SILVINO A. LIGERALDE vs. MAY ASCENSION A. PATALINGHUG, ET. AL.

G.R. NO. 168796, April 15, 2010

Private acts of living an adulterous life does not rise to the level of the “psychological incapacity” that the law requires.
There must be a manifestation of a disordered personality, which makes her completely unable to discharge the
essential obligations of the marital state, not just character flaws that warrant a conclusion of psychological malady.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

This petition seeks to set aside the Decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) which reversed the Decision of the
Regional Trial Court of Dagupan City (RTC) declaring the marriage between petitioner Silvino A. Ligeralde (Silvino)
and private respondent May Ascension A.Patalinghug (May) null and void.

The couple wed on October 3, 1984, and begot four children. Silvino, who described May as immature, irresponsible
and carefree, claimed that even before marriage he already noticed some signs of negative marital behavior. During
their marriage, he caught her in moments of infidelity, as she would cover up her trysts with her Palestinian boyfriend
by saying that she watched a video program in a neighboring town. They would also have alterations despite his
pleas of her changing her ways. Despite May's attempt of reformation for the sake of their marriage and children, she
still bounced back to her old ways of infidelity, negligence and nocturnal activities, thus leading Silvino to filing a
complaint of psychological incapacity on the part of his wife.

ISSUE

Whether May is psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential obligations of marriage.

RULING

No, the Court’s considered view that petitioner’s evidence failed to establish respondent May’s psychological
incapacity characterized by gravity, juridical antecedence and incurability. The facts of petitioner were not sufficient to
prove the root cause, gravity and incurability of private respondent’s condition. Even with the testimony of the
psychologist, Dr. Nicdao-Basilio, the root cause of psychological incapacity was not identified, as the illness should
be fullyexplained in the totality of evidence of the incapacitating nature. In addition, the private acts of living an
adulterous life does not rise to the level of the “psychological incapacity” that the lawrequires. There must be a
manifestation of a disordered personality, which makes her completelyunable to discharge the essential obligations of
the marital state, not just character flaws thatwarrant a conclusion of psychological malady. Petition is denied.

PRINCIPLE
The root cause of the psychological incapacity must be identified as a psychological illness, its incapacitating nature
fully explained and established by the totality of the evidence presented during trial.

Private respondent’s act of living an adulterous life cannot automatically be equated with a psychological disorder,
especially when no specific evidence was shown that promiscuity was a trait already existing at the inception of
marriage. her duties as wife and mother. His pleas were ignored.

Psychological incapacity required by Art. 36 must be characterized by

(a) gravity,
(b) juridical antecedence and
(c) in-curability.

The incapacity must be grave or serious such that the party would be incapable of carrying out the ordinary duties
required in marriage. It must be rooted in the history of the party antedating the marriage, although the overt
manifestations may emerge only after the marriage. It must be incurable or, even if it were otherwise, the cure would
be beyond the means of the party involved.