4th Recording

Te vs. Te
SC ruled for someone suffering from narcissistic/antisocial behavior is equally guilty of psychological
incapacity, anti-social or narcissistic personality /
disorder is manifested by someone who is so
aggressive, domineering, someone who dominates/
tolerant for the faults and weakness of others, someone
who disrespects others, someone who only thinks of
himself/ someone who wants to be served like king or
queen is an indicative of defective personality disorder.
This is a form of a psychological incapacity. The wife
also domineering and she manipulated the husband
everytime they would fight; she would always threaten
the husband that she will commit suicide for her to get
what she wants. SC said ANTI-SOCIAL NARCISSISTIC
PERSONALITY DISORDER its a kind of psychological
incapacity.
Halili vs. Halili
SC said that person who is so immature or irresponsible
is guilty of psychological incapacity. In this case, the
husband entered into marriage thinking that it was just
a joke and when he eventually realize that marriage
imposes some serious personal obligations he backed
off. So he filed a declaration of nullity of marriage based
on psychological incapacity. The SC said , yes you are
guilty of psychological incapacity knowing you are
irresponsible and couldnt perform the basic essential
marital obligation.

when in truth and in fact she is not. She lied almost all
about her life. So SC said , pathological lying is a
manifestation of psychological incapacity becoz one of
the essential marital obligation of marriage is open
honest communication. So how can one who is a
pathological liar assume the obligation of open honest
spousal communication.
Camacho-Reyes vs. Reyes
The husband was found to have a dependent
personality disorder. This was manifested by a series of
failures in his business. He ventured into 7 businesses
but all these businesses downed to drain. The husband
couldnt make decisions on his own but he relied on the
decisions of his family. He lacks concern for his wife and
to his family. Hes always out of the family. One time,
when the wife was to undergo a major medical
procedure and when the wife requested him to
accompany to the operating room the husband never
cared and just kept reading the newspaper. The SC said,
total indifference on the part of the husband , lack of
concern for the wife is indicative of Dependent
Personality Disorder. Therefore , ground for declaration
of nullity of marriage under Psychological Incapacity.

Republic vs. Molina

The SC laid down the guidelines in the application and
interpretation of Psychological Incapacity. There are
seven grounds.
Note : 3 guidelines

Antonio vs. Reyes

This involved a wife who is afflicted and found to be a
pathological liar. She lied and concealed from her
husband the fact that she previously gave birth of a
child from another man. She lied to her husband that
she allegedly raped or abuse by her brother-in-law
when the truth and in fact there was no incident that
had happened. She lied that she is a graduate of
psychology when in truth and in fact she is not. She lied
to her husband about being a person of greater means
to the point that she falsified her payslip that shes
earning that much. She lied that she is a talent singer

In handling cases of Psychological Incapacity bear in

mind the your ultimate objective is to establish that the
person you seek to be adjudged liable or guility is
incapacitated to perform his/her marital obligation and
this incapacity resulted into the so called personality
disorder. For the disorder to be considered as
psychological incapacity as a ground to declare the
marriage void under Art. 26
1. Juridical Antecedence which means that the
personality disorder must exist at the very least
at the time of the solemnization of marriage
although it manifests after the solemnization of

marriage. ( Note: if the disorder occurred after

the solemnization of marriage It cannot be
considered psychological incapacity under art.
26 , because for Art. 26 to apply the
personality disorder /psychological incapacity
must exist at the moment the marriage is
solemnized or even before. Seemingly means
that the psychological incapacity is rooted in
the history of parties. It is necessary to establish
when the psychological incapacity started to
form part in the psychological makeup of the
person and usually psychological incapacity is a
form of disorder started from the individuals
childhood. So normally , if the childhood is
dysfunctional or born to a dysfunctional family ,
chances are, that child will grow up afflicted
with psychological incapacity so chances are
he cannot also perform the essential marital
obligations when the time they are also
married. Although it is not required it is also
advisable to engage the aid of psychologist or
psychiatrists because laymen cannot testify this
to the court that this kind of personality existed
priort to the marriage but only experts trained
in the field of psychology. Can convincly testify
to the court before the court that this kind of
illness is antedated. Not required but very
important.
2. Serious/Incurable - there is no known cure to
this kind of illness or even if there is a known
cure the known cure is beyond the means of
the person concerned.
Note: While psychological incapacity should
be incurable, the incurability of the illness is
either absolute or relative.

specific partner. It is possible that the

psychological incapacity of a husband is to his
wife. He could be the best husband in the world
if partnered with someone else because
relationship in marriage take two to tango. You
are just as good as your spouse. For purposes of
Art. 26 it can still be a ground for nullity of the
marriage even if it is relative.
On this premise, the person who is declared
psychologically incapacitated can still remarry,
because it is possible that with another partner
, he/she may be able to perform his marital
obligation.
Failure not to get an erection, would be basis
for psychological incapacity but should establish
for this purpose if impotency per se is a
ground for annulment but not psychological
incapacity. If established that impotency is just
the effects of a certain psychological defect in a
person, then maybe presented to the court
that there is something in a person in his
psychological makeup, that makes him unable
to get an erection. But should establish the
connection between the inability to the effect.
But as it is , the mere fact that the husband
couldnt get an erection is not a ground of
psychological incapacity.Because psychological
incapacity is worse than impotency. Imagine,
the inability to understand the meaning of
marriage. = thats worst!

Absolute if the person is afflicted with

psychological incapacity cannot perform marital
obligation regardless of the partner. So
whoever he/she is married to that person
always is unable to perform his/her marital
obligation because the incurability of this illness
is absolute .

3. Gravity could bring about the incapacity to

perform the marital obligation. It must be
distinguished from refusal to perform. Mere
refusal to perform or neglect to perform/
difficulty in the performance is not
psychological incapacity. It could be be serious
personality disorder which could bring about
the incapacity. Even if that individual wishes to
perform and he simply cannot perform becoz of
that illness.

Relative the psychological incapacity of an

individual is only incurable when you speak to a

Note: The incapacity must refer to the incapacity to

perfrom marital obligation not just any obligation. It is

possible that your spouse is a brilliant lawyer or a

brilliant performer unyet he/she could still be declared
with psychological incapacity because insofar as marital
obligation is concerned he is unable to perform it.
The incapacity must relate to the essential marital
obligations which is love, respect, fidelity and so forth.
And obligations concommittant to parenthood. It
should be limited only to this kind of obligation and not
any other obligations.

Article 38 ( Enumerates Void Marriage by reason of

Public Policy)
1. A marriage between collateral blood relatives
whether legitimate or illegitimate , up to the
fourth civil degree
2. Between step-parents and step-children
3. Between parents-in-law and children-in-law

It is too broad to almost cater other grounds but limited

to the 3 Characterististics.

4. Between the adopting parent and the adopted

child;
Exception : If the adopted child has a child of his
own he / she can marry the adopted parent
becoz the prohibition does not extend to the
child of the adopted child. Adoption is merely
personal the adopting parent and the adopted
child. So the adopting parent cannot consider
the child of his adopted child as his grandchild.
It cannot be incestuous.

Question :
Can alcoholism, drug addiction, homosexuality and
lesbianism be ground for psychological incapacity?
The answer is YES. Lesbianism, homosexuality, drug
addiction, alcoholism per se never a ground for
psychological incapacity but either annulment or legal
separation. Becoz in legal separation, you just have to
establish and proof that the spouse is homosexual ,
lesbian , drug addict and so on. Once these facts are
established then it can now be annulled or by court
order. But if these grounds are used as grounds for
Psychological incapacity, it is not enough to establish
these facts alone. You need to establish that becoz of
this, are just manifestations of the personality defect
and becoz of these personality defects the inability to
perform. Per se - can never a ground but if established
the 3 characteristics and the end result of the capacity
to perform = it can be a ground for psychological
incapacity.
Article 37 ( Void Marriage of being Incestuous )
2 Forms :

5. Between the surviving spouse of the adopting

parent and the adopted child;
6. Between the surviving spouse of the adopted
child
Note:
The prohibition applies only if the adopting parent or
adopted child is dissolved by death, not if the marriage
is dissolved by court order other than death. That is
why, Art. 38 is specific for surviving spouse of the
adopting parent or the adopted child. If the marriage if
dissolved by court order , annulment or nullity of
marriage the ex-wife of the adopting parent can
validly marry the adopted child since she is not a
surviving parent of the adopting parent. It can only be
considered surviving if the spouse is dead.

a. A marriage between ascendants and

descendants ( a relative in the direct line ) as
high as above and as low as below.
HAHAHAHAHAHA XD

7. Between an adopted child and a legitimate child

of the adopter

b. A marriage between brothers and sisters

whether full or half blood

They are brother or sisters as regards to the adopting

parent.

8. Between adopted children of the same adopter;

9. Between parties where one , with the intention

to marry the other, killed that other persons
spouse , or , his or her own spouse.
Stepbrothers and stepsisters are not
prohibited. ( if not mentioned then they are
strangers)
Step-parent and stepchild
Article 40 Governs the situation where a person
married contracts a subsequent marriage but the 1st
marriage is void or voidable
Question:
If you are already married and you believe that your
marriage is void or voidable, what do you do inorder to
contract a subsequent marriage?
Under Art. 40, before you can contract a valid
subsequent marriage, you need to file a petition in
court to declare previous marriage void or annulled
before you can contract a subsequent marriage. This is
premise on the fact/theory that only courts may declare
a status of a marriage whether it is void or voidable or
valid. So it is not for the parties to judge the validity or
the invalidity of marriage only court can. That is why
without the court order, marriage is presumed valid
until the court declares void or annulled. So purpose of
Art. 40- there is no more distinction between a void and
voidable marriage the common distinction is that
the void marriage is void from the very beginning and
no court order is necessary to declare it void a
voidable marriage is valid until annulled but for this Art.
40 a void marriage like a voidable marriage is
presumed deemed valid until ordered by the court as
void. Thats the first reason why there is a need to
secure a court judgement declaring the 1st marriage is
void becoz it is not for the parties to judge if it void.
2. Reason of the declaration that the 1st marriage is void
:
- eliminates as to the status of the second marriage
becoz without the court order declaring the 1st marriage
is void , the issue of whether/not the 1st marriage is void
hangs in the air becoz it is only presumed by the parties
concerned. He may be wrong. A party esp. he is not

related in law how can he expected to know that the

marriage is void so inorder to settle and if the status of
the 1st marriage is not settled, naturally the status of
the 2nd marriage is in limbo becoz the 2nd marriage can
only be valid if the 1st marriage is settled but without
the court order. So inorder to settle once and for all and
eliminate any doubt as to the validity of the subsequent
marriage. Art. 40 requires that a court order must be
obtained to declare the previous void before a
subsequent marriage be engaged.
For purposes of remarriage , Article 40 provides that
there should be a court order declaring the marriage
void otherwise the subsequent marriage is void. But
the question is? Is it bigamous?
Can a person who contracted that subsequent marriage
be liable criminally by bigamay when the 1st marriage is
void but no order was issued declaring the 1st marriage
void?
This has been the subject of flipflopping decision of the
SC over the years. One time the SC said bigamous , and
then not bigamous but recently pursuant to recent
jurisprudence starting from Mercado vs. Tan , Abunado
vs. People , Serafico , antone vs. Beronilla , Jarillo vs.
PP, Capili vs. PP and the most recent one PP vs. Eduardo
Odtuhan. The SC has been consistent in holding that
the person who contracts a subsequent marriage
without obtaining first a court declaration of the nullity
of the previous marriage is liable criminally of bigamy.
This is premise on the theory that without the court
declaration, the first marriage is presumed / deemed
valid and subsisting. So it makes that person liable for
bigamy that is already settled by the jurisprudence.
Forget about People vs. Lucio Morigo Morigo who is
from Bohol was prosecuted for bigamy becoz he
entered into 2 marriages without obtaining a court
declaration of nullity of the previous marriage. He was
prosecuted of bigamy by his first wife. The SC ruled in
favor of Morigo it was established that marriage was
void becoz Morigo and the wife are only made to sign
the marriage contract but there was no solemnizing
officer. So the SC said, there was no marriage at all
because one of the formal requistites of marriage is a
valid marriage ceremony and a valid marriage ceremony
presupposes the presence of a solemnizing officer.

Solemnizning officer one of the formal requisites

was also lacking and therefore the marriage is void.
Thus , Morigo was acquitted but since then several
cases came out and in these case , the SC is consistent
regardless for the grounds of nullity of the prev.
marriage if there is no decree declaring it void it
would always result to bigamy. In the recent case of
People vs. Odtuhan this is even worse than Morigo Odtuhan got married the first time without obtaining a
court order declaring marriage void and then
contracted subsequent marriage but may be
anticipating that hell be prosecuted by bigamy he
filed a petition in court declaring said marriage void for
lack of marriage license and then the court declared the
marriage as void. The bigamy case was filed against
Odtuhan and he argued that he cannot be held liable by
bigamy because at the time the bigamy was filed the
1st marriage was already declared by the court as void
but he was rebuffed by the SC and instead said that ,
that is not an argument to exonerate himself for his
criminal liability of bigamy because bigamy punished
the act of contracting subsequent marriage without
obtaining declaration of nullity from the prev. marriage.
By mere entering into the subsequent marriage , the
crime of bigamy was already consummated. It does not
matter if subsequently the 1st marriage was declared
void what is important is that , at the time the
subsequent marriage was contracted , the first marriage
was not yet declared void. The SC said that the kind of
bigamy is deemed consummated the moment the
subsequent marriage is entered into. The subsequent
declaration of nullity of the prev. marriage is not
defense on the charge of bigamy.
Question :
What happens if the prev. marriage is valid and the
spouse contracts a subsequent marriage but the
subsequent marriage is void?
The first marriage is valid and therefore you cannot
apply Art. 40 becoz its valid. But despite the existence
of a valid marriage, you contracted to a subsequent
marriage but the subsequent marriage is void may be
lack of marriage license. Will that result to prosecution
provide?

Note. : Under Art. 349 and various decisions of SC

THERE ARE VARIOUS REQUISITES FOR BIGAMY
1. The person must be legally married.
2. That person contracting a subsequent marriage
without the first marriage having been
dissolved
3. The subsequent marriage must have the
essential requisites for validity.
Bigamy presupposes that the 2nd marriage must
also be valid becoz it must have the essential
requisites for validity.
If the secondary
marriage is not valid then there can be no
bigamy but the SC saw it the other way .
People vs. Tenebro
Victoria Jarillo vs. PP
Capili vs. PP , THE SC said that even if it is the
second marriage or subsequent marriage is
void. Bigamy is still committed because bigamy
punishes the act of entering into a subsequent
marriage during the existence of a prev.
marriage. The fact that there was no court
order declaring the prev. marriage void and the
person contracted the subsequent marriage
that is already bigamy it does not matter if the
subsequent marriage is void
The SC said that in Capili vs. PP , it is not an
argument that the 2nd marriage is void becoz
precisely that 2nd marriage is void since
bigamous. Under Art. 35 NCC a bigamous
marriage is void. It is not correct to argue that if
the subsequent marriage is void then it is not
bigamy becoz by the very nature and necessity
it must be a void marriage so regardless of void
or voidable on any ground whether
psychological incapacity and the like , the thing
is , it is already void by being bigamous. And
therefore, liability for bigamy can still be
incurred. Its clear that, whether it is the 1st or
2nd marriage that is void, it does not matter
bigamy is committed. (That is the prevailing
ruling )