3Republic of tbe tlbilippines
$5>upreme QCourt
;iflflantla
FIRST DIVISION
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 212717
Petitioner,
Present:
PERALTA, CJ , Chairperson,
- versus - CAGUIOA, Working Chairperson,
GESMUNDO,*
REYES, J. JR., and
LAZARO-JAVIER, JJ
ARIEL S. CALINGO and CYNTHIA
MARCELLANA-CALINGO, Promulgated:
Respondents.
MAR ·: ·1 2020
DECISION
REYES, J. JR., J.:
Assailed in this Petition for Review I are the Decision 2 dated
September 9, 2013 and Resolution 3 dated May 29, 2014 of the Court of
Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 94407 which declared null and void the
marriage between Ariel S. Calingo (Ariel) and Cynthia Marcellana-Calingo
(Cynthia).
The Relevant Antecedents
As culled from the records, the facts of the case are as follows:
Additional member per Raffle dated February 12, 2020 in lieu of Associate Justice Mario V. Lopez.
Rollo, pp. 14-46.
2
Penned by Assoc iate Justice Agnes Reyes-Carpio, with Associate Justices Rosalinda Asuncion-Vicente
and Priscilla J. Baltazar-Padilla, concurring; id. at 51-64.
Penned by Associate Justice Agnes Reyes-Carpio, with Associate Justices Priscilla J. Baltazar-Padilla
and Samuel H. Gaerlan (now a Member of this Court), concurring; id. at 66-67.
\
Decision 2 G.R. No. 212717
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. 4
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.5
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. 6
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. 7
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.8
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. 9
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. 10
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
4
Id.at 167.
5
Id.
6
Id at 168.
7
Id.
8
Id.
9
Id.
io Id.
Decision 3 GR. No. 212717
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 (Dr. Lopez). The result thereof shows that Ariel possesses
an emotionally disturbed personality, but not severe enough to constitute
11
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. 12
13
In a Decision dated August 3, 2009, the Regional Trial Court of
Quezon City, Branch 107 (RTC), 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. The fallo thereof reads:
WHEREFORE, the instant petition for declaration of void
marriage is denied. The above-entitled case is dismissed.
SO ORDERED. 14
Ariel's motion for reconsideration was denied in a Resolution 15 dated
October 19, 2009.
Raising a lone enor, Ariel filed an appeal before the CA and insisted
that the RTC erred in denying the petition for the evidence presented
adequately established Cynthia's psychological incapacity. 16
In a Decision dated September 9, 2013, 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. The dispositive portion reads:
II Id.
12
Id. at 169.
u Id. at 167- 17 1.
11
' Id. at 171.
15
Id. at 185-1 87.
16
Id.at 199.
\
Decision 4 GR. No. 212717
WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The Decision dated
August 3, 2009 and Resolution dated October 19, 2009 of the Regional
Trial Court, B11anch 107, Quezon City, in Civil Case No. Q-06-57906 are
REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The marriage of Ariel S. Calingo and
Cynthia Marcellana-Calingo is declared NULL and VOID AB INITIO.
SO ORDERED. 17
Hence, this p~tition.
Defending the sanctity of marriage, the Republic, through the Office
of the Solicitor General (OSG) filed this petition.
In essence, the OSG was resolute in propounding Ariel's failure to
provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate Cynthia's psychological
incapacity within the ambit of Article 36 of the Family Code. 18
19
In his Coqunent, Ariel reiterated that Cynthia's Histrionic
Personality Disorder is a psychological incapacity which wan-ants the-nullity
of their marriage.
20
In its Reply, the OSG pointed out that Ariel failed to justify in his
Comment sufficien~ basis to justify the denial of the instant petition.
The Issue
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.
The Court's Ruling
While man-iage is considered by our fundamental law as an inviolable
social institution, otlr laws allow the nullity of man-iage 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, wasI 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.
Man-iage nullified based on such justification is considered as void
from the outset.
17
Id. at 64.
18
Id. at 26-44.
19
Id. at 268-27 1.
20
Id. at 296-30 1.
\
Decision 5 GR. No. 212717
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. 21 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.22
To be accurate, such incapacity must be characterized by gravity,
j uridical antecedence, and incurability:
The incapacity must be grave or serious such that the pai1y would be
incapable of carrying out the ordinary duties required in man'iage; it must
be rooted in the history of the party antedating the marriage, although the
overt manifestations may emerge only after the marriage, ai1d it must be
incurable or, even if it were otherwise, the cure would be beyond the means
of the party involved.23
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. 24 Such
findings were based on the testimony of Ariel and their friends, Francisca
Bilason (Bilason) and Ruben Kalaw (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. While
jurisprudence recognizes the dispensability of personal examination of the
party alleged to be suffering from psychological incapacity, it is but
necessary to provide c01Toborative evidence to exhibit the required legal
parameters. 25
To recall, the report itself cited the testimonies of Ariel and their
friends, Bilason and Kalaw as bases for the findings. However, in the same
rep01i, 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
21
Mendoza v. Republic ofthe Philippines, 698 Phil. 241 (201 2).
22
Republic of the Philippines v. Tecag, G.R. No. 229272, November 19, 2018.
23
Santos v. Court a/Appeals, G.R. No. 112019, January 4, 1995, 240 SCRA 20, 24 .
24
Rollo, pp. 122 and 125.
25
Del Rosario v. Del Rosario, G.R. No. 22254 1, February 15, 20 17.
Decision 6 G.R. No. 212717
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
· 26
marriage.
As discussed, there was no evidence which proved that such raised to
the level of psycho~ogical incapacity within the meaning of AI1icle 36 of the
Family Code, warranting the severance of Cynthia and Ariel's marital bonds.
Unequivocal~y, psychological incapacity must be more than just a
"difficulty," "refusal" or "neglect" in the perfo1mance of the marital
obligations; it is not enough that a party prove that the other failed to meet
the responsibility aµd duty of a married person.27
Hence, contrary to CA's decision, the fact that Cynthia is
"mabunganga" anq had extra-marital affairs are not sufficient indicators of a
psychological disorder.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition is hereby
GRANTED. The Decision dated September 9, 2013 and Resolution dated
May 29, 2014 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 94407 are
REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
The petition for declaration of nullity of marriage is DISMISSED for
lack of merit.
SO ORDER(ED.
dE~:!:Ji.
UA~~ociate Justice
WE CONCUR:
DIOSDADO¥· PERALTA
Chief Jt,lstice
Chairperson
26
Supra note 22.
27
Supra note 25 .
Decision 7 G.R. No. 2 12717
AGUIOA AL~~
Associate Justice
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, A1iicle VIII of the Constitution, I certify 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 Court's
Division.
