G.R. No. 178741; January 17, 2011
ROSALINO L. MARABLE, Petitioner, vs. MYRNA F. MARABLE, Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Rosalino L. Marable and respondent Myrna F. Marable met in 1967, courted, eloped, and were married in civil rites on December 19, 1970, followed by a church wedding. Their marriage produced five children. Over the years, the marriage deteriorated, marked by frequent verbal and physical quarrels, exacerbated by issues concerning their children and failed business ventures. Petitioner felt unloved and unappreciated, developed an extramarital affair (which he ended), and eventually left the family home. He later converted to Islam. On October 8, 2001, petitioner filed a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage on the ground of his psychological incapacity. He alleged a difficult childhood, with a father who was a gambler and womanizer, which left him obsessed with attention. In support, he presented a Psychological Report by Dr. Nedy L. Tayag, who diagnosed him with “Antisocial Personality Disorder,” characterized by social deviancy, rebelliousness, impulsivity, self-centeredness, deceitfulness, and lack of remorse. Dr. Tayag concluded this disorder was grave, incurable, existed prior to the marriage, and rendered him psychologically incapacitated to perform marital obligations. The Regional Trial Court granted the petition and declared the marriage null and void. The Court of Appeals reversed this decision, holding that the circumstances and expert report were insufficient to establish psychological incapacity as defined by law and jurisprudence, as the root cause was not adequately explained or proven to be grave, incurable, and existing at the time of marriage.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the trial court’s decision, i.e., whether petitioner successfully proved his psychological incapacity to perform the essential obligations of marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code.

RULING

No, the Court of Appeals did not err. The Supreme Court affirmed the CA decision, declaring the marriage valid and subsisting. The Court held that petitioner failed to prove his psychological incapacity by clear and convincing evidence. The psychological evaluation, while diagnosing an antisocial personality disorder, did not sufficiently explain how the alleged root causes (feelings of rejection) translated into a grave, permanent incapacity to fulfill marital duties specifically. The expert’s conclusions were deemed general and descriptive, lacking a concrete demonstration of the required juridical antecedence, gravity, and incurability. The Court reiterated the guidelines in Republic v. Court of Appeals and Molina, emphasizing that the incapacity must be rooted in the party’s history prior to the marriage, medically or clinically identified, grave, and incurable. Petitioner’s actions (being a provider, ending an affair) and the marital problems described (quarrels, indifference) were more indicative of marital strife, incompatibility, or refusal to perform obligations rather than a psychological incapacity that nullifies the marriage from the beginning. The burden of proof rests on the petitioner, and it was not discharged.