Title
Baldovino-Torres vs. Torres
Case
G.R. No. 248675
Decision Date
Jul 20, 2022
Marriage declared null due to husband's Antisocial Personality Disorder, rendering him psychologically incapable of fulfilling marital obligations.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 248675)

Applicable Law

The case is grounded on Article 36 of the Family Code of the Philippines, which addresses psychological incapacity as a basis for declaring a marriage null and void.

Factual Background

Claudine and Jasper began their relationship in 2000, eventually marrying on July 10, 2002, despite initial objections from Claudine’s mother. Claudine became aware of Jasper’s irresponsible and immature behavior early in their marriage, including a failure to secure stable employment and escalating abusive conduct, which culminated in Claudine’s decision to leave. She filed a Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage in 2015, asserting Jasper's psychological incapacity to fulfill his marital obligations.

Initial Ruling by the RTC

On January 30, 2017, the RTC ruled in favor of Claudine, declaring the marriage null and void ab initio based on evidence presented, mainly relying on the expert testimony of Clinical Psychologist Dr. Nedy Tayag, who diagnosed Jasper with Antisocial Personality Disorder. This diagnosis characterized Jasper's behavior as grave, incurable, and detrimental to fulfilling the duties of marriage.

Appeal to the Court of Appeals

The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) contested the RTC’s decision, and on March 22, 2019, the CA reversed the RTC ruling. The CA held that the evidence did not demonstrate Jasper’s psychological incapacity under Article 36, asserting that his behavior, while irresponsible, did not equate to an inability to comprehend and fulfill marital obligations. Claudine's motion for reconsideration was denied on July 9, 2019.

Issues Presented

The key issues included whether:

  1. CA erred in disregarding Dr. Tayag's expert testimony.
  2. Evidence sufficiently demonstrated Jasper’s condition met the criteria of psychological incapacity as defined by Article 36.
  3. The CA should have dismissed the appeal based on the finality of the RTC decision.

Arguments

Claudine argued the evidence showcased Jasper’s grave psychological incapacity, while the OSG contended the evidence lacked conclusive proof of such incapacity and that the RTC had over-relied on Dr. Tayag's report. Furthermore, the OSG posited that the motion for reconsideration was timely, as it was filed within the appropriate 15-day period based on when the OSG was notified.

Court Ruling

The Supreme Court granted Claudine's petition, finding that the totality of evidence clearly demonstrated Jasper's inability to fulfill ess

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.