Hernandez v. Court of Appeals, 320 SCRA 76, Dec.

08, 1999
FACTS: Lucita and Marcio met in Philippine Christian University in Dasmarinas when
lucita was Marcios teacher for two consecutive semesters. Lucita was 5 years older than
Marcio. They later on became sweethearts and eventually got married. They also had a
child. Lucita supported the family as her husband continued studying, supported by his
parents. The first few years of their marriage went okay. But this eventually changed.
Marcio had an extra-marital relation with another student who was also married. When
Lucita discovered this, he asked Lucio to end it. He promised to but did not fulfill it and
left their conjugal home and child. After some time, he returned to Lucita and she
accepted him. However, his attitude worsened when he got employed to Reynold
Philippines, Inc. He engaged in extreme promiscuous conduct during the latter part of
1986. As a result, private respondent contracted gonorrhea and infected petitioner.
Petitioner averred that on one occasion of a heated argument, private respondent hit their
eldest child who was then barely a year old. Private respondent is not close to any of
their children as he was never affectionate and hardly spent time with them. On July 10,
1992, petitioner filed before the RTC a petition seeking the annulment of her marriage to
private respondent on the ground of psychological incapacity. RTC and CA denied the
petition. Hence, this case.
ISSUE: W/N Marcio is psychologically incapacitated to fulfill his marital obligations
HELD: The psychological incapacity of a spouse, as a ground for declaration of nullity of
marriage, must exist at the time of the celebration of marriage. More so, chronic sexual
infidelity, abandonment, gambling and use of prohibited drugs are not grounds per se, of
psychological incapacity of a spouse. Certainly, petitioner-appellants declaration that at
the time of their marriage her respondent-husbands character was on the borderline
between a responsible person and the happy-go-lucky, could not constitute the
psychological incapacity in contemplation of Article 36 of the Family Code