ACTIVITY #6

Name: Rovero, Kevin C. Subject: Crimsoc 3

Course/Year/Section: BS CRIM 2- DELTA

Title of the Case: Veronica Cabacungan Alcazar vs. Rey C. Alcazar. G.R. No. 174451. October 13,
2009

Facts: Veronica and Rey got married. After their wedding, they lived in Rey’s house in
Occidental Mindoro. Then they returned to Manila, but Rey did not live with Veronica in her
home in Tondo. Rey then left for Riyadh where he was working. He never contacted his wife
since he left. About a year and a half, Veronica was informed that her husband is coming home.
But she was surprised that he did not go directly to her in Tondo but to his house in Mindoro
instead. Thus, petitioner concluded that respondent was physically incapable of consummating
his marriage with her, providing sufficient cause for annulment of their marriage pursuant to
paragraph 5, Article 45 of the Family Code. Respondent has been uncooperative to the
investigation. Dr. Tayag testified that Rey was suffering from Narcissistic Personality Disorder,
hence, it is a sufficient ground for declaration of nullity of marriage. RTC denied. CA also denied.
Hence, this petition.

ISSUE: Whether, as defined by the law and jurisprudence, respondent was psychologically
incapacitated to perform the essential martial obligations.

RULLING: The law invoked by petitioner, Article 45 (5) of the Family Code, refers to lack of
power to copulate. Incapacity to consummate denotes the permanent inability on the part of
the spouses to perform the complete act of sexual intercourse. The Court held that there had
been no evidence presented to establish that respondent was in any way physically incapable
to consummate his marriage with petitioner. Petitioner even admitted during her cross-
examination that she and respondent had sexual intercourse after their wedding and before
respondent left for abroad. As can be gleaned though from the evidence presented by
petitioner and the observations of the RTC and the Court of Appeals, it appeared that petitioner
was actually seeking the declaration of nullity of her marriage to respondent based on the
latter’s psychological incapacity to comply with his marital obligations of marriage under Article
36 of the Family Code and not Article 45 (5) of the Family Code.
Petitioner attributed the filling of the erroneous Complaint before the RTC to her former
counsel’s mistake or gross ignorance. But even said reason could not save petitioners Complaint
from dismissal. It is a settled doctrine that the client is bound by the acts, even mistakes, of the
counsel in the realm of procedural technique. Petitioner failed to convince the court that such
exceptional circumstances exist.

Assuming for the sake of argument that the court could treat the Complaint as one for
declaration of nullity based on Article 36 of the Family Code, the court will still dismiss the
Complaint for lack of merit, consistent with the evidence presented by petitioner during the
trial.

The evidence presented by petitioner was not enough to merit a favorable ruling. The
court further held that psychological incapacity must be more than just a difficulty, a refusal, or
neglect in the performance of some marital obligations. An unsatisfactory marriage is not a null
and void marriage.