Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 171557

February 12, 2014

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner,

vs.
RODOLFO O. DE GRACIA, Respondent.
DECISION
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:
Assailed in this petition for review on certiorari1 are the Decision2 dated June 2, 2005
and Resolution3 dated February 3, 2006 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV
No. 69103 which affirmed the Decision4 dated October 17, 2000 of the Regional Trial
Court of Zamboanga del Norte, Branch 11 (RTC) in Civil Case No. S-665 declaring the
marriage of respondent Rodolfo O. De Gracia (Rodolfo) and Natividad N. Rosalem
(Natividad) void on the ground of psychological incapacity pursuant to Article 36 of the
Family Code of the Philippines5 (Family Code).
The Facts
Rodolfo and Natividad were married on February 15, 1969 at the Parish of St. Vincent
Ferrer in Salug, Zamboanga del Norte.6 They lived in Dapaon, Sindangan, Zamboanga
del Norte and have two (2) children, namely, Ma. Reynilda R. De Gracia (Ma. Reynilda)
and Ma. Rizza R. De Gracia (Ma. Rizza), who were born on August 20, 1969 and
January 15, 1972, respectively.7
On December 28, 1998, Rodolfo filed a verified complaint for declaration of nullity of
marriage (complaint) before the RTC, docketed as Civil Case No. S-665, alleging that
Natividad was psychologically incapacitated to comply with her essential marital
obligations. In compliance with the Order8 dated January 5, 1999 of the RTC, the public
prosecutor conducted an investigation to determine if collusion exists between Rodolfo
and Natividad and found that there was none.9 Trial on the merits then ensued.
In support of his complaint, Rodolfo testified, among others, that he first met Natividad
when they were students at the Barangay High School of Sindangan,10 and he was
forced to marry her barely three (3) months into their courtship in light of her accidental
pregnancy.11 At the time of their marriage, he was 21 years old, while Natividad was 18
years of age. He had no stable job and merely worked in the gambling cockpits as
"kristo" and "bangkero sa hantak." When he decided to join and train with the army,12
Natividad left their conjugal home and sold their house without his consent.13

Thereafter, Natividad moved to Dipolog City where she lived with a certain Engineer
Terez (Terez), and bore him a child named Julie Ann Terez.14 After cohabiting with
Terez, Natividad contracted a second marriage on January 11, 1991 with another man
named Antonio Mondarez and has lived since then with the latter in Cagayan de Oro
City.15 From the time Natividad abandoned them in 1972, Rodolfo was left to take care
of Ma. Reynilda and Ma. Rizza16 and he exerted earnest efforts to save their marriage
which, however, proved futile because of Natividads psychological incapacity that
appeared to be incurable.17
For her part, Natividad failed to file her answer, as well as appear during trial, despite
service of summons.18 Nonetheless, she informed the court that she submitted herself
for psychiatric examination to Dr. Cheryl T. Zalsos (Dr. Zalsos) in response to Rodolfos
claims.19 Rodolfo also underwent the same examination.20
In her two-page psychiatric evaluation report,21 Dr. Zalsos stated that both Rodolfo and
Natividad were psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential marital
obligations, finding that both parties suffered from "utter emotional immaturity [which] is
unusual and unacceptable behavior considered [as] deviant from persons who abide by
established norms of conduct."22 As for Natividad, Dr. Zalsos also observed that she
lacked the willful cooperation of being a wife and a mother to her two daughters.
Similarly, Rodolfo failed to perform his obligations as a husband, adding too that he
sired a son with another woman. Further, Dr. Zalsos noted that the mental condition of
both parties already existed at the time of the celebration of marriage, although it only
manifested after. Based on the foregoing, Dr. Zalsos concluded that the "couples union
was bereft of the mind, will and heart for the obligations of marriage."23
On February 10, 1999, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), representing petitioner
Republic of the Philippines (Republic), filed an opposition24 to the complaint,
contending that the acts committed by Natividad did not demonstrate psychological
incapacity as contemplated by law, but are mere grounds for legal separation under the
Family Code.25
The RTC Ruling
In a Decision26 dated October 17, 2000, the RTC declared the marriage between
Rodolfo and Natividad void on the ground of psychological incapacity. It relied on the
findings and testimony of Dr. Zalsos, holding that Natividads emotional immaturity
exhibited a behavioral pattern which in psychiatry constitutes a form of personality
disorder that existed at the time of the parties marriage but manifested only thereafter.
It likewise concurred with Dr. Zalsoss observation that Natividads condition is incurable
since it is deeply rooted within the make-up of her personality. Accordingly, it concluded
that Natividad could not have known, much more comprehend the marital obligations
she was assuming, or, knowing them, could not have given a valid assumption
thereof.27

The Republic appealed to the CA, averring that there was no showing that Natividads
personality traits constituted psychological incapacity as envisaged under Article 36 of
the Family Code, and that the testimony of the expert witness was not conclusive upon
the court.28
The CA Ruling
In a Decision29 dated June 2, 2005, the CA affirmed the ruling of the RTC, finding that
while Natividads emotional immaturity, irresponsibility and promiscuity by themselves
do not necessarily equate to psychological incapacity, "their degree or severity, as duly
testified to by Dr. Zalsos, has sufficiently established a case of psychological disorder
so profound as to render [Natividad] incapacitated to perform her essential marital
obligations."30
The Republic moved for reconsideration which was, however, denied in a Resolution31
dated February 3, 2006, hence, the instant petition.
The Issue Before the Court
The primordial issue in this case is whether or not the CA erred in sustaining the RTCs
finding of psychological incapacity.
The Ruling of the Court
The petition is meritorious.
"Psychological incapacity," as a ground to nullify a marriage under Article 3632 of the
Family Code, 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 so expressed in Article 6833 of the Family Code, among others,34 include their
mutual obligations to live together, observe love, respect and fidelity and render help
and support. There is hardly any doubt that the intendment of the law has been to
confine the meaning of "psychological incapacity" to the most serious cases of
personality disorders clearly demonstrative of an utter insensitivity or inability to give
meaning and significance to the marriage.35 In Santos v. CA36 (Santos), the Court first
declared 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).37 The
Court laid down more definitive guidelines in the interpretation and application of Article
36 of the Family Code in Republic of the Phils. v. CA,38 whose salient points are
footnoted hereunder.39 These guidelines incorporate the basic requirements that the
Court established in Santos.40

Keeping with these principles, the Court, in Dedel v. CA,41 held that therein
respondents emotional immaturity and irresponsibility could not be equated with
psychological incapacity as it was not shown that these acts are manifestations of a
disordered personality which make her completely unable to discharge the essential
marital obligations of the marital state, not merely due to her youth, immaturity or sexual
promiscuity.42 In the same light, the Court, in the case of Pesca v. Pesca43 (Pesca),
ruled against a declaration of nullity, as petitioner therein "utterly failed, both in her
allegations in the complaint and in her evidence, to make out a case of psychological
incapacity on the part of respondent, let alone at the time of solemnization of the
contract, so as to warrant a declaration of nullity of the marriage," significantly noting
that the "[e]motional immaturity and irresponsibility, invoked by her, cannot be equated
with psychological incapacity." In Pesca, the Court upheld the appellate courts finding
that the petitioner therein had not established that her husband "showed signs of mental
incapacity as would cause him to be truly incognitive of the basic marital covenant, as
so provided for in Article 68 of the Family Code; that the incapacity is grave, has
preceded the marriage and is incurable; that his incapacity to meet his marital
responsibility is because of a psychological, not physical illness; that the root cause of
the incapacity has been identified medically or clinically, and has been proven by an
expert; and that the incapacity is permanent and incurable in nature."44
The Court maintains a similar view in this case.1wphi1 Based on the evidence
presented, there exists insufficient factual or legal basis to conclude that Natividads
emotional immaturity, irresponsibility, or even sexual promiscuity, can be equated with
psychological incapacity.
The RTC, as affirmed by the CA, heavily relied on the psychiatric evaluation report of
Dr. Zalsos which does not, however, explain in reasonable detail how Natividads
condition could be characterized as grave, deeply-rooted, and incurable within the
parameters of psychological incapacity jurisprudence. Aside from failing to disclose the
types of psychological tests which she administered on Natividad, Dr. Zalsos failed to
identify in her report the root cause of Natividad's condition and to show that it existed at
the time of the parties' marriage. Neither was the gravity or seriousness of Natividad's
behavior in relation to her failure to perform the essential marital obligations sufficiently
described in Dr. Zalsos's report. Further, the finding contained therein on the incurability
of Natividad's condition remains unsupported by any factual or scientific basis and,
hence, appears to be drawn out as a bare conclusion and even self-serving. In the
same vein, Dr. Zalsos's testimony during trial, which is essentially a reiteration of her
report, also fails to convince the Court of her conclusion that Natividad was
psychologically incapacitated. Verily, although expert opm10ns furnished by
psychologists regarding the psychological temperament of parties are usually given
considerable weight by the courts, the existence of psychological incapacity must still be
proven by independent evidence.45 After poring over the records, the Court, however,
does not find any such evidence sufficient enough to uphold the court a quo's nullity
declaration. To the Court's mind, Natividad's refusal to live with Rodolfo and to assume
her duties as wife and mother as well as her emotional immaturity, irresponsibility and

infidelity do not rise to the level of psychological incapacity that would justify the
nullification of the parties' marriage. Indeed, to be declared clinically or medically
incurable is one thing; to refuse or be reluctant to perform one's duties is another. To
hark back to what has been earlier discussed, psychological incapacity refers only to
the most serious cases of personality disorders clearly demonstrative of an utter
insensitivity or inability to give meaning and significance to the marriage.46 In the final
analysis, the Court does not perceive a disorder of this nature to exist in the present
case. Thus, for these reasons, coupled too with the recognition that marriage is an
inviolable social institution and the foundation of the family,47 the instant petition is
hereby granted.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated June 2, 2005 and
Resolution dated February 3, 2006 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 69103
are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, the complaint for declaration of nullity of
marriage filed under Article 36 of the Family Code is DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.