Case Digest: Castillo v. Republic & Impas (G.R. No 214064) including Dissenting Opinion

Castillo v. Republic & Impas | G.R. No. 214064 | Feb. 6, 2017 | Topic: Psychological Incapacity

FACTS:

• As their parents were good friends and business partners, Mirasol and Felipe started as friends then, eventually, became sweethearts. During their courtship, Mirasol discovered that Felipe sustained his affair with his former girlfriend. The couple's relationship turned tumultuous after the revelation. With the intervention of their parents, they reconciled. They got married in Bani, Pangasinan on April 22, 1984 and were blessed with two (2) children born in 1992 and in 2001. 
• On 2011, Mirasol filed a complaint for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage before the RTC.   
• Mirasol alleged that at the beginning, their union was harmonious prompting her to believe that the same was made in heaven. However, after thirteen (13) years of marriage, Felipe resumed philandering. Tired of her husband's infidelity, she left the conjugal dwelling and stopped any communication with him. Felipe's irresponsible acts like cohabiting with another woman, not communicating with her, and not supporting their children for a period of not less than ten (10) years without any reason, constitute a severe psychological disorder. 
• In support of her case, Mirasol presented clinical psychologist Montefalcon who, in her Psychological Evaluation Report, concluded that Felipe is psychologically incapacitated to fulfill the essential marital obligations. The report stated that the Narcissistic Personality Disorder of Felipe Impas was present before the marriage, grave, and incurable. 
• RTC declared the marriage null and void. Subsequently, the Republic, through the OSG, filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which the RTC denied 
• CA reversed, ruling that there is insufficient evidence to prove psychological incapacity

ISSUE: Is there sufficient evidence presented to establish the psychological incapacity in this case?

RULING: Time and again, it was held that "psychological incapacity" has been intended by law to be confined to the most serious cases of personality disorders clearly demonstrative of an utter insensitivity or inability to give meaning and significance to the marriage. 

• In the case of Republic v. Court of Appeals and Molina, this Court laid down the more definitive guidelines in the disposition of psychological incapacity cases. 
• The existence or absence of the psychological incapacity shall be based strictly on the facts of each case and not on a priori assumptions, predilections or generalizations. 
• In Ting v. Velez-Ting, the court held: it is logical and understandable to give weight to the expert opinions furnished by psychologists regarding the psychological temperament of parties in order to determine the root cause, juridical antecedence, gravity and incurability of the psychological incapacity.

However, such opinions, while highly advisable, are not conditions sine qua non in granting petitions for declaration of nullity of marriage. At best, courts must treat such opinions as decisive but not indispensable evidence in determining the merits of a given case. The trial court, as in any other given case presented before it, must always base its decision not solely on the expert opinions furnished by the parties but also on the totality of evidence adduced in the course of the proceedings

This Court rules that the totality of the evidence presented failed to establish Felipe's psychological incapacity.

 The RTC noticeably relied heavily on the result of the psychological evaluation by Montefalcon.

Although the evaluation report of Montefalcon expounds on the juridical antecedence, gravity and incurability of Felipe's personality disorder, it was, however, admitted that she evaluated respondent's psychological condition indirectly from the information gathered from Mirasol and her witness. Felipe's dysfunctional family portrait which brought about his personality disorder as painted in the evaluation was based solely on the assumed truthful knowledge of petitioner.

Even if the testimonies of Mirasol and Montefalcon at issue are considered since the judge had found them to be credible enough, this Court cannot lower the evidentiary benchmark with regard to information on Felipe's pre-marital history which is crucial to the issue of antecedence in this case because we only have petitioner's words to rely on. To make conclusions and generalizations on a spouse's psychological condition based on the information fed by only one side, as in the case at bar, is, to the Court's mind, not different from admitting hearsay evidence as proof of the truthfulness of the content of such evidence

Regarding the alleged sexual infidelity of Impas, the Court has held that irreconcilable differences, sexual infidelity or perversion, emotional immaturity and irresponsibility and the like, do not by themselves warrant a finding of psychological incapacity under Article 36, as the same may only be due to a person's refusal or unwillingness to assume the essential obligations of marriage

In order for sexual infidelity to constitute as psychological incapacity, the respondent's unfaithfulness must be established as a manifestation of a disordered personality, completely preventing the respondent from discharging the essential obligations of the marital state

Apart from the psychologist's opinion and petitioner's allegations, no other reliable evidence was cited to prove that Felipe's sexual infidelity was a manifestation of his alleged personality disorder. Aside from the psychologist, petitioner did not present other witnesses to substantiate her allegations on Felipe's infidelity notwithstanding the fact that she claimed that their relatives saw him with other women. Her testimony, therefore, is considered self-serving and had no serious evidentiary value.

DISPOSITION: PETITION DENIED, CA DECISION AFFIRMED

MOLINA DOCTRINE ENUMERATED and explained:

1. The burden of proof to show the nullity of the marriage belongs to the plaintiff.. Any doubt should be resolved in· favor of the existence and continuation of the marriage and against its dissolution and nullity
2. The root cause of the incapacity must be (a) medically or clinically identified, (b) alleged in the complaint, (c) sufficiently proven by experts and (d) clearly explained in the decision.
3. The incapacity must be proven to be existing at "the time of the celebration" of the marriage.
4. Such incapacity must also be shown to be medically or clinically permanent or incurable. Such incurability may be absolute or even relative only in regard to the other spouse, not necessarily absolutely against everyone of the same sex.
5. Such illness must be grave enough to bring about the disability of the party to assume the essential obligations of marriage. In other words, there is a natal or supervening disabling factor in the person, an adverse integral element in the personality structure that effectively incapacitates the person from really accepting and thereby complying with the obligations essential to marriage.
6. 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.
7. Interpretations given by the National Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal of the Catholic Church in the Philippines, while not controlling or decisive, should be given great respect by our courts. 
8. The trial court must order the prosecuting attorney or fiscal and the Solicitor General to appear as counsel for the state.

SEPARATE OPINION:  Leonen, J. dissenting opinion

The courts, in determining the presence of psychological incapacity as a ground for annulment, must essentially "rely on the opinions of experts in order to inform themselves on the matter." 

• Courts are "not endowed with expertise in the field of psychology"; resorting to expert opinion enables them to reach an "intelligent and judicious" ruling. 
• Dr. Montefalcon's expert testimony was consistent with the undisputed facts evincing Felipe's incapability to fulfill his essential marital obligations to Mirasol. 
• Totality of evidence is enough  
• Felipe's continuous philandering, despite his being married and having children, shows a grave and incurable psychological incapacity that warrants the dissolution of his marriage with Mirasol. Moreover, his indifference about being seen publicly by friends and relatives with other women, as well as engaging in a compromising act with a woman not his wife, shows his utter disregard for Mirasol's feelings.

Indirect evaluation of Felipe’s condition should not discredit Montefalcon’s evaluation as expert testimony

• Camacho-Reyes v Reyes: The lack of personal examination and interview of the respondent, or any other person diagnosed with personality disorder, does not per se invalidate the testimonies of the doctors. Neither do their findings automatically constitute hearsay that would result in their exclusion as evidence.

I cannot join the majority's reading of the law as it condemns loveless married couples to a life of pain and suffering. 

• The law should not be read as too callous or cruel that it forever condemns those who may have made very human errors in choosing those with whom they should be intimate. For the State to enforce this cruelty is the very antithesis of the freedoms embodied in many provisions of our Constitution. 
• Republic v. Court of Appeals and Molina interpreted Article 36 of the Family Code to introduce restrictions not found in the text of the law. Worse, it was inspired by a conservative, religious view of what marriages should be. This has caused untold hardships and costs for many Filipinos. It is time we review this doctrine and allow intimate relationships to be what they truly are: a life of celebration, rather than a living hell.