Case Digest: Marable vs. Marable
G.R. No. 178741: January 17,2011
ROSALINO L. MARABLE, Petitioner, vs. MYRNA F. MARABLE, Respondent.
VILLARAMA, JR., J:
FACTS: Petitioner seeks the declaration of nullity of his marriage with respondent based on his psychological incapacity. The marriage between petitioner and respondent was at first smooth, but turned sour shortly after they got married. They fought frequently, which got worse when their business ventures were failing and had financial trouble. Another factor that lead to the escalation of their bickering was that their children were spoiled by petitioner, and that such made the children unsociable. Petitioner eventually had a short-lived affair with another woman, which lead to even more fighting. Petitioner eventually left respondent, and filed for a declaration of nullity of marriage due to psychological incapacity. In court, petitioner presented the findings of a specialist, who declared petitioner was psychologically incapacitated to fulfill his marriage obligations. The specialist said that petitioner exhibited "antisocial behavior disorder" which made petitioner seek too much attention to himself, and thus making him incapable of complying with his marriage obligations. It was stated that petitioner had a father who was a womanizer, which lead petitioner to develop feelings of insecurity and need for attention.
The trial court found such sufficient to declare the marriage of petitioner void. The Court of Appeals, however, reversed said decision. It ruled that petitioner failed to substantiate his incapacity, to show that the problem is incurable, and that it is rooted in a psychological problem present upon the marriage.
ISSUE: Whether or not petitioner is psychologically incapacitated to perform his marriage obligations.
HELD: Petition is without merit.
Civil Law: It is the burden of the party asserting the incapacity to show that said disorder is rooted in a psychological problem and existed during the celebration of the marriage. In the case at bar, petitioner failed to establish such. All the specialist did is to make general assumptions that petitioner indeed has antisocial personality disorder. There are no factual bases to support such a conclusion. In fact, the events leading to the filing of the suit says otherwise. The marriage between the petitioner and respondent did have good moments. The petitioner is also a doting father to his children, to the point of spoiling them even. This shows that petitioner is not the self-centered attention seeker he is claiming to be. Even his history with his womanizing father does not completely substantiate his claim. It can be seen that it was the general dissatisfaction with his marriage that made him seek comfort elsewhere. Hence, the petition to declare the marriage void for psychological incapacity must be denied.
ROSALINO L. MARABLE, Petitioner, vs. MYRNA F. MARABLE, Respondent.
VILLARAMA, JR., J:
FACTS: Petitioner seeks the declaration of nullity of his marriage with respondent based on his psychological incapacity. The marriage between petitioner and respondent was at first smooth, but turned sour shortly after they got married. They fought frequently, which got worse when their business ventures were failing and had financial trouble. Another factor that lead to the escalation of their bickering was that their children were spoiled by petitioner, and that such made the children unsociable. Petitioner eventually had a short-lived affair with another woman, which lead to even more fighting. Petitioner eventually left respondent, and filed for a declaration of nullity of marriage due to psychological incapacity. In court, petitioner presented the findings of a specialist, who declared petitioner was psychologically incapacitated to fulfill his marriage obligations. The specialist said that petitioner exhibited "antisocial behavior disorder" which made petitioner seek too much attention to himself, and thus making him incapable of complying with his marriage obligations. It was stated that petitioner had a father who was a womanizer, which lead petitioner to develop feelings of insecurity and need for attention.
The trial court found such sufficient to declare the marriage of petitioner void. The Court of Appeals, however, reversed said decision. It ruled that petitioner failed to substantiate his incapacity, to show that the problem is incurable, and that it is rooted in a psychological problem present upon the marriage.
ISSUE: Whether or not petitioner is psychologically incapacitated to perform his marriage obligations.
HELD: Petition is without merit.
Civil Law: It is the burden of the party asserting the incapacity to show that said disorder is rooted in a psychological problem and existed during the celebration of the marriage. In the case at bar, petitioner failed to establish such. All the specialist did is to make general assumptions that petitioner indeed has antisocial personality disorder. There are no factual bases to support such a conclusion. In fact, the events leading to the filing of the suit says otherwise. The marriage between the petitioner and respondent did have good moments. The petitioner is also a doting father to his children, to the point of spoiling them even. This shows that petitioner is not the self-centered attention seeker he is claiming to be. Even his history with his womanizing father does not completely substantiate his claim. It can be seen that it was the general dissatisfaction with his marriage that made him seek comfort elsewhere. Hence, the petition to declare the marriage void for psychological incapacity must be denied.
