Marcos Vs Marcos Case Digest 3my44

BRENDA B. MARCOS v WILSON G. MARCOS G.R. No. 136490 October 19, 2000 FACTS: Brenda Marcos, the petitioner, married the respondent Wilson Marcos twice on September 6, 1982 and May 8, 1983 respectively and had five children. After Ferdinand Marcos was overthrown during the EDSA revolution, the respondent left the military service and engaged in various business ventures with which he had never succeeded. This had created quarrels between the couple which ended up with the respondent hitting and beating his wife, herein petitioner. Consequently, the couple separated in 1992. And on October 16, 1994, though they have already led separate lives, the respondent arrived in their residence resulting to a bitter quarrel which turned to be violent in the end. Subsequently, herein petitioner suffered physical injuries from her husband. Thus, petitioner filed for annulment of marriage in the RTC assailing Article 36 of the Family Code. The court ruled the respondent to be psychologically incapacitated to perform his marital obligations. However, the Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the RTC because psychological incapacity had not been established by the totality of the evidence presented. Hence, this appeal. ISSUE: Whether or not the totality of the evidence presented in the present case -- including the testimonies of petitioner, the common children, petitioner's sister and the social worker -- was enough to sustain a finding that respondent was psychologically incapacitated. RULING: The court ruled the negative. The testimonies of petitioner, the common children, petitioner's sister and the social worker – were not enough to sustain a finding that the respondent was psychologically incapacitated. 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. And to prove the spouse’s psychological incapacity as a ground for the nullity of

Page 1 of 2

marriage is to meet the three basic requirements: gravity, juridical antecedence, and incurability. In the case at bar, the petitioner herein failed to exhaust and present all possible evidence to show that her husband is psychologically incapacitated. There was no evidence that herein respondent had presented such defects before their marriage and that they are incurable. Thus, the decision of the CA is affirmed.

Page 2 of 2