G.R. No. 179620 ; August 26, 2008
MANUEL G. ALMELOR, petitioner, vs. THE HON. REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF LAS PIÑAS CITY, BRANCH 254, and LEONIDA T. ALMELOR, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Manuel Almelor and respondent Leonida Trinidad were married in 1989 and had three children. After eleven years, Leonida filed a petition to annul the marriage on the ground of Manuel’s psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code. Leonida testified that Manuel’s private behavior was a stark contrast to his public persona; he was a harsh disciplinarian, unreasonably meticulous, and easily angered at home. She further alleged his deep, unhealthy attachment to his mother and, critically, his concealed homosexuality, which she discovered through his intimate conduct with male companions and possession of homosexual materials. A clinical psychologist, Dr. Valentina del Fonso Garcia, evaluated the parties and concluded that Manuel’s incapacity was grave, antecedent, and incurable.
Manuel denied the allegations, asserting their marriage was generally harmonious. He attributed the conflict to professional rivalry, as his medical clinic competed with a hospital owned by Leonida’s family. He defended his relationship with his mother as filial piety and claimed Leonida’s jealousy led her to fabricate stories about his sexuality. While he intended to present a counter-expert, he failed to do so. The Regional Trial Court granted the petition for annulment. Manuel filed a petition for annulment of judgment with the Court of Appeals, which dismissed it outright as an improper remedy, prompting this appeal.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition for annulment of judgment and in effect affirming the RTC’s declaration of nullity based on psychological incapacity.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the lower courts’ decisions. The Court held that a petition for annulment of judgment under Rule 47 is a remedy only against a final and executory judgment, rendered by a court lacking jurisdiction or through extrinsic fraud, and cannot substitute for a lost appeal. Manuel’s failure to appeal the RTC decision within the reglementary period rendered it final; his subsequent Rule 47 petition was correctly dismissed as it did not allege lack of jurisdiction or extrinsic fraud but essentially sought a review of the RTC’s factual findings.
On the substantive issue, the Court found the RTC’s conclusion of psychological incapacity was supported by evidence. Leonida’s testimony, corroborated by expert psychological evaluation, established that Manuel’s condition—characterized by pathological narcissism, a severe mother fixation, and concealed homosexuality—was grave, rooted in his personality long before the marriage, and incurable, rendering him unable to fulfill essential marital obligations. His denial and unsubstantiated claims of professional rivalry did not overcome this evidence. The totality of proof satisfied the stringent guidelines for nullity under Article 36.