Republic of the Philippines

COURT OF APPEALS
MANILA

SEVENTH (7th) DIVISION

****
MARLENE DE LOS REYES- CA-G.R. CV No. 109809
VICTORIANO*
Petitioner-Appellant, Members:

VILLON, S.E.,
Chairperson,
-versus-
SORONGON, E.D., and
LEGASPI, G.F.D., JJ.
ALFREDO A. VICTORIANO,
Respondent-Appellee,
Promulgated: 15 APR 2019
_________________________
REPUBLIC OF THE
PHILIPPINES,
Oppositor-Appellee.
x--------- ------------------------------------x
DECISION
SORONGON, E.D., J.:

The stringency by which the Court assesses the sufficiency of

psychological evaluation reports is necessitated by the
pronouncement in our Constitution that marriage is an inviolable
institution protected by the State. It cannot be dissolved at the whim
of the parties, especially where the pieces of evidence presented are
grossly deficient to show the juridical antecedence, gravity and
incurability of the condition of the party alleged to be
psychologically incapacitated to assume and perform the essential
marital duties1. Any doubt should be resolved in favor of its
existence and continuation and against its dissolution and nullity2.

The marriage between petitioner-appellant Marlene Delos Reyes-

Victoriano (Marlene) and respondent-appellee Alfredo A. Victoriano
(Alfredo) turned sour until it finally disintegrated leading to their separation.
*
Marlene Delos Reyes-Victoriano in some pleadings and other documents.
1
Agraviador v. Agraviador, G.R. No. 170729, December 8, 2010.
2
Republic v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 108763, February 13, 1997.
CA-G.R. CV No. 109809
DECISION
Page 2
x--------------------------------x

The break up reached the court when Marlene filed a Petition for
Declaration of Marriage3 (Petition) on the ground of psychological
incapacity.

In a case docketed as Civil Case No. 692-M-2014, the Regional Trial

Court (RTC) of Malolos City, Bulacan, Branch 260, rendered a Decision4 on
June 29, 2017 denying the said Petition and subsequently issued an Order5
on August 31, 2017, denying the Motion for Reconsideration6 filed by
Marlene. Hence, the present appeal7 assailing the said issuances.

The material and relevant facts of the case, as culled from the records,
are as follows:

Marlene and Alfredo were married on January 26, 19918 in Marilao,

Bulacan. Their marriage is blessed with three (3) children: Kevin Delos
Reyes Victoriano who was born on November 2, 19919, Mary Allaine Delos
Reyes Victoriano who was born on August 17, 199610 and Orna Janissa
Delos Reyes Victoriano who was born on August 23, 199711.

After the couple's wedding, Marlene and Alfredo lived with the latter's
parents who provided them with the capital to start a jewelry business 12.
Shortly, Alfredo started going out with his friends to drink and have a good
time13. Sometimes, he would not retun for a week thereby leaving Marlene
alone14. Alfredo also exhibited indifference to Marlene when she got
pregnant with their first child15. One time, when Alfredo got agitated, he
pushed Marlene who lost her balance and fell on the mud; she thought she
will suffer a miscarriage16. Whenever he will stay in their house, the couple
will frequently quarrel which usually ended with Marlene being hurt,
physically, verbally and emotionally17.

3
Records, pp. 1-16.
4
Id., pp. 328-354.
5
Id. at pp. 412.
6
Id. at pp. 358-401.
7
See Notice of Appeal, id. at pp. 413-414; see also Order dated September 25, 2017, id. at p. 416.
8
See Marriage Contract, id. at p. 20.
9
See Certificate of Live Birth, id. at p. 21.
10
Id. at p. 22.
11
Id. at p. 23.
12
See Petition, id. at p. 3.
13
Id.
14
Id. at pp. 3-4.
15
Id. at p. 4.
16
Id.
17
Id. at p. 5.
CA-G.R. CV No. 109809
DECISION
Page 3
x--------------------------------x

Marlene also asserted in her petition that Alfredo was sexually

promiscuous18. In fact, she claimed that prior to the birth of their first child,
she contracted a sexually transmissible disease (STD) from him19. The
couple's cohabitation ended sometime in 2011 when Alfredo left their
conjugal home20. Believing that their marriage is beyond repair, in May
2014, Marlene instituted a Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage 21
to dissolve her marriage with Alfredo based on his alleged psychological
incapacity. She sought the services of clinical psychologist Dr. Elias D.
Adamos22 (Dr. Adamos) who diagnosed Alfredo with Mixed Personality
Disorder23. He based his findings on his interview with Marlene and two (2)
other informants, Vanessa Peña (Peña) and Editha Solomon (Solomon).

Dr. Adamos reported that Alfredo was paranoid and passive-

aggressive. He also suffered from Narcissistic Personality Disorder24. He
theorized that his abnormality, which was allegedly deeply ingrained and
continuous, emanated from his psycho-developmental years or childhood
days. Dr. Adamos described him as a “brat” and a “mama's boy”. He also
added that his traumatic experiences due to the corporal punishments from
his father as well as his sibling rivalry became the root causes of his
psychological disorder25. His report also mentioned that Alfredo frequently
forced his wife to have sex with him and demanded sexual practices against
her will26. Finally, the clinincal psychologist described Alfredo as a blaming,
quarrelsome, grandiose and arrogant person27.

On June 29, 2017 , the RTC rendered the assailed Decision which
dismissed Marlene's petition, the dispositive portion of which states:

WHEREFORE, based on the evidence on record as well as the

laws and jurisprudence applicable thereto, judgment is hereby rendered
DISMISSING the instant petition for insufficiency of evidence.

SO ORDERED.28

The RTC explained Dr. Adamos' impression on Alfredo based on the

18
Id.
19
Id. at p. 6.
20
Id.
21
Id. at pp. 1-16.
22
See Judicial Affidavit of Dr. Adamos, id. at pp. 134-148.
23
See Psychological Impression, id. at pp. 35-43.
24
Id. at p. 41.
25
Id. at p. 42.
26
Id.
27
Id.
28
Id. at p. 354.
CA-G.R. CV No. 109809
DECISION
Page 4
x--------------------------------x

accounts of his wife Marlene and two (2) other informants, Peña and
Solomon, are unreliable since the information they fed was limited to
Alfredo's attitude and behavior during the couple's marriage 29. Peña and
Solomon only knew Alfredo during the time he was romantically involved
with Marlene30. Similarly, the RTC faulted the findings of Dr. Adamos for
his failure to sufficiently explain the nature, characteristics, components and
the gradual development of Alfredo's supposed Mixed Personality Disorder
and how it can affect his ability to perform the essential marital
obligations31. Meanwhile, the RTC rejected Marlene's claim that she
acquired STD from Alfredo in view of her failure to present any medical
certificate to prove the same32.

Unsatisfied with the foregoing, Marlene sought a reconsideration33 of

the RTC Decision but the same was likewise denied.

Hence, this appeal anchored on the following grounds:

I. THE RTC GRAVELY ERRED IN OPINING THAT

MARLENE FAILED TO ESTABLISH THE
PSYCHOLOGICAL INCAPACITY OF ALFREDO; and

II. THE RTC GRAVELY ERRED IN ITS FINDING THAT

DR. ADAMOS' OPINION ON ALFREDO'S PERSONALITY
DISORDER IS WITHOUT BASIS, THEREFORE
CONJECTURAL AND SPECULATIVE.34

Basically, Marlene insists in her appeal 35 that she suffered continuous,

verbal, emotional and physical abuses from Alfredo during their marriage 36.
She likewise challenges the RTC's ruling that the lack of the medical
certificate or a copy of the prescription was fatal to her claim that she indeed
acquired STD from Alfredo37. Meanwhile, she contends that her testimony
as well as the corroborative testimonies of Peña and Solomon were
sufficient to prove that Alfredo does not fully comprehend his basic marital
obligations of love, respect, fidelity and support38. Finally, she maintains that
29
Id. at pp. 349-350.
30
Id. at p. 350.
31
Id. at p. 350.
32
Id. at p. 352.
33
Supra.
34
See Appellant's Brief, rollo, p. 39.
35
See Appellant's Brief, id. at pp. 29-73.
36
Id. at p. 41.
37
Id. at p. 49.
38
Id. at p. 55.
CA-G.R. CV No. 109809
DECISION
Page 5
x--------------------------------x

the actual medical examination of Alfredo is no longer necessary as she has

provided other evidence to prove his psychological incapacity39.

On the other hand, oppositor-appellee Republic of the Philippines,

through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), counters that the totality
of Marlene's evidence failed to prove the gravity, juridical antecedence and
incurability of Alfredo's psychological incapacity40. While Marlene
repeatedly cites that she was physically and verbally abused by Alfredo, the
OSG emphasizes that repeated physical violence and sexual infidelity are
mere grounds for legal separation and are not constitutive of psychological
incapacity as to effectively dissolve the parties' marital bond 41. Moreover, it
refutes Marlene's claim that Dr. Adamos succeeded in proving Alfredo's
psychological incapacity42.

I.
PSYCHOLOGICAL INCAPACITY EXPLAINED;
THE MOLINA GUIDELINES

The policy of the Constitution is to protect and strengthen the family

as the basic social institution43, and marriage as the foundation of the
family44. Because of this, the Constitution decrees marriage as legally
inviolable and protects it from dissolution at the whim of the parties. In this
regard, psychological incapacity as a ground to nullify the marriage under
Article 36 of the Family Code, as amended, should refer to the most serious
cases of personality disorders clearly demonstrative of an utter insensitivity
or inability to give meaning and significance to the marriage45. It should
refer to no less than a mental — not merely physical — incapacity that
causes a party to be truly incognitive of the basic marital covenants that
concomitantly must be assumed and discharged by the parties to the
marriage, which, as provided under Article 68 46 of the Family Code, among
others47, include their mutual obligations to live together, observe love,

39
Id. at pp. 66-67.
40
See Brief for the Oppositor-Appellee, id. at p. 90.
41
Id. at p. 91.
42
Id.
43
See Article II, Section 12 of the 1987 Constitution.
44
See Article XV, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution.
45
See Republic v. Romero, G.R. Nos. 209180 and 209253, February 24, 2016; citations omitted.
46
Article 68 of the Family Code reads:
Art. 68. The husband and wife are obliged to live together, observe mutual love, respect and fidelity,
and render mutual help and support.
47
The parties' mutual obligations include those provided under Articles 68 to 71, as regards the husband
and wife, and Articles 220, 221 and 225, with regard to parents and their children, all of the Family
Code. (See Guideline 6 in Republic v. Molina, 335 Phil. 664, 678 [1997].)
CA-G.R. CV No. 109809
DECISION
Page 6
x--------------------------------x

respect and fidelity, and render help and support48. In other words, it must be
a malady that is so grave and permanent as to deprive one of awareness of
the duties and responsibilities of the matrimonial bond one is about to
assume49.

The 1995 landmark case of Santos v. Court of Appeals50 was the first
case to lay down the standards for determining psychological incapacity
under Article 36 of the Family Code. Santos declared that “psychological
incapacity must be characterized by (a) gravity, (b) juridical antecedence,
and (c) incurability.”51 Furthermore, the incapacity “should refer to no less
than a mental (not physical) incapacity that causes a party to be truly
incognitive of the basic marital covenants that concomitantly must be
assumed and discharged by the parties to the marriage.”52

Two (2) years later, Republic v. Court of Appeals and Molina53,

provided the guidelines to be followed when interpreting and applying
Article 36 of the Family Code, to wit:

(1) The burden of proof to show the nullity of the marriage belongs to the
plaintiff. Any doubt should be resolved in favor of the existence and
continuation of the marriage and against its dissolution and nullity. xxx

(2) The root cause of the psychological incapacity must be (a) medically
or clinically identified, (b) alleged in the complaint, (c) sufficiently proven
by experts and (d) clearly explained in the decision. Article 36 of the
Family Code requires that the incapacity must be psychological - not
physical, although its manifestations and/or symptoms may be physical.
The evidence must convince the court that the parties, or one of them, was
mentally or psychically ill to such an extent that the person could not have
known the obligations he was assuming, or knowing them, could not have
given valid assumption thereof. xxx Expert evidence may be given by
qualified psychiatrists and clinical psychologists.

(3)The incapacity must be proven to be existing at “the time of the

celebration” of the marriage. xxx

(4) Such incapacity must also be shown to be medically or clinically

permanent or incurable. Such incurability may be absolute or even relative
only in regard to the other spouse, not necessarily absolutely against
everyone of the same sex. Furthermore, such incapacity must be relevant
48
Republic v. De Gracia, 726 Phil. 502, 509 (2014).
49
Republic v. Romero, supra, citing Navales v. Navales, 578 Phil. 826, 840 (2008).
50
310 Phil. 21 (1995) [Per J. Vitug, En Banc].
51
Id. at 39.
52
Id. at 40.
53
335 Phil. 664 (1997) [Per J. Panganiban, En Banc].
CA-G.R. CV No. 109809
DECISION
Page 7
x--------------------------------x

to the assumption of marriage obligations, not necessarily to those not

related to marriage, like the exercise of a profession or employment in a
job. xxx

(5) Such illness must be grave enough to bring about the disability of the
party to assume the essential obligations of marriage. Thus, "mild
characteriological peculiarities, mood changes, occasional emotional
outbursts" cannot be accepted as root causes. The illness must be shown
as downright incapacity or inability, not a refusal, neglect or difficulty,
much less ill will. In other words, there is a natal or supervening disabling
factor in the person, an adverse integral element in the personality
structure that effectively incapacitates the person from really accepting
and thereby complying with the obligations essential to marriage.

(6) The essential marital obligations must be those embraced by Articles

68 up to 71 of the Family Code as regards the husband and wife as well as
Articles 220, 221 and 225 of the same Code in regard to parents and their
children. Such non-complied marital obligation(s) must also be stated in
the petition, proven by evidence and included in the text of the decision.

(7) Interpretations given by the National Appellate Matrimonial

Tribunal of the Catholic Church in the Philippines, while not controlling
or decisive, should be given great respect by our courts.

(8) The trial court must order the prosecuting attorney or fiscal and the
Solicitor General to appear as counsel for the state.

Notwithstanding the Molina guidelines, an expert opinion is not

absolutely necessary and may be dispensed with in a petition under Article
36 of the Family Code if the totality of the evidence shows that
psychological incapacity exists and its gravity, juridical antecedence, and
incurability can be duly established54. The evidence need not necessarily
come from the allegedly incapacitated spouse, but can come from persons
intimately related to the spouses, i.e., relatives and close friends, who could
clearly testify on the allegedly incapacitated spouse's condition at or about
the time of the marriage55. In other words, the Molina guidelines continue to
apply but its application calls for a more flexible approach in considering
petitions for declaration of nullity of marriages based on psychological
incapacity56. To be clear, however, the totality of the evidence must still
54
See Marcos v. Marcos, 397 Phil. 840, 850 (2000). Subsequent to this ruling, the Court promulgated
A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC, entitled "Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and
Annulment of Voidable Marriages" (March 15, 2003), which provided that "the complete facts should
allege the physical manifestations, if any, as are indicative of psychological incapacity at the time of the
celebration of the marriage but expert opinion need not be alleged."
55
See Toring v. Toring, 640 Phil. 434, 451 (2010).
56
See Republic v. Galang, 665 Phil. 658, 669-673 (2011), clarifying the guidelines in determining
psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code, as amended.
CA-G.R. CV No. 109809
DECISION
Page 8
x--------------------------------x

establish the characteristics that Santos laid down: gravity, incurability, and
juridical antecedence57.

II.
THE TOTALITY OF EVIDENCE FAILS TO PROVE THE PARTIES'
PSYCHOLOGICAL INCAPACITY

Guided by the standards set in Molina, this Court finds the totality of
evidence insufficient to prove the psychological incapacity of both parties to
perform their respective marital duties.

Dr. Adamos concluded that Alfredo suffered from Mixed Personality

Disorder. As mentioned above, he described him as a “brat”, a “mama's
boy”, promiscuous, grandiose, arrogant and quarrelsome. He banked on his
interview with Marlene and the information fed to him by Peña and
Solomon. Relying on such evidence, he opined that Alfredo exhibited such
personality disorder which is grave and incurable. In his psychological
evaluation of Alfredo, Dr. Adamos reported:

xxx xxx xxx

PSYCHOLOGICAL IMPRESSION: Based on DSM IV-TR

Classification.

Axis I - Mixed Personality Disorder or

Personality Disorder not otherwise specified, with
Passive-Aggressive, Narcissistic, Paranoid, and
Borderline Personality features;
- Partner relational problem;
- Non-communication;
- Unrealistic expectation towards married life;
- Male Sexual Disorder;
- Battered Spouse Syndrome (Guilty spouse on a case
of physical, emotional, and verbal batteries);
- To consider Poly-substance Abuse Disorder;
- Pathologic gambling;
Axis II - Mixed Personality Disorder or
- Personality Disorder not otherwise specifed, with
Passive-Aggressive, Narcissistic, Paranoid and
Borderline personality features;
Axis III - S/P Sexually Transmitted disease,
- To consider Gonorrhea;
Axis IV - Marital discord;
- Defective child-rearing;
57
Del Rosario v. Del Rosario, G.R. No. 222541, February 15, 2017.
CA-G.R. CV No. 109809
DECISION
Page 9
x--------------------------------x

- Mama's boy;
- Childhood trauma;
- Gap between chronologic and mental age;
- Poly-substance abuse;
- Pathologic and illegal gambling;
- Poor ego system;
- Low confidence level;
- Psycho-developmental stage fixation;
- Adjustment problem;
Axis V - Not assessed

Mixed Personality Disorder or Personality Disorder not Otherwise

Specified, with Passive-Aggressive, Paranoid, and Narcissistic Personality
Disorder, with Borderline personality features is a personality disorder
that is defined and discussed under authorities in the field of medicine and
psychology. The abnormality is listed under the category of personality
disorders in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Mental Disorders
IV-TR. It is a deeply ingrained and continuous abnormality. The
abnormality emanated during above-named subject's psycho-
developmental years or childhood days. He has special affinity towards
his mother. He is a mama's boy. His childhood became traumatic becuase
of corporal punishments coming from his father. He has history of sibling
rivalry. He is a spoiled boy in the family and thus was raised as a brat by
his mother who played favorites. These are root causes of his condition.

He is unable to identify mutual love, caring, support, fidelity, trust,

and respect to his wife. He forces his wife to sex and demands sexual
practices that were against her taste and liking during the early part of his
marriage to his wife and is unable to identify to healthy marital sex during
the periods prior to de facto separation. He forces his wife to sex. His wife
contracted sexually transmitted disease from him because of his sexual
promiscuity. He is unable to support his wife and children whether
psychologically, emotionally or psychologically (sic). He lacks remorse
and even justifies his wrongdoings. He is blaming and quarrelsome person
who at the same time is grandiose and arrogant. He lacks the empathy to
understand the feelings of his wife. He is unable to give his trust to his
wife and repeatedly and persistently accuses her of disloyalty. Mixed
personality disorder, with Borderline personality features, of subject was
already present during his psycho-developmental years or before
marriage. The manifestations were experienced or became overt after
marriage. The marriage also acted a stressor to aggravate the condition
and finally lift the same to even graver degrees. He poses danger not only
to other people, including his wife, but also to his own self.

Mixed personality disorder with Borderline personality features, is

an incurable abnormality that no amount of psychological treatment and
intervention would control or cure the grave and continuous features of
the abnormality. In other words, even if and when patient submits his self
CA-G.R. CV No. 109809
DECISION
Page 10
x--------------------------------x

for treatment, the same would be unsuccessful becuase his abnormality is

a permanent and incurable disorder. He maintains extramarital sexual
relationships with other women and he even flaunts them in public in
Australia and in pictures and social networking sites.

Mixed personality disorder, with borderline personality features is

a grave and seriousness abnormality and is equivalent to psychological
incapacity affecting marriage and family relations; and therefore
rendering above-named subject incapacitated to comply with its marital
obligations.58

xxx xxx xxx

Based on the foregoing, this Court has observed:

One. Dr. Adamos did not explain with sufficient details how the
supposed Mixed Personality Disorder of Alfredo could be characterized as
grave, deeply rooted in their childhood and incurable within the
jurisprudential parameters for establishing psychological incapacity. The
evaluation was, in fact, abundant with general statements but disastrously
short on particulars.

For instance, Dr. Adamos hastily concluded that Alfredo was

paranoid, he had defective child-rearing and narcissistic tendencies. Yet,
strikingly, he failed to identify the specific behavior or habits on his part
during her formative years which lead to his supposed Mixed Personality
Disorder. There was no showing, too, that such disorder existed at the
inception of marriage. The report was devoid of any information or insight
as to Alfredo's early life and associations, how he acted prior to and at the
time of the marriage and how the symptoms of his personality disorder
developed. To be sure, the allegations contained in his report were very
serious which must be substantiated by clear evidence which Marlene
lamentably did not at all adduce.

Corollary, it bears mentioning too that there was no established link

between Alfredo's negative traits and his supposed psychological incapacity.
Verily, it is indispensable that the evidence must show a link, medical or the
like, between the acts that manifest psychological incapacity and the
psychological disorder itself.

Two. Marlene insisted that Alfredo was sexually promiscuous and

maintained illicit extramarital relationships with other women. Nonetheless,
58
Id. at pp. 86-88.
CA-G.R. CV No. 109809
DECISION
Page 11
x--------------------------------x

the Supreme Court has categorically ruled that sexual infidelity or

perversion, emotional immaturity and irresponsibility, and the like, do
not by themselves warrant a finding of psychological incapacity, as the same
may only be due to a person’s difficulty, refusal or neglect to undertake the
obligations of marriage that is not rooted in some psychological illness that
Article 36 of the Family Code addresses59.

Toring v. Toring60 instructs us that in order for sexual infidelity to

constitute as psychological incapacity, the respondent's unfaithfulness must
be established as a manifestation of a disordered personality, completely
preventing the respondent from discharging the essential obligations of the
marital state; there must be proof of a natal or supervening disabling factor
that effectively incapacitated him from complying with the obligation to be
faithful to his spouses61. It is indispensable that the evidence must show a
link, medical or the like, between the acts that manifest psychological
incapacity and the psychological disorder itself62. Again, the nexus was not
established here. In Sivino A. Ligeralde v. May Ascension A. Patalinghug
and the Republic of the Philippines63, the Supreme Court ruled that the
respondent's act of living an adulterous life cannot automatically be equated
with a psychological disorder, especially when no specific evidence was
shown that promiscuity was a trait already existing at the inception of
marriage. The petitioner must be able to establish that the respondent's
unfaithfulness was a manifestation of a disordered personality, which made
her completely unable to discharge the essential obligations of the marital
state.

Three. It also bears stating that Alfredo was neither interviewed by

Dr. Adamos nor was he subjected to any psychological examination. Instead,
he merely based his findings on the information fed to him by Marlene
whose bias for his cause cannot be discounted. From there, he concluded
that Alfredo was suffering from Mixed Personality Disorder. This
methodology employed cannot satisfy the required depth and
comprehensiveness of examination required to evaluate a party alleged to be
suffering from a psychological disorder64. Verily, to make conclusions and
generalizations on Alfredo’s psychological condition based on the
information fed by only one side is, to the mind of this Court, not different
from admitting hearsay evidence as proof of the truthfulness of the content
59
Navales v. Navales, G.R. No. 167523, June 27, 2008.
60
640 Phil. 434 (2010).
61
Id.
62
Castillo v. Republic, G.R. No. 214064, February 6, 2017.
63
G.R. No. 168796, April 15, 2010.
64
Republic v. Tobora-Tionglico, G.R. No. 218630, January 11, 2018.
CA-G.R. CV No. 109809
DECISION
Page 12
x--------------------------------x

of such evidence65. Marlene's testimony therefore is considered as self-

serving and had no serious evidentiary value.

Third persons who are disinterested in the outcome of the case and
neutral to both parties could have shed light on the behavioral conduct of the
spouses before and during the marriage. The petition failed in this aspect.
Though Dr. Adamos supposedly obtained information from third persons
Peña and Solomon, unfortunately, there was no mention as to their
relationship to the parties and as to whether they were able to witness on the
behavioral conduct of the spouses before and during the marriage. There is
no showing that they are disinterested persons who can shed light on
Alfredo's alleged incapacity at or about the time of marriage, or to
subsequent occuring events that trace its roots to the incapacity already
present at the time of marriage. In fact, in her Judicial Affidavit66, Solomon
herself divulged that she only met Marlene in 2005 in an aerobics session 67.
She can hardly provide a detailed information as to the couple's marital
history prior to 2005.

Needless to say, this Court does not suggest that a personal

examination of the party alleged to be psychologically incapacitated is
mandatory; jurisprudence holds that this type of examination is not a
mandatory requirement. While such examination is desirable, We recognize
that it may not be practical in all instances given the oftentimes estranged
relations between the parties. For a determination though of a party's
complete personality profile, information coming from persons intimately
related to him (such as the party's close relatives and friends) may be
helpful. This is an approach in the application of Article 36 that allows
flexibility, at the same time that it avoids, if not totally obliterate, the
credibility gaps spawned by supposedly expert opinion based entirely on
doubtful sources of information68.

Four. The psychological evaluation of Dr. Adamos focused on the

Alfredo's respective negative traits. Nonetheless, as explained by Justice
Arturo Brion in one case, not all negative traits exhibited by a person are
rooted in some psychological illness or disorder. These may simply be a
character flaw or a bad habit that the person has developed over the years as
in this case. Verily, a deeply ingrained bad habit does not in itself qualify as
a source of incapacity in the same manner that slight character flaws do not
65
Id., citing Padilla-Rumbaua v. Rumbaua, 612 Phil. 1061, 1083 (2009).
66
Records p. 122-126.
67
Id. at p. 123.
68
Republic v. Galang, G.R. No. 168335, June 6, 2011.
CA-G.R. CV No. 109809
DECISION
Page 13
x--------------------------------x

make a person incapable of marriage69.

Five. Marlene also insisted that she was a victim of Alfredo's physical
and verbal abuse. She likewise mentioned that she contracted STD from
Alfredo in view of the latter's sexual infidelity. On this score, aside from
Marlene's bare allegation, no concrete proof was proffered in court to
establish Alfredo's unfaithfulness. In fact, Marlene failed to provide details
on Alfredo's supposed affairs, such as the names of the other women, how
the affairs started or developed, and how she discovered the affairs. Dr.
Adamos in her report cited Marlene's story of his supposed illicit affairs, but
this is still insufficient evidence of Alfredo's marital infidelity.

Besides, it is undisputed that repeated physical violence, infection of

STD and sexual infidelity are not any of the grounds for the nullity of
marriage under the Family Code. They also did not also constitute
psychological incapacity. Nevertheless, under Article 5570 of the Family
Code, repeated physical violence, grossly abusive conduct and sexual
69
Concurring Opinion of Justice Brion in Baccay v. Baccay, G.R. No. 173138, December 1, 2010.
(Citations omitted)
70
Art. 55. A petition for legal separation may be filed on any of the following grounds:

(1) Repeated physical violence or grossly abusive conduct directed against the petitioner, a
common child, or a child of the petitioner;

(2) Physical violence or moral pressure to compel the petitioner to change religious or political
affiliation;

(3) Attempt of respondent to corrupt or induce the petitioner, a common child, or a child of the
petitioner, to engage in prostitution, or connivance in such corruption or inducement;

(4) Final judgment sentencing the respondent to imprisonment of more than six years, even if
pardoned;

(5) Drug addiction or habitual alcoholism of the respondent;

(6) Lesbianism or homosexuality of the respondent;

(7) Contracting by the respondent of a subsequent bigamous marriage, whether in the Philippines or
abroad;

(8) Sexual infidelity or perversion;

(9) Attempt by the respondent against the life of the petitioner; or

(10) Abandonment of petitioner by respondent without justifiable cause for more than one year. For
purposes of this Article, the term "child" shall include a child by nature or by adoption. (Emphases
supplied)
CA-G.R. CV No. 109809
DECISION
Page 14
x--------------------------------x

infidelity are valid grounds for legal separation. On the other hand, it is not
the infection but the concealment of STD, regardless of its nature, existing
at the time of marriage which is a ground for annulment under Article
45(3)71 in relation to Article46 (3)72 of the Family Code.

A final word. The Court recognizes that the most challenging part of
being in a difficult marriage is to thrive in one 73. We can only commiserate
with the parties' plight as their marriage may have failed. Regardless, the
remedy is not always to have it declared void ab initio on the ground of
psychological incapacity. Article 36 of the Family Code must not be
71
Art. 45. A marriage may be annulled for any of the following causes, existing at the time of the
marriage:

(1) That the party in whose behalf it is sought to have the marriage annulled was eighteen years of age or
over but below twenty-one, and the marriage was solemnized without the consent of the parents,
guardian or person having substitute parental authority over the party, in that order, unless after
attaining the age of twenty-one, such party freely cohabited with the other and both lived together as
husband and wife;

(2) That either party was of unsound mind, unless such party after coming to reason, freely cohabited
with the other as husband and wife;

(3) That the consent of either party was obtained by fraud, unless such party afterwards, with full
knowledge of the facts constituting the fraud, freely cohabited with the other as husband and
wife;

(4) That the consent of either party was obtained by force, intimidation or undue influence, unless the
same having disappeared or ceased, such party thereafter freely cohabited with the other as husband
and wife;

(5) That either party was physically incapable of consummating the marriage with the other, and such
incapacity continues and appears to be incurable; or

(6) That either party was afflicted with a sexually-transmissible disease found to be serious and appears
to be incurable. (Emphasis supplied)
72
Art. 46. Any of the following circumstances shall constitute fraud referred to in Number 3 of the
preceding Article:

(1) Non-disclosure of a previous conviction by final judgment of the other party of a crime involving
moral turpitude;

(2) Concealment by the wife of the fact that at the time of the marriage, she was pregnant by a man other
than her husband;

(3) Concealment of sexually transmissible disease, regardless of its nature, existing at the time of
the marriage; or

(4) Concealment of drug addiction, habitual alcoholism or homosexuality or lesbianism existing at the
time of the marriage.

No other misrepresentation or deceit as to character, health, rank, fortune or chastity shall constitute such
fraud as will give grounds for action for the annulment of marriage. (Emphasis supplied)
73
Lontoc-Cruz v. Cruz, G.R. No. 201988, October 11, 2017.
CA-G.R. CV No. 109809
DECISION
Page 15
x--------------------------------x

confused with a divorce law that cuts the marital bond at the time the
grounds for divorce manifest themselves. To reiterate, psychological
incapacity contemplates downright incapacity or inability to take cognizance
of and assume the basic marital obligations. It is not merely the refusal,
neglect or difficulty, much less ill will, on the part of the errant spouse. To
be declared clinically or medically incurable is one thing; to refuse or be
reluctant to perform one’s duties for the simple reason that one has fell out
of love is another.74 Absent sufficient evidence to prove psychological
incapacity within the context of Article 36 of the Family Code, the Court is
compelled to uphold the indissolubility of the marital tie. The Court is not
unmindful of the couple's marital predicament. Nevertheless, the Court has
no choice but to apply the applicable law and jurisprudence accordingly, if it
must be true to its mission under the rule of law. The Court's first and
foremost duty is to apply the law no matter how harsh it may be75.

WHEREFORE, the present appeal is DENIED. The assailed

Decision dated June 29, 2017 and Order dated August 31, 2017 of the
Regional Trial Court of Malolos City, Bulacan, Branch 260, in Civil Case
No. 692-M-2014 are hereby affirmed.

SO ORDERED.

EDWIN D. SORONGON
Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

SESINANDO E. VILLON
Associate Justice

GERMANO FRANCISCO D. LEGASPI

Associate Justice

74
Mallilin v. Jamesolamin, G.R. No. 192718, February 18, 2015 citing Republic v. Galang, G.R. No.
168335, June 6, 2011.
75
Republic v. Pangasinan, G.R. No. 214077, August 10, 2016.
CA-G.R. CV No. 109809
DECISION
Page 16
x--------------------------------x

C E RT I FI CAT I O N

Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 13 of the Constitution, it is hereby

certified that the conclusions in the above decision were reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court.

SESINANDO E. VILLON
Chairperson, Seventh (7th) Division