Psychological Incapacity

7/21/2019 Psychological Incapacity

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/psychological-incapacity-56db92b2c1f0e 1/13

Since The New Rules OnDeclaration of Absolute Nullity

Of Void Marriages AndAnnulment of VoidableMarriages Do Not Require thePetition To Allege !"ert

O"inion On The Psychological#nca"acity$ #t %ollows That There#s Also No Need To Allege #n ThePetition The Root &ause Of ThePsychological #nca"acity'

The &ase(

Tadeo first filed a Petition for Annulment of Marriage against his wife,

Diana (Civil Case No. Q-9-!"##$ %efore the &TC of Que'on Cit.

)u%se*uentl, however, he filed a Motion to +ithdraw the ase, whih

the trial ourt granted. n ul !/, /99, Tadeo filed anew a Petition for

Annulment of Marriage (second petition$ %efore the Que'on Cit &TC

(Civil Case No. Q-9-!##0/$. This Diana o11osed, filing her Motion to

Dismiss the seond 1etition, and setting forth two grounds for its

dismissal2 3irst, it fails to state a ause of ation4 )eond, it violates

)u1reme Court Administrative Cirular No. 5#-9# (6Cirular No. 5#-9#7$

on forum sho11ing. Tadeo o11osed the motion. The trial ourt deferred



resolution of the Motion to Dismiss until the 1arties ventilated their

arguments in hearing. Diana moved to reonsider. Thru Pairing udge

&osalina Pison, however, the trial ourt denied the motion for

reonsideration, holding that when the ground for dismissal is theom1laint8s failure to state a ause of ation, the trial ourt determines

suh fat solel from the 1etition itself. udge Pison held that ontrar to

1etitioner Diana8s laim, a 1erusal of the allegations in the 1etition shows

that 1etitioner Diana has violated res1ondent Tadeo8s right, thus giving

rise to a ause of ation. No forum sho11ing also eisted, as the first

1etition had %een earlier dismissed without 1re:udie. Diana elevated to

the CA the denial of her motion for reonsideration, %ut the Court of A11eals denied it. ;ene, Diana sought reourse with the )u1reme

Court. )he argues that the ase should %e dismissed as it fails to state

a ause of ation. &eling on the Molina and Santos rulings, she 1osits

that the seond 1etition falls short of the guidelines set forth

in Santos and Molina. )1eifiall, she ontends that the seond

1etition is defetive %eause it fails to allege the root ause of the

alleged 1shologial ina1ait. The seond 1etition also fails to state

that the alleged 1shologial ina1ait eisted from the ele%ration of

the marriage and that it is 1ermanent or inura%le. 3urther, the seond

1etition is devoid of an referene of the grave nature of the illness to

%ring a%out the disa%ilit of the 1etitioner to assume the essential

o%ligations of marriage. <astl, the seond 1etition did not even state

the marital o%ligations whih 1etitioner Diana allegedl failed to om1l

due to 1shologial ina1ait.

The Ruling(

The 1etition has no merit.

Sufficiency of Cause of Action



Petitioner Diana8s ontention that the seond 1etition fails to state a

ause of ation is untena%le. A ause of ation is an at or omission of

the defendant in violation of the legal right of the 1laintiff.1 A om1laint

states a ause of ation when it ontains three essential elements2 (/$ aright in favor of the 1laintiff % whatever means and under whatever law

it arises4 (!$ an o%ligation of the defendant to res1et suh right4 and ("$

the at or omission of the defendant violates the right of the 1laintiff. 2

+e find the seond 1etition suffiientl alleges a ause of ation. The

1etition sought the delaration of nullit of the marriage %ased on Artile

"= of the 3amil Code.3 The 1etition alleged that res1ondent Tadeo and

1etitioner Diana were legall married at the ;ol Cross Parish after awhirlwind ourtshi1 as shown % the marriage ontrat attahed to the

1etition. The ou1le esta%lished their residene in Que'on Cit. The

union %egot five hildren, Ana Maria, %orn on > Novem%er /9=#4 ?sa%el,

%orn on !> to%er /9=>4 @rnesto Tadeo, %orn on "/ Marh /9054

&egina &ahelle %orn on 0 Marh /90#4 and Cristina Maria %orn in

3e%ruar /90>. The 1etition further alleged that 1etitioner Diana was

1shologiall ina1aitated at the time of the ele%ration of their

marriage to om1l with the essential o%ligations of marriage and suh

ina1ait su%sists u1 to the 1resent time. The 1etition alleged the non-

om1lied marital o%ligations in this manner2

/.

/. During their marriage, the had fre*uent *uarrels due to their

varied u1%ringing. &es1ondent, oming from a rih famil, was a

disorgani'ed houseee1er and was fre*uentl out of the house.

)he would go to her sister8s house or would 1la tennis the whole

da.

!. +hen the famil had risis due to several misarriages suffered %

res1ondent and the siness of a hild, res1ondent withdrew to

herself and eventuall refused to s1ea to her hus%and.



". n Novem%er /900, the res1ondent, who was five months

1regnant with Cristina Maria and on the 1retet of re-evaluating her

feelings with 1etitioner, re*uested the latter to tem1oraril leave

their on:ugal dwelling. )he further insisted that she wanted to feela little freedom from 1etitioner8s marital authorit and influenes.

The 1etitioner argued that he ould ou1 another room in their

on:ugal dwelling to aommodate res1ondent8s desire, %ut no

amount of 1lea and e1lanation ould dissuade her from

demanding that the 1etitioner leave their on:ugal dwelling.

#. ?n his desire to ee1 1eae in the famil and to safeguard the

res1ondent8s 1regnan, the 1etitioner was om1elled to leavetheir on:ugal dwelling and reside in a ondominium loated in

Breenhills.

. This se1aration resulted in om1lete estrangement %etween the

1etitioner and the res1ondent. The 1etitioner waived his right to

the on:ugal dwelling in res1ondent8s favor through an etra:udiial

dissolution of their on:ugal 1artnershi1 of gains. The se1aration in

fat %etween the 1etitioner and the res1ondent still su%sists to the

1resent time.

=. The 1arties liewise agreed on the ustod and su11ort of the

hildren. The etra:udiial dissolution of on:ugal 1artnershi1 of

gains is hereto attahed as Anne 6C7 and taen as an integral 1art

hereof.

0. The res1ondent at the time of the ele%ration of their marriage was

1shologiall ina1aitated to om1l with the essential

o%ligation of marriage and suh ina1ait su%sisted u1 to and until

the 1resent time. )uh ina1ait was onlusivel found in the

1shologial eamination onduted on the relationshi1 %etween

the 1etitioner and the res1ondent.



>. nder Artile "= of the 3amil Code, the marriage %etween the

1etitioner and the res1ondent is void a% initio and needs to %e

annulled. This 1etition is in aordane with Artile "9 thereof.

9. .4

The seond 1etition states the ultimate fats on whih res1ondent %ases

his laim in aordane with )etion /, &ule > of the old &ules of

Court.5 ltimate fats refer to the 1rini1al, determinative, onstitutive

fats u1on the eistene of whih the ause of ation rests. The term

does not refer to details of 1ro%ative matter or 1artiulars of evidene

whih esta%lish the material elements.6

Petitioner Diana relies mainl7

on the rulings in Santos v. Court of Appeals8 as well as in Repulic v. Court of Appeals and

Molina.! Santos gave life to the 1hrase 61shologial ina1ait,7 a

novel 1rovision in the 3amil Code, % defining the term in this wise2

61shologial ina1ait7 should refer to no less than mental (not

1hsial$ ina1ait that auses a 1art to %e trul inognitive of the

%asi marital ovenants that onomitantl must %e assumed and

disharged % the 1arties to the marriage whih, as so e1ressed %

Artile => of the 3amil Code, inlude their mutual o%ligations to live

together, o%serve love, res1et and fidelit and render hel1 and su11ort.

There is hardl an dou%t that the intendment of the law has %een to

onfine the meaning of 61shologial ina1ait7 to the most serious

ases of 1ersonalit disorders learl demonstrative of an utter

insensitivit or ina%ilit to give meaning and signifiane to the marriage.

This 1shologi ondition must eist at the time the marriage is

ele%rated. .

Molina additionall 1rovided 1roedural guidelines to assist the ourts

and the 1arties in ases for annulment of marriages grounded on

1shologial ina1ait.1"



Petitioner Diana argues that the seond 1etition falls short of the

guidelines set forth in Santos andMolina. )1eifiall, she ontends

that the seond 1etition is defetive %eause it fails to allege the root

ause of the alleged 1shologial ina1ait. The seond 1etition alsofails to state that the alleged 1shologial ina1ait eisted from the

ele%ration of the marriage and that it is 1ermanent or inura%le.

3urther, the seond 1etition is devoid of an referene of the grave

nature of the illness to %ring a%out the disa%ilit of the 1etitioner to

assume the essential o%ligations of marriage. <astl, the seond 1etition

did not even state the marital o%ligations whih 1etitioner Diana allegedl

failed to om1l due to 1shologial ina1ait.

)u%se*uent to Santos and Molina, the Court ado1ted the new &ules on

Delaration of A%solute Nullit of oid Marriages and Annulment of

oida%le Marriages (6new &ules7$11. )1eifiall, )etion !, 1aragra1h (d$

of the new &ules 1rovides2

)@C. !. Petition for delaration of a%solute nullit of void marriages E

.

(d$ What to allege. E A 1etition under Artile "= of the 3amil Code shall

s1eifiall allege the om1lete fats showing that either or %oth 1arties

were 1shologiall ina1aitated from om1ling with the essential

marital o%ligations of marriage at the time of the ele%ration of marriage

even if suh ina1ait %eomes manifest onl after its ele%ration.

The com"lete facts should allege the "hysical manifestations$ if

any$ as are indicati)e of "sychological inca"acity at the time of the

celebration of the marriage but e!"ert o"inion need not be alleged .

(@m1hasis su11lied$



Proedural rules a11l to ations 1ending and unresolved at the time of

their 1assage.12 The o%vious effet of the new &ules 1roviding

that #e$pert opinion need not e alle%ed& in the 1etition is that there is

also no need to allege the root ause of the 1shologial ina1ait.nl e1erts in the fields of neurologial and %ehavioral sienes are

om1etent to determine the root ause of 1shologial ina1ait. )ine

the new &ules do not re*uire the 1etition to allege e1ert o1inion on the

1shologial ina1ait, it follows that there is also no need to allege in

the 1etition the root ause of the 1shologial ina1ait.

)iene ontinues to e1lore, eamine and e1lain how our %rains wor,

res1ond to and ontrol the human %od. )ientists still do not understandeverthing there is to now a%out the root auses of 1shologial

disorders. The root auses of man 1shologial disorders are still

unnown to siene even as their outward, 1hsial manifestations are

evident. ;ene, what the new &ules re*uire the 1etition to allege are the

1hsial manifestations indiative of 1shologial ina1ait.

&es1ondent Tadeo8s seond 1etition om1lies with this re*uirement.

The seond 1etition states a ause of ation sine it states the legal right

of res1ondent Tadeo, the orrelative o%ligation of 1etitioner Diana, and

the at or omission of 1etitioner Diana in violation of the legal right.

?n Dulay v. Court of Appeals,13 the Court held2

?n determining whether the allegations of a om1laint are suffiient to

su11ort a ause of ation, it must %e %orne in mind that the om1laint

does not have to esta%lish or allege the fats 1roving the eistene of a

ause of ation at the outset4 this will have to %e done at the trial on the

merits of the ase (Del Fros ;otel Cor1oration v. CA, su1ra$. ?f the

allegations in a om1laint an furnish a suffiient %asis % whih the

om1laint an %e maintained, the same should not %e dismissed

regardless of the defenses that ma %e assessed % the defendants



(&ava Dev8t Cor1. v. CA, !// )C&A /! G/99!H iting Consolidated Fan

I Trust Cor1oration v. Court of A11eals, /90 )C&A ==" G/99/H$. To

sustain a motion to dismiss for lac* of cause of action$ the

com"laint must show that the claim for relief does not e!ist ratherthan that a claim has been defecti)ely stated or is ambiguous$

indefinite or uncertain (A'ur v. Provinial Foard, !0 )C&A 5 G/9=9H$.

. (@m1hasis su11lied$

A defendant moving to dismiss a om1laint on the ground of la of

ause of ation h1othetiall admits all the fatual averments in the

om1laint.14 Biven the h1othetiall admitted fats in the seond

1etition, the trial ourt ould render :udgment over the ase.

'oru( S)oppin%

)imilarl untena%le is 1etitioner Diana8s ontention that the seond

1etition8s ertifiate of non-forum sho11ing whih does not mention the

filing of the first 1etition and its dismissal without 1re:udie violates

Cirular No. 5#-9#.15 Petitioner Diana refers to this 1ortion of Cirular No.

5#-9#-

/. The 1laintiff, 1etitioner, a11liant or 1rini1al 1art seeing relief in

the om1laint, 1etition, a11liation or other initiator 1leading shall

ertif under oath in suh original 1leading, or in a sworn

ertifiation anneed thereto and simultaneousl filed therewith, to

the truth of the following fats and undertaings2 (a$ he has not

theretofore commenced any other action or "roceeding

in)ol)ing the same issues in the Su"reme court$ the &ourt of

A""eals$ or any other tribunal or agency4 (%$ to the %est of his

nowledge, no ation or 1roeeding is 1ending in the )u1reme

Court, the Court of A11eals, or an other tri%unal or agen4 ($ if

there is any such action or "roceeding which is either "ending



or may ha)e been terminated$ he must state the status thereof 4

and (d$ if he should thereafter learn that a similar ation or

1roeeding has %een filed or is 1ending %efore the )u1reme Court,

the Court of A11eals, or an other tri%unal or agen, heundertaes to re1ort that fat within five ($ das therefrom to the

ourt or agen wherein the original 1leading and sworn

ertifiation ontem1lated herein have %een filed.16

Petitioner Diana 1oints out that res1ondent Tadeo did not dislose in his

ertifiate of non-forum sho11ing that he had 1reviousl ommened a

similar ation %ased on the same grounds with the same 1raer for

relief. The ertifiate of non-forum sho11ing should have stated the fatof termination of the first 1etition or its status.

The Court has onsistentl held that a ertifiate of non-forum sho11ing

not attahed to the 1etition or one %elatedl filed or one signed %

ounsel and not the 1art himself onstitutes a violation of the

re*uirement. )uh violation an result in the dismissal of the om1laint

or 1etition. ;owever, the Court has also 1reviousl held that the rule of

sustantial co(pliance applies to t)e contents of t)e certification.17

?n Ro$as v. Court of Appeals,18 the Court s*uarel addressed the issue

of whether the omission of a statement on the 1rior filing and dismissal

of a ase involving the same 1arties and issues merits dismissal of the

1etition. ?n Ro$as, the Court ruled2

an omission in the ertifiate of non-forum sho11ing a%out an event

that would not onstitute res judicata and litis pendentia as in the ase at

%ar, is not fatal as to merit the dismissal and nullifiation of the entire

1roeedings onsidering that the evils sought to %e 1revented % the

said ertifiate are not 1resent. ?t is in this light that we ruled

in Maricalum Mining Corp. v. National Labor Relations Commissionthat a

li%eral inter1retation of )u1reme Court Cirular No. 5#-9# on non-forum



sho11ing would %e more in ee1ing with the o%:etives of 1roedural

rules whih is to 6seure a :ust, s1eed and ine1ensive dis1osition of

ever ation and 1roeeding.7

The dismissal of the first 1etition 1reluded the eventualit of litis

pendentia. The first 1etition8s dismissal did not also amount to res

judicata. Thus, there is no need to state in the ertifiate of non-forum

sho11ing in the seond 1etition (Civil Case No. Q-9-!##0/$ a%out the

1rior filing and dismissal of the first 1etition (Civil Case No. Q-9-!"##$.

The first 1etition was dismissed without 1re:udie at the instane of

res1ondent Tadeo to ee1 the 1eae %etween him and his grown u1

hildren. The dismissal ha11ened %efore servie of answer or an

res1onsive 1leading. Clearl, there is no litis pendentia sine res1ondent

Tadeo had alread withdrawn and aused the dismissal of the first

1etition when he su%se*uentl filed the seond 1etition. Neither is

there res judicata %eause the dismissal order was not a deision on the

merits %ut a dismissal 6without 1re:udie.7

Cirular No. 5#-9#1!, now )etion , &ule 0 of the /990 &ules of Civil

Proedure, must %e inter1reted and a11lied to ahieve its 1ur1ose. The

)u1reme Court 1romulgated the Cirular to 1romote and failitate the

orderl administration of :ustie. The Cirular should not %e inter1reted

with suh a%solute literalness as to su%vert its own ultimate and

legitimate o%:etive or the goal of all rules of 1roedure E whih is to

ahieve su%stantial :ustie as e1editiousl as 1ossi%le.2"

A final word. +e are ever mindful of the 1rini1le that marriage is an

inviola%le soial institution and the foundation of the famil that the state

herishes and 1rotets.21 ?n rendering this Deision, this Court is not

1re:udging the main issue of whether the marriage is void %ased on



Artile "= of the 3amil Code. The trial ourt must resolve this issue

after trial on the merits where eah 1art an 1resent evidene to 1rove

their res1etive allegations and defenses. +e are merel holding that,

%ased on the allegations in the seond 1etition, the 1etition suffiientlalleges a ause of ation and does not violate the rule on forum

sho11ing. Thus, the seond 1etition is not su%:et to atta % a motion

to dismiss on these grounds.

+,R%OR, we DN- the 1etition. The assailed Deision dated "5

Ma /990 as well as the &esolution dated 0 August /990 of the Court of

A11eals in CA-B.&. )P No. #""9" is A%%#RMD. Costs against

1etitioner.

SO ORDRD.

CA&P?, .2

Davide !r. C.!. "Chairman# $itug , and %nares&'antiago !!.,

onur. A(cuna !., on leave.

%#RST D#V#S#ON$ /.R. No. 012234$Se"tember 56$ 5221$ D)ANA M.*ARC+L,NA -+)),N+R $'. C,/R ,0 A--+AL' AND AD+, R. *+N12,NR+'-,ND+N'.

/ 3ar @ast Fan and Trust Co. v. Court of A11eals, B.&. No. /"#>, !9

)e1tem%er !555, "#/ )C&A #>=.

! &eluio v. <o1e', B.&. No. /">#90, /= anuar !55!, "0" )C&A 0>.



" Artile "= of the 3amil Code 1rovides2 6A marriage ontrated % an

1art who, at the time of the ele%ration, was 1shologiall

ina1aitated to om1l with the essential marital o%ligations of

marriage, shall liewise %e void even if suh ina1ait %eomesmanifest onl after its solemni'ation.7# &ollo, 11. #-.

)etion /. )n general . E @ver 1leading shall ontain in a methodial

and logial form, a 1lain, onise and diret statement of the ultimate

fats on whih the 1art 1leading relies for his laim or defense, as the

ase ma %e, omitting the statement of mere evidentiar fats.

=

)CA& M. ;@&&@&A, &emedial <aw ?, /999 @d.0 Petitioner Diana relied on Santos for her motion to dismiss in the trial

ourt and her ertiorari 1etition in the a11ellate ourt. ?n her motion to

reonsider the deision of the Court of A11eals, she ited Molina.

> "/5 Phil. !/ (/99$.

9 B.&. No. /5>0=", /" 3e%ruar /990, !=> )C&A /9>.

/5 Pesa v. Pesa, B.&. No. /"=9!/, /0 A1ril !55/, "= )C&A >>.

//@ffetive / Marh !55".

/! Julueta v. Asia Frewer, B.&. No. /">/"0, > Marh !55/, "# )C&A

/554 Presidential Commission on Bood Bovernment v. Desierto, B.&.

No. /#5">, > Deem%er !555, "#0 )C&A =/.

/" "/" Phil. > (/99$./# )ta. Clara ;omeowners8 Assoiation v. Baston, B.&. No. /#/9=/, !"

anuar !55!, "0# )C&A "9=.

/ Now )etion , &ule 0 of the /990 &ules of Civil Proedure.

/= @m1hasis su11lied % 1etitioner.

/0 MC @ngineering, ?n. v. N<&C, #/! Phil. =/# (!55/$.

/> #/ Phil. #"5 (!55/$.

/9 Preeded % Cirular No. !>-9/.!5 'ee note !!.



!/ 'ee )etion !, Artile K, /9>0 Constitution.

Psychological Incapacity

Documents

Transcript of Psychological Incapacity