G.R. No. 149498 - Republic vs. Quintero-Hamano

On June 17, 1996, Lolita Quintero-Hamano (respondent) filed a complaint for declaration of nullity of her marriage with Toshio Hamano, a Japanese national, on the ground of psychological incapacity.
Lolita and Toshio began a common-law relationship in Japan around October 1986, lived briefly in the Philippines, then Toshio returned to Japan for half of 1987.
They had a child born on November 16, 1987, and were married on January 14, 1988, in Bacoor, Cavite.

Unknown to Lolita, Toshio was alleged to be psychologically incapacitated to assume his marital responsibilities, a fact that allegedly became manifest only after their marriage.
One month after their marriage, Toshio abandoned Lolita and their child, returned to Japan, and promised to come back by Christmas but failed to do so.
Toshio sent financial support for only two months then stopped; communications from Lolita were ignored.
Despite Toshio’s visit to the Philippines in 1991, he did not see Lolita or their child.

Summons to Toshio remained unserved due to his absence from the given address. Respondent moved, ex parte, to effect service by publication, granted on July 12, 1996.
Summons was published in a newspaper in August 1996, giving Toshio 15 days to respond; no answer was filed.
Respondent moved to refer the case to the prosecutor, who found no collusion between parties and recommended intervention to ensure evidence was not fabricated.
Lolita presented her evidence ex parte, testifying on Toshio’s abandonment and submitting documentary evidence.

On August 28, 1997, the Regional Trial Court of Rizal declared the marriage null and void on the ground of Toshio’s psychological incapacity.
The court found Toshio’s failure to fulfill duties as husband and father an indication of psychological incapacity manifesting as insensitivity, irresponsibility, and immaturity.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision on August 20, 2001, emphasizing that Toshio’s abandonment, failure to communicate or provide support evidenced psychological incapacity under Article 68 of the Family Code.
The appellate court rejected comparisons to prior cases (Republic vs. Court of Appeals and Molina; Santos vs. Court of Appeals) on the ground that this case involved a mixed marriage with a foreign national spouse.

The Republic of the Philippines (petitioner) filed a petition for review, challenging the Court of Appeals’ finding of psychological incapacity.
The petitioner argued mere abandonment and failure to comply with marital duties do not automatically constitute psychological incapacity absent proof of a severe personality disorder in accordance with the guidelines of Molina.
The Office of the Public Attorney, representing respondent, opposed the petition, affirming the lower courts’ rulings.

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that Toshio Hamano was psychologically incapacitated to perform his marital obligations.

Whether the guidelines laid down in Republic v. Court of Appeals and Molina are applicable in annulment of marriage on grounds of psychological incapacity involving a foreign spouse.

Whether the evidence presented was sufficient to prove psychological incapacity as a ground for annulment under Article 36 of the Family Code.