Facts:

Armida Perez-Ferraris, the petitioner, filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig City a petition
for the declaration of nullity of petitioner’s marriage with Brix Ferraris on the ground of psychological
incapacity. The petitioner, after the RTC rendered a decision to deny the petition, and also thereafter the
petitioner’s motion for reconsideration, citing that suffering from epilepsy does not amount to
psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Civil Code and the evidence on record was insufficient to
prove infidelity, appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA).

The CA affirmed in toto the judgment of the trial court noting that evidence on record did not convincingly
establish that respondent was suffering from psychological incapacity or that his “defects” were incurable
and already present at the inception of the marriage. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was likewise
denied by the CA hence, brought the case to the Supreme Court (SC).

The SC denied the petitioner’s petition for review on certiorari in its decision dated June 9, 2004 for failure
to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error.

Petitioner filed an instant motion for reconsideration.

Issues:

Whether or not the CA committed any reversible error in denying the petitioner’s petition for the nullity of
marriage citing the ground of psychological incapacity.

Ruling:

No. The petitioner failed to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error. The SC
concurred with the RTC and CA’s decision under the following reasons:

1. The Constitution recognizes the sanctity of marriage and the unity of family, both of which are to
be “protected” by the state.

2. Factual findings of the trial court, when affirmed by the CA, are binding on the SC, save for the
most compelling and cogent reasons.

Hence, evidence on record did not convincingly establish that respondent was suffering from
psychological incapacity. There is no absolutely showing that his “defects” were already present
at the inception of the marriage, or those that are incurable.

3. The law confines the meaning of “psychological incapacity” to the most serious cases of
personality disorder thus, the SC relies heavily on psychological experts.

Hence, Dr. Dayan’s testimony failed to explain how she arrived at her diagnosis that respondent
has a mixed personality disorder called “schizoid”, and why he is the “dependent and avoidant
type”.

The SC denied the petition with finality.