G.R. No. 166357 - RESOLUTION in the case of Republic v. CA have turned out to be RIGID, such that their application to every TOPIC: PSYCHOLIGICAL INCAPACITY instance practically condemned the petitions for STATUTE: ART. 36 – FAMILY CODE declaration of nullity to the fate of certain FACTS: rejection. But Article 36 of the Family Code (This is a resolution to a previous case) must not be so strictly and too literally read and applied given the clear intendment of the In our decision promulgated on September 19, drafters to adopt its enacted version of “less 2011, the Court dismissed the complaint for specificity” obviously to enable “some declaration of nullity of the marriage of the resiliency in its application.” Instead, every parties because petitioner failed to prove that court should approach the issue of nullity “not his wife (respondent) suffers from psychological on the basis of a priori assumptions, incapacity. predilections or generalizations, but according to its own facts” in recognition of the verity He presented the testimonies of two supposed that no case would be on “all fours” with the expert witnesses who concluded that next one in the field of psychological incapacity respondent is psychologically incapacitated, but as a ground for the nullity of marriage; hence, the conclusions of these witnesses were every “trial judge must take pains in examining premised on the alleged acts or behavior of the factual milieu and the appellate court respondent which had not been sufficiently must, as much as possible, avoid substituting proven. its own judgment for that of the trial court.
Petitioner's experts heavily relied on In the task of ascertaining the presence of
petitioner's allegations of respondent's constant psychological incapacity as a ground for the mahjong sessions, visits to the beauty parlor, nullity of marriage, the courts, which are going out with friends, adultery, and neglect of concededly not endowed with expertise in the their children. field of psychology, must of necessity rely on the opinions of experts in order to inform Petitioner's experts opined that respondent's themselves on the matter, and thus enable alleged habits, when performed constantly to themselves to arrive at an intelligent and the detriment of quality and quantity of time judicious judgment. Indeed, the conditions for devoted to her duties as mother and wife, the malady of being grave, antecedent and constitute a psychological incapacity in the form incurable demand the in-depth diagnosis by of Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD). experts.
ISSUE: Personal examination by party not required;
Whether or not the marriage is void due to the totality of evidence must be considered wife’s psychological incapacity. 2. There is no requirement for one to be HELD: declared psychologically incapacitated to be personally examined by a physician, because YES. The Court in granting the Motion for what is important is the presence of evidence Reconsideration held that Fernandez was that adequately establishes the party’s indeed psychologically incapacitated as they psychological incapacity. Hence, “if the totality relaxed the previously set forth guidelines with of evidence presented is enough to sustain a regard to this case. finding of psychological incapacity, then actual medical examination of the person concerned and Fr. Gerard Healy witnesses because they need not be resorted to.” were largely drawn from the case records and affidavits, and should not anymore be disputed Verily, the totality of the evidence after the RTC itself had accepted the veracity of must show a link, medical or the like, between the petitioner’s factual premises. the acts that manifest psychological incapacity and the psychological disorder itself. If other The Court also held that the courts must accord evidence showing that a certain condition could weight to expert testimony on the psychological possibly result from an assumed state of facts and mental state of the parties in cases for the existed in the record, the expert opinion should declaration of the nullity of marriages, for by be admissible and be weighed as an aid for the the very nature of Article 36 of the Family Code court in interpreting such other evidence on the the courts, “despite having the primary task causation. and burden of decision-making, must not discount but, instead, must consider as Indeed, an expert opinion on psychological decisive evidence the expert opinion on the incapacity should be considered as conjectural psychological and mental temperaments of the or speculative and without any probative value parties.” only in the absence of other evidence to establish causation. The expert’s findings under 4. The frequency of the respondent’s such circumstances would not constitute mahjong playing should not have delimited our hearsay that would justify their exclusion as determination of the presence or absence of evidence. psychological incapacity. Instead, the determinant should be her obvious failure to 3. Expert opinion considered as decisive fully appreciate the duties and responsibilities evidence as to psychological and emotional of parenthood at the time she made her temperaments marital vows. Had she fully appreciated such duties and responsibilities, she would have The findings and evaluation by the RTC as the known that bringing along her children of very trial court deserved credence because it was in tender ages to her mahjong sessions would the better position to view and examine the expose them to a culture of gambling and demeanor of the witnesses while they were other vices that would erode their moral fiber. testifying. The position and role of the trial Nonetheless, the long-term effects of the judge in the appreciation of the evidence respondent’s obsessive mahjong playing surely showing the psychological incapacity were not impacted on her family life, particularly on her to be downplayed but should be accorded due very young children. importance and respect. The fact that the respondent brought her The Court considered it improper and children with her to her mahjong sessions did unwarranted to give to such expert opinions a not only point to her neglect of parental duties, merely generalized consideration and but also manifested her tendency to expose treatment, least of all to dismiss their value as them to a culture of gambling. Her willfully inadequate basis for the declaration of the exposing her children to the culture of nullity of the marriage. Instead, we hold that gambling on every occasion of her mahjong said experts sufficiently and competently sessions was a very grave and serious act of described the psychological incapacity of the subordinating their needs for parenting to the respondent within the standards of Article 36 of gratification of her own personal and escapist the Family Code. We uphold the conclusions desires. reached by Dr. Cristina Gates, a psychologist The respondent revealed her wanton disregard for her children’s moral and mental development. This disregard violated her duty as a parent to safeguard and protect her children.