G.R. No. 175367 - Aurelio vs. Aurelio

Case Summary (G.R. No. 175367)

Petitioner’s Role and Principal Pleadings

Petitioner filed a Motion to Dismiss (November 8, 2002) contesting respondent’s petition for declaration of nullity on the ground that the petition failed to state a cause of action and did not satisfy the standards required for invoking Article 36. Petitioner later pursued relief by certiorari under Rule 65 before the Court of Appeals and ultimately filed a petition for review under Rule 45 before the Supreme Court.

Respondent’s Allegations and Expert Findings

Respondent filed the petition for declaration of nullity on May 9, 2002, alleging that both spouses were psychologically incapacitated to comply with essential marital obligations at the time of the marriage and thereafter. The complaint alleged specific manifestations of incapacity: lack of financial support, refusal to assist in family maintenance, jealousy and distrust, humiliation, emotional immaturity, inability to delay gratification, low tolerance for boredom, and a mutual hostile relationship that distorted marital life. A psychologist clinically diagnosed respondent with Histrionic Personality Disorder with Narcissistic features and petitioner with Passive Aggressive (Negativistic) Personality Disorder, and reported that the psychological incapacity of both parties was grave, incorrigible and incurable.

Procedural History through Appellate Review

RTC denied petitioner’s Motion to Dismiss by Order dated January 14, 2003; petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration (filed February 21, 2003) was denied by Order dated December 17, 2003. Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari to the Court of Appeals on February 16, 2004. The Court of Appeals dismissed that petition in a Decision dated October 6, 2005 and denied reconsideration in a subsequent Resolution. Petitioner then sought review in the Supreme Court by a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45.

Issues Presented to the Supreme Court

Petitioner raised two principal issues: (1) whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the allegations in the petition were sufficient to support a declaration of nullity based on psychological incapacity; and (2) whether the Court of Appeals erred in denying certiorari despite alleged grave abuse of discretion by the trial court in denying the Motion to Dismiss, asserting that appeal was not an adequate remedy.

Governing Law and Standards (Including Molina Guidelines)

Applicable constitutional framework: the 1987 Constitution (decision rendered after 1990). Substantive law: Article 36 of the Family Code (psychological incapacity). The Court applied the Molina guidelines established in Republic v. Court of Appeals, which include: (1) plaintiff bears the burden of proof; (2) the root cause of the incapacity must be medically/clinically identified, alleged in the complaint, proven by experts and explained in the decision; (3) incapacity must exist at the time of celebration of the marriage; (4) incapacity must be permanent or incurable; (5) the illness must be grave enough to disable assumption of essential marital obligations; (6) specific essential marital obligations not complied with must be pleaded, proven and discussed in the judgment; (7) ecclesiastical tribunal interpretations should be given respect though not controlling; and (8) the trial court must order the prosecuting attorney to appear and the decision should be accompanied by certification from the Solicitor General (the latter requirement later modified). Supreme Court Administrative Matter No. 02-11-10 modified the Molina requirement concerning Solicitor General certification (dispensing with it to avoid delay) while retaining the requirement of a prosecuting attorney’s appearance under Article 48 of the Family Code.

Court’s Analysis on Sufficiency of Allegations

The Supreme Court found that respondent’s petition sufficiently alleged the elements required by the Molina guidelines to withstand a Motion to Dismiss. Specifically: (a) the complaint alleged the family backgrounds and other facts serving as the root causes of psychological incapacity and referenced clinical identification by a competent psychologist; (b) the petition alleged grave, incorrigible and incurable forms of personality disorders for both parties as clinically reported; and (c) the petition identified failures to comply with essential marital obligations, falling within Article 68 of the Family Code (duty to live together, mutual love, respect, fidelity, and to render mutual help and support). The Court emphasized that those factual and expert allegations make out a cause of action that must be resolved at trial.

Remand and Trial as Appropriate Fact-Finding Forum

The Court explained that determination of psychological incapacity under Article 36 typically involves presentation of evidence, expert testimony, and findings after trial. The Molina guidelines contemplate a full trial and court decision after weighing testimony and expert reports. Accordingly, the Supreme Court concluded that it was prudent to remand the case to the RTC for trial on the merits, where evidence and witness credibility can b

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 175367)

Case Citation and Procedural Posture

Reported at 665 Phil. 693; 108 O.G. No. 16, 1772 (April 16, 2012).
Second Division; G.R. No. 175367, June 06, 2011.
Decision penned by Justice Peralta.
This is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court seeking to set aside the Court of Appeals (CA) Decision of October 6, 2005 and CA Resolution of October 26, 2006 in CA-G.R. SP No. 82238.

Parties and Marital Background

Petitioner: Danilo A. Aurelio.
Respondent: Vida Ma. Corazon P. Aurelio.
Parties were married on March 23, 1988.
They have two sons: Danilo Miguel and Danilo Gabriel.

Nature of Proceeding and Relief Sought

Respondent filed a Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage on May 9, 2002 with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, Branch 94.
Relief sought: declaration that the marriage is null and void under Article 36 of the Family Code on the ground of psychological incapacity.

Statutory Ground Invoked

Article 36, Family Code: "A marriage contracted by any party who, at the time of the celebration, was psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential marital obligations of marriage, shall likewise be void, even if such incapacity becomes manifest only after its solemnization." (as quoted in the source).

Allegations in the Petition (as summarized by the Court of Appeals)

Both husband and wife were alleged to be psychologically incapable of performing and complying with essential marital obligations, with such incapacity existing prior to and at the time of the marriage.
Alleged manifestations of petitioner’s incapacity included: lack of financial support; lack of drive; incapacity to discern his working wife’s plight; consistent jealousy and distrust; alternating moods between hostile defiance and contrition; refusal to assist in family maintenance; refusal to pay household bills and provide for family needs; arrogance; insensitivity to respondent’s feelings; tendency to humiliate and embarrass respondent even in presence of children.
Alleged manifestations of respondent’s incapacity included: effusive, rapidly changing emotions (joy to fury to misery to despair depending on day-to-day experiences); low tolerance for boredom; emotional immaturity; inability to stand frustration or delay gratification; self-indulgence; quick upset when unable to get what she wants; and a psychological aversion to cohabit with or take care of her husband.
The parties’ mutual hostility and incapacity to accept and fulfill essential marital obligations were alleged to have led to the breakdown of the marriage.
A psychologist’s clinical evaluation, as quoted in the petition, was alleged to have found the psychological incapacity of both parties to be grave, incorrigible and incurable: respondent diagnosed with Histrionic Personality Disorder with Narcissistic features; petitioner diagnosed with Passive Aggressive (Negativistic) Personality Disorder rendering him immature and irresponsible to assume normal obligations of marriage.

Procedural History in the Trial Court

November 8, 2002: Petitioner filed a Motion to Dismiss the petition for declaration of nullity.
January 14, 2003: RTC issued an Order denying petitioner’s Motion to Dismiss.
February 21, 2003: Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration.
December 17, 2003: RTC issued an Order denying the Motion for Reconsideration.
RTC reasoning: the petition complied with the Molina doctrine (Republic v. Court of Appeals) and whether allegations were meritorious depended on proofs to be presented at trial; the petition presented a cause of action under Article 36 and factual resolution required hearing on the merits.

Appeal to the Court of Appeals

February 16, 2004: Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 before the Court of Appeals challenging the RTC’s denial of the motion to dismiss.
October 6, 2005: Court of Appeals rendered a Decision dismissing petitioner’s Rule 65 petition.
October 26, 2006: Court of Appeals dismissed petitioner’s motion for reconsideration in a Resolution.
Court of Appeals holding: respondent’s complaint for declaration of nullity, when scrutinized against Article 36 and the Molina doctrine, revealed the existence of a sufficient cause of action.

Issues Raised Before the Supreme Court (verbatim as presented)

I. WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS VIOLATED THE APPLICABLE LAW AND JURISPRUDENCE WHEN IT HELD THAT THE ALLEGATIONS CONTAINED IN THE PETITION FOR DECLARATION OF THE NULLITY OF MARRIAGE ARE SUFFICIENT FOR THE COURT TO DECLARE THE NULLITY OF THE MARRIAGE BETWEEN VIDA AND DANILO.
II. WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS VIOLATED THE APPLICABLE LAW AND JURISPRUDENCE WHEN IT DENIED PETITIONER'S ACTION FOR CERTIORARI DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE DENIAL OF HIS MOTION TO DISMISS BY THE TRIAL COURT IS PATENTLY AND UTTERLY TAINTED WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION; AND THAT APPEAL IN DUE COURSE IS NOT A PLAIN, ADEQUATE OR SPEEDY REMEDY UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES.

Governing Legal Standards and Doctrines Cited

Molina guidelines (Republic v. Court of Appeals, 335 Phil. 664 (1997)) as adopted and enumerated by the Court:
- (1) Burden of proof on plaintiff to show nullity of marriage.
- (2) The
...continue reading