Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 5

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

FIRST JUDICIAL REGION


REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
Branch 4

JOEY DICHOSO
CIVIL CASE NO._________
Petitioner
For:
-VERSUSDeclaration

of

Nullity

of

Marriage
JENNY DICHOSO
Respondent
x----------------------------------x
DECISION

Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage filed before this court


by petitioner JOEY DICHOSO seeking that his marriage with JENNY DICHOSO
be annulled for the same is incapable of maintaining and performing her
marital obligations for allegedly the same is suffering from Psychological
incapacity defined under Art 36 of the Family Code of the Philippines.
The undisputed factual antecedents of the case are as follows:
Jenny and Joey entered into a contract of marriage on October 30,
1998 at the office of the Municipal Mayor of Alilem, Ilocos Sur, solemnized by
Hon.Samson E. Bangaoil. The two met at the Regional Training Center,
Teachers Camp, Baguio City where they were both police trainees. In the
evening when they first met, petitioner and respondent together with their
friends went out for a karaoke.
The petitioner and respondent became romantically involved
immediately after the Karaoke night through the matchmaking efforts of
their companions. Such situation went on several occasions to the point
where the two have sexual intercourse and such did happened for several
times resulting to the pregnancy of the respondent.
At the training school, the respondent and the petitioner were
pressured to marry each other because to do otherwise would result to their
dismissal from the service. They begot three (3) children.

PETITIONERS ALLEGATIONS:
Petitioner alleged that at the time of the celebration of marriage,
Respondent was suffering from psychological incapacity and not truly
cognitive of her marital obligations. The following allegations of the
petitioner as follows:
a) That during their relationship before the marriage, Jenny was a
party girl. After quitting on becoming a police officer, she often
went out with friends to drink until the wee hours of the nights in
various bars in Baguio city. She would often go out together with
her friends to meet new guys;
b) Jenny showed signs of immaturity and irresponsibility as a wife
and a mother .She preferred to spend more time with her peers
on whom she will squander here money;
c) Respondent is also an incorrible liar. She would in many things,
also petitioner alleged that respondent is too dependent on her
father that all her decisions in life should be in conformity with
those of her fathers. Jenny does not have ability to decide on her
own regarding her decisions in life. Apparently her decision to
marry petitioner was also largely because of her father
persuaded her to;
d) Furthermore, although the two have their own house, respondent
would oftentimes leave their house to stay at her parents house
for several days because, according to he, she couldnt sleep
peacefully in their house and that she oftentimes felt suffocated
there. She often left the children in the care of their yayas;
e) Respondent also has plans in going to the USA and leave the
petitioner and the children behind .Petitioner tried everything
possible to persuade the respondent to change for the better
specially her violent personality so that they could build their
family, live together harmoniously as husband and wife.
However, his efforts was all in vain, prompting him to file the
petition.
RESPONDENTS COUNTER-ALLEGATIONS
a) Respondent alleges that there was no forced marriage that
transpired between them, they married because of love and that the
petitioner proposed to her and the event was witnessed by their friends and
petitioners mother;
b) They were a happy family for few years, it was far from perfect
and such is evident by the birth of the three (3) children not until when she
discovered negative things about her husband;
c) She knew before their marriage that joey was hothead but few
months after their marriage his temper became uncontrollable. He was
always angry every time he got home and frequently vent his anger towards
her. He easily got angry over little things to the extent that he will throw and
break their things like vases etc. He also shouts at her profane words which
only a dog could take;

d) That she as an insurance agent usually gather her friend at her


fathers house in order to persuade them to avail of insurance. That such was
because of her aim to earn money to help her husband, however her
husband did not understand her instead create stories about her;
e) That their fights became frequent because her husband always
come home drunk and that there were instances where the petitioner
punched and kicked the respondents numerous times on the
stomach,legs,and arms. The respondent likewise would slapped her in the
face;
f) That due to their situation, the respondent went to United States
for a vacation.

The COURTS RULING


ISSUE: Whether the marriage between the parties is null and void under
Art.36 of the Family Code on the ground of psychological incapacity of the
respondent or it was the petitioner who is actually suffering from
psychological incapacity.
Jenny is not psychologically incapacitated
Article 36 of the Family Code provides that A marriage contracted
by any party who, at the time of the celebration was psychologically
incapacitated to comply with the essential marital obligations of marriage,
shall likewise be void even if such incapacity becomes manifest only after its
solemnization.
Psychological incapacity as a ground for the nullity of
marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code refers to a serious
psychological illness afflicting a party even prior to the celebration
of the marriage that is permanent as to deprive the party of the
awareness of the duties and responsibilities of the matrimonial
bond he or she was about to assume.
In the case at bar, petitioner failed to prove that his wife (respondent)
suffers from psychological incapacity. He presented the testimonies of one
supposed expert witnesses who concluded that respondent is psychologically
incapacitated, and their friend who testify that respondent is a party girl but
the conclusions of these witnesses were premised on the alleged acts or
behavior of respondent which had not been sufficiently proven. Petitioners
experts heavily relied on petitioners allegations of respondents constant
partying visits to the and neglect of their children. Petitioners experts opined
that respondents alleged habits, when performed constantly to the
detriment of quality and quantity of time devoted to her duties as mother
and wife, constitute a psychological incapacity in the form of NPD.
But petitioners allegations, which served as the bases or underlying
premises of the conclusions of his experts, were not actually proven. Given
the insufficiency of evidence that respondent actually engaged in the
behaviors described as constitutive of NPD, there is no basis for concluding

that she was indeed psychologically incapacitated. Indeed, the totality of the
evidence points to the opposite conclusion. A fair assessment of the facts
would show that respondent was not totally remiss and incapable of
appreciating and performing her marital and parental duties.
It was the petitioner suffering from psychological incapacity
Looking into the result of the Psychological Evaluation conducted by Dr.
Eileen Kiwalan that it was the petitioner who is suffering from Psychological
Incapacity it was shown that he was suffering from PASSIVE-AGGRESSIVE
PERSONALITY DISORDER COMORBID ANTI-SOCIAL PERSONALITY
DISORDER characterized by egocentrism, emotional weakness, a person
who enjoys being domineering, sullen and argumentative, have feelings of
superiority and indomitability, who is internally brood hostile and
oppositional feelings which further pave the way to his aggressive
tendencies and impulsive predilection when provoked and which makes him
all the more embittered ,disgruntled and delusional in their relationship.
Also such incapacity could be strengthen by the petitioners own mother who
testified against her son. The mother testified about her sons behavior
whereby her son goes home drunk and shouts at the respondent. Mother
also testified that her son becomes violent to the extent that he would hit
the respondent.
Dr. Kiwalan observed that the psychological incapacity of the petitioner
is GRAVE, PERVASIVE, SERIOUS, SEVERE AND PERMANENT rendering it
totally beyond repair despite available treatments and intervention
considering the severity of petitioners aberrant psychological conditions,
which makes reconciliation between him and his wife very difficult and
impossible.
IN Santos vs CA, the court first declared that 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.

The diagnosed psychological incapacity of the petitioner prevents him


from performing his marital duties. Dr. Kiwalan thus recommend that the
marriage between the parties be declared NULL and VOID on account of
the psychological incapacity of the petitioner.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, we respectfully move and pray to
the HONORABLE COURT that the petition for declaration of nullity of marriage
between JOEY and JENNY DICHOSO BE DECLARED NULL and VOID ON THE
GROUND OF PSYCHOLOGICAL INCAPACITY UNDER ART 36 of THE FAMILY
CODE ON ACCOUNT OF PERTITIONERs PSYCHOLOGICAL INCAPACITY.
SO ORDERED.