G.R. No. 214077 , August 10, 2016
Republic of the Philippines, Petitioner, vs. Danilo A. Pangasinan, Respondent.

FACTS

Danilo A. Pangasinan and Josephine P. Pangasinan contracted marriage civilly on December 29, 1981, followed by a church wedding on January 23, 1982, after a three-month courtship when Josephine became pregnant. They had three children. Their marriage was initially harmonious but was marred by arguments over money matters, especially when Danilo’s business slowed down, and allegations of his infidelity. A major conflict occurred in September 2007 when, four days after Josephine’s hysterectomy, Danilo left for a business trip. Upon his return, an argument ensued where Josephine demanded to see his bank passbook, leading Danilo to smash glass cups and Josephine to leave the conjugal home permanently. Josephine subsequently filed several cases against Danilo, including under the Anti-Violence against Women and Their Children Act and a petition for annulment (which she withdrew), and later an action for legal separation. After 30 years of marriage, Danilo filed a petition for the declaration of nullity of marriage on the ground of Josephine’s psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code. He alleged Josephine exhibited negative traits prior to marriage, such as being competitive, domineering, headstrong, having an exaggerated sense of self-importance and entitlement, and lacking empathy. He presented Dr. Natividad A. Dayan, a clinical psychologist, whose evaluation concluded both parties were psychologically incapacitated to fulfill their essential marital obligations. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) declared the marriage null and void, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals (CA). The Republic, through the Office of the Solicitor General, appealed.

ISSUE

Whether the totality of evidence presented warrants the declaration of nullity of Danilo and Josephine’s marriage based on psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court granted the petition and reversed the decisions of the lower courts. The Court held that Danilo failed to prove Josephine’s psychological incapacity in accordance with the guidelines in Republic v. Molina. The evidence did not establish that her alleged incapacity was medically or clinically identified, grave, incurable, and existing at the time of the marriage celebration. Dr. Dayan’s report, based largely on Danilo’s one-sided accounts and without a personal examination of Josephine, was insufficient to prove a psychological disorder that was the root cause of an incapacity to fulfill basic marital obligations. The behaviors described, such as being domineering, argumentative, and lacking empathy, did not constitute psychological incapacity but rather mere refusal or difficulty, which is not equivalent to incapacity. The fact that the marriage lasted for three decades and produced children further contradicted a finding of grave incapacity existing at inception. The Court also noted that the petition did not specifically allege Danilo’s own psychological incapacity, and a declaration of nullity based on the mutual incapacity of both parties is not contemplated under Article 36. The Compromise Agreement on property relations was upheld, but the clause on the cessation of mutual support obligations upon nullity was declared inoperative. The marriage between Danilo A. Pangasinan and Josephine P. Pangasinan remains valid and subsisting.