Facts
Plaintiff Brenda B. Marcos married Wilson Marcos in 1982 and they had
five children. Alleging that the husband failed to provide material support to
the family and have resorted to physical abuse and abandonment, Brenda filed a
case for the nullity of the marriage for psychological incapacity. The RTC
declared the marriage null and void under Art. 36 which was however reversed by
CA.
Issues
Whether personal medical or psychological examination of the respondent
by a physician is a requirement for a declaration of psychological incapacity.
Whether the totality of evidence presented in this case show psychological
incapacity.
Held
Psychological incapacity as a ground for declaring the nullity of a
marriage, may be established by the totality of evidence presented. There is no
requirement, however that the respondent be examined by a physician or a
psychologist as a condition sine qua non for such declaration. Although this
Court is sufficiently convinced that respondent failed to provide material
support to the family and may have resorted to physical abuse and abandonment,
the totality of his acts does not lead to a conclusion of psychological
incapacity on his part. There is absolutely no showing that his “defects” were
already present at the inception of the marriage or that they are incurable.
Verily, the behavior of respondent can be attributed to the fact that he had
lost his job and was not gainfully employed for a period of more than six
years. It was during this period that he became intermittently drunk, failed to
give material and moral support, and even left the family home. Thus, his
alleged psychological illness was traced only to said period and not to the
inception of the marriage. Equally important, there is no evidence showing that
his condition is incurable, especially now that he is gainfully employed as a
taxi driver. In sum, this Court cannot declare the dissolution of the marriage
for failure of the petitioner to show that the alleged psychological incapacity
is characterized by gravity, juridical antecedence and incurabilty and for her
failure to observe the guidelines as outline in Republic v. CA and Molina.
No comments:
Post a Comment