Jose Reynaldo B. Ochosa, petitioner vs
Bona J. Alano and Republic of the Philippines, respondents
G.R. No. 167459, January 26, 2011
Facts:
Bona’s illicit affairs with other men started
at the onset of their marriage on October 27, 1973, when Jose was assigned in
various parts of the country as an officer in the AFP. She continued her
infidelity even when they lived together at Fort Bonifacio, Makati City sometime
in 1985, whenever Jose was out of their living quarters.
In 1987, Jose was incarcerated in Camp Crame for
rebellion for the alleged participation of the failed coup d’etat. He heard circulation
of rumors of Bona getting caught having sex with his driver, Corporal Gagarin.
He got a military pass from his jail
warden and confronted Bona about the rumors, which she and Gagarin admitted. Since
then they were separated, and their foundling, Ramona Celeste, stayed with Bona
in Basilan until 1994 to live with Jose.
Jose Reynaldo B. Ochosa filed a Petition for
the declaration of nullity of marriage between him and Bona J. Alano, based on
the ground of the latter’s psychological incapacity to fulfill the essential
marital obligations of marriage.
Elizabeth E. Rondain, a psychiatrist, one of
the witnesses, testified and submitted a psychological evaluation report on
Bona’s mental state. The interviews she had with Jose and two of his witnesses
brought her to the conclusion that respondent was suffering from histrionic
personality disorder, and it was traceable to her family history.
On January 11, 1999, the dispositive portion of
the trial court declared the marriage of Jose and Bona void ab initio on the
ground of psychological incapacity of the respondent under Article 36 of the
Family Code. The Court finds that Bona’s illness exhibited gravity,
antecedence, and incurability.
OSG appealed the said ruling to the CA, and the
CA subsequently granted the appeal and reversed the ruling of the trial court
decision.
Issue:
Whether or not Bona should be deemed psychologically
incapacitated to comply with the essential marital obligations.
Ruling:
No. There is inadequate credible evidence that
her defects were already present at the inception of, or prior to, the
marriage. Bona’s alleged psychological incapacity did not satisfy the
jurisprudential requisite of “juridical antecedence”. Her persistent sexual infidelity
and abandonment are not badges of psychological incapacity nor can’t it be
traced to the inception of their marriage.
The psychiatrist’s conclusion about Bona’s HPD
which made her prone to promiscuity and sexual infidelity existed before her
marriage to Jose, cannot be taken as credible proof of antecedence since the
method by which such an inference was reached leaves much to be desired in
terms of meeting the standard of evidence required in determining psychological
incapacity.
Dr. Rondain’s conclusion was based solely on
the assumed truthful knowledge of Jose. No other witness testified to Bona’s
family history or her behavior prior to or at the beginning of their marriage.
The two witnesses only started to live with them in 1980 and 1986,
respectively.
Verily, Dr. Rondain evaluated Bona’s
psychological condition directly from the information gathered solely from Jose
and his witnesses. These factual circumstances evoke the possibility that the
information fed to the psychiatrists is tainted with bias for Jose’s cause, in
the absence of sufficient corroboration.
Article 36 of the Family Code is not to be
confused with a divorce law that cuts the marital bond at the time the causes
therefore manifest themselves. It refers to a serious psychological illness
afflicting a party even before the celebration of the marriage. It is a malady
so grave and so permanent as to deprive one of awareness of the duties and
responsibilities of the matrimonial bond one is about to assume. These marital
obligations are those provided under Article 68 to 71, 220, 221 and 225 of the
Family Code.
