Case Digest (G.R. No. 250287)
Facts:
Zeth D. Fopalan v. Neil F. Fopalan, G.R. No. 250287, July 20, 2022, Supreme Court Second Division, Lazaro‑Javier, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Zeth D. Fopalan filed a petition for declaration of nullity of her marriage to respondent Neil F. Fopalan on June 25, 2013, alleging that respondent was psychologically incapacitated to comply with essential marital obligations. The petition recounted a long courtship marked by respondent’s simultaneous relations with other women, cohabitation and marriage in 1995, years of petitioner’s sole economic and emotional support of the family, respondent’s repeated infidelities (including with students), and his neglect and mistreatment of their son Matthew (diagnosed autistic), including an early incident where respondent allegedly shook the infant.
The trial court ordered service of summons (June 28, 2013); respondent did not participate in the proceedings. Petitioner presented her sworn testimony, corroboration from a co‑worker Araceli Nobleza and other witnesses, and a psychological evaluation by Dr. Nedy Lorenzo Tayag diagnosing respondent with narcissistic and antisocial personality disorders and declaring him psychologically incapacitated; Dr. Tayag did not personally examine respondent but relied on clinical interviews, psychometric tests administered to petitioner, corroborative interviews and a phone interview with respondent’s brother. The public prosecutor reported no collusion between the parties.
By Decision dated February 24, 2016, the Regional Trial Court (Branch 31, San Pedro, Laguna) declared the marriage void ab initio for respondent’s psychological incapacity. On motion for reconsideration filed by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), the trial court reversed itself by Order dated August 25, 2016, declaring the marriage valid and subsisting. Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA‑G.R. CV No. 107835).
By Decision dated September 10, 2018, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s August 25, 2016 Order and held that the evidence did not sufficiently prove respondent’s psychological incapacity; it stressed the lack of proof as to gravity, juridical antecedence and incurability and faulted the reliance on hearsay and on a psychological assessment made without a personal interview of respondent. The CA denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration by Resolution dated August 19, 2019.
Petitioner then filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 before the Supreme Court challenging the CA’s affirmation of the m...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals err in sustaining the validity of the marriage and thereby in finding that petitioner failed to prove respondent’s psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code?
- May a psychologist’s expert opinion that did not result from a personal examination of the allegedly incapacitated spouse be admitted and relied upon in nullity proceedings, and if so, was Dr. Tayag’s assessm...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)