Issue: Was the totality of petitioner’s evidence able to prove that he is psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential obligations of marriage warranting the annulment of their marriage?
Held: NO.
Ruling:
1. Republic v. Court of Appeals laid down the guidelines in the interpretation and application of Article 36 of the Family Code 2. The guidelines incorporate the three basic requirements earlier mandated by the Court in Santos v. Court of Appeals.
3. As found by the Court of Appeals, Psychologist Cristina Gates’ conclusion that respondent was psychologically incapacitated was based on facts relayed to her by petitioner and was not based on her personal knowledge and evaluation of respondent; thus, her finding is unscientific and unreliable. Moreover, the trial court correctly found that petitioner failed to prove with certainty that the alleged personality disorder of respondent was incurable as may be gleaned from Psychologist Cristina Gates’
testimony.
4. The Court agrees with the Court of Appeals that the evidence presented by petitioner in regard to the physical violence or grossly abusive conduct of respondent toward petitioner and respondent’s abandonment of petitioner without justifiable cause for more than one year are grounds for legal separation.
5. In its Decision dated February 23, 2004, the Court of Appeals apparently did not have the opportunity to consider the decision of the National Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal. Nevertheless, it is clear that the Court of Appeals considered the Matrimonial Tribunal’s decision in its Resolution dated August 5, 2004 when it resolved petitioner’s motion for reconsideration. In the said Resolution, the Court of Appeals took cognizance of the very same issues now raised before this Court and correctly held that petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was devoid of merit.
6. True, in the case of Republic v. Court of Appeals, et al. (268 SCRA 198), the Supreme Court held that the 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. However, the Highest Tribunal expounded as follows:
Since the purpose of including such provision in our Family Code is to harmonize our civil laws with the religious faith of our people, it stands to reason that to achieve such harmonization, great persuasive weight should be given to decisions of such appellate tribunal. Ideally – subject to our law on evidence – what is decreed
as [canonically] invalid should be decreed civilly void
7. Hence, even if, as contended by petitioner, the factual basis of the decision of the National Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal is similar to the facts established by petitioner before the trial court, the decision of the National Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal confirming the decree of nullity of marriage by the court a quo is not based on the psychological incapacity of
respondent. Petitioner, therefore, erred in stating that the conclusion of Psychologist Cristina Gates regarding the psychological incapacity of respondent is supported by the decision of the National Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal.
140. Rumbaua v. Rumbaua 2009 - Brion, J.:
Facts:
1. The present petition traces its roots to the petitioner’s (wife) complaint for the declaration of nullity of marriage against the respondent (husband) on the ground of psychological incapacity: the respondent (husband) reneged on his promise to live with her under one roof after finding work; he failed to extend financial support to her; he blamed her for his mother’s death; he represented himself as single in his transactions; and he pretended to be working in Davao, although he was cohabiting with another woman in Novaliches, QC
2. Husband and wife got married (secretly) in Manila in Feb 1993. They never lived together; wife stayed with her sister in Fairview, Quezon City, while husband lived with his parents in Novaliches. (husband refused to live with the her for fear that public knowledge of their marriage would affect his application for a PAL scholarship)
3. In 1994, the parties’ respective families discovered their secret marriage. To appease his mother, he continued living separately from the petitioner. Then husband's mom died; he blamed this on his wife; they separated temporarily but got back together;
4. In 1998, wife (from davao- she got a work there) and her mother went to the respondent’s house in Novaliches and found him cohabiting with one Cynthia.
5. Wife submitted psychological report of clinical psychologist Dr. Tayag
6. Dr. Tayag's findings on husband: he is revealed to operate in a very self-centered manner as he believes that the world revolves around him. His egocentrism made it so easy for him to deceitfully use others for his own advancement with an extreme air of confidence and dominance. He would do actions without any remorse or guilt feelings towards others especially to that of petitioner.
7. RTC declared their marriage void. CA reversed saying the cause of the psychological incapacity was not alleged; it said: "Dr. Tayag likewise failed to explain why she came to the conclusion that the respondent’s incapacity was “deep-seated” and “incurable.”
8. On appeal to SC, Petitioner wife says that Molina should be applied and not A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC (which is geared towards the relaxation of the OSG certification that Molina required)
9. Wife argues that the RTC decision should be vacated for prematurity, as it was rendered despite the absence of the required OSG certification specified in Molina. According to the petitioner, A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC, which took effect only on March 15, 2003, cannot overturn the requirements of Molina that was promulgated as early as February 13, 1997.
Issue:
1. Is there a need for OSG certification as specified in Molina? Held: No 2. Was psychological incapacity established? Held: No
Ruling:
**1ST ISSUE
1. the OSG certification that Molina required is this:
(8) The trial court must order the prosecuting attorney or fiscal and the Solicitor General to appear as counsel for the state. No decision shall be handed down unless the Solicitor General issues a certification, which will be quoted in the decision, briefly stating therein his reasons for his agreement or opposition, as the case may be, to the petition. The Solicitor General, along with the prosecuting attorney, shall submit to the court such certification within fifteen (15) days from the date the case is deemed submitted for resolution of the court. The Solicitor General shall discharge the equivalent function of the defensor vinculi contemplated under Canon 1095.
Now, under A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC:
SEC. 18. Memoranda. – The court may require the parties and the public prosecutor, in consultation with the Office of the Solicitor General, to file their respective memoranda in support of their claims within fifteen days from the date the trial is terminated. It may require the Office of the Solicitor General to file its own memorandum if the case is of significant interest to the State. No other pleadings or papers may be submitted without leave of court. After the lapse of the period herein provided, the case will be considered submitted for decision, with or without the memoranda.
2. The amendment introduced under A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC is procedural or remedial in character; so it retroacts
3. A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC, as a remedial measure, removed the mandatory nature of an OSG certification and may be applied retroactively to pending matters.
4. what is important is the presence of the prosecutor in the case, not the remedial requirement that he be certified to be present.
From this perspective, the petitioner’s objection regarding the Molina guideline on certification lacks merit.
**2ND ISSUE:
1. Petitioner wife failed to establish the respondent’s psychological incapacity 2. Santos and Molina guidelines were mentioned again.
3. These standards were not met in this case.
a. wife’s testimony did not prove the root cause, gravity and incurability of respondent’s condition (her evidence merely showed that the respondent: (a) reneged on his promise to cohabit with her; (b) visited her occasionally from 1993 to 1997; (c) forgot her birthday in 1992, and did not send her greeting cards during special occasions; (d) represented himself as single in his visa
application; (e) blamed her for the death of his mother; and (f) told her he was working in Davao when in fact he was cohabiting with another woman in 1997. )
4. These acts, in our view, do not rise to the level of the “psychological incapacity” that the law requires, and should be distinguished from the “difficulty,” if not outright “refusal” or “neglect” in the performance of some marital obligations that characterize some marriages.
5. To be sure, the respondent was far from perfect and had some character flaws. The presence of these imperfections, however, does not necessarily warrant a conclusion that he had a psychological malady at the time of the marriage that rendered him incapable of fulfilling his duties and obligations.
6. Dr Tayag's report was biased. Dr. Tayag, in her report, merely summarized the wife’s narrations, and on this basis characterized the respondent to be a self-centered, egocentric, and unremorseful person who “believes that the worlds around him” etc etc 7. Dr. Tayag’s subsequent testimony in court did not cure whatever deficiencies attended her psychological report. She failed to establish the fact that at the time the parties were married, husband was already suffering from a psychological defect that deprived him of the ability to assume the essential duties and responsibilities of marriage. Neither did she adequately explain how she came to the conclusion that husband’s condition was grave and incurable.
141. Aspillaga vs. Aspillaga 26 Oct 2009 – J. Quisumbing Facts:
1. Rodolfo Aspillaga met Aurora Apon sometime in 1977. They became sweethearts and even when Aurora left for Japan to study, they maintained the love.
2. Upon Aurora’s return in 1980, they got married and begot two children.
3. On 7 Mar 1995, Rodolfo filed a petition for nullity of marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity on the part of Aurora.
4. During trial, Dr. Maaba explained his psychological examination of both parties and recommended that the petition be granted.
5. On 31 May 2000, the RTC found both parties psychologically incapacitated to enter into marriage.
6. On 9 Sep 2005, the CA reversed the RTC decision.
Issue: Was the marriage void on the ground of psychological incapacity?
Held: No.
Ruling:
1. Dr. Maaba failed to reveal that their personality traits or psychological conditions were grave or serious enough to bring about an incapacity to assume the essential obligations of marriage. He failed to link the parties’ psychological disorders to his conclusion that they are psychologically incapacitated to perform marital obligations.
2. The fact that these psychological conditions will hamper the performance of their marital obligations does not mean that they suffer from psychological incapacity as contemplated under Article 36. There is no evidence that claimed the incapacity is incurable and permanent.
3. It can be inferred that they were able to faithfully comply with their obligations to each other and to their children. It was only when Rodolfo’s acts of infidelity were discovered that the marriage started to fail.
4. At the most, the psychiatric evaluation of the parties proved only incompatibility and irreconcilable differences, which cannot be equated with psychological incapacity as understood juristically.
5. In Santos, the Court said that psychological incapacity required by Article 36 must be characterized by:
(a) gravity, (b) juridical antecedence, and (c) incurability.
142. Lim vs. Lim
Feb 4, 2010 – Nachura *psychiatrist not allowed to give psychological tests Facts:
1. Cheryl and Edward got married on December 8, 1979 after only a year of courtship.
2. They lived in Edward's grandparent's home in Forbes Park, where Cheryl and their children were supported by their father's family business.
3. Cheryl caught Edward in a “compromising situation with the stay-in caregiver of his grandmother.” She filed a complaint of
concubinage but it was dismissed by the courts.
4. The court granted Cheryl a monthly support requiring Edward or his family to pay regularly.
5. Edward is now filing a case to sever the marital bond by having his marriage nullified.
6. Edward presents into evidence the Psychiatric report of Dr. Villegas, which concluded that BOTH parties were suffering from personality disorders.
Issue: Is the psychiatric report good enough evidence to support the nullification of the marriage?
Held: No Ruling:
1. The report said that both have Dependent Personality Disorder, which render both of them psychologically incapacitated.
2. The expert opinion of this doctor who arrived at a report due to a 7 hour interview and unsupported by separate psychological tests, cannot tie the hands of the trial court and prevent it from making its own factual findings.
3. SC wonders why psychology tests were not administered by trained physicians. The reports of which could have been used to establish what was written in her own report.
Concept:
1. Psychometric and neurological tests which are designed to measure specific aspects of people's intelligence, thinking or personality gives more weight to a psychiatric evaluation report. (Note: remember, psychiatric reports are not a MUST requirement all the time. They just give more weight to the argument.)
143. Paz vs. Paz
February 18, 2010 – Carpio Facts: