Leouel Santos vs. CA G.R. No. 112019
Uploaded by
agong lodgeLeouel Santos vs. CA G.R. No. 112019
Uploaded by
agong lodgeG.R. No. 112019 Leouel Santos vs.
CA
FACTS:
Leouel Santos, a First Lieutenant in the Philippine Army, married Julia Rosario Bedia-Santos in Iloilo
City on September 20, 1986. They lived with Julia's parents and had a son. However, due to frequent
interference by Julia's parents and other disagreements, their relationship became strained. Julia left for the
United States to work as a nurse on May 18, 1988, despite Leouel's pleas. She promised to return home after her
contract expired in July 1989 but never did. Leouel tried to locate her during his visit to the U.S. but failed.
Consequently, he filed a complaint for "Voiding of Marriage Under Article 36 of the Family Code" with the
Regional Trial Court of Negros Oriental.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Julia's failure to return home or communicate with Leouel for more than five years
showed her being psychologically incapacitated to enter into married life.
RULING:
NO, the failure of Julia to return home or to communicate with her husband Leouel for more than five
(5) years does not constitute psychological incapacity.
Psychological incapacity should refer to no less than a mental (not physical) incapacity that causes a
party to be truly in cognitive of the basic marital covenants that concomitantly must be assumed and discharged
by the parties to the marriage which (Art. 68), include their mutual obligations to live together, observe love,
respect and fidelity and render help and support.
The Regional Trial Court dismissed the complaint for lack of merit. Leouel appealed to the Court of
Appeals, which affirmed the decision of the trial court. The Supreme Court also denied the petition. The court
held that the factual settings in the case could not meet the standards required to decree a nullity of marriage.
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 psychological condition must exist at the time the marriage is celebrated.
The SC also notes that psychological incapacity 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 the marriage; and it must be
incurable or, even if it were otherwise, the cure would be beyond the means of the party involved.
RATIO:
The case primarily dealt with Article 36 of the Family Code (as amended by E.O. No. 227 dated 17 July
1987), which declares a marriage void if either party was psychologically incapacitated to comply with the
essential marital obligations of marriage at the time of the celebration.
In the case at bar, although Leouel stands aggrieved, his petition must be dismissed because the alleged
psychological incapacity of his wife is not clearly shown by the factual settings presented. The factual settings
do not come close to to the standard required to decree a nullity of marriage. Petition is denied.
