Case Digest: REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v. LAILA TANYAG-SAN JOSE and MANOLITO SAN JOSE

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v. LAILA TANYAG-SAN JOSE and MANOLITO SAN JOSE

517 SCRA 123 (2007)

Being jobless and a drug user is not a state or condition or attitude shown to be a malady or disorder rooted on some incapacitating or debilitating psychological condition.

Repondents Manolito San Jose and Laila Tanyag-San Jose got married. Thereafter Laila gave birth to two children. Laila, then left Manolito for being jobless and hooked into gambling and drugs.

Laila then filed a Petition for Declartion of Nullity on the ground of psychological incapacity before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig City.

Dr. Nedy Tayag found that Manolito was psychologically incapacitated based on the testimony of Laila. Dr. Tayag further said that he suffers from anti-social personality disorder because of the following overt manipulations: the presence of drug, the absence of remourse, the constant incapacity in terms of maintaining the marital relationship, the lack of concern to his family, and his self-centeredness.

The RTC denied Laila‘s petition on the ground that it is not enough to prove that one failed to perform his marital duty, it is essential that it must be shown that the other party is incapable of doing so due to psychological incapacity not physical illness. Laila appealed to Court of Appeals (CA). The CA held that Manolito was psychologically incapacitated hence their marriage is void ab Initio. The CA concluded that the deficiency of Manolito was so grave and so permanent as to deprive one of awareness of the duties and responsibilities of the matrimonial bond one is about to assume.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Manolito is psychologically incapacitated

HELD:

Psychological incapacity, as a ground for nullity of marriage, has been succinctly expounded in the recent case of Ma. Armida Perez-Ferraris v. Brix Ferraris (Ferraris), 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. It is a malady so grave and so permanent as to deprive one of the awareness of the duties and responsibilities of the matrimonial bond one is about to assume.

As the earlier-quoted Report of Dr. Tayag shows, her conclusion about Manolito‘s psychological incapacity was based on the information supplied by Laila which she found to be ―factual.‖ Undoubtedly, the doctor‘s conclusion is hearsay. It is ―unscientific and unreliable,‖ so this Court declared in Choa v. Choa where the assessment of the therein party sought to be declared psychologically incapacitated was based merely on the information communicated to the doctor by the therein respondent-spouse. In this case, Dr. Gauzon had no personal knowledge of the facts he testified to, as these had merely been relayed to him by respondent. The former was working on pure suppositions and secondhand information fed to him by one side. Consequently, his testimony can be dismissed as unscientific and unreliable.

Parenthetically, Dr. Tayag’s Psychological Report does not even show that the alleged anti-social personality disorder of Manolito was already present at the inception of the marriage or that it is incurable. Neither does it explain the incapacitating nature of the alleged disorder nor identify its root

cause. It merely states that “such disorder is considered to be grave and is deeply immersed within the system and continues to influence the individual until the later stage of life.”

Manolito’s alleged psychological incapacity is thus premised on his being jobless and a drug user, as well as his inability to support his family and his refusal or unwillingness to assume the essential obligations of marriage. Manolito’s state or condition or attitude has not been shown, however, to be a malady or disorder rooted on some incapacitating or debilitating psychological condition.