Case Digest (G.R. No. 247583)
Facts:
Rommel M. Espiritu v. Shirley Ann Boac‑Espiritu, G.R. No. 247583, October 06, 2021, First Division, Lazaro‑Javier, J., writing for the Court. Petitioner Rommel Espiritu filed a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code on July 28, 2010 (Civil Case No. SD (10)‑786, RTC Branch 88, Sto. Domingo, Nueva Ecija), alleging that respondent Shirley Ann Boac‑Espiritu was psychologically incapacitated to comply with essential marital obligations. They married on July 18, 2000 and had three children; petitioner alleged separation in 2008.Petitioner described respondent’s conduct as persistent jealousy, suspicion (sniffing clothes, checking cellphone and ATM), frequent trivial quarrels, refusal of sexual relations, repeated instances of driving him out of the home, preference for socializing with friends to the neglect of their children, and general hot‑temperedness and nagging. He produced affidavit testimony from their driver and a neighbor corroborating episodes of public outbursts and that respondent had driven him away several times.
Petitioner engaged clinical psychologist Dr. Pacita Tudla, who—without having personally examined respondent—diagnosed respondent with Histrionic and Paranoid Personality Disorders after interviewing petitioner and the collateral witnesses and opined that the marriage should be nullified. Respondent did not file an answer and did not submit to interview. The public prosecutor delegated by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) attested there was no collusion.
The RTC, by decision dated June 30, 2017, denied the petition, finding the totality of evidence insufficient to prove psychological incapacity and deeming petitioner’s witnesses incompetent to establish juridical antecedence. Petitioner’s motion for new trial (accompanying a proposed witness, a childhood friend of respondent) was denied by resolution dated July 26, 2017. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed by Decision dated April 26, 2019 (CA‑G.R. CV No. 110892), giving little weight to Dr. Tudla’s findings on grounds they were one‑sided and unreliable because she had not personally examined respondent and petitioner failed to present independent witnesses.
Petitioner filed a Petition for Revie...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did petitioner prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that respondent was psychologically incapacitated under Article 36 of the Family Code such that the marriage should be declared void?
- Did the Court of Appeals err in discounting the expert findings of petitioner’s clinical psychologist solely because she did not pers...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)