Title
Fopalan vs. Fopalan
Case
G.R. No. 250287
Decision Date
Jul 20, 2022
Marriage declared void due to husband’s psychological incapacity, rooted in childhood, manifesting in neglect, infidelity, and inability to fulfill marital duties.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 250287)

Facts:

  • Procedural Background
    • June 25, 2013: Petitioner Zeth D. Fopalan filed RTC Petition for declaration of nullity of marriage to Neil F. Fopalan on ground of respondent’s psychological incapacity.
    • February 24, 2016: RTC-Branch 31, San Pedro, Laguna declared marriage void ab initio.
    • August 25, 2016: On OSG reconsideration, RTC reversed itself and upheld validity of marriage.
    • September 10, 2018: Court of Appeals affirmed validity of marriage; August 19, 2019: CA denied reconsideration.
  • Relationship and Cohabitation
    • Met in college; respondent courted petitioner while dating multiple women; cohabited in Dumaguete (1995), Romblon, Manila, Sta. Mesa.
    • August 7, 1995: Married in Dumaguete; petitioner worked as canteen helper and teacher; respondent intermittently employed, indifferent to household support.
  • Family Dynamics and Marital Breakdown
    • October 16, 1999: Birth of son Matthew, later diagnosed autistic; respondent exhibited hostility—shook infant, refused bonding, ashamed of child.
    • Chronic neglect: Petitioner became sole provider; respondent unfaithful throughout marriage (multiple affairs, nude photos of minors found on his phone).
    • January 2012: Petitioner discovered illicit messages and photos; left home but returned under duress; eventual permanent separation.
  • Psychological Evaluation and Trial Evidence
    • Dr. Nedy Lorenzo Tayag administered battery of tests on petitioner; assessed respondent via interviews with petitioner, her witnesses, and respondent’s brother.
    • Dr. Tayag diagnosed respondent with narcissistic and antisocial personality disorders—grave, incurable, rooted in early life; declared him psychologically incapacitated.
    • Summons served; respondent did not answer; no collusion per public prosecutor; testimonies of petitioner and co-worker (Araceli Nobleza) corroborated marital dysfunction.

Issues:

  • Whether the Court of Appeals erred in sustaining the validity of the marriage despite evidence of respondent’s psychological incapacity under Article 36, Family Code.
  • Whether proof of psychological incapacity requires personal examination by an expert and expert opinion, given Rule 45’s limitation to questions of law in certiorari review.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.