TANI-DE LA FUENTE v DE LA FUENTE

GR 188400,March 8, 2017
Potente: Leonen

This case aims to resolve the petition for declaration of nullity of marriage on the basis of psychological
incapacity.

FACTS:

 Petitioner was married to respondent on June21, 1984 after being sweethearts while they were
both students at University of Santo Tomas. Petitioner noticed the respondent to be introvert
and prone to jealousy but these did not stop her from marrying him in the hope that he would
change during the marriage. They had 2 children, namely: Maria Katharyn and Maria Kimberly.
 Respondent behavior, however, worsened during their marriage. He became jealous of
everyone, an even treated the petitioner as sex slave.
 Petitioner sought advice of professionals (doctor, lawyer, priest) to solve their marital problem,
suggesting they undergo marriage counselling, that respondent refused saying it as a mere
“kalokohan.”
 Respondent’s behavior eventually led to a gun-poking incident resulting to petitioner’s, resulting
to petitioner,, together with their children fleeing their conjugal home.
 Petitioner supported their children by herself.
 Petitioner filed for a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage on June 1999 at Q.C RTC. The
case was initially archived due to respondent’s inability to file a responsive pleading. Petitoners’
motion for revival of the case was recommended for trial after the Asst. Prosecutor did not find
any collusion in its investigation.
 Pre-trial proceedings were terminated after respondent failed to appear during scheduled
conference and petitioner was allowed to present her evidence.
 Dr. Lopez, a clinical psychologist, was presented as an expert witness. He conducted in-dept-
interview to the petitioner to gather information on her family background and marital life with
the respondent. He subjected her to a battery of psychological tests, and interviewed
respondent’s bestfriend.
 Dr. Lopez concluded that the petitioner was not suffering from any severe mental disorder, had
no indication of any organic or functional impairment. She was, however, suffering from an
emotionally disturbed personality, but wasn’t serious enough to constitute psychological
incapacity.
 Dr. Lopez, invited the respondent, through a registered mail, for a session which was refused by
the respondent after two months, saying, “ Doctor, ano ba pakialam niyo sa amin, hindi niyo
naman ako kilala.”
 Dr. Lopez, diagnosed the respondent with “paranoid personal disorder” one of the severe forms
of personality disorder, that was most probably caused by pathogenic parental model—his
father was a psychiatric patient. The respondent may have developed psychic contamination
called “double insanity”, a serious and incurable disorder because of his severe paranoia.
 Dr. Lopez recommended for the nullity of the petitioner & respondent’s marriage due to
respondent’s incapacity to perform his marital obligations.
 Respondent did not file any responsive pleading and did not appear during pre-trial conference,
which the court eventually deemed as a waiver of his right to present evidence. The case was
submitted to the Sol Gen for comments and certification. Sol Gen failed to comply with the
certification, thus the case was submitted for decision without certification and comment from
Sol Gen.
 Trial court granted the petition for declaration of nullity of marriage on August 14, 2002.
 The office of Sol Gen filed for motion for reconsideration explaining that their inability to submit
the required certification was due to unavailability of the copies of transcript of stenographic
notes, and failing to notify the court thereof, due to the volume of cases it was handling. The
petition was denied at the trial court.
 CA granted the Sol Gen’s appeal, citing Dr. Lopez’ testimony unreliable and hearsay. It also
disagreed at Dr. Lopez’ diagnosis of the respondent’s behavior having descended from
psychological illness under Article 36 of the Family Code.

ISSUE: WON petitioner’s evidence was insufficient to prove that the respondent was psychologically
incapacitated to fulfill his marital obligations.

HELD:

The petition is GRANTED. The court established the grounds for upholding the RTC’s decision from
the case of Santos v CA, that attempted to set the standards for psychological incapacity declaring it
to be characterized by (a) gravity, (b) juridical antecedence, (c) incurability. Moreover, it “should
refer to no less than a mental (not physical) incapacity that causes the party to be truly incognitive
of the basic marital covenants that concomitantly must be assumed and discharged by the parties to
the marriage.”

It also upheld the guidelines to be followed in applying and interpreting Article 36of the Family Code
as established in the Molina Case, in ruling that the petitioner was able to discharge the burden of
proof that the respondent suffered from psychological incapacity, also citing Camacho-Reyes v
Reyes stating that non-examination of one of the parties will not automatically render as hearsay or
invalidate the findings of the examining psychiatrist or psychologist, in part also stressing that, “
the totality of one’s spouse during cohabitation an marriage is generally and genuinely witnessed
mainly by the other.”