Montealto-Laylo vs. Ymbang

The Molina guidelines on psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code are reformulated, and psychological incapacity must be proven by clear and convincing evidence, with the root cause medically or clinically identified, alleged in the complaint, sufficiently proven by experts, and clearly explained in the decision. The incapacity must be proven to exist at the time of the celebration of the marriage, must be legally incurable (meaning enduring and persistent with respect to a specific partner), and must be grave enough to bring about the disability of the party to assume the essential obligations of marriage. Expert testimony is not indispensable; ordinary witnesses' testimonies regarding the root cause, juridical antecedence, gravity, and incurability of the psychological incapacity should be accorded just as much evidentiary weight as expert testimony.

Rena Montealto-Laylo and Thomas Johnson S. Ymbang were married on December 23, 2010, in Dubai, United Arab Emirates, after Thomas' previous marriage to another woman was dissolved. Shortly after their marriage, Rena stayed in Dubai while Thomas returned to the Philippines due to health issues, which eventually caused the denial of his application for a Dubai resident visa. The case involves a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code, which provides for psychological incapacity as a ground for nullity.

Rena Montealto-Laylo and Thomas Johnson S. Ymbang were married on December 23, 2010, in Dubai, United Arab Emirates, after Thomas' previous marriage to another woman was dissolved. Shortly after their marriage, Rena stayed in Dubai while Thomas returned to the Philippines due to health issues, which eventually caused the denial of his application for a Dubai resident visa. To establish their psychological incapacities, Rena attached to her petition a Psychiatric Report dated March 1, 2016, prepared by Dr. Romeo Z. Roque, who interviewed Rena; Gilbert Laylo, Rena's brother; and Eden Espeleta, a common friend of Rena and Thomas. She also submitted her Judicial Affidavit dated March 12, 2016, and her sister-in-law, Racquel Laylo, also provided her Judicial Affidavit dated May 31, 2016.

In his Report, Dr. Roque diagnosed Rena with Borderline Personality Disorder, which afflicted her with an insatiable craving for attention from persons she looked to as nurturing figures. Rena also testified on the manifestations of her Borderline Personality Disorder before and during her marriage with Thomas, particularly: extreme jealousy over Thomas' interactions with his friends and family, threats to commit suicide or inflict pain on herself, loneliness and depression, refusal to entertain Thomas' calls while she was living in Dubai and Thomas in Saudi Arabia, distrustfulness of Thomas in his communications with his female friends, her constant drinking sprees, and her rumored involvement with another man. As for Thomas, the Report indicated that he suffered from Dependent Personality Disorder, rendering him submissive with a clinging dependence on his nurturing figures. Thomas' supposed Dependent Personality Disorder manifested in him being indecisive and overly-attached to his sibling, constantly asking the latter for advice regarding his marital woes with Rena.

Thomas did not file any responsive pleading to the Petition. The OSG deputized the public prosecutor to appear in the proceedings, for which the latter found no collusion between the parties. On August 4, 2016, the RTC rendered its Decision declaring the marriage between Rena and Thomas null and void on the ground of both their psychological incapacities. The RTC particularly found the failure of Thomas' previous marriage as indicative of his psychological incapacity. For Rena's part, the RTC pointed out her outbursts of jealousy and infliction of self-harm as manifestations of her psychological incapacity.

The OSG moved for reconsideration of the Decision dated August 4, 2016, but its motion was denied by the RTC in an Order dated December 22, 2016. Thereafter, the OSG timely filed its Notice of Appeal. The CA rendered a Decision dated April 13, 2018, reversing the RTC's ruling and dismissing the complaint for declaration of nullity of marriage. The CA ruled, based on the totality of evidence, that Rena failed to establish her or Thomas' psychological incapacities. It found that while Rena devoted more time to her peers than to Thomas, such translates to a mere refusal to perform her duties as a wife, not as "outright incapability to do so." The CA emphasized Rena's admission that, when they lived together, they exhibited mutual love. On the other hand, it held that Thomas' indecisiveness was not indicative of some incapacity. Finally, the appellate court opined that Dr. Roque failed to explain how Rena's and Thomas' purported incapacities were incurable. Rena moved for reconsideration, which was denied by the CA in a Resolution dated July 12, 2018.

• Disregard of Expert Medical Findings: Petitioner argued that the CA disregarded Dr. Roque's expert medical findings, which diagnosed her with Borderline Personality Disorder and Thomas with Dependent Personality Disorder.
• Disregard of RTC Findings of Fact: Petitioner argued that the CA failed to respect the RTC's findings of fact, which were based on the totality of evidence presented.
• Contrary to State Policy on Marriage: Petitioner argued that the CA rendered a decision that ran contrary to the State's policy on marriage.

• No Error in CA Decision: The OSG argued that the Court of Appeals did not err in rendering the Decision dated April 13, 2018, considering that Rena's and Thomas' purported incapacities were not grave and are merely constitutive of a refusal to perform their marital obligations.
• Failure to Trace Juridical Antecedence and Incurability: The OSG argued that Dr. Roque's Report failed to trace the juridical antecedence and explain the incurability of their purported incapacities.

• Psychological Incapacity: Whether the Court of Appeals erred in issuing the Decision dated April 13, 2018 and the Resolution dated July 12, 2018, thereby dismissing the petition for declaration of nullity of marriage.

• Psychological Incapacity: Yes. The Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition. The Court granted the Petition for Review on Certiorari on the authority of the recently-promulgated En Banc Decision in Tan-Andal vs. Andal, which restates the Republic vs. Molina guidelines on psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code. The Court found that only Rena is psychologically incapacitated, such finding still sufficiently warrants the declaration of nullity of her and Thomas' marriage.

• Psychological Incapacity: The Court applied the reformulated Molina guidelines as restated in Tan-Andal vs. Andal. The Court found that the burden of proof to show the nullity of the marriage, by clear and convincing evidence, belongs to the plaintiff. Clear and convincing evidence is that which produces in the mind of the trier of fact a firm belief or conviction as to the allegations sought to be established. Under this quantum of proof, which is higher than a preponderance of evidence, a party, in successfully declaring a marriage void, must proffer evidence with a higher degree of believability than that of an ordinary civil case.

The Court lent credence to the testimony of Dr. Roque, who prepared his Report after conducting interviews, mental status examinations, psychological evaluations, and gathering collateral information. Dr. Roque sourced his information from Rena, her brother, and a common friend of the spouses. Dr. Roque found that Rena suffered from Borderline Personality Disorder, thereby exhibiting a pervasive pattern of mood instability as a result of constant emotional crisis. This causes her to struggle with real or imagined abandonment, suffer from identity disturbance and poor self-image leading to insecurity and jealousy, exhibit affective instability and anger-management issues, impulsiveness, and chronic depression. While persons with this disorder constantly seek companionship and develop clinging dependency, such can morph into expressions of rage once they feel that their needs are left unfulfilled.

On the other hand, Dr. Roque reported Thomas as suffering from Dependent Personality Disorder, thereby exhibiting a pervasive pattern of emotional vulnerability, resulting to a submissive and clinging dependence on nurturing figures, causing him difficulty in making decisions, in initiating projects, expressing disagreement, and engendering a feeling of discomfort when alone, and making him weak and passive and unable to adequately handle positions of responsibility.

Dr. Roque connected these disorders with the couple's marital dysfunctions, particularly, Rena's Borderline Personality Disorder which led her to give more time to her peers, rather than resuscitate her deteriorating marriage; cultivated an abusive attitude towards Thomas; and encouraged self-mutilating acts such as threats of suicide, and actual self-infliction such as banging her head on the walls, or intentionally scratching her arms with sharp objects. Meanwhile, Thomas's Dependent Personality Disorder induced indecisiveness in essential marital conflicts for which he would often defer to his sibling for advice on how to address marital issues, such as confronting Rena about her supposed unfaithfulness, or deciding where the couple would settle.

Consistent with the interface between expert and personal testimony, Rena's and Racquel's Judicial Affidavits detailed the various manifestations of the disorders identified by Dr. Roque. Particularly, Rena often exhibited extreme jealousy, fighting Thomas whenever the latter would communicate with his own male friends and family. Rena even intruded into Thomas' privacy by unauthorizedly accessing his social media accounts when, according to Racquel, there really was no reason for Rena to worry since Thomas hardly accessed such accounts, much less had any meaningful communications with other persons. When faced with long-distance issues, Rena opted to just spend nights out with her friends, rather than work through things with Thomas, eventually even accusing him of being unfaithful.

The Court found only Rena psychologically incapacitated to fulfill her marital obligations. While Thomas invited her to live together in Saudi Arabia, Rena ascribed more weight to her job in Dubai, thereby defeating their joint obligation to live together and to fix the family domicile. While economic independence should not automatically give way to requests for domestic bliss, Rena did not even extend any understanding or willingness to compromise with Thomas, exhibiting a failure to grasp the importance of marital cohabitation. Moreover, instead of supporting each other and pooling their resources and efforts at managing a household, Rena is more inclined to spend nights out with her peers, yet at the same time, equivocate between quarreling with Thomas when he attempted reconciliation, and then faulting him with indecisiveness.

The Court found no psychological incapacity with Thomas seeking advice in attempting to resolve their marital woes. If at all, such behavior demonstrates that he recognizes his and Rena's marital obligations, and is exerting genuine efforts to fulfill the same. Specifically, he even asked her to live together with him again in Saudi Arabia. The long distance between them was wedged, not by any psychological incapacity on the part of Thomas, but by the circumstance of the non-renewal of his Visa. Article 36 of the Family Code still "contemplates downright incapacity or inability to take cognizance of and assume the basic marital obligations," and Thomas is not shown to exhibit such incapacity.

On juridical antecedence, the Court found that Rena's incapacity is juridically antedated as established by Dr. Roque's Report and Rena's own testimony. Being the seventh out of nine siblings, Rena often had to compete for her parents' attention, which mostly would only come from her mother as her father worked overseas. Her Borderline Personality Disorder can be traced to her feeling of deprivation and rejection throughout her infancy, childhood, and adolescent years. Between such periods in her life and her marriage with Thomas, she had exhibited the above-detailed dysfunctions even in their two months of courtship.

On gravity, Rena's behavior clearly exhibits more than sporadic refusal, neglect, or difficulty in complying with marital duties. Rena fails to grasp the importance of open and honest communication when, at times that Thomas reached out to her despite their long distance, she just shut him off and went on nights out with her friends. When confronted about such indifference, her affective instability would cause her to lash out at Thomas. In the times that they were together, instead of talking things through with Thomas, her anger issues would lead her to inflict self-harm by banging her head on hard surfaces and scratching her arms with sharp objects. Finally, Rena's Borderline Personality Disorder leaves her prevaricating between craving Thomas' attention, yet, also reproaching him when he does reach out to her.

On incurability, the Court noted that under the stricter and outdated standard of incurability, the instant petition would have failed. But, as modified by Andal, incurability is construed in the legal sense, i.e., that, given the utter incompatibility in personalities, the union faces inevitable decline despite genuine opportunities at rehabilitation. The Court found no incurability on the part of Thomas. Rather than displaying incurability, his desire to fix their marriage, and exert efforts towards bringing them to live together, actually shows promise. At the very least, it demonstrates a clear recognition of his marital obligations to Rena – a personal circumstance which completely negates psychological incapacity. While Thomas' own Dependent Personality Disorder does not afflict him with psychological incapacity, it surely exacerbates Rena's own Borderline Psychological Incapacity. Rena's yearning for affection is clearly unmet by Thomas' indecisiveness, and her erratic and harsh attitude towards him dwarfs his own insecurities. These incompatibilities lead to outbursts that are far more counterproductive than they are helpful in resolving their marital conflict. The frictions between the spouses cause clear patterns, and not merely isolated instances, of marital dysfunction. It is no wonder that they only spent two months of marriage together and, thereafter, had been separated for four years when the Petition was filed. So much could have been done to rehabilitate their marriage in those four years, but Rena's psychological incapacity is so enduring so as to hinder any effort therefor.

Appreciating the totality of all the foregoing, the Court found that the Petition has surmounted the presumed validity of Rena's and Thomas' marriage, by clearly and convincingly demonstrating that the marriage is void due to Rena's psychological incapacity.

• Reformulated Molina Guidelines on Psychological Incapacity — The Court restated the guidelines for psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code as follows: (1) burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence belongs to the plaintiff; (2) the root cause must be medically or clinically identified, alleged in the complaint, sufficiently proven by experts, and clearly explained in the decision; (3) the incapacity must be proven to exist at the time of the celebration of the marriage; (4) the incapacity must be legally incurable, meaning enduring and persistent with respect to a specific partner; (5) such illness must be grave enough to bring about the disability of the party to assume the essential obligations of marriage; (6) the essential marital obligations must be those embraced by Articles 68 up to 71 of the Family Code as regards the husband and wife, as well as Articles 220, 221 and 225 of the same Code in regard to parents and their children; (7) interpretations given by the National Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal of the Catholic Church in the Philippines, while not controlling or decisive, should be given great respect by our courts; and (8) the trial court must order the prosecuting attorney or fiscal and the Solicitor General to appear as counsel for the state.

• Totality of Evidence Rule — The judge's scope of inquiry transcends the misplaced prominence given to expert opinion by psychologists and psychiatrists, thereby rendering such expert testimony not indispensable. Ordinary witnesses' testimonies – regarding the root cause, juridical antecedence, gravity, and incurability of the psychological incapacity – should be accorded just as much evidentiary weight as expert testimony in supporting a finding of psychological incapacity. The totality of the evidence must show a link, medical or the like, between the acts that manifest psychological incapacity and the psychological disorder itself.

• Personality Structure Concept — "Psychological incapacity" pertains, not just to a mental incapacity so as to be misconstrued as a vice of consent, nor to a personality disorder, but to the durable aspects of a person's personality, called "personality structure," which manifests itself through clear acts of dysfunctionality that undermine 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.

• Partner-Specific Incapacity — A finding of psychological incapacity should be limited to the specific spouse with whom the void marriage was contracted. Persons found psychologically incapacitated relative to a former spouse could very well be capacitated with respect to a different partner. Not only being an illness in a medical sense, psychological incapacity is not something to be healed and cured.

• Legal Incurability — Incurability is construed in the legal sense, i.e., that, given the utter incompatibility in personalities, the union faces inevitable decline despite genuine opportunities at rehabilitation. Any declaration that a person is psychologically incapacitated to perform marital obligations must thus be limited to his or her marriage with the specific spouse with whom he contracted the void marriage. It should not be considered as an innate inability on the part of the person determined to be psychologically incapacitated to enter into a marriage with another person with a different personality structure.

• "The root cause of the psychological incapacity must be: (a) medically or clinically identified, (b) alleged in the complaint, (c) sufficiently proven by experts and (d) clearly explained in the decision. 'Psychological incapacity' pertains, not just to a mental incapacity so as to be misconstrued as a vice of consent, nor to a personality disorder, but to the durable aspects of a person's personality, called 'personality structure,' which manifests itself through clear acts of dysfunctionality that undermine the family." — This excerpt states the reformulated second guideline on psychological incapacity, defining the concept of personality structure and the requirements for proving the root cause.

• "Proof of these aspects of personality need not only be given by an expert. Ordinary witnesses who have been present in the life of the spouses before the latter contracted marriage may testify on behaviors that they have consistently observed from the supposedly incapacitated spouse. From there, the judge will decide if these behaviors are indicative of a true and serious incapacity to assume the essential marital obligations." — This excerpt, quoted from Tan-Andal v. Andal, establishes that expert testimony is not indispensable in proving psychological incapacity.

• "Article 36 of the Family Code, we stress, is not to be confused with a divorce law that cuts the marital bond at the time the causes therefor manifest themselves. It refers to a serious psychological illness afflicting a party even before the celebration of the marriage. It is a malady so grave and so permanent as to deprive one of awareness of the duties and responsibilities of the matrimonial bond one is about to assume." — This excerpt, quoted from Marcos v. Marcos, distinguishes psychological incapacity from divorce and emphasizes the requirement of juridical antecedence.

• "In dissolving marital bonds on account of either party's psychological incapacity, the Court is not demolishing the foundation of families, but it is actually protecting the sanctity of marriage, because it refuses to allow a person afflicted with a psychological disorder, who cannot comply with or assume the essential marital obligations, from remaining in that sacred bond." — This excerpt, quoted from Ngo Te v. Yu-Te, articulates the policy rationale behind Article 36 of the Family Code.

• Tan-Andal vs. Andal, G.R. No. 196359, May 11, 2021 — Controlling precedent that restated the Molina guidelines on psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code, which the Court applied in this case.

• Republic vs. Molina, 335 Phil. 664, 676-680 (1997) — The original guidelines on psychological incapacity, which were reformulated by Tan-Andal vs. Andal and applied in this case.

• Kalaw vs. Fernandez, 673 Phil. 460, 475 (2011) and 750 Phil. 482, 523 (2015) — Cited for the proposition that expert opinion should be considered not in isolation but along with other evidence presented, and that the totality of the evidence must show a link between the acts manifesting psychological incapacity and the psychological disorder itself.

• Azcueta vs. Republic, 606 Phil. 177, 190-191 (2009) — Cited for the proposition that expert testimony is not indispensable and that the court must carefully scrutinize the type of disorder and the gravity of the same before declaring the nullity of a marriage under Article 36.

• Marcos vs. Marcos, 397 Phil. 840 (2000) — Cited for the proposition that Article 36 of the Family Code is not to be confused with a divorce law and refers to a serious psychological illness afflicting a party even before the celebration of the marriage.

• Ngo Te vs. Yu-Te, 598 Phil. 666, 708-709 (2009) — Cited for the proposition that Dependent Personality Disorder can be constitutive of psychological incapacity, and for the policy rationale behind Article 36.

• Paras vs. Paras, 555 Phil. 786, 810 (2007) — Cited for the proposition that Article 36 of the Family Code contemplates downright incapacity or inability to take cognizance of and assume the basic marital obligations.

• In re of the Petition for Habeas Corpus of Ilusorio vs. Ilusorio-Bildner, 413 Phil. 754, 760 (2001) — Cited for the proposition that the sanction for marriage is the spontaneous, mutual affection between husband and wife and not any legal mandate or court order to enforce consortium.

• Article 36, Family Code — The provision on psychological incapacity as a ground for declaration of nullity of marriage, which was the basis of the petition and the Court's ruling.

• Article 68, Family Code — The obligation of husband and wife to live together, which the Court found Rena failed to comply with when she ascribed more weight to her job in Dubai rather than living with Thomas in Saudi Arabia.

• Article 69, Family Code — The obligation to fix the family domicile, which the Court found Rena failed to comply with.

• Article 70, Family Code — The obligation of the spouses to support each other and pool their resources, which the Court found Rena failed to comply with.

• Article 71, Family Code — The obligation of the spouses to manage the household, which the Court found Rena failed to comply with.

• Articles 220, 221, and 225, Family Code — The essential marital obligations in regard to parents and their children, which are among the obligations that must be stated in the petition, proven by evidence, and included in the text of the decision under the reformulated guidelines.

Gesmundo, C.J. (Chairperson), Caguioa, Lazaro-Javier, and M. Lopez, JJ., concurred.