Persons and Family Relations (Psychological Incapacity) September 26Page |1
February 6, 2017
G.R. No. 214064
MIRASOL CASTILLO, Petitioner
vs.
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES and FELIPE IMPAS, Respondents
DECISION
PERALTA, J.:
We resolve the petition for review on certiorari filed by petitioner Mirasol Castillo (Mirasol)
challenging the Decision1and Resolution,2 dated March 10, 2014 and August 28, 2014,
respectively, of the Court of Appeals (CA), which ruled against the dissolution and nullity of her
marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code.
The facts of the case follow:
As their parents were good friends and business partners, Mirasol and Felipe started as friends
then, eventually, became sweethearts. During their courtship, Mirasol discovered that Felipe
sustained his affair with his former girlfriend. The couple's relationship turned tumultuous after the
revelation. With the aintervention of their parents, they reconciled. They got married in Bani,
Pangasinan on April 22, 1984 and were blessed with two (2) children born in 1992 and in 2001.3
On June 6, 2011, Mirasol filed a Complaint4 for declaration of nullity of marriage before the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Dasmariñas, Cavite, Branch 90.
Mirasol alleged that at the beginning, their union was harmonious prompting her to believe that
the same was made in heaven. However, after thirteen (13) years of marriage, Felipe resumed
philandering. Their relatives and friends saw him with different women. One time, she has just
arrived from a trip and returned home to surprise her family. But to her consternation, she caught
him in a compromising act with another woman. He did not bother to explain or apologize. Tired
of her husband's infidelity, she left the conjugal dwelling and stopped any communication with
him.5Felipe's irresponsible acts like cohabiting with another woman, not communicating with her,
and not supporting their children for a period of not less than ten (10) years without any reason,
constitute a severe psychological disorder. 6 In support of her case, Mirasol presented clinical
psychologist Sheila Marie Montefalcon (Montefalcon) who, in her Psychological Evaluation
Report,7 concluded that Felipe is psychologically incapacitated to fulfill the essential marital
obligations. A portion of the report reads:
The personality disorder speaks of antecedence as it has an early onset, with an enduring pattern
and behavior that deviates markedly from the expectations of the individual's culture. His poor
parental and family molding (particularly lack of parental parenting) caused him to have a
defective superego and he proved to be selfish, immature and negligent person and followed a
pattern of gross irresponsibility and gross disregard of the feelings of his partner/wife disregarding
the marriage contract and the commitment he agreed on during the wedding. In other words, the
root cause of respondent's flawed personality pattern can be in childhood milieu. Respondent's
familial constellation, unreliable parenting style from significant figures around him, and
unfavorable childhood experiences have greatly affected his perceptions of himself and his
environment in general. The respondent did not grow up mature enough to cope with his
obligations and responsibilities as married man and father.
It also speaks of gravity as he was not able to carry out the normative and ordinary duties of
marriage and family, shouldered by any married man, existing in ordinary circumstances. He just
cannot perform his duties and obligations as a husband, as he entered into marriage for his own
self-satisfaction and gratification, manipulate and denigrate the petitioner for his own pleasures
and satisfaction. In the process, respondent was unable to assume his marital duties and
responsibilities to his wife. He failed to render mutual help and support (Article 68, FC).
Additionally, it also speaks of incurability, as respondent has no psychological insight that he has a
character problem. He would not acknowledge the pain he caused to people around him. People
suffering from this personality disorder are unmotivated to treatment and impervious to recovery.
There are no medications and laboratory examinations to be taken for maladaptive behavior such
as the NPD (Narcissistic Personality Disorder).
Otherwise stated, his personality disorder is chronic and pervasive affecting many aspects of his
life, such as social functioning and close relationships.1âwphi1 Apparently, he has failed to develop
appropriate adjustment methods. He lacks the intrapersonal and interpersonal integration that
caused him the failure to understand the very nature of that sharing of life that is directed toward
the solidarity and formation of family.
In a Decision9 dated January 20, 2012, the RTC in Civil Case No. 4853-11 declared the marriage
between Mirasol and Felipe null and void. The dispositive portion of the decision states:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, Court hereby declares the marriage contract by the petitioner
MIRASOL CASTILLO to the respondent FELIPE IMPAS on April 22, 1984 in Bani, Pangasinan to be
NULL AND VOID AB INITIO.
ACCORDINGLY, pursuant to the provisions of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC, the Clerk of Court is directed
to enter this judgment upon its finality in the Book of Entry of Judgment and to issue the
corresponding Entry of Judgment. Thereupon, the Office of the Civil Registrars in Bani, Pangasinan
and Imus, Cavite, are also mandated to cause the registration of the said ENTRY OF JUDGMENT in
their respective Book of Marriages.
Likewise, furnish the petitioner and the counsel of the petitioner, the respondent, the Solicitor
General, 3rd Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Oscar R. Jarlos and the Civil Registrar General with
copies hereof.
Upon compliance, the Court shall forthwith issue the DECREE OF NULLITY OF MARRIAGE.
SO ORDERED.10
On February 22, 2012, the Republic of the Philippines, through the Office of the Solicitor General
(OSG), filed a motion for reconsideration, which the RTC denied in an Order11 dated April 3, 2012.
On appeal, the CA in CA-G.R. CV No. 99686 reversed and set aside the decision of the RTC, ruling
that Mirasol failed to present sufficient evidence to prove that Felipe was suffering from
psychological incapacity, thus, incapable of performing marital obligations due to some
psychological illness existing at the time of the celebration of the marriage. 12 A pertinent portion of
the decision reads:
Based on the records, it appears more likely that Felipe became unfaithful as a result of unknown
factors that happened during the marriage and not because of his family background. His
tendency to womanize was not shown to be due to causes of a psychological nature that are
grave, permanent and incurable. In fact, it was only after thirteen (13) years of marriage that he
started to engage in extra-marital affairs. In the complaint filed by Mirasol, she said that after they
 Persons and Family Relations (Psychological Incapacity) September 26Page |2
got married, their relationship as husband and wife went smoothly and that she was of the belief
that she had a marriage made in heaven.
In short, Felipe's marital infidelity does not appear to be symptomatic of a grave psychological
disorder which rendered him incapable of performing his spousal obligations. Sexual infidelity, by
itself, is not sufficient proof that petitioner is suffering from psychological incapacity. It must be
shown that the acts of unfaithfulness are manifestations of a disordered personality which make
him completely unable to discharge the essential obligations of marriage. Since that situation does
not obtain in the case, Mirasol's claim of psychological incapacity must fail. Psychological incapacity
must be more than just a "difficulty," "refusal" or "neglect" in the performance of some marital
obligations. Rather, it is essential that the concerned party was incapable of doing so, due to some
psychological illness existing at the time of the celebration of the marriage.
In fine, given the insufficiency of the evidence proving the psychological incapacity of Felipe, We
cannot but rule in favor of the existence and continuation of the marriage and against its
dissolution and nullity.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The Decision dated January 20, 2012 is REVERSED and SET
ASIDE.
SO ORDERED.13
Upon the denial of her motion for reconsideration, Mirasol elevated the case before this Court
raising the issue, thus:
[Petitioner] was able to establish that respondent is suffering from grave psychological condition
that rendered him incognitive of his marital covenants under Article 36 of the Family Code.
Basically, the issue to be resolved by this Court is whether or not the totality of evidence
presented warrants, as the RTC determined, the declaration of nullity of the marriage of Mirasol
and Felipe on the ground of the latter's psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family
Code.
This Court rules in the negative.
Mirasol alleges that she has sufficiently established that Felipe is psychologically incapacitated to
comply with the essential obligations of marriage. The conclusions of the trial court regarding the
credibility of the witnesses are entitled to great respect because of its opportunity to observe the
demeanor of the witnesses. Since the court a quo accepted the veracity of the petitioner's
premises, there is no cause to dispute the conclusion of Felipe's psychological incapacity drawn
from the expert witness. She claims that Montefalcon was correct in interviewing her for it was
submitted that it was only her who knew best whether her husband was complying with his
marital obligations. Moreover, the OSG admits that personal examination of the respondent by the
clinical psychologist is not an indispensable requisite for a finding of psychological incapacity.
On the other hand, the OSG argues that Mirasol failed to establish from the totality of evidence the
gravity, juridical antecedence and incurability of Felipe's alleged Narcissistic Personality Disorder.
The conclusions of the clinical psychologist that he was psychologically incapacitated and that such
incapacity was present at the inception of the marriage were not supported by evidence. At most,
the psychologist merely proved his refusal to perform his marital obligations.14 Moreover, she has
no personal knowledge of the facts from which she based her findings and was working on pure
assumptions and secondhand information related to her by one side.15
Time and again, it was held that "psychological incapacity" has been intended by law to be
confined to the most serious cases of personality disorders clearly demonstrative of an utter
insensitivity or inability to give meaning and significance to the marriage. 16 Psychological incapacity
must be characterized by (a) gravity, i.e., it must be grave and serious such that the party would
be incapable of carrying out the ordinary duties required in a marriage, (b) juridical
antecedence, i.e., it must be rooted in the history of the party antedating the marriage, although
the overt manifestations may emerge only after the marriage, and (c) incurability, i.e., it must
be incurable, or even if it were otherwise, the cure would be beyond the means of the party
involved.17
In the case of Republic v. Court of Appeals and Molina, 18 this Court laid down the more definitive
guidelines in the disposition of psychological incapacity cases, viz.:
(1) The burden of proof to show the nullity of the marriage belongs to the plaintiff. Any doubt
should be resolved in favor of the existence and continuation of the marriage and against its
dissolution and nullity. x x x
(2) The root cause of the psychological incapacity must be (a) medically or clinically identified, (b)
alleged in the complaint, (c) sufficiently proven by experts and (d) clearly explained in the
decision. x x x
(3) The incapacity must be proven to be existing at "the time of the celebration" of the marriage.
(4) Such incapacity must also be shown to be medically or clinically permanent or incurable. Such
incurability may be absolute or even relative only in regard to the other spouse, not necessarily
absolutely against everyone of the same sex. x x x
(5) Such illness must be grave enough to bring about the disability of the party to assume the
essential obligations of marriage. x x x In other words, there is a natal or supervening disabling
factor in the person, an adverse integral element in the personality structure that effectively
incapacitates the person from really accepting and thereby complying with the obligations essential
to marriage.
(6) The essential marital obligations must be those embraced by Articles 68 up to 71 of the Family
Code as regards the husband and wife as well as Articles 220, 221 and 225 of the same Code in
regard to parents and their children. x x x
(7) Interpretations given by the National Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal of the Catholic Church in
the Philippines, while not controlling or decisive, should be given great respect by our courts. x x x
(8) The trial court must order the prosecuting attorney or fiscal and the Solicitor General to appear
as counsel for the state. x x x
The existence or absence of the psychological incapacity shall be based strictly on the facts of
each case and not on a priori assumptions, predilections or generalizations.20
As held in Ting v. Velez-Ting:21
By the very nature of cases involving the application of Article 36, it is logical and understandable
to give weight to the expert opinions furnished by psychologists regarding the
psychological temperament of parties in order to determine the root cause, juridical
antecedence, gravity and incurability of the psychological incapacity. However, such
opinions, while highly advisable, are not conditions sine qua non in granting petitions for
declaration of nullity of marriage. At best, courts must treat such opinions as decisive but
not indispensable evidence in determining the merits of a given case. In fact, if the
 Persons and Family Relations (Psychological Incapacity) September 26Page |3
totality of evidence presented is enough to sustain a finding of psychological incapacity, then
actual medical or psychological examination of the person concerned need not be resorted to. The
trial court, as in any other given case presented before it, must always base its
decision not solely on the expert opinions furnished by the parties but also on the
totality of evidence adduced in the course of the proceedings.22 The presentation of any
form of medical or psychological evidence to show the psychological incapacity, however, did not
mean that the same would have automatically ensured the granting of the petition for declaration
of nullity of marriage. It bears repeating that the trial courts, as in all the other cases they try,
must always base their judgments not solely on the expert opinions presented by the parties but
on the totality of evidence adduced in the course of their proceedings. 23
Guided by the foregoing principles and after a careful perusal of the records, this Court rules that
the totality of the evidence presented failed to establish Felipe's psychological incapacity.
Clinical psychologist Montefalcon opined that respondent is encumbered with a personality
disorder classified as Narcissistic Personality Disorder deeply ingrained in his personality structure
that rendered him incapacitated to perform his marital duties and obligations. In her direct
testimony, she stated:
ATTY. BAYAUA:
Question: Were you able to interview and conduct examination on the respondent?
Answer: No, sir.
Question: [W]here did you base your conclusion that supported your findings that the husband of
Mirasol is psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential obligations of marriage?
Answer: From the interviews I had with the petitioner and also from my interview of the couple's
common friend who validated all information given to me by the petitioner.
Question: You mean to say you were not able to interview the respondent?
Answer: No sir. But I sent him an invitation to undergo the same psychological evaluation I
administered with the petitioner but he did not respond to my invitation.
Question: [W]hat relevant information were you able to gather from your interview of the friend of the
couple?
Answer: She validated every piece of information relayed to me by the petitioner during the interview.
Question: Madam witness, were you able to determine at what point in time in the life of the
respondent did he acquire this disorder that you mentioned?
Answer: The disorder of the respondent already existed even at the time of celebration of their
marriage, although the incapacity became manifest only after their marriage. His disorder seemed to
have started during the early years of his life.
Question: In your expert opinion, what would be the likely source of the disorder of the respondent?
Answer: The disorder of the respondent seemed to have developed during the early years of
his life due to his poor parental and family [molding] particularly lack of parental
guidance. [His] parents separated when he was still young and when [his] mother had another affair
and lived with her common-law husband. Respondent's familial constellation and [unfavorable]
childhood experiences have greatly affected his perceptions of himself and his environment. Respondent
did not grow up mature enough to cope with his obligations and responsibilities as a married man and
father.
The RTC noticeably relied heavily on the result of the psychological evaluation by Montefalcon. A
perusal of the RTC's decision would reveal that there was no assessment of the veracity of such
allegations, the credibility of the witnesses, and the weight of the pieces of evidence presented.
Also, there were no factual findings which can serve as bases for its conclusion of Felipe's
psychological incapacity.
The presentation of expert proof in cases for declaration of nullity of marriage based on
psychological incapacity presupposes a thorough and an in-depth assessment of the parties by the
psychologist or expert, for a conclusive diagnosis of a grave, severe and incurable presence of
psychological incapacity.25 The probative force of the testimony of an expert does not lie in a
mere statement of her theory or opinion, but rather in the assistance that she can render to
the courts in showing the facts that serve as a basis for her criterion and the reasons
upon which the logic of her conclusion is founded.26
Although the evaluation report of Montefalcon expounds on the juridical antecedence, gravity and
incurability of Felipe's personality disorder, it was, however, admitted that she evaluated
respondent's psychological condition indirectly from the information gathered from Mirasol and her
witness. Felipe's dysfunctional family portrait which brought about his personality disorder as
painted in the evaluation was based solely on the assumed truthful knowledge of petitioner. There
was no independent witness knowledgeable of respondent's upbringing interviewed by the
psychologist or presented before the trial court. Angelica Mabayad, the couple's common friend,
agreed with petitioner's claims in the interview with the psychologist, confirmed the information
given by petitioner, and alleged that she knew Felipe as "chick boy" or ''playboy."27 She did not
testify before the court a quo.
As such, there are no other convincing evidence asserted to establish Felipe's psychological
condition and its associations in his early life. Montefalcon's testimony and psychological evaluation
report do not provide evidentiary support to cure the doubtful veracity of Mirasol's one-sided
assertion. The said report falls short of the required proof for the Court to rely on the same as
basis to declare petitioner's marriage to respondent as void.
While the examination by a physician of a person in order to declare him psychologically
incapacitated is not required, the root cause thereof must still be "medically or clinically identified,"
and adequately established by evidence.28 We cannot take the conclusion that Felipe harbors a
personality disorder existing prior to his marriage which purportedly incapacitated him with the
essential marital obligations as credible proof of juridical antecedence. The manner by which such
conclusion was reached leaves much to be desired in terms of meeting the standard of evidence
required in determining psychological incapacity. The lack of corroborative witness and evidence
regarding Felipe's upbringing and family history renders Montefalcon's opinion on the root cause of
his psychological incapacity conjectural or speculative.
Even if the testimonies of Mirasol and Montefalcon at issue are considered since the judge had
found them to be credible enough, this Court cannot lower the evidentiary benchmark with regard
to information on Felipe's pre-marital history which is crucial to the issue of antecedence in this
case because we only have petitioner's words to rely on. To make conclusions and generalizations
on a spouse's psychological condition based on the information fed by only one side, as in the case
at bar, is, to the Court's mind, not different from admitting hearsay evidence as proof of the
truthfulness of the content of such evidence.29
Anent Felipe's sexual infidelity, Mirasol alleged in her judicial affidavit, to wit:
Question: You said Madam Witness that after several months you and respondent became
sweethearts, what happened next Madam Witness?
 Persons and Family Relations (Psychological Incapacity) September 26Page |4
Answer: Sir, while we were already sweethearts, I got dismayed when respondent was also
maintaining another woman who was his former girlfriend.
Question: What was the reaction of the respondent when you told him about his relation with his
former girlfriend?
Answer: Respondent was shocked and became moody Sir. This turned our relationship sour and it
led to being stormy.
Question: You said Madam Witness that you and respondent's relationship became sour and
stormy, what happened next, if any?
Answer: Sir, my relationship with respondent should have been ended had it not been with the
timely intervention of our parents. Respondent and I reconciled.
Question: Madam Witness as you said you finally got married with the respondent as evidenced in
fact by a Marriage Certificate. What happened next after the marriage?
Answer: After our wedding, our relationship as husband and wife went on smoothly. I was of the
belief that my marriage was made in heaven and that respondent had already reformed his ways
and had completely deviated from his relationship with his ex-girlfriend;
Question: After giving birth to your first child did respondent change or become responsible
considering that he is already a father?
Answer: No, Sir. I thought that having our first child would already change the ways of
respondent. The birth of our first child did not actually help improve respondent's ways because
respondent is really a man who is not contented with one woman even before we got married;
Question: After you gave birth to you[r] second child what happened next Madam Witness?
Answer: Sir, after thirteen (13) years of marriage, respondent is back to his old habit where he has
been seen having relationship with a different woman. This was also seen by our relatives and
friends of respondent.
Irreconcilable differences, sexual infidelity or perversion, emotional immaturity and
irresponsibility and the like, do not by themselves warrant a finding of psychological incapacity
under Article 36, as the same may only be due to a person's refusal or unwillingness to assume
the essential obligations of marriage.33 In order for sexual infidelity to constitute as psychological
incapacity, the respondent's unfaithfulness must be established as a manifestation of a
disordered personality, completely preventing the respondent from discharging the
essential obligations of the marital state; there must be proof of a natal or supervening
disabling factor that effectively incapacitated him from complying with the obligation to be faithful
to his spouse.34 It is indispensable that the evidence must show a link, medical or the like,
between the acts that manifest psychological incapacity and the psychological disorder itself. 35
As discussed, the findings on Felipe's personality profile did not emanate from a personal interview
with the subject himself. Apart from the psychologist's opinion and petitioner's allegations, no
other reliable evidence was cited to prove that Felipe's sexual infidelity was a manifestation of his
alleged personality disorder, which is grave, deeply rooted, and incurable. We are not persuaded
that the natal or supervening disabling factor which effectively incapacitated him from complying
with his obligation to be faithful to his wife was medically or clinically established.
Basic is the rule that bare allegations, unsubstantiated by evidence, are not equivalent to
proof, i.e., mere allegations are not evidence.36 Based on the records, this Court finds that there
exists insufficient factual or legal basis to conclude that Felipe's sexual infidelity and irresponsibility
can be equated with psychological incapacity as contemplated by law. We reiterate that there was
no other evidence adduced. Aside from the psychologist, petitioner did not present other witnesses
to substantiate her allegations on Felipe's infidelity notwithstanding the fact that she claimed that
their relatives saw him with other women. Her testimony, therefore, is considered self-serving and
had no serious evidentiary value.
In sum, this Court finds no cogent reason to reverse the ruling of the CA against the dissolution
and nullity of the parties' marriage due to insufficiency of the evidence presented. The policy of
the State is to protect and strengthen the family as the basic social institution and marriage is the
foundation of the family. Thus, any doubt should be resolved in favor of validity of the marriage.37
WHEREFORE, we DENY the petition for review on certiorari filed by herein petitioner Mirasol
Castillo. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the assailed Decision and Resolution, dated March 10, 2014 and
August 28, 2014, respectively, of the Court of Appeals.
SO ORDERED.
January 11, 2018
G.R. No. 218630
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner
vs.
KATRINA S. TOBORA-TIONGLICO, Respondent
DECISION
TIJAM, J.:
This is a petition for review on certiorari of the Decision1 dated May 27, 2015 of the Court of
Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 101985, which affirmed the May 8, 2012 Decision2 rendered by
the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Imus Cavite, Branch 20, granting the petition for declaration of
nullity of marriage on the ground of Article 36 of the Family Code and declaring the marriage of
Katrina S. Tabora-Tionglico and Lawrence C. Tionglico void ab initio.
Respondent Katrina S. Tabora-Tionglico (Katrina) filed a petition for declaration of nullity of her
marriage with Lawrence C. Tionglico (Lawrence) on the ground of psychological incapacity under
Article 36 of the Family Code.
Katrina and Lawrence met sometime in 1997 through a group of mutual friends. After a brief
courtship, they entered into a relationship. When she got pregnant, the two panicked as both their
parents were very strict and conservative. Lawrence did not receive the news well as he was
worried how it would affect his image and how his parents would take the situation. 3 Nevertheless,
they got married on July 22, 2000.4
Even during the early stage of their marriage, it was marred by bickering and quarrels. As early as
their honeymoon, they were fighting so much that they went their separate ways most of the time
and Katrina found herself wandering the streets of Hong Kong alone.5
Upon their return, they moved into the home of Lawrence's parents until the birth of their child,
Lanz Rafael Tabora Tionglico (Lanz), on December 30, 2000.6 Lawrence was distant and did not
help in rearing their child, saying he knew nothing about children and how to run a
family.7 Lawrence spent almost every night out for late dinners, parties and drinking
sprees.8 Katrina noticed that Lawrence was alarmingly dependent on his mother and suffered from
a very high degree of immaturity.9 Lawrence would repeatedly taunt Katrina to fight with him and
they lost all intimacy between them as he insisted to have a maid sleep in their bedroom every
night to see to the needs of Lanz.10
 Persons and Family Relations (Psychological Incapacity) September 26Page |5
Lawrence refused to yield to and questioned any and all of Katrina's decisions-from the manner by
which she took care of Lanz, to the way she treated the household help. Most fights ended up in
full blown arguments, often in front of Lanz. One time, when Katrina remembered and missed her
youngest brother who was then committed in a substance rehabilitation center, Lawrence told her
to stop crying or sleep in the rehabilitation center if she will not stop. 11 In 2003, due to their
incessant fighting, Lawrence asked Katrina to leave his parents' home and never to come back.
They have been separated in fact since then.12 Katrina consulted with a psychiatrist, Dr. Juan
Arellano (Dr. Arellano), who confirmed her beliefs on Lawrence's psychological incapacity. Dr.
Arellano, based on the narrations of Katrina, diagnosed Lawrence with Narcissistic Personality
Disorder, that is characterized by a heightened sense of self-importance and grandiose feelings
that he is unique in some way.13
Dr. Arellano determined that this personality disorder is permanent, incurable, and deeply
integrated within his psyche;14 and that it was present but repressed at the time of the celebration
of the marriage and the onset was in early adulthood. His maladaptive and irresponsible behaviors
interfered in his capacity to provide mutual love, fidelity, respect, mutual help, and support to his
wife.15
The RTC granted the petition and declared the marriage of Katrina and Lawrence as void ab initio.
It disposed, thus:
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered declaring the marriage of Katrina S. Tabora-Tionglico
and Lawrence C. Tionglico Ito (sic) as void ab initio. As a necessary consequence of this
pronouncement, petitioner shall cease using the surname of her husband having lost the right over
the same and so as to avoid the misconception that she is still the legal wifo of respondent.
Custody over the couple's· minor child is awarded to petitioner, with reasonable visitation rights
accorded to respondent, preferably Saturday and Sunday, or as the parties may agree among
themselves. Furnish a copy of this decision the Office of the Solicitor-General, the National
Statistics Office and the Local Civil Registrar of Imus, Cavite who, in turn, shall endorse a copy of
the same to the Local Civil Registrar of Mandaluyong City, ·Metro Manila, so that the appropriate
amendment and/or cancellation of the parties' marriage can be effected in its registry. Furnish,
likewise, the parties and counsel.
SO ORDERED.16
The CA affirmed the RTC decision, the dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. Accordingly, the Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Imus,
Cavite, Branch 20, in Civil Case No. 4903-11dated8 May 2012 is hereby AFFIRMED.17
Hence, this petition for review on certiorari. The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) points out
that there has been a myriad of cases declaring that psychological assessment based solely on the
information coming from either party in a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage is
considered as hearsay evidence. It is evident that in this case, the psychiatrist obtained his data, in
concluding that Lawrence is psychologically incapacitated, exclusively from Katrina.
The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) points out that there has been a myriad of cases
declaring that psychological assessment based solely on the information coming from either party
in a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage is considered as hearsay evidence. It is evident
that in this case, the psychiatrist obtained his data, in concluding that Lawrence is psychologically
incapacitated, exclusively from Katrina.
Katrina counters that the facts, bases and surrounding circumstances of each and every case for
the nullity is different from the other and must be appreciated for its distinctiveness. She points
out that the psychological report of Dr. Arellano clearly outlined well-accepted scientific and
reliable tests18 to come up with his findings. In any case, the decision must be based not solely on
the expert opinions but on the totality of evidence adduced in the course of the proceedings,
which the RTC and the CA have found to have been sufficient in proving Lawrence's psychological
incapacity.
The issue before Us is plainly whether the totality of evidence presented by Katrina supports the
findings of both the RTC and the CA that Lawrence is psychologically incapacitated to perform his
essential marital obligations, meriting the dissolution of his marriage with Katrina.
Contrary to the findings of both the RTC and the CA, We rule in the negative.
Time and again, it has been held that "psychological incapacity" has been intended by law to be
confined to the most serious cases of personality disorders clearly demonstrative of an utter
insensitivity or inability to give meaning and significance to the marriage. Psychological incapacity
must be characterized by (a) gravity, i.e., it must be grave and serious such that the party would
be incapable of carrying out the ordinary duties required in a marriage, (b) juridical
antecedence, i.e., it must be rooted in the history of the party antedating the marriage, although
the overt manifestations may emerge only after the marriage, and (c) incurability, i.e., it must be
incurable, or even if it were otherwise, the cure would be beyond the means of the party
involved.19
The case of Republic of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals20has set out the guidelines that has
been the core of discussion of practically all declaration of nullity of marriage on the basis of
psychological incapacity cases that We have decided:
(1) The burden of proof to show the nullity of the marriage belongs to the plaintiff. Any doubt
should be resolved in favor of the existence and continuation of the marriage and against its
dissolution and nullity. xxx
(2) The root cause of the psychological incapacity must be: (a) medically or clinically identified, (b)
alleged in the complaint, (c) sufficiently proven by experts and (d) clearly explained in the decision.
(3) The incapacity must be proven to be existing at "the time of the celebration" of the marriage.
(4) Such incapacity must also be shown to be medically or clinically permanent or incurable. xxx
(5) Such illness must be grave enough to bring about the disability of the party to assume the
essential obligations of marriage. xxx
(6) The essential marital obligations must be those embraced by Articles 68 up to 71 of the Family
Code as regards the husband and wife as well as Articles 220, 221 and 225 of the same Code in
regard to parents and their children. xxx
(7) Interpretations given by the National Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal of the Catholic Church in the
Philippines, while not controlling or decisive, should be given great respect by our courts. xxx
(8) The trial court must order the prosecuting attorney or fiscal and the Solicitor General to appear
as counsel for the state. No decision shall be handed down unless the Solicitor General issues a
certification, which will be quoted in the decision, briefly stating therein his reasons for his
agreement or opposition, as the case may be, to the petition. xxx21
Using these standards, We find that Katrina failed to sufficiently prove that Lawrence is
psychologically incapacitated to discharge the duties expected of a husband.
Indeed, and We have oft-repeated that the trial courts, as in all the other cases they try, must
always base their judgments not solely on the expert opinions presented by the parties but on the
 Persons and Family Relations (Psychological Incapacity) September 26Page |6
totality of evidence adduced in the course of their proceedings. 22
Here, We find the totality of At any rate, We find the report prepared by the clinical psychologist on the psychological condition
evidence clearly wanting. of the respondent-appellee to be insufficient to warrant the conclusion that a psychological
incapacity existed that prevented Marilyn from complying with the essential obligations of
First, Dr. Arellano's findings that Lawrence is psychologically incapacitated were based solely on
marriage. In said report, Dr. Tayag merely concluded that Marilyn suffers from. Narcissistic
Katrina's statements.1âwphi1 It bears to stress that Lawrence, despite notice, did not participate
Personality Disorder with antisocial traits on the basis of what she perceives as manifestations of
in the proceedings below, nor was he interviewed by Dr. Arellano despite being invited to do so.
the same. The report neither explained the incapacitating nature of the alleged disorder, nor
The case of Nicolas S. Matudan v. Republic of the Philippines and Marilyn B. Matudan23is
showed that the respondent-appellee was really incapable of fulfilling her duties due to some
instructive on the matter:
incapacity of a psychological, not physical, nature. (Emphasis Ours)
Just like his own statements and testimony, the assessment and finding of the clinical psychologist
The same could be said in this case, where the various tests conducted by Dr. Arellano can most
cannot [be] relied upon to substantiate the petitioner-appellant's theory of the psychological
certainly be conclusive of the psychological disposition of Katrina, but cannot be said to be
incapacity of his wife. It bears stressing that Marilyn never participated in the proceedings below.
indicative of the psychological condition of Lawrence. There was simply no other basis for Dr.
The clinical psychologist's evaluation of the respondent-appellee's condition was based mainly on
Arellano to conclude that Lawrence was psychologically incapacitated to perform his essential
the information supplied by her husband, the petitioner, and to some extent from their daughter,
marital obligations apart from Katrina's self-serving statements. To make conclusions and
Maricel. It is noteworthy, however, that Maricel was only around two (2) years of age at the time
generalizations on a spouse's psychological condition based on the information fed by only one
the respondent left and therefore cannot be expected to know her mother well. Also, Maricel
side, as in the case at bar, is, to the Court's mind, not different from admitting hearsay evidence
would not have been very reliable as a witness in an Article 36 case because she could not have
as proof of the truthfulness of the content of such evidence.24
been there when the spouses were married and could not have been expected to know what was
happening between her parents until long after her birth. On the other hand, as the petitioning Second, the testimony of Katrina as regards the behavior of Lawrence hardly depicts the picture of
spouse, Nicolas' description of Marilyn's nature would certainly be biased, and a psychological a psychologically incapacitated husband. Their frequent fights, his insensitivity, immaturity and
evaluation based on this one-sided description can hardly be considered as credible. The ruling frequent night-outs can hardly be said to be a psychological illness. These acts, in our view, do not
in Jocelyn Suazo v. Angelita Suazo, el al., is illuminating on this score: rise to the level of the "psychological incapacity" that the law requires, and should be distinguished
from the "difficulty," if not outright "refusal" or "neglect" in the performance of some marital
We first note a critical factor in appreciating or evaluating the expert opinion evidence - the
obligations that characterize some marriages.25 It is not enough to prove that a spouse failed to
psychologist's testimony and the psychological evaluation report - that Jocelyn presented. Based
meet his responsibility and duty as a married person; it is essential that he must be shown to be
on her declarations in open court, the psychologist evaluated Angelito's psychological condition
incapable of doing so due to some psychological illness. The psychological illness that must afflict
only in an indirect manner - she derived all her conclusions from information coming from Jocelyn
a party at the inception of the marriage should be a malady so grave and permanent as to deprive
whose bias for her cause cannot of course be doubted. Given the source of the information upon
the party of his or her awareness of the duties and responsibilities of the matrimonial bond he or
which the psychologist heavily relied upon, the court must evaluate the evidentiary worth of the
she was then about to assume.26
opinion with due care and with the application of the more rigid and stringent set of standards
outlined above i.e., that there must be a thorough and in-depth assessment of the parties by the Although We commiserate with Katrina's predicament, We are hardpressed to affirm the RTC and
psychologist or expert, for a conclusive diagnosis of a psychological incapacity that is grave, severe CA when the totality of evidence is clearly lacking to support the factual and legal conclusion that
and incurable. Lawrence and Katrina's marriage is void ab initio. No other evidence or witnesses were presented
by Katrina to prove Lawrence's alleged psychological incapacity. Basic is the rule that bare
From these perspectives, we conclude that the psychologist, using meager information coming
allegations, unsubstantiated by evidence, are not equivalent to proof, i.e., mere allegations are not
from a directly interested party, could not have secured a complete personality profile and could
evidence.27 Here, we reiterate that apart from the psychiatrist, Katrina did not present other
not have conclusively formed an objective opinion or diagnosis of Angelito's psychological
witnesses to substantiate her allegations on Lawrence's psychological incapacity. Her testimony,
condition. While the report or evaluation may be conclusive with respect to Jocelyn's psychological
therefore, is considered self-serving and had no serious evidentiary value.28
condition, this is not true for Angelito's. The methodology employed simply cannot satisfy the
required depth and comprehensiveness of examination required to evaluate a party alleged to be WHEREFORE, the petition for review on certiorari is hereby GRANTED. The Decision dated May
suffering from a psychological disorder. In short, this is not the psychological report that the Court 27, 2015 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 101985, which affirmed the May 8, 2012
can rely on as basis for the conclusion that psychological incapacity exists. Decision rendered by the Regional Trial Court of Imus Cavite, Branch 20, granting the petition for
declaration of nullity of marriage on the ground of Article 36 of the Family Code and declaring the
In the earlier case of Rowena Padilla-Rumbaua v. Edward Rumbaua, it was similarly declared that
marriage of Katrina S. Tabora-Tionglico and Lawrence C. Tionglico void ab initio, is hereby
'[t]o make conclusions and generalizations on the respondent's psychological condition based on
REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The petition for declaration of nullity of marriage docketed as Civil
the information fed by only one side is, to our mind, not different from admitting hearsay evidence
Case No. 4903-11 is hereby DISMISSED.
as proof of the truthfulness of the content of such evidence.'
SO ORDERED.
 Persons and Family Relations (Psychological Incapacity) September 26Page |7
October 11, 2017
G.R. No. 201988
MARIA VICTORIA SOCORRO LONTOC-CRUZ, Petitioner
vs.
NILO SANTOS CRUZ, Respondent
DECISION
DEL CASTILLO, J.:
The most challenging part of being in a difficult marriage is to thrive in one. In the case of
petitioner Maria Victoria Socorro Lontoc-Cruz (Marivi) and respondent Nilo Santos Cruz (Nilo), their
marriage withered as this was beset with problems such as the lack of quality time, recriminations,
disillusionment, loss of passion, and infidelity. The estranged spouses considered their union as
non-functional, attributing the failure of their marriage to their respective personality disorders
that repelled each other.
This Petition for Review on Certiorari1challenges the November 22, 2011 Decision2 and May 29,
2012 Resolution3 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 93736 that affirmed the
Decision4 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 207, Muntinlupa City in Civil Case No. 05-095
which refused to declare the marriage void ab initio under Article 36 of the Family Code.
Factual Antecedents
Twenty-two-year-old Marivi met 28-year old Nilo sometime in March 1986. They became steady in
August of the same year. Nilo, whose job was then in Hong Kong, prodded Marivi to marry him so
she could join him there soonest. Marivi agreed. The couple married in a civil ceremony5 on
October 21, 1986 followed by a church wedding6on February 8, 1987. The marriage produced two
sons: Antonio Manuel, born on April 25, 1988, and Jose Nilo, born on September 9, 1992.
On July 7, 2005, Marivi filed with the RTC of Muntinlupa City a petition for declaration of nullity of
marriage7 based on psychological incapacity. She averred that it had been medically ascertained
that Nilo was suffering from "inadequate personality disorder related to masculine strivings
associated with unresolved oedipal complex,"8 while she herself was found to be suffering from a
"personality disorder of the mixed type, [h]istrionic, [n]arcissistic with immaturity x x x."9
To show that Nilo failed to provide her with the necessary emotional, psychological, and physical
support, Marivi cited the following:
1. His infidelity and his non-commitment to the marriage as he continued to act like a
bachelor;
2. The lack of 'oneness' in the marriage as Nilo would make decisions (on financial matters)
without consulting or considering her suggestions; treating her as a housemate or a
"mayordoma;" keeping from her his whereabouts, when he would come home or how much his
income was;
3. The lack of sexual contact for more than a decade as Nilo made excuses;
4. Putting up a facade that he is a caring, concerned, and loving husband, especially to his
bosses; and
5. Preference towards the company of his peers/friends. 10
In his Answer,11 Nilo claimed that he was madly in love with Marivi; that at the start of their
relationship, both he and Mari vi would exhibit negative personality traits which they overlooked;
that he believed that both he and Marivi were suffering from psychological incapacity; and that he
was not singularly responsible for the breakdown of their marriage. He stressed that Marivi also
contributed to the deterioration of their union, to wit:
1. Marivi would demand that he behave in ways he was not accustomed to or inconsistent with
his career position;
2. Marivi was jealous of his friends; and would often make hasty conclusions that he was
having an affair with other women;
3. Marivi would exhibit volatile temperament if things did not go her way; would not admit
mistakes, and blame others instead;
4. Marivi would make decisions impulsively, such as changing an item she gets tired of, or
demanding that Nilo change a motor vehicle simply because she did not like it; and
5. She lacked respect for Nilo, and would speak to him degradingly, and even accuse him of
being gay or a homosexual.12
On October 11, 2006, the trial court rendered a Partial Decision13 approving the parties'
Compromise Agreement14pertaining to custody, support, and dissolution of the properties. Trial on
the issue of the nullity of marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity ensued.
Marivi's Version
Marivi narrated that when they were still going steady, Nilo would only spend Saturdays and
Sundays with her and devote the weekdays to partying with his friends; that even after their
engagement, Nilo would still meet other women and accept invitations to beauty pageants and
cocktails;15 that Nilo was not the type who would kiss passionately; that Nilo would not engage in
foreplay during sex, but wished only to satisfy himself; that Nilo would engage in anal sex and
would only stop when she complained that it was painful; that Nilo would thereafter sleep, leaving
her feeling "used," and that Nilo was impulsive, daring, and adventurous.16
She also claimed that Nilo would habitually come home late; that Friday nights were Nilo's boys'
night out; that unless she would ask him to take her out on a date, Nilo would not do so; and that
Nilo would call her a "nagger" even if she was merely asking him to come home early. 17
Marivi further narrated that Nilo would engage in extramarital affairs; that a few months into their
marriage, Nilo had an affair with an unmarried female officemate; 18 that Nilo ended the affair only
after she (Mari vi) threatened to tell his employer/supervisor;19 that Nilo had another affair a few
weeks after the birth of their second son; that when confronted with his womanizing and made to
choose between her and the children or the other women, Nilo replied that he was "confused,"
which prompted her to leave and stay in Cebu with her parents; and that she heard from her
friends that while she was in Cebu, Nilo was living a bachelor's life. Marivi added that she
eventually reconciled with Nilo but despite the reconciliation, Nilo never really changed, and that
he remained indifferent, insensitive, and unappreciative. According to Marivi, she would instead
call up her parents and sisters to talk about their family problems; 22 that while he (Nilo) told
people that he was proud of her, he never gave her the emotional, psychological, and physical
support she needed.23 She felt like she was no more than a mayordoma to him, and that they
were just "housemates." Nilo would come home late on weekdays and preferred to go out with his
friends. Their quarrels were frequent and their conversations were superficial; Nilo would rather
talk about himself, instead of asking Marivi about her day or about their children. He was
controlling and domineering,24 and refused to consider her suggestions; he would not want his
 Persons and Family Relations (Psychological Incapacity) September 26Page |8
25
money mingled with her (Marivi's) money. Nilo would shell out money when he wanted to buy
things, but would make excuses when it came to Mari vi's suggestion for a family vacation. Marivi
also claimed that Nilo had no sense of companionship with their children; and that Nilo even told
their son that their brand new house was everything to him.27
Marivi was moreover bothered by Nilo's effeminate ways; he was vain and would have weekly
"beauty" treatments.28Furthermore, they no long had sex after the birth of their second son. While
they tried to have sex twice, Nilo failed to have an erection. After that, Nilo would refuse to have
sex with her which made her (Marivi) question his sexual orientation, so much so that Nilo
physically hurt her when she questioned his virility. Marivi's father, Manuel, likewise stated that
Marivi would call them up for help because Nilo had hurt her during the couple's quarrel; that their
marriage was not harmonious due to Marivi's youth and her unfamiliarity with Nilo's personality
and family values. He considered Nilo only as a provider, not as a husband and a good father to
his sons. Marivi's younger sister, Margarita Ledesma (Margarita), who lived for four years with Nilo
and Marivi, claimed to have witnessed how lonely Marivi was. She alleged that Nilo was absent
when Marivi gave birth to their second son; that Nilo was short-tempered when driving; and that
the couple would often fight because Nilo would always come home late or because Marivi
suspected Nilo of infidelity. Margarita believed that Nilo did not really want to save the marriage,
although he told her that he loves Marivi and the children.31
Nilo's Version
Nilo acknowledged his contribution to the breakdown of the marriage because his job required him
to come home late, his inability to sexually perform adequately, his failure to be the "ideal
husband,"32 and because he had had extramarital affairs in the years 1992, 2002, and 2006. 33 At
the same time, Nilo insisted that Marivi also contributed to the collapse of their union. According to
Nilo, Marivi would always want to know his companions and whereabouts; would demand
information about his female acquaintances; and would even call up his workplace to ask where he
was. Moreover, her conceit and her "prima donna" attitude embarrassed him. Marivi would order
him to act in accordance with their stature in life, and would demand that he instruct his office
staff to accord her special treatment as Hewlett Packard's "first lady" during the time that he was
Hewlett Packard's President. Marivi would also instruct their housemaids to call him "sefiorito;" and
she would make a "big deal" out of her being a "mestiza," and would think of herself a "trophy
wife."34 Nilo claimed that Marivi was "unappreciative" of him, had a misdirected sense of self-
entitlement, and would complain if she did not get her own way, as she was used to, she being
her father's favorite daughter; Marivi did not even care about discussing family finances with him
as long as she got what she wanted. She also had a violent temper and would hurl things at him
during their fights; that she would blame him for everything, and would keep on reciting his past
mistakes. Marivi did not understand the demands of his job, and unfairly compared his work to her
father's job, the operation of which was limited to a single area, a compound in a mine site in
Cebu. He explained that the multinational companies he then worked for required him to work
beyond the normal office hours because he has to meet "sales quotas in millions of dollars,"
entertain people from different headquarters, and meet with different clients from areas far from
his residence.35
Worse, Nilo was turned off by Marivi's act of broadcasting to her whole clan his inadequacies
during their intimate sexual relations, which began after he witnessed Marivi giving birth to their
first child. When he confided to Marivi about this, she instead accused him of having another
affair. Since then, he did not feel any sexual excitement and attraction toward her when they were
together. Instead of discussing the problem with him candidly, she accused him of being gay. Nilo
stated that the last time they had sex was in 1997 or in 1998.36
The Clinical Findings
In support of her claim that she and Nilo were suffering from psychological incapacity, Marivi
presented Dr. Cecilia Villegas (Dr. Villegas), a psychiatrist, and Dr. Ruben Encarnacion (Dr.
Encarnacion), a clinical psychologist. Dr. Villegas diagnosed Nilo to have "inadequate personality
disorder related to masculine strivings associated with unresolved oedipal complex,"37 while she
diagnosed Marivi to have "personality disorder of the mixed type, [h]istrionic, [n]arcissistic, with
immaturity x x x."38
In the March 21, 2005 Psychiatric Report,39 Dr. Villegas stated:
The root cause of the above clinical conditions, on the part of Marivi Cruz, were the
overindulgence and over attention of her parents, in a prolonged manner, carried over to adult
adjustments. On the part of Nilo Cruz, his negative identification and resentments towards his
father and close attachments to his mother, continued by his long-time maid, to the point of an
oedipal situation led to his inadequacy, along masculine strivings, with difficult assertions of his
authority and power.
The above clinical conditions existed prior [to] marriage but became manifest only after the
celebration due to marital stresses and demands. Both are considered as permanent in nature,
because they started early in their developmental stage, and therefore became so deeply
engrained into their personality structures. Both are considered grave in degree, because they
hampered, interfered and disrupted their normal functioning related to heterosexual
adjustments.40
According to Dr. Villegas, both parties could not tolerate each others' weaknesses and that the
incapacities of the parties are grave because they preferred to satisfy their own needs rather than
to give in to the other's needs.41 She claimed that Nilo's lack of a father figure weakened his
masculinity. He cross-identified himself with his mother because his father, a disciplinarian and the
thrifty one, was often absent because of his military service. While he was still a teenager, his
mother migrated to Canada and their long-time maid acted as his surrogate mother. Nilo sought
from his wife his mother's nurturing qualities, but he felt hostility when Marivi failed to meet his
ego ideal. His aggression was in the form of passivity, punishing his wife by not sexually
performing.42 Dr. Villegas noted that Nilo would put on a facade, a compensatory mechanism
according to social norms. While he was not exactly a homosexual, he covered up his weak
masculine traits by being a "playboy." Nilo could only comply with the financial obligation of
marital life, but not the psychological and emotional parts of it.43 Nilo likewise was an inadequate
father figure to his own two sons, especially the younger, who has already manifested strong
feminine traits.44
Marivi, on the other hand, expected that her interactions with the world would be like that of her
own close-knit family, a perception attributable to her parents' prolonged gratification of her
dependency needs. Her father was a dedicated, devoted, and responsible family man who
regularly came home to spend time with them, while her mother was a good housewife, who
always found time to personally attend to their needs. Dr. Villegas described Marivi’s one with
strong mood fluctuations, emotionally immature, with low self-esteem has difficulty neutralizing
the outbreak of negativity in her behavior, is suggestible, egocentric, and impelled by a desire to
 Persons and Family Relations (Psychological Incapacity) September 26Page |9
"extort" from others. To Dr. Villegas, the couple's respective personality disorders were mutually
repelling, their brain waves not being in sync because what Marivi expected from Nilo happened to
be Nilo's weakest point.45
Dr. Encarnacion supported Dr. Villegas' diagnosis. On the basis of Nilo's five-to-six sessions and
Marivi's eight bi-weekly psychotherapy sessions with him, Dr. Encarnacion concluded that there
was no chance of a successful marriage in a dysfunctional union when there is double
psychological incapacity. He categorically stated that Nilo was incapable of being a good husband
and a good father. Nilo lacked an individual coherent identity and instead went by the standards of
general society, which is driven by the desire to gain material wealth, power, and control. Nilo did
not like close relationships and was incapable of forming some; his social anxiety, associated with
paranoid fears, was manifested by excessive vanity. Nilo projected an image of a wealthy,
successful, handsome man surrounded by women, in none of whom, however, he was interested
in a long-term sexual relationship; he saw himself as a performer-provider and was disinterested in
spending quality time with his family, in carrying on conversations with members of his family,
insensitive, intolerant, and demanding.46
Dr. Encarnacion attributed respondent's psychological disorder to his childhood, in which he did
not have fond memories of tender moments and vacation times with his family. Nilo grew up very
close to his mother who always listened to his complaints and with whom he sympathized, hence
his unresolved oedipal issues; even as he patterned his masculinity strivings after his stingy father,
the family provider, but whom he nonetheless described as "unappreciative, undemonstrative, and
quite materialistic." At the age of 18, when his parents migrated to Canada and left him in the
Philippines, he then lost his role models, incapacitating him from creating his own identity. Thus,
when he began working at the age of 21, he imbibed the values of his workplace, where feelings
and emotional discussions were absent, factors that nonetheless somehow worked to his
advantage in his job.47 Dr. Encarnacion opined that Nilo's incapacity was his "rigidity," which drove
him into imposing his family upbringing on his mvn family, instead of adjusting to the modem
family setup, i.e., that the modem father should take on new roles and be part of family activities
where his family needs him to be, e.g. taking the children to the pediatrician or to the park,
camping with the family, or being with them in church, instead of strictly confining himself to
being a provider.48
As for Marivi, Dr. Encarnacion found that she exhibited "Histrionic Personality Behaviors and
Features" as manifested by her impressionistic speech, her exaggerated expression of emotions,
and her suggestibility. He stated that Marivi's "inflexibility" consisted in her expecting a high
standard of faithfulness from all men as exemplified by her dad, who was also very devoted to her
mother. However, because dissatisfied and frustrated by her actual marital situation, she sought
attention, externalized blame, displayed anger, mistrust, resentment, and self-indulgence.49
Ruling of the Regional Trial Court
In its October 13, 2008 Decision,50 the RTC denied the Petition.
The RTC took a dim view of the expert witnesses' attribution of a double psychological incapacity
to Marivi's nature of being a "father figure woman," and to Nilo's "oedipal complex." The court
noted that Marivi already disengaged herself from her father as her standard of an ideal husband
when she married Nilo, despite the latter's limitations and his then being already very focused on
his job. Marivi's need for assurance that she is loved, vis-a-vis her looking up to her father as her
standard, was not by itself sufficient to declare her psychologically incapacitated.
As for Nilo, the RTC found no concrete evidence of "oedipal complex;" the RTC held that
prioritizing his work over the emotional needs of his family was not reflective of his psychological
incapacity because what he did was still for his family's benefit. Neither was Nilo's lack of sexual
interest in Marivi a case of psychological incapacity, for this was a result of his being turned off by
Marivi's unabated naggings and her revelations to her family of his sexual inadequacies.
From the RTC's verdict, petitioner appealed to the CA.
Ruling of the Court of Appeals
In its November 22, 2011 Decision,51 the CA united with the RTC in rejecting the alleged existence
of psychological incapacity pointed out by Dr. Villegas and by Dr. Encarnacion.
The CA found that Dr. Villegas and Dr. Encarnacion failed to paint a clear picture of the supposed
gravity or seriousness of Nilo's psychological incapacity, and that it was unconvinced of the
doctors' conclusion that Nilo had a deep propensity to cover up for his serious inadequacies.
It ruled that Marivi failed to prove that Nilo's failure to comply with his sexual obligation was due
to some psychological condition or makeup, as this could very well be explained by the stress
brought about by Marivi's negative attitude toward Nilo, who was turned off by her act of revealing
to her clan their bedroom secrets instead of privately resolving the problem with him. Moreover,
the CA said it is a non sequitur, that just because he could not sexually perform according to
Marivi's standard, he should thus be labelled a gay or homosexual. It appears that Nilo has
"selective" impotency, for while he could not have an erection for Marivi, he nevertheless had had
extramarital affairs. Neither did the CA see anything wrong with Nilo's "put-on fa9ade" of a happy
marriage to protect the family's privacy.
The CA did not even consider Marivi's alleged histrionic traits as reflected in her behavior, e.g., her
persistent demand as to Nilo's whereabouts, her constant naggings, her attention-seeking acts,
grave or serious enough to qualify as psychological incapacity. The CA ruled that it was the
couple's irreconcilable differences that marred their marriage; that the negative acts or actions of
one spouse were neutralized or offset by the other's negative acts or actions, and that these are
"mere character flaws or bad habits that the spouses developed over the years [which] can be
modified or changed depending on the desire of either spouse to do so." 52 The CA thereafter
disposed of the appeal, thus:
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The decision of the Regional Trial Court in CV No. 05-095
denying the petition for declaration of nullity of marriage between appellant Maria Victoria Socorro
Lontoc-Cruz and appellee Nilo Santos Cruz for insufficiency of evidence is hereby AFFIRMED. No
costs. SO ORDERED."53
Marivi moved for a reconsideration but it was denied in the CA's May 29, 2012 Resolution. 54
Issue
At issue before us is whether the psychological conditions of the parties fall under Article 36 of the
Family Code to warrant the declaration of nullity of marriage.
Our Ruling
We sustain the findings of both the RTC and the CA.
Article 36 of the Family Code states:
 P e r s o n s a n d F a m i l y R e l a t i o n s ( P s y c h o l o g i c a l I n c a p a c i t y ) S e p t e m b e r 2 6 P a g e | 10
Art. 36. A marriage contracted by any party who, at the time of the celebration, was
psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential marital obligations of marriage, shall
likewise be void even if such incapacity becomes manifest only after its solemnization.
We have laid down guidelines in interpreting and applying this provision. In Republic v. De
Gracia, 55 we reiterated the doctrine in Santos v. Court of Appeals, 56 "that psychological incapacity
must be characterized by: (a) gravity (i.e., it must be grave and serious such that the party would
be incapable of carrying out the ordinary duties required in a marriage); (b) juridical
antecedence (i.e., it must be rooted in the history of the party antedating the marriage, although
the overt manifestations may emerge only after the marriage); and (c) incurability (i.e., it must be
incurable, or even if it were otherwise, the cure would be beyond the means of the party
involved)." Also, in Republic v. Court of Appeals, 57 we reiterated the well-settled guidelines in
resolving petitions for declaration of nullity of marriage, as embodied in Republic v. Court of
Appeals, 58
viz.:
(1) The burden of proof to show the nullity of the marriage belongs to the plaintiff. Any doubt
should be resolved in favor of the existence and continuation of the marriage and against its
dissolution and nullity.x x x.
(2) The root cause of the psychological incapacity must be (a) medically or clinically identified, (b)
alleged in the complaint, (c) sufficiently proven by experts and (d) clearly explained in the
decision. Article 36 of the Family Code requires that the incapacity must be psychological - not
physical, although its manifestations and/or symptoms may be physical. x
(3) The incapacity must be proven to be existing at 'the time of the celebration' of the marriage.x
(4) Such incapacity must also be shown to be medically or clinically permanent or incurable.
(5) Such illness must be grave enough to bring about the disability of the party to assume the
essential obligations of marriage. Thus, 'mild characteriological peculiarities, mood changes,
occasional emotional outbursts' cannot be accepted as root causes.x x x.
(6) The essential marital obligations must be those embraced by Articles 68 up to 71 of the Family
Code as regards the husband and wife as well as Articles 220, 221 and 225 of the same Code in
regard to parents and their children. Such non-complied marital obligation(s) must also be stated
in the petition, proven by evidence and included in the text of the decision.
(7) Interpretations given by the National Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal of the Catholic Church in
the Philippines, while not controlling or decisive, should be given great respect by our courts. x x x.
(8) The trial court must order the prosecuting attorney or fiscal and the Solicitor General to
appear as counsel for the state. x x x.
Notably, "mere showing of 'irreconcilable differences' and 'conflicting personalities' [as in the
present case,] in no wise constitutes psychological incapacity."59 "Nor does failure of the parties to
meet their responsibilities and duties as married persons" amount to psychological incapacity. 60 We
further elucidated in Yambao v. Republic61that the psychological condition should render the
subject totally unaware or incognitive of the basic marital obligations:
Article 36 contemplates incapacity or inability to take cognizance of and to assume basic marital
obligations and not merely difficulty, refusal, or neglect in the performance of marital obligations
or ill will. This incapacity consists of the following: (a) a true inability to commit oneself to the
essentials of marriage; (b) this inability to commit oneself must refer to the essential obligations of
marriage: the conjugal act, the community of life and love, the rendering of mutual help, the
procreation and education of offspring; and (c) the inability must be tantamount to a psychological
abnormality. It is not enough to prove that a spouse failed to meet his responsibility and duty as a
married person; it is essential that he must be shown to be incapable of doing so due to some
psychological illness.62
In Marcos v. Marcos, 63 the actual medical examination of the one claimed to have psychological
incapacity is not a condition sine qua non, for what matters is the totality of evidence to sustain a
finding of such psychological incapacity. While it behooves this Court to weigh the clinical findings
of psychology experts as part of the evidence, the court's hands are nonetheless free to make its
own independent factual findings. "It bears repeating that the trial courts, as in all the other cases
they try, must always base their judgments not solely on the expert opinions presented by the
parties but on the totality of evidence adduced in the course of the proceedings." With specific
reference to the case before us, even granting that both parties did suffer from personality
disorders as evaluated by the expert witnesses, we find that the conclusions reached by these
expert witnesses do not irresistibly point to the fact that the personality disorders which plague the
spouses antedated the marriage; that these personality disorders are indeed grave or serious; or
that these personality disorders are incurable or permanent as to render the parties
psychologically incapacitated to carry out and carry on their marital duties. What can be inferred
from the totality of evidence, at most, is a case of incompatibility. For a personality disorder to be
declared clinically or medically incurable or permanent is one thing; for a spouse to refuse or to be
reluctant to perform his/her marital duties is another. Indeed, we are loath to overturn the
findings of the RTC and the CA. More than that, too, the evidence on record do not square with
the existence of psychological incapacity as contemplated by law and jurisprudence. In the case of
Nilo, what brought about the breakdown of his relationship with Marivi was not necessarily
attributable to his so-called "psychological disorder" but can be imputed to his work and marital
stress, and his ordinary human failings. With regard to his failure to sexually perform "adequately,"
the same appeared to be a case of "selective impotency," as he was turned off by Marivi's
disclosure of their bed secrets to her family. Furthermore, Nilo testified that the sexual problem
with Marivi did not crop up until the birth of their second son, and that he felt that the blame was
invariably and unfairly laid on upon him, thus:
THE COURT:
The Court has just some questions with regard to the main issue. During your direct testimony; Mr.
Witness, you mentioned some of your faults which [may be] the reason why the instant case was filed.
x x x one of those faults is no sex. When did that happen? x x x
A. If I recall it right, Your Honor; I [had] some challenge[s] immediately after the first birth of my eldest
son which I x x x shared with the psychologist or psychiatrist who [had] examined me.
THE COURT:
But when you got married with your wife that was not a problem until the birth of your last son?
A. Yes, your Honor.
ATTY. STA. MARIA, JR.:
Q. So it is attributable to the petitioner though you claim that it is your fault, is that correct?
A. Because, your Honor, that kind of situation, I always get blamed, so for the purpose of settling all
these questions, when you make that mistake, you'll always be the one to be blamed although as per
the psychologist and the psychiatrist, there's also a reason why I am not able to perform sex to my wife
because in those ten (10) years that we were together, after the first one, [didn't] have any other
affairs but I kept being blamed that I [had] just because I [was] not able to perform sex to her. The
whole family, her family knows that in that premise because I got, one time, in one of our quarrels x x x
told me, ''maybe you're not making love with my daughter because you are having an affair with
 P e r s o n s a n d F a m i l y R e l a t i o n s ( P s y c h o l o g i c a l I n c a p a c i t y ) S e p t e m b e r 2 6 P a g e | 11
another woman." So, I know 1 made a mistake in the past but if I'm x x x kept [being] reminded of it,
it's a punishment, your Honor.
Q. What you initially said was your fault was ... as you're now talking before this Honorable Court, is
really the fault of 1he petitioner; is that what you are saying?
A. There [were] times, your Honor, I would say it was my fault. There [were] times it was caused by
her faults as well. H's not one plus one It was hers and one plus one it was mine, it depends on the
situation. We've been dealing with cases before so not all the time it's the fault of Mrs. Cruz. And not all
the time it's the fault of Mr. Cruz. It's a relationship, there are times it's hers, there are times, it's mine
but we're able to fix it until this annulment situation came.
Nor can it be said that Nilo's failure to provide quality time for the family was caused by his "inadequate
personality disorder" or "unresolved oedipal complex." Nilo explained that he has a taxing and
demanding job, and that unfortunately, with his working hours eating up his home life, while he was
able to provide his family with an adequate standard of living, the lack of quality time for his wife
became attenuated and resulted in severing his bond with Mari vi, who failed to understand the nature
of his job. They were a happy couple during the period of courtship, and even during the early years of
their marriage. Nilo testified:
ATTY. REVILLA:
Q. x x x What was the reason why you had to stay up late?
A. Ma'am, I'm .. .in those I.T. companies that I worked for whether manager or managing director, my
companies are ... the companies are involved in sales and marketing and support so it entails
entertainment of clients, entertainment of principals coming from headquarters and entertainment of
customers with my staff and other company.
Q. When you say LT., what does it stand for?
A. Information Technology.
Q. You also referred to a headquarters. What do you mean by headquarters?
A. Headquarters, if you work in a multinational company like companies I worked for, they have
headquarters in Hong Kong, they have headquarters in Singapore, they have headquarters in the U.S.
Q. So you had to entertain principals coming from [these] headquarters?
A. As a part of the job as required by the principals who [visit] us.
Q. How often were you required to stay out late because of your job?
A. Ma'am, it is unpredictable. Sometimes, we were required to stay for dinner and entertainment
thereafter. Sometimes, we can go home early also.
Q. Could you not refuse the invitations of going out and just go home and spend time with your family?
A. Sometimes I can refuse, sometimes I cannot. Because it becomes a condition of sale of the clients x
Q. So x x x what's the latest time of the night that you usually come home?
A. My objective as a husband and as a father is to really come as early as I can which I have explained
on and on, your Honor. But to meet my million dollar targets of the country, I have to do things beyond
5 o'clock. In several occasions when I tried to go home early, to my disappointment, my kids are not at
home because they were borrowed by my in-laws to have merienda. That's why I complained to my
wife that time that "please tell me if they are going with my in-laws because I don't want to deprive
them also of the few times I'm able to go home early."
Q. So, you are saying that you only have few times of coming home early?
A. Well, yes, but not very few.
Q. Okay. Have you tried to make an effort to remedy the situation?
A. Well, if I have my way to be able to direct my appointments in the South, my meetings in Amkor
Anam, Mamplasan, in Sta. Rosa then that will allow me to be home at least 5-6 o'clock. But most of my
meetings in Makati, Quezon City, Manila especially with government clients [do] allow me to go home
early, your Honor.
THE COURT:
What about another fault you mentioned which is staying late, when did this thing happen?
A. When I came back from my assignment in Hong Kong in 1988 when I was given a new job in sales
and marketing.
THE COURT:
So before the birth of your children, that is after your marriage with the petitioner, this was not a
problem?
A. Because, your Honor, I was assigned in Hong Kong and I was only twelve (12) minutes [away] by
[foot] to our office x x x.
And I was not in [sales] and marketing, I was the Administrative Assistant of the President of IBM in
Southeast Asia so it's the ... purely management administrative work as an administrative assistant so
there's [not] much of entertaining done in Hong Kong.
THE COURT:
Okay, so in other words, at that time, that was not a problem. It was only a problem when you were
appointed to your position in ...
A. IBM.
THE COURT:
That was so many years after you got married with your wife
A We got married, your Honor, in 1987 then we went back to the Philippines in July 1988 [when] I was
given a new marketing and [sales] role as a manager of general marketing which is ... which
encompasses all industries aside [from] the government.
THE COURT:
So you mean to say that this problem of staying late only happened lately?
A The definition, your Honor, of my family... late is when you don't make it at 7:00 o'clock or. .. [with]
the family at 7:00 o'clock in the evening. So ifl don't make it at seven, I considered myself late.
THE COURT:
What is the reason why you have been late?
A Your Honor, my job is not a 9 to 5 job because we ... we call on customers, we entertain customers,
partners, principals, we also have fellowship with our teams. So, we either have dinner or we have
happy hours. We also see friends after. So but, physically I cannot do that everyday, your Honor,
because I also wake up automatically at 6:00 everyday whether I have a drink, or have dinner, or I
worked out in the evening or play[ed] basketball during that time, I always wake up at six. So if I
stayed up late like previously... like 2, 3, it's gonna be a burden for me physically and [I would be]
unable to perform my job well. So, like I mentioned earlier in a hearing, your Honor, many times I tried
to be home by 10 to be able to watch. Before 10 to be able to watch the 10:00 o'clock news and be
able to enjoy my ice cream while watching it.
THE COURT:
Well, one of those faults you mentioned is also working hard, why did you say that it is your fault?
A In our industry, your Honor, when you work out, you will definitely end up late several couple of
times, but not all the time.
Your Honor, sometimes, I get all these complaints. But when they saw my picture in the newspaper or
in the TV having success stories and contract signing, they are proud of me.
THE COURT:
When you say "so proud of me," to whom are you referring x x x?
A. My family. They call me, they congratulate me, we have dinners together to celebrate but to get to
that, is the working hard and staying away from the family.
THE COURT:
How long did you court your wife?
A. Six (6) months, your Honor.
THE COURT:
 P e r s o n s a n d F a m i l y R e l a t i o n s ( P s y c h o l o g i c a l I n c a p a c i t y ) S e p t e m b e r 2 6 P a g e | 12
Could you say that you were a perfect couple at that time?
A. When we were starting, your Honor, we [were] happy, and during the time that we were in Hong
Kong. But when we went back to Manila, there are times (the witness is in tears) ... adjusting to work
and family that is why it affected my relationship to her family and combination of mistakes happened
which I admitted.
THE COURT:
How would you describe your wife during your first years of marriage?
A. [She was] a very good wife.
THE COURT:
Did she perform her duties as a wife and as a mother?
A. Yes, your Honor.
THE COURT:
And was she that independent from her parents or she was too dependent [on] her parents?
A. On her performing her duties, with the ... as a wife and as a friend, she's independent. When it
comes to our problems, she would consult her family.
THE COURT:
So only those times when you have a problem. Like what problems, Mr. Witness?
A. Our relationship, your Honor.
THE COURT:
But most of the time, you were able to patch up your problems?
A. Yes, your Honor.
Interestingly, when asked if there was no more functional marital life between him and Marivi, Nilo
candidly highlighted his different perception from his estranged wife:
ATTY. STA MARIA, JR.:
Q. So, Mr. Witness, well in reality today, Mr. Witness, even the petitioner believes that there is no more
functional marital life in this relationship, would you agree with that?
A. If that's the way she thinks, I...I will have my own way of looking at things because ...
Q. Even ... as I was saying since she was asking for nullity and you were asking for nullity, it's a fact of
life as of today, as you speak today that there is no more functional marital life between the two (2) of
you?
A. You see, your Honor, that's why we're different. Her style is conclude and conclude. I have a
different style because of my background. I will only stop till death. I cannot share her legal counsel's
statement with my own thinking, your Honor.
Even the psychiatrist Dr. Villegas pinpointed the differences of the estranged couple which led to
squabbles -
ATTY. STA. MARIA, JR.:
Q. Doctor, from your examination of both respondent and petitioner the obligation of trust and respect
for each other, how did it not manifest in this relationship?
A.The respondent [sees] the petitioner as one who's very negativistic on him or who's very demanding
and who is also trying to put him down because according to him, the petitioner would always see his
weak points rather than his strong points.
Q. Are you saying that this developed a non-trust just between them?
A None trust. They do not trust each other anymore.1âwphi1 On the part of the petitioner, because of
his womanizing activities and on the part of the respondent, that the petitioner is always looking at his
weak points rather than his strong points.
It is significant to note that Marivi failed to substantiate Nilo's penchant for womanizing as a
manifestation of his psychological incapacity. Aside from her bare allegations, which were chiefly based
on what other people told her, she never presented irrefutable proof to corroborate her claims of his
sexual proclivities, i.e., that these proclivities were already existing before the marriage and during the
first years of their marriage. Nilo, on the other hand, categorically admitted to having extramarital
affairs in 1992, 2002, and 2006, the period when the marriage was already on the rocks. Neither is
there evidence of Nilo's alleged oedipal complex, the manifestations of which were not cited by the
experts, that caused the couple to fall out of love.
Anent Marivi's case, based on her family history as reflected in the experts' clinical evaluation, she grew
up in a well-functioning, supportive, and emotionally healthy family environment. Even Nilo himself
attested that she was a good wife and a good mother to their children. Her demand for attention, time,
love, and fidelity is normal for a wife. The anger she felt within her is also a legitimate reaction.
Yet the psychologist Dr. Encarnacion himself acknowledged that Marivi's so-called psychological
incapacity is in fact, curable. Thus:
ATTY. REVILLA:
Q. So even without the respondent, Nilo Cruz, petitioner would still be psychologically incapacitated?
A. I beg to [differ]: from that because the needs were not fulfilled in this particular marriage, it's like a
tendency to have cancer, but if you take care of yourself with the right environment, you will not catch
cancer. Those were previous positions, that's why I called them Histrionic Personality Traits Behaviors
and Features not a full blown Histrionic Personality Disorder, the needs were badly unfulfilled in this
marriage because she married a man who did not know the language of feeling of showing some
attention towards his spouse, meaning, if she is put in a relationship with a man who is able to address
these needs, she would be better, she would be better in a marriage.
Q. So this psychological incapacity of the petitioner is only dormant at
the time that she was not yet married?
A. Well, it's grave ...
Q. Was it grave already at the time ...
A. Yes, it is, it's grave but. ..
Q. Even before the marriage?
A. ... but not incurable, that is the only adjective, grave, pre-existing ...
Q. Pre-existing?
A. Grave and pre-existing, yes, incurable, no, in the sense that if she married properly if her needs were
addressed, it would not appear in that marriage.
Q. But because of her marriage to the respondent, are you saying now that her psychological incapacity
now…
A. Became an incapacity, yes
Q. ... became incurable?
A. No.
Q. Okay. I am quite curious about the curability of the personality disorder of the petitioner. Now, if her
needs are satisfied with ... in case, assuming the petitioner enters into another relationship and her
needs are satisfied then her incapacity is cured, is that what you're saying?
A. In effect, yes, in effect, yes.
Q. Would you say, what are these needs of the petitioner that [you're] ... not satisfied of the
respondent?
A. Need to be paid attention to, need to be valued, need to have an effect on someone, it is a universal
need. She was made to feel that she did not have any effect on him and so are the children, x x x well,
the father made the children feel that they, wife and two sons did not have any effect on him, ma'am.
Q. One last question. The needs of the petitioner, like you say, do you think she was able to convey,
clearly convey her needs to the respondent, properly convey?
A. Very clearly, yes, and then when they were still not being heard, well, iyon na nga eh, yung
hostility niya and resentment would get the better of her as a ano ... so it would become dysfunctional
reaction upon reaction. That's a good question.74
 P e r s o n s a n d F a m i l y R e l a t i o n s ( P s y c h o l o g i c a l I n c a p a c i t y ) S e p t e m b e r 2 6 P a g e | 13
Upon the view we take of this case, thus, this Court believes that the protagonists in this case are
in reality simply unwilling to work out a solution for each other's personality differences, and have
thus become overwhelmed by feelings of disappointment or disillusionment toward one another.
Sadly, a marriage, even if unsatisfactory, is not a null and void marriage. 75
WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
November 14, 2016
G.R. No. 203284
NICOLAS S. MATUDAN, Petitioner,
vs.
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES and MARILYN** B. MATUDAN, Respondents.
DECISION
DEL CASTILLO, J.:
This Petition for Review on Certiorari1seeks to set aside the January 31, 2012 Decision2 and August
23, 2012 Resolution3 of the Court of Appeals (CA) denying the Petition in CA·G.R. CV No. 95392
and the Motion for Reconsideration,4 thus affirming the December 18, 2009 Decision5 of the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, Branch 94, in Civil Case No. Q-08-62827.
Factual Antecedents
Petitioner Nicolas S, Matudan (petitioner) and respondent Marilyn B. Matudan (Marilyn) were
married in Laoang, Northern Samar on October 26, 1976. They had four children.
In 1985, Marilyn left to work abroad. From then on, petitioner and the children lost contact with
her; she had not been seen nor heard from again. Twenty-three years later, or on June 20, 2008,
petitioner filed a Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage, 6docketed as Civil Case No. Q-08-
62827 with the RTC of Quezon City, Branch 94. Petitioner alleged that before, during, and after his
marriage to Marilyn, the latter was psychologically incapable of fulfilling her obligations as a wife
and mother; that she consistently neglected and failed to provide petitioner and her children with
the necessary emotional and financial care, support, and sustenance, and even so after leaving for
work abroad; that based on expert evaluation conducted by Clinical Psychologist Nedy L. Tayag
(Dr. Tayag), Marilyn's psychological incapacity is grave, permanent, and incurable; that petitioner's
consent to the marriage was obtained by Marilyn through misrepresentation as she concealed her
condition from him; and that Marilyn is "not ready for a lasting and pennanent commitment like
marriage"7 as she "never (gave) him and their children financial and emotional support x x x and
for being selfish through their six (6) years of cohabitation;"8 that Marilyn became "so despicably
irresponsible as she has not shown love and care upon her husband, x x x and that she cannot
properly and morally take on the responsibility of a loving and caring wife
The Republic of the Philippines (Republic), through the Office of the Solicitor General, opposed the
Petition.
The Quezon City Office of the City Prosecutor having determined that there is no collusion
between the parties, proceedings were conducted in due course. However, trial proceeded in
Marilyn's absence.
Apart from the testimonies of the petitioner, his daughter Maricel B. Matudan (Maricel), and Dr.
Tayag, the following documents were submitted in evidence:
1. Petitioner's Judicial Affidavit10 (Exhibit "A") which was adopted as his testimony on direct
examination;
2. The Judicial Aftidavit11 of Maricel (Exhibit "D"), which was adopted as part of her testimony on
direct examination;
3. The Sworn Affidavit12 of Dr. Tayag (Exhibit "B"), which was considered part of her testimony on
direct examination;
4. Dr. Tayag's evaluation report entitled "A Report on the Psychological Condition of NICOLAS T.
MATUDAN, the petitioner for Nullity of Marriage against respondent MARILYN BORJA-
MATUDAN''13(Exhibit "C"); and
5. Other relevant evidence, such as petitioner's marriage contract/certificate and respective birth
certificates of his children, and a Letter/Notice, with Registry Return Receipt, sent by Dr. Tayag to
Marilyn requesting evaluation/interview relative to petitioner's desire to file a petition for
declaration of nullity of their marriage (Exhibits "E" to "G").
Ruling of the Regional Trial Court
On December 18, 2009, the RTC issued its Decision14 dismissing the Petition in Civil Case No. Q-
08-62827 on the ground that petitioner's evidence failed to sufficiently prove Marilyn's claimed
psychological incapacity. It held, thus:
Petitioner, his daughter Maricel Matudan and psychologist Nedy L. Tayag testified. Petitioner
offered in evidence Exhibits "A" to ''G" which were admitted by the Court.
The State and the respondent did not present any evidence.
From the testimonial and documentary evidence of the petitioner, the Court gathered the
following:
Petitioner and respondent were roamed on October 26, 1976 x x x. They begot four (4) children x
x x. Petitioner and respondent lived together with their children. On June 25, 1985, petitioner
asked respondent [sic] for permission to work and left the conjugal dwelling. Since then she was
never heard of [sic]. Respondent never communicated with the petitioner and her children.
Petitioner inquired from the relatives of the respondent but they did not tell him her whereabouts.
In his Affidavit which was considered as his direct testimony, petitioner claimed that respondent
failed to perform her duties as a wife to him. Respondent never gave petitioner and their children
financial and emotional support, love and care during their cohabitation. She was irresponsible,
immature and exhibited irrational behavior towards petitioner and their children. She was self-
centered, had no remorse and involved herself in activities defying social and moral ethics.
On cross-examination, petitioner testified that he and the respondent had a happy married life and
they never had a fight. The only reason why he filed this case was because respondent abandoned
him and their children.
Maricel Matudan was only two (2) years old when respondent left them. She corroborated the
testimony of the petitioner that since respondent left the conjugal dwelling she never provided
financial support to the family and never communicated with them. Nedy L. Tayag, Psychologist,
testified on the 'Report on the Psychological Condition of Nicolas Matudan' which she prepared
(Exhibit "C''). She subjected petitioner to psychological test and interview. She likewise interviewed
Maricel Matudan. She came up with the findings that petitioner is suffering from Passive-
Aggressive Personality Disorder and respondent has Narcissistic Personality Disorder with
 P e r s o n s a n d F a m i l y R e l a t i o n s ( P s y c h o l o g i c a l I n c a p a c i t y ) S e p t e m b e r 2 6 P a g e | 14
Antisocial Traits. The features of petitioner's disorder are the following: negativistic attitude,
passive resistance, lacks the ability to assert his opinions and has great difficulty expressing his
feelings. The root cause of his personality condition can be attributed to his being an abandoned
child. At a young age, his parents separated and he was left in the custody of his paternal
grandmother. He lacked a support system and felt rejected. He developed a strong need for
nurturance, love and attention and that he would do anything to attain such. As for respondent,
the manifestation of her disorder are as follows: Preoccupation with pursuing matters that would
make her happy; has a high sense of self-importance; wants to have her way and disregards her
husband's opinions; lacks empathy; wants to have a good life.
Her personality condition is rooted on her unhealthy familial environment. She came from an
impoverished family. Her parents were more pre-occupied with finding ways to make ends meet to
such extent that they failed to give adequate attention and emotional support to their children.
Ms. Tayag further testified that the psychological condition of the parties are grave and
characterized by juridical antecedence as the same already existed before they got married, their
disorders having been in existence since their childhood years are permanent and severe.
The sole issue to be resolved is whether x x x respondent is psychologically incapacitated to
perform her marital obligations under Article 36 of the Family Code.
Article 36 of the Family Code as amended, states:
'A marriage contracted by any party who at the time of the celebration, was psychologically
incapacitated to comply with the essential marital obligations of marriage, shall likewise be void
even if such incapicity becomes manifest only after its solemnization.'
Article 68 of the same Code provides:
'The husband and wife are obliged to live together, observe mutual love, respect and fidelity, and
render mutual help and support.'
In the case of Leouel Santos vs. Court of Appeals, January 4, 1995, G.R. No. 112019, the
Honorable Supreme Court held:
'Justice Alicia Sempio Dy, in her commentaries on the Family Code cites with approval the work of
Dr. Gerardo Veloso a former Presiding Judge of the Metropolitan Marriage Tribunal of the Catholic
Archdiocese of Manila x x x, who opines that psychological incapacity must be characterized by (a)
gravity, (b) juridical antecedence and (c) incurability. The incapacity must be grave or serious such
that the party would be incapable of carrying out the ordinary duties required in marriage; it must
be rooted in the history of the party antedating the marriage although the overt manifestations
may emerge only after the marriage; and it must be incurable or even if it were otherwise, the
cure would be beyond the means of the party involved. For psychological incapacity however to be
appreciated, the same must be serious, grave and 'so permanent as to deprive one of awareness
of the duties and responsibilities of the matrimonial bond one is about to assume.' x x x.
In the case of Santos, it was also held that 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.'
It must be emphasized that the cause of action of petitioner is the alleged psychological incapacity
of the respondent. During the pre-trial, the sole issue raised is whether or not respondent is
psychologically incapacitated to perform her marital obligations under Article 36 of the Family
Code. The alleged personality disorder of the petitioner is clearly not an issue in this case.
Prescinding from the foregoing, the Court finds that the totality of the evidence adduced by
petitioner has not established the requisites of gravity, juridical antecedence and incurability.
Again, it must be emphasized that this petition was filed on the ground of the psychological
incapacity of respondent and not the petitioner.
Respondent is said to be suffering from Narcissistic Personality Disorder with antisocial traits. The
salient features of her disorder were enumerated by Nedy Tayag in her report as follows: pre-
occupation with pursuing matters that would make her happy; has a high sense of self-
importance; wants to have her way and disregards her husband's opinions; lacks empathy; wants
to have a good life. Her personality disorder is considered permanent, grave and incurable. It has
its root cause in her unhealthy familial environment during her early developmental years.
In petitions for declaration of marriage (sic), the testimony of the petitioner as to the physical
manifestation of the psychological incapacity is of utmost importance. Unfortunately, petitioner's
testimony particularly his affidavit which was considered as his direct examination contained only
general statements on the supposed manifestations of respondent's incapacity. Respondent was
described therein as irresponsible, immature, self -centered, lacks remorse, got involved with
activities defying social and moral ethics. Petitioner however miserably failed to expound on these
allegations. In fact during his cross-examination, he even contradicted the allegations in his
petition and affidavit. He clearly stated that he had a happy marital relationship with the
respondent and never had a fight with her (TSN, December 5, 2008, page 8). Petitioner harped on
the abandonment of respondent. He even admitted that this the [sic] only reason why he wants
their marriage dissolved (TSN, December 5, 2008, page 9). Abandonment of spouse however is
not psychological incapacity. It is only a ground for legal separation.
Petitions for declaration of nullity of marriage are sui generis, the allegations therein must be
supported by clear and convincing evidence that would warrant the dissolution of the marriage
bond. Absent such proof, the Court will uphold the validity of the marriage for 'the rule is settled
that every intendment of the law or fact leans toward the validity of marriage, the indissolubility of
the marriage bond.' (Sevilla v. Cardenas, G.R. No. 167684, July 31, 2006). In a petition for
declaration of nullity of marriage, the burden of proof to show the nullity of the marriage is on the
petitioner.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition is dismissed for insufficiency of evidence.
SO ORDERED.15
Petitioner moved to reconsider, 16 but in a May 12, 2010 Order,17 the RTC held its ground
reiterating its pronouncement that petitioner failed to demonstrate Marilyn's psychological
incapacity, and that the petition is anchored merely on Marilyn's abandonment of the marriage and
family, which by itself is not equivalent to psychological incapacity.
Ruling of the Court of Appeals
Petitioner filed an appeal before the CA, docketed as CA-G.R CV No. 95392. However, in its
assailed January 31, 2012 Decision, the CA instead affirmed the RTC judgment, declaring thus:
Petitioner-appellant asserts that the ETC should not have denied the petition for declaration of
nullity of his marriage to Marilyn x x x. He maintains that, contrary to the conclusion reached by
the trial court, he was able to establish by the quantum of evidence required, the claimed
psychological incapacity of his wife.
 P e r s o n s a n d F a m i l y R e l a t i o n s ( P s y c h o l o g i c a l I n c a p a c i t y ) S e p t e m b e r 2 6 P a g e | 15
The argument of Nicolas R. Matudan fails to persuade Us.
Verily, instead or substantiating the alleged psychological incapacity his wife, petitioner-appellant
revealed during his cross examination that it was actually his wife's act of abandoning the family
that led him to seek the nullification of their marriage. In fact, during his cross-examination, he
readily admitted that they were happily married and that they never engaged in bickering with
each other.
Q: But how would you describe your marital relations [sic]? Were there moments that you were happy
with your wife?
A: Yes, ma' am, that is why we begot four children.
COURT
And so, you so you [sic] had a happy married life then?
FISCAL
I would presume that you had a happy married life, how come your wife just left you like that? Do you
have any idea why your wife just left you like that?
A: She did not communicate with us to tell her whereabouts.
Q: Did you ever have a fight with your wife?
A: None, ma'am.
COURT
All right, you stated in this Affidavit that you are filing this case for the declaration of nullity of marriage
because of the psychological incapacity of your wife, what do you mean by that?
WITNESS
'Pinabayaan lang kmning pamilya niya, hindi naman niya sinasabi kung saan siya hahanapin.' She did
not inform us of her whereabouts.
COURT
Is that the only reason why you want your marriage with her dissolved?
WITNESS
Yes, your honor.
As correctly observed by the RTC, abandonment by a spouse, by itself, however, does not warrant
a finding of psychological incapacity within the contemplation of the Family Code. It must be
shown that such abandonment is a manifestation of a disordered personality which makes the
spouse concerned completely unable to discharge the essential obligations of the marital state.
Indeed, the term 'psychological incapacity' to be a ground for the nullity of marriage under Article
36 of the Family Code, refers to a serious psychological illness afflicting a party even before the
celebration of the marriage. Psychological incapacity must refer to no less than a mental not
physical) incapacity that causes a party to be truly incognitive of the basic marital covenants that
concomitantly must be assumed and discharged by the parties to the marriage.
In Republic v. Court of Appeals and Rorodel Glaviano Molina, the following definitive guidelines
were laid down in resolving petitions for declaration of nullity of marriage, based on Article 36 of
the Family Code:
(1) The burden of proof to show the nullity of the marriage belongs to the plaintiff: Any doubt
should be resolved in favor of the existence and continuation of the marriage and against its
dissolution and nullity.
(2) The root cause of the psychological incapacity must be: (a) medically or clinically identified, (b)
alleged in the complaint, (c) sufficiently proven by experts and (d) clearly explained in the decision.
(3) Tue incapacity must be proven to be existing at 'the time of the celebration' of the marriage,
(4) Such incapacity must also be shown to be medically or clinically permanent or incurable.
(5) Such illness must be grave enough to bring about the disability of the party to assume the
essential obligations of marriage.
(6) The essential marital obligations must be those embraced by Articles 68 up to 71 of the Family
Code as regards the husband and wife as well as Articles 220, 221 and 225 of the same Code in
regard to parents and their children.
(7) Interpretations given by the National Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal of the Catholic Church in the
Philippines, while not controlling or decisive, should be given great respect by our courts.
(8) The trial court must order the prosecuting attorney or fiscal and the Solicitor General to appear
as counsel for the state. No decision shall be handed down unless the Solicitor General issues a
certification, which will be quoted in the decision, briefly stating therein his reasons for his
agreement or opposition, as the case may be, to the petition.
These Guidelines incorporate the basic requirements established in Santos v. Court of Appeals that
psychological incapacity must be characterized by: (a) gravity; (b) juridical antecedence; and (c)
incurability. These requisites must be strictly complied with, as the grant of a petition for nu1lity of
marriage based on psychological incapacity must be confined only to the most serious cases of
personality disorders clearly demonstrative of an utter insensitivity or inability to give meaning and
significance to the marriage. Using the above standards, We find the totality of the petitioner-
appellant's evidence insufficient to prove that the respondent-appellee is psychologically unfit to
discharge the duties expected of her as a wife.
Just like his own statements and testimony, the assessment and finding of the clinical psychologist
cannot be relied upon to substantiate the petitioner-appellant's theory of the psychological
incapacity of his wife. It bears stressing that Marilyn never participated in the proceedings below.
The clinical psychologist's evaluation of the respondent-appellee's condition was based mainly on
the information supplied by her husband, the petitioner, and to some extent from their daughter,
Maricel. It is noteworthy, however, that Maricel was only around two (2) years of age at the time
the respondent left and therefore cannot be expected to know her mother well. Also, Maricel
would not have been very reliable as a witness in an Article 36 case because she could not have
been there when the spouses were married and could not have been expected to know what was
happening between her parents until long after her birth. On the other hand; as the petitioning
spouse, Nicolas' description of Marilyn's nature would certainly be biased, and a psychological
evaluation based on this one-sided description can hardly be considered as credible. The ruling
in Jocelyn Suazo v.Angelita Suazo, et al., is illuminating on this score:
We first note a critical factor in appreciating or evaluating the expert opinion evidence - the
psychologist's testimony and the psychological evaluation report - that Jocelyn presented. Based
on her declarations in open court, the psychologist evaluated Angelito's psychological condition
only in an indirect manner - she derived all her conclusions from information coming from Jocelyn
whose bias for her cause cannot of course be doubted. Given the source of the information upon
which the psychologist heavily relied upon, the court must evaluate the evidentiary worth of the
opinion with due care and with the application of the more rigid and stringent set of standards
outlined above, i.e., that there must be a thorough and in-depth assessment of the parties by the
psychologist or expert, for a conclusive diagnosis of a psychological incapacity that is grave, severe
and incurable.
From these perspectives, we conclude that the psychologist, using meager information coming
from a directly interested party, could not have secured a complete personality profile and could
not have conclusively formed an objective opinion or diagnosis of Angelita's psychological
 P e r s o n s a n d F a m i l y R e l a t i o n s ( P s y c h o l o g i c a l I n c a p a c i t y ) S e p t e m b e r 2 6 P a g e | 16
condition. While the report or evaluation may be conclusive with respect to Jocelyn's psychological
condition, this is not true for Angelito's. The methodology employed simply cannot satisfy the
required depth and comprehensiveness of examination required to evaluate a party alleged to be
suffering from a psychological disorder. In short, this is not the psychological report that the Court
can rely on as basis for the conclusion that psychological incapacity exists. In the earlier case of
Rowena Padilla-Rumbaua v. Edward Rumbaua, it was similarly declared that '[t]o make
conclusions and generalizations on the respondent's psychological condition based on the
information fed by only one side is, to our mind, not different from admitting hearsay evidence as
proof of the truthfulness of the content of such evidence.'
At any rate, We find the report prepared by the clinical psychologist on the psychological condition
of the respondent-appellee to be insufficient to warrant the conclusion that a psychological
incapacity existed that prevented Marilyn from complying with the essential obligations of
marriage. In said report, Dr. Tayag merely concluded that Marilyn suffers from Narcissistic
Personality Disorder with antisocial traits on the basis of what she perceives as manifestations of
the same. The report neither explained the incapacitating nature of the alleged disorder, nor
showed that the respondent-appellee was really incapable of fulfilling her duties due to some
incapacity of a psychological, not physical, nature.
Dr. Tayag's testimony during her cross-examination as well as her statements in the Sworn Affidavit are
no different.
When asked to explain the personality disorder of Marilyn, Dr. Tayag simply replied:
Q: On her case you assessed her as, likewise, suffering from a personality disorder characterized by
Narcissistic Personality Disorder with Anti-Social Trait. Will you please tell to the Court what do you
mean by that personality disorder?
A: In layman's term, once you are being labeled as a narcissistic [sic], this is a person whose
preoccupation are all toward his own self satisfaction both materially or emotionally at the expense of
somebody. They have what you called [sic] strong sense of entitlement thinking that she can get away
whatever [sic] she wants to in pursuit of her own satisfaction at the expense of somebody. And this is
what happened to the respondent. She gave more consideration to her own satisfaction material wise at
the expense of social embarrassment of the children because of what happened to her.
On the other hand, in her Sworn Affidavit, Dr. Tayag stated:
7. Without a doubt, Marilyn is suffering from a form of personality disorder that rooted [sic] the
downfall of their marriage. As based on the DSM-IV, respondent's behavioral disposition fits with
individuals with NARCISSISTIC PERSONALITY DISORDER with Anti-social traits, as characterized
by her disregard for and violation of the rights of others as well as her failure to conform to social
norms with respect to lawful behaviors as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are clearly
immoral and socially despised. Such is also depicted through his [sic] deceitfulness, as indicated by
repeated lying and conning methods she used upon others in order to achieve personal profit or
pleasure. In addition, her consistent irresponsibility, as indicated by her repeated failure to sustain
consistent work behavior or honor financial obligations and her lack of remorse, as indicated by
being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another. x x x. And
such condition is considered to [sic] grave, severe, long lasting and incurable by any treatment
available.
Accordingly, even if We assume that Marilyn is really afflicted with Narcissistic Personality Disorder
with anti-social traits, in the absence of any showing that the same actually incapacitated her from
fulfilling her essential marital obligations, such disorder cannot be a valid basis for declaring
Nicolas' marriage to Marilyn as null and void under Article 36 of the Family Code. To be sure,
jurisprudence has declared that not every psychological illness/disorder/condition is a ground for
declaring the marriage a nullity under Article 36. '[T]he meaning of 'psychological incapacity' [is
confined] to the most serious cases of personality disorders clearly demonstrative of an utter
insensitivity or inability to give meaning and significance to the marriage.'
All told, We find that no reversible error was committed by the trial court in rendering its assailed
Decision:
WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is DENIED. The assailed Decision of the Regional Trial Court of
Quezon City, Branch 94, in Civil Case No. Q-08-62827, is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.18 (Citations omitted)
Petitioner moved for reconsideration, but in its assailed August 23, 2012 Resolution, the CA stood
its ground. Hence, the instant Petition. In a November 19, 2014 Resolution,19 this Court resolved
to give due course to the Petition.
Issue
Petitioner mainly questions the CA's appreciation of the case, insisting that he was able to prove
Marilyn's psychological incapacity.
Petitioner's Arguments
In his Petition and Reply,20 petitioner argues that contrary to the CA's findings, he was able to
prove Marilyn's psychological incapacity which is rooted in Dr. Tayag's diagnosis that she was
suffering from Narcissistic Personality Disorder which existed even before their marriage, and
continued to subsist thereafter; that her illness is grave, serious, incurable, and permanent as to
render her incapable of assuming her marriage obligations; that the nullification of his marriage to
Marilyn is not an affront to the institutions of marriage and family, but will actually protect the
sanctity thereof because in effect, it will discourage individuals with psychological disorders that
prevent them from assuming marital obligations from remaining in the sacred bond;21 that the
issue of whether psychological incapacity exists as a ground to nullify one's marriage is a legal
question; and that the totality of his evidence and Marilyn's failure to refute the same despite due
notice demonstrate that he is entitled to a declaration of nullity on the ground of psychological
incapacity.
Respondent's Arguments
In its Comment22 praying for denial, the Republic argues that the Petition calls for an evaluation of
facts, thus violating the rule that a petition for review on certiorari should be confined to legal
questions. Citing Perez-Ferraris v. Ferraris,23which decrees as follows-
Tue issue of whether or not psychological incapacity exists in a given case calling for annulment of
marriage depends crucially, more than in any field of the law, on the facts of the case. Such
factual issue, however, is beyond the province of this Court to review. It is not the function of the
Court to analyze or weigh all over again the evidence or premises supportive of such factual
determination. It is a well-established principle that factual findings of the trial court, when
affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are binding on this Court, save for the most compelling and
cogent reasons, like when the findings of the appellate court go beyond the issues of the case, run
contrary to the admissions of the parties to the case, or fail to notice certain relevant facts which,
if properly considered, will justify a different conclusion; or when there is a misappreciation of
facts, which are unavailing in the instant case. (Citations omitted)
the State argues that the instant case should be dismissed instead.
 P e r s o n s a n d F a m i l y R e l a t i o n s ( P s y c h o l o g i c a l I n c a p a c i t y ) S e p t e m b e r 2 6 P a g e | 17
The public respondent adds that allegations and proof of irresponsibility, immaturity, selfishness,
indifference, and abandonment of the family do not automatically justify a conclusion of
psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code; that the intent of the law is to
confine the meaning of psychological incapacity to the most serious cases of personality disorders
- existing at the time of the marriage - clearly demonstrating an utter insensitivity or inability to
give meaning and significance to the marriage, and depriving the spouse of awareness of the
duties and responsibilities of the marital bond he/she is about to assume; that petitioner failed to
show how each of Marilyn's claimed negative traits affected her ability to perform her essential
marital obligations; that the supposed psychological evaluation of Marilyn was in fact based on the
one-sided, self-serving, and biased information supplied by petitioner and Maricel - which renders
the same unreliable and without credibility; that petitioner's real reason for seeking nullification is
Marilyn's abandonment of the family; and that all in all, petitioner failed to prove the gravity,
juridical antecedence, and incurability of Marilyn's claimed psychological incapacity.
Our Ruling
The Court denies the Petition.
The landmark case of Santos v. Court of Appeals24taught us that psychological incapacity under
Article 36 of the Family Code must be characterized by (a) gravity, (b) juridical antecedence, and
(c) incurability. Thus, the incapacity "must be grave or serious such that the party would be
incapable of carrying out the ordinary duties required in marriage; it must be rooted in the history
of the party antedating the marriage, although the overt manifestations may emerge only after
marriage; and it must be incurable or, even if it were otherwise, the cure would be beyond the
means of the party involved."25 In this connection, the burden of proving psychological incapacity
is on the petitioner, pursuant to Republic v. Court of Appeals,26or the Molina case.
The foregoing pronouncements in Santos and Molina have remained as the precedential guides in
deciding cases grounded on the psychological incapacity of a spouse. But the Court has declared
the existence or absence of the psychological incapacity based strictly on the facts of each case
and not on a priori assumptions, predilections or generalizations. Indeed, the incapacity should be
established by the totality of evidence presented during trial, making it incumbent upon the
petitioner to sufficiently prove the existence of the psychological incapacity. Both the trial and
appellate courts dismissed the petition in Civil Case No. Q-08-62827 on the ground that the totality
of petitioner's evidence failed to sufficiently prove that Marilyn was psychologically unfit to enter
marriage - in short, while petitioner professed psychological incapacity, he could not establish its
gravity, juridical antecedence, and incurability.
The Court agrees.
Petitioner's evidence consists mainly of his judicial affidavit and testimony; the judicial affidavits
and testimonies of his daughter Maricel and Dr. Tayag; and Dr. Tayag's psychological evaluation
report on the psychological condition both petitioner and Marilyn. The supposed evaluation of
Marilyn's psychological condition was based solely on petitioner's account, since Marilyn did not
participate in the proceedings.
Indeed, "[w]hat is important is the presence of evidence that can adequately establish the party's
psychological condition."28 "[T]he complete facts should allege the physical manifestations, if any,
as are indicative of psychological incapacity at the time of the celebration of the marriage."
Petitioner's judicial affidavit and testimony during trial, however, fail to show gravity and juridical
antecedence. While he complained that Marilyn lacked a sense of guilt and was involved in
"activities defying social and moral ethics,"30 and that she was, among others, irrational,
irresponsible, immature, and self-centered, he nonetheless failed to sufficiently and particularly
elaborate on these allegations, particularly the degree of Marilyn's claimed irresponsibility,
immaturity, or selfishness. This is compounded by the fact that petitioner contradicted his own
claims by testifying that he and Marilyn were happily married and never had a fight, which is why
they begot four children; and the only reason for his filing Civil Case No. Q-08-62827 was Marilyn's
complete abandonment of the marriage and family when she left to work abroad.
'Psychological incapacity,' as a ground to nullify a marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code,
should refer to no less than a mental-- not merely physical - incapacity that causes a party to be
truly incognitive of the basic marital covenants that concomitantly must be assumed and
discharged by the parties to the marriage which, as so expressed in Article 68 of the Family Code,
among others, include their mutual obligations to live together, observe love, respect and fidelity
and render help and support. There is hardly any doubt that 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. If any, petitioner's accusations against Marilyn are untrue, at the
very least. At most, they fail to sufficiently establish the degree of Marilyn's claimed psychological
incapacity. On the other hand, Maricel cannot be of help either. She was only two years old when
Marilyn left the family. Growing up, she may have seen the effects of Marilyn's abandonment -
such as the lack of emotional and financial support; but she could not have any idea of her
mother's claimed psychological incapacity, as well as the nature, history, and gravity thereof.
Just as well, Dr. Tayag's supposed expert findings regarding Marilyn's psychological condition were
not based on actual tests or interviews conducted upon Marilyn herself; they are based on the
personal accounts of petitioner. This fact gave more significance and importance to petitioner's
other pieces of evidence, which could have compensated for the deficiency in the expert opinion
which resulted from its being based solely on petitioner's one-sided account. But since these other
pieces of evidence could not be relied upon, Dr. Tayag's testimony and report must fail as well. In
one decided case with a similar factual backdrop and involving the very same expert witness, this
Court held:
It is worth noting that Glenn and Mary Grace lived with each other for more or less seven years
from 1999 to 2006. The foregoing established fact shows that living together as spouses under
one roof is not an impossibility. Mary Grace's departure from their home in 2006 indicates either a
refusal or mere difficulty, but not absolute inability to comply with her obligation to live with her
husband.
Further, considering that Mary Grace was not personally examined by Dr. Tayag, there arose a
greater burden to present more convincing evidence to prove the gravity, juridical antecedence
and incurability of the former's condition. Glenn, however, failed in this respect. Glenn's testimony
is wanting in material details. Rodelito, on the other hand, is a blood relative of Glenn. Glenn's
statements are hardly objective. Moreover, Glenn and Rodelito both referred to MaryGrace's traits
and acts, which she exhibited during the marriage. Hence, there is nary a proof on the
antecedence of Mary Grace's alleged incapacity. Glenn even testified that, six months before they
got married, they saw each other almost everyday. Glenn saw "a loving[,] caring and well[-]
educated person" in Mary Grace.
 P e r s o n s a n d F a m i l y R e l a t i o n s ( P s y c h o l o g i c a l I n c a p a c i t y ) S e p t e m b e r 2 6 P a g e | 18
Anent Dr. Tayag's assessment of Mary Grace's condition, the Court finds the same as
unfounded. Rumbaua provides some guidelines on how the courts should evaluate the testimonies
of psychologists or psychiatrists in petitions for the declaration of nullity of marriage, viz.:
We' cannot help but note that Dr. Tayag's conclusions about the respondent's psychological
incapacity were based on the information fed to her by only one side - the petitioner - whose bias
in favor of her cause cannot be doubted. While this circumstance alone does not disqualify the
psychologist for reasons of bias, her report, testimony and conclusions deserve the application of a
more rigid and stringent set of standards in the manner we discussed above. For, effectively, Dr.
Tayag only diagnosed the respondent from the prism of a third party account; she did not actually
hear, see and evaluate the respondent and how he would have reacted and responded to the
doctor's probes. Dr. Tayag, in her report, merely summarized the petitioner's narrations, and on
this basis characterized the respondent to be a self-centered, egocentric, and unremorseful person
who 'believes that the world revolves around him'; and who 'used love as a . . . deceptive tactic for
exploiting the confidence [petitioner] extended towards him.' x x x
We find these observations and conclusions insufficiently in-depth and comprehensive to warrant
the conclusion that a psychological incapacity existed that prevented the respondent from
complying with the essential obligations of marriage. It failed to identify the root cause of the
respondent's narcissistic personality disorder and to prove that it existed at the inception of the
marriage. Neither did it explain the incapacitating nature of the alleged disorder, nor show that the
respondent was really incapable of fulfilling his duties due to some incapacity of a psychological,
not physical, nature. Thus, we cannot avoid but conclude that Dr. Tayag's conclusion in her Report
--i.e., that the respondent suffered 'Narcissistic Personality Disorder with traces of Antisocial
Personality Disorder declared to be grave and incurable' -is an unfounded statement, not a
necessary inference from her previous characterization and portrayal of the respondent. While the
various tests administered on the petitioner could have been used as a fair gauge to assess her
own psychological condition, this same statement cannot be made with respect to the
respondent's condition. To make conclusions and generalizations on the respondent's psychological
condition based on the information fed by only one side is, to our mind, not different from
admitting hearsay evidence as proof of the truthfulness of the content of such evidence.32
Finally, the identical rulings of the trial and appellate courts should be given due respect and
finality. This Court is not a trier of facts.
The issue of whether or not psychological inq1pacity exists in a given case calling for annulment of
marriage depends crucially, more than in any field of the law, on the facts of the case. Such
factual issue, however, is beyond the province of this Court to review. It is not the function of the
Court to analyze or weigh all over again the evidence or premises supportive of such factual
determination. It is a well-established principle that factual findings of the trial court, when
affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are binding on this Court, save for the most compelling and
cogent reasons x x x.33
With the foregoing disquisition, there is no need to resolve the other issues raised. They have
become irrelevant.
WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED. The January 31, 2012 Decision and August 23, 2012
Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 95392 are AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
G.R. No. 208790 January 21, 2015
GLENN VIÑAS, Petitioner,
vs.
MARY GRACE PAREL-VIÑAS, Respondent.
RESOLUTION
REYES, J.:
For review is the Decision1 rendered on January 29, 2013 and Resolution2 issued on August 7,
2013 by the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 96448. The CA set aside the Decision3 dated
January 29, 2010 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of San Pablo City, Branch 30, in Civil Case No.
SP-6564(09), which declared the marriage between Glenn Vifias (Glenn) and Mary Grace Parel-
Vifias (Mary Grace) as null and void.
Antecedents
On April 26, 1999, Glenn and Mary Grace, then 25 and 23 years old, respectively, got married in
civil rites held in Lipa City, Batangas.4 Mary Grace was already pregnant then. The infant, however,
died at birth due to weakness and malnourishment. Glenn alleged that the infant’s death was
caused by Mary Grace’s heavy drinking and smoking during her pregnancy.
The couple lived together under one roof. Glenn worked as a bartender, while Mary Grace was a
production engineer. Sometime in March of 2006, Mary Grace left the home which she shared with
Glenn. Glenn subsequently found out that Mary Grace went to work in Dubai. At the time the
instant petition was filed, Mary Grace had not returned yet.
On February 18, 2009, Glenn filed a Petition5 for the declaration of nullity of his marriage with
Mary Grace.He alleged that Mary Grace was insecure, extremely jealous, outgoing and prone to
regularly resorting to any pretext to be able to leave the house. She thoroughly enjoyed the night
life, and drank and smoked heavily even whenshe was pregnant. Further, Mary Grace refused to
perform even the most essential household chores of cleaning and cooking. According to Glenn,
Mary Grace had not exhibited the foregoing traits and behavior during their whirlwind courtship. 6
Glenn likewise alleged that Mary Grace was not remorseful about the death of the infant whom
she delivered. She lived as if she were single and was unmindful of her husband’s needs. She was
self-centered, selfish and immature. When Glenn confronted her about her behavior, she showed
indifference. She eventually left their home without informing Glenn. Glenn later found out that
she left for an overseas employment in Dubai.7
Before Glenn decided to file a petition for the declaration of nullity of his marriage with Mary
Grace, he consulted the latter’s friends. They informed him that Mary Grace came from a broken
family and was left to be cared for by her aunts and nannies. The foregoing circumstance must
have contributed to her sense of insecurity and difficulty in adjusting to married life. 8 To ease their
marital problems, Glenn sought professional guidance and submitted himself to a psychological
evaluation by Clinical Psychologist Nedy Tayag (Dr. Tayag). Dr. Tayag found him as "amply aware
of his marital roles" and "capable of maintaining a mature and healthy heterosexual relationship."9
On the other hand, Dr. Tayag assessed Mary Grace’s personality through the data she had
gathered from Glenn and his cousin, Rodelito Mayo (Rodelito), who knew Mary Graceway back in
college.
Mary Grace is the eldest among four siblings. She is a college graduate. She belongs to a middle
class family. Her father is an overseas contract worker, while her mother is a housewife. At the
time Dr. Tayag prepared her report, Mary Grace was employed in Dubai and romantically involved
 P e r s o n s a n d F a m i l y R e l a t i o n s ( P s y c h o l o g i c a l I n c a p a c i t y ) S e p t e m b e r 2 6 P a g e | 19
10
with another man. According to Rodelito, Mary Grace verbally abused and physically harmed
Glenn during the couple’s fights. Mary Grace is also ill-tempered and carefree, while Glenn is jolly,
kind and family-oriented.11
Dr. Tayag diagnosed Mary Grace to be suffering from a Narcissistic Personality Disorder with anti-
social traits. Dr. Tayag concluded that Mary Grace and Glenn’s relationship is not founded on
mutual love, trust, respect, commitment and fidelity to each other. Hence, Dr. Tayag
recommended the propriety of declaring the nullity of the couple’s marriage. 12
In drawing her conclusions, Dr. Tayag explained that:
The said disorder [of Mary Grace] is considered to be severe, serious, grave, permanent and
chronic in proportion and is incurable by any form of clinical intervention. It has already been
deeply embedded within her system as it was found to have started as early as her childhood
years. Because of such, it has caused her to be inflexible, maladaptive and functionally[-]impaired
especially with regards to heterosexual dealings.
Such disorder of [Mary Grace]is mainly characterized by grandiosity, need for admiration and lack
of empathy[,] along with her pattern of disregard for and violation of the rights of others[,] which
utterly distorted her perceptions and views especially in terms of a fitting marital relationship. Such
disorder manifested in [Mary Grace] through her unrelenting apathy, sense of entitlement and
arrogance. Throughout her union with [Glenn], she has exhibited a heightened sense of self as
seen in her marked inability to show proper respect for her husband. x x x She is too headstrong
that most of the time[,] she would do things her own way and would not pay close attention to
what her husband needed. She had been a wife who constantly struggled for power and
dominance in their relationship and [Glenn], being too considerate to her, was often subjected to
her control.x x x She is into many vices and loved hanging out with her friends at night[,] and she
even got involved in an illicit relationship[,] which was still going on up to the present time. x x x.
The root cause of [Mary Grace’s]personality aberration can be said to have emanated from the
various forms of unfavorable factors in her milieu way back as early as her childhood years[,]
which is the crucial stage in the life of a person as thisis the time when the individual’s character
and behavior are shaped. [Mary Grace] came from a dysfunctional family with lenient and
tolerating parents[,] who never impose any restrictions [upon] their children. Considering such
fact, she apparently failed to feel the love and affection of the nurturing figures that she had[,]
who were supposed to bethe first to show concern [for] her. x x x She has acquired a domineering
character as she was not taught to have boundaries in her actions because of the laxity she had
from her caregivers and also because she grew up to be the eldest in the brood. She sees to it
that she is the one always followed with regards to making decisions and always mandates people
to submit to her wishes. She has not acquired the very essence of morality [and] has certainly
learned set of unconstructive traits that further made her too futile to assume mature roles. Morals
and values were not instilled in her young mind that as she went on with her life, she never
learned to restrain herself from doing ill-advised things even if she isamply aware of the depravity
of her actions. The psychological incapacity of [Mary Grace] is of a juridical antecedence as it was
already inher system even prior to the solemnization of her marriage with [Glenn]. x x
x.13 (Underlining ours) On February 18, 2009, Glenn filed before the RTC a Petition for the
Declaration of Nullity of his marriage with Mary Grace. Substituted service of summons was made
upon Mary Grace through her aunt, Susana Rosita.14 Mary Grace filed no answer and did not
attend any of the proceedings before the RTC.
During the trial, the testimonies of Glenn, Dr. Tayag and Rodelito were offered as evidence. Glenn
and Rodelito described Mary Grace as outgoing, carefree, and irresponsible. She is the exact
opposite of Glenn, who is conservative and preoccupied with his work. 15 On her part, Dr. Tayag
reiterated her findings in the psychological report dated December 29, 2008.
Ruling of the RTC
On January 29, 2010, the RTC rendered its Decision16 declaring the marriage between Glenn and
Mary Grace as null and void on account of the latter’s psychological incapacity. The RTC cited the
following as grounds:
The totality of the evidence presented by [Glenn] warrants [the] grant of the petition.
Reconciliation between the parties under the circumstances is nil. For the best interest of the
parties, it is best that the legal bond between them be severed. The testimonies of [Glenn] and his
witness [Rodelito] portray the miserable life [Glenn] had with [Mary Grace] who is a Narcissistic
Personality Disordered person with anti[-]social traits and who does not treat him as her husband.
[Glenn] and [Mary Grace] are separated in fact since the year 2006. [Mary Grace] abandoned
[Glenn] without telling the latter where to go. x x x Had it not for the insistence of[Glenn] that he
would not know the whereabouts of his wife. The law provides that [a] husband and [a] wife are
obliged to live together, [and] observe mutual love, respect and fidelity. x x x For all intents and
purposes, however, [Mary Grace] was in a quandary on what it really means. x x x.
From the testimony of [Glenn], it was established that [Mary Grace] failed to comply with the basic
marital obligations of mutual love, respect, mutual help and support. [Glenn] tried his best to have
their marriage saved but [Mary Grace] did not cooperate with him. [Mary Grace] is x x x,
unmindful of her marital obligations.
The Court has no reason to doubt the testimony of [Dr. Tayag], a clinical psychologist with
sufficient authority to speak on the subject of psychological incapacity. She examined [Glenn], and
was able to gather sufficient data and information about [Mary Grace]. x x x This [Narcissistic]
personality disorder of[Mary Grace] is ingrained in her personality make-up, so grave and so
permanent, incurable and difficult to treat. It is conclusive that this personal incapacity leading to
psychological incapacity is already pre-existing before the marriage and was only manifested after.
It has become grave, permanent and incurable.17 (Underlining ours and italics in the original) The
Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) moved for reconsideration but it was denied by the RTC in its
Order18dated December 1, 2010.
The Appeal of the OSG and the Ruling of the CA
On appeal before the CA, the OSG claimed that no competent evidence exist proving that Mary
Grace indeed suffers from a Narcissistic Personality Disorder, which prevents her from fulfilling her
marital obligations. Specifically, the RTC decision failed to cite the root cause of Mary Grace’s
disorder. Further, the RTC did not state its own findings and merely relied on Dr. Tayag’s
statements anent the gravity and incurability of Mary Grace’s condition. The RTC resorted to mere
generalizations and conclusions sansdetails. Besides, what psychological incapacity contemplates is
downright incapacity to assume marital obligations. In the instant case, irreconcilable differences,
sexual infidelity, emotional immaturity and irresponsibility were shown, but these do not warrant
the grant of Glenn’s petition. Mary Grace may be unwilling to assume her marital duties, but this
does not translate into a psychological illness.19
Glenn, on the other hand, sought the dismissal of the OSG’s appeal.
 P e r s o n s a n d F a m i l y R e l a t i o n s ( P s y c h o l o g i c a l I n c a p a c i t y ) S e p t e m b e r 2 6 P a g e | 20
On January 29, 2013, the CA rendered the herein assailed decision reversing the RTC ruling and "Article 36 of the Family Code requires that the incapacity must be psychological– not physical,
declaring the marriage between Glenn and Mary Grace as valid and subsisting. The CA stated the although its manifestations and/or symptoms may be physical. The evidence must convince the
reasons below: court that the parties, or one of them, was mentally or physically ill to such an extent that the
person could not have known the obligations he was assuming, or knowing them, could not have
In Santos vs. Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court held that "psychological incapacity" should
given valid assumption thereof. Although no example of such incapacity need be given here so as
refer to no less than a mental (not physical) incapacity that causes a party to be truly incognitive
not to limit the application of the provision under the principle of ejusdem generis x x x[,]
of the basic marital covenants that concomitantly must be assumed and discharged by the parties
nevertheless[,] suchroot cause must be identified as a psychological illness and its incapacitating
to the marriage which, asso expressed by Article 68 of the Family Code, include their mutual
nature fully explained. Expert evidence may be given by qualified psychiatrists and clinical
obligations to live together, observe love, respect and fidelity and render help and support. There
psychologists."
is hardly any doubt that the intendment of the law has been to confine the meaning of
The Supreme Court further went on to proclaim, that"Article 36 of the Family Code is not to be
"psychological incapacity" to the most serious cases of personality disorders clearly demonstrative
confused with a divorce law that cuts the marital bond at the time the causes therefore manifest
of an utter insensitivity or inability to give meaning and significance to the marriage. This
themselves". It refers to a serious psychological illness afflicting a party evenbefore the celebration
psychological condition must exist at the time the marriage is celebrated. The psychological
of the marriage. It is a malady so grave and permanent as to deprive one of awareness of the
condition must be characterized by (a) gravity, (b) juridical antecedence, and (c) incurability.
duties and responsibilities of the matrimonial bond one is about to assume." Psychological
In the instant case, [Glenn] tried to prove that [Mary Grace] was carefree, outgoing, immature,
incapacity should refer to no less than a mental (not physical) incapacity that causes a party to be
and irresponsible which made her unable to perform the essential obligations of marriage. He
truly incognitive of the basic marital covenants that concomitantly must be assumed and
likewise alleged that she refused to communicate with him to save the marriage and eventually
discharged by the parties to the marriage.
left him to work abroad. To Our mind, the above actuations of [Mary Grace] do not make out a
case of psychological incapacity on her part. From the foregoing, We cannot declare the dissolution of the marriage of the parties for the
obvious failure of [Glenn] to show that the alleged psychological incapacity of [Mary Grace] is
While it is true that [Glenn’s] testimony was corroborated by [Dr. Tayag], a psychologist who
characterized by gravity, juridical antecedence and incurability; and for his failure to observe the
conducted a psychological examination on [Glenn], however, said examination was conducted only
guidelines outlined in the afore-cited cases. Verily, the burden of proof to show the nullity of the
on him and no evidence was shown that the psychological incapacity of [Mary Grace] was
marriage belongs to [Glenn]. Any doubt should be resolved in favor of the existence and
characterized by gravity, juridical antecedence, and incurability. Certainly, the opinion of a
continuation of the marriage and against its dissolution and nullity. This is rooted from the fact
psychologist would be of persuasive value in determining the psychological incapacity of a person
that both our Constitution and our laws cherish the validity of marriage and unity of the
as she would be in the best position to assess and evaluate the psychological condition of the
family.20 (Citations omitted, underlining ours and emphasis and italics in the original)
couple, she being an expert in this field of study of behavior. Although the psychologist stated that
The CA, through the herein assailed Resolution21 dated August 7, 2013, denied the Motion for
respondent was suffering from Narcissistic Personality Disorder, she did not fully explain the root
Reconsideration22filed by Glenn.
cause of the disorder nor did she makea conclusion as to its gravity or permanence. Moreover, she
admitted that she was not able to examine the respondent[,] hence, the information provided to
Issue
her may be subjective and self-serving. Essential in this petition is the allegation of the root
Unperturbed, Glenn now raises before this Court the issue of whether or not sufficient evidence
causeof the spouse’s psychological incapacity which should also be medically or clinically identified,
exist justifying the RTC’s declaration of nullity of his marriage with Mary Grace.
sufficiently proven by experts and clearly explained in the decision. The incapacity must be proven
to be existing at the time of the celebration of the marriageand shown to be medically or clinically In support thereof, Glenn points out that each petition for the declaration of nullity of marriage
permanent or incurable. It must also be grave enough to bring about the disability of the parties to should be judged according to its own set of facts, and not on the basis of assumptions,
assume the essential obligations of marriage as set forth in Articles 68 to 71 and Articles 220 to predilections or generalizations. The RTC judge should pains takingly examine the factual milieu,
225 of the Family Code and such non-complied marital obligations must similarly be alleged in the while the CA must refrain from substituting its own judgment for that of the trial court. 23 Further,
petition, established by evidence and explained in the decision. Glenn argues that in Marcos v. Marcos,24 the Court ruled that it is not a sine qua non requirement
Unfortunately for [Glenn], the expert testimony of his witness did not establish the root cause of for the respondent spouse to be personally examined by a physician or psychologist before a
the psychological incapacity of [Mary Grace] nor was such ground alleged in the complaint. We marriage could be declared as a nullity.25 However, if the opinion of an expert is sought, his or her
reiterate the ruling of the Supreme Court on this score, to wit: the root cause of the psychological testimony should be considered as decisive evidence.26 Besides, the findings of the trial court
incapacity must be: a) medically or clinically identified; b) alleged in the complaint; c) sufficiently regarding the credibility of the witnesses should be respected. In seeking the denial of the instant
proven by experts; and d) clearly explained in the decision. petition, the OSG emphasizes that the arguments Glenn raise for our consideration are mere
reiterations of the matters already resolved by the CA.28
Discoursing on this issue, the Supreme Court, in Republic of the Philippines vs. Court of Appeals
and Molina, has this to say: Ruling of the Court
The instant petition lacks merit.
 P e r s o n s a n d F a m i l y R e l a t i o n s ( P s y c h o l o g i c a l I n c a p a c i t y ) S e p t e m b e r 2 6 P a g e | 21
The lack of personal examination orassessment of the respondent by a psychologist or psychiatrist
is not necessarily fatal in a petition for the declaration of nullity of marriage. "If the totality of
evidence presented is enough to sustain a finding of psychological incapacity, then actual medical
examination of the person concerned need not be resorted to." 29
In the instant petition, however, the cumulative testimonies of Glenn, Dr. Tayag and Rodelito, and
the documentary evidence offered do not sufficiently prove the root cause, gravity and incurability
of Mary Grace’s condition. The evidence merely shows that Mary Grace is outgoing, strong-willed
and not inclined to perform household chores. Further, she is employed in Dubai and is
romantically-involved with another man. She has not been maintaining lines of communication
with Glenn at the time the latter filed the petition before the RTC. Glenn, on the other hand, is
conservative, family-oriented and is the exact opposite of Mary Grace. While Glenn and Mary Grace
possess incompatible personalities, the latter’s acts and traits do not necessarily indicate
psychological incapacity. Rumbaua v. Rumbaua30 is emphatic that:
In Bier v. Bier, we ruled that it was not enough that respondent, alleged to be psychologically
incapacitated, had difficulty in complying with his marital obligations, or was unwilling toperform
these obligations. Proof of a natal or supervening disabling factor – an adverse integral element in
the respondent’s personality structure that effectively incapacitated him from complying with his
essential marital obligations – had to be shown and was not shown in this cited case. In the
present case, the respondent’s stubborn refusal to cohabit with the petitioner was doubtlessly
irresponsible, but it was never proven to be rooted in some psychological illness. x x x Likewise,
the respondent’s act of living with another woman four years into the marriage cannot
automatically be equated with a psychological disorder, especially when no specific evidence was
shown that promiscuity was a trait already existing at the inception of marriage. In fact, petitioner
herself admitted that respondent was caring and faithful when they were going steady and for a
time after their marriage; their problems only came in later.
x x x To use the words of Navales v. Navales:
Article 36 contemplates downright incapacity or inability to take cognizance ofand to assume basic
marital obligations. Mere "difficulty," "refusal" or "neglect" in the performance of marital
obligations or "ill will" on the part of the spouse is different from "incapacity" rooted on some
debilitating psychological condition or illness. Indeed, irreconcilable differences, sexual infidelity or
perversion, emotional immaturity and irresponsibility, and the like, do not by themselves warrant a
finding of psychological incapacity under Article 36, as the same may only be due to a person’s
refusal or unwillingness to assume the essential obligations of marriage and not due to some
psychological illness that is contemplated by said rule.31 (Citations omitted, underlining ours and
emphasis in the original)
It is worth noting that Glenn and Mary Grace lived with each other for more or less seven years
from 1999 to 2006. The foregoing established fact shows that living together as spouses under
one roof is not an impossibility. Mary Grace’s departure from their home in 2006 indicates either a
refusal or mere difficulty, but not absolute inability to comply with her obligation to live with her
husband.
Further, considering that Mary Grace was not personally examined by Dr. Tayag, there arose a
greater burden to present more convincing evidence to prove the gravity, juridical antecedence
and incurability of the former’s condition. Glenn, however, failed in this respect. Glenn’s testimony
is wanting in material details. Rodelito, on the other hand, is a blood relative of Glenn. Glenn’s
statements are hardly objective. Moreover, Glenn and Rodelito both referred to Mary Grace’s traits
and acts, which she exhibited during the marriage. Hence, there isnary a proof on the
antecedence of Mary Grace’s alleged incapacity. Glenn even testified that, six months before they
got married, they saw each other almost everyday.32 Glenn saw "a loving[,] caring and well[-
]educated person"33 in Mary Grace.
Anent Dr. Tayag’s assessment of Mary Grace’s condition, the Court finds the same as
unfounded.1âwphi1 Rumbaua34provides some guidelines on how the courts should evaluate the
testimonies of psychologists or psychiatrists in petitions for the declaration of nullity of marriage,
viz:
We cannot help but note that Dr. Tayag’s conclusions about the respondent’s psychological
incapacity were based on the information fed to her by only one side – the petitioner – whose bias
in favor of her cause cannot be doubted. While this circumstance alone does notdisqualify the
psychologist for reasons of bias, her report, testimony and conclusions deserve the application of a
more rigid and stringent set of standards in the manner we discussed above. For, effectively, Dr.
Tayag only diagnosed the respondent from the prism of a third party account; she did not actually
hear, see and evaluate the respondent and how he would have reacted and responded to the
doctor’s probes.
Dr. Tayag, in her report, merely summarized the petitioner’s narrations, and on this basis
characterized the respondent to be a self-centered, egocentric, and unremorseful person who
"believes that the world revolves around him"; and who "used love as a…deceptive tactic for
exploiting the confidence [petitioner] extended towards him." x x x.
We find these observations and conclusions insufficiently in-depth and comprehensive to warrant
the conclusion that a psychological incapacity existed that prevented the respondent from
complying with the essential obligations of marriage. It failed to identify the root cause of the
respondent’s narcissistic personality disorder and to prove that it existed at the inception of the
marriage. Neither did it explain the incapacitating nature of the alleged disorder, nor show that the
respondent was really incapable of fulfilling his duties due to some incapacity of a psychological,
not physical, nature. Thus, we cannot avoid but conclude that Dr. Tayag’s conclusion in her Report
– i.e., that the respondent suffered "Narcissistic Personality Disorder with traces of Antisocial
Personality Disorder declared to be grave and incurable" – is an unfounded statement, not a
necessary inference from her previous characterization and portrayal of the respondent. While the
various tests administered on the petitioner could have been used as a fair gauge to assess her
own psychological condition, this same statement cannot be made with respect to the
respondent’s condition. To make conclusions and generalizations on the respondent’s psychological
condition based on the information fed by only one side is, to our mind, not different from
admitting hearsay evidence as proof of the truthfulness of the content of such evidence.
A careful reading of Dr. Tayag’s testimony reveals that she failed to establish the fact that at the
time the parties were married, respondent was already suffering from a psychological defect that
deprived him of the ability to assume the essential duties and responsibilities of marriage. Neither
did she adequately explain howshe came to the conclusion that respondent’s condition was grave
and incurable. x x x
 P e r s o n s a n d F a m i l y R e l a t i o n s ( P s y c h o l o g i c a l I n c a p a c i t y ) S e p t e m b e r 2 6 P a g e | 22
First, what she medically described was not related or linked to the respondent’s exact condition
except in a very general way. In short, her testimony and report were rich in generalities but
disastrously short on particulars, most notably on how the respondent can besaid to be suffering
from narcissistic personality disorder; why and to what extent the disorder is grave and incurable;
how and why it was already present at the time of the marriage; and the effects of the disorder on
the respondent’s awareness of and his capability to undertake the duties and responsibilities of
marriage. All these are critical to the success of the petitioner’s case.
Second, her testimony was short on factual basis for her diagnosis because it was wholly based on
what the petitioner related toher. x x x If a psychological disorder can be proven by independent
means, no reason exists why such independent proof cannot be admitted and given credit. No
such independent evidence, however, appears on record to have been gathered in this case,
particularly about the respondent’s early life and associations, and about events on orabout the
time of the marriage and immediately thereafter. Thus, the testimony and report appearto us to
be no more than a diagnosis that revolves around the one-sided and meagre facts that the
petitioner related, and were all slanted to support the conclusion that a ground exists to justify the
nullification of the marriage. We say this because only the baser qualities of the respondent’s life
were examined and given focus; none of these qualities were weighed and balanced with the
better qualities, such as his focus on having a job, his determination to improve himself through
studies, his care and attention in the first six months of the marriage, among others. The evidence
fails to mention also what character and qualities the petitioner brought into her marriage, for
example, why the respondent’s family opposed the marriage and what events led the respondent
to blame the petitioner for the death of his mother, if this allegation is at all correct. To be sure,
these are important because not a few marriages have failed, not because of psychological
incapacity of either or both of the spouses, but because of basic incompatibilities and marital
developments that do not amount to psychological incapacity. x x x.35 (Citations omitted and
underlining ours)
In the case at bar, Dr. Tayag made general references to Mary Grace’s status as the eldest among
her siblings,36her father’s being an overseas contract worker and her very tolerant mother, a
housewife.37 These, however, are not sufficient to establish and explain the supposed
psychological incapacity of Mary Grace warranting the declaration of the nullity of the couple’s
marriage.
The Court understands the inherent difficulty attendant to obtaining the statements of witnesses
who can attest to the antecedence of a person’s psychological incapacity, but such difficulty does
not exempt a petitioner from complying with what the law requires. While the Court also
commiserates with Glenn’s marital woes, the totality of the evidence presented provides
inadequate basis for the Court to conclude that Mary Grace is indeed psychologically incapacitated
to comply with her obligations as Glenn’s spouse.
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED. The Decision dated January 29, 2013 and Resolution
dated August 7, 2013 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 96448 are AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
February 15, 2017
G.R. No. 222541
RACHEL A. DEL ROSARIO, Petitioner
vs.
JOSE O. DEL ROSARIO and COURT OF APPEALS, Respondents
DECISION
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:
Before the Court is this petition for review on certiorari1 assailing the Decision2 dated May 29, 2015
and the Resolution3 dated December 1, 2015 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No.
102745, which reversed the Decision4 dated April 23, 2014 of the Regional Trial Court of Makati
City, Branch 136 (RTC) in Civil Case No. 11-891 declaring the marriage of Jose O. Del Rosario
(Jose) and Rachel A. Del Rosario (Rachel) void on the ground of psychological incapacity pursuant
to Article 365 of the Family Code, as amended.6
The Facts
Rachel, then fifteen (15) years old, met Jose, then seventeen (17) years old, sometime in
December 1983 at a party in Bintawan, Bagabag, Nueva Vizcaya. 7 Very soon, they became
romantically involved.8 Sometime in 1988, Rachel went to Hongkong to work as a domestic helper.
During this period, Rachel allegedly provided for Jose's tuition fees for his college education.
Rachel and Jose eventually decided to get married on December 28, 1989 in a civil rites ceremony
held in San Jose City, Nueva Ecija, and were blessed with a son, named Wesley, on December 1,
1993. On February 19, 1995, they renewed their vows in a church ceremony held in the Philippine
Independent Church, Bagabag, Nueva Vizcaya. 9
In 1998, Rachel went back to Hongkong to work as domestic helper/caregiver and has been
working there ever since, only returning to the Philippines every year for a vacation. Through her
efforts, she was able to acquire a house and lot in Rufino Homes Subdivision, San Jose, Nueva
Ecija.10
In September 2011, Rachel filed a petition11 for declaration of nullity of marriage before the RTC,
docketed as Civil Case No. 11-891, alleging that Jose was psychologically incapacitated to fulfill his
essential marital obligations. In support of her petition, Rachel claimed that: during their marriage,
Jose conspicuously tried to avoid discharging his duties as husband and father. According to
Rachel, Jose was hot tempered and violent; he punched her in the shoulder a few days before
their church wedding, causing it to swell, when she refused to pay for the transportation expenses
of his parents; he hit his own father with a pipe, causing the latter to fall unconscious, which
forced them to leave Jose's parents' house where they were then staying; and he even locked her
out of their house in the middle of the night sometime in December 2007 when she fetched her
relatives from the bus terminal, which he refused to perform. Rachel added that Jose would
represent himself as single, would flirt openly, and had an extra-marital affair which she
discovered when Jose mistakenly sent a text message to her sister, Beverly A. Juan (Beverly),
stating: "love, kung ayaw mo na akong magpunta diyan, pumunta ka na lang dito."12 Another text
message read: "Dumating lang ang asawa mo, ayaw mo na akong magtext at tumawag sa
'yo." On one occasion, she, together with Wesley and Beverly, caught Jose and the other woman
with their child inside their conjugal dwelling. Finally, she claimed that Jose would refuse any
chance of sexual intimacy between them as they slowly drifted apart. 13
 P e r s o n s a n d F a m i l y R e l a t i o n s ( P s y c h o l o g i c a l I n c a p a c i t y ) S e p t e m b e r 2 6 P a g e | 23
Rachel, however, admitted that their married life ran smoothly during its early years, and it was
only later in their marriage that Jose started frequenting bars and engaging in drinking sessions. 14
Rachel also presented the testimonies of Wesley15 and her sisters, Beverly and Jocelyn
Cabusora,16 which corroborated her allegations, as well as the testimony17 of Dr. Nedy L. Tayag
(Dr. Tayag), who prepared the Psychological Report18 (Report) on Rachel. The remarks section of
Dr. Tayag's Report, which was primarily based on her interview with Rachel and Wesley, stated
that Jose suffered from Antisocial Personality Disorder (APD) characterized by: (a) his lack of
empathy and concern for Rachel; (b) his irresponsibility and his pleasure-seeking attitude that
catered only to his own fancies and comfort; (c) his selfishness marked by his lack of depth when
it comes to his marital commitments; and (d) his lack of remorse for his shortcomings.19
For his part, Jose denied all the allegations in the petition. Jose maintained that: (a) he had
dutifully performed all of his marital and parental duties and obligations to his family; ( b) he had
provided for his family's financial and emotional needs; and (c) he contributed to the building and
maintenance of their conjugal home. He claimed that although they occasionally had
misunderstandings, they nevertheless had a blissful relationship, pointing out that their first major
argument was when Rachel decided to go to Hongkong to work; that they continued to
communicate through mail during her stay overseas; and that he remained supportive of Rachel
and would advise her to give her family the financial aid that they need so long as she would not
sacrifice her well-being. Finally, he denied the alleged extra-marital affair and having laid hand on
Rachel and their son.20 Jose presented as well the testimony of Faustino Rigos to support his
allegations.21
The RTC Ruling
In a Decision22 dated April 23, 2014, the RTC declared the marriage between Jose and Rachel void
on the ground of psychological incapacity. It relied on the findings and testimony of Dr. Tayag,
declaring that Jose's APD interferes with his capacity to perform his marital and paternal duties, as
he in fact even refused to take responsibility for his actions, notwithstanding the overwhelming
evidence against him.23 Jose appealed24 to the CA, arguing that his alleged refusal to seek
employment, squandering of their money on vices, violent nature, and infidelity are not the
serious, grave, and permanent psychological condition that incapacitates him to perform his
marital obligations required by Article 36 of the Family Code, as amended. At most, they are
personality defects, i.e., immaturity, irresponsibility, and unfaithfulness, which may be considered
as grounds for legal separation under Article 5525 of the same code.26
The CA Ruling
In a Decision27 dated May 29, 2015, the CA reversed the ruling of the RTC,28 holding that the
totality of the evidence Rachel presented was not enough to sustain a finding that Jose is
psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential obligations of marriage.29 Particularly,
the CA declared that Jose's alleged infidelity, his refusal to seek employment, his act of
squandering their money on his vices, and his temper and alleged propensity for violence were not
so grave and permanent as to deprive him of awareness of the duties and responsibilities of the
matrimonial bond sufficient to nullify the marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code; at best,
they showed that Jose was irresponsible, insensitive, or emotionally immature which nonetheless
do not amount to the downright incapacity that the law requires. Additionally, the CA pointed out
that the root cause of the alleged psychological incapacity, its incapacitating nature, and the
incapacity itself were not sufficiently explained as Dr. Tayag's Report failed to show the relation
between Jose's "deprived childhood" and "poor home condition," on one hand, and grave and
permanent psychological malady, on the other. Finally, it observed that while Dr. Tayag's
testimony was detailed, it only offered a general evaluation on the supposed root cause of Jose's
personality disorder.30
Rachel moved for reconsideration,31 which was, however, denied by the CA in a Resolution32 dated
December 1, 2015; hence, this petition.
The Issue Before the Court
The essential issue for the Court's resolution is whether or not the CA erred in reversing the RTC's
finding of psychological incapacity.
The Court's Ruling
The petition lacks merit.
The policy of the Constitution is to protect and strengthen the family as the basic social
institution,33 and marriage as the foundation of the family. 34 Because of this, the Constitution
decrees marriage as legally inviolable and protects it from dissolution at the whim of the parties.
In this regard, psychological incapacity as a ground to nullify the marriage under Article 36 35 of the
Family Code, as amended, should refer to the most serious cases of personality disorders clearly
demonstrative of an utter insensitivity or inability to give meaning and significance to the
marriage.36 It should refer to no less than a mental - not merely physical - incapacity that causes a
party to be truly incognitive of the basic marital covenants that concomitantly must be assumed
and discharged by the parties to the marriage, which, as provided under Article 68 37 of the Family
Code, among others,38 include their mutual obligations to live together, observe love, respect and
fidelity, and render help and support.39 In other words, it must be a malady that is so grave and
permanent as to deprive one of awareness of the duties and responsibilities of the matrimonial
bond one is about to assume.40
In Santos v. CA,41 the Court declared that psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family
Code must be characterized by: (a) gravity, i.e., it must be grave and serious such that the party
would be incapable of carrying out the ordinary duties required in a marriage; ( b) juridical
antecedence, i.e., it must be rooted in the history of the party antedating the marriage, although
the overt manifestations may emerge only after the marriage; and (c) incurability, i.e., it must be
incurable, or otherwise the cure would be beyond the means of the party involved. 42 The Court
laid down more definitive guidelines in the interpretation and application of Article 36
in Republic v. Molina43 (Molina) whose salient points are footnoted below,44 that incorporated the
basic requirements the Court established in Santos.
Notwithstanding the Molina guidelines, note, however, that an expert opinion is not absolutely
necessary and may be dispensed with in a petition under Article 36 of the Family Code if the
totality of the evidence shows that psychological incapacity exists and its gravity, juridical
antecedence, and incurability can be duly established.45 The evidence need not necessarily come
from the allegedly incapacitated spouse, but can come from persons intimately related to the
spouses, i.e., relatives and close friends, who could clearly testify on the allegedly incapacitated
spouse's condition at or about the time of the marriage.46 In other words, the Molina guidelines
continue to apply but its application calls for a more flexible approach in considering petitions for
declaration of nullity of marriages based on psychological incapacity.47 To be clear, however, the
totality of the evidence must still establish the characteristics that Santos laid down: gravity,
incurability, and juridical antecedence.
 P e r s o n s a n d F a m i l y R e l a t i o n s ( P s y c h o l o g i c a l I n c a p a c i t y ) S e p t e m b e r 2 6 P a g e | 24
Thus, in Dedel v. CA, the Court declared that therein respondent's emotional immaturity and
48
establishing the required legal parameters.57 Considering that her Report was based solely on
irresponsibility could not be equated with psychological incapacity as it was not shown that these Rachel's side whose bias cannot be doubted, the Report and her testimony deserved the
acts are manifestations of a disordered personality which make her completely unable to discharge application of a more rigid and stringent standards which the RTC failed to apply.
the essential obligations of the marital state, not merely due to her youth, immaturity, or sexual In sum, Dr. Tayag's assessment, even when taken together with the various testimonies, failed to
promiscuity.49 In Taring v. Taring,50 the Court emphasized that "irreconcilable differences, sexual show that Jose's immaturity, irresponsibility, and infidelity rise to the level of psychological
infidelity or perversion, emotional immaturity and irresponsibility, and the like, do not by incapacity that would justify the nullification of the parties' marriage. To reiterate and emphasize,
themselves warrant a finding of psychological incapacity, as [these] may only be due to a person's psychological incapacity must be more than just a "difficulty," "refusal" or "neglect" in the
difficulty, refusal, or neglect to undertake the obligations of marriage that is not rooted in some performance of the marital obligations; it is not enough that a party prove that the other failed to
psychological illness that Article 36 of the Family Code addresses." 51 The Court equally did not meet the responsibility and duty of a married person.58 There must be proof of a natal or
consider as tantamount to psychological incapacity the emotional immaturity, irresponsibility, supervening disabling factor in the person - an adverse integral element in the personality
sexual promiscuity, and other behavioral disorders invoked by the petitioning spouses in Pesca v. structure that effectively incapacitates the person from really accepting and thereby complying
Pesca,52 Republic v. Encelan,53 Republic v. De Gracia,54 and Republic v. Romero,55 to name a few, with the obligations essential to marriage - which must be linked with the manifestations of the
and thus dismissed their petitions for declaration of nullity of marriage. psychological incapacity.59
The Court maintains a similar view in this case and, thus, denies the petition. Based on the totality A final note. It is well to reiterate that Article 36 of the Family Code, as amended, is not a divorce
of the evidence presented, there exists insufficient factual or legal basis to conclude that Jose's law that cuts the marital bond at the time the grounds for divorce manifest themselves;60 a
immaturity, irresponsibility, or infidelity amount to psychological incapacity. Particularly, the Court marriage, no matter how unsatisfactory, is not a null and void marriage. Thus, absent sufficient
notes that Rachel's evidence merely showed that Jose: (1) would often indulge in drinking sprees; evidence establishing psychological incapacity within the context of Article 36, the Court is
(2) tends to become violent when he gets drunk; (2) avoids discharging his duties as a father to compelled to uphold the indissolubility of the marital tie.
Wesley and as a husband to Rachel, which includes sexual intimacy; (3) flirts openly and
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision dated May 29, 2015 and the Resolution
represented himself as single; and (4) engaged in an extra-marital affair with a bar girl who he
dated December 1, 2015 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 102745 are
brought to the conjugal dwelling on several occasions. Significantly, Rachel admitted that their
hereby AFFIRMED. Accordingly, the petition for declaration of nullity of marriage filed under
married life ran smoothly in its early years. Dr. Tayag's findings, on the other hand, simply
Article 36 of the Family Code, as amended, is DISMISSED.
summarized Rachel and Wesley's narrations as she diagnosed Jose with APD and proceeded to
SO ORDERED.
conclude that Jose's "personality flaw is deemed to be severe, grave, and have become deeply
embedded within his adaptive systems since early childhood years, thereby rendering such to be a
permanent component of his life [and] [t]herefore x x x incurable and beyond repair despite any
form of intervention."56
It should be pointed out that Dr. Tayag's Report does not explain in detail how Jose's APD could
be characterized as grave, deeply rooted in his childhood, and incurable within the jurisprudential
parameters for establishing psychological incapacity. Particularly, the Report did not discuss the
concept of APD which Jose allegedly suffers from, i.e., its classification, cause, symptoms, and
cure, or show how and to what extent Jose exhibited this disorder or how and to what extent his
alleged actions and behavior correlate with his APD, sufficiently clear to conclude that Jose's
condition has no definite treatment, making it incurable within the law's conception. Neither did
the Report specify the reasons why and to what extent Jose's APD is serious and grave, and how it
incapacitated him to understand and comply with his marital obligations.1awp++i1 Lastly, the
Report hastily concluded that Jose had a "deprived childhood" and "poor home condition" that
automatically resulted in his APD equivalent to psychological incapacity without, however,
specifically identifying the history of Jose's condition antedating the marriage, i.e., specific
behavior or habits during his adolescent years that could explain his behavior during the marriage.
Moreover, Dr. Tayag did not personally assess or interview Jose to determine, at the very least, his
background that could have given her a more accurate basis for concluding that his APD is rooted
in his childhood or was already existing at the inception of the marriage. To be sure, established
parameters do not require that the expert witness personally examine the party alleged to be
suffering from psychological incapacity provided corroborating evidence are presented sufficiently