PERSONS AND FAMILY LAW

Silvino Ligeralde vs May Ascencion Patalinghug

G.R. No. 168796 April 15, 2010

TOPIC: Psychological Incapacity

FACTS:
Silvino and May got married on October 3, 1984. They were blessed with four children. Silvino
claimed that, during their marriage, he observed that May had several manifestations of a negative
marital behavior. He described her as immature, irresponsible and carefree. Her infidelity,
negligence and nocturnal activities, he claimed, characterized their marital relations.
Sometime in September 1995, May arrived home at 4:00 o’clock in the morning. Her excuse was
that she had watched a video program in a neighboring town, but admitted later to have slept with
her Palestinian boyfriend in a hotel. Silvino tried to persuade her to be conscientious of her duties
as wife and mother. His pleas were ignored. His persuasions would often lead to altercations or
physical violence.

The couple started a new life. A few months after, however, he realized that their marriage was
hopeless. May was back again to her old ways. This was demonstrated when Silvino arrived home
one day and learned that she was nowhere to be found. He searched for her and found her in a
nearby apartment drinking beer with a male lover.

Later, May confessed that she had no more love for him. They then lived separately. Silvino
referred the matter to Dr. Tina Nicdao-Basilio for psychological evaluation. The psychologist
certified that May was psychologically incapacitated to perform her essential marital obligations;

On October 22, 1999, the RTC declared the marriage of Silvino and May null and void. Its findings
were based on the Psychological Evaluation Report of Dr. Tina Nicdao-Basilio. The Court of
Appeals reversed the RTC decision. It ruled that private respondent’s alleged sexual infidelity,
emotional immaturity and irresponsibility do not constitute psychological incapacity within the
contemplation of the Family Code

ISSUE:

Whether or not the private respondent is psychologically incapacitated to respond to comply with
the essential obligations of marriage.
RULING:

NO. The Court view that petitioner’s evidence failed to establish respondent May’s psychological
incapacity characterized by gravity, juridical antecedence and incurability. The facts of petitioner
were not sufficient to prove the root cause, gravity and incurability of private respondent’s
condition.

Petitioner's testimony did not prove the root cause, gravity and incurability of private respondent’s
condition. Even Dr. Nicdao-Basilio failed to show the root cause of her psychological incapacity.
The root cause of the psychological incapacity must be identified as a psychological illness, its
incapacitating nature fully explained and established by the totality of the evidence presented
during trial.

More importantly, the acts of private respondent do not even rise to the level of the "psychological
incapacity" that the law requires. Private respondent's act of living an adulterous life cannot
automatically be equated with a psychological disorder, especially when no specific evidence was
shown that promiscuity was a trait already existing at the inception of marriage. Petitioner must
be able to establish that respondent's unfaithfulness is a manifestation of a disordered personality,
which makes her completely unable to discharge the essential obligations of the marital state.