5.
The Supreme Court ruled in its 2011 decision that there was
KALAW VS. FERNANDEZ
(G.R. No. 166357, January 14 2015)
FACTS
1. Petitioner Valerio Kalaw (Kalaw) and Ma. Elena Fernandez
(Fernandez) got married in 1976. After the birth of their fourth
child, Tyrone had an affair with one Jocelyn Quejano.
Thereafter, in 1985, Malyn left the conjugal home and her four
children with Tyrone. Meanwhile, Tyrone started living with
Jocelyn, and they had three more children. Years after, Tyrone
went to the United States with Jocelyn and their children.
2. 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.
3. According to Kalaw, Fernandez was psychologically
incapacitated because she left their children without proper
care so that she could play mahjong, partied with other men
and committed adultery with one Benjie.
4. Kalaw also presented a psychologist, Dr. Cristina Gates, and
a Catholic canon law expert, Fr. Gerard Healy, to testify on
Fernandezs psychological incapacity. Gates explained that
Fernandez suffered from Narcissistic Personality Disorder.
Healy concluded that Fernandezs psychological incapacity
was rooted in her role as the breadwinner of her family, which
inflated Fernandezs ego to the point that her needs became
priority.
no psychological incapacity present as Kalaw failed to present
sufficient evidence to prove such an incapacity. Even if it was
assumed that she had an extramarital affair with another man,
the Court pointed out that sexual infidelity per se did not
constitute psychological incapacity but was merely a ground
for legal separation. Kalaw filed a motion for reconsideration,
hence the current petition.
ISSUE
WON Fernandez was psychologically incapacitated
HELD
NO.
More than twenty (20) years had passed since the parties parted
ways. By now, they must have already accepted and come to
terms with the awful truth that their marriage, assuming it
existed in the eyes of the law, was already beyond repair. Both
parties had inflicted so much damage not only to themselves,
but also to the lives and psyche of their own children. It would
be a greater injustice should we insist on still recognizing their
void marriage, and then force them and their children to endure
some more damage. This was the very same injustice that
Justice Romero decried in her erudite dissenting opinion in
Santos v. Court of Appeals
It would be great injustice, to petitioner for the Court to give a
much too restrictive interpretation of the law and compel the
petitioner to continue to be married to a wife who for purposes
of fulfilling her marital duties has, for all practical purposes,
ceased to exist

To stress, the Courts mandate is to protect the inviolability of

marriage as the basic foundation of our society does not
preclude striking down a marital union that is "ill-equipped to
promote family life.

Given the avowed State interest in promoting marriage as the

foundation of the family, which in turn serves as the foundation
of the nation, there is a corresponding interest for the State to
defend against marriages ill-equipped to promote family life.

The petition is GRANTED, and the Supreme Courts 2011

decision is REVERSED