Article 36 of the Family Code (Case Digest)

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