ARTICLE 36:

Jurisprudential
Journey on
Psychological
Incapacity
By:
Atty. Rita Linda V. Jimeno
PSYCHOLOGICAL
INCAPACITY THE LAW

Article 36. A
marriage contracted
by any party who, at
the time of the
NOTE: Family celebration, was
Code took effect on psychologically
August 3, 1988. incapacitated xxx.
 ELEMENTS

2.) Such
incapacity led to
the non-
compliance by a
spouse of the
1.) Pre-existence essential marital
of psychological obligations.
incapacity at the
time of marriage;
 EFFECT
Marriage is
void even if
such incapacity
manifests only
after the
wedding.

NOTE: No mention
of gravity and
incurability in the
law.
 THE VOID
MARRIAGES

Article 35. The

following
marriages shall be
void from the
beginning: xxx
 VOID MARRIAGES

1.) Those
contracted by
any party below
18 years of age,
even with the
consent of his
parents or
guardian;
VOID MARRIAGES
2.) Those
solemnized by any
person not legally
authorized to
perform marriages,
unless the latter were
contracted with
either or both parties
believing in good
faith that the
solemnizing officer
had the legal
authority to do so;
 VOID MARRIAGES

3.) Those
solemnized
without a
marriage license,
except in those
situations
provided for by
Articles 27-34;
 VOID MARRIAGES
4.) Those
bigamous or 5.) Those
polygamous contracted
marriages not through mistake of
falling under one contracting
Article 41; party as to the
identity of the
other;
 VOID MARRIAGES

6.) Those
subsequent
marriages that are
void under Article
53;
 THE LAW
Art. 53. Either of the former spouses may
marry again after compliance with the
requirements of the immediately preceding
Article; otherwise, the subsequent marriage
shall be null and void.
 VOID MARRIAGES
7.) A marriage
contracted by one
who was
psychologically
incapacitated to
comply with the
essential marital
obligations of
marriage at the
time of the
celebration;
VOID MARRIAGES
8.) Marriages
between ascendants
and descendants of
any degree and
brothers and
sisters, whether of
the full or half
blood, and, in both
instances, whether
legitimate or
illegitimate;
 VOID MARRIAGES
9.) Marriages a.) Between
against public collateral blood
policy, namely: relatives, whether
legitimate or
illegitimate, up to
the fourth civil
degree;
b.) Between step-
parents and
stepchildren;
 VOID MARRIAGES

e.) Between the

c.) Between surviving spouse of
parents-in-law the adopting
and children-in- parent and the
law; adopted child;
d.) Between the
adopting parent
and adopted child;
VOID MARRIAGES

f.) Between the

surviving spouse of
the adopted child
and the adopter;

g.) Between an
adopted child and
a legitimate child
of the adopter;
 VOID MARRIAGES
h.) Between
adopted children of
i.) Between
the same adopter;
parties where one,
and
with the intention
to marry the
other, killed that
other person’s
spouse or his or
her own spouse.
 VOID MARRIAGES

10.) The
subsequent
marriage under
Article 41, void
due to mutual
bad faith of the
parties.
 THE LAW
Art. 41. A marriage contracted by any person
during subsistence of a previous marriage
shall be null and void, unless xxx, the prior
spouse had been absent for four consecutive
years and the spouse present has a well-
founded belief that the absent spouse was
already dead. xxx
 THE CASES

JURISPRUDENTIAL
JOURNEY
 CASES
1.) Santos vs. CA,
Facts: The
G.R. No. 112019,
respondent wife
January 4, 1995, J.
left for the US
Vitug
and never came
back to the
Philippines after
cohabiting with
petitioner
husband for only
two (2) years.
 Santos vs. CA

The SC said that

there must be:

a.) gravity;

b.) juridical
antecedence; and

c.) incurability
 Santos vs. CA
The SC ruled that
psychological
incapacity refers to
mental incapacity
that causes a person
to be truly incognitive
of the basic marital
covenants embodied
in Article 68 which
must be assumed and SC denied the
discharged by the petition for nullity.
parties as expected.
 THE LAW

Article 68. The husband and wife are obliged

to live together, observe mutual love, respect
and fidelity, and render mutual help and
support.
 CASES
Facts: The spouses 2.) Chi Ming Tsoi v.
slept together from CA, G.R. No. 119190,
their day of January 16, 1997, J.
wedding on May 22, Torres
1988 until March
15, 1989 without
sexual intercourse.
Wife claims she did
not even see his
private parts nor
did he see hers.
Chi Ming Tsoi vs. CA

Claim of wife: The

husband is
impotent and a
closet homosexual.

Court Decision:
RTC declared the
marriage as void
and affirmed by
the CA.
 Chi Ming Tsoi vs. CA
The SC ruled that one
of the essential
marital obligations is
to procreate
children through
sexual cooperation.
Refusal of one of the
parties to fulfill this
marital obligation is
equivalent to SC declared the
psychological marriage as null
incapacity. and void.
 COMMENT
In the case of Chi Ming Tsoi, the SC could have
used the doctrine of triennial cohabitation
instead of finding psychological incapacity for
refusing to perform his essential marital
obligations.
 THE LAW
The doctrine of
triennial
cohabitation states
that if there has
been no sexual
intercourse between
married parties for
three years, the
husband will be
presumed
impotent.
 CASES
3.) Republic v. CA and Molina,
G.R. No. 108763, February 13, 1997,
J. Panganiban
The Court set the guidelines for the grant
of nullity of marriage under Art. 36.:
a.) The root cause of the psychological
incapacity which must be: (i) medically or
clinically identified, (ii) alleged in the
complaint, (iii) sufficiently proven by experts
and (iv) clearly explained in the decision;
 Republic vs. CA
c.) Such incapacity
must also be shown
b.) The incapacity to be medically or
must be proven to clinically permanent
be existing at "the or incurable.
time of the
celebration" of the
marriage.
 Republic vs. CA
e.) The essential
d.) Such illness
marital obligations
must
must be those
be grave enough to
embraced by Arts.
bring about the
68-71 of the Family
disability of the
Code as regards the
party to assume the
husband and wife as
essential
well as Arts. 220-221
obligations of
and 225 in regard to
marriage.
parents and their
children.
 Republic vs. CA
f.) Interpretations
given by the
National Appellate
Matrimonial
Tribunal of the
Catholic Church in
the Philippines,
while not controlling
or decisive, should
be given great
respect by our
courts.
 Republic vs. CA

The SC said that

mere showing of
“irreconcilable
differences” and
“conflicting SC denied the
personalities” do nullity. The
not constitute marriage of Roridel
psychological Olaviano to Reynaldo
incapacity. Molina subsists and
remains valid.
 CASES
4.) Hernandez v. CA,
G.R. No. 126010,
Facts: Respondent December 8, 1999,
husband was a J. Mendoza
womanizer, never
had a job, did not
support his family,
a drunkard, etc.
 Hernandez vs. CA

Lower Court
Decision:
The RTC said her
grounds were for
legal separation,
SC said:
not annulment of
expert testimony
marriage and so
should have been
denied her
presented. Nullity
petition.
denied.
 CASES

5.) Marcos vs. Marcos, G.R. No. 136490,

October 19, 2000, J. Panganiban

SC said that
there is no
need for the
Respondent to
be examined
by an expert.
 Marcos vs. Marcos

But SC denied the

petition on the
ground that it was
not proven that
the husband's
irresponsibility,
physical violence,
and womanizing
existed prior to
marriage.
 CASES
Facts: Respondent's 6.) Republic vs.
husband would often Dagdag, G.R. No.
disappear and leave 109975, February 9,
his family. He was 2001, J. Quisumbing
often drunk, and
forced himself
sexually on his wife.
He was imprisoned
for a crime; but
escaped. Still he did
not go back to her.
 Republic vs. Dagdag
Lower Court
Decision:
RTC declared
void. No
psychiatrist
testified.
Appeal: SC granted the
OSG appealed on appeal and
the basis of the denied the
Molina doctrine. nullity.
 CASES

7.) Pesca vs. Pesca, G.R. No. 136921, April

17, 2001, J. Vitug

Facts: Husband
was cruel, violent,
and a habitual
drinker, as well as
immature and
irresponsible.
 Pesca vs. Pesca

 Husband
belatedly filed
an Answer.
 RTC declared Petitioner wife filed
nullity. a petition with SC &
 Husband filed an saying that the
appeal with CA. Santos and Molina
 CA reversed RTC. doctrine should not
be given retroactive
effect.
 Pesca vs. Pesca

The doctrine of
“stare decisis” was Thus, the SC denied
applied saying that the petition based
judicial decisions on the Santos and
applying or Molina doctrine
interpreting the even the wife filed
law shall form part her petition in 1994
of the legal system (before doctrine
of the Philippines. came).
 CASES
Facts: Toshio
Hamano left his 8.) Republic vs.
wife after Quintero Hamano,
marriage. He sent G.R. No. 149498,
money for two (2) May 20, 2004, J.
months only and Corona
then stopped. She
learned that he
came back to the
Philippines but did
not contact her.
 Republic vs. Hamano
 OSG appealed to
 Husband did not CA.
contest filed
 CA denied appeal
petition in 1996.
saying it was a
 RTC declared null
mixed marriage.
and void the
marriage
between a
Filipina and her
Japanese
husband.
 Republic vs. Hamano

OSG contended
that mere
abandonment of a
spouse does not
constitute SC granted OSG's
psychological appeal. Molina
incapacity. doctrine was
applied. Nullity not
granted.
 CASES
9.) Antonio vs.
Facts: Petitioner Reyes, G.R. No.
filed the petition 155800, March 10,
for nullity on the 2006, J. Tinga
ground of
psychological
incapacity
through habitual
lying.
 Antonio vs. Reyes
Facts: Husband  Wife filed an
claimed that the answer. She denied
wife (10 yrs. older) lying except that she
persistently lied had a child prior to
about herself, the her marriage.
people around her,
her occupation,
income, educational
attainment and
other events or
things.
 Antonio vs. Reyes

 RTC granted nullity.

 OSG appealed to the CA.
 CA reversed the RTC decision.
 Antonio v. Reyes
According to the SC,
the case sufficiently SC declared the
satisfies the marriage between
guidelines in petitioner and
Molina. respondent NULL
and VOID under
Article 36 of the
Family Code.
 CASES
10.) Zamora v. CA,
Facts: Wife G.R. No. 141917,
refused to have February 7, 2007, J.
children and even Azcuna
left her husband to
go to the US and in
fact became an
American citizen.
 Zamora vs. CA
CA & SC denied
the petition even
if the SC said there
is no need for
expert
testimony if the
totality of evidence
can prove
pyschological
incapacity.
 CASES
Facts: Respondent 11.) Republic v.
was jobless and Tanyag-San Jose,
was hooked to G.R. No. 168328,
gambling and February 28, 2007, J.
drugs. Petitioner Carpio-Morales
left Respondent
after 9 years of
being together
and filed a
petition for nullity.
 Republic vs. San Jose
According to SC: A
 RTC granted doctor’s conclusion
nullity. is hearsay,
 OSG appealed. “unscientific and
unreliable”, where
the assessment xxx
was based merely
on the information
communicated to
the doctor by the
spouse.
 Republic vs. San Jose

SC granted OSG
appeal and said
that the findings
of the psychologist
is hearsay. Nullity
denied.
 CASES
Facts: As students, 12.) Te v. Te,
they eloped but G.R. No. 161793,
came back to August 26, 2008, J.
Manila when they Nachura
ran out of money.
Petitioner husband
said he was
coerced into
marrying the
respondent by her
uncle.
 Te vs. Te
SC said that it is
inappropriate for
the Court to impose
rigid set of rules,
thus, declared that
dependent and
antisocial
personality
disorder are
psychological
incapacity.
 Te vs. Te

SC granted
nullity! Reversed
the CA decision
by citing the
historical facts
about the Code
This is by far the
Committee’s
most liberal
intent on absolute
interpretation of
divorce.
Art. 36.
 CASES
13.) Azcueta v.
Facts: Respondent
Republic,
husband was
G.R. No. 180668,
jobless and only
May 26, 2009, J.
asked his mother
Leonardo-De Castro
for financial
assistance. He is
also violent to
petitioner whenever
he was drunk.
 Ascueta vs. Republic

 RTC granted
Facts: Wife
nullity.
claimed that their
 OSG appealed.
sexual
relationship was
unsatisfactory
and that her
husband did not
even want to have
a child.
Azcueta vs. Republic

According to SC,
the totality of
evidence presented
is adequate to
sustain finding of
psychological
incapacity, thus, SC
granted nullity
citing Te v. Te.
 CASES
14.) Halili v. Halili,
Facts: G.R. No. 165424,
After the wedding, June 9, 2009, J.
spouses never lived Corona
together. The
husband said he
thought their civil
rites were just a
joke.
 Halili vs. Halili
 Petitioner  RTC granted
husband claimed nullity.
he was the one
 Respondent wife
psychologically
appealed.
incapacitated.
 CA reversed RTC
 RTC found
decision.
petitioner
husband to be
suffering from a
mixed personality
disorder.
 Halili vs. Halili
The SC ruled that the
testimony of
petitioner’s expert
witness revealed that
petitioner was
suffering from
dependent and self-
defeating personality SC reinstated RTC
disorder which have decision and
long-term concerns; granted nullity
thus, therapy may be citing again Te v. Te.
long-term.
 CASES
15.) Najera v.
Facts: Respondent
Najera, G.R. No.
was jobless at first
164817, July 3,
but when he had a
2009, J. Peralta
job as a seaman, he
never support his
wife. He accused
his wife of having
an affair with
another man.
 Najera v. Najera
Facts: Wife
claimed that his
husband was
taking marijuana
and he attempted
to kill her.
Respondent left
their home and
abandoned the
petitioner.
 Najera v. Najera
 RTC and CA
denied the petition
for nullity and
said that the
grounds presented Petitioner argued
by the Petitioner that the CA failed to
were for legal consider the decision
separation and of the National
not for annulment Appellate
of marriage under Matrimonial
Art. 36. Tribunal
 Najera v. Najera
SC was not
persuaded by the
decision of the
Tribunal when its
basis of the nullity
is not the third but
the second
paragraph of
Canon 1095. Thus,
nullity denied.
 CODE OF CANON LAW

Canon 1095. The following are incapable

of contracting marriage:
• those who lack sufficient use of reason;
• those who suffer from a grave lack of
discretion of judgment concerning the
essential matrimonial rights and obligations
to be mutually given and accepted;
• those who, because of causes of a
psychological nature, are unable to
assume the essential obligations of
marriage.
 CASES
Facts: Respondent
wife married the son 16.) Lim v. Lim, G.R.
of a rich Chinese No. 176464,
family living in February 4, 2010, J.
Forbes Park. She Nachura
caught him in an
intimate and
compromising
situation with the
live-in care giver of
his grandmother.
 Lim v. Lim

Facts: She left him

but blottered the
incident in the
police department.
The story landed in
tabloids Facts: She filed a
embarrassing the concubinage case
whole Lim family. but her husband
filed a petition for
nullity.
 Lim v. Lim
Facts: He said his
wife was
psychologically
incapacitated. After
3 years, he amended
it to say he was also
incapacitated. She
did not present
evidence despite her
Answer.
 Lim v. Lim
 RTC granted the
 The SC said that
nullity.
the expert
 OSG appealed to
witness failed to
the CA.
link particular
 CA reversed RTC
acts of the
ruling.
parties to the
personality
disorders she
claimed they
had.
 Lim v. Lim
SC denied the
petition for
nullity citing
Santos v. CA.
She made a global
conclusion without
having done
psychological tests
to back up her
conclusion.
 CASES
Facts: Petitioner 17.) Camacho-Reyes
filed the petition v. Reyes, G.R. No.
for nullity alleging 185286, August 18,
her husband’s 2010, J. Nachura
psychological
incapacity; of not
supporting his
family and having
an extra-marital
affair.
 Reyes vs. Reyes

Facts: Respondent
denied petitioner’s
allegations and
maintained that he
was not remiss in
performing his  RTC affirmed the
obligations to his declaration of
family. nullity of the
parties marriage.
 Reyes vs. Reyes
 Respondent NOTE: Three (3)
appealed to the expert witnesses
CA. were presented by
 CA agreed with petitioner: Drs.
the respondent, Dayan, Villegas and
reversed the RTC Magno.
and declared the
parties marriage
as valid and
subsisting.
 Reyes v. Reyes
 All three
psychologists held
that Respondent
had chronic
irresponsibility and  Dr. Dayan’s
inability to recommendation
recognize and work that Respondent
toward providing undergo
for the needs of his psychotherapy does
family. not necessarily
suggest curability.
 Reyes v. Reyes

The SC said the CA

erred in saying that
the expert
witnesses’
testimonies were
hearsay just because
the Respondent did
SC granted the
not subject himself
to psychological petition for
evaluation. nullity.
 CASES
Facts: Husband
18.) Agraviador v.
filed petition on
Amparo-Agraviador,
the ground that his
G.R. No. 170729,
wife had an affair
December 8, 2010, J.
with a male
Brion
boarder in their
house; she refused
to have sex since
1993; did not wish
to do housework,
etc.
 Agraviador v. Amparo
 RTC nullified the  According to the
marriage. CA, the petitioner
 Wife filed an failed to prove the
appeal with the root cause of the
CA. incapacity and
 The CA reversed that it was grave,
the RTC ruling. incurable and
permanent.
 SC denied the
petition for
nullity.
 CASES
 Husband filed the 19.) Ochosa v.
petition on the Alano, G.R. No.
ground that his 167459, January 26,
wife had an affair 2011, J. Leonardo-
to other men. De Castro
 RTC granted
nullity.
 OSG appealed to
the CA, which
granted it.
 Ochosa v. Alano
According to the SC,
the wife’s infidelity
and abandonment
can only be
convincingly traced
to the period of
time after her
marriage to SC denied the
Petitioner and not petition for
to the inception of nullity.
the said marriage.
 CASES
20.) Republic v.
Facts: Wife was
Galang, G.R. No.
an estafador, very
168335, June 6,
irresponsible, even
2011, J. Brion
left the care of
their son to the
maids and she
was so much into
gambling.
 Republic v. Galang

According to the SC,

 RTC nullified there is no sufficient
their marriage. basis to annul the
 OSG appealed to marriage on the
CA but CA ground of
sustained the psychological
RTC decision. incapacity. Thus, SC
 OSG appealed to granted the appeal
the SC. and denied the
petition for nullity.
 CASES
21.) Republic v. CA
Facts: De Quintos and De Quintos, Jr.,
was an OFW. He G.R. No. 159594,
remitted his November 12, 2012,
income to her wife J. Bersamin
while she engaged
in gambling,
gossiping and was
unfaithful to him.
 Republic v. De Quintos

 OSG contended
 RTC and CA
there was
affirmed the
collusion because
existence of
the husband paid
psychological
P50,000 to the
incapacity,
wife as her share
declaring the
in the conjugal
marriage void.
home and so that
 OSG appealed to she would not
the SC. contest the nullity.
 Republic v. De Quintos

The SC dismissed
the petition for
nullity NOT
because on the
ground of collusion
but rather because
of insufficiency of
evidence even if a
psychologist was
presented.
 CASES
 RTC found 22.) Mendoza v.
Respondent to Republic, G.R. No.
have an 157649, November
immature and 12, 2012, J.
irresponsible Bersamin
personality.
Accordingly, RTC
granted nullity.
 OSG appealed to
the CA.
 Mendoza v. Republic
 CA reversed the
RTC decision
saying that
antecedence of
the personality
disorder was not
proven. Even his  Wife appealed to
sexual infidelity SC.
did not prove  SC denied
psychological nullity.
incapacity.
 CASES
23.) Republic v.
Facts: Husband
Encelan, G.R. No.
filed petition
170022, January 9,
against his wife
2013, J. Brion
citing her infidelity
and abandonment
of their home. He
was an OFW
working in Saudi
Arabia.
 Republic v. Encelan

 He presented a
psychologist
from the
National Center
for Mental
Health.
 RTC granted the
petition.
 Republic v. Encelan

 OSG appealed to
the CA. The CA at
first denied the
appeal but
granted it upon a
motion for
reconsideration.
 OSG appealed to
the SC.
 Republic v. Encelan

According to the
SC, there is no
sufficient basis to
annul the
marriage on the
ground of Thus, SC granted
psychological the appeal and
incapacity. denied the petition
for nullity.
 CASES
 This decision
was touted in
newspapers as
relaxing the rule 24.) Kalaw v. Kalaw,
on psychological G.R. No. 166357,
incapacity. January 14, 2015, J.
Bersamin
 Kalaw v. Kalaw
 The case was  However, the
initially ruled motion for
upon by J. Del reconsideration
Castillo in 2011 was decided upon
who denied the by J. Bersamin.
petition for
nullity based on
Art. 36 citing
insufficiency of
evidence.
 Kalaw v. Kalaw
 According to the  Application of
SC, while the the Molina
Court was not doctrine to every
abandoning the instance
Molina doctrine, practically
the guidelines condemns
set out in petitions for
Molina have declaration of
turned out to be nullity to the fate
too rigid. of rejection.
 Kalaw v. Kalaw
 The SC took note
of the experts’
testimonies and
a canon lawyer
as well as the
fact that the
husband was
already being
with another
woman and they
have children.
 Kalaw v. Kalaw
The SC granted
 The Court also the declaration of
noted the wife’s nullity under Art.
contention that 36 of the Family
he was a wife- Code.
beater, a
womanizer, an
alcoholic and a
drug addict.
Atty. Linda Jimeno may be contacted at
(02) 892-4036 to 38,
(0917) 812-2683,
E-mail: ritalindaj@gmail.com or
ritalinda@jimenolaw.com.ph