Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 2


FACTS: Petitioner Renne Enrique E. Bier and respondent Ma. Lourdes A. Bier gets married after six months of courtship. Back then, petitioner observed respondent to be a very sweet and thoughtful person. Everything went well for the first three years of their marriage. Respondent was everything petitioner could hope for in a wife sweet, loving and caring . The couple started experiencing marital problems after three years of marriage. According to petitioner, respondent started becoming aloof towards him and began to spend more time with her friends than with him, refusing even to have sexual relations with him for no apparent reason. She became an alcoholic and a chain-smoker. She also started neglecting her husband's needs and the upkeep of their home, and became an absentee wife. After being gone from their home for days on end, she would return without bothering to account for her absence. As a result, they frequently quarreled. Finally, respondent suddenly left for the United States. Petitioner has not heard from her since. Petitioner instituted a petition for the declaration of nullity of marriage on the ground that respondent was psychologically incapacitated to fulfill her essential marital obligations to petitioner. RTC granted the petition but the CA reversed and set aside the decision of RTC. ISSUE: W/N the totality of the evidence presented by petitioner was enough to establish that respondent was psychologically incapacitated to perform her essential marital obligations. RULING: The petition is without merit. Psychological incapacity must be characterized by (a) gravity, (b) juridical antecedence, and (c) incurability. The incapacity must be grave or serious such that the party would be incapable of carrying out the ordinary duties required in marriage; it must be rooted in the history of the party antedating the marriage, although the overt manifestations may emerge only after the marriage; and it must be incurable or, even if it were otherwise, the cure would be beyond the means of the party involved. This psychological condition must exist at the time the marriage is celebrated. The court overlooked the need to show the gravity, root cause and incurability of respondent's psychological incapacity at the inception of the marriage. The evidence for petitioner consisted of his own testimony and that of his brother, Roderico Bier. He also presented as evidence a psychological report written by Dr. Nedy Tayag, a clinical psychologist. Petitioner reasoned out that the personal examination of respondent was impossible as her whereabouts were unknown despite diligent efforts on his part to find her. Consequently, Dr. Tayag's report was really hearsay evidence since she had no personal knowledge of the alleged facts she was testifying on. Her testimony should have thus been dismissed for being unscientific and unreliable. It was not enough that respondent, the party adverted to as psychologically incapacitated to comply with her marital obligations, had difficulty or was unwilling to perform the same. Proof of a natal or supervening disabling factor, an adverse integral element in respondent's personality structure that

effectively incapacitated her from complying with her essential marital obligations, had to be shown. This petitioner failed to do. The decision of CA was affirmed.