G.R. No. 164817 ; July 3, 2009
Digna A. Najera, Petitioner, vs. Eduardo J. Najera, Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Digna Najera filed a Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code, with an alternative prayer for legal separation. She alleged that respondent Eduardo Najera was psychologically incapacitated to fulfill marital obligations. The incapacity was purportedly evidenced by his joblessness and financial dependence at marriage, insufficient support during his seafaring work, habitual jealousy, marijuana use, drunkenness, and a violent incident on July 3, 1994, where he attacked her with a bolo, causing injuries. After this, he abandoned the conjugal home. Respondent denied the allegations and counterclaimed that petitioner was immature and unfaithful.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) granted the alternative plea for legal separation but denied the petition for nullity. It found the acts proven—such as violence, drug use, and abandonment—constituted grounds for legal separation under Article 55 of the Family Code. However, it ruled that these behaviors, while indicative of difficulty, conflict, and even abuse, did not meet the stringent jurisprudential standards for psychological incapacity as a ground for nullity. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the RTC’s decision which declared the marriage valid but granted legal separation instead of nullity under Article 36.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the assailed judgments. The legal logic is clear: the grounds for legal separation and the cause for declaring a marriage void ab initio under Article 36 are distinct and require different levels of proof. Psychological incapacity under Article 36 refers to a serious psychological illness existing at the time of the marriage that is grave, incurable, and completely prevents a spouse from fulfilling essential marital obligations. The Court, applying the guidelines in Republic v. Court of Appeals and Molina, found that respondent’s problematic behavior—though constituting repeated physical violence, drug use, and abandonment—was not proven to be a manifestation of a psychological disorder that was juridically antecedent, grave, and incurable. The expert testimony presented did not convincingly establish that his condition was rooted in his psychological makeup at the time of the wedding. Consequently, the acts were properly classified as grounds for legal separation under Article 55, which deals with post-marriage faults and violations that make continued cohabitation intolerable, but do not retroactively invalidate the marriage itself. The Court thus upheld the grant of legal separation, which dissolves the conjugal partnership but does not affect the marital bond, as the correct remedy based on the evidence presented.