A Selection of 2007 Jurisprudence in Persons & Family Relations and Other Civil Subjects
Page 3 of 9
bore them four children. Psychological incapacity must be more than just a “difficulty,” “refusal”or “neglect” in the performance of some marital obligations, it is essential that they must beshown to be incapable of doing so, due to some psychological illnessexisting at the time of thecelebration of the marriage. (Navarro v. Cecilia-Navarro, G.R. No. 162049, 13 April 2007)
Q: As a marriage under a license is not invalidated by the fact that the license was wrongfullyobtained, so must a marriage not be invalidated by a fabricated statement that the partieshave cohabited for at least five years as required by law. TRUE OR FALSE.
False. The contrast is flagrant. The former is with reference to an irregularity of the marriagelicense, and not to the absence of one. Here, there is no marriage license at all. Furthermore,the falsity of the allegation in the sworn affidavit relating to the period of Jose and Felisa’scohabitation, which would have qualified their marriage as an exception to the requirement fora marriage license, cannot be a mere irregularity, for it refers to a quintessential fact that thelaw precisely required to be deposed and attested to by the parties under oath. If the essentialmatter in the sworn affidavit is a lie, then it is but a mere scrap of paper, without force andeffect. Hence, it is as if there was no affidavit at all. (NOTE:
The marriage in this case wasdeclared void ab initio for lack of marriage license when it was proved that the affidavit relatingto the period of 5-year cohabitation was merely fabricated.
Republic v. Dayot, G.R. No. 175581,28 March 2008)
Q: Is it required that the person sought to be declared psychologically incapacitated should bepersonally examined by a physician or psychologist as a condition
sine qua non
to arrive atsuch declaration?
There is no such requirement. If it can be proven by independent means thatone is psychologically incapacitated, there is no reason why the same should not be credited.(Republic v. Tanyag-San Jose, G.R. 168328, 28 February 2007)
Q: Manolito is said to be jobless and a drug user. Hence, not only that he is unable to supporthis family but also refuses or is unwilling to assume the essential obligations of marriage. Willthis constitute psychological incapacity?
NO. Manolito's state or condition or attitude has notbeen shown to be a malady or disorder rooted on some incapacitating or debilitatingpsychological condition. These are more of a "difficulty" if not outright "refusal" or "neglect" inthe performance of some marital obligations. (Republic v. Tanyag-San Jose, G.R. 168328, 28February 2007)
Q: The psychiatrist’s report states that: “
This extremely egocentric attitude manifest a person suffering Narcissistic Personality Disorder that is considered to be severe, incurable and deeply rooted with her functioning. Thus, making herself psychologically incapacitated so as to comply with the essential marital functions.”
Is this sufficient?No. T
he report failed to identify the root cause of respondent's narcissistic personality disorderand to prove that it existed at the inception of the marriage. (Bier v. Bier, G.R. No. 173294, 27February 2008)