KALAW V. FERNANDEZ 1.
The Court held that the guidelines set
G.R. No. 166357 - RESOLUTION
TOPIC: PSYCHOLIGICAL INCAPACITY
STATUTE: ART. 36 – FAMILY CODE
FACTS:
(This is a resolution to a previous case)
In our decision promulgated on September 19,
2011, the Court dismissed the complaint for
declaration of nullity of the marriage of the
parties because 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 Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD).
ISSUE:
Whether or not the marriage is void due to the
wife’s psychological incapacity.
HELD:
YES. The Court in granting the Motion for
Reconsideration held that Fernandez was
indeed psychologically incapacitated as they
relaxed the previously set forth guidelines with
regard to this case.
in the case of Republic v. CA have turned out
to be RIGID, such that their application to every
instance practically condemned the petitions for
declaration of nullity to the fate of certain
rejection. But Article 36 of the Family Code
must not be so strictly and too literally read and
applied given the clear intendment of the
drafters to adopt its enacted version of “less
specificity” obviously to enable “some
resiliency in its application.” Instead, every
court should approach the issue of nullity “not
on the basis of a priori assumptions,
predilections or generalizations, but according
to its own facts” in recognition of the verity
that no case would be on “all fours” with the
next one in the field of psychological incapacity
as a ground for the nullity of marriage; hence,
every “trial judge must take pains in examining
the factual milieu and the appellate court
must, as much as possible, avoid substituting
its own judgment for that of the trial court.
In the task of ascertaining the presence of
psychological incapacity as a ground for the
nullity of marriage, the courts, which are
concededly not endowed with expertise in the
field of psychology, must of necessity rely on
the opinions of experts in order to inform
themselves on the matter, and thus enable
themselves to arrive at an intelligent and
judicious judgment. Indeed, the conditions for
the malady of being grave, antecedent and
incurable demand the in-depth diagnosis by
experts.
Personal examination by party not required;
totality of evidence must be considered
2. There is no requirement for one to be
declared psychologically incapacitated to be
personally examined by a physician, because
what is important is the presence of evidence
that adequately establishes the party’s
psychological incapacity. Hence, “if the totality
of evidence presented is enough to sustain a
finding of psychological incapacity, then actual
medical examination of the person concerned
need not be resorted to.”
Verily, the totality of the evidence
must show a link, medical or the like, between
the acts that manifest psychological incapacity
and the psychological disorder itself. If other
evidence showing that a certain condition could
possibly result from an assumed state of facts
existed in the record, the expert opinion should
be admissible and be weighed as an aid for the
court in interpreting such other evidence on the
causation.
Indeed, an expert opinion on psychological
incapacity should be considered as conjectural
or speculative and without any probative value
only in the absence of other evidence to
establish causation. The expert’s findings under
such circumstances would not constitute
hearsay that would justify their exclusion as
evidence.
3. Expert opinion considered as decisive
evidence as to psychological and emotional
temperaments
The findings and evaluation by the RTC as the
trial court deserved credence because it was in
the better position to view and examine the
demeanor of the witnesses while they were
testifying. The position and role of the trial
judge in the appreciation of the evidence
showing the psychological incapacity were not
to be downplayed but should be accorded due
importance and respect.
The Court considered it improper and
unwarranted to give to such expert opinions a
merely generalized consideration and
treatment, least of all to dismiss their value as
inadequate basis for the declaration of the
nullity of the marriage. Instead, we hold that
said experts sufficiently and competently
described the psychological incapacity of the
respondent within the standards of Article 36 of
the Family Code. We uphold the conclusions
reached by Dr. Cristina Gates, a psychologist
and Fr. Gerard Healy witnesses because they
were largely drawn from the case records and
affidavits, and should not anymore be disputed
after the RTC itself had accepted the veracity of
the petitioner’s factual premises.
The Court also held that the courts must accord
weight to expert testimony on the psychological
and mental state of the parties in cases for the
declaration of the nullity of marriages, for by
the very nature of Article 36 of the Family Code
the courts, “despite having the primary task
and burden of decision-making, must not
discount but, instead, must consider as
decisive evidence the expert opinion on the
psychological and mental temperaments of the
parties.”
4. The frequency of the respondent’s
mahjong playing should not have delimited our
determination of the presence or absence of
psychological incapacity. Instead, the
determinant should be her obvious failure to
fully appreciate the duties and responsibilities
of parenthood at the time she made her
marital vows. Had she fully appreciated such
duties and responsibilities, she would have
known that bringing along her children of very
tender ages to her mahjong sessions would
expose them to a culture of gambling and
other vices that would erode their moral fiber.
Nonetheless, the long-term effects of the
respondent’s obsessive mahjong playing surely
impacted on her family life, particularly on her
very young children.
The fact that the respondent brought her
children with her to her mahjong sessions did
not only point to her neglect of parental duties,
but also manifested her tendency to expose
them to a culture of gambling. Her willfully
exposing her children to the culture of
gambling on every occasion of her mahjong
sessions was a very grave and serious act of
subordinating their needs for parenting to the
gratification of her own personal and escapist
desires.
The respondent revealed her wanton disregard
for her children’s moral and mental
development. This disregard violated her duty
as a parent to safeguard and protect her
children.