G.R. No. 214064
G.R. No. 214064
... . ~-
SECOND DIVISION
DECISION
PERALTA,J.:
As their parents were good friends and business partners, Mirasol and
Felipe started as friends then, eventually, became sweethearts. During their
courtship, Mirasol discovered that Felipe sustained his affair with his former
Associate Justice Francis H. Jardeleza, no part; Associate Justice Mariano C. de! Castillo
designated Additional Member per Special Order No. 2416-J dated January 4, 2017.
1
Penned by Associate Justice Magdangal M. De Leon, with Associate Justices Stephen C. Cruz and
Eduardo B. Peralta, Jr., concurring, rollo, pp. 27-39.
2
Id. at 58-59.
(JI
Decision -2- G.R. No. 214064
xx xx
Id at 28.
4
Records, pp. 14-19.
Id at 16-17.
6
Id. at 17.
Id. at 43-54.
Decision -3- G.R. No. 214064
xxxx 8
In a Decision9 dated January 20, 2012, the RTC in Civil Case No.
4853-11 declared the marriage between Mirasol and Felipe null and void.
The dispositive portion of the decision states:
cJI
Id at 52-53. (Underscoring supplied).
9
Penned by Executive Judge Perla V. Cabrera-Faller, rollo, pp. 60-62.
Decision -4- G.R. No. 214064
SO ORDERED. 10
xx xx
10
Id at 62.
II
Id at 63.
12
Id. at 38-39.
Decision -5- G.R. No. 214064
On the other hand, the OSG argues that Mirasol failed to establish
from the totality of evidence the gravity, juridical antecedence and
incurability of Felipe's alleged Narcissistic Personality Disorder. The
conclusions of the clinical psychologist that he was psychologically
incapacitated and that such incapacity was present at the inception of the
marriage were not supported by evidence. At most, the psychologist merely
proved his refusal to perform his marital obligations. 14 Moreover, she has no
personal knowledge of the facts from which she based her findings and was
working on pure assumptions and secondhand information related to her by
one side. 15
13
14
15
Id. at 38-39.
Id. at 80.
Id. at 84.
t7
,.
Decision -u- G.R. No. 214064
Time and again, it was held that "psychological incapacity" has been
intended by law to be confined to the most serious cases of personality
disorders clearly demonstrative of an utter insensitivity or inability to give
meaning and significance to the marriage. 16 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. 17
xx xx
(1) The burden of proof to show.the nullity of the marriage belongs to the
plaintiff.. Any doubt should be resolved in favor of the existence and
continuation of the marriage anq agains~ its dissolution and nullity. x x x
(2) The root cause of the psychologic~l incapacity must be (a) medically
or clinically identified, (b) alleged in the complaint, (c) sufficiently proven
by experts and (d) clearly explained in the decision. x x x
(5) Such illness must be grave enough to bring about the disability of the
party to assume the essential obligations of marriage. x x x In other words,
there is a natal or supervening disabling factor in the person, an adverse
integral element in the personality structure that effectively incapacitates
the person from really accepting and thereby complying with the
obligations essential to marriage.
16
Santos v. Court ofAppeals, 310 Phil. 21, 40 (1995).
17
Republic v. Cabantug-Baguio, 579 Phil. 187 (2008) citing Republic v. lyoy, G.R. No. 152577,
7
September 21, 2005, 470 SCRA 508, 521.
18
G.R. No. 108763, February 13, 1997, 268 SCRA 198.
Decision -7- G.R. No. 214064
(8) The trial court must order the prosecuting attorney or fiscal and the
Solicitor General to appear as counsel for the state. x x x
xxx 19
19
Id. at 209-213.
20
Republic v. Dagdag, G.R. No. 109975, February 9, 2001, 351 SCRA 425, 431.
21
~
G.R. No. 166562, March 31, 2009, 582 SCRA 694, 709.
22
Id (Emphasis supplied)
23
Mendoza v. Republic, 698 Phil. 241, 254 (2012).
Decision -8- G.R. No. 214064
ATTY. BAYAUA:
Question: Were you able to interview and conduct examination on the
respondent?
Answer: No, sir.
Question: [W]here did you base your conclusion that supported your
findings that the husband of Mirasol is psychologically incapacitated to
comply with the essential obligations of marriage?
Answer: From the interviews I had with the petitioner and also from my
interview of the couple's common friend who validated all information
given to me by the petitioner.
Question: You mean to say you were not able to interview the respondent?
Answer: No sir. But I sent him an invitation to undergo the same
psychological evaluation I administered with the petitioner but he did not
respond to my invitation.
Question: [W]hat relevant information were you able to gather from your
interview of the friend of the couple?
Answer: She validated every piece of information relayed to me by the
petitioner during the interview.
xx xx
Question: In your expert opinion, what would be the likely source of the
disorder of the respondent?
Answer: The disorder of the respondent seemed to have developed
during the early years of his life due to his poor parental and family
[molding] particularly lack of parental guidance. [His] parents
separated when he was still young and when [his] mother had another
affair and lived with her common-law husband. Respondent's familial
constellation and [unfavorable] childhood experiences have greatly
affected his perceptions of himself and his environment. Respondent did
not grow up mature enough to cope with his obligations and
responsibilities as a married man and father.
24
xx x
24
25
Marable v. Marable, 654 Phil. 528, 538 (2011).
26
Republic ofthe Philippines vs. Court ofAppeals and De Quintas, Jr., G.R. No. 159594, November
12, 2012, 685 SCRA 33, 46. (Emphasis supplied).
t?1
27
Records, pp. 43-44.
Decision - 10 - G.R. No. 214064
xx xx
Question: You said Madam Witness that after several months you and
respondent became sweethearts, what happened next Madam
Witness?
Answer: Sir, while we were already sweethearts, I got dismayed when
respondent was also maintaining another woman who was his
former girlfriend.
Question: What was the reaction of the respondent when you told him
about his relation with his former girlfriend?
Answer: Respondent was shocked and became moody Sir. This turned
our relationship sour and it led to being stormy.
xx xx
28
Republic v. Cabantug-Baguio, supra note 17.
29
Ochosav. Alano, 655 Phil. 512 (2011).
Decision - 11 - G.R. No. 214064
Question: Madam Witness as you said you finally got married with the
respondent as evidenced in fact by a Marriage Certificate.
What happened next after the marriage?
Answer: After our wedding, our relationship as husband and wife went
on smoothly. I was of the belief that my marriage was made in
heaven and that respondent had already reformed his ways and
had completely deviated from his relationship with his ex-
girlfriend;
xx x30
Question: After giving birth to your first child did respondent change or
become responsible considering that he is already a father?
Answer: No, Sir. I thought that having our first child would already
change the ways of respondent. The birth of our first child did
not actually help improve respondent's ways because
respondent is really a man who is not contented with one
woman even before we got married;
xxx31
Question: After you gave birth to you[ r] second child what happened next
Madam Witness?
Answer: Sir, after thirteen (13) years of marriage, respondent is back to
his old habit where he has been seen having relationship with a
different woman. This was also seen by our relatives and
friends of respondent.
x xx32
30
Records, pp. 56-57.
31
Id at 58.
32
Id at 59.
33
Republic of the Philippines vs. Court ofAppeals and De Quintas, Jr., supra note 26, at 47-48
34
35
Taring v. Taring, 640 Phil. 434 (2010). (Emphasis supplied).
Marable v. Marable, supra note 25, at 539.
/V
C/'
Decision - 12 - G.R. No. 214064
In sum, this Court finds no cogent reason to reverse the ruling of the
CA against the dissolution and nullity of the parties' marriage due to
insufficiency of the evidence presented. The policy of the State is to protect
and strengthen the family as the basic social institution and marriage is the
foundation of the family. Thus, any doubt should be resolved in favor of
val1.d.1ty o f th e marriage.
. 37
SO ORDERED.
Associate Justice
36
Real v. Belo, 542 Phil. 109, 122 (2007).
37
Villalon v. Villalon, 512 Phil. 219, 230 (2005).
Decision - 13 - G.R. No. 214064
WE CONCUR:
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
A1'iL ,.
/~~_,;!
MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO LMENDOZA
Associate Justice
su~h't~
ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court's Division.
Qz:.._y__~
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Second Division
CERTIFICATION
Pxomul,gate~
U6 FtB /Zu17
x------------------------------------------------------------------------..::=- ==FF!-
DISSENTING OPINION
LEONEN,J.:
The ponencia affirmed the Court of Appeals Decision. 5 It held that the
totality of evidence offered by Mirasol failed to substantiate Felipe's alleged
psychological incapacity and its relation to his "early life." 6 Although Dr.
Shiela Marie Montefalcon's7 (Dr. Montefalcon) psychological evaluation
report explained the juridical antecedence, gravity, and incurability of
Felipe's personality disorder, this Court found that it fell short of the
necessary proof to declare the marriage void. 8 As Dr. Montefalcon admitted
that she evaluated Felipe's psychological condition based on the information
given by Mirasol and the couple's common friend, her evaluation report
failed to "provide evidentiary support to cure the doubtful veracity of
Mirasol 's one-sided assertion." 9 Thus, the ponencia concluded:
2
Ponencia, p. 3.
Rollo, pp. 27-13. The Decision was penned by Associate Justice Magdangal M. De Leon (Chair) and
/
concurred in by Associate Justices Stephen C. Cruz and Eduardo B. Peralta, Jr. of the Tenth Division,
Court of Appeals, Manila.
Id. at 60--02. The Decision was penned by Executive Judge Perla V. Cabrera-Faller of Branch 90,
Regional Trial Court, Dasmarifias, Cavite, sitting in Imus, Cavite.
4
Ponencia, p. 4.
Id. at 12.
6
Id. at 7.
Rollo, p. 61, Regional Trial Court Decision.
Ponencia, p. 9.
Id.
Dissenting Opinion 2 G.R. No. 214064
In sum, this Court finds no cogent reason to reverse the ruling of the
[Court of Appeals] against the dissolution and nullity of the parties'
marriage due to insufficiency of the evidence presented. The policy of the
State is to protect and strengthen the family as the basic social institution
and marriage is the foundation of the family. Thus, any doubt should be
resolved in favor of validity of the marriage. 10 (Citations omitted)
10
11
Id. at 12.
Rollo, p. 61.
"To support lier claim, tile petitioner {Mirasolj consulted witll Mme. Slliela Marie 0.
/
Monte/a/con, tile psycllologist on case, and based on lier psychological evaluation of the parties,
it appeared that the respondent is encumbered with a personality deficit classified as narcissistic
personality disorder, which is grave, severe and incurable, as well as deeply ingrained in his
personality structure that has rendered him as psychologically incapacitated to perform his marital
duties and obligations.
Largely on the basis of the marital history of the petitioner and the respondent, supported with
the findings of the clinical psychologist, the Court finds that the petitioner has sufficiently
established the root cause of the psychological incapacity[.]" (Emphasis supplied)
12
Ponencia, p. 12.
13
Id. at 9.
Dissenting Opinion 3 G.R. No. 214064
thus:
Article 68. The husband and wife are obliged to live together, observe
mutual love, respect and fidelity, and render mutual help and support.
Article 220. The parents and those exercising parental authority shall have
with respect to their unemancipated children or wards the following rights
and duties:
Contrary to the ponencia, the trial court did not "heavily rel[y] on the
result" of Dr. Montefalcon's evaluation report, which allegedly lacked
"factual findings which can serve as bases" for concluding that Felipe is
psychologically incapacitated. 26 The totality of evidence presented by
Mirasol is more than enough to prove Felipe's psychological incapacity.
Hence, Mirasol and Felipe's marriage is void under Article 3627 of the
as regards the husband and wife as well as Articles 220, 221 and 225 of the same Code in regard to
/
parents and their children."
26 ponencia,
. p.9.
27
FAMIL y CODE, art. 36 provides:
Dissenting Opinion 6 G.R. No. 214064
Family Code.
II
A marriage contracted by any party who, at the time of the celebration, was psychologically
,/
incapacitated to comply with the essential marital obligations of marriage, shall likewise be void even
if such incapacity becomes manifest only after its solemnization.
The action for declaration of nullity of the marriage under this Article shall prescribe in ten years after
its celebration.
28
642 Phil. 602 (2010) [Per J. Nachura, Second Division].
29
Id. at 627.
30
Marcos v. Marcos, 397 Phil. 840, 850-852 (2000) [Per J. Panganiban, Third Division].
31 Id.
Dissenting Opinion 7 G.R. No. 214064
For this reason, the ponencia cannot readily conclude that Dr.
Montefalcon's psychological evaluation report lacks the "evidentiary support
to cure the doubtful veracity of Mirasol's one-sided assertion." 32 As the
totality of evidence is sufficient to substantiate Felipe's psychological
incapacity, Dr. Montefalcon's evaluation report has become unnecessary.
Nonetheless, Mirasol went beyond what is required of her when she
substantiated her claims through Dr. Montefalcon's evaluation report.
III
Article 36. A marriage contracted by any party who, at the time of the
celebration, was psychologically incapacitated to comply with the
essential marital obligations of marriage, shall likewise be void even if
such incapacity becomes manifest only after its solemnization.
The action for declaration of nullity of the marriage under this Article shall
prescribe in ten years after its celebration.
(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. 45 (Emphasis in the original)
(1) The burden of proof to show the nullity of the marriage belongs to
the plaintiff. Any doubt should be resolved in favor of the existence and
continuation of the marriage and against its dissolution and nullity ....
(5) Such illness must be grave enough to bring about the disability of
the party to assume the essential obligations of marriage. Thus, "mild
40
41
Id.
characteriological peculiarities, mood changes, occasional emotional
/
Santos v. Court ofAppeals, 310 Phil. 21, 39 (1995) [Per J. Vitug, En Banc].
42
310 Phil. 21 ( 1995) [Per J. Vitug, En Banc].
43
Ponencia, p. 6.
44
579 Phil. 187 (2008) [Per J. Carpio Morales, Second Division].
45
Ponencia, p. 6.
46
335 Phil. 664 (1997) [Per J. Panganiban, En Banc].
Dissenting Opinion 9 G.R. No. 214064
(8) The trial court must order the prosecuting attorney or fiscal and the
Solicitor General to appear as counsel for the state[.] 47 (Emphasis in the
original)
Thus, Ngo-Te explicitly provides that it does not, in any way, propose
the abandonment of the guidelines provided for under Molina. 52 It reiterates
that the necessity to consider other perspectives in disposing cases under
53
Article 36 exists.
51
52
Id. at 698--699.
Id. at 699.
/
53 Id.
54
Ka/aw v. Fernandez, G.R. No. 166357, January 14, 2015
<http://sc.judiciary.gov. ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?file=/jurisprudence/20l5/january20151166357 .pdf>
[Per J. Bersamin, Special First Division]. This Court granted petitioner's motion for reconsideration
and similarly declaring the parties' marriage as void due to psychological incapacity.
55
Id. at 6--7.
56
Rollo, p. 60.
57
Id. at 61.
Dissenting Opinion 11 G.R. No. 214064
their daughter. 58
The effects of applying the rigid Article 36 guidelines does not negate the
compassion that some of the Members of this Court may have for the
parties. Still, it is time that this Court operate within the sphere of reality.
The law is an instrument to provide succor. It is not a burden that
unreasonably interferes with individual choices of intimate arrangements.
The choice to stay in or leave a marriage is not for this Court, or the
State, to make. The choice is given to the partners, with the Constitution
providing that "[t]he right of spouses to found a family in accordance with
their religious convictions and demands of responsible parenthood[.]"
Counterintuitively, the State protects marriage if it allows those found to
have psychological illnesses that render them incapable of complying with
their marital obligations to leave the marriage. To force partners to stay in
a loveless marriage, or a spouseless marriage as in this case, only erodes
the foundation of a family. 60 (Emphasis supplied, citations omitted)
However, there are others who discover that marriage creates a bond
that magnifies their differences. Irreconcilable differences make every
moment of eternal bondage excruciating. The State, through the courts, do
not add any new factor in a couple's intimate relationship when it denies
petitions for declarations of nullity in failed marriages. The State leaves its
citizens in a perpetual state of misery and places multiple hardships on a
couple and their children.
5s Id.
59
G.R. No. 203284, November 14, 2016
<http://sc.judiciary.gov. ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?file=/jurisprudence/2016/november2016/203284. pdf>
[Per J. Del Castillo, Second Division].
60
Id. at 7-8.
61
Ponencia, p. 11.
Dissenting Opinion 12 G.R. No. 214064
assume his marital obligations, then he would not have been indifferent
about being seen publicly with the other women with whom he had other
affairs. What Felipe has done apparently caused much pain to his family
and should be put to an end. It is cruel for this Court to rule that Mirasol
should remain married to Felipe.
Associate Justice