OCHOSA V. ALANO 

G.R. No. 181881,   [January 26, 2011]

DOCTRINE:

Psychological incapacity must be characterizedby (a)

gravity, (b) juridical antecedence, and (c) incurability.

The incapacity must be grave or serious such that the

party would be incapable of carrying out the ordinary

duties required in marriage; it must be rooted in the

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 were

otherwise, the cure would be beyond the means of the

party involved.

FACTS:

Jose, a young lieutenant in the AFP, married Bonain

Basilan in 1973. In 1976, they adopted as their

daughter Ramona. During the marriage, Jose was often

assigned to various parts of the Philippines as a

member of the AFP. Bona did not cohabit with him in

his posts, preferring to stay in Basilan. Bona had illicit

relations with other men whenever Jose was assigned

in various parts of the country. She was even caught by

a security aide having sex with Jose’s driver. Word

circulated of such infidelity and when Jose confronted

Bona about it, the latter admitted herrelationship

with said driver. Jose filed a Petition for Declaration of

Nullity of Marriage on the ground of

Bona’s psychological incapacity to fulfill the essential

obligations of marriage. Jose and his two military aides

testified on Bona’s infidelity. A psychiatrist testified

that after conducting several tests, she reached the

conclusion that Bona was suffering from histrionic

personality disorder and that her personality was that

she had an excessive emotion and attention seeking

behavior and therefore could not develop sympathy in

feelings and had difficulty in maintaining emotional

intimacy. She further testified that whenever Jose was

gone, her extramarital affairs was her way of seeking

attention and emotions from other persons and that

said disorder was traceable to her family history,

having for a father a gambler and womanizer and a

mother who was a battered wife. Finally, the

psychiatrist said that there was no possibility of a cure

since Bona did not have an insight of what was

happening to her and refused to acknowledge the

reality. The Solicitor-General opposed the petition.

ISSUE:

Whether Bona should be deemed

psychologicallyincapacitated to comply with the

essential marital obligations. NO

RATIO:

Article 36 of the Family Code provides: “a marriage

contracted by any party who, at the time of the

celebration, was psychologically incapacitated to

comply with the essential marital obligations of

marriage, shall likewise be void even if such incapacity

becomesmanifest only after its solemnization.” In

Santos v. CA, it was held that psychologicalincapacity

must be characterized by (a) gravity, (b) juridical

antecedence, and (c) incurability. The incapacity must

be grave or serious such that the party would be

incapable of carrying out the ordinary duties required

in marriage; it must be rooted in the history of the

party antedating the marriage, although the overt

manifestations may emerge only after marriage; and it

must be incurable or, even if it were otherwise, the

cure would be beyond the means of the party involved.

In Republic v. CA and Molina, the following guidelines

in the interpretation and application of Article 36 of the

Family Code were laid down: (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; (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, whether

absolute or relative only in regard to the other spouse;

(5) Such illness must be grave enough to bring about

thedisability of the party to assume the essential

obligations of marriage; (6) The essential marital

obligations must be those embraced by Article 68 up to

71, 220, 221 and 225 of the Family Code; (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; and (8) The trial

court must order the prosecuting attorney or fiscal and

the Solicitor General to appear as counsel for the state.

In Marcos v. Marcos, it was held that the foregoing

guidelines do not require that a physician examine the

person to be declared psychologically incapacitated

and that what is important is the presence of evidence

that can adequately  establish the

party’spsychological condition. In the case at bar, the

evidence presented were the testimonies of Jose, his

military aides and the psychiatrist. But this is

inadequate in proving that her “defects” were already

present at the inception of, or prior to, the marriage.

Only the uncorroborated testimony of Jose supported

the allegation that Bona’s sexual promiscuity already

existed prior to the marriage. The psychiatrist’s

testimony on Bona’s histrionic personality disorder did

not meet the standard of evidence required in

determining psychological incapacity as her findings

did not emanate from a personal interview with Bona

herself and merely relied on her interview with Jose

and his other witnesses. This factual circumstance

evokes the possibility that the information fed to the

psychiatrist is tainted with bias for Jose’s cause, in the

absence of sufficient corroboration. In view of the

foregoing, the badges of Bona’s

alleged psychologicalincapacity, i.e., her sexual

infidelity and abandonment, can only be convincingly

traced to the period of time after her marriage to Jose

and not to the inception of the said marriage. Article

36 of the Family Code is not to be confused with

a divorce law that cuts the marital bond at the time the

causes therefore manifest themselves. It refers to a

serious psychological illness afflicting a party even

before the celebration of the marriage. It is a malady

so grave and so permanent as to deprive one of

awareness of the duties and responsibilities of the

matrimonial bond one is about to assume.