Forolan vs. Forolan, G. R. No. 250287, July 20, 2022 LAZARO-JAVIER, J. [Case Digest]

 

Forolan vs. Forolan,

G. R. No. 250287, July 20, 2022

LAZARO-JAVIER, J.

[Case Digest]

Facts:

            Petitioner Zeth D. Fopalan filed the petition for declaration of nullity of her marriage to respondent Neil F. Fopalan. She alleged that she met respondent in college as they were both taking up Political Science at Arellano University. One day, respondent just grabbed her hand while she was walking and told her he was infatuated with her. Thereafter, he started sending her love letters and roses. It took a couple ofmonths before she and respondent became a couple but they soon broke up when she learned that respondent had another girlfriend.  Respondent later explained that he was actually dating five different women simultaneously because he was "keeping his options open."

            After they broke up, she focused on her studies and entertained other suitors. After some time, she and respondent started talking again and overtime, they developed a mutual understanding. Even then, she knew that respondent was also seeing another girl, a certain Shirley, and their relationship had been going on for the past seven years.  Respondent confessed to her that he cannot break up with Shirley because the latter had threatened to commit suicide if he did. She (petitioner) also learned that respondent's mother disliked Shirley who worked as a helper to support her studies. Respondent's mother threatened to disinherit him if he married Shirley.

            Despite respondent's other relationship, she (petitioner) continued to see him. She and respondent eventually became sexually intimate but she never thought of demanding from respondent to break up with Shirley.  She just accepted the reality that sooner or later, respondent would have to choose between her and Shirley.

            Shirley, however, got married to another man. This prompted respondent to follow her (petitioner) to her hometown in Dumaguete City where her mother had opened a school. Respondent decided to stay with her in Dumaguete and they lived with the school janitor and the latter's family.

            Much later, they moved to the petitioner's hometown in Romblon. When her entire savings got depleted, she went back to Manila to look for a job. Respondent stayed in Romblon though.  When she found a job in Manila, she rented a small space where she lived alone.  Later on, she got lucky to land a job as a school teacher. She then rented a place in Sta. Mesa where she and respondent lived for two years. She was the only one working and earning while respondent took charge of the household.  Respondent, however, soon got tired of this arrangement so they decided to move back to Dumaguete City.  They went back to work in her family-owned school.

            On October 16, 1999, she gave birth to their son, Matthew Joseph D. Fopalan (Matthew). But she got disappointed with how respondent hostiletreated their new born child. One time, he shook the infant to stop him from crying. The child was later diagnosed with autism.

            As soon as he learned of his son's autism, respondent's attitude toward the latter turned from bad to worse. He never played with his son though he always found time playing basketball with his co-workers every Saturday afternoon. He would not even allow the child to switch channels whenever they happen to watch television together. Over the years, respondent would distance himself farther from the child. He never bonded with his son. He even did bad things to the child, leaving an imprint in the latter's young and vulnerable mind. She could only cry in frustration and pray for respondent to change for the better. Due to his neglect and indifference, she assumed the role of both mother and father to their child Matthew.

            Aside from his manifest inability to love and support his own son, respondent was also unfaithful to her. Sometime in 2011, she read a message on his phone: "Ingat ka. I miss you. I love you." She suspected that the message came from a working student in their school.  She also found a photo of a naked teen girl in his phone. But her desire to preserve their marriage prevailed so she just ignored these things and focused instead on taking care of Matthew.  She also adopted another child so Matthew will have a brother and a playmate.

            Then, she read yet another message from respondent's phone: "Alam rno naman mahal kita 18 years na."  Right off, it dawned upon her that respondent was a hopeless case. He would never change. She confronted him about his attitude and his illicit affairs. But he quickly turned the tables on her, blaming her for causing him to get jealous of her adopted child. She knew he was just making it up since his extramarital affairs long preceded the birth of their son and the adoption of their second child.

            Realizing once more that respondent would never change, she left their home and billeted in a hotel with her two sons. She was, nonetheless, forced to return due to her mother's prodding to work things out with respondent He also threatened to kill himself if she did not return.

            She consulted psychologist Dr. Nedy Lorenzo Tayag for a psychiatric evaluation of herself and respondent. When Dr. Tayag talked to respondent's brother to ascertain respondent's whereabouts and invite him to come to her clinic for psychological evaluation, the brother informed Dr. Tayag that he did not know how to contact respondent since he kept changing his phone number. Hence, Dr. Tayag never got the chance to interview respondent himself.

            As for respondent, Dr. Tayag found him to be suffering from narcissistic and anti-social personality disorder and his psychological condition had caused the deterioration of his marriage to petitioner.  This condition is primarily characterized by respondent's "patterns of pervasive grandiosity, need for admiration, and lack of empathy along with a complete disregard for, and violation of, the rights of others." Respondent, on the other hand, did not take any part in the proceedings.

            Trial court declared the marriage between petitioner and respondent void ab initio on ground of the psychological incapacity on the part of respondent. CA ruled that the totality of petitioner's evidence failed to sufficiently establish respondent's alleged psychological incapacity. For there was nothing to illustrate the gravity, incurability, or root cause of respondent's alleged narcissistic and anti-social personality disorder.

 

Issue:

            Whether CA erred in ruling that the totality of petitioner's evidence failed to sufficiently establish respondent's alleged psychological incapacity.

 

Held:

            Yes; to put things in perspective, Tan-Andal defines psychological incapacity as a "personal condition that prevents a spouse from complying with fundamental marital obligations toward a specific partner and that may have existed at the time of marriage but became evident only through behavior subsequent to the marriage ceremony.''

            In its present interpretation, psychological incapacity is no longer understood as a mental or personality disorder. Viewed in its legal conceptualization, psychological incapacity is now understood as a condition deeply embedded in one's "personality structure" that prevents them from fulfilling the fundamental marital obligations. Whether a person may or may not be aware of it, the condition already exists at the time or even before the solemnization of their marriage but has become manifest only thereafter.

            Characterizations of psychological incapacity have now been modified in Tan-Andal, as follows:

1. As to gravity, the requirement is retained, albeit not in the sense that the psychological incapacity must be shown to be serious or dangerous. Now, one need only to show that the incapacity is caused by a "genuinely serious psychic cause" rendering one "ill-equipped" to discharge the essential obligations of marriage.

2. Proof of the juridical antecedence of the psychological incapacity subsists. For one, this is an indispensable requisite under Article 36, which states that the incapacity must be existing "at the time of the celebration" of the marriage, "even if such incapacity becomes manifest only after its solemnization." For another, "it is an accepted principle of all major and recognized theoretical schools within psychology that a person's behavior is determined by the interaction of certain genetic predispositions and by their environment, working in iterative loops of influence."  Verily, it must be shown that the incapacitated spouse has had prior experiences, antedating the marriage, that could be associated to their psychological malady that makes them incapable of complying with their marital obligations.

            The juridical antecedence of the psychological incapacity may be proved by testimonies describing the incapacitated spouse's childhood or environment which may have influenced a particular behavior. An example cited in Tan-Andal is violence against one's spouse and children - it can be a manifestation of juridically antecedent psychological incapacity when it is shown that the violent spouse grew up with domestic violence or had a history of abusive romantic relationships before the marriage.

            3. Incurability must now be understood not in its medical sense but in its legal sense. Tan-Anda! explains that the psychological incapacity must be proved to be "so enduring and persistent with respect to a specific partner, and contemplates a situation where the couple's respective personality structures are so incompatible and antagonistic that the only result of the union would be the inevitable and irreparable breakdown of the marriage".

            The totality of petitioner's evidence must, thus, clearly and convincingly establish that respondent is suffering from a psychological incapacity, manifested through acts of dysfunctionality, showing that they are not capable of recognizing, let alone, complying with the basic obligations of marriage.

            Applying these modified guidelines as enunciated in Tan-Andal, the Court finds that petitioner sufficiently established, by the requisite quantum of evidence, that respondent is psychologically incapacitated to fulfill the essential marital obligations. The totality of the evidence adequately proved that respondent's personality structure rendered him incapable of recognizing and fulfilling his duties as husband to petitioner and as father to his son Matthew and their adopted child.

            Manifestations of respondent's disordered personality - Petitioner's friend and co-worker Nobleza corroborated the former's testimony. Nobleza had known petitioner and respondent since 1995 and she had witnessed respondent's arrogance and controlling nature. She had also

observed how respondent disrespected petitioner and maltreated his own child. Petitioner and her witness testified that respondent had invariably manifested his psychological incapacity in various ways: first, by failing to provide financial and emotional support to his family; second, by failing to help provide a nurturing environment to his son; and finally, by committing repeated acts of infidelity to his wife.

 

            Gravity:

            Tan-Andal explains that the condition of the psychologically incapacitated spouse cannot be categorized merely as mild characterological peculiarities, mood changes, and occasional emotional outbursts.

            Here, respondent demonstrated an utter failure and unwillingness to fulfill the fundamental obligations as spouse to petitioner and parent to his son

Matthew and their adopted child, which basic duties are defined under Articles 68 to 71 and Articles 220 to 221 of the Family Code, respectively.

           

            Juridical Antecedence:

            Juridical antecedence simply means that the condition existed prior to the celebration of marriage.

            Respondent's psychological incapacity is rooted in his childhood. He was adopted by Antonio Sr. and Nazaria together with his other brothers Antonio Jr. and Charton. Their adoptive parents had five biological children, four daughters and one son. The family's living arrangement was that respondent's two brothers continued to reside with their biological parents who lived only next door from their adoptive parents. It was only respondent who lived with their adoptive parents. Growing up, respondent harbored a grudge against the biological son, Antonio Jr. and his adoptive mother as she loved her own son more.  Based on the psychological evaluation of respondent, this unhealthy socio emotional extensions attributed to the formation of respondent's egocentric and irresponsible attitudes, as clearly shown during his cohabitation with petitioner. He came from a confusing situation and this directed the formation of his identity as he was growing up. Having two sets of parents, two sets of values governing him, caused internal chaos for respondent and his caregivers failed to see and correct it.  As for his relationship with his siblings, the same was far from caring and this provoked feelings of insecurity.  Due to these factors in his development, respondent grew up to be insensitive and inconsiderate toward the needs and feelings of those around him.

            Respondent's philandering ways also antedate his marriage. While he and petitioner were dating, he was simultaneously dating other women and he was not even discreet about his situation. He was not ashamed to admit that he was dating five (5) women all at the same time, justifying his action that he was still choosing from among them the best fit. Respondent, thus, demonstrated his egocentricity and his propensity to be unfaithful. His selfishness also manifested in all the other aspects of his married life.

 

            Incurability:

            Tan-Andal teaches that the psychological disorder may also be said to be incurable if "the couple's respective personality structures are so incompatible and antagonistic that the only result of the union would be the inevitable and irreparable breakdown of the marriage."

            The enduring and persistent quality of respondent's psychological incapacity was adequately shown. Petitioner and respondent had lived together as husband and wife for seventeen (17) years and for this length of time, respondent was relentlessly immature, irresponsible, and indifferent He had never, at any point in the marriage, showed that he would change or improve his ways. Sadly, for petitioner, it took her 17 long years to finally realize that a change of heart for respondent was never coming.

            Further, the personality structures of petitioner and respondent are so adverse to each other, making the breakdown of their marriage inevitable. Respondent, on one hand, is irresponsible, uncaring, and undependable while petitioner, on the other hand, is devoted, trusting, and always too willing to assume the sole responsibility for all obligations in the marriage. By doing so, petitioner had been so consumed such that nothing was left of her, or perhaps, a little amount of self-respect was left, enough to strengthen petitioner to end her relationship with respondent. At any rate, the differences in their personality structures prevented petitioner and respondent from having a loving and peaceful married life.