Pangilinan, Vloudy Mia S.

BALM-2A
LEGAL MEMORANDUM

V. Discussion
People enter into marriage because of the desire to have a partner. A partner in creating a
family, partner in raising their children, partner in providing the needs of a family, a partner in
sickness and in health, a partner in everything, a lifetime partner. A husband who has a
behavioral pattern characterized mainly by constant irresponsibility, lack of concern for the
welfare of others, self-centered orientation, absence of remorse, violent tendencies and his
involvement in activities defying social and moral ethics, is thus incapable of complying with the
essential requisites of marriage.
In the course of the proceedings expert testimonies of a psychologist or a psychiatrist
evaluating the behavioral pattern of the person alleged to be psychological incapacitated is
extremely helpful.
In this case, Manolo Perez was not personally examined by the Psychiatrist. However, in
the case of Marcos vs. Marcos, G.R. No. 136490, October 19, 2000, the Supreme Court
significantly ruled that the personal medical or psychological examination of the respondent is
not a requirement for a declaration of psychological incapacity.The testimony of the
psychologist or psychiatrist, if credible and if consistent with the totality of evidence, which is
also credible, must be given great weight.
In Azcueta vs. Azcueta, G.R. No. 180660, the Supreme Court, in granting the nullity of
marriage under Article 36 due to the dependent personality disorder of the respondent as reliably
assessed by the competent psychiatrist who did not personally examined the respondent said that,
by the very nature of Article 6, courts, despite having the primary task and burden of decision
making, must not discount but, instead, must consider as decisive evidence the expert opinion on
the psychological and mental temperaments of the parties.
In Antonio v. Reyes, G.R. No. 155880, the Supreme Court even adhered to the medical
and clinical findings of the psychiatrist and psychologist who did not personally examine the
subject but who were given reliable data about the respondent and read the pertinent court
records in coming up with a more reliable assessment that the respondent was a pathological liar,
as against the faulty clinical and medical findings of the psychiatrist of the respondent who
examined the respondent and claimed that the respondent was not suffering from psychological
incapacity. The mere fact therefore that a psychiatrist personally examined the subject person is
not an assurance that his or her findings will be sustained.