[G.R. No. 166357. January 14, 2015.

]
VALERIO E. KALAW, petitioner, vs. MA. ELENA FERNANDEZ, respondent.
SPECIAL FIRST DIVISION BERSAMIN, J p:
Nature of Action: [RESOLUTION] Petition for declaration of nullity of marriage based on
Psychological Incapacity, Article 36 of the Family Code.
Facts: Petitioner-husband and respondent-wife met in 1973. They maintained a relationship and
eventually married and had 4 children. Shortly after the birth of their youngest son, petitionerhusband had an extramarital affair with Jocelyn Quejano who gave birth to a song. In May 1985,
Respondent-wife left the conjugal home and her 4 children with petitioner-husband. Meanwhile,
petitioner-husband started living with his mistress, who bore him three more children. In 1990,
Petitioner-husband went to the US with Quejano and their children. He left his four children from his
marriage with Respondent-wife in a rented house in Valle Verde with only a househelp and a driver.
In accordance with their custody agreement, the children stayed respondent-wife on weekends. In
1994, the two elder children asked for respondent-wife's permission to go to Japan for a one-week
vacation. Respondent-wife acceded only to learn later that petitioner-husband brought the children to
the US. After a year, one of them returned to the Philippines and chose to live with respondent-wife.
Meanwhile, petitioner-husband and Quejanos family returned to the Philippines and resumed
physical custody of the two younger children. According to Respondent-wife, from that time on, the
children refused to go to her house on weekends because of alleged weekend plans with their father. 9
years since the de facto separation from his wife, petitioner-husband filed a petition for declaration of
nullity of marriage based on Article 36 of the Family Code and alleged that respondent-wife was
psychologically incapacitated to perform and comply with the essential marital obligations at the time
of the celebration of their marriage. He further claimed that her psychological incapacity was
manifested by her immaturity and irresponsibility towards petitioner and their children during their
co-habitation.
Issue: W/N the respondents alleged psychological incapacity was duly proven, and would warrant
the grant of the petition of nullity of marriage of the spouses
Ruling: YES.
The fact that the respondent brought her children with her to her mahjong sessions did not only point
to her neglect of parental duties, but also manifested her tendency to expose them to a culture of
gambling. Her willfully exposing her children to the culture of gambling on every occasion of her
mahjong sessions was a very grave and serious act of subordinating their needs for parenting to the
gratification of her own personal and escapist desires. This was the observation of Father Healy
himself. In that regard, Dr. Gates and Dr. Dayan both explained that the current psychological state of
the respondent had been rooted on her own childhood experience. The respondent revealed her
wanton disregard for her children's moral and mental development. This disregard violated her duty as
a parent to safeguard and protect her children, as expressly defined under Article 209 and Article 220
of the Family Code. The frequency of the respondent's mahjong playing should not have delimited
the Courts determination of the presence or absence of psychological incapacity. Instead, the
determinant should be her obvious failure to fully appreciate the duties and responsibilities of
parenthood at the time she made her marital vows. Had she fully appreciated such duties and
responsibilities, she would have known that bringing along her children of very tender ages to her
mahjong sessions would expose them to a culture of gambling and other vices that would erode their
moral fiber. Nonetheless, the long-term effects of the respondent's obsessive mahjong playing surely
impacted on her family life, particularly on her very young children.
Although the petitioner, as the plaintiff, carried the burden to prove the nullity of the marriage, the
respondent, as the defendant spouse, could establish the psychological incapacity of her husband
because she raised the matter in her answer. The courts are justified in declaring a marriage null and
void under Article 36 of the Family Code regardless of whether it is the petitioner or the respondent
who imputes the psychological incapacity to the other as long as the imputation is fully substantiated

with proof. Indeed, psychological incapacity may exist in one party alone or in both of them, and if
psychological incapacity of either or both is established, the marriage has to be deemed null and void.
More than 20 years had passed since the parties parted ways. By now, they must have already
accepted and come to terms with the awful truth that their marriage, assuming it existed in the eyes of
the law, was already beyond repair. Both parties had inflicted so much damage not only to themselves,
but also to the lives and psyche of their own children. It would be a greater injustice should we insist
on still recognizing their void marriage, and then force them and their children to endure some more
damage.