Persons and Family Relations

Professor: Atty. Estolloso

GR NO. 180668 Ponente: Leonardo-De Castro, J.

Azcueta VS Republic
Submitted by: Submitted on:
May 26, 2009 ONIA, John Arjay July 11, 2019
1st Year, Juris Doctor
Petitioners: Respondents:
MARIETA C. AZCUETA Republic of the Philippines and Court of Appeals

DOCTRINE OF THE CASE:

Review on Certiorari.

NATURE OF PETITION:
Before us is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assailing the Decision
of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 86162 dated August 31, 2007 and its Resolution dated
November 20, 2007.

FACTS:
Marietta Azcueta (Marietta) filed a petition for declaration of absolute nullity of her marriage to Rodolfo
Azcueta (Rodolfo) before the Regional Trial Court (RTC). Marietta averred that Rodolfo was
psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential obligations of marriage. 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. It was Rodolfo’s mother who found them a room
near the Azcueta home and paid the monthly rental. 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. When Marietta asked
Rodolfo if they could move to another place, he did not agree and she was forced to leave and see if he
would follow her. He did not. Rodolfo’s first cousin, who at one time lived with Rodolfo’s family,
corroborated Marietta’s testimony that Rodolfo was not gainfully employed and relied on the allowance
given by his mother who also paid the rentals for the room the couple lived in. The psychiatrist who
examined Marietta testified that she found the latter to be mature, independent, focused, responsible, had
a direction and ambition in life, and was not psychologically incapacitated to perform the duties and
responsibilities of marriage. Based on information gathered from Marietta, the same psychiatrist found
Rodolfo to be suffering from Dependent Personality Disorder characterized by loss of self-confidence,
constant self-doubt, inability to make his own decisions and dependency on other people. The psychiatrist
explained that the root cause of the disorder was a cross-identification with Rodolfo’s mother who was the
dominant figure in the family considering that Rodolfo’s father, a seaman, was always out of the house.
She added that the problem began during the early stages of Rodolfo’s life but manifested only after his
marriage. She stated that the problem was severe, because he would not be able take on the
responsibilities of a spouse, and incurable, because it began in early development and had been deeply
ingrained in his personality. She, thus, concluded that Rodolfo was psychologically incapacitated to
perform his marital duties and responsibilities. Rodolfo failed to appear and file an answer despite
service of summons on him. The City Prosecutor found no collusion between the parties. Based on the
evidence presented by Marietta, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) declared the marriage void ab initio.

The Solicitor General appealed the RTC’s decision, arguing that the psychiatric report was based solely
on the information given by Marietta, and there was no showing that the alleged psychological disorder
was present at the start of the marriage or that it was grave, permanent and incurable.The Court of
Appeals reversed the RTC’s decision. Marietta, thus, brought the case to the Supreme Court on a petition
for review on certiorari.
Issues Ruling
Whether or not Rodolfo is psychologically incapacitated to justify a declaration that his
marriage to Marrieta is void ab initio under Article 36 of the Family Code? YES

RULING:

Rodolfo was psychologically incapacitated to perform his marital duties because of his Dependent
Personality Disorder. Thus, the marriage between petitioner and respondent should be declared null and
void on the account of respondent’s severe and incurable psychological incapacity. With the preponderant
evidence presented by the petitioner, the court finds that respondent totally failed in his commitments and
obligations as a husband. Respondent’s emotional immaturity and irresponsibility is grave and he has no
showing of improvement. He failed likewise to have sexual intercourse with the wife because it is a result
of the unconscious guilt feeling of having sexual relationship since he could not distinguish between the
mother and the wife and therefore sex relationship will not be satisfactory as expected. The respondent is
suffering from dependent personality disorder and therefore cannot make his own decision and cannot
carry on his responsibilities as a husband. The marital obligations to live together, observe mutual love,
respect, support was not fulfilled by the respondent. Considering the totality of evidence of the petitioner
clearly show that respondent failed to comply with his marital obligations.

Disposition
In dissolving marital bonds on account of either party’s psychological incapacity, the Court is not
demolishing the foundation of families, but it is actually protecting the sanctity of marriage, because it
refuses to allow a person afflicted with a psychological disorder, who cannot comply with or assume the
essential marital obligations, from remaining in that sacred bond. It may be stressed that the infliction of
physical violence, constitutional indolence or laziness, drug dependence or addiction, and psychosexual
anomaly are manifestations of a sociopathic personality anomaly. Let it be noted that in Article 36, there is
no marriage to speak of in the first place, as the same is void from the very beginning. To indulge in
imagery, the declaration of nullity under Article 36 will simply provide a decent burial to a still born
marriage. In all, we agree 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. WHEREFORE, the petition is
GRANTED. The Amended Decision dated July 19, 2005 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 72, Antipolo
City in Civil Case No. 02-6428 is REINSTATED. SO ORDERED.