First Mooter: Aiza Cagampang Second Mooter: Justin Ronald Seria Alternative Mooter: Mark Anthony Malijao
Members: Feliciano Jr., Rondell Francisco, Erwin Guibone, Janine Mae Iriberri, Cyril Ann Japos, Kristine Mae
FACTUAL ANTECEDENTS
This is a petition for review assailing the decision on October 27, 2006 declaring the nullity of marriage between Pedro and Josefa on the grounds of the latters psychological incapacity and thus, the decision shallbe set aside as the evidence to the alleged psychological incapacity was not sufficiently established. The custody of the children shall be awarded to Josefa since there were no compelling reasons established that incapacitated her for such custody.
On July 1, 2000, Pedro filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) a petition for Annulment of Marriage alleging as ground therefore the psychological incapacity of Josefa to perform her essential marital obligations as wife to him and as a mother to their child.
Dr. Rabuko, a clinical psychologist testified and presented his findings, Report on the Psychological Capacity of Spouses Pedro and Josefa, relying only to the information given by Pedro and one other witness who was a neighbor of the spouses without personally examining Josefa.It was shown in the findings through the testimony of Pedro and a witness that Josefa had several extramarital affairs, an alcoholic, uses illegal substance like shabu and does not feel remorse for her actions.
Pedro also testified on November 4, 2003 that sometime in December 1994, Josefa left him and that his neighbor told him that Josefa was already with another man in Qatar without verifying the certainty of the information and accordingly, he did not bother to find her anymore.
ISSUES We appeal that the decision on October 27, 2006 declaring the nullity of marriage between Pedro and Josefa on the grounds of the latters psychological incapacity be set aside as the evidence to the alleged psychological incapacity was not sufficiently established. On appeal, we raise the error(s): 1. The lower court erred in declaring the nullity of the parties marriage; Josefas psychological incapacity has not been proven as shown: a. Petitioners failed to provide concrete evidence of appellants psychological incapacity; b. Petitioners failed to clearly identify the root cause of psychological incapacity; c. Mere engagement in extramarital affairs, alcoholism, drug abuse, and abandonment are not established grounds for psychological incapacity;
JURISPRUDENCE Psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code defines a marriage void where during marriage a party is unable to comply with the essential marital obligations. Such obligations consist of (a) conjugal love and mutual service to each other, and (b) procreation and education of offspring. As established in Republic v Molina 1 , these guidelines are laid to interpret and apply Art. 36: (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. Article 36 of the Family Code requires that the incapacity must be psychological not physical, although its manifestations and/or symptoms may be physical. (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.
1 Republic v. Molina, G.R. No. 108763, February 13, 1997 (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. (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. (8) The trial court must order the prosecuting attorney or fiscal and the Solicitor General to appear as counsel for the state. Our first point of argument lies on the lack of concrete evidence by the petitioners on the existence of psychological incapacity of the appellant. As presented in Republic v Iyoy 2 : Even when the rules have been relaxed and the personal examination of a spouse by a psychiatrist or psychologist is no longer mandatory for the declaration of nullity of their marriage, the totality of evidence presented during trial by the spouse seeking the declaration of nullity of marriage must still prove the gravity, judicial antecedence, and incurability of the alleged psychological incapacity. Second. The petitioners failed to identify the root cause of the appellants psychological incapacity even through a medical examiner. The evaluation of Dr. Rabuko cannot be made the sole basis of rendering the appellant as psychologically incapacitated. The facts stated that the doctor only interviewed the petitioner and only one witness about the wifes alleged behavior. Needless to say, there is greater chance that most of his evaluation would come from the biased opinion of the petitioner-husband determined to achieve the declaration of nullity of their marriage. As an expert in his field, Dr. Rabuko should have exerted greater effort in finding the cause of the alleged disorder if there is any at all. The same situation applies to the case of Lim v. Sta. Cruz-Lim 3 , stating: The expert opinion of a psychiatrist arrived at after a maximum of seven (7) hours of interview, and unsupported by separate psychological tests, cannot tie
2 Republic v Iyoy G.R. No. 152577 3 Lim v Sta.Cruz Lim G.R. No. 176464 the hands of the trial court and prevent it from making its own factual finding on what happened in this case. The probative force of the testimony of an expert does not lie in a mere statement of his theory or opinion, but rather in the assistance that he can render to the courts in showing the facts that serve as a basis for his criterion and the reasons upon which the logic of his conclusion is founded. Furthermore, Toring v Toring 4 presents a decision made by the Court for situations such as these: We are in no-way convinced that a mere narration of the statements of Ricardo and Richardson, coupled with the results of the psychological tests administered only on Ricardo, without more, already constitutes sufficient basis for the conclusion that Teresita suffered from Narcissistic Personality Disorder. This Court has long been negatively critical in considering psychological evaluations, presented in evidence, derived solely from one-sided sources, particularly from the spouse seeking the nullity of the marriage. Moreover, in the event that Dr. Rabuko indirectly obtained the information for diagnosis of appellants alleged psychological incapacity from the petitioner-husband, the case of Suazo v Suazo 5 specifies: Based on her declarations in open court, the psychologist derived all her conclusions from information coming from the wife 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 the 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. Such ruling was also stated in Bier v Bier 6 , the expert opinion support was considered as hearsay evidence since the psychologist had no personal knowledge of the alleged facts on which he testified on. Her testimony should have thus been dismissed for being unscientific and unreliable.
Third. The alleged manifestation of appellants infidelity as a ground for psychological incapacity is incorrect. As stated in Republic v. Encelan 7 :
4 Toring v Toring 626 SCRA 389 (2010) 5 Suazo v Suazo G.R. No. 164493 6 Bier v Bier 547 SCRA 123 7 Republic v Encelan G.R. No. 170022 In any event, sexual infidelity and abandonment of the conjugal dwelling, even if true, do not necessarily constitute psychological incapacity; these are simply grounds for legal separation. To constitute psychological incapacity, it must be shown that the unfaithfulness and abandonment are manifestations of a disordered personality that completely prevented the erring spouse from discharging the essential marital obligations. Although infidelity in the eyes of society may deem a party as incapable of performing marital obligations it has not been proven so such as any person who has committed infidelity can still be a competent mother or father to their offspring. The sixth guideline in the Molina case stated that the non-compliance of a party must be proven by evidence. It appears that the appellee provided no such evidence to prove that the appellant cannot perform her obligations as a mother. Alcoholism and drug abuse are not established grounds for psychological incapacity. These habits are merely physical in nature as they only disrupt bodily functions momentarily. To consider one as psychologically incapacitated, the mental condition must be given greater weight that those observed physically. In the case of Hernandez v Hernandez 8 , drug abuse, sexual infidelity, alcoholism, and abandonment of the abodethe same allegations raised by the petitioner against his wifedo not qualify as grounds for nullifying the marriage on psychological incapacity. Instead, they are grounds for legal separation as specified in Art 55 of the Family Code: Art. 55. A petition for legal separation may be filed on any of the following grounds: (5) Drug addiction or habitual alcoholism of the respondent; (8) Sexual infidelity or perversion; (10) Abandonment of petitioner by respondent without justifiable cause for more than one year. Villalon v Villalon 9 also stated that the respondent had the tendency to cheat on the spouse but the findings on his alleged psychological incapacity was not sufficiently established thus, stating: In the case at bar, although Dr. Dayan testified that petitioner suffered from Narcissistic Histrionic Personality Disorder with Casanova Complex even before the marriage and thus had the tendency to cheat on his wife, such
8 Hernandez v Hernandez G.R. No. 126010 9 Villavon v Villavon 475 SCRA 572 (2005) conclusion was not sufficiently backed by concrete evidence showing that petitioner indeed had several affairs and finds it difficult to be faithful. In Marcos v Marcos 10 , Art 36 is not to be equated with legal separation. Thus stated: Neither is Article 36 to be equated with legal separation, in which the grounds need not be rooted in psychological incapacity but on physical violence, moral pressure, moral corruption, civil interdiction, drug addiction, habitual alcoholism, sexual infidelity, abandonment and the like. At best, the evidence presented by the petitioner refers only to grounds for legal separation, not declaring a marriage void. As the appellant has fled to Qatar, the same situation applies as the case of Santos v Court of Appeals 11 : The Court held that the failure of the wife to return home from the U.S. or to communicate with her husband for more than five years is not proof of her psychological incapacity as to render the marriage a nullity. Therefore, Art. 36 is inapplicable and the marriage remains valid and subsisting.
10 Marcos v Marcos 343 SCRA 755 (2000) 11 Santos v Court of Appeals G.R. No. 112019, 240 SCRA 20 (1995) PRAYER
We pray that the RTCs decision in declaring the nullity of marriage between Pedro and Josefa be reversed due to insufficiency of evidence presented:
a. Petitioner failed to provide concrete evidence of appellants psychological incapacity; b. Petitioner failed to clearly identify the root cause of psychological incapacity; c. Engaging in extramarital affairs, alcoholism and drug abuse are not established grounds for psychological incapacity;
Ultimately, we stress that any doubt should be resolved in favor of the validity of the marriage.