To have a better grasp on how to approach the legal issue presented before us we have to first

understand some laws and prevailing jurisprudence that ties into the issues on declaration of nullity of
marriage and adoption.

1st, one of the more controversial articles of the FC Article 36 It states 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.

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; 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.

2nd is A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC RE: PROPOSED RULE ON DECLARATION OF ABSOLUTE NULLITY OF VOID
MARRIAGES AND ANNULMENT OF VOIDABLE MARRIAGES

It essentially governs petitions for declaration of absolute nullity of void marriages and annulment of
voidable marriages under the Family Code of the Philippines.

Pursuant to our Legal Issue at hand let’s focus on Sections 19 and 20

Section 19. Decision. -

(3) The decision becomes final upon the expiration of fifteen days from notice to the parties. Entry of
judgment shall be made if no motion for reconsideration or new trial, or appeal Is filed by any of the
parties the public prosecutor, or the Solicitor General.

Section 20. Appeal. -

(2) Notice of appeal. - An aggrieved party or the Solicitor General may appeal from the decision by
filing a Notice of Appeal within fifteen days from notice of denial of the motion for reconsideration or
new trial. The appellant shall serve a copy of the notice of appeal on the adverse parties.

3rd is A.M. No. 02-6-02-SC the Rules on Adoption

One its main objective is ensuring that every child remains under the care and custody of his parents
and is provided with love, care, understanding and security for the full and harmonious development of
his personality.

Let us focus on Section 4 and 5

Section 4. Who may adopt.— The following may adopt:

Among others are as follows

(ii) one who seeks to adopt the legitimate child of his Filipino spouse; or

Section 5. Who may be adopted.— The following may be adopted:

Among others are as follows

(2) The legitimate child of one spouse, by the other spouse;

4th Republic Act No. 8552 Domestic Adoption Act of 1998

Section 2. Declaration of Policies. – (a) It is hereby declared the policy of the State to ensure that every
child remains under the care and custody of his/her parent(s) and be provided with love, care,
understanding and security towards the full and harmonious development of his/her personality. Only
when such efforts prove insufficient and no appropriate placement or adoption within the child's
extended family is available shall adoption by an unrelated person be considered.

5th is the landmark case of Baccay vs Baccay

It is a case regarding a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage. RTC declared the marriage null and
void on the ground of the respondent’s alleged psychological incapacity. Where a clinical psychologist
who presented as the petitioner’s witness, found the respondent unable to perform the essential
marital obligations of marriage due to a Narcissistic Personality Disorder.

It was held that Psychological incapacity must be more than just a "difficulty," a "refusal," or a "neglect"
in the performance of some marital obligations. An unsatisfactory marriage is not a null and void
marriage.

6th Republic vs Toledano

Spouses a natural-born US Citizen former Filipino who became a naturalized US citizen, filed a petition to adopt
a minor who is the naturalized filipino’s youngest brother. The trial court granted the petition. Republic, through
the Office of the Solicitor General appealed contending that the lower court erred in granting the petition for the
spouses are not qualified to adopt under Philippine Law.

It was held that: Under Articles 184 and 185 of Executive Order (E.O.) No. 209, otherwise known as "The Family
Code of the Philippines", private respondents spouses Clouse are clearly barred from adopting

Under Articles 184 and 185 of Executive Order (E.O.) No. 209, otherwise known as "The Family Code of the
Philippines", private respondents spouses Clouse are clearly barred from adopting Solomon Joseph Alcala.

Article 184, paragraph (3) of Executive Order No. 209 expressly enumerates the persons who are not qualified to
adopt, viz.:
(3) An alien, except:

(a) A former Filipino citizen who seeks to adopt a relative by consanguinity;

(b) One who seeks to adopt the legitimate child of his or her Filipino spouse; or

(c) One who is married to a Filipino citizen and seeks to adopt jointly with his or her spouse a relative by
consanguinity of the latter.

Aliens not included in the foregoing exceptions may adopt Filipino children in accordance with the rules on inter-
country adoption as may be provided by law.

There can be no question that private respondent Alvin A. Clouse is not qualified to adopt Solomon Joseph Alcala
under any of the exceptional cases in the aforequoted provision. In the first place, he is not a former Filipino citizen
but a natural born citizen of the United States of America. In the second place, Solomon Joseph Alcala is neither his
relative by consanguinity nor the legitimate child of his spouse. In the third place, when private respondents
spouses Clouse jointly filed the petition to adopt Solomon Joseph Alcala on February 21, 1990, private
respondent Evelyn A. Clouse was no longer a Filipino citizen. She lost her Filipino citizenship when she was
naturalized as a citizen of the United States in 1988.

Private respondent Evelyn A. Clouse, on the other hand, may appear to qualify pursuant to paragraph 3(a)
of Article 184 of E.O. 209. She was a former Filipino citizen. She sought to adopt her younger brother.
Unfortunately, the petition for adoption cannot be granted in her favor alone without violating Article 185 which
mandates a joint adoption by the husband and wife. It reads:

Article 185. Husband and wife must jointly adopt, except in the following cases:

(1) When one spouse seeks to adopt his own illegitimate child; or

(2) When one spouse seeks to adopt the legitimate child of the other.

Article 185 requires a joint adoption by the husband and wife, a condition that must be read along together
with Article 184.

Under the Family Code, joint adoption by husband and wife is mandatory. This is in consonance with the concept
of joint parental authority over the child, which is the ideal situation. As the child to be adopted is elevated to the
level of a legitimate child, it is but natural to require the spouses to adopt jointly. The rule also insures harmony
between the spouses.