FAMILY CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES

CASE DIGESTS (VOID MARRIAGES)

Ngo Te (Petitioner) vs. Yu-Te

G.R. No. 161793; February 13, 2009
Ponente: Nachura, J.

Facts:
Petitioner Edward Ngu Te, then 25 years old and Rowena Yu-Te, 20 years old, contracted
marriage on the day of April 23, 1996. The two of them lived together as husband and wife with only
limited means since both of them were still in college and unemployed. Because of this, petitioner left
Yu-Te and returned to his parents. Soon after, the two of them agreed to separate ways.
After 4 years, Ngu Te filed a petition for certiorari for the annulment of their marriage due to
psychological incapacity for both of them.

Issue:
Whether or not the marriage between Ngu Te and Yu-Te is null and void.

Held:
Yes. The petitioner presented reasonable amount of evidence during the trial as well as medical
and clinical testimonies which stated that he, at the time of marriage, was suffering from a dependent
psychological disorder. At the same time, Yu-Te was also found to have Anti-Social psychological
disorder during the marriage.
Therefore, court ruled that both of them were psychologically incapacitated and did not have
the ability or capacity to exercise and perform the essential marital obligations. Hence, the court ruled
their marriage as null and void.

Republic of the Philippines vs. Court of Appeals & Molina (Respondents)

G.R. No. 108763; February 13, 1997
Ponente: Panganiban, J.

Facts:
On April 14, 1985, respondent Roridel Molina and Reynaldo Molina contracted marriage. Soon
after the marriage, Reynaldo lost his job. The respondent became the sole breadwinner of the family
and this was the reason of the spouses frequent fights. Respondent claimed that Reynaldo was
immature and irresponsible since the latter let her work alone for the family, depended on his parents
for financial assistance and lied to her about their finances.
On August 16, 1990, the respondent filed a petition for the declaration of nullity of marriage
with the ground of psychological incapacity.

Issue:
Whether or not psychological incapacity can be used as a ground for annulment of their
marriage.

Held:
No. Psychological incapacity is defined as a disorder which is grave and incurable that it deprives
the person from performing and exercising his duties in essential marital obligations. According to the
Metropolitan Marriage Tribunal, it is characterized by gravity, juridical antecedent and incurability and
has to be proven with preponderance of evidence for it to be regarded.
However, the respondent failed to reasonably prove the existence of psychological incapacity
based on the evidences presented. Moreover, the court ruled that the said behaviour of her husband
was not an indication of a psychological disorder but of mere immaturity.
Therefore, the court ruled no basis for the petition and declared the marriage between the
respondent and Molina valid and subsisting.

Antonio vs. Reyes (Respondent)

G.R. No. 155800; March 10, 2006
Ponente: Tinga, J.

Facts:
Petitioner Leonilo Antonio and Marie Ivonne Reyes were spouses. During the duration of their
marriage, petitioner claimed that the latter consistently lied to him about matters worthy of concern. He
stated that Reyes lied to him about her illegitimate son, her educational attainment, her job and her
social standing. The petitioner also asserted that Reyes were overly jealous over nothing. Because of
these, the two of them separated but only after a month, the petitioner tried to reconcile with her. The
former finally decided to leave Reyes when he said claimed that the latter still lied to him.
The RTC declared the marriage as null and void. Upon appeal, however, the CA reversed the
decision. Antonio then filed for a petition of certiorari for the review of the case.

Issue:
Whether or not the marriage is null and void due to psychological incapacity.

Held:
Yes. Petitioner presented reasonable amount of evidence and witnesses that will prove the
psychological incapacity of Reyes. He also presented a medical expert who proved that Reyes constant
and persistent lying is an indication of psychological incapacity. Moreover, it was claimed to have existed
at the time of marriage since Reyes has already lied to him back then. On top of all, it was proven
incurable since efforts have been exerted by the petitioner for their reconciliation but Reyes still lied to
petitioner.
According to the rule, a person who cannot distinguish fantasy from reality cannot be expected
to adhere as well to emotional commitments. Reyes, due to her persistent lying, was found to be
psychologically incapacitated and was deprived to perform the essential marital obligations.
Therefore, the court reversed the decioon of CA and declared the marriage as null and void.

Ming Tsoi vs. Court of Appeals and Lao Tsoi (Respondents)

G.R. No. 119190; January 16, 1997
Ponente: Torres Jr., J.

Facts:
On May 22, 1988, respondent Gina Lao Tsoi married Chi Ming Tsoi, petitioner. Respondent
claimed that on the duration of their marriage, petitioner constantly refused to have sexual intercourse
with her for no reason. Hence, the respondent broke her marital bond with the petitioner when she
filed a petition for nullity of marriage with a ground of psychological incapacity.
The RTC and CA affirmed with the petition of the respondent. Therefore, petitioner Ming Tsoi
elevated the case to the Supreme Court for review.

Issue:
Whether or not the petitioner is indeed, psychologically incapacitated for their marriage to be
rendered null and void.

Held:
Yes. The prolonged senseless refusal of the petitioner to have sexual intercourse with his wife is
an indication of psychological incapacity. The petitioner was physically examined and found to be
capable of having sexual intercourse, however, he still chose not to do it. Due to the considerable
evidences presented by the respondent, petitioner was proven psychologically incapacitated and failed
to perform his marital obligation as husband.
In line of these, the SC affirmed CAs decision and declared the marriage as null and void.

Alain Dino vs. Caridad Dino (Respondent)

G.R. No. 178044; January 19, 2011
Ponente: Carpio, J.

Facts:
Petitioner Alain Dino respondent Caridad Dino started living together before getting married on
June 14, 1998. 3 years later, petitioner filed an action for the declaration of nullity of marriage between
him and the respondent on ground of the latters psychological incapacity. Petitioner claimed that
Caridad failed to fulfil her marital obligation when she did not give him love, support and chose to
abandon their family.
Upon the judgment made by the RTC, the marriage was declared null and void with an order
that the dissolution of their conjugal properties be governed by Arts 50 and 51 of the Family Code. CA
modified the ruling stating that said properties be governed by Art. 147 of the Family Code.

Issue:
Whether or not the dissolution and distribution of their conjugal properties be governed by Art.
147 of the Family Code.

Held:
Yes. The ruling of RTC which stated that the same be governed by Art. 50 of the Family Code is
erroneous. Art. 50 only extends to marriages which are voided by Arts. 40 and 45 of the said code. In
the petitioners case, their marriage is voided under the provisions of Art. 36 of the Family Code, which
calls for psychological incapacity as a ground for annulment. Art. 36 is governed by Art. 147 of the Family
Code with regards to separation and distribution of conjugal properties. The elements of Article 147 are
1) The man and the woman must be capacitated to marry each other, 2) They live exclusively as each
other as husband and wife, 3) Their union is without the benefit of marriage/ void. All the elements are
in the case of the petitioner, therefore, Art. 147 is the one enforceable in this case.
Thus, the ruling of CA was affirmed by the SC.

Arabelle Mendoza vs. RP & Dominic Mendoza (Respondents)

G.R. No. 157649; November 12, 2012
Ponente: Bersamin, J.

Facts:
Petitioner Arabelle Mendoza was married to respondent Dominic Mendoza on June 24, 1991.
The respondent was jobless when the petitioner gave birth to their daughter. The former continued to
remain jobless and depended heavily on his father for support. The petitioner however, was employed
and became the breadwinner of the family. Soon after, the respondent was employed as a salesman by
Toyota Motors. The two had frequent quarrels due to the latters insensitivity as to their finances. It was
claimed that the respondent spent his first commission on a celebratory bash and had an illicit
relationship with his co-worker. To make things worse, he was also fired from his job due to estafa.
Because of these happenings, the two separated.
With an expert testimony and psychiatric evaluation against the respondent, petitioner then
filed for an action of nullity of marriage due to the respondents psychological incapacity. RTC declared
their marriage as null and void but was reversed by CA upon repeal. Hence, the former summoned the
SC for review.

Issue:
Whether or not an expert testimony and psychiatric evaluation presented by the petitioner be
used as an evidence against the behaviour of the respondent.

Held:
No. As a rule, medical and expert testimonies must be given proper attention by the court to
support their judgment. However, in this case, the expert testimonies of the medical practitioner stating
that the respondent is psychologically incapacitated were questionable. The testimonies were onesided, did not subject the respondent to physical investigation and were corroborated only by the sole
testimony of the petitioner. Hence, it cannot be given proper accord by the court. On top of that, the
petitioner also failed to present reasonable amount of evidence to support her allegation that her
husband was psychologically incapacitated. The court ruled that the behaviour of the respondent was
not indicative of a psychological incapacity but merely an immaturity as it was a plain rejection, refusal
and difficulty on part of the respondent to fulfil his marital obligation.
Thus, the SC affirmed in toto the decision of the CA and declared the marriage valid and
subsisting.

Republic of the Philippines vs. De Gracia (Respondent)

G.R. No. 171557; February 12, 2014
Ponente: Perlas-Bernabe, J.

Facts:
On February 15, 1969, respondent Rodolfo De Gracia and Natividad were married. The two had
2 children. The respondent claimed that when he joined the army for training, Natividad sold their
conjugal home. It was also asserted that Natividad cohabited and contracted a second marriage with
another man. Because of these events, the respondent filed an action for nullity of marriage on grounds
of Natividads psychological incapacity.
The RTC declared the marriage as null and void and upon appeal, the CA affirmed with the RTC.

Issue:
Whether or not the CA erred in affirming the RTCs judgment due to psychological incapacity.

Held:
Yes. Psychological incapacity is defined as any disorder which is medically proven as grave and
incurable which deprives a person from performing his duties in the essential marital obligations. For it
to be given a merit, reasonable amount of evidence must be presented to prove its gravity, juridical
antecedence and incurability. In the case at bar, the respondent failed to prove it. The respondents
presentation of expert testimony was likewise not given merit since it failed to prove that the
psychological incapacity occurred at the time of marriage, moreover, it failed to show its gravity and
incurability. Consequently, the court stated that Natividads behaviour does not tantamount to a
psychological incapacity but was merely an immaturity on grounds of her youth and promiscuity.
Thus, the SC reversed the CAs judgment and declared the marriage valid and subsisting.

Republic of the Philippines vs. Cantor (Respondent)

G.R. No. 184621; December 10, 2013
Ponente: Brion, J.

Facts:
Respondent Fe Cantor and Jerry were spouses. The two of them were having a quarrel because
of the formers inability to reach sexual climax and because of Jerrys animosity towards the
respondents father when Jerry left their home and was not seen anymore.
After 4 years of Jerrys disappearance, respondent filed before the RTC, an action for declaration
of presumptive death. She claimed that she had a well-founded belief that Jerry was already dead, that
she consistently inquired from her in-laws, neighbours, friends, and even checked the hospital records
to look for Jerry but found none.
RTC and CA declared that Jerry was presumed dead without prejudice to the effect of the
reappearance of the absent spouse Jerry.
The petitioner questioned the well-founded belief of the responded and claimed for the
judgment to be reversed.

Issues:
Whether or not the respondent can appeal for the judgment of the court when it comes to
declaration of presumptive death; if the respondent had a well-founded belief to support her
application for declaration of presumptive death.

Held:
No. Declaration of Presumptive Death is a summary judicial proceeding and as a rule, once
judgment has been executed, they are already deemed final and do not warrant an appeal to the higher
courts, unless on grounds of abuse of discretion by the courts. The petitioner was not able to prove such
abuse therefore, judgment was final and executory.
As to the issue of the respondents well-founded belief that Jerry was already dead, it also failed
to reasonably prove the same. Respondent relied on passive statements or inquiries from her in-laws,
neighbours, friends and in checking the hospitals records. She did not even made an effort to report the
disappearance to the police so that the latter can help her. Therefore, the court ruled that her efforts
were not enough to constitute a well-founded belief.

On line of these, the court reversed the CAs decision and the declaration which presumed Jerry
Cantor to be dead was set aside.