Un-rebutted presumption

The presumption is always on the validity of marriage. This is the principle applied in this case of Mario and Menchu.

Mario and Menchu first met in 1972 while they were classmates. At that time Menchu was already aware that Mario used to drink and gamble occasionally. Nevertheless, the two fell in love and were wed on July 26, 1975 when Menchu was already pregnant with their first child. They first resided in Mario’s family home where their first child was born on December 9, 1975. When their second child was born on August 25, 1977, the couple decided to move to Menchu’s family home in the city where Menchu worked as the treasurer of the hospital owned by her family.

After Mario passed the medical board examinations and took and completed the residency program as an anesthesiologist, he began working in the hospital of Menchu’s family. But Mario still continued to drink and would go home at midnight or sometimes in the wee hours of the morning drunk and violent. He would confront and insult Menchu, physically assault her and force her to have sex with him. Mario’s drinking habit and violent nature affected not only his family relationship but also his profession because they perceived him to be unreliable.

Aside from drinking, Mario also continued with his compulsive gambling habit, as a result of which he even found it necessary to sell the family car twice, the property he inherited from his father and some of Menchu’s jewelries because of lack of money to pay his gambling debts. He likewise failed to give regular financial support to his growing family of six children.

On October 21, 1993, after being married for more than 18 years and when their youngest child was only two years old, Menchu filed a verified petition in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) praying for the declaration of nullity of her marriage to Mario based on Article 36 of the Family Code. She claimed that Mario suffered from psychological incapacity even at the time of the celebration of their marriage, which, however, only became manifest thereafter.

In support of her petition, Menchu testified on Mario’s drinking and gambling habits and violent behavior which was corroborated by the nanny of their children who said that she personally witnessed instances when Mario maltreated Menchu even in front of their children. Menchu also presented Dra. Perez, a psychiatrist who evaluated Mario based only on the transcript of stenographic notes of his deposition taken in South Africa where Mario had already gone to work as an anesthesiologist. Dra. Perez concluded that Mario’s compulsive drinking and gambling and physical abuse of Menchu are clear indications that he suffers from a personality disorder.

Mario opposed the petition and denied being psychologically incapacitated. He maintained that he is a respectable person as his peers would confirm. He also denied being a violent person and would drink and gamble only for social reasons and for leisure. His failure to support his family was due to the fact that it was Menchu herself who would collect his professional fees from their hospital. To refute Dra. Perez’s opinion, Mario presented Dr. Prado, a consultant of the Department of Psychiatry in another hospital. Dr. Prado evaluated Mario’s behavior based on the same transcripts as well as on the psychiatric evaluation report prepared by a psychiatrist in South Africa and the interview of Mario’s brothers. Contrary to Dra. Perez’s findings, Dr. Prado observed there is nothing wrong with Mario’s personality, considering his good relationship with his fellow doctors and his good track record as an anesthesiologist.

On January 9, 1994, the RTC rendered a decision declaring the marriage between Mario and Menchu null and void giving more credence to Dra. Perez’s report. This was eventually affirmed by the Court of Appeals (CA). Were the RTC and the CA correct?

No. The intendment of the law has been to confine the application of Article 36 to the most serious cases of personality disorders clearly demonstrative of an utter insensitivity or inability to give meaning and significance to the marriage. The psychological illness that must have afflicted a party at the inception of marriage should be a malady so grave and permanent as to deprive one of awareness of the duties and responsibilities of the matrimonial bond he or she is about to assume.

In this case Menchu failed to prove that Mario’s “defects” were present at the time of the celebration of marriage. She merely cited that prior to their marriage she already knew that Mario would occasionally drink and gamble with his friends; but such statement by itself, is insufficient to prove any pre-existing psychological defect on the part of her husband. Neither did the evidence adduced prove such defects to be incurable.

The opinions provided by the experts did not strengthen Menchu’s allegation of psychological incapacity. The two experts presented diametrically contradicting evaluations: Dra. Perez testified that Mario’s behavior is a positive indication of a personality disorder while Dr. Prado maintained that there is nothing wrong with Mario’s personality. Moreover there seems to be greater weight in Dr. Prado’s opinion because aside from analyzing the transcript of Mario’s deposition similar to what Dra. Perez did, Dr. Prado also took into consideration the psychological evaluation report submitted by the South African doctor who personally examined Mario as well as his personal interviews with Mario’s brothers. Logically therefore the balance tilts in favor of Dr. Prado’s findings.

Thus the presumption of the validity of the marriage has not been amply rebutted in this case and must, perforce, prevail (Ting vs. Ting G.R. 166562, March 31, 2009).

*      *      *

Note: Books containing compilation of my articles on Labor Law and Criminal Law (Vols. I and II) are now available. Call tel. 7249445.

*      *      *

E-mail at: [email protected].