Case Brief No. 1: Santos vs.

Court of Appeals, 240 SCRA 20

G.R. No. 112019, 4 January 1995 (En Banc)

Facts: On 20 September 1986, plaintiff Leouel Santos married

defendant Julia Bedia. On 18 May 1988, Julia left for the
U.S. to work a nurse. She did not communicate with Leouel
and did not return to the country. In 1991, Leouel filed a
complaint for voiding the marriage under Article 36 of the
Family Code. The Regional Trial Court-Negros Oriental
dismissed the complaint, and the Curt of Appeals affirmed
said dismissal.

Issue: Whether or not Julia’s failure to return home or to

communicate with her husband Leouel for more than five
years constitute psychological incapacity.

Ruling: No. The Supreme Court ruled that the failure of the wife to
return home or to communicate with her husband for more
than five years does not constitute psychological incapacity.

Psychological incapacity must be characterized by (a) gravity,

(b) juridical antecedence, and (c) incurability. It refers to no
less than a mental (not physical) incapacity that causes a
party to be truly incognitive of the essential marital
obligations.

Petition denied.
Case Brief No. 2: Chi Ming Tsoi vs. Court of Appeals, 266 SCRA 324
G.R. No. 119190, 16 January 1997 (2nd Division)

Facts: On 22 May 1988, respondent Gina Lao married petitioner

Chi Ming Tsoi. Since their marriage until their separation on
15 March 1989, there was no sexual contact between them.
Gina filed a case of annulment of marriage on the ground of
psychological incapacity. The RTC-Quezon City granted
annulment, and the Court of appeals affirmed said decision.

Issue; Whether or not Chi Ming Tsoi’s failure top have sexual
intercourse with his wife, Gina, form the time of the marriage
until the time of their separation a ground for psychological
incapacity.

Ruling: Yes. The Supreme Court ruled that the senseless and
protracted refusal of the husband to have sexual intercourse
to procreate children, an essential marital obligation, form
the time of the marriage up to the their separation ten
months later is equivalent to psychological incapacity.

Judgment affirmed.
Case Brief No. 3: Republic vs. CA and Molina, 268 SCRA 198
G.R. no. 108763, 13 February 1997

Facts: On 14 April 1985, plaintiff Roridel Molina married defendant

Reynaldo Molina which union bore a son. After a year of
marriage, Reynaldo showed signs of immaturity and
irresponsibility as a husband and father as he preferred to
spend more time with his friends, depended on his parents
for support, and was never honest with Roridel in regard to
their finances resulting in frequent quarrels between them.
The RTC-La Trinidad, Benguet granted Roridel’s petition for
declaration of nullity of her marriage which was affirmed by
the CA.

Issue: Whether or not irreconcilable differences and conflicting

personalities constitute psychological incapacity.

Ruling: No. The Supreme Court ruled that irreconcilable differences

and conflicting personalities do not constitute psychological
incapacity. It laid down the following guidelines in applying
Article 36 of the family Code: (a) plaintiff has the burden of
proof; (b0 root cause must be medically/clinically identified,
alleged in the complaint; sufficiently proven by experts, and
clearly explained in the decision; (c) incapacity must exist at
the time of marriage; (d) it must be incurable; (e) its gravity
disables essential marital obligations; (f) as enumerated in
Articles 68-71, 220, 221 and 225 of the Family Code; (g)
Interpretation of the national Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal
of the catholic Church should be given great respect; and (h)
Prosecution and Solicitor General must appear as counsel
for the state.

Judgment reversed and set aside.

Case Brief no. 4: Lucita E. Hernandez vs. CA and Mario Hernandez
320 SCRA 76, G.R. No. 126010, 8 December 1999

Facts: On 1 January 1981, Lucita Estrella married Mario

Hernandez, and they begot three children. On 10 July 1992,
Lucita filed a petition for annulment of marriage under Article
36 of the Family Code. She alleged that from the time of
their marriage, Mario failed to perform his obligations to
support the family, devoting most of his time drinking, had
affairs with many women, and cohabiting with another
woman with whom he had an illegitimate child, and finally
abandoning her and the family. The RTC-Tagaytay City
dismissed the petition which was affirmed by the CA.

Issue: Whether or not Mario’s habitual alcoholism, sexual

infidelity/perversion and family abandonment constitute
psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code.

Ruling: No. The Supreme Court ruled that the aforementioned acts
do not by themselves constitute grounds for psychological
incapacity within the contemplation of the Family Code. It
must be shown that these acts are manifestations of a
disordered personality which make Mario completely unable
to discharge his essential marital obligations, and not merely
due to his youth and self-conscious feelings of being
handsome.

Judgment affirmed.
Case Brief no. 5: Marcos vs. Marcos
G.R. No. 136490, 19 October 2000 (3rd Division)

Facts: Plaintiff Brenda Marcos and defendant Wilson Marcos were

married twice on 6 September 1982 and on 8 May 1983.
They had five children. Brenda filed a case for nullity of the
marriage for psychological incapacity, alleging that Wilson
failed to provide material support to the family and had
resorted to physical abuse and abandonment. The RTC
declared their marriage null and void under article 36 of the
Family Code. However, the Court of appeals reversed the
said decision.

Issues: 1. Whether or not the totality of evidence presented in this

case show psychological incapacity.

2. Whether or not personal medical or psychological

examination of Wilson by a physician is a requirement for a
declaration of psychological incapacity.

Ruling: 1. No. Although the Supreme Court is sufficiently convinced

that Wilson failed to provide material support and resorted to
physical abuse and abandonment, the totality of his acts
does not lead to psychological incapacity.

2. No. the Supreme Court ruled that examination by physician

or psychologist is not a condition sine gua non for the
declaration of psychological incapacity.
Case Brief No. 6: Republic vs. Dagdag
G.R. No. 109975, 9 February 2001 (2nd Division)

Facts: On 7 September 1975, Erlinda Matias and Avelino Dagdag

got married and had two children. In 1990, Erlinda filed a
petition for nullity of marriage for psychological incapacity.
She alleged that Avelino would often disappear for months,
indulge in drinking sprees with friends, and inflict physical
injuries on her. She also learned that Avelino was
imprisoned but escaped from jail. During the court hearing,
Virginia Dagdag, Erlinda’s sister-in-law, testified the veracity
of Erlinda’s allegations. The RTC-Olongapo City declared
the marriage null and void, which was affirmed by the court
of Appeals.

Issue: Whether or not Avelino suffers from psychological incapacity

as he is emotionally immature and irresponsible, a habitual
alcoholic, and a fugitive from justice.

Ruling: The Supreme Court ruled that Erlinda failed to comply with
the evidentiary requirements under the guidelines set in the
two cases of Santos and Molina, as she failed to present a
psychiatrist or medical doctor to testify; the allegation that
Avelino is a fugitive from justice was not sufficiently proven;
and the investigating prosecutor was not given an
opportunity to present converting evidences.
Title : People vs. Pringas, 531 SCRA 828 (G.R. No. 175928, 31 August 2007)

Facts : On 7 September 1975, Erlinda Matias and Avelino Dagdag got married
and had two children. In 1990, Erlinda filed a petition for nullity of
marriage for psychological incapacity. She alleged that Avelino would
often disappear for months, indulge in drinking sprees with friends, and
inflict physical injuries on her. She also learned that Avelino was
imprisoned but escaped from jail. During the court hearing, Virginia
Dagdag, Erlinda’s sister-in-law, testified the veracity of Erlinda’s
allegations. The RTC-Olongapo City declared the marriage null and void,
which was affirmed by the court of Appeals.

Issue : Whether or not Avelino suffers from psychological incapacity as he is

emotionally immature and irresponsible, a habitual alcoholic, and a
fugitive from justice.

Held : The Supreme Court ruled that Erlinda failed to comply with the
evidentiary requirements under the guidelines set in the two cases of
Santos and Molina, as she failed to present a psychiatrist or medical
doctor to testify; the allegation that Avelino is a fugitive from justice was
not sufficiently proven; and the investigating prosecutor was not given an
opportunity to present converting evidences.