You are on page 1of 1

ANTONIO v. REYES March 10, 2006 PARTIES: LEONILO ANTONITO, Petitioner, vs. MARIE IVONNE F. REYES, Respondent.

NATURE: The Petition for Review on Certiorari assails the Decision and Resolution of the Court of
1 2

affirmed by the Vaticans Roman Rata. The CA reversed the decision hence the appeal. ISSUE: WON Psychological Incapacity is attendant to the case. HELD: Yes, PI is attendant. The guidelines established in the Molina case is properly established in the case at bar. The SC also emphasized what fraud means as contemplated in Art 45 (3) of the FC

Appeals. The Court of Appeals had reversed the judgment3 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati declaring the marriage of Leonilo N. Antonio (petitioner) and Marie Ivonne F. Reyes (respondent), trial court. FACTS: In 1990, Leo married Marie, the latter being ten years his senior. In 1993, Leo filed to annul the marriage due to Maries Psychological Incapacity. Leo claimed that Marie persistently lied about herself, the people around her, her occupation, income, educational attainment and other events or things. She would claim that she is a psychologist but she is not. Shed claim she is a singer with the company Blackgold and that she is the latters number 1 money maker but shes not. Shed also spend lavishly as opposed to her monthly income. She fabricates things and people only to serve her make believe world. Leo presented an expert that proved Maries Psychological Incapacity. Marie denied all Leos allegations and also presented an expert to prove her case. The RTC ruled against Marie and annulled the marriage. The Matrimonial Tribunal of the church also annulled the marriage and was null and void. After careful consideration, we reverse and affirm instead the

vis a vis Art 46 of the FC. In PI, the

misrepresentation done by Marie points to her inadequacy to cope with her marital obligations, kindred to psychological incapacity. In Art 45 (3), marriage may be annulled if the consent of either party was obtained by fraud, and Article 46 which enumerates the circumstances constituting fraud under the previous article, clarifies that no other misrepresentation or deceit as to character, health, rank, fortune or chastity shall constitute such fraud as will give grounds marriage. These provisions of Art 45 (3) and Art 46 cannot be applied in the case at bar because the misrepresentations done by Marie is not considered as fraud but rather her such misrepresentations constitute aberrant for action for the annulment of

behaviour which further constitutes PI. Her misrepresentations are not lies sought to vitiate Leos consent to marry her. Her misrepresentations are evidence that Marie cannot simply distinguish fiction/fantasy from reality which is so grave and it falls under the fourth guideline laid down in the Molina Case.