9/20/2016

G.R.No.208790

TodayisTuesday,September20,2016

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila
THIRDDIVISION
G.R.No.208790January21,2015
GLENNVIAS,Petitioner,
vs.
MARYGRACEPARELVIAS,Respondent.
RESOLUTION
REYES,J.:
ForreviewistheDecision1renderedonJanuary29,2013andResolution2issuedonAugust7,2013bytheCourt
of Appeals (CA) in CAG.R. CV No. 96448. The CA set aside the Decision3 dated January 29, 2010 of the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of San Pablo City, Branch 30, in Civil Case No. SP6564(09), which declared the
marriagebetweenGlennVifias(Glenn)andMaryGraceParelVifias(MaryGrace)asnullandvoid.
Antecedents
OnApril26,1999,GlennandMaryGrace,then25and23yearsold,respectively,gotmarriedincivilritesheldin
LipaCity,Batangas.4MaryGracewasalreadypregnantthen.Theinfant,however,diedatbirthduetoweakness
and malnourishment. Glenn alleged that the infants death was caused by Mary Graces heavy drinking and
smokingduringherpregnancy.
The couple lived together under one roof. Glenn worked as a bartender, while Mary Grace was a production
engineer.
SometimeinMarchof2006,MaryGraceleftthehomewhichshesharedwithGlenn.Glennsubsequentlyfound
outthatMaryGracewenttoworkinDubai.Atthetimetheinstantpetitionwasfiled,MaryGracehadnotreturned
yet.
On February 18, 2009, Glenn filed a Petition5 for the declaration of nullity of his marriage with Mary Grace.He
allegedthatMaryGracewasinsecure,extremelyjealous,outgoingandpronetoregularlyresortingtoanypretext
to be able to leave the house. She thoroughly enjoyed the night life, and drank and smoked heavily even
whenshe was pregnant. Further, Mary Grace refused to perform even the most essential household chores of
cleaningandcooking.AccordingtoGlenn,MaryGracehadnotexhibitedtheforegoingtraitsandbehaviorduring
theirwhirlwindcourtship.6
GlennlikewiseallegedthatMaryGracewasnotremorsefulaboutthedeathoftheinfantwhomshedelivered.She
lived as if she were single and was unmindful of her husbands needs. She was selfcentered, selfish and
immature. When Glenn confronted her about her behavior, she showed indifference. She eventually left their
homewithoutinformingGlenn.GlennlaterfoundoutthatsheleftforanoverseasemploymentinDubai.7
BeforeGlenndecidedtofileapetitionforthedeclarationofnullityofhismarriagewithMaryGrace,heconsulted
thelattersfriends.TheyinformedhimthatMaryGracecamefromabrokenfamilyandwaslefttobecaredforby
herauntsandnannies.Theforegoingcircumstancemusthavecontributedtohersenseofinsecurityanddifficulty
inadjustingtomarriedlife.8
To ease their marital problems, Glenn sought professional guidance and submitted himself to a psychological
evaluationbyClinicalPsychologistNedyTayag(Dr.Tayag).Dr.Tayagfoundhimas"amplyawareofhismarital
roles"and"capableofmaintainingamatureandhealthyheterosexualrelationship."9
Ontheotherhand,Dr.TayagassessedMaryGracespersonalitythroughthedatashehadgatheredfromGlenn
andhiscousin,RodelitoMayo(Rodelito),whoknewMaryGracewaybackincollege.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_208790_2015.html

1/8

9/20/2016

G.R.No.208790

MaryGraceistheeldestamongfoursiblings.Sheisacollegegraduate.Shebelongstoamiddleclassfamily.Her
fatherisanoverseascontractworker,whilehermotherisahousewife.AtthetimeDr.Tayagpreparedherreport,
MaryGracewasemployedinDubaiandromanticallyinvolvedwithanotherman.10
AccordingtoRodelito,MaryGraceverballyabusedandphysicallyharmedGlennduringthecouplesfights.Mary
Graceisalsoilltemperedandcarefree,whileGlennisjolly,kindandfamilyoriented.11
Dr.TayagdiagnosedMaryGracetobesufferingfromaNarcissisticPersonalityDisorderwithantisocialtraits.Dr.
Tayag concluded that Mary Grace and Glenns relationship is not founded on mutual love, trust, respect,
commitmentandfidelitytoeachother.Hence,Dr.Tayagrecommendedtheproprietyofdeclaringthenullityofthe
couplesmarriage.12
Indrawingherconclusions,Dr.Tayagexplainedthat:
The said disorder [of Mary Grace] is considered to be severe, serious, grave, permanent and chronic in
proportionandisincurablebyanyformofclinicalintervention.Ithasalreadybeendeeplyembeddedwithinher
systemasitwasfoundtohavestartedasearlyasherchildhoodyears.Becauseofsuch,ithascausedhertobe
inflexible,maladaptiveandfunctionally[]impairedespeciallywithregardstoheterosexualdealings.
Suchdisorderof[MaryGrace]ismainlycharacterizedbygrandiosity,needforadmirationandlackofempathy[,]
alongwithherpatternofdisregardforandviolationoftherightsofothers[,]whichutterlydistortedherperceptions
and views especially in terms of a fitting marital relationship. Such disorder manifested in [Mary Grace] through
herunrelentingapathy,senseofentitlementandarrogance.Throughoutherunionwith[Glenn],shehasexhibited
aheightenedsenseofselfasseeninhermarkedinabilitytoshowproperrespectforherhusband.xxxSheis
too headstrong that most of the time[,] she would do things her own way and would not pay close attention to
what her husband needed. She had been a wife who constantly struggled for power and dominance in their
relationshipand[Glenn],beingtooconsideratetoher,wasoftensubjectedtohercontrol.xxxSheisintomany
vicesandlovedhangingoutwithherfriendsatnight[,]andsheevengotinvolvedinanillicitrelationship[,]which
wasstillgoingonuptothepresenttime.xxx.
Therootcauseof[MaryGraces]personalityaberrationcanbesaidtohaveemanatedfromthevariousformsof
unfavorablefactorsinhermilieuwaybackasearlyasherchildhoodyears[,]whichisthecrucialstageinthelifeof
apersonasthisisthetimewhentheindividualscharacterandbehaviorareshaped.[MaryGrace]camefroma
dysfunctionalfamilywithlenientandtoleratingparents[,]whoneverimposeanyrestrictions[upon]theirchildren.
Consideringsuchfact,sheapparentlyfailedtofeeltheloveandaffectionofthenurturingfiguresthatshehad[,]
whoweresupposedtobethefirsttoshowconcern[for]her.xxxShehasacquiredadomineeringcharacteras
shewasnottaughttohaveboundariesinheractionsbecauseofthelaxityshehadfromhercaregiversandalso
becauseshegrewuptobetheeldestinthebrood.Sheseestoitthatsheistheonealwaysfollowedwithregards
tomakingdecisionsandalwaysmandatespeopletosubmittoherwishes.Shehasnotacquiredtheveryessence
of morality [and] has certainly learned set of unconstructive traits that further made her too futile to assume
matureroles.Moralsandvalueswerenotinstilledinheryoungmindthatasshewentonwithherlife,shenever
learnedtorestrainherselffromdoingilladvisedthingsevenifsheisamplyawareofthedepravityofheractions.
The psychological incapacity of [Mary Grace] is of a juridical antecedence as it was already inher system even
priortothesolemnizationofhermarriagewith[Glenn].xxx.13(Underliningours)
On February 18, 2009, Glenn filed before the RTC a Petition for the Declaration of Nullity of his marriage with
Mary Grace. Substituted service of summons was made upon Mary Grace through her aunt, Susana Rosita.14
MaryGracefilednoansweranddidnotattendanyoftheproceedingsbeforetheRTC.
Duringthetrial,thetestimoniesofGlenn,Dr.TayagandRodelitowereofferedasevidence.GlennandRodelito
described Mary Grace as outgoing, carefree, and irresponsible. She is the exact opposite of Glenn, who is
conservativeandpreoccupiedwithhiswork.15Onherpart,Dr.Tayagreiteratedherfindingsinthepsychological
reportdatedDecember29,2008.
RulingoftheRTC
OnJanuary29,2010,theRTCrendereditsDecision16declaringthemarriagebetweenGlennandMaryGraceas
nullandvoidonaccountofthelatterspsychologicalincapacity.TheRTCcitedthefollowingasgrounds:
Thetotalityoftheevidencepresentedby[Glenn]warrants[the]grantofthepetition.Reconciliationbetweenthe
partiesunderthecircumstancesisnil.Forthebestinterestoftheparties,itisbestthatthelegalbondbetween
thembesevered.
Thetestimoniesof[Glenn]andhiswitness[Rodelito]portraythemiserablelife[Glenn]hadwith[MaryGrace]who
isaNarcissisticPersonalityDisorderedpersonwithanti[]socialtraitsandwhodoesnottreathimasherhusband.
[Glenn] and [Mary Grace] are separated in fact since the year 2006. [Mary Grace] abandoned [Glenn] without
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_208790_2015.html

2/8

9/20/2016

G.R.No.208790

tellingthelatterwheretogo.xxxHaditnotfortheinsistenceof[Glenn]thathewouldnotknowthewhereabouts
ofhiswife.Thelawprovidesthat[a]husbandand[a]wifeareobligedtolivetogether,[and]observemutuallove,
respectandfidelity.xxxForallintentsandpurposes,however,[MaryGrace]wasinaquandaryonwhatitreally
means.xxx.
From the testimony of [Glenn], it was established that [Mary Grace] failed to comply with the basic marital
obligationsofmutuallove,respect,mutualhelpandsupport.[Glenn]triedhisbesttohavetheirmarriagesaved
but[MaryGrace]didnotcooperatewithhim.[MaryGrace]isxxx,unmindfulofhermaritalobligations.
TheCourthasnoreasontodoubtthetestimonyof[Dr.Tayag],aclinicalpsychologistwithsufficientauthorityto
speak on the subject of psychological incapacity. She examined [Glenn], and was able to gather sufficient data
and information about [Mary Grace]. x x x This [Narcissistic] personality disorder of[Mary Grace] is ingrained in
her personality makeup, so grave and so permanent, incurable and difficult to treat. It is conclusive that this
personalincapacityleadingtopsychologicalincapacityisalreadypreexistingbeforethemarriageandwasonly
manifestedafter.Ithasbecomegrave,permanentandincurable.17(Underliningoursanditalicsintheoriginal)
TheOfficeoftheSolicitorGeneral(OSG)movedforreconsiderationbutitwasdeniedbytheRTCinitsOrder18
datedDecember1,2010.
TheAppealoftheOSGandtheRulingoftheCA
On appeal before the CA, the OSG claimed that no competent evidence exist proving that Mary Grace indeed
suffers from a Narcissistic Personality Disorder, which prevents her from fulfilling her marital obligations.
Specifically,theRTCdecisionfailedtocitetherootcauseofMaryGracesdisorder.Further,theRTCdidnotstate
its own findings and merely relied on Dr. Tayags statements anent the gravity and incurability of Mary Graces
condition. The RTC resorted to mere generalizations and conclusions sansdetails. Besides, what psychological
incapacitycontemplatesisdownrightincapacitytoassumemaritalobligations.Intheinstantcase,irreconcilable
differences,sexualinfidelity,emotionalimmaturityandirresponsibilitywereshown,butthesedonotwarrantthe
grantofGlennspetition.MaryGracemaybeunwillingtoassumehermaritalduties,butthisdoesnottranslate
intoapsychologicalillness.19
Glenn,ontheotherhand,soughtthedismissaloftheOSGsappeal.
OnJanuary29,2013,theCArenderedthehereinassaileddecisionreversingtheRTCrulinganddeclaringthe
marriagebetweenGlennandMaryGraceasvalidandsubsisting.TheCAstatedthereasonsbelow:
In Santos vs. Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court held that "psychological incapacity" should refer to no less
thanamental(notphysical)incapacitythatcausesapartytobetrulyincognitiveofthebasicmaritalcovenants
that concomitantly must be assumed and discharged by the parties to the marriage which, asso expressed by
Article68oftheFamilyCode,includetheirmutualobligationstolivetogether,observelove,respectandfidelity
andrenderhelpandsupport.Thereishardlyanydoubtthattheintendmentofthelawhasbeentoconfinethe
meaningof"psychologicalincapacity"tothemostseriouscasesofpersonalitydisordersclearlydemonstrativeof
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. The psychological condition must be characterized by (a)
gravity,(b)juridicalantecedence,and(c)incurability.
Intheinstantcase,[Glenn]triedtoprovethat[MaryGrace]wascarefree,outgoing,immature,andirresponsible
whichmadeherunabletoperformtheessentialobligationsofmarriage.Helikewiseallegedthatsherefusedto
communicate with him to save the marriage and eventually left him to work abroad. To Our mind, the above
actuationsof[MaryGrace]donotmakeoutacaseofpsychologicalincapacityonherpart.
While it is true that [Glenns] testimony was corroborated by [Dr. Tayag], a psychologist who conducted a
psychological examination on [Glenn], however, said examination was conducted only on him and no evidence
wasshownthatthepsychologicalincapacityof[MaryGrace]wascharacterizedbygravity,juridicalantecedence,
andincurability.
Certainly,theopinionofapsychologistwouldbeofpersuasivevalueindeterminingthepsychologicalincapacity
ofapersonasshewouldbeinthebestpositiontoassessandevaluatethepsychologicalconditionofthecouple,
she being an expert in this field of study of behavior. Although the psychologist stated that respondent was
sufferingfromNarcissisticPersonalityDisorder,shedidnotfullyexplaintherootcauseofthedisordernordidshe
makeaconclusionastoitsgravityorpermanence.Moreover,sheadmittedthatshewasnotabletoexaminethe
respondent[,]hence,theinformationprovidedtohermaybesubjectiveandselfserving.Essentialinthispetition
is the allegation of the root causeof the spouses psychological incapacity which should also be medically or
clinically identified, sufficiently proven by experts and clearly explained in the decision. The incapacity must be
proven to be existing at the time of the celebration of the marriageand shown to be medically or clinically
permanentorincurable.Itmustalsobegraveenoughtobringaboutthedisabilityofthepartiestoassumethe
essentialobligationsofmarriageassetforthinArticles68to71andArticles220to225oftheFamilyCodeand
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_208790_2015.html

3/8

9/20/2016

G.R.No.208790

such noncomplied marital obligations must similarly be alleged in the petition, established by evidence and
explainedinthedecision.
Unfortunatelyfor[Glenn],theexperttestimonyofhiswitnessdidnotestablishtherootcauseofthepsychological
incapacityof[MaryGrace]norwassuchgroundallegedinthecomplaint.WereiteratetherulingoftheSupreme
Court on this score, to wit: the root cause of the psychological incapacity must be: a) medically or clinically
identifiedb)allegedinthecomplaintc)sufficientlyprovenbyexpertsandd)clearlyexplainedinthedecision.
Discoursingonthisissue,theSupremeCourt,inRepublicofthePhilippinesvs.CourtofAppealsandMolina,has
thistosay:
"Article 36 of the Family Code requires that the incapacity must be psychological not physical, although its
manifestationsand/orsymptomsmaybephysical.Theevidencemustconvincethecourtthattheparties,orone
ofthem,wasmentallyorphysicallyilltosuchanextentthatthepersoncouldnothaveknowntheobligationshe
was assuming, or knowing them, could not have given valid assumption thereof. Although no example of such
incapacity need be given here so as not to limit the application of the provision under the principle of ejusdem
generisxxx[,]nevertheless[,]suchrootcausemustbeidentifiedasapsychologicalillnessanditsincapacitating
naturefullyexplained.Expertevidencemaybegivenbyqualifiedpsychiatristsandclinicalpsychologists."
TheSupremeCourtfurtherwentontoproclaim,that"Article36oftheFamilyCodeisnottobeconfusedwitha
divorcelawthatcutsthemaritalbondatthetimethecausesthereforemanifestthemselves".Itreferstoaserious
psychological illness afflicting a party evenbefore the celebration of the marriage. It is a malady so grave and
permanentastodepriveoneofawarenessofthedutiesandresponsibilitiesofthematrimonialbondoneisabout
toassume."Psychologicalincapacityshouldrefertonolessthanamental(notphysical)incapacitythatcausesa
partytobetrulyincognitiveofthebasicmaritalcovenantsthatconcomitantlymustbeassumedanddischargedby
thepartiestothemarriage.
From the foregoing, We cannot declare the dissolution of the marriage of the parties for the obvious failure of
[Glenn] to show that the alleged psychological incapacity of [Mary Grace] is characterized by gravity, juridical
antecedenceandincurabilityandforhisfailuretoobservetheguidelinesoutlinedintheaforecitedcases.
Verily,theburdenofprooftoshowthenullityofthemarriagebelongsto[Glenn].Anydoubtshouldberesolvedin
favoroftheexistenceandcontinuationofthemarriageandagainstitsdissolutionandnullity.Thisisrootedfrom
thefactthatbothourConstitutionandourlawscherishthevalidityofmarriageandunityofthefamily.20(Citations
omitted,underliningoursandemphasisanditalicsintheoriginal)
TheCA,throughthehereinassailedResolution21datedAugust7,2013,deniedtheMotionforReconsideration22
filedbyGlenn.
Issue
Unperturbed,GlennnowraisesbeforethisCourttheissueofwhetherornotsufficientevidenceexistjustifyingthe
RTCsdeclarationofnullityofhismarriagewithMaryGrace.
Insupportthereof,Glennpointsoutthateachpetitionforthedeclarationofnullityofmarriageshouldbejudged
accordingtoitsownsetoffacts,andnotonthebasisofassumptions,predilectionsorgeneralizations.TheRTC
judge should pains takingly examine the factual milieu, while the CA must refrain from substituting its own
judgmentforthatofthetrialcourt.23Further,GlennarguesthatinMarcosv.Marcos,24theCourtruledthatitisnot
asinequanonrequirementfortherespondentspousetobepersonallyexaminedbyaphysicianorpsychologist
before a marriage could be declared as a nullity.25 However, if the opinion of an expert is sought, his or her
testimony should be considered as decisive evidence.26 Besides, the findings of the trial court regarding the
credibilityofthewitnessesshouldberespected.27
In seeking the denial of the instant petition, the OSG emphasizes that the arguments Glenn raise for our
considerationaremerereiterationsofthemattersalreadyresolvedbytheCA.28
RulingoftheCourt
Theinstantpetitionlacksmerit.
The lack of personal examination orassessment of the respondent by a psychologist or psychiatrist is not
necessarily fatal in a petition for the declaration of nullity of marriage. "If the totality of evidence presented is
enoughtosustainafindingofpsychologicalincapacity,thenactualmedicalexaminationofthepersonconcerned
neednotberesortedto."29
In the instant petition, however, the cumulative testimonies of Glenn, Dr. Tayag and Rodelito, and the
documentary evidence offered do not sufficiently prove the root cause, gravity and incurability of Mary Graces
condition. The evidence merely shows that Mary Grace is outgoing, strongwilled and not inclined to perform
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_208790_2015.html

4/8

9/20/2016

G.R.No.208790

householdchores.Further,sheisemployedinDubaiandisromanticallyinvolvedwithanotherman.Shehasnot
beenmaintaininglinesofcommunicationwithGlennatthetimethelatterfiledthepetitionbeforetheRTC.Glenn,
on the other hand, is conservative, familyoriented and is the exact opposite of Mary Grace. While Glenn and
Mary Grace possess incompatible personalities, the latters acts and traits do not necessarily indicate
psychologicalincapacity.Rumbauav.Rumbaua30isemphaticthat:
InBierv.Bier,weruledthatitwasnotenoughthatrespondent,allegedtobepsychologicallyincapacitated,had
difficultyincomplyingwithhismaritalobligations,orwasunwillingtoperformtheseobligations.Proofofanatalor
supervening disabling factor an adverse integral element in the respondents personality structure that
effectivelyincapacitatedhimfromcomplyingwithhisessentialmaritalobligationshadtobeshownandwasnot
showninthiscitedcase.
Inthepresentcase,therespondentsstubbornrefusaltocohabitwiththepetitionerwasdoubtlesslyirresponsible,
butitwasneverproventoberootedinsomepsychologicalillness.xxxLikewise,therespondentsactofliving
withanotherwomanfouryearsintothemarriagecannotautomaticallybeequatedwithapsychologicaldisorder,
especiallywhennospecificevidencewasshownthatpromiscuitywasatraitalreadyexistingattheinceptionof
marriage.Infact,petitionerherselfadmittedthatrespondentwascaringandfaithfulwhentheyweregoingsteady
andforatimeaftertheirmarriagetheirproblemsonlycameinlater.
xxxTousethewordsofNavalesv.Navales:
Article 36 contemplates downright incapacity or inability to take cognizance ofand to assume basic marital
obligations.Mere"difficulty,""refusal"or"neglect"intheperformanceofmaritalobligationsor"illwill"onthepart
ofthespouseisdifferentfrom"incapacity"rootedonsomedebilitatingpsychologicalconditionorillness.Indeed,
irreconcilabledifferences,sexualinfidelityorperversion,emotionalimmaturityandirresponsibility,andthelike,do
notbythemselveswarrantafindingofpsychologicalincapacityunderArticle36,asthesamemayonlybedueto
a persons refusal or unwillingness to assume the essential obligations of marriage and not due to some
psychologicalillnessthatiscontemplatedbysaidrule.31(Citationsomitted,underliningoursandemphasisinthe
original)
It is worth noting that Glenn and Mary Grace lived with each other for more or less seven years from 1999 to
2006.Theforegoingestablishedfactshowsthatlivingtogetherasspousesunderoneroofisnotanimpossibility.
Mary Graces departure from their home in 2006 indicates either a refusal or mere difficulty, but not absolute
inabilitytocomplywithherobligationtolivewithherhusband.
Further,consideringthatMaryGracewasnotpersonallyexaminedbyDr.Tayag,therearoseagreaterburdento
present more convincing evidence to prove the gravity, juridical antecedence and incurability of the formers
condition.Glenn,however,failedinthisrespect.Glennstestimonyiswantinginmaterialdetails.Rodelito,onthe
otherhand,isabloodrelativeofGlenn.Glennsstatementsarehardlyobjective.Moreover,GlennandRodelito
both referred to Mary Graces traits and acts, which she exhibited during the marriage. Hence, there isnary a
proof on the antecedence of Mary Graces alleged incapacity. Glenn even testified that, six months before they
gotmarried,theysaweachotheralmosteveryday.32Glennsaw"aloving[,]caringandwell[]educatedperson"33in
MaryGrace.
Anent Dr. Tayags assessment of Mary Graces condition, the Court finds the same as unfounded. Rumbaua34
providessomeguidelinesonhowthecourtsshouldevaluatethetestimoniesofpsychologistsorpsychiatristsin
petitionsforthedeclarationofnullityofmarriage,viz:
1 w p h i1

WecannothelpbutnotethatDr.Tayagsconclusionsabouttherespondentspsychologicalincapacitywerebased
on the information fed to her by only one side the petitioner whose bias in favor of her cause cannot be
doubted. While this circumstance alone does notdisqualify the psychologist for reasons of bias, her report,
testimonyandconclusionsdeservetheapplicationofamorerigidandstringentsetofstandardsinthemanner
we discussed above. For, effectively, Dr. Tayag only diagnosed the respondent from the prism of a third party
account she did not actually hear, see and evaluate the respondent and how he would have reacted and
respondedtothedoctorsprobes.
Dr. Tayag, in her report, merely summarized the petitioners narrations, and on this basis characterized the
respondent to be a selfcentered, egocentric, and unremorseful person who "believes that the world revolves
around him" and who "used love as adeceptive tactic for exploiting the confidence [petitioner] extended
towardshim."xxx.
Wefindtheseobservationsandconclusionsinsufficientlyindepthandcomprehensivetowarranttheconclusion
that a psychological incapacity existed that prevented the respondent from complying with the essential
obligationsofmarriage.Itfailedtoidentifytherootcauseoftherespondentsnarcissisticpersonalitydisorderand
to prove that it existed at the inception of the marriage. Neither did it explain the incapacitating nature of the
allegeddisorder,norshowthattherespondentwasreallyincapableoffulfillinghisdutiesduetosomeincapacity
of a psychological, not physical, nature. Thus, we cannot avoid but conclude that Dr. Tayags conclusion in her
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_208790_2015.html

5/8

9/20/2016

G.R.No.208790

Reporti.e.,thattherespondentsuffered"NarcissisticPersonalityDisorderwithtracesofAntisocialPersonality
Disorderdeclaredtobegraveandincurable"isanunfoundedstatement,notanecessaryinferencefromher
previouscharacterizationandportrayaloftherespondent.Whilethevarioustestsadministeredonthepetitioner
couldhavebeenusedasafairgaugetoassessherownpsychologicalcondition,thissamestatementcannotbe
made with respect to the respondents condition. To make conclusions and generalizations on the respondents
psychologicalconditionbasedontheinformationfedbyonlyonesideis,toourmind,notdifferentfromadmitting
hearsayevidenceasproofofthetruthfulnessofthecontentofsuchevidence.
xxxx
AcarefulreadingofDr.Tayagstestimonyrevealsthatshefailedtoestablishthefactthatatthetimetheparties
were married, respondent was already suffering from a psychological defect that deprived him of the ability to
assumetheessentialdutiesandresponsibilitiesofmarriage.Neitherdidsheadequatelyexplainhowshecameto
theconclusionthatrespondentsconditionwasgraveandincurable.xxx
xxxx
First,whatshemedicallydescribedwasnotrelatedorlinkedtotherespondentsexactconditionexceptinavery
generalway.Inshort,hertestimonyandreportwererichingeneralitiesbutdisastrouslyshortonparticulars,most
notablyonhowtherespondentcanbesaidtobesufferingfromnarcissisticpersonalitydisorderwhyandtowhat
extentthedisorderisgraveandincurablehowandwhyitwasalreadypresentatthetimeofthemarriageand
the effects of the disorder on the respondents awareness of and his capability to undertake the duties and
responsibilitiesofmarriage.Allthesearecriticaltothesuccessofthepetitionerscase.
Second, her testimony was short on factual basis for her diagnosis because it was wholly based on what the
petitionerrelatedtoher.xxxIfapsychologicaldisordercanbeprovenbyindependentmeans,noreasonexists
why such independent proof cannot be admitted and given credit. No such independent evidence, however,
appears on record to have been gathered in this case, particularly about the respondents early life and
associations, and about events on orabout the time of the marriage and immediately thereafter. Thus, the
testimonyandreportappeartoustobenomorethanadiagnosisthatrevolvesaroundtheonesidedandmeagre
factsthatthepetitionerrelated,andwereallslantedtosupporttheconclusionthatagroundexiststojustifythe
nullificationofthemarriage.Wesaythisbecauseonlythebaserqualitiesoftherespondentslifewereexamined
andgivenfocusnoneofthesequalitieswereweighedandbalancedwiththebetterqualities,suchashisfocuson
havingajob,hisdeterminationtoimprovehimselfthroughstudies,hiscareandattentioninthefirstsixmonthsof
the marriage, among others. The evidence fails to mention also what character and qualities the petitioner
broughtintohermarriage,forexample,whytherespondentsfamilyopposedthemarriageandwhateventsled
therespondenttoblamethepetitionerforthedeathofhismother,ifthisallegationisatallcorrect.Tobesure,
theseareimportantbecausenotafewmarriageshavefailed,notbecauseofpsychologicalincapacityofeitheror
both of the spouses, but because of basic incompatibilities and marital developments that do not amount to
psychologicalincapacity.xxx.35(Citationsomittedandunderliningours)
Inthecaseatbar,Dr.TayagmadegeneralreferencestoMaryGracesstatusastheeldestamonghersiblings,36
herfathersbeinganoverseascontractworkerandherverytolerantmother,ahousewife.37These,however,are
not sufficient to establish and explain the supposed psychological incapacity of Mary Grace warranting the
declarationofthenullityofthecouplesmarriage.
TheCourtunderstandstheinherentdifficultyattendanttoobtainingthestatementsofwitnesseswhocanattestto
the antecedence of a persons psychological incapacity, but such difficulty does not exempt a petitioner from
complyingwithwhatthelawrequires.WhiletheCourtalsocommiserateswithGlennsmaritalwoes,thetotalityof
the evidence presented provides inadequate basis for the Court to conclude that Mary Grace is indeed
psychologicallyincapacitatedtocomplywithherobligationsasGlennsspouse.
WHEREFORE,theinstantpetitionisDENIED.TheDecisiondatedJanuary29,2013andResolutiondatedAugust
7,2013oftheCourtofAppealsinCAG.R.CVNo.96448areAFFIRMED.
SOORDERED.
BIENVENIDOL.REYES
AssociateJustice
WECONCUR:
PRESBITEROJ.VELASCO,JR.
AssociateJustice
Chairperson
DIOSDADOM.PERALTA
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_208790_2015.html

LUCASP.BERSAMIN*
6/8