Rosalina L. Marable, petitioner vs. Myrna F.

Marable, respondent

(GR No. 178741) January 17, 2011

Villarama, Jr., J.

Facts:
Petitioner Rosalino L. Marable and respondent Myrna F. Marable met while still classmates studying.
They eventually became sweethearts with Myrna demanding more love, time and attention from
Rosalino who appreciated such gesture. In the year 1970, the two eloped and were married in civil
rites which was followed by a church wedding.
The relationship turned sour. Verbal and physical quarrels increased when their eldest daughter
transferred from several schools because of juvenile misconduct and had an unwanted teenage
pregnancy. Rosalino then sought for peace, love and affection from a relationship with another
woman. Myrna eventually found out about the affair. These aggravated their quarrels. Their business
ventures failed. Rosalino felt unloved, unwanted, and unappreciated; he felt indifferent toward the
respondent. Hence, he left the conjugal home. He gave up all properties, and converted to Islam
after dating several women.
The petitioner filed a petition for declaration of nullity of his marriage with respondent on grounds
of his psychological incapacity. Petitioner also alleged that his family background from a poor family
and his father being a compulsive gambler and womanizer, made him obsess for attention and strive
for success only to find himself in misery and loneliness because of his failed relationship with his
family.
To support these, petitioner presented the Psychological Report of Dr. Nedy L. Tayag and stated
that he suffered from Antisocial Personality Disorder. The Regional Trial Court rendered a Decision
annulling the marriage while the Court of Appeals reversed the said decision.

Issue:
1. Is the totality of evidence established for the grounds of void marriage under psychological
incapacity renders the marriage of Rosalino and Myrna null and void?
2. Is sexual infidelity can be considered as circumstance of “psychological incapacity” under Aticle
36 of Family Code?

Ruling:
1. No. The Supreme Court ruled that the totality of evidence established is insufficient to render
Rosalino and Myrna’s marriage as null and void.
As held in the case of Suazo v. Suazo, the presentation of expert proof in cases for declaration of
nullity of marriage based on psychological incapacity presupposes a thorough and an in-depth
assessment of the parties by the psychologist or expert, for a conclusive diagnosis of a grave, severe
and incurable presence of psychological incapacity.
The findings of Dr. Tayag’s psychological report merely made a general conclusion that the
petitioner suffered from Anti-Social Personality Disorder; however, it failed to prove the root cause
of the psychological incapacity. It also failed to fit into the framework of the Molina Doctrine.
Moreover, there was no factual basis that the petitioner was a socially deviant, rebellious, impulsive,
self-centered and deceitful person. In fact, he was proven to act responsibly during the marriage by
working hard to provide for his family especially his children.
2. No. The Supreme Court ruled that it has been held in various cases that sexual infidelity, by itself,
is not sufficient proof that petitioner is suffering from psychological incapacity. It must be shown
that the acts of unfaithfulness are manifestations of a disordered personality which make petitioner
completely unable to discharge the essential obligations of marriage.
In the case with petitioner, his claim of psychological incapacity must fail. It bears stressing that
psychological incapacity must be more than just a "difficulty," "refusal" or "neglect" in the
performance of some marital obligations. Rather, it is essential that the concerned party was
incapable of doing so, due to some psychological illness existing at the time of the celebration of the
marriage.