11/5/24, 7:03 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 589

G.R. No. 165424. June 9, 2009.*

LESTER BENJAMIN S. HALILI, petitioner, vs. CHONA

M. SANTOS-HALILI and THE REPUBLIC OF THE
PHILIPPINES, respondents.

Husband and Wife; Declaration of Nullity of Marriage;

Psychological Incapacity; Expert Witness; By the very nature of
Article 36 of the Family Code, courts, despite having the primary
task and burden of decision-making, must consider as essential the
expert opinion on the psychological and mental disposition of the
parties.—In the recent case of Te v. Yu-Te and the Republic of the
Philippines (579 SCRA 193 [2009]), this Court reiterated that
courts should interpret the provision on psychological incapacity
(as a ground for the declaration of nullity of a marriage) on a case-
to-case basis—guided by experience, the findings of experts and
researchers in psychological disciplines and by decisions of church
tribunals. Accordingly, we emphasized that, by the very nature of
Article 36, courts, despite having the primary task and burden of
decision-making, must consider as essential the expert opinion on
the psychological and mental disposition of the parties.
Same; Same; Same; Individuals with diagnosable personality
disorders usually have long-term concerns, and thus therapy may
be long-term—these disorders affect all areas of functioning and,
beginning in childhood or adolescence, create problems for those
who display them and for others.—It has been sufficiently
established that petitioner had a psychological condition that was
grave and incurable and had a deeply rooted cause. This Court, in
the same Te case, recognized that individuals with diagnosable
personality disorders usually have long-term concerns, and thus
therapy may be long-term. Particularly, personality disorders are
“long-standing, inflexible ways of behaving that are not so much
severe mental disorders as dysfunctional styles of living. These
disorders affect all areas of functioning and, beginning in
childhood or adolescence, create problems for those who display
them and for others.” From the foregoing, it has been shown that
petitioner is indeed suffering from psychological incapacity that
effectively renders him unable to perform the

_______________

* SPECIAL FIRST DIVISION.

26

26 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Halili vs. Santos-Halili

essential obligations of marriage. Accordingly, the marriage

between petitioner and respondent is declared null and void.

https://escra.mycentralapp.com/sfsreader/session/00000192fbfe35db2e18de9c000d00d40059004a/p/AUP760/?username=Guest 1/6
11/5/24, 7:03 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 589

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION of a resolution of the

Supreme Court.
The facts are stated in the resolution of the Court.
Santiago, Cruz & Sarte Law Office for petitioner.

RESOLUTION

CORONA, J.:
This resolves the motion for reconsideration of the April
16, 2008 resolution of this Court denying petitioner’s
petition for review on certiorari (under Rule 45 of the Rules
of Court). The petition sought to set aside the January 26,
2004 decision1 and September 24, 2004 resolution2 of the
Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 60010.
Petitioner Lester Benjamin S. Halili filed a petition to
declare his marriage to respondent Chona M. Santos-Halili
null and void on the basis of his psychological incapacity to
perform the essential obligations of marriage in the
Regional Trial Court (RTC), Pasig City, Branch 158.
He alleged that he wed respondent in civil rites thinking
that it was a “joke.” After the ceremonies, they never lived
together as husband and wife, but maintained the
relationship. However, they started fighting constantly a
year later, at which point petitioner decided to stop seeing
respondent and started dating other women. Immediately
thereafter, he received prank calls telling him to stop
dating other women as

_______________

1 Penned by Associate Justice Godardo A. Jacinto (deceased) and

concurred in by Associate Justices Elvi John S. Asuncion (dismissed from
the service) and Lucas P. Bersamin of the Former Fourth Division of the
Court of Appeals. Rollo, pp. 10-20.
2 Id., pp. 22-24.

27

VOL. 589, JUNE 9, 2009 27

Halili vs. Santos-Halili

he was already a married man. It was only upon making an

inquiry that he found out that the marriage was not “fake.”
Eventually, the RTC found petitioner to be suffering
from a mixed personality disorder, particularly dependent
and self-defeating personality disorder, as diagnosed by his
expert witness, Dr. Natividad Dayan. The court a quo held
that petitioner’s personality disorder was serious and
incurable and directly affected his capacity to comply with
his essential marital obligations to respondent. It thus
declared the marriage null and void.3
On appeal, the CA reversed and set aside the decision of
the trial court on the ground that the totality of the
evidence presented failed to establish petitioner’s
psychological incapacity. Petitioner moved for
reconsideration. It was denied.
The case was elevated to this Court via a petition for
review under Rule 45. We affirmed the CA’s decision and
resolution upholding the validity of the marriage.
Petitioner then filed this motion for reconsideration
reiterating his argument that his marriage to respondent
ought to be declared null and void on the basis of his
psychological incapacity. He stressed that the evidence he
https://escra.mycentralapp.com/sfsreader/session/00000192fbfe35db2e18de9c000d00d40059004a/p/AUP760/?username=Guest 2/6
11/5/24, 7:03 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 589

presented, especially the testimony of his expert witness,

was more than enough to sustain the findings and
conclusions of the trial court that he was and still is
psychologically incapable of complying with the essential
obligations of marriage.
We grant the motion for reconsideration.
In the recent case of Te v. Yu-Te and the Republic of the
Philippines,4 this Court reiterated that courts should inter-

_______________

3 Decision penned by Judge Jose R. Hernandez. Id., pp. 106-109.

4 G.R. No. 161793, 13 February 2009, 579 SCRA 193. See Salita v.
Magtolis, G.R. No. 106429, 13 June 1994, 233 SCRA 100, citing Sempio-
Diy, Handbook on the Family Code of the Philippines, 1988, p. 37.
Although the case pertained mainly to a petition to declare the parties’
marriage as null and void on the ground of psy-

28

28 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Halili vs. Santos-Halili

pret the provision on psychological incapacity (as a ground

for the declaration of nullity of a marriage) on a case-to-
case basis—guided by experience, the findings of experts
and researchers in psychological disciplines and by
decisions of church tribunals.
Accordingly, we emphasized that, by the very nature of
Article 36, courts, despite having the primary task and
burden of decision-making, must consider as essential the
expert opinion on the psychological and mental disposition
of the parties.5
In this case, the testimony6 of petitioner’s expert witness
revealed that petitioner was suffering from dependent
personality disorder. Thus:
Q. Dr. Dayan, going back to the examinations and interviews which you
conducted, can you briefly tell this court your findings [and]
conclusions?
A. Well, the petitioner is suffering from a personality disorder. It is a
mixed personality disorder from self-defeating personality disorder to
[dependent] personality disorder and this is brought about by [a]
dysfunctional family that petitioner had. He also suffered from

_______________

chological incapacity of one of them, this Court, however, did not rule on the issue as the

assigned error in the petition for review filed in this Court dealt with rules of procedure.

4See also Santos v. Court of Appeals, et al., 310 Phil. 21, 36; 240 SCRA 20, 31 (1995), which

reiterated the above cited principle.

5 Id., pp. 28-29, citing Archbishop Oscar V. Cruz, D.D. of the Archdiocese of Lingayen-

Dagupan, who explained in the Marriage Tribunal Ministry, 1992 ed., that “[s]tandard

practice shows the marked advisability of [e]xpert intervention in [m]arriage [c]ases

accused of nullity on the ground of defective matrimonial consent on account of natural

incapacity by reason of any factor causative of lack of sufficient use of reason, grave lack

of due discretion and inability to assume essential obligations—although the law

categorically mandates said intervention only in the case of impotence and downright

mental disorder.”

6 TSN, 11 December 1997, pp. 3-10.

29

https://escra.mycentralapp.com/sfsreader/session/00000192fbfe35db2e18de9c000d00d40059004a/p/AUP760/?username=Guest 3/6
11/5/24, 7:03 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 589
VOL. 589, JUNE 9, 2009 29
Halili vs. Santos-Halili

partner relational problem during his marriage with Chona. There

were lots of fights and it was not truly a marriage, sir.
Q. Now, what made you conclude that Lester is suffering from
psychological incapacity to handle the essential obligations of
marriage?
A. Sir, for the reason that his motivation for marriage was very
questionable. It was a very impulsive decision. I don’t think he
understood what it meant to really be married and after the marriage,
there was no consummation, there was no sexual intercourse, he never
lived with the respondent. And after three months he refused to see or
talk with the respondent and afterwards, I guess the relationship died
a natural death, and he never thought it was a really serious matter at
all.
xx xx xx
Q.Likewise, you stated here in your evaluation that Lester Halili and
respondent suffered from a grave lack of discretionary judgment. Can
you expound on this?
A. xx xx I don’t think they truly appreciate the civil [rites which] they
had undergone. [It was] just a spur of the moment decision that they
should get married xx xx I don’t think they truly considered
themselves married.
xx xx xx
Q. Now [from] what particular portion of their marriage were you able to
conclude xx xx that petitioner and respondent are suffering from
psychological incapacity?
A. xx xx they never lived together[.] [T]hey never had a residence, they
never consummated the marriage. During the very short relationship
they had, there were frequent quarrels and so there might be a
problem also of lack of respect [for] each other and afterwards there
was abandonment.

30

30 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Halili vs. Santos-Halili

In Te, this Court defined dependent personality

disorder7 as

[a] personality disorder characterized by a pattern of

dependent and submissive behavior. Such individuals usually
lack self-esteem and frequently belittle their capabilities; they
fear criticism and are easily hurt by others’ comments. At times
they actually bring about dominance by others through a quest for
overprotection.
Dependent personality disorder usually begins in early
adulthood. Individuals who have this disorder may be unable to
make everyday decisions without advice or reassurance from
others, may allow others to make most of their important
decisions (such as where to live), tend to agree with people even
when they believe they are wrong, have difficulty starting projects
or doing things on their own, volunteer to do things that are
demeaning in order to get approval from other people, feel
uncomfortable or helpless when alone and are often preoccupied
with fears of being abandoned.

In her psychological report,8 Dr. Dayan stated that

petitioner’s dependent personality disorder was evident in
the fact that petitioner was very much attached to his
parents and depended on them for decisions.9 Petitioner’s
https://escra.mycentralapp.com/sfsreader/session/00000192fbfe35db2e18de9c000d00d40059004a/p/AUP760/?username=Guest 4/6
11/5/24, 7:03 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 589

mother even had to be the one to tell him to seek legal help
when he felt confused on what action to take upon learning
that his marriage to respondent was for real.10
Dr. Dayan further observed that, as expected of persons
suffering from a dependent personality disorder, petitioner
typically acted in a self-denigrating manner and displayed
a self-defeating attitude. This submissive attitude
encouraged other people to take advantage of him.11 This
could be seen in the way petitioner allowed himself to be
dominated, first, by

_______________

7 Te v. Yu-Te, supra note 4, pp. 236-237, citing Kahn and Fawcett, The
Encyclopedia of Mental Health, 1993 ed., p. 131.
8 Exhibit “C.” RTC Records, pp. 42-57.
9 Id., p. 44.
10 See RTC Decision, Rollo, p. 107.
11 Exhibit “C,” supra at p. 51.

31

VOL. 589, JUNE 9, 2009 31

Halili vs. Santos-Halili

his father who treated his family like robots12 and, later, by
respondent who was as domineering as his father.13 When
petitioner could no longer take respondent’s domineering
ways, he preferred to hide from her rather than confront
her and tell her outright that he wanted to end their
marriage.14
Dr. Dayan traced petitioner’s personality disorder to his
dysfunctional family life, to wit:15
Q. And what might be the root cause of such psychological incapacity?
A. Sir, I mentioned awhile ago that Lester’s family is dysfunctional. The
father was very abusive, very domineering. The mother has been very
unhappy and the children never had affirmation. They might [have
been] x x x given financial support because the father was [a] very
affluent person but it was never an intact family. x x x The wife and
the children were practically robots. And so, I would say Lester grew
up, not having self-confidence, very immature and somehow not truly
understand[ing] what [it] meant to be a husband, what [it] meant to
have a real family life.

Ultimately, Dr. Dayan concluded that petitioner’s

personality disorder was grave and incurable and already
existent at the time of the celebration of his marriage to
respondent.16

_______________

12 TSN, supra note 6, p. 7.

13 Id., p. 8. Respondent was described as domineering, demanding and
short-tempered.
14 Exhibit “C,” supra at p. 44.
15 TSN, supra note 6, p. 7.
16 Id., see pp. 9-10:

Q. Now, would you say that this psychological incapacity which you
identified and described earlier, is it beyond treatment?
A. Yes, sir.
xx xx xx

https://escra.mycentralapp.com/sfsreader/session/00000192fbfe35db2e18de9c000d00d40059004a/p/AUP760/?username=Guest 5/6
11/5/24, 7:03 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 589

32

32 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Halili vs. Santos-Halili

It has been sufficiently established that petitioner had a

psychological condition that was grave and incurable and
had a deeply rooted cause. This Court, in the same Te case,
recognized that individuals with diagnosable personality
disorders usually have long-term concerns, and thus
therapy may be long-term.17 Particularly, personality
disorders are “long-standing, inflexible ways of behaving
that are not so much severe mental disorders as
dysfunctional styles of living. These disorders affect all
areas of functioning and, beginning in childhood or
adolescence, create problems for those who display them
and for others.”18
From the foregoing, it has been shown that petitioner is
indeed suffering from psychological incapacity that
effectively renders him unable to perform the essential
obligations of marriage. Accordingly, the marriage between
petitioner and respondent is declared null and void.
WHEREFORE, the motion for reconsideration is hereby
GRANTED. The April 16, 2008 resolution of this Court and
the January 26, 2004 decision and September 24, 2004
resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 60010
are SET ASIDE.
The decision of the Regional Trial Court, Pasig City,
Branch 158 dated April 17, 1998 is hereby REINSTATED.
SO ORDERED.

_______________

Q. Now, based on your findings and what you said, would you say then
that the psychological incapacity of the petitioner was already
apparent even before he got married?
A. Yes, sir.

17 Te v. Yu-Te, supra note 4, p. 236, citing Kahn and Fawcett, The

Encyclopedia of Mental Health, 1993 ed., p. 292.
18 Id., p. 236, citing Bernstein, Penner, Clarke-Stewart and Roy,
Psychology, 7th ed., 2006, pp. 613-614.

© Copyright 2024 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

https://escra.mycentralapp.com/sfsreader/session/00000192fbfe35db2e18de9c000d00d40059004a/p/AUP760/?username=Guest 6/6