jurisprudence on declaration of nullity

8/17/2019 Jurisprudence on Declaration of Nullity

1/66

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT

Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. 112019 January 4, 1995

LEOUEL SANTOS, petitioner,

vs.

THE HONORABLE COURT O APPEALS AN! JUL"A ROSAR"O BE!"A#SANTOS, respondents.

$"TUG, J.:

Concededly a highly, if not indeed the most liely, controversial provision introduced by the !amily Code is

Article "# $as amended by E.%. No. &&' dated (' )uly (*+', -hich declares

Art. "#. A marriage contracted by any party -ho, at the time of the celebration, -as

psychologically incapacitated to comply -ith the essential marital obligations of marriage,

shall lie-ise be void even if such incapacity becomes manifest only after its solemni/ation.

0he present petition for revie- on certiorari , at the instance of 1eouel 2antos $31eouel3, brings into

fore the above provision -hich is no- invoed by him. 4ndaunted by the decisions of the court a

quo 1 and the Court of Appeal, 2 1eouel persists in beseeching its application in his attempt to have

his marriage -ith herein private respondent, )ulia Rosario Bedia52antos $3)ulia3, declared a

nullity.

6t -as in 6loilo City -here 1eouel, -ho then held the ran of !irst 1ieutenant in the Philippine Army, first met

)ulia. 0he meeting later proved to be an eventful day for 1eouel and )ulia. %n &7 2eptember (*+#, the t-o

e8changed vo-s before Municipal 0rial Court )udge Cornelio 9. 1a/aro of 6loilo City, follo-ed, shortly

thereafter, by a church -edding. 1eouel and )ulia lived -ith the latter:s parents at the ). Bedia Compound, 1a

Pa/, 6loilo City. %n (+ )uly (*+', )ulia gave birth to a baby boy, and he -as christened 1eouel 2antos, )r. 0he

ecstasy, ho-ever, did not last long. 6t -as bound to happen, 1eouel averred, because of the fre;uent

interference by )ulia:s parents into the young spouses family affairs. %ccasionally, the couple -ould also start a

3;uarrel3 over a number of other things, lie -hen and -here the couple should start living independently from

)ulia:s parents or -henever )ulia -ould e8press resentment on 1eouel:s spending a fe- days -ith his o-n

parents.

%n (+ May (*++, )ulia finally left for the 4nited 2ates of America to -or as a nurse despite 1eouel:s pleas to

so dissuade her. 2even months after her departure, or on 7( )anuary (*+*, )ulia called up 1eouel for the first

time by long distance telephone. 2he promised to return home upon the e8piration of her contract in )uly (*+*.

2he never did.


2/66

>aving failed to get )ulia to someho- come home, 1eouel filed -ith the regional trial Court of Negros %riental,

Branch "7, a complaint for 3?oiding of marriage 4nder Article "# of the !amily Code3 $doceted, Civil Case No.

*+(@. 2ummons -as served by publication in a ne-spaper of general circulation in Negros %riental.

%n "( May (**(, respondent )ulia, in her ans-er $through counsel, opposed the complaint and denied its

allegations, claiming, in main, that it -as the petitioner -ho had, in fact, been irresponsible and incompetent.

A possible collusion bet-een the parties to obtain a decree of nullity of their marriage -as ruled out by the

%ffice of the Provincial Prosecutor $in its report to the court.

%n &= %ctober (**(, after pre5trial conferences had repeatedly been set, albeit unsuccessfully, by the court,

)ulia ultimately filed a manifestation, stating that she -ould neither appear nor submit evidence.

%n 7# November (**(, the court a quo finally dismissed the complaint for lac of merit. %

1eouel appealed to the Court of Appeal. 0he latter affirmed the decision of the trial court. 4

0he petition should be denied not only because of its non5compliance -ith Circular &+5*(, -hich re;uires a

certification of non5shopping, but also for its lac of merit.

1eouel argues that the failure of )ulia to return home, or at the very least to communicate -ith him, for more

than five years are circumstances that clearly sho- her being psychologically incapacitated to enter into

married life. 6n his o-n -ords, 1eouel asserts

. . . $0here is no leave, there is no affection for $him because respondent )ulia Rosario

Bedia52antos failed all these years to communicate -ith the petitioner. A -ife -ho does not

care to inform her husband about her -hereabouts for a period of five years, more or less, is

psychologically incapacitated.

0he family Code did not define the term 3psychological incapacity.3 0he deliberations during the sessions of the!amily Code Revision Committee, -hich has drafted the Code, can, ho-ever, provide an insight on the import

of the provision.

Art . 35 . 0he follo-ing marriages shall be void from the beginning

888 888 888

Art . 36 . . . .

$' 0hose marriages contracted by any party -ho, at the time of the celebration, -as -anting

in the sufficient use of reason or udgment to understand the essential nature of marriage or

-as psychologically or mentally incapacitated to discharge the essential marital obligations,even if such lac of incapacity is made manifest after the celebration.

%n subparagraph $', -hich as lifted from the Canon 1a-, )ustice $)ose B.1. Reyes

suggested that they say 3-anting in sufficient use,3 but )ustice $Eduardo Caguioa preferred to

say 3-anting in the sufficient use.3 %n the other hand, )ustice Reyes proposed that they say

3-anting in sufficient reason.3 )ustice Caguioa, ho-ever, pointed out that the idea is that one

is not lacing in udgment but that he is lacing in the e8ercise of udgment. >e added that

lac of udgment -ould mae the marriage voidable. )udge $Alicia 2empio5 iy remared that


3/66

lac of udgment is more serious than insufficient use of udgment and yet the latter -ould

mae the marriage null and void and the former only voidable. )ustice Caguioa suggested that

subparagraph $' be modified to read

30hat contracted by any party -ho, at the time of the celebration, -as

psychologically incapacitated to discharge the essential marital obligations,

even if such lac of incapacity is made manifest after the celebration.3

)ustice Caguioa e8plained that the phrase 3-as -anting in sufficient use of reason of

udgment to understand the essential nature of marriage3 refers to defects in the mental

faculties vitiating consent, -hich is not the idea in subparagraph $', but lac of appreciation

of one:s marital obligations.

)udge iy raised the ;uestion 2ince 3insanity3 is also a psychological or mental incapacity,

-hy is 3insanity3 only a ground for annulment and not for declaration or nullity 6n reply,

)ustice Caguioa e8plained that in insanity, there is the appearance of consent, -hich is the

reason -hy it is a ground for voidable marriages, -hile subparagraph $' does not refer to

consent but to the very essence of marital obligations.

Prof. $Araceli Baviera suggested that, in subparagraph $', the -ord 3mentally3 be deleted,

-ith -hich )ustice Caguioa concurred. )udge iy, ho-ever, prefers to retain the -ord

3mentally.3

)ustice Caguioa remared that subparagraph $' refers to psychological impotence. )ustice

$Ricardo Puno stated that sometimes a person may be psychologically impotent -ith one but

not -ith another. )ustice $1eonor 6nes5 1uciano said that it is called selective impotency.

ean $!ortunato 9upit stated that the confusion lies in the fact that in inserting the Canon

1a- annulment in the !amily Code, the Committee used a language -hich describes a

ground for voidable marriages under the Civil Code. )ustice Caguioa added that in Canon

1a-, there are voidable marriages under the Canon 1a-, there are no voidable marriages

ean 9upit said that this is precisely the reason -hy they should mae a distinction.

)ustice Puno remared that in Canon 1a-, the defects in marriage cannot be cured.

)ustice Reyes pointed out that the problem is


4/66

Prof. Bautista stated that he is in favor of maing psychological incapacity a ground for

voidable marriages since other-ise it -ill encourage one -ho really understood the

conse;uences of marriage to claim that he did not and to mae e8cuses for invalidating the

marriage by acting as if he did not understand the obligations of marriage. ean 9upit added

that it is a loose -ay of providing for divorce.

888 888 888

)ustice Caguioa e8plained that his point is that in the case of incapacity by reason of defects

in the mental faculties, -hich is less than insanity, there is a defect in consent and, therefore,

it is clear that it should be a ground for voidable marriage because there is the appearance of

consent and it is capable of convalidation for the simple reason that there are lucid intervals

and there are cases -hen the insanity is curable. >e emphasi/ed that psychological

incapacity does not refer to mental faculties and has nothing to do -ith consent it refers to

obligations attendant to marriage.

888 888 888

%n psychological incapacity, Prof. $!lerida Ruth P. Romero in;uired if they do not consider it

as going to the very essence of consent. 2he ased if they are really removing it from

consent. 6n reply, )ustice Caguioa e8plained that, ultimately, consent in general is effected but

he stressed that his point is that it is not principally a vitiation of consent since there is a valid

consent. >e obected to the lumping together of the validity of the marriage celebration and

the obligations attendant to marriage, -hich are completely different from each other, because

they re;uire a different capacity, -hich is eighteen years of age, for marriage but in contract, it

is different. )ustice Puno, ho-ever, felt that psychological incapacity is still a ind of vice of

consent and that it should not be classified as a voidable marriage -hich is incapable of

convalidation it should be convalidated but there should be no prescription. 6n other -ords, as

long as the defect has not been cured, there is al-ays a right to annul the marriage and if the

defect has been really cured, it should be a defense in the action for annulment so that -hen

the action for annulment is instituted, the issue can be raised that actually, although one mighthave been psychologically incapacitated, at the time the action is brought, it is no longer true

that he has no concept of the conse;uence of marriage.

Prof. $Esteban Bautista raised the ;uestion


5/66

888 888 888

)udge iy proposed that they include physical incapacity to copulate among the grounds for

void marriages. )ustice Reyes commented that in some instances the impotence that in some

instances the impotence is only temporary and only -ith respect to a particular person. )udge

iy stated that they can specify that it is incurable. )ustice Caguioa remared that the term

3incurable3 has a different meaning in la- and in medicine. )udge iy stated that3psychological incapacity3 can also be cured. )ustice Caguioa, ho-ever, pointed out that

3psychological incapacity3 is incurable.

)ustice Puno observed that under the present draft provision, it is enough to sho- that at the

time of the celebration of the marriage, one -as psychologically incapacitated so that later on

if already he can comply -ith the essential marital obligations, the marriage is still void ab

initio. )ustice Caguioa e8plained that since in divorce, the psychological incapacity may occur

after the marriage, in void marriages, it has to be at the time of the celebration of marriage.

>e, ho-ever, stressed that the idea in the provision is that at the time of the celebration of the

marriage, one is psychologically incapacitated to comply -ith the essential marital obligations,

-hich incapacity continues and later becomes manifest.

)ustice Puno and )udge iy, ho-ever, pointed out that it is possible that after the marriage,

one:s psychological incapacity become manifest but later on he is cured. )ustice Reyes and

)ustice Caguioa opined that the remedy in this case is to allo- him to remarry. &

888 888 888

)ustice Puno formulated the ne8t Article as follo-s

Art. "'. A marriage contracted by any party -ho, at the time of the

celebration, -as psychologically incapacitated, to comply -ith the essential

obligations of marriage shall lie-ise be void from the beginning even if such

incapacity becomes manifest after its solemni/ation.

)ustice Caguioa suggested that 3even if3 be substituted -ith 3although.3 %n the other hand,

Prof. Bautista proposed that the clause 3although such incapacity becomes manifest after its

solemni/ation3 be deleted since it may encourage one to create the manifestation of

psychological incapacity. )ustice Caguioa pointed out that, as in other provisions, they cannot

argue on the basis of abuse.

)udge iy suggested that they also include mental and physical incapacities, -hich are lesser

in degree than psychological incapacity. )ustice Caguioa e8plained that mental and physical

incapacities are vices of consent -hile psychological incapacity is not a species of vice or

consent.

ean 9upit read -hat Bishop Cru/ said on the matter in the minutes of their !ebruary *, (*+@

meeting

3%n the third ground, Bishop Cru/ indicated that the phrase 3psychological or

mental impotence3 is an invention of some churchmen -ho are moralists but

not canonists, that is -hy it is considered a -ea phrase. >e said that the


6/66

Code of Canon 1a- -ould rather e8press it as 3psychological or mental

incapacity to discharge . . .3

)ustice Caguioa remared that they deleted the -ord 3mental3 precisely to distinguish it from

vice of consent. >e e8plained that 3psychological incapacity3 refers to lac of understanding of

the essential obligations of marriage.

)ustice Puno reminded the members that, at the last meeting, they have decided not to go

into the classification of 3psychological incapacity3 because there -as a lot of debate on it and

that this is precisely the reason -hy they classified it as a special case.

At this point, )ustice Puno, remared that, since there having been annulments of marriages

arising from psychological incapacity, Civil 1a- should not reconcile -ith Canon 1a- because

it is a ne- ground even under Canon 1a-.

Prof. Romero raised the ;uestion


7/66

case basis, guided by e8perience, the findings of e8perts and researchers in psychological

disciplines, and by decisions of church tribunals -hich, although not binding on the civil

courts, may be given persuasive effect since the provision -as taen from Canon 1a-.

A part of the provision is similar to Canon (7*= of the Ne- Code of Canon 1a-, 9 -hich reads

Canon (7*=. 0hey are incapable of contracting marriage

(. -ho lac sufficient use of reason

&. -ho suffer from a grave defect of discretion of udgment concerning essentila matrimonial

rights and duties, to be given and accepted mutually

". who for causes of psychological nature are unable to assume the essential obligations of

marriage. $Emphasis supplied.

Accordingly, although neither decisive nor even perhaps all that persuasive for having no uridical or secular

effect, the urisprudence under Canon 1a- prevailing at the time of the code:s enactment, nevertheless, cannot

be dismissed as impertinent for its value as an aid, at least, to the interpretation or construction of the codal

provision.

%ne author, 1adislas %rsy, 2.)., in his treaties, 10 giving an account on ho- the third paragraph of Canon

(7*= has been framed, states

0he history of the drafting of this canon does not leave any doubt that the legislator intended,

indeed, to broaden the rule. A strict and narro- norm -as proposed first

0hose -ho cannot assume the essential obligations of marriage because of

a grave psycho5se8ual anomaly $ob gravem anomaliam psychose8ualem

are unable to contract marriage $cf 2C>F(*'=, canon &*', a ne- canon,novus

then a broader one follo-ed

. . . because of a grave psychological anomaly $ob gravem anomaliam psychicam . . .

$cf2C>F(*+7, canon (7@*

then the same -ording -as retained in the te8t submitted to the pope $cf 2C>F(*+&, canon

(7*=, "

finally, a ne- version -as promulgated

because of causes of a psychological nature $ob causas naturae psychiae.

2o the progress -as from psycho5se8ual to psychological anomaly, then the term anomaly

-as altogether eliminated. it -ould be, ho-ever, incorrect to dra- the conclusion that the

cause of the incapacity need not be some ind of psychological disorder after all, normal and

healthy person should be able to assume the ordinary obligations of marriage.


8/66

!r. %rsy concedes that the term 3psychological incapacity3 defies any precise definition since psychological

causes can be of an infinite variety.

6n a boo, entitled 3Canons and Commentaries on Marriage,3 -ritten by 6gnatius 9ramunt, )avier >ervada and

1eRoy


9/66

0he other forms of psychoses, if e8isting at the inception of marriage, lie the state of a party being of unsound

mind or concealment of drug addiction, habitual alcoholism, homose8uality or lesbianism, merely renders the

marriage contract voidable pursuant to Article @#, !amily Code. 6f drug addiction, habitual alcholism, lesbianism

or homose8uality should occur only during the marriage, they become mere grounds for legal separation under

Article == of the !amily Code. 0hese provisions of the Code, ho-ever, do not necessarily preclude the

possibility of these various circumstances being themselves, depending on the degree and severity of the

disorder, indicia of psychological incapacity.

4ntil further statutory and urisprudential parameters are established, every circumstance that may have some

bearing on the degree, e8tent, and other conditions of that incapacity must, in every case, be carefully

e8amined and evaluated so that no precipitate and indiscriminate nullity is peremptorily decreed. 0he -ell5

considered opinions of psychiatrists, psychologists, and persons -ith e8pertise in psychological disciplines

might be helpful or even desirable.

Marriage is not an adventure but a lifetime commitment.


10/66

S)*ara+) O*non-

PA!"LLA, J., dissenting

6t is difficult to dissent from a -ell5-ritten and studied opinion as Mr. )ustice ?itug:s ponencia. But, after an

e8tended reflection on the facts of this case, 6 cannot see my -ay clear into holding, as the maority do, that

there is no ground for the declaration of nullity of the marriage bet-een petitioner and private respondent.

0o my mind, it is clear that private respondent has been sho-n to be psychologically incapacitated to comply

-ith at least one essential marital obligation, i.e. that of living and cohabiting -ith her husband, herein

petitioner. %n the other hand, it has not been sho-n that petitioner does not deserve to live and cohabit -ith his

-ife, herein private respondent.

0here appears to be no disagreement that the term 3psychological incapacity3 defies precision in definition. But,

as used in Article "# of the !amily Code as a ground for the declaration of nullity of a marriage, the intent of the

framers of the Code is evidently to e8pand and liberali/e the grounds for nullifying a marriage, as -ell pointed

out by Madam )ustice !lerida Ruth P. Romero in her separate opinion in this case.


11/66

A spouse:s obligation to live and cohabit -ith hisFher partner in marriage is a basic ground rule in marriage,

unless there are overpo-ering compelling reasons such as, for instance, an incurable contagious disease on

the part of a spouse or cruelty of one partner, bordering on insanity. 0here may also be instances -hen, for

economic and practical reasons, husband and -ife have to live separately, but the marital bond bet-een the

spouses al-ays remains. Mutual love and respect for each other -ould, in such cases, compel the absent

spouse to at least have regular contracts -ith the other to inform the latter of hisFher condition and

-hereabouts.

6n the present case, it is apparent that private respondent )ulia Rosario Bedia52antos has no intention of

cohabiting -ith petitioner, her husband, or maintaining contact -ith him. 6n fact, her acts elo;uently sho- that

she does not -ant her husband to no- of her -hereabouts and neither has she any intention of living and

cohabiting -ith him.

0o me there appears to be, on the part of private respondent, an unmistaeable indication of psychological

incapacity to comply -ith her essential marital obligations, although these indications -ere made manifest after

the celebration of the marriage.

6t -ould be a great inustice, 6 believe, to petitioner for this Court to give a much too restrictive interpretation of

the la- and compel the petitioner to continue to be married to a -ife -ho for purposes of fulfilling her maritalduties has, for all practical purposes, ceased to e8ist.

Besides, there are public policy considerations involved in the ruling the Court maes today. 6s it not, in effect

directly or indirectly, facilitating the transformation of petitioner into a 3habitual tryster3 or one forced to maintain

illicit relations -ith another -oman or -omen -ith emerging problems of illegitimate children, simply because

he is denied by private respondent, his -ife, the companionship and conugal love -hich he has sought from

her and to -hich he is legally entitled

6 do not go as far as to suggest that Art. "# of the !amily Code is a sanction for absolute divorce but 6 submit

that -e should not constrict it to non5recognition of its evident purpose and thus deny to one lie petitioner, an

opportunity to turn a ne- leaf in his life by declaring his marriage a nullity by reason of his -ife:s psychological

incapacity to perform an essential marital obligation.

6 therefore vote to 9RAN0 the petition and to EC1ARE the marriage bet-een petitioner 1eouel 2antos and

private respondent )ulia Rosario Bedia52antos ?%6 on the basis of Article "# of the !amily Code.

ROMERO, J., concurring

6 agree under the circumstances of the case, petitioner is not entitled to have his marriage declared a nullity on

the ground of psychological incapacity of private respondent.

>o-ever, as a member of both the !amily 1a- Revision Committee of the 6ntegrated Bar of the Philippines and

the Civil Code Revision Committee of the 4P 1a- Center, 6 -ish to add some observations. 0he letter 1 dated

April (=, (*+= of then )udge Alicia ?. 2empio5iy -ritten in behalf of the !amily 1a- and Civil Code

Revision Committee to then Assembly-oman Mercedes Couangco50eodoro traced the bacground of the

inclusion of the present Article "# in the !amily Code.

uring its early meetings, the !amily 1a- Committee had thought of including a chapter on

absolute divorce in the draft of a ne- !amily Code $Boo 6 of the Civil Code that it had been

tased by the 6BP and the 4P 1a- Center to prepare. 6n fact, some members of the

Committee -ere in favor of a no5fault divorce bet-een the spouses after a number of years of


12/66

separation, legal or de.facto. )ustice ).B.1. Reyes -as then re;uested to prepare a proposal

for an action for dissolution of marriage and the effects thereof based on t-o grounds $a five

continuous years of separation bet-een the spouses, -ith or -ithout a udicial decree of legal

separation, and $b -henever a married person -ould have obtained a decree of absolute

divorce in another country. Actually, such a proposal is one for absolute divorce but called by

another name. 1ater, even the Civil Code Revision Committee too time to discuss the

proposal of )ustice Reyes on this matter.

2ubse;uently, ho-ever, -hen the Civil Code Revision Committee and !amily 1a- Committee

started holding oint meetings on the preparation of the draft of the Ne- !amily Code, they

agreed and formulated the definition of marriage as D

3a special contract of permanent partnership bet-een a man and a -oman

entered into in accordance -ith la- for the establishment of conugal and

family life. 6t is an inviolable social institution -hose nature, conse;uences,

and incidents are governed by la- and not subect to stipulation, e8cept that

marriage settlements may fi8 the property relations during the marriage

-ithin the limits provided by la-.3


13/66

3Art. "". 0he action or defense for the declaration of the absolute nullity of a

marriage shall not prescribe.3

888 888 888

6t is believed that many hopelessly broen marriages in our country today may already

dissolved or annulled on the grounds proposed by the )oint Committee on declaration of

nullity as -ell as annulment of marriages, thus rendering an absolute divorce la-

unnecessary. 6n fact, during a conference -ith !ather 9erald >ealy of the Ateneo 4niversity

as -ell as another meeting -ith Archbishop %scar Cru/ of the Archdiocese of Pampanga, the

)oint Committee -as informed that since ?atican 66, the Catholic Church has been declaring

marriages null and void on the ground of 3lac of due discretion3 for causes that, in other

urisdictions, -ould be clear grounds for divorce, lie teen5age or premature marriages

marriage to a man -ho, because of some personality disorder or disturbance, cannot support

a family the foolish or ridiculous choice of a spouse by an other-ise perfectly normal person

marriage to a -oman -ho refuses to cohabit -ith her husband or -ho refuses to have

children. Bishop Cru/ also informed the Committee that they have found out in tribunal -or

that a lot of machismo among husbands are manifestations of their sociopathic personality

anomaly, lie inflicting physical violence upon their -ives, constitutional indolence or la/iness,drug dependence or addiction, and psychological anomaly. . . . $Emphasis supplied

Clearly, by incorporating -hat is no- Article "# into the !amily Code, the Revision Committee referred to above

intended to add another ground to those already listed in the Civil Code as grounds for nullifying a marriage,

thus e8panding or liberali/ing the same. 6nherent in the inclusion of the provision on psychological incapacity

-as the understanding that every petition for declaration of nullity based on it should be treated on a case5to5

case basis hence, the absence of a definition and an enumeration of -hat constitutes psychological incapacity.

Moreover, the Committee feared that the giving of e8amples -ould limit the applicability of the provision under

the principle of ejusdem generis. But the la- re;uires that the same be e8isting at the time of marriage

although it be manifested later.

Admittedly, the provision on psychological incapacity, ust lie any other provision of la-, is open to abuse. 0oprevent this, 3the court shall tae order the prosecuting attorney or fiscal assigned to it to appear on behalf of

the 2tate to tae steps to prevent collusion bet-een the parties and to tae care that evidence is not fabricated

or suppressed.3 2 Moreover, the udge, in interpreting the provision on a case5to5case basis, must be

guided by 3e8perience, the findings of e8perts and researchers in psychological disciplines, and by

decisions of church tribunals -hich, although not binding on the civil courts, may be given persuasive

effect since the provisions -as taen from Canon 1a-.3 %

0he constitutional and statutory provisions on the family 4 -ill remain the lodestar -hich our society -ill hope

to achieve ultimately. 0herefore, the inclusion of Article "# is not to be taen as an abandonment of the

ideal -hich -e all cherish. 6f at all, it is a recognition of the reality that some marriages, by reason of the

incapacity of one of the contracting parties, fall short of this ideal thus, the parties are constrained to find

a -ay of putting an end to their union through some legally5accepted means.

Any criticism directed at the -ay that udges have interpreted the provision since its enactment as to render it

easier for unhappily5married couples to separate is addressed, not to the -isdom of the la-maers but to the

manner by -hich some members of the Bench have implemented the provision. 0hese are not

interchangeable, each being separate and distinct from the other.


14/66

S)*ara+) O*non-

PA!"LLA, J., dissenting

6t is difficult to dissent from a -ell5-ritten and studied opinion as Mr. )ustice ?itug:s ponencia. But, after an

e8tended reflection on the facts of this case, 6 cannot see my -ay clear into holding, as the maority do, that

there is no ground for the declaration of nullity of the marriage bet-een petitioner and private respondent.

0o my mind, it is clear that private respondent has been sho-n to be psychologically incapacitated to comply

-ith at least one essential marital obligation, i.e. that of living and cohabiting -ith her husband, herein

petitioner. %n the other hand, it has not been sho-n that petitioner does not deserve to live and cohabit -ith his

-ife, herein private respondent.

0here appears to be no disagreement that the term 3psychological incapacity3 defies precision in definition. But,

as used in Article "# of the !amily Code as a ground for the declaration of nullity of a marriage, the intent of the

framers of the Code is evidently to e8pand and liberali/e the grounds for nullifying a marriage, as -ell pointed

out by Madam )ustice !lerida Ruth P. Romero in her separate opinion in this case.


15/66

spouse to at least have regular contracts -ith the other to inform the latter of hisFher condition and

-hereabouts.

6n the present case, it is apparent that private respondent )ulia Rosario Bedia52antos has no intention of

cohabiting -ith petitioner, her husband, or maintaining contact -ith him. 6n fact, her acts elo;uently sho- that

she does not -ant her husband to no- of her -hereabouts and neither has she any intention of living and

cohabiting -ith him.

0o me there appears to be, on the part of private respondent, an unmistaeable indication of psychological

incapacity to comply -ith her essential marital obligations, although these indications -ere made manifest after

the celebration of the marriage.

6t -ould be a great inustice, 6 believe, to petitioner for this Court to give a much too restrictive interpretation of

the la- and compel the petitioner to continue to be married to a -ife -ho for purposes of fulfilling her marital

duties has, for all practical purposes, ceased to e8ist.

Besides, there are public policy considerations involved in the ruling the Court maes today. 6s it not, in effect

directly or indirectly, facilitating the transformation of petitioner into a 3habitual tryster3 or one forced to maintain

illicit relations -ith another -oman or -omen -ith emerging problems of illegitimate children, simply because

he is denied by private respondent, his -ife, the companionship and conugal love -hich he has sought from

her and to -hich he is legally entitled

6 do not go as far as to suggest that Art. "# of the !amily Code is a sanction for absolute divorce but 6 submit

that -e should not constrict it to non5recognition of its evident purpose and thus deny to one lie petitioner, an

opportunity to turn a ne- leaf in his life by declaring his marriage a nullity by reason of his -ife:s psychological

incapacity to perform an essential marital obligation.

6 therefore vote to 9RAN0 the petition and to EC1ARE the marriage bet-een petitioner 1eouel 2antos and

private respondent )ulia Rosario Bedia52antos ?%6 on the basis of Article "# of the !amily Code.

ROMERO, J., concurring

6 agree under the circumstances of the case, petitioner is not entitled to have his marriage declared a nullity on

the ground of psychological incapacity of private respondent.

>o-ever, as a member of both the !amily 1a- Revision Committee of the 6ntegrated Bar of the Philippines and

the Civil Code Revision Committee of the 4P 1a- Center, 6 -ish to add some observations. 0he letter 1 dated

April (=, (*+= of then )udge Alicia ?. 2empio5iy -ritten in behalf of the !amily 1a- and Civil Code

Revision Committee to then Assembly-oman Mercedes Couangco50eodoro traced the bacground of the

inclusion of the present Article "# in the !amily Code.

uring its early meetings, the !amily 1a- Committee had thought of including a chapter onabsolute divorce in the draft of a ne- !amily Code $Boo 6 of the Civil Code that it had been

tased by the 6BP and the 4P 1a- Center to prepare. 6n fact, some members of the

Committee -ere in favor of a no5fault divorce bet-een the spouses after a number of years of

separation, legal or de.facto. )ustice ).B.1. Reyes -as then re;uested to prepare a proposal

for an action for dissolution of marriage and the effects thereof based on t-o grounds $a five

continuous years of separation bet-een the spouses, -ith or -ithout a udicial decree of legal

separation, and $b -henever a married person -ould have obtained a decree of absolute

divorce in another country. Actually, such a proposal is one for absolute divorce but called by


16/66

another name. 1ater, even the Civil Code Revision Committee too time to discuss the

proposal of )ustice Reyes on this matter.

2ubse;uently, ho-ever, -hen the Civil Code Revision Committee and !amily 1a- Committee

started holding oint meetings on the preparation of the draft of the Ne- !amily Code, they

agreed and formulated the definition of marriage as D

3a special contract of permanent partnership bet-een a man and a -oman

entered into in accordance -ith la- for the establishment of conugal and

family life. 6t is an inviolable social institution -hose nature, conse;uences,

and incidents are governed by la- and not subect to stipulation, e8cept that

marriage settlements may fi8 the property relations during the marriage

-ithin the limits provided by la-.3


17/66

6t is believed that many hopelessly broen marriages in our country today may already

dissolved or annulled on the grounds proposed by the )oint Committee on declaration of

nullity as -ell as annulment of marriages, thus rendering an absolute divorce la-

unnecessary. 6n fact, during a conference -ith !ather 9erald >ealy of the Ateneo 4niversity

as -ell as another meeting -ith Archbishop %scar Cru/ of the Archdiocese of Pampanga, the

)oint Committee -as informed that since ?atican 66, the Catholic Church has been declaring

marriages null and void on the ground of 3lac of due discretion3 for causes that, in other urisdictions, -ould be clear grounds for divorce, lie teen5age or premature marriages

marriage to a man -ho, because of some personality disorder or disturbance, cannot support

a family the foolish or ridiculous choice of a spouse by an other-ise perfectly normal person

marriage to a -oman -ho refuses to cohabit -ith her husband or -ho refuses to have

children. Bishop Cru/ also informed the Committee that they have found out in tribunal -or

that a lot of machismo among husbands are manifestations of their sociopathic personality

anomaly, lie inflicting physical violence upon their -ives, constitutional indolence or la/iness,

drug dependence or addiction, and psychological anomaly. . . . $Emphasis supplied

Clearly, by incorporating -hat is no- Article "# into the !amily Code, the Revision Committee referred to above

intended to add another ground to those already listed in the Civil Code as grounds for nullifying a marriage,

thus e8panding or liberali/ing the same. 6nherent in the inclusion of the provision on psychological incapacity-as the understanding that every petition for declaration of nullity based on it should be treated on a case5to5

case basis hence, the absence of a definition and an enumeration of -hat constitutes psychological incapacity.

Moreover, the Committee feared that the giving of e8amples -ould limit the applicability of the provision under

the principle of ejusdem generis. But the la- re;uires that the same be e8isting at the time of marriage

although it be manifested later.

Admittedly, the provision on psychological incapacity, ust lie any other provision of la-, is open to abuse. 0o

prevent this, 3the court shall tae order the prosecuting attorney or fiscal assigned to it to appear on behalf of

the 2tate to tae steps to prevent collusion bet-een the parties and to tae care that evidence is not fabricated

or suppressed.3 2 Moreover, the udge, in interpreting the provision on a case5to5case basis, must be

guided by 3e8perience, the findings of e8perts and researchers in psychological disciplines, and by

decisions of church tribunals -hich, although not binding on the civil courts, may be given persuasiveeffect since the provisions -as taen from Canon 1a-.3 %

0he constitutional and statutory provisions on the family 4 -ill remain the lodestar -hich our society -ill hope

to achieve ultimately. 0herefore, the inclusion of Article "# is not to be taen as an abandonment of the

ideal -hich -e all cherish. 6f at all, it is a recognition of the reality that some marriages, by reason of the

incapacity of one of the contracting parties, fall short of this ideal thus, the parties are constrained to find

a -ay of putting an end to their union through some legally5accepted means.

Any criticism directed at the -ay that udges have interpreted the provision since its enactment as to render it

easier for unhappily5married couples to separate is addressed, not to the -isdom of the la-maers but to the

manner by -hich some members of the Bench have implemented the provision. 0hese are not

interchangeable, each being separate and distinct from the other.


SUPREME COURT

Manila


18/66

2EC%N 6?626%N

G.R. No. 119190 January 1&, 199'

CH" M"NG TSO", petitioner,

vs.

COURT O APPEALS an G"NA LAO#TSO", respondents.

TORRES, JR., J.:

Man has not invented a reliable compass by -hich to steer a marriage in its ourney over troubled -aters. 1a-s

are seemingly inade;uate. %ver time, much reliance has been placed in the -ors of the unseen hand of >im

-ho created all things.


19/66

since the defendant avoided her by taing a long -al during siesta time or by ust sleeping on a

rocing chair located at the living room. 0hey slept together in the same room and on the same bed

since May &&, (*++ until March (=, (*+*. But during this period, there -as no attempt of se8ual

intercourse bet-een them. I2Jhe claims, that she did not even see her husband:s private parts nor did

he see hers.

Because of this, they submitted themselves for medical e8aminations to r. Eufemio Macalalag, aurologist at the Chinese 9eneral >ospital, on )anuary &7, (*+*.

0he results of their physical e8aminations -ere that she is healthy, normal and still a virgin, -hile that

of her husband:s e8amination -as ept confidential up to this time.


20/66

0he doctor said, that he ased the defendant to masturbate to find out -hether or not he has an

erection and he found out that from the original si/e of t-o $& inches, or five $= centimeters, the penis

of the defendant lengthened by one $( inch and one centimeter. r. Alte/a said, that the defendant

had only a soft erection -hich is -hy his penis is not in its full length. But, still is capable of further

erection, in that -ith his soft erection, the defendant is capable of having se8ual intercourse -ith a

-oman.

6n open Court, the 0rial Prosecutor manifested that there is no collusion bet-een the parties and that

the evidence is not fabricated.3 2

After trial, the court rendered udgment, the dispositive portion of -hich reads

ACC%R6N91K, udgment is hereby rendered declaring as ?%6 the marriage entered into by the

plaintiff -ith the defendant on May &&, (*++ at the Manila Cathedral, Basilica of the 6mmaculate

Conception, 6ntramuros, Manila, before the Rt. Rev. Msgr. Melencio de ?era. ence, the instant petition.

Petitioner alleges that the respondent Court of Appeals erred

6

in affirming the conclusions of the lo-er court that there -as no se8ual intercourse bet-een the parties

-ithout maing any findings of fact.

66

in holding that the refusal of private respondent to have se8ual communion -ith petitioner is a

psychological incapacity inasmuch as proof thereof is totally absent.

666

in holding that the alleged refusal of both the petitioner and the private respondent to have se8 -ith

each other constitutes psychological incapacity of both.

6?

in affirming the annulment of the marriage bet-een the parties decreed by the lo-er court -ithout fully

satisfying itself that there -as no collusion bet-een them.


21/66

Petitioner contends that being the plaintiff in Civil Case No. H5+*5"(@(, private respondent has the burden of

proving the allegations in her complaint that since there -as no independent evidence to prove the alleged

non5coitus bet-een the parties, there remains no other basis for the court:s conclusion e8cept the admission of

petitioner that public policy should aid acts intended to validate marriage and should retard acts intended to

invalidate them that the conclusion dra-n by the trial court on the admissions and confessions of the parties in

their pleadings and in the course of the trial is misplaced since it could have been a product of collusion and

that in actions for annulment of marriage, the material facts alleged in the complaint shall al-ays be proved. %

2ection (, Rule (* of the Rules of Court reads

2ection (. )udgment on the pleadings. D


22/66

aches, pains or other discomforts, D -hy private respondent -ould not -ant to have se8ual intercourse from

May &&, (*++ to March (=, (*+*, in a short span of (7 months.

!irst, it must be stated that neither the trial court nor the respondent court made a finding on -ho bet-een

petitioner and private respondent refuses to have se8ual contact -ith the other. 0he fact remains, ho-ever, that

there has never been coitus bet-een them. At any rate, since the action to declare the marriage void may be

filed by either party, i .e., even the psychologically incapacitated, the ;uestion of -ho refuses to have se8 -iththe other becomes immaterial.

Petitioner claims that there is no independent evidence on record to sho- that any of the parties is suffering

from phychological incapacity. Petitioner also claims that he -anted to have se8 -ith private respondent that

the reason for private respondent:s refusal may not be psychological but physical disorder as stated above.

e never did. At least, there is nothing in the record to sho- that he had tried to find out or discover -hat the

problem -ith his -ife could be.


23/66

husband is reluctant or un-illing to perform the se8ual act -ith his -ife -hom he professes to love

very dearly, and -ho has not posed any insurmountable resistance to his alleged approaches, is

indicative of a hopeless situation, and of a serious personality disorder that constitutes psychological

incapacity to discharge the basic marital covenants -ithin the contemplation of the !amily Code. '

E !%RE9%6N9 PREM62E2 , the assailed decision of the Court of Appeals dated November

&*, (**@ is hereby A!!6RME in all respects and the petition is hereby EN6E for lac of merit.

2% %RERE.


SUPREME COURT

Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. 10('&% )/ruary 1%, 199'

REPUBL"C O THE PH"L"PP"NES,

-.

COURT O APPEALS an ROR"!EL OLA$"ANO MOL"NA, r)-*on)n+-.

PANGAN"BAN, J.:


24/66

T) a3y Co) o +) P3**n)- *ro)- an )n+r)3y n) 6roun 7n a+on +o +o-) )nu)ra+) n

+) C3 Co)8 +o a--a3 +) a3+y o a arra6), na)3y, *-y:o3o6:a3 n:a*a:+y. Sn:) +) Co);-

)):++y, our :our+- a) /))n -a*) + arou- *)++on- +o ):3ar) arra6)- o /a-) on

+- 6roun. A3+ou6 +- Cour+ a n+)r*r)+) +) )ann6 o *-y:o3o6:a3 n:a*a:+y n +) r):)n+

:a-) o Santos vs. Court of Appeals, -+33 any


25/66

2. Ta+ ou+ o +)r arra6), a :3 na) A3/)r+ Anr) O3aano Mo3na a- /orn on

Ju3y 29, 19(&?

%. Ta+ +) *ar+)- ar) -)*ara+)#n#a:+ or or) +an +r)) y)ar-?

4. Ta+ *)++on)r - no+ a-n6 -u**or+ or )r an )r :3?

5. Ta+ +) r)-*on)n+ - no+ a-n6 or aa6)-?

&. Ta+ +) :oon :3 o +) *ar+)- - n +) :u-+oy o +) *)++on)r ).

E)n:) or )r)n r)-*on)n+ ) :on--+) o )r on +)-+ony an +a+ o )r r)n- Ro-)ar)

$)n+ura an Mara L)onora Pa33a a- )33 a- o Ru+ G. La3a-, a -o:a3 or)r, an o !r. T)r)-+a

Ha36o#S-on, a *-y:a+r-+ o +) Ba6uo G)n)ra3 Ho-*+a3 an M):a3 C)n+)r. S) a3-o -u/++)

o:u)n+- ar) a- E=/+- A +o E#1. R)yna3o no+ *r)-)n+ any ))n:) a- ) a**)ar)

on3y urn6 +) *r)#+ra3 :on)r)n:).

On May 14, 1991, +) +ra3 :our+ r)n)r)


26/66

T) *)++on)r, on +) o+)r an, ar6u)- +a+ o**o-n6 an :on3:+n6 *)r-ona3+)- - no+ )@ua3)n+

+o *-y:o3o6:a3 n:a*a:+y, )=*3ann6 +a+ -u: 6roun - no+ -*3y +) neglect /y +) *ar+)- +o +)

arra6) o +)r r)-*on-/3+)- an u+)-, /u+ a defect n +)r *-y:o3o6:a3 na+ur) : r)n)r-

+) n:a*a/3) o *)rorn6 -u: ar+a3 r)-*on-/3+)- an u+)-.

The Court's Ruling

T) *)++on - )r+orou-.

"n eouel Santos vs. Court of Appeals & +- Cour+, -*)an6 +ru Mr. Ju-+:) Jo-) C. $+u6, ru3) +a+

*-y:o3o6:a3 n:a*a:+y -ou3 r))r +o no 3)-- +an a )n+a3 7nor *y-:a38 n:a*a:+y . . . an

+a+ 7+8)r) - ar3y any ou/+ +a+ +) n+)n)n+ o +) 3a a- /))n +o :onn) +) )ann6 o

;*-y:o3o6:a3 n:a*a:+y; +o +) o-+ -)rou- :a-)- o *)r-ona3+y -or)r- :3)ar3y

)on-+ra+) o an u++)r n-)n-++y or na/3+y +o 6) )ann6 an -6n:an:) +o +)

arra6). T- *-y:o3o6: :on+on u-+ )=-+ a+ +) +) +) arra6) - :)3)/ra+). C+n6 !r.

G)raro $)3o-o, a or)r *r)-n6


27/66

A )-, our Honor.

T) Cour+ a- no or) @u)-+on-.

"n +) :a-) o R)yna3o, +)r) - no -on6 +a+ - a33)6) *)r-ona3+y +ra+- )r) :on-++u+) o

*-y:o3o6:a3 n:a*a:+y )=-+n6 a+ +) +) o arra6) :)3)/ra+on. D3) -o) )or+ a- a) +o

*ro) +a+ +)r) a- a a3ur) +o u333 *r)#nu*+a3 *r)--on- o +ou6+u3n)-- an 6)n+3)n)-- on

R)yna3o;- *ar+ o /)n6 :on-)ra+), o)3y an n+)336)n+ on +) *ar+ o Ror)3, -u: a3ur) o

)=*):+a+on - nor n:a+) o an+):))n+ *-y:o3o6:a3 n:a*a:+y. " a+ a33, + )r)3y -o- 3o);-

+)*orary /3nn)-- +o +) au3+- an /3)-)- o +) /)3o).

!urn6 +- )3/)ra+on-, +) Cour+ ):) +o 6o /)yon )r)3y ru3n6 on +) a:+- o +- :a-) vis!a!

vis)=-+n6 3a an no+ *y-:a3.

a3+ou6 +- an)-+a+on- anor -y*+o- ay /) *y-:a3. T) ))n:) u-+ :onn:) +) :our+

+a+ +) *ar+)-, or on) o +), a- )n+a33y or *y-:a33y 33 +o -u: an )=+)n+ +a+ +) *)r-on :ou3

no+ a) non +) o/36a+on- ) a- a--un6, or non6 +), :ou3 no+ a) 6)n a3

a--u*+on +)r)o. A3+ou6 no )=a*3) o -u: n:a*a:+y n)) /) 6)n )r) -o a- no+ +o 3+ +)a**3:a+on o +) *ro-on un)r +) *rn:*3) o e&usde" generis, 1% n))r+)3)-- -u: roo+ :au-)

u-+ /) )n+) a- a *-y:o3o6:a3 33n)-- an +- n:a*a:+a+n6 na+ur) )=*3an). E=*)r+

))n:) ay /) 6)n @ua3) *-y:a+r-+ an :3n:a3 *-y:o3o6-+-.

7%8 T) n:a*a:+y u-+ /) *ro)n +o /) )=-+n6 a+ +) +) o +) :)3)/ra+on o +) arra6). T)

))n:) u-+ -o +a+ +) 33n)-- a- )=-+n6 )n +) *ar+)- )=:an6) +)r " o;-. T)

an)-+a+on o +) 33n)-- n)) no+ /) *)r:)a/3) a+ -u: +), /u+ +) 33n)-- +-)3 u-+ a)

a++a:) a+ -u: o)n+, or *ror +)r)+o.


28/66

748 Su: n:a*a:+y u-+ a3-o /) -on +o /) ):a33y or :3n:a33y *)ran)n+ or incurable. Su:

n:ura/3+y ay /) a/-o3u+) or ))n r)3a+) on3y n r)6ar +o +) o+)r -*ou-), no+ n):)--ar3y

a/-o3u+)3y a6an-+ ))ryon) o +) -a) -)=. ur+)ror), -u: n:a*a:+y u-+ /) r)3)an+ +o +)

a--u*+on o arra6) o/36a+on-, no+ n):)--ar3y +o +o-) no+ r)3a+) +o arra6), 3) +) )=)r:-)

o a *ro)--on or )*3oy)n+ n a -u/ a+ - ):r)) a- :anon:a33y na3 -ou3 a3-o /) ):r)) :33y o.

T- - on) n-+an:) )r), n ) o +) ))n+ -our:) an *ur*o-) o +) a3y Co) *ro-on,

:on+)*oran)ou- r)36ou- n+)r*r)+a+on - +o /) 6)n *)r-ua-) )):+. H)r), +) S+a+) an +)

Cur: > 3) r)ann6 n)*)n)n+, -)*ara+) an a*ar+ ro )a: o+)r > -a33 a3 +o6)+)r n

-ynoa3 :a)n:) +oar- +) -a) 6oa3 o *ro+):+n6 an :)r-n6 arra6) an +) a3y a- +)

no3a/3) /a-) o +) na+on.

7(8 T) +ra3 :our+ u-+ or)r +) *ro-):u+n6 a++orn)y or -:a3 an +) So3:+or G)n)ra3 +o a**)ar a-

:oun-)3 or +) -+a+). No ):-on -a33 ) an) on un3)-- +) So3:+or G)n)ra3 --u)- a

:)r+:a+on, : 33 /) @uo+) n +) ):-on, /r)3y -+arn6 +)r)n - r)a-on- or - a6r)))n+

or o**o-+on, a- +) :a-) ay /), +o +) *)++on. T) So3:+or G)n)ra3, a3on6 + +) *ro-):u+n6

a++orn)y, -a33 -u/+ +o +) :our+ -u: :)r+:a+on +n +))n 7158 ay- ro +) a+) +) :a-) -

))) -u/++) or r)-o3u+on o +) :our+. T) So3:+or G)n)ra3 -a33 -:ar6) +) )@ua3)n+

un:+on o +) defensor vinculi :on+)*3a+) un)r Canon 1095.

"n +) n-+an+ :a-) an a**3yn6 eouel Santos, ) a) a3r)ay ru3) +o 6ran+ +) *)++on. Su: ru3n6

/):o)- ))n or) :o6)n+ + +) u-) o +) or)6on6 6u)3n)-.


29/66

DHEREORE, +) *)++on - GRANTE!. T) a--a3) !):-on - RE$ERSE! an SET AS"!E. T)

arra6) o Ror)3 O3aano +o R)yna3o Mo3na -u/--+- an r)an- a3.

SO OR!ERE!.

arvasa, C.J., (avide, Jr., )ellosillo, *elo, $uno Francisco, +er"osisi"a, Jr., and Torres, Jr., JJ.,

concur.

Regalado, apunan and *endo-a, JJ., concurs in the result.

S)*ara+) O*non-

PA!"LLA, J., :on:urn6 o*non

" :on:ur n +) r)-u3+ o +) ):-on *)nn) /y Mr. Ju-+:) Pan6an/an /u+ on3y /):au-) o +)

*):u3ar a:+- o +) :a-). A- +o )+)r or no+ +) *-y:o3o6:a3 n:a*a:+y )=-+- n a 6)n :a-)

:a33n6 or annu3)n+ o a arra6), )*)n- :ru:a33y, or) +an n any )3 o +) 3a, on +) a:+- o

+) :a-). "neouel Santos v . Court of Appeals an Julia Rosario!)edia Santos, G.R. No. 112019, 4

January 1995, 240 SCRA 20#%&, " an+an), an " -+33 an+an, +a+ +)r) a- *-y:o3o6:a3

n:a*a:+y on +) *ar+ o +) ) +o -:ar6) +) u+)- o a ) n a a3 arra6). T) a:+- o +)

*r)-)n+ :a-), a+)r an n)*+ -+uy, o no+ -u**or+ a -3ar :on:3u-on. O/ou-3y, )a: :a-) u-+

/)


30/66

" ou3 a +a+ n)+)r -ou3 +) n:a*a:+y /) +) r)-u3+ o )n+a3 33n)--. or + )r) u) +o

n-an+y or )):+- n +) )n+a3 a:u3+)- -or+ o n-an+y, +)r) - a r)-u3+an+ )):+ o :) o

:on-)n+, +u- r)n)rn6 +) arra6) annu3a/3) un)r Ar+. 45 o +) a3y Co).

Ta+ +) n+)n+ o +) )/)r- o +) U.P. La C)n+)r;- C3 Co) R)-on Co++)) a- +o

)=:3u)"ental inabilit% +o un)r-+an +) )--)n+a3 na+ur) o arra6) an o:u- -+r:+3y on

*-y:o3o6:a3 n:a*a:+y - )on-+ra+) n +) ay +) *ro-on n @u)-+on un)r)n+ r)-on-.

A+ +) Co++)) ))+n6 o Ju3y 2&, 19(&, +) ra+ *ro-on r)a

7'8 To-) arra6)- :on+ra:+) /y any *ar+y o, a+ +) +) o +) :)3)/ra+on, a-

an+n6 n +) -u:)n+ u-) o r)a-on or


31/66

+)y 33 )+)rn) :ura/3+y an Ju-+:) Ca6uoa a6r)) +a+ + ou3 /) or) *ro/3)a+:. )+ +)

*o--/3+y +a+ on) ay /) :ur) a+)r +) *-y:o3o6:a3 n:a*a:+y /):o)- an)-+ a+)r +)

arra6) a- no+ ru3) ou+ /y Ju-+:) Puno an Ju-+:) A3:) S)*o#!y. Ju-+:) Ca6uoa -u66)-+)

+a+ +) r))y a- +o a33o +) a3:+) -*ou-) +o r)arry.

or :3ar+y, +) Co++)) :3a--) +) /a-)- or )+)rnn6 o arra6)-, vi-

1. 3a: o on) or or) o +) )--)n+a3 r)@u-+)- o arra6) a-

:on+ra:+?

2. r)a-on- o *u/3: *o3:y?

%. -*):a3 :a-)- an -*):a3 -+ua+on-.

T) 6roun o *-y:o3o6:a3 n:a*a:+y a- -u/-u) un)r -*):a3 :a-)- an -*):a3

-+ua+on-, )n:) +- -*):a3 +r)a+)n+ n Ar+. %& n +) a3y Co) a- na33y )na:+).

No)r) n +) C3 Co) *ro-on- on Marra6) - +)r) a 6roun or aon6 or annu33n6 arra6)-

+a+ ))n :o)- :3o-) +o /)n6 *-y:o3o6:a3 n na+ur).

D)r) :on-)n+ - +a+) u) +o :r:u-+an:)- )=-+n6 a+ +) +) o +) arra6), -u: arra6)

: -+an- a3 un+3 annu33) - :a*a/3) o ra+:a+on or :ona3a+on.

On +) o+)r an, or r)a-on- o *u/3: *o3:y or 3a: o )--)n+a3 r)@u-+)-, -o) arra6)- ar) o

ro +) /)6nnn6.

D+ +) r)-on o Boo " o +) C3 Co), *ar+:u3ar3y +) *ro-on- on Marra6), +) ra+)r-, no

o*)n +o r)- n- o :an6) n ))*n6 + +) or) *)r--) or)- an *ra:+:)- o +) +),

+oo a 3)a ro +) r)3a+)3y 3/)ra3 *ro-on- o Canon La.

Canon 1095 : -+a+)-, inter alia, +a+ +) o33on6 *)r-on- ar) n:a*a/3) o :on+ra:+n6 arra6)

%. 7+o-)8 o, /):au-) o :au-)- o a *-y:o3o6:a3 na+ur), ar) una/3) +o a--u) +) )--)n+a3

o/36a+on- o arra6) *ro) +) o)3 or a+ - no Ar+. %& o +) a3y Co) A arra6)

:on+ra:+) /y any *ar+y o, a+ +) +) o +) :)3)/ra+on, a- *-y:o3o6:a33y n:a*a:+a+) +o

:o*3y + +) )--)n+a3 ar+a3 o/36a+on- o arra6), -a33 3)-) /) o ))n -u: n:a*a:+y

/):o)- an)-+ on3y a+)r +- -o3)na+on.

"+ /)ar- -+r)--n6 +a+ un3) n C3 La, Canon La r):o6n)- on3y +o +y*)- o arra6)- +

r)-*):+ +o +)r a3+y a3 an o. C3 La, o))r, r):o6n)- an n+)r)a+) -+a+), +)

oa/3) or annu33a/3) arra6)-. D)n +) E::3)-a-+:a3 Tr/una3 annu3- a arra6), + a:+ua33y

):3ar)- +) arra6) nu33 an o, i .e., + n))r r)a33y )=-+) n +) r-+ *3a:), or a a3 -a:ra)n+a3

arra6) :an n))r /) --o3). H)n:), a *ro*)r3y *)ror) an :on-ua+) arra6) /)+))n+o 3n6 Roan Ca+o3:- :an on3y /) nu33) /y +) ora3 annu3)n+ *ro:)-- : )n+a3- a u33

+r/una3 *ro:)ur) + a Cour+ -)3):+on an a ora3 )arn6.

Su: -o#:a33) :ur: annu3)n+- ar) no+ r):o6n) /y C3 La a- -))rn6 +) arra6) +)- a-

+o :a*a:+a+) +) *ar+)- +o )n+)r 3au33y n+o ano+)r arra6). T) 6roun- or nu33yn6 :3

arra6), no+ /)n6 :on6ru)n+ + +o-) 3a on /y Canon La, +) or)r /)n6 or) -+r:+, @u+) a

nu/)r o arr) :ou*3)- a) oun +)-)3)- n 3/o > r)) ro +) arra6) /on- n +)


32/66

)y)- o +) Ca+o3: Cur: /u+ y)+ una/3) +o :on+ra:+ a a3 :3 arra6) un)r -+a+) 3a-. H))3)--

o :3 3a -an:+on-, -o) *)r-on- :on+ra:+ n) arra6)- or )n+)r n+o 3)#n r)3a+on-*-.

"+ a- *r):-)3y +o *ro) a -a+-a:+ory -o3u+on +o -u: anoa3ou- -+ua+on- +a+ +) C3 La

R)-on Co++)) ):) +o )n6ra+ +) Canon La :on:)*+ o *-y:o3o6:a3 n:a*a:+y n+o +)

a3y Co) > an :3a--) +) -a) a- a 6roun or ):3arn6 arra6)- o ab initio or +o+a33y n

)=-+)n+ ro +) /)6nnn6.

A /r) -+or:a3 no+) on +) O3 Canon La 7191'8. T- O3 Co), 3) + no+ *ro) r):+3y or

*-y:o3o6:a3 n:a*a:+y, n )):+ r):o6n) +) -a) nr):+3y ro a :o/na+on o +r)) o3

:anon- Canon I10(1 r)@ur) *)r-on- +o ;/) :a*a/3) a::orn6 +o 3a; n or)r +o 6) a3 :on-)n+?

Canon I10(2 r)@ur) +a+ *)r-on- ;/) a+ 3)a-+ no+ 6noran+; o +) a


33/66

:oa/+a+on or +) r6+ o +) -*ou-)- +o )a: o+)r-; /oy or )+)ro-)=ua3 a:+-, /u+ -, in its totalit%,

the right to the co""unit% of the /hole of life, i .e., the right to a developing. lifelong relationship. Rotal

decisions since 1234 have refined the "eaning of ps%chological or ps%chic capacit% for "arriage a-

*r)-u**o-n6 +) ))3o*)n+ o an au3+ *)r-ona3+y? a- "eaning the capacit% of the spouses to give

the"selves to each other and to accept the other as a distinct person5 that the spouses "ust be 'other

oriented' since the obligations of "arriage are rooted in a self!giving love? an +a+ +) -*ou-)- "ust

have the capacit% for interpersonal relationship /):au-) arra6) - or) +an


34/66

or or) +)n ) y)ar- - no+ *roo o )r *-y:o3o6:a3 n:a*a:+y a- +o r)n)r +) arra6) a

nu33+y. 5T)r)or), Ar+. %& - na**3:a/3) an +) arra6)- r)an a3 an -u/--+n6.

Ho))r n +) r):)n+ :a-) o Chi *ing Tsoi v . Court of Appeals, & +- Cour+ u*)3 /o+ +) R)6ona3

Tra3 Cour+ an +) Cour+ o A**)a3- n ):3arn6 +) *r)-)n:) o *-y:o3o6:a3 n:a*a:+y on +)

*ar+ o +) u-/an. Sa *)++on)r u-/an, a+)r +)n 7108 on+-; -3))*n6 + - ) n))r

a :o+u- + )r, a a:+ ) no+ )ny /u+ ) a33)6) +a+ + a- u) +o +) *y-:a3 -or)r

o - ) :, o))r, ) a3) +o *ro). Goa) /y +) n)r)n:) an -+u//orn r)u-a3 o

)r u-/an +o u333 a /a-: ar+a3 o/36a+on )-:r/) a- +o *ro:r)a+) :3r)n /a-) on +)

un)r-a3 *rn:*3) +a+ *ro:r)a+on o :3r)n +rou6 -)=ua3 :oo*)ra+on - +) /a-: )n o

arra6), +) ) /rou6+ +) a:+on n +) 3o)r :our+ +o ):3ar) +) arra6) nu33.

T) Cour+, @uo+n6 !r. G)raro $)3o-o, a or)r Pr)-n6 Ju6) o +) M)+ro*o3+an Marra6) Tr/una3

o +) Ca+o3: Ar:o:)-) o Man3a 7Bran: "8 on P-y:o3o6:a3 n:a*a:+y :on:3u)

" a -*ou-), a3+ou6 *y-:a33y :a*a/3) /u+ -*3y r)u-)- +o *)ror - or )r

)--)n+a3 arra6) o/36a+on-, an +) r)u-a3 - -)n-)3)-- an :on-+an+, Ca+o3:

arra6) +r/una3- a++r/u+) +) :au-)- +o *-y:o3o6:a3 n:a*a:+y +an +o -+u//ornr)u-a3. Senseless and protracted refusal is e6uivalent to ps%chological incapacit% .

Tu-, +) *ro3on6) r)u-a3 o a -*ou-) +o a) -)=ua3 n+)r:our-) + - or )r

-*ou-) - :on-)r) a -6n o *-y:o3o6:a3 n:a*a:+y.

D) ):3ar)

T- Cour+, nn6 +) 6ra+y o +) a3) r)3a+on-* n : +) *ar+)- oun +)-)3)- +ra**)

n +- r) o unu333) o- an un:on-ua+) ar+a3 o/36a+on-, :an o no 3)-- /u+ -u-+an +)

-+u)


35/66

7T8) Co++)) ou3 3) +)

Canon 1095. 7T) o33on6 *)r-on-8 ar) n:a*a/3) o :on+ra:+n6 arra6)? 7+o-)8 >

1. o 3a: -u:)n+ u-) o r)a-on?

2. o -u)r ro a 6ra) )):+ o -:r)+on o

+a+ -ou3 6) +a+ u: a3u) +o Canon La


36/66

oo-)=ua3+y or 3)-/an-, )r)3y r)n)r- +) arra6) :on+ra:+ oa/3) *ur-uan+

+o Ar+:3) 4&, a3y Co). " ru6 a:+on, a/+ua3 a3:oo3-, 3)-/an- or

oo-)=ua3+y -ou3 o::ur on3y urn6 +) arra6), +)y /):o) )r) 6roun- or

3)6a3 -)*ara+on un)r Ar+:3) 55 o +) a3y Co). T)-) *ro-on- o +) Co),

o))r, o no+ n):)--ar3y *r):3u) +) *o--/3+y o +)-) arou- :r:u-+an:)-

/)n6 +)-)3)-, )*)nn6 on +) )6r)) an -))r+y o +) -or)r, indicia o

*-y:o3o6:a3n:a*a:+y. 4

"n n), +) +)r *-y:o3o6:a3 n:a*a:+y, +o /) a 6roun or +)n nu33+y o arra6) un)r Ar+:3) %&

o +) a3y Co), u-+ /) a/3) +o *a-- +) o33on6 +)-+-? vi-

First , +) n:a*a:+y u-+ /) *-y:o3o6:a3 or )n+a3, no+ *y-:a3, n na+ur)?

Second , +) *-y:o3o6:a3 n:a*a:+y u-+ r)3a+) +o +) na/3+y, no+ )r) r)u-a3, +o un)r-+an,

a--u) )n -:ar6) +) /a-: ar+a3 o/36a+on- o 3n6 +o6)+)r, o/-)rn6 3o), r)-*):+ an

)3+y an r)n)rn6 u+ua3 )3* an -u**or+?

Third , +) *-y:o3o6: :on+on u-+ )=-+ a+ +) +) +) arra6) - :on+ra:+) a3+ou6 +- o)r+

an)-+a+on- an +) arra6) ay o::ur on3y +)r)a+)r? and

Fourth, +) )n+a3 -or)r u-+ /) 6ra) or -)rou- an n:ura/3).

"+ ay )33 /) +a+ +) a3y Co) R)-on Co++)) a- )n-on) Ar+:3) %&, a- no+ a )

o/-)r)r- ou3 -u-*):+, a- ano+)r or o a/-o3u+) or:) or, a- -+33 o+)r- ou3 a3-o *u+ +, +o /)

a a3+)rna+) +o or:)? o))r, +) a:+ -+33 r)an- +a+ +) 3an6ua6) o +) 3a a- a3) +o :arry

ou+, ))n +ru), any -u: n+)n)n+. "+ 6+ a) n)) +urn) ou+ or +) /)++)r, + )r)

o+)r-), +)r) :ou3 /) 6oo r)a-on- +o ou/+ +) :on-++u+ona3+y o +) )a-ur). T) una)n+a3

3a +-)3, no 3)--, a- 3a on n +)r-) 3an6ua6) +- un)@uo:a3 :oan on o +) S+a+) -ou3

r)6ar arra6) an +) a3y, +u- >

S):+on 2, Ar+:3) $

S):. 2. Marra6), a- an no3a/3) -o:a3 n-++u+on, - +) ouna+on o +) a3y an

-a33 /) *ro+):+) /y +) S+a+).

S):+on 12, Ar+:3) ""

S):. 12. T) S+a+) r):o6n)- +) -an:++y o a3y 3) an -a33 *ro+):+ an

-+r)n6+)n +) a3y a- a /a-: au+onoou- -o:a3 n-++u+on . . . .

S):+on 1, Ar+:3) $

S):. 1. T) S+a+) r):o6n)- +) 3*no a3y a- +) ouna+on o +) na+on.

A::orn63y, + -a33 -+r)n6+)n +- -o3ar+y an a:+)3y *roo+) +- +o+a3

))3o*)n+. 7T) 19(' Con-++u+on8

T) :a-) o *arcelino vs. Cru- , 121 SCRA 51, 6+ )r) /) -6n:an+ no+ -o u: or +) -*)::

--u) +)r) r)-o3) /u+ or +) +on) + a- -)+. T) Cour+ +)r) a- )3 +a+ :on-++u+ona3 *ro-on-

ar) +o /) :on-)r) ana+ory un3)-- /y n):)--ary *3:a+on, a )r)n+ n+)n+on - an)-+ -u:


37/66

+a+ +o a) +) )nor:) -+r:+3y ou3 :au-) or) ar +an /y -r)6arn6 +). "+ - @u+) :3)ar

+o ) +a+ +) :on-++u+ona3 ana+) on arra6) an +) a3y a- no+ /))n )an+ +o /) -*3y

r):+ory n :ara:+)r, nor or )r) )=*))n:y or :on)n)n:), /u+ on) +a+ )an- a )ann6u3,

no+ a3#)ar+), r)-*):+.

S)*ara+) O*non-

PA!"LLA, J., :on:urn6 o*non

" :on:ur n +) r)-u3+ o +) ):-on *)nn) /y Mr. Ju-+:) Pan6an/an /u+ on3y /):au-) o +)

*):u3ar a:+- o +) :a-). A- +o )+)r or no+ +) *-y:o3o6:a3 n:a*a:+y )=-+- n a 6)n :a-)

:a33n6 or annu3)n+ o a arra6), )*)n- :ru:a33y, or) +an n any )3 o +) 3a, on +) a:+- o

+) :a-). "neouel Santos v . Court of Appeals an Julia Rosario!)edia Santos, G.R. No. 112019, 4

January 1995, 240 SCRA 20#%&, " an+an), an " -+33 an+an, +a+ +)r) a- *-y:o3o6:a3

n:a*a:+y on +) *ar+ o +) ) +o -:ar6) +) u+)- o a ) n a a3 arra6). T) a:+- o +)

*r)-)n+ :a-), a+)r an n)*+ -+uy, o no+ -u**or+ a -3ar :on:3u-on. O/ou-3y, )a: :a-) u-+

/)


38/66

o arra6) or a- *-y:o3o6:a33y or )n+a33y n:a*a:+a+) +o -:ar6) +) )--)n+a3

ar+a3 o/36a+on-, ))n -u: 3a: o n:a*a:+y - a) an)-+ a+)r +)

:)3)/ra+on.

T) +-+- an +urn- : +) )n-un6 -:u--on +oo na33y *rou:) +) o33on6 r)-)

*ro-on ))n /)or) +) -)--on a- o)r

7'8 Ta+ :on+ra:+) /y any *ar+y o, a+ +) +) o +) :)3)/ra+on, a-

*-y:o3o6:a33y n:a*a:+a+) +o -:ar6) +) )--)n+a3 ar+a3 o/36a+on-, ))n

-u: 3a: or n:a*a:+y /):o)- an)-+ a+)r +) :)3)/ra+on.

No+:)a/3y, +) )a+)3y *r):)n6 oru3a+on a/o) a- ro**) any r))r)n:) +o an+n6 n +)

-u:)n+ u-) o r)a-on or


39/66

%. -*):a3 :a-)- an -*):a3 -+ua+on-.

T) 6roun o *-y:o3o6:a3 n:a*a:+y a- -u/-u) un)r -*):a3 :a-)- an -*):a3

-+ua+on-, )n:) +- -*):a3 +r)a+)n+ n Ar+. %& n +) a3y Co) a- na33y )na:+).

No)r) n +) C3 Co) *ro-on- on Marra6) - +)r) a 6roun or aon6 or annu33n6 arra6)-

+a+ ))n :o)- :3o-) +o /)n6 *-y:o3o6:a3 n na+ur).

D)r) :on-)n+ - +a+) u) +o :r:u-+an:)- )=-+n6 a+ +) +) o +) arra6), -u: arra6)

: -+an- a3 un+3 annu33) - :a*a/3) o ra+:a+on or :ona3a+on.

On +) o+)r an, or r)a-on- o *u/3: *o3:y or 3a: o )--)n+a3 r)@u-+)-, -o) arra6)- ar) o

ro +) /)6nnn6.

D+ +) r)-on o Boo " o +) C3 Co), *ar+:u3ar3y +) *ro-on- on Marra6), +) ra+)r-, no

o*)n +o r)- n- o :an6) n ))*n6 + +) or) *)r--) or)- an *ra:+:)- o +) +),

+oo a 3)a ro +) r)3a+)3y 3/)ra3 *ro-on- o Canon La.

Canon 1095 : -+a+)-, inter alia, +a+ +) o33on6 *)r-on- ar) n:a*a/3) o :on+ra:+n6 arra6)

%. 7+o-)8 o, /):au-) o :au-)- o a *-y:o3o6:a3 na+ur), ar) una/3) +o a--u) +) )--)n+a3

o/36a+on- o arra6) *ro) +) o)3 or a+ - no Ar+. %& o +) a3y Co) A arra6)

:on+ra:+) /y any *ar+y o, a+ +) +) o +) :)3)/ra+on, a- *-y:o3o6:a33y n:a*a:+a+) +o

:o*3y + +) )--)n+a3 ar+a3 o/36a+on- o arra6), -a33 3)-) /) o ))n -u: n:a*a:+y

/):o)- an)-+ on3y a+)r +- -o3)na+on.

"+ /)ar- -+r)--n6 +a+ un3) n C3 La, Canon La r):o6n)- on3y +o +y*)- o arra6)- +

r)-*):+ +o +)r a3+y a3 an o. C3 La, o))r, r):o6n)- an n+)r)a+) -+a+), +)

oa/3) or annu33a/3) arra6)-. D)n +) E::3)-a-+:a3 Tr/una3 annu3- a arra6), + a:+ua33y

):3ar)- +) arra6) nu33 an o, i .e., + n))r r)a33y )=-+) n +) r-+ *3a:), or a a3 -a:ra)n+a3

arra6) :an n))r /) --o3). H)n:), a *ro*)r3y *)ror) an :on-ua+) arra6) /)+))n

+o 3n6 Roan Ca+o3:- :an on3y /) nu33) /y +) ora3 annu3)n+ *ro:)-- : )n+a3- a u33

+r/una3 *ro:)ur) + a Cour+ -)3):+on an a ora3 )arn6.

Su: -o#:a33) :ur: annu3)n+- ar) no+ r):o6n) /y C3 La a- -))rn6 +) arra6) +)- a-

+o :a*a:+a+) +) *ar+)- +o )n+)r 3au33y n+o ano+)r arra6). T) 6roun- or nu33yn6 :3

arra6), no+ /)n6 :on6ru)n+ + +o-) 3a on /y Canon La, +) or)r /)n6 or) -+r:+, @u+) a

nu/)r o arr) :ou*3)- a) oun +)-)3)- n 3/o > r)) ro +) arra6) /on- n +)

)y)- o +) Ca+o3: Cur: /u+ y)+ una/3) +o :on+ra:+ a a3 :3 arra6) un)r -+a+) 3a-. H))3)--

o :3 3a -an:+on-, -o) *)r-on- :on+ra:+ n) arra6)- or )n+)r n+o 3)#n r)3a+on-*-.

"+ a- *r):-)3y +o *ro) a -a+-a:+ory -o3u+on +o -u: anoa3ou- -+ua+on- +a+ +) C3 La

R)-on Co++)) ):) +o )n6ra+ +) Canon La :on:)*+ o *-y:o3o6:a3 n:a*a:+y n+o +)

a3y Co) > an :3a--) +) -a) a- a 6roun or ):3arn6 arra6)- o ab initio or +o+a33y n

)=-+)n+ ro +) /)6nnn6.

A /r) -+or:a3 no+) on +) O3 Canon La 7191'8. T- O3 Co), 3) + no+ *ro) r):+3y or

*-y:o3o6:a3 n:a*a:+y, n )):+ r):o6n) +) -a) nr):+3y ro a :o/na+on o +r)) o3

:anon- Canon I10(1 r)@ur) *)r-on- +o ;/) :a*a/3) a::orn6 +o 3a; n or)r +o 6) a3 :on-)n+?

Canon I10(2 r)@ur) +a+ *)r-on- ;/) a+ 3)a-+ no+ 6noran+; o +) a


40/66

*r)-)n+ n or)r or :on-)n+ +o /) a3. T- 3n) o n+)r*r)+a+on *rou:) +o -+n:+ /u+ r)3a+)

6roun- or annu3)n+, :a33) ;lac of due discretion; an ;lac of due co"petence.; La: o u)

-:r)+on )an- +a+ the person did not have the abilit% to give valid consent at the ti"e of the

/edding an +)r)or) +) unon - na3. La: o u) :o*)+)n:) )an- +a+ +) *)r-on

a- incapable of carr%ing out the obligations of the pro"ise he or she "ade during the /edding

cere"on% .

aora/3) annu3)n+ ):-on- /y +) Roan Ro+a n +) 1950- an 19&0- no3n6 se0ual disorders

such as ho"ose0ualit% and n%"pho"ania laid the foundation for a broader approach to the ind of

proof necessar% for ps%chological grounds for annul"ent . T) Ro+a a r)a-on) or +) r-+ +) n

-))ra3 :a-)- +a+ +) :a*a:+y +o 6) a3 :on-)n+ a+ +) +) o arra6) a- *ro/a/3y no+ *r)-)n+

n *)r-on- o a -*3ay) -u: *ro/3)- -or+3y a+)r +) arra6). T) na+ur) o +- :an6) a-

no+n6 -or+ o r)o3u+onary. On:) +) Ro+a +-)3 a )on-+ra+) a :au+ou- 33n6n)-- +o u-)

+- n o n-6+, +) ay a- *a) or a+ :a) a+)r 19'0. (iocesan Tribunals began to

accept proof of serious ps%chological proble"s that "anifested the"selves shortl% after the cere"on%

as proof of an inabilit% to give valid consent at the ti"e of the cere"on% .

ur+)ror), an )@ua33y -6n:an+, the professional opinion of a ps%chological e0pert beca"e

increasingl% i"portant in such cases. (ata about the person's entire life, both before and after thecere"on%, /ere presented to these e0perts and the% /ere ased to give professional opinions about a

part%'s "ental at the ti"e of the /edding . T)-) o*non- )r) rar)3y :a33)n6) an +)n) +o /)

a::)*+) a- ):-) ))n:) o 3a: o a3 :on-)n+.

T) Cur: +oo *an- +o *on+ ou+ +a+ +- n) o*)nn)-- n +- ar)a no+ aoun+ +o +) a+on o

n) 6roun- or annu3)n+, /u+ ra+)r a- an a::ooa+on /y +) Cur: +o +) advances "ade in

ps%cholog% during the past decades. There /as no/ the e0pertise to provide the all!i"portant

connecting lin bet/een a "arriage breado/n and pre"arital causes.

!urn6 +) 19'0-, +) Cur: /roa)n) +- o3) )a o arra6) ro +a+ o a 3)6a3 :on+ra:+ +o +a+

o a :o)nan+. T) r)-u3+ o +- a- +a+ it could no longer be assu"ed n annu3)n+ :a-)- that a

person /ho could intellectuall% understand the concept of "arriage could necessaril% give validconsent to "arr% . The abilit% to both grasp and assu"e the real obligations of a "ature, lifelong

co""it"ent ar) no :on-)r) a n):)--ary *r)r)@u-+) +o a3 a+rona3 :on-)n+. 2

Ro+a3 ):-on- :on+nu) a**3yn6 +) :on:)*+ o n:*)n+ *-y:o3o6:a3 n:a*a:+y, no+ on3y +o

-)=ua3 anoa3)- /u+ +o a33 n- o *)r-ona3+y -or)r- +a+ n:a*a:+a+) a -*ou-) or /o+ -*ou-)-

ro a--un6 or :arryn6 ou+ +) )--)n+a3 o/36a+on- o arra6). or arra6) . . . - no+ )r)3y

:oa/+a+on or +) r6+ o +) -*ou-)- +o )a: o+)r-; /oy or )+)ro-)=ua3 a:+-, /u+ -, in its totalit%,

the right to the co""unit% of the /hole of life, i .e., the right to a developing. lifelong relationship. Rotal

decisions since 1234 have refined the "eaning of ps%chological or ps%chic capacit% for "arriage a-

*r)-u**o-n6 +) ))3o*)n+ o an au3+ *)r-ona3+y? a- "eaning the capacit% of the spouses to give

the"selves to each other and to accept the other as a distinct person5 that the spouses "ust be 'other

oriented' since the obligations of "arriage are rooted in a self!giving love? an +a+ +) -*ou-)- "usthave the capacit% for interpersonal relationship /):au-) arra6) - or) +an


41/66

T) :our+- :on-)r +) o33on6 )3))n+- :ru:a3 +o +) ar+a3 :o+)n+ 718 a

*)ran)n+ an a+u3 :o+)n+ +o +) arra6) *ar+n)r? 728 o*)nn)-- +o :3r)n

an *ar+n)r? 7%8 -+a/3+y? 748 )o+ona3 a+ur+y? 758 nan:a3 r)-*on-/3+y? 7&8 an

a/3+y +o :o*) + +) ornary -+r)--)- an -+ran- o arra6), )+:.

r. Gr))n 6o)- on +o -*)a a/ou+ -o) o +) *-y:o3o6:a3 :on+on- +a+ 6+ 3)a

+o +) a3ur) o a arra6)

A+ -+a) - a +y*) o :on-++u+ona3 *ar)n+ *r):3un6 :on


42/66

" a -*ou-), a3+ou6 *y-:a33y :a*a/3) /u+ -*3y r)u-)- +o *)ror - or )r

)--)n+a3 arra6) o/36a+on-, an +) r)u-a3 - -)n-)3)-- an :on-+an+, Ca+o3:

arra6) +r/una3- a++r/u+) +) :au-)- +o *-y:o3o6:a3 n:a*a:+y +an +o -+u//orn

r)u-a3. Senseless and protracted refusal is e6uivalent to ps%chological incapacit% .

Tu-, +) *ro3on6) r)u-a3 o a -*ou-) +o a) -)=ua3 n+)r:our-) + - or )r

-*ou-) - :on-)r) a -6n o *-y:o3o6:a3 n:a*a:+y.

D) ):3ar)

T- Cour+, nn6 +) 6ra+y o +) a3) r)3a+on-* n : +) *ar+)- oun +)-)3)- +ra**)

n +- r) o unu333) o- an un:on-ua+) ar+a3 o/36a+on-, :an o no 3)-- /u+ -u-+an +)

-+u)


43/66

+a+ -ou3 6) +a+ u: a3u) +o Canon La


44/66

Third , +) *-y:o3o6: :on+on u-+ )=-+ a+ +) +) +) arra6) - :on+ra:+) a3+ou6 +- o)r+

an)-+a+on- an +) arra6) ay o::ur on3y +)r)a+)r? and

Fourth, +) )n+a3 -or)r u-+ /) 6ra) or -)rou- an n:ura/3).

"+ ay )33 /) +a+ +) a3y Co) R)-on Co++)) a- )n-on) Ar+:3) %&, a- no+ a )

o/-)r)r- ou3 -u-*):+, a- ano+)r or o a/-o3u+) or:) or, a- -+33 o+)r- ou3 a3-o *u+ +, +o /)

a a3+)rna+) +o or:)? o))r, +) a:+ -+33 r)an- +a+ +) 3an6ua6) o +) 3a a- a3) +o :arry

ou+, ))n +ru), any -u: n+)n)n+. "+ 6+ a) n)) +urn) ou+ or +) /)++)r, + )r)

o+)r-), +)r) :ou3 /) 6oo r)a-on- +o ou/+ +) :on-++u+ona3+y o +) )a-ur). T) una)n+a3

3a +-)3, no 3)--, a- 3a on n +)r-) 3an6ua6) +- un)@uo:a3 :oan on o +) S+a+) -ou3

r)6ar arra6) an +) a3y, +u- >

S):+on 2, Ar+:3) $


-a33 /) *ro+):+) /y +) S+a+).

S):+on 12, Ar+:3) ""

S):. 12. T) S+a+) r):o6n)- +) -an:++y o a3y 3) an -a33 *ro+):+ an

-+r)n6+)n +) a3y a- a /a-: au+onoou- -o:a3 n-++u+on . . . .

S):+on 1, Ar+:3) $



))3o*)n+. 7T) 19(' Con-++u+on8

T) :a-) o *arcelino vs. Cru- , 121 SCRA 51, 6+ )r) /) -6n:an+ no+ -o u: or +) -*)::--u) +)r) r)-o3) /u+ or +) +on) + a- -)+. T) Cour+ +)r) a- )3 +a+ :on-++u+ona3 *ro-on-

ar) +o /) :on-)r) ana+ory un3)-- /y n):)--ary *3:a+on, a )r)n+ n+)n+on - an)-+ -u:

+a+ +o a) +) )nor:) -+r:+3y ou3 :au-) or) ar +an /y -r)6arn6 +). "+ - @u+) :3)ar

+o ) +a+ +) :on-++u+ona3 ana+) on arra6) an +) a3y a- no+ /))n )an+ +o /) -*3y

r):+ory n :ara:+)r, nor or )r) )=*))n:y or :on)n)n:), /u+ on) +a+ )an- a )ann6u3,

no+ a3#)ar+), r)-*):+.

oo+no+)-

1 Rollo **. 25#%%.

2 S=+))n+ !-on :o*o-) o J ., S)6unno G. Cua, ponente an :aran JJ .,S)ran $.C. Gun6ona an R:aro P. Ga3), :on:urrn6.

% Pr)-) /y Ju6) H)3a S. Ma33ar)#P33**-.

4 So3)n) /y r. J)-u- C. En:na-.

5 T) Cour+ o A**)a3- r)*rou:) n +- !):-on a -u/-+an+a3 *or+on o +) RTC

!):-on - o33o-


45/66

To -u-+an )r :3a +a+ r)-*on)n+ - *-y:o3o6:a33y n:a*a:+a+) +o :o*3y +

- ar+a3 o/36a+on-, *)++on)r +)-+) +a+ ) - a+ur), rr)-*on-/3),

)*)n)n+, -r)-*):+u3, arro6an+, a :ron: 3ar, an an n)3. T)-) :ara:+)r-+:-

o r)-*on)n+ ar) /a-) on *)++on)r;- +)-+ony +a+ +) or)r a3) +o /) 6anu33y

)*3oy) a+)r ) a- r)3)) ro +) o:) o +) Go)rn)n+ Cor*ora+) Coun-)3

-o)+) n )/ruary, 19(&. 3)an6 *)++on)r a- +) -o3) /r)ann)r o +) a3y.

A3-o )n +)y )r) -)*ara+) n a:+, r)-*on)n+ *ra:+:a33y a/anon) /o+*)++on)r#o+)r an -on )=:)*+ urn6 +) r-+ ) on+- o -)*ara+on )n

r)-*on)n+ r)6u3ar3y -+) - -on an 6a) a on+3y a33oan:) o P1,000.00 or

a/ou+ +o +o our on+-. R)-*on)n+ - 3)-) )*)n)n+ on - *ar)n+- or

nan:a3 a an -u**or+ a- ) a- no -an6-, *r))rrn6 +o -*)n - on)y + -

r)n- an *))r-. A y)ar a+)r +)r arra6), r)-*on)n+ nor) *)++on)r +a+ )

/ou6+ a ou-) an 3o+ a+ B Ho)-, ParaKa@u) or a/ou+ a 33on *)-o-. T)y +)n

+ran-)rr) +)r) on3y or +) *)++on)r +o -:o)r a ) on+- 3a+)r +a+ +)y )r)

a:+ua33y r)n+n6 +) ou-) + +) r)-*on)n+;- *ar)n+- r)-*on-/3) or +) *ay)n+

o +) r)n+a3-. A-) ro +-. r)-*on)n+ ou3 a3-o 3) a/ou+ - -a3ary an a/3+y.

An +a+ a+ *r)-)n+, r)-*on)n+ - 3n6 + - -+r)-- an +)r :3. : a:+ )

o)- no+ )ny.

"+ - unor+una+) +a+ +) arra6) /)+))n *)++on)r an r)-*on)n+ +urn) -our )

3oo a+ +) /a:6roun o +)r r)3a+on-*. !urn6 +)r :o33)6) ay-, )n +)y )r)

-+33 6on6 -+)ay, r)-*on)n+ o/-)r) *)++on)r +o /) :on-)ra+), o)3y, an

n+)336)n+ :au-n6 +o /)3)) +)n +a+ -) ou3 a) an )a3 ) an o+)r.

L)-), *)++on)r )33 n 3o) + r)-*on)n+ /):au-) o - +ou6+u3n)-- an

6)n+3)n)--. A+)r a y)ar, o))r, +)y ):) +o /r)a +)r r)3a+on-* /):au-) o

-o) )r)n:)- n +)r *)r-ona3+)-. A3o-+ ) 758 y)ar- 3a+)r, 3) +)y )r)

orn6 n Man3a, *)++on)r an r)-*on)n+ r)n3) +)r 3o) aar. T)y /):a)

)ry :3o-) an *)++on)r a- 63a +o o/-)r) a or) a+ur) r)-*on)n+. B)3)n6 +a+

+)y no )a: o+)r u: /)++)r a+)r +o y)ar- o 6on6 -+)ay, +)y ):) +o

-)++3) on an 6)+ arr). "+ ou3 -)). +)r)or), +a+ *)++on)r an r)-*on)n+

n) )a: o+)r )33 an )r) +)n *r)*ar) or arr) 3).

!urn6 +)r arra6), o))r, +) +ru) *)r-ona3+)- o +) *ar+)- :ro**)#u* an

ona+) +)r 3) +o6)+)r. Un)=*):+)3y on /o+ +)r *ar+-, *)++on)r an

r)-*on)n+ a3) +o r)-*on *ro*)r3y +o +) -+ua+on. T- a3ur) r)-u3+) n +)r

r)@u)n+ ar6u)n+- an 6+n6;-. "n a:+, ))n + +) n+)r)n+on an )3* o +)r

*ar)n+- o arran6) or +)r *o--/3) r):on:3a+on, +) *ar+)- :ou3 no+ :o) +o

+)r-.

"+ -))- :3)ar a+ +- -+a6) +a+ +) arra6) /)+))n +) *ar+)- /ro)#u* /):au-) o

+)r o**o-n6 an :on3:+n6 *)r-ona3+)- 7sic 8. N)+)r o +) :an a::)*+ an

un)r-+an +) )an)-- o +) o+)r. No on) 6)- n an n-+)a, /3a) )a: o+)r

or a+))r *ro/3) or -un)r-+ann6- +)y )n:oun+)r. "n n), r)-*on)n+ :anno+/) -o3)3y r)-*on-/3) or +) a3ur) o o+)r 7sic 8 arra6). Ra+)r, +- r)-u3+)

/):au-) /o+ *ar+)- :anno+ r)3a+) +o )a: o+)r a- u-/an an ) : - un@u)

an r)@u-+) n arra6).

Marra6) - a -*):a3 :on+ra:+ o *)ran)n+ unon /)+))n a an an a oan +

+) /a-: o/


46/66

un)r-+an an a::)*+ +) 7*3:a+on- an :on-)@u)n:)- o /)n6 *)ran)n+3y8

un+) n arra6). An +) an+)nan:) o +- r)3a+on-* )an- ro +) *ar+)-,

aon6 o+)r-, )+)rna+on +o -u::)) n +)r arra6) a- )33 a- )ar+)3+

un)r-+ann6, a::)*+an:), :oo*)ra+on, an -u**or+ or )a: o+)r. Tu-, +) a3y

Co) r)@ur)- +) +o 3) +o6)+)r, +o o/-)r) u+ua3 73o), r)-*):+ an )3+y, an

r)n)r u+ua3 )3* an -u**or+. a3ur) +o o/-)r)8 an *)ror +)-) una)n+a3

ro3)- o a u-/an an a ) 33 o-+ 3)3y 3)a +o +) /r)a#u* o +) arra6). Su:- +) unor+una+) -+ua+on n +- :a-). 7!):-on, **. 5#(? Or6na3 R):or-, **. '0#'%8.

& 240 SCRA 20, %4, January 4, 1995.

' uo+) ro Ju-+:) A3:a S)*o#!y, Han/oo on +) a3y Co), r-+ E+on,

19((.

( TSN, A*r3 &, 1991, *. 5.

9 T) Na+ona3 A**)33a+) Ma+rona3 Tr/una3 r))- a33 ):-on- o +) arra6)

+r/una3- o )a: ar:o:)-) n +) :oun+ry. A-) ro )an6 +) A**)33a+)

Tr/una3, Mo-+. R). Cru - a3-o n:u/)n+ *r)-)n+ o +) Ca+o3: B-o*-;

Con)r)n:) o +) P3**n)-, Ar:/-o* o !a6u*an#Ln6ay)n, an o3- +)

)6r))- o !o:+or o Canon La an !o:+or o !n+y. Ar:/-o* Cru a- a3-o

S):r)+ary#G)n)ra3 o +) S):on P3)nary Coun:3 o +) P3**n)- > PCP "" > )3

ro January 20, 1991 +o )/ruary 1', 1991, : - +) rou6 )@ua3)n+ o a

*ar3a)n+ or a :on-++u+ona3 :on)n+on n +) P3**n) Cur:, an )r)

+) ponente, o a- a Coun:3 )/)r, a +) *r3)6) o /)n6 o)r)3) /y

- ))n n an *ray)ru3 -:)rn)n+-.

10 Ju-+:) Puno a- a or)r )/)r o +) Cour+ o A**)a3-, r)+r) Mn-+)r o

Ju-+:), au+or, no+) :3 3a *ro)--or an +) 3a *ra:++on)r.

Ar+:3) $

THE AM"L



))3o*)n+.


-a33 /) *ro+):+) /y +) -+a+).

S):. %. T) S+a+) -a33 ))n

718 T) r6+ o -*ou-)- +o oun a a3y n a::oran:) + +)r r)36ou-

:onn):+on- an +) )an- o r)-*on-/3) *ar)n+oo?

728 T) r6+ o :3r)n +o a---+an:), n:3un6 *ro*)r :ar) an nu+r+on, an -*):a3

*ro+):+on ro a33 or- o n)63):+, a/u-), :ru)3+y. )=*3o+a+on, an o+)r :on+on-

*r)


47/66

7%8 T) r6+ o +) a3y +o a a3y 3n6 a6) an n:o)?

748 T) r6+ o a3)- or a3y a--o:a+on- +o *ar+:*a+) n +) *3annn6 an

*3))n+a+on o *o3:)- an *ro6ra- +a+ a):+ +).

S):. 4. T) a3y a- +) u+y +o :ar) or +- )3)r3y )/)r- /u+ +) -+a+) ay a3-o o

-o +rou6


48/66

1 Mr. Ju-+:) Jo-u) N. B)33o-33o, @uo+n6 M). Ju-+:) A3:a $. S)*o#!y, "n Sa3+a

-. Hon. Ma6+o3-, 2%% SCRA 100.

2 "n San+o- -. Cour+ A**)a3-, 240 SCRA 20.

% Supra.

4 A+ *a6)- %4#%5.


SUPREME COURT

Manila

2EC%N 6?626%N

G.R. No. 12&010 !):)/)r (, 1999

LUC"TA ESTRELLA HERNAN!E, petitioner,

vs.

COURT O APPEALS an MAR"O C. HERNAN!E, respondents.

MEN!OA, J.:

0his is a petition for revie- on certiorari of the decision 1 of the Court of Appeals, dated )anuary "7, (**#,

affirming the decision of the Regional 0rial Court, Branch (+, 0agaytay City, dated April (7, (**", -hich

dismissed the petition for annulment of marriage filed by petitioner.

Petitioner 1ucita Estrella >ernande/ and private respondent Mario C. >ernande/ -ere married at the 2ilang

Catholic Parish Church in 2ilang, Cavite on )anuary (, (*+( $E8h. A. 2 0hree children -ere born to them,

namely, Maie, -ho -as born on May ", (*+& $E8h. B, % 1yra, born on May &&, (*+=

$E8h. C, 4 and Marian, born on )une (=, (*+* $E8h. . 5

%n )uly (7, (**&, petitioner filed before the Regional 0rial Court, Branch (+, 0agaytay City, a petition seeing

the annulment of her marriage to private respondent on the ground of psychological incapacity of the latter. 2he

alleged that from the time of their marriage up to the time of the filing of the suit, private respondent failed to

perform his obligation to support the family and contribute to the management of the household, devoting most

of his time engaging in drining sprees -ith his friends. 2he further claimed that private respondent, after they

-ere married, cohabited -ith another -oman -ith -hom he had an illegitimate child, -hile having affairs -ith

different -omen, and that, because of his promiscuity, private respondent endangered her health by infecting

her -ith a se8ually transmissible disease $20. 2he averred that private respondent -as irresponsible,

immature and unprepared for the duties of a married life. Petitioner prayed that for having abandoned the

family, private respondent be ordered to give support to their three children in the total amount of P*,777.77


49/66

every month that she be a-arded the custody of their children and that she be adudged as the sole o-ner of

a parcel of land located at on 9regorio 2ubdivision 6 in Bo. Bucal, asmariLas, Cavite, purchased during the

marriage, as -ell as the eep -hich private respondent too -ith him -hen he left the conugal home on )une

(&, (**&. &

%n %ctober +, (**&, because of private respondent:s failure to file his ans-er, the trial court issued an order

directing the assistant provincial prosecutor to conduct an investigation to determine if there -as collusionbet-een the

parties. ' %nly petitioner appeared at the investigation on November =, (**&. Nevertheless, the prosecutor

found no evidence of collusion and recommended that the case be set for trial. (

Based on the evidence presented by the petitioner, the facts are as follo-s 9

Petitioner and private respondent met in (*'' at the Philippine Christian 4niversity in asmariLas, Cavite.

Petitioner, -ho is five years older than private respondent, -as then in her first year of teaching /oology and

botany. Private respondent, a college freshman, -as her student for t-o consecutive semesters. 0hey became

s-eethearts in !ebruary (*'* -hen she -as no longer private respondent:s teacher. %n )anuary (, (*+(, they

-ere married.

Private respondent continued his studies for t-o more years. >is parents paid for his tuition fees, -hile

petitioner provided his allo-ances and other financial needs. 0he family income came from petitioner:s salary

as a faculty member of the Philippine Christian 4niversity. Petitioner augmented her earnings by selling

30upper-are3 products, as -ell as engaging in the buy5and5sell of coffee, rice and polvoron.

!rom (*+" up to (*+#, as private respondent could not find a stable ob, it -as agreed that he -ould help

petitioner in her businesses by delivering orders to customers. >o-ever, because her husband -as a

spendthrift and had other -omen, petitioner:s business suffered. Private respondent often had smoing and

drining sprees -ith his friends and betted on fighting cocs. 6n (*+&, after the birth of their first child, petitioner

discovered t-o love letters -ritten by a certain Realita ?illena to private respondent. 2he ne- ?illena as a

married student -hose husband -as -oring in 2audi Arabia.


50/66

e la 2alle 4niversity Medical Center in asmariLas, Cavite on )uly @5=, (**7 because of cerebral

concussion $E8h. !. 11

According to petitioner, private respondent engaged in e8treme promiscuous conduct during the latter part of

(*+#. As a result, private respondent contracted gonorrhea and infected petitioner. 0hey both received

treatment at the apote Medical 2pecialists Center in apote, Bacoor, Cavite from %ctober &&, (*+# until

March (", (*+' $E8hs. 9 >. 12

Petitioner averred that on one occasion of a heated argument, private respondent hit their eldest child -ho -as

then barely a year old. Private respondent is not close to any of their children as he -as never affectionate and

hardly spent time -ith them.

%n )uly (', (*'*, petitioner entered into a contract to sell $E8h. ) 1% -ith ! C Realty Corporation -hereby

she agreed to buy from the latter a parcel of land at the on 9regorio >eights 2ubdivision 6 in Bo. Bucal,

asmariLas, Cavite and placed a partial payment of P"(,""7.77. %n May , (*+', after full payment of

the amount of P=(,7#'.(7, inclusive of interests from monthly installments, a deed of absolute sale$E8h.

O 14 -as e8ecuted in her favor and 0C0 No. 05&&(=&* $E8h. M 15 -as duly issued.

According to petitioner, on August (, (**&, she sent a hand-ritten

letter 1& to private respondent e8pressing her frustration over the fact that her efforts to save their marriage

proved futile. 6n her letter, petitioner also stated that she -as allo-ing him to sell their o-ner5type

eepney 1' and to divide the proceeds of the sale bet-een the t-o of them. Petitioner also told private

respondent of her intention to fill a petition for the annulment of their marriage.

6t does not appear that private respondent ever replied to petitioner:s letter. By this time, he had already

abandoned petitioner and their children. 6n %ctober (**&, petitioner learned that private respondent left for the

Middle East. 2ince then, private respondent:s -hereabouts had been unno-n.

Ester Alfaro, petitioner:s childhood friend and co5teacher at the Philippine Christian 4niversity, testified during

the hearing on the petition for annulment. 2he said that sometime in )une (*'*, petitioner introduced privaterespondent to her $Alfaro as the former:s s-eetheart. Alfaro said she -as not impressed -ith private

jurisprudence on declaration of nullity

Documents