No.  61. Leonilo Antonio vs. Marie Ivonne Reyes ( G.R. No. 155800 March 10, 2006)

Statistics never lie, but lovers often do

This sad truth has destroyed many lovers who entered into the realms of matrimony.
Once lie creeps in, no matter the degree or the gravity, it will always destroy the peace shared between the two. The guilty will suffer the doubts of the other party to be someone incapable of fulfilling obligations in a partnership.

 G.R. No. 155800



August 1989 the Mr. Antonio 26 yrs old met Ms. Reyes who by then is 36 years old. After a year, they got married at the Manila City Hall and subsequently in the Sta. Rosa de Lima parish, Pasig Metro Manila. They had a child who died fivr (5) months after birth.
After three years of marriage Mr. ANTONIO filed a petition to declare his marriage with ms. Reyes, null and void on the basis that ms. Reyes or the respondent was psychologically incapacitated to comply with essential obligations of marriage.
The petitioner claims that the respondents constantly lies about herself and other people around her, her occupation,her income, educational attainment and other events or things. 

Manifestations of the respondent’s alleged psychological incapacity, to wit:

A. Concealing the fact that she gave birth to an illegitimate son and introduced the boy to the petitioner as the adopted child of her family.

B. Fabricated a story that her brother-in-law edwin david, attempted to rape and kill her when in fact no incident of that matter occured.

C. Misinterpreted herself as a psychiatrist to her obstetrician and that she has a degree in psychology when in truth she was niether

D. She claimed to be a singer affiliated with Balckgol Recording Company and that a luncheon was held in her honor at the Phil. Village Hotel but when verified to the Director of Sales of said hotel no occasion has taken place.

E. She altered her payslip to appear as a person of higher income and incurred a debts from other people on false pretext.

F. She also exhibited insecurities and jealousies for no apparent reason.

The petitioner could not bear the unusual behavior of Ms. Reyes so he separated from her in August 1991, he attempted a reconciliation but since her behavior did not change he left her for good in November 1991.

The petition of Mr. Antonio in 1993 was declared null and void by the RTC under article 36 of the family code on the 10th of August 1995 stating that the respondent’s  propensity to lie about almost anything had been duly established and this ability to fabricate storiesand personalities enabled her to live in a world of make believe rendering her as incapable of giving meaning and significance to her mariage.

The Court of appeals reversed the trial courts decision. It held that the evidence presented  was insufficient to establish respondent’s psychological incapacity and that the requirements in the 1997 Molina CASE had not been satisfied.


Whether or not the presented facts by the petitioner is sufficient for the declaration of nullity of a marriage under Art 36 of the Family Code?

Court rulings

The totality of the evidence presented as basis to the trial court explicated its findings of psychological incapacity.

The case sufficiently satisfies the Molina guidelines:


p style=”color:rgb(102,102,102);line-height:19.1px;font-size:14.7px;font-family:Calibri, sans-serif-light, sans-serif;border:0 none rgb(102,102,102);background-color:rgb(255,255,255);”>

  •      That  Antonio had sufficiently overcome his burden in proving the psychological incapacity of his wife; with his own testimony and the witnesses who corroborated his allegations on his wife’s behavior and a certification from the blackgold records and the PHIL village hotelwhich disputed  respondents claim regarding her alleged singing career.

Second, that the root cause of Reyes’ psychological incapacity has been  medically and clinically proven by experts and was clearly explained in the courts decision.


p style=”color:rgb(102,102,102);line-height:19.1px;font-size:14.7px;font-family:Calibri, sans-serif-light, sans-serif;border:0 none rgb(102,102,102);background-color:rgb(255,255,255);”>All told, we conclude that petitioner has established his cause of action for declaration of nullity under Article 36 of the Family Code. The RTC correctly ruled, and the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the trial court.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The decision of the RTC dated 10 August 1995, declaring the marriage between petitioner and respondent NULL and VOID under Article 36 of the Family Code, is REINSTATED. No costs.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s