Ochosa (Petitioner) v Alano, Republic (Respondents) Issue: Is the respondent Bona Alano, psychologically incapacitated before contracting marriage

to Ochosa. Facts: 1973, Jose and Bona met. Jose a young AFP Lieutenant, Bona 17yrs old ist yr. college dropout. Had a whirlwind romance that culminated into sexual intimacy and marriage Oct.1973. No child, but adopted a girl named Ramona 1985, Jose was appointed as Battalion Commander of Security East Corp. Was given a living quarters at Fort Bonifacio together with Ramona. 1987, he was charged with rebellion, joined Coup detat and was incarcerated at Camp Crame. Bona turned out to be an unfaithful wife, had an elicit affair with an officer and even with Joses driver. Bonas sexual infidelity circulated in the camp. Jose brought Bona at Basilan 1994, Ramona the daughter left Bona and lived with Jose whom latter was supporting her needs. Jose filed a petition for Nullity of Marriage due to Psychological Incapacity. Witnesses attested to the infidelity of Ramona Elizabeth Rondain , a psychiatrist reached a conclusion that Bona is psychologically incapacitated. That her disorder was traceable to her family history, having a father a gambler and a womanizer and a mother a battered wife. There was no possibility of cure since respondent have no insight of what is happening to her and refused to acknowledge reality. In a decision Jan.11, 1999 TC granted petition of nullifying marriage between the parties. CA reversed and set aside the decision of the trial court dated Oct. 11, 2004.

Radical antec CA DISMISSED the petition for declaration of marriage for lack of merit. CA sites landmark cases such as Santos v Court of Appeals that we observed that psychological incapacity must be characterized by a)gravity b) juridical antecedence c) incurability. Another landmark case Republic v Court of Appeals v Molina that the burden of proof belongs to the plaintiff, that the root cause of the psychological incapacity must be proven..

That the testimony of the psychologist Orendain is based on testimonies of Jose and no test was conducted to the respondent and that there was inaccurate credible evidence.