G.R. No. 210780 . January 25, 2023.
EDWARD N. RIVO, PETITIONER, VS. DOLORES S. RIVO, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

Petitioner Edward N. Rivo and respondent Dolores S. Rivo were married in 1979. Petitioner filed a Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code, alleging respondent was psychologically incapable of assuming essential marital obligations. He claimed respondent prioritized work, neglected family time and hygiene, and was unfair to their children. Petitioner admitted to having two extra-marital affairs and siring children with another woman, abandoning his family in 1989. A clinical psychologist, Dr. Natividad Dayan, diagnosed petitioner with Narcissistic Personality Disorder and respondent with Compulsive Personality Disorder based on an interview with petitioner. Respondent denied the allegations, claiming she was a model wife, managed their joint grocery business, and had a normal sexual life until petitioner’s infidelity. She filed a concubinage case against him. A psychologist, Dr. Nimia Hermilia C. De Guzman, evaluated respondent and found her psychologically capacitated. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) granted the petition, declaring the marriage void ab initio, finding petitioner psychologically unfit. The Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the RTC, finding the evidence insufficient to establish psychological incapacity, noting infidelity and abandonment are grounds for legal separation, not necessarily psychological incapacity, and that petitioner’s infidelity stemmed from marital dissatisfaction rather than a psychological disorder.

ISSUE

Did the appellate court commit reversible error when it reversed the trial court’s decision granting the petition for declaration of nullity of petitioner’s marriage with respondent?

RULING

No. The Supreme Court denied the petition. Preliminarily, the petition lacked the requisite Verification and Certificate of Non-Forum Shopping, a ground for denial. On the merits, the Court applied the parameters from Tan-Andal v. Andal, which abandoned the requirement from Republic v. Molina that psychological incapacity must be a medically identified illness. Psychological incapacity must be shown to have existed at the time of the marriage, caused by a durable aspect of one’s personality structure formed prior to the marriage, caused by a genuinely serious psychic cause, and proven by clear and convincing evidence. The Court found petitioner failed to prove his psychological incapacity by clear and convincing evidence. His infidelity and abandonment were not shown to be manifestations of a psychological disorder existing at the time of the marriage but rather resulted from marital dissatisfaction. Expert opinion is not required, and the totality of evidence did not establish that petitioner’s personality structure made it impossible for him to understand and comply with his essential marital obligations from the beginning. The CA correctly reversed the RTC’s decision.