University of the Philippines College of Law | Civil Law Review | Prof.

Rabuya

Topic in Civil Psychological Incapacity

Law
Case Name Tani-De La Fuente v. De La Feunte, Jr.
Case No. & Date G.R. No. 188400
Ponente Leonen

Summary (recit-  Ma. Teresa and Rodolfo were married and had 2 children. Even before their marriage, Ma.
friendly) Teresa noticed that Rodolfo was an introvert who was prone to jealousy and had no ambition
in life. After they were married, his attitude worsened. He was jealous of everyone she would
talk to. He would skip work to stalk her. He poked his gun at his 15-year-old cousin who stayed
at their house, suspecting the latter was his wife’s lover. He treated Ma. Teresa as a sex slave. If
his advances or suggestions were refused, he would get angry and they would quarrel.
 In 1986, they quarreled because Rodolfo suspected that Ma. Teresa was having an affair. He
poked a gun at her head. Ma. Teresa then left the conjugal home with her 2 children, never saw
him again and supported her children on her own.
 Ma. Teresa then filed a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage before the RTC of QC.
 Dr. Arnulfo Lopez, a clinical psychologist gave his expert testimony and recommended that
their marriage be annulled due to Rodolfo’s incapacity to perform marital obligations. He
stated that Rodolfo’s disorder was suffering from paranoid personality disorder.
 RTC granted the petition. OSG filed an MR which was denied. OSG filed appeal before CA. CA
granted appeal and stated that Dr. Lopez’s testimony was unreliable for being hearsay.
 Maria Teresa filed an MR which was denied. She then filed a Rule 45 before the SC.
 SC ruled that there was sufficient compliance with Molina to warrant the nullity of petitioner’s
marriage. She was able to discharge the burden of proof that respondent suffered from
psychological incapacity making him incapable of discharging his marital responsibilities.
Doctrine/s  Camacho-Reyes v. Reyes: the non-examination of one of the parties will not automatically
render as hearsay or invalidate the findings of the examining psychiatrist or psychologist, since
"marriage, by its very definition, necessarily involves only two persons. The totality of the
behavior of one spouse during the cohabitation and marriage is generally and genuinely
witnessed mainly by the other
 Marcos v. Marcos: Molina does not require a physician to examine a person and declare
him/her to be psychologically incapacitated. What matters is that the totality of evidence
presented establishes the party's psychological condition.

RELEVANT FACTS

1. Petitioner Ma. Teresa and Respondent Rodolfo Dela Fuente, Jr. (Rodolfo) met when they were students at UST.
Rodolfo wasn’t able to finish college and continued employment at his family’s printing press business. While
they were sweethearts, M. Teresa noticed Rodolfo was an introvert and prone to jealousy. She also observed
that he had no ambition in life and felt insecure of his siblings who excelled in their studies and careers.
2. They got married in Mandaluyong City on June 21, 1984. They had 2 children: Maria Katharyn (born May 23,
1985) and Maria Kimberly (born April 6, 1986).
3. Rodolfo’s attitude worsened. He was jealous of everyone who talked to Ma. Teresa and would even skip work to
stalk her. His jealousy was so severe he poked a gun at his 15-year-old cousin who was staying at their house
because he suspected his cousin of being his wife’s lover.
4. He treated Ma. Teresa like a sex slave and would have sex 4 or 5 times a day. Rodolfo’s suggestions made Maria
Teresa feel molested and maltreated. He would fetch her from her office during her lunch break so they can
have sex. During sexual intercourse, he would either tie her to the bed or poke her with things. He also
suggested that they invite a third person while having sex or for her to have sex with another man in his
presence. If she would refuse his advances or suggestions, he would get angry and they would quarrel.
 University of the Philippines College of Law | Civil Law Review | Prof. Rabuya
5. Maria Teresa sought the advice of a doctor, lawyer, and a priest, and any person who could help her and
Rodolfo. She suggested marriage counselling but Rodolfo refused and deemed it as “kalokohan”.
6. Sometime in 1986, they quarreled because Rodolfo suspected that Maria Teresa was having an affair. During
their quarrel, Rodolfo poked a gun at her head. Maria Teresa and their 2 daughters left the conjugal home and
never saw him again. She supported their children by herself.
7. On June 3, 1999, Maria Teresa filed a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage before the RTC of Quezon
City.
a. Case was archived because Rodolfo failed to file a responsive pleading.
b. Maria Teresa moved to revive the petition and the RTC granted it and referred the case to the Office of
the City Prosecutor for collusion investigation. Asst City Prosecutor Jocelyn Reyes found no collusion and
recommend the trial of the case on the merits.
c. Rodolfo failed to attend the scheduled pre-trial conference. It was declared closed and terminated and
Maria Teresa was allowed to present her evidence.
8. Aside from Maria Teresa, Dr. Arnulfo Lopez (Dr. Lopez), a clinical psychologist was presented as an expert
witness. He did an in-depth interview with Maria Teresa and also interviewed Rodolfo’s best friend. He tried to
examine Rodolfo but the latter kept saying that the doctor should mind his own business. He recommended that
their marriage be annulled due to Rodolfo’s incapacity to perform marital obligations.
a. From Ma. Teresa, he gathered information on her family background and her marital life and subjected
her to a battery of psych tests. He found she had an emotionally disturbed personality but it was not
severe enough to constitute psych incapacity.
b. Dr. Lopez sent a letter of invitation to Rodolfo but after 2 months, Rodolfo said “Doctor, ano ba ang
pakialam niyo sa amin, hindi niyo naman ako kilala.”
9. On June 26, 2002, the RTC directed the Office of the Solicitor General to submit its comment on Maria Teresa’s
formal offer of evidence and submit its certification. OSG did not comply so the case was submitted for decision
without its certification and comment.
10. RTC granted the petition for declaration of nullity of marriage. While Dr. Lopez was not able to personally
examine Rodolfo, the trial court gave credence to his findings as they were based on information gathered from
credible informants.
11. OSG filed MR explaining that it was unable to submit the required certification because it has no copies of the
transcripts of stenographic notes.
12. RTC denied MR.
13. OSG filed an appeal before the CA arguing that the trial court erred in deciding the case without the required
certification from the OSG and in giving credence to Dr. Lopez’s conclusion of Rodolfo’s personality disorder.
Based on insufficient data and did not follow standards in Molina.
14. CA granted OSG’s appeal. Dr. Lopez’s testimony was unreliable for being hearsay. RTC should not have given it
weight.
15. Maria Teresa filed MR which was denied by the CA. She then filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari.
a. Maria Teresa: based on current jurisprudence, trial courts had a wider discretion on whether expert
opinion was needed to prove psychological incapacity. or as long as the trial court had basis in
concluding that psychological incapacity existed, such conclusion should be upheld.
b. Rodolfo Comment: Did not oppose the petition since he firmly believes that there is no more sense in
adjudging them married.
c. OSG Comment: agreed that a physician was not required to declare a person psychologically
incapacitated but emphasized that the evidence presented must be able to adequately prove the
presence of a psychological condition
i. Dr. Lopez's psychological report stated that his assessment was based on interviews he made
with petitioner and two (2) of the parties' common friends. However, Dr. Lopez did not name
the two (2) common friends in the report. Furthermore, during trial Dr. Lopez testified that he
only interviewed petitioner and Rodolfo's best friend, not two (2) friends as indicated in his
report.
 University of the Philippines College of Law | Civil Law Review | Prof. Rabuya

Issue Ratio
1. W/N the CA YES See notes for rulings of Santos v. CA and Republic v. CA, Molina
erred in
denying the There was sufficient compliance with Molina to warrant the nullity of petitioner’s marriage. She
Petition for was able to discharge the burden of proof that respondent suffered from psychological
Declaration of incapacity.
Nullity of
Marriage CA: Lower court gave undue weight to Dr. Lopez’s testimony since he had no chance to
because personally conduct a thorough study and analysis of respondent’s mental and psychological
petitioner’s condition. It cited Republic v. Dagdag where Court held that “the root cause of psychological
evidence was incapacity must be medically or clinically identified and sufficiently proven by experts”
insufficient to SC: CA is mistaken.
prove Rodolfo  Camacho-Reyes v. Reyes: the non-examination of one of the parties will not automatically
was render as hearsay or invalidate the findings of the examining psychiatrist or psychologist,
psychologicall since "marriage, by its very definition, necessarily involves only two persons. The totality
y of the behavior of one spouse during the cohabitation and marriage is generally and
incapacitated genuinely witnessed mainly by the other
to fulfill his  Marcos v. Marcos: Molina does not require a physician to examine a person and declare
marital him/her to be psychologically incapacitated. What matters is that the totality of evidence
obligations presented establishes the party's psychological condition.

By the very nature of Article 36, courts, despite having the ultimate task of decision-making, must
give due regard to expert opinion on the psychological and mental disposition of the parties.
 Dr. Lopez's testimony, as corroborated by petitioner, sufficiently proved that respondent
suffered from psychological incapacity. Respondent's paranoid personality disorder
made him distrustful and prone to extreme jealousy and acts of depravity, incapacitating
him to fully comprehend and assume the essential obligations of marriage.
o According to him, under the Diagnostic Statistical Manual, he found the
respondent to be suffering from a paranoid personality disorder manifested by
the respondent's damaging behavior like reckless driving and extreme jealousy;
his being distrustful and suspicious; his severe doubts and distrust of friends and
relatives of the petitioner; his being irresponsible and lack of remorse; his
resistance to treatment; and his emotional coldness and severe immaturity.
o The root cause of respondent's paranoid personality disorder was hereditary in
nature as his own father suffered from a similar disorder. Dr. Lopez stated that
respondent's own psychological disorder probably started during his late
childhood years and developed in his early adolescent years. Dr. Lopez explained
that respondent's psychological incapacity to perform his marital obligations was
likely caused by growing up with a pathogenic parental model.

The juridical antecedence of respondent's psychological incapacity was also sufficiently proven
during trial.
 Petitioner attested that she noticed respondent's jealousy even before their marriage,
and that he would often follow her to make sure that she did not talk to anyone or cheat
on him. She believed that he would change after they got married; however, this did not
happen. Respondent's jealousy and paranoia were so extreme and severe that these
caused him to poke a gun at petitioner's head.

The incurability and severity of respondent's psychological incapacity were likewise discussed by
Dr. Lopez.
 He vouched that a person with paranoid personality disorder would refuse to admit that
 University of the Philippines College of Law | Civil Law Review | Prof. Rabuya
there was something wrong and that there was a need for treatment. This was
corroborated by petitioner when she stated that respondent repeatedly refused
treatment. Petitioner consulted a lawyer, a priest, and a doctor, and suggested couples
counselling to respondent; however, respondent refused all of her attempts at seeking
professional help. Respondent also refused to be examined by Dr. Lopez.

FC 68 obligates the husband and wife "to live together, observe mutual love, respect and fidelity,
and render mutual help and support." In this case, petitioner and respondent may have lived
together, but the facts narrated by petitioner show that respondent failed to, or could not,
comply with the obligations expected of him as a husband. He was even apathetic that
petitioner filed a petition for declaration of nullity of their marriage.

SC also noticed respondent's repeated acts of harassment towards petitioner, which show his
need to intimidate and dominate her, a classic case of coercive control. At first, respondent only
inflicted nonphysical forms of mistreatment on petitioner by alienating her from her family and
friends due to his jealousy, and stalking her due to his paranoia. However, his jealousy soon
escalated into physical violence when, on separate instances, he poked a gun at his teenage
cousin, and at petitioner.
 Coercive control is a form of psychological abuse, which refers to a pattern of behavior
meant to dominate a partner through different tactics such as physical and sexual
violence, threats, emotional insults, and economic deprivation. Although not specifically
named, coercive control as a form of psychological abuse or harm has been recognized in
Republic Act No 9262 or the Anti-Violence Against Women and Children Act of 2004 (see
notes)

Mallilin v. Jamesolamin: Our choices of intimate partners define us - inherent ironically in our
individuality. Consequently, when the law speaks of the nature, consequences, and incidents of
marriage governed by law, this refers to responsibility to children, property relations,
disqualifications, privileges, and other matters limited to ensuring the stability of society. The
state's interest should not amount to unwarranted intrusions into individual liberties.

Since the State's interest must be toward the stability of society, the notion of psychological
incapacity should not only be based on a medical or psychological disorder, but should consist of
the inability to comply with essential marital obligations such that public interest is imperiled.

Ngo Te v. Gutierrez Yu Te: a straitjacket application of the Molina guidelines "has taken its toll on
people who have to live with deviant behavior, moral insanity and sociopathic personality
anomaly, which, like termites, consume little by little the very foundation of their families, our
basic social institutions." Ironically, the ultimate effect of such stringent application of the Molina
guidelines is the perversion of the family unit, the very institution that our laws are meant to
protect.

Ruling / Dispositive Portion:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition is GRANTED. The marriage of Maria Teresa Tani-De La Fuente and
Rodolfo De La Fuente is declared NULL and VOID. The Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals dated August 29,
2008 and May 25, 2009, respectively, in CA-G.R. CV. No. 76243 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Decision dated August
14, 2002 of Branch 107, Regional Trial Court of Quezon City in Civil Case No. Q-99-37829 is REINSTATED.

Notes / Remarks:
 University of the Philippines College of Law | Civil Law Review | Prof. Rabuya
Santos v. CA (1995) – lay down standard for determining psychological incapacity under Art. 36 of the Family Code:
"psychological incapacity must be characterized by (a) gravity, (b) juridical antecedence, and (c) incurability."
Furthermore, the incapacity "should refer to no less than a mental (not physical) incapacity that causes a party to be
truly incognitive of the basic marital covenants that concomitantly must be assumed and discharged by the parties to
the marriage[.]

Republic v. CA, Molina (1997) –

a. The burden of proof to show the nullity of the marriage belongs to the plaintiff. This is to be investigated by the OSG
for collusion.
b. The root cause of the psychological incapacity must be: 1. Medically or clinically identified; 2. Alleged in the
complaint; 3. Sufficiently proven by the experts; and 4. Clearly explained in the decision.
c. The incapacity must be proven to be existing at “the time of the celebration” of the marriage.
d. Such incapacity must also be shown to be medically or clinically permanent or incurable.
e. Such illness must be grave enough to bring about the disability of the party to assume the essential obligations of
marriage.
f. The essential marital obligations must be those embraced by Articles 68 up to 71 of the Family Code as regards the
husband and wife as well as Articles 220, 221, and 225 of the same Code in regard to parents and their children.
g. Interpretations given by the National Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal of the Catholic Church in the Philippines, while
not controlling/decisive, should be given great respect by our courts.
h. The trial court must order the prosecuting attorney or fiscal and the Solicitor General to appear as counsel for the
state. No decision shall be handed down unless the Solicitor General issues a certification.

Republic Act No 9262 or the Anti-Violence Against Women and Children Act of 2004.- SECTION 3. Definition of Terms.
-As used in this Act, (a) "Violence against women and their children" refers to any act or a series of acts committed by
any person against a woman who is his wife, former wife, or against a woman with whom the person has or had a sexual
or dating relationship, or with whom he has a common child, or against her child whether legitimate or illegitimate,
within or without the family abode, which result in or is likely to result in physical, sexual, psychological harm or
suffering, or economic abuse including threats of such acts, battery, assault, coercion, harassment or arbitrary
deprivation of liberty. It includes, but is not limited to, the following acts:
C. "Psychological violence" refers to acts or omissions causing or likely to cause mental or emotional suffering of the
victim such as but not limited to intimidation, harassment, stalking, damage to property, public ridicule or humiliation,
repeated verbal abuse and mental infidelity. It includes causing or allowing the victim to witness the physical, sexual or
psychological abuse of a member of the family to which the victim belongs, or to witness pornography in any form or to
witness abusive injury to pets or to unlawful or unwanted deprivation of the right to custody and/or visitation of
common children.