Valerio Kalaw v. Ma. Elena Fernandez, Jan.

14, 2015
Facts:

Petitioner Valerio E. Kalaw and respondent Ma. Elena Fernandez (Malyn) met in 1973.
They maintained a relationship and eventually married in Hong Kong on November 4,
1976.
They had four children, Valerio (Rio), Maria Eva (Ria), Ramon Miguel (Miggy or Mickey),
and Jaime Teodoro (Jay).
Shortly after the birth of their youngest son, Tyrone had an extramarital affair with
Jocelyn Quejano (Jocelyn), who gave birth to a son in March 1983.
In May 1985, Malyn left the conjugal home (the house of her Kalaw in-laws) and her four
children with Tyrone.
Meanwhile, Tyrone started living with Jocelyn, who bore him three more children.
In 1990, Tyrone went to the United States (US) with Jocelyn and their children.
He left his four children from his marriage with Malyn in a rented house in Valle Verde
with only a househelp and a driver.
The househelp would just call Malyn to take care of the children whenever any of them
got sick.
Also, in accordance with their custody agreement, the children stayed with Malyn on
weekends.
In 1994, the two elder children, Rio and Ria, asked for Malyns permission to go to Japan
for a one-week vacation.
Malyn acceded only to learn later that Tyrone brought the children to the US.
After just one year, Ria returned to the Philippines and chose to live with Malyn.
Meanwhile, Tyrone and Jocelyns family returned to the Philippines and resumed physical
custody of the two younger children, Miggy and Jay.
According to Malyn, from that time on, the children refused to go to her house on
weekends because of alleged weekend plans with their father.
On July 6, 1994, nine years since the de facto separation from his wife, Tyrone filed a
petition for declaration of nullity of marriage based on Article 36 of the Family Code.
Allegations: He claimed that her psychological incapacity was manifested by her
immaturity and irresponsibility towards Tyrone and their children during their co-
habitation, as shown by Malyns following acts:
o she left the children without proper care and attention as she played mahjong all
day and all night;
o she left the house to party with male friends and returned in the early hours of
the following day; and
o she committed adultery on June 9, 1985, which act Tyrone discovered in flagrante
delicto.
 Defense: Respondent refuted petitioners allegations that she played four to five times a
week. She maintained it was only two to three times a week and always with the
permission of her husband and without abandoning her children at home.
The children corroborated this, saying that they were with their mother when she played
mahjong in their relatives home.
Malyn admitted leaving the conjugal home in May 1985. She, however, explained that
she did so only to escape her physically abusive husband.
Malyn denied the allegation of adultery. She maintained that Benjie only booked a room
at the Hyatt Hotel for her because she was so drunk after partying with friends. She
admitted finding her brother Ronald and Tyrone at the door of the Hyatt Hotel room, but
maintained being fully clothed at that time.
As an affirmative defense, Malyn maintained that it was Tyrone who was suffering from
psychological incapacity, as manifested by his drug dependence, habitual drinking,
womanizing, and physical violence.
Malyn presented Dr. Dayan a clinical psychologist, as her expert witness.
Dr. Dayan: Both of them seem behaviorally immature. For some time, Malyn adapted to
her husband who was a moody man with short temper and unresolved issues with
parents and siblings. He was a distancer, concerned more about his work and friends than
he was about spending time with his family.
Dr. Dayan likewise wrote in her psychological evaluation report that Malyn exhibited
significant, but not severe, dependency, narcissism, and compulsiveness
RTC concluded that both parties are psychologically incapacitated to perform the
essential marital obligations under the Family Code.
The trial court then declared the parties marriage void ab initio pursuant to Article 36 of
the Family Code.
The CA reversed the trial courts ruling because it is not supported by the facts on record.
On September 19, 2011, the Supreme Court dismissed the complaint for declaration of
nullity of the marriage of the parties.
Issue: Whether or not obsessive mahjong playing constitutes psychological incapacity.
Ruling: Yes . . . .

The frequency of the respondents mahjong playing should not have delimited our
determination of the presence or absence of psychological incapacity.
Had she fully appreciated such duties and responsibilities, she would have known that
bringing along her children of very tender ages to her mahjong sessions would expose
them to a culture of gambling and other vices that would erode their moral fiber.
The long-term effects of the respondents obsessive mahjong playing surely impacted on
her family life, particularly on her very young children.
 Her eldest son recounted that they would go to their aunts house at lunch break to play
mahjong and would go home at 1 in the morning.
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.
Dr. Gates and Dr. Dayan both explained that the current psychological state of the
respondent had been rooted on her own childhood experience.
This disregard violated her duty as a parent to safeguard and protect her children, as
expressly defined under Article 209 and Article 220 of the Family Code:
o Article 209. Pursuant to the natural right and duty of parents over the person and property of their
unemancipated children, parental authority and responsibility shall includethe caring for and
rearing of such children for civic consciousness and efficiency and the development of their moral,
mental and physical character and well-being.
o Article 220. The parents and those exercising parental authority shall have with respect to their
unemancipated children or wards the following rights and duties:
(1) To keep them in their company, to support, educate and instruct them by right precept
and good example, and to provide for their upbringing in keeping with their means;
(3) To provide them with moral and spiritual guidance, inculcate in them honesty,
integrity, self-discipline, self-reliance, industry and thrift, stimulate their interest in civic
affairs, and inspire in them compliance with the duties of citizenship;
(4) To enhance, protect, preserve and maintain their physical and mental health at all
times;
(5) To furnish them with good and wholesome educational materials, supervise their
activities, recreation and association with others, protect them from bad company, and
prevent them from acquiring habits detrimental to their health, studies and morals;
The September 19, 2011 decision did not properly take into consideration the findings of
the RTC to the effect that both the petitioner and the respondent had been
psychologically incapacitated, and thus could not assume the essential obligations of
marriage.
o Dr. Dayan: even before the marriage, Malyn had noticed already some of those
short temper of the petitioner but she was very much in love and so she lived-in
with him and even the time that they were together, that they were living in, she
also had noticed some of his psychological deficits if we may say so.
To stress, our mandate to protect the inviolability of marriage as the basic foundation of
our society does not preclude striking down a marital union that is "ill-equipped to
promote family life."
Court granted the motion for reconsideration and reinstated the decision of the RTC.