Barcelona v.

Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 130087, 24 September 2003

FACTS:

Respondent Tadeo and petitioner Diana were legally married union begot five children. On 29 March 1995, private respondent
Tadeo R. Bengzon filed a Petition for Annulment of Marriage against petitioner Diana M. Barcelona. Petition further alleged that
petitioner Diana was psychologically incapacitated at the time of the celebration of their marriage to comply with the essential
obligations of marriage and such incapacity subsists up to the present time. The petition allegedthe non-complied marital obligations.
During their marriage, they had frequent quarrels due to their varied upbringing. Respondent, coming from a rich family, wasa
disorganized housekeeper and was frequently out of the house. She would go to her sister‘s house or would play tennis the whole
day. When the family had crisis due to several miscarriages suffered by respondent and the sickness of a child, respondent withdrew
to herself and eventually refused to speak to her husband.

On November 1977, the respondent, who was five months pregnant with Cristina Maria and on the pretext of re-evaluatingher
feelings with petitioner, requested the latter to temporarily leave their conjugal dwelling. In his desire to keep peace in the family and
to safeguard the respondent‘s pregnancy, the petitioner was compelled to leave their conjugal dwelling. The respondent at the time
of the celebration of their marriage was psychologically incapacitated to comply with theessential obligation of marriage and such
incapacity subsisted up to and until the present time. Such incapacity wasconclusively found in the psychological examination
conducted on the relationship between the petitioner and therespondent Diana claims that petitioner falls short of the guidelines
stated in Molina case and there is no cause for action.

ISSUE:

Whether of not petitioner stated a cause of action against Diana.

RULING:

YES, since petition stated legal right of Tadeo, correlative obligation of Diana, and her act or omission as seen infacts FAILURE TO
STATE ROOT CAUSE AND GRAVE NATURE OF ILLNESS. Sec 2 of rules of declaration of absolute nullity of void marriage –
petition does not need to show root cause sinceonly experts can determine it b the physical manifestations of physical
incapacity.PETITION IS DENIED, THERE IS CAUSE OF ACTION.

ART. 36. A marriage contracted by any party who, at the time of the celebration, was psychologically incapacitated to comply with
the essential marital obligations of marriage, shall likewise be void even if such incapacity becomes manifest only after its
solemnization.

The Supreme Court held that psychological incapacity should refer to a mental incapacity that causes a party to be truly incognitive
of the basic marital covenants such as those enumerated in Article 68 of the Family Code and must be characterized by gravity,
juridical antecedence and incurability.

The elements of Psychological incapacity are:

(a) Grave – It must be grave or serious such that the party would be incapable of carrying out the ordinary duties required in a
marriage;

(b) Juridical Antecedence – It must be rooted in the history of the party antedating the marriage, although the overt manifestations
may emerge only after the marriage; and

(c) Incurable and Permanent – It must be incurable or, even if it were otherwise, the cure would be beyond the means of the party
involved.
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner v. CRASUS L. IYOY, respondent.
G.R. No. 152577. September 21, 2005

FACTS:

Crasus Iyoy married Fely on December 16, 1961 in Cebu City. They begot five children. After the celebration of their
marriage, respondent Crasus discovered that Fely was “hot-tempered, a nagger and extravagant.” In 1984, Fely left the
Philippines for the United States of America (U.S.A.), leaving all of their five children to the care of respondent Crasus.
Sometime in 1985, respondent Crasus learned, through the letters sent by Fely to their children, that Fely got married
to an American, with whom she eventually had a child. Fely had five visits in Cebu City but never met Crasus. Also, she
had been openly using the surname of her American husband in the Philippines and in the USA. Crasus filed
a declaration of nullity of marriage on March 25, 1997.

On her Answer, Fely alleged that while she did file for divorce from respondent Crasus, she denied having herself sent a
letter to respondent Crasus requesting him to sign the enclosed divorce papers. After securing a divorce from
respondent Crasus, Fely married her American husband and acquired American citizenship. She argued that her
marriage to her American husband was legal because now being an American citizen, her status shall be governed by
the law of her present nationality. Fely also prayed that the RTC declare her marriage to respondent Crasus null and
void; and that respondent Crasus be ordered to pay to Fely the P90,000.00 she advanced to him, with interest, plus,
moral and exemplary damages, attorney’s fees, and litigation expenses.

The Regional Trial Court declared the marriage of Crasus and Fely null and void ab ignition on the ground of
psychological incapacity. One factor considered by the RTC is that Fely obtained a divorce decree in the United States of
America and married another man and has established another family of her own. Plaintiff is in an anomalous situation,
wherein he is married to a wife who is already married to another man in another country. The Court
of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision.

ISSUE:

1. Whether or not abandonment and sexual infidelity constitute psychological incapacity.

2. Whether or not the divorce instituted by Fely abroad was valid.

RULING:

1st issue:

The totality of evidence presented during the trial is insufficient to support the finding of psychological incapacity of
Fely. Using the guidelines established by the cases of Santos, Molina and Marcos, this Court found that the totality of
evidence presented by respondent Crasus failed miserably to establish the alleged psychological incapacity of his wife
Fely; therefore, there is no basis for declaring their marriage null and void under Article 36 of the Family Code of the
Philippines. Irreconcilable differences, conflicting personalities, emotional immaturity and irresponsibility, physical
abuse, habitual alcoholism, sexual infidelity or perversion, and abandonment, by themselves, also do not warrant a
finding of psychological incapacity under the said Article.

2nd issue:

As it is worded, Article 26, paragraph 2, refers to a special situation wherein one of the couple getting married is a
Filipino citizen and the other a foreigner at the time the marriage was celebrated. By its plain and literal interpretation,
the said provision cannot be applied to the case of respondent Crasus and his wife Fely because at the time Fely
obtained her divorce, she was still a Filipino citizen. Although the exact date was not established, Fely herself admitted
in her Answer filed before the RTC that she obtained a divorce from respondent Crasus sometime after she left for the
United States in 1984, after which she married her American husband in 1985. In the same Answer, she alleged that she
had been an American citizen since 1988. At the time she filed for divorce, Fely was still a Filipino citizen, and pursuant
to the nationality principle embodied in Article 15 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, she was still bound by Philippine
laws on family rights and duties, status, condition, and legal capacity, even when she was already living abroad.
Philippine laws, then and even until now, do not allow and recognize divorce between Filipino spouses. Thus, Fely
could not have validly obtained a divorce from respondent Crasus.

The Supreme Court held that the marriage of respondent Crasus L. Iyoy and Fely Ada Rosal-Iyoy remains valid and
subsisting.

CO- OWNERSHIP
Buenaventura VS. CA
G.R. Nos. 127358 and G.R. Nos. 127449
March 31, 2005

Facts: Noel Buenaventura filed a position for the declaration of nullity of marriage on the ground that both he and his wife were
psychologically incapacitated.
The RTC in its decision, declared the marriage entered into between petitioner and respondent null and violation ordered the liquidation of
the assets of the conjugal partnership property; ordered petitioner a regular support in favor of his son in the amount of 15,000 monthly,
subject to modification as the necessity arises, and awarded the care and custody of the minor to his mother.
Petitioner appealed before the CA. While the appeal was pending, the CA, upon respondent’s motion issued a resolution increasing the
support pendants like to P20, 000.
The CA dismissal petitioner appeal for lack of merit and affirmed in to the RTC decision. Petitioner motion for reconsideration was denied,
hence this petition.

Issue: Whether or not co-ownership is applicable to valid marriage.

Held: Since the present case does not involve the annulment of a bigamous marriage, the provisions of article 50 in relation to articles 41, 42
and 43 of the Family Code, providing for the dissolution of the absolute community or conjugal partnership of gains, as the case maybe, do
not apply. Rather the general rule applies, which is in case a marriage is declared void ab initio, the property regime applicable to be
liquidated, partitioned and distributed is that of equal co-ownership.
Since the properties ordered to be distributed by the court a quo were found, both by the RTC and the CA, to have been acquired during the
union of the parties, the same would be covered by the co-ownership. No fruits of a separate property of one of the parties appear to have
been included or involved in said distribution.