 |
|||
|
| |||
Nora appealed the RTC decision to the CA, arguing inter alia that the RTC erred in finding that the testimony of the psychiatrist is sufficient to prove the parties' psychological incapacity. Ruling of the CA The CA, in its Decision14 dated March 27, 2014, granted Nora's appeal and reversed the RTC decision. The decretal portion of the decision states: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant appeal filed by [Nora] is GRANTED. The Decision dated March 28, 2011 of the RTC, National Capital Judicial Region in Civil Case No. Q-08-62822 is REVERSED and SETASIDE. SO ORDERED.15 The CA denied Manuel's motion for reconsideration16 through a Resolution17 dated April 22, 2015.
Ruling of the Court As the CA correctly ruled, the totality of evidence presented by Manuel comprising of his testimony and that of Dr. Villegas, as well as the latter's psychological evaluation report, is insufficient to prove that he and Nora are psychologically incapacitated to perform the essential obligations of marriage. Dr. Villegas' conclusion that Manuel is afflicted with Intermittent Explosive Disorder and that Nora has Passive Aggressive Personality Disorder which render them psychologically incapacitated under Article 36 of the Family Code,19 is solely based on her interviews with Manuel and the parties' eldest child, Moncho. Consequently, the CA did not err in not according probative value to her psychological evaluation report and testimony. In Republic of the Philippines v. Galang,20 the Court held that "[i]f the incapacity can be proven by independent means, no reason exists why such independent proof cannot be admitted to support a conclusion of psychological incapacity, independently of a psychologist's examination and report."21 In Toring v. Toring, et al.,22 the Court stated that:
In this case, the only person interviewed by Dr. Villegas aside from Manuel for the spouses' psychological evaluation was Moncho, who could not be considered as a reliable witness to establish the psychological incapacity of his parents in relation to Article 36 of the Family Code, since he could not have been there at the time his parents were married. The Court also notes that Dr. Villegas did not administer any psychological tests on Manuel despite having had the opportunity to do so. While the Court has declared that there is no requirement that the person to be declared psychologically incapacitated should be personally examined by a physician,24 much less be subjected to psychological tests, this rule finds application only if the totality of evidence presented is enough to sustain a finding of psychological incapacity. In this case, the supposed personality disorder of Manuel could have been established by means of psychometric and neurological tests which are objective means designed to measure specific aspects of people's intelligence, thinking, or personality.25 With regard to the Confirmatory Decree26 of the National Tribunal of Appeals, which affirmed the decision of the Metropolitan Tribunal of First Instance for the Archdiocese of Manila in favor of nullity of the Catholic marriage of Manuel and Nora, the Court accords the same with great respect but does not consider the same as controlling and decisive, in line with prevailing jurisprudence.27 WHEREFORE, the petition for review is hereby DENIED. The Decision dated March 27, 2014 and Resolution dated April 22, 2015 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 98579 are AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED. ANDRES B. REYES, JR WE CONCUR: PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.
NOEL GIMENEZ TIJAM A T T E S T A T I O N I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division. PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR. C E R T I F I C A T I O N Pursuant to the Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and the Division Chairperson’s Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division. MARIA LOURDES P.A. SERENO Footnotes * Designated additional Member per Raffle dated August 9, 2017 vice Associate Justice Francis H. Jardeleza. 1 Rollo, pp. 3-31. 2 Penned by Associate Justice Marlene B. Gonzales-Sison, with Associate Justices Michael P. Elbinias and Edwin D. Sorongon concurring; id. at 33-51. 3 Id. at 71-72. 4 Id. at 6. 5 Id. at 6-7. 6 Id. at 7. 7 Id. 8 Id. at 7-8. 9 Id. at 73. 10 Id. at 76. 11 Id. at 8. 12 Rendered by Presiding Judge Maria Elisa Sempio Diy; id. at 73-81. 13 Id. at 80. 14 Id. at 33-51. 15 Id. at 50. 16 Id. at 52-69. 17 Id. at 71-72. 18 Id. at 10-11. 19 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. 20 665 Phil. 658 (2011). 21 Id. at 675. 22 640 Phil. 434 (2010). 23 Id. at 451. 24 Marcos v. Marcos, 397 Phil. 840, 847 (2000). 25 Lim v. Sta. Cruz-Lim, 625 Phil. 407, 422 (2010). 26 Rollo, pp. 132-134. 27 Mallilin v. Jamesolamin, et al., 754 Phil. 158, 184 (2015); Republic of the Philippines v. CA, 335 Phil. 664, 678 (1997). The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation 
| |||
