Persons and Family Relations Professor: Atty. Estolloso Ponente: BERSAMIN, J. Submitted By: Submitted On

Download as docx, pdf, or txt
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 3

Persons and Family Relations

Professor: Atty. Estolloso

G.R. No. 159594


Ponente: BERSAMIN, J.
REPUBLIC OF THE
PHILIPPINES
November 12, 2012 Submitted by: Submitted on:
Vs
ONIA, John Arjay July 11, 2019
COURT OF APPEALS
1st Year, Juris Doctor

Petitioners: Respondents:

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS (NINTH


DIVISION), AND EDUARDO C. DE QUINTOS, .JR.

NATURE OF PETITION:

The State appeals the decision promulgated on July 30, 2003, whereby the Court of Appeals (CA)
affirmed the declaration by the Regional Trial Court, Branch 38, in Lingayen, Pangasinan of the nullity of
the marriage between respondent Eduardo De Quintos, Jr. (Eduardo) and Catalina Delos Santos-De
Quintos (Catalina) based on the latter's psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code.

FACTS:

 Eduardo and Catalina were married on March 16, 1977 in civil rites solemnized by the Municipal
Mayor of Lingayen, Pangasinan. The couple was not blessed with a child due to Catalina’s
hysterectomy following her second miscarriage.
 On April 6, 1998, Eduardo filed a petition for the declaration of nullity of their marriage, citing
Catalina’s psychological incapacity to comply with her essential marital obligations. Catalina did
not interpose any objection to the petition, but prayed to be given her share in the conjugal house.
After conducting an investigation, the public prosecutor determined that there was no collusion
between Eduardo and Catalina.
 Eduardo testified that Catalina always left their house without his consent; that she engaged in
petty arguments with him; that she constantly refused to give in to his sexual needs; that she
spent most of her time gossiping with neighbors instead of doing the household chores and
caring for their adopted daughter; that she squandered by gambling all his remittances as an
overseas worker in Qatar since 1993; and that she abandoned the conjugal home in 1997 to live
with Bobbie Castro, her paramour.
 Eduardo presented the results of the neuro-psychiatric evaluation conducted by Dr. Annabelle L.
Reyes, a psychiatrist. Based on the tests she administered on Catalina, Dr. Reyes opined that
Catalina exhibited traits of Borderline Personality Disorder that was no longer treatable. Dr.
Reyes found that Catalina’s disorder was mainly characterized by her immaturity that rendered
her psychologically incapacitated to meet her marital obligations.
 Catalina did not appear during trial but submitted her Answer/Manifestation whereby she admitted
her psychological incapacity, but denied leaving the conjugal home without Eduardo’s consent
and flirting with different men. She insisted that she had only one live-in partner; and that she
would not give up her share in the conjugal residence because she intended to live there or to
receive her share should the residence be sold.
Issues Ruling

The issue is whether there was sufficient evidence warranting the declaration of the
nullity of Catalina’s marriage to Eduardo based on her psychological incapacity under
Article 36 of the Family Code. NO

RULING:

Psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code contemplates an incapacity or inability to
take cognizance of and to assume basic marital obligations, and is not merely the difficulty, refusal, or
neglect in the performance of marital obligations or ill will. It consists of: (a) a true inability to commit
oneself to the essentials of marriage; (b) the inability must refer to the essential obligations of marriage,
that is, the conjugal act, the community of life and love, the rendering of mutual help, and the procreation
and education of offspring; and (c) the inability must be tantamount to a psychological abnormality.
Proving that a spouse failed to meet his or her responsibility and duty as a married person is not enough;
it is essential that he or she must be shown to be incapable of doing so due to some psychological illness.

In Santos v. Court of Appeals, we decreed that psychological incapacity should refer to a mental
incapacity that causes a party to be truly incognitive of the basic marital covenants such as those
enumerated in Article 68 of the Family Code and must be characterized by gravity, juridical antecedence
and incurability. In an effort to settle the confusion that may arise in deciding cases involving nullity of
marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity, we then laid down the following guidelines in the later
ruling in Molina, viz:

 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.
 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.
 The incapacity must be proven to be existing at “the time of the celebration” of the marriage.
 Such incapacity must also be shown to be medically or clinically permanent or incurable.
 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.
 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 noncomplied marital obligation(s) must also be stated in
the petition, proven by evidence and included in the text of the decision.
 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.
 The trial court must order the prosecuting attorney or fiscal and the Solicitor General to appear as
counsel for the state.
The expert opinion of a psychiatrist arrived at after a maximum of seven (7) hours of interview, and
unsupported by separate psychological tests, cannot tie the hands of the trial court and prevent it from
making its own factual finding on what happened in this case. The probative force of the testimony of an
expert does not lie in a mere statement of his theory or opinion, but rather in the assistance that he can
render to the courts in showing the facts that serve as a basis for his criterion and the reasons upon which
the logic of his conclusion is founded.

It is not enough that the respondent, alleged to be psychologically incapacitated, had difficulty in
complying with his marital obligations, or was unwilling to perform these obligations. Proof of a
natal or supervening disabling factor an adverse integral element in the respondent’s personality
structure that effectively incapacitated him from complying with his essential marital obligations
must be shown. Mere difficulty, refusal or neglect in the performance of marital obligations or ill
will on the part of the spouse is different from incapacity rooted in some debilitating
psychological condition or illness; 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.

You might also like