Agraviador v. Agraviador, G.R. No. 170729, December

As held in the case of Suazo v.
Suazo,[15] 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. G.R. No.
164493, March 12, 2010, 615 SCRA 154, 174
In Marable v. Marable, this Court stressed that 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. G.R. No.
178741, January 17, 2011, 639 SCRA 557.
It cannot be dissolved at the whim of the parties, especially where the pieces of
evidence presented are grossly deficient to show the juridical antecedence, gravity
and incurability of the condition of the party alleged to be psychologically
incapacitated to assume and perform the essential marital duties. [33] Any doubt
should be resolved in favor of its existence and continuation and against its
dissolution and nullity. Agraviador v. Agraviador, G.R. No. 170729, December
8, 2010.
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. Republic of the Philippines vs. Court of Appeals and De Quintos,
Jr., G.R. No. 159594, November 12, 2012, 685 SCRA 33, 46
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:
(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.
xxxx
(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. x xx.
xxxx
(3) The incapacity must be proven to be existing at "the time of the
celebration" of the marriage. x x x.
xxxx
(4) Such incapacity must also be shown to be medically or clinically
permanent or incurable. x xx.
xxxx
(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. x x x.
xxxx
(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. Such non-complied marital
obligation(s) must also be stated in the petition, proven by evidence
and included in the text of the decision.
(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 xx.
xxxx
(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.
Private respondent's act of living an adulterous life cannot

automatically be equated with a psychological disorder,
especially when no specific evidence was shown that
promiscuity was a trait already existing at the inception of
marriage. Petitioner must be able to establish that
respondent's unfaithfulness is a manifestation of a
disordered personality, which makes her completely unable
to discharge the essential obligations of the marital state.
G.R. No. 168796, April 15, 2010, 618 SCRA 315.
Ligeralde V Patalinghug

Agraviador v. Agraviador, G.R. No. 170729, December

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Agraviador v. Agraviador, G.R. No. 170729, December

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Agraviador v. Agraviador, G.R. No. 170729, December

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

As held in the case of Suazo v.

Suazo,[15] the presentation of expert proof in

In Marable v. Marable, this Court stressed that psychological incapacity

In Republic v. Court of Appeals and Eduardo C. De Quintos, Jr.,[9]the

Private respondent's act of living an adulterous life cannot

You might also like