AGRIAVIADOR v. AMPARO-AGRAVIADOR GR No. 170729 Procedural History: 1. Petitioner won in the lower court (RTC Muntinlupa) 2.

When brought to the CA, decision of the RTC was reversed ANTECEDENT FACTS 1. In 1971, Enrique, then a security guard, first met Erlinda at a beerhouse where the latter worked, and later on became sweethearts after courtship. They soon entered into a commonlaw relationship 2. They contracted marriage in 1973, whereby they begot four children. Enrique's family, however, expressed their apprehensions because Erlinda came from a broken family and because of the nature of her work. 3. In 2001, petitioner filed a petition for the declaration of nullity of marriage on the basis of respondent's psychological incapacity, alleging that she was carefree and irresponsible, and refused to do household chores like cleaning and cooking; stayed away from their house for long periods of time; had an affair with a lesbian; did not take care of their sick child to the point of his death; consulted a witch doctor in order to bring him bad fate; and refused to use the family name "Agraviador" in her activities. 4. He also claimed that she refused to have sex with him because she became very close to a male border of their house, and even caught their love notes and trysts. However, because the root cause of her psychological incapacity was not medically identified and alleged in the petition, motion was denied. 5. The petitioner, thus, presented testimonial and documentary evidence to substantiate his claims through the psychiatric evaluation report of Dr. Juan Cirilo L. Patac, who claimed that Erlinda is suffering from a Personality Disorder (Mixed Personality Disorder). She was said to been having this disorder since her adolescence, with no definite treatment for her disorder. 6. The RTC, nullified the marriage as it saw merit in the petitioner's testimony and the psychiatric evaluation of said doctor 7. When the case reached the CA, the decision was reversed as the "psychiatric remarks" showcased nothing more but the respondent's characteristic flaws an liabilities with no proof of a supervening factor that effectively incapacitated the respondent from accepting and complying with the essential obligations of marriage. Issue: Whether there is basis to nullify the petitioners marriage to the respondent on the ground of psychological incapacity to comply with the essential marital obligations.

Answer:

No, the totality of evidence presented failed to establish the respondents psychological incapacity. Ratio: The court held that both Enrique's court testimony, as well as Dr. Patacs Psychiatric Evaluation Report fell short in proving that the respondent was psychologically incapacitated to perform the essential marital duties. First, petitioner's claims should be distinguished from the difficulty, if not outright refusal or neglect, in the performance of some marital obligations that characterize some marriages to the level of psychological incapacity that the law requires. He merely showed that Erlinda had some personality defects that showed their manifestation during the marriage; his testimony sorely lacked details necessary to establish that the respondents defects existed at the inception of the marriage. His claims that Erlinda does not accept her fault, does not want to change, and refused to reform are insufficient to establish a psychological or mental defect that is serious, grave, or incurable as contemplated by Article 36 of the Family Code.

Second, Dr. Patac failed to clarify the circumstances that led the respondent to act the way she did in her attempt to establish the juridical antecedence of the respondents condition. The report that he submit likewise failed to prove the gravity or seriousness of the respondents condition, as his enumeration of the respondents purported behavioral defects (as related to him by third persons), and on this basis characterized the respondent to be suffering from mixed personality disorder deemed insufficient. There was no other statement regarding the degree of severity of the respondents condition, why and to what extent the disorder is grave, and how it incapacitated her to comply with the duties required in marriage. The Psychiatric Evaluation Report likewise failed to adequately explain how Dr. Patac came to the conclusion that the respondents personality disorder had no definite treatment. It did not discuss the concept of mixed personality disorder, i.e., its classification, cause, symptoms, and cure, and failed to show how and to what extent the respondent exhibited this disorder in order to create a necessary inference that the respondents condition had no definite treatment or is incurable.