REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION

COURT OF APPEALS
4th Division, Quezon City

MR. Santos,
Plaintiff - Appellee
Copy No. 123

C.
A.-G.R. No. 15234
-versusAPPEAL
(Civil
Case No. 59-8506
MS. Santos,
RTC of QC Branch 35,
Defendant Appellant
DECLARATIONOF

NULLITY OF MARRIAGE)

x---------------------------------------------------x

BRIEF FOR DEFENDANT APPELLANT

MS. GANDA
(DECLARATION OF NULLITY OF MARRIAGE)

ATTY. VANESSA DELIBO

COUNSEL FOR MS. SANTOS
September 04, 2012

APPELLANTS
BRIEF
Mr. Santos vs. Ms. Santos
C.A.-G.R. No. 14326

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SUBJECT INDEX

ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS..

STATEMENT OF THE CASE.

3-4

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS...

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES..

ARGUMENT
RELIEF.

5-6

APPELLANTS
BRIEF
Mr. Santos vs. Ms. Santos
C.A.-G.R. No. 15234
SUBJECT INDEX
FAMILY CODE, Article 36 and 68
LEOUEL SANTOS vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS AND JULIA
ROSARIO BEDIA-SANTOS,
G.R. No. 120820. August 1, 2000
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. COURT OF APPEALS and RORIDEL
OLAVIANO MOLINA,
G.R. No. 108763. February 13, 1997
BRENDA B. MARCOS, Petitioner, vs. WILSON G. MARCOS,
G.R. No. 136490, 19 October 2000
ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS

I.
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DECLARING
THAT
PSYCHOLOGICAL
INCAPACITY
WAS
MANIFESTED BY THE APPELLANT DURING HER
MARRIAGE WITH MR. SANTOS.
II.
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GRANTING
THE DECREE OF NULLITY OF MARRIAGE IN FAVOR
OF MR. SANTOS.
III.
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED OF NOT
GRANTING THE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
OF THE APPELLANT FOR LACK OF MERIT.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Nature of Action
This is an appeal to the decision rendered by the trial court in
nullifying the marriage of Mr. Santos and Ms. Santos under the ground
of psychological incapacity manifested by Ms. Santos during her
marriage with Mr. Santos.
Summary of Proceedings
On 21 February 2011, a complaint was filed by Mr. Santos
against Ms. Santos as Civil Case No. 59-8506 in the Regional Trial
Court (RTC) of Quezon City. It was initially raffled to Branch 103 under
Judge Pepito Manaloto.
On 10 February 2011, Judge Manaloto rendered a decision in
favor of Mr. Santos, nullifying the marriage of Mr. Santos and Ms.
Santos on the ground of psychological incapacity.
On 16 February 2011, a motion for reconsideration was filed by
Ms. Santos but it was denied by the trial court.

APPELLANTS
BRIEF
Mr. Santos vs. Ms. Santos
C.A.-G.R. No. 15234
Appealed Judgment and Orders; Nature Thereof and of the
Controversy
The appealed judgment and orders in the civil case of Mr.
Santos vs. Ms. Santos are as follows, certified true photocopies of
which are annexed to Copy No. 1 of this Brief):
Annex A Decision of February 10, 2011
This is the judgment after due notice and hearing of the trial
court on the merits of the case, nullifying the marriage of Mr. Santos
and Ms. Santos on the ground of psychological incapacity of Ms.
Santos.
Annex B Decision of February 16, 2011
This is the decision the trial court denying the motion for
reconsideration of the appellant for lack of merit.

STATEMENT OF FACTS
The plaintiff Mr. Santos is of legal age, Filipino citizen, was
married to the defendant - appellant Ms. Santos on January 1, 2011.
Mr. Santos is a resident of #123 Apple Street Quezon City while the
defendant Ms Santos is also of legal age, Filipino citizen, married to the

plaintiff, and a resident of 123 Emerald St. California, United States.

They have a 10 year old daughter named Bembi. On January 2006, Mr.
Santos wife left out of the country to work as a nurse in 2006, the
defendant failed to communicate with the plaintiff as to her
whereabouts. Even all the efforts were made by Mr. Santos to keep in
touch with her, Ms. Santos failed to communicate and perform her
marital obligations as wife of the defendant and mother to Santos. Mr.
Santos tried to locate his wife and decided to go to the United States to
find his wife but to no avail. From the grounds laid down as to the
failure on the part of his wife to perform her marital obligations with
her family, the plaintiff obtains a declaration to nullify their marriage.
Mr. Santos filed a complaint before the trial court to obtain a decree of
declaration of his marriage with Ms. Santos on the ground of
psychological incapacity of the. The court ruled in favor of Mr. Santos
nullifying the marriage between him and the appellant. A motion for
reconsideration was filed by the appellant but was denied by the same
court.

APPELLANTS
BRIEF
Mr. Santos vs. Ms. Santos
C.A.-G.R. No. 15234
STATEMENT OF ISSUE
The issues are basically found in the Assignment of Errors. The
issues of fact and law may be outlined as follows:
1.
Whether or not the court did not erred in declaring that
the appellant manifested psychological incapacity during her
marriage wit Mr. Santos.
2.
Whether or not the court validly issued the declaration
of nullity of marriage in favor of Mr. Santos.
3.
Whether or not the court did not erred in denying the
motion for reconsideration of the appellant for lack of merit.

ARGUMENTS
I.
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DECLARING THAT
PSYCHOLOGICAL INCAPACITY WAS MANIFESTED BY THE
APPELLANT DURING HER MARRIAGE WITH MR. SANTOS.
. We contend that the trial court erred in its decision because
Ms. Santos acts do not constitute psychological incapacity.
Art. 68 of our Family Code provides that, The husband
and wife are obliged to live together, observe mutual love, respect and
fidelity, and render mutual help and support. This the basic duty of the
spouses which should be kept inviolable at all time. A violation of this
provision of the Family Code can declare the marriage as null and void
on the ground of psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the family
code. Article 36 of the Family Code provides that a marriage
contracted by any party who, at the time of the celebration, was
psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential marital
obligations of marriage, shall likewise be void even if such incapacity
becomes manifest only after its solemnization.
A unique feature of this law is its intended open-ended
application, as it merely introduced an abstract concept
psychological incapacity that disables compliance with the contractual
obligations of marriage without any concrete definition or, at the very
least, an illustrative example. We must therefore apply the law based
on how the concept of psychological was shaped and developed in
jurisprudence.
Santos v. Court of Appeal declared that psychological must be
characterized by (a) gravity; (b) juridical antecedence; and (c)
incurability. It should refer to "no less than a mental (not physical)
incapacity that causes a party to be truly incognitive of the basic
marital covenants that concomitantly must be assumed and
discharged by the parties to the marriage." It must be confined to "the
most serious cases of personality disorders clearly demonstrative of an
utter insensitivity or inability to give meaning and significance to the
marriage."
Ms. Santos physical absence in the country does not constitute
psychological incapacity because she did not fail to render support to
her family. The fact that she was giving her monthly support to her
family in the form of money does not prove that she was not able to
perform her marital obligation. Psychological incapacity to be proven
must be demonstrative of an utter insensitivity or inability to give
meaning and significance to the marriage. The giving of monthly
support to her family proves that she was still performing her marital
obligation.

APPELLANTS
BRIEF
Mr. Santos vs. Ms. Santos
C.A.-G.R. No. 15234

II.
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GRANTING
THE DECREE OF NULLITY OF MARRIAGE IN FAVOR OF
MR. SANTOS.
The trial court grant of decree of nullification of marriage in
favor of Mr. Santos was erroneously rendered due to the failure of Mr.
Santos to establish evidence that can prove the psychological
incapacity of his wife. Mr. Santos merely alleged in his complaint that
his wife failed to perform her marital obligation on the ground of her
physical absence in the country. Under the law, psychological
incapacity must be proven by an experts testimony in order to be
admissible as a ground for declaration of nullity of marriage.
The Family Code echoes this constitutional edict on marriage and the
family and emphasizes their permanence, inviolability and solidarity.
(2) The root cause of the psychological incapacity must be (a)
medically or clinically identified, (b) alleged in the complaint, (c)
sufficiently proven by experts and (d) clearly explained in the decision.
Article 36 of the Family Code requires that the incapacity must be
psychological - not physical, although its manifestations and/or
symptoms may be physical. The evidence must convince the court that
the parties or one of them was mentally or psychically ill to such an
extent that the person could not have known the obligations he was
assuming, or knowing them, could not have given valid assumption
thereof. Although no example of such incapacity need be given here so
as not to limit the application of the provision under the principle
of ejusdem generis, nevertheless such root cause must be identified as
a psychological illness and its incapacitating nature fully explained.
Expert evidence may be given by qualified psychiatrists and clinical
psychologists.
(3) The incapacity must be proven to be existed at "the time of the
celebration" of the marriage. The evidence must show that the illness
existed when the parties exchanged their "I do's." The manifestation of
the illness need not be perceivable at such time, but the illness itself
must have attached at such moment or prior thereto.
(4) Such incapacity must also be shown to be medically or clinically
permanent or incurable. Such incurability may be absolute or even
relative only in regard to the other spouse, not necessarily absolutely
against everyone of the same sex. Furthermore, such incapacity must
be relevant to the assumption of marriage obligations, not necessarily
to those not related to marriage, like the exercise of a profession or
employment in a job. x x x
(5) Such illness must be grave enough to bring about the disability of
the party to assume the essential obligations of marriage. Thus, "mild
characteriological peculiarities, mood changes, occasional emotional
outbursts" cannot be accepted as root causes. The illness must be
shown as downright incapacity or inability, not a refusal, neglect or
difficulty, much less ill will. In other words, there is a natal or
supervening disabling factor in the person, an adverse integral
element in the personality structure that effectively incapacitates the
person from really accepting and thereby complying with the
obligations essential to marriage.

(6) The essential marital obligations must be those embraced by

Articles 68 up to 71 of the Family Code as regards the husband and
wife as well as Articles 220, 221 and 225 of the same Code in regard to
parents and their children. Such non-complied marital obligation(s)
must also be stated in the petition, proven by evidence and included in
the text of the decision.

APPELLANTS
BRIEF
Mr. Santos vs. Ms. Santos
C.A.-G.R. No. 15234
III.
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING THE
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE APPELLANT
FOR LACK OF MERIT.
The trial court erred in denying the motion for reconsideration
of the appellant due to the fact that the allegation of the appellant is
well merited. In her motion for reconsideration, the appellant alleged
that the petitioner failed to establish an experts testimony which an
essential requisite to prove such manifestation of psychological
incapacity on the part of the appellant. The admission of testimonial
evidence by the petitioner was not sufficient for it does not constitute a
totality of evidence which can prove the psychological incapacity of
Ms. Santos.
The case of Marcos v. Marcos, further clarified that there is no
requirement that the defendant/respondent spouse should be
personally examined by a physician or psychologist as a condition sine
qua non for the declaration of nullity of marriage based on
psychological incapacity. Accordingly, it is no longer necessary to
introduce expert opinion in a petition under Article 36 of the Family
Code if the totality of evidence shows that psychological incapacity
exists and its gravity, juridical antecedence, and incurability can be
duly established.
RELIEF
WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing consideration, it is
respectfully prayed that:
The decision rendered of the trial court in granting Mr. Santos a
decree of declaration of nullification of marriage on the ground of
psychological incapacity of his wife Ms. Santos be declared NULL and
VOID, and the ruling in the lower curt be REVERSED AND SET ASIDE.
Quezon City, 21 February 2011

VANESSA DELIBO
PTR No 6598234/1-10/QC
IBP No 4598265/1-10-07/QC
Roll No. 42658
Copy furnished: (by personal delivery)
Court of Appeals--------------Received __________________
Second Division
Quezon City