G.R. No. 247583 - Espiritu vs. Boac-Espiritu

On July 18, 2000, petitioner Rommel M. Espiritu and respondent Shirley Ann Boac-Espiritu were married in Talavera, Nueva Ecija. They had three children and lived in respondent’s parents’ house in Calipahan, Talavera.
On July 28, 2010, petitioner filed a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code, alleging respondent’s psychological incapacity manifested by: refusal of sexual relations without cause; urging him to seek another woman; hot temper; constant nagging; unjustified jealousy; suspicion (sniffing clothes, checking cellphone and ATM withdrawals); abusive language; driving him from the home; prioritizing friends over family and leaving the children unattended; and their separation in 2008.
Petitioner engaged clinical psychologist Dr. Pacita Tudla, who—without personally examining respondent—interviewed petitioner, their driver (Rolando David), and neighbor (Ricardo Maligaya). She diagnosed respondent with Histrionic and Paranoid Personality Disorders based on collateral testimonies and respondent’s problematic childhood (parental abandonment, detachment from parents, permissive grandparents). Respondent ignored Dr. Tudla’s interview invitation.
The public prosecutor reported no collusion. Respondent failed to file an answer or appear at trial.

RTC Branch 88, Sto. Domingo, Nueva Ecija, by Decision dated June 30, 2017, denied the petition for nullity, ruling that evidence failed to prove psychological incapacity: Dr. Tudla’s findings were one-sided and witnesses were unreliable. A subsequent motion for new trial was also denied.
The Court of Appeals, in CA-G.R. CV No. 110892, by Decision dated April 26, 2019, affirmed the RTC: Dr. Tudla’s expert opinion was incompetent for lack of personal examination and absence of independent witnesses; the totality of evidence was insufficient.
Petitioner filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 before the Supreme Court.

Whether petitioner proved respondent’s psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code by clear and convincing evidence.
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the denial of petitioner’s nullity petition based on insufficient evidence.