85.

DEDEL v CA HELD: NO

FACTS: Respondent’s sexual infidelity can hardly qualify as being

mentally or psychically ill to such an extent that she could
Petitioner David B. Dedel married respondent Sharon L.
not have known the obligations she was assuming.
Corpuz Dedel wedding on May 20, 1967.
Neither could her emotional immaturity, irresponsibility
The union produced four children.
and abandonment constitute psychological incapacity.

The conjugal partnership, nonetheless, acquired neither

It must be shown that these acts are manifestations of a
property nor debt.
disordered personality which make respondent
completely unable to discharge the essential marital
Sharon turned out to be an irresponsible and immature
obligations.
wife and mother and had extra-marital affairs with
several men.
The manifestations presented refers only to grounds
for legal separation, not for declaring a marriage void.
Sharon once underwent treatment with a clinical
psychologist but it did not stop Sharon in her illicit affairs
The grief, frustration and even desperation of
where she even had two children out of wedlock.
petitioner in his present situation cannot be denied.

Sharon returned to petitioner bringing along her two

While sympathy is warranted in the petitioner’s
children. Petitioner accepted her back and even considered
marital predicament, the law must be applied no
the two illegitimate children as his own.
matter how harsh it may be.

December 9, 1995, Sharon abandoned petitioner to join

Ibrahim in Jordan with their two children.

Petitioner filed a petition seeking the declaration of

nullity of his marriage on the ground of psychological
incapacity.

Dr. Dayan declared that Sharon was suffering from

Anti-Social Personality Disorder exhibited by her
blatant display of infidelity and had no capacity for
remorse.

Her repeated acts of infidelity and abandonment of her

family are indications of Anti-Social Personality Disorder
amounting to psychological incapacity to perform the
essential obligations of marriage.

ISSUES:

Does the totality of the evidence presented is enough to

sustain a finding that respondent is psychologically
incapacitated?

Does the aberrant sexual behavior of respondent adverted

to by petitioner fall within the term “psychological
incapacity?”