|
MARIETA C. AZCUETA, Petitioner, – versus – REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
AND THE COURT OF APPEALS, Respondents. |
G.R. No. 180668 Present: pUNO, C.J., Chairperson, CARPIO, LEONARDO-DE
CASTRO, and BERSAMIN,
JJ. Promulgated: May
26, 2009 |
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.:
Before us is
a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court
assailing the Decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 86162
dated August 31, 2007,[1]
and its Resolution dated November 20, 2007.[2]
Petitioner
Marietta C. Azcueta and Rodolfo Azcueta met in 1993. Less than two months after their first
meeting, they got married on July 24, 1993 at St. Anthony of
On March 2,
2002, petitioner filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
Meanwhile,
respondent failed to appear and file an answer despite service of summons upon
him. Because of this, the trial court
directed the City Prosecutor to conduct an investigation whether there was
collusion between the parties. In a
report dated August 16, 2002, Prosecutor Wilfredo G. Oca found that there was
no collusion between the parties.
On August 21,
2002, the Office of the Solicitor General entered its appearance for the Republic
of the Philippines and submitted a written authority for the City Prosecutor to
appear in the case on the State’s behalf under the supervision and control of
the Solicitor General.
In her
petition and during her testimony, petitioner claimed that her husband Rodolfo
was psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential obligations of
marriage. According to petitioner,
Rodolfo was emotionally immature, irresponsible and continually failed to adapt
himself to married life and perform the essential responsibilities and duties
of a husband.
Petitioner
complained that Rodolfo never bothered to look for a job and instead always
asked his mother for financial assistance.
When they were married it was Rodolfo’s mother who found them a room
near the Azcueta home and it was also his mother who paid the monthly rental.
Petitioner
also testified that she constantly encouraged her husband to find employment. She even bought him a newspaper every Sunday
but Rodolfo told her that he was too old and most jobs have an age limit and
that he had no clothes to wear to job interviews. To inspire him, petitioner bought him new
clothes and a pair of shoes and even gave him money. Sometime later, her
husband told petitioner that he already found a job and petitioner was
overjoyed. However, some weeks after,
petitioner was informed that her husband had been seen at the house of his
parents when he was supposed to be at work. Petitioner discovered that her husband didn’t
actually get a job and the money he gave her (which was supposedly his salary)
came from his mother. When she
confronted him about the matter, Rodolfo allegedly cried like a child and told
her that he pretended to have a job so that petitioner would stop nagging him
about applying for a job. He also told
her that his parents can support their needs.
Petitioner claimed that Rodolfo was so dependent on his mother and that
all his decisions and attitudes in life should be in conformity with those of
his mother.
Apart from the foregoing, petitioner complained that every time Rodolfo
would get drunk he became physically violent towards her. Their sexual relationship was also
unsatisfactory. They only had sex once a
month and petitioner never enjoyed it. When
they discussed this problem, Rodolfo would always say that sex was sacred and
it should not be enjoyed nor abused. He
did not even want to have a child yet because he claimed he was not ready. Additionally, when petitioner requested that
they move to another place and rent a small room rather than live near his
parents, Rodolfo did not agree. Because
of this, she was forced to leave their residence and see if he will follow
her. But he did not.
During the
trial of the case, petitioner presented Rodolfo’s first cousin, Florida de
Ramos, as a witness. In 1993, Ramos, the
niece of Rodolfo’s father, was living with Rodolfo’s family. She corroborated petitioner’s testimony that
Rodolfo was indeed not gainfully employed when he married petitioner and he
merely relied on the allowance given by his mother. This witness also confirmed that it was
respondent’s mother who was paying the rentals for the room where the couple
lived. She also testified that at one
time, she saw respondent going to his mother’s house in business attire. She learned later that Rodolfo told
petitioner that he has a job but in truth he had none. She also stated that respondent was still
residing at the house of his mother and not living together with petitioner.
Petitioner
likewise presented Dr. Cecilia Villegas, a psychiatrist. Dr. Villegas testified that after examining
petitioner for her psychological evaluation, she found petitioner to be mature,
independent, very responsible, focused and has direction and ambition in life. She also observed that petitioner works hard
for what she wanted and therefore, she was not psychologically incapacitated to
perform the duties and responsibilities of marriage. Dr. Villegas added that based on the
information gathered from petitioner, she found that Rodolfo showed that he was
psychologically incapacitated to perform his marital duties and
responsibilities. Dr. Villegas concluded
that he was suffering from Dependent Personality Disorder associated with
severe inadequacy related to masculine strivings.
She explained
that persons suffering from Dependent Personality Disorder were those whose
response to ordinary way of life was ineffectual and inept, characterized by
loss of self-confidence, constant self-doubt, inability to make his own
decisions and dependency on other people.
She added that the root cause of this psychological problem was a
cross-identification with the mother who was the dominant figure in the family
considering that respondent’s father was a seaman and always out of the
house. She stated that this problem began
during the early stages in his life but manifested only after the celebration
of his marriage. According to Dr.
Villegas, this kind of problem was also severe because he will not be able to
make and to carry on the responsibilities expected of a married person. It was incurable because it started in early
development and therefore deeply ingrained into his personality.
Based on petitioner’s evidence,
the RTC rendered a Decision dated October 25, 2004, declaring the marriage
between petitioner and Rodolfo as null and void
ab initio, thus:
With the
preponderant evidence presented by the petitioner, the court finds that
respondent totally failed in his commitments and obligations as a husband. Respondent’s emotional immaturity and
irresponsibility is grave and he has no showing of improvement. He failed likewise to have sexual intercourse
with the wife because it is a result of the unconscious guilt felling of having
sexual relationship since he could not distinguish between the mother and the
wife and therefore sex relationship will not be satisfactory as expected.
The respondent
is suffering from dependent personality disorder and therefore cannot make his
own decision and cannot carry on his responsibilities as a husband. The marital obligations to live together,
observe mutual love, respect, support was not fulfilled by the respondent.
Considering the
totality of evidence of the petitioner clearly show that respondent failed to
comply with his marital obligations.
Thus the
marriage between petitioner and respondent should be declared null and void on
the account of respondent’s severe and incurable psychological incapacity.
xxx xxx
xxx
Wherefore
premises considered, the marriage between Marietta Azcueta and Rodolfo B.
Azcuata is hereby declared null and void abinitio pursuant to Article 36 fo the
Family Code.
The National
Statistics Office and the Local Civil Registrar of Antipolo City are ordered to
make proper entries into the records of the parties pursuant to judgment of the
court.
Let copies of
this decision be furnished the Public Prosecutor and the Solicitor General.
SO ORDERED.[3]
On July 19,
2005, the RTC rendered an Amended Decision[4] to correct the first name of Rodolfo
which was erroneously typewritten as “Gerardo” in the caption of the original
Decision.
The Solicitor General appealed
the RTC Decision objecting that (a) the psychiatric report of Dr. Villegas was
based solely on the information provided by petitioner and was not based on an
examination of Rodolfo; and (b) there was no showing that the alleged
psychological defects were present at the inception of marriage or that such
defects were grave, permanent and incurable.
Resolving the appeal, the CA
reversed the RTC and essentially ruled that petitioner failed to sufficiently
prove the psychological incapacity of Rodolfo or that his alleged psychological
disorder existed prior to the marriage and was grave and incurable. In setting aside the factual findings of the
RTC, the CA reasoned that:
The evidence on record failed to demonstrate that
respondent’s alleged irresponsibility and over-dependence on his mother is
symptomatic of psychological incapacity as above explained.
xxx xxx
xxx
Also worthy of note is petitioner-appellee’s failure
to prove that respondent’s supposed psychological malady existed even before
the marriage. Records however show that
the parties were living in harmony in the first few years of their marriage and
were living on their own in a rented apartment. That respondent often times asks his mother
for financial support may be brought
about by his feeling of embarrassment that he cannot contribute at all to the
family coffers, considering that it was his wife who is working for the
family. Petitioner-appellee likewise
stated that respondent does not like to
have a child on the pretense that respondent is not yet ready to have one. However this is not at all a manifestation of
irresponsibility. On the contrary, respondent
has shown that he has a full grasp of reality and completely understands the
implication of having a child especially that he is unemployed. The
only problem besetting the union is respondent’s alleged irresponsibility and
unwillingness to leave her (sic)
mother, which was not proven in this case to be psychological-rooted.
The behavior displayed by respondent was caused only
by his youth and emotional immaturity which by themselves, do not constitute
psychological incapacity (Deldel vs.
Court of Appeals, 421 SCRA 461, 466 [2004]). At all events, petitioner-appellee has utterly
failed, both in her allegations in the complaint and in her evidence, to make
out a case of psychological incapacity on the part of respondent, let alone at
the time of solemnization of the contract, so immaturity and irresponsibility,
invoked by her, cannot be equated with psychological incapacity (Pesca vs. Pesca, 356 SCRA 588, 594
[2001]). As held by the Supreme Court:
Psychological
incapacity must be more than just a difficulty, refusal or neglect in the
performance of some marital obligations, it is essential that they must be
shown to be incapable of doing so, due to some psychological illness existing
at the time of the celebration of the marriage. (Navarro, Jr. vs. Cecilio-Navarro, G.R. No. 162049, April 13, 2007).
xxx xxx
xxx
WHEREFORE, in
the light of the foregoing, the appealed decision dated July 19, 2005 fo the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Antipolo City, Branch 72 in Civil Case No.
02-6428 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The
marriage berween petitioner-appellee Marietta C. Azcueta and respondent Rodolfo
B. Azcueta remains VALID.[5]
(emphasis ours)
The
basic issue to be resolved in the instant case is whether or not the totality
of the evidence presented is adequate to sustain a finding that Rodolfo is
psychologically incapacitated to comply with his essential marital obligations.
The Office of the Solicitor
General, in its Comment, submits that the appellate court correctly ruled that
the “totality of evidence presented by petitioner” failed to prove her spouse’s
psychological incapacity pursuant to Article 36 of the Family Code and settled
jurisprudence.
We grant the petition.
Prefatorily, it bears stressing
that it is the policy of our Constitution to protect and strengthen the family
as the basic autonomous social institution and marriage as the foundation of
the family.[6] Our family law is based on the policy that
marriage is not a mere contract, but a social institution in which the state is
vitally interested. The State can find
no stronger anchor than on good, solid and happy families. The break up of families weakens our social
and moral fabric and, hence, their preservation is not the concern alone of the
family members.[7]
Thus, the
Court laid down in Republic of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals and
Molina[8]
stringent guidelines in the interpretation and application of Article 36 of
the Family Code, to wit:
(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. Thus, our Constitution devotes an entire
Article on the Family, recognizing it “as the foundation of the nation.”
It decrees marriage as legally “inviolable,” thereby protecting it from
dissolution at the whim of the parties.
Both the family and marriage are to be “protected” by the state.
The Family Code
echoes this constitutional edict on marriage and the family and emphasizes
their permanence, inviolability and solidarity.
(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 (Salita v. Magtolis, 233 SCRA 100,
108), 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
In Santos v. Court of Appeals,[10]
the Court declared that
psychological incapacity must be characterized by (a) gravity, (b) juridical
antecedence, and (c) incurability.[11] It 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.”[12] The intendment of the law has been 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.[13]
However, in more
recent jurisprudence, we have observed that notwithstanding the guidelines laid
down in Molina, there is a need to emphasize other perspectives as
well which should govern the disposition of petitions for declaration of
nullity under Article 36.[14] Each case must be
judged, not on the basis of a priori
assumptions, predilections or generalizations but according to its own facts. In regard to psychological incapacity
as a ground for annulment of marriage, it is trite to say that no case is on
"all fours" with another case. The trial judge must take pains in examining
the factual milieu and the appellate court must, as much as possible, avoid
substituting its own judgment for that of the trial court.[15] With the advent of Te
v. Te,[16]
the Court encourages a reexamination of jurisprudential trends on the
interpretation of Article 36 although there has been no major deviation or
paradigm shift from the Molina
doctrine.
After a thorough
review of the records of the case, we find that there was sufficient compliance
with Molina to warrant the annulment
of the parties’ marriage under Article 36.
First, petitioner successfully discharged her burden to prove the
psychological incapacity of her husband.
The Solicitor General,
in discrediting Dr. Villegas’ psychiatric report, highlights the lack of
personal examination of Rodolfo by said doctor and the doctor’s reliance on
petitioner’s version of events. In Marcos v. Marcos,[17] it was held that there is no
requirement that the defendant/respondent spouse should be personally examined
by a physician or psychologist as a condition sine qua non for the
declaration of nullity of marriage based on psychological incapacity. What matters is whether the totality of
evidence presented is adequate to sustain a finding of psychological
incapacity.
It should be noted that, apart
from her interview with the psychologist, petitioner testified in court on the
facts upon which the psychiatric report was based. When a witness testified under oath before
the lower court and was cross-examined, she thereby presented evidence in the
form of testimony.[18] Significantly, petitioner’s narration of facts
was corroborated in material points by the testimony of a close relative of Rodolfo.
Dr. Villegas likewise testified in court
to elaborate on her report and fully explain the link between the
manifestations of Rodolfo’s psychological incapacity and the psychological disorder
itself. It is a settled principle of
civil procedure that the conclusions of the trial court regarding the
credibility of witnesses are entitled to great respect from the appellate
courts because the trial court had an opportunity to observe the demeanor of
witnesses while giving testimony which may indicate their candor or lack
thereof.[19] Since the trial court itself accepted the
veracity of petitioner’s factual premises, there is no cause to dispute the
conclusion of psychological incapacity drawn therefrom by petitioner’s expert
witness.[20]
Second, the root cause of Rodolfo’s psychological
incapacity has been medically or clinically identified, alleged in the
petition, sufficiently proven by expert testimony, and clearly explained in the
trial court’s decision.
The petition alleged
that from the beginning of their marriage, Rodolfo was not gainfully employed
and, despite pleas from petitioner, he could not be persuaded to even attempt
to find employment; that from the choice of the family abode to the couple’s
daily sustenance, Rodolfo relied on his mother; and that the couple’s
inadequate sexual relations and Rodolfo’s refusal to have a child stemmed from
a psychological condition linked to his relationship to his mother.
These
manifestations of incapacity to comply or assume his marital obligations were
linked to medical or clinical causes by an expert witness with more than forty
years experience from the field of psychology in general and psychological
incapacity, in particular. In a portion
of her psychiatric evaluation, Dr. Villegas elucidated the psychodynamics of
the case of petitioner and Rodolfo, thus:
On the other hand, Rodolfo is the 3rd
among 5 boys. The father, who was
perceived to be weak, and his two elder brothers were all working as seaman. Rodolfo who was always available to his
mother’s needs, became an easy prey, easily engulfed into her system. The relationship became symbiotic, that led to
a prolonged and abnormal dependence to his mother. The mother, being the stronger and dominant
parent, is a convenient role model, but the reversal of roles became confusing
that led to ambivalence of his identity and grave dependency. Apparently, all the boys were hooked up to his
complexities, producing so much doubts in their capabilities in a heterosexual
setting. Specifically, Rodolfo tried,
but failed. His inhibitions in a sexual
relationship, is referable to an unconscious guilt feelings of defying the
mother’s love. At this point, he has
difficulty in delineating between the wife and the mother, so that his
continuous relationship with his wife produces considerable anxiety, which he
is unable to handle, and crippled him psychologically.
Based on the above clinical data, family
background and outcome of their marriage, it is the opinion of the examiner,
that Mrs. Marietta Cruz-Azcueta is mature, independent and responsible and is
psychologically capacitated to perform the duties and obligations of marriage. Due to her numerous personal problems she has
difficulty in handling her considerable anxiety, at present. There are strong clinical evidences that Mr.
Rodolfo Azcueta is suffering from a Dependent Personality Disorder associated
with severe inadequacy that renders him psychologically incapacitated to
perform the duties and responsibilities of marriage.
The root cause of the above clinical
condition is due to a strong and prolonged dependence with a parent of the
opposite sex, to a period when it becomes no longer appropriate. This situation crippled his psychological
functioning related to sex, self confidence, independence, responsibility and
maturity. It existed prior to marriage,
but became manifest only after the celebration due to marital stresses and
demands. It is considered as permanent
and incurable in nature, because it started early in his life and therefore became
so deeply ingrained into his personality structure. It is severe or grave in degree, because it
hampered and interfered with his normal functioning related to heterosexual
adjustment.[21]
These
findings were reiterated and further explained by Dr. Villegas during her
testimony, the relevant portion of which we quote below:
xxx
xxx xxx
Q: Now,
Madame Witness, after examining the petitioner, what was your psychological
evaluation?
A: I’ve
found the petitioner in this case, Mrs. Marietta Azcueta as matured,
independent, very responsible, focused, she has direction and ambition in life
and she work hard for what she wanted, ma’am, and therefore, I concluded that
she is psychologically capacitated to perform the duties and responsibilities of
the marriage, ma’am.
Q: How about the respondent, Madame
Witness, what was your psychological evaluation with regards to the respondent?
A: Based on my interview, I’ve found out
that the husband Mr. Rodolfo Azcueta is psychologically incapacitated to perform
the duties and responsibilities of marriage suffering from a psychiatric
classification as Dependent Personality Disorder associated with severe
inadequacy related to masculine strivings, ma’am.
Q: In layman’s language, Madame Witness,
can you please explain to us what do you mean by Dependent Personality
Disorder?
A: Dependent Personality Disorder are
(sic) those persons in which their response to ordinary way of life are
ineffectual and inept characterized by loss of self confidence, always in doubt
with himself and inability to make his own decision, quite dependent on other
people, and in this case, on his mother, ma’am.
Q: And do you consider this, Madame
Witness, as a psychological problem of respondent, Rodolfo Azcueta?
A: Very much, ma’am.
Q: Why?
A: Because it will always interfered,
hampered and disrupt his duties and responsibilities as a husband and as a
father, ma’am.
Q: And can you please tell us, Madame
Witness, what is the root cause of this psychological problem?
A: The root cause of this psychological
problem is a cross identification with the mother who is the dominant figure in
the family, the mother has the last say and the authority in the family while
the father was a seaman and always out of the house, and if present is very
shy, quiet and he himself has been very submissive and passive to the authority
of the wife, ma’am.
Q: And can you please tell us, Madame
Witness, under what circumstance this kind of psychological problem manifested?
A: This manifested starting his personality
development and therefore, during his early stages in life, ma’am.
Q: So, you mean to say, Madame Witness,
this kind of problem existed to Rodolfo Azcueta, the respondent in this case,
before the celebration of the marriage?
A: Yes, ma’am.
Q: And it became manifested only after the
celebration of the marriage?
A: Yes, ma’am.
Q: And can you please tell us the reason
why it became manifested with the…that
the manifestation came too late?
A: The manifestation came too late because
the history of Mr. Rodolfo Azcueta was very mild, no stresses, no demand on his
life, at 24 years old despite the fact that he already finished college degree
of Computer Science, there is no demand on himself at least to establish his
own, and the mother always would make the decision for him, ma’am.
Q: Okay, Madame Witness, is this kind of
psychological problem severe?
A: Yes ma’am.
Q: Why do you consider this psychological
problem severe, Madame Witness?
A: Because he will not be able to make and
to carry on the responsibility that is expected of a married person, ma’am.
Q: Is it incurable, Madame Witness?
A: It is incurable because it started
early in development and therefore it became so deeply ingrained into his
personality, and therefore, it cannot be changed nor cured at this stage,
ma’am.
Q: So, you mean to say, Madame Witness,
that it is Permanent?
A: It is permanent in nature, sir.
Q: And last question as an expert witness,
what is the effect of the psychological problem as far as the marriage relationship
of Rodolfo Azcueta is concerned?
A: The effect of this will really be a
turbulent marriage relationship because standard expectation is, the husband
has to work, to feed, to protect, to love, and of course, to function on (sic)
the sexual duties of a husband to the wife, but in this case, early in their
marriage, they had only according to the wife, experienced once sexual
relationship every month and this is due to the fact that because husband was
so closely attached to the mother, it is a result of the unconscious guilt
feeling of the husband in defying the mother’s love when they will be having
heterosexual relationship and therefore, at that point, he will not be able to
distinguish between the mother and the wife and therefore, sex relationship
will not be satisfactory according to expectation, ma’am.[22]
In Te v. Te, we held that “[b]y the very nature of Article
36, courts, despite having the primary task and burden of decision-making, must not discount but, instead, must
consider as decisive evidence the expert opinion on the psychological and
mental temperaments of the parties.”[23]
Based on the totality of the
evidence, the trial court clearly explained the basis for its decision, which
we reproduce here for emphasis:
With the
preponderant evidence presented by the petitioner, the court finds that
respondent totally failed in his commitments and obligations as a husband. Respondent’s emotional immaturity and
irresponsibility is grave and he has no showing of improvement. He failed likewise to have sexual intercourse
with the wife because it is a result of the unconscious guilt felling of having
sexual relationship since he could not distinguish between the mother and the
wife and therefore sex relationship will not be satisfactory as expected.
The respondent
is suffering from dependent personality
disorder and therefore cannot make his own decision and cannot carry on his
responsibilities as a husband. The
marital obligations to live together, observe mutual love, respect, support was
not fulfilled by the respondent.
Considering the
totality of evidence of the petitioner clearly show that respondent failed to
comply with his marital obligations.
Thus the
marriage between petitioner and respondent should be declared null and void on
the account of respondent’s severe and incurable psychological incapacity.
Third, Rodolfo’s psychological
incapacity was established to have clearly existed at the time of and even
before the celebration of marriage.
Contrary to the CA’s finding that the parties lived harmoniously and
independently in the first few years of marriage, witnesses were united in
testifying that from inception of the marriage, Rodolfo’s irresponsibility,
overdependence on his mother and abnormal sexual reticence were already
evident. To be sure, these
manifestations of Rodolfo’s dependent personality disorder must have existed
even prior to the marriage being rooted in his early development and a by
product of his upbringing and family life.
Fourth, Rodolfo’s psychological
incapacity has been shown to be sufficiently grave, so as to render him unable
to assume the essential obligations of marriage.
The Court is wary of the CA’s
bases for overturning factual findings of the trial court on this point. The CA’s reasoning that Rodolfo’s requests
for financial assistance from his mother might
have been due to his embarrassment for failing to contribute to the family
coffers and that his motive for not wanting a child was his “responsible”
realization that he should not have a child since he is unemployed are all
purely speculative. There is no evidence on record to support these views. Again, we must point out that appellate courts
should not substitute their discretion with that of the trial court or the
expert witnesses, save only in instance where the findings of the trial court
or the experts are contradicted by evidence.
We likewise cannot agree with the
CA that Rodolfo’s irresponsibility and overdependence on his mother can be
attributed to his immaturity or youth. We cannot overlook the fact that at the time
of his marriage to petitioner, he was nearly 29 years old or the fact that the
expert testimony has identified a grave clinical or medical cause for his
abnormal behavior.
In Te, the Court has had the occasion to expound on the nature of a
dependent personality disorder and how one afflicted with such a disorder would
be incapacitated from complying with marital obligations, to wit:
Indeed,
petitioner, who is afflicted with dependent personality disorder, cannot assume
the essential marital obligations of living together, observing love, respect
and fidelity and rendering help and support, for he is unable to make everyday
decisions without advice from others, allows others to make most of his
important decisions (such as where to live), tends to agree with people even
when he believes they are wrong, has difficulty doing things on his own,
volunteers to do things that are demeaning in order to get approval from other
people, feels uncomfortable or helpless when alone and is often preoccupied
with fears of being abandoned. As
clearly shown in this case, petitioner followed everything dictated to him by
the persons around him. He is insecure,
weak and gullible, has no sense of his identity as a person, has no cohesive
self to speak of, and has no goals and clear direction in life.[24]
Of
course, this is not to say that anyone diagnosed with dependent personality
disorder is automatically deemed psychologically incapacitated to comply with
the obligations of marriage. We realize
that psychology is by no means an exact science and the medical cases of
patients, even though suffering from the same disorder, may be different in
their symptoms or manifestations and in the degree of severity. It is the duty of the court in its evaluation
of the facts, as guided by expert opinion, to carefully scrutinize the type of
disorder and the gravity of the same before declaring the nullity of a marriage
under Article 36.
Fifth, Rodolfo is evidently unable to
comply with the essential marital obligations embodied in Articles 68 to 71 of
the Family Code.[25] As noted by the trial court, as a result of Rodolfo’s
dependent personality disorder, he cannot make his own decisions and cannot
fulfill his responsibilities as a husband.
Rodolfo plainly failed to fulfill the marital obligations to live
together, observe mutual love, respect, support under Article 68. Indeed, one who is unable to support himself,
much less a wife; one who cannot independently make decisions regarding even
the most basic and ordinary matters that spouses face everyday; one who cannot
contribute to the material, physical and emotional well-being of his spouse is
psychologically incapacitated to comply with the marital obligations within the
meaning of Article 36.
Sixth,
the incurability
of Rodolfo’s condition which has been deeply ingrained in his system since his
early years was supported by evidence and duly explained by the expert witness.
At this point, the Court is not
unmindful of the sometimes peculiar predicament it finds itself in those
instances when it is tasked to interpret static statutes formulated in a
particular point in time and apply them to situations and people in a society
in flux. With respect to the concept of
psychological incapacity, courts must take into account not only developments
in science and medicine but also changing social and cultural mores, including
the blurring of traditional gender roles. In this day and age, women have taken
on increasingly important roles in the financial and material support of their
families. This, however, does not change
the ideal that the family should be an “autonomous” social institution, wherein
the spouses cooperate and are equally responsible for the support and
well-being of the family. In the case at
bar, the spouses from the outset failed to form themselves into a family, a
cohesive unit based on mutual love, respect and support, due to the failure of
one to perform the essential duties of marriage.
This brings to mind the following
pronouncement in Te:
In dissolving
marital bonds on account of either party’s psychological incapacity, the Court
is not demolishing the foundation of families, but it is actually protecting
the sanctity of marriage, because it refuses to allow a person afflicted with a
psychological disorder, who cannot comply with or assume the essential marital
obligations, from remaining in that sacred bond. It may be stressed that the
infliction of physical violence, constitutional indolence or laziness, drug
dependence or addiction, and psychosexual anomaly are manifestations of a
sociopathic personality anomaly. Let it be noted that in Article 36, there
is no marriage to speak of in the first place, as the same is void from the
very beginning. To indulge in imagery, the declaration of nullity under Article
36 will simply provide a decent burial to a stillborn marriage.[26]
(emphasis ours)
In all, we agree with the trial
court that the declaration of nullity of the parties’ marriage pursuant to
Article 36 of the Family Code is proper under the premises.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Amended Decision dated July 19, 2005 of
the Regional Trial Court, Branch 72,
SO ORDERED.
TERESITA
J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO
Associate Justice
WE
CONCUR:
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice Chairperson |
|
|
ANTONIO
T. CARPIO Associate Justice |
RENATO
C. CORONA Associate Justice |
|
LUCAS
P. BERASMIN Associate Justice |
|
Chief Justice
[1] Penned by Associate Justice Jose
C. Reyes, Jr. and concurred in by Associate Justices Jose L. Sabio, Jr. and
Myrna Dimaranan Vidal; rollo, pp.
37-50.
[2]
[3] CA Records pp. 36-37.
[4] Id. at p. 41.
[5] Rollo, pp. 45-49.
[6] Section 12 of Article II of the
1987 Constitution provides:
SEC.
12. The State recognizes the sanctity of
family life and shall protect and strengthen the family as a basic autonomous
social institution. x x x
Sections 1 and 2 of Article XV of the
1987 Constitution state:
SECTION 1. The State recognizes the
Filipino family as the foundation of the nation. Accordingly, it shall strengthen its
solidarity and actively promote its total development.
SEC. 2. Marriage, as an inviolable
social institution, is the foundation of the family and shall be protected by
the State.
[7] Ancheta v. Ancheta, G.R. No. 145370, March 4, 2004, 424 SCRA 725,
740; Tuason v. Court of Appeals, 326
Phil. 169, 180-181 (1996).
[8] G.R. No.
108763, February 13, 1997, 268 SCRA 198.
[9]
[10] 310 Phil. 21 (1995).
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14] Antonio v. Reyes, G.R. No. 155800, March 10, 2006, 484 SCRA
353, 370.
[15] Republic of the
[16] G.R.
No. 161793, February 13, 2009.
[17] 397 Phil. 840 (2000).
[18] Tsoi v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 119190,
January 16, 1997, 266 SCRA 324, 330.
[19] Limketkai Sons Milling, Inc. v. Court of
Appeals, 321 Phil. 105, 126 (1995), citing Serrano v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 45125, April 22, 1991,196
SCRA 107, 110.
[20] Supra note 14.
[21] Rollo, pp. 63-64.
[22] TSN
dated February 26, 2004, at pp. 13-20.
[23] Supra note 16.
[24]
[25] ART. 68. The husband and wife are
obliged to live together, observe mutual love, respect and fidelity, and render
mutual help and support.
ART.
69. The husband and wife shall fix the family domicile. In case of
disagreement, the court shall decide.
The court may exempt one spouse from living
with the other if the latter should live abroad or there are other valid and
compelling reasons for the exemption. However, such exemption shall not apply
if the same is not compatible with the solidarity of the family.
ART.
70. The spouses are jointly responsible for the support of the family. The
expenses for such support and other conjugal obligations shall be paid from the
community property and, in the absence thereof, from the income or fruits of
their separate properties. In case [of] insufficiency or absence of said income
or fruits, such obligations shall be satisfied from their separate properties.
ART.
71. The management of the household shall be the right and duty of both
spouses. The expenses for such management shall be paid in accordance with the
provisions of Article 70.
[26] Supra note 16.