805 Phil. 209
PERALTA, J.:
x x x xIn a Decision[9] dated January 20, 2012, the RTC in Civil Case No. 4853-11 declared the marriage between Mirasol and Felipe null and void. The dispositive portion of the decision states:
The personality disorder speaks of antecedence as it has an early onset, with an enduring pattern and behavior that deviates markedly from the expectations of the individual's culture. His poor parental and family molding (particularly lack of parental parenting) caused him to have a defective superego and he proved to be selfish, immature and negligent person and followed a pattern of gross irresponsibility and gross disregard of the feelings of his partner/wife disregarding the marriage contract and the commitment he agreed on during the wedding. In other words, the root cause of respondent's flawed personality pattern can be in childhood milieu. Respondent's familial constellation, unreliable parenting style from significant figures around him, and unfavorable childhood experiences have greatly affected his perceptions of himself and his environment in general. The respondent did not grow up mature enough to cope with his obligations and responsibilities as married man and father.
It also speaks of gravity as he was not able to carry out the normative and ordinary duties of marriage and family, shouldered by any married man, existing in ordinary circumstances. He just cannot perform his duties and obligations as a husband, as he entered into marriage for his own self-satisfaction and gratification, manipulate and denigrate the petitioner for his own pleasures and satisfaction. In the process, respondent was unable to assume his marital duties and responsibilities to his wife. He failed to render mutual help and support (Article 68, FC).
Additionally, it also speaks of incurability, as respondent has no psychological insight that he has a character problem. He would not acknowledge the pain he caused to people around him. People suffering from this personality disorder are unmotivated to treatment and impervious to recovery. There are no medications and laboratory examinations to be taken for maladaptive behavior such as the NPD (Narcissistic Personality Disorder).
Otherwise stated, his personality disorder is chronic and pervasive affecting many aspects of his life, such as social functioning and close relationships. Apparently, he has failed to develop appropriate adjustment methods. He lacks the intrapersonal and interpersonal integration that caused him the failure to understand the very nature of that sharing of life that is directed toward the solidarity and formation of family.
x x x x[8]
WHEREFORE, premises considered, Court hereby declares the marriage contract by the petitioner MIRASOL CASTILLO to the respondent FELIPE IMPAS on April 22, 1984 in Bani, Pangasinan to be NULL AND VOID AB INITIO.On February 22, 2012, the Republic of the Philippines, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), filed a motion for reconsideration, which the RTC denied in an Order[11] dated April 3, 2012.
ACCORDINGLY, pursuant to the provisions of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC, the Clerk of Court is directed to enter this judgment upon its finality in the Book of Entry of Judgment and to issue the corresponding Entry of Judgment. Thereupon, the Office of the Civil Registrars in Bani, Pangasinan and Imus, Cavite, are also mandated to cause the registration of the said ENTRY OF JUDGMENT in their respective Book of Marriages.
Likewise, furnish the petitioner and the counsel of the petitioner, the respondent, the Solicitor General, 3rd Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Oscar R. Jarlos and the Civil Registrar General with copies hereof.
Upon compliance, the Court shall forthwith issue the DECREE OF NULLITY OF MARRIAGE.
SO ORDERED.[10]
x x x xUpon the denial of her motion for reconsideration, Mirasol elevated the case before this Court raising the issue, thus:
Based on the records, it appears more likely that Felipe became unfaithful as a result of unknown factors that happened during the marriage and not because of his family background. His tendency to womanize was not shown to be due to causes of a psychological nature that are grave, permanent and incurable. In fact, it was only after thirteen (13) years of marriage that he started to engage in extra-marital affairs. In the complaint filed by Mirasol, she said that after they got married, their relationship as husband and wife went smoothly and that she was of the belief that she had a marriage made in heaven.
In short, Felipe's marital infidelity does not appear to be symptomatic of a grave psychological disorder which rendered him incapable of performing his spousal obligations. Sexual infidelity, by itself, is not sufficient proof that petitioner is suffering from psychological incapacity. It must be shown that the acts of unfaithfulness are manifestations of a disordered personality which make him completely unable to discharge the essential obligations of marriage. Since that situation does not obtain in the case, Mirasol's claim of psychological incapacity must fail. Psychological incapacity must be more than just a "difficulty," "refusal" or "neglect" in the performance of some marital obligations. Rather, it is essential that the concerned party was incapable of doing so, due to some psychological illness existing at the time of the celebration of the marriage.
In fine, given the insufficiency of the evidence proving the psychological incapacity of Felipe, We cannot but rule in favor of the existence and continuation of the marriage and against its dissolution and nullity.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The Decision dated January 20, 2012 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
SO ORDERED.[13]
[Petitioner] was able to establish that respondent is suffering from grave psychological condition that rendered him incognitive of his marital covenants under Article 36 of the Family Code.Basically, the issue to be resolved by this Court is whether or not the totality of evidence presented warrants, as the RTC determined, the declaration of nullity of the marriage of Mirasol and Felipe on the ground of the latter's psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code.
x x x xThe existence or absence of the psychological incapacity shall be based strictly on the facts of each case and not on a priori assumptions, predilections or generalizations.[20]
(1) The burden of proof to:show the nullity of the marriage belongs to the plaintiff. Any doubt should be resolved an favor of the existence and continuation of the marriage and against its dissolution and nullity. x x x
(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. x x x
(3) The incapacity must be proven to be existing at "the time of the celebration" of the marriage. x x x
(4) Such incapacity must also be shown to be medically or clinically permanent or incurable. Such incurability may be absolute or even relative only in regard to the other spouse, not necessarily absolutely against everyone of the same sex. x x x
(5) Such illness must be grave enough to bring about the disability of the party to assume the essential obligations of marriage. x x x In other words, there is a natal or supervening disabling factor in the person, an adverse integral element in the personality structure that effectively incapacitates the person from really accepting and thereby complying with the obligations essential to 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. x x x
(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. x x x
(8) The trial court must order the prosecuting attorney or fiscal and the Solicitor General to appear as counsel for the state. x x x
x x x[19]
By the very nature of cases involving the application of Article 36, it is logical and understandable to give weight to the expert opinions furnished by psychologists regarding the psychological temperament of parties in order to determine the root cause, juridical antecedence, gravity and incurability of the psychological incapacity. However, such opinions, while highly advisable, are not conditions sine qua non in granting petitions for declaration of nullity of marriage. At best, courts must treat such opinions as decisive but not indispensable evidence in determining the merits of a given case. In fact, if the totality of evidence presented is enough to sustain a finding of psychological incapacity, then actual medical or psychological examination of the person concerned need not be resorted to. The trial court, as in any other given case presented before it, must always base its decision not solely on the expert opinions furnished by the parties but also on the totality of evidence adduced in the course of the proceedings.[22]The presentation of any form of medical or psychological evidence to show the psychological incapacity, however, did not mean that the same would have automatically ensured the granting of the petition for declaration of nullity of marriage. It bears repeating that the trial courts, as in all the other cases they try, must always base their judgments not solely on the expert opinions presented by the parties but on the totality of evidence adduced in the course of their proceedings.[23]
ATTY. BAYAUA:The RTC noticeably relied heavily on the result of the psychological evaluation by Montefalcon. A perusal of the RTC's decision would reveal that there was no assessment of the veracity of such allegations, the credibility of the witnesses, and the weight of the pieces of evidence presented. Also, there were no factual findings which can serve as bases for its conclusion of Felipe's psychological incapacity.
Question: Were you able to interview and conduct examination on the respondent?
Answer: No, sir.
Question: [W]here did you base your conclusion that supported your findings that the husband of Mirasol is psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential obligations of marriage?
Answer: From the interviews I had with the petitioner and also from my interview of the couple's common friend who validated all information given to me by the petitioner.
Question: You mean to say you were not able to interview the respondent?
Answer: No sir. But I sent him an invitation to undergo the same psychological evaluation I administered with the petitioner but he did not respond to my invitation.
Question: [W]hat relevant information were you able to gather from your interview of the friend of the couple?
Answer: She validated every piece of information relayed to me by the petitioner during the interview.
x x x x
Question: Madam witness, were you able to determine at what point in time in the life of the respondent did he acquire this disorder that you mentioned?
Answer: The disorder of the respondent already existed even at the time of celebration of their marriage, although the incapacity became manifest only after their marriage. His disorder seemed to have started during the early years of his life.
Question: In your expert opinion, what would be the likely source of the disorder of the respondent?
Answer: The disorder of the respondent seemed to have developed during the early years of his life due to his poor parental and family [molding] particularly lack of parental guidance. [His] parents separated when he was still young and when [his] mother had another affair and lived with her common-law husband. Respondent's familial constellation and [unfavorable] childhood experiences have greatly affected his perceptions of himself and his environment. Respondent did not grow up mature enough to cope with his obligations and responsibilities as a married man and father.
x x x[24]
Irreconcilable differences, sexual infidelity or perversion, emotional immaturity and irresponsibility and the like, do not by themselves warrant a finding of psychological incapacity under Article 36, as the same may only be due to a person's refusal or unwillingness to assume the essential obligations of marriage.[33] In order for sexual infidelity to constitute as psychological incapacity, the respondent's unfaithfulness must be established as a manifestation of a disordered personality, completely preventing the respondent from discharging the essential obligations of the marital state; there must be proof of a natal or supervening disabling factor that effectively incapacitated him from complying with the obligation to be faithful to his spouse.[34] It is indispensable that the evidence must show a link, medical or the like, between the acts that manifest psychological incapacity and the psychological disorder itself.[35]
x x x x Question: You said Madam Witness that after several months you and respondent became sweethearts, what happened next Madam Witness? Answer: Sir, while we were already sweethearts, I got dismayed when respondent was also maintaining another woman who was his former girlfriend. Question: What was the reaction of the respondent when you told him about his relation with his former girlfriend? Answer: Respondent was shocked and became moody Sir. This turned our relationship sour and it led to being stormy. Question: You said Madam Witness that you and respondent's relationship became sour and stormy, what happened next, if any? Answer: Sir, my relationship with respondent should have been ended had it not been with the timely intervention of our parents. Respondent and I reconciled.x x x x Question: Madam Witness as you said you finally got married with the respondent as evidenced in fact by a Marriage Certificate. What happened next after the marriage? Answer: After our wedding, our relationship as husband and wife went on smoothly. I was of the belief that my marriage was made in heaven and that respondent had already reformed his ways and had completely deviated from his relationship with his ex-girlfriend;x x x[30] Question: After giving birth to your first child did respondent change or become responsible considering that he is already a father? Answer: No, Sir. I thought that having our first child would already change the ways of respondent. The birth of our first child did not actually help improve respondent's ways because respondent is really a man who is not contented with one woman even before we got married;x x x[31] Question: After you gave birth to you[r] second child what happened next Madam Witness? Answer: Sir, after thirteen (13) years of marriage, respondent is back to his old habit where he has been seen having relationship with a different woman. This was also seen by our relatives and friends of respondent.x x x[32]
As discussed, the findings on Felipe's personality profile did not emanate from a personal interview with the subject himself. Apart from the psychologist's opinion and petitioner's allegations, no other reliable evidence was cited to prove that Felipe's sexual infidelity was a manifestation of his alleged personality disorder, which is grave, deeply rooted, and incurable. We are not persuaded that the natal or supervening disabling factor which effectively incapacitated him from complying with his obligation to be faithful to his wife was medically or clinically established.I disagree. Mirasol has sufficiently proven that Felipe is psychologically incapacitated. The totality of evidence confirms that Felipe's marital infidelity is a manifestation of a grave psychological order, which renders him incapable of fulfilling his essential marital obligations.
Basic is the rule that bare allegations, unsubstantiated by evidence, are not equivalent to proof, i.e., mere allegations are not evidence. Based on the records, this Court finds that there exists insufficient factual or legal basis to conclude that Felipe's sexual infidelity and irresponsibility can be equated with psychological incapacity as contemplated by law. We reiterate that there was no other evidence adduced. Aside from the psychologist, petitioner did not present other witnesses to substantiate her allegations on Felipe's infidelity notwithstanding the fact that she claimed that their relatives saw him with other women. Her testimony, therefore, is considered self-serving and had no serious evidentiary value.
In sum, this Court finds no cogent reason to reverse the ruling of the [Court of Appeals] against the dissolution and nullity of the parties' marriage due to insufficiency of the evidence presented. The policy of the State is to protect and strengthen the family as the basic social institution and marriage is the foundation of the family. Thus, any doubt should be resolved in favor of validity of the marriage.[10] (Citations omitted)
The personality disorder speaks of antecedence as it has an early onset, with an enduring pattern and behavior that deviates markedly from the expectations of the individual's culture. His poor parental and family molding (particularly lack of parental parenting) caused him to have a defective superego and he proved to be [a] selfish, immature and negligent person and followed a pattern of gross irresponsibility and gross disregard of the feelings of his partner/wife[,] disregarding the marriage contract and the commitment he agreed on [sic] during the wedding. In other words, the root cause of respondent's flawed personality pattern can be in childhood milieu. Respondent's familial constellation, unreliable parenting style from significant figures around him, and unfavorable childhood experiences have greatly affected his perceptions of himself and his environment in general. The respondent did not grow up mature enough to cope with his obligations and responsibilities as married man and father.Dr. Montefalcon's expert testimony was consistent with the undisputed facts evincing Felipe's incapability to fulfill his essential marital obligations to Mirasol.
It also speaks of gravity as he was not able to carry out the normative and ordinary duties of marriage and family, shouldered by any married man, existing in ordinary circumstances. He just cannot perform his duties and obligations as a husband, as he entered into marriage for his own self-satisfaction and gratification, manipulate[d] and denigrate[d] the petitioner for his own pleasures and satisfaction. In the process, respondent was unable to assume his marital duties and responsibilities to his wife. He failed to render mutual help and support.
Additionally, it also speaks of incurability, as respondent has no psychological insight that he has a character problem. He would not acknowledge the pain he caused to people around him. People suffering from this personality disorder are unmotivated to treatment and impervious to recovery. There are no medications and laboratory examinations to be taken for maladaptive behavior such as the NPD (Narcissistic Personality Disorder).
Otherwise stated, his personality disorder is chronic and pervasive[,] affecting many aspects of his life, such as social functioning and close relationships. Apparently, he has failed to develop appropriate adjustment methods. He lacks the intrapersonal and interpersonal integration that caused him the failure to understand the very nature of that sharing of life that is directed toward the solidarity and formation of family.[20] (Emphasis supplied)
Article 68. The husband and wife are obliged to live together, observe mutual love, respect and fidelity, and render mutual help and support.Contrary to the ponencia, the trial court did not "heavily rel[y] on the result" of Dr. Montefalcon's evaluation report, which allegedly lacked "factual findings which can serve as bases" for concluding that Felipe is psychologically incapacitated.[26] The totality of evidence presented by Mirasol is more than enough to prove Felipe's psychological incapacity. Hence, Mirasol and Felipe's marriage is void under Article 36[27] of the Family Code.
. . . .
Article 220. The parents and those exercising parental authority shall have with respect to their unemancipated children or wards the following rights and duties:
(1) To keep them in their company, to support, educate and instruct them by right precept and good example, and to provide for their upbringing in keeping with their means; (2) To give them love and affection, advice and counsel, companionship and understanding; (3) To provide them with moral and spiritual guidance, inculcate in them honesty, integrity, self-discipline, self- reliance, industry and thrift, stimulate their interest in civic affairs, and inspire in them compliance with the duties of citizenship; (4) To enhance, protect, preserve and maintain their physical and mental health at all times; (5) To furnish them with good and wholesome educational materials, supervise their activities, recreation and association with others, protect them from bad company, and prevent them from acquiring habits detrimental to their health, studies and morals; (6) To represent them in all matters affecting their interests; (7) To demand from them respect and obedience; (8) To impose discipline on them as may be required under the circumstances; and (9) To perform such other duties as are imposed by law upon parents and guardians.
The lack of personal examination and interview of the respondent, or any other person diagnosed with personality disorder, does not per se invalidate the testimonies of the doctors. Neither do their findings automatically constitute hearsay that would result in their exclusion as evidence.The interview conducted by Dr. Montefalcon with Mirasol to indirectly evaluate Felipe's psychological condition should not be set aside. Because of the intimate nature of marriage, Mirasol knows best whether Felipe has fulfilled his marital obligations as well as his responsibilities to his children.
For one, marriage, by its very definition, necessarily involves only two persons. The totality of the behavior of one spouse during the cohabitation and marriage is generally and genuinely witnessed mainly by the other. In this case, the experts testified on their individual assessment of the present state of the parties' marriage from the perception of one of the parties, herein petitioner. Certainly, petitioner, during their marriage, had occasion to interact with, and experience, respondent's pattern of behavior which she could then validly relay to the clinical psychologists and the psychiatrist.[29] (Emphasis supplied)
Article 36. A marriage contracted by any party who, at the time of the celebration, was psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential marital obligations of marriage, shall likewise be void even if such incapacity becomes manifest only after its solemnization.The term "psychological incapacity" was not explicitly defined in the Family Code.[36] The Family Code Revision Committee intended not to give examples for fear that it "would limit the applicability of the provision under the principle of ejusdem generis."[37] The Committee also decided to accept the provision "with less specificity than expected" for the law to allow "some resiliency in its application."[38]
The action for declaration of nullity of the marriage under this Article shall prescribe in ten years after its celebration.
(a) gravity, i.e., it must be grave and serious such that the party would be incapable of carrying out the ordinary duties required in a marriage, (b) juridical antecedence, i.e., it must be rooted in the history of the party antedating the marriage, although the overt manifestations may emerge only after the marriage, and (c) incurability, i.e., it must be incurable, or even if it were otherwise, the cure would be beyond the means of the party involved.[45] (Emphasis in the original)The guidelines in interpreting Article 36 of the Family Code, as provided for in Republic v. Court of Appeals and Molina,[46] are reiterated and applied in this case. Thus:
(1) The burden of proof to show the nullity of the marriage belongs to the plaintiff. Any doubt should be resolved in favor of the existence and continuation of the marriage and against its dissolution and nullity. . . .Contrary to the supposed resilient application of Article 36, Ngo-Te v. Yu-te[48] compared the rigid guidelines in Molina to a "strait-jacket"[49] Thus:
. . . .
(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. Such incurability may be absolute or even relative only in regard to the other spouse, not necessarily absolutely against everyone of the same sex. . . .
(5) Such illness must be grave enough to bring about the disability of the party to assume the essential obligations of marriage. Thus, "mild cfiaracteriological peculiarities, mood changes, occasional emotional outbursts" cannot be accepted as root causes. The illness must be shown as downright incapacity or inability, not a refusal, neglect or difficulty, much less ill will. In other words, there is a natal or supervening disabling factor in the person, an adverse integral element in the personality structure that effectively incapacitates the person from really accepting and thereby complying with the obligations essential to 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. . . .
(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 trial court must order the prosecuting attorney or fiscal and the Solicitor General to appear as counsel for the state[.][47] (Emphasis in the original)
In hindsight, it may have been inappropriate for the Court to impose a rigid set of rules, as the one in Molina, in resolving all cases of psychological incapacity. Understandably, the Court was then alarmed by the deluge of petitions for the dissolution of marital bonds, and was sensitive to the OSG's exaggeration of Article 36 as the "most liberal divorce procedure in the world." The unintended consequences of Molina, however, has taken its toll on people who have to live with deviant behavior, moral insanity and sociopathic personality anomaly, which, like termites, consume little by little the very foundation of their families, our basic social institutions. Far from what was intended by the Court, Molina has become a strait-jacket, forcing all sizes to fit into and be bound by it. Wittingly or unwittingly, the Court, in conveniently applying Molina, has allowed diagnosed sociopaths, schizophrenics, nymphomaniacs, narcissists and the like, to continuously debase and pervert the sanctity of marriage. Ironically, the Roman Rota has annulled marriages on account of the personality disorders of the said individuals.[50] (Citations omitted)Likewise, Ngo-Te underscored that in dissolving marriages due to psychological incapacity, this Court is not destroying the foundation of families. Rather, it is protecting the sanctity of marriages:
In dissolving marital bonds on account of either party's psychological incapacity, the Court is not demolishing the foundation of families, but it is actually protecting the sanctity of marriage, because it refuses to allow a person afflicted with a psychological disorder, who cannot comply with or assume the essential marital obligations, from remaining in that sacred bond. It may be stressed that the infliction of physical violence, constitutional indolence or laziness, drug dependence or addiction, and psychosexual anomaly are manifestations of a sociopathic personality anomaly. Let it be noted that in Article 36, there is no marriage to speak of in the first place, as the same is void from the very beginning. To indulge in imagery, the declaration of nullity under Article 36 will simply provide a decent burial to a stillborn marriage.[51]Thus, Ngo-Te explicitly provides that it does not, in any way, propose the abandonment of the guidelines provided for under Molina.[52] It reiterates that the necessity to consider other perspectives in disposing cases under Article 36 exists.[53]
The foregoing guidelines [in Molina] have turned out to be rigid, such that their application to every instance practically condemned the petitions for declaration of nullity to the fate of certain rejection. But Article 36 of the Family Code must not be so strictly and too literally read and applied given the clear intendment of the drafters to adopt its enacted version of "less specificity" obviously to enable "some resiliency in its application." Instead, every court should approach the issue of nullity "not on the basis of a priori assumptions, predilections or generalizations, but according to its own facts" in recognition of the verity that no case would be on "all fours" with the next one in the field of psychological incapacity as a ground for the nullity of marriage; hence, every "trial judge must take pains in examining the factual milieu and the appellate court must, as much as possible, avoid substituting its own judgment for that of the trial court."[55]It is imperative upon this Court to annul the marriage between Mirasol and Felipe. Mirasol admitted that she was happy when she married Felipe.[56] Although she once discovered that Felipe had been keeping his affair with his former girlfriend, she had hopes that Felipe would reform from his old ways.[57] However, Felipe continued womanizing after Mirasol gave birth to their daughter.[58]
The effects of applying the rigid Article 36 guidelines does not negate the compassion that some of the Members of this Court may have for the parties. Still, it is time that this Court operate within the sphere of reality. The law is an instrument to provide succor. It is not a burden that unreasonably interferes with individual choices of intimate arrangements.I cannot join the majority's reading of the law as it condemns loveless married couples to a life of pain and suffering. The law should not be read as too callous or cruel that it forever condemns those who may have made very human errors in choosing those with whom they should be intimate. For the State to enforce this cruelty is the very antithesis of the freedoms embodied in many provisions of our Constitution.
The choice to stay in or leave a marriage is not for this Court, or the State, to make. The choice is given to the partners, with the Constitution providing that "[t]he right of spouses to found a family in accordance with their religious convictions and demands of responsible parenthood[.]" Counterintuitively, the State protects marriage if it allows those found to have psychological illnesses that render them incapable of complying with their marital obligations to leave the marriage. To force partners to stay in a loveless marriage, or a spouseless marriage as in this case, only erodes the foundation of a family.[60] (Emphasis supplied, citations omitted)