Lawyerly

GR No. 192718

2015-02-18

ROBERT F. MALLILIN v. LUZ G. JAMESOLAMIN

MENDOZA, J.

A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC thus codified the ruling in Marcos that examination by a physician or psychologist is not a conditio sine qua non for a declaration of nullity of marriage.[35]

GR No. 166357

2015-01-14

VALERIO E. KALAW v. MA. ELENA FERNANDEZ

BERSAMIN, J.

The expert opinion of Dr. Gates was ultimately necessary herein to enable the trial court to properly determine the issue of psychological incapacity of the respondent (if not also of the petitioner). Consequently, the lack of personal examination and interview of the person diagnosed with personality disorder, like the respondent, did not per se invalidate the findings of the experts. The Court has stressed in Marcos v. Marcos[19] that there is no requirement for one to be declared psychologically incapacitated to be personally examined by a physician, because what is important is the presence of evidence that adequately establishes the party's psychological incapacity. Hence, "if the totality of evidence presented is enough to sustain a finding of psychological incapacity, then actual medical examination of the person concerned need not be resorted to."[20]

GR No. 173138

2010-12-01

NOEL B. BACCAY v. MARIBEL C. BACCAY

VILLARAMA, JR., J.

The CA further held that Maribel's refusal to have sexual intercourse with Noel did not constitute a ground to find her psychologically incapacitated under Article 36 of the Family Code. As Noel admitted, he had numerous sexual relations with Maribel before their marriage. Maribel therefore cannot be said to be incapacitated to perform this particular obligation and that such incapacity existed at the time of marriage.[13]

GR No. 165321

2010-08-03

RICARDO P. TORING v. TERESITA M. TORING

BRION, J.

To be sure, we have recognized that the law does not require that the allegedly incapacitated spouse be personally examined by a physician or by a psychologist as a condition sine qua non for the declaration of nullity of marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code.[18] This recognition, however, does not signify that the evidence, we shall favorably appreciate, should be any less than the evidence that an Article 36 case, by its nature, requires.

GR No. 164817

2009-07-03

DIGNA A. NAJERA v. EDUARDO J. NAJERA

PERALTA, J.

[24] Marcos v. Marcos, 397 Phil. 840, 850 (2000).

GR No. 150677

2009-06-05

RENATO REYES SO v. LORNA VALERA

BRION, J.

A later case, Marcos v. Marcos,[41] further clarified that there is no requirement that the defendant/respondent spouse should be personally examined by a physician or psychologist as a condition sine qua non for the declaration of nullity of marriage based on psychological incapacity. Accordingly, it is no longer necessary to introduce expert opinion in a petition under Article 36 of the Family Code if the totality of evidence shows that psychological incapacity exists and its gravity, juridical antecedence, and incurability can be duly established.[42]

GR No. 166562

2009-03-31

BENJAMIN G. TING v. CARMEN M. VELEZ-TING

NACHURA, J.

By the very nature of cases involving the application of Article 36, it is logical and understandable to give weight to the expert opinions furnished by psychologists regarding the psychological temperament of parties in order to determine the root cause, juridical antecedence, gravity and incurability of the psychological incapacity. However, such opinions, while highly advisable, are not conditions sine qua non in granting petitions for declaration of nullity of marriage.[58] At best, courts must treat such opinions as decisive but not indispensable evidence in determining the merits of a given case. In fact, if the totality of evidence presented is enough to sustain a finding of psychological incapacity, then actual medical or psychological examination of the person concerned need not be resorted to.[59] The trial court, as in any other given case presented before it, must always base its decision not solely on the expert opinions furnished by the parties but also on the totality of evidence adduced in the course of the proceedings.

GR No. 167523

2008-06-27

NILDA V. NAVALES v. REYNALDO NAVALES

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

Reynaldo also presented Clinical Psychologist Vatanagul to bolster his claim that Nilda is psychologically incapacitated. While it is true that the Court relies heavily on psychological experts for its understanding of the human personality,[60] and that there is no requirement that the defendant spouse be personally examined by a physician or psychologist before the nullity of marriage based on psychological incapacity may be declared,[61] still, the root cause of the psychological incapacity must be identified as a psychological illness, its incapacitating nature fully explained,[62] and said incapacity established by the totality of the evidence presented during trial.[63]

GR NO. 168328

2007-02-28

REPUBLIC v. LAILA TANYAG-SAN JOSE

CARPIO MORALES, J.

There is of course no requirement that the person sought to be declared psychologically incapacitated should be personally examined by a physician or psychologist as a condition sine qua non to arrive at such declaration.[24] If it can be proven by independent means that one is psychologically incapacitated, there is no reason why the same should not be credited.

GR No. 141917

2007-02-07

BERNARDINO S. ZAMORA v. CA

AZCUNA, J.

It is true, as petitioner noted, that the case of Santos v. CA[8] did not specifically mention that the presentation of expert opinion is a vital and mandatory requirement in filing a petition for the declaration of nullity of marriage grounded on psychological incapacity referred to under Article 36 of the Family Code. Even in the subsequent case of Republic v. Court of Appeals [9] (also known as the Molina case[10]), wherein the Court laid down the guidelines[11] in the interpretation and application of the aforementioned article, examination of the person by a physician in order for the former to be declared psychologically incapacitated was likewise not considered a requirement.[12] What is important, however, as stated in Marcos v. Marcos,[13] is the presence of evidence that can adequately establish the party's psychological condition. If the totality of evidence presented is enough to sustain a finding of psychological incapacity, then actual medical examination of the person concerned need not be resorted to.

GR NO. 162368

2006-07-17

MA. ARMIDA PEREZ-FERRARIS v. BRIX FERRARIS

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

The term "psychological incapacity" to be a ground for the nullity of marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code, refers to a serious psychological illness afflicting a party even before the celebration of the marriage. It is a malady so grave and so permanent as to deprive one of awareness of the duties and responsibilities of the matrimonial bond one is about to assume.[13] As all people may have certain quirks and idiosyncrasies, or isolated characteristics associated with certain personality disorders, there is hardly any doubt that the intendment of the law has been to confine the meaning of "psychological incapacity" to the most serious cases of personality disorders clearly demonstrative of an utter insensitivity or inability to give meaning and significance to the marriage.[14] It is for this reason that the Court relies heavily on psychological experts for its understanding of the human personality. However, the root cause must be identified as a psychological illness and its incapacitating nature must be fully explained,[15] which petitioner failed to convincingly demonstrate.

GR NO. 155800

2006-03-10

LEONILO ANTONIO v. MARIE IVONNE F. REYES

TINGA, J.

The notion that psychological incapacity pertains to the inability to understand the obligations of marriage, as opposed to a mere inability to comply with them, was further affirmed in the Molina[66] case. Therein, the Court, through then Justice (now Chief Justice) Panganiban observed that "[t]he evidence [to establish psychological incapacity] must convince the court that the parties, or one of them, was mentally or psychically ill to such extent that the person could not have known the obligations he was assuming, or knowing them, could not have given valid assumption thereto."[67] Jurisprudence since then has recognized that psychological incapacity "is a malady so grave and permanent as to deprive one of awareness of the duties and responsibilities of the matrimonial bond one is about to assume." [68]

GR NO. 152577

2005-09-21

REPUBLIC v. CRASUS L. IYOY

A later case, Marcos v. Marcos,[25] further clarified that there is no requirement that the defendant/respondent spouse should be personally examined by a physician or psychologist as a condition sine qua non for the declaration of nullity of marriage based on psychological incapacity. Accordingly, it is no longer necessary to allege expert opinion in a petition under Article 36 of the Family Code of the Philippines.[26] Such psychological incapacity, however, must be established by the totality of the evidence presented during the trial.

GR No. 151867

2004-01-29

DAVID B. DEDEL v. CA

YNARES-SATIAGO, J.

At best, the circumstances relied upon by petitioner are grounds for legal separation under Article 55[17] of the Family Code. However, we pointed out in Marcos v. Marcos[18] that Article 36 is not to be equated with legal separation in which the grounds need not be rooted in psychological incapacity but on physical violence, moral pressure, civil interdiction, drug addiction, habitual alcoholism, sexual infidelity, abandonment and the like. In short, the evidence presented by petitioner refers only to grounds for legal separation, not for declaring a marriage void.

	GR No. 192718 2015-02-18	ROBERT F. MALLILIN v. LUZ G. JAMESOLAMIN MENDOZA, J.
A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC thus codified the ruling in Marcos that examination by a physician or psychologist is not a conditio sine qua non for a declaration of nullity of marriage.[35]
	GR No. 166357 2015-01-14	VALERIO E. KALAW v. MA. ELENA FERNANDEZ BERSAMIN, J.
The expert opinion of Dr. Gates was ultimately necessary herein to enable the trial court to properly determine the issue of psychological incapacity of the respondent (if not also of the petitioner). Consequently, the lack of personal examination and interview of the person diagnosed with personality disorder, like the respondent, did not per se invalidate the findings of the experts. The Court has stressed in Marcos v. Marcos[19] that there is no requirement for one to be declared psychologically incapacitated to be personally examined by a physician, because what is important is the presence of evidence that adequately establishes the party's psychological incapacity. Hence, "if the totality of evidence presented is enough to sustain a finding of psychological incapacity, then actual medical examination of the person concerned need not be resorted to."[20]
	GR No. 173138 2010-12-01	NOEL B. BACCAY v. MARIBEL C. BACCAY VILLARAMA, JR., J.
The CA further held that Maribel's refusal to have sexual intercourse with Noel did not constitute a ground to find her psychologically incapacitated under Article 36 of the Family Code. As Noel admitted, he had numerous sexual relations with Maribel before their marriage. Maribel therefore cannot be said to be incapacitated to perform this particular obligation and that such incapacity existed at the time of marriage.[13]
	GR No. 165321 2010-08-03	RICARDO P. TORING v. TERESITA M. TORING BRION, J.
To be sure, we have recognized that the law does not require that the allegedly incapacitated spouse be personally examined by a physician or by a psychologist as a condition sine qua non for the declaration of nullity of marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code.[18] This recognition, however, does not signify that the evidence, we shall favorably appreciate, should be any less than the evidence that an Article 36 case, by its nature, requires.
	GR No. 164817 2009-07-03	DIGNA A. NAJERA v. EDUARDO J. NAJERA PERALTA, J.
[24] Marcos v. Marcos, 397 Phil. 840, 850 (2000).
	GR No. 150677 2009-06-05	RENATO REYES SO v. LORNA VALERA BRION, J.
A later case, Marcos v. Marcos,[41] further clarified that there is no requirement that the defendant/respondent spouse should be personally examined by a physician or psychologist as a condition sine qua non for the declaration of nullity of marriage based on psychological incapacity. Accordingly, it is no longer necessary to introduce expert opinion in a petition under Article 36 of the Family Code if the totality of evidence shows that psychological incapacity exists and its gravity, juridical antecedence, and incurability can be duly established.[42]
	GR No. 166562 2009-03-31	BENJAMIN G. TING v. CARMEN M. VELEZ-TING NACHURA, J.
By the very nature of cases involving the application of Article 36, it is logical and understandable to give weight to the expert opinions furnished by psychologists regarding the psychological temperament of parties in order to determine the root cause, juridical antecedence, gravity and incurability of the psychological incapacity. However, such opinions, while highly advisable, are not conditions sine qua non in granting petitions for declaration of nullity of marriage.[58] At best, courts must treat such opinions as decisive but not indispensable evidence in determining the merits of a given case. In fact, if the totality of evidence presented is enough to sustain a finding of psychological incapacity, then actual medical or psychological examination of the person concerned need not be resorted to.[59] The trial court, as in any other given case presented before it, must always base its decision not solely on the expert opinions furnished by the parties but also on the totality of evidence adduced in the course of the proceedings.
	GR No. 167523 2008-06-27	NILDA V. NAVALES v. REYNALDO NAVALES AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Reynaldo also presented Clinical Psychologist Vatanagul to bolster his claim that Nilda is psychologically incapacitated. While it is true that the Court relies heavily on psychological experts for its understanding of the human personality,[60] and that there is no requirement that the defendant spouse be personally examined by a physician or psychologist before the nullity of marriage based on psychological incapacity may be declared,[61] still, the root cause of the psychological incapacity must be identified as a psychological illness, its incapacitating nature fully explained,[62] and said incapacity established by the totality of the evidence presented during trial.[63]
	GR NO. 168328 2007-02-28	REPUBLIC v. LAILA TANYAG-SAN JOSE CARPIO MORALES, J.
There is of course no requirement that the person sought to be declared psychologically incapacitated should be personally examined by a physician or psychologist as a condition sine qua non to arrive at such declaration.[24] If it can be proven by independent means that one is psychologically incapacitated, there is no reason why the same should not be credited.
	GR No. 141917 2007-02-07	BERNARDINO S. ZAMORA v. CA AZCUNA, J.
It is true, as petitioner noted, that the case of Santos v. CA[8] did not specifically mention that the presentation of expert opinion is a vital and mandatory requirement in filing a petition for the declaration of nullity of marriage grounded on psychological incapacity referred to under Article 36 of the Family Code. Even in the subsequent case of Republic v. Court of Appeals [9] (also known as the Molina case[10]), wherein the Court laid down the guidelines[11] in the interpretation and application of the aforementioned article, examination of the person by a physician in order for the former to be declared psychologically incapacitated was likewise not considered a requirement.[12] What is important, however, as stated in Marcos v. Marcos,[13] is the presence of evidence that can adequately establish the party's psychological condition. If the totality of evidence presented is enough to sustain a finding of psychological incapacity, then actual medical examination of the person concerned need not be resorted to.
	GR NO. 162368 2006-07-17	MA. ARMIDA PEREZ-FERRARIS v. BRIX FERRARIS YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
The term "psychological incapacity" to be a ground for the nullity of marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code, refers to a serious psychological illness afflicting a party even before the celebration of the marriage. It is a malady so grave and so permanent as to deprive one of awareness of the duties and responsibilities of the matrimonial bond one is about to assume.[13] As all people may have certain quirks and idiosyncrasies, or isolated characteristics associated with certain personality disorders, there is hardly any doubt that the intendment of the law has been to confine the meaning of "psychological incapacity" to the most serious cases of personality disorders clearly demonstrative of an utter insensitivity or inability to give meaning and significance to the marriage.[14] It is for this reason that the Court relies heavily on psychological experts for its understanding of the human personality. However, the root cause must be identified as a psychological illness and its incapacitating nature must be fully explained,[15] which petitioner failed to convincingly demonstrate.
	GR NO. 155800 2006-03-10	LEONILO ANTONIO v. MARIE IVONNE F. REYES TINGA, J.
The notion that psychological incapacity pertains to the inability to understand the obligations of marriage, as opposed to a mere inability to comply with them, was further affirmed in the Molina[66] case. Therein, the Court, through then Justice (now Chief Justice) Panganiban observed that "[t]he evidence [to establish psychological incapacity] must convince the court that the parties, or one of them, was mentally or psychically ill to such extent that the person could not have known the obligations he was assuming, or knowing them, could not have given valid assumption thereto."[67] Jurisprudence since then has recognized that psychological incapacity "is a malady so grave and permanent as to deprive one of awareness of the duties and responsibilities of the matrimonial bond one is about to assume." [68]
	GR NO. 152577 2005-09-21	REPUBLIC v. CRASUS L. IYOY
A later case, Marcos v. Marcos,[25] further clarified that there is no requirement that the defendant/respondent spouse should be personally examined by a physician or psychologist as a condition sine qua non for the declaration of nullity of marriage based on psychological incapacity. Accordingly, it is no longer necessary to allege expert opinion in a petition under Article 36 of the Family Code of the Philippines.[26] Such psychological incapacity, however, must be established by the totality of the evidence presented during the trial.
	GR No. 151867 2004-01-29	DAVID B. DEDEL v. CA YNARES-SATIAGO, J.
At best, the circumstances relied upon by petitioner are grounds for legal separation under Article 55[17] of the Family Code. However, we pointed out in Marcos v. Marcos[18] that Article 36 is not to be equated with legal separation in which the grounds need not be rooted in psychological incapacity but on physical violence, moral pressure, civil interdiction, drug addiction, habitual alcoholism, sexual infidelity, abandonment and the like. In short, the evidence presented by petitioner refers only to grounds for legal separation, not for declaring a marriage void.

BRENDA B. MARCOS v. WILSON G. MARCOS