Kalaw v. Fernandez when they were sick.
This was corroborated by other witnesses because they said that
Sep. 19, 11 | Del Castillo, J. | 657 SCRA 822
PETITIONER: Valerio E. Kalaw
RESPONDENTS: Ma. Elena Fernandez
FACTS:
Valerio Kalaw (Tyrone) and Ma. Elena Fernandez (Malyn) are a married
couple who has 4 children. Tyrone then had an extramarital affair with a certain
Jocelyn, which made Malyn decide to leave her conjugal home and live in the house
of her in-laws with their children.
9 years after their informal separation, Tyrone filed a petition for declaration
of nullity under Art. 36 of the Family Code. He alleged that Malyn was
psychologically incapacitated to fulfill her essential marital obligations as shown by
her acts:
1. Playing mahjong all day, neglecting the childrens needs;
2. Partying with male friends and returning home late at night; and
3. Committing adultery with a certain Benjie, the act being discovered in
flagrante delicto by Tyrone.
Tyrone then presented Dr. Gates, a psychologist, and Fr. Healy, a Catholic
canon law expert, to testify on Malyns alleged psychological incapacity. Dr. Gates
said that Malyn exhibits a narcissistic personality disorder as shown by her obsession
to meet her wants and needs while utterly neglecting her motherly duties. Fr. Healy on
the other hand corroborated what Dr. Gates said. He said that indeed, Malyn was
psychologically incapacitated to fulfill her duties. He explained that this is rooted in
Malyns role as a breadwinner in her family as she was growing up. This led to the
inflation of her ego, and now, even if she has a family of her own, her always puts her
needs before the needs of her husband and children. Both these experts admitted that
they based their testimonies mostly on the petitioners allegations, and the court
testimonies.
On the other hand, Malyn denies that she is psychologically incapacitated.
She said that she would only play mahjong two to three times a week and only for a
few hours. During those times, she would bring her children and their yayas, thus,
showing that she did not neglect her motherly duties. She also alleges that it is Tyrone
who is psychologically incapable due to his drug dependence, habitual drinking,
womanizing, and physical violence. This was corroborated by Malyns expert witness:
Dr. Dayan.
The children all agreed that they were not being neglected or abandoned by
either parent. Even when Malyn left their house, she would always take care of them
Malyn was more available to the children and that she exercised better supervision
over the children.
The Regional Trial Court ruled that both parties are psychologically incapacitated to
perform their marital obligations.
On the other hand, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial courts ruling because it was
allegedly not supported by facts on record. Each ones allegations do not support that
there is indeed psychological incapacity. These only show immaturity and
irresponsibility, and at most, they only constitute a ground for legal separation. More
importantly, the appellate court said that Dr. Gates testimony failed to satisfy the
jurisprudential guidelines for psychological incapacity.
ISSUES:
1. Whether Valerio Kalaw has sufficiently proven his wifes psychological
incapacity under Art. 36 of the Family Code, when he has only presented
expert witnesses whose claims were also based on his.
RULING: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is DENIED. The Court
of Appeals May 27, 2004 Decision and its December 15, 2004 Resolution in CA-G.R.
CV No. 64240 are AFFIRMED.
RATIO:
According to the Supreme Court, the plaintiff must prove that the
incapacitated party suffers a serious psychological disorder that will completely render
him incapable of fulfilling ones marital obligations. Citing Santos v. CA, the Court
said that the problem must be grave, it must have existed at the time of marriage, and
must be incurable. The supposed expert witnesses testimonies were heavily based on
Valerios allegations, but these allegations were not actually proven.
On the other hand, Malyn was able to present evidence which refuted it. For
example, Malyn admitted that she frequently played mahjong but it was not proven
that she actually neglected her duties as mother and wife. The absence of neglect was
corroborated by the children by saying that they were with Malyn when she played.
The repeating of their two sons in second grade was not proven to be because of
Malyns actions nor were the other adverse effects on the children. The allegation of
sexual infidelity on her part was also not adequately proven, and even it it was, it
would only be a ground for legal separation, but not psychological incapacity.
Lastly, the Court delared that the trial court only summarized the allegations,
evidence, and testimonies of each party, but it failed to assess the veracity of these.
These may not serve as factual findings which can be bases for psychological
incapacity.