G.R. No. 222908, December 06, 2021
PATRICIA Q. AUSTRIA-CARREON, PETITIONER, VS. LUIS EMMANUEL G. CARREON AND REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

Petitioner Patricia Q. Austria-Carreon filed a Petition for Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Marriage against respondent Luis Emmanuel G. Carreon on February 29, 2008, under Article 36 of the Family Code, alleging mutual psychological incapacity. The parties married on October 22, 1994, after petitioner became pregnant. During cohabitation, respondent failed to provide voluntary financial support, was emotionally distant, and had extramarital affairs, leading to a separation in 2000. A brief reconciliation in 2001 failed due to lack of intimacy and lingering issues of infidelity. They finally separated in 2007 after petitioner discovered another affair. Petitioner presented a Psychological Evaluation Report by Dr. Julian R. Montano, who diagnosed petitioner with “Personality Disorder Not Otherwise Specified” demonstrative of Dependent and Depressive Personality Disorders, and respondent with Narcissistic Personality Disorder. Dr. Montano opined these disorders were serious, grave, incurable, and rooted in their upbringing, rendering them incapable of fulfilling essential marital obligations. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Bacoor, Cavite, declared the marriage null and void in a Decision dated November 8, 2010. The Republic, through the Office of the Solicitor General, appealed. The Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the RTC in a Decision dated August 27, 2014, finding no evidence that the alleged psychological incapacity was of a serious, incurable, and medical nature, and dismissed the petition. Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration was denied. Petitioner then filed a Petition for Review and Original Action for Certiorari with the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the RTC Decision and in finding that the petitioner failed to prove the psychological incapacity of the parties as required under Article 36 of the Family Code.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Decision of the Court of Appeals. The Court held that the petitioner failed to prove that the parties’ alleged psychological incapacity was grave, serious, incurable, and rooted in medical or psychological illness. The Court emphasized that psychological incapacity under Article 36 must be more than mere difficulty, refusal, or neglect in the performance of marital obligations. It must be a serious psychological illness that is incurable and existing at the time of the marriage celebration. The Court found that the evidence, including the psychological evaluation report, failed to establish that the parties’ conditions—characterized as personality disorders—were medically or clinically identified as serious enough to constitute psychological incapacity as defined by jurisprudence. The behaviors cited, such as respondent’s lack of financial support, infidelity, and emotional immaturity, and petitioner’s dependency and pessimism, were not shown to be manifestations of a psychological disorder that completely deprived them of the capacity to understand and fulfill the essential obligations of marriage. The Court reiterated the guidelines in Republic v. Molina and the recent case of Tan-Andal v. Andal, which require clear evidence of a debilitating psychological condition that is medically or clinically established. Consequently, the marriage between petitioner and respondent remains valid and subsisting.