Maristela-Cuan vs. Cuan, Jr.

Psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code may be established by clear and convincing evidence of clear acts of dysfunctionality showing a lack of understanding and concomitant compliance with essential marital obligations due to psychic causes, without need of expert medical opinion or personal examination of the allegedly incapacitated spouse, provided juridical antecedence, gravity, and incurability are shown. Applying that rule, the marriage was declared void ab initio solely on the psychological incapacity of Marcelino, not Janice.

Janice Maristela-Cuan and Marcelino A. Cuan, Jr. were the spouses whose marriage was the subject of a petition for declaration of nullity. Article 36 of the Family Code, as amended, recognizes psychological incapacity as a ground for voiding a marriage, while Article 68 defines the essential marital obligations as mutual love, respect, fidelity, mutual help and support, and living together. The Republic of the Philippines, through the Office of the Solicitor General, appeared as oppositor to the petition.

Janice Maristela-Cuan met Marcelino A. Cuan, Jr. sometime in 1997 when she and her friends were playing lawn tennis in Quezon City. Marcelino introduced himself and invited them to have some drinks thereafter. They met again and started playing tennis together. Marcelino courted Janice, called her regularly, and went out with her on dates. After two months of courtship, Janice accepted Marcelino's proposal and became his girlfriend. In the course of their relationship, she noticed that Marcelino was overprotective toward her; he constantly asked where she was and who she was with. She thought it was normal for any person in a relationship to be in such a state of emotion. Their relationship was on and off during the first five months because of Marcelino's constant jealousy. Marcelino later told her that only marriage could remove his anxiety.

Thus, to mend their turbulent affair, they got married on June 20, 1997 in the City Hall of Quezon City. Their parents were unaware of their decision to get married. After the wedding ceremony, they just shared a meal at a restaurant and then parted ways. They went home to their respective houses. There was no honeymoon. They did not live together under one roof. They only saw each other after work and during weekends. Days and months passed by but they continued to live their respective lives as they used to. In her heart and mind and on paper, she was married to Marcelino, but they never lived together as husband and wife. They went to motels for about five times, yet they never engaged in sex. Marcelino would attempt to have sex with her but then he would suddenly stop. She did not know why and it constantly puzzled her.

Three months after their wedding, Marcelino's jealousy escalated and took a turn for the worse. He barred her from talking to any other man. He got angry whenever they passed by a handsome man thinking she was staring at the latter. He was furious every time he saw her talking to a male co-worker. He turned violent and even physically hurt her whenever he got jealous. There was one incident when he hit her because he thought she was staring at some random man in a disco. Their last argument was in 1999 when he wanted her to leave her work early so they could go out on a date. She refused because her boss was still in the office. Enraged, he shouted at her over the phone and hung up. She tried to call him back, but to no avail. She waited for him to call her back, but he never did. That was the last communication between them.

Janette Velasco corroborated Janice's testimony. She testified that she met Janice in college at AMA Computer College. Back then, they were close friends but they lost communication for a while. They met again when they were already working. She met Marcelino when he and Janice were still sweethearts. Janice confided to her that they got married and their parents knew nothing about it. She also confided to her about Marcelino's unfounded jealousy over a friend. She suspected that Marcelino had insecurities in their relationship. She confirmed that Janice and Marcelino never lived under one roof and they had no children. Clinical Psychologist Nedy L. Tayag testified that she is a clinical psychologist at the National Center for Mental Health, a consultant of various clinics in Metro Manila, and the Chief or visiting psychologist of several clinics in Pampanga. She has been testing and diagnosing personality disorders for about forty years already. When Janice consulted her for a psychological assessment, she subjected her to clinical interview and did several tests: the Revised Beta Examination II, Bender Visual Motor Gestalt Test, Draw-A-Person Test, Rorschach Psycho Diagnostic Test, Sach's Sentence Completion Test, Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory I, and Hand Test and Self-Analysis. Dr. Tayag diagnosed Janice with Passive-Aggressive Personality Disorder. Janice was emotionally unstable whose weak disposition drove her to enter into relationships to cater to her deep emotional longings. The root cause of her condition was her desire for control. As a middle child, Janice struggled to gain favor from significant others through passive compliance and blind obedience. She longed for a relationship to boost her need for attachment and nurturance. This, she found in the arms of Marcelino and she accepted whatever fate had prepared for her.

Marcelino, on the other hand, did not appear for clinical examination despite Dr. Tayag's invitation. She nonetheless found Marcelino to be suffering from Paranoid Personality Disorder with Narcissistic and Antisocial Features based on the psychodynamic analysis of his behavior, attitude, and character known to both Janice and Janette. Marcelino was a self-centered man highly engrossed with immediate satisfaction of his pleasures. He had very low tolerance for stress and frustration. Having been raised from a broken family, he lacked a sense of responsibility and proper chastisement. Since he always got what he wanted, he became highly sensitive to deprivation. He was preoccupied with his needs and desires which prevented him from performing his spousal functions. Dr. Tayag concluded that the union of Janice and Marcelino failed because both of them were suffering from personality disorders characterized as grave, chronic, incurable, and marked by juridical antecedence which hindered them from performing their marital duties. Marcelino did not present evidence. The trial court found that Janice and Marcelino did not observe love, respect, and support for each other; they were abnormally involved in the union as their personality disorders deprived them from performing their marital obligations. The trial court found Janice to be suffering from Passive Aggressive Personality Disorder and Marcelino from Paranoid Personality Disorder with Narcissistic and Antisocial Features as a result of having been raised in a broken family. Their personality disorders rendered them inflexible, maladaptive, and functionally impaired. For more than fifteen years, they had been living apart without communication. The Court of Appeals, on the other hand, found that Janice failed to prove that she and Marcelino were suffering from psychological incapacity within the contemplation of Article 36 of the Family Code. It held that her portrayal of Marcelino as overly jealous, irrational, demanding, and abusive, if at all true, were only indicative of immaturity, not of disordered personality, and that no evidence was shown to prove that Marcelino's immaturity constituted psychological illness. It also found that the trial court heavily relied on Dr. Tayag's psychological assessment, which lacked in-depth analysis as regards the gravity, juridical antecedence, and incurability of Marcelino's personality disorders. It further held that Janice's portrayal of herself as passive and emotionally weak was not indicative of any psychological illness; on the contrary, her behavior and attitude revealed her efforts to observe her marital obligations.

• Sufficiency of Evidence: Petitioner argued that the trial court correctly found that the totality of evidence presented below was sufficient to declare her marriage to Marcelino void.
• Root Cause and Juridical Antecedence: Petitioner maintained that the root cause of her psychological incapacity and that of Marcelino's was clinically identified and sufficiently proven in the proceedings below, and that their psychological incapacity existed at the time of the celebration of the marriage.
• Gravity and Incurability: Petitioner argued that their psychological incapacity was characterized as grave, serious, chronic, severe, and incurable, which incapacitated them from assuming their marital obligations.
• Article 68 Obligations: Petitioner asserted that neither of them could have possibly performed their marital obligations under Article 68 of the Family Code.

• Failure to Meet Duties: Respondent Republic, through the Office of the Solicitor General, countered that the parties' failure to meet their duties and responsibilities as married persons does not amount to psychological incapacity.
• Mere Difficulty or Refusal: Respondent argued that the pieces of evidence presented below show a mere difficulty or refusal, rather than a manifestation of a serious illness that could have prevented the parties from complying with their marital obligations.
• Jealousy as Immaturity: Respondent maintained that Marcelino's supposed constant feelings of jealousy is not a manifestation of mental illness but indicative only of immaturity.
• Submissiveness Not Disorder: Respondent argued that being a submissive wife is also not indicative of a grave psychological disorder; rather, it shows that Janice was aware of her marital obligations and she intended to comply with them.
• Root Cause Not Established: Respondent asserted that the root cause of either Janice's or Marcelino's psychological incapacity was not sufficiently established.

• Sufficiency of Evidence for Psychological Incapacity: Whether the evidence on record sufficiently supported the petition of Janice for declaration of nullity of her marriage with Marcelino on ground of psychological incapacity.

• Sufficiency of Evidence for Psychological Incapacity: Yes. The evidence sufficiently established Marcelino's psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code, as clarified in Tan-Andal vs. Andal; the marriage was declared void ab initio, but only on Marcelino's psychological incapacity, not Janice's.

• Sufficiency of Evidence for Psychological Incapacity: The Court applied Article 36 of the Family Code, as amended, which provides that a marriage contracted by a party who, at the time of celebration, was psychologically incapacitated to comply with essential marital obligations is void even if the incapacity becomes manifest only after solemnization. Article 68 defines those obligations as living together, observing mutual love, respect, and fidelity, and rendering mutual help and support. Under Tan-Andal vs. Andal, psychological incapacity is not limited to mental incapacity or personality disorder proven by expert opinion; it may be shown through proof of durable aspects of personality structure manifesting in clear acts of dysfunctionality that undermine the family, making it impossible for the spouse to understand and comply with essential marital obligations. The party alleging it must prove juridical antecedence, gravity, and incurability by clear and convincing evidence, which is more than preponderance but less than proof beyond reasonable doubt. The Court found Janice satisfied this burden as to Marcelino; only Marcelino was found psychologically incapacitated.
• Juridical Antecedence: Marcelino's condition existed before the marriage. Even during the boyfriend-girlfriend relationship, he was overprotective and constantly jealous, causing their relationship to be on and off; he told Janice that only marriage could remove his anxiety. After marriage, his jealousy worsened, he barred her from talking to other men, became violent, and physically hurt her.
• Gravity: Marcelino never gave Janice the love and respect due her as wife. He never lived with her under one roof and never consummated the marriage despite about five attempts in motels. His constant jealousy was not a mere emotional outburst or mood swing; it escalated after marriage, and Janette attested to his insecurities. His condition could not be considered a mild characterological peculiarity.
• Incurability: Marcelino's psychological incapacity was incurable in the legal sense. He proposed marriage not for mutual love or starting a family but to remove his anxiety. His overprotectiveness, extreme jealousy, and violent tendencies prevented him from fulfilling spousal obligations; he was preoccupied with his own needs and insecurities and eventually abandoned Janice and ended the union over the telephone.
• Expert Opinion and Evidence: Although expert opinion is no longer required, Dr. Tayag's findings supported Marcelino's psychological incapacity. She was a qualified clinical psychologist with about forty years of experience; she interviewed Janice and Janette and administered several tests to Janice, and she diagnosed Marcelino with Paranoid Personality Disorder with Narcissistic and Antisocial Features based on psychodynamic analysis of his behavior, attitude, and character known to Janice and Janette. Her inability to personally examine Marcelino because he ignored her invitation did not render her findings inadmissible, since expert opinion may be based on facts of a type reasonably relied upon by experts, and the persons she interviewed testified before the trial court. The testimonies of Janice and Janette were themselves sufficient to establish Marcelino's condition.
• Conclusion: The Court concluded that Marcelino failed to give mutual love, respect, and support to Janice, and his personality disorder barred him from performing the basic marital obligations to love, respect, and live together with his wife. The marriage was therefore void ab initio on the ground of Marcelino's psychological incapacity, and Janice should be freed from a marriage that existed only on paper. Dissolving the marital bond in such a case protects the sanctity of marriage because there was no marriage to speak of from the beginning.

• Psychological Incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code (as clarified in Tan-Andal vs. Andal) — Psychological incapacity consists of clear acts of dysfunctionality showing a lack of understanding and concomitant compliance with one's essential marital obligations due to psychic causes. It is not a medical illness that must be medically or clinically identified, and expert opinion is not required. It may be proved through durable aspects of a person's personality structure that manifest through clear acts of dysfunctionality undermining the family, making it impossible for the spouse to understand and comply with essential marital obligations. The incapacity must have existed at the time of the celebration of the marriage and must be caused by a durable aspect of personality structure fanned before the marriage. The Court applied this doctrine to find Marcelino psychologically incapacitated based on his pre-marital jealousy, post-marital violence, refusal to cohabit or consummate, and abandonment.
• Three Criteria of Psychological Incapacity: Juridical Antecedence, Gravity, and Incurability — Juridical antecedence means the condition existed prior to the celebration of marriage. Gravity means the condition cannot be categorized as mild characterological peculiarities, mood changes, and occasional emotional outbursts. Incurability is understood in the legal sense, not medical: the incapacity is so enduring and persistent with respect to a specific partner, and the couple's personality structures are so incompatible and antagonistic that the only result of the union would be the inevitable and irreparable breakdown of the marriage. The Court found all three criteria present as to Marcelino.
• Clear and Convincing Evidence in Nullity Cases — The spouse alleging psychological incapacity must prove it by clear and convincing evidence, a quantum more than preponderance of evidence but less than proof beyond reasonable doubt. The presumption of validity of marriage remains, and the petitioner carries the heavy burden of proving juridical antecedence, gravity, and incurability even if the State or respondent presents no evidence. The Court found Janice met this burden as to Marcelino.
• Expert Opinion and Personal Examination Not Required — Expert opinion is no longer required to prove psychological incapacity, and personal examination of the allegedly incapacitated spouse by a psychiatrist or clinical psychologist is not required. The totality of evidence may suffice. Expert opinion based on otherwise hearsay evidence may be admitted if the facts are of a type reasonably relied upon by experts in the field. The Court applied this by upholding Dr. Tayag's findings despite her lack of personal examination of Marcelino.
• Lay Witness Testimony on Personality Structure — Ordinary witnesses who have been present in the life of the spouses before marriage may testify on behaviors they have consistently observed from the allegedly incapacitated spouse. The types of evidence a lay person may adduce include the reputation of the incapacitated spouse, the spouse's character relevant to the incapacity, everyday behavior, acts or conduct, and the offended spouse's own experience of neglect, abandonment, unrequited love, and infliction of mental distress. Relevant circumstances include instances of violence against women and children under Republic Act No. 9262, zero probability of reconciliation, and failure to perform marital duties in a manner clearly demonstrative of utter insensitivity or inability to give meaning and significance to the marriage. The Court relied on Janice's and Janette's testimonies.
• Sanctity of Marriage and Void Ab Initio Marriages — In dissolving marital bonds on ground of psychological incapacity of either spouse, the Court does not demolish the foundation of families; by preventing a person afflicted with a psychological disorder and incapable of complying with essential marital obligations from remaining in the sacred bond, the Court protects the sanctity of marriage. There is no marriage to speak of because it is void from the very beginning. The Court applied this to declare the marriage void ab initio.

• "Psychological incapacity is not only a mental incapacity nor only a personality disorder that must be proven through expert opinion. There may now be proof of the durable aspects of a person's personality, called "personality structure," which manifests itself through clear acts of dysfunctionality that undermines the family. The spouse's personality structure must make it impossible for him or her to understand and, more importantly, to comply with his or her essential marital obligations." — This defines the reconfigured concept of psychological incapacity under Tan-Andal vs. Andal, which the Court adopted and applied.
• "To summarize, psychological incapacity consists of clear acts of dysfunctionality that show a lack of understanding and concomitant compliance with one's essential marital obligations due to psychic causes. It is not a medical illness that has to be medically or clinically identified; hence, expert opinion is not required." — This is the Court's summary of the doctrine, emphasizing that psychological incapacity is a legal concept and not a medical illness requiring expert proof.
• "As an explicit requirement of the law, the psychological incapacity must be shown to have been in existence at the time of the celebration of the marriage, and is caused by a durable aspect of one's personality structure, one that was fanned before the parties married." — This states the requirement of juridical antecedence, which the Court found present in Marcelino's pre-marital jealousy and overprotectiveness.
• "To prove psychological incapacity, a party must present clear and convincing evidence of its existence." — This states the quantum of proof required in nullity cases based on psychological incapacity, which the Court found Janice had satisfied as to Marcelino.

• Tan-Andal vs. Andal, G.R. No. 196359, May 10, 2021 — Controlling precedent. The Court adopted its reconfigured concept of psychological incapacity, its holding that expert opinion is not required, its clear-and-convincing evidence standard, and its recalibrated three criteria of juridical antecedence, gravity, and incurability.
• Marcos vs. Marcos, 397 Phil. 840, 850, as cited in Republic vs. Galang, 665 Phil. 658, 679 (2011) — Cited in Tan-Andal and by the Court for the rule that personal examination of the allegedly psychologically incapacitated spouse by an expert is not required; the totality of evidence may suffice.
• Santos-Gantan vs. Gantan, G.R. No. 225193, October 14, 2020 — Cited for the principle that dissolving marital bonds on ground of psychological incapacity of either spouse protects, rather than demolishes, the sanctity of marriage, because a void marriage is no marriage from the beginning.
• Alcantara vs. Alcantara, 558 Phil. 192, 204 (2007) — Cited in connection with the heavy burden of proving psychological incapacity by clear and convincing evidence to rebut the presumptive validity of marriage.
• Republic vs. Galang, 665 Phil. 658, 679 (2011) — Cited as the source citing Marcos vs. Marcos on the non-requirement of personal examination.

• Article 36, Family Code (Executive Order No. 209, July 6, 1987) — 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 be void even if such incapacity becomes manifest only after solemnization. The Court applied this to declare the marriage void ab initio on ground of Marcelino's psychological incapacity.
• Article 68, Family Code — Provides that the husband and wife are obliged to live together, observe mutual love, respect and fidelity, and render mutual help and support. The Court used this to define the essential marital obligations that Marcelino failed to perform.
• Article 69, New Civil Code — Provides that the husband and wife shall fix the family domicile, and the court may exempt one spouse from living with the other if the latter should live abroad or there are other valid and compelling reasons, provided it is not incompatible with the solidarity of the family. The Court cited this in connection with the obligation to live together.
• Republic Act No. 9262 — Defines violence against women and their children. The Court cited it as a relevant circumstance probative of dysfunctional acts inimical to the family.

Gesmundo, C.J. (Chairperson), Caguioa, M. Lopez, and J. Lopez, JJ., concur.