Republic v. De Gracia (G.R. No. 171557; February 12, 2014)
FACTS: Rodolfo and Natividad were married on February 15, 1969 at the Parish of St. Vincent Ferrer in Salug, Zamboanga del Norte.They lived in Dapaon, Sindangan, Zamboanga del Norte and have two (2) children, namely, Ma. Reynilda R. De Gracia (Ma. Reynilda) and Ma. Rizza R. De Gracia (Ma. Rizza), who were born on August 20, 1969 and January 15, 1972, respectively.
Rodolfo filed a verified complaint for declaration of nullity of marriage (complaint) before the RTC, alleging that Natividad was psychologically incapacitated to comply with her essential marital obligations.
In support of his complaint, Rodolfo testified, among others, that he first met Natividad when they were students and he was forced to marry her barely three (3) months into their courtship in light of her accidental pregnancy.At the time of their marriage, he was 21 years old, while Natividad was 18 years of age. He had no stable job and merely worked in the gambling cockpits as "kristo" and "bangkero sa hantak." When he decided to join and train with the army,Natividad left their conjugal home and sold their house without his consent. Thereafter, Natividad moved to Dipolog City where she lived with a certain Engineer Terez (Terez), and bore him a child named Julie Ann Terez. After cohabiting with Terez, Natividad contracted a second marriage with another man named Antonio Mondarez and has lived since then with the latter in Cagayan de Oro City.From the time Natividad abandoned them in 1972, Rodolfo was left to take care of Ma. Reynilda and Ma. Rizzaand he exerted earnest efforts to save their marriage which, however, proved futile because of Natividads psychological incapacity that appeared to be incurable.
Both parties underwent psychological examination. Dr. Zalsos stated that both Rodolfo and Natividad were psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential marital obligations, finding that both parties suffered from "utter emotional immaturity which is unusual and unacceptable behavior considered as deviant from persons who abide by established norms of conduct.
The OSG, representing petitioner Republic of the Philippines (Republic), filed an oppositionto the complaint, contending that the acts committed by Natividad did not demonstrate psychological incapacity as contemplated by law, but are mere grounds for legal separation under the Family Code.
The RTC declared the marriage between Rodolfo and Natividad void on the ground of psychological incapacity. Accordingly, it concluded that Natividad could not have known, much more comprehend the marital obligations she was assuming, or, knowing them, could not have given a valid assumption thereof.
The Republic appealed to the CA, averring that there was no showing that Natividads personality traits constituted psychological incapacity as envisaged under Article 36 of the Family Code, and that the testimony of the expert witness was not conclusive upon the court.
The CA affirmed the ruling of the RTC, finding that while Natividads emotional immaturity, irresponsibility and promiscuity by themselves do not necessarily equate to psychological incapacity, "their degree or severity, as duly testified to by Dr. Zalsos, has sufficiently established a case of psychological disorder so profound as to render Natividad incapacitated to perform her essential marital obligations."
The Republic moved for reconsideration which was, however, denied hence, the instant petition for review on certiorari.
ISSUE:
Did the CA err in sustaining the RTCs finding of psychological incapacity?
HELD: "Psychological incapacity," as a ground to nullify a marriage under Article 36of the Family Code, should refer to no less than a mental not merely physical incapacity that causes a party to be truly incognitive of the basic marital covenants that concomitantly must be assumed and discharged by the parties to the marriage which, as so expressed in Article 68of the Family Code, among others,include their mutual obligations to live together, observe love, respect and fidelity and render help and support. There is hardly any doubt that the intendment of the law has been to confine the meaning of "psychological incapacity" to the most serious cases of personality disorders clearly demonstrative of an utter insensitivity or inability to give meaning and significance to the marriage.
Keeping with these principles, the Court, in Dedel v. CA, 466 Phil. 226) held that therein respondents emotional immaturity and irresponsibility could not be equated with psychological incapacity as it was not shown that these acts are manifestations of a disordered personality which make her completely unable to discharge the essential marital obligations of the marital state, not merely due to her youth, immaturity or sexual promiscuity. Based on the evidence presented, there exists insufficient factual or legal basis to conclude that Natividads emotional immaturity, irresponsibility, or even sexual promiscuity, can be equated with psychological incapacity.
The RTC, as affirmed by the CA, heavily relied on the psychiatric evaluation report of Dr. Zalsos which does not, however, explain in reasonable detail how Natividads condition could be characterized as grave, deeply-rooted, and incurable within the parameters of psychological incapacity jurisprudence. Aside from failing to disclose the types of psychological tests which she administered on Natividad, Dr. Zalsos failed to identify in her report the root cause of Natividad's condition and to show that it existed at the time of the parties' marriage. Neither was the gravity or seriousness of Natividad's behavior in relation to her failure to perform the essential marital obligations sufficiently described in Dr. Zalsos's report. Further, the finding contained therein on the incurability of Natividad's condition remains unsupported by any factual or scientific basis and, hence, appears to be drawn out as a bare conclusion and even self-serving. In the same vein, Dr. Zalsos's testimony during trial, which is essentially a reiteration of her report, also fails to convince the Court of her conclusion that Natividad was psychologically incapacitated. Verily, although expert opinions furnished by psychologists regarding the psychological temperament of parties are usually given considerable weight by the courts, the existence of psychological incapacity must still be proven by independent evidence.After poring over the records, the Court, however, does not find any such evidence sufficient enough to uphold the court a quo's nullity declaration.
To the Court's mind, Natividad's refusal to live with Rodolfo and to assume her duties as wife and mother as well as her emotional immaturity, irresponsibility and infidelity do not rise to the level of psychological incapacity that would justify the nullification of the parties' marriage. Indeed, to be declared clinically or medically incurable is one thing; to refuse or be reluctant to perform one's duties is another. Psychological incapacity refers only to the most serious cases of personality disorders clearly demonstrative of an utter insensitivity or inability to give meaning and significance to the marriage. In the final analysis, the Court does not perceive a disorder of this nature to exist in the present case. Thus, for these reasons, coupled too with the recognition that marriage is an inviolable social institution and the foundation of the family.
GRANTED
