View full case

LEOUEL SANTOS v. CA

FACTS:

Leouel Santos and Julia Rosario Bedia-Santos were married on September 20, 1986. They had a child together, but their marriage began to deteriorate due to interference from Julia's parents and conflicts over independent living and time spent with their respective parents. In May 1988, Julia left for the US to work and failed to return as promised. Leouel attempted to locate her during his visit to the US in 1990 but was unsuccessful. He filed a complaint for the nullity of their marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code, which was opposed by Julia. The trial court dismissed the complaint, which was affirmed by the Court of Appeals. Leouel appealed to the Supreme Court, claiming that Julia's failure to communicate with him for more than five years showed her psychological incapacity.

In a separate discussion among legal experts on the concept of psychological incapacity, the interpretation and application of subparagraph (7) of Article 36 of the Family Code were debated. Various questions were raised regarding the language and scope of subparagraph (7), including the deletion of the word "mentally," the distinction between defects in mental faculties and lack of appreciation of marital obligations, and the categorization of psychological incapacity as a ground for voidable or void marriages. The experts also deliberated on the effect of cohabitation and the bearing of children on the cure of psychological incapacity.

During the discussion, Professor Bautista emphasized that psychological incapacity is not a defect in the mind but rather a lack of understanding of the consequences of marriage. He mentioned that individuals with psychological incapacity can have moments of lucid understanding. Judge Diy proposed including physical incapacity to copulate as a ground for void marriages, with Justice Reyes adding that impotence can sometimes be temporary.

ISSUES:

  1. Is cohabitation and bearing of children a defense against a claim of psychological incapacity?

  2. Can physical incapacity to copulate be included among the grounds for void marriages?

  3. Should 'psychological or mental incapacity' be considered a species of vice of consent?

  4. Should marriages annulled or declared void by the church on the ground of psychological incapacity be automatically annulled in Civil Law?

  5. Should Article 37 be retroactive or prospective in application?

  6. Whether or not the provision on psychological incapacity under the Family Code should be given resiliency in its application.

  7. Whether or not the provision on psychological incapacity was taken from Canon Law and should be interpreted in light of jurisprudence under Canon Law.

    • What is the proper interpretation of "psychological incapacity" under Article 36 of the Family Code?
    • Does "psychological incapacity" encompass mental incapacity that causes a party to be truly incognitive of the basic marital covenants?

RULING:

  1. Cohabitation and bearing of children should not be considered a defense against a claim of psychological incapacity.

  2. Physical incapacity to copulate can be included as a ground for void marriages if it is specified as incurable.

  3. 'Psychological or mental incapacity' should not be considered a species of vice of consent as it refers to a lack of understanding of the essential obligations of marriage.

  4. Marriages annulled or declared void by the church on the ground of psychological incapacity are not automatically annulled in Civil Law.

  5. The retroactivity of Article 37 is a matter of debate among the members, with some favoring retroactivity and others favoring prospectivity.

  6. The provision on psychological incapacity under the Family Code should be given resiliency in its application, allowing judges to interpret the provision on a case-to-case basis, guided by experience, the findings of experts and researchers in psychological disciplines, and by decisions of church tribunals which may be given persuasive effect.

  7. The provision on psychological incapacity was taken from Canon Law and should be interpreted in light of jurisprudence under Canon Law, although not having juridical or secular effect in the Family Code.

  8. The phrase "psychological incapacity" under Article 36 of the Family Code should be construed in conjunction with existing precepts in Philippine law on marriage. It refers to a mental incapacity that causes a party to be truly incognitive of the basic marital covenants, such as the mutual obligations to live together, observe love, respect, fidelity, and render help and support. The law does not consider an inability of a spouse to have sexual relations with the other as a form of psychological incapacity. The other forms of psychoses, such as unsound mind, drug addiction, habitual alcoholism, homosexuality, or lesbianism, render the marriage contract voidable or grounds for legal separation depending on when they occur. However, depending on the degree and severity of the disorder, they may also be indicia of psychological incapacity. Until further parameters are established, every circumstance related to the incapacity must be carefully examined and evaluated.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Psychological incapacity refers to a lack of understanding of the essential obligations of marriage.

  • Physical incapacity to copulate can be a ground for void marriages if specified as incurable.

  • Cohabitation and bearing of children should not be considered as signs that psychological incapacity has been cured.

  • 'Psychological incapacity' is not a defect in the mind but in the understanding of the consequences of marriage.

  • Marriages annulled or declared void by the church on the ground of psychological incapacity are not automatically annulled in Civil Law.

  • The provision on psychological incapacity in the Family Code should be given resiliency in its application.

  • The provision on psychological incapacity in the Family Code was taken from Canon Law and should be interpreted in light of jurisprudence under Canon Law.

  • Psychological incapacity must be characterized by gravity, juridical antecedence, and incurability.

  • "Psychological incapacity" under Article 36 of the Family Code refers to a mental incapacity that causes a party to be truly incognitive of the basic marital covenants.

  • The incapacity must exist at the time the marriage is celebrated and should be of a severe and significant nature, demonstrating an utter insensitivity or inability to give meaning and significance to the marriage.

  • Other forms of psychoses, such as unsound mind, drug addiction, habitual alcoholism, homosexuality, or lesbianism, render the marriage contract voidable or grounds for legal separation depending on when they occur, but may also be indicia of psychological incapacity depending on their severity and degree.

  • "Psychological incapacity" does not encompass an inability of a spouse to have sexual relations with the other.

  • Until further statutory and jurisprudential parameters are established, every circumstance related to the incapacity must be carefully examined and evaluated to prevent indiscriminate nullity decrees.

  • Marriage is a special contract of permanent union between a man and a woman and is the foundation of the family, as recognized by Philippine law and the Constitution.