ART.
36
Chi Ming Tsoi v. Gina Lao-Tsoi (Jan 16 1997 Torres, Jr., J.)
FACTS:
Gina filed a decree of annulment of marriage before the RTC against
Petitioner on the ground of psychological incapacity.
According to Gina:
o After the couples marriage ceremony, they slept together on
the same bed in Ginas mothers house. Gina says that they
did not have sex and they just went to bed. The same thing
happened for 4 nights.
o They went to Baguio City for their honeymoon. They did so
with Ginas mother, uncle, and the uncles mother and
nephew all whom Petitioner invited. During their 4-day stay,
there was no sex since Petitioner avoided Gina by taking long
walks or by sleeping.
o They submitted themselves to a urologist for a physical exam.
Gina was normal. Petitioner was prescribed medicine and
was asked to return, but he never did.
o Gina claims that her husband is impotent and a closet
homosexual. She also claims that he only married her to
acquire or maintain his residency status in the PH and to
maintain the appearance of a normal man. She is not willing
to reconcile with him.
According to Petitioner:
o He does not want to their marriage to be annulled because he
loves his wife, he has no defect and is physically and
psychologically capable, and that since their relationship is
still young, they can still be reconciled.
o He says the reason they did not have sex was that Gina
avoided him, and that he once forced her to have sex with
him but he noticed she was shaking and didnt like it so he
stopped.
o He claims that Gina filed the case against him because she
didnt want to return jewelry to his mother and that he will
consummate their marriage.
o He submitted himself to a physical exam. It was found that he
was not impotent and was capable of an erection. He was
asked to masturbate by the doctor. His penis, from its original
size of 2 inches, lengthened to 3.1 inches.
The RTC declared their marriage void.
ISSUE: W/N the marriage is void due to psychological incapacity.
HELD: YES.
The RTC didnt have a finding as to which of the spouses refused to
have sex. However, it remains that there was never any coitus
between them. The action to declare the marriage void can be filed
by either party.
Petitioner claims that there is no independent evidence to show that
he or Gina is psychologically incapacitated. He also claims that Gina
may be suffering from a physical disorder.
o The Court disagrees. Petitioner could have discussed with
Gina what was ailing her. He didnt try to discover what her
problem could be. Since he was the one who claimed Gina
had a physical disorder, the burden of proof was on him.
One of the essential marital obligations under the FC is to procreate
children. Non-fulfillment of this can destroy the marriage. The
senseless refusal of one of the parties to have sex is equivalent to
psychological incapacity.
Glenn VINAS v. Mary Grace Parel - VINAS (Jan 21 2015 Reyes, J.)
FACTS:
Glenn and Mary Grace got married when they were 25 and 23. Mary
Grace was already pregnant. However, their baby died at birth due to
weakness and malnourishment. Glenn alleged that it was due to Mary
Graces heavy drinking and smoking during her pregnancy.
Mary Grace left Glenn to work in Dubai. At the time Glenn filed to
declare their marriage null and void, Mary Grace had not returned
yet.
In his petition, Glenn alleged that Mary Grace was insecure, jealous,
and prone to resorting to any pretext to leave the house. She
thoroughly enjoyed the night life. She also refused to perform
essential household chores.
Glenn also claims that Mary Grace was not remorseful over the death
of their child. She lived as if she was single, was self-centered and
immature and when he confronted her about her behavior, she was
indifferent. She also left for Dubai without informing Glenn.
Mary Grace was assessed by a psychologist while she was in Dubai,
using data from Glenn and her cousin Rodelito. She was diagnosed
with Narcissistic Personality Disorder with anti-social traits. The
psychologist recommended the propriety of declaring the nullity of the
couples marriage.
The RTC declared the marriage null and void. However, the CA
claimed that there was no competent evidence to prove that Mary
Grace suffered from said disorder.
ISSUE: W/N the marriage is void due to psychological incapacity.
HELD: NO.
 Psychological Incapacity 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 which, also expressed by
Article 68 of the Family Code, include their mutual obligations to live
together, observe love, respect and fidelity and render help and
support.
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.
Even if there was no personal assessment by a psychologist or
psychiatrist, if the evidence presented is enough to sustain a finding
of psychological incapacity, it is valid.
o In the present case, the evidence did not sufficiently prove the
root cause, gravity, and incurability of Mary Graces condition.
o The evidence merely shows that Mary Grace is outgoing,
strong-willed and not inclined to perform household chores.
o While Glenn and Mary Grace possess incompatible
personalities, the latters acts and traits do not necessarily
indicate psychological incapacity.
Mere "difficulty," "refusal" or "neglect" in the performance of marital
obligations or "ill will" on the part of the spouse is different from
"incapacity" rooted on some debilitating psychological condition or
illness.
Mary Grace was assessed by Dr. Tayag (psychologist) from the
prism of a third party account. Dr. Tayag did not actually see and
evaluate Mary Graces response to her probes.
o To make conclusions and generalizations on the respondents
psychological condition based on the information fed by only
one side is not different from admitting hearsay evidence as
proof of the truthfulness of the content of such evidence.
o Her testimony and report were rich in generalities but
disastrously short on particulars, most notably on how the
respondent can be said to be suffering from narcissistic
personality disorder; why and to what extent the disorder is
grave and incurable; how and why it was already present at
the time of the marriage; and the effects of the disorder on the
respondents awareness of and his capability to undertake the
duties and responsibilities of marriage.
Robert MALLILIN v. Luz JAMESOLAMIN (Feb 18 2015 Mendoza, J.)
FACTS:
Robert and Luz were married and had 3 children. Robert filed a
complaint for declaration of nullity of marriage before the RTC,
however it was denied. He appealed it to the CA, where it was also
denied due to lack of participation of the State as required in Art. 48
of the FC.
Robert alleges that at the time of the celebration of their marriage,
Luz was suffering from psychological and mental incapacity and
unpreparedness to enter marital life and to comply with its
obligations.
Luz argues that it was Robert who was psychologically incapacitated
in their marriage.
During the trial, Luz was unable to appear since she was already
living in California, USA and had married an American. Robert also
disclosed that when they were engaged, Luz was still seeing and
dating another boyfriend.
Robert also alleged that Luz had been remiss in her duties as wife
and mother because:
1. Robert was the one who cleaned because Luz didnt know
how
2. Luz mother cooked and her sister did the laundry because
Luz didnt want to destroy her nail polish
3. Luz sister took care of the children
4. When Luz resumed schooling, she dated different men
5. When Robert was not home, Luz received male visitors
6. Luz would contract loans without Roberts knowledge
ISSUE: W/N the marriage is void.
HELD: NO.
Robert argues that the sexual indiscretion of Luz with different men
coupled with the fact that she failed to function as a home maker to
her family and as a housewife to him incapacitated her from
accepting and complying with her essential marital obligations.
Psychological incapacity as required by Article 36 must be
characterized by (a) gravity, (b) juridical antecedence and (c)
incurability.
o The incapacity must be grave or serious such that the party
would be incapable of carrying out the ordinary duties
required in marriage. It must be rooted in the history of the
party antedating the marriage, although the overt
manifestations may only emerge after the marriage. It must
be incurable or, even if it were otherwise, the cure would be
beyond the means of the party involved.
Psychological incapacity refers only to the most serious cases of
personality disorders clearly demonstrative of an utter insensitivity or
inability to give meaning and significance to the marriage.
Other than Roberts self-serving testimony, no other evidence proved
that Luz was psychologically incapacitated.
 The root cause of the alleged psychological incapacity of Luz was not
medically or clinically identified, and sufficiently proven during the
trial.
Sexual infidelity or perversion and abandonment do not, by
themselves, constitute grounds for declaring a marriage void based
on psychological incapacity.
Jose OCHOSA v. Bona ALANO (Jan 26 2011 Leonardo-De Castro, J.)
FACTS:
Jose met Bona when he was a young lieutenant in the AFP and she
was a 17-year old college dropout. They married, but did not acquire
property nor debts. They also had no children. However, they found
an abandoned 1-year old girl and named her Ramona Celeste Alano
Ochosa.
During the marriage, Jose was often assigned to various parts of the
PH, and Bona did not cohabit with him.
Jose was appointed as the Battalion Commander of the Security
Escort Group and him and his family were given living quarters at
Fort Bonifacio.
Jose was charged with rebellion for participating in a failed coup detat
and was incarcerated in Camp Crame.
Bona was an unfaithful spouse. While Jose was assigned to other
places, she would have relations with other men. This continued
while they lived in Fort Bonifacio, where Bona entertained male
visitors while Jose was out. She was even caught having sex with
Joses driver. Rumors of her infidelity circulated in the military
community. Jose got a military pass from his jail warden and
confronted Bona.
Bona admitted her relationship with the driver. Jose drove Bona away
from their living quarters, and she took Ramona with her. Ramona left
Bona to live with Jose.
Jose filed a Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage on the
ground of Bonas psychological incapacity to fulfill the essential
obligations of marriage.
o A psychiatrist Dr. Rondain testified during the trial, and
concluded that Bona had Histrionic Personality Disorder,
characterized by excessive emotion and attention seeking
behavior.
o Dr. Rondain said that Bonas disorder was traceable to her
family history (her father was a gambler and a womanizer
who beat her mother) and that it was incurable because Bona
does not know what is happening to her and refused to
acknowledge the reality.
The RTC granted Joses petition. The OSG appealed the case to the
CA, alleging that Jose failed to prove Bonas psychological
incapacity.
ISSUE: W/N the marriage is void.
HELD: NO.
Psychological incapacity as required by Article 36 must be
characterized by (a) gravity, (b) juridical antecedence and (c)
incurability.
There is inadequate credible evidence that Bonas defects were
already present at the inception of, or prior to, the marriage. In other
words, her alleged psychological incapacity did not satisfy the
jurisprudential requisite of juridical antecedence.
Dr. Rondains findings on Bonas personality profile did not emanate
from a personal interview with the subject herself. Dr. Rondain merely
relied on her interview with Jose and his witness, Mrs. Padernal, as
well as the court record of the testimonies of other witnesses. This
evokes the possibility that the information fed to the psychiatrist is
tainted with bias for Joses cause, in the absence of sufficient
corroboration.
To make conclusions and generalizations on a spouses
psychological condition based on the information fed by only one
side, to the Courts mind, is not different from admitting hearsay
evidence as proof of the truthfulness of the content of such evidence.
A reasonable explanation for Bonas refusal to accompany Jose in his
military assignments in other parts of Mindanao may be simply that
those locations were known conflict areas in the seventies. Any doubt
as to Bonas desire to live with Jose would later be erased by the fact
that Bona lived with Jose in their conjugal home in Fort Bonifacio
during the following decade.
Bonas sexual infidelity and abandonment can only be convincingly
traced to the period of time after her marriage to Jose and not to the
inception of the said marriage.
Leonila ANTONIO v. Marie REYES (Mar 10 2006 Tinga, J.)
FACTS:
Leonilo Antonio, 26 years of age, and Marie Ivonne Reyes, 36 years
of age met in 1989. Barely a year after their first meeting, they got
married at Manila City Hall and then a subsequent church wedding at
Pasig in December 1990. A child was born but died 5 months later.
Reyes 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. She even did not
conceal bearing an illegitimate child, which she represented to her
husband as adopted child of their family. She exhibited insecurities
and jealousies over him to the extent of calling up his officemates to
monitor his whereabouts.
They were separated in August 1991 and after attempt for
reconciliation, he finally left her for good in November 1991.
Petitioner then filed in 1993 a petition to have his marriage with
Reyes declared null and void anchored in Article 36 of the Family
Code.
Psychiatrists Dr. Abcede and Dr. Lopez conducted tests on Reyes
and found that her persistent and constant lying to Antonio was
abnormal.
The RTC ruled against Reyes and declared their marriage
void. However, the Court of Appeals reversed the decision hence the
appeal.
ISSUE: W/N the marriage is void.
HELD: YES.
Psychological incapacity pertains to the inability to understand the
obligations of marriage as opposed to a mere inability to comply with
them.
The petitioner, aside from his own testimony, presented a psychiatrist
and clinical psychologist who attested that constant lying and extreme
jealousy of Reyes is abnormal and pathological and corroborated his
allegations on his wifes behavior, which amounts to psychological
incapacity.
Respondents fantastic ability to invent, fabricate stories and letters of
fictitious characters enabled her to live in a world of make-believe that
made her psychologically incapacitated as it rendered her incapable
of giving meaning and significance to her marriage.
The root causes of Reyes psychological incapacity have been
medically or clinically identified that was sufficiently proven by
experts.
It would be difficult for an inveterate pathological liar to commit the
basic tenets of relationship between spouses based on love, trust and
respect. Furthermore, Reyes case is incurable considering that
petitioner tried to reconcile with her but her behavior remained
unchanged.
MOLINA Doctrine
Standards in Interpreting Art. 36 of FC
(1) The burden of proof to show the nullity of the marriage
belongs to the plaintiff. Any doubt should be resolved in favor of the
existence and continuation of the marriage and against its dissolution and
nullity. This is rooted in the fact that both our Constitution and our laws
cherish the validity of marriage and unity of the family. Thus, our
Constitution devotes an entire Article on the Family, recognizing it as the
foundation of the nation. It decrees marriage as legally inviolable,
thereby protecting it from dissolution at the whim of the parties. Both the
family and marriage are to be protected by the state.
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
psychologicalnot 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 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 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. Hence, a pediatrician may be effective in
diagnosing illnesses of children and prescribing medicine to cure them
but may not be psychologically capacitated to procreate, bear and raise
his/her own children as an essential obligation of marriage.
(5) Such illness must be grave enough to bring about the disability of
the party to assume the essential obligations of marriage. Thus, mild
characterological 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.
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. The
Solicitor General, along with the prosecuting attorney, shall submit to the
court such certification within fifteen (15) days from the date the case is
deemed submitted for resolution of the court. The Solicitor General shall
discharge the equivalent function of the defensor vinculi contemplated
under Canon 1095.

(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. It is clear that
Article 36 was taken by the Family Code Revision Committee from Canon
1095 of the New Code of Canon Law, which became effective in 1983
and which provides:

The following are incapable of contracting marriage: Those who are

unable to assume the essential obligations of marriage due to causes of
psychological nature.

Since the purpose of including such provision in our Family Code is to

harmonize our civil laws with the religious faith of our people, it stands to
reason that to achieve such harmonization, great persuasive weight
should be given to decisions of such appellate tribunal. Ideally subject
to our law on evidencewhat is decreed as canonically invalid should
also be decreed civilly void.

This is one instance where, in view of the evident source and purpose of
the Family Code provision, contemporaneous religious interpretation is to
be given persuasive effect. Here, the State and the Churchwhile
remaining independent, separate and apart from each othershall walk
together in synodal cadence towards the same goal of protecting and
cherishing marriage and the family as the inviolable base of the nation.

(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