Case Summary (G.R. No. 228127)
Petitioner’s Allegations and Relief Sought
Petitioner alleged Marivic was psychologically incapacitated to comply with essential marital obligations: described her as carefree, a persistent nagger, demanding, preferring friends over family, unwilling to seek employment, and having incurred loans without his knowledge that affected his employment. Petitioner sought annulment of the marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code.
Respondent’s Position and Counterclaims
Marivic denied the allegations of psychological incapacity and asserted petitioner was the guilty spouse, claiming petitioner displayed irresponsible and abnormal attitudes (including alleged adultery and neglect of financial obligations). She submitted documentary proof of gainful employment during the marriage to rebut claims of indifference to family support.
Key Dates and Procedural Posture
- Marriage ceremonies: December 10, 1987 (Jeddah consulate) and March 12, 1988 (Manila).
- Petition for declaration of nullity filed: November 14, 2006.
- RTC (Branch 20, Naga City) Decision: April 10, 2013 — granted annulment on ground of petitioner’s psychological incapacity.
- Court of Appeals Decision: June 30, 2016 — reversed RTC, holding petitioner failed to prove psychological incapacity of either spouse.
- CA Resolution denying reconsideration: October 7, 2016.
- Supreme Court Decision on appeal (Rule 45): March 6, 2023 — affirmed CA.
Applicable Law and Constitutional Basis
Primary statutory source: Article 36 of the Family Code (1987) and related provisions on spousal obligations (Arts. 68–71). Procedural rules: Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages (A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC), and the Rules of Court (verification/certification requirements, Rule 45 practice). Jurisprudential standards: Santos, Molina, Ngo Te, Kalaw, Tan‑Andal, Cayabyab‑Navarrosa, and related Supreme Court authorities. Constitutional framework: 1987 Philippine Constitution (applicable pursuant to the decision date).
Evidentiary Materials and Expert Testimony
Petitioner presented a psychological evaluation by psychologist Nedy Tayag diagnosing Narcissistic Personality Disorder and opining on juridical antecedence and incurability. Dr. Tayag also conducted interviews of petitioner’s friends. Marivic submitted documentary proof of employment and other evidence tending to show she worked to support the family. Both parties submitted affidavits, pleadings, and testimony addressing conduct and marital history.
RTC Ruling and Rationale
The Regional Trial Court granted annulment, finding petitioner psychologically incapacitated. The RTC accepted Dr. Tayag’s findings, concluded petitioner’s NPD was deeply rooted and pre‑existent (juridical antecedence), incurable, and incapacitating of his ability to comply with essential marital obligations.
Court of Appeals Ruling and Rationale
The Court of Appeals reversed the RTC. The CA found Dr. Tayag’s report and witness interviews insufficient to establish the root cause, gravity, and incurability required by Article 36. It criticized the lack of convincing juridical antecedence, the reliance on petitioner’s self‑reporting, and the absence of clear explanation how the diagnosed narcissism incapacitated petitioner to perform marital duties. The CA also dismissed petitioner’s allegations against Marivic as inadequate to show psychological incapacity.
Issues Presented to the Supreme Court
(1) Whether a psychologically incapacitated spouse may initiate a petition for annulment under Article 36; (2) whether Kalaw abandoned Molina’s guidelines; and (3) whether the marriage should be annulled on the basis of psychological incapacity of petitioner (or of Marivic), applying current standards.
Procedural Questions: Verification, Certification, and Rule 45 Scope
Verification and certification against forum shopping: the Supreme Court found substantial compliance. Although petitioner did not personally sign the verification and certification, a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) conferred authority on counsel to sign; petitioner’s overseas assignment provided justification for inability to sign personally. The Court applied controlling precedents (Altres, Heirs of Gabriel, Fyfe) allowing an agent to sign where authorized and justified.
Rule 45 review: although Rule 45 typically limits review to questions of law, the Court allowed consideration of factual issues because of conflicting findings between the RTC and the CA and because the CA’s factual findings raised questions of misappreciation of evidence.
Whether Unclean Hands Barred Relief
The Court rejected application of the equitable doctrine of unclean hands as a categorical bar to a petition for annulment under Article 36. It held: (a) Article 36 explicitly permits either spouse to file a petition alleging psychological incapacity and does not condition filing on the petitioner being “clean” of any culpable conduct; (b) psychological incapacity is not a culpable or intentional condition for which moral blame can properly be imputed; and (c) the unclean hands doctrine applies only where inequitable conduct is directly related to the matter in litigation and affects equitable relations arising from the transaction — a relationship not present where annulment is sought on the ground of bona fide psychological incapacity.
Evolution and Current Standards for Psychological Incapacity
The Supreme Court reviewed the jurisprudential evolution: Molina established stringent medical/clinical proof requirements (root cause, expert proof, juridical antecedence, incurability, gravity). Subsequent cases (Ngo Te, Kalaw) relaxed rigidity and allowed court to consider the totality of evidence; Tan‑Andal further shifted the paradigm: psychological incapacity is principally a legal concept concerning enduring personality structure, and proof may be established by ordinary witnesses and demonstrated acts rather than strictly by medical experts. Cayabyab‑Navarrosa refined the elements of juridical antecedence, incurability (legal sense), and gravity, emphasizing that proof must show an enduring, persistent pattern of inability to perform essential marital obligations and that incapacity likely existed at the time of marriage’s celebration.
Elements Required Under Contemporary Doctrine
Under the refined standards, a petitioner must show by clear and convincing evidence that: (1) there is a genuine psychological incapacity (a durable personality structure) as opposed to mere character flaws or occasional misconduct; (2) the incapacity is grave and causes practical impossibility of fulfilling essential marital obligations (Arts. 68–71); (3) juridical antecedence — the incapacity likely existed at the time of marriage (established through manifestations before and during the lived conjugal life); and (4) legal incurability — the incapacity is enduring and incompatible with sustaining the marriage.
Court’s Application to the Facts: Allegations Against Marivic
The Court found pet
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 228127)
Procedural Posture and Relief Sought
- Petition for review by certiorari under Rule 45 (G.R. No. 228127) filed by Fernando C. Clavecilla (petitioner) assailing:
- The June 30, 2016 Decision and October 7, 2016 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 101689.
- The CA reversed and set aside the April 10, 2013 Decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 20, Naga City.
- Subject matter: Verified Petition filed November 14, 2006 for declaration of nullity of marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code on the ground of psychological incapacity.
- Relief prayed: Declaration that the marriage between petitioner and respondent Marivic V. Clavecilla is null and void ab initio under Art. 36.
Antecedent Facts / Marriage and Family Background
- Parties met in December 1986: petitioner was a finance officer at the Philippine Embassy in Saudi Arabia; Marivic was a staff nurse in Jeddah.
- Courtship, engagement and marriages:
- Civil ceremony at the Office of the Philippine Consulate General, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia on December 10, 1987.
- Religious ceremony at St. Pancratius Chapel, Paco Park, Manila on March 12, 1988.
- Child: Patrick Joshua, born September 21, 1993.
- Petitioner left the conjugal home sometime in June 2005.
Petitioner's Allegations and Trial Evidence
- Core allegations against Marivic (petitioner's primary claim):
- Marivic was carefree, a consistent nagger, very demanding, preferred friends’ company over family, and showed no interest in finding employment despite prodding.
- Marivic obtained loans without his knowledge; one creditor sued petitioner before the Department of Foreign Affairs, jeopardizing his employment.
- Petitioner remained submissive to avoid confrontation; eventually left in June 2005.
- Alternative/secondary contention in petitioner’s case:
- Psychologist Dr. Nedy Tayag examined petitioner, diagnosed Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD), and concluded petitioner suffered psychological incapacity that was incurable and rendered the marriage beyond repair.
- Dr. Tayag traced petitioner’s deficient personality to early formative years and submitted interviews of petitioner’s friends Fidelis Q. Apalisok and Feliciano Pimentel to supplement her report.
Respondent’s (Marivic’s) Answer and Evidence
- General denial of petitioner’s characterization of her as carefree, nagging, demanding, or inconsiderate of family needs.
- Affirmative defenses and counter-allegations:
- Petitioner's counsel asserted that petitioner was the guilty spouse and therefore should be barred from annulment relief (unclean hands argument).
- Marivic alleged discovery of petitioner’s psychological incapacity after marriage manifested by irresponsibility, abnormal attitude, and selfishness, especially in financial matters.
- She alleged petitioner spent most of his time outside the home from June 1994 and engaged in adulterous relationships; became “obsessed with his own personal desires” and neglected financial support for their son.
- Documentary evidence submitted by Marivic to show employment and income history during marriage:
- Certification from the International Operations Group of Pag-IBIG Fund; contract of services with POLO in Milan; proof of work as Secretary/Bookkeeper in Bonn, Information Officer at Pag-IBIG, Administrative Assistant/Processor at DOLE-POLO Milan, nanny/housekeeper in Paris (Records, pp. 695–699; id. at 96–101).
RTC Ruling (April 10, 2013)
- RTC found petitioner to be psychologically incapacitated based on Dr. Tayag’s testimony and report.
- RTC reasoning:
- Dr. Tayag explained petitioner’s psychological incapacity as rooted in juridical antecedence, deeply ingrained prior to marriage, and incurable.
- Petitioner’s personality disorder made it difficult for him to accept failures or acknowledge shortcomings.
- RTC disposition:
- Petition granted; marriage declared null and void under Art. 36 of the Family Code.
- Property relations dissolved; son Patrick Joshua declared legitimate and retained father’s surname, custody awarded to Marivic subject to visitation rights of petitioner.
- Reinstated parties’ settlement dated 15 June 2012 on support: petitioner directed to pay Php 25,000.00 monthly starting 15 July 2012.
- Ordered issuance of corresponding degree of nullity and compliance with AM No. 02-11-10-SC for liquidation, partition and distribution of properties.
CA Ruling (June 30, 2016) and Resolution (Oct 7, 2016)
- The Court of Appeals reversed the RTC and set aside the declaration of nullity.
- CA findings and reasoning:
- Dr. Tayag’s interviews, testimony and documentary evidence were insufficient to prove the root cause, gravity, and incurability of petitioner’s alleged condition.
- Juridical antecedence of alleged incapacity unclear; Dr. Tayag’s findings relied primarily on information provided by petitioner, casting doubt on conclusiveness.
- No adequate explanation of how petitioner’s narcissism rendered him incapable of performing essential spousal obligations.
- Petitioner likewise failed to prove psychological incapacity on the part of Marivic.
- Cited doctrine: irreconcilable differences, infidelity, emotional immaturity, and irresponsibility alone do not establish psychological incapacity; mild character quirks and occasional outbursts are insufficient.
- CA conclusion: Marriage subsists and remains valid; RTC decision reversed and set aside.
- Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration before CA denied in resolution dated October 7, 2016.
Issues Presented to the Supreme Court
- Whether the CA erred in reversing the RTC’s annulment judgment and holding petitioner failed to prove psychological incapacity.
- Subsidiary questions identified by the Court:
- May a psychologically incapacitated spouse initiate a petition for annulment under Art. 36?
- Whether the Court’s ruling in Kalaw v. Fernandez abandoned the Molina guidelines.
- Whether petitioner’s marriage to Marivic should be annulled for psychological incapacity on petitioner’s part.
Procedural Questions Resolved by the Supreme Court
Verification and Certification Against Forum Shopping:
- Marivic objected that petitioner did not personally sign the verification and certification of non-forum shopping.
- Petitioner submitted a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) authorizing Atty. Marvel C. Clavecilla to initiate the petition and sign all pleadings.
- Court applied Altres v. Empleo guidelines permitting substantial compliance or relaxation where justified; Heirs of Gabriel and Fyfe v. Philippine Airlines referenced for SPA authority.
- Court found SPA expressly granted authority to