CASE DIGEST
Mutya-Sumilhig v.
Sumilhig
G.R. No. 230711, [August 22, 2022]
SECOND, LOPEZ, M.
Nullity of Marriage; Psychological Incapacity; Tong-its and Mahjong addict
The totality of evidence rule should be
applied in evaluating Article 36 petitions. Even without a personal examination
of the spouse alleged to be psychologically incapacitated, the court may
consider expert testimony and the narratives of the petitioner and witnesses to
establish the psychological condition of the respondent and the failure of the
marriage.
Carolyn met Joselito T. Sumilhig in February 1984 when they both worked at Daungan Restaurant. They developed a romantic relationship, leading to marriage on October 20, 1987. Despite Carolyn's hopes for reform, Joselito's vices, including gambling, drinking, and physical abuse, persisted after marriage. Their first child, Jay, was born on April 6, 1988, but Joselito displayed little concern. Their second child, Jennalyn, born on May 24, 1989, was premature due to stress from constant quarrels. Joselito's behavior worsened, and Carolyn eventually left in September 1990 due to his vices and abuse. Joselito did not provide for their children, and they never reconciled. Carolyn filed a petition for the nullity of marriage on October 18, 2010, based on Joselito's alleged psychological incapacity.
Whether or not Joselito's psychological incapacity, as claimed by Carolyn, justifies the declaration of nullity of their marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code.
YES. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) initially denied
Carolyn's petition, citing insufficient evidence to prove the gravity,
incurability, and juridical antecedence of Joselito's psychological incapacity.
The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC's decision, stating that the
totality of evidence presented was insufficient. The Supreme Court, however,
reversed the decisions, finding that the evidence presented, including expert
opinions from Dr. Soriano and Dr. Benitez, established Joselito's psychological
incapacity. Dr. Soriano diagnosed him with Antisocial-Dependent Personality
Disorder, comorbid with alcohol dependence and pathological gambling, with the
disorder existing before marriage. Dr. Benitez confirmed his chronic alcoholism
and gambling, concluding that reconciliation was unlikely. The Court ruled that
the totality of evidence clearly and convincingly proved Joselito's
psychological incapacity, justifying the declaration of nullity of their
marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code.
No comments:
Post a Comment