CAMACHO- REYES V. REYES
G.R. No. 185286, [August 18, 2010]
FACTS:
Petitioner Maria Socorro Camacho-Reyes met respondent Ramon Reyes at the University of the Philippines (UP), Diliman, in 1972 when they were both nineteen (19) years old. The casual acquaintanceship quickly developed into a boyfriend-girlfriend relationship.
At that time, respondent held a job in the family business, the Aristocrat Restaurant. Petitioner’s good impression of the respondent was not diminished by the latter’s habit of cutting classes, not even by her discovery that respondent was taking marijuana.
Not surprisingly, only petitioner finished university studies, obtaining a degree in AB Sociology from the UP. By 1974, respondent had dropped out of school on his third year, and just continued to work for the Aristocrat Restaurant.
In 1976, the year following petitioner’s graduation and her father’s death, petitioner and respondent got married. At that time, petitioner was already five (5) months pregnant and employed at the Population Center Foundation. Thereafter, the newlyweds lived with the respondent’s family in Mandaluyong City. All living expenses were shouldered by respondent’s parents, and the couple’s respective salaries were spent solely for their personal needs. Initially, respondent gave petitioner a monthly allowance of P1,500.00 from his salary. When their first child was born on March 22, 1977, financial difficulties started. Rearing a child entailed expenses. A year into their marriage, the monthly allowance of P1,500.00 from respondent stopped. Further, respondent no longer handed his salary to petitioner. When petitioner mustered enough courage to ask the respondent about this, the latter told her that he had resigned due to slow advancement within the family business. Respondent’s game plan was to venture into trading seafood in the province, supplying hotels and restaurants, including the Aristocrat Restaurant. However, this new business took respondent away from his young family for days on end without any communication. Petitioner simply endured the set up, hoping that the situation will change. To prod respondent into assuming more responsibility, petitioner suggested that they live separately from her in-laws. However, the new living arrangement engendered further financial difficulty. While petitioner struggled to make ends meet as the single-income earner of the household, respondent’s business floundered. Thereafter, another attempt at business, a fishpond in Mindoro, was similarly unsuccessful. Respondent gave money to petitioner sporadically. Compounding the family’s financial woes and further straining the parties’ relationship was the indifferent attitude of respondent towards his family. That his business took him away from his family did not seem to bother respondent; he did not exert any effort to remain in touch with them while he was away in Mindoro.
After two (2) years of struggling, the spouses transferred residence and, this time, moved in with petitioner’s mother. But the new set up did not end their marital difficulties. In fact, the parties became more estranged. Petitioner continued to carry the burden of supporting a family not just financially, but in most aspects as well.
In 1985, petitioner, who had previously suffered a miscarriage, gave birth to their third son. At that time, respondent was in Mindoro and he did not even inquire on the health of either the petitioner or the newborn. A week later, respondent arrived in Manila, acting nonchalantly while playing with the baby, with nary an attempt to find out how the hospital bills were settled.
In 1989, due to financial reverses, respondent’s fishpond business stopped operations. Although without any means to support his family, respondent refused to go back to work for the family business. Not surprisingly, the relationship of the parties deteriorated.
Sometime in 1996, petitioner confirmed that respondent was having an extra-marital affair. Petitioner soon realized that respondent was not only unable to provide financially for their family, but he was, more importantly, remiss in his obligation to remain faithful to her and their family.
One of the last episodes that sealed the fate of the parties’ marriage was a surgical operation on petitioner for the removal of a cyst. Although his wife was about to be operated on, respondent remained unconcerned and unattentive; and simply read the newspaper, and played dumb when petitioner requested that he accompany her as she was wheeled into the operating room. After the operation, petitioner felt that she had had enough of respondent’s lack of concern, and asked her mother to order respondent to leave the recovery room.
Adolfo Reyes, respondent’s elder brother, and his spouse, Peregrina, members of a marriage encounter group, invited and sponsored the parties to join the group. The elder couple scheduled counseling sessions with petitioner and respondent, but these did not improve the parties’ relationship as respondent remained uncooperative.
In 1997, Adolfo brought respondent to Dr. Natividad A. Dayan for a psychological assessment to “determine benchmarks of current psychological functioning.” As with all other attempts to help him, respondent resisted and did not continue with the clinical psychologist’s recommendation to undergo psychotherapy. At about this time, petitioner, with the knowledge of respondent’s siblings, told respondent to move out of their house. Respondent acquiesced to give space to petitioner. With the de facto separation, the relationship still did not improve. Neither did respondent’s relationship with his children.
Finally, in 2001,5 petitioner filed (before the RTC) a petition for the declaration of nullity of her marriage with the respondent, alleging the latter’s psychological incapacity to fulfill the essential marital obligations under Article 36 of the Family Code.
Traversing the petition, respondent denied petitioner’s allegations that he was psychologically incapacitated. After trial (where the testimonies of two clinical psychologists, Dr. Dayan and Dr. Estrella Magno, and a psychiatrist, Dr. Cecilia Villegas, were presented in evidence), the RTC granted the petition and declared the marriage between the parties null and void on the ground of their psychological incapacity. The CA reversed. Hence, this appeal.
ISSUES/HELD:
Whether the respondent was suffering from psychological incapacity. –YES.
Whether the marriage should be declared null and void under Art. 36. –YES.
RATIO:
Taking into consideration the explicit guidelines in the determination of psychological incapacity in conjunction to the totality of the evidence presented, with emphasis on the pervasive pattern of behaviors of the respondent and outcome of the assessment/diagnos[is] of expert witnesses, Dra. Dayan, Dra. Mango and Dra. Villegas on the psychological condition of the respondent, the Court finds that the marriage between the parties from its inception has a congenital infirmity termed “psychological incapacity” which pertains to the inability of the parties to effectively function emotionally, intellectually and socially towards each other in relation to their essential duties to mutually observe love, fidelity and respect as well as to mutually render help and support, (Art. 68 Family Code). In short, there was already a fixed niche in the psychological constellation of respondent which created the death of his marriage. There is no reason to entertain any slightest doubt on the truthfulness of the personality disorder of the respondent.
The three expert witnesses have spoken. They were unanimous in their findings that respondent is suffering from personality disorder which psychologically incapacitated him to fulfill his basic duties to the marriage.
This psychological incapacity of the respondent, in the uniform words of said three (3) expert witnesses, is serious, incurable and exists before his marriage and renders him a helpless victim of his structural constellation. It is beyond the respondent’s impulse control. In short, he is weaponless or powerless to restrain himself from his consistent behaviors simply because he did not consider the same as wrongful. This is clearly manifested from his assertion that nothing was wrong in his marriage with the petitioner and considered their relationship as a normal one. In fact, with this belief, he lent deaf ears to counseling and efforts extended to them by his original family members to save his marriage. In short, he was blind and too insensitive to the reality of his marital atmosphere. He totally disregarded the feelings of petitioner who appeared to have been saturated already that she finally revealed her misfortunes to her sister-in-law and willingly submitted to counseling to save their marriage. However, the hard position of the respondent finally constrained her to ask respondent to leave the conjugal dwelling. Even the siblings of the respondent were unanimous that separation is the remedy to the seriously ailing marriage of the parties. Respondent confirmed this stand of his siblings. As previously adverted to, the three experts were one in diagnosing respondent with a personality disorder, to wit:
1. Dra. Cecilia C. Villegas
Based on the clinical data presented, it is the opinion of the examiner, that [petitioner] manifested inadequacies along her affective sphere, that made her less responsive to the emotional needs of her husband, who needed a great amount of it, rendering her relatively psychologically incapacitated to perform the duties and responsibilities of marriage. [Respondent], on the other hand, has manifested strong clinical evidences (sic), that he is suffering from a Personality Disorder, of the antisocial type, associated with strong sense of Inadequacy along masculine strivings and narcissistic features that renders him psychologically incapacitated to perform the duties and responsibilities of marriage. This is characterized by his inability to conform to the social norms that ordinarily govern many aspects of adolescent and adult behavior. His being a “free spirit” associated with no remorse, no guilt feelings and no anxiety, is distinctive of this clinical condition. His prolonged drug intake [marijuana] and maybe stronger drugs lately, are external factors to boost his ego.
The root cause of the above clinical conditions is due to his underlying defense mechanisms, or the unconscious mental processes, that the ego uses to resolve conflicts. His prolonged and closed attachments to his mother encouraged cross identification and developed a severe
sense of inadequacy specifically along masculine strivings. He therefore has to camouflage his weakness, in terms of authority, assertiveness, unilateral and forceful decision making, aloofness and indifference, even if it resulted to antisocial acts. His narcissistic supplies rendered by his mother was not resolved (sic).
It existed before marriage, but became manifest only after the celebration, due to marital demands and stresses. It is considered as permanent in nature because it started early in his psychological development, and therefore became so engrained into his personality structures (sic). It is considered as severe in degree, because it hampered, interrupted and interfered with his normal functioning related to heterosexual adjustments. (emphasis supplied)
2. Dr. Natividad A. Dayan
In his relationships with people, [respondent] is apt to project a reserved, aloof and detached attitude. [Respondent] exhibits withdrawal patterns. He has deep feelings of inadequacy. Due to a low self-esteem, he tends to feel inferior and to exclude himself from association with others. He feels that he is “different” and as a result is prone to anticipate rejections. Because of the discomfort produced by these feelings, he is apt to avoid personal and social involvement, which increases his preoccupation with himself and accentuates his tendency to withdraw from interpersonal contact. [Respondent] is also apt to be the less dominant partner. He feels better when he has to follow than when he has to take the lead. A self-contained
person[,] he does not really need to interact with others in order to enjoy life and to be able to move on. He has a small need of companionship and is most comfortable alone. He, too[,] feels uncomfortable in expressing his more tender feelings for fear of being hurt. Likewise, he maybe very angry within but he may choose to repress this feeling. [Respondent’s] strong need for social approval, which could have stemmed from some deep seated insecurities makes him submissive and over [compliant]. He tends to make extra effort to please people. Although at times[, he] already feels victimized and taken advantage of, he still tolerates abusive behavior for fear of interpersonal conflicts. Despite his [dis]illusion with people, he seeks to minimize dangers of indifference and disapproval [of] others. Resentments are suppressed. This is likely to result in anger and frustrations which is likewise apt to be repressed.
There are indications that [respondent] is[,] at the moment[,] experiencing considerable tension and anxiety. He is prone to fits of apprehension and nervousness. Likewise, he is also entertaining feelings of hopelessness and is preoccupied with negative thought. He feels that he is up in the air but with no sound foundation. He is striving [for] goals which he knows he will never be able to attain. Feeling discouraged and distressed, he has difficulty concentrating and focusing on things which he needs to prioritize. He has many plans but he can’t accomplish anything because he is unable to see which path to take. This feeling of hopelessness is further aggravated by the lack of support from significant others.
Diagnostic Impression
Axis I : Drug Dependence
Axis II : Mixed Personality Disorder
[Schizoid, Narcissistic and Antisocial Personality Disorder]
Axis III : None
Axis IV : Psychosocial and Environmental Problems:
Severe He seems to be very good at planning and starting things but is unable to accomplish anything; unable to give priority to the needs of his family; in social relationships.
Axis V : Global Assessment of Functioning – Fair (Emphasis supplied)
3. Dr. Estrella T. Tiongson-Magno
Diagnosis for [petitioner]:
Axis I Partner Relational Problem
Axis II Obsessive Compulsive Personality Style with Self-Defeating features
Axis III No diagnosis
Axis IV Psychosocial Stressors-Pervasive Family Discord (spouse’s immaturity, drug abuse, and infidelity)
Severity: 4-severe
Diagnosis for [respondent]
Axis I Partner Relational Problem
Axis II Antisocial Personality Disorder with marked narcissistic, aggressive sadistic and dependent features
Axis III No diagnosis
Axis IV Psychosocial Stressors-Pervasive Family Discord (successful wife)
Severity: 4 (severe)
[Respondent], diagnosed with an antisocial personality disorder with marked narcissistic features and aggressive sadistic and dependent features, is psychologically incapacitated to fulfill the essential obligations of marriage: to love, respect and render support for his spouse and children. A personality disorder is not curable as it is permanent and stable over time.
From a psychological viewpoint, therefore, there is evidence that the marriage of [petitioner] and [respondent is] null and void from the very beginning. (emphasis supplied)
The recent case of Lim v. Sta. Cruz-Lim, citing The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition (DSM IV), instructs us on the general diagnostic criteria for personality disorders:
A. An enduring pattern of inner experience and behavior that deviates markedly from the expectations of the individual’s culture. This pattern is manifested in two (2) or more of the following areas:
(1) cognition (i.e., ways of perceiving and interpreting self, other people, and events)
(2) affectivity (i.e., the range, intensity, liability, and appropriateness of emotional response)
(3) interpersonal functioning
(4) impulse control
B. The enduring pattern is inflexible and pervasive across a broad range of personal and social situations.
C. The enduring pattern leads to clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational or other important areas of functioning.
D. The pattern is stable and of long duration, and its onset can be traced back at least to adolescence or early adulthood.
E. The enduring pattern is not better accounted for as a manifestation or a consequence of another mental disorder.
F. The enduring pattern is not due to the direct physiological effects of a substance (i.e., a drug of abuse, a medication) or a general medical condition (e.g., head trauma).
Within their acknowledged field of expertise, doctors can diagnose the psychological make up of a person based on a number of factors culled from various sources. A person afflicted with a personality disorder will not necessarily have personal knowledge thereof. In this case, considering that a personality disorder is manifested in a pattern of behavior, self-diagnosis by the respondent consisting only in his bare denial of the doctors’ separate diagnoses, does not necessarily evoke credence and cannot trump the clinical findings of experts.
In the case at bar, however, even without the experts’ conclusions, the factual antecedents (narrative of events) alleged in the petition and established during trial, all point to the inevitable conclusion that respondent is psychologically incapacitated to perform the essential marital obligations.
In the instant case, respondent’s pattern of behavior manifests an inability, nay, a psychological incapacity to perform the essential marital obligations as shown by his:
(1) sporadic financial support; (2) extra-marital affairs; (3) substance abuse; (4) failed business attempts; (5) unpaid money obligations; (6) inability to keep a job that is not connected with the family businesses; and (7) criminal charges of estafa.
In fine, given the factual milieu of the present case and in light of the foregoing disquisition, we find ample basis to conclude that respondent was psychologically incapacitated to perform the essential marital obligations at the time of his marriage to the petitioner.
