GONZALES, RINO GEM V.

PFL-1JD-A
Sep. 13, 2024

Iwasawa vs Gangan et al
September 11, 2013
G.R. No. 204169

Facts:

The Petitioner, a Japanese national, met the Respondent during a visit to the
Philippines in 2002. The Respondent identified herself as "single" and had never
married. They developed a close connection and married on November 28, 2002, in
Pasay City, before moving to Japan.

In July 2009, the Petitioner realized that his wife was unhappy. After confronting
her, she stated that her former husband had died. The petitioner conducted more
research and discovered that the respondent was previously married to Raymond
Maglonzo Arambulo on June 20, 1994. This revelation prompted him to submit a
petition declaring their marriage void owing to bigamy, citing Articles 35(4) and 41
of the Philippine Family Code.

The RTC dismissed the petitioner’s testimony as unreliable because he lacked

personal knowledge of the respondent’s prior marriage or Arambulo’s death.

Issue:

Whether their marriage is bigamous.

Ruling:

YES. The Court ruled in Favor of the Petitioner and reverse the C.A’s decision. The
court stressed the importance of a prior judicial declaration of nullity as it is
required before entering a future marriage. Without such a declaration, the second
marriage is bigamous and void from the start, as stated in Article 35(4) of the
Philippine Family Code.

1
GONZALES, RINO GEM V.
PFL-1JD-A
Sep. 13, 2024

Republic of the Philippines vs. Olaybar

G. R. No. 189538
February 10, 2014
(Stolen Identity)

Antecedent Facts:

Merlinda L. Olaybar, the respondent, requested a Certificate of No Marriage

(CENOMAR) from the National Statistics Office (NSO) in preparation for her future
marriage. When she received the papers, she realized that she had already married
a Korean national called Ye Son Sune on June 24, 2002, at Cebu's Municipal Trial
Court in Cities (MTCC).

She denied marrying Ye Son Sune and claimed to know nothing about him. She
failed to appear before the solemnizing officer, Judge Mamerto Califlores. The
signature on the marriage certificate was not her own.

As a result, Olaybar filed a Petition for Cancellation of Entries in the Marriage

Contract, including those pertaining to her identity as wife.

Issue:

Whether the cancellation of entries in the marriage contract which, in effect

nullifies the marriage may be undertaken in a Rule 108 proceeding

Ruling:

NO. The respondent presented overwhelming evidence, both oral and

documentary, that no marriage happened, and that the marriage certificate was
forged. While Rule 108 cannot be utilized to determine the legitimacy of a
marriage, the trial court proceedings were upheld since all parties had an
opportunity to oppose the respondent's claims and correct procedures were
followed.

Ratio:

The respondent sought the revision of the marriage record to reflect the truth
rather than the nullification of a marriage, which did not exist. The trial court's
decision to cancel the "wife" component of the marriage certificate did not render
the marriage void, because no marriage had occurred.

2
GONZALES, RINO GEM V.
PFL-1JD-A
Sep. 13, 2024

Republic of the Philippines vs. Marelyn Tanedo Manalo

G. R. No. 221029
April 24, 2018

Facts:

Respondent Marelyn Tanedo Manalo (Manalo) filed a petition for cancellation of

entry of marriage in the Civil Registry of San Juan, Metro Manila, pursuant to a
divorce judgment granted by a Japanese court.

The petitioner, who no longer lives with her Japanese spouse due to a divorce
decision, seeks that the marriage entry be cancelled in the Civil Registry of San
Juan, Metro Manila. She claims that the cancellation is vital to ensure that she
remains married to her former husband. Furthermore, if she decides to remarry in
the future, the marriage entry should not cause any legal issues or disruptions.

The RTC initially ruled that Manalo's divorce in Japan should not be recognized in
the Philippines, citing Article 15 of the New Civil Code, which states that Filipinos
cannot file for divorce unless they are naturalized as citizens of another country.
Philippine law governs family rights, responsibilities, and legal ability.

However, on appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the ruling, citing Article
26 of the Family Code. The CA held that although though Manalo initiated the
divorce, it rendered her Japanese husband no longer wedded to her, allowing him
to marry again. Citing the legislative meaning underlying Article 26, the CA
highlighted that it would be unreasonable to view Manalo as still married to her ex-
husband, who is now free to remarry. The fact that Manalo filed for divorce was
considered immaterial.

Issue:

Whether, under Art. 26 of the New Civil Code, a Filipino citizen has the legal power
to remarry under Philippine law after commencing a divorce case abroad and
obtaining a positive judgment against their foreign spouse, who is now eligible to
remarry.

Ruling:

YES. In mixed marriages between a Filipino and a foreigner, if the foreign spouse
receives a lawful absolute divorce overseas, the Filipino spouse can remarry under
Philippine law. The petition is denied, and the Court of Appeals' ruling is partially
upheld, supporting the Filipino spouse's ability to remarry following such a
divorce.

Ratio:

Article 26, as modified, specifies that weddings solemnized abroad in accordance

with the laws of the country where they took place and were deemed lawful there
are also valid in the Philippines, except for those forbidden by specific articles. If a
valid marriage between a Filipino and a foreigner is followed by a valid divorce
obtained abroad that allows the foreigner to remarry, the Filipino spouse gets the
legal competence to remarry under Philippine law.

3
GONZALES, RINO GEM V.
PFL-1JD-A
Sep. 13, 2024

Ninal vs. Bayadog,

March 14, 2000
G.R. No. 133778

Facts:

Teodulfa Bellones and Pepito Niñal married on September 26, 1974. The
petitioners were born here following their marriage. Pepito shot Teodulfa on April
24, 1985, and he died as a result.

On December 11, 1986, a year and eight months later, Pepito and respondent
Norma Badayog married without a marriage license. Rather than obtain a
marriage license, Pepito and Norma signed an affidavit on December 11, 1986,
claiming to have lived together as husband and wife for at least five years. Pepito
died in a vehicle accident on February 19, 1997.

Following their father's death, the petitioners filed a petition for a declaration of
nullity for Pepito and Norma's marriage, arguing that it was null and void due to
the lack of a marriage license.

When the action was filed, it was expected that the second marriage's legality or
invalidity would have an impact on the petitioner's succession rights. Norma filed a
motion to dismiss, saying that the petitioners lacked standing since they were not
eligible to file a "annulment of marriage" case under Article 47 of the Family Code.

Issue:

Whether the second marriage between plaintiffs' deceased father and defendant is
null and void ab initio

Ruling:

YES. Assuming Pepito and Norma had cohabited as "husband and wife" for five
years without the benefits of marriage, the five-year period should be calculated on
this basis. If there had been no marriage, the five-year common-law cohabitation
term, which is counted backward from the day of the marriage celebration, would
have been a period of legal relationship. This five-year period should correlate to
the years immediately preceding the wedding day and be characterized by
uninterrupted continuity and exclusivity, implying no involvement from outside
parties during that time.

Ratio:

Pepito's cohabitation with Norma violated the law because he was married to
Teodulfa throughout a portion of the stated cohabitation period.

4
GONZALES, RINO GEM V.
PFL-1JD-A
Sep. 13, 2024

Juan De Dios Carlos vs. Felividad Sandoval et al

December 16, 2008
G.R. No. 179922

Facts:

Felix B. Carlos and Felipa Elemia died without a will, leaving six plots of land to
their heirs Teofilo Carlos and Juan De Dios Carlos (the petitioner). During Felix's
lifetime, an arrangement was reached to transfer the estate to Teofilo to avoid
inheritance taxes, with Teofilo pledging to give Juan's half. Eventually, three
shipments were delivered to Teofilo and one to Juan.

Following Teofilo's death in 1992, his surviving children, Felicidad and Teofilo II,
registered two more parcels in their names. Juan sued Felicidad and Teofilo II in
1994, and they reached a partial compromise deal in which they acknowledged
their separate shares in one block of land. They later executed a partition deed
that divided the remaining acreage between them.

Juan filed another complaint in 1995, this time with several allegations, such as
marriage nullity, property recovery, and land title cancellation. He claimed that the
contracts with Felicidad regarding the properties were invalid and sought to have
the titles and earnings returned to him.

Issue:

 Whether the respondent received a lawful divorce that allows for

remarriage,
 and if the Respondent is a legitimate or adopted child, which would
influence the petitioner's entitlement to seek nullity in the context of
inheritance.

Ruling:

TO BE DETERMINED. The court ruled that the case be returned to the RTC for a
trial to determine whether the marriage was lawful or null and void. The RTC is
ordered to dismiss the nullity case if it is established that Teofilo II is the deceased
Teofilo Carlos' legitimate, illegitimate, or legally adopted child, as this would
suggest a lack of cause of action for the nullity claim.

NO. The court highlighted that allegations about Teofilo II's adoption are
inadequate to renounce his rights without evidence. The court disputed Felicidad's
declaration about Teofilo II's illegitimacy, saying it was not credible since it
contradicted Article 167 of the Family Code, which preserves a child's legitimacy
regardless of the mother's assertions.

Ratio:

5
GONZALES, RINO GEM V.
PFL-1JD-A
Sep. 13, 2024
Santos vs. C. A.,
January 4, 1995
G.R. No. 112019

Facts:

Leouel Santos, a member of the Army, met Julia in Iloilo City. In September 20,
1986, they got married. The couple latter lived with Julia's parents. Julia gave birth
to a son in 1987.

Their marriage, however, was marred by the frequent interference of Julia's parent
as averred by Leouel. The couple also occasionally quarrels about as to, among
other things, when should they start living independently from Julia's parents. In
1988, Julia went to the US to work as a nurse despite Leouel's opposition. 7
months later, she and Leouel got to talk and she promised to return home in 1989.
She never went home that year. In 1990, Leouel got the chance to be in the US due
to a military training. During his stay, he desperately tried to locate his wife but to
no avail. Leouel, in an effort to at least have his wife come home, Leouel filed with
the regional trial Court of Negros Oriental, Branch 30, a complaint for "Voiding of
marriage Under Article 36 of the Family Code" in 1991. Leouel asserted that due to
Julia's failure to return home or at least communicate with him even with all his
effort constitutes psychological incapacity. Julia attacked the complaint and she
said that it is Leouel who is incompetent. The prosecutor ascertained that there is
no collusion between the two. Leouel's petition is however denied by the lower and
appellate court.

Issue:

Whether the failure of Julia to return home or at the very least to communicate
with her husband, for more than five (5) years constitute psychological incapacity.

Ruling:

No, the failure of Julia to return home or to communicate with her husband Leouel
for more than five (5) years does not constitute psychological incapacity.

Psychological incapacity should refer to no less than a mental (not physical)

incapacity that causes a party to be truly in cognitive of the basic marital
covenants that concomitantly must be assumed and discharged by the parties to
the marriage which (Art. 68), include their mutual obligations to live together,
observe love, respect and fidelity and render help and support.

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. This psychological condition must exist at the time the marriage is
celebrated.

The SC also notes that psychological incapacity must be characterized by (a)

gravity, (b) juridical antecedence, and c) incurability. The incapacity must be grave
or serious such that the party would be incapable of carrying out the ordinary
duties required in marriage; it must be rooted in the history of the party
antedating the marriage, although the overt manifestations may emerge only after
the marriage; and it must be incurable or, even if it were otherwise, the cure would
be beyond the means of the party involved.

In the case at bar, although Leouel stands aggrieved, his petition must be
dismissed because the alleged psychological incapacity of his wife is not clearly
shown by the factual settings presented. The factual settings do not come close to
to the standard required to decree a nullity

6
GONZALES, RINO GEM V.
PFL-1JD-A
Sep. 13, 2024

Tsoi Chi Ming vs. C. A

GR NO. 119190
January 16, 1997

Facts:

Ching married Gina on May 22, 1988 at the Manila Cathedral, Intramuros, Manila
as evidenced by their marriage contract. After the celebration they had a reception
and then proceeded to the house of the Ching Ming Tsoi's mother. There they slept
together on the same bed in the same room for the first night of their married life.

Gina's Testimony: that contrary to her expectations that as newlyweds they were
supposed to enjoy making love that night of their marriage, or having sexual
intercourse, with each other, Ching however just went to bed, slept on one side and
then turned his back and went to sleep.

There was no sexual intercourse between them that night. The same thing
happened on the second, third and fourth nights. In an effort to have their
honeymoon in a private place where they can enjoy together during their first
week as husband and wife they went to Baguio City.

But they did so together with Ching's mother, uncle and nephew as they were all
invited by her husband. There was no sexual intercourse between them for four
days in Baguio since Ching avoided her by taking a long walk during siesta time or
by just sleeping on a rocking chair located at the living room. They slept together
in the same room and on the same bed since May 22, 1988 (day of their marriage)
until March 15, 1989 (ten months). But during this period there was no attempt of
sexual intercourse between them. Gina claims that she did not even see her
husband's private parts, nor did he see hers. Because of this, they submitted
themselves for medical examinations to Dr. Eufemio Macalalag. Results were that
Gina is healthy, normal and still a virgin while Ching's examination was kept
confidential up to this time.

The Gina claims that her husband is impotent, a closet homosexual as he did not
show his penis. She said she had observed him using an eyebrow pencil and
sometimes the cleansing cream of his mother. She also said her husband only
married her to acquire or maintain his residency status here in the country and to
publicly maintain the appearance of a normal man Ching's version: he claims that
if their marriage shall be annulled by reason of psyc hological incapacity, the fault
lies with Gina. He does not want their marriage annulled for reasons of (1) that he
loves her very much (2) that he has no defect on his part and he is physically and
psychologically capable (3) since the relationship is still very young and if there is
any differences between the two of them, it can still be reconciled and that
according to him, if either one of them has some incapabilities, there is no
certainty that this will not be cured. Ching admitted that since his marriage to
Gina there was no sexual contact between them. But, the reason for this, according
to the defendant, was that everytime he wants to have sexual intercourse with his
wife, she always avoided him and whenever he caresses her private parts, she
always removed his hands.

Issue:

Whether or not Ching is psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential

marital obligations of marriage

Ruling:

The Supreme Court affirmed the decisions of the trial court and Court of Appeals
in rendering as VOID the marriage entered by Ching and Gina on May 22, 1988.
No costs.

Ratio:

7
GONZALES, RINO GEM V.
PFL-1JD-A
Sep. 13, 2024
The Supreme Court held that the prolonged refusal of a spouse to have sexual
intercourse with his or her spouse is considered a sign of psychological incapacity.
If a spouse, although physically capable but simply refuses to perform his or her
essential marriage obligations, and the refusal is senseless and constant, Catholic
marriage tribunals attribute the causes to psychological incapacity than to
stubborn refusal. Senseless and protracted refusal is equivalent to psychological
incapacity. One of the essential marital obligations under the Family Code is "to
procreate children based on the universal principle that procreation of children
through sexual cooperation is the basic end of marriage." Constant non-fulfillment
of this obligation will finally destroy the integrity or wholeness of the marriage. In
the case at bar, the senseless and protracted refusal of one of the parties to fulfill
this marital obligation is equivalent to psychological incapacity. While the law
provides that the husband and the wife are obliged to live together, observer
mutual love, respect and fidelity, the sanction therefore is actually the

"spontaneous, mutual affection between husband and wife and not any legal
mandate or court order (Cuaderno vs. Cuaderno, 120 Phil. 1298). Love is useless
unless it is shared with another.

Indeed, no man is an island, the cruelest act of a partner in marriage is to say "I
could not have

cared less." This is so because an ungiven self is an unfulfilled self. The egoist has
nothing but himself. In the natural order, it is sexual intimacy that brings spouses
wholeness and oneness.

Sexual intimacy is a gift and a participation in the mystery of creation. It is a

function which enlivens the hope of procreation and ensures the continuation of
family relations.

8
GONZALES, RINO GEM V.
PFL-1JD-A
Sep. 13, 2024

Marcos vs. Marcos

October 19, 2000
G.R. No. 136490

Facts:

The case involves Petitioner, Brenda B. Marcos, and Respondent, Wilson G.

Marcos. Both parties were former military personnel: Brenda joined the Women's
Auxiliary Corps in 1978, and Wilson joined the Armed Forces in 1973. After the
EDSA Revolution, both left the military.

Afterwards, they were married twice: once on September 6, 1982, in Pasig City,
and again on May 8, 1983, in Malacañang Park, Manila. They have five children
outside their marriage.

Relationship issues arose due to Wilson's unstable employment and incidents of

physical abuse. Brenda filed for nullity of marriage based on Wilson's psychological
incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code. To which, the RTC granted and
declared the marriage null and void.

The Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the RTC's decision, declaring the marriage
valid since Wilson’s Psychological Incapacity was not verified. Brenda's motion for
reconsideration was denied by the CA, leading to a petition for review on certiorari
before the Supreme Court.

Issue:

Whether the CA could set aside the findings of the RTC due to the respondent’s
refusal to psychological examination.

Ruling:

NO. “We agree with petitioner that the personal medical or psychological
examination of respondent is not a requirement for a declaration of psychological
incapacity. Nevertheless, the totality of the evidence she presented does not show
such incapacity.”

Ratio:

A personal medical or psychological examination is not mandatory to declare

psychological incapacity.

The totality of evidence must be sufficient to establish psychological incapacity.

The evidence presented, including testimonies and psychological evaluations based

on interviews with Brenda, was insufficient to prove Wilson's psychological
incapacity.

9
GONZALES, RINO GEM V.
PFL-1JD-A
Sep. 13, 2024

Te vs. Te
February 13, 2009
G.R. No. 161793

Facts:

Edward Kenneth Ngo Te, the petitioner, and Rowena Ong Gutierrez Yu-Te, the
respondent. They met at a college gathering organized by a Filipino-Chinese
association. Petitioner was attracted to Respondent's friend but eventually courted
the Respondent.

Respondent suggested they elope; despite Petitioner's reluctance, they sailed to

Cebu. Their funds quickly depleted, and they returned to Manila, the Petitioner
went to his parents’ home while the Respondent went to her uncle.

Respondent's uncle brought them to court to have the married, He was then 25
years old, and she, 20. Under coercive circumstances they stayed with her uncle.
Petitioner was treated like a prisoner and eventually escaped and hid.

Petitioner filed a petition for annulment, citing Respondent's psychological

incapacity. The clinical psychologist who examined petitioner found both parties
psychologically incapacitated. To which the RTC declared the marriage null and
void on, based on the psychological incapacity of both parties.

The CA reversed this decision, stating that the psychological incapacity was not
sufficiently proven, and it ruled that petitioner failed to prove the psychological
incapacity of respondent. The clinical psychologist did not personally examine
respondent and relied only on the information provided by petitioner. They also
noted procedural lapses, such as the lack of a certification from the OSG.

Petitioner then filed a petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court.

Issue:

Whether the marriage was Valid

Ruling:

NO. The frantic romance between the parties lasted roughly six months. They got
together in January 1996, eloped in March, said their vows in May, and split up in
June. Both parties were determined to be psychologically handicapped by the
psychologist who gave expert testimony. The respondent's conduct pattern is
classified as narcissistic and antisocial personality disorder, while the petitioner's
behavior pattern is classified as dependent personality disorder.

The SC GRANTED the petition for review on certiorari. And reversed and set aside
the CA's decision.

Ratio:

By definition of Article 36, experts' opinions regarding the parties' mental and
psychological dispositions must be taken into consideration as crucial evidence,
even if courts bear the major responsibility and duty of making decisions.

10
GONZALES, RINO GEM V.
PFL-1JD-A
Sep. 13, 2024

Tan-Andal vs. Andal

G. R. No. 196359
May 11, 2021

Facts:

On December 16, 1995, Mario Victor M. Andal (Mario) and Rosanna L. Tan
(Rosanna) celebrated the knot. Rosanna gave birth to Ma. Samantha, the only child
of the parties.

Rosanna claims that Mario was exceedingly angry and temperamental before to
their marriage. She had also noticed at the start of their marriage that Mario is
emotionally immature, irresponsible, impatient, and psychologically unstable.
Mario would also leave their home for several days without notifying Rosanna of
his location, and when he returned, he refused to go out and slept for days. When
Rosanna confronted Mario about his erratic conduct, she discovered that he was
using drugs. Mario promised to quit using it, but he didn't fulfill his word.

Rosanna then petitioned the RTC to voluntarily commit Mario to drug

rehabilitation at the National Bureau of Investigation Treatment and Rehabilitation
Center, and later at the Seagulls Flight Foundation. Mario escaped from Seagulls
on February 14, 2000, but was recommitted and remained there until December
24, 2000, when the rehabilitation institution discharged him without completing
his recovery program.

Rosanna and Mario had split up and no longer lived together after Mario's
premature release from the rehabilitation center. Mario also failed to assist
Rosanna and Ma. Samantha. Rosanna filed a Petition for Annulment of Marriage to
the RTC.

To demonstrate Mario's psychological incapacity, Rosanna invited Dr. Valentina Del

Fonso Garcia (Dr. Garcia), a physician-psychiatrist, as an expert witness. Dr. Garcia
classified him with narcissistic antisocial personality disorder and substance use
disorder with psychotic symptoms. Mario's narcissistic antisocial personality
disorder, which Dr. Garcia determined to be severe, with legal precedent, and
incurable, reportedly left him psychologically incapable of fulfilling his essential
marital obligations to Rosanna. Dr. Garcia testified that Mario's personality issue
was severe and "deeply rooted" in his character.

The RTC granted her petition to which the CA reversed on Mario’s petition, due to
Dr. Garcia's psychiatric evaluation of Mario to be "unscientific and unreliable"

Issue:

Whether or not psychological incapacity needs to be medically or clinically

identified.

Ruling:

NO. the Court now categorically abandons the second Molina guideline.
Psychological incapacity is neither a mental incapacity nor a personality disorder
that must be proven through expert opinion. There must be proof, however, of the
durable or enduring aspects of a person’s personality, called “personality
structure,” which manifests itself through clear acts of dysfunctionality that
undermines the family. The spouse’s personality structure must make it impossible
for him or her to understand and, more important, to comply with his or her
essential marital obligations.

In light of the aforementioned, the Court determines that Mario is psychologically

unable to fulfill his fundamental marital duties. Rosanna met the standard of proof
needed to declare her marriage to Mario void. The testimony regarding Mario's
personality structure and how it was established primarily via his childhood and

11
GONZALES, RINO GEM V.
PFL-1JD-A
Sep. 13, 2024
adult experiences, far before he married Rosanna, constituted the most clear and
convincing proof of Mario's psychological incapacity. Together with Rosanna's
testimony, Dr. Garcia described how Mario acquired characteristics that
demonstrated his innate psychological inability to fulfill his fundamental marital
duties, including persistent irresponsibility, impulsivity, a lack of true regret, a lack
of empathy, and an entitlement complex.

Ratio:

It was in Molina where this Court laid down the guidelines for interpreting and
applying Article 36. Under the second guideline in Molina, the root cause of the
psychological incapacity must be (a) medically or clinically identified, (b) alleged in
the complaint, (c) sufficiently proven by experts and (d) clearly explained in the
decision.

In Santos vs. Court of Appeals (“Santos”) the term psychological incapacity” was
first defined as a “mental (not physical) incapacity” to comply with the essential
marital obligations. “Psychological incapacity” must refer to “the most serious
cases of personality disorders clearly demonstrative of an utter insensitivity or
inability to give meaning and significance to the marriage.” In the past, the Court
was inconsistent in requiring expert evidence in psychological incapacity cases.
Not all cases promulgated after Marcos required the totality of evidence rule.

12