Hernandez v.

Court of Appeals Psychological Incapacity

Parties: Petitioner Luisita Estrella Hernandez (W) Private Respondent Mario C. Hernandez (H) Dates: January 30, 1996 petition for review on certiorari the decision of CA affirming the decision of the RTC on April 10, 1993, which dismissed the petition for the annulment of marriage filed by the petitioner. January 1, 1981 they got married in Silang Cavite. June 12, 1992 private respondent left the conjugal home. July 10, 1992 petitioner filed a petition seeking to annul her marriage to respondent on the ground of psychological incapacity. April 10, 1993 RTC dismissed the petition for annulment. Facts: y y They were married, and had three children. Petitioner filed a petition for annulment due to psychological incapacity because: o Failed to perform his obligation to support the family and contribute to the management of the household. o Engaged in drinking sprees with friends. o Cohabited with another woman with whom he had an illegitimate child. o Having affairs with different women. o Infected with STD that was transmitted to petitioner. o Beats her o Irresponsible o Immature o Unprepared for the duties of a married life. o Abadoned his family. Private respondent was 5 years younger than petitioner. Petitioner was the teacher of private respopndent in college. From 1983-1986, he could not find a stable job. 1986-1991, he was able to secure a job uppon the recommendation of a family friend but he availed himself to early retirement that was offered to him by the company.

y y y y

y y

RTC denied the petition for nullity becaus ethe reasons cited by the petitioner are grounds for Legal Separation and not in accordance of Art. 36 of the FC which is psychological incapacity. Petitioner appealed to the CA but the latter affirmed the decision of the RTC citing the ruling in Santos v. CA that the grounds for declaration of nullity must exist at the time of the celebration of the marriage. More so, chronic infidelity, abandonment, gambling and use of prohibited drugs are not grounds for psychological incapacity.

Issue: WON the marriage of petitioner and private respondent should be annuled on the ground of private respondent s psychological incapacity. Held: The decisions of RTC and CA were affirmed by the SC. Ratio: y y Psychological incapacity should refer to no less that a mental incapacity and not physical incapacity . 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. Drug addiction, habitual alcoholism, homosexuality or lesbianism merely renders the marriage contract VOIDABLE under Art. 55 of the FC, these are mere grounds for LEGAL SEPARATION. Petitioner failed to establish the fact that at the time they were married, private respondent was suffering from a psychological defect which in fact deprived him of the ability to assume the essential duties of marriage and its concomitant responsibilities. Lack of drive to work, philandering, habitual alcoholism, sexual infidelity or perversion and abandonment do not themselves constitute grounds for finding that the private respondent is suffering from a psychological incapacity within the contemplation of the FC.

y y