MARABLE V. MARABLE
G.R. No. 178741, [January 17, 2011]
FACTS:
On December 19, 1970, petitioner and respondent eloped and were married in civil rites at Tanay, Rizal before Mayor Esguerra. A church wedding followed on December 30, 1970 and their marriage was blessed with 5 children.
Their marriage turned sour. Verbal and physical quarrels became common occurrences. Petitioner developed a relationship with another woman. Respondent learned about the affair, and petitioner promptly terminated it. But despite the end of the affair, their quarrels aggravated. Petitioner felt that he was unloved, unwanted and unappreciated and this made him indifferent towards respondent. Petitioner left the family home and stayed with his sister in Antipolo City. He gave up all the properties which he and respondent had accumulated during their marriage in favor of respondent and their children. Later, he converted to Islam after dating several women.
On October 8, 2001, petitioner decided to sever his marital bonds and filed a petition for declaration of nullity of his marriage to respondent on the ground of his psychological incapacity to perform the essential responsibilities of marital life.
Petitioner averred that he came from a poor family and was already exposed to the hardships of farm life at an early age. His father left their family to live with another woman with whom he had seven other children. This caused petitioner’s mother and siblings to suffer immensely. He further alleged that he supported himself through college and worked hard for the company he joined. But despite his success at work, he alleged that his misery and loneliness as a child lingered as he experienced a void in his relationship with his own family.
Petitioner presented the Psychological Report of Dr. Nedy L. Tayag, a clinical psychologist from the National Center for Mental Health. Dr. Tayag’s report stated that petitioner is suffering from “Antisocial Personality Disorder,” characterized by a pervasive pattern of social deviancy, rebelliousness, impulsivity, self-centeredness, deceitfulness and lack of remorse. The report also revealed that petitioner’s personality disorder is rooted in deep feelings of rejection starting from the family to peers, and that his experiences have made him so self-absorbed for needed attention. It was Dr. Tayag’s conclusion that petitioner is psychologically incapacitated to perform his marital obligations.
The RTC rendered a decision annulling petitioner’s marriage to respondent on the ground of petitioner’s psychological incapacity. Upon appeal by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), the CA reversed the RTC decision. CA denied MR.
ISSUE:
Whether or not petitioner is psychologically incapacitated.
HELD:
NO! CA’s decision was upheld.
Article 36 of the Family Code, as amended, provides: 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.
The term “psychological incapacity” to be a ground for the nullity of marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code, refers to a serious psychological illness afflicting a party even before the celebration of the marriage. These are the disorders that result in the utter insensitivity or inability of the afflicted party to give meaning and significance to the marriage he or she has contracted. Psychological incapacity must refer to no less than a mental (not physical) incapacity that causes a party to be truly incognitive of the basic marital covenants that concomitantly must be assumed and discharged by the parties to the marriage.
In Republic v. CA, the Court laid down the guidelines in the interpretation and application of Article 36. The Court held, (1) The burden of proof to show the nullity of the marriage belongs to the plaintiff. Any doubt should be resolved in favor of the existence and continuation of the marriage and against its dissolution and nullity. (2) The root cause of the psychological incapacity must be: (a) medically or clinically identified, (b) alleged in the complaint, (c) sufficiently proven by experts and (d) clearly explained in the decision. (3) The incapacity must be proven to be existing at “the time of the celebration” of the marriage. (4) Such incapacity must also be shown to be medically or clinically permanent or incurable. (5) Such illness must be grave enough to bring about the disability of the party to assume the essential obligations of marriage. (6) The essential marital obligations must be those embraced by Articles 68 up to 71 of the Family Code as regards the husband and wife as well as Articles 220, 221 and 225 of the same Code in regard to parents and their children. (7)
Interpretations given by the National Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal of the Catholic Church in the Philippines, while not controlling or decisive, should be given great respect by our courts. (8) The trial court must order the prosecuting attorney or fiscal and the Solicitor General to appear as counsel for the state.
In cases of annulment of marriage based on Article 36 of the Family Code, as amended, the psychological illness and its root cause must be proven to exist from the inception of the marriage. The evaluation of Dr. Tayag merely made a general conclusion that petitioner is suffering from an Anti-social Personality Disorder. As held in the case of Suazo v. Suazo, the presentation of expert proof in cases for declaration of nullity of marriage based on psychological incapacity presupposes a thorough and an in-depth assessment of the parties by the psychologist or expert, for a conclusive diagnosis of a grave, severe and incurable presence of psychological incapacity. The evaluation of Dr. Tayag falls short of the required proof which the Court can rely on as basis to declare as void petitioner’s marriage to respondent. It is indispensable that the evidence must show a link, medical or the like, between the acts that manifest psychological incapacity and the psychological disorder itself.
Petitioner tried to make it appear that his family history of having a womanizer for a father, was one of the reasons why he engaged in extra-marital affairs during his marriage. However, it appears more likely that he became unfaithful as a result of a general dissatisfaction with his marriage rather than a psychological disorder rooted in his personal history. In Santos v. Court of Appeals, the intention of the law is to confine the meaning of “psychological incapacity” to the most serious cases of personality disorders clearly demonstrative of an utter insensitivity or inability to give meaning and significance to the marriage.
