Del Rosario vs. Del Rosario

Del Rosario vs.
Del Rosario
Rules on Declaration of Nullity of Void Marriages
RACHEL A. DEL ROSARIO, petitioner, vs. JOSE O. DEL ROSARIO and

COURT OF APPEALS, respondents.
G. R. No. 222541 February 15, 2017
Nature of the case: PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and resolution
of the Court of Appeals
Doctrine: Psychological incapacity must be more than just a “difficulty,” “refusal” or

“neglect” in the performance of the marital obligations; it is not enough that a party
prove that the other failed to meet the responsibility and duty of a married person.
Ponente: PERLAS-BERNABE
Facts:
Rachel met Jose sometime at a party in Bagabag, Nueva Vizcaya. Very soon,
they became romantically involved. In 1988, Rachel went to Hongkong to work as a
domestic helper. During this period, Rachel allegedly provided for Jose’s tuition fees
for his college education. Rachel and Jose eventually decided to get married on
December 28, 1989 in a civil rites ceremony held in San Jose City, Nueva Ecija, and
were blessed with a son, named Wesley. Later, they renewed their vows in a church
ceremony held in the Philippine Independent Church, Bagabag, Nueva Vizcaya. In
1998, Rachel went back to Hongkong to work as domestic helper/caregiver and has
been working there ever since, only returning to the Philippines every year for a
vacation.
In September 2011, Rachel filed a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage

before the RTC alleging that Jose was psychologically incapacitated to fulfill his
essential marital obligations. She alleged that during their marriage, Jose tried to
avoid discharging his duties as husband and father. He was hot tempered and violent;
he punched her in the shoulder a few days before their church wedding, causing it to
swell, when she refused to pay for the transportation expenses of his parents; he hit
his own father with a pipe, causing the latter to fall unconscious, which forced them to
leave Jose’s parents’ house where they were then staying; and he even locked her out
of their house in the middle of the night sometime in December 2007 when she
fetched her relatives from the bus terminal. Jose would represent himself as single,
would flirt openly, and had an extramarital affair which she discovered when Jose
mistakenly sent a text message to her sister, Beverly A. Juan (Beverly). On one
occasion, she, together with Wesley and Beverly, caught Jose and the other woman
with their child inside their conjugal dwelling. Finally, she claimed that Jose would
refuse any chance of sexual intimacy between them as they slowly drifted apart.
Rachel, however, admitted that their married life ran smoothly during its early
years, and it was only later in their marriage that Jose started frequenting bars and
engaging in drinking sessions. She presented an expert witness, Dr. Nedy L. Tayag
(Dr. Tayag), who prepared the Psychological Report based on her interview with
Rachel and Wesley. Dr. Tayag stated that Jose suffered from Antisocial Personality
Disorder (APD) characterized by: (a) his lack of empathy and concern for Rachel; (b)
his irresponsibility and his pleasure-seeking attitude that catered only to his own
fancies and comfort; (c) his selfishness marked by his lack of depth when it comes to
his marital commitments; and (d) his lack of remorse for his shortcomings. For his
part, Jose denied all the allegations in the petition.
The RTC’s Ruling :
RTC declared the marriage between Jose and Rachel void on the ground of
psychological incapacity. It relied on the findings and testimony of Dr. Tayag. Jose
appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA).
The CA’s Ruling :
CA reversed the ruling of the RTC, holding that the totality of the evidence
Rachel presented was not enough to sustain a finding that Jose is psychologically
incapacitated to comply with the essential obligations of marriage. Rachel moved for
reconsideration, which was, however, denied by the CA in a Resolution; hence, this
petition.
The Issue Before the Court:
Whether or not the CA erred in reversing the RTC’s finding of psychological

incapacity.
The Supreme Court’s Ruling:
No. 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. In this regard, psychological incapacity as a ground to
nullify the marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code, as amended, should refer to
the most serious cases of personality disorders clearly demonstrative of an utter
insensitivity or inability to give meaning and significance to the marriage. 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.
An expert opinion is not absolutely necessary and may be dispensed with in a

petition under Article 36 of the Family Code if the totality of the evidence shows that
psychological incapacity exists and its gravity, juridical antecedence, and incurability
can be duly established. Furthermore, Psychological incapacity must be more than
just a “difficulty,” “refusal” or “neglect” in the performance of the marital
obligations; it is not enough that a party prove that the other failed to meet the
responsibility and duty of a married person. In sum, Dr. Tayag’s assessment, even
when taken together with the various testimonies, failed to show that Jose’s
immaturity, irresponsibility, and infidelity rise to the level of psychological incapacity
that would justify the nullification of the parties’ marriage.
It is well to reiterate that Article 36 of the Family Code, as amended, is not a

divorce law that cuts the marital bond at the time the grounds for divorce manifest
themselves; a marriage, no matter how unsatisfactory, is not a null and void marriage.
Case digest by Chavez, Ma. Geonette

H.

Del Rosario vs. Del Rosario

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Del Rosario vs. Del Rosario

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Del Rosario vs. Del Rosario

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Del Rosario vs.

RACHEL A. DEL ROSARIO, petitioner, vs. JOSE O. DEL ROSARIO and

Doctrine: Psychological incapacity must be more than just a “difficulty,” “refusal” or

In September 2011, Rachel filed a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage

The CA’s Ruling :

The Issue Before the Court:

Whether or not the CA erred in reversing the RTC’s finding of psychological

The Supreme Court’s Ruling:

An expert opinion is not absolutely necessary and may be dispensed with in a

It is well to reiterate that Article 36 of the Family Code, as amended, is not a

Case digest by Chavez, Ma. Geonette

You might also like