SECOND DIVISION

[ G.R. No. 203992. August 22, 2022 ]

ANTONIO S. QUIOGUE, JR., PETITIONER, VS. MARIA BEL B. QUIOGUE AND THE
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENTS.

DECISION

LOPEZ, M., J.:

Love will always flow through our lives in this inconsistent, unknowable way, and we
cannot press pause on the joyful bits, nor fast-forward the suffering. [1] Yet, in marriage,
the reality is that a person may be truly psychologically incapable for the other [2] and it is
best to sever the relationship as there is no point in trying to restore what is broken to
begin with.

The Court resolves this Petition for Review on Certiorari[3] under Rule 45 of the Rules of
Court, assailing the Decision[4] dated May 22, 2012 and Resolution [5] dated October 3,
2012 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 93554, which dismissed the
Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage filed by petitioner Antonio S. Quiogue, Jr.

ANTECEDENTS

In his Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage, Civil Case No. Q-02-46137, filed
before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 88, Quezon City, petitioner Antonio S. Quiogue,
Jr. (Antonio) alleged that he and his wife, respondent Maria Bel B. Quiogue (Maribel),
were married on October 16, 1980. They have four children: Marie Antonette, Jose
Antonio, Anabel, and Maritoni. They have been separated in fact since the year 1998
after Maribel drove him out of the conjugal home. He was forced to temporarily stay in
his office in the family-owned Nacional Memorial Homes. He went home to ask his wife
for reconciliation for the sake of their children, but his efforts failed. He now stays at
407-A Valencia Hills Condominium in Quezon City. Antonio claimed that he and Maribel
are both psychologically incapacitated to comply with the basic marital obligations. They
did not observe mutual love and respect and also failed to provide the necessary
emotional, psychological, and moral support for each other.[6]
In her Answer, Maribel denied the allegations in the Petition. She did not drive Antonio
out of their home because he voluntarily left their conjugal dwelling to pursue his
womanizing and perennial nocturnal gambling. Maribel stated that Antonio would only
come home in the wee hours of the morning only to leave again. He stayed in his office
for a month during their separation and came back. Thereafter, he would often come
home from work drunk and violent. There were even times when he would threaten and
harass Maribel. Antonio was verbally abusive to the extent of humiliating her in front of
their children and neighbors.[7]
Upon referral to the public prosecutor, a report was submitted indicating that no
collusion existed between the parties to the petition. In the pre-trial, the parties were
given a cooling-off period but the attempts for reconciliation failed.[8]
During trial, Antonio testified that his wife Maribel did not love and respect him. She has
no ability to maintain a peaceful married and family life because she is ill-tempered,
tactless, irritable, and confrontational. She has no respect for him as she divulged
vulgar and demeaning matters about him even to his office staff. She often called his
office and shouted at his employees if she could not get information about his
whereabouts. His wife would find ways to embarrass him. Although Antonio admitted
that he had "flings" with other women during their marriage, his wife made the situation
more difficult as she was constantly nagging about it. There was a time that he tried to
avoid philandering but instead of supporting him, his wife pasted pictures of the woman
everywhere inside their house. Aside from sending obscene fax messages to his office,
Maribel also used their children to bring him unsealed letters which contain brutal and
insulting words.[9] He left the conjugal home in 1998. In the year 2000, the Makati RTC
granted their petition for separation of properties. He filed the present Petition for
declaration of nullity of marriage a year later in 2001.[10]
The next witness Gemarie Martin (Gemarie), office staff in the Nacional Memorial
Homes, corroborated Antonio's account. Gemarie testified that Maribel would call their
office and ask questions about Antonio's womanizing. She was even confronted by
Maribel regarding the unidentified numbers appearing on the phone bills and often
inquired on Antonio's whereabouts. She also witnessed the incidents wherein Antonio
would sleep in one of the empty rooms in the memorial chapel after being evicted by his
wife from their home. On the following day, Maribel sent over Antonio's clothes through
the driver. In addition, Gemarie confirmed that Maribel sent vulgar fax messages to
Antonio which were seen by everyone in the office.[11]
The last witness for petitioner is the psychiatrist Dr. Valentina Del Fonso Garcia (Dr.
Garcia). She conducted a mental status assessment and clinical psychiatric interviews
with Antonio and their eldest daughter, Marie Antonette. Dr. Garcia likewise interviewed
Maribel in several sessions when the latter brought their second daughter Anabel for
consultation and treatment of her depression. In a Psychiatric Evaluation [12] dated
October 29, 2001, Dr. Garcia recommended that the marital nullification be strongly
considered by the court on the ground of psychological incapacity of the spouses.[13]
For her part, Maribel disagreed with the evaluation of Dr. Garcia. First, she clarified that
she submitted herself to be interviewed only because their daughter Anabel was being
treated by Dr. Garcia for depression with suicidal ruminations. She alleged that her
disclosures to Dr. Garcia about their family life were taken out of context when her
statements were used in relation to this case. Next, she denied being a suspicious wife
as she seldom visits Antonio's office. She thought that their marriage was stable until
she found out about Antonio's affairs with other women through anonymous calls and
letters. One woman was the telephone operator, while the others were the branch
manager of the bank, a "GRO", and a certain Ynes Gamila (Ynes), who was first
introduced by her husband as his cousin. Their children, later on, told her that Ynes
moved in with Antonio and they would often see that their actions had sexual
implications.[14]
The spouses' eldest daughter Marie Antonette was also presented on the witness stand.
She testified that she knew about the girlfriends of her father. She saw the pain caused
by her father's illicit relations to her mother. She understood the situation and tried to
look on the positive side. She knew Ynes who was initially introduced by her father as
his cousin. Ynes would frequently visit their condominium unit in Quezon City.
Subsequently, Ynes would sleep over, and join them in out-of-town trips, Sunday
masses, and even during family gatherings. At present, her father lives in the
condominium with her siblings Anabel and Jose Antonio, together with Ynes and the
latter's son.[15]
RTC DECISION

In its Decision[16] dated May 8, 2008, the RTC found sufficient grounds to declare the
marriage between petitioner and Maribel void. The RTC held that both parties are
psychologically incapacitated to perform their marital obligations of living together,
observing mutual love, respect, and fidelity, and rendering mutual help and support. [17]
Dr. Garcia found that although Antonio frowned upon the multiple women conquest of
his own father, he succumbed to his "narcissistic and histrionic" personality disorder. He
had no qualms in admitting his "flings" despite knowing its devastating effects on his
wife and children. His extra-marital affairs are manifestations of ego gratification
because he finds pleasure and thrill in pursuing illicit relationships. Maribel, on the other
hand, exhibited extreme emotional reactions towards her husband by deliberately
demeaning and insulting him in public. She would unfold her vulgar thoughts to others,
even to her children. These show her lack of respect and love for her husband.
Maribel's unstable temperament, and her derogatory and fretful stance, which heavily
contributed to the collapse of their marriage, shows her inability to cope with the
stressors and complexities of marriage.[18] Based on Dr. Garcia's findings, the trial court
ruled:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is hereby granted and the

marriages [sic] between petitioner Antonio S. Quiogue. Jr. and respondent Maria
Bel Bandelaria Quiogue solemnized on October 16, 1980 before the Municipal
Mayor of Pasig, Metro Manila, is hereby declared null and void under Article 36 of
the Family Code as amended.

This Decision shall become final upon the expiration of the fifteen-day period from
notice to the parties and from the time that the corresponding Entry of Judgment
has been 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.

Let a copy of this Decision be furnished the parties, their counsels, the Public
Prosecutor, the Office of the Solicitor General. Local Civil Registry of Quezon City,
Local Civil Registry of Pasig and the Civil Registrar General at their respective
office addressee.

SO ORDERED.[19] (Emphases in the original)

 CA DECISION

The CA reversed the RTC's ruling on appeal. In the assailed Decision [20] in CAG.R. CV
No. 93554, the CA agreed with the Solicitor General that the infidelity of Antonio and his
irreconcilable differences with his wife Maribel do not constitute psychological incapacity
under Article 36 of the Family Code. Anent the psychiatric evaluation, the CA held that
the report issued by Dr. Garcia merely confirmed Antonio's and Maribel's marital
problems, but it cannot be considered as conclusive proof of the spouses' alleged
psychological incapacity. The fallo of the Decision reads:

WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is GRANTED. The Decision dated May 8, 2008
of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 88, in Civil Case No. Q-02-
46137 is REVERSED AND SET ASIDE, and a new one entered DISMISSING the
petition for declaration of nullity of marriage.

SO ORDERED.[21](Emphases in the original)

Petitioner asked for reconsideration, but his motion was denied in the assailed CA
Resolution[22] dated October 3, 2012. Hence, this recourse.

In seeking the reversal of the assailed judgment, petitioner faults the CA for discrediting
the expert opinion of Dr. Garcia relative to his psychological incapacity. He insists that
the totality of the evidence, i.e., their family backgrounds and the events that transpired
during their ill-fated marriage, unmistakably establish psychological incapacity,
especially on his part, to comply with the essential marital obligations.[23]
The Solicitor General opposes the Petition on the ground that petitioner failed to
establish the gravity, juridical antecedence, and incurability of his alleged psychological
incapacity.[24] It argues that petitioner's acts of infidelity and subsequent cohabitation
with another woman are not sufficient to declare a marriage void. Citing Hernandez v.
CA[25] and Dedel v. CA,[26] the Solicitor General asserts that the infidelity must be a
manifestation of a disordered personality that makes the psychologically incapacitated
spouse completely unable to discharge the basic obligations of marriage, [27] which is not
so in petitioner's case.
As for Maribel's ill-temper, tactlessness, lack of respect, and quarrelsome attitude, these
are not grave enough to warrant the declaration of nullity of their marriage. Her
emotional outbursts are not indicative of a psychological disorder but are natural
consequences of petitioner's wrongdoings. Further, the Solicitor General points out that
Dr. Garcia's psychiatric evaluation was methodologically flawed because Maribel only
allowed herself to be assessed and interviewed in connection with her daughter's
treatment for depression. As such, Dr. Garcia worked on pure suppositions given that
Maribel's disclosures pertain to the psychiatric treatment of their daughter Anabel, and
not to their marital issues.[28] Finally, the Solicitor General submits that the evidence, in
this case, refer only to grounds for legal separation, not for declaring a marriage void. [29]
RULING

The Petition is meritorious.

Psychological incapacity is a ground to declare a marriage void under Article 36 of the

Family Code, which states:

ARTICLE 36. 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.

The provision speaks of two requisites. First is gravity, or that the person who
contracted the marriage is psychologically incapacitated to assume the essential marital
obligations and not merely refuses or neglects to do so because of difficulty or ill will.
The second one, antecedence, requires that the incapacity exists at the time of the
solemnization of the marriage, even if it manifests only thereafter. This should not be
confused with divorce wherein the marital bond is severed for causes occurring after the
celebration of the marriage.[30] Recently in 2021, the Court revisited the concept of
psychological incapacity in Tan-Andal v. Andal.[31] There, we observed that what was
first described in 1995 in Santos v. CA[32] as a "mental incapacity" that renders a person
incognizant of the basic marital covenants, has since fortuitously evolved into the rigid
criteria laid down in Republic v. Molina.[33] The Molina doctrine required the parties to
prove not only gravity and antecedence stated under Article 36, but also incurability.
The patties were then expected to present expert testimony to sufficiently prove that the
root cause of the psychological incapacity has been medically or clinically identified.[34]
Later, the Court saw that viewing psychological incapacity from a medical perspective is
unnecessary. As clarified in Marcos v. Marcos,[35] an actual medical examination of the
person concerned need not be resorted to if the totality of the evidence presented is
enough to sustain a finding of psychological incapacity. Besides, demanding proof of
incurability is antithetical to Article 36 since the incapacitated spouse is not considered
ill-equipped to remarry another person.[36] For this reason, the aspect of incurability is
now approached in the legal sense. This contemplates of a situation wherein the
person's personality structure manifests through clear acts of dysfunctionality which
undermine the marital union and there must be clear and convincing proof that the
incapacity is enduring or persistent with respect to a specific partner.[37]
Relative to this, the Court rejects the Solicitor General's argument that Dr. Garcia's
psychiatric evaluation is methodologically flawed because Maribel did not submit to the
clinical examination for the purposes of determining psychological incapacity in their
marriage. She merely acquiesced to be interviewed by Dr. Garcia to help seek
treatment for their daughter's depression and suicidal tendencies. The Court observes
however that in providing a backdrop for the treatment of their daughter Anabel, Maribel
inevitably revealed her marital woes. Certainly, one cannot deny that the relationship
between the parents has pervasive effects on the family, especially on the younger
children. In any case, even if we disregard the clinical interviews of Maribel, the bulk of
evidence consisting of the interviews and testimony in open court of both Antonio and
their eldest daughter Marie Antonette, and the letters written by Maribel to Antonio
which were part of psychiatric assessment made by Dr. Garcia, all support the
conclusion that Antonio was able to discharge the burden of proof required to nullify his
marriage to Maribel.

Antonio's chronic infidelity is a

form of psychological incapacity:

In the assailed Decision, the CA held that although there was a reference made in the
psychiatric evaluation regarding the extra-marital affairs of Antonio's biological father,
still, his own infidelity throughout his marriage with Maribel does not equate to
psychological incapacity as it was not shown to be existing prior to the union. The CA is
mistaken.

Under Article 68 of the Family Code, the "husband and wife are obliged to live together,
observe mutual love, respect and fidelity, and render mutual help and support." Clearly,
the law itself recognizes fidelity as the norm and a spouse should not be made to settle
for anything less than absolute faithfulness from the other. This stems from the nature of
marriage being a "special contract"[38] of an exclusive partnership between a man and a
woman. While it is true that infidelity is a ground for legal separation, [39] the same may
also be an indication of a psychological incapacity if, for the same reason, one is
completely unable to discharge the essential obligations of marriage.[40]
Of course, this is not to say that the Court will intuitively declare a marriage void for a
single act of marital indiscretion. Infidelity is not measured in terms of frequency. To be
considered as a form of psychological incapacity, infidelity must satisfy the requirements
of (1) gravity or severity, (2) antecedence, and (3) legal incurability or persistence during
the marriage.

(1) Juridical antecedence:

In this case, Antonio's Chronic infidelity is not only comprised of multiple illicit amorous
relations. As detailed in the Psychiatric Evaluation[41] by Dr. Garcia, his affairs are not
casual mistakes as these were shown to be deeply rooted in his psychopathology which
was in place even before his marriage.[42]
Dr. Garcia described Antonio as the ambitious but disconcerted son of a businessman,
who had 11 children with four other women. He grew up emotionally close to his
mother. She wanted him to be respectful to his unfaithful father, who only stays and
sleeps in their house every Wednesday and Saturday. His mother is always out playing
mahjong, while his father only gave them money. At the age 17, Antonio lived in with his
first girlfriend, Del and they broke up when she got pregnant with their son, whom he
failed to support. He had a series of short-lived relationships before he met Maribel
when he was 23 years old. He was then in a relationship, but he still courted Maribel.
Two years later, in 1980, Maribel got pregnant, and Antonio was pressured to marry
her. Their first child died three months after birth due to aneurysm. As he was having a
difficult time accepting the situation, he asked his mother to stay with them and this
spurred his quarrels with Maribel. In 1982, Maribel gave birth to their eldest daughter
Marie Antonette, followed by their son Antonio in 1984. A year later, in 1985, they had a
serious fight after Maribel discovered his relationship with a paramour, which he
immediately ended. In 1987 and 1988, their daughters Anabel and Maritoni were born.
From 1989 to 1996, Antonio divulged that he had several "flings" which Maribel never
found out.[43] Despite this, Antonio prides himself on being able to give his family a very
comfortable life. He showered his wife and kids with gifts, and they often traveled in and
out of the country.[44]
In March 1997, Antonio had another affair with a 19-year old GRO. Maribel learned
about this in September 1997. During the confrontation, Antonio was under the
impression that Maribel will help him stop the affair. Instead, she went into a rage and
nagged him. Antonio intended to immediately end his illicit relationship, but the woman
begged for more time. One day, Maribel went to the woman's house along with their
eldest daughter and the latter's classmate. Maribel took pictures and told all their
children about his affair. Antonio expected that Maribel would initiate a talk, yet she
never did. Instead, she pasted pictures of the woman inside his room, in the bar, and
even in the dining room. Whenever pestered by his wife's constant nagging about his
affairs, Antonio leaves the house and stays for a month or so in a rented condominium
or apartment.[45]
In June 1998, Antonio was driven out of their house because Maribel was suspicious
that he was still engaging in an affair. Antonio slept in a vacant chapel in the funeral
home, thinking it was just another one of their fights. Yet, on the next day, Maribel sent
his clothes. He felt embarrassed as the incident was seen by his employees. He came
back home on the weekends and slept in his son's room. That same year, his brother
bought a condominium in Quezon City and asked him to live there with his son. He only
visited his daughters outside their home, or they would sleep with him at the
condominium during the weekends. Antonio stated that he never wanted to be like his
father. He waited for Maribel's forgiveness and understanding which never came.[46]
As for his wife, Antonio disclosed to Dr. Garcia that Maribel took care of the children and
catered to all of their needs "because she is not employed anyway." [47] In return, Antonio
"compensated her" by giving her a monthly allowance for expenses like groceries,
market, salary of the maids, and utilities. Although Maribel diligently attended to the
housework, Antonio remarked that she loves to gamble in casinos, and they often
fought about this. Apart from this, Maribel would call him at his office and ask for
information from the employees as to his whereabouts. [48] He complained of his hellish
situation when she got fixated on his other women and unfaithfulness. Antonio
expressed regret for his womanizing but claimed that he is weak to modify his conduct.
He blamed his wife for driving him away and not doing something to win him back.[49]
Based on the foregoing, Dr. Garcia declared that Antonio is gravely psychologically
incapacitated to perform the essential marital obligations. He has a narcissistic and
histrionic personality disorder that was in place even before his marriage such that it
can no longer be effectively addressed through psychiatric treatment. Further, Dr.
Garcia found that:

Antonio has a sense of entitlement. He has unreasonably expected favorable

treatment or automatic compliance with his expectations and whims. He is an
exploitative partner who manipulated and deceived his spouse for his own gain. He
lacks the empathy or the sensitivity to adequately respond to the needs and
feelings of his wife and his children[.]

Moreso, he has apparently a marked degree of attention[-]seeking demeanor

which could be attributed to his perceived emotional deprivation as a child and as
an adolescent. Secondly, he has pathologically identified with his philandering and
remorseless father who had exposed him to his illicit affairs. Thirdly, he has a
strong desire to accomplish and to be recognized and revered in the end. His
manifold associations with women are ego-gratifying. Yet, there was lack of
warmth and depth in his dealings with them and that he could have acted on his
sexual impulses to prove that he is a worthy and a charming individual. He also
has dependent traits, i.e., he feels helpless and uncomfortable when left alone and
as such, he has the propensity to look for thrill and pleasure in his relationships. [50]
In Tan-Andal v. Andal,[51] the Court recognized that a person's behavior is determined
not only by certain genetic predispositions but is also influenced by his or her
environment. One that is particularly significant is the character of the parents as
witnessed by a child during the formative years. Here, Dr. Garcia's psychiatric
evaluation invariably shows that Antonio's proclivity to act on his sexual impulses is
deeply rooted in a psychological condition that existed before the celebration of their
marriage.

Contrary to the CA's observation, Dr. Garcia was able to demonstrate how Antonio's
childhood and adolescent years – which were spent dealing with his philandering father
and impervious mother, heavily affected the way he perceives romantic relationships.
Antonio's father sired eleven children, with four other women, and was never discreet
about his illicit affairs. Women would often look for his father and ask for financial
support. As a child, Antonio thought this was the only role of his father. Dr. Garcia also
noted that Antonio lacked the proper attention from his mother. This led to his attention-
seeking demeanor and dependent personality trait which fuel his propensity to look for
thrill in his relationships. For instance, Antonio recalled that after school, he would
spend the rest of the day with a tutor. When he comes home at night, his mother would
not be there as she would always play mahjong elsewhere. Growing up, he detested his
father, but his mother would force him to show respect because they are being well
provided for. Unfortunately, Antonio mirrored his father's ways. As a young adult, he
engaged in several short-lived, overlapping relationships, including the one with Maribel.
They dated when he still had another girlfriend. After two years, Maribel got pregnant,
so he was forced to marry her. However, the marriage did not prove to be a catalyst for
Antonio as he repeatedly committed marital indiscretions. Soon enough, the spouses
fell into a pernicious cycle of discovery, reprisal, forgiveness, and then a new illicit affair.
Clearly, Antonio's inability to maintain a monogamous relationship with his wife can be
traced to his dysfunctional childhood.

(2) Gravity and (3) Incurability:

Apart from the chronicity of Antonio's infractions, the Court also notes that there is no
clear recognition on his part that fidelity is one of his essential obligations to his wife
Maribel.

In the Psychiatric Evaluation, Dr. Garcia quoted Antonio saying: "As a husband, I'm
practically a good husband; but I would always be cheating on my wife." [52] From his
perspective, his illicit affairs are minor incidents which Maribel should have overlooked
or dealt with differently. It also did not escape the Court's attention that Antonio has a
distorted concept of a wife. During his interviews with Dr. Garcia, Antonio referred to
Maribel as a "good housewife," "because she is not employed anyway." [53] He described
Maribel as a dedicated mother "because she has no work, and she can always be with
kids."[54] In return, Antonio "compensated her" by giving her a monthly allowance for
household expenses. It is evident that Antonio considers himself superior to his wife. He
does not consider Maribel as a partner, hence, there is a constant need for him to look
for affection outside the marriage.

Moreover, Antonio blamed Maribel's nagging and tactlessness for the demise of their
marriage, saying that her actions drove him away. He admitted that he was weak in not
being able to control his womanizing, but Maribel is at fault for not doing anything to win
him back. He did not perceive his wife's actions as a sign of despair or her own peculiar
way of fighting for their marriage. Antonio focused on Maribel's anger and its effects on
him. Antonio's failure to show sincere remorse for his blatant infidelity and the lack of
desire to fix his ways to save their marriage clearly amount to psychological incapacity,
which is grave in nature.

Further, Antonio's incapacity is incurable. It is persistent throughout the marriage and is

specifically directed at his wife Maribel. Antonio did not have ample affection and
commitment towards Maribel even at the outset. This was exacerbated by Maribel's
insulting discourse and brazen attacks in response to Antonio's perennial womanizing
and callousness. As explained by Dr. Garcia, the spouses lacked the ability to give each
other sustained love, support, understanding, and respect which are expected from
emotionally fit couples.[55] Surely, their distorted interaction and detestable
communication pattern did not help to resolve their conflict [56] and instead resulted to
marital disintegration. The totality of evidence thus points to Antonio's psychological
incapacity as the cause to nullify his marriage to Maribel.

No sufficient evidence of
psychological incapacity
on the part of Maribel:

As for Maribel's retaliatory acts, i.e., sending vulgar fax messages and hateful letters,
and evicting Antonio from the conjugal home, the Court sees that these are typical of a
woman treated with contempt. Maribel was a college student when she got pregnant.
She got married to Antonio and devoted herself to becoming a wife and mother to their
kids. She wanted someone to grow old with and exerted efforts to have a stable and
healthy home for Antonio and their children. [57] However, when Maribel discovered her
husband's illicit affairs, she was seething with anger that her nurturing ways turned into
rage. Admittedly, Maribel's vengeful stance contributed to the collapse of the marriage
as it aggravated Antonio's psychological incapacity. Despite Maribel's belligerent
attitude and verbal offensives towards Antonio, the Court rules that these do not amount
to psychological incapacity because these only existed during the marriage, particularly,
as a reaction to Antonio's philandering.

Our laws pertaining to marriage and family could not be expected to address every
incarnation or nuance of husband and wife relationships. Nevertheless, in interpreting
the provisions relating to the declaration of nullity of marriage, courts must discern those
relationships that are patently ill-equipped to cope and adapt to the complexities of
marriage.[58] In this case, Antonio and Maribel have been separated in fact since 1998
and it has not been shown that they have changed for the better to compel them to
remain in a marriage.[59] Truly, their union should not be upheld solely for the sake of
permanence because doing so will only destroy the very essence of marriage as an
institution.[60]
ACCORDINGLY, the Petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated May 22, 2012 and
Resolution dated October 3, 2012 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 93554,
which dismissed the Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage filed by petitioner
Antonio S. Quiogue, Jr., is REVERSED and SET ASIDE.

The marriage between Antonio S. Quiogue, Jr., and Maria Bel B. Quiogue is declared
VOID on ground of Antonio's psychological incapacity.

SO ORDERED.

Leonen, SAJ. (Chairperson), Lazaro-Javier, J. Lopez, and Kho, Jr., JJ., concur.

[1]
NATASHA LUNN, CONVERSATIONS ON LOVE 286 (2021).

[2]
Tan-Andal v. Andal, G.R. No. 196359, May 11, 2021.

[3]
Rollo, pp. 38-79.
[4]
Id. at 22-32. Penned by Associate Justice Ramon M. Bato, Jr., with the concurrence
of Associate Justices Remedios A. Salazar-Fernando and Florito S. Macalino.

[5]
Id. at 34-35. Penned by Associate Justice Ramon M. Bato. Jr., with the concurrence
of Associate Justices Remedios A. Salazar-Fernando and Florito S. Macalino.

[6]
Id. at 12.

[7]
Id. at 13.

[8]
Id.

[9]
Id. at 14.

[10]
Id. at 23.

[11]
Id. at 14-15.

[12]
Id. at 175-194.

[13]
Id. at 194.

[14]
Id. at 17-18.

[15]
Id. at 18.

[16]
Id. at 12-20.

[17]
Id. at 18; citing Article 68 of the Family Code.

[18]
Id. at 19.

[19]
Id. at 20.
[20]
Id. at 22-32. Penned by Associate Justice Ramon M. Bato, Jr., with the concurrence
of Associate Justices Remedios A. Salazar-Fernando and Florito S. Macalino.

[21]
Id. at 31.

[22]
Id. at 34-35. Penned by Associate Justice Ramon M. Bato, Jr., with the concurrence
of Associate Justices Remedios A. Salazar-Fernando and Florito S. Macalino.

[23]
Id. at 38-58.

[24]
Id. at 240-243.

[25]
377 Phil. 919, 927 (1999).

[26]
466 Phil. 226, 233 (2004).

[27]
Rollo, p. 243.

[28]
Id. at 246.

[29]
Id. at 247-248.

[30]
Marcos v. Marcos, 397 Phil. 840, 845-846 (2000).

[31]
G.R. No. 196359, May 11, 2021.

[32]
310 Phil. 21, 40 (1995).

[33]
335 Phil. 664, 691 (1997).

[34]
Tan-Andal v. Andal, supra note 31; See also Hernandez v. Court of Appeals, 377
Phil. 919, 932 (1999).
[35]
Supra note 29 at 850.

[36]
Tan-Andal v. Andal, supra note 31; citing Ngo Te v. Yu-Te, 598 Phil. 666, 678
(2009) and Kalaw v. Fernandez, 750 Phil. 482, 497-498 (2015).

[37]
Tan-Andal v. Andal, supra note 31.

[38]
Article 1 of the Family Code.

[39]
Article 55 of the Family Code.

[40]
Tan-Andal v. Andal, supra note 31.

[41]
Rollo, pp. 175-194.

[42]
Id. at 192.

[43]
Id. at 180.

[44]
Id. at 176-179.

[45]
Id. at 180-181.

[46]
Id. at 181.

[47]
Id. at 179 and 191.

[48]
Id. at 179.

[49]
Id. at 192.

[50]
Id. at 193.

[51]
Tan-Andal v. Andal, supra note 31.
[52]
Rollo, p. 182.

[53]
Id. at 179 & 191.

[54]
Id. at 182.

[55]
Rollo, pp. 193-194.

[56]
Montealto-Laylo v. Ymbang, G.R. No. 240802, September 29, 2021.

[57]
Rollo, pp. 193.

[58]
Tan-Andal v. Andal, supra note 31.

[59]
Estella v. Perez, G.R. No. 249250, September 29, 2021.

[60]
Tan-Andal v. Andal, supra note 31.

Source: Supreme Court E-Library | Date created: May 18, 2023

This page was dynamically generated by the E-Library Content Management System