G.R. No.

109975 February 9, 2001

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner,

vs.
ERLINDA MATIAS DAGDAG, respondent.

FACTS: On September 7, 1975, Erlinda Matias, 16 years old, married Avelino Parangan Dagdag, 20 years
old. They begot two children.

Erlinda and Avelino lived in a house in, Nueva Ecija, located. A week after the wedding, Avelino
started leaving his family without explanation. He would disappear for months, suddenly reappear for a
few months, then disappear again. During the times when he was with his family, he indulged in drinking
sprees with friends and would return home drunk. He would force his wife to submit to sexual
intercourse and if she refused, he would inflict physical injuries on her

On October 1993, he left his family again and that was the last they heard from him. Finally,
Erlinda learned that Avelino was imprisoned for some crime,6 and that he escaped from jail on October
22, 1985.7 A certification therefor dated February 14, 1990, was issued by Jail Warden Orlando S. Limon.
Avelino remains at-large to date.

On July 3, 1990, Erlinda filed with the RTC of Olongapo City a petition for judicial declaration of
nullity of marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code.
Avelino’s location was unknown so summons was served by publication in the Olongapo News, a
newspaper of general circulation, on September 3, 10, and 17, 1990. On hearing, only Erlinda and her
counsel appeared and only them was able to present their evidences (testimony of his sister-in-law,
Virginia Dagdag).

Thereafter, Erlinda rested her case. The trial court issued an Order giving the investigating
prosecutor until January 2, 1991, to manifest in writing whether or not he would present controverting
evidence, and stating that should he fail to file said manifestation, the case would be deemed submitted
for decision.

On December 27, 1990, without waiting for the investigating prosecutor's manifestation dated
December 5, 1990, the trial court rendered a decision12 declaring the marriage of Erlinda and Avelino
void under Article 36 of the Family Code.

OSG filed a motion for reconsideration but was DENIED. Then filed it in CA saying that Lower
Court erred in declaring appellee’s marriage to Avelino Dagdag null and void on the ground of
psychological incapacity of the latter, pursuant to art. 36 of the Family Code, the psychological
incapacity of the nature contemplated by the law not having been proven to exist.

But CA affirmed the decision of the trial court. So they filed it to SC contending that the alleged
psychological incapacity of Avelino Dagdag is not of the nature contemplated by Article 36 of the Family
Code. Stated that the interpretation of "psychological incapacity" is not applicable in the facts of this
case.

ISSUE: Whether or not their marriage shall be declared void because Avelino is Psychological
incapacitated, in accordance to art 36 of the family code.

HELD: In Republic v. Court of Appeals and Molina,19 the Court laid down the following GUIDELINES in the
interpretation and application of Article 36 of the Family Code:

(1) The burden of proof to show the nullity of the marriage belongs to the plaintiff….

(2) The root cause of the psychological incapacity must be: (a) medically or clinically
identified, (b) alleged in the complaint, (c) sufficiently proven by experts and (d) clearly explained in the
decision. Article 36 of the Family Code requires that the incapacity must be psychological - not physical,
although its manifestations and/or symptoms may be physical. The evidence must convince the court
that the parties, or one of them, was mentally or psychically ill to such an extent that the person could
not have known the obligations he was assuming, or knowing them, could not have given valid
assumption thereof. Although no example of such incapacity need be given here so as not to limit the
application of the provision under the principle of ejusdem generis (Salita vs. Magtolis, 233 SCRA 100,
June 13, 1994), nevertheless such root cause must be identified as a psychological illness and its
incapacitating nature fully explained. Expert evidence may be given by qualified psychiatrists and clinical
psychologists.

(3)… existing at "the time of the celebration" of the marriage…

(4)… permanent or incurable….

(5)… must be grave enough to bring about the disability of the party to assume the essential
obligations of marriage…

(6)… marital obligations must be those embraced by Articles 68 up to 71 of the Family Code…

(7) Interpretations given by the National Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal of the Catholic Church
in the Philippines, while not controlling or decisive, should be given great respect by our courts.

(8)… No decision shall be handed down unless the Solicitor General issues a certification, which
will be quoted in the decision, briefly stating therein his reasons for his agreement or opposition….

Taking into consideration these guidelines, it is evident that Erlinda failed to comply with the
above-mentioned evidentiary requirements. Erlinda failed to comply with guideline No. 2 which
requires that the root cause of psychological incapacity must be medically or clinically identified and
sufficiently proven by experts, since no psychiatrist or medical doctor testified as to the alleged
psychological incapacity of her husband. Further, the allegation that the husband is a fugitive from
justice was not sufficiently proven. In fact, the crime for which he was arrested was not even alleged.
The investigating prosecutor was likewise not given an opportunity to present controverting evidence
since the trial court's decision was prematurely rendered.

In the case of Hernandez v. Court of Appeals,23 we affirmed the dismissal of the trial court and
Court of Appeals of the petition for annulment on the ground of dearth of the evidence presented. We
further explained therein that -

"Moreover, expert testimony should have been presented to establish the precise cause of
private respondent's psychological incapacity, if any, in order to show that it existed at the inception of
the marriage. The burden of proof to show the nullity of the marriage rests upon petitioner. The Court is
mindful of the policy of the 1987 Constitution to protect and strengthen the family as the basic
autonomous social institution and marriage as the foundation of the family.

DISPOSITION: The present petition is GRANTED. The assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals
dated April 22, 1993, in CA-G.R. CY No. 34378 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE.