Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 6

Republic vs dayot

FACTS:Jose and Felisa Dayot were married at the Pasay City Hall on November
24, 1986. In lieu of a marriage license, they executed a sworn affidavit that
they had lived together for at least 5years. On August 1990, Jose contracted
marriage with a certain Rufina Pascual. They were both employees of the
National Statistics and Coordinating Board. Felisa then filed on June 1993 an
action for bigamy against Jose and an administrative complaint with the
Office of the Ombudsman. On the other hand, Jose filed a complaint on July
1993 for annulment and/or declaration of nullity of marriage where he
contended that his marriage with Felisa was a sham and his consent was
secured through fraud.
ISSUE: Whether or not Joses marriage with Felisa is valid considering that
they executed a sworn affidavit in lieu of the marriage license requirement.
HELD:CA indubitably established that Jose and Felisa have not lived together
for five years at the time they executed their sworn affidavit and contracted
marriage. Jose and Felisa started living together only in June 1986, or barely
five months before the celebration of their marriage on November 1986.
Findings of facts of the Court of Appeals are binding in the Supreme Court.

The solemnization of a marriage without prior license is a clear violation of


the law and invalidates a marriage. Furthermore, the falsity of the allegation
in the sworn affidavit relating to the period of Jose and Felisas cohabitation,
which would have qualified their marriage as an exception to the requirement
for a marriage license, cannot be a mere irregularity, for it refers to a
quintessential fact that the law precisely required to be deposed and attested
to by the parties under oath. Hence, Jose and Felisas marriage is void ab
initio. The court also ruled that an action for nullity of marriage is
imprescriptible. The right to impugn marriage does not prescribe and may be
raised any time.
Santos vs ca
FACTS:Leouel, a First Lieutenant in the Philippine Army, met Julia in Iloilo. The
two got married in 1986 before a municipal trial court followed shortly
thereafter, by a church wedding. The couple lived with Julias parents at the
J. Bedia Compound. Julia gave birth to a baby boy in 1987 and was named as
Leouel Santos Jr. Occasionally, the couple will quarrel over a number of
things aside from the interference of Julias parents into their family affairs.
Julia left in 1988 to work in US as a nurse despite Leouels pleas to dissuade
her. Seven months after her departure, she called her husband and promised
to return home upon the expiration of her contract in July 1989 but she never
did. Leouel got a chance to visit US where he underwent a training program
under AFP, he desperately tried to locate or somehow get in touch with Julia
but all his efforts were of no avail.Leouel filed a complaint to have their
marriage declared void under Article 36 of the Family Code. He argued that

failure of Julia to return home or to communicate with him for more than 5
years are circumstances that show her being psychologically incapacitated to
enter into married life.
Republic vs Molina
F: The case at bar challenges the decision of CA affirming the marriage of the
respondent Roridel Molina to Reynaldo Molina void in the ground of
psychological incapacity. The couple got married in 1985, after a year,
Reynaldo manifested signs of immaturity and irresponsibility both as husband
and a father preferring to spend more time with friends whom he squandered
his money, depends on his parents for aid and assistance and was never
honest with his wife in regard to their finances. In 1986, the couple had an
intense quarrel and as a result their relationship was estranged. Roridel quit
her work and went to live with her parents in Baguio City in 1987 and a few
weeks later, Reynaldo left her and their child. Since then he abandoned
them.
Te vs te
F: Petitioner Edward Te first met respondent Rowena Te in a gathering
organized by the Filipino-Chinese association in their college. Initially, he was
attracted to Rowenas close friend but, as the latter already had a boyfriend,
the young man decided to court Rowena, which happened in January 1996. It
was Rowena who asked that they elope but Edward refused bickering that he
was young and jobless. Her persistence, however, made him relent. They
left Manila and sailed to Cebu that month; he, providing their travel money of
P80,000 and she, purchasing the boat ticket.They decided to go back to
Manila in April 1996. Rowena proceeded to her uncles house and Edward to
his parents home. Eventually they got married but without a marriage
license. Edward was prohibited from getting out of the house unaccompanied
and was threatened by Rowena and her uncle. After a month, Edward
escaped from the house, and stayed with his parents. Edwards parents
wanted them to stay at their house but Rowena refused and demanded that
they have a separate abode. In June 1996, she said that it was better for
them to live separate lives and they then parted ways.After four years in
January 2000, Edward filed a petition for the annulment of his marriage to
Rowena on the basis of the latters psychological incapacity.
ISSUE: Whether the marriage contracted is void on the ground of
psychological incapacity.
HELD:The parties whirlwind relationship lasted more or less six months. They
met in January 1996, eloped in March, exchanged marital vows in May, and
parted ways in June. The psychologist who provided expert testimony found
both parties psychologically incapacitated. Petitioners behavioral pattern
falls under the classification of dependent personality disorder, and
respondents, that of the narcissistic and antisocial personality disorderThere
is no requirement that the person to be declared psychologically
incapacitated be personally examined by a physician, if the totality of

evidence presented is enough to sustain a finding of psychological incapacity.


Verily, the evidence must show a link, medical or the like, between the acts
that manifest psychological incapacity and the psychological disorder
itself.The presentation of expert proof presupposes a thorough and in-depth
assessment of the parties by the psychologist or expert, for a conclusive
diagnosis of a grave, severe and incurable presence of psychological
incapacity. Indeed, petitioner, afflicted with dependent personality disorder,
cannot assume the essential marital obligations of living together, observing
love, respect and fidelity and rendering help and support, for he is unable to
make everyday decisions without advice from others, and allows others to
make most of his important decisions (such as where to live). As clearly
shown in this case, petitioner followed everything dictated to him by the
persons around him. He is insecure, weak and gullible, has no sense of his
identity as a person, has no cohesive self to speak of, and has no goals and
clear direction in life.As for the respondent, her being afflicted with antisocial
personality disorder makes her unable to assume the essential marital
obligations on account for her disregard in the rights of others, her abuse,
mistreatment and control of others without remorse, and her tendency to
blame others. Moreover, as shown in this case, respondent is impulsive and
domineering; she had no qualms in manipulating petitioner with her threats
of blackmail and of committing suicide.Both parties being afflicted with
grave, severe and incurable psychological incapacity, the precipitous
marriage that they contracted on April 23, 1996 is thus, declared null and
void.
Marcos vs marcos
F: Petitioner Brenda Marcos and Respondent Wilson Marcos were married
twice and hadfive children. After the downfall of President Marcos, the
respondent left the military service in1987. Consequently, due to the
respondents failure to engage in any gainful employment, theywould often
quarrel and the respondent would hit and beat the petitioner. As a result, in
1992they were already living separately. Thus, petitioner filed for annulment
of marriage assailingArt. 36 of the Family Code. The court a quo found the
respondent to be psychologicallyincapacitated to perform his marital
obligations. However, the Court of Appeals reversed thedecision of the RTC
because psychological incapacity had not been established by the totality of
the evidence presented.
Issues:
Whether personal medical or psychological examination of the respondent by
a physician is a requirement for a declaration of psychological incapacity.
Whether the totality of evidence presented in this case show psychological
incapacity.
Held:Psychological incapacity as a ground for declaring the nullity of a
marriage, may be established by the totality of evidence presented. There is
no requirement, however that the respondent be examined by a physician or

a psychologist as a condition sine qua non for such declaration. Although this
Court is sufficiently convinced that respondent failed to provide material
support to the family and may have resorted to physical abuse and
abandonment, the totality of his 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. Verily, the behavior of respondent can be attributed to the fact
that he had lost his job and was not gainfully employed for a period of more
than six years. It was during this period that he became intermittently drunk,
failed to give material and moral support, and even left the family home.
Thus, his alleged psychological illness was traced only to said period and not
to the inception of the marriage. Equally important, there is no evidence
showing that his condition is incurable, especially now that he is gainfully
employed as a taxi driver. In sum, this Court cannot declare the dissolution of
the marriage for failure of the petitioner to show that the alleged
psychological incapacity is characterized by gravity, juridical antecedence
and incurabilty and for her failure to observe the guidelines as outline in
Republic v. CA and Molina.
Republic of the phil vs Laila tanyag-san jose & manoito san jose
F: 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.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-go-lucky 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. 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.
_________________________________________________________________________Ninal vs bayadog
FACTS:Pepito Ninal was married with Teodulfa Bellones on September 26,
1974. They had 3 children namely Babyline, Ingrid and Archie, petitioners.
Due to the shot inflicted by Pepito to Teodulfa, the latter died on April 24,
1985 leaving the children under the guardianship of Engrace Ninal. 1 year
and 8 months later, Pepito and Norma Badayog got married without any
marriage license. They instituted an affidavit stating that they had lived
together for at least 5 years exempting from securing the marriage license.
Pepito died in a car accident on February 19, 1977. After his death,
petitioners filed a petition for declaration of nullity of the marriage of Pepito
and Norma alleging that said marriage was void for lack of marriage license.

ISSUES:1. Whether or not the second marriage of Pepito was void?


2. Whether or not the heirs of the deceased may file for the declaration of
the nullity of Pepitos marriage after his death?
HELD:The marriage of Pepito and Norma is void for absence of the marriage
license. They cannot be exempted even though they instituted an affidavit
and claimed that they cohabit for at least 5 years because from the time of
Pepitos first marriage was dissolved to the time of his marriage with Norma,
only about 20 months had elapsed. Albeit, Pepito and his first wife had
separated in fact, and thereafter both Pepito and Norma had started living
with each other that has already lasted for five years, the fact remains that

their five-year period cohabitation was not the cohabitation contemplated by


law. Hence, his marriage to Norma is still void.
Void marriages are deemed to have not taken place and cannot be the source
of rights. It can be questioned even after the death of one of the parties and
any proper interested party may attack a void marriage.