ROBERT F. MALLILIN, vs. LUZ G. JAMESOLAMIN and the REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES G.R. No. 192718 February 18, 2015

Case Digest

ROBERT F. MALLILIN, vs. LUZ G. JAMESOLAMIN and the REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES G.R. No. 192718 February 18, 2015

Facts: Robert and Luz were married on September 6, 1972. They begot three (3) children. On March 16, 1994, Robert filed a complaint for declaration of nullity of marriage before the RTC, Branch 23, Cagayan de Oro City (RTC-Br. 23). In the complaint, Robert alleged that at the time of the celebration of their marriage, Luz was suffering from psychological and mental incapacity and unpreparedness to enter into such marital life and to comply with its essential obligations and responsibilities. Such incapacity became even more apparent during their marriage when Luz exhibited clear manifestation of immaturity, irresponsibility, deficiency of independent rational judgment, and inability to cope with the heavy and oftentimes demanding obligation of a parent.

Luz filed her Answer with Counterclaim contesting the complaint. She averred that it was Robert who manifested psychological incapacity in their marriage. Despite due notice, however, she did not appear during the trial. Assistant City Prosecutor Isabelo Sabanal appeared for the State. When Robert testified, he disclosed that Luz was already living in California, USA, and had married an American. He also revealed that when they were still engaged, Luz continued seeing and dating another boyfriend, a certain Lt. Liwag. He also claimed that from the outset, Luz had been remiss in her duties both as a wife and as a mother as shown by the following circumstances: (1) it was he who did the cleaning of the room because Luz did not know how to keep order; (2) it was her mother who prepared their meal while her sister was the one who washed their clothes because she did not want her polished nails destroyed; (3) it was also her sister who took care of their children while she spent her time sleeping and looking at the mirror; (4) when she resumed her schooling, she dated different men; (5) he received anonymous letters reporting her loitering with male students; (6) when he was not home, she would receive male visitors; (7) a certain Romy Padua slept in their house when he was away; and (6) she would contract loans without his knowledge

In addition, Robert presented the testimony of Myrna Delos Reyes Villanueva (Villanueva), Guidance Psychologist II of Northern Mindanao Medical Center. 

On May 8, 2000, while the case was pending before the trial court, Robert filed a petition for marriage annulment with the Metropolitan Tribunal of First Instance for the Archdiocese of Manila (Metropolitan Tribunal). On October 10, 2002, the Metropolitan Tribunal handed down a decision declaring their marriage invalid ab initio on the ground of grave lack of due discretion on the part of both parties as contemplated by the second paragraph of Canon1095. This decision was affirmed by the National Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal (NAMT). 

Prior to that, on September 20, 2002,the RTC had rendered a decision declaring the marriage null and void on the ground of psychological incapacity on the part of Luz as she failed to comply with the essential marital obligations.

The CA, in its November 20, 2009 Decision,4 granted the petition and reversed the RTC decision. The decision, including the decretal portion, partially reads:

[W]e find that the trial court committed a reversible error. Closer scrutiny of the records reveals, as correctly noted by the Solicitor General, sexual infidelity are not rooted on some debilitating psychological condition but a mere refusal or unwillingness to assume the essential obligations of marriage. x x x.

x x x x

In the case at bar, apart from his self-serving declarations, the evidence adduced by Robert fell short of establishing the fact that at the time of their marriage, Luz was suffering from a psychological defect which in fact deprived [her] of the ability to assume the essential duties of marriage and its concomitant responsibilities.

x x x x

We commiserate with the plaintiff-appellee’s undeserved marital plight. Yet, Our paramount duty as a court compels Us to apply the law at all costs, however harsh it may be on whomsoever is called upon to bear its unbiased brunt.FOR THESE REASONS, the appealed Decision dated September 20, 2002 in Civil Case No. 94-178 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. No costs.

Issue: whether the totality of the evidence adduced proves that Luz was psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential obligations of marriage warranting the annulment of their marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code.

Held: The petition is bereft of merit.

A petition for declaration of nullity of marriage is anchored on Article 36 of the Family Code which provides:

Art. 36. A marriage contracted by any party who, at the time of the celebration, was psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential marital obligation of marriage, shall likewise be void even if such incapacity becomes manifest only after its solemnization. "Psychological incapacity," as a ground to nullify a marriage under Article 36 of 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 68 of 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 a 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.7

Psychological incapacity as required by Article 36 must be characterized by (a) gravity, (b) juridical antecedence and (c) incurability. The incapacity must be grave or serious such that the party would be incapable of carrying out the ordinary duties required in marriage. It must be rooted in the history of the party antedating the marriage, although the overt manifestations may only emerge after the marriage. It must be incurable or, even if it were otherwise, the cure would be beyond the means of the party involved.8

In Republic v. Court of Appeals and Eduardo C. De Quintos, Jr.,9 the Court reiterated the well-settled guidelines in resolving petitions for declaration of nullity of marriage, embodied in Republic v. Court of Appeals and Molina,10based on Article 36 of the Family Code. 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. x x x.

x 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. Article 36 of the Family Code requires that the incapacity must be psychological — not physical, although its manifestations and/or symptoms may be physical. x x x.

x x x x

(3) The incapacity must be proven to be existing at "the time of the celebration" of the marriage. x x x.

x x x x

(4) Such incapacity must also be shown to be medically or clinically permanent or incurable. x x x.

x 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. Thus, "mild characteriological peculiarities, mood changes, occasional emotional outbursts" cannot be accepted as root causes. x x x.

x x x x

(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. Such non-complied marital obligation(s) must also be stated in the petition, proven by evidence and included in the text of the decision.

(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.

Guided by these pronouncements, the Court is of the considered view that Robert’s evidence failed to establish the psychological incapacity of Luz.

First, the testimony of Robert failed to overcome the burden of proof to show the nullity of the marriage. Other than his self-serving testimony, no other evidence was adduced to show the alleged incapacity of Luz. He presented no other witnesses to corroborate his allegations on her behavior. Thus, his testimony was self-serving and had no serious value as evidence.

Second, the root cause of the alleged psychological incapacity of Luz was not medically or clinically identified, and sufficiently proven during the trial. Based on the records, Robert failed to prove that her disposition of not cleaning the room, preparing their meal, washing the clothes, and propensity for dating and receiving different male visitors, was grave, deeply rooted, and incurable within the parameters of jurisprudence on psychological incapacity.

The alleged failure of Luz to assume her duties as a wife and as a mother, as well as her emotional immaturity, irresponsibility and infidelity, cannot rise to the level of psychological incapacity that justifies the nullification of the parties' marriage. The Court has repeatedly stressed that psychological incapacity contemplates "downright incapacity or inability to take cognizance of and to assume the basic marital obligations," not merely the refusal, neglect or difficulty, much less ill will, on the part of the errant spouse.11 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.12

As correctly found by the CA, sexual infidelity or perversion and abandonment do not, by themselves, constitute grounds for declaring a marriage void based on psychological incapacity. Robert argues that the series of sexual indiscretion of Luz were external manifestations of the psychological defect that she was suffering within her person, which could be considered as nymphomania or "excessive sex hunger." Other than his allegations, however, no other convincing evidence was adduced to prove that these sexual indiscretions were considered as nymphomania, and that it was grave, deeply rooted, and incurable within the term of psychological incapacity embodied in Article 36. To stress, Robert’s testimony alone is insufficient to prove the existence of psychological incapacity.

Pertinently, Rule 132, Section 34 of the Rules of Evidence provides:

The court shall consider no evidence which has not been formally offered. The purpose of which the evidence is offered must be specified.

In this regard, the belated presentation of the decision of the NAMT cannot be given value since it was not offered during the trial, and the Court has in no way of ascertaining the evidence considered by the same tribunal.

Canon 1095. The following are incapable of contracting marriage:

1. those who lack sufficient use of reason;

2. those who suffer from a grave lack of discretion of judgment concerning the essential matrimonial rights and obligations to be mutually given and accepted;

3. those who, because of causes of a psychological nature, are unable to assume the essential obligations of marriage.

It must be pointed out that in this case, the basis of the declaration of nullity of marriage by the National Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal is not the third paragraph of Canon 1095 which mentions causes of a psychological nature, but the second paragraph of Canon 1095 which refers to those who suffer from a grave lack of discretion of judgment concerning essential matrimonial rights and obligations to be mutually given and accepted. For clarity, the pertinent portion of the decision of the National Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal reads:

The FACTS collated from party complainant and reliable witnesses which include a sister-in-law of Respondent (despite summons from the Court dated June 14, 1999, he did not appear before the Court, in effect waiving his right to be heard, hence, trial in absentia followed) corroborate and lead this Collegiate Court to believe with moral certainty required by law and conclude that the husband-respondent upon contacting marriage suffered from grave lack of due discretion of judgment, thereby rendering nugatory his marital contract x x x.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, this Court of Second Instance, having invoked the Divine Name and having considered the pertinent Law and relevant Jurisprudence to the Facts of the Case hereby proclaims, declares and decrees the confirmation of the sentence from the Court a quo in favor of the nullity of marriage on the ground contemplated under Canon 1095, 2 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law. x x x.

Hence, even if, as contended by petitioner, the factual basis of the decision of the National Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal is similar to the facts established by petitioner before the trial court, the decision of the National Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal confirming the decree of nullity of marriage by the court a quo is not based on the psychological incapacity of respondent. Petitioner, therefore, erred in stating that the conclusion of Psychologist Cristina Gates regarding the psychological incapacity of respondent is supported by the decision of the National Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal.

In fine, the Court of Appeals did not err in affirming the Decision of the RTC. (Emphases in the original; Underscoring supplied)

Hence, Robert’s reliance on the NAMT decision is misplaced. To repeat, the decision of the NAMT was based on the second paragraph of Canon 1095 which refers to those who suffer from a grave lack of discretion of judgment concerning essential matrimonial rights and obligations to be mutually given and accepted, a cause not of psychological nature under Article 36 of the Family Code. A cause of psychological nature similar to Article 36 is covered by the third paragraph of Canon 1095 of the Code of Canon Law (Santos v. Santos 19),

To consider church annulments as additional grounds for annulment under Article 36 would be legislating from the bench.1âwphi1 As stated in Republic v. Court of Appeals and Molina,20 interpretations given by the NAMT of the Catholic Church in the Philippines are given great respect by our courts, but they are not controlling or decisive.

In Republic v. Galang,21 it was written that the Constitution set out a policy of protecting and strengthening the family as the basic social institution, and the marriage was the foundation of the family. Marriage, as an inviolable institution protected by the State, cannot be dissolved at the whim of the parties. In petitions for declaration of nullity of marriage, the burden of proof to show the nullity of marriage lies with the plaintiff. Unless the evidence presented clearly reveals a situation where the parties, or one of them, could not have validly entered into a marriage by reason of a grave and serious psychological illness existing at the time it was celebrated, the Court is compelled to uphold the indissolubility of the marital tie.

In fine, the Court holds that the CA decided correctly. Petitioner Robert failed to adduce sufficient and convincing evidence to prove the alleged psychological incapacity of Luz.

As asserted by the OSG, the allegations of the petitioner make a case for legal separation. Hence, this decision is without prejudice to an action for legal separation if a party would want to pursue such proceedings. In this disposition, the Court cannot decree a legal separation because in such proceedings, there are matters and consequences like custody and separation of properties that need to be considered and settled.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 78303-MIN, dated November 20, 2009, and its Resolution, dated June 1, 2010, are hereby AFFIRMED, without prejudice.