G.R. No.

170729, December 8, 2010

Agraviador vs Agraviador

FACTS:
Petitioner Enrique Agraviador y Alunan (Enrique) challenges the resolution of
the Court of Appeals (CA) which reversed the resolution of the Regional Trial Court
(RTC) Muntinlupa City, declaring the marriage of the petitioner and respondent
Erlinda Amparo-Agraviador (Erlinda) null and void on the ground of the latter’s
psychological incapacity.

In 1971, Enrique, then a security guard, first met Erlinda at a beerhouse where the
latter worked, and later on became sweethearts after courtship. They soon entered
into a common-law relationship, but later contracted marriage in 1973, whereby they
begot four children. Enrique’s family, however, expressed their apprehensions
because Erlinda came from a broken family and because of the nature of her work.

In 2001, petitioner filed a petition for the declaration of nullity of marriage on the
basis of respondent’s psychological incapacity, alleging that she was carefree and
irresponsible, and refused to do household chores like cleaning and cooking; stayed
away from their house for long periods of time; had an affair with a lesbian; did not
take care of their sick child to the point of his death; consulted a witch doctor in
order to bring him bad fate; and refused to use the family name Agraviador in her
activities. He also claimed that she refused to have sex with him because she became
very close to a male border of their house, and even caught their love notes and
trysts. However, because the root cause of her psychological incapacity was not
medically identified and alleged in the petition, motion was denied. The petitioner,
thus, presented testimonial and documentary evidence to substantiate his claims
through the psychiatric evaluation report of Dr. Juan Cirilo L. Patac, who claimed
that Erlinda is suffering from a Personality Disorder (Mixed Personality Disorder).
She was said to been having this disorder since her adolescence, with no definite
treatment for her disorder.
ISSUE:

Whether or not Enrique can invoke Article 36 of the Family Code as the basis to
nullify his marriage to Erlinda.

RULING:
No. Psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code do not involve a
species of vice of consent. The spouse may have given free and voluntary consent
to a marriage but was, nonetheless, incapable of fulfilling such rights and
obligations. Psychological incapacity to comply with the essential marital obligation
does not affect the consent to the marriage.

The totality of Enriques's evidence is insufficient to prove Erlinda's psychological

incapacity. Her refusal or unwillingness to perform certain marital obligations, and
a number of unpleasant personality traits such as immaturity, irresponsibility, and
unfaithfulness do not rise to the level of psychological incapacity that the law
requires.

Dr. Patac's psychiatric evaluation report do not hold sufficient amount in proving
that Erlinda was psychological incapacitated to perform the essential marital duties.
Dr. Patac did not personally evaluate and examine Erlinda, as he relied only on the
information fed by Enrique, the partie's second child and household helper.