DECISION nullity

This resolves the petition for Declaration of Nullity of

Marriage filed by petttioner __________ on ________
against defendant Jonie M. Mangle based on Article 36 of the
Family Code of the Philippines.
Respondent ____________ is a resident of Brgy. Imelda,
Pilar, Camotes Group of Island, Cebu. Copy of the summons
together with the complaint was only served to respondent
on December 2, 2008 as evidenced by the Return of Service
of Summons dated December 4, 2008 and certified by the
process server ___________ Despite receipt of summons
and complaint respondent did not file any answer thereof.
On __________ petitioner through counsel filed a Motion To
Order the City Prosecutor to Conduct an Investigation that
No Collusion Existed between the Parties which was granted
by this Court in its Order dated February 10, 2009.
Such report ( On Non- Collunsion of Paties) was filed on
August 26, 2009 with this Court by the Office of the City
Prosecutor wherein the investigating prosecutor concluded,
among others, that the pieces of information gathered all led
to reasonalble and fair conclusion that there was no collusion
between tha parties in filling instant case.
On 11 February 2010, the pre-trial conference was held
petitioner, Janeth Mangle, personally appeared with her
counsel of record, _______________, The respondent,
______________, however, was conspicuously absent and
neither was he represented by counsel.

Page 1 of 18

Pros_____________appeared in behalf of the Solicitor

General.
Trial proper for the reception of petitioners evidence then
followed.
On March 17 and 19, 2010, _________ presented to the
witness stand his first witness, the petitioner herself,
____________whose testimony was offered to prove the
psychological incapacity of the dependant which occurred
even before their marriage. Her tsetimony2 may be
summarized, thus:

On March 24, 2010, petitioner through counsel presented

her second witness in the person of ___________ who
testified to corroborate the testimony of the plaintiff as
regard the behavior and attitude of the defendant
buttressing petitioners claim about the psychological
incapacity of respondent as contemplated under Article 36 of
the Family Code. Her testimony may be stated in gist, viz:

On May 4, 2010, petitioner presented her last witness in the

person of ____________, a Clinical Psychologist, who was
presented as an expert witness in the field of clinical
psychology. He identified his Clinical Psychological Report 5
and his testimony6 would be substantially as follows:
That he is a Professor from the Psychology Department of
University of San Carlos, Cebu City being clinical
psychologist. In the course of his professional duties, he
came across the person of the petitioner, ______________,
for the purpose of conducting a psychological examination to
Page 2 of 18

evaluate the alleged psychological incapacity of the

respondent in this case, _______________.

That as expert in said field, he came up with a conclusion,

after conducting an exhaustive psychological evaluation, that
the respondent suffers from a permanent and incurable
personality disorder known as Anti-social Personality
Disorder.
That he conducted his Psychological Report into writing
consisting of seven (7) pages. That he administered
interview and test on the petitioner and her witnesses, Lolita
Rapales and a neighbor, and gathered that respondent
exhibited behaviors symptomatic of an anti-social individual
as shown by his extreme lack of concern, insensitivity,
callousness, and apathy or lack of emotional belongingness
to the members of his family. That his psychological disorder
effectively hindered the respondent from performing his
marital and filial obligation to his wife and children.
That his personality disorder became more pronounced
during the marriage but, in fact, the same wasalready
existing before the celebration of the marriage between the
parties. That since the disorder is already very serious; it
constituted already a threat to the marriage because the
other members of the family will suffer from its
consequences, which ultimately destroyed said marriage.
That said personality disorder is permanent and incurable
because the afflicted individual refuses to acknowledge that
he has such mental affliction and would refuse any therapy.
That respondents personality disorder can be traced way
back in his younger days within the dynamics of the family
Page 3 of 18

he came from. The he grew up with a vicious father and

undisciplining mother. That respondent grew up a juvenile
delinquent, a precursor of his anti-social personality
disorder. That respondent was a wayward kid, spending his
time with his peers, and drop-out from school. He merely
strolled around town with no direction but whose purpose
was only to meet his own needs. That he would yearn for
comforts but would shirk away from any responsibility. That
he same pattern in his younger days was exhibited by him
during his marriage due to his personality disorder.
Nevertheless, he does not consider that petitioner; Janeth
Mangle contributed to the development of the personality
disorder of the respondent because it was already existing
prior and on the day of the celebration of their
marriage.That petitioner was very patient because despite
the three(3) separation that happened, she still accepted the
dependant into their family. That when a fourth separation
happened, even the relatives of the respondent
acknowledged the shortcoming and faults of their own kin.
They even supports petitioners decision to sever and end a
hopeless marriage.

On May 7, 2010, petitioner through counsel filed her Formal

Offer of Exhibits which were admitted by the Court in its
order dated July 8, 2010, thus;

Exhibit A
Exhibit B
General

- Summons
-Notice of Appearance of the Solicitor

Page 4 of 18

Exhibit C

- Authority given to the City Prosecutor

Exhibit D - The petition/ complaint for the nullity of

marriage of the parties in this case
Exhibit E
Exhibit F
parties

- Certificate of Marriage
-Report of Collusion of Non-Collusion of

Exhibit G

- Birth Certificate of

Exhibit H

- Birth Certificate of

Exhibit I

- Baptism Certificate of

Exhibit J & J-1 Clinical Psychologists Report

From the judicious consideration of the evidence on record,
the Court finds that petitioner succeeded to prove that
respondent Jonie M. Mangle is psychologically incapacitated
to perform his essential marital obligations, being someone
afflicted with a permanent, incurable and serious personality
disorder known as Anti-Social Personality Disorder.
Psychological incapacity as defined by Ernesto L. Pineda in
his book The Family Code of the Philippines Annotated, is a
mental condition which perpetually prevents or incapacitates
a person martially contracted to another voluntarily, from
performing or complying with certain essential marital
obligations, resulting in the failure to achieve the basic ends
of marriage, which mental condition is serious, with roots
antedating the marriage and is incurable.
Respondents mental condition of leisurely spending most of
his time with his friends, coming home late at night or even
early morning of the following day and wasting his hard
Page 5 of 18

earned and inadequate salary for drinking sprees instead of

giving it to his wife for the sustenance of his family, prevents
him from performing his essential marital obligations.
As to the requirements of establishing psychological
incapacity, as laid down in the case of Dimayuga- Laurena
vs. Court of Appeals7, that psychological incapacity must be
characterized by (a) gravity (b) juridical antecedence and (c)
incurability elaborated as follows:
Gravity- it must be grave and serious such that the party
would be incapable of carrying out the ordinary duties
required in a marriage;
Juridical Antecedence- it must be rooted in the part
history of the party antedating the marriage although the
overt manifestation may emerge only after the marriage;
Incurability- It must be incurable or even if it so, the cure
is beyond the means of the party involved,
This Court believes that the foregoing were convincingly
established and complied with by petitioner through her
expert witness, Dr. Andres Suan Gerong. The Latters
testimony is worthy of belief and credence that based from
his expert opinion on the psychological profile of respondent
Jonie Mangle, the latter is suffering from a personality
disorders known as Antisocial Personality Disorder. The
presentation of his psychological report and his candid and
persuasive explanation in open court based from a thorough
and in-depth assessment of respondents psychological
condition convinced this Court that respondents
psychological malady is indeed grave severe and incurable.

Page 6 of 18

The testimony of the above-named three(3) witnesses,

taken as a whole, show a disturbing pattern of insensitivity,
callousness and apathy and lack of emotional belongingness
of respondent who showed an utter lack of sense of
appreciation of his marital status with petitioner. Dr. Gerong
candidly explained that such personality disorder of
respondent can be traced to his childhood and adolescent
because the afflicted person himself would refuse any
measure of reformation. The evidence of the petitioner
shows that even during respondents younger days,
respondent was already a wayward kid, spending his time
with his peers, a drop out from school and was lazy to
attend school. His sense of direction was only to meet his
own needs without the concomitant responsibilities.
The evidence on record no doubt shows that respondent
lacks any sense of responsibility and respect to his wife. He
was totally devoid of any paternal instinct because he never
had second thoughts of abandoning his children and never
thought of providing them of moral, emotional and financial
support. Petitioners evidence as a whole would really
support her claim that respondent is indeed psychologically
incapacitated to comply with his marital obligations
especially those provided by law under Article 68 and 70 of
the Family Code, which provided:
Art. 68. The husband and wife are obliged to live together,
observed mutual love, respect and fidelity, and render
mutual help and support.
Art. 70. The spouses are jointly responsible for the support
of the family. The expenses for such support and other
conjugal obligation shall be paid from the community
property and, in the absence thereof, from the income of
Page 7 of 18

fruits of their separate properties. In case of insufficiency or

absence of said income or fruits, such obligation shall be
satisfied from their separate properties.
These provision demand for the personal commitment of
each spouses in a marriage to sincerely carry-out the
obligation demanded of the marriage, that is: to live
together, to observe mutual love, respect and fidelity to
comply. He failed to appreciate these personal obligations of
married man because of this psychological incapacity to
appreciate them. The non- performance of said obligations
by the spouse endows the other certain causes of action
such as declaration of nullity of the marriage under Art. 36
of the Family Code of the Philippines.8
Given the avowed State interest in promoting marriage as
the foundation of the family, which in turn serves as the
foundation of the nation, there is a corresponding interest
for the State to defend against marriage illeequipped to
promote family life.9
Considerably as well, applying the ruling of no less than the
Supreme Court in Yu vs. Yu10, that by petitioners filing of
the case for declaration of nullity of marriage before the
Pasig RTC he automatically submitted the issue of custody of
Bianca as an incident thereof, this Court resolves that the
custody of the children, and shall belong to the herein
petitioner,.
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, judgment is hereby
rendered declaring the marriage between petitioner,
celebrated on August 15, 1997 as NULL and VOID ab intio
on the ground of psychological incapacity on the part of
respondent, that renders him unfit to discharge his essential
Page 8 of 18

marital obligation, pursuant to Article 36 of the Family Code

with all the effects provided by law.
Custody of this three (3) children shall remain with
petitioner without prejudice to the visitation of the
respondent. Furthermore, the parties are jointly responsible
for the support of their children.
SOORDERED.

DECISION
This resolves the petition for Declaration of Nullity of
Marriage filed by petttioner __________ on ________
against defendant Jonie M. Mangle based on Article 36 of the
Family Code of the Philippines.
Respondent ____________ is a resident of Brgy. Imelda,
Pilar, Camotes Group of Island, Cebu. Copy of the summons
together with the complaint was only served to respondent
Page 9 of 18

on December 2, 2008 as evidenced by the Return of Service

of Summons dated December 4, 2008 and certified by the
process server ___________ Despite receipt of summons
and complaint respondent did not file any answer thereof.
On __________ petitioner through counsel filed a Motion To
Order the City Prosecutor to Conduct an Investigation that
No Collusion Existed between the Parties which was granted
by this Court in its Order dated February 10, 2009.
Such report ( On Non- Collunsion of Paties) was filed on
August 26, 2009 with this Court by the Office of the City
Prosecutor wherein the investigating prosecutor concluded,
among others, that the pieces of information gathered all led
to reasonalble and fair conclusion that there was no collusion
between tha parties in filling instant case.
On 11 February 2010, the pre-trial conference was held
petitioner, Janeth Mangle, personally appeared with her
counsel of record, _______________, The respondent,
______________, however, was conspicuously absent and
neither was he represented by counsel.
Pros_____________appeared in behalf of the Solicitor
General.
Trial proper for the reception of petitioners evidence then
followed.
On March 17 and 19, 2010, _________ presented to the
witness stand his first witness, the petitioner herself,
____________whose testimony was offered to prove the
psychological incapacity of the dependant which occurred
even before their marriage. Her tsetimony2 may be
summarized, thus:
Page 10 of 18

On March 24, 2010, petitioner through counsel presented

her second witness in the person of ___________ who
testified to corroborate the testimony of the plaintiff as
regard the behavior and attitude of the defendant
buttressing petitioners claim about the psychological
incapacity of respondent as contemplated under Article 36 of
the Family Code. Her testimony may be stated in gist, viz:

On May 4, 2010, petitioner presented her last witness in the

person of ____________, a Clinical Psychologist, who was
presented as an expert witness in the field of clinical
psychology. He identified his Clinical Psychological Report 5
and his testimony6 would be substantially as follows:
That he is a Professor from the Psychology Department of
University of San Carlos, Cebu City being clinical
psychologist. In the course of his professional duties, he
came across the person of the petitioner, ______________,
for the purpose of conducting a psychological examination to
evaluate the alleged psychological incapacity of the
respondent in this case, _______________.

That as expert in said field, he came up with a conclusion,

after conducting an exhaustive psychological evaluation, that
the respondent suffers from a permanent and incurable
personality disorder known as Anti-social Personality
Disorder.
That he conducted his Psychological Report into writing
consisting of seven (7) pages. That he administered
Page 11 of 18

interview and test on the petitioner and her witnesses, Lolita

Rapales and a neighbor, and gathered that respondent
exhibited behaviors symptomatic of an anti-social individual
as shown by his extreme lack of concern, insensitivity,
callousness, and apathy or lack of emotional belongingness
to the members of his family. That his psychological disorder
effectively hindered the respondent from performing his
marital and filial obligation to his wife and children.
That his personality disorder became more pronounced
during the marriage but, in fact, the same wasalready
existing before the celebration of the marriage between the
parties. That since the disorder is already very serious; it
constituted already a threat to the marriage because the
other members of the family will suffer from its
consequences, which ultimately destroyed said marriage.
That said personality disorder is permanent and incurable
because the afflicted individual refuses to acknowledge that
he has such mental affliction and would refuse any therapy.
That respondents personality disorder can be traced way
back in his younger days within the dynamics of the family
he came from. The he grew up with a vicious father and
undisciplining mother. That respondent grew up a juvenile
delinquent, a precursor of his anti-social personality
disorder. That respondent was a wayward kid, spending his
time with his peers, and drop-out from school. He merely
strolled around town with no direction but whose purpose
was only to meet his own needs. That he would yearn for
comforts but would shirk away from any responsibility. That
he same pattern in his younger days was exhibited by him
during his marriage due to his personality disorder.

Page 12 of 18

Nevertheless, he does not consider that petitioner; Janeth

Mangle contributed to the development of the personality
disorder of the respondent because it was already existing
prior and on the day of the celebration of their
marriage.That petitioner was very patient because despite
the three(3) separation that happened, she still accepted the
dependant into their family. That when a fourth separation
happened, even the relatives of the respondent
acknowledged the shortcoming and faults of their own kin.
They even supports petitioners decision to sever and end a
hopeless marriage.

On May 7, 2010, petitioner through counsel filed her Formal

Offer of Exhibits which were admitted by the Court in its
order dated July 8, 2010, thus;

Exhibit A
Exhibit B
General
Exhibit C

- Summons
-Notice of Appearance of the Solicitor
- Authority given to the City Prosecutor

Exhibit D - The petition/ complaint for the nullity of

marriage of the parties in this case
Exhibit E
Exhibit F
parties

- Certificate of Marriage
-Report of Collusion of Non-Collusion of

Exhibit G

- Birth Certificate of

Exhibit H

- Birth Certificate of
Page 13 of 18

Exhibit I

- Baptism Certificate of

Exhibit J & J-1 Clinical Psychologists Report

From the judicious consideration of the evidence on record,
the Court finds that petitioner succeeded to prove that
respondent Jonie M. Mangle is psychologically incapacitated
to perform his essential marital obligations, being someone
afflicted with a permanent, incurable and serious personality
disorder known as Anti-Social Personality Disorder.
Psychological incapacity as defined by Ernesto L. Pineda in
his book The Family Code of the Philippines Annotated, is a
mental condition which perpetually prevents or incapacitates
a person martially contracted to another voluntarily, from
performing or complying with certain essential marital
obligations, resulting in the failure to achieve the basic ends
of marriage, which mental condition is serious, with roots
antedating the marriage and is incurable.
Respondents mental condition of leisurely spending most of
his time with his friends, coming home late at night or even
early morning of the following day and wasting his hard
earned and inadequate salary for drinking sprees instead of
giving it to his wife for the sustenance of his family, prevents
him from performing his essential marital obligations.
As to the requirements of establishing psychological
incapacity, as laid down in the case of Dimayuga- Laurena
vs. Court of Appeals7, that psychological incapacity must be
characterized by (a) gravity (b) juridical antecedence and (c)
incurability elaborated as follows:

Page 14 of 18

Gravity- it must be grave and serious such that the party

would be incapable of carrying out the ordinary duties
required in a marriage;
Juridical Antecedence- it must be rooted in the part
history of the party antedating the marriage although the
overt manifestation may emerge only after the marriage;
Incurability- It must be incurable or even if it so, the cure
is beyond the means of the party involved,
This Court believes that the foregoing were convincingly
established and complied with by petitioner through her
expert witness, Dr. Andres Suan Gerong. The Latters
testimony is worthy of belief and credence that based from
his expert opinion on the psychological profile of respondent
Jonie Mangle, the latter is suffering from a personality
disorders known as Antisocial Personality Disorder. The
presentation of his psychological report and his candid and
persuasive explanation in open court based from a thorough
and in-depth assessment of respondents psychological
condition convinced this Court that respondents
psychological malady is indeed grave severe and incurable.
The testimony of the above-named three(3) witnesses,
taken as a whole, show a disturbing pattern of insensitivity,
callousness and apathy and lack of emotional belongingness
of respondent who showed an utter lack of sense of
appreciation of his marital status with petitioner. Dr. Gerong
candidly explained that such personality disorder of
respondent can be traced to his childhood and adolescent
because the afflicted person himself would refuse any
measure of reformation. The evidence of the petitioner
shows that even during respondents younger days,
respondent was already a wayward kid, spending his time
Page 15 of 18

with his peers, a drop out from school and was lazy to
attend school. His sense of direction was only to meet his
own needs without the concomitant responsibilities.
The evidence on record no doubt shows that respondent
lacks any sense of responsibility and respect to his wife. He
was totally devoid of any paternal instinct because he never
had second thoughts of abandoning his children and never
thought of providing them of moral, emotional and financial
support. Petitioners evidence as a whole would really
support her claim that respondent is indeed psychologically
incapacitated to comply with his marital obligations
especially those provided by law under Article 68 and 70 of
the Family Code, which provided:
Art. 68. The husband and wife are obliged to live together,
observed mutual love, respect and fidelity, and render
mutual help and support.
Art. 70. The spouses are jointly responsible for the support
of the family. The expenses for such support and other
conjugal obligation shall be paid from the community
property and, in the absence thereof, from the income of
fruits of their separate properties. In case of insufficiency or
absence of said income or fruits, such obligation shall be
satisfied from their separate properties.
These provision demand for the personal commitment of
each spouses in a marriage to sincerely carry-out the
obligation demanded of the marriage, that is: to live
together, to observe mutual love, respect and fidelity to
comply. He failed to appreciate these personal obligations of
married man because of this psychological incapacity to
appreciate them. The non- performance of said obligations
by the spouse endows the other certain causes of action
Page 16 of 18

such as declaration of nullity of the marriage under Art. 36

of the Family Code of the Philippines.8
Given the avowed State interest in promoting marriage as
the foundation of the family, which in turn serves as the
foundation of the nation, there is a corresponding interest
for the State to defend against marriage illeequipped to
promote family life.9
Considerably as well, applying the ruling of no less than the
Supreme Court in Yu vs. Yu10, that by petitioners filing of
the case for declaration of nullity of marriage before the
Pasig RTC he automatically submitted the issue of custody of
Bianca as an incident thereof, this Court resolves that the
custody of the children, and shall belong to the herein
petitioner,.
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, judgment is hereby
rendered declaring the marriage between petitioner,
celebrated on August 15, 1997 as NULL and VOID ab intio
on the ground of psychological incapacity on the part of
respondent, that renders him unfit to discharge his essential
marital obligation, pursuant to Article 36 of the Family Code
with all the effects provided by law.
Custody of this three (3) children shall remain with
petitioner without prejudice to the visitation of the
respondent. Furthermore, the parties are jointly responsible
for the support of their children.
SOORDERED.

Page 17 of 18

Page 18 of 18