Republic of the Philippines

Supreme Court
Manila

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[1] of the Court of Appeals (CA) May
27, 2004 Decision2[2] and December 15, 2004 Resolution3[3] in CA-G.R. CV No.

⃰⃰ ⃰⃰ In lieu of Associate Justice Martin S. Villarama, Jr., per Special Order No. 1080 dated
September 13, 2011.

1 [1] Rollo, pp. 26-56.

2 [2]Id. at 9-20; penned by Associate Justice Roberto A. Barrios and concurred in by Associate
Justices Regalado E. Maambong and Vicente Q. Roxas.

3 [3] Id. at 22-23.

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[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[5]

4 [4] CA Decision, p. 11; rollo, p. 19.

5 [5] Social Case Study Report, p. 14; Records, Vol. I, p. 216.

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

6 [6] TSN dated March 15, 1995, pp. 11-12.

7 [7] Social Case Study Report, p. 14; Records, Vol. I, p. 216.

8 [8] Social Case Study Report, pp. 11 and 13; id. at 213 and 215.

9 [9] Dr. Dayans Psychological Evaluation Report, p. 7; id. at 259.

10 [10] Id. at 10-11; id. at 259.

that time on, the children refused to go to her house on weekends because of alleged
weekend plans with their father.11[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[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[13]

11 [11] TSN dated March 15, 1995, pp. 23-24; Dr. Dayans Psychological Evaluation Report, pp.
7-8; Records, Vol. I, p. 259.

12 [12] Id. at 1-4.

13 [13] Id. at 2; Petitioners Memorandum in JDRC Case No. 3100, records, Vol. II, pp. 306-307.
 During trial,14[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[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[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[17] NPD is present when

14 [14] The case proceeded to trial after the fiscal manifested to the court that there was no collusion
between the parties (Records, Vol. I, p. 45).

15 [15] TSN dated January 5, 1995, pp. 16-17.

16 [16] Id. at 17-18.

17 [17] Psychological Report, Records, Vol. I, pp. 173-175.

a person is obsessed to meet her wants and needs in utter disregard of her significant
others.18[18] Malyns NPD is manifest in her utter neglect of her duties as a mother.19[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[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[21]

Fr. Healy corroborated Dr. Gates assessment. He concluded that Malyn was
psychologically incapacitated to perform her marital duties. 22[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

18 [18] TSN dated February 15, 1995, pp. 6-7.

19 [19] Id. at 7.

20 [20] Psychological Report, Records, Vol. I, pp. 174-175.

21 [21] TSN dated February 15, 1995, p. 4.

22 [22] TSN dated June 17, 1998, p. 24.

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[23] Fr. Healy characterized Malyns psychological incapacity as grave and
incurable.24[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[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[26] Instead, he formed his opinion on
the assumption that the factual allegations are indeed true.

Malyns version

23 [23] Id. at 30-31.

24 [24] Id. at 26-27.

25 [25] Id. at 22-23.

26 [26] Id. at 23.

 Malyn denied being psychologically incapacitated.27[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[28]
And in those instances, she always had Tyrones permission and would often bring the
children and their respective yayas with her.29[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[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[31] She never returned to their conjugal home.

27 [27] Records, Vol. I, pp. 20-21.

28 [28] TSN dated July 8, 1998, pp. 5-7.

29 [29] Id. at 6-7.

30 [30] TSN dated March 15, 1995, pp. 12-13.

31 [31] Id. at 11-12.

 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[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[33] Malyn insisted that she wrote the letter
relinquishing all her spousal and parental rights under duress.34[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

32 [32] Id. at 9-11.

33 [33] Id. at 15-17.

34 [34] Id. at 17-18.

drinking, womanizing, and physical violence.35[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[36] while Malyn was fed up with Tyrones sexual infidelity, drug habit, and
physical abuse.37[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

35 [35] Records, Vol. I, p. 21.

36 [36] Dr. Dayans Psychological Evaluation Report, p. 13; id. at 259.

37 [37] Id. at 4-6; id.

 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
[38]

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

compulsiveness.39[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[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[41]

Childrens version

38 [38] Id. at 17-18; id.; TSN dated March 14, 1996, p. 10.

39 [39] TSN dated January 30, 1996, p. 13.

40 [40] Id. at 15.

41 [41] TSN dated March 14, 1996, p. 12.

 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[42] The
two elder kids also recalled that, after the separation, their mother would visit them only
in school.43[43]

The children recalled living in Valle Verde with only the househelp and driver
during the time that their dad was abroad.44[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[45]

Other witnesses

42 [42] Social Case Study Report, p. 13 (Records, Vol. I, p. 215); Dr. Dayans Psychological
Evaluation Report, p. 9 (Records, Vol. I, p. 259).

43 [43] TSN dated June 8, 1995, p. 6; Dr. Dayans Psychological Evaluation Report, p. 9 (Id.);
Rios deposition, p. 3 (Id. at 356).

44 [44] Social Case Study Report, pp. 11 and 13; Records, Vol. I, pp. 213 and 215.

45 [45] TSN dated June 8, 1995, p. 9; Social Case Study Report, pp. 11 and 19 (Id. at 213 and
221).
 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[46] He likewise testified
that Tyrone tested negative for drugs and was not a drug dependent.47[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[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[49]

Social worker

46 [46] TSN dated November 20, 1995, pp. 15 and 21.

47 [47] Id. at 8-10.

48 [48] TSN dated January 4, 1996, pp. 4-6.

49 [49] TSN dated April 2, 1998, pp. 18-20.

 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[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[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[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.

50 [50] Tyrone alleges that he married Jocelyn Quejano in 1990 in California, United States of
America after divorcing with Malyn also in California sometime in 1987. There is, however,
no documentary evidence of the divorce and remarriage. There is no allegation that Tyrone
had obtained American citizenship and is indicated in the Social Case Study Report as a
Filipino citizen (Records, Vol. I, p. 219).

51 [51] Social Case Study Report, pp. 19-20; id. at 221-222.

52 [52] Id.; id.

Ruling of the Regional Trial Court53[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[54]

The trial court then declared the parties marriage void ab initio pursuant to Article 36 of
the Family Code.55[55]

53 [53] Records, Vol. II, pp. 382-389; penned by Judge Jose R. Hernandez of Branch 158 of the
Regional Trial Court of Pasig City.

54 [54] RTC Decision, pp. 7-8; id. at 388-389.

55 [55] The fallo reads:

WHEREFORE, the marriage between petitioner Valerio Kalaw and respondent Ma. Elena Fernandez celebrated on November
4, 1976 is declared void ab initio pursuant to the provisions of Article 36 of the Family Code, and of no further effect.

The provisions of Article[s] 50, 51, and 52 of the Family Code of the Philippines relative to the delivery of their childrens
presumptive legitime shall not apply because parties were not able to prove the existence of any conjugal partnership of gains.
Ruling of the Court of Appeals56[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[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[58]

Tyrone filed a motion for reconsideration59[59] but the same was denied on
December 15, 2004.60[60]

Upon finality of this Decision, furnish a copy each to the Office of the Local Civil Registrar of Pasig City and the National Statistics
Office, Quezon City for their appropriate action consistent with this Decision.

SO ORDERED. (Id.; id.)

56 [56] CA rollo, pp. 262-273.

57 [57] CA Decision, p. 7; CA rollo, p. 268.

58 [58] Id. at 11; id. at 272.

59 [59] CA rollo, pp. 281-298.

60 [60] Id. at 310-311.

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[61]

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

incurable and prevents her from performing her essential martial obligations;62[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[63]

61 [61] Petitioners Memorandum, pp. 23-26; rollo, pp. 606-609.

62 [62] Id. at 13-20; id. at 596-603.

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

Respondents arguments

Respondent maintains that Tyrone failed to discharge his burden of proving her
alleged psychological incapacity.65[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[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[67] Fr.
Healys testimony, on the other hand, was based only on Tyrones version of the facts. 68
[68]

63 [63] Id. at 20-22; id. at 603-605.

64 [64] Id. at 26-27; id. at 609-610.

65 [65] Respondents Memorandum, p. 2; id. at 551.

66 [66] Id. at 17-18; id. at 566-567.

67 [67] Id. at 19; id. at 568.

 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[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[70] Her manifestation and
motion were noted by the Court in its January 20, 2010 Resolution.71[71]

Issue

Whether petitioner has sufficiently proved that respondent suffers from psychological
incapacity

68 [68] Id. at 20; id. at 569.

69 [69] Rollo, pp. 650-654.

70 [70] Respondents Manifestation, p. 2; id. at 651.

71 [71] Rollo, p. 662.

 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[72] The burden of proving psychological
incapacity is on the plaintiff.73[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[74]

72 [72] Republic v. Iyoy, 507 Phil. 485, 502 (2005), citing Republic v. Court of Appeals, 335 Phil.
664, 678 (1997).

73 [73] Republic v. Court of Appeals, 335 Phil. 664, 676 (1997).

74 [74] Santos v. Court of Appeals, 310 Phil. 21, 39 (1995).

 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.

MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO

Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

RENATO C. CORONA

Chief Justice

Chairperson
TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO LUCAS P. BERSAMIN

Associate Justice Associate Justice

JOSE PORTUGAL PEREZ

Associate Justice

C E R T I F I CAT I O N

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, it is hereby certified that
the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case
was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Courts Division.
RENATO C. CORONA

Chief Justice