Republic of the Philippines

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

BRANCH 25
Surigao del Sur
AAA
Petitioner,
-versus- CIVIL CASE NO. 123456
For: Declaration of Nullity of Marriage
BBB
Respondent
x----------------------------------------x

DECISION
Before this Court is a petition for the declaration of nullity of marriage of
AAA, Petitioner, and BBB, Respondent, on the ground of psychological
incapacity of the latter to comply with the essential obligations of marriage
under Article 36 of the Family Code.

Factual Antecedents

Petitioner, AAA and Respondent, BBB met at Surigao del Sur. They had a
romantic relationship which resulted to the pregnancy of AAA of their first
child. On AAA’s second month of pregnancy, however, BBB went into
hiding. BBB, although reluctant, was eventually convinced to marry AAA.
They got married on October 26, 1996.

At that time, both of them had no visible income so they lived in the house
of AAA’s parents who took care of their needs. During that time, BBB
would always leave AAA, spending more time with his friends rather than
taking care of her. Later on, BBB got a job in Butuan City. BBB’s attitude of
being irresponsible persisted and would only send AAA a small amount of
his income, sometimes even none at all.

Months later, AAA heard that BBB has a mistress in the company where he
works. BBB then later called AAA to tell her that he will resign and the
reason is because he had impregnated the daughter of the canteen owner of
his company and wanted to hide/run from his responsibility. So BBB
returned to Surigao and though AAA thought that she would be happy upon
the return of her husband, he continued to be a habitual drinker and spent
most of his time with his friends instead of his family. This persisted when
their first child was already a year old, AAA became pregnant with their
second child. While AAA would work for a living, BBB would just play
basketball and have a drinking spree with his friends.

Later, AAA discovered that BBB was meeting his former girlfriend which
the latter vehemently denied and he even promised to change for the better.
Their third child was later on born and they lived on their own. BBB had no
intention to earn a living and depended on AAA’s income from selling fish.
BBB still habitually gets drunk and maltreated AAA and even threatened her
with a knife.

Eventually, the couple incurred many debts so AAA decided to work in

Manila. She generously and continuously and lovingly sent to BBB almost
all of her salary only to find out that it was spent for buying liquors and for
another woman. There was even a time when their child became seriously ill
and BBB did not show the slightest concern and preferred to let his mother-
in-law take care of the child. So eventually, AAA returned back to Surigao
for a week where she tried to make good with BBB and let their house be
repaired then went back to Manila again.

While in Manila, AAA heard that BBB destroyed their house and is
maintaining a romantic relationship with another woman. So AAA went
home again to settle things but BBB did not have the slightest effort of
changing himself.
Issue

Basically, the issue to be resolved by this Court is whether or not the totality
of evidence presented warrants, the declaration of nullity of the marriage of
Petitioner and Respondent on the ground of the latter’s psychological
incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code.

Ruling

This Court denies the Petition. The Family Code explicitly defines marriage
as a “special contract of permanent union between a man and a woman
entered into in accordance with law for the establishment of conjugal and
family life”. Being the foundation of the family and regarded as an
inviolable social institution, it shall be protected by the State.

A petition for declaration of nullity of marriage presupposes that such

marriage be declared null and void. In other words, it’s as if the marriage
was non-existent from the very beginning. The Civil Code lays down the
difference between a void from voidable marriage. To wit; (1) a void
marriage is nonexistent, while a voidable one is valid until annulled by a
competent court; (2) a void marriage can thus be collaterally attacked, while
a void one cannot; (3) void marriage can’t be ratified, while a voidable one
may be ratified by cohabitation; (4) there is no conjugal partnership and the
offspring are natural children by legal fiction in a void marriage, whereas in
a voidable marriage, there is conjugal partnership and the children conceived
before the decree of annulment are considered legitimate; and (5) void
marriages does not require a judicial decree to establish its invalidity, while
voidable marriages require such judicial decree.

It has been noted that there has been numerous cases regarding the
declaration of nullity of marriage assailing the ground of psychological
incapacity. Article 36 of the Family Code expressly states that: “A marriage
contracted by any party who, at the time of the celebration, was
psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential marital
obligations of marriage, shall likewise be void even if such incapacity
becomes manifest only after its solemnization.”
The law confines the ground of psychological incapacity to serious cases of
personality disorders which clearly shows utter disregard to the concept of
marriage. Numerous jurisprudence has held that psychological incapacity
must be characterized by (1) gravity, (2) juridical antecedence, and (3)
incurability. Gravity means that such incapacity must be grave and serious
in such a way that the party would be incapable of carrying out the ordinary
duties required in a marriage. Juridical antecedence implies that it must be
rooted in the history of the party or that it must be present at or even before
the celebration of marriage, even though it manifested only, as the law
provides, after solemnization. Lastly, incurability means that such incapacity
must be incurable, or even if it were otherwise, the cure would be beyond
the means of the party involved.

In the case of Republic v. Court of Appeals and Molina, this Court laid down
the more definitive guidelines in the disposition of psychological incapacity
cases, to wit;

(1) The burden of proof to show the nullity of the marriage belongs to the
plaintiff. Any doubt should be resolved in favor of the existence and
continuation of the marriage and against its dissolution and nullity;

(2) The root cause of the psychological incapacity must be (a) medically or
clinically identified, (b) alleged in the complaint, (c) sufficiently proven by
experts and (d) clearly explained in the decision;

(3) The incapacity must be proven to be existing at "the time of the

celebration" of the marriage;

(4) Such incapacity must also be shown to be medically or clinically

permanent or incurable. Such incurability may be absolute or even relative
only in regard to the other spouse, not necessarily absolutely against
everyone of the same sex;

(5) Such illness must be grave enough to bring about the disability of the
party to assume the essential obligations of marriage. In other words, there is
a natal or supervening disabling factor in the person, an adverse integral
element in the personality structure that effectively incapacitates the person
from really accepting and thereby complying with the obligations essential
to marriage;
(6) The essential marital obligations must be those embraced by Articles 68
up to 71 of the Family Code as regards the husband and wife as well as
Articles 220, 221 and 225 of the same Code in regard to parents and their
children;

(7) Interpretations given by the National Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal of

the Catholic Church in the Philippines, while not controlling or decisive,
should be given great respect by our courts; and

(8) The trial court must order the prosecuting attorney or fiscal and the
Solicitor General to appear as counsel for the state.

Using these standards, we find that Petitioner, AAA, failed to sufficiently

prove that Respondent, BBB, is psychologically incapacitated to discharge
the duties expected of a husband.

In the present case, it has been argued that even before marriage, traces of
BBB’s alleged personality disorder were already showing by the fact that he
went into hiding upon learning that his girlfriend was pregnant. His refusal
to face the AAA after learning of the pregnancy, much less marry her, is
argued to be reflective of his state of mind as a bachelor and his
corresponding attitude towards marriage. Such overt manifestations
successively emerged after the celebration of marriage. BBB never bothered
to find a job stayed in his parents’ family home and shamelessly depended
on his parents for support. He was more engaged in drinking and in
extramarital affairs. It can be recalled that when he was able to land a job in
Butuan, he refused to send any amount to support his family. Worse, he
impregnated the daughter of the canteen owner of the company where he
worked.

From the foregoing facts and using the abovementioned standards set by
Republic v. Court of Appeals and Molina, it can be inferred that
psychological incapacity must be more than just a difficulty, refusal or
neglect in the performance of some marital obligations. Irreconcilable
differences between the parties, sexual infidelity and emotional maturity and
irresponsibility, are not by themselves enough to establish psychological
incapacity as defined under Article 36 of the Family Code.
As held in Mirasol Castillo vs. Republic of the Philippines and Felipe
Impas, “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.”

In support of her case, Petitioner aside from statements from her daughter
who stood as witness, she even presented a Clinical Psychologist who, in her
Psychological Evaluation Report, diagnosed the Respondent as having
Narcissistic Personality Disorder coupled with a characteristic of a
Borderline Personality Disorder which concluded that he is psychologically
incapacitated to fulfill essential marital obligations expected of him.

As held in Ting v. Velez-Ting:

By the very nature of cases involving the application of Article 36, it is

logical and understandable to give weight to the expert opinions furnished
by psychologists regarding the psychological temperament of parties in
order to determine the root cause, juridical antecedence, gravity and
incurability of the psychological incapacity. However, such opinions,
while highly advisable, are not conditions sine qua non in granting petitions
for declaration of nullity of marriage. At best, courts must treat such
opinions as decisive but not indispensable evidence in determining the
merits of a given case. In fact, if the totality of evidence presented is
enough to sustain a finding of psychological incapacity, then actual medical
or psychological examination of the person concerned need not be resorted
to. The trial court, as in any other given case presented before it, must
always base its decision not solely on the expert opinions furnished by
the parties but also on the totality of evidence adduced in the course of
the proceedings.cha
The presentation of expert proof in cases for declaration of nullity of
marriage based on psychological incapacity presupposes a thorough and an
in-depth assessment of the parties by the psychologist or expert, for a
conclusive diagnosis of a grave, severe and incurable presence of
psychological incapacity. The conclusions of the Clinical Psychologist that
he was psychologically incapacitated and that such incapacity was present at
the inception of the marriage were not supported by evidence. At most, the
Clinical Psychologist merely proved his refusal to perform his marital
obligations. Moreover, she has no personal knowledge of the facts from
which she based her findings and was working on pure assumptions and
secondhand information related to her by one side.

Thus, to make conclusions and generalizations on a spouse's psychological

condition based on the information fed by only one side, as in the case at
bar, is, to the Court's mind, not different from admitting hearsay evidence as
proof of the truthfulness of the content of such evidence.

Guided by the foregoing principles and after a careful perusal of the records,
this Court rules that the totality of the evidence presented failed to establish
Respondent’s psychological incapacity.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition for declaration of nullity

of marriage is hereby DENIED, for lack of merit and accordingly, the same
petition is hereby DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED.

Surigao del Sur, October 18, 2019

XYVIE DIANNE D. DARADAR

Legal Writing – A

Presiding Judge