REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

7th JUDICIAL REGION
B RANCH 69
DUMAGUETE CITY

VIRGILIA R. ABJELINA,
Plaintiff, CIVIL CASE NO. 11569

- versus - FOR:

JAYGIE C. QUI-OD, ANNULMENT OF MARRIAGE

Defendant. Under art. 36, family code & Separation
X - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ---/ Of Properties.

DECISION

In the case of Chi Ming Tsoi vs. Court of Appeals and Gina Lao-Tsoi, Mr. Justice P.
Torres, as ponencia prefaced:

“Men has not invented a reliable compass by which to steer a marriage in its journey
over troubled waters. Laws are seemingly inadequate. Over time, much reliance has been placed
in the works of the unseen hand of Him who created all things.”

Then, the good justice posed this question: “Who is to blame when a marriage falls.”

The petitioner, Virgilia R. Abjelina comes to this Court seeking for the annulment of her
marriage with defendant, Jaygie C. qui-od under Article 36 of the Family Code.

At first, the couple first met in their hometown in Amlan, Negros Oriental. Virgilia resided
in Dumaguete City and operated a boarding house. Jaygie, who also acquired a new job in
Dumaguete City., has transferred his residence in the City. Jaygie’s supervisor who was Virgilia’s
friend, introduced him to Virgilia, and since Jaygie was also looking for a boarding house,
inevitably, Jaygie became Virgilia’s boarder. Not soon after, Virgilia and Jaygie found themselves
attracted to each other and became intimate friends. Jaygie was a drug dependent and a hard
drinker, irresponsible and lazy, but despite these defects, Virgilia., apparently blinded by her
infatuation over a new found love, discarded reasons over her heart and their amorous
relationship continued for five months until Virgilia made a big fuss of it. Threatened that he
will lose the only home he knew in Dumaguete City, Jaygie proposed marriage to Virgilia which
the latter, throwing caution to the wind, readily accepted the proposal. They got married on
November 16, 1991 before Fr. William J. Palalon, Parish Priest.

The whirlwind romance soured few months after their marriage. Virgilia, now settled by
marriage, expected her soul mate to be what a husband should be of which Jaygie was not.
Jaygie continued his nightly gallivanting with friends staying out until the wee hours of the night.
He drank, made merry and was abusive in drugs. Virgilia waited for her Jaygie go come home
night after night after night. But Jaygie, despite marriage, refused to mend his ways. Every time
Virgilia reminded him of his responsibility as a husband, he threw tantrums. Five months into
the family way, Virgilia had a miscarriage of their supposed first child. While bleeding and
waiting for Jaygie to come home and bring her to the hospital, Jaygie whiled away with friends
unconcerned of his wife’s predicament. Virgilia went to the hospital clinging to her friend
neighbor with no husband on sight. She lost her first born child. Behind her husband’s
indifference, they have one child. The business she started thrived under her care but her family
relationship took its toll. Jaygie was made to resign from his work because he only work three
days in a week, while the rest he spent with his friends. He was a querulous, quarrelsome and
 Page Two

Decision
Civil Case No. 11569
Qui-od v. Qui-od
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - /

was always complaining over nothing. Soon Jaygie found himself without a job. He
ratiocinated that he wanted to help Virgilia to run their small business but lacking of business
acumen, Jaygie found the business boring. He continued his nightly pursuit with friends,
smoked mariajuana, imbibed too many drinks and came home late. When provoked, he threw
tantrums, shouting invectives at Virgilia, threw things at her, kicked at their things and physically
harmed her. Their relationship turned from bad to worse. They ended up sleeping in separate
rooms.

Finally, Jaygie perhaps, feeling unwanted because of his family’s apprehensions of his
increasing violent tantrums, decided to leave his family and live with h is sister in Cebu City.
However, he demanded that he be given an allowance which the petitioner religiously gave,
albeit with reluctance, to avoid trouble.

Dr. Jose Perpetou S Lozada conducted a psychological examination and evaluation on

both the plaintiff and the defendant. His findings were reduced into writing and marked as
Exhibit “B” and “C”, respectively.

Virgilia was evaluated by Dr. Lozada as mentally healthy person. She did not show any
evidence of psychosis, neuroses, personality disorder, mental deficiency, organic brain or gross
neurological deficits (Exhibit “b-2”).

Jaygie hails from Amlan. As a child, Jaygie was well provided with the basic needs in life
and enjoyed a luxurious lifestyle. Jaygie spent his elementary school in Amlan, and college
education in Dumaguete City. While in College, he started drinking alcohol and occasionally
used mariajuana. After college, he was able to work. His work demanded him hours of
entertaining clients. He drank, chain-smoked and used mariajuana. He was carefree and was used
to a bohemian life because his mother seldom interfered in his activities. When he transferred to
Dumaguete City, he continued his bacchanalian life, this time with Virgilia and their common
friends. He found Virgilia a convenience. She kept his room spic and span, attended to his
sartorial needs and provided him food on the table. She also provided him warmth on his bed. It
was an idyllic arrangement but Virgilias’s family, conservative as they were, made a lot o fuss on
their relationship. In a spur of the moment and pique, Jaygie proposed marriage to Virgilia and
they were married.

Marriage did not make him a better man, a perfect husband and a responsible father. He
insisted on his usual life of “drink and be merry” which Virgilia resented and which Jaygie
construed as interference of his personal life. This caused their constant quarrels which
culminated to Jaygie throwing things at her, banging doors and making their child cowering with
fright. He also abused his wife, physically, mentally and emotionally. Jaygie’s bohemian life
took its toll on him, because of staying late at night, he missed to met the standard of his work so
he was fired. Pleas of his wife to become a responsible family went to deaf ears. He
complained of his wife and his wife family’s interference. He was easily provoked, irritable and
impulsive. He accused his wife of infidelity and often his unfounded jealousy cause him to lose
control of his temper. As an inveterate chain-smoker, he acquired burgers disease, an
inflammation of the blood vessels due to excessive smoking which cause him to submit to an
operation twice.

During the psychiatric interview, Jaygie was cautious and on guard as he related his
personal and marital life. He avoided touching the sensitive and personal aspect of his life and
 Page Three

Decision
Civil Case No. 11569
Qui-od v. Qui-od
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - /

selected to portray the positive aspects of his life. He avoided eye contact with the psychiatrist
so that he was allowed to freely talk and his talk became inconsistent as he narrates his life story.
When the interview is over, the evaluating psychiatrist observed that Jaygie’s insights and
judgment were impaired in so far as his marital problem is concerned. Dr. Lozada made an
impression that Joel is suffering from hysterical personality disorder. Dr. Lozada explained the
different stages in the [psychiatric evaluation to arrive at a satisfactory diagnosis. First, he took
the general data, which would point to the personal circumstances of the subject examined.
Second, he evaluated the subject clinically which mainly deal more on his life history to show
the strength and weaknesses of the subject, whether they had a happy childhood or had suffered
traumatic experiences as a child, and third, he examined the mental status of the subject top show
if he has some psychiatric or psychological problem. All these would lead to impression or
diagnosis.

As to Virgilia, Dr. Lozada concluded that she was not suffering from psychosis; that she
was really-oriented, not hallucinating. Nor was she suffering from any kind of anxiety due to
certain tensions, imaginary or not. She was likewise not suffering from mental deficiency or
mental retardation because there was nothing wrong with her intellectual functions.

As to Jaygie, Dr. Lozada diagnosed that he has deeply – engrained pattern behavior
which started from childhood to present which is manifested through excessive emotionality and
excessive manifestation or tantrums in a childish manner. Jaygie was pleasure oriented. Jaygie is
not mentally ill but his defect was on his personality make-up and this would not affect his
mental functions. He can even be talented.

Dr. Lozada also explained that a deeply engrained personality disorder is incurable or
difficult to cure because the patient with this kind of disorder do not gain insight because they do
not feel anxious about their problem nor care of other people’s opinion of him.

Pursuant to Republic v. Court of Appeals and Roridel Molina, G.R No. 108783, 13
February 1997, the Solicitor General was directed to issue a certification briefly stating his
reasons for his agreement or opposition, as the case may be, of the petition which he did on 10
January 2002.

The Solicitor General through Assistant Solicitor General Mariano M. Martinez and
Solicitor Nathaniel E. Baldono acting as defensor vinculi under Canon 1095 which provided the
model for what is now Article 36 of the Family Code (separate opinion of Madame Justice
Romero in the Molina) found that there is no clear showing that the psychological defects
referred to by the plaintiff are the incapacity as contemplated by law; that, if all, they are more
likely to be a case of difficulty if not outright refusal or neglect by defendant in the performance
of some marital obligations that in no wise touch upon the defendant’s inability or incapacity to
meet the essential responsibilities and duties; that there had been no shred of conclusive evidence
that the alleged psychological incapacity is characterized by gravity, juridical antecedence and
incurability.

The plaintiff through counsel, sought to reconsider the recommendations of the Solicitor
General. Until now, the said office failed to act on the request of the plaintiff. This failure is
perhaps explained by the fact that the Supreme Court in Supreme Court Resolution No. 02-11-10
which took effect on 15 March 2003 has ruled to dispense with the review of court records
prelude to the issuance of the certification.
 Page Four

Decision
Civil Case No. 11569
Qui-od v. Qui-od
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - /

Under the Family Code, the following are essential marital obligations:

“1. To procreate children based on the universal principle that procreation of

children through sexual cooperation is the basic end of marriage (Chi Ming Tsoi v. Court
of Appeals, supra);

“2. To live together under one roof (Art. 68, Family Code) for togetherness
spells the unity of marriage;

“3. To observe mutual love, respect and fidelity (Art. 68, id.), for love, sexual
comfort, and loyalty to one another are basic of marriage;

“4. To render mutual help and support (Art. 68, id.) for assistance in
necessities, both temporal and spiritual, is essential to sustain marriage;

“5. To jointly support the family (Art. 70) for the spouses are jointly
administrator in the partnership; and

“6. Not, to commit acts which will bring danger, dishonor or injury to each
other or to the family (Art. 72.) for the safety and security of the family at all times is a
primordial duty of the spouses. (Quoted from The Family Code of the Philippines,
Annotated by Pro. Ernesto L. Pineda, 1999 ed.)

Constant non-fulfillment of these obligations will finally destroy the integrity or

wholeness of marriage (Chi Ming Tsoi v. Court of Appeals, supra).

When any of the parties falls short of these essential marital obligations by reason of
psychological incapacity, the law allows the voiding of the marriage.

To keep pace of the changing times, the Civil Law Revision Committee, which was
tasked to draft the Family Code under Executive Order No. 209 introduced Article 36, which
states:

“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.”

Admittedly, there is no accurate definition or meaning of psychological incapacity. The

burden of interpreting it lies on the judge who hears the case and that every petition for
declaration of nullity based on psychological incapacity should be treated in a case to case basis.

The term “psychological incapacity” is so broad a term which the Family Code has given
a wide latitude to interpret what it means.

In Salita v. Honorable Magtolis, G.R. 106429, Mr. Justice Jesus N. bellosillo as ponente,
quoted Mme. Justice Alicia V. Semprio-Dy, a member of the code Committee, thus:
 Page Five

Decision
Civil Case No. 11569
Qui-od v. Qui-od
X - - - - - - - - - - - -/

“The Committee did not give any example of psychological incapacity for fear that the
giving of example would limit the applicability of the provision under the principle of ejusdem
generis. Rather, the committee would like to judge to interpret the provision on a case to case
basis, guided by the experience, the findings of experts and researches in psychological
disciplines, and by decisions of church tribunals, which, although not binding on the civil court,
may have persuasive effects since the provision was taken from Canon Law”

Professor Ernesto L. Pineda, a member of the Family Code revision Committee, proposes
to define the term psychological incapacity as,

“A mental condition but not insanity, which perpetually prevents or incapacitates a person
martially contracted to another voluntarily, from performing or complying with certain essential
marital obligations, resulting in the failure to achieve the basic ends of marriage, which mental
condition is serious, with roots antedating the marriage and is incurable.”

In Santos v. Santos, G.R. No. 112019, 4 January 1995, Mr. Justice Vitug quoted Madame
Justice Semprio-Dy in her Handbook on the Family Code: 1 st Ed. 1998 which cites approval the
opinion of Dr. Gerardo Veloso “that psychological incapacity must be characterized by (a)
gravity (b) juridical antecedence, and (c) incurability. He stated, thus:

“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 emerge only after the marriage;
and it must be incurable or even it were otherwise, the cure must be beyond the means of the
party involved x x x.

However, in Republic v. Roridel Molina, G.R. No. 108763, 13 February 1997, Mr. Justice
Panganiban, as ponente, laid down the guidelines for the guidance of the bench and the bar:

1. The burden of proof to show the nullity of the marriage belongs to the plaintiff;
2. The root cause of the psychological incapacity will be (a) medically and clinically
identified, (b) alleged in the complaint, (c) sufficiently proven by experts and (d)
clearly explained in the decision;
3. The incapacity must be proven to be existing at “the time of the celebration” of the
marriage;
4. Such incapacity must be shown to be medically and clinically permanent or incurable;
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 222 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
respects by our courts; and,
8. The trial court must order the prosecuting attorney or fiscal and the Solicitor General
to appear as counsel for the State.

Has these guidelines been complied by the Plaintiff? The Court believes so. “Marriage is
not an adventure but a lifetime commitment,” so says the Supreme Court in Santos v. Santos,
supra.
 Page Six

Decision
Civil Case No. 11259
Qui-od v. Qui-od
X - - - - - - - - - - -- - -/

In Jaygie, Virgilia found a soul mate whom she hopes to change despite her earlier
impression of him as less ideal of the man of her dreams. Jaygie may have a volatile lifestyle
like going out with friends every night, who abused himself in liquor, cigarette and mariajuana.
Shakespeare immortalized the phrase, “Love is blind and lovers cannot see” and that was what
Virgilia felt when Jaygie wooed and won her. She was in cloud 9 and so infatuated was she to
Jaygie enough to say “yes” when he proposed marriage to her. At the back of her mind and in
the depth of her heart, she wished Jaygie’s bohemian days were over as soon as they tie the knot.
But she was wrong. Her Jaygie never changed. He even turned from bad to worse. Jaygie had
reneged on his promise to her to perform the essential marital obligations.

The Joint Committee on declaration of nullity as well as annulment of marriages, had a

conference with Archbishop Oscar Cruz of the archdiocese of Pampanga who informed the
Committee that they have found out in tribunal work that a lot of machismo among husbands are
manifestations of their sociopathic, personality anomaly, like inflicting physical violence upon
their wives, constitutional indolence or laziness, drug dependence or addition, and psychosexual
anomaly (separate opinion of Mme. Justice Romero in Santos).

According to Canon No. 1095 of the Canon Law, which provided as a model for what is
now Article 36 of the Family Code, the following are incapable of contracting marriage:

1. those who lack sufficient use of reason (as distinguished from mental illness);
2. those who lack judgmental discretion concerning the matrimonial rights and duties to
be mutually handed over and accepted;
3. those who, due to serious psychic anomaly, one assume the essential obligations of
matrimony (quoted from the treaties prepared by Justice Ricardo c. Puno, Annulment
and declaration of Nullity of Marriage)

Justice Puno quoted Dr. Gerardo Ty Veloso, who stated that aside from neuroses,
psychoses and other personality disorder known to psychologists that render a person
psychologically unfit to assume and perform the duties of marriage, the following grounds
maybe mentioned:

1. homosexuality in men or lesbianism in women: i.e., attachment to the same sex for
sexual fulfillment;

2. satyriasis in men or nymphomania in women: i.e., excessive and promiscuous sex

hunger;
3. extremely low intelligence;

4. immaturity: i.e., lack of an effective sense of rational judgment and responsibility,

otherwise peculiar to infants (like refusal of the husband to support the family or
excessive dependence on parents or peer group approval);

5. epilepsy with permanently recurring mal-adoptive manifestations;

6. habitual alcoholism, or the condition by which a person lives for the next drink and
the next drink and the next drink; and
 Page Seven

Decision
Civil Case No. 11259
Qui-od v. Qui-od
X - - - - - - - - - - -- - -/

7. criminality: the condition by which a person consistently get in trouble with the law
or with socially established norms of conduct (cited by Mme. Justice Semprio-Dy,
Handbook on the Family Code, pp. 38-39).

Justice Puno also cited the case of Sy-Quia v. Faustman, Court of Appeals – G.R. CV 28436, 19
August 1992 which held that where the husband is immature and an alcoholic which was
manifested even on his wedding day, and which made him often irritable and unable to hold on
to a job and to give consistent support to his family, his psychic illness rooted in a personality
disorder rendered his marriage void. He also cited Lucero v. Legaspi, Court of Appeals – G.R.
CV 26846, 16 October 1991 where the honorable Court of Appeals likewise held that husband’s
immaturity and habitual alcoholism which became manifest after the marriage rendered him
incapacitated to perform his essential marital obligations and resulted in the absolute nullity of
marriage.

He explains that psychological incapacity must, however, exhibit gravity, antecedence

and incurability. It is grave if the subject cannot carry out the normal duties of marriage or
ordinary obligations to the family. It is antecedent in the sense that the roots can be traced to the
history of the subject before marriage. It is incurable if treatment involves time and expense
beyond the ordinary means of the subject.

As narrated by the plaintiff herself, the defendant have been a night person spending the
night going with friends, drinking alcohol, taking marijuana and going home in the wee hours of
the morning. His nightly activities caused him to fail from reaching the expectation of the
company he was working, consequently, he was fired from the company. His night life, lack of
sleep, sluggishness because of too much drinking and marred by marijuana, Despite of being
unemployed, Jaygie refused to give up his nightly activities, even stepped them up as he had no
more responsibilities and refused to contribute to the family coffers. In stead he demanded from
his wife monthly allowance which heavily drained the family resources. Worst, he abandoned his
family. Said the court in Sy-Quia: alcohol addiction is symptomatic of personality disturbance. It
should be looked upon as a psychic illness rooted in a personality disorder or immaturity (pp.
193, 207, Noyes’ Modern Clinic Psychiatric by Dr. Lawrence C. Colb, 7 th ed., Oxford & IBH
Publishing Co.) Jaygie’s behavior may be traced back to his childhood. Jaygie came from a
broken home, having parents who separated when he was a child. Despite separation, his father,
provided him with the luxury in life. Jaygie’s world, cocooned by material things provided by
estranged parents, suddenly ended when his dad died and he and his siblings were reduced to less
than penury. Although his mom scrimped to send him to college but Jaygie’s life was never
better than when his dad was alive. Dr. Lozada, a trained psychiatrist and admittedly an expert
witness, opines that Jaygie is suffering from hysterical personality disorder and impossible to
cure; that he could not comply with the essential marital obligations.

WHEREFORE, from the foregoing considerations, this Court finds for the plaintiff.

Pursuant to Article 36 of the Family Code, the marriage between Virgilia A. Qui-od and
Jaygie C. Qui-od, is hereby declared void.

Pursuant to Domingo V. Court of appeals, 226 SCRA 572, the conjugal properties of the
 Page Eight

Decision
Civil Case No. 11569
Qui-od v. Qui-od
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - -/

spouses Jaygie Qui-od and Virgilia Qui-od is hereby dissolved and liquated in the following
manner that all their properties, real or personal, should be divided equally among them being
conjugal properties.

And lastly, custody of their only minor child is awarded to the plaintiff, Virgilia Qui-od
with the right of visitation on the part of the defendant, which may be arranged by both of them.

SO ORDERED.

In Camera, 27 March 2003 in the City of Dumaguete, Philippines.

ROMAN GARCIA
Judge

Copy furnished:

1. Virgilia Qui-od, Dumaguete City, Negros Oriental.

2. Jaygie Qui-od, Amlan, Negros Oriental
3. Prosecutor Perla T. Laguda, CPO, Dumaguete City
4. Atty. Nathaniel E. baldono, Solicitor general Office, Legaspi Village, Makati City.
 REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
7th JUDICIAL REGION
B RANCH 69
DUMAGUETE CITY

CERTIFICATION

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:

This is to certify that the Decision dated 27 March 2004 in Civil Case No. 11569, entitled
“VIRGILIA A. QUI-OD versus JAYGIE C. QUI-OD for Annulment of Marriage,” have become
final and executory, there being no appeal interposed by any interested party in the above-
entitled case within the period provided for by law.

This certification is issued upon the verbal request of Ms. Virgilia A. Qui-od, for
whatever purpose it may serve her best.

Given this _____ day of April 2004 in the City of Dumaguete, Philippines.

JOCELE CIMAFRANCA
Clerk of Court V