Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
FACTS:
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
intendment of the law has been to confine the meaning of "psychological
incapacity" to the most serious cases of personality disorders clearly
demonstrative of an utter intensitivity or inability to give meaning and
significance to the marriage. The case at bar can ,in no measure at all, come
close to the standards required to decree a nullity of marriage.
They were first married before the MTC in Iloilo. Shortly, they married in a
church. They lived with Julias parents. Soon, she gave birth to their first child.
Some disagreements the couple had was the issue of living independently from
Julias parents.
Note: Art. 36 FC
Art. 36. 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.
Santos vs CA
On 18 May 1988, Julia finally left for USA to work as a nurse. Julia, via phone
call, promised to return home upon the expiration of her contract in July 1989.
She never did.
When Leouel got a chance to visit the United States, where he underwent a
training program of AFP, he desperately tried to locate, or to somehow get in
touch with, Julia but all his efforts were of no avail.
Having failed to get Julia to come home, Leouel filed with the RTC a complaint
for voiding their marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity. RTC
dismissed the complaint. CA affirmed the dismissal.
ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent is psychologically incapacitated for failure to return
home or communicate with the plaintiff.
HELD:
No, Justice Sempio-Diy opined that psychological incapacity must be
characterized by (a) gravity, (b) juridical antecedence, and (c) incurability. The
ISSUE:
Family Code
Art. 36. 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.
HELD:
The abnormal reluctance or unwillingness to consummate his marriage is
strongly indicative of a serious personality disorder which to the mind of the
Supreme Court clearly demonstrates an utter insensitivity or inability to give
meaning and significance to the marriage within the meaning of Article 36 of the
Family Code.
If a spouse, although physically capable but simply refuses to perform his or her
essential marital obligations and the refusal is senseless and constant, Catholic
marriage tribunals attribute the causes to psychological incapacity than to
stubborn refusal. Furthermore, one of the essential marital obligations under
the Family Code is to procreate children thus constant non-fulfillment of this
obligation will finally destroy the integrity and wholeness of the marriage.
RATIO:
1. Senseless & protracted refusal is equivalent to psychological incapacity.
2. Procreation is one of the essential marital obligations and constant nonfulfillment of such will destroy marriage.
3. Marriage is definitely not for children but for two consenting adults who view
the relationship with love amor gignit amorem, respect, sacrifice and a
continuing commitment to compromise, conscious of its value as a sublime
social institution
Facts:
Reynaldo and Roridel Molina were married on August 14, 1985 in San Agustin
Church (valid marriage) and had a son, Andre Molina. After a year of marriage,
Reynaldo was alleged to show signs of immaturity and irresponsibility as a
husband and father manifested by: 1) spending more time with his friends
rather than his family; 2) dependence to his parents for financial support; 3)
dishonesty on their financial status. An intense quarrel made Reynaldo decide to
leave Roridel and their child, thus showing that he is incapable of complying
with the essence of his marital obligation.
In Reynaldos defense, their frequent quarrels were due to: 1) Roridel's strange
behavior of insisting on maintaining her group of friends even after their
marriage; 2) Roridel's refusal to perform some of her marital duties such as
cooking meals; and 3) Roridel's failure to run the household and handle their
finances.
RTC renders that the marriage was void in accordance to the Article 36 of the
Family Code. This has been affirmed by CA. The solicitor general assails this
decision of CA, since the affirming court gave an erroneous interpretation to
psychological incapacity. If said conduct, observed and considered as a whole,
tends to cause the union to self-destruct because it defeats the very objectives
of marriage, then there is enough reason to leave the spouses to their individual
b.
c.
d.
e.
The gravity of the illness must lead to the disability of the party
to assume essential obligations of marriage
f.
g.
h.
Issue:
The issue whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in affirming RTC decision
i.e. the marriage is void on the grounds of psychological incapacity.
Ruling:
Petition is MERITUOUS. The assailed decision is REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
Marriage of Roridel and Reynaldo Molina subsists and remains valid.
Rationale:
The court has laid down guidance for the interpretation of psychological
incapacity (paraphrased):
a.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Ruling:
The decision of CA is AFFIRMED.
Rationale:
MARCOS v MARCOS
(promulgated October 19, 2000)
FACTS: Wilson and Brenda were both former military personnel, they became
sweethearts when they were working as security for the Marcoses in Malacaan
in 1980. They got married civilly in 1982 and then before a reverend in 1983.
Eventually, Wilson couldn't get a decent job, and then he became violent; he
became physically abusive towards Brenda, their children and even towards
other people. They subsequently started living separately. Brenda filed a case
of Declaration of Nullity of their marriage on the ground of psychological
incapacity against Wilson. She presented the findings of a psychologist who
evaluated her (but not Wilson). The RTC dissolved their marriage. The CA
reversed the RTC ruling saying that it is necessary that the root cause of
Wilson's psychological incapacity be medically and clinically identified,
sufficiently proven by experts and clearly explained in the decision, and that the
totality of the evidence failed to show such incapacity.
ISSUES: W/N a personal medical or psychological examination is a requirement
for a declaration of psychological incapacity, W/N the evidence established the
incapacity of Wilson
RULING: NO, and NO. The case of Republic vs CA and Molina states the
guidelines governing the application and interpretation of Article 36, and as
They later lived in the Philippines for a month. Thereafter, Toshio went
back to Japan andlived there half a year.
On Jan. 14, 1988, they get married by Judge Isauro Balderia of the MTC
of Bacoor, Cavite.
One month after the marriage, Toshio went back to Japan and promised
to return by Christmas.
REPUBLIC v DAGDAG
(promulgated February 9, 2001)
FACTS: Erlinda and Avelino got married in 1975 in the Aglipayan Church. After
the wedding, Avelino would frequently leave the family home and disappear for
months. When he reappears, he goes on drinking sprees. He even became
physically abusive. During a period of disappearance, Erlinda even heard that
he got imprisoned for some crime and escaped. Erlinda filed a petition for
judicial declaration of nullity of marriage on the ground of psychological
incapacity. Erlinda and her sister testified that the former and Avelino would
always quarrel, and that he never stayed long at home. The RTC declared their
marriage null and void, which the CA affirmed, saying that Avelino's consistent
irresponsibility, immaturity, prolonged absence or abandonment, criminality,
failure to support are indicative of a failure to perform the duties of a married
person which is incurable and such existed at the time of the celebration of the
marriage and became manifest only thereafter.
ISSUE: W/N the RTC and the CA erred
RULING: YES. Considering the guidelines provided in Republic vs CA and
Molina, Erlinda failed to comply with the guideline which requires that the root
On July 8, 1996, she filed an ex parte motion for leave to effect service
of summons by publication.
presented evidence that medically or clinically identified his illness. That could
have been done through an expert witness.
Trail court granted the motion. Giving Toshio 15 days to file an answer.
Trial court rendered decision that the marriage declared null and void.
It is clear from the records of the case that respondent spouses failed
to fulfill his obligations as husband of the petitioner and father to his daughter.
Respondent remained irresponsible and unconcerned over the needs and
welfare of his family. Such indifference, to the mind of the Court, is a clear
manifestation of insensitivity and lack of respect for his wife and child which
characterizes a very immature person. Certainly, such behavior could be traced
to respondents mental incapacity and disability of entering into marital life.
Issue/s:
Wherefore, the petition for review is hereby Granted. The decision dated Aug.
28, 1997 of the CA is hereby Reversed and Set Aside.
They were met in August 1989 when petitioner was 26 yrs. Old and
respondent was 36 yrs. Old.
A year after their first meeting, on Dec. 1990, they got married before a
minister of the Gospel at the Municipal City Hall and through
subsequent church wedding at the Sta. Rosa de Lima Parish, Bagong
Ilog, Pasig.
(1) She concealed the fact that she previously gave birth to an illegitimate
son, and instead introduced the boy to petitioner as the adopted child of her
family. She only confessed the truth about the boys parentage when petitioner
learned about it from other sources after their marriage.
In her version, she claimed that she performed her marital obligations
by attending all the needs of her husband and there was no truth to the
allegation that she fabricated stories, told lies, and invented
personalities.
(1) She concealed her child by another man from petitioner because she was
afraid of losing her husband.
(2) She told petitioner about Davids attempt to rape and kill her because she
surmised such intent from Davids act of touching her back and ogling her from
head to foot.
(3) She was actually a BS Banking and Finance graduate and had been teaching
psychology at the Pasig Catholic School for two (2) years.
(4) She was a free-lance voice talent of Aris de las Alas, an executive producer
of Channel 9 and she had done three (3) commercials with McCann Erickson for
the advertisement of Coca-cola, Johnson & Johnson, and Traders Royal Bank.
She told petitioner she was a Blackgold recording artist although she was not
under contract with the company, yet she reported to the Blackgold office after
office hours. She claimed that a luncheon show was indeed held in her honor at
the Philippine Village Hotel on 8 December 1979.
(5) She vowed that the letters sent to petitioner were not written by her and
the writers thereof were not fictitious. Bea Marquez Recto of the Recto political
clan was a resident of the United States while Babes Santos was employed with
Saniwares.
(6) She admitted that she called up an officemate of her husband but averred
that she merely asked the latter in a diplomatic matter if she was the one
asking for chocolates from petitioner, and not to monitor her husbands
whereabouts.
(7) She belied the allegation that she spent lavishly as she supported almost ten
people from her monthly budget ofP7000
Dr. Lopez asseverated that the evaluation conducted by Dr. Reyes was
not the one who administered and interpreted respondents
psychological evaluation, and he made use only one instrument called
CPRS which was not reliable because a good liar can fake the results of
such test.
Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's decision. It held that the
totality of evidence presented was insufficient to establish Reyes'
psychological incapacity. It declared that the requirements in the 1997
Molina case had not been satisfied.
Issue/s:
WON Antonio can impose Article 36 of the Family Code as basis for declaring
their marriage null and void
Held: Yes
Rationale:
The actual findings of the trial court are deemed binding on the SC, owing to the
great weight accorded to the opinion of the primary trier of facts. As such, it
must be considered that respondent had consistently lied about many material
aspects as to her character and personality. Her fantastic ability to invent and
fabricate stories and personalities enabled her to live in a world of makebelieve. This made her psychologically incapacitated as it rendered her
incapable of giving meaning and significance to her marriage.
The case sufficiently satisfies the Molina guidelines:
First, that Antonio had sufficiently overcome his burden in proving the
psychological incapacity of his wife;
Second, that the root cause of Reyes' psychological incapacity has been
medically or clinically identified that was sufficiently proven by experts, and was
clearly explained in the trial court's decision;
Third, that she fabricated friends and made up letters before she married him
prove that her psychological incapacity was have existed even before the
celebration of marriage;
Being jobless and a drug user is not a state or condition or attitude shown to be
a malady or disorder rooted on some incapacitating or debilitating psychological
condition.
As the earlier-quoted Report of Dr. Tayag shows, her conclusion about Manolitos
psychological incapacity was based on the information supplied by Laila which
she found to be factual. Undoubtedly, the doctors conclusion is hearsay. It is
unscientific and unreliable, so this Court declared in Choa v. Choa where the
assessment of the therein party sought to be declared psychologically
incapacitated was based merely on the information communicated to the doctor
by the therein respondent-spouse. In this case, Dr. Gauzon had no personal
knowledge of the facts he testified to, as these had merely been relayed to him
by respondent. The former was working on pure suppositions and secondhand
information fed to him by one side. Consequently, his testimony can be
dismissed as unscientific and unreliable.
Repondents Manolito San Jose and Laila Tanyag-San Jose got married.
Thereafter Laila gave birth to two children. Laila, then left Manolito for being
jobless and hooked into gambling and drugs.
Laila then filed a Petition for Declartion of Nullity on the ground of psychological
incapacity before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig City.
Dr. Nedy Tayag found that Manolito was psychologically incapacitated based on
the testimony of Laila. Dr. Tayag further said that he suffers from anti-social
personality disorder because of the following overt manipulations: the presence
of drug, the absence of remourse, the constant incapacity in terms of
maintaining the marital relationship, the lack of concern to his family, and his
self-centeredness.
The RTC denied Lailas petition on the ground that it is not enough to prove that
one failed to perform his marital duty, it is essential that it must be shown that
the other party is incapable of doing so due to psychological incapacity not
physical illness.
Laila appealed to Court of Appeals (CA). The CA held that Manolito was
psychologically incapacitated hence their marriage is void ab Initio. The CA
concluded that the deficiency of Manolito was so grave and so permanent as to
deprive one of awareness of the duties and responsibilities of the matrimonial
bond one is about to assume.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Manolito is psychologically incapacitated
HELD:
Psychological incapacity, as a ground for nullity of marriage, has been succinctly
expounded in the recent case of Ma. Armida Perez-Ferraris v. Brix Ferraris
(Ferraris), the term psychological incapacity to be a ground for the nullity of
marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code, refers to a serious psychological
Parenthetically, Dr. Tayags Psychological Report does not even show that the
alleged anti-social personality disorder of Manolito was already present at the
inception of the marriage or that it is incurable. Neither does it explain the
incapacitating nature of the alleged disorder nor identify its root cause. It
merely states that such disorder is considered to be grave and is deeply
immersed within the system and continues to influence the individual until the
later stage of life.
Manolitos alleged psychological incapacity is thus premised on his being jobless
and a drug user, as well as his inability to support his family and his refusal or
unwillingness to assume the essential obligations of marriage. Manolitos state
or condition or attitude has not been shown, however, to be a malady or
disorder rooted on some incapacitating or debilitating psychological condition.
a. Directing the Branch Clerk of this Court to enter this Judgment upon its
finality in the Book of Entry of Judgment and to issue an Entry of Judgment
in accordance thereto;
b. Directing the Local Civil Registrars of Las Pias City and Manila City to
cause the registration of the said Entry of Judgment in their respective Books
of Marriages. Upon compliance, a decree of nullity of marriage shall be
issued.
ISSUE: Whether or not the marriage between the two can be declared as null
and void due to fraud by reason of Manuels concealment of his homosexuality.
HELD:
Concealment of homosexuality is the proper ground to annul a marriage, not
homosexuality per se.
Evidently, no sufficient proof was presented to substantiate the allegations that
Manuel is a homosexual and that he concealed this to Leonida at the time of
their marriage. The lower court considered the public perception of Manuels
sexual preference without the corroboration of witnesses.
Also, it took cognizance of Manuels peculiarities and interpreted it against his
sexuality. Even granting that Manuel is indeed a homosexual, there was nothing
in the complaint or anywhere in the case was it alleged and proven that Manuel
hid such sexuality from Leonida and that Leonidas consent had been vitiated by
such.
FC.36. 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.
But Rowena was persistent and made him relent. They left Manila and
sailed to Cebu, he, providing their travel money and she purchasing the
boat ticket.
On Jan. 19, 2000 (almost 4 years after) Edward filed for a petition for
the annulment of his marriage to Rowena on the basis of Psychological
incapacity.
However, Edwards 80,000.00 only lasted for a month, which was used
for their pension house accommodation and daily sustenance. They
could not find a job, so in April 1996, they decided to go back to Manila.
Rowena did not file an answer, on July 11, 2000, the trial court ordered
OCP to investigate whether there was collusion between the parties.
Rowena stayed at her uncles house while Edward to his parents home.
As his family was abroad, Rowena kept on telephoning him, threatening
that she would commit suicide, so Edward agreed to stay with her at
her uncles place.
On July 27, 2000, OSG entered and deputized the OCP to appear on its
behalf and assist in the scheduled hearings.
On July 30, 2001 the Trial Court declared the marriage null and void on
the ground that both parties were psychologically incapacitated to
comply with the essential marital obligations.
Her uncle also showed Edward his guns and warned him not to leave
Rowena.
At one point, Edward was able to call home and talk to his brother who
suggested that they should live at their parents home and live with
them.
After a month, Edward escaped from the house of Rowenas uncle, and
stayed with his parents. His family then, hid him from Rowena and her
family.
WHY IT IS NOT PI
-
CA reversed the decision of the RTC and ruled that the petitioner failed
to prove the psychological incapacity of respondent. It stated that the
clinical psychologist did not personally examine the respondent and
only relied on the information provided by the petitioner
ISSUE:
Whether or not the marriage between parties is null and void based on
Article 36 of the Family Code.
Marieta C. Azcueta and Rodolfo Azcueta met in 1993. They got married
on July 24, 1993 at St. Anthony of Padua Church, Antipolo City. At the
time of the marriage, Marietta was 23 while Rodolfo was 28. After 4
years of marriage the separated (1997). They have no children.
On Aug.21, 2002, OSG entered its appearance for the RP and submitted
a written authority for the City Prosecutor to appear in the case on the
States behalf under the supervision and control of the SG.
Both parties being afflicted with grave, severe and incurable psychological
incapacity, the precipitous marriage which they contracted on April 23, 1996
is thus, declared null and void.
The Encyclopedia of Mental Health
A group of disorders involving behaviors or traits that are characteristic of a
persons recent and long-term functioning. Patterns of perceiving and
thinking are not usually limited to isolated episodes but are deeply
She claimed that Rodolfo never bothered to look for a job and instead
always ask her mother for financial assistance. It was Rodolfos mother
who found them a room near the Azcuetas home and it was also the
mother who paid for the monthly rental.
and he merely relied on the allowance given by his mother. The witness
also confirmed that that it was the mother who paid for the rent and
that during the time when Rodolfo alleged that he has job and wearing
a business attire, he would go to his parents house and that Rodolfo is
still residing at the house of his mother and not living together with
Marieta.
WHY IT IS PI
-
She also claimed that she constantly encourage her husband to find a
job but Rodolfo told her that he was too old and most jobs have an age
limit and that he had no clothes to wear for job interviews. So she
bought his husband new clothes and a pair of shoes and even give him
money to apply for a job. Rodolfo however pretended that he finally
found a job. During his supposed work time he would stay at his
parents house and his supposed salary that was given to Marieta was
from his mother.
When confronted, Marieta alleged that Rodolfo cried like a child and told
her that he lied so that she would stop nagging him on getting a job.
He also told her that his parents can support their needs. She claimed
that Rodolfo was so dependent on his mother and that all his decisions
and attitudes in life should be in conformity with those of his mother.
RTC declared the marriage null and void ab initio (October 25, 2004)
Their sexual relationship was also unsatisfactory that they only had sex
once a month and that Marieta never enjoyed it.
When she asked Rodolfo to move to another place and rent a small
room rather than live near his parents, Rodolfo did not agree. Because
of this, she was forced to leave their residence and see if he will follow
her but he did not.
During the trial, Rodolfos first cousin testified and corroborated with
Marietas testimony that Rodolfo was not employed when he married
On the contrary, Rodolfo shown that he has full grasp of reality and
completely understands the implication of having a child especially that
he is unemployed. That the only problem in the union is Rodolfos
alleged irresponsibility and unwillingness to leave her mother, whic was
not proven in this case to be psychological rooted.
That the behaviour of Rodolfo was only caused by his youth and
emotional immaturity which by themselves, do not constitute
psychological incapacity.
WHY IT IS NOT PI
-
ISSUE:
RULING:
Records show that the parties were living in harmony in the first few
years of the marriage and were living in their own rented apartment.
Rodolfo often times asks his mother for financial support may be
brought about his feelings of embarrassment that he cannot contribute
to the family coffers, considering that it was his wife who is working for
the family. Likewise stated that the respondent does not want to have a
child because he is not yet ready to have one-that this is not at all
manifestation of irresponsibility.
Thus the court is not dissolving the marital bonds on account of either
partys psychological incapacity, it is not demolishing the foundation of
families, but it is actually protecting the sanctity of marriage, because it
refuses to allow a person afflicted with psychological disorder, who cannot
comply with or assume the essential marital obligations, from remaining in
that sacred bond.
HALILI V HALILI
FACTS
*** ***
*** ***
NAJERA V NAJERA
FACTS
Petitioner Digna A. Najera
Respondent Eduardo J. Najera
*** ***
On January 27, 1997, petitioner filed with the RTC a verified Petition for
Declaration of Nullity of Marriage with Alternative Prayer for Legal Separation,
with Application for Designation as Administrator Pendente Lite of the Conjugal
Partnership of Gains.
They were married on January 31, 1988 (Pangasinan). They are childless.
Petitioner claimed that at the time of the celebration of marriage, respondent
was psychologically incapacitated d/t the ff grounds:
(a)
At the time of their marriage, petitioner was already employed with
the Special Services Division of the Provincial Government of Pangasinan, while
respondent was jobless. He did not exert enough effort to find a job and was
dependent on petitioner for support. Only with the help of petitioners elder
brother, who was a seaman, was respondent able to land a job as a seaman in
1988 through the Intercrew Shipping Agency.
(b)
While employed as a seaman, respondent did not give petitioner
sufficient financial support and she had to rely on her own efforts and the help
of her parents in order to live.
(c)
As a seaman, respondent was away from home from nine to ten
months each year. In May 1989, when he came home from his ship voyage, he
started to quarrel with petitioner and falsely accused her of having an affair with
another man. He took to smoking marijuana and tried to force petitioner into it.
When she refused, he insulted her and uttered unprintable words against her.
He would go out of the house and when he arrived home, he was always drunk.
(d)
When respondent arrived home from his ship voyage in April 1994,
as had been happening every year, he quarreled with petitioner. He continued to
be jealous, he arrived home drunk and he smoked marijuana. On July 3, 1994,
while he was quarreling with petitioner, without provocation, he inflicted
physical violence upon her and attempted to kill her with a bolo. She was able
to parry his attack with her left arm, yet she sustained physical injuries on
different parts of her body. She was treated by Dr. Padlan, and the incident was
reported at the Bugallon Police Station.
(e)
Respondent left the family home, taking along all their personal
belongings. He lived with his mother at Banaga, Bugallon, Pangasinan, and he
abandoned petitioner.
RATIONALE
Court agrees with the Court of Appeals that the totality of the evidence
submitted by petitioner failed to satisfactorily prove that respondent was
psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential obligations of
marriage. The root cause of respondents alleged psychological incapacity was
not sufficiently proven by experts or shown to be medically or clinically
permanent or incurable.
Psychologist Cristina Gates conclusion that respondent was psychologically
incapacitated (Borderline Personality Disoreder) was based on facts relayed to
her by petitioner and was not based on her personal knowledge and evaluation
of respondent; thus, her finding is unscientific and unreliable.
RTC: GRANTED
1.
Decreeing legal separation of Petitioner/Plaintiff Digna Najera and
respondent/defendant Eduardo Najera;
2.
Ordering the dissolution of the conjugal partnership of the petitioner/
plaintiff and respondent/defendant, and to divide the same equally between
themselves pursuant to their Joint Manifestation/Motion
The Court agrees with the Court of Appeals that the evidence presented by
petitioner in regard to the physical violence or grossly abusive conduct of
respondent toward petitioner and respondents abandonment of petitioner
without justifiable cause for more than one year are grounds for legal
separation only and not for annulment of marriage under Article 36 of the
Family Code.
ISSUE
Whether or not the totality of petitioners evidence was able to prove that
respondent is psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential
obligations of marriage warranting the annulment of their marriage under Article
36 of the Family Code.
Since both resided in Mandaluyong City, they saw each other every day
and drove home together from the university.
RULING
DENIED. CA affirmed.
3.
4.
Fr. Healy clarified that playing mahjong and spending time with friends are not
disorders by themselves. They only constitute psychological incapacity whenever
inordinate amounts of time are spent on these activities to the detriment of ones
familial duties.[23] Fr. Healy characterized Malyns psychological incapacity as grave
and incurable.[24]
He based his opinion on his interview with Tyrone, the trial transcripts, as well as the
report of Dr. Natividad Dayan (Dr. Dayan), Malyns expert witness.[25] He clarified that
he did not verify the truthfulness of the factual allegations regarding Malyns habits
because he believed it is the courts duty to do so.[26] Instead, he formed his opinion
on the assumption that the factual allegations are indeed true.
Malyns version
Malyn denied being psychologically incapacitated.[27] While she admitted playing
mahjong, she denied playing as frequently as Tyrone alleged. She maintained that
she did so only two to three times a week and always between 1 p.m. to 6 p.m. only.
[28]
And in those instances, she always had Tyrones permission and would often bring
the children and their respective yayaswith her.[29] She maintained that she did not
neglect her duties as mother and wife.
Malyn admitted leaving the conjugal home in May 1985. She, however,
explained that she did so only to escape her physically abusive husband.[30] On the
day she left, Tyrone, who preferred to keep Malyn a housewife, was upset that Malyn
was preparing to go to work. He called up the security guards and instructed them
not to let Malyn out of the house. Tyrone then placed cigarette ashes on Malyns head
and proceeded to lock the bedroom doors. Fearing another beating, Malyn rushed out
of their bedroom and into her mother-in-laws room. She blurted that Tyrone would
beat her up again so her mother-in-law gave her P300 to leave the house.[31] She
never returned to their conjugal home.
Malyn explained that she applied for work, against Tyrones wishes, because
she wanted to be self-sufficient. Her resolve came from her discovery that Tyrone had
a son by Jocelyn and had secretly gone to the US with Jocelyn.[32]
Malyn denied the allegation of adultery. She maintained that Benjie only booked a
room at the Hyatt Hotel for her because she was so drunk after partying with
friends. She admitted finding her brother Ronald and Tyrone at the door of the Hyatt
Hotel room, but maintained being fully clothed at that time.[33] Malyn insisted that she
wrote the letter relinquishing all her spousal and parental rights under duress.[34]
After the Hyatt Hotel incident, Malyn only saw her children by surreptitiously visiting
them in school. She later obtained partial custody of the children as an incident to the
Dr. Dayan likewise wrote in her psychological evaluation report that Malyn
exhibited significant, but not severe, dependency, narcissism, and
compulsiveness.[39]
On the stand, the psychologist elaborated that while Malyn had relationship problems
with Tyrone, she appeared to have a good relationship with her kids.[40] As for Tyrone,
he has commitment issues which prevent him from committing himself to his duties
as a husband. He is unable to remain faithful to Malyn and is psychologically
incapacitated to perform this duty.[41]
Childrens version
The children all stated that both their parents took care of them, provided for their
needs, and loved them. Rio testified that they would accompany their mother to
White Plains on days that she played mahjong with her friends. None of them
reported being neglected or feeling abandoned.
The two elder kids remembered the fights between their parents but it was only Ria
who admitted actually witnessing physical abuse inflicted on her mother.[42] The two
elder kids also recalled that, after the separation, their mother would visit them only
in school.[43]
The children recalled living in Valle Verde with only the househelp and driver during
the time that their dad was abroad.[44] While they did not live with their mother while
they were housed in Valle Verde, the kids were in agreement that their mother took
care of them on weekends and would see to their needs. They had a common
recollection that the househelp would call their mother to come and take care of them
in Valle Verde whenever any of them was sick.[45]
Other witnesses
Dr. Cornelio Banaag, Tyrones attending psychiatrist at the Manila Sanitarium, testified
that, for the duration of Tyrones confinement, the couple appeared happy and the
wife was commendable for the support she gave to her spouse.[46] He likewise
testified that Tyrone tested negative for drugs and was not a drug dependent.[47]
Malyns brother, Ronald Fernandez, confirmed Tyrones allegation that they found
Malyn with Benjie in the Hyatt hotel room. Contrary to Tyrones version, he testified
that neither he nor Tyrone entered the room, but stayed in the hallway. He likewise
did not recall seeing Benjie or Malyn half-naked.[48]
Social worker
Court of Appeals Ruling:
The trial court ordered the court social worker, Jocelyn V. Arre (Arre), to conduct a
social case study on the parties as well as the minor children. Arre interviewed the
parties Tyrone and Malyn; the minor children Miggy/Mickey and Jay; Tyrones live-in
partner, Jocelyn;[50] and Tyrone and Malyns only daughter, Ria. While both parents are
financially stable and have positive relationships with their children, she
recommended that the custody of the minor children be awarded to Malyn. Based on
the interviews of family members themselves, Malyn was shown to be more available
to the children and to exercise better supervision and care. The social worker
commended the fact that even after Malyn left the conjugal home in 1985, she made
efforts to visit her children clandestinely in their respective schools. And while she was
only granted weekend custody of the children, it appeared that she made efforts to
personally attend to their needs and to devote time with them.[51]
On the contrary, Tyrone, who had custody of the children since the couples de
facto separation, simply left the children for several years with only a maid and a
driver to care for them while he lived with his second family abroad.[52] The social
worker found that Tyrone tended to prioritize his second family to the detriment of his
children with Malyn. Given this history during the formative years of the children, the
social worker did not find Tyrone a reliable parent to whom custody of adolescents
may be awarded.
On appeal, the appellate court reversed the decision of the RTC on the ground that
Tyrone failed to discharge his burden of proving her alleged psychological incapacity.
[65]
She argues that the testimonies of her children and the findings of the court social
worker to the effect that she was a good, loving, and attentive mother are sufficient
to rebut Tyrones allegation that she was negligent and irresponsible.[66]
She assails Dr. Gatess report as one-sided and lacking in depth. Dr. Gates did not
interview her, their common children, or even Jocelyn. Moreover, her report failed to
state that Malyns alleged psychological incapacity was grave and incurable.[67] Fr.
Healys testimony, on the other hand, was based only on Tyrones version of the facts.
[68]
Malyn reiterates the appellate courts ruling that the trial court Decision is intrinsically
After summarizing the evidence presented by both parties, the trial court concluded
that both parties are psychologically incapacitated to perform the essential marital
obligations under the Family Code. The courts Decision is encapsulated in this
paragraph:
defective for failing to support its conclusion of psychological incapacity with factual
From the evidence, it appears that parties are both suffering from
psychological incapacity to perform their essential marital
obligations under Article 36 of the Family Code. The parties entered
into a marriage without as much as understanding what it
entails. They failed to commit themselves to its essential
obligations: the conjugal act, the community of life and love, the
rendering of mutual help, the procreation and education of their
children to become responsible individuals. Parties psychological
incapacity is grave, and serious such that both are incapable of
carrying out the ordinary duties required in marriage. The
Almost four years after filing her memorandum, respondent apparently had a change
findings.
of heart and filed a Manifestation with Motion for Leave to Withdraw Comment and
Memorandum.[69]She manifested that she was no longer disputing the possibility that
their marriage may really be void on the basis of Tyrones psychological
incapacity. She then asked the Court to dispose of the case with justice.[70] Her
manifestation and motion were noted by the Court in its January 20, 2010 Resolution.
[71]
Ruling:
May 27, 2004 Decision and its December 15, 2004 Resolution in CA-G.R. CV No.
64240 areAFFIRMED.
the facts would show that respondent was not totally remiss
[72]
parental duties. Not once did the children state that they were
she took care of them, was around when they were sick, and
cooked the food they like. It appears that respondent made real
duties. While petitioner cites the fact that his two sons, Rio and
spouse's psychological incapacity was grave, incurable and existing prior to the
time of the marriage.
Facts:
Dominic and Arabelle got married during her 8th month of pregnancy in 1991.
The couple were still dependent on their parents. She gave birth to a daughter.
Dominic had to borrow money for the medical bills of mother and child. Arabelle
got a stable job in Sanofi and was the one who shouldered the household bills.
Dominic became an encyclopaedia salesman after his graduation before finally
landing a job as a car salesman for Toyota. When he earned his first
commission, he spent it on a bash with his colleagues. Arabelle eventually found
out that Dominic had an affair with an officemate in Toyota causing the couple
to sleep in separate rooms. Dominic gave Arabelle a car as a gift. Later he
asked her to issue cheques for the payment of the car (Php 120,000). Arabella
found out that the cheques were not used to pay for the car. She also found out
that Dominic got fired after running away with Php 164,000, swindled some of
his clients who threatened Arabelle and her family. Dominic was eventually
imprisoned for BP 22 (Bouncing Checks) and estafa. It was Arabelle and her
mother who bailed him out. She then asked "time and space to think things
over." A month later, she refused his attempt at reconciliation, causing him to
threaten to commit suicide. At that, she and her family immediately left the
house to live in another place concealed from him.
Arabelle instituted the case for declaration of nullity based on Art 36.
5. After poring over the records of the case, the Court finds no
factual basis for the conclusion of psychological incapacity.
There is no error in the CAs reversal of the trial courts ruling
that there was psychological incapacity. The trial courts Decision
merely summarized the allegations, testimonies, and evidence
of the respective parties, but it did not actually assess the
veracity of these allegations, the credibility of the witnesses,
and the weight of the evidence. The trial court did not make
factual findings which can serve as bases for its legal conclusion
of psychological incapacity. What transpired between the parties
Rodolfo sought to have her marriage with Natividad declared null and void on
the ground of Psychological Incapacity.
RTC declared the marriage VOID AB INITIO
OSG intervened and appealed to CA
CA AFFIRMED RTC decision
SC: DENIED appeal, AFFIRMED CA.
Facts:
The couple met while in high school. Three months into the marriage, due to the
girls pregnancy, Rodolfo (21 years old) was allegedly forced to marry Natividad
(18 years old) on February 15, 1969. They had 2 kids. Rodolfo did not have a
regular job except that of being a "kristo" and "bangkero sa hantak" in gambling
pits. When he decided to train in the army, Natividad sold their house without
his consent. She moved to Dipolog to cohabit with an Engr Terez. In 1991, she
had a second marriage to Antonio Mondarez and lived with him since. From
1972, Rodolfo was left to take care of their two kids. Note that Rodolfo also had
another child with another woman.
When the complaint was filed, Natividad did not file an answer but submitted
herself to Psychiatric Examination by Dr. Zalsos.
Dr. Zalsos:
both Rodolfo and Natividad were psychologically incapacitated to
comply with the essential marital obligations, both parties suffered from
"utter emotional immaturity which is unusual and unacceptable
behavior considered as deviant from persons who abide by
established norms of conduct.
Natividad lacked the willful cooperation of being a wife and a
mother to her two daughters.
Rodolfo failed to perform his obligations as a husband, adding too
that he sired a son with another woman.
the mental condition of both parties already existed at the time of the
celebration of marriage, although it only manifested after.
the "couples union was bereft of the mind, will and heart for the
obligations of marriage.
CA: affirmed the ruling of the RTC, Natividads emotional immaturity,
irresponsibility and promiscuity by themselves do not necessarily equate to
years since the de facto separation from his wife, Tyrone filed a petition for
declaration of nullity of marriage based on Article 36 of the Family Code. He
alleged that Malyn was psychologically incapacitated to perform and comply
with the essential marital obligations at the time of the celebration of their
marriage. He alleged that 1) She leaves the children without proper care and
attention as she played mahjong all day and all night; 2) She leaves the house
to party with male friends and returned in the early hours of the following day;
and 3) She committed adultery on June 9, 1985 in Hyatt Hotel with one Benjie
whom he saw half-naked in the hotel room. Tyrone presented a psychologist, Dr.
Cristina Gates (Dr. Gates), and a Catholic canon law expert, Fr. Gerard Healy,
S.J. (Fr. Healy), to testify on Malyns psychological incapacity. Dr. Gates
explained that Malyn suffers from Narcissistic Personalityu Disorder and that it
may have been evident even prior to her marriage because it is rooted in her
family background and upbringing. Fr. Healy concluded that Malyn was
psychologically incapacitated to perform her marital duties. He explained that
her psychological incapacity is rooted in her role as the breadwinner of her
family. This role allegedly inflated Malyns ego to the point that her needs
became priority, while her kids and husbands needs became secondary.
ISSUE:
Whether Tyrone has sufficiently proven that Malynsuffers from psychological
incapacity
HELD:
No. He presented the testimonies of two supposed expert witnesses who
concluded that respondent is psychologically incapacitated, but the conclusions
of these witnesses were premised on the alleged acts or behavior of respondent
which had not been sufficiently proven. No proof whatsoever was presented to
prove her visits to beauty salons or her frequent partying with friends. Malyns
sexual infidelity was also not proven because she was only dating other men.
Even assuming that she had an extramarital affair with another man, sexual
infidelity cannot be equated with obsessive need for attention from other men.
Sexual infidelity per se is a ground for legal separation, but it does not
necessarily constitute psychological incapacity.
On April 26, 1999, Glenn and Mary Grace, then 25 and 23 years old,
respectively, got married in civil rites held in Lipa City, Batangas. Mary Grace
was already pregnant then. The infant however, died at birth due to weakness
and malnourishment. Glenn alleged that the infants death was caused by Mary
Graces heavy drinking and smoking during her pregnancy. The couple lived
together under one roof. Glenn worked as s bartender, while Mary Grace was a
production engineer. Sometime in March 2006, Mary Grace left the home which
she shared with Glenn. Glenn subsequently, found out that Mary Grace went to
work in Dubai. At the time the instant petition was filed. Mary Grace had not
returned yet. On February 18, 2009, Glenn filed a petition for the declaration of
nullity of the marriage with Mary Grace. To ease their marital problems, Glenn
sought professional guidance and submitted himself to a psychological
evaluation by Clinical Psychologist Nedy Tayag, (Dr. Tayag). Dr. Tayg found him
as amply aware of the marital roles and capable of maintaining a mature and
healthy heterosexual relationship. On the other hand, Dr. Tayag assessed Mary
Graces personality through the data she had gathered from Glenn and his
cousin, Rodelito Mayo, who knew Mary Grace way back in college.
ISSUE:
Whether or not sufficient evidence exist justifying the RTCs declaration of nullity
of his marriage with Mary Grace.
HELD:
The lack of personal examination or assessment of the respondent by a
psychologist or psychiatrist is not necessarily fatal in a petition for the
declaration of nullity of marriage. If the totality of evidence presented is
enough to sustain a finding of psychological incapacity, then actual medical
examination of the person concerned need not to be resorted to. In the present
case, the respondents stubborn refusal to cohabit with the petitioner was
doubtlessly irresponsible, but it was never proven to be rooted in some
psychological illness. Likewise, the respondents act of living with another
woman four years into the marriage cannot automatically be equated with a
psychological disorder, especially when no specific evidence was shown that
promiscuity was a trait already existing at the inception of marriage. In fact,
petitioner herself admitted that respondent was caring and faithful when they
were going steady and for a time after their marriage; their problems only came
in later.
On July 19, 2002, respondent filed another petition for declaration of nullity7 on
the ground of psychological incapacity before the RTC. Respondent indicated
that petitioners address was 23 Sta. Rosa Street, Unit B-2 Manresa Garden
Homes, Quezon City.
On July 29, 2002, the RTC issued summons.8 In his Servers Return,9 process
server Rodolfo Torres, Jr. stated that, on August 1, 2002, substituted service of
summons with the copy of the petition was effected after several futile attempts
to serve the same personally on petitioner. The said documents were received
by Mr. Roly Espinosa, a security officer.
On December 11, 2002, the RTC rendered a decision10 in Civil Case No.
02-0306 finding respondents marriage with petitioner as void ab initio on the
ground of psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code. It stated
that summons was served on petitioner on August 1, 2002, but she failed to file
her responsive pleading within the reglementary period. The public prosecutor
also stated that there were no indicative facts to manifest collusion. Thus, the
RTC concluded that petitioner was psychologically incapacitated to perform her
essential marital obligations.
Consequently, petitioner filed a petition for annulment of judgment11 under
Rule 47 of the Rules of Court before the CA on November 24, 2008, claiming
that she was never notified of the cases filed against her. She prayed that the
RTC decision, dated December 11, 2002, in Civil Case No. 02-0306, be nullified
on the grounds of extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction.
Petitioner alleged that first, respondent committed extrinsic fraud because, as
seen in Civil Case No. CV-01-0177, he deliberately indicated a wrong address to
prevent her from participating in the trial;second, jurisdiction over her person
was not acquired in Civil Case No. 02-0306 because of an invalid substituted
service of summons as no sufficient explanation, showing impossibility of
personal service, was stated before resorting to substituted service of
summons; third, the alleged substituted service was made on a security guard
of their townhouse and not on a member of her household; and fourth, she was
not psychologically incapacitated to perform her marital obligations.
November 2008, petitioner received a subpoena from the Bureau of
Immigration and Deportation (BID) directing her to appear before the said
agency because her permanent residence visa was being subjected to
cancellation proceedings because her marriage was nullified by the court.
Yuk Ling Ong appeared before the BID, she was furnished with the copies of the
following documents: (1) petition for declaration of nullity of marriage filed as
Civil Case No. CV-01-0177; (2) petition for declaration of nullity of marriage
docketed as Civil Case No. 02-0306; (3) Decision,4 dated December 11, 2002,
in Civil Case No. 02-0306 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 260 (RTC),
Paraaque City, declaring the marriage between petitioner and respondent as