Marieta C. Azcueta vs.

Republic of the Philippines and Court of Appeals

G.R. 180668 May 26, 2009
FACTS: Petitioner Marietta Azcueta and Rodolfo Azcueta met in 1993. Less than two months after their
first meeting, they got married. After four years of marriage, Marietta decided to leave Rodolfo. Marietta
complained that despite her encouragement, Rodolfo never bothered to look for a job and always
depended on his mother for financial assistance and for his decisions. In fact it was Rodolfo’s mother who
found them a room near the Azcueta home and paid the monthly rental. She also averred that Rodolfo
also pretended to have found work and gave Marietta money which actually came from Rodolfo’s
mother. When Marietta confronted him, Rodolfo cried like a child and told her his parents could support
their needs. They had sex only once a month which Marietta never enjoyed. When they discussed this,
Rodolfo told Marietta that sex was sacred and should not be enjoyed or abused. Rodolfo also told her he
was not ready for a child. In 2002, Marietta filed a petition for declaration of absolute nullity of her
marriage to Rodolfo. Marietta averred that Rodolfo was psychologically incapacitated to comply with the
essential obligations of marriage. Marieta presented as expert witness Dr. Cecilia Villegas. Villegas did
not personally evaluate Rodolfo but based on her interview with Marieta, she concluded that Rodolfo is
inflicted with Dependent Personality Disorder (mama’s boy) as he was too dependent on his mother so
much so that he cannot decide for himself. The RTC ruled in favor of Marietta but on appeal, the Court of
Appeals reversed the RTC’s decision.

ISSUE: Whether or not the totality of the evidence presented is adequate to sustain a finding that Rodolfo
is psychologically incapacitated to comply with his essential marital obligations.
HELD: YES. After a thorough review of the records of the case, the SC held that there was sufficient
compliance with Molina to warrant the annulment of the parties’ marriage under Article 36.
First, petitioner successfully discharged her burden to prove the psychological incapacity of her husband.
In Marcos v. Marcos, it was held that there is no requirement that the defendant/respondent spouse should
be personally examined by a physician or psychologist as a condition sine qua non for the declaration of
nullity of marriage based on psychological incapacity. What matters is whether the totality of evidence
presented is adequate to sustain a finding of psychological incapacity.

Second, the root cause of Rodolfo’s psychological incapacity has been medically or clinically identified,
alleged in the petition, sufficiently proven by expert testimony, and clearly explained in the trial court’s
decision.

Third, Rodolfo’s psychological incapacity was established to have clearly existed at the time of and even
before the celebration of marriage. Contrary to the CA’s finding that the parties lived harmoniously and
independently in the first few years of marriage, witnesses were united in testifying that from inception of
the marriage, Rodolfo’s irresponsibility, overdependence on his mother and abnormal sexual reticence
were already evident.

Fourth, Rodolfo’s psychological incapacity has been shown to be sufficiently grave, so as to render him
unable to assume the essential obligations of marriage.
Fifth, Rodolfo is evidently unable to comply with the essential marital obligations embodied in Articles
68 to 71 of the Family Code. As noted by the trial court, as a result of Rodolfo’s dependent personality
disorder, he cannot make his own decisions and cannot fulfill his responsibilities as a husband. Rodolfo
plainly failed to fulfill the marital obligations to live together, observe mutual love, respect, support under
Article 68. Indeed, one who is unable to support himself, much less a wife; one who cannot independently
make decisions regarding even the most basic and ordinary matters that spouses face everyday; one who
cannot contribute to the material, physical and emotional well-being of his spouse is psychologically
incapacitated to comply with the marital obligations within the meaning of Article 36.

Sixth, the incurability of Rodolfo’s condition which has been deeply ingrained in his system since his
early years was supported by evidence and duly explained by the expert witness.

In all, the SC agrees with the trial court that the declaration of nullity of the parties’ marriage pursuant to
Article 36 of the Family Code is proper under the premises.