Case Digest (G.R. No. 184063)
Facts:
Cynthia E. Yambao v. Republic of the Philippines and Patricio E. Yambao, G.R. No. 184063, January 24, 2011, Supreme Court, Second Division, Nachura, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Cynthia E. Yambao and respondent Patricio E. Yambao were married on December 21, 1968. After 35 years of marriage, petitioner filed a petition before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City on July 11, 2003 seeking a declaration that the marriage was void ab initio under Article 36 of the Family Code for respondent’s alleged psychological incapacity to comply with essential marital obligations.
In the RTC petition petitioner recounted long-standing bickering, respondent’s alleged indolence and failure to contribute materially or to household/childcare duties, gambling and failed business ventures, possessive and jealous behavior, and alleged threats to kill her; she also presented a psychiatrist’s report diagnosing respondent with Dependent Personality Disorder. Respondent answered denying psychological incapacity, explaining his intermittent employment and failed ventures by age and lack of qualifications, denying gambling and threats, and asserting some contribution to family expenses.
On February 9, 2007 the RTC (Judge Marissa Macaraig-Guillen) dismissed the petition for lack of merit, finding that while respondent had faults (indolence, irresponsibility), these did not establish a mental or psychological incapacity: the parties had cohabited for over 30 years, raised three children to adulthood without major parenting problems, there was no evidence of infidelity or physical abuse, and petitioner herself prospered and acquired property during the marriage. The RTC also found the expert’s findings unpersuasive as failing to show medically permanent incapacity.
Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied on May 21, 2007; she filed a Notice of Appeal and took the case to the Court of Appeals (CA). In a Decision dated April 16, 2008 the Court of Appeals (Perlas-Bernabe, J., penned) affirmed the RTC, holding that the evidence did not establish psychological incapacity under Article 36: respondent’s failures were not shown to be mental defects but rather refusal, neglect or ordinary failings; the alleged jealousy and threats were not shown to be manifestations of a disordered personality that rendered respondent incapable of marital obligations; and the expert report was uncorroborated. The CA denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration on August 4, 2008.
Petitioner brought the matter to this Court by a petition...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the totality of petitioner’s evidence establish that respondent was psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential marital obligations under Article 36 of the Family Code?
- Were the requisite characteristics of psychological incapacity—gravity, juridical antecedence, and incurability—sufficien...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)