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.
