SC: Couple’s kin, pals can be used to prove ‘incapacity’
Testimonies from family and friends may be used to prove psychological incapacity in nullity of marriage cases, the Supreme Court said in a recent decision voiding a couple’s union due to the wife’s psychological condition.
“All told, since petitioner has grave and incurable psychological incapacity, consisting of her personality structure rooted from her childhood and manifested during marriage, her marriage with respondent is declared null and void,” the high court’s Second Division said in G.R. No. 255706.
The decision penned by Senior Associate Justice Marvic Leonen was promulgated on Feb. 17 and made public on Wednesday.
Dilemma avoided
It cited as basis the Supreme Court’s 2023 ruling in Georfo v. Republic (G.R. No. 246933), also written by Leonen, which emphasized the importance of psychological assessments coming from sources other than the petitioning spouse due to the “obvious bias in favor of the petitioner’s cause.”
The dilemma is avoided when another person supports the petitioner’s testimony even if that person is a friend or relative, the high court explained.
“This is a realistic reception of psychological assessments considering that the friends or relatives of the alleged psychologically incapacitated spouse will not be inclined to give hostile testimonies against the latter,” it said.
The present case stemmed from a petition for review on certiorari filed by a woman challenging the Court of Appeals’ (CA) 2020 decision and resolution affirming a Makati Regional Trial Court (RTC) ruling that declared her marriage void on the ground of psychological incapacity.
According to court records, the couple met in 2006 in Angeles City, Pampanga.
At the time, the woman already had two children from a previous relationship, and both parties were aware that the man, a US Navy retiree, was still legally married, with divorce proceedings pending.
In 2008, the woman gave birth to a third child, whom the man initially acknowledged as his own.
Husband initiates
Two years later, they married in Quezon City. The man stayed and worked in Makati City, while the woman only stayed with him three to four days a week and spent the rest of the week with her children in Angeles City.
In 2014, the man filed a petition before the Makati RTC to have the marriage declared null based on both parties’ alleged psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code.
Aside from documentary evidence of infidelity, deception, and financial issues, the man submitted a psychiatric evaluation report prepared by a psychiatrist who interviewed both parties, the woman’s mother, and a mutual friend.
The report revealed that the woman had accumulated about P4 million in debt. It also presented a DNA test disproving the man’s paternity of the child, as well as photos showing the petitioner being physically intimate with another man.
The RTC granted the man’s petition in 2017 and ordered the Local Civil Registrars of Makati City and Quezon City to record the decision and cancel the marriage.
In its June 30, 2020, decision, the CA upheld the RTC ruling, finding that the man had sufficiently proven the woman’s psychological incapacity to fulfill essential marital obligations.
Deception, irresponsibility
The appellate court noted that the woman’s refusal to live with her spouse, the deception about the child’s paternity, her gambling and financial irresponsibility, and her habitual lying all indicated incapacity.
The woman brought the case to the Supreme Court, invoking an exception to the general rule that it does not review questions of fact.
She argued that the CA had overlooked or misconstrued key facts and gave undue weight to the psychiatrist’s findings.
The Supreme Court denied her petition, saying the totality of evidence established her psychological incapacity and that the man had met the burden of proof with clear and convincing evidence.
It considered the psychiatric report as strong evidence, being properly submitted and based on standard tests and interviews with the man, the woman, the woman’s mother, and a mutual friend.
“The psychiatric evaluation report further establishes the gravity, incurability, root cause, and permanence of the parties’ personality structures. According to [the psychiatrist], petitioner’s personality structure is a product of problems of trust that existed during the early stages of childhood and her poor parental model figures,” the Supreme Court said.
It added that the woman developed a gambling habit, became financially dependent on her spouse, and repeatedly lied—actions that eventually led to both civil and criminal cases.
