Case Digest (G.R. No. 236279)
Facts:
Republic of the Philippines v. Cheryl Pauline R. Deang, G.R. No. 236279, March 25, 2019, Supreme Court Second Division, Perlas‑Bernabe, J., writing for the Court. Petitioner is the Republic of the Philippines (through the Office of the Solicitor General); respondent is Cheryl Pauline R. Deang, the annulland.Cheryl and Emilio Z. Deang married on August 28, 1993 and had one son, Bryan Joseph (born January 12, 1994). The couple began their relationship in 1992; Emilio soon engaged in gambling, allegedly became physically abusive after learning of Cheryl’s infidelity prior to the marriage, and thereafter left the family. By late 1994 Cheryl returned to Butuan and the spouses ceased living together.
On February 11, 2013, Cheryl filed a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Butuan City, Branch 1 (Civil Case No. 6540), invoking Article 36 of the Family Code on psychological incapacity. She alleged Emilio failed to support the family, engaged in an extra‑marital relationship and abandoned them. Emilio was duly served but did not answer or appear for trial.
At trial Cheryl testified and presented Dr. Yolanda Y. Lara, a clinical psychologist, whose Psychological Evaluation Report (dated October 28, 2013) diagnosed Emilio with Antisocial Personality Disorder (APD) and Cheryl with Dependent Personality Disorder (DPD), but Dr. Lara admitted her findings relied largely on Cheryl’s account and a limited telephone interview of Emilio’s cousin and that she could not administer tests on Emilio.
The RTC, in a Decision dated July 2, 2014, credited Dr. Lara and declared the marriage void ab initio under Article 36. The RTC denied the Republic’s motion for reconsideration in an Order dated February 16, 2015. The Republic appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. CV No. 04183‑MIN). The Court of Appeals, in a Decision dated May 30, 2017, affirmed the RTC, finding facts and evidence sufficient to establish psychological incapacity (and noting Cheryl’s own diagnosed DPD). The CA denied reconsideration in a Resolution dated...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals err in affirming the RTC’s declaration that the marriage of Cheryl and Emilio is void under Article 36 of the Family Code for psychological inca...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)