196359, May 11, 2021) Psychological incapacity must be shown to exist at
the time of the marriage and be of such gravity that it FACTS renders the spouse incapable of fulfilling marital obligations. Rosanna L. Tan-Andal and Mario Victor M. Andal Rosanna provided clear and convincing evidence of were married on December 16, 1995, in Makati City. Mario's psychological incapacity, including his They had one child, Ma. Samantha, born in 1996. persistent drug use, financial irresponsibility, and The couple lived in Parañaque City but separated in inability to care for his family. 2000, with Rosanna retaining custody of their The CA erred in discounting the expert opinion solely daughter. because Mario was not personally examined. In 2001, Mario filed for custody of Ma. Samantha. The totality of evidence, including the expert's findings In 2003, Rosanna filed a petition for the nullity of their and other corroborative evidence, sufficiently proved marriage, citing Mario's psychological incapacity. Mario's psychological incapacity. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) declared the marriage void due to Mario's psychological incapacity, awarded custody of Ma. Samantha to Rosanna, and declared her the sole owner of their property. The Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the RTC's decision, finding the psychiatric evaluation of Mario unreliable as it was based on second-hand information. Rosanna filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari before the Supreme Court.
ISSUE: 1. Whether the marriage between Mario and Rosanna is void due to psychological incapacity. 2. Whether the guidelines for deciding cases for the declaration of nullity of marriage due to psychological incapacity, as laid down in Republic v. Court of Appeals and Molina, violate the right to liberty, personal autonomy, and human dignity of Filipinos. 3. Whether psychological incapacity must be grounded on a particular psychological illness and if it can be established without a psychological assessment or clinical diagnosis. 4. Whether psychological incapacity is truly incurable and if it must be shown to be medically or clinically permanent or incurable. 5. Whether expert opinion on a party's psychological incapacity is competent evidence if it is solely based on collateral information from the other spouse. 6. Whether the existence of grounds for legal separation precludes a finding of psychological incapacity. 7. Whether psychological incapacity may be relative to each couple. 8. Whether half of the duplex and the lot on which it is situated are community properties of Mario and Rosanna. 9. Whether Ma. Samantha's custody was rightfully awarded to Rosanna. RULING: The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversing the CA's decision and reinstating the RTC's decision. The marriage between Rosanna and Mario was declared void due to Mario's psychological incapacity. The Court upheld the RTC's decision awarding custody of Ma. Samantha to Rosanna. The Court declared Rosanna the sole owner of the property. RATIO: The Supreme Court clarified that psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code is a legal concept, not strictly a medical one. The totality of evidence must prove the psychological incapacity, which need not be grounded on a specific psychological illness or proven by expert testimony alone. Georfo vs. Republic (G.R. No. 246933, March 6, 2023) Santos vs. CA, GR No. 112019, Jan. 4, 1995, 240 SCRA 2
FACTS: FACTS: Agnes Padrique Georfo (Agnes) sought the nullity of The case involves petitioner Leouel Santos and her marriage to Joe-Ar Jabian Georfo (Joe-Ar) on the respondents Julia Rosario Bedia-Santos and the grounds of psychological incapacity. Court of Appeals. The couple met in late 2001 in Bacolod City and Leouel Santos, a First Lieutenant in the Philippine married on February 23, 2002, at the Latter Day Army, married Julia Rosario Bedia-Santos on Saints Church in Magsungay, Bacolod City. September 20, 1986, in Iloilo City. At the time of their marriage, Agnes was 18 years old, The couple initially lived with Julia's parents and had a and Joe-Ar was 21. son, Leouel Santos, Jr., born on July 18, 1987. Their marriage quickly deteriorated due to conflicts, Their marriage faced significant difficulties due to infidelity, and abuse. frequent interference from Julia's parents and other Agnes alleged that Joe-Ar had a bad temper, was disagreements. physically abusive, and failed to provide financial On May 18, 1988, Julia left for the United States to support for their son. work as a nurse, despite Leouel's pleas for her to After living separately for eight years, Agnes filed a stay. Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage. Julia promised to return after her contract expired in Dr. Andres Gerong, a clinical psychologist, testified July 1989 but failed to do so. that Joe-Ar exhibited traits of Narcissistic Personality Leouel attempted to contact Julia during his visit to Disorder and Dependent Personality Disorder, which the United States in 1990 but was unsuccessful. were serious and incurable. Consequently, Leouel filed a complaint for the nullity The Regional Trial Court (RTC) granted Agnes's of their marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code, petition, declaring the marriage null and void. citing psychological incapacity. The Court of Appeals (CA) reversed this decision, The Regional Trial Court of Negros Oriental leading Agnes to file a Petition for Review before the dismissed the complaint for lack of merit, and the Supreme Court. Court of Appeals affirmed the decision. ISSUE: Leouel then petitioned the Supreme Court for review. 1. Whether the marriage between Agnes Padrique ISSUE: Georfo and Joe-Ar Jabian Georfo is void on the 1. Whether Julia Rosario Bedia-Santos' failure to return ground of psychological incapacity. home or communicate with Leouel Santos for more 2. Whether the totality of evidence presented by Agnes than five years constitutes psychological incapacity is sufficient to prove that Joe-Ar is psychologically under Article 36 of the Family Code, thereby incapacitated to comply with his marital obligations. rendering their marriage null and void. RULING: RULING: The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversing The Supreme Court denied the petition, affirming the and setting aside the CA's decision. decisions of the lower courts. The Court declared the marriage between Agnes The Court held that Julia's failure to return home or Padrique Georfo and Joe-Ar Jabian Georfo void on communicate with Leouel for more than five years did the ground of psychological incapacity. not meet the standards required to decree a nullity of RATIO: marriage based on psychological incapacity. The Supreme Court emphasized that psychological RATIO: incapacity is a legal concept, not a medical or clinical The Supreme Court emphasized that the term illness. "psychological incapacity" under Article 36 of the A psychiatric examination is no longer required in Family Code is not meant to cover all possible cases Article 36 petitions. of psychoses, such as extremely low intelligence or The totality of evidence, including the psychological immaturity. report by Dr. Gerong, sufficiently established Joe-Ar's It refers to a mental incapacity that renders a party psychological incapacity. truly incapable of understanding and fulfilling the Dr. Gerong's assessment, based on interviews with essential marital obligations, such as living together, Agnes and her sister, identified Joe-Ar's Narcissistic observing love, respect, fidelity, and providing help Personality Disorder and Dependent Personality and support. Disorder, which were serious, incurable, and rooted in The Court noted that psychological incapacity must his childhood. be grave, rooted in the history of the party, and Psychological incapacity must be proven by clear and incurable. convincing evidence, which was met in this case. The Court also highlighted that the law does not Psychological incapacity does not need to be consider an inability to have sexual relations as a identified using the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual form of psychological incapacity. of Mental Disorders. The Court concluded that the factual circumstances of The assessment can be based on collateral the case did not meet the stringent standards required information. to declare the marriage null and void. The evidence presented demonstrated Joe-Ar's The Court underscored the importance of marriage as inability to fulfill his essential marital obligations, a lifetime commitment and an inviolable social warranting the dissolution of the marriage under institution, as enshrined in the Family Code and the Article 36 of the Family Code. 1987 Philippine Constitution. Republic vs. Iyoy (G.R. No. 152577, Sept. 21, 2005) Santiago vs People of the Philippines, GR. No. 200233, July 15, 2015 FACTS: The case "Republic of the Philippines v. Iyoy" involves FACTS: a petition for the declaration of nullity of marriage. Respondent Crasus L. Iyoy filed the petition against Petitioner Leonila Santiago was convicted of bigamy for his wife, Fely Ada Rosal-Iyoy, citing psychological her marriage with Nicanor Santos who, during the celebration incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code. of their marriage, was still married to Estela Galang. Crasus and Fely were married on December 16, 1961, in Cebu City and had five children. Petitioner reiterates that she cannot be a co-accused in the In 1984, Fely left for the United States, leaving their case, because she was not aware of Santos's previous children behind. marriage. Furthermore, she argues that for there to be a Fely later requested Crasus to sign divorce papers, conviction for bigamy, a valid second marriage must be which he ignored. proven.She contends that her marriage to Santos is void Fely remarried an American and acquired U.S. because of the absence of a marriage license. She citizenship in 1988. elaborates that their marriage does not fall under any of the On March 25, 1997, Crasus filed a complaint alleging exemptionsfrom a marriage license, because they have not Fely's psychological incapacity due to her previously lived together exclusively as husband and wife abandonment and infidelity. for at least five years. Without completing the five-year requirement, she posits that their marriage without a license is The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cebu City declared void. the marriage null and void, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals. The RTC appreciated the testimony of Galang that 2 months The Republic, represented by the Office of the before said marriage, she already introduced herself to Solicitor General, sought a reversal of this decision, petitioner asSantos’ legal wife, and that it was incredible for a arguing that the evidence was insufficient to establish learned person like petitioner to be easily duped by a person psychological incapacity and that Article 26, like Santos. paragraph 2 of the Family Code was inapplicable. ISSUE: Similar to the RTC, the CA gave more weight to the 1. Does the evidence presented sufficiently establish prosecution’s evidence. It likewise disbelieved the testimony Fely's psychological incapacity to comply with the of Santos andalso simply stated that the claim of lack of essential marital obligations under Article 36 of the marriage license was a vain attempt to put the validity of Family Code? her marriage to Santos in question. 2. Is Article 26, paragraph 2 of the Family Code applicable to the case, allowing Crasus to remarry ISSUE: under Philippine law? 3. Does the Office of the Solicitor General have the Should the validity of the second marriage be first proven authority to intervene in proceedings for annulment in order for one to be convicted of bigamy? and declaration of nullity of marriages? RULING: RULING: The Supreme Court ruled that the evidence presented was insufficient to establish Fely's psychological Yes. For the accused to be convicted of bigamy, the incapacity. second or subsequent marriage must have all the essential The Court held that Article 26, paragraph 2 of the requisites for validity. If the accused wants to raise the nullity of Family Code was not applicable to the case. the marriage, he or she can do it as a matter of defense The Court affirmed the authority of the Office of the during the presentation of evidence in the trial proper of the Solicitor General to intervene in such proceedings. criminal case. RATIO: The Supreme Court found that the totality of evidence In this case, petitioner has consistently questioned the validity presented by Crasus, primarily his testimony and a of her marriage to Santos on the ground that marriages few documents, failed to meet the stringent celebrated without the essential requisite of a marriage requirements for proving psychological incapacity license are void ab initio.Record shows that petitioner and under Article 36. Santos had only known each other for only less than four The Court emphasized that psychological incapacity years. Although they did not submit an affidavit of must be grave, juridically antecedent, and incurable, cohabitation as required by Article 34 FC, it appears that the which was not sufficiently demonstrated in this case. two of them lied before the solemnizing officer and The Court clarified that Article 26, paragraph 2 of the misrepresented that they had actually cohabited for at least Family Code applies only when a Filipino spouse is five years.Thus, the SC cannot countenance petitioner's illegal divorced by an alien spouse, which was not the acts of feigning a marriage and, in the same breath, adjudge situation here as Fely was still a Filipino citizen when her innocent of the crime. Consequently, it will be the height of she obtained the divorce. absurdity for the SC to allow petitioner to use her illegal act to The Court upheld the role of the Solicitor General in escape criminal conviction. representing the State's interest in such cases, as mandated by the Administrative Code of 1987 and Note: The second spouse, if indicted in the crime of supported by jurisprudence. bigamy, is liable only as an accomplice. The decision of the RTC and the Court of Appeals was reversed, and the marriage between Crasus and Fely was declared valid and subsisting.
