Kalaw v. Fernandez when they were sick.
This was corroborated by other witnesses because they said that
Jan. 14, 15 | Del Castillo, J. | 745 SCRA 512
PETITIONER: Valerio E. Kalaw
RESPONDENTS: Ma. Elena Fernandez
FACTS:
Valerio Kalaw (Tyrone) and Ma. Elena Fernandez (Malyn) are a married
couple who has 4 children. Tyrone then had an extramarital affair with a certain
Jocelyn, which made Malyn decide to leave her conjugal home and live in the house
of her in-laws with their children.
9 years after their informal separation, Tyrone filed a petition for declaration
of nullity under Art. 36 of the Family Code. He alleged that Malyn was
psychologically incapacitated to fulfill her essential marital obligations as shown by
her acts:
1. Playing mahjong all day, neglecting the childrens needs;
2. Partying with male friends and returning home late at night; and
3. Committing adultery with a certain Benjie, the act being discovered in
flagrante delicto by Tyrone.
Tyrone then presented Dr. Gates, a psychologist, and Fr. Healy, a Catholic
canon law expert, to testify on Malyns alleged psychological incapacity. Dr. Gates
said that Malyn exhibits a narcissistic personality disorder as shown by her obsession
to meet her wants and needs while utterly neglecting her motherly duties. Fr. Healy on
the other hand corroborated what Dr. Gates said. He said that indeed, Malyn was
psychologically incapacitated to fulfill her duties. He explained that this is rooted in
Malyns role as a breadwinner in her family as she was growing up. This led to the
inflation of her ego, and now, even if she has a family of her own, her always puts her
needs before the needs of her husband and children. Both these experts admitted that
they based their testimonies mostly on the petitioners allegations, and the court
testimonies.
On the other hand, Malyn denies that she is psychologically incapacitated.
She said that she would only play mahjong two to three times a week and only for a
few hours. During those times, she would bring her children and their yayas, thus,
showing that she did not neglect her motherly duties. She also alleges that it is Tyrone
who is psychologically incapable due to his drug dependence, habitual drinking,
womanizing, and physical violence. This was corroborated by Malyns expert witness:
Dr. Dayan.
The children all agreed that they were not being neglected or abandoned by
either parent. Even when Malyn left their house, she would always take care of them
Malyn was more available to the children and that she exercised better supervision
over the children.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY:
The Regional Trial Court ruled that both parties are psychologically
incapacitated to perform their marital obligations.
On the other hand, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial courts ruling
because it was allegedly not supported by facts on record. Each ones allegations do
not support that there is indeed psychological incapacity. These only show immaturity
and irresponsibility, and at most, they only constitute a ground for legal separation.
More importantly, the appellate court said that Dr. Gates testimony failed to satisfy
the jurisprudential guidelines for psychological incapacity.
In the first Supreme Court decision in 2011 regarding this case upheld the
Court of Appeals decision. The Court ruled that the allegations of Valerio Kalaw were
not adequately proven, especially with regard to Malyn neglecting her marital
obligations. Moreover, it was also said that the testimonies presented by Valerios
alleged expert witnesses were solely based on the formers allegations as well.
Because of this, it was decided that the validity marriage should be upheld.
The case is on motion for reconsideration here.
ISSUES: Whether Valerio Kalaw has sufficiently proven his wifes psychological
incapacity under Art. 36 of the Family Code, when he has only presented expert
witnesses whose claims were also based on his.
RULING: WHEREFORE, the Court GRANTS the Motion for Reconsideration;
REVERSES and SETS ASIDE the decision promulgated on September 19, 2011; and
REINSTATES the decision rendered by the Regional Trial Court declaring the
marriage between the petitioner and the respondent on November 4, 1976 as NULL
AND VOID AB INITIO due to the psychological incapacity of the parties pursuant to
Article 36 of the Family Code.
RATIO:
As established by a long line of jurisprudence, declaring a marriage void ab
initio based on psychological incapacity needs to pertain to a serious psychological
illness which has existed even before the celebration of marriage. It must be serious
enough as to deprive the incapacitated party of fulfilling his or her essential obligations
in marriage.
If one was to base this standard on the Family Code deliberations, it is clear
that each situation should be judged on a case-to-case basis, guided by previous
decisions, experience, expert findings, and Canon Law.
On the other hand, the case of Santos v. Court of Appeals said that the term
psychological incapacity must, stand in conjunction, with existing precepts in our
law on marriage. It was mentioned also that the clear intent of the law is to confine
the meaning of the said term to serious personality disorders which prevent the
inflicted party from understanding and fulfilling the essential marital obligations.
Furthremore, the case of Republic v. Molina sets down eight guidelines which are
ought to be followed. These turned out to be rigid and it almost guaranteed the
rejection for the petition under Art. 36 of the Family Code.
This notion cannot stand because it is supposed to be resilient in terms of
application. The issue of nullify should not be based on a priori assumptions, or
generalizations, but according to its own facts. The Court stated here that, no case
would be on all fours with the next one Because of this, the courts must necessarily
rely on expert opinions to enable themselves to arrive at an intelligent and proper
judgment.
The Court also mentioned here that the findings of the RTC on the existence
or non-existence of psychological incapacity should be final and binding. This can
only be overturned if such findings and evaluation are shown to be clearly and
manifestly erroneous. This is because the RTC is in a better position to examine the
witnesses as they were testifying and thus, their findings should be accorded great
respect.
In the 2011 decision, the Court disregarded the testimonies of Dr. Gates and
Fr. Healy simply because they were based only on Valerios allegations. Therefore,
their conclusions should be upheld, because they were based on case records and
affidavits. They should not be disputed because the RTC itself had accepted the
petitioners factual premises. It has been held that in cases under Art. 36, the courts,
must consider as decisive evidence the expert opinion on psychological and mental
temperaments of the parties. To add, the lack of personal examination of the person
diagnosed with the personality disorder does not per se invalidate the expert findings.
It can only be regarded as speculative if there are no other evidence to prove such.
Therefore, that is important is the presence of evidence that proves a strong link
between the psychological incapacity and psychological disorder itself. Moreover, Dr.
Dayans findings also corroborated that of Dr. Gates.
Fr. Healys statement should also be accorded great respect because the
concept of psychological incapacity under Art. 36 of the Family Code was adopted
from Canon Law. He said that Malyns acts show that she is indeed narcissistic and
immature in a way that constitutes psychological incapacity.
The case of Te v. Te reiterated that the courts cannot strictly apply the Molina
doctrine because the totality of evidence should be considered in each case. It said that
each case should be treated differently; there is no worry for Art. 36s abuse because
there are adequate safeguards it. The courts should be more worried with cases of
marital and child abuse, domestic violence, and the like.
Lastly, the Court recognized its mistake in the 2011 decision when it confined
the supposed nonexistence of Malyns psychological incapacity based on the
frequency of her mahjong playing. What the should have been used is her failure to
fulfill her duties as a mother and wife. Bringing the children to the place of gambling
is not enough to say that she fulfilled her obligations to them, especially because the
children are being exposed to a culture of gambling there. This was in contravention
of Art. 209 of the Family Code which obligates parents to rear their children towards
the development of the moral, mental, and physical character, and well-being.
In the 2011 decision, the Court also did not credence to the possibility that
Valerio himself was suffering from psychological incapacity. It must be remembered
that even the guilty party can allege psychological incapacity to declare a marriage
void ab initio.
Finally, the Court reminded Itself that its mandate to protect the inviolability
of marriage necessarily includes striking down marriages which are, ill-equipped
to promote family life.
DISSENTING OPINION OF J. DEL CASTILLO:
Justice Del Castillo said that the desire to dissolve their marriage is not a
determining factor in assessing the existence of a ground for the declaration of nullity.
Therefore, he says, that the decision should solely rely on the evidence and the law. In
his opinion, the trial court was not able to find convincing nor reliable evidence to
prove the existence of psychological incapacity.
According to him, psychological incapacity is the downright inability to
understand, and fulfill the essential marital responsibilities, and not just a lack of
understanding of what marriage entails. This qualification was not adequately proven
by the RTC. Though he agrees that the RTCs finding should be final and binding, he
believes that the RTCs decision here was not based on facts, but solely on the expert
opinions. He states that the court may consider the expert opinions, but they should
assess the factual premises on which they are based.
The good justice says that there should have been a witness which testified
on the family dysfunction of Malyn while she was growing up. He also says that there
was no pattern established, and definitely no narcissistic obsession on the respondents
part.