AGRIAVIADOR v.

AMPARO-AGRAVIADOR
GR No. 170729
Procedural History:
1. Petitioner won in the lower court (RTC Muntinlupa)
2. When brought to the CA, decision of the RTC was reversed
ANTECEDENT FACTS
1. In 1971, Enrique, then a security guard, first met Erlinda at a beerhouse where the
latter worked, and later on became sweethearts after courtship. They soon entered
into a common-law relationship
2. They contracted marriage in 1973, whereby they begot four children. Enrique's
family, however, expressed their apprehensions because Erlinda came from a broken
family and because of the nature of her work.
3. In 2001, petitioner filed a petition for the declaration of nullity of marriage on the
basis of respondent's psychological incapacity, alleging that she was carefree and
irresponsible, and refused to do household chores like cleaning and cooking; stayed
away from their house for long periods of time; had an affair with a lesbian; did not
take care of their sick child to the point of his death; consulted a witch doctor in
order to bring him bad fate; and refused to use the family name "Agraviador" in her
activities.
4. He also claimed that she refused to have sex with him because she became very
close to a male border of their house, and even caught their love notes and trysts.
However, because the root cause of her psychological incapacity was not medically
identified and alleged in the petition, motion was denied.
5. The petitioner, thus, presented testimonial and documentary evidence to
substantiate his claims through the psychiatric evaluation report of Dr. Juan Cirilo L.
Patac, who claimed that Erlinda is suffering from a Personality Disorder (Mixed
Personality Disorder). She was said to been having this disorder since her adolescence,
with no definite treatment for her disorder.
6. The RTC, nullified the marriage as it saw merit in the petitioner's testimony and
the psychiatric evaluation of said doctor
7. When the case reached the CA, the decision was reversed as the "psychiatric
remarks" showcased nothing more but the respondent's characteristic flaws an
liabilities with no proof of a supervening factor that effectively incapacitated the
respondent from accepting and complying with the essential obligations of marriage.

Issue:
Whether there is basis to nullify the petitioners marriage to the respondent on the
ground of psychological incapacity to comply with the essential marital obligations.

Answer:
No, the totality of evidence presented failed to establish the respondents
psychological incapacity.
Ratio:
The court held that both Enrique's court testimony, as well as Dr. Patacs Psychiatric
Evaluation Report fell short in proving that the respondent was psychologically
incapacitated to perform the essential marital duties.
First, petitioner's claims should be distinguished from the difficulty, if not outright
refusal or neglect, in the performance of some marital obligations that
characterize some marriages to the level of psychological incapacity that the law
requires. He merely showed that Erlinda had some personality defects that showed
their manifestation during the marriage; his testimony sorely lacked details necessary
to establish that the respondents defects existed at the inception of the marriage.
His claims that Erlinda does not accept her fault, does not want to change, and
refused to reform are insufficient to establish a psychological or mental defect that
is serious, grave, or incurable as contemplated by Article 36 of the Family Code.
Second, Dr. Patac failed to clarify the circumstances that led the respondent to act
the way she did in her attempt to establish the juridical antecedence of the
respondents condition. The report that he submit likewise failed to prove the gravity
or seriousness of the respondents condition, as his enumeration of the respondents
purported behavioral defects (as related to him by third persons), and on this basis
characterized the respondent to be suffering from mixed personality disorder deemed
insufficient. There was no other statement regarding the degree of severity of the
respondents condition, why and to what extent the disorder is grave, and how it
incapacitated her to comply with the duties required in marriage. The Psychiatric
Evaluation Report likewise failed to adequately explain how Dr. Patac came to the
conclusion that the respondents personality disorder had no definite treatment. It
did not discuss the concept of mixed personality disorder, i.e., its classification,
cause, symptoms, and cure, and failed to show how and to what extent the
respondent exhibited this disorder in order to create a necessary inference that the
respondents condition had no definite treatment or is incurable.

AGGRAVIADOR VS AGGRAVIADOR, G.R. NO. 170729

G.R. No. 170729 December 8, 2010
FACTS:
Enrique first met Erlinda in 1971 at a beerhouse where Erlinda worked. Their meeting
led to a courtship, became sweethearts and soon entered into a common-law
relationship, and finally got married in 1973.
In 2001, Enrique filed a petition to have his marriage with Erlinda null and void under
Article 36 of the Family Code. He alleged that Erlinda was psychologically
incapacitated to exercise the essential obligations of marriage. He claimed that she
was carefree and irresponsible, refused to do household chores, had extramarital
affairs, did not take care of their sick child, consulted a witch doctor, and refused to
use the family name in her activities.
Enrique, aside from his testimony, also presented a certified true copy of their
marriage contract and the psychiatric evaluation report of Dr. Patac. In his psychiatric
evaluation report, Dr. Patac found Erlinda unable to fulfill the essential obligations of
marriage as she manifested inflexible maladaptive behavior even at the time before
their marriage. In his conclusion stated that Erlinda is suffering from a Mixed
Personality Disorder where there is no definite treatment for such illness.
Erlinda moved to dismiss the petition. The RTC denied her motion and took side on
Enrique.
ISSUE: Whether or not Enrique can invoke Article 36 of the Family Code as the basis to
nullify his marriage to Erlinda.
RULING:
No. Psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code do not involve a
species of vice of consent. The spouse may have given free and voluntary consent to a
marriage but was, nonetheless, incapable of fulfilling such rights and obligations.
Psychological incapacity to comply with the essential marital obligation does not
affect the consent to the marriage.
The totality of Enriques's evidence is insufficient to prove Erlinda's psychological
incapacity. Her refusal or unwillingness to perform certain marital obligations, and a
number of unpleasant personality traits such as immaturity, irresponsibility, and
unfaithfulness do not rise to the level of psychological incapacity that the law
requires.
Dr. Patac's psychiatric evaluation report do not hold sufficient amount in proving that
Erlinda was psychological incapacitated to perform the essential marital duties. Dr.
Patac did not personally evaluate and examine Erlinda, as he relied only on the
information fed by Enrique, the partie's second[] child and household helper.