Brenda B. Marcos vs Wilson G.

Marcos GR 136490 October 19, 2000 FC 36 Psychological incapacity, as a ground for declaration of nullity of marriage, may be established by the totality of evidence presented. There is no requirement that the accused should be examined by a physician or psychiatrist for such declaration

Facts Petitioner and respondent were married twice on Sept. 6, 1982 and on May 8, 1983. Out of their marriage, five children were born. Both of them were assigned at Malacanang for then president Marcos. After the downfall of Marcos in 1987, respondent left the military and engaged in various businesses but none prospered. Petitioner would encourage respondent to look for a job so as their children would look to him as the provider rather than her. Due to his failure to engage in any gainful employment, the spouses would always quarrel and respondent would beat petitioner up and even force her to have sex despite her weariness. Respondent would also physically hurt their children. In 1992, they were already living separately. On October 16, 1994, they quarreled and respondent beat her up again. The following day, petitioner with her children left their home. Petitioner filed a case against her husband at the RTC. They provided personal testimony, testimony from a social worker describing the respondent to be abusive and cruel and the petitioner subjected herself to a psychological examination. The respondent, however, did not comply with the psychological exam The RTC ruled that the respondent was psychologically incapacitated because of his inability to find work and his abusive behavior towards his family. The CA reversed the RTCs decision, saying that psychological incapacity was not established by the prosecution.

Issue

WON there is a need to conduct medical examination to prove respondents psychological incapacity WON the totality of the evidence presented shows psychological incapacity Held

[No] Psychological incapacity, as a ground for declaration of nullity of a marriage, may be established by the totality of evidence presented. There is no requirement, however, that the respondent be examined by a physician or psychologist as condition for such declaration [No] Although SC is sufficiently convinced that respondent failed to provide material support to the family and may have resorted to physical abuse and abandonment, the totality of his acts does not lead to a conclusion of psychological incapacity on his part. There is absolutely no showing that his defects were already present at the inception of the marriage or that they are incurable. Article 36 is NOT to be equated with legal separation, in which the grounds need not be rooted in psychological incapacity but on physical violence, moral pressure, moral corruption, civil interdiction, drug addiction, habitual alcoholism, sexual infidelity, abandonment and the like. At best the evidence presented by petitioner refers only to grounds for legal separation, not for declaring a marriage void. WF the petition is DENIED and decision of the CA affirmed