Clavecilla vs. Clavecilla

Either spouse, regardless of whether they are the one alleged to be psychologically incapacitated, may initiate a petition to declare the nullity of marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code, and the doctrine of unclean hands cannot be invoked to bar such a petition.

The petitioner, Fernando Clavecilla, and respondent, Marivic Clavecilla, met and married while working as overseas Filipino workers in Saudi Arabia in the late 1980s. After nearly two decades of marriage and having one child, their relationship deteriorated, prompting Fernando to file a petition for the declaration of nullity of their marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity.

• Petitioner Fernando Clavecilla and respondent Marivic Clavecilla met in December 1986 in Saudi Arabia, where he was a finance officer at the Philippine Embassy and she was a staff nurse.
• They married on December 10, 1987, at the Philippine Consulate in Jeddah and again on March 12, 1988, in Manila. They have one son, born in 1993.
• On November 14, 2006, Fernando filed a petition for nullity of marriage, alleging that Marivic was psychologically incapacitated.
• Fernando claimed Marivic was a carefree, consistent nagger, and a demanding wife who preferred the company of friends, had no interest in finding employment, and incurred loans that jeopardized his job.
• A psychologist, Dr. Nedy Tayag, conducted an examination on Fernando and concluded that he suffered from Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD), which was incurable and rooted in his early formative years, making him unable to show concern for the welfare of his marriage.
• Marivic denied the allegations, arguing that Fernando was the one who was irresponsible, selfish, and had engaged in adulterous relationships. She claimed she had to find work abroad because he failed to provide financial support.
• The RTC granted the petition, finding Fernando psychologically incapacitated based on Dr. Tayag's report. The CA reversed this, finding the evidence insufficient to prove the root cause, gravity, and incurability of the alleged incapacity.

• The Court of Appeals committed a reversible error by overturning the RTC's decision, as the finding of his psychological incapacity was supported by both factual and clinical evidence provided by Dr. Tayag.
• The petition is an exception to the rule that only questions of law may be raised under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, due to the conflicting factual findings between the RTC and the CA.
• The petition substantially complied with the procedural requirements for verification and certification of non-forum shopping, as his counsel was duly authorized by a Special Power of Attorney due to his work assignment abroad.
• The strict guidelines for proving psychological incapacity established in Republic v. Molina have been relaxed by subsequent jurisprudence, such as Kalaw v. Fernandez, which should be applied to his case.

• The petition should be dismissed for procedural defects, namely that the verification and certification of non-forum shopping were signed by counsel and not by the petitioner himself, and for improperly raising questions of fact.
• The petitioner failed to prove the root cause, gravity, and incurability of the alleged psychological incapacity, as the psychologist's findings were general, vague, and based on the petitioner's self-serving declarations.
• The petitioner, being the "guilty party" who allegedly engaged in an extramarital affair, came to court with "unclean hands" and should not be allowed to benefit from his own misdeeds by seeking the annulment.

• Procedural Issues:
  • Whether the petition should be dismissed for improperly raising questions of fact in an appeal by certiorari under Rule 45.
  • Whether the petition substantially complied with the rules on verification and certification of non-forum shopping.
• Substantive Issues:
  • Whether a spouse who is allegedly psychologically incapacitated can initiate a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code.
  • Whether the doctrine of unclean hands can be used as a bar against a spouse filing a petition for nullity on the ground of psychological incapacity.
  • Whether the petitioner successfully proved with clear and convincing evidence that either he or his wife, Marivic, is psychologically incapacitated to fulfill the essential marital obligations.

• Procedural:
  • The Court held that the petition is an exception to the rule that only questions of law may be raised under Rule 45. The conflicting findings of fact between the RTC and the CA justified a review of the evidence by the Supreme Court.
  • The Court found that there was substantial compliance with the rules on verification and certification against forum shopping. The petitioner's execution of a Special Power of Attorney authorizing his counsel to sign on his behalf, coupled with a sufficient justification for his inability to sign personally (his assignment as a finance officer at the Philippine Embassy in Hungary), was deemed acceptable.
• Substantive:
  • The Court ruled that either spouse, whether psychologically incapacitated or not, may file a petition for nullity of marriage under Article 36. The law and the relevant procedural rules (A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC) explicitly allow either the husband or the wife to file the petition alleging the incapacity of "either or both" parties, without distinction as to who is the incapacitated or "guilty" party.
  • The Court definitively stated that the doctrine of unclean hands is inapplicable in petitions for nullity based on psychological incapacity. The doctrine avails only in cases of inequity, whereas psychological incapacity is not a matter of fault, bad faith, or culpability but a genuine, pre-existing inability to comprehend and discharge marital obligations.
  • The Court ruled that the petitioner failed to present clear and convincing evidence to establish psychological incapacity for either himself or Marivic. The allegations against Marivic were unsubstantiated and did not rise to the level of psychological incapacity. The psychological report diagnosing the petitioner with NPD was deemed insufficient as it was too general, failed to link the disorder to specific actions demonstrating an inability to perform essential spousal duties, and did not adequately establish the legal requisites of juridical antecedence, gravity, and incurability as defined in Tan-Andal v. Andal.

• Psychological Incapacity (Article 36, Family Code) — A legal, not medical, concept referring to a party's true inability to comprehend and assume the essential obligations of marriage. The Court applied the refined standards from Tan-Andal v. Andal, which require clear and convincing evidence of a personality structure that renders the spouse truly incapable of fulfilling marital duties, characterized by gravity, juridical antecedence, and incurability in the legal sense (i.e., enduring and persistent with respect to a specific partner). The Court found the evidence presented did not meet this high standard.
• Doctrine of Unclean Hands — An equitable principle stating that a party who has engaged in inequitable or dishonest conduct related to the matter in litigation may be denied relief. The Court ruled this doctrine does not apply to Article 36 petitions because psychological incapacity is not a matter of fault or bad faith that would constitute "unclean hands."
• Exceptions to Rule 45 (Review of Factual Issues) — The general rule is that a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 may only raise questions of law. The Court applied the exception that permits a review of facts when the factual findings of the trial court and the Court of Appeals are in conflict.
• Substantial Compliance — A principle allowing for the relaxation of procedural rules in the interest of justice. The Court applied this to the rules on verification and certification against forum shopping, finding that the petitioner's authorization of his counsel via an SPA, combined with a justifiable reason for his absence, constituted substantial compliance.

• "Either spouse, whether psychologically incapacitated or not, may initiate a petition to declare the nullity of their marriage. The law only requires that the petition contains specific allegations of the incapacity of either or both spouses from complying with the essential marital obligations. The doctrine of unclean hands will not bar a psychologically incapacitated spouse from filing such petition."

• Tan-Andal v. Andal — Cited as the controlling precedent that refined the standards for proving psychological incapacity, shifting the focus from a medical diagnosis to a legal determination based on clear and convincing evidence of an enduring personality structure that disables a spouse from fulfilling marital obligations.
• Republic v. Molina — Referenced as the landmark case that first laid down the strict eight-point guidelines for psychological incapacity, which have since been revisited and modified by subsequent jurisprudence.
• Kalaw v. Fernandez — Cited by the petitioner to argue for a more liberal application of the rules on psychological incapacity, which the Court acknowledged as part of a trend that culminated in the Tan-Andal doctrine.
• Altres v. Empleo — Referenced for its guidelines on defective verification and certification against forum shopping, which the Court used to justify its finding of substantial compliance by the petitioner.
• Republic v. Claur — Cited to reinforce the principle that a petition for nullity can be filed by either spouse, as that case involved a marriage where both parties were found to be psychologically incapacitated.
• Villanueva v. Villanueva — Cited as a rare historical case where the doctrine of unclean hands was applied in a spousal dispute, but the Court distinguished it as being inapplicable to a petition for nullity under Article 36.

• Family Code, Article 36 — The substantive legal basis for the petition, which declares a marriage void if a party was, at the time of the celebration, psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential marital obligations.
• Family Code, Articles 68 to 71 — Cited as the provisions that enumerate the essential marital obligations, such as the duty to live together, observe mutual love, respect, fidelity, and render mutual help and support.
• A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC (Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages), Section 2 — The procedural rule cited by the Court to affirm that a petition for nullity may be filed solely by the husband or the wife, alleging the incapacity of "either or both" of them.
• Rules of Court, Rule 45 — The rule governing the petitioner's appeal by certiorari to the Supreme Court, which generally limits the scope of review to questions of law.
• 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 7, Section 5 — The rule on certification against forum shopping, which the Court interpreted with flexibility under the principle of substantial compliance.