13 Republic v Dagdag REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. ERLINDA MATIAS DAGDAG, respondent.

FACTS: On September 7, 1975, Erlinda Matias married Avelino Parangan Dagdag at the Iglesia Filipina Independent Church in Cuyapo, Nueva Ecija. The marriage was issued by the Office of the Local CCivil Registrar of the Municipality of Cuyapo, Nueva Ecija on October 20, 1988. Erlinda and Avelion begot two children. Avelino would disappear for months without explanation and attend to drinking sprees with friends and return home drunk when with the family. He even forced his wife to have sexual intercourse and if she resisted, would inflict injure to the latter. On October 1993, he left his family again and that was the last they heard from him. Erlinda was constrained to look for a job to fend for themselves. Finally, Erlinda learned that Avelino was imprisoned for some crime, and that he escaped from jail who remains at-large at date. On July 3, 1990, Erlinda filed with the Regional Trial Court of Olongapo City a petition for judicial declaration of nullity of marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code. Since Avelino could not be located, summons was served by publication in the Olongapo News, a newspaper of general circulation, on September 3, 10, and 17, 1990. Subsequently , a hearing was conducted to establish jurisdictional facts and on December 17, 1190, the date set for presentation of eveidence, only Erlindan and her counsel appeared. Erlinda testified and presented her sister-in law, Virginia Dagdag, as her only witness. The trial court issued an Order for the investigating prosecutor to manifest in writing whether or not he would present controverting evidence, and stating that should he fail to file said manifestation, the case would be deemed submitted for decision. The investigating prosecutor conducted an investigation and found no collusion between the parties which he intended to intervene in the case to avoid fabrication of evidence On December 27, 1990 without waiting for the investigating prosecutor's manifestation dated December 5, 1990, the trial court rendered a decision declaring the marriage void under Artcile 36 of the Family Code. However, on January 29, 1991, the investigating prosecutor filed a Motion to Set Aside Judgement on the ground that decision was prematurely rendered since he was given until January 2, 1991 to manifest whether he was presenting controverting evidence. Likewise, the Office of the Solicitor-General filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the decision on the ground the same is not in accordance with the evidence of the law. The trial court denied the motion for Reconsideration for lack of merit. The Solicitor General appealed to the Court of Appeals raising that the lower court erred in declaring the apellee's marriage to Avelino Dagdag null and void on the ground of psychological incapacity of the latter, pursuant to Article 36 of the Family Code, the psychological incapacity of the nature contemplated by the law not having been proven to exist. However, on APril 22, 1993, the Court of

Appeals affirmed the decision of the trial court. The Solicitor-General then filed for petition in the Supreme Court alleging that the psychological incapacity of Avelino Dagdag is not of the nature contemplated by Article 36 of the Family Code.

ISSUE: Whether or not the trial court and Court of Appeals correctly declared the marriage as null and void under Artcile 36 of the Family Code, on the ground that husband suffers from psychological incapacity as he is immature and irresponsible, a habitual alcoholic, and a fugitive from justice. RULING: Yes, the trial court made an erroneous decision in the case at bar.In Republic v. Court of Appeals and Molina, the Court laid down the following GUIDELINES in the interpretation and application of Article 36 of the Family Code: (1) The burden of proof to show the nullity of the marriage belongs to the plaintiff. (2) 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. Article 36 of the Family Code requires that the incapacity must be psychological - not physical, although its manifestations and/or symptoms may be physical. (3) The incapacity must be proven to be existing at the time of the celebration of the marriage. (4) Such incapacity must also be shown to be medically or clinically permanent or incurable. Such incurability may be absolute or even relative only in regard to the other spouse, not necessarily absolutely against everyone of the same sex. (5) Such illness must be grave enough to bring about the disability of the party to assume the essential obligations of marriage. (6) The essential marital obligations must be those embraced by Articles 68 up to 71 of the Family Code as regards the husband and wife as well as Articles 220, 221 and 225 of the same Code in regard to parents and their children (7) Interpretations given by the National Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal of the Catholic Church in the Philippines, while not controlling or decisive, should be given great respect by our courts. (8) The trial court must order the prosecuting attorney or fiscal and the Solicitor General to appear as counsel for the state.

26 Marcos v Marcos Marcos v Marcos G.R. No. 136490, October 19, 2000 PROCEDURAL HISTORY: This is a petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the July 24, 1998 Decision of the Court of Appeals , reversing the previous ruling of RTC in favor of the petitioner. FACTS: Brenda B. Marcos married to Wilson Marcos in 1982 and they had five children. Alleging that the husband failed to provide material support to the family and have resorted to physical abuse and abandonment, Brenda filed a case for the nullity of their marriage on the ground that Wilson Marcos has psychological incapacity. The appellee submitted herself to psychological examination, while the appellant on the other hand, did not. ISSUES: 1. Whether or not personal medical or psychological examination of the respondent by a physician is a requirement for a declaration of psychological incapacity. 2. Whether or not the totality of evidence presented in this case show psychological incapacity. ANSWER: 1. No, psychological examination is not a requirement for declaring a person as such. 2. No, the Court was not convince, based on the evidence presented, that it constitute psychological incapacity. REASONING: Psychological incapacity, as a ground for declaring the nullity of marriage, may be established by the totality of evidence presented. There is no requirement, however that the respondent should be examined by a physician or a psychologist as a condition since quo non for such declaration. Although this court is sufficiently convince that the

respondent failed to provide material support to the family and may have resorted to physical abuse and abandonment, the totality of his acts does not lead to a conclusion of psychological incapacity on his part. There is absolutely no showing that this defects were already present at the inception of the marriage or that they are incurable. Verily, the behavior of respondent can be attributed to the fact that he had lost his job and was not gainfully employed for a period of more than six years. It was during this period that he became intermittently drunk, failed to give material and moral support and even left the family home. Thus, his alleged psychological illness was traced only to the said period and not to the inception of marriage. Equally important, there is no evidence showing that his condition is incurable, especially now that he is gainfully employed as a taxi driver. In sum, this court cannot declare the dissolution of the marriage for failure of petitioner to show that the alleged psychological incapacity is characterized by gravity, juridical antecedence and incurability; and for her failure to observe the guidelines outlined in Molina. HOLDING: The petition is DENIED and assailed Decision AFFIRMED, except that portion requiring personal medical examination as a condition sine qua non to a finding of psychological incapacity.