GR NO 164493 MARCH 12, 2010

SUAZO VS SUAZO
FACTS
Angelito Suazo and Jocelyn Suazo were married and they lived with Angelito’s
parent. Petitioner urged him to find work but this often resulted to violent quarrels. A
year later, Jocelyn left Angelito. Angelito then found another woman. But she filed a
petition for declaration of nullity of marriage under Art. 36 Psychological incapacity.
Jocelyn testified on the alleged physical beating she received. However, B was not
personally examined by the expert witness. The RTC annulled the marriage on the
ground that Angelito is unfit to comply with his marital obligation but the CA reversed it
and held that the respondent may have failed to provide material support to the family
and has resorted to physical abuse, but it is still necessary to show that they were
manifestations of a deeper psychological malaise that was clinically or medically
identified.

ISSUE
Whether or not the marriage should be annulled on the ground of psychological
incapacity.

RULING
Habitual drunkenness, gambling and refusal to find a job, while indicative of
psychological incapacity, do not, by themselves, show psychological incapacity. All
these simply indicate difficulty, neglect or mere refusal to perform marital obligations
that cannot be considered to be constitutive of psychological incapacity in the absence
of proof that these are manifestations of an incapacity rooted in some debilitating
psychological condition or illness. In addition, Angelito’s violent tendencies, physical
violence on women indicates abnormal behavioral or personality patterns, however,
such violence, standing alone, does not constitute psychological incapacity. In this case,
the psychologist failed to link the violence to psychological incapacity.