Psychological Incapacity Salita vs.

Magtolis Facts:
1. 2. January 25, 1986 Erwin Espinosa and Joselita Salita were married They separated in 1988 and Erwin sued for annulment on the ground of Joselita s psychological incapacity

3. In the instant case, the person against whom the privilege is claimed is not one
duly authorized to practice medicine, surgery or obstetric. His testimony can t have the force and effect of the testimony of the physician who examined the

patient and executed the report. 4. Petition denied Santos v. CA Facts:

1. 2. 3. Sept 20, 1986 Leouel Santos and Julia were married Leouel then filed a complaint for void marriage under Art 36 Psychological incapacity should refer to no less than a mental or 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 expressed by Article 68 of the FC, include their mutual obligations to live together, observe love, respect and fidelity and render help and support. Psychological incapacity the most serious cases of personality disorder clearly demonstrative of an utter insensitivity or inability to give meaning and significance to the marriage. inability to comply with at least one essential marital obligation (cohabitation) But not abandonment

Issue: The sufficiency of the allegations in the petition for annulment of marriage and the subsequent bill of particulars filed in amplification of the petition
1. Petitioner argued that the assertion in the Bill of Particulars is a statement of legal conclusion made by petitioner s counsel and not an averment of ultimate facts as required by the rules of court from which such a conclusion may properly inferred Respondent believes that his allegations in the Bill of Particulars constitute the ultimate facts which the Rules of Court requires at this point Supreme court sustain the view of the respondent court of appeals that the bill of particulars filed by private respondent is sufficient to state a cause of action an to require more details from private respondent would be to ask for information on evidentiary matters To demand for more details would indeed be asking for information on evidentiary facts facts necessary to prove essential or ultimate facts. To obtain evidentiary matters is not the function of a motion for bill of particulars Whether petitioner is psychologically incapacitated should be immediately determined

2. 3.

4.

5. 6.

4.

Ching Ming Tsoi vs. CA

y y Chi Ming Tsoi and Gina Lao-Tsoi got married on May 22, 1988 No sexual intercourse between them during their first night and subsequent nights together even when they honeymooned in Baguio, Chi Ming Tsoi brought his mother along Gina claims that he is impotent, a closet homosexual as he did not show his penis. According to her, he just married her, a Fil citizen to acquire or maintain his residency status here in the country and to publicly maintain the appearance of a normal man. Chi Ming Tsoi admits he and his wife had never had sexual contact with each other In the case at bar, the senseless and protracted refusal of Chi Ming Tsoi of one of the parties to fulfill the above marital obligation is equivalent to psychological incapacity Unfulfilled vows and unconsummated marital obligations, can do no less but sustain the judgment of the respondent court

5.

Krohn vs. CA Facts:

1. The husband who initiated the annulment proceedings is testifying on a confidential psychiatric evaluation report before the trial court in a petition for annulment of marriage grounded on psychological incapacity Petitioner Maria Paz Fernandez Krohn seeks to enjoin her husband from disclosing the contents of the report since Sec 24(1), Rule 130 of the ROC prohibits physicians from testifying on matters which he may have acquired in attending to a patient in a professional capacity with more reason that a third person be prohibited from testifying on privileged matters between a physician and patient or from submitting any medical report, findings or evaluation prepared by a physician.

y y

2.

Republic vs. Olaviano-Molina Republic vs. Dagdag

y y Erlinda Matias and Avelino Parangan Dagdag were married Avelino would disappear for months and suddenly reappear for a few months then disappear again. He indulged in drinking sprees with friends. He would force his wife to submit to sexual intercourse and if she refused, he would inflict physical injuries on her. On October 1993, he left again and that was the last they heard from him. Erlinda filed with the RTC a petition for judicial declaration of nullity of marriage on the ground of psychological disorder. SC ruled that Erlinda failed to comply with the guideline No. 2 which requires that the root cause of psychological incapacity must be medically or clinically identified and sufficiently proven by experts, since no psychiatrist or medical doctor testified as to the alleged psychological incapacity of her husband.

RP vs. Quinto-Hermano

y y y

Choa v. Choa
y y y Alfonso filed a complaint for the annulment of his marriage to Leni Choa based on her alleged psychological incapacity. Leni filed complaints for perjury, false testimony, concubinage and deportation against Alfonso. He contends then that the filing and prosecution of these cases clearly showed that his wife wanted not only to put him behind bars, but also to banish him from the country. He contends that it is very abnormal for a wife, instead of protecting the name and integrity of the husband as the father of her children, had acted in the contrary. SC: NO proof of alleged psychological incapacity of wife Alfonso basically complaints about Leni s o Lack of attention to their children o Immaturity o Lack of intention to procreative sexuality Psychological incapacity must be characterized by gravity, judicial antecedence and incurability (Santos v. CA) Must be more than just difficulty, refusal or neglect in the performance of some marital obligations. The evidence adduced by respondent merely shows that he and his wife merely could not get along with each other. Lack of procreative sexuality - duhh they had 2 children Respondent s witness utterly failed to identify and prove the root cause of the alleged psychological incapacity. His testimony established merely that the spouses had an incompatibility, a defect that could possibly be treated or alleviated through psychotherapy.

y y

y y

y y