Maristela-Cuan vs. Cuan, Jr. G.R. No. 248518. December 07, 2021, [Case Digest]

 

Maristela-Cuan vs. Cuan, Jr.

G.R. No. 248518. December 07, 2021,

LAZARO-JAVIER, J.:

Case Digest

Facts:

            Janice testified that she met Marcelino sometime in 1997 when she and her friends were playing lawn tennis in Quezon City. Marcelino introduced himself and invited them to have some drinks thereafter. Then she met Marcelino again and they started playing tennis together. Marcelino courted her. He would call her regularly and they would go out on dates. After two (2) months of courtship, she finally accepted Marcelino's proposal and she became his girlfriend.

            In the course of their relationship, she noticed that Marcelino was overprotective toward her. He would constantly ask where she was and who she was with. She thought it was normal for any person in a relationship to be in such state of emotion. Their relationship was on and off during the first five (5) months because of Marcelino's constant jealousy. Marcelino later on told her that only marriage could remove his anxiety.  Thus, to mend their turbulent affair, they got married on June 20, 1997 in the City Hall of Quezon City.

            Their parents were unaware of their decision to get married. After the wedding ceremony, they just shared a meal at a restaurant and then parted ways. They went home to their respective houses. There was no honeymoon. They did not live together under one roof. They only saw each other after work and during weekends.

            Days and months passed by but they continued to live their respective lives as they used to. In her heart and mind and on paper, she was married to Marcelino. But they never lived together as husband and wife. They went to motels for about five (5) times, yet, they never engaged in sex. Marcelino would attempt to have sex with her but then, he would suddenly stop. She did not know why and it constantly puzzled her.

            Three (3) months after their wedding, Marcelino's jealousy escalated and took a turn for the worse. He barred her from talking to any other man. He got angry whenever they passed by a handsome man thinking she was staring at the latter.  He was furious every time he saw her talking to a male co-worker. He turned violent and even physically hurt her whenever he got jealous.  There was one incident when he hit her because he thought she was staring at some random man in a disco.

            Janette Velasco corroborated the testimony of Janice. She testified that she met Janice in college at AMA Computer College. Back then, they were close friends but they lost communication for a while. They met again when they were already working. She met Marcelino when he and Janice were still sweethearts. Janice confided to her that they got married and their parents knew nothing about it. She also confided to her about Marcelino's unfounded jealousy over a friend. She suspected that Marcelino had insecurities in their relationship.

            She (Dr. Tayag) diagnosed Janice with Passive-Aggressive Personality Disorder.  Janice was emotionally unstable whose weak disposition drove her to enter into relationships to cater to her deep emotional longings. The root-cause of her condition was her desire for control. As a middle child, Janice struggled to gain favor from significant others through passive compliance and blind obedience. She longed for a relationship to boost her need for attachment and nurturance. This, she found in the arms of Marcelino and she accepted whatever fate had prepared for her.

            Marcelino, on the other hand, did not appear for clinical examination despite her (Dr. Tayag) invitation. She, nonetheless found Marcelino to be suffering from Paranoid Personality Disorder with Narcissistic and Antisocial Features based on the psychodynamic analysis of his behavior, attitude, and character known to both Janice and Janette. Marcelino was a self-centered man highly engrossed with immediate satisfaction of his pleasures. He had very low tolerance for stress and frustration. Having been raised from a broken-family, he lacked a sense of responsibility and proper chastisement. Since he always got what he wanted, he became highly sensitive to deprivation. He was preoccupied with his needs and desires which prevented him from performing his spousal functions.

            Trial court granted the petition and declared the marriage of Janice to Marcelino void on ground of psychological incapacity of both parties. It ruled that Janice and Marcelino did not observe love, respect, and support for each other. They were abnormally involved in the union as their personality disorders deprived them from performing their marital obligations.

            Court of Appeals reversed. It held that Janice failed to prove that she and Marcelino were suffering from psychological incapacity within the contemplation of Article 36 of the Family Code.

 

Issue:

            Did the evidence on record sufficiently support the petition of Janice for declaration of nullity of her marriage with Marcelino on ground of psychological incapacity?

 

Held:

            Yes; Article 36 of the Family Code provides that a marriage contracted by any party who, at the time of the celebration, 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. As expressed in Article 68 of the Family Code, the marital covenants include the mutual obligations of husband and wife to live together, observe love, respect, and fidelity and to help and support each other.

            Psychological incapacity is not only a mental incapacity nor only a personality disorder that must be proven through expert opinion. There may now be proof of the durable aspects of a person's personality, called "personality structure," which manifests itself through clear acts of dysfunctionality that undermines the family. The spouse's personality structure must make it impossible for him or her to understand and, more importantly, to comply with his or her essential marital obligations [Tan-Andal vs. Andal].

Proof of these aspects of personality need not only be given by an expert. Ordinary witnesses who have been present in the life of the spouses before the latter contracted marriage may testify on behaviors that they have consistently observed from the supposedly incapacitated spouse. From there, the judge will decide if these behaviors are indicative of a true and serious incapacity to assume the essential marital obligations.

To stress, psychological incapacity consists of clear acts of dysfunctionality which show lack of understanding and concomitant compliance with one's essential marital obligations. But every case involving the alleged psychological incapacity of a spouse should be resolved based on its particular set of facts and Article 36 of the Family Code, applied on a case-to-case basis.

Tan-Andal correctly stated the threshold of evidence in psychological incapacity cases, i.e., the spouse alleging psychological incapacity is required to prove his or her case with clear and convincing evidence. Clear and convincing evidence is the quantum of proof that requires more than preponderance of evidence but less than proof beyond reasonable doubt.

Therefore, the Court of Appeals erred in not giving credence to Dr. Garcia's expert opinion just because Mario did not appear for psychiatric evaluation.

Verily, Tan-Andal democratized the forms of evidence proving psychological incapacity. The Court allowed lay persons to prove psychological incapacity through evidence of a personality structure or psychic causes that manifest itself through clear acts of dysfunctionality that undermine the family. The types of evidence that a lay person may adduce for this purpose are (i) the reputation of the incapacitated spouse being psychologically incapacitated – that is, the view-point of reasonable members of the spouses' relevant communities; (ii) the character of the incapacitated spouse relevant to or indicative of such incapacity, (iii) the every day behavior, acts or conduct of the incapacitated spouse, (iv) the offended spouse's own experience of neglect, abandonment, unrequited love, and infliction of mental distress, among others.

These types of evidence may establish circumstances probative of the dysfunctional acts inimical to the family. The relevant circumstances to be proven may include (i) instances of violence against women and their children as defined in Republic Act No. 9262 (RA 9262), (ii) zero probability of reconciliation between the spouses, and (iii) failure of the spouse or the spouses to perform his, her, or their marital duties and obligations in a manner clearly demonstrative of an utter insensitivity or inability to give meaning and significance to the marriage. The third category of circumstances refers to the characterization, i.e., clearly demonstrative of an utter insensitivity or inability to give meaning and significance to the marriage, that was once used to describe the personality disorder that gave rise to psychological incapacity.

Since Tan-Andal has abandoned the focus on personality disorders and expert opinions, this characterization may now be appropriated to capture the essence of the problematic personality structure or psychic causes that spawn psychological incapacity. Embraced in this inclusive circumstance are such facts as (i) forms of addiction demonstrative of such insensitivity or inability, (ii) abandonment by one spouse of the other, or (iii) instances of actual loss of trust, love, and respect for each other. This notwithstanding the reality of meaningless marriages which force either or both spouses into chronically unproductive and detached lives, thus, physically and psychologically endangering themselves in the process.

Applying Tan-Andal here, we find that Janice was able to prove by clear and convincing evidence that, indeed, her marriage to Marcelino should be declared void on ground of psychological incapacity. We find though, that based on the evidence presented, only Marcelino was psychologically incapacitated to perform his marital duties.

Marcelino is psychologically incapacitated in the legal sense.

First - Juridical Antecedence (i.e., the condition existed prior to the celebration of marriage): Marcelino's condition has juridical antecedence since it manifested even before the celebration of his marriage to Janice. When he and Janice were only in a boyfriend-girlfriend relationship, he manifested early on his overprotective tendencies toward her. His constant but unfounded feeling of jealousy was the cause of his "on and off" relationship with Janice. He convinced Janice that his anxiety would only go away if she would marry him.

But even after they got married, Marcelino’s attitude took a turn for the worse. He got jealous of other men and barred Janice from talking to them altogether. He also became violent and started physically assaulting Janice.

 

Second - Gravity (i.e., the condition cannot be categorized as mild characterological peculiarities, mood changes, and occasional emotional outbursts):

Marcelino never accorded Janice the love and respect that was due her as his wife and partner. During their marriage, he never lived with Janice under one roof. He never even had sex with her. According to Janice, although he attempted to have sex with her in a motel for about five (5) times, he suddenly stopped each time. For reasons unknown to Janice, Marcelino was not able to consummate even a single sexual intercourse with her.

 

Finally – Incurability (i.e., the couple's respective personality structures are so incompatible and antagonistic that the only result of the union would be the inevitable breakdown of the marriage):

Marcelino's psychological incapacity is incurable in the legal sense. To recall, Marcelino brought up the idea of marriage to Janice, not for reasons such as mutual love or settling down and starting a family with Janice, but to remove his anxiety.[64] He himself admitted to Janice that marriage was the only way for him not to feel anxious, jealous, and overprotective of Janice. As it was though, his overprotectiveness, extreme jealousy, and violent tendencies were the very same reasons why he never got to fulfill his spousal obligations toward Janice. Marcelino was so preoccupied with his own needs and insecurities which prevented him from performing his spousal functions. In the end, he got so consumed by them that he abandoned his wife and ended their union over the telephone.

Republic vs. Calingo, G.R. No. 212717, November 23, 2022 [Case Digest]

 

Republic vs. Calingo,

G.R. No. 212717, November 23, 2022

LAZARO-JAVIER, J.

[Case Digest]

Facts:

            In 1978, Ariel and Cynthia met when the latter was still the girlfriend of the former' s friend. After a while, Cynthia and his then boyfriend broke up. From the conclusion of such relationship, there sprung a new one. After developing a strong sense of sexual desire and physical attraction towards each other, Ariel and Cynthia became a couple.

            On February 5, 1980, Ariel and Cynthia decided to get married civilly. The couple initially lived in Paco, Manila; and later on transferred to several places because of the alleged aggressive behavior of Cynthia.

            As they lived together, Ariel narrated that Cynthia kept herself occupied by gossiping and reading comic books. Once, he asked Cynthia to limit her visitation to their neighbors to gossip, but Cynthia got mad and told him there was nothing much to do in their house.

            Despite their marital problems, Ariel and Cynthia had their church wedding on February 22, 1998. At the time of their church celebration, Cynthia was five months pregnant. Ariel claimed that Cynthia's behavior was no different even after their second rites. She continued to gossip and pick fights with their neighbors.

            According to Ariel, not only did Cynthia showed aggressive behavior during their union, but she likewise exhibited unfaithfulness. Ariel recalled that Cynthia's first instance of marital infidelity was with Noli, their neighbor, who became close to them. When Ariel found out about the affair, he forgave Cynthia, who allegedly showed no remorse.

            Noli later on revealed to him that their twin children were not really Ariel's children, but his own. Ariel then remembered one incident between him and Cynthia wherein the latter told him "hindi mo anak ['yan,]" as she got mad because Ariel spanked one of their children.

            Cynthia's second affair involved Louie, who was also their neighbor. Ariel testified that he discovered Louie hiding under their marital bed and wearing his pants only.

            Not long after, Ariel reached his peak and left their conjugal abode after Cynthia threw a knife at him, which fortunately hit the wall. Premised on Cynthia's irritable and irascible attitude, Ariel narrated that the same took place after he asked Cynthia to check the pressure cooker; and in the course thereof, the pressure cooker exploded. Surprised, Cynthia got so angry and started throwing curses at Ariel. Allegedly, Cynthia threw a knife against him which hit the wall.

            To support his petition, Ariel secured the psychological evaluation of Dr. Arnulfo Lopez (Dr. Lopez). The result thereof shows that Ariel possesses an emotionally disturbed personality, but not severe enough to constitute psychological incapacity. Dr. Lopez likewise conducted an assessment on Cynthia; and the same revealed that Cynthia is suffering from Borderline Personality Disorder with Histrionic Personality Disorder Features.

            Psychological Assessment of Cynthia's Personality based on the different sources of data presented:

            1. Cynthia was severely immature.

            2. Cynthia manifested inappropriate and intense anger.

            3. Cynthia committed acts of infidelity.

            4. Cynthia was severely impulsive.

            5. Cynthia was severely stubborn and rigid and is resistant to change.

            6. Cynthia was a very irresponsible wife.

            7. Cynthia manifested Histrionic behaviors

            RTC denied the petition on the ground that the totality of evidence presented did not prove psychological incapacity. It opined that there [was] absolutely no showing that [Cynthia's] "defects" were already present at the inception of the marriage or that they are incurable. Court of Appeals reversed the foregoing dispositions and granted the petition for declaration of nullity of marriage.

            By Decision dated March 11, 2020, the ponencia reversed the foregoing dispositions of the appellate court. Supreme Court refuses to accept as credible the assessment of Dr. Lopez as there was no other evidence which established the juridical antecedence, gravity, and incurability of Cynthia's alleged incapacity. While jurisprudence recognizes the dispensability of personal examination of the party alleged to be suffering from psychological incapacity, it is but necessary to provide corroborative evidence to exhibit the required legal parameters.

            Through the present motion for reconsideration, Ariel insists that he was able to present substantial facts and circumstances which would warrant the grant of his Petition for Annulment; reiterates the assessments of Dr. Lopez regarding Cynthia's personality disorders; and cites the Dissent to the main ponencia to support his motion for reconsideration.

 

Issue:

            Whether SC should grant the motion for reconsideration filed by petitioner by accepting as credible the assessment of Dr. Lopez.

 

Held:

            Yes; as it was, the ponencia refused to accept as credible the assessment of Dr. Lopez and ruled that there was no other evidence which established antecedence, gravity, and incurability of Cynthia's alleged incapacity.

            But applying the recently modified guidelines in Tan-Andal, we grant petitioner's motion for reconsideration. Consider:

I.                    Ariel was able to provide clear and convincing evidence to establish Cynthia's psychological incapacity.

Clear and convincing evidence is less than proof beyond reasonable doubt but greater than preponderance of evidence.  Here, Ariel presented not only his own testimony, but also offered the comprehensive psychological evaluation expertly prepared by Dr. Lopez; judicial affidavit and testimony of Ruben D. Kalaw; testimony of Elmer Sales, uncle-in-law of Cynthia who has known her long before she met Ariel and with whom she lived for six (6) years during her childhood.

            Taken together, all the testimonies on record are consistent on material points - they all establish Cynthia's personality structure causing her psychologically incapable to fulfill her marital obligations, as will be further discussed below.

 

II.                  There are durable aspects of Cynthia's personality structure that make it impossible for her to understand and comply with her marital obligations.

Noticeably absent from the trial court's discussion is the testimony of Elmer Sales on Cynthia's background and personality, having known her since childhood - long before she met Ariel. Sales is Cynthia's uncle-in-law, being the husband of her mother Juanita Pronto-Marcellana's sister, Purita Pronto.

            As shown, the testimony of Sales accounts for Cynthia's personality even before she met Ariel. In fact, he gave a clear picture on what we now call durable aspects of Cynthia's personality structure which make it impossible

for her to understand and comply with her marital obligations.

 

III.                Cynthia's psychological incapacity is incurable in the legal sense.

Based on Ariel's own testimony, he and Cynthia had persistent issues throughout their marriage and the three (3) years they had lived together.

Cynthia was abusive verbally and physically - she shouted at him and threw not only curses, but also knives and other heavy objects. Since they got separated after he caught her having extramarital affairs, they have not seen each other for more than 20 years.

            Clearly, their respective personality structures with respect to each other as partners are so incompatible and antagonistic that the only result of the union would be the inevitable and irreparable breakdown of the marriage - which has already been the case. This, despite their bona fide endeavors to reconcile and save their marriage. Not even time could probably heal their antagonism and incompatibility toward each other.

 

IV.                Cynthia's psychological incapacity is caused by a genuinely seriously psychic cause

Cynthia's violence and infidelity are not mild characterological peculiarities or occasional outbursts; not mere refusal, neglect, or ill will, but are both serious and dangerous. To repeat, she was not merely "mabunganga" but also exhibited traits incompatible with the performance of her marital obligations with Ariel. Consequently, such personality can be traced to a genuinely serious psychic cause during her formative years all the way up to her adulthood.

 

V.                  Juridical antecedence was established

Based on Ariel's testimony on the persistent manifestations of Cynthia's psychological incapacity before and during their marriage; the respective accounts of Sales and Kalaw on Cynthia's life and experiences before she met Ariel and before their courtship stage, respectively; and the expert assessment of Dr. Lopez, it cannot be denied that her psychological incapacity was already existing at the time of the celebration of marriage and had already manifested itself even before their marriage. This evidence was corroborated by the testimony of Elmer Sales as discussed above.

 

Republic vs. Claur, G.R. No. 246868, February 15, 2022 [Case Digest]

 

Republic vs. Claur,

G.R. No. 246868, February 15, 2022

LAZARO-JAVIER, J.

[Case Digest]

Facts:

            Angelique Pearl sought to have her marriage with Mark declared void ab initio on the ground that they were both psychologically incapacitated. Mark failed to file his answer despite notice.

            Angelique Pearl testified that she and Mark were schoolmates in high school. She had a crush on Mark even though he had a notorious reputation for being flirtatious and for drinking alcohol at such a young age. She got Mark's mobile number from their common friends. Soon after, she became his girlfriend. During their relationship, she discovered that Mark was the "jealous type" and was too obsessed with her. At the same time though, she also found out that Mark was still texting other girls and had been lying to her. Mark also had the habit of not disclosing his whereabouts to her. When Mark tried to break up with her, she threatened to commit suicide. On the other hand, when she would try to break up with him, Mark would devise a way for her to stay in the relationship. He would manipulate her dormmates to convince her not to break up with him. He would also wait outside her dorm and even call her parents. For about three (3) to six (6) months, they alternated between breaking up and reconciling.

            When they went to different universities for college, Mark's jealousy had escalated as well as their fights. They would curse each other and sometimes their quarrels would turn physically violent. During the five (5) years of their boyfriend-girlfriend relationship, they broke up and reconciled around twenty (20) times.

            Then, she got pregnant unexpectedly. She was only twenty (20) years old while Mark was twenty-one (21) years old at that time. When her parents found out, they did not consider marriage as an option. She, too, was hesitant about it. But Mark insisted that they get married. His parents even deceived her by promising that she and Mark would move to the United States of America if she married their son. Thus, on January 3, 2009, they tied the knot at the Ascension Chapel of Villa Escudero. 

            Not long after, she discovered all the lies that Mark fed her. One of them was when Mark made her believe that he was only one (1) semester away from his college graduation. But the truth was, he still needed several years to finish his degree. Another was when Mark told her that his father was working for a certain company. She found out though that Mark's father was a security guard.

            Subsequently, they moved in with her parents in Quezon. Since she was used to their household helper doing chores for her, she did not unpack their things. Mark got irritated and threw the bags at her. She retaliated by hitting him with her "happy feet" clogs. Mark sustained a laceration in the head which bled. He panicked because he feared the sight of blood. But instead of helping Mark, she did not do anything and simply watched him as his head continued to bleed. It was her mother who helped Mark clean the wound and stop the bleeding. She did not tell her mother what happened because she thought her mother would not believe her anyway.

            On April 4, 2009, their son Malique Antonio was born. Mark, nonetheless, wanted to end their relationship. They separated several times, each incident lasting for a few days or a week. Mark had a habit of leaving her and their child to meet up with his friends whenever he got upset. Their married life had been marred by quarrels, disagreements, and even violence. There was one (1) incident when he accidentally locked her up in the bathroom. When she finally got out, she and Mark fought and he hit her in the face, breaking her jaw.

            Dr. Jay Madelon Castillo-Carcereny testified that she is a physician and a psychiatrist. Based on the interviews and tests she conducted; she diagnosed Angelique Pearl with "borderline personality disorder." As for Mark, although she was not able to personally examine him, the information she gathered from Angelique Pearl and Antonio, who personally saw Mark's coping mechanisms when the couple lived with them, was adequate for her to diagnose Mark with "narcissistic personality disorder."

            Dr. Castillo-Carcereny explained that the root cause of their personality disorders was their respective dysfunctional families classified as "double bind" in Mark's case and "pseudo hostility" in Angelique Pearl's case. They had developed it during childhood and had become deeply entrenched in their persons such that neither of them thought they were problems, Any medication or recommended treatment to address the condition would be useless since each of the parties' personality disorder is "grave, permanent and incurable."

            Dr. Castillo-Carcereny recommended that the marriage of Angelique Pearl and Mark be declared void on the basis of each party's "psychological incapacity to perform essential marital obligations which manifested during early adulthood, increasing in gravity and severity from adolescence to present."

            RTC granted the petition for declaration of nullity of Angelique Pearl and Mark's marriage on the ground of both parties' psychological incapacity. It found that the totality of evidence shows that Angelique Pearl and Mark were both psychologically incapacitated to perform their marital obligations.

            On appeal, the OSG argued that the trial court failed to specify the pieces of evidence pertaining to the supposed existence of the parties' psychological incapacity. It argued that Angelique Pearl's statements were "inherently biased and self-serving," Johnson's testimony was "hearsay," and Dr. Castillo-Carcereny's findings were "not credible."

            Court of Appeals affirmed. It held that from the totality of evidence presented, the trial court correctly determined that Angelique Pearl and Mark were both suffering from psychological incapacity characterized by gravity, juridical antecedence, and incurability.

 

Issue:

            Did the evidence on record sufficiently support the petition of Angelique Pearl O. Claur for declaration of nullity of her marriage with Mark A. Claur on ground of psychological incapacity?

 

Held:

            Yes; in the recent case of Tan-Andal v. Andal, the Court clarified that "psychological incapacity" should be understood as a legal concept rather than a medical one. As such, it does not require clinical diagnosis to be established. Ordinary witnesses who have been present in the life of the spouses before the latter contracted marriage may testify on behaviors that they have consistently observed from the supposedly incapacitated spouse.

            Tan-Andal, too, set new parameters in appreciating the three (3) main criteria for psychological incapacity. First, gravity still has to be established, if only to preclude spouses from invoking mild characterological peculiarities, mood changes, occasional emotional outbursts as ground for nullity. Second, incurability should also be understood in the legal sense. So long as the couple's respective personality structures are so incompatible and antagonistic that the only result of the union would be the inevitable breakdown of the marriage, the psychological incapacity of a spouse or both spouses is deemed "incurable". Third, juridical antecedence or the existence of the condition prior to the celebration of marriage, is a statutory requirement which must be proven by the spouse alleging psychological incapacity.

            Tan-Andal likewise decreed that the plaintiff-spouse must prove his or her case by clear and convincing evidence. Notably, this quantum of proof requires more than preponderant evidence but less than proof beyond reasonable doubt. The Court, nonetheless, reiterated that judgments in cases involving the alleged psychological incapacity of a spouse should be based on the totality of evidence adduced during the course of the proceedings. Each case must be resolved based on its particular set of facts and Article 36 of the Family Code applied on a case-to-case basis. For Tan-Andal was not meant to strait-jacket lower courts, forcing them to apply the guidelines in nullity cases of all shapes and sizes.

            In Republic v. Mola Cruz, the Court stressed that the findings of the trial court on the existence or non-existence of a party's psychological incapacity should be final and binding for as long as such findings and evaluation of the testimonies of witnesses and other evidence are not shown to be clearly and manifestly erroneous. A sharper pronouncement on the respect accorded to the trial court's factual findings in the realm of psychological incapacity was made in Kalaw v. Fernandez, “It is not enough reason to ignore the findings and evaluation by the trial court and substitute our own as an appellate tribunal only because the Constitution and the Family Code regard marriage as an inviolable social institution. We have to stress that the fulfilment of the constitutional mandate for the State to protect marriage as an inviolable social institution only relates to a valid marriage. No protection can be accorded to a marriage that is null and void ab initio, because such a marriage has no legal existence.”

Here, the Republic failed to provide compelling reason to convince the Court to deviate from the findings of the trial court, as affirmed by the Court of Appeals. The totality of evidence presented clearly and convincingly show that both Mark and Angelique Pearl are psychologically incapacitated from discharging their respective duties as husband and wife.