G.R. No. 126010 - Herdez vs. Court of Appeals

Lucita Estrella Hernandez (petitioner) and Mario C. Hernandez (private respondent) were married on January 1, 1981 at Silang Catholic Parish Church, Cavite.
They had three children: Maie (b. May 3, 1982), Lyra (b. May 22, 1985), and Marian (b. June 15, 1989).

On July 10, 1992, petitioner filed for annulment of marriage on the ground of respondent’s psychological incapacity (Art. 36, Family Code), alleging failure to support, drinking sprees, immaturity, abandonment, promiscuity, and transmission of an STD.
Because respondent did not answer, the RTC (Branch 18, Tagaytay City) ordered an investigation for collusion (Oct. 8, 1992); none was found, and trial proceeded.

Private respondent remained largely unemployed; petitioner supported the family from her teaching salary and small businesses.
He squandered his P53,000 retirement pay within four months and made no meaningful household contributions.

Habitual drinking sprees, betting on cockfights, and repeated extramarital affairs with multiple women.
Cohabitation with one partner resulting in an illegitimate child born September 15, 1989.

Petitioner was beaten and hospitalized (July 4–5, 1990) resulting in cerebral concussion.
In late 1986, respondent contracted gonorrhea and infected petitioner; both treated from October 1986 to March 1987.
He once struck their one-year-old child during an argument.

Respondent left the conjugal home on June 12, 1992 and later departed for the Middle East; whereabouts unknown.

Petitioner claimed sole ownership of a residential lot at Don Gregorio Heights Subdivision I, Dasmariñas, Cavite, purchased exclusively with her funds.
She sought custody of the children and monthly support of ₱9,000 (₱3,000 each).
She allowed respondent to sell their jeepney and divide proceeds.

RTC Decision (April 10, 1993) dismissed the annulment petition, ruling that petitioner’s allegations constituted grounds for legal separation (Art. 55) or annulment for fraud under Art. 46(3), but not psychological incapacity under Art. 36, and that fraud (STD transmission) did not exist at marriage.
Court of Appeals Decision (Jan. 30, 1996) affirmed, holding that psychological incapacity must exist at the time of marriage, and that infidelity, abandonment, gambling, and alcoholism per se do not establish such incapacity.

Whether petitioner proved that private respondent was psychologically incapacitated to comply with essential marital obligations at the time of marriage under Art. 36, Family Code.
Whether the annulment petition should have been granted on grounds of psychological incapacity.
Whether petitioner was entitled to custody of the children and support of ₱3,000 per child monthly.
Whether the residential property acquired by petitioner should be declared her exclusive asset.