Persons and Family Relations

PSYCHOLOGICAL INCAPACITY
MALLILINv.JAMESOLAMIN
(G.R.No.192718,February18,2015)
FACTS
Robert Malilin and Luz Jamesolamin were married on
September 6, 1972 and begot three children. The petitioner
filed a complaint for nullity of marriage on the grounds that
the respondent allegedly suffered from psychological and
mental incapacity at the time of the marriage celebration,
unpreparedness to enter into such marital life, and to comply
with its essential obligations and responsibilities.
He testified that Luz was already living in California, USA, and
married an American. While they were still together though,
Robert disclosed that respondent did not perform
responsibilities of being a housewife like keeping the house in
order, preparing meals, washing clothes and taking care of
the children. He also stated that she dated several men and
contracted loans without his knowledge. In turn Luz filed her
answer with a counterclaim, averring that it was Robert who
manifested psychological incapacity.
On September 20, 2002, the Regional Trial Court had rendered
a decision declaring the marriage null and void on the ground
of psychological incapacity on the part of Luz as she failed to
comply with the essential marital obligations but the Court of
Appeals, in its November 20, 2009 Decision, reversed the RT
Cdecision.
ISSUE
Whether or not the totality of the evidence adduced proves
that Luz was psychologically incapacitated to comply with the
essential obligations of marriage warranting the annulment of
their marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code.
RULING
DENIED.
The Supreme Court stated that Roberts evidence failed to
establish the psychological incapacity of Luz. Other than his
selfserving testimony, no other witness corroborated his
allegations on her behavior. As the Court has repeatedly
stressed, psychological incapacity contemplates "downright
incapacity or inability to take cognizance of and to assume the
basic marital obligations," not merely the refusal, neglect or
difficulty, much less ill will, on the part of the errant spouse.
There was also nothing in the records that would indicate that
Luz had either been interviewed or was subjected to a
psychological examination. On interpretations given by the
NAMT of the Catholic Church in the Philippines, yes, they are
given great respect by our courts, but they are neither
controlling nor decisive.
Lastly, on petitions for declaration of nullity of marriage, the
burden of proof to show the nullity of marriage lies with the
plaintiff. Unless the evidence presented clearly reveals a
situation where the parties, or one of them, could not have
validly entered into a marriage by reason of a grave and
serious psychological illness existing at the time it was
celebrated, the Court is compelled to uphold the in
dissolubility of the marital tie.

of marriage alleging that Natividad was psychologically

incapacitated to comply with her essential marital obligations.
Petitioner furthered that he was forced to marry her barely 3
months into their courtship in light of her accidental
pregnancy. He was 21, she was 18. Natividad left their
conjugal abode and sold their house without his consent.
Thereafter, she lived with a certain Engineer Terez. After
cohabiting with Terez, she contracted a second marriage with
another man. Dr. Zalsos stated that both Rodolfo and
Natividad were psychologically incapacitated finding that both
parties suffered from utter emotional immaturity.
ISSUE:
Did the Court of Appeals err in sustaining the RTCs finding of
psychological incapacity?
HELD:
The petition is meritorious. There exists insufficient
factual or legal basis to conclude that Natividads
emotional immaturity, irresponsibility, or even sexual
promiscuity, can be equated with psychological
incapacity. The RTC relied heavily on Dr. Zalsos testimony
which does not explain in reasonable detail how Natividads
condition could be characterized as grave, deeply-rooted and
incurable within the parameters of psychological incapacity
jurisprudence. The petition is, therefore, granted and the
decision of CA reversed and set aside.

Marcos v. Marcos,
343 SCRA 755, October 19, 2000
FACTS:
Brenda and Wilson first met sometime in 1980 when both of
them were assigned at the Malacaang Palace, she as an
escort of Imee Marcos and he as a Presidential Guard of
President Ferdinand Marcos. They later on became
sweethearts and got married and had 5 children. After the
EDSA revolution, both of them sought a discharge from the
military service. He engaged to different business ventures
but failed. She always urged him to look for work so that their
children would see him, instead of her, as the head of the
family and a good provider. Due to his failure to engage in
any gainful employment, they would often quarrel and
as a consequence, he would hit and beat her. He would
even force her to have sex with him despite her weariness. He
would also inflict physical harm on their children for a slight
mistake and was so severe in the way he chastised them.
Thus, for several times during their cohabitation, he would
leave their house. In 1992, they were already living
separately. She did not want him to stay in their house
anymore so when she saw him in their house, she was so
angry that she lambasted him. He then turned violent,
inflicting physical harm on her and even on her mother who
came to her aid. She sought for nullity of their marriage on
the ground of psychological incapacity. The Brenda
submitted herself to psychologist Natividad A. Dayan,
Ph.D., for psychological evaluation. The court a quo
found Wilson to be psychologically incapacitated to
perform his marital obligations mainly because of his
failure to find work to support his family and his
violent attitude towards Brenda and their children. RTC
granted the petition. CA reversed. Hence, this case.

Republic v. De Gracia
G.R. No. 171557; February 12, 2014
FACTS:
Rodolfo and Natividad were married on February 15, 1969 at a
church in Zamboanga Del Norte. On December 25, 1998,
Rodolfo filed a verified complaint for the declaration of nullity

HELD: Personal medical or psychological examination

of respondent is not a requirement for a declaration of
psychological incapacity. Nevertheless, the totality of
the evidence she presented does not show such
incapacity. Although SC is convinced that respondent failed
to provide material support to the family and may have

Page3

ISSUE: W/N there is a need for personal medical examination

of respondent to prove psychological incapacity? Whether the
totality of evidence presented in this case show psychological
incapacity

Persons and Family Relations

resorted to physical abuse and abandonment, the totality of
these acts does not lead to a conclusion of psychological
incapacity on his part. There is absolutely no showing that his
defects were already present at the inception of the
marriage or that they are incurable.

Manolitos state or condition or attitude has not been shown,

however, to be a malady or disorder rooted on some
incapacitating or debilitating psychological condition. Manolito
merely has a difficulty if not outright refusal or neglect
in the performance of some marital obligations but not
psychological incapacity.

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v. LAILA TANYAG-SAN

JOSE and MANOLITO SAN JOSE, 517 SCRA 123 (2007)
Family Code Article 36; Psychological Incapacity
Joblessness and Irresponsibility is not Psychological
Incapacity
When examination of the alleged psychologically
incapacitated spouse is needed

Note: Compare this with Marcos vs Marcos, in that

case,
the
spouse
who
was
declared
to
be
psychologically incapacitated was not personally
evaluated by a psychologist. The difference however
was that, said spouse refused to be examined. In this
case, there was no showing that Manolito refused to
be examined.
Leonilo Antonio vs Marie Ivonne F. Reyes
G.R. No. 155800 March 10, 2006
Doctrine:
Pathological
liar
considred
as
psychological incapacity, Molina guidelines met.

Their marriage turned out to be not an ideal one, however.

Manolito refused to get himself a job. He spent most of his
available time with his friends drinking intoxicating
substances and gambling activities. It was Laila who had to
work in order to support the family. Laila gave Manolito all the
chances to change but Manolito never did.
In 1997, Laila gave birth to their second child, a boy. Laila
thought this would be the beginning of change for Manolito
but that change never happened. Thus, in 1998, Laila filed a
petition to have their marriage be declared a nullity on the
ground that Manolito is psychologically incapacitated due the
fact that he was oblivious of his marital obligations.
Laila submitted herself to psychological evaluation under Dr.
Nedy Tayag. Laila described Manolito to Tayag as a happy-golucky individual spending most of his time hanging out with
friends. Considered to be a bad influence, he was into
gambling, drinking sprees and prohibited drugs as well.
Ultimately, Tayag concluded that Manolito is psychologically
incapacitated this was even without actually examining
Manolito. The RTC denied Lailas petition but on appeal, the
Court of Appeals gave weight to Dr. Tayags expert testimony
and the appellate court reversed the RTC decision.
ISSUE: Whether or not Manolito San Jose was proven to be
psychologically incapacitated.
HELD: No. It is true that the guidelines set in the case of
Republic vs Court of Appeals and Molina did not require that
the person sought to be declared psychologically
incapacitated should be personally examined by a physician
or psychologist as a condition sine qua non to arrive at such
declaration. In fact, if such incapacity can be proven by
independent means, there is no reason why the same should
not be credited. However, in this case, the findings, and
ultimately the testimony in court, of Dr. Tayag is
merely hearsay. The doctor had no personal knowledge
of the facts he testified to, as these had merely been
relayed to him by Laila. Tayag was working on pure
suppositions and secondhand information fed to him by one
side. Consequently, his testimony can be dismissed as
unscientific and unreliable. This is more so because the
questioned CA decision was solely grounded on Tayags expert
testimony (which was merely based on the information fed to
him by Laila) there was no other independent evidence
which will support a conclusion of psychological incapacity on
the part of Manolito.
And based on Lailas description of Manolito, whcih she gave
to Tayag, Manolitos alleged psychological incapacity was
merely premised on his being jobless and a drug user, as well
as his inability to support his family and his refusal or
unwillingness to assume the essential obligations of marriage.

FACTS:
Antonio and Reyes first got married at Manila City Hall and
subsequently in church on December 8, 1990. A child was
born in April 1991 but died 5 months later. Antonio could no
longer take her constant lying, insecurities and jealousies over
him so he separated from her in August 1991. He attempted
reconciliation but since her behavior did not change, he finally
left her for good in November 1991. Only after their marriage
that he learned about her child with another man.
He then filed a petition in 1993 to have his marriage with
Reyes declared null and void under Article 36 of the Family
Code.
The trial court gave credence to Antonio's evidence and thus
declared the marriage null and void.
Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's decision. It held
that the totality of evidence presented was insufficient to
establish Reyes' psychological incapacity. It declared that the
requirements in the 1997 Molina case had not been satisfied.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Antonio has established his cause of action for
declaration of nullity under Article 36 of the Family Code and,
generally, under the Molina guidelines.
RULING:
Yes. The petitioner, aside from his own testimony,
presented a psychiatrist and clinical psychologist who
attested that constant lying and extreme jealousy of
Reyes is abnormal and pathological and corroborated
his allegations on his wife's behavior, which amounts
to psychological incapacity.
The factual findings of the trial court are deemed binding on
the SC, owing to the great weight accorded to the opinion of
the primary trier of facts. As such, it must be considered that
respondent had consistently lied about many material aspects
as to her character and personality. Her fantastic ability to
invent and fabricate stories and personalities enabled her to
live in a world of make-believe. This made her psychologically
incapacitated as it rendered her incapable of giving meaning
and significance to her marriage.
The case sufficiently satisfies the Molina guidelines:
First, that Antonio had sufficiently overcome his burden in
proving the psychological incapacity of his wife;
Second, that the root cause of Reyes' psychological incapacity
has been medically or clinically identified that was sufficiently
proven by experts, and was clearly explained in the trial
court's decision;
Third, that she fabricated friends and made up letters before
she married him prove that her psychological incapacity was
have existed even before the celebration of marriage;

Page3

Facts:
In 1988, Laila Tanyag, then 19 years old, and Manolito San
Jose, then 20 years old, got married to each other, albeit
knowing each other for only a short period. The next year,
they had a daughter.

Persons and Family Relations

Fourth, that the gravity of Reyes' psychological incapacity was
considered so grave that a restrictive clause was appended to
the sentence of nullity prohibited by the National Appellate
Matrimonial Tribunal from contracting marriage without their
consent;
Fifth, that she being an inveterate pathological liar makes her
unable to commit the basic tenets of relationship between
spouses based on love, trust, and respect.
Sixth, that the CA clearly erred when it failed to take into
consideration the fact that the marriage was annulled by the
Catholic Church. However, it is the factual findings of the
judicial trier of facts, and not of the canonical courts, that are
accorded significant recognition by this Court.
Seventh, that Reyes' case is incurable considering that
Antonio tried to reconcile with her but her behavior remains
unchanged.

Respondent:
JUDGE
FRANCISCO F. BRILLANTES,
Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 28, Manila

JR.,

FACTS:
This is a complaint by Lupo A. Atienza for Gross Immorality
and Appearance of Impropriety against Judge Francisco
Brillantes, Jr.
Complainant alleged that he has two children with Yolanda De
Castro with whom respondent Judge was cohabiting with.
Complainant claimed that respondent is married to one
Zenaida Ongkiko with whom he has 5 children. Respondent
alleges that while he and Ongkiko went through a marriage
ceremony (1965) before a Nueva Ecija town Mayor, the same
was not a valid marriage for lack of a marriage license. Upon
request of the parents of Ongkiko, respondent went through
another marriage ceremony with her in Manila. Again, neither
party applied for a marriage license. Respondent claims that
when he married De Castro in civil rites in Los Angeles,
California in 1991, he believed in all good faith and for all
legal intents and purposes that he was single because his first
marriage was solemnized without a license. Respondent also
argues that the provision of Article 40 of the Family Code does
not apply to him considering that his first marriage took place
in 1965 and was governed by the Civil Code of the Philippines;
while the second marriage took place in 1991 and governed
by the Family Code.
ISSUE:
ON Article 40 of the Family Code is applicable to the case at
bar.

SUBSEQUENT MARRIAGES
Terre vs. Terre
211 SCRA 6

HELD:
Yes. Article 40 is applicable to remarriages entered into after
the effectivity of the Family Code on August 3, 1988
regardless of the date of the first marriage. Besides, under
Article 256 of the Family Code, said Article is given
retroactive effect insofar as it does not prejudice or impair
vested or acquired rights in accordance with the Civil Code or
other laws. This is particularly true with Article 40, which is a
rule of procedure. Respondent has not shown any vested right
that was impaired by the application of Article 40 to his case.

FACTS:
Dorothy Terre was then married to a certain Merlito Bercenillo,
her first cousin. Atty. Jordan Terre successfully convinced
Dorothy that her marriage was void ab initio for the reason of
public policy and that they are free to contract marriage.
They got married in 1977 where he wrote single under
Dorothys status. After getting Dorothy pregnant, Atty. Terre
abandoned them and subsequently contracted another
marriage to Helina Malicdem in 1986. Atty. Terre was charged
with abandonment of minor and bigamy.
ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Terres marriage with Dorothy is
null and void.

ATIENZA v. BRILLANTES, Jr.

March 29, 1995 (A.M. No. MTJ-92-706)
PARTIES:
Complainant: LUPO ALMODIEL ATIENZA

Page3

HELD:
Dorothys first marriage is indeed void ab initio considering
that Merlito is her first cousin thereby against public policy.
However, she did not file any declaration for the nullity of
their marriage before she contracted her marriage with Atty.
Terre thus, her second marriage is void. Article 40 states that
the absolute nullity of a former marriage may be invoked for
the purposes of remarriage on the basis solely of a final
judgment declaring such previous marriage void.