G.R. No. 168328 – 545 Phil. 725 – 517 SCRA 123 – Civil Law – Persons and Family Relations – Family Code – Marriage – Void Marriages – Article 36; Psychological Incapacity – Joblessness and Irresponsibility is not Psychological Incapacity
When examination of the alleged psychologically incapacitated spouse is needed
In 1988, Laila Tanyag, then 19 years old, and Manolito San Jose, then 20 years old, got married to each other, albeit knowing each other for only a short period. The next year, they had a daughter.
Their marriage turned out to be not an ideal one, however. Manolito refused to get himself a job. He spent most of his available time with his friends drinking intoxicating substances and gambling activities. It was Laila who had to work in order to support the family. Laila gave Manolito all the chances to change but Manolito never did.
In 1997, Laila gave birth to their second child, a boy. Laila thought this would be the beginning of change for Manolito but that change never happened. Thus, in 1998, Laila filed a petition to have their marriage be declared a nullity on the ground that Manolito is psychologically incapacitated due to the fact that he was oblivious of his marital obligations.
Laila submitted herself to psychological evaluation under Dr. Nedy Tayag. Laila described Manolito to Tayag as a happy-go-lucky individual spending most of his time hanging out with friends. Considered to be a bad influence, he was into gambling, drinking sprees and prohibited drugs as well. Ultimately, Tayag concluded that Manolito is psychologically incapacitated – this was even without actually examining Manolito. The RTC denied Laila’s petition but on appeal, the Court of Appeals gave weight to Dr. Tayag’s expert testimony and the appellate court reversed the RTC decision.
ISSUE: Whether or not Manolito San Jose was proven to be psychologically incapacitated.
HELD: No. It is true that the guidelines set in the case of Republic vs Court of Appeals and Molina did not require that the person sought to be declared psychologically incapacitated should be personally examined by a physician or psychologist as a condition sine qua non to arrive at such declaration. In fact, if such incapacity can be proven by independent means, there is no reason why the same should not be credited. However, in this case, the findings, and ultimately the testimony in court, of Dr. Tayag is merely hearsay. The doctor had no personal knowledge of the facts he testified to, as these had merely been relayed to him by Laila. Tayag was working on pure suppositions and secondhand information fed to him by one side. Consequently, his testimony can be dismissed as unscientific and unreliable. This is more so because the questioned CA decision was solely grounded on Tayag’s expert testimony (which was merely based on the information fed to him by Laila) – there was no other independent evidence which will support a conclusion of psychological incapacity on the part of Manolito.
And based on Laila’s description of Manolito, which she gave to Tayag, Manolito’s alleged psychological incapacity was merely premised on his being jobless and a drug user, as well as his inability to support his family and his refusal or unwillingness to assume the essential obligations of marriage. Manolito’s state or condition or attitude has not been shown, however, to be a malady or disorder rooted on some incapacitating or debilitating psychological condition. Manolito merely has a “difficulty” if not outright “refusal” or “neglect” in the performance of some marital obligations – but not psychological incapacity.
Note: Compare this with Marcos vs Marcos, in that case, the spouse who was declared to be psychologically incapacitated was not personally evaluated by a psychologist. The difference however was that, said spouse refused to be examined. In this case, there was no showing that Manolito refused to be examined.
