Del Rosario v. Del Rosario | G.R. No. 222541 | Feb 15, 2017| Topic: Psychological
incapacity
FACTS: Rachel and Jose are married
couples and they have a son named Wesley.
- Rachel is an OFW working in Hong Kong
as a domestic helper. In September, 2011, Rachel filed a petition for
declaration of nullity of marriage before the RTC.
- Rachel claims that Jose is
psychologically incapacitated to fulfill his essential marital obligations.
- In
support of her petition, Rachel claimed that Jose was violent, that at the day
of their wedding he punched him in the shoulder and that Jose hit his own
father when the latter did not pay for the wedding.
- Rachel also claims that
Jose was having extra marital affairs and that at one point her sister and
Wesley caught Jose with a woman. Rachel also presented the testimonies of
Wesley, her sister, and the testimony of Dr. Tayag.
- Dr. Tayag stated that Jose
suffered from Antisocial Personality Disorder (APD) based from the interviews
the former conducted with Rachel and Wesley.
Rachel also testified that their marriage ran smoothly in the earlier
years
Jose denies all the allegations
assailing that he was able to fulfill the essential marital obligations; that
he never had an extra-marital affair; was never violent; and that he always
provided support for his family.
The RTC granted the petition of
Rachel. However, the CA reversed the decision.
ISSUE: WON the marriage should be
declared null and void on the ground of psychological incapacity
RULING: No. Psychological incapacity as
a ground to nullify the marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code, as
amended, should refer to the most serious cases of personality disorders
clearly demonstrative of an utter insensitivity or inability to give meaning
and significance to the marriage. It must be a malady that is so grave and
permanent as to deprive one of awareness of the duties and responsibilities of
the matrimonial bond one is about to assume.
- In Santos v. CA, the Court
declared that psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code must
be characterized by: (a) gravity, i.e., it must be grave and serious such that
the party would be incapable of carrying out the ordinary duties required in a
marriage; (b) juridical antecedence, i.e., it must be rooted in the history of
the party antedating the marriage, although the overt manifestations may emerge
only after the marriage; and (c) incurability, i.e., it must be incurable, or
otherwise the cure would be beyond the means of the party involved. The court
laid down the more definitive guidelines in the case of Republic v Molina.
- Notwithstanding the Molina
guidelines, note, however, that an expert opinion is not absolutely necessary
and may be dispensed with in a petition under Article 36 of the Family Code if
the totality of the evidence shows that psychological incapacity exists and its
gravity, juridical antecedence, and incurability can be duly established. That
the evidence can come from persons intimately related to the spouses i.e., relatives
and close friends, who could clearly testify on the allegedly incapacitated
spouse’s condition at or about the time of marriage. However, the totality of
the evidence must still establish the characteristics that Santos laid down:
gravity, incurability, and juridical antecedence.
- In Dedel v. CA, the Court held
that therein respondent's emotional immaturity and irresponsibility could not
be equated with psychological incapacity as it was not shown that these acts
are manifestations of a disordered personality which make her completely unable
to discharge the essential obligations of the marital state, not merely due to
her youth, immaturity, or sexual promiscuity. Toring v. Toring 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.
- In the case at bar, the court
held that totality of the evidence presented, there exists insufficient factual
or legal basis to conclude that Jose's immaturity, irresponsibility, or
infidelity amount to psychological incapacity. That Dr. Tayag merely relied on
the testimonies of Wesley and Rachel and did not personally evaluate Jose as to
justify his finding that the latter is suffering from APD. The report also did
not explain how Jose’s alleged incapacity was so serious that it was incurable.
- In sum, Dr. Tayag's assessment,
even when taken together with the various testimonies, failed to show that
Jose's immaturity, irresponsibility, and infidelity rise to the level of
psychological incapacity that would justify the nullification of the parties'
marriage. To reiterate and emphasize, psychological incapacity must be more
than just a "difficulty," "refusal" or "neglect"
in the performance of the marital obligations; it is not enough that a party
prove that the other failed to meet the responsibility and duty of a married
person. There must be proof of 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 - which must be linked
with the manifestations of the psychological incapacity.
DISPOSITION: PETITION DENIED
Comments
Post a Comment