Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 4

Anonuevo vs jalandoni and John Desantis.

As mentioned earlier, it contains the

following notable entries: (a) that Isabel and John Desantis were
married and (b) that Sylvia is their legitimate child.[6][50] In
MAY D. AONUEVO, ALEXANDER BLEE DESANTIS AND JOHN clear and categorical language, Sylvias birth certificate speaks
DESANTIS NERI, PETITIONERS VS. INTESTATE ESTATE OF of a subsisting marriage between Isabel and John Desantis.
DIVISION, G.R. NO. 178221, O1 DECEMBER 2010) Pursuant to existing laws, [7][51] the foregoing entries are accorded
prima facie weight. They are presumed to be true. Hence,
unless rebutted by clear and convincing evidence, they can, and
THIS CASE IS ABOUT LEGAL PRESUMPTION OF MARRIAGE. BIRTH will, stand as proof of the facts attested. [8][52] In the case at
CERTIFICATE STATING THAT ONES PARENTS WERE MARRIED bench, the petitioners and their siblings offered no such rebuttal.
The petitioners did no better than to explain away the entries in
Sylvias birth certificate as untruthful statements made only in
DIGEST: order to save face.[9][53] They urge this Court to take note of a
typical practice among unwed Filipino couples to concoct the
FACTS: illusion of marriage and make it appear that a child begot by
them is legitimate. That, the Court cannot countenance.


ISSUANCE OF LETTERS OF ADMINISTRATION. ANONUEVO ET AL The allegations of the petitioners, by themselves and
INTERVENED. THEY SAID THEIR MOTHER SYLVIA WAS DAUGHTER unsupported by any other evidence, do not diminish the
OF ISABEL AND JOHN. BUT AT THE TIME OF RODOLFOS DEATH, probative value of the entries. This Court cannot, as the
THEIR GRANDMOTHER ISABEL WAS THE LAWFUL WIFE OF petitioners would like Us to do, simply take judicial notice of a
RODOLFO BASED ON A MARRIAGE CERTIFICATE. RODOLFOS supposed folkway and conclude therefrom that the usage was in
BROTHER OPPOSED THEIR INTERVENTION BECAUSE THE BIRTH fact followed. It certainly is odd that the petitioners would
CERTIFICATE OF SYLVIA STATES THAT ISABEL AND JOHN WERE themselves argue that the document on which they based their
MARRIED. THEREFORE ISABELS MARRIAGE TO RODOLFO WAS interest in intervention contains untruthful statements in its vital
USED AS PROOF THAT ISABEL AND JOHN WERE INDEED Ironically, it is the evidence presented by the petitioners and
MARRIED. FURTHER, SUCH STATEMENT OF MARRIAGE IN THE their siblings themselves which, properly appreciated, supports
BIRTH CERTIFICATE IS JUST TO SAVE FACE AND IS CUSTOMARY. the finding that Isabel was, indeed, previously married to John
Desantis. Consequently, in the absence of any proof that such
ISSUE: marriage had been dissolved by the time Isabel was married to
Rodolfo, the inescapable conclusion is that the latter marriage is
bigamous and, therefore, void ab initio.

The inability of the petitioners and their siblings to present

RULING: evidence to prove that Isabels prior marriage was dissolved
results in a failure to establish that she has interest in the estate
NO. THEY HAVE NO PERSONAL STANDING TO INTERVENE. THE of Rodolfo. Clearly, an intervention by the petitioners and their
BIRTH CERTIFICATE OF SYLVIA WHICH SHOWS THAT ISABEL AND siblings in the settlement proceedings cannot be justified. We
JOHN. BEING NOT MARRIED TO RODOLFO, ISABEL AND HER decision dated 31 May 2007 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R.

TITLE: Grace J. Garcia-Recio v Rederick A. Recio
The ruling of the Court: CITATION: GR NO. 138322, Oct. 2, 2002 | 366 SCRA
XXXXXX Rederick A. Recio, a Filipino, was married to Editha Samson, an
Australian Citizen, in Malabon, Rizal on March 1, 1987. They
The second argument of the petitioners is also without merit. lived as husband and wife in Australia. However, an Australian
We agree with the finding of the Court of Appeals that the family court issued purportedly a decree of divorce, dissolving
petitioners and their siblings failed to offer sufficient evidence to the marriage of Rederick and Editha on May 18, 1989.
establish that Isabel was the legal spouse of Rodolfo. The very
evidence of the petitioners and their siblings negates their claim On January 12, 1994, Rederick married Grace J. Garcia where it
that Isabel has interest in Rodolfos estate. was solemnized at Our lady of Perpetual Help Church,
Cabanatuan City. Since October 22, 1995, the couple lived
separately without prior judicial dissolution of their marriage. As
Contrary to the position taken by the petitioners, the existence a matter of fact, while they were still in Australia, their conjugal
of a previous marriage between Isabel and John Desantis was assets were divided on May 16, 1996, in accordance with their
adequately established. This holds true notwithstanding the fact Statutory Declarations secured in Australia.
that no marriage certificate between Isabel and John Desantis
exists on record. Grace filed a Complaint for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage on
the ground of bigamy on March 3, 1998, claiming that she
While a marriage certificate is considered the primary evidence learned only in November 1997, Redericks marriage with Editha
of a marital union, it is not regarded as the sole and exclusive Samson.
evidence of marriage.[3][47] Jurisprudence teaches that the fact of
marriage may be proven by relevant evidence other than the
marriage certificate.[4][48] Hence, even a persons birth certificate ISSUE: Whether the decree of divorce submitted by Rederick
may be recognized as competent evidence of the marriage Recio is admissible as evidence to prove his legal capacity to
between his parents.[5][49] marry petitioner and absolved him of bigamy.

In the present case, the birth certificate of Sylvia precisely HELD:

serves as the competent evidence of marriage between Isabel
Sumaylo and Gemma del Rosario, which
The nullity of Redericks marriage with Editha as shown by the w a s s o l e m n i z e d a t t h e respondents residence which
divorce decree issued was valid and recognized in the Philippines does not fall within his jurisdictional area. R e s p o n d e n t
since the respondent is a naturalized Australian. However, there judge seeks exculpation from his act of having
is absolutely no evidence that proves respondents legal capacity solemnized the marriage between Gaspar
to marry petitioner though the former presented a divorce Ta g a d a n , a m a r r i e d m a n separated from his wife, and
decree. The said decree, being a foreign document was Arlyn Borga by stating that he merely relied on the Affi davit
inadmissible to court as evidence primarily because it was not issu ed b y the Mun ic ip al Trial Judg e of Bas ey,
authenticated by the consul/ embassy of the country where it will S ama r,confirming the fact that Mr. Tagadan and his first wife
be used. have not seen each o th er for a lm ost seven year s. With
res pect to the s ec ond ch arge, he main tain s th at in
Under Sections 24 and 25 of Rule 132, a writing or document so lemn iz in g th e ma rr iag e between Sumaylo and
may be proven as a public or official record of a foreign country D elRosario, he did not violate Article 7, paragraph 1 of the
by either: Family Code and that article 8 thereof applies to the case in
(1) an official publication or
(2) a copy thereof attested by the officer having legal custody of Whether or not the respondent judge may be
the document. If the record is not kept in the Philippines, such h e l d l i a b l e f o r solemnizing marriages which did not comply
copy must be: with the requisites in the FC?

(a) accompanied by a certificate issued by the proper Ruling:

diplomatic or consular officer in the Philippine foreign service The Court held that even if the spouse present has a well-
stationed in the foreign country in which the record is kept and founded belief that the present spouse was already dead, a
summary proceeding for the declaration of presumptive death is
(b) authenticated by the seal of his office. necessary in order to contract a sub sequent marriag e. In
this cas e, Ta ga da n wa s not a ble to present a summar y
Thus, the Supreme Court remands the case to the Regional Trial p ro ceed ing fo r the declar ation of th e fi r st wifes
Court of Cabanatuan City to receive or trial evidence that will p resump tive e death thus, he is still considered married to his
conclusively prove respondents legal capacity to marry first wife.A marriage can only be considered beyond the
petitioner and thus free him on the ground of bigamy. boundaries of the jurisdiction of the judge in the following
instances: (1) at the point of death;(2 ) in remote p laces; o r
(3) upon requ es t of b oth par ties in wr itin g in a sworn
statement to this effect. None of these were complied with
Cosca vs. Palaypayon237 SCRA 249 therefore there is an irregularity

Facts: Nial vs. Bayadog328 SCRA 122

Ramon C. Sambo and other complainants filed an administrative
co mplaint to the Offi ce of the C our t Ad ministra to r
ag ain st Jud ge Lucio Palaypayon and Nelia Baroy,
Pep ito Ni al was m arr ied to Teodu lfa B ello nes on
respondents, for the following offenses:
S ep temb er 2 6, 1974. Out of their marriage were born herein
petitioners. Pepito resulting to her d ea th on Ap ril 2 4, 19 85
1.Illegal solemnizatio n o f m arriag e
sh ot Teod ulfa . One yea r and 8 mon ths t h e r e a f t e r o r
on D ecemb er 24, 1986, Pep ito and res p on d en t
2.Falsifi cation o f th e mo nthly rep orts of c as es3 .B riber y
N o r m a Bayadog got married without any marriage license. In
in consideratio n of an ap po in tm en t in c our t4 .N on -
lieu thereof, Pepito and Norma executed an affidavit dated
iss uan ce of receipt for cash bond received 5.In fi delity
December 11, 1986 stating that they had lived together as
in the cu stod y of d etained pr is oners , and 6.Requ ir in g
husband and wife for at least 5 years and were thus exempt from
paymen t o f fi ling fees from exemp ted en tities
securing a marriage license. After Pep ito s d eath on
Febru ar y 19, 1 997 , petitio ners fi led ap etitio n for
Complainants allege that respondent judge solemnized
d ec la ra tio n o f nu llity o f the ma rr ia ge o f Pep ito an d
marriages even without the requisite of marriage license. Thus,
N orma alleging that the said marriage was void for lack of a
several couples were able to get married by the simple
marriage license.
expedient of paying the marriage fees to r e s p o n d e n t
Baroy, despite the absence of marriage license.
A s a consequence, their marriage contracts did not reflect any
Wha t na tu re o f c oha bita tio n is co ntemplated und er
marriage license numb er. In add itio n, the resp ond ent
Ar tic le 7 6 o f the Civil Code (now Article 34 of the Family Code)
jud ge d id no t sign th eir ma rr iag e contracts and did not
to warrant the counting of the 5-year period in order to exempt
indicate the date of solemnization, the reason being that he
the future spouses from securing amarriage license.
allegedly had to wait for the marriage license to be submitted by
the parties which was usually several days after the ceremony.
Indubitably, the marriage contracts were not filed with the local
The 5-year common law cohabitation period, which is counted
civil registrar.
back from the date of celebration of marriage, should be a period
of legal union had it not been for the absence of the marriage.
This 5-year period should be the years immediately before the
Whether or not respondent judge is liable of illegal solemnization
day of the marriage and it should be a period of cohabitation
of marriage.
characterized by exclusivity-meaning no third party was involved
at any time within the 5 years and continuity is unbroken. An y
m arriag e subs equ en tly co ntra cted dur in g th e lifetime
On the charge regarding illegal marriages, the
o f the first spouse shall be illegal and void, subject only to the
Fa m i l y C o d e pertinently provides that the formal requisite of
exception in cases of absence or where the prior marriage was
marriage, inter alia, a valid m a r r i a g e license
dissolved or annulled. In th is c ase , a t th e time Pep ito and
except in the cases provided for
res pond e nts ma rr ia ge, it cannot be said that they have
therein. C omp lementar ily, it declares tha t the
lived with each other as husband and wife for at least 5 years
abs en ce of any o f the ess en tia l or forma l requ is ites
prior to their wedding day. From the time Pepitos first marriage
shall g enerally rend er th e ma rr ia ge void a b in itio and
was dissolved to the time of his marriage with respondent, only
th at, wh ile an irreg ular ity in the fo rm a l req uisites shall
about 20 months had elapsed. Pepito had a subsisting marriage
not aff ect th e validity of the marriage, the party or parties
at the time when h e s tar ted coh ab itin g with respo ndent.
responsible for the irregularity sh all b e c ivilly, cr im in ally
I t is im ma ter ia l tha t when they lived with each other, Pepito
and ad ministratively lia ble. Thus , res pond en t judge is
had already been separated in fact from his lawful spouse. Th e
liable for illegal solemnization of marriage.
sub sis ten ce of th e marr ia ge even where th ere is was
a ctua l severance of the filial companionship between the
spouses cannot make an y coh ab itation by either sp ouse
Navarro vs. Judge Domagtoy A.M. No. MTJ-96-1088 with a ny third par ty as b ein g one as husband and
July 19, 1996 wife .Having determined that the second marriage involve in
this case is not covered by the exception to the requirement of a
Facts: marriage license, it is void ab initio because of the absence of
M a y o r R o d o l f o N a v a r r o fi l e d a n a d m i n i s t r a t i v e such element
c a s e a g a i n s t Mun ic ip al Circu it Tr ia l Co ur t Judg e
Hernando Domagto y. Com plaina nt c o n t e n d e d t h a t Manzano vs. SanchezA.M. No. MTJ-00-1329 March
Domagtoy displayed gross misconduct as well 8, 2001
a s ineffi cien cy in o ffi c e and igno ran ce of the law wh en Facts:
he solemnized the weddings of Gaspar Tagadan and Arlyn Complainant avers that she was the lawful wife of the late David
Borga, despite the knowledge that the groo m is merely an za no , h avin g been ma rr ied to him in San Gabr iel
sep ar ated from h is fi rs t wife, an d Flor ia no Dad or A rch ang el Pa rish , A r a n e t a A v e n u e , C a l o o c a n C i t y.
F o u r c h i l d r e n w e r e b o r n o u t o f t h a t m arriag e. the very least to communicate with him, for more than five years
Ho wever, her husba nd con tr ac ted an other ma rr iag e are circumstances th at clea rly sh ow her b ein g
with one Luzvimin da Pa ya o b efore resp ond en t Judg e. ps yc ho lo gica lly in ca pa cita ted to enter in to married life.
Wh en res pond en t Judge so lemn iz ed sa id m arr ia ge, he
kn ew o r oug ht to know tha t th e sa me wa s void and Issue:
bigamous , as the marriag e c ontra ct clea r ly stated th at Whether or not Julia is psychologically incapacitated under
both contracting parties were "separated." Article36 of the FC?

Resp o n d en t Ju d g e, o n th e o th er h an d , c la im s Ruling:
t h a t w h e n h e officiated the marriage between Manzano and The use of the phrase psychological incapacity under Article
Payao he did not know that Man za no wa s lega lly ma rr ied . 36of the Code has not been meant to comprehend all such
Wh at he kn ew was th at th e two had been living possible cases of psyc hos es a s, likewis e men tion ed by
to geth er as husband and wife fo r seven year s alread y so me ecc les ia stic a l au th o r ities , extremely low intelligence,
witho ut the benefit of marriage, as manifested in their joint immaturity and like circumstances. Article 36 of the Family Code
affidavit. According to him, had he known that the late Manzano cannot be construed independently of but must stand in
was married, he would have advised he latter not to marry conjunction with existing precepts in our law on marriage. Thus,
again; otherwise, he (Manzano) could be charged with bigamy. correlated, p s y c h o l o g i c a l i n c a p a c i t y s h o u l d r e f e r
He then prayed that the complaint be dismissed for lack of merit t o n o l e s s t h a n a m e n t a l ( n o t physical) incapacity that
and for being designed merely to harass him. After an evaluation causes a party to be truly in cognitive of the basic marital
of the Complaint and the Comment, the Court Adm in is tr ator covenants that concomitantly must be assumed and discharged
reco mmen ded th at resp ond en t Jud ge be fo und gu ilty by the p ar ties to the m arriag e which , as so expressed
of gross ignorance of the law and be ordered to pay a fine of b y Article 6 8 of the Fam il y Cod e, in clu de their mutual
P2,000, with a warn in g tha t a rep etitio n of the sa me or ob liga tio ns to live to geth e r, obs er ve love, respect and
similar act wou ld be dealt with more severely. fidelity and render help and support. There is hardly any doubt
that the intendment of the law has been to confine the meaning
Issues: of psychological incapacity to the most serious cases of
1) Whether or not convalidation of the second personality disorders clearly demonstrative of an utter
u n i o n o f t h e respondent falls under the purview of Article 34 insensitivity or inability to give meaning and significance to the
of the Family Code? marriage. This psychological condition must exist at the time the
2) Whether or not Respondent Judge is guilty of gross ignorance marriage is celebrated
of the law?

Choa vs. ChoaG.R. No. 143376 November 26, 2002
For this provision on legal ratification of marital cohabitation to
apply, the following requisites must concur:
1. The man and wo ma n mus t have been livin g tog ether Facts:
as hus ban d and wife for at least five years before the Leni Choa, petitioner, and Alfonso Choa, respondent, were
marriage; marriedon March 15, 1981. Out of this union, two children were
2. The parties must haveno leg al im pediment to m arry born. On October27, 1993, respondent filed a complaint for the
each other; annulment of his marriage to petitioner. Also filed an amended
3. The fact o f absenc e o f leg al impediment between the complaint for the declaration of nullityof his marriage based on
parties must be present at the time of marriage; her alleged psychological incapacity. The case went on tr ial
4. The parties must execute an affidavit stating that they have with th e respon dent pres enting h is evid en ce. Ho wever ,
lived together for at least five years and are without legal petitioner filed a motion to dismiss the evidence. RTC denied
impediment to marry each other; and petitioners demurrer to evidence on the ground that petitioner
5. Th e so lemn izin g o ffi c er mus t execu te a sworn must controvert the established quantum evidence of
statement th at h e had asc er ta ined the qua lifi c a tion s o f respondent. Petitioner elevated the case to CA after the motion
th e parties and that h e h ad fo und no lega l impediment of reconsideration was denied. CA held that denial o f th e
to their marriage. d emu rrer was m erely interloc utor y an d petitio ner in
Not all of these requirements are present in the h er defense must present evidence.
c a s e a t b a r. I t i s significant to note that in their separate
affidavits executed on 22 March 1993and sworn to before Issue:
respondent Judge himself, David Manzano and Luzviminda Wheth er or not petition er s ob liga ted to present h er
Payao exp ress ly stated the fa ct o f th eir pr io r exis tin g evid en ce d e s p i t e t h e i n a d e q u a t e e v i d e n c e o f
marr iage. A lso , in their m arriag e con tr ac t, it was r e s p o n d e n t i n t h e a n n u l m e n t o f marriage case
ind icated that both were "s ep ar ated ." Resp ond ent Judge grounded on psychological incapacity.
knew or ought to know that a subsisting previous marriage is a
diri ment impediment, which would make the subsequent Ruling:
marriage null and void.N eith er can res pond en t Judg e ta ke The petition is meritorious. However, the
refu ge on the Jo int A ffi d avit o f David Manzano and e v i d e n c e a g a i n s t p etition er is gross ly insu ffi cien t to
Luzviminda Payao stating that they had been cohabiting as sup por t an y fi nd in g of ps ych olog ic al i n c a p a c i t y t h a t
husb and and wife for seven yea rs . Just like sepa ra tion , would warrant a declaration of nullity of the
free and volun tary cohabitation with another person for at p a r t i e s marriage. R e s p o n d e n t c l a i m s t h a t t h e
least five years does not severe the tieof a subs is ting fi l i n g b y p e t i t i o n e r o f a s e r i e s o f charg es ag ainst
previo us marriag e. C lear ly, respo ndent Jud ge h im a re p roo f o f th e la tter s ps yc ho lo gical in capacity
demons tr ated gross ignorance of the law when he solemnized to comply with the essential obligations of marriage. These
a void and bigamous marriage charges included Complaints for perjury, false testimony,
concubinage and deportation. The documents presented by
respondent during the trial do not in any way sh ow th e
a lleged ps yc ho log ic al inc ap ac ity of his wife. It is the
Leouel Santos vs. CAG.R. No. 112019 January 4, height of absurdity and inequity to condemn
1995 h e r a s p s y c h o l o g i c a l l y inc apa citated to fulfi ll her
m ar ital ob liga tion s, s im ply b ec ause she fi led c a s e s
Facts: against him. The evidence presented merely
Leouel first met Julia in Iloilo City. The meeting later proved to be e s t a b l i s h e s t h e prosecution of the cases against him. To
an even tful day fo r bo th of th em fo r they got m arried rule that the filings are sufficient to establish her psychological
on September 20 , 1 9 8 6 . L e o u e l a n d J u l i a l i v e d w i t h incapacity is not only totally erroneous, but also grave abuse of
the latters parents. The ecstasy, however, did discretion bordering on absurdity. Cou rt clear ly explain ed
not last long. It was bound to happen, Leouel tha t "ps yc ho lo gica l in ca pa city mus t b e characterized by
a v e r r e d , b ecaus e of the frequ en t in ter feren ce by (a) gravity, (b) juridical antecedence and (c) incurability. The
Julias parents into the yo ung s p o u s e s f a m i l y evidence adduced by respondent merely shows that he and his
a ff a i r s . O c c a s i o n a l l y , t h e c o u p l e w o u l d a l s o wife could not get along with each other. There was absolutely
s t a r t a quarrel over a number of things like when and where no showing of t h e g r a v i t y o r j u r i d i c a l a n t e c e d e n c e
the couple should tar t living independently fro m Julia s or incurability of the problems
parents or wh en ever Ju lia wo uld express resentment on Be setting their marital union
Leouels spending a few days with his own parents. On M ay 18 ,
19 88, Julia fi n ally left for the U .S . to wo rk as a nurs e
Antonio vs. ReyesG.R. No. 155800 March 10, 2006
des pite his hus ban ds plea s to so d issu ade her. Seven
mon ths after her d ep arture, Ju lia ca lled Leou el fo r th e
fi rs t time. Sh e pro mised to retu rn home upon the
Leonilo Antonio, petitioner, filed a petition to have his marriage
expiration of her contract but she never did. When Leouel go t a
to Marie Reyes, respondent, declared null and void. He anchored
chance to visit the U .S ., wh ere h e underwent a tr aining
his petition fo r nullity on A rtic le 36 o f th e Family Cod e
progr am under the auspices of the Armed Forces of the
a lleging tha t respon dent wa s psychologically
Philippines he desperately tried to loc ate, o r to so meho w
incapacitated to comply with the essential
get in tou ch with Julia , bu t a ll h is eff or ts were of no
m a r i t a l obligations of marriage. He asserted that respondents
avail Leouel argues that the failure of Julia to return home, or at
incapacity existed a t the tim e their marr iage was
celeb rated and s till subs is ts up to th e present. As
manifestations of respondents alleged psychological incapacity,
petitio ner claimed tha t respo ndent pers istently lied Chi Ming Tsoi vs. CAG.R. No. 119190 January 16,
abo ut h ers elf, the people around her, her occupation, 1997
income, educational attainment and other events or things. I n
s u p p o r t o f h i s p e t i t i o n , p e t i t i o n e r p r e s e n t e d D r. Facts:
A b c e d e , a psychiatrist, and Dr. Lopez, a clinical psychologist, Ch i M in g Tso i a nd G in a La o were ma rr ied on May 22 ,
who stated, based on t h e t e s t s t h e y c o n d u c t e d , t h a t 1 988 . Un til their separation on March 15, 1989, there was no
petitioner was essentially a normal, sexual contact between th em . Henc e, G in a (wife) fi led a
Intro spective, shy and c ons er va tive typ e of perso n. On p etition for the declar atio n of nu llity of their marriage.
th e o th er han d, they observed that respondents persistent Medical examinations showed that the wife was healthy, no rmal
and constant lying to petitioner wa s abn orma l or an d still a virg in , while the husb and was found to b e
patho lo gical. It underm ined the bas ic rela tionsh ip th at c ap able of having sexual intercourse since he was not
shou ld be based on lo ve, tru st and respect. Th ey impotent. The wife claimed that her husband was impotent, and
fu rther ass er ted th at respondents extreme jealousy was was a closet ho mos exua l a s he did no t sh ow his penis
also pathological. It reached the point o f p a r a n o i a s i n c e an d sin ce h e wa s usin g his mothers eyebrow pencil and
there was no actual basis for her to suspect cleansing cream. She also claimed that her husband married her,
t h a t petitioner was having an affair with another woman. They a Filipino citizen, in order to acquire or maintain his r e s i d e n c y
concluded based on th e foreg oing th at resp ondent was status here in the country and to publicly
psych olog ically incap ac ita ted to perform her essential m a i n t a i n t h e appearance of a normal man. On the other
marital obligations. hand, the husband claimed that it was his wife wh o was
After trial, the lower court gave credence to petitioners evidence ps yc ho lo gica lly in ca pa cita ted to p er fo rm bas ic marital
and held that respondents propensity to lying about almost ob liga tio ns . He ass er ts th at his wife avoided him
anythingher occup atio n, s ta te o f h ea lth, s inging whenever he wants to have sexual intercourse with her. He
ab ilities an d her incom e, a mong further claimed that his wife filed the case because she was
Othershad been duly established. afraid that she would be forced to return the pieces of jewelry of
A c c o r d i n g t o t h e t r i a l c o u r t , respondents his mother, and that he might consummate their marriage. He
fantastic ability to invent and fabricate stories also insisted that their marriage would remain valid because
a n d personalities enabled her to live in a world of make- they a re still ver y you ng and there is still a chan ce to
believe. This made her p s y c h o l o g i c a l l y i n c a p a c i t a t e d o verc om e their differences. T h e t r i a l c o u r t d e c l a r e d
a s i t r e n d e r e d h e r i n c a p a b l e o f g i v i n g meaning t h e i r m a r r i a g e v o i d o n a c c o u n t o f psychological
and significance to her marriage. The trial court thus declared incapacity of the husband. The Court of Appeals affirmed the
the marriage between petitioner and respondent null and void. decision of the trial court.
Issue: Whether or not there is sufficient basis/showing of Issue:
psychological incapacity as to render the marriage null and void. Wheth er or not th e pro lo nged refus al of th e husban d to
ha ve s e x u a l c o o p e r a t i o n f o r t h e p r o c r e a t i o n o f
Ruling: c h i l d r e n w i t h h i s w i f e i s equivalent to psychological
It shou ld b e no ted th at th e lies attribu ted to incapacity.
respo ndent were no t a dop ted a s false preten ses in
order to ind uce p etition er in to m arriag e. More Ruling:
dis tu rb ing ly, they ind ic ate a fa ilure on the par t of Ye s . T h e p r o l o n g e d r e f u s a l o f t h e h u s b a n d t o
respo ndent to d istin gu ish ruth from fiction, or at least abide h a v e s e x u a l c oop er ation for the p rocreation o f
by the truth. Petitioners witnesses and the tr ia l co urt were ch ildren with his wife is equ iva lent to psychological
emphatic on res pond en ts invetera te p roc livity to incapacity. I f a sp ous e, a lthou gh ph ys ic ally cap ab le bu t
tellin g lies an d th e pa tho lo gic na tu re o f her mistruths , s imp ly refus es to p e r f o r m h i s o r h e r e s s e n t i a l
wh ich acco rd in g to them, were revela tor y of marriage obligations, and the refusal is
respo ndents in ability to und er stand a nd perform the s ens eles s and con stan t, the Ca th olic marriag e
ess en tial obligations of marriage. Indeed, a person unable to tribun als a ttr ibu te the causes to psychological incapacity
distinguish between fantasy an d rea lity wou ld s im ilar ly be than to stubborn refusal. The husbands s e n s e l e s s a n d
unab le to compreh end th e leg al na tu re o f the marital protracted refusal to f u l fi l l his marital
bond, much less its psychic meaning, and the corresponding o b l i g a t i o n s i s equivalent to psychological incapacity. One of
obligations attach ed to m arriag e, in clu ding p aren ting . the essential marital obligations under the Family Code is to
One unable to adh ere to reality cannot be expected to proc rea te child ren ba sed o n the univers al princip le
adhere as well to any legal or emotional commitments. Clearly in tha t pro crea tio n o f children through sexual cooperation is the
this case, there was no categorical averment from the expert basic end of marriage. Constant n o n - f u l fi l l m e n t o f t h i s
witnesses that respondents psychological incapacity was o b l i g a t i o n w i l l fi n a l l y d e s t r o y t h e i n t e g r i t y o r
curable or incurable. From the totality of the evidence, however, wholeness of the marriage. Decision affirmed and petition denied
the court is sufficiently convinced th a t t h e i n c u r a b i l i t y o f for lack of merit.
respondents psychological incapacity has been
established by the petitioner.