(i)

l\epublic of tbe ~bilippines

&uprtmt ~ourt
iflllanila

SECOND DIVISION

ANTONIO S. QUIOGUE, G.R. No. 203992

JR.,
Petitioner, Present:

LEONEN, S.A.J., Chairperson,

-versus- LAZARO-JAVIER,
LOPEZ, M.,
LOPEZ, J., and
MARIA BEL B. QUIOGUE KHO,JJ.
AND THE REPUBLIC OF
THE PHILIPPINES, Promulgated:
Respondents.
AUG 2 2 2022
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

DECISION

LOPEZ, M., J.:

Love will always flow through our lives in this inconsistent, unknowable way,
and we cannot press pause on the joyful bits, nor fast-forward the suffering.' Yet, in
marriage, the reality is that a person may be truly psychologically incapable for the
other2 and it is best to sever the relationship as there is no point in trying to restore
what is broken to begin with.

The Court resolves this Petition for Review on Certiorari3 under Rule 45 of
the Rules of Court, assailing the Decision4 dated May 22, 2012 and Resolution5 dated
October 3, 2012 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 93554, which
dismissed the Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage filed by petitioner
Antonio S. Quiogue, Jr.

1
NATASHA LUNN, CONVERSATIONS ON l.OVE 286 (2021 1.
2
Tan-Anda/ v. Anda!, G.R. No. 196359, May 11. :2021.
3
Rollo, pp. 38-79.
4
Id. at 22--32. Penned by Associate Justice Ramon M. Bato~ Jr., with the concurrence of Associate Justices
Remedios A. Salazar-Fernando and Fiorito S. Macalino.
5
Id. at 34--35. Penned by Associate Justice Ramun M. Bato, Jr., with the concurrence of Associate Justices
Remedios A. Salazar--Fernando and Fiorito S. Macalino.

I
Decision 2 G.R. No. 203992

ANTECEDENTS

In his Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage, Civil Case No. Q-02-
4613 7, filed before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 88, Quezon City, petitioner
Antonio S. Quiogue, Jr. (Antonio) alleged that he and his wife, respondent Maria
Bel B. Quiogue (Maribel), were married on October 16, 1980. They have four
children: Marie Antonette, Jose Antonio, Anabel, and Maritoni. They have been
separated in fact since the year 1998 after Maribel drove him out of the conjugal
home. He was forced to temporarily stay in his office in the family-owned Nacional
Memorial Homes. He went home to ask his wife for reconciliation for the sake of
their children, but his efforts failed. He now stays at 407-A Valencia Hills
Condominium in Quezon City. Antonio claimed that he and Maribel are both
psychologically incapacitated to comply with the basic marital obligations. They did
not observe mutual love and respect and also failed to provide the necessary
emotional, psychological, and moral support for each other. 6

In her Answer, Maribel denied the allegations in the Petition. She did not drive
Antonio out of their home because he voluntarily left their conjugal dwelling to
pursue his womanizing and perennial nocturnal gambling. Maribel stated that
Antonio would only come home in the wee hours of the morning only to leave again.
He stayed in his office for a month during their separation and came back. Thereafter,
he would often come home from work drunk and violent. There were even times
when he would threaten and harass Maribel. Antonio was verbally abusive to the
extent of humiliating her in front of their children and neighbors. 7

Upon referral to the public prosecutor, a report was submitted indicating that
no collusion existed between the parties to the petition. In the pre-trial, the parties
were given a cooling-off period but the attempts for reconciliation failed. 8

During trial, Antonio testified that his wife Maribel did not love and respect
him. She has no ability to maintain a peaceful married and family life because she
is ill-tempered, tactless, irritable, and confrontational. She has no respect for him as
she divulged vulgar and demeaning matters about him even to his office staff. She
often called his office and shouted at his employees if she could not get information
about his whereabouts. His wife would find ways to embarrass him. Although
Antonio admitted that he had "flings" with other women during their marriage, his
wife made the situation more difficult as she was constantly nagging about it. There
was a time that he tried to avoid philandering but instead of supporting him, his wife
pasted pictures of the woman everywhere inside their house. Aside from sending
obscene fax messages to his office, Maribel also used their children to bring him
unsealed letters which contain brutal and insulting words. 9 He left the conjugal home
in 1998. In the year 2000, the Makati RTC granted their petition for separation of

6
Id. at 12.
7
Id. at 13.
8
Id.
9
Id. at 14.

j
Decision 3 G.R. No. 203992

properties. He filed the present Petition for declaration of nullity of marriage a year
later in 2001. 10

The next witness Gemarie Martin (Gemarie), office staff in the Nacional
Memorial Homes, corroborated Antonio's account. Gemarie testified that Maribel
would call their office and ask questions about Antonio's womanizing. She was even
confronted by Maribel regarding the unidentified numbers appearing on the phone
bills and often inquired on Antonio's whereabouts. She also witnessed the incidents
wherein Antonio would sleep in one of the empty rooms in the memorial chapel after
being evicted by his wife from their home. On the following day, Maribel sent over
Antonio's clothes through the driver. In addition, Gemarie confirmed that Maribel
sent vulgar fax messages to Antonio which were seen by everyone in the office. 11

The last witness for petitioner is the psychiatrist Dr. Valentina Del Fonso
Garcia (Dr. Garcia). She conducted a mental status assessment and clinical
psychiatric interviews with Antonio and their eldest daughter, Marie Antonette. Dr.
Garcia likewise interviewed Maribel in several sessions when the latter brought their
second daughter Anabel for consultation and treatment of her depression. In a
Psychiatric Evaluation 12 dated October 29, 2001, Dr. Garcia recommended that the
marital nullification be strongly considered by the court on the ground of
psychological incapacity of the spouses. 13

For her part, Maribel disagreed with the evaluation of Dr. Garcia. First, she
clarified that she submitted herself to be interviewed only because their daughter
Anabel was being treated by Dr. Garcia for depression with suicidal ruminations.
She alleged that her disclosures to Dr. Garcia about their family life were taken out
of context when her statements were used in relation to this case. Next, she denied
being a suspicious wife as she seldom visits Antonio's office. She thought that their
marriage was stable until she found out about Antonio's affairs with other women
through anonymous calls and letters. One woman was the telephone operator, while
the others were the branch manager of the bank, a "GRO", and a certain Ynes Gamila
(Ynes), who was first introduced by her husband as his cousin. Their children, later
on, told her that Ynes moved in with Antonio and they would often see that their
actions had sexual implications. 14

The spouses' eldest daughter Marie Antonette was also presented on the
witness stand. She testified that she knew about the girlfriends of her father. She saw
the pain caused by her father's illicit relations to her mother. She understood the
situation and tried to look on the positive side. She knew Ynes who was initially
introduced by her father as his cousin. Ynes would frequently visit their
condominium unit in Quezon City. Subsequently, Ynes would sleep over, and join
them in out-of-town trips, Sunday masses, and even during family gatherings. At

10
Id. at 23.
11
Id. at 14-15.
12
Id. at 175-194.

!
13
Id. at 194.
14
Id. at 17-18.
Decision 4 G.R. No. 203992

present, her father lives in the condominium with her siblings Anabel and Jose
Antonio, together with Ynes and the latter's ~un. 15

RTC DECISION

In its Decision 16 dated May 8~ 2008, the RTC found sufficient grounds to
declare the marriage between petition~r and Maribel void. The RTC held that both
parties are psychologically incapacitated to perform their marital obligations of
living together, observing mutual love, r~spect, and fidelity, and rendering mutual
help and support. 17 Dr. Garcia found that although . Antonio frowned upon the
multiple women conquest of his own father, he succumbed to his "narcissistic and
histrionic" personality disorder. He had no qualms in admitting his "flings" despite
knowing its devastating effects on his wife and children. His extra-marital affairs are
manifestations of ego gratification because he finds pleasure and thrill in pursuing
illicit relationships. Maribel, on the other hand, exhibited extreme emotional
reactions towards her husband by deliberately demeaning and insulting him in
public. She would unfold her vulgar thoughts to others, even to her children. These
show her lack of respect and love for her husband. Maribel's unstable temperament,
and her derogatory and fretful stance, which heavily contributed to the collapse of
their man·iage, shows her inability to cope with the stressors and complexities of
marriage. 18 Based on Dr. Garcia's findings, the trial court ruled:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is hereby granted and

the marriages [sic] between petitioner Antonio S. Quiogue~ Jr. and respondent
Maria Bel Bandelaria Quiogue solemnized on October 16, 1980 before the
Municipal Mayor of Pasig, Metro Manila, is hereby declared null and void under
Article 36 of the Family Code as amended.

This Decision shall become final upon the expiration of the fifteen-day
period from notice to the parties and from the time that the corresponding Entry of
Judgment has been made if no motion for reconsideration or new trial, or appeal, is
filed by any of the parties, the Public Prosecutor or the Solicitor General.

Let a copy of this Decision be furnished the parties, their counsels, the
Public Prosecutor, the Office of the Solicitor General.. Local Civil Registry of
Quezon City, Local Civil Registry of Pasig and the Civil Registrar General at their
respective office addresses.

SO ORDERED. 19 (Emphases in the original)

15
Id. at 18.
16
Id. at 12--20.

t
17
Id. at 18; citing Article 68 of the Family Code.
18
Id. at 19.
19
Id at 20.
Decision G.R. No. 203992

CA DECISION

The CA reversed the RTC's rl!ling on appeal. In the assailed Decision 20 in CA-
G.R. CV No. 93554, the CA agreed with the Solicitor General that the infidelity of
Antonio and his irreconcilable differenc,es with his wife Maribel do not constitute
psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code. Anent the psychiatric
evaluation, the CA held that the report issued by Dr. Garcia merely confirmed
Antonio's and Maribel's marital problems, but it cannot be considered as conclusive
proof of the spouses' alleged psychoJogical incapacity. The fa/lo of the Decision
reads:

WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is GRANTED. The Decision dated

May 8, 2008 of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Rrnnch 88, in Civil Case
No. Q-02-46137 is REVERSED AND SET ASIDK and a new one entered
DISMISSING the pctitiot for declaration of nullity of marriage.

SO ORDERED.21(Emphascs in the original)

Petitioner asked for reconsideration, but his motion was denied in the assailed
CA Resolution22 dated October 3, 2012. Hence, this recourse.

In seeking the reversal of the assailed judgment, petitioner faults the CA for
discrediting the expert opinion of Dr. Garcia relative to his psychological incapacity.
He insists that the totality of the evidence, i.e., their family backgrounds and the
events that transpired during their ill-fated marriage, unmistakably establish
psychological incapacity, especially on his part, to comply with the essential marital
obligations. 23

The Solicitor General opposes the Petition on the ground that petitioner failed
to establish the gravity, juridical antecedence, and incurability of his alleged
psychological incapacity. 24 It argues that petitioner's acts of infidelity and
subsequent cohabitation with another woman are not sufficient to declare a marriage
void. Citing Hernandez v. CA 25 and Dede/ v. CA, 26 the Solicitor General asserts that
the infidelity must be a manifestation of a disordered personality that makes the
psychologically incapacitated spouse completely unable to discharge the basic
obligations of marriage, 27 which is not so in petitioner's case.

As for Maribel's ill-temper, tactlessness, lack of respect, and quarrelsome

attitude, these are not grave enough to warrant the declaration of nullity of their

20
Id. at 22-32. Penned by Associate Justice Ram,;r. M. Bato, Jr .. with the concurrence of Associate Justices
Remedios A. Salazar-Ferna11do anct Fiorito S. Ma•:<!lino
21
Id. at 31.
22
Id. at 34-35. Penned by Associate Jostict Ram1.,,1 M. Bato, Jr., with the concurrence of Associate Justices
Remedios A. Salazar-Fernando mid Fiorito S. Ma.c-=:Jino.
23
Id. at 38-58.
24
Id. at 240--243.
25
377 Phil. 919. 927 ( 1999).
26
466 Phil. 226. 233 (2004).

t
21
Rollo, p. 243
Decision 6 G.R. No. 203992

marriage. Her emotional outbursts are not indicative of a psychological disorder but
are natural consequences of petition~(s \,Vrongdoings. Fmther, the Solicitor General
points out that Dr. Garcia's psychiatric evaluation was methodologically flawed
because Maribel only allowed herse!.f t0 be ,~s~~-=s·sed and interviewed in connection
with her daughter's treatment for de}Jression. As such, Dr. Garcia worked on pure
suppositions given that Maribel's disclosures pertain to the psychiatric treatment of
their daughter Anabel, and not to their marital issues?~ Finally, the Solicitor General
submits that the evidence, in this case, refer oniy to grounds for legal separation, not
for declaring a marriage void. 29

RULING

The Petition is meritorious.

Psychological incapacity is a ground to declare a matTiage void under Article

36 of the Family Code, which states:

ARTICLE 36. A marriage contracted by any party who, at the time of the
celebration, was psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential marital
obligations of marriage, shall likewise be void even if such incapacity becomes
manifest only after its solemnization.

The provision speaks of two requisites. First is gravity, or that the person who
contracted the marriage is psychologically incapacitated to assume the essential
marital obligations and not merely refuses or neglects to do so because of difficulty
or ill will. The second one, antecedence, requires that the incapacity exists at the
time of the solemnization of the marriage, even if it mani tests only thereafter. This
should not be confused with divorce wherein the marital bond is severed for causes
occurring after the celebration of the marriage. 30 Recently in 2021, the Court
revisited the concept of psychological incapacity in Tan-Anda/ v. Andal. 31 There, we
observed that what was first described in 1995 in Santos v. CA 32 as a "mental
incapacity'" that renders a person incognizant of the basic marital covenants, has
since fortuitously evolved into the rigid c1iteria laid down in Republic v. /vlolina. 33
The Molina doctrine required the parties to prove not only gravity and a11tecedence
stated under Article 36, but also incurability. The pa1ties were then expected to
present expert testimony to sufficiently prove that the root cause of the psychological
incapacity has been medically or clinically identified. 34

Later, the Comt saw that viewi!~g. psyd,ological incapacity from a medical
perspective is unnecessary. As clarified in Alfarcos v. .i\llarcos,35 an actual medical
28
Id. at 246.
29
Id. at 247-248.
30
Marcos v. Marcos. 397 Phil. 840. 845-846 C2Gvv,.
31 G.R. No. 196359, May 11,202 L . .
32 3 IO Phil. 21, 40 (1995).
33 335 Phil. 664,691 (1997).
4
J Tan--Andal v. Anda/, supra note 3 J; See alsc, H~r.11:;,:r:dez •·. C~urt o.fAppe.:;/s, 377 Phil. 919, 932 ( 1999).
35
Supra note 29 at 850.
Decision 7 G.R. No. 203992

examination of the person concerned need not be resorted to if the totality of the
evidence presented is enough to sustain a finding of psychological incapacity.
Besides, demanding proof of incurability is antithetical to Article 36 since the
incapacitated spouse is not considered ill-equipped to remarry another person. 36 For
this reason, the aspect of incurability is now approached in the legal sense. This
contemplates of a situation wherein the person's personality structure manifests
through clear acts of dysfunctionality which undermine the marital union and there
must be clear and convincing proof that the incapacity is enduring or persistent with
respect to a specific partner. 37

Relative to this, the Court rejects the Solicitor General's argument that Dr.
Garcia's psychiatric evaluation is methodologically flawed because Maribel did not
submit to the clinical examination for the purposes of determining psychological
incapacity in their marriage. She merely acquiesced to be interviewed by Dr. Garcia
to help seek treatment for their daughter's depression and suicidal tendencies. The
Court observes however that in providing a backdrop for the treatment of their
daughter Anabel, Maribel inevitably revealed her marital woes. Certainly, one
cannot deny that the relationship between the parents has pervasive effects on the
family, especially on the younger children. In any case, even if we disregard the
clinical interviews of Maribel, the bulk of evidence consisting of the interviews and
testimony in open court of both Antonio and their eldest daughter Marie Antonette,
and the letters written by Maribel to Antonio which were part of psychiatric
assessment made by Dr. Garcia, all support the conclusion that Antonio was able to
discharge the burden of proof required to nullify his marriage to Maribel.

Antonio's chronic infidelity

is a form of psychological
incapacity:

In the assailed Decision, the CA held that although there was a reference made
in the psychiatric evaluation regarding the extra-marital affairs of Antonio's
biological father, still, his own infidelity throughout his marriage with Maribel does
not equate to psychological incapacity as it was not shown to be existing prior to the
union. The CA is mistaken.

Under Article 68 of the Family Code, the "husband and wife are obliged to
live together, observe mutual love, respect and fidelity, and render mutual help and
support." Clearly, the law itself recognizes fidelity as the norm and a spouse should
not be made to settle for anything less than absolute faithfulness from the other. This
stems from the nature of marriage being a "special contract" 38 of an exclusive
partnership between a man and a woman. While it is true that infidelity is a ground
for legal separation,39 the same may also be an indication of a psychological

36
Tan-Anda/ v. Anda/, supra note 31; citing Ngo Te v. Yu-Te. 598 Phil. 666. 678 (2009) and Kalm11 v. Fernandez
750 Phil. 482, 497-498 (2015).
37
Tan-Anda/ v. Anda/, supra note 31.
:is Article 1 of the Family Code.
39
Article 55 of the Family Code.

ti
Decision 8 G.R. No. 203992

incapacity if, for the same reason, one is completely unable to discharge the essential
obligations of marriage. 40

Of course, this is not to say that the Court will intuitively declare a marriage
void for a single act of marital indiscretion. Infidelity is not measured in terms of
frequency. To be considered as a form of psychological incapacity, infidelity must
satisfy the requirements of (1) gravity or severity, (2) antecedence, and (3) legal
incurability or persistence during the marriage.

( 1) Juridical antecedence:

In this case, Antonio's Chronic infidelity is not only comprised of multiple

illicit amorous relations. As detailed in the Psychiatric Evaluation41 by Dr. Garcia,
his affairs are not casual mistakes as these were shown to be deeply rooted in his
psychopathology which was in place even before his marriage. 42

Dr. Garcia described Antonio as the ambitious but disconcerted son of a

businessman, who had 11 children with four other women. He grew up emotionally
close to his mother. She wanted him to be respectful to his unfaithful father, who
only stays and sleeps in their house every Wednesday and Saturday. His mother is
always out playing mahjong, while his father only gave them money. At the age 17,
Antonio lived in with his first girlfriend, Del and they broke up when she got
pregnant with their son, whom he failed to support. He had a series of short-lived
relationships before he met Maribel when he was 23 years old. He was then in a
relationship, but he still courted Maribel. Two years later, in 1980, Maribel got
pregnant, and Antonio was pressured to marry her. Their first child died three months
after birth due to aneurysm. As he was having a difficult time accepting the situation,
he asked his mother to stay with them and this spurred his quarrels with Maribel. In
1982, Maribel gave birth to their eldest daughter Marie Antonette, followed by their
son Antonio in 1984. A year later, in 1985, they had a serious fight after Maribel
discovered his relationship with a paramour, which he immediately ended. In 1987
and 1988, their daughters Anabel and Maritoni were born. From 1989 to 1996,
Antonio divulged that he had several "flings" which Maribel never found out. 43
Despite this, Antonio prides himself on being able to give his family a very
comfortable life. He showered his wife and kids with gifts, and they often traveled
in and out of the country. 44

In March 1997, Antonio had another affair with a 19- year old GRO. Maribel
learned about this in September 1997. During the confrontation, Antonio was under
the impression that Maribel will help him stop the affair. Instead, she went into a
rage and nagged him. Antonio intended to immediately end his illicit relationship,
but the woman begged for more time. One day, Maribel went to the woman's house

40
Tan-Anda/ v. Anda/, supra note 3 l.
41
Ro/lo,pp.175-194.
42
Id. at 192.
43
Id. at 180.
44
Id. at 176-179.

(j
Decision 9 G.R. No. 203992

along with their eldest daughter and the latter's classmate. Maribel took pictures and
told all their children about his affair. Antonio expected that Maribel would initiate
a talk, yet she never did. Instead, she pasted pictures of the woman inside his room,
in the bar, and even in the dining room. Whenever pestered by his wife's constant
nagging about his affairs, Antonio leaves the house and stays for a month or so in a
rented condominium or apartment 45

In June 1998, Antonio was driven out of their house because Maribel was
suspicious that he was still engaging in an affair. Antonio slept in a vacant chapel in
the funeral home, thinking it was just another one of their fights. Yet, on the next
day, Maribel sent his clothes. He felt embarrassed as the incident was seen by his
employees. He came back home on the weekends and slept in his son's room. That
same year, his brother bought a condominium in Quezon City and asked him to live
there with his son. He only visited his daughters outside their home, or they would
sleep with him at the condominium during the weekends. Antonio stated that he
never wanted to be like his father. He waited for Maribel's forgiveness and
understanding which never came. 46

As for his wife, Antonio disclosed to Dr. Garcia that Maribel took care of the
children and catered to all of their needs "because she is not employed anyway." 47
In return, Antonio "compensated her" by giving her a monthly allowance for
expenses like groceries, market, salary of the maids, and utilities. Although Maribel
diligently attended to the housework, Antonio remarked that she loves to gamble in
casinos, and they 9ften fought about this. Apart from this, Maribel would call him at
his office and ask for information from the employees as to his whereabouts. 48 He
complained of his hellish situation when she got fixated on his other women and
unfaithfulness. Antonio expressed regret for his womanizing but claimed that he is
weak to modify his conduct. He blamed his wife for driving him away and not doing
something to win him back. 49

Based on the foregoing, Dr. Garcia declared that Antonio is gravely

psychologically incapacitated to perform the essential marital obligations. He has a
narcissistic and histrionic personality disorder that was in place even before his
marriage such that it can no longer be effectively addressed through psychiatric
treatment. Further, Dr. Garcia found that:

Antonio has a sense of entitlement. He has unreasonably expected favorable

treatment or automatic compliance with his expectations and whims. He is an
exploitative partner who manipulated and deceived his spouse for his own gain. He
lacks the empathy or the sensitivity to adequately respond to the needs and feelings
of his wife and his children[.]

Moreso, he has apparently a marked degree of attention[-]seeking demeanor

45
Id. at I 80-181.
46
Id.at 181.
47
Id. at 179 and 191.
48
Id. at 179.
49
Id. at 192.

()
 Decision 10 G.R. No. 203992

which could be attributed to his perceived emotional deprivation as a child and as

an adolescent. Secondly, he has pathologically identified with his philandering and
remorseless father who had exposed him to his illicit affairs. Thirdly, he has a strong
desire to accomplish and to be recognized and revered in the end. His manifold
associations with women are ego-gratifying. Yet, there was lack of warmth and
depth in his dealings with them and that he could have acted on his sexual impulses
to prove that he is a worthy and a charming individual. He also has dependent traits,
i.e., he feels helpless and uncomfortable when left alone and as such, he has the
propensity to look for thrill and pleasure in his relationships. 50

In Tan-Anda/ v. Anda/, 51 the Court recognized that a person's behavior is

determined not only by certain genetic predispositions but is also influenced by his
or her environment. One that is particularly significant is the character of the parents
as witnessed by a child during the formative years. Here, Dr. Garcia's psychiatric
evaluation invariably shows that Antonio's proclivity to act on his sexual impulses
is deeply rooted in a psychological condition that existed before the celebration of
their marriage.

Contrary to the CA's observation, Dr. Garcia was able to demonstrate how
Antonio's childhood and adolescent years - which were spent dealing with his
philandering father and impervious mother, heavily affected the way he perceives
romantic relationships. Antonio's father sired eleven children, with four other
women, and was never discreet about his illicit affairs. Women would often look for
his father and ask for financial support. As a child, Antonio thought this was the only
role of his father. Dr. Garcia also noted that Antonio lacked the proper attention from
his mother. This led to his attention-seeking demeanor and dependent personality
trait which fuel his propensity to look for thrill in his relationships. For instance,
Antonio recalled that after school, he would spend the rest of the day with a tutor.
When he comes home at night, his mother would not be there as she would always
play mahjong elsewhere. Growing up, he detested his father, but his mother would
force him to show respect because they are being well provided for. Unfortunately,
Antonio mirrored his father's ways. As a young adult, he engaged in several short-
lived, overlapping relationships, including the one with Maribel. They dated when
he still had another girlfriend. After two years, Maribel got pregnant, so he was
forced to marry her. However, the marriage did not prove to be a catalyst for Antonio
as he repeatedly committed marital indiscretions. Soon enough, the spouses fell into
a pernicious cycle of discovery, reprisal, forgiveness, and then a new illicit affair.
Clearly, Antonio's inability to maintain a monogamous relationship with his wife
can be traced to his dysfunctional childhood.

(2) Gravity and (3) lncurability:

Apart from the chronicity of Antonio's infractions, the Court also notes that
there is no clear recognition on his part that fidelity is one of his essential obligations
to his wife Maribel.

so Id. at 193.
51
Tan-Anda/\~ Anda/, supra note 31.
Decision II G.R. No. 203992

In the Psychiatric Evaluation, Dr. Garcia quoted Antonio saying: "As a

husband, I'm practically a good husband; but I would always be cheating on my
wife." 52 From his perspective, his illicit affairs are minor incidents which Maribel
should have overlooked or dealt with differently. It also did not escape the Court's
attention that Antonio has a distorted concept of a wife. During his interviews with
Dr. Garcia, Antonio referred to Maribel as a "good housewife," "because she is not
employed anyway. " 53 He described Maribel as a dedicated mother "because she has
no work, and she can always be with kids. " 54 In return, Antonio "compensated her"
by giving her a monthly allowance for household expenses. It is evident that Antonio
considers himself superior to his wife. He does not consider Maribel as a partner,
hence, there is a constant need for him to look for affection outside the marriage.

Moreover, Antonio blamed Maribel's nagging and tactlessness for the demise
of their marriage, saying that her actions drove him away. He admitted that he was
weak in not being able to control his womanizing, but Maribel is at fault for not
doing anything to win him back. He did not perceive his wife's actions as a sign of
despair or her own peculiar way of fighting for their marriage. Antonio focused on
Maribel's anger and its effects on him. Antonio's failure to show sincere remorse for
his blatant infidelity and the lack of desire to fix his ways to save their marriage
clearly amount to psychological incapacity, which is grave in nature.

Further, Antonio's incapacity is incurable. It is persistent throughout the

marriage and is specifically directed at his wife Maribel. Antonio did not have ample
affection and commitment towards Maribel even at the outset. This was exacerbated
by Maribel's insulting discourse and brazen attacks in response to Antonio's
perennial womanizing and callousness. As explained by Dr. Garcia, the spouses
lacked the ability to give each other sustained love, support, understanding, and
respect which are expected from emotionally fit couples. 55 Surely, their distorted
interaction and detestable communication pattern did not help to resolve their
contlict56 and instead resulted to marital disintegration. The totality of evidence thus
points to Antonio's psychological incapacity as the cause to nullify his marriage to
Maribel.

No sufficient evidence of
psychological incapacity on
the part of Maribel:

As for Maribel's retaliatory acts, i.e., sending vulgar fax messages and hateful
letters, and evicting Antonio from the conjugal home, the Court sees that these are
typical of a woman treated with contempt. Maribel was a college student when she
got pregnant. She got married to Antonio and devoted herself to becoming a wife
52
Rollo, p. 182.
53
Id. at 179 & 191.
54
Id. at 182.
55
Rollo, pp. 193-194.
56
Montealto-laylo v. Ymbang. G.R. No. 240802, September 29, 2021.
Decision 12 G.R. No. 203992

and mother to their kids. She wanted someone to grow old with and exerted efforts
to have a stable and healthy home for Antonio and their children. 57 However, when
Maribel discovered her husband's illicit affairs, she was seething with anger that her
nurturing ways turned into rage. Admittedly, Maribel's vengeful stance contributed
to the collapse of the marriage as it aggravated Antonio's psychological incapacity.
Despite Maribel's belligerent attitude and verbal offensives towards Antonio, the
Court rules that these do not amount to psychological incapacity because these only
existed during the marriage, particularly, as a reaction to Antonio's philandering.

Our laws pertaining to marriage and family could not be expected to address
every incarnation or nuance of husband and wife relationships. Nevertheless, in
interpreting the provisions relating to the declaration of nullity of marriage, courts
must discern those relationships that are patently ill-equipped to cope and adapt to
the complexities of marriage. 58 In this case, Antonio and Maribel have been
separated in fact since 1998 and it has not been shown that they have changed for
the better to compel them to remain in a marriage. 59 Truly, their union should not be
upheld solely for the sake of permanence because doing so will only destroy the very
essence of marriage as an institution. 60

ACCORDINGLY, the Petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated May 22,

2012 and Resolution dated October 3, 2012 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV
No. 93554, which dismissed the Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage filed
by petitioner Antonio S. Quiogue, Jr., is REVERSED and SET ASIDE.

The marriage between Antonio S. Quiogue, Jr., and Maria Bel B. Quiogue is
declared VOID on ground of Antonio's psychological incapacity.

SO ORDERED.

57
Rollo, pp. 193.
58
Tan-Anda! v. Anda!, supra note 31.
59
Estella v. Perez, G.R. No. 249250, September 29, 2021.
60
Tan-Anda/ v. Anda/, supra note 31.
Decision 13 G.R. No. 203992

WE CONCUR:

Associate Justice
Chairperson

AMY JHOSE~OPEZ
Associate Justice

. -
~ ~~
~Kffo, JR. ~
Associate Justice

ATTESTATION

I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in
consultation before the cases were assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court's
Division.

Associate Justice
Chairperson

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, and the Division
Chairperson's Attestation, I ce1tify that the conclusions in the above Decision had
been reached in consultation before the cases were assigned to the writer of the
opinion of the Court's Division.