PERSONS CASE DIGESTS Antone v. Beronilla Choa v.

Choa

09/07/15

Antone v. Beronilla
FACTS
On March 12 2007, Myrna P. Antone executed an Affidavit-Complaint for bigamy against Leo R. Beronilla
before Pasay Citys Prosecutor, alleging that their marriage in 1978 had not been legally dissolved upon the
latter contracting a 2nd marriage with a Cecile Maguillo in 1991. Beronilla moved to quash the information
on the ground that the facts charged do not constitute an offense, further informing the court that his
marriage with Antone was declared null & void by the Biliran RTC on April 26 2007, that the decision
became final on 15th May and that it has already been registered 12 th June; further arguing that since the
marriage had been declared as such, there was no first marriage thus the facts alleged do not constitute
bigamy.
Prosecution replied maintaining that it did constitute bigamy, since the 1 st marriage on 18 November 1978
had not yet been severed when he contracted the 2 nd on 16 February 1991, for w/c reason bigamy had been
committed before the court declared the first marriage null & void (27 th April). Court however would quash
the information citing that since the 1st marriage was void, it is not considered legally voidable w/c
constitutes the first requirement for bigamy. Court would also deny reconsideration but since petitioner
questioned the validity of the proceedings, the court set its decision aside. Meanwhile in a petition for
certiorari to the CA, said Court dismissed the petition for lack of merit, as well as denying reconsideration.
Hence, petition to the SC.
ISSUE
1) W/N a declaration of nullity on 1st marriage secured after having entered into a 2nd one expunged the
crime of bigamy
2) W/N a document proving the 1st marriage has become null and void permits court to quash the
information on bigamy
RULING
1) NO. Citing Art. 40 of the FC, Court held that the judicial declaration of nullity of a prior message
was needed in order for a subsequent marriage to be valid; therefore, a such declaration of the 1 st
marriage obtained after a 2nd one was celebrated is immaterial in a bigamy case, since by that time
the crime had already been committed.
2) NO. Held that procedurally, a motion to quash is a hypothetical admission of the facts alleged in the
Information; that instead of moving to quash Beronilla should have instead presented evidence to the
contrary.
DECISION
Orders of RTC and CA are SET ASIDE, criminal case is REMANDED to TC for further proceedings

Republic v. Dagdag
FACTS
In 1975, Erlinda married Avelino. They had 2 children. Erlinda lived in a houselocated at the back of their
in-laws. A week after their wedding, Avelino started leaving his family without explanation. Hed disappear
for months, reappear, and disappear again. When he was with his family, hed have drinking sprees with his
friends and would return home drunk. Hed force Erlinda to have sex with him, and if she refused, hed
inflict physical injuries on her.
Avelino left his family again in 1993. Erlinda looked for a job in Olongapo. She later learned that Avelino
was imprisoned for some crime,that he escaped from jail, and that he is still at-large. Erlinda filed with the
RTC apetition for judicial declaration of nullity of marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity.
Because Avelino could not be located, summons was published three timesin a newspaper. During the

PERSONS CASE DIGESTS Antone v. Beronilla Choa v. Choa

09/07/15

presentation of evidence, Erlinda and her counsel appeared.She presented Virginia, her sister-in-law, as her
only witness, who testified that Erlindaand Avelino always quarreled and never stayed for long in the
couples house.
TC declared the marriage void under Article 36 of the Family Code. The Solicitor General appealed to the
Court of Appeals, which affirmed the decision of the trial court.
ISSUE
Did the CA correctly declare the marriage as null and void under Article 36 of the Family Code, on the
ground that the husband suffers from psychological incapacity, as he is emotionally immature and
irresponsible, a habitual alcoholic, and a fugitive from justice?
RULING
No. Erlinda failed to comply with the evidentiary requirements provided for in theMolina guidelines.
Specifically, Erlinda failed to comply with the requirement that theroot cause of psychological incapacity
must be clinically or medically identified andsufficiently proven by experts, because no psychiatrist or
medical doctor testified to thealleged psychological incapacity of Avelino. Also, the allegation that Avelino
is a fugitivewas not sufficiently proven.

Santos v. Bedia-Santos
FACTS
Leouel Santos, a 1st Lieutenant in the PH Army, married Julia Bedia on Sept. 20 1986 before the Iloilo RTC
w/c was shortly followed w/ a church wedding. They decided to live with Julias parents in Iloilo and even
had a son born on 18th July 1987 named Leouel Santos, Jr. However the couple would experience frequent
interference from Julias parents into their affairs and occasional quarrels between them (over when theyll
live independently or Leouels spending habits). Julia left for the US to work as a nurse on 18 th May 1988;
on January 1 1989, she called Leouel at last over a long distance call and promised to return home when her
contract expires on July. She never did. Even when Leouel visited the US under a training program, he
searched but could not find her.
Leouel then filed w/ the RTC of Negros Oriental a complaint for Voiding of Marriage under Art. 36 (FC),
to w/c Julia answered on 31st May 1991 by denying the allegations and that it had been him who had been
irresponsible and incompetent. The RTC dismissed the petition for lack of merit on 6 th November. Leouel
would appeal to the CA but they would simply affirm the decision of the RTC. Leouels argument remains
that Julias failure to return home or at least communicate w/ him for more than 5 yrs clearly shows her
being psychologically incapacitated to enter into married life.
ISSUE
Was Julia psychologically incapacitated that it would render their marriage void?
RULING
NO. Unfortunately the Family Code did not define the term psychological incapacity, nor did its
Revision Committee give any clear or specific examples so as to the fear that the giving of examples would
limit the applicability of the provision Fr. Orsy concedes that the term defies any precise definition since
such causes can be of an infinite variety. Justice Sempio-Diy did offer three characteristics that would aid in
defining it (gravity, juridical antecedence and incurability), and the understanding that it should refer to no
less than a mental incapacity that causes a party to be truly incognitive of basic marital covenants as
well as it having existed at the time of the marriage celebration. However, Court deemed that until there are
further statutory and jurisprudential parameters established, every circumstance that could be linked to such

PERSONS CASE DIGESTS Antone v. Beronilla Choa v. Choa

09/07/15

an alleged incapacity must be carefully examined by the proper agencies or institutions before such a case
would be decided.

Republic v. CA, Molina

FACTS
Reynaldo and Roridel Molina were married on April 14 1985 at Manilas San Agustin Church, and they
bore a son named Andre O. Molina, but after a year into the marriage Reynaldo began to show signs of
immaturity as a husband and a father such as spending more time with friends hed squander money on,
depend on his parents for aid, and never being honest with her regarding finances w/c led to many quarrels.
Sometime in February 1986 Reynaldo was fired, and the couple had a very intense quarrel on October w/c
estranged their relationship. On March 1987 Roridel resigned from her job and went to live with her parents
in Baguio but after a few weeks Reynaldo left her and Andre, abandoning them since.
Roridel then filed for a declaration of nullity citing that Reynaldo had shown his being psychologically
incapable of complying w/ essential marital obligations and was a highly immature and habitually
quarrelsome individual who thought of himself as a king to be served, and itd be in their interest that
petition be granted. Reynaldo answered on August 28 1989, admitting they could no longer live together but
that their misunderstandings were due to Roridels faults (choosing to keep her group of friends, refusal to
perform duties like cooking meals and failure to run the household and handling their finances). TC rendered
the marriage void on May 14, 1991, w/ Reynaldos petition denied by the CA.
ISSUE
Is the marriage void w/ respect to the petitions claim(s)?
RULING
NO. The marriage between Roridel and Reynaldo subsists and remains valid. What constitutes
psychological incapacity is not mere showing of irreconcilable differences and confliction personalities. It is
indispensable that the parties must exhibit inclinations which would not meet the essential marital
responsibilites and duties due to some psychological illness. Reynaldos action at the time of the marriage
did not manifest such characteristics that would comprise grounds for psychological incapacity. The
evidence shown by Roridel merely showed that she and her husband cannot get along with each other and
had not shown gravity of the problem neither its juridical antecedence nor its incurability. In addition, the
expert testimony by Dr Sison showed no incurable psychiatric disorder but only incompatibility which is not
considered as psychological incapacity.
The following are the guidelines as to the grounds of psychological incapacity laid set forth in this case:

burden of proof to show nullity belongs to the plaintiff

root causes of the incapacity must be medically and clinically inclined
such incapacity should be in existence at the time of the marriage
such incapacity must be grave so as to disable the person in complying with the essentials of marital
obligations of marriage
such incapacity must be embraced in Art. 68-71 as well as Art 220, 221 and 225 of the Family Code
decision of the National Matrimonial Appellate Court or the Catholic Church must be respected
Court shall order the prosecuting attorney and the fiscal assigned to it to act on behalf of the state.

Marcos v. Marcos
FACTS

PERSONS CASE DIGESTS Antone v. Beronilla Choa v. Choa

09/07/15

Plaintiff Brenda B. Marcos married Wilson Marcos in 1982 and they had five children. Alleging that the
husband failed to provide material support to the family and have resorted to physical abuse and
abandonment, Brenda filed a case for the nullity of the marriage for psychological incapacity. The RTC
declared the marriage null and void under Art. 36 which was however reversed by CA.
ISSUE(S)
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.
RULING
NO. 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.

Antonio v. Reyes
FACTS
Leonile N. Antonio at 36 met Marie Ivonne F. Reyes at 26 in August 1989, and barely a year after they got
married before a Gsopel minister at Manila City Hall and through a church wedding at the Sta. Rosa de
Lima Parish, Bagong Ilog, Pasig on December 6 1990. They had a child born April 19 1991 but died 5
months later.
However on March 8 1993, petitioner filed to have their marriage declared null and void based on Art. 36
(FC), alleging that she was psychologically incapacitated to comply with essential marital obligations, and
that said incapacity existed at time of the celebration and subsists til now. He claimed that she persistently
lied about herself and the people around her, her occupation, her income, her educational attainment and
other events or things. He separated from her in August 1991 out of being unable to take it; tried to reconcile
but left her for good on November as he noticed she hadnt changed. In support of his petition, he even had a
psychiatrist and a clinical psychologist testify that based on their observations she was indeed
psychologically incapacitated from marital obligations.
In opposition respondent claimed that she performed these obligations by attending to all of his needs, and
that there was no truth to the allegations that she fabricated stories, lies and even invented personalities; and
as for the examples cited in Leoniles allegation, she had reasonable counters to them. She even presented
a psychiatrist of her own who testified that she was fine, but petitioners clinical psychologist rebutted this
stating that (i) the psychiatrist didnt personally administer and interpret the test and results; and (ii) he made
use of only one instrument that Marie could easily cheat.
TC granted the petition, holding that respondents propensity to lying about almost anything had been duly
established, making her psychologically incapacitated. However the CA reversed the judgment of the TC,
while conceding that respondent may not have been completely honest, the totality of the evidence presented
was insufficient to establish the incapacity.

PERSONS CASE DIGESTS Antone v. Beronilla Choa v. Choa

09/07/15

ISSUE
Can Antonio impose Art. 36 (FC) as basis of declaring their marriage null and void?
RULING
YES. Psychological incapacity pertains to the inability to understand the obligations of marriage as
opposed to a mere inability to comply with them. 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 wifes behavior, which amounts to
psychological incapacity. Respondents fantastic ability to invent, fabricate stories and letters of fictitious
characters enabled her to live in a world of make-believe that made her psychologically incapacitated as it
rendered her incapable of giving meaning and significance to her marriage. The root causes of Reyes
psychological incapacity have been medically or clinically identified that was sufficiently proven by
experts. The gravity of respondents 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. It would be difficult for an inveterate pathological liar to
commit the basic tenets of relationship between spouses based on love, trust and respect. Furthermore,
Reyes case is incurable considering that petitioner tried to reconcile with her but her behavior remain
unchanged.

Republic v. Melgar
FACTS
Norma Cusion-Melgar and Eulogio Melgar were married before the Catholic Church in Dagupan City on
March 27, 1965; their marriage spawned 5 children. On August 19 1996 she filed for declaration of nullity
on ground of husbands psychological incapacity, and that these manifestations are his immaturity, habitual
alcoholism, unbearable jealousy, maltreatment, constitutional laziness and abandonment of his family since
December 27, 1985; Eulogio failed to reply in the allotted time and thus RTC had prosecution conduct an
investigation to ensure there is no collusion to w/c it found none. After the presentation of evidence on
January 8 1997, the TC would nullify the marriage 12 days later.
The OSG acting on behalf of Eulogio filed an appeal with the CA, contending that the presented evidence
is sufficient to declare the marriage void under Art. 36. CA however would affirm the lower courts decision
on August 11, 1999.
ISSUE
Is Eulogios alleged incapacity in accordance with Art. 36?
RULING
NO. The totality of evidence provided by Norma was completely insufficient to establish the psychological
incapacity. These are seen in that (i) she alone testified to support her complaint; (ii) failed to establish the
fact that at the time of the celebration of the marriage her husband was already suffering from it; and (iii)
there was no evidence showing that the husband was not cognizant of the basic marital obligations. At best,
the circumstances relied upon by the wife are ground for legal separation.

Dimayuga-Laurena v. CA
FACTS
Ma. Darlene Dimayuga-Laurena and Jesse Lauro Laurena met in January 1983, and got married on
December 19 1983 at the Church of Saint Augustine in Intramuros, Manila. They have two children named

PERSONS CASE DIGESTS Antone v. Beronilla Choa v. Choa

09/07/15

Mark Jordan, born 2nd July 1985, and Michael Joseph, born 11th November 1987. It was on 19th October
1993 that petitioner filed for declaration of nullity, alleging that her husband was psychologically incapable
of assuming the marriages essential obligations, and that the incapacity existed at the time of the celebration
however she discovered it only after the marriage. She further alleged that after their honeymoon in Baguio
(where he allowed their 15 yr old companion, a son of a help, to sleep in the room), they resided in her
house in Paranaque, that she got pregnant in March 1984 but while suffering a miscarriage she almost bled
to death while respondent continued watching a television show at the foot of their matrimonial bed. She
further alleged that he gave priority to his parents needs, would come home past midnight and even tried to
convert her to his religion; on top of that he was a womanizer who lived a pseudo-bachelors life (while she
tended to their Batangas gas station) and displayed feminine tendencies (hit her during a quarrel). All in all,
she alleged that his incapacity was manifested by his infidelity, utter neglect of familys needs,
irresponsibility, insensitivity and tendency to lead a bachelors life. Lastly, she alleged that they acquired
properties during their marriage as part of their conjugal partnership of gains, and thus prayed for dissolution
of the said partnership, for custody of the children and for a monthly support of P25K.
Respondent denied these allegations, asserting that she was emotionally unstable, and that some of the
properties she claimed were not part of their partnership. On 25 th March 1997 the TC denied the petition as
they found the manifestations as not so serious as to consider him incapacitated, and that evidence only
showed she could not get along with him. However, it declared the CPG dissolved and awarded the custody
of the children to whom they choose to be with (if theyre over 7 yrs old). Both parties sought to claim what
theyve been denied to the CA, with it affirming with modification in favor of respondent, citing that
petitioners bases in complaint (irresponsibility) and trial (homosexuality) lacked facts and evidence.
ISSUE
Was respondent psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential marital obligations?
Were the properties excluded by the CA form part of the CPG between the parties?
RULING
NO. The root cause of the psychological incapacity must be medically or clinically indentifed. The Court
found the testimonies presented by petitioner to be vague and ambiguous, failing to identify its root cause
and ascertain the incurability of Laurenas incapacity.
NO. The ancestral house and lot in Tanauan, Batangas; the duplex house and lot on Dayap Street, Makati
City; and the properties acquired through the operations of the Jeddah Caltex Station and Jeddah Trucking.
As early as 15 July 1978, respondents parents already executed a General Power of Attorney23 in favor of
respondent covering all their properties and businesses. Several Special Powers of Attorney were also
executed by respondents parents in favor of respondent. On 14 April 1987, respondents parents executed a
Deed of Absolute Sale24 covering two parcels of land located in Tanauan, Batangas the transfer was merely
an accommodation so that petitioner, who was then working at the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP), could
acquire a loan from BSP at a lower rate 25 using the properties as collateral. The loan proceeds were used as
additional capital for the Jeddah Caltex Station. The Lease Contract26 on the Jeddah Caltex Station was
signed by respondent as attorney-in-fact of his mother Juanita Laurena, leaving no doubt that it was the
business of respondents parents. Jeddah Trucking was established from the proceeds and income of the
Jeddah Caltex Station. Respondent testified that he received a series of promotions during their marriage
"until we can afford to buy that duplex [on] Dayap." 28 Hence, the duplex house on Dayap Street, Makati City
should be included in the conjugal partnership of gains.

Te v. Te
FACTS

PERSONS CASE DIGESTS Antone v. Beronilla Choa v. Choa

09/07/15

Edward Kenneth Ngo Te first met Rowena Ong Gutierrez Yu-Te in a gathering by their colleges FilChinese association, him a sophomore and her a freshman. As they got closer from their shared angst
towards their respective families they eloped to Cebu in March 1996 but they only financially lasted for a
month and so returned to Manila in April 1996, with Edward returning to his parents home but Rowena
threatened him with her suicide if he did not stay with her at her uncles, w/c he complied with. On April 23rd
Rowenas uncle had them married in court with him being 25 and her 20; they continued to stay at Rowenas
uncles where Edward was treated like a prisoner. A month later he escaped to his parents while they hid him
from their approaches. In June Edward talked to Rowena but she said it would be better for them to live
separate lives, so they parted ways.
On January 18 2000, Edward filed before the QC RTC for the annulment of this marriage to Rowena as her
psychological incapacity as the basis. The City Prosecutor could not determine if there was any collusion
between them and so referred the case to be tried. The clinical psychologist of the trial however found both
parties as being psychologically incapacitated, and so the RTC declared their marriage null and void on July
30 2001. The OSG representing the Republic however timely filed an appeal, w/c the CA reversed and set
aside. It ruled that Edward failed to prove Rowenas incapacity, as the clinical psychologist did not
personally examine her but only him, and that said psychologist only relied on his information. Edward thus
filed petition for certiorari to this Court.
ISSUE
Was the marriage null and void under Art. 36 (FC)?
RULING
YES. The Court declared it void after finding both parties afflicted w/ grave, severe and incurable
psychological incapacity. It further held that 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, as well as Juxtaposing against the Molina guidelines.

Ting v. Velez-Ting
FACTS
Benjamin Ting and Carmen Velez-Ting first met in 1972 during med school, and were wed on July 26
1975. They resided in Carmens family home; Benjamin later worked for Carmens family hospital the Velez
Hospital.
After being married for more than 18 years and while their youngest child was only 2, Carmen filed for
declaration of nullity based on Art. 36 (FC). She alleged that he was a habitual drunkard, a gambler and that
there was even a time where they had to sell the family car and a portion of Bens inherited lot (from father)
hust so they can pay off gambling debts. When she confronted him on this he would physically assault her
and force her into sex. Ben also refused to give financial support and would even get angry whenever shed
ask for money for the kids.
Lower court declared the marriage null and void by giving credence to Dr. Onates findings and admissions
made by Benjamin in the course of his deposition, and found him to be psychologically incapacitated. CA
however reversed the decision, ruling that no proof was adduced to support this conclusion. They would
later reverse their own decision.
ISSUE(S)
Was the marriage null and void under Art. 36?
Was Benjamin indeed psychologically incapacitated?
RULING

PERSONS CASE DIGESTS Antone v. Beronilla Choa v. Choa

09/07/15

NO. Case involving the application of Article 36 must be treated distinctly and judged not on the basis of a
priori assumptions, predilections or generalizations but according to its own attendant facts. Courts should
interpret the provision on a case-to-case basis, guided by experience, the findings of experts and researchers
in psychological disciplines, and by decisions of church tribunals.
NO. Evidence adduced by respondent insufficient to prove that petitioner is psychologically unfit to
discharge the duties expected of him as a husband, and more particularly, that he suffered from such
psychological incapacity as of the date of the marriage eighteen (18) years ago.

Tsoi v. CA
FACTS
Chi Ming Tsoi and Gina Lao-Tsoi were married 1988, but separated on March 15 1989. After the
celebration of their wedding, they proceed to the house of defendants mother. There was no sexual
intercourse between them during their first night and same thing happened until their fourth night. In an
effort to have their honeymoon in a private place, they went to Baguio but Ginas relatives went with them.
Again, there was no sexual intercourse since the defendant avoided by taking a long walk during siesta or
sleeping on a rocking chair at the living room. Since May 1988 until March 1989 they slept together in the
same bed but no attempt of sexual intercourse between them. Because of this, they submitted themselves for
medical examination to a urologist in Chinese General Hospital in 1989. The result of the physical
examination of Gina was disclosed, while that of the husband was kept confidential even the medicine
prescribed.
Gina filed for an annulment on ground of her husbands psychological incapacity, alleging that he is
impotent, a close homosexual and that they never had intercourse. She added that she had observed him
using an eyebrow pencil and sometimes his mothers cleansing cream; and that according to her that he
married her in order to acquire or maintain his residency status in the PH and to publicly maintain his
appearance.
TC granted her petition, with Chi Ming appealing to the CA who affirmed the decision. He does not want
the marriage annulled for several reasons: (1) he loves her very much; (2) he has no defect and is physically
and psychologically capable; and (3) since the relationship is still young and if there are differences between
them it may still be reconciled and if either one of them has some incapability, there is no certainty that this
will not be cured by medical means. Though he admitted not having sexual relations with his wife, he
maintained that it was she who refused. Chi Ming Tsoi submitted himself to another physical examination
and the result was there is no evidence of impotency and he is capable of erection.
ISSUE
Was Chi Ming Tsois refusal to have sexual intercourse with his wife constitutive of psychological
incapacity?
RULING
YES. The abnormal reluctance or unwillingness to consummate his marriage is strongly indicative of a
serious personality disorder which to the mind of the Supreme Court clearly demonstrates an utter
insensitivity or inability to give meaning and significance to the marriage within the meaning of Article 36
of the Family Code.
If a spouse, although physically capable but simply refuses to perform his or her essential marital obligations
and the refusal is senseless and constant, Catholic marriage tribunals attribute the causes to psychological
incapacity than to stubborn refusal. Furthermore, one of the essential marital obligations under the Family
Code is to procreate children thus constant non-fulfillment of this obligation will finally destroy the integrity
and wholeness of the marriage.

PERSONS CASE DIGESTS Antone v. Beronilla Choa v. Choa

09/07/15

Choa v. Choa
FACTS
Leni O. Choa and Alfonso C. Choa were married on March 15 1981 and they had two children, Cheryl
Lynne and Albryan. On October 27 1993, Alfonso filed before the Negros Occidental RTC a Complaint for
the annulment of his marriage to Leni, and filed an amendemtn on November 8 for declaration of nullity on
the ground of his wifes alleged psychological incapacity. Case went to trial and as Alfonso was submitting
his Formal Offer of Exhibits, petitioner did not object but rather filed for dismissal (demurrer to evidence)
dated May 11, 1998; TC allowed a number of pleadings to be filed thereafter.
RTC denied Lenis demurrer to evidence on December 2, holding that [he] established a quantum of
evidence that the [she] must controvert. After she was denied reconsideration she brought the case to the
CA, w/c held that the denial of demurrer was merely interlocutory, ruling that the granting/denying of
demurrer was in discretion of the court, and that Leni failed to show that the issues in the court below had
been resolved arbitrarily or without basis.
ISSUE
Did Alfonso present quantum evidence for the declaration of nullity on the ground of Lenis psychological
incapacity?
RULING
NO. The evidence was insufficient and shows grave abuse of discretion bordering on absurdity. Alfonso
testified and complained about three aspects of Lenis personality namely lack of attention to children,
immaturity, and lack of an intention of procreative sexuality and none of these three, singly or collectively,
constitutes psychological incapacity.
Psychological incapacity must be characterized by gravity, juridical antecedence, and incurability. It must
be more than just a difficulty, a refusal or a neglect in the performance of marital obligations. A mere
showing of irreconcilable differences and conflicting personalities does not constitute psychological
incapacity.
Furthermore, the testimonial evidence from other witnesses failed to identify and prove root cause of the
alleged psychological incapacity. It just established that the spouses had an incompatibility or a defect that
could possibly be treated or alleviated through psychotherapy. The totality of evidence presented was
completely insufficient to sustain a finding of psychological incapacity more so without any medical,
psychiatric or psychological examination.