Title
Herdez vs. Court of Appeals
Case
G.R. No. 126010
Decision Date
Dec 8, 1999
Marriage annulment denied; petitioner failed to prove respondent's psychological incapacity at marriage; custody, support, property claims deferred.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 126010)

Procedural History

Petitioner filed a petition for annulment of marriage on July 10, 1992, alleging psychological incapacity of private respondent. The Regional Trial Court (Branch 18, Tagaytay City) dismissed the petition on April 10, 1993. The Court of Appeals affirmed that dismissal on January 30, 1996. The Supreme Court reviewed and affirmed the appellate decision.

Factual Findings Presented by Petitioner

Petitioner alleged that private respondent repeatedly failed to support the family, engaged in heavy drinking, gambling on fighting cocks, smoking, and persistent womanizing. Petitioner claimed respondent cohabited with another woman and fathered an illegitimate child (Margie P. Oliva, b. Sept. 15, 1989). Petitioner further alleged respondent infected her with gonorrhea, resulting in treatment from October 22, 1986 to March 13, 1987, and that respondent physically abused her (hospitalization for cerebral concussion July 4–5, 1990). Petitioner also claimed respondent abandoned the family (left conjugal home June 12, 1992) and later departed for the Middle East (October 1992).

Evidence Concerning Economic and Property Matters

Petitioner established that she was the primary breadwinner during most of the marriage, providing for respondent during his college years and supporting the family through teaching and small businesses. Petitioner purchased a parcel of land in Don Gregorio Heights Subdivision I, Bucal, Dasmariñas, Cavite: initial partial payment made July 17, 1979, full payment made by May 26, 1987, deed of absolute sale executed, and TCT No. T‑221529 issued in her favor. Petitioner also alleged respondent took an owner-type jeepney when he left the conjugal home and that she had permitted him to sell it and divide proceeds.

Trial Court’s Rationale

The trial court dismissed the annulment petition, reasoning that the circumstances relied upon by petitioner (habitual drinking, gambling, sexual infidelity, abandonment, and physical violence) are enumerated grounds for legal separation under Article 55 of the Family Code, not per se grounds for declaration of nullity under Article 36. The trial court further held that the gonorrhea alleged to have been transmitted to petitioner occurred in 1986 — five years after the 1981 marriage — and, when analyzed with Articles 45 and 46, fraud or similar grounds must exist at the time of marriage celebration to support annulment on those bases.

Court of Appeals’ Decision and Reasoning

The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court. It relied on Santos v. Court of Appeals and concluded that psychological incapacity, as a ground for nullity, must have existed at the time of the marriage. The appellate court found that allegations of chronic sexual infidelity, abandonment, gambling, and alcoholism are not per se evidence of psychological incapacity. The CA accepted that at the time of marriage respondent’s character was borderline between responsible and happy‑go‑lucky, and that petitioner herself had described respondent as a normal student and attributed some youthful attitudes to his age and looks. The CA found petitioner failed to prove psychological incapacity at inception of marriage.

Supreme Court’s Legal Standard on Psychological Incapacity

The Supreme Court reiterated the established legal standard: "psychological incapacity" denotes a serious mental or personality disorder rendering a party unable to understand and assume essential marital obligations (mutual obligations to live together, love, respect, fidelity, help and support). The Court emphasized that: (a) the incapacity must be psychological (not merely physical), (b) it must exist at the time of the marriage (even if it becomes manifest later), (c) the root cause should be medically or clinically identified and alleged in the complaint, and (d) expert evidence (psychiatrists or clinical psychologists) should ordinarily be presented to establish the precise cause and incapacitating nature.

Application of Law to the Facts

Applying the foregoing standards, the Supreme Court found petitioner failed to establish that respondent suffered from a psychological defect at the time of marriage that deprived him of the ability to assume essential marital duties. The Court observed that the acts pleaded (habitual alcoholism, sexual infidelity, gambling, abandonment, violence) occurred after marriage and, standing alone, do not automatically establish psychological incapacity within the meaning of Article 36. The Court noted the absence of expert psychiatric or psychological testimony identifying a clinical root cause and explaining how any disorder rendered respondent incapable at the inception of the marriage.

Burden of Proof and Presumption Favoring Validity of Marriage

The Court reiterated that

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.