Case Digest (G.R. No. 192718)
Facts:
Robert F. Mallilin v. Luz G. Jamesolamin, G.R. No. 192718, February 18, 2015, Supreme Court Second Division, Mendoza, J., writing for the Court. Petitioner Robert F. Mallilin and private respondent Luz G. Jamesolamin were married on September 6, 1972 and had three children. On March 16, 1994, Robert filed in the Regional Trial Court, Branch 23, Cagayan de Oro City, a complaint for declaration of nullity of marriage alleging that Luz suffered from psychological incapacity to comply with the essential obligations of marriage. RTC‑Br. 23 denied the petition on March 7, 1996.Robert appealed to the Court of Appeals (docketed CA‑G.R. CV No. 54261). On January 29, 1999 the CA reversed RTC‑Br. 23 for failure to secure the participation of the State under Article 48, Family Code, and remanded for further proceedings; the case records were transferred to RTC‑Br. 37 (designated Family Court). At trial Robert testified to numerous episodes of Luz’s alleged immaturity, irresponsibility and infidelity and presented the testimony of a guidance psychologist, Myrna Villanueva; Luz did not appear at trial. While the civil case was pending, Robert filed a separate marriage annulment petition with the Metropolitan Tribunal (church), which on October 10, 2002 declared the marriage invalid ab initio for grave lack of discretion under Canon 1095; the National Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal (NAMT) affirmed.
On September 20, 2002 RTC‑Br. 37 declared the marriage null and void on the ground of psychological incapacity under Article 36, Family Code. The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) appealed to the Court of Appeals. In its November 20, 2009 decision (CA‑G.R. CV No. 78303‑MIN) the CA reversed the RTC and set aside the annulment, holding that the evidence did not establish a medically or clinically identified psychological incapacity and that sexual infidelity alone did not prove the A...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did petitioner prove, by the required preponderance of evidence, that Luz was psychologically incapacitated under Article 36 of the Family Code at the time of the celebration of the marriage?
- May the decisions of ecclesiastical tribunals (Metropolitan Tribunal and NAMT) be treated as controlling or decisive proof of psychological incapacity in civil nullity proceedings when those decisions were not offered during the trial or were based on different canonical grounds?
- Is the absence of a direct medical/psychiatric/psychological examination of the respondent fatal to a petition ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)