2001 Pesca - v. - Pesca20230811 11 Ljvbpi
2001 Pesca - v. - Pesca20230811 11 Ljvbpi
2001 Pesca - v. - Pesca20230811 11 Ljvbpi
DECISION
VITUG, J : p
The Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the trial court and
declared the marriage between petitioner and responder valid and
subsisting. The appellate court said:
"Definitely the appellee has not established the following: That
the appellant showed signs of mental incapacity as would cause him to
be truly incognizant of the basic marital covenant, as so provided for in
Article 68 of the Family Code; that the incapacity is grave, has
preceded the marriage and is incurable; that his incapacity to meet his
marital responsibility is because of a psychological, not physical illness;
that the root cause of the incapacity has been identified medically or
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2023 cdasiaonline.com
clinically, and has been proven by an expert; and that the incapacity is
permanent and incurable in nature.
"The burden of proof to show the nullity of marriage lies in the
plaintiff and any doubt should be resolved in favor of the existence and
continuation of the marriage and against its dissolution and nullity." 1
Petitioner, in her plea to this Court, would have the decision of the
Court of Appeals reversed on the thesis that the doctrine enunciated in
Santos vs. Court of Appeals, 2 promulgated on 14 January 1995, as well as
the guidelines set out in Republic vs. Court of Appeals and Molina, 3
promulgated on 13 February 1997, should have no retroactive application
and, on the assumption that the Molina ruling could be applied retroactively,
the guidelines therein outlined should be taken to be merely advisory and
not mandatory in nature. In any case, petitioner argues, the application of
the Santos and Molina dicta should warrant only a remand of the case to the
trial court for further proceedings and not its dismissal.
Be that as it may, respondent submits, the appellate court did not err
in its assailed decision for there is absolutely no evidence that has been
shown to prove psychological incapacity on his part as the term has been so
defined in Santos.
Indeed, there is no merit in the petition.
The term "psychological incapacity," as a ground for the declaration of
nullity of a marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code, has been explained
by the Court in Santos and reiterated in Molina. The Court, in Santos,
concluded:
"It should be obvious, looking at all the foregoing disquisitions,
including, and most importantly, the deliberations of the Family Code
Revision Committee itself, that the use of the phrase 'psychological
incapacity' under Article 36 of the Code has not been meant to
comprehend all such possible cases of psychoses as, likewise
mentioned by some ecclesiastical authorities, extremely low
intelligence, immaturity, and like circumstances (cited in Fr. Artemio
Balumad's 'Void and Voidable Marriages in the Family Code and their
Parallels in Canon Law,' quoting from the Diagnostic Statistical Manuel
of Mental Disorder by the American Psychiatric Association; Edward
Hudson's 'Handbook II for Marriage Nullity Cases'). Article 36 of the
Family Code cannot be taken and construed independently of, but
must stand in conjunction with, existing precepts in our law on
marriage. Thus correlated, 'psychological incapacity' should refer to no
less than a mental (not physical) incapacity that causes a party to be
truly incognizant of the basic marital covenants that concomitantly
must be assumed and discharged by the parties to the marriage which,
as so expressed by Article 68 of the Family Code, include their mutual
obligations to live together, observe love, respect and fidelity and
render help and support. There is hardly any doubt that the
intendment of the law has been to confine the meaning of
'psychological incapacity' to the most serious cases of personality
disorders clearly demonstrative of an utter insensitivity or inability to
give meaning and significance to the marriage. This psychologic
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2023 cdasiaonline.com
condition must exist at the time the marriage is celebrated." DTIACH
Footnotes
1. Rollo , pp. 42-43.
2. 240 SCRA 20.