Santos vs. Court of Appeals

Psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code must be characterized by gravity, juridical antecedence, and incurability; it refers to a mental, not physical, incapacity that causes a party to be truly incognitive of the basic marital covenants, and it must be a malady so deep-seated that it renders the person incapable of fulfilling the essential obligations of marriage, which must be proven to have existed at the time of the celebration of the marriage.

The case arose from the application of the then-novel provision of Article 36 of the Family Code, which took effect in 1988. This provision, which introduced "psychological incapacity" as a ground to void a marriage, was adopted from Canon Law but was not defined in the statute itself. This lack of a clear definition led to varying interpretations and necessitated a definitive ruling from the Supreme Court to establish jurisprudential guidelines for its application by the courts.

• Leouel Santos, a First Lieutenant in the Philippine Army, and Julia Rosario Bedia-Santos were married on September 20, 1986, in Iloilo City.
• The couple lived with Julia's parents, which Leouel claimed caused frequent parental interference and quarrels.
• On July 18, 1987, Julia gave birth to their son, Leouel Santos, Jr.
• On May 18, 1988, Julia left for the United States to work as a nurse, despite Leouel's pleas for her to stay.
• Seven months later, on January 1, 1989, Julia made her first long-distance call to Leouel, promising to return in July 1989 upon the expiration of her contract, but she never did.
• From April to August 1990, Leouel was in the United States for military training and tried unsuccessfully to locate Julia.
• After failing to persuade Julia to come home, Leouel filed a complaint to void their marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code.
• Summons was served by publication, and Julia, through counsel, filed an answer denying the allegations.
• The Office of the Provincial Prosecutor investigated and ruled out any collusion between the parties.
• During the proceedings, Julia filed a manifestation stating that she would neither appear in court nor submit any evidence.

• Leouel Santos argued that his wife Julia's failure to return to the Philippines or to communicate with him for more than five years is a clear manifestation of her psychological incapacity to comply with her essential marital obligations.
• He contended that a wife who shows no care for her husband's whereabouts for such a prolonged period demonstrates a lack of love and affection that rises to the level of psychological incapacity under the law.

• In her initial answer filed through counsel, Julia Rosario Bedia-Santos denied the allegations in the complaint and claimed that it was the petitioner, Leouel, who was irresponsible and incompetent.
• Subsequently, Julia chose not to substantiate her claims, filing a manifestation that she would not appear at trial or submit any evidence.

• Procedural Issues:
  • Whether the petition should be denied for non-compliance with the procedural requirement of a certification of non-forum shopping.
• Substantive Issues:
  • Whether the respondent's act of leaving her husband and child to work in the United States and her subsequent refusal to return or communicate constitutes psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code, sufficient to declare the marriage void.

• Procedural:
  • The Court noted that the petition could be denied outright for failure to comply with Circular 28-91, which requires a certification of non-forum shopping, but opted to resolve the case on its substantive merits.
• Substantive:
  • The Supreme Court denied the petition for lack of merit, holding that the facts presented did not establish psychological incapacity.
  • The Court clarified that "psychological incapacity" is not simply the difficulty, refusal, or neglect in performing marital obligations, but a true inability rooted in a psychological illness.
  • It established the three essential characteristics of psychological incapacity: (a) gravity, meaning it must be a serious personality disorder; (b) juridical antecedence, meaning it must be proven to have existed at the time of the marriage, even if it manifested only later; and (c) incurability, meaning it is medically or clinically permanent.
  • The Court found that Leouel failed to present evidence to show that Julia's abandonment was a manifestation of a deep-seated psychological condition that existed at the inception of their marriage; her actions were interpreted as a willful refusal to comply with marital duties rather than an inability to do so.

• Psychological Incapacity (Article 36, Family Code) — The Court interpreted this ground for voiding a marriage to refer to no less than a mental (not physical) incapacity that causes a party to be truly incognitive of the basic marital covenants. It is not meant to comprehend all possible cases of psychoses but is confined to the most serious cases of personality disorders clearly demonstrative of an utter insensitivity or inability to give meaning and significance to the marriage. In this case, the doctrine was used to deny the petition because the petitioner failed to prove that his wife's abandonment was rooted in such a grave, pre-existing, and incurable psychological malady.
• Inviolability of Marriage — The Court invoked the principles from the Constitution and the Family Code that marriage is an inviolable social institution and the foundation of the family. This doctrine was used to justify a strict and narrow interpretation of Article 36, ensuring that it is not abused as a de facto divorce mechanism, thereby upholding the State's policy to protect and preserve the sanctity of marriage.
• Canon Law as Persuasive Authority — The Court referred to Canon 1095 of the New Code of Canon Law and the deliberations of the Family Code Revision Committee to aid in interpreting Article 36. It was explained that since the legal provision was derived from Canon Law, ecclesiastical jurisprudence and commentaries, while not binding, have persuasive effect in understanding the legislative intent behind "psychological incapacity."

• Quote — "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."
• Quote — "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."

• Salita vs. Hon. Magtolis — This case was cited to quote Justice Alicia V. Sempio-Diy, a member of the Family Code Revision Committee, who explained that the Committee deliberately omitted examples of psychological incapacity to prevent limiting the provision's applicability and intended for judges to interpret it on a case-to-case basis, guided by expert findings and persuasive decisions from church tribunals.

• Article 36, Family Code — This is the central provision of the case, establishing psychological incapacity as a ground for declaring a marriage void from the beginning.
• Article 1, Family Code — Cited to emphasize that marriage is a special contract and an inviolable social institution, underscoring the State's interest in its preservation.
• Article 68, Family Code — Referenced to define the essential marital obligations (to live together, observe love, respect, fidelity, and render mutual help and support) which a psychologically incapacitated person is unable to assume.
• Article XV, Sections 1 and 2, 1987 Constitution — Cited to reinforce the fundamental state policy that recognizes the family as the foundation of the nation and marriage as an inviolable social institution that must be protected by the State.
• Canon 1095 of the New Code of Canon Law — Referenced as the canonical law origin of Article 36, providing persuasive guidance for its interpretation, particularly regarding the inability to assume essential marital obligations due to causes of a psychological nature.

• Justice Flerida Ruth P. Romero — In her separate opinion, Justice Romero agreed with the denial of the petition but provided a historical background on the inclusion of Article 36 in the Family Code. She explained that the provision was adopted as an alternative to absolute divorce and was intended to address church-annulled marriages not recognized by civil law. She reiterated that the provision was designed to be interpreted on a case-to-case basis, guided by experts and church tribunal decisions, to avoid being limited by a strict definition or enumeration.

• Justice Teodoro R. Padilla — In his dissent, Justice Padilla argued that the marriage should be declared void. He contended that the private respondent's prolonged abandonment, her broken promise to return, and her complete severance of communication for over five years were unmistakable manifestations of her psychological incapacity to fulfill the essential marital obligation of living with and cohabiting with her husband. He believed the majority's interpretation was overly restrictive and resulted in a great injustice to the petitioner, effectively trapping him in a marriage that had ceased to exist for all practical purposes.