G.R. No. 143376 - Choa vs. Choa

Case Summary (G.R. No. 143376)

Key Dates and Procedural Milestones

Marriage: March 15, 1981; two children born of the union. Complaint for annulment filed October 27, 1993; Amended Complaint (psychological incapacity) filed November 8, 1993; respondent presented evidence and filed Formal Offer of Exhibits February 20, 1998; petitioner filed Demurrer to Evidence May 11, 1998; RTC denied demurrer by Order dated December 2, 1998; RTC denied motion for reconsideration March 22, 1999; petitioner sought relief from the CA (CA-GR SP No. 53100) which dismissed the petition as interlocutory and denied relief; petitioner elevated the matter to the Supreme Court via petition for review on certiorari.

Issues Presented

(1) Whether a denial of a demurrer to evidence is properly subject to an extraordinary remedy of certiorari (Rule 65) instead of requiring the defendant to present evidence and await final appeal. (2) Whether the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the demurrer by ignoring or misapplying governing jurisprudence on psychological incapacity (notably Molina and Santos).

Legal Standards on Availability of Certiorari

Interlocutory orders are generally not appealable, yet Rule 41 expressly permits a special civil action under Rule 65 where no appeal lies and the order is tainted by lack or excess of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion. The Court reiterates established exceptions: where an interlocutory order is patently erroneous or issued with grave abuse of discretion, certiorari may lie (citing Tadeo, Cruz, and provisions of Rules 41 and 65 as applied). Thus, a denial of a demurrer to evidence may be assailed by certiorari when the denial is shown to be tainted by grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction and where appeal would not be a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy.

Nature and Standard of Review for a Demurrer to Evidence

A demurrer to evidence challenges the sufficiency in law of the opposing party’s evidence to sustain the case — i.e., whether the plaintiff has produced competent or sufficient proof to support a verdict. When reviewing a demurrer, the court asks whether plaintiff’s evidence, taken as true, is sufficient in law to make out the plaintiff’s case. If the evidence is “utterly and patently insufficient,” it is capricious to force the defendant to present evidence to refute a nonexisting case. The demurrer should be granted where proceeding would needlessly delay and effectively deny justice.

Governing Doctrine on Psychological Incapacity

Article 36 requires demonstration of “psychological incapacity” that, as explained in Santos and Molina, must be characterized by three elements: (a) gravity, (b) juridical antecedence, and (c) incurability. The Court emphasized that psychological incapacity is not satisfied by mere immaturity, difficulty, neglect, refusal, or ordinary personality conflicts; it refers to serious personality disorders that render a party truly incapable of understanding or fulfilling essential marital obligations. The illness must be shown to exist at the time of marriage (natal or supervening disabling factor) and must be more than emotional outbursts or incompatibility.

Application to the Plaintiff’s Non-Expert and Documentary Evidence

The Court examined the evidence offered by respondent and found it legally insufficient. The fact that petitioner filed various criminal or administrative charges (perjury, false testimony, concubinage, deportation-related actions) against respondent does not, standing alone, establish psychological incapacity. The documents only prove the prosecution of said charges; they do not demonstrate a disabling psychological condition. It would be erroneous and inequitable to equate the filing of complaints with incapacity to perform marital obligations.

Respondent’s own testimony likewise failed to prove the required elements. His testimony depicted complaints of petitioner’s alleged lack of household help, alleged neglect of children, immaturity, insistence on constant visits, and claimed lack of intention of procreative sexuality. The Court held that these traits—either singly or together—do not meet the legal standard of psychological incapacity as articulated in Santos and Molina. The evidence showed incompatibility and ordinary marital difficulties, not the grave, antecedent, incurable incapacity contemplated by Article 36.

Evaluation of Expert Testimony (Dr. Antonio M. Gauzon)

The Court found the purported expert testimony unreliable and insufficient. Dr. Gauzon’s opinion (that both parties were “normal” but incompatible and that therapy might reconcile them) did not identify a root cause constituting a grave, juridically antecedent, or incurable psychological disorder. Crucially, the expert did not conduct any personal psychological examination of petitioner; his conclusions were primarily based on respondent’s descriptions and review of transcripts. The professional opinion expressly prefaced itself with qualifications (“if what Al

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 143376)

Procedural Posture

Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court challenging: (a) March 16, 2000 Decision and (b) May 22, 2000 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-GR SP No. 53100.
The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition for certiorari; the assailed Resolution denied petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration.
Case below: Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Negros Occidental, Branch 51, Civil Case No. 93-8098 (Complaint for annulment / declaration of nullity of marriage based on alleged psychological incapacity).
The present petition was deemed submitted for decision on February 12, 2001; memoranda filed by parties and counsel are noted in the record.

Relevant Orders, Filings, and Dates

Marriage of parties: March 15, 1981.
Original complaint for annulment filed by respondent: October 27, 1993 (Civil Case No. 93-8098).
Amended Complaint for declaration of nullity (psychological incapacity) dated November 8, 1993.
Respondent presented evidence in chief and submitted Formal Offer of Exhibits dated February 20, 1998.
Petitioner filed Motion to Dismiss (Demurrer to Evidence) dated May 11, 1998.
RTC Order dated December 2, 1998 denied petitioner’s Demurrer to Evidence; Motion for Reconsideration denied in RTC Order dated March 22, 1999.
Petition for certiorari to the CA filed June 3, 1999, docketed CA-GR No. 53100.
CA Decision dated March 16, 2000; CA Resolution dated May 22, 2000 denied reconsideration.
Supreme Court Decision: November 26, 2002.

Core Legal Questions Presented

Whether certiorari is available to correct an order denying a demurrer to evidence under Rule 33 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, when the plaintiff’s evidence is palpably and patently weak or grossly insufficient to prove the complaint (annulment based on Article 36, psychological incapacity).
Whether the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in denying petitioner’s Demurrer to Evidence by violating or ignoring controlling jurisprudence, specifically Molina (G.R. No. 108763, February 13, 1997) and Santos (G.R. No. 112019, January 14, 1995).

Governing Rules and Doctrinal Authorities Cited

Rule 41, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure: provision barring appeal from interlocutory orders and authorizing special civil action under Rule 65 where judgment or final order is not appealable. The text quoted: "No appeal may be taken from: x x x (c) An interlocutory order; x x x In all the above instances where the judgment or final order is not appealable, the aggrieved party may file an appropriate special civil action under Rule 65."
Rule 65, Section 1, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure: text quoted setting out the grounds for certiorari when a tribunal acts "without or in excess of its or his jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction" and when there is "no appeal, nor any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law."
Precedents referenced regarding availability of certiorari for interlocutory orders where grave abuse exists: Tadeo v. People; Cruz v. People; Ong v. People; Gutib v. CA.
Authorities on demurrer to evidence and sufficiency of evidence: Black’s Law Dictionary definition, and cited cases (Ong v. People; Gutib v. CA).
Jurisprudence on psychological incapacity under Article 36: Santos v. CA and Republic v. Molina; additional doctrinal expositions quoted from Santos describing the elements: gravity, juridical antecedence, and incurability.

Facts Relevant to Merits

Parties married March 15, 1981; two children: Cheryl Lynne and Albryan.
Respondent filed suit seeking declaration of nullity of marriage on grounds of petitioner’s alleged psychological incapacity.
Respondent offered documentary exhibits (Formal Offer of Exhibits p. 3; exhibits referenced in record: Exhibits D–M, FF–GG, O–P, Q–R, HH–JJ among others).
Respondent testified orally at trial; transcript excerpts record his characterization of petitioner as "immature, carefree," alleged attempted abortion before marriage, lack of household help, failure to take children to doctors, and insistence on constant visits — offered as proof of psychological incapacity.
Respondent introduced expert testimony from Dr. Antonio M. Gauzon and a Professional Opinion (Exhibit MM).
Dr. Gauzon’s testimony: concluded both spouses were "normal" but "cannot mix together"; described incompatibility, personality differences, possibility of resolving problems through therapy, and that no major quarrels were indicated — characterization of disputes as "petty quarrels."
Dr. Gauzon did not conduct a personal interview or psychological examination of petitioner; his opinion began with the conditional phrase: "[I]f what Alfonso Choa said about his wife Leni is true, x x x."
Dr. Gauzon admitted his assessment relied largely on information provided by respondent and study of the transcript; he indicated willingness to interview petitioner "for a fee" and that therapy might reconcile the spouses.
Petitioner filed Demurrer to Evidence; RTC denied it, ruling respondent had "established a quantum of evidence that the [petitioner] must controvert."

Lower Court and Court of Appeals Rulings

RTC (Branch 51) issued December 2, 1998 Order denying petitioner’s Demurrer to Evidence, concluding plaintiff had presented sufficient quantum of evidence to be controverted.
RTC denied petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration in March 22, 1999 Order.
Court of Appeals held denial of demurrer to evidence was interlocutory and therefore not subject to certiorari under Rule 65; the proper remedy, per CA, was for the defense to present evidence and, if unsuccessful, appeal from a later final