CASE: SANTOS V.

COURT OF APPEALS and ROSARIO BEDIA-SANTOS

G.R. No. 112019 January 4, 1995

FACTS:
Leouel Santos, a First Lieutenant in the Philippine Army, first met Julie Bedia in Iloilo. On
September 20, 1986, the two exchanged vows before a Municipal Trial Court followed, shortly
thereafter, by a church wedding. The spouse lived with Julias parent at the J. Bedia Compound. On
July 18, 1987, Julia gave birth to a baby boy named after his husband. The spouse would
occasionally quarrel over a number of things.
On May 18, 1998, Julia left to work as a Nurse in USA despite petitioners pleas not to go. It was
only after seven months from her departure when Julia called Leouel for the first time, and
promised to be back by the end of her contract in July 1989 which she never did. When Leouel got a
chance to visit ths US, where he underwent a training program, he desperately tried to locate and
somehow get in touch with Julia but his efforts were of no avail.
Leouel filed a complaint for Voiding of Marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code, arguing
that the failure of Julia to return home, or at least communicate with him, for more than five years
are circumstances that clearly show her being psychologically incapacitated to enter into married
life.
ISSUE:

WON their marriage should be considered void under Article 36 of the Family Code.
HELD:
No, the marriage of Leouel and Julia cannot be considered void under Article 36 of the Family
Code.
Psychological incapacity which concept is based on Paragraph 3 of the Canon Law:
Canon 1095. The following are incapable of contracting marriage:
xxx
(3) Those who, because of a psychological nature, are unable to assume the essential obligations
of marriage
xxx

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 marriage. This said condition must exist at the time the marriage
is celebrated.
According to Dr. Gerardo Veloso, a former Presiding Judge of the Metropolitan Marriage Tribunal
of the Catholic Archdiocese of Manila, psychological incapacity must be characterized by: (a)
gravity, (b) juridical antecedence, and (c) incurability. In fine, the incapacity must be grave or
serious such that the party cannot carry out the ordinary duties required in the marriage life; it must
be rooted in the past 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 so, the cure is beyond the
means of the party involved.
In the case at bar, although Leouel stands aggrieved, his petition is dismissed because the alleged
psychological incapacity of his wife is not clearly shown by the factual settings presented. The
factual settings do not come close to the standard required to decree a nullity of marriage.