You know what, it is not a quick slide-through to have a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage granted. Just when you might think it is de kahon or stereotype, it is not. You do not just perfunctorily present the petitioner and an expert witness to testify that the marriage did not work out because one of the spouses is psychologically incapacitated. To convince the court that someone is psychologically incapacitated is like going through the eye of a needle. The Supreme Court has laid down exacting and rigorous standards to be adhered to before courts finally say that the marital bond does not exist.
A husband filed a petition for the nullity of his marriage to his wife on the ground of his psychological incapacity. He testified on circumstances that supposedly proved his incapacity. To bolster his claim, he presented an expert, a psychiatrist, who testified on his type of psychological incapacity. The trial court, finding the quantum of evidence necessary to have been present, granted the petition. The Office of the Solicitor-General was in disagreement. It appealed to the Court of Appeals. The appellate court, however, gave its nod, not to the OSG but to the husband. It affirmed the trial court’s decision finding him psychologically incapacitated.
Still dissatisfied, the OSG now sought the intervention of the Highest Court. And when the Supreme Court looked into the facts and circumstances of the case, it gave the green light to the OSG’s petition.
It ruled that “jurisprudence requires that psychological incapacity should refer to no less than a mental — not merely physical — incapacity that causes one to be truly incognitive of the basic marital covenants that concomitantly must be assumed and discharged by the parties to the marriage. It should refer to the most serious cases of personality disorders which are so grave and permanent that clearly deprive a party of awareness of the duties and responsibilities one assumes when getting married.”
Measured under the above-mentioned standards and guidelines, we find the evidence presented before the lower court insufficient to prove the respondent’s supposed psychological incapacity. The trial court’s complete reliance on the Judicial Affidavit of the respondent and the psychological examination conducted by Dr. Del Rosario on him to establish psychological incapacity is not enough to hurdle the burden of proof required in the dissolution and declaration of nullity of marriage.
As keenly observed by the petitioner, the trial court’s ruling is a mere summary of the allegations, testimonies and pieces of evidence presented by the respondent. The RTC did not make its own factual findings. There was no actual assessment of the allegations made, witnesses presented and evidence offered that will serve as a basis for its legal conclusion of psychological incapacity. The trial court relied heavily on the findings and conclusions made by Dr. Del Rosario about the respondent’s psychological incapacity.
However, these observations and conclusions are not comprehensive enough to support the conclusion that a psychological incapacity existed and prevented the respondent from complying with the essential obligations of marriage. There was no identification of the root cause of the respondent’s Passive-aggressive Personality Disorder with Narcissistic Traits and that it existed at the commencement of the marriage. There was also no discussion on the incapacitating nature of the supposed disorder and how it affected the capacity of the respondent in fulfilling his matrimonial duties due to some illness that is psychological in nature.
“Clearly, the combined testimonies of the respondent and Dr. Del Rosario which became the basis of the trial court in concluding psychological incapacity do not sufficiently prove the root cause, gravity, and incurability of the alleged condition of the respondent. To support a petitioner for the severance of marital tie, it is not enough to show that a party alleged to be psychologically incapacitated had difficulty in complying with his marital obligations or was unwilling to perform these obligations. It is indispensable for the party moving for the dissolution of marriage to present proof of a natal or supervening disabling factor that effectively incapacitated him or her from complying with his or her essential marital obligations. No such proof was presented in this case.”
See how high the bar is. It requires a lot of evidence, factual and technical, to persuade the court. Only after the standards are met, can the court give its yes.
The facts and quoted provisions are from Republic of the Philippines vs. John Arnel H. Amata (G. R. 212971 promulgated on 29 November 2022).