Republic of the Philippines

Supreme Court
Manila
FIRST DIVISION
VALERIO E. KALAW,
Petitioner,

G.R. No. 166357

Present:

- versus -

MA. ELENA FERNANDEZ,

Respondent.

CORONA, C.J., Chairperson,

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO,
BERSAMIN,
DEL CASTILLO, and
PEREZ, JJ.
Promulgated:
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 CAG.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 herebyDISMISSED.
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-inlaw, 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 selfcenteredness 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 assumingarguendo 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
Associate Justice

LUCAS P. BERSAMIN
Associate Justice

JOSE PORTUGAL PEREZ

Associate Justice

C E R T I F I C AT 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

In lieu of Associate Justice Martin S. Villarama, Jr., per Special Order No. 1080 dated September
13, 2011.
[1]
Rollo, pp. 26-56.
[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]
Id. at 22-23.
[4]
CA Decision, p. 11; rollo, p. 19.
[5]
Social Case Study Report, p. 14; Records, Vol. I, p. 216.
[6]
TSN dated March 15, 1995, pp. 11-12.
[7]
Social Case Study Report, p. 14; Records, Vol. I, p. 216.
[8]
Social Case Study Report, pp. 11 and 13; id. at 213 and 215.
[9]
Dr. Dayans Psychological Evaluation Report, p. 7; id. at 259.
[10]
Id. at 10-11; id. at 259.
[11]
TSN dated March 15, 1995, pp. 23-24; Dr. Dayans Psychological Evaluation Report, pp. 7-8; Records,
Vol. I, p. 259.
[12]
Id. at 1-4.
[13]
Id. at 2; Petitioners Memorandum in JDRC Case No. 3100, records, Vol. II, pp. 306-307.
[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]
TSN dated January 5, 1995, pp. 16-17.

 Id. at 17-18.
Psychological Report, Records, Vol. I, pp. 173-175.
[18]
TSN dated February 15, 1995, pp. 6-7.
[19]
Id. at 7.
[20]
Psychological Report, Records, Vol. I, pp. 174-175.
[21]
TSN dated February 15, 1995, p. 4.
[22]
TSN dated June 17, 1998, p. 24.
[23]
Id. at 30-31.
[24]
Id. at 26-27.
[25]
Id. at 22-23.
[26]
Id. at 23.
[27]
Records, Vol. I, pp. 20-21.
[28]
TSN dated July 8, 1998, pp. 5-7.
[29]
Id. at 6-7.
[30]
TSN dated March 15, 1995, pp. 12-13.
[31]
Id. at 11-12.
[32]
Id. at 9-11.
[33]
Id. at 15-17.
[34]
Id. at 17-18.
[35]
Records, Vol. I, p. 21.
[36]
Dr. Dayans Psychological Evaluation Report, p. 13; id. at 259.
[37]
Id. at 4-6; id.
[38]
Id. at 17-18; id.; TSN dated March 14, 1996, p. 10.
[39]
TSN dated January 30, 1996, p. 13.
[40]
Id. at 15.
[41]
TSN dated March 14, 1996, p. 12.
[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]
TSN dated June 8, 1995, p. 6; Dr. Dayans Psychological Evaluation Report, p. 9 (Id.); Rios
deposition, p. 3 (Id. at 356).
[44]
Social Case Study Report, pp. 11 and 13; Records, Vol. I, pp. 213 and 215.
[45]
TSN dated June 8, 1995, p. 9; Social Case Study Report, pp. 11 and 19 (Id. at 213 and 221).
[46]
TSN dated November 20, 1995, pp. 15 and 21.
[47]
Id. at 8-10.
[48]
TSN dated January 4, 1996, pp. 4-6.
[49]
TSN dated April 2, 1998, pp. 18-20.
[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]
Social Case Study Report, pp. 19-20; id. at 221-222.
[52]
Id.; id.
[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]
RTC Decision, pp. 7-8; id. at 388-389.
[55]
The fallo reads:
WHEREFORE, the marriage between petitioner Valerio Kalaw and
[16]
[17]

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.
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.)

CA rollo, pp. 262-273.

CA Decision, p. 7; CA rollo, p. 268.
[58]
Id. at 11; id. at 272.
[59]
CA rollo, pp. 281-298.
[60]
Id. at 310-311.
[61]
Petitioners Memorandum, pp. 23-26; rollo, pp. 606-609.
[62]
Id. at 13-20; id. at 596-603.
[63]
Id. at 20-22; id. at 603-605.
[64]
Id. at 26-27; id. at 609-610.
[65]
Respondents Memorandum, p. 2; id. at 551.
[66]
Id. at 17-18; id. at 566-567.
[67]
Id. at 19; id. at 568.
[56]
[57]

 Id. at 20; id. at 569.

Rollo, pp. 650-654.
[70]
Respondents Manifestation, p. 2; id. at 651.
[71]
Rollo, p. 662.
[72]
Republic v. Iyoy, 507 Phil. 485, 502 (2005), citing Republic v. Court of Appeals, 335 Phil. 664, 678
(1997).
[73]
Republic v. Court of Appeals, 335 Phil. 664, 676 (1997).
[74]
Santos v. Court of Appeals, 310 Phil. 21, 39 (1995).
[68]
[69]