Manuel filed a petition for annulment of marriage against his wife, Nora based on psychological incapacity under Art. 36 of the Family Code. Manuel presented a psychiatrist, Dr. Cecilia Villegas (Dr. Villegas), who testified that Manuel has Intermittent Explosive Disorder, characterized by irritability and aggressive behavior that is not proportionate to the cause. Dr. Villegas diagnosed Nora with Passive Aggressive Personality Disorder, marked by a display of negative attitude and passive resistance in her relationship with Manuel. Her findings were based on her interview with Manuel and the parties’ eldest son, Moncho, because Nora did not participate in the psychological assessment.
After trial, the RTC granted the petition. 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.
The Court of Appeals, however, reversed the RTC decision, and granted Nora’s appeal, hence, Manuel appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Issue:
Whether or not the totality of the evidence presented by Manuel was enough to prove psychological incapacity on the part of the parties, when the only person interviewed by the psychiatrist aside from Manuel is their eldest son.
The Ruling:
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, 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, 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.” In Toring v. Toring, et al.,the Court stated that:
Other than from the spouses, such evidence can come from persons intimately related to them, such as relatives, close friends or even family doctors or lawyers who could testify on the allegedly incapacitated spouses’ condition at or about the time of marriage, or to subsequent occurring events that trace their roots to the incapacity already present at the time of marriage.
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, 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.
With regard to the Confirmatory Decree 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.
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.
REYES, JR., J:
Velasco, Jr., (Chairperson), Bersamin, Del Castillo,* and Tijam, JJ., concur.
G.R. No. 217993, August 9, 2017, MANUEL R. BAKUNAWA III, PETITIONER, VS. NORA REYES BAKUNAWA, RESPONDENT,
Citations omitted.