G.R. No.

155800 March 10, 2006

LEONILO ANTONIO Petitioner,
vs.
MARIE IVONNE F. REYES, Respondent
FACTS:
Leonilo Antonio, 26 years of age, and Marie Ivonne Reyes, 6 years of age !et in "#$#. %arely a year after
t&eir first !eeting, t&ey got !arried at Manila City 'all and t&en a s()se*(ent +&(r+& ,edding at Pasig in
-e+e!)er "##.. A +&ild ,as )orn )(t died / !ont&s later. Reyes persistently lied a)o(t &erself, t&e people
aro(nd &er, &er o++(pation, in+o!e, ed(+ational attain!ent and ot&er events or t&ings. S&e even did not
+on+eal )earing an illegiti!ate +&ild, ,&i+& s&e represented to &er &(s)and as adopted +&ild of t&eir fa!ily.
T&ey ,ere separated in A(g(st "##" and after atte!pt for re+on+iliation, &e finally left &er for good in
0ove!)er "##". Petitioner t&en filed in "## a petition to &ave &is !arriage ,it& Reyes de+lared n(ll and void
an+&ored in Arti+le 6 of t&e Fa!ily Code.
Petitioner and respondent !et in A(g(st. %arely a year after t&eir first !eeting, t&ey got !arried
1n $ Mar+& "##,
2
petitioner filed a petition to &ave &is !arriage to respondent de+lared n(ll and void. 'e an+&ored &is petition for n(llity on
Arti+le 6 of t&e Fa!ily Code alleging t&at respondent ,as psy+&ologi+ally in+apa+itated to +o!ply ,it& t&e essential o)ligations of !arriage.
'e asserted t&at respondent3s in+apa+ity e4isted at t&e ti!e t&eir !arriage ,as +ele)rated and still s()sists (p to t&e present.
5"6 S&e +on+ealed t&e fa+t t&at s&e previo(sly gave )irt& to an illegiti!ate son,
".
and instead introd(+ed t&e )oy to petitioner as t&e adopted +&ild of &er
fa!ily. S&e only +onfessed t&e tr(t& a)o(t t&e )oy3s parentage ,&en petitioner learned a)o(t it fro! ot&er so(r+es after t&eir !arriage.
""
526 S&e fa)ri+ated a story t&at &er )rot&er7in7la,, 8d,in -avid, atte!pted to rape and 9ill &er ,&en in fa+t, no s(+& in+ident o++(rred.
"2
56 S&e !isrepresented &erself as a psy+&iatrist to &er o)stetri+ian, -r. Cons(elo :ardiner, and told so!e of &er friends t&at s&e grad(ated ,it& a
degree in psy+&ology, ,&en s&e ,as neit&er.
"
5;6 S&e +lai!ed to )e a singer or a free7lan+e voi+e talent affiliated ,it& %la+9gold Re+ording Co!pany 5%la+9gold6< yet, not a single !e!)er of &er
fa!ily ever ,itnessed &er alleged singing a+tivities ,it& t&e gro(p. In t&e sa!e vein, s&e post(lated t&at a l(n+&eon s&o, ,as &eld at t&e P&ilippine
=illage 'otel in &er &onor and even presented an invitation to t&at effe+t
";
)(t petitioner dis+overed per +ertifi+ation )y t&e -ire+tor of Sales of said &otel
t&at no s(+& o++asion &ad ta9en pla+e.
"/
5/6 S&e invented friends na!ed %a)es Santos and =ia Mar*(e>, and (nder t&ose na!es, sent lengt&y letters to petitioner +lai!ing to )e fro! %la+9gold
and to(ting &er as t&e ?n(!)er one !oney!a9er? in t&e +o!!er+ial ind(stry ,ort& P2 !illion.
"6
Petitioner later fo(nd o(t t&at respondent &erself ,as
t&e one ,&o ,rote and sent t&e letters to &i! ,&en s&e ad!itted t&e tr(t& in one of t&eir *(arrels.
"2
'e li9e,ise reali>ed t&at %a)es Santos and =ia
Mar*(e> ,ere only fig!ents of &er i!agination ,&en &e dis+overed t&ey ,ere not 9no,n in or +onne+ted ,it& %la+9gold.
"$
566 S&e represented &erself as a person of greater !eans, t&(s, s&e altered &er payslip to !a9e it appear t&at s&e earned a &ig&er in+o!e. S&e )o(g&t
a sala set fro! a p()li+ !ar9et )(t told petitioner t&at s&e a+*(ired it fro! a fa!o(s f(rnit(re dealer.
"#
S&e spent lavis&ly on (nne+essary ite!s and
ended (p )orro,ing !oney fro! ot&er people on false prete4ts.
2.
526 S&e e4&i)ited inse+(rities and @ealo(sies over &i! to t&e e4tent of +alling (p &is offi+e!ates to !onitor &is ,&erea)o(ts.
'e separated fro! &er in A(g(st "##". 'e tried to atte!pt a re+on+iliation )(t sin+e &er )e&avior did not +&ange, &e finally left &er for good in
0ove!)er "##".
2"
In s(pport of &is petition, petitioner presented -r. -ante 'errera A)+ede 5-r. A)+ede6, a psy+&iatrist, and -r. Arn(lfo =.
Lope> 5-r. Lope>6, a +lini+al psy+&ologist, ,&o stated, )ased on t&e tests t&ey +ond(+ted, t&at petitioner ,as essentially a nor!al, introspe+tive, s&y and
+onservative type of person. 1n t&e ot&er &and, t&ey o)served t&at respondent3s persistent and +onstant lying to petitioner ,as a)nor!al or
pat&ologi+al. T&ey +on+l(ded t&at respondent ,as psy+&ologi+ally in+apa+itated to perfor! &er essential !arital o)ligations.
2
T&e trial +o(rt t&(s de+lared t&e !arriage )et,een petitioner and respondent n(ll and void.
T&e Co(rt of Appeals reversed t&e RTC3s @(dg!ent. A&ile +on+eding t&at respondent !ay not &ave )een +o!pletely &onest ,it& petitioner, t&e Co(rt of
Appeals nevert&eless &eld t&at t&e totality of t&e eviden+e presented ,as ins(ffi+ient to esta)lis& respondent3s psy+&ologi+al in+apa+ity. It de+lared t&at
t&e re*(ire!ents in t&e +ase of Republic v. Court of Appeals
;.
governing t&e appli+ation and interpretation of psy+&ologi+al in+apa+ity &ad not )een
satisfied.
In +onsidering t&e !erit of t&is petition, t&e Co(rt is &eavily infl(en+ed )y t&e +reden+e a++orded )y t&e RTC to t&e fa+t(al allegations of petitioner. T&e
Co(rt is li9e,ise g(ided )y t&e fa+t t&at t&e Co(rt of Appeals did not disp(te t&e eviden+e presented )y petitioner. Instead, t&e appellate +o(rt +on+l(ded
t&at s(+& eviden+e ,as not s(ffi+ient to esta)lis& t&e psy+&ologi+al in+apa+ity of respondent.
;
ISSUE:
WON h! "a! o# #ac" a" $r!"!%!& '( $!))o%!r "*##)c)!%+( ,!!" h! "a%&ar&" "! #or h! &!c+ara)o% o# %*++)( o# a ,arr)a-! *%&!r Ar)c+!
.6 o# h! Fa,)+( /o&!.
0EL1:
YES. Th! Mo)o% 2a" Gra%!& o h! $!))o%!r a%& h! 3*&-!,!% o# h! /A 2a" r!4!r"!&.
Arti+le 6 of t&e Fa!ily Code states t&at ?BaC !arriage +ontra+ted )y any party ,&o, at t&e ti!e of t&e +ele)ration, ,as psy+&ologi+ally in+apa+itated to
+o!ply ,it& t&e essential !arital o)ligations of !arriage, s&all li9e,ise )e void even if s(+& in+apa+ity )e+o!es !anifest only after its sole!ni>ation.?
T&e Co(rt &as +onsistently applied t&e Molina Case (Republic vs CA, Molina)
"6 T&e )(rden of proof to s&o, t&e n(llity of t&e !arriage )elongs to t&e plaintiff
26 T&e root +a(se of t&e psy+&ologi+al in+apa+ity !(st )e: 5a6 !edi+ally or +lini+ally identified, 5)6 alleged in t&e +o!plaint, 5+6 s(ffi+iently proven
)y e4perts and 5d6 +learly e4plained in t&e de+ision.
6 T&e in+apa+ity !(st )e proven to )e e4isting at ?t&e ti!e of t&e +ele)ration? of t&e !arriage
;6 S(+& in+apa+ity !(st also )e s&o,n to )e !edi+ally or +lini+ally per!anent or in+(ra)le
/6 S(+& illness !(st )e grave eno(g& to )ring a)o(t t&e disa)ility of t&e party to ass(!e t&e essential o)ligations of !arriage.
66 T&e essential !arital o)ligations !(st )e t&ose e!)ra+ed )y Arti+les 6$ (p to 2" of t&e Fa!ily Code as regards t&e &(s)and and ,ife as ,ell
as Arti+les 22., 22" and 22/ of t&e sa!e Code in regard to parents and t&eir +&ildren
26 Interpretations given )y t&e 0ational Appellate Matri!onial Tri)(nal of t&e Cat&oli+ C&(r+& in t&e P&ilippines, ,&ile not +ontrolling or de+isive,
s&o(ld )e given great respe+t )y o(r +o(rts
First. Petitioner &ad s(ffi+iently over+o!e &is )(rden in proving t&e psy+&ologi+al in+apa+ity of &is spo(se 5o,n testa!ents, ,itnesses fro! %la+9gold
and P&il =illage 'otel, Psy+&iatrists, et+6
Second. T&e root +a(se of respondent3s psy+&ologi+al in+apa+ity &as )een !edi+ally or +lini+ally identified, alleged in t&e +o!plaint, s(ffi+iently proven
)y e4perts, and +learly e4plained in t&e trial +o(rt3s de+ision.
Third. Respondent3s psy+&ologi+al in+apa+ity ,as esta)lis&ed to &ave +learly e4isted at t&e ti!e of and even )efore t&e +ele)ration of !arriage. 5y(ng
pagtatago nya sa ana9 niya. Sa9a y(ng !ga s(lat ng !ga DfriendsE nya6
Fourth. T&e gravity of respondent3s psy+&ologi+al in+apa+ity is s(ffi+ient to prove &er disa)ility to ass(!e t&e essential o)ligations of !arriage 5,ala pa
nga one year, nag&i,alay na agad. Pano pa 9aya 9(ng nagtagal paF %a9a !agsa9sa9an na lang sila di )aF6
Fifth. Respondent is evidently (na)le to +o!ply ,it& t&e essential !arital o)ligations as e!)ra+ed )y Arti+les 6$ to 2" of t&e Fa!ily Code. Arti+le 6$, in
parti+(lar, en@oins t&e spo(ses to live toget&er, o)serve !(t(al love, respe+t and fidelity, and render !(t(al &elp and s(pport 5Sin(ngaling )y nat(re e&.
Pat&ologi+al liar. Ts9 ts9G6
Sixth. T&e Co(rt of Appeals +learly erred ,&en it failed to ta9e into +onsideration t&e fa+t t&at t&e !arriage of t&e parties ,as ann(lled )y t&e Cat&oli+
C&(r+&
Metropolitan Tri)(nal of t&e Ar+&dio+ese of Manila de+reed t&e invalidity of t&e !arriage in *(estion in a Conclusion dated . Mar+& "##/, +iting t&e
?la+9 of d(e dis+retion? on t&e part of respondent. 5Ayan, sa)i na ng Si!)a&an6
Seventh. T&e final point of +ontention is t&e re*(ire!ent in Molina t&at s(+& psy+&ologi+al in+apa+ity )e s&o,n to )e !edi+ally or +lini+ally per!anent or
in+(ra)le 5sin+e t&e parties ,o(ld &ave &ad no i!pelling +a(se to present eviden+e to t&at effe+t at t&e ti!e t&is +ase ,as tried )y t&e RTC !ore t&an
ten 5".6 years ago. Fro! t&e totality of t&e eviden+e, SC is s(ffi+iently +onvin+ed t&at t&e in+(ra)ility of respondent3s psy+&ologi+al in+apa+ity &as )een
esta)lis&ed )y t&e petitioner6
Ponente7 A.H. Leonardo I(is(!)ing, Antonio Carpio, Con+&ita Carpio Morales