G.R. No. 180668
May 26, 2009
MARIETA C. AZCUETA Petitioner,
vs.
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES AND THE COURT OF APPEALS, Respondents
Ponente;
Justice LEONARDO-DE CASTRO
FACTS:
ü Petitioner Marieta C. Azcueta and Rodolfo Azcueta met in 1993.
Less than two months after their first meeting, they got married on July 24,
1993 at St. Anthony of Padua Church, Antipolo City.
ü In 2002, petitioner filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
Antipolo City, Branch 72, a petition for declaration of absolute nullity of
marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code, docketed as Civil Case No.
02-6428.
ü Petitioner claimed that her husband Rodolfo was psychologically
incapacitated to comply with the essential obligations of marriage because
Rodolfo was emotionally immature, irresponsible and continually failed to adapt
himself to married life and perform the essential responsibilities and duties
of a husband.
ü Rodolfo’s first cousin, Florida de Ramos testified that at one
time, she saw respondent going to his mother’s house in business attire. She
learned later that Rodolfo told petitioner that he has a job but in truth he
had none.
ü Petitioner presented Dr. Cecilia Villegas, a psychiatrist,
testified that after examining both the petitioner and Rodolfo, the
latter was found to be psychologically incapacitated to perform his marital
duties and responsibilities based on the information gathered from petitioner.
Dr. Villegas concluded that he was suffering from Dependent Personality
Disorder associated with severe inadequacy related to masculine strivings.
ü RTC hereby declared Rodolfo and Marieta's marriage null and void
ab initio in pursuant to Art. 36 of the Family Code.
ü Solicitor General appealed the RTC Decision, the CA reversed the
RTC and essentially ruled that petitioner failed to sufficiently prove the
psychological incapacity of Rodolfo or that his alleged psychological disorder
existed prior to the marriage and was grave and incurable.
ü CA reasoned that the evidence on record failed to demonstrate that
respondent’s alleged irresponsibility and over-dependence on his mother is
symptomatic of psychological incapacity as above explained.
ü Thus, this petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the
Rules of Court assailing the Decision of the Court of Appeals.
ISSUE: Whether or not the totality of the evidence presented was adequate
to sustain the findings of Dr. Villegas that Rodolfo is psychologically
incapacitated to comply with his essential marital obligations.
RULING:
ü Yes. The Supreme Court found that the evidence presented was
adequate to sustain the findings of Dr. Villegas that Rodolfo is
psychologically incapacitated to comply with his essential marital obligations.
ü Petitioner’s narration of facts was corroborated in material
points by the testimony of a close relative of Rodolfo. Dr. Villegas likewise
testified in court to elaborate on her report and fully explain the link
between the manifestations of Rodolfo’s psychological incapacity and the
psychological disorder itself. Since the trial court itself accepted the
veracity of petitioner’s factual premises, there is no cause to dispute the
conclusion of psychological incapacity drawn therefrom by petitioner’s expert
witness.
ü The root cause of Rodolfo’s psychological incapacity was due to a
strong and prolonged dependence with a parent of the opposite sex, to a period
when it becomes no longer appropriate. This situation crippled his
psychological functioning related to sex, self-confidence, independence,
responsibility and maturity.
ü Rodolfo’s dependent personality disorder must have existed even
prior to the marriage being rooted in his early development and a byproduct of
his upbringing and family life but became manifest only after the celebration
due to marital stresses and demands.
ü Respondent’s emotional immaturity and irresponsibility was grave
and he has no showing of improvement. He failed likewise to have sexual
intercourse with the wife because it is a result of the unconscious guilt
felling of having sexual relationship since he could not distinguish between
the mother and the wife and therefore sex relationship will not be satisfactory
as expected.
ü It was considered as permanent and incurable in nature, because it
started early in his life and therefore became so deeply ingrained into his
personality structure. It is severe or grave in degree, because it hampered and
interfered with his normal functioning related to heterosexual adjustment.
ü Rodolfo, who was afflicted with dependent personality disorder,
cannot assume the essential marital obligations of living together, observing love,
respect and fidelity and rendering help and support, for he is unable to make
everyday decisions without advice from others, allows others to make most of
his important decisions (such as where to live), tends to agree with people
even when he believes they are wrong, has difficulty doing things on his own,
volunteers to do things that are demeaning in order to get approval from other
people, feels uncomfortable or helpless when alone and is often preoccupied
with fears of being abandoned.
ü One who was unable to support himself, much less a wife; one who
cannot independently make decisions regarding even the most basic and ordinary
matters that spouses face every day; one who cannot contribute to the material,
physical and emotional well-being of his spouse is psychologically
incapacitated to comply with the marital obligations within the meaning of
Article 36.
ü However, not everyone diagnosed with dependent personality
disorder was automatically deemed psychologically incapacitated to comply with
the obligations of marriage. It may have different symptoms or manifestations
and in the degree of severity. It’s the duty of the court in its evaluation of
the facts, as guided by expert opinion, to carefully scrutinize the type of
disorder and the gravity of the same before declaring the nullity of a marriage
under Article 36.
ü In dissolving marital bonds on account of either party’s
psychological incapacity, the Court is not demolishing the foundation of
families, but it is actually protecting the sanctity of marriage, because it
refuses to allow a person afflicted with a psychological disorder, who cannot
comply with or assume the essential marital obligations, from remaining in that
sacred bond.
ü Thus, the Supreme Court agreed with the trial court that the
declaration of nullity of the parties’ marriage pursuant to Article 36 of the
Family Code is proper under the premises. Considering the totality of evidence
of the petitioner clearly show that respondent failed to comply with his
marital obligations. Therefore, Rodolfo and Marieta’s marriage shall be
declared null and void on the account of respondent’s severe and incurable
psychological incapacity.
Retrieved from: https://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/may2009/gr_180668_2009.html
