G.R. No. 228564, August 13, 2025
Milagrosa Villarey Kusk, Petitioner, vs. Torben Kusk and The Republic of the Philippines, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Milagrosa Villarey Kusk met respondent Torben Kusk, a Danish national, in 1992. They married in Denmark in November 1992. A day after the wedding, Torben, while drunk, boxed Milagrosa in the face. The couple moved to the Philippines in July 1993. Torben began frequenting bars, returning home late. On April 2, 1995, Torben arrived home drunk at 3 a.m. and slapped Milagrosa. She obtained a medical examination and reported the incident to the police. In September 1995, after learning of the complaint, Torben left and never returned. In 2007, Milagrosa discovered Torben was living with other women in the Philippines.
On December 11, 2009, Milagrosa filed a Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code. She presented a psychological report by Dr. Nedy Tayag, a clinical psychologist, who diagnosed Torben with passive-aggressive personality disorder with underlying antisocial personality disorder, and Milagrosa with narcissistic personality disorder. The report concluded these conditions existed before the marriage, were grave and incurable, and rendered them incapable of fulfilling marital obligations. Dr. Tayag based her evaluation solely on interviews with Milagrosa, as Torben did not participate in the proceedings.
The Regional Trial Court denied the petition, finding the evidence insufficient to prove Torben’s psychological incapacity was grave, incurable, and had juridical antecedence. It held the report merely concluded Torben was incompetent without showing a link between his violent, irresponsible behavior and a psychological disorder, and discredited the findings for being based solely on Milagrosa’s account. The Court of Appeals affirmed the denial, ruling that Torben’s irresponsibility and violence, while abnormal, did not per se constitute psychological incapacity absent a proven link to a psychological disorder existing prior to the marriage. It also noted Milagrosa’s primary motive for marriage appeared financial.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in affirming the denial of the petition for declaration of nullity of marriage, thereby upholding the finding that the psychological incapacity of respondent Torben Kusk under Article 36 of the Family Code was not sufficiently proven.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the Petition for Review on Certiorari and AFFIRMED the assailed Court of Appeals Decision. The Court held that the petitioner failed to substantiate the claim of psychological incapacity with clear and convincing evidence as required by Article 36 of the Family Code and jurisprudence.
The Court reiterated that psychological incapacity must be characterized by gravity, juridical antecedence, and incurability. It must be an enduring and integral part of a spouse’s personality that renders them incapable of performing the essential marital obligations of cohabitation, mutual support, love, respect, and fidelity. While a psychiatric report or evaluation of the allegedly incapacitated spouse is not indispensable, the totality of evidence must convincingly demonstrate the root cause, gravity, and incurable nature of the incapacity.
In this case, the evidence, primarily the psychological report, was insufficient. The report’s findings on Torben’s alleged personality disorders were based exclusively on information provided by Milagrosa, as Torben was never examined or interviewed. The Court found no clear and convincing evidence linking Torben’s acts of violence, irresponsibility, and abandonment to a psychological condition that existed at the time of the marriage and was grave and incurable. The behaviors described, though indicative of marital strife and neglect, were not proven to be manifestations of a psychological incapacity as defined by law. The petitioner’s evidence did not meet the required standard of proof to nullify the marriage.