Lucita E. Hernandez vs. CA and Mario Hernandez 320 SCRA 76, G.R. No.

126010, 8 December 1999

Facts:

On 1 January 1981, Lucita Estrella married Mario Hernandez, and they begot three children. On 10 July 1992, Lucita filed a petition for annulment of marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code. She alleged that from the time of their marriage, Mario failed to perform his obligations to support the family, devoting most of his time drinking, had affairs with many women, and cohabiting with another woman with whom he had an illegitimate child, and finally abandoning her and the family. The RTC-Tagaytay City dismissed the petition which was affirmed by the CA.

Issue:

Whether or not Mario s habitual alcoholism, sexual infidelity/perversion and family abandonment constitute psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code.

Ruling:

No. The Supreme Court ruled that the aforementioned acts do not by themselves constitute grounds for psychological incapacity within the contemplation of the Family Code. It must be shown that these acts are manifestations of a disordered personality which make Mario completely unable to discharge his essential marital obligations, and not merely due to his youth and self-conscious feelings of being handsome.

Judgment affirmed.

Leouel Santos vs. CA G.R. No. 112019 January 4, 1995 Facts: Leouel first met Julia in Iloilo City. The meeting later proved to be an eventful day for both of them for they got married on September 20, 1986. Leouel and Julia lived with the latter s parents. The ecstasy, however, did not last long. It was bound to happen, Leouel averred, because of the frequent interference by Julia s parents into the young spouses family affairs. Occasionally, the couple would also start a quarrel over a number of things like when and where the couple should start living independently from Julia s parents or whenever Julia would express resentment on Leouel s spending a few days with his own parents. On May 18, 1988, Julia finally left for the U.S. to work as a nurse despite his husband s pleas to so dissuade her. Seven months after her departure, Julia called Leouel for the first time. She promised to return home upon the expiration of her contract but she never did. When Leouel got a chance to visit the U.S., where he underwent a training program under the auspices of the Armed Forces of the Philippines he desperately tried to locate, or to somehow get in touch with Julia, but all his efforts were of no avail. Leouel argues that the failure of Julia to return home, or at the very least to communicate with him, for more than five years are circumstances that clearly show her being psychologically incapacitated to enter into married life. Issue: Whether or not Julia is psychologically incapacitated under Article 36 of the FC. Ruling: The use of the phrase psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Code has not been meant to comprehend all such possible cases of psychoses as, likewise mentioned by some ecclesiastical authorities, extremely low intelligence, immaturity and like circumstances. Article 36 of the Family Code cannot be construed independently of but must stand in conjunction with existing precepts in our law on marriage. Thus, correlated, 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, as so 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. There is hardly any doubt that the intendment of the law has been to confine the meaning of psychological incapacity to the most serious cases of personality disorders clearly demonstrative of an utter insensitivity or inability to give meaning and significance to the marriage. This psychological condition must exist at the time the marriage is celebrated.

Republic vs. CA and Molina February 13, 1997 Facts: On April 14, 1985, plaintiff Roridel O. Molina married Reynaldo Molina which union bore a son. After a year of marriage, Reynaldo showed signs of "immaturity and irresponsibility" as a husband and a father as he preferred to spend more time with his peers and friends, depended on his parents for aid and assistance, and was never honest with his wife in regard to their finances, resulting in frequent quarrels between them. The RTC granted Roridel petition for declaration of nullity of her marriage which was affirmed by the CA. Issue: Whether or not irreconcilable differences and conflicting personalities constitute psychological incapacity. Ruling: The following guidelines in the interpretation and application of Art. 36 of the Family Code are hereby handed down 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. Any doubt should be resolved in favor of the existence and continuation of the marriage and against its dissolution and nullity. (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. (3) The incapacity must be proven to be existing at "the time of the celebration" of the marriage. (4) Such incapacity must also be shown to be medically or 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 225 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 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.

Marcos vs. Marcos G.R. No. 136490, 19 October 2000 (3rd Division)

Facts:

Plaintiff Brenda Marcos and defendant Wilson Marcos were married twice on 6 September 1982 and on 8 May 1983. They had five children. Brenda filed a case for nullity of the marriage for psychological incapacity, alleging that Wilson failed to provide material support to the family and had resorted to physical abuse and abandonment. The RTC declared their marriage null and void under article 36 of the Family Code. However, the Court of appeals reversed the said decision.

Issues: 1. Whether or not the totality of evidence presented in this case show psychological incapacity.

2. Whether or not personal medical or psychological examination of Wilson by a physician is a requirement for a declaration of psychological incapacity.

Ruling: 1. No. Although the Supreme Court is sufficiently convinced that Wilson failed to provide material support and resorted to physical abuse and abandonment, the totality of his acts does not lead to psychological incapacity.

2. No. the Supreme Court ruled that examination by physician or psychologist is not a condition sine gua non for the declaration of psychological incapacity.

Domingo vs. CA 226 SCRA 572 Facts: Delia Domingo, private respondent, filed a petition before RTC of Pasig for the declaration of nullity of marriage and separation of property against Roberto Domingo, petitioner. She alleged that they were married at Carmona, Cavite with evidences of marriage certificate and marriage license, unknown to her, petitioner had a previous marriage with Emerlina dela Paz which is still valid and existing. She came to know the prior marriage when Emerlina sued them for bigamy. She prays that their marriage be declared null and void and, as a consequence, to declare that she is the exclusive owner of all properties she acquired during the marriage and to recover them from him. Roberto moved to dismiss the petition on the ground that the marriage being void ab initio, the petition of declaration of nullity is unnecessary. It added that private respondent has no property which in his possession. Issue: Whether or not respondent may claim for the declaration of nullity of marriage and separation of property against petitioner on the ground of bigamy. Ruling: There is no question that the marriage of petitioner and private respondent celebrated while the former's previous marriage with one Emerlina de la Paz was still subsisting is bigamous. As such, it is from the beginning. Petitioner himself does not dispute the absolute nullity of their marriage. The Court had ruled that no judicial decree is necessary to establish the invalidity of a void, bigamous marriage. The Family Code has clearly provided the effects of the declaration of nullity of marriage, one of which is the separation of property according to the regime of property relations governing them. It stands to reason that the lower court before whom the issue of nullity of a first marriage is brought is likewise clothed with jurisdiction to decide the incidental questions regarding the couple's properties.