Santos v. Court of Appeals

Leouel Santos, a First Lieutenant in the Philippine Army, married Julia Rosario Bedia on September 20, 1986 before a municipal trial judge in Iloilo City, followed by a church wedding. The couple lived with Julia's parents and had a son in July 1987. They quarreled over the parents' interference and over when they should live on their own. On May 18, 1988, over Leouel's pleas, Julia left for the United States to work as a nurse. She first called him seven months later, on January 1, 1989, and promised to return when her contract expired in July 1989, but she never did. While in the United States for military training in 1990, Leouel tried and failed to locate her. He filed a complaint in the RTC of Negros Oriental to void the marriage under Art. 36 of the Family Code, and Julia was served summons by publication. Julia's answer, through counsel, denied his allegations and claimed that it was Leouel who had been irresponsible and incompetent. She later manifested that she would neither appear nor present evidence. The trial court dismissed the complaint, and the Court of Appeals affirmed.

1. 1Whether Julia's failure to return home or communicate with her husband for more than five years shows psychological incapacity under Art. 36 of the Family Code.

No. The petition was denied both for lack of a certification of non-forum shopping (Circular 28-91) and on the merits. The Family Code does not define "psychological incapacity." Drawing on the Family Code Revision Committee's deliberations, Canon 1095 of the Code of Canon Law, and commentators, the Court adopted the view, cited by Justice Sempio-Diy from Dr. Gerardo Veloso, that psychological incapacity must be characterized by (a) gravity, (b) juridical antecedence and (c) incurability. The incapacity must be grave enough that the party cannot carry out the ordinary duties of marriage. It must be rooted in the party's history before the marriage, even if it shows itself only afterward. It must be incurable, or any cure must be beyond the party's means. Read together with the other marriage laws, psychological incapacity "should refer to no less than a mental (not physical) incapacity" that makes a party truly incognitive of the basic marital covenants in Art. 68, namely to live together, observe love, respect and fidelity, and render help and support. The law intends "to confine the meaning of 'psychological incapacity' to the most serious cases of personality disorders" clearly showing an utter insensitivity or inability to give meaning and significance to the marriage, existing when the marriage is celebrated. Concealed drug addiction, habitual alcoholism or homosexuality existing at the marriage make it voidable (Art. 46); arising later, they ground legal separation (Art. 55), though they may be indicia of psychological incapacity. Expert opinions may help, and each case must be examined carefully so that nullity is not decreed indiscriminately. The facts, a spouse's abandonment and silence, fell far short of this standard.