Rosalino L. Marable v. Myrna F. Marable G.R. No. 178741, 17 January 2011, THIRD DIVISION, (Villarama, Jr., J.

) 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. Rosalino L. Marable and Myrna F. Marable were sweethearts since they w e r e s t i l l s t u d e n t s a t A r e l l a n o U n i v e r s i t y. L a t e r o n i n t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p , t h e y e l o p e d f r o m t h e i r h o m e s a n d m a r r i e d t h r o u g h c i v i l r i t e s b e f o r e t h e m a yo r o f Tanay, Rizal. Within the same month after the civil wedding, a church wedding was celebrated. They had five children. However, after years of being together, t h e y s t a r t e d t o f i g h t v e r b a l l y a n d e v e n p h ys i c a l l y m o r e f r e q u e n t l y. T h i s w a s aggravated when they encountered problems with their daughter who was transferred from one school to another because of misbehavior and then later on became pregnant untimely. Rosalinos way of of spoiling their children also was a cause of quarrels between him and his spo use, Myrna. Rosalino, who is beginning to get worn out by their unhealthy relationship, had an affair with another woman. When Myrna discovered it, Rosalino immediately ended the r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h h i s m i s t r e s s . T h e q u a r r e l s b e t w e e n t h e m u n f o r t u n a t e l y worsened and this led to Rosalinos departure from their home, leaving his wife and children. After some time, he converted to Islam after going out with many women. R o s a l i n o d e c i d e d t o l e g a l l y e n d h i s m a r r i a g e w i t h M yr n a s o h e f i l e d a petition for absolute nullity of marriage on the ground of his p s yc h o l o g i c a l incapacity to perform the essential obligations of marriage. He went to a clinical psychologist to be examined for the purpose of presenting evidence in court. Dr. Tayag, the clinical psychologist who examined him, concluded that Rosalino is suffering from Anti-Social Personality Disorder which manifests a pervasive p a t t e r n o f social d e v i a n c y, rebelliousness, i m p u l s i v i t y, self centeredness,deceitfulness, and lack of remorse. It was said to be rooted f r o m R o s a l i n o s childhood hardships due to a dysfunctional family, deep feelings of rejection,and constant need for attention. Because of this finding, Dr. Tayag concluded t h a t R o s a l i n o w a s p s y c h o l o g i c a l l y i n c a p a c i t a t e d t o p e r f o r m h i s m a r i t a l obligations. The Regional Trial Court of Antipolo rendered judgment annulling t h e marriage of the Marable spouses. However, the Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the RTC upon granting the appeal of the Office of the S o l i c i t o r General which declared the marriage as still valid and subsisting. The Court of A p p e a l s h e l d t h a t t h e e v i d e n c e s u b m i t t e d w a s i n s u f f i c i e n t t o p r o v e psychological incapacity. Hence, this appeal. ISSUE: Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the decision of the RTC which granted the annulment of marriage of the Marable spouses based on the evidence of Rosalinos psychological incapacity.

HELD: Appeal DENIED for lack of merit. CA Decision AFFIRMED. In cases of annulment of marriage based on Article 36 of the Family Code,as amended, the psychological illness and its root cause must be proven to exist from the inception of the marriage. Here, the appellate court correctly ruled that the report of Dr. Tayag failed to explain the root cause of Rosalinos alleged psychological incapacity. The evaluation of Dr. Tayag merely made a general conclusion that petitioner is suffering from an Anti-social Personality Disorder but there was no factual basis stated for the finding that Rosalino is a socially deviant person, rebellious, impulsive, self-centered and deceitful.

For sure, the spouses frequent marital squabbles and differences in handling finances and managing their business affairs, as well as their conflicts on how to raise their children, are not manifestations of psychological incapacity w h i c h m a y b e a g r o u n d f o r d e c l a r i n g t h e i r m a r r i a g e v o i d . R o s a l i n o e v e n admitted that despite their financial difficulties, they had happy moments together. A l s o , t h e r e c o r d s w o u l d s h o w t h a t t h e R o s a l i n o a c t e d r e s p o n s i b l y during their marriage and in fact worked hard to provide for the needs of his family, most especially his children. Their personal differences do not reflect a personality disorder tantamount to psychological incapacity. Rosalino tried to make it appear that his family history of h a v i n g a womanizer for a father, was one of the reasons why he engaged in extra-marital affairs during his marriage. However, it appears more likely that he became unfaithful as a result of a general dissatisfaction with his marriage rather than a psychological disorder rooted in his personal history. His tendency to womanize, a s s u m i n g h e h a d s u c h t e n d e n c y , w a s n o t s h o w n t o b e d u e t o c a u s e s o f a psychological nature that is grave, permanent and incurable. In fact, the records show that when respondent learned of his affair, he immediately terminated it. In short, Rosalinos marital infidelity does not appear to be symptomatic of a grave psychological disorder which rendered him incapable of performing his spousal obligations. It has been held in various cases that sexual infidelity, by itself, is not sufficient proof that petitioner is suffering from psychological incapacity. It must b e s h o w n t h a t t h e a c t s o f u n f a i t h f u l n e s s a r e m a n i f e s t a t i o n s o f a d i s o r d e r e d personality which make Rosalino completely unable to discharge the essential obligations of marriage. That not being the case with Rosalino, his claim of p s y c h o l o g i c a l i n c a p a c i t y m u s t f a i l . I t b e a r s s t r e s s i n g t h a t p s y c h o l o g i c a l incapacity must be more than just a difficulty, refusal or neglect in the p e r f o r m a n c e o f s o m e m a r i t a l o b l i g a t i o n s . R a t h e r , i t i s e s s e n t i a l t h a t t h e concerned party was incapable of doing so, due to some psychological illness existing at the time of the celebration of the marriage. In S a n t o s v . C o u r t o f Appeals. t h e i n t e n t i o n o f t h e law is to confine the meaning of psychological i n c a p a c i t y t o t h e most serious cases of personality disorders clearly demonstrative of an utter insensitivity or inability to give m e a n i n g a n d significance to the marriage.