FIRST DIVISION

VALERIO E. KALAW, G.R. No. 166357

Petitioner,

Present:

CORONA, C.J., Chairperson,

- versus - LEONARDO-DE CASTRO,
BERSAMIN,
DEL CASTILLO, and
PEREZ, JJ.

MA. ELENA FERNANDEZ, Promulgated:

Respondent. September 19, 2011
x-----------------------------------------------------------------
--x

DECISION

DEL CASTILLO, J.:

A finding of psychological incapacity must be supported by well-established facts. It

is the plaintiffs burden to convince the court of the existence of these facts.

Before the Court is a Petition for Review[1] of the Court of Appeals (CA) May 27, 2004
Decision[2] and December 15, 2004 Resolution[3] in CA-G.R. CV No. 64240, which
reversed the trial courts declaration of nullity of the herein parties marriage. The fallo of
the assailed Decision reads:

WHEREFOREthe appeal is GRANTED, and the assailed Decision

is SET ASIDE and VACATED while the petition for declaration of nullity
of marriage is hereby DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED.[4]

Factual Antecedents
Petitioner Valerio E. Kalaw (Tyrone) and respondent Ma. Elena Fernandez (Malyn) met
in 1973. They maintained a relationship and eventually married in Hong Kong on
November 4, 1976. They had four children, Valerio (Rio), Maria Eva (Ria), Ramon
Miguel (Miggy or Mickey), and Jaime Teodoro (Jay).
Shortly after the birth of their youngest son, Tyrone had an extramarital affair with
Jocelyn Quejano (Jocelyn), who gave birth to a son in March 1983.[5]

In May 1985, Malyn left the conjugal home (the house of her Kalaw in-laws) and her
four children with Tyrone.[6] Meanwhile, Tyrone started living with Jocelyn, who bore
him three more children.[7]

In 1990, Tyrone went to the United States (US) with Jocelyn and their children. He left
his four children from his marriage with Malyn in a rented house in Valle Verde with only
a househelp and a driver.[8] The househelp would just call Malyn to take care of the
children whenever any of them got sick. Also, in accordance with their custody
agreement, the children stayed with Malyn on weekends.[9]

In 1994, the two elder children, Rio and Ria, asked for Malyns permission to go to Japan
for a one-week vacation. Malyn acceded only to learn later that Tyrone brought the
children to the US.[10] After just one year, Ria returned to the Philippines and chose to live
with Malyn.
Meanwhile, Tyrone and Jocelyns family returned to the Philippines and resumed
physical custody of the two younger children, Miggy and Jay. According to Malyn, from
that time on, the children refused to go to her house on weekends because of alleged
weekend plans with their father.[11]

Complaint for declaration of nullity of marriage

On July 6, 1994, nine years since the de facto separation from his wife, Tyrone filed a
petition for declaration of nullity of marriage based on Article 36 of the Family Code.
[12]
He alleged that Malyn 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 Tyrone and their children during their co-habitation, as shown by
Malyns following acts:
 1. she left the children without proper care and attention as she played
mahjong all day and all night;

2. she left the house to party with male friends and returned in the early
hours of the following day; and

3. she committed adultery on June 9, 1985, which act Tyrone

discovered in flagrante delicto.[13]

During trial,[14] Tyrone narrated the circumstances of Malyns alleged

infidelity. According to him, on June 9, 1985, he and his brother-in-law, Ronald
Fernandez (Malyns brother), proceeded to Hyatt Hotel and learned that Malyn was
occupying a room with a certain Benjie Guevarra (Benjie). When he proceeded to the
said room, he saw Benjie and Malyn inside.[15] At rebuttal, Tyrone elaborated that Benjie
was wearing only a towel around his waist, while Malyn was lying in bed in her
underwear. After an exchange of words, he agreed not to charge Malyn with adultery
when the latter agreed to relinquish all her marital and parental rights. [16] They put their
agreement in writing before Atty. Jose Palarca.

Tyrone presented a psychologist, Dr. Cristina Gates (Dr. Gates), and a Catholic canon law
expert, Fr. Gerard Healy, S.J. (Fr. Healy), to testify on Malyns psychological incapacity.

Dr. Gates explained on the stand that the factual allegations regarding Malyns behavior
her sexual infidelity, habitual mahjong playing, and her frequent nights-out with friends
may reflect a narcissistic personality disorder (NPD).[17] NPD is present when a person
is obsessed to meet her wants and needs in utter disregard of her significant others.
[18]
Malyns NPD is manifest in her utter neglect of her duties as a mother.[19]

Dr. Gates reported that Malyns personality disorder may have been evident even prior to
her marriage because it is rooted in her family background and upbringing, which the
psychologist gathered to be materially deprived and without a proper maternal role
model.[20]
Dr. Gates based her diagnosis on the facts revealed by her interviews with Tyrone,
Trinidad Kalaw (Tyrones sister-in-law), and the son Miggy. She also read the transcript
of Tyrones court testimony.[21]

Fr. Healy corroborated Dr. Gates assessment. He concluded that Malyn was
psychologically incapacitated to perform her marital duties.[22] He explained that her
psychological incapacity is rooted in her role as the breadwinner of her family. This role
allegedly inflated Malyns ego to the point that her needs became priority, while her kids
and husbands needs became secondary. Malyn is so self-absorbed that she is incapable of
prioritizing her familys needs.

Fr. Healy clarified that playing mahjong and spending time with friends are not disorders
by themselves. They only constitute psychological incapacity whenever inordinate
amounts of time are spent on these activities to the detriment of ones familial duties.
[23]
Fr. Healy characterized Malyns psychological incapacity as grave and incurable.[24]

He based his opinion on his interview with Tyrone, the trial transcripts, as well as the
report of Dr. Natividad Dayan (Dr. Dayan), Malyns expert witness.[25] He clarified that he
did not verify the truthfulness of the factual allegations regarding Malyns habits because
he believed it is the courts duty to do so. [26] Instead, he formed his opinion on the
assumption that the factual allegations are indeed true.

Malyns version

Malyn denied being psychologically incapacitated.[27] While she admitted playing

mahjong, she denied playing as frequently as Tyrone alleged. She maintained that she did
so only two to three times a week and always between 1 p.m. to 6 p.m. only. [28] And in
those instances, she always had Tyrones permission and would often bring the children
and their respective yayas with her.[29] She maintained that she did not neglect her duties
as mother and wife.

Malyn admitted leaving the conjugal home in May 1985. She, however, explained that
she did so only to escape her physically abusive husband.[30] On the day she left, Tyrone,
who preferred to keep Malyn a housewife, was upset that Malyn was preparing to go to
work. He called up the security guards and instructed them not to let Malyn out of the
house. Tyrone then placed cigarette ashes on Malyns head and proceeded to lock the
bedroom doors.Fearing another beating, Malyn rushed out of their bedroom and into her
mother-in-laws room. She blurted that Tyrone would beat her up again so her mother-in-
law gave her P300 to leave the house.[31] She never returned to their conjugal home.

Malyn explained that she applied for work, against Tyrones wishes, because she wanted
to be self-sufficient. Her resolve came from her discovery that Tyrone had a son by
Jocelyn and had secretly gone to the US with Jocelyn.[32]

Malyn denied the allegation of adultery. She maintained that Benjie only booked a room
at the Hyatt Hotel for her because she was so drunk after partying with friends. She
admitted finding her brother Ronald and Tyrone at the door of the Hyatt Hotel room, but
maintained being fully clothed at that time.[33] Malyn insisted that she wrote the letter
relinquishing all her spousal and parental rights under duress.[34]

After the Hyatt Hotel incident, Malyn only saw her children by surreptitiously visiting
them in school. She later obtained partial custody of the children as an incident to the
legal separation action filed by Tyrone against her (which action was subsequently
dismissed for lack of interest).

As an affirmative defense, Malyn maintained that it was Tyrone who was suffering from
psychological incapacity, as manifested by his drug dependence, habitual drinking,
womanizing, and physical violence.[35] Malyn presented Dr. Dayan a clinical
psychologist, as her expert witness.

Dr. Dayan interviewed Tyrone, Malyn, Miggy/Mickey, Jay, and Ria for her psychological
evaluation of the spouses. The factual narrations culled from these interviews reveal that
Tyrone found Malyn a lousy mother because of her mahjong habit, [36] while Malyn was
fed up with Tyrones sexual infidelity, drug habit, and physical abuse. [37] Dr. Dayan
determined that both Tyrone and Malyn were behaviorally immature. They encountered
problems because of their personality differences, which ultimately led to the demise of
their marriage. Her diagnostic impressions are summarized below:

The marriage of Tyrone and Malyn was a mistake from the very
beginning. Both of them were not truly ready for marriage even after two
years of living together and having a child. When Malyn first met Tyrone who
showered her with gifts, flowers, and affection she resisted his overtures. She
 made it clear that she could take him or leave him. But the minute she started
to care, she became a different person clingy and immature, doubting his love,
constantly demanding reassurance that she was the most important person in
his life. She became relationship-dependent. It appears that her style then was
when she begins to care for a man, she puts all her energy into him and loses
focus on herself. This imbalance between thinking and feeling was
overwhelming to Tyrone who admitted that the thought of commitment scared
him. Tyrone admitted that when he was in his younger years, he was often out
seeking other women. His interest in them was not necessarily for sex, just for
fun dancing, drinking, or simply flirting.

Both of them seem behaviorally immature. For some time, Malyn adapted to
her husband who was a moody man with short temper and unresolved issues
with parents and siblings. He was a distancer, concerned more about his work
and friends tha[n] he was about spending time with his family. Because of
Malyns and Tyrones backgrounds (both came from families with high
conflicts) they experienced turmoil and chaos in their marriage. The conflicts
they had struggled to avoid suddenly galloped out of control Their individual
personalities broke through, precipitating the demise of their marriage.[38]

Dr. Dayan likewise wrote in her psychological evaluation report that Malyn
exhibited significant, but not severe, dependency, narcissism, and
compulsiveness.[39]

On the stand, the psychologist elaborated that while Malyn had relationship problems
with Tyrone, she appeared to have a good relationship with her kids. [40] As for Tyrone, he
has commitment issues which prevent him from committing himself to his duties as a
husband. He is unable to remain faithful to Malyn and is psychologically incapacitated to
perform this duty.[41]

Childrens version

The children all stated that both their parents took care of them, provided for their needs,
and loved them. Rio testified that they would accompany their mother to White Plains on
days that she played mahjong with her friends. None of them reported being neglected or
feeling abandoned.
The two elder kids remembered the fights between their parents but it was only Ria who
admitted actually witnessing physical abuse inflicted on her mother.[42] The two elder kids
also recalled that, after the separation, their mother would visit them only in school.[43]

The children recalled living in Valle Verde with only the househelp and driver during the
time that their dad was abroad. [44] While they did not live with their mother while they
were housed in Valle Verde, the kids were in agreement that their mother took care of
them on weekends and would see to their needs. They had a common recollection that
the househelp would call their mother to come and take care of them in Valle Verde
whenever any of them was sick.[45]
Other witnesses

Dr. Cornelio Banaag, Tyrones attending psychiatrist at the Manila Sanitarium, testified
that, for the duration of Tyrones confinement, the couple appeared happy and the wife
was commendable for the support she gave to her spouse. [46] He likewise testified that
Tyrone tested negative for drugs and was not a drug dependent.[47]

Malyns brother, Ronald Fernandez, confirmed Tyrones allegation that they found Malyn
with Benjie in the Hyatt hotel room. Contrary to Tyrones version, he testified that neither
he nor Tyrone entered the room, but stayed in the hallway. He likewise did not recall
seeing Benjie or Malyn half-naked.[48]

Tyrone then presented Mario Calma (Mario), who was allegedly part of Malyns group of
friends. He stated on the stand that they would go on nights-out as a group and Malyn
would meet with a male musician-friend afterwards.[49]

Social worker

The trial court ordered the court social worker, Jocelyn V. Arre (Arre), to conduct a social
case study on the parties as well as the minor children. Arre interviewed the parties
Tyrone and Malyn; the minor children Miggy/Mickey and Jay; Tyrones live-in partner,
Jocelyn;[50] and Tyrone and Malyns only daughter, Ria. While both parents are financially
stable and have positive relationships with their children, she recommended that the
custody of the minor children be awarded to Malyn. Based on the interviews of family
members themselves, Malyn was shown to be more available to the children and to
exercise better supervision and care. The social worker commended the fact that even
after Malyn left the conjugal home in 1985, she made efforts to visit her children
clandestinely in their respective schools. And while she was only granted weekend
custody of the children, it appeared that she made efforts to personally attend to their
needs and to devote time with them.[51]
On the contrary, Tyrone, who had custody of the children since the couples de
facto separation, simply left the children for several years with only a maid and a driver
to care for them while he lived with his second family abroad. [52] The social worker found
that Tyrone tended to prioritize his second family to the detriment of his children with
Malyn. Given this history during the formative years of the children, the social worker
did not find Tyrone a reliable parent to whom custody of adolescents may be awarded.

Ruling of the Regional Trial Court[53]

After summarizing the evidence presented by both parties, the trial court concluded
that both parties are psychologically incapacitated to perform the essential marital
obligations under the Family Code. The courts Decision is encapsulated in this
paragraph:

From the evidence, it appears that parties are both suffering from
psychological incapacity to perform their essential marital obligations under
Article 36 of the Family Code. The parties entered into a marriage without as
much as understanding what it entails. They failed to commit themselves to its
essential obligations:the conjugal act, the community of life and love, the
rendering of mutual help, the procreation and education of their children to
become responsible individuals.Parties psychological incapacity is grave, and
serious such that both are incapable of carrying out the ordinary duties
required in marriage. The incapacity has been clinically established and was
found to be pervasive, grave and incurable.[54]
The trial court then declared the parties marriage void ab initio pursuant to Article
36 of the Family Code.[55]

Ruling of the Court of Appeals[56]

Malyn appealed the trial courts Decision to the CA. The CA reversed the trial courts
ruling because it is not supported by the facts on record. Both parties allegations and
incriminations against each other do not support a finding of psychological
incapacity. The parties faults tend only to picture their immaturity and irresponsibility in
performing their marital and familial obligations. At most, there may be sufficient
grounds for a legal separation.[57]Moreover, the psychological report submitted by
petitioners expert witness, Dr. Gates, does not explain how the diagnosis of NPD came to
be drawn from the sources. It failed to satisfy the legal and jurisprudential requirements
for the declaration of nullity of marriage.[58]

Tyrone filed a motion for reconsideration[59] but the same was denied on December 15,
2004.[60]

Petitioners arguments

Petitioner Tyrone argues that the CA erred in disregarding the factual findings of the trial
court, which is the court that is in the best position to appreciate the evidence. He opines
that he has presented preponderant evidence to prove that respondent is psychologically
incapacitated to perform her essential marital obligations, to wit:

a) the expert witnesses, Dr. Gates and Fr. Healy, proved on the stand that
respondents egocentric attitude, immaturity, self-obsession and self-centeredness
were manifestations of respondents NPD;[61]

b) these expert witnesses proved that respondents NPD is grave and

incurable and prevents her from performing her essential martial obligations;
[62]
and

c) that respondents NPD existed at the time of the celebration of the

marriage because it is rooted in her upbringing, family background, and socialite
lifestyle prior to her marriage.[63]

Petitioner stresses that even respondent insisted that their marriage is void because of
psychological incapacity, albeit on petitioners part.[64]

Respondents arguments

Respondent maintains that Tyrone failed to discharge his burden of proving her alleged
psychological incapacity.[65] She argues that the testimonies of her children and the
findings of the court social worker to the effect that she was a good, loving, and attentive
mother are sufficient to rebut Tyrones allegation that she was negligent and irresponsible.
[66]

She assails Dr. Gatess report as one-sided and lacking in depth. Dr. Gates did not
interview her, their common children, or even Jocelyn. Moreover, her report failed to
state that Malyns alleged psychological incapacity was grave and incurable.[67] Fr. Healys
testimony, on the other hand, was based only on Tyrones version of the facts.[68]

Malyn reiterates the appellate courts ruling that the trial court Decision is intrinsically
defective for failing to support its conclusion of psychological incapacity with factual
findings.

Almost four years after filing her memorandum, respondent apparently had a change of
heart and filed a Manifestation with Motion for Leave to Withdraw Comment and
Memorandum.[69] She manifested that she was no longer disputing the possibility that
their marriage may really be void on the basis of Tyrones psychological incapacity. She
then asked the Court to dispose of the case with justice.[70] Her manifestation and motion
were noted by the Court in its January 20, 2010 Resolution.[71]

Issue

Whether petitioner has sufficiently proved that respondent suffers from

psychological incapacity

Our Ruling

The petition has no merit. The CA committed no reversible error in setting aside the trial
courts Decision for lack of legal and factual basis.

A petition for declaration of nullity of marriage is governed by Article 36 of the Family

Code which provides:
ART. 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.
Psychological incapacity is the downright incapacity or inability to take cognizance
of and to assume the basic marital obligations.[72] The burden of proving psychological
incapacity is on the plaintiff.[73] The plaintiff must prove that the incapacitated party,
based on his or her actions or behavior, suffers a serious psychological disorder that
completely disables him or her from understanding and discharging the essential
obligations of the marital state. The psychological problem must be grave, must have
existed at the time of marriage, and must be incurable.[74]

In the case at bar, petitioner failed to prove that his wife (respondent) suffers from
psychological incapacity. He presented the testimonies of two supposed expert witnesses
who concluded that respondent is psychologically incapacitated, but the conclusions of
these witnesses were premised on the alleged acts or behavior of respondent which had
not been sufficiently proven. Petitioners experts heavily relied on petitioners allegations
of respondents constant mahjong sessions, visits to the beauty parlor, going out with
friends, adultery, and neglect of their children. Petitioners experts opined that respondents
alleged habits, when performed constantly to the detriment of quality and quantity of
time devoted to her duties as mother and wife, constitute a psychological incapacity in
the form of NPD.

But petitioners allegations, which served as the bases or underlying premises of

the conclusions of his experts, were not actually proven. In fact, respondent presented
contrary evidence refuting these allegations of the petitioner.

For instance, petitioner alleged that respondent constantly played mahjong and neglected
their children as a result. Respondent admittedly played mahjong, but it was not proven
that she engaged in mahjong so frequently that she neglected her duties as a mother and a
wife. Respondent refuted petitioners allegations that she played four to five times a
week. She maintained it was only two to three times a week and always with the
permission of her husband and without abandoning her children at home. The children
corroborated this, saying that they were with their mother when she played mahjong in
their relatives home. Petitioner did not present any proof, other than his own testimony,
that the mahjong sessions were so frequent that respondent neglected her family. While
he intimated that two of his sons repeated the second grade, he was not able to link this
episode to respondents mahjong-playing. The least that could have been done was to
prove the frequency of respondents mahjong-playing during the years when these two
children were in second grade. This was not done. Thus, while there is no dispute that
respondent played mahjong, its alleged debilitating frequency and adverse effect on the
children were not proven.
Also unproven was petitioners claim about respondents alleged constant visits to the
beauty parlor, going out with friends, and obsessive need for attention from other
men. No proof whatsoever was presented to prove her visits to beauty salons or her
frequent partying with friends. Petitioner presented Mario (an alleged companion of
respondent during these nights-out) in order to prove that respondent had affairs with
other men, but Mario only testified that respondent appeared to be dating other
men. Even assuming arguendo that petitioner was able to prove that respondent had an
extramarital affair with another man, that one instance of sexual infidelity cannot, by
itself, be equated with obsessive need for attention from other men.Sexual infidelity per
se is a ground for legal separation, but it does not necessarily constitute psychological
incapacity.
Given the insufficiency of evidence that respondent actually engaged in the behaviors
described as constitutive of NPD, there is no basis for concluding that she was indeed
psychologically incapacitated. Indeed, the totality of the evidence points to the opposite
conclusion. A fair assessment of the facts would show that respondent was not totally
remiss and incapable of appreciating and performing her marital and parental duties. Not
once did the children state that they were neglected by their mother. On the contrary, they
narrated that she took care of them, was around when they were sick, and cooked the
food they like. It appears that respondent made real efforts to see and take care of her
children despite her estrangement from their father.There was no testimony whatsoever
that shows abandonment and neglect of familial duties. While petitioner cites the fact that
his two sons, Rio and Miggy, both failed the second elementary level despite having
tutors, there is nothing to link their academic shortcomings to Malyns actions.

After poring over the records of the case, the Court finds no factual basis for the
conclusion of psychological incapacity. There is no error in the CAs reversal of the trial
courts ruling that there was psychological incapacity. The trial courts Decision merely
summarized the allegations, testimonies, and evidence of the respective parties, but it did
not actually assess the veracity of these allegations, the credibility of the witnesses, and
the weight of the evidence. The trial court did not make factual findings which can serve
as bases for its legal conclusion of psychological incapacity.
 What transpired between the parties is acrimony and, perhaps, infidelity, which
may have constrained them from dedicating the best of themselves to each other and to
their children. There may be grounds for legal separation, but certainly not
psychological incapacity that voids a marriage.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is DENIED. The Court of Appeals

May 27, 2004 Decision and its December 15, 2004 Resolution in CA-G.R. CV No.
64240 are AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.