Republic of the Philippines Shortly after the birth of their youngest son, Tyrone had an extramarital affair with

est son, Tyrone had an extramarital affair with Jocelyn Quejano (Jocelyn), who
Supreme Court gave birth to a son in March 1983.[5]
Manila  
  In May 1985, Malyn left the conjugal home (the house of her Kalaw in-laws) and her four children with Tyrone.
[6]
FIRST DIVISION  Meanwhile, Tyrone started living with Jocelyn, who bore him three more children.[7]
   
VALERIO E. KALAW,   G.R. No. 166357 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
Petitioner,    
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]
    Present:
 
      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
    CORONA, C.J., Chairperson, returned to the Philippines and chose to live with Malyn.
- versus -   LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, 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
    BERSAMIN, weekends because of alleged weekend plans with their father.[11]
    DEL CASTILLO, and  
Complaint for declaration of nullity of marriage
    PEREZ,⃰ JJ.  
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
MA. ELENA FERNANDEZ,   Promulgated: 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
Respondent.   September 19, 2011
irresponsibility towards Tyrone and their children during their co-habitation, as shown by Malyns following acts:
x-------------------------------------------------------------------x  
  1. she left the children without proper care and attention as she played mahjong all
DECISION day and all night;
   
DEL CASTILLO, J.: 2. she left the house to party with male friends and returned in the early hours of
  the following day; and
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. 3. she committed adultery on June 9, 1985, which act Tyrone discovered in
  flagrante delicto.[13]
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 CA-G.R. CV No. 64240, which reversed the trial courts declaration of nullity of the herein  
parties marriage. The fallo of the assailed Decision reads: During trial,[14] Tyrone narrated the circumstances of Malyns alleged infidelity. According to him, on June 9, 1985,
  he and his brother-in-law, Ronald Fernandez (Malyns brother), proceeded to Hyatt Hotel and learned that Malyn
WHEREFOREthe appeal is GRANTED, and the assailed Decision was occupying a room with a certain Benjie Guevarra (Benjie). When he proceeded to the said room, he saw Benjie
is SET ASIDE and VACATED while the petition for declaration of nullity of marriage is and Malyn inside.[15] At rebuttal, Tyrone elaborated that Benjie was wearing only a towel around his waist, while
hereby DISMISSED. 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
SO ORDERED.[4] Atty. Jose Palarca.
   
  Tyrone presented a psychologist, Dr. Cristina Gates (Dr. Gates), and a Catholic canon law expert, Fr. Gerard Healy,
Factual Antecedents 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
Petitioner Valerio E. Kalaw (Tyrone) and respondent Ma. Elena Fernandez (Malyn) met in 1973. They maintained mahjong playing, and her frequent nights-out with friends may reflect a narcissistic personality disorder (NPD).
[17]
a relationship and eventually married in Hong Kong on November 4, 1976. They had four children, Valerio (Rio),  NPD is present when a person is obsessed to meet her wants and needs in utter disregard of her significant
Maria Eva (Ria), Ramon Miguel (Miggy or Mickey), and Jaime Teodoro (Jay). 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 self-centeredness 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 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
Our Ruling 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
The petition has no merit. The CA committed no reversible error in setting aside the trial courts Decision for lack of children state that they were neglected by their mother. On the contrary, they narrated that she took care of them,
legal and factual basis. 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
A petition for declaration of nullity of marriage is governed by Article 36 of the Family Code which provides: shows abandonment and neglect of familial duties. While petitioner cites the fact that his two sons, Rio and Miggy,
ART. 36. A marriage contracted by any party who, at the time of the celebration, both failed the second elementary level despite having tutors, there is nothing to link their academic shortcomings to
was psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential marital obligations of Malyns actions.
marriage, shall likewise be void even if such incapacity becomes manifest only after its  
solemnization. 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
Psychological incapacity is the downright incapacity or inability to take cognizance of and to assume the basic it did not actually assess the veracity of these allegations, the credibility of the witnesses, and the weight of the
marital obligations.[72] The burden of proving psychological incapacity is on the plaintiff.[73] The plaintiff must prove evidence. The trial court did not make factual findings which can serve as bases for its legal conclusion of
that the incapacitated party, based on his or her actions or behavior, suffers a serious psychological disorder that psychological incapacity.
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] 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
In the case at bar, petitioner failed to prove that his wife (respondent) suffers from psychological incapacity. He separation, but certainly not psychological incapacity that voids a marriage.
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 WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is DENIED. The Court of Appeals May 27, 2004 Decision
which had not been sufficiently proven. Petitioners experts heavily relied on petitioners allegations of respondents and its December 15, 2004 Resolution in CA-G.R. CV No. 64240 are AFFIRMED.
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. SO ORDERED.
 
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 assuming arguendo 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.