Santos v.
Court of Appeals
(G.R. No. 112019, January 4, 1995)
Facts:
Leouel Santos, an officer of the Armed Forces, married Julia Rosario
Bedia in 1986. They had a son in 1987. Shortly thereafter, Julia left for the
United States and refused to return to the Philippines or resume cohabitation
with her husband. Despite Leouel’s pleas, Julia consistently rejected
reconciliation. Claiming that her refusal constituted psychological incapacity
under Article 36 of the Family Code, Leouel sought a declaration of nullity of
their marriage. The trial court and the Court of Appeals both denied the
petition, holding that abandonment alone is not equivalent to psychological
incapacity. Leouel then elevated the case to the Supreme Court.
Issue:
Whether a spouse’s abandonment and refusal to live with the other
constitute psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code,
sufficient to annul the marriage?
Ruling:
Petition Denied. and affirmed the lower courts’ rulings. It held that
Julia’s acts did not fall under the purview of “psychological incapacity”
contemplated in Article 36 of the Family Code. The Court clarified that
abandonment, irresponsibility, or refusal to perform marital obligations do
not automatically amount to psychological incapacity. Rather, psychological
incapacity must be a mental incapacity that is grave, antecedent, and
incurable, rendering a spouse truly incapable of fulfilling the essential
obligations of marriage.
Ratio Decidendi:
The Court held that psychological incapacity must be a serious
psychological disorder that is grave, deeply rooted, incurable, and existing at
the time of marriage. It must render a spouse incapable of fulfilling the
essential obligations of marriage. Acts of willful abandonment,
irresponsibility, or stubborn refusal are moral or personal failings but do not
amount to psychological incapacity. Thus, Julia’s refusal to return was not
sufficient to nullify the marriage.
Philosophy of Law Analysis
Aquinas (Natural Law): Marriage, as part of natural law, is directed
to procreation, fidelity, and the good of the spouses. The Court’s strict
stance aligns with Aquinas’s idea that marriage is a permanent
institution rooted in reason and morality, not easily dissolved by
individual will.
Hart (Legal Positivism): Hart emphasizes fidelity to legal rules as
recognized by the rule of recognition. The Court applied this by
refusing to expand “psychological incapacity” beyond what Article 36
provides. It adhered strictly to the positive law, not moral or social
preferences.
Pound (Sociological Jurisprudence): Pound viewed law as a tool for
balancing social and individual interests. Article 36 itself was a
sociological innovation, but the Court, in this first application, leaned
toward preserving social stability over individual relief. It reflects a
conservative approach in “social engineering”: prioritizing marriage as
an institution rather than accommodating evolving personal struggles.
Connections to Kinds of Law
Divine and Human Law: Divine law treats marriage as sacred and
indissoluble. Human law (Family Code, Art. 36) provides exceptions like
psychological incapacity. The Court harmonized both by ensuring that
human law does not undermine divine law’s sanctity of marriage.
Natural and Positive Law: Natural law upholds marriage as part of
the natural order of society. Positive law created a statutory ground for
nullity (Art. 36), but the Court interpreted it narrowly. The decision
reflects how natural law principles (permanence of marriage) restrain
an overly liberal reading of positive law.
Moral Law: While Julia’s abandonment may be immoral, moral failure
is not the same as legal incapacity. The Court drew a line between
moral law (dictating right conduct) and civil law (granting legal
remedies). Not every sin is a legal defect.
Common Law vs. Civil Law Systems: The Philippines, as a civil law
jurisdiction, relies on codified statutes like the Family Code. The Court’s
textual approach to Article 36 reflects civil law tradition. However, as
later jurisprudence (e.g., Molina, Te) developed, the Court began
creating interpretive doctrines that resemble common-law precedents.
Santos thus marks the starting point of a hybrid evolution.
Significance:
Santos v. CA is the first case interpreting Article 36, setting the tone for
Philippine jurisprudence on psychological incapacity. It represents a balance
between protecting marriage as a social and moral institution and providing
limited relief under positive law. Philosophically, it embodies Aquinas’s
natural law (marriage’s sanctity), Hart’s positivism (strict fidelity to codified
rules), and Pound’s sociological jurisprudence (weighing social vs. individual
interests). In terms of legal philosophy, it clarifies the boundary between
divine, natural, moral, and human laws, while showing how the Philippines’
civil law system cautiously incorporates case-based evolution, echoing
common law traditions.
Evolution of psychological incapacity cases in Philippine law is a
perfect study in how legal philosophy and public policy shift over
time.
Let’s trace it from Santos ➝ Molina ➝ Tan-Andal.
Comparative Summary
Yea
Case Doctrine Philosophical Lens
r
First definition: grave, antecedent,
Santo 199 Natural law, conservative,
incurable. Abandonment ≠
s 5 marriage as inviolable.
incapacity.
199 Eight strict guidelines, psychiatric Positivist + Catholic natural
Molina
7 proof needed, canon law influence. law, rigid and doctrinal.
Psychological incapacity is legal, Liberal, pragmatic,
Tan- 202
not medical; psychiatric proof humanistic, law as living
Andal 1
optional. instrument.
Overall Philosophical Evolution
From rigidity to realism.
1995–1997: Law favored the institution over the individual,
reflecting a communitarian, moralistic philosophy.
2021: Law began recognizing the individual’s lived reality within
marriage, showing a more human-centered legal philosophy.
This evolution mirrors the broader debate between positivism (strict
rules) and sociological jurisprudence (law adapting to society’s
needs).
👉 In short:
Santos = strict origin (no divorce in disguise).
Molina = super strict rules (psychiatric, canon law-based).
Tan-Andal = softer, human-centered rules (practical justice).
