14 Aurelio V Aurelio

G.R. No.
175367, [June 06, 2011]
DOCTRINE:
The following are the guidelines to aid the courts in the disposition of cases
involving psychological incapacity: (1) Burden of proof to show the nullity of the
marriage belongs to the plaintiff; (2) The root cause of the psychological 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; (3) The incapacity must be
proven to be existing at “the time of the celebration” of the marriage; (4) Such incapacity
must also be shown to be medically or clinically permanent or incurable; (5) Such illness
must be grave enough to bring about the disability of the party to assume the essential
obligations of marriage; (6) The essential marital obligations must be those embraced by
Articles 68 up to 71 of the Family Code 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. Such
non-complied marital obligation(s) must also be stated in the petition, proven by
evidence and included in the text of the decision; (7) 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; (8) The
trialcourt 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.
FACTS:
Petitioner Danilo A. Aurelio and respondent Vida Ma. Corazon Aurelio were married on
March 23, 1988. They have two sons, namely: Danilo Miguel and Danilo Gabriel.
On May 9, 2002, respondent filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon
City, Branch 94, a Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage. In her petition,
respondent alleged that both she and petitioner were psychologically incapacitated of
performing and complying with their respective essential marital obligations. In
addition, respondent alleged that such state of psychological incapacity was present
prior and even during the time of the marriage ceremony. Hence, respondent prays that
her marriage be declared null and void under Article 36 of the Family Code. It alleged
among others that said psychological incapacity was manifested by lack of financial
support from the husband; his lack of drive and incapacity to discern the plight of his
working wife. The husband exhibited consistent jealousy and distrust towards his wife.
His moods alternated between hostile defiance and contrition. He refused to assist in
the maintenance of the family.
On the side of the wife on the other hand, is effusive and displays her feelings openly
and freely. Her feelings change very quickly – from joy to fury to misery to despair,
depending on her day-to-day experiences. Her tolerance for boredom was very low. She
was emotionally immature; she cannot stand frustration or disappointment. She cannot
delay to gratify her needs. She gets upset when she cannot get what she wants. Self-
indulgence lifts her spirits immensely. Their hostility towards each other distorted their
relationship. Their incapacity to accept and fulfill the essential obligations of marital life
led to the breakdown of their marriage.
On November 8, 2002, petitioner filed a Motion to Dismiss the petition. Petitioner

principally argued that the petition failed to state a cause of action and that it failed to
meet the standards set by the Court for the interpretation and implementation of Article
36 of the Family Code.
RTC denied the petition. CA affirmed.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the marriage shall be declared null and void?
HELD:
Petition denied. Marriage is null and void.
RATIO:
First, contrary to petitioner’s assertion, this Court finds that the root cause of
psychological incapacity was stated and alleged in the complaint. We agree with the
manifestation of respondent that the family backgrounds of both petitioner and
respondent were discussed in the complaint as the root causes of their psychological
incapacity. Moreover, a competent and expert psychologist clinically identified the same
as the root causes.
Second, the petition likewise alleged that the illness of both parties was of such grave a
nature as to bring about a disability for them to assume the essential obligations of
marriage. The psychologist reported that respondent suffers from Histrionic
Personality Disorder with Narcissistic Features. Petitioner, on the other
hand, allegedly suffers from Passive Aggressive (Negativistic) Personality Disorder. The
incapacity of both parties to perform their marital obligations was alleged to be grave,
incorrigible and incurable.
Lastly, this Court also finds that the essential marital obligations that were not complied
with were alleged in the petition. As can be easily gleaned from the totality of the
petition, respondent’s allegations fall under Article 68 of the Family Code which states
that “the husband and the wife are obliged to live together, observe mutual love, respect
and fidelity, and render mutual help and support.”
 Catch husband cheating

 Philippines

14 Aurelio V Aurelio

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

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

14 Aurelio V Aurelio

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No.

175367, [June 06, 2011]

On November 8, 2002, petitioner filed a Motion to Dismiss the petition. Petitioner

RTC denied the petition. CA affirmed.

Whether or not the marriage shall be declared null and void?

Petition denied. Marriage is null and void.

 Catch husband cheating

You might also like