G.R. No. 167459; January 26, 2011
JOSE REYNALDO B. OCHOSA, Petitioner, vs. BONA J. ALANO and REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Jose Reynaldo B. Ochosa (Jose) and private respondent Bona J. Alano (Bona) were married on October 27, 1973. Jose was a military officer, and Bona was a 17-year-old college dropout at the time. Their marriage produced no biological children, but they adopted a daughter, Ramona, in 1976. During the marriage, Jose was often assigned to various posts, but Bona preferred to stay in her hometown of Basilan and rarely cohabited with him, except for a brief four-day stay on one occasion. In 1985, the family lived together at Fort Bonifacio. In 1987, Jose was incarcerated for rebellion charges. During the marriage, Bona engaged in multiple extramarital affairs, including with Jose’s driver, Corporal Gagarin, which she later admitted to Jose after he confronted her upon hearing rumors. Jose drove Bona away from their quarters, and she left with their daughter. In 1994, the daughter left Bona to live with Jose. Jose filed a Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati, alleging Bona’s psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code. Bona was served summons but failed to file a responsive pleading. The Public Prosecutor reported an inability to determine collusion as only Jose appeared. At trial, Jose and two military aides testified to Bona’s infidelity. A psychiatrist, Elizabeth E. Rondain, testified that Bona suffered from Histrionic Personality Disorder, characterized by excessive emotion and attention-seeking behavior, difficulty maintaining emotional intimacy, and marital infidelity. The psychiatrist traced this to Bona’s family history (her father was a gambler and womanizer, and her mother was a battered wife) and stated the condition was grave, antecedent, and incurable due to lack of insight. The RTC granted the petition, declaring the marriage void ab initio. The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) appealed. The Court of Appeals reversed the RTC, dismissing the petition for failure to prove psychological incapacity. Jose’s motion for reconsideration was denied, prompting this petition for review.

ISSUE

Whether or not Bona should be deemed psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential marital obligations, warranting the declaration of nullity of the marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the Decision of the Court of Appeals. The marriage between Jose and Bona remains valid and subsisting.
The Court held that the evidence presented failed to prove Bona’s psychological incapacity with the requisite gravity, antecedence, and incurability as defined in Santos v. Court of Appeals and clarified in Republic v. Court of Appeals (Molina). The testimony of the psychiatrist, while identifying a personality disorder, was insufficient. The Court found that the psychiatrist’s conclusions were primarily based on information provided by Jose and his witnesses, not on a personal examination of Bona. The evidence of Bona’s alleged infidelity and refusal to live with Jose, while indicative of marital strife, did not constitute psychological incapacity but rather difficulty, refusal, or neglect in the performance of marital obligations, which may be grounds for legal separation but not for nullity. The Court emphasized that psychological incapacity must be a serious psychological illness existing at the time of the marriage celebration, and the evidence did not convincingly establish that Bona’s condition, if any, was truly incurable or rooted in her psychological makeup prior to the marriage. The Court reiterated that the State has a strong interest in preserving marriage and that the burden of proof rests on the petitioner, which was not discharged in this case.