G.R. No. 246933. March 06, 2023.
AGNES PADRIQUE GEORFO, PETITIONER, VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES AND JOE-AR JABIAN GEORFO, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

Petitioner Agnes Padrique Georfo and private respondent Joe-Ar Jabian Georfo married on February 23, 2002. Their relationship, which began four months prior, was allegedly pressured by Agnes’s family after they were presumed to have had sex. After marriage, they lived with Joe-Ar’s family, where Agnes claimed she was mistreated and ignored even when ill. The marriage was characterized by Joe-Ar’s bad temper, physical abuse towards Agnes whenever she came home late from work, infidelity (having relationships with several women and fathering two children with one of them), and failure to provide financial support. After eight years of separation, Agnes filed a Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity. During trial, clinical psychologist Dr. Andres Gerong testified, based on interviews with Agnes and her sister, that Joe-Ar exhibited Narcissistic Personality Disorder and dependent personality disorder, which were grave, serious, and incurable. Joe-Ar did not respond to requests for evaluation and did not present evidence. The Regional Trial Court granted the petition. The Office of the Solicitor General appealed, arguing the psychological report was based on biased, secondhand information and was insufficient to prove psychological incapacity. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court, dismissing the petition, finding that Agnes failed to establish Joe-Ar’s psychological incapacity under the guidelines in Republic v. Molina, particularly because Dr. Gerong did not personally examine Joe-Ar and his report did not adequately establish the root cause, juridical antecedence, gravity, and incurability of the condition.

ISSUE

Whether the marriage between Agnes Padrique Georfo and Joe-Ar Jabian Georfo is void on the ground of psychological incapacity. Subsumed under this issue is whether the totality of evidence presented by petitioner is sufficient to prove that private respondent is psychologically incapacitated to comply with his marital obligations.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court granted the Petition, reversing the Court of Appeals and reinstating the Regional Trial Court’s decision declaring the marriage null and void. The Court, applying the guidelines set forth in Tan-Andal v. Andal, held that psychological incapacity is a legal concept, not a medical one, and its existence is to be determined on a case-to-case basis. The totality of evidence presented—including Agnes’s testimony on Joe-Ar’s physical abuse, infidelity, financial neglect, and the expert opinion of Dr. Gerong identifying Joe-Ar’s narcissistic and dependent personality disorders as grave and incurable—sufficiently established Joe-Ar’s psychological incapacity to fulfill the essential marital obligations of mutual love, respect, and support. The Court clarified that a personal examination of the allegedly incapacitated spouse is not indispensable; an expert’s opinion based on collateral sources, such as interviews with the spouse and other witnesses, is admissible. Joe-Ar’s refusal to participate in the psychological evaluation and the trial proceedings further supported the finding of his incapacity and indifference to the marriage. The evidence demonstrated that his personality disorders were deeply rooted and manifested in a pattern of abusive and irresponsible behavior that existed at the time of the marriage and rendered him incapable of complying with his marital duties.