Marcos vs.

Marcos
G.R. No. 136490
FACTS: Brenda Marcos and Wilson Marcos were married on September 6, 1982 in Pasig City.
They met in 1980 when both of them were assigned at the Malacanang Palace, she as an escort
of Imee Marcos and he as a Presidential Guard of President Marcos. After the downfall of
President Marcos, he left the military service in 1987 and engaged in businesses that did not
prosper. As a wife, Brenda always urged him to look for work so that the children would see him
as the provider. They would often quarrel. He would hit her and force her to have sex with him.
The final straw came on October 16, 1994, when they had a bitter quarrel. She lambasted him.
He turned violent and inflicted harm on her. Later on, the petitioner submitted herself to a
psychologist while her husband did not. RTC ruled for the nullity. CA reversed the decision as
psychological incapacity has not been proven by evidence presented.
ISSUES:
1. Whether or not the CA could set aside the findings by the RTC of psychological incapacity
because the respondent did not subject himself to psychological evaluation.
2. Whether or not the totality of evidence and the demeanor of all the witnesses should be the
basis of the determination of the merits of the petition.
RULING: The Court ruled that personal or psychological examination of respondent is not a
requirement for a declaration of psychological incapacity. Nevertheless, the totality of evidence
she presented does not show incapacity. The husband is not psychologically incapacitated at the
time of the celebration of marriage, but said condition can only be traced to the period when he
was not gainfully employed and failed to give material support to his family. There is no
evidence showing that his condition is incurable.
NOTES: (FROM THE SC DECISION OF THAT CASE)
1.) Brenda argues that the CA should have realized that under the circumstances, she had no
choice but to rely on other sources of information because her husband does not want to submit
himself to examination. BUT the Court pointed out that the burden of proof to show the nullity
of the marriage belongs to the plaintiff.
2.) Psychological incapacity must be: (a) medically or clinically identified, (b) alleged in the
complaint, (c) sufficiently proven by experts (d) clearly explained in the decision. Incapacity
must be proven at the time of the celebration of the marriage, and should be shown as medically
or clinically permanent or incurable. Such illness should be grave enough to bring about the
disability of the party to assume the essential obligations of marriage.
3.) Essential marital obligations are found in Articles 68 to 71 of the Family Code, while Articles
220, 221 and 225 pertain to obligation of parents. (PAKI CHECK NA LANG SA CODAL
NYO.)
4.) In cases of psychological incapacity, the Court looks at three requirements: (a) gravity, (b)
juridical antecedence, and (c) incurability.
5.) Article 36 should not be confused as a divorce law. It is different from legal separation that
does not have psychological incapacity as ground but, physical violence, moral pressure, drug
addiction, abandonment, etc.