G.R. No. 222541 - Del Rosario vs. Del Rosario

Rachel A. Del Rosario, then a minor at 15 years old, met Jose O. Del Rosario, who was 17, in December 1983 at a party in Bintawan, Bagabag, Nueva Vizcaya.
A romantic relationship soon developed between the two, setting the stage for their future marriage.

Rachel, later working overseas as a domestic helper in Hong Kong, allegedly supported Jose’s college tuition fees during his education.
The couple married in a civil rites ceremony on December 28, 1989 in San Jose City, Nueva Ecija, and later renewed their vows on February 19, 1995 in a church ceremony held at the Philippine Independent Church in Bagabag, Nueva Vizcaya.
They had a son named Wesley, born on December 1, 1993.
Throughout their marriage, Rachel maintained an overseas career, returning annually to the Philippines, and acquired property in Rufino Homes Subdivision, San Jose, Nueva Ecija.

In September 2011, Rachel filed a petition before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) for the declaration of nullity of her marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code.
The petition alleged that Jose:

Consistently failed to discharge his marital and parental duties.
Displayed violent behavior (e.g., punching her and causing injuries) and exhibited temper issues.
Repeatedly engaged in acts of infidelity and openly flirtation, with evidence provided via text messages and witnessed instances of extramarital affairs.
Demonstrated emotional neglect, including refusal to engage in sexual intimacy as the marriage progressed.

Supporting evidence included testimonies from Wesley, her sisters (Beverly and Jocelyn Cabusora), and a psychological report by Dr. Nedy L. Tayag which diagnosed Jose with Antisocial Personality Disorder (APD). The report highlighted traits such as lack of empathy, irresponsibility, selfishness, and absence of remorse.

In the RTC Decision dated April 23, 2014, the marriage was declared void based on Jose’s psychological incapacity, heavily relying on Dr. Tayag’s diagnosis which characterized his APD as severely undermining his marital obligations.
Jose appealed the RTC ruling to the Court of Appeals (CA), arguing that his behavior—though including infidelity, irresponsibility, and occasional violence—merely reflected personality flaws or immaturity rather than the grave and permanent condition required for psychological incapacity.
The CA Decision dated May 29, 2015 reversed the RTC ruling, holding that:

The evidence provided did not conclusively prove that Jose’s conduct amounted to a grave and permanent psychological incapacity.
His alleged misconduct, including infidelity, financial irresponsibility, and violence when intoxicated, fell short of the threshold necessary for nullification under Article 36.

A motion for reconsideration by Rachel was denied by the CA in its Resolution dated December 1, 2015, prompting the present petition for review.

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the RTC’s finding that the marriage was void on the ground of psychological incapacity.
Whether the evidence—including witness testimonies and the psychological report—sufficiently established that Jose’s behavior constituted a grave, permanent, and incurable psychological condition as required under Article 36 of the Family Code.
The proper application and interpretation of the legal parameters (gravity, juridical antecedence, and incurability) necessary for establishing psychological incapacity in nullity cases.