FIRST DIVISION
BERNARDINO
S. ZAMORA, G.R. No. 141917
Petitioner,
Present:
PUNO,
C.J., Chairperson,
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ,
-
versus - AZCUNA,
and
GARCIA, JJ.
COURT
OF APPEALS and Promulgated:
NORMA
MERCADO
Respondents.
X
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
X
DECISION
AZCUNA, J.:
This is an appeal by certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of
Court to annul and set aside the Decision and Resolution of the Court of
Appeals (CA) dated
The
facts[1]
are:
Petitioner
and private respondent were married on
Petitioner filed a complaint for declaration of nullity of
marriage anchored on the alleged “psychological incapacity” of private
respondent, as provided for under Article 36 of the Family Code. To support his position, he alleged that his
wife was “horrified” by the mere thought of having children as evidenced by the
fact that she had not borne petitioner a child.
Furthermore, he also alleged that private respondent abandoned him by
living in the
On
the other hand, private respondent denied that she refused to have a
child. She portrayed herself as one who
loves children as she is a nurse by profession and that she would from time to
time borrow her husband’s niece and nephews to care for them. She also faulted her husband for the breakup
of their marriage, alleging that he had been unfaithful to her. He allegedly had two affairs with different
women, and he begot at least three children with them.
On
. .
.
Plaintiff consented to defendant’s
trip to the
One reason why defendant seldom saw
her husband while she was in the
… [N]othing
in the evidence of plaintiff show[s] that the defendant suffered from any
psychological incapacity or that she failed to comply with her essential
marital obligations. There is no evidence of psychological incapacity on the
part of defendant so that she could not carry out the ordinary duties required
in married life. Neither has it been shown that there was an incurable defect
on the part of defendant.
. .
.
WHEREFORE,
in view of the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered DISMISSING the complaint.
Without special pronouncement as to cost.
SO ORDERED.[2]
Petitioner
appealed to the CA which rendered a Decision on
…
Without delving further into both
parties’ allegations, we must deny this appeal.
In the case of Leouel
Santos v. Court of Appeals,[[3]]
the High Court ruled that, “psychological incapacity should refer to no less
than a mental (not physical) incapacity x x x and that there is hardly any doubt that the intendment of
the law has been to confine the meaning of ‘psychological incapacity’ to the
most serious cases of personality or inability to give meaning and significance
to the marriage.”
Also, in Republic v. Court of
Appeals and Molina,[[4]]
it was held that “mere showing of ‘irreconcilable differences’ and ‘conflicting
personalities’ in no wise constitutes psychological incapacity. It is not
enough to prove that the parties failed to meet their responsibilities and
duties as married persons; it is essential that they must be shown to be
incapable of doing so, due to some psychological (not physical) illness.”
This appeal does not fall in the
category of ‘psychological incapacity’ as defined in the aforementioned cases. The
mere refusal of the appellee to bear a child is not
equivalent to psychological incapacity, since even if such allegation is true,
it is not shown or proven that this is due to psychological illness.
…
As correctly stated by the appellee in her brief, the appellant even failed to present
any psychologist or other medical expert to prove the psychological incapacity
of defendant-appellee. This WE feel is a fatal
omission on the part of the appellant, considering the doctrine laid down in
the
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing,
the decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 13 of Cebu City is hereby
AFFIRMED. Appeal DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.[5]
Petitioner
filed a motion for reconsideration but the same was denied by the CA in its
Resolution dated
Hence, this petition raising the following issues:
1) Whether or not the Court of Appeals
misapplied facts of weight and substance affecting the result of the present case;
2) Whether or not Article 68 of the Family
Code is applicable to this case;
3) Whether or not the presentation of
psychologists and/or psychiatrists is still desirable, if evidence in this case
already shows the psychological incapacity of private respondent;
4) Whether or not the presentation of
psychologists and/or psychiatrists is still desirable, considering that the
private respondent is a resident of the
5)
Whether or not private respondent’s refusal to live
with petitioner under one roof for more than twenty (20) years, her refusal to
bear children with petitioner, and her living a solitary life in the
Briefly, the issue is whether there can be a declaration of
nullity of the marriage between petitioner and private respondent on the ground
of psychological incapacity.
Petitioner argues as follows:
First,
there is nothing in Santos v. CA,[7]
upon which private respondent relies, that requires as a conditio sine qua non the presentation of expert opinion of psychologists
and psychiatrists in every petition filed under Article 36 of the Family
Code. This Court merely said in that
case that “[t]he well-considered opinions of psychiatrists, psychologists, and
persons with expertise in psychological disciplines might be helpful or even
desirable.” However, no expert opinion
is helpful or even desirable to determine whether private respondent has been
living abroad and away from her husband for many years; whether she has a
child; and whether she has made her residence abroad permanent by acquiring
U.S. citizenship; and
Second,
Article 36 of the Family Code provides that 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. Among the essential
marital obligations embraced by Articles 68 to 71 of the same Code is to
procreate children through sexual cooperation which is the basic end of
marriage. To live together under one
roof for togetherness spells the unity in marriage. The marriage had been existing for twenty
four years when private respondent filed a legal separation case against
petitioner. Throughout this period, private
respondent deliberately and obstinately refused to comply with the essential
marital obligation to live and cohabit with her husband.
This Court rules as follows:
It is true, as petitioner noted, that the case of Santos
v. CA[8] did
not specifically mention that the presentation of expert opinion is a vital and
mandatory requirement in filing a petition for the declaration of nullity of
marriage grounded on psychological incapacity referred to under Article 36 of
the Family Code. Even in the subsequent case of Republic v. Court of Appeals
[9] (also
known as the Molina case[10]), wherein the Court laid down the
guidelines[11] in the
interpretation and application of the aforementioned article, examination of
the person by a physician in order for the former to be declared
psychologically incapacitated was likewise not considered a requirement.[12] What
is important, however, as stated in Marcos v. Marcos,[13]
is the presence of evidence that can adequately establish the party’s
psychological condition. If the totality of evidence presented is enough to
sustain a finding of psychological incapacity, then actual medical examination
of the person concerned need not be resorted to.
Likewise,
Section 2(d) of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC or the Rule on Declaration of Absolute
Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable
Marriages, which took effect on
(d)
What to allege. – A petition under Article 36 of the Family Code shall
specifically allege the complete facts showing that either or both parties were
psychologically incapacitated from complying with the essential marital
obligations of marriage at the time of the celebration of marriage even if such
incapacity becomes manifest only after its celebration.
The complete facts should allege the physical manifestations, if any, as are indicative of psychological incapacity at the time of the celebration of the marriage but expert opinion need not be alleged.[14]
The rule is that the facts alleged in
the petition and the evidence presented, considered in totality, should be
sufficient to convince the court of the psychological incapacity of the party
concerned. Petitioner, however, failed to substantiate his allegation that private
respondent is psychologically incapacitated. His allegations relating to her
refusal to cohabit with him and to bear a child was strongly disputed, as the
records undeniably bear out. Furthermore,
the acts and behavior of private respondent that petitioner cited occurred
during the marriage, and there is no proof that the former exhibited a similar
predilection even before or at the inception of the marriage.
Thus, based on the foregoing, the Court finds no reason to
disturb the findings and conclusions reached by the trial court and the CA.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals dated
No costs.
SO
ORDERED.
ADOLFO S. AZCUNA
Associate Justice
WE
CONCUR:
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chairperson
Chief Justice
ANGELINA
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ RENATO
C. CORONA
Associate Justice Associate Justice
CANCIO C. GARCIA
Associate Justice
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, it is hereby
certified that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation
before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s
Division.
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
[1] Rollo, pp. 23-23-b; CA Decision, pp. 1-2. References omitted.
[2] CA Rollo, pp. 50-51.
[3] 310 Phil. 21 (1995).
[4] Republic v. Court of Appeals,
G.R. No. 108763,
[5] Rollo, pp. 23, 27.
[6]
[7] Supra note at 3.
[8]
[9] Supra note 4, at pp. 209-212.
[10] The petitioning spouse and co-respondent in the case being Roridel O. Molina.
[11] The guidelines in Molina with respect to Article 36 of the Family Code are the following:
(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. This is rooted in the fact
that both our Constitution and our laws cherish the validity of marriage and
unity of the family. . . .
(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. Article 36 of the Family Code
requires that the incapacity must be psychological — not physical, although its
manifestations and/or symptoms may be physical. The evidence must convince the
court that the parties[,] or one of them[,] was mentally or psychically ill to
such an extent that the person could not have known the obligations he was
assuming, or knowing them, could not have given valid assumption thereof.
Although no example of such incapacity need be given here so as not to limit
the application of the provision under the principle of ejusdem
generis,[11]
nevertheless such root cause must be identified as a psychological illness and
its incapacitating nature fully explained. Expert evidence may be given by
qualified psychiatrists and clinical psychologists.
(3) The
incapacity must be proven to be existing at "the time of the
celebration" of the marriage. The evidence must show that the illness was
existing when the parties exchanged their "I do's." The manifestation
of the illness need not be perceivable at such time, but the illness itself
must have attached at such moment[,] or prior thereto.
(4) Such
incapacity must also be shown to be medically or clinically permanent or
incurable. Such incurability may be absolute or even relative only in regard to
the other spouse, not necessarily absolutely against everyone of the same sex.
Furthermore, such incapacity must be relevant to the assumption of marriage
obligations, not necessarily to those not related to marriage, like the
exercise of a profession or employment in a job. Hence, a pediatrician may be
effective in diagnosing illnesses of children and prescribing medicine to cure
them but may not be psychologically capacitated to procreate, bear and raise
his/her own children as an essential obligation of marriage.
(5) Such
illness must be grave enough to bring about the disability of the party to
assume the essential obligations of marriage. Thus, "mild characteriological peculiarities, mood changes, occasional
emotional outbursts" cannot be accepted as root causes. The illness must
be shown as downright incapacity or inability, not a refusal, neglect or
difficulty, much less ill will. In other words, there is a natal or supervening
disabling factor in the person, an adverse integral element in the personality
structure that effectively incapacitates the person from really accepting and
thereby complying with the obligations essential to 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. Such
non-complied marital obligation(s) must also be stated in the petition, proven
by evidence and included in the text of the decision.
(7) Interpretations
given by the National Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal of the Catholic Church in
the
Molina had provided for an additional requirement that the
Solicitor General issue a certification stating his reasons for his agreement
or opposition to the petition. This requirement, however, was dispensed with
following the implementation of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC or the Rule on Declaration
of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable
Marriages. Section 11 of the Rule only requires the public prosecutor to file a
report confirming that no collusion exists between the parties. Still, Article
48 of the Family Code mandates that the appearance of the prosecuting attorney
or fiscal assigned be on behalf of the State to take steps to prevent collusion
between the parties and to take care that evidence is not fabricated or
suppressed (Antonio v. Reyes, G.R. No. 155800, March 10, 2006, 484 SCRA
353, 375).
[12] Marcos v. Marcos, G.R. No.
136490,
[13]
[14] Emphasis supplied; Section 14(b) of the Rule likewise provides that: “In case mediation is not availed of or where it fails, the court shall proceed with the pre-trial conference, on which occasion it shall consider the advisability of receiving expert testimony and such other matters as may aid in the prompt disposition of the case.”