Marcos vs. Marcos

Psychological incapacity as a ground for nullity of marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code may be established by the totality of evidence presented, and a personal medical or psychological examination of the respondent is not a mandatory requirement or conditio sine qua non for such a declaration.

Brenda and Wilson Marcos were married in 1982 and had five children. Both were members of the military assigned to Malacañang Palace. After the 1986 EDSA Revolution, both left the military service. Wilson struggled with unemployment and failed business ventures, leading to frequent quarrels, his failure to provide financial support, and instances of physical abuse against Brenda and their children. The couple eventually separated in 1992, and a series of violent incidents prompted Brenda to file a petition to declare their marriage null and void based on Wilson's alleged psychological incapacity.

• Brenda and Wilson Marcos were married twice, first in a civil ceremony on September 6, 1982, and then in a church ceremony on May 8, 1983, and they had five children.
• After respondent Wilson Marcos left the military service in 1987, he failed to find gainful employment and his business ventures did not prosper.
• Due to his unemployment, the couple frequently quarreled, during which Wilson would physically abuse Brenda and force her to have sex with him.
• Wilson was also described as severely and physically abusive towards their children for slight mistakes.
• The parties began living separately in 1992.
• On October 16, 1994, a bitter quarrel occurred where Wilson became violent, inflicting physical harm on Brenda and her mother, which prompted Brenda and her children to leave the house the next day.
• In August 1995, during another encounter, Wilson ran after Brenda and her companions with a samurai sword.
• Brenda submitted herself for psychological evaluation to a psychologist, Dr. Natividad A. Dayan, but Wilson did not.
• A social worker's case study, based on interviews with the children, described their father as cruel and physically abusive.

• The Court of Appeals erred in reversing the RTC's decision merely because the respondent did not undergo a psychological evaluation.
• The determination of psychological incapacity should be based on the totality of the evidence presented, including testimonies of the petitioner, their children, a social worker, and the findings of a psychologist who evaluated the petitioner.
• Given the respondent's refusal to submit to an examination, the petitioner had no other choice but to rely on other sources of information to prove his psychological condition.

• The psychological findings presented were not credible as they were based only on interviews with the petitioner and not on any evaluation of the respondent himself.
• The petitioner failed to prove that the alleged psychological incapacity was medically or clinically identified, grave, incurable, and existing at the time of the marriage.
• The root cause of the supposed incapacity was not alleged in the petition nor sufficiently proven by an expert.
• Testimonial evidence was offered to show that he was not psychologically incapacitated.

• Procedural Issues:
  • Whether a personal medical or psychological examination of the respondent is an indispensable requirement for a declaration of nullity of marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code.
• Substantive Issues:
  • Whether the totality of the evidence presented by the petitioner is sufficient to prove that the respondent is psychologically incapacitated to fulfill his essential marital obligations.

• Procedural:
  • The Supreme Court ruled that a personal medical or psychological examination of the respondent is not a conditio sine qua non for declaring a marriage void due to psychological incapacity. The Court clarified that what is essential is the presence of evidence that can adequately establish the party's psychological condition, and if the totality of evidence is sufficient, an actual medical examination need not be resorted to.
• Substantive:
  • The Supreme Court ruled that the petitioner failed to prove respondent's psychological incapacity by the totality of the evidence. Although the respondent's failure to provide material support, his physical abuse, and abandonment were established, these acts did not meet the stringent requirements of Article 36. The petitioner failed to demonstrate that the respondent's alleged defects were characterized by gravity, juridical antecedence (existing at or before the marriage), and incurability. The Court found that the respondent's behavior was attributable to his loss of job and unemployment for over six years, which occurred after the marriage, rather than a pre-existing psychological malady. The evidence presented was deemed more appropriate for a legal separation case rather than for a declaration of nullity.

• Psychological Incapacity (Article 36, Family Code) — This refers to a serious psychological illness that renders a party truly incognitive of the essential marital obligations, which must be characterized by gravity, juridical antecedence, and incurability. The Court applied this doctrine to find that the respondent's actions, while reprehensible, were not proven to be manifestations of a pre-existing, grave, and permanent psychological disorder, but rather reactions to post-marital circumstances like unemployment.
• Molina Doctrine (Republic v. CA and Molina) — This doctrine establishes the stringent guidelines for the interpretation and application of Article 36, including the requirements that the incapacity must be medically or clinically identified, proven to be existing at the time of the celebration of the marriage, and shown to be permanent or incurable. The Court held that the petitioner failed to faithfully observe these procedural and evidentiary requirements, particularly in proving juridical antecedence and incurability.
• Totality of Evidence Rule — This principle dictates that all evidence presented must be considered to determine a factual issue. The Court affirmed this rule in the context of psychological incapacity cases, stating that even without a direct examination of the respondent, the condition can be proven. However, in this specific case, the Court concluded that the total evidence presented was insufficient to meet the legal standard for psychological incapacity.

• "Psychological incapacity, as a ground for declaring the nullity of a 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 conditio sine qua non for such declaration."
• "Article 36 of the Family Code, we stress, is not to be confused with a divorce law that cuts the marital bond at the time the causes therefor manifest themselves. It refers to a serious psychological illness afflicting a party even before the celebration of the marriage."

• Republic v. CA and Molina — Cited as the controlling precedent that laid down the eight definitive guidelines for interpreting and applying Article 36 of the Family Code. The Court used these guidelines as the framework for its analysis and concluded that the petitioner's evidence fell short of the required standards.
• Santos v. Court of Appeals — Referenced for establishing the three fundamental requirements of psychological incapacity: (a) gravity, (b) juridical antecedence, and (c) incurability. The Court noted that these requirements were incorporated into the Molina guidelines and were not met by the petitioner.

• Article 36, Family Code — This is the central legal provision of the case, serving as the ground for the petition for declaration of nullity of marriage. The Court's entire ruling is an interpretation and application of this article.
• Articles 68 to 71, Family Code — Cited as the provisions defining the essential marital obligations between husband and wife, which the psychologically incapacitated spouse is unable to assume.
• Articles 220, 221, and 225, Family Code — Cited as the provisions defining the essential obligations of parents toward their children, which are also considered part of the essential marital obligations.
• Article 55, Family Code — Referenced to distinguish the grounds for legal separation (such as repeated physical violence or abandonment) from the more stringent requirements for psychological incapacity. The Court noted that the petitioner's evidence pointed more towards grounds for legal separation than for nullity.