AUGUST 18, 2010
FACTS:
Marital difficulties, which mostly is due to the respondent’s actions,
caused the petitioner to file a petition for declaration of nullity of her
marriage with the respondent alleging psychological incapacity to fulfill the
essential marital obligations under Article 36 of the Family Code.
Traversing the petition, respondent denied petitioner’s allegations that
he was psychologically incapacitated. Respondent maintained that he was not
remiss in performing his obligations to his family—both as a spouse to
petitioner and father to their children.
[Petitioner] presented several expert witnesses to show that [respondent]
is psychologically incapacitated. Clinical psychologist Dayan diagnosed [respondent]
as purportedly suffering from Mixed Personality Disorder (Schizoid Narcissistic
and Anti-Social Personality Disorder). Further, clinical psychologist Magno
found [respondent] to be suffering from an Antisocial Personality Disorder with
narcissistic and dependent features, while Dr. Villegas diagnosed [respondent]
to be suffering from Personality Disorder of the anti-social type, associated
with strong sense of Inadequacy especially along masculine strivings and
narcissistic features.
The RTC granted the petition and declared the marriage between the
parties null and void on the ground of their psychological incapacity.
The respondent appealed to the Court of Appeals. The appellate court
reversed the RTC decision and declared the parties’ marriage valid and
subsisting. CA rejected the testimonies of the two doctors on the ground that
they were not able to personally examine the respondent.
Issues:
1. Whether or not the Court of Appeals was correct when it
rejected the testimonies of Doctors Magno and Villegas.
2. Whther or not the marriage is
void.
Ruling:
Notwithstanding these telling assessments, the CA rejected, wholesale,
the testimonies of Doctors Magno and Villegas for being hearsay since they
never personally examined and interviewed the respondent. We do not agree with
the CA.
The lack of personal examination and interview of the respondent, or any
other person diagnosed with personality disorder, does not per se invalidate
the testimonies of the doctors. Neither do their findings automatically
constitute hearsay that would result in their exclusion as evidence.
For one, it is enough that the wife had testified against the husband's
behavior during the marriage. marriage, by its very definition, necessarily
involves only two persons. The totality of the behavior of one spouse during
the cohabitation and marriage is generally and genuinely witnessed mainly by
the other.
For another, the clinical psychologists’ and psychiatrist’s assessment
were not based solely on the narration or personal interview of the petitioner.
Other informants such as respondent’s own son, siblings and in-laws, and
sister-in-law (sister of petitioner), testified on their own observations of
respondent’s behavior and interactions with them, spanning the period of time they
knew him. These were also used as the basis of the doctors’ assessments. Within
their acknowledged field of expertise, doctors can diagnose the psychological
make up of a person based on a number of factors culled from various sources.
In the case at bar, however, even without the experts’ conclusions, the
factual antecedents (narrative of events) alleged in the petition and
established during trial, all point to the inevitable conclusion that
respondent is psychologically incapacitated to perform the essential marital
obligations.
The respondent’s pattern of behavior manifests an inability, nay, a
psychological incapacity to perform the essential marital obligations as shown
by his: (1) sporadic financial support; (2) extra-marital affairs; (3) substance
abuse; (4) failed business attempts; (5) unpaid money obligations; (6)
inability to keep a job that is not connected with the family businesses; and
(7) criminal charges of estafa. Therefore, the psychological incapacity of the
respondent established thus renders the marraige void.
No comments:
Post a Comment