FIRST DIVISION
BERNARDINO S. ZAMORA, G.R. No. 141917
Petitioner,
- versus – Present:
AZCUNA, and Promulgated:
COURT OF APPEALS and PUNO, C.J., Chairperson,
NORMA MERCADO ZAMORA, SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ,
Respondents. February 7, 2007 CORONA, GARCIA, JJ.
X -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- X
DECISION
AZCUNA, J.:
This is an appeal by certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court to annul and set
aside the Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals (CA) dated August 5,
1999 and January 24, 2000 in CA-G.R. CV No. 53525, entitled Bernardino S.
Zamora v. Norma Mercado Zamora, which affirmed the dismissal of a complaint
for declaration of nullity of marriage.
The facts[1] are:
Petitioner and private respondent were married on June 4, 1970 in Cebu City. After
their marriage, they lived together at No. 50-A Gorordo Avenue, Cebu City. The
union did not produce any child. In 1972, private respondent left for the United
Statesto work as a nurse. She returned to the Philippines for a few months, then left
again in 1974. Thereafter, she made periodic visits to Cebu City until 1989, when
she was already a U.S. citizen.
Petitioner filed a complaint for declaration of nullity of marriage anchored on the
alleged psychological incapacity of private respondent, as provided for under
Article 36 of the Family Code. To support his position, he alleged that his wife was
horrified by the mere thought of having children as evidenced by the fact that she
had not borne petitioner a child. Furthermore, he also alleged that private
respondent abandoned him by living in the United States and had in fact become
an American citizen; and that throughout their marriage they lived together for not
more than three years.
On the other hand, private respondent denied that she refused to have a child. She
portrayed herself as one who loves children as she is a nurse by profession and that
she would from time to time borrow her husbands niece and nephews to care for
them.She also faulted her husband for the breakup of their marriage, alleging that
he had been unfaithful to her. He allegedly had two affairs with different women,
and he begot at least three children with them.
On June 22, 1995, the trial court rendered its decision thus:
...
Plaintiff consented to defendants trip to the United States in 1974. She
[defendant] wanted to earn money there because she wanted to help her husband
build a big house at the Beverly Hills, Cebu City. Defendants testimony was
corroborated by Paulina Martinez, a former househelp of the Zamoras.She always
wanted to live in the Philippines before her husband committed infidelity.
One reason why defendant seldom saw her husband while she was in
the Philippines was because of the infidelity committed by her husband. No less
than plaintiff himself admitted that he has a child with a certain [x x x]. The court
is also convinced that he has two children with a certain [y y y]. The infidelity on
the part of the plaintiff was one of the contributing factors which led to the
estranged relationship between him and defendant.
[N]othing in the evidence of plaintiff show[s] that the defendant suffered from
any psychological incapacity or that she failed to comply with her essential
marital obligations. There is no evidence of psychological incapacity on the part
of defendant so that she could not carry out the ordinary duties required in
married life. Neither has it been shown that there was an incurable defect on the
part of defendant.
...
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered
DISMISSING the complaint.
Without special pronouncement as to cost.
SO ORDERED.[2]
Petitioner appealed to the CA which rendered a Decision on August 5,
1999 affirming the ruling of the trial court. The pertinent portions of the CA
decision read:
Without delving further into both parties allegations, we must deny this appeal.
In the case of Leouel Santos v. Court of Appeals,[[3]] the High Court ruled that,
psychological incapacity should refer to no less than a mental (not physical)
incapacity x x x and that there is hardly any doubt that the intendment of the law
has been to confine the meaning of psychological incapacity to the most serious
cases of personality or inability to give meaning and significance to the marriage.
Also, in Republic v. Court of Appeals and Molina,[ [4]] it was held that mere
showing of irreconcilable differences and conflicting personalities in no wise
constitutes psychological incapacity. It is not enough to prove that the parties
failed to meet their responsibilities and duties as married persons; it is essential
that they must be shown to be incapable of doing so, due to some psychological
(not physical) illness.
This appeal does not fall in the category of psychological incapacity as defined in
the aforementioned cases. The mere refusal of the appellee to bear a child is not
equivalent to psychological incapacity, since even if such allegation is true, it is
not shown or proven that this is due to psychological illness.
As correctly stated by the appellee in her brief, the appellant even failed to present
any psychologist or other medical expert to prove the psychological incapacity of
defendant-appellee. This WE feel is a fatal omission on the part of the appellant,
considering the doctrine laid down in the Santos and Molina cases (supra).
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the decision of the Regional Trial Court,
Branch 13 of Cebu City is hereby AFFIRMED. Appeal DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.[5]
Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration but the same was denied by the CA in
its Resolution dated January 24, 2000.
Hence, this petition raising the following issues:
1) Whether or not the Court of Appeals misapplied facts of weight and substance
affecting the result of the present case;
2) Whether or not Article 68 of the Family Code is applicable to this case;
3) Whether or not the presentation of psychologists and/or psychiatrists is still
desirable, if evidence in this case already shows the psychological
incapacity of private respondent;
4) Whether or not the presentation of psychologists and/or psychiatrists is still
desirable, considering that the private respondent is a resident of
the United States and living far away from the Philippines for more than
twenty (20) years:
5) Whether or not private respondents refusal to live with petitioner under
one roof for more than twenty (20) years, her refusal to bear children with
petitioner, and her living a solitary life in the United States for almost
three (3) decades are enough indications of psychological incapacity to
comply with essential marital obligations under Article 36 of the Family
Code.[6]
Briefly, the issue is whether there can be a declaration of nullity of the marriage
between petitioner and private respondent on the ground of psychological
incapacity.
Petitioner argues as follows:
First, there is nothing in Santos v. CA,[7] upon which private respondent relies, that
requires as a conditio sine qua non the presentation of expert opinion of
psychologists and psychiatrists in every petition filed under Article 36 of the
Family Code. This Court merely said in that case that [t]he well-considered
opinions of psychiatrists, psychologists, and persons with expertise in
psychological disciplines might be helpful or even desirable. However, no expert
opinion is helpful or even desirable to determine whether private respondent has
been living abroad and away from her husband for many years; whether she has a
child; and whether she has made her residence abroad permanent by acquiring U.S.
citizenship; and
Second, Article 36 of the Family Code provides that 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. Among the
essential marital obligations embraced by Articles 68 to 71 of the same Code is to
procreate children through sexual cooperation which is the basic end of
marriage. To live together under one roof for togetherness spells the unity in
marriage. The marriage had been existing for twenty four years when private
respondent filed a legal separation case against petitioner. Throughout this period,
private respondent deliberately and obstinately refused to comply with the essential
marital obligation to live and cohabit with her husband.
This Court rules as follows:
It is true, as petitioner noted, that the case of Santos v. CA[8] did not specifically
mention that the presentation of expert opinion is a vital and mandatory
requirement in filing a petition for the declaration of nullity of marriage grounded
on psychological incapacity referred to under Article 36 of the Family Code. Even
in the subsequent case of Republic v. Court of Appeals [9] (also known as the
Molina case[10]), wherein the Court laid down the guidelines [11] in the interpretation
and application of the aforementioned article, examination of the person by a
physician in order for the former to be declared psychologically incapacitated was
likewise not considered a requirement. [12] What is important, however, as stated
in Marcos v. Marcos,[13] is the presence of evidence that can adequately establish
the partys psychological condition. If the totality of evidence presented is enough
to sustain a finding of psychological incapacity, then actual medical examination
of the person concerned need not be resorted to.
Likewise, Section 2(d) of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC or the Rule on Declaration of
Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages, which
took effect on March 15, 2003, states:
(d) What to allege. A petition under Article 36 of the Family Code shall
specifically allege the complete facts showing that either or both parties were
psychologically incapacitated from complying with the essential marital
obligations of marriage at the time of the celebration of marriage even if such
incapacity becomes manifest only after its celebration.
The complete facts should allege the physical manifestations, if any, as are
indicative of psychological incapacity at the time of the celebration of the
marriage but expert opinion need not be alleged.[14]
The rule is that the facts alleged in the petition and the evidence presented,
considered in totality, should be sufficient to convince the court of the
psychological incapacity of the party concerned. Petitioner, however, failed to
substantiate his allegation that private respondent is psychologically incapacitated.
His allegations relating to her refusal to cohabit with him and to bear a child was
strongly disputed, as the records undeniably bear out. Furthermore, the acts and
behavior of private respondent that petitioner cited occurred during the marriage,
and there is no proof that the former exhibited a similar predilection even before or
at the inception of the marriage.
Thus, based on the foregoing, the Court finds no reason to disturb the findings and
conclusions reached by the trial court and the CA.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision and Resolution of the
Court of Appeals dated August 5, 1999 and January 24, 2000, respectively, in CA-
G.R. CV No. 53525 are AFFIRMED.
No costs.
SO ORDERED.
ADOLFO S. AZCUNA
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chairperson
Chief Justice
ANGELINA SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ RENATO C. CORONA
Associate Justice Associate Justice
CANCIO C. GARCIA
Associate Justice
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, it is hereby certified 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 Courts Division.
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
[1]
Rollo, pp. 23-23-b; CA Decision, pp. 1-2. References omitted.
[2]
CA Rollo, pp. 50-51.
[3]
310 Phil. 21 (1995).
[4]
Republic v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 108763, February 13, 1997, 268 SCRA 198.
[5]
Rollo, pp. 23, 27.
[6]
Id. at 15-16; Petition for Review on Certiorari, pp. 5-6.
[7]
Supra note at 3.
[8]
Id.
[9]
Supra note 4, at pp. 209-212.
[10]
The petitioning spouse and co-respondent in the case being Roridel O. Molina.
[11]
The guidelines in Molina with respect to Article 36 of the Family Code are the following:
(1) The burden of proof to show the nullity of the marriage belongs to the plaintiff. Any doubt
should be resolved in favor of the existence and continuation of the marriage and against its
dissolution and nullity. This is rooted in the fact that both our Constitution and our laws cherish
the validity of marriage and unity of the family. . . .
(2) The root cause of the psychological incapacity must be: (a) medically or clinically identified,
(b) alleged in the complaint, (c) sufficiently proven by experts and (d) clearly explained in the
decision. Article 36 of the Family Code requires that the incapacity must be psychological not
physical, although its manifestations and/or symptoms may be physical. The evidence must
convince the court that the parties[,] or one of them[,] was mentally or psychically ill to such an
extent that the person could not have known the obligations he was assuming, or knowing them,
could not have given valid assumption thereof. Although no example of such incapacity need be
given here so as not to limit the application of the provision under the principle
of ejusdem generis,[11] nevertheless such root cause must be identified as a psychological illness
and its incapacitating nature fully explained. Expert evidence may be given by qualified
psychiatrists and clinical psychologists.
(3) The incapacity must be proven to be existing at "the time of the celebration" of the marriage.
The evidence must show that the illness was existing when the parties exchanged their "I do's."
The manifestation of the illness need not be perceivable at such time, but the illness itself must
have attached at such moment[,] or prior thereto.
(4) Such incapacity must also be shown to be medically or clinically permanent or incurable. Such
incurability may be absolute or even relative only in regard to the other spouse, not necessarily
absolutely against everyone of the same sex. Furthermore, such incapacity must be relevant to the
assumption of marriage obligations, not necessarily to those not related to marriage, like the
exercise of a profession or employment in a job. Hence, a pediatrician may be effective in
diagnosing illnesses of children and prescribing medicine to cure them but may not be
psychologically capacitated to procreate, bear and raise his/her own children as an essential
obligation of marriage.
(5) Such illness must be grave enough to bring about the disability of the party to assume the
essential obligations of marriage. Thus, "mild characteriological peculiarities, mood changes,
occasional emotional outbursts" cannot be accepted as root causes. The illness must be shown as
downright incapacity or inability, not a refusal, neglect or difficulty, much less ill will. In other
words, there is a natal or supervening disabling factor in the person, an adverse integral element in
the personality structure that effectively incapacitates the person from really accepting and thereby
complying with the obligations essential to marriage.
(6) The essential marital obligations must be those embraced by Articles 68 up to 71 of the Family
Code as regards the husband and wife as well as Articles 220, 221 and 225 of the same Code in
regard to parents and their children. Such non-complied marital obligation(s) must also be stated
in the petition, proven by evidence and included in the text of the decision.
(7) Interpretations given by the National Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal of the Catholic Church
in the Philippines, while not controlling or decisive, should be given great respect by our courts.
Molina had provided for an additional requirement that the Solicitor General issue a
certification stating his reasons for his agreement or opposition to the petition. This requirement,
however, was dispensed with following the implementation of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC or the Rule
on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages.
Section 11 of the Rule only requires the public prosecutor to file a report confirming that no
collusion exists between the parties. Still, Article 48 of the Family Code mandates that the
appearance of the prosecuting attorney or fiscal assigned be on behalf of the State to take steps to
prevent collusion between the parties and to take care that evidence is not fabricated or suppressed
(Antonio v. Reyes, G.R. No. 155800, March 10, 2006, 484 SCRA 353, 375).
[12]
Marcos v. Marcos, G.R. No. 136490, October 19, 2000, 343 SCRA 755, 764.
[13]
Id.
[14]
Emphasis supplied; Section 14(b) of the Rule likewise provides that: In case mediation is not availed of or where
it fails, the court shall proceed with the pre-trial conference, on which occasion it shall consider the
advisability of receiving expert testimony and such other matters as may aid in the prompt disposition of
the case.
