320 SCRA 76, December 08, 1999, J. Mendoza

FACTS OF THE CASE:

Lucita Estrella married Mario Hernandez on January 1, 1981 adn they begot three (3) children. On July 10, 1992, Lucita filed before the RTC of Tagaytay City, a petition for annulment of marriage under Article 36 alleging that from the time of their marriage, Mario failed to perform his obligation to support the family, devoting most of this time drinking, had affairs with many women and cohabiting with another women with whom he had an illegitimate child, and finally abandoning her and the family.

The RTC dismissed the petition which was affirmed by the CA.

ISSUE:

Whether there was psychological incapacity under Article. 36

RULING:

Petitioner failed to establish the fact that at the time they were married, private respondent was suffering from a psychological defect which in fact deprived him of the ability to assume the essential duties of marriage and its concomitant responsibilities. As the Court of Appeals pointed out, no evidence was presented to show that private respondent was not cognizant of the basic marital obligations. It was not sufficiently proved that  private respondent was really incapable of fulfilling his duties due to some incapacity of a psychological nature, and not merely physical.

Private respondent’s alleged habitual alcoholism, sexual infidelity or perversion, and abandonment do not by themselves constitute ground for finding that he is suffering from a psychological incapacity within the contemplation of the Family Code. It must e shown that these facts are manifestations of a discolored personality which make private respondent completely unable to discharge the essential obligations of the marital state, and not merely due to private respondent’s youth and self-conscious feeling of being handsome, as the appellate court held.

Judgment AFFIRMED.

240 SCRA 20, January 4, 1995 (En Banc), J. Vitug

FACTS OF THE CASE:

Plaintiff Leouel Santos married defendant Julia Bedia on  September 20, 1986. On May 18 1988, Julia left for the U.S. She did not communicate with Leouel and did not return to the country. In 1991, Leoul filed with the RTC of Negros Oriental, a complaint for voiding the marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code of the Philippines. The RTC dismissed the complaint and the CA affirmed the dismissal.

ISSUE:

Does the failure of Julia to return home, or at the very least to communicate with him, for more than five  years constitute psychological incapacity?

RULING:

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

Pyschological incapacity must be characterized by (a) GRAVITY (b) JURIDICAL ANTECEDENCE (c) INCURABILITY

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 dischargedby the parties to the marriage which, as so expressed by Art. 68 of the Family Code, 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 mot serious cases of personality disorders clearly demonstrative of an utter insensitivity or inablity to give meaning and significance to the marriage. This psychological condition must exist at the time the marriage is celebrated.

Undeniably and understandably, Leouel stands aggrieved, even desperate, in his present situation. Regrettably, neither law nor society itself can always provide all the specific answers to every individual problem

PETITION IS DENIED.