AGRAVIADOR V. AMPARO-AGRAVIADOR
G.R. No. 170729, [December 8, 2010]
DOCTRINE/RULING:
The court held that both Enrique’s court testimony, as well as Dr. Patac’s Psychiatric Evaluation Report fell short in proving that the respondent was psychologically incapacitated to perform the essential marital duties.
FACTS:
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) MuntinlupaCity, declaring the marriage of the petitioner and respondent Erlinda Amparo-Agraviador (Erlinda) null and void on the ground of the latter’s psychological incapacity.
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 petitioner’s marriage to the respondent on the ground of psychological incapacity to comply with the essential marital obligations.
HELD:
No, the totality of evidence presented failed to establish the respondent’s psychological incapacity.
RATIO:
The court held that both Enrique’s court testimony,as well as Dr. Patac’s 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 respondent’s 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 respondent’s condition. The report that he submit likewise failed to prove the gravity or seriousness of the respondent’s condition, as his enumeration of the respondent’s purported behavioural 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 respondent’s 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 respondent’s 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 respondent’s condition had no definite treatment or is incurable.
