Case Digest (G.R. No. 141917)
Facts:
Bernardino S. Zamora (Petitioner) and Norma Mercado Zamora (private respondent) were married on June 4, 1970 in Cebu City and lived together there; the marriage was childless. Private respondent left for the United States in the 1970s, later became a U.S. citizen, and made periodic visits to the Philippines; petitioner filed a complaint for declaration of nullity under Article 36 of the Family Code alleging private respondent’s psychological incapacity, refusal to cohabit and bear children, and abandonment. The Regional Trial Court dismissed the complaint on June 22, 1995 for lack of proof of psychological incapacity, the Court of Appeals affirmed on August 5, 1999, and its denial of reconsideration was promulgated January 24, 2000, prompting this Rule 45 petition.
Issues:
- Whether the Court of Appeals misapplied facts of weight and substance affecting the result.
- Whether Article 68 of the Family Code is applicable to this case.
- Whether presentation of psychologists or psychiatrists is mandatory where evidence already shows psychological incapacity.
- Whether the absence of expert testimony is excused because private respondent resides in the United States.
- Whether private respondent’s long absence, refusal to cohabit or bear children, and solitary life abroad amount to *psychological incapacity* under Article 36.
Ruling:
The Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the Decisions of the trial court and the Court of Appeals. The Court held that petitioner failed to prove the existence of psychological incapacity as required by Article 36, and thus the dismissal of the complaint was proper.
Ratio:
The Court reiterated that expert opinion may be helpful but is not a sine qua non; the decisive test is whether the facts and evidence, viewed in totality, establish psychological incapacity. Citing Leouel Santos v. Court of Appeals, Republic v. Court of Appeals and Molina, and Marcos v. Marcos, the Court emphasized that the incapacity must be psychological, present at the time of the celebration of the marriage, grave or incurable, and proven by sufficient evidence; Section 2(d) of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC confirms that expert opinion need not be alleged. Petitioner’s allegations were disputed, lacked proof of a pre-existing incapacity at the time of marriage, and thus did not meet the plaintiff’s burden.
Doctrine:
- The burden to prove nullity for *psychological incapacity* under Article 36 rests on the plaintiff.
- Expert psychiatric or psychological testimony is helpful but not mandatory; the totality of evidence may suffice.
- *Psychological incapacity* must exist at the time of the celebration of the marriage and be grave or incurable.
- Allegations of refusal, neglect, or mere incompatibility are insufficient to establish *psychological incapacity* for annulment.