Title
Republic vs. De Gracia
Case
G.R. No. 171557
Decision Date
Feb 12, 2014
Rodolfo sought nullity of marriage, alleging Natividad's psychological incapacity. SC ruled her actions (abandonment, infidelity) insufficient to prove grave, incurable incapacity under Article 36, upholding marital sanctity.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 171557)

Facts of the Case

Rodolfo and Natividad were married on February 15, 1969, in Salug, Zamboanga del Norte. They had two children together, Ma. Reynilda and Ma. Rizza. In December 1998, Rodolfo filed a verified complaint for the declaration of nullity of their marriage, alleging Natividad's psychological incapacity to fulfill her essential marital obligations. Following an investigation, the RTC found that there was no collusion between the spouses. Rodolfo testified that their marriage was forced due to Natividad's accidental pregnancy and highlighted multiple instances of her abandonment and lack of cooperation. Natividad did not respond to the complaint or attend the trial, but during the proceedings, a psychiatric evaluation was conducted for both parties.

Psychiatric Evaluation

The psychiatric evaluation conducted by Dr. Cheryl T. Zalsos reported that both Rodolfo and Natividad exhibited signs of psychological incapacity stemming from emotional immaturity. Dr. Zalsos concluded that their psychological conditions existed at the time of the marriage but only became evident later. Natividad specifically was noted to lack the willful cooperation necessary for her role as a wife and mother.

RTC Ruling

The Regional Trial Court ruled on October 17, 2000, that the marriage was void due to psychological incapacity, relying heavily on Dr. Zalsos's findings. The court noted that Natividad’s emotional immaturity and personality disorder affected her ability to understand and assume marital obligations.

CA Ruling

The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC's ruling on June 2, 2005, finding that Natividad's emotional issues constituted a severe psychological disorder that incapacitated her from fulfilling her marital duties. The Republic, represented by the OSG, appealed this decision.

Issue Before the Court

The primary issue was whether the Court of Appeals erred in upholding the RTC's declaration of psychological incapacity.

Ruling of the Court

The Supreme Court found the petition meritorious, emphasizing that “psychological incapacity” under Article 36 of the Family Code denotes a serious mental inability. The law's intent is to confine psychological incapacity to severe personality disorders that render a party incapable of comprehending marital obligations. Citing Santos v. CA and other precedents, the Court outlined that psychological incapacity must be grave, rooted in history predating the marriage, and incurable.

Evaluation of Evidence

The Court scrutinized Dr. Zalsos's evaluations and reports, finding them insufficient to establish that Natividad’s behavior constituted psychological incapacity. The court noted that Dr. Zalsos's report lacked detail regarding the specific nature of Natividad's psychological condition, its root ca

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.