: reconsideration on November 14,
2000.
Considering the petition for
annulment of marriage filed, the Ruling of the Court of Appeals
Court hereby resolved to DISMISS
the petition for the following The petitioner appealed to the
reasons: 1) petition is filed out of Court of Appeals (CA), assigning
time (action had long prescribed) the lone error that:
and 2) petitioner is not a party to
the marriage (contracted between The trial court erred in
Cresenciano Ablaza and Leonila dismissing the petition for being
Nonato on December 26, 1949 and filed out of time and that the
solemnized by Rev. Fr. Eusebio B. petitioner is not a party to the
Calolot). marriage.
 petitioner-appellant that he is
In its decision dated January considered a real party in interest
30, 2003,4 however, the CA under Section 2, Rule 3 of the
affirmed the dismissal order of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as
RTC, thus: he stands to be benefited or
injured by the judgment in the
While an action to declare the suit, is simply misplaced. Actions
nullity of a marriage considered for annulment of marriage will not
void from the beginning does not prosper if persons other than
prescribe, the law nonetheless those specified in the law file the
requires that the same action must case.
be filed by the proper party, which
in this case should be filed by any Certainly, a surviving brother of
of the parties to the marriage. In the deceased spouse is not the
the instant case, the petition was proper party to file the subject
filed by Isidro Ablaza, a brother of petition. More so that the surviving
the deceased-spouse, who is not a wife, who stands to be prejudiced,
party to the marriage contracted was not even impleaded as a party
by Cresenciano Ablaza and Leonila to said case.
Honato. The contention of
 WHEREFORE, finding no CV. NO. 69684 AFFIRMING THE
reversible error therefrom, the ORDER OF DISMISSAL OF THE
Orders now on appeal are hereby REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH
AFFIRMED. Costs against the 49 AT CATAINGAN, MASBATE IN
petitioner-appellant. SPECIAL PROCEEDING NO. 117 IS
IN ACCORDANCE WITH
SO ORDERED.5 APPLICABLE LAWS AND
JURISPRUDENCE;
Hence, this appeal.
II.
Issues
WHETHER OR NOT THE
The petitioner raises the DECISION OF THE HONORABLE
following issues: COURT OF APPEALS IN CA-G.R.
CV NO. 69684 (SHOULD) BE
I. REVERSED BASED ON EXECUTIVE
ORDER NO. 209 AND EXISTING
WHETHER OR NOT THE JURISPRUDENCE.
DECISION OF THIS HONORABLE
COURT OF APPEALS IN CA-G.R.
 The issues, rephrased, boil force at the time the marriage is
down to whether the petitioner is contracted.6 As a general rule, the
a real party in interest in the nature of the marriage already
action to seek the declaration of celebrated cannot be changed by a
nullity of the marriage of his subsequent amendment of the
deceased brother. governing law.7 To illustrate, a
marriage between a stepbrother
Ruling and a stepsister was void under
the Civil Code, but is not anymore
The petition is meritorious. prohibited under the Family Code;
yet, the intervening effectivity of
A valid marriage is essential in the Family Code does not affect
order to create the relation of the void nature of a marriage
husband and wife and to give rise between a stepbrother and a
to the mutual rights, duties, and stepsister solemnized under the
liabilities arising out of such regime of the Civil Code. The Civil
relation. The law prescribes the Code marriage remains void,
requisites of a valid marriage. considering that the validity of a
Hence, the validity of a marriage is marriage is governed by the law in
tested according to the law in
force at the time of the marriage to distinguish between marriages
ceremony.8 covered by the Family Code and
those solemnized under the
Before anything more, the regime of the Civil Code.9
Court has to clarify the impact to Specifically, A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC
the issue posed herein of extends only to marriages covered
Administrative Matter (A.M.) No. by the Family Code, which took
02-11-10-SC (Rule on Declaration effect on August 3, 1988, but,
of Absolute Nullity of Void being a procedural rule that is
Marriages and Annulment of prospective in application, is
Voidable Marriages), which took confined only to proceedings
effect on March 15, 2003. commenced after March 15,
2003.10
Section 2, paragraph (a), of
A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC explicitly Based on Carlos v. Sandoval,11
provides the limitation that a the following actions for
petition for declaration of absolute declaration of absolute nullity of a
nullity of void marriage may be marriage are excepted from the
filed solely by the husband or wife. limitation, to wit:
Such limitation demarcates a line
 1. Those commenced before initiate the action for declaration of
March 15, 2003, the effectivity nullity of the marriage under A.M.
date of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC; and No. 02-11-10-SC had absolutely no
application to the petitioner.
2. Those filed vis-à-vis
marriages celebrated during the The old and new Civil Codes
effectivity of the Civil Code and, contain no provision on who can
those celebrated under the regime file a petition to declare the nullity
of the Family Code prior to March of a marriage, and when.
15, 2003. Accordingly, in Niñal v.
Bayadog,12 the children were
Considering that the marriage allowed to file after the death of
between Cresenciano and Leonila their father a petition for the
was contracted on December 26, declaration of the nullity of their
1949, the applicable law was the father’s marriage to their
old Civil Code, the law in effect at stepmother contracted on
the time of the celebration of the December 11, 1986 due to lack of
marriage. Hence, the rule on the a marriage license. There, the
exclusivity of the parties to the Court distinguished between a void
marriage as having the right to marriage and a voidable one, and
explained how and when each circumstances, the effect of a void
might be impugned, thuswise: marriage, so far as concerns the
conferring of legal rights upon the
Jurisprudence under the Civil parties, is as though no marriage
Code states that no judicial decree had ever taken place. And
is necessary in order to establish therefore, being good for no legal
the nullity of a marriage. "A void purpose, its invalidity can be
marriage does not require a maintained in any proceeding in
judicial decree to restore the which the fact of marriage may be
parties to their original rights or to material, either direct or collateral,
make the marriage void but in any civil court between any
though no sentence of avoidance parties at any time, whether
be absolutely necessary, yet as before or after the death of either
well for the sake of good order of or both the husband and the wife,
society as for the peace of mind of and upon mere proof of the facts
all concerned, it is expedient that rendering such marriage void, it
the nullity of the marriage should will be disregarded or treated as
be ascertained and declared by the non-existent by the courts." It is
decree of a court of competent not like a voidable marriage which
jurisdiction." "Under ordinary cannot be collaterally attacked
except in direct proceeding the ground for defense, then the
instituted during the lifetime of the same cannot be considered
parties so that on the death of imprescriptible.
either, the marriage cannot be
impeached, and is made good ab However, other than for
initio. But Article 40 of the Family purposes of remarriage, no judicial
Code expressly provides that there action is necessary to declare a
must be a judicial declaration of marriage an absolute nullity. For
the nullity of a previous marriage, other purposes, such as but not
though void, before a party can limited to determination of
enter into a second marriage and heirship, legitimacy or illegitimacy
such absolute nullity can be based of a child, settlement of estate,
only on a final judgment to that dissolution of property regime, or
effect. For the same reason, the a criminal case for that matter, the
law makes either the action or court may pass upon the validity
defense for the declaration of of marriage even in a suit not
absolute nullity of marriage directly instituted to question the
imprescriptible. Corollarily, if the same so long as it is essential to
death of either party would the determination of the case. This
extinguish the cause of action or is without prejudice to any issue
that may arise in the case. When be the party who stands to be
such need arises, a final judgment benefited by the suit, or the party
of declaration of nullity is entitled to the avails of the suit,
necessary even if the purpose is for it is basic in procedural law
other than to remarry. The clause that every action must be
"on the basis of a final judgment prosecuted and defended in the
declaring such previous marriage name of the real party in
void" in Article 40 of the Family interest.15 Thus, only the party
Code connotes that such final who can demonstrate a "proper
judgment need not be obtained interest" can file the action.16
only for purpose of remarriage.13 Interest within the meaning of the
rule means material interest, or an
It is clarified, however, that the interest in issue to be affected by
absence of a provision in the old the decree or judgment of the
and new Civil Codes cannot be case, as distinguished from mere
construed as giving a license to curiosity about the question
just any person to bring an action involved or a mere incidental
to declare the absolute nullity of a interest. One having no material
marriage. According to Carlos v. interest to protect cannot invoke
Sandoval,14 the plaintiff must still the jurisdiction of the court as
plaintiff in an action. When the under the conditions stated in
plaintiff is not the real party in Article 1001 and Article 1003 of
interest, the case is dismissible on the Civil Code, as follows:
the ground of lack of cause of
action.17 Article 1001. Should brothers
and sisters or their children survive
Here, the petitioner alleged with the widow or widower, the
himself to be the late latter shall be entitled to one half
Cresenciano’s brother and of the inheritance and the brothers
surviving heir. Assuming that the and sisters or their children to the
petitioner was as he claimed other half.
himself to be, then he has a
material interest in the estate of Article 1003. If there are no
Cresenciano that will be adversely descendants, ascendants,
affected by any judgment in the illegitimate children, or a surviving
suit. Indeed, a brother like the spouse, the collateral relatives
petitioner, albeit not a compulsory shall succeed to the entire estate
heir under the laws of succession, of the deceased in accordance
has the right to succeed to the with the following articles.
estate of a deceased brother
 Pursuant to these provisions, As can be seen, both the RTC
the presence of descendants, and the CA erroneously resolved
ascendants, or illegitimate children the issue presented in this case.
of the deceased excludes collateral We reverse their error, in order
relatives like the petitioner from that the substantial right of the
succeeding to the deceased’s petitioner, if any, may not be
estate.18 Necessarily, therefore, prejudiced.
the right of the petitioner to bring
the action hinges upon a prior Nevertheless, we note that the
determination of whether petitioner did not implead Leonila,
Cresenciano had any descendants, who, as the late Cresenciano’s
ascendants, or children (legitimate surviving wife,19 stood to be
or illegitimate), and of whether the benefited or prejudiced by the
petitioner was the late nullification of her own marriage.
Cresenciano’s surviving heir. Such It is relevant to observe,
prior determination must be made moreover, that not all marriages
by the trial court, for the inquiry celebrated under the old Civil Code
thereon involves questions of fact. required
 a marriage license for their The absence of an indispensable
validity;20 hence, her participation party renders all subsequent
in this action is made all the more actions of the court null and void
necessary in order to shed light on for want of authority to act, not
whether the marriage had been only as to the absent parties but
celebrated without a marriage even as to those present.21
license and whether the marriage
might have been a marriage We take note, too, that the
excepted from the requirement of petitioner and Leonila were parties
a marriage license. She was truly in C.A.-G.R. CV No. 91025 entitled
an indispensable party who must Heirs of Cresenciano Ablaza,
be joined herein: namely: Leonila G. Ablaza and
Leila Ablaza Jasul v. Spouses
xxx under any and all Isidro and Casilda Ablaza, an
conditions, [her] presence being a action to determine who between
sine qua non for the exercise of the parties were the legal owners
judicial power.1avvphi1 It is of the property involved therein.
precisely "when an indispensable Apparently, C.A.-G.R. CV No.
party is not before the court [that] 91025 was decided on November
the action should be dismissed." 26, 2009, and the petitioner’s
motion for reconsideration was states that neither misjoinder nor
denied on June 23, 2010. As a non-joinder of parties is a ground
defendant in that action, the for the dismissal of an action. The
petitioner is reasonably presumed petitioner can still amend his
to have knowledge that the therein initiatory pleading in order to
plaintiffs, Leonila and Leila, were implead her, for under the same
the wife and daughter, rule, such amendment to implead
respectively, of the late an indispensable party may be
Cresenciano. As such, Leila was made "on motion of any party or
another indispensable party whose on (the trial court’s) own initiative
substantial right any judgment in at any stage of the action and on
this action will definitely affect. such terms as are just."
The petitioner should likewise
implead Leila. WHEREFORE, the petition for
review on certiorari is granted.
The omission to implead Leonila
and Leila was not immediately We reverse and set aside the
fatal to the present action, decision dated January 30, 2003
however, considering that Section rendered by the Court of Appeals.
11,22 Rule 3, Rules of Court,
 Special Case No. 117 entitled In whether the petitioner was the
Re: Petition for Nullification of brother and surviving heir of the
Marriage Contract between late Cresenciano Ablaza entitled to
Cresenciano Ablaza and Leonila succeed to the estate of said
Honato; Isidro Ablaza, petitioner, deceased; and thereafter to
is reinstated, and its records are proceed accordingly.
returned to the Regional Trial
Court, Branch 49, in Cataingan, No costs of suit.
Masbate, for further proceedings,
with instructions to first require SO ORDERED.
the petitioner to amend his
initiatory pleading in order to LUCAS P. BERSAMIN
implead Leonila Honato and her Associate Justice
daughter Leila Ablaza Jasul as
parties-defendants; then to WE CONCUR:
determine whether the late
Cresenciano Ablaza had any CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES
ascendants, descendants, or Associate Justice
children (legitimate or illegitimate) Chairperson
at the time of his death as well as ARTURO D. BRION
 Associate Justice ROBERTO A. Pursuant to Section 13, Article
ABAD* VIII of the Constitution, and the
Associate Justice Division Chairperson’s Attestation,
I certify that the conclusions in the
MARTIN S. VILLARAMA, JR. above Decision had been reached
Associate Justice in consultation before the case
was assigned to the writer of the
ATTESTATION opinion of the Court’s Division.

I attest that the conclusions in RENATO C. CORONA

the above Decision had been Chief Justice
reached in consultation before the
case was assigned to the writer of Footnotes
the opinion of the Court’s Division.
* Additional member per
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES Special Order No. 843 dated May
Associate Justice Chairperson 17, 2010.

CERTIFICATION 1 Rollo, pp. 24-26.

 2 Id., p. 14.
8 Id, pp. 106-107.
3 Id., p. 22.
9 Id.
4 Penned by Associate Justice
Mariano C. Del Castillo (now a 10 Enrico vs. Heirs of Sps.
Member of this Court), with Eulogio B. Medinaceli and Trinidad
Associate Justice Buenaventura J. Catli-Medinaceli, G.R. No. 173614,
Guerrerro (retired) and Associate September 28, 2007, 534 SCRA
Justice Teodoro P. Regino (retired) 418.
concurring; rollo, pp. 18-21.
11 G.R. No. 179922, December
5 Rollo, pp. 20-21. 16, 2008, 574 SCRA 116.

6 Sta. Maria Jr., Persons and 12 G.R. No. 133778, March 14,
Family Relations, 2004 ed., p. 105; 2000, 328 SCRA 122.
citing Stewart v. Vandervort, 34
W. VA. 524, 12 SE 736, 12 LRA 50. 13 At pp. 135-136 (highlighting
provided for emphasis).
7 Id. p. 106.
 14 Supra, note 12.
19 This action is entitled In Re:
15 Oco v. Limbaring, G.R. No. Petition for Nullification of
161298, January 31, 2006, 481 Marriage Contract between
SCRA 348. Cresenciano Ablaza and Leonila
Honato; Isidro Ablaza, petitioner.
16 Amor-Catalan v. Court of
Appeals, G.R. No. 167109, 20 Under the old Civil Code, not
February 6, 2007, 514 SCRA 607. all marriages solemnized without a
marriage license were void from
17 Carlos v. Sandoval, supra, the beginning. Exempt from the
note 15; citing Abella Jr. v. Civil requirement of a marriage license
Service Commission, G.R. No. were marriages of exceptional
152574, November 17, 2004, 442 character, as provided for from
SCRA 507. Article 72 to Article 79, old Civil
Code, to wit:
18 See Heirs of Ignacio Conti v.
Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 118464, Article 72. In case either of the
December 21, 1998, 300 SCRA contracting parties is on the point
345. of death or the female has her
habitual residence at a place more marriage was solemnized. The
than fifteen kilometers distant person who solemnized the
from the municipal building and marriage shall also state, in either
there is no communication by case, that he took the necessary
railroad or by provincial or local steps to ascertain the ages and
highways between the former and relationship of the contracting
the latter, the marriage may be parties and that there was in his
solemnized without necessity of a opinion no legal impediment to the
marriage license; but in such cases marriage at the time that it was
the official, priest, or minister solemnized.
solemnizing it shall state in an
affidavit made before the local civil Article 73. The original of the
registrar or any person authorized affidavit required in the last
by law to administer oaths that the preceding article, together with a
marriage was performed in articulo copy of the marriage contract,
mortis or at a place more than shall be sent by the person
fifteen kilometers distant from the solemnizing the marriage to the
municipal building concerned, in local civil registrar of the
which latter case he shall give the municipality where it was
name of the barrio where the performed within the period of
thirty days, after the performance Article 75. Marriages between
of the marriage. The local civil Filipino citizens abroad may be
registrar shall, however, before solemnized by consuls and vice-
filing the papers, require the consuls of the Republic of the
payment into the municipal Philippines. The duties of the local
treasury of the legal fees required civil registrar and of a judge or
in Article 65. justice of the peace or mayor with
regard to the celebration of
Article 74. A marriage in articulo marriage shall be performed by
mortis may also be solemnized by such consuls and vice-consuls.
the captain of a ship or chief of an
airplane during a voyage, or by the Article 76. No marriage license
commanding officer of a military shall be necessary when a man
unit, in the absence of a chaplain, and a woman who have attained
during war. The duties mentioned the age of majority and who,
in the two preceding articles shall being unmarried, have lived
be complied with by the ship together as husband and wife for
captain, airplane chief or at least five years, desire to marry
commanding officer. each other. The contracting parties
shall state the foregoing facts in
an affidavit before any person shall merely be considered as a
authorized by law to administer purely religious ceremony.
oaths. The official, priest or
minister who solemnized the Article 78. Marriages between
marriage shall also state in an Mohammedans or pagans who live
affidavit that he took steps to in the non-Christian provinces may
ascertain the ages and other be performed in accordance with
qualifications of the contracting their customs, rites or practices.
parties and that he found no legal No marriage license or formal
impediment to the marriage. requisites shall be necessary. Nor
shall the persons solemnizing
Article 77. In case two persons these marriages be obliged to
married in accordance with law comply with Article 92.
desire to ratify their union in
conformity with the regulations, However, twenty years after
rites, or practices of any church, approval of this Code, all
sect, or religion it shall no longer marriages performed between
be necessary to comply with the Mohammedans or pagans shall be
requirements of Chapter 1 of this solemnized in accordance with the
Title and any ratification made provisions of this Code. But the
President of the Philippines, upon the last preceding article if so
recommendation of the Secretary desired by the contracting parties,
of the Interior, may at any time subject, however, in the latter
before the expiration of said case to the provisions of the
period, by proclamation, make any second paragraph of said article.
of said provisions applicable to the
Mohammedan and non-Christian 21 Regner v. Logarta, G.R. No.
inhabitants of any of the non- 168747, October 19, 2007, 537
Christian provinces. SCRA 277, 289; citing Borlasa v.
Polistico, 47 Phil. 345, 347 (1925)
Article 79. Mixed marriages and People v. Hon. Rodriguez, 106
between a Christian male and a Phil. 325, 327 (1959).
Mohammedan or pagan female
shall be governed by the general 22 Section 11. Misjoinder and
provision of this Title and not by non-joinder of parties. — Neither
those of the last preceding article, misjoinder nor non-joinder of
but mixed marriages between a parties is ground for dismissal of
Mohammedan or pagan male and an action. Parties may be dropped
a Christian female may be or added by order of the court on
performed under the provisions of motion of any party or on its own
initiative at any stage of the action
and on such terms as are just. Any
claim against a misjoined party
may be severed and proceeded
with separately. (11a)