Professional Documents
Culture Documents
PsychIncap Combined 1
PsychIncap Combined 1
*
G.R. No. 108763. February 13, 1997.
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001668498e8defc3e7766003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/31
10/18/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 268
____________________________
* EN BANC.
199
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001668498e8defc3e7766003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/31
10/18/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 268
200
need not be perceivable at such time, but the illness itself must
have attached at such moment, or prior thereto.
Same; Same; Such incapacity must be shown to be medically
or clinically permanent or incurable.—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. Furthermore, such incapacity must be relevant to
the assumption of marriage obligations, not necessarily to those
not related to marriage, like the exercise of a profession or
employment in a job. Hence, a pediatrician may be effective in
diagnosing illnesses of children and prescribing medicine to cure
them but may not be psychologically capacitated to procreate,
bear and raise his/her own children as an essential obligation of
marriage.
Same; Same; Such illness must be grave enough to bring
about the disability of the party to assume the essential obligations
of marriage.—Such illness must be grave enough to bring about
the disability of the party to assume the essential obligations of
marriage. Thus, “mild characteriological peculiarities, mood
changes, occasional emotional outbursts” cannot be accepted as
root causes. The illness must be shown as downright incapacity or
inability, not a refusal, neglect or difficulty, much less ill will. 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.
Same; Same; Non-complied marital obligation(s) must be
stated in the petition, proven by evidence and included in the text
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001668498e8defc3e7766003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/31
10/18/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 268
201
PANGANIBAN, J.:
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001668498e8defc3e7766003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/31
10/18/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 268
202
The Facts
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001668498e8defc3e7766003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/31
10/18/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 268
____________________________
203
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001668498e8defc3e7766003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/31
10/18/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 268
The Issue
____________________________
205
____________________________
rentals. Aside from this, respondent would also lie about his salary and ability.
And that at present, respondent is living with his mistress and their child, which
fact he does not deny.
It is unfortunate that the marriage between petitioner and respondent turned
sour if we look at the background of their relationship. During their college days,
when they were still going steady, respondent observed petitioner to be
conservative, homely, and intelligent causing him to believe then that she would
make an ideal wife and mother. Likewise, petitioner fell in love with respondent
because of his thoughtfulness and gentleness. After a year, however, they decided
to break their relationship because of some differences in their personalities.
Almost five (5) years later, while they were working in Manila, petitioner and
respondent rekindled their love affair. They became very close and petitioner was
glad to observe a more mature respondent. Believing that they know each other
much better after two years of going steady, they decided to settle down and get
married. It would seem, therefore, that petitioner and respondent knew each other
well and were then prepared for married life.
During their marriage, however, the true personalities of the parties cropped-
up and dominated their life together. Unexpectedly on both their parts, petitioner
and respondent failed to respond properly to the situation. This failure resulted in
their frequent arguments and fightings. In fact, even with the intervention and
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001668498e8defc3e7766003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/31
10/18/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 268
help of their parents who arranged for their possible reconciliation, the parties
could not come to terms.
It seems clear at this stage that the marriage between the parties broke-up
because of their opposing and conflicting personalties (sic). Neither of them can
accept and understand the weakness of the other. No one gives in and instead,
blame each other for whatever problem or misunderstanding/s they encounter. In
fine, respondent cannot be solely responsible for the failure of other (sic) marriage.
Rather, this resulted because both parties cannot relate to each other as husband
and wife which is unique and requisite in marriage.
Marriage is a special contract of permanent union between a man and a woman
with the basic objective of establishing a conjugal and family life. (Article 1,
Family Code). The
206
____________________________
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001668498e8defc3e7766003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 9/31
10/18/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 268
207
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001668498e8defc3e7766003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 10/31
10/18/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 268
____________________________
208
“COURT
Q It is therefore the recommendation of the psychiatrist
based on your findings that it is better for the Court to
annul (sic) the marriage?
A Yes, Your Honor.
Q There is no hope for the marriage?
A There is no hope, the man is also living with another
woman.
Q Is it also the stand of the psychiatrist that the parties
are psychologically unfit for each other but they are
psycho logically fit with other parties?
A Yes, Your Honor.
Q Neither are they psychologically unfit for their
professions?
A Yes, Your Honor.
The Court has no more questions.”
____________________________
209
9
Cruz, Vicar Judicial (Presiding Judge) of the National
Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal of the Catholic 10
Church in
the Philippines, and Justice Ricardo C. Puno, a member of
the Family Code Revision Committee. The Court takes this
occasion to thank these friends of the Court for their
informative and interesting discussions during the oral
argument on December 3, 1996, which they followed up
with written memoranda.
From their submissions and the Court’s own
deliberations, the following guidelines in the interpretation
and application of Art. 36 of the Family Code are hereby
handed down for the guidance of the bench and the bar:
____________________________
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001668498e8defc3e7766003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 12/31
10/18/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 268
“Article XV
THE FAMILY
Section 1. The State recognizes the Filipino Family as the foundation of the
nation. Accordingly, it shall strengthen its solidarity and actively promote its total
development.
210
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001668498e8defc3e7766003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 13/31
10/18/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 268
____________________________
(1) The right of spouses to found a family in accordance with their religious
convictions and the demands of responsible parenthood;
(2) The right of children to assistance, including proper care and nutrition,
and special protection from all forms of neglect, abuse, cruelty,
exploitation, and other conditions prejudicial to their development;
(3) The right of the family to a family living wage and income;
(4) The right of families or family associations to participate in the planning
and implementation of policies and programs that affect them.
Section 4. The family has the duty to care for its elderly members but the state
may also do so through just programs of social security.”
211
____________________________
212
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001668498e8defc3e7766003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 15/31
10/18/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 268
____________________________
213
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001668498e8defc3e7766003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 16/31
10/18/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 268
214
SEPARATE STATEMENT
PADILLA, J.:
SEPARATE OPINION
ROMERO, J.:
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001668498e8defc3e7766003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 19/31
10/18/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 268
____________________________
217
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001668498e8defc3e7766003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 21/31
10/18/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 268
219
____________________________
221
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001668498e8defc3e7766003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 24/31
10/18/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 268
____________________________
222
We declared:
____________________________
223
CONCURRING OPINION
VITUG, J.:
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001668498e8defc3e7766003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 26/31
10/18/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 268
____________________________
224
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001668498e8defc3e7766003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 27/31
10/18/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 268
____________________________
225
____________________________
4 At pages 34-35.
226
however, the fact still remains that the language of the law
has failed to carry out, even if true, any such intendment.
It might have indeed turned out for the better; if it were
otherwise, there could be good reasons to doubt the
constitutionality of the measure. The fundamental law
itself, no less, has laid down in terse language its
unequivocal command on how the State should regard
marriage and the family, thus—
Section 2, Article XV:
“Sec. 12. The State recognizes the sanctity of family life and shall
protect and strengthen the family as a basic autonomous social
institution x x x.”
The case of Marcelino vs. Cruz, 121 SCRA 51, might here
be significant not so much for the specific issue there
resolved but for the tone it has set. The Court there has
held that
227
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001668498e8defc3e7766003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 30/31
10/18/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 268
——o0o——
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001668498e8defc3e7766003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 31/31
10/18/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 320
*
G.R. No. 126010. December 8, 1999.
________________
* SECOND DIVISION.
77
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001668495870dea1765db003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/14
10/18/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 320
For a greater part of their marital life, private respondent was out
of job and did not have the initiative to look for another. He
indulged in vices and engaged in philandering, and later
abandoned his family. Petitioner concludes that private
respondent’s condition is incurable, causing the disintegration of
their union and defeating the very objectives of marriage.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Private respondent’s alleged
habitual alcoholism, sexual infidelity or perversion, and
abandonment do not by themselves constitute grounds for finding
that he is suffering from a psychological incapacity within the
contemplation of the Family Code.—Private respondent’s alleged
habitual alcoholism, sexual infidelity or perversion, and
abandonment do not by themselves constitute grounds for finding
that he is suffering from a psychological incapacity within the
contemplation of the Family Code. It must be shown that these
acts are manifestations of a disordered personality which make
private respondent completely unable to discharge the essential
obligations of the marital state, and not merely due to private
respondent’s youth and self-conscious feeling of being handsome,
as the appellate court held.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Burden of proof to show the nullity
of the marriage rests upon petitioner; Any doubt should be resolved
in favor of the validity of the marriage.—Expert testimony should
have been presented to establish the precise cause of private
respondent’s psychological incapacity, if any, in order to show that
it existed at the inception of the marriage. The burden of proof to
show the nullity of the marriage rests upon petitioner. The Court
is mindful of the policy of the 1987 Constitution to protect and
strengthen the family as the basic autonomous social institution
and marriage as the foundation of the family. Thus, any doubt
should be resolved in favor of the validity of the marriage.
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001668495870dea1765db003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/14
10/18/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 320
MENDOZA, J.:
1
This is a petition for review on certiorari of the decision of
the Court of Appeals, dated January 30, 1996, affirming
the decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 18,
Tagaytay City, dated April 10, 1993, which dismissed the
petition for annulment of marriage filed by petitioner.
Petitioner Lucita Estrella Hernandez and private
respondent Mario C. Hernandez were married at the Silang
Catholic Parish 2
Church in Silang, Cavite on January 1,
1981 (Exh. A). Three children were born to them, 3
namely,
Maie, who was born on May 4
3, 1982 (Exh. B), Lyra, born
on May 22, 1985 5
(Exh. C), and Marian, born on June 15,
1989 (Exh. D).
On July 10, 1992, petitioner filed before the Regional
Trial Court, Branch 18, Tagaytay City, a petition seeking
the annulment of her marriage to private respondent on
the ground of psychological incapacity of the latter. She
alleged that from the time of their marriage up to the time
of the filing of the suit, private respondent failed to perform
his obligation to support the family and contribute to the
management of the household, devoting most of his time
engaging in drinking sprees with his friends. She further
claimed that private respondent, after they were married,
cohabited with another woman with whom he had an
illegitimate child, while having affairs with different
women, and that, because of his promiscuity, private
respondent endangered her health by infecting her with a
sexually transmissible disease (STD). She averred that
private respondent was irresponsible, immature and
unprepared for the duties of a married life. Petitioner
prayed that for having abandoned the family, private
respondent be ordered to give support to their three
children in the total
_______________
79
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001668495870dea1765db003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/14
10/18/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 320
_________________
80
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001668495870dea1765db003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/14
10/18/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 320
81
10
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001668495870dea1765db003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/14
10/18/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 320
10
E). When petitioner confronted private respondent about
his relationship with Tess, he beat her up, as a result of
which she was confined at the De la Salle University
Medical Center in Dasmariñas, Cavite11 on July 4-5, 1990
because of cerebral concussion (Exh. F).
According to petitioner, private respondent engaged in
extreme promiscuous conduct during the latter part of
1986. As a result, private respondent contracted gonorrhea
and infected petitioner. They both received treatment at
the Zapote Medical Specialists Center in Zapote, Bacoor,
Cavite from
12
October 22, 1986 until March 13, 1987 (Exhs.
G & H).
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 17,
13
1979, petitioner entered into a contract to
sell (Exh. J) with F & C Realty Corporation whereby she
agreed to buy from the latter a parcel of land at the Don
Gregorio Heights Subdivision I in Bo. Bucal, Dasmariñas,
Cavite and placed a partial payment of P31,330.00. On
May 26, 1987, after full payment of the amount of
P51,067.10, inclusive of interests from monthly 14
installments, a deed of absolute sale (Exh. K) 15 was
executed in her favor and TCT No. T-221529 (Exh. M) was
duly issued.
According to petitioner,
16
on August 1, 1992, she sent a
handwritten letter to private respondent expressing her
frustration over the fact that her efforts to save their
marriage proved futile. In her letter, petitioner also stated
that she was
_______________
82
17
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001668495870dea1765db003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/14
10/18/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 320
17
allowing him to sell their owner-type jeepney and to
divide the proceeds of the sale between the two of them.
Petitioner also told private respondent of her intention to
file a petition for the annulment of their marriage.
It does not appear that private respondent ever replied
to petitioner’s letter. By this time, he had already
abandoned petitioner and their children. In October 1992,
petitioner learned that private respondent left for the
Middle East. Since then, private respondent’s whereabouts
had been unknown.
Ester Alfaro, petitioner’s childhood friend and co-teacher
at the Philippine Christian University, testified during the
hearing on the petition for annulment. She said that
sometime in June 1979, petitioner introduced private
respondent to her (Alfaro) as the former’s sweetheart.
Alfaro said she was not impressed with private respondent
who was her student in accounting. She observed private
respondent to be funloving, spending most of his time with
campus friends. In November 1980, when petitioner asked
Alfaro to be one of the secondary sponsors at her
forthcoming wedding, Alfaro wanted to dissuade petitioner
from going through with the wedding because she thought
private respondent was not ready for married life as he was
then unemployed. True enough, although the couple
appeared happy during the early part of their marriage, it
was not long thereafter that private respondent started
drinking with his friends and going home late at night.
Alfaro corroborated petitioner’s claim that private
respondent was a habitual drunkard who carried on
relationships with different women and continued hanging
out with his friends. She also confirmed that petitioner was
once hospitalized because she was beaten up by private
respondent. After the first year of petitioner’s marriage,
Alfaro tried to talk to private respondent, but the latter
accused her of meddling with their marital life. Alfaro said
that private
________________
17 Id., p. 48.
83
Art. 55. A petition for legal separation may be filed on any of the
following grounds:
(1) Repeated physical violence or grossly abusive conduct directed
against the petitioner, a common child, or a child of the petitioner;
....
(5) Drug addiction or habitual alcoholism of the respondent;
....
(8) Sexual infidelity or perversion;
....
(10) Abandonment of petitioner by respondent without justifiable
cause for more than one year.
....
_________________
84
________________
85
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001668495870dea1765db003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 9/14
10/18/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 320
86
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001668495870dea1765db003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 10/14
10/18/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 320
_______________
87
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001668495870dea1765db003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 11/14
10/18/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 320
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001668495870dea1765db003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 12/14
10/18/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 320
________________
89
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001668495870dea1765db003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 13/14
10/18/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 320
28
marriage, are entitled to great weight and even finality.
Only where it is shown that such findings are whimsical,
capricious, and arbitrary can these be overturned.
The conclusion we have reached makes it unnecessary
for us to pass upon petitioner’s contentions on the issue of
permanent custody of children, the amount for their
respective support, and the declaration of exclusive
ownership of petitioner over the real property. These
matters may more appropriately be litigated in a separate
proceeding for legal separation, dissolution of property
regime, and/or custody of children which petitioner may
bring.
WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of Appeals is
AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
Judgment affirmed.
——o0o——
_______________
28 Tuason v. Court of Appeals, 326 Phil. 169; 256 SCRA 158 (1996).
90
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001668495870dea1765db003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 14/14