Cajucom, Katrina Monica T.

Psychological Incapacity
#098253 #16

KALAW vs. FERNANDEZ

G.R. No. 166357. 19 September 2011

FACTS:
 Tyrone and Malyn Kalaw were married in Hong Kong on November 4, 1976 and had four
children
 On July 6, 1994, Tyrone filed a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage based on Art.
36 of the Family Code alleging that Malyn was psychologically irresponsible manifested by
the fact that she was irresponsible towards Tyrone and their children during her co-habitation
 He alleged that she left the children without proper care and attention as she played mahjong
all day and all night, leave the house to party with male friends and returned in the early
hours the following day and that she committed adultery, which Tyrone discovered in
flagrante delicto
 Tyrone presented a psychologist, Dr. Gates, who testified that the her behavior mentioned
above reflects a narcissistic personality disorder, and a Catholic canon law expert, Fr. Healy
who stated that Malyn’s psychological incapacity is rooted in her role as the breadwinner of
her family hence she could not prioritize her family’s needs
 The RTC ruled that both parties were psychologically incapacitated to perform the essential
marital obligations and declared the parties’ marriage void ab initio
 Malyn appealed to the CA which reversed the lower courts ruling, finding that, among others,
Dr. Gates did not explain how the diagnosis of NPD came to be drawn from the sources

ISSUE: Whether the testimony of the two expert witnesses is sufficient to prove psychological
incapacity

RULING: No. Psychological incapacity is the downright incapacity or inability to take

cognizance of and to assume the basic marital obligations. The burden of proving psychological
incapacity is on the plaintiff. 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.

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. Petitioner's
experts heavily relied on petitioner's allegations of respondent's constant mahjong sessions, visits
to the beauty parlor, going out with friends, adultery, and neglect of their children. Petitioner's
experts opined that respondent's 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. Hence, there is no ground to nullify the marriage between
petitioner and respondent.