HALILI VS HALILI

FACTS: This resolves the motion for reconsideration of the April 16, 2008 resolution of this Court denyin petitioners petition for revie! on certiorari "under #ule $% of the #ules of Court&' The petition sou ht to set aside the (anuary 26, 200$ decision and Septem)er 2$, 200$ resolution of the Court of Appeals "CA& in CA*+'#' C, -o' 60010' .etitioner /ester 0en1amin S' 2alili filed a petition to declare his marria e to respondent Chona 3' Santos*2alili null and void on the )asis of his psycholo ical incapacity to perform the essential o)li ations of marria e in the #e ional Trial Court "#TC&, .asi City, 0ranch 1%8' 2e alle ed that he !ed respondent in civil rites thin4in that it !as a 1o4e' After the ceremonies, they never lived to ether as hus)and and !ife, )ut maintained the relationship' 2o!ever, they started fi htin constantly a year later, at !hich point petitioner decided to stop seein respondent and started datin other !omen' 5mmediately thereafter, he received pran4 calls tellin him to stop datin other !omen as he !as already a married man' 5t !as only upon ma4in an in6uiry that he found out that the marria e !as not fa4e' 7ventually, the #TC found petitioner to )e sufferin from a mi8ed personality disorder, particularly dependent and self*defeatin personality disorder, as dia nosed )y his e8pert !itness, 9r' -atividad 9ayan' The court a 6uo held that petitioners personality disorder !as serious and incura)le and directly affected his capacity to comply !ith his essential marital o)li ations to respondent' 5t thus declared the marria e null and void' :n appeal, the CA reversed and set aside the decision of the trial court on the round that the totality of the evidence presented failed to esta)lish petitioners psycholo ical incapacity' .etitioner moved for reconsideration' 5t !as denied' The case !as elevated to the Supreme Court via a petition for revie! under #ule $%' ;e affirmed the CAs decision and resolution upholdin the validity of the marria e' .etitioner then filed this motion for reconsideration reiteratin his ar ument that his marria e to respondent ou ht to )e declared null and void on the )asis of his psycholo ical incapacity' 2e stressed that the evidence he presented, especially the testimony of his e8pert !itness, !as more than enou h to sustain the findin s and conclusions of the trial court that he !as and still is psycholo ically incapa)le of complyin !ith the essential o)li ations of marria e' 5SS<7: ;hether or not, psycholo ical incapacity of the petitioner is a sufficient round for the nullity of marria e' ;hether or not decision of the #e ional Trial Court should )e reinstated' 27/9: Court reiterated that courts should interpret the provision on psycholo ical incapacity "as a round for the declaration of nullity of a marria e& on a case*to*case )asis uided )y e8perience, the findin s of e8perts and researchers in psycholo ical disciplines and )y decisions of church tri)unals' 5n Te, this Court defined dependent personality disorder as: a personality disorder characteri=ed )y a pattern of dependent and su)missive )ehavior' Such individuals usually lac4 self*esteem and fre6uently )elittle their capa)ilities> they fear criticism and are easily hurt )y others comments' At times they actually )rin a)out dominance )y others throu h a 6uest for overprotection' 5n her psycholo ical report, 9r' 9ayan stated that petitioners dependent personality disorder !as evident in the fact that petitioner !as very much attached to his parents and depended on them

for decisions' .etitioners mother even had to )e the one to tell him to see4 le al help !hen he felt confused on !hat action to ta4e upon learnin that his marria e to respondent !as for real' <ltimately, 9r' 9ayan concluded that petitioners personality disorder !as rave and incura)le and already e8istent at the time of the cele)ration of his marria e to respondent From the fore oin , it has )een sho!n that petitioner is indeed sufferin from psycholo ical incapacity that effectively renders him una)le to perform the essential o)li ations of marria e' Accordin ly, the marria e )et!een petitioner and respondent is declared null and void The decision of the #e ional Trial Court, .asi City, 0ranch 1%8 dated April 1?, 1@@8 is #75-STAT79'