FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 212717; MAR 11, 2020
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner,
- versus –
ARIEL S. CALINGO and CYNTHIA MARCELLANA-CALINGO, Respondents.
REYES, J. JR., J.:
NATURE OF ACTION: Petition for declaration of nullity of marriage
FACTS: In 1978, Ariel and Cynthia met when the latter was still the girlfriend of the former's
friend. After a while, Cynthia and his then boyfriend broke up. From the conclusion of such
relationship, there sprung a new one. After developing a strong sense of sexual desire and
physical attraction towards each other, Ariel and Cynthia became a couple.
On February 5, 1980, Ariel and Cynthia decided to get married civilly. The couple initially lived in
Paco, Manila; and later on transferred to several places because of the alleged aggressive
behavior of Cynthia. As they lived together, Ariel narrated that Cynthia kept herself occupied by
gossiping and reading comic books. Once, he asked Cynthia to limit her visitation to their
neighbors to gossip, but Cynthia got mad and told him there was nothing much to do in their
house. Despite their marital problems, Ariel and Cynthia had their church wedding on February
22, 1998. At the time of their church celebration, Cynthia was five months pregnant. Ariel
claimed that Cynthia's behavior was no different even after their second rites. She continued to
gossip and pick fights with their neighbors.
According to Ariel, not only did Cynthia showed aggressive behavior during their union, but she
likewise exhibited unfaithfulness. Ariel recalled that Cynthia's first instance of marital infidelity
was with Noli, their neighbor, who became close to them. When Ariel found out about the
affair, he forgave Cynthia, who allegedly showed no remorse. Noli later on revealed to him that
their twin children were not really Ariel's children, but his own. Ariel then remembered one
incident between him and Cynthia wherein the latter told him "hindi mo anak yan ", as she got
mad because Ariel spanked one of their children. Cynthia's second affair involved Louie, who
was also their neighbor. Ariel testified that he discovered Louie hiding under their marital bed
and wearing his pants only. Not long after, Ariel reached his peak and left their conjugal abode
after Cynthia threw a knife at him, which fortunately hit the wall. Premised on Cynthia's
irritable and irascible attitude, Ariel narrated that the same took place after he asked Cynthia to
check the pressure cooker; and in the course thereof, the pressure cooker exploded. Surprised,
Cynthia got so angry and started throwing curses at Ariel. Allegedly, Cynthia threw a knife
against him which hit the wall.
Ariel filed a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage. To support his petition, Ariel secured
the psychological evaluation of Dr. Arnulfo Lopez. The result thereof shows that Ariel possesses
an emotionally disturbed personality, but not severe enough to constitute psychological
incapacity. Dr. Lopez likewise conducted an assessment on Cynthia; and the same revealed that
Cynthia is suffering from Borderline Personality Disorder with Histrionic Personality Disorder
Features. The Regional Trial Court denied the petition. Finding insufficiency of evidence, the
RTC stressed that the totality of evidence presented did not exhibit Cynthia's psychological
incapacity as there was absolutely no showing that her traits were already present at the
inception of the marriage or that they were incurable.
Ariel's motion for reconsideration was denied.
The CA reversed the ruling of the RTC and granted the petition for declaration of nullity of
marriage. Hinged on Cynthia's attitude of being ",nabunganga" and having relationships with
other men coupled with the diagnosis of Dr. Lopez, the CA was convinced that Cynthia is
psychologically incapacitated to fulfill her essential marital obligations to Ariel.
ISSUES: Whether or not the marriage between Ariel and Cynthia should be declared null on the
basis of psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code.
RULING: No.
While marriage is considered by our fundamental law as an inviolable social institution, our
laws allow the nullity of marriage entered into between parties who are incognizant of their
obligations on the ground of pyschological incapacity. Specifically, Article 36 of the Family Code
provides: Art. 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. Marriage
nullified based on such justification is considered as void from the outset.
Jurisprudence defined psychological incapacity to no less than a mental, not physical, incapacity
that causes a party to be tiuly incognitive of the basic marital covenants that must
concomitantly be assumed and discharged by the parties to the marriage. It ought to pertain to
only the most serious cases of personality disorders that clearly demonstrate the
party's/parties' utter insensitivity or inability to give meaning and significance to the marriage
In this case, Ariel presented the medical assessment of Dr. Lopez who found that Cynthia is
suffering from Borderline Personality Disorder with Histrionic Personality Disorder Features
rooted on her disorderly filial relationship as she was subjected to physical abuse and
abandonment. Such findings were based on the testimony of Ariel and their friends, Francisca
Bilason and Ruben Kalaw. However, this Court refuses to accept as credible the assessment of
Dr. Lopez as there was no other evidence which established the juridical antecedence,
gravity, and incurability of Cynthia's alleged incapacity. To recall, the report itself cited the
testimonies of Ariel and their friends, Bilason and Kalaw as bases for the findings. It displayed
that Bilason and Kalaw are friends with the couple for more or less thirty years, and the same
does not show that they have known Cynthia longer than such period of time so as to have
personal knowledge of her circumstances. Neither was it shown that Ariel likewise had
personal knowledge of Cynthia's family background. Thus, they could not have known Cynthia's
childhood nor the manner as to how she was raised. Likewise, Cynthia's sexual infidelity is not a
satisfactory proof of psychological incapacity.
To be a ground to nullify a marriage based on Article 36 of the Family Code, it must be shown
that the acts of unfaithfulness are manifestations of a disordered personality which makes
him/her completely unable to discharge the essential obligations of marriage. Psychological
incapacity must be more than just a "difficulty," "refusal" or "neglect" in the performance of the
marital obligations; it is not enough that a party prove that the other failed to meet the
responsibility and duty of a married person. 27 Hence, contrary to CA's decision, the fact that
Cynthia is "mabunganga" and had extra-marital affairs are not sufficient indicators of a
psychological disorder.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition is hereby GRANTED.
