Antone v Beronilla

- Pet filed bigamy case against resp

o Alleging that their marriage had not yet been legally dissolbed when
resp contracted a second marriage in 1991
- Resp moved to quash the information
o Marriage with resp was null and void on April 2007
o Given it was void ab initio, no first marriage and the facts alleged in
the information dont constitute the crime of bigamy
- Prosecution points out that the first marriage had not yet been severed when
he contracted a second marriage
- Bigamy was executed prior to the declaration that the first marriage was null
and void
- RTC and CA dismissed the case

ISSUE:
WON the TC and CA erred in dismissing the case stating that the first element
of bigamy (a valid first marriage) is lacking

HELD:
YES
- Subsequent declaration of nullity is immaterial because the crime of bigamy
was already consummated

Case is remanded for further proceedings

Matter of Bautista
- Pet is a 32 filipino, admitted to US as a lawful permanent resident
- A month later, he married beneficiary, a 22 yr old native and citizen of the ph
- Filed a visa petition to accord his wife second preference status for the
issuance of an immigrant visa
- Immigration found that marriage would not be recognized as they were
related within the degree of kinship prohibited by PH law (he thought
4th civil degree)
- Gen rule governing recog of marriages for immigration is the validity of
marriage is governed by the law of where it was celebrated
- Pets marriage to beneficiary for immigration purposes would only be valid if
it was valid in the ph, the place of celeb
- Beneficiary is child of the petitioners cousin, (related to him in the 5 th
degree)
- Marriage is not proscribed as the Immigration Officer thought
- Visa petition is approved

Republic v Romero
Republic v Dagdag
- Avelino started leaving his family w/o explanation
- Would reappear and disappear for months at a time
- Whenever he was present, he always drank with friend and would return
home drunk
- He was abusive and forced wife into sexual intercourse
- He eventually left his family again and never heard from
- She learned that he was jailed and that he escaped
- She filed a petition for judicial declaration of nullity on the ground of
psychological incapacity
- Her sister-in-law was presented as witness
- TC and CA declared the marriage null and void

ISSUE:
WON the TC and CA erred in ruling that their marriage was null and void
under Art 36

HELD:
YES
- The Court laid down the Guidelines to follow as presented in Molina case
- She failed to comply with guideline number 2
o No psychiatrist or medical doctor testified as to the alleged
psychological incapacity of her husband

Petition is granted. The CA decision is reversed and set aside

Santos v Bedia-Santos
- Married in 1986
- But they frequently fought about when they would start living independently
from Julias parents
- In 1988, Julia went to the US to work as a nurse despite his opposition
- She was able to contact him through phone and promised to come back
- She never did
- He got the chance to be in the US for military training
- He couldnt find his wife despite searching
- He filed to nullify their marriage due to PI
o Failure to communicate and return home
- Julia countered that it was him who was incompetent
- TC and CA denied his petition

ISSUE:
 WON their marriage can be nullified on ground of PI
HELD:
NO
- Alleged PI is not clearly shown in the factual settings presented
- It is not incurable, nor grave, nor does it have antecedence

Rep v CA and Molina

- Husband became immature and irresponsible by wanting to spend more
time w his peers (on whom he squandered his money), he depended on his
parents for aid, never honest w wife w finances resulting in quarrels
- He eventually left her and their child to live w parents in Baguio (ran for 3
yrs)
- Wife concluded he was PI to comply w marital obligations and immature
who thought himself king
- Husband says they werent living together anymore because
o She insisted on spending time w her friends
o Basic marital duties were neglected
o Her failure to run household and finances
- TC ruled marriage is void. CA affirmed

ISSUE:
WON CA erred in interpretation of PI and made incorrect application thereof

HELD:
Yadood
- Guidelines for PI
o The burden of proof to show the nullity of marriage belongs to
plaintiff
Any doubt is resolved in favor of continuation of marriage
o The root cause of PI must be
Medically/clinically indetified
Alleged in the complaint
Sufficiently proven by experts
Explained in the decision
Psychological, NOT physical (although there can be physical
manifestations)
He could not have known the obligations he was
assuming or, knowing them, could not have given valid
assumption thereof
o Existing at the time of the celebration of the marriage
o Incurable (relative to the party in question)
Or if it was curable, the means would be beyond the
capabilities of the litigants
o Grave enough to bring about the disability of the party to assume
essential obligations
Natal, disabling factor in the person
 Not just mild peculiarities and shit
o Essential marital obligations allegedly unfulfilled must be those in
Articles 68-31, FC; and Articles 220, 221, 225, FC.
And they must be sated in the petition, proven by evidences
and included in the text of the decision
o Interpretations by the National Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal of the
Catholic Church in the PH (NAMT) must be given great respect by
the courts
Article 36 is taken from Canon 1095 of the New Code of Canon
Law
o The TC must order the prosecuting attorney or fiscal and the
SolGen to appear as counsel for the state.
SolGen must issue a certification stating his reasons for his
agreement or opposition to the petition to be submitted within
15 days from the date the case is deemed submitted for
resolution of the court.
Defensor vinculi (under Canon 1095)

The petition is granted. Their marriage remains valid

Marcos v Marcos
- They met when they worked for malacanang
- Resp eventually lost his job and couldnt find one
- He became abusive and a drunk
- They eventually started living separately
- She was angered when she saw him at their unit one time, she and the
children left
- Some time after, she came to look for their missing son. The sight of them
angered resp and ran after her
- At the tie of filing of the case, she submitted herself for psychological
evaluation while the resp did not
- RTC ruled that resp was PI to fulfill his marital obligations
- CA reversed
o PI should be medically or clinically identified, sufficiently proven by
experts and explained
o Grave enough to bring abt disability to assume obligations
o Resp was not subjected to evalution
o Resp offered testimonial evidence to show he was not PI
o No evidence to show he was suffering from incapacity

ISSUE:
- WON evaluation is required
- WON evidence is enough to sustain that resp is PI

HELD
 - NO, persona examination by a physician or psychologist is not a
requirement
o The basic requirements mandated by SC is the Santos and Molina case
o No mention of evaluation
o The root cause only MAY be medically or clinically identified
o What is important is the presence of evidence that can establish the
partys psychological condition
- NO
o Despite his negligence to his family, it does not constitute PI
o These defects werent present in the time of the marriage nor are
they incurable
His attitude is due to the fact that he lost his job and want
employed for 6 yrs
He is now a taxi driver. Not incurable.

SC affirmed CA except the requiring of psychological evaluation

Antonio v Reyes
- Respondent is a pathological liar
- Pet filed for nullity of marriage
o Pet presented Dr. Lopez who sad constant lying and extreme jealousy
was abnormal
- Resp tried to refute the claims
o Resp resented Dr. Reyes and he said resp wasnt PI (as per his
assistant) and that together with CPRS (comprehensive psycho-
pathological rating scale), it is conclusive
- Dr. Lopez faults this by:
o He wasnt the one who administered and interpreted resps eval
o CPRS is not reliable because good liars can fake results
- TC ruled in favor of the petitioner
- Metropolitan Trib of the Archdio of Manila annulled the marriage for lack of
due discretion of both parties
- NAMT affirmed w modification (only respondent lacks due discretion)
o Upheld by the Roman Rota of the Vatican
- CA ruled in favor of respondent

ISSUE:
WON facts presented by pet are sufficient to constitute PI on part of resp

HELD:
YES
- Present case satisifies Molina guidelines
1. Aside from his testimony, he presented witnesses who corroborated his
allegations of his wifes behavior
2. Experts ruled that she is a pathological liar
 3. Her condition existed at time of celeb of marriage
a. Fictitious characters were even before they were married
b. Lied about her illegitimate son
4. Incurable
a. He left for a while, and returned 4 months later, only to find that bitch
was still the same liar
5. Gravity prolonged marital life was dubitable
a. A person unable to distinguish between fantasy and reality would be
unable to comprehend legal nature of the marital bond, much less its
psychic meaning, and obligations attached to marriage including
parenting
b. One unable to adhere to reality cannot adhere to any legal or
emotional commitments
6. Article 68
a. It is diff to see how a pathological liar would be able to commit to the
basic tenets of relationship between spouses based on love, trust, and
respect
7. CA failed to take into consideration that the marriage was annulled by the
Catholic Church
a. No mention was made in their decision hence the conclusion that they
thought it was inconsequential

Petition is granted. Marriage is declared null and void.

Republic v Melgar
- Since the birth of their firstborn, husband has become a habitual alcoholic,
abusive, lazy, jealous (would drag her from the office and beat her)
- He was eventually asked to leave their house
- TC ruled in favor of wife
o The circumstances prove that the husband was unprepared to comply
with his resp as a good husband and father
- CA affirmed

ISSUE:
WON the alleged PI of resp in in the nature of art 36, FC

HELD:
NO
- The only evidence provided was wifes testimony
- Although not required, an expert witness would have strengthened her claim
- Neither the Santos nor Molina guidelines were met

SC ruled that marriage subsists and is valid

Dimayuga-Laurena v Laurena
 - Pet claims resp is negligent of his responsibilities as husband and
father hence PI
o During honeymoon, resp let their kasambahay stay in their hotel room
in baguio
o Kept watching tv despite pet almost bleeding to death
o Gave priority to his parents
o Come home past mn
o Tried to convert her to his religion
o Womanizer
o Feminine tendencies
o One time he hit her in the face
o Abandoned their conjugal home and stopped support of their children
- Resp claims pet is emotionally immature, stubborn, unstable, unreasonable,
and jealous
- RTC and CA ruled in favor of resp

ISSUE:
WON resp is PI

HELD:
No
- Sexual infidelity, physical violence, homosexuality, moral pressure to compel
change of religion, and abandonment are grounds for legal separation, not for
declaring a marriage void
- Witness presented by pet, Dr. Lapuz, failed to prove PI or identify its root
case, failed to establish that PI is incurable
o If sexual urge declines
- Pet failed to prove it existed at the time of marriage celeb
o But they already had sex before marriage hence the little boy staying
in the hotel room in baguio was only bc of monetary constraints
- Thus, totality of evidence presented failed to show resp was PI and that it
was grave, incurable, and existing at time of marriage celeb

SC ruled marriage is subsisting and valid

Te v Te
- Pet was married to resp
- Resp threatened pet that she would kill herself so he would agree to stay w
her at her uncles place
- The uncle brought the two to get married
- However the pet was treated like a prisoner
o Was not allowed to go out unaccompanied
- Clinical psych who examined petitioner found both parties are PI

ISSUE:
 WON based on art 36, the marriage between them was null and void?

HELD:
YES
- Clinical psychologist found pet was afflicted with Dependent Personality
Disorder
o Insecure, weak, gullible, no direction in life, unable to decide without
advice
- Respondent had Antisocial Personality Disorder
o Disregard for others rights, abusive, controlling, tendency to blame
others
- Clinical psychologist recommended annulment
- The Court found that in this case, gravity of disorders considered, the
evaluation was decisive and ruled the marriage null and void
- This was the time that the Court thought the Molina standards were too strict
and shall consider the presence of PI on a case to case basis with looser
dependency on the guidelines set by the aforementioned case

Ting v Velez-Ting
- Wife filed for absolute nullity on ground of PI because husband was a
habitual drunkard and gambler
o They had to sell their family car and a portion of their lot to pay for his
debt
o Abusive, and would force her to have sex
o Refused to give financial support to family
- She presented the evaluation of Benjamin of a psychiatrist
o Transcript of a stenographic recording during Benjamins deposition
when he went to work in South Af
- He presented another evaluation based on the transcript, a psychiatric
evaluation from SA, and an interview w his brothers
o He was not PI
- TC declared marriage null and void

ISSUE:
WON their marriage is void under Art 36

HELD:
NO
- She failed to show that PI was present in time of celeb of marriage
- Neither did she prove it was incurable
- While expert opinion is decisive, it is not indispensable
- The 2 expert opinions were contradicting, but the latter has greater weight
because it took into consideration more factors
- Moreover, Semper praesumitur pro matrimonio
Tsoi v CA
- After marriage celeb, they went and proceeded to husbands moms house
- They slept there, didnt have sex, husband turned his back and went to sleep
- They went to Baguio to celebrate honeymoon privately
o Husband invited mom, uncle, nephew, and her mom
o 4 days, no sex. Def avoided her by taking long walks or just by
sleeping in the living room
- No sex for almost 1 yr. didnt even see each others private parts
- They submitted themselves for physical examinations
o Nothing wrong w wifey
o Prescribed medication for husband which was kept confidential
Was asked to return but never did
- Plaintiff says
o Husband is impotent
o Closet homo
o Married her only to maintain his residency status here in the ph
o She isnt willing to reconcile
o Hence, PI
- Defendant says
o He loves wife very much
o No defect on his part and is capable
o Rel is very young and can be reconciled
o She was the one who didnt want to have sex
o Her reasons for filing case against him
Husband will eventually consummate their marriage
Shes afraid shes gonna have to return jewelry to his mom
- Def submitted to PE
o 2 inch penis grew by 1 inch when erect and is capable of sex
- RTC ruled marriage is void
- CA affirmed

ISSUE:
WON their marriage can be annulled on the grounds that husband is PI

HELD:
Yes
- Such abnormal reluctance or unwillingness to consummate their marriage is
strongly indicative of a serious personality disorder which demonstrates an
utter insensitivity or inability to give meaning to the marriage
- Incurable, grave, has antecedence

Choa v Choa
- Married in 1981 and had 2 children
- 1993, husband filed an annulment of his marriage on grounds of PI
 - He says:
o Wife lacked procreative sexuality
o Lack of attention to children
o Immaturity
- These three allegedly constituted PI

ISSUE:
WON their marriage can be annulled on grounds of PI

HELD:
NO
- Evidence merely shows that husband and wife could not get along.
- There was no showing of gravity, juridical antecedence, or incurability.
- There was also a lack of medical, psychiatric or psychological examination.
- Psychological incapacity must be more than just neglect of marital
obligations.
o A mere showing of irreconcilable differences and conflicting
personalities does not constitute psychological incapacity.
- Moreover, they have 2 children so this lack of procreative sexuality did not
exist at the time of marriage celebration