LEOUEL SANTOS, Petitioner Vs COURT OF APPEALS, Defendant

LEOUEL SANTOS, petitioner vs COURT OF APPEALS, defendant
GR No. 112019. January 4, 1995
Facts:
Leouel and Julia exchanged vows on September 20, 1986. A year after the marriage, the
couple when quarreling over a number of things including the interference of Julia’s
parents into their marital affairs. On May 18, 1998, Julia finally left for the United States.
Leouel was then unable to communicate with her for a period of five years and she had
then virtually abandoned their family. Leouel filed a case for nullity on the ground of
psychological incapacity. The Regional Trial Court dismissed the complaint for lack of
merit. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the trial court.
Issue:
Whether or not the grounds of psychological incapacity in this case should be

appreciated.
Ruling:
The Supreme Court denied the petition. Psychological incapacity should refer to no less
than a mental (not physical) incapacity that causes a party to be truly incognitive of the
basic marital covenants that concomitantly must be assumed and discharged by the
parties to the marriage which, as so expressed by Article 68 of the Family Code, include
their mutual obligations to live together, observe love, respect and fidelity and render help
and support. The psychological condition must exist at the time the marriage is celebrated
and must be incurable. Mere abandonment cannot therefore qualify as psychological
incapacity on the part of Julia.
Republic vs. Molina
G.R. No. 108763 February 13, 1997
FACTS: Respondent Roridel Molina married Reynaldo Molina on April 14, 1985. After a
year of marriage, Reynaldo showed signs of “immaturity and irresponsibility” as a
husband and a father exhibited by his preference to spend time with friends, squandering
money, dependence on his parents and dishonesty involving finances. Inevitably, this
resulted in quarrels and by March 1987, Roridel quit her job and moved in with her parents
in Baguio. Reynaldo left her and their child a few weeks thereafter.
On Aug. 16, 1990, Roridel filed a verified petition for declaration of nullity of marriage on
the grounds of psychological incapacity of the husband. The trial court declared the
marriage void, which the CA affirmed in toto; hence, the petition for certiorari.
ISSUE: Whether there is psychological incapacity
HELD: No. The case of Roridel and Reynaldo merely constituted incompatibility among
the estranged spouses. The law intended to confine the meaning of psychological
incapacity only to the most serious cases of personality disorders that must have existed
at the time marriage is celebrated. Irreconcilable differences or conflicting personalities
are not incapacities that would hinder the fulfillment of the essential marital obligations of
the parties. The characteristics of gravity, judicial antecedence and incurability are not
present in the case.
Due to the improper interpretations and applications arrived at by the lower courts on this
particular issue, the SC found it wise to construe the law and lay down guidelines in
interpretation and application of Art. 36. Here, the SC sought the help of two amici curiae
– considered an external aid in statutory construction. The guidelines set forth are thus:
(1) the burden of proof belongs to the plaintiff; (2) the root cause of psychological
incapacity must be medically or clinically identified, alleged in the complaint, sufficiently
proven by expert, and clearly explained in the decision; (3) the incapacity must be proven
to be existing at the time of the celebration of marriage; (4) the incapacity must be
medically or clinically permanent or incurable; (5) such illness must be grave enough to
disable fulfillment of essential marital obligations; (6) the essential marital obligation must
be embraced by Articles 68 to 71 of the Family Code as regards husband and wife, and
Articles 220 to 225 of the same code as regards parents and their children; (7)
interpretation made by the National Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal of the Catholic Church
are to be given great weight; and (8) the fiscal and the Solicitor-General must appear as
counsel for the State.

LEOUEL SANTOS, Petitioner Vs COURT OF APPEALS, Defendant

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

LEOUEL SANTOS, Petitioner Vs COURT OF APPEALS, Defendant

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

LEOUEL SANTOS, Petitioner Vs COURT OF APPEALS, Defendant

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

LEOUEL SANTOS, petitioner vs COURT OF APPEALS, defendant

GR No. 112019. January 4, 1995

Whether or not the grounds of psychological incapacity in this case should be

ISSUE: Whether there is psychological incapacity

You might also like