G.R. No.

166357 Civil Law Persons and Family Relations Family Code Article 36;
Psychological Incapacity Gambling in the Presence of Ones Children
Testimonies of Expert Witnesses as Evaluated by the Trial Court Must Be Given Due
Consideration
Burden of Proof in Proving Psychological Incapacity Does Not Solely Lie on Plaintiff
In 1994, Valerio Tyrone Kalaw filed a petition to have his marriage with
Ma. Elena Fernandez be annulled on the ground that Elena is psychologically incapacitated.
The RTC, after hearing the expert witnesses testify in court, eventually granted the petition,
but on appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the said decision. Tyrone appealed to the
Supreme Court. In September 2011, the Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the
CA. Tyrone filed a motion for reconsideration.
ISSUE: Whether or not the September 2011 decision (657 SCRA 822) should be reversed.
HELD: Yes.
Trial courts findings of facts should be given due weight
The SC ruled that it misappreciated the findings made by the RTC when the SC reviewed
the case in September 2011. The SC ruled that the findings and evaluation by the RTC as
the trial court deserved credence because it was in the better position to view and examine
the demeanor of the witnesses while they were testifying. The position and role of the trial
judge in the appreciation of the evidence showing the psychological incapacity were not to
be downplayed but should be accorded due importance and respect. Therefore, it was not
proper for the SC to brush aside the opinions tendered by Dr. Cristina Gates, a
psychologist, and Fr. Gerard Healy on the ground that their conclusions were solely based
on the Tyrones version of the events. The conclusions reached by the two expert witnesses
because they were largely drawn from the case records and affidavits, and should not
anymore be disputed after the RTC itself had accepted the veracity of the Tyrones factual
premises.
Respondent could also establish the psychological incapacity of the plaintiff spouse
The plaintiff in an annulment case under Article 36 carries the burden to prove the nullity of
the marriage, however, the respondent, as the defendant spouse, could also establish the
psychological incapacity of the plaintiff spouse if the respondent raised the matter in her/his

answer. The courts are justified in declaring a marriage null and void under Article 36 of the
Family Code regardless of whether it is the petitioner or the respondent who imputes the
psychological incapacity to the other as long as the imputation is fully substantiated with
proof. Indeed, psychological incapacity may exist in one party alone or in both of them, and
if psychological incapacity of either or both is established, the marriage has to be deemed
null and void.
Elenas excessive mahjong sessions is indicative of her psychological incapacity
In the September 2011 ruling, the SC noted that all the children
of Tyrone and Elena testified that although their parents have differences, both took good
care of them. However, upon closer look at the testimonies of the children, it was shown
that Elena was too addicted to mahjong that she would even bring her children to her
mahjong sessions which were so frequent and would last from early in the afternoon to past
midnight. The fact that the Elena brought her children with her to her mahjong sessions did
not only point to her neglect of parental duties, but also manifested her tendency to expose
them to a culture of gambling. Her willfully exposing her children to the culture of gambling
on every occasion of her mahjong sessions was a very grave and serious act of
subordinating their needs for parenting to the gratification of her own personal and escapist
desires. This revealed her wanton disregard for her childrens moral and mental
development.

Read full text

Read September 2011 decision: Full Text Digest
NOTE: This case is controversial as many would point that this ruling significantly relaxed
the application of Article 36 of the Family Code and would thus make annulment of
marriages easier. However, SC Spokesperson Atty. Ted Te explained that the ruling in this
Kalaw Case is exclusive to this case only. He said, The SC did not relax in all cases the
guidelines set forth in its precedentsall of which remain and have not been overturned.