G.R. No. 250287 . July 20, 2022.
ZETH D. FOPALAN, PETITIONER, VS. NEIL F. FOPALAN, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

Petitioner Zeth D. Fopalan filed a petition for the declaration of nullity of her marriage to respondent Neil F. Fopalan. She alleged that prior to their marriage, respondent had a pattern of infidelity, having simultaneously dated multiple women. After their church wedding in 1995, respondent was allegedly psychologically incapacitated to fulfill his essential marital obligations. He was neglectful and hostile towards their son, who was later diagnosed with autism, refusing to bond with or care for the child. Furthermore, respondent was unfaithful throughout the marriage, engaging in multiple extramarital affairs. Despite petitioner’s efforts to preserve the marriage, respondent’s behavior persisted, leading to their separation.
The Regional Trial Court declared the marriage null and void on the ground of respondent’s psychological incapacity. The Court of Appeals reversed this decision, finding the totality of evidence insufficient to prove psychological incapacity. The appellate court held that the alleged acts of sexual infidelity, neglect, and immaturity did not constitute the grave, serious, and incurable condition required by law, noting that the psychologist’s report was based solely on petitioner’s narration as respondent was not examined.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the trial court’s decision and in ruling that respondent was not psychologically incapacitated to comply with his essential marital obligations.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision. The Court reiterated that psychological incapacity must be characterized by gravity, juridical antecedence, and incurability. It must be a serious mental condition existing at the time of the marriage celebration that completely disables a spouse from understanding and performing the basic marital obligations of cohabitation, mutual support, love, respect, and fidelity.
The Court found that the evidence presented, including the psychological report, failed to establish that respondent’s alleged personality traits and behaviors constituted psychological incapacity. The report was based on a single interview with the petitioner and collateral sources, without a personal examination of the respondent, thus lacking a conclusive diagnosis of his psychological condition. The cited acts of infidelity, irresponsibility, and emotional neglect, while indicative of marital strife and difficulty, were not shown to be manifestations of a grave psychological disorder rooted in his personality structure that existed at the inception of the marriage. Mere difficulty, refusal, or neglect in the performance of marital duties, or marital infidelity, by themselves, do not constitute psychological incapacity. The totality of evidence did not prove that respondent’s condition was incurable or that it deprived him of the capacity to understand the essential obligations of marriage.