THIRD DIVISION
|
EDWARD N. LIM, Petitioner, - versus - MA. CHERYL STA. CRUZ-LIM, Respondent. |
G.R.
No. 176464
Present: CARPIO, J.,*
Chairperson, VELASCO, JR., NACHURA, and PERALTA, JJ. Promulgated: February
4, 2010 |
x-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
DECISION
NACHURA, J.:
This petition raises a
far-from-novel issue, i.e., the
invalidity of a marriage on the ground of either or both of the parties’
psychological incapacity. However, similar petitions continue to hound the
lower courts, even with the stringent requirements for the grant of declaration
of nullity of marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity, given the
facility with which married persons are diagnosed with personality disorders.
The instant petition for
review on certiorari assails the
decision[1]
of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 74822, which reversed the
decision[2]
of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 140,
First, the all too familiar antecedents of man-meets-woman;
they get married after a whirlwind relationship; and, not surprisingly, the
marriage goes awry.
Petitioner Edward N. Lim
and respondent Maria Cheryl Sta. Cruz-Lim met in 1978 in Cebu, where petitioner,
who resides in
After less than a year of
courtship via long distance phone calls, petitioner and respondent became
sweethearts in early 1979. Within that year, or on December 8, 1979, the two
were wed at the
As is customary among
those of Chinese descent, petitioner and respondent took up residence with the
former’s grandparents and parents in
During their stay in P6,000.00 for working
in the family distillery went straight to respondent. Despite all these
amenities, the setup and living arrangement rankled respondent, who continued
to insist that they live separately and independently from petitioner’s family.
October 14, 1990 proved to be a black-letter day for the union of
petitioner and respondent. That morning, respondent registered a complaint, which
was recorded in the police blotter of the
Also, on that same day, respondent finally left petitioner and brought
with her their three (3) children. Respondent forcibly opened their cabinet and
cleaned out the contents thereof, which included petitioner’s passport,
jewelry, and a land title in petitioner’s name.
Respondent likewise filed a criminal complaint for Concubinage and
Physical Injuries against petitioner which was eventually dismissed by the
investigating prosecutor for lack of merit.
Subsequently, respondent filed with the RTC of Makati City an
action for support against petitioner and petitioner’s parents. Thereafter, the
trial court directed petitioner to give a monthly support of P6,000.00
and, in case of his inability to do so, petitioner’s parents were also decreed
to give a monthly support for the three minor children in the amount of P34,000.00.[6]
On October 29, 1999, petitioner filed a petition and sought the
declaration of nullity of his marriage to respondent on the ground of the
latter’s psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code. Three
years thereafter, on July 22, 2002, petitioner filed an amended petition including
an allegation of his own psychological incapacity, as both he and respondent
were diagnosed with personality disorders—dependent personality disorder and
histrionic personality disorder, respectively.
Following the exchange of pleadings between the parties,
petitioner presented evidence, which consisted of the testimonies of Dr.
Cecilia C. Villegas, a psychiatrist; and Maxima Adato, petitioner’s co-employee
in the distillery. In addition, petitioner offered in evidence Dr. Villegas’
Psychiatric Report, which concluded that the parties were suffering from
personality disorders. Respondent, despite filing an Answer to the petition
denying the allegations therein, waived her right to present evidence.
Based on the foregoing, primarily on the Psychiatric Report, the
RTC declared the marriage between petitioner and respondent null and void as
the two were psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential marital
obligations. The RTC disposed of the case, to wit:
WHEREFORE,
premises considered, the Court hereby DECLARES the marriage of EDWARD N. LIM
and MA. CHERYL STA. CRUZ on
As
regards the custody of the children, considering that all of them are over
seven (7) years of age, the Court shall take into account the choice of each of
the child, unless the Court finds compelling reasons to order otherwise.
Let
copies thereof be sent to the Office of Local Civil Registrar of Makati City
and the National Statistics Office,
The
Conjugal Partnership of the Spouses shall be liquidated, partitioned, and
distributed in accordance with the provisions of Articles 50 and 51 of the
Family Code.[7]
Disagreeing completely with the RTC’s
disposition, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) appealed to the CA, questioning
the RTC’s finding that the parties were psychologically incapacitated to comply
with the essential marital obligations. The appellate court granted the OSG’s
appeal and reversed the trial court. It ruled thus:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the
instant appeal is GRANTED. Accordingly, the assailed Decision dated
Hence, this petition for review on certiorari positing the singular issue
of whether the marriage between petitioner and respondent is null and void on
the ground of the parties’ psychological incapacity.
We deny the petition.
The seminal ruling in Santos v. Court of Appeals[9]
cites three (3) factors characterizing psychological incapacity to perform the
essential marital obligations: (1) gravity, (2) juridical antecedence, (3)
incurability. We expounded on the foregoing, to wit:
The incapacity must be grave or
serious such that the party would be incapable of carrying out the ordinary
duties required in marriage; it must be rooted in the history of the party
antedating the marriage, although the overt manifestations may emerge only
after the marriage; and it must be incurable or, even if it were otherwise, the
cure would be beyond the means of the party involved.
Given the foregoing stringent requisites and without going
into the non-exclusive list found in Republic
v. Court of Appeals,[10]
petitioner, as the party alleging his own psychological incapacity and that of
his spouse, had the special albatross to prove that he and his wife were
suffering from “the most serious cases of personality disorders clearly
demonstrative of an utter insensitivity or inability to give meaning and
significance to the marriage.”[11]
Instead, petitioner presented the Psychiatric Report of Dr.
Villegas, the conclusions drawn are reprinted in full:
PSYCHODYNAMICS
OF THE CASE:
Edward
is of Chinese descent, born and grew up in a Philippine environment. He was
raised and educated in Philippine school. However, despite his prominent
Filipino exposure, his immediate family still practice a strong cultural
Chinese tradition within his home. Very clannish, all family members has to
stay in one roof, in a communal style of living, with the elders in this case,
the grandparents are recognized as the authority. Most of the family members
tend to rebel, but at the end, tendency to be submissive and passive were
developed. But despite physical closeness, Edward did not build close
attachments to his parents. The father was exceptionally temperamental and
moody, while the mother was extremely asocial, isolated, withdrawn and
seclusive, that repelled him from both of them.
Surrogate parenting from his
grandparents satisfied his dependency needs. He developed into a kind,
obedient, submissive and passive adult, which became the center of jealousy and
rivalry among the siblings. Under stressful situation, he became depressed and
had suicidal intentions. He felt so secure with his grandparents, that he
subordinated his needs to them. He allowed them to assume responsibilities for
major areas of his life, as in his family decision and independence. He has
difficulty expressing disagreements with others, especially with his wife,
because of fear of loss of support or approval. So that even an abusive spouse
may be tolerated for long periods, in order not to disturb the sense of
attachments. A persevering worker, he had difficulties initiating change due to
lack of self-confidence in judgment or abilities, rather than lack of
motivation or energy. Within 10 years in marriage, he tried hard to grant his
wife’s wishes, but to no avail. His wife left him in October, 1990 together
with their three children, whom he missed very much. The death of his
grandfather in 1994 was a big blow to him, but he finds solace and security in
visiting his grave every Sunday since then.
On
the other hand, Cheryl was initially congenial, which lasted only for a short
period of time. Later, her immaturity interfered with her behavioral pattern
and adjustment. Apparently, she could not recognize realities in their family
set-up and will insist on her fantasized wishes. When not granted, she’ll go into
tantrums, moodiness, anger, hostilities, exhibitions and dramatizations, just
to get attention and to emphasize her wants. Her attention-getting devices will
be endless and her suggestibility to the influence of others is very fertile.
Based
on the family background, pattern of behavior, and outcome of their marriage,
clinical evidence showed that Mr. Edward Lim is suffering from a Dependent
Personality Disorder, while Cheryl is suffering from Histrionic Personality
Disorder associated with immaturity, that render both of them psychologically
incapacitated to perform the duties and responsibilities of marriage.
The
root cause of the above clinical condition on the part of Edward was due to
overindulgence and overprotection of his surrogate parents, that left no room
for him to develop his own abilities, encouraging too much dependence, lack of
self-confidence, self-doubt, passivity, pessimism, and depression. How much of
the Dependent Disorder was due to developmental defect and how much was due to
strong Chinese culture and traditions, will be difficult to assess.
On
the part of Cheryl, the root cause was due to unsatisfied dependency needs that
finds gratification in adult stage, in the form of attention-seeking devices,
manifested in her clinical symptoms. Both existed prior to marriage, but became
obviously manifested only after the celebration, due to marital stresses and
demands. Both disorders are considered permanent and incurable, because they
started early in their developmental stage and therefore became so engrained in
their personality structure. Both are severe and grave in degree, because they
hampered their normal functioning, specifically related to a difficult
heterosexual adjustment.[12]
In
addition, Dr. Villegas testified in the lower court as to the findings
contained in the Psychiatric Report. Thus, on direct examination, Dr. Villegas’
testimony consisted of the following:
Q-
Can you
tell the Court how you happened to know the petitioner?
A-
He was
referred to me by his counsel for psychological and psychiatric evaluation
related to his application for nullity of marriage in this Honorable Court,
ma’am.
Q-
And were
you able to actually conduct an examination for the purposes that you have
stated?
A-
Yes,
ma’am.
Q-
How many times were you able to examine or
meet the petitioner?
A-
I met him three (3x) times, ma’am. That was on January 10, January 14 and
January 17, year 2000.
Q-
And is there any other witness or person that
you have met for the purpose of evaluating the behavior and personality of petitioner?
A-
Yes, ma’am. I was able to interview a long
time employee that they have
in their company in the person of Mrs. Emmy Adato who herself know the
petitioner since he was eight (8) years old, ma’am.
x x x x
Q-
Do you
affirm before this Honorable Court the conclusions that you have arrived at to
be correct?
A-
Yes,
ma’am.
Q-
And what
was the conclusion after you conducted the evaluation of the character of
petitioner, as well as that of the respondent?
A-
After my
intensive interview about the circumstances of their marriage, family
background of the petitioner and also the family background of the respondent,
it is the opinion of the examiner that the petitioner Mr. Edward Lim is
suffering from DEPENDENT PERSONALITY DISORDER that renders him psychologically incapacitated
to perform the duties and
responsibilities of marriage, ma’am. On the other hand, based on the
informations and clinical data gathered from the petitioner and my other
informant, Ms. Emmy Adato, it is the opinion of the examiner that the respondent
is suffering from HISTRIONIC PERSONALITY DISORDER associated with an immaturity
that renders her psychologically incapacitated to perform the duties and
responsibilities of marriage.
Q-
In your
capacity as expert, a psychiatrist of forty (40) years, can you conclude that
this deficiencies or defects that you found are sufficient ground to nullify
the marriage under Article 36?
A- Yes,
ma’am.
Q- Do you conclude also these deficiencies are continuous and permanent?
A- Yes, ma’am.
Q- Would you conclude therefore – would you consider it as valid ground for the annulment of the marriage?
A- Yes, ma’am.[13]
On
cross examination by the prosecutor, Dr. Villegas testified as
follows:
Q- Doctor, you have testified that it was only
the petitioner whom you have examined
and evaluated with (sic)?
A- Yes, ma’am.
Q- And the other person whom you have
interviewed was the employee of
the petitioner?
A- Yes, ma’am.
Q- No other person whom you have interviewed?
A- None, ma’am.
Q- You did not interview the surrogate parents
of petitioner?
A- No, ma’am.
Q- Did
you attempt to communicate with the respondent of this case for the purpose of interviewing her?
A- Yes,
ma’am. [A]nd I have made this through the petitioner who has contacted his children in Cagayan De
Oro, ma’am.
Q- So
you are telling us, Doctor, that the respondent is in Cagayan De Oro?
A- Yes,
ma’am.
Q- And
despite your invitation, she did not appear to you?
A- Yes,
ma’am.
Q- So based from your Report on the
circumstances of marriage, the
information regarding the marriage of parties in this case came from the petitioner?
A- Yes, sir.
Q- And the family background you have made on
Cheryl, the respondent also came
from the petitioner?
A- Yes, ma’am.
Q- And
the interview you have made on Adato, the employee of petitioner, she gave you some background of the respondent
here?
A- Yes,
ma’am.
Q- But most of the informations you have
gathered from her were pertaining to the
petitioner?
A- Yes, ma’am.
Q- So practically, the evaluation you have
made were based on the interview
only on both the employee and the petitioner himself?
A- Yes, ma’am.
Q- You did not conduct a series of tests to
determine or evaluate further?
A- No, ma’am.
Q- You have not collaborated with any
psychologists so as to get some
psychological evaluation on petitioner?
A- No, ma’am. But the clearer picture of
the case presented to me is a very clear
picture already of the psychiatric disorder which did not necessitated (sic) the assistance of a
psychologist because it is obvious,
the signs and symptoms are obviously manifested by the parties.
Q- How many times did you meet the petitioner?
A- Three (3) times ma’am.
Q- And the duration of interview or
examination on petitioner is how long?
A- It lasted for about one and a half hours to
two and a half hours.
Q- For each session?
A- For each session.
Q- So you were able to examine him for a
duration of six (6) hours, more
or less. In the six (6) or seven (7) hours, you were able to make the conclusions which you have made in your report?
A- Yes, ma’am. A psychiatric interview is
a very structured interview…
Q- When
did you find out that you don’t have to resort to psychological evaluation?
A- Even
on my interview, I already kn[e]w that I will not be referring this case to a psychological evaluation because
the signs and symptoms are already
very clear.
Q- What
are these signs and symptoms?
A- The
family background, for example, which gave the rootcause, of this case are very, very typical ground that
can bring about…
Q- Did
you not have any suspicion that the petitioner might be giving you some informations which would given (sic)
some presumption to nullifying his
marriage?
A- I
have no basis to doubt that kind of information that he might be lying. During the one and a half to two hours
of interview based on his reactions,
the way he answers me, the way he grimaces and also,
his statements that he has been giving me are very sincere on his part, that he even, despite the fact that
that happened already about eleven
years ago, I could still appreciate how much he feels, so devastated, so frustrated and disappointed about family life.
Q- You
made a conclusion about the personality of both the petitioner and the respondent. Would you say
that even if petitioner would marry
again, the same manifestations would exist in the second marriage?
A- It
would depend again on the personality profile of the would be partner that he will be having. So it is not
really absolute in his case, in a
personality profile, but it would again depend on the personality profile of the would-be partner that he will be having, ma’am.[14]
It was folly for the
trial court to accept the findings and conclusions of Dr. Villegas with nary a
link drawn between the “psychodynamics of the case” and the factors
characterizing the psychological incapacity. Dr. Villegas’ sparse testimony
does not lead to the inevitable conclusion that the parties were
psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential marital obligations.
Even on questioning from the trial court, Dr. Villegas’ testimony did not
illuminate on the parties’ alleged personality disorders and their incapacitating
effect on their marriage:
Q- Doctora, you gave a conclusion that the respondent is
suffering from Histrionic Personality
Disorder associated with immaturity. Did
you discover the antecedents of this disorder?
A- Yes, your honor.
Q- What did you find out?
A- I found out from her family background that the parents were separated. She lived with a stepfather
and therefore their family relationship
were only preoccupied by earning a living and no attention were given to the children. When the children
were growing up, specifically
Cheryl – (interrupted).
Q- By the way, who supplied you this information?
A- The petitioner.
Q- You never discussed the matter with the respondent or any of
her relatives, except the husband?
A- None, ma’am.
Q- Now, you have interviewed Mr. Lim three (3) times. What tests
did you give to him aside from
the interview?
A- I did not give him any test because a psychological
examination is given by a psychologist
who acts as a laboratory aide to a psychiatrist
and therefore, if there are some doubts in our clinical interviews, that is the time we refer the case to a
psychologist for a sort of
clarification in our clinical interviews.
Q- As far as the gravity of the disorder of petitioner is
concerned do you have any suggestions
as to the cure of the same?
A- Because the psychological/psychiatric incapacity has been
formed or developed during his early
years of development, I would say that
it is ingrained in his personality and therefore, no amount of psychiatric assistance or medicines can
help him improve his personality,
your honor.[15]
The Diagnostic and
Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition (DSM IV),[16]
provides general diagnostic criteria for personality disorders:
A. An enduring pattern of inner experience and behavior that
deviates markedly from the expectations of the individual’s culture. This
pattern is manifested in two (2) or more of the following areas:
(1) cognition (i.e., ways of perceiving and
interpreting self, other people, and events)
(2) affectivity (i.e., the range, intensity,
lability, and appropriateness of emotional response)
(3) interpersonal functioning
(4) impulse control
B. The enduring pattern is inflexible and pervasive across a
broad range of personal and social situations.
C. The enduring pattern leads to clinically significant distress
or impairment in social, occupational or other important areas of functioning.
D. The pattern is stable and of long duration, and its onset can
be traced back at least to adolescence or early adulthood.
E. The enduring pattern is not better accounted for as a
manifestation or a consequence of another mental disorder.
F. The enduring pattern is not due to the direct physiological
effects of a substance (i.e., a drug of abuse, a medication) or a general
medical condition (e.g., head trauma).
The alleged personality disorders of the parties have the
following specified diagnostic criteria:
301.6 DEPENDENT PERSONALITY DISORDER
A pervasive and excessive need to
be taken care of that leads to submissive and clinging behavior and fears of
separation, beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts,
as indicated by five (or more) of the following:
(1) has difficulty making everyday decisions without an excessive
amount of advice and reassurance from others;
(2) needs others to assume responsibility for most major areas of
his or her life;
(3) has difficulty expressing disagreement with others because of
fear of loss of support or approval. Note: do not include realistic fears of
retribution;
(4) has difficulty intiating projects or doing things on his or
her own (because of a lack of self-confidence in judgment or abilities rather
than a lack of motivation or energy);
(5) goes to excessive lengths to obtain nurturance and support
from others, to the point of volunteering to do things that are unpleasant;
(6) feels uncomfortable or helpless when alone because of
exaggerated fears of being unable to care for himself or herself;
(7) urgently seeks another relationship as a source of care and
support when a close relationship ends;
(8) is unrealistically preoccupied with fears of being left to
take care of himself or herself.
301.5 HISTRIONIC PERSONALITY DISORDER
A pervasive pattern of excessive
emotionality and attention seeking, beginning by early adulthood and present in
a variety of contexts, as indicated by five (or more) of the following:
(1) is uncomfortable in situations in which he or she is not the
center of attention;
(2) interaction with others is often characterized by
inappropriate sexually seductive or provocative behavior;
(3) displays rapidly shifting and shallow expressing of emotions;
(4) consistently uses physical appearance to draw attention to
self;
(5) has a style of speech that is excessively impressionistic and
lacking in detail;
(6) shows self-dramatization, theatricality, and exaggerated
expression of emotion;
(7) is suggestible, i.e., easily influenced by others or
circumstances; and
(8) considers relationships to be more intimate than they
actually are.
Significantly, nowhere in
Dr. Villegas’ Psychiatric Report and in her testimony does she link particular
acts of the parties to the DSM IV’s list of criteria for the specific
personality disorders.
Curiously, Dr. Villegas’
global conclusion of both parties’ personality disorders was not supported by
psychological tests properly administered by clinical psychologists
specifically trained in the tests’ use and interpretation. The supposed
personality disorders of the parties, considering that such diagnoses were
made, could have been fully established by psychometric and neurological tests
which are designed to measure specific aspects of people’s intelligence,
thinking, or personality.[17]
Concededly, a copy of DSM
IV, or any of the psychology textbooks, does not transform a lawyer or a judge
into a professional psychologist. A judge should not substitute his own
psychological assessment of the parties for that of the psychologist or the
psychiatrist. However, a judge has the bounden duty to rule on what the law is,
as applied to a certain set of facts. Certainly, as in all other litigations
involving technical or special knowledge, a judge must first and foremost
resolve the legal question based on law and jurisprudence.
The expert opinion of a
psychiatrist arrived at after a maximum of seven (7) hours of interview, and
unsupported by separate psychological tests, cannot tie the hands of the trial
court and prevent it from making its own factual finding on what happened in
this case. The probative
force of the testimony of an expert does not lie in a mere statement of his
theory or opinion, but rather in the assistance that he can render to the
courts in showing the facts that serve as a basis for his criterion and the
reasons upon which the logic of his conclusion is founded.[18]
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DENIED.
The Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 74822 is hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
ANTONIO
EDUARDO B. NACHURA
Associate
Justice
WE CONCUR:
ANTONIO
T. CARPIO
Associate
Justice
|
RENATO C. CORONA Associate
Justice Chairperson |
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR. Associate
Justice |
DIOSDADO M. PERALTA
Associate
Justice
A T T E S T A T I O N
I attest 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.
RENATO C. CORONA
Associate
Justice
Chairperson,
Third Division
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution
and the Division Chairperson's Attestation, I certify 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
* Additional member in lieu of Associate Justice Jose Catral Mendoza per Special Order No. 818 dated January 18, 2010.
[1] Penned by Associate Justice Arturo G. Tayag, with Associate Justices Remedios A. Salazar-Fernando and Noel G. Tijam, concurring; rollo, pp. 43-59.
[2] Penned by Judge Leticia P. Morales, CA rollo, pp. 9-17.
[3] Born on June 11, 1981.
[4] Born on October 23, 1985.
[5] Born on August 31, 1986.
[6] This decision of the RTC of Makati
City was appealed by petitioner and his parents to the CA, docketed as CA GR CV
No. 5890. At the time of writing of the trial court decision on the case for the
declaration of nullity of marriage between the parties, the appeal of
petitioner and his parents from the Order of the RTC,
[7] CA rollo, pp. 16-17.
[8] Rollo, p. 58.
[9] G.R No. 112019, January 4, 1995, 240 SCRA 20, 33-34.
[10] G.R. No. 108763, February 13, 1997, 268 SCRA 198.
[11]
[12] Records, pp. 134-136.
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16] Quick Reference to the Diagnostic Criteria from DSM IV-TR, American Psychiatric Association, 2000.
[17] See Kaplan and Saddock’s Synopsis of Psychiatry and Psychology Behavioral Sciences/Clinical Psychiatry (8th ed.), p. 193.
[18] Dizon v. Tuazon, G.R. No. 172167, July 9, 2008, 557 SCRA 487.