REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES vs.

CIPRIANO ORBECIDO III The Court ruled that Paragraph 2 of Article 26 of the Family Code should be
G.R. No.154881,         October 5, 2005 interpreted to allow a Filipino citizen who has been divorced by a spouse who
had acquired foreign citizenship and remarried, also to remarry. However,
Facts: considering that in the present petition there is no
sufficient evidence submitted and on record, the Court is unable to declare,
On May 24, 1981, Cipriano Orbecido III married Lady Myros M. Villanueva at
based on respondent’s bare allegations that his wife, who was naturalized as
the United Church of Christ in the Philippines in Lam-an, Ozamis City. Their
an American citizen, had obtained a divorce decree and had remarried an
marriage was blessed with a son and a daughter, Kristoffer Simbortriz V.
American, that respondent is now capacitated to remarry. Such declaration
Orbecido and LadyKimberly V. Orbecido.
could only be made properly upon respondent’s submission of the
aforecited evidence in his favor.
In 1986, Cipriano’s wife left for the United States bringing along their son,
Kristoffer. A few years later, Cipriano discovered that his wife had been
naturalized as anAmerican citizen.

Sometime in 2000, Cipriano learned from his son that his wife had obtained
adivorce decree and then married a certain Innocent Stanley. The respondent
thereafter filed with the trial court a petition for authority to remarry invoking
Paragraph 2 of Article 26 of the Family Code.

Issue:

Whether or not respondent can remarry under Article 26 of the Family Code.

Ruling:

The Filipino spouse should likewise be allowed to remarry as if the other party
were a foreigner at the time of the solemnization of the marriage. To rule
otherwise would be to sanction absurdity and injustice.

The reckoning point is not the citizenship of the parties at the time of the
celebration of the marriage, but their citizenship at the time a valid divorce is
obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating the latter to remarry.
RULE 108; CASE #8 annotation to the Office of the Administrator and Civil Registrar General in
the National Statistics Office (NSO).
FUJIKI VS. MARINAY
GR No. 196049  The RTC dismissed the petition. It based its dismissal on Section
June 26, 2013 5(4) of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC which provides that "[f]ailure to comply
with any of the preceding requirements may be a ground for immediate
CARPIO, J.: dismissal of the petition." Apparently, the RTC took the view that only
"the husband or the wife," in this case either Maekara or Marinay, can file
FACTS: the petition to declare their marriage void, and not Fujiki.

 Fujiki was a Japanese national who married respondent in the  Fujiki moved that the Order be reconsidered. He argued that A.M.
Philippines. No. 02-11-10-SC contemplated ordinary civil actions for declaration of
nullity and annulment of marriage. Thus, A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC does not
 The marriage did not sit well with petitioner’s parents. Thus, Fujiki apply. A petition for recognition of foreign judgment is a special
could not bring his wife to Japan where he resides. Eventually, they lost proceeding, which "seeks to establish a status, a right or a particular
contact with each other. fact," and not a civil action which is "for the enforcement or protection of
a right, or the prevention or redress of a wrong."
 Marinay met another Japanese, Maekara. Without the 1 st marriage
being dissolved, Marinay and Maekara were married in Quezon City,  Fujiki argued that Rule 108 (Cancellation or Correction of Entries in
Philippines. Maekara brought Marinay to Japan. However, Marinay the Civil Registry) of the Rules of Court is applicable. Section 2 of Rule
allegedly suffered physical abuse from Maekara. She left Maekara and 108 provides that entries in the civil registry relating to "marriages,"
"judgments of annulments of marriage" and "judgments declaring
started to contact Fujiki.
marriages void from the beginning" are subject to cancellation or
correction. The petition in the RTC sought (among others) to annotate the
 Fujiki and Marinay met in Japan and they were able to reestablish judgment of the Japanese Family Court on the certificate of marriage
their relationship. between Marinay and Maekara.

 Fujiki helped Marinay obtain a judgment from a family court in ISSUES:

Japan which declared the marriage between Marinay and Maekara void on (1)W/N a husband or wife of a prior marriage can file a petition to
the ground of bigamy. recognize a foreign judgment nullifying the subsequent marriage
between his or her spouse and a foreign citizen on the ground of
 Fujiki filed a petition in the RTC entitled: “Judicial Recognition of bigamy.
Foreign Judgment (or Decree of Absolute Nullity of Marriage).” Fujiki
prayed (among others) for the RTC to direct the Local Civil Registrar of (2)W/N the RTC can recognize the foreign judgment in a proceeding
Quezon City to annotate the Japanese Family Court judgment on the for cancellation or correction of entries in the Civil Registry under
Certificate of Marriage between Marinay and Maekara and to endorse such Rule 108 of the Rules of Court.
 foreign country. Neither can R.A. No. 8369 (Family Courts Act of 1997)
HELD: define the jurisdiction of the foreign court.
(1) YES. Since the recognition of a foreign judgment only requires proof of
fact of the judgment, it may be made in a special proceeding for
cancellation or correction of entries in the civil registry under Rule 108 of
the Rules of Court. Rule 1, Section 3 of the Rules of Court provides that
"[a] special proceeding is a remedy by which a party seeks to establish a
status, a right, or a particular fact." Rule 108 creates a remedy to rectify
facts of a person’s life which are recorded by the State pursuant to the
Civil Register Law or Act No. 3753. These are facts of public consequence
such as birth, death or marriage, which the State has an interest in
recording.

Rule 108, Section 1 of the Rules of Court states:

Sec. 1. Who may file petition. — Any person interested in any act,

event, order or decree concerning thecivil status of persons
which has been recorded in the civil register, may file a verified
petition for the cancellation or correction of any entry relating thereto,
with the Regional Trial Court of the province where the corresponding
civil registry is located.

Fujiki has the personality to file a petition to recognize the Japanese

Family Court judgment nullifying the marriage between Marinay and
Maekara on the ground of bigamy because the judgment concerns his civil
status as married to Marinay. For the same reason he has the personality
to file a petition under Rule 108 to cancel the entry of marriage between
Marinay and Maekara in the civil registry on the basis of the decree of the
Japanese Family Court.

(2) YES. A recognition of a foreign judgment is not an action to nullify a

marriage. It is an action for Philippine courts to recognize the effectivity of
a foreign judgment, which presupposes a case which was already
tried and decided under foreign law. The procedure in A.M. No. 02-
11-10-SC does not apply in a petition to recognize a foreign judgment
annulling a bigamous marriage where one of the parties is a citizen of the
Manzano v. Sanchez The solemnizing officer shall also state under oath that he ascertained the
qualifications of the contracting parties and found no legal impediment to the
A.M. No. MTJ-00- 1329, 8 March 2001 marriage.
FACTS:
Petitioner was a former Filipino citizen who acquired Canadian citizenship through For this provision on legal ratification of marital cohabitation to apply, the following
naturalization. requisites must concur:

He was married to the respondent but was shocked of the infidelity on the part of his 1. The man and woman must have been living together as husband and wife for
wife. at least five years before the marriage;

He went back to Canada and filed a petition for divorce and was granted. Desirous to 2. The parties must have no legal impediment to marry each other;
marry another woman he now loved, he registered the divorce decree in the Civil
Registry Office and was informed that the foreign decree must first be judicially 3. The fact of absence of legal impediment between the parties must be present
recognized by a competent Philippine court. at the time of marriage;

Petitioner filed for judicial recognition of foreign divorce and declaration of marriage 4. The parties must execute an affidavit stating that they have lived together for
as dissolved with the RTC where respondent failed to submit any response. at least five years [and are without legal impediment to marry each other];
and
The RTC denied the petition on the basis that the petitioner lacked locus standi.
Thus, this case was filed before the Court. 5. The solemnizing officer must execute a sworn statement that he had
ascertained the qualifications of the parties and that he had found no legal
ISSUE: impediment to their marriage.
WON the second paragraph of Art 26 of the FC extends to aliens the right to petition
a court of this jurisdiction from the recognition of a foreign divorce decree. Not all of these requirements are present in the case at bar. Making the decision of
the solemnizing officer questionable.
RULING:
No. Among the requisites of Article 34 is that parties must have no legal impediment to
marry each other.
Not all of the requirements are met by the couple making the said marriage null and
void. Considering that both parties has a subsisting marriage, as indicated in their
marriage contract that they are both “separated” is an impediment that would make
Article 34 of the Family Code provides: their subsequent marriage null and void.

No license shall be necessary for the marriage of a man and a woman who have Just like separation, free and voluntary cohabitation with another person for at least 5
lived together as husband and wife for at least five years and without any legal years does not severe the tie of a subsisting previous marriage.
impediment to marry each other.
Clearly, respondent Judge Sanchez demonstrated gross ignorance of the law when
The contracting parties shall state the foregoing facts in an affidavit before any he solemnized a void and bigamous marriage.
person authorized by law to administer oaths.
 CHI MING TSOI V. CA AND GINA LAO-TSOI (CASE DIGEST) clearly demonstrates an ‘utter insensitivity or inability to give meaning and
significance to the marriage’ within the meaning of Article 36 of the Family Code.

FACTS: Petitioner further contends that respondent court erred in holding that the alleged
refusal of both the petitioner and the private respondent to have sex with each other
constitutes psychological incapacity of both. However, neither the trial court nor the
On 22 May 1988, plaintiff and the defendant got married. Although they slept in the respondent court made a finding on who between petitioner and private respondent
same bed since May 22, 1988 until March 15, 1989, no sexual intercourse took refuses to have sexual contact with the other. But the fact remains that there has
place. Because of this, they submitted themselves for medical examinations. She never been coitus between them. At any rate, since the action to declare the
was found healthy, normal and still a virgin. Her husband’s examination was kept marriage void may be filed by either party,  the question of who refuses to have sex
confidential. with the other becomes immaterial.

The plaintiff claims, that the defendant is impotent, a closet homosexual, and that the One of the essential marital obligations under the Family Code is “to procreate
defendant married her, a Filipino citizen, to acquire or maintain his residency status children based on the universal principle that procreation of children through sexual
here in the country and to publicly maintain the appearance of a normal man. The cooperation is the basic end of marriage.” In the case at bar, the senseless and
plaintiff is not willing to reconcile with her husband. protracted refusal of one of the parties to fulfil the above marital obligation is
equivalent to psychological incapacity.
The defendant claims that should the marriage be annulled, it is his wife’s fault. He
claims no defect on his part, as he was found not to be impotent, and any differences The petition is DENIED.
between the two of them can still be reconciled. He admitted that they have not had
intercourse since their marriage until their separation because his wife avoided him.
He added that his wife filed this case against him because she is afraid that she will
be forced to return the pieces of jewellery of his mother, and, that the defendant, will
consummate their marriage.

The trial court declared the marriage void. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed
the trial court’s decision.

Hence, the instant petition.

ISSUE:
W/N petitioner is psychologically incapacitated?

RULING:

Yes. Senseless and protracted refusal to consummate the marriage is equivalent to

psychological incapacity.

Appellant admitted that he did not have sexual relations with his wife after almost ten
months of cohabitation, and it appears that he is not suffering from any physical
disability. Such abnormal reluctance or unwillingness to consummate his marriage is
strongly indicative of a serious personality disorder which to the mind of the Court
 Republic v. Molina, G.R. No. 108763 February 13, 1997 Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals denied the appeals and affirmed in toto the
RTC’s decision. Hence, this petition.

FACTS:

Roridel and Reynaldo were married on April 14, 1985 and begot a son. After a year ISSUE:
of marriage, Reynaldo showed signs of "immaturity and irresponsibility" as a W/N psychological incapacity on the part of Reynaldo has been established
husband and a father since

1) he preferred to spend more time with his peers and friends on whom he
squandered his money; HELD:
2) he depended on his parents for aid and assistance; and The marriage between Roridel and Reynaldo subsists and remains valid.  What
constitutes psychological incapacity is not mere showing of irreconcilable differences
3) he was never honest with his wife in regard to their finances, resulting in and conflicting personalities. 
frequent quarrels between them.
It is indispensable that the parties must exhibit inclinations which would not meet the
When Reynaldo was relieved from his job, Roridel had been the sole breadwinner of essential marital responsibilities and duties due to some psychological illness. 
the family. Reynaldo’s action at the time of the marriage did not manifest such characteristics
In October 1986 the couple had a very intense quarrel, as a result of which their that would comprise grounds for psychological incapacity. 
relationship was estranged. In March 1987, Roridel resigned from her job in Manila The evidence shown by Roridel merely showed that she and her husband cannot get
and went to live with her parents in Baguio City. along with each other and had not shown gravity of the problem neither its juridical
A few weeks later, Reynaldo left Roridel and their child, and had since then antecedence nor its incurability.  In addition, the expert testimony by Dr Sison
abandoned them. Reynaldo admitted that he and Roridel could no longer live showed no incurable psychiatric disorder but only incompatibility which is not
together as husband and wife, but contended that their misunderstandings and considered as psychological incapacity.
frequent quarrels were due to 8 Guidelines (Psychological Incapacity)
(1) Roridel's strange behavior of insisting on maintaining her group of friends 1. The burden of proof to show the nullity of the marriage belongs to the plaintiff.
even after their marriage;
2. The root cause of the psychological incapacity must be (a) medically or clinically
(2) Roridel's refusal to perform some of her marital duties such as cooking identified, (b) alleged in the complaint, (c) sufficiently proven by experts and (d)
meals; and clearly explained in the decision.
(3) Roridel's failure to run the household and handle their finances. 3. The incapacity must be proven to be existing at "the time of the celebration" of the
On 16 August 1990, Roridel filed a petition for declaration of nullity of her marriage to marriage.
Reynaldo Molina. Evidence for Roridel consisted of her own testimony, that of two of 4. Such incapacity must also be shown to be medically or clinically permanent or
her friends, a social worker, and a psychiatrist of the Baguio General Hospital and incurable
Medical Center.
5. Such illness must be grave enough to bring about the disability of the party to
Reynaldo did not present any evidence as he appeared only during the pre-trial assume the essential obligations of marriage.
conference. RTC declared the marriage void. The Solicitor General appealed to the
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.
CARATING-SIAYNGCO vs. SIAYNGCO Neither is there any showing that these “defects” were already present at the
G.R. NO. 158896. October 27, 2004 inception of the marriage or that they are incurable. In fact, the psychiatrist reported
that petitioner was psychologically capacitated to comply with the basic and essential
FACTS: obligations of marriage.
Petitioner Juanita and respondent Manuel were married at civil rites on 27 June 1973
and before the Catholic Church on August 11 1973. After discovering that they could The Court of Appeals committed reversible error in holding that respondent Manuel
not have a child of their own, the couple decided to adopt a baby boy in 1977, who is psychologically incapacitated. The psychological report of Dr. Garcia, which is
they named Jeremy. respondent Manuel’s own evidence, contains candid admissions of petitioner
Juanita, the person in the best position to gauge whether or not her husband fulfilled
On 25 September 1997, or after twenty-four (24) years of married life together, the essential marital obligations of marriage.
respondent Manuel filed for the declaration of its nullity on the ground of
psychological incapacity of petitioner Juanita. He alleged that all throughout their Sexual infidelity, per se, however, does not constitute psychological incapacity within
marriage, his wife exhibited an over domineering and selfish attitude towards him. the contemplation of the Family Code. It must be shown that respondent Manuel’s
unfaithfulness is a manifestation of a disordered personality, which makes him
In her Answer, petitioner Juanita alleged that respondent Manuel is still living with completely unable to discharge the essential obligations of the marital state and not
her at their conjugal home in Malolos, Bulacan; that he invented malicious stories merely due to his ardent wish to have a child of his own flesh and blood. In herein
against her so that he could be free to marry his paramour. The trial court denied case, respondent Manuel has admitted that: "I had [extra-marital] affairs because I
respondent Manuel’s petition for declaration of nullity of his marriage to petitioner wanted to have a child at that particular point
Juanita.
The psychological report of respondent Manuel’s witness, Dr. Garcia, showed that
The Court of Appeals reversed the RTC decision, relying mainly on the psychiatric the root cause of petitioner Juanita’s behavior is traceable – not from the inception of
evaluation of Dr. Garcia finding both Manuel and Juanita psychologically their marriage as required by law – but from her experiences during the marriage,
incapacitated. Hence, this petition for review on certiorari of the decision of the Court e.g., her in-laws’ disapproval of her as they wanted their son to enter the priesthood,
of Appeals. her husband’s philandering, admitted no less by him, and her inability to conceive.

ISSUE: Thus, from the totality of the evidence adduced by both parties, we have been
Whether or not the totality of evidence presented is enough to sustain a finding of allowed a window into the Siayngcos’s life and have perceived therefrom a simple
psychological incapacity against petitioner Juanita and/or respondent Manuel. case of a married couple drifting apart, becoming strangers to each other, with the
husband consequently falling out of love and wanting a way out.
HELD:
The petition for review is hereby granted. An unsatisfactory marriage, however, is not a null and void marriage. Mere showing
of “irreconcilable differences” and “conflicting personalities” in no wise constitutes
The presumption is always in favor of the validity of marriage. Semper praesumitur psychological incapacity.
pro matrimonio.

In the case at bar, respondent Manuel failed to prove that his wife’s lack of respect
for him, her jealousies and obsession with cleanliness, her outbursts and her
controlling nature, and her inability to endear herself to his parents are grave
psychological maladies that paralyze her from complying with the essential
obligations of marriage.
REPUBLIC V. QUINTERO-HAMANO Toshio’s act of abandonment was doubtlessly irresponsible but it was never alleged
nor proven to be due to some kind of psychological illness.
G.R. No. 149498, 20 May 2004
2) YES. In proving psychological incapacity, no distinction must be made between an
alien spouse and a Filipino spouse. The medical and clinical rules to determine
FACTS:
psychological incapacity were formulated on the basis of studies of human behavior
in general. Hence, the norms used for determining psychological incapacity should
Toshio Hamano, a Japanese national, left respondent Lolita Hamano and their apply to any person regardless of nationality.
daughter a month after the celebration of the marriage, and returned to Japan with
the promise to support his family and take steps to make them Japanese citizens.
In proving psychological incapacity, no distinction must be made between an alien
But except for 2 months, he never sent any support to nor communicated with them
spouse and a Filipino spouse. The Court cannot be lenient in the application of the
despite the letters the respondent sent. He even visited the Philippines but did not
rules merely because the spouse alleged to be psychologically incapacitated
bother to see them. Respondent, on the other hand, exerted all efforts to contact
happens to be a foreign national. The medical and clinical rules to determine
him, but to no avail.
psychological incapacity were formulated on the basis of studies of human behavior
in general.
Respondent filed a complaint for declaration of nullity of their marriage on the ground
of psychological incapacity, in which the trial court rendered it so.
Hence, the norms used for determining psychological incapacity should apply to any
person regardless of nationality.
CA affirmed trial court’s decision contesting before the SC that the requirements in
Molina and Santos were not applicable for the case at bar involves a “mixed
marriage,” the husband being a Japanese national.

ISSUES:

1) WON Toshio is psychologically incapacitated.

2) WON requirements in Molina and Santos applicable in mixed marriages.

RULING:

1) NO. The totality of evidence presented fell short of proving that Toshio was
psychologically incapacitated to assume his marital responsibilities. His act of
abandonment was doubtlessly irresponsible but it was never alleged nor proven to
be due to some kind of psychological illness.

As the Court ruled in Molina, it is not enough to prove that a spouse failed to meet
his responsibility and duty as a married person; it is essential that he must be shown
to be incapable of doing so due to some psychological, not physical, illness. There
was no proof of a natal or supervening disabling factor in the person, an adverse
integral element in the personality structure that effectively incapacitates a person
from accepting and complying with the obligations essential to marriage.
 G.R. No. 112019 January 4, 1995 DECISION:
LEOUEL SANTOS, petitioner,  vs.THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS AND No; Julia is not pschologically incapacitated, which would render her marriage with
JULIA ROSARIO BEDIA-SANTOS, respondents. Leouel void since the alleged incapacity did not pass the tests of gravity, juridical
antecedence and incurability.
FACTS: Petitioner Leouel, a First Lieutenant in the Philippine Army, met Julia in
Iloilo. The two got married in 1986, begot a son and lived with Julia’s parents. The Psychological incapacity must be characterized by (a) gravity, (b) juridical
spouses occasionally quarrel over a number of things aside from the interference of antecedence, and (c) incurability. The incapacity must be grave or serious such that
Julia’s parents into their family affairs. 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 if it were otherwise, the cure would be beyond the means of the party
In 1988, Julia left to work in US as a nurse despite Leouel’s pleas to dissuade
involved.
her. Seven months after her departure, she called her husband and promised to
return home upon the expiration of her contract in July 1989, but she never did. "Psychological incapacity" should refer to no less than a mental (not physical)
Leouel got a chance to visit US where he underwent a training program under AFP, incapacity that causes a party to be truly incognitive of the basic marital covenants
he desperately tried to locate or somehow get in touch with Julia but all his efforts that concomitantly must be assumed and discharged by the parties to the marriage
were of no avail. 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
Leouel filed a complaint with the RTC to have their marriage declared void
support. This pschologic condition must exist at the time the marriage is celebrated.
under Article 36 of the Family Code. He argued that failure of Julia to return home or
to communicate with him for more than 5 years are circumstances that show her
The factual settings in the case at bench, in no measure at all, can come
being psychologically incapacitated to enter into married life.
close to the standards required to decree a nullity of marriage.Undeniably and
Julia, in her answer, opposed the complaint and denied its allegations, understandably, Leouel stands aggrieved, even desperate, in his present situation.
claiming that it was the Leouel who had, in fact, been irresponsible and incompetent. Regrettably, neither law nor society itself can always provide all the specific answers
to every individual problem. Wherefore, his petition was denied.
RTC dismissed the complaint for lack of merit. On appeal, CA affirmed RTC.

ISSUE:
WON Julia is psychologically incapacitated, which would render her marriage with
Leouel void.

LAW:

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
 Brenda B. Marcos v. Wilson Marcos HELD: The court ruled the negative.
G.R. No. 13649, Oct. 19, 2000
RATIONALE: The totality of the respondent’s acts does not lead to a
3rd Division
conclusion of psychological incapacity on his part. There is absolutely no
FACTS: Petitioner Brenda Marcos and Respondent Wilson Marcos were
showing that his “defects” were already present at the inception of the
married twice and had five children.
marriage or that they are incurable.

After the downfall of President Marcos, the respondent left the military service Article 36 of the Family Code is not to be confused with a divorce law that
in 1987. cuts the marital bond at the time the causes therefore manifest themselves. It
refers to a serious psychological illness afflicting a party even before the
Consequently, due to the respondent’s failure to engage in any gainful celebration of the marriage. It is a malady so grave and so permanent as to
employment, they would often quarrel and the respondent would hit and beat deprive one of awareness of the duties and responsibilities of the matrimonial
the petitioner. bond one is about to assume.

POLICY: Psychological incapacity, as a ground for declaring the nullity of

As a result, in 1992 they were already living separately. Thus, petitioner filed
marriage, may be established by the totality of evidence presented. There is
for annulment of marriage assailing Art. 36 of the Family Code. The court a
no requirement, however that the respondent should be examined by a
quo found the respondent to be psychologically incapacitated to perform his
physician or a psychologist as a condition sine qua non for such declaration.
marital obligations.

However, the Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the RTC because
psychological incapacity had not been established by the totality of the
evidence presented.

ISSUE: Whether or not Respondent Wilson Marcos’ failure to find work to

support his family and his violent attitude towards Petitioner Brenda Marcos
and their children constituted psychological incapacity.
 Jose Reynaldo B. Ochosa, petitioner vs
Bona J. Alano and Republic of the Philippines, respondents
G.R. No. 167459, January 26, 2011 Ruling:
No. There is inadequate credible evidence that her defects were already present at
Facts: the inception of, or prior to, the marriage. Bona’s alleged psychological incapacity did
Bona’s illicit affairs with other men started at the onset of their marriage on October not satisfy the jurisprudential requisite of “juridical antecedence”. Her persistent
27, 1973, when Jose was assigned in various parts of the country as an officer in the sexual infidelity and abandonment are not badges of psychological incapacity nor
AFP. She continued her infidelity even when they lived together at Fort Bonifacio, can’t it be traced to the inception of their marriage.
Makati City sometime in 1985, whenever Jose was out of their living quarters.
The psychiatrist’s conclusion about Bona’s HPD which made her prone to
In 1987, Jose was incarcerated in Camp Crame for rebellion for the alleged promiscuity and sexual infidelity existed before her marriage to Jose, cannot be
participation of the failed coup d’etat. He heard circulation of rumors of Bona getting taken as credible proof of antecedence since the method by which such an inference
caught having sex with his driver, Corporal Gagarin. was reached leaves much to be desired in terms of meeting the standard of evidence
required in determining psychological incapacity.
He got a military pass from his jail warden and confronted Bona about the rumors,
which she and Gagarin admitted. Since then they were separated, and their Dr. Rondain’s conclusion was based solely on the assumed truthful knowledge of
foundling, Ramona Celeste, stayed with Bona in Basilan until 1994 to live with Jose. Jose. No other witness testified to Bona’s family history or her behavior prior to or at
the beginning of their marriage. The two witnesses only started to live with them in
Jose Reynaldo B. Ochosa filed a Petition for the declaration of nullity of marriage 1980 and 1986, respectively.
between him and Bona J. Alano, based on the ground of the latter’s psychological
incapacity to fulfill the essential marital obligations of marriage. Verily, Dr. Rondain evaluated Bona’s psychological condition directly from the
information gathered solely from Jose and his witnesses. These factual
Elizabeth E. Rondain, a psychiatrist, one of the witnesses, testified and submitted a circumstances evoke the possibility that the information fed to the psychiatrists is
psychological evaluation report on Bona’s mental state. The interviews she had with tainted with bias for Jose’s cause, in the absence of sufficient corroboration.
Jose and two of his witnesses brought her to the conclusion that respondent was
suffering from histrionic personality disorder, and it was traceable to her family Article 36 of the Family Code is not to be confused with a divorce law that cuts the
history. marital bond at the time the causes therefore manifest themselves. It refers to a
serious psychological illness afflicting a party even before the celebration of the
On January 11, 1999, the dispositive portion of the trial court declared the marriage marriage. It is a malady so grave and so permanent as to deprive one of awareness
of Jose and Bona void ab initio on the ground of psychological incapacity of the of the duties and responsibilities of the matrimonial bond one is about to assume.
respondent under Article 36 of the Family Code. The Court finds that Bona’s illness These marital obligations are those provided under Article 68 to 71, 220, 221 and
exhibited gravity, antecedence, and incurability. 225 of the Family Code.

OSG appealed the said ruling to the CA, and the CA subsequently granted the
appeal and reversed the ruling of the trial court decision.

Issue:
Whether or not Bona should be deemed psychologically incapacitated to comply with
the essential marital obligations.
Republic v Tionglico ISSUE:

Respondent Katrina S. Tabora-Tionglico (Katrina) filed a petition for declaration of Whether the totality of evidence presented by Katrina supports the findings of both
nullity of her marriage with Lawrence C. Tionglico (Lawrence) on the ground of the RTC and the CA that Lawrence is psychologically incapacitated to perform his
psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code. She alleged that during essential marital obligations, meriting the dissolution of his marriage with Katrina.
the early stage of their marriage, it was marred by bickering and quarrels. As early as
their honeymoon, they were fighting so much that they went their separate ways SC:
most of the time. Lawrence was distant and did not help in rearing their child, saying No.
he knew nothing about children and how to run a family. Lawrence spent almost
every night out for late dinners, parties and drinking sprees. Katrina noticed that "Psychological incapacity" has been intended by law to be confined to the most
Lawrence was alarmingly dependent on his mother and suffered from a very high serious cases of personality disorders clearly demonstrative of an utter insensitivity
degree of immaturity. Lawrence would repeatedly taunt Katrina to fight with him and or inability to give meaning and significance to the marriage. Psychological
they lost all intimacy between them as he insisted to have a maid sleep in their incapacity must be characterized by (a) gravity, i.e., it must be grave and serious
bedroom every night to see to the needs of Lanz. Due to their incessant fighting, such that the party would be incapable of carrying out the ordinary duties required in
Lawrence asked Katrina to leave his parents' home and never to come back. They a marriage, (b) juridical antecedence, i.e., it must be rooted in the history of the party
have been separated in fact since then. antedating the marriage, although the overt manifestations may emerge only after
the marriage, and (c) incurability, i.e., it must be incurable, or even if it were
Katrina consulted with a psychiatrist, Dr. Arellano, who confirmed her beliefs on otherwise, the cure would be beyond the means of the party involved.
Lawrence's psychological incapacity. Dr. Arellano, based on the narrations of
Katrina, diagnosed Lawrence with Narcissistic Personality Disorder, that is The Republic v. CA, has set out the guidelines that has been the core of discussion
characterized by a heightened sense of self-importance and grandiose feelings that of practically all declaration of nullity of marriage on the basis of psychological
he is unique in some way. He also determined that this personality disorder is incapacity:
permanent, incurable, and deeply integrated within his psyche; and that it was
present but repressed at the time of the celebration of the marriage and the onset 1. The burden of proof to show the nullity of the marriage belongs to the plaintiff.
was in early adulthood. His maladaptive and irresponsible behaviors interfered in his Any doubt should be resolved in favor of the existence and continuation of
the marriage and against its dissolution and nullity;
capacity to provide mutual love, fidelity, respect, mutual help, and support to his wife. 2. The root cause of the psychological incapacity must be:
a. medically or clinically identified,
The RTC granted the petition and declared the marriage of Katrina and Lawrence as
b. alleged in the complaint,
void ab initio. This was affirmed by the CA. The OSG, before the Supreme Court, c. sufficiently proven by experts and
pointed out that there has been a myriad of cases declaring that psychological d. clearly explained in the decision;
assessment based solely on the information coming from either party in a petition for 3. The incapacity must be proven to be existing at "the time of the celebration"
declaration of nullity of marriage is considered as hearsay evidence. It is evident that of the marriage;
in this case, the psychiatrist obtained his data, in concluding that Lawrence is 4. Such incapacity must also be shown to be medically or clinically permanent
psychologically incapacitated, exclusively from Katrina. 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 obligations that characterize some marriages. It is not enough to prove that a spouse
Catholic Church in the Philippines, while not controlling or decisive, should be failed to meet his responsibility and duty as a married person; it is essential that he
given great respect by our courts; must be shown to be incapable of doing so due to some psychological illness. The
8. The trial court must order the prosecuting attorney or fiscal and the Solicitor psychological illness that must afflict a party at the inception of the marriage should
General to appear as counsel for the state. No decision shall be handed
down unless the Solicitor General issues a certification, which will be quoted be a malady so grave and permanent as to deprive the party of his or her awareness
in the decision, briefly stating therein his reasons for his agreement or of the duties and responsibilities of the matrimonial bond he or she was then about to
opposition, as the case may be, to the petition. assume.

Using these standards, Katrina failed to sufficiently prove that Lawrence is

psychologically incapacitated to discharge the duties expected of a husband.

First, Dr. Arellano's findings that Lawrence is psychologically incapacitated were

based solely on Katrina's statements. It bears to stress that Lawrence, despite
notice, did not participate in the proceedings below, nor was he interviewed by Dr.
Arellano despite being invited to do so.

In Rowena Padilla-Rumbaua v. Edward Rumbaua, it was declared that ‘to make

conclusions and generalizations on the respondent's psychological condition based
on the information fed by only one side is, to our mind, not different from admitting
hearsay evidence as proof of the truthfulness of the content of such evidence.’

The various tests conducted by Dr. Arellano can most certainly be conclusive of the
psychological disposition of Katrina, but cannot be said to be indicative of the
psychological condition of Lawrence. There was simply no other basis for Dr.
Arellano to conclude that Lawrence was psychologically incapacitated to perform his
essential marital obligations apart from Katrina's self-serving statements. To make
conclusions and generalizations on a spouse's psychological condition based on the
information fed by only one side, as in the case at bar, is, to the Court's mind, not
different from admitting hearsay evidence as proof of the truthfulness of the content
of such evidence.

Second, the testimony of Katrina as regards the behavior of Lawrence hardly depicts
the picture of a psychologically incapacitated husband. Their frequent fights, his
insensitivity, immaturity and frequent night-outs can hardly be said to be a
psychological illness. These acts, in our view, do not rise to the level of the
"psychological incapacity" that the law requires, and should be distinguished from the
"difficulty," if not outright "refusal" or "neglect" in the performance of some marital