Clear and convincing evidence

This is another case of declaration of nullity of marriage due to the psychological incapacity of a spouse to perform the essential marital obligations (Article 36, Family Code). This is the case of the couple Annie and Jerry.

Annie met Jerry about 22 years ago through text messaging. They learned that they have common friends and had met before at a party. Eventually, they started dating and got romantically involved, until Annie gave birth to a child named Jun.

Despite the objection of Annie’s parents, the couple got married two years after they first met. Thereafter they lived with Jerry’s parents in the province, where Annie started to notice that Jerry would often go out with his friends until the wee hours of the morning and would wake up around noon-time because he was still jobless and relied solely on the support of his parents, who owned a sari-sari store.

About six months after their marriage, Annie decided to go back to school and studied Mass Communication, which she finished with distinction. On the other hand, Jerry finished culinary arts and got a job as a cook. But after only two weeks, he quit his job because he was able to get a two-year contract abroad. However, after only about three months, he also quit his job and returned to the Philippines, where he continued to live a carefree life. His drinking habit worsened as he always got drunk and would force Annie to have sex with him, making her feel like she was being raped.

Jerry also became increasingly aggressive towards Annie. Both continued to depend on Jerry’s parents because Jerry refused to work elsewhere, since he said his parents would not let them go hungry.

Eventually Annie decided to leave Jerry – but she left their son with Jerry’s parents – to work in Manila and later on went to Singapore. Her efforts to reconcile with Jerry became futile as she learned that he had a child with another woman.

Due to the foregoing incidents in their married life, Annie filed a petition for declaration of nullity of her marriage to Jerry under Article 36 of the Family Code before the Regional Trial Court.

In addition to Annie’s testimony on the foregoing episodes in their married life, her mother (Nena) and clinical psychologist Dr. Tamayo also testified.

Nena testified that she was against and did not like the marriage of her daughter to Jerry because both of them were still studying during that time. She also described Jerry as an irresponsible husband and father as he relied too much on his parents.

On the other hand, Dr. Tamayo testified that she was able to conduct a series of psychological evaluation on both Annie and Jerry and that, based on her observations and the results of the tests which she administered on them, she found Jerry to be suffering from antisocial personality disorder which she described as a pervasive pattern of disregard for and violation of the rights of others as shown by impulsivity, irresponsible attitude and lack of regard for others, short sightedness, incautioness and impudence. He failed to plan for himself and his family and did not consider alternatives or consequences. He was untrustworthy and unreliable as he failed to meet personal obligations of a marital, parental, occupational and financial nature.

According to Dr. Tamayo, Jerry’s condition has been ingrained in his personality since childhood. She described Jerry’s psychological incapacity as grave and incurable by any form of treatment so she recommended that Annie and Jerry’s marriage be declared null and void from the very beginning.

The RTC gave credence mainly to this psychiatric report and thus rendered a decision declaring the marriage of Annie and Jerry as null and void from the very beginning.

On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) reverse this decision and ruled that the totality of evidence failed to establish the gravity of Jerry’s psychological incapacity pursuant to Article 36 of the FC, declaring that Jerry’s acts are not demonstrative of an utter incapacity or inability to perform his marital obligations. His penchant for drinking, sexual aggression and extra-marital affairs do not by themselves warrant a finding psychological incapacity.

The Supreme Court (SC), however, reversed and set aside the CA decision and reinstated the RTC ruling. According to the SC, the three witnesses presented in the RTC testified as regards Jerry’s psychological incapacity, which can be characterized as grave. Annie categorically stated that early in their married life, she began to notice her husband’s attachment with his friends, as he would often go out with them until the wee hours of the morning. Despite being a married man and with Annie pregnant, Jerry was jobless and would wake up at noontime. They relied solely on the support of Jerry’s parents. Annie thought that fatherhood might change her husband’s attitude. But he continued his carefree life and his drinking habit worsened, forcing Annie to have sex with him.

Annie’s mother Nena also described Jerry as an irresponsible husband and father who depended on his parents. Dr. Tamayo also testified that Jerry disorder was seen in, (1) his short sightedness, incautioness impudence, (2) he is untrustworthy, unreliable and fails to meet or intentionally neglects his personal obligations of marital parental occupational or financial matters, (3) he is disdainful of traditional ideals, fails to conform to social  norms and is contemptuous of conventional values and (4) he is insensitive, irritable and aggressive as expressed in his wide ranging deficit in social charitableness, compassion and remorse.

All told, Annie was able to prove by clear and convincing evidence that Jerry was psychologically incapable to perform the essential marital obligations. This the ruling in the case of Claudine Monette Baldovino-Torres vs Jasper Torres, G.R No. 248675, July 20, 2022.