Aurelio vs. Aurelio

A petition for declaration of nullity under Article 36 of the Family Code states a sufficient cause of action where it alleges the medically identified root cause, juridical antecedence, gravity and incurability of the psychological incapacity and the essential marital obligations not complied with, the veracity thereof being left to proof at trial. Denial of a motion to dismiss such a petition is an interlocutory error of judgment at most, remediable by appeal after trial rather than by certiorari absent grave abuse of discretion.

Danilo A. Aurelio and Vida Ma. Corazon P. Aurelio were married on March 23, 1988 and have two sons. Article 36 of the Family Code declares void a marriage contracted by a party psychologically incapacitated to comply with essential marital obligations at the time of celebration, even if manifest only after solemnization. Republic vs. Court of Appeals laid down the Molina guidelines to aid courts in disposing of cases involving such incapacity.

Danilo A. Aurelio and Vida Ma. Corazon P. Aurelio were married on March 23, 1988. They have two sons, Danilo Miguel and Danilo Gabriel.

On May 9, 2002, Vida filed with the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 94, a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage. She alleged that both she and Danilo were psychologically incapacitated to perform and comply with their essential marital obligations, existing prior to and even during the marriage ceremony. The petition averred lack of financial support from the husband, his lack of drive and incapacity to discern the plight of his working wife, consistent jealousy and distrust, moods alternating between hostile defiance and contrition, refusal to assist in family maintenance and to foot household bills and provide for family needs, arrogance, complete insensitivity, and liking to humiliate and embarrass his wife even before their children. As to Vida, the petition alleged effusiveness and open display of feelings shifting quickly from joy to fury to misery to despair, very low tolerance for boredom, emotional immaturity, inability to stand frustration or disappointment or to delay gratification, upset when unable to get what she wants, with self-indulgence lifting her spirits, and psychological aversion to cohabit with or care for her husband. A psychologist was alleged to have evaluated the parties and found grave, incorrigible and incurable incapacity, diagnosing Vida with Histrionic Personality Disorder with Narcissistic features and Danilo with Passive Aggressive (Negativistic) Personality Disorder rendering him immature and irresponsible to assume normal marital obligations.

Thereafter Danilo moved to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action and for failure to meet Article 36 standards. The RTC denied dismissal on January 14, 2003 and denied reconsideration on December 17, 2003, finding allegations of root cause in paragraphs 12 and 13, juridical antecedence in paragraphs 5 and 6, gravity in paragraph 9 (a to l), incurability in paragraph 10 with clinical finding quoted in paragraph 15, and holding that merit depended on preponderance of evidence at trial on the merits. Danilo then resorted to certiorari before the Court of Appeals, which dismissed the petition upon finding a sufficient cause of action when the complaint was scrutinized in juxtaposition with Article 36 and Molina.

• Sufficiency of Petition under Article 36 and Molina: Petitioner argued that the petition failed to state a cause of action and failed to meet the Court's standards for interpretation and implementation of Article 36 of the Family Code.
• Non-Compliance with Three Molina Guidelines: Petitioner maintained that the petition failed to comply with three guidelines, namely that the root cause must be alleged in the complaint, that the illness must be grave enough to bring about disability to assume essential marital obligations, and that the non-complied marital obligation must be stated in the petition.
• Grave Abuse of Discretion and Certiorari: Petitioner argued that denial of his motion to dismiss was patently tainted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, and that appeal in due course was not a plain, adequate or speedy remedy under the circumstances.

• Allegation of Root Cause: Respondent manifested that the family backgrounds of both petitioner and respondent were discussed in the complaint as the root causes of their psychological incapacity, which were clinically identified by a competent and expert psychologist.

• Sufficiency of Cause of Action: Whether the allegations contained in the petition for declaration of nullity of marriage are sufficient for declaration of nullity between Vida and Danilo under applicable law and jurisprudence.
• Grave Abuse of Discretion and Propriety of Certiorari: Whether denial of petitioner's motion to dismiss was tainted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, and whether appeal in due course is not a plain, adequate or speedy remedy such that certiorari lies.

• Sufficiency of Cause of Action: No violation was committed; the petition sufficiently alleged root cause, gravity and incurability, and the essential marital obligations not complied with, with merit left to trial proof.
• Grave Abuse of Discretion and Propriety of Certiorari: No. No grave abuse attended the RTC denial, and certiorari does not lie against denial of a motion to dismiss, an interlocutory order remediable by appeal after trial.

• Sufficiency of Cause of Action: First, the root cause was stated and alleged, the family backgrounds of both parties having been discussed as root causes and clinically identified by an expert psychologist. Second, gravity was alleged through diagnoses of Histrionic Personality Disorder with Narcissistic Features and Passive Aggressive (Negativistic) Personality Disorder, characterized as grave, incorrigible and incurable. Third, the unfulfilled obligations were alleged and fall under Article 68 of the Family Code to live together, observe mutual love, respect and fidelity, and render mutual help and support. Since Molina guidelines 2, 6 and 8 contemplate presentation of evidence and a decision after due hearing, and each Article 36 case must be treated distinctly on its own facts guided by experience, expert findings and church tribunal decisions, resolution of actual incapacity was properly left to the RTC as best positioned to weigh ordinary and expert testimony, making remand prudent rather than first-instance resolution of sufficiency as proof.
• Grave Abuse of Discretion and Propriety of Certiorari: Given the allegations, no capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment equivalent to lack of jurisdiction occurred, grave abuse requiring arbitrary or despotic exercise by passion or personal hostility so patent and gross as to amount to evasion of positive duty or virtual refusal to perform duty enjoined by law. Even assuming insufficiency and error in denying dismissal, the error would be mere error of judgment correctible by appeal, not abuse correctible by certiorari. As a general rule, denial of a motion to dismiss, being interlocutory, is not reviewable by certiorari; the remedy is to reiterate dismissal grounds as defenses in the answer, proceed to trial, and appeal an adverse decision in due time, the existence of that adequate remedy removing the underpinnings of Rule 65.

• Psychological incapacity; Molina guidelines — The guidelines require that (1) plaintiff bears burden of proof; (2) root cause be medically or clinically identified, alleged in complaint, proven by experts and explained in decision; (3) incapacity exist at time of celebration; (4) incapacity be medically or clinically permanent or incurable; (5) illness be grave enough to disable assumption of essential marital obligations; (6) essential obligations under Articles 68 to 71 and Articles 220, 221 and 225 of the Family Code, and the non-complied obligations, be stated in petition, proven by evidence and included in decision; (7) interpretations of the National Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal be given great respect though not controlling; and (8) prosecuting attorney or fiscal and Solicitor General appear for the State with required certification. Applied here to test only pleading sufficiency, the petition was found to allege root cause, antecedence, gravity, incurability and non-complied Article 68 obligations, with proof reserved for trial.
• Case-to-case adjudication of Article 36 — Each application of Article 36 must be treated distinctly and judged not on a priori assumptions, predilections or generalizations but according to its own facts, guided by experience, findings of experts and researchers in psychological disciplines, and decisions of church tribunals. Applied to decline first-instance resolution of incapacity and to remand for RTC scrutiny of evidence and testimonies.
• Grave abuse of discretion — Grave abuse means capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment equivalent to lack of jurisdiction, exercised arbitrarily or despotically by passion or personal hostility, so patent and gross as to amount to evasion of positive duty or virtual refusal to perform duty enjoined or to act in contemplation of law; mere abuse is insufficient. Applied to sustain the RTC denial of dismissal as within discretion.
• Error of judgment vs. error of jurisdiction; interlocutory orders and certiorari — Even if denial of dismissal were erroneous on sufficiency, it is merely error of judgment correctible by appeal, not abuse correctible by certiorari; as a general rule denial of a motion to dismiss, being interlocutory, is not reviewable by certiorari, the remedy being to plead dismissal grounds as defenses, proceed to trial, and appeal. Applied to affirm CA dismissal of the Rule 65 petition given the adequate remedy of appeal.

• "Article 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." — States the statutory basis for nullity invoked by respondent and construed through Molina.
• "It would certainly be too burdensome to ask this Court to resolve at first instance whether the allegations contained in the petition are sufficient to substantiate a case for psychological incapacity." — Explains why actual incapacity was left to RTC trial rather than decided on pleadings alone.
• "By grave abuse of discretion is meant capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction." — Provides the canonical threshold applied to reject the claim of grave abuse in denying dismissal.
• "As a general rule, the denial of a motion to dismiss, which is an interlocutory order, is not reviewable by certiorari." — States the procedural ground for affirming CA dismissal, with appeal after trial as the adequate remedy.

• Republic vs. Court of Appeals, 335 Phil. 664 (1997) — Controlling precedent creating the Molina guidelines for disposition of psychological incapacity cases; used as the pleading and proof framework.
• Antonio vs. Reyes, G.R. No. 155800, March 10, 2006 — Followed for the modification under A.M. No. 02-11-10 dispensing with Solicitor General certification to avoid delay while retaining Article 48 State participation against collusion and fabrication.
• Ngo Te vs. Rowena Yu-Te, G.R. No. 161793, February 13, 2009 — Followed for the rule that Article 36 cases be interpreted case-to-case guided by experience, expert findings and church tribunal decisions.
• Philippine National Bank vs. Sanao Marketing Corporation, G.R. No. 153951, July 29, 2005 — Followed for the distinction that erroneous denial of dismissal is error of judgment correctible by appeal, not by certiorari.
• Harrison Foundry Machinery vs. Harrison Foundry Workers' Association, No. L-18432, June 29, 1963 — Followed for the rule that denial of a motion to dismiss is interlocutory and not reviewable by certiorari, with appeal as remedy.

• Article 36, Family Code — Declares void a marriage contracted by a psychologically incapacitated party at celebration; applied as the cause of action respondent invoked and was held sufficiently pleaded.
• Articles 68 to 71; Articles 220, 221 and 225, Family Code — Embrace essential marital obligations of husband and wife and parents to children; applied with Article 68 covering live together, mutual love, respect, fidelity, help and support as the obligations allegedly unfulfilled.
• Article 48, Family Code; Section 2(d), A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC — Require State participation through prosecuting attorney or fiscal to prevent collusion and fabrication, while dispensing with Solicitor General certification to avoid delay; noted as procedural safeguard in nullity actions.
• Section 7, A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC — Prohibits motions to dismiss in annulment or nullity actions except for lack of jurisdiction, allowing other grounds as affirmative defenses; noted as the rule that would have barred the motion had the complaint been filed after March 15, 2003.
• Section 1, Rule 65, Rules of Court — Governs certiorari requiring lack of adequate remedy; applied to hold the adequate remedy of appeal removed the underpinnings of the CA certiorari petition.

Antonio T. Carpio, Chairperson, Antonio Eduardo B. Nachura, Roberto A. Abad, Jose Catral Mendoza