Republic v. Tecag

Download as pdf or txt
Download as pdf or txt
You are on page 1of 11

SECOND DIVISION

[ G.R. No. 229272, November 19, 2018 ]


REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER,
VS. GINA P. TECAG, RESPONDENT.

DECISION
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:
Assailed in this petition for review on certiorari[1] are the
Decision[2] dated June 29, 2016 and the Resolution[3]
dated January 13, 2017 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in
CA-G.R. CV No. 104578, which affirmed the Decision[4]
dated January 20, 2014 and the Resolution[5] dated July
10, 2014 of the Regional Trial Court of Abatan, Buguias,
Benguet, Branch 64 (RTC) in Civil Case No. 12-F-223,
which granted the petition for declaration of nullity of
marriage between respondent Gina P. Tecag (Gina) and
Marjune

B. Manaoat (Marjune) based on psychological


incapacity.
The Facts

After living together as husband and wife for two (2)


years, Gina and Marjune formalized their marital union
through civil rites on August 2, 2006 at La Trinidad,
Benguet.[6] As a means of livelihood, they engaged in
vegetable farming until Gina found employment in
Macau, where she likewise searched for job opportunities
for Marjune. When she found one suited for him, she
sent money for his travel abroad, but Marjune refused to
go, telling her that he would rather use the money for
their farming venture. Gina assented, hoping that if
Marjune becomes successful in his endeavor, he would
ask her to come home for good.[7]

As months passed, the communication between Gina and


Marjune became less frequent until it ceased altogether.
During the rare times when Gina would call, they would
only end up arguing, as Marjune would be too drunk to
talk. Eventually, news reached Gina that Marjune was
having an affair. To confirm the news, Gina returned to
the Philippines in 2009. However, Marjune told her that
it was better for her to stay abroad. Brokenhearted, Gina
returned to Macau. It was only later when she was able to
confirm through relatives and friends that, indeed,
Marjune was having an affair. In 2010, while she was
abroad, a woman called and informed her that she was
presently living with Marjune and that they already have
a child. Gina also alleged that Marjune hit her because
she was unable to conceive.[8]

Thus, on October 9, 2012, Gina filed a petition[9] to


declare her marriage with Marjune null and void on the
basis of the latter's psychological incapacity.[10]
Summons was served upon Marjune, but the latter failed
to answer. Thereafter, the attending prosecutor conducted
an investigation and declared that there was no collusion
between the parties.[11]

During trial, Gina presented the findings of Professor


Emma Astudillo-Sanchez (Prof. Sanchez), the
psychologist who conducted a psychological
examination of the parties. In this relation, Prof. Sanchez
interviewed Gina, her sister Sofia, and her brother-in-law
Christian[12] Tabadero.[13] In her Case Analysis Report,[14]
Prof. Sanchez stated that Gina was suffering from
"Anxious and Fearful Personality Disorder" where traces
of "Dependent Personality Disorder" were observed,
rendering her psychologically incapacitated as a spouse
to Marjune. With respect to Marjune, Prof. Sanchez
found that his behavior was suggestive of an "Avoidant
Personality Disorder," even though she was unable to
interview him.[15] She also concluded that Gina and
Marjune's personality disorders "affected their behaviors
even before they contracted marriage and, in the presence
of situational factors, became more evident during the
time they were together during the marriage."[16]
The RTC Ruling

In a Decision[17] dated January 20, 2014, the RTC found


that Gina and Marjune were both psychologically
incapacitated to perform their marital obligations and
declared their marriage null and void ab initio.[18] The
RTC found that the personality disorders of both parties,
which were developed during their early childhood,
adolescence, and early adulthood through their
upbringing and environment, are deeply rooted in their
respective personality make-up, in that these existed even
before their marriage, but became manifest only after its
celebration. Because these disorders prevented the
parties from performing their essential marital duties,
they are considered grave and serious, and likewise
incurable, as concluded by Prof. Sanchez.[19]

Petitioner Republic of the Philippines (Republic),


through the Office of the Solicitor General, moved for
reconsideration,[20] which was denied in a Resolution[21]
dated July 10,2014. Thus, it appealed to the CA.
The CA Ruling

In a Decision[22] dated June 29, 2016, the CA denied the


Republic's appeal and affirmed the RTC's ruling,[23] upon
a finding that the guidelines set forth in Republic v. CA[24]
have been satisfied. It found that Gina was able to
present an expert witness who made a clinical study on
her and Marjune's behavior, even though the latter has
not been personally examined. Citing the findings of Prof.
Sanchez extensively, the CA held that the root cause of
their psychological incapacity had been medically
or .clinically identified, and that they were unable to
comply with the essential marital obligations under
Article 68 of the Family Code.[25]

The Republic's motion for reconsideration[26] was denied


in a Resolution[27] dated January 13, 2017; hence, this
petition.
The Issue Before the Court

The issue for the Court's consideration is whether or not


the CA erred in upholding the dissolution of the marriage
between Gina and Marjune based on psychological
incapacity.
The Court's Ruling

The petition is meritorious.

The validity of marriage and the unity of the family are


enshrined in our Constitution and statutory laws. Thus,
any doubts attending the same are to be resolved in favor
of the continuance and validity of the marriage and the
burden of proving the nullity of the same rests at all
times upon the petitioner. The policy of the Constitution
is to protect and strengthen the family as the basic social
institution, and marriage as the foundation of the family.
Because of this, the Constitution decrees marriage as
legally inviolable and protects it from dissolution at the
whim of the parties.[28]

Under Article 36[29] of the Family Code, as amended,


psychological incapacity is a valid ground to nullify a
marriage. However, in deference to the State's policy on
marriage, psychological incapacity does not merely
pertain to any psychological condition; otherwise, it
would be fairly easy to circumvent our laws on marriage
so much so that we would be practically condoning a
legal subterfuge for divorce.

Based on jurisprudence, psychological incapacity has a


specific and peculiar denotation. It ought to pertain to
only the most serious cases of personality disorders that
clearly demonstrate the party's/parties' utter
insensitivity or inability to give meaning and
significance to the marriage.[30] It should refer to no
less than a mental- not merely physical incapacity that
causes a party to be truly incognitive of the basic
marital covenants that concomitantly must be assumed
and discharged by the parties to the marriage, which, as
provided under Article 68[31] of the Family Code, among
others,[32] include their mutual obligations to live
together, observe love, respect and fidelity, and render
help and support.

The requirements for proving psychological incapacity


can be traced in a long line of cases. In Lontoc-Cruz v.
Cruz,[33] citing Republic v. De Gracia[34] and Santos v.
CA (Santos),[35] the Court emphasized "that
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)."[36]

In this case, the courts a quo resolved to grant the


petition for nullity of marriage on the basis of the
evidence presented showing that both Gina and Marjune
are psychologically incapacitated to fulfill their
respective marital obligations. As it may be readily
observed, the courts' conclusion was mainly grounded on
the expert opinion of Prof. Sanchez whose findings are
embodied in a Case Analysis Report. This report, which
was borne out of Prof. Sanchez's interviews with Gina,
the latter's sister, and brother-in-law, concludes that Gina
is suffering from Anxious and Fearful Personality
Disorder with traces of Dependent Personality Disorder.
Specifically, Prof. Sanchez pointed out that Gina has
many apprehensions, a tendency to be depressive, fears
of abandonment and rejection, and passivity.[37]
However, as petitioner aptly pointed out, the said report
failed to show that these traits existed prior to Gina's
marriage and that her alleged personality disorder is
incurable or that the cure is beyond her means.[38] There
was simply no discernible explanation on the juridical
antecedence or incurability of Gina's supposed condition.
More significantly, the relation of such condition to
Gina's inability to perform her essential marital
obligations was not sufficiently shown. To reiterate, the
psychological condition ought to pertain to personality
disorders that are grave and serious such that the party
would be incapable of carrying out the ordinary duties
required in a marriage. Unfortunately, the Case Analysis
Report fails to demonstrate this crucial point. In
determining the existence of psychological incapacity, a
clear and understandable causation between the party's
condition and the party's inability to perform the essential
marital covenants must be shown. A psychological report
that is essentially comprised of mere platitudes, however
speckled with technical jargon, would not cut the
marriage tie.

According to jurisprudence, the probative force of the


testimony of an expert does not lie in a mere statement of
his or her theory or opinion, but rather in the assistance
that he or she can render to the courts in showing the
facts that serve as basis for his or her criterion and the
reasons upon which the logic of his or her conclusion are
founded. Hence, it has been held that com1s should
weigh and consider the probative value of the findings of
the expert witnesses vis-a-vis the other evidence
available,[39] and the root cause of the psychological
incapacity must still be identified as a psychological
illness and its incapacitating nature be fully explained.[40]
In this case, there is no other evidence offered apart from
Prof. Sanchez's report to substantiate Gina's allegation of
psychological incapacity. The said report leaves much to
be desired since it does not adequately demonstrate the
gravity, juridical antecedence, and incurability of Gina's
purported personality disorder.

The same observations are true with respect to Prof.


Sanchez's findings anent Marjune's purported "Avoidant
Personality Disorder." To recount, Prof. Sanchez arrived
at her diagnosis without having examined or, at the very
least, spoken to the subject, i.e., Marjune, even once; all
the information that she utilized in reaching her
conclusions were merely supplied by Gina, whose bias
against him is reasonably apparent. Thus, although there
is no requirement that a party to be declared
psychologically incapacitated should be personally
examined by a physician or a psychologist (as a
condition sine qua non), there is nevertheless still a need
to prove the psychological incapacity through
independent evidence adduced by the person alleging
said disorder,[41] which Gina simply failed to do.

In any event, Prof. Sanchez's assessment of Marjune's


supposed psychological incapacity mainly centers on his
alleged irresponsible and philandering ways that were
attendant only during the marriage. This Court has
already settled that sexual infidelity, by itself, is not
sufficient proof that one is suffering from psychological
incapacity. It must be shown that the acts of
unfaithfulness are manifestations of a disordered
personality which makes him/her completely unable to
discharge the essential obligations of marriage.[42]

Particularly, in Navales v. Navales,[43] the Court found no


factual basis for the husband's claim that his wife, being
flirtatious and sexually promiscuous, was
psychologically incapacitated, regardless of the
submitted psychological report concluding that the wife
was a nymphomaniac.[44] Likewise, in Toring v.
Toring,[45] the Court emphasized that "irreconcilable
differences, sexual infidelity or perversion, emotional
immaturity and irresponsibility, and the like, do not by
themselves warrant a finding of psychological incapacity,
as [these] may only be due to a person's difficulty,
refusal, or neglect to undertake the obligations of
marriage that is not rooted in some psychological illness
that Article 36 of the Family Code addresses."[46]
Similarly, the Court rejected as psychological incapacity
the emotional immaturity, irresponsibility, sexual
promiscuity, and other behavioral disorders invoked by
the petitioning spouses in Pesca v. Pesca,[47] Republic v.
Encelan,[48] Republic v. De Gracia,[49] and Republic v.
Spouses Romero,[50] to name a few, and thus, dismissed
their petitions for declaration of nullity of marriage.

Notably, part of Prof. Sanchez's findings state:


Cognitively, Mr. and Mrs. Manaoat's thoughts
relating to the marriage have been inferred
from the conditions surrounding the marriage.
The basic love, trust and respect for each other
has never been established, especially on the
part of Marjune towards his wife. Gina had
also difficulties trusting Marjune because of his
illicit affairs. The person's mental processes are
in control of his behavior through memories,
perceptions, images and thinking. x x x

Such mind set had an effect on their


interactions or relationship, thus the Affective
aspect. Affection between the couple has
weakened over the years instead of being
strengthened. The relationship was described
as 'mechanical', that as a married couple, they
just had to act as married persons. As Gina has
revealed, she wanted to keep the family intact.
But for this to come true, it would require the
effort from both parties.

xxxx

Behaviors are consistent with the mindset and


feeling. Mr. and Mrs. Manaoat exhibited
behaviors that were contrary to their supposed
role in the family and in their marriage. The
irresponsibility and alleged 'wrong' priorities
and indecisiveness of Marjune are examples of
such irresponsible behavior. Commitment, as
defined in the earlier paragraphs, has not been
clearly established. Gina, on the other hand,
has given up and has shown her intention of
not wanting to get back in the relationship.[51]
The foregoing findings are quite telling as they actually
depict the true situation between the parties - that they
had simply and consciously chosen to give up on their
marriage and go their separate ways. Gina herself
admitted that she wanted to preserve their marriage, but
because she distrusted Marjune owing to his alleged
illicit affairs, she has simply become unwilling to work
out a solution to keep their marriage and, as a result, has
refused to comply with her essential marital obligations.
As has oft been reiterated in jurisprudence, psychological
incapacity is more than just a "difficulty," "refusal," or
"neglect" in the performance of marital obligations.
Instead, it is a serious, deep-rooted, and incurable
psychological condition that renders the party incapable
of complying with - as they are basically incognitive - of
these marital obligations.[52] Truth be told, the peculiar
nature of this incapability does not equate to mere
difficulty, refusal or neglect to perform.

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The


Decision dated June 29, 2016 and the Resolution dated
January 13, 2017 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R.
CV No. 104578 granting the petition for declaration of
nullity of marriage of respondent Gina P. Tecag and
Marjune B. Manaoat are REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
A NEW ONE is entered dismissing the petition for
declaration of nullity for lack of sufficient legal and
factual bases.

SO ORDERED.

Carpio, Senior Associate Justice, (Chairperson),


Jardeleza,* Caguioa, and J. Reyes, Jr.,** JJ., concur.

You might also like