Case Summary (G.R. No. 236827)
Factual Background
The parties met in Madrid in 1995, lived together there from 1996 to 1997, and married in San Fernando, Pampanga on January 14, 1998 while Elizabeth was on vacation in the Philippines. Elizabeth returned to Madrid two days after the wedding; Jose remained in the Philippines for work but visited Elizabeth in Spain in December 1998–January 1999. Elizabeth became pregnant and gave birth to their first child in September 1999; their second child was born in April 2003. Throughout the marriage Elizabeth observed what she characterized as Jose’s irresponsibility (substance use including alcohol and marijuana, bouts of depression, inability to sustain employment), extramarital relations (an affair with a woman named Joyce, which included romantic messages, letters and a photograph, and which at one point involved sexual intercourse in the presence of the couple’s child), withdrawal from household and parental duties, physical discipline of the eldest child, and eventual cessation of communication and financial support after their parting in 2008.
Procedural History
Elizabeth filed a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage on the ground of the respondent’s psychological incapacity. The Regional Trial Court (Branch 94, Quezon City) rendered a decision on January 8, 2016 declaring the marriage void ab initio for psychological incapacity, permitting the petitioner to use her maiden name, ordering liquidation of certain titled properties, awarding custody of the minors to the petitioner with visitation rights for the respondent, and directing joint support. The Republic (through the Office of the Solicitor General) moved for reconsideration and later elevated the case to the Court of Appeals (CA), which, on June 30, 2017, reversed the RTC and dismissed the petition. The CA denied reconsideration on January 3, 2018. The Supreme Court reinstated the petition and ultimately resolved the issues on the merits.
Evidence Presented at Trial
Testimony came from Elizabeth and a family friend, Jenelyn Abeleda, recounting observed behavior and incidents. A clinical psychologist, Dr. Rowena R. Belen, submitted an evaluation based on interviews with Elizabeth and the children and on administered psychological tests (including Revised Beta Examination II, Bender Visual Motor Gestalt Test, Draw-Person-Test, Rorschach, Sach’s Sentence Completion Test, Self-Analysis Test, and MMPI). Dr. Belen concluded that Jose exhibited Narcissistic Personality Disorder, characterizing his conduct as: unstable employment aligned with standards of self-importance; defiance of moral rules manifested by an extra-marital affair; disregard for the rights and needs of his wife and children; shameless neglect; interpersonal exploitative tendencies; grandiosity and entitlement; and a persistent need for attention. Dr. Belen attempted to contact Jose for direct evaluation but was unsuccessful.
Trial Court’s Findings and Ruling
The RTC found, on the totality of evidence, that Jose was psychologically incapacitated to fulfill essential marital obligations. The court characterized his condition as having juridical antecedence (existing before marriage), permanence (deeply embedded personality), and gravity (incapacitating with respect to marital duties). On January 8, 2016 the RTC declared the marriage void ab initio and issued ancillary orders on name, property liquidation, custody, visitation, and support.
Court of Appeals’ Reasoning
The CA reversed the RTC, holding that the testimonies of Elizabeth, Abeleda, and Dr. Belen’s report did not sufficiently prove the required elements of psychological incapacity—gravity, juridical antecedence, and incurability. The CA particularly criticized Dr. Belen’s report as lacking an adequate factual basis and being founded on information supplied by Elizabeth, and the CA found the evidence insufficient to meet the plaintiff’s burden.
Legal Standard on Psychological Incapacity Applied by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court reiterated the controlling legal framework under Article 36 of the Family Code as clarified in Tan-Andal v. Andal and subsequent jurisprudence: psychological incapacity is not a synonym for medical insanity or a mere personality disorder requiring a clinical diagnosis. The petitioner bears the burden of proving psychological incapacity by clear and convincing evidence. The incapacity must be grave (a genuinely serious psychic cause that incapacitates performance of essential marital obligations), juridically antecedent (existing at the time of marriage even if manifesting later), and incurable in the legal sense (enduring and persistent incompatibility that will inevitably cause irreparable breakdown). Expert evidence is not indispensable but, when present, must be given due regard; trial courts’ findings based on observed witness demeanor and the totality of evidence merit substantial weight.
Analysis of the Evidence in Light of the Legal Standard
Applying those standards, the Supreme Court found that the RTC properly evaluated the totality of evidence and that the CA erred in discounting that evidence. The Court accepted Dr. Belen’s conclusions despite her inability to personally interview Jose, observing that lack of direct examination is not fatal where the expert’s report is founded on credible factual material and where other testimonial evidence corroborates the findings. The Court highlighted testimony and documentary evidence of persistent dysfunction: pre-marriage substance abuse; inability to sustain employment; longstanding emotional withdrawal and sleeping for long hours; failure to provide financially and to perform parental duties; physical harsh discipline of a child; repeated extra‑
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 236827)
Procedural History
- Petition for Review on Certiorari filed with the Supreme Court challenging the Court of Appeals (CA) Decision dated June 30, 2017 and Resolution dated January 3, 2018 in CA-G.R. CV No. 107159, which reversed the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 94, Quezon City Decision dated January 8, 2016 in Civil Case No. Q-09-65639.
- RTC rendered Decision declaring the marriage null and void ab initio on account of respondent’s psychological incapacity (Jan. 8, 2016); the Republic filed a Motion for Reconsideration which the RTC denied.
- CA reversed the RTC on June 30, 2017, dismissing the petition for declaration of nullity; CA denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration on January 3, 2018.
- Supreme Court initially issued a Resolution (June 25, 2018) finding no reversible error in the CA Decision, but subsequently reinstated the petition on motion for reconsideration in light of recent jurisprudence; final Supreme Court Decision rendered April 19, 2022 (G.R. No. 236827).
- Parties and counsel filings, psychological reports, and other records admitted in the trial court and before the CA and Supreme Court are part of the rollo and record as cited in the decision.
Factual Background / Antecedents
- Elizabeth and Jose met in Madrid, Spain in 1995 while Elizabeth worked as Cultural Assistant at the Philippine Embassy and Jose was studying for a master's degree.
- They became romantically involved after group dates, cohabited in Madrid from 1996 to 1997, and Jose returned to the Philippines to look for work.
- Marriage solemnized January 14, 1998 in San Fernando, Pampanga; two days later Elizabeth returned to Madrid and Jose remained in the Philippines for work.
- Jose visited Elizabeth in Spain from December 1998 to January 1999. Elizabeth became pregnant and gave birth to their first child, Joaquin Carlos A. Alberto, on September 18, 1999.
- Second child, Maria Teresa A. Alberto, born April 2003.
- The couple effectively separated in 2008 when Jose stopped communicating with and supporting Elizabeth and the children.
Allegations of Respondent’s Conduct and Marital Breakdown
- Elizabeth testified and presented evidence describing respondent Jose as irresponsible prior to and during the marriage: episodes of heavy drinking to the point of passing out, smoking cigarettes and marijuana, and bouts of depression.
- Jose allegedly engaged in an extramarital affair with one Joyce David: romantic and erotic messages discovered on Jose’s cellular phone; Joyce sent letters and a photograph to Elizabeth and claimed Jose “craves” her in bed.
- Jose confirmed the relationship with Joyce and promised to stop, but thereafter frequently did not come home.
- Elizabeth alleged that Jose and Joyce had sexual intercourse in the presence of the couple’s eldest child.
- Following repeated disappointments, Elizabeth ceased sleeping in the same room with Jose and had no sexual relations with him after 2003.
- Elizabeth alleged respondent’s persistent failure to meet financial obligations, inability to maintain steady employment, neglect of parental duties (not caring for children when sick, not attending school activities), and use of physical punishment on the eldest child to enforce obedience.
- Since separation in 2008, respondent has neither communicated with nor supported Elizabeth and the children.
Evidence Presented at Trial
- Testimony of petitioner Elizabeth recounting the course of the relationship, affairs, parental neglect, substance use, depression, and family consequences.
- Testimony of family friend Jenelyn Abeleda, who had known both parties for a long time, observed respondent’s irresponsibility, and witnessed respondent embracing another woman outside a club in Manila.
- Psychological evaluation report prepared and identified in court by clinical psychologist Dr. Rowena R. Belen, based on tests and interviews.
- Psychological tests administered (as listed in the record): Revised Beta Examination II, Bender Visual Motor Gestalt Test, Draw-Person-Test, Rorschach Psychodiagnostic Test, Sach’s Sentence Completion Test, Self-Analysis Test, and MMPI.
- Attempts by Dr. Belen to contact respondent were unsuccessful; a letter sent to Jose was returned unserved.
- Reference in the record to a subsequent psychological evaluation performed by Dr. Jorge Elias Adamos on Jose (submitted by petitioner to the CA on November 24, 2017) which the record indicates largely corroborates Dr. Belen’s conclusion; the CA made no pronouncement on Dr. Adamos’ report in its January 3, 2018 order and the Office of the Solicitor General did not discuss it in its Comment before the Supreme Court.
Expert Psychological Reports and Findings
- Dr. Rowena R. Belen’s report identified and relied upon interviews with Elizabeth and the children, psychological testing results, and her professional evaluation to diagnose respondent with Narcissistic Personality Disorder.
- Dr. Belen’s identified manifestations of the disorder included:
- Failure to stay long in jobs that did not suit his standards.
- Defiance of conventional/moral rules demonstrated by engaging in a sexual affair and disregarding marital vows.
- Careless disregard for the rights of others, especially wife and children, notably constant lack of support.
- Shameless neglect of wife and children.
- Interpersonal exploitative tendencies, using others (especially his wife) to enhance himself and satisfy needs.
- Grandiose sense of self-importance and strong sense of entitlement expecting recognition and favors without reciprocal responsibilities.
- Constant need for attention.
- Dr. Belen traced the root of respondent’s personality to his childhood environment: upbringing in a wealthy and politically influential family with material pampering but deprivation of parental attention and affection, producing a longstanding personality structure that is gravely impairing and impervious to change.
- Dr. Belen’s inability to personally interview respondent was noted; she based conclusions on interviews with petitioner and the children and the results of psychological tests.
- Dr. Adamos’ later report (submitted to the CA and referenced) purportedly corroborates Dr. Belen’s conclusion of Narcissistic Personality Disorder with Jose as informant along with his brother, Jorge Alberto; the CA did not address this report in its denial of reconsideration.
Trial Court (RTC) Findings and Ruling (Jan. 8, 2016)
- RTC concluded the totality of evidence established respondent Jose’s psychological incapacity to fulfill marital obligations.
- RTC characterized the identified personality disorder as:
- Juridical antecedent: the condition existed prior to marriage.
- Permanent: deeply embedded in his personality.
- Grave: rendering him psychologically incapable of performing essential marital obligations.
- RTC Decision dispositive orders included:
- Declaring the marriage null and void ab initio on account of Jose’s psycho