G.R. No. 158896 Juanita C. Siayngco vs. Manuel Siayngco Facts: Manuel Siayngco contracted a marriage to Juanita C.

Siayngco on June 27, 1973. Since they could not have their own child, they adopted a baby boy in 1977 and named him Jeremy. On September 25, 1997 , respondent Manuel filed for the declaration of its nullity on the ground of psychological incapacity of petitioner Juanita. He alleged that all throughout their marriage, he was constantly embarrassed by his wifes outbursts and overbearing ways, that his wifes obsession with cleanliness is irritating and he is wounded by the lack of support and respect for his person and his position as a Judge from his wife. That her psychological incapacity arose before marriage, is permanent and incurable. On her answer, Juanita alleged the contrary. Psychiatric evaluations were presented as well as testimony of witnesses and the evidences presented failed to support the alleged psychological incapacity of the respondent, thus, petition was denied by the RTC. A motion for reconsideration was filed by the petitioner and was denied. The CA reversed the RTC decision relying mainly on the psychiatric evaluation made finding that Manuel and Juanita psychologically incapacitated. Hence, this petition for review on certiorari. Issue: Whether or not psychological incapacity is attendant in the case. Ruling: It was in Santos v. Court of Appeals where the court declared that "psychological incapacity" under Article 36 of the Family Code is not meant to comprehend all possible cases of psychoses. It should refer, rather, to no less than a mental (not physical) incapacity that causes a party to be truly incognitive of the basic marital covenants that concomitantly must be assumed and discharged by the parties to the marriage. Psychological incapacity must be characterized by (a) gravity, (b) juridical antecedence, and (c) incurability. The burden of proof to show the nullity of marriage belongs to the plaintiff. Any doubt should be resolved in favor of the existence and continuation of the marriage and against its dissolution and nullity. Sexual infidelity does not constitute psychological incapacity, it must be shown that this is a manifestation of a disordered personality present even at the time of the celebration of marriage. The report of expert showed root cause of petitioner Juanitas behavior is not from the inception of their marriage as required by law but from her experiences during the marriage, e.g., her in-laws disapproval of her as they wanted their son to enter the priesthood, her husbands philandering, admitted no less by him, and her inability to conceive. An unsatisfactory marriage is not a null and void marriage. Mere showing of "irreconcilable differences" and "conflicting personalities" in no wise constitutes psychological incapacity. The petition for review was granted decision of CA was reversed and set aside.