Santos-Macabata vs. Macabata, G.R. No.
237524, decided
on April 6, 2022
Topic: Psychological Incapacity
Facts:
Bebery O. Santos-Macabata and Flaviano Macabata, Jr. met while working as
factory workers in Taiwan in October 1996. They began dating and got
married on June 19, 1997, after returning to the Philippines.
The couple had two children. Initially, their marriage was harmonious, but
tensions arose when Bebery became the primary breadwinner.
The couple frequently argued about Flaviano's unemployment, and he often
insulted Bebery by referencing her traumatic past. Additional conflicts arose
from Flaviano’s drinking, gambling, and alleged womanizing.
Due to financial difficulties, they moved in with Bebery's parents.
In February 2000, Flaviano found work as an entertainer in Japan. Bebery
was shocked to discover that he listed his civil status as "single" on his
passport, a claim he justified by saying it was common practice for male
entertainers.
Although he sent some money home, it was insufficient to support the
family. By June 2002, he ceased all communication and financial support.
After two years without contact, Bebery learned that Flaviano was living with
another woman and advised her to remarry. She later discovered that he had
been returning to the Philippines but was avoiding her.
On August 13, 2010, Bebery filed a petition for nullity of marriage, citing
Flaviano's psychological incapacity. She submitted a report from clinical
psychologist Dr. H. Nedy L. Tayag, who diagnosed Flaviano with antisocial
personality disorder, suggesting he lacked the capacity for marital
obligations.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) granted the petition and declared the
marriage null and void. However, the Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the
decision, stating that the evidence presented was insufficient to establish the
respondent’s psychological incapacity.
Issue:
Whether or not the CA erred when it reversed the Decision of the RTC and
issued a Decision finding that petitioner failed to provide sufficient evidence
that respondent is psychologically incapacitated to perform his marital
obligations.
Ruling:
The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' ruling, emphasizing that
Bebery did not meet the burden of proof required to establish psychological
incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code.
The court reiterated that psychological incapacity must be grave, rooted in
the party's history prior to marriage, and incurable. It found that the
evidence presented was insufficient to meet these criteria, particularly
noting that psychological incapacity must exist at the time of marriage and
not merely manifest in subsequent behavior.
Article 36 of the Family Code states that a marriage contracted by a party
who was psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential marital
obligations at the time of the celebration shall be void, even if such
incapacity becomes manifest only after the solemnization.
The Supreme Court has outlined the following characteristics of
psychological incapacity in Santos v. Court of Appeals [34]:
Gravity: The incapacity must be so grave or serious that the party is
incapable of carrying out the ordinary duties required in marriage.
Juridical Antecedence: The incapacity must be rooted in the history
of the party antedating the marriage, although its manifestations may
emerge only after the marriage.
Incurability: Even if the incapacity were curable, the cure would be
beyond the means of the party involved.
Ruling
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) granted the petitioner's petition, declaring the
marriage null and void ab initio based on the respondent's psychological
incapacity. The RTC relied on a report by clinical psychologist Dr. H. Nedy L.
Tayag, who diagnosed the respondent with antisocial personality disorder
stemming from his childhood.
The Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the RTC decision, finding that the
evidence presented was insufficient to establish the respondent's
psychological incapacity. The CA argued that Dr. Tayag's report failed to fully
explain the symptoms of the disorder and establish a link between the
respondent's actions and his alleged incapacity.
The Supreme Court upheld the CA's decision, stating that the petitioner
failed to meet the burden of proof required to establish the respondent's
psychological incapacity with clear and convincing evidence. The Court
emphasized the presumption of validity of marriage and the need for strong
evidence to overcome this presumption.
The Court also highlighted the need for a comprehensive assessment of
psychological incapacity, considering all aspects of the party's personality
structure and their ability to understand and fulfill their marital obligations.
The Court reiterated that psychological incapacity is not simply a mental
incapacity or a personality disorder, but rather a profound inability to
perform the essential duties of marriage.
h!1
Guidelines in the Interpretation and Application of Article 36 of the Family
CODE in Republic v. Court of Appeals and Molina:
(1) The first Molina guideline states that "[t]he burden of proof to show the nullity of the
marriage belongs to the plaintiff.
(2) The second Molina guideline which provides that "the root cause of the
psychological incapacity must be (a) medically or clinically identified, (b) alleged in the
complaint, (c) sufficiently proven by experts, and (d) clearly explained in the decision.
(3) The third Molina guideline entails that "incapacity must be proven to be existing at
'the time of the celebration of the marriage.
(4) The fourth Molina guideline which requires that "[s]uch incapacity must also be
shown to be medically or clinically permanent or incurable.
(5) The Tan-Andal case retains the fifth Molina guideline that requires that "[s]uch illness
must be grave enough to bring about the disability of the party to assume the essential
obligations of marriage"
(6) The sixth Molina guideline identifies the essential marital obligations to be the
obligations "embraced by Articles 68 up to 71 of the Family Code as regards the
husband and wife as well as Articles 220, 221 and 225 of the same Code in regard to
parents and their children. Such non-complied marital obligation(s) must also be stated
in the petition, proven by evidence and included in the text of the decision.
(7) The seventh Molina guideline which provides that the interpretations given by the
National Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal of the Catholic Church in the Philippines, while
not controlling or decisive, is persuasive.
(8) The eighth and final Molina guideline provides that "[t]he trial court must order the
prosecuting attorney or fiscal and the Solicitor General to appear as counsel for the
state. No decision shall be handed down unless the Solicitor General issues a
certification, which will be quoted in the decision, briefly stating therein his reasons for
his agreement or opposition, as the case may be, to the petition. The Solicitor General,
along with the prosecuting attorney, shall submit to the court such certification within
fifteen (15) days from the date the case is deemed submitted for resolution of the court.
The Solicitor General shall discharge the equivalent function of the defensor vinculi
contemplated under Canon 1095.
This Court commiserates with the parties who find themselves in an unsatisfactory
marriage, but the Court emphasizes that a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage
on the ground of psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code is limited
to cases where there is a downright incapacity or inability to assume and fulfill the basic
marital obligations, not a mere refusal, neglect or difficulty, much less, ill will, on the part
of the errant spouse.68 Expert opinion may be persuasive but, ultimately, the totality of
evidence must show that an adverse integral element in the personality structure of the
respondent effectively incapacitates him from accepting, and thereby complying with his
essential marital obligations,69 and such incapacity must be proven to exist prior to, or at
the time of celebration, of the marriage of the parties. Absent any such clear and
convincing evidence, the petition must be denied.
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DENIED. The June 16, 2017 Decision and the
November 16, 2017 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 100665 are
AFFIRMED. Accordingly, the petition for declaration of nullity of marriage filed under
Article 36 of the Family Code, as amended, is DISMISSED.
