Republic of the Philippines

COURT OF APPEALS
MANILA

SPECIAL NINTH (9TH) DIVISION

*****

ADORINA BESTRE TAY-EO- CA-G.R. CV No. 116681

MENDOZA,
Petitioner-Appellant, Members:

SORONGON, E.D.,
Chairperson,
*DE LEON, M.M., and
-versus- RAMOS, E.S., JJ.

PEDRO LUCERO MENDOZA, Promulgated: 07 SEP 2022

Respondent-Appellee.

x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
DECISION
SORONGON, E.D., J. :
This is an Appeal from the Decision 1 of the Regional Trial Court
(RTC), Branch 59, First Judicial Region, Baguio City, in Civil Case No.
1782-FC which denied the petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage of
Adorina Bestre Tay-Eo-Mendoza (petitioner-appellant) and Pedro Lucero
Mendoza (respondent-appellee) on the ground of psychological incapacity.

The Facts

The herein parties met in 1987 when they were working with Philex
Mines. Respondent-appellee was attracted to petitioner-appellant at first
sight. To get closer to her, he befriended her boss and, since then, they
* Acting Third Member vice Justice Ruben Reynaldo G. Roxas per Office Order No. 404-22-RSF dated
September 2, 2022
1 Rollo, pp. 88-103. See Decision penned by Hon. Ivan Kim B Morales, Judge, Branch 59, Regional Trial

Court, First Judicial Region, Baguio City, Civil Case No. 1782-FC, October 28, 2020.
CA-G.R. CV No. 116681
DECISION
Page 2
x-----------------------------------x

became friends. Respondent-appellee boldly confessed his liking to

petitioner-appellant and frequently followed her wherever she goes. One
time, he brought her to their house but to his dismay, her parents frowned
upon him. Despite her parents’ disapproval of respondent-appellee, the latter
still pursued and visited her at home.2 When rumors spread about their
relationship, respondent-appellee’s parents talked to petitioner-appellant’s
parents and suggested that their children should get married.

Not wanting to displease and disobey her parents, petitioner-appellant

agreed to marry respondent-appellee. Respondent-appellee promised to
share in the expenses for the wedding including funds to start their family.
The wedding was held on August 24, 1987 without any help from
respondent-appellee. Likewise, his promise to provide for the material needs
of his family was not fulfilled since he spent most of his time drinking and
gambling. Even before their marriage, he was already a habitual drunkard.

Petitioner-appellant got pregnant with their eldest child but

respondent-appellee just continued to spend his time in idleness. Petitioner-
appellant sought help from her siblings and sold vegetables to earn money. 3
When their first child, Arcia T. Mendoza, was born on January 18, 1989,
they were given a parcel of land to toil but respondent-appellee preferred to
work at Philex as a carpenter. The income he derived therefrom was spent
for his vices instead of his family.4

In 1991, the couple and their first child settled in Pangasinan. Thereat,
respondent-appellee continued with his drinking and gambling ways while
petitioner-appellant would beg for food from their relatives. On January 24,
1991, she gave birth to their second child Marvin T. Mendoza.5

In 1993, petitioner-appellant decided to bring back their children to

Baguio and resumed selling vegetables to eke out a living since she did not
receive any support from respondent-appellee. There, she gave birth to their
third child on September 25, 1993. In the same year, she decided to end her
relationship with respondent-appellee. Petitioner-appellant later on
discovered that respondent-appellee was having extra-marital affairs with
two women. Receiving no support from respondent-appellee, petitioner-
appellant had to continue working for their children's needs and welfare.
Worse, when she was not at home, respondent-appellee will sneak in drunk
2 Id.
3 Id.
4 Id.
5 Id.
CA-G.R. CV No. 116681
DECISION
Page 3
x-----------------------------------x

which caused untold fear to their children. Respondent-appellee also

brought a woman in their house.

Consequently, petitioner-appellant filed the petition to declare her

marriage with respondent-appellee null and void. In support of her position,
she presented Jojet Lamberto R. Mondares, a psychologist, who testified that
both of them are psychologically incapacitated to perform their essential
marital obligations. The sources of the Psychological Report are from the
testimonies of petitioner-appellant, respondent-appellee, their two (2)
children, and petitioner-appellant’s sister and brother.6

The said Psychological Report indicated that petitioner-appellant

suffers from Avoidant Personality Disorder (APD) which is characterized by
four (4) or more of the following: (1) avoidance of occupational activities
that involve significant interpersonal contact because of fear of criticism,
disapproval, or rejection; (2) unwillingness to get involved with people
unless certain of being liked; (3) showing restraint with intimate
relationships because of fear of being shamed or ridiculed; (4) pre-
occupation with being criticized or rejected in social situations; (5)
inhibition in new interpersonal situations because of feelings of inadequacy;
(6) viewing oneself as socially inept, personally unappealing, or inferior to
others; and (7) unusual reluctance to take personal risks or to engage in any
new activity because they may prove embarrassing. Of the seven (7)
indicators, she satisfied four (4) of them which is the minimum requirement,
namely, indicators (2), (3), (4) and (6). 7 The said report also indicated that
the four (4) symptoms manifested by petitioner-appellant were present since
her childhood until her married life and up to this day.8

Meanwhile, the same Psychological Report stated that respondent-

appellee suffers from Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD) which is
characterized by at least five (5) of the following: (1) grandiose sense of
self-importance; (2) preoccupation with fantasies of unlimited success,
power, brilliance, beauty or ideal love; (3) believing that he is special and
unique and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other
special or high-status people [or institutions]; (4) excessive admiration; (5)
sense of entitlement; (6) interpersonally exploitative; (7) lacking in empathy:
unwillingness to recognize or identify the feelings and needs of others; (8)
often enviousness of others or believing that others are envious of him or
her; and (9) arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes. Of the nine (9)
6 Id.
7 Id.
8 Id.
CA-G.R. CV No. 116681
DECISION
Page 4
x-----------------------------------x

symptoms, respondent-appellee satisfied six (6) of them, namely, indicators

(2), (4), (5), (6), (7) and (9). It only requires a minimum of five (5)
indicators to be diagnosed with NPD.9

Ruling of the RTC

The RTC denied the petition because the Psychological Report

failed to determine whether the psychological incapacity of petitioner-
appellant is rooted on a pre-existing personality disorder that is grave,
pervasive, incurable, and has existed at the time of and prior to the inception
of marriage. Also, the findings of the report are inconsistent since the
symptoms manifested by petitioner-appellant were contrary to her actions. 10
The RTC also found that the Psychological Report failed to determine that
the psychological incapacity of respondent-appellee is rooted in his
childhood, and that it existed from the inception of marriage. Lastly, the
RTC ruled that the actions of respondent-appellee are inconsistent with the
findings indicated in the report.11

Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration12 which the RTC

denied.13 Thus, this Appeal.

Petitioner-appellant claims that the totality of evidence shows that the

psychological incapacity of both parties are rooted on a pre-existing
personality disorder that is grave, pervasive, incurable and has existed prior
to marriage, there is no inconsistency in the psychological evaluation report,
and that it is not mandatory for respondent to appear in the conduct of
clinical evaluation.14

The OSG’s Position

The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) argues that petitioner-

appellant failed to prove the juridical antecedence of respondent-appellee’s
psychological incapacity as the evidence failed to show that such incapacity
has been ingrained and existing at the time of the celebration of marriage.15
9 Id.
10 Id.
11 Id.
12 Id.
13 Id.
14 Id.
15 Id., Brief for the Republic, at pp. 208-210
CA-G.R. CV No. 116681
DECISION
Page 5
x-----------------------------------x

The OSG contend further that the psychological report is not

conclusive upon the trial court and that the totality of evidence should still
be adduced which, in this case, has not been satisfied.16

Issue

Whether the RTC was correct in denying the petition to declare the
subject marriage null and void on the ground of the psychological
incapacities of both parties.

OUR RULING
The appeal is meritorious.

Article 36 of the Family Code provides:

A marriage contracted by any party who, at the time of the

celebration, was psychologically incapacitated to comply with
the essential marital obligations of marriage, shall likewise be
void even if such incapacity becomes manifest only after its
solemnization.

The recent case of Tan-Andal v. Andal17 now defines psychological

incapacity as neither a mental incapacity nor a personality disorder that must
be proven through expert opinion. However, there must be proof of the
durable or enduring aspects of a person’s personality called “personality
structure,” which manifests itself through clear acts of dysfunctionality that
undermines the family. The personality structure must make it impossible for
the husband or the wife to understand and, more importantly, to comply with
the essential marital obligations.18

The aspects of personality need not be provided by an expert since

ordinary witnesses who have observed the behaviors of the incapacitated
spouse before the marriage may be presented. Thus, it is not necessary to
designate a mental disorder on a person to secure a decree of nullity.19

16 Id.
17 G.R. No. 196359, May 11, 2021.
18 Ibid.
19 Ibid.
CA-G.R. CV No. 116681
DECISION
Page 6
x-----------------------------------x

Psychological incapacity as contemplated in Article 36 of the Family

Code is incurable in the legal, and not in the medical sense. It must be so
enduring and persistent that would contemplate a situation where the
couple’s respective personality structures are so incompatible and
antagonistic that would inevitably and irreparably result in the breakdown of
the marriage.20 There must be an undeniable pattern of persisting failure to
be a present, loving, faithful, respectful, and supportive spouse to establish a
psychological anomaly or incongruity in the spouse.21

The psychological incapacity must also be caused by a genuinely

serious psychic cause. It is not in the sense that the incapacity be a serious or
dangerous illness, but that mild charactereological peculiarities, mood
changes, occasional emotional outbursts are excluded. It cannot be mere
refusal, neglect, or difficulty, much less ill will.22

Juridical antecedence must still be proved since it is an explicit

requirement of the law. Proof thereof may consist of testimonies describing
the environment where the supposedly incapacitated spouse lived that may
have led to a particular behavior.23

In summary, the Supreme Court has made this pronouncement in the

case of Tan-Andal v. Andal24 pertinent to psychological incapacity under
Article 36 of the Family Code:

Psychological incapacity consists of clear acts of dysfunctionality

that show a lack of understanding and concomitant compliance
with one's essential marital obligations due to psychic causes. It is
not a medical illness that has to be medically or clinically identi-
fied; hence, expert opinion is not required.
As an explicit requirement of the law, the psychological incapacity
must be shown to have been existing at the time of the celebration
of the marriage, and is caused by a durable aspect of one's personal-
ity structure, one that was formed before the parties married. Fur-
thermore, it must be shown caused by a genuinely serious psychic
cause. To prove psychological incapacity, a party must present clear
and convincing evidence of its existence.25

20 Ibid.
21 Ibid.
22 Ibid.
23 Ibid.
24 Supra at Note. 17
25 Ibid.
CA-G.R. CV No. 116681
DECISION
Page 7
x-----------------------------------x

This Court finds the totality of the evidence presented by petitioner-

appellant to have discharged the burden of proof required to declare the
nullity of her marriage with respondent-appellee. The Psychological Report
indicated manifestations of both the couple’s psychological incapacities to
perform their respective marital obligations to each other. Other than the
psychological report, clear and convincing evidence of respondent-
appellee’s psychological incapacity was likewise established by the
testimonies of individuals close to the spouses. Besides, an incapacitated
spouse need not be personally examined by the psychiatrist or psychologist
contrary to the RTC’s finding.

To reiterate, while both petitioner-appellant and respondent-appellee

have been diagnosed with personality disorders, the diagnoses are not
necessary since it is their personality structures which incapacitated them to
comprehend and perform their essential marital obligations that are given
more credence. Be that as it may, contrary to the RTC’s findings, the
Psychological Report has clearly indicated that both petitioner-appellant and
respondent-appellee’s psychological incapacities are deeply ingrained and
have manifested since their childhood up to the marriage. Hence, the
requirement of juridical antecedence in declaring a marriage null and void
has been sufficiently mustered.

Thus, the findings indicated in the Psychological Report on the traits

and behaviors of both petitioner-appellant and respondent-appellee
adequately showed that their personality structures have both disabled them
to perform their essential marital obligations.

Moreover, both petitioner-appellant and respondent-appellee failed to

fulfill their obligations with each other as spouses as required under Article
68 of the Family Code:

The husband and wife are obliged to live together, observe mutual
love, respect and fidelity, and render mutual help and support.

For one, respondent-appellee spent most of his time drinking and

would go home drunk, a trait he has possessed even prior to the marriage.
For another, he also has this habit of going out of the house whenever he
wants without regard to the needs of his family, especially his children. He is
so engrossed with his vices that he failed to give the love, care and support
needed by petitioner-appellant while the latter was pregnant with their three
children. Worse, he spent his earnings for his vices instead of supporting his
CA-G.R. CV No. 116681
DECISION
Page 8
x-----------------------------------x

family. When given the opportunity to toil the land for their living,
respondent-appellee refused to do so. As such, this resulted in petitioner-
appellant asking for help from her siblings and relatives. Together with their
children, petitioner-appellant would often ask for food from others. Due to
lack of financial and emotional support from respondent-appellee, petitioner-
appellant was forced to sell vegetables to sustain their daily basic needs as
well as the education of their children.26

Respondent-appellee has also abandoned his family. He would also

frequently fight with petitioner-appellant as he was always drunk and
jealous. There was even an instance that he held a bolo above the petitioner-
appellant’s head. There was no harmony and understanding between the
couple which resulted in their separation de facto for already twenty-five
(25) years.27

Meanwhile, petitioner-appellant could not be considered as blameless

for the failure of their marriage. She too is afflicted with a grave personality
disorder which contributed to the disintegration of her marriage with
respondent-appellee. Petitioner-appellant has tolerated the abuses of
respondent-appellee resulting in the failure of their relationship to grow into
a loving and peaceful one.28 Besides, petitioner-appellant’s personality
disorder has already manifested even prior to the marriage since, for one, she
simply acceded to her parents’ request to marry respondent-appellee to save
their family’s reputation of being conservative. Contrary to the RTC’s
findings that petitioner-appellant’s extra-marital affair29 is inconsistent to her
personality disorder as found by the psychologist, this Court finds that it in
fact bolsters the findings that she too is psychologically incapacitated to
perform her essential marital obligations.

The entire body of the evidence presented during the proceedings at

the trial court forms an undeniable behavioral pattern of the persisting failure
of both petitioner-appellant and respondent-appellee to be present, loving,
faithful, respectful, and supportive to each other, constitutive of
psychological incapacity on their part to perform their essential marital
obligations.

While this Court recognizes the State’s protection of marriage as an

inviolable social institution, no protection however can be accorded to a
marriage that is null and void because such a marriage has no legal
26 Ibid., p. 168
27 Rollo, pp. 171-174.
28 Id. at pp. 20-21.
29 Id. at p. 100.
CA-G.R. CV No. 116681
DECISION
Page 9
x-----------------------------------x

existence.30

All told, this Court finds that petitioner-appellant and respondent-

appellee have shown clear and convincing proofs that they are both suffering
from a psychological incapacity that renders them incapable of performing
their essential marital obligations. The totality of the evidence adduced in
this case is enough to sustain a finding of psychological incapacity, which
would cause the declaration of nullity of marriage. 31 The subject marriage is
void ab initio pursuant to Article 36 of the Family Code.

WHEREFORE, the Appeal is GRANTED. The October 28, 2020

Decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 59, First Judicial Region,
Baguio City, in Civil Case No. 1782-FC is hereby REVERSED AND SET
ASIDE. Accordingly, a new judgment is hereby entered declaring the
marriage of petitioner-appellant Adorina Bestre Tay-Eo-Mendoza and
respondent-appellee Pedro Lucero Mendoza as NULL AND VOID ab initio
under Article 36 of the Family Code.

SO ORDERED.

ORIGINAL SIGNED
EDWIN D. SORONGON
Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

ORIGINAL SIGNED
MAXIMO M. DE LEON
Associate Justice

ORIGINAL SIGNED
EDUARDO S. RAMOS, JR.
Associate Justice

30 Calma v. Santos-Calma, G.R. No. 242070, August 24, 2020, citing Kalaw v. Fernandez, 750 Phil. 482
(2015).
31 Ibid.
CA-G.R. CV No. 116681
DECISION
Page 10
x-----------------------------------x

C E RT I FI CAT I O N

Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 13 of the Constitution, it is hereby

certified that the conclusions in the above decision were reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court.

ORIGINAL SIGNED
EDWIN D. SORONGON
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Special Ninth (9th) Division