G.R. NO.

1 85 28 6 , AUGUST 1 8, 20 10
SOCORRO CAMACHO -REYES, VS. RAMON REYES,

Personality Disorder with narcissistic and dependent features, while Dr.

Villegas diagnosed [respondent] to be suffering from Personality Disorder of
the anti-social type, associated with strong sense of Inadequacy especially

FACTS:

along masculine strivings and narcissistic features.

Marital difficulties, which mostly is due to the respondents actions, caused

The RTC granted the petition and declared the marriage between the parties

the petitioner to file a petition for declaration of nullity of her marriage with the

null and void on the ground of their psychological incapacity.

respondent alleging psychological incapacity to fulfill the essential marital

The respondent appealed to the Court of Appeals. The appellate court

obligations under Article 36 of the Family Code.

reversed the RTC decision and declared the parties marriage valid and
Traversing the petition, respondent denied petitioners allegations that he was

subsisting. It held that the petitioner failed to sufficiently establish the alleged

psychologically incapacitated. Respondent maintained that he was not remiss

psychological incapacity of her husband, as well as of herself. It held:

in performing his obligations to his familyboth as a spouse to petitioner and

In the case at bar, we hold that the court a quos findings regarding the

father to their children.

[respondents] alleged mixed personality disorder, his come and go attitude,

[Petitioner] presented several expert witnesses to show that [respondent] is

failed business ventures, inadequate/delayed financial support to his family,

psychologically

diagnosed

sexual infidelity, insensitivity to [petitioners] feelings, irresponsibility, failure to

[respondent] as purportedly suffering from Mixed Personality Disorder

consult [petitioner] on his business pursuits, unfulfilled promises, failure to

(Schizoid Narcissistic and Anti-Social Personality Disorder). Further, clinical

pay debts in connection with his failed business activities, taking of

psychologist Magno found [respondent] to be suffering from an Antisocial

drugs, etc. are not rooted on some debilitating psychological condition but on

incapacitated.

Clinical

psychologist

Dayan

serious marital difficulties/differences and mere refusal or unwillingness to

assume the essential obligations of marriage. [Respondents] defects were
not present at the inception of marriage. They were even able to live in
harmony in the first few years of their marriage, which bore them two children
xxx. In fact, [petitioner] admitted in her Amended Petition that initially they

We do not agree with the CA.

The lack of personal examination and interview of the respondent, or any

other person diagnosed with personality disorder, does not per se invalidate
the testimonies of the doctors. Neither do their findings automatically
constitute hearsay that would result in their exclusion as evidence.

lived comfortably and [respondent] would give his salary in keeping with the
tradition in most Filipino households, but the situation changed when

For one, marriage, by its very definition, necessarily involves only two

[respondent] resigned from the family-owned Aristocrat Restaurant and

persons. The totality of the behavior of one spouse during the cohabitation

thereafter, [respondent] failed in his business ventures. It appears, however,

and marriage is generally and genuinely witnessed mainly by the other. In

that [respondent] has been gainfully employed with Marigold Corporation,

this case, the experts testified on their individual assessment of the present

Inc. since 1998, which fact was stipulated upon by the [petitioner].

state of the parties marriage from the perception of one of the parties, herein
petitioner. Certainly, petitioner, during their marriage, had occasion to interact

ISSUE: Whether or not the Court of Appeals was correct when it rejected the
testimonies of Doctors Magno and Villegas.

RULING:

NO. The Supreme Court held:

with, and experience, respondents pattern of behavior which she could then
validly relay to the clinical psychologists and the psychiatrist.

For another, the clinical psychologists and psychiatrists assessment were

Notwithstanding these telling assessments, the CA rejected, wholesale, the

not based solely on the narration or personal interview of the petitioner. Other

testimonies of Doctors Magno and Villegas for being hearsay since they

informants such as respondents own son, siblings and in-laws, and sister-in-

never personally examined and interviewed the respondent.

law (sister of petitioner), testified on their own observations of respondents

behavior and interactions with them, spanning the period of time they knew

It is true that a clinical psychologists or psychiatrists diagnoses that a person

him. These were also used as the basis of the doctors assessments.

has personality disorder is not automatically believed by the courts in cases

Within their acknowledged field of expertise, doctors can diagnose the

psychological make up of a person based on a number of factors culled from
various sources. A person afflicted with a personality disorder will not
necessarily have personal knowledge thereof. In this case, considering that a

of declaration of nullity of marriages. Indeed, a clinical psychologists or

psychiatrists finding of a personality disorder does not exclude a finding that
a marriage is valid and subsisting, and not beset by one of the parties or
both parties psychological incapacity.

personality disorder is manifested in a pattern of behavior, self-diagnosis by

In the case at bar, however, even without the experts conclusions, the factual

the respondent consisting only in his bare denial of the doctors separate

antecedents (narrative of events) alleged in the petition and established

diagnoses, does not necessarily evoke credence and cannot trump the

during trial, all point to the inevitable conclusion that respondent is

clinical findings of experts.

psychologically incapacitated to perform the essential marital obligations.

In sum, we find points of convergence & consistency in all three reports and

The respondents pattern of behavior manifests an inability, nay, a

the respective testimonies of Doctors Magno, Dayan and Villegas, i.e.: (1)

psychological incapacity to perform the essential marital obligations as

respondent does have problems; and (2) these problems include chronic

shown by his: (1) sporadic financial support; (2) extra-marital affairs; (3)

irresponsibility; inability to recognize and work towards providing the needs of

substance abuse; (4) failed business attempts; (5) unpaid money obligations;

his family; several failed business attempts; substance abuse; and a trail of

(6) inability to keep a job that is not connected with the family businesses;

unpaid money obligations.

and (7) criminal charges of estafa.

PETITION GRANTED.

AURELIO V. AURELIO G.R. No. 175367, [June 06, 2011]

DOCTRINE:

Matrimonial Tribunal of the Catholic Church in the Philippines, while not

controlling or decisive, should be given great respect by our courts; (8) The
trial courtmust order the prosecuting attorney or fiscal and the Solicitor

The following are the guidelines to aid the courts in the disposition ofcases

General toappear as counsel for the state. No decision shall be handed down

involving psychological incapacity: (1) Burden of proof to show the nullity of

unless the Solicitor General issues a certification, which will be quoted in

the marriage belongs to the plaintiff; (2) The root cause of the psychological

thedecision, briefly stating therein his reasons for his agreement or

incapacity must be: (a) medically or clinically identified, (b) alleged in the

opposition, as the case may be, to the petition.

complaint, (c) sufficiently proven by experts and (d) clearly explained in

the decision; (3) The incapacity must be proven to be existing at the time of

FACTS:

the celebration of the marriage; (4) Such incapacity must also be shown to

Petitioner Danilo A. Aurelio and respondent Vida Ma. Corazon Aureliowere

be medically or clinically permanent or incurable; (5) Such illness must be

married on March 23, 1988. They have two sons, namely: Danilo Miguel and

grave enough to bring about the disability of the party to assume the

Danilo Gabriel.

essential obligations of marriage; (6) The essential marital obligations must

be those embraced by Articles 68 up to 71 of the Family Code as regards the
husband and wife, as well as Articles 220, 221 and 225 of the same Code in
regard to parents and their children. Such non-complied marital obligation(s)
must also be stated in the petition, proven by evidence and included in the
text of the decision; (7) Interpretations given by the National Appellate

On May 9, 2002, respondent filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
Quezon City, Branch 94, a Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage. In
her petition, respondent alleged that both she and petitioner were
psychologically incapacitated of performing and complying with their
respective essential marital obligations. In addition, respondent alleged that
such state of psychological incapacity was present prior and even during the

time of the marriage ceremony. Hence, respondent prays that her marriage

On November 8, 2002, petitioner filed a Motion to Dismiss the petition.

be declared null and void under Article 36 of the Family Code. It alleged

Petitioner principally argued that the petition failed to state a cause of action

among others that said psychological incapacity was manifested by lack of

and that it failed to meet the standards set by the Court for the interpretation

financial support from the husband; his lack of drive and incapacity to discern

and implementation of Article 36 of the Family Code.

the plight of his working wife. The husband exhibited consistent jealousy and

RTC denied the petition. CA affirmed.

distrust towards his wife. His moods alternated between hostile defiance and
contrition. He refused to assist in the maintenance of the family.

ISSUE:

On the side of the wife on the other hand, is effusive and displays her

Whether or not the marriage shall be declared null and void?

feelings openly and freely. Her feelings change very quickly from joy to fury

HELD:

to misery to despair, depending on her day-to-day experiences. Her tolerance

for boredom was very low. She was emotionally immature; she cannot stand
frustration or disappointment. She cannot delay to gratify her needs. She

Petition denied. Marriage is null and void.

RATIO:

gets upset when she cannot get what she wants. Self-indulgence lifts her
spirits immensely. Their hostility towards each other distorted their

First, contrary to petitioners assertion, this Court finds that the root cause of

relationship. Their incapacity to accept and fulfill the essential obligations of

psychological incapacity was stated and alleged in the complaint. We agree

marital life led to the breakdown of their marriage.

with the manifestation of respondent that the family backgrounds of both

petitioner and respondent were discussed in the complaint as the root causes

of their psychological incapacity. Moreover, a competent and expert

psychologist clinically identified the same as the root causes.

Second, the petition likewise alleged that the illness of both parties was of
such grave a nature as to bring about a disability for them to assume the
essential obligations of marriage. The psychologist reported that respondent
suffers from Histrionic Personality Disorder with Narcissistic Features.
Petitioner, on the other hand, allegedly suffers from Passive Aggressive
(Negativistic) Personality Disorder. The incapacity of both parties to perform
their marital obligations was alleged to be grave, incorrigible and incurable.

Lastly, this Court also finds that the essential marital obligations that were not
complied with were alleged in the petition. As can be easily gleaned from the
totality of the petition, respondents allegations fall under Article 68 of the
Family Code which states that the husband and the wife are obliged to live
together, observe mutual love, respect and fidelity, and render mutual help
and support.

REPUBLIC V GALANG GR 168335

DOCTRINE:
Psychological incapacity must be characterized by (a) gravity; (b) juridical
antecedence; and (c) incurability.
The defect should refer to no less than a mental (not physical) incapacity
that causes a party to be truly
incognitive of the basicmarital covenants that concomitantly must be
assumed and discharged by the parties to
the marriage.
FACTS:
In March 1994, Nestor and Juvy contracted marriage in Pampanga and
thereafterthey resided in the house of the
Nestors father. Nestor worked as an artist-illustrator while Juvy stayed at
home. They had one child,Christopher.In August 1999, Nestor filed with the
RTC a petition for the declaration of nullity of his marriage with Juvy,under
Article 36 of the Family Code, as amended. He alleged that Juvy was
psychologically incapacitated toexercise the essential obligations of marriage,
as she was a kleptomaniac and a swindler; that Juvy suffers from mental
deficiency, innate immaturity, distorted discernment and total lack of care,
love and affection [towardshim and their] child. He posited that Juvys
incapacity was extremely serious and appears to be incurable.
Having found no collusion between the parties, the case was set for trial. In
histestimony, Nestor alleged that he was the one who prepared their
breakfast because Juvy did not want to wake up early; Juvy often left their
child to their neighbors care; and Christopher almost got lost in the market
when Juvy brought him there. He added
that Juvy stole his ATM card and falsified his signature to
encash the check representing Nestors fathers pension. He, likewise,
stated that he caught Juvy playing mahjong and kuwaho three (3)
times. Finally, hetestified that Juvyborrowed money from their relatives on the
pretense that their son was confined in a
hospital. Nestor presented Anna Liza Guiang, a psychologist, who testified th
at she conducted a psychological test on Nestor. In her Psychological Report,
the psychologist made the following findings:Psychological Test conducted
on client Nestor Galang resembles an emotionally-matured individual. He is

well-adjusted to the problem he meets, and enable to throw-off major

irritations but manifest[s] a very low frustrationtolerance which means he has
a little ability to endure anxiety and the client manifests suppressed feelings
andemotions which resulted to unbearable emotional pain, depression
andlack of self-esteem and gained emotional
tensions caused by his wifes behavior.
The incapacity of the defendant is manifested [in] such a manner that the
defendant-wife:
(1) being very
irresponsible and very lazy and doesnt
manifest any sense of responsibility;
(2) her involvementin gambling activities such as mahjong and kuwaho;
(3) being an estafador which exhibits her behavioral and personality
disorders;
(4) her neglect and show no care attitude towards her husband and child;
(5) her immatureand rigid behavior;
(6) her lack of initiative to change and above all, the fact that she is unable to
perform hermarital obligations as a loving, responsible and caring wife to her
family. There are just few reasons to believethat the defendant is suffering
from incapacitated mind and such incapacity appears to be incorrigible.
The RTC nullified the parties marriage in its decision of January 22, 2001.
The RTC Judge, relying on theSantos Case, stated in the decision that the
psychological incapacity of respondent to comply with the essentialmarital
obligations of marriage can be characterized by (a) gravity because the
subject cannot carry out thenormal and ordinary duties of marriage and
family shouldered by any average couple existing under
ordinarycircumstances of lifeand work; (b) antecedence, because the root
cause of the trouble can be traced to the history of the
subject before marriage although its overt manifestations appear over
after the wedding; and (c) incurability, iftreatments required exceed the
ordinary means or subject, or involve time and expense beyond the reach of
thesubject are all obtaining in this case.On appeal, the Court of Appeals,
affirmed the RTC decision in toto.
ISSUE

Whether there is basis to nullify the respondents marriage to Juvy on the

ground that at the time of the celebration of the marriage, Juvy suffered from
psychological incapacity that prevented her from complying with her essential
marital obligations.
HELD:
None. The Supreme Court held that the totality of Nestors evidence
his testimonies and the psychologist, andthe psychological report and
evaluation insufficient to prove Juvys psychological incapacit
y pursuant toArticle 36 of the Family Code.
RATIO:
Psychological incapacity must be characterized by
(a) gravity; (b) juridical antecedence; and (c) incurability. The defect should
refer to no less than a mental (not physical) incapacity that causes a party to
be truly incognitive of the basic marital covenants that concomitantly
must be assumed and discharged by the parties to the marriage. It must be
confined to the most serious cases of personality disorders clearly
demonstrative of an utter insensitivity or inability to give meaning
andsignificance to the marriage. [Louel Santos vs. CA]It is not absolutely
necessary to introduce expert opinion in a petition under Article 36 of the
Family Code if thetotality of evidence shows that psychological incapacity
exists and its gravity, juridical antecedence, andincurability can be duly
established. [Brenda Marcos vs. Marcos]Instead of serving as a guideline,
Molina Doctrine unintentionally became a straightjacket; it forced all
casesinvolving psychological incapacity to fit into and be bound by it. [Ngo Te
vs. Yu-Te] In Ting vs. Velez-Ting,far from abandoning Molina, the Ngo Te
case simply suggested the relaxation of its stringent requirements;
the Ngo Te case merely stands for a more flexible approach in considering pe
titions for declaration of nullity ofmarriages based on psychological
incapacity.In the present case, the psychologist did not even identify the
types of psychological tests which she administered on Nestor and the root
cause of Juvys psychological condition. There was no showing that
anymental disorder existed at the inception of the marriage. The report failed
to prove the gravity or severity of Juvys alleged condition, specifically, why
and to what extent the disorder is serious, and how it incapacitatedher to

comply with her marital duties; the report did not even categorically state the
particular type of
personality disorder found. The report failed to establish the incurability of Ju
vys condition. The reports pronouncements that Juvy lacks the initiative to
change and that her mental incapacity appears incorrigible are insufficient
to prove that her mental condition could not be treated, or if it were otherwise,
the cure would be beyond her means to undertake.
Petition was granted. Galangs petition for the declaration of nullity of his
marriage to Juvy Salazar under
Article 36 of the Family Code was dismissed
Case Digest: Republic vs. Encelan
G.R. No. 170022, January 9, 2013
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. CESAR ENCELAN,
Respondent.
BRION, J.:
FACTS:
Respondent Cesar married Lolita and the union bore two children. To support
his family, Cesar went to work in Saudi Arabia. While still in Saudi Arabia,
Cesar learned that Lolita had been having an illicit affair with Alvin Perez
(Alvin). Subsequently, Lolita allegedly left the conjugal home with her children
and lived with Alvin. Since then, Cesar and Lolita had been separated.
Thereafter, Cesar filed with the RTC a petition against Lolita for the
declaration of the nullity of his marriage based on Lolitas psychological
incapacity.
At the trial, Cesar affirmed his allegations of Lolitas infidelity and subsequent
abandonment of the family home. He testified that he continued to provide
financial support for Lolita and their children even after he learned of her illicit
affair with Alvin.

affirmed the RTCs decision. The Office of the Solicitor General then filed the
present petition.
ISSUE: Whether or not there exists sufficient basis to nullify the marriage.
HELD: The petition is meritorious.
CIVIL LAW: Psychological Incapacity
Article 36 of the Family Code governs psychological incapacity as a ground
for declaration of nullity of marriage. In interpreting this provision, the Court
have repeatedly stressed that psychological incapacity contemplates
downright incapacity or inability to take cognizance of and to assume the
basic marital obligations; not merely the refusal, neglect or difficulty, much
less ill will, on the part of the errant spouse. The plaintiff bears the burden of
proving the juridical antecedence (i.e., the existence at the time of the
celebration of marriage), gravity and incurability of the condition of the errant
spouse. In this case, Cesars testimony failed to prove Lolitas alleged
psychological incapacity.
In any event, sexual infidelity and abandonment of the conjugal dwelling,
even if true, do not necessarily constitute psychological incapacity; these are
simply grounds for legal separation. To constitute psychological incapacity, it
must be shown that the unfaithfulness and abandonment are manifestations
of a disordered personality that completely prevented the erring spouse from
discharging the essential marital obligations.
Petition is GRANTED. The decision of CA is set aside.
VALERIO E. KALAW, Petitioner,

vs.

ELENA FERNANDEZ, Respondent.

RTC declared Cesars marriage to Lolita void. Upon reconsideration, CA

G.R. No. 166357

January 14, 2015

ISSUE:

PONENTE: Bersamin, J.

Whether or not the marriage was void on the ground of

psychological incapacity.

TOPIC: Psychological incapacity, Declaration of Nullity of Marriage

HELD:
FACTS:
YES. The Court in granting the Motion for Reconsideration held
In the case at bar, Kalaw presented the testimonies of two
supposed expert witnesses who concluded that respondent is psychologically

that Fernandez was indeed psychologically incapacitated as they relaxed the

previously set forth guidelines with regard to this case.

incapacitated. Petitioners experts heavily relied on petitioners allegations of

respondents constant mahjong sessions, visits to the beauty parlor, going

Note: Molina guidelines were not abandoned, expert opinions were just given

out with friends, adultery, and neglect of their children. Petitioners experts

much respect in this case.

opined that respondents alleged habits, when performed constantly to the

Guidelines too rigid, thus relaxed IN THIS CASE

detriment of quality and quantity of time devoted to her duties as mother and
The Court held that the guidelines set in the case of Republic v. CA

wife, constitute a psychological incapacity in the form of NPD.

have turned out to be rigid, such that their application to every instance
However,

the

Supreme Court in

its

September

19,

2011 decisiondismissed the complaint for declaration of nullity of the

marriage on the ground that there was no factual basis for the conclusion of

practically condemned the petitions for declaration of nullity to the fate of

certain rejection. But Article 36 of the Family Code must not be so strictly and
too literally read and applied given the clear intendment of the drafters to

psychological incapacity.

adopt its enacted version of less specificity obviously to enable some

Personal examination by party not required; totality of evidence must

resiliency in its application. Instead, every court should approach the issue

be considered

of nullity not on the basis of a priori assumptions, predilections or

generalizations, but according to its own facts in recognition of the verity that
no case would be on all fours with the next one in the field of psychological
incapacity as a ground for the nullity of marriage; hence, every trial judge

We have to stress that the fulfillment of the constitutional mandate

for the State to protect marriage as an inviolable social institution only relates
to a valid marriage. No protection can be accorded to a marriage that is null
and void

must take pains in examining the factual milieu and the appellatecourt must,
as much as possible, avoid substituting its own judgment for that of the
trial court.

ab initio, because such a marriage has no legal existence.

There is no requirement for one to be declared psychologically

In the task of ascertaining the presence of psychological incapacity

incapacitated to be personally examined by a physician, because what

as a ground for the nullity of marriage, the courts, which are concededly

isimportant is the presence of evidence that adequately establishes the

not endowed with expertise in the field of psychology, must of

partys psychological incapacity. Hence, if the totality of evidence presented

necessity rely on the opinions of experts in order to inform themselves

is enough to sustain a finding of psychological incapacity, then actual medical

on the matter, and thus enable themselves to arrive at an intelligent and

examination of the person concerned need not be resorted to.

judicious judgment. Indeed, the conditions for the malady of being grave,
antecedent and incurable demand the in-depth diagnosis by experts.

Verily, the totality of the evidence must show a link, medical or the
like, between the acts that manifest psychological incapacity and the
psychological

disorder

itself.

If

other

evidence

showing

that

10

certaincondition could possibly result from an assumed state of facts existed

The Court considered it improper and unwarranted to give to such

in the record, the expert opinion should be admissible and be weighed as an

expert opinions a merely generalized consideration and treatment, least of all

aid for the court in interpreting such other evidence on the causation.

to dismiss their value as inadequate basis for the declaration of the nullity of

Indeed, an expert opinion on psychological incapacity should be

considered as conjectural or speculative and without any probative value only
in the absence of other evidence to establish causation. The experts findings
under such circumstances would not constitute hearsay that would justify
their exclusion as evidence.

the marriage. Instead, we hold that said experts sufficiently and competently
described the psychological incapacity of the respondent within the standards
of Article 36 of the Family Code. We uphold the conclusions reached by the
two expert witnesses because they were largely drawn from the case records
and affidavits, and should not anymore be disputed after the RTC itself had
accepted the veracity of the petitioners factual premises.

Expert opinion considered as decisive evidence as to psychological

and emotional temperaments

The findings and evaluation by the RTC as the trial court deserved
credence because it was in the better position to view and examine the
demeanor of the witnesses while they were testifying. The position and role
of the trial judge in the appreciation of the evidence showing the
psychological incapacity were not to be downplayed but should be accorded
due importance and respect.

The Court also held that the courts must accord weight to expert
testimony on the psychological and mental state of the parties in cases for
the declaration of the nullity of marriages, for by the very nature of Article 36
of the Family Code the courts, despite having the primary task and
burden of decision-making, must not discount but, instead, must
consider as decisive evidence the expert opinion on the psychological
and mental temperaments of the parties.

11

her mahjong sessions was a very grave and serious act of subordinating their

Willfully exposing children to gambling constitutes neglect of parental

needs for parenting to the gratification of her own personal and escapist
desires.

duties

The respondent revealed her wanton disregard for her childrens

The frequency of the respondents mahjong playing should not

have delimited our determination of the presence or absence of psychological
incapacity. Instead, the determinant should be her obvious failure to fully
appreciate the duties and responsibilities of parenthood at the time she made
her marital vows. Had she fully appreciated such duties and responsibilities,
she would have known that bringing along her children of very tender ages to
her mahjong sessions would expose them to a culture of gambling and other
vices that would erode their moral fiber. Nonetheless, the long-term effects of
the respondents obsessive mahjong playing surely impacted on her family
life, particularly on her very young children.

The fact that the respondent brought her children with her to her

moral and mental development. This disregard violated her duty as a parent
to safeguard and protect her children.

FALLO:

WHEREFORE,

the Court GRANTS

the

Motion

for

Reconsideration;

REVERSES and SETS ASIDE the decision promulgated on September 19,

2011;

and

REINSTATES

the decision rendered

by

the

Regional

Trial Courtdeclaring the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent
on November 4, 1976 as NULL AND VOID AB JN/TIO due to the
psychological incapacity of the parties pursuant to Article 36 of the Family
Code.

mahjong sessions did not only point to her neglect of parental duties, but also
manifested her tendency to expose them to a culture of gambling. Her
willfully exposing her children to the culture of gambling on every occasion of

12

13