Matudan v. Republic of the Philippines | GR No. 203284 | November 14, 2016 | Psychological
incapacity |
FACTS:
- Petitioner Nicolas
Matudan and Respondent Marilyn Matudan were married in Laoang, Northern Samar
on October 26, 1976. They had four children.
- In 1985, Marilyn left
to work abroad. Since then, Nicolas and the children lost all contact with
her. She was never heard nor seen again.
- 23 years later,
Nicolas filed a Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage alleging that
before, during, and after his marriage to Marilyn, the latter was
psychologically incapable of fulfilling her obligations as a wife and mother
--- failing to provide Petitioner and her children with necessary emotional and
financial care, support, and sustenance. Petitioner also stated that based on
the expert evaluation conducted by Clinical Psychologist Dr. Tayag,
Respondent’s psychological incapacity is grave, permanent, and incurable.
Petitioner also alleges that his consent to the marriage was obtained by
Marilyn through misrepresentation since she concealed her condition from him;
and that Marilyn is “not ready for a lasting and permanent commitment like
marriage”.
- Their daughter,
Maricel, and Dr. Tayag also submitted their testimonies as evidence along with
the report on the psychological condition of Respondent, their marriage certificate,
the birth certificates of the children.
- RTC dismissed the
Petition on the ground that Petitioner’s evidence failed to sufficiently prove
Respondent’s claimed psychological incapacity.
- The CA affirmed the
judgment of the RTC.
ISSUE: W/N
Respondent’s
psychological incapacity was sufficiently proved? NO
RULING: Petitioner claims
that he was able to prove Marilyn’s psychological incapacity which is rooted in
Dr. Tayag's diagnosis that she was suffering from Narcissistic Personality
Disorder which existed even before their marriage, and continued to subsist
thereafter; that her illness is grave, serious, incurable, and permanent as to
render her incapable of assuming her marriage obligations; that the
nullification of his marriage to Marilyn is not an affront to the institutions
of marriage and family, but will actually protect the sanctity thereof because
in effect, it will discourage individuals with psychological disorders that
prevent them from assuming marital obligations from remaining in the sacred
bond.
The SC affirms the
decision of the lower courts.
- In the landmark case
of Santos v. CA, this Court has held
that psychological incapacity under Art. 36 of the Family Code must be
characterized by (a) gravity, (b) juridical antecedence, and (c) incurability.
- Thus, the incapacity "must be grave or serious such that the party would
be incapable of carrying out the ordinary duties required in marriage; it must
be rooted in the history of the party antedating the marriage, although the
overt manifestations may emerge only after marriage; and it must be incurable
or, even if it were otherwise, the cure would be beyond the means of the party
involved."
- 'Psychological incapacity,' as a ground to nullify a marriage
under Article 36 of the Family Code, should refer to no less than a mental –
not merely 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 which, as so expressed in Article 68 of the
Family Code, among others, include their mutual obligations to live together,
observe love, respect and fidelity and render help and support.
- There is hardly
any doubt that the intendment of the law has been to confine the meaning of
'psychological incapacity' to the most serious cases of personality disorders
clearly demonstrative of an utter insensitivity or inability to give meaning
and significance to the marriage.
Pursuant to the
ruling in the Molina case, the burden of proving psychological incapacity rests
on the Petitioner. However, the Court
has held that the existence or absence of psychological incapacity is based
strictly on the facts of each case and should therefore be established by the
totality of evidence present during the trial.
Petitioner’s evidence
mainly consists of his judicial affidavit and testimony; and those of his
daughter Maricel and Dr. Tayag; and Dr. Tayag’s psychological evaluation report
on the condition of both Petitioner and Respondent. The supposed evaluation of Respondent’s
condition was based solely on Petitioner’s account since Marilyn did not
participate in the proceedings.
For psychological
incapacity to be established, it is important that the presence of evidence can
adequately establish the party’s psychological condition. The complete facts
should allege the physical manifestations, if any, as are indicative of
psychological incapacity at the time of the celebration of the marriage.
Petitioner’s judicial
affidavit and testimony during trial fail to show gravity and juridical
antecedence. His earlier testimonies were contradicted by his own claims when
he said that he and Respondent were happily married and that the only reason
for his filing of the case was Respondent’s complete abandonment of their family
when she left to work abroad.
Maricel’s testimony
could not be regarded because she was only two years old when her mother
left. Dr. Tayag’s supposed expert
findings were not based on actual tests or interviews conducted upon Respondent
herself and were merely based on the personal accounts of Petitioner which
makes his findings fail as well.
DISPOSITION: Petition DENIED.
Comments
Post a Comment