Carullo Padua v Padua
Facts:
Maria and Joselito were married in a civil ceremony on February 5, 1982 followed by a church wedding on December
18, 1982. The union produced a son born in 1986
In 1997, Maria filed a petition for declaration of absolute nullity of their marriage with the trial court anchored on Article
36 of the Family Code.
Maria alleged that at the time of the celebration of their marriage, Joselito was psychologically incapacitated to
perform his marital obligations.
During their cohabitation:
• Joselito exhibited excessive sexual desire and forced her to perform oral and anal sex with him
• Respondent attempted to sexually molest her sister, nieces and their household help who were staying with
them
• that Joselito misrepresented himself as a Roman Catholic when he was actually a born-again Christian and
when Maria refused to convert to Joselito's religion, he began insulting her religious beliefs
• And that at one point, at the heat of their quarrel, Joselito attempted to kill Maria by threatening to stab her
with a letter opener
Maria also alleged that:
• Joselito failed to provide financial support for her and their child
• that right after they got married, Joselito insisted that they stay in her parents' house so that he can give half
of his salary to his own parents;
• that they were dependent on Maria's parents for support
• And that Joselito never bothered to share in the household expenses while they were living at her parents'
house.
• Maria further claimed that when Joselito lost his job in 1985, he remained unemployed for six months until
she asked him to look for one.
Maria further averred:
• that in 1990, Joselito left for Italy to work without consulting her. While working abroad, Joselito stopped
sending financial support to her and their son after settling the huge debt he incurred here in the Philippines
• that Maria raised and supported their son all by herself. And later in 1992, Joselito sent a letter admitting to
his shortcomings on their marital relationship and making known of his decision to sever ties with her and
their son. And in 1997 when Joselito returned, he sought custody of their child who was under her care.
Maria concluded that there is sufficient basis to declare Joselito psychologically incapacitated to comply with his
essential marital obligations. Hence, Maria's marriage with Joselito should be declared null and void pursuant to
Article 36 of the Family Code.
Joselito did not file an answer, and he court ordered the public prosecutor to conduct an investigation to ensure that
no collusion existed between the parties.
After the public prosecutor determined that there was no collusion between the parties, trial proceeded in Joselito's
absence.
During trial, petitioner presented herself and psychiatrist Dr. Cecilia Villegas (Dr. Villegas) as witnesses.
Dr. Villegas testified that she diagnosed Joselito with a personality disorder of a sexual deviant or perversion based
on Maria's narrations.
That 1. Joselito's preference for anal and oral sex, as well as the molestations he committed against Maria's relatives
and housemaid, were manifestations of Joselito's perversion. 2. The root cause of Joselito's personality disorder is
traceable to his wretched childhood. 3. Inasmuch as Joselito spent his youth with a cruel father and a very protective
mother, the unbalanced relationship between Joselito's parents developed some emotional confusion on him.4. As a
result, Joselito's sexual development did not mature. Dr. Villegas added 5. that the psychological disorder of Joselito
is grave, serious and not clinically curable which rendered him psychologically incapacitated to perform his marital
obligations.
The RTC rendered a decision dismissing the petition for lack of merit and declared the marriage between Joselito and
Maria valid and subsisting. Upon appeal, the CA affirmed the decision of the RTC and ruled that the ground relied
upon by Maria are not sufficient, but at best valid grounds for legal separation under Article 55 of the Family Code.
Issue:
Whether the totality of evidence presented by Maria is sufficient to prove that Joselito is psychologically incapacitated
to perform his essential marital obligations, that would warrant the dissolution of his marriage with Maria.
Ruling:
No.
Article 36 of the Family Code reads:
ART. 36. A marriage contracted by any party who, at the time of the celebration, was psychologically incapacitated to
comply with the essential marital obligations of marriage, shall likewise be void even if such incapacity becomes
manifest only after its solemnization.
Republic v. Iyoy instructs that the psychological incapacity must be characterized by:
(a) Gravity - It must be grave or serious such that the party would be incapable of carrying out the ordinary duties
required in a marriage;
(b) Juridical Antecedence - It must be rooted in the history of the party antedating the marriage, although the overt
manifestations may emerge only after the marriage; and
(c) Incurability - It must be incurable or, even if it were otherwise, the cure would be beyond the means of the party
involved.
(Molina), provided the following guidelines in the interpretation and application of Article 36 of the Family Code.
However, with the recent promulgation of Tan-Andal v. Andal (Tan-Andal), We have modified the Molina guidelines to
prevent its stringent application in previous nullity cases which is antithetical to the way the concept of psychological
incapacity was created.
In Tan-Andal, the husband had a serious drug addiction who constantly failed to overcome his vices and went in and
out of a rehabilitation center. His drug addiction was so severe that he even smoked marijuana in the same room
where their daughter is. His drug addiction also drove his wife's construction company to bankruptcy as he took the
company's money to fund his drug addiction.
The physician-psychiatrist in Tan-Andal diagnosed the husband with narcissistic antisocial personality disorder and
substance abuse disorder with psychotic features based on the interviews of the wife, daughter, and sister-in-law of
the husband, and the husband's handwritten personal history which the latter made while he was in the rehabilitation
center.
In concluding that the husband was psychologically incapacitated, We used the following parameters (Tan-
Andal guidelines) in determining what constitutes psychological incapacity:
(1) The psychological incapacity must be shown to have been existing at the time of the celebration of marriage;
(2) Caused by a durable aspect of one's personality structure, one that was formed prior to their marriage;
(3) Caused by a genuinely serious psychic cause; and
(4) Proven by clear and convincing evidence
Similarly, juridical antecedence of psychological incapacity may be proven by ordinary witnesses who can
describe the incapacitated spouse's past experiences or environment while growing up which may have triggered
one's particular behavior.
At any rate, the gravity of psychological incapacity must be shown to have been caused by a genuinely serious
psychic cause. Thus, "mild characteriological peculiarities, mood changes, occasional emotional outbursts" are
still not accepted grounds that would warrant a finding of psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family
Code.
Tan-Andal also modified the requirement on incurability — that psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the
Family Code must now be incurable, not in the medical, but in the legal sense. That it is so enduring and persistent
with respect to a specific partner, and contemplates a situation where the couple's respective personality
structures are so incompatible and antagonistic that the only result of the union would be the inevitable and
irreparable breakdown of the marriage. "[A]n undeniable pattern of such persisting failure [to be a present loving,
faithful, respectful, and supportive spouse] must be established so as to demonstrate that there is indeed a
psychological anomaly or incongruity in the spouse relative to the other."
The personality evaluation report prepared by Dr. Villegas carried a finding that Joselito suffers from a sexual
deviant personality disorder or perversion. Notably, this was based solely on Maria's narrations. The psychiatric
examination on Maria and interview on her regarding Joselito's family background merely established that the
cause of Joselito's personality disorder is likely due to the contrasting parenting behavior of Joselito's father and
mother.
Moreover, psychological incapacity is now neither a mental incapacity nor a personality disorder that must be
proven by expert opinion, viz.:
[T]his Court now categorically abandons the second Molina guideline. Psychological incapacity is neither a
mental incapacity nor a personality disorder that must be proven through expert opinion. There must be
proof, however, of the durable or enduring aspects of a person's personality, called "personality
structure," which manifests itself through clear acts of dysfunctionality that undermines the family. The
spouse's personality structure must make it impossible for him or her to understand and, more important, to
comply with his or her essential marital obligations.
Proof of these aspects of personality need not be given by an expert. Ordinary witnesses who have been
present in the life of the spouses before the latter contracted marriage may testify on behaviors that they
have consistently observed from the supposedly incapacitated spouse. From there, the judge will decide if
these behaviors are indicative of a true and serious incapacity to assume the essential marital obligations.
Furthermore, there will be no need to label a person as having a mental disorder just to obtain a decree
of nullity.
Thus, as categorically declared by the Court, expert testimony or the testimony of a psychologist/psychiatrist is
no longer required to prove psychological incapacity. Ordinary witnesses who have been present in the spouses'
lives before they contracted marriage may testify on their observations as to the incapacitated spouse's behavior.
The psychiatrist's description of Joselito's parents' traits does not give this Court a deeper intuitive understanding of
Joselito's psychological state as it lack sufficient proof to prove that Joselito’s personality really is affected by the
contrasting treatment of his parents.
To emphasize, the testimonies of ordinary witnesses who have been present in the life of the spouses before the
latter contracted marriage should include behaviors that they have consistently observed from the supposedly
incapacitated spouse. Here, not only was there no interview or psychological test conducted upon Joselito, there
was nobody who testified on vital information regarding his personality structure, upbringing and childhood such as
members of his family, relatives, friends, and co-workers. The evaluation of Dr. Villegas on Joselito was based merely
on information, accounts and descriptions relayed solely by Maria which glaringly and expectedly are biased.
Maria should have presented witnesses who have been present in their lives before they contracted marriage and
who could very well testify on the respondent's behavior. As it stands, the evidence at hand is insufficient to prove
juridical antecedence.
In any case, it must be stressed that the determination of psychological incapacity is not overly reliant on a
psychological report, as long as the totality of evidence presented supports a finding of psychological incapacity.
Anent Dr. Villegas' statement that Joselito's preference for oral and anal sex is a grave and serious personality
disorder, We hereby reiterate our pronouncement in Molina that "mere showing of 'irreconcilable differences' and
'conflicting personalities' [as in the present case,] in no wise constitutes psychological incapacity." [
With regard to the other grounds relied upon by Maria in support of her petition for the declaration of nullity of her
marriage, i.e., sexual infidelity and abandonment, this Court agrees with the CA that said circumstances, assuming
that they were true, are grounds for legal separation under Article 55 of the Family Code and not for declaration of
nullity of marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code.
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DENIED for lack of merit. The August 28, 2006 Decision and November 14,
2011 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 80952 sustaining the validity of the marriage of Maria
Vicia Carullo-Padua with Joselito Padua are hereby AFFIRMED.
