G.R. No.

203284, November 14, 2016

Apart from the testimonies of the petitioner, his daughter Maricel B. Matudan
NICOLAS S. MATUDAN, Petitioner, v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES AND (Maricel), and Dr. Tayag, the following documents were submitted in evidence:
MARILYN** B. MATUDAN, Respondents.
1. Petitioner's Judicial Affidavit10 (Exhibit "A") which was adopted as his
DECISION testimony on direct examination;

2. The Judicial Aftidavie11 of Maricel (Exhibit "D"), which was adopted as part
DEL CASTILLO, J.:
of her testimony on direct examination;

This Petition for Review on Certiorari1 seeks to set aside the January 31, 2012 3. The Sworn Affidavit12 of Dr. Tayag (Exhibit "B"), which was considered
Decision2 and August 23, 2012 Resolution3 of the Court of Appeals (CA) denying part of her testimony on direct examination;
the Petition in CA-G.R. CV No. 95392 and the Motion for Reconsideration,4 thus
affirming the December 18, 2009 Decision5 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
4. Dr. Tayag's evaluation report entitled "A Report on the Psychological
Quezon City, Branch 94, in Civil Case No. Q-08-62827.
Condition of NICOLAS T. MATUDAN, the petitioner for Nullity of Marriage
against respondent MARILYN BORJA-MATUDAN"13(Exhibit "C"); and
Factual Antecedents
5. Other relevant evidence, such as petitioner's marriage contract/certificate
Petitioner Nicolas S. Matudan (petitioner) and respondent Marilyn B. Matudan
and respective birth certificates of his children, and a Letter/Notice, with
(Marilyn) were married in Laoang, Northern Samar on October 26, 1976. They
Registry Return Receipt, sent by Dr. Tayag to Marilyn requesting
had four children.
evaluation/interview relative to petitioner's desire to file a petition. for
declaration of nullity of their marriage (Exhibits "E" to "G").
In 1985, Marilyn left to work abroad. From then on, petitioner and  children lost
contact with her; she had not been seen nor heard from again.

Twenty-three years later, or on June 20, 2008, petitioner filed a Petition for
Declaration of Nullity of Marriage,6 docketed as Civil Case No, Q-08-62827 with Ruling of the Regional Trial Court
the RTC of Quezon City, Branch 94. Petitioner alleged that before, during, and
after his marriage to Marilyn, the latter was psychologically incapable of fulfilling On December 18, 2009, the RTC issued its Decision14 dismissing the Petition in
her obligations as a wife and mother; that she consistently neglected and failed to Civil Case No. Q-08-62827 on the ground that petitioner's evidence failed to
provide petitioner and her children with the necessary emotional and financial sufficiently prove Marilyn's claimed psychological incapacity. It held, thus:
care, support, and sustenance, and even so after leaving for work abroad; that
based on expert evaluation conducted by Clinical Psychologist Nedy L. Tayag (Dr. Petitioner, his daughter Maricel Matudan and psychologist Nedy L. Tayag testified.
Tayag), Marilyn's psychological incapacity is grave, permanent, and incurable; Petitioner offered in evidence Exhibits "A" to "G" which were admitted by the
that petitioner's consent to the marriage was obtained by Marilyn through Court.
misrepresentation as she concealed her condition from him; and that Marilyn is
"not ready for a lasting and permanent commitment like marriage"7 as she "never The State and the respondent did not present any evidence.
(gave) him and their children financial and emotional support x x x and for being
selfish through their six (6) years of cohabitation;"8 that Marilyn became "so From the testimonial and documentary evidence of the petitioner, the Court
despicably irresponsible as she has not shown love and care upon her husband, x gathered the following:
x x and that she cannot properly and morally take on the responsibility of a loving
and caring wife x x x."9 Petitioner and respondent were married on October 26, 1976 x x x. They begot
four (4) children x x x. Petitioner and respondent lived together with their
The Republic of the Philippines (Republic), through the Office of the Solicitor children. On June 25, 1985, petitioner asked respondent [sic] for permission to
General, opposed the Petition. work and left the conjugal dwelling. Since then she was never heard of [sic].
Respondent never communicated with the petitioner and her children. Petitioner
The Quezon City Office of the City Prosecutor having determined that there is no inquired from the relatives of the respondent but they did not tell him her
collusion between the parties, proceedings were conducted in due course. whereabouts.
However, trial proceeded in Marilyn's absence.
In his Affidavit which was considered as his direct testimony, petitioner claimed
that respondent failed to perform her duties as a wife to him. Respondent never Article 36 of the Family Code as amended, states:
gave petitioner and their children financial and emotional support, love and care
during their cohabitation. She was irresponsible, immature and exhibited 'A marriage contracted by any party who at the time of the celebration, was
irrational behavior towards petitioner and their children. She was self-centered, psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential marital obligations of
had no remorse and involved herself in activities defying social and moral ethics. marriage, shall likewise be void even if such incapacity becomes manifest only
after its solemnization.'
On cross examination, petitioner testified that he and the respondent had a happy cralawlawlibrary
married life and they never had a fight. The only reason why he filed this was Article 68 of the same Code provides:
because respondent abandoned him and their children.
'The husband and wife are obliged to live together, observe mutual love, respect
Maricel Matudan was only two (2) years old when respondent left them. She and fidelity, and render mutual help and support.'
corroborated the testimony of the petitioner that since respondent left the cralawlawlibrary
conjugal dwelling she never provided financial support to the family and never In the case of Leouel Santos vs. Court of Appeals, January 4, 1995, G.R. No.
communicated with them. 112019, the Honorable Supreme Court held:

Nedy L. Tayag, Psychologist, testified on the 'Report on the Psychological 'Justice Alicia Sempio Dy, in her commentaries on the Family Code cites with
Condition of Nicolas Matudan' which she prepared (Exhibit "C"). She subjected approval the work of Dr. Gerardo Veloso a former Presiding Judge of the
petitioner to psychological test and interview. She likewise interviewed Maricel Metropolitan Marriage Tribunal of the Catholic Archdiocese of Manila x x x, who
Matudan. She came up with the findings that petitioner is suffering from Passive- opines that psychological incapacity must be characterized by (a) gravity, (b)
Aggressive Personality Disorder and respondent has Narcissistic Personality juridical antecedence and (c) incurability. The incapacity must be grave or serious
Disorder with Antisocial Traits. The features of petitioner's disorder are the such that the party would be incapable of carrying out the ordinary duties
following: negativistic attitude, passive resistance, lacks the ability to assert his required in marriage; it must be rooted in the history of the party antedating the
opinions and has great difficulty expressing his feelings. marriage although the overt manifestations may emerge only after the marriage;
and it must be incurable or even if it were otherwise, the cure would be beyond
The root cause of his personality condition can be attributed to his being an the means of the party involved.
abandoned child. At a young age, his parents separated and he was left in the
custody of his paternal grandmother. He lacked a support system and felt For psychological incapacity however to be appreciated, the same must be
rejected. He developed a strong need for nurturance, love and attention and that serious, grave and 'so permanent as to deprive one of awareness of the duties
he would do anything to attain such. and responsibilities of the matrimonial bond one is about to assume.'x x x.

As for respondent, the manifestation of her disorder are as follows: Pre- In the case of Santos, it was also held that the intendment of the law has been to
occupation with pursuing matters that would make her happy; has a high sense of confine the meaning of 'psychological incapacity' to the most serious cases of
self-importance; wants to have her way and disregards her husband's opinions; personality disorders clearly demonstrative of an utter insensitivity or inability to
lacks empathy; wants to have a good life. give meaning and significance to the marriage.'
chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Her personality condition is rooted on her unhealthy familial environment. She
came from an impoverished family. Her parents were more pre-occupied with It must be emphasized that the cause of action of petitioner is the alleged
finding ways to make ends meet to such extent that they failed to give adequate psychological incapacity of the respondent. During the pre-trial, the sole issue
attention and emotional support to their children. raised is whether not respondent is psychologically incapacitated to perform her
marital obligations under Article 36 of the Family Code. The alleged personality
Ms. Tayag further testified that the psychological condition of the parties are disorder of the petitioner is clearly not an issue in this case.
grave and characterized by juridical antecedence as the same already existed
before they got married, their disorders having been in existence since their Prescinding from the foregoing, the Court finds that the totality of the evidence
childhood years are permanent and severe. adduced by petitioner has not established the requisites of gravity, juridical
antecedence and incurability. Again, it must be emphasized that this petition was
The sole issue to be resolved is whether x x x respondent is psychologically filed on the ground of the psychological incapacity of respondent and not the
incapacitated to perform her marital obligations under Article 36 of the Family petitioner.
Code.
Respondent is said to be suffering from Narcissistic Personality Disorder with Petitioner filed an appeal before the CA, docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 95392.
antisocial traits. The salient features of her disorder were enumerated by Nedy However, in its assailed January 31, 2012 Decision, the CA instead affirmed the
Tayag in her report as follows: pre-occupation with pursuing matters that would RTC judgment, declaring thus:
make her happy; has a high sense of self-importance; wants to have her way and
disregards her husband's opinions; lacks empathy; wants to have a good life. Her Petitioner-appelant asserts that the RTC should not have denied the petition for
personality disorder is considered permanent, grave and incurable. It has its root declaration of nullity of his marriage to Marilyn x x x. He maintains that, contrary
cause in her unhealthy familial environment during her early developmental to the conclusion reached by the trial court, he was able to establish by the
years. quantum of evidence required, the claimed psychological incapacity of his wife,

In petitions for declaration of marriage (sic), the testimony of the petitioner as to The argument of Nicolas R. Matudan fails to persuade Us.
the physical manifestation of the psychological incapacity is of utmost importance.
Unfortunately, petitioner's testimony particularly his affidavit which was Verily, instead of substantiating the alleged psychological incapacity of his wife,
considered as his direct examination contained only general statements on the petitioner-appellant revealed during his cross examination that it was actually his
supposed manifestations of respondent's incapacity. Respondent was described wife's act of abandoning the family that led him to seek the nullification of their
therein as irresponsible, immature, self-centered, lacks remorse, got involved marriage. In fact, during his cross-examination, he readily admitted that they
with activities defying social and moral ethics. Petitioner however miserably failed were happily married and that they never engaged in bickering with each other.
to expound on these allegations. In fact during his cross-examination, he even
contradicted the allegations in his petition and affidavit. He clearly stated that he xxxx
had a happy marital relationship with the respondent and never had a fight with
her (TSN, December 5, 2008, page 8). Q: But how would you describe your marital relations [sic]? Were there
moments that you were happy with your wife?
Petitioner harped on the abandonment of respondent. He even admitted that this
A:  Yes, ma' am, that is why we begot four  children.
the [sic] only reason why he wants their marriage dissolved (TSN, December 5,
2008, page 9). Abandonment of spouse however is not psychological incapacity.
     
It is only a ground for legal separation.
COURT
Petitions for declaration of nullity of marriage are sui generis, the allegations
therein must be supported by clear and convincing evidence that would warrant    And so, you so you [sic] had a happy married life then?
the dissolution of the marriage bond. Absent such proof, the Court will uphold the
validity of the marriage for 'the rule is settled that every intendment of the law or    
fact leans toward the validity of marriage, the indissolubility of the marriage
bond.' (Sevilla v. Cardenas, G.R. No. 167684, July 31, 2006). FISCAL

In a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage, the burden of proof to show the    I would presume that you had a happy married life, how come your
nullity of the marriage is on the petitioner. wife just left you like that? Do you have any idea why your wife just
left you like that?
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition is dismissed for
insufficiency of evidence.    

SO ORDERED.15 A:  She did not communicate with us to tell her whereabouts. 

Petitioner moved to reconsider,16 but in a May 12, 2010 Order,17 the RTC held its    
ground reiterating its pronouncement that petitioner failed to demonstrate
Marilyn's psychological incapacity, and that the petition is anchored merely on Q: Did you ever have a fight with your wife?
Marilyn's abandonment of the marriage and family, which by itself is not
equivalent to psychological incapacity. A:  None, ma'am.

   
Ruling of the Court of Appeals
 (1) The burden of proof to show the nullity of the marriage belongs to the
xxxx
plaintiff. Any doubt should be.resolved in favor of the existence and continuation
  of the marriage and against its dissolution and nullity.

COURT (2) The root cause of the psychological incapacity must be: (a) medically or
clinically identified, (b) alleged in the complaint, (c) sufficiently proven by experts
   All right, you stated in this Affidavit that you are filing this case for the and (d) clearly explained in the decision.
declaration of nullity of marriage because of the psychological
incapacity of your wife, what do you mean by that? (3) The incapacity must be proven to be existing at 'the time of the celebration' of
the marriage,
   
(4) Such incapacity must also be shown to be medically or clinically permanent or
WITNESS incurable.

   'Pinabayaan lang kaming pamilya niya, hindi naman niya sinasabi kung (5) Such illness must be grave enough to bring about the disability of the party to
saan siya hahanapin.' She did not inform us of her whereabouts. assume the essential obligations of marriage.

    (6) The essential marital obligations must be those embraced by Articles 68 up to

71 of the Family Code as regards the husband and wife as well as Articles 220,
COURT 221 and 225 of the same Code in regard to parents and their children.

   Is that the only reason why you want your marriage with her (7) Interpretations given by the National Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal of the
dissolved? Catholic Church in the Philippines, while not controlling or decisive, should be
given great respect by our courts.
   
(8) The trial court must order the prosecuting attorney or fiscal and the Solicitor
WITNESS
General to appear as counsel for the state. No decision shall be handed down
unless the Solicitor General issues a certification, which will be quoted in the
   Yes. your honor.
decision, briefly stating therein his reasons for his agreement or opposition, as the
chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary case may be, to the petition.
chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
As correctly observed by the RTC, abandonment by a spouse, by itself, however,
does not warrant a finding of psychological incapacity within the contemplation of The Guidelines incorporate the basic requirements established in Santos v. Court
the Family Code. It must be shown that such abandonment is a manifestation of a of Appeals that psychological incapacity must be characterized by: (a) gravity; (b)
disordered personality which makes the spouse concerned completely unable to juridical antecedence; and (c) incurability. These requisites must be strictly
discharge the essential obligations of the marital state. complied with, as the grant of a petition for nullity of marriage based on
psychological incapacity must be confined only to the most serious cases of
Indeed, the term 'psychological incapacity' to be a ground for the nullity of personality disorders clearly demonstrative of an utter insensitivity or inability to
marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code, refers to a serious psychological give meaning and significance to the marriage.
illness afflicting a party even before the celebration of the marriage. Psychological
incapacity must refer to no less than a mental (not physical) incapacity that Using the above standards, We find the totality of the petitioner-appellant's
causes a party to be truly incognitive of the basic marital covenants that evidence insufficient to prove that the respondent-appellee is psychologically unfit
concomitantly must be assumed and discharged by the parties to the marriage. to discharge the duties expected of her as a wife.

In Republic v. Court of Appeals and Rorodel Olaviano Molina,  the following Just like his own statements and testimony, the assessment and finding of the
definitive guidelines were laid down in resolving petitions for declaration of nullity clinical psychologist cannot relied upon to substantiate the petitioner-appellant's
of marriage, based on Article 36 of the Family Code: theory of the psychological incapacity of his wife.

It bears stressing that Marilyn never participated in the proceedings below. The
clinical psychologist's evaluation of the respondent-appellee's condition was based merely concluded that Marilyn suffers from Narcissistic Personality Disorder with
mainly on the information supplied by her husband, the petitioner, and to some antisocial traits on the basis of what she perceives as manifestations of the same.
extent from their daughter, Maricel. It is noteworthy, however, that Maricel was The report neither explained the incapacitating nature of the alleged disorder, nor
only around two (2) years of age at the time the respondent left and therefore showed that the respondent-appellee was really incapable of fulfilling her duties
cannot be expected to know her mother well. Also, Maricel would not have been due to some incapacity of a psychological, not physical, nature.
very reliable as a witness in an Article 36 case because she could not have been
there when the spouses were married and could not have been expected to know xxxx
what was happening between her parents until long after her birth. On the other
hand, as the petitioning spouse, Nicolas' description of Marilyn's nature would Dr. Tayag's testimony during her cross examination as well as her statements in
certainly be biased, and a psychological evaluation based on this one-sided the Sworn Affidavit are no different.
desctiption can hardly be considered as credible. The ruling in Jocelyn Suazo v.
Angelito Suazo, et al.,  is illuminating on this score: When asked to explain the personality disorder of Marilyn, Dr. Tayag simply
replied:
We first note a critical factor in appreciating or evaluating the expert opinion
evidence – the psychologist's testimony and the psychological evaluation report –
Q: On her case you assessed her as, likewise, suffering from a personality
that Jocelyn presented. Based on her declarations in open court, the psychologist
disorder characterized by Narcissistic Personality Disorder with Anti-Social
evaluated Angelito's psychological condition only in an indirect manner – she
Trait. Will you please tell to the Court what do you mean by that personality
derived all her conclusions from information coming from Jocelyn whose bias for
disorder?
her cause cannot of course be doubted. Given the source of the information upon
which the psychologist heavily relied upon, the court must evaluate the    
evidentiary worth of the opinion with due care and with the application of the
more rigid and stringent set of standards outlined above i.e,,  that there must be a A:  In layman's term, once you are being labeled as a narcissistic [sic], this is a
thorough and in-depth assessment of the parties by the psychologist or expert, person whose preoccupation are all toward his own self satisfaction both
for a conclusive diagnosis of a psychological incapacity that is grave, severe and materially or emotionally at the expense of somebody. They have what you
incurable. called [sic] strong sense of entitlement thinking that she can get away
whatever [sic] she wants to in pursuit of her own satisfaction at the expense
xxxx of somebody. And this is what happened to the respondent. She gave more
consideration to her own satisfaction material wise at the expense of social
From these perspectives, we conclude that the psychologist, using meager embarrassment of the children because of what happened to her.
information coming from a directly interested party, could not have secured a
complete personality profile and could not have conclusively formed an objective chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
opinion or diagnosis of Angelito's psychological condition. While the report or
evaluation may be conclusive with respect to Jocelyn's psychological condition, On the other hand, in her Sworn Affidavit, Dr. Tayag stated:
this is not true for Angelito's. The methodology employed simply cannot satisfy
the required depth and comprehensiveness of examination required to evaluate a 7. Without a doubt, Marilyn is suffering from a form of personality disorder that
party alleged to be suffering from a psychological disorder. In short, this is not rooted [sic] the downfall of their marriage. As based on the DSM-IV, respondent's
the psychological report that the Court can rely on as basis for the conclusion that behavioral disposition fits with individuals with NARCISSISTIC PERSONALITY
psychological incapacity exists. DISORDER with Anti-social traits, as characterized by her disregard for and
cralawlawlibrary violation of the rights of others as well as her failure to conform to social norms
In the earlier case of Rowena Padilla-Rumbaua v. Edward Rumbaua, it was with respect to lawful behaviors as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that
similarly declared that '[t]o make conclusions and generalizations on the are clearly immoral and socially despised. Such is also depicted through his [sic]
respondent's psychological condition based on the information fed by only one deceitfulness, as indicated by repeated lying and conning methods she used upon
side is, to our mind, not different from admitting hearsay evidence as proof of the others in order to achieve personal profit or pleasure. In addition, her consistent
truthfulness of the content of such evidence.' irresponsibllity, as indicated by her repeated failure to sustain consistent work
behavior or honor financial obligations and her lack of remorse, as indicated by
At any rate, We find the report prepared by the clinical psychologist on the being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from
psychological condition of the respondent-appellee to be insufficient to warrant another. x x x. And such condition is considered to [sic] grave, severe, long
the conclusion that a psychological incapacity existed that prevented Marilyn from lasting and incurable by any treatment available.
complying with the essential obligations of marriage. In said report, Dr. Tayag
chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary totality of his evidence and Marilyn's failure to refute the same despite due notice
demonstrate that he is entitled to a declaration of nullity on the ground of
Accordingly, even if We assume that Marilyn is really afflicted with Narcissistic psychological incapacity.
Personality Disorder with anti-social traits, in the absence of any showing that the
same actually incapacited her from fulfilling her essential marital obligations, such Respondent's Arguments
disorder cannot be a valid basis for declaring Nicolas' marriage to Marilyn as null
and void under Article 36 of the Family Code. In its Comment22 praying for denial, the Republic argues that the Petition calls for
an evaluation of facts, thus violating the rule that a petition for review
To be sure, jurisprudence has declared that not every psychological on certiorari should be confined to legal questions. Citing Perez-Ferraris v.
illness/disorder/condition is a ground for declaring the marriage a nullity under Ferraris,23 which decrees as follows –
Article 36. '[T]he meaning of 'psychological incapacity' [is confined] to the most
serious cases of personality disorders clearly demonstrative of an utter The issue of whether or not psychological incapacity exists in a given case calling
insensitivity or inability to give meaning and significance to the marriage.' for annulment of marriage depends crucially, more than in any field of the law, on
the facts of the case. Such factual issue, however, is beyond the province of this
All told, We find that no reversible error was committed by the trial court in Court to review. It is not the function of the Court to analyze or weigh all over
rendering its assailed Decision. again the evidence or premises supportive of such factual determination. It is a
well-established principle that factual findings of the trial court, when affirmed by
WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is DENIED. The assailed Decision of the Regional the Court of Appeals, are binding on this Court, save for the most compelling and
Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 94, in Civil Case No. Q-08-62827, is cogent reasons, like when the findings of the appellate court go beyond the issues
AFFIRMED. of the case, run contrary to the admissions of the parties to the case, or fail to
notice certain relevant facts which, if properly considered, will justify a different
SO ORDERED.18 (Citations omitted) conclusion; or when there is a misappreciation of facts, which are unavailing in
chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary the instant case. (Citations omitted)
chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Petitioner moved for reconsideration, but in its assailed August 23, 2012
Resolution, the CA stood its ground. Hence, the instant Petition. the State argues that the instant case should be dismissed instead.

In a November 19, 2014 Resolution,19 this Court resolved to give due course to The public respondent adds that allegations and proof of irresponsibility,
the Petition. immaturity, selfishness, indifference, and abandonment of the family do not
automatically justify a conclusion of psychological incapacity under Article 36 of
Issue the Family Code; that the intent of the law is to confine the meaning of
psychological incapacity to the most serious cases of personality disorders –
existing at the time of the marriage – clearly demonstrating an utter insensitivity
Petitioner mainly questions the CA's appreciation of the case, insisting that he was or inability to give meaning and significance to the marriage, and depriving the
able to prove Marilyn's psychological incapacity. spouse of awareness of the duties and responsibilities of the marital bond he/she
is about to assume; that petitioner failed to show how each of Marilyn's claimed
Petitioner's Arguments negative traits affected her ability to perform her essential marital obligations;
that the supposed psychological evaluation of Marilyn was in fact based on the
In his Petition and Reply,20 petitioner argues that contrary to the CA's findings, he one-sided, self-serving, and biased information supplied by petitioner and Maricel
was able to prove Marilyn's psychological incapacity which is rooted in Dr. Tayag's — which renders the same unreliable and without credibility; that petitioner's real
diagnosis that she was suffering from Narcissistic Personality Disorder which reason for seeking nullification is Marilyn's abandonment of the family; and that
existed even before their marriage, and continued to subsist thereafter; that her all in all, petitioner failed to prove the gravity, juridical antecedence, and
illness is grave, serious, incurable, and permanent as to render her incapable of incurability of Marilyn's claimed psychological incapacity.
assuming her marriage obligations; that the nullification of his marriage to Marilyn
is not an affront to the institutions of marriage and family, but will actually protect Our Ruling
the sanctity thereof because in effect, it will discourage individuals with
psychological disorders that prevent them from assuming marital obligations from
remaining in the sacred bond;21 that the issue of whether psychological incapacity The Court denies the Petition.
exists as a ground to nullify one's marriage is a legal question; and that the
 they begot four children; and the only reason for his filing Civil Case No. Q-08-
The landmark case of Santos v. Court of Appeals24 taught us that psychological 62827 was Marilyn's complete abandonment of the marriage and family when she
incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code must be characterized by (a) left to work abroad.
gravity, (b) juridical antecedence, and (c) incurability. Thus, the incapacity "must
be grave or serious such that the party would be incapable of carrying out the 'Psychological incapacity,' as a ground to nullify a marriage under Article 36 of the
ordinary duties required in marriage; it must be rooted in the history of the party Family Code, should refer to no less than a mental – not merely physical –
antedating the marriage, although the overt manifestations may emerge only incapacity that causes a party to be truly incognitive of the basic marital
after marriage; and it must be incurable or, even if it were otherwise, the cure covenants that concomitantly must be assumed and discharged by the parties to
would be beyond the means of the party involved."25cralawred In this connection, the marriage which, as so expressed in Article 68 of the Family Code, among
the burden of proving psychological incapacity is on the petitioner, pursuant others, include their mutual obligations to live together, observe love, respect and
to Republic v. Court of Appeals,26 or the Molina case. fidelity and render help and support. There is hardly any doubt that the
intendment of the law has been to confine the meaning of 'psychological
The foregoing pronouncements in Santos  and Molina  have remained as the incapacity' to the most serious cases of personality disorders clearly
precedential guides in deciding cases grounded on the psychological incapacity of demonstrative of an utter insensitivity or inability to give meaning and
a spouse. But the Court has declared the existence or absence of the significance to the marriage.31
psychological incapacity based strictly on the facts of each case and not on a  chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
priori assumptions, predilections or generalizations. Indeed, the incapacity should
be established by the totality of evidence presented during trial, making it If any, petitioner's accusations against Marilyn are untrue, at the very least. At
incumbent upon the petitioner to sufficiently prove the existence of the most, they fail to sufficiently establish the degree of Marilyn's claimed
psychological incapacity.27 psychological incapacity.
chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
On the other hand, Maricel cannot be of help either. She was only two years old
Both the trial and appellate courts dismissed the petition in Civil Case No. Q-08- when Marilyn left the family, Growing up, she may have seen the effects of
62827 on the ground that the totality of petitioner's evidence failed to sufficiently Marilyn's abandonment – such as the lack of emotional and financial support; but
prove that Marilyn was psychologically unfit to enter marriage – in short, while she could not have any idea of her mother's claimed psychological incapacity, as
petitioner professed psychological incapacity, he could not establish its gravity, well as the nature, history, and gravity thereof.
juridical antecedence, and incurability.
Just as well, Dr. Tayag's supposed expert findings regarding Marilyn's
The Court agrees. psychological condition were not based on actual tests or interviews conducted
upon Marilyn herself; they are based on the personal accounts of petitioner. This
Petitioner's evidence consists mainly of his judicial affidavit and testimony; the fact gave more significance and importance to petitioner's other pieces of
judicial affidavits and testimonies of his daughter Maricel and Dr. Tayag; and Dr. evidence, which could have compensated for the deficiency in the expert opinion
Tayag's psychological evaluation report on the psychological condition of both which resulted from its being based solely on petitioner's one-sided account. But
petitioner and Marilyn. The supposed evaluation of Marilyn's psychological since these other pieces of evidence could not be relied upon, Dr. Tayag's
condition was based solely on petitioner's account, since Marilyn did not testimony and report must fail as well. In one decided case with a similar factual
participate in the proceedings. backdrop and involving the very same expert witness, this Court held:

Indeed, "[w]hat is important is the presence of evidence that can adequately It is worth noting that Glenn and Mary Grace lived with each other for more or
establish the party's psychological condition."28 [T]he complete facts should allege less seven years from 1999 to 2006. The foregoing established fact shows that
the physical manifestations, if any, as are indicative of psychological incapacity at living together as spouses under one roof is not an impossibility. Mary's departure
the time of the celebration of the marriage."29 Petitioner's judicial affidavit and from their home in 2006 indicates either a refusal or mere difficulty, but not
testimony during trial, however, fail to show gravity and juridical antecedence. absolute inability to comply with her obligation to live with her husband.
While he complained that Marilyn lacked a sense of guilt and was involved in
"activities defying social and moral ethics,"30 and that she was, among others, Further, considering that Mary Grace was not personally examined by Dr. Tayag,
irrational, irresponsible, immature, and self-centered, he nonetheless failed to there arose a greater burden to present more convincing evidence to prove the
sufficiently and particularly elaborate on these allegations, particularly the degree gravity, juridical antecedence and incurability of the former's condition. Glenn,
of Marilyn's claimed irresponsibility, immaturity, or selfishness. This is however, failed in this respect Glenn's testimony is wanting in material details.
compounded by the fact that petitioner contradicted his own claims by testifying Rodelito, on the other hand, is a blood relative of Glenn. Glenn's statements are
that he and Marilyn were happily married and never had a fight, which is why
hardly objective. Moreover, Glenn and Rodelito both referred to Mary Grace's Finally, the identical rulings of the trial and appellate courts should be given due
traits and acts, which she exhibited during the marriage. Hence, there is nary a respect and finality. This Court is not a trier of facts.
proof on the antecedence of Mary Grace's alleged incapacity. Glenn even testified
that, six months before they got married, they saw each other almost everyday. The issue of whether or not psychological incapacity exists in a given case calling
Glenn saw "a loving[,] caring and well[-]educated person" in Mary Grace. for annulment of marriage depends crucially, more than in any field of the law, on
the facts of the case. Such factual issue, however, is beyond the province of this
Anent Dr. Tayag's assessment of Mary Grace's condition, the Court finds the same Court to review. It is not the function of the Court to analyze or weigh all over
as unfounded. Rumbaua provides some guidelines on how the courts should again the evidence or premises supportive of such factual determination. It is a
evaluate the testimonies of psychologists or psychiatrists in petitions for the well-established principle that factual findings of the trial court, when affirmed by
declaration of nullity of marriage, viz.: the Court of Appeals, are binding on this Court, save for the most compelling and
cogent reasons x x x.33
We cannot help but note that Dr. Tayag's conclusions about the respondent's chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
psychological incapacity were based on the information fed to her by only one
side — the petitioner — whose bias in favor of her cause cannot be doubted. With the foregoing disquisition, there is no need to resolve the other issues
While this circumstance alone does not disqualify the psychologist for reasons of raised. They have become irrelevant.
bias, her report, testimony and conclusions deserve the application of a more
rigid and stringent set of standards in the manner we discussed above. For, WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED. The January 31, 2012 Decision and
effectively, Dr. Tayag only diagnosed the respondent from the prism of a third August 23, 2012 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 95392
party account; she did not actually hear, see and evaluate the respondent and are AFFIRMED.
how he would have reacted and responded to the doctor's probes.
SO ORDERED. cralawlawlibrary
Dr. Tayag, in her report, merely summarized the petitioner's narrations, and on
this basis characterized the respondent to be a self-centered, egocentric, and Carpio, (Chairperson), and Brion,   JJ., concur.
unremorseful person who 'believes that the world revolves around him'; and who Mendoza, J., on official leave.
'used love as a . . . deceptive tactic for exploiting the confidence [petitioner] Leonen, J., see dissent.
extended towards him.' x x x
Endnotes:
We find these observations and conclusions insufficiently in depth and
comprehensive to warrant the conclusion that a psychological incapacity existed
that prevented the respondent from complying with the essential obligations of
marriage. It failed to identify the root cause of the respondent's narcissistic
**
 Marlyn in some parts of the records.
personality disorder and to prove that it existed at the inception of the marriage.
Neither did it explain the incapacitating nature of the alleged disorder, nor show Rollo, pp. 7-13.
1

that the respondent was really incapable of fulfilling his duties due to some
incapacity of a psychological, not physical, nature. Thus, we cannot avoid but
2
 Id. at 17-31; penned by Associate Justice Mariflor P. Punzalan Castillo and
conclude that Dr. Tayag's conclusion in her Report — i.e.. that the respondent concurred in by Presiding Justice Andres B. Reyes, Jr. and Associate Justice
suffered 'Narcissistic Personality Disorder with traces of Antisocial Personality Franchito N. Diamante.
Disorder declared to be grave and incurable' — is an unfounded statement, not a
necessary inference from her previous characterization and portrayal of the  Id. at 14-16.
3

respondent. While the various tests administered on the petitioner could have
been used as a fair gauge to assess her own. psychological condition, this same  CA rollo, pp. 97-101.
4

statement cannot be made with respect to the respondent's condition. To make

conclusions and generalizations on the respondent's psychological condition based  Id. at 23-31; penned by Presiding Judge Roslyn M. Rabara-Tria.
5

on the information fed by only one side is, to our mind, not different from
admitting hearsay evidence as proof of the truthfulness of the content of such  Recordsc, pp. 1-4.
6

evidence.32
chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary  Id. at. 2.
7

 Id.
8
 Id.
9
Perez-Ferraris v. Ferraris, supra note 23 at 727.
33

chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
10
 Id. at 44-45.

11
 Id. at 62-63.

12
 Id. at 46-50.
DISSENTING OPINION
13
 Id. at 51-61.

14
 Id. at 113-122.
LEONEN, J.:
15
 Id. at 114-121.

16
 Id. at 123-127, 130-136. I dissent.

17
 Id. at 141-143. In my view, petitioner Nicolas S. Matudan (Nicolas) sufficiently proved that
respondent Marilyn B. Matudan (Marilyn) is psychologically incapacitated to
18
Rollo, pp. 20-31. comply with her essential marital obligations to him. To deny his Petition is a cruel
interpretation of the provisions of existing law.
19
 Id. at 70-71.
I disagree that the testimony of the parties' daughter Maricel was not "of help"2 in
20
 Id. at 63-67. this case. Marilyn left the conjugal home in 1985 when her children were still
minors. She never kept in touch with her family. When her children needed her
21
 Citing Ngo Te v. Gutierrez Yu-Te, 598 Phil. 666 (2009). most, Marilyn failed to keep them in her company, to love and support them, all
of which are essential obligations under the law. The Petition for Review on
22
Rollo, pp. 39-54. Certiorari must be granted.

23
 527 Phil. 722 (2006). I
24
 310 Phil. 21 (1995).
Nicolas' evidence consisted mainly of his testimony and that of their daughter,
25
cralawred Id. at 39. Maricel. This the ponencia found insufficient because Marilyn did not participate in
the proceedings. Further, the ponencia found Dr. Nedy L. Tayag's (Dr. Tayag)
26
 335 Phil. 664, 676 (1997). psychological evaluation deficient because she diagnosed Marilyn with having a
narcissistic personality based on the sole account of Nicolas.3
27
Republic v. Court of Appeals, 698 Phil. 257, 267 (2012).
A psychological evaluation should not be discounted if based on sources other
28
Marcos v. Marcos,  397 Phil. 840, 850 (2000), than the patient. In psychiatry, it is accepted practice to base a person's
psychiatric history on collateral information. Ideally, the psychiatric history should
29
Republic v. Galang, 665 Phil. 658, 672 (2011). "be based [on] the patient's own words from his or her point on view,"4 the
psychiatric history being a "record of [a] patient's life[.]"5 However, if the patient
30
 Records, p. 2. is not available, as in this case, information from other sources may be utilized.
31
Republic v. De Gracia, 726 Phil. 502, 509 (2014), Dr. Tayag found that Marilyn was suffering from Narcissistic Personality Disorder
with Antisocial Traits. The illness is marked by "negativistic attitude, passive
Viñas v. Parel-Viñas, G.R. No. 208790, January 21, 2015, 747 SCRA 508, 521-
32
resistance, [lack of] ability to assert [one's] opinions, and ... difficulty expressing
523, citing Rumbaua v. Rumbaua, 612 Phil. 1061 (2009). [one's] feelings."6 In its January 31, 2012 Decision, the Court of Appeals stated:
 When asked to explain the personality disorder of Marilyn, Dr. Tayag simply Art. 68. The husband and wife are obliged to live together, observe mutual love,
replied: respect and fidelity, and render mutual help and support.

....
Q: On her case you assessed her as, likewise, suffering from a personality
disorder characterized by Narcissistic Personality Disorder with Anti-Social
Art. 220. The parents and those exercising parental authority shall have with the
Trait. Will you please tell to the Court what do you mean by that personality
respect to their unemancipated children on wards the following rights and duties:
disorder?
(1) To keep them in their company, to support, educate and instruct them by
     
right precept and good example, and to provide for their upbringing in keeping
A:  In layman's term, once you are being labeled as a narcissistic [sic], this is a with their means;
person whose preoccupation are all toward his own self satisfaction both
materially or emotionally at the expense of somebody. They have what you (2) To give them love and affection, advice and counsel, companionship and
called [sic] strong sense of entitlement thinking that she can get away understanding;
whatever [sic] she wants to [sic] in pursuit of her own satisfaction at the
expense of somebody. And this is what happened to the respondent. She (3) To provide them with moral and spiritual guidance, inculcate in them honesty,
gave more consideration to her own satisfaction material wise at the expense integrity, self-discipline, self-reliance, industry and thrift, stimulate their interest
of social embarrassment of the children because of what happened to her. in civic affairs, and inspire in them compliance with the duties of citizenship;

(4) To furnish them with good and wholesome educational materials, supervise
On the other hand, in her Sworn Affidavit, Dr. Tayag stated: their activities, recreation and association with others, protect them from bad
company, and prevent them from acquiring habits detrimental to their health,
7. Without a doubt, Marilyn is suffering from a form of personality disorder that studies and morals;
rooted [sic] the downfall of their marriage. As based on the DSM-IV, respondent's
behavorial disposition fits with individuals with NARCISSISTIC PERSONALITY (5) To represent them in all matters affecting their interests;
DISORDER with Anti-social traits, as characterized by her disregard for and
violation of the rights of others as well as her failure to conform to social norms (6) To demand from them respect and obedience;
with respect to lawful behaviors as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that
are clearly immoral and socially despised. Such is also depicted through his [sic] (7) To impose discipline on them as may be required under the circumstances;
deceitfulness, as indicated by repeated lying and conning methods she used upon and
others in order to achieve personal profit or pleasure. In addition, her consistent
irresponsibility, as indicated by her repeated failure to sustain consistent work (8) To perform such other duties as are imposed by law upon parents and
behavior or honor financial obligations and her lack of remorse, as indicated by guardians.
being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
another. . . . And such condition is considered to [sic] grave, severe, long lasting
and incurable by any treatment available.7 The totality of evidence presented here is more than sufficient to prove Marilyn's
chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary psychological incapacity. Nicolas and Marilyn's marriage is void under Article
368 of the Family Code.
Dr. Tayag's expert testimony is consistent with the undisputed fact that Marilyn
left the conjugal home and has not contacted her family since 1985. Thirty-one II
years of no contact with loved ones, to my mind, shows a grave and incurable
illness, a psychological incapacity warranting the dissolution of Marilyn's marriage
with Nicolas. Santos v. Court of Appeals9 and Republic v. Court of Appeals and Molina10 outline
the history of Article 36 of the Family Code. Santos  recounts how the Family Code
Apart from failing to cohabit with her husband, Marilyn left while her children Revision Committee deliberately refused to define the term "psychological
were still minors. Marilyn failed to comply with her essential obligations under the incapacity" "to allow some resiliency in [the] application"11 of the provision. No
Family Code: examples of psychological incapacity were given in the law so as not to "limit the
applicability of the provision under the principle of ejusdem generis."  12
Article 36 of the Family Code was taken from Canon 109513 of the New Code of children as an essential obligation of marriage.
Canon Law of the Catholic Church.14 Citing the work of a former judge of the
Metropolitan Marriage Tribunal of the Catholic Archdiocese of Manila, this Court (5) Such illness must be grave enough to bring about the disability of the party to
in Santos  stated that psychological incapacity "must be characterized by (a) assume the essential obligations of marriage. Thus, "mild characteriological
gravity, (b) juridical antecedence, and (c) incurability."15 peculiarities, mood changes, occasional emotional outbursts" cannot be accepted
as root causes. The illness must be shown as downright incapacity or inability, not
Molina is known for the eight (8) guidelines in interpreting and applying Article 36 a refusal, neglect or difficulty, much less ill will. In other words, there is a natal or
of the Family Code: supervening disabling factor in the person, an adverse integral element in the
personality structure that effectively incapacitates the person from really
(1) The burden of proof to show the nullity of the marriage belongs to the accepting and thereby complying with the obligations essential to marriage.
plaintiff. Any doubt should be resolved in favor of the existence and continuation
of the marriage and against its dissolution and nullity. This is rooted in the fact (6) The essential marital obligations must be those embraced by Articles 68 up to
that both our Constitution and our laws cherish the validity of marriage and unity 71 of the Family Code as regards the husband and wife as well as Articles 220,
of the family. Thus, our Constitution devotes an entire-Article on the Family, 221 and 225 of the same Code in regard to parents and their children. Such non-
recognizing it "as the foundation of the nation." It decrees marriage as legally complied marital obligation(s) must also be stated in the petition, proven by
"inviolable," thereby protecting it from dissolution at the whim of the parties. Both evidence and included in the text of the decision.
the family and marriage are to be "protected" by the state.
(7) Interpretations given by the National Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal of the
The Family Code echoes this constitutional edict on marriage and the family and Catholic Church in the Philippines, while not controlling or decisive, should be
emphasizes their permanence, inviolability and solidarity. given great respect by our courts. It is clear that Article 36 was taken by the
Family Code Revision Committee from Canon 1095 of the New Code of Canon
(2) The root cause of the psychological incapacity must be (a) medically or Law, which became effective in 1983 and which provides:
clinically identified, (b) alleged in the complaint, (c) sufficiently proven by experts
and (d) clearly explained in the decision. Article 36 of the Family Code requires "The following are incapable of contracting marriage: Those who are unable to
that the incapacity must be psychological — not physical, although its assume the essential obligations of marriage due to causes of psychological
manifestations and/or symptoms may be physical. The evidence must convince nature."
the court that the parties, or one of them, was mentally or psychically ill to such
an extent that the person could not have known the obligations he was assuming, Since the purpose of including such provision in our Family Code is to harmonize
or knowing them, could not have given valid assumption thereof. Although no our civil laws with the religious faith of our people, it stands to reason that to
example of such incapacity need be given here so as not to limit the application of achieve such harmonization, great persuasive weight should be given to decisions
the provision under the principle of ejusdem generis, nevertheless such root of such appellate tribunal. Ideally — subject to our law on evidence — what is
cause must be identified as a psychological illness and its incapacitating nature decreed as canonically invalid should also be decreed civilly void.
fully explained. Expert evidence may be given by qualified psychiatrists and
clinical psychologists. This is one instance where, in view of the evident source and purpose of the
Family Code provision, contemporaneous religious interpretation is to be given
(3) The incapacity must be proven to be existing at "the time of the celebration" persuasive effect. Here, the State and the Church — while remaining
of the marriage. The evidence must show that the illness was existing when the independent, separate and apart from each other shall walk together in synodal
parties exchanged their "I do's." The manifestation of the illness need not be cadence towards the same goal of protecting and cherishing marriage and the
perceivable at such time, but the illness itself must have attached at such family as the inviolable base of the nation.
moment, or prior thereto.
(8) The trial court must order the prosecuting attorney or fiscal and the Solicitor
(4) Such incapacity must also be shown to be medically or clinically permanent or General to appear as counsel for the state. No decision shall be handed down
incurable. Such incurability may be absolute or even relative only in regard to the unless the Solicitor General issues a certification, which will be quoted in the
other spouse, not necessarily absolutely against everyone of the same sex. decision, briefly stating therein his reasons for his agreement or opposition, as the
Furthermore, such incapacity must be relevant to the assumption of marriage case may be, to the petition. The Solicitor General, along with the prosecuting
obligations, not necessarily to those not related to marriage, like the exercise of a attorney, shall submit to the court such certification within fifteen (15) days from
profession or employment in a job. Hence, a pediatrician may be effective in the date the case is deemed submitted for resolution of the court. The Solicitor
diagnosing illnesses of children and prescribing medicine to cure them but may General shall discharge the equivalent function of the defensor
not be psychologically capacitated to procreate, bear and raise his/her own vinculi contemplated under Canon 1095.16 (Citations omitted)
chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary Still, it is time that this Court operate within the sphere of reality. The law is an
instrument to provide succor. It is not a burden that unreasonably interferes with
Contrary to the purported fluidity of the meaning of "psychological individual choices of intimate arrangements.
incapacity," Santos and Molinaprovided guidelines comparable to a "strait-
jacket"17 into which the facts of psychological incapacity cases are forced to fit. The choice to stay in or leave a marriage is not for this Court, or the State, to
This Court observed in Ngo-Te v. Yu-Te:18 make. The choice is given to the partners, with the Constitution providing that
"[t]he right of spouses to found a family in accordance with their religious
In hindsight, it may have been inappropriate for the Court to impose a rigid set of convictions and demands of responsible
rules, as the one in Molina,  in resolving all cases of psychological incapacity. parenthood[.]"25cralawredCounterintuitively, the State protects marriages if it
Understandably, the Court was then alarmed by the deluge of petitions for the allows those found to have psychological illnesses that render them incapable of
dissolution of marital bonds, and was sensitive to the [Office of the Solicitor complying with their marital obligations to leave the marriage.26 To force partners
General's] exaggeration of Article 36 as the "most liberal divorce procedure in the to stay in a loveless marriage, or a spouseless marriage as in this case, only
world". The unintended consequences of Molina,  however, has taken its toll on erodes the foundation of the family.
people who have to live with deviant behavior, moral insanity and sociopathic
personality anomaly, which, like termites, consume little by little the very III
foundation of their families, our basic social institutions. Far from what was
intended by the Court, Molina has become a strait-jacket, forcing all sizes to fit
into  and be bound by it. Wittingly or unwittingly, the Court, in conveniently The Family Code Revision Committee originally intended a provision on absolute
applying Molina, has allowed diagnosed sociopaths, schizophrenics, or no-fault divorce.27Instead, the Committee drafted Article 36 of the Family
nymphomaniacs, narcissists and the like, to continuously debase and pervert the Code, which it derived from Canon Law so as not to offend the Catholic religion to
sanctity of marriage.19 (Citations omitted) which the majority of Filipinos belong.28
chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
It is strange that in drafting Article 36, the Family Code Revision Committee had
The latest case where this Court voided the marriage due to psychological to consider the sensibilities of a particular religion. None of our laws should be
incapacity is Kalaw v. Fernandez20 which was decided on reconsideration in 2015. based on any religious law, doctrine, or teaching; otherwise, the separation of
In Kalaw: church and State will be violated.29

The [Molina] guidelines have turned out to be rigid, such that their application to We had absolute divorce laws in the past. Act No. 2710,30 enacted in 1917,
every instance practically condemned the petitions for declaration of nullity to the allowed the filing of a petition for divorce on the ground of adultery on the part of
fate of certain rejection. But Article 36 of the Family Code must not be so strictly the wife, or concubinage on the part of the husband.31
and too literally read and applied given the clear intendment of the drafters to
adopt its enacted version of "less specificity" obviously to enable "some resiliency During the Japanese occupation, Executive Order No. 14132 provided for 11
in its application." Instead, every court should approach the issue of nullity "not grounds for divorce, including "intentional or unjustified desertion continuously for
on the basis of a priori  assumptions, predilections or generalizations, but at least one year prior to the filing of a [petition] for divorce" and "slander by
according to its own facts" in recognition of the verity that no case would be on deed or gross insult by one spouse against the other to such an extent as to make
"all fours" with the next one in the field of psychological incapacity as a ground for further living impracticable."33
the nullity of marriage; hence, every "trial judge must take pains in examining
the factual milieu · and the appellate court must, as much as possible, avoid After the Japanese left, the laws enacted during the Japanese occupation were
substituting its own judgment for that of the trial court."21 (Citations omitted) declared void.34 Act No. 2710 again took effect until the Civil Code's enactment in
cralawlawlibrary 1950. Since then, absolute divorce has been prohibited in our jurisdiction.
Kalaw is only the fifth22 case since Ngo-Te's promulgation in 2009 where the
Court voided the parties' marriage due to psychological incapacity. Again, this Laws on absolute divorce allegedly violate the Constitution, specifically, on the
reflects the State's interpretation of its constitutional mandate to protect Filipino family being the foundation of the nation35 and the inviolability of
marriages, the foundation of the family,23 by contesting all Article 36 petitions marriage.36 I do not agree.
until they reach this Court.24
The Constitution describes the family as "the basic autonomous social
The effect of applying the rigid Article 36 guidelines does not negate the institution."37 To my mind, the Constitution protects the solidarity of the
compassion that some of the Members of this Court may have for the parties. family regardless of its structure.  Parties should not be forced to stay in unhappy
or otherwise broken marriages in the guise of protecting the family. This avoids
the reality that people fall out of love. There is always the possibility that human
love is not forever.  335 Phil. 664 (1997) [Per J. Panganiban, En Banc].
10

The Philippines remains to be the only country in the world with no absolute Santos v. Court of Appeals, 310 Phil. 21, 36 (1995) [Per J. Vitug, En Banc].
11

divorce law available to its citizens regardless of religion.38 Our country needs a

law that recognizes the validity of marriage at the time of its celebration but  Id., citing Salita v. Magtolis, 303 Phil. 106 (1994) [Per J. Bellosillo, First
12

nonetheless allows parties to dissociate without destroying the human dignity39 of Division]. See also Republic v. Court of Appeals and Molina,  335 Phil. 664, 677
their former partners by pathologizing them with a psychological disorder. (1997) [Per J. Panganiban, En Banc].

For thirty-one (31) years, Nicolas has been alone without a spouse. There is no  New Code of Canon Law, Canon 1095 provides:
13

marriage to protect in this case. Whatever possibility to fix the marriage is

obviously absent or, at best, improbable. To deny the Petition of Nicolas is to Canon 1095. They are incapable of contracting marriage:
require him to be condemned to a world that is not his. It is to ensure that he will
live a life without the joy that marriage truly brings. It is to treat him as a ward. 1. who is lack of sufficient use of reason.
2. who suffer from a grave defect of discretion of judgment
To deny the Petition of Nicolas is, thus, pure and simple cruelty. concerning essential matrimonial rights and duties, to be given
and accepted mutually;
ACCORDINGLY, I vote to GRANT the Petition. 3. who for causes of psychological nature are unable to assume the
essential obligations of marriage.
(SGD.) MARVIC M.V.F. LEONEN
Associate Justice 
Santos v. Court of Appeals, 310 Phil. 21, 37 (1995) [Per J. Vitug, En Banc].
14

Endnotes:
 Id. at 39.
15

 Respondent is likewise referred to as "Marlyn" in some parts of the records.

1 Republic v. Court of Appeals and Molina, 335 Phil. 664, 676-680 (1997) [Per J.
16

Panganiban, En Banc],
 Ponencia, p. 14.
2

Ngo-Te v. Yu-Te, 598 Phil. 666, 696 (2009) [Per J. Nachura, Third Division].
17

 Id. at 15.
3

 598 Phil. 666 (2009) [Per J. Nachura, Third Division].

18

4
 B.J. Sadock, M.D. and V.A. Sadock, M.D., KAPLAN & SADOCK'S SYNOPSIS OF
PSYCHIATRY BEHAVIORIAL SCIENCE/CLINICAL PSYCHIATRY 229 (9th ed., 2003).  Id. at 695-696.
19

5
 B.J. Sadock, M.D. and V.A. Sadock, M.D., KAPLAN & SADOCK'S SYNOPSIS OF
20
 G.R. No. 166357, January 14,
PSYCHIATRY BEHAVIORIAL SCIENCE/CLINICAL PSYCHIATRY 229 (9th ed., 2003) 2015 http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?
file=/jurisprudence/2015/january2015/166357.pdf [Per J. Bersamin, Special First
 Ponencia, p. 4.
6 Division].

 Id. at 10-11.
7  Id. at 6-7.
21

8
 FAMILY CODE, art. 36 provides:  The other four are Azcueta v. Republic,  606 Phil. 177 (2009) [Per J. Leonardo-
22

Art. 36. A marriage contracted by any party who, at the time of the celebration, De Castro, First Division]; Halili v. Santos-Halili,  607 Phil. 1 (2009) [Per J.
was psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential marital obligations Corona, Special First Division]; Camacho-Reyes v. Reyes,  642 Phil. 602 (2010)
of marriage, shall likewise be void even if such incapacity becomes manifest only [Per J. Nachura, Second Division]; and Aurelio v. Aurelio, 665 Phil. 693 (2011)
after its solemnization. [Per J. Peralta, Second Division).
cralawlawlibrary
9
 310 Phil. 21 (1995) [Per J. Vitug, En Banc].  CONST., art. XV, sec. 2 provides:
23
 efficiency and the development of moral character shall receive the support of the
Section 2. Marriage, as an inviolable social institution, is the foundation of the Government.
family and shall be protected by the State. chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

24
See J. Leonen, Dissenting Opinion in Mallilin v. Jamesolamin, G.R. No. 192718, 38
 Carlos H. Conde, Philippines Stands All but Alone in Banning Divorce, THE NEW
February 18, 2015 < http://sc.judiciary.gov.phlpdf/web/viewer.html? YORK TIMES, June 17,
file=/jurisprudence/2015/february2015/192718_leonen.pdf > 13 [Per J. Mendoza, 2011  http://www.nytimes.com/2011106/I8/world/asia/18iht-philippines18.html (
Second Division]. visited November 14, 2016).
Pres. Decree No. 1083, otherwise known as the Code of Muslim Personal Laws,
cralawred CONST., art. XV, sec. 3(1).
25
allows divorce but only for Filipino Muslims.

See Ngo-Te v. Yu-Te,  598 Phil. 666, 698 (2009) [Per J. Nachura, Third Division].
26
 CONST., art. II, sec. 11 provides that "[t]he State values the dignity of every
39

human person and guarantees full respect for human rights."

 J. Romero, Concurring Opinion in Santos v. Court of Appeals, 310 Phil. 21, 43
27

(1995) [Per J. Vitug, En Banc].

 Id.
28

29
 CONST., art. II, sec. 6 provides:
Section 6. The separation of Church and State shall be inviolable.
cralawlawlibrary
30
 An Act to Establish Divorce (1917).

 Act No. 2710, sec.1 provides:

31

SECTION 1. A petition for divorce can only be filed for adultery on the part of the
wife or concubinage on the part of the husband, committed in any of the forms
described in article four hundred and thirty-seven of the Penal Code.
See Valdez v. Tuason,  40 Phil. 943, 948 (1920) [Per J. Street, En Banc].

 Otherwise known as "The New Divorce Law."

32

Baptista v. Castañeda, 76 Phil. 461, 462 (1946) [Per J. Ozaeta, En Banc].

33

 Id. at 462-463.
34

 CONST., art. XV, sec. 1 provides:

35

Section 1. The State recognizes the Filipino family as the foundation of the nation.
Accordingly, it shall strengthen its solidarity and actively promote its total
development.
chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

36
 CONST., art. XV, sec. 2 provides:
Section 2. Marriage, as an inviolable social institution, is the foundation of the
family and shall be protected by the State.
Section 12. The State recognizes the sanctity of family life and shall protect and
strengthen the family as a basic autonomous social institution. It shall equally
protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from conception. The
natural and primary right and duty of parents in the rearing of the youth for civic