9/15/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 657

G.R. No. 166357. September 19, 2011.*

VALERIO E. KALAW, petitioner, vs. MA. ELENA

FERNANDEZ, respondent.

Family Code; Annulment of Marriage; Psychological

Incapacity; Psychological incapacity is the downright incapacity or
inability to take cognizance of and to assume the basic marital
obligations; The burden of proving psychological incapacity is on
the plaintiff; The psychological problem must be grave, must have
existed at the time of marriage, and must be incurable.—
Psychological incapacity is the downright incapacity or inability to
take cognizance of and to assume the basic marital obligations.
The burden of proving psychological incapacity is on the plaintiff.
The plaintiff must prove that the incapacitated party, based on
his or her actions or behavior, suffers a serious psychological
disorder that completely disables him or her from understanding
and discharging the essential obligations of the marital state. The
psychological problem must be grave, must have existed at the
time of marriage, and must be incurable.
Same; Same; Same; Sexual infidelity per se is a ground for
legal separation, but it does not necessarily constitute
psychological incapacity.—Even assuming arguendo that
petitioner was able to prove that respondent had an extramarital
affair with another man, that one instance of sexual infidelity
cannot, by itself, 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.

PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and

resolution of the Court of Appeals.
   The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
  Erlando A. Abrenica and Jose Mari S. Velez, Jr. for
petitioner.
  Zamora, Poblador, Vasquez & Bretaña for respondent.

_______________
* FIRST DIVISION.

823

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016d33bc28ee665517e2003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/17
9/15/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 657

Kalaw vs. Fernandez, SEPTEMBER 19, 2011 823

DEL CASTILLO, J.:

A finding of psychological incapacity must be supported
by well-established facts. It is the plaintiff’s burden to
convince the court of the existence of these facts.
Before the Court is a Petition for Review1 of the Court of
Appeals’ (CA) May 27, 2004 Decision2 and December 15,
2004 Resolution3 in CA-G.R. CV No. 64240, which reversed
the trial court’s declaration of nullity of the herein parties’
marriage. The fallo of the assailed Decision reads:

“WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED, and the assailed

Decision is SET ASIDE and VACATED while the petition for
declaration of nullity of marriage is hereby DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.”4

Factual Antecedents
Petitioner Valerio E. Kalaw (Tyrone) and respondent
Ma. Elena Fernandez (Malyn) met in 1973. They
maintained a relationship and eventually married in Hong
Kong on November 4, 1976. They had four children, Valerio
(Rio), Maria Eva (Ria), Ramon Miguel (Miggy or Mickey),
and Jaime Teodoro (Jay).
Shortly after the birth of their youngest son, Tyrone had
an extramarital affair with Jocelyn Quejano (Jocelyn), who
gave birth to a son in March 1983.5
In May 1985, Malyn left the conjugal home (the house of
her Kalaw in-laws) and her four children with Tyrone.6

_______________
1 Rollo, pp. 26-56.
2 Id., at pp. 9-20; penned by Associate Justice Roberto A. Barrios and
concurred in by Associate Justices Regalado E. Maambong and Vicente Q.
Roxas.
3 Id., at pp. 22-23.
4 CA Decision, p. 11; Rollo, p. 19.
5 Social Case Study Report, p. 14; Records, Vol. I, p. 216.

824

824 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Meanwhile, Tyrone started living with Jocelyn, who bore

him three more children.7
In 1990, Tyrone went to the United States (US) with
Jocelyn and their children. He left his four children from
his marriage with Malyn in a rented house in Valle Verde
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016d33bc28ee665517e2003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/17
9/15/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 657

with only a househelp and a driver.8 The househelp would

just call Malyn to take care of the children whenever any of
them got sick. Also, in accordance with their custody
agreement, the children stayed with Malyn on weekends.9
In 1994, the two elder children, Rio and Ria, asked for
Malyn’s permission to go to Japan for a one-week vacation.
Malyn acceded only to learn later that Tyrone brought the
children to the US.10 After just one year, Ria returned to
the Philippines and chose to live with Malyn.
Meanwhile, Tyrone and Jocelyn’s family returned to the
Philippines and resumed physical custody of the two
younger children, Miggy and Jay. According to Malyn, from
that time on, the children refused to go to her house on
weekends because of alleged weekend plans with their
father.11
Complaint for declaration of nullity of marriage
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.12 He alleged that Malyn was psychologically
incapacitated to per-

_______________
6  TSN dated March 15, 1995, pp. 11-12.
7  Social Case Study Report, p. 14; Records, Vol. I, p. 216.
8  Social Case Study Report, pp. 11 and 13; id., at pp. 213 and 215.
9  Dr. Dayan’s Psychological Evaluation Report, p. 7; id., at p. 259.
10 Id., at pp. 10-11; id., at p. 259.
11 TSN dated March 15, 1995, pp. 23-24; Dr. Dayan’s Psychological
Evaluation Report, pp. 7-8; Records, Vol. I, p. 259.
12 Id., at pp. 1-4.

825

Kalaw vs. Fernandez, SEPTEMBER 19, 2011 825

form and comply with the essential marital obligations at

the time of the celebration of their marriage. He further
claimed that her psychological incapacity was manifested
by her immaturity and irresponsibility towards Tyrone and
their children during their co-habitation, as shown by
Malyn’s following acts:

1. she left the children without proper care and attention as

she played mahjong all day and all night;
2. she left the house to party with male friends and returned
in the early hours of the following day; and

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016d33bc28ee665517e2003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/17
9/15/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 657

3. she committed adultery on June 9, 1985, which act Tyrone

discovered in flagrante delicto.13

During trial,14 Tyrone narrated the circumstances of

Malyn’s alleged infidelity. According to him, on June 9,
1985, he and his brother-in-law, Ronald Fernandez
(Malyn’s brother), proceeded to Hyatt Hotel and learned
that Malyn was occupying a room with a certain Benjie
Guevarra (Benjie). When he proceeded to the said room, he
saw Benjie and Malyn inside.15 At rebuttal, Tyrone
elaborated that Benjie was wearing only a towel around his
waist, while Malyn was lying in bed in her underwear.
After an exchange of words, he agreed not to charge Malyn
with adultery when the latter agreed to relinquish all her
marital and parental rights.16 They put their agreement in
writing before Atty. Jose Palarca.
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 Malyn’s psychological
incapacity.

_______________
13 Id., at p. 2; Petitioner’s Memorandum in JDRC Case No. 3100,
records, Vol. II, pp. 306-307.
14 The case proceeded to trial after the fiscal manifested to the court
that there was no collusion between the parties (Records, Vol. I, p. 45).
15 TSN dated January 5, 1995, pp. 16-17.
16 Id., at pp. 17-18.

826

826 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

 
Dr. Gates explained on the stand that the factual
allegations regarding Malyn’s behavior—her sexual
infidelity, habitual mahjong playing, and her frequent
nights-out with friends—may reflect a narcissistic
personality disorder (NPD).17 NPD is present when a
person is obsessed to meet her wants and needs in utter
disregard of her significant others.18 Malyn’s NPD is
manifest in her utter neglect of her duties as a mother.19
Dr. Gates reported that Malyn’s personality disorder
“may have been evident even prior to her marriage”
because it is rooted in her family background and
upbringing, which the psychologist gathered to be
materially deprived and without a proper maternal role
model.20
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016d33bc28ee665517e2003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/17
9/15/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 657

Dr. Gates based her diagnosis on the facts revealed by

her interviews with Tyrone, Trinidad Kalaw (Tyrone’s
sister-in-law), and the son Miggy. She also read the
transcript of Tyrone’s court testimony.21
Fr. Healy corroborated Dr. Gates’ assessment. He
concluded that Malyn was psychologically incapacitated to
perform her marital duties.22 He explained that her psycho-
logical incapacity is rooted in her role as the breadwinner
of her family. This role allegedly inflated Malyn’s ego to the
point that her needs became priority, while her kids’ and
husband’s needs became secondary. Malyn is so self-
absorbed that she is incapable of prioritizing her family’s
needs.
Fr. Healy clarified that playing mahjong and spending
time with friends are not disorders by themselves. They
only constitute psychological incapacity whenever
inordinate amounts of time are spent on these activities to
the detriment of one’s

_______________
17 Psychological Report, Records, Vol. I, pp. 173-175.
18 TSN dated February 15, 1995, pp. 6-7.
19 Id., at p. 7.
20 Psychological Report, Records, Vol. I, pp. 174-175.
21 TSN dated February 15, 1995, p. 4.
22 TSN dated June 17, 1998, p. 24.

827

Kalaw vs. Fernandez, SEPTEMBER 19, 2011 827

familial duties.23 Fr. Healy characterized Malyn’s

psychological incapacity as grave and incurable.24
He based his opinion on his interview with Tyrone, the
trial transcripts, as well as the report of Dr. Natividad
Dayan (Dr. Dayan), Malyn’s expert witness.25 He clarified
that he did not verify the truthfulness of the factual
allegations regarding Malyn’s “habits” because he believed
it is the court’s duty to do so.26 Instead, he formed his
opinion on the assumption that the factual allegations are
indeed true.
Malyn’s version
Malyn denied being psychologically incapacitated.27
While she admitted playing mahjong, she denied playing as
frequently as Tyrone alleged. She maintained that she did
so only two to three times a week and always between 1
p.m. to 6 p.m. only.28 And in those instances, she always
had Tyrone’s permission and would often bring the children
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016d33bc28ee665517e2003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/17
9/15/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 657

and their respective yayas with her.29 She maintained that

she did not neglect her duties as mother and wife.
Malyn admitted leaving the conjugal home in May 1985.
She, however, explained that she did so only to escape her
physically abusive husband.30 On the day she left, Tyrone,
who preferred to keep Malyn a housewife, was upset that
Malyn was preparing to go to work. He called up the
security guards and instructed them not to let Malyn out of
the house. Tyrone then placed cigarette ashes on Malyn’s
head and proceeded to lock the bedroom doors. Fearing
another beating,

_______________
23 Id., at pp. 30-31.
24 Id., at pp. 26-27.
25 Id., at pp. 22-23.
26 Id., at p. 23.
27 Records, Vol. I, pp. 20-21.
28 TSN dated July 8, 1998, pp. 5-7.
29 Id., at pp. 6-7.
30 TSN dated March 15, 1995, pp. 12-13.

828

828 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Malyn rushed out of their bedroom and into her mother-in-

law’s room. She blurted that Tyrone would beat her up
again so her mother-in-law gave her P300 to leave the
house.31 She never returned to their conjugal home.
Malyn explained that she applied for work, against
Tyrone’s wishes, because she wanted to be self-sufficient.
Her resolve came from her discovery that Tyrone had a son
by Jocelyn and had secretly gone to the US with Jocelyn.32
Malyn denied the allegation of adultery. She maintained
that Benjie only booked a room at the Hyatt Hotel for her
because she was so drunk after partying with friends. She
admitted finding her brother Ronald and Tyrone at the
door of the Hyatt Hotel room, but maintained being fully
clothed at that time.33 Malyn insisted that she wrote the
letter relinquishing all her spousal and parental rights
under duress.34
After the Hyatt Hotel incident, Malyn only saw her
children by surreptitiously visiting them in school. She
later obtained partial custody of the children as an incident
to the legal separation action filed by Tyrone against her
(which action was subsequently dismissed for lack of
interest).
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016d33bc28ee665517e2003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/17
9/15/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 657

As an affirmative defense, Malyn maintained that it was

Tyrone who was suffering from psychological incapacity, as
manifested by his drug dependence, habitual drinking,
womanizing, and physical violence.35 Malyn presented Dr.
Dayan a clinical psychologist, as her expert witness.
Dr. Dayan interviewed Tyrone, Malyn, Miggy/Mickey,
Jay, and Ria for her psychological evaluation of the
spouses. The factual narrations culled from these
interviews reveal that Tyrone found Malyn a “lousy”
mother because of her mahjong

_______________
31 Id., at pp. 11-12.
32 Id., at pp. 9-11.
33 Id., at pp. 15-17.
34 Id., at pp. 17-18.
35 Records, Vol. I, p. 21.

829

Kalaw vs. Fernandez, SEPTEMBER 19, 2011 829

habit,36 while Malyn was fed up with Tyrone’s sexual

infidelity, drug habit, and physical abuse.37 Dr. Dayan
determined that both Tyrone and Malyn were behaviorally
immature. They encountered problems because of their
personality differences, which ultimately led to the demise
of their marriage. Her diagnostic impressions are
summarized below:

“The marriage of Tyrone and Malyn was a mistake from the

very beginning. Both of them were not truly ready for marriage
even after two years of living together and having a child. When
Malyn first met Tyrone who showered her with gifts, flowers, and
affection she resisted his overtures. She made it clear that she
could ‘take him or leave him.’ But the minute she started to care,
she became a different person—clingy and immature, doubting
his love, constantly demanding reassurance that she was the most
important person in his life. She became relationship-dependent.
It appears that her style then was when she begins to care for a
man, she puts all her energy into him and loses focus on herself.
This imbalance between thinking and feeling was overwhelming
to Tyrone who admitted that the thought of commitment scared
him. Tyrone admitted that when he was in his younger years, he
was often out seeking other women. His interest in them was not
necessarily for sex, just for fun—dancing, drinking, or simply
flirting.

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016d33bc28ee665517e2003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/17
9/15/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 657

Both of them seem behaviorally immature. For some time,

Malyn adapted to her husband who was a moody man with short
temper and unresolved issues with parents and siblings. He was a
distancer, concerned more about his work and friends tha[n] he
was about spending time with his family. Because of Malyn’s and
Tyrone’s backgrounds (both came from families with high
conflicts) they experienced turmoil and chaos in their marriage.
The conflicts they had struggled to avoid suddenly galloped out of
control Their individual personalities broke through, precipitating
the demise of their marriage.38

_______________
36 Dr. Dayan’s Psychological Evaluation Report, p. 13; id., at p. 259.
37 Id., at pp. 4-6; id.
38 Id., at pp. 17-18; id.; TSN dated March 14, 1996, p. 10.

830

830 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Dr. Dayan likewise wrote in her psychological evaluation

report that Malyn exhibited significant, but not severe,
dependency, narcissism, and compulsiveness.39
On the stand, the psychologist elaborated that while
Malyn had relationship problems with Tyrone, she
appeared to have a good relationship with her kids.40 As for
Tyrone, he has commitment issues which prevent him from
committing himself to his duties as a husband. He is
unable to remain faithful to Malyn and is psychologically
incapacitated to perform this duty.41
Children’s version
The children all stated that both their parents took care
of them, provided for their needs, and loved them. Rio
testified that they would accompany their mother to White
Plains on days that she played mahjong with her friends.
None of them reported being neglected or feeling
abandoned.
The two elder kids remembered the fights between their
parents but it was only Ria who admitted actually
witnessing physical abuse inflicted on her mother.42 The
two elder kids also recalled that, after the separation, their
mother would visit them only in school.43
The children recalled living in Valle Verde with only the
househelp and driver during the time that their dad was
abroad.44 While they did not live with their mother while
they

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016d33bc28ee665517e2003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/17
9/15/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 657

_______________
39 TSN dated January 30, 1996, p. 13.
40 Id., at p. 15.
41 TSN dated March 14, 1996, p. 12.
42 Social Case Study Report, p. 13 (Records, Vol. I, p. 215); Dr. Dayan’s
Psychological Evaluation Report, p. 9 (Records, Vol. I, p. 259).
43 TSN dated June 8, 1995, p. 6; Dr. Dayan’s Psychological Evaluation
Report, p. 9 (Id.); Rio’s deposition, p. 3 (Id., at p. 356).
44 Social Case Study Report, pp. 11 and 13; Records, Vol. I, pp. 213 and
215.

831

Kalaw vs. Fernandez, SEPTEMBER 19, 2011 831

were housed in Valle Verde, the kids were in agreement

that their mother took care of them on weekends and would
see to their needs. They had a common recollection that the
househelp would call their mother to come and take care of
them in Valle Verde whenever any of them was sick.45
Other witnesses
Dr. Cornelio Banaag, Tyrone’s attending psychiatrist at
the Manila Sanitarium, testified that, for the duration of
Tyrone’s confinement, the couple appeared happy and the
wife was commendable for the support she gave to her
spouse.46 He likewise testified that Tyrone tested negative
for drugs and was not a drug dependent.47
Malyn’s brother, Ronald Fernandez, confirmed Tyrone’s
allegation that they found Malyn with Benjie in the Hyatt
hotel room. Contrary to Tyrone’s version, he testified that
neither he nor Tyrone entered the room, but stayed in the
hallway. He likewise did not recall seeing Benjie or Malyn
half-naked.48
Tyrone then presented Mario Calma (Mario), who was
allegedly part of Malyn’s group of friends. He stated on the
stand that they would go on nights-out as a group and
Malyn would meet with a male musician-friend
afterwards.49
Social worker
The trial court ordered the court social worker, Jocelyn
V. Arre (Arre), to conduct a social case study on the parties
as well as the minor children. Arre interviewed the parties
Tyrone and Malyn; the minor children Miggy/Mickey and
Jay;

_______________
45 TSN dated June 8, 1995, p. 9; Social Case Study Report, pp. 11 and
19 (Id., at pp. 213 and 221).
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016d33bc28ee665517e2003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 9/17
9/15/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 657

46 TSN dated November 20, 1995, pp. 15 and 21.

47 Id., at pp. 8-10.
48 TSN dated January 4, 1996, pp. 4-6.
49 TSN dated April 2, 1998, pp. 18-20.

832

832 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Tyrone’s live-in partner, Jocelyn;50 and Tyrone and Malyn’s

only daughter, Ria. While both parents are financially
stable and have positive relationships with their children,
she recommended that the custody of the minor children be
awarded to Malyn. Based on the interviews of family
members themselves, Malyn was shown to be more
available to the children and to exercise better supervision
and care. The social worker commended the fact that even
after Malyn left the conjugal home in 1985, she made
efforts to visit her children clandestinely in their respective
schools. And while she was only granted weekend custody
of the children, it appeared that she made efforts to
personally attend to their needs and to devote time with
them.51
On the contrary, Tyrone, who had custody of the
children since the couple’s de facto separation, simply left
the children for several years with only a maid and a driver
to care for them while he lived with his second family
abroad.52 The social worker found that Tyrone tended to
prioritize his second family to the detriment of his children
with Malyn. Given this history during the formative years
of the children, the social worker did not find Tyrone a
reliable parent to whom custody of adolescents may be
awarded.

_______________
50 Tyrone alleges that he married Jocelyn Quejano in 1990 in
California, United States of America after divorcing with Malyn also in
California sometime in 1987. There is, however, no documentary evidence
of the divorce and remarriage. There is no allegation that Tyrone had
obtained American citizenship and is indicated in the Social Case Study
Report as a Filipino citizen (Records, Vol. I, p. 219).
51 Social Case Study Report, pp. 19-20; id., at pp. 221-222.
52 Id.; id.

833

Kalaw vs. Fernandez, SEPTEMBER 19, 2011 833

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016d33bc28ee665517e2003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 10/17
9/15/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 657

Ruling of the Regional Trial Court53

After summarizing the evidence presented by both
parties, the trial court concluded that both parties are
psychologically incapacitated to perform the essential
marital obligations under the Family Code. The court’s
Decision is encapsulated in this paragraph:

“From the evidence, it appears that parties are both suffering

from psychological incapacity to perform their essential marital
obligations under Article 36 of the Family Code. The parties
entered into a marriage without as much as understanding what
it entails. They failed to commit themselves to its essential
obligations: the conjugal act, the community of life and love, the
rendering of mutual help, the procreation and education of their
children to become responsible individuals. Parties’ psychological
incapacity is grave, and serious such that both are incapable of
carrying out the ordinary duties required in marriage. The
incapacity has been clinically established and was found to be
pervasive, grave and incurable.”54

The trial court then declared the parties’ marriage void

ab initio pursuant to Article 36 of the Family Code.55

_______________
53 Records, Vol. II, pp. 382-389; penned by Judge Jose R. Hernandez of
Branch 158 of the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City.
54 RTC Decision, pp. 7-8; id., at pp. 388-389.
55 The fallo reads:
WHEREFORE, the marriage between petitioner Valerio Kalaw and
respondent Ma. Elena Fernandez celebrated on November 4, 1976 is
declared void ab initio pursuant to the provisions of Article 36 of the
Family Code, and of no further effect.
The provisions of Article[s] 50, 51, and 52 of the Family Code of the
Philippines relative to the delivery of their children’s presumptive
legitime shall not apply because parties were not able to prove the
existence of any conjugal partnership of gains.
Upon finality of this Decision, furnish a copy each to the Office of the
Local Civil Registrar of Pasig City and the National Statistics Office,
Quezon City for their appropriate action consistent with this Decision.
SO ORDERED. (Id.; id.)

834

834 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Ruling of the Court of Appeals56

Malyn appealed the trial court’s Decision to the CA. The
CA reversed the trial court’s ruling because it is not

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016d33bc28ee665517e2003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 11/17
9/15/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 657

supported by the facts on record. Both parties’ allegations

and incriminations against each other do not support a
finding of psychological incapacity. The parties’ faults tend
only to picture their immaturity and irresponsibility in
performing their marital and familial obligations. At most,
there may be sufficient grounds for a legal separation.57
Moreover, the psychological report submitted by
petitioner’s expert witness, Dr. Gates, does not explain how
the diagnosis of NPD came to be drawn from the sources. It
failed to satisfy the legal and jurisprudential requirements
for the declaration of nullity of marriage.58
Tyrone filed a motion for reconsideration59 but the same
was denied on December 15, 2004.60
Petitioner’s arguments
Petitioner Tyrone argues that the CA erred in
disregarding the factual findings of the trial court, which is
the court that is in the best position to appreciate the
evidence. He opines that he has presented preponderant
evidence to prove that respondent is psychologically
incapacitated to perform her essential marital obligations,
to wit:
a) the expert witnesses, Dr. Gates and Fr. Healy,
proved on the stand that respondent’s egocentric
attitude, immaturity, self-obsession and self-
centeredness were manifestations of respondent’s
NPD;61

_______________
56 CA Rollo, pp. 262-273.
57 CA Decision, p. 7; CA Rollo, p. 268.
58 Id., at p. 11; id., at p. 272.
59 CA Rollo, pp. 281-298.
60 Id., at pp. 310-311.
61 Petitioner’s Memorandum, pp. 23-26; Rollo, pp. 606-609.

835

Kalaw vs. Fernandez, SEPTEMBER 19, 2011 835

 
b) these expert witnesses proved that respondent’s
NPD is grave and incurable and prevents her from
performing her essential martial obligations;62 and
c) that respondent’s NPD existed at the time of the
celebration of the marriage because it is rooted in her
upbringing, family background, and socialite lifestyle
prior to her marriage.63

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016d33bc28ee665517e2003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 12/17
9/15/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 657

Petitioner stresses that even respondent insisted that

their marriage is void because of psychological incapacity,
albeit on petitioner’s part.64
Respondent’s arguments
Respondent maintains that Tyrone failed to discharge
his burden of proving her alleged psychological
incapacity.65 She argues that the testimonies of her
children and the findings of the court social worker to the
effect that she was a good, loving, and attentive mother are
sufficient to rebut Tyrone’s allegation that she was
negligent and irresponsible.66
She assails Dr. Gates’s report as one-sided and lacking
in depth. Dr. Gates did not interview her, their common
children, or even Jocelyn. Moreover, her report failed to
state that Malyn’s alleged psychological incapacity was
grave and incurable.67 Fr. Healy’s testimony, on the other
hand, was based only on Tyrone’s version of the facts.68
Malyn reiterates the appellate court’s ruling that the
trial court Decision is intrinsically defective for failing to
support

_______________
62 Id., at pp. 13-20; id., at pp. 596-603.
63 Id., at pp. 20-22; id., at pp. 603-605.
64 Id., at pp. 26-27; id., at pp. 609-610.
65 Respondent’s Memorandum, p. 2; id., at p. 551.
66 Id., at pp. 17-18; id., at pp. 566-567.
67 Id., at p. 19; id., at p. 568.
68 Id., at p. 20; id., at p. 569.

836

836 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

its conclusion of psychological incapacity with factual

findings.
Almost four years after filing her memorandum,
respondent apparently had a change of heart and filed a
Manifestation with Motion for Leave to Withdraw
Comment and Memorandum.69 She manifested that she
was no longer disputing the possibility that their marriage
may really be void on the basis of Tyrone’s psychological
incapacity. She then asked the Court to dispose of the case
with justice.70 Her manifestation and motion were noted by
the Court in its January 20, 2010 Resolution.71

Issue

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016d33bc28ee665517e2003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 13/17
9/15/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 657

Whether petitioner has sufficiently proved that

respondent suffers from psychological incapacity

Our Ruling

The petition has no merit. The CA committed no

reversible error in setting aside the trial court’s Decision
for lack of legal and factual basis.
A petition for declaration of nullity of marriage is
governed by Article 36 of the Family Code which provides:

“ART. 36. A marriage contracted by any party who, at the

time of the celebration, was psychologically incapacitated to
comply with the essential marital obligations of marriage, shall
likewise be void even if such incapacity becomes manifest only
after its solemnization.”

Psychological incapacity is the downright incapacity or

inability to take cognizance of and to assume the basic
marital

_______________
69 Rollo, pp. 650-654.
70 Respondent’s Manifestation, p. 2; id., at p. 651.
71 Rollo, p. 662.

837

Kalaw vs. Fernandez, SEPTEMBER 19, 2011 837

obligations.72 The burden of proving psychological

incapacity is on the plaintiff.73 The plaintiff must prove
that the incapacitated party, based on his or her actions or
behavior, suffers a serious psychological disorder that
completely disables him or her from understanding and
discharging the essential obligations of the marital state.
The psychological problem must be grave, must have
existed at the time of marriage, and must be incurable.74
In the case at bar, petitioner failed to prove that his wife
(respondent) suffers from psychological incapacity. 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. Petitioner’s experts
heavily relied on petitioner’s allegations of respondent’s
constant mahjong sessions, visits to the beauty parlor,
going out with friends, adultery, and neglect of their
children. Petitioner’s experts opined that respondent’s
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016d33bc28ee665517e2003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 14/17
9/15/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 657

alleged habits, when performed constantly to the detriment

of quality and quantity of time devoted to her duties as
mother and wife, constitute a psychological incapacity in
the form of NPD.
But petitioner’s allegations, which served as the bases or
underlying premises of the conclusions of his experts, were
not actually proven. In fact, respondent presented contrary
evidence refuting these allegations of the petitioner.
For instance, petitioner alleged that respondent
constantly played mahjong and neglected their children as
a result. Re-

_______________
72  Republic v. Iyoy, 507 Phil. 485, 502; 470 SCRA 508, 525 (2005),
citing Republic v. Court of Appeals, 335 Phil. 664, 678; 268 SCRA 198, 211
(1997).
73 Republic v. Court of Appeals, 335 Phil. 664, 676; 268 SCRA 198, 209
(1997).
74  Santos v. Court of Appeals, 310 Phil. 21, 39; 240 SCRA 20, 33-34
(1995).

838

838 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

spondent admittedly played mahjong, but it was not proven

that she engaged in mahjong so frequently that she neg-
lected her duties as a mother and a wife. Respondent
refuted petitioner’s allegations that she played four to five
times a week. She maintained it was only two to three
times a week and always with the permission of her
husband and without abandoning her children at home.
The children corroborated this, saying that they were with
their mother when she played mahjong in their relative’s
home. Petitioner did not present any proof, other than his
own testimony, that the mahjong sessions were so frequent
that respondent neglected her family. While he intimated
that two of his sons repeated the second grade, he was not
able to link this episode to respondent’s mahjong-playing.
The least that could have been done was to prove the
frequency of respondent’s mahjong-playing during the
years when these two children were in second grade. This
was not done. Thus, while there is no dispute that
respondent played mahjong, its alleged debilitating
frequency and adverse effect on the children were not
proven.
Also unproven was petitioner’s claim about respondent’s
alleged constant visits to the beauty parlor, going out with
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016d33bc28ee665517e2003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 15/17
9/15/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 657

friends, and obsessive need for attention from other men.

No proof whatsoever was presented to prove her visits to
beauty salons or her frequent partying with friends.
Petitioner presented Mario (an alleged companion of
respondent during these nights-out) in order to prove that
respondent had affairs with other men, but Mario only
testified that respondent appeared to be dating other men.
Even assuming arguendo that petitioner was able to prove
that respondent had an extramarital affair with another
man, that one instance of sexual infidelity cannot, by itself,
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.
Given the insufficiency of evidence that respondent
actually engaged in the behaviors described as constitutive
of
839

Kalaw vs. Fernandez, SEPTEMBER 19, 2011 839

NPD, there is no basis for concluding that she was indeed

psychologically incapacitated. Indeed, the totality of the
evidence points to the opposite conclusion. A fair
assessment of the facts would show that respondent was
not totally remiss and incapable of appreciating and
performing her marital and parental duties. Not once did
the children state that they were neglected by their
mother. On the contrary, they narrated that she took care
of them, was around when they were sick, and cooked the
food they like. It appears that respondent made real efforts
to see and take care of her children despite her
estrangement from their father. There was no testimony
whatsoever that shows abandonment and neglect of
familial duties. While petitioner cites the fact that his two
sons, Rio and Miggy, both failed the second elementary
level despite having tutors, there is nothing to link their
academic shortcomings to Malyn’s actions.
After poring over the records of the case, the Court finds
no factual basis for the conclusion of psychological
incapacity. There is no error in the CA’s reversal of the
trial court’s ruling that there was psychological incapacity.
The trial court’s Decision merely summarized the
allegations, testimonies, and evidence of the respective
parties, but it did not actually assess the veracity of these
allegations, the credibility of the witnesses, and the weight
of the evidence. The trial court did not make factual
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016d33bc28ee665517e2003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 16/17
9/15/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 657

findings which can serve as bases for its legal conclusion of

psychological incapacity.
What transpired between the parties is acrimony and,
perhaps, infidelity, which may have constrained them from
dedicating the best of themselves to each other and to their
children. There may be grounds for legal separation, but
certainly not psychological incapacity that voids a
marriage.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is
DENIED. The Court of Appeals’ May 27, 2004 Decision and
its December 15, 2004 Resolution in CA-G.R. CV No. 64240
are AFFIRMED.
840

840 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

 
SO ORDERED.

Corona (C.J., Chairperson), Leonardo-De Castro,

Bersamin and Perez,** JJ., concur. 

Petition denied, judgment and resolution affirmed.

Note.—A mere showing of irreconcilable differences and

conflicting personalities does not equate to psychological
incapacity. (Halili vs. Santos-Halili, 551 SCRA 576 [2008])
——o0o—— 

_______________
**  In lieu of Associate Justice Martin S. Villarama, Jr., per Special
Order No. 1080 dated September 13, 2011.

© Copyright 2019 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016d33bc28ee665517e2003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 17/17