VALERIO E. KALAW vs. ELENA FERNANDEZ, Respondent.

G.R. No. 166357

January 14, 2015

FACTS:
Tyrone Kalaw and Malyn Fernandez got married in 1976. After the birth of their 4th child,
Tyrone had an affair with Jocelyn Quejano. In May 1985, Malyn left the conjugal home and her four
children with Tyrone. Meanwhile, Tyrone started living with Jocelyn, and they had three more children. In
1990, Tyrone went to the United States (US) with Jocelyn and their children. On July 6, 1994, nine years
since the de facto separation from his wife, Tyrone filed a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage
based on Article 36 of the Family Code. He alleged that Malyn was psychologically incapacitated to
perform and comply with the essential marital obligations at the time of the celebration of their marriage.
He alleged that 1) She leaves the children without proper care and attention as she played mahjong all day
and all night; 2) She leaves the house to party with male friends and returned in the early hours of the
following day; and 3) She committed adultery on June 9, 1985 in Hyatt Hotel with one Benjie whom he
saw half-naked in the hotel room. Tyrone presented a psychologist, Dr. Cristina Gates (Dr. Gates), and a
Catholic canon law expert, Fr. Gerard Healy, S.J. (Fr. Healy), to testify on Malyns psychological
incapacity. Dr. Gates explained that Malyn suffers from Narcissistic Personalityu Disorder and that it
may have been evident even prior to her marriage because it is rooted in her family background and
upbringing. Fr. Healy concluded that Malyn was psychologically incapacitated to perform her marital
duties. He explained that her psychological incapacity is rooted in her role as the breadwinner of her
family. This role allegedly inflated Malyns ego to the point that her needs became priority, while her
kids and husbands needs became secondary.

ISSUE:
Whether Tyrone has sufficiently proven that Malyn suffers from psychological incapacity.

HELD:
No. He presented the testimonies of two supposed expert witnesses who concluded that
respondent is psychologically incapacitated, but the conclusions of these witnesses were premised on the
alleged acts or behavior of respondent which had not been sufficiently proven. No proof whatsoever was
presented to prove her visits to beauty salons or her frequent partying with friends. Malyns sexual
infidelity was also not proven because she was only dating other men. Even assuming that she had an
extramarital affair with another man, sexual infidelity cannot be equated with obsessive need for attention
from other men. Sexual infidelity per se is a ground for legal separation, but it does not necessarily
constitute psychological incapacity.