1. Marietta filed for annulment of her marriage to Rodolfo, claiming he was psychologically incapacitated due to dependent personality disorder. She testified that Rodolfo was unemployed, financially dependent on his mother, and their sex life was lacking.
2. A psychiatrist examined Marietta and Rodolfo, diagnosing Rodolfo with dependent personality disorder. She concluded this made him unable to fulfill marital obligations.
3. The court ruled Rodolfo was psychologically incapacitated for marriage under Article 36 due to his dependent personality disorder, which manifested before and during the marriage, rendering the marriage void.
1. Marietta filed for annulment of her marriage to Rodolfo, claiming he was psychologically incapacitated due to dependent personality disorder. She testified that Rodolfo was unemployed, financially dependent on his mother, and their sex life was lacking.
2. A psychiatrist examined Marietta and Rodolfo, diagnosing Rodolfo with dependent personality disorder. She concluded this made him unable to fulfill marital obligations.
3. The court ruled Rodolfo was psychologically incapacitated for marriage under Article 36 due to his dependent personality disorder, which manifested before and during the marriage, rendering the marriage void.
1. Marietta filed for annulment of her marriage to Rodolfo, claiming he was psychologically incapacitated due to dependent personality disorder. She testified that Rodolfo was unemployed, financially dependent on his mother, and their sex life was lacking.
2. A psychiatrist examined Marietta and Rodolfo, diagnosing Rodolfo with dependent personality disorder. She concluded this made him unable to fulfill marital obligations.
3. The court ruled Rodolfo was psychologically incapacitated for marriage under Article 36 due to his dependent personality disorder, which manifested before and during the marriage, rendering the marriage void.
Republic demeanor of witnesses while giving testimony which may indicate
their candor or lack thereof. Since the trial court itself accepted the Facts: Marietta Azcueta (Marietta) filed a petition for declaration of veracity of Marietta’s factual premises, there is no cause to dispute the absolute nullity of her marriage to Rodolfo Azcueta (Rodolfo) before conclusion of psychological incapacity drawn therefrom by her expert the Regional Trial Court (RTC). Marietta averred that Rodolfo was witness. psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential obligations of marriage. Marietta complained that despite her encouragement, The root cause of Rodolfo’s psychological incapacity was alleged in Rodolfo never bothered to look for a job and always depended on his the petition, medically or clinically identified, sufficiently proven by mother for financial assistance and for his decisions. It was Rodolfo’s testimony of an expert witness with more than 40 years experience in mother who found them a room near the Azcueta home and paid the the field of psychology and psychological incapacity, and clearly monthly rental. Rodolfo also pretended to have found work and gave explained in the trial court’s decision. As held in Te vs. Te (G.R. No. Marietta money which actually came from Rodolfo’s mother. When 161793, 13 February 2009), “(b)y the very nature of Article 36, courts, Marietta confronted him, Rodolfo cried like a child and told her his despite having the primary task and burden of decision-making, must parents could support their needs. They had sex only once a month not discount but, instead, must consider as decisive evidence the expert which Marietta never enjoyed. When they discussed this, Rodolfo told opinion on the psychological and mental temperaments of the parties.” Marietta that sex was sacred and should not be enjoyed or abused. Rodolfo also told her he was not ready for a child. When Marietta Rodolfo’s psychological incapacity was also established to have clearly asked Rodolfo if they could move to another place, he did not agree existed at the time of and even before the celebration of marriage. and she was forced to leave and see if he would follow her. He did not. Witnesses were united in testifying that from the start of the marriage, Rodolfo’s irresponsibility, overdependence on his mother and Rodolfo’s first cousin, who at one time lived with Rodolfo’s family, abnormal sexual reticence were already evident. These manifestations corroborated Marietta’s testimony that Rodolfo was not gainfully of Rodolfo’s Dependent Personality Disorder must have existed even employed and relied on the allowance given by his mother who also prior to the marriage being rooted in his early development and a by- paid the rentals for the room the couple lived in. The psychiatrist who product of his upbringing and family life. examined Marietta testified that she found the latter to be mature, independent, focused, responsible, had a direction and ambition in life, Furthermore, Rodolfo’s psychological incapacity had been shown to be and was not psychologically incapacitated to perform the duties and grave so as to render him unable to assume the essential obligations of responsibilities of marriage. Based on information gathered from marriage. The Court of Appeals’ opinion that Rodolfo’s requests for Marietta, the same psychiatrist found Rodolfo to be suffering from financial assistance from his mother might have been due to Dependent Personality Disorder characterized by loss of self- embarrassment for failing to contribute to the family coffers and that confidence, constant self-doubt, inability to make his own decisions his motive for not wanting a child was a “responsible” realization since and dependency on other people. The psychiatrist explained that the he was unemployed, were dismissed by the High Court for being root cause of the disorder was a cross-identification with Rodolfo’s speculative and unsupported by evidence. The Supreme Court likewise mother who was the dominant figure in the family considering that disagreed with the Court of Appeals’ finding that Rodolfo’s Rodolfo’s father, a seaman, wasalways out of the house. She added that irresponsibility and overdependence on his mother could be attributed the problem began during the early stages of Rodolfo’s life but to immaturity, noting that at the time of his marriage, Rodolfo was manifested only after his marriage. She stated that the problem was almost 29 years old. Also, the expert testimony identified a grave severe, because he would not be able take on the responsibilities of a clinical or medical cause spouse, and incurable, because it began in early development and had for Rodolfo’s abnormal behavior – Dependent Personality Disorder. been deeply ingrained in his personality. She, thus,concluded that Rodolfo was psychologically incapacitated to perform his marital A person afflicted with Dependent Personality Disorder cannot assume duties and responsibilities. the essential marital obligations of living together, observing love, respect and fidelity and rendering help and support, for he is unable to Rodolfo failed to appear and file an answer despite service of summons make everyday decisions without advice from others, allows others to on him. The City Prosecutor found no collusion between the parties. make most of his importantdecisions (such as where to live), tends to Based on the evidence presented by Marietta, the Regional Trial Court agree with people even when he believes they are wrong, has difficulty (RTC) declared the marriage void ab initio. doing things on his own, volunteers to do things that are demeaning in order to get approval from other people, feels uncomfortable or The Solicitor General appealed the RTC’s decision, arguing that the helpless when alone and is often preoccupied with fears of being psychiatric report was based solely on the information given by abandoned. (Te vs. Te, supra) Marietta, and there was no showing that the alleged psychological disorder was present at the start of the marriage or that it was grave, One who is unable to support himself, much less a wife; one who permanent and incurable.The Court of Appeals reversed the RTC’s cannot independently make decisions regarding even the most basic decision. Marietta, thus, brought the case to the Supreme Court on a matters that spouses face every day; and one who cannot contribute to petition for review on certiorari. the material, physical and emotional well-being of his spouse, is psychologically incapacitated to comply with the marital obligations Issue: Whether or not Rodolfo is psychologically incapacitated to within the meaning of Article 36 of the Family Code. justify a declaration that his marriage to Marrieta is void ab initio under Article 36 of the Family Code. This is not to say, however, that anyone diagnosed with Dependent Personality Disorder is automatically deemed psychologically Held: Rodolfo was psychologically incapacitated to perform his marital incapacitated to perform his/her marital obligations. The court must duties because of his Dependent Personality Disorder. His marriage to evaluate the facts, as guided by expert opinion, and carefully examine Marietta was declared void ab initio. the type of disorder and the gravity thereof before declaring the nullity of a marriage under Article 36. Marietta sufficiently discharged her burden to prove her husband’s psychological incapacity. As held in Marcos vs. Marcos [397 Phil. 840 Finally, it has been established that Rodolfo’s condition is incurable, (2000)], there is no requirement that the respondent spouse should be having been deeply personally examined by a physician or psychologist as a condition sine ingrained in his system since his early years qua non for the declaration of nullity of marriage based on psychological incapacity. What matters is whether the totality of evidence presented is adequate to sustain a finding of psychological incapacity. Marietta’s testimony was corroborated in material points by Rodolfo’s close relative, and supported by the psychiatrist’s testimony linking the manifestations of Rodolfo’s psychological incapacity and the psychological disorder itself. It is a settled principle of civil procedure that the conclusions of the trial court regarding the credibility of witnesses are entitled to great respect from the appellate courts because the trial court had an opportunity to observe the
United States v. Joseph Dipalermo, A/K/A "Joe Beck", Salvatore Lombardi, A/K/A "Herman", George Gillette and Alan Kassebaum, 606 F.2d 17, 2d Cir. (1979)
Letter to the FBI, US Attorney, NMAGO and NM Auditor regarding the hiring by Governor Susana Martinez of several family members of Ruben Maynes one of the state police that accompanied Chuck Franco to Louisiana