SUBJECT: TOPIC: CASE NAME: DIMAGYUGA-LAURENA vs.

CA
Persons Void Marriages Ma. Darlene Dimayuga-Laurena vs. Court of
 Article 36 Appeals and Jesse Lauro Laurena
RELEVANT PROVISIONS:
Article 36, Family Code

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. (As amended by Executive Order 227)

PONENTE: Carpio, J. Case Date: 22 September 2008

CASE SUMMARY:
● Petitioner filed a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage against private respondent on the
grounds that private respondent was psychologically incapable of assuming the essential
obligations of marriage, and the incapacity existed at the time of the celebration of marriage
although she discovered it only after the marriage. Petitioner also prayed for the dissolution of the
conjugal partnership of gains, for custody of their children and for monthly support of P25,000.

DETAILED FACTS:
● Petitioner and private respondent married in 1983 and have two children together.
● Petitioner filed a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage against respondent alleging that
respondent was psychologically incapable of assuming the essential obligations of marriage, and
the incapacity existed at the time of the celebration of marriage although she discovered it only
after the marriage.
o A 15-year old boy, son of respondent’s housekeeper, was invited to sleep in their hotel
suite during their honeymoon.
o When petitioner suffered a miscarriage, respondent continued to watch television while
she almost bled to death.
o Respondent would give priority to the needs of his parents, come home past midnight
and try to convert her to his religion.
o Respondent was a womanizer.
o Respondent had feminine tendencies.
o Respondent abandoned their conjugal home and stopped supporting their children.
● Petitioner also prayed for the dissolution of the conjugal partnership of gains, for custody of their
children and for monthly support of P25,000.
● Both the RTC and CA denied the petition for declaration of nullity of marriage. RTC declared the
conjugal partnership of gains dissolved. CA agreed with the dissolution though modified it to
exclude properties belonging to the parents of respondent. Custody of children was awarded to
the parent chosen by said minors as they were over seven years of age.

ISSUE:
W/N respondent is psychologically incapacitated to
comply with the essential marital obligations –NO
HOLDING:
NO – Petitioner failed to prove private
respondent’s psychological incapacity or identify
its root cause. She failed to establish that
respondent’s psychological incapacity was grave.

HGO_A2021 1

W/N the properties excluded by the CA form part of
the conjugal partnership of gains between petitioner
and respondent – NO
RULING:
PARTLY GRANTED the petition
MODIFICATION by including the duplex house and lot on Dayap Street, Makati City in the
conjugal partnership of gains
incurable and existing at the time of celebration
of marriage.
NO, with the exception of the duplex house on
Dayap Street Makati. The Court sustained in part
the CA’s decision, with the exception of the said
duplex. Said properties, except the duplex, did not
form part of the conjugal partnership of gains as
they [previously] belonged to the respondent’s
parents. With regard to the duplex, the Court
included it as part of the conjugal partnership of
gains because the respondent did not present
sufficient proof to back his claim that the duplex
was purchased from the income of the Jeddah
Caltex station. Moreover, respondent had
testified that he received a series of promotions
during their marriage “until we can afford to buy
that duplex [on] Dayap.”
HGO_A2021 2