Case Summary (G.R. No. 208258)
Key Dates and Procedural History
Civil marriage: civil ceremony on February 5, 1982; church ceremony on December 18, 1982. Child born: March 23, 1986. Petition for declaration of absolute nullity filed by petitioner: July 17, 1997. RTC decision denying nullity: September 2, 1999. CA affirmed RTC: August 28, 2006; CA denied reconsideration: November 14, 2011. Supreme Court resolved the petition for review on certiorari and affirmed the CA decision.
Factual Allegations Advanced by Petitioner
Petitioner alleged that, at the time of the marriage, respondent was psychologically incapacitated to perform essential marital obligations. Specific allegations included: respondent forced petitioner to perform oral and anal sex; respondent attempted to sexually molest petitioner’s sister, nieces and household help; respondent admitted such attempts and asked petitioner to keep them secret; respondent misrepresented his religion and later insulted petitioner’s beliefs; respondent at one point threatened to stab petitioner; respondent failed to provide sufficient financial support, preferred giving half of his salary to his parents and relied on petitioner’s parents for support; respondent remained unemployed for months after job loss; respondent avoided emotional involvement with their son and at times physically harmed him; respondent went to work abroad in 1990 without consulting petitioner and later stopped sending support; in 1992 respondent sent a letter admitting shortcomings and severing ties; upon return in 1997 respondent sought custody of the child.
Evidence Presented at Trial
Petitioner testified and presented a personality evaluation prepared by psychiatrist Dr. Cecilia Villegas. Dr. Villegas diagnosed respondent with a personality disorder characterized as a sexual deviant/perversion and concluded the disorder was grave, serious, and not clinically curable. The psychiatric evaluation, however, was based solely on information narrated by petitioner; there was no psychiatric examination or testing of respondent himself. Respondent did not file an answer and did not appear during trial. The Office of the Solicitor General opposed the petition; the public prosecutor conducted an inquiry to rule out collusion.
RTC and CA Findings
The RTC dismissed the petition and declared the marriage valid and subsisting. The RTC found that petitioner’s evidence failed to overcome the presumption of validity of marriage. The court emphasized that the psychiatric evaluation relied on petitioner’s information and was therefore of doubtful veracity; further, respondent had acknowledged faults and attempted reconciliation (letter dated November 15, 1992). The RTC concluded that the evidence showed infidelity and sexual perversion after marriage but did not establish a permanent, grave sickness disabling respondent from marital duties. The CA affirmed, holding that the circumstances relied upon—sexual perversion, abandonment, attempted violence, and infidelity—if true, constituted at best grounds for legal separation under Article 55 and not grounds for annulment under Article 36.
Governing Legal Standard under Article 36 and Relevant Jurisprudence
Article 36 provides that a marriage is void if, at the time of celebration, a party was psychologically incapacitated to comply with essential marital obligations. Leading jurisprudence frames the required elements as: (a) gravity (the incapacity must be grave or serious); (b) juridical antecedence (the incapacity must have roots antecedent to the marriage); and (c) incurability (the incapacity must be incurable or its cure beyond means). Molina supplied procedural guidelines (e.g., burden of proof on plaintiff, medical/clinical identification of root cause, proof that incapacity existed at time of marriage, expert testimony, and legal characterization of essential marital obligations). Tan‑Andal subsequently refined the standards: expert psychiatric testimony is no longer indispensable; proof may be established through the totality of evidence, including testimony from ordinary witnesses who observed durable aspects of the spouse’s personality structure; juridical antecedence may be proven by non-experts who can speak to upbringing and past behavior; gravity must show genuinely serious psychic cause; and incurability is assessed in a legal sense emphasizing enduring incompatibility that makes the marriage’s breakdown inevitable and irreparable.
Application of Law to the Facts — Court’s Analysis
The Supreme Court applied the Tan‑Andal parameters and found petitioner’s evidence insufficient. The psychiatric report diagnosed respondent as a sexual deviant, but it was based exclusively on petitioner’s narrations; there was no direct psychiatric examination or corroborating testimony from family, relatives, friends, or co‑workers who could att
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 208258)
Case Caption, Citation and Panel
- G.R. No. 208258, April 27, 2022, Second Division.
- Petition for review on certiorari seeking to set aside the August 28, 2006 Decision and November 14, 2011 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 80952.
- Petition filed by Maria Vicia Carullo-Padua (Maria) against respondents Republic of the Philippines and Joselito Padua (Joselito).
- Decision penned by Justice Hernando; concurring Justices: Caguioa, Rosario, and Marquez. Perlas-Bernabe, J. on official leave. Designated additional Member noted.
Factual Background
- Maria and Joselito were married civilly on February 5, 1982 and had a church wedding on December 18, 1982.
- The marriage produced one son, born March 23, 1986.
- Maria filed a petition for declaration of absolute nullity of marriage on July 17, 1997, anchored on Article 36 of the Family Code.
Allegations in the Petition (Summary of Maria’s Factual Allegations)
- At the time of celebration of marriage, Joselito was allegedly psychologically incapacitated to perform marital obligations.
- Sexual conduct and coercion allegations:
- Joselito exhibited excessive sexual desire and allegedly forced Maria to perform oral and anal sex.
- On occasions Joselito allegedly attempted to sexually molest Maria’s sister, nieces and household help; Joselito purportedly admitted such attempts and begged Maria to keep them secret.
- Religious misrepresentation and conflict:
- Joselito allegedly misrepresented himself as Roman Catholic when he was actually a born-again Christian; when Maria refused to convert, he allegedly insulted her religious beliefs.
- Violence and threats:
- During a quarrel Joselito allegedly threatened to stab Maria with a letter opener, an attempted killing by threat.
- Financial and family support allegations:
- Joselito allegedly failed to provide financial support to Maria and their child.
- After marriage Joselito allegedly insisted they stay at Maria’s parents’ home so he could give half his salary to his own parents; the couple was reportedly dependent on Maria’s parents.
- Joselito allegedly did not share household expenses while living at Maria’s parents’ house.
- After losing his job in 1985, Joselito allegedly remained unemployed for six months until Maria asked him to seek work.
- Parental and emotional neglect and abuse of child:
- Joselito allegedly failed to provide emotional and psychological support for their son, preferred staying in their room rather than spending time with him, and occasionally physically harmed the child.
- Abandonment and cessation of support while abroad:
- In 1990 Joselito allegedly left for Italy to work without consulting Maria; while abroad he allegedly stopped sending financial support after settling a debt he incurred in the Philippines.
- In 1992 Joselito allegedly sent a letter admitting shortcomings and announced decision to sever ties with Maria and their son.
- On his return to the Philippines in 1997 Joselito sought custody of their child.
Procedural History (Lower Courts)
- Joselito did not file an answer; the trial court ordered the public prosecutor to investigate for collusion between the parties.
- After the public prosecutor found no collusion, trial proceeded in the absence of Joselito.
- The Office of the Solicitor General filed a comment dated December 3, 1997 opposing the petition.
- Trial evidence consisted of petitioner Maria’s testimony and the testimony and personality evaluation report of psychiatrist Dr. Cecilia Villegas.
Evidence Presented at Trial
- Maria testified to the allegations contained in her petition.
- Psychiatrist Dr. Cecilia Villegas testified and prepared a personality evaluation report.
- Dr. Villegas diagnosed Joselito with a personality disorder of a sexual deviant/perversion type, based on Maria’s narrations.
- Dr. Villegas related Joselito’s preference for anal and oral sex and alleged molestation attempts as manifestations of perversion.
- Dr. Villegas attributed the root cause to Joselito’s childhood with a cruel father and an overprotective mother, producing emotional confusion and arrested sexual development.
- Dr. Villegas stated the psychological disorder was grave, serious, and not clinically curable, rendering Joselito psychologically incapacitated to perform marital obligations.
- Documentary evidence referenced included a letter dated 15 November 1992 (Exh. “E”) in which respondent allegedly asked forgiveness and admitted faults.
- No psychological examination or interview of Joselito, nor testimony from his family, relatives, friends, or co-workers, was presented at trial.
Ruling of the Regional Trial Court (Sept. 2, 1999)
- The RTC denied the petition for declaration of nullity and declared the marriage valid and subsisting.
- RTC reasoning included:
- The evidence adduced by Maria failed to overcome the legal presumption in favor of the validity of marriage.
- The petitioner’s evidence proved at most infidelity and sexual perversion occurring after marriage, which the RTC held could not be said to be a permanent sickness so serious as to prevent performance of marital obligations.
- The respondent was aware of and accepted his faults (citing the November 15, 1992 letter).
- Respondent tried to be a provider; petitioner admitted respondent had a job though earnings were limited due to giving half salary to his parents; the couple purchased a parcel of land together (Exh. “D”).
- The RTC found Dr. Villegas’ evaluation to be based on data supplied solely by petitioner and therefore of doubtful veracity.
- The RTC stated that the law requires a prior clinical finding by a psychologist or psychiatrist to be averred in the petition, and found that petitioner consulted Dr. Villegas only for the purpose of sustaining the petition; consequently the findings were tainted with legal infirmity.
Ruling of the Court of Appeals (Aug. 28, 2006; Resolution Nov. 14, 2011)
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court judgment dismissing the petition.
- The appellate court held that petitioner’s grounds (sexual perversion, abandonment, attempt against life, sexual infidelity) even if true are not grounds for annulment under Article 36 but at best constitute grounds for legal separation under Article 55 of the Family Code.
- Reconsideratio