To declare a marriage void on the ground of psychological incapacity of one of the spouses, the totality of the evidence must prove that the incapacity is mental, not physical, which causes a party to be truly incapable of recognizing and fulfilling the basic marital covenants. It must be characterized by gravity, juridical antecedence and incurability. This is explained and illustrated in this case of Andy and Mely.
Andy met Mely when Mely was still the girlfriend of Andy’s friend. After some time Mely and her boyfriend broke up so that she could become Andy’s girlfriend. After developing a strong sense of sexual desire and physical attraction towards each other, they became sweethearts and got married civilly. The couple initially lived in the city but later on transferred to several places because of the aggressive behavior of Mely.
As they lived together, Mely kept herself occupied by gossiping and reading comic books. Andy asked her to limit gossiping with their neighbors, but Mely got mad and told him that there was nothing much to do in their house.
Despite their marital problems, the couple eventually had their church wedding, when Mely was already five months pregnant. But Mely’s behavior did not change even after the wedding. She continued to gossip and pick fights with their neighbors. She showed not only aggressive behavior but infidelity, especially when Gardo, a neighbor, became close to them and Andy found out about his affair with Mely. Andy forgave Mely but the latter showed no remorse. Gardo later on revealed to Andy that their twin children were not really Andy’s children but his. Andy then recalled one incident between him and Mely wherein the latter told him “Hindi mo anak yan” as she got mad because Andy spanked one of their children.
Thereafter, Mely had another affair with another neighbor, Willy. One time Andy even discovered Willy hiding under their marital bed and wearing his pants only. Then Andy left their conjugal home when Mely got mad and threw a knife at him after he asked Mely to check the pressure cooker and it exploded.
So, Andy secured his own psychological assessment and that of Mely by Dr. Rolly Lopez. The results showed that Andy possesses an emotionally disturbed personality but not severe enough to constitute psychological incapacity. On the other hand, the examination of Mely showed that she is suffering from “borderline Personality disorder” with “histrionic disorder features.” These findings were based on the interview of Andy and their friends Elsa and Miko.
Based on these findings, Andy filed a petition for declaration of nullity of their marriage because of Mely’s psychological incapacity pursuant to Article 36 of the Family Code.
After trial where Andy testified and narrated the above incidents in their married life, and Dr. Lopez submitted his psychological evaluation of Andy and Mely, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) denied the petition because the totality of the evidence presented did not exhibit Mely’s psychological incapacity as there was no showing that her traits were already present at the inception of marriage or that they were incurable.
On appeal to the Court of Appeals (CA) by Andy, the CA reversed and set aside the RTC decision. The CA ruled that Mely’s attitude of being “mabunganga” and having relationships with other men, coupled with the diagnosis of Dr. Lopez, showed that she is psychologically incapacitated to fulfill her marital obligations to Andy. Was the CA correct?
The Supreme Court said no. The assessment of Dr. Lopez cannot be accepted as credible as there was no other evidence which established the juridical antecedence, gravity and incurability of Mely’s alleged incapacity. The report itself cited the testimonies of Andy and their friends Elsa and Miko as bases of the findings. While Miko and Elsa are friends of the couple for more or less 30 years, the same does not show that they have known Mely longer than such period of time so as to have personal knowledge of her circumstances.
Neither was it known that Andy himself likewise had personal knowledge of Mely’s family background. Thus they could not have known Mely’s childhood life nor how she was raised.
Likewise, Mely’s sexual infidelity is not a satisfactory proof of her psychological incapacity. It must be shown that the acts of unfaithfulness are manifestation of a disordered personality which makes her completely unable to discharge the essential obligations of marriage.
Psychological incapacity must be more than just a “difficulty,” “refusal” or “neglect” in the performance of the marital obligations. It is not enough that a party failed to meet the responsibility and duty of a married person. Being “mabunganga” and having extramarital affairs are not sufficient indicators of a psychological disorder.
Hence the CA decision is reversed and set aside and the petition of Andy for declaration of nullity of their marriage is dismissed for lack of merit (Republic vs. Calingo et; al, G.R. 212717, March 11, 2020).