GR 171557; (February, 2014) (Digest)
G.R. No. 171557 February 12, 2014
Republic of the Philippines, Petitioner, vs. Rodolfo O. De Gracia, Respondent.
FACTS
Rodolfo O. De Gracia and Natividad N. Rosalem were married on February 15, 1969. They had two children. Rodolfo filed a complaint for declaration of nullity of marriage, alleging Natividad was psychologically incapacitated to comply with her essential marital obligations. He testified they married due to an accidental pregnancy, he had no stable job, and when he joined the army, Natividad left their conjugal home, sold their house without consent, lived with another man (Engineer Terez) and bore his child, and later contracted a second marriage with Antonio Mondarez. Rodolfo was left to care for their children. Natividad failed to file an answer or appear at trial. Both parties underwent psychiatric evaluation by Dr. Cheryl T. Zalsos, who concluded both were psychologically incapacitated due to “utter emotional immaturity,” which existed at the time of marriage but manifested later. The Office of the Solicitor General opposed, contending Natividad’s acts were grounds for legal separation, not psychological incapacity. The Regional Trial Court declared the marriage void based on Dr. Zalsos’s findings. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC decision.
ISSUE
Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in sustaining the RTC’s finding of psychological incapacity to nullify the marriage.
RULING
The petition is meritorious. The Supreme Court reversed the decisions of the lower courts. Psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code must be a mental incapacity causing a party to be truly incognitive of the basic marital covenants, characterized by gravity, juridical antecedence, and incurability. The Court found insufficient factual or legal basis to equate Natividad’s emotional immaturity, irresponsibility, or sexual promiscuity with psychological incapacity. Dr. Zalsos’s psychiatric evaluation report was deficient: it failed to explain in detail how Natividad’s condition was grave, deeply-rooted, and incurable; did not disclose the psychological tests administered; failed to identify the root cause of her condition and show it existed at the time of marriage; and the finding of incurability was unsupported. Natividad’s refusal to live with Rodolfo, abandonment of duties, and infidelity do not rise to the level of psychological incapacity required to nullify a marriage. The evidence presented did not meet the stringent guidelines established in jurisprudence.