KROHN v.

COURT OF APPEALS
223 SCRA 146 June 14, 1994
FACTS:
Edgar Krohn, Jr. and Ma. Paz Fernandez-Krohn (petitioner) were married, with 3
children. The relationship became problematic and they separated in fact. Ma. Paz underwent
psychological testing to ease the marital pain.
Edgar was able to secure a copy of the psychiatric report on Ma. Paz prepared and signed by Drs.
Banaag and Reyes. Using this report, he succeeded in obtaining a decree from the Tibunale
Metropolitanum Matrimonale in Manila nullifying his church marriage with Ma. Paz on the
ground of incapacitas assumendi onera conjugalia due to lack of discretion existent at the time
of the wedding.
Edgar then petitioned the CFI for annulment of marriage on the ground of psychological
incapacity. He cited the Confidential Psychiatric Evaluation Report in his petition which Ma. Paz
merely denied in her answer on the ground that it was unfounded or irrelevant. Edgar took the
witness stand to testify on the contents of the report. This was objected to on the ground that it
violated the rule on privileged communication between physician and patient. The trial court
issued an order admitting the report, because the very issue in this case is whether or not Ma. Paz
was suffering from psychological incapacity.
The case was elevated to the CA, which dismissed the same. In this petition, Ma. Paz
argues that to allow her husband to testify would be a circumvention of the rule. On the other
hand, Edgar argues that the rules sanction his testimony considering that a husband may testify
against his wife in a civil case filed by one against the other. He also argues that Ma. Paz waived
the privileged communication in that she gave her consent to use the report in the church
annulment and in her answer, she merely aid that the report was unfounded or irrelevant, which
is therefore tantamount to a waiver for failure to interpose a timely objection at the earliest
opportunity .
ISSUE: WON husband can testify on the psychiatric report prepared of his wife by the
physician.
HELD: YES.
As held in Lim v. CA, the following requisites must concur in order that the privilege
may be invoked: (1) the privilege is claimed in a civil case (2) the person against whom the
privilege is claimed is one duly authorized to practice medicine, surgery or obstetrics (3) such
person acquired the information while he was attending to the patient in his professional capacity
(4) the information was necessary to enable him to act in that capacity (5) the information was
confidential and if disclosed, would blacken the reputation of the patient.
In this case, the person against whom the privilege is claimed is not one duly authorized
to practice medicine, surgery or obstetri document executed by medical practitioners. This does
not fall within the prohibition. Neither is his testimony a circumvention of the prohibition
because his testimony cannot have the force and effect of testimony as hearsay. In failing to

object to the testimony on this ground, this was in effect a waiver to make an objection, hence
the evidence (the report) is admissible. Petition denied. CA ruling affirmed.