Pfr Digests - Psychological Incapacity 736y6g

PFR Digests: Psychological Incapacity Santos vs. Bedia-Santos 240 SCRA 20

Republic vs CA & Molina 268 SCRA 198

FACTS: Leouel Santos, a First Lieutenant in the Philippine Army, met Julia in Iloilo. The two got married in 1986 before a municipal trial court followed shortly thereafter, by a church wedding. The couple lived with Julia’s parents at the J. Bedia Compound. Julia gave birth to a baby boy in 1987 and was named as Leouel Santos Jr. Occasionally, the couple will quarrel over a number of things aside from the interference of Julia’s parents into their family affairs. Julia left in 1988 to work in US as a nurse despite Leouel’s pleas to dissuade her. Seven months after her departure, she called her husband and promised to return home upon the expiration of her contract in July 1989 but she never did. Leouel got a chance to visit US where he underwent a training program under AFP, he desperately tried to locate or somehow get in touch with Julia but all his efforts were of no avail.

FACTS:

Leouel filed a complaint to have their marriage declared void under Article 36 of the Family Code. He argued that failure of Julia to return home or to communicate with him for more than 5 years are circumstances that show her being psychologically incapacitated to enter into married life.

ISSUE: Whether or not the marriage is void on the ground of psychological incapacity.

ISSUE: Whether their marriage can be considered void under Article 36 of the Family Code.

The marriage between Roridel and Reynaldo subsists and remains valid. What constitutes psychological incapacity is not mere showing of irreconcilable differences and confliction personalities. It is indispensable that the parties must exhibit inclinations which would not meet the essential marital responsibilites and duties due to some psychological illness. Reynaldo’s action at the time of the marriage did not manifest such characteristics that would comprise grounds for psychological incapacity. The evidence shown by Roridel merely showed that she and her husband cannot get along with each other and had not shown gravity of the problem neither its juridical antecedence nor its incurability. In addition, the expert testimony by Dr Sison showed no incurable psychiatric disorder but only incompatibility which is not considered as psychological incapacity.

HELD: The intendment of the law has been to confine the meaning of psychological incapacity to the most serious cases of personal disorders clearly demonstrative of an utter insensitivity or inability to give meaning and significance to the marriage. This condition must exist at the time the marriage is celebrated. Undeniably and understandably, Leouel stands aggrieved, even desperate, in his present situation. Regrettably, neither law nor society itself can always provide all the specific answers to every individual problem. Wherefore, his petition was denied. __________ Notes: Psychological incapacity must be characterized by (a) gravity, (b) juridical antecedence, and (c) incurability. 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.

The case at bar challenges the decision of CA affirming the marriage of the respondent Roridel Molina to Reynaldo Molina void in the ground of psychological incapacity. The couple got married in 1985, after a year, Reynaldo manifested signs of immaturity and irresponsibility both as husband and a father preferring to spend more time with friends whom he squandered his money, depends on his parents for aid and assistance and was never honest with his wife in regard to their finances. In 1986, the couple had an intense quarrel and as a result their relationship was estranged. Roridel quit her work and went to live with her parents in Baguio City in 1987 and a few weeks later, Reynaldo left her and their child. Since then he abandoned them.

HELD:

The following are the guidelines as to the grounds of psychological incapacity laid set forth in this case: • burden of proof to show nullity belongs to the plaintiff • root causes of the incapacity must be medically and clinically inclined • such incapacity should be in existence at the time of the marriage • such incapacity must be grave so as to disable the person in complying with the essentials of marital obligations of marriage • such incapacity must be embraced in Art. 68-71 as well as Art 220, 221 and 225 of the Family Code decision of the National Matrimonial Appellate Court or the Catholic Church must be respected court shall order the prosecuting attorney and the fiscal assigned to it to act on behalf of the state.

PFR Digests: Psychological Incapacity Choa vs Choa 392 SCRA 641

Tsoi vs CA 266 SCRA 641

FACTS:

FACTS:

Leni Choa and Alfonso Choa got married in 1981. They have 2 children namely Cheryl Lynne and Albryan. In 1993, Alfonso filed an annulment of his marriage to Leni. Afterwards, he filed an amended complaint for the declaration of nullity of their marriage based on psychological incapacity. The case went to trial and the trial court further held that Alfonso presented quantum evidence that Leni needs to controvert for the dismissal of the case.

Chi Ming Tsoi and Gina Lao Tsoi was married in 1988. After the celebration of their wedding, they proceed to the house of defendant’s mother. There was no sexual intercourse between them during their first night and same thing happened until their fourth night. In an effort to have their honeymoon in a private place, they went to Baguio but Gina’s relatives went with them. Again, there was no sexual intercourse since the defendant avoided by taking a long walk during siesta or sleeping on a rocking chair at the living room. Since May 1988 until March 1989 they slept together in the same bed but no attempt of sexual intercourse between them. Because of this, they submitted themselves for medical examination to a urologist in Chinese General Hospital in 1989. The result of the physical examination of Gina was disclosed, while that of the husband was kept confidential even the medicine prescribed. There were allegations that the reason why Chi Ming Tsoi married her is to maintain his residency status here in the country. Gina does not want to reconcile with Chi Ming Tsoi and want their marriage declared void on the ground of psychological incapacity. On the other hand, the latter does not want to have their marriage annulled because he loves her very much, he has no defect on his part and is physically and psychologically capable and since their relationship is still young, they can still overcome their differences. Chi Ming Tsoi submitted himself to another physical examination and the result was there is not evidence of impotency and he is capable of erection.

Alfonso claimed that Leni charged him with perjury, concubinage and deportation which shows latter’s psychological incapacity because according to him it clearly showed that his wife not only wanted him behind bars but also to banish outside the country. ISSUE: Whether or not Alfonso Chua presented quantum evidence for the declaration of nullity of his marriage with Leni on the ground of psychological incapacity. HELD: The court held that documents presented by Alfonso during the trial of the case do not in any way show the alleged psychological incapacity of his wife. The evidence was insufficient and shows grave abuse of discretion bordering on absurdity. Alfonso testified and complained about three aspects of Leni’s personality namely lack of attention to children, immaturity, and lack of an intention of procreative sexuality and none of these three, singly or collectively, constitutes psychological incapacity.

ISSUE: Whether Chi Ming Tsoi’s refusal to have sexual intercourse with his wife constitutes psychological incapacity. HELD:

Psychological incapacity must be characterized by gravity, juridical antecedence, and incurability. It must be more than just a difficulty, a refusal or a neglect in the performance of marital obligations. A mere showing of irreconcilable differences and conflicting personalities does not constitute psychological incapacity. Furthermore, the testimonial evidence from other witnesses failed to identify and prove root cause of the alleged psychological incapacity. It just established that the spouses had an incompatibility or a defect that could possibly be treated or alleviated through psychotherapy. The totality of evidence presented was completely insufficient to sustain a finding of psychological incapacity more so without any medical, psychiatric or psychological examination.

The abnormal reluctance or unwillingness to consummate his marriage is strongly indicative of a serious personality disorder which to the mind of the Supreme Court clearly demonstrates an utter insensitivity or inability to give meaning and significance tot the marriage within the meaning of Article 36 of the Family Code. If a spouse, although physically capable but simply refuses to perform his or her essential marital obligations and the refusal is senseless and constant, Catholic marriage tribunals attribute the causes to psychological incapacity than to stubborn refusal. Furthermore, one of the essential marital obligations under the Family Code is to procreate children thus constant non-fulfillment of this obligation will finally destroy the integrity and wholeness of the marriage.

PFR Digests: Psychological Incapacity Marcos vs Marcos 343 SCRA 755

Ngo Te vs Yu-Te 579 SCRA 193

FACTS: Wilson Marcos and Brenda Marcos first met sometime in 1980 when both of them were assigned at the Malacanang Palace, she as an escort of Imee Marcos and he as a Presidential Guard of President Ferdinand Marcos. They got married twice, first was on September 6, 1982 and on May 8, 1983 and blessed with five children. After the downfall of President Marcos, he left the military service in 1987 and then engaged in different business ventures that did not succeeded. Due to his failure to engage in any gainful employment, they would often quarrel and as a consequence, he would hit and beat her. He would also inflict physical harm on their children. In 1992, they were already living separately. On October 16, 1994, when Brenda saw him in their house, she was so angry that she lambasted him. Wilson then turned violent, inflicting physical harm on her and even on her mother who came to her aid. On October 17, 1994, she and their children left the house and sought refuge in her sister’s house. On October 19, 1994, she submitted herself to medical examination at the Mandaluyong Medical Center. Thus, petitioner filed for annulment of marriage in the RTC assailing Article 36 of the Family Code. The court ruled the respondent to be psychologically incapacitated to perform his marital obligations. But the Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the RTC because psychological incapacity had not been established by the totality of the evidence presented. Hence, this appeal.

FACTS: The parties’ whirlwind relationship lasted more or less six (6) months. They met in January 1996, eloped in March, exchanged marital vows in May, and parted ways in June. After almost four years, or on January 18, 2000, Edward filed a petition before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) Quezon City for the annulment of his marriage to Rowena on the basis of the latter’s psychological incapacity. The psychologist who provided expert testimony found both parties psychologically incapacitated. Petitioner’s behavioral pattern falls under the classification of dependent personality disorder, and the respondent’s, that of the narcissistic and antisocial personality disorder.

ISSUES: Whether or not there is a need for personal medical examination of respondent to prove psychological incapacity? Whether the totality of evidence presented in this case show psychological incapacity? HELD: The testimonies of petitioner, the common children, petitioner’s sister and the social worker were not enough to sustain a finding that the respondent was psychologically incapacitated. Personal medical or psychological examination of respondent is not a requirement for a declaration of psychological incapacity. Nevertheless, the totality of the evidence she presented does not show such incapacity. Although Supreme Court is convinced that respondent failed to provide material to the family and may have resorted to physical abuse and abandonment, the totality of these acts does not lead to a conclusion of psychological incapacity on his part. There is absolutely no showing that his “defects” were already present at the inception of the marriage or that they are incurable.

The trial court, on July 30, 2001, rendered its decision declaring the marriage of the parties null and void on the ground that both parties were psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential marital obligations. On review, the appellate court reversed and set aside the trial’s court ruling. It ruled that petitioner failed to prove the psychological incapacity of respondent, for the clinical psychologist did not personally examine respondent, and relied only on the information provided by petitioner. Further, the psychological incapacity was not shown to be attended by gravity, juridical antecedence and incurability. In sum, the evidence adduced fell short of the requirements stated in the Molina case needed for the declaration of nullity of the marriage under Art. 36 of the Family Code. Dissatisfied, petitioner filed before the SC the instant petition for review on certiorari. He posited that the trial court declared the marriage void, not only because of respondent’s psychological incapacity, but rather due to both parties’ psychological incapacity. He also pointed out that there is no requirement for the psychologist to personally examine respondent. ISSUE: Whether, based on Article 36 of the Family Code, the marriage between the parties is null and void? HELD: The petition for review for certiorari was granted. The decision of the CA was reversed and set aside, and the decision of the trial court was reinstated. Both parties afflicted with grave, severe and incurable psychological incapacity, the precipitous marriage is, thus, declared null and void. For the fulfillment of the obligations of marriage depends on the strength of this interpersonal relationship. A serious incapacity for interpersonal sharing and is held to impair the relationship and consequently, the ability to fulfill the essential marital obligations. 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. In dissolving the marital bonds on 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 that sacred bond. Let it be noted that in Art. 36, there is no marriage to speak of in the first place, as the same is void from the very beginning.

PFR Digests: Psychological Incapacity Aurelio vs Aurelio 650 SCRA 561

Mallilin vs Jamesolamin 751 SCRA 1

FACTS: Petitioner Danilo A. Aurelio and respondent Vida Ma. Corazon Aurelio were married on March 23, 1988. On May 9, 2002, respondent filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, Branch 94, a Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage. In her petition, respondent alleged that both she and petitioner were psychologically incapacitated of performing and complying with their respective essential marital obligations. In addition, respondent alleged that such state of psychological incapacity was present prior and even during the time of the marriage ceremony. Hence, respondent prays that her marriage be declared null and void under Article 36 of the Family Code. It alleged among others that said psychological incapacity was manifested by lack of financial from the husband; his lack of drive and incapacity to discern the plight of his working wife. The husband exhibited consistent jealousy and distrust towards his wife. His moods alternated between hostile defiance and contrition. He refused to assist in the maintenance of the family.

Facts: Robert and Luz were married on September 6, 1972. They begot three (3) children. On March 16, 1994, Robert filed a complaint for declaration of nullity of marriage before the RTC On March 7, 1996, RTC denied the petition January 29, 1999, the CA reversed the RTC decision "due to lack of participation of the State as required under Article 48 of the Family Code."

On the side of the wife on the other hand, is effusive and displays her feelings openly and freely. Her feelings change very quickly – from joy to fury to misery to despair, depending on her day-to-day experiences. Her tolerance for boredom was very low. She was emotionally immature; she cannot stand frustration or disappointment. She cannot delay to gratify her needs. She gets upset when she cannot get what she wants. Self-indulgence lifts her spirits immensely. Their hostility towards each other distorted their relationship. Their incapacity to accept and fulfill the essential obligations of marital life led to the breakdown of their marriage.

Luz filed her Answer with Counterclaim contesting the complaint. She averred that it was Robert who manifested psychological incapacity in their marriage. Despite due notice, however, she did not appear during the trial.

On November 8, 2002, petitioner filed a Motion to Dismiss the petition. Petitioner principally argued that the petition failed to state a cause of action and that it failed to meet the standards set by the Court for the interpretation and implementation of Article 36 of the Family Code. RTC denied the petition. CA affirmed. ISSUE: Whether or not the marriage shall be declared null and void?

In the complaint, Robert alleged that at the time of the celebration of their marriage, Luz was suffering from psychological and mental incapacity and unpreparedness to enter into such marital life and to comply with its essential obligations and responsibilities. Such incapacity became even more apparent during their marriage when Luz exhibited clear manifestation of immaturity, irresponsibility, deficiency of independent rational judgment, and inability to cope with the heavy and oftentimes demanding obligation of a parent.

When Robert testified, he disclosed that Luz was already living in California, USA, and had married an American. He also revealed that when they were still engaged, Luz continued seeing and dating another boyfriend, a certain Lt. Liwag. He also claimed that from the outset, Luz had been remiss in her duties both as a wife and as a mother as shown by the following circumstances: (1) it was he who did the cleaning of the room because Luz did not know how to keep order; (2)it was her mother who prepared their meal while her sister was the one who washed their clothes because she did not want her polished nails destroyed; (3)it was also her sister who took care of their children while she spent her time sleeping and looking at the mirror; (4) when she resumed her schooling, she dated different men; (5) he received anonymous letters reporting her loitering with male students; (6) when he was not home, she would receive male visitors; (7) a certain Romy Padua slept in their house when he was away; and (6) she would contract loans without his knowledge.

HELD: Petition denied. Marriage is null and void. RATIO: First, contrary to petitioner’s assertion, this Court finds that the root cause of psychological incapacity was stated and alleged in the complaint. We agree with the manifestation of respondent that the family backgrounds of both petitioner and respondent were discussed in the complaint as the root causes of their psychological incapacity. Moreover, a competent and expert psychologist clinically identified the same as the root causes. Second, the petition likewise alleged that the illness of both parties was of such grave a nature as to bring about a disability for them to assume the essential obligations of marriage. The psychologist reported that respondent suffers from Histrionic Personality Disorder with Narcissistic Features. Petitioner, on the other hand, allegedly suffers from ive Aggressive (Negativistic) Personality Disorder. The incapacity of both parties to perform their marital obligations was alleged to be grave, incorrigible and incurable. Lastly, this Court also finds that the essential marital obligations that were not complied with were alleged in the petition. As can be easily gleaned from the totality of the petition, respondent’s allegations fall under Article 68 of the Family Code which states that “the husband and the wife are obliged to live together, observe mutual love, respect and fidelity, and render mutual help and .”

In addition, Robert presented the testimony of Myrna Delos Reyes Villanueva (Villanueva), Guidance Psychologist. On May 8, 2000, while the case was pending before the trial court, Robert filed a petition for marriage annulment with the Metropolitan Tribunal of First Instance for the Archdiocese of Manila. On October 10, 2002, the Metropolitan Tribunal handed down a decision declaring their marriage invalid ab initio on the ground of grave lack of due discretion on the part of both parties as contemplated by the second paragraph of Canon 1095. This decision was... affirmed by the National Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal Prior to that on September 20, 2002, the RTC had rendered a decision declaring the marriage null and void on the ground of psychological incapacity on the part of Luz as she failed to comply with the essential marital obligations. The State, represented by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), interposed an appeal with the CA. The CA granted the petition and reversed the RTC decision.

PFR Digests: Psychological Incapacity Robert filed a motion for reconsideration, but it was denied by the CA

Guided by these pronouncements, the Court is of the considered view that Robert's evidence failed to establish the psychological incapacity of Luz.

Issues: whether the totality of the evidence adduced proves that Luzwas psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential obligations of marriage warranting the annulment of their marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code. Ruling: "Psychological incapacity," as a ground to nullify a marriage under Article 36of the Family Code, should refer to no less than a mental not merely 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 which, as so expressed in Article 68of the Family Code, among others, include their mutual obligations to live together; observe love, respect and fidelity; and render help and . There is hardly a doubt that 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.[7] Psychological incapacity as required by Article 36 must be characterized by (a) gravity, (b) juridical antecedence and (c) incurability. In Republic v. Court of Appeals and Eduardo C. De Quintos, Jr.,[9]the Court reiterated the well-settled guidelines in resolving petitions for declaration of nullity of marriage, embodied in Republic v. Court of Appeals and Molina,[10] based on Article 36 of the Family Code.Thus:

First, the testimony of Robert failed to overcome the burden of proof to show the nullity of the marriage. Other than his self-serving testimony, no other evidence was adduced to show the alleged incapacity of Luz. Second, the root cause of the alleged psychological incapacity of Luz was not medically or clinically identified, and sufficiently proven during the trial. As correctly found by the CA, sexual infidelity or perversion and abandonment do not, by themselves, constitute grounds for declaring a marriage void based on psychological incapacity. Third, the psychological report of Villanueva, Guidance Psychologist II of the Northern Mindanao Medical Center, Cagayan de Oro City, was insufficient to prove the psychological incapacity of Luz. Fourth, the decision of the Metropolitan Tribunal is insufficient to prove the psychological incapacity of Luz. Although it is true that in the case of Republic v. Court of Appeals and Molina,[14] the Court stated that interpretations given by... the NAMT of the Catholic Church in the Philippines, while not controlling or decisive, should be given great respect by our courts, still it is subject to the law on evidence. In fine, the Court holds that the CA decided correctly. Petitioner Robert failed to adduce sufficient and convincing evidence to prove the alleged psychological incapacity of Luz. WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED.

(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. (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. (3) The incapacity must be proven to be existing at "the time of the celebration" of the 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 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. Interpretations given by the National Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal of the Catholic Church in the Philippines, while not controlling or decisive, should be given great respect by our courts. The trial court must order the prosecuting attorney or fiscal and the Solicitor General to appear as counsel for the state