G.R. No. 200658 - Lamadrid vs. Cathay Pacific Airways Limited

Carolyn T. Mutya-Sumilhig (Carolyn) met Joselito T. Sumilhig (Joselito) in February 1984 at Daungan Restaurant, where she worked as a waitress and he as an assistant cook. They became lovers despite Joselito's gambling and drinking habits.
Carolyn observed Joselito frequently gambling (playing tong-its and mahjong) and drinking, sometimes appearing drunk when fetching her from work.

In 1987, Carolyn became pregnant. Blinded by Joselito’s promises to reform, they married on October 20, 1987. Their first child, Jay Charles, was born on April 6, 1988. Joselito showed neglect by not visiting Carolyn or the baby in the hospital and was often absent or spent time in leisure activities like basketball with friends.
Jay had to be hospitalized for two months due to health complications; Joselito was irritable and negligent when Jay cried. Joselito ceased working and spent time gambling, drinking, and playing mahjong.
The couple’s second child, Jennalyn, was born prematurely on May 24, 1989, attributed to Carolyn’s stress from frequent quarrels. Joselito remained jobless, continued gambling and drinking, neglected family support, stole savings, and borrowed money from loan sharks.

Joselito began physically and verbally abusing Carolyn and Jay. Carolyn developed trauma and hid from Joselito when he came home drunk.
In September 1990, Carolyn left the family home but returned to retrieve her children. Joselito only gave back Jay. Upon visiting Jennalyn, Carolyn found her neglected with injuries caused by Joselito. Carolyn took Jennalyn away, and since then, she and Joselito remained separated.
Joselito has since lived with another woman, Daisy Menor, fathering three children, while continuing irresponsible behaviors including severe drinking.

On October 18, 2010, Carolyn filed a Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage citing psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code.
Evidence included Carolyn’s judicial affidavit, affidavits of Joselito’s father (Mamerto), psychiatrist Dr. Felicitas I. Ariaga-Soriano, psychologist Dr. Ma. Brenda Grace Gabiazon-Benitez, psychiatric evaluation reports, and psychological tests. Joselito did not file an answer.
Dr. Soriano testified Joselito suffered from Antisocial-Dependent Personality Disorder, pathological gambling, and alcohol dependence, all rooted in poor upbringing, resulting in defective superego and inability to fulfill marital obligations. Dr. Benitez confirmed chronic alcoholism and gambling. Mamerto corroborated the abusive and irresponsible behavior and Joselito’s persistent problems with alcohol.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) denied the nullity petition, finding insufficient proof of psychological incapacity’s gravity, incurability, and juridical antecedence. The RTC regarded Joselito’s behavior as refusal or neglect but not a psychological disorder, and questioned the psychiatric evaluation as based only on Carolyn’s statements.
The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC’s ruling, concluding that the evidence was insufficient to establish psychological incapacity and attributing Joselito’s behavior to laziness or immaturity rather than a psychological disorder.
Carolyn’s subsequent motions for reconsideration were denied by both courts.

Carolyn elevated the case to the Supreme Court, contesting the CA’s decision and asserting Joselito’s psychological incapacity based on presented evidence, including expert testimony.
The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) opposed the petition, arguing that the evidence did not satisfy the legal requisites of psychological incapacity and that Joselito’s negative traits were not serious enough to void the marriage.

Whether Joselito was psychologically incapacitated at the time of marriage such that the marriage should be declared void ab initio under Article 36 of the Family Code.
Whether the evidence, including expert testimony without personal examination of Joselito, sufficiently demonstrates Joselito's psychological incapacity characterized by gravity, juridical antecedence, and incurability.
Whether the findings of psychological incapacity by experts based primarily on Carolyn’s and Joselito’s father’s testimonies are valid and probative despite Joselito’s refusal to be personally examined.