GR 212717 Lazaro Javier (Digest)
G.R. No. 212717 , March 11, 2020
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, V. ARIEL S. CALINGO AND CYNTHIA MARCELLANA-CALINGO, RESPONDENTS.
FACTS
The case involves a petition for the declaration of nullity of marriage filed by Ariel S. Calingo against Cynthia Marcellana-Calingo on the ground of psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code. The trial court granted the petition, but the Court of Appeals reversed this decision. The Supreme Court’s majority opinion (ponencia) affirmed the reversal, denying the petition for nullity. In her dissenting opinion, Justice Lazaro-Javier argues that the marriage should be declared null and void. The dissent highlights that the psychological evaluation was conducted by Dr. Arnulfo V. Lopez, a clinical psychologist, who diagnosed Cynthia with a psychological disorder based on interviews with Ariel, Francisca A. Bilason, and Ruben Kalaw, and a review of the parties’ family background and behavior. Ariel testified to Cynthia’s quarrelsome and violent behavior, her sexual infidelity on multiple occasions (including bearing twins with another man and hiding a half-naked man under their bed), and their complete separation since 1984. The Court of Appeals had considered these factors, along with her “mabunganga” (extremely talkative/abusive) nature, as indications of a psychological disorder.
ISSUE
Whether the totality of evidence presented, including the expert psychological evaluation and the spouse’s testimony, sufficiently establishes Cynthia’s psychological incapacity to perform the essential marital obligations, warranting the declaration of nullity of the marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code.
RULING
The dissenting opinion argues that the evidence is sufficient to establish psychological incapacity. It contends that Dr. Lopez’s assessment was credible and based on substantial sources, including interviews with witnesses and consideration of verifiable facts. The dissent emphasizes that Ariel’s firsthand account of Cynthia’s behavior—being quarrelsome, violent, sexually unfaithful, and abusive—coupled with their 36-year separation, demonstrates the gravity and incurability of her condition. It criticizes the rigid application of the Molina guidelines, advocating for a case-to-case basis analysis. The dissent concludes that the marriage is irreparably dysfunctional and votes to dismiss the petition (filed by the Republic) and affirm the Court of Appeals’ original decision granting the nullity of marriage.