Title
Supreme Court
Carating-Siayngco vs. Siayngco
Case
G.R. No. 158896
Decision Date
Oct 27, 2004
A 24-year marriage contested over alleged psychological incapacity; Supreme Court upheld validity, ruling marital conflicts insufficient for nullity under Article 36.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 208093)

Grounds for Nullity of Marriage

In his petition, Manuel claimed that Juanita had an overbearing and volatile personality, which included disrespect towards his professional status as a judge, frequent complaints, and episodes of rage that manifested in physical outbursts within their home. He contended that these issues stemmed from underlying psychological incapacity that predated their marriage, rooted in childhood resentments. Juanita contested these allegations, asserting that she maintained a loving relationship despite Manuel’s own infidelities and portrayed herself as a supportive spouse.

Trial and Evidence

During the trial, Manuel elaborated on the dynamics of their marriage, indicating dissatisfaction and emotional distress caused by Juanita’s behavior. Witness testimonies included those from Clerks of Court corroborating Juanita's complaints about cleanliness and her confrontational nature, alongside a psychiatric evaluation by Dr. Valentina Garcia. Dr. Garcia's assessment diagnosed both spouses with psychological incapacity, attributing their marital failures to mutual relational problems rather than solely to Juanita’s behavior.

Findings of the Regional Trial Court

On January 31, 2001, the RTC ruled against Manuel’s petition, concluding that the alleged psychological incapacity was not sufficiently established. It emphasized that Juanita’s behavior, even if irritating, did not equate to a lack of capacity to fulfill marital obligations. The court criticized the tendency to seek annulment for minor grievances, holding that such actions should not be normalized in Philippine marriage law. The RTC maintained that the marriage should be upheld unless clear and overwhelming evidence warranted its nullity.

Court of Appeals Decision

The Court of Appeals, on July 1, 2003, overturned the RTC's ruling, relying heavily on Dr. Garcia’s psychiatric report while also referencing the case of Chi Ming Tsoi v. Court of Appeals, which influenced its reasoning about psychological incapacity. The Appellate Court identified mutual incapacity and the absence of empathy between the spouses as vital indicators justifying the annulment of their marriage.

Supreme Court Ruling

The Supreme Court, addressing the appeal from Juanita, found that the Court of Appeals had erred in its application of law. It reiterated established requirements for proving psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code, emphasizing essential criteria such as the gravity and permanence of incapacity. The Court clarified that psychological incapacity must be medically identified, proven as existing prior to marriage, and should not be confused with mere personality differences or unsatisfactory marital experiences.

Conclusion on P

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.