psychological iloingncapacity for annulment

7/25/2019 Psychological Iloingncapacity for Annulment

1/15

Today is Friday, May 13, 2016

RIO E. KALAW v. MA. ELENA FERNANDEZ,G.R. No. 166357, January 14, 2015olution,Bersamin [J]entin! "#inion,el $astillo [J]

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

SPE!"# F!RST $!%!S!&'

No. 166357 January 14, 2015

ER!O E. "AA#,Petitioner,

EENA $ERNAN%E&,Respondent)

R E S & # * T ! & '

RSAM!N, J.:

ur decision pro+ulated on Septe+ber 1-, 2011,1the ourt dis+issed the co+plaint for declaration of nullity of the +arriae of the parties upon the.in ratiocination, to .it/

petition has no +erit) The " co++itted no re(ersible error in settin aside the trial courts $ecision for lac of leal and factual basis)

e case at bar, petitioner failed to pro(e that his .ife respondent4 suffers fro+ psycholoical incapacity) 5e presented the testi+onies of t.o supposert .itnesses .ho concluded that respondent is psycholoically incapacitated, but the conclusions of these .itnesses .ere pre+ised on the alleed a(ior of respondent .hich had not been sufficiently pro(en) Petitioners eperts hea(ily relied on petitioners alleations of respondents constant +aions, (isits to the beauty parlor, oin out .ith friends, adultery, and nelect of their children) Petitioners eperts opined that respondents alleed hn perfor+ed constantly to the detri+ent of 8uality and 8uantity of ti+e de(oted to her duties as +other and .ife, constitute a psycholoical incapacitof 'P$)

petitioners alleations, .hich ser(ed as the bases or underlyin pre+ises of the conclusions of his eperts, .ere not actually pro(en) !n fact, responented contrary e(idence refutin these alleations of the petitioner)

nstance, petitioner alleed that respondent constantly played +ah7on and nelected their children as a result) Respondent ad+ittedly played +ah7s not pro(en that she enaed in +ah7on so fre8uently that she nelected her duties as a +other and a .ife) Respondent refuted petitioners alleshe played four to fi(e ti+es a .ee) She +aintained it .as only t.o to three ti+es a .ee and al.ays .ith the per+ission of her husband and .ithndonin her children at ho+e) The children corroborated this, sayin that they .ere .ith their +other .hen she played +ah7on in their relati(es hoioner did not present any proof, other than his o.n testi+ony, that the +ah7on sessions .ere so fre8uent that respondent nelected her fa+ily) :h

+ated that t.o of his sons repeated the second rade, he .as not able to lin this episode to respondents +ah7on;playin) The least that could ha(e .as to pro(e the fre8uency of respondents +ah7on;playin durin the years .hen these t.o children .ere in second rade) This .as not done) Te there is no dispute that respondent played +ah7on, its alleed debilitatin fre8uency and ad(erse effect on the children .ere not pro(en)

unpro(en .as petitioners clai+ about respondents alleed constant (isits to the beauty parlor, oin out .ith friends, and obsessi(e need for atteother +en) 'o proof .hatsoe(er .as presented to pro(e her (isits to beauty salons orher fre8uent partyin .ith friends) Petitioner presented Mario
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_166357_2015.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_166357_2015.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_166357_so_2015.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_166357_so_2015.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_166357_2015.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_166357_2015.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_166357_so_2015.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_166357_2015.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_166357_2015.html


2/15

ed co+panion of respondent durin these nihts;out4 in order to pro(e that respondent had affairs .ith other +en, but Mario only testified that respeared to be datin other +en) E(en assu+in aruendothat petitioner .as able to pro(e that respondent had an etra+arital affair .ith another +aninstance of seual infidelity cannot, by itself, be e8uated .ith obsessi(e need for attention fro+ other +en) Seual infidelity per seis a round for le

aration, but it does not necessarily constitute psycholoical incapacity)

n the insufficiency of e(idence that respondent actually enaed in the beha(iors described as constituti(e of 'P$, there is no basis for concludin

.as indeed psycholoically incapacitated) !ndeed, the totality of the e(idence points to the opposite conclusion) " fair assess+ent of the facts .ouldrespondent .as not totally re+iss and incapable of appreciatin and perfor+in her +arital and parental duties) 'ot once did the children state that

e nelected by their +other) &n the contrary, they narrated that she too care of the+, .as around .hen they .ere sic, and cooed the food they liears that respondent +ade real efforts tosee and tae care of her children despite her estrane+ent fro+ their father) There .as no testi+ony .hatssho.s abandon+ent and nelect of fa+ilial duties) :hile petitioner cites the fact that his t.o sons, Rio and Miy, both failed the second ele+enta

pite ha(in tutors, there is nothin to lin their acade+ic short co+ins to Malyns actions)

r porin o(er the records of the case, the ourt finds no factual basis for the conclusion of psycholoical incapacity) There is no error in the "s re(rial courts rulin that there .as psycholoical incapacity) The trial courts $ecision +erely su++ari=ed the alleations, testi+onies, and e(idence oecti(e parties, but it did not actually assess the (eracity of these alleations, the credibility of the .itnesses, and the .eiht of the e(idence) The tria

not +ae factual findins .hich can ser(e as bases for its leal conclusionof psycholoical incapacity)

t transpired bet.een the parties is acri+ony and, perhaps, infidelity, .hich +ay ha(e constrained the+ fro+ dedicatin the best of the+sel(es to ear and to their children) There +ay be rounds for leal separation, but certainly not psycholoical incapacity that (oids a +arriae)

EREF&RE, pre+ises considered, the petition is $E'!E$) The ourt of "ppeals May 2>, 200? $ecision and its $ece+ber 1@, 200? Resolution in "'o) 6?2?0 are "FF!RME$) S& &R$ERE$)2

s Motion for Reconsideration,3the petitioner i+plores the ourt to tae a thorouh second loo into .hat constitutes psycholoical incapacityA to uphns of the trial court as supported by the testi+onies of three epert .itnessesA and conse8uently to find that the respondent, if not both parties, .er

choloically incapacitated to perfor+ their respecti(e essential +arital obliation)

n an assiduous re(ie. of the records, .e resol(e to rant the petitioners Motion for Reconsideration)

!

choloical incapacity as a round for the nullity of +arriae under "rticle 36 of the Fa+ily ode refers to a serious psycholoical illness afflictin a pn prior to the celebration of the +arriae that is per+anent as to depri(e the party of the a.areness of the duties and responsibilities of the +atri+on

d he or she .as about to assu+e) "lthouh the Fa+ily ode has not defined the ter+ psycholoical incapacity, the ourt has usually looed up its +e(ie.in the deliberations of the sessions of the Fa+ily ode Re(ision o++ittee that had drafted the Fa+ily ode in order to ain an insiht on thision) !t appeared that the +e+bers of the Fa+ily ode Re(ision o++ittee .ere not unani+ous on the +eanin, and in the end they decided to aision B.ith less specificity than epectedB in order to ha(e the la. Ballo. so+e resiliency in its application)B ?!llustrati(e of the Bless specificity than ebeen the o+ission by the Fa+ily ode Re(ision o++ittee to i(e any ea+ples of psycholoical incapacity that .ould ha(e li+ited the applicabilitision confor+ably .ith the principle of e7usde+ eneris, because the o++ittee desired that the courts should interpret the pro(ision on a case;to;cs, uided by eperience, the findins of eperts and researchers in psycholoical disciplines, and the decisions of church tribunals that had persuasct by (irtue of the pro(ision itself ha(in been taen fro+ the anon #a.)@

he other hand, as the ourt has obser(ed in Santos () ourt of "ppeals,6the deliberations of the Fa+ily ode Re(ision o++ittee and the rele(anterials on psycholoical incapacity as a round for the nullity of +arriae ha(e rendered it ob(ious that the ter+ psycholoical incapacity as used in "f the Fa+ily odeBhas not been +eant to co+prehend all such possible cases of psychoses as, lie.ise +entioned by so+e ecclesiastical authoriti

e+ely lo. intellience, i++aturity, and lie circu+stances,B and could not be taen and construed independently of Bbut +ust stand in con7unction .tin precepts in our la. on +arriae)B Thus correlated/;

Bpsycholoical incapacityB should refer to no less than a +ental not physical4 incapacity that causes a party to be truly inconiti(e of the basic +arenants that conco+itantly +ust be assu+ed and dischared by the parties to the +arriae .hich, as so epressed by "rticle 6C of the Fa+ily ode,

+utual obliations to li(e toether, obser(e lo(e, respect and fidelity and render help and support) There is hardly any doubt that the intend+ent of been to confine the +eanin of Bpsycholoical incapacityB to the +ost serious cases of personality disorders clearly de+onstrati(e of an utter insensability to i(e +eanin and sinificance to the +arriae) This psycholoic condition +ust eist at the ti+e the +arriae is celebrated) The la. does ently en(ision, upon the other hand, an inability of the spouse to ha(e seual relations .ith the other) This conclusion is i+plicit under "rticle @? of thily ode .hich considers children concei(ed prior to the 7udicial declaration of nullity of the (oid +arriae to be Bleiti+ate)B >

+e, in Republic () ourt of "ppeals,Cthe ourt set so+e uidelines for the interpretation and application of "rticle 36 of the Fa+ily ode, as follo.s/
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_166357_2015.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_166357_2015.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_166357_2015.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_166357_2015.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_166357_2015.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_166357_2015.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_166357_2015.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_166357_2015.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_166357_2015.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_166357_2015.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_166357_2015.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_166357_2015.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_166357_2015.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_166357_2015.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_166357_2015.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_166357_2015.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_166357_2015.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_166357_2015.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_166357_2015.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_166357_2015.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_166357_2015.html#fnt8


3/15

14 The burden of proof to sho. the nullity of the +arriae belons to the plaintiff) "ny doubt should be resol(ed in fa(or of the eistecontinuation of the +arriae and aainst its dissolution and nullity) This is rooted in the fact that both our onstitution and our la.s chthe (alidity of +arriae and unity of the fa+ily) Thus, our onstitution de(otes an entire "rticle on the Fa+ily, reconi=in it Bas thefoundation of the nation)B !t decrees +arriae as leally Bin(iolable,B thereby protectin it fro+ dissolution at the .hi+ of the parties) 9fa+ily and +arriae are to be BprotectedB by the state)

The Fa+ily ode echoes this constitutional edict on +arriae and the fa+ily and e+phasi=es their per+anence, in(iolability and soli

24 The root cause of the psycholoical incapacity +ust be a4 +edically or clinically identified, b4 alleed in the co+plaint, c4 sufficiepro(en by eperts and d4 clearly eplained in the decision) "rticle 36 of the Fa+ily ode re8uires that the incapacity +ust be psychoD not physical, althouhits +anifestations andor sy+pto+s +ay be physical) The e(idence +ust con(ince the court that the partiesof the+, .as +entally or psychically ill to such an etent that the person could not ha(e no.n the obliations he .as assu+in, or the+, could not ha(e i(en (alid assu+ption thereof) "lthouh no ea+ple of such incapacity need be i(en here so as not to li+it thapplication of the pro(ision under the principle of e7usde+ eneris, ne(ertheless such root cause +ust be identified as a psycholoicillness and its incapacitatin nature fully eplained) Epert e(idence +ay be i(en by 8ualified psychiatrists and clinical psycholoists

34 The incapacity +ust be pro(en tobe eistin at Bthe ti+e of the celebrationB of the +arriae) The e(idence +ust sho. that the illneistin .hen the parties echaned their B! dos)B The +anifestation of the illness need not be percei(able at such ti+e, but the illne+ust ha(e attached at such +o+ent, or prior thereto)

?4 Such incapacity +ust also be sho.n to be +edically or clinically per+anent or incurable) Such incurability +ay be absolute or e(erelati(e only in reard to the other spouse, not necessarily absolutely aainst e(eryone of the sa+e se) Further+ore, such incapacitbe rele(ant to the assu+ption of +arriae obliations, not necessarily to those not related to +arriae, lie the eercise of a professie+ploy+ent in a 7ob) 5ence, a pediatrician +ay be effecti(e in dianosin illnesses of children and prescribin +edicine to cure the++ay not be psycholoically capacitated to procreate, bear and raise hisher o.n children as an essential obliation of +arriae)

@4 Such illness +ust be ra(e enouh to brin about the disability of the party to assu+e the essential obliations of +arriae) Thuscharacterioloical peculiarities, +ood chanes, occasional e+otional outburstsB cannot be accepted as root causes) The illness +ussho.n as do.nriht incapacity or inability, not a refusal, nelect or difficulty, +uch less ill .ill) !n other .ords, there is a natal or supedisablin factor in the person, an ad(erse interal ele+ent in the personality structure that effecti(ely incapacitates the person fro+ racceptin and thereby co+plyin .ith the obliations essential to +arriae)

64 The essential +arital obliations +ust be those e+braced by "rticles 6C up to >1 of the Fa+ily ode as reards the husband and.ell as "rticles 220, 221 and 22@ of the sa+e ode in reard to parents and their children) Such non;co+plied +arital obliations4 +also be stated in the petition, pro(en by e(idence and included in the tet of the decision)

>4 !nterpretations i(en by the 'ational "ppellate Matri+onial Tribunal of the atholic hurch in the Philippines, .hile not controllindecisi(e, should be i(en reat respect by our courts) !t is clear that "rticle 36 .as taen by the Fa+ily ode Re(ision o++ittee froanon 10-@ of the 'e. ode of anon #a., .hich beca+e effecti(e in 1-C3 and .hich pro(ides/

BThe follo.in are incapable of contractin +arriae/ Those .ho are unable to assu+e the essential obliations of +arriae due to cof psycholoical nature)B

Since the purpose of includin suchpro(ision in our Fa+ily ode is to har+oni=e our ci(il la.s .ith the reliious faith of our people, itto reason that to achie(e such har+oni=ation, reat persuasi(e .eiht should be i(en to decisions of such appellate tribunal) !deallysub7ect to our la. on e(idence D .hatis decreed as canonically in(alid should also be decreed ci(illy (oid)

This is one instance .here, in(ie. of the e(ident source and purpose of the Fa+ily ode pro(ision, conte+poraneous reliiousinterpretation is to be i(en persuasi(e effect) 5ere, the State and the hurch D .hile re+ainin independent, separate and apart fr

each other D shall .al toether in synodal cadence to.ards the sa+e oal of protectin and cherishin +arriae and the fa+ily asin(iolable base of the nation)

C4 The trial court +ust order the prosecutin attorney or fiscal and the Solicitor


4/15

ate of certain re7ection) 9ut "rticle 36 of the Fa+ily ode +ust not be so strictly and too literally read and applied i(en the clear intend+ent of the ddopt its enacted (ersion of Bless specificityB ob(iously to enable Bso+e resiliency in its application)B !nstead, e(ery court should approach the issue oon the basis of a priori assu+ptions, predilections or enerali=ations, but accordin to its o.n factsB in reconition of the (erity that no case .ould b

sB .ith the net one in the field of psycholoical incapacity as a round for the nullity of +arriaeA hence, e(ery Btrial 7ude +ust tae pains in ea+inual +ilieu and the appellate court +ust, as+uch as possible, a(oid substitutin its o.n 7ud+ent for that of the trial court)B 10

e tas of ascertainin the presence of psycholoical incapacity as a round for the nullity of +arriae, the courts, .hich are concededly not endo.eertise in the field of psycholoy, +ust of necessity rely on the opinions of eperts in order to infor+ the+sel(es on the +atter, and thus enable the+se at an intellient and 7udicious 7ud+ent) !ndeed, the conditions for the +alady of bein ra(e, antecedent and incurable de+and the in;depth diaperts)11

!!

findins of the Reional Trial ourt RT4 on the eistence or non;eistence of a partys psycholoical incapacity should be final and bindin for as h findins and e(aluation of the testi+onies of .itnesses and other e(idence are not sho.n to be clearly and +anifestly erroneous) 12!n e(ery situatioindins of the trial court are sufficiently supported by the facts and e(idence presented durin trial, the appellate court should restrain itself fro+ sub.n 7ud+ent)13!t is not enouh reason to inore the findins and e(aluation by the trial court and substitute our o.n as an appellate tribunal only beonstitution and the Fa+ily ode reard +arriae as an in(iolable social institution) :e ha(e to stress that the fulfil+ent of the constitutional +andaState to protect +arriae as an in(iolable social institution 1?only relates to a (alid +arriae) 'o protection can be accordedto a +arriae that is null anitio, because such a +arriae has no leal eistence)1@

eclarin a +arriae null and (oid ab initio, therefore, the ourts really assiduously defend and pro+ote the sanctity of +arriae as an in(iolable socitution) The foundation of our society is thereby +ade all the +ore stron and solid)

e, the findins and e(aluation by the RT as the trial court deser(ed credence because it .as in the better position to (ie. and ea+ine the de+ean.itnesses .hile they .ere testifyin) 16The position and role of the trial 7ude in the appreciation of the e(idence sho.in the psycholoical incapacito be do.nplayed but should be accorded due i+portance and respect)

in the Septe+ber 1-, 2011 decision, the ourt brushed aside the opinions tendered by $r) ristina


5/15

r e(idence presented here)

eo(er, in its deter+ination of the issue of psycholoical incapacity, the trial court .as epectedto co+pare the epert findins and opinion of $r) 'atian, the respondents o.n .itness, and those of $r)


6/15

Tain these all out, you ca+e to the conclusion that respondent is self;centered and narcissisticH

"ctually respondent has so+e needs .hich te+pts JsicK fro+ a depri(ed childhood and she is still insearch of this) !n her se(eral boyfriends, it see+s.ould 7u+p fro+ one boyfriend to another) There is this need for attention, this need for lo(e on other people)

"nd that led you to concludeH

"nd therefore ! concluded that she is self;centered to the point of nelectin her duty as a .ife and as a +other)2C

probati(e force of the testi+ony of an epert does not lie in a +ere state+ent of her theory or opinion, but rather in the assistance that she can rendcourts in sho.in the facts that ser(e as a basis for her criterion and the reasons upon .hich the loic of her conclusion is founded) 2-5ence, .e shoh and consider the probati(e (alue of the findins of the epert .itnesses (is;L;(is the other e(idence a(ailable)

other epert of the petitioner .as Fr) 5ealy, a canon la. epert, an ad(ocate before the Manila "rchdiocese and Matri+onial Tribunal, and a consulFa+ily ode Re(ision o++ittee) Reardin Father 5ealys epert testi+ony, .e ha(e once declared that 7udicial understandin of psycholoicalpacity could be infor+ed by e(ol(in standards, tain into account the particulars of each case, by current trends in psycholoical and e(en by canht, and by eperience)30!t is prudent for us to do so because the concept of psycholoical incapacity adopted under "rticle 36 of the Fa+ily ode .(ed fro+ anon #a.)

er 5ealy tendered his opinion on.hether or not the respondents le(el of i++aturity and irresponsibility .ith reard to her o.n children and to her hstituted psycholoical incapacity, testifyin thusly/

) M"$R!$

'o., respondent Ma) Elena Fernande= clai+s that she is not psycholoically incapacitated) &n the facts as you read it based on the records of this re this 5onorable ourt, .hat can you say to that clai+ of respondentH

.ould say it is a clear case of psycholoical incapacity because of her i++aturity and trau+atic irresponsibility .ith reards to her o.n children)

So .hat you are sayin is that, the clai+ of respondent that she is not psycholoically incapacitated is not trueH

es) !t should be re7ected)

:hy do you say soH

9ecause of .hat she has +anifested in her .hole lifestyle, inconsistent pattern has been +anifested runnin throuh their life +ade a doubt that thisaturity and irresponsibility because her fa+ily .as dysfunctional and then her bein a +odel in her early life and bein the bread .inner of the fa+iln an unusual position of pro+inence and then beun to inflate her o.n eo and she beun to concentrate her o.n beauty and that beca+e an obsethat led to her fe. responsibility of subordinatin to her children to this lifestyle that she had e+braced)

ou only +entioned her relationship .ith the children, the i+pact) 5o. about the i+pact on the relationship of the respondent .ith her husbandH

"lso the sa+e thin) !t 7ust did notfit in to her lifestyle to fulfill her obliation to her husband and toher children) She had her o.n priorities, her beautyoin out and her +ah7on and associatin .ith friends) They .ere the priorities of her life)

"nd .hat you are sayin is that, her fa+ily .as +erely secondaryH

Secondary)

"nd ho. does that relate to psycholoical incapacityH

That she could not appreciate or absorb or fulfill the obliations of +arriae .hich e(erybody taes for ranted) The concentration on the husband aren before e(erythin else .ould be subordinated to the +arriae .ithher) !ts the other .ay around)
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_166357_2015.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_166357_2015.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_166357_2015.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_166357_2015.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_166357_2015.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_166357_2015.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_166357_2015.html#fnt30


7/15

beauty, her oin out, her beauty parlor and her +ah7on, they .ere their priorities in her life)

"nd in +edical or clinical parlance, .hat specifically do you call thisH

That is narcissis+ .here the person falls in lo(e .ith hi+self is fro+ a +ytJhKical case in Ro+an history)

ould you please define tous .hat narcissis+ isH

s a self;lo(e, fallin in lo(e .ith oneself to +ae up for the loss of a dear friend as in the case of 'arcissus, the +yth, and then that beca+e no.ncal ter+inoloy as narcissis+) :hen a person is so concernJedK .ith her o.n beauty and prolonin and protectin it, then it beco+es the top priori

"nd you stated that circu+stances that pro(e this narcissis+) 5o. do you consider this narcissis+ afflictin respondent, it is ra(e, sliht or )H

.ould say its ra(e fro+ the actual cases of nelect of her fa+ily and that causes serious obliations .hich she has inored and not properly esteeause she is so concernJedK .ith herself in her o.n lifestyle) %ery serious)

"nd do you ha(e an opinion .hether or not this narcissis+ afflictin respondent .as already eistin at the ti+e or +arriae or e(en thereafterH

:hen you et +arried you dont de(elop narcissis+ or psycholoical incapacity) ou brin .ith you into the +arriae and then it beco+es +anifesteause in +arriae you accept these responsibilities) "nd no. you sho. that you dont accept the+ and you are not capable of fulfillin the+ and you

about the+)

s this narcissis+, Fr) 5ealy, ac8uired by accident or conenital or .hatH

'o) The lifestyle enerates it) &nce you beco+e a +odel and still the fa+ily .as depended JsicK upon her and she .as a +odel at 5yatt and then Ruan to inflate her eo so +uch that this beca+e the top priority in her life) !ts her lifestyle)

:hat you are sayin is that, the narcissis+ of respondent e(en epanded after the +arriaeH

That could ha(e epanded because it beca+e (ery ob(ious after the +arriae because she .as nelectin such funda+ental obliations)

"nd ho. about the +atter of curability, is this +edically or clinically curable, this narcissis+ that you +entionedH

ets say, it .as +anifested for so +any years in her life) !t .as found in her fa+ily bacround situation) Say, al+ost for sure .ould be incurable no.

:hat specific bacround are you referrin toH

:ell, the fact .hen the father died and she .as the bread.inner and her beauty .as so i+portant to i(e in her 7ob and +oney and influence and sos a (ery unusual situation for a youn irl and her position in the fa+ily .as ealted in a (ery (ery unusual +anner and therefore she had that press

and in her acceptin the pressure, in oin alon .ith it and puttin it in top priority)31

n his credentials and conceded epertise in anon #a., Father 5ealys opinions and findins co++anded respect) The contribution that his opinions could add to the 7udicial deter+ination of the parties psycholoical incapacity .as substanti(e and instructi(e) 5e could thereby infor+ the trial derees of the +alady that .ould .arrant the nullity of +arriae, and he could as .ell thereby pro(ideto the trial court an analytical insiht upon a susoteric to the courts as psycholoical incapacity has been) :e could not 7ustly disreard his opinions and findins) "ppreciatin the+ toether .ith


8/15

ce Ro+ero eplained this in Molina, as follo.s/

her+ore, and e8ually sinificant, the professional opinion of a psycholoical epert beca+e increasinly i+portant in such cases) $ata about the pee life, both before and after the cere+ony, .ere presented to these eperts and they .ere ased toi(e professional opinions about a partys +enta

acity at the ti+e of the .eddin) These opinions .ere rarely challened and tended to be accepted as decisi(e e(idence of lac of (alid consent)

hurch too pains to point out that its ne. openness in this area did not a+ount to the addition of ne. rounds for annul+ent, but rather .as ano++odation by the hurch to the ad(ances +ade in psycholoy durin the past decades) There .as no. the epertise to pro(ide the all;i+portantnectin lin bet.een a +arriae breado.n and pre+arital causes)

n the 1->0s, the hurch broadened its .hole idea of +arriae fro+ that of a leal contract to that of a co(enant) The result of this .as that it coulder be assu+ed in annul+ent cases that a person .ho could intellectually understand the concept of +arriae could necessarily i(e (alid consent tability to both rasp and assu+e the real obliations of a +ature, lifelon co++it+entare no. considered a necessary prere8uisite to (alid +atri+o

sent)

al decisions continued applyin the concept of incipient psycholoical incapacity, Bnot only to seual ano+alies but to all inds ofpersonality disorderpacitate a spouse or both spouses fro+ assu+in or carryin out the essential obliations of +arriae) For +arriae ) ) ) is not +erely cohabitation oof the spouses to each others body for hetero seual acts, but is, in its totality the riht to the co++unity of the .hole of lifeA i)e), the riht to a de(en relationship) Rotal decisions since 1->3 ha(e refined the +eanin of psycholoical or psychic capacity for +arriae as presupposin the de(elo

n adult personalityA as +eanin the capacity of the spouses to i(e the+sel(es to each other and to accept the other as a distinct personA that the sp

t be Oother oriented since the obliations of +arriae are rooted in a self;i(in lo(eA and that the spouses +ust ha(e the capacity for interpersonalionship because +arriae is +ore than 7ust a physical reality but in(ol(es a true intert.inin of personalities) The fulfill+ent of the obliations of+arends, accordin to hurch decisions, on the strenth of this interpersonal relationship) " serious incapacity for interpersonal sharin and support is hair the relationship and conse8uently, the ability to fulf ill the essential +arital obliations) The +arital capacity of one spouse is not considered in isoln reference to the funda+ental relationship to the other spouse)


9/15

es by the psycholoist or epert, for a conclusi(e dianosis of a ra(e, se(ere and incurable presence of psycholoical incapacity)33

Tealso e+phasi=ed that in liht of the unintended conse8uences of strictly applyin the standards set in Molina,3?the courts should consider the totaence in ad7udicatin petitions for declaration of nullity of +arriae under "rticle 36 of the Fa+ily ode, (i=/

resiliency .ith .hich the concept should be applied and the case;to;case basis by .hich the pro(ision should be interpreted, as so intended by its fso+eho., been rendered ineffectual by the i+position of a set of strict standards in Molina, thus/

e.orthy is that in Molina, .hile the +a7ority of the ourts +e+bership concurred in the ponencia of then "ssociate Nustice later hief Nustice4 "rte+aniban, three 7ustices concurred Bin the resultB and another three;;includin, as aforesaid, Nustice Ro+ero;;too pains to co+pose their indi(idual sions) Then Nustice Teodoro R) Padilla e(en e+phasi=ed that Beach case +ust be 7uded, not on the basis of a priori assu+ptions, predilections orerali=ations, but accordin to its o.n facts) !n the field of psycholoical incapacity as a round for annul+ent of +arriae, it is trite to say that no caseours .ith another case) The trial 7ude +ust tae pains in ea+inin the factual +ilieu and the appellate court +ust, as +uch as possible, a(oidstitutin its o.n 7ud+ent for that of the trial court)B

dictably, ho.e(er, in resol(in subse8uent cases, the ourt has applied the aforesaid standards, .ithout too +uch reard for the la.s clear intentionh case is to be treated differently, as Bcourts should interpret the pro(ision on a case;to;case basisA uided by eperience, the findins of eperts andarchers in psycholoical disciplines, and by decisions of church tribunals)B

ndsiht, it +ay ha(e been inappropriate for the ourt to i+pose a riid set of rules, as the one in Molina, in resol(in all cases of psycholoical incaerstandably, the ourt .as then alar+ed by the delue of petitions for the dissolution of +arital bonds, and .as sensiti(e to the &S


10/15

e in second rade) This .as not done) Thus, .hile there is no dispute that respondent played +ah7on, its alleed debilitatin fre8uency and ad(ershe children .ere not pro(en)36E+phasis supplied4

fre8uency of the respondents +ah7on playin should not ha(e deli+ited our deter+ination of the presence or absence of psycholoical incapacityead, the deter+inant should be her ob(ious failure to fully appreciate the duties and responsibilities of parenthood at the ti+e she +ade her +arital (she fully appreciated such duties and responsibilities, she .ould ha(e no.n that brinin alon her children of (ery tender aes to her +ah7on se

d epose the+ to a culture of a+blin and other (ices that .ould erode their +oral fiber)

etheless, the lon;ter+ effects of the respondents obsessi(e +ah7on playin surely i+pacted on her fa+ily life, particularly on her (ery youn childnd to be re(ealin the disclosures +ade by %alerio Teodoro Iala.3>Q the parties eldest son Q in his deposition, .hereby the son confir+ed the clai+er that his +other had been hooed on playin +ah7on, (i=/

) P!S&'/ Fro+ the ti+e before your parents separation, do you re+e+ber any habit or acti(ity or practice .hich your +other enaed in, before tharationH

'ESS/ eah, habitH She .as a hea(y s+oer and she lies to play +ah7on a lot, and ! cant re+e+ber)

) P!S&'/ ou said that your +other played +ah7on fre8uently) 5o. fre8uent, do you re+e+berH

'ESS / 'ot really, but it .as a lot) 'ot actually, ! cant, ! cant

) P!S&'/ 5o. lon .ould she stay playin +ah7on say one sessionH

'ESS / Really lon cu=.e .ould o to +y aunts house in :hite Plains and ! thin .e .ould et there by lunch then lea(e, .e fall asleep) ! thin it .in the +ornin) "TT) P!S&'/ ou, you .ent thereH She brouht youH

'ESS / eah, to play .ith+y cousins, yeah and +y brothers sisters)

) P!S&'/ :ere you brouht all the ti+eH

'ESS/ eah, al+ost all the ti+e but so+eti+es, ! uess shed o out by herself)3C

fact that the respondent brouht her children .ith her to her +ah7on sessions did not only point to her nelect of parental duties, but also +anifestency to epose the+ to a culture of a+blin) 5er .illfully eposin her children to the culture of a+blin on e(ery occasion of her +ah7on sessiory ra(e and serious act of subordinatin their needs for parentin to the ratification of her o.n personal and escapist desires) This .as the obser(er 5ealy hi+self) !n that reard, $r)


11/15

sti+ulate their interest in ci(ic affairs, and inspire in the+ co+pliance .ith the duties of citi=enshipA

?4 To enhance, protect, preser(e and +aintain their physical and +ental health at all ti+esA

@4 To furnish the+ .ith ood and .holeso+e educational +aterials, super(ise their acti(ities, recreation and association .ith others

the+ fro+ bad co+pany, and pre(ent the+ fro+ ac8uirin habits detri+ental to their health, studies and +oralsA

64

>4

C4

-4 e+phasis supplied4

Septe+ber 1-, 2011 decision did not properly tae into consideration the findins of the RT to the effect that both the petitioner and the respondenn psycholoically incapacitated, and thus could not assu+e the essential obliations of +arriae) The RT .ould not ha(e found so .ithout the alleat effect by the respondent in her ans.er,3-.hereby she a(erred that it .as not she but the petitioner .ho had suffered fro+ psycholoical incapaci

alleation of the petitionerspsycholoical incapacity .as substantiated by $r) $ayan, as follo.s/

) 9RET""/

ou stated earlier that both parties .ere beha(iorally i++atureH

es, sir)

"nd that the +arriae .as a +istaeH

es, sir)

:hat is your basis for your state+ent that respondent .as beha(iorally i++atureH

Sir, for the reason that e(en before the +arriae Malyn had noticed already so+e of those short te+per of the petitioner but she .as (ery +uch in lohe li(ed;in .ith hi+ and e(en the ti+e that they .ere toether, that they .ere li(in in, she also had noticed so+e of his psycholoical deficits if .e 9ut as ! said, because she is also dependent and she .as one .ho deter+ined to +ae the relationship .or, she .as denyin e(en those inds ofle+s that she had seen)

To +ae it clear, Mada+ .itness, !+ talin here of the petitioner, Mr) Iala.) :hat led you to conclude that Mr) Iala. .as beha(iorally i++atureH

thin he also +entioned that his concept of +arriae .as not duly stable then) 5e .as not really thinin of +arriae ecept that his .ife ot prenae thouht that he had to +arry her) "nd e(en that ti+e he .as not also a +onoa+ous person)

"re you sayin, Mada+ :itness, that ulti+ately the decision to +arry lied on the petitionerH " / ! thin so, Sir)

'o., in your report, Mada+ :itness, you +entioned here that the petitioner ad+itted to you that in his youner years he .as often out seein othe+en) !+ referrin specifically to pae 1C) 5e also ad+itted to you that the thouht of co++it+ent scared hi+, the petitioner) 'o., i(en these ad+isioner to you, +y 8uestions is, is it possible for such a person to enter into +arriae despite this fear of co++it+ent and i(en his ad+ission that he

+ani=erH !s it possible for this person to stop his .o+ani=in .ays durin the +arriaeH

Sir, its difficult)

t .ould be difficult for that personH
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_166357_2015.html#fnt39http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_166357_2015.html#fnt39http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_166357_2015.html#fnt39


12/15

es, Sir)

:hat is the probability of this person i(in up his .o+ani=in after +arriaeH

Sir, ! .ould say the probability of his i(in up is al+ost only 20)

So, it is entirely possible that the respondent .o+ani=ed durin his +arriae .ith the respondentH

es, Sir)

:hat is the bearin of this fearof co++it+ent on the part of the petitioner insofar as his psycholoical capacity to perfor+ his duties as a husband iscernedH

Sir, it .ould i+pair his ability to ha(e seual interity and also to be fully co++itted to the role of husband to Malyn)

Mada+ :itness, you ne(er directly ans.ered +y 8uestion on .hether the petitioner .as psycholoically incapacitated to perfor+ his duty as a husbonly said that the petitioner .as beha(iorally i++ature and that the +arriae .as a +istae) 'o., +ay ! ased JsicK you that 8uestion aain and re8to ans.er that directlyH

Sir, he is psycholoically incapacitated)?0

ouh the petitioner, as the plaintiff, carried the burden to pro(e the nullity of the +arriae, the respondent, as the defendant spouse, could establish choloical incapacity of her husband because she raised the +atter in her ans.er) The courts are 7ustified in declarin a +arriae null and (oid undef the Fa+ily ode reardless of .hether it is the petitioner or the respondent .ho i+putes the psycholoical incapacity to the other as lon as the

utation is fully substantiated .ith proof) !ndeed, psycholoical incapacity +ay eist in one party alone or in both of the+, and if psycholoical incapacer or both is established, the +arriae has to be dee+ed null and (oid)

e than t.enty 204 years had passed since the parties parted .ays) 9y no., they +ust ha(e already accepted and co+e to ter+s .ith the a.ful truth+arriae, assu+in it eisted in the eyes of the la., .as already beyond repair) 9oth parties had inflicted so +uch da+ae not only to the+sel(esto the li(es and psyche of their o.n children) !t .ould be a reater in7ustice should .e insist on still reconi=in their (oid +arriae, and then force ttheir children to endure so+e +ore da+ae) This .as the (ery sa+e in7ustice that Nustice Ro+ero decried in her erudite dissentin opinion in Santrt of "ppeals/?1

ould be reat in7ustice, ! belie(e, to petitioner for this ourt to i(e a +uch too restricti(e interpretation of the la. and co+pel the petitioner to continuried to a .ife .ho for purposes of fulfillin her +arital duties has, for all practical purposes, ceased to eist)

des, there are public policy considerations in(ol(ed in the rulin the ourt +aes today)1%'i1!t is not, in effect, directly or indirectly, facilitatin thesfor+ation of petitioner into a Bhabitual trysterB or one forced to +aintain illicit relations .ith another .o+an or .o+en .ith e+erin proble+s ofti+ate children, si+ply because he is denied by pri(ate respondent, his .ife, the co+panionship and con7ual lo(e .hich he has souht fro+ her an

hich he is leally entitledH

not o as far as to suest that "rt) 36 of the Fa+ily ode is a sanction for absolute di(orce but ! sub+it that .e should not constrict it to non;reco(ident purpose and thus deny to one lie petitioner, an opportunity to turn a ne. leaf in his life by declarin his +arriae a nullity by reason of his .icholoical incapacity to perfor+ an essential +arital obliation) !n this case, the +arriae ne(er eisted fro+ the beinnin because the respondent cted .ith psycholoical incapacity at and prior to the ti+e of the +arriae) 5ence, the ourt should not hesitate to declare the nullity of the +arriae.een the parties)

tress, our +andate to protect the in(iolability of +arriae as the basic foundation of our society does not preclude striin do.n a +arital union that pped to pro+ote fa+ily life,B thus/

is also the opportune ti+e to co++ent on another co++on leal uide utili=ed in the ad7udication of petitions for declaration of nullity in the ad7udicions for declaration of nullity under "rticle 36) "ll too fre8uently, this ourt and lo.er courts, in denyin petitions of the ind, ha(e fa(orably cited Se2, "rticle U% of the onstitution, .hich respecti(ely state that BJtKhe State reconi=es the Filipino fa+ily as the foundation of the nation) "ccordinly,nthen its solidarity and acti(ely pro+ote its total de(elop+entJtK,B and that J+Karriae, as an in(iolable social institution, is the foundation of the fa+i be protected by the State)B These pro(isions hihliht the i+portance of the fa+ily and the constitutional protection accorded to the institution of +

the onstitution itself does not establish the para+eters of state protection to +arriae as a social institution and the foundation of the fa+ily) !t re+aince of the leislature to define all leal aspects of +arriae and prescribe the stratey and the +odalities to protect it, based on .hate(er socio;po
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_166357_2015.html#fnt40http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_166357_2015.html#fnt41http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_166357_2015.html#fnt41http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_166357_2015.html#fnt40http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_166357_2015.html#fnt41


13/15

ences it dee+s proper, and sub7ect of course to the 8ualification that such leislati(e enact+ent itself adheres to the onstitution and the 9ill of Rih the case, it also falls on the leislature to put into operation the constitutional pro(isions that protect +arriae and the fa+ily) This has been acco+esent throuh the enact+ent of the Fa+ily ode, .hich defines +arriae and the fa+ily, spells out the correspondin leal effects, i+poses the li+affect +arried and fa+ily life, as .ell as prescribes the rounds for declaration of nullity and those for leal separation) :hile it +ay appear that theal of a petition for declaration of nullity is reflecti(e of the constitutional +andate to protect +arriae, such action in fact +erely enforces a statutory

nition of +arriae, not a constitutionally ordained decree of .hat +arriae is) !ndeed, if circu+stances .arrant, Sections 1 and 2 of "rticle U% need n

only constitutional considerations to be taen into account in resol(in a petition for declaration of nullity) !ndeed, "rticle 36 of the Fa+ily ode, in clariaes contracted by a psycholoically incapacitated person as a nullity, should be dee+ed as an i+ple+ent of this constitutional protection of +arrin the a(o.ed State interest in pro+otin +arriae as the foundation of the fa+ily, .hich in turn ser(es as the foundation of the nation, there is a

espondin interest for the State to defend aainst +arriaes ill;e8uipped to pro+ote fa+ily life) %oid ab initio +arriaes under "rticle 36 do not furtheti(es of the State concernin +arriae and fa+ily, as they pro+ote .edloc a+on persons .ho, for reasons independent of their .ill, are not capa

nderstand or co+ply .ith the essential obliations of +arriae)?2E+phasis supplied4

EREF&RE, the ourt 6# "'$ %&!$ "9 !'!T!& due to the psycholoical incapacity of the parties pursuant to "rticle 36 of the Fa+ily ode)

pronounce+ent on costs of suit)

&R$ERE$)

AS P. 'ERSAM!Nociate Nustice

&'*R/

TERES!TA J. EONAR%O %E CASTRO"ssociate Nustice

hairperson

MAR!ANO C. %E CAST!O"ssociate Nustice

JOSE PORTUGA PERE&("ssociate Nustice

MARV!C M.V.$. EONEN((

"ssociate Nustice

E R T ! F ! " T ! & '

uant to Section 13, "rticle %!!! of the onstitution, ! certify that the conclusions in the abo(e Resolution had been reached in consultation before theassined to the .riter of the opinion of the ourts $i(ision)

R!A OUR%ES P.A. SERENOf Nustice

)no)*+

V Per Special &rder 'o) 10C0 dated Septe+ber 13, 2011)

VV Pursuant to the third pararaph of Section >, Rule 2, !nternal Rules)

16@> SR" C22)

2!d) at C36;C3-)
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_166357_2015.html#fnt42http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_166357_2015.html#fnt42http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_166357_2015.html#rnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_166357_2015.html#rnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_166357_2015.html#fnt42http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_166357_2015.html#rnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_166357_2015.html#rnt2


14/15

3Rollo, pp) 6C-;>0?)

?See Santos () ourt of "ppeals,


15/15

linical 9ases of Psycholoical !ncapacity J2006K, p) 10-4)

2>TS' dated Nanuary 30, 1--6, p) 13)

2CTS' dated February 1@, 1--@, pp) C;10)

2-#i+ () Sta) ru=;#i+, , 1--C, pp) 2?;2C)

32Supra note 1C)

33!d) at 22-;232)

3?Republic () ourt of "ppeals, supra, note C)

3@

Supra note 1C, at 220;22C)

36$ecision, pp) C3>;C3C)

3>Records, pp) 3@?;3-1)

3C!d) at 363)

3-Pararaph 3 Records, %ol) !, p) 204 of .hich runs/

3) She specifically denies the alleations contained in pararaphs @, 6 and > of the Petition allein that the respondent .apsycholoically incapacitated to co+ply .ith the essential obliations to the +arriae and that such incapacity +anifested ionly after the +arriae, the truth of the +atter bein that it is the petitioner .ho is psycholoically incapacitated)

?0TS' dated March 1?, 1--6, pp) 10;12)

?1Supra note ?, at 3C)

?2"ntonio () Reyes, supra note 1>, at 3>1;3>3)

#a.phil Pro7ect ; "rellano #a. Foundation
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_166357_2015.html#rnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_166357_2015.html#rnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_166357_2015.html#rnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_166357_2015.html#rnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_166357_2015.html#rnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_166357_2015.html#rnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_166357_2015.html#rnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_166357_2015.html#rnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_166357_2015.html#rnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_166357_2015.html#rnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_166357_2015.html#rnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_166357_2015.html#rnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_166357_2015.html#rnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_166357_2015.html#rnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_166357_2015.html#rnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_166357_2015.html#rnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_166357_2015.html#rnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_166357_2015.html#rnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_166357_2015.html#rnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_166357_2015.html#rnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_166357_2015.html#rnt37http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_166357_2015.html#rnt37http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_166357_2015.html#rnt38http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_166357_2015.html#rnt38http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_166357_2015.html#rnt39http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_166357_2015.html#rnt39http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_166357_2015.html#rnt40http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_166357_2015.html#rnt40http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_166357_2015.html#rnt41http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_166357_2015.html#rnt41http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_166357_2015.html#rnt42http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_166357_2015.html#rnt42http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_166357_2015.html#rnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_166357_2015.html#rnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_166357_2015.html#rnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_166357_2015.html#rnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_166357_2015.html#rnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_166357_2015.html#rnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_166357_2015.html#rnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_166357_2015.html#rnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_166357_2015.html#rnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_166357_2015.html#rnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_166357_2015.html#rnt37http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_166357_2015.html#rnt38http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_166357_2015.html#rnt39http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_166357_2015.html#rnt40http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_166357_2015.html#rnt41http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_166357_2015.html#rnt42

psychological iloingncapacity for annulment

Documents