G.R. No.

185286 August 18, 2010

MA. SOCORRO CAMACHO-REYES, Petitioner,
vs.
RAMON REYES, Respondent.

Facts:

Petitioner Maria Socorro Camacho-Reyes and Ramon Reyes got married on December 5, 1976
when the petitioner was already five months pregnant. The newlyweds lived with Ramons family
and all their living expenses were shouldered by Ramons parents. Salary of the spouses was
spent solely for the personal expenses of each. Initially, Ramon gave Socorro a monthly allowance
of P1,500 from his salary. When their first child was born on March 22, 1977, financial difficulties
started. A year into their marriage, the monthly allowance stopped. Ramon resigned from his job
in their family business and decided to venture in different businesses, which took him away from
his family. Ramon however did not exert any effort to communicate with his family, even after
Socorro gave birth to their third child. As with Ramons business ventures, all did not succeed and
added to the trail of debt. Not surprisingly, the relationship of the parties deteriorated.

In 1996, Socorro confirmed that Ramon was having an extra marital affair, and soon realized that
Ramon was not only unable to provide financially for their family, but he was, more importantly,
remiss in his obligation to remain faithful to her and their family. One last episode that sealed the
fate of the parties marriage was a surgical operation on Socorro for the removal of a cyst.
Although his wife was about to be operated on, Ramon remained unconcerned and unattentive.

In an attempt to salvage what was left in their marriage, Socorro approach Ramons siblings, who
in turn invited the parties to counseling sessions which still did not improve the relationship.
Adolfo, Ramons sibling, also brought Ramon to Dr. Natividad A. Dayan for a psychological
assessment to "determine benchmarks of current psychological functioning." Ramon resisted and
did not continue with the clinical psychologists recommendation to undergo psychotherapy.
Socorro then told Ramon to move out of their house. The separation did not improve the
relationship of the parties and between Ramon and the children, thus the petition for declaration of
nullity of her marriage was file before the RTC alleging the latters psychological incapacity to fulfill
the essential marital obligations under Article 36 of the Family Code. This petition was granted by
the RTC. A motion for reconsideration was filed by Ramon before the RTC but denied the same.
Ramon then appealed to the Court of Appeals, which on its decision on May 23, 2007, stated that
the decision of RTC was reversed and set aside despite the testimony of experts regarding
Ramons condition. Socorro then appealed to the Supreme Court by reason that the Court of
Appeals erred in not ruling that both parties are psychologically incapacitated to comply with the
essential obligations of the marriage and that the psychological incapacity was established in court
by a preponderance of evidence.

Issue:

Whether or not the marriage between the parties is void ab initio on the ground of both parties
psychological incapacity, as provided in Article 36 of the Family Code.

Held:

The Supreme Court held that the decision of the Court of Appeals is reversed. The decision of the
Regional Trial Court, Branch 89, Quezon City in Civil Case No. Q-01-44854 declaring the marriage
between petitioner and respondent NULL and VOID under Article 36 of the Family Code is
REINSTATED.
The appellate court is mistaken in declaring that the psychological incapacity of Ramon is not
incurable. A recommendation of therapy does not automatically imply curability. In general,
recommendations for therapy are given by clinical psychologists, or even psychiatrists, to manage
behavior. In Kaplan and Saddocks textbook entitled Synopsis of Psychiatry, treatment, ranging
from psychotherapy to pharmacotherapy, for all the listed kinds of personality disorders are
recommended. In short, Dr. Dayans recommendation that respondent should undergo therapy
does not necessarily negate the finding that respondents psychological incapacity is incurable.
Moreover, Dr. Dayan, during her testimony, categorically declared that respondent is
psychologically incapacitated to perform the essential marital obligations. As aptly stated by
Justice Romero in her separate opinion in the ubiquitously cited case of Republic v. Court of
Appeals & Molina: The professional opinion of a psychological expert became increasingly
important in such cases. Data about the persons entire life, both before and after the ceremony,
were presented to these experts and they were asked to give professional opinions about a partys
mental capacity at the time of the wedding.
Camacho-Reyes vs. Reyes

Civil Law; Marriage; Psychological incapacity

A petition for review on certiorari attacking the decision of the Court of Appeals reversing the
decision of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City nullifying the marriage between the petitioner
Camacho and respondent Reyes on the ground of psychological incapacity.

Facts: Petitioner and respondent were campus sweethearts. The formers love to the latter did not
change even when she discovered that respondent was cutting classes and taking up marijuana.
He did not even finish college. By the time they married each other, all living expenses were
shouldered by respondents parents, and they were living with the respondents parents. When
their first child was born, financial difficulties started to come in. To prod respondent into assuming
more responsibility, petitioner suggested that they live separately from her in-laws. However, the
new living arrangement engendered further financial difficulty. Petitioner was a single-income
earner, and the business ventures of the respondent all floundered. The couple became so
estranged from each other that the respondent remained unconcerned and inattentive, not only to
the petitioner but also to their children. To make things worse, petitioner was able to confirm that
respondent was having an extra-marital affair.

Issue: Whether or not the respondent is psychologically incapacitated to fulfill the essential
marital obligations under Article 36 of the Family Code.

Ruling: Yes, there existed psychological incapacity. The marriage between the petitioner and the
respondent was nullified.

Psychological incapacity was shown by respondents 1.) sporadic financial support; 2.) extra-
marital affairs; 3.) substance abuse; and 4.) failed business attempts. The high court found that
the marriage between the parties from its inception had this congenital infirmity which pertains
to the inability of the parties to effectively function emotionally, intellectually and socially towards
each other in relation to their essential duties to mutually observe love, fidelity and respect as well
as to mutually render help and support as mandated by Article 68 of the Family Code. Such
finding was anchored by the unanimous findings of three psychology experts: petitioner
manifested inadequacies along her affective sphere that made her less responsive to the emotional
needs of her husband, while the respondent manifested strong sense of Inadequacy along
masculine strivings and narcissistic features that renders him psychologically incapacitated to
perform the duties and responsibilities of marriage. The Supreme Court further ruled that such
psychological incapacity, as stated by psychology experts, is permanent, incurable, and stable over
time, and mere recommendation of one psychology expert that the incapacity is curable does not
automatically imply curability. Therefore, the case has the gravity, juridical antecedence, and
incurability the three requirements of nullifying marriage based on psychological incapacity.