In a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code, the petitioner alleges that between the spouses, one of them or even both are psychologically incapacitated.
Under our procedure, he who alleges must prove. Once proven, the trial court is justified, if so warranted, to declare that said marriage is in fact a nullity; as if it never took place at all.
But before such a pronouncement, the other party is given the opportunity to controvert the evidence presented against him and substantiate his defense. Then the trial court weighs the evidence of both sides. But what if after presenting evidence to prove psychological incapacity, the respondent moves to dismiss the case on the ground that such incapacity was not established? He thus opts not to present controverting evidence anymore. Can the court base on said motion dismiss the case?
We find the answer in Mary Christine C. Go-Yu vs. Romeo A. Yu (G.R. 230443 promulgated on 3 April 2019). In this case, the petitioner-wife filed for the nullity of her marriage to her respondent-husband. She alleged in her petition, among other things, that she was the one who is psychologically incapacitated.
In his answer, the husband said, among others, that his wife was not psychologically incapacitated; that her problem was behavioral having difficulty adjusting to married life. Trial ensued. The wife presented evidence on her behalf. She testified to substantiate her allegations and then presented her friend, secretary, and her expert witness, the psychiatrist. After the presentation of her evidence, the trial court gave the respondent the opportunity to present his evidence.
Instead of doing so, he filed a demurrer to evidence. It is a motion seeking the dismissal of the petition on the ground that there is no evidence presented by the petitioner to prove her psychological incapacity. The trial court, however, denied the respondent’s motion claiming that there was. Thus, he appealed the denial order to the Court of Appeals. The appellate court saw the justification in his argument and thus, reversed the trial court ruling. Consequently, it dismissed the petition. Aggrieved, the petitioner-wife sought refuge in the Supreme Court. She argued that the demurrer should not have been granted as she substantially built up her case.
So the Supreme Court declared: “In the present petition, this Court is confronted with the main issue of whether or not the CA correctly held that the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion when it denied herein respondent’s motion to dismiss on demurrer to evidence. Stated differently, this Court has to rule whether herein petitioner was able to produce sufficient evidence before the trial court to make out her Case or to sustain a verdict. In her petition filed before the RTC, the petitioner contends that her marriage to the respondent is null and void from the beginning because of her psychological incapacity.
However, the Court agrees with the CA that the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the respondent’s Demurrer to Evidence because the petitioner was unable to present sufficient evidence to show that she has the right to the relief she seeks… The psychological report in this case is wanting material facts, acceptable discussion, and analysis, to support the supposed expert opinion of the psychiatrist that one of the parties is suffering from a narcissistic personality disorder.
As ruled in Suazo v. Suazo case, the methodology employed simply cannot satisfy the required depth and comprehensiveness of examination required to evaluate a party alleged to be suffering from a psychological disorder. In short, this is not the psychological report that the Court can rely on as a basis for the conclusion that psychological incapacity exists. What makes matters worse is the fact that it is the herein petitioner Go-Yu herself who claims to be the person psychologically incapacitated to perform her marital obligations. Hence, whatever she had to say was inherently self-serving and should be held to the strictest standard of scrutiny. Towards this end, herein petitioner miserably failed.”
Here you see a case being dismissed based solely on the evidence presented by the petitioner. A demurrer helps the respondent nip things in the bud and saves him the trouble of having to present his own.
The facts and quotations are from the case above cited.