G.R. No. 231695 - Halog vs. Halog

Marriage of the parties: June 12, 1993
RTC decision granting nullity: January 26, 2015
CA decision reversing nullity: January 31, 2017; reconsideration denied May 12, 2017
Supreme Court decision: October 6, 2021

1987 Philippine Constitution
Family Code of the Philippines (Articles 36; 68–71; 220–221; 225)
Supreme Court precedents: Republic v. Molina (1997) and Tan-Andal v. Andal (2021)

Petitioner filed for declaration of nullity of marriage on ground of psychological incapacity under Article 36.
RTC granted the petition, finding husband psychologically incapacitated.
CA reversed, holding evidence insufficient to prove psychological incapacity.
Petitioner elevated the case for review on certiorari to the Supreme Court.

Courtship and Early Marriage: Relationship began as “phone pals” and developed an intermittent romantic relationship marked by early infidelity. They married despite knowledge of respondent’s affair to avoid family scandal.
Deterioration: Respondent became temperamental, verbally and physically abusive, and ceased fulfilling marital and parental duties. He threatened petitioner with a gun and repeatedly engaged in extramarital affairs, including cohabitation and subsequent marriage in Qatar (2006).
Separation and Witness Accounts: The parties have been separated since 2006. Petitioner’s brother and close friend testified to recurrent domestic violence, neglect, bruises, respondent’s instability, and pattern of infidelity.

Psychiatric Examination: Dr. Gomintong conducted clinical interviews of petitioner and collateral witnesses, administered psychological tests (IQ, Bender, Machover, self-analysis, sentence completion, Rorschach), and prepared a psychodynamic formulation.
Diagnoses: Petitioner suffered from Avoidant Personality Disorder; respondent displayed symptoms of Antisocial Personality Disorder—failure to conform to social norms, verbal and physical aggression, lack of remorse, repeated infidelity.
Reliability: Methodology and collateral interviews are “of a type reasonably relied upon” by psychiatric experts when direct examination is unavailable.

Article 36 permits annulment if a spouse was psychologically incapacitated at marriage to comply with essential marital obligations.
Molina criteria (1997): burden of proof on plaintiff; capacity rooted in medical/clinical identification; existing at marriage; incurable; grave; essential obligations specified.
Tan-Andal refinements (2021): psychological incapacity is a legal, not strictly medical, concept; proof may come from lay witnesses; incurability judged legally (persistent incompatibility); gravity excludes mild idiosyncrasies; must be shown by clear and convincing evidence.

Found Dr. Gomintong’s report one-sided and insufficient without personal examination of respondent.
Held infidelity, irresponsibility, and neglect as grounds for legal separation but not nullity.
Denied further evidence to dispel doubt on the expert opinion’s impartiality.

Constitutional and statutory basis: 1987 Constitution privileges marital indissolubility unless Article 36 ground proven.
Totality of evidence: petitioner’s testimony, collateral witness accounts, and expert report collectively establish respondent’s grave, enduring, and antecedent psychological incapacity.
Application of Tan-Andal: respondent’s behavior—physical/

Petitioner Ma. Virginia D.R. Halog filed a petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court, challenging the Court of Appeals’ January 31, 2017 decision reversing the trial court’s grant of her petition for declaration of nullity of marriage and the May 12, 2017 denial of her motion for reconsideration.
She sought a declaration that her marriage to respondent Wilbur Francis G. Halog, solemnized on June 12, 1993, is void ab initio on the ground of psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code.
The petition alleges that both spouses were psychologically incapacitated at the time of the celebration of the marriage, but the trial court only found Wilbur incapacitated.

Ma. Virginia and Wilbur met through a mutual friend, became phone pals and sweethearts, and married despite discovering on the eve of their wedding that Wilbur was having an affair.
Early in marriage, frequent misunderstandings and quarrels arose. Wilbur expressed regret over marrying, cited family obligations, and became cold in their sex life while continuing extra-marital relationships.
Financial difficulties intensified Wilbur’s temper; he once aimed a gun at Ma. Virginia during an argument, abused her in front of their three children, and later abandoned his family for work in Qatar.
In 2006, Ma. Virginia learned that Wilbur had married another woman, Wiley Adolfo Sibulo, in Doha and fathered a child.

Ma. Virginia’s judicial affidavit detailed decades-long patterns of infidelity, verbal and physical abuse, abandonment, and emotional neglect by Wilbur.
Joseph C. Del Rosario (petitioner’s brother) testified to Ma. Virginia’s low self-esteem, isolation, and to bruises he observed on her face and body caused by Wilbur.
Jessica Curry Josef (petitioner’s close friend) corroborated Ma. Virginia’s account of Wilbur’s womanizing, hot temper, financial neglect, and family abandonment.
Dr. Melchor C. Gomintong, psychiatrist, conducted a psychiatric evaluation of Ma. Virginia, administered IQ and projective tests, and interviewed collateral witnesses, diagnosing her with Avoidant Personality Disorder and Wilbur with Ant