1

Republic of the Philippines

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
10th Judicial Region
Branch 35, Ozamiz City
ROY YAP LUAGUE,

CIVIL CASE NO. OZC 15-03

Plaintiff,
- versus -

- for -

SANDRA JOY ORBITA

GUIGUE-LUAGUE,
Defendant.
X------------------------------------------/

DEC. OF NULLITY OF
MARRIAGE

DECISION
Petitioner seeks the Declaration of Nullity of Marriage alleging the
Psychological Incapacity of the defendant pursuant to Article 36 of the
Family Code of the Philippines.
Summons with the petition and annexes was personally as to the
defendant on February 19, 2015 as reflected on the Sheriff's Return/Report
Service of Summons(Personal Service) dated February 20, 2016 that the
said summons was "DULY SERVED". Due to defendant's failure to file an
answer and the lapse of the reglementary period to file the same after
publication, petitioner filed an Ex-Parte Motion to Set the Case for Pre-trial
Conference received by the Court on May 07, 2015. A notice of Pre-Trial
Conference was issued by the Court on June 8, 2015 stating that the Pretrial conference was initially set on June 11, 2015. On June 11, 2015, an
order directing the Public Prosecutor, as deputized by the Solicitor General,
to conduct an investigation whether collusion exists between the parties
was issued. The City Prosecutor found no collusion existed between the
parties and that there is neither suppression nor fabrication of evidence as
per his report. Upon the prior submission of the Pre-Trial Brief, the prior
submission of judicial affidavits of witnesses, the conduct of the Pre-Trial
Conference. Evidence was presented thereafter.
In the open court hearing, petitioner, declared that he knows the
respondent as she is his wife; that he has with him a marriage certificate
proving the existence of such marriage and such certificate was marked by
the petitioner as Exhibit "A"; that after their marriage they resided in Cebu
City; that petitioner met his wife in Cebu City in 1996 being a barber at
King's barber that was owned by defendant's uncle; that petitioner courted
the defendant for two years until 1999 when the latter said yes to become
the former's girlfriend; that they broke up and got back together in 2001;
that on or about the same time, defendant brought the petitioner to the
municipality of Tudela to introduce the same to her parents; that
defendant's parents did not like him because he was still a student and the
defendant already has a job; that during those times defendant mocked the

petitioner stating that he is just a nobody and that someone better might
come along; that on 2002 petitioner got the defendant pregnant; that
defendant wanted to have the baby aborted as it will damage her figure and
that petitioner was poor and does not have the means to feed them; that
petitioner tried his best to convince the defendant to keep the baby which
the defendant did not respond to; that a few weeks later defendant had a
miscarriage; that two years after defendant lost her ability to bear children
because of an operation on her reproductive organ; that after that
defendant became overly jealous and dominant by telling the petitioner that
he has no right to look for another partner because he is a nobody; that
despite that, the petitioner tried his best to show his love to the defendant;
that they were later on married on July 2, 2004 afterwhich petitioner
demanded from the defendant that they should live separately from her
parents; that the defendant refused the said demand because she sees the
petitioner to be incapable of paying for their rent; that after working hard
and making enough money, the petitioner again asked the defendant to live
separately from her parents in 2006; that the defendant still refused the
same stating that she will not leave her parents; that the defendant called
the petitioner to be a braggart and an ingrate because he wanted to leave
the defendant's parents; that knowing about their discussion, the
defendant's parents reprimanded the petitioner and just suggested that
they live in an adjacent shanty because they did not want their daughter to
move away; that a year after the defendant's brother and his family lived
with them in that shanty which prompted the petitioner to again demand
from the defendant that they lived separately from her parents because it
has become very crowded in their shanty; that defendant quarreled with the
petitioner accusing her not know the value of family and that she loved her
immediate family more than him; that defendant threatened the petitioner
that if she is asked to choose, she would choose her family over the
petitioner; that later on, the couple was asked to move back to the house of
the defendant's parents; the same demand of moving out was made by the
petitioner and turned down by the defendant; that the couple likewise
fought over money as the defendant opposes the petitioner's act of sending
money to his parents; that the fight worsened as the defendant now
accused the petitioner of sending money to a concubine; that the defendant
acted like she is the boss of the petitioner and that the latter has no right to
oppose the former; that the spat in their relationship worsened as the
defendant was home less and less; that sex between the couple was very
minimal and disconnected; that defendant spends more time with her
parents and friends than with the petitioner; that when the petitioner exerts
effort to talk, the defendant would try to find ways to make little things turn
into a big fight; that to try to save their marriage, petitioner demanded again
from the defendant that they should live separately and have more time
together to repair their relationship; that instead of appreciating the effort of
the petitioner, the defendant kicked him out of her parents' house saying
that she can live and be happy even without the petitioner; that out of
shame, the petitioner had no choice but to leave; that when they saw each
other the next time, defendant seemed really happy and she told the

petitioner that life is better without him and that she should have let him go
a long time ago.
Also in open court, through a judicial affidavit, Reynaldo A.
Candonggo, a witness for the petitioner testified that he knew the
defendant being the wife of his friend Roy, the petitioner; that he saw two
relevant incidents; that he went to the house of the in-laws of Roy where
the couple lives so they can fetch Roy for some bonding with friends; that
about six in the evening that day, when they arrived, they heard the couple
fighting; that the reason for the fighting was the defendant's refusal to live
separately from her parents with his husband; that the second incident was
when the couple already separated; that Roy, the petitioner texted him that
he wanted to go out with friends as there was trouble in their house; that
upon arriving in the couple's house, he saw the defendant kick the
petitioner out of the house; that the defendant angrily shouted at the
petitioner that she is choosing her family of him; that defendant even said
that husbands can be replaced but her parents can't so he better leave;
that when asked, petitioner revealed to him that he was kicked out because
he again demanded from the defendant that they should live separately
from her parents.
Another witness, Erwin P. Vente, testified in open court through his
judicial affidavit saying that he is a cousin of the defendant and knew her
since she was little; that defendant is very loved by her parents and is
always treated like a baby and very protected; that defendant fears her
father; that defendant does not veer away from her parents when she was
young and is very aloof with other people; that she acts the same way even
if she is already married; that she chooses to live with her parents; that he
knew the petitioner Roy to be the husband of her cousin, the defendant;
that he observed that Roy is very good at taking care of his wife; that Roy is
strictly watched by his in-laws and his wife often tells him that her parents
are more important than her husband; that he knows the defendant to be a
good person but she does not like having many people around; that she
dislikes Roy being visited by her friends; that she is very jealous; that when
the witness visits their house, it is Roy, the petitioner who welcomes him
and her cousin never even comes out of their room to say hi; that he
witnessed a fight between the couple only once; that on that fight, he heard
the defendant shout at the petitioner stating she is evicting him from their
house because her parents are more important than him.
Eden A. Neri, 49 years old, psychologist teacher, resident of Lam-an,
Ozamiz City declared that petitioners counsel referred her to his client from
her services to assist in determining the psychological condition of the
petitioner and defendant; that she gave battery of psychological test to the
petitioner, the result of which was reduced into writing and was included in
her report; that based on her findings, petitioner showed consistent
patterns of interpersonal and personal values reflected in her personality
profile and has also other explanatory level incurred to be able to adjust
defendant types of problem; that she encountered an overall personal

profile pointed out to be psychologically healthy personality; that she

interviewed the respondent and her parents and summarized the interview
as follows:
SANDRA JOY GUIGUE (Respondent)
She related how she simply allowed things to happen to her marriage. She revealed
that she herself could not identify a specific reason why she could not express
anger about the situation she is in but one thing she was certain, that she wanted
to avoid possible troubles. Although she is the one left by her husband because he
had fallen out of love, she remained unperturbed about it because she does not
want to attract attention from other people. Also, she rationalized wanting to avoid
trouble that is why she does not want to fight for her right but remain in the side
lane. She admitted having fears of being abandoned because she could not bear a
baby and she also did not like the idea of adopting a child. She was resolute in her
decision to choose her parents over her husband and live with them instead of
living independently with her husband.
Susan Orbita-Guigue -

59 yrs. Old (Mother of the Respondent)

She related how she had helped the petitioner to become a police officer including
how her daughter (respondent) and her brother helped him finish his studies. She
was happy and grateful that the petitioner had also helped took care of her
husband when he suffered from stroke. She was shocked when the petitioner
openly declared that he no longer loved her daughter (respondent). She never
expected that despite their help and benevolence to the petitioner and his family,
he would decide to let go of their marriage. She admitted having controlled a
portion of their life because the couple lived with them as she requested but it was
her daughter (respondent) who wanted that arrangement. However, she was a bit
puzzled because despite their physical separation, the petitioner extended financial
support to the respondent which her daughter also expected every month.
Whatever it is that happened in their marriage, she is only worried that her
daughter may not be able to handle the situation because she is very certain that
her daughter is still very much in love with the petitioner. For her, it is beyond their
role as parents to interfere with their daughters feelings. However, she stressed
that they would do all means to protect her from any possible harm that may
happen relative to her marriage. She disclosed that she had exerted all efforts to
talk things out with her daughter but she seemed to show an avoidance behavior
and she respected her silence.
Francisco Macatol-Guigue-

63 years old (Father of the Respondent)

His face lit up when he was interviewed. He tried to whisper some of his answers to
avoid being heard by his wife. When asked what he observed with the marriage of
the petitioner and the respondent, he only said few things- sa akong nasabtan si
Joy (respondent) maoy naay problema. Nagsugod na adtong dili siya mosugot nga
mohatag si Roy (petitioner) ug kwarta sa iyang ginikanan. Unsaon pobre baya pod
intawon. Wala ko kasabot ngano nga dili niya sugtan si Roy nga silang duha naa
may pangita dayon wala pod silay anak (they way I understand things it is
Joy(respondent) who has a problem. It started when she did not allow Roy
(petitioner) to give money to his parents. They are poor. I could not understand
why she would not allow Roy when they are both earning and they do not have a
child). Somehow he sensed the reluctance of the respondent to be generous to the
petitioners family. Her inability to show care to the petitioner and her doubts about

5
the petitioner having illicit affairs are influenced by her insecurities of not being
able to bear a child. He related how the petitioner took care of him right after he
suffered from a stroke and that they have good relationship. He just wishes that
the couple could move on with their separate lives. Like any other father, he only
wanted her daughter to be happy and being left to nurse the hurt from the
separation, is for him a better option than squeezing herself into the life of the
petitioner, who declared having fallen out of love.

Based on her findings, defendant was suffering from AVOIDANT

PERSONALITY DISORDER with overlapping features of DEPENDENT
PERSONALITY DISORDER. She further specified defendant's avoidant

personality disorder is characterized by a pervasive pattern of

social inhibition, feelings of inadequacy, and hypersensitivity to
negative evaluation, beginning by early adulthood and present in
a variety of contexts, as indicated by four (or more) of the
following:
1.

2.

3.

4.

5.
6.
7.

Avoids occupational activities that involve significant interpersonal

contact, because of fears of criticism, disapproval, or rejection. (e.g.
she considered her work as an accounting clerk to fit in her desire to
have limited contact with people because she was not exposed to
criticism and evaluation. Also, her extreme fear of rejection made her
avoid confrontation that is why it was okay for her that her husband
may not return home, afraid that her parents may not accept him)
Is unwilling to get involved with people unless certain of being liked.
(e.g. she only showed persistent attitude of winning the consent of the
petitioner to marry her after being assured that the petitioner really
loved her despite their age gap and her inability to bear a child.)
Shows restraint within intimate relationships because of the fear of
being shamed or ridiculed. (e.g. the petitioner felt the reluctance of
the respondent to satisfy his sexual needs. Her thoughts that she is
incapable of bearing a child made her too inhibited in her sexual
expression towards him even if they were alone.)
Is preoccupied with being criticized or rejected in social situations.
(e.g. the respondent never cared to concede with the petitioners
persuasion that they live separately and far from the respondents
parents for fear that other people may not accept her and she would
open to criticism and evaluation)
Inhibited in new social situations because of feelings of inadequacy.
Views self as socially inept, personally unappealing, or inferior to
others.
Is unusually reluctant to take personal risks or to engage in new
activities because they may prove embarrassing. (e.g. the respondent
prefers to keep silent about the marital issues and concerns aired by
the petitioner because she is ashamed of what people might learn and
think. She finds retreating or withdrawing from the event a better
option than fighting for it, which for her is troublesome.)

The overlapping features of her dependent personality disorder is characterized by

a pervasive pattern and excessive need to be taken care of, that leads to
submissive and clinging behavior and fears of separation as indicated in the
following;
1.

Has difficulty expressing disagreement with others because of fear of

their anger or loss of support (While she consistently opposed the
plans of her husband, she felt too weak to go against her parents will
because she feels that they are the ones protecting her from her
insecurities)

6
2.

Has difficulty independently initiating activities because of lack of

confidence in personal judgment or abilities rather than lack of
motivation or energy. (Feeling of having limited opportunity because of
her inability to bear a child)

The witness further stated that defendants personality

disorder is grave enough as she showed deeply ingrained,
inflexible and maladaptive patterns of relating to and perceiving
both the environment and herself; that her fear of rejection
played a key role in her tendency to keep away from personal
attachment, in this case her husband (the petitioner); that
although she entered into relationships but she experienced
conflict over wanting affection and at the same time doubting her
acceptance by her partner; that she cannot seem to rid herself of
the belief that any overtures of marriage or relationship will end in
pain and disillusionment; that she was caught between wanting
human contact and dreading it; that her being too sensitive and
hypervigilant of other peoples behavior caused her to assess her
human contacts for signs of deception, humiliation, and negative
reactions; that as a result, she is able to detect the most minute
traces of indifference or annoyance; that in addition, her I-dontcare attitude, overdependence, and nervousness of what might
happen if they live separately from her parents irked the
petitioner, which further damaged her marital relationship; that
the clinical diagnosis on the respondents avoidant personality
disorder showed a long history of impairment; that the onset of
the disorder is usually in early childhood with the manifestations
occurring in early adulthood; that in this case, the respondents
development of her disorder is attributed to her overly protective
and highly disciplinarian parents, and poor interpersonal family
relationships; that as a result of her experience and poor social
skills she developed low self-esteem and she focused about the
fear of being negatively evaluated by others; that she faltered in
her marriage because such relationship requires high level of
openness, acceptance and risk of revealing oneself to ones
partner, and these are contradictory to the kind of personality she
possesses.
The witness further averred that like any other personality
disorder classified under Axis II, Cluster C diagnosed as nearpermanent disorder with no periods of improvement, avoidant
personality disorder is chronic and long lasting; that the onset of
the disorder is usually in early childhood with the manifestations
occurring in early adulthood; that one of the predisposing factors
for the development of the avoidant personality disorder can be
traced to the mothers who show a lack of consistent discipline, a
lack of affection, and an increased incidence of impulsiveness;
that these qualities contribute to failure to create a cohesive
home environment with consistent structure and behavioral

boundaries; that although there was no mention about the

respondents feeling of neglect, lack of parental affection but his
unusual behavior of impressing others through indifference,
aloofness and extreme shyness are ways to get the attention of
others and satisfy her need for parental love and affection; that
because of her constant renouncement of her disorder stressing
that she is just like that, she is a poor prospect for therapy; that
this clearly indicates that the respondent (wife) is suffering from
an incurable psychological incapacity specified as AVOIDANT
PERSONALITY DISORDER, which is long-standing, persistent
and recurrent behavior.
E VALU ATI O N
This is case reflects one of the unfortunate effects of very close family
ties in Filipino culture, the "Papa's Girl", which disables a person's ability to
live independently of one's parents due to the longing of continued care,
shelter and affection from such parents.
The testimony of the petitioner together with the witnesses reveal that
at first there was a mismatch on economic standing between the couple
which resulted to the domineering behavior of the defendant. But as the
revelation of the events accounted by witnesses continued, it was shown
that the domineering behavior was a result of a spoiled brat's actuations.
The testimonies show that even with the caring nature, great patience and
pure love shown by the petitioner to the defendant, the latter failed to
recognize and appreciate the same because she fears that doing so will
deprive her of the love of her parents as it will eventually result to her
leaving them for her husband. The inability of the defendant to move on
from being a child of her parent to a wife of her husband bars her from
performing her marital obligation to the petitioner. Further, it was shown that
because the defendant was so used to being sheltered and protected by
her parents, she is unable to normally interact with individuals beyond her
immediate family. The defendant's treatment to the petitioner by constantly
impressing upon him that he is less important than her family shows that
she has not considered him as part of her immediate family and thus a
stranger. This therefore impales her from performing her marital obligations
as she has the innate fear of living together as husband and wife with a
stranger.
The study conducted by the psychologist Eden A. Neri bolstered the
accounts of the witnesses and the petitioner as it further explained that the
behavior exhibited by the defendant shows Avoidant Personality Disorder
with overlapping Dependent Personality Disorder. Further, it was explained
that such disorder exists starting in the early stages of childhood until
adulthood and is incurable in nature.
With these, the Court decides.
Article 36 of the Family Code has established psychological
incapacity as a basis of declaring a marriage void ab initio. It says:

8
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. (Art. 36
of the Family Code)

In Barcelona vs CA, which cited Santos vs. CA as well as Republic

vs. CA, psychological incapacity was expounded, to wit :
xxx psychological incapacity should refer to no less
than mental (not physical) incapacity that causes a
party to be incognitive of the basic marital covenants
that concomitant must be assumed and discharged
by the parties to the marriage which as so expressed
by Art. 68 of the Family Code, includes their mutual
obligations to live together, observe love, respect and
fidelity and render help and support. There is hardly
any doubt that the intendment of the law has been to
confine the meaning of psychological incapacity to
the most serious cases of personality disorders
clearly demonstrative of an utter insensitivity or
inability to give meaning and significance to the
marriage. This psychological condition must exist at
the time the marriage is celebrated. x x x x x x x
(Barcelona vs. CA 1380087 September 24, 2004)

Also, given the avowed state interest in promoting marriage as the

foundation of the family, which in turn serves as the foundation of the
nation, there is a corresponding interest for the State to defend
against marriages ill-equipped to promote family life. (emphasis
supplied) Void ab initio marriages under Article 36 do not further the
initiatives of the State concerning marriage and family, as they promote
wedlock among persons who, for reasons independent of their will, are not
capacitated to understand or comply with essential obligations of marriage.
(Antonio vs. Reyes, G.R. No. 155800,March 10, 2006, quoted in Valerio E.
Kalaw vs. Ma. Elena Fernandez, G.R. No. 166357, January 14, 2015)
Given the evidence presented by the petitioner, and the defendant's
failure to counter the same, this Court is inclined to believe that defendant
is psychologically incapacitated to perform the essential marital obligations
of marriage as shown in the testimonies of the witnesses coupled with the
documentary evidence submitted by the witnesses. Such incapacity exists
prior to marriage and subsists during cohabitation and even beyond the
separation of the parties.
WHEREFORE, this Court grants the primary prayer of the petitioner
and declares the marriage between ROY YAP LUAGUE and SANDRA JOY
ORBITA GUIGUE-LUAGUE void ab initio in accordance with Article 36 of
the Family Code.
Let this judgment be recorded in the appropriate Civil Registry, copy
furnished the office of the Local Civil Registrar of the Municipality of Tudela
and the Office of the Solicitor General.
SO ORDERED.
______________________, Ozamiz City, Philippines.
SALOME P. DUNGOG

Presiding Judge
EDV/eer
C/F:
Atty. Ocang
LCR, Quezon City
CPO
OSG