Case Digest: Kalaw v. Fernandez

KALAW VS. HERNANDEZ 

G.R. No. 166357,  [September 19, 2011]

Read the 2015 Kalaw v. Fernandez Motion for Reconsideration case digest HERE.

FACTS:

Tyrone Kalaw and respondent Malyn Fernandez met in 1973 and eventually married in Hong Kong in 1976. They have 4 children. Tyron had an affair with Jocelyn Quejano, who gave birth to a son in 1983. In 1985, Malyn left the conjugal home and her 4 children with Tyrone. Then Tyrone started living with Jocelyn, who bore him 4more children. Nine years since the de facto separation from his wife, Tyrone filed a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage based on Article 36. Tyrone presented a psychologist, Dr. Gates, and a Catholic canon law expert, Fr. Healy, to testify on Malyn’s psychological incapacity. 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). Malyn’s NPD is manifest in her utter neglect of her duties as a mother. Dr. Gates based her diagnosis on the facts revealed by her interviews with Tyrone, Trinidad Kalaw (Tyrone’s sister-in-law), and their son. Fr. Healy characterized Malyn’s psychological incapacity as grave and incurable. He based his opinion on his interview with Tyrone, the trial transcripts, as well as the report of Dr. Dayan, Malyn’s expert witness. 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.

ISSUE:

Whether Tyrone has sufficiently proven that Malynsuffers from psychological incapacity

HELD:

NO.

RATIO:

The burden of proving psychological incapacity ison 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.

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 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. 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.