Sie sind auf Seite 1von 2

JOCELYN SUAZO VS ANGELITO SUAZO and REPUBLIC OF

THE PHILIPPINES GR. NO. 164493 March 10, 2010


FACTS:
Angelito and Jocelyn married each other in their early age. They are 16 yrs
old when they met each other. They were gone for three days and after
their parents found them they arranged their marriage. Angelito and
Jocelyn do not have any means to support themselves thus they lived with
Angelitos parents after their marriage. They did not finish their studies.
Jocelyn took odd jobs such as working as a Household helper in the
relatives of Angelito, while the latter refused to work and instead preferred
to be a drunkard. They had several quarrels and as a consequence of which
Jocelyn left Angelito. After 10 yrs Jocelyn filed a petition for declaration of
nullity of the marriage under Article 36 of the family Code. She contends
that Angelito was psychologically incapacitated to comply with the
essential obligations of marriage.
Angelito did not answer to the petition and complaint. Neither did he
submit himself to a psychological examination with a psychologist Nedy
Tayag who was hired by Jocelyn.
Issue:
Whether there is a basis to nullify Jocelyns marriage with Angelito under
Article 36 of the Family Code.
Ruling: No, there is no basis.
Even if pursuant to Hernandez v. CA and Marcos v. Marcos there is no
need to be declared a psychologically incapacitated to be personally
examined If the totality of the evidence presented is enough to sustain a
finding of psychological incapacity. Verily, the evidence must show a link,
medical or the like, between the acts that manifest psychological incapacity
and the psychological disorder itself.
Accordingly emphasizing that the presentation of expert proof presupposes
a thorough and 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;

According to Supreme Court under the evolutionary development of cases


it was shown that even if psychological incapacity is decided on a case to
case basis, the controlling doctrine would still be the Santos which
reiterates Juridical antecedence, gravity, and incurability.
In the present case, the court finds no basis because both psychologists
testimony and the psychological report did not conclusively show the root
cause, gravity and incurability of Angelitos alleged psychological
condition on the ground that the psychologist evaluated Angelitos
psychological condition only in an indirect manner. The psychologist
derived her conclusions from the information coming from Jocelyn whose
bias for her cause cannot of course be doubted.
The court must evaluate the evidentiary information with due care and with
the application of more rigid and stringent set of standards. Personal
examination is not mandatory, but for the determination of Angelitos
complete personality profile information coming from the persons
intimately related to him may be helpful. This is the flexibility emphasized
in Article 36.
The psychologist therefore failed to provide the answers to the more
important concerns or requisites of psychological incapacity, all of which
are critical to the more important concerns or requisites of psychological
incapacity.
Jocelyns testimony is also insufficient by merely testifying on Angelitos
habitual drunkness, gambling, refusal, to seek a employment and physical
beating she received from him. These actions of Angelito do not constitute
psychological incapacity. All of these simply indicate difficulty, neglect or
mere refusal to perform marital obligations that, as cited jurisprudence
holds cannot be considered to be constitutive of psychological incapacity
in the absence of proof that these are manifestations of incapacity in some
debilitating psychological condition or illness.
Jurisprudence holds that there must be evidence showing a link, medical or
the like, between the acts that manifest psychological incapacity and
psychological disorder itself. The evidence of this nexus is irretrievably
lost in the present case because the opinion of the psychologist cannot be
relied upon.