Case Summary (G.R. No. 174451)

Background of the Case

• Petitioner Veronica Cabacungan Alcazar filed a Complaint for annulment of her marriage to Rey C. Alcazar on August 22, 2002.
• The marriage took place on October 11, 2000, and was officiated by Rev. Augusto G. Pabustan.
• After a brief cohabitation, respondent left for work in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, on October 23, 2000, and did not maintain communication with petitioner.
• Upon his return to the Philippines in March 2002, respondent did not return to live with petitioner but stayed with his parents in San Jose, Occidental Mindoro.
• Petitioner alleged that respondent's actions indicated he was physically incapable of consummating their marriage, which she claimed warranted annulment under Article 45(5) of the Family Code.

Procedural History

• A summons was served to respondent on September 30, 2002, but he did not file an Answer.
• The RTC ordered a public prosecutor to investigate for collusion between the parties.
• The public prosecutor's report indicated no collusion and recommended a full trial.
• The trial included testimonies from petitioner, her mother, and a clinical psychologist, who diagnosed respondent with Narcissistic Personality Disorder.

Findings of the Regional Trial Court

• The RTC denied the annulment on June 9, 2004, concluding that respondent's lack of communication and cohabitation did not equate to psychological incapacity.
• The RTC found no evidence that respondent's alleged psychological issues were present at the time of marriage or that they were incurable.
• Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration was denied on August 19, 2004.

Court of Appeals Decision

• Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the RTC's decision on May 24, 2006.
• The appellate court ruled that petitioner failed to provide sufficient evidence of respondent's psychological incapacity.
• The court noted that abandonment could only be a ground for legal separation, not annulment.

Legal Issue Presented

• The primary issue was whether respondent was psychologically incapacitated to perform essential marital obligations as defined by law and jurisprudence.

Legal Framework

• Article 45(5) of the Family Code pertains to the physical incapacity to consummate a marriage.
• Psychological incapacity, as defined under Article 36 of the Family Code, requires a mental incapacity that prevents a party from understanding or fulfilling marital obligations.

Analysis of Psychological Incapacity

• The court emphasized that psychological incapacity must be grave, have juridical antecedence, and be incurable.
• The burden of proof lies with the petitioner to demonstrate that the incapacity existed at the time of marriage and was permanent.
• The court found that mere dissatisfaction in marriage or abandonment does not constitute psychological incapacity.

Evaluation of Evidence

• The testimonies presented by petitioner and her mother did not sufficiently establish respondent's psychological state.
• The psychologist's report lacked a thorough examination of respondent and relied on inf...continue reading

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 174451)

Case Summary

• This case involves a Petition for Review on Certiorari filed by petitioner Veronica Cabacungan Alcazar against respondent Rey C. Alcazar.
• The petition seeks to reverse the Decision dated 24 May 2006 of the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the Regional Trial Court (RTC) decision dated 9 June 2004, dismissing Alcazar's Complaint for annulment of her marriage to Alcazar.

Background of the Case

• Petitioner and respondent were married on 11 October 2000 by Rev. Augusto G. Pabustan.
• They resided together for only five days in Occidental Mindoro before returning to Manila, where respondent left for Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, on 23 October 2000.
• During his employment in Riyadh, respondent failed to communicate with petitioner despite her multiple attempts to reach him.
• Upon his return to the Philippines in March 2002, respondent did not contact petitioner and instead lived with his parents.

Allegations of the Petitioner

• Petitioner claimed that respondent's failure to communicate and live with her indicated his physical incapacity to consummate their marriage, warranting annulment under Article 45(5) of the Family Code.
• Petitioner asserted that there was no chance for reconciliation and filed a Complaint for annulment on 22 August 2002.

Court Proceedings

• The RTC issued an Order on 27 November 2002 for a public prosecutor investigation to ensure no collusion existed between the parties.
• The public prosecutor's report confirmed no collusion and recommended a f...continue reading