Castillo v. Republic G.R. No. 214064 February 6, 2017 Psychological Incapacity, Art.

36, FC
FACTS:

Mirasol and Felipe started as friends then, eventually, became sweethearts. During their courtship,
Mirasol discovered that Felipe sustained his affair with his former girlfriend. The couple’s relationship
turned tumultuous after the revelation. With the intervention of their parents, they reconciled. They
got married and were blessed with two childåren.

However, after thirteen years of marriage, Felipe resumed philandering.

Tired of her husband’s infidelity, she left the conjugal dwelling and stopped any communication with
him. Felipe’s irresponsible acts like cohabiting with another woman, not communicating with her, and
not supporting their children for a period of not less than ten years without any reason, constitute a
severe psychological disorder.

Mirasol filed a Complaint for declaration of nullity of marriage which was granted by the trial court.

On appeal, the CA reversed and set aside the decision of the RTC.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the totality of evidence presented warrants, as the RTC determined, the declaration of
nullity of the marriage of Mirasol and Felipe on the ground of the latter’s psychological incapacity
under Article 36 of the Family Code.

RULING:

Irreconcilable differences, sexual infidelity or perversion, emotional immaturity and irresponsibility

and the like, do not by themselves warrant a finding of psychological incapacity under Article 36, as
the same may only be due to a person’s refusal or unwillingness to assume the essential obligations of
marriage.

In order for sexual infidelity to constitute as psychological incapacity, the respondent’s unfaithfulness
must be established as a manifestation of a disordered personality, completely preventing the
respondent from discharging the essential obligations of the marital state; there must be proof of a
natal or supervening disabling factor that effectively incapacitated him from complying with the
obligation to be faithful to his spouse.

It is indispensable that the evidence must show a link, medical or the like, between the acts that
manifest psychological incapacity and the psychological disorder itself.

As discussed, the findings on Felipe’s personality profile did not emanate from a personal interview
with the subject himself. Apart from the psychologist’s opinion and petitioner’s allegations, no other
reliable evidence was cited to prove that Felipe’s sexual infidelity was a manifestation of his alleged
personality disorder, which is grave, deeply rooted, and incurable.

The Court is not persuaded that the natal or supervening disabling factor which effectively
incapacitated him from complying with his obligation to be faithful to his wife was medically or
clinically established.

Basic is the rule that bare allegations, unsubstantiated by evidence, are not equivalent to proof, i.e.,
mere allegations are not evidence.

The petition for review was denied.

CASE DIGEST: LIM VS. SECURITY CORP.
(G.R. NO. 188539; MARCH 12, 2014)

CASE DIGEST: MARIANO LIM, Petitioner, v. SECURITY CORPORATION, Respondent.

FACTS: Petitioner executed a Continuing Suretyship in favor of respondent to secure ny and all types of
credit accommodation that may be granted by the bank hereinto and hereinafterin favor of Raul
Arroyo for the amount of P2,000,000.00 which is covered by a Credit Agreement/Promissory Note.
The promissory note contained a stipulation that the interest on the loan shall be 19% per annum,
compounded monthly, for the first 30 days from the date thereof, and if the note is not fully paid
when due, an additional penalty of 2% per month of the total outstanding principal and interest due
and unpaid, shall be imposed.

Debtor Raul Arroyo defaulted on his loan obligation. Petitioner, thereafter, received a Notice of Final
Demand dated August 2, 2001, informing him that he was liable to pay the loan obtained by Raul and
Edwina Arroyo, including the interests and penalty fees amounting to P7,703,185.54, and demanding
payment thereof. Petitioner failed to comply with said demand, hence, respondent filed a complaint
for collection of sum of money against him and the Arroyo spouses. The Arroyo spouses can no longer
be located and summons was not served on them, hence, only the petitioner actively participated in
the case.

The Regional Trial Court of Davao (RTC) rendered judgment against petitioner. Upon appeal to the CA,
the Court affirmed the decision of the RTC. Hence, the present petition for review on certiorari.

ISSUE: May petitioner validly be held liable for the principal debtor's loan obtained six months after
the execution of the Continuing Suretyship?

HELD: A contract of suretyship is an agreement whereby a party, called the surety, guarantees the
performance by another party, called the principal or obligor, of an obligation or undertaking in favor
of another party, called the obligee. The case of Stronghold Insurance Company, Inc. v. Republic-Asahi
Glass Corporation, G.R. No. 147561 citing Garcia v. Court of Appeals, enunciated that although the
contract of a surety is in essence secondary only to a valid principal obligation, his liability to the
creditor or promisee of the principal is said to be direct, primary and absolute; in other words, he is
directly and equally bound with the principal.

Clear and unequivocal are the terms of the Continuing Suretyship executed by petitioner. It states that
petitioner, as surety, shall, without need for any notice, demand or any other act or deed, immediately
become liable and shall pay all credit accommodations extended by the Bank to the Debtor, including
increases, renewals, roll-overs, extensions, restructurings, amendments or novations thereof, as well
as (i) all obligations of the Debtor presently or hereafter owing to the Bank, as appears in the
accounts, books and records of the Bank, whether direct or indirect, and (ii) any and all expenses
which the Bank may incur in enforcing any of its rights, powers and remedies under the Credit
Instruments as defined hereinbelow.

The foregoing stipulations are valid and legal and, therefore, constitute as law between the parties.
Under Article 2053 of the Civil Code, guaranty may also be given as security for future debts, the
amount of which is not yet known; x x x.Thus, petitioner is unequivocally bound by the terms of the
Continuing Suretyship. There can be no cavil then that petitioner is liable for the principal of the loan,
together with the interest and penalties due thereon, even if said loan was obtained by the principal
debtor even after the date of execution of the Continuing Suretyship. PARTIALLY GRANTED.
VERONICA CABACUNGAN G.R. No. 174451
ALCAZAR,
Petitioner, Present:

CARPIO, J.,
Chairperson,
CHICO-NAZARIO,
- versus - VELASCO, JR.,
NACHURA, and
PERALTA, JJ.

Promulgated:
REY C. ALCAZAR,
Respondent. October 13, 2009

603 SCRA 604 – Civil Law – Persons and Family Relations – Family Code – Article 36; Psychological
Incapacity – Sexual Infidelity Per Se is not Psychological Incapacity

Article 45 – Failure to Consummate the Marriage

In August 2000, Rey Alcazar and Veronica Cabacungan married each other. They lived together for
three weeks thereafter, Rey went to Saudi Arabia to work. In Saudi, Rey never communicated with
Veronica despite Veronica’s efforts to reach him. In March 2002, Rey returned to the Philippines but
instead of going home to Veronica, he went straight to his parents. He did not even tell Veronica that
he was coming home. Veronica had to learn of his husband’s return from someone else. Veronica
went to Rey’s parents but Rey cannot be found there (hiding).

In August 2002, Veronica filed an annulment case against Rey. Initially, the ground for annulment was
based on paragraph 5, Article 45 of the Family Code or Rey’s failure to consummate the marriage. But
later, the ground was changed to psychological incapacity (Article 36).

During trial, Veronica presented Dr. Nedy Tayag as expert witness who testified that Rey is suffering
from Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD). Rey was found by Tayag to be having a grandiose sense of
self. He thinks he is too important, too unique, and too special.

Also alleged in the complaint for annulment was Rey’s alleged sexual infidelity because when he came
home from abroad, it was said that he lived with a certain “Sally” in his parent’s hometown.

ISSUE: Whether or not the marriage between Veronica and Rey should be annulled.

HELD: No. First, the Supreme Court noted that it is correct that Veronica abandoned her cause under
paragraph 5, Article 45. The said provision states:

ART. 45. A marriage may be annulled for any of the following causes, existing at the time of the
marriage:

xxxx
(5) That either party was physically incapable of consummating the marriage with the other, and such
incapacity continues and appears to be incurable; x x x.

Article 45(5) of the Family Code refers to lack of power to copulate. Incapacity to consummate
denotes the permanent inability on the part of the spouses to perform the complete act of sexual
intercourse. Non-consummation of a marriage may be on the part of the husband or of the wife and
may be caused by a physical or structural defect in the anatomy of one of the parties or it may be due
to chronic illness and inhibitions or fears arising in whole or in part from psychophysical conditions. It
may be caused by psychogenic causes, where such mental block or disturbance has the result of
making the spouse physically incapable of performing the marriage act. No evidence was presented in
the case at bar to establish that Rey was in any way physically incapable to consummate his marriage
with Veronica. In fact, Veronica admitted that she and Rey had sex before and after the wedding. Thus,
incapacity to consummate does not exist int his case.

Second, psychological incapacity was not proven. Tayag’s testimony on Rey’s NPD was not sufficient to
establish psychological incapacity. The case between Veronica and Rey is merely a simple case of a
married couple being apart too long, becoming strangers to each other, with the husband falling out
of love and distancing or detaching himself as much as possible from his wife. To be tired and give up
on one’s situation and on one’s spouse are not necessarily signs of psychological illness; neither can
falling out of love be so labeled.

Lastly, the allegation of sexual infidelity on the part of Rey is a poor attempt to bolster the claim
against Rey. Sexual infidelity per se is not psychological incapacity. Veronica failed to establish that
Rey’s unfaithfulness is a manifestation of a disordered personality, which makes him completely
unable to discharge the essential obligations of the marital state.