MMA Law Office

10/02/2026

22/12/2025

PERSONALITY DISORDER LEADING TO VIOLENT TENDENCIES GROUNDS FOR NULLIFYING MARRIAGE—SUPREME COURT

The Supreme Court (SC) ruled that having violent tendencies that lead to inflicting physical and emotional abuse on one's spouse may be considered evidence of psychological incapacity to comply with marital obligations, a ground for nullification of marriage.

In a 14-page decision authored by Associate Justice Japar Dimaampao, the SC's Third Division has declared void from the beginning the marriage between Marie Anne Grace Chua-Mascariñas and Martin Mascariñas, Jr., on the ground of latter's psychological incapacity as provided under Article 36 of the Family Code.

Marie and Martin were former schoolmates. During college, despite already being in a relationship, Martin courted Marie. They became intimate with each other.

Later, they decided to live under the same roof, where Marie began to notice Martin's violent tendencies. There even came a time when Martin threw food on her face. Worse, he regularly had carnal knowledge of Marie while intoxicated, leading to her unexpected pregnancy, and they were eventually compelled to get married.

After they got married, Martin's physical and emotional abuse worsened. At one point, in a fit of rage, Martin shoved Marie to the floor, causing her to miscarry. In 2010, Marie noticed that Martin had become distant and no longer wanted to sleep in the same bed. Martin later confessed that he was having an affair with two other women.

Marie then decided to leave their house and eventually filed a petition for nullification of marriage on the ground of their respective psychological incapacities. Despite receipt of summons, Martin did not file an answer.

During the trial, a clinical psychologist testified and presented a psychological evaluation report, which revealed that Marie was suffering from a dependent personality disorder with passive-aggressive traits.

On the other hand, Martin was diagnosed with narcissistic personality disorder coexisting with antisocial and dependent personality disorders. The expert said that these diagnoses rendered both of them psychologically incapacitated to assume and properly discharge their roles and obligations in the marriage.

The Regional Trial Court granted the petition and declared that their marriage is null and void. But the Court of Appeals reversed the said ruling, prompting Marie to elevate the case before the Supreme Court.

In granting the petition, the high court found that Marie had sufficiently overcome the burden of proving, by clear and convincing evidence, the nullity of her marriage with Martin on the ground of the latter's psychological incapacity.

It noted that the incapacity of Martin has sufficiently been characterized as (1) incurable, as there is a persistent failure on the part of Martin to love, respect, and render support to Marie; (2) grave, as it is not merely a mood swing or occasional emotional outburst; and (3) judicially antecedent, as it was already existent even prior to their marriage.

"It is pertinent that the Psychological Report was never controverted by contrary evidence. There is likewise no finding of collusion between the parties by the public prosecutor. As such, there is nothing on record that would negate its legitimacy," the Supreme Court said.

It emphasized that since Martin's psychological incapacity to fulfill marital obligations was successfully established, there is no necessity to delve into Marie's psychological incapacity, as the nullification of a marriage may be based on the psychological incapacity of either spouse.

06/10/2025

𝑾𝑬'𝑹𝑬 𝑪𝑶𝑴𝑴𝑰𝑻𝑻𝑬𝑫 𝑻𝑶 𝑨𝑺𝑺𝑰𝑺𝑻𝑰𝑵𝑮 𝒀𝑶𝑼 𝑾𝑰𝑻𝑯 𝑨𝑳𝑳 𝒀𝑶𝑼𝑹 𝑳𝑬𝑮𝑨𝑳 𝑵𝑬𝑬𝑫𝑺!

To schedule an appointment, feel free to message us here on Facebook or send a text message to 0997-825-1023.

Office Hours:
Monday to Friday 9:00AM to 6:00PM
Saturday and Sunday (strictly by appointment)

We are located at Blk 1 Lot 10 MCDC Kapayapaan Ville, Brgy. Canlubang, Calamba, Laguna
(Landmark: infront of Kuda electric bike)

06/10/2025

Court of Appeals Associate Justice Wilhelmina B. Jorge-Wagan, a member of the Supreme Court Special Committee on Cybercrime and Electronic Evidence, and a Professorial Lecturer at the Philippine Judicial Academy, discusses online libel, one of the crimes covered by RA 10175, or the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012, in Episode 88: Cyber Libel 101.
What is cyber libel, and what makes it different from the traditional concept of libel as defined under the Revised Penal Code?
This week's podcast is available on Spotify, YouTube, and the website.

Court of Appeals Associate Justice Wilhelmina B. Jorge-Wagan, a member of the Supreme Court Special Committee on Cybercrime and Electronic Evidence, and a Professorial Lecturer at the Philippine Judicial Academy, discusses online libel, one of the crimes covered by RA 10175, or the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012, in Episode 88: Cyber Libel 101.

What is cyber libel, and what makes it different from the traditional concept of libel as defined under the Revised Penal Code?

This week's podcast is available on Spotify, YouTube, and the website.

Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/episode/7A7aTIzbcfpxWeqSaYYAxv?si=xRKoo5WqRlur18um9gBOFg

YouTube: https://youtu.be/PhSgaEpT_ho

SC website: http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/podcasts/

25/04/2025

| The Supreme Court (SC) has reversed the Court of Appeals dismissal of a husband's petition for declaration of nullity of marriage and held that the wife's lack of concern for her responsibilities constitutes psychological incapacity.

In a 12-page decision penned by Associate Justice Japar Dimaampao, the SC Third Division has nullified the marriage between Ericson and Romelia Cabutaje on the ground of the latter's psychological incapacity.

Ericson and Romelia were married in January 2003, and they had a daughter named Keirah Angela. While living with Ericson's parents, Romelia was urged by his mother to apply for work abroad. Thenceforth, Romelia went to Taiwan, leaving Ericson to take care of Keirah. Although Romelia was able to send money to them during the first few months, the money remittances eventually became scarce, prompting Ericson to similarly apply for work in Taiwan.

In Taiwan, the spouses rarely met as their workplaces were far apart. Over time, the marriage turned sour, and Romelia became inconsistent in providing financial support to their child. After several months of marital strife and upon the end of her contract in Taiwan, Romelia left for the Philippines and stayed with her parents.

She went to her in-laws' house to fetch Keirah. Romelia left Keirah in the custody of her sister when she went to Hong Kong to work as a domestic helper. Since then, Romelia no longer provided financial support for Keirah. Egregiously, she had another romantic relationship with a different man.

This prompted Ericson to file a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity on the part of Romelia. The Regional Trial Court granted the petition and declared their marriage void ab initio. The Republic, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), brought up the case before the Court of Appeals (CA).

The CA reversed the disposition of the RTC, citing purported insufficiency of evidence to support Ericson's petition. This paves the way for him to elevate the case before the Supreme Court.

In reversing the appellate court's ruling, the high court gave great weight to the findings of clinical psychologist Dr. Nedy Tayag, who said Romelia is psychologically incapacitated to perform her marital obligations. Although Dr. Tayag's findings were only anchored based on her interviews with Ericson and his witnesses. The lack of personal examination and interview of Romelia does not per se invalidate the testimonies of the expert.

“Indeed, the fact that the information comes from one side alone should not dilute the veracity of the evidence that Ericson presented during the trial, for to do so would punish every innocent spouse suffering in a marriage with a psychologically incapacitated spouse who comes to the court for succor. Ultimately, courts should judiciously assess the merits of each Article 36 petition on a case-to-case basis, including the psychological report, if any, regardless of the fact that only one of the spouses was interviewed by the psychologist,” the SC said.

“Due to Romelia's evident disregard and lack of concern for her responsibilities as a wife and mother, Ericson and their child were deprived of moral and emotional support, respect, love, care, and trust... Accordingly, the totality of evidence establishes, at most, her psychological incapacity to comply with her essential marital obligations,” SC added.

06/03/2024

SC: Surviving Spouse Entitled to SSS Pension Even if Marriage Was Contracted After Spouse’s Disability |

The Supreme Court has voided the provision in the Social Security Act that disqualifies as primary beneficiaries those who become the legitimate spouse of the pensioner only after the latter suffered permanent total disability.

The Supreme Court En Banc, through Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting, declared void the proviso “as of the date of disability” in Section 13-A(c) of Republic Act No. (RA) 8282, or the Social Security Act of 1997 (Social Security Law), for being contrary to the due process and equal protection clauses of the Constitution, as it granted the petition for review on certiorari filed by Belinda D.R. Dolera (Belinda). The petition challenged the rulings of the Court of Appeals (CA) which had upheld the Order of the Social Security Commission (SSC) denying Belinda’s application for survivorship pension following the death of her husband, Leonardo L. Dolera (Leonardo).

Ordering the SSS to process Belinda’s claim for survivorship pension, the Court stressed that the Social Security Law was enacted pursuant to the policy of the State to promote social justice and provide protection to the workers and their beneficiaries against the hazards of contingencies, such as disability and death, resulting in loss of income or financial burden.

As a social welfare legislation, the Social Security Law should be liberally construed in favor of the intended beneficiary, for it is only by giving the law a liberal construction that the constitutional policy concerning promotion of social justice is realized, held the Court.

The assailed provision of Section 13-A(c) of the Social Security Law provides that to be considered a primary beneficiary entitled to receive survivorship pension, the applicant must be the legitimate spouse of the pensioner as of the date of the latter’s disability.

The Court ruled, however, that the said provision is void for being violative of the equal protection clause of the Constitution as it discriminates against dependent spouses who married the pensioners after the latter qualified for their pension.

The Court further ruled that Section 13-A(c) of the law violates the Constitution’s due process clause. Reiterating its 2004 ruling in GSIS, Cebu City Branch v. Montesclaros, the Court held that retirement benefits, including SSS pension, are protected property interest given that these are compulsory contributions that formed part of one’s compensation, rather than a mere gratuity.

In the case of Belinda, the Court held that her right to receive the survivorship pension was already established because as the deceased pensioner’s surviving spouse, she is entitled to the pension. Thus, its “unceremonious denial is an outright confiscation of [Belinda’s] right in violation of the due process clause,” the Court concluded.

Read more at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/sc-surviving-spouse-entitled-to-sss-pension-even-if-marriage-was-contracted-after-spouses-disability/. Read G.R. No. 253940 (Dolera v. SSS) at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/253940-belinda-d-r-dolera-vs-social-security-system/.


©️Supreme Court PH