Title
Austria-Carreon vs. Carreon
Case
G.R. No. 222908
Decision Date
Dec 6, 2021
Marriage nullity petition denied; petitioner failed to prove psychological incapacity under Article 36, citing respondent's immaturity and infidelity as insufficient grounds. Procedural lapses also barred reconsideration.
Font Size:

Case Digest (G.R. No. 222908)

Facts:

Background of the Marriage

  • Patricia Q. Austria-Carreon (petitioner) and Luis Emmanuel G. Carreon (respondent) were married on October 22, 1994, at St. Therese of the Child Jesus Church in Pasay City.
  • They had a son, Jeremy Austria Carreon, born on March 26, 1995.
  • Petitioner alleged that respondent was psychologically incapacitated to fulfill his marital obligations, citing his lack of financial support, emotional detachment, and infidelity.

Marital Issues

  • Petitioner claimed that respondent failed to provide financial support voluntarily and that she bore most of the household expenses.
  • Respondent was emotionally distant, preferring to watch television rather than engage with petitioner.
  • Petitioner discovered respondent's extramarital affairs, which led to their separation in 2000. They briefly reconciled in 2001 but continued to struggle with intimacy and trust.

Psychological Evaluation

  • Dr. Julian R. Montano conducted a psychological evaluation and diagnosed both parties with personality disorders:
    • Petitioner: Dependent and Depressive Personality Disorders.
    • Respondent: Narcissistic Personality Disorder.
  • Dr. Montano concluded that both parties were psychologically incapacitated to fulfill their marital obligations and recommended the nullity of their marriage.

RTC Decision

  • The Regional Trial Court (RTC) declared the marriage null and void based on Article 36 of the Family Code, citing the psychological incapacity of both parties.
  • The RTC awarded custody of their son to petitioner and ordered the liquidation of any conjugal property.

CA Decision

  • The Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the RTC decision, finding no evidence that the psychological incapacity was serious, incurable, or rooted in medical causes.
  • The CA dismissed the petition for nullity of marriage.

Procedural Issues

  • Petitioner claimed she did not receive the CA decision due to a change of address and her former counsel's withdrawal.
  • She filed a Formal Entry of Appearance with Motion for Reconsideration, which the CA treated as a second motion for reconsideration and denied.

Issue:

  1. Whether the CA committed reversible error in treating petitioner's Formal Entry of Appearance with Motion for Reconsideration as a second motion for reconsideration and denying it.
  2. Whether the CA committed reversible error in dismissing petitioner's Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage.

Ruling:

  • The Supreme Court denied the petition, affirming the CA's decision and resolution.
  • On the procedural issue, the Court found that petitioner's failure to receive the CA decision was due to her own negligence in not updating her address and securing new counsel. Thus, the CA correctly denied her motion for reconsideration as it was belatedly filed.
  • On the merits, the Court held that petitioner failed to prove that respondent's behavior constituted psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code. The evidence only showed respondent's immaturity, irresponsibility, and infidelity, which do not meet the legal standard for psychological incapacity.

Ratio:

  1. Procedural Issue: A party has the duty to inform the court of any change of address. Failure to do so results in the loss of the right to receive notices, and the court is not obligated to track down a party's new address. Petitioner's failure to update her address and secure new counsel led to her inability to timely file a motion for reconsideration, rendering the CA decision final and executory.

  2. Psychological Incapacity under Article 36:

    • Psychological incapacity must be grave, rooted in the party's history, and incurable. It must render the party completely unable to fulfill essential marital obligations.
    • The Court clarified in Tan-Andal v. Andal that psychological incapacity is a legal concept, not a medical one, and does not require expert testimony. However, the incapacity must be serious and enduring, not merely mild character flaws or difficulties in the relationship.
    • In this case, respondent's behavior (lack of communication, financial irresponsibility, and infidelity) did not constitute psychological incapacity. These issues were more indicative of marital difficulties rather than a complete inability to fulfill marital obligations.
  3. Finality of Judgment: Judgments become final and executory by operation of law once the reglementary period for filing an appeal or motion for reconsideration lapses. Petitioner's failure to timely file a motion for reconsideration rendered the CA decision final.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court upheld the CA's decision, emphasizing that the evidence presented did not meet the legal standard for psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code. The Court also highlighted the importance of procedural diligence, such as updating one's address and securing legal representation, to avoid losing the right to challenge adverse decisions.


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.