Mirasol Castillo v.

Republic

As their parents were good friends and business partners, Mirasol and Felipe started as friends then,
eventually, became sweethearts. During their courtship, Mirasol discovered that Felipe sustained his affair
with his former girlfriend. The couple's relationship turned tumultuous after the revelation. With the
intervention of their parents, they reconciled. They got married in Bani, Pangasinan on April 22, 1984 and
were blessed with two (2) children born in 1992 and in 2001.

On June 6, 2011, Mirasol filed a Complaint for declaration of nullity of marriage alleging that at the
beginning, their union was harmonious prompting her to believe that the same was made in heaven.
However, after thirteen (13) years of marriage, Felipe resumed philandering. Their relatives and friends
saw him with different women. One time, she has just arrived from a trip and returned home to surprise
her family. But to her consternation, she caught him in a compromising act with another woman. He did
not bother to explain or apologize. Tired of her husband's infidelity, she left the conjugal dwelling and
stopped any communication with him. Felipe's irresponsible acts like cohabiting with another woman,
not communicating with her, and not supporting their children for a period of not less than ten (10)
years without any reason, constitute a severe psychological disorder.

Mirasol presented clinical psychologist Sheila Marie Montefalcon (Montefalcon) who, in her Psychological
Evaluation Report, concluded that Felipe is psychologically incapacitated to fulfill the essential marital
obligations.

xxx

RTC: Declared Null and Void

CA: Reversed the Decree upon OSG MR

Based on the records, it appears more likely that Felipe became unfaithful as a result of
unknown factors that happened during the marriage and not because of his family
background. His tendency to womanize was not shown to be due to causes of a psychological
nature that are grave, permanent and incurable. In fact, it was only after thirteen (13) years
of marriage that he started to engage in extra-marital affairs. In the complaint filed by
Mirasol, she said that after they got married, their relationship as husband and wife went
smoothly and that she was of the belief that she had a marriage made in heaven.

In short, Felipe's marital infidelity does not appear to be symptomatic of a grave psychological
disorder which rendered him incapable of performing his spousal obligations. Sexual infidelity,
by itself, is not sufficient proof that petitioner is suffering from psychological incapacity. It
must be shown that the acts of unfaithfulness are manifestations of a disordered personality
which make him completely unable to discharge the essential obligations of marriage. Since
that situation does not obtain in the case, Mirasol's claim of psychological incapacity must
fail. Psychological incapacity must be more than just a "difficulty," "refusal" or "neglect" in
the performance of some marital obligations. Rather, it is essential that the concerned party
was incapable of doing so, due to some psychological illness existing at the time of the
celebration of the marriage.

In fine, given the insufficiency of the evidence proving the psychological incapacity of Felipe,
We cannot but rule in favor of the existence and continuation of the marriage and against its
dissolution and nullity.

ISSUE: whether or not the totality of evidence presented warrants the declaration of nullity of the marriage of Mirasol and
Felipe on the ground of the latter's psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code.
HELD: No. Guided by the foregoing principles and after a careful perusal of the records, this Court rules that the totality of the
evidence presented failed to establish Felipe's psychological incapacity.

Time and again, it was held that "psychological incapacity" has been intended by law to be confined to
the most serious cases of personality disorders clearly demonstrative of an utter insensitivity or inability
to give meaning and significance to the marriage. Psychological incapacity must be characterized by
(a) gravity, i.e., it must be grave and serious such that the party would be incapable of carrying out the
ordinary duties required in a marriage, (b) juridical antecedence, i.e., it must be rooted in the history of
the party antedating the marriage, although the overt manifestations may emerge only after the marriage,
and (c) incurability, i.e., it must be incurable, or even if it were otherwise, the cure would be beyond the
means of the party involved.
Republic v. Molina definitive guidelines

(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. x x
x

(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. x x x

(3) The incapacity must be proven to be existing at "the time of the celebration" of the marriage. x x x

(4) Such incapacity must also be shown to be medically or clinically permanent or incurable. Such incurability
may be absolute or even relative only in regard to the other spouse, not necessarily absolutely against
everyone of the same sex. x x x

(5) Such illness must be grave enough to bring about the disability of the party to assume the essential
obligations of marriage. x x x In other words, there is a natal or supervening disabling factor in the person, an
adverse integral element in the personality structure that effectively incapacitates the person from really
accepting and thereby complying with the obligations essential to marriage.

(6) 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. x x x

(7) 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. x x x

(8) The trial court must order the prosecuting attorney or fiscal and the Solicitor General to appear as counsel
for the state. x x x

The existence or absence of the psychological incapacity shall be based strictly on the facts of each case and not on
a priori assumptions, predilections or generalizations.

As held in Ting v. Velez-Ting:

By the very nature of cases involving the application of Article 36, it is logical and
understandable to give weight to the expert opinions furnished by psychologists
regarding the psychological temperament of parties in order to determine the root
cause, juridical antecedence, gravity and incurability of the psychological incapacity.
However, such opinions, while highly advisable, are not conditions sine qua non in granting
petitions for declaration of nullity of marriage. At best, courts must treat such opinions as
decisive but not indispensable evidence in determining the merits of a given case. In fact,
if the totality of evidence presented is enough to sustain a finding of psychological
incapacity, then actual medical or psychological examination of the person concerned need
not be resorted to. The trial court, as in any other given case presented before it, must
 always base its decision not solely on the expert opinions furnished by the parties but
also on the totality of evidence adduced in the course of the proceedings.

The RTC noticeably relied heavily on the result of the psychological evaluation by Montefalcon. A perusal of the RTC's decision
would reveal that there was no assessment of the veracity of such allegations, the credibility of the witnesses, and the weight of
the pieces of evidence presented. Also, there were no factual findings which can serve as bases for its conclusion of Felipe's
psychological incapacity.

The presentation of expert proof in cases for declaration of nullity of marriage based on psychological incapacity presupposes a
thorough and an in-depth assessment of the parties by the psychologist or expert, for a conclusive diagnosis of a grave, severe
and incurable presence of psychological incapacity.25 The probative force of the testimony of an expert does not lie in a mere
statement of her theory or opinion, but rather in the assistance that she can render to the courts in showing the facts that serve
as a basis for her criterion and the reasons upon which the logic of her conclusion is founded.26

Although the evaluation report of Montefalcon expounds on the juridical antecedence, gravity and incurability of Felipe's
personality disorder, it was, however, admitted that she evaluated respondent's psychological condition indirectly from the
information gathered from Mirasol and her witness. Felipe's dysfunctional family portrait which brought about his personality
disorder as painted in the evaluation was based solely on the assumed truthful knowledge of petitioner. There was no
independent witness knowledgeable of respondent's upbringing interviewed by the psychologist or presented before the trial
court. Angelica Mabayad, the couple's common friend, agreed with petitioner's claims in the interview with the psychologist,
confirmed the information given by petitioner, and alleged that she knew Felipe as "chick boy" or ''playboy." She did not testify
before the court a quo.

As such, there are no other convincing evidence asserted to establish Felipe's psychological condition and its associations in his
early life. Montefalcon's testimony and psychological evaluation report do not provide evidentiary support to cure the doubtful
veracity of Mirasol's one-sided assertion. The said report falls short of the required proof for the Court to rely on the same as
basis to declare petitioner's marriage to respondent as void.

While the examination by a physician of a person in order to declare him psychologically incapacitated is not required, the root
cause thereof must still be "medically or clinically identified," and adequately established by evidence. We cannot take the
conclusion that Felipe harbors a personality disorder existing prior to his marriage which purportedly incapacitated him with the
essential marital obligations as credible proof of juridical antecedence. The manner by which such conclusion was reached leaves
much to be desired in terms of meeting the standard of evidence required in determining psychological incapacity. The lack of
corroborative witness and evidence regarding Felipe's upbringing and family history renders Montefalcon's opinion on the root
cause of his psychological incapacity conjectural or speculative.

Even if the testimonies of Mirasol and Montefalcon at issue are considered since the judge had found them to be credible
enough, this Court cannot lower the evidentiary benchmark with regard to information on Felipe's pre-marital history which
is crucial to the issue of antecedence in this case because we only have petitioner's words to rely on. To make conclusions and
generalizations on a spouse's psychological condition based on the information fed by only one side, as in the case at bar, is, to
the Court's mind, not different from admitting hearsay evidence as proof of the truthfulness of the content of such evidence.

Irreconcilable differences, sexual infidelity or perversion, emotional immaturity and irresponsibility and the like, do not by
themselves warrant a finding of psychological incapacity under Article 36, as the same may only be due to a person's refusal or
unwillingness to assume the essential obligations of marriage.33 In order for sexual infidelity to constitute as psychological
incapacity, the respondent's unfaithfulness must be established as a manifestation of a disordered personality, completely
preventing the respondent from discharging the essential obligations of the marital state; there must be proof of a natal or
supervening disabling factor that effectively incapacitated him from complying with the obligation to be faithful to his spouse.34 It
is indispensable that the evidence must show a link, medical or the like, between the acts that manifest psychological incapacity
and the psychological disorder itself.35

As discussed, the findings on Felipe's personality profile did not emanate from a personal interview with the subject himself.
Apart from the psychologist's opinion and petitioner's allegations, no other reliable evidence was cited to prove that Felipe's
sexual infidelity was a manifestation of his alleged personality disorder, which is grave, deeply rooted, and incurable. We are not
persuaded that the natal or supervening disabling factor which effectively incapacitated him from complying with his obligation
to be faithful to his wife was medically or clinically established.