This is another case of psychological incapacity of a spouse which is a ground for declaration of nullity of a marriage. Pursuant to law and jurisprudence, the incapacity should refer to no less than a mental (not physical) incapacity that renders a spouse to be truly unaware and unable to understand the basic marital covenants that must be assumed and discharged by husband or wife. Its root cause must be medically and clinically identified and sufficiently proven by experts who examined and interviewed the spouse allegedly incapacitated. But will the non-examination and interview of the party concerned render as hearsay or invalidate the findings of the examining psychiatrist? This is one of the issues raised in this case of Robert and Tina.
Robert and Tina first met when they were students of a Catholic university. Soon thereafter, they became sweethearts. And after graduating from college, Tina found work at the University Treasurer’s Office, while Robert was unable to finish his college degree and just continued to work at his family’s printing press business.
While they were still sweethearts, Tina already noticed that Robert was an introvert and prone to jealousy. She also observed that he appeared to have no ambition in life and felt insecure of his siblings who excelled in their studies and careers.
Nevertheless, Tina married Robert and they eventually had two children. Robert’s attitude worsened as their marital life continued. He was jealous of everyone who talked to Tina and would even skip work just to stalk her. His jealousy was so severe that he once poked a gun at his own 15-year-old cousin who was staying in their house because he suspected him of being Tina’s lover.
Furthermore, Robert treated Tina like a sex slave. They would have sex four to five times a day. At times he would fetch Tina from her office during lunch break, just so they could have sex. During sexual intercourse, Robert would either tie her to the bed or poke her with things. He also suggested that they invite another person while having sex, or for Tina to have sex with said man. Such suggestions made Tina feel molested and maltreated. And whenever Tina refused Robert’s advances or suggestions he would get mad and they would quarrel.
Tina sought the advice of a doctor, a lawyer, a priest and any person she thought could help her and Robert. She also suggested that they undergo marriage counseling, but Robert refused and deemed it as mere “kalokohan.”
About two years after their marriage, the couple quarreled because Robert suspected that Tina was having an affair with another man. In the heat of their quarrel, Robert poked a gun at Tina’s head. So Tina with her two daughters in tow left Robert and their conjugal home. She never saw Robert again after that, and supported their children by herself.
Eventually, Tina filed a petition for declaration of nullity of the marriage before the Regional Trial Court (RTC). Robert failed to file any responsive pleading or attend the pre-trial conference despite notice and despite the finding of the Office of City Prosecutor that there is no collusion between them.
Aside from Tina, Dr. Santos, a clinical psychologist, was presented as an expert witness who interviewed Tina and subjected her to a battery of psychological tests and concluded that she was not suffering from any severe mental disorder although emotionally affected. He also interviewed Robert’s best friend, because he was not able to personally examine Robert who told him “ wala kang pakialam sa akin.” Based on the information he gathered from Robert’s best friend and two other common friends of the couple, Dr. Santos said that Robert had a severe form of personality disorder caused by pathogenic parental model because his father was a psychiatric patient and he might have developed psychic contamination. So Dr. Santos recommended that Tina and Robert’s marriage be annulled due to Robert’s psychological incapacity.
After considering the evidence presented by Tina, the trial court rendered a decision granting her petition for declaration of nullity of her marriage to Robert.But the Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the decision of the trial court and dismissed Tina’s petition. The CA ruled that the testimony of Dr. Santos was unreliable for being hearsay and should not have been given undue weight.
The Supreme Court (SC), however, ruled that the CA is mistaken. The SC said that the physician need not examine Robert himself in order to declare him to be psychologically incapacitated. The non-examination of one of the parties, particularly Robert, will not automatically render as hearsay or invalidate the findings of the examining psychiatrist, since marriage, by its very definition, necessarily involves only two persons. What matters is that the totality of the evidence presented establishes the party’s psychological condition. The overall behavior of one spouse during the cohabitation is generally and genuinely witnessed by the other. In this case, Dr. Santos’ testimony, as corroborated by Tina, sufficiently proved that Robert suffered from psychological incapacity.
By the very nature of Article 36 of the Family Code regarding psychological incapacity, courts, despite having the ultimate task of decision making, must give due regard to expert opinion on the psychological and mental condition of the parties. It would be of utmost cruelty for the court to decree that Tina should remain married to Robert (Dela Fuente vs. Dela Fuente G.R.188400, March 8, 2017).
* * *
Email: js0711192@gmail.com