VALERIO E.

KALAW, Petitioner,

vs.

ELENA FERNANDEZ, Respondent.

G.R. No. 166357 January 14, 2015

Read the 2011 Kalaw v. Fernandez case digest HERE.

PONENTE: Bersamin, J.

TOPIC: Psychological incapacity, Declaration of Nullity of Marriage

FACTS:

In the case at bar, Kalaw presented the testimonies of two supposed

expert witnesses who concluded that respondent is psychologically incapacitated.
Petitioners experts heavily relied on petitioners allegations of respondents
constant mahjong sessions, visits to the beauty parlor, going out with friends,
adultery, 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.

However, the Supreme Court in its September 19, 2011 decision

dismissed the complaint for declaration of nullity of the marriage on the ground
that there was no factual basis for the conclusion of psychological incapacity.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the marriage was void on the ground of psychological

incapacity.

HELD:

YES. The Court in granting the Motion for Reconsideration held that
Fernandez was indeed psychologically incapacitated as they relaxed the previously
set forth guidelines with regard to this case.

Note: Molina guidelines were not abandoned, expert opinions were just given much
respect in this case.

Guidelines too rigid, thus relaxed IN THIS CASE

The Court held that the guidelines set in the case of Republic v.
CA have turned out to be rigid, such that their application to every instance
practically condemned the petitions for declaration of nullity to the fate of
certain rejection. But Article 36 of the Family Code must not be so strictly and
too literally read and applied given the clear intendment of the drafters to adopt
its enacted version of less specificity obviously to enable some resiliency in
its application. Instead, every court should approach the issue of nullity not on
the basis of a priori assumptions, predilections or generalizations, but according
to its own facts in recognition of the verity that no case would be on all fours
with the next one in the field of psychological incapacity as a ground for the
nullity of marriage; hence, every trial judge must take pains in examining the
factual milieu and the appellate court must, as much as possible, avoid
substituting its own judgment for that of the trial court.

In the task of ascertaining the presence of psychological

incapacity as a ground for the nullity of marriage, the courts, which are
concededly not endowed with expertise in the field of psychology, must of necessity
rely on the opinions of experts in order to inform themselves on the matter, and
thus enable themselves to arrive at an intelligent and judicious judgment. Indeed,
the conditions for the malady of being grave, antecedent and incurable demand the
in-depth diagnosis by experts.

Personal examination by party not required; totality of evidence must be considered

We have to stress that the fulfillment of the constitutional

mandate for the State to protect marriage as an inviolable social institution only
relates to a valid marriage. No protection can be accorded to a marriage that is
null and void

ab initio, because such a marriage has no legal existence.

There is no requirement for one to be declared psychologically

incapacitated to be personally examined by a physician, because what is important
is the presence of evidence that adequately establishes the partys psychological
incapacity. Hence, 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 be resorted to.

Verily, the totality of the evidence must show a link, medical or

the like, between the acts that manifest psychological incapacity and the
psychological disorder itself. If other evidence showing that a certain condition
could possibly result from an assumed state of facts existed in the record, the
expert opinion should be admissible and be weighed as an aid for the court in
interpreting such other evidence on the causation.

Indeed, an expert opinion on psychological incapacity should be

considered as conjectural or speculative and without any probative value only in
the absence of other evidence to establish causation. The experts findings under
such circumstances would not constitute hearsay that would justify their exclusion
as evidence.

Expert opinion considered as decisive evidence as to psychological and emotional

temperaments

The findings and evaluation by the RTC as the trial court deserved
credence because it was in the better position to view and examine the demeanor of
the witnesses while they were testifying. The position and role of the trial judge
in the appreciation of the evidence showing the psychological incapacity were not
to be downplayed but should be accorded due importance and respect.

The Court considered it improper and unwarranted to give to such

expert opinions a merely generalized consideration and treatment, least of all to
dismiss their value as inadequate basis for the declaration of the nullity of the
marriage. Instead, we hold that said experts sufficiently and competently described
the psychological incapacity of the respondent within the standards of Article 36
of the Family Code. We uphold the conclusions reached by the two expert witnesses
because they were largely drawn from the case records and affidavits, and should
not anymore be disputed after the RTC itself had accepted the veracity of the
petitioners factual premises.

The Court also held that the courts must accord weight to expert
testimony on the psychological and mental state of the parties in cases for the
declaration of the nullity of marriages, for by the very nature of Article 36 of
the Family Code the courts, despite having the primary task and burden of
decision-making, must not discount but, instead, must consider as decisive evidence
the expert opinion on the psychological and mental temperaments of the parties.