Case Summary (G.R. No. 151867)
Key Dates and Procedural Posture
Civil marriage: September 28, 1966; church ratification: May 20, 1967. Children born in 1968, 1969, 1971 and 1976. Respondent departed for Jordan with another man and their two children on December 9, 1995. Petitioner filed a petition for declaration of nullity for psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code on April 1, 1997 in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati, Branch 149. Summons was effected by publication. The trial court declared the marriage null and void for psychological incapacity. The Court of Appeals reversed and dismissed the petition. The Solicitor General appealed to the Supreme Court, which denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals’ dismissal.
Applicable Law and Constitutional Basis
Because the decision was rendered after 1990, the decision is grounded on the 1987 Constitution. The statutory provisions central to the case are Article 36 of the Family Code (psychological incapacity as ground for annulment), Article 46 (voidability for certain mental conditions or vices existing at inception), Article 54 (legitimation of children conceived prior to declaration of nullity), and Article 55 (grounds for legal separation). Jurisprudential standards developed in cases such as Santos v. Court of Appeals and Marcos v. Marcos are applied to interpret Article 36.
Facts Presented at Trial
Petitioner testified regarding respondent’s recurrent infidelities with several men (a military dentist, a Presidential Security Command lieutenant, and later a Jordanian national, Mustafa Ibrahim). Respondent was once hospitalized at Manila Medical City and treated by a clinical psychiatrist. She bore two children by Mustafa Ibrahim and, after an interval living with petitioner, finally left for Jordan with them in December 1995. Petitioner alleged continued abandonment and inability to reconcile, prompting the nullity petition.
Expert Evidence and Trial Court Findings
Petitioner presented Dr. Natividad A. Dayan, who evaluated both spouses. Dr. Dayan described petitioner as conscientious and diligent, and diagnosed respondent with Anti‑Social Personality Disorder, based on repeated infidelities, lack of remorse, emotional immaturity and abandonment of family responsibilities. The trial court accepted this testimony and concluded that respondent suffered from psychological incapacity to perform the essential obligations of marriage, declaring both the civil and church marriages null and void and substituting a regime of complete separation of property.
Issues Raised on Appeal
The Solicitor General, representing the Republic, raised three principal contentions on appeal: (1) the lower court erred in granting annulment because no valid ground (psychological incapacity) was proven; (2) the lower court erred in declaring the church marriage null and void; and (3) the court below rendered judgment without a certification issued by the Solicitor General as required under controlling precedent (Molina).
Court of Appeals Disposition
The Court of Appeals reviewed the record, determined that the evidence did not establish psychological incapacity within the meaning and requirements of Article 36, and thus recalled and set aside the RTC’s judgment, dismissing the petition for declaration of nullity.
Legal Standard for "Psychological Incapacity" (as applied)
Relying on Santos v. Court of Appeals and related jurisprudence, the Court reiterated that "psychological incapacity" denotes a grave mental condition—of a psychological (not purely physical) nature—that renders a party truly incapable of understanding and fulfilling the basic marital obligations (mutual obligations to live together, respect, love, fidelity, help and support). The incapacity must be severe, permanent or incurable, and must have existed at the time of marriage. The Court warned against equating mere sexual inability, promiscuity, immaturity, or subsequent misconduct with Article 36 incapacity; those circumstances may, depending on degree, constitute grounds for legal separation under Article 55 or make the marriage voidable under Article 46, but they do not automatically satisfy the stringent Article 36 standard.
Application of the Standard to the Present Facts
The Supreme Court found that the record showed a stable marital beginning—civil and church marriages and four children—indicating the absence of a demonstrable, pre‑existing psychological incapacity at the time of marriage. Respondent’s later promiscuity, infidelity and abandonment, while serious and potentially grounds for legal separation, did not, on the record, demonstrate the kind of persistent, grave mental disorder that would have made her incapable of assuming marital obligations from the inception of the marriage. The expert testimony offered was not deemed to establish the requisite gravity, juridical antecedence and
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 151867)
Citation and Procedural Posture
- Reported at 466 Phil. 226; 101 OG No. 47, 8242 (November 21, 2005); First Division; G.R. No. 151867, January 29, 2004.
- Petition for review on certiorari to the Supreme Court following: (a) judgment of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Makati City, Branch 149, granting a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity; (b) recall and setting aside of that judgment by the Court of Appeals which ordered dismissal of the petition; and (c) denial of petitioner's motion for reconsideration by the Court of Appeals (Resolution dated January 8, 2002).
- Petitioner: David B. Dedel. Respondents: Court of Appeals and Sharon L. Corpuz-Dedel a.k.a. Jane Ibrahim. Oppositor-Respondent: Republic of the Philippines (represented by the Solicitor General who appealed).
Parties and Counseling Facts
- Petitioner David B. Dedel met respondent Sharon L. Corpuz while he worked in his father's advertising business; the acquaintance led to courtship and marriage.
- Civil marriage was celebrated before the City Court of Pasay on September 28, 1966 and ratified in a church wedding on May 20, 1967 (Exhibits F and F-3; Exhibit F).
- The union produced four children: Beverly Jane (born September 18, 1968, Exhibit H), Stephanie Janice (born September 9, 1969, Exhibit I), Kenneth David (born April 24, 1971, Exhibit J), and Ingrid (born October 20, 1976, Exhibit K).
- The conjugal partnership acquired neither property nor debt.
Petitioner's Allegations Regarding Respondent's Conduct
- Petitioner alleged respondent proved to be irresponsible and immature as a wife and mother.
- Alleged extra-marital affairs by respondent with multiple men: a dentist in the Armed Forces of the Philippines; a Lieutenant in the Presidential Security Command; and later a Jordanian national named Mustafa Ibrahim.
- Allegation that respondent was once confined at Manila Medical City for treatment by Dr. Lourdes Lapuz, a clinical psychiatrist.
- Petitioner alleged that despite treatment, respondent continued an illicit relationship with Mustafa Ibrahim, whom she later married and with whom she had two children.
- When Mustafa Ibrahim left the country, respondent returned to petitioner with her two children by Ibrahim; petitioner accepted her back and considered the two illegitimate children as his own.
- On December 9, 1995, respondent allegedly abandoned petitioner to join Ibrahim in Jordan with their two children; since then respondent returned to the Philippines only on special occasions.
- Based on these facts and "giving up all hope of a reconciliation," petitioner filed on April 1, 1997 a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code before RTC Makati, Branch 149.
Service of Process and Procedural Note on Service by Publication
- Summons was effected by publication in the Pilipino Star Ngayon, a newspaper of general circulation, because respondent did not reside in and could not be found in the Philippines (Exhibits D to D-3).
Psychological Evidence Presented at Trial
- Petitioner offered the testimony of Dr. Natividad A. Dayan, who conducted a psychological evaluation.
- Dr. Dayan's testimony about petitioner: conscientious, hardworking, diligent, a perfectionist who wants tasks completed to final detail and exerts his best in whatever he does.
- Dr. Dayan's testimony about respondent: suffering from Anti-Social Personality Disorder as exhibited by blatant infidelity, several indiscretions, lack of capacity for remorse (including bringing Ibrahim's two children to live with petitioner), immaturity and irresponsibility in handling the marriage, repeated infidelity and abandonment—concluding these amounted to psychological incapacity to perform the essential obligations of marriage (Exhibit L; Records pp. 57-78).
Trial Court Judgment (Dispositive Portion)
- RTC declared the civil and church marriages between David B. Dedel and Sharon L. Corpuz (celebrated September 28, 1966 and May 20, 1967) null and void on the ground of psychological incapacity on the part of respondent to perform the essential obligations of marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code.
- The conjugal partnership of gains existing between the parties was dissolved and replaced with a regime of complete separation of property between the spouses in accordance with pertinent provisions of the Family Code, without prejudice to rights previously acquired by creditors.
- Ordered that a copy of the decision be recorded in the proper civil and property registries per Article 52 of the Family Code.
- Judgment penned by Presiding Judge Josefina Guevarra-Salonga (now an Associate Justice of the Court of Appeals) (Rollo, p. 49).
Grounds of Appeal/Contentions by the Republic of the Philippines (Solicitor General)
- The Republic of the Philippines, through the Solicitor General, appealed to the Court of Appeals alleging:
- I. The lower court erred in granting the petition despite the absence of a valid ground for declarati