LIGERALDE v. PATALINGHUG No. 168796 April 15, 2010 MENDOZA, J.

: Procedural History: This petition seeks to set aside the Decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) which reversed the Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Dagupan City (RTC) declaring the marriage between petitioner Silvino A. Ligeralde (Silvino) and private respondent May Ascension A. Patalinghug (May) null and void. Statement of Facts: The couple wed on October 3, 1984, and begot four children. Silvinio, who described May as immature, irresponsible and carefree, claimed that even before marriage he already noticed some signs of negative marital behavior. During their marriage, he caught her in moments of infidelity, as she would cover up her trysts with her Palestinian boyfriend by saying that she watched a video program in a neighboring town. They would also have alterations despite his pleas of her changing her ways. Despite May's attempt of reformation for the sake of their marriage and children, she still bounced back to her old ways of infidelity, negligence and nocturnal activities, thus leading Silvinio to filing a complaint of psychological incapacity on the part of his wife. Issue: Whether May is psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential obligations of marriage. Answer: No, the Courts considered view that petitioners evidence failed to establish respondent Mays psychological incapacity characterized by gravity, juridical antecedence and incurability. Reasoning: The facts of petitioner were not sufficient to prove the root cause, gravity and incurability of private respondents condition. Even with the testimony of the psychologist, Dr. Nicdao-Basilio, the root cause of psychological incapacity was not identified, as the illness should be fully explained in the totality of evidence of the incapacitating nature. In addition, the private acts of living an adulterous life does not rise to the level of the psychological incapacity that the law requires. There must be a manifestation of a disordered personality, which makes her completely unable to discharge the essential obligations of the marital state, not just character flaws that warrant a conclusion of psychological malady. Holding: Petition is denied.

AGRIAVIADOR v. AMPARO-AGRAVIADOR No. 170729 December 8, 2010 BRION, J.: Procedural History: Petitioner Enrique Agraviador y Alunan (Enrique) challenges the resolution of the Court of Appeals (CA) which reversed the resolution of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) Muntinlupa City, declaring the marriage of the petitioner and respondent Erlinda Amparo-Agraviador (Erlinda) null and void on the ground of the latters psychological incapacity. Statement of Facts: In 1971, Enrique, then a security guard, first met Erlinda at a beerhouse where the latter worked, and later on became sweethearts after courtship. They soon entered into a common-law relationship, but later contracted marriage in 1973, whereby they begot four children. Enrique's family, however, expressed their apprehensions because Erlinda came from a broken family and because of the nature of her work. In 2001, petitioner filed a petition for the declaration of nullity of marriage on the basis of respondent's psychological incapacity, alleging that she was carefree and irresponsible, and refused to do household chores like cleaning and cooking; stayed away from their house for long periods of time; had an affair with a lesbian; did not take care of their sick child to the point of his death; consulted a witch doctor in order to bring him bad fate; and refused to use the family name Agraviador in her activities. He also claimed that she refused to have sex with him because she became very close to a male border of their house, and even caught their love notes and trysts. However, because the root cause of her psychological incapacity was not medically identified and alleged in the petition, motion was denied. The petitioner, thus, presented testimonial and documentary evidence to substantiate his claims through the psychiatric evaluation report of Dr. Juan Cirilo L. Patac, who claimed that Erlinda is suffering from a Personality Disorder (Mixed Personality Disorder). She was said to been having this disorder since her adolescence, with no definite treatment for her disorder. Issue: Whether there is basis to nullify the petitioners marriage to the respondent on the ground of psychological incapacity to comply with the essential marital obligations. Answer: No, the totality of evidence presented failed to establish the respondents psychological incapacity. Reasoning: The court held that both Enrique's court testimony, as well as Dr. Patacs Psychiatric Evaluation Report fell short in proving that the respondent was psychologically incapacitated to perform the essential marital duties. First, petitioner's claims should be distinguished from the difficulty, if not outright refusal or neglect, in the performance of some marital obligations that characterize some marriages to the level of psychological incapacity that the law requires. He

merely showed that Erlinda had some personality defects that showed their manifestation during the marriage; his testimony sorely lacked details necessary to establish that the respondents defects existed at the inception of the marriage. His claims that Erlinda does not accept her fault, does not want to change, and refused to reform are insufficient to establish a psychological or mental defect that is serious, grave, or incurable as contemplated by Article 36 of the Family Code. Second, Dr. Patac failed to clarify the circumstances that led the respondent to act the way she did in her attempt to establish the juridical antecedence of the respondents condition. The report that he submit likewise failed to prove the gravity or seriousness of the respondents condition, as his enumeration of the respondents purported behavioral defects (as related to him by third persons), and on this basis characterized the respondent to be suffering from mixed personality disorder deemed insufficient. There was no other statement regarding the degree of severity of the respondents condition, why and to what extent the disorder is grave, and how it incapacitated her to comply with the duties required in marriage. The Psychiatric Evaluation Report likewise failed to adequately explain how Dr. Patac came to the conclusion that the respondents personality disorder had no definite treatment. It did not discuss the concept of mixed personality disorder, i.e., its classification, cause, symptoms, and cure, and failed to show how and to what extent the respondent exhibited this disorder in order to create a necessary inference that the respondents condition had no definite treatment or is incurable. Holding: Decision and resolution of CA is affirmed, and petition is denied, with costs against petitioner.

BACCAY v. BACCAY No. 173138 December 1, 2010 VILLARAMA, JR., J: Procedural History: This petition seeks to review the Resolution of the Court of Appeals (CA), which reversed the Decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, which declared the marriage of petitioner Noel B. Baccay (Noel) and Maribel Calderon-Baccay (Maribel) void on the ground of psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code of the Philippines. Statement of Facts: In 1990, a mutual friend introduced Noel and Maribel when they were both still schoolmates at the Mapua Institute of Technology. The two became good friends, however, it was only after years of continuous courtship that Maribel accepted Noels proposal and the two became sweethearts. Noel would bring Maribel to their house to attend family gatherings and other festive occasions, but Maribel would remain invariably aloof or snobbish and never tried to get close to any family member despite her promise to do so. In 1997 Noel tried to break the relationship with Maribel because he became involved with another woman, but she refused and offered to accept the relationship as long as they would not break ties. Despite efforts to keep meetings strictly friendly, the two had several episodes of casual sexual contracts. Sometime in September of 1998, Maribel informed Noel that she was pregnant with his child and upon advice of his mother, he reluctantly agreed to marry Maribel on November that same year. After the marriage, the two lived in Noel's family in Quezon City; however, during all the time Maribel lived there, she remained aloof and did not make an effort to endear herself to them. She also refused to contribute to the family's coffer and to have sexual contact with Noel. In addition, despite her claims of being pregnant, there were no observed symptoms of pregnancy. Then sometime in January of 1999, she announced to Noel and his family that she had a miscarriage and was confined during the day she was not at home. Noel confronted her about the said miscarriage the next month and the discussion escalated into an intense quarrel, which made Maribel leave the household and never return. Despite Noel's efforts to communicate, Maribel rejected his efforts. Issue: Whether the marriage between the parties is null and void under Article 36 of the Family Code. Answer: No, the totality of evidence presented by Noel was not sufficient to sustain a finding that Maribel was psychologically incapacitated. Reasoning: Noel failed to prove the root cause of the alleged psychological incapacity and establish the requirements of gravity, juridical antecedence, and incurability. As correctly observed by the CA, the report of the psychologist, who concluded that Maribel was suffering from Narcissistic

Personality Disorder traceable to her experiences during childhood, did not establish how the personality disorder incapacitated Maribel from validly assuming the essential obligations of the marriage. The same psychologist even testified that Maribel was capable of entering into a marriage except that it would be difficult for her to sustain one. Mere difficulty is not the incapacity contemplated by law. Holding: The decision of the CA is affirmed and upheld; petition is denied with costs against petitioner.