Article 36 (Title I - MARRIAGE)

Article 36.  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 becomes manifest only after its solemnization.  (As amended by E.O. No. 227, dated July 17, 1987)

Requisite of "Psychological incapacity."

          Failure of a party to comply with the essential marital obligations of marriage.

Essential Marital Obligations must be those embraced in by Articles 68 to 71 of the Family Code as to regards the husband and wife as well as Articles 220, 221 and 225 of the same Code in regards to parents and their children.

         Article 68 of the Family Code:

           “The husband and wife are obliged to live

             together, observe mutual love, respect

             and fidelity, and render mutual help

             and support”

          To be a ground for declaration of nullity of marriage, "psychological incapacity" must:

          (a)    be serious and grave;

          (b)    have existed upon the celebration or after the marriage;

          (c)    be incurable.

"Psychological Incapacity"  is incurable even it is involves time and expenses beyond the means of the victim.

"Psychological Incapacity" must be present at the time of the marriage.  In this case, it is as if the person suffering from "psychological incapacity" did not give consent at all.  The same need not be apparent at the time of marriage.  It is sufficient if it becomes manifest after marriage.

“Psychological Incapacity" refers to no less than mental (not physical) incapacity that causes a party to be truly incognitive of the basic marital covenants that concomitantly must be assumed and discharged by the parties to the marriage.

 What constitute psychological incapacity?

v  “Psychological incapacity required by Art. 36  must be characterized by: a) gravity;

b) juridical antecedence; and

c) incurability.

v  The incapacity must be grave or serious such that the party would be incapable of carrying out the ordinary duties required in marriage.

v  It must be rooted in the history of the party antedating the marriage, although the overt manifestations may emerge only after the marriage.

v  It must be incurable or, even if it were otherwise, the cure would be beyond the means of the party involved.”

Thus, the intendment of the law is 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.

The Molina Doctrine

          1.    The plaintiff (the spouse who filed the petition in court) has burden of  

                showing  the nullity of the marriage. Our laws cherish the validity of marriage 

                and unity of the family, so any doubt is resolved in favor of the existence/ 

                continuation of the marriage.

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. Article 36 of the Family Code requires that the incapacity must be psychological – not physical, although its manifestations and/or symptoms may be physical. Expert evidence may be given by qualified psychiatrists and clinical psychologists.

3.   The incapacity must be proven to be existing at “the time of the celebration” of the marriage. The evidence must show that the illness was existing when the parties exchanged their “I do’s.” The manifestation of the illness need not be perceivable at such time, but the illness itself must have attached at such moment, or prior thereto.   

           4.   Such incapacity must also be shown to be medically or clinically permanent 

                 or incurable. Such incurability may be absolute or even relative only in 

                 regard to the other spouse, not necessarily absolutely against everyone of 

                 the same sex. Furthermore, such incapacity must be relevant to the 

                 assumption of marriage obligations, not necessarily to those not related to 

                 marriage, like the exercise of a profession or employment in a job.

            5.   Such illness must be grave enough to bring about the disability of the party 

                  to assume the essential obligations of marriage. Thus, “mild 

                  characteriological peculiarities, mood changes, occasional emotional 

                  outbursts” cannot be accepted as root causes.

             6.   The essential marital obligations must be those embraced by Articles 68 up 

                   to 71 of the Family Code as regards the husband and wife as well as 

                  Articles 220, 221 and 225 of the same Code in regard to parents and their 

                  children. Such non-complied marital obligation(s) must also be stated in the 

                  petition, proven by evidence and included in the text of the decision.

             7.  Interpretation 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 the courts.

            8.   The trial court must order the prosecuting attorney or fiscal and the Solicitor 

                  General to appear as counsel for the state.  No decision shall be handed 

                  down unless the Solicitor General issues a certification, which will bw quoted 

                  in the decision, briefly stating therein reasons for his agreement or  

                  opposition, as the case may be in the petition.

CASE DIGEST

[G.R. NO. 161793 : February 13, 2009]

EDWARD KENNETH NGO TE, Petitioner, v. ROWENA ONG GUTIERREZ YU-TE, Respondent,

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Oppositor.

PONENTE:  Justice Antonio Eduardo Nachura

FACTS:

·         Edward Kenneth Ngo Te met Rowena Ong Gutierrez Yu at a Filipino-Chinese gathering at a school campus. They did not have interest with each other at first but they developed a certain degree of closeness due to the fact that they share the same angst with their families.

·         In 1996, while still in college, Rowena proposed to Kenneth that they should elope. Kenneth initially refused on the ground that he was still young and jobless. But due to Rowena’s persistence Kenneth complied bringing with him P80K.

·         The money soon after disappeared and they found themselves forced to return to their respective home. Subsequently, Rowena’s uncle brought the two before a court and had had them be married. After marriage, Kenneth and Rowena stayed with her uncle’s house where Kenneth was treated like a prisoner.

·         Kenneth was advised by his dad to come home otherwise he will be disinherited.

·         One month later, Kenneth was able to escape and he was hidden from Rowena’s family. Kenneth later contacted Rowena urging her to live with his parents instead. Rowena however suggested that he should get his inheritance instead so that they could live together separately or just stay with her uncle.

·         Kenneth however was already disinherited. Upon knowing this, Rowena said that it is better if they live separate lives from then on.

·         The trial court ruled that the marriage is void upon the findings of the expert psychologist.

·         The Republic, represented by the OSG, filed its notice of appeal. On review, the appellate court, in the assailed Decision, reversed and set aside the trial court’s ruling. It ruled that petitioner failed to prove the psychological incapacity of respondent.

Hence this petition.

ISSUE:

 Whether or not the marriage between the parties is null and void based on Article 36 of the Family Code:

HELD:

YES, The psychologist who provided expert testimony found both parties psychologically incapacitated. The Supreme Court held that the court need not worry about the possible abuse of the remedy provided by Article 36, for there are ample safeguards against this contingency, among which is the intervention by the State, through the public prosecutor, to guard against collusion between the parties and/or fabrication of evidence. The Court should rather be alarmed by the rising number of cases involving marital abuse, child abuse, domestic violence and incestuous rape. In dissolving marital bonds on account of either party’s psychological incapacity, the Court is not demolishing the foundation of families, but it is actually protecting the sanctity of marriage, because it refuses to allow a person afflicted with a psychological disorder, who cannot comply with or assume the essential marital obligations, from remaining in that sacred bond. It may be stressed that the infliction of physical violence, constitutional indolence or laziness, drug dependence or addiction, and psychosexual anomaly are manifestations of a sociopathic personality anomaly.

            The petition is granted.  The decision of the CA as well as the trial court was reversed and set aside.

   

   

   

Article 44 (Chapter 3)

CHAPTER 3

Juridical Persons

Article 44.  The following are juridical persons:

     1.)     The State and its political subdivisions;

     2.)     Other corporations, institutions and entities for public interest or 

               purpose, created by law; their personality begins as soon as they have 

               been constituted according to law;

     3.)    Corporations, partnerships and associations for private interest or 

               purpose to which the law grants a juridical personality, separate and 

               distinct from that of each shareholder, partner or member.

juridical person - an abstract being, formed for the realization of collective purposes, to which the law has granted capacity for rights and obligations.

          The law classifies juridical persons into three:

                 1.) the state and its political subdivisions;

                 2.) entities for public interests and purposes;

                 3.) entities for private interests or purposes (Art. 44, New Civil Code);

 corporation - an artificial being created by operation of law having the right of 

                        succession and the powers, attributes the properties expressly   

                        authorized by law or incident to its existence.

Corporation may be public or private.

Public Corporations - those formed and organized for the government of the State.

                                      - are intended or organized for the general good or welfare.

                                                            

Private Corporations are those formed for some private purposes, benefit, aim or end.  

Classifications of Private Corporations:

• Stock Corporations are those which have a capital stock divided into shares and are authorized to distribute to the holders of such share dividends or allotments of the surplus on the basis of the shares held.

• Non-stock Corporations are all other private corporations.

CASE DIGEST

G.R. No. 15574         September 17, 1919

SMITH, BELL & COMPANY (LTD.), petitioner,

vs.

JOAQUIN NATIVIDAD, Collector of Customs of the port of Cebu, respondent.

FACTS

         Smith, Belll & Co., (Ltd.), is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the Philippine Islands.  Majority of its stockholders are British.  The corporation owns a motor vessel known as Bato which was built in the Philippines in 1916 and of more than 15 tons gross.  The Bato was brought in Cebu for purposes of transporting petitioner corporation's merchandise between ports in the Islands.  Petitioner applied for certificate of Philippine registry to respondent Collector of Customs of Cebu, however, the latter denied said application giving his reason that all of the stockholders of Smith, Bell & Co., Ltd., were not citizens either of the United States or the Philippine Islands, applying the provisions of the Philippine Legislature Act No. 2761 which reads as follows:

           SEC. 1172. Certificate of Philippine register. - Upon registration of a vessel of domestic ownership, and of more than fifteen tons gross, a certificate of Philippine register shall be issued for it.  If the vessel of domestic ownership and of fifteen tons  gross or less, the taking of the certificate of Philippine register shall be optional with the owner.

           "Domestic ownership," as used in this section, means ownership vested in some one  or more of the following classes of persons:  (a) Citizens or native inhabitants of the Philippine Islands; (b) citizens of the United States residing in the Philippines  Islands; (c) any corporation or company composed wholly of citizens of 

the Philippine Islands or of the United States or both, created under the of the United States, or of any State thereof, or of thereof, or the managing or master of the vessel resides in the Philippine Islands.

          Petitioner argued against the constitutionality of Act No. 2761 citing the 1st paragraph of the Bill of Rights set forth on the Jones Law which provides, "That no law shall be enacted in the said Islands which shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law or deny to any person therein the equal protection of the laws."  That the person referred to by the Bill of Rights pertains not only for Filipinos but for aliens as well.  Petitioner said that Act 2761 denies the latter of the equal protection of the law, because it, in effect, prohibits the corporation from owning vessels. Further, the Act 2761 deprives the corporation of its property because the passage of the law was automatically deprived of every beneficial attribute of ownership in the Bato and left with naked title to a boat it could not use.

          Petitioner, Smith, Bell & Co. (Ltd.), prayed that a writ of mandamus be issued against respondent, Joaquin Natividad, Collector of Customs of the port of Cebu, Philippine Islands compelling the latter to issue a certificate of Philippine registry to the petitioner for its motor vessel Bato.

ISSUE

         Whether or not Phil. Legislature Act. 2761 is unconstitutional especially for corporations having alien stockholders.

HELD

          The Supreme Court speaking through Justice Malcolm with a solution which more effectively promote public policy and national welfare declared that courts should not attempt to nullify the action of the Legislature without good and strong reasons.  He pointed that the Philippine Legislature made up of entirely of Filipinos representing the mandate of the Filipino people and the guardian of their rights, acting under practically autonomous powers, and imbued with a strong sense of Philippinism, has desired for these islands safety from foreign interlopers, the use of common property exclusively by its citizens and the citizens of the United States, and protection for the common good of the people.  The limitation of domestic ownership for the purposes of obtaining a certificate of Philippine registry in the coastwise trade to citizens of the Philippine Islands and to citizens of the United States does not violate the provisions of paragraph 1 of section 3 of the Act of Congress of August 29, 1916 (Bill of Rights).   No treaty right relied upon Act No. 2761 of the Philippine Legislature is held valid and constitutional.  

         The Supreme court held that Art. 2761 is valid and constitutional.  The petition for a writ of mandamus is denied, with cost against the petitioner.