About Case Synthesis

should identify why those parts are

not shared. For example, the facts
of a particular case may have
caused the court to consider an
extra dimension that did not come
up on the facts of another case. In
such a case, the extra dimension
may be added as an extension to
the rule. Sometimes, however, the
extra element would only be
applicable in a subset of cases, and
should be identified as such.

The purpose of learning how to synthesize

cases is to enable you to extract a
comprehensive picture of a legal rule from
a group of cases, all of which deal with the
rule or different aspects of the rule in
different factual contexts.
Since different cases may each contribute
different insight into a particular rule or
principle (for example, by adding
qualifications, conditions or exceptions), it
can be very useful to extract their
essential points and to blend them with
each other for a more complete picture of
the rule.
A careful and correct summary of the legal
rule will assist you in predicting how that
rule would apply in other factual contexts.
For the purposes of this assignment, you
are being provided with a set of cases. In
a real research situation, you would likely
have to find the relevant cases yourself.
The research training you are receiving
through the library should provide
background on how you would go about
finding cases. This assignment picks up at
the point where you have gathered the
cases, and are ready to go about
analyzing them.
The process of synthesizing cases involves
the following steps.
1

Careful reading of the cases and

identification of the rules of law
contained within them.

Identification of the hierarchy of

cases. Are any of the cases
leading cases? Are some of them
from higher levels of courts? Are
some of them newer cases that
refer to the older ones?

Comparison of the cases,

identification of elements of the
rules of law that is common to all
cases. Restate the common parts
of the rules of law in general terms,
but be careful not to overgeneralize such that the rules are
stretched beyond their comfortable
scope.

Identification of the elements of the

rules of law that are present in
some cases but not in others. You

Identification of contradictions in
the rules of law. Again, identify
why there appear to be
contradictions. Can the differences
be explained by differences in the
facts, or do the cases actually
disagree. If they do actually
disagree, clearly identify the levels
of court, the jurisdictions and the
dates of the cases on either side
and note the points of
disagreement. This will assist you
in guessing what a court in your
jurisdiction is likely to do in
subsequent cases.

PSYCHOLOGICAL INCAPACITY AND

ANNULMENT
Among the grounds for annulment of
marriage (annulment is different from
divorce), psychological incapacity is the
most commonly used. It is also one of the
more controversial provisions of the Family
Code (Article 36).
Psychological incapacity contemplates
downright incapacity or inability to take
cognizance of and to assume the basic
marital obligations; not a mere refusal,
neglect or difficulty, much less, ill will, on
the part of the errant spouse.
Irreconcilable differences, conflicting
personalities, emotional immaturity and
irresponsibility, physical abuse, habitual
alcoholism, sexual infidelity or perversion,
and abandonment, by themselves, also do
not warrant a finding of psychological
incapacity.
Psychological incapacity, which a ground
for annulment of marriage (which is
different from divorce), contemplates
downright incapacity or inability to take
cognizance of and to assume the basic
marital obligations; not a mere refusal,
neglect or difficulty, much less, ill will, on

the part of the errant spouse.

Irreconcilable differences, conflicting
personalities, emotional immaturity and
irresponsibility, physical abuse, habitual
alcoholism, sexual infidelity or perversion,
and abandonment, by themselves, also do
not warrant a finding of psychological
incapacity.
Among the grounds for annulment of
marriage, psychological incapacity is the
more (if not the most) commonly used. It
is also one of the more controversial
provisions of the Family Code (Article 36).
The guidelines (shortened here) in the
interpretation and application of Article 36
were handed down by the Supreme Court
in Molina:
1. The plaintiff (the spouse who filed the
petition in court) has burden of showing
the nullity of the marriage. Our laws
cherish the validity of marriage and unity
of the family, so any doubt is resolved in
favor of the existence/continuation of the
marriage.
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. Expert evidence may be given by
qualified psychiatrists and clinical
psychologists.
3. The incapacity must be proven to be
existing at the time of the celebration of
the marriage. The evidence must show
that the illness was existing when the
parties exchanged their I dos. 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 every one 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.
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.
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.
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. No decision shall be handed
down unless the Solicitor General issues a
certification, which will be quoted in the
decision, briefly stating therein his reasons
for his agreement or opposition, as the
case may be, to the petition.
Lets examine some recent Supreme Court
cases on what constitutes or doesnt
constitute psychological incapacity.
In Antonio vs. Reyes (G.R. No. 155800, 10
March 2006), the Supreme Court
sustained the nullity of the marriage
based on the psychological incapacity of
the wife (respondent). As concluded by
the psychiatrist, the wifes repeated
lying is abnormal and pathological, and
amounts to psychological incapacity.
On the other hand, in Republic vs.
Quintero-Hamano (G.R. No. 149498, 20
May 2004), the wife alleged that her
husband, a Japanese, failed to meet his
duty to live with, care for and support his
family. He abandoned them a month after
the marriage. The wife sent him several
letters but he never replied. He made a
trip to the Philippines but did not care at
all to see his family. However, while the
husbands act of abandonment was

doubtlessly irresponsible, it was never

alleged nor proven to be due to some kind
of psychological illness. Aside from the
abandonment, no other evidence was
presented showing that the husbands
behavior was caused by a psychological
disorder. Its not enough to prove that a
spouse failed to meet his responsibility
and duty as a married person; it is
essential that he must be shown to be

incapable of doing so due to some

psychological, not physical, illness.
Although, as a rule, there was no need for
an actual medical examination, it would
have greatly helped the wifes case had
she presented evidence that medically or
clinically identified his illness. This could
have been done through an expert
witness.