G.R. No. 176464 ; February 4, 2010
EDWARD N. LIM, Petitioner, vs. MA. CHERYL STA. CRUZ-LIM, Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Edward N. Lim and respondent Ma. Cheryl Sta. Cruz-Lim met in 1978, had a whirlwind courtship, and were married on December 8, 1979. They lived with the petitioner’s grandparents and parents in Forbes Park, Makati City, and had three children. Respondent insisted on living separately from petitioner’s family. On October 14, 1990, respondent filed a police complaint after allegedly catching petitioner in a compromising situation with a caregiver, an incident that was published in a tabloid. On the same day, respondent left petitioner, took their three children, and forcibly took items from their cabinet including petitioner’s passport and jewelry. She also filed criminal complaints for concubinage and physical injuries, which were dismissed. Respondent later filed an action for support. On October 29, 1999, petitioner filed a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage on the ground of respondent’s psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code. On July 22, 2002, he filed an amended petition alleging his own psychological incapacity as well. Petitioner presented evidence, primarily the Psychiatric Report of Dr. Cecilia C. Villegas, which concluded that petitioner suffered from Dependent Personality Disorder and respondent from Histrionic Personality Disorder, rendering both psychologically incapacitated to perform marital duties. Respondent waived her right to present evidence. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) declared the marriage null and void. The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) appealed. The Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the RTC and declared the marriage subsisting and valid. Hence, this petition.

ISSUE

Whether the marriage between petitioner and respondent is null and void on the ground of the parties’ psychological incapacity.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the Decision of the Court of Appeals. The marriage was declared subsisting and valid. The Court held that the petitioner failed to prove that the parties’ conditions constituted psychological incapacity as defined by law and jurisprudence. The Psychiatric Report, based on a maximum of seven hours of interview and unsupported by separate psychological tests, was insufficient. The expert’s conclusions were not adequately explained or rooted in the history of the parties antedating the marriage. The behaviors described (petitioner’s passivity and respondent’s tantrums and attention-seeking) did not rise to the level of grave, juridically antecedent, and incurable psychological incapacity required to nullify a marriage. The Court emphasized that the expert’s opinion does not bind the trial court and that the root causes of the alleged disorders were not clearly established as existing prior to the marriage.