G.R. No. L-21291 - Corliss vs. Manila Railroad Co.

Petitioner Carolyn T. Mutya-Sumilhig met Respondent Joselito T. Sumilhig in February 1984 while both worked at Daungan Restaurant.
The parties became lovers and Carolyn observed Joselito’s gambling and drinking habits during their relationship.

The parties married on October 20, 1987.
Their first child, Jay Charles M. Sumilhig, was born April 6, 1988; their second child, Jennalyn M. Sumilhig, was born May 24, 1989.
Joselito allegedly failed to visit the wife and newborn at the hospital and continued gambling, drinking, and socializing instead of providing parental care.
Joselito allegedly stopped working, became increasingly absent, stole or borrowed money to fund gambling, and committed physical and verbal abuse against Carolyn and their children.
Carolyn left the marital home in September 1990 and thereafter the parties lived separately; Joselito subsequently lived with another woman, Daisy Menor, and fathered three children with her.

On October 18, 2010, Petitioner filed a Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code on the ground of psychological incapacity.
Carolyn submitted her Judicial Affidavit and the Judicial Affidavits of Joselito’s father, Mamerto M. Sumilhig, Dr. Felicitas I. Ariaga-Soriano (psychiatrist), and Dr. Ma. Brenda Grace Gabiazon-Benitez (clinical psychologist).
The petition included Dr. Soriano’s Psychiatric Evaluation Report and Dr. Benitez’s Psychological Test Results and Evaluation.
Respondent did not file an Answer and refused to be interviewed by the experts.

Dr. Soriano testified that Joselito had poor upbringing, lacked life skills, was immature, was overly dependent, showed gross disregard for others, and exhibited irresponsibility in marital life.
Dr. Soriano diagnosed Respondent with *Antisocial-Dependent Personality Disorder*, comorbid with alcohol dependence and pathological gambling, and opined that the disorder was developmental in origin and incurable in the medical sense.
Dr. Benitez found Respondent to be a chronic alcohol drinker and gambler and opined there was no possibility of reconciliation given his psychic condition and petitioner’s resolve.
Mamerto corroborated allegations of drinking, gambling, physical abuse, and described Joselito’s childhood: early separation from parents, upbringing by grandparents, school truancy, and lack of discipline.

(Subscriber-Only)

Whether the Court of Appeals gravely erred in ruling that the totality of the evidence does not support Respondent’s psychological incapacity to fulfill essential marital obligations under Article 36 of the Family Code.

Whether the evidence established the juridical antecedence of the alleged psychological incapacity, i.e., that the incapacity existed at the time of the celebration of the marriage.
Whether the alleged psychological incapacity is incurable in the legal sense required by jurisprudence.
Whether the alleged psychological incapacity is grave in the sense of being a genuine and serious psychic cause, distinct from mere immaturity, irresp...(Subscriber-Only)