REPUBLIC VS.

DAGDAG

FACTS

RULE/LAW
ISSUE

On September 7, 1975, Erlinda Matias, 16 years old, married

Avelino Parangan Dagdag, 20 years old, at the Iglesia Filipina
Independent Church in Cuyapo, Nueva Ecija. They begot two
children, namely: Avelyn M. Dagdag, born on January 16, 1978; and
Eden M. Dagdag, born on April 21, 1982. A week after the
wedding, Avelino started leaving his family without explanation. He
would disappear for months, suddenly reappear for a few months,
and then disappear again. During the times when he was with his
family, he indulged in drinking sprees with friends and would return
home drunk. He would force his wife to submit to sexual intercourse
and if she refused, he would inflict physical injuries on her. Erlinda
learned that Avelino was imprisoned for some crime,[6] and that he
escaped from jail on October 22, 1985. 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.
Article 36 of the Family Code
Did the court of appeal correctly declare the marriage as null and
void under Article 36 of the Family Code, on the ground that the
husband suffers from psychological incapacity, as he is emotionally
immature and irresponsible, a habitual alcoholic, and fugitive from
justice?
RTC: WHEREFORE, and viewed from the foregoing considerations,
the Court hereby declares the marriage celebrated at Cuyapo, Nueva
Ecija between Erlinda Matias and Avelino Dagdag on 7 September
1975 to be null and void.

HOLDING
CA: WHEREFORE, and the foregoing considered, the motion for
Reconsideration aforecited is DENIED for lack of merit.

REASONS/POLICIES

SUPREME COURT:
WHEREFORE, the present petition is
GRANTED. The assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals dated
April 22, 1993, in CA-G.R. CV No. 34378 is REVERSED and
SET ASIDE.
Erlinda failed to comply with guideline No. 2 which the Supreme
Court laid down for the interpretation and application of Article 36
of the Family Code, 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. Further, the allegation that the husband is a fugitive from
justice was not sufficiently proven. In fact, the crime for which he
was arrested was not even alleged. The investigating prosecutor was
likewise not given an opportunity to present controverting evidence
since the trial courts decision was prematurely rendered.

HERNNDEZ VS. CA

FACTS

RULE/LAW
ISSUE
HOLDING

REASONS/POLICIES

On January 1, 19981, Lucita Estella married

Mario Hernandez, and they begot 3 children.
On july 10. 1992, Lucita filled a petition for
annulment of marriage under Article 36 of the
family code. She alleged that from the time of
their marriage, Mario failed to perform his
obligations to support the family, devoting
most of his time drinking, had affairs with
women, and cohabiting with another woman,
with whom he had a legitimate child and
finally abandoning her and her family. The
RTC of Tagaytay city dismiss the petition
which the CA affirmed.
Article 36 of the Family Code of the
Philippines,
Whether or not Marcio is Psychologically
incapacitated to fulfill his marital obligation?
WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of
Appeals is AFFIRMED.
In the instant case, other than her self-serving
declarations, petitioner failed to establish the
fact that at the time they were married, private
respondent was suffering from a
psychological defect which in fact deprived
him of the ability to assume the essential
duties of marriage and its concomitant
responsibilities. As the Court of Appeals
pointed out, no evidence was presented to
show that private respondent was not
cognizant of the basic marital obligations. It
was not sufficiently proved that private
respondent was really incapable of fulfilling
his duties due to some incapacity of a
psychological nature, and not merely
physical.

MARCOS VS. MARCOS

FACTS

RULE/LAW
ISSUE

HOLDING

REASONS/POLICIES

Petitioner Brenda Marcos and Respondent Wilson

Marcos were married twice and had five children.
After the downfall of President Marcos, the
respondent left the military service in1987.
Consequently, due to the respondents failure to
engage in any gainful employment, they would often
quarrel and the respondent would hit and beat the
petitioner. As a result, in 1992 they were already
living separately. Thus, petitioner filed for annulment
of marriage assailing rt. 36 of the Family Code. The
court a quo found the respondent to be
psychologically incapacitated to perform his marital
obligations. However, the Court of Appeals reversed
the decision of the RTC because psychological
incapacity had not been established by the totality
of the evidence presented.
Article 36 of the Family Code

1. Whether 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.
WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED and assailed
Decision AFFIRMED, except that portion requiring
personal medical examination as a conditio sine qua
non to a finding of psychological incapacity. No costs.
We agree with petitioner that the personal medical or
psychological examination of respondent is not a
requirement for a declaration of psychological
incapacity. Nevertheless, the totality of the evidence
she presented does not show such incapacity.
Although this Court is sufficiently convinced that
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 his "defects"
were already present at the inception of the marriage
or that they are incurable.