Mutya-Sumilhig v. Sumilhig, G.R. No. 230711, [August 22, 2022]

 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.

 

 

CLICK TO READ FULL TEXT

OCHOA VS. ALANO [G.R. NO. 167459, January 26, 2011]

OCHOA VS. ALANO

G.R. NO. 167459,  January 26, 2011

FIRST DIVISION, LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J

 

Psychological Incapacity of Any Party (Art. 36, Family Code)

 

Jose Reynaldo B. Ochosa sought the nullity of his marriage to Bona J. Alano due to her psychological incapacity to fulfill marital obligations. Bona had engaged in extramarital affairs throughout their marriage, which continued even when they lived together. In 1987, while Jose was incarcerated, he confronted Bona about rumors of her affair with his driver, which both admitted. They separated, and their child lived with Bona until 1994 when she went to live with Jose. A psychiatrist's evaluation concluded that Bona suffered from histrionic personality disorder, which was attributed to her family history.

 

Whether Psychological Incapacity is clearly established to declare marriage as null and void.

 

NO. The SC said that the totality of Bona’s acts did not constitute psychological incapacity and that there was inadequate evidence that her “defects” were already present at the inception or prior to the marriage. The persistent sexual infidelity and abandonment are not badges of psychological incapacity nor can’t it be traced to the inception of their marriage. Therefore, her alleged psychological incapacity did not satisfy the requisite of “juridical antecedence”. The evaluation report by Dr. Rondain was gathered from Jose and witnesses. These was no personal exam conducted on the respondent. The alleged spouse’s psychological incapacity was fed by only one side, similar to hearsay.

 

 

 CLICK TO READ FULL TEXT

 

 

 

  

Lim vs. Lim [G.R. No. 176464 February 24, 2010]

 CASE DIGEST

Lim vs. Lim, G.R. No. 176464

February 24, 2010

THIRD DIVISION, NACHURA, J

 

Psychological Incapacity of Any Party (Art. 36, Family Code) 

In order for a marriage to be declared null and void on the grounds of psychological incapacity, certain criteria of gravity, juridical antecedence and incurability must be met.

 

Edward Lim and Maria Cheryl Sta. Cruz-Lim got married in 1979 after a brief courtship. They lived with Edward's family in Makati and had three children. Their marriage faced turmoil, including an embarrassing incident involving Edward and his mother’s caregiver. In 1990, Cheryl left Edward and filed a support case against him. In 1999, Edward sought the nullity of their marriage on the grounds of both parties' psychological incapacity. He later included his psychological incapacity in his amended petition. Dr. Cecilia Villegas, a psychiatrist, provided a psychiatric report diagnosing both parties with personality disorders, while Cheryl waived her right to present evidence.

 

Is the marriage between Edward and Cheryl null and void due to their psychological incapacity? 

NO. The marriage is not null and void. Psychological incapacity for the annulment of a marriage requires the incapacity to be grave, have juridical antecedence, and be incurable. In this case, the psychiatric report presented lacks specific links between the parties' acts and the criteria for the diagnosed personality disorders. Additionally, the report was unsupported by proper psychological tests. A judge must base rulings on law and jurisprudence, and the expert opinion, unsupported by tests, cannot prevent the judge from making factual findings. Therefore, the marriage remains valid.

  

Criterion of Psychological Incapacity:

 1.    Gravity: The psychological incapacity must be serious or grave, rendering a party incapable of fulfilling the essential marital obligations.

2.    Juridical Antecedence: The psychological incapacity should have existed prior to the marriage, although it may only become evident after the marriage has taken place.

3.     Incurability: The psychological incapacity must be permanent and incurable. It should be deeply ingrained in the individual's personality structure and beyond the means of correction or treatment.

 

 

 CLICK TO READ FULL TEXT

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Georfo vs. Republic [G.R. No. 246933, March 6, 2023]

 CASE DIGEST

Georfo vs. Republic 

(G.R. No. 246933, March 6, 2023)

SECOND DIVISION, LEONEN J.

Psychological incapacity is a legal concept, not an illness which has to be medically or clinically identified.

Agnes and Joe-Ar got married after a brief courtship and had a son. Their marriage quickly deteriorated due to conflict, infidelity, and abuse. Agnes filed for the nullity of their marriage, claiming Joe-Ar's psychological incapacity. Dr. Gerong, a clinical psychologist, provided an expert opinion, citing Joe-Ar's narcissistic personality disorder and other issues as causes of incapacity. Joe-Ar’s sister also testify regarding his abusive behavior, as she once saw how Joe-ar and his family mistreated Agnes. 

Was there sufficient evidence to prove Joe-Ar's psychological incapacity as the basis for the nullity of the marriage?

YES. In proving psychological incapacity doesn't necessitate a psychiatric examination and that it's based on legal standards, not medical diagnoses. The totality of evidence, including expert opinions, testimonies, and behavior patterns, can establish psychological incapacity. The court ruled that Agnes had successfully proven Joe-Ar's psychological incapacity. Dr. Gerong's psychological assessment, based on testimonies from Agnes and her sister, supported this claim. The court emphasized that psychological incapacity is a legal concept, not a specific illness, and psychiatric evaluation is no longer a requirement. Therefore, their marriage was declared void under Article 36 of the Family Code.

CLICK TO VIEW FULL TEXT

Tan-Andal vs. Andal (G.R. No. 196359, May 11, 2021)

 CASE DIGEST

Tan-Andal vs. Andal

(G.R. No. 196359, May 11, 2021)

EN BANC, J. LEONEN

EXPERT WITNESS NOT NEEDED IN PROVING PSYCHOLOGICAL INCAPACITY; PSYCHOLOGICAL INCAPACITY IS LIBERALLY INTERPRETED; NEW GUIDELINES FOR PSYCHOLOGICAL INCAPACITY CASES

In 1995, Rosanna Tan and Mario Victor Andal married each other. Earlier in their marriage, Rosanna also observed Mario to be emotionally immature, irresponsible, irritable, and psychologically imbalanced. Rosanna later learned that Mario was a drug addict. Rosanna filed a petition to have her marriage declared void on the ground that Mario was psychologically incapacitated. To prove her case, she presented a psychologist (Dr. Fonso Garcia) who, after interviewing Rosanna, Rosanna’s daughter, and Rosanna’s sister, concluded that Mario was psychologically incapacitated to perform essential marital obligations. Dr. Garcia did not interview Mario as the latter, despite invitation, refused an interview. In her assessment, Dr. Garcia found Mario to be suffering from Narcissistic Antisocial Personality Disorder.

Whether or not marriage is void due to psychological incapacity. (YES) 

PSYCHOLOGICAL INCAPACITY CASES

Psychological incapacity consists of clear acts of dysfunctionality that show a lack of understanding and concomitant compliance with one’s essential marital obligations due to psychic causes. It is not a medical illness that has to be medically or clinically identified; hence, expert opinion is not required. As an explicit requirement of the law, the psychological incapacity must be shown to have been existing at the time of the celebration of the marriage, and is caused by a durable aspect of one’s personality structure, one that was formed before the parties married. Furthermore, it must be shown caused by a genuinely serious psychic cause. To prove psychological incapacity, a party must present clear and convincing evidence of its existence.

DRUG ADDICTION

That Drug addiction as a ground of legal separation will not prevent the court from voiding the marriage. So long as the party can demonstrate that the drug abuse is a manifestation of psychological incapacity existing at the time of marriage, this should be enough to render the marriage void under Article 36 (Psychological Incapacity)

NEW SET OF GUIDELINES:

1. The burden of proof in proving psychological incapacity is still on the plaintiff. The Supreme Court however clarified that the quantum of proof required in nullity cases is clear and convincing evidence.

2. Psychological incapacity is neither a mental incapacity nor a personality disorder that must be proven through expert testimony. There must be proof, however, of the durable or enduring aspects of a person’s personality, called “personality structure,” which manifests itself through clear acts of dysfunctionality that undermines the family. Ordinary witnesses who have been present in the life of the spouses before the latter contracted marriage may testify on behaviors that they have consistently observed from the supposedly incapacitated spouse.

3. Incurable, not in the medical, but in the legal sense;

4. As to gravity, it must be shown that the incapacity is caused by a genuinely serious psychic cause.

5. Juridical antecedence. The incapacity must be proven to be existing at the time of the celebration of the marriage even if such incapacity becomes manifest only after its solemnization.

6. The decisions of the National Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal of the Catholic Church of the Philippines has persuasive effect on nullity cases pending before secular courts

CLICK TO VIEW FULL TEXT

ALEXANDER V. SPOUSES ESCALONA [G.R. No. 256141, July 19, 2022]

 CASE DIGEST

ALEXANDER V. SPOUSES ESCALONA

G.R. No. 256141, [July 19, 2022]

EN BANC, LOPEZ, M.V

 

Conjugal properties; Alienation after the effectivity of Family Code; Spouse' Written Consent

 

Any alienation or encumbrance of the conjugal property concluded after the effectivity of the Family Code  requires the other spouse's written consent or a court order allowing the transaction, otherwise, the disposition is void. 

Spouses Jorge and Hilaria Escalona were married on November 14, 1960, or during the effectivity of the Civil Code, owned two unregistered parcels of land. During the effectivity of the Family Code, one was transferred to their son Reygan, through the consent of Jorge. Reygan then sold both parcels to Belinda Alexander, claiming validity on the assertion that Jorge exclusively owned the lots. 

The Escalonas contested the sale, alleging Reygan's lack of authority and Hilaria's non-consent. Escalonas filed a complaint for annulment of documents against Belinda and Reygan in the RTC, which dismissed the complaint as time-barred and upheld the contracts. On appeal they argue that prescription do not apply in action to nullify void contracts.

 

Whether action to nullify the transaction has already prescribed. 

NO. Any alienation or encumbrance of the conjugal property concluded after the effectivity of the Family Code requires the other spouse's written consent or a court order allowing the transaction, otherwise, the disposition is void. The action to nullify the void alienation or encumbrance of the conjugal property, without authority of the court or the written consent of the other spouse, is imprescriptible.

 

Whether the alienation the land is void under Article 124 of the Family Code because it was made without Hilaria's consent. 

YES. The Court declared the transaction void and held that the applicable law is Article 124 of the Family Code, not Article 173 of the Civil Code, because the alienation of the conjugal property transpired after the effectivity of the Family Code even if the spouses were married under the Civil Code. Article 124, Family Code, applies to sale of conjugal properties made after the effectivity of the Family Code. The absence of the written consent of one spouse renders the alienation void. Consequently, Spouses Escalona remained the lawful owners of the land. The Court likewise agrees with the findings that Belinda can hardly qualify as a buyer in good faith as she merely stepped into the shoes of Reygan whose rights were anchored on ineffective instruments.

Summary of the applicable laws and jurisprudence in transactions involving alienation or encumbrance of conjugal properties:

(1) The alienation or encumbrance of the conjugal property, without the wife's consent, made before the effectivity of the Family Code, is not void but merely voidable. The wife may file an action for annulment of contract within 10 years from the transaction; and 

(2) The alienation or encumbrance of the conjugal property, without the authority of the court or the written consent of the other spouse, made after the effectivity of the Family Code is void. 

 

 CLICK TO VIEW FULL TEXT OF THE CASE

 

 

 

Quiogue, Jr. v. Quiogue [G.R. No. 203992, August 22, 2022]

 CASE DIGEST

Quiogue, Jr. v. Quiogue

G.R. No. 203992, [August 22, 2022]

SECOND DIVISION, LOPEZ, M.

 

Persons and Family Relations; Marriages; Psychological Incapacity; Chronic Infidelity 

Psychological incapacity is determined by clear acts of dysfunctionality that undermine the marital union, and it need not be medically diagnosed. Chronic infidelity is a manifestation of psychological incapacity.

 

Antonio S. Quiogue, Jr. filed a Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage against his wife, Maria Bel B. Quiogue (Maribel). They were married on October 16, 1980, and have four children. They separated in 1998 after Maribel drove Antonio out of their conjugal home due to his infidelity. Antonio claimed that both he and Maribel were psychologically incapacitated to fulfill their marital obligations. Maribel denied driving Antonio out and accused him of chronic womanizing, nocturnal gambling, and abusive behavior. After referral to the public prosecutor and failed attempts at reconciliation, the case proceeded to trial.

 

Whether the marriage between Antonio and Maribel should be declared null and void based on the ground of psychological incapacity.

 

YES. The court ruled in favor of Antonio, declaring the marriage null and void due to his psychological incapacity. The court clarified that psychological incapacity, as defined under Article 36 of the Family Code, requires the presence of gravity, juridical antecedence, and incurability. It emphasized that psychological incapacity need not be medically diagnosed, and the assessment can be based on the totality of evidence.

Antonio's chronic infidelity was considered a manifestation of his psychological incapacity. His behavior, deeply rooted in his upbringing and personality structure, indicated his inability to maintain monogamous relationships and his distorted understanding of marital obligations. Antonio's inability to maintain a faithful and committed relationship with Maribel was rooted in a dysfunctional personality structure that preexisted their marriage. Antonio's lack of genuine remorse and unwillingness to change further supported his psychological incapacity. 

Maribel's retaliatory acts and evicting Antonio from the conjugal home, were deemed a reaction to Antonio's philandering and not a basis for psychological incapacity. Admittedly, Maribel's vengeful stance contributed to the collapse of the marriage as it aggravated Antonio's psychological incapacity. Despite Maribel's belligerent attitude and verbal offensives towards Antonio, the Court rules that these do not amount to psychological incapacity. 

Thus, the court concluded that Antonio's psychological incapacity rendered the marriage null and void.

 

 CLICK TO VIEW FULL TEXT OF THE CASE

Dedicatoria v. Dedicatoria [G.R. No. 250618, July 20, 2022]

 CASE DIGEST

Dedicatoria v. Dedicatoria

 G.R. No. 250618, [July 20, 2022]

SECOND DIVISION , LOPEZ, M.V.

 

Persons and Family Relations; Marriages; Psychological Incapacity 

Psychological incapacity as a ground to consider a marriage void under Article 36 of the Family Code, is not a medical, but a legal concept. It is neither a mental incapacity nor a personality disorder in a strict medical sense, although one's clinical mental or personality disorder can be its root cause. Psychological incapacity should be assessed based on clear and convincing evidence rather than rigid medical criteria. 

 

Jennifer and Ferdinand got married in 1995. Jennifer later filed for nullity of their marriage, claiming that Ferdinand's psychological incapacity caused their marriage to fail. During trial, Jennifer testified that she noticed how irresponsible, immature, insensitive, self-centred, and dependent on his parents Ferdinand was. Despite their marriage, Ferdinand continued to reside with his parents, who provided for his needs, rendering him jobless and reliant on them. She also presented testimonies from witnesses and a clinical psychologist's evaluation, which diagnosed Ferdinand with Dependent Personality Disorder. This disorder made him immature, irresponsible, and unable to fulfill his marital duties rooted in his upbringing, primarily characterized by overdependence on his parents and a lack of personal responsibility.

  

Whether there is enough evidence to prove Ferdinand's psychological incapacity as grounds to void the marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code.

  

YES. The court ruled in favor of Jennifer, declaring the marriage null and void. Supreme Court held that psychological incapacity is a legal concept and does not necessarily require a clinical diagnosis. Its existence does not demand strict medical criteria but relies on clear and convincing evidence. The court rejected the notion that both spouses need to be examined by a psychologist for the diagnosis to be reliable. Instead, psychological incapacity should be assessed based on the totality of clear and convincing evidence rather than rigid medical criteria. Such that expert opinions furnished by psychiatrists or psychologists on the psychological temperament of parties are not indispensable. 

The evidence from Jennifer's testimony, corroborated by her friend Anarose and the expert psychologist, showed that Ferdinand's personality traits and behaviors rendered him unable to fulfill his marital obligations. Ferdinand's overdependence on his parents, lack of employment, and failure to assume responsibilities within the marriage were key indicators of his psychological incapacity. The court acknowledged these traits as deep-rooted and irreparable, leading to marriage breakdown. The court stressed that psychological incapacity is not about medical conditions but rather to an individual's inability to comprehend and fulfill essential marital obligations caused by dysfunctionality in a person's personality structure.

 

 

CLICK TO VIEW FULL TEXT