G.R. No. 250618 - Dedicatoria vs. Dedicatoria

Petitioner: Jennifer A. Dedicatoria and Respondent: Ferdinand M. Dedicatoria were married on December 20, 1995.
Petitioner filed a Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage on October 23, 2014, alleging Respondent was psychologically incapacitated under Article 36 of the Family Code.

Summons was served through substituted service; Respondent failed to file an answer.
The Republic of the Philippines was represented by the Office of the Solicitor General which deputized the Office of the City Prosecutor of Pasay City.
The Assistant City Prosecutor investigated and found no collusion between the parties.

Petitioner testified that from the start of the marriage Respondent was irresponsible, immature, insensitive, self-centered, and dependent on his parents.
After marriage they lived in Respondent’s parents’ house; Respondent’s mother continued to care for him and Respondent did not seek permanent employment.
Petitioner alleged she performed all household chores for Respondent’s family and that marital tensions caused her to leave and return multiple times.
When Petitioner became pregnant, her father rented an apartment for the couple but Respondent continued to go daily to his parents’ house and returned only at night.
After the birth of their child, the couple returned to Respondent’s family home; Respondent allegedly remained unemploy ed and did not assist with the newborn.
Petitioner left with their son in 1999 and Respondent allegedly never visited; thereafter Petitioner discovered Respondent was living with another woman and had sired a child.

Dr. Sheila Marie O. Montefalcon, clinical psychologist, conducted psychological tests on Petitioner and clinical interviews of Respondent’s sister, Teresita Dedicatoria, and the couple’s friend, Anarose Talag-Aguirre; Respondent did not attend for assessment.
Montefalcon diagnosed Respondent with Dependent Personality Disorder and described his incapacity as: (a) grave, chronic, pervasive, and causing social immaturity and inability to perform marital obligations; (b) incurable as deeply ingrained in personality; and (c) having juridical antecedence rooted in dysfunctional childhood and parenting.
Anarose testified that the couple had not been living together since 1999, that she was Petitioner’s confidant, and characterized Respondent as immature, irresponsible, and a “mama’s boy.”
No countervailing evidence was present...(Subscriber-Only)

Whether the evidence on record is sufficient to prove Respondent’s psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code, warranting declaration of the marriage void ab initio.

Whether a clinical diagnosis based on collateral interviews without personal examination of the allegedly incapacitated spouse is admissible and sufficient.
Whether testimony of ordinary witnesses who knew the pa...(Subscriber-Only)