Kalaw vs. Fernandez, G.R. No. 166357, Jan. 14, 2015

Download as docx, pdf, or txt
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 1

Kalaw vs. Fernandez, G.R. No. 166357, Jan.

14, 2015
Facts: In the case at bar, petitioner failed to prove that his wife (respondent) suffers from
psychological incapacity. He presented the testimonies of two supposed expert witnesses who
concluded that respondent is psychologically incapacitated, but the conclusions of these
witnesses were premised on the alleged acts or behavior of respondent which had not been
sufficiently proven. They heavily relied on petitioners allegations of respondents constant
mahjong sessions, visits to the beauty parlor, going out with friends, adultery, and neglect of their
children. Petitioners experts opined that respondents alleged habits, when performed constantly
to the detriment of quality and quantity of time devoted to her duties as mother and wife,
constitute a psychological incapacity in the form of NPD. But petitioners allegations, which
served as the bases or underlying premises of the conclusions of his experts, were not actually
proven. In fact, respondent presented contrary evidence refuting these allegations of the
petitioner.
Issue: What is psychological incapacity as a ground for the nullity of marriage under Article 36
of the Family Code?
Ruling: Psychological incapacity as a ground for the nullity of marriage under Article 36 of the
Family Code refers to a serious psychological illness afflicting a party even prior to the
celebration of the marriage that is permanent as to deprive the party of the awareness of the
duties and responsibilities of the matrimonial bond he or she was about to assume. Although the
Family Code has not defined the term psychological incapacity, the Court has usually looked up
its meaning by reviewing the deliberations of the sessions of the Family Code Revision
Committee that had drafted the Family Code in order to gain an insight on the provision. It
appeared that the members of the Family Code Revision Committee were not unanimous on the
meaning, and in the end they decided to adopt the provision "with less specificity than expected"
in order to have the law "allow some resiliency in its application."

You might also like