FACTS:

Chi Ming Tsoi and Gina Lao Tsoi was married in 1988. After the celebration of
their wedding, they proceed to the house of defendants mother. There was no
sexual intercourse between them during their first night and same thing
happened until their fourth night. In an effort to have their honeymoon in a
private place, they went to Baguio but Ginas relatives went with them. Again,
there was no sexual intercourse since the defendant avoided by taking a long
walk during siesta or sleeping on a rocking chair at the living room. Since May
1988 until March 1989 they slept together in the same bed but no attempt of
sexual intercourse between them. Because of this, they submitted themselves
for medical examination to a urologist in Chinese General Hospital in 1989. The
result of the physical examination of Gina was disclosed, while that of the
husband was kept confidential even the medicine prescribed. There were
allegations that the reason why Chi Ming Tsoi married her is to maintain his
residency status here in the country. Gina does not want to reconcile with Chi
Ming Tsoi and want their marriage declared void on the ground of psychological
incapacity. On the other hand, the latter does not want to have their marriage
annulled because he loves her very much, he has no defect on his part and is
physically and psychologically capable and since their relationship is still young,
they can still overcome their differences. Chi Ming Tsoi submitted himself to
another physical examination and the result was there is not evidence of
impotency and he is capable of erection.

ISSUE: Whether Chi Ming Tsois refusal to have sexual intercourse with his wife
constitutes psychological incapacity.

HELD:
The abnormal reluctance or unwillingness to consummate his marriage is
strongly indicative of a serious personality disorder which to the mind of the
Supreme Court clearly demonstrates an utter insensitivity or inability to give
meaning and significance tot the marriage within the meaning of Article 36 of
the Family Code.

If a spouse, although physically capable but simply refuses to perform his or her
essential marital obligations and the refusal is senseless and constant, Catholic
marriage tribunals attribute the causes to psychological incapacity than to
stubborn refusal. Furthermore, one of the essential marital obligations under
the Family Code is to procreate children thus constant non-fulfillment of this
obligation will finally destroy the integrity and wholeness of the marriage.
FACTS:

Leni Choa and Alfonso Choa got married in 1981. They have 2 children namely
Cheryl Lynne and Albryan. In 1993, Alfonso filed an annulment of his marriage
to Leni. Afterwards, he filed an amended complaint for the declaration of
nullity of their marriage based on psychological incapacity. The case went to
trial and the trial court further held that Alfonso presented quantum evidence
that Leni needs to controvert for the dismissal of the case.

Alfonso claimed that Leni charged him with perjury, concubinage and
deportation which shows latters psychological incapacity because according to
him it clearly showed that his wife not only wanted him behind bars but also to
banish outside the country.

ISSUE: Whether or not Alfonso Chua presented quantum evidence for the
declaration of nullity of his marriage with Leni on the ground of psychological
incapacity.

HELD:

The court held that documents presented by Alfonso during the trial of the case
do not in any way show the alleged psychological incapacity of his wife. The
evidence was insufficient and shows grave abuse of discretion bordering on
absurdity. Alfonso testified and complained about three aspects of Lenis
personality namely lack of attention to children, immaturity, and lack of an
intention of procreative sexuality and none of these three, singly or collectively,
constitutes psychological incapacity.

Psychological incapacity must be characterized by gravity, juridical antecedence,

and incurability. It must be more than just a difficulty, a refusal or a neglect in
the performance of marital obligations. A mere showing of irreconcilable
differences and conflicting personalities does not constitute psychological
incapacity.

Furthermore, the testimonial evidence from other witnesses failed to identify

and prove root cause of the alleged psychological incapacity. It just established
that the spouses had an incompatibility or a defect that could possibly be
treated or alleviated through psychotherapy. The totality of evidence presented
was completely insufficient to sustain a finding of psychological incapacity more
so without any medical, psychiatric or psychological examination
FACTS:

Petitioner Edward Te first met respondent Rowena Te in a gathering organized

by the Filipino-Chinese association in their college. Initially, he was attracted to
Rowenas close friend but, as the latter already had a boyfriend, the young man
decided to court Rowena, which happened in January 1996. It was Rowena who
asked that they elope but Edward refused bickering that he was young and
jobless. Her persistence, however, made him relent. They left Manila and
sailed to Cebu that month; he, providing their travel money of P80,000 and she,
purchasing the boat ticket.

They decided to go back to Manila in April 1996. Rowena proceeded to her

uncles house and Edward to his parents home. Eventually they got married but
without a marriage license. Edward was prohibited from getting out of the
house unaccompanied and was threatened by Rowena and her uncle. After a
month, Edward escaped from the house, and stayed with his parents. Edwards
parents wanted them to stay at their house but Rowena refused and demanded
that they have a separate abode. In June 1996, she said that it was better for
them to live separate lives and they then parted ways.

After four years in January 2000, Edward filed a petition for the annulment of
his marriage to Rowena on the basis of the latters psychological incapacity.

ISSUE: Whether the marriage contracted is void on the ground of psychological

incapacity.

HELD:
The parties whirlwind relationship lasted more or less six months. They met in
January 1996, eloped in March, exchanged marital vows in May, and parted
ways in June. The psychologist who provided expert testimony found both
parties psychologically incapacitated. Petitioners behavioral pattern falls under
the classification of dependent personality disorder, and respondents, that of
the narcissistic and antisocial personality disorder

There is no requirement that the person to be declared psychologically

incapacitated be personally examined by a physician, if the totality of evidence
presented is enough to sustain a finding of psychological incapacity. Verily, the
evidence must show a link, medical or the like, between the acts that manifest
psychological incapacity and the psychological disorder itself.

The presentation of expert proof presupposes a thorough and in-depth

assessment of the parties by the psychologist or expert, for a conclusive
diagnosis of a grave, severe and incurable presence of psychological incapacity.

Indeed, petitioner, afflicted with dependent personality disorder, cannot

assume the essential marital obligations of living together, observing love,
respect and fidelity and rendering help and support, for he is unable to make
everyday decisions without advice from others, and allows others to make most
of his important decisions (such as where to live). As clearly shown in this case,
petitioner followed everything dictated to him by the persons around him. He is
insecure, weak and gullible, has no sense of his identity as a person, has no
cohesive self to speak of, and has no goals and clear direction in life.

As for the respondent, her being afflicted with antisocial personality disorder
makes her unable to assume the essential marital obligations on account for her
disregard in the rights of others, her abuse, mistreatment and control of others
without remorse, and her tendency to blame others. Moreover, as shown in
this case, respondent is impulsive and domineering; she had no qualms in
manipulating petitioner with her threats of blackmail and of committing suicide.

Both parties being afflicted with grave, severe and incurable psychological
incapacity, the precipitous marriage that they contracted on April 23, 1996 is
thus, declared null and void
582 SCRA 694 Civil Law Family Code Article 36; Psychological Incapacity

Personal Examination by Psychologist Not a Condition Sine Qua Non

Note: This reinforced the case of Te vs Te which relaxed the application of the
Molina Guidelines.

In 1972, Benjamin Ting and Carmen Velez met each other in medical school. In
1975, they married each other.

In 1980, Benjamin became a full-fledged doctor and he practiced at the Velez

Hospital (owned by Carmens family).

Benjamin and Carmen had six children during their marriage. But after 18 years
of marriage, Carmen went to court to have their marriage be declared void on
the ground that Benjamin was psychologically incapacitated.

She alleged that even before she married Benjamin, the latter was already a
drunkard; that Benjamin was a gambler, he was violent, and would rather spend
on his expensive hobby; that he rarely stayed home and even neglected his
children and family obligations.

Carmen presented an expert witness (Dr. Pureza Trinidad-Oate) to prove

Benjamins psychological incapacity. However, Oate merely based her findings
on the deposition submitted by Benjamin. Oate was not able to personally
examine Benjamin because at that time, Benjamin was already working as an
anesthesiologist in South Africa.
On his part, Benjamin opposed the petition. He also presented his own expert
witness (Dr. Renato Obra) to disprove Carmens allegations. Obra was not able
to personally examine Benjamin but he also evaluated the same deposition
evaluated by Oate. Also, Benjamin submitted himself for evaluation to a South
African doctor (Dr. A.J.L. Pentz) and the transcript of said evaluation was
submitted to Obra and the latter also evaluated the same. Obra found Benjamin
not to be psychologically incapacitated.

The trial court, and eventually the Court of Appeals, ruled in favor of Carmen.

ISSUE: Whether or not Benjamin Tings psychological incapacity was proven.

HELD: No. The Supreme Court found the evidence presented to be lacking in
order to support a finding of psychological incapacity on the part of Benjamin.
Said the Supreme Court:

we are not condoning Benjamins drinking and gambling problems, or his violent
outbursts against his wife. There is no valid excuse to justify such a behavior.
Benjamin must remember that he owes love, respect, and fidelity to his spouse
as much as the latter owes the same to him. Unfortunately, this court finds
Carmens testimony, as well as the totality of evidence presented by Carmen, to
be too inadequate to declare Benjamin psychologically unfit pursuant to Article
36.

Carmen failed to prove that such attitude by Benjamin is psychologically rooted

so as to make Benjamin unaware of his marital obligations. It should be
remembered that the presumption is always in favor of the validity of marriage.
Anent the issue that Benjamin was not personally evaluated by the
psychologists which deviates from the Molina Guidelines, the Supreme Court
ruled that as early as the case of Te vs Te, the Molina Guidelines were already
relaxed. Cases involving Article 36 must be tried on a case-to-case basis. Each
case involving the application of Article 36 must be treated distinctly and judged
not on the basis of a priori assumptions, predilections or generalizations but
according to its own attendant facts. Courts should interpret the provision on a
case-to-case basis, guided by experience, the findings of experts and
researchers in psychological disciplines, and by decisions of church tribunals.
The Supreme Court however emphasized that the Molina case was not
abandoned, its application was merely relaxed
G.R. No. 166357 Civil Law Persons and Family Relations Family Code
Article 36; Psychological Incapacity Gambling in the Presence of Ones
Children

Testimonies of Expert Witnesses as Evaluated by the Trial Court Must Be Given

Due Consideration

Burden of Proof in Proving Psychological Incapacity Does Not Solely Lie on

Plaintiff

In 1994, Valerio Tyrone Kalaw filed a petition to have his marriage with Ma.
Elena Fernandez be annulled on the ground that Elena is psychologically
incapacitated. The RTC, after hearing the expert witnesses testify in court,
eventually granted the petition, but on appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed
the said decision. Tyrone appealed to the Supreme Court. In September 2011,
the Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the CA. Tyrone filed a motion for
reconsideration.

ISSUE: Whether or not the September 2011 decision (657 SCRA 822) should be
reversed.

HELD: Yes.

Trial courts findings of facts should be given due weight

The SC ruled that it misappreciated the findings made by the RTC when the SC
reviewed the case in September 2011. The SC ruled that the findings and
evaluation by the RTC as the trial court deserved credence because it was in the
better position to view and examine the demeanor of the witnesses while they
were testifying. The position and role of the trial judge in the appreciation of the
evidence showing the psychological incapacity were not to be downplayed but
should be accorded due importance and respect. Therefore, it was not proper
for the SC to brush aside the opinions tendered by Dr. Cristina Gates, a
psychologist, and Fr. Gerard Healy on the ground that their conclusions were
solely based on the Tyrones version of the events. The conclusions reached by
the two expert witnesses because they were largely drawn from the case
records and affidavits, and should not anymore be disputed after the RTC itself
had accepted the veracity of the Tyrones factual premises.

Respondent could also establish the psychological incapacity of the plaintiff

spouse

The plaintiff in an annulment case under Article 36 carries the burden to prove
the nullity of the marriage, however, the respondent, as the defendant spouse,
could also establish the psychological incapacity of the plaintiff spouse if the
respondent raised the matter in her/his answer. The courts are justified in
declaring a marriage null and void under Article 36 of the Family Code
regardless of whether it is the petitioner or the respondent who imputes the
psychological incapacity to the other as long as the imputation is fully
substantiated with proof. Indeed, psychological incapacity may exist in one
party alone or in both of them, and if psychological incapacity of either or both
is established, the marriage has to be deemed null and void.

Elenas excessive mahjong sessions is indicative of her psychological incapacity

In the September 2011 ruling, the SC noted that all the children of Tyrone and
Elena testified that although their parents have differences, both took good care
of them. However, upon closer look at the testimonies of the children, it was
shown that Elena was too addicted to mahjong that she would even bring her
children to her mahjong sessions which were so frequent and would last from
early in the afternoon to past midnight. The fact that the Elena brought her
children with her to her mahjong sessions did not only point to her neglect of
parental duties, but also manifested her tendency to expose them to a culture
of gambling. Her willfully exposing her children to the culture of gambling on
every occasion of her mahjong sessions was a very grave and serious act of
subordinating their needs for parenting to the gratification of her own personal
and escapist desires. This revealed her wanton disregard for her childrens
moral and mental development.

NOTE: This case is controversial as many would point that this ruling
significantly relaxed the application of Article 36 of the Family Code and would
thus make annulment of marriages easier. However, SC Spokesperson Atty. Ted
Te explained that the ruling in this Kalaw Case is exclusive to this case only. He
said, The SC did not relax in all cases the guidelines set forth in its
precedentsall of which remain and have not been overturned.