GR 166357; (January, 2015) (Digest)
G.R. No. 166357 , January 14, 2015
VALERIO E. KALAW, Petitioner, vs. MA. ELENA FERNANDEZ, Respondent.
FACTS
Petitioner Valerio E. Kalaw filed a complaint for the declaration of nullity of his marriage to respondent Ma. Elena Fernandez based on psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code. The trial court granted the petition, but the Court of Appeals reversed the decision. The Supreme Court, in a decision promulgated on September 19, 2011, initially affirmed the Court of Appeals, dismissing the complaint. The Court found that petitioner failed to prove respondent’s psychological incapacity. The conclusions of his expert witnesses were based on alleged behaviors of respondent—such as constant mahjong sessions, visits to the beauty parlor, going out with friends, adultery, and neglect of children—which were not sufficiently proven. Respondent refuted these allegations, and the children corroborated that she took care of them. The Court found no factual basis for psychological incapacity, noting the case involved acrimony and possibly infidelity, grounds for legal separation but not nullity. Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration.
ISSUE
Whether the Motion for Reconsideration should be granted, leading to a finding that the marriage is null and void due to psychological incapacity of one or both parties.
RULING
The Supreme Court granted the petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration. Upon assiduous review, the Court resolved to set aside its September 19, 2011 Decision and declared the marriage between Valerio E. Kalaw and Ma. Elena Fernandez null and void ab initio based on the psychological incapacity of both parties. The Court found that the totality of evidence established that respondent was psychologically incapacitated to perform her essential marital obligations, suffering from Narcissistic Personality Disorder that existed at the time of the marriage, grave, and incurable. The Court also found petitioner psychologically incapacitated, suffering from a mixed personality disorder with dependent and passive-aggressive features. The Court emphasized that psychological incapacity must be characterized by gravity, juridical antecedence, and incurability, and that the expert conclusions were based on proven facts and clinical evaluation, not merely on petitioner’s allegations. The Court noted that the constitutional policy to protect marriage does not include preserving void marriages.