BARCELONA V CA 412 SCRA 41 SEPTEMBER 24, 2003

FACTS: Petition for Review before us assails the 30 May 1997 Decision as well as the 7 August 1997
Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 43393.  The Court of Appeals affirmed the Order
dated 21 January 1997 of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 106, in Civil Case No. Q-95-
24471.  The Regional Trial Court refused to dismiss private respondent’s Petition for Annulment of
Marriage for failure to state a cause of action and for violation of Supreme Court Administrative Circular
No. 04-94.  The assailed Resolution denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.
 March 29, 1995 – Tadeo Bengzon filed a petition for annulment against Diana Barcelona
(petitioner). On May 9, 1995, Tadeo filed a motion to withdraw petition which the RTC granted
on June 7, 1995
 July 21, 1995 – Tadeo filed annulment again but petitioner filed a motion to dismiss on two
grounds: no cause of action and violates SC administrative circular 04-94 on forum shopping
 Ground for dismissal of the petition for reconsideration filed by petitioner (against deferring
resolution) was the complainant’s failure to state a cause of action but according to Judge Pison,
petitioner was shown to have violated the complainant’s right so there is cause of action.
 RTC issued its December 2, 1998 Order denying petitioner’s Demurrer to Evidence. It held that
"[respondent] established a quantum of evidence that the [petitioner] must controvert." After
her Motion for Reconsideration11 was denied in the March 22, 1999 Order, petitioner elevated
the case to the CA by way of a Petition for Certiorari, 13 docketed as CA-GR No. 53100.

ISSUE: Whether evidences presented are sufficient to invoke psychological incapacity in annulling said
marriage

HELD: A demurrer to evidence is defined as "an objection or exception by one of the parties in an action
at law, to the effect that the evidence which his adversary produced is insufficient in point of law
(whether true or not) to make out his case or sustain the issue." The demurrer challenges the sufficiency
of the plaintiff’s evidence to sustain a verdict. In passing upon the sufficiency of the evidence raised in a
demurrer, the court is merely required to ascertain whether there is competent or sufficient proof to
sustain the indictment or to support a verdict of guilt.

The evidence against respondent (herein petitioner) is grossly insufficient to support any finding of
psychological incapacity that would warrant a declaration of nullity of the parties’ marriage.

In the case at bar, the evidence adduced by respondent merely shows that he and his wife could not get
along with each other. There was absolutely no showing of the gravity or juridical antecedence or
incurability of the problems besetting their marital union. Dr. Antonio M. Gauzon, utterly failed to
identify and prove the root cause of the alleged psychological incapacity. Specifically, his testimony did
not show that the incapacity, if true, was medically or clinically permanent or incurable. Neither did he
testify that it was grave enough to bring about the disability of the party to assume the essential
obligations of marriage.
Medical examination is not a conditio sine qua non to a finding of psychological incapacity, so long as
the totality of evidence presented is enough to establish the incapacity adequately. Here, however, the
totality of evidence presented by respondent was completely insufficient to sustain a finding of
psychological incapacity -- more so without any medical, psychiatric or psychological examination.
PETITION GRANTED. ANNULMENT CASE WAS DISMISSED