EN BANC

[ GR No. 112019, Jan 04, 1995 ]

LEOUEL SANTOS v. CA +

DECISION

310 Phil. 21

VITUG, J.:
Concededly a highly, if not indeed the most likely, controversial provision introduced by the
Family Code is Article 36 (as amended by E.O. No. 227 dated 17 July 1987), which declares:

"Article 36. A marriage contracted by any party who, at the time of the celebration, was
psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential marital obligations of marriage
shall likewise be void even if such incapacity becomes manifest only after its solemnization."

The present petition for review on certiorari, at the instance of Leouel Santos ("Leouel"), brings
into fore the above provision which is now invoked by him. Undaunted by the decisions of the
court a quo [1] and the Court of Appeals, [2] Leouel persists in beseeching its application in his
attempt to have his marriage with herein private respondent, Julia Rosario Bedia-Santos ("Julia"),
declared a nullity.

It was in Iloilo City where Leouel, who then held the rank of First Lieutenant in the Philippine
Army, first met Julia. The meeting later proved to be an eventful day for Leouel and Julia. On 20
September 1986, the two exchanged vows before Municipal Trial Court Judge Cornelio G. Lazaro
of Iloilo City, followed, shortly thereafter, by a church wedding. Leouel and Julia lived with the
latter's parents at the J. Bedia Compound, La Paz, Iloilo City. On 18 July 1987, Julia gave birth to a
baby boy, and he was christened Leouel Santos, Jr. The ecstasy, however, did not last long. It was
bound to happen, Leouel averred, because of the frequent interference by Julia's parents into the
young spouses' family affairs. Occasionally, the couple would also start a "quarrel" over a number
of other things, like when and where the couple should start living independently from Julia's
parents or whenever Julia would express resentment on Leouel's spending a few days with his own
parents.

On 18 May 1988, Julia finally left for the United States of America to work as a nurse despite
Leouel's pleas to so dissuade her. Seven months after her departure, or on 01 January 1989, Julia
called up Leouel for the first time by long distance telephone. She promised to return home upon
the expiration of her contract in July 1989. She never did. When Leouel got a chance to visit the
United States, where he underwent a training program under the auspices of the Armed Forces of
the Philippines from 10 April up to 25 August 1990, he desperately tried to locate, or to somehow
get in touch with, Julia but all his efforts were of no avail.

Having failed to get Julia to somehow 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

1|P age
Code" (docketed, Civil Case No. 9814). Summons was served by publication in a newspaper of
general circulation in Negros Oriental.

On 31 May 1991, respondent Julia, in her answer (through counsel), opposed the complaint and
denied its allegations, claiming, in main, that it was the petitioner who had, in fact, been
irresponsible and incompetent.

A possible collusion between the parties to obtain a decree of nullity of their marriage was ruled
out by the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor (in its report to the court).

On 25 October 1991, after pre-trial conferences had repeatedly been set, albeit unsuccessfully, by
the court, Julia ultimately filed a manifestation, stating that she would neither appear nor submit
evidence.

On 06 November 1991, the court a quo finally dismissed the complaint for lack of merit. [3]

Leouel appealed to the Court of Appeals. The latter affirmed the decision of the trial court. [4]

The petition should be denied not only because of its non-compliance with Circular 28-91, which
requires a certification of non-forum shopping, but also for its lack of merit.

Leouel argues that the failure of Julia to return home, or at the very least to communicate with
him, for more than five years are circumstances that clearly show her being psychologically
incapacitated to enter into married life. In his own words, Leouel asserts:

"x x x (T)here is no love, there is no affection for (him) because respondent Julia Rosario
Bedia-Santos failed all these years to communicate with the petitioner. A wife who does not
care to inform her husband about her whereabouts for a period of five years, more or less, is
psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential marital obligations of marriage.
Respondent Julia Rosario Bedia-Santos is one such wife."

The Family Code did not define the term "psychological incapacity." The deliberations during the
sessions of the Family Code Revision Committee, which has drafted the Code, can, however,
provide an insight on the import of the provision.

"'Article 35 - The following marriages shall be void from the beginning:

'xxx xxx xxx.

'Article 36 - x x x

'(7) Those marriages contracted by any party who, at the time of the celebration, was
wanting in the sufficient use of reason or judgment to understand the essential nature of
marriage or was psychologically or mentally incapacitated to discharge the essential marital
obligations, even if such lack of incapacity is made manifest after the celebration.'

"On subparagraph (7), which as lifted from the Canon Law, Justice (Jose B.L.) Reyes
suggested that they say 'wanting in sufficient use' instead of 'wanting in the sufficient use,'
but Justice (Eduardo) Caguioa preferred to say 'wanting in the sufficient use.' On the other
hand, Justice Reyes proposed that they say 'wanting in sufficient reason.' Justice Caguioa,
however, pointed out that the idea is that one is not lacking in judgment but that he is
lacking in the exercise of judgment. He added that lack of judgment would make the
marriage voidable. Judge (Alicia Sempio ) Diy remarked that lack of judgment is more
serious than insufficient use of judgment and yet the latter would make the marriage null

2|P age
 and void and the former only voidable. Justice Caguioa suggested that subparagraph (7) be
modified to read:

"'That contracted by any party who, at the time of the celebration, was psychologically or
mentally incapacitated to discharge the essential marital obligations, even if such lack or
incapacity is made manifest after the celebration.'

"Justice Caguioa explained that the phrase 'was wanting in sufficient use of reason or
judgment to understand the essential nature of marriage' refers to defects in the mental
faculties vitiating consent, which is not the idea in subparagraph (7), but lack of
appreciation of one's marital obligations.

"Judge Diy raised the question: Since 'insanity' is also a psychological or mental incapacity,
why is 'insanity' only a ground for annulment and not for declaration of nullity? In reply,
Justice Caguioa explained that in insanity, there is the appearance of consent, which is the
reason why it is a ground for voidable marriages, while subparagraph (7) does not refer to
consent but to the very essence of marital obligations.

"Prof. (Araceli) Baviera suggested that, in subparagraph (7), the word 'mentally' be deleted,
with which Justice Caguioa concurred. Judge Diy, however, preferred to retain the word
'mentally.'

"Justice Caguioa remarked that subparagraph (7) refers to psychological impotence. Justice
(Ricardo) Puno stated that sometimes a person may be psychologically impotent with one
but not with another. Justice (Leonor Ines-) Luciano said that it is called selective
impotency.

"Dean (Fortunato) Gupit stated that the confusion lies in the fact that in inserting the Canon
Law annulment in the Family Code, the Committee used a language which describes a
ground for voidable marriages under the Civil Code. Justice Caguioa added that in Canon
Law, there are no voidable marriages. Dean Gupit said that this is precisely the reason why
they should make a distinction.

"Justice Puno remarked that in Canon Law, the defects in marriage cannot be cured.

"Justice Reyes pointed out that the problem is: Why is 'insanity' a ground for voidable
marriage, while 'psychological or mental incapacity' is a ground for void ab initio
marriages? In reply, Justice Caguioa explained that insanity is curable and there are lucid
intervals, while psychological incapacity is not.

"On another point, Justice Puno suggested that the phrase 'even if such lack or incapacity is
made manifest' be modified to read 'even if such lack or incapacity becomes manifest.'

"Justice Reyes remarked that in insanity, at the time of the marriage, it is not apparent.

"Justice Caguioa stated that there are two interpretations of the phrase 'psychologically or
mentally incapacitated' -- in the first one, there is vitiation of consent because one does not
know all the consequences of the marriages, and if he had known these completely, he
might not have consented to the marriage.

"xxx xxx xxx

"Prof. Bautista stated that he is in favor of making psychological incapacity a ground for
voidable marriages since otherwise it will encourage one who really understood the
consequences of marriage to claim that he did not and to make excuses for invalidating the
3|P age
 marriage by acting as if he did not understand the obligations of marriage. Dean Gupit
added that it is a loose way of providing for divorce.

"xxx xxx xxx

"Justice Caguioa explained that his point is that in the case of incapacity by reason of
defects in the mental faculties, which is less than insanity, there is a defect in consent and,
therefore, it is clear that it should be a ground for voidable marriage because there is the
appearance of consent and it is capable of convalidation for the simple reason that there are
lucid intervals and there are cases when the insanity is curable. He emphasized that
psychological incapacity does not refer to mental faculties and has nothing to do with
consent; it refers to obligations attendant to marriage.

"xxx xxx xxx

"On psychological incapacity, Prof. (Flerida Ruth P.) Romero inquired if they do not
consider it as going to the very essence of consent. She asked if they are really removing it
from consent. In reply, Justice Caguioa explained that, ultimately, consent in general is
affected but he stressed that his point is that it is not principally a vitiation of consent since
there is a valid consent. He objected to the lumping together of the validity of the marriage
celebration and the obligations attendant to marriage, which are completely different from
each other, because they require a different capacity, which is eighteen years of age, for
marriage but in contract, it is different. Justice Puno, however, felt that psychological
incapacity is still a kind of vice of consent and that it should not be classified as a voidable
marriage which is incapable of convalidation; it should be convalidated but there should be
no prescription. In other words, as long as the defect has not been cured, there is always a
right to annul the marriage and if the defect has been really cured, it should be a defense in
the action for annulment so that when the action for annulment is instituted, the issue can
be raised that actually, although one might have been psychologically incapacitated, at the
time the action is brought, it is no longer true that he has no concept of the consequence of
marriage.

"Prof. (Esteban) Bautista raised the question: Will not cohabitation be a defense? In
response, Justice Puno stated that even the bearing of children and cohabitation should not
be a sign that psychological incapacity has been cured.

"Prof. Romero opined that psychological incapacity is still insanity of a lesser degree.
Justice Luciano suggested that they invite a psychiatrist, who is the expert on this matter.
Justice Caguioa, however, reiterated that psychological incapacity is not a defect in the
mind but in the understanding of the consequences of marriage, and therefore, a
psychiatrist will not be a help.

"Prof. Bautista stated that, in the same manner that there is a lucid interval in insanity,
there are also momentary periods when there is an understanding of the consequences of
marriage. Justice Reyes and Dean Gupit remarked that the ground of psychological
incapacity will not apply if the marriage was contracted at the time when there is
understanding of the consequences of marriage. [5]

"xxx xxx xxx

"Judge Diy proposed that they include physical incapacity to copulate among the grounds
for void marriages. Justice Reyes commented that in some instances the impotence is only
temporary and only with respect to a particular person. Judge Diy stated that they can
specify that it is incurable. Justice Caguioa remarked that the term 'incurable' has a
different meaning in law and in medicine. Judge Diy stated that 'psychological incapacity'
4|P age
 can also be cured. Justice Caguioa, however, pointed out that 'psychological incapacity' is
incurable.

"Justice Puno observed that under the present draft provision, it is enough to show that at
the time of the celebration of the marriage, one was psychologically incapacitated so that
later on if already he can comply with the essential marital obligations, the marriage is still
void ab initio. Justice Caguioa explained that since in divorce, the psychological incapacity
may occur after the marriage, in void marriages, it has to be at the time of the celebration of
marriage. He, however, stressed that the idea in the provision is that at the time of the
celebration of the marriage, one is psychologically incapacitated to comply with the
essential marital obligations, which incapacity continues and later becomes manifest.

"Justice Puno and Judge Diy, however, pointed out that it is possible that after the
marriage, one's psychological incapacity becomes manifest but later on he is cured. Justice
Reyes and Justice Caguioa opined that the remedy in this case is to allow him to remarry. [6]

"xxx xxx xxx

"Justice Puno formulated the next Article as follows:

"'Article 37. A marriage contracted by any party who, at the time of the celebration, was
psychologically incapacitated, to comply with the essential obligations of marriage shall
likewise be void from the beginning even if such incapacity becomes manifest after its
solemnization.'

"Justice Caguioa suggested that 'even if' be substituted with 'although.' On the other hand,
Prof. Bautista proposed that the clause 'although such incapacity becomes manifest after its
solemnization' be deleted since it may encourage one to create the manifestation of
psychological incapacity. Justice Caguioa pointed out that, as in other provisions, they
cannot argue on the basis of abuse.

"Judge Diy suggested that they also include mental and physical incapacities, which are
lesser in degree than psychological incapacity. Justice Caguioa explained that mental and
physical incapacities are vices of consent while psychological incapacity is not a species of
vice of consent.

"Dean Gupit read what Bishop Cruz said on the matter in the minutes of their February 9,
1984 meeting:

"'On the third ground, Bishop Cruz indicated that the phrase 'psychological or mental
impotence' is an invention of some churchmen who are moralists but not canonists, that is
why it is considered a weak phrase. He said that the Code of Canon Law would rather
express it as 'psychological or mental incapacity to discharge . . . '

"Justice Caguioa remarked that they deleted the word 'mental' precisely to distinguish it
from vice of consent. He explained that 'psychological incapacity' refers to lack of
understanding of the essential obligations of marriage.

"Justice Puno reminded the members that, at the last meeting, they have decided not to go
into the classification of 'psychological incapacity' because there was a lot of debate on it
and that this is precisely the reason why they classified it as a special case.

"At this point, Justice Puno remarked that, since there have been annulments of marriages

5|P age
 arising from psychological incapacity, Civil Law should not reconcile with Canon Law
because it is a new ground even under Canon Law.

"Prof. Romero raised the question: With this common provision in Civil Law and in Canon
Law, are they going to have a provision in the Family Code to the effect that marriages
annulled or declared void by the church on the ground of psychological incapacity is
automatically annulled in Civil Law? The other members replied negatively.

"Justice Puno and Prof. Romero inquired if Article 37 should be retroactive or prospective
in application.

"Judge Diy opined that she was for its retroactivity because it is their answer to the problem
of church annulments of marriages, which are still valid under the Civil Law. On the other
hand, Justice Reyes and Justice Puno were concerned about the avalanche of cases.

"Dean Gupit suggested that they put the issue to a vote, which the Committee approved.

"The members voted as follows:

"(1) Justice Reyes, Justice Puno and Prof. Romero were for prospectivity.

"(2) Justice Caguioa, Judge Diy, Dean Gupit, Prof. Bautista and Director Eufemio were for
retroactivity.

"(3) Prof. Baviera abstained.

"Justice Caguioa suggested that they put in the prescriptive period of ten years within which
the action for declaration of nullity of the marriage should be filed in court. The Committee
approved the suggestion. [7]

It could well be that, in sum, the Family Code Revision Committee in ultimately deciding to adopt
the provision with less specificity than expected, has, in fact, so designed the law as to allow some
resiliency in its application. Mme. Justice Alicia V. Sempio-Diy, a member of the Code Committee,
has been quoted by Mr. Justice Josue N. Bellosillo in Salita vs. Hon. Magtolis (G.R. No. 106429, 13
June 1994); thus: [8]

"The Committee did not give any examples of psychological incapacity for fear that the giving of
examples would limit the applicability of the provision under the principle of ejusdem generis.
Rather, the Committee would like the judge to 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 which, although not binding on the civil courts, may be given
persuasive effect since the provision was taken from Canon Law.

A part of the provision is similar to Canon 1095 of the New Code of Canon Law, [9] which reads:

"Canon 1095. They are incapable of contracting marriage:

1. who lack sufficient use of reason;

2. who suffer from a grave defect of discretion of judgment concerning essential

3. who for causes of psychological nature are unable to assume the essential obligations of
marriage." (Underscoring supplied.)

6|P age
Accordingly, although neither decisive nor even perhaps all that persuasive for having no juridical
or secular effect, the jurisprudence under Canon Law prevailing at the time of the code's
enactment, nevertheless, cannot be dismissed as impertinent for its value as an aid, at least, to the
interpretation or construction of the codal provision.

One author, Ladislas Orsy, S.J., in his treatise, [10] giving an account on how the third paragraph of
Canon 1095 has been framed, states:

"The history of the drafting of this canon does not leave any doubt that the legislator
intended, indeed, to broaden the rule. A strict and narrow norm was proposed first:

'Those who cannot assume the essential obligations of marriage because of a grave psycho-
sexual anomaly (ob gravem anomaliam psychosexualem) are unable to contract marriage
(cf. SCH/ 1975, canon 297, a new canon, novus);

then a broader one followed:

'...because of a grave psychological anomaly (ob gravem anomaliam psychicam)...' (cf. SCH/
1980, canon 1049);

then the same wording was retained in the text submitted to the pope (cf. SCH/ 1982, canon
1095, 3);

finally, a new version was promulgated:

'because of causes of a psychological nature (ob causas naturae psychiae)'.

"So the progress was from psycho-sexual to psychological anomaly, then the term anomaly
was altogether eliminated. It would be, however, incorrect to draw the conclusion that the
cause of the incapacity need not be some kind of psychological disorder; after all, normal
and healthy person should be able to assume the ordinary obligations of marriage."

Fr. Orsy concedes that the term "psychological incapacity" defies any precise definition
since psychological causes can be of an infinite variety.

In a book, entitled "Canons and Commentaries on Marriage," written by Ignatius Gramunt, Javier
Hervada and LeRoy Wauck, the following explanation appears:

"This incapacity consists of the following: (a) a true inability to commit oneself to the
essentials of marriage. Some psychosexual disorders and other disorders of personality can
be the psychic cause of this defect, which is here described in legal terms. This particular
type of incapacity consists of a real inability to render what is due by the contract. This
could be compared to the incapacity of a farmer to enter a binding contract to deliver the
crops which he cannot possibly reap; (b) this inability to commit oneself must refer to the
essential obligations of marriage: the conjugal act, the community of life and love, the
rendering of mutual help, the procreation and education of offspring; (c) the inability must
be tantamount to a psychological abnormality. The mere difficulty of assuming these
obligations, which could be overcome by normal effort, obviously does not constitute
incapacity. The canon contemplates a true psychological disorder which incapacitates a
person from giving what is due (cf. John Paul II, Address to R. Rota, Feb. 5, 1987).
However, if the marriage is to be declared invalid under this incapacity, it must be proved
not only that the person is afflicted by a psychological defect, but that the defect did in fact
deprive the person, at the moment of giving consent, of the ability to assume the essential
duties of marriage and consequently of the possibility of being bound by these duties."
7|P age
Justice Sempio-Diy [11] cites with approval the work of Dr. Gerardo Veloso, a former Presiding
Judge of the Metropolitan Marriage Tribunal of the Catholic Archdiocese of Manila (Branch I),
who opines 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.

It should be obvious, looking at all the foregoing disquisitions, including, and most importantly,
the deliberations of the Family Code Revision Committee itself, that the use of the phrase
"psychological incapacity" under Article 36 of the Code has not been meant to comprehend all such
possible cases of psychoses as, likewise mentioned by some ecclesiastical authorities, extremely
low intelligence, immaturity, and like circumstances (cited in Fr. Artemio Baluma's "Void and
Voidable Marriages in the Family Code and their Parallels in Canon Law," quoting from the
Diagnostic Statistical Manual of Mental Disorder by the American Psychiatric Association; Edward
Hudson's "Handbook II for Marriage Nullity Cases"). Article 36 of the Family Code cannot be
taken and construed independently of, but must stand in conjunction with, existing precepts in our
law on marriage. Thus correlated, "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. There is hardly any doubt that 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 psychologic condition must exist at the time
the marriage is celebrated. The law does not evidently envision, upon the other hand, an inability
of the spouse to have sexual relations with the other. This conclusion is implicit under Article 54 of
the Family Code which considers children conceived prior to the judicial declaration of nullity of
the void marriage to be "legitimate."

The other forms of psychoses, if existing at the inception of marriage, like the state of a party being
of unsound mind or concealment of drug addiction, habitual alcoholism, homosexuality or
lesbianism, merely renders the marriage contract voidable pursuant to Article 46, Family Code. If
drug addiction, habitual alcoholism, lesbianism or homosexuality should occur only during the
marriage, they become mere grounds for legal separation under Article 55 of the Family Code.
These provisions of the Code, however, do not necessarily preclude the possibility of these various
circumstances being themselves, depending on the degree and severity of the disorder, indicia of
psychological incapacity.

Until further statutory and jurisprudential parameters are established, every circumstance that
may have some bearing on the degree, extent, and other conditions of that incapacity must, in
every case, be carefully examined and evaluated so that no precipitate and indiscriminate nullity is
peremptorily decreed. The well-considered opinions of psychiatrists, psychologists, and persons
with expertise in psychological disciplines might be helpful or even desirable.

Marriage is not just an adventure but a lifetime commitment. We should continue to be reminded
that innate in our society, then enshrined in our Civil Code, and even now still indelible in Article 1
of the Family Code, is that –

"Article 1. Marriage is a special contract of permanent union between a man and a woman
entered into in accordance with law for the establishment of conjugal and family life. It is
the foundation of the family and an inviolable social institution whose nature,
consequences, and incidents are governed by law and not subject to stipulation, except that
8|P age
 marriage settlements may fix the property relations during the marriage within the limits
provided by this Code." (Underscoring supplied.)

Our Constitution is no less emphatic:

"Section 1. The State recognizes the Filipino family as the foundation of the nation.
Accordingly, it shall strengthen its solidarity and actively promote its total development.

"Section 2. Marriage, as an inviolable social institution, is the foundation of the family and
shall be protected by the State." (Article XV, 1987 Constitution).

The above provisions express so well and so distinctly the basic nucleus of our laws on marriage
and the family, and they are no doubt the tenets we still hold on to.

The factual settings in the case at bench, in no measure at all, can come close to the standards
required to decree a nullity of marriage. 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.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, C.J., Bidin, Regalado, Davide, Jr., Romero, Bellosillo, Melo, Quaison, Puno,
Kapunan, and Mendoza, JJ., concur. Padilla, J., dissenting opinion. Feliciano, J., on leave.

[1] Per Judge Enrique Garrovillo.

[3] Rollo, 37-42.

[4] Rollo, 13-18.

[5] Deliberations of the Family Code Revision Committee, July 26, 1986.

[6] Deliberations of the Family Code Revision Committee, August 2, 1986.

[7] Deliberations of the Family Code Revision Committee, August 9, 1986.

[8] In her "Handbook on the Family Code."

[9] Marriage in Canon Law, Delaware: Michael Glazier, Inc., 1986, 129-130; C 109

Sunt incapaces matrimonii contrahendi:

1. qui sufficiente rationis usu carent;

2. qui laborant gravi defectu discretionis iudicii circa iura et official matrimonialia essentialia mutuo
tradenda et acceptanda;

3. qui ob causas naturae psychicae obligationes matrimonii essentiales assumere non valent.

[10] Ibid., 131-132.

[11] Handbook on the Family Code, First Edition, 1988.