G.R. No. 192718 , February 18, 2015
ROBERT F. MALLILIN, Petitioner, v. LUZ G. JAMESOLAMIN and the REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Robert F. Mallilin and private respondent Luz G. Jamesolamin were married on September 6, 1972, and had three children. On March 16, 1994, Robert filed a complaint for declaration of nullity of marriage before the RTC, alleging that at the time of the marriage celebration, Luz was suffering from psychological and mental incapacity and unpreparedness to enter into marital life and comply with its essential obligations. He claimed this incapacity manifested during the marriage through Luz’s immaturity, irresponsibility, lack of independent rational judgment, and inability to cope with parental obligations. Specific allegations included: Luz continued seeing another boyfriend during their engagement; she was remiss in wifely and motherly duties (Robert cleaned, her mother cooked, her sister washed clothes and cared for children); she dated different men while resuming studies; he received anonymous letters about her loitering with male students; she received male visitors in his absence; a certain Romy Padua slept in their house when he was away; and she contracted loans without his knowledge. Luz filed an Answer contesting the complaint but did not appear at trial. Robert presented his own testimony and that of a Guidance Psychologist II. While the case was pending, Robert also filed a petition for marriage annulment with the Metropolitan Tribunal of the Archdiocese of Manila, which declared the marriage invalid ab initio on the ground of grave lack of due discretion, a decision affirmed by the National Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal (NAMT). The RTC initially denied the petition, but the CA remanded the case due to lack of state participation. Upon remand, the RTC (Branch 37) declared the marriage null and void on the ground of Luz’s psychological incapacity. The State, through the OSG, appealed to the CA, which reversed the RTC decision. The CA found the evidence insufficient to prove psychological incapacity, characterizing Luz’s actions as mere sexual infidelity and refusal to assume obligations, not rooted in a debilitating psychological condition. Robert’s motion for reconsideration was denied.

ISSUE

Whether the totality of evidence adduced proves that respondent Luz was psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential obligations of marriage, warranting the declaration of nullity under Article 36 of the Family Code.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals. The Court held that petitioner Robert failed to adduce sufficient and convincing evidence to prove that Luz was psychologically incapacitated at the time of the marriage celebration. The allegations and evidence presented, primarily concerning Luz’s sexual infidelity and neglect of domestic duties, constituted grounds for legal separation, not nullity. The Court emphasized that psychological incapacity under Article 36 must be a mental incapacity existing at the time of the marriage that renders a party truly incognitive of the basic marital covenants. The evidence failed to establish that Luz’s behavior was caused by a psychological illness existing at the inception of the marriage. The findings of the Metropolitan Tribunal and NAMT were accorded only persuasive value and were not controlling, as the canonical ground of “grave lack of due discretion” is not identical to the civil law concept of psychological incapacity. The Court also noted indications of possible collusion between the parties, such as Luz’s retraction of her testimony and waiver of custody. The denial was without prejudice to the filing of an action for legal separation.