FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 151867. January 29, 2004]

DAVID B. DEDEL, petitioner, vs. !"R# !$ A%%EAL& an' &(AR!N L. !R%")*DEDEL a.+.a. JANE IBRA(I,, respondents. RE%"BLI !$ #(E %(ILI%%INE&, oppositor-respondent. DE
-NARE&*&AN#IAG!, J.:

I&I!N

Petitioner David B. Dedel met respondent Sharon L. Corpuz Dedel hile he as or!in" in the advertisin" #usiness o$ his $ather. The a%&uaintan%e led to %ourtship and romanti% relations' %ulminatin" in the e(%han"e o$ marital vo s #e$ore the Cit) Court o$ Pasa) on Septem#er *+' ,-... The %ivil marria"e as rati$ied in a %hur%h eddin" on 1a) *2' ,-.3.
,/,0 */*0

The union produ%ed $our %hildren' namel)4 Beverl) 5ane' #orn on Septem#er ,+' ,-.+6 Stephanie 5ani%e #orn on Septem#er -' ,-.-6 9enneth David #orn on :pril *8' ,-3,6 and In"rid #orn on O%to#er *2' ,-3.. The %on<u"al partnership' nonetheless' a%&uired neither propert) nor de#t.
7/70 8/80 ;/;0 ./.0

Petitioner avers that durin" the marria"e' Sharon turned out to #e an irresponsi#le and immature i$e and mother. She had e(tra=marital a$$airs ith several men4 a dentist in the :rmed For%es o$ the Philippines6 a Lieutenant in the Presidential Se%urit) Command and later a 5ordanian national. Sharon as on%e %on$irmed in the 1anila 1edi%al Cit) $or treatment #) Dr. Lourdes Lapuz' a %lini%al ps)%hiatrist. Petitioner alle"ed that despite the treatment' Sharon did not stop her illi%it relationship ith the 5ordanian national named 1usta$a I#rahim' hom she married and ith hom she had t o %hildren. >o ever' hen 1usta$a I#rahim le$t the %ountr)' Sharon returned to petitioner #rin"in" alon" her t o %hildren #) I#rahim. Petitioner a%%epted her #a%! and
, /,0

?(hi#its F and F=7. ?(hi#it F. ?(hi#it >. ?(hi#it I. ?(hi#it J. ?(hi#it 9.

/*0

/70

/80

/;0

/.0

even %onsidered the t o ille"itimate %hildren as his o n. Therea$ter' on De%em#er -' ,--;' Sharon a#andoned petitioner to <oin I#rahim in 5ordan ith their t o %hildren. Sin%e then' Sharon ould onl) return to the %ountr) on spe%ial o%%asions. Finall)' "ivin" up all hope o$ a re%on%iliation ith Sharon' petitioner $iled on :pril ,' ,--3 a petition see!in" the de%laration o$ nullit) o$ his marria"e on the "round o$ ps)%holo"i%al in%apa%it)' as de$ined in :rti%le 7. o$ the Famil) Code' #e$ore the Re"ional Trial Court o$ 1a!ati Cit)' Bran%h ,8-. Summons as e$$e%ted #) pu#li%ation in the Pilipino Star Ngayon' a ne spaper o$ "eneral %ir%ulation in the %ountr) %onsiderin" that Sharon did not reside and %ould not #e $ound in the Philippines.
3/30

Petitioner presented Dr. Natividad :. Da)an' ho testi$ied that she %ondu%ted a ps)%holo"i%al evaluation o$ petitioner and $ound him to #e %ons%ientious' hard or!in"' dili"ent' a per$e%tionist ho ants all tas!s and pro<e%ts %ompleted up to the $inal detail and ho e(erts his #est in hatever he does. On the other hand' Dr. Da)an de%lared that Sharon as su$$erin" $rom :nti= So%ial Personalit) Disorder e(hi#ited #) her #latant displa) o$ in$idelit)6 that she %ommitted several indis%retions and had no %apa%it) $or remorse' even #rin"in" ith her the t o %hildren o$ 1usta$a I#rahim to live ith petitioner. Su%h immaturit) and irresponsi#ilit) in handlin" the marria"e li!e her repeated a%ts o$ in$idelit) and a#andonment o$ her $amil) are indi%ations o$ :nti=So%ial Personalit) Disorder amountin" to ps)%holo"i%al in%apa%it) to per$orm the essential o#li"ations o$ marria"e.
+/+0

:$ter trial' <ud"ment as rendered' the dispositive portion o$ hi%h reads4

@>?R?FOR?' in the li"ht o$ the $ore"oin"' the %ivil and %hur%h marria"es #et een D:VID B. D?D?L and S>:RON L. CORPAB %ele#rated on Septem#er *+' ,-.. and 1a) *2' ,-.3 are here#) de%lared null and void on the "round o$ ps)%holo"i%al in%apa%it) on the part o$ the respondent to per$orm the essential o#li"ations o$ marria"e under :rti%le 7. o$ the Famil) Code. :%%ordin"l)' the %on<u"al partnership o$ "ains e(istin" #et een the parties is dissolved and in lieu thereo$ a re"ime o$ %omplete separation o$ propert) #et een the said spouses is esta#lished in a%%ordan%e ith the pertinent provisions o$ the Famil) Code' ithout pre<udi%e to ri"hts previousl) a%&uired #) %reditors. Let a %op) o$ this De%ision #e dul) re%orded in the proper %ivil and propert) re"istries in a%%ordan%e ith :rti%le ;* o$ the Famil) Code. SO ORD?R?D.-/-0
3 /30

?(hi#its D to D=7. ?(hi#it L6 Re%ords pp. ;3=3+. an :sso%iate

/+0

Rollo' p. 8-6 penned #) Presidin" 5ud"e 5ose$ina Cuevarra=Salon"a Dno 5usti%e o$ the Court o$ :ppealsE.
/-0

Respondent Repu#li% o$ the Philippines' throu"h the Soli%itor Ceneral' appealed alle"in" that F
I T>? LO@?R COART ?RR?D IN CR:NTINC T>? P?TITION D?SPIT? T>? :BS?NC? OF : V:LID CROAND FOR D?CL:R:TION OF NALLITG OF 1:RRI:C?. II T>? LO@?R COART ?RR?D IN D?CL:RINC T>:T T>? C>ARC> 1:RRI:C? B?T@??N P?TITION?R IS NALL :ND VOID. III T>? LO@?R COART ?RR?D IN R?ND?RINC : D?CISION @IT>OAT : C?RTIFIC:TION >:VINC B??N ISSA?D BG T>? SOLICITOR C?N?R:L :S R?HAIR?D IN T>? MOLINA C:S?.

The Court o$ :ppeals re%alled and set aside the <ud"ment o$ the trial %ourt and ordered dismissal o$ the petition $or de%laration o$ nullit) o$ marria"e.
,2/,20

PetitionerIs motion $or re%onsideration as denied in a Resolution dated 5anuar) +' *22*. >en%e' the instant petition.
,,/,,0

Petitioner %ontends that the appellate %ourt "ravel) a#used its dis%retion and mani$estl) erred in its %on%lusion that the4 D,E respondent as not su$$erin" $rom ps)%holo"i%al in%apa%it) to per$orm her marital o#li"ations6 D*E ps)%holo"i%al in%apa%it) o$ respondent is not attended #) "ravit)' <uridi%al ante%eden%e and permanen%e or in%ura#ilit)6 and D7E totalit) o$ eviden%e su#mitted #) the petitioner $alls short to prove ps)%holo"i%al in%apa%it) su$$ered #) respondent. The main &uestion $or resolution is hether or not the totalit) o$ the eviden%e presented is enou"h to sustain a $indin" that respondent is ps)%holo"i%all) in%apa%itated. 1ore spe%i$i%all)' does the a#errant se(ual #ehavior o$ respondent adverted to #) petitioner $all ithin the term Jps)%holo"i%al in%apa%it)KL In Santos v. Court of Appeals'
,*/,*0

it as ruled4

( ( ( Jps)%holo"i%al in%apa%it)L should re$er to no less than a mental Dnot ph)si%alE in%apa%it) that %auses a part) to #e trul) in%o"nitive o$ the #asi% marital %ovenants that %on%omitantl) must #e assumed and dis%har"ed #) the parties to the marria"e hi%h' as so e(pressed in :rti%le .+ o$ the Famil) Code' in%lude their mutual o#li"ations to live to"ether' o#serve love' respe%t and $idelit) and render help and support. There is hardl) an) dou#t that the intendment o$ the la has #een to %on$ine the meanin" o$ Jps)%holo"i%al
,2

Rollo' pp. 77=886 per :sso%iate 5usti%e Conrado 1. Vas&uez' 5r.' 5usti%es 1artin S. Villarama' 5r. and ?liezer R. Delos Santos' %on%urrin".
/,20 /,,0

ith :sso%iate

,,

Rollo' p. 8;. 7,2 Phil. *, D,--;E.

,*

/,*0

in%apa%it)L to the most serious %ases o$ personalit) disorders %learl) demonstrative o$ an utter insensitivit) o$ ina#ilit) to "ive meanin" and si"ni$i%an%e to the marria"e. This ps)%holo"i%al %ondition must e(ist at the time the marria"e is %ele#rated. The la does not evidentl) envision' upon the other hand' an ina#ilit) o$ the spouse to have se(ual relations ith the other. This %on%lusion is impli%it under :rti%le ;8 o$ the Famil) Code hi%h %onsiders %hildren %on%eived prior to the <udi%ial de%laration o$ nullit) o$ the void marria"e to #e Jle"itimate.L The other $orms o$ ps)%hoses' i$ e(istin" at the in%eption o$ marria"e' li!e the state o$ a part) #ein" o$ unsound mind or %on%ealment o$ dru" addi%tion' ha#itual al%oholism' homose(ualit) or les#ianism' merel) renders the marria"e %ontra%t voidable pursuant to :rti%le 8.' Famil) Code. I$ dru" addi%tion' ha#itual al%oholism' les#ianism or homose(ualit) should o%%ur onl) durin" the marria"e' the) #e%ome mere "rounds $or le"al separation under :rti%le ;; o$ the Famil) Code. These provisions' ho ever' do not ne%essaril) pre%lude the possi#ilit) o$ these various %ir%umstan%es #ein" themselves' dependin" on the de"ree and severit) o$ the disorder' indicia o$ ps)%holo"i%al in%apa%it). Antil $urther statutor) and <urisprudential parameters are esta#lished' ever) %ir%umstan%e that ma) have some #earin" on the de"ree' e(tent and other %onditions o$ that in%apa%it) must' in ever) %ase' #e %are$ull) e(amined and evaluated so that no pre%ipitate and indis%riminate nullit) is peremptoril) de%reed. The ell=%onsidered opinion o$ ps)%hiatrists' ps)%holo"ists and persons ith e(pertise in ps)%holo"i%al dis%iplines mi"ht #e help$ul or even desira#le.,7/,70

The di$$i%ult) in resolvin" the pro#lem lies in the $a%t that a personalit) disorder is a ver) %omple( and elusive phenomenon hi%h de$ies eas) anal)sis and de$inition. In this %ase' respondentIs se(ual in$idelit) %an hardl) &uali$) as #ein" mentall) or ps)%hi%all) ill to su%h an e(tent that she %ould not have !no n the o#li"ations she as assumin"' or !no in" them' %ould not have "iven a valid assumption thereo$. It appears that respondentIs promis%uit) did not e(ist prior to or at the in%eption o$ the marria"e. @hat is' in $a%t' dis%losed #) the re%ords is a #liss$ul marital union at its %ele#ration' later a$$irmed in %hur%h rites' and hi%h produ%ed $our %hildren.
,8/,80

RespondentIs se(ual in$idelit) or perversion and a#andonment do not #) themselves %onstitute ps)%holo"i%al in%apa%it) ithin the %ontemplation o$ the Famil) Code. Neither %ould her emotional immaturit) and irresponsi#ilit) #e e&uated ith ps)%holo"i%al in%apa%it). It must #e sho n that these a%ts are mani$estations o$ a disordered personality hi%h ma!e respondent co pletely una#le to dis%har"e the essential o#li"ations o$ the marital state' not merel) due to her )outh' immaturit) or se(ual promis%uit).
,;/,;0 ,./,.0 ,7 /,70

Id.' at 82=8,. Repu#li% v. Da"da"' C.R. No. ,2--3;' - Fe#ruar) *22,' 7;, SCR: 8*;. Pes%a v. Pes%a' C.R. No. ,7.-*,' ,3 :pril *22,' 7;. SCR: ;++' ;-8. >ernandez v. Court o$ :ppeals' supra' pp. +3=++.

,8

/,80

,;

/,;0

,.

/,.0

:t #est' the %ir%umstan%es relied upon #) petitioner are "rounds $or le"al separation under :rti%le ;; o$ the Famil) Code. >o ever' e pointed out in Marcos v. Marcos that :rti%le 7. is not to #e e&uated ith le"al separation in hi%h the "rounds need not #e rooted in ps)%holo"i%al in%apa%it) #ut on ph)si%al violen%e' moral pressure' %ivil interdi%tion' dru" addi%tion' ha#itual al%oholism' se(ual in$idelit)' a#andonment and the li!e. In short' the eviden%e presented #) petitioner re$ers onl) to "rounds $or le"al separation' not $or de%larin" a marria"e void.
,3/,30 ,+/,+0

@e li!e ise a"ree ith the Court o$ :ppeals that the trial %ourt has no <urisdi%tion to dissolve the %hur%h marria"e o$ petitioner and respondent. The authorit) to do so is e(%lusivel) lod"ed ith the ?%%lesiasti%al Court o$ the Roman Catholi% Chur%h. :ll told' e $ind no %o"ent reason to distur# the rulin" o$ the appellate %ourt. @e %annot den) the "rie$' $rustration and even desperation o$ petitioner in his present situation. Re"retta#l)' there are %ir%umstan%es' li!e in this %ase' here neither la nor so%iet) %an provide the spe%i$i% ans ers to ever) individual pro#lem. @hile e s)mpathize ith petitionerIs marital predi%ament' our $irst and $oremost dut) is to appl) the la no matter ho harsh it ma) #e.
,-/,-0 *2/*20

,3

/,30

:RT. ;;. F : petition $or le"al separation ma) #e $iled on an) o$ the $ollo in" "rounds4

D,E Repeated ph)si%al violen%e or "rossl) a#usive %ondu%t dire%ted a"ainst the petitioner' a %ommon %hild or a %hild o$ the petitioner6 D*E Ph)si%al violen%e or moral pressure to %ompel the petitioner to %han"e reli"ious or politi%al a$$iliation6 D7E :ttempt o$ respondent to %orrupt or indu%e the petitioner' a %ommon %hild' or a %hild o$ the petitioner' to en"a"e in prostitution' or %onnivan%e in su%h %orruption or indu%ement6 D8E Final <ud"ment senten%in" the respondent to imprisonment o$ more than si( )ears even i$ pardoned6 D;E D.E Dru" addi%tion or ha#itual al%oholism o$ the respondent6 Les#ianism or homose(ualit) o$ the respondent6

D3E Contra%tin" #) the respondent o$ a su#se&uent #i"amous marria"e in the Philippines' hether in the Philippines or a#road6 D+E D-E Se!ual infidelity or perversion. :ttempt #) the respondent a"ainst the li$e o$ the petitioner6 or ithout <usti$ia#le %ause $or more than

D,2E :#andonment o$ petitioner #) respondent one )ear.

For purposes o$ this :rti%le' the term M%hildI shall in%lude a %hild #) nature or #) adoption.
,+ /,+0

C.R. No. ,7.8-2' ,- O%to#er *222' 787 SCR: 3;;' 3.;. Santos v. Court o$ :ppeals' supra' p. 7.. Pes%a v. Pes%a' supra.

,-

/,-0

*2

/*20

.(ERE$!RE' in vie o$ the $ore"oin"' the petition is D?NI?D. The de%ision o$ the Court o$ :ppeals in C:=C.R. CV No. .282.' hi%h ordered the dismissal o$ Civil Case No. -3=8.3 #e$ore the Re"ional Trial Court o$ 1a!ati' Bran%h ,8-' is :FFIR1?D. No %osts. &! !RDERED. "avide# Jr.# C.J.# $C%air an&# Panganiban# and Carpio# JJ.# %on%ur. A'cuna# J.# on o$$i%ial leave.