Agraviador vs.

Amparo-Agraviador Digest
G.R. No.170729 : December 8, 2010

ENRIQUE AGRAVIADOR y ALUNAN, Petitioner, v. ERLINDA AMPARO-AGRAVIADOR and

REPUBLIC OF THEPHILIPPINES, Respondents.

BRION, J.:

FACTS:

OnMay 23, 1973, the petitioner and the respondent contracted marriage. They begot four children.

OnMarch 1, 2001, the petitioner filed with the RTC a petition for the declaration of nullity of his marriage
with the respondent, under Article 36 of the Family Code. He alleged that the respondent was
psychologically incapacitated to exercise the essential obligations of marriage as she was carefree and
irresponsible, and refused to do household chores like cleaning and cooking; stayed away from their
house for long periods of time; had an affair with a lesbian; did not take care of their sick child; consulted
a witch doctor in order to bring him bad fate; and refused to use the family name Agraviador in her
activities.

The respondent moved to dismiss the petition on the ground that the root cause of her psychological
incapacity was not medically identified and alleged in the petition. The RTC nullified the marriage of the
petitioner and the respondent in its decision. It saw merit in the petitioners testimony and the psychiatric
evaluation report. The CA reversed and set aside the RTC resolution, and dismissed the petition.

ISSUE: Whether or not there is basis to nullify the petitioners marriage to the respondent on the ground of
psychological incapacity to comply with the essential marital obligations.

HELD: The court resolves todenythe petition for lack of merit, and hold that no sufficient basis exists to
annul the marriage, pursuant to Article 36 of the Family Code and its related jurisprudence.

CIVIL LAW; NULLITY OF MARRIAGE

The totality of evidence presented failed to establish the respondents psychological incapacity. In the
present case, the petitioners testimony failed to establish that the respondents condition is a
manifestation of a disordered personalityrootedon some incapacitating or debilitating psychological
condition that makes her completely unable to discharge the essential marital obligations. If at all, the
petitioner merely showed that the respondent had some personality defects that showed their
manifestationduringthe marriage; his testimony sorely lacked details necessary to establish that the
respondents defects existed at the inception of the marriage.In addition, the petitioner failed to discuss
thegravityof the respondents condition; neither did he mention that the respondents malady wasincurable,
or if it were otherwise, the cure would be beyond the respondents means to undertake. The petitioners
declarations that the respondent "does not accept her fault," "does not want to change," and "refused to
reform" are insufficient to establish a psychological or mental defect that is serious, grave, or incurable as
contemplated by Article 36 of the Family Code.
The Court also finds that the Psychiatric Evaluation Report fell short in proving that the respondent was
psychologically incapacitated to perform the essential marital duties. The doctor did not personally
evaluate and examine the respondent. Largely, the doctor relied on the information provided by the
petitioner.

The Petition is DENIED and the decision of the CA is AFFIRMED.

AGGRAVIADOR VS AGGRAVIADOR, G.R. NO. 170729
Posted by kaye lee on 7:03 PM

G.R. No. 170729 December 8, 2010

Agraviador vs Agraviador

FACTS:

Enrique first met Erlinda in 1971 at a beerhouse where Erlinda worked. Their meeting led to a courtship, became sweethearts
and soon entered into a common-law relationship, and finally got married in 1973.

In 2001, Enrique filed a petition to have his marriage with Erlinda null and void under Article 36 of the Family Code. He alleged
that Erlinda was psychologically incapacitated to exercise the essential obligations of marriage. He claimed that she was
carefree and irresponsible, refused to do household chores, had extramarital affairs, did not take care of their sick child,
consulted a witch doctor, and refused to use the family name in her activities.

Enrique, aside from his testimony, also presented a certified true copy of their marriage contract and the psychiatric evaluation
report of Dr. Patac. In his psychiatric evaluation report, Dr. Patac found Erlinda unable to fulfill the essential obligations of
marriage as she manifested inflexible maladaptive behavior even at the time before their marriage. In his conclusion stated that
Erlinda is suffering from a Mixed Personality Disorder where there is no definite treatment for such illness.

Erlinda moved to dismiss the petition. The RTC denied her motion and took side on Enrique.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Enrique can invoke Article 36 of the Family Code as the basis to nullify his marriage to Erlinda.

RULING:

No. Psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code do not involve a species of vice of consent. The spouse may
have given free and voluntary consent to a marriage but was, nonetheless, incapable of fulfilling such rights and obligations.
Psychological incapacity to comply with the essential marital obligation does not affect the consent to the marriage.

The totality of Enriques's evidence is insufficient to prove Erlinda's psychological incapacity. Her refusal or unwillingness to
perform certain marital obligations, and a number of unpleasant personality traits such as immaturity, irresponsibility, and
unfaithfulness do not rise to the level of psychological incapacity that the law requires.

Dr. Patac's psychiatric evaluation report do not hold sufficient amount in proving that Erlinda was psychological incapacitated
to perform the essential marital duties. Dr. Patac did not personally evaluate and examine Erlinda, as he relied only on the
information fed by Enrique, the partie's second[] child and household helper.