Santiago v.

People
Facts:
Four months after the solemnization of their marriage on July 29. 1997, Leonila G.
Santiago and Nicanor F. Santos faced an Information for bigamy. Petitioner pleaded
not guilty, while her putatitve husband escaped the criminal suit. Petitioner
asserted that she could not be included as an accused because she had been under
the belief that Santos was stil single when they got married. Further, she averred
that for there to be a conviction for the crime of bigamy, his second marriage to her
should be proven valid by the prosecution; but in this case, she argued that their
marriage was void due to lack of a marriage license.
The trial court rejected the affirmative defense of petitioner that she had not known
of the first marriage. Anent the issue of lack of marriage license, the RTC declared
that as indicated in the Certificate of Marriage her marriage was celebrated
without a need for a marriage license in accordance with Article 34 of the Family
Code, which an admission that she cohabitated with Santos long before the
celebration of their marriage. The trial cour thus concivted the petitioner. Petitioner
rmoved for reconsideration and contended that their marriage was void ab initio
because they not lived together as husband and wife for five years prior to their
marriage. Hence, she argued that the absence of a marriage license effectively
rendered their marriage null and void, justifying her acquittal from bigamy. The RTC
refused to reverse her conviction. On Appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the
decision of the RTC.

Issues:
Whether the lack of marriage license which renders the petitioners subsequent
marriage with Santos as void ab initio, is a ground to exempt her from the crime of
bigamy.
Ruling:
No, the contention of the petitioner is berefit of merit. It is true that for a marriage
to be valid, a marriage license is required. Also, for a person to be liable for the
crime of bigamy, there must be a prior and a subsequent valid marriage. In the case
at bar, the petitioner argues that there was in fact no valid marriage between them
because there did not sought a marriage license, rendering their marriage void from
the beginning. Thus, she posited that she cannot be held liable for the crime of
bigamy. However, the Court ruled that the petitioner married Santos while knowing
full well that they had not yet complied with the five-year cohabitation requirement
under Article 34 of the Family Code. Consequently, it will be the height of absurdity
to allow petitioner to use her illegal act to escape criminal conviction on the crime
of bigamy. The court affirmed the decision of the CA but modified the same,
convicting the petitioner only as an accomplice for the crime of bigamy.
OSCAR P. MALLION, petitioner, v. EDITHA ALCANTARA, respondent.
G.R. No. 141528. October 31, 2006.

Facts:
On October 24, 1995, petitioner Oscar Mallion filed with the regional trial court
seeking a declaration of nullity of his marriage to respondent Editha Alcantara on
the ground of psychological incapacity. The trial court denied the petition. Likewise,
it was dismissed in the Court of Appeals. After such decision, petitioner filed another
petition for declaration of nullity of marriage with the regional trial court alleging
that his marriage with respondent was null and void due to the fact that it was
celebrated without a valid marriage license. Respondent filed an answer with
motion to dismiss on the ground of res judicata and forum shopping. The trial court
granted her petition.
Issue:
Whether the previous final judgment denying a petition for declaration of nullity on
the ground of psychological incapacity bars a subsequent petition, this time, on the
ground of lack of marriage license
Ruling:
Yes, the petitioner is barred to seek the declaration of nullity of his marriage on
another ground. Petitoner contends that the two petitions brought by him were
anchored on separate causes of action. But the truth about this is both petitions has
the same cause which is the declaration of nullity of his marriage with the
respondent. What differs is the ground upon which the cause of action is predicated.
Petitioner is barred in claiming that their marriage is null and void because of the
alleged lack of marriage license for he should have raised all the issues and grounds
on his first petition. However, in the first proceedings, he impliedly conceeded that
the marriage had been solemnized in accordance with law. Therefore, the present
action for declaration of nullity of marriage on the ground of lack of marriage license
is barred.
Abbas v. Abbas
Facts:
The case stems from a petition filed by Syed Abbas for the declaration of nullity of
marriage to Gloria Goo-Abbas with the RTC of Pasay City. Syed alleged that their
marriage was celebrated with the absence of a formal requsite which is a valid marriage
license in this case and in effect, invalidates their marriage. On the contrary, it is stated
in the Marriage Contract of Gloria and Syed that Marriage License No. 9969967 issued
at Carmona, Cavite, was presented to the solemnizing officer. To ascertain whether
such marriage license existed, he went to the Office of the Civil Registrar of Carmona,
Cavite, but was told through a certification that the Marriage License No. 9969967 was
rather issued to a certain Arlindo Getalado and Myra Mabilangan. The respondent
inexplicably failed to secure a copy of their marriage license, weakening her claim that
there was a valid one issued for her and Syed.
The RTC held that no valid marriage license was issued by the Municipal Civil Registrar
of Carmona, Cavite in favor of Gloria and Syed, rendering their marriage void ab
initio.The respondent filed a Mortion for Reconsideration but was denied promting her to
appeal to the CA. The appeal was granted and the trial courts decision was reversed.
The petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration but was denied by the appellate court
which led to the filing of Petition for Review on Certiorari with the Supreme Court.
Issue:
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the decision of the RTC despite the
evidence presented that the marriage of Syed and Gloria was celebrated without a valid
marriage license
Ruling:
Yes, the Court of Appelas erred in granting the appeal of herein respodent in spite of the
clear proof that there was indeed an absence of a valid marriage license. As a rule set
forth in Article 35 paragraph 3 of the Family Code, a marriage shall be void from the
beginning if it was solemnzied without a license. In the case at bar, the petitioner was
able to prove, that there is no such marriage license for Gloria and Syed was issued,
and that the serial number of the marriage license pertained to another couple, Arlindo
Getalado and Myra Mabilangan. The Supreme Court ruled that since a marriage
license, a formal requisite, is clearly absent, the marriage of Gloria and Syed is void ab
initio. Therefore, the petition is granted and the decision of the appellate court is
reversed and set aside.

Capili v. People

Capili v. People

On June 28, 2004, petitioner was charged with the crime of bigamy for willfully and
feloniously contracting a subsequent marriage with Shirley G. Tismo while a previous
marriage has not been legally disloved or annulled. Petitioner thereafter filed a Motion to
Suspend Proceedings alleging that there is a pending civil case for the declaration of
nullity of the second marriage filed by Karla Y. Medina-Capili which serves as a
prejudicial question in the instant criminal case. Consequently, the arraignment and pre-
trial were reset. Further, the RTC of Antipolo City rendered a decision declaring the
voidness or incipient invalidity of the second marriage between petitioner and private
respondent considering that the same is bigamous, having been celebrated during the
validity of a prior marriage.

Issue:
Whether the marriage between James and Shirley is void from the beginning

Ruling:

Yes, the subsequent marriage between James and Shirley is void ab initio. As a rule, a
subsequent marriage entered during the existence of a prior valid marriage, renders the
former void from the beginning, being bigamous in nature. It is provided in Article 35
paragraph 4 that bigamous or polygamous marriage shall be void from the beginning. In
the instant case, there was a valid marriage between James and Katrina, when the
former entered into another marriage between Shirley. The legal wife then filed a
declaration of nullity of marriage which was granted by the trial court. Therefore, the
Court ruled that the subsequent marriage of Shirley and James is bigamous, having
been solemnized while the latter is previously married, thus such is deemed void from
the beginning.
Chi Ming Tsoi and Gina Lao Tsoi was married in 1988. 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. There were
allegations that the reason why Chi Ming Tsoi married her is to maintain his residency
status here in the country. Gina does not want to reconcile with Chi Ming Tsoi and want
their marriage be declared void on the ground of psychological incapacity. On the other
hand, the latter does not want to have their marriage annulled because he loves her
very much, he has no defect on his part and is physically and psychologically capable
and since their relationship is still young, they can still overcome their differences. Chi
Ming Tsoi submitted himself to another physical examination and the result was there
evidence of impotency and he is capable of erection.

ISSUE: Whether Chi Ming Tsois refusal to have sexual intercourse with his wife
constitutes psychological incapacity.

HELD:

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
tot 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.

In 1990, Leonilo Antonio married Marie Ivonne Reyes, who was ten years older than
Leonilo. In 1993, Leo filed a petition to annul their marriage due to the alleged psychological
incapacity of Reyes. Leonilo claimed that Marie persistently lied about herself, the people
around her, her occupation, income, educational attainment and other events or things. She
would claim that she is a psychologist but she is not. Shed claim she is a singer with the
company Blackgold and that she is the latters number 1 money maker but shes not. Shed
also spend lavishly as opposed to her monthly income. She fabricates things and people
only to serve her make-believe world.

Leonilo presented an expert who testified to Reyess psychological incapacity.

Reyes denied all of Leonilos allegations and she also presented an expert to prove her
case. The RTC ruled against Reyes and declared their marriage void. Meanwhile, The
Matrimonial Tribunal of the church also annulled the marriage and was even affirmed by
the Vaticans Roman Rata. However, the Court of Appeals reversed the decision hence the
appeal.

ISSUE: Whether or not Marie Ivonne Reyes is psychologically incapacitated.

HELD: Yes, Reyes was proven to be psychologically incapacitated.

In this cases also, the Supreme Court emphasized what fraud or misrepresentation means
as contemplated in Article 45 (3) of the Family Code vis-a-vis Article 46. But first, it must be
stated: in Psychological Incapacity, the misrepresentation done by Reyes points to her
inadequacy to cope with her marital obligations, kindred to psychological incapacity. In
Article 45 (3), marriage may be annulled if the consent of either party was obtained by
fraud, and Article 46 which enumerates the circumstances constituting fraud under the
previous article, clarifies that no other misrepresentation or deceit as to character, health,
rank, fortune or chastity shall constitute such fraud as will give grounds for action for the
annulment of marriage. These provisions of Article 45 (3) and Article 46 cannot be applied
in the case at bar because the misrepresentations done by Reyes is not considered as
fraud but rather such misrepresentations constitute her aberrant behaviour which further
constitutes Psychological Incapacity. Her misrepresentations are not lies sought to vitiate
Leonilos consent to marry her. Her misrepresentations are evidence that Marie cannot
simply distinguish fiction/fantasy from reality which is so grave and it falls under the fourth
guideline laid down in the Molina Case.

Toring v. Toring

Facts:
Ricardo met Teresita sometime in 1978 at his aunts houe in Cebu. Ricardo found
Teresita attractive, fell in love with her, pursued her, and they became sweethearts after
three months of courtship. They eloped soon after, got married on September 4, 1978,
and begot three children. More than twenty years after their wedding, Ricardo filed a
petition for annulment before the RTC. He claimed that Teresita was psychologically
incapacitated to comply with the essential obligations of marriage prior to, at the time of,
and subsequent to the celebration of their marriage. He asked the court to declare his
marriage to Teresita null and void. Ricardo alleged in his petition and in his testimony at
the trial that Teresita was an adulteress and a squanderer. Furthermore, according to
him, Teresita was not adept in managing the funds he sent and their finances. Many
times, Ricardo would come home and be welcomed by debts incurred by his wife which
he had to settle to avoid embarrassment. Dr. Cecilia R. Albaran testified that a major
factor that contributed to the demise of the marriage was Teresitas Narcissistic
Personality Disorder that rendered her psychologically incapacitated to fulfill her
essential marital obligations.

The RTC agreed with Ricardo, and annulled his marriage to Teresita believing in Dr.
Albarans psychological evaluation and testimony and, on the totality of Ricardos
evidence, found Teresita to be psychologically incapacitated to assume the essential
obligations of marriage. The CA reversed the RTCs decision upon the appeal of the
OSG and held that the trial courts findings did not satisfy the rules and guidelines set
forth in Republic v. Court of Appeals and Molina. The RTC failed to specifically point out
the root illness or defect that caused Teresitas psychological incapacity, and likewise
failed to show that the incapacity already existed at the time of celebration of marriage.

Issue:

Whether the factual findings of the trial court, particularly the expert testimony of Dr.
Albaran were able to prove that Teresita was psychologically incapacitated at the time of
the celebration of her marriage with Ricardo, making the former unable to discharge the
essential marital obligations.

Ruling:

The Court finds the petition unmeritorious, as the CA committed no reversible error
when it set aside the RTCs decision for lack of legal and factual basis. In the leading
case of Santos v. Court of Appeals, et al., the Court held that psychological incapacity
under Article 36 of the Family Code must be characterized by (a) gravity, (b) juridical
antecedence, and (c) incurability, to be sufficient basis to annul a marriage. In the
instant case, Ricardo failed to discharge the burden of proof to show that Teresita
suffered from psychological incapacity; thus, his petition for annulment of marriage must
fail. Ricardo merely established that Teresita had been remiss in her duties as a wife for
being irresponsible in taking care of their familys finances a fault or deficiency that does
not amount to the psychological incapacity that Article 36 of the Family Code requires.
The Court reiterates that irreconcilable differences, sexual infidelity or perversion,
emotional immaturity and irresponsibility, and the like, do not by themselves warrant a
finding of psychological incapacity, as the same may only be due to a persons difficulty,
refusal or neglect to undertake the obligations of marriage that is not rooted in some
psychological illness that Article 36 of the Family Code addresses. Therefore, the SC
denied the petition and affirmed the decision of the CA.
 657 SCRA 822 Civil Law Persons and Family Relations Family Code Article 36;
Psychological Incapacity Totality of Evidence
Burden of proving psychological incapacity is on the plaintiff
In 1976, Valerio Tyrone Kalaw and Ma. Elena Fernandez married each other in Hong
Kong. They had 4 children.
In 1985, Elena left Tyrone. Meanwhile, Tyrone had an affair with another woman and even
had children with the other woman. Tyrone later on went to the US with that other woman
and their children. He left behind his 4 children. It was a househelp and their driver who had
to take care of the 4 children. Elena would only visit the children on weekends.
In 1994, Tyrone filed a petition to have his marriage with Elena be declared void on the
ground that Elena is psychologically incapacitated. He presented two expert witnesses,
namely: Dr. Cristina Gates (Psychologist) and Fr. Gerard Healy (Catholic Canon Law
Expert).
Dr. Gates testified that based on her interview with Tyrone as to Elenas personality, she
concluded that Elena is suffering from narcissistic personality disorder. This was manifested
by her sexual infidelity, habitual mahjong playing, and her frequent nights-out with friends.
Fr. Healy corroborated the testimony of Dr. Gates. However, like Dr. Gates, Fr. Healy did not
personally evaluate Elena. He even said that he assumed that the factual allegations made
by Tyrone were true and that it is however the duty of the court to make a final
determination as to the truth of such allegations. He merely evaluated the statements.
On her part, Elena presented Dr. Dayan. Dr. Dayan personally evaluated both Tyrone and
Elena. After her interviews, Dr. Dayan concluded that both parties are psychologically
incapacitated. She concluded that Tyrone is a distancer who is concerned more with his
work and friends than his family, while Elena was clingy, immature, and doubtful of Tyrones
love in short, both are emotionally immature.
Other witnesses presented were their children who all testified that despite their parents
differences, both took good care of them.
The RTC ruled that the marriage is void. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the
decision.
ISSUE: Whether or not the marriage is void.
HELD: No. The Supreme Court emphasized that it is the plaintiffs, in this case Tyrones,
duty to prove psychological incapacity (so the SC did not discuss Elenas, the respondent,
presentment as to their psychological incapacity). Tyrone was not able to prove Elenas
psychological incapacity since the expert witnesses he presented heavily relied on Tyrones
allegations of Elenas constant mahjong sessions, visits to the beauty parlor, going out with
friends, adultery, and neglect of their children. Tyrones allegations, which served as the
bases or underlying premises of the conclusions of his experts, were not actually proven. In
fact, during trial, Elena was able to rebut Tyrones allegations. Even their children testified
that Elena attended to them and had no issues with the care shown them by their mother.
The most that the evidence can prove in this case are grounds for legal separation but not
psychological incapacity.
The SC emphasized that psychological incapacity is the downright incapacity or inability to
take cognizance of and to assume the basic marital obligations. The plaintiff must prove that
the incapacitated party, based on his or her actions or behavior, suffers a serious
psychological disorder that completely disables him or her from understanding and
discharging the essential obligations of the marital state. The psychological problem must
be grave, must have existed at the time of marriage, and must be incurable.
 G.R. No. 166357 Civil Law Persons and Family Relations Family Code Article 36;
Psychological Incapacity Gambling in the Presence of Ones Children

Testimonies of Expert Witnesses as Evaluated by the Trial Court Must Be Given Due
Consideration

Burden of Proof in Proving Psychological Incapacity Does Not Solely Lie on Plaintiff

In 1994, Valerio Tyrone Kalaw filed a petition to have his marriage with Ma. Elena
Fernandez be annulled on the ground that Elena is psychologically incapacitated. The RTC,
after hearing the expert witnesses testify in court, eventually granted the petition, but on
appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the said decision. Tyrone appealed to the Supreme
Court. In September 2011, the Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the CA. Tyrone filed
a motion for reconsideration.

ISSUE: Whether or not the September 2011 decision (657 SCRA 822) should be reversed.

HELD: Yes.

Trial courts findings of facts should be given due weight

The SC ruled that it misappreciated the findings made by the RTC when the SC reviewed
the case in September 2011. The SC ruled that 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. Therefore, it was not
proper for the SC to brush aside the opinions tendered by Dr. Cristina Gates, a
psychologist, and Fr. Gerard Healy on the ground that their conclusions were solely based
on the Tyrones version of the events. 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 Tyrones factual
premises.

Respondent could also establish the psychological incapacity of the plaintiff spouse

The plaintiff in an annulment case under Article 36 carries the burden to prove the nullity of
the marriage, however, the respondent, as the defendant spouse, could also establish the
psychological incapacity of the plaintiff spouse if the respondent raised the matter in her/his
answer. The courts are justified in declaring a marriage null and void under Article 36 of the
Family Code regardless of whether it is the petitioner or the respondent who imputes the
psychological incapacity to the other as long as the imputation is fully substantiated with
proof. Indeed, psychological incapacity may exist in one party alone or in both of them, and
if psychological incapacity of either or both is established, the marriage has to be deemed
null and void.

Elenas excessive mahjong sessions is indicative of her psychological incapacity

In the September 2011 ruling, the SC noted that all the children of Tyrone and Elena
testified that although their parents have differences, both took good care of them. However,
upon closer look at the testimonies of the children, it was shown that Elena was too
addicted to mahjong that she would even bring her children to her mahjong sessions which
were so frequent and would last from early in the afternoon to past midnight. The fact that
the Elena brought her children with her to her 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
her mahjong sessions was a very grave and serious act of subordinating their needs for
parenting to the gratification of her own personal and escapist desires. This revealed her
wanton disregard for her childrens moral and mental development.