Title
Alcazar vs. Alcazar
Case
G.R. No. 174451
Decision Date
Oct 13, 2009
Petitioner sought annulment citing respondent's psychological incapacity; Supreme Court upheld marriage validity, citing insufficient evidence under Article 36.
Font Size:

Case Digest (G.R. No. 174451)

Facts:

Marriage and Initial Cohabitation

  • Petitioner Veronica Cabacungan Alcazar and respondent Rey C. Alcazar were married on 11 October 2000 by Rev. Augusto G. Pabustan at his residence.
  • After the wedding, the couple lived together for five days in San Jose, Occidental Mindoro, the hometown of respondent's parents.
  • They then returned to Manila, but respondent did not live with petitioner at her residence in Tondo, Manila.

Respondent's Departure and Lack of Communication

  • On 23 October 2000, respondent left for Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, to work as an upholsterer.
  • While in Riyadh, respondent did not communicate with petitioner by phone or letter. Petitioner attempted to contact him five times but received no response.
  • Approximately a year and a half later, petitioner learned from a co-teacher that respondent was returning to the Philippines. However, respondent did not inform petitioner of his arrival.

Respondent's Return and Separation

  • Upon returning to the Philippines in March 2002, respondent went directly to his parents' house in San Jose, Occidental Mindoro, instead of reuniting with petitioner.
  • Petitioner traveled to San Jose to confront respondent but was informed that he had been living with his parents since his return.
  • Respondent never contacted petitioner after his return, leading her to conclude that he was physically incapable of consummating the marriage and that reconciliation was impossible.

Legal Proceedings

  • Petitioner filed a Complaint for annulment of marriage on 22 August 2002, citing respondent's physical incapacity under Article 45(5) of the Family Code.
  • The RTC dismissed the Complaint, finding no evidence of respondent's physical incapacity. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision.

Issue:

  • (Unlock)

Ruling:

  • (Unlock)

Ratio:

  1. Psychological Incapacity under Article 36:

    • Psychological incapacity must be grave, juridically antecedent, and incurable.
    • It must be more than mere difficulty, refusal, or neglect in performing marital obligations.
    • The burden of proof lies with the petitioner, and any doubt should be resolved in favor of the validity of the marriage.
  2. Insufficiency of Evidence:

    • Petitioner's evidence, including testimonies and the psychological report, did not sufficiently establish respondent's psychological incapacity.
    • The psychological report relied on information provided by petitioner, who was not impartial, and failed to explain how respondent's alleged Narcissistic Personality Disorder rendered him incapable of fulfilling marital obligations.
  3. Abandonment and Infidelity:

    • Respondent's abandonment and alleged infidelity do not constitute psychological incapacity under the Family Code.
    • These actions, while grounds for legal separation, do not meet the legal standard for nullity of marriage.
  4. Presumption of Validity of Marriage:

    • The State has a strong interest in preserving marriage, and the presumption is always in favor of its validity.
    • Petitioner failed to overcome this presumption with clear and convincing evidence of respondent's psychological incapacity.

Conclusion:

  • The Supreme Court upheld the lower courts' decisions, emphasizing that an unsatisfactory marriage does not equate to a null and void marriage under Philippine law.
  • The Petition was denied, and the marriage between petitioner and respondent remained valid.


Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.