(a) Republic of the Philippines, petitioner, vs.

Erlinda Matias
Dagdag, respondent. G.R. No. 109975. February 9, 2001
FACTS: Erlinda Matias married Avelino Parangan Dagdag and had 2 children.
Avelino would disappear for months without explanation and attend to
drinking sprees with friends and return home drunk when with the family;
forced his wife to have sexual intercourse and if she resisted, would inflict
physical injuries to the latter. He left his family again and never heard of him.
Erlinda was constrained to look for a job to fend for themselves. Erlinda then
learned that Avelino was imprisoned for some crime, and that he escaped
from jail who remains at-large at date. Erlinda filed for judicial declaration of
nullity of marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity under Article 36
of the Family Code. The trial court rendered a decision declaring the
marriage void under Artcile 36 of the Family Code. The Solicitor General
appealed to the Court of Appeals raising that the lower court erred in
declaring the appellees marriage to Avelino Dagdag null and void on the
ground of psychological incapacity of the latter, pursuant to Article 36 of the
Family Code, the psychological incapacity of the nature contemplated by the
law not having been proven to exist. However, the Court of Appeals affirmed
the decision of the trial court
ISSUE: Whether or not immaturity and irresponsibility, habitual alcoholic,
and a fugitive from justice constitutes psychological incapacity under Article
36 of the Family Code to declare the marriage null and void.
HELD: No. The ruling in Republic v. Court of Appeals and Molina case is
reiterated herein in which the Court laid down the following GUIDELINES in
the interpretation and application of Article 36 of the Family Code:
(1) The burden of proof to show the nullity of the marriage belongs to the
plaintiff.
(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.
(3) The incapacity must be proven to be existing at the time of the
celebration of the marriage.
(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 every
one of the same sex.
(5) Such illness must be grave enough to bring about the disability of the
party to assume the essential obligations of 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
(7) Interpretations given by the National Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal of
the Catholic Church in the Philippines, while not controlling or decisive,
should be given great respect by our courts.
(8) The trial court must order the prosecuting attorney or fiscal and the
Solicitor General to appear as counsel for the state.

(b) Ma. Armida Amy Perez-Ferraris vs Brix Ferraris, G.R. No.

162368, July 17, 2006
FACTS: Armida and Brix are a showbiz couple. The couples relationship
before the marriage and even during their brief union (for well about a year
or so) was not all bad. During that relatively short period of time, Armida was
happy and contented with her life in the company of Brix. Armida even
admits that Brix was a responsible and loving husband. Their problems
began when Armida started doubting Brix fidelity. It was only when they
started fighting about the calls from women that Brix began to withdraw into
his shell and corner, and failed to perform his so-called marital obligations.
Brix could not understand Armidas lack of trust in him and her constant
naggings. He thought her suspicions irrational. Brix could not relate to her
anger, temper and jealousy. Armida presented a psychological expert (Dr.
Dayan) who finds Brix to be a schizoid and a dependent and avoidant type.
This is evidenced by Brixs leaving-the-house attitude whenever they
quarreled, the violent tendencies during epileptic attacks, the sexual
infidelity, the abandonment and lack of support, and his preference to spend
more time with his band mates than his family.
ISSUE: Whether or not PI is attendant in the case at bar.
HELD: The SC upheld the decision of the lower courts. The alleged mixed
personality disorder, the leaving-the-house attitude whenever they
quarreled, the violent tendencies during epileptic attacks, the sexual
infidelity, the abandonment and lack of support, and his preference to spend
more time with his band mates than his family, are not rooted on some
debilitating psychological condition but a mere refusal or unwillingness to
assume the essential obligations of marriage and these do not constitute PI.
Further, the expert was not able to prove her findings. Notably, when asked
as to the root cause of respondents alleged psychological incapacity, Dr.
Dayans answer was vague, evasive and inconclusive. She replied that such
disorder can be part of his family upbringing She stated that there was a
history of Brixs parents having difficulties in their relationship- this is of
course inconclusive for such has no direct bearing to the case at bar.
What is psychological incapacity?
The term psychological incapacity to be a ground for the nullity of
marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code, refers to a serious
psychological illness afflicting a party even before the celebration of the
marriage. It is a malady so grave and so permanent as to deprive one of
awareness of the duties and responsibilities of the matrimonial bond one is
about to assume. As all people may have certain quirks and idiosyncrasies,
or isolated characteristics associated with certain personality disorders, there
is hardly any doubt that the intendment of the law has been to confine the
meaning of psychological incapacity to the most serious cases of
personality disorders clearly demonstrative of an utter insensitivity or
inability to give meaning and significance to the marriage. It is for this
reason that the Courts rely heavily on psychological experts for its
understanding of the human personality. However, the root cause must be
identified as a psychological illness and its incapacitating nature must be
fully explained in court

(c) CHI MING TSOI vs. COURT OF APPEALS, GINA LAO-TSOI GR NO.
119190 January 16, 1997
CHI MING TSOI vs. COURT OF APPEALS, GINA LAO-TSOI
GR NO. 119190 January 16, 1997
FACTS: Ching married Gina on May 22, 1988 at the Manila Cathedral,
Intramuros, Manila as evidenced by their marriage contract. After the
celebration they had a reception and then proceeded to the house of the
Ching Ming Tsois mother. There they slept together on the same bed in the
same room for the first night of their married life.
Ginas version: that contrary to her expectations that as newlyweds they
were supposed to enjoy making love that night of their marriage, or having
sexual intercourse, with each other, Ching however just went to bed, slept on
one side and then turned his back and went to sleep. There was no sexual
intercourse between them that night. The same thing happened on the
second, third and fourth nights.
In an effort to have their honey moon in a private place where they can enjoy
together during their first week as husband and wife they went to Baguio
City. But they did so together with Chings mother, uncle and nephew as they
were all invited by her husband. There was no sexual intercourse between
them for four days in Baguio since Ching avoided her by taking a long walk
during siesta time or by just sleeping on a rocking chair located at the living
room.
They slept together in the same room and on the same bed since May 22,
1988 (day of their marriage) until March 15, 1989 (ten months). But during
this period there was no attempt of sexual intercourse between them. Gina
claims that she did not even see her husbands private parts nor did he see
hers.
Because of this, they submitted themselves for medical examinations to Dr.
Eufemio Macalalag. Results were that Gina is healthy, normal and still a
virgin while Chings examination was kept confidential up to this time.
The Gina claims that her husband is impotent, a closet homosexual as he did
not show his penis. She said she had observed him using an eyebrow pencil
and sometimes the cleansing cream of his mother. She also said her husband
only married her to acquire or maintain his residency status here in the
country and to publicly maintain the appearance of a normal man
Chings version: he claims that if their marriage shall be annulled by reason
of psychological incapacity, the fault lies with Gina. He does not want their
marriage annulled for reasons of (1) that he loves her very much (2) that he
has no defect on his part and he is physically and psychologically capable (3)
since the relationship is still very young and if there is any differences
between the two of them, it can still be reconciled and that according to him,

if either one of them has some incapabilities, there is no certainty that this
will not be cured.
Ching admitted that since his marriage to Gina there was no sexual contact
between them. But, the reason for this, according to the defendant, was that
everytime he wants to have sexual intercourse with his wife, she always
avoided him and whenever he caresses her private parts, she always
removed his hands.
ISSUE: Whether or not Ching is psychologically incapacitated to comply with
the essential marital obligations of marriage
HELD: The Supreme Court affirmed the decisions of the trial court and Court
of Appeals in rendering as VOID the marriage entered into by Ching and Gina
on May 22, 1988. No costs.
The Supreme Court held that the prolonged refusal of a spouse to have
sexual intercourse with his or her spouse is considered a sign of
psychological incapacity. If a spouse, although physically capable but simply
refuses to perform his or her essential marriage obligations, and the refusal
is senseless and constant, Catholic marriage tribunals attribute the causes to
psychological incapacity than to stubborn refusal. Senseless and protracted
refusal is equivalent to psychological incapacity.
One of the essential marital obligations under the Family Code is to
procreate children basedon the universal principle that procreation of
children through sexual cooperation is the basic end of marriage. Constant
non-fulfillment of this obligation will finally destroy the integrity or wholeness
of the marriage. In the case at bar, the senseless and protracted refusal of
one of the parties to fulfill this marital obligation is equivalent to
psychological incapacity.
While the law provides that the husband and the wife are obliged to live
together, observer mutual love, respect and fidelity, the sanction therefore is
actually the spontaneous, mutual affection between husband and wife and
not any legal mandate or court order (Cuaderno vs. Cuaderno, 120 Phil.
1298). Love is useless unless it is shared with another. Indeed, no man is an
island, the cruelest act of a partner in marriage is to say I could not have
cared less. This is so because an ungiven self is an unfulfilled self. The
egoist has nothing but himself. In the natural order, it is sexual intimacy that
brings spouses wholeness and oneness. Sexual intimacy is a gift and a
participation in the mystery of creation. It is a function which enlivens the
hope of procreation and ensures the continuation of family relations