Case Summary (G.R. No. 209031)
Factual background
Petitioner and respondent met in an internet chatroom in May 2005, developed a romantic relationship at a distance, and married in January 2006. After a brief honeymoon respondent returned to Italy; petitioner later joined him and they lived together for a period before petitioner left for the Philippines in April 2007. Petitioner alleged that respondent manifested immaturity, extreme dependence on his mother, unhealthy hygiene, addiction to video games and cannabis, physical violence on at least one occasion, and refusal to assume marital responsibilities. Petitioner presented her own testimony, the testimony and judicial affidavit of her mother, and an expert psychological report and testimony by Dr. Nedy Tayag.
Procedural history
Petitioner filed the nullity petition on 14 September 2007. The Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 254, Las Piñas City, dismissed the petition on 4 January 2010 for failure to prove psychological incapacity. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed by decision on 14 December 2012 and denied reconsideration by resolution on 29 August 2013. Petitioner sought review by certiorari before the Supreme Court.
Issue presented
Whether the totality of petitioner’s evidence established that respondent was psychologically incapacitated under Article 36 of the Family Code—i.e., whether petitioner proved the existence, gravity, juridical antecedence, and incurability of a psychological incapacity that rendered respondent incapable of complying with essential marital obligations.
Petitioner’s case and arguments
Petitioner relied on her own testimony, her mother’s statements, and the clinical evaluation by Dr. Tayag, who diagnosed respondent (based on accounts provided by petitioner and her mother) as suffering from Dependent Personality Disorder with underlying antisocial traits. Petitioner argued that this diagnosis identified a root cause that predated and made him incapable, gravely and incurably, of performing marital obligations. She also contended that personal examination of respondent was not strictly necessary where the totality of evidence and expert findings permit diagnosis.
State’s and courts’ counterarguments
The Office of the Solicitor General and the courts below emphasized petitioner’s failure to discharge the burden of proof. They noted petitioner’s own admissions that respondent had been romantic, caring, gainfully employed, and provided financial support early in the relationship—facts inconsistent with a finding of psychological incapacity at the time of marriage. The courts highlighted that the expert’s diagnosis was based solely on information from petitioner and her mother and that respondent was never personally examined or subjected to tests by the psychologist. They held that allegations of video game or cannabis use, poor hygiene, dependency upon the mother, or immaturity do not alone establish the kind of grave, antecedent, and incurable psychological disorder contemplated by Article 36.
Legal standard under Article 36 and controlling jurisprudence
Article 36 permits annulment where, at the time of marriage, a party was psychologically incapacitated to comply with essential marital obligations. Philippine jurisprudence requires that psychological incapacity be characterized by three elements: (a) gravity (a severe incapacity making the party incapable of performing ordinary marital duties), (b) juridical antecedence (the incapacity must have existed prior to or at the time of marriage, although manifestations may appear later), and (c) incurability (the condition is permanent or beyond available remedial measures). Courts have held these requirements strictly to confine Article 36 to the most serious personality disorders that render the affliction incompatible with the marital bond.
Evidentiary assessment and expert testimony
The RTC, CA, and Supreme Court scrutinized the evidentiary weight of Dr. Tayag’s conclusions. The principal deficiencies were: (1) absence of direct clinical examination or testing of respondent—the diagnosis rested on second‑hand accounts from petitioner and her mother; (2) lack of demonstration of juridical antecedence and incurability in the report (no explanation of how the diagnosed traits were rooted in respondent’s pre‑marital history or why they were incurable); and (3) potential bias and unreliability of the sources of information given the brevity of the couple’s pre‑marital acquaintance and the mother’s admitted lack of personal knowledge. The courts cited precedent instructing that when a psychologist’s conclusions are derived from one‑sided accounts, the opinion must be subjected to a more rigid and stringent evaluation and cannot alone establish the high threshold required by Article 36.
Application of law to facts and courts’ reasoning
Applying the Article 36 criteria to the evidence, the courts concluded that petitioner proved, at most, incompatibility, immaturity, cultural differences, neglect, or refusal to perform certain marital duties—circumstances insufficient to establish a clinically incapacitating condition present at the time of mar
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 209031)
Factual Antecedents
- Petitioner Abigael An Espina‑Dan and respondent Marco Dan, an Italian national, met in a chatroom on the internet sometime in May 2005 and became regular chatmates who exchanged letters and became emotionally close.
- In November 2005, respondent proposed marriage; they married on 23 January 2006 after respondent flew to the Philippines on 9 January 2006.
- Respondent returned to Italy on 29 January 2006; petitioner followed and arrived in Italy on 26 February 2006. The couple lived together in Italy for a period.
- Petitioner left respondent and flew back to the Philippines on 18 April 2007. Since then, there was no communication between them, and petitioner filed for declaration of nullity of marriage.
- Petitioner’s judicial affidavit and testimony alleged respondent displayed traits and conduct including: immaturity, childishness, irresponsibility, dependency on his mother for decisions and household management, addiction to video games, poor hygiene (seldom bathing or brushing teeth), refusal of circumcision, use of marijuana (caught using it in May 2006), physical aggression (pushed and hit petitioner and told her to go back to the Philippines), inviting friends for “pot sessions,” and general neglect of marital duties.
- Petitioner alleged respondent spent most of his income on video games and only gave her money for food; when they ran out of food, petitioner’s mother‑in‑law supported them.
- Witnesses for petitioner included clinical psychologist Nedy Tayag and petitioner’s mother, Violeta G. Espina. Ms. Tayag testified she subjected petitioner to a series of psychological tests and evaluated petitioner’s mother; she concluded respondent suffered from Dependent Personality Disorder with underlying Anti‑Social Trait, based on information supplied by petitioner and petitioner’s mother, although respondent did not submit to tests.
- Petitioner alleged that despite efforts to salvage the marriage, respondent showed lack of interest in saving it, prompting the petition for annulment.
Procedural History
- On 14 September 2007, petitioner filed a Petition for declaration of nullity of marriage, docketed as Civil Case No. LP‑07‑0155, before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Las Piñas City, Branch 254. The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) represented the Republic of the Philippines and opposed the petition.
- On 4 January 2010, the RTC issued a Decision dismissing the petition for lack of proof of respondent’s psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code; petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied by Order dated 28 April 2010.
- Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), docketed as CA‑G.R. CV No. 95112. In a Decision dated 14 December 2012, the CA denied the appeal and affirmed the RTC Decision. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration before the CA was denied in an 29 August 2013 Resolution.
- Petitioner filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari to the Supreme Court (G.R. No. 209031). The Supreme Court issued its Decision on 16 April 2018 denying the Petition and affirming the CA dispositions.
Legal Issue Presented
- Whether the totality of petitioner’s evidence established respondent’s psychological incapacity such that the marriage is void under Article 36 of the Family Code, and whether petitioner satisfied the standards set forth in Republic v. Court of Appeals and Molina and other prevailing jurisprudence.
Relevant Statute and Controlling Criteria
- Article 36, Family Code (as quoted in the record): “A marriage contracted by any party who, at the time of the celebration of marriage, was psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential marital obligations of marriage, shall likewise be void even if such incapacity becomes manifest only after its solemnization.”
- Jurisprudentially required characteristics of psychological incapacity (Santos v. Court of Appeals): the incapacity must be (a) grave (serious), (b) of juridical antecedence (rooted in history antedating the marriage), and (c) incurable (or incurable within the means available). These elements were reiterated and developed by subsequent cases including Toring v. Toring and Republic v. Court of Appeals and Molina.
RTC Findings and Rationale
- The RTC recited petitioner’s testimony and supporting affidavits, including the psychologist’s report diagnosing respondent (based on information from petitioner and her mother) as suffering from Dependent Personality Disorder with underlying Anti‑Social Trait.
- The RTC emphasized Article 36’s requirements—gravity, juridical antecedence, incurability—and the Supreme Court’s pronouncements that psychological incapacity must be a genuine incapacity, not mere refusal, neglect, or difficulty.
- The RTC found the psychologist’s conclusions infirm because they were based on interviews of petitioner and petitioner’s mother but did not include direct psychological testing or evaluation of respondent; Ms. Tayag failed to adequately explain how she reached conclusions about respondent’s dependency, drug propensity, hygiene, and neglect.
- The RTC noted petitioner’s own admissions that before and during marriage respondent was romantic, caring, responsible, working, and providing financial support, which undermined the claim of incapacity.
- Cultural/contextual explanations were invoked by the RTC: infrequency of circumcision in European countries and different bathing habits in Italy were highlighted to explain alleged hygiene and circumcision complaints; the court found petitioner’s proof showed at most incompatibility and irreconcilable differences, not the kind of grave psychological incapacity contemplated under Article 36.
- Conclusion: petitioner failed to overcome the legal presumption of validity and continuity of marriage; petition for declaration of nullity was denied and dismissed.