REPUBLIC V. GALANG
G.R. No. 168335, [June 6, 2011]
DOCTRINE:
Psychological incapacity must be characterized by (a) gravity; (b) juridical antecedence; and (c) incurability. The defect should 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.”
FACTS:
In March 1994, Nestor and Juvy contracted marriage in Pampanga and thereafter they resided in the house of the Nestor’s father. Nestor worked as an artist-illustrator while Juvy stayed at home. They had one child, Christopher.
In August 1999, Nestor filed with the RTC a petition for the declaration of nullity of his marriage with Juvy, under Article 36 of the Family Code, as amended. He alleged that Juvy was psychologically incapacitated to exercise the essential obligations of marriage, as she was a kleptomaniac and a swindler; that Juvy suffers from “mental deficiency, innate immaturity, distorted discernment and total lack of care, love and affection [towards him and their] child.” He posited that Juvy’s incapacity was “extremely serious” and “appears to be incurable.”
Having found no collusion between the parties, the case was set for trial. In his testimony, Nestor alleged that he was the one who prepared their breakfast because Juvy did not want to wake up early; Juvy often left their child to their neighbors’ care; and Christopher almost got lost in the market when Juvy brought him there. He added that Juvy stole his ATM card and falsified his signature to encash the check representing Nestor’s father’s pension. He, likewise, stated that he caught Juvy playing “mahjong” and “kuwaho” three (3) times. Finally, he testified that Juvy borrowed money from their relatives on the pretense that their son was confined in a hospital.
Nestor presented Anna Liza Guiang, a psychologist, who testified that she conducted a psychological test on Nestor. In her Psychological Report, the psychologist made the following findings:
Psychological Test conducted on client Nestor Galang resembles an emotionally-matured individual. He is well-adjusted to the problem he meets, and enable to throw-off major irritations but manifest[s] a very low frustration tolerance which means he has a little ability to endure anxiety and the client manifests suppressed feelings and emotions which resulted to unbearable emotional pain, depression and lack of self-esteem and gained emotional tensions caused by his wife’s behavior.
The incapacity of the defendant is manifested [in] such a manner that the defendant-wife: (1) being very irresponsible and very lazy and doesn’t manifest any sense of responsibility; (2) her involvement in gambling activities such as mahjong and kuwaho; (3) being an estafador which exhibits her behavioral and personality disorders; (4) her neglect and show no care attitude towards her husband and child; (5) her immature and rigid behavior; (6) her lack of initiative to change and above all, the fact that she is unable to perform her marital obligations as a loving, responsible and caring wife to her family. There are just few reasons to believe that the defendant is suffering from incapacitated mind and such incapacity appears to be incorrigible.
The RTC nullified the parties’ marriage in its decision of January 22, 2001. The RTC Judge, relying on the Santos Case, stated in the decision that the psychological incapacity of respondent to comply with the essential marital obligations of marriage can be characterized by (a) gravity because the subject cannot carry out the normal and ordinary duties of marriage and family shouldered by any average couple existing under ordinary circumstances of life
and work; (b) antecedence, because the root cause of the trouble can be traced to the history of the subject before marriage although its overt manifestations appear over after the wedding; and (c) incurability, if treatments required exceed the ordinary means or subject, or involve time and expense beyond the reach of the subject – are all obtaining in this case.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals, affirmed the RTC decision in toto.
ISSUE:
Whether there is basis to nullify the respondent’s marriage to Juvy on the ground that at the time of the celebration of the marriage, Juvy suffered from psychological incapacity that prevented her from complying with her essential marital obligations.
HELD:
None. The Supreme Court held that the totality of Nestor’s evidence – his testimonies and the psychologist, and the psychological report and evaluation – insufficient to prove Juvy’s psychological incapacity pursuant to Article 36 of the Family Code.
RATIO:
Psychological incapacity must be characterized by
(a) gravity; (b) juridical antecedence; and (c) incurability. The defect should 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.” It must be confined to “the most serious cases of personality disorders clearly demonstrative of an utter insensitivity or inability to give meaning and significance to the marriage. [Louel Santos vs. CA]
It is not absolutely necessary to introduce expert opinion in a petition under Article 36 of the Family Code if the totality of evidence shows that psychological incapacity exists and its gravity, juridical antecedence, and incurability can be duly established. [Brenda Marcos vs. Marcos]
Instead of serving as a guideline, Molina Doctrine unintentionally became a straightjacket; it forced all cases involving psychological incapacity to fit into and be bound by it. [Ngo Te vs. Yu-Te] In Ting vs. Velez-Ting, far from abandoning Molina, the Ngo Te case simply suggested the relaxation of its stringent requirements; the Ngo Te case merely stands for a more flexible approach in considering petitions for declaration of nullity of marriages based on psychological incapacity.
In the present case, the psychologist did not even identify the types of psychological tests which she administered on Nestor and the root cause of Juvy’s psychological condition. There was no showing that any mental disorder existed at the inception of the marriage. The report failed to prove the gravity or severity of Juvy’s alleged condition, specifically, why and to what extent the disorder is serious, and how it incapacitated her to comply with her marital duties; the report did not even categorically state the particular type of personality disorder found. The report failed to establish the incurability of Juvy’s condition. The report’s pronouncements that Juvy “lacks the initiative to change” and that her mental incapacity “appears incorrigible” are insufficient to prove that her mental condition could not be treated, or if it were otherwise, the cure would be beyond her means to undertake.
Petition was granted. Galang’s petition for the declaration of nullity of his marriage to Juvy Salazar under Article 36 of the Family Code was dismissed.
