Santos v

7/21/2019 Santos v

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/santos-v 1/8

Santos v. CA, 240 SCRA 20

FACTS: Leouel and Julia were married on September 20, 1986. Te! were "ir#t married be"ore te $TC in %loilo.

Sortl!, te! married in a &ur&. Te! li'ed wit Julia(# parent#. Soon, #e )a'e birt to teir "ir#t &ild. Somedi#a)reement# te &ouple ad wa# te i##ue o" li'in) independentl! "rom Julia(# parent#. *n 18 $a! 1988, Julia

"inall! le"t "or +SA to wor a# a nur#e. Julia, 'ia pone &all, promi#ed to return ome upon te e-piration o" er &ontra&t in Jul! 1989. Se ne'er did. en Leouel )ot a &an&e to 'i#it te +nited State#, were e underwent a

trainin) pro)ram o" AF/, e de#peratel! tried to lo&ate, or to #omeow )et in tou& wit, Julia but all i# e""ort#were o" no a'ail. a'in) "ailed to )et Julia to &ome ome, Leouel "iled wit te TC a &omplaint "or 'oidin) teir

marria)e on te )round o" p#!&olo)i&al in&apa&it!. TC di#mi##ed te &omplaint. CA a""irmed te di#mi##al.

en&e, ti# petition.

%SS+: 34 Julia(# "ailure to return ome or at te 'er! lea#t to &ommuni&ate wit im, "or more tan "i'e !ear# are

&ir&um#tan&e# tat &learl! #ow er bein) p#!&olo)i&all! in&apa&itated

L5: 4o. Ju#ti&e Sempio5i! opined tat p#!&olo)i&al in&apa&it! mu#t be &ara&teri7ed b! a )ra'it!, b uridi&al ante&eden&e, and & in&urabilit!. Te in&apa&it! mu#t be )ra'e or #eriou# #u& tat te part! would be

in&apable o" &arr!in) out te ordinar! dutie# re;uired in marria)e< it mu#t be rooted in te i#tor! o" te part!

antedatin) te marria)e, altou) te o'ert mani"e#tation# ma! emer)e onl! a"ter te marria)e< and it mu#t be

in&urable or, e'en i" it were oterwi#e, te &ure would be be!ond te mean# o" te part! in'ol'ed. Te intendment o" te law a# been to &on"ine te meanin) o" =p#!&olo)i&al in&apa&it!= to te mo#t #eriou# &a#e# o" per#onalit!

di#order# &learl! demon#trati'e o" an utter inten#iti'it! or inabilit! to )i'e meanin) and #i)ni"i&an&e to te marria)e.

Te &a#e at bar &an ,in no mea#ure at all, &ome &lo#e to te #tandard# re;uired to de&ree a nullit! o" marria)e.

SA4T*S '#. CA A45 J+L%A *SA%* >5%ASA4T*S

?.. 4o. 112019 Januar! @, 199

FACTS: Leouel Santo#, a Fir#t Lieutenant in te /ilippine Arm!, met Julia in %loilo. Te two )ot married in 1986

be"ore a muni&ipal trial &ourt "ollowed #ortl! terea"ter, b! a &ur& weddin). Te &ouple li'ed wit Julia(# parent#

at te J. >edia Compound. Julia )a'e birt to a bab! bo! in 198B and wa# named a# Leouel Santo# Jr. *&&a#ionall!,

te &ouple will ;uarrel o'er a number o" tin)# a#ide "rom te inter"eren&e o" Julia(# parent# into teir "amil! a""air#.Julia le"t in 1988 to wor in +S a# a nur#e de#pite Leouel(# plea# to di##uade er. Se'en mont# a"ter er departure,

#e &alled er u#band and promi#ed to return ome upon te e-piration o" er &ontra&t in Jul! 1989 but #e ne'er

did. Leouel )ot a &an&e to 'i#it +S were e underwent a trainin) pro)ram under AF/, e de#peratel! tried to

lo&ate or #omeow )et in tou& wit Julia but all i# e""ort# were o" no a'ail.

Leouel "iled a &omplaint to a'e teir marria)e de&lared 'oid under Arti&le 6 o" te Famil! Code. e ar)ued tat

"ailure o" Julia to return ome or to &ommuni&ate wit im "or more tan !ear# are &ir&um#tan&e# tat #ow er

bein) p#!&olo)i&all! in&apa&itated to enter into married li"e.

%SS+: eter teir marria)e &an be &on#idered 'oid under Arti&le 6 o" te Famil! Code.

L5:

Te intendment o" te law a# been to &on"ine te meanin) o" p#!&olo)i&al in&apa&it! to te mo#t #eriou# &a#e# o"

per#onal di#order# &learl! demon#trati'e o" an utter in#en#iti'it! or inabilit! to )i'e meanin) and #i)ni"i&an&e to te

marria)e. Ti# &ondition mu#t e-i#t at te time te marria)e i# &elebrated.

+ndeniabl! and under#tandabl!, Leouel #tand# a))rie'ed, e'en de#perate, in i# pre#ent #ituation. e)rettabl!,

neiter law nor #o&iet! it#el" &an alwa!# pro'ide all te #pe&i"i& an#wer# to e'er! indi'idual problem. ere"ore, i#

7/21/2019 Santos v


petition wa# denied.

DDDDDDDDDD

4ote#:

p#!&olo)i&al in&apa&it! mu#t be &ara&teri7ed b! a )ra'it!, b uridi&al ante&eden&e, and & in&urabilit!. Te

in&apa&it! mu#t be )ra'e or #eriou# #u& tat te part! would be in&apable o" &arr!in) out te ordinar! dutie#

re;uired in marria)e< it mu#t be rooted in te i#tor! o" te part! antedatin) te marria)e, altou) te o'ert

mani"e#tation# ma! emer)e onl! a"ter te marria)e< and it mu#t be in&urable or, e'en i" it were oterwi#e, te &ure

would be be!ond te mean# o" te part! in'ol'ed.

Republic vs. CA and Molina

epubli& '. CA and $olina

? 108B6, 1 Februar! 199B

Fa&t#:

oridel *la'iano wa# married to e!naldo $olina on 1@ April 198 in $anila, and )a'e birt to a #on a !ear a"ter.

e!naldo #owed #i)n# o" Eimmaturit! and irre#pon#ibilit! on te earl! #ta)e# o" te marria)e, ob#er'ed "rom i#

tenden&! to #pend time wit i# "riend# and #;uanderin) i# mone! wit tem, "rom i# dependen&! "rom i# parent#, and i# di#one#t! on matter# in'ol'in) i# "inan&e#. e!naldo wa# relie'ed o" i# ob in 1986, oridel

be&ame te #ole breadwinner terea"ter. %n $ar& 198B, oridel re#i)ned "rom er ob in $anila and pro&eeded to

>a)uio Cit!. e!naldo le"t er and teir &ild a wee later. Te &ouple i# #eparatedin"a&t "or more tan tree !ear#.

*n 16 Au)u#t 1990, oridel "iled a 'eri"ied petition "or de&laration o" nullit! o" er marria)e to e!naldo $olina.

'iden&e "or oridel &on#i#ted o" er own te#timon!, tat o" two o" er "riend#, a #o&ial worer, and a p#!&iatri#t o"

te >a)uio ?eneral o#pital and $edi&al Center. e!naldo did not pre#ent an! e'iden&e a# e appeared onl! durin)te pretrial &on"eren&e. *n 1@ $a! 1991, te trial &ourt rendered ud)ment de&larin) te marria)e 'oid. Te

Soli&itor ?eneral appealed to te Court o" Appeal#. Te Court o" Appeal# denied te appeal# and a""irmed in toto te

TC(# de&i#ion. en&e, te pre#ent re&our#e.

%##ue: eter oppo#in) or &on"li&tin) per#onalitie# #ould be &on#trued a# p#!&olo)i&al in&apa&it!

eld:

Te Court o" Appeal# erred in it# opinion te Ci'il Code e'i#ion Committee intended to liberali7e te appli&ation

o" /ilippine &i'il law# on per#onal and "amil! ri)t#, and oldin) p#!&olo)i&al in&apa&it! a# a broad ran)e o"

mental and bea'ioral &ondu&t on te part o" one #pou#e indi&ati'e o" ow e or #e re)ard# te marital union, i# or er per#onal relation#ip wit te oter #pou#e, a# well a# i# or er &ondu&t in te lon) aul "or te attainment o"

te prin&ipal obe&ti'e# o" marria)e< were #aid &ondu&t, ob#er'ed and &on#idered a# a wole, tend# to &au#e teunion to #el"de#tru&t be&au#e it de"eat# te 'er! obe&ti'e# o" marria)e, warrant# te di##olution o" te marria)e.

Te Court reiterated it# rulin) in Santo# '. Court o" Appeal#, were p#!&olo)i&al in&apa&it! #ould re"er to no le##

tan a mental not p!#i&al in&apa&it!, e-i#tin) at te time te marria)e i# &elebrated, and tat tere i# ardl! an!

doubt tat te intendment o" te law a# been to &on"ine te meanin) o" Gp#!&olo)i&al in&apa&it!( to te mo#t#eriou# &a#e# o" per#onalit! di#order# &learl! demon#trati'e o" an utter in#en#iti'it! or inabilit! to )i'e meanin) and

#i)ni"i&an&e to te marria)e. /#!&olo)i&al in&apa&it! mu#t be &ara&teri7ed b! )ra'it!, uridi&al ante&eden&e, and

in&urabilit!. %n te pre#ent &a#e, tere i# no &lear #owin) to u# tat te p#!&olo)i&al de"e&t #poen o" i# an

7/21/2019 Santos v


in&apa&it!< but appear# to be more o" a Edi""i&ult!, i" not outri)t Ere"u#al or Ene)le&t in te per"orman&e o" #ome

marital obli)ation#. $ere #owin) o" Eirre&on&ilable di""eren&e# and E&on"li&tin) per#onalitie# in no wi#e

&on#titute# p#!&olo)i&al in&apa&it!.

Te Court, in ti# &a#e, promul)ated te )uideline# in te interpretation and appli&ation o" Arti&le 6 o" te Famil!

Code, remo'in) an! 'i#a)e# o" it bein) te mo#t liberal di'or&e pro&edure in te world: 1 Te burden o" proo"

belon)# to te plainti""< 2 te root &au#e o" p#!&olo)i&al in&apa&it! mu#t be medi&all! or &lini&all! identi"ied,

alle)ed in te &omplaint, #u""i&ientl! pro'en b! e-pert, and &learl! e-plained in te de&i#ion< Te in&apa&it!mu#t be pro'en e-i#tin) at te time o" te &elebration o" marria)e< @ te in&apa&it! mu#t be &lini&all! or medi&all!

permanent or in&urable< #u& illne## mu#t be )ra'e enou)< 6 te e##ential marital obli)ation mu#t be embra&ed

b! Arti&le# 68 to B1 o" te Famil! Code a# re)ard# u#band and wi"e, and Arti&le# 220 to 22 o" te #ame &ode a#

re)ard# parent# and teir &ildren< B interpretation made b! te 4ational Appellate $atrimonial Tribunal o" teCatoli& Cur&, and 8 te trial mu#t order te "i#&al and te Soli&itor?eneral to appeal a# &oun#el# "or te State.

Te Supreme Court )ranted te petition, and re'er#ed and #et a#ide te a##ailed de&i#ion< &on&ludin) tat te

marria)e o" oridel *la'iano to e!naldo $olina #ub#i#t# and remain# 'alid.

Republic v. Molina, G.R. No. 10876 !eb"ua"# 1, 1$$7

FACTS: oridel and e!naldo were married on April 1@, 198 and be)ot a #on. A"ter a !ear o" marria)e, e!naldo#owed #i)n# o" =immaturit! and irre#pon#ibilit!= a# a u#band and a "ater #in&e 1 e pre"erred to #pend more time

wit i# peer# and "riend# on wom e #;uandered i# mone!< 2 e depended on i# parent# "or aid and a##i#tan&e<

and e wa# ne'er one#t wit i# wi"e in re)ard to teir "inan&e#, re#ultin) in "re;uent ;uarrel# between tem.

en e!naldo wa# relie'ed "rom i# ob, oridel ad been te #ole breadwinner o" te "amil!. %n *&tober 1986 te&ouple ad a 'er! inten#e ;uarrel, a# a re#ult o" wi& teir relation#ip wa# e#tran)ed. %n $ar& 198B, oridel

re#i)ned "rom er ob in $anila and went to li'e wit er parent# in >a)uio Cit!. A "ew wee# later, e!naldo le"t

oridel and teir &ild, and ad #in&e ten abandoned tem. e!naldo admitted tat e and oridel &ould no lon)er

li'e to)eter a# u#band and wi"e, but &ontended tat teir mi#under#tandin)# and "re;uent ;uarrel# were due to 1oridelH# #tran)e bea'ior o" in#i#tin) on maintainin) er )roup o" "riend# e'en a"ter teir marria)e< 2 oridelH#

re"u#al to per"orm #ome o" er marital dutie# #u& a# &ooin) meal#< and oridelH# "ailure to run te ou#eold

and andle teir "inan&e#. *n 16 Au)u#t 1990, oridel "iled a petition "or de&laration o" nullit! o" er marria)e to

e!naldo $olina. 'iden&e "or oridel &on#i#ted o" er own te#timon!, tat o" two o" er "riend#, a #o&ial worer,and a p#!&iatri#t o" te >a)uio ?eneral o#pital and $edi&al Center. e!naldo did not pre#ent an! e'iden&e a# e

appeared onl! durin) te pretrial &on"eren&e. TC de&lared te marria)e 'oid. Te Soli&itor ?eneral appealed to

te Court o" Appeal#. Te Court o" Appeal# denied te appeal# and a""irmed in toto te TC(# de&i#ion. en&e, ti#

petition.

%SS+: 34 p#!&olo)i&al in&apa&it! on te part o" e!naldo a# been e#tabli#ed

L5: Te marria)e between oridel and e!naldo #ub#i#t# and remain# 'alid. at &on#titute# p#!&olo)i&alin&apa&it! i# not mere #owin) o" irre&on&ilable di""eren&e# and &on"li&tin) per#onalitie#. %t i# indi#pen#able tat te

partie# mu#t e-ibit in&lination# wi& would not meet te e##ential marital re#pon#ibilitie# and dutie# due to #ome

p#!&olo)i&al illne##. e!naldo(# a&tion at te time o" te marria)e did not mani"e#t #u& &ara&teri#ti&# tat would&ompri#e )round# "or p#!&olo)i&al in&apa&it!. Te e'iden&e #own b! oridel merel! #owed tat #e and er

u#band &annot )et alon) wit ea& oter and ad not #own )ra'it! o" te problem neiter it# uridi&al ante&eden&enor it# in&urabilit!. %n addition, te e-pert te#timon! b! 5r Si#on #owed no in&urable p#!&iatri& di#order but onl!

in&ompatibilit! wi& i# not &on#idered a# p#!&olo)i&al in&apa&it!.

8 ?uideline# /#!&olo)i&al %n&apa&it!

1. Te burden o" proo" to #ow te nullit! o" te marria)e belon)# to te plainti"".

2. Te root &au#e o" te p#!&olo)i&al in&apa&it! mu#t be a medi&all! or &lini&all! identi"ied, b alle)ed in te&omplaint, & #u""i&ientl! pro'en b! e-pert# and d &learl! e-plained in te de&i#ion.

. Te in&apa&it! mu#t be pro'en to be e-i#tin) at =te time o" te &elebration= o" te marria)e.

7/21/2019 Santos v


@. Su& in&apa&it! mu#t al#o be #own to be medi&all! or &lini&all! permanent or in&urable

. Su& illne## mu#t be )ra'e enou) to brin) about te di#abilit! o" te part! to a##ume te e##ential obli)ation# o"

marria)e.

6. Te e##ential marital obli)ation# mu#t be to#e embra&ed b! Arti&le# 68 up to B1 o" te Famil! Code a# re)ard#te u#band and wi"e a# well a# Arti&le# 220, 221 and 22 o" te #ame Code in re)ard to parent# and teir &ildren.

B. %nterpretation# )i'en b! te 4ational Appellate $atrimonial Tribunal o" te Catoli& Cur& in te /ilippine#,

wile not &ontrollin) or de&i#i'e, #ould be )i'en )reat re#pe&t b! our &ourt#.

8. Te trial &ourt mu#t order te pro#e&utin) attorne! or "i#&al and te Soli&itor ?eneral to appear a# &oun#el "or te#tate.

TORING vs. TORING GR 165321 Aug 3, 2010

FACTS: A and B were husband and wife. B led a petition for annulment before the RTC. He

claimed that A was psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential obligations of

marriage prior to, at the time of, and subseuent to the celebration of their marriage.

Ricardo o!ered" the psychological e#aluation of his e$pert witness, psychiatrist. %r Albaran

testied A had &arcissistic 'ersonality %isorder that rendered her psychologically

incapacitated to fulll her essential marital obligations based on the information she

gathered from her psychological e#aluation on B and the couple(s son, C. The doctor did not

personally e$amine A. B alleged that A was an adulteress and a suanderer.

The RTC annulled the marriage. The CA re#ersed saying that RTC failed to specically point

out the root illness or defect that caused A(s psychological incapacity, and li)ewise failed to

show that the incapacity already e$isted at the time of celebration of marriage. The CA

found that the conclusions from %r. Albaran(s psychological e#aluation do not appear to

ha#e been drawn from well*rounded and fair sources, and dwelt mostly on hearsay

statements and rumors. +i)ewise, the CA found that Ricardo(s allegations on A(s

o#erspending and indelity do not constitute adeuate grounds for declaring the marriage

null and #oid under Article - of the amily Code.ISSUE: /hether the RTC was correct in declaring the nullity of the marriage.

RULING: &o, the RTC was wrong. CA decision a0rmed.

According to 1olina case, the deniti#e guidelines in the interpretation and application of

this article are the following:

234 The burden of proof to show the nullity of the marriage belongs to the plainti!. Any doubt

should be resol#ed in fa#or of the e$istence and continuation of the marriage and against its

dissolution and nullity.

254 The root cause of the psychological incapacity must be 2a4 medically or clinically

identied, 2b4 alleged in the complaint, 2c4 su0ciently pro#en by e$perts and 2d4 clearly

e$plained in the decision. 6uch root cause must be identied as a psychological illness and

its incapacitating nature fully e$plained. 7$pert e#idence may be gi#en by ualied

psychiatrists and clinical psychologists.

24 The incapacity must be pro#en to be e$isting at 8the time of the celebration8 of the

marriage.

7/21/2019 Santos v


294 6uch incapacity must also be shown to be medically or clinically permanent or incurable.

urthermore, such incapacity must be rele#ant to the assumption of marriage obligations,

not necessarily to those not related to marriage.

24 6uch illness must be gra#e enough to bring about the disability of the party to assume

the essential obligations of marriage. The illness must be shown as downright incapacity or

inability, not a refusal, neglect or di0culty, much less ill will.

2-4 The essential marital obligations must be those embraced by Articles -; up to <3 of the

amily Code as regards the husband and wife as well as Articles 55=, 553 and 55 of the

same Code in regard to parents and their children.

2<4 >nterpretations gi#en by the &ational Appellate 1atrimonial Tribunal of the Catholic

Church in the 'hilippines, while not controlling or decisi#e, should be gi#en great respect by

our courts.

The intent of the law to conne the application of Article - of the amily Code to the most

serious cases of personality disorders" these are the disorders that result in the utterinsensiti#ity or inability of the a?icted party to gi#e meaning and signicance to the

marriage he or she contracted.

>n the present case and guided by these standards, we nd the totality of the petitioner(s

e#idence to be insu0cient to pro#e that A was psychologically incapacitated to perform her

duties as a wife.

Though the law does not reuire that the allegedly incapacitated spouse be personally

e$amined by a physician or by a psychologist as a condition sine ua non for the declaration

of nullity of marriage under Article -. Howe#er, it is still essential @ although from sources

other than the respondent spouse @ to show his or her personality prole, or its

appro$imation, at the time of marriage" the root cause of the inability to appreciate the

essential obligations of marriage" and the gra#ity, permanence and incurability of the

condition.

>n the present case, the only other party outside of the spouses who was e#er as)ed to gi#e

statements for purposes of A(s psychological e#aluation was C, the spouses( eldest son who

would not ha#e been #ery reliable as a witness because he could not ha#e been there when

the spouses were married and could not ha#e been e$pected to )now what was happening

between his parents until long after his birth.

f more serious conseuence, fatal to Ricardo(s cause, is the failure of %r. Albaran(s

psychological e#aluation to fully e$plain the details @ i.e., the what, how, when, where andsince when @ of Teresita(s alleged &arcissistic 'ersonality %isorder. %r. Albaran ne#er

e$plained, too, the incapacitating nature of Teresita(s alleged personality disorder, and how

it related to the essential marital obligations that she failed to assume. &either did the good

doctor adeuately e$plain in her psychological e#aluation how gra#e and incurable was A(s

psychological disorder.

B failed to discharge the burden of proof to show that TA su!ered from psychological

7/21/2019 Santos v


incapacity" thus, his petition for annulment of marriage must fail.

/e reiterate that irreconcilable di!erences, se$ual indelity or per#ersion, emotional

immaturity and irresponsibility, and the li)e, do not by themsel#es warrant a nding of

psychological incapacity, as the same may only be due to a person(s di0culty, refusal or

neglect to underta)e the obligations of marriage that is not rooted in some psychological

illness that Article - of the amily Code addresses.

B also failed to show the ad#erse integral element and lin) to A(s allegedly disordered

personality. 1oreo#er,B failed to pro#e that A(s alleged character traits already e$isted at

the inception of their marriage.

inally, the root cause of the psychological incapacity needs to be alleged in a petition for

annulment under Article - of the amily Code. /hat is not reuired is the e$pert opinion to

pro#e the root cause of the psychological incapacity. CA decision a0rmed.

Ca%ac&o'Re#es v. Re#es, G.R. No. 18(286, Au). 18, 2010

FACTS: /etitioner $aria So&orro Cama&oe!e# met re#pondent amon e!e# at te +/ 5iliman, in 19B2 wen

te! were bot 19 !ear# old. /etitioner eno!ed re#pondent(# #t!le o" &ourt#ip wi& in&luded dinin) out, unlie

oter &ouple# teir a)e wo were re#tri&ted b! a uni'er#it! #tudent(# bud)et. At tat time, re#pondent eld a ob inte "amil! bu#ine##, te Ari#to&rat e#taurant. /etitioner(# )ood impre##ion o" te re#pondent wa# not dimini#ed b!

te latter(# abit o" &uttin) &la##e#, not e'en b! er di#&o'er! tat re#pondent wa# tain) mariuana. *n 5e&ember ,

19B6, petitioner and re#pondent )ot married. Te! li'ed wit amon(# parent# and te! were #upported b! tem.

Te! ad a &ild wi& made teir "inan&ial di""i&ultie# wor#e. All te bu#ine## 'enture# o" amon wereun#u&&e##"ul and So&orro be&ame te breadwinner o" te "amil!. To mae tin)# wor#e, de#pite te "a&t tat So&orro

would under)o an operation "or remo'al o" a &!#t, re#pondent remained un&on&erned and unattenti'e< and #impl!

read te new#paper, and pla!ed dumb wen petitioner re;ue#ted tat e a&&ompan! er a# #e wa# weeled into te

operatin) room. Te! tried to attend &oun#elin) #e##ion# but notin) a# &an)ed. Sometime in 1996, petitioner &on"irmed tat re#pondent wa# a'in) an e-tramarital a""air. TC )ranted te petition. CA re'er#ed. en&e, ti#

petition.

%SS+: 34 amon i# p#!&olo)i&all! in&apa&itated

L5: Ie#. $arria)e i# null and 'oid. Te la& o" per#onal e-amination and inter'iew o" te re#pondent, or an!

oter per#on dia)no#ed wit per#onalit! di#order, doe# not per #e in'alidate te te#timonie# o" te do&tor#. 4eiter do teir "indin)# automati&all! &on#titute ear#a! tat would re#ult in teir e-&lu#ion a# e'iden&e. %n te in#tant &a#e,

re#pondent(# pattern o" bea'ior mani"e#t# an inabilit!, na!, a p#!&olo)i&al in&apa&it! to per"orm te e##ential

marital obli)ation# a# #own b! i#: 1 #poradi& "inan&ial #upport< 2 e-tramarital a""air#< #ub#tan&e abu#e< @

"ailed bu#ine## attempt#< unpaid mone! obli)ation#< 6 inabilit! to eep a ob tat i# not &onne&ted wit te"amil! bu#ine##e#< and B &riminal &ar)e# o" e#ta"a.

.R. &o. 3<=<5 %ecember ;, 5=3=

Agra#iador #s Agra#iador

ACT6:

7/21/2019 Santos v


7nriue rst met 7rlinda in 3<3 at a beerhouse where 7rlinda wor)ed. Their meeting led to

a courtship, became sweethearts and soon entered into a common*law relationship, and

nally got married in 3<.

>n 5==3, 7nriue led a petition to ha#e his marriage with 7rlinda null and #oid under Article

- of the amily Code. He alleged that 7rlinda was psychologically incapacitated to e$ercise

the essential obligations of marriage. He claimed that she was carefree and irresponsible,refused to do household chores, had e$tramarital a!airs, did not ta)e care of their sic) child,

consulted a witch doctor, and refused to use the family name in her acti#ities.

7nriue, aside from his testimony, also presented a certied true copy of their marriage

contract and the psychiatric e#aluation report of %r. 'atac. >n his psychiatric e#aluation

report, %r. 'atac found 7rlinda unable to fulll the essential obligations of marriage as she

manifested inDe$ible maladapti#e beha#ior e#en at the time before their marriage. >n his

conclusion stated that 7rlinda is su!ering from a 1i$ed 'ersonality %isorder where there is

no denite treatment for such illness.

7rlinda mo#ed to dismiss the petition. The RTC denied her motion and too) side on 7nriue.

>66E7:

/hether or not 7nriue can in#o)e Article - of the amily Code as the basis to nullify his

marriage to 7rlinda.

RE+>&:

&o. 'sychological incapacity under Article - of the amily Code do not in#ol#e a species of

#ice of consent. The spouse may ha#e gi#en free and #oluntary consent to a marriage but

was, nonetheless, incapable of fullling such rights and obligations. 'sychological incapacity

to comply with the essential marital obligation does not a!ect the consent to the marriage.

The totality of 7nriuesFs e#idence is insu0cient to pro#e 7rlindaFs psychological incapacity.

Her refusal or unwillingness to perform certain marital obligations, and a number of

unpleasant personality traits such as immaturity, irresponsibility, and unfaithfulness do not

rise to the le#el of psychological incapacity that the law reuires.

%r. 'atacFs psychiatric e#aluation report do not hold su0cient amount in pro#ing that 7rlinda

was psychological incapacitated to perform the essential marital duties. %r. 'atac did not

personally e#aluate and e$amine 7rlinda, as he relied only on the information fed by

7nriue, the partieFs secondG child and household helper.

*ala+ v. !e"nande, G.R. No. 166(7, Septe%be" 1$, 2011

FACTS: T!rone alaw and $al!n Fernande7 )ot married in 19B6. A"ter te birt o" teir @t &ild, T!rone ad an

a""air wit Jo&el!n Kueano. %n $a! 198, $al!n le"t te &onu)al ome and er "our &ildren wit T!rone.

$eanwile, T!rone #tarted li'in) wit Jo&el!n, and te! ad tree more &ildren. %n 1990, T!rone went to te

+nited State# +S wit Jo&el!n and teir &ildren. *n Jul! 6, 199@, nine !ear# #in&e te de "a&to #eparation "romi# wi"e, T!rone "iled a petition "or de&laration o" nullit! o" marria)e ba#ed on Arti&le 6 o" te Famil! Code. e

alle)ed tat $al!n wa# p#!&olo)i&all! in&apa&itated to per"orm and &ompl! wit te e##ential marital obli)ation# at

te time o" te &elebration o" teir marria)e. e alle)ed tat 1 Se lea'e# te &ildren witout proper &are and

attention a# #e pla!ed maon) all da! and all ni)t< 2 Se lea'e# te ou#e to part! wit male "riend# and returned

7/21/2019 Santos v


in te earl! our# o" te "ollowin) da!< and Se &ommitted adulter! on June 9, 198 in !att otel wit one

>enie wom e #aw al"naed in te otel room. T!rone pre#ented a p#!&olo)i#t, 5r. Cri#tina ?ate# 5r. ?ate#,

and a Catoli& &anon law e-pert, Fr. ?erard eal!, S.J. Fr. eal!, to te#ti"! on $al!n(# p#!&olo)i&al in&apa&it!.

5r. ?ate# e-plained tat $al!n #u""er# "rom 4ar&i##i#ti& /er#onalit!u 5i#order and tat it Ema! a'e been e'idente'en prior to er marria)e be&au#e it i# rooted in er "amil! ba&)round and upbrin)in). Fr. eal! &on&luded tat

$al!n wa# p#!&olo)i&all! in&apa&itated to per"orm er marital dutie#. e e-plained tat er p#!&olo)i&al

in&apa&it! i# rooted in er role a# te breadwinner o" er "amil!. Ti# role alle)edl! in"lated $al!n(# e)o to te point

tat er need# be&ame priorit!, wile er id#( and u#band(# need# be&ame #e&ondar!.

%SS+: eter T!rone a# #u""i&ientl! pro'en tat $al!n#u""er# "rom p#!&olo)i&al in&apa&it!

L5: 4o. e pre#ented te te#timonie# o" two #uppo#ed e-pert witne##e# wo &on&luded tat re#pondent i# p#!&olo)i&all! in&apa&itated, but te &on&lu#ion# o" te#e witne##e# were premi#ed on te alle)ed a&t# or bea'ior

o" re#pondent wi& ad not been #u""i&ientl! pro'en. 4o proo" wat#oe'er wa# pre#ented to pro'e er 'i#it# to

beaut! #alon# or er "re;uent part!in) wit "riend#. $al!n(# #e-ual in"idelit! wa# al#o not pro'en be&au#e #e wa#

onl! datin) oter men. 'en a##umin) tat #e ad an e-tramarital a""air wit anoter man, #e-ual in"idelit! &annot be e;uated wit ob#e##i'e need "or attention "rom oter men. Se-ual in"idelit! per #e i# a )round "or le)al

#eparation, but it doe# not ne&e##aril! &on#titute p#!&olo)i&al in&apa&it!.

Documents

Santos v