Carolyn asks this Court to declare her marriage void ab initio due to Joselito's psychological incapacity grounded upon Article 36 of the Family Code, which states:
“Article 36. 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.”
The differing guidelines in determining the existence of psychological incapacity were settled by the Court in the recent case of Tan-Andal v. Andal (Tan-Andal).[36]
First, a party's psychological incapacity must have juridical antecedence as required in Republic v. CA.[37] Article 36 explicitly requires the psychological incapacity to be existing at the time of the celebration of the marriage, even if such incapacity becomes manifest only after its solemnization.
As contemplated under the law, psychological incapacity depicts an enduring aspect of a spouse's personality structure, existing at the time of the celebration of marriage, that renders them incapable of understanding and complying with their essential marital obligations, manifested through clear acts of dysfunctionality that undermines the family.[38] Proof of this aspect of personality may be given by ordinary witnesses who have been present in the life of the supposed incapacitated spouse before the latter contracted marriage. These witnesses may testify on behaviors that they have consistently observed. The judge will then decide if these behaviors are indicative of a true and serious incapacity to assume the essential marital obligations.[39] Thus:
Difficult to prove as it may be, a party to a nullity case is still required to prove juridical antecedence because it is an explicit requirement of the law. Article 36 is clear that the psychological incapacity must be "existing at the time of the celebration" of the marriage, "even if such incapacity becomes manifest only after its solemnization." This distinguishes psychological incapacity from divorce. Divorce severs a marital tie even for causes, psychological or otherwise, that may have developed after the marriage celebration.
The psychological incapacity contemplated in Article 36 of the Family Code is incurable, not in the medical, but in the legal sense. This simply means that the incapacity is so enduring and persistent with respect to a specific partner, and contemplates a situation where the couple's respective personality structures are so incompatible and antagonistic that the only result of the union would be the inevitable and irreparable breakdown of the marriage. There must be an undeniable pattern of such persisting failure to be a present, loving, faithful, respectful, and supportive spouse, and the pattern must be established so as to demonstrate that there is indeed a psychological anomaly or incongruity in the spouse relative to the other.[47]
Guided by the requisites mentioned and after a careful perusal of the records of this case, this Court rules that the totality of the evidence presented has clearly and convincingly established Joselito's psychological incapacity. To be sure, the rule of totality of evidence does not add a new dimension in the analysis of an Article 36 petition. The narratives in an Article 36 petition are often solely those of petitioner and their witnesses, and frequently, all the trial court has by way of respondent's version is the clinical narration of the factual basis of the expert report, which, in turn, typically arises from the examination of petitioner and other resource persons. It is in this context that courts are directed to apply the totality of evidence rule.[53]
The CA's ruling that the findings of Dr. Soriano and Dr. Benitez are unreliable or have little or no probative value because Joselito was not interviewed is without basis. There is no legal and jurisprudential requirement that the person to be declared psychologically incapacitated be personally examined by a physician. Joselito was diagnosed without his personal appearance because he refused to be interviewed. The experts may, however, rely on their methods and procedures. To assess psychological incapacity to perform essential marital obligations, they may focus on the different behaviors manifested by Joselito prior to the marriage and during the marriage. To gather information about these behaviors, the most reliable person to be interviewed is Carolyn because she is the one who experienced the psychologically incapacitating behaviors of Joselito.
In a long line of cases, it has been established that the absence of respondent's personal examination is not fatal. We recall that in Marcos v. Marcos,[54] the Court emphasized that there is no requirement that a person be examined by a physician before they can be declared to be psychologically incapacitated. What matters is that the totality of evidence presented establishes the party's psychological condition.[55] Likewise, in Tani-De La Fuente v. De La Fuente,[56] the Court ruled that the psychologist's testimony, as corroborated by petitioner, sufficiently proved that respondent suffered from psychological incapacity.[57] In Camacho-Reyes v. Reyes-Reyes,[58] the Court reiterated that the non-examination of one of the parties will not automatically render as hearsay or invalidate the findings of the examining psychologist since marriage, by its very definition, necessarily involves only two persons. The totality of the behavior of one spouse during the cohabitation and marriage is generally and genuinely witnessed mainly by the other.[59] Too, in Santos-Gantan v. Gantan[60] the Court clarified that while the clinical psychologist was not able to personally examine respondent, it does not nullify the finding of psychological incapacity, especially when such omission was attributable to respondent's own failure or refusal to appear for interview.[61]
In an Opinion[62] in Tan-Andal, we explained:
The spouse of the person alleged to be psychologically incapacitated may be interviewed by the psychologist since he or she is in the best position to describe his or her spouse's inability to comply with marital obligations. The period of marital cohabitation and matters involving the spouses' affective communication with each other, the time they devoted to each other, the spouses' dissatisfaction on matters involving family income and expenses, manner of resolving major concerns, issues and problems in the family, style of rearing their child, interpersonal dealings with each other's family members and other significant events can only be discussed by the spouse. Other indicia of psychological incapacity that can only be witnessed by the spouse include paraphilia, aberrant sexual behavior, sexual promiscuity and inhibitions. Based on the spouse's observations, the psychologist can identify and explain whether the respondent is psychologically incapacitated.
A clinical psychologist, once qualified as an expert witness, interprets the facts of the case and gives his or her opinion, unlike an ordinary witness who is required to have personally seen or heard something. Expert opinion is crucial to enable courts to properly assess the issue and arrive at a judicious determination of each case. As emphasized in Hernandez v. Court of Appeals [377 Phil. 919 (1999)], expert testimony is important to establish the precise cause of a party's psychological incapacity.
x x x x
In other words, diagnosis by an expert should not be dismissed as "unscientific" just because the expert has not interviewed the person alleged to be psychologically incapacitated. Not even a personal interview of the respondent can elicit accurate information because it is highly doubtful that a respondent would admit that he or she is psychologically incapacitated. This is a characteristic of one who has a personality disorder; he or she will not admit that something is wrong with him or her. Besides, while examination of the respondent is desirable, it may not be realistic in all cases given the oftentimes estranged relations between the parties. How can a person be examined when he or she persistently refuses to be interviewed? It would be absurd for the psychologically incapacitated party's refusal or defensiveness to be taken against the petitioner.[63] (Emphasis supplied)The presentation of expert testimony in cases for declaration of nullity of marriage based on psychological incapacity presupposes a thorough and an in-depth assessment of the parties by the psychiatrist, psychologist, or expert for a conclusive identification of a grave and severe presence of psychological incapacity. The probative force of the testimony of an expert lies in the assistance that the expert can render to the courts in showing the facts that serve as basis for the criterion and the reasons upon which the logic his conclusion is founded.[64] For courts to arrive at a legal conclusion of psychological incapacity, the aggrieved party must prove certain facts. A psychologist or psychiatrist may help prove those facts by assessing and evaluating the psychological condition of the parties. Although expert opinion is not mandatory as ruled in Tan-Andal, due regard must be given to expert opinion on the psychological disposition of the respondent when it is presented in Article 36 cases.[65]
MUTYA-SUMILHIG vs. SUMILHIG, G.R. No. 230711. August 22, 2022
LOPEZ, M., J.
FOOTNOTES
read here: https://pastepeso.com/u42o5ol7
SUGGESTED READINGS
FOLLOW US!
📎 Bio
🛒 Shop
⚖️ Blog
🤝 Business
Comments